Maybe the telephone pole is on the Endangered Spieces List and they feel a need to ensure that these last monuments to a past civilization are kept preserved.

Judging by the size of the embankment shown in the photo, who's to say that isn't an ancient levee or dike built by Chinese labor during the late 1800s; in which case we might have discovered a valuable anthropologic resource. Don't anyone call the Department of the Interior or else it will soon be designated a National Monument.

Clearly this is an ancient Indian burial site. Notify the Bureau of Indian Affairs, ASAP.

Jubal,

Any history on these sites?

While I don't know about these specific locations, I have seen some crazy sites that are protected throughout the state. Unfortunately a developer can "trade" a piece of wasteland to offset destruction/development of otherwise protected terain.

Other times, the land was declared protected, but surrounding area was not. So development/roads go in and the land becomes desolate islands of wasted dirt. Don't know if it applies here, but sure looks like there might be more to the story of these "wetlands".

Nope. No back story. Hydrophytic plants started sprouting and that was it. Can't touch 'em. Game over.

Just to change the subject slightly: why doesn't the County sell that marina and get out of the property management business?

The Coastal Commission has always used the one-parameter approach to defining wetlands as opposed to the Army Corps three-parameter approach. The one-parameter approach is what is used by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. A preponderance of wetland vegetation on the site means there is enough water to support this vegetation (not irrigation pipes, they might be there to restore the site). If the Coastal Commission used the Army Corps three-parameter approach in this semi-arid region, you can kiss our wetlands good-bye, including much of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands before they were bought by the State. Do you have a link to the Coastal Commission staff report on why this site is defined as wetlands? That might shed some light on the issue and inform your readers better.

Doc, I don't know about that one-parameter, three-parameter criteria you're referring to, but I do know that the folks who prepared the EIR for the parking lot expansion specifically referred to two or three little part-time puddles on the site as wetlands that had to be protected. The pavement was actually designed to avoid them. It seemed ludicrous, especially given the project's impact on the adjacent bird sanctuary which houses among other species, the least tern, and given the fact that these little depressions were right next to the asphalt anyway.

Well, if you are going to be conversant about wetlands, you have to know about the one-parameter versus three-parameter approach to wetlands definition, because defining wetlands is all important. Once a wetland is defined as such, then the California Coastal Act puts severe restrictions on the use of the land. See Section 30233 of the Coastal Act which limits use of wetlands to 8 uses, all water related, no housing, no parking lots, etc. The three parameters are: 1. Presence of ponding water on the property, length of which is debated, but it has to be wet enough long enough to support wetlands vegetation. 2. Vegetation. Certain plants only live in wetlands, so if the property has these plants, like cattails, then this parameter is met. 3. Hydric soils, soil that retains water. This is a tricky area because hydric soils on the east coast are different from the west coast, but east coast criteria are in the Army Corps Manual, so western soil is often excluded from wetlands definition, because of different chroma, or color. Thus we found Bolsa Chica wetlands being denied wetland status because the soil was not the right color according to the three-parameter approach of the Army Corps definition. The Coastal Commission is actually developer-dominated, but they cannot ignore the rules vested in the Coastal Act. If the EIR showed wetlands of any size, they must be protected, with an appropriate buffer around them.

Maybe you should read Jubal's post, Vandersloot. He listed the three parameters/criteria.

Try looking at this through a normal person's eyes, not those of an environmental nut.

Right. My point is that the definition of wetlands - whoever cooked it up was was ridiculous - and yet paid obeissance in order to push along a project whose other impacts were completely ignored in order to promote a gov't sponsored project. Incompetence and hypocrisy.

The puddles were "protected" as the path of least bureaucratic resistance, not because anybody thought they had any value.

Wetlands definitions are necessary because society belatedly decided that wetlands are important, encoded in local, state and federal laws since the federal Clean Water Act and the California State Coastal Act. Wetlands are more productive biologically than practically any other biological ecosystem on earth, so it is important to protect them, despite neanderthal naysayers who think that wetlands are nothing more than worthless swamps. A preponderance of wetland vegetation meets the criteria for wetlands in the coastal zone, which is apparently why the Coastal Commission protected the wetlands at Sunset Harbour Marina, despite what the County had decided. We need the Coastal Commission and the State Coastal Act to protect the State's wetlands precisely because local agencies have a tendency to get rid of them, which is why we have lost 90% of our original wetlands.

despite neanderthal naysayers who think that wetlands are nothing more than worthless swamps.

Look at the picture, Jan. It's a vacant lot, despite what a snooty elitist wants to pretend. Stop trying to put lipstick on a pig and come back to planet Earth where the rest of us poor slobs live and work.

It's not a vacant lot, NBer. Look at the photo closely, see the newly planted tree at the right side of the photo, and look at Jubal's original entry at:

http://www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2008/03/test-your-knowledge/

These photos are probably the buffer around the wetland rather than the wetland itself, and if so, Jubal is doing a disservice by claiming they are wetlands and then showing dry uplands next to the wetlands to inflame people's passions against the Coastal Commission.

