After 22 years of pushing to remove the Long Beach breakwater and return surfing to the city, activists could see their hopes washed away.

There are signs the Army Corps of Engineers, which is developing options for improving marine habitat offshore, now favors an approach that leaves the massive rock structure intact. The Surfrider Foundation, city officials and others have long considered the Army Corps’ eventual plan to be the next step toward tearing down the 2.2-mile breakwater.

Activists are hoping for clarification at a Surfrider meeting Thursday evening, when Army Corps and city officials are scheduled to give an update. The meeting, open to the public, begins at 6:30 p.m. at Made by Millworks, 240 Pine Ave., Long Beach.

Seamus Innes, a coastal engineering consultant and surfer helping to lead Surfrider’s two-decade effort to dismantle the breakwater, is far from ready to throw in the towel.

“The reason this project exists is because of Surfrider’s advocacy to bring back waves to Long Beach,” he said.

The Long Beach chapter of Surfrider formed in June 1996 with the sole mission of dismantling the eastern-most of San Pedro Bay’s three breakwaters. That structure shelters the city’s beaches from ocean swells and limits circulation that would help cleanse dirty water trapped in the bay.

After Surfrider took up the cause, the Army Corps eventually partnered with the city of Long Beach, the local sponsor of the project.

“Typically, the Army Corps comes up with a plan and presents it to the local sponsor,” Innes said. “And the local sponsor can push back and a different alternative can rise to the top.”

Indeed, there are indications that the city could ensure a plan with breakwater modification remains in the mix.

The Army Corps initially told the Southern California News Group that it was developing three alternatives, none of which included modifying the breakwater. But it also noted that the city was expected to submit one or two additional plans, which would include breakwater modification.

City spokeswoman Diana Tang provided a similar account, adding an explanation for why Army Corps alternatives excluded changes to the breakwater.

The Army Corps then emailed SCNG and called its earlier statement “inaccurate.” It stopped short of saying its own alternatives included dismantling the breakwater, but said the joint effort with the city still included consideration of such modification.

Economic benefits

The two breakwaters to the west of the Long Beach breakwater were finished in 1912 and 1942, allowing the development of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. During that time, Long Beach emerged as a premier surf spot, dubbed the Waikiki of the West Coast. In 1938, the city hosted the National Surfing Championships.

All that surfing came to an end by 1949, when the Long Beach offshore structure was completed. The project was done for the Navy, which had moved into the Port of Long Beach in 1940 and used the breakwater to protect its fleet. The Navy has since closed its base and shipyard in the bay.

The breakwater facilitated subsequent development, which would have to be addressed if large portions were removed. Smaller breakwaters would be needed to protect two of the oil islands in the east San Pedro Bay, the Belmont Pier would need to be replaced with a sturdier structure and the beach on the Long Beach Peninsula would need broadening to insulate homes there from flooding.

On the plus side, allowing waves into the area would not only attract surfers but probably more beachgoers, as the stormwater runoff from the Los Angeles River would no longer be trapped in the bay and less trash would wind up on the sand. The cleaner, more attractive beach would provide a boon to the area’s economy.

“The City of Long Beach could gain increases of approximately $52 million per year in local spending and economic activity, and nearly $7 million per year in taxes and parking fees” if the breakwater was mostly removed, according to a 2009 city study.

That study also showed four possible modifications to the breakwater, with varying amounts removed. Those were the last renderings publicly released.

In 2015, the city and the Army Corps reached an agreement for a $3-million, three-year study to arrive at a final plan. Along the way, the project name had evolved from the “Long Beach Breakwater Study” to the “East San Pedro Bay Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study,” removing the emphasis on the breakwater while pursuing improvements to the underwater habitat.

The Army Corps had been scheduled to determine its “Tentatively Selected Plan” plan in May, but that date has now been pushed to September because aspects of the study have taken longer than expected, according Eileen Takata, the Army Corps’ lead planner for the project.

Release of the proposed plan — along with the alternatives — is expected in November for public comment, before a final decision is made, Takata said.

Mixed messages

When asked about the status of plans, Army Corps spokesman Jay Field said the agency was no longer considering the four possible breakwater modifications detailed in the 2009 study. In fact, corps planners weren’t considering any change to the breakwaters whatsoever, he said.

“They are currently evaluating three full restoration ‘Best Buy Plan Alternatives,’ including rocky reef, kelp beds, sandy islands, eelgrass and coastal wetlands,” Field said via email on June 1. “None include breakwater modifications; however, the City is considering up to two restoration alternatives of their own, with restoration of some of the above habitats, as well as potential breakwater modifications. We won’t know until July what they want to put forward as City-derived alternatives.”

But 11 days later, an Army Corps email appeared to be an effort to walk back Field’s comment.

“At this time, we are unable to comment on what is included in the final array of alternatives,” was the position stated in a June 12 email, attributed to Takata.

Asked if Field’s June 1 email was accurate, the Army Corps responded with an June 13 email that neither confirmed nor denied whether only city plans — not the Army Corps’ versions — included changes to the breakwater. A June 14 Army Corps email added that Field’s earlier comment was “inaccurate” and a June 15 email offered an explanation of why.

“The original statement makes it sound like we are working independently from the city and that is inaccurate,” corps spokeswoman Dena O’Dell said. “We are working with the city to evaluate alternatives.”

In the meantime, city spokeswoman Diana Tang confirmed that the corps alternatives didn’t include breakwater modifications.

Tang said Army Corps modeling of possible changes to the breakwater “showed that water velocities are decreased by the breakwater modifications. Therefore, habitat improvement scores for these features are minimal.

“As a result, the Army Corps has not included breakwater modification features in their initial array of Best Buy Plans.”

Tang also confirmed that at least partial dismantling of the breakwater continued to be pursued by the city. Neither Tang nor the corps mentioned cost as a factor, although removing portions of the breakwater — and the related near-shore and onshore projects that would require — could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Corps mission

Surfrider’s Innes had detailed his concerns with the Army Corps direction with the Long Beach project at least as early as 2016. His 14-page letter to Army Corps in April spent more than five pages addressing the difference between ecosystem restoration and enhancement, saying the corps approach violated the regulations that circumscribe the agency’s mandate.

Restoration, a primary mission of the corps, involves returning a habitat to a more natural state after its been altered by human activity. Enhancement, which is not charge of the corps, can involve creating a better habitat for some species than they would encounter without human intervention.

“The current plan formulation as proposed by the Los Angeles District of the (Army Corps) confuses ecosystem restoration with enhancement, in violation of the (Army Corps) engineering regulation,” Innes wrote in the the letter.

In an interview last week, Innes said that rocky reefs, kelp beds and eelgrass are not naturally occurring in the east part of the San Pedro Bay and so constitute enhancement, while removing portions of the breakwater would be restoration. Since at least 2016, the Army Corps has been pursuing reefs, kelp and eelgrass as part of the project.

“Kelp beds are easy to make compared to sinking the breakwater,” he said.

While the project area, where modifications would be made, appears limited to the eastern San Pedro Bay, the Army Corps’ study area for the project stretches from Palos Verdes Point to Huntington Beach. Because reefs, kelp and eelgrass exist elsewhere in the study area, the Army Corps may be within its bounds to enhance those habitats in the eastern bay.

But Innes and others are watching most carefully to see if the changes to the breakwater are abandoned.

“Right now, it’s just rumor,” he said. “We’re not going to threaten a lawsuit until we see something on paper.”