Most Prop. 12 grant funds are to be used for studies, except for the removal of a non-native plant species from Malibu Creek.
By Suzanne Marcus Fletcher / Special to The Malibu Times
Malibu is set to spend a significant amount of money and time on a series of local environmental projects fueled by the first installment of $3.9 million in state funds to restore the Santa Monica Bay.
Among the 16 grants thus far awarded by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (SMBRP) and the California Coastal Commission are funds earmarked to study pollutants affecting the Malibu Creek, a feasibility study to remove the Rindge Dam – allowing for the possible return of the endangered steelhead trout and perhaps the less sexy, though important study the City of Malibu is conducting to determine the environmental impact of the city’s waste-water systems.
The first 16 proposals given the “green-light” out of 63 applications were made possible by California’s voters upon the passage of Proposition 12 last year. Prop. 12 included a $25 million measure to support the “Bay Plan,” one of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 28 national estuary programs to rehabilitate the nation’s most polluted waters.
“While $25 million is not enough to clean up the bay, it’s going to make significant progress,” said Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay. “I hope to see more large-scale projects funded – like restoring the Malibu Lagoon. But we have a long way to go in reducing urban runoff pollution and managing our natural resources – like restoring the wetlands. We’re partway there.”
Septic systems
For many, a discussion of septic systems is not something they relish; yet it can be an important barometer of a community’s health. In summarizing the complex project, Stephen Groner, SMBRP consultant and engineer said:
“We need to find out how to best manage Malibu’s wastewater issue without impacting the water.”
In essence, a grant for $667,000 was awarded to the city of Malibu to implement a water monitoring study to evaluate whether pollutants and bacteria such as nitrogen and E. coli can be found in the city’s ground water, which could be impacting the Malibu creek and lagoon and surf zone areas. The city hired the Vermont-based engineering firm, Stone Environmental, Inc., specialists in wastewater management (among other pursuits), to create a detailed work plan.
“There is a lot of misinformation about how septic systems work and how to take care of them. It’s like an automobile, if you don’t change the oil, it’s going to break down,” said Bruce Douglas, a principal scientist with Stone Environmental, who, upon final approval from the city, will be the primary contractor for the study. Set to begin in early winter 2002, the study is projected to take up to 18 months, according to Douglas.
“The reason to do this is to collect facts [showing] the true impact of the systems on the environment, which will enable the city to manage the systems based on facts and not perception,” he said.
Specifically, Douglas continued, “We want to look at the cumulative effect of septic systems on groundwater quality in Malibu’s Civic Center area and determine how they (the systems) are located relative to each other,” he said. “This particular area may contain as many as 400 to 500 systems, making it a high priority area to determine risk.”
Added Douglas, “Then we can look at groundwater direction and flow towards the Malibu lagoon, creek and surf zone areas.”
Stone Environmental will be working with the L.A. County Health Dept. and City of Malibu Building and Safety to locate the systems. But how to accomplish the task of water monitoring?
“We will be installing ground water monitoring wells and using existing wells from previous studies, and asking land owners for permission to use or install monitoring wells on private property. Health specialists will then collect samples every month, and groundwater will be collected from each well,” said Douglas.
After data is analyzed, “We will then begin to simulate varying scenarios of treatment,” said Douglas.
Upon completion of the study, Douglas said, “The first step is to present the results to the city and its stakeholders. Included will be action items the city should take to move forward, based on their specific needs.”
The Rindge Dam
A $200,000 grant was awarded to the California Dept. of Parks and Recreation for a feasibility study on the pros and cons of removing the Rindge Dam, “A 100-foot structure located approximately 2.5 miles from Malibu Lagoon,” according to the SMBRP. The project has reportedly become a hotbed of interest from aquatic and environmental enthusiasts since it would provide a migration habitat for the federally endangered steelhead trout. However, others say the removal of the dam would be a waste of federal and state money, without the guarantee of the steelhead’s return.
Suzanne Goode, senior resource ecologist for California Parks and Recreation and an advocate for tearing down the dam, believes otherwise.
“If we improved the habitat they [the steelhead] will come,” she said. “The purpose of this project is to determine a way to get the fish above the dam, or allow them to go around the dam. There are different alternatives being studied.”
Goode indicated that before the 50-year-old dam be considered for removal, the consequences of doing so have to be fully evaluated. The cost of the study is said to be $2.2 million. Prop. 12 grant funds will be applied to funding from State Parks and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Goode said the bulk of funds will be spent on labor intensive surveys, hydraulic and hydrological studies, engineering and design analyses, environmental studies, plan formulation and evaluation.
Having worked largely by herself on behalf of California Parks, Goode plans to hire a project manager to manage the feasibility study. If it’s determined that the removal of the dam is the best course of action, Goode said, “We will be seeking funding and partners to carry out that project, which could cost anywhere from $5 million to $40 million.”
Stream Team help
The environmental agency Heal the Bay was awarded $350,600 to develop a “Stream Health Index” for the Malibu Creek Watershed, said to be the second largest drainage into the Santa Monica Bay.
“The grant is paying for us to ‘map’ more than 100 linear miles of the watershed and the health index will determine how degraded the creek is at this point,” said Mark Gold, executive director. “We’re planning to be done by 2004, and will hire [college] students to do the mapping for a minimum of 20 field work hours.”
Non-native plant removal
It seems that urban pollution is not the only threat to the environment, as predators can emerge in the form of “aggressive” plants that upset the balance of the local eco-system. Accordingly, $189,000 was awarded to the Mountains Restoration Trust for the removal of the Arundo donax plant from Malibu Creek. According to the SMBRP, “Arundo is an invasive species which has infested the creek watershed, choking streams and sucking up water and nutrients in great quantities. With no natural predators in California, it grows rapidly – 3 to 10 inches per day, reaching heights of 25 feet and above.” It is believed that Arundo prevents the tidewater goby and the steelhead trout from returning to the Malibu Creek.
Stephen Harris, executive director for the Mountains Restoration Trust offered, “We actually started removal of the [Arundo] plant in Malibu Creek last year through a grant issued by the National Park Service. We did a scientific study to gage how the [plant] removal has affected the natural habitat.” Harris said the grant to continue removing Arundo will be disbursed over a five-year period, and will be done by subcontractors, while “an on-staff biologist supervises the activity.”
As to the number of people vying for grants, Mark Gold said, “There was tons of competition.”
Marianne Yamaguchi, director of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, added, “The first 16 [proposals] approved were the most ready to go in terms of their contract status, permits, and meeting the environmental check-list criteria – it’s a legal issue.” Yamaguchi said the next wave of proposals to be finalized for funding is scheduled for this fall.
Those interested in applying for a Prop. 12 SMBRP grant can e-mail the agency for more information at: smbrp@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov.
See next week’s Septic versus sewers story by Pam Linn for more detailed information on water quality studies.