Wetland habitats are among the most productive habitats in the world. They provide shelter for endangered species and other wetland requiring species. However, due to agricultural and urban development and other alterations, we have lost 50% of our wetlands nationwide. Wetlands destruction is a major problem especially here in Southern California where we have lost more than 90% of wetlands. Most of the wetlands still in existence are extremely degraded. By destroying our wetland habitats, we are depleting a main source of our natural capital. To help sustain and bring back wetlands to their natural state, we need to understand the problems, identify the sources of the problems, come up with accomplishable plans to resolve the problems, and most importantly, follow through on those restoration plans.
Looking at one local wetland habitat (UNB), we can see how past development has caused detrimental problems to the land, animals, plants, and humans who reside around the bay. Many plans for advancement, development and restoration have been debated on. Each organization involved have their own objectives that lead in different directions. Examining the arguments for each side will help determine the most optimal resolutions for each issue.
For each project, it will be necessary to survey
water quality conditions, effects on species (i.e. fish, birds, plants,
humans) welfare, and the impact on the natural environment. Reviewing environmental
analysis and reports will assist decision makers to find the best possible
solution to each problem. Solutions should be able to lead to restoration
projects that are accomplishable, which means they should also be within
economical means. They should also account for the growing population and
follow the input/output rule of sustainability, i.e., keep wastes within
assimilative capacities; harvest within regenerative capacities of renewable
resources; deplete non-renewables at the rate at which renewable substitutes
can be developed (Goodland & Daly, 1996).
The wetlands is one of many ecological habitats that surround us. Many wetland areas however, are drained, degraded, and chiseled. Nevertheless, they still constitute a productive and thriving ecosystem. They are home to many plant and animal species that can only survive in the environment the wetlands provide. People often wonder why it is so important to save the wetlands and endangered species. They do not realize that the welfare of the habitat and species indicate the state of our environmental health (Greenfield, 1991). Before we introduce plans to sustain and restore wetland habitats, we need to understand what characterizes a wetland region and its functions.
All wetlands have important properties:
Even with all the benefits that wetlands provide, humans have managed to overlook many of its usefulness. Wetland loss is a major ecological problem historically due primarily to agricultural development where wetlands were drained and converted to farmland. Presently urban development is a major reason for wetland loss (Bowler, 1998). Destruction to wetland habitat due to development is causing an enormous amount of pollution to the bay. The pollution is a mixture of contaminants from deposits of sediments from agriculture and construction activity in the area.
Nation wide more than 50% of our wetlands have been lost. Here in California, we have lost an enormous amount of wetland (91%). In Southern California we have lost 95-97% of our flood plain wetlands (Faber, et. al., 1989). This makes it hard for us to visualize what real wetlands would have been like.
Especially since most of the surviving wetlands are extremely degraded, have been altered in one way or another, or are artificial mitigation wetlands.
A Local Wetland Remnant - Upper Newport Bay (UNB)
One local wetland habitat that still fulfills all the ecological functions defined by a wetland community is the Upper Newport Bay, also known as Back Bay. It was formed by a massive flood that came down the Santa Ana river. With the flood came silt that accumulated on the sand bed, along with the influx of the tide into the bay, there was an ideal condition for the production of marshes. UNB is the remnant of what was once a huge marsh that drained much of the area that now consists of the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. The bay accounts for 5% of what was once a vast wetland system (Faber, et. al., 1989).
The need to protect and sustain the endangered wetland habitat (UNB)
Being that wetlands are part of environmentally provided assets that make up our natural capital, the depletion of a large portion of them indicates that the welfare of our environment is in a poor state (Goodland & Daly, 1996). In the past natural capital was considered to be infinite and inexhaustible, however by looking at the percentage of wetland loss along with depletion of other environmental assets, figures show that natural capital is now scarce. In order to sustain the ecosystem, environmental assets must be maintained, or at least not depleted (Goodland & Daly, 1996).
