Loading...
Resolution No. 7897i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 7897 A'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON APPROVING THE SAN GABRIEL AND LOS ANGELES RIVERS WATERSHED 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 Section 32600 (Stats. 1998, Ch. 788 (AB 1355) and Ch. 789 (SB 216), created the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (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 improvements, wildlife and habitat restoration and protection, and water quality within the territory; and WHEREAS, the territory of the RMC extends across the city boundaries of over sixty (60) 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; land 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 entities, in creating a multi -jurisdictional agency that would be authorized to acquire land, and conduct watershed management, flood control, and recreational 1 projects within the Lower Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River 2 watersheds; and 3 WHEREAS, the RMC board is composed of voting members who 4 represent the County of Los Angeles, the Gateway Cities COG and the 5 San Gabriel Valley COG, the Orange County Division of the League of 6 California Cities, the San Gabriel Valley Water Association, and the 7 Central Basin Water Association, as well as state agencies including 8 the Resources Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency and 9 Department of Finance; and 10 WHEREAS, it was the intent of the State Legislature in 11 creating the RMC, that the RMC and member cities would be equal 12 partners in the planning, development and management of mountain and 13 watershed areas within the RMC's territory, and to that end, the 14 Legislature provides in the Act that member cities shall retain 15 control over their own land use regulations, ordinances, general and 16 regional plans; and 17 WHEREAS, under the ACT, the RMC shall be subject to all 18 laws, regulations, and general and specific plans of the legislative 19 body of any city in which the RMC proposes to take action; and 20 WHEREAS, nothing in the Act shall be interpreted to grant 21 the RMC any regulatory or governing authority over any ordinance or 22 regulatory measure adopted by a city, county or special district that 23 pertains to land use, water rights, or environmental quality; and 24 WHEREAS, Section 32604(d) of the Public Resources Code 25 directs the RMC to preparea San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Parkway 26 and Open Space Plan (the "OSP") to be approved by a majority of the 27 cities representing a majority of the population, the Board of 28 Supervisors of Los Angeles County, and by the Central Basin Water oil I 1 Association and San Gabriel Valley Watermaster; and 2 WHEREAS, on October 17, 2001, the RMC Board, at the 3 conclusion of its public meeting and review of all the documentary and 4 oral evidence relating to the OSP, adopted the OSP also known as 5 "Common Ground From the Mountains to the Sea: San Gabriel and Los 6 Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan: and made the following 7 findings: (1) that the OSP complies with all applicable requirements 8 of law; (2) that the OSP is consistent with the purposes of the RMC as 9 set forth in Section 32602 of the Public Resources Code; (3) that the 10 OSP contains all the required elements set forth in Section 11 32604(d)(1-4); (4) that the OSP is not a "project" within the meaning 12 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (e.g., CEQA 13 Guidelines, Section 15378(b)(2)); (5) that, alternatively, the OSP; as 14 an activity involving only feasibility or planning studies for -further 15 actions, is exempt from the environmental impact report requirements 16 of CEQA review; and (6) that the OSP is a long range planning guide or 17 interim policy document and does not commit the RMC to follow a 18 definite course of action with respect to any particular aspect of the 19 OSP, nor is it intended to have a legally binding effect on later 20 activities; and 21 WHEREAS, following adoption of the OSP by the RMC Board, the 22 OSP was referred to the member cities for their review and approval 23 pursuant to Section 32604(d) of the Public Resources Code; and 24 WHEREAS, staff of the City of Vernon have considered the OSP 25 and the informal advice letter of the Attorney General's Office dated 26 July 1, 2001 (Appendix E of the OSP), regarding the impact of the 27 RMC's adoption of the OSP; and 28 WHEREAS, staff of the City of Vernon have determined that - 3 - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the OSP does not impose any costs to the City, does not impact the City as no projects will be developed along the Los Angeles River/Vernon border and does not supercede local zoning ordinances; and WHEREAS, by letter dated January 11, 2002, Bruce V. Malkenhorst, City Administrator/City Clerk, has recommended the approval of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Parkway and Open Space Plan, also known as the "Common Ground From the Mountains to the Sea: San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby finds and determines that the recitals contained hereinabove are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby finds: a. 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; b. that the OSP is not a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (e.g., CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (b) (2)) ; C. 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 'affect in any way the City's regulatory or governing authority over land use or water rights - 4 - M 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and management issues within its jurisdiction; d. that approval of the OSP by the City does not constitute agreement with the policies, principles and statements set forth in the OSP; e. that approval of the OSP by the City does not Constitute a waiver of the City's regulatory or governing authority over land use, water rights or environmental issues within its jurisdiction or territory; f. that approval of the OSP by the City does not constitute adoption or incorporation of the OSP as part of the general plan, specific plan or any ordinance, law or regulation of the City of Vernon; g. 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 aspect of the OSP, and that it is not intended to have a legally binding effect on later activities of the RMC or the City; and h. 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 the City of Vernon. SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby approves the OSP, in accordance with Section 32604(d) of the Public Resources Code, a copy of which has been presented to the City Council concurrently with this Resolution, and the City Council hereby orders said OSP to be received and filed by the City Clerk. - 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 4: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby directs the City Clerk, or his designee, to send a certified copy of this Resolution to: Executive Officer Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue Annex, Second Floor Alhambra, CA 91802 SECTION 5: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall certify to the passage of this resolution, and thereupon and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of January, 2002. ATTEST: BRUCE V. MALKENHOR61', city ulerx ---'(!!ONIS C. MALBUR , Mayorf - 6 - � R � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I, BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 7897, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council duly held on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, and thereafter was duly signed by the Mayor of the City of Vernon. (SEAL) B UCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk r - 7 - 0 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CITY COUNCIL LEONIS C. MALBURG Mayor THOMAS A. YBARRA Mayor Pro —Tern WM. "BILL" DAVIS Councilman H. "LARRY" GONZALES Councilman W. MICHAEL MCCORMICK Councilman BRUCE V. MALKENHORST City Administrator / City Clerk FAX (323) 826-1438 City Council City of Vernon M Honorable Members: EDUARDO OLIVO City Attorney FAX: (562) 927-8722 KEVIN WILSON Director of Community Services & Water FAX: (323) 826-1435 KENNETH J. DeDARIO Director of Municipal Utilities FAX: (323) 826-1425 STEVEN E. PARKER Fire Chief FAX: (323) 826-1407 CITY HALL BRUCE W. OLSON 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058 Police Chief TELEPHONE (323) 583-8811 FAX: (323)826-1481 January 11, 2001 V`l �C7 \ tiI In October 1999, Governor Davis signed AB 1355 (Havice) and SB 216 (Solis) establishing the Lower Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC). RMC has developed a parkway and open space to establish policies and priorities emphasizing "river related projects" and has approved the "Common Ground from the Mountains to the Sea: San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan" which describes the history and current condition of the watersheds and lays out a vision, principles, strategies, and opportunities for future development. This Plan will take effect as soon as it has been adopted by the majority of the cities representing the population in the Conservancy area, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Central Basin Water, and the San Gabriel Valley Watermaster. This has been reviewed by the City Attorney and the Director of Community Services and Water and it is hereby recommended that the Open Space Plan be adopted and a resolution approved and executed. Very truly yours, Bruce V. Malkenhorst City Administrator/City Clerk BVM/ng City Administrator's Office January 16, 2002 TO: Bruce V. Malkenhorst, City Administrator FROM: Kevin Wilson, Director of Community Services & Water SUBJECT: RIVERS, MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY OPEN SPACE PLAN/CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL In October 1999, Governor Davis signed into law AB 1355 (Havice) and SB 216 (Solis) establishing the Lower Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC). The RMC has developed a parkway and open space plan to establish policies and priorities emphasizing "river related projects". The Plan titled "Common Ground from the Mountains to the Sea: San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan" describes the history and current condition of the watersheds and then lays out a vision, principles, strategies and opportunities for future development. The Plan was approved by the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy on October 17, 2001. The Plan will take effect when it has been adopted by a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the Conservancy area, the LA County Board of Supervisors, the Central Basin Water and the SG Valley Watermaster. Adoption of the Plan does not impose any costs to the City. Actually, the Conservancy is expected to bring significant state dollars into the region for open space, environmental education, water quality and habitat