HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem JAGENDA REPORT
DATE: February 11, 2002
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Douglas A. Dancs, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT AND FINAL
TRACT MAP # 15402 - HELLMAN PROPERTIES, LLC
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
It is requested that the City Council find that the Subdivision Agreement for Tract 15402 meets
City requirements, approve the Subdivision Agreement, find that Tract Map 15402 is in
substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative tract map, approve Tract Map
15402 as presented, instruct the City Engineer and City Clerk to execute said Tract Map as
required and have the subdivision agreement executed by the Mayor.
BACKGROUND:
On October 20, 1997, a tentative map of the proposed subdivision fronting on the westerly side of
Seal Beach Blvd. at Forrestal Drive was approved subject to Subdivision Laws, City Municipal
Code, and to the requirements and conditions contained in Seal Beach City Council Resolution No.
4571. City Council Resolution No. 4755 adopted October 11, 1999, approved a 3 -year extension of
the Tract Map 15402. The approved Tentative Tract Map 15402, established the residential
development for the subdivision of the property into seventy (70) residential lots, along with
requiring the dedication of Gum Grove Park and adjacent property for park purposes adjacent to
Gum Grove Park with access to Seal Beach Blvd., the offsite development of street improvements
on Seal Beach Blvd., the development of landscaping fronting the subdivision along Seal Beach
Blvd., the offsite development of a drainage system and bio -swale and retention basin, and the
construction of a sewer pump station. The subdivision will be a private gated community, however
the City of Seal Beach will maintain the sewer system, the sewer pump station, and the water
system.
Approval of the Final Tract Map will formally create the subject lots, and will allow the lots to be
sold in accordance with the terms and conditions of Tract Map 15402. In accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act, the subdivider has been conditioned to construct water lines, sewer lines,
drainage system, and street frontage improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees,
pavement, and underground utilities. The subdivider has agreed to these conditions and has
provided improvement plans for the construction of these improvements. The subdivider has agreed
to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement which ensures the construction of said
improvements using bonds issued by an approved surety company. The subdivider has executed the
Agenda Item
Subdivision Agreement and has provided the appropriate bonds to secure the subdivision
improvements in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. City staff and the subdivider are
currently working to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD), which will also secure the
required public improvements already secured by the subdivision bonds. When the CFD is
established those bonds or portions of bonds that duplicate the CFD may be released and the CFD
substituted in their place.
The subdivider is required, and has agreed, to establish "Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions" for the
subdivision and to establish a homeowners association that will maintain the private streets, on and
offsite storm drain systems, offsite bio -swale and retention basin, and on and offsite landscaping.
The Final Tract Map has been reviewed and approved by the County of Orange Public Facilities &
Resources Department for compliance with all required Subdivision Map Act requirements and by
the City Engineer and Director of Development Services for compliance with all conditions of
approval of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Development and Tentative Tract Map 15402, and it
is appropriate for the City Council to approve Tract Map 15402 as presented and execute the
subdivision agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact. All costs will be paid or reimbursed by the developer. Appropriate plan check
and building permit fees will be charged as costs are incurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
Find that the Subdivision Agreement for Tract 15402 meets City requirements, approve
the Subdivision Agreement, find that Tract Map 15402 is in substantial compliance with
the previously approved tentative tract map, approve Tract Map 15402 as presented,
instruct the City Engineer and City Clerk to execute said Tract Map as required and have
the subdivision agreement executed by the Mayor
i
e Whittenberg,
irector of Development Setwes
Douglas A. Dancs, P.E.,
Director of Public Works /City Engineer
Agenda Item
5f7�TNV`.
SS
E\�
T
Pam 04ro
______ - -,yq, Ob' 8=169.00.
\F \6
\3
� \6
\\ \11
S
W
6
1
R www w
wn awc
+p
e
R0pT\
18 P19 21 '
o
F\
G
`y.x RTD ry
6)
10
2f ��.� 1\WD PFC
FF
%5
k10 ppt _ _
FS
I
�
�I
q
Pam 04ro
______ - -,yq, Ob' 8=169.00.
\F \6
\3
� \6
\\ \11
S
H
W
6
1
e
R0pT\
18 P19 21 '
H
�9�
1
e
R0pT\
18 P19 21 '
i
o
`y.x RTD ry
6)
10
2f ��.� 1\WD PFC
�
�I
q
62
d1
0, `:
10,,
a
y
5
�`
L450,95-
isle'os- E
ER PARM�
DESIGNATED RFIIIdRO
�9�
June 17, 2002
Ms. Vivian Fernandez
Project Coordinator
John Laing Homes
895 Dove Street, Suite 110
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Ms. Fernandez,
Pursuant to your request, returned herewith are the
following original documents relating to the Heron Pointe
development, Tract 15402, in the City of Seal Beach:
* Subdivision Faithful Performance Bond
Tract No. 15402 — Bond No. 422012 —
$3,995,000.00 (Seaboard Surety)
* Subdivision Labor and Materials Bond
Tract No. 15402 — Bond No. 422012 —
$3,995,000.00 (Seaboard Surety)
* Subdivision Warranty Bond — Tract No.
15402 - $998,750.00 (Seaboard Surety)
* Subdivision Monument Bond — Tract No.
15402 — Bond No. 422013 - $27,000
This is to acknowledge that the above Bonds have been
replaced by the following:
* Subdivision Faithful Performance Bond
Tract No. 15402 — Bond Number
3SM 046 199 00 - $3,995,000.00 (American
Motorists Insurance Company)
* Subdivision Labor and Materials Bond
Tract No. 15402 — Bond Number
3SM 046 199 00 - $3,995,000.00 (American
Motorists Insurance Company)
895 D.,, STREET
$,HTE 110
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 99660
TELI949 -476 -9090
PA11916_4169898
AX
JohnLamgHomes
Hand —fta Sin .. C&8
April 30, 2002
Mr. Mike Vukojevic
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
211 81h Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
RE: Heron Pointe — Tract 15402 - Faithful Performance Bond #422012
Dear Mike:
Please except this letter as request to release the above bond number to John Laing Homes.
Enclosed please find bond #3SM 046 199 00 to replace the previous bonds issued. The agent
issued the bonds for the wrong Surety Company.
Please call me if you have any questions at 949/265 -6857.
Sincerely,
Vivian Fernandez U
Project Coordinator
N Cc: Joanie Madrid — Project Manager
� John Laing Homes
�T
i ��S{ ,m'�`L'�
S Zvi 2 J
t�epl4�e �� +use
fftpJ l-
a1"
4/40
�0
t�
F
Subdivision warranty Bond — Tract No.
15402 — Bond Number 3SM 046 199 00 —
$998,750.00 (American Motorists Insurance
Company)
Subdivision Monument Bond — Tract No.
15402 — Bond Number 422013 - $27,000.00
(Seaboard Surety Company)
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
Encl.
Linda Devine
From:
Mark Vukojevic
Sent:
Monday, June 20, 2005 9:16 AM
To:
Linda Devine
Subject:
agreement copy
Linda, can you provide me with a signed copy of the Subdivision Agreement between the City and W L Homes (Hellman).
It went to City Council on Feb 11, 2002,
Thanks,
Mark
Mark Vukojevic, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Seal Beach
(562) 431 -2527 ext. 318
• • • •
LCG NU 'SP
AWFr-vecutive Express
1- 800 - 540 -0600 LONG BEACH
ORANGECO. BN:R)9 S'EM OGwo (3fi2)43]'Ofi�
BAN DIEGO CO.
(......S C LOB PNGELEB Co . (619) 280 -0009
LOS ANGELEB CA. (2r3) 272 -2086 ALPHOPgEO av
(310)550-9900
DATE
x
Please MaM Belaa'veree aireaW o, m wan m Dmsime.
Type Ot B I..s picxetl UP aM Cali N m,m ire'
❑ saemr. Pmaa9e -�c ma eD mp rd wn m em v m.
❑ sv9euL: Pazx xu ea a �'aa "D ma aww,aa wanm ewe uan.
Di wul ee aa�wa,•a�ne81;°a,ae me m�wwme aav
ONID n�mNa9a ,aaey�y rarspx�P OVSea P.m. w.
() wEm+mNr.ruxaeare � °W
O epO9TE. ".'row. eonven sereim.
Charge 10:� -!-��
r �'A
Add
Name --
Ciry
Address in liver T0:
c "y T�rLE
Addrese. IELEnsE SIGN LrGIeL +�
PELENEO
y --
p TUPN e1GNpTOPE
NOr
X pPPIEP:L 'i WPIiE1N
+S°pri BELOW
SPECIAL INBTRUCTIONS cEL. ON9r 1 - - - - --
_- 1 ry tl to E250_tl0.. Tne meu
otiryin9 ExmWlm ExD� lue
alacos�a152 mrStoO Ve
"Ow lleUililY gate �R aygetl Yyatl PW,aonb �m %0el veryoutmsume
um IWemn aweana,ein man�m e•awe'ii reazonao�s�nlw °� aelmen-
��n a, me ua,m w w am�w,aa
ecla�ea'm �Iliry. m eel Os,Y � 9^'e�ima o, lom amin9l,om
no Pons �
(
895 DOVE STREET
SUITE 110
NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660
ITE4 949 - 476 -9090
AXJ 916 -476 -9898
E1
JohnLaingHomes
H—d 11 -fild sine 4848
June 13, 2002
Ms. Joanne Yen
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
21186 Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
RE: Heron Pointe — Tract 15402 - Warranty and Monument Bond #422013
Dear Joanne:
Please except this letter as request to release the above bond number to John Laing Homes.
Enclosed please find bond #3SM 046 199 00 and #422013 to replace the previous bonds issued.
Please call me if you have any questions at 949/265 -6857.
Sincerely, UX
Vivian Feman z
Asst. Project Manager
Cc: Joanie Madrid — Project Manager
John Laing Homes
www.ioh.l.:..phe.e�..eom
* * * +w * + + *wwwwww -COMM. JOURNAL- *w + + + * + + + + + * * + * *w ++ DOTE JUN -14 -2002 * * * ** TIME 09 :41 *wrt A.01
MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION START= JUN -14 09 :39 END- JUN-14 09:41
FILE NO.- 027
STN NO. COM ABER NO. STATION NAME /TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION
001 OK a 912136260079 0031003 0001'07"
-CITY OF SEAL BEACH -
+ * * + * * +* +wrt * * +w *wwrtw *ww *www * *w *w *w *rt -SEAL BEACH CITY - * * *w* - 562 431 4067- *ww* *ww *rt
FAX TO:
FAX NUMBER: ate/ 120/'
r
FROM / RESPOND TO: C An
AGENCY /
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES:
COMMENTS: lier At LE
G /tr /LL /�Li1a .JEEP (A,.:'
�/9r1 azmF J u.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Fax Number: (562) 431 -4067
Telephone Number: (562) 411 -2527
r�<e:e�m surw e. ,�.:'.;:a w* r <m�,.e„ rkv+.wur wer eo- >m.��emkir e.�s� - -a, a,•e,A of m���:.w
Common Ground
from the Mountains to the Sea
SAN GABRIEL AND LOS ANGELES RIVERS
WATERSHED AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
2
Common Ground
from the Mountains to the Sea
October 2001
ERRATA
Page i4 opposite Contents:
Additional copies of this report are available. Please contact
Mary A. Angle, Executive Officer
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
900 South Fremont Avenue
Annex, Second Floor
Alhambra, CA 91802
Tel: (626) 458 -4315
Fax: (626) 458 -7353
Web: www. rmaca.gov
Page 35, Replace 3^t paragraph under Groundwater Management
Groundwater pumping in the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater basin began to exceed recharge rates
in the 1950's, leading to a lengthy legal battle that was settled in 1965 by entry of the Court
Judgement in a lawsuit fled on May 12, 1959 by parties in the Central Basin immediately downstream
from the Whittier Narrows on the San Gabriel River (Lower Area). That Judgement is administered
by a these- person Watermaster (the San Gabriel River Watermaster) which accounts for all water
passing through Whittier Narrows each yen and for credit and debit obligations.
Another lawsuit was filed on January 2, 1968, seeking the adjudication of all water rights in the Main
San Gabriel Basin. Those rights are mainly groundwater rights, although surface water rights in the
Basin were included. That Judgement was entered on January 4, 1973. It is administered by a nine -
person watermaster comprised of six water- producer members and three public water district
representatives. It is the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster which administers the rights to take
and use Main San Gabriel Basin water accounted for annually.
The water resources of the groundwater basins in the Upper Los Angeles River Area (ULARA) are
managed by an agreement made in 1973. This agreement balances the groundwater tights of the City
of Los Angeles with the upstream cities of Glendale and Burbank The ULARA Watermastet is
responsible for managing groundwater supplies and protecting groundwater quality.
COMMON GROUND
from the Mountains to the Sea
Watershed and Open Space Plan
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers
October 2001
Prepared by:
The California Resources Agency
San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
With the assistance of
EIP Associates
Arthur Golding & Associates
Montgomery Watson Harza
Oralia Michel Marketing & Public Relations
Garvey Communications
Tree People
t6Mk*jGa6uNb FA0mTlg M(xfWAIN5 Y6 THE SEA "!
L
APPENDICES
APhoto
Page
PREFACE....................................................................................................
............................... V
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ...........................................................................
............................... 1
MAJORPLAN ELEMENTS ........................................................................
............................... 9
1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................. ............................... 11
A. Int roduction ...............................................................................................
............................... 11
B. Historical Context ......................................................................................
............................... 11
C. Planning Cont est ........................................................................................
............................... 13
2. CURRENT CONDITIONS .................................................................
............................... 17
A. Physical Setting................. .... .............. .......................................................................................
18
B. Watershed Hydrology .................................................................................
............................... 19
C. Habitat .......................................................................................................
............................... 23
D. Open Space and Recmat ion ........................................................................
............................... 30
E. Water Supply ..............................................................................................
............................... 32
F. Water Quality .............................................................................................
............................... 36
G. Float Prot ection ........................................................................................
............................... 39
H. Regional Demographics ..............................................................................
............................... 42
3. A VISION FOR THE FUTURE ...........................................................
............................... 47
A. Vision ....................................................................................................
............................... I... 47
B. Guiding Principles ......................................................................................
............................... 47
C. St rategies ....................................................................... ...............................
....4........................50
1. Education ............................................................................................
........4...................... 50
2. Partnerships .........................................................................................
............................... 52
3. Funding .................................................................. ...............................
..........4..................53
4. Multiple - Objective Planning.......... . .................... . .......................
.......................................... 54
5. Managarnent of Public Lands ................................................................
............................... 55
6. Monitoring and Assessn-x!rt ..................................................................
............................... 56
D. Opport unit ies .............................................................................................
...............4............... 56
1. Land Acquisition, Connectivity, and Open Space .... ....4 ..........................
.................4444.......... 56
2. Public Access .......................................................................................
............................... 65
3. Native Plants and Wildlife ....................................................................
..4............................ 66
4. Water Resources ...................................................................................
....4.................4........ 70
E. Next Steps .................................................................................................
.4.......................4..... 73
1. Rivers and Mountains Conser vancy .......................... ...............................
.4....................4...44.73
2. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy .................... ...............................
.....4......................444 76
3. Other Agencies and Cities .....................................................................
......................4........ 76
APPENDICES
APhoto
Credits .............................................................................................
............................... 79
BAcronyrns
...................................................................................................
............................... 81
CGlossary
.....................................................................................................
............................... 82
DReferences
.............................................................................. ...............................
I................... 87
F
ERMC
Project Authority ...............................................................................
............................... 94
w
FProject
Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................
............................... 106
f
G
Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................
............................... 121
0
HPotential
Indicator Species ........................................................................
............................... 126
U
Stare of Califomia Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOU14TAINS TO THE SEA;
FIGURES
Figure 2 -1
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivets Watersheds ........................ ...............................
17
Figure 2 -2
Seasonal Variation in Rainfall Amounts ..................................... ...............................
19
Figure 2 -3
Long -term Variation in Rainfall Amounts .................................. ...............................
19
Figure 2-4
Spatial Variation of Average Precipitation in the Wat ersheds ....... ...............................
20
Figure 2 -5
Major Sub watersheds of the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers ..............................
20
Figure 2 -6a
Historical (Circa 1870) Distribution of Wetlands ........................ ...............................
21
Figure 2 -6b
Current Distribution of Wetlands .............................................. ...............................
22
Figure 2 -7
The Ratio of Annual Runoff in the Los Angeles River Measured at Firestone Blvd. to
the Annual Precipitation at the Los Angeles Civic Center from 1928 to 1998 ..............
23
Figure 2 -8
Significant Ecological Areas and Critical Habitat Designations .... ...............................
27
Figure 2 -9
Sources of Water Supply ........................................................... ...............................
33
Figure 2 -10
Groundwater Basins Underlying the Watersheds ........................ ...............................
34
Figure 2 -11
Cross - section of the Los Angeles Coastal Plain Groundwater Basin ...........................
34
Figure 2 -12
Impaired Reaches of the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers and Tributaries .............
38
Figure 2 -13
Los Angeles County Flood Management Facilities ...................... ...............................
40
Figure 2 -14
Land Use in the Wat ersheds ...................................................... ...............................
43
Figure 2 -15
Los Angeles County Population Growth by Decade, 1900 - 2000 . ...............................
42
Figure 2 -16
Population Density (Persons per Square Mile) by Zip Code ....... ...............................
44
Figure 2 -17
Median Household Income by Zip Cade ................................... ...............................
45
Figure 3-1
Proposed River Par kways .......................................................... ...............................
57
Figure 3-2
Preservation Opportunities in the Mountains, Foothills, and Hills ..............................
62
Figure 3-3
Open Space Opportunities Along Tributaries ............................. ...............................
63
Figure3-4
Habitat Linkages ....................................................................... ...............................
67
Figure 3 -5
Open Space Planning Timel ine .................................................. ...............................
76
TABLES
Table 1
Agencies Administering Open Space and Recreational Areas ...... ...............................
30
Table 2
Special Desigrationswithin the Angeles National Forest ............ ...............................
30
Table 3
Major Open Space and Recreational Facilities within the Watersheds .........................
31
Table 4
Capacity of Local Groundwater Basins ...................................... ...............................
33
Table 5
Water Recharged During the 1999 -2000 Water Year ( Acre- feet) . ...............................
35
Table 6
Pollutants of Concern in the Watersheds ................................... ...............................
37
Table 7
Los Angeles County Flood Management Facilities ...................... ...............................
41
z
z
w
z
z
O
U
IV
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
PREFACE
Through the California Resources Agency, the San
Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Moun-
tains Conservancy, or Rivers and Mountains
Conservancy (RMC), in conjunction with the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC), jointly
developed this watershed and open Space Plan for
the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers.
The RMC is required by legislation to prepare the
parkway and open space plan addressing the San
Gabriel River watershed, the lower Los Angeles
River watershed, and San Gabriel Mountains, por-
tions of which are in the upper Los Angeles River
watershed. In order to effectively plan land and
water conservation measures for the lower Los An-
geles River, plans for the upper Los Angeles River
must be addressed. Also, the Rio Hondo sub water-
shed connects the rivers and is integral to the
function of both. Some portions of the upper Los
Angeles River are included within the territory of
the SMMC. Recognizing the importance of a holis-
tic approach, the Secretary of Resources directed the
RMC and SMMC to jointly develop a coordinated
plan for the entire San Gabriel and Los Angeles
Rivers watersheds.
This plan is intended to support and inform plan-
ning efforts by cities, federal, state and local
agencies, communities, groups and individuals in the
watershed. This includes ongoing (or pending)
subwatershed plans and future plans for parks, open
space, and bike trails in individual cities. The State
Conservancies will encourage incorporation of the
concepts embodied in the guiding principles set
forth in this plan into future open space, water m-
source, and habitat projects, to advance restoration
of the watershed.
This plan aims to eattend the discussion of restoring
balance between human and natural systems from
beyond the rivers to the entire watershed. Every
community, including those without direct connec-
tions to the rivers or tributaries, has a role to play in
the creation of new open space, trails, and bike
paths, the enhancement of water resources, preser-
vation of wildlife habitat, and maintenance of Flood
protection. This plan is intended as a tool to build
consensus and reach common ground.
Stare of California Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM T 4 MOQ #-' NSTO THE
The California Resources Agency, comprised of 27
departments, commissions, and conservancies, is
responsible for the conservation, enhancement, and
management of California's natural resources, in-
cluding land, water, wildlife, parks, minerals, and
historic sites. The Agency advises the Governor on
issues related to the State's natural resources and is
responsible for interpreting the California Envi-
ronmental Quality Act. The RMC and SMMC both
report to the Resources Agency.
The RMC was created in 1999 to preserve urban
open space and habitat for the enjoyment of, and
appreciation by, present and future generations. To
fulfill that mission, the RMC will undertake projects
that provide low -impact recreation, education, wild-
life and habitat restoration, and watershed
improvements, prioritizing river - related recreation,
greening, aesthetic improvements, andwildlikhabi-
tat.
The SMMC was established in 1980 to acquire land
and operate programs for conservation, parkland,
and recreation purposes. The SMMC's objectives
are guided by the goals of creating an inter - linking
network of parks and trails, preserving critical wild-
life habitat and ensuring open space and recreation
lands in Los Angeles and Ventura counties for the
future of all Southern California residents. The
mission of the SMMC is to strategically buy back, pre-
serve, protect, restore, and enhance reasured pieces of
Southern California to form an interlinking system of
urban, rural, and river parks; open space; wails; mdwild-
life habitats that are easily accessible to the general public
A number of public agencies, by virtue of their mis-
sions, are currently partners with the State
Conservancies and will partner with the Conservan-
cies throughout the life of the plan. The mission
statements of these partner agencies are listed be-
low.
■ U.S. Forest Service
Caring for the land and serving people.
ar
■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers V
4
u
To provide quality, responsive engineering services �
to the nation including: a
W
U
a
LL
W
tr
d
COMMON GROUND FROM THG MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
• Planning, designing building, operating water
resources and other civil works projects
• Designing and managing the construction of
military faculties for the Army and Air Force
• Providing design and construction manage-
ment support for other Defense and federal
agencies
■ U.S. National Park Service
To preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural
resources and values of the national park system for
the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this
and future generations. The Park Service cooper-
ates with partners to extend the benefits of natural
and cultural resource conservation and outdoor
recreation throughout this country and the world.
IN California Department of Parks and Recreation
To provide for the health, inspiration, and education
of the people of California by helping to preserve
the State's extraordinary biological diversity
its most valued natural and cultural resources,
and creating opportunities for high- quality outdoor
recreation.
■ California Coastal Conservancy
Improves public access to the coast and bay
Shores, by acquiring land and easements and by
building trails and stairways, it also seeks to cre-
ate low-cost accommodations along the coast,
including campgrounds and hostels.
Protects and enhances coastal wetlands,
streams and watersheds
Restores urban waterfronts for public use and
coastal dependent industries, especially com-
mercial fishing
Resolves coastal land use conflicts
Acquires and holds environmentally valuable
coastal lands for purposes that are in keeping
with the Coastal Act
Protects agricultural lands
Accepts donations and dedications of land
easements for public access, agriculture, open
space, and habitat protection
■ California Department of Fish and Game
To manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and
plant resources, and the habitats upon which they
depend, for their ecological values and for their use
and enjoyment by the public.
■ California Wildlife Conservation Board
To select, authorize, and allocate funds for the pur-
chase of land and waters suitable for the
preservation, protection, and restoration of wildlife
habitat.
■ California Department of Transportation
To improve mobility across California.
■ Los Angeles and Santa Ana Regional Water
Ouality Control Boards
To preserve and enhance California's water re-
sources and ensure their proper allocation and
efficient use for the benefit of present and future
generations.
■ Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works
To integrate natural resources, stomrwamr and wa-
ter conservation and management of high quality
stormwater to increase protection of our commorm
ties and obtain a higher quality of life for the
citizens of our county.
■ Orange County Planning and Development
Services
To provide, operate, and maintain quality public
facilities and regional resources for the enjoyment,
mobility, protection, and business of the people in
Orange County.
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With more than seven trillion people living in the
watersheds drained by the San Gabriel and Los An-
geles Rivers, the effects of humans on natural
ecosystems are e3aeneive: native habitat is scarce,
wildlife movement is obstructed, surface and
groundwater quality is largely impaired, and ocean
water quality is adversely affected. While flood pro-
tection has been a high priority and largely
successful, creation of sufficient park space, a com-
prehensive network of trails and bike paths, and
opportunities to observe nature in urban settings
have been a low priority.
Los Angeles Region lrom Space
In recent years, cities, communities, agencies, and
groups have beenwotkingto propose new solutions
to these problems. To build upon these recent ef-
forts, the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) and the
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC)
have jointly developed this Watershed and Open
Space Plan.
The purpose of this plan is twofold: (1) articulate a
vision for the future of the San Gabriel and Los
Angeles Rivers Watersheds; and (2) provide a
framework for future watershed and open space
planning.
The vision for the future can be summarized simply:
Restore balance between natural and hu-
man systems in the watersheds.
State of Caltfonna Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Los Angeles River at Elysian Park
To achieve that vision, the central element of this
plan is a set of Guiding Principles, which provide
over - arching goals that can be used to guide open
space planning in the watersheds. Cities, communi-
ties, federal, state and local agencies, groups, and
individuals ran use the guiding principles to develop
plans and projects.
This plan discusses, but does not propose, specific
projects. Subsequent plans will be necessary to
determine how and where the majority of specific
projects will occur. These include subwatershed
plans and open space, trail and bike path plans to be
developed by individual cities, agencies and orgard
zations. This plan is intended as a living document
that will evolve over time, as priorities evolve and
needs dictate, based on periodic assessments of
progress. As other related plans are developed, they
will serve as elements of a comprehensive plan for
open space .
Bosque del Rio Hondo
tt
rn
w
u
U
W
.0
W
Q
f
w
r
U
X
w
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
San Gabriel Mountains
A. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Guiding Principles are intended to allowjuds-
dictions to advance, promote, and enable the
following concepts:
■ LAND: Grow a Greener Southern California
Create, Expand, and Improve Public Open Space
Throughout the Region
Improve Access to Open Space and Recreation for
All Communities
Improve Habitat Quality, Quantity, and Connectivity
Connect Open Space with a Network of Trails
Promote Stewardship of the Landscape
Encourage Sustainable Growth to Balance Environ-
mental, Social, and Economic Benefits
�I fit
Pan Pacific Park
■ WATER: Enhance Waters and Waterways
Maintain and Improve Flood Protection
Establish Riverfront Greenways to Cleanse Water,
Hold Floodwaters and Extend Open Space
Improve Quality of Surface Water and Groundwater
Improve Flood Safety Through Restoration of River
and Creek Ecosystems
Optimize Water Resources to Reduce Dependence
on Imported Water
■ PLANNING: Plan Together to Make It Happen
Coordinate Watershed Planning Across Jurisdictions
and Boundaries
Encourage Multi- Objective Planning and Projects
Use Science as a Basis for Planning
Involve the Public Through Education and Outreach
Programs
Utilize the Plan in an On -Going Management Proc-
ess
Arroyo Seco
B. STRATEGIES
To grow greener, enhance waters and waterways,
and plan together, the RMC and SMMC will de-
velop and implement strategies that translate the
guiding principles into project- specific plans and
work programs, from which individual projects can
be identified, proposed, and developed. These
strategies include:
Educatiore The State Conservancies will place a
high priority on public education and outreach.
Restoration of the watersheds will require changes
in behavior, shifts in resource priorities, and deci-
sions on how to balance environmental and
2
San Gabriel and Ins Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
economic needs. This requires local understanding
of the key issues to allow the public to make in-
formed choices.
Educating the Next Generation
Partnerships: Restoration of balance to the water-
sheds will require that the State Conservancies work
with agencies, cities, communities, neighborhoods,
interest groups and individuals to form partnerships
to develop plans and implement projects.
Funding: To restore the watersheds, substantial
financial resources will be needed. The State Con-
servancies will encourage, coordinate, and support
efforts to secure additional funding from traditional
sources, such as Congress, the State legislature, and
government agencies, as well as corporations, pri-
vate foundations, trusts and individuals.
Multi- Objective Planning: All relevant federal,
state and local agencies, cities, private groups and
State of Carifonda Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
individuals will be encouraged to incorporate the
guiding principles into the development of plans
and projects. The Conservancies will also ask the
cities to consider incorporation of the guiding prin-
ciples into the next update of their General Plan.
ManagenenC open space should be managed
consistently for the benefit of the people, wildlife,
and the environment. Whenever feasible, acquisi-
tion of open space should include a plan to identify
responsibility and funding for future management
of open space.
MonitoringandAssessnent: TheStateConserv-
ancies will work to develop a joint assessment
process for restoration of the watersheds, monitor
progress towards meeting the goals described in this
plan, and periodically revise and update the plan as
appropriate.
Headwaters of the Los Angeles River
C. OPPORTUNITIES
To achieve the vision of the future for the water-
sheds, to encourage use of the guiding principles,
and to implement the strategies described above, the
State Conservancies will work with agencies, cities,
and groups to identify opportunities and individual
projects.
■ Land Acquisition, Connectivity, & Open Space
River Parkways: Create a continuous ribbon of
open space, nails, active and passive recreation ar-
eas, and wildlife habitat along the Los Angeles, San
Gabriel, and Rio Hondo Rivers. The specific treat-
ment of each segment of the greenway should be
determined by the existing conditions of the parcel,
the needs and desires of the local community and
C
Q
f
N
w
7
O
X
w
a
N
w
H
L)
U
w
w
w
Trail In the VANder Hills
TrlMnarks: Provide open space along tributaries in
urbanized areas to emend the river parkways and
allow for pedestrian and bike paths, restoration of
habitat, water quality improvement, and flood pro-
tection.
Trails and Bike Paths: Create a comprehensive
network of pedestrian, bike, and equestrian trails
that use existing corridors (such as rivers, tributaries
and powerline rights -of -way) where available and
provide new connections where needed.
Upper San Gabriel River Trail
Community Gardens. A network of community
gardens, that incorporate native plants, throughout
the urbanized portions of the watersheds, to pro-
vide gardening opportunities for residents that do
not have access to private land.
Slate of California Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
■ Public Access
Improve and Expand Existing Facilities. The
State Conservancies will work with individual cities
and agencies to identify opportunities for the en-
hancement of existing open spaces within their
jurisdictions, and assist in identifying funding
sources.
Create New Facilities: The State Conservancies
will work to identify opportunities to acquire land
and develop new facilities, encourage donations of
land parcels, and secure and maintain conservation
easements where acquisition or donation is not fea-
sible.
Confluence of the Rio Hondo and Los Angeles River
■ Water Resources
Flood Protection: Maintain and enhance flood
protection using a range of flood protection meth-
ods, both structural and non - structural. Use open
spaces and planted areas to filter, cleanse, and retain
stormwater and enhance groundwater infiltration.
Surface Water. Improve water quality to optimize
water supplies and protect beneficial uses. Encour-
age infiltration of urban runoff into groundwater
where consistent with water quality goals, to extend
the water supply and reduce reliance on imported
water.
Groundwatert Fxpand and enhance groundwater
Y
Q
infiltration and recharge wherever possible, and
s
when consistent with water quality goals.
7
N
to
t—
U
W
X
W
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
■ Native Plants and Wildlife
Habitat/Corridors: Preseve and protect impor-
tant terrestrial, avian, and aquatic habitats in the
watersheds. Preserve or establish habitat linkages
and/or corridors in the Santa Susana Pass, Newhall
Pass, Angeles National Forest to the Verdugo
Mountains, Griffith Park to the Verdugo Moun-
tains, the Verdugo Mountains and San Gabriel
"Stepping Stones," the San Gabriel River, the
Puente & Chino Hills, the Puente Hills to San Jose
Hills and the San Gabriel Mountains, and the Los
Angeles River.
Great Blue Heron
r
QWetlands: Restore and expand wetlands wherever
feasible in the watersheds, and incorporate those
jwetlands as elements of natural systems, to treat
U) urban nuroff, improve water quality, and provide
j wildlife habitat.
r
7
U
W
X
D. NEXT STEPS
To restore balance to human and natural systems in
the watersheds, plans and projects for open space,
habitat, and water resources should Incorporate the
relevant Guiding Principles articulated in this plan.
This includes the Los Angeles River Master Plan
and ongoing (or pending) subwatershed plans (in-
cluding Arroyo Seco Watershed Restoration
Feasibility Study), the (in progress) San Gabriel
River Master Plan, and future plans for parks, open
space, and bike trails in the counties, and individual
cities and communities.
Following adoption of this plan, the RMC and
SMMC will develop and propose specific projects
within their territories to begin prompt implementa-
tion of the plan. These projects will be evaluated
using the project evaluation criteria included in Ap-
pendix E.
The Resources Agency will work on the California
Continuing Resource Investment Strategy Project
(CCRISP), an initiative to help state agencies and
the state's conservation partners make better deci-
sions about how to conserve our state's precious
natural resources.
The Rivers & Mountains Conservancy will, within
three years, work with appropriate partners to de-
velop the following plans: River Parkways Plan;
Tributaries Plans, Traits and Bike Paths Plan; Moun-
tains, Hills & Foothills Plan; Habitat Conservation
6
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
Plan; Cultural Landscapes Plan; and a Monitoring
and Assessment program.
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy will
develop a Watershed Work Program.
California State Parks will implement the urban park
strategy for the Los Angeles area. The California
Coastal Conservancy will develop wetlands restora-
tion projects. The California Department of Fish
and Game will work on habitat conservation plan-
ning. The Wildlife Conservation Board will work
on acquisition of critical habitat and public access
funding. Caltrans will develop bikeways and resto-
ration projects. The Los Angeles and Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Boards will coordi-
nate water quality improvements with interested
parties. The US Forest Service will complete a For-
est Plan Update that includes the Angeles National
Forest. The US Army Corps of Engineers will con-
tinue work on wetlands restoration and flood
control projects. The US National Park Service will
prepare a River Parkways Study (if funded) and
develop the De Anza Trail. The Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works will complete
the San Gabriel River Master Plan and work on
river - related projects. The Orange County Office of
the Chief Executive will complete a subwatershed
plan for Coyote Creek (with the assistance of the
Army Corps) and implement watershed related un-
provements. Individual Cities will identify new
projects and consider incorporation of the Guiding
Principles into the next update of their General
Plans.
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Los Angeles River
}
K
Q
f
i
7
N
w
H
7
U
w
x
W
7
State of California Resources Agency
r,'�
e-M E
A. INTRODUCTION
This document is a Watershed and Open Space Plan
for the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers water-
sheds. A natural planning boundary, a watershed is
the area drained by a single river and its tributaries.
This plan addresses the linked watersheds of the San
Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers, which together
drain 1,513 square miles from the San Gabriel
Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, an area in which
more than 7 million people currently live.
Transformation of the land along the San Gabriel
and Los Angeles Rivers began with the arrival of
settlers in the 18th Century. Densely vegetated
wildlands were cleared, irrigated, and planted with
grains and vegetables to feed the settlers. The arri-
val of the railroads and imported water facilitated a
second transformation: the patchwork of farmland
grew into a major urban metropolis. A third trans-
formation is now possible. A network of open
spaces, anchored by parkways along the rivers, can
link sustainable communities together with trails,
bike paths, and landscaped areas.
In recent years, cities, communities, groups, and
agencies have worked to improve and expand open
space, optimize water resources, preserve habitat,
and create a network of trails and bike paths. Some
of these efforts have been informally coordinated, in
recognition of the potential to emend benefits be-
yond the borders of individual cities, create
opportunities to leverage benefits, and maximize
fundingresources. This plan builds upon more than
a decade of work and seeks to encourage broader
participation in watershed planning. The concepts
in this plan are intended to support and inform
ongoing planning efforts, as well as provide a
framework to plan future projects that are consis-
tent with a regional vision to restore balance
between human and natural systems in the water-
sheds.
The central element of this plan is a set of Guiding
Principles intended to be used to plan and imple-
ment projects that will help restore balance to the
watershed. More detailed plans at the subwatershed
and local levels will be necessary to determine where
specific improvements will occur. As a result, the
vision of the future articulated in this document
may require decades to be realized. But if cities,
communities, private groups, and agencieswork and
plan together, the watersheds will grow greener,
waters will be enhanced, and a healthier balance
between human and natural systems can be
achieved.
This plan utilizes information gathered in a study
conducted by the Leo J. Shapiro & Associates (LJS),
which studied public perceptions of, and priorities
for, open space planning. The maps in this plan are
primarily derived from the Geographic Information
Systems database developed by Forma Systems for
the RMC.
This document is organized in three major sections:
(1) Background, which provides the context for the
plan; (2) Current Conditions, which provides a de-
scription of the watersheds; and (3) a Vision for the
Future, which contains the Guiding Principles and
discussions of strategies, opportunities, next steps
and subsequent plans.
B. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Over millions of years, the San Gabriel and Los
Angeles Rivers emerged from the San Gabriel
Mountains and meandered towards the Pacific
Ocean. As the mountains rose, they captured more
rainfall, and the power of the rivers increased. Be-
cause of the steep slopes and rocky soils in the
mountains, the rivers carried large amounts of sand,
gravel, and rocks. Much of the water in the rivers
disappeared into the sand and replenished ground-
water. Due to low surface Bow most of the year,
the rivers appeared as meandering streams within
wide beds. But when winter rains arrived, these
"streams" often jumped their banks, changed
course, and flowed over the land.
With abundant groundwater and the ever-changing
course of the rivers, the lands along the rivers were
heavily vegetated with dense stands of native trees,
p
roses, grapes, and shrubs. Wetlands, marshes, and
Z
springs dotted the landscape. Habitats were diverse
p
and wildlife was plentiful. The abundant water,
cc
vegetation, and wildlife supported a significant
U
population of indigenous peoples such as the Chu-
q
mash and Tongva (Gabrielino).
m
17
State of California Resources Agency
Commori Griourim FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
The earliest Spanish explorers rioted the dense vege-
tation and the presence of surface water. The
confluence of the Arroyo Seco and the Los Angeles
River was noted as especially verdant. Because wa-
ter was available, theMision San Crab rieideAmwgelo
was founded in 1771, followed in 1781 by FJPUeblo
de Alremm _Wblla la Re delcsAWiffdePolcirnlctib
(which became the City of Los Angeles).
The arrival of settlers in the 18U Century began the
first human - induced transformation of the double
watershed. The dense vegetation surrounding the
rivers was cleared to make way for farms and vil-
lages. The abundant water and favorable climate
created ideal conditions for a variety of crops.
Within a short time, the area became the center of
agricultural production in Southern California. In
little more than a century, the landscape along the
rivers had changed significantly as floodplain be-
came highly productive farmlands.
The arrival of the transcontinental railroads in 1876
provided access to distant markets, and agricultural
production expanded greatly. The railroads also
brought more people eager to share in the dream
made possible by abundant sunshine, farmland,
water, and business opportunities. Farmland was
subdivided and homes built. The influx of people
continued. Surface and groundwater sources were
in high demand, and groundwater tables began to
drop throughout the area. The plentiful wetlands
and marshes began to disappear. Areas that were
once dense with vegetation became dry grasslands.
Occasional droughts became a major concern as
residents, farmers, and businesses competed for the
limited water supply.
Los Angeles In 1871
From the beginning, water was diverted from the
rivers for people, livestock, and crops. Before long,
because so much water was diverted, the rivers no
longer reached the ocean. Increased opportunities
fortrade and a growing population— increased the
demand for familand and water, and the water on
the surface of rivers became inadequate to meet
demand. Wells were dug to reach groundwater, and
groundwater levels slowly began to drop at some
locations.
During this first transformation from wildlands to
farmlands, proximity to the river was important.
in But easy access to water was coupled with danger
zwhen winter rains swelled the rivers or changed
o their course. The population lacked the knowledge
o
= and the means to control the rivers. Dikes and
Udams were often washed away by winter floods.
In
m
12
San Gabriel in 1893
Because the population began to exceed available
water resources, in 1913 the Los Angeles wens
River Aqueduct was built, importing water from
great distances. More and more fare land was sub-
divided and converted to commercial and residential
uses. Once - distant farm communities began to
grow towards each other. The once -vast open
spaces began to disappear. Urban sprawl covered
the lowlands and spread into the valleys and hill-
sides. The second transformation of the watershed,
from fainting communities to urban metropolis was
Just as swift as the first transformation.
