The Brief

Your children could be some of a growing number of California kids having their writing graded by software instead of a teacher.

California school districts are signing more contracts for artificial intelligence tools, from automated grading in San Diego to chatbots in central California, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay Area.

English teachers say AI tools can help them grade papers faster, get students more feedback, and improve their learning experience. But guidelines are vague and adoption by teachers and districts is spotty.

The California Department of Education can’t tell you which schools use AI or how much they pay for it. The state doesn’t track AI use by school districts, said Katherine Goyette, computer science coordinator for the California Department of Education.

While Goyette said chatbots are the most common form of AI she’s encountered in schools, more and more California teachers are using AI tools to help grade student work. That’s consistent with surveys that have found teachers use AI as often if not more than students, news that contrasts sharply with headlines about fears of students cheating with AI.

Teachers use AI to do things like personalize reading material, create lesson plans, and other tasks in order to save time and and reduce burnout. A report issued last fall in response to an AI executive order by Gov. Gavin Newsom mentions opportunities to use AI for tutoring, summarization, and personalized content generation, but also labels education a risky use case. Generative AI tools have been known to create convincing but inaccurate answers to questions, and use toxic language or imagery laden with racism or sexism.

California issued guidance for how educators should use the technology last fall, one of seven states to do so. It encourages critical analysis of text and imagery created by AI models and conversations between teachers and students about what amounts to ethical or appropriate use of AI in the classroom.

But no specific mention is made of how teachers should treat AI that grades assignments. Additionally, the California education code states that guidance from the state is “merely exemplary, and that compliance with the guidelines is not mandatory.”

English teacher Jen Roberts uses Writeable, an AI platform, to grade students’ work at Point Loma High School in San Diego on May 3, 2024.

(

Adriana Heldiz

/

CalMatters

)

Goyette said she’s waiting to see if the California Legislature passes Senate Bill 1288, which would require state Superintendent Tony Thurmond to create an AI working group to issue further guidance to local school districts on how to safely use AI. Cosponsored by Thurmond, the bill also calls for an assessment of the current state of AI in education and for the identification of forms of AI that can harm students and educators by 2026.

Nobody tracks what AI tools school districts are adopting or the policy they use to enforce standards, said Alix Gallagher, head of strategic partnerships at the Policy Analysis for California Education center at Stanford University. Since the state does not track curriculum that school districts adopt or software in use, it would be highly unusual for them to track AI contracts, she said.

Amid AI hype, Gallagher thinks people can lose sight of the fact that the technology is just a tool and it will only be as good or problematic as the decisions of the humans using that tool, which is why she repeatedly urges investments in helping teachers understand AI tools and how to be thoughtful about their use and making space for communities are given voice about how to best meet their kid’s needs.

“Some people will probably make some pretty bad decisions that are not in the best interests of kids, and some other people might find ways to use maybe even the same tools to enrich student experiences,” she said.

Teachers use AI to grade English papers

Last summer, Jen Roberts, an English teacher at Point Loma High School in San Diego, went to a training session to learn how to use Writable, an AI tool that automates grading writing assignments and gives students feedback powered by OpenAI. For the past school year, Roberts used Writable and other AI tools in the classroom, and she said it’s been the best year yet of nearly three decades of teaching. Roberts said it has made her students better writers, not because AI did the writing for them, but because automated feedback can tell her students faster than she can how to improve, which in turn allows her to hand out more writing assignments.

“At this point last year, a lot of students were still struggling to write a paragraph, let alone an essay with evidence and claims and reasoning and explanation and elaboration and all of that,” Roberts said. “This year, they’re just getting there faster.”

Roberts feels Writable is “very accurate” when grading her students of average aptitude. But, she said, there’s a downside: It sometimes assigns high-performing students lower grades than merited and struggling students higher grades. She said she routinely checks answers when the AI grades assignments, but only checks the feedback it gives students occasionally.

“In actual practicality, I do not look at the feedback it gives every single student,” she said. “That’s just not a great use of my time. But I do a lot of spot checking and I see what’s going on and if I see a student that I’m worried about get feedback, (I’m like) ‘Let me go look at what his feedback is and then go talk to him about that.’”

First: A student uses Magic School, an AI platform, to help generate ideas for a classroom writing prompt. Last: A student reads their writing out loud. Point Loma High School in San Diego on May 3, 2024.

