By Gary Walker
Attention surrounding a drainage system at Playa Vista that apparently was installed without permission from the state Coastal Commission has not dissipated since the discovery of the network was reported in June.
The underground system was discovered earlier this summer and was reported to the California Coastal Commission. The installation is now under investigation by the commission, which confirmed that it does not have a coastal permit.
“We don’t have any record of permits (for this drainage system),” said Andrew Willis, the enforcement officer for the commission.
Per the California Coastal Act, any development, which is defined as a change in the intensity of use of land within the costal zone, is required to receive a permit from the Coastal Commission.
“The drainage lines were constructed many years ago, at the request of the city of Los Angeles,” explained Marc Huffman, Playa Capital’s vice president of planning and entitlements. “These drains are intended to protect the adjacent roads from flooding in the event of a massive storm, which has not occurred since the drains were installed.”
Since the discovery of the drainage system in June, Ballona Wetlands environmental groups have taken turns applauding or condemning the underground network of pipes.
Dr. David Kay, the president of the sand dune wetlands restoration volunteer group Friends of the Ballona Wetlands, said the underground flood control network drains salt marsh “stranded” between Lincoln and Jefferson boulevards. Unearthing the drainage network, Kay stated, would be detrimental to the wetlands ecosystem.
“Removing the drains, as some have already advocated, could cause long-term freshwater ‘drowning’ of the wetlands salt-tolerant flora and fauna,” he wrote.
Patricia McPherson of the Grassroots Coalition took issue with the assertion by Huffman that the drainage system was installed at the behest of city officials. “They are not now and never have been part of the city’s drains,” McPherson said.
Several wetlands groups argue that the underground pipes have damaged the ecological reserve’s drainage system and Coastal Commission officials have stated their belief that “adverse impacts” have occurred.
“Why is the state allowing freshwater to be drained from Ballona?” McPherson asked.
State authorities are also monitoring the situation in the wetlands.
“This issue only recently came to our attention,” Jordan Traverso, a spokeswoman with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, told The Argonaut. “Our understanding is that the Playa Vista developer said the drainages were required by the city for flood control.”
Fish and Wildlife owns the land where the 600-acre wetlands is located and is the lead agency in charge of the state-led restoration that is underway.
The environmental impact report for the wetlands restoration is slated to be released in the fall.
“It is important to understand that these drainages were in place at the time the department took ownership of the land,” Traverso noted. “Since this issue as to whether they were properly permitted only recently came up, we will need to look into it further and respond at the appropriate time.”
In a June 12 letter to Huffman, Coastal Commission Enforcement Analyst Jimmy Chang listed the possible ways that the installation of the unpermitted drainage system could be remedied.
“In many cases, violations involving unpermitted development may be resolved administratively through removal of unpermitted development, restoration of any damaged resources and mitigation for such damages or by obtaining a coastal development permit authorizing the development after the fact with any necessary mitigation,” Chang wrote.
“We are currently working closely with the California Coastal Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine the next steps,” Huffman said.
Unpermitted development in the coastal zone is not uncommon. The Argonaut reported in 2009 that much of the street furniture that has been installed on Venice streets did not receive Costal Commission permits and some did not have city permits as well.
And a billboard at the corner of Venice and Washington boulevards several years ago was removed after it was learned that the outdoor advertising company did not have coastal permits for the billboard.
Fish and Wildlife authorities said their primary goal was to do whatever is best for the environment and the ecological reserve.
“We look forward to resolving this issue in a way that is most conducive to healthy wetlands,” Traverso said.
Gary@ArgonautNews.com
3 Comments
Leave a reply
For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website at https://argonautnews.com/privacy-policy/
By clicking to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp’s privacy practices here.
You seem to be an apologist for the drains and should read the letters to your paper from last week, rather than mindlessly quoting David Kay’s letter – here are my comments posted last week in the Argonaut:
Another View of Ballona Wetland Drains
(Response to Letter by David Kay posted July 24, 2013)
As a professional restoration ecologist, I want to respond to David Kay’s letter (posted July 24, 2013) concerning removing the drainage system recently discovered at Ballona wetlands in Area B (Argonaut, July 18, 2013). The presence of the drains is curious, and rather than taking a stand about whether they should be removed or not, first I would suggest we find out the following: 1) the extent and intended purpose of the drainage system; 2) how the drainage system actually functions, including the effect on all the wetland areas, not just the created, managed freshwater marsh; 3) what effect removal of the drainage system would have on the Ballona wetlands; and finally, 4) whether the presence of the drainage system affects the baseline hydrology and vegetation studies already completed to inform the proposed Ballona wetland restoration plan.