restoration projects. The Plan does not impact the City as no projects will be developed along the LA River/Vernon border. In addition, the Plan will not supercede local zonina ordinances. The RMC is asking the 66 cities within its territory to formally adopt the Open Space Plan by the end of January. It is recommended that the Open Space Plan be approved at the next City Council meeting. The Plan and a sample resolution is attached for City Attorney review. A certified copy of the resolution will need to be sent to the following: Executive Officer, Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, 900 South Fremont Avenue, Annex, Second Floor, Alhambra, CA 91802. Cc: Eddie Olivo. Citv Administrator's Office January 8, 2002 TO: Bruce V. Malkenhorst, City Administrator FROM: Kevin Wilson, Director of Community Services & Water SUBJECT: RIVERS, MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY OPEN SPACE PLAN%CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL In October 1999, Governor Davis signed into law AB 1355 (Havice) and SB 216 (Solis) establishing the Lower Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC). The RMC has developed a parkway and open space plan to establish policies and priorities emphasizing "river related projects". The Plan titled "Coon Ground from the Mountains to the Sea: San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan" describes the history and current condition of the watersheds and then lays out a vision, principles, strategies and opportunities for future development. The Plan was approved by the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy on October 17, 2001. The Plan will take effect when it has been adopted by a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the Conservancy area, the LA County Board of Supervisors, the Central Basin Water and the SG Valley Watermaster. Adoption of the Plan does not impose any costs to the City. Actually, the Conservancy is expected to bring significant state dollars into the region for open space, environmental education, water quality and habitat restoration projects. The Plan does not.impact the City as no projects will be developed along the LA River/Vernon border. In addition, the Plan will not supersede local zoning ordinances. The RMC is asking the 66 cities within its territory to formally adopt the Open Space Plan by the end of January. It is recommended that the Open Space Plan be approved at the next City Council meeting. The Plan and a sample resolution is attached for City Attorney review. Cc: Eddie Olivo n Sa a-- M L_.;.. -,,.W s__...,...__,..... CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY R1VtKS � MOUNTAINS SERYIINGY Governing Board of the Conservancy Frank colonna - Gateway Cities C,O.G. City of Loug Beach Lara Larrat muh Blakely December 14, 2001 Vice -Chairman San Gabriel valley C.O.G. Hon. Leonia C. Malburg Bev - Mayor, City of Vernon LftgmofQties 4305 Santa Fe Ave. Ocs w County Division of the City of Vernon, CA 90058 Mary D. Nichols , for Resmtces Resources Agency Re: San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Margaret Clark Open Space Plan: "Common Ground from the San Gabriel Valley'C.O.G. Mountains to the Sea' Hector De La Torre 'Gateway Cities C.O.G. Dear Mayor Malburg: - David D. Dejesus Covina Irrigating Campany San Gabriel valley Water Association On October 17, 2001, the Governing Board of the Rivers and Tun Mountains Conservancy (RMC) approved the San Gabriel and Director Deparunent of Finance Los Angeles Rivers Watershed and Open Space Plan titled Winston H. Hickox "Common Ground from the Mountains to the Sea." This is a Secretary for Cal EPA momentous occasion and an exciting time for all of us. California Envirannrental Protection Agency Gloria Molina The Open Space Plan has evolved from its draft form through' Lola Angeles County several revisions and comments received from 36 cities and Board of Supervisors 15 agencies in addition to several comments submitted Rick Rutz Enviroturtentalfublic Member orally.We are confident you will find that the Plan does Dr. Paul Yost indeed represent "common ground." League of cities Orange County Division of the Now, in accordance with the requirements of our founding Anthony z ho La Habra Heights ts County ounty Water legislation, the RMC is asking the 66 cities within its District/ Central Basin Water territory, the LA County Board of Supervisors, the San Association Gabriel Valley Water Association, the Central Basin Water Rusty Association, and the San Gabriel River Watermaster to Director Department of Parks and formally adopt the Open Space Plan. We are requesting that Recreation you place the Open Space Plan on your agenda for action as District Richard � o�son soon as possible. District E Angeles District US Army Corps of Engineers Al Wright You will find in this package copies of the Plan itself, a Executive Director framework resolution for adoption, and supporting materials. � Yt"" g WikiHEe Conservation Board iUlffe onM. RMC staff and the E1P consultant team will be available to T Stetson San Gabriel River Water Master answer any questions or address any concerns throughout Jury Noyes the approval process. LA County Public; W«Ics Jody Cook Angeles National Forest US Forest Service Tarty Paul Orange county Executive Office_ 900 S. Fremont Ave., I Ph Floor • P.O. Box 1460 o Alhambra, CA 91802-1460 Mary A. Angle F — ti— nrA Pr Phone: (626) 458-4315 o Fax: (626) 457-1526 • E-mail: mamle@dfg.ca.�o_v With the Open Space Plan, we enter an expanded phase of restoring balance to the watersheds and improving the quality of life for ourselves and future generations. The Open Space Plan will provide a solid basis for capitalizing on upcoming funding opportunities and pursuing the continued development of open space projects and programs with you and other partners. We encourage your active participation and look forward to working with you. Should you have any questions, pleases feel free to call me or the RMC office. Sincerely yours, Frank Colonna Chairman of the Board Rivers and Mountains Conservancy CC: City Manager 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 CONTENTS M PREFACE..................................................4.........................................................................v EXECUTIVESUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 1 MAJORPLAN ELEMENTS..................................................................................................... 9 I. BACKGROUND ............ ................................... :................................................................ 11 A. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 11 B. Historical Context ......................................................................................................... 11 C. Planning Context. ,......................................................................................................... 13 2. CURRENT CONDITIONS .......................... .............................................................. 17 A. Physical Setting..........................................................................................................................18 B. Watershed Hydrology................................................................................................................19 C. Habitat.................................................................................................,...................................23 D. Open Space and Recreation ............. ......... .. .......................... ............ 30 E. Water Supply.... .. .... ......................................... ...............................,......., . .32 F. Water Quality... ..... ...... ................................................................ ................ 36 G. Flood Protection .................................... I............................................................ .............. ,..................................... ................... 39 H. Regional Demographics ....................... ... 42 3. A VISION FOR THE FUTURE.........R................................................................................ 47 A. Vision........................................................................................................................................ 47 B. Guiding Principles..................................................................................................................... 47 C. Strategies .......... ................... ....................... ........................... ...........50 1. Education ...... . .................. ................. ...... .... ............. ...... ... 50 2. Partnerships. .................. ............................................................................................52 3. Funding ......................................................................................... ........ ........ 53 4. Multiple -Objective Planning ............................. ... ................. ................ ............ 54 5. Managen—=t of Public Lands ................... .............................................. .......... 55 6. Monitoring and Assessment ........................................................................................... 56 D. Opportunities......,................................................................................................................... 56 1. Land Acquisition, Connectivity, and Open Space ............................... .................... 56 2. Public Access .................... .......... .................... ............... ... .................... 65 3. Native Plants and Wildlife................................................................................................ 66 4. Water Resources.................................................................................................................. 70 E. Next Steps ........................................................................................................................... 73 1. Rivers and Mountains Conservancy ................................................................................... 73 2. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.......................................................................... . 76 3. Other Agencies and Cities... .............. ............................................................................ 76 APPENDICES APhoto Credits ........................................................................................................................ 79 BAcronyms................................................................ ............ .................. ......................81 CGlossary............................................................................................................. ..............82 DReferences .............................................................................. ........................... ..............87 E RMC Project Authority.. ...... 