section one background - home page | …. 22 background ... colorado river aqueduct, beginning the...

21B A C K G R O U N D

Santa Ana Integrated Watershed Plan Environmental and Wetlands Component

21

A. Introduction

WHEREVER YOU ARE ON EARTH, youare in a watershed. Practically speaking, thewatershed is the most useful unit for land usemanagement and conservation actions of allsorts: it follows the way nature organizes anddivides the landscape. Beyond that, findingyour watershed, even in an urban environment,seems to be a very good pathway to deeperunderstanding of your place in the world andwhere it is you call home. The more you studywatersheds, the more you see the many waysthat life and the land are related.

�Christopher M. Richard and Janet M. SowersCalifornia Coast and Ocean, Spring 1997

What Is the Santa Ana WatershedProject Authority�s Focus?

The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority(SAWPA) was founded in 1974 as a Joint PowersAuthority focusing on water supply and water

quality. The agency subsequently expanded itsfocus to include habitat restoration andenhancement. SAWPA recognizes that aninvestment in green infrastructure is crucial tothe protection of water supply and water quality.A primary catalyst behind SAWPA�s efforts wasProposition 13, also known as the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000. Proposition 13included the Southern California IntegratedWatershed Program (SCIWP)(California Water Code Sections 79104.20through 79104.34), which provided $235 millionfor local assistance grants to be administered bySAWPA. This funding, which was contingentupon appropriation by the State Legislature tothe State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB), was to be spent on projects torehabilitate and improve the Santa AnaWatershed.

Upper Newport Bay Regional ParkPhoto courtesy of EIP Associates

SECTION ONE

BACKGROUND

22 B A C K G R O U N D


22

South Fork of the Santa Ana RiverPhoto courtesy of SAWPA

Prado WetlandsPhoto courtesy of SAWPA

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve ParkPhoto courtesy of EIP Associates

Why Is SAWPA Doing This Plan?

It is generally recognized by watershedparticipants that there are many impressiveprojects underway or under development withinthe Santa Ana Watershed. However, while mostproject proponents are very familiar with theirlocal planning area, very few groups orindividuals within the Watershed understand orare aware of the myriad projects underwaythroughout the entire watershed. In general, as

one expands outward from a planner �sgeographic area of expertise, his or herknowledge grows less certain about projects andimportant issues. Given the large geographic areaof the Santa Ana Watershed, few understand theentire system. This document is meant toprovide a snapshot of projects watershed-wideby identifying as many projects as possiblerelating to wetlands, recreation, trails, open space,invasive species removal, habitat restoration, andeducation.



23

Figure 1-1 Santa Ana River Watershed Cities



24

Watershed participants provided input during a series of four scoping meetings.Shown here: Scoping Meeting Three at Citrus State Historic Park.Photo courtesy of EIP Associates

During scoping meetings, attendees participated in facilitatedsmall group sessions.Photo courtesy of EIP Associates

The SAWPA Commission allocated $30 millionof the aforementioned $235 million into anenvironmental/habitat fund to be spent onremoval of invasive species such as Arundodonax, habitat restoration, and native andtreatment wetlands. A major component of theSCIWP is habitat restoration through the removalof invasive plant species; accordingly, the SAWPACommission allocated $20 million of theenvironmental/habitat fund to the Santa AnaWatershed Arundo Removal Program. SAWPAplans to use this Environmental and WetlandComponent of the Integrated Watershed Plan asa basis to allocate the remaining funding millionin the environmental/habitat fund of the SCIWP.This funding, up to $10 millon, will financehabitat restoration projects that specifically donot serve as mitigation for any otherdevelopment projects.

The Santa Ana Integrated Watershed Plan,Environmental and Wetlands Component willserve four primary functions. First, it will serveas a tool for the SAWPA Commission to allocateup to $10 million in SCIWP funding notedabove. Second, the plan identifies futurefunding needs for green infrastructure. Third,the plan will help identify partneringopportunities throughout the Watershed tofacilitate completion of good projects for theWatershed. Fourth, the plan will serve as aplatform for watershed-wide planning, andwould allow readers and users to makeconnections with other project proponents.Within a few years, the goal is that planners andother watershed participants will recognize thatthe plan is out of date due to the number of newprojects, partners, and funding opportunitiesthat should be included. The 2002 Santa AnaIntegrated Watershed Plan, Environmental andWetlands Component is not intended to be a finaldocument. Rather, this plan will be a livingdocument to adapt and update over time.

SAWPA and their consultants hosted a series offour scoping meetings in July and August 2002 todetermine the scope of the plan and to facilitatethe gathering of �green� watershed projects.Over 350 watershed participants were invited tothe meetings including SAWPA memberagencies, regulatory agencies, nongovernmentalorganizations, watershed citizens, cities,counties, and special districts. Refer to AppendixA for meeting notes and attendance lists.



25

Anza�s expedition leaving Tubac. Detail of an oil painting by Cal Peters.Photo courtesy of the National Park Service

The scoping meetings were very successful andgarnered much interest in the Environmentaland Wetland Component of the IWP.Participants presented projects and the purposeof their organizations to the large group.Meeting attendees completed SCIWP forms forproject information and project informationforms for those projects in need of furtherplanning and/or future funding. Participantsbroke into small groups with a facilitator todiscuss and identify important ideas. Smallgroups answered questions such as the following:

! Are there any missing components ortopics you would like to see addressed inthis plan?

! Are you aware of any key resourceconservation areas (geographic locations)that we should identify in the plan?

! What do you see as the benefits of thisplan (e.g., collaboration/fundingpartners/specific improvements to theWatershed�)?

! What obstacles do you face inimplementing good watershed projectssuch as trails, parks, habitat restoration,wetlands, open space acquisitions, (e.g.,lack of funding, need for more partners,communication, etc.)?