(

Adriana Heldiz

/

CalMatters

)

Alex Rainey teaches English to fourth graders at Chico Country Day School in northern California. She used GPT-4, a language model made by OpenAI which costs $20 a month, to grade papers and provide feedback. After uploading her grading rubric and examples of her written feedback, she used AI to grade assignments about animal defense mechanisms, allowing GPT-4 to analyze students’ grammar and sentence structure while she focused on assessing creativity.

“I feel like the feedback it gave was very similar to how I grade my kids, like my brain was tapped into it,” she said.

Like Roberts she found that it saves time, transforming work that took hours into less than an hour, but also found that sometimes GPT-4 is a tougher grader than she is. She agrees that quicker feedback and the ability to dole out more writing assignments produces better writers. A teacher can assign more writing before delivering feedback but “then kids have nothing to grow from.”

Rainey said her experience grading with GPT-4 left her in agreement with Roberts, that more feedback and writing more often produces better writers. She feels strongly that teachers still need to oversee grading and feedback by AI, “but I think it’s amazing. I couldn’t go backwards now.”

The cost of using AI in the classroom

Contracts involving artificial intelligence can be lucrative.

To launch a chatbot named Ed, Los Angeles Unified School District signed a $6.2 million contract for two years with the option of renewing for three additional years. Magic School AI is used by educators in Los Angeles and costs $100 per teacher per year.

Despite repeated calls and emails over the span of roughly a month, Writable and the San Diego Unified School District declined to share pricing details with CalMatters. A district spokesperson said teachers got access to Writeable through a contract with Houghton Mifflin Harcourt for English language learners.

QuillBot is an AI-powered writing tool for students in grades 4-12 made by the company Quill. Quill says its tool is currently used at 1,000 schools in California and has more than 13,000 student and educator users in San Diego alone. An annual Quill Premium subscription costs $80 per teacher or $1800 per school.

QuillBot does not generate writing for students like ChatGPT or grade writing assignments, but gives students feedback on their writing. Quill is a nonprofit that’s raised $20 million from groups like Google’s charitable foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation over the past 10 years.

English teacher Jen Roberts explains to her students how she uses Magic School, an AI platform, for classroom exercises and grading at Point Loma High School in San Diego on May 3, 2024.

(

Adriana Heldiz

/

CalMatters

)

Even if a teacher or district wants to shell out for an AI tool, guidance for safe and responsible use is still getting worked out.

Governments are placing high-risk labels on forms of AI with the power to make critical decisions about whether a person gets a job or rents an apartment or receives government benefits. California Federation of Teachers President Jeff Freitas said he hasn’t considered whether AI for grading is moderate or high risk, but “it definitely is a risk to use for grading.”

The California Federation of Teachers is a union with 120,000 members. Freitas told CalMatters he’s concerned about AI having a number of consequences in the classroom. He’s worried administrators may use it to justify increasing classroom sizes or adding to teacher workloads; he’s worried about climate change and the amount of energy needed to train and deploy AI models’ he’s worried about protecting students’ privacy, and he’s worried about automation bias.

Regulators around the world wrestling with AI praise approaches where it is used to augment human decision-making instead of replacing it. But it’s difficult for laws to account for automation bias and humans becoming placing too much trust in machines.

The American Federation of Teachers created an AI working group in October 2023 to propose guidance on how educators should use the technology or talk about it in collective bargaining contract negotiations. Freitas said those guidelines are due out in the coming weeks.

“We’re trying to provide guidelines for educators to not solely rely on (AI), he said. “It should be used as a tool, and you should not lose your critical analysis of what it’s producing for you.”

State AI guidelines for teachers

Goyette, the computer science coordinator for the education department, helped create state AI guidelines and speaks to county offices of education for in-person training on AI for educators. She also helped create an online AI training series for educators. She said the most popular online course is about workflow and efficiency, which shows teachers how to automate lesson planning and grading.

“Teachers have an incredibly important and tough job, and what’s most important is that they’re building relationships with their students,” she said. “There’s decades of research that speaks to the power of that, so if they can save time on mundane tasks so that they can spend more time with their students, that’s a win.”

English teacher Jen Roberts checks her student’s work at Point Loma High School in San Diego on May 3, 2024. Roberts uses AI platforms for classroom exercises and grading. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters

(

Adriana Heldiz

/

CalMatters

)

Alex Kotran, chief executive of an education nonprofit that’s supported by Google and OpenAI, said they found that it’s hard to design a language model to predictably match how a teacher grades papers.