94 z FProject Evaluation Criteria .................................................................., ............, ..:........ 106 w G Threatened and Endue Species ................. . ........................... ... ............. ... 121 0 H Potential Indicator Species................................................................................................... 126 0 lii. State of California Resources Agency w 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 re- source, and habitat projects, to advance restoration of the watershed. This plan aims to extend 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. 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, and wildlife habi- 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 buyback, pre- serve, protect, restore, and enhance treasured pieces of Southern California to form an interlinking system of urban, rural, and river parks; open space; trails; and wild- 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. ■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers To provide quality, responsive engineering services to the nation including: v State of California Resources Agency EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With more than seven million people living in the watersheds drained by the San Gabriel and Los An- geles Rivers, the effects of humans on natural ecosystems are extensive: 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 from Space In recent years, cities, communities, agencies, and groups have been working to 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 bu- man systemsin the watersbeds. 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 can 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 organi- 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. Bosgae del Rio Hondo W H C� W X W 1 State of California Resources Agency 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 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. Management 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. Monitoring and Assessment The state conserv- 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 g open space, trails, active and passive recreation ar- eas, and wildlife habitat along the Los Angeles, San to Gabriel, and Rio Hondo Rivers. The specific treat- ment of each segment of the greenway should be i= determined by the existing conditions of the parcel, v the needs and desires of the local community and U W State of California Resources Agency 3 COMMON GROUND FNOM THE MO EN IVAINS 7.7 T tic ?EA Trail in the Whittier Hills Tributaries: Provide open space along tributaries in urbanized areas to extend 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, ■ 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. Groundwater: Expand and enhance groundwater infiltration and recharge wherever possible, and when consistent with water quality goals_ Q w V x w State of California Resources Agency 5 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 USNational 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 im- provements. Individual Cities will identify new projects and consider incorporation of the Guiding Principles into the next update of their General Plans. Los Angeles River 4 CO W F= U W X W State of California Resources Agency 7 111i if G, iqi t�1j1 idi[�€ e��g�s t �d it€r6(sit d �;fit �€�#• �a��' �i t0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND1. 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 extend benefits be- yond the borders of individual cities, create opportunities to leverage benefits, and maximize funding resources. 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 agencies work 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. S. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Over millions of years, the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers emerged from the SanGabriel 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 flow most of the year, the rivers appeared as meandering streams within wide beds. But when winter rains arrived, these "streams" oftenjumped 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, roses, grapes, and shrubs. Wetlands, marshes, and springs dotted the landscape. Habitats were diverse and wildlife was plentiful. The abundant water, vegetation, and wildlife supported a significant population of indigenous peoples such as the Chu - mash and Tongva (Gabrielino). 11 State of California Resources Agency 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 storm 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 Angels River south 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 focused 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 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 will 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 clear 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 13 State of California Resources Agency 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 (Reconnecting theSan Gabrd Valley. APlanning App=chfortheCmzYonoflrit monnecWU?banW"ye CorridorNetwerks, California Polytechnic University, Pomona, 2000). Although the primary 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. Confluenoe of the Arroyo Seco and the Los Angel" River The Southern California Studies Center of the Uni- versity of Southern California published Sprawl Hits 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 Arroyo Seco Watershed 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. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works completed a LosAngelesRitaerBlkewaySWy (June 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 Wilderness 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 Linkage. RestodngConneai ,&ytotheCaliforniaLand- 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 currently 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 consensus -driven master plan process will identify project opportunities for recreation, open space, and habitat enhancements, C) It maintenance of flood protection, preservation of 0 natural resources, and maintenance of existing water 0 m State.of California Resources Agency 15 2. CURRENT CONDITIONS The watersheds of the San Gabriel and Los Angeles during the latter half of the twentieth century has Rivers cover 1,513 square miles, from the San had a considerable impact on natural resources, Gabriel Mountains in the north to the Pacific Ocean altering the hydrology in the watersheds and signifi- at Long Beach (Figure 2-1). The two rivers arise cantly reducing the extent of natural habitat and from springs and creeks in the mountains surround- biotic communities. ing the Los Angeles basin, flow across the San Gabriel and San Fernando valleys, then flow nearly The purpose of this section is to provide a primer parallel across the coastal plain to the Pacific Ocean. for planning in the watersheds and an atlas of the 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, cli- mate, land use, and habitat types. Urbanization Z geography of the region: its physiography, climate, Q H quality quantity, recreation and hydrology, water and p open space, natural habitat and demographic O characteristics. v H Z w tY. State of Cahfdrnia Resources Agency 17 Seasonal Distribution of Rainfall Downtown `Los Angeles - 123 Year Average 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 'No z 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 maximum -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 123-year Average =15.06 inches, closer the center of the storm is, the more rain it will bring, with snow levels frequently reaching Figure 2-3. Long-term Variation in Rainfall down to 5,000 feet. These are the typical storms Amounts 8°°"C°' Western Regional climate center that occur in the basin, bringing 3A inch or less of rainfall. Storms from the south or southwest are less common, but may bring 3-6 inches of rain in determines the extent of the'marine layer. High- the basin and 3-6 feet of snow above 6,000 feet. pressure systems off the coast also result in offshore These storms tend to stall off the coast, which breezes, as air moves from the ocean towards lower makes their arrival difficult to predict. Storms from pressure areas in the basin. the west are least common but last the longest, characterized by a series of min events each bringing B. WATERSHED HYDROLOGY 1-2 inches of rain over a period of 36-48 hours. Most of the watersheds (93 percent) lie within Los Summer rains are rare, but when they occur they are a result of tropical thunderstorms originating in the Angeles County. The San Gabriel River flows from y Gulf of Mexico or late summer hurricanes off the the San Gabriel Mountains, in the Angeles National O West Coast of Mexico. Forest. Its tributaries drain portions of the Chino, San Jose, and Puente Hills. The Los Angeles River G' Air pressure also plays a role in the local climate. In originates at the junction of Calabasas and Bell p the late spring and early summer, a low-pressure Creeks in the western San Fernando Valley, and is 0 area inland draws a moist marine layer in from the fed by other tributaries that drain the Santa Monica Z ocean, resulting in coastal fog and low clouds, which and Santa Susana Mountains, the Simi Hills, and the UJ moderate temperatures in the basin. The difference western San Gabriel Mountains. Coyote Creek, a in air pressure between the ocean and the desert tributary of the San Gabriel River, drains portions to ' State of califomia Resources Agency 19 0 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 Los Angeles River © waoxenec Bwxl vy e Vemel Pool Complex Upper Riverine Laver RWedne Braddea Lower RNerine' Dry wash Rlvedne Mars Ephemeral Lske/Forxl Depresalonal Marsh Slope Marsh Peat Marsh Non-Tklal 8aIt Marsh TkW Marsh OvIrkage of Artesian Areas orillir904 � 1925 as the Sepulveda Basin, Santa Fe Dam, and Whittier 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 0 6 f0 16 IOImNYfi Figure 2-6a. Historical (Circa 1870) Distribution of Wetlands Adapted from Rairdan, 1998 San Gabriel River Lower Santa Ana River r) Z Q Z O Z W V 24 State of California Resources Agency 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. Channeiization 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 riprap- 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% a. 60% 0 g 40% r,. c 20% ca 0% 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 S! C'D 0 9 9 02 M 8 9 a') C'D 08 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 Source: Western Regional climate center and L.A. County Department of Public Works. Reprinted from Daliman and Pleohota 1999. 23 State of California Resources Agency tors such as disease and insects. Arundo, 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, aundo covers about 809/6 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 (Gambusia sp.), crayfish, and bullfrogs have impacted native populations of fish and amphibians. ■ High QuaiityHabitat 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 Arroyo Chub (Gila orcuM). The Santa Ana sucker (Catastomus santaanae) and Santa Ana speckled dace (Rhinicbthys osculus) are found in the upper reaches of the San Gabriel River and Big Tujunga Creek. In the foothills and throughout the basin, patches of natural 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 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 (Polzoptila califomko) and the endangered arroyo toad (Bufomic?