During this second transformation, from farmland
to urban metropolis, proximity to the river was less
critical, but the danger from floods remained. In-
stead of crops and livestock, homes, businesses and
lives were lost. A variety of measures were em-
ployed to keep the rivers in their channels (or the
then - current channels), but natural forces always
prevailed. After two significant floods in the 1930s,
the federal government worked with the Los Ange-
les County Flood Control District to implement a
San Gabriel and Las Angeles lbvers Watershed and Open Space Plan
flood control plan with three major components:
(1) channelize, straighten, and deepen the rivers; (2)
install debris basins in foothills to protect against
debris flows during storm events; and (3) construct
dams in the mountains to impound stone runoff
and permit controlled release of those waters. The
Los Angeles River was encased in concrete for most
of its length, and the San Gabriel River was sur-
rounded by levees. The system protects lives and
property from flooding and speeds discharge of
floodwaters into the Pacific Ocean.
Los AngWas River muM of Downtown
The potential for a third transformation of the wa-
tersheds has emerged in the past decade, beginning
with visions of "restoring" the Los Angeles River
and implementing watershed management strate-
gies. Individuals, groups, agencies, communities,
and cities have developed plans to expand natural
spaces along the river, establish riverfront walks or
bike paths, and restore public access. These con-
cepts have been expanded to include the San
Gabriel River, as well as tributaries of both rivers,
and planning on these issues is ongoing. This plan
is an outgrowth of those efforts, seeks to codify and
extend upon those concepts, and provide a frame-
work for future planning by expanding the concept
of restoration from the rivers to the entire water-
shed.
C. PLANNING CONTEXT
During the first transformation of the watersheds,
planning focussed on meeting the demand for water:
first with surface supplies, then groundwater. Dur-
ing the second transformation, once water was
imported from distant sources, the focus shifted to
protecting farms, homes, and businesses from
flooding. To achieve a third transformation of the
COMMON GROUND FROM THE 'MOUNT A WS TO THE SEA
watersheds, planning must focus on natural systems
and open space.
A watershed is the area drained by a single river and
its tributaries. Despite this clear spatial identity,
watersheds are not the only natural planning bound-
ary. Groundwater basins cross under watersheds,
and forest ecosystems fold over ridgelines. Political
and jurisdictional boundaries in the region add
complexity. A sound ecological approach to plan-
ning must consider the relationships between
human and natural systems, overlapping physical
and biological systems, and social, economic, and
political systems. And since imported water is an
important element of Southern California's water
supply, management of the watersheds of the San
Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers win impact remote
watersheds. Actions taken in the upper and middle
portions of the watershed impact the downstream
areas and oceans.
Planning at watershed and subwatershed scales nec-
essarily involves consideration of the entire water
cycle, both above and below the ground. This in-
cludes the intertwined concerns of flood protection,
water resources, water quality, protection and en-
hancement of habitat, open space for passive and
active recreation, and strategies to encourage sus-
tainable future development.
Watershed planning makes dear the interconnec-
tions between our mountainous upstream reaches
and our downstream cities and beaches.
To understand the context for this plan, it is useful
to provide an historical overview of some relevant
plans and planning concepts related to open space
in the double watershed.
In 1911, Los Angeles City Park Commissioners
proposed a river parkway (that was never built) be-
tween Griffith Park and Elysian Park that would
have connected with the Arroyo Seco Parkway (that
was built, but without many of its originally pro-
posed features). Other plans or concepts for parks
along the rivers were developed, but none were
implemented prior to the start of the major flood
control projects that began in the 1930s .
The most significant and far - reaching of the early
open space plans in the double watershed was pro-
posed in 1930, by the team of Olmsted Brothers
and Harland Bartholomew and Associates, who
0
z
0
O
m
K
m
13
Stare of Califon Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA MM I
together had developed master plans for the Los
Angeles County highway system and a state park
system. The Olmsted - Bartholomew plan, entitled
Parks, Pia.ygalmisandBawbajordleL> Anode Mgi r4
recommended a network of parkways to connect
the mountains, rivers, parks, and beaches. Parkways
along the river were intended to reduce the need for
structural Flood protection features. To remedy the
deficit of park space (that existed in 1930), the plan
proposed a total of 71,000 acres of parkland south
of the San Gabriel Mountains. Unfortunately, due
to timing (at the start of the Great Depression), cost
($231 million at that time), and other issues, the
Olmsted- Bat @wlomew plan was shelved and largely
forgotten for many years. The centerpiece of that
plan, a network of open spaces connected by park-
ways, remains the path not taken.
Los Angeles River west of Sepulmda D"
The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area was formed in 1977. The National Park Ser-
vice worked with the State of California to create a
Santa Monica Mountains Comprehensive Plan,
which was adopted in 1979. This led to the forma-
tion of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy in
order to acquire lands for the Santa Monica Moun-
tains ecosystem.
In 1980, the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers com-
missioned a study on recreational potential of
drainage facilities on the major tributaries of the Los
Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers (LACDA System
Rectwdsan Study, U.S. Amry Corps of Engineers and
a DMJM, 1980), which identified opportunities for
= trails, linear parks, riparian areas, nature study facili-
0 ties, and other passive and active recreational
(a opportunities. In 1983, the territorial jurisdiction of
Y the SMMC was expanded to include portions of
U
4m Ventura County and portions of the western Los
Angeles River watershed, and in 1990 the Rim of
the Valley Trail Corridor Master Plan was adopted.
In 1990, the Nature Conservancy published the
Critical Wildlife lHahiratLinkageA rem Betuelen the
Santa SusxnaMouniavrs SimiH* andSantaMonica
Mountains, which identified the critical choke points
for wildlife movement between those mountain
ranges and the relationship to preservation of biodi-
versity.
In 1993, the California Coastal Conservancy com-
pleted aLosAngelesJ&r FarkandReatationStuayto
explore beneficial uses of the river, including an
assessment of the rivet's potential for recreation and
wildlife enhancement. In 1994, the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board updated its
WaterQualtlyContrd Plan, LosArrgelesRegion. Basin
PkmfordwCaLVaI Wate/sher[ gQWAWa'esand Vm
tura Counties. This plan is designed to preserve and
enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses
of all regional waters.
In 1996, Los Angeles County adopted a Master Plan
for the Los Angeles River, which "...provides for
the optimization and enhancement of aesthetic,
recreational, Flood control and environmental values
by creating a community resource, enriching the
quality of life for residents and recognizing the
river's primary purpose for Flood control" (LosAn-
geles River Master Plan, Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works, 1996). The plan in-
corporated substantial stakeholder input and
recommended environmental restoration, newbuils
and connections to existing trails, tree plantings,
signaW, murals, and economic development oppor-
tunities. A follow-on project, the development of
landscape standards and guidelines, is currently un-
derway.
In 1997, the Cal Poly Pomona 606 Design Studio
completed a plan tided: PuefteFli%ISC.Orridor Gmrsi ace
CormectiwyforW)WhfeandPeq*. This report explored
the recreational and habitat preservation planning
issues for the Puente Hills from Whittier Narrows
to the Cleveland National Forest.
In 2000, the California Coastal Conservancy docu-
mented current wetland resources in a report
entitled WedandsoftheLasAngeleSRtrrr WWat MW,,
which identified ten sites that have potential for
near -term restoration, including De Forest Park
(Long Beach), Victoria Park (Torrance), Harbor
14
San Gabriel and Cos Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
Park (San Pedro), Dominguez Gap (Long Beach),
Hazard Park (Los Angeles), Taylor Yard (Los Ange-
les), Lower Arroyo Park (Pasadena), Cahuenga
Spreading Grounds (Glendale), Sepulveda Basin
(Van Nuys), and Upper Bull Creek (San Fernando).
Also in 2000, Cal Poly Pomona graduate students
developed a plan for regional planning of urban
wildlife movement networks in the San Gabriel
Valley (ReranneetingtheSam CahnielVa kyAP(anm'ng
A 'h.fbrdbeOrri ion41nmivaneatil(bhan W"fe
CorridorNdwrnis, California Polytechnic University,
Pomona, 2000). Although the pMtivy purpose was
to delineate a planning process to connect wildlife
habitats, the plan also identified specific opportuni-
ties for improvements along the edges of the San
Gabriel River.
co iltaia sm Ow Amin, ssea
and the Los Angola Rtvar
The Southern California Studies Center of the Uni-
versity of Southern California published,Spraudilits
the Wall (2001), proposing a region -wide approach
for a sustainable approach to development. The
report recommends that the region grow "Smarter,"
"Together," "Greener," and "More Civic Minded."
Funded by the California Coastal Conservancy with
support from the SMMC, the ArroyoSeeo Watenhed
Restoration Feasibility Study (North East Trees and
Arroyo Seco Foundation, June 2001) addresses
flood and stream management, habitat restoration,
water resources, and recreational opportunities
along one of the main tributaries of the Los Angeles
River. The goal is to restore the watercourse from
its origins in the San Gabriel Mountains to its con-
fluence with the Los Angeles River near Elysian
Park.
COMMON GROUND FROM i'HE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
The Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works completed a LosAngelesRf Bd�yS[udy
Quite 2001), to address how to overcome the physi-
cal obstacles that impede the course of the Los
Angeles River bikeway from downtown Los Ange-
les, past Union Station, the Arroyo Seco, the Los
Angeles River Center and into the west San Fer-
nando Valley.
A consortium of groups and agencies, including the
South Coast Wildlands Project, the Nature Conser-
vancy of California, the California Wildemess
Coalition, the Biological Resources Division of the
U.S. Geological Survey, and the Center for Repro-
duction of Endangered Species of the Zoological
Society of San Diego, jointly developed Missing
if +' +lm8a' ReGatngCrnTnxfi +nlytotheCalj%anialand-
scape (August 2001). This report identified more
than 300 existing and former wildlife corridors
throughout California that are vital habitat linkages
for species diversity. The report identifies several
important wildlife linkages in the San Gabriel and
Los Angeles watersheds.
Several other plans are curmatly underway, or are
proposed to begin shortly, including:
■ Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Water-
shed Feasibility Study
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Los Ange-
les County Department of Public Works have
collected Geographic Information Systems data on
the watersheds. The goal of the study is to be able
to identify potential opportunities related to improv-
ing recreation, land use and habitat management,
water conservation, flood quality and flood man-
agement and to development a framework for a
future integrated basin management plan for the
Los Angeles and San Gabriel River watersheds.
■ San Gabriel River Master Plan
In 1999, Los Angeles County began the develop-
ment of a master plan for the San Gabriel River,
from the County-controlled dams and reservoirs in
the San Gabriel Mountains to the river's outlet at
the Pacific Ocean. The consertsusdriven master
z
plan process will identify project opportunities for
M
recreation, open space, and habitat enhancements,
y6"
maintenance of flood protection, preservation of
Y
natural resources, and maintenance of existing water
V
15
Suite of California Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
rights. Completion of the plan is scheduled for
2003.
■ Forest Plan Update Angeles, Cleveland,
Los Padres, and San Bernardino National
Forests
The U.S. Forest Service is in the process of updating
its management plan for the Southern California
National Forests including the Angeles, Cleveland,
Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests.
The elements of the plan are wilderness areas, tim-
ber management, range allotments, recreational
options, and land acquisition. Completion of the
plan and the required environmental documentation
is scheduled for December 2003.
in San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo Spreading
Grounds Enhancements
The Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works is working with the City of Pico Rivera to
provide public access, create recreation opportuni-
ties, and improve the appearance of the existing
Spreading grounds (used to recharge groundwater)
along the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers. This
plan is intended as a prototype for multi - objective
projects in the region.
■ Sun Valley Watershed Management Plan
The Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works is developing a plan to address chronic
flooding in the Sun Valley subwatershed. The plan
proposes to develop multi-objective solutions to
Flooding, increase groundwater recharge, reduce
stormwater pollution, and provide recreational op-
portunities. The project is intended to attract
multiple funding partners, educate and motivate the
local community to embrace these solutions, and
provide a model for future watershed management
projects throughout Los Angeles County.
■ Subwatershed Plans
The State Water Resources Control Board has
funded subwatershed plans for Compton Creek,
Coyote Creek, Rio Hondo, and the Upper San
G Gabriel River (including Walnut and San Jose
Creeks), which are anticipated to begat in late 2001.
2 In addition, the second phase of the Arroyo Seco
YWatershed Restoration Feasibility Study, has been
Ua funded by the SMMC and the California Coastal
M Conservancy.
16
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Spam Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO
PEE. • •
The watersheds of the San Gabriel and Los Angeles
Rivers cover 1,513 square miles, from the San
Gabriel Mountains in the north to the Pacific Ocean
at Long Beach (Figure 2 -1). The two rivers arse
from springs and creeks in the mountains surround-
ing the Los Angeles basin, Bow across the San
Gabriel and San Fernando valleys, then flow nearly
parallel amass the coastal plain to the Pacific Ocran.
during the latter half of the twentieth century has
had a considerable impact on natural resources,
altering the hydrology in the watersheds and signifi-
cantly reducing the extent of natural habitat and
biotic communities.
The purpose of this section is to provide a primer
for planning in the watersheds and an atlas of the
0 MoJave Desert
? a
_ San Ga el Mouma/ns A.
San Fernan o�U Angeles Watero' _
Santa 9usana�� -/ galley
Mountalna \ \
San Gabnet o
Watershed
Santa Monica Mountains' San Gabriel Valley f - -....
® San
R 0 Nllls SS 1
Pacific y Cc'._}p6
Ocean
Freemys
— Rivera
County Boundary
Q Watershed Boundary
Figure 2.1. San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watersheds
The rivers have an engineered connection via the
Rio Hondo, a major tributary of the Los Angeles
River that flows, along with the San Gabriel, into
the Whittier Narrows Dam and Reservoir.
The region within the watersheds is geographically
diverse, particularly in terms of its topography, a-
mate, land use, and habitat types. Urbanization
q4' \ N
b
0.
I
5 to Mires
7
Staic of Callfomia Resources Agency
to
Z
geography of the region: its physiography, climate,
g
hydrology, water quality and quantity, recreation and
p
open space, natural habitat and demographicO
characteristics.
U
H-
Z
w
U
7
Staic of Callfomia Resources Agency
rn
Z
O
F
ZZ
U
Z
z
W
¢
M
V
9UNTAINS 10.,,..
A. PHYSICAL SETTING
1. Geology and Geomorphology
The mountains surrounding the San Gabriel -Los
Angeles basins are part of the Transverse Ranges,
which extend 350 miles east to west from the Eagle
Mountains in San Bernardino County to the Pacific
Ocean. To the north, the San Gabriel Mountains
separate the basin from the Mojave Desert. To the
west, the Santa Monica Mountains separate the wa-
tersheds from the Ventura basin. Topography in
the watersheds ranges from sea level to over 10,000
feet in the San Gabriel Mountains. Most of the
coastal plain is less than 1,000 feet in elevation. The
foothills reach 3 -4,000 feet before rising rapidly into
the San Gabriels, to a height of 10,064 at Mt. San
Antonio (Mt. Baldy). The grade of the mountain
slopes averages 65-70 percent, some of the steepest
slopes in the world.
Geology varies from Precambrian metamorphic
rocks (1.7 billion years old) to alluvial deposits
washed down from mountain canyons. The San
Gabriel Mountains are young mountains, geologi-
cally speaking, and continue to rise at a rate of
nearly three- quarters of an inch per year. Because
of this instability, they are also eroding at a rapid
rate. Alluvial deposits of sand, gravel, clay and silt
in the coastal plain run thousands of feet thick in
some areas, due in part to the erosive nature of the
San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains.
The region is extensively faulted, with the San An-
dreas Fault bordering the north side of the San
Gabriels and the Sierra Madre-Cucamonga fault
zone on the south side. Throughout the basin are
hundreds of lesser fault systems, such as the New-
port- Inglewood fault that runs from Newport Beach
to Beverly Hills via Long Beach and Signal Hill.
The most notorious are those that have been the
cause of major earthquakes during the past few
decades, known not by name but by the region in
which they struck. Sylmar in 1971, Whittier Narrows
in 1987, and Northridge in 1994. The San Andreas
Fault, which traverses California for 625 miles from
the San Bernardino Mountains to Northern Califor-
nia, has not generated an earthquake in the Los
Angeles area since the Tejon Ranch earthquake in
1857.
Fire is also an integral and necessary part of the
natural environment and plays a role in shaping the
landscape. Chaparral, the dominant natural vegeta-
tion type on slopes throughout the region, is
extremely fire- prone. Brash fees leave the soil ex-
posed and unprotected. These bare areas, in
combination with steep slopes and erosive moun-
tains, enable runoff from winter rains to suspend
large quantities of coarse mineral debris, rocks, and
vegetation and wash it downslope and into streams.
These debris flows can erode the landscape, clog
stream channels, damage structures, and injure in-
habitants in the canyons and lower foothill areas.
2. Climate
The watersheds are within the Mediterranean cli-
mate zone, which extends from Central California
to San Diego. Wet winters and long dry summers
characterize this climate. The extent of this climate
type is limited worldwide. Other than the central
and south coast of California, it only occurs in
coastal zones along the Mediterranean Sea, Western
and Southern Australia, the Chilean coast and the
Cape Town region of South Africa.
The geography of the Los Angeles region results in
a great deal of spatial variation in the local climate.
The abrupt rise of the mountains from the coast
creates a barrier that traps moist ocean air against
the southerly slopes and partially blocks the desert
summer heat and winter cold from the interior
northeast. The common perception of the region as
desert is misleading. The coastal plain may be more
appropriately tensed "semi- arid,' and the moun-
tains receive considerable snow and rainfall most
years. Average daytime summer and winter tem-
peratures range from 76/65FO on the coast, to
90/661 in the interior valleys and 81/56F° in the
mountains.
Summers are dry, with most precipitation falling in a
few major storm events between November and
March (Figtwe 2 -2). Long -term annual rainfall
averages vary from 12.2 inches along the coast, 15.5
inches in downtown Los Angeles to 27.5 inches in
the mountains (Figures 2 -3 and 2-4). For any
given stone event, rainfall totals vary significarnly by
region. Moisture-laden air from the ocean moves
up the mountain slopes, expanding and cooling as it
rises. Cooler air can hold less moisture, thus pro-
duces more precipitation. On the lee side of the
18
San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
Seasonal Distribution of Rainfall
Downtown Los Angeles - 123 Year Average
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00 - --
150
1.00
050
000
X W '< °w v o w
a 41 o z 0
Month
Figure 2 -2. Seasonal Variation in Rainfall
Amounts
Source: western Regional Climate Center
mountains, descending air mass warms as it reaches
the desert, releasing any remaining moisture through
evaporation. A 24 -hour storm that produces one
inch of rain along the coast can generate 10-20
inches of rainfall in the mountains and just a trace in
the desert. The maxvnum- recorded 24 -hour rainfall
in the watersheds was 34 inches in the mountains
and 9 inches on the coastal plain.
Most winter storms Come from the northwest, mov-
ing across Southern California into Arizona. The
closer the center of the storm is, the more rain it
will bring, with snow levels frequently reaching
down to 5,000 feet. These are the typical storms
that occur in the basin, bringing 3/4 inch or less of
rainfall. Storms from the south or southwest are
less common, but may bring 3-6 inches of rain in
the basin and 3-6 feet of snow above 6,000 feet.
These storms tend to stall off the coast, which
makes their arrival difficult to predict. Storms from
the west are least common but last the longest,
chamaenzed by a sedes of rain events each bringing
1 -2 inches of rain over a period of 36148 hours.
Summer mins are rare, but when they Occur they are
a result of tropical thunderstorms originating in the
Gulf of Mexico or late summer hurricanes off the
West Coast of Mexico.
Air pressure also plays a role in the local climate. In
the late spring and early summer, a low - pressure
area inland draws a moist marine layer in from the
ocean, resulting in coastal fog and lowclouds, which
moderate temperatures in the basin. The difference
in air pressure between the ocean and the desert
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Amounts
Source: western Regional Climate Center
determines the extent of the marine layer. High -
pressure systems off the Coast also result in offshore
breezes, as air moves from the ocean towards lower
pressure areas in the basin.
B. WATERSHED HYDROLOGY
Most of the watersheds (93 percent) lie within Los
Angeles County. The San Gabriel River Flows from
the San Gabriel Mountains, in the Angeles National
Forest. Its tributaries drain portions of the Chino,
San Jose, and Puente Hills. The Los Angeles River
originates at the junction of Calabasas and Bell
Creeks in the western San Fernando Valley, and is
fed by other tributaries that drain the Santa Monica
and Santa Susana Mountains, the Simi Hills, and the
western San Gabriel Mountains. Coyote Creek, a
tributary of the San Gabriel River, drains portions
N
Z
O
1=
O
2
O
U
I-
Z
w
U
19
State of Calfforrna Resources Agency
in
z
O
zz
O
U
z
z
w
U
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TOT SEA
of both Los Angeles
and Orange Counties
(Figure 2 -5).
1. Surface Water
There are twenty ma-
jor sub - watersheds,
shown in Figure 2 -5.
The major tributaries
of the San Gabriel
River include the West
Fork of the San ��" "'
Gabriel, Walnut Creek,
San Jose Creek, and ���
.r - :.r /
Coyote Creek. For the �a - :.
Los Angeles River, ::;
major tributaries in-
clude the Tujuri O ••�+•••••••n
Pacoima and Verdugo
Washes, Arroyo Seco,
Rio Hondo and
Compton Creek.
There are nearly 2,000 stream miles in the water-
sheds, and one - quarter of those streams flow year-
round.
Figure 2d. Spatial Variation of Average Precipitation in the Watersheds
Source: Califeram Department of Fish & Game
CHATSWORfH
r
SEPULVEDA '.
BASIN RIOR
UN VALLEY
BIIRBAHK FAST /
WROOGO
Pacific Ocean
Coonry Boundary
Wa[mhed Bounder
Figure 2 -5. Major Sub- watersheds of th
and Los Angeles Rivers
Ada0ted from L. A. County Dwartment of Pub!
■ Lakes and Reservoirs
The coastal plain at one time supported a number of
shallow lakes and
ponds fed by springs
and by the rivers.
Many of these lakes
have disappeared as
WPER SAN GABRIEL RNER the rivers have been
modified. A network
of reservoirs has been
constructed along the
r�
rivers and major
tributaries, which are
managed for water
BAN JOSE CREEK supply, flood protec-
tion, groundwater
recharge and in some
cases recreation. In
total there are 92
lakes and reservoirs
x within the water-
sheds. Twenty of
these are reservoirs
operated by Los An-
geles County or the
Army Corps of Engi-
icWOrNe rr ers (Figure 2 -13).
20
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
■ Wetlands
Historically, extensive wetlands existed throughout
the San Gabriel and Los Angeles river basins, both
fresh and saltwater. Marshes and ephemeral ponds
occurred near the cities of Torrance and Long
Beach, and along Compton Creek and other tribu-
taries. Tidal marsh occurred along the coast near
San Pedro and at the mouths of both rivers. The
historical distribution of wetlands in Los Angeles
and northern Orange County is shown in Figure
2.6a.
Nearly all of these historic wetland areas have been
lost to urbanization, marinas, flood protection
measures, or stream channelization. According to
the Coastal Conservancy, within the Los Angeles
River watershed overall, 100 percent of the original
lower riverine and tidal marsh and 98 percent of all
inland freshwater marsh and ephemeral ponds have
been drained or filled. Some of these losses have
been offset by constructed or restored wetlands,
primarily behind flood management structures such
0
N
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
as the Sepulveda Basin, Santa Fe Dam, and Whither
Narrows Basin. The current distribution of wet-
lands in Southern California is shown on Figure 2-
6b. The most substantial remaining historic wetland
areas include:
• El Dorado wetlands near the confluence of
Coyote Creek and the San Gabriel River
• Los Cerritos wetlands near the mouth of the
San Gabriel River (Bixby Ranch and Hellman
Ranch), which are degraded from oil drilling
operations
• Lower Compton Creek where the channel bot-
tom is unlined
• Saltwater marsh along the banks at the lowest
reach of the Los Angeles River below Willow
Street and the Golden Shores wetland near the
river's mouth in Long Beach
• Pockets of freshwater marsh in Torrance
• Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge wetlands
at the Naval Weapons Station
Figure 2 -6a. Historical (Circa 1870) Distribution of Wetlands
Adapted from Ra,M n, 1998
N
Z
O
H
Z
Z
O
U
H
Z
W
C
7
v
21
Sam of Callfomla Resources Agency
N
2
O
H
G
z
O
U
F
z
W
L)
U
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
C' e_..'
N sonewm..ec�=11
N cozre�. ��..e cre.re
Figure 2 -6b. Current Distribution of Wetlands
Adapted from Ralydan, 1998
2. Channel and Flow Conditions on the
Major River Reaches
■ Historical Conditions
The flow of the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers
was historically dependent upon climate. The rivers
derived their flow from snowmelt from the moun-
tains, surface runoff from storms and contributions
from springs and groundwater. The rivers were
shallow with braided channels and wide fioodplarms.
They frequently carved new channels m that flood-
plains during heavy winter storms and have altered
their courses several times.
During the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
ranching and agriculture dominated the San Gabriel
and Los Angeles River basins. Flooding in the val-
leys and periodic droughts made permanent
settlements difficult. The Los Angeles River was
the sole source of water for the developing city of
Los Angeles until the Los Angeles -Owens River
Aqueduct was completed in 1913. Diversions from
both rivers for agricultural irrigation and drinking
water reduced their natural flow, although their
propensity for winter flooding was unabated.
■ Existing Conditions
Until the 1930s, both the San Gabriel and Los An-
geles Rivers and their tributaries were primarily
natural bottom streams. Now, over seventy-Five
percent of the streams are concrete -lined channels,
modified for Flood protection purposes. Tributaries
originating in the San Gabriel and Santa Monica
Mountains or the local hills, such as the Arroyo
Soon and Tbiunga Wash, remain natural channels in
their upper reaches but have been converted to
concrete channels in their lower reaches. Upper
Compton Creek is channelized, but the lower Creek
still has a soft- bottom stream channel.
22
San Gabriel and Iq Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
The upper San Gabriel River and its tributaries re-
main in a relatively pristine state. However, the
river has been extensively modified in the middle
and lower reaches for flood management. The low-
est reach of the river is concrete -lined channel for
approximately eight miles, with riprap banks and
soft - bottom channel upstream of the concrete -lined
channel and near the river's mouth where it is under
tidal influence.
Channelization of the Los Angeles River was com-
pleted in 1954 for most of its 51 -mile length. There
are a few stretches where the high water table or
other conditions required that the river bottom be
left unpaved. These include the six -mile reach
through Glendale Narrows near Griffith Park and
one and a half miles through the Sepulveda Basin.
The lowest 2.6 miles of the river, which are under
tidal influence, are natural streambed with riptap-
lined banks.
Flood protection efforts began along the San
Gabriel River in 1932 with construction beginning
on three dams in the upper reaches of the river.
Cogswell Dam, on the West Fork, was completed in
1934. Morris Dam was completed in 1935 and San
Gabriel Dam was Completed in 1939. Two dams on
the coastal plain, the Santa Fe Dam and the Whittier
Narrows Dam, were completed in 1949 and 1957,
respectively.
100%
c
0
80%
n
U
N
a 60%
O
C_ 40%
c 20%
W
m
K
0%
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Urbanization has altered the natural flow and the
runoff regime in the basin, increasing both the ve-
locity and volume of water flowing through the
rivers (Figure 2 -7). Prior to 1960, the ratio of rain-
fall to runoff was approximately 4:1, meaning that
80 percent of the precipitation in the basin was ei-
ther evaporated or infiltrated and 20 percent was
converted to surface runoff. By 1990 that ratio had
increased to 2:1. Now, approximately 50 percent of
all precipitation is converted to surface runoff.
(This is a very rough estimate, and does not account
for flow increases as a result of wastewater dis-
charges, or diversions from the rivers for
groundwater recharge.)
■ Sources of Base Flow
In a few reaches of the rivers, the groundwater table
is high and contributes to river flows seasonally.
For the most part, base flow Comes from snowmelt
and headwaters streams in the San Gabriel Moun-
tains, urban and agricultural runoff, and treated
wastewater discharges. During the dry season, flow
is dominated by treated wastewater discharges, par-
ticularly in the lower reaches of the rivers.
C. HABITAT
Because of its varied climate and topography,
Southern California is biologically diverse. Within
�— Runoff /Precipitation
10 year average
OD M N M N M W th OD C] ep M eD (`') aD
M OD CD On O)
� IT 01 ID) m W ID)
Year
Figure 2 -7. The Ratio of Annual Runoff in the Los Angeles River Measured at Firestone Blvd. to
the Annual Precipitation at the Los Angeles Civic Center from 1928 to 1998
Souree Weetem Regional Climate Center and L . County Department a/ Public Woks.
Reprinted from Dallman and Machold 19911
State of California Resources AgenrN
!n
2
O
0
2
U
U
H
Z
w
fY
U
P"Al
N
Z
O
i-
G
Z
a
U
Z
w
¢
U
U
24
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO l'HE SEA''
California, 25 percent of all known plant species in
North America can be found, and Southern Cali -
fomia supports half of all California's habitat types
(Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). The Mediterranean
ecosystem type (which predominates adjacent to the
coastal mountains in Southern California) exists on
only 3 percent of the earth's land surface. World-
wide, it is more threatened than the rainforest.
IN Historical Conditions
The major native vegetation communities in the
region include chaparral, grasslands, coastal sage and
alluvial scrub, oak woodland, oak savanna, riparian
and conifer forest. Alluvial scrub and chaparral
were the most widespread in the foothills and basin,
and conifer forests dominated the higher elevations.
Many mixed communities and locally unique habi-
tats resulted from the topography and varying
microclimamS. These conditions allowed the devel-
opment of unique species and subspecies of plants
and animals, giving the region a rich biodiversity.
Both the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers sup-
ported extensive riparian habitats containing marsh
grasses, willow, cottonwood, mulefat and sycamore.
The rivers provided steelhead trout habitat. The
basin and surrounding hills also supported large
predators, such as grizzly bear and mountain lion.
Although the grizzly bear appears on the state Flag
and was once abundant throughout the state, the
last known grizzly bear in California was killed in
1922.
■ Existing Conditions
The continued existence of native vegetation and
plant communities in the watersheds is generally
impacted by urban and suburban development.
Native vegetation in much of the basin has been
displaced by development, but large expanses of
chaparral, oak woodland, California walnut wood-
land, and coastal sage scrub remain in the Santa
Monica and San Gabriel Mountains and in the Ver-
dugo Hills. Alluvial scrub is found in Big Tujunga
Wash above Hansen Dam and above the Santa Fe
Dam in the San Gabriel Valley. Grasslands occur in
the undeveloped valleys and hillsides of northern
Los Angeles County and in the Puente Hills. Coni-
fers, primarily Big Cone Douglas Fir, White Fir,
Lodgepole Pine, and Ponderosa Pines, are confined
mostly to the Angeles National Forest in the San
Gabriel Mountains.
Riparian corridors occur along streams in the San
Gabriel Mountains and the upper and middle
reaches of the San Gabriel River, including Walnut
and San Jose Creeks, and upper Los Angeles River
watershed, including the Santa Monica Mountains,
Simi Hills, Verdugo Mountains and Santa Susana
Mountains. Freshwater stream habitat also occurs
in the upper San Gabriel River and streams in the
San Gabriel foothills, Puente and Chino Hills, the
Whittier Narrows, and the Glendale Narrows on the
Los Angeles River. Wetlands occur in limited areas,
mostly near the coast. The estuaries of both rivers
provide habitat for fish and a variety of birds.
Urban development has also encroached upon wild-
life habitat, displacing large mammal populations,
particularly in the basin. The mountain and foothill
areas still support important mammal species, in-
cluding mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, bighorn
sheep, gray fox, coyote, American badger, and mule
deer. Some wildlife species, particularly deer, rac-
coon, and coyote, can be found in suburban areas,
occasionally wandering into backyards, creating a
potential for conflict between people, pets and wild-
life. The rare encounters between humans and
mountain lion or bear usually tom out to be delete-
rious to the animals. Ecosystem health depends
upon preserving both large habitat blocs and link-
ages between those blocs, so that predator and prey
species can survive in balance and so that undesir-
able interactions between wildlife and people are
minimized.
■ The Effect of Exotic Species
Although the watersheds support approximately 450
species of birds, small populations of large mam-
mals, and dozens of species of small mammals,
reptiles and amphibians, agriculture and cattle graz-
ing in the 19th century and urban development in
the 2M century have significantly altered the native
ecology. California's mild climate allowed the in-
troduction of a wide range of exotic species.
Native plant species have been largely replaced in
the basin by landscaping associated with urban and
suburban development. In undeveloped areas, non-
native plants such as amndo (Amndo donax), tree
tobacco (Nwo ianaglauca), castor bean (Iticinuscom-
munis), salt cedar (Tam nr cn noYL%*W) and Sertzefo
miamunda are out-competing native species because
they are not edible to wildlife or lack mtuml preda-
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Wauershed and Open Space Plan
tors such as disease and insects. Amndo, a tall
bamboo -like grass that is prolific and difficult to
eradicate, is probably the most invasive exotic spe-
cies. In riparian areas, it takes up large amounts of
water, crowds out native plants, clogs streams, and
disrupts the balance for aquatic species. Along the
Whittier Narrows, arundo covers about 8W /o of the
landscape.
The alteration of the basin landscape from grass-
lands to urban metropolis caused a decline in larger
birds such as owls and raptors, which allowed some
native species such as crows and mockingbirds to
flourish. These in turn have crowded out many
species of songbirds. Introduced species such as
the European starling have also displaced some
native species. in suburban areas, domestic cats and
dogs have introduced disease and contributed to
reduced populations of birds and small mammals as
well. In riparian areas, introduced species of fish
such as mosquito fish (Gambusiasp.), crayfish, and
bullfrogs have impacted native populations of fish
and amphibians.
■ High Quality Habitat Areas
The upper San Gabriel River basin and portions of
the upper Los Angeles River watershed support
high quality riparian habitat and oak woodland.
Riparian areas in the Whittier Narrows reach of the
San Gabriel River and along the soft -bottom por-
tions of the Los Angeles River contain freshwater
marsh communities and riparian forest, although
non - native species are increasingly prevalent.
Lower Compton Creek, above its confluence with
the Los Angeles River, includes several miles of
freshwater marsh. These riparian habitats support
hundreds of species of birds, dozens of native
plants, and a variety of mammals and reptiles. Na-
tive fish species vary. The upper San Gabriel River
and the creeks in the mountains and foothills sup-
port trout and Armyo Chub (Gila orcuM). The Santa
Ana sucker (C,iMMor w&nrraaneie) and Santa Ana
speckled dace (Rbinichdi}sosculus) are found in the
upper reaches of the San Gabriel River and Big
Tujunga Creek.
In the foothills and throughout the basin, patches of
mwml or nearly natural habitat of varying size re-
main, supporting native species of plants and
animals. These are most prevalent in regional parks,
recreation areas and other protected areas, but there
State of California Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM I HE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
are also significant natural areas that are not yet
protected. The largest intact areas of wildlife habitat
occur in the Angeles National Forest, the Santa
Monica Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael
Hills, Simi Hills, Santa Susana Mountains, Santa Fe
Dam floodplain, Sepulveda Basin, and Whittier
Narrows recreation areas, and in the San Jose and
Puente Hills.
2. Species Management
■ Threatened and Endangered Species
The Federal Endangered Species Act, passed in
1973, defined categories of "endangered" and
"threatened" species and required all federal agen-
cies to undertake programs for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species, and prohibited
agencies from authorizing funding, or carrying out
any action that would jeopardize a listed species or
destroy or modify its "critical habitat." The Califor-
nia Endangered Species Act (CESA) generally
parallels the main provisions of the Federal Endan-
gered Species Act, although limited to species or
subspecies native to California. Under CESA the
term "endangered species" is defined as a species of
plant, fish, or wildlife that is "in serious danger of
becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant
portion of, its range." In general, both the Federal
and California laws are designed to identify and
protect individual species that have already declined
in number significantly.
Southern California has the second greatest number
of endangered and threatened species nationwide,
after Hawaii, and the majority of these species are
not found outside of California. Within the water-
sheds, there are hundreds of endangered,
threatened, and sensitive species, mostly plants (see
Appendix G). Federal critical habitat designations
for two animals, the threatened California gnat -
catcher (Polioprila caly rnica) and the endangered
anoyo toad (Bufoinkr iuscalifborairs), fall within
the watersheds (Figs 2 -8).
The endangered steelhead trout (Oncaiiynchasn*w)
once traversed the entire length of the Los Angeles
and San Gabriel Rivers, and other coastal streams.
Although the southern boundary of its range is offi-
cially designated as Malibu Creek, steelhead have
recently been found in Topanga Creek (the next
drainage east) and in San Mateo Creek in San Diego
K -1
2
O
F
O
Z
U
w
m
5
U
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
County. The National Marine Fisheries Service, the
federal agency in charge of the listing, recently pro-
posed extending the boundary to include San Mateo
Creek. This would not include the intervening
streams unless swelhead were found to inhabit
them. Swelhead are the only native Southern Cali-
fornia species that travel the waters from the
mountains to the sea and back. If conditions are
appropriate for steelhead, they are generally appro-
priate for many other species as well.
r g..
.,.. ,. + t.•;
Ak
tale
■ Exotics Removal
Because amndo's extensive root system allows it to
resprom rapidly, eradication programs have in-
creased in recent years, utilairig mechanical removal
methods, hand clearing, and herbicides. The Forest
Service is the lead agency for "Team Arundo," an
interagency group conducting arundo eradication
efforts in Southern California. Los Angeles County,
local conservancies, and conservation groups have
also undertaken smaller -scale eradication programs
throughout the watersheds. The key to permanent
eradication is to start from the top of a watershed,
since arundo cleared downstream will likely re-
establish itself if there are occurrences upstream.
However, significant progress has been made in
removing the reed and restoring native vegetation
along many stream reaches.
Several other invasive plant control programs are
underway to manage lesser -known species. Alliga-
tor weed (Altenu+nthempbi oxeroides) and water
hyacinth (EicbbomwcnmVes), for example, occur in
streambeds throughout the Los Angeles County,
affecting nearly 5,800 acres. Management efforts
for alligator weed have been ongoing since 1956,
and coverage of the weed is fairly low and under
control. A program of biological control of water
hyacinth using exotic natural enemies began in 1988.
The coverage of water hyacinths is high and mcreas-
ing. These programs are conducted jointly by the
California Department of Food & Agriculture, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Los Angeles
County Department of Agriculture.
Non - native plant species occurring in grasslands
and disturbed land areas are numerous, and include
klamathweedUbpe mperfomtum), puncturevine
(Tnbukrswrirsriis) and yellowstard stle(Centaurez
so&aialis). The percentage of cover is low, but they
occur throughout the county. Biological control
programs for these species began in 1988, con-
ducted by Los Angeles County Department of
Agriculture and California Department of Food &
Agriculture. Klamathweed and puncturevine are
considered to be under control but coverage of
yellow starthistle is increasing. All are monitored
through periodic aerial surveys.
3. Habitat Management
■ Significant Ecological Areas
Habitats that support rare or sensitive species of
plants and animals occur throughout the water-
sheds. In 1980 Los Angeles County designated
certain habitats as Significant Ecological Areas
26
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Spam Plan
(SEAS) in the County's General Plan (Figure 2 -8).
These include the habitat of rare, endangered and
threatened plant and animal species, biotic commu-
nities that are restricted in distribution, habitat that
is important to the life cycle of a species or group of
species, biotic resources that are of scientific inter-
est, are important to game species habitat or
fisheries, or are relatively undisturbed. Although
SEAS are not off - limits to development, they do
have some restrictions, and potential development
requires additional environmental review in order to
protect the identified sensitive resources. SEA
boundaries have been proposed for revision and
expansion in 2001,
■ Natural Community Conservation Planning
The State of California's Natural Community Con-
servation Planning program began in 1991, with an
objective to conserve natural communities at the
ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
land uses. The program seeks to focus on the long-
term stability of wildlife and plant communities.
The focus of the initial effort is the coastal sage
scrub habitat of Southern California, home to the
California gnatcatcher and approximately 100 other
potentially threatened or endangered species. This
much - fragmented habitat is scattered over more
than 6,000 square miles in Southern California, in-
cluding the southeastern comer of Los Angeles
county and large areas of Orange County. Other
habitats may warrant designation, delineation, and
development of conservation plans, including npar-
ian and valley oak woodland, both of which are
found in the watersheds.
4. Habitat Linkages
Urban and suburban development not only reduces
total habitat area, but also creates barriers to move-
ment of wildlife between habitats, through
Figure 2-8. Significant Ecological Areas and Critical Habitat Designations
SWC of C- RfOmie Aeswrces Agency
N
2
O
H
O
2
O
U
r
z
w
Of
s
U
27
u
Los Angeles Watershed _
Alsu
n Gabriel Wet
ad
Pacific Occan
--
J`C.