He spoke with teachers willing to accept a model that’s accurate 80% of the time in order to reap the reward of time saved, but he thinks it’s probably safe to say that a student or parent would want to make sure an AI model used for grading is even more accurate.

Kotran of the AI Education Project thinks it makes sense for school districts to adopt a policy that says teachers should be wary any time they use AI tools that can have disparate effects on student’s lives.

Even with such a policy, teachers can still fall victim to trusting AI without question. And even if the state kept track of AI used by school districts, there’s still the possibility that teachers will purchase technology for use on their personal computers.

When teachers can’t tell if they’re cheating

Kotran said he routinely speaks with educators across the U.S. and is not aware of any systematic studies to verify the effectiveness and consistency of AI for grading English papers.

Roberts, the Point Loma High School teacher, describes herself as pro technology.

She regularly writes and speaks about AI. Her experiences have led her to the opinion that grading with AI is what’s best for her students, but she didn’t arrive at that conclusion easily.

At first she questioned whether using AI for grading and feedback could hurt her understanding of her students. Today she views using AI like the cross-country coach who rides alongside student athletes in a golf cart, like an aid that helps her assist her students better.

A student scrolls through their laptop during class at Point Loma High School in San Diego on May 3, 2024.

(

Adriana Heldiz

/

CalMatters

)

Roberts says the average high school English teacher in her district has roughly 180 students. Grading and feedback can take between five to 10 minutes per assignment she says, so between teaching, meetings, and other duties, it can take two to three weeks to get feedback back into the hands of students unless a teacher decides to give up large chunks of their weekends. With AI, it takes Roberts a day or two.

Ultimately she concluded that “if my students are growing as writers, then I don’t think I’m cheating.” She says AI reduces her fatigue, giving her more time to focus on struggling students and giving them more detailed feedback.

“My job is to make sure you grow, and that you’re a healthy, happy, literate adult by the time you graduate from high school, and I will use any tool that helps me do that, and I’m not going to get hung up on the moral aspects of that,” she said. “My job is not to spend every Saturday reading essays. Way too many English teachers work way too many hours a week because they are grading students the old-fashioned way.”

Roberts also thinks AI might be a less biased grader in some instances than human teachers who can adjust their grading for students sometimes to give them the benefit of the doubt or be punitive if they were particularly annoying in class recently.

She isn’t worried about students cheating with AI, a concern she characterizes as a moral panic. She points to a Stanford University study released last fall which found that students cheated just as much before the advent of ChatGPT as they did a year after the release of the AI.

Goyette said she understands why students question whether some AI use by teachers is like cheating. Education department AI guidelines encourage teachers and students to use the technology more. What’s essential, Goyette said, is that teachers discuss what ethical use of AI looks like in their classroom, and convey that — like using a calculator in math class — using AI is accepted or encouraged for some assignments and not others.

For the last assignment of the year, Robers has one final experiment to run: Edit an essay written entirely by AI. But they must change at least 50% of the text, make it 25% longer, write their own thesis, and add quotes from classroom reading material. The idea, she said, is to prepare them for a future where AI writes the first draft and humans edit the results to fit their needs.

“It used to be you weren’t allowed to bring a calculator into the SATs and now you’re supposed to bring your calculator so things change,” she said. “It’s just moral panic. Things change and people freak out and that’s what’s happening.”

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Lineage Logistics walked back its report that it had removed more than 100% of food waste from its burned Boyle Heights warehouse, acknowledging the figure misled residents about how much rotting food remains inside. 

The company also pushed back its timeline for when it would finish food removal until Aug. 30, about a week behind the deadlines required by a South Coast Air Quality Management District order from earlier this month. That could open the company up to fines, though AQMD didn’t immediately respond to The LA Local about what consequences Lineage would face.

Lineage last week reported through a community update that it had removed 104% of the rancid food waste from the warehouse, a figure that confused many residents because cleanup was not complete. A company spokesperson admitted that the percentage was misleading for residents who have voiced their frustration about putrid air, the health hazards of living near the facility and confusion about how long the cleanup will take.

Lineage Logistics walked back its report that it had removed more than 100% of food waste from its burned Boyle Heights warehouse, acknowledging the figure misled residents about how much rotting food remains inside.