�uscalif&mcw), fallwdm the watersheds (Figure 2-8). The endangered steelhead mu (Oncx»#Vndx snD*&) 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 25 State of California Resources Agency (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 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 spedes. This much -fragmented habitat is scattered over more than 6,000 square miles in Southern California, in- cluding the southeastern corner of Los Angeles county and large areas of Orange County. Other habitats may warrant designation, delineation, and development of conservation plans, including ripar- 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 0 z 0 0 z 0 c� z W v 27 State of California Resources Agency 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 animals 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 arid West, ripar- ian 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. Fr�ngCommunitiesandCbnYdors, 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 greenways must be designed with the needs of both people and wildlife in mind. A recent urban trail handbook (Flaing 73"aila with 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 region rather than trying to accommodate all uses within specific areas. These recommendations un- derscore the need for biologists to be involved in theearly stages of greenway planning and the trail development process. o Urban to Wiidland Networks Southern California is distinctive in having major urban centers directly adjacent to wildlands (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 rural 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 rural 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, corridors 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 deer 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 linkageswithin the watersheds is provided in Chapter 3, A Vision for the Future. 29 State of California Resources Agency Public access is restricted to a wooden trail leading to streams for fishing, swimming, and picnicking. A to an overlook of the area, and is open a limited five and a half mile stretch of the West Fork of San number of days to reduce disturbance to the wild- Gabriel River is a "catch and release" area for native life. rainbow trout. N 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 asthey 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 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 LARIO 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. Table 3. Major Open Space and Recreational Facilities within the Watersheds TWO Name and Location Acreage Management Botanical Gardens Arboretum of Los Angeles County, Arcadia 127 LA County Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Garden Claremont 106 Private Descanso Gardens La Canada 160 LA County Parks and Recreation Areas Frank G. Bonelli Regional Park San Jose Hills 1,980 LA County Griffith Park Los Angeles 31481 Ci El Dorado Regional Park, Long Beach 520 City E sian Park Los Angeles 584 City Hahamonaa Watershed Park Pasadena 836 City Hansen Dam, Los Angeles 1,289 City, U.S. Army Corps Marshall Canyon County Park Claremont 690 LA County Mulholland Gateway Park 1 200 SMMC Ralph B. Clark Regional Park, Fullerton/Buena Park 105 Orange County Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area 836 LA County Schabarum Regional Park, Puente Hills 500 LA County Sepulveda Dam Recreation Area 1,040 LA City /Army Corps Ted Craig -Regional Park Fullerton/Brea 124 1 Orange County Whittier Narrows Recreation Area 1,400 LA County Verdugo Mountains State Park 251 1,101 State Parks SMMC Nature Centers and Wilder- ness Parks Eaton Canyon Natural Area 184 LA County Claremont Hills Wilderness Area 1220 C /LA County Deukmejian Wilderness Park 720 Glendale Eastern Rim -of -the -Valley Open Spam 1,000 SMMC El Dorado Nature Center 130 Long Beach San Dimas Canyon Nature Center 1 000 LA County Simi Hills/Santa Susana Open Space 4,000 SMMC Whittier Narrows Nature Center 419 LA County W z 0 a z 0 U t�3 31 State of California Resources Agency 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 California 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, stormwater runoff and surplus imported water may be stored in reservoirs and groundwater basins for future needs. Figure 2-9 depicts the average amo2nt 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 total 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 Figure 2-9. Sources of Water Suaply Source: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (cited in Los Angeles & San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, 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 240). 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 Fernando 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 Baallne Geographic Regions and Underlying Surface Area Current Average Estimated Total Groundwater Basins (acres) Annual Yield (AF)* Capacity (AF) Los Angeles Coastal Plain: Central and West Coast basins 288,000 281,835** 20,300,000 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 and Sylmar basins 327,000 105,000 500,000 Main San Gabriel Basin 106,880 200,000 8,600,000 *AF - Acre-foot, approximately 326,000 gallons of water *"Allowable under adjudication Source: Assoc. of Ground Water Agencies, 2000 33 State of California Resources Agency 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. 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-foot) Groundwater pumping Location Reclaimed Imported Runoff (Xher* Total San Gabriel Basin 0 50,953 76,792 5,055 132,800 SF Valley Basin 0 0 14,105 14105 Coastal Plain 43,180 45 037 21 120 109,497 TOTAL 43,180 95,990 112,107 5,055 256,332 ` water owned by other local water agencies and stored in the San Gabriel Basin Source: L.A. COuPty Department of Public works water Resources Division a Groundwater Management The underlying groundwater basins are managed to ensure that 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 "watermaster." The watermaster ensures that the basin is managed according to the adjudication and reports periodi- cally to the court. In 1955, the Central and West Basin Water Associa- tions were formed 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. Many 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, in the San Gabriel groundwater basin be- gan to exceed recharge rates in the 1950s, lead- ing to a lengthy legal battle that was settled in 1971) This settle- ment established the San Gabriel River Watermaier 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 Califomia 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 35 State of California Resources Agency COMMON GROUND fi F?OM THF-i' 11 OUNT'AINS T O THF= SEA 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 Watermaster 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 domes- 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 aquacultural. 3. Water Quality Concerns Because of the largely urban and indtL-Vial 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 major water 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 $303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act, specific surface water quality con- cerns have been identified for surface water bodies. California's most recent 303(d) list 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 point 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 V q a � � it kp Drainage Q (3 San Gabriel x I x x x x x x x 'Los Angeles x x x x x x xi7x+X x x x x X 37 State of California Resources Agency COMMON GROUND FROM THE: MOUNTAIN3 TO THE SEA, Discharge Requirements] by the Regional Board." (LARWQCB 1994) ■ 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 Perniit 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. Sources 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 sites; 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. The watersheds are also subject to a NPDES pemit for stormwater 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 permittees. 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- 39 State of California Resources Agency GROUND I~F- O10 THE MOUNTAINS TO THE, R ,' Table 7. Los Angeles County Flood Management Facilities Open channels 470 miles Underground channels 2,400 miles Flood mane ement reservoirs 21 Rubber dams for diverting runoff 11 Groundwater rechar a basins and soft -bottom channels 2,436 acres Flood detention basins 5 Debris basins 1 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- tem 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 initiated 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 increas- 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 their 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 further downstream. These debris basins must be periodically cleaned out to retain their storage capacity. Excavated sediments are used as fill material, disposed in landfills, or delivered to approved sediment placement sites. ■ Role of Rivers in Flood Protec- tion 16 The rivers are a major component of 75 000 the flood protection systems. Flood flow is regulated with darns. 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 60/6 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 determine the best solu- tion. The County is currently researching solutions 41 State of California Resources Agency ■ Median Income 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 cities and South Los Angeles. The wealthiest house- holds are along the coast and in the foothill commu- nities. (Figure 2-17). 77�W 4t`. _ .. ��T"r' Pacific Ocean •'" fn Z Q H G Z 0 Q Figure 2-14. Land Use in the Watersheds z Source: Southern California Association of Governments 1993 U.1 43 ' State of California Resources Agency Figure 2-17. Median Household Income by Zip Code 0 Source: US Census, 2000 Projected Z Q F=- O Z O v N Z w Ix 45 State of California. Resources Agency . A► VISION FOR THE FUTURE are educated, involved, and allowed to choose the A. VISION quality of life they prefer. The watersheds were fast 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 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 time, 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 irn- 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- cerned with watershed planning. They set forth general directions without attempting to define re- sponsibilities for implementation. They are guides, not directives. They imply a wide perspective and a long view. The Principles were developed through a 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 funs- diction, 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, DTSC, 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 w M LL tac 0 LL Z 0 <t 47 State of California Resources Agency CQRIMOIJ *ROUND FRf>A/l.