The recent approval of the De Anza Natural Plan by the City Council marks a significant milestone in our journey towards a more sustainable and vibrant Mission Bay. This achievement is a testament to the dedication of our community members and the tireless efforts of the ReWild Coalition. The broad media coverage we received underscores the widespread support and recognition of this important project.
As we celebrate this progress and look ahead to the next steps, it’s essential to recognize both the victories and the areas where further improvement is needed. While we are thrilled with the commitment to restoring 226 acres of wetlands, we must also address the crucial role that state and federal wildlife agencies play in ensuring the best possible outcomes for our environment, and the ReWild priorities that were overlooked.
The immediate next steps for the De Anza Natural Plan include the City submitting the plan to the Coastal Commission, where they will work with Wildlife agencies, such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who provide critical input during the environmental review process. Their recommendations help shape conservation strategies to align with the best available science, and ensure that potential impacts on wildlife and their habitats are properly assessed and mitigated. Then the City will develop a General Development Plan and Wetland Management and Implementation Plan for De Anza Cove.
Media Coverage
The De Anza Natural Plan made waves in local media, with various news outlets highlighting the plan, community reactions, and the anticipated benefits and changes for the area. The San Diego Union-Tribune and ABC10 covered community input on the plan. Andrew Meyer, the ReWild Project Manager, and Director of Conservation at San Diego Audubon, spoke to ABC10 and Fox 5 about the urgency of prioritizing natural habitat in this area, and making tough decisions for our future. Voice of San Diego shared their report on the city’s decision, and recounted Councilmembers trying to exclude wildlife agencies from the planning process. Additionally, Andrew Bowen and Mackenzie Elmer joined the KPBS roundtable last week to discuss the future of De Anza Cove. Notably, El Latino Online also covered the plan, providing insights to the Spanish-speaking community about its implications and the ongoing debate.
What the City Missed
Digging into the muddy details, our Wildest plan shows that 227 acres of restored marsh and 315 acres of total marsh and upland habitat is feasible. This goal has been the foundation of the ReWild Coalition advocacy since we started in 2019. Compared to Wildest, the City’s De Anza Natural Plan has 83% of the habitat acreage, including 100% of the wetland acreage when first built. The big problem with the City’s adopted plan is that it doesn’t show or guarantee enough space for critical marsh habitat to migrate upslope as sea levels rise.
The difference in acreage between Wildest and De Anza Natural is about 50 acres of transitional and upland habitat, which would slowly transition to marsh along a resilient shoreline. That was the main focus of our advocacy and Councilmember meetings in the past few months. We tried to push the City to improve their plan by committing to a shoreline ready for marsh to migrate and persist in the bay through the century.
The adopted plan has positive language, such as “In recognition of expected sea level rise, associated amenities and visitor-support facilities should be located primarily in the northern portion… away from the shoreline”; “Different shoreline treatments will respond to the amount of tidal action and focus on gently sloping, nature-based design solutions to the impacts of climate change…”; and, added at the City Council meeting in response to one of our concerns, “…at least 80 acres of tidal marsh will remain” as sea levels rise in the ReWild area.
The City made a few adjustments to the plan in response to our concerns, but they haven’t gone far enough to commit to it. That is where we need to continue to focus our advocacy work. We know that this acreage is what is needed to keep our tidal marsh through the century–we need it for water filtration and carbon sequestration and Ridgway’s Rails need it for survival.
Other concerns include the plan’s definition of and allowed activities in buffer areas; the wildlife and water quality value of the proposed channel that connects Rose Creek to wetlands restored to the east of Rose Creek; and the phasing of the implementation, including how shoreline restoration will be prioritized in the timeline.
Where Does the Plan Go Now?
“These are competing efforts that do not fully satisfy anyone or everyone, and this is where policymaking lands. I’m more interested in what the next steps look like. We can applaud this, but establishing the end objective is only the first step, and what steps will we take from an implementation standpoint?” Councilmember Lee shared after 2 hours of public comment.
The only sticking point for Councilmembers in the plan on May 14th seemed to be arguments from Councilmembers Campillo, Whitburn and Campbell over the inclusion of wildlife agency review in the planning process. Campillo asked City Staff, “Is there a reason we need to follow their recommendation in this draft…essentially why are we ceding to them?” Campbell followed up with, “I really don’t think they legally get a right to approve or disapprove” (San Diego City Council Meeting, May 14, 2024).
Leslie FitzGerald, Assistant City Attorney for the San Diego City Attorney’s Office, clarified that “the City is going to have to follow the law,” along with Council President Pro Tem LaCava, who stated “they are still going to regulate us, we are not getting away without that.” The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) are consulted during the Coastal Commission review as part of The California Coastal Act.
These agencies are also critical supporters needed for grant funding–letters of support and strong agency partnerships will be needed as the City pursues grants to lower the taxpayer costs for realizing the bay improvements.
USFWS reviews and assesses compliance with federal laws and guidelines, including the Endangered Species Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Additionally, CDFW is key in reviewing compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and approves Lake and Streambed Modifications. Both these agencies are very involved in ensuring the City is complying with its Multiple Species Conservation Program rules. These collaborations help safeguard biodiversity and maintain ecological integrity, and are legal requirements for any plan that would impact habitats, despite comments made otherwise.
Looking to the Future
“Don’t make the perfect become the enemy of the good,” said Council President Elo-Rivera. “In my opinion the plan itself won’t achieve the goals that anybody here has. What will do that is actually getting the work done.”
With that in mind, we plan to do just that. Our end goal still remains the same, to see a flourishing marsh for all within the next few years. Hopefully the city has the same urgency we do for them to make progress towards Climate Action Plan goals. We are looking forward to this plan heading to the Coastal Commission, and the scientific expertise that wildlife agencies can lend to restoring a thriving marsh habitat.
In the meantime, join us at the marsh for Wander the Wetlands every 2nd and 4th Saturday of the month. Follow along on social media, or sign up for our newsletter to receive more updates on the next steps for implementation.