19—
RIPARIAN INITIATIVES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

IS A STATE MANDATE NECESSARY?

A State Mandate for Riparian Wetland System Preservation^[1]

Bruce E. Jones^[2]

Abstract.—Management of aquatic and riparian wetlands and floodplain resources generally, is fragmented, uneven, and often contradictory. State programs are reviewed and a sample local ordinance is presented. A California Floodplain Management Act is proposed.

Introduction

The panel on politics, legislation, and management programs is the most important topic of the California Riparian Systems Conference. Ecology, of course, makes the world go around, but it is politics—and its spawn, legislation—that either saves it or loses it. I will briefly review the highlights of a two-year research project prepared for three state agencies and a book in preparation^[3] which includes a critique of federal, state, and local government programs and laws affecting riparian and other wetland resources. Then, based on the insight gained by this study, I will propose state legislation I believe is necessary to create a workable management program in California.

At the federal level, substantial attention has been given to wetlands through the Section 10/404 permit program of the US Army Corps of Engineers (CE) and Presidential Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 of 1977 (floodplain and wetland protection). California has some useful legislative and administrative policies for the more aquatic wetlands, but, except for the Coastal Act,^[4] there are no implementable regulations for either aquatic or riparian wetlands and stream systems. At the local government level, it is fairly common to find general plan policies addressing wetlands and even riparian vegetation, usually in brief references, and, interestingly, there are more ordinances for streamside management than for aquatic wetlands. But again, coverage is uneven.

The overall picture is one of a jigsaw puzzle with a few pieces in place but with large gaps throughout.

Overview of California Agencies

California does not have anything approaching a watershed resources management program; we do not have comprehensive standards for uses affecting wetlands, riparian zones, hardwood trees (oaks and riparian trees), soil erosion, and floodplain zoning. The Coastal Act provides the only thorough treatment of wetlands/stream/riparian vegetation protection, but the "coastal zone" itself severs many watersheds, which limits thorough treatment. The California Wetlands Preservation Act of 1976^[5] provides some state policies, but offers no implementation procedures and penalties. A state executive order on floodplain management (1977) is poorly written and does not mention wetlands or riparian resources. Very briefly, some findings regarding the key agencies (out of over 30 reviewed) are as follows.

Bay Conservation and Development Commission

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the first coastal management agency in the nation, has been effective in regulating fill intrusions into San Francisco Bay and securing mitigation, often involving restoration of tidal action to diked areas. However, there are important bay wetlands and riparian systems outside of the agency's jurisdiction.

California Coastal Commission

The best wetland and stream policies in any federal or state law are found in the Coastal Act of 1976, especially PRC Section 30231 as follows:

[1] Paper presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981].

[2] Bruce E. Jones is Environmental Consultant, Environmental Projects, Sacramento, Calif.

[3] Jones, Bruce E., and Anne Sands. California marsh and stream conservation zones.

[4] Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 30000–30900.

[5] PRC Section 5810–5818.

The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes . . . shall be maintained and where feasible, enhanced through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.

Of particular interest is the Commission's document "Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas" (California Coastal Commission 1981). While this is a very useful tool which has improved management of these resources, it is lacking in the important issue of controlling adjacent developments and setting "buffer" zones. Too much emphasis has been put on establishing a 100-ft. nondevelopable buffer, and too little guidance is given on the design and siting of adjacent construction to minimize adverse impacts. The width of a buffer is not the key consideration. Buffers not only will often be compromised for political and economic reasons, but should be, if the design of the use makes it compatible with the adjacent wetland or stream zone. Having missed this key point, the commission's guidelines leave coastal wetlands and streams vulnerable to problems from future encroachments.

California Conservation Corps

A great untapped opportunity exists for applying the skill and energy of the California Conservation Corps (CCC) to an annually scheduled program of wetland and riparian zone restoration.

California Energy Commission

Interestingly, the California Energy Commission (CEC) has some of the best state policies regarding sensitive resource areas. Its organic law and regulations recognize the constraints of the Coastal Commission and BCDC. For the rest of the state, the key provision is PRC Section 25527, which provides protections (against the siting of energy facilities) for parks, reserves, "areas for wildlife protection, recreation, historic preservation, or natural preservation," and undeveloped estuaries. In addition, the commission "shall give the greatest consideration to the need for protecting areas of critical environmental concern."

California Department of Conservation

This agency could be one of the most useful in communicating the values of aquatic and riparian wetlands, but has not yet met this potential. In its useful (but never officially released) "California Soils: An Assessment" (California Department of Conservation 1979), the department ranks streambed erosion as the third most severe of eleven soil problems in the state, but fails to advocate retention of riparian vegetation as a protective measure. Nor does the otherwise excellent "Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook" (Animoto 1978) offer anything more than: "Vegetative lining reduces the erosion along the channels and provides for the filtration of sediment . . . and improves wildlife habitat."

California Department of Fish and Game

The work of the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is, of course, oriented toward saving both aquatic and riparian wetlands, but it has precious few tools to do so. Studies in both areas are on-going. Of special note is the DFG authority in Sections 1601–1606 of the California Fish and Game Code to execute Streambed Alteration Agreements for any activity that will divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of a river, stream, or lake. This is a nearly unique negotiation and mediation process in the nation, but its application to riparian vegetation is limited to what DFG personnel can achieve through negotiation in specific situations.

The DFG has not initiated a vigorous program to solicit land donations of riparian corridors. Nor has it sought to develop a program of restoration of riparian vegetation on public lands. These are two of the most basic elements of any start-up state riparian resources program.

California Department of Forestry

The California Department of Forestry (DF) timber harvesting program is almost exclusively oriented towards conifers. It has reported that only one percent of commercial harvesting is of broad-leafed or hardwood species. However, this figure is misleading because the true amount of cutting of these species cannot be determined since it is not regulated. They are in fact being overharvested and any percentage is immaterial; regulation is needed, either by adoption of administrative rules under the Forest Practices Act of 1973^[6] or amendments to it. The DF position is that the act, as it is now written, cannot be used to regulate riparian species. Therefore, amendments to the act should be sought by DF.

California Department of Health

Regulations by this department illustrate the competing interests that must be considered in riparian vegetation management. Thickets of streamside growth, especially blackberry tangles, in urban areas can harbor rats. The department is especially concerned with wetlands restoration and has several sets of guidelines for minimizing mosquitoes.

[6] PRC Section 4511–4628.

California Department of Parks and Recreation

The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) should develop policies that will classify its wetlands and riparian corridors as "natural preserves" (except those wetlands used for duck hunting), which would prevent intrusions of parking lots, campgrounds, and other intensive uses.

California Department of Water Resources

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has in recent years increased its documentation and policy support for preservation of riparian vegetation and instream retention of water (see "Policies and Goals for California Water Management for the Next 20 Years" [California Department of Water Resources 1982]). These policies do not always reach down to the day-to-day operations of DWR. Specifically, the management of DWR's own Maintenance Areas, which include some 300 mi. of waterways, should be redefined to require more sophisticated, selective treatments, including integrated pest management techniques, where possible.

DWR is further constrained by restrictive standards required by CE for so-called "project levees" (where federal funds have been used). There is wide opinion, even within DWR, that these levees can safely retain more vegetation than CE policy currently allows.

Office of Planning and Research

The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has failed to recognize the existence of wetlands and riparian resources within city limits in its "Urban Strategy Report" (Office of Planning and Research 1978), a situation especially unfortunate since the report is backed up by an executive order to state agencies to implement it. Even more worrisome is the superficial treatment of wildlife habitat preservation in general in the OPR "General Plan Guidelines" (Office of Planning and Research 1980). Detailed appendices for this document should be prepared with DFG to assist local planners in the technicalities of preserving habitat.

The Resources Agency

In September 1977 then-Secretary Huey Johnson released a most useful internal policy on wetlands preservation (amended in July 1980), but no effort has been made to strengthen it through incorporation into an executive order or legislation. Nor has, there been equal attention to development of a riparian policy for the agency. The document, for the excellent renewable resources program of the agency acknowledges the 91% loss of wetlands statewide but does not specifically mention riparian vegetation. However, it is reported that some of the Energy Resource Funds (ERF) being used to fund the program will go towards stream restoration. It would also be useful for the agency to produce a comprehensive biomass production policy that unifies the work and regulations of the DF, CEC, and DFG, specifically addressing the use and re-establishment of fast-growing riparian trees as a fuel source in selected areas.

State Coastal Conservancy

This agency's Coastal Restoration and Enhancement Projects include several wetlands, but have not included work on streams or riparian zones. Guidelines for Coastal Conservancy projects lack a watershed emphasis that would lead to streamside vegetation restoration for wildlife habitat and erosion control. Further, the agency should not invest public money in wetland restoration until the local jurisdiction offers guarantees that it will establish adequate erosion controls (including establishment of statutorily protected riparian zones) in its watersheds, in an attempt to minimize the sedimentation that could erase the public investment in a restoration project in one wet winter.

State Lands Commission

The State Lands Commission, with its Division, is the guardian of the Public Trust Doctrine, a complex legal concept originating in English common law that protects the public interests in tidal areas. This doctrine is receiving increasing attention by such agencies as the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as a policy justification for the reservation of instream water rights to protect fisheries, riparian vegetation, and many aquatic wetlands.

The Reclamation Board

The Reclamation Board (RB), which is part of DWR, was created as a result of Gold Rush hydraulic mining, which carried massive sediment into Central Valley rivers, changing flood patterns and reducing navigation. Its primary function is to control encroachments on project levees and those within its defined "designated floodways." On 18 February 1981, the RB adopted an important riparian vegetation policy for designated "areas of critical concern" (but which excludes routine maintenance of levees).

State Water Resources Control Board

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is involved in many areas of present interest, but two are especially worthy of comment. The "208" area-wide "nonpoint pollutant" control planning process (from Section 208 of the Clean Water Act^[7] ) has given some attention to the vital importance of vegetated streambanks for erosion control and filtration of sediment-carrying runoff, plus the value of wetlands for sediment and pollution filtration. But the program's emphasis on these natural, cost-effective tools has not been sufficient to secure a state-

[7] P.L. 92-500.

wide trend toward their use as "best management practices."

Much more promising is the new program of the SWRCB for retaining instream water flow as part of its water rights program. The regulations are now in place and can be vitally important in protecting the overall health of our streams and many wetlands.

The University System

The revitalization of the Wildlands Resources Center should be expedited to provide a much-needed clearinghouse and "one-stop data retrieval service" for the many university research and reporting services that involve natural resources. The Sea Grant program should be integrated with this center, and a more focussed series of periodic reports should be released to the audience specifically interested in each resources topic.

Wildlife Conservation Board

The Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) has an active wetland and riparian forest acquisition program.

Overview of California Local Government Programs

While general plan policies are useful and important as educational tools, it is the ordinances of each local government that must be reviewed to determine the effectiveness of any resource management commitment. Not only are there the occasional watercourse ordinances in some jurisdictions, such as Napa County, but most have grading and drainage ordinances that will usually affect vegetative resources. Even weed control ordinances can have an adverse impact on stream systems (there have been occasions when riparian vegetation has been called "water-sucking weeds"!). Subdivision ordinances may also include provisions for stream setbacks or other resource area protections. In Sacramento County there is a "Special Planning Area" ordinance^[8] that can allow specialized attention to specific sites, including natural resource areas.

Perhaps the most underused type of ordinance, one that can produce many benefits, is that for floodplain management (nonstructural land-use measures). Such ordinances should require the scientific determination of the high-velocity floodway, which would be a nondevelopment and nonfill zone; the 100-year flood-risk area wherein development must be "floodproofed" to resist damage during the once-in-a-hundred-years flood; wetlands preservation requirements (for both environmental and fiscal reasons); and can include the riparian preservation corridor provisions often found in separate ordinances (it should be noted that in this corridor, even farming must be excluded, while in the flood-risk area farming should be encouraged as a desirable, low-risk use).

Example of a Local Watercourse Ordinance

Several counties have watercourse or stream conservation ordinances, but one of the best known and earliest is that of Napa County. Its Ordinance 447^[9] addresses:

. . . protecting the riparian cover within specified distances thereof, providing bonding requirements in connection [with] such permit, providing a fee schedule . . . and abatement as a nuisance such work performed without a permit.

Policy statements in the ordinance acknowledge the interrelationships of flood-hazard areas, public safety, public expenditures for flood protection and emergency relief, riparian vegetation as a "valuable natural resource," and preservation of rural qualities. The preservation of "riparian cover" is specifically declared, to: "preserve fish and wildlife habitats;" "prevent erosion of stream banks;" "maintain cool water temperatures;" and "obtain the wise use, conservation and protection of certain of the County's woodland and wildlife resources according to their natural capabilities."

The ordinance relies on a map on file in the County Office of Engineer to show which watercourses are included, and it states: "There shall be included in the watercourse an area extending laterally outward fifty feet beyond the top of the banks on each side of such channel, except that" a portion of the Napa River shall have a 100-ft. zone. Incorporated cities are excluded from coverage.

A permit is required for the following activities within a watercourse: deposition or removal of material; excavation; construction or alteration of structures; planting or removal of any vegetation; and alteration of embankments. Exceptions to the permit process are given to any public agency; for work in a public right-of-way pursuant to other permits; and for emergency work (which requires a follow-up permit to correct any "impairments"). No application for a permit shall be approved when the Planning Commission finds the proposed work will either substantially impair the water conveyance capacity of the water course or destroy a significant amount of riparian cover."