`9`HE MC51JtJTAN t"f7'fHE',S A' 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/riverine 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 stormwater 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 planning 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- w lic cc • Present plans and programs in reader -friendly print and electronic versions ■ Involve stakeholders and the public in project implementation and maintenance LL • Recognize the significance and uniqueness of individual properties for watershed plan- w ning Utilize the Plan in an On -going Management Process cc 2 • Secure approval of the plan by partner jurisdictions Z ■ .Assure CEQA compliance in approval of proposed projects • Establish and periodically assess measurable objectives for all plan elements ■ Establish a procedure and schedule for periodic plan review and updates , 49 State of California Resources Agency and work with such organizations to advance the potential to provide amenities for wildlife in back- yards where appropriate. n 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. Educating 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 (CREEL -LA), Global Learn- ing and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE), the Global Rivers Environmental Edu- 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 stormwater 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 infortnat on 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- Intmrpretive Signage to U. w Z 51 State of California Resoutres Agency 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 M 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 Los Angeles County: Alhambra, Arcadia, Ar- tesia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bell, Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Bradbury, Burbank,Calabasas, Cerritos, Claremont, Commerce, Compton, 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 El 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 0 Unincorporated Cities Other Bnthlesr Non-profit organizations (trusts,' foundations, conservancies, associa- tions, societies, coalitions, alliances, councils); water agencies, districts, and associations; business and property owners; financial insti- tutions; 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 53 State of California Resources Agency COMMON GROUND !=F?OM THE 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 protection when 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 Pacific 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 Conservancies will encourage cities to consider incorporation the relevant Guiding Principles into their next General Plan update, so that future pro- 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 Conservancies will 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 Conservancies will 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. Surplus LADWP Property Along San Gabriel River W t M LL W 0 L Z 0 tt� Q 55; State of California Resources Agency Figure 3-1. 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 LosAngelc s RtuerMaster Plan, the San Gabriel RuerMasterPlan (in progress) and the Reconnecting 6e&-M G7bnel Valley. 9wvwg Agma fortlaeL tAn g7nor"maad Otm ti e CorridorNetzvorks, which addressed habitat restora- tion. Elements of the riverfront 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 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 spaces will 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- State of California Resources Agency 57 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 (e.g., 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 rights -of -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/Cornfield Yard area (a former rail yard) and 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 or work 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 Riverfront 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 conservan- cies will work together to develop a purchase, w U. W W Z d 59. State of California Resources Agency COMMON GROUND FROM THE MOGINTAINS T"O'i H ' ,EA 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, Schabarum 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 alterna- tives include a lease with a future option to purchase or an installment purchase. Both options may allow for immediate occupancy and transfer of final pay- ment(s) 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 grants 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, or water 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. For some parcels, the owner may be unwilling to sell the property but may be willing to grant the right of use to another parry. 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 grants and from grants and bonds and donations from private individuals and foundations. Arroyo Sego 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. Acdons: 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 w X L LU tr 0 U. U W 61 State of California Resources Agency 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, Pasa- 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- 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 w improvement and flood protection See Figure 33. - Actions: The State Conservancies will work indiU. H vidually and collectively within the communities, Ui local groups, and the appropriate Councils of Gov- ernment along each of the major tributaries to O develop sub -watershed plans that will identify indi- u. vidual projects within each city. Z rn Q State of California Resources Agency 63 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 hands-on gardening activities to complement curricula and create. gar- dens on school grounds). Tree Planting Along Loa Angel" River 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 opportuni- 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. 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 priorities 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 -impact recreation, habitat, flood protection, education and interpretation, trails and connections, water quality and ground water recharge, as well as for active recreational uses. Coals 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 65 State of California Resources Agency f Pacific Ocean Q Gounty Bounder, Wites7hedBouathry NAttmt Fowst Boumk7 S pi wAnt EcoIpyiptt,Areas Arroyo Taid T-kbiW Cw�tCAtCber •� V�ikUiieCarr&iors —_ Rivers Streams sow, adc Da Doti Ap424,2001j"diiArairq asp Figure 3-4. Habitat Linkages Source: Dr. Reed Noss. Califomia Deot. of Fish and Game tion, restoration, and enhancement needs within jeopardize the viability of this linkage. Wildlife use these zones. of this linkage should be documented as soon as ■ Linkage #21: Santa Susana Pass —High Possible. 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 Simi 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 ■ Linkage #24: 1-5—Newhall Pass --High Pri- ority 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 1-5 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 67 State of California Resources Agency 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 Wetlands oftheLosAngeksRiverWater- shed, 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/parian Habitat Along Los Ange/ms River These sites are located at De Forest Park (Long Beach), Victoria Park (Torrance), Harbor Park (San Pedro), Dominguez Gap (Long Beach), Hazard Park (Los Angeles), Taylor Yard (Los Angeles), Lower Arroyo Park (Pasadena), Cahuenga Spreading Grounds (Glendale), Sepulveda Basin (Van Nuys), and Upper Bull Creek (San Fernando). For the upper San Gabriel River in the San Gabriel Valley, Reconnecting the San, Gabriel Valleyhas 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. 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 of the Las Angeles River Watershed state that "many other —in most cases more extensive —restoration 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 corridors adjacent to the major tributaries and mainstem channel of the Los Angeles River. These long-term restoration opportunities are also applicable for the 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 wetlands wherever fea- sible in the watersheds, and incorporate those wetlands as elements of natural systems, to treat urban run-off, improve water quality, and provide wildlife habitat. Acdonss 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. pC M U. UJ cc 2 2 i State of California Resources Agency 69 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 runoff 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 runoff 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 storm - 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 encourage incorporation of non-structural flood protection measures as part of comprehensive flood protection programs. ■ Surface Water Since adoption of the federal Clean Water Act, wa- ter quality in the rivers and tributaries has improved 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 permits 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- ruary 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 storm 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 cities, which State of California Resources Agency 71 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 is then reused for landscap- ing on the site. This project demonstrates how sustainable watershed management---,stormwater capture, water conservation, and groundwater re- charge —can 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. Stormwatsr Retention Structure at the TREES Demonstration Site Goah An informed public that understands how private and common lands, including backyards, provide opportunities to retain stormwater and promote groundwater infiltration. 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, multi -objective 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 encouragecities 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 73 State of California Resources Agency COMMON GROUND rW_A4 THFMOUNIAINS T() THE, SEA 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, FoothMs and HIM Pkn(s): To identify parcels and areas 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 Government surround- ing and encompassing the Whittier/Puente/Chino/ San Jose Hills complex; and the communities sur- rounding the Glendale Narrows and the Verdugo Mountains. Habitat Conservation Plan: 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 map- 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 Hills 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 Survey.- 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 Plan.- 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, implementa- tion, and review of the assessments. A timeline reflecting the development of these plans is included as Figure 3-5. 