The input gathered from over 150 participantshelped shape the Santa Ana IntegratedWatershed Plan, Environmental and WetlandsComponent. Many participants felt thatmeetings should continue on a more regularbasis to provide a means by which environmentalresources and future projects could be addressedon a watershed-wide level.

B. Historical ContextSunday, March 20, 1774: At half past eight inthe morning we set forth�keeping on our righta high, snow-covered mountain, which drainsinto the lake mentioned.�We came to a valleysimilar to that of San José, which likewise hasa good river, to which was given the name ofSanta Anna.�Juan Batista De Anza, upon viewing the Santa Ana

River and Valley(excerpt from his 1774 expedition journal)

Introduction

Historically, the Watershed includedapproximately 3,900 miles of streams, bothperennial and intermittent, that could supportvarious aquatic resources, and only one naturalfreshwater lake of significant size, Lake Elsinore.The Santa Ana River and its tributaries wouldhave been intermittent with little or no flow atsome locations in the alluvial valleys during thesummer and fall dry season, particularly during



26

Advertisement from 1931 explaining the need to build the Colorado RiverAqueduct to bring water to Southern California.

Historic ad for a Corona citrus company.

years with below average precipitation (USGS1998). The consumptive demand for water foragricultural purposes and local domestic supplydates to the Spanish Mission Period in the SantaAna River watershed. As early as 1820, MillCreek was diverted into the Mill Creek Zanja bythe Mission Fathers, to provide water to the tractof land that would later become known as OldSan Bernardino.

Other early irrigation efforts involved settlers andfarmers digging trenches and channels by handto divert the natural flow of the River,constructing crude dams out of sand and brush.Since that time as consumptive demandincreased for various purposes, so did thenumber of diversions from the Santa Ana Riverand its tributaries. Eventually, as the number ofsettlers increased, small-scale diversionsoverwhelmed the River�s flow and all of thesurface flows were taken (SWRCB 1993).Diminishing surface flows have compounded

problems for the region�s groundwater. Assurface flows ebbed, groundwater rechargedecreased due to a reduction in available waterand opportunities for percolation. Concurrently,

reduced surface flows prompted settlers andfarmers to begin pumping groundwater to meetneeds of agricultural operations.

As urbanization near watercourses increased, thedemand for flood control measures to protectlives and property also increased, eventuallyleading to such large flood control facilities asPrado and Seven Oaks dams. Eventually, thestrong agricultural-based economy was able tosupport the continuation of large-scale State andfederal water importation projects such as theColorado River Aqueduct, beginning the region�sreliance on imported water. Currently, water

agencies within the Santa Ana Watershed areworking to reduce that dependence by�drought-proofing� the region. WeaningSouthern California off of imported water duringdrought years will be no easy feat; drought-proofing involves storing enough water towithstand a major statewide drought cycle of upto three years without having to resort to waterimports from elsewhere in California. Even aswater has grown scarcer, urban growth hascontinued, heightening the challenge for waterresource planners in the coming years.



27

South Fork of the Santa Ana RiverPhoto courtesy of United States Geological Survey

Natural HistorySunday, December 31, 1775: In the first andsecond range of hills and their canyons, whichare of moist earth, I saw a great abundance ofrosemary and other fragrant plants, and in thesecond long canyon many sunflowers inbloom, and grapevines and wild grapes of suchgood stock that it looked like a vineyard.

The Santa Ana River is a stream with plentifulwater and a very deep channel�it is so deepthat it has very few and difficult fords becauseof the rapidity with which the water runs�Thewaters of the River are very crystalline andbeautiful. It arises in the Sierra Nevada, andruns from northeast to southwest with somevariation and declination to the west, until itreaches the sea, and most of the way it runsboxed in between hills.

�Excerpt from Journal of Father Fontdescribing the Santa Ana River and Valley

The natural consequence of the consumptive useof water described above was that much lesswater was available to fish and other aquaticresources, and the quality of the water remainingwas reduced. The physical diversion of waterfrom a stream, even temporarily, and the needfor flood control, usually included the building ofa dam completely or partially across a stream.The physical blocking of the stream, coupled

with the withdrawal of water has resulted in oneor more of the following effects on aquaticresources of the Santa Ana River watershed(Moyle 2002):

! Blocking or altering local movements andmigrations of aquatic resources;

! Alterations of water temperatures andflow patterns;

! Entrainment of aquatic resources intodiversion facilities and canals;

! Creation of reservoirs that favor exoticspecies;

! Altering upstream stream reaches; and

! Altering downstream estuaries.

These effects have dramatically altered ecosystemfunction of the Santa Ana Watershed and havechanged species composition. Refer to AppendixF for a listing of sensitive species potentiallyoccuring within the Santa Ana Watershed. Thisincludes State and federal endangered,threatened, and rare species listed in theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game�sNatural Diversity Database as of July 2002.

Chino HillsPhoto courtesy of SAWPA

1 Also cited as the Pacific brook lamprey (Lampetra pacifica).2 Anadromous = fish species that move from the ocean to freshwater toreproduce and whose offspring return from freshwater to the ocean to rear toreproductive age.



28

1 Also cited as the Pacific brook lamprey (Lampetra pacifica).2 Anadromous = fish species that move from the ocean to freshwater toreproduce and whose offspring return from freshwater to the ocean to rear toreproductive age.

Loss of property from historical flooding events, such as the homes andagricultural land shown here in the 1938 flood, prompted dam construction.Photo courtesy of California Coastal Conservancy

Historically, the Santa Ana River contained alimited fish fauna of only eight species of nativefreshwater fishes (refer to Table 1-1). Of theseeight, the rainbow trout had a resident form andan anadromous1 form (called steelhead). Thethreespine stickleback is believed to have hadthree forms as listed in Table 1-1.