—
MpaIM Nadomi Foram
C�
Canry BeuMap
w
!'
�" J
\
Q
NnaraMdeou.N,
R
®
LA SEA Ame
—
Mayo TOad QIId lH.bAaI
—
& Whw CMUn HaEiM
f.s o ie
s 51116.
Figure 2-8. Significant Ecological Areas and Critical Habitat Designations
SWC of C- RfOmie Aeswrces Agency
N
2
O
H
O
2
O
U
r
z
w
Of
s
U
27
Z
O
0
Z
O
U
r
W
to
tx
cc
0
U
28
COMMON GROUND IFROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
installation of freeways, dams, and backyard fences.
Both loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation can
reduce plant and animal populations and species
diversity. As large habitat areas disappear, connec-
tions between patches of habitat become
increasingly important to maintaining plant and
animal populations.
■ Urban Ecological Integrity
Historically, urban design has focused on aesthetics
and efficiency: how to get from place to place easily
and safely. Because of this focus on human systems
and the built environment, natural systems, includ-
ing plant communities and wildlife habitat, have
typically not been considered. In recent years, the
concept of ecological integrity (e.g., maintaining the
integrity of an environmental system, such as an
ecosystem) has begun to be considered in urban
design. Using case studies in wildlands, the field of
conservation biology has established principles for
maintaining biodiversity and ecological integrity that
can be applied to urban and suburban settings with
minimal modification. These principles include:
• grladxaamuddisinbr ar d acrzrstlterncateraW
we1msc 'eioomnciand"n curOnedlo
smallponionsofdh rninge. Maintainingmultiple
populations of imperiled species maintains a
natural range of genetic variability and reduces
the chance that environmental variability will
result in species extinction. For urban settings,
this means that habitat protection must have
some redundancy. Species associated with a
particular habitat must be represented in many
places across the urban landscape, both within
and among metropolitan areas, so that extinc-
tion at one location does not eliminate the
species entirely from the urban setting.
• LaVNocksofhablrar, aw6ibung LwWPVd0Vr4
ate betterthansmall bbcksuMbsmallpcpulcalons.
All else being equal, larger populations are less
susceptible to extinction. This is especially we
when habitat patches are isolated from each
other, which is typical in urban landscapes.
Many species of forest and grassland birds, for
example, are progressively more likely to be
found as habitat area increases. Some species
are present only in large blocks of habitat. This
is recognized as species-area relationship: spe-
cies richness increases as habitat area increases.
Therefore, larger blocks of natural or semi-
natural habitat should be priorities for protec-
tion.
BlocksofbabaatcicsetVde rarebeaerthanblocks
farapan. Blocks of habitat close together may
function as one larger, contiguous habitat block
for those species that can move between areas.
What constitutes "close together' depends on
the species of concern. Habitats close together
for birds might be inaccessible for animals in-
capable of crossing intervening barriers. For
example, many small mammals, salamanders,
and flightless invertebrates seldom or never
cross roads.
Habitcaimmnligt+ bbcksisbter#�fizgtr nAV
habitat. Habitat fragmentation has been docu-
mented to have harmful effects in studies
worldwide, although considerable mgionalvan-
ability exists. Natural and semi - natural habitats
in urban landscapes are typically fragmented.
Although the thresholds of fragmentation
(where ecological integrity unravels) cannot be
reliably determined, the less fragmentation, the
better.
Irrtercorerrxl bkrlsoJlabac¢are ' dxrr+
blocks. Connectivity allows organisms to move
between patches of habitat. A collection of
small areas may be individually too small to
maintain populations of some species. But if
connected, those small areas may provide suffi-
cient habitat for a species to maintain viable
populations. The whole can be greater than
the sum of its parts.
■ Urban Wildlife Connectivity
Wildlife corridors are currently a popular concept in
conservation planning. However, without rigorous
investigation of potential utility or consequences,
linkages drawn on maps may have limited value in
maintaining species diversity. Linkages and corri-
dors must be defined in terms of functional
connectivity: (1) providing for daily and seasonal
movements of animals; (2) facilitating dispersal,
gene Flow, and rescue effects (for animals or plants);
(3) allowing for range shifts of species (i.e., in re-
sponse to climate change); and (4) maintaining Flows
of ecological processes (e.g., fire, wind, sediments,
water).
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
Because small patches of natural and semi -natural
habitat in urban areas are incapable of supporting
Populations of many species, maintaining connec-
tivity is necessary to maintain a rich diversity of
wildlife. Connectivity is generally species - specific
and landscape- specific What is a corridor to one
species may be a barrier to another. Linkage plan-
ning efforts should focus on species that are
particularly sensitive to habitat fragmentation. In
order to plan effective corridors, additional research
is needed about the mobility of species, and what
constitutes potential barriers to their movements.
The appropriate width of a corridor is highly vari-
able and depends on the nature of the surrounding
habitat, the characteristics of the species involved,
the length of the corridor, and other factors. creat-
ing effective underpasses or tunnels to allow annals
to cross safely beneath or over roads poses the
greatest challenge.
To gauge the success of habitat linkages, specific
animal and plant species can serve as sensitive indi-
cators of functional connectivity. A list of potential
indicator species for the watersheds is provided in
Appendix H.
Wildlife corridors may also constitute important
habitats in their own right, particularly when they
are located in riparian areas. In the and west, dpar-
tan areas typically are the most species -rich habitats.
Some 80% of vertebrate species in Arizona and
New Mexico depend on riparian habitat for at least
a portion of their life cycles (Johnson 1989 in G.
Macintosh, ed. PreservingCommunit✓FsandCari kts,
Defenders of Wildlife). Maintaining intact riparian
areas not only contributes to terrestrial ecological
integrity, but may also increase aquatic biotic integ-
rity. However, riparian protection alone may not
improve stream communities.
In urban areas, most wildlife corridors will also be
corridors for people. Urban greenways typically
have trails and are used for recreation and other
purposes, thus urban gmCnways must be designed
with the needs of both people and wildlife in mind.
A recent urban trail handbook (Planning 7fad, stab
Wildlife in Mind, 1998, Colorado State Parks and
Hellmund Associates) includes some useful recom-
mendations: route trails around edges of high -
quality habitat patches; do not route trails continu-
ously close to riparian areas; and balance competing
wildlife and recreation needs across a landscape or
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
region rather than trying to accommodate all uses
within specific areas. These recommendations un-
derscore the need for biologists to be involved in
the early stages of greenway planning and the trail
development process.
■ Urban to Wildland Networks
Southern California is distinctive in having major
urban centers directly adjacent towildlands (e.g., the
San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains, and the
various foothills). In the long run, many wildlife
species will persist in these urban areas only if there
are connections to the surrounding mral and wild -
land landscapes. An appropriate hierarchy of
connected habitat networks would include: (1) rela-
tively small habitat patches and narrow corridors
within the densest urban zone; (2) a network of
larger habitat patches and wider corridors in subur-
ban and Waal areas, as well as in a few areas within
the urban matrix (e.g., Puente Hills and Griffith
Park); and (3) the wildland landscape (e.g., the na-
tional forests), with large habitat patches, low road
density, and greater overall connectivity.
There are two potential problems with this "net-
work of networks" design. One, comdors leading
from the more developed zones of the network
might funnel exotics and other opportunistic, inva-
sive species into wildland areas. Roads and
roadsides, for example, are frequent avenues for the
invasion of these pests. Well-designed corridors,
especially if wide, may provide habitat for predators
of some animal species (e.g, feral cats, opossums).
In addition, corridor bottlenecks could be used to
trap those species and limit their spread.
A potentially more serious concern is for corridors
connected to wildlands or rural areas to provide a
route for large mammals (such as deer) into subur-
ban and urban areas. Many residents like to see [leer
near their homes, but are unhappy when deer eat
their gardens. Predators may also use corridors to
follow their prey. This will require careful consid-
eration of options and consequences, to achieve an
appropriate balance between the need for species
mobility and the need to minimize human and ani-
mal conflicts.
Identification of potential habitat linkages within the
watersheds is provided in Chapter 3, A Vision for
the Future.
W
Z
b
1=
Za
U
Z
W
¢
U
State of Calif no Resources Agency 29
Z
O
i=
C
Z
O
Z
w
U
D. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
1. Definition of "Open Space" and "Recrea-
tional" Land Use
Generally speaking, open space may be any land
that is not developed for urban use. This may in-
clude natural areas set aside for species protection,
lands used for agriculture or natural resource extrac-
tion, recreational areas, or areas unsuitable for
development either due to a potential hazard (such
as slide areas or floodplains) or due to other uses
such as groundwater recharge or flood protection.
In ails document, open space implies areas that are
in a reasonably natural state and that can serve as
wildlife habitat in addition to public access for pas-
sive forms of recreation.
Recreational use may be designated active, passive,
or both. Passive use refers to activities that are gen-
erally low impact such as hiking, fishing, Picnicking,
bird watching, or non - motorized boating. Active
recreational use may include facilities designed for
sports such as soccer or baseball, lakes for motor-
boats and jet skis, bicycle trails or equestrian trails.
2. Existing Open Space and Recreational
Areas in the Watersheds
The San Gabriel and Los Angeles watersheds in-
clude a variety of areas devoted to recreation in
some form, often in conjunction with the preserva-
tion of natural open space. These include the
federal, state, joint powers authority lands, and an
assortment of regional and local parks, nature cen-
ters, and preserves. Parks and open space are not
evenly distributed throughout the region, and access
for those without private transportation is beginning
to be addressed by several agencies.
Table 1. Agencies Administering Open
Soace and Recreational Areas
Type
Agency
Federal
st Service
Co s of En ineere
f Land Mans ement
Park Service
WR�reafion
State
ent of Parks and Recreation
onica Mountains Conser-
Joint Powers
Authorities
ns Recreation and Conser-
Aulhori
Puente Hills Nat ive Habitat Preser-
vation Authority
Counties
Parks and Recreation
De nmem of Public Works
Cities
Parks and Recreation Departments,
School Districts
■ Federal Lands
The Angeles National Forest is one of the most
visited forests anywhere in the country, with an
estimated thirty million visitors annually (Cook
2001). Within the watersheds, the forest accounts
for 23 percent of the total land area. The Forest's
691,539 total acres include 8,708 water surface acres
in twenty-five lakes and reservoirs, 110 picnic areas
and campgrounds, and 557 miles of hiking trails.
There are also a number of special use areas in the
Forest that occur within the watersheds, described
in the table below.
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, within the Seal
Beach Naval Weapons Station, is managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Refuge contains
911 acres of natural coastal habitat, including salt
marsh and tidal wetlands. It is home to the Califor-
nia least tem (.Sme anttllatum btoumb, a federally
listed endangered bird, and many other seabirds.
T ble 2 S cial Designations within the Angeles National Forest
a . pe
Designated
Purpose
Name
Am
San Gabriel Wilderness Area
36,118 acres
1968
Wweme s emignatituresno development
or
Sheep Mountain Wilderness Area
43,600 acres
1984
Wilderness d1n s o development
or nt structur
San Dimes experimental forest
17,163 acres
1933
Research and pilot testing of imegreted
(UNESCO Biosphere Reserve)
forest management techniques; access
b ennh onh, .
Fem Canyon Natural Research
1,360 acres
1972
No development or permanent structures;
near pristine condition. Contained within
Area
San Dimes Experimental Forest
30 San Gabriel and Las ngeres Rivers Watershed and Open Spam Plan
Public access is restricted to a wooden trail leading
to an overlook of the area, and is open a limited
number of days to reduce disturbance to the wild-
life.
■ State and Regional Facilities
California Department of Parks and Recreation, the
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Los Angeles
and Orange County parks departments and other
agencies manage substantial land acreage devoted to
open space reserves, nature centers, botanical gar-
dens and recreation areas. The chart below lists
some state and county facilities and large regional
facilities that may be managed by cities or multiple
jurisdictions. Golf courses and local city parks are
not included as they are too numerous, although
their total acreage watershed -wide is substantial.
3. Access along the River Fronts
In the canyons of the San Gabriel and Santa Monica
Mountains and the local hills, there is ample access
to streams for fishing, swimming, and picnicking. A
five and a half mile stretch of the West Fork of San
Gabriel River is a "catch and release" area for native
rainbow trout.
Within the urban core, access to the Los Angeles
River is provided via pocket parks in the community
of Elysian Valley. In addition, the City and County
of Los Angeles are making progress on converting
the maintenance road next to the river into a bike-
way. The IARIO trail provides bicycle and
equestrian access along the Rio Hondo and Lower
Los Angeles River, as does the bicycle trail above
the San Gabriel River channel. Concerns over pub-
lic safety during periods of high stream flows or
potential flash -flood conditions have left much of
the urban rivers inaccessible or off- limits to the
public. The potential for more riverside parks,
walking trails and bike paths is increasing, as evi-
denced by the three -year old Bosque del Rio Hondo
and new parks in Bell Gardens, Paramount and
Maywood.
Tahle a_ Malior Ooen Soace and Recreational Facilities within the Watersheds
Type
Botanical Gardens
Name and Location
Arboretum of Los An eles Court Arcadia
Acreage
127
Management
LA Court
Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Garden, Claremont
106
Private
Descanso Gardens, La Canada
160
LA Coun
Parks and Recreation Areas
Frank G. Bonelli He tonal Park, San Jose Hills
9s
C Ccu
Griffith Park Los An ales
9
El Dorado Re ional Park, Long Beach
520
C
El sian Park, Los An ales
584
C
Hahamon a Watershed Park, Pasadena
Hansen Dam, Los Angeles
836
1,289
C
City, U.S.
Ann Cc s
Marshall Canyon County Park, Claremont
690
LA Cou
Mulholland Gateway Park
Rai h B. Clark Re Tonal Park, FullerlonBuena Park
Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area
1,200
105
SMMC
Oren a Cou
836
LA Cou
Schabamm Regional Park, Pueme Hills
Sepulveda Dam Recreation Area
500
1,040
LA Coun
LA City /Army
Co s
Ted Craig Regime] Park, FullenorVBme
Whittier Narrows Recreation Area
124
Oran a Coun
1,400
LA Coun
Verdugo Mountains State Park
251
1,101
State Parks
SMMC
Nature Centers and Wilder-
new Parks
Eaton Canyon Natural Area
184
LA Couny
Claremont Hills Wilderness Area
1,220
C' /LA Coun
Deukme'fail Wilderness Park
720
Glendale
Eastern Rimot- the -Valle O en S ace
El Dorado Nature Center
1 000
SMMC
130
Lon Beach
San Dimas Can on Nature Center
Simi HilWSanta SusanaO arts ace
Whittier Narrows Nature Center
1.000
4,000
419
LA Cou
SMMC
LA ounty
Z
O
F
z
Z
U
z
uI
it
R
O
31
Stale of Califomia Resources Agency
2
O
F
i9
z
V
F
z
III
fr
v
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
4. Trail Systems
Trails provide access for hiking, equestrian use and
bicycling. There are hundreds of miles of trails of
various types throughout the watersheds.
■ Types of Trails
In the Angeles National Forest, there are several
trails that are part of the National Trails System, that
was established in 1968. These include 176 miles of
the Pacific Crest Trail and National Scenic trails,
and 73 miles of National Recreation Trails, which
provide for hiking and equestrian use. Trails in the
Forest are open to mountain bikes as well, except
for those in the National Trails System and those in
the Wilderness areas. The Rails to Trails Conser-
vancy, which mavens unused railroad rightof -way
to trails, has two trails in the region: Mt. Lowe Rail-
road Trail and the Duarte Bike Trail.
In the urban area, there are local and regional trails
for bicycle commuting and recreation, walking, hik-
ing and equestrian use. Approximately 500 miles of
bike paths and bike lanes exist in Los Angles
County currently. Bikeways are under development
along the Los Angeles River and Arroyo Seco. Bike
trails run along the Lower Los Angeles River, Coy-
ote Creek, the Rio Hondo, and along the San
Gabriel River from the Pacific Ocean at Seal Beach
to the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.
■ Trail Connectivity
Connectivity between cities and parrs exists in some
areas but there are many local trails that do not ex-
tend beyond jurisdictional borders. The five
regional parks in the San Gabriel Valley — Bonelli,
Whittier Narrows, Santa Fe Dam, Marshall Canyon,
and Schabamm —are connected by a trail system.
3icyclists, hikers, and equestrians use this trail,
maintained by Los Angeles County. In May 2001,
the Metropolitan Transit Authority recommended
$21.6 million in funding over the next three years
for thirteen bicycle trail projects that will expand
and connect existing trails and add commuter bike
lanes on city streets. The 28 -mile LARIO trail, re-
cency upgraded by Los Angeles County, provides
connections to eight parks along the Rio Hondo
and Los Angeles River.
The Rim of the Valley Trail encircles the upper Los
Angeles River watershed and aims to connect the
Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains. The
National Park Service has begun marking the Juan
Bautista de Anza National Trail through the region,
and markets and interpretive signs can now be seen
along the Los Angeles River. The Griffith Park to
El Pueblo Trail will lead visitors from the park to
downtown. Additional study is needed to determine
how best to further connect existing trails within the
watersheds.
S. Designated Scenic Highways and Vistas
Scenic highways include the Mulholland Scenic
Parkway in the eastern upper Los Angeles River
watershed. Caltrans is actively working towards
obtaining federal scenic byway status for the Arroyo
Seco Parkway (Pasadena Freeway). Federal designa-
tion can potentially bring in planning and
implementation funding for both sides of the park-
way.
Vista points in the watersheds include Grand View
in Elysian Park, which provides views to downtown,
Montecito Heights, Mount Washington, Taylor
Yard, the Los Angeles River, and the Arroyo Sec,.
Sites within the Kenneth Hahn County Park in the
Baldwin Hills, and new adjacent areas recently pur-
chased, provide 360 -degree views including to the
ocean and downtown. At the Top of Topanga,
visitors can view the San Fernando Valley as well as
central Los Angeles. From Mulholland Scenic
Parkway, a number of places provide views of the
Los Angeles River Watershed and smaller coastal
watersheds. These include Hollywood Bowl Over-
look, Universal City Overlook, Nancy Hoover Pohl
Overlook, and Summit Overlook. Many of the
turnouts along the Angeles Crest Highway and
campgrounds within the Angeles National Forest
also provide spectacular views.
E. WATER SUPPLY
1. Sources of Water
Early settlements in the watersheds relied on surface
water from springs, rivers, creeks, and lakes for
drinking water and irrigation. In the 1870s,
groundwater became an important additional water
source as well-drilling technology improved. Water
needs of the population have exceeded the available
local supply for nearly a century. The combination
of population growth and extensive use of non-
32
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
native plants place demands on water supplies.
current sources of water for the basin include the
following:
1. imported water from the Colorado River, the
Owens Valley in Eastern California via the Los
Angeles Aqueduct, and Northern Califona via
the California Aqueduct;
2. local groundwater supplies;
3. recycled water from wastewater treatment fa-
cilities; and
4. surface water from local streams and the upper
San Gabriel River.
While these supplies currently sustain a population
of over seventeen million people in Southern Cali-
fornia, they are subject to both seasonal and long-
term variability depending upon climatic conditions
throughout the source areas. During drought peri-
ods, there may be less water available for
importation so groundwater use increases. During
wet years, storrnwater runoff and surplus imported
water may be stored in reservoirs and groundwater
basins for future needs. Figure 2 -9 depicts the
average amount contributed to the region's water
supply by each source. The percentage of ground-
water and imported water varies from year to year,
depending on hydrologic conditions. Groundwater
contributes from 30 to 40 percent, while imported
water may range from 56 to 66 percent of the tota l
supply.
2. Groundwater
The coastal plain is composed primarily of deep
layers of marine sediments and eroded sediments
washed down from the surrounding mountains. In
some areas these sediments are over 30,000 feet
thick. This geology has allowed for the storage of
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
O Imported
Surface
Figure 2 -9. Sources of Water supply
source: mmmpditan Water nebid of Soutbem califarnia (rAed in
Loa Angeles s San Gabriel Rivars Wateml ed Caundl, In press)
water in underground basins, or aquifers. Aquifers
are not underground lakes, but places where the
rock or soil is porous enough to trap significant
amounts of water. There are eight major groundwa-
ter basins underlying the watersheds in the San
Gabriel Valley, San Fernando Valley and the coastal
plain (Figure 2 -10). A cross section for the Los
Angeles Coastal plain is illustrated in Figure 2-11.
The contribution of groundwater basins to local
water supply varies. The San Femando basins rep-
resent 15 -20 percent of the water supply for
Burbank, Glendale, San Fernando, and Los Angeles,
while the Raymond Basin provides 46 percent of
the water supply for the City of Pasadena.
■ Recharge Programs
Water supply is increased through artificial or en-
hanced infiltration to replenish groundwater and
compensate for the loss of natural permeability in
the region. Surface water was "stored" in ground-
water basins as early as 1895. Water is stored in
facilities called spreading basins, in areas where soils
Table 4. Capacity of Local Groundwater Basins
Geographic Regions and Underlying
Surrace Area
Curn:m Average
Estimated Total
Groundwater Basins
(acres)
Annual Yield (AF)
Capacity (AF)
Los Angeles Coastal Plain: Central and West
288,000
281,835"
20,300,000
Coast basins
Orange County Coastal Plain Basin
224,000
350,000
1,000,000
Raymond Basin
25,000
35 -40,000
250,000
San Fernando Valley: San Fernando, Verdugo
327,000
105,000
500,000
and Sylmar basins
Main San Gabriel Basin
106,880
200,000
8,600,000
•AF = Acrafaot, approAmately 326,000 gallons d water
"Allavable under adjudication
source: Assoc. of Ground Water Aaences, 2000
State of California Resources Agency
00
Z
O
F
O
Z
O
U
2
K
7
v
01
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
0 r 3 >
Fernan oBasins ® Raymond
zz Basin
s
*,Main San Gab Bas $ �
t
lat
®wPltaMe SUbBasili �
Pacific Ocean
Central _
Basin � _
Pro
aWays
county Boudary
Watmhod Boundary `Miles
Figure 2.10. Groundwater Basins Underlying the Watersheds
Adapted from San Gal Wee,master and Montgomery Watson Hanza
are very permeable and groundwater aquifers are County Department of Public Works (LACDPW).
connected to the surface or accessible through wells. Major facilities on the San Gabriel River include the
San Gabriel Carryon spreading basin, Santa Fe Res -
A total of 3,361 aces of spreading grounds exist in nervoir and the Montebello Forebay south of
Los Angeles County in 32 separate locations, the Whittier Narrows (Rio Hondo and San Gabriel
majority of which are operated by the Los Angeles spreading basins), and in unlined reaches of the
West Coast Basin cannot Basin !, A'
Z
0 Palos Venting Newpod- Inglewood Uplift Whittler
h taun Fault Zone
O Principal Aquila- Unconsolidated Unconsolidated to
Z =Sand and Gravel ILI Semioom hosted Deposits
O
U Confining Unit - Clay and Sill -Bedrock
\ Direction of
WGroundwater Flow
Figure 2 -11. Cross - section of the Los Angeles Coastal Plain Groundwater Basin
f=.1 Source: Association of Gnwndwater Agerlcles
34
San Gabnel and IDS Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
river. Facilities in the Los Angeles River watershed
include Pacoima and Tujunga Wash spreading ba-
sins, Hansen Dam in Sun Valley and Devil's Gate
on the Arroyo Seco. In the 1998 -99 water year, a
total of 256,332 acre-feet of water were conserved
through spreading grounds within the watersheds,
as shown in Table 5.
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
groundwater levels in many parts of the basin still
remain below sea level. The Water Replenishment
District of Southern California (WRD) manages the
basins. The WRD is responsible for maintaining
adequate groundwater supplies, reducing seawater
intrusion into aquifers, and protecting groundwater
quality.
Table 5. Water Recharged During the 1999 -2000 Water Year (Acre -feet) Groundwater pumping
h S Gabriel
Location
Reclaimed
Imported
Runoff
OthA256,332
San Gabriel Basin
0
50,963
76,792
5,0
SF Valle Basin
0
0
14 105
Coastal Plain
43,180
45,037
21,120
TOTAL
43,180
96,990
112,107
5,0
- Water owned by other local water agencies and stored in the San Gabriel Basin
Bourse: L.A. County Department of Pudic Works Water Resources DNislon
■ Groundwater Management
The underlying groundwater basins are managed to
ensure [hat water extraction from groundwater ba-
sins is in balance with water supply. Court
decisions, called adjudications, have established the
methods that water managers use in each basin.
The court determines the groundwater rights of all
the users who extract water, how much can be ex-
tracted, and appoints a manager or °watennaster."
The watennaster ensures that the basin is managed
according to the adjudication and reports periodi-
cally to the court.
In 1955, the Central and West Basin WaterAssocia-
tions were funned to manage groundwater pumping
in their respective basins. By the late 1950s,
groundwater pumping in the Central and West
Coast Basins had reduced groundwater levels to
historic lows. Saltwater from the Pacific Ocean
began to increase the salinity in groundwater in the
West and Central coastal basins. Marry wells had to
be abandoned due to seawater intrusion. Since
then, the LACDPW, WRD, and other agencies have
operated facilities that inject fresh water into the
groundwater basins to help keep intruding saltwater
out. Saltwater barrier facilities are located along the
coast at Manhattan Beach, between Huntington
Beach and Newport Beach, and at the mouth of the
San Gabriel River at the Los Angeles and Orange
County boundary.
In 1961 the Central and West Coast Basins were
adjudicated to limit groundwater pumping in the
basin and explore alternative water sources. While
this decision had the effect of decreasing pumping,
m t e an
groundwater basin be-
gan to exceed recharge
rates in the 1950s, lead-
ing to a lengthy legal
battle that was settled
in 1972. This settle-
ment established the San Gabriel River Waterrnaster
to adjudicate water rights and manage groundwater
resources in the Main San Gabriel Basin. The water
resources of the groundwater basins in the Upper
Los Angeles River Area ( ULARA) are managed by
an agreement made in 1973. This agreement bal-
ances the groundwater rights of the City of Los
Angeles with the upstream cities of Glendale and
Burbank. The ULARA Watermaster is responsible
for managing groundwater supplies and protecting
groundwater quality.
Because of groundwater extraction, seawater from
the Pacific Ocean has increased the salinity in
groundwater in the West and Central coastal basins.
Many wells had to be abandoned in the 1940s due
to seawater intrusion. Since the 1950s, the
LACDPW and other agencies have operated facili-
ties that inject fresh water into the groundwater
basins to help keep intruding saltwater out. Saltwa-
ter barrier facilities are located along the coast at
Manhattan Beach and at the mouth of the San
Gabriel River at the Los Angeles and Orange
County boundary.
3. Imported Water
Water is imported into Los Angeles County from
the Owens Valley on the eastern slope of the Sierra
Nevada, from Northern California and from the
Colorado River.
Construction of the first Los Angeles Aqueduct
from the Owens Valley began in 1908. Under the
supervision of William Mulholland, this 233 -mile
aqueduct was constructed in five years. In 1940 the
N
O
i=
0
Z
O
U
z
w
cc
D
U
35
State of California Resources Agency
U)
O
1=
C
Z
U
H
Z
US
2
ir
U
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
aqueduct was extended 105 miles north to Mono
Basin. A second aqueduct from Owens valley was
completed in 1970 to further increase capacity.
Approximately 480,000 acre -feet of water are deliv-
ered to the City of Los Angeles each year. The
amount the aqueduct delivers varies from year to
year due to fluctuating precipitation in the Sierra
Nevada. As a result of legal restrictions on water
transfers to protect the source environment, future
deliveries are expected to be reduced to an average
of 321,000 acre -feet annually over the next twenty
years.
The 242 -mile Colorado River Aqueduct, completed
in 1941 to deliver water to the Southern California
coastal plain, has a capacity of 1.3 million acre -feet.
Annually, California is allowed 4.4 million acre -feet
of Colorado River water. California has traditionally
received in excess of that amount when there is
excess water available, in wet years or when other
states drawing from the Colorado River do not use
their full allotment. Future supplies from the Colo-
rado River may be reduced due to competing
demands. The Metropolitan Water District recently
completed the Eastside Reservoir project, which
created Diamond Valley lake, to store 800,000 acre
feet of Colorado River water.
The State Water Project (SWP) was created in 1960
to deliver water to regions of the state where re-
sources are scarce. The SWP brings water 444 miles
from the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta to
Southern California via the California Aqueduct.
The SWP has delivered up to 3.6 million acre-feet
annually, although significantly less water is available
during dry-year periods. One of the goals of the
CALFED Bay -Delta Program is to improve water
supply reliability for the Delta, therefore the poten-
tial for future increases in water supplies from the
SWP for Southern California is uncertain.
4. surface Water
While the rivers used to be the primary source of
water for the basin, they now supply only a small
percentage of the total. These local supplies have a
very low cost in comparison to imported water,
especially when the energy costs of transporting
water are considered. Water from the upper San
Gabriel River is stored in Cogswell, San Gabriel,
and Morris Reservoirs. A portion is treated for
municipal use with the balance used for groundw H
ter recharge. The City of Pasadena obtains 40
percent of its municipal water supply indirectly from
the Arroyo Sew and Millard Stream, by diverting a
portion of the total Flow into spreading basins adja-
cent to Devils Gate Reservoir.
5. Recycled Water
Recycled or reclaimed water is treated effluent from
wastewater treatment facilities. This water is used
primarily for irrigation, industry, injection into bar-
rier wells to prevent saltwater intrusion, and
groundwater recharge. Currently recycled water
makes up only 3 percent of the annual water supply
in the Los Angeles region, although its potential is
far greater.
Conservation efforts over the past thirty years have
kept total water demand from increasing in tandem
with population. In the City of Los Angeles, popu-
lation has increased over 35 percent since 1970,
while water usage increased only 7 percent. How-
ever, competing interests for imported water and
sustained population growth will continue to drive
the need for increased water conservation and ex-
panded use of recycled water.
F. WATER QUALITY
1. Responsibility for Managing Water
Quality
Protection of water quality in California is primarily
the responsibility of the State Water Resources Con-
trol Board (SWRCB) and, on a regional basis, the
nine California Regional Water Quality Control
Boards. The Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control
Act (California Water Code) authorizes the State
Board to adopt policies for all waters of the state
and directs each Regional Board to prepare a Basin
Plan to protect water quality. The water quality in
the watersheds is primarily under the jurisdiction of
the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB). The
Santa Ana Regional Board has jurisdiction over a
portion of the Coyote Creek subwatershed.
The California Department of Health Services also
has responsibility to protect the quality of drinking
water, in accord with California's Drinking Water
Source Assessment and Protection Programs, in
response to the 1995 reauthorization of the Federal
36
San Galanel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
Clean Water Act, The Water Replenishment Dis-
trict of Southern California (WRD) is also
authorized under the California Water Code to en-
gage in activities to protect groundwater in the
Central and West Coast groundwater basins. The
Main San Gabriel Watermaster and the ULARA
Watemtaster also have responsibility for water qual-
ity protection for their respective basins.
The Basin Plan for the Los Angeles Region was
originally prepared in the 1970s and has been up-
dated several times. The Santa Ana River Basin
Plan was first adopted in 1975, with a major update
in 1995. These plans address beneficial uses for
surface waters in the region, as required by the Fed-
eral Clean Water Act, water quality objectives for
protection of beneficial uses, and a plan for enhanc-
ing and maintaining water quality.
2. Beneficial Uses
State Board resolution 88-63 and LARWQCB reso-
lution 89 -03 state:
"All surface water bodies and ground waters
of the State are considered to be suitable, or
potentially suitable, for municipal or don
tic water supply and will be so designated by
the Regional Boards ... [with certain excep-
tions which must be adopted by the
Regional Board]." ( LARWQCB 1994)
Surface waters include rivers, streams, lakes, reser-
voirs, and wetlands. Beneficial uses defined by the
Los Angeles Regional Board for surface waters in
the watersheds generally include swimmable, fish-
able, industrial, non - contact recreation and wildlife
habitat. Water bodies not meeting the water quality
standard for their designated beneficial use are to be
listed as "impaired." Beneficial uses defined by the
LARWQCB for groundwater include municipal,
industrial, agricultural, and aquacultuml.
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
3. Water Quality Concerns
Because of the largely urban and industrial land uses
throughout the watersheds, the surface and
groundwater quality has been substantially degraded
at many locations. The following section provides a
brief description of the malorwater quality concerns
for surface water and groundwater.
■ Surface Water
According to the Regional Board, "uncontrolled
pollutants from non -point sources are believed to
be the greatest threats to rivers and streams within
the watershed" ( LARWQCB 1994). Urban runoff
and illegal dumping are considered to be major
sources of pollution in the San Gabriel and Los
Angeles River Watersheds. Point sources, such as
sewage treatment plants and industrial operations
discharging into the rivers, also contribute to pollut-
ant loads. As required under S303(d) of the Federal
Clean Water Act, specific surface water quality con -
cems have been identified for surface water bodies.
California's most recent 303(d) fist was approved in
1998 and contains 509 water bodies designated as
impaired. EPA 303(d) listed surface water constitu-
ents of concern for the watersheds are shown in the
table below.
For waters on the 303(d) list, and where the US
EPA administrator deems they are appropriate, the
states are to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads
or TMDLs. A TMDL defines the total amount of a
particular pollutant that is acceptable in the water
body consistent with its designated beneficial use.
Federal regulations require that each TMDL ac-
count for all sources of the pollutants that caused
the water to be listed, both contributions from poke
sources (federally permitted discharges) and contri-
butions from non -point sources. Impaired reaches
of the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers and their
major tributaries are illustrated in Figure 2 -12,
Table 6. Pollutants of Concern in the Watersheds
N
2
O
P
C
2
U
Z
W
c:
Q
U
37
Sun, of California Resources Agency
w
w
Drainage
San Gabdel
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Los Angeles
x
x
x
x
X77
T x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
N
2
O
P
C
2
U
Z
W
c:
Q
U
37
Sun, of California Resources Agency
to
Z
O
0
Z
0
U
H-
2
K
K
U
191:1
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
i
BC 6
LA5
9�
P WC
Impairmwd: `ti
/vAllse GnycnWaH1AC)- COppor, lead, calendar, R 9�
Anoye Sao Reasn 1 garh Alpo, Colromh, trash
Sol Saco C)- C31ASSI -Alpo, colleen,, treaM1
Ba6CnNestern 011form \�
BuAenX Western CM1mnAll (8B) -Alp,, ammonia, admium, /
colors,
oldo", lea trash 1
/V Camphor C GwX (CM) _ Algae, am oalamh, lad, PII
/\/COyob Crack h l (U1lg -Anon. aria, colBO,m, vilwr R
^J L4 Rtar ReaM1 11U1)-0.mmum tra earm, lard, Mdenb, V
pR. men traaM1 crime,
U ftivn RawM12(U3)- Ammonta, eelperm,lnq mltl.Mf, N
og,fcum, traaM1 M
^/U Riner Reach S (Uy)- Ammonia, coastal, room, .,am, traah
^/ U Rives Reach 4 (✓u) - Ammonia, eaierm, MdriV odara,feum, tra.R
U River Reach f (U6)- Ammonia, CM1amA, aimiel M, �t 2.6 E 1.6 6mim
mdinede, clear, al, gum, traM1
NU Riwr Reach 6 M6) - Caform, 1,1 -UCE. PCE, TCE
^/Rio Hondo Resell 1 (1011) _ Ammonia, colBam, copper, loud, M, trash, zinc
^/Rio Honda Reach t (NIy) - Ammonia, eollerm
Se River Reach 1(401)- Algae, ammonia, eolifem, bNstry &- Tyunga Wash ( TIN - Ammonia, capper, "or., sera, trash
NSO N. Reach tt3(33 )_Amme,ia, eakomt bad Nyerdugo Wash Reach 1(well - Algae,wlgaa,traM1
/v6e RJw Rwch3Nuz3)- II88T1x'kN NVerlip W..la R.acM1flwlg) - Alp.,ealoa,treaM1
�9an JaoCmM wieni ryJZt- pApgr% ammanis, roll�am ^/W.Ina ClaM IWC) -pX, baldly
Mears. 2.12_ Intonational Reaches of the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers and Tributaries
Source : Montgomery Walson Home
■ Groundwater
As described earlier in this document, groundwater
supplies most of the watersheds' local potable water
supply. Specific groundwater quality concerns in-
clude volatile organic compounds, perchlorate,
hexavalent chromium, and NDMA from industrial
activities and nitrates from agricultural and septic
tanks and leach fields. Low levels of hexavalent
chromium have been detected in San Fernando
Valley drinking water wells and in Central Basin
aquifers. The United States EPA has designated
portions of the San Gabriel and San Fernando ba-
sins as Superfund sites, and has initiated cleanup
operations. Other Superfund sites have been identi-
fied within the watersheds, such as the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in La Canada Flintridge,
Lockheed in the San Fernando Valley and the Pe-
maco site in Maywood. Some water supply wells
have been taken out of production where contami-
nant levels exceed drinking water standards. Efforts
of local cities, water companies, and water agenda,
such as the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Au-
thority, have been instrumental in developing and
implementing plans to clean up many of these sites.
4. Source Controls and Remediation Efforts
Planned
The Regional Boards have adopted a variety of dif-
ferent strategies to address water quality concerns,
depending on the nature of the water quality prob-
lem. These include control of point source
pollutants, control of non -point source pollutants,
and remediation.
As stated in the LARWQCB's Basin Plan:
"All discharges, whether to land or water,
are subject to the California Water Code
(§13263) and will be issued WDRs [Waste
San Gabriel and tam Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
Discharge Requirements] by the Regional
Board." (LARWQCB 1994)
at Control of Point Source Pollutants
Pollutants from point sources are transported to
water bodies in controlled flows at well - defined
locations. Examples of point sources include dis-
charges from municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment facilities. The primary mechanism for
point source pollutant control is either through
California's Waste Discharge Permit requirements
or through the Federal National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements.
■ Control of Non -point Source Pollutants
Pollutants from non -point sources are diffuse, both
in terms of their origin and mode of transport to
surface and ground waters. Non -point sources of
pollution originate from activities generating surface
runoff that mobilizes and transports contaminants
into surface and ground waters. Source,; of concern
include lawn and garden chemicals transported by
storm water or by water from lawn sprinklers;
household and automotive care products dumped
on streets and into storm drains; fertilizers, pesti-
cides, and manure washed from agricultural fields by
rain or irrigation waters; sediment that erodes from
construction sues, and various pollutants resulting
from atmospheric deposition.
Emphasis is placed on pollution prevention through
careful management of resources, as opposed to
"cleaning up" the waterbody after the fact.
Through public outreach —an example of a non-
regulatory program — residents are informed of
threats to the quality of the waters in their commu-
nities and are encouraged to voluntarily implement
Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will elimi-
nate or reduce non -point sources of pollution.
Local governments, including the Counties and
individual cities are encouraged to develop and im-
plement ordinances and public outreach programs
that supplement this effort. This flexible approach
can be an effective means of controlling pollutants
from many non -point sources.
In addition to the general approach to non -point
source pollution control, the Los Angeles Regional
Board has adopted a TMDL for trash for the East
Fork of the San Gabriel River and has proposed a
draft TMDL for trash in the Los Angeles River.
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
The watersheds are also subject to a NPDES permit
for stomtwater runoff that is designed to protect the
beneficial uses of water bodies in Los Angeles
County by reducing pollutants in storm water. This
permit was issued in 1990 by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and renewed in 1996. The
permit covers 3,100 square miles in the Los Angeles
basin and spans several watersheds, with the County
of Los Angeles and 85 incorporated cities as the
listed pemmittees. Orange County's Environmental
Resources department also administers a county-
wide stormwater program of water quality
protection initiatives backed by a 1997 water quality
ordinance.
■ Remediation
The Regional Board oversees remediation of both
ground and surface waters through the investigation
of polluted groundwater and enforcement of correc-
tive actions needed to restore water quality. These
activities are managed through a variety of cleanup
and remediation programs. These programs are
designed to return polluted sites to productive use
by identifying and eliminating the sources of pollut-
ants, preventing the spread of pollution, and
deploying various treatment methods to restore
water quality.
G. FLOOD PROTECTION
Flood management in the watersheds is the respon-
sibility of the Los Angeles Flood Control District
whose responsibilities are now performed by the
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works,
Orange County Flood Control District, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The Los Angeles Flood
Control District was formed in 1915 in response to
a devastating flood in 1914. In 1936, federal legisla-
tion gave flood protection duties to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the two agencies
have worked jointly in Los Angeles County since
then.
