The debate over the fate of the Chili Cook-off parcel continues, with a feasibility report declaring the site as a prime area for a wetlands restoration project.
The report was drafted by Huffman and Carpenter, Inc., an environmental firm from Nevada, for the Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy (MCLC).
However, the impact such a wetlands project would have on the surrounding area is still in question as concerns about odors, additional flooding, impact on the creek and the practicalities of cost are debated.
Edith Read, manager of biological resources for Psomas, an environmental and engineering firm hired to check the report on behalf of the Malibu Bay Company, agreed the report seems to be technically competent.
However, she said the report does not delve into the economic aspect of putting in a habitat, the cost of excavation and purchase of the property.
“The report only touches lightly on the cost issue,” she said.
But David Gottlieb, a MCLC spokesperson, disagrees with this point of view.
“The land was appraised at $14 million,” he said. “The cost for restoring is between $500,000 and $1 million, including getting the water in and out of the wetlands.”
The annual monitoring budget was estimated at $20,000, Gottlieb continued.
“These are the answers to the questions,” he said.
“Part of the feasibility is the cost,” he said, adding that MCLC hired an unbiased company that would assess the costs truthfully, no matter the results.
“These costs are in line with other Southern California restoration projects,” said Gottlieb.
“Wouldn’t this money be better used elsewhere to restore a larger area that has better potential for success?” asked Read, who believes the project would be costly.
Read said, in the past, she had written a feasibility analysis for putting a wetlands in the Chili Cook-off area at the request of the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
“By the time construction and pipes and culverts under the PCH are done, you are talking in the order of $35 to $36 million dollars,” she said. “You would also have to relocate utilities.”
But Gottleib said MCLC would not fight for this wetlands if that was the actual cost. He said MCLC has already saved $1.1 million dollars for the project and they hope to receive more funds from federal and state sources, as well as the city, if ballot Measure O passes in the upcoming elections.
Gottlieb cited the Madronna Marsh Wetland in Torrance as an example of feasibility. Over the past 10 years it cost $1.25 million for recovery and maintenance of an 18-acre wetland, and that includes pumping for the wetland, which needs to be kept wet year round, he said. That price does not include the purchase of the land.
“Our wetland is a seasonal wetland,” said Gottlieb.
“You remove only as much fill as you have to remove,” he said. “The practice is to create channels and pools and islands and lagoons within the area.”
The expense part of this report reflects a range of cost because it depends how much fill you decide to remove, said Gottlieb.
State funds cannot be accessed unless there is a willing seller, he said.
“But, through the years, ecological endeavors like this have been able to negotiate with unwilling sellers and move them into a position of willing sellers,” he said.
Another problem Read said she finds with the report is how the wetlands would connect to the Malibu Creek and Lagoon system.
Theoretically, the wetlands would take water from the lagoon, naturally filter it, and return it to the lagoon or creek. But since the area surrounding the Chili Cook-off site is mostly developed, there could be a problem with water flow, according to Read.
However representatives from MCLC do not think this is a problem.
“There shouldn’t be any negative effect on the developed areas,” said Gottlieb.
Since the water is coming out of the lagoon and returned to the lagoon through the use of a sophisticated gravity system, the work required getting the restoration done and the impact on developed areas would be minimized, he said.
“There are numerous places where the water would exit after it’s polished,” said Gottlieb. “There are existing storm drains that could be used to return it just north of PCH.”
One method could include the use of a passage under PCH, in the existing wetlands area of the Malibu Lagoon, to the south of PCH. And if that is not an option, many alternatives exist aside from going under PCH, he said.
“There is no discussion in the report about how this system would work as an integrated biological system,” said Read.
“It seems to be a relatively small part of the total peak flow in Malibu Creek,” said Read, who indicated the wetlands, although feasible, would not have enough impact on the cleanliness of the creek’s water during peak flow.
But Gottlieb stated the water budget includes enough area to cover the lagoon, if not more.
“There is enough water to run the system when the creek is running,” he said. “That’s when you get the pollution into the bay and at Surfrider Beach.”
On the contrary, when the creek is low, said Gottleib, “You can augment the flow with treated wastewater and run-off from the Civic Center area. This would solve the current problem. Right now it’s problematic getting rid of all the discharge.”
The system, as suggested, would take the water from the creek and retain it. While the water is retained, it would not be stagnant since it would run through channels led by gravity from one pool to the next, keeping the water running until it goes back to the creek or lagoon, explained Gottlieb.
Read concurred the feasibility report is basically a hydrological study, but that’s pretty much where the analysis stops, she said.
Read said she wanted to make it very clear with the Malibu Bay Company that the report makes very strong statements about the Chili Cook-off parcel proposal being a restoration project, but the area has never been documented as a wetland.
“None are proven to have actually existed historically,” she said.
Gottlieb disagrees. Traditionally wetlands are on pretty saturated lands, and one aspect of natural wetlands is that they are periodically inundated, he said.
Most of the land in there was on a flood plain that was a historic wetland, he added. But Read maintains, while it is true the area has been flooded in the past, it is not the same thing as a wetlands.
“This is not substantiated,” she said.