A final inspection by the County Engineer is required. Any aggrieved person may appeal to the Board of Supervisors. An abatement procedure for violations is established but there is no provision for restoration of vegetation removed in violation of the ordinance.

[8] Sacramento County Code, enacted 1978.

[9] Napa County Code, enacted 1973.

Problems in this ordinance include the above-mentioned lack of restoration responsibility, but more important is the absence of a specific directive to public agencies, which are exempted from the permit process, to follow the intent of the law. The undefined reference to removal of a "significant amount" of cover leaves much room for incremental destruction of the resource outside of the permit process. One Napa County resident expressed the opinion that the control of riparian vegetation clearing for farming purposes has not been vigorous.

Proposals for State Legislation

Comprehensive state legislation is needed to create a consistent, enforceable, effective program for protection of riparian/wetland/floodplain/watershed resources. I propose the introduction of two acts—one like the Oregon bill, SB 397 of 1981—a voluntary approach of preservation and reduced taxation—and another which establishes a regulatory system for the management of multiple related resources. A "California Floodplain Management Act" would provide a unified approach to management of these resources, at the same time providing: long-needed protections of public safety; reduction of public investments in flood control facilities and emergency bailouts for persons who unwisely locate in flood-risk areas; and equity and certainty of treatment (that is, ensuring that the law is applied evenly and fairly to all persons in similar circumstances). In addition, the comprehensive approach to interrelated problems can have a better chance of political success than a focussed, narrower bill which addresses ecological concerns alone.

Some guidelines which should be followed in preparing the act are listed below.

1. No new state agency would be created (although the expansion of the RB in a modified role throughout the state would be helpful).

2. No new state permits would be required—and some could be eliminated.

3. Local governments' land-use planning and regulation processes would be the cornerstone of the system, consistent with state policy in the act, with certification of plans and ordinances by the Resources Agency.

4. The primary vehicle would be a Local Floodplain Program (LFP) prepared by each local government in California, similar to the Local Coastal Programs of the Coastal Act, the Local Protection Program of the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act,^[10] and the Local Delta Programs of the proposed Delta legislation now being reviewed by the Resources Agency.

5. The State's role would be to fund the LFPs and to certify the end products as consistent with the state law, and to monitor their implementation and seek judicial recourse where necesssary.

6. Public access to regulated zones would not be appropriate since these would be private lands and the ecology of these areas is sensitive.

Specifically, each LFP would be a combination of amendments to open space/conservation and public safety elements of general plans, land-use maps, and several ordinances. Local governments would be mandated to include the following in their LFPs:

1. Designated floodways for each stream, consistent with federal and state maps (with final arbitration by the RB or DWR);

2. Flood-risk areas covering the 100-year floodplain, with development controls meeting federal and state requirements;

3. Wetland and stream preservation zones, both "primary" and "secondary," as described below.

Setting the Preservation Zone

The definition and mapping of preservation zones for wetlands and riparian corridors is the key issue in the ecological application of the LFP. As suggested by the Coastal Commission review process, it is not as simple as just setting a 100-ft. buffer around a resource area. Multiple considerations should be addressed, including the following:

1. the use of physical features (man-made or natural) to clearly define on the ground the regulatory boundary (especially when the feature can also separate competing uses);

2. controls on the design and siting of uses adjacent to the sensitive resource area (that is, requiring placement of the most neutral activity facing the resource; controlling light and noise from permissible uses; constraining human and pet access with barriers; using landscaping that enhances wildlife values; requiring erosion controls; etc.). In essence, the better the design controls on adjacent uses, the less open buffer is needed;

3. the ecotone or edge considered part of the resource area itself; and

4. the right of the landowner to challenge a boundary by presenting physical evidence (such as soils data) showing the regulatory area to be excessive (as is done in the Connecticut Inland Wetlands Program).

Regarding the last point, for purposes of illustration, consider the result of variably-sized square parcels of land that are edged by a stream. With a 100-ft. non-alteration zone, a one-acre lot is 48% regulated; a 5-acre lot, 21%; a 10-acre lot, 15%; 50 acres, 7%; and 100 acres, 5%. There is no magic percentage at which a "taking" without compensation to the landowner is not a concern, but this kind of evaluation will help planners determine if a narrower zone should be used in specific cases. For a residential or

[10] PRC Section 29000–29612.

commercial lot, the permissible density of any development can be shifted into the area outside the zone, but this is not possible for agricultural lands. Fortunately, most farmlands are large lots, and a 100-ft. band would result in a lower percentage of "taking."

Finally, the different needs for stream and wetland boundaries must be noted; this raises the difference between primary and secondary regulatory zones.

Primary and Secondary Regulatory Zones

In essence, a "Primary Regulatory Zone" involves the actual resource itself—the marsh or the riparian vegetation (and the ecotone) as they are defined by technical or scientific criteria. This is not always easily accomplished and is even more difficult with a riparian zone, where the vegetation has been stripped and the goal is to restore the growth in presently denuded areas.

The "Secondary Regulatory Zone" is, in essence, the "buffer," a term that is often misused. Its purpose is to reduce the adverse impacts of adjacent uses on the resource (within its Primary Regulatory Zone). Therefore, the earlier review of controlling adjacent uses becomes relevant for setting this secondary zone, and again it is to require quality design controls that should be the purpose of setting a buffer.

But there is another complication. For marshes, a further regulatory zone should, ideally, include the entire watershed feeding the wetland, wherein land-use controls would be required to reduce accelerated (human-caused) erosion and sedimentation. Such a third level of regulation could be referred to as the "Watershed Regulatory Zone" for consistency of terminology.

Another point regarding wetlands is that no matter what the size, the "taking" issue should not occur. The public interest in protecting these areas has long been known, as has the poor suitability of wetlands for development. The taking issue in the regulation of wetlands will most frequently arise over the secondary or buffer zone when an agency is attempting to establish a broad non-use area in addition to the marsh itself.

Preferential Assessment

To reduce the concern over the taking issue, it is important that a future act ensure that preferential assessments can be applied to regulatory zones. Such reduction or even exemption from taxation should be left to the discretion of the local government policy board, which can evaluate the request in light of its impact on the jurisdiction's fiscal situation. However, no preferential treatment could occur until the landowner executes a conservation easement in perpetuity. Violation of the terms of the easement should result in at least a penalty of five times the taxes that would have been paid, as is established in the Oregon statute.

The Paradox of Protection Leading to Destruction

Any bill which declares riparian vegetation to be sacred as of the date of its passage will almost ensure the destruction of most of what is left, especially when it occurs on or along farmlands, as landowners rush to remove the cause of more regulation before the law becomes effective. There is no simple means to avoid this, but there must be in the act the use of a date precedent to the bill from which the actual riparian corridor will be measured (prior to the later adjustments, as reviewed above). For instance, in the coastal zone boundaries of all riparian corridors could be drawn to include the vegetation in existence as of 1972, when the voters approved Proposition 20, the Coastal Initiative which included stream protection policies. From that date, it was the State's policy to protect riparian vegetation in this area, and landowners were put on notice. Any cutting of vegetation thereafter would not reduce the width of the regulatory zone. Finding such precedent dates for most of the rest of the state is not as easy, and the provision may have to be hinged upon the general plans of local governments which have riparian policies or other devices (possibly even AB 3147 [Fazio] which mandated the DFG Central Valley and California Desert riparian survey).

The Zones, in Summary

Finally, the major point is that these zones must be variable and subject to change. The primary riparian zone must include: the existing riparian growth; that area which had growth as of a date precedent and shall be set aside for regrowth; the ecotone or edge area; or a 100-ft. band as an interim standard, until the local government can examine each landowner's appeal on the basis of the taking issue, hardship, existing physical intrusions into the zone, and so forth. In the law, the primary wetland zone should be defined by scientific criteria addressing the types of vegetation, type of soil, and the known flow of water. (One clear definition of wetlands must be finally established in California to avoid continuing politically inspired debates!)

The secondary riparian zone should be an area defined by the physical features of the terrain and adjacent uses in which design standards will be required. This would also be the case for the secondary wetland zone. The law can call for the zone to be based on such features, or a 100-ft. band, whichever is greater, as long as it is abundantly clear that this space is not necessarily to remain undeveloped. However, development will only be permitted if the performance requirements can be met.

Finally, for wetlands only a third zone would be required, to permit management of the watershed to reduce erosion and sedimentation.

In fact, California also needs a comprehensive approach to its watersheds and soils. But that is another conference.

Provisions in the Proposed Act for State Agencies

Certain missions of the various state agencies must also be clarified in the new act, including the following.

1. The DWR and the RB process for certifying the LFPs and designated floodplains must be described.

2. All state and local agencies (including special districts) must be directed to conform their plans and programs to the policies of the act and the certified LFPs.

3. The DFG would be directed to plan and implement a statewide site-specific plan for restoration of wetlands and riparian vegetation on state-owned lands.

Conclusions

The technical and political obstacles in both preparing and enacting such a bill as the "California Floodlain Management Act" are indeed huge. But progress has never been made by experts and advocates prematurely surrendering in the face of anticipated political reactions. We must put forth the most workable and streamlined proposal we can design and then go to work on the politics. Several years may be required, but even the Legislature has a way of coming around on major problems that will not go away, no matter how controversial the solutions.

We must secure legislation such as this. If we do not, then I suggest that we will have to take a lesson from the Friends of the River and chain ourselves to the last willows and the last cottonwoods before they are cut, chipped, or burned.

For it will come to that.

Literature Cited

Animoto, P.Y. 1978. Erosion and sediment control handbook. 197 p. California Department of Conservation, Sacramento.

California Coastal Commission. 1981. Interpretive guidelines for wetlands and other wet environmentally sensitive habitat areas. 58 p. California Coastal Commission, San Francisco.

California Department of Conservation. 1979. California soils: An assessment (draft document). 197 p. plus appendices. California Department of Conservation, Sacramento.

California Department of Water Resources. 1982. Policies and goals for California water management for the next 20 years. Bulletin 4, California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento. 52 p.

Office of Planning and Research. 1978. Urban strategy report. 36 p. Office of Planning and Research, State of California, Sacramento.

Office of Planning and Research. 1980. General plan guidelines. 327 p. Office of Planning and Research, State of California, Sacramento.

Protecting Urban Streams—a Case Study^[1]

Myra Erwin^[2]

Abstract.—The process by which a local government policy regarding urban streams was changed is described. The change was from a policy of channelizing, gunniting, and chain-link fencing to one of minimum modification in the character of the streams and their floodplains.

Introduction

Since the 1940's the character of Sacramento County has been changing. Urban development in the watersheds and floodplains of rural streams intensified many of the problems caused by agriculture (clearing of riparian vegetation, irrigation runoff, etc.). When it became apparent that damage from flooding might become a hazard, and that the costs of repairing such damage could be substantial, the County commissioned a study of county-wide hydrology. The study was to address the drainage problems associated with urbanization and develop a drainage plan. The result was a Master Drainage Plan (Nolte 1961) which called for the channelization of many streams as a means of allowing the maximum development on land adjacent to the streams; that is, on the floodplains. They were, of course, subject to periodic flooding.

During the 1960's and 1970's many streams were channelized, piped or gunnited in order to facilitate urban development. Substantial riparian vegetation was removed; stream sections bordered with large and attractive oak trees were eliminated, straightened, rerouted, and replaced by concrete-lined ditches with 6-ft. high chain-link fences.

But then came the "ecology movement." People everywhere began to question why such things were happening. Wasn't there a way to remove the flood hazards without destroying the environment? Why should we have to destroy our streams, native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities; and eliminate the air-cooling and -cleaning effects of the riparian vegetation? There must be a better way.

Finding a Better Way

The Beginning

It all started when the Sacramento County Department of Public Works proposed concrete lining and chain-link fencing of Chicken Ranch Slough. Certain sections of the slough had drainage problems which also concerned residents, but the Department's solution to the problems—concrete lining—was an insensitive response to situations where better maintenance or spot solutions (minor channel widening, etc.) would have been appropriate. Property owners along the "slough", which is actually a creek, were incensed. Many of them had, over the years, spent much time and money caring for the native oaks and other vegetation along the stream. Many had beautifully landscaped gardens there. In their view, the proposal would devastate the stream and ruin their gardens. To protect Chicken Ranch Slough, the property owners there banded together and formed the Save Chicken Ranch Slough Association (SCRSA). Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the nature of the problem. Figure 1 is an example of the traditional channelization, gunnite, and chain-link fencing approach. Figure 2 shows the natural character of the streams in question, which residents wanted to protect.

Identifying the Problems

Before long the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS), a coalition of local environmental and civic organizations, joined in and soon took a leading role in the effort to protect not only Chicken Ranch Slough but all the streams threatened by so-called "improvement." Property owners along these other streams had also become aroused. At a very well attended hearing, the Board of Supervisors directed the Department of Public Works to prepare a new plan for the streams. Many thousands of dollars and many months later, their plan, consisting mainly of sets of large-scale aerial photos and water profile maps, was finally presented to the Board and the public. Those in attendance milled around, trying to understand the maps and photos pinned to the walls all around the room. Few, if any, understood. So an accompanying text was

[1] Paper presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981].

[2] Myra Erwin is a member of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region; and Chair, Sacramento County Natural Streams Task Force, Sacramento, Calif.

Figure l.
The channelization, gunnite, chain-link approach on
one of the County's streams. Aesthetic, ecological,
and recreational values have been destroyed.