Flood protection is designed to contain and control
runoff in order to prevent Flooding. The size of a
flood that would occur without any runoff man-
agement is often expressed in terms of its expected
frequency. The larger the Flood, the less likely it is
to occur in any given year. For example, the size of
the Flood that is likely to occur each year is referred
to as a one -year Flood. It has a 100 percent prob-
Z
O
h
G
a
0
U
Z
W
m
0
U
39
State of California Resources Agency
N
2
O
H
z
2
O
U
2
W
tY
tY
7
U
40
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
ability of occurring in any particular year. Large
events, such as the 20 -year flood or the 100 -year
flood, have a 7 percent chance or 1 percent chance,
respectively, of occurring each year. These calcula-
tions are estimates based on the historical retold of
rainfall and flood events in the County. Steep can-
yons in the mountains and foodulls, combined with
channel design and impermeable surfaces in the
urban basin, promote rapid runoff during storms.
Flood flows, which follow winter storms, are d=-
acterized by high peak flows and short durations.
1. Flood Management System.
■ Historical Conditions
The San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers were prone
to winter flooding in their natural state. This was
due to a number of factors: the intensity of winter
stomas, the unstable nature of the riverbeds, and
erodabiliry of the stream banks. While large floods
were infrequent, the magnitude of their destruction
'l (Pacoima Dam
p "Big
was sometimes devastating. In the early part of the
twentieth century, damaging floods occurred in
1914, 1934, and 1938. The 1938 flood resulted in
$78 million in damages ($889 million in current
dollars) and the loss of 87 lives (Gumprecht 1999).
■ Existing Conditions
Flood management measures began in earnest in the
1920s. The present system, constructed by the
Corps, was completed in 1970. The flood manage-
ment system, the Los Angeles County Drainage
Area (LACDA) system, consists of concrete river
channels designed to expedite flow, dams and reser-
voirs to regulate flow, debris basins to capture
sediment washed down from the mountains, and
hundreds of miles of channels to direct flow into
spreading basins and to the ocean. In excess of
100,000 acre -feet of local stormwater runoff is con-
served in the spreading grounds annually. Figure
2 -13 illustrates the LA County flood management
facilities in the watersheds, summarized in Table 7.
1 wean. Dam,_,
Devila:Gala Uann Santa Ar
l —� uheda Dam—, .• Eaton Da Sao
Pacific Ocean
Risen
County Boundary
Danes
r• Flood Rantention B Debris B•sim
— Speeding Grounds
O Valentino Bounden.
:ognwell Do. If,
a. NAriaD
!!lgtDam ;I'•.
1 R
anla Fe Dam
Narrows
Crank Dam
2.3 B 25 5 Mile.
Figure 2.13. Los Angeles County Flood Management Facilities
San Gabnel and Los Angeles Riven Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO'I'HE SEA
Table 7. Los Angeles County Flood Management Facilities
Open channels
470 miles
Underground channels
2,400 miles
Flood management reservoirs
21
Rubber dams for diverting mnoff
11
Groundwater recharge basins and soft -bottom channels
2,436 acres
Flood detention basins
6
Debris basins
Catch basins
The system developed by the U.S. Corps of Engi-
neers was originally designed to provide flood
protection for a 100 -year flood. Flood events in the
1970s and 1980s indicated that perhaps the system
did not have sufficient capacity. In 1991, a report
prepared by the Army Corps indicated that the sys-
tern was in fact not providing that level of
protection, partially due to insufficient information
available at the time of its design and partially due to
the impacts of urbanization on runoff volumes. In
some reaches along the lower mainstem of the riv-
ers, LACDA only provided 25 -year flood
protection. Without further protection, damages
from a 100 -year flood were estimated to be as high
as $2.3 billion and could affect a population of
500,000 in fourteen communities. In response, the
Army Corps and the County inkiated modifications
to the LACDA system, known as the LACDA Pro-
ject, to increase its flood capacity in the lower
reaches. This project consisted primarily of ma reas-
ing the height of the channel walls and reinforcing
levees along the lower Los Angeles River in Long
Beach, the Rio Hondo, and Compton Creek.
Originally estimated to take ten years and $364 mil-
lion to complete, the project is ahead of schedule
due to increases in federal funding. It is expected to
be completed by December 2001, at a cost of $200
million.
Steep slopes with high erosion rates and high inten-
sity storms can result in high flows full of debris
such as sediment, boulders, and vegetation. For
example, San Gabriel Canyon, in the upper San
Gabriel basin, generates an average of 1.3 million
cubic yards of sediment annually. This situation is
aggravated in areas that have burned and lost thew
vegetative cover. Debris basins in the foothills at
the mouth of canyons are designed to trap sediment
and other material carried by runoff, and help to
retain channel capacity bother downstream. These
debris basins must be periodically cleaned out to
retain their storage capacity. Excavated sediments
State of California Resources Agency
are used as fill material, disposed in
landfills, or delivered to approved
sediment placement sites.
■ Role of Rivers in Flood Protec-
tion
116 The rivers are a major component of
75,000 the Flood protection systems. Flood
flow is regulated with dams. The
upstream tributaries of the San Gabriel River merge
above the Santa Fe Dam (capacity of 32,109 acre -
feet). The Whittier Narrows Dam (34,947 acre -feet)
captures both the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Riv-
ers, but releases up to 36,500 cubic feet per second
(cfs) of its flood flows into Rio Hondo diversion
channel which connects to the Los Angeles River
twelve miles above its outlet into the ocean. In
large flood events some flow may be diverted into
the San Gabriel River as well (up to 5000 cfs). The
upper Los Angeles River flows into the Sepulveda
Dam, a flood management facility operated by the
Army Corps with a capacity of 22,493 acre-feet.
Hansen Dam on the Tujunga Wash has a capacity
of 25,441 acre -feet Flood flows in the watersheds
are also regulated by another 15 dams operated by
the LACDPW.
2. Designated Flood Hazard Areas and
"Unmet Drainage Needs"
The designated 100 -year floodplain in the lower
reaches of the Los Angeles River covers approxi-
mately 82 square miles, less than 6% of the two
watersheds. Once the LACDA Project is com-
pleted, the extent of the hazard area will be reduced
significantly and levels of protection increased to
withstand a 133 -Year flood. There are still some
small regions that are not provided with 100 -year
flood protection in the San Fernando valley and
below the confluence of the Arroyo Seco with the
Los Angeles River.
The County tracks areas throughout the basin where
flooding or drainage problems persist. Information
is reported by the cities or through individual com-
plaints, or directly to the County in unincorporated
areas. Unmet drainage needs occur throughout the
County but mostly in localized urban areas. If the
situation requires a new drainage structure, the
County will do a study to detemrine the best solu-
tion. The County is currently researching solutions
N
Z
O
G
Z
z
U
Z
to
m
U
41
N
z
O
zz
O
U
z
z
w
o:
tY
L)
U
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
for chronic flooding in the Sun Valley sub -
watershed that will utilize alternative approaches to
construction of a flood conveyance channel, Such as
detention basins and more permeable land cover.
The goal is to retain runoff within the watersheds
and provide multiple benefits beyond flood man-
agement.
H. REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS
1. Political Boundaries and Entities
■ Counties and Cities
While the majority of the watersheds lie within Los
Angeles County, the area crosses into Ventura
County to the west, San Bernardino County to the
east and Orange County to the southeast. Within
the boundary of the ll there are 66 cities in Los
Angeles and Orange Counties. There are eight cities
within the SMMC boundary.
2. Land Use
Within the watersheds, approximately 26 percent of
the land area is urbanized and 25 percent is parks or
open space, although most of that is the National
Forest. Less than 30 percent of the land area is
undeveloped, including vacant urban land and areas
that are too steep to develop. Land use patterns in
the watersheds are illustrated in Figure 2 -14.
3. Population
The population of Los Angeles
County is 9,519,338 (U.S. Census
2000). If the County were a state,
it would rank ninth in the United
States for population. While
growth rates in the County have
slowed, they are still significant:
7.4 percent over the past decade,
or more than 656,000 people. By
2010, the County is expected to
grow to 10,868,900, another 14
percent. Figure 2 -15 illustrates
population growth in Los Ange-
les Counry. The eleven Orange
county cities within the watershed
contribute a total population of
770,500 people, an increase of
over 100,000 since 1990. Be-
tween 1990 and 2000, Orange County's growth rate
was twice that of Los Angeles County (US Census
2000).
Population is concentrated in the valleys and coastal
plain (Figure 2 -16), with lower densities along the
foothills, mountains, and outlying areas. The aver-
age density in Los Angeles County is 2,345 persons
per square mile, compared with an estimated 42
persons per square mile in 1900.
4. Economic Conditions
■ Regional Economies and Industry
The Los Angeles basin has a large industrial base
and a diversified, growing economy. Top industries
include professional services, manufacturing, whole-
sale trade, tourism, and entertainment. Defense-
related employment has been declining since the
mid- 1980s, while professional services, tourism, and
manufacturing in sectors such as apparel and aucraft
have increased both in numbers of jobs and in pro-
ductivity.
The cities in the southern portion of the watersheds,
the "Gateway Cities," call themselves the "indus-
trial heartland" of Los Angeles County (SCAG
2001). With a population of approximately two
million, they represent one in seven jobs in South-
ern California. Home to the Pon of Long Beach,
the area's economy is primarily based on manufac-
turing technology, trade, and tourism.
Figure 2 -15. Los Angeles County Population Growth by Decade,
1900 -2000
Source'. Los Anaeles Almanac
42
San Gabnel and Los Angeles Rivers Waeershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TC
,r r •u-
Median household income of residents within the
area of the watersheds is $47,413 annually, ranging
from $9,300 to well over $500,000 (1990 Census,
2000 projections). The lowest average income is
found in the urban core, in the southern Gateway
fides and South Los Angeles. The wealthiest house-
holds are along the coast and m the foothill commu-
nities (Figure 2 -17).
.
v
k
Mi,•
i„"r 5 Wes. v r;,-apa Rf�
Pacific Ocean
r' N
r
O
Angeles National Forest
SCAB Land Use
41M
Open Space d Recreation
�J
County Boundary
Agriculture
411W
Public Facilities & institutions
O
Watershed Boundary
41M Commercial
1W
Rural Density Residential
Freeways
Extracton
4W
Transportation & Utilities
Industrial
Under Construction
Fe.
Low Density Residential
Vacant
Mad High Density Residential
41M
Water& Fleodways
Figure 2.14. Land Use in the Watersheds
Source : Scudiem California Assoclatlon of Governments 1993
State of California Resources Agency
N
Z
O
H
O
2
O
U
F
z
w
K
K
7
U
43
N
2
O
H
z
Z
O
U
H
Z
W
K
U
44
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Figure 2 -16. Population Density (Persons per Square Mile) by Zip Code
Source'. US Census. 2000 Projected
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
w
r
Pacific Ocean
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNMAINSTO THE SEA
Rivera
O County Boundary _
Q Watershed Boundary
Median Household Income _
0. 36,000
_ 36,000- 56,000 5
• 56,000- 86,000
- 86,000- 140,000
- 140,000
Figure 2 -17. Median Household Income by Zip Code
source: US Census, 2000 Projected O
H
Z
O
U
H
Z
W
K
D:
7
U
45
State of CalJomia Resources Agency
3. A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
A. VISION
The watersheds were first transformed from wild -
lands to farmlands. The second transformation
converted farmlands to urban lands. The third
transformation will create a network of livable, sus-
tainable communities, connected by open spaces.
The goal is to:
Restore balance between natural and hu-
man systems in the watersheds.
This requires that government and the public re-
think the use of land and water, to better integrate
human -made and natural systems. Planning must
embrace multiple objectives. Economic and envi-
ronmental benefits can be realized from sustainable
development.
Southern California can grow greener with more
open space. Open spaces can be connected with a
network of trails and bike paths improving access
for all residents. Habitat for wildlife can be pre-
served in the foothills and mountains, and restored
along rivers and tributaries in urban areas. The
rivers can be enhanced, surface and ground waters
cleansed, local water supply improved, and depend-
ence on imported water reduced. Flood protection
can be maintained and improved.
By planning across jurisdictions and boundaries, this
vision can become a reality. This vision is achiev-
able, but not overnight. This vision is affordable,
but not by "business as usual" methods. There can
be a consensus for this vision, but only if citizens
are educated, involved, and allowed to choose the
quality of life they prefer.
With science as a basis, this plan can be used as a
framework for future planning at the subwatershed
and local level. This plan is intended as a living
document that will evolve over thee, as priorities
evolve and needs dictate, based on periodic assess-
ment of progress. This plan is a tool to create a
healthier environment, build consensus, to reach
common ground.
B. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
To restore the watersheds, create an open space
network, enhance waters and waterways, and im-
prove coordination of planning throughout the
region, plans and projects need consistent goals.
The Guiding Principles represent an over - arching
set of goals that can be used to guide future projects
and enhance current open space planning in the
watersheds. The Guiding Principles are intended to
serve as a reference or a touchstone for all con -
cemed with watershed planning. They set forth
general directions without attempting to defrre re-
sponsibilities for implementation. They are guides,
not directives. They imply a wide perspective and a
long view. The primipleswere developedthrougha
consensus-building process involving state and
county agencies, cities, environmental groups, local
councils of government, and individuals having a
stake in the evolution of the watersheds.
The Guiding Principles are intended to allow juris-
dictions, communities, and groups to advance,
promote, and enable the concepts below.
■ LAND: Grow a Greener Southern California
Create, Expand, and Improve Public Open Space Throughout the Region
• Establish priorities for land acquisition
• Coordinate targeted land acquisition with regional and local land use planning
• Establish a long -term land acquisition process, including protection for current uses
• Recycle brownfields with cooperation of EPA, DISC, and other agencies
• Coordinate public lands management policies and procedures among jurisdictions
Improve Access to Open Space and Recreation for All Communities
Accommodate active and passive recreational uses
Incorporate passive and low- impact recreational facilities in habitat areas
Accumulate and record the needs for active recreation facilities
State of California Resources Agency
W
LL
w
x
P-
0
O
LL
Z
O
N
47
w
is
M
t-
D
LL
W
2
H
Ir
O
LL
z
O
N
a
aMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TC
• Evaluate access by population density, distance and time for different types of open
space
• Open school sites for after -hours recreational use
Improve Habitat Quality, Quantity, and Connectivity
• Protect existing high - quality habitat and ecologically significant areas
• Restore and enhance aquatic and terrestrial riparian and upland habitat
• Coordinate regional efforts to remove invasive species
• Maintain and enhance wildlife corridors as continuous linkages
• Identify indicator species, develop standards and monitoring programs
Connect Open Space with a Network of Tratls
• Develop continuous bike trail, equestrian, and public access systems along riverkonts
and within the watershed
• Connect river trails to mountain trails, urban trails, local parks, open spaces, and beaches
• Connect open spaces to transit access points
• Provide for public safety and security along waterways and trails
Promote Stewardship of the Landscape
• Use drought - tolerant, native, and regionally- adapted plant materials
• Identify, preserve, and restore historic sites and cultural landscapes
Encourage Sustainable Growth to Balance Environmental, Social, and Economic Benefits
• Preserve major open spaces and limit urban sprawl
• Recycle urban rwerfronts as frontage for new development
• Provide incentives and streamline regulations to promote watershed sustainability
• Encourage local government actions as examples of watershed sustainability
• Provide individuals and organizations with incentives to promote natural habitat
■ WATER: Enhance Waters and Waterways
Maintain and Improve Flood Protection
• Maintain or enhance existing Flood protection at all phases of implementation
• Utilize nonstructural methods for flood management where feasible
• Reduce the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff where feasible
• Develop regional and submWonal networksofstommaterdetention areaswherefeasible
• Encourage new developments to detain stormwater onsite to mitigate runoff where fea-
sible
Establish Rivedront Greenways to Cleanse Water, Hold Floodwaters, and Extend Open
Space
• Acquire land for flood management, wetlands, cleansing of water, and compatible uses
• Create a continuous network of parks along the waterways
• Develop recreational opportunities along waterways
• Connect communities to the waterways by extended greenways
Improve Quality of Surface Water and Groundwater
• Reduce dry weather urban runoff discharge into waterways and the ocean
• Coordinate local planning and opportunities forwater quality improvements with the re-
gional basin plan for water quality
• Support public /volunteer water quality monitoring programs
• Assist cities in implementing water quality regulatory requirements
48 _
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
CommoN GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO I HE SEA
improve Flood Safety Through Restoration of River and Creek Ecosystems
• Restore the natural hydrologic functioning of subwatershed areas where feasible
• Naturalize low -flow streambeds /develop floodways for storm events where feasible
• Restore local streams to replace storm drains where feasible
• Maintain sufficient flow conditions to support riparian/rivedne habitats
• Develop sediment management strategy
Optimize Water Resources to Reduce Dependence on Imported Water
• Expand groundwater recharge facilities to increase local water supplies
• Encourage onsite collection of stornwater for irrigation and percolation, where consis-
tent with water quality goals and existing water rights
• Extend the distribution and range of uses for reclaimed water
• Expand water conservation programs
• Publish a subwatershed -level water budget and periodically monitor performance
■ PLANNING: Plan Together to Make it Happen
Coordinate Watershed Planning Across Jurisdictions and Boundaries
• Partner with all relevant agency officials, staff, and elected officials throughout the proc-
ess
• Develop a coordinated regional approach to obtain federal, state, and local funding
• Plan at the subwatershed level; coordinate at the watershed level
• Encourage and facilitate public and private partnerships to implement projects
• Involve the residential, business, and professional communities in all aspects of placating
Encourage Multi Objective Planning and Projects
• Integrate land use planning with flood management principles, water quality improve-
ment objectives, and open space uses
• Develop demonstration open space projects with multiple watershed objectives
• Provide incentives in funding and public approvals for multiple-objective projects
• Employ comprehensive cost - benefit analysis to evaluate multiple-objective projects
• Analyze interdependence of land, water, materials, energy, economics, and ecosystems
Use Science as a Basis for Planning
• Base plans and projects on scientifically derived principles, practices, and priorities
• Incorporate review of key issues by an interdisciplinary science panel
• Develop benchmarks to assess watershed status by a regular monitoring process
• Utilize applied scientific research to guide public policy
Involve the Public Through Education and Outreach Programs
• Conduct public educational and outreach programs to promote watershed restoration
• Establish a process for project participation by stakeholder representatives and the pub-
of
lic
• Present plans and programs in reader - friendly print and electronic versions
M
• Involve stakeholders and the public in project implementation and maintenance
u,
• Recognize the significance and uniqueness of individual properties for watershed plan-
_
Ding
t
Uh'lize the Plan in an On -going Management Process
O
• Secure approval of the plan by partner jurisdictions
Z
• Assure CEQA compliance in approval of proposed projects
Q
• Establish and periodically assess measurable objectives for all plan elements
rn
• Establish a procedure and schedule for periodic plan review and updates
q
49
State of California Resources Agency
w
M
W
W
Z
f
O
LL
z
O
of
d
COMMON GROUND FROM l'HE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
C. STRATEGIES
To grow greener, enhance waters and waterways,
and plan together, the State Conservancies must
develop and implement a range of strategies that
translate the Guiding Principles into plans, from
which individual projects can be identified, pro-
posed, and developed.
1. Education
A high priority must be placed upon public educa-
tion.and outreach. Community leaders, property
owners, industries, businesses, and individuals make
day -to-day decisions that impact the watersheds.
Restoration of the watershed will require changes in
behavior, shifts in resource priorities, and decisions
on how to balance environmental and economic
needs. This requires local understanding of the key
issues to allow the public to make informed choices.
State Conservancies and agencies will facilitate the
exchange of information concerning the conditions
of the watersheds, options for restoration and en-
hancement of natural resources, and encourage the
broadest -based participation in the management and
protection of the watershed. This will include de-
velopment and implementation of a strategy for a
watershed -wide public outreach, education, and
interpretive programs.
IN Public Outreach
Because water drains from the mountains to the sea,
trash thrown into a storm drain anywhere in the
watersheds will end up
at the beach. Discarded •� IDU P/
trash and careless hit- O
man activities in the
canyons and along the
rivers also negatively
impact our drinking
water supply. 4gArur 10 t
Storm Drain Stencil
Yet many residents do not understand these simple
truths. Public education will make clear the linkages
between the condition of the watershed and the
health and well being of the population, wildlife,
and the ocean.
Cleaning stormwater runoff improves water quality
and could help to optimize water resources. Public
service campaigns address non -point source pollu-
tion, and the reduction of trash, animal waste,
organic matter, and other pollutants that wash into
storm drains and then into the rivers and the ocean.
Public involvement programs should also encourage
residents to become involved in the cleanup of the
rivers, and build upon existing programs, such as
the use of volunteers in monitoring river water qual-
ity.
In addition to those issues most directly related to
the condition of the watershed, outreach programs
should also address broader environmental issues,
including sustainability. At the simplest level,
sustainabihty is the ability to meet current needs
without compromising the ability of future genera-
tions to meet their own needs. This goal
encompasses a range of concepts, such as recycling,
energy, and water conservation, use of appropriate
building materials, minimizing use of hazardous
materials, appropriate transportation practices (such
as carpooling and public transit); and the purchase
of environmentally friendly products and packaging.
If individuals, neighborhoods, cities, communities,
and agencies reduce their impact on the environ-
ment, the benefits to the watersheds will be
significant. Outreach efforts will recognize existing
programs, such as the T.RE.E.S. project, developed
by Tree People and other examples of city policies
and programs (e.g., the City of Santa Monica's Sus-
tainable City Program, Cool Schools).
Outreach programs will into= the public about the
connection between individual open spaces, such as
community gardens and backyards, and the health
and condition of the watersheds. Wildlife need
more than just nature preserves to thrive. Back-
yards can provide essential resources for different
kinds of wildlife, such as birds, butterflies, small
mammals and other creatures. This could entail
planting a few host plants for butterflies or creating
a place that provides food, water, summer shade,
winter refuge, perches, nesting sites, and hiding
places for all kinds of wildlife. The public needs to
understand which native plants provide the best
habitat for wildlife species. The conservancies will
work to publicize existing programs, such as the
Backyard Wildlife Habitat program developed by
the National Wildlife Foundation, Master Gardeners
by University of California Cooperative Extension,
50
San Gabriel and Cos Angeles luvem Watershed and Open Spam Plan
and work with such organizations to advance the
potential to provide amenities for wildlife in back-
yards where appropriate.
■ Educational Programs
Continuing education to adults is important, but
educating children who currently live in the water-
sheds is equally important, given that decades may
be required to achieve the vision articulated in this
plan. Today's children are the future stewards of
the watersheds, and need to understand the impor-
tance of restoring balance.
EdueeNng the Next Generation
Scientists, educators, groups, and interested indi-
viduals can create effective educational programs
and products. These activities will focus on: meet-
ing the needs of educators; forging long -term
partnerships with education institutions and profes-
sionals; encouraging a wide range of educational
activities; fostering full participation of groups cur-
rently underrepresented in natural resources
education; and incorporating the latest communica-
tions, dissemination and display technologies into
education programs.
Education programs for children will build upon the
extensive network of existing resources, such as the
California Plan for Environmental Education, the
California Regional Environmental Educational
Center —Los Angeles (CREEC -LA), Global Learn-
ing and Observations to Benefit the Environment
(GLOBE), the Global Rivers Environmental Edu-
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO T IE SEA
cation Network (GREEN), the EcoAcademy (of
the Los Angeles Conservation Corps), the North
American Association of Environmental Educators
(NAAEE), the US EPA's Water Office Kid's Page,
the Water Education for Teachers project.
Education programs for adults could include provi-
sion of amenities for wildlife, gardening techniques
that minimize pesticide and herbicide use, natural
methods of pest control, composting, organic gar-
dening, or the planning and construction of
stont water drainage systems that promote ground-
water infiltration.
The State Conservancies will encourage higher edu-
cation institutions to conduct research and teaching
related to the condition of the watersheds. Given
the interrelationships between the physical and
natural environment, this could include a variety of
fields, including hydrology, biology, urban planning,
civil engineering, transportation planning, atmos-
pheric sciences, geography, education, sociology,
chemical engineering, and public health. The State
Conservancies will work with others such as the Los
Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council
towards establishing a clearinghouse of information
that catalogs research on the watersheds, to facilitate
the exchange of information and ideas.
■ Interpretive Opportunities
When people visit open space, parks, community
gardens, historic sites, cultural resources, riverfront
walks, bike paths, wetlands, or habitat preserves,
opportunities to learn about what they see and ex-
perience should be available. This requires
interpretive programs that translate information for
a variety of audiences. The information presented
could be scientific, environmental, cultural, or even
artistic in nature. Within the watersheds, interpre-
Inro "u" signage
51
State of California Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTA +NS TO THE SEA
five programs could include hands-on programs at
nature centers and museums, docent -led nature
walks, summer day -camps for families, tours of
water resources or flood management facilities,
bird - watching or wildlife viewing events, living his-
tory exhibits at cultural sites, or signage and
informational materials at accessible locations in
parks, along trails, or at wetlands or habitat pre-
serves. These could be patterned after the El
Dorado Nature Center, the Eaton Canyon Nature
Center, and the Los Angeles River Visitor Center,
among others.
The State Conservancies will assist existing nature
centers to enhance and expand the existing pro-
grams and facilities and will work with partners in
the creation of new interpretative facilities where
appropriate and where needed.
2. Partnerships
Partnerships provide opportunities for agencies,
cities, communities, and groups to work together
for common goals. Cities can, and sometimes do,
coordinate planning with adjacent jurisdictions.
Agencies can work with cities and other agencies to
coordinate studies and implement projects. Interest
groups may band together to work on issues of
common interest. Neighborhoods and associations
can strive to identify consensus on broad goals.
These all represent forms of partnerships, which
increase the strength of individual voices, expand
the influence of groups, and extend benefits beyond
individual cities or jurisdictions.
Instead of a focus on single- purpose public projects,
a consistent approach for multiple-objective plan-
ning is required. just as the San Gabriel and Los
Angeles Rivers are linked (via the engineered con-
nection at the Rio Hondo) and therefore function as
painters, restoration of the watersheds will require
that agencies, cities, communities, neighborhoods,
interest groups, and individuals work together and
form partnerships to achieve a common purpose.
For example, the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Riv-
ers Watershed Council has been meeting monthly
since 1996 to facilitate the formation of partner-
ships. The State Conservancies will support and
expand such efforts.
Given the large number of agencies and cities with
jurisdiction in the watersheds, and the diversity of
neighborhoods and interest groups, the range of
interests and issues is very diverse. Instead of dif-
ferences, it is possible to focus on common themes
on which virtually everyone will concur protect the
environment, protect water quality, and provide
more parks and open space. It is possible to work
together to plan and develop mull- purpose projects
that meet both local needs and agency mandates
while also helping to restore balance to the water-
sheds.
Strength In Partnerships
A wide variety of agencies, individuals, groups, and
entities have an opportunity to participate in part-
nerships and play a role in restoration of the
watersheds. The following list is illustrative, and is
not intended to be all- inclusive.
■ Federal
Elected Officials -- .Senators and Representatives
Agencies —Amry Corps of Engineers, Bureau of
Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation,
Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Geological Survey, Forest
Service, National Park Service, Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service
■ state
Elected Officials-- Govemor, Senators, and As-
sembly members
Departments and Agencies — Agriculture, Cal -
trans, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish
and Game, Forestry and Fire Protection,
Health Services, Integrated Waste Manage-
ment Board, Parks and Recreation, Resources
Agency, State Water Resources Control
Board, Toxic Substances Control, University
52
San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Rivers Watershed and Open Spam Plan
of California Cooperative Extension, Water
Resources, Wildlife Conservation Board
Conservancies —San Gabriel and Lower Los
Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy,
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy,
Coastal Conservancy, Baldwin Hills Conser-
vancy
■ Regional
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporta-
tion Authority, Metropolitan Water District,
Orange County Transportation Authority,
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County,
South Coast Air Quality Management Dis-
trict, Southern California Association of
Governments, and the Regional Water Qual-
ity Control Board
■ Joint Powers Authorities
Arroyo Verdugo Council of Governments,
Baldwin Hills Regional Conservation Author-
ity, Gateway City Council of Governments,
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Au-
thority, Orange County League of Cities,
Puente Hills Landfill Native Habitat Preserva-
tion Authority, San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments, Whittier- Puente Hills Conser-
vation Authority, Wildlife Corridor
Conservation Authority
Los Angeles and Orange Counties
Elected Officials -County Supervisors
Departments - Agriculture, Public Works, Open
Space District, Parks and Recreation, Re-
gional Planning, Sanitation Districts,
Community Development Commission,
Beaches and Harbors, Watershed and Envi-
ronmental Programs (O.C.)
■ Cities (listed below)
Elected Officials -City Council and Mayors
Boards /Commissions - Planning Commission
and Parks Commission, for example
Department Heads_City Manager, Planning,
Recreation and Parks, Public Works, Rede-
velopment
LosAugetes County: Alhambra, Arcadia, Ar-
tesia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bell, Bellflower,
Bell Gardens, Bradbury, Burbank, Calabasas,
Cerritos, Claremont, Commerce, Compton,
State of Califnmia Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Covina, Cudahy, Culver City, Diamond Bar,
Downey, Duarte, El Monte, Glendale, Glen-
dora, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne,
Huntington Park, Industry, La Canada Flint-
ridge, La Habra Heights, Lakewood, La
Mirada, La Puente, La Verne, Lawndale, Long
Beach, Los Angeles, Lynwood, Maywood,
Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Nor-
walk, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera,
Pomona, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Fer-
nando, San Gabriel, San Marino, Santa Fe
Springs, Sierra Madre, Signal Hill, South Fl
Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, Temple
City, Vernon, Walnut, West Covina, and
Whittier
Orange County. Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park,
Cypress, Fullerton, La Habra, La Palma, Los
Alamitos, Placentia, and Seal Beach
■ Unincorporated Cities
Other Entities: Non - profit organizations
(mists, foundations, conservancies, associa-
tions, societies, coalitions, alliances, councils);
water agencies, districts, and associations;
business and property owners; financial insti-
mtions; businesses and industry associations;
Chambers of Commerce; educational institu-
tions; civic organizations; and interested
individuals
3. Funding
To restore the watersheds, additional financial re-
sources will be needed. Traditionally, government
has identified and funded acquisition of open space
and other natural resource protection and conserva-
tion activities. Increasingly, cities, communities,
residents, neighborhood groups, private groups, and
environmental organizations identify open space
and conservation opportunities and work to secure
funding or find alternative solutions within and
outside of the traditional governmental role.
Traditional funding sources for natural resource
protection and acquisition of open space include
federal, state, and local funds. Government agen-
cies have a variety of grant programs, for water
quality enhancement, wildlife protection, habitat
restoration and enhancement, groundwater re-
charge, stormwater pollution planning, fisheries
restoration, and watershed protection. Funds may
also be available from state, county, and local city
w
M
LL
Lit
x
r
Ir
LL
2
O
rn
53
W
LL
w
F
¢
O
LL
Z
O
U1
Q
COMMON GROUND FROM I FIE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
voter - approved bonds, such as Proposition 12 (The
Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air,
and Coastal Protection Bond Act) and Proposition
13 (the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Water-
shed Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act) or
assessment districts. The Los Angeles County Safe
Neighborhood Parks Acts (Proposition A) of 1992
and 1996 have been responsible for most of the Los
Angeles River greening and riverfiont parks. These
sources will likely be the primary source of funds
for acquisition of lands and individual projects.
Additional Parks Will Require Additional Funds
In addition to securing funds from traditional
sources, the State Conservancies will work to iden-
tify and create funding opportunities from private
vests. Trusts acquire land for transfer to a third
parry, when financing is organized. Private founda-
tions should be a source of additional funding.
Funding for planning, management, and mainte-
nance of open space, including historic and cultural
sites, must also be addressed. Wherever feasible,
plans for acquisition of open space should include a
plan for securing the necessary funds for longterm
maintenance of those spaces. Many existing facili-
ties have suffered from inadequate maintenance and
require funding to restore those facilities to accept-
able conditions. To help with on -going
maintenance and public services, expanded funding
opportunities should be created.
Existing funding sources will not be overlooked.
Currently, federal, state, and local agencies, and
individual cities expend considerable resources to
maintain existing parks, open space, trails, bike
paths, and flood protection facilities. For example,
optimization of existing water resources through
improved water conservation and increased
groundwater recharge could reduce the need for
imported water and result in cost savings that could
be used to meet other water resource needs.
Compliance with current legislative mandates, such
as those related to stormwater runoff quality, will
require counties, cities, local agencies, and private
landowners to expend resources to develop, imple-
ment, maintain, and monitor Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plans. Additional resources will
be needed to implement the recently adopted re-
quirements to eliminate trash and other
contaminants from the San Gabriel and Los Angeles
Rivers. Caltrans plans to expend considerable sums
to mitigate stormwater pollution from State high-
ways. The State Conservancies will encourage
discussion of how best to optimize the expenditure
of resources to mitigate non -point stormwater run-
off pollution to accomplish multiple objectives
where feasible.
The State Conservancies will encourage and support
efforts to secure additional funding from tradiioml
sources, as well as private foundations and trusts.
The State Conservancies will work to identify op-
portunities to optimize use of existing resources,
such as sharing of information and knowledge, and
work towards lowering the costs of maintenance
(e.g., through joint purchasing cooperatives), educa-
tion and interpretive programs for existing facilities
(e.g., through sharing of information and materials).
State Conservancies will work to assure that avail-
able funds are allocated equitably, to address
upstream and downstream, urban, and suburban
needs.
4. Multiple- Objective Planning
In recent years, while maintaining focus on their
primary responsibilities and missions, a number of
agencies in the watersheds have been engaged in the
process of discussion and have contributed to the
emerging vision of integrated watershed planning,
and have incorporated multiple objectives into plan-
ning.
Several cities have also incorporated these concepts
into planning, and worked with other cities, some-
times through their Council of Governments, to
achieve goals that extend beyond the border of in-
dividual cities.
54
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
To restore the watersheds, a consistent approach to
multiple objective planning is required, in which
science -based planning and several socially desirable
objectives are considered together. Where feasible,
parks will provide habitat and flood protection fea-
tures. Passive recreation in habitat areas may be
compatible with resources protectionwhen properly
managed. Flood protection features will incorpo-
rate recreation features, such as bike paths, where
public safety can be assured. By integrating multiple
objectives into a single project, it may also be possi-
ble to combine several funding sources into a single
project, and thereby optimize resources.
Pan PaeNie Park
The various concepts that could be combined to
achieve multiple objectives are reflected in the
Guiding Principles. The State Conservancies will
encourage the use of the Principles in the develop-
ment of plans and projects, and work to fund
demonstration projects that illustrate that multi-
purpose projects are practical and functional. The
State Conservandeswdlmn umgecitiestoconsider
incorporation the relevant Guiding Principles into
their next General Plan update, so that future pr -
jects within individual cities reflect the goals
embodied in the Guiding Principles.
To assist agencies, cities, Communities, and groups
to understand priorities for the award of funds for
open space projects, the RMC and SMMC have
each developed criteria to rank projects that are
eligible for funding administered by those agencies.
These criteria have been reviewed and discussed
with state and county agencies to ensure that they
are in concurrence with agency missions and fund-
ing criteria. Basin ranking categories include:
• Urban Resource Value
• Watershed Resource Value
• Partner Resource Value
• Economic Value
• Access Value
• Scenic Resource Value
• Wildlife Resource Value
• Floristic Resource Value
• Archaeological or Historic Resource
Value
• Trails Resource Value
• Recreational Resource Value
in addition to the above criteria, the RMC adds an
additional criterion for open Space Plan Value.
The SMMC also adopted criteria for improvement
projects. The criteria, and weighting factors within
each category are included in Appendix G. The
State Consetvancieswill work with funding agencies
to encourage the use of the Guiding Principles,
above the criteria, and cost - benefit models (that
consider economic, social and environmental costs)
to prioritize funding applications for projects. The
State Conservancieswill encourage cities, communi-
ties, agencies, and groups to begin to incorporate
these concepts into project plans, and thereby meet
the goal of multiple objective planning.
5. Management of Public Lands
Public lands will be managed for the benefit of the
people and to preserve, protect, and enhance natural
resource values, and where appropriate, provide for
multiple objectives. Acquisition of open space
should include a plan to identify responsibility for
future management of the space and, where feasible,
identify funds for that management.
w
H
U.
LL
w
cc
H
O
LL
Z
7
il5
_1
55
State of Califomia Resources Agency
W
tt
M
LL
w
F
tr
p
z
O
rn
al
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
This plan recognizes the importance and the need
for both active and passive recreation. Active rec-
reation generally is within the purview of local and
county jurisdictions. These jurisdictions maintain
departments that address recreation needs on a local
level. Low impact recreation refers to uses that
have relatively low impact on the land and include
such uses as hiking, strolling, picnicking, sitting, and
bird watching. These uses avoid impacts to the land
by designating specific routes of travel or areas of
usage that allows the surrounding open space to be
preserved. A management program may lncorpo-
rate areas of low impact activities to enhance the
sense of place and preserve what makes a particular
site important. These activities allow for self -
education, exercise, and contemplation to be under-
taken at a user's own pace.
In developing and managing an open space, it is
critical that numerous issues be addressed. These
issues include: access, circulation, security, mainte-
nance, visitor amenities such as restrooms, water,
trash pick -up, along with habitat protection and
enhancement and interpretive education.
Legg Lake In Whittler Narrows
The State Conservancies will work with partners to
identify potential mitigation (ranking sites (to restore
or create off -site wetlands as compensation for de-
struction of wetlands) and assist in funding and
acquisition of these lands and sites.
6. Monitoring and Assessment
This Plan sets forth a long -terns vision for restora-
tion of the watersheds, suggests strategies to achieve
that vision, and identifies plans and opportunities to
implement those strategies. Since restoration of the
watersheds will require decades, periodic review and
assessment of progress will be required, to deter-
mine whether strategies need to be revised,
alternative plans pursued, or new concepts and ob-
jectives incorporated.
The State Conservancies will work to develop a
joint assessment process for restoration of the wa-
tershed, and monitor progress towards meeting the
goals described herein. Critical to this process will
be maintenance and updating of the Geographic
Information Systems database developed by RMC.
At a minimum, the periodic assessment process
shall occur at ten -year intervals, or more often if
deemed practical. This process shall utilize quantifi-
able, science -based methods wherever feasible, and
shall include stakeholder meolvemert in the design,
implementation, and review of the assessments.
The RMC has received comments and guidance to
create a new park system. The State Conservancies
recognizes the need to coordinate its responsibilities
for maintenance and security and will work with
other public park and open space managers in the
region.
D. OPPORTUNITIES
To achieve the vision of the future for the water-
sheds, to encourage use of the Guiding Principles,
and to implement the strategies described above, the
State Conservancies will work with agencies, cities,
communities, and groups to identify opportunities
and encourage development of project- specific
plans that take advantage of those opportunities.
The following discussion highlights some important
opportunities.
1. Land Acquisition, Connectivity, and
Open Space
■ River Parkways
River parkways along the banks of the Los Angeles,
San Gabriel, and Rio Hondo Rivers will provide the
rrrost visible and accessible element of the proposed
open space network. As illustrated in Figure 3.1,
the parkways will extend green ribbons of open
space across the urbanized length of the watersheds,
from the foothills and the San Gabriel Mountains to
the Pacific Ocean.
Landscaped open spaces on both sides of the rivers
would provide pocket parks, passive recreation, and
natural areas for wildlife habitat. These landscaped
spaces could cleanse runoff, promote groundwater
56
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE $EA
'.Xw,
Lde elea Wa hed','
r�.
Pacific Occan
Q
C.my6amavy
®
Wamnhd B.&q
Q
Rim Pukw.r
—
Riven
—
S.
—
Free r
�wcc¢o..nW xmn:.emnermn.e..,�mm�.
Figure 3 -1
San Gabriel
Proposed River Parkways
infiltration, and enhance flood protection by serving
as buffers between the rivers and adjacent land uses.
They could also galvanize a sense of community,
provide a unifying theme throughout our diverse
region, and enhance the economic value of adjacent
land.
In various forms, river parkways were first sug-
gested more than a century ago and reiterated in the
Olmsted - Bartholomew plan in 1930. A number of
existing plans address the enhancement of the edges
of the rivers, including the Los Angele RkwAlaster
Plan, the Sam GabrielRawAkiswFOn(in progress)
and theRa-onni n the San Gabriel Va#eyAPlannrg
CmidorNent orin, which addressed habitat restom-
tion.
