According to City of Malibu Manager, Jim Thorsen, there are several components of the project that have been improperly engineered. This puts both the health of the public and the well†being of the environment at risk.
Over the course of several years, the City of Malibu has persistently lobbied the State Parks and Coastal Commission for their attention on this matter. However, the main concerns of the City have not been addressed. On April 9th, 2012, the Malibu City Council voted unanimously to oppose the Malibu Restoration project. The City was forced to appeal to the Governor because their questions were ambiguously answered by State Parks Department.
On April 23, 2012, the City Council appealed to Governor Brown for assistance. In this letter, Mayor Laura Rosenthal stated that, “The primary reason for the opposition vote was the clear disregard of the city’s written concerns about the project and its potential impact on water quality and the environment†. Ms. Rosenthal further explained that the City’s frustration stems from the fact that their letters addressing the grave concerns to State Parks were inadequately addressed, and seemingly ignored. This letter has yet to elicit a response from the State Parks, or the Governor.1
There is a series of correspondence between the City, State Parks, and the Coastal Commission, dating back as far as 2010. The City’s main concerns are regarding the project’s impact on water quality, which has the potential to negatively impact both the public health and environment. Moreover, the City’s requests to State Parks for a comprehensive dewatering plan have been disregarded for two years. This issue has been a continued concern for both the City and the public. State Parks has left it up to the contractor to devise a comprehensive dewatering plan, which concerns the city because they are unable to access specific details of the plan. The following list describes current concerns about this project.
1. Public Health Threatened by Incomplete and/or Inaccurate Dewatering Plan
As a civil engineer, Jim Thorsen, Malibu City Manager, discovered major flaws in the final December 2010 Dewatering Plan. Specifically, his concerns lay in the initial lowering of the lagoon. Prior to grading, the contractor must collect, store, treat, and discharge an estimated 48.5 million gallons of water. However, Thorsen found that the original dewatering rate and volume calculations are grossly inaccurate. He estimates that the project will require 2,500 18,000†20,000 gallon water tanks to hold lagoon water for eventual filtration and discharge. This is dramatically different than the 3 tanks that the state plan depicts in the initial project proposal. In addition, Thorsen states that this process will take over 30 days instead of the State Park’s calculated range of 3†7 days.2 On May 11, 2012, Thorsen sent these findings to State Parks and California Coastal Commission but has yet to receive a response.
There is no question that 2,500 tanks, which hold 18,000†20,000 gallons of water, will not fit in the 12†acre site where the dredging will primarily occur. Moreover, if Mr. Thorsen is even partially correct, this will greatly increase the cost of the project. Of additional concern, the location of the drainage discharge remains unclear. This is a concern because if the water contacts dry sand, it may spread contaminants such as MRSA and other Staphylococcus microbes the beach.
During the bidding process, even the bidders noticed that the dewatering system was incomplete. In a question posed to State Parks, they say, “The dewatering system as designed is only capable of handling 10% of the required dewatering and treatment as required by the specifications. In order to accommodate all the requirements specified on page 10 and 11 of the final dewatering plan, we would need to install a system 10X the size of the system designed and the staging area would be too small.†3 State Parks’ reply is vague and open ended. They reply to say that the “dewatering system is not currently designed. The system depicted in the drawings is a possible facility to meet the general needs of the dewatering operation. The Contractor is responsible to submit a dewatering plan that meets the project criteria.†While we understand that the original schematic showing three weir tanks is meant for diagrammatic purposes only, it shows a workflow that is so off target that it seems misleading.
The dewatering process must be redesigned to understand if it is even possible to execute an adequate dewatering system that can handle the flow of water at each stage of the dewatering process. The dewatering process is complicated. Once launched, we will not be able to stop this process. The graphic submitted by the state is off by an exponent of 10. We cannot afford errors of this magnitude.
2. Public Health Threatened by Reliance on Outdated Science
The second grievance of the City of Malibu is that the state agencies have relied on flawed scientific assumptions and ignored research that could have significantly altered the project proposal. In his letter to Jack Ainsworth, Senior Deputy Director of the Coastal Commission, Thorsen states that, “The City has provided project designers with various scientific studies that have not been considered†. In the letter, the city cites studies by NOAA and UCLA4 that indicate the existence of dangerous microbes at Surfrider Beach. In particular, these studies have identified staphylococcus and MRSA (an antibiotic resistant strain of staph) on the beach.
Given these findings, additional research prior to the launch of this project is necessary and vitally important for public safety. Specifically, a study conducted by an independent research team should conduct core sample analysis of the lagoon substrate. This was not factored into the original report. This may reveal additional bacterial microbes that may be released during the sediment removal process.
3. Carcinogens Created by Proposed Water Treatment Process
A plethora of studies show that nutrient rich water, when combined with chlorine, will likely produce carcinogenic Trihalomethane (THM).5 THM is a known carcinogenic. The current treatment plan would expose nutrient rich water to chlorine, creating this carcinogenic agent.6 Although the treated water will be dechlorinated; THM is a stable molecule, and will remain suspended in solution. The contractor and the state plans have not provided any specific provisions testing for post-dechlorinization contaminants.