Figure 2.
A County stream with native riparian vegetation and
floodplain pattern intact. Ecological, recreational,
and aesthetic values have been retained.

demanded. The Board of Supervisors also recognized that recreation and planning considerations had not been included. Not only should existing drainage problems be corrected, but new ones should be prevented. The Board ordered that a comprehensive environmental impact report, to include these considerations, be prepared. The resulting Sacramento County Natural Stream Study (Environmental Impact Section, County of Sacramento 1974) became the explanatory document for the Master Drainage Plan.

However, now that they understood the Plan, and its recommendations for "improving" the streams, neither the SCRSA nor ECOS was satisfied. These organizations insisted that the channelizing and gunniting must stop. The streams must be left as natural as possible. At this point, the ECOS recommended to the Planning Commission that a broad-based task force, comprised of public members representing citizens' groups, and staff members from relevant departments and agencies, be appointed to develop new County policies which would protect the natural character of the 13 designated streams, provide for appropriate recreation, and at the same time prevent flood hazards. To prevent a foreclosure of options while the task force was developing new policies, a moratorium on development adjacent to the streams was recommended. The moratorium was to be effective until the task force's work was completed. The Planning Commission concurred and made these recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. With the Board's adoption of Resolutions 74–1173 and 74–1283, the moratotorium went into effect and the Natural Streams Task Force was created.

The Natural Streams Task Force

Organization and Structure

The Task Force was indeed structured to involve citizens' groups as well as County staff (see table 1). Certain State and Federal agencies were also invited to attend, which they did initially. However, after giving some input they felt they were no longer needed and no longer attended the meetings.

The Task Force's Coordinator was from the County's Environmental Impact Section. He had a formidable task, faced with the necessity of getting a consensus from mutually suspicious Task Force members with diverse and often conflicting concerns.

After election of the Chair (the ECOS representative and the only woman), the orientation and education of the Task Force citizen-group members began. There was a great deal to learn about hydrology and existing zoning, grading, and drainage regulations. At the same time, the Task Force Coordinator was developing a work plan to guide the Task Force's efforts in its development of the Natural Streams Plan.

Assignment of Responsibilities

After the work plan was adopted, each citizen-group member was assigned one or more streams as his or her particular responsibility. To gain first-hand knowledge of the problems and opportunities, the members walked the length of "their" streams, often along improvised trails, which were there simply from neighborhood use, often struggling through underbrush and over wire fences. Also, staff members made field inspections of the streams and their environs, for recreation and open space opportunities, and for aquatic and riparian wildlife and vegetation, adding many hours of volunteer time. The Health Department's representative checked for water quality problems, and the Planning Department's member delineated existing zoning districts along the streams.

In due course, public meetings were held, one in the vicinity of each stream, conducted by the appropriate Task Force member. Those individuals who had earlier indicated their interest were kept informed of the Task Force's meetings, and were invited to attend the local meeting on the stream of their concern. In addition, notices were sent to all streamside property owners, and there was good attendance at the meetings. The consensus at all of these stream meetings was: LEAVE THE STREAMS AS THEY ARE!

Administration Problems

As the Task Force proceeded, it became evident to the citizen-group members that responsibility for the administration of uses within the streams' floodplains was fragmented among the participating County departments and that communication and cooperation among the departments had been ineffective or non-existent in the past. It was also noted that some specific recommendations adopted by either of the planning commissions or the Board of Supervisors were not being adequately implemented by the responsible County officials. Further, there was a conspicuous lack of data on existing operations. But most important of all, there was a lack of county-wide comprehensive policy regarding land use within the floodplains. In fact, it was not unusual to find policies calling for the protection of floodplains, while adopted Department of Public Works proposals called for the channelization of those same streams.

A Basic Conflict

Task Force members wrangled interminably, it seemed. Citizen-group members wanted drastic changes in policy and procedures, while the Public Works members held fast to established practices, trying ineffectively to explain why they were necessary. The conflict stemmed primarily from the following diametrically opposed perceptions: the recognition, on the part of most of the citizen-group and some staff members, of the need to stop building in the floodplains; versus the persuasion, on the part of the Public Works member supported by the building industry member, that the only reasonable way to prevent flooding and allow reasonable use of private property was to continue the drainage "improvement" measures of the past.

Figures, formulae, and data supporting different points of view generated reams of reading material for the Task Force.

Floodplain Development Moratorium

All this time, at almost every meeting there were at least one or two proposed development projects near streams to review. Under the moratorium, projects adjacent to the floodplains needed Task Force approval. The Task Force knew it was important to be reasonable rather than arbitrary in order to maintain its credibility with and support from the Board of Supervisors, especially since any decision by the Task Force could be appealed to the Board. Consequently, reaching an agreement on the treatment of the floodplains which was satisfactory to both sides was very time-consuming. Even so, agreement was not always attained.

The first appeal by a developer to the Board was rather frightening to some Task Force members. The project was a subdivision proposal. The small stream or swale which ran through the site was to be piped and houses were to be built over it—at least piping was the choice of the proponent and the recommendation of the Department of Public Works. The case could perhaps be considered borderline: the swale in question was near the headwaters of the stream and in summer carried only a small amount of urban runoff. But the Task Force was concerned that downstream flooding could occur during the winter season as a result of the concentration of flow. Also, a very nice clump of vegetation, plus the rolling nature of the land lent itself to an urban design which could include the stream.

A majority of the Task Force was worried. Would its recommendation to retain the natural character of the stream and incorporate it into the design of the project be upheld, and the request to pipe the stream and fill the floodplain be denied? Or would the developer win and set a precedent which would become a serious obstacle for the protection of other natural streams and floodplains in the future? It was a hard-fought battle—the developer was one of the biggest and most influential in Sacramento, and this kind of stream had always been piped in previous developments. But despite a recommendation in favor of the developer from the Subdivision Review Committee (the County's technical

advisory committee), the Planning Commission recommended denial of the piping and adoption of the Task Force recommendations. The Board of Supervisors concurred.

This was a turning point for the Task Force. Henceforth, it was known that the Board's moratorium policy and the Task Force's recommendations were not to be trifled with, and developers would fare better by incorporating the Task Force's recommendations into their projects.

It was a stimulating experience for the Task Force members and they plunged into their work with renewed vigor.

Policy Guidelines

The burden of reviewing projects was made heavier by the need to review those which were located along tributaries as well as along the main channels of the designated streams. To help organize and standardize the review process, the Task Force developed policy guidelines, including a list of information requirements from project proponents, and a map designating the subject tributaries, for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. An enormous amount of work and argument preceded the completion of the Tributary Policy, but it was finally adopted by the Board of Supervisors.^[3] From then on projects adjacent to tributaries were administered by staff and the Task Force no longer had to spend precious time on them.

Specific Flooding Problems

One more time-consuming activity which slowed development of the Natural Streams Plan was the need to make recommendations on specific flooding problems. Both the County and the property owners presented proposals relating to stream preservation versus reduction of existing flooding. The Task Force worked hard on these issues and after considerable discussion with all sides, an agreement was generally reached without the need for an appeal to the Board of Supervisors.

Stream Maintenance

Because of the need for data on methods and costs of the County's stream maintenance program, and for information on methods of enforcing existing as well as future ordinances, two Task Force committees were formed. The Maintenance Committee's Chair was an expert at data gathering, and with the assistance of the Public Works staff, he did a professional analysis (all volunteer work) of stream maintenance practices and costs. To the surprise of some, it turned out that the costs of maintaining the streams in their natural state would generally be lower than the total costs for channelized streams if the Task Force recommendations were followed. These recommendations would make the maintenance program self-supporting by improving the revenue system, labor practices, and operational procedures. Ultimately, these recommendations were included in the maintenance element of the Natural Streams Plan.

Enforcement of Existing Regulations

How to enforce regulations prohibiting rubbish dumping, illegal filling, and other modifications of the floodplain was a persistent problem. The Enforcement Committee Chair himself lived near one of the streams and was determined to find solutions to the enforcement problems. The enforcement element of the Natural Streams Plan is mainly the result of his committee's work.

Floodplain Management Element

But of all the elements of the Natural Streams Plan, the floodplain management element was the most controversial and took up a preponderance of the Task Force's time. A basic disagreement among Task Force members was over the "taking" issue: in this case, whether a dedication to the County of floodplain land could be required as a condition of development. Department of Public Works and building industry members argued that floodplains can be filled, thus removing the flood threat on the filled land—there would then be no justification for requiring a dedication. But a majority of Task Force members maintained that filling simply squeezes the water into a narrower channel, raising the water level, increasing its velocity, causing erosion and flooding downstream of the fill, in addition to destroying the riparian vegetation which often is abundant in the floodplains. They argued that the safest, cheapest, and most desirable flood control method was to prohibit any development at all in the floodplains.

The first County Counsel's representative to the Task Force prepared a paper explaining the legal issues and apparently leaving the door open to consideration of prohibitions on floodplain development. But later he was replaced, and his successor prepared a highly critical paper which said that the real purpose of the proposed restrictions on floodplain use was "the protection of aesthetic and recreational values, rather than the protection of public health and safety . . ." and therefore they would likely be held unconstitutional as a "taking of private property without compensation."

In the meantime, Federal agencies, in particular the US Army Corps of Engineers, were ordered by the President to prevent development in floodplains partly because of the discovery that enormous expenditures of taxpayers' money were used to rehabilitate floodplain property and reimburse occupants whose property had been flooded. It seemed only prudent to avoid building in floodplains. During the early years

[3] The Tributary Policy was presented as a report by the Natural Stream Task Force, and adopted by the Board on April 7, 1976.

of the Task Force's work, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was developing rules for Federal flood insurance and the Corps of Engineers was delineating the 100-year floodplain for streams in Sacramento County. The fact that the Federal government was recognizing the hazards and costs of floodplain development gave more credence to the position of the Task Force majority.

In any case, the County Counsel's advice was, in effect, sidestepped when the Task Force adopted recommendations for the Board of Supervisors which included severe restrictions on floodplain development.

The Issue of Cost

Another area of great controversy was the cost issue. The question of maintenance costs has been mentioned above, but there was also the question of costs of the recreation element. There were bicycle trails and recreation areas to be provided—the preliminary cost estimates were clearly beyond the County's capability, even in the long run. However, the Task Force discovered that the figures used to project the costs were based on total purchase of the floodplains and excessive size and construction standards of the bicycle trails. With the inclusion of floodplain dedications, and restriction in the length and construction standards of the bike trails, the costs were brought down to reasonable levels. Recommendations for financing methods as well as a long-range time schedule for implementation of the recreation element were also included.

The Time Factor

Task Force members, during the five years they worked on this Natural Streams Plan, often felt great impatience and frustration with the snail's pace of its progress. There were two or three periods of several months with no meetings and no action at all due to the staff members preemption for higher priorities of the Board of Supervisors. But this long duration worked to the advantage of the goals of the Task Force partly because of the rapidly changing attitudes all over the country regarding environmental issues. Even more important, considerable development occurred in lands adjacent to the floodplains, using the Task Force's preliminary guidelines. That meant that by the time the Natural Streams Plan was ready to present to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, it had been demonstrated that the floodplain guidelines were not all that onerous, and could result in some very attractive developments with the stream as a sales feature.

The Final Plan

The final Plan, as should be expected, was a compromise. Nevertheless, it was a good compromise from the Task Force majority's point of view.

In preparation for the public hearings on the Plan, a handsome, green and white, glossy brochure was distributed to each streamside property owner. These brochures described the proposed Natural Streams Plan and announced the public hearings to take place over a period of time. Excellent parcel maps were included, showing the stream and the approximate area proposed to be included in the Natural Stream Zone. In addition, the brochures advised residents what to do to protect the streams. Although some Task Force members were apprehensive about possible opposition at the hearings, none materialized, and the Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July 1980, five and one-half years after the appointment of the Task Force. Seeing the adoption of its recommendations, the Task Force was able to retire with a profound sense of satisfaction and relief.

Epilogue

As far as we can tell, one year after adoption of the Natural Streams Plan, the floodplain management aspect of the Plan has been very effective in preventing encroachment on the streams' floodplains, which in turn has eliminated the need for channelization of additional streams. This is due largely to the interest taken in the Plan by the Planning Commission staff and their determination to see that the new regulations are implemented. Their task is made relatively simple by the new Natural Streams Zone established as recommended by the implementation element of the Plan. The County's drainage, grading, and subdivision ordinances were also amended to make them consistent with the Plan's objectives and policies.

Because of financial constraints, the recreation element is in a holding position, but at least the land in the floodplains will be available for recreational uses in the future.

Looking back, it seems quite remarkable that almost all the citizen-group members stuck it out through more than five years of very difficult meetings. Perseverance is perhaps the most needed attribute necessary for the success of citizen action. However, in the final analysis, it was the responsiveness of the Board of Supervisors to the large number of residents who cared about their streams that has made the Natural Streams Plan truly effective.

Literature Cited

Environmental Impact Section, Sacramento County. 1974. Sacramento County natural stream study. PW-74-003. Sacramento County, California.

Nolte, George S. 1961. The County of Sacramento master drainage plan. Part 1—county-wide hydrology. Sacramento County.

San Diego County Riparian Systems

Current Threats and Statutory Protection Efforts^[1]

Gary P. Wheeler and Jack M. Fancher^[2]

Abstract.—The effectiveness of present laws in conserving San Diego County riparian systems is examined. Agencies are more effective when several laws apply, when credible statutory authority and enforcement exists, and when public support is generated. Recommendations are made for improvement.