The Santa Ana River has historically providedhabitat for many amphibian species includingthe arroyo toad (Bufo californicus), the westerntoad (Bufo boreas), the southwestern toad (Bufomicroscaphus), the coast range newt (Tarichatorosa torosa), the Arboreal salamander (Aneideslugubris), the Pacific slender salamander

(Batrichoseps pacificus), the black-bellied slendersalamander (Barachoseps nigriventris), the large-blotched salamander (Ensatina eschscholtziklauberi), the California-red-legged frog (Ranaaurora draytonii), the mountain yellow-leggedfrog (Rana muscosa), the western spadefoot(Scaphiopus hammondii), the California treefrog(Hyla cadaverina), and the Pacific chorus frog(Pseudoacris regalia). Many of these amphibiansare highly specialized and adapted to the uniquehydrologic conditions intermittently present inSouthern California and the Santa AnaWatershed. Historic flood events caused byprecipitation in the high mountains, allowed for

the development of breeding and overwinteringhabitats, which many of the amphibian specieshave adapted to utilize. Dam construction andchanges in land use patterns in the last 70 yearshave altered the hydrologic patterns in the SantaAna River watershed, and have changed thehabitats used by these native amphibian species.

With respect to reptiles, the Santa Ana riversystem has provided habitat for several types ofaquatic and semi-aquatic species including thesouthwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorataPallenscens), the south coast garter snake

Table 1-1 Fishes Historically Present in the Santa Ana Watershed



29

(Thamnophis sirtalis ssp.), the two-striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii), the westernaquatic garter snake (Thamnophis couchi), and themountain garter snake (Thamnophis eleganselegans). None of these species is protected under

the Endangered Species Act; however, many ofthem are California Department of Fish andGame species of �Special Concern.�

Historically, the Santa Ana Watershed providedhabitat to a large range of riparian bird species.Three of these species are now federallythreatened or endangered: the least Bell�s vireo(Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willowflycatcher (Empidonax traillii), and bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Grinnell and Miller(1944) characterized the least Bell�s vireo as oneof the most common riparian birds throughoutthe state. Likewise, all three resident subspeciesof the willow flycatcher were once consideredwidely distributed and common withinCalifornia wherever suitable habitat existed.Unitt (1987) concluded that the southwesternwillow flycatcher was once fairly common in theLos Angeles basin, the San Bernardino/Riversidearea, and San Diego County.

The Santa Ana Watershed continues to provide habitat for a wide range of birdspecies, including the bald eagle, which frequents the Big Bear Mountains.Photo courtesy of U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.



30

HISTORY OF WATERSHED SETTLEMENTSanta Ana River Timeline

10,000 B.C.1768 A.D.

10,000 B.C.-1768 A.D. Native American Period: NativeAmericans have inhabited the Santa Ana Watershed for at least12,000 years- perhaps longer- based on artifacts in the Calicoarea (San Bernardino). Native Americans used the Santa AnaRiver as a source of food and water, and did not raise crops orpractice agriculture or irrigation. Within the past 3,000 years,the Serranos occupied the foothills of the San BernardinoMountains, the Gabrielenos lived in the West Valley, and theLuisenos occupied an area south of Mt. San Jacinto.

1769-1833 Mission Period: European settlement of watershed began, centered aroundconversion of Native Americans to Christianity. The Spanish brought knowledge ofaqueducts to California, introducing the practice of irrigation to the State.

Notable Dates within the Mission Period:

July 1769: The first party of European explorers reached boundaries of present dayOrange County. Members of the expedition named the region �The Valley of SaintAnne� (Santa Ana).

1772: Captain Pedro Fages, military comandante of the Spanish Alta California,became the first European known to set eyes upon the San Bernardino Mountains.

January 1, 1776: The first party of colonists to come overland to the Pacific Coastcrossed the Santa Ana River. Led by Lt. Col. Juan Bautista de Anza, the group of242 men, women, and children camped near theRiver. The group reportedly proceeded north to found the City of San Francisco.

1834-1850�s Rancho Period: Large portions of landwere settled by private ranchers. Floodplaindevelopment began in Santa Ana Watershed.Settlers began diverting water from the Santa AnaRiver for irrigation of gardens. The City of SantaAna was founded.

1850�s Pioneer Settlers: Mormon colonists settled near MillCreek, establishing agricultural and logging operations andfounding the City of San Bernardino in 1854. Settlers divertedwater from Mill, Lytle, and Warm Creeks. Water was divertedfrom Santa Ana River for domestic use by a colony later tobecome Anaheim.

Sources:Santa Ana Watershed Profile, California Coastal Conservancy, http://eureka.regis.berkeley.edu.wrpinfo/

Santa Ana River Basin Plan, 1995. State Water Resources Control Board.

1769-1833

1772

1769

1776

1834-1850

1850



31

1862:The catastrophic flood of 1862 caused over 4 feet of water to floodAnaheim, killing 200,000 cattle and altering the course of the SantaAna River from a well-defined course to a fan of several channels.

1873:The U.S. Department of Agriculture sent two small navel orange trees to Riversideresident Eliza Tibbets. Those trees, growing in near perfect soil and weatherconditions, produced an especially sweet and flavorful fruit�and changed thehistory of southern California.

1881:Completion of railroad lines bySouthern Pacific and Santa Fecompanies increased opportunities formigration to California, causing anincrease in population and increasingthe need for further irrigation.

