.

A Friend of Ballona Wetlands @suidae13

Friends of Ballona Wetlands has been protecting and restoring the Ballona Wetlands for over 35 years with the help of more than 75,000 volunteers. www.ballonafriends.org Flag as Inappropriate

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. What's on your mind? What's on your mind? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Posts awaiting your approval 0
Mechanized excavation and grading has been employed in many wetland restorations to lower filled-in areas.
Marla Kay February 25, 2014 at 03:36 am
An important project for our environment will always have controversy. Everyone should know theRead More facts about what restoring the Ballona wetlands means to our environment. I invite you to join Friends of Ballona Wetlands to hear the facts. Marla Kay
Center left of this photo shows millions of cubic yards of hydraulic dredge slurry being dumped on the Ballona Wetlands
Rose MacHardy January 21, 2014 at 03:18 pm
Insulting other groups (see above) who work to save the Ballona Wetlands by saying theyRead More "shouted untruths" at the recent Supervisors' meeting and "are no credible advocates for wetland restoration" will not give you credibility either.
The Freshwater Marsh was constructed by Playa Vista to cleanse urban runoff from its streets and parks.
Walter Lamb December 25, 2013 at 11:24 am
David, First of all, Happy Holidays. Second, I want to provide readers with a link to the first LARead More Times article you footnoted. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-21/news/we-4188_1_ballona-wetlands I encourage people to read the actual article. It provides relevant documentation of history of Ballona and the Friends of Ballona Wetlands role in that history. This article, and many others, makes clear that the Friends of Ballona Wetlands was content with 269 acres of preserved land, less than half of what was ultimately achieved is spite of the Friends of Ballona Wetlands commitment to providing testimony on behalf of the developers. Without the Friend's support, it is very likely that more land would have preserved at less cost to the taxpayers. What is particularly ironic now is the Friend's vocal (if still unofficial) support of a construction project in Area C of the ecological reserve, an area that the Friend's had given up for development. You yourself compared those people fighting for more land, such as the parcels in Area C, to the 9/11 terrorists. Less than a month after the 9/11 attacks, you wrote: "The self-righteous eco-fundamentalists of the "save all of Ballona" faith prefer that the entire area be restored to prehistoric conditions, denying us the opportunity to carefully balance human needs with habitat protection. These zealots view our society with the same perspective and contempt as other religious fanatics dominating today's headlines." - David Kay, October 16th, 2001 http://articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/16/local/me-57754 As I have said in the past, I admire many of the people involved with your organization and the educational programs you run in Area B. But it is important that readers have a counter balance to your repeated attempts to rewrite history to deflect attention what most now see as a very shortsighted and narrow vision for the Ballona Wetlands Ecological reserve. Walter Lamb Ballona Wetlands Land Trust www.ballona.org
Walter Lamb December 25, 2013 at 11:28 am
David, First of all, Happy Holidays. Second, I want to provide readers with a link to the firstRead More LA Times article you footnoted. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-21/news/we-4188_1_ballona-wetlands I encourage people to read the actual article. It provides relevant documentation of history of Ballona and the Friends of Ballona Wetlands role in that history. This article, and many others, makes clear that the Friends of Ballona Wetlands was content with 269 acres of preserved land, less than half of what was ultimately achieved. Other groups perseverance led to approximately 600 acres being preserved, in spite of the Friends of Ballona Wetlands commitment to providing testimony on behalf of the developers. Without the Friend's support, it is very likely that more land would have preserved at less cost to the taxpayers. What is particularly ironic now is the Friend's vocal (if still unofficial) support of a construction project in Area C of the ecological reserve, an area that the Friend's had given up for development. You yourself compared those people fighting for more land, such as the parcels in Area C, to the 9/11 terrorists. Less than a month after the 9/11 attacks, you wrote: "The self-righteous eco-fundamentalists of the "save all of Ballona" faith prefer that the entire area be restored to prehistoric conditions, denying us the opportunity to carefully balance human needs with habitat protection. These zealots view our society with the same perspective and contempt as other religious fanatics dominating today's headlines." - David Kay, October 16th, 2001 http://articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/16/local/me-57754 As I have said in the past, I admire many of the people involved with your organization and the educational programs you run in Area B. But it is important that readers have a counter balance to your repeated attempts to rewrite history to deflect attention what most now see as a very shortsighted and narrow vision for the Ballona Wetlands Ecological reserve. Walter Lamb Ballona Wetlands Land Trust www.ballona.org
