Claim that 241 would hurt surf repeatedly discredited
The California Coastal Commission’s allegation that the completion of the 241 will adversely impact surfing resources at Trestles Beach has been repeatedly discredited by experts in the fields of coastal oceanography, sediment transport, hydrology and civil engineering.
Three independent peer reviews of studies on the surfing resources and sedimentation confirm that the SR-241 completion project would have no impact on surfing at Trestles and cast doubt on the validity of the studies by Philip Williams and Associates (PWA), which were paid for by road opponents.
Richard Seymour, Ph.D., research engineer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and noted consultant in coastal oceanography, conducted a peer review of both the TCA’s and road opponents’ studies associated with the surfing issue and concluded “no substantial change, either positive or negative, to surfing quality would result from the project.”
Dr. Howard Chang, professor of civil and environmental engineering at San Diego State University performed a similar peer review that focused on sediment transport. Dr. Chang refuted the claims that fine sediments would impact the movement of cobbles in San Mateo Creek during large rain events and concluded that “the PWA assessments of adverse impacts due to the Orange County toll road project are not valid.”
Derrick Coleman, Ph.D., who has more than 30 years of experience in hydromodification studies and surface water resource evaluations, including 20 years on projects in California, conducted a peer review and assessment of documents related to the runoff management plan for the 241 extension. “To me this indicates the TCA is committed to providing a roadway design that is as protective as possible of the watershed systems it crosses and to constructing it in a manner that provides the least impact possible.” In contrast, Coleman noted that opposition consultant PWA adopted the role of project opponent, used its knowledge in a negative way and tried to ‘confuse issues and create uncertainty.’ ”
Even Surfer Magazine noted that the change in sediment flow after the toll road was built would only be enough to fill up a public restroom at San Onofre and therefore have no impact: “Spread along the entire beach that is considered immeasurable,” according to the magazine’s February 2008 online story about the 241 completion and Trestles.
TCA has never challenged that Trestles is not a special surfing location. And, it has continued to be a special place despite the addition over the past 125 years of nearly 500 supports, abutments, pier walls, footings, timber piles and deep foundations within San Mateo Creek to support eight lanes of Interstate 5, Old Highway 101 and the railroad trestles along the edge of the sand.
Surfrider’s stance that there is no need to improve the water quality in the area ignores the situation that currently exists. None of the man-made improvements in the area, including I-5, Old Highway 101, Cristianitos Road, the San Mateo campground access road and the paved trail leading to the beach provide any runoff treatment, as they were built well before the latest advances in methods to treat runoff.
Regarding water quality, the truth is the water quality program proposed by TCA is based on a five-year study, the BMP (Best Management Practices) Retrofit Pilot Program, conducted jointly by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Santa Monica Baykeeper, the San Diego Baykeeper, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Caltrans, along with an extensive list of technical experts and other agencies. Our program would have ensured that sediment transport in the area would remain the same post-project as it is today. In addition, TCA would have collected and treated runoff from two miles of I-5 that currently flows directly into San Mateo Creek. The water quality system would also provide a means to confine potential hazardous material spills on the I-5. These enhancements, while not specifically required as part of the 241 project, would certainly be an improvement over allowing runoff to flow directly to the creeks, lagoons and ocean untreated. This represents a significant additional benefit.
The Surfrider Foundation and other groups opposed to the 241 completion project persist in repeating the same inaccurate claims again and again. It is important that readers, whatever their stance on this project, at least have the opportunity to form an opinion based on the facts from outside experts who have no stake or personal interest in the project. It has been proven that the 241 will not impact the surfing resource at Trestles. It is time for the debate to move on and for the idea that the 241 will harm surfing at Trestles to be put to rest.