1938-1941

1862

1881

1873

Late 1800�s to early 1900�s:Efforts to promote citrus ranching broughthundreds of would-be citrus barons to southernCalifornia for the �second Gold Rush.� In 1889,Orange County was carved from Los AngelesCounty, named for its famous citrus groves. By1895, Riverside, fueled by citrus money, becamethe wealthiest city in the nation per capita.1938-1941:

The great flood of 1938 claimed 50 lives and caused a great deal of damage within theWatershed, particularly to the City of Riverside. In response to the flood, the Army Corpsof Engineers completed Prado Dam in 1941. The construction of Prado Dam allowed formore urbanization within the flood plain.

1969:The most recent major flood of theSanta Ana River claimed five lives andan estimated $30 million in propertydamage.

1969- present.River has become effluent dominated, with mostdry weather flow between the mountains andPrado Dam diverted for consumptive uses ordecreased due to groundwater pumping. AsWatershed population has increased, so haswastewater flow and therefore river flow. Waterquality is steadily improving due to improvedtechnology, regulation, and planning.

1800-1900

1969

1969-PRESENT



32

Historic view of the City of RiversidePhoto courtesy of USGenNet

SAWPA representatives at the annual Santa Ana River Symposium, April 2002Photo courtesy of EIP Associates

Planning History

The Santa Ana Watershed is renowned for itsinnovative solutions to water supply and waterquality dilemmas, particularly through uniquepartnerships. Indeed, during the early 1970s, theSanta Ana Watershed was considered to have oneof the most comprehensive watershed planningdocuments in the world. However, manyrelationships between current watershedpartners have not always been so harmonious.Prior to 1969, water use and rights within theSanta Ana Watershed were subject to muchlitigation and strife. Water quantity was theprimary concern of early conflicts and the issuewas resolved by legal judgments.

Water Wars

Litigation over water rights within the Watershedbegan as early as 1932, when Orange Countyranchers represented by Orange County WaterDistrict (OCWD) initiated legal action againstupstream interests. A series of lawsuits followed;however, a satisfactory resolution was notreached until 1969. The Santa Ana StipulatedJudgment provided a physical solution to wateruse conflict: water users in the Orange Countyarea have rights, as against all upper basin users,to receive a minimum average supply base flowat Prado, in addition to all storm flow reaching

Prado Dam. Almost 40 years in the making, thissolution was exceptional because it guaranteeda minimum flow to downstream users insteadof limiting the consumption of upstream waterusers.

SAWPA Formation

As a result of the litigation and stipulatedjudgment to ensure the supply of good qualitywater to Orange County, the Chino BasinMunicipal Water District (CBMWD), WesternMunicipal Water District (WMWD), SanBernardino Valley Municipal Water District(SBVMWD), and Orange County Water District(OCWD) determined that planning the use ofwater supplies in the Watershed would bebeneficial to all water users. The Santa AnaWatershed Project Authority (SAWPA) wasformed in 1974 as a joint exercise of powersauthority. SAWPA�s original members were thefour water districts, CBMWD, WMWD,SBVMWD, and OCWD, since they have theprimary responsibility of managing, preserving,and protecting groundwater supplies in the SantaAna Basin. Eastern Municipal Water District(EMWD) joined as SAWPA�s fifth memberagency in 1984. The Chino Basin MunicipalWater District is now known as Inland EmpireUtilities Agency (IEUA).



33

Originally, the primary concern of watershedagencies was water quantity. As each memberagency looked toward the future, they realizedthat water quantity was not the only issue ofconcern within the Watershed; declining waterquality posed a threat that no district couldhandle alone. The districts suspected thatdeclining water quality could pose a greaterdanger than overdraft and that without planningand project implementation to control theproblem, the gradual accumulation of pollutionin the basin could cause a total devaluation ofarea water supplies. In the early 1970s, theRegional Water Quality Control Board contractedwith SAWPA to develop the Basin Plan for theSanta Ana Watershed (RWQCB 1993). This long-range plan included both regulatory programsand projects. The regulatory portion wasrecommended to the Regional Water QualityControl Board and was largely adopted by thatagency in the form of standards. At the time, theBasin Plan for the Santa Ana River was consideredthe most comprehensive water quality protectionprogram of any river basin in the world, largelydue to the active, ongoing interest andparticipation by the member water districts.Beginning in the 1970s, SAWPA constructed theSanta Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) totransport brine from inland areas to the PacificOcean, improving River water quality.

Tri-County Conservation League�sOrigin

In the early 1960s the League of Women Votersof Riverside conducted a study of the Santa AnaRiver environment identifying its purpose andmission, and found that the river should be savedin its wild state. This finding was in totalopposition to the over 400 local, State and federalstudies which all determined the river had littleor no worth economically. The Army Corps hadplans already drawn up to concrete the riverbottom for flood control as they had done to theLos Angeles River. This was not a newphenomenon, as indeed, other rivers in southernCalifornia were also subject to similar proposals.

However, some members of the community werestrongly opposed to the idea of losing the naturalfunctions of the Santa Ana River to flood controland utility purposes. In 1966, three Leaguewomen by the name of Ruth Bratten (now RuthAnderson Wilson), Martha McLean (nowdeceased), and Kay Black, formed anenvironmental conservation group called the Tri-County Conservation League to fight forpreservation of the Santa Ana River.

�Keep the river with its soft bottom forrecreational use when it is not in floodconditions. Let the natural effects of floodingbe accommodated so it can bring new soil andnew seeds that create young forage for wild life.Widened banks slow the speed of floodwatersletting the silt be deposited. Keep the waterhere in the river to refill our underground waterreservoirs.�

�Ruth Anderson WilsonTri-County Conservation League�s Primary Message

Many environmental organizations were showcasedat the annual CSUSB Environmental Expo.Photo courtesy of EIP Associates



34

The three women attended City and Countyhearings regularly, made presentations to manyinterest groups, and quickly gained the originalsupport of 78 community groups who alsobelieved the River should stay natural. TheRiverside County Board of Supervisors and theirFlood Control Districts were often at odds withthese vocal women who then continued to builda throng of more supporters in favor of savingthe River with the help of the local newspaper. By1970, the Tri-County Conservation League hadbecome the leading environmental organizationin Riverside County.