Introduction

The Mediterranean climate of coastal southern California has induced some obvious and distinct contrasts between mesic and xeric vegetation-types. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, or California grassland vegetation often ends abruptly at a narrow corridor of riparian vegetation. Woody, perennial wetland vegetation is usually confined to a relatively narrow corridor bordering the enduring, year-round, low-volume water flows and is not directly correlated with the mean annual or ephemeral high-volume storm flows. Consequently, unmodified floodplains in southern California are often relatively wide when compared with the narrow strip of riparian vegetation which frequently occurs only along the path of low flow.

The Mediterranean climate may, in part, have promoted human occupancy of southern California floodplains by fostering the false impression, for decades at a time, that riparian growth delimited the floodplain. Following the rare but inevitable devastating flood, the typical human response has been to "improve" the floodplain to accommodate this rare flood. In doing so, headwaters are dammed, and the natural floodplain usually is constricted into a channelized floodway in order to provide protection for floodplain developments. To maximize hydraulic efficiency, riparian vegetation is typically removed. The trapezoidal, concrete channel of the Los Angeles River is a famous example of such maximized hydraulic efficiency.

Since more than half of all Californians live in the four coastal counties of southern California (Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego), unmodified riparian corridors have largely been obliterated. Some significant areas of riparian vegetation do exist, particularly in San Diego County. In some San Diego County rivers, such as the Mission Valley region of the San Diego River, historic sand mining has brought riverbottom elevations nearer to the water table, which facilitated marsh and riparian woodland establishment once mining ceased. Also, the reestablishment of perennial freshwater flows by irrigation and wastewater returns encouraged wetlands redevelopment. However, riparian wetlands continue to be threatened by human actions. Using actual case histories, we will attempt to document the major threats to coastal San Diego County's riparian resources and the effectiveness of agencies in protecting these resources; and we will offer some general observations as to what factors influence the effectiveness of attempts to protect riparian systems.

The Riparian Resource

San Diego, the southwesternmost county in the mainland United States, encompasses approximately 1.1 million hectares (2.7 million acres) of land ranging from coastal beaches and plains to foothills, mountains, and desert. Riparian systems are extremely limited within the county, occupying somewhere between 0.2% (2,000 ha. [5,000 ac.]) (California Department of Fish and Game 1965) and 0.5% (5,300 ha. [13,000 ac.]) (Oberbauer 1977) of the county's land area.

Riparian vegetation to some degree can be found along most of the coastal region streams; however, the most prominent locations include the mouth of San Mateo Creek, Las Pulgas Creek, the Santa Margarita River, the San Luis Rey River, Las Penasquitos Creek in Sorrento Valley, San Clemente and Rose canyons, the San Diego River, the Sweetwater River, Jamul Creek, Campo Creek,

[1] Paper presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981].

[2] Gary P. Wheeler and Jack M. Fancher are Biologists with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel, Calif. The opinions and recommendations offered in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

and the Otay River (Goldwasser 1978). Willows (Salix spp.) tend to dominate the riparian vegetation in most areas; however, cottonwoods (Populusfremontii and P . trichocarpa ), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa ), and white alder (Alnusrhombifolia ) are also major components in various areas. Understory vegetation commonly includes mugwort (Artemesiadouglasiana ), mulefat (Baccharisviminea ), stinging nettles (Urticaholosericea ), and wild cucumber (Marahmacrocarpus ). Oak woodlands dominated by coast live oak (Quercusagrifolia ) and canyon live oak (Q . chrysolepis ) in several areas border or intermix with riparian systems, particularly in the more inland canyons (Oberbauer unpublished).

Threats

Current threats to San Diego County riparian systems can generally be tied to population pressures and/or pressure for development. Just within the past 10 years, the county's population has increased by approximately 0.5 million people, a 37% increase. The county General Plan Conservation Element (San Diego County 1980) states that vegetation removal is the single most important human action impacting local wildlife. Vegetation removal is not subject to the county environmental review process, and large areas are sometimes cleared for agricultural purposes or residential development prior to filing an environmental impact report. Stream channelization, floodplain filling, and sand and gravel extraction are occurring at a particularly rapid rate along the San Luis Rey River near Oceanside and along the upper San Diego River, and have resulted in major losses of riparian resources along these streams. The proposed construction of two dams and reservoirs on the Santa Margarita River near Fallbrook threatens to inundate over 400 ha. (1,000 ac.) of riparian and oak woodlands.

Tools for Protection

Several means for countering these threats are available to concerned citizens and public agencies. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)^[3] and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)^[4] constitute disclosure laws which, in themselves, do not directly protect riparian resources, but do require identification of alternatives and assessment of project impacts. Similarly, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)^[5] mandates consideration of fish and wildlife values in the planning of federal water development projects and issuance of US Army Corps of Engineers (CE) permits, but has no enforcement or implementation provisions. Presidential executive orders such as E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management, and E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, provide guidance in project planning to federal agencies. State, county, or municipal ordinances and policies generally also provide guidance, but rarely include significant enforcement features. Regrettably, the parochial attitude of most southern California city and county governments has usually resulted in the encouragement of developments which increase the tax base but may result in significant environmental losses.

Two state and two federal laws include enforcement provisions. Because of varying legislative intents and jurisdictions, these laws differ in their effectiveness for protecting riparian resource values.

The California Coastal Act of 1976^[6] (CCA) provides emphatic and effective protection of riparian wetlands as environmentally sensitive habitat. Under the CCA, environmentally sensitive habitats are to be protected against any disruption of habitat values which could occur from development within or adjacent to that habitat. Furthermore, only uses dependent upon the sensitive resource are allowed within the area. Removal of riparian vegetation and streambed materials is also controlled by the act. However, the geographic extent of the protection afforded by this strong habitat protection law is severely limited when related to the distribution of riparian systems. The CCA permit process includes public hearing and California Coastal Commission deliberation steps.

Division 2, Chapter 6 of the California Fish and Game Code (California Fish and Game Commission 1979) states: "The protection and conservation of the fish and wildlife resources of this State are hereby declared to be of utmost public interest." The subsequent Fish and Game Code sections 1601 through 1603 have a very broad geographic applicability, covering virtually all streams within the state. These code sections require a Streambed Alteration Agreement between the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and any party proposing to alter or modify a streambed, channel, or bank. The major weakness of this regulation, aside from the manpower and time constraints placed upon the DFG, is that an arrangement agreeable to both parties must be reached between the DFG and the developer. The discretion to deny a project which would cause significant damage is not available. In order to reach an agreement, a compromise is normally required, and the existing resource is seldom preserved intact. If agreement is not reached, a three-member arbitration panel is formed to resolve any differences. For various reasons, it is apparently the unstated policy of DFG to refrain from entering arbitration, since fewer than 0.02% of the streambed alteration notifications have been taken to that level of consideration.

[3] 42 U.S.C. 4321–4337; 83 Stat. 852.

[4] PRC Section 21000–21151.

[5] 16 U.S.C. 661–666(c); 48 Stat. 401 (as amended).

[6] PRC Section 30000–30900.

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)^[7] as amended, stringently guards listed species against adverse impacts caused by federal actions. However, this act applies only when a listed species and a federal action are involved. Currently there are no federally listed riparian woodland-dwelling species in San Diego County; therefore, the ESA is rarely invoked when riparian woodlands are to be affected. Activities involving certain vernal pools, a rare and unusual riparian system, have been restricted under the ESA due to the presence of the San Diego mesa mint (Pogogyne ambramsii ), a federally listed Endangered species.

The federal law most frequently invoked in the protection of riparian resources is the Clean Water Act.^[8] Section 404 of the act calls for regulation of the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States. The permit process, administered by the CE, includes distribution of a public notice and a broad public interest consideration. The Clean Water Act does not restrict excavation within wetlands or clearing of wetland vegetation when no discharge occurs. Jurisdiction requiring individual permits is limited to watercourses, and their adjacent wetlands, conveying an average annual flow of 0.14 cu. m. (5 cu. ft.) per second or greater. Consequently, only major rivers or perennial streams are included, as shown in table 1.

Case Histories

The following four case histories are presented as examples of the threats posed to San Diego County riparian systems and to demonstrate the effectiveness of our current laws in protecting them.

San Diego River

In the fall of 1980, a private developer began to clear and fill an area of riparian woodland within the San Diego River floodplain in the city of San Diego. Approxmately 0.5 ha. (1.2 ac.) of large-stature black willow (Salixgooddingii )-dominated woodland had been leveled, and filling had begun when a DFG warden stopped the work. The developer had obtained neither a streambed alteration agreement with the DFG nor a Section 404 permit from the CE.

The CE would not consider prosecution of this unauthorized act and, instead, expressed a willingness to accept an after-the-fact permit application. The DFG considered prosecution for failure to notify under the Fish and Game Code, but due to limited state resources available for litigation, chose to prosecute an unrelated but similar violation upstream.

As the threat of state and federal prosecution disappeared, the developer's negotiating position significantly improved. The mitigation proposals initially forwarded to the agencies by the developer were minimal and did not offset the loss in riparian values. In the negotiation process, it was revealed that the city had not only required the developer to complete a dedicated street through the subject wetland, but also that the city owned the wetland property. Further, the unauthorized roadway clearing and filling had isolated another 0.4-ha. (l.l-ac.) parcel of wooded wetland owned by the city, which the city ultimately wanted to fill and sell for development. The developer, acting as the city's agent, initiated the agreement procedure with DFG. Apparently because of the time requirements of the agreement procedure, the lack of prosecution, and the unwillingness of the developer to remove the fill, DFG reached an agreement with the developer at a time when the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was still seeking an acceptable mitigation plan.

The city and the developer considered unacceptable any plan which did not allow them to complete 0.9 ha. (2.3 ac.) of fill in the wooded wetland. Under the streambed alteration agreement, the DFG had agreed to this fill provided that 1.9 ha. (4.6 ac.) of adjacent land owned by the city of San Diego were excavated to create wetlands and then revegetated.

The FWS contended that even though 2 ha. of wetland were to be gained for each hectare lost, a loss of habitat values would result. This position was based upon the premise that 1 ha. of mature riparian woodland provides greater habitat

[7] 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; 87 Stat. 884.

[8] 33 U.S.C. 1251–1265, 1281–1292, 1311–1328, 1341–1345, 1361–1376; 86 Stat. 816, 91 Stat. 1566.

values than 2 ha. of open water and early successional wetlands characterized by herbaceous hydrophytes and sapling willows and cottonwoods. Also, because of the uncertainties of transplant survival, the modified hydraulic regime of the river, and the unpredictability of seasonal storm flows, FWS incorporated a safety factor in its mitigation recommendations and suggested that 1.6 ha. (4 ac.) of wetlands be created for each 0.4 ha. (1 ac.) of riparian wetland to be filled.

The developers then hired a biological consultant who contradicted the FWS habitat assessment. They also lobbied the CE, as well as the FWS Washington office, charging that the FWS recommendations were excessive and unreasonable, since they went beyond those which had satisfied the DFG. When the FWS held firm, the developer and the city recognized that project delays could result.

Since delay was contrary to the developer's interests, the developer encouraged the city to become directly involved and to consider guarantees for the compensating wetlands. Eventually a mitigation plan was agreed upon which assured long-term protection of wetland habitat values.

The elements of the mitigation plan, which offset the loss of 0.9 ha. of forested wetland included: a) creating 1.9 ha. of wetland by excavating a sparsely vegetated upland down to riverbottom elevations; b) revegetating the newly created wetland with a variety of native riparian plant species, with maximized edge effect, foliage height diversity, and wildlife cover and food values given special considerations; c) assurance by the developer, through a letter of credit, that for five years the 1.9 ha. transplant effort will succeed (wetland re-creation success will be evaluated over the five-year period using avifauna and vegetation monitoring studies); d) an agreement by the city with FWS, using a deed restriction instrument, to preserve the fish and wildlife resource values of 4.5 ha. (11 ac.) of city-owned San Diego River wetlands (1.9 ha. of compensation area plus an additional 2.6 ha. [6.4 ac.] of contiguous forested wetland); and e) an agreement whereby the city will not propose any work in another 2.6-ha. (6.5-ac.) parcel of contiguous forested wetland until a management plan for preserving San Diego River wetland values is implemented.

San Luis Rey River #1

A housing development proposed for construction adjacent to the San Luis Rey River in northern San Diego County included a street which was to encroach upon a riparian wetland composed mainly of giant reed (Arundodonax ) and a single row of large cottonwoods (Populus sp.). Prior to the public comment period required under Section 404 of the CWA, a streambed alteration agreement requiring no extensive mitigation was signed by the developer and DFG.

Upon distribution of the CE public notice on the project, the FWS, DFG, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) objected to the issuance of the permit unless the loss of riparian resource values would be mitigated. The FWS encouraged the developer to find an alternative route for the encroaching roadway, but was informed that a City-designated street corridor and safety criteria prohibited relocation. At this point the developer offered to create a new riparian wetland by lowering the elevation of a nearby upland area of equal size.

Prior to removing its objections to the issuance of the Section 404 permit, the FWS requested that the developer prepare a satisfactory revegetation plan. A consulting firm was employed to develop the plan, which consists of grading the plot to varying heights above the riverbed and planting native willows, cottonwoods, sycamores, and a variety of understory species. A hedgerow of armed vines and shrubs was included to prevent excessive human intrusion. Irrigation was to be provided if necessary, and a planting survival rate of 80% after two years will be considered a successful transplanting effort.