In a community update on Sunday, Aug. 23, Lineage said that Freezer 2 has been demolished and all food waste removed, and that Freezer 1, the remaining room, is 92% clean of food waste.

“Our prior reporting percentages tied weight removed from the building relative to our estimates of total food weight at the time of the fire,” reads a statement from Lineage. “That approach produced figures greater than 100% in our reporting this week, potentially creating the misimpression that food removal waste was complete when it is not.”

It added that moving forward, the company would measure 100% cleanup when “food waste removal is fully done.”

The revised calculations for cleanup completion come after questions from residents and reporting by The LA Local and Boyle Heights Beat about how Lineage has been reporting its progress and how that progress is being verified by public officials.

The cleanup progress has been largely based on the company’s estimates.

The LA Local obtained a copy of the daily reports Lineage is required to send to AQMD, showing that the company reports to the oversight agency the number of waste bins of food they remove each day and estimates the pounds of food they contain.

The company has already missed multiple deadlines.

Lineage failed to meet the Aug. 20 deadline for bulk food cleanup established by the order it agreed to with AQMD. There is a second approaching deadline, disinfecting the remaining freezer facility after all the food is removed, which is scheduled for Aug. 27.

AQMD did not immediately respond to The LA Local’s inquiries about what consequences Lineage faces for violating that order.

Lineage also missed a 45-day cleanup deadline on Aug. 14 that Mayor Karen Bass imposed in early July. Bass said the city could pursue a civil suit against the company. 

Lineage said that it expects to spend about $100 million on cleanup, and stressed that it has been working diligently to remove the food and damaged materials from the remaining freezer room.

“We are not pausing, slowing, or reducing our work in any way. If anything, this final stretch demands more focused effort, not less urgency, and we are treating it that way,” the press release reads.

Southern California firefighters and emergency preparedness groups are praising new statewide rules for homes in fire-prone areas.

They’re also raising concerns about the burden they say will fall on homeowners.

The California Board of Forestry and Fire Prevention voted last week to adopt the rules after years of debate, delays and missed deadlines. They are the strictest rules in the country for home fire mitigation.

They will apply to almost 2 million homes across California in areas that CalFire designates as having some of the highest fire risk, defined as State Responsibility Areas and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

That applies to large swaths of Los Angeles and Orange counties.

Zone Zero details

The rules regulate what can be within 5 feet of a home, an area known as Zone Zero. They prohibit any plants within at least the first foot from the home — or farther, depending on the size of a structure’s eaves. Then, within the first 5 feet, no combustible material is allowed, including dead leaves and branches, mulch, woodchips and firewood.

Other new rules ban wooden fences that are attached to houses and wooden sheds within Zone Zero. Local fire authorities will be responsible for enforcement and have some flexibility to tailor the rules to specific communities.

Once the rules are formally adopted next month, Californians with existing homes will have five years to comply. New construction projects will have to comply immediately.

A public comment period on the new rules is open until Sept. 2.

Tough, but necessary

Fire safety groups acknowledge the necessity of rules and the burdens they will likely place on property owners.

“We're a supporter of actions that help move the needle forward toward resiliency. That's what this does,” said Brent Woodworth, chief executive of the Los Angeles Emergency Preparedness Foundation, a leading advocacy group for disaster preparedness.

The organization also independently assesses homes for wildfire risk and resiliency at homeowners’ request, primarily in communities in and around the Santa Monica Mountains.

Woodworth sees the new rules as a reasonable approach to better protect homes and communities from disastrous blazes, especially after the devastation wrought by the Palisades and Eaton fires.

He hopes it will help create a culture in Southern California that embraces fire mitigation.

But he knows the new rules likely won’t be welcomed by everyone.

“ It's going to take a lot to convince people to do this,” Woodworth said. “But this is a pretty decent start to try to get this culture shift going.”

CalFire started the rule-making process in 2020, and some homeowners have been pushing back ever since. Some feel it’s an overreach of their property rights or may just not want to see their gardens changed. Others are worried about the financial burden of removing vegetation, trees or wooden fences.

“There was such shock in the community from folks about how much work and what it's going to cost them to do. This is a huge burden on many people,” said James Grasso, president of the Topanga Coalition for Emergency Preparedness, a volunteer group serving Topanga, Malibu and surrounding areas.

Grasso said that’s particularly true in Topanga, where many homes are built in and around countless oak trees. He called for more incentives, grants or other financial assistance to help people cover mitigation work.