Jan:

This photo is from OC Parks. It is of what is now a wetland. It didn't used to be a wetland. The vegetation was not, as you are for some reason claiming, planted. They took root themselves. If someone had regularly roto-tilled the parcel, it would never have become a wetland.

As I write in the post itself, the county argued to the Coastal Commission that it was not a wetlands because it didn't meet the Corps of Engineer's test. The Commission sided with their staff's less stringent test of what is a wetland.

Jubal, what is the address of this corner? I would like to visit the site to check it out personally.

Where do the wetlands begin and end? Everything to the left of the telephone pole does not look like a wetland due to the brushy nature of the vegetation and the hill. The flat land at the right of the telephone pole is probably the wetland. I have often seen telephone poles placed in wetlands.

The Coastal Commission approved this project at its April 11, 2006 meeting. The staff report link is below. There is an addendum that is not online that may discuss the wetlands issue more thoroughly, and I am asking for that report to be sent to me by regular mail. The staff report shows a required buffer around the wetlands and a reqired planting plan, so I think the photo that Jubal is showing above is the result of the required planting plan and is not the wetland itself. See link at:

http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2006/4/T8a-4-2006.pdf

I visited the site today at the end of Endinger. Just as I suspected, the above photo depicts an upland that is being revegetated with an upland native landscape plan around the wetlands. You can see the plants in wells, plants in pots, and also a lot of hydroseeded coastal sage. The wetlands are separate from the above uplands. Jubal might check his facts before ranting about the Coastal Commission. I think this was an unintentional mistake by Jubal, but I think he owes us all an apology

Jubal never said those plants weren't planted. He said they didn't used to be wetlands, and then became wetlands very recently and now are being artificially maintained as wetlands, and to anyone who isn't a fanatical tree-hugger like Vandersloot, they are vacant lots.

I've read your comments Vandersloot, and you've had problems understanding anything anyone else has said. You want to believe what you want to believe, facts notwithstanding, the definition of a fanatic.

Wrong, NBER. Jubal said the plants weren't planted in his related post on this subject. However, the truth is that the plants in the photograph that he said were wetlands were indeed planted as part of a landscape plan involving native upland plants like coastal sagebrush. They are not wetlands plants.

If you are interested in the truth of the matter, read the staff report on the project at:

http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2006/4/T8a-4-2006.pdf

As Shakespeare said: The truth will out.

From our friends at the CCC:

"Several small, isolated wetland areas that formed upon tidelands fill are present along the northern, eastern and western perimeter of the proposed parking areas. Further beyond these isolated wetlands are the tidal wetlands complex within the Anaheim Bay National Wildlife Refuge."

And there Jan, you have the nut of my argument against CEQA and how it is played. Those "small, isolated wetland areas" were nothing more than depressions in the mud. They were paid great respect by all and sundry. And yet, a nine acre parking lot right next to the Naval Station refuge was deemed appropriate - without a single intelligent alternative in the EIR (as required).

Redperegrine, that's true, and alternatives to the parking lot placement should have been analyzed and implemented, given its proximity to the wildlife refuge. This could have been litigated under CEQA for failure to analyze alternatives, but was not done in a timely manner, and would have been expensive and difficult to win. Under the Coastal Act, wider buffers from the refuge could also have been argued, but a particular size of buffers is not written into the Coastal Act. Most of the time 100 feet from wetlands is the standard like they say in the staff report unless the Department of Fish and Game steps in and says 100 meters like they did for ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) at Bolsa Chica.

The tidelands fill where the pocket wetlands on the project exist were probably dumped on the shoreline of the refuge years ago, probably on top of high marsh wetlands, so it's poetic justice that the pocket wetlands are now preserved and protected. You can see pickleweed, an obligate wetland plant, within these pocket wetlands, probably why the wetlands were delineated as such in the EIR and protected by the Coastal Commission in their duty as protector of coastal wetlands, Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. Section 30240 of the Coastal Act dealing with Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) could have been used as a rationale for a 100 meter (300 foot) buffer from the wildlife refuge, but unfortunately was not.

So the sad thing is that the parking lot exists today instead of wetlands or ESHA at the whole site, but at least the remnant pocket wetlands and the buffers around them remain. The native vegetation in the buffers like coastal sagebrush and abortive looking pine trees (which may not make it) will take a few years to fully develop. Vigilance and monitoring should be performed by individual citizens to make sure this landscape plan succeeds.

The bottom line is Vandersloot has no earthly idea whether or not these parcels were historically wetlands, or how long they have been wetlands. Only that the CCC in its infinite wisdom decided they were, and now they have to be planted, irrigated, etc.

See what we have to put up with in Newport Beach?

Wrong again NBER. Chances are this site is historic wetlands that have had dredge spoils dumped on them, and now the wetlands are reasserting themselves. Even wrong again and again, NBER. The irrigation is not being used to irrigate wetland plants but to irrigate the non-wetland buffer landscape plan. Even people from Newport Beach need to respect their wetlands just like everyone else.

"Chances are this site is historic wetlands that have had dredge spoils dumped on them, and now the wetlands are reasserting themselves."