San Luis Rey River #2

On the San Luis Rey River near the city of Oceanside, there is an isolated business and several residences which could only be reached by traversing a low, culverted river crossing. This crossing would typically wash out with any significant floodflows in the river, thereby further isolating the business and the residents. Consequently, the business owners and area residents decided to build a bridge across the river. The bridge was begun prior to notifying Oceanside city authorities, DFG, or CE to obtain necessary permits. In the construction process approximately 0.4 ha. (1 ac.) of riparian woodlands were cleared and filled.

The DFG filed suit against the owner/builder for failure to notify DFG under Fish and Game Code Section 1603. In deciding the case, the judge ruled against the DFG, stating that there was no substantial alteration of the streambed or bank and that, in the absence of a definable riverbank, the ordinary citizen could not be expected to know that the bank extended to the outward edge of the riparian vegetation.

Fortunately, this portion of the San Luis Rey River is also under CE Section 404 jurisdiction. Although the CE would not prosecute the owner/builder for failure to obtain a permit prior to construction, it appears that, based upon recommendations by DFG, FWS, and EPA, the builder will be required to revegetate the riverbank in order to obtain a CE permit for retaining the bridge approach fills. The city permit required no mitigation of adverse impacts to San Luis Rey River riparian resources.

San Luis Rey River #3

In 1966, an industrial manufacturer constructed a plant within the floodplain and an historic channel of the San Luis Rey River. Apparently, his action was based upon the belief that the CE would soon implement a proposed channelization and flood control project along the river. This has not yet occurred, and since construction, floodflows have inundated the facility five times. Due to the delay in construction of the CE flood control project, the developer himself has attempted to protect his plant by rerouting the river north of his plant, constructing a levee along the south bank of the river, clearing the river channel of riparian vegetation, and constructing a ring levee around his plant. With each inundation, greater flood control measures have been implemented and more riparian wetlands have been adversely impacted. On several occasions fill material was placed in wetlands prior to obtaining a CE permit or DFG agreement. The CE has been reluctant to prosecute the developer under the provisions of the CWA, and the developer considers his actions justified, claiming that all actions he has taken have been either under an emergency situation to protect lives and property or have been in the public interest to protect the jobs of his many employees.

The DFG has filed suit against the developer under Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code for failure to notify the agency prior to altering the stream. This suit is pending and, as yet, no court date has been set.

The developer has indicated his intention to construct a major industrial complex adjacent to his plant in an area currently supporting a lush riparian woodland. His initial step will be to clear and farm this area. Provided there is no addition of fill material, the Clean Water Act does not require a permit for farming of wetlands. It remains to be seen if Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code will offer any degree of protection for this area. The future of this riparian woodland, however, does not appear to be very promising.

Discussion

Several general points should be considered as one evaluates the relative degree of protection achieved in these cases.

The greatest degree of protection occurs when several agencies have authority for project review under different statutes with similar objectives. This was demonstrated in the San Diego River case and in San Luis Rey #1 and #2. In each of these examples a weaker streambed alteration agreement was backed up by more stringent conditions requested by the DFG, FWS, and EPA on the Section 404 permit. Even though Fish and Game Code sections have protection and conservation of fish and wildlife resources as their purpose, implementation by DFG is debilitated by the impotent statutory vehicle. Had these actions occurred within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission, it is suggested that wetland values might have been even better conserved.

A greater degree of protection seems to result when opportunity for public review and comment is provided. We have seen on several occasions where public comments provided to the CE have influenced the issuance of a Section 404 permit. The influence of public involvement on private projects, however, can perhaps best be seen in observing the public hearing process of the California Coastal Commission where a multitude of opportunities are provided for meaningful public input.

The effectiveness of protection efforts depends greatly upon the degree of threat which a project sponsor feels the public and an agency posed to his project. In the San Diego River case, the developer initially attempted to weaken the FWS mitigation recommendations and encouraged the CE to issue the Section 404 permit over the agency's objections. The developer had the advantage of knowing prosecution was not likely and that much of the damage to the wetlands had already been accomplished. However, once the developer realized that even if the CE issued the permit over FWS objections costly project delays could still result. The developer and the city were then willing to offer more meaningful mitigation measures.

In the San Luis Rey #3 case the developer has generally ignored the threats of the permit-issuing agencies and simply refused to recognize the authority of the DFG and the CE in regulating his activities in the wetlands on his private property. In addition, he feels that all his actions have been in the public interest; if the DFG and/or the CE don't agree and decide to prosecute, he will be happy to litigate. Fortunately, such flagrant and intentional violations are rare, but they are likely to become more frequent when enforcement is absent or largely bluff.

It is much more difficult to obtain replacement of riparian or wetland values from the developer if a project has been completed by circumventing the permit process than if proper channels are followed from the outset. Obtaining mitigation once the project is completed generally requires the CE or a state agency to litigate against the developer for a violation of Section 404 or the Fish and Game Code.

Because the FWS and the DFG are reviewing agencies under Section 404 and are not the permitting agency, their effectiveness in protecting riparian resources is limited by the actions of the CE. In the past, one of the wildlife agencies' strongest criticisms of the CE regulatory program has been failure to initiate prosecution of violators of Section 404. The apparent low priority of such prosecutions or the insufficient

staff in the US Attorney's office are said to contribute to feeble Section 404 enforcement. It is evident that without enforcement the law loses its credibility and offers little protection for the public fish and wildlife values of our nation's waters and wetlands.

The local government level appears, in the authors' opinion, to be the best level at which to protect riparian systems. However, in San Diego County, at this time, the exact opposite seems to be true. Cities and county agencies have promoted the development of riparian areas in fostering the economic growth of their communities. To date, there has been no incentive for local governments to protect their riparian resources.

Under the California Coastal Act, local governments are provided incentives to implement plans and ordinances consistent with the mutually beneficial uses of the coastal zone. The conservation of riparian systems seems clearly in the public interest regardless of whether or not they are found within the coastal zone. Action analogous to the California Coastal Act, i.e., statewide goals implemented at local government levels, for conservation of riparian systems, therefore, seems appropriate.

Recommendations

With the intention of protecting and conserving the fish and wildlife resources that riparian systems provide, the following actions should be considered.

1. The state should enact a "California Riparian Systems Conservation Act," analagous to the California Coastal Act.

2. Any statutory enactments should have unambiguous statements of purpose, jurisdiction, definitions, and enforcement provisions.

3. Public and private conservation organizations should increase their efforts to foster public awareness of the values of riparian systems.

Other interim or lesser measures could include the following.

4. The state should enact legislation modifying Fish and Game Code Sections 1601–1603 to empower DFG with discretionary permit authority.

5. The three-party arbitration panel outlined in the Fish and Game Code Chapter 6 should be replaced by the existing Fish and Game Commission.

6. To ensure statewide consistency, DFG should produce mitigation guidelines applicable to streambed alteration projects and criteria for referring projects to arbitration.

7. DFG should be allowed to assess an administrative fee for the streambed alteration agreement. Also, the monetary penalty for failure to notify DFG under these code sections should be substantially increased and penalties for noncompliance should be implemented.

8. The state should assume Clean Water Act Section 404 jurisdiction, with DFG or the Resources Agency as the permit-issuing authority, in the event federal authority is abrogated.

9. The opportunity for public comment should be provided in any permitting process established for the conservation of riparian systems.

Literature Cited

California Department of Fish and Game. 1965. California Fish and Wildlife Plan, Vol. III, Part C. 370 p. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

California Fish and Game Commission. 1979. California Fish and Game Code. 319 p. State of California, Sacramento.

Goldwasser, S. 1978. Distribution, reproductive success and impact of nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds on Least Bell's Vireos. Final report to California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 27 p.

Oberbauer, T. 1977. Vegetation communities in San Diego County. Unpublished report for San Diego County Planning Department, San Diego, Calif.

San Diego County. 1980. San Diego County General Plan. Section 1, Part X—Conservation Element. 91 p.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Revised public notice No. 404 and amendments. Notice of exercise of Section 404 jurisdiction over certain streams and wetlands in California. Department of the Army, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers (July 15, 1978).

The Preservation and Restoration of Riparian Resources in Conducting Flood Control Activities^[1]

William M. Lockard and Richard A. Burgess^[2]

Abstract.—Flood control activities often require the modification of riparian resources in the interest of public safety. Such activities may do considerable damage to riparian systems. An important goal for those interested in riparian resource preservation is to work with flood control organizations so that necessary flood control activities may be completed in a more environmentally sensitive manner. This paper proposes a five-point program for the riparian resource manager which pursues that goal. The paper concludes that such a program, designed and operated at the local level, is a superior alternative to one generated by a state mandate.

Introduction

The riparian resource manager is confronted with many of the factors influencing streams and rivers. Where riparian systems are relatively pristine and isolated, the manager's primary goal is to preserve, to the extent possible, natural fluvial processes. More often, however, riparian systems are located within agricultural or urban areas. Normally, in these cases, the riparian system falls within the jurisdiction of a local flood control organization.

The first and foremost responsibility of flood control organizations has been, and continues to be, the protection of life and property. However, does such an organization also have a responsibility as a steward of riparian resources? Not long ago, the universal answer would have been no. However, the environmental movement and certain state mandates, such as the California Environmental Quality Act, have created an environment for change. While some flood control organizations already recognize their responsibility to riparian resources, others may be persuaded.

While a state mandate could be created which would force flood control organizations to preserve and restore riparian systems, this paper assumes that it is more desirable to instill a conservation ethic in flood control organizations.

We do not suggest that flood control organizations should subjugate their primary responsibilities relating to public safety. We suggest that needed flood control activities can be performed in ways which also preserve and restore riparian systems. This paper, then, presents a program for the riparian resource manager to use when working with flood control organizations. The program is based on the Ventura County experience and contains examples from ongoing programs. The program contains five basic elements as discussed below.

A Five-Point Riparian Resource Management Program

Establish Political Support

Although this program assumes that a state mandate is not the motivation for riparian resource management, there are other types of state assistance which might be considered appropriate support. These include grants-in-aid to develop the program, technical expertise, educational programs, guidelines and criteria, and the definition of sensitive riparian systems of significance.

However, the most important political support for the program should come from the local decision-making body. Flood control personnel are normally responsible to their board of directors or the county board of supervisors. Since a resource management program involves the expendi-

[1] Paper presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981.]

[2] William M. Lockard is Staff Conservationist, and Richard A. Burgess is Conservationist; both are with Ventura County Flood Control District, Ventura, Calif.

ture of time and money, it must be sanctioned by the decision-making body. Furthermore, flood control personnel need assurances as to what their (new) role as resource manager is. Local political support is not sought as a lever to force the program on unwilling employees. For that reason, policy guidelines should come from the political body. Policy guidelines clarify making body's position and yet allow the manager flexibility.

For example, five important policies were adopted by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors as part of the county's Section 208 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan. These policies can be found in example 1.

Example l.—Policy guidelines adopted by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors

A. PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE POLICY
The Board of Supervisors of the Ventura County Flood Control District is committed to responsible flood control activities. Nevertheless, the first and foremost responsibility of the Board of Supervisors, the County staff and all others involved in flood control activities is the protection of life and property. Therefore, it is the policy of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors that no action suggested in this manual shall be accomplished where such action would clearly constitute a threat to life, property or the public welfare.

B. COORDINATION POLICY
The Ventura County Flood Control District will seek, whenever possible, the expertise and advice of the California Department of Fish and Game where flood control activities might have an adverse effect on the County's streams and rivers. During emergency flood conditions, the Deputy Director of Public Works, Flood Control and Water Resources, or his designated representative will provide reports to the Department of Fish and Game and, in accordance with the [California] Fish and Game Code, arrange field meetings to discuss emergency flood control work.

The goal of this policy is to provide the concerned parties with a greater understanding of the physical and economic constraints of flood control activities and basic hydrologic and fluvial processes. It is also the purpose of this policy to cause better understanding of the biological requirements of riparian environments, as well as the ecological relationships of riparian and adjacent habitats. Further, this policy is intended to improve the Flood Control District's ability to perform necessary flood control activities in an environmentally responsible manner.

C. RESTORATION POLICY
It is inevitable that some flood control activities will adversely affect riparian resources in Ventura County. It is not always possible in such a narrow and sensitive habitat to avoid adverse effects with certain flood control activities. Such activities may be necessitated by emergency flood conditions or normal preventative maintenance. Where physical and economic conditions allow, the District may mitigate these effects by utilizing various restoration techniques after the flood control activity is completed. If flood control activities involving such restoration work are to take place in Ventura County, the following policy shall apply: Where physical and budgetary conditions permit, the Ventura County Flood Control District shall initiate restoration programs to mitigate alterations to sensitive or unique riparian resources which have occurred as a result of flood control activities. Such work shall be accomplished pursuant to the criteria defined in the "Operators Manual for Conducting Flood Control Activities in Ventura County Streams and Rivers, April, 1981" [Ventura County Public Works Agency, Flood Control and Water Resources Department 1981] and shall be coordinated with appropriate State and Federal agencies pursuant to the District's Coordination Policy.

D. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES POLICY
It is the policy of the Board of Supervisors of the Ventura County Flood Control District to encourage the use of the Best Management Practices defined in the Operators Manual for Conducting Flood Control Activities in Ventura County Streams and Rivers, April, 1981" [ibid .]

The Best Management Practices herein adopted replace the "Policy Guidelines for Work Conducted in Streams and Rivers During Emergency Conditions" adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 23, 1980.

Example 1.—Continued.

E. CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES POLICY
The policies and best management practices adopted by the Board of Supervisors as part of the Operator's Manual shall be referenced into any contracts or agreements between the County of Ventura or any of its agencies and any contractor or subcontractor retained by the County. Such contracts shall require that the contractor acknowledge familiarity with the provisions of the Operator's Manual and to assume responsibility for conducting any work performed under such contract in accordance with the policies and best management practices of the Operator's Manual.