In ongoing attempts to sustain and protect UNB and other wetland habitats, therewith increasing the natural capital and bringing it back to past levels, many individuals have joined together to contest development around and on the bay. Over the years, many controversial debates have been disputed over proposed projects and activities concerning the bay. Each of the major players involved in planning have their own agendas, some for development others for preservation and sustainability. There are many important points to both sides, usually each claim that their project will bring better quality to the bay. With growing technology, many planners are eager to try new projects aiming at development enhancement, we will look at these plans that will help in restoration. Our focus will be to bring the Back Bay to its natural conditions.
Those Involved - the major players
A large portion of the land is owned by the Irvine Company and the remaining portions are properties of the County. The bay is maintained by several agencies and many non-profit organization. The Department of Fish and Game, a state agency, regulates most of the projects and maintenance schedule. Conservation groups play an important part in preservation. One group that has been there since the very beginning are the Friends of Newport Bay. They formed in 1968, during the protest of the first major development plan that was proposed by the Irvine Company (Heeger, 1987). Frank and Frances Robinson, the founders of this organization, setup and conducted the first tours of the marshland. Presently the group has over 1,000 members who help with special events and tours that are open to the public (Heeger, 1987).
Past problems leading to Present Conditions
As the battle of preservation versus development continue, newly proposed ideas arising from technology claim to bring the bay to a better state. As far back as the early 1900's, the Irvine Company had plans to obtain the public tideland to develop the bay(Smith, 1972). Enormous problems came about because the bay had public tidelands intermixed with private tidelands. In the constitution of the State of California(1879) there was a provision that you cannot sell or give away public tideland to private individuals or corporations. So for the next few years, the Irvine Company went to court and got documentation of the lands identified as theirs, and land identified as belonging to the county(Smith, 1972). Then they went to the legislature with the idea of swapping the public tidelands for private uplands. They had to convince the legislature that the trade would benefit the public more than the Irvine Company. In 1963 the trade was approved. However, after repeated protest by organizations like the Friends of Newport Bay, the trade was rescinded. In 1973, the Courts Fourth District Court of Appeal overruled the approval to develop and the trade was canceled (Smith, 1972).
Activities in the surrounding community causing problems for UNB
Many of the Bays past and present activities that have caused detrimental problems to the process of sustainability do not take place on the wetland but in the surrounding area. These include parks, residential housing, and businesses. Harry Welch Park is located on the southshore of Upper Newport Bay (Department of Game & Fish, 1979). The park is owned by the county and includes swimming beaches, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, and a large trailer park. The facility provides over one million user days annually and has estimated daily capacity of over 25,000 people ramps, and a large trailer park. The facility provides over one million user days annually and has estimated daily capacity of over 25,000 people since the 70's (Department of Fish & Game, 1979).
With the growing population along with demands for "quality" swimming and recreational area, more of the area is becoming urbanized for human needs. On the other side there is also an increase demand for maintaining the natural environment. However, recreational areas should be separate from undeveloped areas reserved for marine and wildlife habitats.
Other uses of the Upper Bay include a sports fishery. Many sportsmen fish from the bank at several spots along the bay. With the increase in sports fishing, the population of fish is decreasing in variety and number. The marshlands, mudflats, and upland are habitats for many bird species. Many people come for bird watching and sightseeing. No hunting is permitted in the bay so it is an ideal resting and feeding area for migratory shore and water birds (Department of Fish & Game, 1979). The bay is home to the largest population of Light-footed Clapper Rails, a bird species that is endanger of extinction (Heeger, 1987). Many other resident birds such as the Virginia Rails, Sora, and Black Rail also find the bay to be an excellent habitat (Heeger, 1987). Even though hunting is not allowed, with the increasing birdwatchers population and human presence, the birds feel threatened and have been decreasing in its population. The Bay is also used by a lot of the educational institutions for research. Many of the local high school also use the bay for field trips adding to the increase in human activity. The bay provides for a variety of other recreational activities such as boating, and water skiing. More residential housing and businesses such as hotels, car dealerships, restaurants, and shops have come in demand with the rise in population. The problems that they bring eventually causes pollution to the wetland.