Elements of the trverfrom parkway system already
exist bike and pedestrian trails line the length of the
Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Rivers and parts of the
Los Angeles River. Several major parks already
r ne'r
ar
\�
front the rivers: Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area,
Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, Cerritos Re-
gional Park, Debs Regional Park, Elysian Park,
Griffith Park, Sepulveda Dam Recreation Area, and
El Dorado Regional Park. Various cities have exist-
ing parks along one of the river main channels,
including Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Burbank,
Cerritos, City of Commerce, Downey, Duarte, El
Monte, Lakewood, Los Angeles, Long Beach,
Montebello, Paramount, Pico Rivera, Rosemead,
Santa Fe Springs, Seal Beach, and South Gate.
Many schools and recreational facilities currently
front the river. These individual open spaceswill be
connected by parkways along the entire length of
the rivers, creating valuable urban amenities.
Several of the "river" cities and communities are
already embracing the river as an amenity for their
residents. Azusa calls itself the "Canyon City" re-
flecting the watercourse of the San Gabriel River as
it flows from the mountains. Duarte's residents use
the Puente Largo pedestrian bridge as a way to ac-
to
w
F
0
O
LL
Z
O
N
Z.
57
State of California Resources Agency
U.1
a
t=-
LL
lu
F
cc
W
2
O
N
Q
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
cess the native environment along the river. The
Whittier Narrows Recreation Area provides natural
open space and a river beach for the surrounding
cities. Long Beach uses the San Gabriel River parks
as a connective armature for the city's extensive
bicycle network. The City of Maywood is creating a
park on five former industrial sites along the Los
Angeles River. The riverfront parks in the Elysian
Valley and as proposed along the Arroyo Seto con -
stimm small natural parks. By adding to this
impressive network, a continuous parkway can be
created.
Los Angeles River at Sepulwde Basin
Goal• A continuous ribbon of trails, open space,
active and passive recreation areas, and wildlife
habitat along the San Gabriel, Los Angeles, and Rio
Hondo Rivers. The speck treatment of each seg-
ment of the gmenway should be determined by the
existing conditions of the parcel, the needs and de-
sires of the local community and the opportunities
for connection and linkages presented at that loca-
tion.
Actions: The State Conservancies will work with
each riverfront city, community, and relevant agen-
cies to identify potential River Parkway projects,
tailored to the needs and desires of each city. This
will include a list of projects, identification of poten-
tial funding and partners and a work program to
accomplish the acquisition and development of each
project.
The State conservancies will work with Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works and local gov-
ernments to implement projects identified in the
Los Angeles River Master Plan and will assist in
identification of projects for the in- progress San
Gabriel River Master Plan.
The State Conservancies, in conjunction with the
Resources Agency, will work individually and collec-
tively with the cities, communities, local groups, and
the appropriate Council of Governments along the
rivers to identify individual projects that will qualify
for Proposition 12 funding (by July 2002) and future
fund sources.
■ Urban Lands
in the urbanized portions of the watersheds, com-
petition for parcels of land is intense. Within the
San Gabriel Valley, the San Fernando Valley, and
the Los Angeles Basin, most parcels of land that
become available were previously used for industrial
or commercial purposes, or have been deemed Sur.
plus by public agencies. The size of parcels in
urbanized areas will vary from individual lots in
residential areas to large, former industrial sites or
military facilities. When such parcels become avail-
able, they should be reviewed for their potential to
serve as contributing elements in the developing
network of open spaces.
The potential for individual parcels to be acquired
and adapted as public open space that can provide
recreation, wildlife habitat, mitigate flood hazard or
allow infiltration of groundwaterwill depend upon
the site of the parcel, the location of the parcel (e.g,
proximity to rivers, mbutaries, or other open space),
and the costs of site clean-up (e.g., clearance of ex-
isting structures and /or remediation of any site
contamination). The opportunity costs of acquisi-
tion must be considered in the review of any
parcels, and be balanced against the value of the
parcel as part of the evolving open space network.
Much of the frontage along the Los Angeles and
San Gabriel Rivers has been developed as industrial
property. At some locations, properties are aban-
doned, idled, or underused because of known or
perceived environmental contamination from previ-
ous uses. Those properties, termed brownfrelds,
pose a major challenge to the expansion of public
open space along the rivers, because of their poten-
tial value as component of a river parkway, and the
potentially high cost of the complete remediation of
the site contamination that is required to accommo-
date public use
58
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
For properties where acquisition and clean -up costs
are prohibitive, those sites may be adapted for a
variety of uses, including commercial, industrial, or
retail. The potential future use will depend upon a
variety of factors, including cost of acquisition, the
extent of contamination, the zoning and general
plan designation of the site, and the objectives of
the cities and communities in which the site is lo-
cated. To the extent feasible, the Guiding Principles
should be used to guide future site planning leg ., to
maximize open space).
Existing Quarry In Irwindale
Large parcels of land that may become available
over time include the gravel pits located in the up-
per San Gabriel River watershed, under - utilized or
vacant industrial properties along both rivers, hill-
side properties that, due to geological or other
natural conditions, preclude normal types of devel-
opment, and flood plain lands. Powerline
easements belonging to the City of Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power and Southern
California Edison may provide opportunities for
open space uses. Throughout much of the length
of the Los Angeles and Rio Hondo Rivers, power -
line easements follow the river course. With the
continuing evolution of rail operations, additional
rail yards and linear rail rightsof- -way may become
available.
Examples of large parcels that have been converted
to public use include the Whittier Narrows Nature
Center, the Industry Hills Recreation complex (for-
mer landfill), Los Angeles River Center and Gardens
(former corporate headquarters), and a park in
Maywood (former industrial site). The China -
town/Comfreld Yard area (a former mil yard) and
COMMON GFiOUNI) FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Taylor Yard (another former rail yard) may become
state parks.
Public agencies, including cities, counties, special
districts, state government and institutions, and the
federal government own a significant amount of
land throughout the watershed, for use as mainte-
nance yards, storage sites, and sites of office and
other facilities. Some parcels of land may no longer
be needed for their original purpose, may be de-
clared surplus, and disposed of in the manner
prescribed by law for each agency or jurisdiction.
one example of public land that has been converted
to public use is the Augustus F. Hawkins Natural
Park, a former pipe storage yard for the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power.
A variety of lands may, over time, be considered
.surplus" including major military facilities, such as
the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Depot or local re-
serve training facilities. State agencies such as
Caltrans own the lands under and around freeway
interchanges and under river bridges. Cities and
agencies own and maintain corporate orwork yards,
some of which have frontage along the rivers and
tributaries.
Goal: Consider acquisition of parcels in urbanized
areas to provide open space, passive recreation,
habitat, water quality, and flood mitigation uses.
Balance acquisition costs, including site clean up if
necessary, with the value of providing additional
open space at that location.
Maywood Rlaertront Park
Actions: The State conservancies will work with
individual cities to identify and evaluate parcels that
may become available in the next 10 years. If
deemed appropriate, the cities and the conservm-
cies will work together to develop a purchase,
U.1
H
LL
W
F
cc
O
LL
Z
O
N
ZA
59
State of Cal forria Resources Agency
lu
z
i-
LL
w
F
m
O
LL
z
O
N
COMMON GROUND FROM i'HE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
development, operation, and maintenance strategy
for each identified parcel. Where appropriate, the
conservancies will work with the State Department
of Toxic Substances Control and other relevant
agencies to identify opportunities and incentives to
expedite and sneaniline remediation of brownfields.
The conservancies will work with local, county,
regional, state, and federal agencies and institutions
to identify potential surplus government lands and
develop a strategy and program for acquiring, oper-
ating, and managing those lands. The State
Conservancies will work with willing municipalities
and public agencies to develop a program that
grants and defines the State Conservancies the right
of first refusal for surplus governmental lands. The
State Conservancies will work with local power
distributors, railroads, legislators, agencies, and
communities to gain ground access to the linear
rights -of -way that crisscross the watersheds and
would contribute to the goals of the plan.
■ Mountains, Foothills, and Hills
Development of the flatlands within the watershed
began more than two centuries ago, and continues.
Because of the limited remaining land, development
has pushed into the foothills, and in some locations,
into the San Gabriel, Santa Monica, and Santa Su-
sana Mountains. Because large areas of the foothills
and mountains remain undeveloped, preservation of
special places must be pursued before critical
opportunities are lost.
San Gabriel Mountains
The preservation of the ridge tops and hillsides
ringing the Las Angeles basin was also a goal of the
1930 Olmsted - Bartholomew Plan. That plan spe-
cifically called for the creation of parkways along the
rivers and large parks in the San Gabriel and Santa
Monica Mountains, the Puente Hills, and the Whit-
tier Narrows.
Much progress has been made towards the
preservation of the area's hillside habitat and open
space. For instance, the majority of the San Gabriel
Mountains are within the Angeles National Forest,
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service.
Several non -profit, community-based land conserv-
ancies have been created along the south- facing
foothill slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains to
preserve undeveloped hillside lands. These con-
servancies utilize time - honored, locally based
fundraising techniques and local support to acquire
and protect important parcels of land so they may
continue to be open space and habitat.
Significant portions of the Santa Monica Mountains,
the Simi Hills, Verdugo Mountains and the Santa
Susana Mountains have been preserved as park and
open space by the Santa Monica Mountains Conser-
vancy and the Mountains Recreation Conservation
Authority, in coordination with the California De-
partment of Parks and Recreation, the County of
Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles, and the Na-
tional Park Service.
The Puente and Whittier Hills, Chino Hills, San Jose
Hills, Verdugo Mountains, and the San Rafael Hills
all have existing preserved open space . There are
nature centers in the Puente Hills (Whittier Narrows
Nature Center), the Verdugo Mountains, Eaton
Canyon, Monrovia, and San Dimas Canyon Park in
the San Gabriel Mountains. The Audubon Society
is planning a nature center on the slopes of Debs
Park along the Arroyo Seco.
The State Conservancies are working with and
through the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Ser-
vice, California Department of Parks and
Recreation, the California Department of Fish and
Game, Wildlife Conservation Board, Caltmns, Whit -
tier/Puente Hills Conservation Authority, Wildlife
Corridor Conservation Authority, Puente Hills
Landfill Native Habitat Preservation Authority, and
several land vests on research studies and land ac-
quisition and preservation programs.
Several major public open spaces are located in the
hills and mountains. Besides the Angeles National
60
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Mvers Watershed and Open Space Plan
Forest in the San Gabriel Mountains, there are the
Chino Hills State Park, Debs Regional Park, Deuk-
mejian Regional Park, Elysian Park, Griffith Park,
Industry Hills Recreation Center, Schabamm Re-
gional Park, Frank G. Bonelli Regional County Park,
Claremont Hills Regional Park, Glendora Wilder-
ness Park, and Marshall Canyon County Park.
The potential for lands in the mountains, foothills,
or hills to be acquired and adapted as public open
space will depend upon the size of the parcel, the
location of the parcel (e.g., proximity to rivers or
other open space), and the potential costs of provid-
ing public access if appropriate.
Acquisition of land has been the traditional means
of protecting land resources, but securing public
funding for acquisition may be a lengthy process.
Because the window of opportunity to acquire lands
may be short, other options may need to be consid-
ered.
The most common form of open space acquisition
is through the outright purchase of property. The
standard purchase is a fee simple transaction where
money is exchanged for property. Other altema-
tives include a lease with a future option to purchase
or an installment purchase. Both options tray allow
for immediate occupancy and transfer of final pay-
ments) in the future. This may be an important
consideration when available resources are low but
can be secured in the future. Funding for outright
purchases typically comes from local, state and fed-
eral grants and bonds and from giants or donations
from private individuals and foundations.
The State Conservancies, in conjunction with agen-
cies, cities, communities, and private groups, may be
able to identify critical parcels of land that have
value for open space, habitat, orwater resources. If
the owner is willing, it may be possible to secure a
right of first refusal that can be exercised when the
property is put on the market. It may also be possi-
ble to negotiate with the property owner to secure
an agreement to donate or dedicate the property in
the future. Property owners may have a valid rea-
son (usually tax- related) to donate the property or
sell it at a reduced rate, and may be willing if they
know it will be used and maintained for the public
good. Occasionally, land can be traded among
owners, if multiple needs can be met simultaneously
by trading parcels.
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
For some parcels, the owner may be unwilling to
sell the property but may be willing to grant the
right of use to another party. A conservation ease-
ment is a voluntary agreement that allows a
landowner to limit the type or amount of develop-
ment on their property (in exchange for a fee or
other considerations) while retaining private owner-
ship of the land. In California, agricultural lands are
often protected by the use of a conservation ease-
ment lands with conservation easements may have
limited public access and serve as visual open space.
Funding for easements typically comes from state
and federal giants and from grants and bonds and
donations from private individuals and foundations.
Arroyo Ssao
Goal• Acquisition of mountain and hillside open
spaces that provide important wildlife habitat and
open space values. The hillside open space net-
work, in conjunction with the river network, should
connect the San Gabriel Mountains with the Santa
Ana Mountains, the Angeles National Forest with
the Cleveland National Forest, and the Santa
Monica Mountains with the Santa Susana Moun-
tains.
Actions: The State Conservancies will work with
the foothill communities of the San Gabriel Moun-
tains, agencies, local land trusts, and the Councils of
Government to establish a common strategy and
comprehensive plan for the preservation of foothill
open space. Figure 3-2 illustrates the areas of op-
portunity for the continued preservation of
mountains, hills, and foothills.
The State Conservancies will work with the com-
munities, local conservancies and groups, and the
ru
cc
M
LL
w
F
cc
O
z
O
at
_ 61
Stare of CaIifomia Resources Agency
uu
C
7
H
LL
uu
C
O
LL
z
O
fp
cr
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
l
Angeles Nati
sTN r�
iyeles Watershed
Pacific Ocean
Q County Boundary
Q W.".W Boundary
QNuioml F.. Bouodu
Foarhilh
Sr
F
— rtevaye
[e Wf� ®nu..yw S1.RN: W ®am:q�Ngw.�:vl4M1.
Figure 3 -2. Preservation Opportunities in the Mountains, Foothills, and Hills
Councils of Government surrounding and within
the Whittier/Puente/Chino /SanJose Hills complex
to establish a common strategy and comprehensive
plan for the preservation of open space in this area.
The State Conservancies will also work with the
communities surrounding the San Rafael Hills, the
hills surrounding the Glendale Narrows, and the
Verdugo Mountains to establish a common strategy
and comprehensive plan for the preservation of
open space in this area.
■ Tributaries
There are nearly 2,000 stream miles in the water-
sheds, and one - quarter of those streams Flow year -
round.
Similar to river parkways, open spaces along tribu-
taries provide an opportunity to extend further
green ribbons throughout the watersheds, connect-
ing those communities not located directly on the
rivers, and expanding the network of trails and bike
paths.
As discussed in Chapter 2 and illustrated in Figure
2 -4, there are eleven major sub - watersheds that
create the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers. The
major tributaries of the San Gabriel River include
the East and West Forks of the San Gabriel, Walnut
Creek, San Jose Creek, and Coyote Creek. For the
Los Angeles River, major tributaries include the
Tujunga, Pacoima and Verdugo Washes, Arroyo
Seco, Rio Hondo, and Compton Creek.
River tributaries can provide access to and from the
river from all areas of the watersheds. From a
circulation perspective, bike and pedestrian paths
along the tributaries provide access to alternative
transportation modes. From a natural systems
perspective, tributary greenways allow for the
reestablishment and protection of continuous
natural corridors from hill and mountainous
environments to coastal environments. From a
Flood protection perspective, the tlibutaryparkways
62
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
4ngelc. Nari
i
eles Water
i
r,•
San Gabdel
Pacitic Ocean
Q
Cuoety Bauadu
OW.terebd
B..d,
QN....I
Fomsa Bowd,
—
Maior Rivers and Trib urim
—
st e
—
Frtewnp
Lam¢ IOICG6MaaMl aA ID11: W PIDAO"vu ®Air1,�.MLY,.
Figure 3 -3. Open Space Opportunities Along Tributaries
tributary parkways could create opportunities for
development of smaller detention facilities that in-
crementally reduce the threat of Flooding
downstream. From a recreation perspective, they
create local recreation and educational opportuni-
ties.
The idea that parks and open space are located
along tributaries is prevalent throughout southern
California. Various cities already have public parks
and public open space along tributaries, including
Alhambra, Anaheim, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park,
Brea, Calabasas, Cerritos, Claremont, Compton,
Covina, Diamond Bar, Fullerton, Glendale, Glen-
dora, Hawaiian Gardens, La Habra, La Mirada, La
Verne, Lakewood, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pma-
dena, Pomona, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Seal Beach,
South Pasadena, Walnut, and West Covina.
The challenge is not only to create a continuous
open space ribbon along the tributaries but also to
increase regional access and create a closer relation-
State of C.1do"a Resources Agency
ship among the existing parks and open spaces
within these linear greenways. Large existing parks
and open spaces along these tributaries include:
Hahamonga Watershed Park, Lower Arroyo Seco
Park, Debs Regional Park, Bosque del Rio Hondo,
and Eaton Canyon Park.
Goal: All tributaries in urbanized areas of the wa-
tersheds are envisioned as open space ribbons that
allow for pedestrian and bike paths, restoration of
habitat, and provide opportunities for water quality
improvement and flood protection. See Figtne33.
Actions: The State Conservancies will work indi-
vidually and collectively within the communities,
local groups, and the appropriate Councils of Gov-
ernment along each of the major tributaries to
develop sub - watershed plans that will identify indi-
vidual projects within each city.
w
n:
F
LL
w
x
F
C
O
LL
z
O
fq
M
19
w
cc
U. F
U.
w
X
F
cc
O
LL
Z
O
4f
a
M31
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
■ Trails and Bike Paths
The linearity and length of the rivers make them
perfect conduits for connecting the northern moun-
tainous areas, the populous interior plains, and the
coastal margins of the watersheds. The tributaries
provide opportunities to create an extensive net-
work of additional corridors that would extend
throughout the urbanized areas of the watersheds.
With connections to existing trails and bike paths
along those natural corridors, a vast network of
alternative transportation corridors will become a
reality, creating inter- and intra -city commuter
routes and providing connections to a range of rec-
reational opportunities from mountain trails to
beachfront promenades. The Rim -of- the - Valley
Trail is an example of an opportunity to create re-
gional connections to local trails.
San GWwisi Rlwr Trail
Large segments of riverfront bike paths are already
in place. The LARiO trail currently follows the Los
Angeles River from Long Beach to Maywood and
the Rio Hondo from the Los Angeles River to the
Santa Fe Dam. A San Gabriel River trail system
runs from the mountains to the sea. A trail program
for the entire Los Angeles River is depicted in the
Los Angeles River Master Plan.
The dozen or so major tributaries create perpen-
dicular linkages to the major spines and allow for a
region -wide network of alternative transportation
modes. Currently, will segments are in place along
the Coyote Creek, Thompson Creek, La Mirada
Creek, and the Arroyo Seco. Existing power line
rights-of -way may also provide opportunities to
create and extend bike paths and trails along linear
corridors.
Beyond the rivers and tributaries, bike paths exist in
various locations throughout the watersheds. Cal -
trans has made development of additional bike
paths a priority, and the Metropolitan Transit Au-
thority's long -range transportation plan proposes to
extend and expand the network with an additional
1,800 miles of bike paths. The Orange County
Transportation Authority is currently updating the
County's Strategic Bicycle Plan. Various cities have
proposals to extend existing paths, or create new
paths.
Goal• A comprehensive network of pedestrian,
bike, and equestrian trails that uses existing corri-
dors (such as rivers, tributaries, and power line
rights-of-way) where available and new connections
where needed.
Actions: The State Conservancies will work with
the California Department of Transportation, re-
gional transportation agencies, Councils of
Government, cities and local agencies, communities,
state legislators, and community groups such as the
Los Angeles (and orange County) Bicycle Coalition,
to identify local and regional connections and cl -
velop funding strategies for acquisition or
development of regional bike, pedestrian, and
equestrian trail linkages.
■ Community Gardens
in the urban portions of the watersheds, community
gardens provide gardening opportunities, in a
communal setting, for those who do not otherwise
have space for gardening. The patchwork of urban
community gardens provides opportunities for pas-
sive recreation and attraction of wildlife (such as
birds and butterflies), demonstrates the value of
using open space, landscaping, and mulch-covered
spaces to contain runoff and reduce water waste,
provides opportunities to learn about how compost-
ing can reduce the volume of green waste deposited
in landfills and how native plants can be incorpo-
rated into urban settings.
Many communities throughout Southern California
have established community gardens for their resi-
dents, and including native plant demonstration
gardens. A number of organizations assist commu-
nities in the development, organization, and
operations of community gardens. The University
Of California Cooperative Extension has established
San Gabriel and Los Sngeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
the Common Ground (no relation to this project)
Gardening Program that makes gardening possible
for residents of all ages. Common Ground is com-
prised of Master Gardeners (who present seasonal
workshops), Master Food Preservers (to show how
to store and preserve a garden's bounty) and the
Gardening Angels school garden program (which
works with teachers to provide handson gardening
activities to complement curricula and create gar-
dens on school grounds).
Tree Plarding Along Los Angeles Riv
The Los Angeles Community Garden Council is an
umbrella organization providing assistance to com-
munity gardens in Southern California. Together
with the Los Angeles Conservation Corps, they
established the Green Bank to provide oppommi-
ties for residents to participate in community
gardens. Long Beach Organic helps turn vacant lots
into beneficial green zones, maintained by local
residents. This gives families interested in gardening
an opportunity to work together, and to link their
urban experience with the natural environment.
Goal: In the urbanized portions of the watersheds,
create a network of community native plant gardens
to provide opportunities for residents that do not
have access to private land.
Actions: The State Conservancies will work with
cities, educational organizations, and non - profit
groups to increase funding opportunities to main-
tain, expand, and develop additional community
gardens that incorporate native plant materials.
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
2. Public Access
■ Improve and Expand Existing Facilities
As the initial phase of this Plan, the RMC engaged
the LJS Group to conduct a survey in the San
Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles River watershed in
which residents were asked to suggest prioddes for
RMC activities. One of the highest priorities was
improvement of existing parks. Enhanced recrea-
tional facilities and increased security were
specifically mentioned.
Over the years, for a variety of reasons, many parks
in Southern California have not been adequately
maintained. Local, state, and federal budgets have
not kept pace with the need. Beyond addressing
deferred maintenance needs, existing parks and
open space could be redesigned to accommodate
multiple uses serving a wider variety of users. Parks
and open spaces located along river or tributary
margins may provide opportunities for low -unpaa
recreation, habitat, Flood protection, education and
interpretation, trails and connections, water quality
and ground water recharge, as well as for active
recreational uses.
Goal• Upgraded open space and other facilities that
provide amenities commensurate with use and meet
applicable standards.
El Dorado Park In Long Beach
Actions: The State Conservancies will work with
cities, communities, counties, regional park districts,
and local non -profit groups to identify opportunities
for the enhancement of existing open spaces, cul-
tural resources, and historic sites within their
jurisdictions. The Conservancies will assist the cities
W
tc
n
LL
W
I-
M
O
Z
O
U)
a!
State of California Resources Agenry 65
w
M
M
LL
w
F
S
O
U.
Z
O
N
M
C3:
COMMON GROUND FROM i'HE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
in identifying sources of funding, including park and
open space bonds, and will advise cities, communi-
ties, counties, and park districts on how to best
meet application requirements.
• Create New Facilities
Some existing open space resources, cultural re-
sources, and historic sites in the watershed may lack
appropriate amenities that allow for maximum pub-
lic benefit and use. This may include the need for
adequate access and parking, interpretive facilities,
maintenance and security features, or trails or bike
path connections.
Goal• Open space facilities that provide an appro-
priate range of amenities to maximize public
enjoyment of those facilities.
Actions: The State Conservancies will work with
cities, communities, counties, and local non -profit
groups to identify opportunities for the creation of
new facilities, cultural resources, and historic sites
within their jurisdictions.
3. Native Plants and Wildlife
■ Habitat and Linkages
Habitats that support rare or sensitive species of
plants and animals occur throughout the water-
sheds. Los Angeles County has identified
Significant Ecological Areas for various habitats
within Los Angeles County. The US Fish and Wild-
life Service has designated critical habitat for two
animals, the threatened California gnatcatcher (Po-
Imptda californrica), and the endangered arroyo toad
(Br #bmfcr iuscakfwnl -w). The StateofCalffania
has delineated a Natuml Community Conservation
Planning area for the Southern California coastal
sage scrub habitat that includes the southeastern
comer of Los Angeles county and large areas of
Orange County. As urban and suburban develop-
ment continues to reduce and fragment open space
throughout the watersheds, identification of habitat
that warrants protection will become increasingly
important.
Habitat fragmentation can reduce plant and animal
populations and species diversity. Therefore, main -
taining or establishing linkages between patches of
habitat is important to maintain biodiversity and
ecological integrity. Linkages and corridors must be
defined in terms of functional connectivity: daily
and seasonal movements; dispersal, and gene flow;
range shifts; and maintenance of ecological proc-
esses. To gauge the success of habitat linkages,
specific animal and plant species can serve as Semi-
live indicators of functional connectivity. A list of
potential indicator species for the watersheds is
provided in Appendix H.
San Gabriel Mountains
A number of important wildlife condors were iden-
tified mMi, YingLinkagwRezonngConnWkgyroNx
Califon:iaLan&cape(2001). Theselinkageswere
subsequently evaluated (Noss 2001) in terms of how
well the proposed condors correspond to actual
habitat conditions and patterns in the landscape,
based on review of aerial photography and a Hyover
of the region.
Figure 34 indicates potential linkages in the water-
sheds, mostly as revised from the seven linkages
identified by the numbers used in the MmngLink-
agesreport (Nos. 21, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31), but
with some possible new linkage zones also indi-
cated. The linkages on the map are shown as broad
zones within which connectivity might be achieved
through linear wildlife corridors; through specific
enhancement features, such as bridges or tunnels;
through "stepping stone" habitat patches within the
linkage zone (e.g., disconnected patches that pro-
vide mobility for birds and some animals); or
through some combination of these approaches.
Each linkage is designated as High, Moderate, or
Low Priority based on existing data; although these
preliminary rankings may change as more infomm-
tion becomes available. Additional study is
necessary to delineate the specific habitat protec-
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Figure 3d. Habitat Linkages
Spume: Dr, Reed Noss, California Dept. of Fish and Game
tion, restoration, and enhancement needs within of this linkage should be documented as soon as
these zones. possible.
■ Linkage #21: Santa Susana Pass —High ■ Linkage #24: 1- "ewhall Pass —High
Priority
This proposed linkage is the easternmost of a series
of linkages proposed by Missing Linkages, which
would connect the Santa Susana Mountains with the
Simi Hills (which, together, constitute a proposed
Significant Ecological Area), The Simi Hills would,
in turn, be connected by other linkages (outside the
study region) to the Santa Monica Mountains, an-
other proposed Significant Ecological Area. This
locations was designated by Missing Linkages as a
Landscape Linkage and Connectivity Choke-Point.
The south end of this proposed linkage, in the Sirni
Hills, is high - quality oak woodland that is being
reduced by development Maintaining a connection
to the west of the south end of the linkage will be
important. To the north, the Porter Ranch devel-
opment is spreading westward and could soon
jeopardize the viability of this linkage. Wildlife use
Prority
Missing Linkages identifies this as a Landscape
Linkage and Connectivity Choke - Point. This link-
age would connect the Santa Susana Mountains with
the San Gabriel Mountains, specifically linking two
proposed Significant Ecological Areas: Santa Susana
Mountains /Simi Hills and Santa Clara River. Two
roads, SR 14 and I -5 both pass through this area,
with interchanges. A highway tunnel or high bridge
would be necessary to make this a secure linkage.
■ Linkage #27: Angeles – Verdugo Moun-
tains— Moderate Priority
This linkage would connect the Verdugo Mountains
to the San Gabriel Mountains in Angeles National
Forest. Missing Linkages describes this as a Missing
Link, because the existing connection is tenuous at
best. There is some undeveloped private land and
w
of
M
LL
w
H
O
LL
Z
O
ci
67
State of California Resources Agency
to
cc
F
LL
w
x
F
Q
O
LL
2
O
N
ai
.COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
islands of public land. Highway 210 crosses the Big
Tujunga Wash here, but an underpass is needed for
wildlife movement, accompanied by a secure com-
dor south to the Verdugo Hills.
■ Linkage #28: Griffith Park - Verdugo Hills
Low to Moderate Priority
This linkage is correctly identified as a Missing Link.
Furthermore, as drawn in Missing Linkages, the
proposed linkage passes through a wide (2 -3 mile)
swath of highly developed land. Verdugo Wash,
upon which the linkage appears to be centered, is a
possible path, but needs revegetation. "Develop-
ment removal," as recommended on the Linkage
Description Log, is probably not likely. Judging
from aerial photographs, and as indicated on the
map overlay, connections to the east and west of the
previously identified linkage might be more viable,
but are still tenuous at present. To the east of this
linkage zone, the Arroyo Seco may offer a superior
alternative.
■ Linkage #29/29: Verdugo-San Gabriel
Stepping Stones —Low Priority
Although not identified by Missing Linkages, aerial
photography shows a patchwork of potential step-
ping stone habitats between the San Gabriel River
(in the vicinity of the Puente Hills) northwest to the
Arroyo Seco and, tenuously, to the Verdugo Wash.
These stepping stones, largely occupying W might
be used for travel by birds, and some of the more
mobile terrestrial mammals (e.g., coyote) and could
also be the basis for a trail system.
■ Linkage #29: San Gabriel River — Moderate
to High Priority
The San Gabriel River, identified as a Missing Link
by Missing Linkages, nevertheless has considerable
potential for restoration, as noted on the Linkage
Description Form. Habitat for the least Bell's vireo
and other focal species still exists in several areas.
Restoration of native riparian vegetation along the
river would greatly enhance habitat availability for
the vireo and other native species. Gravel mines
along the river are ending their leases and provide
good opportunities for restoration. The San Gabriel
River in this area, if adequately restored, would
functionally link two proposed Significant Ecologi-
cal Areas: Puente Hills and San Gabriel Canyon.
■ Linkage #30: Puente Chino Hills
Moderate to High Priority
Although identified as a Connectivity Choke -Point
by Missing Linkages, this could also be a Landscape
Linkage. Considerable undeveloped habitat remains
in the Puente Hills, which are proposed as a Signf-
cant Ecological Area. The Puente Hills could be
linked to the San Gabriel Mountains (including the
San Gabriel Canyon Significant Ecological Area)
through the San Gabriel River corridor. Although
this connection may currently be tenuous, it could
be a very important linkage.
■ Linkage #31: Puente -San Jose -San Gabrl-
els— Moderate Priority
As drawn in Missing Linkages, this linkage crosses
widely developed areas. An alternative linkage zone
may be more feasible to the east, because of a
higher density of stepping stone habitats, which
might be used by binds, and mobile mammals (e.g.,
coyote). Importantly, it would link three proposed
Significant Ecological Areas: Puente Hills, East San
Gabriel Valley, and San Dimas Canyon/San Anto-
nio Wash.
In addition to the linkages shown on Figure 3-4, the
Los Angeles River has considerable potential for
restoration along much of its course, and if pursued
aggressively, the river and its riparian zone could
someday constitute a viable linkage and important
habitat.
Goat: Preserve important terrestrial, avian, and
aquatic habitats, and protect native plants and wild-
life in the watersheds.
Preserve or establish habitat linkages and/or corri-
dors in the Santa Susana Pass, Newhall Pass,
Angeles National Forest to the Verdugo Mountains,
Griffith Park to the Verdugo Mountains, the Ver-
dugo Mountains and San Gabriel "Stepping
Stones," the San Gabriel River, the Puente & Chino
Hills, the Puente Hills to San Jose Hills and the San
Gabriel Mountains, and the Los Angeles River.
Actilom The State Conservancies will work with
federal, state, and local agencies and private groups
to pursue: 1) detailed study and monitoring of po-
tential habitat linkages in the watersheds; 2)
88 San Gabnel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
comprehensive mapping of potential conservation
sites; 3) ranking of potential sites according to their
conservation value and vulnerability; 4) analyses of
aquatic and wetland habitats and species, which
have generally received less study than terrestrial
habitats and species.
■ Wetlands
Before the arrival of settlers in the 1700s, the rivers
and tributaries, combined with abundant groundwa-
ter, created an extensive network of wetlands
throughout the watersheds. The vast majority of
these wetlands were lost, but some wetlands do still
exist. In its WetlandsojtheLosAngelesR7rer Water -
sbed, the California Coastal Conservancy
documented current wetland resources in the water_
shed and identified 10 sites that have potential for
near -term restoration. These sites were chosen
because they "represent a range of wetland and
riparian habitats that historically occurred in the
watershed and are distributed with the overall objec-
tive of improving the geographic balance of such
habitat types and promoting greater regional biodi-
versity."
R/pT1an Habitat Along Los Angeles River
These sites are located at De Forest Park (Long
Beach), Vittoria Park (Tomm0e), Harbor Park (San
Pedro), Dominguez Gap (Long Beach), Hazard
Park (Los Angeles), Taylor Yard (Los Angeles),
LowerAmoyo Park (Pasadena), Cahuenga Spreading
Grounds (Glendale), Sepulveda Basin (Van Nuys),
and Upper Bull Creek (San Femando).
For the upper San Gabriel River in the San Gabriel
Valley, Recmnecting the San Gabriel Vaheyhas pro-
posed a series of actions to create a wildlife corridor
along the San Gabriel River. This network includes
wetland creation throughout the wildlife corridor.
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTkINS TO''. HE SEA
Although not as detailed as the Coastal Conservancy
work on the Los Angeles River, this study presents a
long term, multi-objective, and accomplishable vi-
sion for this reach of the river.
For the Los Angeles River, the authors of Wetlands
ojtbeLosAngele Ricer Wateisbed state that "many
other —in most cases more extemlve—restomtion
opportunities exist or could be created... through
such landscape -scale efforts as restoring former
hydrologic regimes, more effective stormwater
management practices, and non - structural solutions
to flood control'. Examples of long -term restora-
tion opportunities include the creation of large -
scale, off-channel wetlands and riparian habitats in
auxiliary Flood ways and utility comdors adjacent to
the major tributaries and mainstem channel of the
Los Angeles River. These long -term restoration
opportunities are also applicable forthe San Gabriel
River. These opportunities can capitalize on the
potential for wetlands to serve as natural filters that
trap sediments and contaminants and improve water
quality.
Goal: Restore and expand wedands wherever fea_
sible in the watersheds, and incorporate those
wetlands as elements of natural systems, to treat
urban runoff, improve water quality, and provide
wildlife habitat.
Actions: The State Conservancies will work with
appropriate agencies to create a mitigation bank for
the restoration and establishment of wetlands within
the watersheds. This mitigation bank will provide
mitigation for the loss of jurisdictional wetlands and
other waters of the United States, as defined by
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. The
Wildlife Conservation Board and the California
Coastal Conservancy are currently working to ac-
quire and restore the Los Cerritos wetlands in Long
Beach and Seal Beach. The Resources Agency, the
SMMC, and the RMC will utilize available funds
(including Propositions 12 and 13) to fund projects
that restore riparian and wetland habitats along the
rivers and tributaries. The State Conservancies will
develop partnerships with agencies and land groups
to enhance, create, rehabilitate, manage, and moni-
tor these wetlands.
w
LL
w
F
¢
O
Z
O
rn
State of California Resources Agency 69
COMMON GROUND FRDti I J JE MOUN I AINS i0 I'NE SEA'
■ Private and Common Lands
Residents and individuals can play a part in water-
shed protection and enhancement activities.
According to the LJS survey, referred to earlier in
this report, many of those surveyed reported that
their own backyardswere their favorite open spaces.
Many of the survey respondents also wanted more
information on how to care for their own land.
More than 50% were interested in information that
makes it more attractive and useful for wildlife such
as birds and butterflies and how to absorb, retain
and use more of the water that naturally falls or
flows over their land.
Watershed restoration can begin in backyards.
While a backyard cannot take the place of a large
wilderness area or nature preserve, it can play host
to the wildlife typically found within our urban ar-
eas. A backyard (or front yard) can provide food,
water, shelter, and space.
w
z
F
U-
U-
0
Z
O
N
Suburben Backyard
A backyard, when considered as part of the vast
neighborhood network in the watershed, can con-
tribute greatly to the health of a watershed.
Organizations such as the National Wildlife Perim -
tion, the Natural Resources conservation Service,
the National Association of Conservation Districts,
and the American Gardening Association provide
educational programs on backyard landscaping.
The California Native Plant Society provides guid-
ance on incorporation of native plants into private
gardens. Tree People have demonstration programs
on gardening design, tree planting, and ways to in-
corporate sustainabllity, concepts into home and
garden design. The Los Angeles County Depart-
ment of Public Works maintains the Smart
Gardening website to provide information on gar-
dening, composting, building healthy soil, and
integrated pest management.
In addition to privately owned spaces, businesses,
organizations and institutions own large parcels of
land that could provide opportunities for open
space. These include hospitals, corporations, and
educational institutions, including school districts.
These entities should be encouraged to adopt pro-
grams and policies which introduce landscaped
open space into large expanses of concrete and as-
phalt where feasible, to provide amenities for
employees, visitors and students.
Goal• An informed public that understands how
private lands, including backyards, comprise open
space in urban and suburban settings to provide
passive recreation for residents and amenities for
beneficial wildlife. Business, industries, school dis-
tricts, and institutions that value open space as
amenities for employees, patients, students, visitors,
and as habitat.
Actions: The State Conservancies will work with
local agencies and environmental organizations to
provide educational support for use of native and
regionally adapted plants in landscaping. The Con -
servartdeswl➢workwith area businesses to develop
incentive programs (e.g., such as sale of native
plants at reduced prices) to encourage residents to
utilize native plant materials.
4. Water Resources
■ Flood Protection
The variability of flood flows in the Los Angeles
and San Gabriel Rivers led to the extensive network
of constructed flood protection facilities, including
reservoirs, debris basins, and concrete channels.
The system has been largely successful in protecting
lives and property and speeding the discharge of
floodwaters into the Pacific Ocean. Maintenance of
adequate flood protection for all residents of the
watershed will remain a vital priority.
Alternative means of achieving flood protection
have been suggested for manyyears, including the
use of non - structural methods, such as using open
spaces to reduce runoff velocity and encourage
groundwater infiltration. The introduction of such
features must not compromise the basic functional-
70 San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Rivers Watershed and Open Spam Plan
ity of the system, and therefore may have limited
application at some locations. The Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board recently
adopted requirements for development, implemen-
tation and monitoring of Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Programs for certain types of
new developments and redevelopments, which will
require treatment or retention of stormwater. As
model programs for retention and treatment of
portions of stormwater mnoff are developed, retro-
fit of existing facilities may become practical and
feasible.
Cogswell Dam
In the upper watershed, open space projects may
have the opportunity to retain mnoff so as to actu-
ally decrease the amount of water in the rivers
during peak flows. If stormwater is retained on site,
there is an opportunity to use the retention facility
as a recreation and or open space amenity during
the dry months. Centralized retention facilities serv-
ing several parcels provide larger facilities that
accommodate more uses.
Goal- Utilize a range of flood protection methods,
including non - structural; maintain and enhance
flood protection, while utilizing open spaces and
landscaped areas to filter, cleanse and retain storn-
water and enhance groundwater infiltration.
Actions: The State Conservancies will participate
in flood protection planning activities with the De-
partments of Public Works in Los Angeles and
Orange County, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers and en4urage incorporation of non - structural
flood protection measures as pan of comprehensive
flood protection programs.
COMMON. GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
■ Surface Water
Since adoption of the federal Clean Water Act, wa-
ter quality in the rivers and tributaries has impmved
significantly, although many reaches of the rivers are
still identified as having impaired water quality. A
variety of problems remain to be addressed to as-
sure that surface water quality meets applicable
standards. The most notable of these problems is
urban runoff, including stormwater runoff.
Los Angeles and Orange Counties have been
granted pemuts for municipal separate storm drain
systems, which cover the discharge of floodwaters
into the regional drainage network, and then into
the Pacific Ocean. The Los Angeles permittees
have filed a Report of Waste Discharge (dated Feb
mary 1, 2001), and applied for renewal of the waste
discharge requirements and a NPDES permit. The
LARWQCB is expected to adopt a new permit for
those discharges later this year. As a result, most
stomt drain systems in the urbanized areas of the
watersheds are covered by NPDES requirements,
which requires development, implementation, and
monitoring of Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Programs. A major component of those programs
is the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
during planning, construction, operation and main-
tenance of facilities.
Los Angeles River
In addition, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board recently adopted requirements for
implementation and monitoring of Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plans for certain types of
new developments. Model programs for retention
and treatment of stormwater runoff will be devel-
oped as a result of these requirements, and those
model programs are to be adopted by titles, which
w
F
LL
w
S
f
0
O
U.
Z
4
N
71
State of California Resources Agency
w
t-
U.