With the help of Pete Dangermond, thenRiverside County Parks Director, the drift in thepolitical tides began to change in favor ofwildlands conservation. Saving of the riverfollowed. Small victories for public lawreinforced the validity of the Tri-CountyConservation League as an organizationrepresenting the public�s interest.

In the words of Ruth Anderson Wilson, ��Thiswas a time of women coming out into theirown�It was reflective of a changing society. Idon�t know if this could have happened inanother era.� As a result of the Tri-CountyConservation League�s work in combating theproposed concrete channelization of the SantaAna River as well as the successful relocation ofproposed primary utility lines, the River remainsnatural to this day from Barton Flats in SanBernardino County, through Riverside County tothe ocean in Orange County. It is almost entirelyin public ownership now and is available forhiking, horseback riding, camping, and otherrecreational uses when the river is not in flood,realizing the dreams of the three �housewives� inthe mid-1960s.

The natural condition of the River also had apositive effect on how the Counties of San

Bernardino and Orange viewed potentialrecreational uses of the River. The volunteers ofthe Tri-County Conservation League continue tobe dedicated the role of �watchdog� of the River.The organization�s bylaws have acted as a modelfor many environmental organizations that havefollowed after them. The Santa Ana River�s statusas a primarily wild river is due largely to theefforts of the Tri-County Conservation Leaguemembers and the supporting public.

During the last three decades, conservation basednonprofit groups and other organizations activein the Santa Ana Watershed, such as the SantaAna River Watershed Group, Sierra Club,Riverside Lands Conservancy, Audubon Society,The Nature Conservancy, Trails 4 All, SanTimoteo Badlands Coalition, SurfriderFoundation, and Wildlands Conservancy havetaken a more active role in land use and waterresource planning. These groups continue tohave a strong voice within the Watershed today,and serve as the project proponent for manybeneficial habitat restoration and land acquisitionprojects.

Southern California IntegratedWatershed Program

A gradual and steady shift has been occurringwithin the Santa Ana Watershed wherebymember and other agencies are focusing uponhabitat conservation and endangered species intandem with water quality and quantity. Indeed,today efforts are underway to form a foundation,based on a coalition of community leadersinterested in the long term sustainability of thewatershed: the Santa Ana Watershed Coalition.The year 2000 marked another landmark inWatershed history. Proposition 13, approved bythe electorate of the State of California on March7, 2000, contained the Southern CaliforniaIntegrated Watershed Program (SCIWP),



35

providing $235 million for local assistance grants.Upon appropriation by the State Legislature tothe State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB), the funding was allocated to the SantaAna Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) forprojects to rehabilitate and improve the SantaAna River Watershed. The Act specificallyidentified funding to the following types ofprojects:

1. Basin water banking

2. Contaminant and salt removal throughreclamation and desalting

3. Removal of nonnative plants, and thecreation of new open space and wetlands

4. Programs for water conservation andefficiency, and storm water capture andmanagement

5. Planning and implementation of a floodcontrol program to protect agriculturaloperations and adjacent property, and toassist in abating the effects of wastedischarges into waters of the State

SAWPA reviewed nearly 100 applications fromagencies wishing to obtain Prop 13 funding. BothSAWPA and the State Board ultimately approvedapproximately twenty-five projects. Themajority of these projects were for water supplyand water quality improvements, with about $30million set aside for environmental and habitatenhancement projects. Of these monies, $20million will fund the SCIWP Arundo RemovalProgram and as much as $10 million has beenreserved for the SCIWP Environmental andWetlands Program. Both the Arundo RemovalProgram and the Environmental and WetlandsProgram are discussed later in this document.

Two years after the approval of Proposition 13, onMarch 5, 2002, a second bond was passed thatwill greatly aid conservation within the Santa

Ana Watershed. The $2.6 billion Proposition 40,or �Park Bond,� will fund natural and historicalresource protection, including land acquisitionfor conservation. Proposition 40 funding, whichwas recently undergoing appropriation at thestate level, could fund millions in projects tobenefit the Santa Ana Watershed. This fundingmay supplement the Proposition 13 funding toserve as an excellent basis to support and financethe projects identified in the Environmental andWetlands Component of the Santa AnaIntegrated Watershed Plan. In addition,Proposition 50, which passed on the Fall 2002ballot, contains funding that should again fundthe integrated watershed planning projects in theSanta Ana Watershed.

C. Planning Context

Message to the PlanningCommunity

There has never been a better time than thepresent to welcome the planning community,including both public and private sectorplanners, to the table to advance the benefits ofplanning on a watershed scale and integratingwatershed thinking into the everyday planningprocess. Bringing together varied interests andagendas, this watershed planning process hasopened the doors to still greater partnerships,funding opportunities, connectivity, andincreased awareness of planning projects andopportunities both in the city next door and inthe community on the other side of theWatershed. This plan does not attempt to addressall watershed planning issues and concerns, norwill it fit together all existing plans and policies.Rather, the intent of this discussion is to capturea glimpse of many of these existing plans andpolicies as possible. Most importantly, the goal isto bring important messages from these



36

1 The Office of Planning and Research in conjunction with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Governor�s Office of Emergency Services,Regional Council of Rural Counties, and the California State Association of Counties has developed a publication entitled Hazard Mitigation: Fire Hazard Planningand the General Plan and has posted it here for public review and comment. This publication was designed as a �planning tool� to help concerned citizens, FireSafe Councils, planning professionals, and other interested parties develop local fire plans which can easily be incorporated into a city�s or county�s General Plan.http://www.opr.ca.gov/publications/PDFs/HazardMitigation.pdf

2 General Plan Guidelines, S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A GOVERNOR� S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, APPENDIX C, Floodplain Management,http://www.fpm.water.ca.gov/generalplan.html.

documents home to the Santa Ana Watershed interms of relevant needs within the planningcommunity.