Mr. Kay seems to feel that a ‘properly functioning wetland’ needs to ‘enjoy twice daily tidal action’. This may be true for an open tidal system but is not necessary for all coastal wetlands. Mr. Kay’s view is in apparent contradiction of the historic condition of the Ballona wetlands before major impacts by humans. The data gathered for the Historical Ecology of the Ballona Creek Watershed (Dark et al. 2011) suggests that before a jetty was constructed to open it to the ocean in the late 1800s, the Ballona wetlands (called Ballona Lagoon in the study) had only moderate or no tidal influence and was dominated by freshwater inputs from the watershed. Tidal connection was only accomplished in high rainfall years when the sand dune that separated the lagoon from the ocean was opened. Herbarium records cited in this study reveal species from fresh to brackish marsh with some salt marsh species, but no species that would be found in perennially open tidal wetlands.
I am not sure what Mr. Kay means by the state restoration plan ‘correctly’ reshaping the Ballona topography. So far the preferred alternatives for the Ballona wetlands restoration that I have seen show perennially open tidal wetlands. If using historic ecology records as a guide, the planned reshaping of the Ballona topography is not correct. I would like to see a plan to restore the Ballona wetlands that is appropriate to the current conditions, and in as much is possible to the historic conditions. Such a plan would establish sustainable and resilient habitats that would likely require far less initial disturbance to establish and likely less management over time.
Mr. Kay states in his letter that removing the drains ‘could cause long-term freshwater “drowning” of the wetland’s salt-tolerant flora and fauna’ in high rainfall years. This implies he knows the purpose of the drains. Based on the original report in the Argonaut and Mr. Kay’s letter, the drains could be for flood control. Or, might they be protection against saltwater intrusion into the freshwater marsh or other parts of the Playa Vista development? It is hard to know without more information on the drainage system.
However, Mr. Kay worries that removing the drains will eliminate the salt marsh plants. First, this implies that the drainage system is really important to the Ballona wetlands, which at this point we do not know. And second, in my experience establishing salt marsh and brackish marsh habitat, many salt adapted plant species’ seeds germinate in years of high rainfall and greater freshwater input. Natural systems are not static. While prolonged (over several seasons) freshwater in a brackish or salt marsh may cause changes in vegetation over portions of a wetland, a return to previous, normal rainfall conditions will result in salt tolerant species expanding with some tidal influence.
By way of background, my own wetland restoration experience ranges from establishing coastal saltmarsh with twice daily tidal action to establishing inland alkali meadows on soils far saltier than the ocean, including both unmanaged systems and highly managed systems. At Ballona in 1990/91, I completed an initial analysis of water requirements for the riparian and marsh vegetation for the riparian corridor east of Lincoln and freshwater marsh west of Lincoln for the Playa Vista development.
I hope that the California Coastal Commission staff asks for more information on the drainage system before any decision is made for removal. And, until the effects of this drainage system can be determined, the baseline hydrology and vegetation studies for the Ballona wetlands restoration will be incomplete and inadequate to plan a sustainable wetland restoration.
Sincerely,
Margot Griswold, Ph.D.
Restoration Ecologist
When the Freshwater Marsh was first built, there were Open Houses for visitors. At that time, it was clearly mentioned that there were a couple of drains just beyond the perimeter of the marsh to carry overflow (in case of very severe storms) to Ballona Creek. Are these the drains in question? If so, they were never a secret, so why the fuss now?
It appears these are not the same drains if the Coastal Commission staff did not know about them. They may not be the same drains as at the perimeter of the freshwater marsh. I am simply responding to all the conjecture about what the drains are planned to do, if they function as planned, and what is the effect on the wetland. If these ‘mystery’ (apparently un-permitted drains) are the drains you speak of and they were indeed planned for, then these questions are easily answered.