After dechlorinization and filtration is completed, the treated water will then be discharged into the ocean. This creates an obvious health hazard for surfers, swimmers, beachgoers and the environment as a whole. It is also a potential breach of the Clean Water Act.
4. Threats to the Endangered Tidewater Goby
Several aquatic species live in the lagoon. The plan provides methods to safely relocate these populations of fish. However, the removal plan poses a serious risk to the Tidewater Goby, which is a federally listed endangered species. In short, the plan does not deal with the nuances of Tidewater Goby behavior in the event of human
disturbance. The Final Dewatering Plan states that a qualified biologist will be employed to oversee the safe relocation and eventual replacement of these fish to their natural habitat. However, the plan does not alert the specialist to the specific Goby behavior characteristics, which if addressed, would significantly alter the design of the plan.
These small fish burrow into the sand or mud at the first sign of loud noise, movement or other signs of aggression. According to one source, “We also observed that the fish burrow directly into the muddy substrate when threatened.†7 Upon first sight of the bulldozers and interaction with humans, the endangered fish will retreat into tunnels that they have created for protection and not be reachable by humans. Moreover, the plan does not consider that the fish are in a key reproductive stage and thus many fish eggs lie burrowed in the ground. David Jacobs (UCLA) says that “The male digs a spawning burrow, preferably in sand, where he provides care for a single clutch.†8
Nowhere does the plan address the fact that these fish will be brooding during this time (the male goby stays with the eggs until they hatch.) He also explains that June is a prime breeding season for the Goby.
The contractor and state officials assume that the “qualified†environmental biologist will be equipped to deal with the particular habits of the Tidewater Goby. However, upon ground break of this project, it will be too late to protect the Tidewater Goby. Because the Goby will retreat into burrows upon first sign of a disturbance, both the Goby and their eggs will be destroyed in the Malibu Lagoon Restoration. Nowhere in the plan is this particular behavior and breeding accounted for. The plan dictates that only five Goby deaths are tolerated. Given this particular fish behavior, this will be an impossible target to meet. Furthermore, the plan does not consider the thousands of endangered fish eggs that will be destroyed in the mud.
It has been shown that a similar Goby species, the bearded Goby can only survive in an unusually low oxygenated environ.9 Therefore, we infer that the Tidewater Goby thrives in the lagoon because it’s low oxygen content. Further studies are required to determine if the resident Malibu Lagoon Tidewater Goby would be able to survive in this new “renovated†lagoon.
In conclusion, while this project has become highly controversial, all parties want to emerge with a plan that guarantees clean water and a healthy environment. This project, which is budgeted at $8.5 million dollars, not only poses risks to public health and the environment, but also is fiscally irresponsible. State Parks has several undeveloped components of this plan including the dewatering design and relocation of the endangered Tidewater Goby.
They have shifted the burden to the contractor and this concerns the public, as the contractor is not required to act in the best interest of the public. At the least, failure to address these critical details will be extremely costly and at the worst will destroy the Malibu Lagoon and harm public health. We request a delay so that we can leverage newly published science and ensure that current assumptions and plans can support the magnitude of this project. If a new EIR is conducted, all new science and alternative project design will be incorporated. This could avert a potentially dangerous and costly outcome.
While much energy and time has been invested into this plan, the key points above indicate that elements of the plan have not yet been addressed adequately or at all.
Footnotes:
1 Malibu Mayor Laura Rosenthal’s letter to California Governor Jerry Brown, April 23, 2012
2 Malibu City Manager Jim Thorsen letter to Senior Deputy Director, Jack Ainsworth, Coastal Commission. May 11, 2012
3 California State Parks and Recreation. ADDENDUM #1 Issued: February 23, 2012. MALIBU LAGOON STATE BEACH. Restoration and Enhancement – Phase 2 Bid Number: C11E0030. Bid Date: March 27, 2012 at 2:00 PM
4 Summary of 2009 UCLA study in Malibu Lagoon. Ambrose, R.F et. al.
5 US Environmental Protection Agency: Information Collection Rule (ICR). http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/icr/gloss_dbp.html
6 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Science: Environmental Fact Sheet. “Trihalomethanes: Health Information Summary.†http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/ard/documents/ard†ehp†13.pdf
7 Behavioral and physiological adaptations of the bearded goby, a key fish species of the extreme environment of the northern Benguela upwelling. Anne G. V. Salvanes, Anne C. Utne†Palm, Bronwen Currie, Victoria A. Braithwaite. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 425, (2011), pp. 193†202.
8 Phylogeography of the Tidewater Goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Teleostei, Gobiidae), in Coastal California. Dawson, M.,N, Staton, J.L., & Jacobs, D.K. Evolution, Vol. 55, No. 6 (Jun., 2001), pp.1167†1179.
9 Behavioral and physiological adaptations of the bearded goby, a key fish species of the extreme environment of the northern Benguela upwelling. Anne G. V. Salvanes, Anne C. Utne†Palm, Bronwen Currie, Victoria A. Braithwaite. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 425, (2011), pp. 193†202.
About Sea Save Foundation
Sea Save Foundation, formerly known as Imaging Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. Our mission focuses on ocean conservation.
For more information: www.seasave.org