In 1987 when the Irvine Co. proposed to the extension of University Drive, once again the public opposed. By extending the street, it will encroach on the top edge of the reserve. This will lead to problems of more sediment deposits from increase agricultural and construction activity in the area (Heeger, 1987). Many species would be destroyed. The pollutants emitted by thousands of cars will also be detrimental to the bays ecosystem.
Transportation planners at the county Environmental Management Agency said in a report that upgrading existing roads might eliminate the need for the University Drive extension. However, the agency latest cost projection show that upgrading the existing roads will cost close to $12 million. The agency is still keeping University Drive on the master plan as an option for the future (Heeger, 1987).
More Problems
A major controversial proposal that many organizations, conservationists, and Upper Newport Bay defenders strongly oppose to is the "Wetlands Water Supply Project". The plan calls for the release of 5 million gallons of reclaimed water into the upper Newport Bay on a daily basis. Defend the bay and other groups dedicated to the environmental health of Newport Bay feel that the project is just a cheap way for Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) to dump their effluent (FONB, 1997). The proposed project will increase more than ten times the amount of water flowing through the bay. Conservationists fear that the discharge will also change the salinity in Upper Newport Bay which will consequently have a negative effect on the food supply for the animals on the bay. The increased amount of nitrogen into the bay might also upset its current dynamics causing algae blooms that will result in massive fish kills, again depriving fish-eating birds of their primary food source.
IRWD claims that the discharge will actually decrease the amount of nitrates entering the bay by 15 tons each year, mainly during the summer, so algae blooms will be decreased. They also claim that using reclaimed water for wetlands enhancement provides significant environmental benefits for wildlife habitat (IRWD 1996). Even thought the project will add up to 5 million gallons of freshwater per day to the bay, the bay holds 4.6 billion gallons and 2.75 billion gallons are flushed daily through tidal action. Therefore IRWD feels that the project is very small in comparison tot he environmental forces acting on Newport Bay (IRWD, 1996).
Public review of the environmental analysis of this
project, the following concerns were addressed and determined to be resolved
by IRWD design and operation of the project:
It is difficult to predict the effect of such a drastic alteration on the wildlife of this valuable wetlands area. However, the discharge will cause salinity changes that cannot be accurately predicted. It might have a negative effect on the food supply of many organisms that depend on the bay as their habitat. The bay is home to many bird species, including 65% of the light-footed clapper rail an endangered species (Lavin, 1995). If there is a decline in their food source, there is a significant risk that these bird species will abandon their nesting areas or suffer reproductive failure (Martin, 1996). In July 1995 the Department of Fish and Game wrote the district contending that any additional fresh water added to the salt water bay would have significant impact on the fish and wildlife (Lavin, 1995). Huge quantities of fresh water will escalate the mosquito problem in back bay. With uncountable millions of gallons of additional fresh water flowing through, infestation could reach crisis levels (Martin, 1995).
The problem with increased nitrates which will eventually cause fish kills also puts a major dent in the species population at Newport Bay. "The Department of Fish and Game, municipalities and local citizens have been working for years to improve the quality of the bay. After having worked so hard for so long to bring nitrate levels down to where they are now, why should we allow someone to come along and increase them?" said Troy D. Kelly, a Department of Fish and Game ecologist.
The main concern is to protect the animal species present and provide conditions for continued habitat preservation. As long as the potential outcome of the "wetland water supply project" decreases habitat quality, it will not be a positive step towards sustainability. Nevertheless, as the debate continues, the organisms that live at Upper Newport Bay have been adapted to a highly variable environment. The natural changed in the water composition would be adaptable. However, no matter how clean or highly treated, dumping 5 million gallons of sewage water a day into a stable system will definitely cause severe problems to the bays natural state.
As part of their project, IRWD proposed to pay the city of Irvine $1.5 million to set up a system that would divert creek water to create wetlands with ponds and islands (Lavin, 1995). IRWD states that this intended to be aimed at improving wildlife habitat. However, many environmentalists and those opposing the project think it is a trade that IRWD thinks will compensate for the "wetlands project" creating adverse effects on the species population at Upper Newport Bay.