Overall, though, Grasso thinks the approved rules are a good compromise. The state originally proposed banning all vegetation within Zone Zero. He pointed to the gradual implementation timeline and the decision to allow some plants within 5 feet of homes.

He also hopes localized enforcement will allow for some flexibility that will accommodate Southern California communities' varied needs.

For firefighters, mitigation makes a difference

Local fire departments in charge of enforcing the new rules, and responsible for putting out fires once they start, emphasized the need for the changes.

Juan Huerta, a fire marshal with the Orange County Fire Authority, said less combustible material in Zone Zero helps keep blazes more contained and easier for firefighters to manage by making it harder for houses to catch fire.

A recent study from UC Berkeley found the more defensible space around a structure, the higher chance it has of surviving a fire.

 ”When you're talking about these embers that potentially ignite homes that much farther away, we don't necessarily always have the same resources in those areas,” Huerta said.  ”The goal is to help eliminate another variable.”

He urged homeowners to consider implementing other mitigation tools, too, including fire-resistant cladding for homes or mesh that prevents embers from entering vents.

He is sympathetic to peoples’ concerns over the changes, especially the costs, and wants to help the public to understand why the measures are necessary.

“ We will be working with the residents, providing as much education and outreach as we can to help everyone really understand what the requirements are, but also why it's important,” he said.

Huerta’s team is already inspecting properties in at-risk areas of Orange County.

If a home is non-compliant, they will issue a violation notice and follow up until the problem is resolved.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Wildfires once ran on deadlines.

After a series of catastrophic blazes in the early 20th century, the U.S. Forest Service sought to show it was able to control and protect forests under its care. In 1933, the agency mandated the “10 a.m. rule,” declaring that any wildland fire should be extinguished by 10 a.m. the day after it was reported.

Snuffing all fires quickly, the agency reasoned, would prevent disasters like the Big Burn of 1910. That incident scorched more than 3 million acres along the Montana-Idaho border during a 36-hour rampage, killing at least 85 people and destroying five towns.

Unlike earthquakes or tornadoes, wildfires have weaknesses. We can suppress flames with water or retardant chemicals. Wildland fire crews remove fuels with hand tools and bulldozers. Sometimes they use tactical burnouts — literally fighting fire with fire.

These tools can obscure crucial facts about wildfire and reinforce strategies that can backfire.

Tales of heroism following the Big Burn established the Forest Service as a necessary government service. As New York Times reporter Tim Egan put it, “To this day, I think that agency owes its existence to this fire.”

But Egan also described the consequences of that successful effort to control wildfire: “Actively trying to put out every fire left a lot of standing dead timber. So some of the big fires we had in the latter 20th century, including the Yellowstone fires of 1988 and some of the Idaho fires of the late 1990s, and fires still to come, are the result of having timber that probably should have burned every now and then during the seasonal fires.”

Rocky Mountain Research Station scientist David Calkin described the phenomenon as the “Wildfire Paradox” in a 2013 article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Using wildfire suppression to eliminate large and damaging wildfires ensures the inevitable occurrence of these fires,” Calkin wrote. “Wildfire suppression, effective 95% to 98% of the time, inevitably leads to ecologically significant wildfires with higher intensities and rapid growth that are unable to be suppressed.”

Fire researchers began to notice the paradox in the 1960s, and began implementing “let burn” strategies in remote forests to reduce those fuel loads. The Forest Service modified the “10 a.m. rule” in 1971 to allow some fires to burn, and officially abandoned the policy in 1978.

Over the following decades, wildfire managers adapted to a changing climate, shifting public opinion and funding challenges.

A mid-century moist period began drying out toward the tail of the 20^th century. The 1988 fires in and around Yellowstone National Park burned 1.4 million acres in one of America’s best-known landscapes. Colorado’s South Canyon fire in 1994 killed 14 wildland firefighters and prompted major federal fire policy reviews.

One of the most consequential shifts was the growing focus on the wildland-urban interface, or WUI — the increasing overlap between private homes and fire-prone landscapes.

Several record-breaking fire seasons in the early 2000s made federal budget watchers aware that the Forest Service was spending more to fight fire than almost anything else in its mission, and frequently didn’t have enough funding to do so. In 2017, federal wildfire suppression costs topped $2 billion — six times as much as was spent in the 1990s.

The year 2018 produced one of the worst wildfire seasons in history and included the Camp Fire, which killed more than 80 people in and around Paradise, Calif.

