Wetland Mired in Conflict : Agencies Debate Plans for San Joaquin Marsh

One of Southern California’s largest freshwater wetlands--the San Joaquin Marsh--has become entangled in a debate over how to balance the needs of wildlife and people during an ambitious restoration of the marsh.

All sides agree that the 580-acre wetland needs a major ecological face lift; the marsh has suffered years of neglect and has been nearly destroyed by weeds and urban runoff. But controversy has surfaced in recent weeks over details of the project, which would be one of the most ambitious environmental enhancements in Orange County.

The city of Irvine, the California Coastal Conservancy and University of California hired consultants to devise a strategy to improve the marsh. Last fall, they recommended a $10-million to $12-million restoration focusing on the area used by endangered wildlife.

Their plan calls for construction of channels, wells and levees to restore water to the marsh, a system to filter pollutants from runoff, and the planting of willows and other native trees and grasses. Plans also include creation of seasonal duck ponds, bicycle and hiking trails around the marsh’s perimeter and a nature interpretive center on nearby Fairchild Road.

But Irvine city officials are now developing their own plan, mostly to accommodate hopes that the marsh can feature more recreational uses. They want to add elevated hiking trails that would cut through the marsh, as well as expand the duck ponds.

“I think it’s good to have more public access on a controlled basis,” said Peer Swan, president of the Irvine Ranch Water District, the most vocal advocate for increasing recreational and educational uses of the marsh. “It’s a win-win situation. People learn environmental values and it will also be a unique urban sanctuary for this country.”

However, some state and federal wildlife officials and the city’s consultants have said expanding the trails and duck ponds in the plan is incompatible with a marsh preserve. They contend that trails in the interior would disturb the wildlife and that ponds are not a good use of the marsh.

“We don’t want anything diminishing the wildlife benefits out there,” said Reed Holderman, resource enhancement manager of the Coastal Conservancy.

The consultants’ plan, as well as the modified version suggested by the city staff, will be presented to the City Council at a 5 p.m. meeting on July 28. No decision by the council is expected.

Much of the debate stems from so many people wanting so much out of the marsh, since its ownership is split among three different parties.

Half of the marsh--290 acres--is owned by the Irvine Co., which has promised to turn over ownership to the city of Irvine in exchange for nearby development. Another 202 acres has been managed by University of California since 1970, while 88 acres are owned by the Irvine Ranch Water District.

The Orange County and state chapters of the Audubon Society, as well as Ducks Unlimited in Sacramento, are also involved in the planning, and the project requires the consent of state and federal wildlife agencies, which regulate use of wetlands.

“Everybody’s got their fingers in this, and the whole thing has become so political,” said Pete DeSimone of the Sea and Sage chapter of the National Audubon Society, who says he isn’t ready to endorse either plan yet. “But I believe everyone is going toward a similar end and there is some middle ground.”

The 580-acre marsh is the largest remnant of vast freshwater wetlands that once lined the banks of the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek. Now rare throughout Southern California, most freshwater wetlands are less than 25 acres apiece. Inland wetlands like San Joaquin Marsh provide homes to wintering waterfowl and native birds, including some endangered species, as well as deer, bobcats and other animals.

Funds for the restoration project would come from a variety of sources, including the city, the Irvine Co., millionaire philanthropist Joan Irvine Smith, the University of California, the State Coastal Conservancy and local fund raising. The Irvine Co. estimates it will spend about $2.5 million to restore 55 acres of the marsh in exchange for rights to expand its Irvine Spectrum business park.

“We believe a tremendous plan can be put together for San Joaquin Marsh. But there isn’t one perfect answer,” said Sat Tamaribuchi, the Irvine Co.’s senior director of environmental issues. “A range of things can be done. Even people in the environmental community aren’t in agreement.”

Peter Hersh, Irvine’s manager of planning services, said the city wants the public to have “more interaction” and more active enjoyment of the marsh by having limited access inside it on elevated pathways. The trails would be open to the public on a limited basis, perhaps through reservations or docent-led tours.

Also, the duck ponds would be larger under the city’s plan, eliminating some upland grass areas.

Irvine Councilman Barry J. Hammond, who heads a management committee studying the marsh project, said the city’s suggested changes “are not all that significant.”

“Overall it’s a better project and I think we’re going to get good response from . . . everybody when they get a look at it,” Hammond said.

Many of the changes are based on a proposal by Swan of the water district, who for five years has recommended turning the area into a combined wildlife area and an environmental showcase for visitors, including a large interpretive center to educate the public about the area’s natural resources.

“This could be one of the best urban wildlife sanctuaries in the country,” Swan said. “It could be a refuge for people too, instead of an area with a fence around it. If you fence it off, people will never know the beauty of these areas and why tax money and effort is needed to protect them.”

The city’s draft plan is not yet completed, and city officials stress that their ideas are in an early stage. But officials from the Coastal Conservancy, state Department of Fish and Game and the university said they have serious objections to some of the ideas they have heard.

In a letter earlier this month to Mayor Sally Anne Sheridan, representatives of the State Coastal Conservancy and the UC Natural Reserve System asked why the city is developing a proposal “that has little scientific merit.”

Mike Giusti, a state Department of Fish and Game biologist, who oversees Southern California wetlands issues, said his agency as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are unlikely to approve more public access or more duck ponds.

“That’s not going to fly. We’ve been working on this for two or three years and for someone to come in and change it now won’t work,” Giusti said. “We are the approving agencies. If we don’t buy off on the plan, it doesn’t go.

Since the hydrology of a marsh is so important, “you can’t just put a trail down the middle of it,” Giusti said. “It’s not going to work. Our preference, as we’ve stated for years, is to only have trails on the outside of this area. We can live with that.”

Holderman of the Coastal Conservancy agrees. He says the agency doesn’t want to ban the public from the marsh, it just wants to control access in the interior to keep it undisturbed.

Much of the remaining debate centers on the duck ponds. Swan supports a mixture of the ponds, which would provide rare freshwater homes for wintering waterfowl, with marsh habitat, a blend of willows and riparian vegetation.

But Holderman and Giusti of the state agencies said that creating marsh habitat is more important than ponds. While man-made ponds can be built anywhere and have limited ecological value, they say, riparian habitat is scarcer and provides habitat for a larger variety of wildlife, including some endangered species.

Giusti said if the restoration plan is unacceptable in terms of its benefit to wildlife, his agency could pull out of an agreement with the Irvine Co. that allows the company to create a wetlands “bank” in the marsh so that it can expand Irvine Spectrum.

The Irvine Co. has no preference when it comes to details of the project, Tamaribuchi said, but he added that the company wants to ensure that whatever is done “makes the fish and wildlife agencies happy” so that it can get permission for its planned development.