Not only is there concerns about the discharge ruining species habitat. There is also a concern, among residents and others who utilize the bay, that the water is not safe enough for humans. IRWD assures that the water would be the highest quality next to drinking water(Lavin 1995). This includes swimming and incidental ingestion of the water. Ultimately opposes of the plan see the water as sewage and not appealing to tourists or property owners. Property owners fear that the dumping will bring down the value of their land.
With all the natural contamination such as algae and reeds, and man- made contamination that includes upstream silt, human waste, accidents such as sewer pipe ruptures and storm drain run-off, Upper Newport Bay does not need to be intentionally contaminated for cost cutting purposes. Discharging the reclaimed water into the bay might cut costs that IRWD would incur from deep sea discharging, but in the long run, is it worth all the problems and the millions of dollars that will be needed to remediate the unpredictable consequences?
Coming to a compromise
Presently, IRWD is experimenting with their proposal through the "Wetlands Demonstration Project" (Martin 1995). It will go through a two year trial where the water will be constantly monitored for nitrates and other contaminants. In the mean time, the city of Newport Beach and IRWD came up with an agreement where IRWD would hold off using their permit for 15 years if Newport Beach can find customers for recycled water (FONB, 1997). Newport Beach also agreed to take on the responsibility of getting red of more than 5 million gallons a day of IRWD’s excess waste water for the term of the 15 year deal. After the 15 years, IRWD is released from the deal and can use its permit to dump into the Bay. IRWD has diverted its uses to flushing high tower toilets and irrigating farm lands. Many of those opposing the project is hoping that IRWD will find enough ways to use the reclaimed water and rescind their decision about dumping the waste in Newport Bay, however IRWD has not backed down from their plans.
Problem Summary
Development should be limited by natural capital, however, so far we have been traveling down the path of unsustainable development. We are depleting our natural resources to levels where they are not able to be replenished or replaced (Goodland and Daly, 1996. Run-off consisting of sediments and contaminants from agriculture eventually end up in the water during rainfall. This adds unnatural and unwanted nutrients to the water and decreases water quality. If the water quality reaches poor levels, it can cause fish kills and deplete food sources for fish eating species including humans.
Restoration Projects - Opportunities to restore the bay
With all the controversy with new plans for the bay, there are still other plans that are not so controversial and supported by those who are environmentally sensitive. The development of the County Back Bay Regional Park provides habitat extension for many of the birds species. The park is compatible with the entire UNB ecosystem. It provides passive recreation uses emphasizing on enjoyment of the site’s natural resources (UNBRP, 1990). It serves as a barrier to the reserve by limiting human activity and protecting the site’s natural resources. The park also provides an interpretive center program which helps increase public understanding and appreciation of the significant natural and cultural resources (UNBRP, 1990).
One way to help sustain the ecology of Upper Newport Bay is the present dredging project. Previous dredging projects in Upper Newport Bay have provided new breeding grounds for California Least Tern and the Black Skimmer, two types of island-breeding birds (Environmental Management Agency, 1996). The dredging takes place in Upper Newport Bay Unit III sediment control basin. The goal of the dredging is to remove sediment, maintain and enhance marine habitat, and accommodate recreation and traffic (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1997).
In late 1997, the plan proposed to dredge the bay
was awarded a contract by the county. The estimated cost is $5.4 million.
The U.S. House of Representative approved a federal contribution of $1
million on September 30, 1997. This money and the $2 million from the state
brings the total amount pledged to the project to $3 million. The county
has made a pledge to make up any shortfall of the funds needed to complete
the project. Previous dredging projects have provided new breeding grounds
for island-breeding birds (Ragland, 1998).
The dredging includes enhancing tidal exchange and water quality within the bay, improving salinity levels and reducing the effects of freshwater inflow on marine ecosystems (Environmental Management Agency, 1996). Although breeding activities and habitat reduction will be effected during certain periods of the dredging, with the commencement of the project breeding activities and habitat regrouping will enhance species diversity among other improvements such as food assessment.