The purpose of this policy is to put contractors on notice that it is the policy of the County of Ventura that County-sponsored flood control activities are to be conducted in a manner which protects riparian resources wherever possible.

The following is a hypothetical conversation between two people standing along a lush pristine stream in Ventura County. The first person is Jake, Field Supervisor for the County Flood Control District. The second person is Mike, Biology instructor at a nearby college and member of a local environmental group. A third party, astride a weathered D-8 bulldozer, waits nearby with his engine on an impatient idle.

Mike:    What's going on?

Jake:    We have to get these lousy bushes out of here!

Mike:    Lousy bushes? This is one of the best streams in the county. Those are spawning beds right over there, and there might even be unarmored three-spined stickleback in this stream!

Jake:    Unarmored what?

Mike:    Unarmored three sp . . .

Jake interrupts with a disgusted look on his face and wave of his hand.

Jake:    Aw, forget it. I have a job to do. We're here to protect people, not fish, and that bulldozer up there is costing the taxpayers money!

Jake looks at the bulldozer operator and points an index finger at the stream. The bulldozer moves quickly forward and begins removing the "lousy bushes."

After the bulldozer has done its work, it doesn't matter if Jake or Mike was right. This situation is relatively easy to imagine. It illustrates the damage that can result from poor communication. Effective communication is essential to a successful riparian management program, and it should be the responsibility of the manager to make it occur. Although we will not go into great detail in discussing the psychology of communication, there are a number of common-sense communication axioms that a resource manager should consider.

1. There is more to communication than the spoken word. Body movements, facial expressions, inflections in the voice, and even inactivity communicate a message (Watzlawick etal 1967).

2. The two basic components of communication are the content (the message) and the relationship (between communicants). A "healthy" communication is one in which the content of the communication predominates. Conversely, a "sick" conversation is characterized by a constant struggle about the nature of the relationship between communicants (ibid .).

3. The relationship component of a communication tends to dominate when an individual feels defensive. Individuals may feel defensive when verbal (or non-verbal) communication tends to suggest that: a) he is being evaluated or judged; b) there is an attempt to control him; c) there is a strategy or "game" going on; or d) the speaker appears uncaring, ungiving, or neutral to the individual's position (Gibb 1961).

The content aspect of communication tends to dominate when an individual feels less defensive and the conversation is more spontaneous and problem oriented. An individual is less defensive when he views the other communicant as an equal, as someone who empathizes with his position and/or wants to know what he has to say (ibid .).

Education Program Design

The orderly mesh of materials, content, and participants is an essential part of any successful program. A structured program design is not only common sense, it usually saves time and money and helps keep participants interested. The education program we suggest is discussed below, with examples provided by ongoing educational programs in Ventura County.

The Need for Dual Education

It is prudent to acknowledge from the beginning that an education program is not one-sided, with the resource manager in the role of teacher and flood control personnel in the role of stu-

dents. In truth, the resource manager may have a great deal to learn about the flood control organization and its activities. More importantly, the goal of the program—the preservation of riparian resources—will be primarily realized through dialogue in the field, as potential implementation tools are tested and evaluated. In this regard, everyone in the program is a student. In fact, the justification for the education program must be to provide a mutual frame of reference for field dialogue. We suggest that the following subjects should be covered in the education program to achieve that mutual frame of reference.

The Fluvial Process

"Fluvial" is defined in Webster's Dictionary (1971) as that which is "produced by stream action." The term may be unfamiliar to some involved in flood control activities. Other terms may come to mind for them such as "hydraulic" (that which is operated or moved by water) and "hydrologic" (dealing with the properties, distribution and circulation of water). However, these latter terms do not fully describe what is to be defined. The critical point is that streams and rivers are part of a process (defined in Webster's Dictionary as "a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result"). We suggest that "fluvial process" be defined as: A natural process which results from the dynamic interaction of the hydrologic cycle, the earth's geology, and the living environment.

Process implies movement. The energy sources of the fluvial process are often taken for granted and should be simply defined. These energy sources include gravity, solar energy, and geologic movement (uplifting) of the earth's crust. Other terms which should be defined relate to the with physical effects of these energy sources. These terms include precipitation, transportation, weathering, erosion, and deposition.

A deeper appreciation of fluvial processes comes with an understanding of geologic time and the history of local streams and rivers. Flood control personnel observe from experience that drainage basins differ. One is rugged and rocky, another is flat and sandy. One reason for this probably involves geologic formations. Soil maps of debris-producing soil formations which were once ancient oceans and are now high in elevation could be used to illustrate the forces and time frame involved in the formation of riparian systems. If possible, more recent deposits can be related to existing land features. Figure 1 was used in the "Technical Paper for the Ventura County 208 Water Quality Management Plan" (Lockard and Burgess 1981). The authors pointed out in this example how the Santa Clara River changed course in 1969 from point "b" back to point "a", resulting in considerable damage to the Ventura marina.

The physical elements of a stream or river, which are a result of the fluvial process, provide the medium for the biotic components of the system. The diversity of physical stream elements has permitted a high diversity of wildlife. Each element is part of an interdependent whole. This fact should be stressed as basic stream elements are identified and discussed. Physical stream elements which should be discussed in the education program include: 1) braiding and stream width; 2) pools and riffles; and 3) rapids and falls.

In discussing these elements, it may be convenient to use the description of a "textbook stream" presented in example 2.

Biological Resources and Ecology

A discussion of riparian biology and ecology can be incredibly fascinating or incredibly boring, depending on the presentation and the audience. Realistically, the resource manager should not expect rabid enthusiasm from flood control personnel when the subject of riparian biology is breached. A realistic goal is to keep the topic interesting. The resource manager is faced with the dilemma of deciding what kind and how much of this complex subject to present. It is suggested that this aspect of the education program be broken down into three categories.

1. What are biological resources?

2. How do biological resources interact with the environment (ecology)?

3. What affect do flood control activities have on biological resources?

Biological Resources .—In discussing biological resources of riparian systems, it is convenient to divide them into two areas, aquatic and riparian life. Aquatic is defined as that component of the biota which lives in or on the water. It should be pointed out that aquatic organisms have not only adapted to the medium of water, but also to its movement (see example 3). If local streams provide a significant sports fishery, it is often worth stressing this, since it is a utilitarian value to which people relate strongly (see example 4). Additionally, in discussing aquatic life, it is desirable to accentuate the diversity that exists there. Plants, microorganisms, algae, aquatic insects, reptiles, amphibians, and small aquatic mammals, such as muskrats, should all be discussed briefly.

The importance of the riparian environment as an interface between aquatic and terrestrial environments should be covered. A definition of the plant associations in riparian areas is desirable (fig. 2). A discussion of the diversity of plants and wildlife of riparian systems is most important. The terrestrial wildlife species which use riparian systems for food and cover should also be discussed (example 5).

Figure 1.
1855 U.S. Coastal Survey map. Significant points: a) Santa Clara River mouth and
approximate location of present Ventura Marina; b) approximate location of existing
Santa Clara River mouth; c) estuary and present location of McGrath Lake.

Example 2.—The textbook stream.

The "textbook" stream begins in the highest points of the drainage basin as surface runoff or groundwater forming small, fast-moving brooks. Precipitation is greater here than low lying areas, and weathering tends to be greater. These first brooks are characterized by relatively cold, clear, fast-moving water. The overall stream gradient is very steep. The stream tends to be quite erosive, but little deposition occurs. The streambottom is irregular and primarily composed of large rounded rocks which have been shaped by the turbulent, forceful movement of water. The turbulence tends to increase the level of dissolved oxygen in the water.

Example 2.—Continued.

As the brook moves downstream, it joins with other tributaries. The overall stream gradient becomes less steep, but the water continues to be fast-moving and turbulent. Both erosion and deposition are evident. The streambottom begins to be composed of small rocks, pebbles, and sand. The water is not quite as clear and contains some silt and clay particles in suspension.

As the stream moves out of the mountainous and hilly areas into the coastal plain, the gradient decreases even more. The streambottom is smoother and composed of sand, silt, and clay deposits. The volume of water is quite high, but the water moves much slower and with little turbulence. Deposition is much greater, and stream meander and braiding is more pronounced. Precipitation is much lower than in the mountain areas. Bank erosion is reduced considerably.

The "textbook" stream ends as the stream drains into the ocean. The stream may either form an embayment here or flow directly into the ocean. Gradients are very shallow, and deposition is at its greatest. The water often has low levels of dissolved oxygen and high levels of organic matter. There is usually a daily mix of salt water and fresh water (Clapham 1973).

Example 3.—Invertebrate adaption to water movement in streams.

The most conspicuous invertebrates in such situations are frequently aquatic insects which occur as immature forms as well as adults. Insects have been very successful in adapting to aquatic freshwater habitats and may be quite numerous. For example, in a study of a California stream, a single riffle area was found to be inhabited by almost 40 different species of insects (Reid 1961). Insects which live in rapidly moving water tend to be strongly modified so that they are not washed away by the current. They may be firmly attached to rocks, such as black fly larvae (Simulium sp.), or greatly streamlined, such as the naiads of some types of dragonflies (Order Odonata), mayflies (Order Ephemeroptera), and stoneflies (Order Plecoptera). Other insects solve the problem of current by living under or behind objects where the force of water is reduced. The larvae of dobsonflies (Family Corydalidae), caddisflies (Order Trichoptera), as well as a number of mayflies (Order Ephemeroptera) are characteristically found in such protected locations.

Example 4.—Requirements of fisheries.

Many of the streams in Ventura County still support a viable sport fishery. Although game species such as bluegill (Lepomismacrochirus ), green sunfish (L . cyanellus ), and large mouth bass (Micropterussalmoides ) have been introduced and are found with some regularity in county streams, they are more characteristic of lakes. By far the most important game fish in the streams and rivers of Ventura County is the rainbow trout (Salmogairdneri ) and its oceangoing relative, the steelhead rainbow trout (S . g . gairdneri ). Both of these fish are native to the county; however, populations of rainbow trout are supplemented with hatchery fish by the California Department of Fish and Game.

Rainbow trout require cool, clear, well-aerated water and are thus found in the larger, less-disturbed watercourses. Depending on the water conditions, trout in Ventura County generally begin spawning in late February (Moore 1979). The female builds a nest in clean gravel where she lays from 200 to 21,000 eggs. These are fertilized by the male, lightly covered with gravel, and abandoned. The young fish begin emerging from the spawning beds in about three weeks and usually reach catchable size within two years (Palmer and Fowler 1975).

Example 4.—Continued.

The steelhead rainbow trout has essentially the same spawning requirements as the rainbow trout, but differs in that it is anadromous. Anadromous fish are those which spend a portion of their life cycle in marine water but must enter fresh water to spawn. Probably because conditions for growth are optimum in the sea, steelhead trout attain a much larger size than do their non-migratory relatives.

Figure 2.
A definition of plant associations in riparian areas.

Example 5.—Wildlife which use riparian areas.

In addition to providing food and habitat for endemic animals, riparian woodlands are also important to more wide-ranging species. In Ventura County, which experiences a long dry season, water can be a limiting factor to wildlife. The dense riparian plant growth provides cover for animals such as mule deer (Odocoileushemionuscalifornicus ), which may spend most of their time elsewhere, but come to streams to drink. Riparian woodlands also serve as important migration routes for many species of animals, providing corridors with readily available food, water, and cover (Odum 1978).

Riparian Ecology .—The education program should discuss riparian ecology as a subject separate from that of biological resources so that the interdependence of aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial systems can be better understood. In addition to a general discussion of ecology, presenting the concept of energy exchange is useful. Figures 3 and 4 could be used to illustrate the concept of energy exchange.

Effects of Flood Control Activities .—We suggest that flood control organizations be given the stewardship responsibility for preserving and restoring riparian resources. A legitimate step in accomplishing that goal is to make those involved in flood control activities more fully aware of the effects of their actions. This is based on the premise that with understanding goes responsibility.

Figure 3.
General diagram of an energy system.

Figure 4.
A highly simplified, generalized food web. The numbers next to the arrows indicate
the trophic level of the consumer. For example, a wading bird eating a fish would
function as a third-order consumer, while the same bird eating an aquatic insect
would be a second-order consumer. It should be noted that organisms rarely
feed consistently at one trophic level. Indeed, omnivores such as the raccoon
may feed at all levels, utilizing a variety of plant and animal matter.

It is useful to first discuss the potential (hypothetical) effects of flood control activities. The most obvious effect of flood control activities is the confinement of the natural floodplain. Associated with this are a decrease in river meandering, reduced deposition of soils and nutrients, and the separation of riparian systems from each other and from the stream. Other potential effects are disruption of natural stream elements and disruption of stream biology and ecology. Example 6 presents a discussion of the effects of induced turbidity and sedimentation on fish populations.

Discussions of environmental effects based on past actions of the flood control organization may be an effective educational tool, but pose a threat to friendly open communication. This subject should be presented discreetly, and with a minimum of personal judgment. As the program progresses, flood control personnel should have a greater role in evaluating local projects and their effects. An example of a 1978 emergency project which weas evaluated during the preparation of the County's 208 Water Quality Management Plan is contained in example 7.

Example 6.—Effects of turbidity on fish population.