0 Long -Term (Twenty to Fifty Years) The following are the long-term goals of the RMC: To create, expand, and improve public open space, the RMC will work with the federal gov- erriment, 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 75 State of California Resources Agency IJNTMON GROUND Ff?OA THE dttYoi,JW,i JINS T0J4 ` A 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. California. Parks 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 Coastal Commission: Develop wet- land restoration projects and protect coastal resources. California Fish and Game: Develop habitat and conservation projects. Wildlife Conservation Boards Facilitate land ac- quisitions and public access funding. Caltrans: Develop bikeway and restoration pro- jects.. State and Regional Water Quality 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 Ssoo US Forest Service: Complete the Forest Plan Up- date that includes the Angeles National Forest. US Army Corps of Engineers: Continue wedand 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 Executive: 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, §521000-21178) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Chapter 14, 5515000-15387). 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. 77 State of California Resources Agency 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 Harza, 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 Trail: Courtesy of Dan Slater, 2000-2001 Rio Hondo & Los Angeles River Confluence: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Torn 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 Los Angeles River south of Downtown: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996 X is Los Angeles River west of Sepulveda Dam: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996 z Confluence of Arroyo Seco and Los Angeles River: Courtesy of Trust for Public Land, Tom Lamb, 1996 0. 79 State of California Resources Agency COMMON GROUND FROM THE i APPENDIX w 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 4 rod a z 1j IL ts. 81 State of California Resources Agency Dry flow —The continuous flow in a storm drain system that occurs even during extended periods without rain. Dry well, —A constructed well designed to receive water for groundwater recharge. Evapotrampiration--The loss of water from the soil both by evaporation and by transpiration from the plants growing thereon. Filter medium —Any item or substance that is used for filtering impurities. Soil, sand, and mulch are used as a filter media. First -flush raise —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 rain." 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 81ter 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. Graywateit Water drained from household sinks, washers, tubs, and showers --that is, all water not corning from toilets. This water carries relatively few suspended or dissolved solids. Consequently, it can often be used for such purposes as landscape irrigation. Green Sher islands —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 groundwatertable is located many feet below the surface. Groundwaternxxmding--In certain instances, where stoimwater 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. This 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 time. This is called heat gain. In a building, heat gain is most often the consequence of many hours of sunshine striking and warming the exterior walls and roof. ci x Heat island effect —Many urban areas lack shade trees. In these areas the sun strikes pavement and roof- a tops, heating them to very high temperatures. These surfaces re -radiate heat back into the air, raising air W 83 State of California Resources Agency Porosity --A measure of the ability of water to pass through a material, which is 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, hail or snow that falls from the atmosphere. Recharge areas -Certain zones in the landscape can accept water back into the soil 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 runoff 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 groundwater. Stormwater—Refers to all rainwater that hits the surface of the ground. Storrnwater 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. Sustainability--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. Velocity of flow How quickly the stormwater flows over the surface or through the storm drain system to the ocean. Velocity is determined by the design of the conveyance system: how wide, how smooth or z rough, and the slope of the conveyance. 85 State of California Resources Agency 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 byD mgn: The 1930 Olmstead BanholomewRegio W RIan forthe Los Angeles Region, University of California Press, 2000 Gumprecht, Blake, TheLos AngelesRiver Its Life, Death and Possible Rebirth, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1999 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, LosAngelesRkwBdwway, ReportfortheLosAngeles County Board of Supervisors, June 2001 Olmsted Brothers and Bartholomew Associates, Parks, Playgrounds andBeachesfortheLosAngekNRegion, report submitted to the Citizens' Committee on Parks, Playgrounds and Beaches, 1930 Shapiro, Erik A. and Leo. J. Shapiro, MakingMow Open Space Making SpaceMore men in theLttrAngeksRir er and San Gabriel River Watershed, LJS Group and Leo J. Shapiro & Associates, April 6, 2001 1 • Aldrich, John H. and Meadows, Myra, Southland WeatherHandbook Los Angeles: Brewster Publications,1966 Association of Groundwater Agencies, GsounduiaterandSurfaceWwrinSouthern GWornixAGukktoConjunc- 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 Valley.�APlanningApproacbforibe Cmation oflnkmonner ted Urban Wildlife CorridorNeturnks. Pomona: California. State Polytecluucal Univer- sity, Department of Landscape Architecture, June 2000 California Coastal Conservancy, Wetlands oftheLosAngelesRkw Wae&,vd- PYqjiles andRaWation Opporfunftks, May 000 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, A Compilation of WlaterQual tyGoals, August 2000 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, Bann Plan for he Coastal WaterShe s 0 Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, adopted June 1994 , Los Angeles River Watershed Water Quality Characterization, April, 1998 Resolution No. 98-018, Amendmentto the WaterQualityContrd Plan toIncorpon-&Changes inBengif cial Use Designations for Selected Waters, November 1998 x Standard Urban Storm WaterMitigationPlanforLosAngek sCountyandCitiainLosAngelesCoumy, March 8, 2000 Z 0. StateoftheWatershed Report on SurfaceWaterQuality, The San GabnelRierwater June 2000 87 State of California Resources Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Lo6Ange1es CountyDrainageArea Review. FinalFeaWity 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 Inventory—http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/weeds/ California Wetlands Information System— http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/geo—info/so. cal/los�_angelesriver.html EPA Surf Your Watershed—http://www.epa.gov/sLirf3 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.losangelesalmanac.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/indcx.httn Metropolitan Water District http://www.mwd.dst.ca.us/Docs/WaterReliability/Water4SoCal/waterforsocal.htm Orange County Environmental Management—http://www.oc.ca.gov/pf-d/envres/stonnwater/index.htrn State Water Resources Control Board—http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/ Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board—http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb4 US Census Bureau, 2000 Census—http://www.census.gov Western Regional Climate Data Center--http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmsca.html CHAPTER 3---A Vision for the Future ■ Guiding Principles City of Huntington Beach, Environmental ChecklistFormPerCBQAGuidelineS Append&G, asAmend4 January 1, 2000 City of Long Beach, Long Beacb 2010 Strategic Plan, 2000 City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Sustainable City Program, 1994 Condon, Patrick and Moriarty, Stacy, Eds, Second Nature. • adapting L 4';LandscapeforSustainableLiving, TreePeople, 1999 Dallman, Suzanne and Piechota, Torn, Stormwater. AssetNoaiabdity, Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, 1999 Drennan, Michael, A SummauryofGuici'ingPrincplesforSuccessful WlatershedManaganentPmgnams, Montgomery yc Watson, 199$ 89 State of California Resources Agency «i y 4 California State Water Resources Control Board, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Opportunity, Responsibility, Accountability, January 2001 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, Draft Trash TotalMaximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed, January 22, 2001 California Wilderness Coalition, Calfornia WddlandsPrgeck A VtsionforW-ildCalifornig DraftSouthG'oasiRe- gional Report, Undated California Wilderness Coalition and The Nature Conservancy of California, MizingLinkages RestoringConnec- tivity to the California Landscape, November, 2, 2000 CALFED Bay -Delta Program, Annual Report, 2000 , Watershed Program Plan, Final Program EIS/EIR Technical Appendix, July 2000 Delorme Mapping Company, Southern and Central California Atlas and Gazetteer, 1990. Environmental Law Institute, A Guidebook forBrownfield Property Owners, 1999 Forma Systems, Open Spt,"Plar , A" One- Information Gathering San GabrWandlouwLosAngelesRxvsand Mountains Conservancy, Final Report, March 23, 2001 Los Angeles City, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, Stormwater Program, De ebpmentBest 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 UsesoftheLasArW1esandSan GabnelRuvs, 2001 National Wildlife Federation, PmftParadise, SprawWn pacton WllWtfeand TXlildAwes in California, ASmart Growth and Wildlife Campaign California White Paper, February 2001 All Olmsted Brothers and Bartholomew Associates, Parks, PlaygmundsandBa achesfortheLosArWek sRegion, 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, a Riveron the Edge, A Special Report by the Pasadena Star -News, August 27,2000. , The Future ofHabitat Conservation? 7heNCCPExperience in Southern Cal forma, June, 2001 Shapiro, Erik A. and Leo. J. Shapiro, MakingMow men Space --Making SpawMow men in theLosAngelesRkt-r �+ and San Gabriel River Watershed, LJS Group and Leo J. Shapiro & Associates, April 6, 2001 Thomas Brothers Mapping, The Thomas Guide 2001- Las Angeles and Orange Counties, 2001 a United States Environmental Protection Agency, San Gabriel Valley Superfund Sites Update, July 1999 O 91 State of California Resources Agency GQ 11ts Aril irRt Uiip Fii Ali iH Mo01Ni''1iNs ToT Sf;'& California Resources Agency—http://ceres.ca.gov/cra/ California State Coastal Conservancy—http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/ California Watershed Information Technical System—http://ceres.ca.gov/watershed/ California Wetlands Information System—hnp://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/ California Wildlife Conservation Board—http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wcb/index.html Facility City, "Growing Smart"--http://facilitycity.com/fc_exp_01_05_cover.asp Gateway Cities Council of Governments—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/ Know Your Watershed, Purdue University Conservation Information Technology Center— http://v,-ww.