Delays caused by recent problems
Recent El Nino storms have increased both the amount
of "muck" in the bay. As a result, the delays and further damages has raised
the price to above $5.5 million. Dredging crews had to postpone there work
because of the heavy currents caused by the storms. This poses many problems
because the Department of Fish and Game prohibits dredging in the tern
nesting area of the bay from March through September 1998 (Ragland, 1998).
Recommendations- Continuing efforts to sustain and restore UNB
In order to sustain our wetland community and maintain its natural settings, we need to develop a management system that promotes awareness. Citizens need to be informed about issues concerning the bay. The present programs and tours given by the various organizations are a good way to promote awareness. Restoration projects that control sedimentation such as dredging should continue. Agriculture and development should be kept away from the wetland area. Barriers and buffer zones will also help keep human activity and other traffic out of the area. Fundraising programs and donations can help fund such projects.
The idea of using technology to bring the bay back to its natural states have not been very popular. Not many developers have been successful with their proposals for development. Even with the very best intentions and arguments for preservation, conservationist and organizations for a natural and sustainable bay still cannot be convinced otherwise. Conservationist constantly have to defend the bay from developers like the Irvine Company. Developers will always have new ideas on the agenda for UNB, however, in order to keep the ecology of the bay in balance, no development would be the best solution.
Conclusion
The marshlands quiet serenity, the birdfeeding in
the mudflats, and the cliffs rising on the sides of the Bay attracts drivers
along Bayside Drive. With the growing population, ongoing activities and
development, and loss of "open space", the public demands for areas with
scenic qualities like Upper Newport Bay, will increase if the bay maintains
its natural qualities (Department of Fish and Game, 1979). Even though
the demand for a natural Newport Bay comes with population increase, the
increase also robs the Bay of its natural functional, aesthetic, and scenic
quality. Therefore, planners need to develop a system that will allow human
access but also limit such access enough to allow for preservation of the
Bay to its natural states. Being that the wetlands are the most biologically
productive ecosystem, even more so than the tropical forests, by losing
wetlands we lose key assets to our economy and environment (Faber, et.
al., 1989).
Bowler, Peter. Bio 179: Limnology Lecture Notes. University of California, Irvine. CA. February 4, 1998.
Daly, Herman. R. Goodland. Environmental Sustainability: Universal and Non-Negotiable. Ecological Applications. Ecological Society of America. Vol. 6. No. 4, 1996.
Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Impact Report for Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Resources Agency, State of CA. July, 1979.
Faber, P.A., E. Keller, A. Sands, and B. M. Massey. The Ecology of Riparian Habitats of the Southern California Coastal Region. 1989.
FONB(Friends of Newport Bay). "Fall 1997 Newsletter". Newport Beach, CA. 1997.
Greenfield, Roseanne. The Bolsa Chica Wetlands in Huntington Beach. Michigan: U.M.I., 1991.
Heeger, Susan. "Upper Bay Tour: Walk on the Wild Side". Los Angeles Times. February 2, 1987.
IRWD (Irvine Ranch Water District). "Wetlands Water Supply Project Update". Irvine, CA. January 1996.
Lavin, Enrique. "City Opposes Plan to Empty Waste Water in Upper Bay". Los Angeles Times. November 11, 1995.
Lavin, Enrique. "They Won’t Go With the Flow". Los Angeles Times. September 14, 1995.
Martin, Fred. "More Irvine Sewage? Not in my Back Bay" Costa Mesa Daily Pilot. March 2, 1995.
Public Notice: Application for permit. U.S. Army Corps of Engineering, Los Angeles District. 1997.
Ragland, Jennifer. "Storms drive up dredging cost". Daily Pilot. March 4, 1998.
Smith, Greg. "Endangered Species, Endangered Environments-On Tour in Newport Bay". Orange County Illustrated, Feb. & Mar., 1972.
UNB Unit III. Sediment Control and Enhancement Project/ prepared by: Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. Santa Ana, CA: County of Orange Environmental and Project Planning Division, 1996.
UNBRP (Upper Newport Bay Regional Park). "Newsletter 1990". Newport Beach, CA. 1990.
Wagner, Holly. "Immersed in Clean Water". Los Angeles Times. January 22, 1995.