During storm periods, water velocities are usually sufficient to keep sediment in suspension (Shaw and Maga 1943). However, when instream flood control activities take place during periods when the water flow is insufficient to carry the sediment in suspension, the sediments settle out and, in addition to reducing invertebrate populations, cover fish eggs and spawning sites, as well as preventing the emergence of recently hatched young (Cordone and Kelley 1961). Moore found that instream flood control work in the Ventura River and San Antonio Creek, in the spring of 1978, produced heavy sedimentation during the months when juvenile fish were emerging and resulted in depressed numbers of salmonids in subsequent sampling periods (Moore 1980).

Example 7.—Evaluation of the effects of a flood control project.

The diversity and richness of life in riparian systems is well documented throughout the world. They do not, of course, exist in isolation, but are part of the larger natural ecosystem. The "edge" between riparian systems and terrestrial systems becomes extremely important. Therefore, the confinement of natural floodplains, partially through flood control activities, allows the development of urban and agricultural uses immediately adjacent to streams and rivers. This has, in Ventura County, resulted in the separation of riparian vegetation from natural riparian areas and from terrestrial systems. The consequences are:  a) loss or reduction of plant and wildlife species which have specifically adapted to the "edge" between riparian and terrestrial systems; b) blocking and loss of vegetative cover used by terrestrial wildlife in migrating to riparian areas for food and water; c) degradation of water quality where rising groundwater is trapped and isolated from the natural stream; and d) isolation of riparian areas from periodic flooding and the related supply of water and nutrients required for riparian plants. Without sufficient water and nutrients, riparian plant communities eventually are replaced by less biologically productive terrestrial vegetation (fig. 5).

Figure 5.
Separation of riparian areas: a) Highway 33; b) isolated area with ponding
water and cattails; c) levee built in 1978 in the Ventura River just downstream
of its confluence with San Antonio Creek. (Photograph taken in March, 1981).

Flood Control Activities and Equipment

The resource manager must become a student as well. He needs to understand certain basics of flood control activities before meaningful dialogue is possible. These basics include the fundamentals of flood control engineering, watershed management techniques, flood control structures, and maintenance equipment and operations. A grasp of flood control terminology will greatly assist the resource manager in achieving "healthy" communication. Finally, the resource manager will find it highly useful to understand the realities of the fiscal constraints under which the flood control organization operates.

The fundamentals of flood control engineering are primarily related to the principles of hydraulics, since the function of flood control operations is to contain floodwaters. Some important hydraulic principles that should be understood are presented below.

1. The quantity of water ("Q") passing any given point is a function of channel gradient and cross-sectional area and water velocity, and is usually expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs).

2. The ability of water to hold debris (rock, sand, silt, clay and organic materials) in suspension is primarily a function of channel gradient and water velocity. Therefore, water that is carrying near its capacity of suspended solids is less able to erode than water carrying less than its capacity.

3. Surface runoff and the consequent volume of floodflows is a function of the permeability of the land surface. Vegetated land dissipates the energy of rainfall and absorbs water in the soil and plants. Urban areas have a much greater proportion of impervious surfaces (paved surfaces and roofs) and generate a proportionally greater runoff. In fact, areas that are over 80% urban may generate twice the floodflow of a corresponding natural area (Waananen etal . 1977).

4. Water velocity is a function of gradient and the surface resistance of the channel bottom and banks. Rougher, rockier bottoms and sides tend to reduce velocities, while smoother surfaces (such as concrete) increase velocities.

Watershed management involves flood control activities which attempt to reduce runoff and erosion. These practices include revegetating bare soil and encouraging deep-rooted plants. It may also include fuel modification programs which help avoid excessive runoff, which commonly occurs after a large, uncontrollable fire. Most importantly, watershed management should provide for the acquisition of floodplains and their exclusion from agricultural and urban conversion.

Flood control structures range from relatively simple and unobtrusive facilities to those that completely control and subjugate natural processes. Some flood control dams are meant to permanently hold floodflows (reservoirs) or to hold flows temporarily (retention basins), so that peak discharges can be held and released over longer periods of time (fig. 6). Other dams (debris basins) are constructed primarily to reduce the velocity of flows and encourage the deposition of suspended solids behind the dam. This allows "cleaner" water to pass through the dam. While this decreases the deposition of material downstream, it leaves the cleaner water with greater potential energy for erosion. Often, in these cases, energy dissipation or drop structures are placed downstream.

Figure 6.
Flood retention dam, Sycamore Canyon
Dam, Simi Valley, California.

Flood control structures which mainly confine the channel (usually called channel improvements) include levees, pilot channels, new earthen channels, trapezoidal channels with rock sideslopes, open concrete channels and concrete conduits (fig. 7).

The resource manager should become familiar with the equipment used in flood control activities. Each type of equipment has a purpose and a unique impact on riparian systems (fig. 8). Flood control maintenance operations often use this equipment to remove earth so that adequate channel capacity is maintained. This is more necessary where the channel is confined by urban or agricultural uses. However, riparian vegetation may also seriously reduce channel capacity by consuming cross-sectional volume and decreasing flow velocities. For this reason, flood control maintenance activities often involve the removal of riparian vegetation.

Figure 7.
Reinforced concrete box conduit under construction,
Santa Susana West Drain, Simi Valley. California, 1974.

Figure 8.
Bulldozer and crane clearing debris after January,
1969 flood, Pole Creek, Fillmore, California.

Finally, the resource manager's education is not complete without some insight into the fiscal structure of the flood control organization. Any riparian resource management program will cost money to design and initiate. In the field, some of the best management practices may be more expensive to implement. Additionally, monitoring the program will require time and money. The resource manager should be prepared to answer inevitable questions about the costs of the program and how they relate to the total fiscal structure of the flood control organization. Unfortunately, he may find himself trying to balance the tangible fiscal costs of the program against the more intangible benefits of riparian resource preservation and restoration.

Define Environmentally Sensitive Management Practices

As already implied, those in flood control activities are, whether they know it or not, involved in riparian resource management. Structural projects, flood control maintenance, and monitoring of private development all require actions which affect riparian resources. The goal of the resource management program is to guide these activities in a more environmentally sensitive direction. The program should, therefore, provide direction to implement new "environmentally sensitive" management practices. Such practices will relate to the organization's own activities as well as those private sector activities over which it has authority.

Best Management Practices

The management practices suggested here are carefully thought out "clay pigeons." They were created out of the experiences and knowledge of the program participants. We expect them to change as their results are monitored and analyzed. The flood control personnel will evaluate the practices' effects on channel hydraulics and capacity, and the potential threat to life or property. The resource manager will evaluate the practices' effects on physical stream elements, biological productivity, etc. All participants in the program will collectively weigh the monetary and environmental cost:benefit relationships of the practices.

Environmentally sensitive mangement practices exerpted from the Ventura County's 208 Water Quality Management Plan, (approved in 1981), are presented in example 8. Most have not yet been applied in the field, so evaluation is difficult. Each is denoted as a best management practice (BMP) and numbered.

Annual Development Plan

The best management practices in example 8 are oriented toward the activities carried out by the flood control organization itself. However, there are similar activities carried out by the private sector over which the flood control organization often has some control. The most common of these private-sector activities is sand and gravel mining. In Ventura County, sand and gravel mining operations are required to obtain a watercourse permit to operate in any channel within the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Flood Control District. The primary purpose of this permit is to ensure that mining operations are not carried out in a manner which would create a potential flood danger.

Example 8.—Best management practices adopted by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors.

BMP-1. Keep work in streams to an absolute minimum.

Description: Doing the minimum work necessary is, in most cases, something that results from budgetary constraints and good sense. It is, however, the most environmentally sound management practice that can be pursued and is, therefore, worthy of comment here.

Why needed: Streams are the result of millions of years of evolution. Man, however, has the capability of applying great amounts of energy (via earth-moving equipment) in a sudden manner and otherwise disrupting the ecological balance resulting from that evolutionary process.

No amount of money or human effort can result in an exact duplication of nature. Given a million years, certain riparian species may adapt to or even be dependent upon the changes man is able to make through flood control activities. Now, however, the best we can hope to do, even with good management practices, is to assist nature in restoring damaged portions of the ecosystems. Therefore, the best management practice is to disturb this unique, important environmental resource as little as possible.

BMP-2. Where flood control activities are necessary, maintain a portion of the stream in its natural condition and isolate it from the required work.

Description: There are a number of ways in which this management practice can be achieved. Where work must be done in an area where one main channel exists, it may be possible to leave one side of the channel intact. It may be possible to selectively leave portions of the stream vegetation on both sides. In either case, it is essential to maintain the main stream flow adjacent to or through those riparian areas left intact.

Where it is necessary to work in a riparian area that contains more than one channel, it is desirable to leave at least one channel intact with a "buffer zone" of riparian vegetation of at least 50 feet on each side of the flowing water. This normally requires the insertion of a "soft plug" at the upstream terminus of the channels. The "soft plug" should be engineered to maintain low flows in the channel left intact, but allow larger storm flows to wash out the plug.

When there exists a choice of preserving one of several channels, the most environmentally sound choice involves consideration of several factors. These factors include: Proximity to other terrestrial habitats, time of year, existence of unique aquatic resources such as pools, riffle and spawning beds, etc. It is desirable to seek the advice of qualified experts in considering these factors, such as the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

Why needed: This management practice will be, in many cases, the fastest, most economical and most environmentally sound technique for preserving riparian resources. Except for the diversion of flows, it does little to the area left intact. During dry periods or when natural flows are being diverted upstream, it may be an "aquatic plus" by concentrating low flows into one channel. If the same low flow channel is used over a period of several years, it allows for the growth of mature riparian plant communities.

BMP-3. Where the earth must be physically moved, store the top two to three feet of material and redistribute after the work is completed.

Description: This practice involves the skimming off of observable nutrient-laden soils, stockpiling them and then redistributing them over finished work areas. This is a desirable practice, particularly near new stream channels. It is extremely important, however, that stockpiled material not be pushed into flowing water. This practice should be employed in rocky sandy stream areas where nutrients (in clay and silts) are scarce. This practice need not be utilized where stream gradients and adjacent soil profiles provide a rich abundance of soil nutrients.

Example 8.—Continued.

Why needed: One of the most basic characteristics of streams and rivers is that they carry materials from upstream areas and deposit them in downstream areas. Some of these materials are nutrients essential to aquatic and terrestrial species along streams and rivers. As flood flows decrease, these nutrients deposit along the receding stream along with native plant seeds and soil dwelling organisms. Since many of the desirable elements do not remain for long, the riparian plant community has adapted by being extremely fast growing and hardy. Nevertheless, even the riparian plants cannot grow well (or at all) without essential nutrients. Unfortunately, many control practices remove or bury nutrient-laden soils. They also remove them from their essential close proximity to the flowing water. This not only results in the reduction (or absence) of riparian plant species, but also promotes higher water temperatures (from less shade), less dissolved oxygen, less wildlife cover, etc.

BMP-4. Where earth work is required, restore natural features such as meanders, pools, turbulence and braiding.

Description: The primary aim of this management practice is not to replace visual aesthetics (although that is a legitimate goal). Rather, the purpose is to assist nature in bringing the disturbed riparian environment back to its desired ecological balance. The manner in which these natural features are restored depends on the previous "natural" circumstances. In a large river system such as the Santa Clara system, it may be appropriate to cut new channels, encourage meander and build pool areas with heavy equipment. In a smaller system such as the Ventura system, it may be appropriate in some areas to create small falls and pools by hand.

In utilizing this management practice, there are no pre-set plans which can be applied to a specific situation. Each stream area will likely have a unique combination of stream elements. A degree of subjective judgment must be used in deciding how to restore natural stream elements. While there is not necessarily a "right" solution, there are "better" solutions. Obviously, the "better" solution is going to result from careful evaluation of the natural stream elements and knowledge of the probable consequences of flood control work. In most situations, the evaluation should be done in the field with input from a qualified maintenance supervisor and a qualified biologist. The primary factors to be covered in the evaluation are found in "Work Sheet for Field Evaluations" [example 9].

Once this evaluation is made, initial decisions can be made as to which natural features are to be restored. Some decisions must be made as work progresses and will require a degree of creativity on the part of the maintenance supervisor. Even though each situation will be unique, there are certain benchmark criteria which can be useful in making field decisions. These "benchmarks" are defined below.

Benchmark Criteria for Restoring Natural Stream Features.

1. Place a 1 to 2-ft. fall at approximately 1/8 mile intervals.

2. Creation of depressions for ponds should be in a ratio of approximately 3:1 with the adjacent stream (i.e., a 3-ft. wide pool would be in proportion to a 1-ft. wide stream).

3. Construct potential stream channels that will meander, rather than flow in a straight line where work exceeds 1/8 mile in length.

4. In all areas except ponds, leave bottoms rough and irregular rather than smooth.

5. Use existing elements, such as large rocks over 4-ft. in diameter and existing falls as much as possible.

6. Use hand methods in creating smaller falls, pools and braiding.

Why needed: The natural features of a stream can be best described as nature's most efficient and diversified molding of the physical environment. The biological environment has evolved to take maximum advantage of these natural features in an evolutionary process which has taken millions of years. Unfortunately man, through flood control activities, has the capacity to disrupt these natural features and therefore place stress on the biological environment. However, some of these features can be replaced or at least assisted back.

Example 8.—Continued.

BMP-5. Install culverts, silt curtains and other devices that control turbidity where work must be conducted in or adjacent to stream water.

The effects of turbidity on aquatic ecosystems have been discussed. The previous discussion of other best management practices has stressed the need to avoid work in flowing water unless absolutely necessary. If flood control activities are necessary in stream waters, there are a number of ways in which habitat destruction and stream turbidity can be minimized. The following general criteria should be used in applying this management technique.