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/ Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council—http://www.lasgriverswatershed.org/ Los Angeles City Stormwater Program—www.lastormwater.org 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.oc.ca.gov/pfrd/envres/watershed/ San Gabriel Mountains Regional Conservancy—http://www.sgmrc.org/conserva.htm San Gabriel River Master Plan—http://dwp.co.1a.ca.us/pin/sgrmp/files/m11151999.cfm?caLid=138 San Gabriel River Trail-http://www.nearfield.com/-dan/sports/bike/sg/index.htm San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments—http://www.sgvcog.org/ Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board—http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb8/ 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.anny.mil/ United States Forest Service, Angeles National Forest—http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/angeles/ United States National Park Service—http://www.nps.gov/ The Wildlands Conservancy—http://www.wildlandsconservancy.org/ 93 State of California Resources Agency LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Public: 213 897-2000 Telephone: 213 897-2706 Facsimile: 213 897-2801 E-Mail: terry.fujimoto dojca.gov July 1, 2001 Mary A. Angle Executive Director San Gabriel and Lower.Los Angeles River and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, 11 0' Floor P.O. Box 1460 Alhambra, CA 91802-1460 RE: Request 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 additional review under CEQA including preparation of an environmental impact report. 25 z W 0. IL 95 State of California Resources Agency M facilities and parks that may be necessary or desirable." (Ibid.) 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..." Ibid.) 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." &id.) 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 entities. w X -Our understanding regarding the nature and scope of the proposed OSP is based on representations made 0 by the Executive Officer and the consultant retained by the RMC to prepare the OSP. To the extent the W final OSP differs from the In Progress Draft it may be necessary to revise our informal advice. 0. 97 State of California Resources Agency 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 ."].) 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 raga (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. (Ibid.) s 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 [actions protecting the envi- ronment], 15313 [acquisition of land for wildlife conservation purposes], 15316 [transfer of 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. X 5Similarly, the OSP also meets the definition of a "non -project" under section 15378 (b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides that "organizational or administrative activities of governments which are . not LU physical changes in the environment" are not "projects" for purposes of triggering CEQA review: a. 99 State of California Resources Agency 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) ["(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 controls"].) 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 "trigger" 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 begivena reasonable and common sense interpretation consistent with the apparent legisla- tive purpose. (Duna-Med v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission (1987) 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. 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, %32612(a) and 32613(b).) Finally, we note W that under the Act, the overall "objective" of the land acquisition program "shall be to assist in accomplish- X mg land transactions that are mutually beneficial to the landowner and the conservancy ..." (Pub. Resources a Code, § 32612 (a).) Thus, to the extent there is any impact on the adjacent landowner it is likely be a fa- a vorable one. 101 State of California Resources Agency Commo# GnoUND FROM THE Mf,30, NT'A3Na 'T0 ` HE 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 uJ 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- Z termaster; W IL CL 103 State of California Resources Agency coMtloN Gnour4D FAOM,TH MOtJNTAIN' TO TH E'8tA' 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; 9. 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. Mayor of the City of ATTEST: City Attorney tt I 105 State of California Resources Agency 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. 4 • The site meets the criteria for inclusion in the Open Space Plan. 2 • The site does not meet the criteria as outlined in the Open Space Plan. 0 URBAN RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT CRITERION RATING • The site has natural geologic contours and/or vegetation and is 4 surrounded by urban development. • The site contributes to an existing or proposed park, natural area, 4 corridor or greenway in an urbanized area. • The site is located in an under -served or park -poor community. 3 • The site provides linkage to open space in an adjacent urban area. 2 • The site is located in an industrialized area. 1 • The site is not located in an urban setting. 0 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 life and property if the site were developed. • The site contains groundwater recharge capabilities. 3 u- • The site supportsp g substantial upland vegetative cover in a 3 watercourse. Z • The site has the potential for hazard-reduction/mitigation credits 3 0. if preserved verses developed. 0. 4 State of California Resources Agency 107 • The habitat is degraded but conditions are suitable for regeneration 2 or restoration. • The habitat is unsuitable for candidate or listed species but provides 1 a buffer between protected sites & incompatible uses. • The site is degraded & habitat restoration is not economically justifiable. 0 FLORISTIC RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT CRITERION RATING • The site contains a state or federally -listed flora species or habitat. 4 • The site largely contains undisturbed communities with moderate to 4 high species diversity. • The site contains a flora species that is candidate for state or 3 federally listing. • The habitat is degraded but conditions are suitable for regeneration 2 or restoration of native species & communities. • The habitat is unsuitable for sensitive species but provides a buffer 1 between protected lands & incompatible uses. • The site is degraded & habitat restoration is not economically justifiable. 0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCE VALUE WEIGHT CRITERION RATING • The site contains a registered archaeological or historical resource 4 of national or statewide significance. • The site contains a registered archaeological or historical resource 3 of regional significance. • The site contains a registered archaeological or historical resource 2 of local significance. • The site contains an archaeological or historic resource that is 1 damaged. • It is unknown if the site contains archaeological or historic resources. 0 ACCESS VALUE WEIGHT 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 mobility or other disabilities. • The site would be accessible via an adjacent protected area. 2 • The site has adequate space for on site parking or available street parking, 1 but is located in an area where neighborhood conflicts may arise. 109 State of California Resources Agency 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 U. X i z W C c�. 11� State of California Resources Agency Ccnnntu`Grtcurab n? l�?[irit r. 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 parcel). 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 site 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 TR8 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 TR10 The site would not support a trail or walkway. 0 Scenic Resource Value CRITERION RATING SR1 The site 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 site contains unique scenic elements; e.g. waterfalls; spectacular wildflower di lays; geologic 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 site provides a significant (accessible) viewpoint or overlook of surrounding areas. 2 SR7 The site contains natural terrain with just average scenic qualities. 1 SR8 The site contains no natural terrain or little or no scenic value. 0 Other Recreational Resource Value CRITERION RATING ORR1 The site contains a suitable area for a planned major recreational facility —campground, picnic area, or interpretive center; with road access. 4 ORR2 The site provides area just for a smaller -scale recreational facili . 3 U. X 5 z w d 113 State of California Resources Agency COMMON GROUND'FROM THE MC, UNTAIN3 MTHE SEA Watershed Resource Value CRITERION RATING WSR1 Over two-thirds of the site 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 -ecologically sensitive part of a state or federal park. 4 WSR3 The site supports substantial upland vegetative cover in a predominately natural watershed. 3 WSR4 At least one fourth of the site is located within a designated ecologically - sensitive watershed or significant ecological area. 3 WSR5 The site contains a substantial area (greater than 0.5 acre) of riparian or wetland habitat that integrates with a block of upland habitat. 3 WSR6 The site provides a location for a substantial -sized (>0.2 acre) or environmentally -significant riparian or wetland restorationproject. 2 WSR7 The site contains good riparian or wetland habitat, >0.2 acre, but which is poorly integrated with upland habitat. 2 WSR8 The site contains between 0.05 to 0.19 acres of good riparian or wetland habitat but which is poorly integrated with upland habitat. 1 WSR9 The site provides a location for a less than substantial -sized (<0.2 acres) riparian or wetland restoration project. 1 WSR10 The site has little or no riparian habitat, watershed protection, or restoration value. 0 Access Value CRITERION RATING Al The site is easily accessible from urban communities and provides adequate parking. 4 A2 The site is within walking distance from public transportation. 4 A3 The site has features making it easily accessible to people with limited mobili or other disabilities. 4 A4 The site has good potential for improving or developing substantial ADA accessibility. 3 A5 The site has adequate space for onsite parking or available street parking that will not conflict with neighborhood needs or sentiment. 2 A6 The site has adequate space for on site parking or available street parking, but is located in an area where neighborhood conflicts may arise. 1 A7 The site has good public access, but with limited ada potential. 