As many cities and counties are in the process ofupdating their General Plans, fundingopportunities and greater collaboration betweenwater agencies, nongovernmental organizations,and local land use authorities are facilitatingbeneficial projects such as conservation, openspace, restoration, enhancement, connectivity,and multi-benefit approaches. In this way,planners are finding themselves in a new place�one of noting the quality of these projects andhow to get them through the regulatory planningprocess with more agreement and greater speed.Refer to Table 1-2 for a listing of applicable plansand policies.

State law is helpful. Conservation, Safety, OpenSpace and Land Use Elements are requiredelements of every General Plan in the State ofCalifornia. These Elements provide essentialcomponents of good watershed plans.

Newly proposed Fire Hazard Planning,1 as well asthe more traditional floodplain managementguidelines for preparation of General Plans,2

includes helpful explanations and instructions forplanners trying to make sense of how watershedplanning can be and should be integrated intoGeneral Plan Updates.

�Floodplain management may be approachedas a stand alone program or as one componentof the broader notion of watershed planning,which also includes objectives such asimproved water quality, erosion control, floodmanagement and habitat conservation andenhancement. Where possible, a communityshould take a broader watershed approach tofloodplain management, which would result ina coordinated regional approach to land useplanning and flood loss reductions. Whenincorporated into the general plan, either as anoptional element or as a section in the land use,open-space, conservation, or safety element,floodplain management principles will bereflected as long-term development policies.

Land use decisions directly influence thefunction of floodplains and may either reduceor increase potential flood hazards. Thefunctions of floodplains include, but are notlimited to, water supply, improved waterquality, flood and erosion control, and fish andwildlife habitat.�

Statewide Planning

The Resources Agency of the State of Californiais in the process of developing statewidewatershed planning guidelines. The CaliforniaResources Agency, in conjunction with theSWRCB, recently issued a draft report for theState Legislature titled �Addressing the Need toProtect California�s Watersheds: Working withLocal Partnerships,� available for downloading athttp://resources.ca.gov/watershedtaskforce/.The first recommendation to come out of thisreport was the development of statewide



37

watershed policy, including the establishment ofa single set of overall principles, policies, andflexible guidelines for watershed management. Itis unlikely that these policies will be adoptedprior to the completion of this document.Therefore, future iterations of the Santa AnaIntegrated Watershed Plan should considerstatewide watershed planning policies.

With authority granted through the CaliforniaWater Code and the Clean Water Act, the StateWater Resources Control Board (SWRCB) andthe nine regional Water Quality Control Boards(RWQCBs) are responsible for the protection andenhancement of California�s water quality. TheSWRCB sets statewide policy and works withthe RWQCBs to implement State and federal lawsand regulations. The Water Quality Control Planfor the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan),adopted by the Santa Ana RWQCB, forms thebasis for the Regional Board�s regulatoryprograms. The Basin Plan, developed in 1975,was revised in 1983 and 1995, and is currentlyundergoing revision (2002). Most policiesoutlined in the Basin Plan are addressed in theIntegrated Water Resources Plan rather than theEnvironmental and Wetlands Component of theSanta Ana Integrated Watershed Plan. The mostserious problem in the basin is the buildup ofdissolved salts in the groundwater and surfacewater, and associated adverse impacts.

Local and Regional Plans and Policies

The Environmental and Wetlands Component ofthe Santa Ana Integrated Watershed Plan hasbeen developed in accordance with otherapplicable local, State, and national plans andpolicies. On a fundamental level, the two mostclosely related plans are the Santa Ana IntegratedWatershed Plan Water Resources Componentand the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor Planning

Study. These two documents, both produced bySAWPA, address water quality and water supplyissues within the Santa Ana Watershed.

General Plans for each of the Watershed�s threemajor counties and 59 cities certainly form thecornerstones of policy development within theWatershed. The Orange County General Plan,San Bernardino County General Plan Update(undergoing revision soon), and RiversideCounty General Plan Update (Draft currently inpublic review) have each been reviewed duringpreparation for this document. One ultimategoal of the IWP is to allow watershed planningpolicies and goals a place in the general plans oflocal governments.

Riverside County Integrated Project

The County of Riverside is taking an integratedapproach to land use planning. RiversideCounty�s �Blueprint for Tomorrow� includes anupdate to the General Plan, the Community andEnvironmental Transportation AcceptabilityProcess (CETAP) and the Multi-Species HabitatConservation Plan.

Western Riverside CountyMultispecies Habitat ConservationPlan

In response to growing development pressuresand a regional understanding of the need forcoordinated conservation efforts, RiversideCounty is currently developing a MultispeciesHabitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). A draftwas circulated in March 2002 (available forreview at www.rcip.org), and a final version isexpected in Fall 2002. The primary goal of theplan is to coordinate the conservation ofapproximately 510,000 acres of open space, inaddition to coordinating special status speciesconservation efforts such as Santa Ana sucker



38

conservation. About 357,000 acres would bepreserved on existing publicly owned lands,while 153,000 acres would be acquired fromexisting private landowners. The core areareserves include oak woodland habitat and15,000 acres of coastal sage scrub. Thisacquisition of private lands has been analyzedthroughout watershed plan preparation in orderto coordinate watershed plan recommendationswith MSHCP strategy. Refer to the DraftMSHCP, which identifies priority acquisitionlands within Riverside County.

Recommendation: As projects are proposedthrough collaborative funding opportunities,watershed partners should utilize the MSHCP inmaking decisions regarding land acquisitionareas within Riverside County.