More recently, political pressure for a more aggressive response to wildfire has renewed fire suppression.

Last June, President Donald Trump issued an executive order “Empowering Commonsense Wildfire Prevention and Response,” which in its first sentence declared “The devastation of the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires shocked the American people and highlighted the catastrophic consequences when State and local governments are unable to quickly respond to such disasters.” 

Draft versions of the policy included a return to the 10 a.m. rule, according to numerous sources in the wildfire community.

“No one was dumb enough to use 10 a.m. policy language, but there was fear of a fire getting away,” said Bobbie Scopa, a 45-year firefighting veteran who worked at the local, state and federal levels and now is vice president of the advocacy group Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.

“Anytime you light a fire or purposefully don’t put out a fire, you own it and you own every bad thing that can happen. You’re taking a risk when you do that,” Scopa said.

Draft versions of the Fix Our Forests Act also included a call for full suppression of all wildfires.

Matt Weiner, CEO of the advocacy group Megafire Action, said putting that into law would have had dangerous consequences.

“We were able to get that out of it,” Weiner said. “And long-term, we will push aggressively against the 10 a.m. rule being included in statute anywhere. We don’t want to just create a suppression super-agency. We want a system that recognizes the need for a lot more beneficial fire on the landscape.”

Nevertheless, at a July 22 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz told members of Congress his agency remained committed to prioritizing aggressive initial attack on wildfire this year.

“Keeping fire small protects firefighters, communities and also saves funding,” Schultz said. “I assure you every fire has a full-suppression strategy.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

With the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing opening to the animal world in about 100 days, officials are announcing ways for humans to also mark the milestone.

There will be a community festival at King Gillette Ranch in Calabasas on Dec. 2, as well as a ribbon cutting ceremony at the crossing that will be broadcast live to the public.

According to officials, the wildlife crossing will be the largest of its kind in the world, reconnecting habitat for Southern California mountain lions, bobcats, deer, bats, birds and other animals — big and small.

Here’s what you need to know.

About the grand opening events

The festival at King Gillette Ranch will include exhibits, music and special guests, according to organizers. The ribbon cutting will be played live on a large screen with visitors invited to cut their own ribbon through a virtual display.

Ticket donations are required to get in and will go toward the National Wildlife Federation’s #SaveLACougars campaign.

• When: 11:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Dec. 2
• Tickets: $5 for children 12 and under, $10 for everyone else
  
  • You can buy them here
  • Schools and other groups may be eligible for discount pricing or scholarships. You can learn more by emailing: lgill@wildlifecrossingfund.org

A rendering of what the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing will look like once construction is complete.

(

National Wildlife Federation and Living Habitats

)

Officials with the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing announced that SoCal animals will be able to traverse the crossing as of Dec. 2, 2026.

(

Destiny Torres

/

LAist

)

Project partners, including members of its plant nursery team, posing for a picture with installed native plants on the wildlife crossing.

(

Makenna Cramer

/

LAist

)

A stuffed mountain lion plush in front of where the first native plants were placed.

(

Makenna Cramer

/

LAist

)

Beth Pratt (right), leader of the Save LA Cougars campaign, placing a native plant with a member of the nursery team.

(

Makenna Cramer

/

LAist

)

The native plants that are installed on the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing include dozens of distinct species sourced from within a five-mile radius of the structure in the Santa Monica Mountains.

(

Courtesy of the #SaveLACougars campaign

)

The view from near the top of the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing in March 2025.

(

Makenna Cramer

/

LAist

)

There will be a private reception and fundraising event after the ribbon cutting for donors and sponsors. The event will support the National Wildlife Federation and the Wildlife Crossing Fund.

• When: 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Dec. 2 
• Where: Agoura Hills
• How it works: There are different gift levels inspired by animals, such as the “Monarch Butterfly” starting at $10,000, which will get two guests into the reception and a group tour of the crossing.
  
  • You can learn more here

Details on how to tune in to the ribbon cutting ceremony online have not been shared yet.

Collin O'Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, said the crossing is a profound testament to what’s possible when people refuse to accept the fragmentation of the natural world.

“When we cut this ribbon, we will not just celebrate a single bridge — we will be celebrating a global movement to restore wildlife connectivity,” he said in a statement.

You can keep an eye on the crossing's progress through three livestream cameras here.

Listen to our podcast