1 A8 Access is not feasible except through additional acquisitions or easements. 0 Partnership Value CRITERION RATING P1 The site is of great significance to one or more partner government agencies 4 115 State of California Resources Agency THE SE A 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 Workprogram 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 Workprogram 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 Workprogtam at any time to reflect 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, trail, 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 (e g. all urban projects or all river 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 SMMC/iNIRCA owned or managed parklands in fulfillment of the Conservancy=s mission. Therefore, the first priorities for funding are Santa Monica Mountains Conser- wncydMountainsRacr2uionand Conmv ionAuthoritypghZ aw?equ bymvbkhmans, &*s enbwre & &mb MonicaMountainsCrnz"wncy@sA*aaymzcsion topwvide erwpr iory sa y, axeA visimrs n&e. and a*w4 aa" interpretation. These include the following categories: SMMC/MRCA Lands Resource Protection Projects: Projects which facilitate protection of wildlife, habitat, and historical/archaeological resources on agency -managed parklands, including habitat restora- tion projects in urban or rural parks. ,SMMC/MRCA Lands Vegetation Management and Fire Sal&V. Projects which facilitate fire safety and any required fuel modification zones on Conservancy and/or MRCA owned or managed parklands. SMMC/MRCA Visitor -Serving Projects: Projects which provide for enhanced visitation, urban accessibil- ity, and safety to SMMCMRCA owned or managed parks (including signage, restrooms, parking, trail building or repairs, etc.). This includes new projects to implement statutory requirements to provide better accessibility under u the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). X a 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 enhance knowledge, appreciation, and enjoyment of the natural environment, open space, parklands, and rivers < 117 State of California Resources Agency TRAIL PROJECT RESOURCE VALUE TPI: 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. 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 AESTHETIC VALUE SAI: The project provides aesthetic features (e.g., outstanding design, art 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. HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESTORATION VALUE HCI: 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/cultural restoration project is an integrated component of a larger 2 park improvement project. URBAN PARK VALUE UPI: 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 is Z €J UP3: The project enhances or restores a substantial -sized (>2.0 acres) - sample of a native ecosystem/plant community surrounded by an 119 State of California Resources Agency Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern Los Anaeles Count —Plants Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Alkali Mariposa Lily. Calochortus striatus of concern None hanisma _Species Aphanisma blitoides Species of concern None Bailona Cinquefoil ` Potentilla multl'u a Species of concern None Beach S ectacle od Dith rea maritime Species of concern Threatened Big Bear Valley Woollypod Astragalus leucolobus of concern None Blair's Ste hanomena _Species Ste hanomeria blaidi of concern None Blochman's Dudleya —Species Dudleya blochmaniae ssp blochmaniae Species of concern None raunton's Milk -Vetch Astragalus brauntonii Endangered None Bright Green Dudleya Dudle a vixens of concern ' None California Dissanthelium —Species Dissanthelium califomicum Species of concern None California Orcutt Grass Orcuttie califomica . Endangered Endangered Catalina island Mountain- Mahogany Cercocarpus traskiae Endangered Endangered oulter's Goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp cool- ted Species of concern None Davidson's Bush Mallow Malacothamnus davidsonii Species of concern None Desert C m terns CkMoPterus deserticola_Species of concern None Guadalupe Island Lupine Lu inus guadalupensis Species of concern None all's Monardella Monardella macrantha ssp hallii None None Intermediate Mariposa Lily Calochortus weedh var inter; medius Species of concern None Island Rush -Rose Helianthernurn greenei Threatened None Island Snapdragon Galvezia s eciosa of concern None Island Tree Poppy —Species Dendromecon herfordii var rhamnoides Species of concern None Johnston's Buckwheat Eriogonum microthecum var ohnstonii Species of concern None Lemon Lily Lilium pa Species of concern None Los Angeles Sunflower Helianthus nuttaltii ssp arishi ecies of concern None L on's Pentachasta Pentachaeta 1 onii Endan ered Endangered Many -Flowered Phacelia Phacelia floribunda of concern None Many -Stemmed Dudleya —Species Dude a multicaulis Species of concern None Marcescent Dudleya Dudleya cymose ssp marces- ceps Threatened Rare Mason's Neststraw S /ocline masonfi—Species of concern None Mexican Fiannelbush Fremontodendron mexicenum Endangered Rare t. Gleason Indian Paintbrush Castillo a gleasonfl Species of concern Rare Nevin's Barberry Bemeds nevinii Endangered Endangered Nevin's Woolly Sunflower Eno , h Ilum nevinii—Species of concern None Palmer's Grapplinghook Har a onella Dalmed of concern None Palmer's Mariposa lily —Species Calochortus palmed var palmed Species of concern None Parish's Brittlescale A triplex parishfi—Species of concern None Parish's Gooseberry Ribes divaricatum var arishii Species of concern None ; Parry's S ineflower Chorizantheparryivarparryi Speclesofconcern None' Peirson's Morning -Glory Cal ste is peirsonii—Species of concern None Plummer's Mariposa Lily Calochortus plummerae Opecies of concern None C A: 4 121 State of California Resources Agency Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern Los Anaeles Countv--Plants Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State status Scalloped Moonwort Bot chium crenulatum of concern None Short -Joint Beavertail _Species Opunda basilaris var brachy- clada Species of concern None Short -Lobed Broom -Rape Orobanche parishii ssp brach ioba Species of concern None Slender Mariposa Lily Calochortus clavatus var racilis Species of concern None Slender -Homed S ineflower Dodecahema /e toceras Endangered Endanored South Coast Saltscale Atdplex Pacifica of concern None Southern island Mallow —Species Lavatera assurgentiflors ssp labs Species of concern None Southern Tarplant Hemizonia parryi ssp australis Species of concern None Spreading Navarretia Navarretia fossalls Threatened None Thorne's Royal Larkspur Delphinium vadegatum ssp thornei Species of concern None Thread -Leaved Brodiaea Brodiaea filifolia Threatened Endangered rask's Cryptantha Cotpianthe traskiae of concern None Ventura Marsh Milk -Vetch —Species Astragalus pycnostachyus var lanosissimus Species of Concern Candidate Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern Los Anaeles Countv—Animals Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Snails and Slugs Catalina Mountainsnail Radiocentrum (=oreohelix) avalonense Species of concern None Mimic Tryonia (=California Brackishwater Snail Tryonia imitator Species of concern None San Clemente Island snail Micra►ronta gabbi ecies of concern None Grasshoppers, Katydids, and Crickets Santa Monica Shieldback Katydid Neduba longipennis pecies of concern one Beetles Dorothy's El Segundo Dune Weevil Trigonoscuta dorothea doro- thea Species of concern None Globose Dune Beetle Coelus globosus of concern None Lange's El Segundo Dune Weevil —Species Onychobaris langei Species of concern None Sandy Beach Tiger Beetle Cicindela hirticollis gravida ISpecies of concern None .. Butterflies and Moths El Segundo Blue Butterfly Eu hilotes battoides all ni Endangered None Henne's Eucosman'Moth Eucosma hennei—Species of concern None Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly Glaucopsyche lygdamus pa- losverdesensis Endangered None Wandering (=Saltmarsh) .,,,,Sldpper Panoquina errans Species of concern None Fish rro o Chub Gila orcutti Species of concern None Mohave Tui Chub Gila bicolor mohavensis Endangered Santa Ana Sucker _Endangered Catostomus santaanae Threatened None Southern Steelhead _Proposed Oncorh nchus m kiss irideus Endangered None Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius newber i Endangered None El] St a z L LL d 123 State of California Resources Agency Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Tehachapi Pocket Mouse Perognathus aiticola inexpec- Species of concern None tatus Source: California Dept. of Fish & Game and Los Angeles Almanac The only known populations of Unarmored Threespine Stickleback, a fish, are In the Santa Clara River's drainage to the Los Angeles River and In San Diego County. ' The Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, originally found only in Palos Verdes Peninsula, was thought extinct until it was rediscovered In San Pedro in 1994. The El Segundo Blue Butterfly is found only on two acres on a Chevron Oil Refinery and at the western end of LAX. The Gray Whale migrates along the west coasts of Mexico, the U.S., and Canada. It is federally protected. X Z. CL 1.25 State of California Resources Agency 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 horned 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 scrub 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. 18) 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 umbrella 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 sites occupied by species ranked as critically imperiled globally (G1) or imperiled globally (G2) by The Nature Conservancy and the Association for Biodiversity Information. Examples of Gl species in the study region are Munz's onion (Allium munzib, slender -horned spineflower (Dodw4hema lc�toce w), Laguna beach dudleya (DuaYeyrzsolo- nifera), Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta Onn), and Lange's El Segundo dune weevil (Onychoba s langet). 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 of their habitats are isolated; hence, they would be neglected by a conservation plan focused largely on riparian networks or wild- x life corridors. Importantly, because these species are mostly narrow endemics, their global survival depends is on conservation actions taken in the watersheds. In addition, many narrowly restricted Gl and G2 plant Lu communities —for example, walnut forest and valley needlegrass grassland —occur in the watersheds and require protection. t27 State of California Resources Agency Common Ground from the Mountains to the Sea October 2001 10 . Page ii, 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. rmc.ca.gov Page 35, Replace 3rd 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 filed 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 three -person Watermaster (the San Gabriel River Watermaster) which accounts for all water passing through Whittier Narrows each year 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 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.