Wetlands Questions Still Need Answers : Agencies May Further Delay Bolsa Chica Project

Perhaps it only seems as if the decision-making process for a planned housing development in Huntington Beach’s Bolsa Chica area is taking almost as long as Nature herself took to fashion prehistoric wetlands on a portion of the acreage.

Now the response of four agencies--all with vital interests in wetlands--to environmental reports prepared for the coastal development promises to extend the process even longer. Having so many agencies involved is cumbersome, but important because of the need for extra care in coastal development. And they have raised important questions that must be addressed before a project should be authorized on Bolsa Chica’s precious--although currently degraded--wetlands.

Fresh and salt water wetlands are extremely important because they provide nesting, resting and breeding places for wildlife. Without such grounds, some species would be in danger, and many others would find their numbers dwindling. Despite their importance, however, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 91% of California’s wetlands have disappeared--mostly due to development.

Bolsa Chica’s saltwater wetlands are among the few remaining, and among the largest and the best. Despite the presence of oil wells and other uses that have damaged its ecological systems during this century, the wetlands maintain about 200 species of birds and many fish. Better rains last and this year have eased some of the effects of the state’s long drought, although restoration still is sorely needed.

Under pressure from environmental groups such as Amigos de Bolsa Chica, proposals for the 1,700-acre Bolsa Chica site--916 acres of which is wetlands--have been scaled back over the years. A proposal by the Koll Co., which is managing the project for the primary landowner, Signal Bolsa Corp., would build 4,884 homes in exchange for donating to the public about 800 acres at Bolsa Chica and paying $40 million to create or enhance wetlands on 387 acres.

The Koll Co. says that the acreage would deteriorate if left without the landowners’ commitment to restoration and would no longer function as wetlands.

That’s debatable. Certainly, the landowners’ rights as well as those of the public must be weighed carefully. But a housing project should be allowed only if the developer does a better job of justifying building on these wetlands. The proposed wetlands restoration is a good starting point for negotiations to satisfy the concerns of the federal and state agencies involved.

The agencies--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Coastal Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game--have registered unusually strong objections to the EIR prepared by a consultant to the city of Huntington Beach and the Army Corps of Engineers. Among other things, the agencies say the project would violate the state’s Coastal Act and federal wetlands rules. They also complain that the current plan falls far short of compensating for the proposed loss of 135 acres of wetlands. The EPA says the EIR fails to explain why the project had to be built in a wetland area at all.

Koll Co. executives have their own complaints about the EIR, but argue that their plans to restore wetlands and compensate for others more than offset any losses in wetlands.

This project has taken a long time, but clearly the jury still must remain out awhile longer. Before the City Council or any other body authorizes development, the questions of the agencies representing the public interest must be answered.