Comments on: Creekfreak’s agenda for Mark Ridley-Thomas, part I

By: Jessica Hall

Jessica Hall — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:20:18 +0000

Ecology – the exchange of water, sun, earth, air, nutrients etc – is very much behind Alternative 5. Restoration of the hydrological processes is essential for wetland function. The levees are not a natural condition, they are not an ecological condition, they are a manmade flood control structure. That there are habitats that have adapted to the current, altered hydrology of the site is indisputable and a point of concern; however, I question calling any approach that maintains the levees ecologically-driven, when in fact the levees prevent naturally-occurring interactions from happening.

By: Marcia Hanscom

Marcia Hanscom — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:38:36 +0000

Your ideas for Mark Ridley-Thomas to support are good ones – EXCEPT for the Ballona Wetlands “restoration” plan.

What is restoration? It is not planning by engineers and landscape architects. These professions can be very helpful, but ECOLOGY is needed to drive a restoration process.

Alternatives “4 & 5″ have not “floated to the top” of the list of the stakeholders who saved this land, nor even those who have attended working group meetings during this long-drawn-out, expensive planning process which has not even begun with a baseline survey of species.

There is nothing in the current plans being promoted by the Army Corps of Engineers and the State Coastal Conservancy which would “restore” Ballona.

By: Danny

Danny — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:00:51 +0000

He was the best candidate by far!!! Congrats! Stream Host Stream Host