Translation: You have no idea and evidence to back up your claim that these were wetlands until recently.

But being Jan Vandersloot, you'll assert fact even where none is present.

This quote from Mr. Vandersloot sums up where he's coming from:

"The Coastal Commission is actually developer-dominated,..."

Wow.

Were those all developers the Commission and its staff were playing to in Del Mar last month?

You can say a lot about the Coastal Commission, but I doubt seriously that "developer dominated" is in Peter Douglas' vocabluary.

Wrong again, NBER. This is getting boring.

This site is historically tidelands, as noted in the Coastal Commission staff report at:

http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2006/4/T8a-4-2006.pdf

See page 10 of this report where it states that the wetlands formed on tidelands fill, just as I said above. If it were not for this fill, the site would be tidal wetlands just like the adjacent wildlife refuge.

When did the tidelands fill occur? I don't know, but it had to be before 1976 when the Coastal Act was voted in. The Coastal Act would not allow such fill today, except for 8 permitted uses, parking lots not being one of them.

NBER, put you personal prejudice and personal attacks aside and address the issue. It wasn't the Coastal Commission that identified the wetlands on the site, but the EIR at the local level. Once wetlands were identified, then they have to be protected under Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. It's a matter of law. Learn something and read the Coastal Act at:

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/coastact.pdf

Note that the above comment attributed to Anonymous is mine. The system screwed up. It would be great if people used their real names rather than pseudonyms or acronyms. If people had the courage of their convictions, they would not be afraid to reveal who they are. As it is, the cowards are given a forum, not what you would expect in John Wayne country.

Jan, I use a psuedonym for fun rather than for surreptition.

My point throughout this whole string has been to point out what I conceive to be the idiocy of those isolated puddles being treated as a valuable resource. The EIR strained at those gnats (figurative - not wetalnds fauna) and swallowed the camel of a 9 acre parking lot right next to the sanctuary. It also seemed to me that since it was a County sponsored project, the County gave itself latitude that probably would not have been extended to a private citizen.

Since the project is in Seal Beach, why was the County allowed to be the "lead agency" per CEQA? An obvious conflict of interest - unless one shares the mindset that a gov't doesn't have sordid pecuniary interests like us regular folks do - even thought the County is the landlord of the facility.

David Zenger

Here's what page 10 says:

"Several small, isolated wetland areas that formed upon tidelands fill are present along the northern, eastern and western perimeter of the proposed parking areas."

It doesn't say anything about when they were formed, say Vandersloot's claim they are "historic" is hooey.

David, thanks for using your name. It's somewhat surrealistic to have a debate with a fictional character like NBER, whoever that is.

In a more perfect world, the tidelands fill would all have been removed and the site restored to its original tidal wetlands characteristics, no parking lot, only habitat. This would be required now by the Coastal Commission enforcement division if someone dumped fill on the tidelands area illegally, but the present fill on the site apparently occurred before the Coastal Act existed in 1976, and the Coastal Commission does not have jurisdiction on pre-Coastal Act violations.

I think the County could have been the lead agency because this project is in the County's Sunset Aquatic Park Marina. However the staff report of the Coastal Commission says the local approval was from the city of Seal Beach Planning Department. See:

"LOCAL APPROVALS: Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2003081008) and Approval in Concept from the City of Seal Beach Planning Department dated April 29, 2005"

Page 9 of the report goes into how the Marina is owned by the County, so that may be how the County is involved, but if the project is within the City limits of Seal Beach, normally the City would be the lead agency.

Jubal might give a better understanding of how the County came to be the lead agency.

"...but the present fill on the site apparently occurred
before the Coastal Act existed in 1976,.."

Says who?

Vandersloot keeps claming the CCC report backs up his claims, but the portion he refers to simply says:

"Several small, isolated wetland areas that formed upon tidelands fill are present along the northern, eastern and western perimeter of the proposed parking areas."

It says nothing -- NOTHING -- about when the small, isolated wetland areas" formed.

NBER, whoever you are, logic would dictate that the wetlands formed at some point after the fill was deposited, probably before the 1976 Coastal Act. However, I can't give you the exact date that the fill was deposited, maybe Jubal can. Since the tidelands fill was the same soil as the the adjacent wildlife refuge marsh, it would be logical that the fill could develop wetlands characteristics given the same soil and vegetation propagules within the fill. The fill probably settled into irregularities and depressions that collected sufficient water to grow the wetlands plants and therefore the fill started showing the rebirth of the wetlands underlying the fill. I can't state that this is fact, but a logical explanation of how the pocket wetlands on the site came to be. Nevertheless, the EIR identified these areas as wetlands and so they came to be protected by the Coastal Act.

"NBER, whoever you are, logic would dictate that the wetlands formed at some point after the fill was deposited, probably before the 1976
Coastal Act."

Logic dictates nothing of the kind. Your comments reveal a pattern of confusing your opinion with fact.

"I can't state that this is fact..."

Then perhaps you should stop asserting your opinions as fact.

How about this for a fact, NBER:

The photo at the top of this thread is not a photo of wetlands.