U.
w
x
F
Q
2
O
N
72
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
will review plans for new development and deter-
mine compliance with the model programs.
Beyond BMPs applicable to existing and future de-
velopment, public education and outreach will be
critical to reducing urban stormwater pollution.
Cities and both counties have existing outreach
programs, to eliminate the misuse of stone drains as
trash receptacles, create an understanding of the
connection between animal and yard waste and the
quality of water in the rivers and at the beaches, and
underscore the need for personal commitment to
improve the quality of stormwater runoff. For ex-
ample, the City of LOS Angeles has an exemplary
stormwater program, has trained thousands of city
employees for BMPs, and maintains a website for
public outreach and education.
Goal• Improve stormwater runoff quality to assure
protection of surface and ground water. Encourage
infiltration of urban runoff into groundwater where
feasible and without having a negative impact on
groundwater quality, to extend the water supply,
thereby reducing reliance on imported water.
Actions- The State Conservancies will work with
the LARWQCB, the counties, and relevant local
agencies to encourage development of model pro-
grants related to urban stormwater runoff mitigation
and encourage agencies and cities to adopt and im-
plement those programs. The State Conservancies
will encourage expansions of existing urban storm -
water mnoff education and outreach programs.
■ Groundwater
In the early stages of development of the water-
sheds, groundwater played an important role as the
source of the majority of water for farms, homes,
and businesses. Regionally, over - pumping of
groundwater aquifers declined as imported water
became available. Today, the continued and even
increased infiltration of surface water into our un-
derground aquifers is essential to the water supply.
Poor quality of groundwater, or contamination from
prior land uses, limits or precludes use of groundwa-
ter for domestic purposes. Enhancing groundwater
infiltration could expand the availability of this valu-
able resource, and reduce reliance on imported
water.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(LACDPW) undertakes substantial groundwater
recharge throughout Los Angeles County.
LACDPW operates 27 water- spreading areas where
water infiltrates to replenish the County's under-
ground water supply (LACDA Study, 1994). Over
250,000 acre-feet of water runoff was conserved in
the 1999 -2000 water year. The conserved water
percolates into the ground water and is pumped for
use by the residents of the watersheds.
Tujunge wash
The Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works is undertaking a demonstration project along
the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers in the City
of Pico Rivera. The project is a multi - purpose,
multi -phase plan to allow public access to the open
space provided by the spreading grounds. Planned
elements include perimeter landscaping, wildlife
habitat, and public access to the spreading grounds.
This partnership between Public Works and the City
of Pico Rivera is model of cooperation and enlight-
ened multi -use policies.
The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power is planning a spreading ground/ habi-
tat/education/passive recreation area at the
Headworks Spreading Grounds along the Los An-
geles River, north of Griffith Park.
The City of Long Beach, with other stakeholders
such as County Public Works and the Water Re-
plenishment District of Southern California are
working to develop a multl-use approach to expan-
sion and improvement to the Dominguez Gap
Spreading Grounds in the northern part of Long
Beach.
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
Goal: Expand and enhance groundwater infiltra-
tion and recharge wherever possible, and when
consistent with water quality goals.
Actions: The Conservancies will work with
LACDPW and the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board, water districts, communities,
and cities to develop and fund projects that protect
and enhance groundwater quality and enhance
groundwater recharge.
■ Private and Common Lands
Watershed restoration can begin in backyards.
While a backyard cannot take the place of a
groundwater recharge basin or stormwater deten-
tion facility, it can be designed to detain stormwater
and promote groundwater infiltration. The Tree
People's TREES demonstration project involved
retrofit of a single - family home in South Central to
capture, cleanse, and store rainwater that falls onto
the property. The water R then reused for landscap-
ing on the site. This project demonstrates how
sustainable watershed management— storrrtwater
capture, water conservation, and groundwater re-
charge --tan be implemented on a typical urban lot.
In addition, large parcels owned by businesses, or-
ganizations and institutions provide opportunities to
retrofit these open spaces to detain stormwater and
promote groundwater infiltration.
Stormmfer Retention Structure at the
TREES Demonstration Site
Goal• An informed public that understands how
private and common lands, including backyards,
provide opportunities to retain stormwater and
promote groundwater infiltration.
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Actions: The State Conservancies will work with
local agencies, cities, communities, and environ-
mental organizations to encourage residents,
businesses, and organizations to promote stormwa-
ter detention and groundwater infiltration.
E. NEXT STEPS
To restore balance to the watershed, multiobjective
plans and projects for open space, habitat, and wa-
ter resources should incorporate the Guiding
Principles articulated in this plan. This includes
ongoing (or pending) subwatershed plans, the (in
progress) San Gabriel River Master Plan, and future
plans for parks, open space, and bike trails in indi-
vidual cities and communities. The State
Conservancies will encourage cities and local agen-
cies to consider incorporation of the concepts
embodied in the Guiding Principles into current and
future plans, to advance the goal of restoring bal-
ance to the watersheds.
The State Conservancies will encourage cities to
consider incorporation of the relevant Guiding
Principles into their next General Plan update, so
that future projects within individual cities reflect
the concepts embodied in the Guiding Principles.
Because this plan discusses, but does not propose
specific projects, following adoption of this plan,
the RMC and SMMC will develop and propose
projects consistent with the goals of the plan. The
conservancies will also evaluate funding applications
for projects submitted by cities, communities, agen-
cies, and local groups, using the project evaluation
criteria included in Appendix F.
1. San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
Because the RMC is relatively new, it is still devel-
oping detailed plans and programs. The concepts
embodied in this plan are intended to guide the
activities of the RMC for both the short- and long-
term, as described below.
■ Short-Term (One to Three years)
The RMC will work with individual cities, commu-
nities, and agencies to identify projects that are
consistent with the plan, and to develop and imple-
ment a list of projects for current funding
opportunities (including Proposition 12). The initial
to
r
LL
ul
S
r
¢
O
LL
O
N
73
State of California resources Agency
at
x
U.
LL
U!
S
F
2
O
LL
Z
O
N
G
COMMON. GROUND FROhA THE MOUNTAINS TO i'HE SEA
focus will be on projects that are located along the
rivers and tributaries, including: (1) acquisition of
individual parcels; (2) installation of trails, bike paths
and passive recreation space, (3) creation of parks;
(4) development of community gardens (with the
assistance of the UC Cooperative Extension Com-
munity Gardens Program), and (5) improvement or
expansion of existing facilities.
The RMC will also develop a master list of projects
that will be reviewed as future funding sources are
identified or become available (including future
bond issues). The project evaluation criteria used by
the RMC may be adjusted for individual funding
sources to better match projects with funding
sources.
The RMC will develop project evaluation software,
which will allow individual projects to be quickly
and easily ranked (using the project evaluation crite-
ria in Appendix E), and linked to available
information in the RMC GIS database.
The RMC will work with the Tree People, the
County of Los Angeles, CALFED, the Los Angeles
and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, and
others to support and implement watershed - related
educational programs.
The RMC will seek funds to develop a restoration
strategy for quarry pits along the San Gabriel River
to restore native vegetation, protect and enhance
groundwater, and incorporate nxneationwhere fea-
sible and consistent with water quality goals.
Upper Son GaWel Rlvar
Additionally, to fully develop some of the concepts
described in this plan, the RMC will undertake a
second phase of this open space plan process, to
develop, within three years of the adoption of this
plan, the following subsequent plans:.
Rivers Parkway Plan: To create a continuous
ribbon of open space along the San Gabriel River,
the lower Los Angeles River and the Rio Hondo, a
Rivers Parkway Plan should be developed. A pro-
posed study by the National Park Service to create a
National Recreation Area along the rivers could
inform this process. Partners in the development of
the Rivers Parkway Plan may include the National
Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the California
State Parks and Recreation Department, the Los
Angles County Department of Public Works, the
Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment, and each riverfront city. The Rivers Parkway
Plan shall outline a prioritized list of projects, iden-
tify potential funding, and include a work program
to accomplish the acquisition and development of
each project. This will include projects designated
in the Los Angeles River Master Plan and the in-
progress San Gabriel River Master Plan.
Tributary Plans: To extend the network of open
space, trails and bike paths along tributaries, the
RMC w,! encourage the relevant agencies engaged
in subwatershed plans to address open space, habi-
tat and passive recreation along the major tributaries
of the rivers, including the Compton Creek, Coyote
Creek, Rio Hondo, and the Upper San Gabriel River
(including Walnut and San Jose Creeks). Potential
partners in this process include the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works, the
Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment, Orange County Watershed and
Environmental Programs, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the San Gabriel Regional Mountains
Conservancy the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Riv-
ers Watershed Council, the San Gabriel Valley
Council of Governments, the tributary- fronting
cities and stakeholders involved in subwatershed
plans.
Trails and Bike Paths Plan: To establish a com-
prehensive network of trails and bike paths, existing
plans need to be reviewed to determine whether
those plans should be revised to incorporate trails
and paths along the river tributaries. Gaps in exist-
ing trails and bike paths must be identified and
addressed. Potential partners in this effort include:
Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the
74
San Gabriel and Las Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
Orange County Transportation Authority, the Cali-
fornia Department of Parks and Recreation, the Los
Angeles County Parks and Recreation Department,
individual cities and communities, and advocacy
groups such as the Los Angeles (and Orange
County) Bicycle Coalitions.
The State Conservancies will work with the State
Department of Transportation, regional transporta-
tion agencies, Councils of Government, cities and
local agencies, communities, state and legislators,
and community groups, to identify local and re-
gional connections and develop funding strategies
for acquisition or development of pedestrian and
equestrian trail linkages.
Mountains, Foothills and dills Plan(s): To
identify parcels and arras of land within the moun-
tains, foothills, hills that should be preserved and
protected, comprehensive plan(s) are needed to
identify priorities, funding and implementation
strategies. Potential partners include: the foothill
communities of the San Gabriel Mountains, and the
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments; the
communities; local conservancies, agencies, and
groups; and the Councils of Govemrent surround-
ing and encompassing the Whirder/Puentte /Chino/
San Jose Hills complex; and the communities sur-
rounding the Glendale Narrows and the Verdugo
Mountains.
Habitat CO.�arvationl9arr: To preserve critical
habitat, preserve, and establish habitat linkages
and/or corridors, and to preserve, restore, and cre-
ate wetlands, a comprehensive habitat plan for the
watersheds is needed. This would include (1) de-
tailed study and monitoring of potential habitat
linkages in the watersheds; (2) comprehensive malt
ping of potential conservation sites; (3) ranking of
potential sites according to their conservation value
and vulnerability; and (4) analyses of aquatic and
wetland habitats and species, which have generally
received less study than terrestrial habitats and spe-
cies. Potential partners in these efforts include the
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the California Department of Fish and Game, the
Wildlife Conservation Board, the California Coastal
Conservancy, the Puente Bills Landfill Native Habi-
tat Preservation Authority, the Wildlife Corridor
Conservation Authority, counties, cities, and habitat
and resource conservation organizations.
The RMC will also retain a conservation resource
biologist to conduct a second phase of analysis and
research of habitat linkages and corridors in the
watersheds, to identify, problems and opportunities
related to species conservation in urban settings and
provide for input from local experts.
The RMC will also look for partners to fund vegeta-
tion mapping for the watersheds. Vegetation
mapping would improve understanding existing
habitats and the extent of fragmentation, inform
planning, and development of strategies for protec-
tion of habitats and the establishment and
preservation of habitat linkages and corridors.
Historic and cultural Landscape Surver In
order to preserve our rich cultural and agricultural
heritage, the RMC, in conjunction with university,
professional, civic, and community organizations,
State Parks, the National Park Service, and local
agencies, will work to create a comprehensive sur-
vey of historic and cultural landscapes throughout
the watersheds.
Monitoring and Assessment Flan: The RMC,
with partners, will work to develop an assessment
process for restoration of the watersheds, and moni-
tor progress towards meeting the goals described
herein. Critical to this process will be maintenance
and updating of the Geographic Information Sys-
tems database developed by the RMC. At a
minimum, the periodic assessment process shall
occur at ten -year intervals, or more often if deemed
practical. This process shall utilize quantifiable
methods wherever feasible and input from a techni-
cal advisory committee, and shall include
stakeholder involvement in the design, implemerua-
tion, and review of the assessments.
A timeline reflecting the development of these plans
is included as Figure 3-5.
■ Long -Term (Twenty to Fifty Yeare)
The following are the long -term goals of the RMC
• To create, expand, and improve public open
space, the RMC wW work with the federal gov-
ernment, the state legislature, the counties, cities,
and non -profit groups to identify funding to pro-
vide five acres of park space per 1,000 residents.
This will include a strategy for land acquisition
S
h
LL
w
K
O
LL
O
fn
a
d
75
Stare of C I fomia Resources Agmcy
ul
x
D
D
a<
w
t=-
0
O
u.
z
U
rn
a4
am
U�
U rn
fQ
N
e
C
C
0
roC
e
2U
Ir
a
U c
a
ro
Ongoing Plans and Projects
.._..__....._PHASE ONE
$0tl� Watershed
es�rch Usion
Principles
GIS
Database
Acquisflbn
Public Access
Water
Wlldrfe
Plans ■
Projects
Plans & Work Programs
Rivers Parkway
Tributaries (subwatersheds)
Trails & Bike Paths
Mountains, Hills & Foothills
Habitat Conservation
Cultural and Histeric Resources
Monitoring & Assessment
Figure 33. Open Space Planning Timeline
and preservation to create parkways along the riv-
ers and tributaries.
To improve habitat quality, quantity, and connec-
tivity, the RMC will work with resource
conservation agencies and other appropriate part-
ners to plan and implement a hierarchy of habitat
networks that will connect small habitat patches
and narrow corridors within the densest urban
areas, larger habitat patches and wider corridors
in suburban and rural areas, and extensive open
spaces in the mountains and the national forests.
• To build a regional systems of trails, bike paths,
equestrian trails, and public access systems the
RMC will work with federal, state, regional and
local agencies, the counties, cities, and advocacy
groups to develop a comprehensive network that
Projects
will connect river trails to mountain trails, urban
trails to centers of commerce, and parks and sig-
nificant open spaces to the beaches.
2. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Because the SMMC has been established for more
than 20 years, it already has a variety of plans and
programs related to acquisition and preservation of
open space, establishment of parks, installation of
trails, restoration of habitat, and other resource
conservation activities. The SMMC will use the
concepts in this plan to develop and implement a
Watershed Work Program.
3. Other Agencies and Cities
California ResoturcesAgency: Implement devel-
opment of the California Continuing Resource
76
San Gabriel and Isis Mgeles Rivers Watershed and Open Spam Plan
Investment Strategy Project (CCRISP), to create an
analytical tool to help prioritize areas that contain
natural resources that are important to biodiversity,
working landscapes, watersheds, natural recreational
lands, and urban open space.
CalifornhiParks and Recreation: Implement the
Urban Strategy for the Los Angeles area to acquire,
develop and operate parks, provide interpretative,
educational, and recreational programs and events;
and to plan, coordinate and provide technical assis-
tance for park and recreation opportunities.
California CoastalCommissiom Developwet-
land restoration projects and protect coastal
resources.
California Fish and Crame: Develop habitat and
conservation projects.
Wildlife Conservation Board Facilitate land ac-
quisitions and public access funding.
Cahrans: Develop bikeway and restoration pro-
jects.
State and Regional WaterQuality Boards: Co-
ordinate local planning for, and implementation of,
water quality improvements with the Los Angeles
and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Boards and other interested parties.
Arroyo Saco
State of Califomu Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
US Forest Service: Complete the Forest Plan Up-
date that includes the Angeles National Forest.
US Army Corps ofEttghwerst Continue wetland
restoration and flood protection projects.
US National Park Service: Prepare a River Park-
ways Study and continue work on the De Anza
Trail.
Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works: Complete the San Gabriel River Master
Plan and continue to work with partners to imple-
ment projects consistent with the Los Angeles River
Master Plan. Continue to work with partners on
river - related project within the Los Angeles and San
Gabriel River Watersheds.
Orange County Office of the Chief Execiadve:
Undertake the Coyote Creek Watershed Plan (in
conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers) and implement watershed - related projects.
Cities: identify projects and consider incorporating
the Guiding Principles into the next update of their
general plans.
Approval of individual projects will require consid-
eration of potential environmental effects, in accord
with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Public Resources Code, SS21000- 21178)
and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 4, Chapter 14, SS15000- 15387).
The lead agency responsible for approving or im-
plementing the proposed project will be responsible
for determining the appropriate level of environ-
mental review.
This plan is intended as a living document that will
evolve over time, as priorities evolve and needs
dictate, based on periodic assessment of progress.
As subwatershed, river, and city open space plans
are developed, those plans will be appended to this
document, to extend and expand upon this plan.
U1
t-
LL
W
S
r
K
O
LL
2
O
N
Q
Ir
11COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
APPENDIX A
Photo Credits
Cover
San Gabriel Mountains: Courtesy of San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
Los Angeles River (at Long Beach): Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996
Ranger: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Cheryl Himmelstein, 1996
Beach: Courtesy of EIP Associates, 2001
Executive Summary
Los Angeles Satellite Image: Spaceshots, 1989
Los Angeles River at Elysian Park: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996
Bosque del Rio Hondo: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Lamb Studio, 1997
San Gabriel Mountains: Courtesy of Arthur Golding
Pan Pacific Park: Courtesy of EIP Associates
Arroyo Seco: Courtesy of Arthur Golding
Simi Hills: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996
Ranger: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Cheryl Himmelstein, 1996
Headwaters of the Los Angeles River: Courtesy Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb,1996
Conceptual River Parkways: Courtesy of Montgomery Watson Harm, adapted from Spaceshots (1989)
Urban Riverfront Parcel (in Maywood): Courtesy of EIP Associates, 2001
Whittier Hills Trail: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tony Haig
Upper San Gabriel River Trall: Courtesy of Dan Slater, 2000 -2001
Rio Hondo & Los Angeles River Confluence: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996
Legg lake: Courtesy of Dan Slater, 2000 -2001
Great Blue Heron: Courtesy of Dan Slater, 2000 -2001
Trail Above Monrovia: Courtesy of Trust for Public land
Los Angeles River: Courtesy of Arthur Golding
Chapter 1— Background
Los Angeles in 1873: Courtesy of Nevada Historical Society
San Gabriel in 1893: Courtesy of Historic Urban Plans 2
Los Angeles River south of Downtown: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996 K
O
Los Angeles River west of Sepulveda Dam: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996 w
CL
Confluence of Arroyo Seco and Los Angeles River: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996 Q.
79
State of Catlfomia Resources Agency
COMMON I GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Chapter 2— Current Conditions
Upper Arroyo Seco: Courtesy of David Van Norman
Steelhead Trout caught by Leonard G. Hogue in January 1940: Courtesy of James N. Hogue
Anmdo Removal near Whittier Narrows: Courtesy of Dan Horan
Chapter 3 —A Vision for the Future
No Dumping Stencil: Courtesy of Heal the Bay
Ranger: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Cheryl Himmelstein, 1996
Interpretive Signage: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land
Children with Earth Ball: Courtesy of Tree People, Melinda F. Kelley
(Golden Gate) Park: Courtesy of EIP Associates
Pan Pacific Park: Courtesy of EIP Associates
Surplus LADWP Property: Courtesy of EIP Associates, 2001
Legg Lake: Courtesy of Dan Slater, 2000 -2001
Los Angeles River at Sepulveda Basin: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996
Maywood Riverfront Park: Courtesy of EIP Associates, 2001
Existing Quarry in Irwindale: Courtesy of Arthur Golding
San Gabriel Mountains (Mountains, Hills, & Foothills): Courtesy of Arthur Golding
Arroyo Seco: Courtesy of Arthur Golding
San Gabriel River Trail: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996
Tree Planting Along Los Angeles River: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tony Haig, 1997
El Dorado Park in Long Beach: Courtesy of Dan Slater, 2000 -2001
San Gabriel Mountains (Habitat and Linkages): Courtesy of Arthur Golding
Riparian Habitat Along Los Angeles River: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1997
Suburban Backyard: Courtesy of San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
Cogswell Dam: Courtesy of Dan Slater, 2000 -2001
(Bridge over) Los Angeles River: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996
Tujunga Wash: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land
Stormwater Retention Structure: Courtesy of Tree People
Upper San Gabriel River Canyon: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, J. Danza
Arroyo Seco: Courtesy of Arthur Golding
y
80
San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Rivers Watershed and Open Spam Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
APPENDIX B
Acronyms
BMPs Best Management Practices
CREEC -LA California Regional Environmental Educational Center —Los Angeles
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
GIs Geographic Information Systems
GLOBE Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment
GREEN Global Rivers Environmental Education Network
LACDA Los Angeles County Drainage Area
LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
MRCA Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority
NAAEE North American Association of Environmental Educators
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RMC Lower Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
SEAs Significant Ecological Areas
SMMC Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TPL Trust for Public Lands
TREES Trans - agency Resources for Economic and Environmental Sustainability
ULARA Upper Los Angeles River Area
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WET Water Education for Teachers
I
81
Slate of Calife"a Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND PROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
APPENDIX C
Glossary of Useful Terms
(Derived from the Second Nature report prepared by Tree People,
and Stormwaten Asset Not Liability, by Dallman and Pfechota )
50•yearstomt —The L.A. County Department of Public Works capital flood hydrology is based on design
storm derived from 50 -year return frequency, based on historical weather data in the Los Angeles region.
This design event occurs over a four -day period, with the maximum rainfall falling on the fourth day.
133- yam' storm—The storm intensity used by the Amry Corps of Engineers for calculating flood likelihood.
Presumably a storm of this intensity occurs once every 133 years on average.
Aeration —A process whereby an voids are introduced into soil for improved fertility and water holding
capability.
Base flow of streams—Water slowly percolates underground and then spreads laterally until it reaches the
surface (not pumped up) becoming part of the natural flow in rivers and streams, its base flow. This seeping
ground water is what maintains the flow in a river due to the return flow of groundwater.
Bio-remediate— Bio-remediation uses biological processes to repair pollution damage. For example, a grass
Swale can bio-remediate much of the pollution caused by automobile use by holding heavy metals in the soil
at harmless concentrations as well as by the action of soil bacteria, which gradually breaks down hydrocarbon
waste such as crankcase oil.
Beneficial uses— historical, existing or potential uses of a body of water. The Regional Water Quality Con-
trol Boards designate uses for individual bodies of water, with the intent of preserving or restoring those
uses. There are 24 beneficial uses designations in California, including wildlife habitat, industrial processes,
agricultural supply, and ground water recharge.
Catchment planter —A planting bed that has been specially designed to hold and absorb stomp flows from
adjacent areas, usually from parking lots.
Cistern — Storage tank built either above or below ground or on a roof to store water for later use: for im-
gation, fire fighting, and in some countries, for drinking and bathing.
Compost—Decaying vegetation. Can be used as ground cover or mulch, and as fertilizer.
Design storm —The size of a storm, defined by duration, intensity, and amount of precipitation, that storm
drain systems are designed to accommodate. As development paves over the land, increasing the volume of
runoff, the design capacity of built storm drains can become inadequate.
Detention basin — Temporary storage to reduce the peak flow, but not the total volume of storm water
during a storm.
Debris basin — Facility constructed to contain debris flows (water, rocks, mud, sediment vegetation and
other debris) that occur during major storm events, particularly in areas that have been subject to wildfires.
U Drainage chimney —Holes drilled into the ground sufficiently deep to allow rainwater to quickly flow back
X into the ground. Also known as a dry well.
6
w Drainage flow deflector —A ridge and /or a depression in a flat paved surface for the purpose of re-
a directing sheet flow into a channel, thus changing the destination of storm water.
4
82
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
DMMON GROUND FROM THL MOUNTAINS TC
Dryflow The continuous flow in a storm drain system that occurs even during extended periods without
min.
Dry well---A constructed well designed to receive water for groundwater recharge.
Evapotranspiration —The loss of water from the soil both by evaporation and by transpiration from the
plants growing thereon.
Fihermedium —Any item or substance that is used for filtering impurities. Soil, sand, and mulch are used
as a filter media.
First -flush rain —In the Los Angeles area, many months can pass between one rainstorm and the next.
During this time, pollution and grime build up on all of the city's outdoor surfaces, and in particular, on its
streets. When the next rainstorm finally comes, it washes the accumulated grime and pollution off of the
streets and into the underground storm drain system. This is the "first Flush min." As you might expect, it
carries a very large amount of suspended and dissolved pollutants.
Flood plain—The lands next to rivers and streams that Flood naturally during large storm events. The flood
plain's function is to store sediment and Flood flows.
Grass filter strips —A grassy edge or swale that filters storm water in the root layer before percolating the
water into the soil below or discharging the water overland.
Graywatw —Water drained from household sinks, washers, tubs, and showers—that is all water not coming
from toilets. This water carries relatively few suspended or dissolved solids. Consequently, it can often be
used for such purposes as landscape irrigation.
Green Rkwicland�A grassy or planted landscaped island, usually in a parking lot, that filters storm water
in the root layer before percolating the water into the soil below or discharging the water overland.
Green link—Green links connect various locations via generously planted "park- like" linear corridors
Groundwater- -The water that collects and is stored underground into basins defined by the underlying
geology. The level of groundwater or "water table" varies according to the type of soil and underlying geo-
logic formations, and from season to season. In rare instances, and on particular sites, the groundwater table
comes up to the surface. This results in standing water on the surface of the ground. More often, the
groundwater table is located many feet below the surface.
Groundwatermounding —In certain instances, where stomwater is returned to the soil in one location at a
faster rate than in adjacent locations, groundwater mounding can occur. This means that the water table
(where the soil is saturated) can be higher under a recharge basin than in adjacent locations. Occasionally
this can create problems. Often it is benign.
Groundwater recharge - Surface water that filters into the ground and reaches underground reservoirs,
providing replenishment and/or increased storage for groundwater basins. Tim occurs naturally during and
after rainstorms, in creek beds with Flowing water, or can be accomplished purposefully by directing storm
water into specially prepared recharge areas for infiltration.
Heat gain --Heat can slowly build up in an object over tare. This is called heat gain. In a building, heat
gain is most often the consequence of many hours of sunshine striking and wamrkrg the exterior walls and
roof. U
X
Heat island effect —Many urban areas lack shade trees. in these areas the sun strikes pavement and roof- z
tops, heating them to very high temperatures. These surfaces re- radiate heat back into the air, raising air w
IL
IL
83
State of California Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FHOKI THE MOUNTAINS TO ME SEA
temperatures by five or more degrees. Urban areas that contain dense tree canopy avoid the heat island ef-
fect because trees absorb virtually all of the sun's energy without radiating heat back into the air.
Highcrowns— Vhtually all roads and parking areas have some kind of crown, or high point, to insure that
water flows off promptly. Usually this high point is a ridge along the center line of the road or parting bay.
This ridge is ordinarily only a few inches higher than the edges. "High crown" suggests a condition where
this crown is made artificially higher to allow the road or bay to hold more water than it otherwise could.
Holding pond --A depression where rainwater is directed and held temporarily. Holding ponds function to
slow the rate at which water is discharged from a site to the rate more typical of undeveloped natural sites.
Humus layer The top layer of soil where there is the most organic activity, fibrous root material, and re-
cycling detritus from the plants above.
Hundred -year storm —There is a 1 in 100 chance of a storm of this magnitude happening in any one year.
Flood Flow rates from hundred year storms are recalculated over time due to changes in the landscape (e.g.,
increased urbanization).
Hydrology —The occurrence, distribution, movement, and properties of water above and below the earth's
surface. The natural hydrology of an area may be significantly altered by catastrophic events (earthquakes,
landslides) and by human development (agriculture, urbanization).
Impervious orimpermeable —A surface that does not allow the passage of water and thus potentially fa-
cilitates the generation of runoff.
InSltradon —The process by which water moves downward through the earth's surface, replenishing soil
moisture and groundwater basins. The ability of the soil to infiltrate water depends on many factors, includ-
ing the nature of the surface cover, and soil characteristics such as texture and depth.
Infiltration zone —An area particularly well suited and /or altered for directing storm water back into the
soil.
Mukh— organic material placed on the ground, sometimes many inches thick, used as a ground cover to
cool the soil, discourage weeds and erosion, aid in the infiltration of water, minknize the heat island effect of
the city, and reduce the costs of green waste disposal.
Natural flood plain—Every river or stream naturally overflows its low flow or non -storm capacity channel
during major storm events. Flood plains consist of those areas that would naturally flood during major
storms. Their function is to disperse sediments and to infiltrate water underground.
Percoladon —The act of water soaking into the ground. This term is used most frequently in conjunction
with spreading grounds, where water is purposefully allowed to percolate through the soil to the groundwa-
ter.
Percoladonbasin —An above ground storage place— retention basin -built so as to encourage the percola-
tion of water contained therein underground.
Percolation rate —The rate at which water filters into the soil. Some soil types, such as sand, have a very
high percolation rate; other soils types, such as clay, have a very slow percolation rate.
tJ Permeable pavement Permeable pavement is honeycombed with voids, or air pockets. These voids allow
x water to migrate down through the pavement into the soil below.
a
Z Pervious or permeable surfacm— Surfaces that allow water or other liquids to penetrate and potentially
W reach the ground (depending on the thickness of the surface, how porous it is, and the amount of water.
CL
Cl
84
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and open Space Plan
porosity= --A measure of the ability of water to pass through a material, which R dependent upon how much
empty space occurs between the particles that make up the substance. For example, sand is much more
porous than clay.
Potable water —Water that is fit to drink.
Precipitation —Rain, had or snow that falls from the atmosphere.
Recharge areas -- Certain zones in the landscape can accept water back into the sell at higher than average
rates. Such areas are often referred to as recharge areas.
Residential density —The number of family units to be found on an average acre of land in a residential
area is referred to as its density. These densities range from low (1 -2 units per acre) to high (40 + units per
acre).
Retention basin or infiltration basin -- Stores water with the purpose of reducing the volume of nmoff by
capturing precipitation and surface runoff for recharge to groundwater. These basins do not return captured
runoff to storm water channels.
Return period —The average recurrence of a storm of a particular size and duration.
Riparian habitat—Habitat next to rivers or streams and dependent on the additional moisture in the river.
Its function is to provide food and shelter for many creatures, to reduce the volume and velocity of runoff,
and increase infiltration.
Riparian retention and treatment area—A retention or recharge area where plants native to rivers or lakes
are installed to consume and clean the water therein.
Riprap —A rock lining used to stabilize sloping stream banks.
River corridor — Includes the river, the flood plain, the riparian trees, and plants that grow in the high
groundwater and most soils along the way.
Runoff Stormwater that flows off of one surface or site onto another.
Sheet flow — Stormwater that flows in even sheets across a flat surface, such as a parking lot.
Spreading grounds —A land area specifically designed to be flooded so that the water will percolate or soak
into the ground, recharging the ground water.
Stormwater— Refers to all rainwater that his the surface of the ground. Stormwater either percolates back
into the soil or flows on the surface to the nearest storm drain inlet, stream, or other wetland area.
Subsoil --the soil layer below the "topsoil" layer.
Subsurface —Below the surface of the ground.
Sustainabllity —The ability to meet current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to
do the same. Also, the goal of securing life, liberty, and social well -being within the means of nature.
Swale—A v- shaped depression in the land, usually lined with grass, designed as a channel for moving storm
water from one place to another. U
Velocity offlow—How quickly the stommater Flows over the surface or through the storm drain system to x 0
the ocean. Velocity is determined by the design of the conveyance system: how wide, how smooth or w
rough, and the slope of the conveyance. Q.
CL
85
State of Califomia Resources Agency
DMMON GROUND F90
Waterconservation —Means different things in different contexts. Usually, it means using less (consumer
or fanner or landscape) due to hardware or management strategies. In the stomp water management context,
it means storing water in retention basins or behind a dam for infiltration to the ground water, making the
water available as an addition to the drinking water supply.
Watershed —A region or area bound peripherally by a divide or ridge, all of which drains to a particular
watercourse or body of water. Most urban sites are now mini - watersheds, with the property line constituting
the "ridge" and the storm drain system located in the street constituting the "watercourse" to which it dis-
charges.
A
86
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
APPENDIX D
References
CHAPTER 1— Background
California Coastal Conservancy, Wetlands of the Los Angeles River, Profiles and Restoration Opportunities,
Coastal Conservancy, 2000
Hise, Greg, William, Deverell, Laurie Olin, Eden byDes rt 7be1930Ciin seadBmtlwlomeivRegtorrdP1anfor&-
Los Angeles Region, University of California Press, 2000
Gumprecht, Blake, 7beLoszlngeksRie .. Its Life, Lath and PossibleRebr'nh, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins
University Press, 1999
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, LosAngekSRl B11wu y, ReponfortheLc Angeles County
Board of Supervisors, June 2001
Ohnsted Brothers and Bartholomew Associates, Pane-, Pl a" oundsandBeacbesforrheLasArtge 1isREgron, report
submitted to the Citizens' Committee on Parks, Playgrounds and Beaches, 1930
Shapiro, Erik A- and Loo- J, Shapiro, MakingMOWOPen Space— Making ,SjaaceMwe Open intheLos Angea ftw
and San Gabriel River Watembed, LJS Group and Leo J. Shapiro & Associates, April 6, 2001
CHAPTER 2— Current Conditions
Aldrich, John H. and Meadows, Myra, Southland WeatberHandbook Los Angeles: Brewster Publications, 1966
AssoeationofG"mifwaterAgmcies, Gro n&agwrandSurfaceWcuerinkulbern Cakfan' aAGuidetoConjuw-
tive Use Montgomery Watson, Pasadena, California, 2000
Blomquist, W., Dividing the Waters, San Francisco: ICS Press, 1992
Brown, J., Delgado, D., Stevens, J. and Sung K, Reconnecting the San Gabriel Volley. APlammngAj37�ford e
CmationofIntemonnected UrWn Wildlife ConidorA>etuorizs. Pomona: California State PolytechrikalUniver-
sity, Department of Landscape Architecture, June 2000
California Coastal Conservancy, WedandsgiheLnsAWe1 iesRkwWaterslxd PmjilesandRevo ation gTcnuraiies,
May 2000
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, ACompilaban ofWaterQualtyGoals,
August 2000
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ins Angeles Region, Basin Planforthecoasid Wateisif�0f
Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, adopted June 1994
,Los Angeles River Watershed Water Quality Characterization, April, 1998
Resolution No. 98- 018,Amendraenttothe WaterQualityC,ont apiantolrr corpoiat,(UngesirBenefl
cial Use Designations for Selected Waters, November 1998
Sandard Urban,%rm WaterMaCoat Planjbrla Angele CoumyandCilresinLa Angele Couny,
March 8, 2000
Stewofthe WaL,mhed— Repo?lo Surface WaterQraW, 7be.San Gabne1Ri 1Vaierdxd,June2000
Stale of California Resources Agency
Ck
2
ui
a
0
a
e7
Watershed Management Initiative Chapter, December 2000
Total Trash Total Maximum DatlyLoadsfortheLosAngelesRiter Watershed, January 25, 2001
Central and West Basin Water Replenishment Disnict,AnnualSuneyReporton Ground WaterRep lenishment,
Bookman - Edmonston Engineering, Glendale, California, 1991
Cook, Jody, Angeles Forest Supervisor, presentation at Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed
Council conference Habitat: Past, Present and Future, May 2001
Dallman, Suzanne and Piechota, Tom, Stonnurater. Asset Not Liability, Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers
Watershed Council, 1999.
Gumprecht, Blake, 7beLosAngelesRar . Its Life, Death and Possib/eRebinh, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins
University Press, 1999
Kreissman, Bern, California: An Environmental Atlas and Guide, Davis, CA: Bear Klaw Press, 1991
Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, WaierSupplyandManagementin theLosAngelesAma,
Draft, September 2001
Mayer, Kenneth E. and Laudenslayer, William F., editors, AGuidetothe WildltfeHaWatsofCalifornia, Sacra-
mento: State of California, 1988
McPhee, John, 7be Control of Nature, New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1991
Clime, Antony R. and Brown, Amalie Jo, The Tmnnc RangesandtheSanAncJr FaultS}9ern, Los Angeles:
International Conference of Historical Geographers, 1979
PCR Services Corporation, Frank Hovore & Associates and FORMA Systems, LosAngeles CountySignicam
EcologtcalArea bpdateStudy2000, report prepared for the Los Angeles County Department of Regional
Planning, November 2000
Rau dart, Charles ReglonalRW=jnbn Goalsin the Graq&rLosAngdl DaincWArtsx ALctrrc6ra/r�CbmPaKsron
ofR"WHWmandCur&WC . onditiorrs Using GeogmphiclnfomtatmS)s7ems PhD. Dissertation, Univecsdy
of California, Los Angeles, 1998.
San Gabriel Valley Water Association, Waterlssues, Monrovia, California, Winter 1992
San Gabriel River Wateanasier, Thiny-FounhAnnualRe/wrtofdxSan GabnelRixerWa mnauer1or1996-1997,
February 28, 1998
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, and Water
Replenishment District of Southern California, Momebel bFiowbayCeoandure erRcehargeEnginvenngl�pon,
November 1997
Shuit, Douglas P, "County Bike Lanes Going on Fast Track," Las Angeles Times, May 27, 2001
Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, 1996
Stephenson, John R and Cakwume,Gen, M, SouB.rem Calfwnia Mountains andF IhaAsstnmeut11abltatand
o Specter Conservation Issues, Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pa�c Southwest Research Station, 1999
X Stabler A. H. and Strahler A. N, Mod Physical Gmgraphy, Fourth Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons,
i 1992
w
CL
a
88
San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Povers Watershed and Open Space Plan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, La AWles CounlyDminageAreaReuieu! 13'nalFeasibility
Study Interim Report and Environmental Impact Statement, January 1992
■ Websites
Angeles National Forest — http: / /www.r5.fs.fed.us /angeles/
California Noxious Weed Control Projects Invent ory— http: / /endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu /weeds/
California Wetlands Information System -
http: / /ceres.ca.gov /wetlands /geo_ info /so_calAos_angeles_rlver.html
EPA Surf Your Watershed — http: / /www.epa.gov /surf3
EPA Impaired Water Bodies— http: / /www. epa. gov /iwi/303d/18070105_303d.html, and
http: / /www. epa .gov /iwi/303d /18070106_303d.html
Los Angeles Almanac— http : / /www.1osangelesalmanac.com/
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrologic Annual Reports -
http: / /dpw.co.1a.ca.us /wrd /report/index.cfm
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power — http : / /www5.dwp.ci.la.ca.us/water /supply /facts/index.htm
Metropolitan Water District -
http: / /www.mwd.dst.ca.us /Dots/ W aterReliability/Water4SoCal /waterforsocal.htm
Orange County Environmental Management — http: / /wwv✓.oc.ca. gov /pffd/ nv s/stom ater /index.htm
State Water Resources Control Board — http: / /www.swrcb.ca.gov/
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board — http: / /www.swreb.ca.gov /rwgcb4
US Census Bureau, 2000 Census—http: / /www.census.gov
Western Regional Climate Data Center — http: //v w .wrcc.dri.edu /summary/climsmwa.htn l
CHAPTER 3 —A Vision for the Future
■ Guiding Principles
City of Huntington Beach, EntinmmentalCbcrklistFcmnPer (2QAGuidelines, AMendixG, asAmended,January
1, 2000
City of Long Beach, Long Beach 2010 Strategic Plan, 2000
City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Sustainable City Program, 1994
Condon, Patrick and Moriarty, Stacy, Eds, Second Nature: adapting LA' s7andsccrpeforSustaimbleLfving,
TreePeople, 1999
Dalinum, Suzanne and Piechota, Tom, Stormu:ater. Asset Not Liability, Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers
Watershed Council, 1999
O
fhauran, Michael, ASummaryofaad" WPn ruiplafo rSucue4dW,W,sbe:lManMemeruPmgn ,,Morr[gonrery
X
Z
Watson, 1998
a
IL
89
State of Califomu Resources Agency
Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, Lbq/r cgiegt WOrkforaLosAngeksRiter Watersbed
Management Feasibility Study (Later known as the Corps /County 3 -Year Watercourse Study), 1996
Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, Long Tenn WateisbErl Coals, Fit,— Ymi- StiategicPlan,
1997
Ins Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, LosAngeles -San Gabriel Watershed Vision.. 2025,1998
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, LosAnge lesCountyStgnalicaraFcologicalArea t pdate
Study 2000, November, 2000
Los Angeles County Departments of Public Works, Parks and Recreation and Regional Planning, LosAngeles
Rir Master Plan, 1996
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, WaterQuahiyControl Plan LosAngelesRegion
Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Las Angeles and Ventura Counties, 1994
Lynch, Kevin, Good City Form, MIT Press 1981
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority GuidingPHncrphs(Outline), RequestforQualificatious, San
Gabriel & Los Angeles Rivers Guiding Principles and Open Space Plan, 2001
National Research Council Committee on Watershed Management, New SuiztegusforAmerica's Watersheds,
National Academy Press, 1999
North East Trees and Arroyo Seco Foundation,AnnyoSero WakisbedRestorationFe bduyStudy: C,aalsand
Objectives, 2001
PCRServices Corporation ,EwadteSummmygibePrgaa dL�Angel�CmnryS ignifrc"EcoiogicalAwar, 2000
San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, Consenhan yMission, Purposes, and
Requirements, 2001
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, SAWPA'PlanforCkanReliable WaierfortbeSantaAmRit Water-
shed, 2000
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, & wMAIawaMorrntat 'ns6bnwnancy,Stnat pcptan. MimonStatetnetti, 1997
Schueler, Thomas, CmftingBeuer Urban WatersbedlarotcctionPlans, Center for Watershed Protection, 1996
Southern California Studies Center, Sprawl Hits the Wall, University of Southern California, 2001
State of California, Californ w Public ResounxsCode, &cn'on32600etSal (Enabling Legislation, Rivers aridMouo-
tales Conservancy), 2000
■ Strategies, Opportunities, and Next Steps
Brown, J., Delgado, D., Stevens, J. and Sung, K, ReconnectingtbeSan Gabiel ValleyA PlannedAppn acbforthe
CmmtOnoflnwrconnertedUrfnn WildlifeC&ndorAi?tu s. Pomona: Califomia State PolytenhaicalUniver-
sity, Department of Landscape Architecture, June 2000
California Coastal Conservancy, WetlandsgWLa AWie Ri Wa'eg dPmjiilesandResMI ionopponu"h,,
o May 2000
X
Zw
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Brori(wids Initiatives Fact Sbeet, March 1998
w
a Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board, California Materials Exchange, Creative Reuse, 7be Green
et Bank, Goodfor the Air, Neighborhoods, and the landfill, Fall 2000
90
San Gabriel and Cos Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Spam Plan
MENECOMION GROUND, FROtl THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
California State Water Resources Control Board, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Opportunity,
Responsibility, Accountability, January 2001
Wa ter Quality Pan ningandA 'arpoW Sou neFbAkdion ConirolFmgmms, Requesifi rPrrlorxals, March
2001
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, Ihzt, jt Trash TotalMaeimum Daily
Loadsfor the Los Angeles River Watershed, January 22, 2001
California Wilderness Coalition, Carla WildlandsAoect AVbfonfo Wild Calfornta, LXW South CoastRr
gional Report, Undated
California Wilderness Coalition and The Nature Conservancy of California, MisingLirrkiW,, RestoringConrtec-
tivity to the California Landscape, November, 2, 2000
CALFED Bay -Delta Program, Annual Report, 2000
, Watmbed Program Plan, Final Program EIS/EE? Technical Appendix, July 2000
Delorme Mapping Company, Soutbern and Central California Atlas and Gazetteer, 1990.