San Bernardino County General PlanUpdate

The County�s General Plan will be updated toreflect the results of Phase I scoping which definethe focus of the General Plan Update. Openspace and conservation elements will beaddressed with extensive public involvement toensure that these essential elements address allsignificant issues.

Recommendation: Watershed participantsshould invest resources to ensure that watershedinterests such as connectivity, trails, open space,biological diversity, water quality and supply,wetlands, are supported and included in theCounty of San Bernardino General Plan Update.

San Bernardino ValleywideMultispecies Habitat ConservationPlan (MSHCP)

The San Bernardino Valley MSHCP encompassesapproximately 500 square miles containing sixunique habitat types, six State endangeredspecies, thirteen federally endangered orthreatened species, and over fifty-three species ofspecial concern. Plan boundaries are the valleyportions of western San Bernardino with the SanBernardino and San Gabriel mountains as thenortherly and easterly boundaries, and thecounty boundary of Riverside, Orange, and LosAngeles counties to the south and west. Thework has been primarily focused on biologicaldata collection, using San Bernardino CountyNatural History Museum staff and their biologistto develop a habitat-based chronologicalinventory of resources. In addition, a subset ofthe planning effort has been compilation of afocused plan to adjust Delhi Sands flower-lovingfly habitat. The County Board of Supervisorsallocated seed money in early 2000, and thirteenof fifteen cities in the region joined in aMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) toprepare and help fund the MSHCP. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service is also participating inthe planning effort. As the group is currently notfunded, they are renegotiating with Fish &Wildlife Service regarding adequate funding andobtaining Board direction to proceed with theprogram.

Another planning effort underway is the LandManagement and Habitat Conservation Plan forthe Upper Santa Ana River Wash, directed by theSan Bernardino Valley Water ConservationDistrict in conjunction with two miningcompanies operating within the wash, the City ofHighland and the City of Redlands. Theplanning boundaries are from Route 30 on thewest to the Seven Oaks Dam in the Mill Creek



39

area on the east. The plan is promising and willbe cooperatively funded, primarily through theConservation District and the two miningcompanies. It will also address the potentialconflict between mining activity and habitatpreservation.

Orange County Central�CoastalNCCP Subregional Plan

This Natural Communities Conservation Plan(NCCP), approved in July 1996, establishes a37,380-acre reserve system that includessignificant areas of twelve of Orange County�smajor habitat types covering thirty-nine sensitiveplant and animal species.

Orange County Southern Subregion

The County of Orange and major South Countylandowners are preparing a subregional preserveplan (NCCP/HCP) and special area managementplan/master streambed alteration agreementthat will integrate wetlands and endangeredspecies permits for a 91,000-acre portion ofsouthern Orange County. An update to theCounty�s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance isalso underway. Public workshops discussingalternatives to be addressed for planning effortsin southern Orange County have beencompleted.

Irvine Ranch Land Reserve

The Irvine Ranch Land Reserve, totalingapproximately 50,000 acres extends from theCleveland National Forest to the shores of CrystalCove State Park. The reserve lands, prized fortheir beauty and unique geological and naturaldiversity include the 5,500-acre LimestoneCanyon and the �Sinks,� a striking formationfrequently compared to a miniature GrandCanyon, the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary,

Irvine�s Bommer and Upper Shady canyons,Quail Hill, and more than 7,000 acres of openspace and coastal sage scrub at the NewportCoast. The Jeffrey Recreation Center willultimately link the large open space reserves atIrvine�s northern and southern boundaries.

Conservation opportunities build on existingopen space in the General Plan, NCCP Reserve,and Cleveland National Forest.

Orange County has been the focus of numerous natural resource plannnigefforts. Shown here: Upper Newport Bay Regional Park in Orange County.Photo courtesy o f EIP Associates

At the headwaters of Laguna Canyon is a keylinkage to the Irvine Ranch�s giant SouthernOpen Space Reserve on Irvine�s southernboundary. Laguna Laurel, as the 1,400-acre siteis commonly known, also is a key linkage toLaguna Coast Wilderness Park, Crystal CoveState Park, and Aliso and Wood CanyonsWilderness Park.



40

Southern Ranch (Boundaries may have been altered)

Recommendation: Watershed stakeholdersshould continue to engage in watershed-wide(interjurisdictional) collaboration regardingconnectivity, trails, and other watershed needs sothat landscape linkages, public/privatepartnerships, acquisition, in-holdings, and publiccoastal access goals are realized in the County ofOrange General Plan Update and relatedplanning efforts.

Endangered Species Recovery Plans

Applicable recovery plans for listed specieswithin the Santa Ana Watershed have beenreviewed for the preparation of the Santa AnaIntegrated Watershed Plan, although mostspecies do not have recovery plans. TheRecovery Plan for the federally endangered DelhiSands flower-loving fly, published by theUSFWS in 1997, details the actions needed to de-list the species, including habitat preservation inseveral specific locations. A draft Conservation

Program for the federally threatened Santa AnaSucker has been prepared and has beenforwarded to the USFWS for approval.

Santa Ana River Canyon HabitatManagement Plan

The HMP has been prepared as a requirement ofthe Final Supplemental EIS on the Phase IIGeneral Design Memorandum for the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers Santa Ana River MainstemProject. The HMP addresses the floodplain andopen space wildlife habitat in Santa Ana Canyonbelow Prado Dam. The Plan provides forplanning and management continuity for thecanyon habitat from Prado Basin downstream toWeir Canyon Road.

