Ballona Wetlands: Our Long Road Trip Together, Part 3

Part 3: Mapping Our Road Trip, Deciding Upon a Route and Choosing a Vehicle 

CEQA requires that a project proponent advance at least one alternative that satisfies the purpose and need of the project; the regional goals.  Usually, more than one viable alternative is proposed, as well as a “No Project” alternative.  No Project at Ballona means we will not perform any creation or enhancement of the existing wetlands.  We will do nothing.  Since that alternative will not meet the state’s long-established goals for tidal lands in public ownership, the No Project route is not a viable alternative.  However, if any of the other project alternatives cause significant adverse environmental impacts, and those impacts cannot be mitigated in some way, then those alternatives also become unviable and No Project becomes the default (there are exceptions).

The Ballona proponents, through their project managers at the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (SMBRC) have examined and published on the internet five different conceptual alternatives (plus No Project) which range from a very minimal enhancement of existing tidal functions to an extensive re-contouring of the entire 600 acres, including removing the concrete channel of Ballona Creek and replacing it with a meandering vegetated earthen channel (http://www.santamonicabay.org/BWRP/BWRP_Documents/SAC/Ballona_SAC_presentation_1-23-12.pdf).

These alternatives have been the focus of numerous public scientific workshops since 2004 to obtain input on the opportunities or constraints presented by each.  However, it’s important to note that these are only the conceptual alternatives considered by a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in this pre-planning period and they do not constitute the lawful environmental analysis of each alternative required by CEQA.

Last year, the SMBRC officially kicked off the CEQA process by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI), which is their legal notification that they intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  The NOI phase was our opportunity, both during a public comment period and at public meetings, to tell the SMBRC what alternatives to consider in the EIR, and what potential environmental impacts should be analyzed for each.  The EIR must examine the potential impacts of various restoration alternatives brought forward by the SMBRC and recommend an “environmentally preferred” alternative, which must be defended as “preferred” by facts. 

The public will have additional opportunity to review and comment upon the alternatives and argue which should be preferred upon publication of a Draft EIR, now expected in early 2014.  The SMBRC must consider all comments, written and verbal and address them in the Final EIR some months later, which is the end of the CEQA documentation process.  However, we will also have additional opportunity to comment and persuade revisions to whatever emerges from the EIR as the proposed project during the Coastal Commission’s subsequent permit proceedings. There is also an opportunity for litigation in between (which I’ll mention later).

While we can’t be sure which conceptual alternatives will be included in the EIR NOP, the SMBRC appears to be leaning toward conceptual Alternatives 4 and 5.  Alternative 4 (Figure 3) would be a comprehensive restoration of most former wetland areas, but lacks the removal and re-contouring of the Ballona Creek hard channel.  A No Project alternative will also likely be addressed in the EIR.

The Ballona draft conceptual Alternative 4 resembles, in terms of habitat proportions and construction effort, both the conceptual plan from the Friends of Ballona Wetlands non-profit group (Figure 4) and the alternative that was ultimately constructed by SCE at San Dieguito, known as the Mixed Habitat Plan (Figure 5).  All three alternatives incorporate an off-channel subtidal basin (always blue water), intertidal saltmarsh areas of varying elevations (green areas), and non-tidal upland areas (brown) that incorporate public access in roughly equal proportions.  These alternatives emerge due to physical constraints of the landscape and existing conditions at the sites to be restored.  For example, both Ballona and San Dieguito contain areas where historical infilling has occurred, either partially (leaving degraded wetland) or completely, leaving only upland.  Subtidal basins could be constructed in areas completely in filled (by simple excavation and grading), while areas of degraded wetland could be enhanced by subtle grading and tidal channel enhancement.  Both are bisected by major transportation routes and existing river channels; one natural and Ballona channelized, but both constrained by bridges. San Dieguito’s “soft” sandy inlet remains, but Ballona’s was long ago replaced by rock jetties extending into the ocean. Neither site has resembled the natural wetland area that once existed in either area for over 50 years, and are hemmed in by dense suburban development.

Some individuals have for years proposed for Ballona what I will call the Community Alternative, since their statements have generally advocated a minimal tidal restoration using only low impact construction methods (community members with hand tools, or very little mechanized earthmoving).  They have also advocated additional adjacent land purchases and incorporation of storm water runoff treatment wetlands into the design.  For reference, the end product might look similar to the Ballona draft conceptual Alternative 1 (Figure 6), which would employ very little grading.

I expect the EIR will find that Alternative 1 does not meet the regional goals of a Ballona restoration, simply because it does not restore tidal function to a large enough area of the state-owned property, at least half of which was filled in by the material dredged from the Marina Del Rey construction in the early 1960s.  For this same reason, I would expect the Community Alternative to not be selected as the “preferred”.  It simply does not enable us to reach our road trip destination.  However, because the Community Alternative has quite vocal backers, the SMBRC should include the concept as an EIR Alternative, even if they have to design it themselves.  Failure to do so will leave us feeling that we never gave their proposal a hard look in the context of a lawful review, and there will forever be second guessing.  Also, you never know what good ideas will emerge from a non-viable alternative until you scrutinize it at the EIR level.  Some of those ideas will improve the viable alternatives as well. 

Another reason some variation of Alternative 1 may emerge as a contender is the potential for sensitive cultural resources (such as remains of indigenous people) to be found on the property.  Though some studies have shown scattered resources in the Ballona, the focused investigations required to properly assess the environmental impact of any alternative may reveal rich cultural sites that require mitigation.  Sometimes, excavating the resource and detailing the information about it will suffice as mitigation, but not always.  Other times resources must be avoided altogether, and this can only be accomplished by modifying the project design and restricting ground disturbing excavation to specific areas.  Cultural resources may ultimately constrain the Ballona restoration to moving only previously disturbed earth.  This could restrict the final design of Alternative 5 (Figure 7).

Returning to our road trip analogy, we have decided the destination of our Ballona journey is a comprehensive restoration.  We have not decided how to get there, but conventional wisdom suggests we will drive either a Chevy or a Bentley, and we could take the highway or the toll road.  We know there will be obstacles in the road, and we must avoid or otherwise remove them.  However, a few of us are advocating that we should not go to that destination at all, and that wherever we go, we walk or ride bicycles to get there.  That would be great opportunity lost. 

Next in Part 4:  The Car We Choose is Irrelevant; It’s Just a Means to the End