Environmental Law Institute, A Guidebookfor Broumfield Property Owners, 1999
Forma Syst ems, Cpen4wcePlan, FbaseOne InfornurtionGa#vdng. Sam Gabn'elandLw LosAng&s Ruersand
Mountains Conservancy, Final Report, March 23, 2001
Los Angeles City, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, Sromrwater Program, LmentBest
Management Practices Handbook, Part B, Planning Activities, February 15, 2001
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Los Angeles River Master Plan, 1996
Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, Beneficial L&esofdbelns'Angeles and San Gabtielkters,
2001
National Wildlife Federation, Paving Paradise, SpruudsImpaaon WzWe and Wrld Places in Carta, AStuart
Growtb and Wildlife Campaign California White Paper, February 2001
Noss, Reed, 7ask2 Asairnentoft FeasibdiyglGi6MfeCw0ors; List ofS+,.� tobeAddrrm-, 9
g71ab"Exh�Qpxwn; tiesf orMWnWoyBkiyarutfo rA"onalbrfama%:in MbeC,akcW andMcpor
CornabrOpportunilies. ReporttotheLa A?WeksandSan GabrielRt Wz&isba Owtrcil Sepwnber 3,2001
Olmsted Brothers and Bartholomew Associates, Pan& PlaygroundsandBaidl jo dvlc Angele Region, report
submitted to the Citizens' Committee on Parks, Playgrounds and Beaches, 1930
Pasadena Star -News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Whittier Daily News, The San Gabriel al?ku on lbe
Edge, A Special Report by the Pasadena Star -News, August 27,2000.
Pollack, Dar4Ai9uni lCommurntyCamrx&onPfanning TheOrVmofmAmbiti 6Ps gnrmbProrE FD%jwncs,
March, 2001
, 7beFutumofHabuat consenwtion77he1vCCPEVenenoe in Southern California, June, 2001
Shapiro, Erik A. and Leo.J. Shapiro, MakingMo CpenSpace— MakingSpaceMore Open in tbeLa AngelesRuer
0
and San Gabriel River Watembed, LJS Group and Leo J. Shapiro & Associates; April 6, 2001
x
0
Thomas Brothers Mapping, 7be 7bomas Guide 2001— Las Angeles and Orange Counties, 2001
z
a
United States Environmental Protection Agency, San Gabriel Valley Superjund Sites Update, July 1999
IL
81
SWe of California Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO IFIE SEA
Promoting Environmental Justice 7bmugh Pollution Preventton, September 2000
OurBuikandNutundEnditnmena .ATechnvc l&aewglbebtreractiorrsbztut Landt&,, 7hwgt or-
tation, and Environmental Quality, September 2000
United States National Park Service, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance, EconomklmpactofPmuccting
Rivers, Trails and Gre way Corridors, 1995
■ Education - Related Websites
California Environmental Educat ion — http: / /ceres.ca.gov /education/
California Regional Environmental Educational Center —Los Angeles —http: / /www.creec.org/mgionll/
Global Leaming and Observations to Benefit the Environment -
http : / /www.centerx.gseis.ucta.edu /globe / index.htm
Global Rivers Environmental Education Net work — http:// www.igc.org/green/msources.htnil
EcoAcademy (of the Los Angeles Conservation Corps ) — http: / /www.ecoacademy.org/
National Wildlife Federation's backyard habitat program — http:// www.nwf.org/habitats /index.htm]
North American Association of Environmental Educators—http: / /www.maee.org/
Tree People —http: / /www.treepeople.org/tmes/
US EPA's Water Office Kid's Page — http: / /www.epa.gov /ow/kids /watered2.html
Water Education for Teachers project— http :// www.water- ed.org/projectwet.asp
■ Websites (used in preparation of the plan)
California Biodiversity Council— http: / /ceres.ca.gov/biodiv/
California Department of Fish and Game—http: / /www.dfg.ca.gov/
California Depanment of Forestry and Fire Protection — http: / /www.fire.ca.gov/
California Department of Parks and Re mat ion — http: // parks .ca.gov /homepage /default.asp
California Department of Toxic Substances Control— http: / /www.dtsc.ca.gov /index.html
California Department of Transportation— http: / /www.dot.ca.gov/
California Department of Water Resources —http: / /wwwdwr.water.ca.gov/
California Environmental Resources Evaluation System —http: / /ceres.ca.gov /index.html
California Land Use Planning Information Net work — http: / /ceres.ca.gov /planning/
California Native Plant Society— http: / /www.cnps.org/
California North Coast Watershed Assessment Program — http: / /www.ncwatenhed.ca.gov/
a
x California Ocean and Coastal Environmental Access Network (Cal Ocean) — http: / /ceres.ca.gov /ocean/
C
m California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region-
shttp: / /www.swrcb.ca.gov /- rwgcb4 /index.html
92
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivets Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
California Resources Agency — http: / /ceres.ca.gov /cra/
California State Coastal Conservancy — http: //v w .coastalconservancy.ca.gov/
California Watershed Information Technical System — http: / /ceres.ca.gov /watershed/
California Wetlands Information System — http: / /ceres.ca.gov /wetlands/
California Wildlife Conservation Board — http: / /www.dfg.ca.gov /wcb /index.htnil
Facility City, "Growing Smart" — http:// facilityci ty.cont/fc_exp_O1_05_cover.asp
Gateway Cities Council of Governmen ts— http: / /www.gatewaycog.org/
Hacienda Hills Open Space Research Studies —http: / /ceres.ca.gov /hacinat.htm
League of California Cities, Orange County Division — http: / /www.occities.org/
(Snow Your Watershed, Purdue University Conservation Information Technology Center-
http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/
Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council— http : / /www.lasgrivemwatemhed.org/
Los Angeles City Stormwater Program— www.lastormwatecorg
Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation— http: / /parks.co.1a.ca.us/
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Watershed Management Division -
http: / /dpw.co.1a.ca.us /wmd/
Orange County Watershed Management Programs —http: / /www.0c.ca.gov /pfrd /envms /watershed/
San Gabriel Mountains Regional Conservancy — http: //v w .sgmrc.org/comerva.htm
San Gabriel River Master Plan — http: / /dwp.co.1a.ca.us /pin/sgmp /files /m1115l999.cfm ?cal_id -138
San Gabriel River Trail— http: / /www. nearf iel d. com /- dan /sports/bike /sg/index.htm
San Gabriel Valley Council of Govemments —http: / /www.sgvcog.org/
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board— http: / /www.swrcb.ca.gov /mgcb8/
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy— http: / /www.smmc.ca.gov/
Save the Whittier Hills 2000 — http:// www. geocities .com/whittierhills/history.html
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Region —http: / /www.spl.usace.army.niil/
United States Forest Service, Angeles National Forest— http: / /Ww .r5.fs.fed.us /angeles/
United States National Park Service—http: / /www.nps.gov/
The Wildlands Conservancy— http: / /www.wildlandsconservancy.org/
r
�st� 93
State of Calffomia Resources Agency
COMMON GROMID FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
APPENDIX E
RIVIC Project Authority
Attorney General's Office Opinion
r
94
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Spam Plan
doo"WnvUNd FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
Public: (213 897 -2000
Telephone: (213 897 -2706
Facsimile: (213 897 -2801
E -Mail: terry.fujimoto doj.ca.gov
July 1, 2001
Mary A. Angle
Executive Director
San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles River
and Mountains Conservancy
900 South Fremont Avenue, 11" Floor
P.O. Box 1460
Alhambra, CA 91802 -1460
RE: Reauest for Informal Advice re Open Space Plan
Dear Executive Officer Angle:
In a letter dated April 13, 2001, you requested that the Office of the Attorney General
provide informal advice regarding the impact of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers
and Mountains Conservancy's ( "RMC ") adoption of a San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles
Parkway and Open Space Plan ( "OSP "). (Pub. Resources Code, § 32604 (d).) The purpose of
this letter is to provide that informal advice.
ISSUES PRESENTED
Specifically, you asked the following two questions: first, you inquired whether it is nec-
essary to comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") in the
process of developing and adopting the OSP. Second, you asked our office to evaluate the
effect of the adoption of the OSP, on the region, individual cities and affected landowners. In
particular, you inquire whether approval of the OSP will require the member cities to amend
their general plans to conform to the OSP, and/or give the RMC regulatory or governing author-
ity over its member cities or over any ordinance, general or specific plan enacted by any local
jurisdiction within its territory.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1. As discussed below, while we conclude that the RMC must comply with CEQA in adopt-
ing the OSP, CEQA does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report or a
negative declaration. Under CEQA, an agency must first determine whether the proposed activ-
ity is exempt or not a project within the meaning of CEQA. If it is determined that the action is
exempt or a "non - project," no further review under CEQA is necessary. The OSP, as pro-
posed, is not a "project' within the meaning of CEQA and therefore is not subject to further
w
environmental review. We caution that implementation or amendment of the OSP may require
x
additional review under CEQA including preparation of an environmental impact report.
0
z
w
a
a
95
State of California Resources Agency
CoMMoN GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
2. The legislation establishing the RMC was enacted in response to the interest of the
member cities in creating a multi - jurisdictional agency that would be authorized to acquire land,
and conduct watershed management, flood control, and recreational projects within the lower
Los Angeles River and its tributaries, the San Gabriel River watershed and the San Gabriel
Mountains. The cities, however, expressed concern that the new state agency not be empow-
ered to usurp regulatory or governing control from the local entities. The legislation addresses
that concern. First, the RMC does not possess the power of eminent domain. (See Public
Res. Code, §§ 32612 (b), 32613 (b).) Second, the RMC has no regulatory or governing au-
thority over any ordinance, general plan or other laws adopted by the local jurisdictions within
its territory. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 32613 (b).) Finally, we note that there is no explicit
requirement in the legislation that the member cities amend their general or regional plans to
conform to the OSP. Certainly, if the Legislature had intended to impose such a significant re-
quirement upon the affected cities it would have made it explicit, particularly where such a
requirement is inconsistent with the principal directive that local entities retain authority over
their own general and specific plans. Therefore, it is our view that adoption of the OSP will not
require the individual cities or regional agencies to amend or alter their general or regional
plans. Nor will the OSP give the RMC governing authority over its member cities or over any
land use regulation or ordinance enacted by any local jurisdiction within its territory.
THE RMC AND APPROVAL OF THE OPEN SPACE PLAN
In 1999, the Legislature enacted the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and
Mountains Conservancy Act (Act), which added Division 22.8 to the Public Resources Code,
beginning with section 32600. The Act created the RMC and specified that its principal pur-
poses are to "acquire and manage public lands within the Lower Los Angeles River and San
Gabriel River watersheds, and to provide open space, low impact recreational and educational
uses, water conservation, water shed improvement, wildlife and habitat restoration and protec-
tion, and watershed improvement within the territory," and to provide for public enjoyment in
these watersheds and the San Gabriel Mountains. (Pub. Resources Code, § 32602 (a) and
(d).)
Under Public Resources Code section 32604(d), the RMC "shall" prepare an OSP which
must be approved by a "majority of the cities representing a majority of the population, the
Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County and by the Central Basin Water Association and
the San Gabriel Valley Watermaster." The plan "shall include, but not be limited to," the follow-
ing:
"(1) A determination of the policies and priorities for the conservation of the
San Gabriel River and its watershed, the Lower Los Angeles River, and the
San Gabriel Mountains, in accordance with the purposes of the conservancy as
set forth in section 32602.
"(2) A plan for incorporating, as relevant, the principles and planning work
contained within the Los Angeles River Master Plan prepared by the County of
Los Angeles.
w "(3) An identification of underused existing public open spaces and recommendations
F for providing better public use and enjoyment in areas identified in the plan.
z
a"(4) An identification of, and a priority program for implementing, those additional
a low- impact recreational and open space needs, including additional or upgraded
96
San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE'MOUNTAtNS TO T ME SEA
facilities and parks that may be necessary or desirable ° I( bid.)
Although the OSP, as set forth in section 32604 subsection (d), subdivisions (1 -4), is
conceived principally as a planning document, it does not have to be limited in scope to that
function alone. The Legislature, by including the phrase, "but not be limited to; intended that
the RMC have the discretion to determine the scope of the plan and its level of specificity, con-
sistent with the "purposes set forth in Section 32602." (See Pub. Resources Code, §32604(a).)
For example, section 32612 (c), provides that the RMC, prior to entering into an agreement to
acquire an interest in real property, must notify the affected local agency if "such a project" was
not included in the OSP.' This provision contemplates that the RMC has the authority to in-
clude project specific elements in the OSP.
Counsel for the Gateway Council of Governments, however, citing sections 32612 (c)
and 32614 (c), has expressed concern that the RMC may be required to adopt a project spe-
cific open space plan, or at a minimum, include project specific elements in the plan such as
the identification of parcels for acquisition. This requirement is not reflected in the Act. There
is nothing in section 32604(d) that requires the RMC to prepare a project specific OSP, or to
include project specific elements in the plan. Rather, the focus is on the adoption of general
"policies and priorities" and the identification of underused existing public open space and rec-
ommendations for providing better public use. .:' I( bid.) The only mandatory elements of the
OSP are those that are set forth in section 30604 subsection (d), subdivisions one through four.
All other elements, as discussed above, are subject to the discretion of the RMC. This under-
standing of the RMC's authority is implicit in sections 32612 (c) and 32614 (c). These sections
specifically provide that the RMC may proceed with future projects, subject to notice require-
ments, even if they are not mentioned in the OSP. They do not require the RMC to adopt a
project specific OSP.
Here, the RMC, in consultation with the public entities that must approve the OSP, is in
the process of preparing the OSP. The stated purpose of the plan, as proposed, is "to provide
a comprehensive framework for watershed and open space planning within the RMC's jurisdic-
tion." (See OSP In Progress Draft, p. 1.) It is intended to serve as a "basis for future detailed
planning at subwatershed levels as well as to guide the policies and programs of the RMC."
(Ibid.) Given the practical and inherent difficulties of developing a plan involving over 60 differ-
ent jurisdictions, the OSP, initially, will establish a set of general guiding principles, identify
existing resources and land use management within the RMC's jurisdiction, and address poten-
tial projects types consistent with the purposes and objectives of the RMC. The OSP will not
target specific expenditure of funds, identify specific parcels for acquisition or commit the
agency to follow a course of action with respect to any particular aspect of the OSP. In short,
the RMC Board and Executive Officer envision the OSP as a long -range planning guide.'
'Public Resources Code, section 32614 (c), includes an identical notice requirement with respect to leases,
rentals, sales, exchanges or other transfers of real property or interest by the RMC to qualified public agen-
cies or non -profit entitles. to
X
20ur understanding regarding the nature and scope of the proposed OSP is based on representations made z
by the Executive Officer and the consultant retained by the RMC to prepare the OSP. To the extent the a
final OSP differs from the In Progress Draft it may be necessary to revise our informal advice. Q.
97
State of California Resources Agency
� k 9MJ'HE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
THE OSP AND CEQA PROCESS
The initial issue you have raised is whether it is necessary to comply with the provisions
of CEQA in the development and adoption of the OSP. The short answer is yes. However, as
noted above, compliance with CEQA does not necessarily compel the preparation of an envi-
ronmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration. Under CEQA, an agency must first
determine whether the proposed activity is exempt or not a project within the meaning of
CEQA. If it is determined that the action is exempt or a "non-project," no further review under
CEQA is necessary. It is our view that the OSP, as proposed, is not a "project" within the
meaning of CEQA, and therefore is not subject to further environmental review. In addition, the
OSP, as proposed, is exempt from the need to prepare an environmental impact report.
Under CEQA, state agencies must prepare an environmental impact report on any "pro-
ject" they propose to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment.
(Pub. Resources Code, § 21100.) A "project" is defined as the "Whole of an action which has a
potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065;
CEQA Guidelines, §15378.3)
Not all governmental activities, however, are "projects" within the meaning of CEQA.
CEQA specifically excludes from the definition of a "project" continuing administrative activities
such as personnel- related actions, the purchase of supplies, as well as general policy and pro-
cedure making, except as related to specific development projects or implementation activities.
(CEQA Guidelines, §15378 (b).)
The courts in exploring the definition of "project" have focused on whether the state ac-
tion is a "necessary step in a chain of events which would culminate in physical impact on the
environment." (Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Education (1982) 32
Cal.3d 779, 795.) For example, in Kaufman & Broad -South Bay v. Morgan Hill Unified School
Distri ct (1992) 9 Cal.App.3d 464, the Court of Appeal concluded that the establishment of a
Mello -Roos district for the purposes of raising revenue for future school construction was not a
"project" within the meaning of CEQA because such action did not "commit the District to any
definite action ... dictate how funds will be spent, or in any way narrow the field of options and
alternatives available to the District." (Id. at 476; also see Bozung v. Local Agency Formation
Commission If 975) 13 Cal.3d 263.)
Certain start-up activities, although "projects" within the meaning of CEQA, may be ex-
empt from additional CEQA review. (See CEQA Guidelines, § §15260 -15285 and 15300-
15329.) For example, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future
actions which the agency had not approved, adopted or funded, does not require the prepara-
tion of an environmental impact report or negative declaration. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15262.)°
Additionally, the broad definition of project is tempered by the requirement that CEQA
applies only to those activities which may have a "significant effect on the environment." (Id. at
W 3A11 references to "CEQA Guidelines" refer to title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000
X et seq.
5
z
a 4This section "does not apply to the adoption of a plan that will have a legally binding effect on later activi-
o. ties." (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15262.)
98
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Spam Plan
section 15061(b)(3).) Thus, even if a "project" does not fit into an exemption, it may nonethe-
less not be subject to further CEQA review, including the preparation of an environmental
impact report, if it can be shown with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question will have a significant effect on the environment. "Significant effect" is defined under
CEQA as a "substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change" in the environment. (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15382.)
Here, the OSP, as proposed, will contain general principles, goals and policies with re-
spect to watershed and open space planning for the watershed areas of the San Gabriel and
lower Los Angeles Rivers. These general criteria are intended to assist the RMC and member
cities in setting priorities and guiding the review of future proposals to acquire, to develop and
to manage lands in the RMC's territory. Essentially, it is an interim policy document. (See OSP
In Progress Draft, p. 1 ['The plan is intended to serve as a basis for more detailed planning . .
. "J.) The OSP does not target the specific expenditure of funds, identify specific parcels for ac-
quisition, commit the agency to follow a definite course of action with respect to any particular
aspect of the OSP, nor is it intended to have a legally binding effect on later activities. As such,
the document constitutes "general policy and procedure making" and is, therefore, not a project
under CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(2); also see Northwood Homes Inc. v. Mo-
raaa (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1197 [held, guidelines implementing open space ordinance
adopted by initiative is not a "project' but is a "continuing administrative activity such as general
policy and procedure making which is expressly excluded from definition of project under
CEQA. "].) This is in contrast to a "general plan" which identifies specific land uses and has a
legally binding effect on later activities. (See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15262 [see Office of Plan-
ning and Research (OPR) "Discussion "]; 15378 (a)(1).) General plans, unlike the open space
plan required of the RMC, are expressly defined as "project[s]" under CEQA. I( bid.)'
Further, we conclude that the OSP, as proposed, is exempt under section 15262 of the
CEQA Guidelines, which provides that a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for
possible future action does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report or
negative declaration. Finally, because the OSP is only a planning guide, it can reasonably be
argued that it falls under the "common sense" exemption which applies "where it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant ef-
fect on the environment" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15061 (b) (3).)
Our conclusion that the adoption of the OSP will not, by itself, have a significant effect
on the environment is consistent with the large number of categorical exemptions in the CEQA
Guidelines for projects that preserve natural resources, open space or parks. (See e.g., CEQA
Guidelines, §§ 15307 [actions to protect natural resources], 15308 [actio'5316t9hofenvi-
ronment], 15313 [acquisition of land for wildlife conservation purposes], [ transe
ownership in order to create a park], and 15325 [transfers of ownership to preserve open
space].) Even if these sections are not specifically applicable to the OSP, the existence of
these exemptions, which will likely apply to many of the future activities contemplated by the
RMC, supports the conclusion that the mere adoption of an open space plan will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
w
X
0
SSimilarly, the OSP also meets the definition of a "non - project" under section 15378 (b)(5) of the CEQA z
Guidelines, which provides that" organizational or administrative activities of governments which are ... not i
physical changes in the environment' are not "projects" for purposes of triggering CEQA review. oa,
0
State of Califomia Resources Agency
ar
We caution that while the OSP, as proposed, is not subject to further CEQA review, ac-
tivities related to implementation of the plan or future revisions of the OSP may require the
Preparation of an environmental impact report. Such activities include but are not limited to,
adoption of a specific facilities construction plan, site improvement projects, rehabilitation of
degraded areas, identification of specific projects to be considered and acted on by the RMC,
and/or designation of specific parcels for acquisition. (See Pub. Resources Code, §32614 (g).)
As set forth above, any activity which commits the RMC to any definite course of action and is
an essential step culminating in action which may affect the environment will require additional
review under CEQA. (Kaufman & Broad, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at 474 -476.) The OSP, as pro-
posed, however, is not such an action.
Procedurally, the RMC, as the lead agency` under CEQA, should it adopt the OSP, must
make specific findings that the OSP is not a "project' within the meaning of CEQA and identity
the legal basis for its determination (i.e., CEQA Guidelines, § §15061 (b)(3), 15378(b)(2) & (5).
Should the RMC also conclude that the OSP is exempt, it must also adopt findings that the
OSP is exempt under CEQA Guidelines, section 15262, and file a Notice of Exemption with the
Office of Planning and Research.
THE IMPACT OF THE OSP ON THE RMC'S MEMBER CITIES
You have also asked us to evaluate the effect of the adoption of the OSP on the region,
individual cities and affected landowners. Specifically, you have asked whether approval of the
OSP will give the RMC regulatory or governing authority over its member cities or over any or-
dinance, general or specific plan enacted by any local jurisdiction within its territory, or whether
the member cities, by approving the OSP, are surrendering any regulatory authority or power
that they currently possess. In addressing this issue we must look to the legislation creating
the RMC.
The San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Act ( "Act")
(e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 32660 at seq.), was introduced and enacted, in part, in response
to the interest of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments (COG) (27 cities including Long
Beach and Downey) and the San Gabriel Valley COG (another 29 cities). These groups sup-
ported the creation of a multi - jurisdictional agency authorized to acquire land, and conduct
watershed management, flood control, and recreational projects within the lower Los Angeles
River and San Gabriel River watersheds. (See bill analysis, AB 1355 (Stats. 1999, ch. 788),
April 19, 1999, p. 3.)
The authors of the legislation envisioned that the RMC and member cities would be
equal partners in the planning, development and management of the watershed areas. (Id.)
The member cities, although in principle in favor of the creation of the RMC, wanted assur-
ances that the new state agency would not be empowered with eminent domain authority and
that the cities would retain control over their own land use regulations, ordinances, general and
regional plans.
To that end, the Act places restrictions on the powers and rights of the RMC in deference to the
authority of the member cities. For example, section 32620 of the Act, provides that "[n]othing
in this division shall be interpreted to grant the [RMC] board any regulatory or governing author-
ity over any ordinance or regulatory measure adopted by a city, county, or special district that
6The "lead agency" is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a
project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15367.)
100
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
pertains to land use, water rights or environmental quality." The general directive that local
entities shall retain control over land use and water matters is reiterated in other provisions of
the Act. In section 32613 (b), the RMC is expressly "subject to all laws, regulations, and gen-
eral and specific plans of the legislative body of any city in which the conservancy proposes to
take action." In section 32621, the RMC is prohibited from interfering or engaging in activities
which conflict with the powers and duties of any local entity responsible for water management.
Similarly, in exercising its right of first refusal for surplus public agency property located within
its jurisdiction, the RMC must "conform to all relevant general and specific plans and zoning
regulations of local agencies within the territory of the conservancy.' (Pub. Resources Code,
§32612(b).)
Further, neither the RMC nor the State Public Works Board is authorized to exercise the
power of eminent domain pursuant to the Act. (Pub. Resources Code, §32612 (a); also see
section 32613(b) r(T)he conservancy may not levy a tax, exercise the power of eminent do-
main or regulate land use except on lands its owns, manages or controis"j.)
Finally, the RMC is required to provide notification before it takes an action that might
have an impact on a member city. For example, prior to engaging in activities that are not in-
cluded in the OSP, the RMC must provide written notice to the legislative body of the affected
local agency. (Pub. Resources Code, §32614(c).) Similarly, when the RMC proposes any ac-
tion that may affect any water right or delivery system, it must provide written notice to every
water association in the jurisdiction of the RMC. (Pub. Resources Code, §32621(b).)
In short, the Act contemplates that notwithstanding approval of the OSP by the member
cities, local entities will still retain existing control over local land use and water management
issues. In light of the above, we do not believe that the member cities can be compelled to
amend their general plans to conform to the OSP, nor do we believe that member approval of
the OSP will "[rigger" RMC control over local land use and water management matters. An
interpretation to the contrary would render virtually the entire Act null and void. Statutes are to
be given a reasonable and common sense interpretation consistent with the apparent legisla-
tive purpose. (Duna -Med v Fair Employment & Housing Commission It 987) 43 Cal.3d 1379,
1392.) Here, of course, it was the intent of the Legislature that the member cities retain existing
regulatory control over local land use and water issues. Therefore, we conclude that, notwith-
standing approval of the OSP, the powers of the RMC are limited to those expressly set forth in
the Act 7
Finally, we note that there is no explicit requirement in the legislation that the member
cities amend their general or regional plans to conform to the OSP or that the member cities by
approving the OSP, cede control over local land use issues. Certainly, if the Legislature had
intended to require the member cities to amend their general plans it would have directly ad-
dressed that issue in the Act, particularly where such a requirement is inconsistent with the
7 The RMC has also asked that we address the effect of the adoption of the OSP on adjacent landowners
within the RMC's jurisdiction. Because the OSP is only a long -range planning guide, it should have no le-
gally significant impact on adjacent landowners. Further, the RMC does not have eminent domain authority
so there is no threat of condemnation. (Pub. Resources Code, 5$32612(a) and 32613().) Finally, we note w
that under the Act, the overall "objective" of the land acquisition program "shall be to assist in accomplish- x
ing land transactions that are mutually beneficial to the landowner and the conservancy.. " (Pub. Resources Z
Code, § 32612 (a).) Thus, to the extent there is any impact on the adjacent landowner it is likely to be a fa- a
vorable one. n.
d
101
State of Califonda Resources Agency
COMMON. GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Act's principal directive that local entities retain authority over their own general and specific
plans. (See Dyna -Me d, supra 43 Cal.3d at 1392.) In the absence of ambiguity in the statute
and lack of extrinsic sources to the contrary, the "plain meaning" of the statute governs. I( bid.)
CONCLUSION
In summary, because the OSP, as proposed, is a `general policy making" document,
CEQA does not compel the preparation of an environment impact report. We note that subse-
quent activities related to the implementation or amendment of the OSP may require further
CEQA review including the preparation of a negative declaration or an environmental impact
report. Finally, it is our view that approval of the OSP by a majority of the cities representing a
majority of the population within the RMC's jurisdiction will not require the member cities to
amend their general plans to conform to the OSP or trigger state control of local regulatory and
governing authority. It was the intent of the Legislature in creating the RMC, that the cities
would retain their existing control over local land use and water management concerns. Please
let us know if you have any questions or comments about this letter.
cc: Magret Kim
Richard M. Frank
J. Matthew Rodriquez
John A. Saurenman
Sincerely,
TERRY T. FUJIMOTO
Deputy Attorney General
For BILL LOCKYER
Attorney General
102
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
CQMMDN GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
CITY OF
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SAN GABRIEL AND LOWER
LOS ANGELES PARKWAY AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
WHEREAS, the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Act
(the "ACT "), Public Resources Code, Division 22.8, commencing at § 32600 (Stats. 1998, Ch.
788 (AB 1355)), created the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Con-
servancy (the "RMC ") for the purpose of acquiring and managing public lands within the Lower
Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River watersheds, and to provide open- space, low impact
recreational and educational uses, water conservation, watershed improvement, wildlife and
habitat restoration and protection, and water quality within the territory;
WHEREAS, the territory of the RMC extends across the city boundaries of over sixty cities, as
set forth in section 32603 (c)(2)(A), as well as the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County
and Orange County adjacent to the San Gabriel River and its tributaries, the lower Los Angeles
River and its tributaries, the San Gabriel Mountains, the Foothill Mountains, the Puente Hills,
and the San Jose Hills area including but not limited to, East Los Angeles;
WHEREAS, the RMC was created, in part, in response to the interest of the Gateway Cities
Council of Governments (COG) and the San Gabriel Valley COG, and other local public enti-
ties, in creating a multi - jurisdictional agency that would be authorized to acquire land, and
conduct watershed management, flood control, and recreational projects within the Lower Los
Angeles River and San Gabriel River watersheds;
WHEREAS, the RMC board is composed of voting members who represent the County of Los
Angeles, the Gateway Cities Council of Governments and the San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments, Orange County Division of the League of California Cities, San Gabriel Valley
Water Association, Central Basin Water Association, as well as state agencies including, the
Resources Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Finance;
WHEREAS, it was intent of the State Legislature in creating the RMC, that the RMC and mem-
ber cities would be equal partners in the planning, development and management of mountain
and watershed areas within the RMC's territory, and to that end, the Legislature provides in the
ACT that member cities shall retain control over their own land use regulations, ordinances,
general and regional plans;
WHEREAS, under the ACT, the RMC shall be subject to all laws, regulations, and general and
specific plans of the legislative body of any city in which the RMC proposes to take action;
WHEREAS, nothing in the ACT shall be interpreted to grant the RMC any regulatory or govern-
ing authority over any ordinance or regulatory measure adopted by a city, county or special
district that pertains to land use, water rights, or environmental quality;
WHEREAS, section 32604 (d) of the Public Resources Code directs the RMC to prepare a San
Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Parkway and Open Space Plan (the "OSP ") to be approved by ui
a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population, the Board of Supervisors of X
Los Angeles County, and by the Central Basis Water Association and San Gabriel Water Wa- w
termaster;
a
a
103
State of C hfonna Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
WHEREAS, the RMC, in consultation with representatives of the Gateway COG, San Gabriel
COG, the County of Los Angeles, Orange County, the San Gabriel Water Association and Cen-
tral Basis Water Association, has prepared a draft OSP;
WHEREAS, the RMC has conducted public meetings for public review and for receipt of public
comments on the draft OSP;
WHEREAS, on or about _, 2001, the RMC Board, at the conclusion of its public meet-
ing and review of all the documentary and oral evidence related to the OSP, adopted the draft
OSP and made the following findings; (1) that the OSP complies with all applicable require-
ments of law; (2) that the OSP is consistent with the purposes of the RMC as set forth in
section 32602 of the Public Resources Code; (3) that the OSP contains all the required ele-
ments set forth in section 32604 (d) (1 -4); (4) that the OSP is not a "project" within the meaning
of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (e.g., CEQA Guidelines, §15378(b)(2));
(5) that, alternatively, the OSP, as an activity involving only feasibility or planning studies for
future actions, is exempt from the environmental impact report requirements of CEQA review;
and (6) that the OSP is a long range planning guide or interim policy document and does not
commit the RMC to follow a definite course of action with respect to any particular aspect of the
OSP, nor is It intended to have a legally binding effect on later activities.
WHEREAS, following adoption of the OSP by the RMC Board, the OSP was referred to the
member cities for their review and approval pursuant to section 32604(d) of the Public Re-
sources Code;
WHEREAS, the City has conducted public meetings for public review and for receipt of public
comments relating to the OSP;
WHEREAS, City Staff has reviewed the OSP, public comments as well as documentary evi-
dence relating to the OSP;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE CITY OF HEREBY:
1. FINDS that the OSP complies with the requirements of section 32604(d) of the Public
Resources Code and includes all the mandatory elements set forth in section
32604(d)(1 -4) of the Public Resources Code;
2. FINDS that the OSP is not a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental
Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (e.g., CEQA Guidelines, §15378(b)(2));
3. FINDS that approval of the OSP by the City will not require the City to modify, amend, or
revise in any way its specific or general plan, ordinances or regulations, or effect in any way
the City's regulatory or governing authority over land use or water rights and management
issues within its jurisdiction;
4. FINDS that approval by the City of the OSP does not constitute agreement with the policies,
W principles and statements set forth in the OSP,
L<
0 z 5. FINDS that approval by the City of the OSP does not constitute a waiver of the City's regula-
a tory or governing authority over land use, water rights or environments issues within its
a jurisdiction or territory;
104
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Spam Plan
6. FINDS that approval by the City of the OSP does not constitute adoption or incorporation of
the OSP as part of the general plan, specific plan or any ordinance, law or regulation of this
City;
7. FINDS that the OSP is an interim policy document or long range planning guide, that it does
not commit the RMC or the City to follow a definite course of action with respect to any as-
pect of the OSP, and that it is not intended to have a legally binding effect on later activities
of the RMC or the City;
8. FINDS that the OSP is, in principle, consistent with the general and specific plan and with
ordinances, laws and regulations that pertain to land use, water rights, or environmental
quality of this City;
g. APPROVES the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Parkway and Open Space Plan
(OSP), in accordance with section 32604 (d) of the Public Resources Code.
- -End of Resolution--
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council for the City of , held on the _ day of _, 2001.
DATED:
Mayor of the City
ATTEST:_
City Attorney
105
Srafe of C Jjfomia Resources Agency
LL
x
a
z
w
a
a
a
COMMONCaPOUND I =ROPd THE MGUNTAINS 70 THE- SEA
APPENDIX
Project •
State of California
The Resources Agency
SAN GABRIEL & LOWER LOS ANGELES
RIVERS AND MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY
PROJECT
EVALUATION CRITERIA
April 6, 2001
106
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
GOMWN Geourea Fnf 0.4iHE MOUN A N5 ro 7 E SSA
SAN GABRIEL & LOWER LOS ANGELES
RIVERS AND MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY
PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
Select only one criterion that best fits the attributes of the site for each value. The rating
number assigned to the criterion is then multiplied by the weight assigned to the value. The
scores for each value can be compared and evaluated in total, by grouping, or individually.
OPEN SPACE PLAN VALUE WEIGHT
CRITERION RATING
• The site is specifically referred to as a project in the Open Space Plan.
• The site meets the criteria for inclusion in the Open Space Plan.
• The site does not meet the criteria as outlined in the Open Space Plan.
URBAN RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT
CRITERION RATING
• The site has natural geologic contours and/or vegetation and is
surrounded by urban development.
• The site contributes to an existing or proposed park, natural area,
corridor or greenway in an urbanized area.
• The site is located in an under - served or park -poor community.
• The site provides linkage to open space in an adjacent urban area.
• The site is located in an industrialized area.
• The site is not located in an urban setting.
WATERSHED RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT
CRITERION
RATING
• The site is located within a county- designated ecologically sensitive
4
watershed or significant ecological area.
• The site contains natural riparian habitat.
4
• The site would enhance flood control measures if developed for
4
open space use.
• The site would provide quality storm water runoff.
4
• The site contributes to the persistence of ecosystem processes which
3
may pose a hazard to fife and property if the site were developed.
• The site contains groundwater recharge capabilities.
3
u.
• The site supports substantial upland vegetative cover in a
3
a
watercourse.
Z
• The site has the potential for hazard - reduction /mitigation credits
3
i
if preserved verses developed.
4
107
State or California Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOt"AINS TO THE SEA.
• The site has opportunities for non -point source water pollution 2
reduction.
• The site provides access to an existing or planned watershed resource. 1
• The site has no watershed resource value. 0
TRAIL RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT
CRITERION
RATING
• The site is identified as the path of a major existing or planned trail.
4
• The site would provide connection within and /or between communities
• The site contributes to the connection of existing protected core areas 4
and major existing or planned trails.
4
• The site would provide urban walkways.
3
• The site would provide amenities that would enhance public use of
3
a trail.
• The site is used by fauna that are candidate(s) for state or federal listing. 3
• The site would accommodate a new trail into an inaccessible area.
2
• The site would provide a scenic buffer for an existing or planned trail.
1
• The site would not support a trail or walkway.
0
RECREATIONAL RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT
CRITERION RATING
• The site contains a suitable area for a recreational facility — 4
educational center, picnic area, useable open space, campground,
or interpretive center.
• The site could provide an access point, parking, Wor interpretive 3
display for an adjacent protected area or overlook.
• The site could support recreational development ancillary to 2
the primary value of an adjacent protected area.
• The site could provide additional access to an adjacent protected area. 1
• The site can not support recreational use due to configuration or 0
potential natural or cultural resource degradation.
WILDLIFE RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT
CRITERION RATING
108
San Gabdel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
• The site is used by state or federally- listed fauna species. 4
• The site contributes to the connection of existing protected core areas 4
by serving as a habitat linkage or movement corridor for wildlife.
• The site contains fresh water habitat and/or a perennial 4
n
x
natural water source.
p
• The site is used by fauna that are candidate(s) for state or federal listing. 3
Z
• The site increases the effective size of a protected area. 3
0.
• The site largely contains undisturbed habitat with moderate to high 3
e
species diversity.
108
San Gabdel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
• The habitat is degraded but conditions are suitable for regeneration
or restoration.
• The habitat is unsuitable for candidate or listed species but provides
a buffer between protected sites & incompatible uses.
• The site is degraded & habitat restoration is not economically justifiable.
FLORISTIC RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT
CRITERION RATING
• The site contains a state or federally - listed flora species or habitat.
• The site largely contains undisturbed communities with moderate to
high species diversity.
• The site contains a flora species that is candidate for state or
federally listing.
• The habitat is degraded but conditions are suitable for regeneration
or restoration of native species & communities.
• The habitat is unsuitable for sensitive species but provides a buffer
between protected lands & incompatible uses.
