Bolsa Chica inlet plan has been thought out

Jack Fancher

The opinion letters and editorials printed in newspapers are a

forum for “free speech” and opinion not necessarily requiring factual

foundation, truth or accuracy.

Thus, in an editorial opinion, Danette Goulet expansively

concluded that something about the beach would be destroyed by the

restoration of Bolsa Chica wetlands. I, and a lot of other people,

disagree with that hyperbole.

She somehow ignores the 35 to 40 acres of prime sandy beach that

have already been destroyed by asphalt pavement or monstrous

restrooms. Opinion letters from Huntington Beach residents (Dave

Sullivan, Mark Mackinder and David McGorrin) followed, expressing

personal beliefs that, among other things, the Bolsa Chica

restoration proponents have misled ourselves and the public, the

restoration project makes “no sense,” a sunbathing beach is priceless

and that the “real issue” is urban runoff reaching the restored

wetlands which will poison the coastline.

Sullivan recounts a discussion that probably occurred four to six

years ago and seems unaware that tunnels under the beach were

evaluated in the project’s environmental report as a means to restore

tidal influence to the wetlands without altering the dry beach.

Our conclusion was that biological objectives of wetland

restoration would not be met with tunnels, and they would impose a

major maintenance burden and high initial cost, while also being

highly experimental. While he suggests this be considered, it was

already considered in the environmental report.

McKinder infers that urban runoff from the flood channel might

cause miles of beach to be unsafe. The adopted restoration project

would not divert the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Channel into

the restored wetland or onto Bolsa Chica State Beach. The water

quality subject was also thoroughly addressed in the environmental

report and again during final approvals and permitting for the

project. The conclusion is that the restored wetland will not degrade

existing water quality particularly, and specifically will not

increase indicator bacteria levels causing the posting of yet more

health warnings than are already occurring at the beach. The

restoration project has nothing to do with public relations and

everything to do with good science, public policy and protecting the

beaches.

McGorrin insists on likening the Bolsa Chica inlet to the existing

Anaheim Bay jetties that were constructed during World War II to

protect the ammunition loading wharf and anchorage of capital

warships at the Naval Weapons Station. He also alleges damage to

surfing would result at the Bolsa Chica inlet because surfing appears

to have been damaged north of Anaheim Bay.

He seems unaware that most people believe the construction of the

Long Beach breakwater in the 60s was the main culprit there. He

believes “problems of every Corps of Engineers project ever built in

the ocean or Great Lakes” will be duplicated by the Bolsa Chica

inlet, causing devastating effects on the surf zone and beach

erosion.

He names me as the recipient of his opinions and contends that

these issues have never been answered. He goes on to accuse me and

all the project proponents of not giving fair treatment, understating

the issues, sweeping issues under the rug, and he concludes the

environmental report was inadequate.

Because he is writing his emotional and exaggerated opinions, he

need not have any factual support for his opinions. He says he read

the environmental report but apparently finds none of it credible,

including the supporting engineering analysis prepared by highly

qualified professional engineers and peer reviewed by other highly

qualified professional engineers. The Bolsa Chica inlet will in fact

be much more like the Talbert Marsh/Channel inlet or the Batiquitos

Lagoon inlet than the ship channel and anchorage at Anaheim Bay.

The conclusions of the project proponents, including me, are not

based on personal opinion but rather on state of the art, best

possible engineering and scientific analysis obtainable and required

to be documented in the environmental report. The entire project and

all related issues were thoroughly addressed in the draft and final

environmental report and discussed in detail during final approvals.

I am afraid I do not remember any comment letter or statement ever

received from McGorrin during any of the legally required public

comment opportunities, such as the draft environmental report hearing

and comment period in 2000, final environmental report circulated in

2001, Coastal Commission public hearings or Corps of Engineers permit

public notice in late 2001. We project proponents have supported our

conclusions with complete and detailed analysis.

The impacts to the beach will really be minimal and no issue was

overlooked or minimized. The benefits to fish and wildlife through

wetland restoration and removal of the oilfield will be huge. It is

not clear why McGorrin casts calumnies against me and all of the very

fine experts and qualified professionals who have worked on this

project.

I hope Goulet and McGorrin would someday accept that capable,

sincere and dedicated people, in and out of government, have worked

hard to analyze impacts and adopt the restoration alternative at

Bolsa Chica that is the best for fish, wildlife, and wetland

habitats, with no significant adverse impact to other human concerns.

* JACK M. FANCHER is an engineer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. To contribute to Sounding Off fax us at (714) 965-7174 or

e-mail us at [email protected].