Environmental Assessment for theSanta Ana Watershed Program

The Environmental Assessment for the SantaAna River Watershed Program, prepared by theOrange County Water District and the Santa AnaWatershed Association of Resource ConservationDistricts in 2000, describes potentialenvironmental effects from the WatershedProgram during years 2000 through 2002. Thisdocument was prepared for an EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) Grant, and includesscientifically based information on watershedhabitat, plant communities, species surveys,threatened and endangered species, and invasivespecies removal. This document serves as animportant reference document for anyonerequiring information about the biologicalresources of the Santa Ana River.

Waterfowl-Raptor Conservation Area

The City of Ontario, in conjunction withdevelopment of the Ontario Sphere of Influence,plans a 145-acre Waterfowl-Raptor Conservation



41

Area (WRCA) off-site adjacent to the PradoWetlands. Implementation of the project nearthe Prado Wetlands will increase effectiveness ofthe WRCA.

Lake Elsinore & San JacintoWatersheds Authority (LESJWA)

LESJWA has completed or is in the process ofcompleting a number of studies, including thefollowing:

! Lake Elsinore Feasibility Study

! Canyon Lake Feasibility Study

! Impacts of Alum Addition on WaterQuality in Lake Elsinore

! Impacts of Calcium Addition on WaterQuality in Lake Elsinore

! Laboratory and Limnocosm-ScaleEvaluations of Restoration Alternativesfor Lake Elsinore

! Restoration of Canyon Lake and Benefitsto Lake Elsinore Downstream

LESJWA currently has underway a ProgramEnvironmental Impact Report, which examinesrecycled water, wetlands treatment, in-laketreatments, aeration/oxygenation, andbiomanipulation projects. Also underway is anEnvironmental Impact Report that examinesbio-manipulation and fishery enhancement, aswell as in-lake treatments projects. The source ofmuch of the lake quality degradation has beentraced to contributions of nutrients from upperwatershed runoff. Various types of nonpointsource contributors have been identified in detailas part of an EPA Clean Lakes 314 Study. Majorcontributors of nonpoint source contributionsinclude agricultural cropland, dairies, feedlots,grazing, land development, and urban runoff.Solutions to controlling the nutrients carried byrunoff and sediment are both structural andnonstructural in nature and are described asfollows:

! Establish Best Management Practicesprogram for agricultural areas

! Create buffer strips along strategic upperwatershed locations

! Create detention ponds for dairy andfeedlot drainage

! Establish nutrient removing wetlandsalong drainage paths

! Implement sediment control structures

The SAWPA IWRP includes more descriptions of2010 projects aimed at meeting the LESJWAgoals.



42

Stormwater Quality Standards Study

The Orange County, Riverside County and SanBernardino County and other interested agencieshave discussed forming a group to work with theSanta Ana RWQCB in conducting additionalevaluations of stormwater quality standards.Under the Triennial Review List, a specific itemwas listed that proposes to consider Water CodeSection 13241 factors in relation to compliancewith water quality objectives during wet weather(especially costs and need for housing). OrangeCounty representatives indicated that duringconsideration of reissuance of the areawidestormwater NPDES permit for those parts ofOrange County within the Santa Ana Region, theco-permittees expressed concern about theirability to comply, and the costs of compliance,with established water quality objectives duringwet weather. The co-permittees expressedinterest in working with the RWQCB invalidating that the factors cited in Section 13241of the California Water Code, especially costs andthe need for housing in the area had been takeninto account in establishing the objectives. Afterfurther discussions of the common issuebetween all three counties in the Santa Ana Riverwatershed, it was decided by all that thisevaluation should be made on a watershed widebasis. Based on a strong watershed-wide supportfor this item, this item was moved to numberfour in priority on their Triennial Review List andthe RWQCB will be devoting one-half person-year to this effort.

In subsequent meetings, discussion focused onthe development of a request for proposals for aworkplan to conduct the study. Interests wereexpressed in a regional agency that was not a co-permittee to serve as the study administrator.Consequently, SAWPA was approached aboutserving as the administrator for a new task forceto conduct the study. In October 2002, SAWPABoard indicated their support for SAWPA toserve as the task force administrator.

RWQCB TMDL Development andMonitoring

The Regional Water Qualtiy Control Board isconducting intensive water quality monitoring toprovide data to develop new Total MaximumDaily Loads (TMDLs) in both the Chino Basinand the San Jacinto Watershed. SAWPA isserving as the neutral facilitator andadministrator for the RWQCB in coordinatingTMDL workgroups.

This San Jacinto TMDL work will providedevelopment of the nutrient TMDL project forLake Elsinore and Canyon Lake, the pathogenTMDL for Canyon Lake, and the toxics TMDLfor Lake Elsinore. The project would provide anunderstanding of the sources of nutrients forboth lakes, pathogens for Canyon Lake, andtoxics for Lake Elsinore. As a result, the projectwould provide the information necessary to helprestore the water quality in both lakes.

In Chino Basin, new TMDLs are being developedthrough intensive monitoring of pathogens toprotect downstream beneficial uses. NewTMDLs are scheduled to be incorporated into theRWQCB�s basin plan over the next year.



43

San Jacinto Watershed ManagementPlan

LESJWA, in conjunction with a just formednonprofit organization called the San JacintoWatershed Council, is conducting a watershedmanagement plan to develop implementationstrategies to control nutrients from the SanJacinto River Watershed that negatively impactdownstream water bodies such as Canyon Lakeand Lake Elsinore. The Plan is expected to becomplete by December 2003.

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersEcosystem Restoration FeasibilityStudy, Riverside and San BernardinoCounties

A feasibility study is being considered to reducedamages from invasion of Arundo donax andother nonnative invasive species in the Santa AnaRiver. Opportunities will be investigated forecosystem restoration, to improve surface waterquality, reduce sedimentation and erosion controlissues and provide recreational opportunitieswithin the Santa Ana basin.



44

section one background - home page | …. 22 background ... colorado river aqueduct, beginning the...

Documents