• The site is degraded & habitat restoration is not economically justifiable.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT
CRITERION RATING
• The site contains a registered archaeological or historical resource
of national or statewide significance.
• The site contains a registered archaeological or historical resource
of regional significance.
• The site contains a registered archaeological or historical resource
of local significance.
• The site contains an archaeological or historic resource that is
damaged.
• It is unknown if the site contains archaeological or historic resources.
ACCESS VALUE WEIGHT
CRITERION
RATING
• The site would be easily accessible by the public with full right -of -way.
4
• The site is located in a residential area with limited signage opportunities.
3
• The site is within walking distance from public transportation.
3
• The site has features making it easily accessible to people with limited
3
x
mobility or other disabilities.
2
w
• The site would be accessible via an adjacent protected area.
• The site has adequate space for on site parking or available street parking,
1
a
a
but is located in an area where neighborhood conflicts may arise.
toe
State of California Resources Agency
• The site is constrained from public access by lack of right -of -way.
• A public right -of -way for the site is currently unobtainable.
SCENIC RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT
CRITERION
RATING
• The site is part of an area of exceptional scenic value and/or has been
so identified in a government agency plan.
• The site contains a significant overlook of the surrounding area.
• The site contains unique scenic natural resources such as waterfalls,
wildflower displays, geologic formations, vistas of scenic grandeur.
• The site contains viewshed of an open space area, river or public use area.
• The site contains scenic resources that are representative of the area.
• The site is obscured from view of the general public and does not have
overlook value.
PARTNER RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT
• The site is of significance to one or more partner government
agencies and/or non - government organization's that have funds
available for the acquisition.
• The site is of significance to a partner agency that would undertake
ownership and/or management responsibilities.
• Acquisition of the site would assist a government agency to fulfill
its master land protection or recreation plan but matching funds are
not available.
• The site is of significance to a local citizen group but does not fulfill
a governing agency land protection or recreation plan.
• The site is of no current or known significance to a partner.
ECONOMIC VALUE WEIGHT
CRITERION RATING
• Funding has been specifically allocated by a government entity.
• Development threat of the site is imminent that would preclude
future park use and the site is available for sale.
• Site holds potential to clean up an identified brownfield
• The site is available under bargain or opportunity sale conditions.
• The owner of the site is willing to sell at appraised value to the
U. government.
X • The site is subject to substantial, but less than imminent, threat of
5 development, with unmitigable impacts.
W • The owner of the site is willing to sell but at an inflated value.
o, • The owner of the site is currently an unwilling seller.
Q
110
San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Rivera Watershed and Open Spam Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO i'HE SEA
CONCEPTUAL AREA PROTECTION PLAN
A Program Area can span across several geographic regions, but projects within an area share
a similar goal. Program Areas allow the Conservancy to evaluate properties and/or projects in
relation to existing protected areas and programs, comparing both with the projected biological
and recreational needs of the area. Borders of these programs bleed into each other and may
overlap in some areas. Connectivity is necessary when looking at the entire region that is in-
cluded in the Conservancy's mission.
A Program Area Structure serves as a planning tool for the region to protect large blocks of
habitat and provide for appropriate recreational needs. The criteria used for evaluation is a set
format, but will eventually be applied with different weights depending on the projected biologi-
cal and recreational needs of each Program Area. A Program Area Structure is a long -term
planning instrument with properties grouped in three tiers according to funding priority.
TABLE 1
SAN GABRIEL & LOWER LOS ANGELES
RIVERS AND MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY
LISTING OF PROGRAM AREAS
1. Greenways along the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers
2. Conservation of Lands in the Foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains
3. Conservation of Lands in the San Jose, Puente, and Chino Hills
4. Connected Urban Trails System
5. Parks for "park poor' Urban Areas
6. Community Programs (i.e. Education, Community Gardens, etc.)
7. Renovation of Existing Parks
111
Stale of California Resourres Agency
112
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS i0 THE SEA
San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY
PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
Wildlife Resource Value
CRITERION
RATING
WR7
The site lies wholly within a large block of undisturbed core habitat.
4
WR2
The site is used by state or federally-listed animalspecies.
4
WR3
The site directly contributes to the connection of two core habitat areas
by serving as a habitat linkage or movement corridor for wildlife.
4
WR4
The site contains important fresh water habitat and/or a perennial
natural water source.
4
WR5
The site directly contributes to the connection of two substantially -sized
but not core habitat areas.
3
WR6
The site is used by an animal that is a candidate for state or federal
listing
3
WR7
The site directly abuts and increases the effective size of a protected
habitat area.
3
WR8
The site contains largely undisturbed habitat with a substantial
section of riparian habitat.
3
WR9
The site contains largely undisturbed habitat but without a substantial
section of riparian habitat.
2
WR10
The she is known to be used by state - designated sensitive
animal species.
2
WR11
The site supplies habitat for only the most human- tolerant native species.
1
WR12
The site is severely degraded and habitat restoration is not feasible or
economically justifiable.
0
Floristic Resource Value
CRITERION
RATING
FR7
The site contains a state or federally-listed plant species.
4
FR2
The site contains a high percent (>25 %) cover of full canopy forest
and/or oak woodland.
4
FR3
The site contains 10-25% cover of full canopy forest and/or oak woodland.
3
FR4
The site contains a plant species that is a candidate for state
or federally listing.
3
FR5
The site largely contains largely undisturbed communities with
moderate to high species diversity.
3
FR6
The site contains a plant community that is rare or unusual in the region.
3
FR7
The site contains either a state or cn s -desi nated sensitive plant species.
2
FR8
The site contains largely undisturbed plant communities with
low species diversity.
2
FR9
The habitat is partially degraded but conditions are suitable for natural
regeneration or restoration.
1
FR10
The site provides virtually no habitat for nativespecies.
0
San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNT AWS TO THE SEA
W
X
O
Z
ul
a
a
113
State of California Resources Agency
Trail Resource Value
CRITERION
RATING
TR1
The site contains a significant, irreplaceable link in a major existing
or planned trail. (i.e., `irreplaceable" means topography or other
considerations would not permit realignment onto another aroel ),
4
TR2
The site contains a portion of a less- than -major existing or planned trail.
3
TR3
The site contains a trailhead location with adequate parking for a
major existing or planned trail.
3
TR4
The she Provides critical viewshed within a major trail corridor.
3
TR5
The site could accommodate a new trail or provide a connection from a
populated area or an accessible trailhead to an existing trail.
2
TR6
The site contains easy, level trail opportunities through scenic
and natural areas that are accessible to trail users of many ages
and physical conditions.
2
TR7
The site contains a trailhead location with adequate parking only for a less -
than -major existing or Planned trail.
2
TR6
The site does not provide critical viewshed within a major trail corridor,
but does offer substantial scenic buffer for an existing or planned trail.
2
TR9
The site provides urban walkways.
1
T810
The site would not support a trail Or walkway.
0
Scenic Resource Value
CRITERION
RATING
SRI
The she is part of an area of exceptional scenic value or has
been so identified in an official planning document (e.g.,
a county area plan, NIPS plan, scenic highway element).
4
SR2
The site contains critical viewshed of a major public park/public use area
or from a designated primary scenic roadway.
4
SR3
The she contains unique scenic elements; e.g. waterfalls; spectacular
wildflower displays; cleologic formations; vistas of scenic grandeur.
3
SR4
The site contains important, but less than critical, viewshed of a major
park/ public use area.
3
SR5
The site contains important viewshed but not to a major public use area
or park.
2
SR6
The she provides a significant (accessible) viewpoint or overlook of
surrounding areas.
2
SR7
The site contains natural terrain with just averse scenic qualities.
1
SR6
The site contains no natural terrain or little or no scenic value.
0
Other Recreational Resource Value
CRITERION
RATING
ORRI
The site contains a suitable area for a planned major recreational
facil ity—campqround, picnic area, or interpretive center; with road access.
4
ORR2
The she provides area just for a smaller -scale recreational facility.
3
W
X
O
Z
ul
a
a
113
State of California Resources Agency
114
COMMON GROUND FROM 'I HE MOUNTAINS 1'O THE SEA
ORR3
The site contains moderate potential for development of parkland
access or other recreational facilities.
2
ORR4
The site provides buffer for my non -trail related recreational facility
1
ORR5
The site provides additional parking potential for an existing
or potential recreation facility
1
ORR6
The site cannot support any recreational use because of physical constraints
or potential natural or cultural resource degradation.
0
Archaeological or Historic Resource Value
CRITERION
RATING
AHR1
The site contains a registered archaeological or historic resource
of national or statewide significance.
4
AHR2
The site contains a registered federal or state historic resource.
3
AHR3
The site contains a registered archaeological resource of regional
significance.
3
AHR4
The site contains a registered archaeological or historic resource of local
importance.
2
AHR5
The site is directly adjacent to a known historic or archaeologically
significant site, and may be reasonably expected to have significant
resources but is presently not surveyed.
2
AHR6
The site is a local community landmark.
1
AHR7
The site contains an archaeological or historic resource of limited importance.
1
AHR8
The site contains no known archaeological or historic resources, with minimal
potential for same.
0
Urban Resource Value
CRITERION
RATING
UR1
The site provides a significant contribution to an existing or proposed
natural corridor or greenway.
4
UR2
The site contains substantial -sized or representative sample of a
native plant community surrounded by dense urban development
and/or disadvantaged 2opulations.
4
UR3
The site provides a moderate contribution to an existing or proposed
natural corridor or greenway.
3
UR4
The site is located in an extreme) park-poor community.
3
UR5
The site provides a minor component of an existing or proposed natural
corridor or greenway.
2
UR6
The site contains a less -than- substantial -sized or representative sample of a
native plant community surrounded by dense urban development
and/or disadvantaged populations.
2
UR7
The site contains substantial potential for restoration of natural vegetation.
2
UR8
The site contains limited potential for restoration of natural vegetation.
1
UR9
The site has opportunities for active recreation.
1
UR10
The site is not proximate to dense urban development.
0
UR11
The site has expected environmental contamination problems.
-1
San Gabriel and Ws Angeles Mvers Watershed and Open Space Plan
RATING
RATING
CRITERION
At The site is easily accessible from urban communities and a
A3 The site has features making it easily accessible to people with limited 4
mobility or other disabilities.
A4 The site has good potential for improving or developing substantial 3
ADA accessibili .
A5 The site has adequate space for onsite parking or available street parking 2
that will not conflict with neighborhood needs or sentiment.
A6 The site has adequate space for on she parking or available
street parking, but is located in an area where neighborhood
RATING
CRITERION
of The she is of great significance to one or more partner government agencies 4
W
X
2
W
a
IL
115
State of California Resources Agency
CRITERION
WSR1
Over two- thirds of the she is located within a county- designated ecologically
sensitive watershed or significant ecological area.
4
WSR2
The majority of the site is part of a watershed draining directly into an
4
ecolo icall sensitive art of a state or federal ark.
WSR3
The site supports substantial upland vegetative cover in a predominately
3
natural watershed.
least fourth of the site is located within a designated ecologically-
WSR4
At one
3
sensitive watershed or si nificant ecol ical area.
WSRS
The site contains a substantial area (greater than 0.5 acre) of riparian or
wetand habitat that inte rates with a block of u land habitat.
3
WSR6
The she provides a location for a substantial -sized ( >0.2 acre)
or environmentally-significant riparian or wetland restoration mject.
2
WSR7
The site contains good riparian or wetland habitat, >0.2 acre, but which
is cod into rated with u land habitat.
2
WSR8
The she contains between 0.05 to 0.19 acres of good riparian or
1
wetland habitat but which is con in rated whit upland habitat.
WSR9
The site provides a location for a less than substantial -sized ( <0.2 acres)
ri arian or wetland restoration project.
1
WSR10
The she has little or no riparian habitat, watershed protection,
n
RATING
CRITERION
At The site is easily accessible from urban communities and a
A3 The site has features making it easily accessible to people with limited 4
mobility or other disabilities.
A4 The site has good potential for improving or developing substantial 3
ADA accessibili .
A5 The site has adequate space for onsite parking or available street parking 2
that will not conflict with neighborhood needs or sentiment.
A6 The site has adequate space for on she parking or available
street parking, but is located in an area where neighborhood
RATING
CRITERION
of The she is of great significance to one or more partner government agencies 4
W
X
2
W
a
IL
115
State of California Resources Agency
LL
X
O
z
W
a
a
a
116
San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
d/or non- rofit o anizations with substantial matchin fundin .
quisition of the she would fulfill a large component of a government agency
ster land rotection or recreation Ian.
artner a en would undertake ownershi or mana ement responsibilities.
3
e site is of significance to a local citizen group but does not fulfill
2
ublicall -ado ted lend rotection or recreation Ian.
e site is of no current or known significance to a Partner.
onomic O rtuin Value
Jsftels
ITERION
RATING
site is available under extreordina bar ain or o orNni sale conditions.
4
site is subject to imminent threat of development, with
iti able im acts, that would reclude future ark use.
4
ding has been specifically allocated in the State Budget
as a line
or legislative intent.
she is subject to substantial, but less than imminent, threat of
4
development, with unmiti able impacts.
E05
The site is available under less than extraordinary bargain or
3
opportunity
sale conditions.
E06
Current appraisal has been done or is under review by Department of
2
General Services.
E07
The owner of the site is a known willing seller.
1
E08
The owner of the site is currently an unwilling seller.
1
-
LL
X
O
z
W
a
a
a
116
San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNT AIMS TO THE SEA
SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY
PARK IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Adopted May 14, 2001
The Park improvement and Development Projects Evaluation Criteria have been developed for the assessment
of projects nominated for the Conservancy's Workprogrem 2000 to provide park improvement, trails, historical
restoration, habitat restoration, interpretive programs, and planning for park enhancement projects. land Acqui-
sition Evaluation Criteria were previously adopted by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for evaluation of
properties nominated for purchase, with the Workprogtam for Land Acquisition adopted by the Conservancy on
September 28, 2000. Both evaluation processes provide guidelines for the Conservancy in its review of current
projects and potential new projects. The Conservancy explicitly reserves the right to amend its Workprogram at
any time to wiled the overall objective to protect, maintain, and enhance regional habitat and linkages, trail link-
ages; urban, river, and open space park projects.
GOAL TO ENCOURAGE REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT PARK AND TRAIL PROJECTS
Through the Improvement Projects Evaluation Criteria, the Conservancy seeks to encourage regionally significant
park, Dail, and restoration projects. Projects are scored accordingly, and typically a project with the highest nu-
meric scores in the largest number of Values categories, will rank above a project scoring high in only one or two
categories. However, in project rankings, the Conservancy Board can apply a multiplier weight to the numeric
score of a particular value or set of values, such as Urban Park Value, to provide geographic balance. Or, after all
scores are totaled, the board may review a subset of projects (eg. all urban projects or all rarer projects) and assign
a subset priority ranking within those categories. A deciding weight for all projects will also be the degree to
which Conservancy funds stimulate outside participation in funding a project.
Conservancy and MRCA Projects
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority have a pri-
mary responsibility for funding improvements on Sry C/MRCA owned or managed paldands in fulfilknent of the
Conservancy =s mission. Therefore, the first priorities for funding are Santa Monica Mountains Conser-
tw,gAatntairracrxaiarand CorwnahonAutboritypmec&tbata re3uv&byorubkb &*enJxancetheScmta
MOnicaMounuintCor Gwnaixy- s.slaftl Au°IOntOP ukrecartrproae7iat,safelJ, accayt� anda*ct¢iona[
interpretation. These include the following categories:
SMMC/MRCA Lands Resource Protection Projects: Projects which facilitate protection of
wildlife, habitat, and histmical/archaeological resources on agency - managed parklands, including habitat restora-
tion projects in urban or rural parks.
SMMC/MRCI Lands Vegetation Management and Fire Safety: Projects which facilitate fire
safety and any required fuel modification zones on Conservancy and /or MRCA owned or
managed parklands.
SMMCIMRCA Visitor- Serving Projects: Projects which provide for enhanced visitation, urban accessibil-
ity, and safety to Shm Usus:A owned or managed parks (including signage, restrooms, parking, nail building or
mpaim,etc.). This includes new projects to implement statutory requirements to provide better accessibilityunder LL
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
D
Z
SMMC/MRCA Education and Interpretation Projects. Projects which are required to achieve or W
expand the outreach mission of the agency and which provide interpretive programs and materials to substantially d
enhance knowledge, appreciation, and enjoyment of the natural environment, open space, parklands, and rivers 4
117
State of Califon Resources Agency
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS t0 THE $EA
PARK IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
CRITERIA FOR NOMINATED PROJECTS.
PUBLIC RECREATION VALUE (otber than trails)
PRl: The project implements a major component of an existing plan (such as the Rim
of the Valley Trail Corridor Master Plan, county or city plans) related to a major
recreational public use facility (e.g, nature park, campground,
picnic area, visitor center, or educational interpretive center).
PR2: The project provides improvements to a park site that currently serves,
or is expected to serve, a visitor base in a regional or greater geographic area.
PR3: The project adds visitor- serving amenities and public safety improvements to
public parkland (e.g, signage, restr000ms, lighting, etc.),
PR 4: The project provides a high quality access point or parking area for
adjacent open space or parkland.
ACCESSIBILITY VALUE
Al: The project improvements exceed legal standards for accessibility.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION /INTERPRETATION VALUE
EEl: The project provides educational /interpretive displays that will
significantly enhance appreciation and enjoyment of a resource.
EE2: The project will provide park information materials and educational/
interpretive information, available to a large number of visitors of all ages.
EE3: The project provides informational materials but to more limited audience.
NATURAL RESOURCES ENHANCEMENT VALUE
NRl: The project substantially restores riparian or wetland habitat (>0.2 acres).
NR2: The project improves or supports regeneration of important native vegetative
cover on slopes near a stream or river, which if substantially disturbed may contribute
to flood, erosion, creek sedimentation, or reduced groundwater recharge.
NR3: The project significantly enhances the potential for wildlife movement in an
identified movement corridor chokepoint.
NR4: The project substantially restores a site by removal of exotic species and
reestablishment of native species.
W NR5: The project provides substantial tree planting of appropriate native species.
X
o NRb: The site provides a small scale (0.05 to 0.19 acres) riparian or wetland
Wrestoration project.
d
d
Q
116
San Gabdel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
TRAIL PROJECT RESOURCE VALUE
4
TP1: The project builds a significant link in a major regional trail.
4
TP2: The project repairs a critical link on an existing major regional trail.
4
TP3: The project builds an important trailhead with parking for
3
a major regional trail.
Q
TP4: The project builds a new trail or repairs a trail which provides a connection
3
from a populated area or trailhead to an existing trail.
TP5: The project builds or improves trail accessibility for trail users of a wide
3
range of ability levels and physical conditions.
TP6: The project provides or enhances trail conditions for multi-use by equestrians,
2
mountain bicyclists, and hikers.
TP7: The project provides or enhances a riverfront walking and bikeway trail.
2
SCENIC AND AES7 HETIC VALUE
SA1: The project provides aesthetic features (e.g., outstanding design, an elements)
4
to a park project that greatly enhance the park and visitor experience.
SA2: The project provides park or trail improvements located in an especially scenic area.
2
SA3: The project provides a vista point or scenic overlook over a significant
2
viewshed.
HIS70RIC /CULTURAL RESTORATION VALUE
HCl: The project restores or enhances a federal or state - designated or eligible
4
historic site, such as a National Register of Historic Places.
HC2: The restoration project provides a significant and unique aspect to public parkland
4
(historical interest, cultural appreciation, educational interest).
HC3: The project restores or enhances a designated local community historic
3
resource.
HC4: The historic /culmral restoration project is an integrated component of a larger
2
park improvement project.
URRAN PARK VALUE
UP1: The project will improve or significantly enhance open space
5
parkland in a densely urban and /or park -poor community.
UP2: The project substantially improves a park site by eliminating or significantly
4
remediating environmental contamination, such as that from urban runoff or
X_
onsite conditions
Z
UP3: The project enhances or restores a substantial -sized ( >2.0 acres)
w
y
sample of a native ecosystem/plant community surrounded by an
Q
119
Stale of Califomia Resources Agency
12 l
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
otherwise natural- resource - deficient urban area.
UP4: The project restores natural vegetation in smaller sized ( <1.9 acres) park
location in an otherwise natural- resource- deficient urban area.
3
SUSTAINABILI7Y VALUE
Sl: Project provides substantial energy conservation measures and /or
3
innovative power generation.
S2: Project provides state of the art design for wastewater and /or other
3
innovative and substantial water conservation techniques
S3: Project provides innovative use of recycled materials in constmction.
2
S4: The project reduces runoff and increases percolation on site with use of
2
permeable surfaces.
PARTNERSHIP /ECONOMICOPPORTUNHY VALUE
PEOI: The project is significant to one or more partner government agencies
4
and /or non - govemment organizations with funds available.
PE02: Funding has been specifically allocated in the State Budget as a line
4
item or legislative intent.
PE03: Completion of the project would assist a government agency in fulfilling
3
its master land protection or recreation plan.
PE04: The project provides a plan or feasibility study that enhances cooperative
3
land protection and recreation important to two or more governmental agencies
or non - governmental organizations.
PE05: A partner agency would provide maintenance of the improvements.
3
MATCHING PENLIS WEIGHTING
Scores for improvement projects that are matclwdwlthother funding sources can be given an extra
weighted value:
Funding match on a one to one basis: Multiply total
score X 2
Funding match on a tau to one basis: Multiply total
score X 3
San Gabriel and Los Angeles WG Watershed and Open Space Plan
IIICOMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
APPENDIX G
Threatened and Endangered Species
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern
Los Angeles County— Plants
Common Nama
Scientific Name
Federal Status
State Status
Ikali Mariposa 1-fiv
Ca /ochodu sstnatus
S 'as of concem
None
hanisma
hanisma b1hoides
S ecies of concem
None
Ballona Cin uefoil
Potenb'lla mu1Mu a
S ecies of concern
None
Beach Spaced
Dith rea maritime
S lea of concern
restated
Bjg Bear Valley=lvpod
Astragalus leuco /obus
S cies of concem
None
Blairs Ste hanomeria
Stephanomeds blaidi
S cies of concern
None
BIminnan's Dudleya
Dudleya blochmaniae asp
blochmaniae
Species of concern
None
Breunion's Milk -Vetch
Astragalus braunton/i
Endan Bred
None
Bn ht Green Dume a
Dudle s virens
SRedles of concern
None
itomia Dissanthelium
DISSanthellum calitomicum
Species of concern
one
Ihomia Oman Grass
Orouffia caniomice
Endan2erad
Endan ered
atalina Island Mountain-
Mah an
Cercocarpus traskise
Endangered
Endangered
hers Goldfields
Lasthen /a glabrata sap co ul-
ted
Species of concem
one
Davidson's Bush Mallow
Malaoothamnus davidsonfi
Species of concem
one
tic m rus
C torus deserticola
Species of content
one
uadalu Island Lu me
Lu in us uadalu naffs
Specles of concern
one
Hell's Monardella
Monardella macmntha WP
hallil
None
None
Intermediate Mariposa Lily
Calochodus weedi/ var inter-
medius
pecies of concern
one
Island Rush -Rose
Hel /anthemum reenei
hreatened
None
Island Sn tire on
Galwtva s ni.
ies of concem
None
Island Tree Poppy
Dendromecon harfordii var
mamnoides
pecies of concem
None
Johnston's Buckwheat
Eriogonum microthecum var
bhnstonil
pecies of concem
one
Lemon Lil
Lil/um Panyi
pecles of concem
None
Los An all Sunflower
Helienthus nuttallii Hahi
necies of concem
None
L We Pentachaeta
Pentachaeta I oni/
Endan ered
Endan eretl
an -Flowered Phatelia
Phaoelia floribunda
ecies of concem
one
an - Stemmed Dudle a
Dudleya multicaulis
pecies of concem
None
arcesoeM Dudleya
Dudleya cymosa asp mattes-
was
hreatened
Rare
Mason's Neststraw
Stylonline masonii
pecies of concem
None
Mexican Flannelbush
Fremontodendron mexicanu
ndangered
Rare
Mt. Gleason Indian Paintbrush
Castille'e gleasonii
pecies of concem
Rare
Nevin's Berber
erberis nevinli
ndan ered
Endangered
Nevin's Woolly Sunflower
Eno ph /lum nevinii
pecles of concem
None
Palmer's Grapplinghook
Harpaconella Palmeri
ecies of concem
None
Palmer's Mariposa Lily
Calochonus Palmeri var
Palmeri
pecies of concem
None
Parish's Britdescale
Aftiplex patishii
ecies of concem
None
Parish's Gooseberry
Ribes dimlicatum var arishii
pecles of concem
None
Pa 's S meflower
Chorizandre a i var i
pecles of concem
Nona
Peirson's Moming-Glory
Calystegla peirstonil
pecies of concem
Nona
Mummers Mariposa uly
Calochodus Plummeme
pecies, of concem
None
0
z
W
Q.
a
121
State of California Resources Agency
4
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAIN$ M THE SEA
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern
Los Angeles Countv— Plants
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal Status
State Status
Rock Creek Broom a
Orobanche va/ida ss valida
ecies of cencem
None
Salt Marsh Bird's -Beak
Cordylanthus maritimus sap
Endangered
Endangered
maritimus
an Antonio Milk -Vetch
stragalus lentiginosus var
Species of W
None
antonius
San Clemente Island Bed-
Galium catalinense ssp acds-
pecies of concern
Endangered
strew
um
an Clemente Island Bird's-
Lotus argophyllus var adsur-
pecies of cencem
Endangered
Foot Trefoil
ens
an Clemente Island Brad!-
Brodiass kinkiensis
pecies of concern
one
sea
an Clemente Island Buck-
Edogonum giganteum var
pecies of concern
None
wheat
lormosum
an Clemente Island Bush
alacothamnus clementinus
Endangered
Endangered
Mallow
San Clemente Island Eve-
Camissonia guadalupensis
pecies of concern
None
nin - Primrose
as clementina
n Clemente Island Haz-
Hazardia cans
pecies of cencem
None
ardia
an Clemente Island Indian
Castilleja gdsas
Endangered
Endangered
Paintbrush
an Clemente Island Larkspu
Delphinium variegatum ssp
Endangered
Endangered
kinkiense
an Clemente Island Lotus
otus dendroideus var
Endangered
Endangered
I rskiae
an Clemente Island Milk-
stmgalus nevinii
pecies of concern
None
Vetch
n Clemente Island Tdteleia
Tdteleia clementina
ecies of concern
None
Clemente Island Wood-
Lithophragma maximum
Endangered
Endangered
land Star
an Fernando Valley Spine-
Chodzanthe parryi var Fer-
pecies of concern
None
flower
nandina
an Gabriel Bedstraw
Galium rands
ecies of concern
one
an Gabriel Linanthus
inanthus concinnus
ecies of concern
None
n Gabriel Manzanita
rctosIs h los abdelensis
ies of concern
None
an Gabriel Mountains Dud-
Dudleya densillora
pecies of concern
None
Is
Gabriel River Dudleya
Dudleya cymosa ssp cretin /o-
pecies of concern
None
lia
Nicolas Island Lomatium
Lomatium insulare
ecies of concern
None
ants Barbara Moming -Glory
Calystegla sepium ssp bing-
one
INGRe
herniae
arda Catalina R won
Scm h ada villosa
ecies of concern
None
ants Catalina Island Iron-
Lyonothamnus llodbundus
Species of concern
None
wood
llodbundus
anta Catalina Island Manza-
rctostaphylos catalinae
pecies of concern
one
nits
a Catalina Island Mon-
Mimulus traskiae
pecies of concern
None
ke ower
ants Cruz Island Ironwood
Lyonothamnus godbundus
pecies of concern
one
ss lenfilolius
to Cruz Island Rock Cress
Sibara fiftlia
Endangered
None
hreatened
one
anta Monica Mountains
Dudleya cyn; ssp ovatifoli
Dudleya
ants Susana Tarplant
Hemizonia minthorni!
ISPecle s of concern
Rare
122
San Gabriel and Los Mgeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMUON' GaooND FROM THE Md13NTAWSTb THE BEA;
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern
Los Angeles County— Plants
Common Name
seientlNc Name
Federal Status
State Status
Scalloped Moonwort
Botrychium crenulatum
3pecies of concern
None
Short-Joint Beavertail
Opuntfa basilads var brachy-
c /ada
3pecies of concern
None
Short-Lobed Broom -Rape
Orobanche padshil ssp
bmchjdoba
3pecies of concern
None
Slender Madposa Lily
Calochortus clavatus var
acilis
3pecies of concern
None
Slender-Homed S ineflower
Dodscahema le toceras
Endangered
Endangered
South Coast Saltscale
Atriplexpacifice
ecies of concern
None
Southern Island Mallow
Lavatera assurgenNNora ssp
labre
Species of concern
None
Southern Tarplant
Hemimnie parryi ss austmlis
Species of concern
None
Spleading Navametia
Navarretia losselis
Threatened
None
oma's Royal Larkspur
Delphinium vadegatum sep
momei
Species of concern
None
Thread-Leaved Brodie"
Brodfaea filflolia
Threatened
Endangered
cask's Cryptantha
Cryptantha imskfae
Swiss of concern
None
Ventura Marsh Milk -Vetch
Astragalus pycnostachyus var
lanosissimus
Species of Concern
Candidate
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern
Los Angeles County — Animals
Common Name
SeienNNc Name
Fedeal Status
State Status
Snails and Slugs
Catalina Moumainsnail
Radiocentmm (= oreohelix)
avalonense
Species of concern
one
Mimic Tryonia (= Califomia
Brackishwater Snail
Tryonfa imitator
Species of concern
None
San Clemente Island snall
11,11cradonta aabbi
Species of concern
None
Grasshoppers, Ketydids, and Crickets
Santa Monica Shieldback
Katydid
Neduba longipennis
pecies of concem
None
Beetles
Dorothy's El Segundo Dune
Weevil
Tdgonoscula dorothea doro-
I then
pecies of concern
None
Globose Dune Beetle
JCoelus glabosus
iSpecies of concern
None
nge's El Segundo Dune
Weevil
Onychobads /angel
pecies of concern
None
Sandy Beech Ti r Beetle
Cicindela hirticollfs gravida
ISp ecies of concern
None
Butterflies and Moths
El Segundo Blue Butterfly
Eu hilotes battoides al ni
Endangered
None
Henne's Eucosman Moth
Eucosma hennei
Species of concern
None
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly
Glaucopsyche lygdamus pa-
losverdesensis
Endangered
None
andedng (= Sahmamh)
S S kipper
Panoquina errens
Species of concem
None
Fish
no yo Chub
Gila orcuai
ISDeces of concern
one
Mohave Tui Chub
Gda bicolormohavensis
Endan red
Endan ered
ants Ana Sucker
Catostomus santaanae
Proposed Threatened
one
uthem Steelhead
Oncorh nchus m kiss iddeus
Endan ered
None
idewater Gob
E cb obius newbe
Endan ered
No
1
123
State of California Resources Agency
wml
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAIN$ TO THE SEA
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern
Los Angeles County — Animals
Common Name
I Scientific Name
I Federal Status
State Status
Unannored Threespine Stick-
leback
iGasterosteus aculeatus wil-
l liamsoni
Endangered
Endangered
Amphibians
r oyo Toad
Bulo microscaphus californi-
cus
one
alifomia Red -Le ed Fro
Rana aurora th onii
indangered
reatened
None
Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog
Rana muscosa
pecies of concern
None
estem S adefoot
Sca hio us hammondii
pecies of concern
INone
Reptiles
California Homed Lizard
Phrynosoma coronatum iron-
tale
pecies of concern
None
Coastal Western Whiptail
Cnemidophorus bli is multis-
cutatus
pecies of concern
None
Desert Tortoise
erobatese assizii
hreatened
Threatened
Island Night Lizard
Xantusia riversiana
hreatened
None
ran e- Throated Whi tail
Cnemido horns h e rus
ecies of concern
None
San Diego Homed Lizard
Phrynosoma coronatum Blain-
villei
pecies of concern
None
San Diego Mountain Kings-
nake
Lampropeltis zonate pulchra
pecies of concern
None
Silvery Legless Lizard
nniella ulchm ulchra
ecies of --am
None
Southwestern Pond Turtle
Clemm s marmomta allida
ecies of concern
None
Two-Striped Garter Snake
IThamnophis hammondii
Ppecies of concern
None
Birds
Belding's Savannah Sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis
beldin i
3pecies of concern
Endangered
Burrowing Owl
Athens cunicularia (burrow
sites
pecies of concern
None
California Black Rail
Latemllusjamaicensis cotumi-
culus
3pecies of concern
Threatened
lifomia Condor
Gymnqgyes californianus
Endangered
Endangered
lifornia Gnatcatcher
Polio Lila califomica
hreatened
None
lifornia Least Tem
Sterna antillarum brown (nest
ing colon
Endangered
Endangered
Least Bell's Vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus (nesting)
Endan ered
Endangered
n Clemente Loggerhead
Shrike
Lanius ludovicianus meamsi
Endangered
None
an Clemente Sage Sparrow
ATphispiza belli demenleae
reatened
None
wainson's Hawk
Buteo swainsoni (nesting)
None
Threatened
ricolored Blackbird
Agelaius tricolor (nesting col-
on
pecies of concern
None
estem Snowy Plover
Charadrius alexandrinus nivo-
sus (nesting)
reatened
None
estem Yellow - Billed Cuckoo
Coccyzus americans occi-
dentalis (nesting)
None
Endangered
Mammals
Island Fox
Uroc on litfomlis
pecies of concern
Threatened
Mohave Ground Squirrel
S emro hilus mohavensis
ecies of concern
Threatened
Pacific Pocket Mouse
Perognathus longimembds
acificus
Endangered
one
n Di Desert Woodmt
Neotoma le ida intermedia
cies of concern
None
n Joaquin Packet Mouse
Perognathus inomatus inoma-
tus
pecies of concern
None
anta Catalina Shrew
Sorex ornatus willedi
cedes of concern
None
124
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern
Los Angeles County — Animals
L Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status
concern
he only known populations of Enamored! Threespine Stickleback, a fish, are in the Santa Clere Riven drainage to the Los Angeles River and
San Diego County.
he Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, originally found only in Palos Verdes Peninsula, was thought extinct until it was rediscovered in San Perim in
19".
is fount only on two acres on a Chwon Oil Refinery and at the western and of IAX.
I Me west coasts of Mexico, Me U.S., and Canada, It Is federally protected.
0
0
Z
W
(1
d
Q
izs
State of California Resources Agency
126
COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA
APPENDIX H
Potential Indicator Species
To gauge the success of habitat linkages, it is possible to identify species that can serve as sensitive indicators
of functional connectivity. Using the approach of Noss (1991; pp. 227 -246 in K Kohm, ed. Balancing m the
BrinkofR&nciion, island Press) and Caro and O'Doheny(1999; Conse ixWonBWgy 13:905,814) species can
be described with the following categories:
1) Umbt fla pecies whose habitat area and quality requirements encapsulate the needs of an array of
other species.
2) Flagsbips charismatic species that attract the attention and imagination of the general public.
3) F.coso mHealtbinclicatota---species sensitive to and indicative of anttwpogenic disturbances to mOlOgi-
cal functions.
4) PopulatwnHealtkifuli wn— predators whose population health provides a measure of the health of
populations of their prey and of associated ecological functions.
5) Kejaow Veci�pecies whose impact on the ecosystem is large and disproportionately large for their
abundance.
Using these categories, the following species have been identified' as useful indicators for conservation plan-
ning at the landscape and regional scales within the watersheds:
1) Steelhead (wild rainbow trout): Flagship and umbrella; encompasses requirements for Pacific lamprey
and for lower elevation fish species.
2) Unannored three -spine stickleback: Umbrella; encompasses requirements for lower elevation arroyo
chub, Santa Ana sucker, and Santa Ana speckled dace.
3) Arroyo toad: Ecosystem health indicator for "Fluctuating hydrological, geological, and ecological proc-
esses operating in riparian ecosystems and adjacent uplands" (USFWS 1999, Arroyo Toad Recovery
Plan).
4) California red - legged frog: Ecosystem health indicator for riparian habitats and adjacent aquatic and
upland systems.
5) Southwestern pond turtle: Ecosystem health indicator for upper watershed tributaries.
6) Yellow warbler: Umbrella species for high quality riparian habitat, shaped by natural fluvial processes.
7) Least Bell's vireo: Ecosystem health indicator and possible umbrella species for riparian habitats with
welldeveloped overstories, understories, and low densities of aquatic and herbaceous cover (USFWS
2000, Biological Opinion on the Effects of ongoing Forest Activities that May Affect listed Riparian
Species on the Cleveland National Forest, the Los Padres National Forest, the San Bernardino National
Forest, and Angeles National Forest in Southern California).
9) Southwestern willow flycatcher: Ecosystem health indicator of riparian habitat with dense growths of
willows, Baccbads, anowweed, buttonbush, or other plants of similar structure. Although overlapping,
significant differences in habitat requirements with least Bell's vireo are probable (USFWS 2000, ibid.).
9) Arboreal salamander: Umbrella for high quality oak, walnut, and sycamore woodland habitats, including
connectivity to riparian areas.
1 Noss, Reed, Task 2: Assessment of the Feasibility of Wildlife Corridors, List of Speaes fo be Addressed, Recommendefions of HaNtal En-
hancement opportunities for Migratory &NS and for AddMional Infmmabon to be Collected, and Map of corndor Opportuni fes. Report to the
Los Angeles and San Gabnal Rivers Watershed Council, September 3, 2001
San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan
10) Oak titmouse: Umbrella for woodlands that may be somewhat fragmented, but still offer significant
habitat value for species less affected by loss of terrestrial connectivity.
11) Coast homed lizard: Ecosystem health indicator for certain aspects of alluvial fan and coastal sage
scrubs.
12) Lesser nighthawk: Umbrella for certain aspects of alluvial fan sage scrub, especially areal extent.
13) Plummer's mariposa lily: Ecosystem health indicator and tentative flagship for alluvial fan sage scrub
and chaparral.
14) Cactus wren: Flagship for alluvial fan and coastal sage scrub with stands of Opuntia cactus.
15) Greater roadrunner: Flagship for coastal and alluvial fan sage scmb and grassland habitat connectivity.
16) California gnatcatcher: Tentative umbrella for restoration of coastal sage scrub quantity, quality, and
connectivity.
17) Grasshopper sparrow: Umbrella for grassland habitats.
1g) California quail: Flagship for upland habitat connectivity .
19) Great blue heron: Flagship and potential ecosystem health indicator for mature forest (riparian and oth-
erwise, for rookeries) and aquatic habitats.
20) Bobcat: Population health indicator for prey species; flagship and potential tm�brella for landscape -scale
connectivity.
21) Gray fox: Population health indicator for prey species; flagship and potential umbrella for landscape -
scale connectivity .
22) Coyote: Population health indicator for prey species; flagship and potential umbrella for landscape -scale
connectivity; documented keystone species for controlling opportunistic mesopredators (e.g., feral cat,
raccoon, opossum, gray fox) and thereby increasing songbird nesting success (see Crooks and Soule
1999, Nature 400:563 -566).
23) Black bear: Flagship and potential umbrella for landscape -scale connectivity; possible ecosystem health
indicator for forests.
24) Mountain lion: Population health indicator for prey species and possible keystone species; flagship and
umbrella for regional -scale connectivity .
It may not be possible, given foreseeable funding scenarios, to conduct detailed population censuses' habitat
modeling, and population viability modeling for all 24 of these species. Nevertheless, some level of effort
should be devoted to determining the distribution and population trends of these species and opportunities
for more intensive research should be seized whenever possible.
In addition, a comprehensive conservation strategy for the study region should protect e Nature Conservancy
species ranked as critically imperiled globally (GU or imperiled globally (G2) the ion are Mi nz's
and the Association for dff4i coed Information( f meCLa� eta fcludleya(��la
omen), L um s penta , sle to (Pentacbae rrelkm^er'
nljem), Lyon's pentachaeta p'entacba�a lyunp), and Lange's EI Segundo duneweevil (Onydwbans la
The occurrences of these and other imperiled species are mapped in California by the California Natural
Diversity Data Base. These are local -scale species (Poiani et al. 2000, Ibid.) and many networks eabitats am x
isolated; hence, they would be neglected by a conservation plan focused largely riparian
life corridors. Importantly, because these species are mostly narrow endemics, their global survival depends O
on conservation actions taken in the watersheds. In addition, many lrranowd narrowly restricted me watersheds land a
communities —for example, walnut forest and valley needle grass g q
require protection. 127
State of California Resources Agency
:-24,
aX