Trash in a bicycle theft "chop shop" in the Ballona uplands.
David W. Kay November 28, 2013 at 08:45 am
The Last Word (since it is my blog): Let the Record Show by Her Own Words Above, 1. Dr. GriswoldRead More opposes correcting the past mistake by LA County of disposing of 3 million cubic yards of dredge spoil and fill dirt on top of existing saltmarsh in Areas A and C. 2. Dr. Griswold opposes restoration of tidal wetland on state-owned land in the Coastal Zone at Ballona which formerly supported tidal wetland. 3. Dr. Griswold advocates doing restoration "on the cheap" at Ballona, despite regional taxpayers contributing over one billion dollars to statewide bond funding specifically earmarked for coastal restoration, by popular statwide vote. 4. Dr. Griswold relies on non-peer reviewed geography hypotheses published by wastewater treatment industry-financed organizations instead of professional hydraulic and tidal dynamic modeling accepted worldwide to predict flood hydrographs, resulting tidal inlet scour and their infilling frequency by littoral processes. 5. Dr. Griswold advocates habitat restoration by the Community, but has not proposed a project plan, scope, cost or schedule for accomplishing this, while those who have calculate it would take 140 years for a feasible volunteer workforce to execute even a minimal habitat restoration of Area A. 6. Dr. Griswold implies the Friends of Ballona Wetlands, a non-profit organization that has advocated for comprehensive tidal restoration at Ballona for 35 years, is suddenly leveraging the Marina homeless challenges in a sinister way to support their position, which aligns with longstanding state and federal coastal protection law and policy.
Margot Griswold November 29, 2013 at 09:24 am
The technical report on the historical ecology of the Ballona Watershed, including the BallonaRead More wetlands, may not be peer reviewed, but it was prepared by respected scientists. Historical ecology is a scientific discipline. Over the last 10 years, the methods used to explore the historic ecology now provide restoration ecologists and planners with some excellent tools from which to start planning. Below I list the citation for the technical report on the Ballona Creek Watershed as well as two other papers that discuss the use of such historical ecology studies. Dark, S., E.D. Stein, D. Bram, J. Oscuna, J. Monteferante, T. Longcore, R. Grossinger, and E. Beller. 2011. Historical Ecology of the Ballona Creek Watershed. Technical Report 671. Southern California Coastal Water Research project. Costa Mesa, CA. Dark, S., E.D. Stein, D. Bram, and J. Osuna. 2012. Historical Ecology as a Living Resource for Informing Urban Wetland Restoration. Urban Coast 3:54-60. Stein,E.D., S. Dark, T. Longcore, R. Grossinger, N. Hall, and M. Beland. 2010. Historical Ecology as Tool for Assessing Landscape Change and Informing Wetland Restoration Priorities. Wetlands 30: 589-601. And again, i think you have me confused with someone else as I have never advocated doing nothing at Ballona. Rather, I would like to see a reasonable alternative to full tidal creation. And, finally, there is nothing wrong with incorporating community restoration into the stewardship of public lands.
Ruth Lansford December 7, 2013 at 02:24 pm
I'm appalled at Dr. Griswold's snide comment accusing the Friends of using the homeless issue toRead More promote what she considers the wrong solution for Ballona restoration. The homeless issue came to our attention when my son, who spent much of his youth tramping around Ballona, returned for a visit. Of course, he revisited his old stamping grounds and came back with the news that the homeless had taken over much of the inland portion of Ballona on both sides of the creek, had established a bicycle "chop shop", had been doing some shooting, and had created piles of garbage, including human excrement, which had attracted rats. That is when the Friends decided to notify all agencies with jurisdiction at Ballona of the problem. In no way was our action (taken at my urging) related to proposed restoration plans. We may disagree on science, but that's no excuse for groundless accusations impugning the Friends' integrity.
See more »