1. Where equipment must cross flowing water on more than one occasion, install a pipe culvert of sufficient capacity to handle existing flows. The pipe invert should be at or slightly below the existing stream bottom at both ends. Use clean sand and rock to cover the pipe and avoid the use of silts and clays.

2. Where equipment must work adjacent to a stream or pond, establish a barrier to keep equipment and soil from getting in the water. The best barrier is distance and no barrier is necessary if work is in excess of 20-ft. from the edge of water. The next best barrier is native vegetation and no additional barrier is needed if a 20-ft. wide strip of vegetation greater than 6-ft. high remains between the water and the work.

Where work must be conducted closer than 20-ft., a temporary barrier of large rock and sand 2- to 4-ft. high can be constructed. In unique circumstances, a temporary barrier of wood or metal may be used.

3. Where work must be conducted directly in water and flows cannot be diverted, the work should be completed as quickly as possible. In larger water bodies, and where flow velocities permit, plastic silt curtains should be placed down from the work. In faster flowing water, a series of small falls (2- to 3-ft.) can be constructed of larger rock to slow water and encourage the deposition of silts and clays.

Why needed: The primary purpose of this management practice is to avoid the direct and indirect destruction of aquatic systems. Direct effects include the removal of natural stream elements such as pools, falls, rapids, spawning beds, etc. Indirect effects include the disruption of key elements of the overall riparian system and the creation of turbidity which is carried downstream. Increased downstream turbidity may cover spawning beds and benthic (bottom) organisms. It may reduce total dissolved oxygen in the water and otherwise place additional stress on fish, aquatic plants and other aquatic organisms. Finally, turbidity can affect aquatic systems for many miles downstream of the occurrence.

Past experience with watercourse permits indicated that the conditions defined in some permits were not always consistent with those defined in permits required by other agencies. Specifically, it was found that the conditions of the watercourse permit and the Stream Alteration Agreement required by the California Fish and Game Code were sometimes at odds. Therefore, in the interest of better cooperation and resource management, the Ventura County Flood Control District initiated the Annual Development Plan (ADP) process in 1978. A typical annual development plan is developed according to the general schedule defined below.

1. Early spring—The sand and gravel company obtains aerial photographs and topography maps of the proposed excavation site after the winter rains are over.

2. April—The company submits a proposed ADP which includes the aerial photographs, topography and proposed vertical and horizontal extent of excavation for the coming year.

3. May—Meetings are held with the applicant, flood control district engineers, and representatives of the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The purpose of these meetings is to identify the concerns of each party and to reach agreement on a plan.

4. May to June—Once a compromise agreement is reached, the ADP is finalized. The final ADP consists of: a) an aerial photograph with horizontal elements identified (for example, see figure 9); b) topography maps, cross sections and profiles defining vertical elements; c) the watercourse permit for the year; d) the DFG permit.

Figure 9.
Aerial photograph indicating typical items agreed upon for an Annual Development Plan: a) area of potential excavation;
b) wildlife corridor from mountainous area to top of photo; c) soft plug; d) haul road; e) low-flow corridor.

The Annual Development Plan process has proven to be reasonably successful in preserving riparian resources. All ADPs issued thus far have preserved a riparian corridor through excavation areas. A minimum buffer zone of 12–15 m. (40–50 ft.) on either side of the "low-flow" stream (fig. 9) has been maintained. Wildlife migration corridors have been identifed and reserved. Culverts are required at all stream crossings to protect the aquatic environment from turbidity. Finally, there has been an effort to create and maintain permanent low-flow areas and preserve significant mature riparian areas.

Implement and Monitor the Program

Implementation of the best management practices marks the true beginning of the riparian resource management program. Political commitment, a healthy communication environment, and a successful education program mean little without measurable physical improvement in riparian resources. Therefore, in order to evaluate the continued relative value of the program, monitoring activities are suggested. Areas of the program which should be monitored are discussed below.

Policy Guidelines

As the resource program progresses, it should be evaluated periodically for consistency with the adopted policy guidelines of the local decision-making body. Lessons learned in the field may suggest new management practices. Flood control personnel and the resource manager may find it prudent to recommend new policies commensurate with the new management practices. In any case, the decision-making body should receive annual reports from the staff in order to evaluate for themselves the consequences of their policy.

Education Program

The education program is an ongoing tool which allows the participants to make intelligent decisions about the best management practices and other field tools. The content of the education program should be periodically reviewed by the participants to see if it fits their level of expertise. New personnel will need to be made familiar with the background and the goals of the program.

Best Management Practices

As discussed earlier, the best management practices listed in example 8 are meant to change as field experience dictates. The monitoring of the best management practices should be systematically recorded. Photographs should be taken at least four times a year to record any changes in the managed area. Both ground-level and aerial photographs are desirable. The flood control personnel may also wish to monitor changes in stream elevations. This type of information is usually obtained from stereo-aerial photographs.

Evaluation of the best management practices should also be recorded in writing. For this pur-

Example 9.—Work sheet for field evaluations.

I.    PHYSICAL FEATURES

A.    Name of channel __________________________________________________________
B.    Flood Zone ______________   C. Location  _____________________________________
        _______________________________________________________________________
D.    Stream width ___________________ E. Approximate flow  _________________________
F.    Braiding? ____________________  How many?  _________________________________
G.   Type of bottom:             Rocky                            Gravels                           Sand
       Silt
H.   Water clarity:               Clear                             Turbid
I.     Visual appearance of stream (attach pictures if taken)
        _________________________________________________________________________
        _________________________________________________________________________

II. BIOLOGICAL FEATURES

A.    Dominant riparian vegetation:             Willow                 Mule   Fat
        Giant Cain                     Sycamore                        Alder
        Cottonwood                   Other _________________
B.    Aquatic vegetation:        Tules                       Cattails
       Watercress                    Algae                          Pond Weed
       Other   _______________
C    Wildlife observed:
       1. Invertebrates    ___________________________________________________________
       2. Mammals   ______________________________________________________________
       3. Birds  __________________________________________________________________
       4. Fish  ___________________________________________________________________
D.   Apparent biological productivity of area   __________________________________________
        _________________________________________________________________________

———————————————————————————————————————————

pose, a "Worksheet for Field Evaluations" was created for the Ventura County 208 Water Quality Management Plan and is shown in example 9. The back of the worksheet provides space for a graphic plan of action and for biological and maintenance comments.

Conclusion

Flood control operations have a significant and often severe impact on riparian resources in California. The traditional approach of flood control organizations is to consider public safety as its only function. However, with local political support, improved communication, education, and better management practices, it is possible to assist flood control oganizations in accepting responsibility for the stewardship of riparian resources.

This concept may not be acceptable to some, particularly those more accustomed to bureaucratic combat with flood control organizations. Nevertheless, such a program has been initiated in Ventura County and appears to offer considerable promise. It is suggested that local organizations should be given the responsibility for riparian resource management rather than being burdened by yet another state mandate.

Literature Cited

Clapham, W.B., Jr. 1973. Natural ecosystems. 248 p. Macmillan Company. New York, N.Y.

Cordone, E., and D.W. Kelley. 1961. The influence of inorganic sediments on the aquatic life of streams. Calif. Fish and Game 47(2).

Gibb, J.R. 1973. Defensive communication. p. 284–291. In : C. D. Mortensen. Basic readings in communication theory. 358 p. Harper and Row, New York, N.Y.

Lockard, W.M., and R.A. Burgess. 1981. Technical paper for conducting flood control activities in Ventura County. 71 p. Ventura County Public Works Agency, Flood Control and Water Resources Department, Ventura, Calif.

Moore, M.R. 1979. Stream survey: Ojai Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest. 29+ p. USDA Forest Service.

Moore, M.R. 1980. Factors influencing the survival of juvenile steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri gairdneri ) in the Ventura River, California. 82 p. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, Calif.

Odum, E.P. 1978. Ecological importance of the riparian zone. p. 2–4. In R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick (tech. coord.). Strategies for protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems: Proceedings of the symposium. [Callaway Gardens, Georgia, December 11–13, 1978.] USDA Forest Service GTR-WO-12, Washington, D.C. 410 p.

Palmer, E.L. 1975. Fieldbook of natural history. Second edition (revised by H.S. Fowler). 779 p. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y.

Reid, G.K. 1961. Ecology of inland waters and estuaries. 375 p. D. Van Nostrand Co., New York, N.Y.

Shaw, P.A., and J.A. Maga. 1943. The effect of mining silt on yield of fry from salmon spawning beds. Calif. Fish and Game 29(1): 29–41.

Ventura County Public Works Agency, Flood Control and Water Resources Department. 1981. Operator's manual for conducting flood control activities in Ventura County streams and rivers. 21 p. Ventura County Flood Control and Water Resources Department, Ventura, Calif.

Waananen, A.O., J.T. Limerinos, and W.J. Kockelman, etal . 1977. Flood-prone areas and land-use planning—selected examples from the San Francisco Bay Region, California. Geological Survey Professional Paper 942. 75 p. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Watzlawick, P., J.H. Beavin, and D.D. Jackson. 1967. Pragmatics of human communication. 296 p. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, N.Y.

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. 1971. 1,222 p. G. and C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass.

Management Options for Dry Creek Riparian Corridor Including Formation of a Local Land Trust^[1]

Elgar Hill and Peter Straub^[2]

Abstract.—The US Army Corps of Engineers has recognized several administrative options for management of riparian systems which will be affected by operation of Warm Springs Dam, on Dry Creek, Sonoma County, California. This paper presents information and draws preliminary conclusions regarding the viability of the various options.

Introduction

In 1978, Richard L. Bailey^[3] (1978) presented a paper titled: "The Warm Springs Riparian Dilemma." The paper described conflicts relating to riparian issues on Dry Creek, Sonoma County, California. He described the effects of the construction and operation of Warm Springs Dam, by the US Army Corps of Engineers (CE), which would include:

1) inundation of riparian zone above the dam;

2) controlled release of water at the dam, with increase in summer flows;

3) smolts released into the stream from the hatchery below the dam, with adult steelhead and salmon returning to spawn;

4) elimination of severe winter flooding and erosion;

5) clear water release, with increased erosive power.

Secondary effects would include:

1) requirement to mitigate for lost habitat;

2) recreationist use of the stream for canoeing with possible trespass problems;

3) fishermen seeking access to the stream;

4) landowners planting crops closer to the stream;

5) stream degradation with increase in bank erosion.

The "dilemma" was first brought to public attention with the Warm Springs Dam and Lake Sonoma Project Environmental Impact Statement (US Army Corps of Engineers 1973), which included a discussion of impacts relating to inundation of riparian systems, and by a report issued by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),^[4] which called for mitigation measures. One of the suggested mitigation measures was Federal purchase of the stream-bed and riparian lands downstream from the dam. In response to this report, the CE made a commitment to consider provision of riparian protection and public access. Strong opposition to fee acquisition from local landowners led to discussion of other administrative options.

Bailey (1978) also discussed the planning process relating to maintenance of the riparian vegetation. He stated that CE policies regarding the public interest in riparian areas downstream from major water resource projects are poorly defined. The extent of CE responsibility for maintenance of present conditions downstream is uncertain (other than for erosion control), despite extensive changes in the environment caused by the dam's operation. He charted the evolution of several administrative/legal tools that could be used to protect the integrity of the riparian zone, including:

1. fee acquisition of the riparian zone;

2. purchase of a conservation easement;

3. an easement held by a local land trust.

These suggestions were made by agency representatives and local landowners during preparation of a Master Plan for Lake Sonoma^[5] which included a public participation program. No specific recom-

[1] Paper presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981].

[2] Elgar Hill (AIA, MLA) is Principal Environmental Planner with Elgar Hill Environmental Analysis and Planning, Sausilito, Calif. Peter Straub (MLA) is a Landscape Architect with the US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, California.

[3] Richard L. Bailey is a fish and wildlife biologist with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. He was formerly with the US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District.

[4] Untitled report. July 24, 1978. Sacramento area office, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

[5] Royston, Hanamoto, Beck, and Abey. October, 1979. Master plan for Lake Sonoma. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District.

mendations concerning the extent of government involvement were made in the Master Plan.

The following statement appears in the Master Plan document:

Proposals for treatment of Dry Creek and its banks from the downstream limits of Corps property to the Russian River have been discussed in a series of workshops held concurrently with the Lake Sonoma master planning process. Based on public input and agency review, there will be no land acquisition for public access to Dry Creek in connection with the project and the streambed will not be acquired by the government. It appears that the protection of existing riparian habitat along the stream is desirable. A committee has been established by local interests to investigate alternative methods for preserving riparian vegetation. Prior to any kind of riparian habitat acquisition by the Corps, it would be necessary to secure Congressional authorization through a post-authorization change report.

Recently, the CE has let a contract for a special study and an environmental impact statement to study alternatives, including those listed above, and to assist in identifying the extent of Federal involvement in the protection of riparian systems.^[6] The study has been under way for several months. No decisions regarding a preferred alternative are expected for some time. It is hoped that a consensus will be reached and administrative action will be taken as a result of this study.

As a result of our involvement in this study, it is now possible to add more information and to draw preliminary conclusions relating to administrative approaches.

Several questions arise.

1. Will the riparian systems, following the changes brought about by the Lake Sonoma project, require additional protection and management beyond that which individual landowners are willing and able to give?

2. If so, how effective would be the various administrative procedures which are being proposed?

3. What are some of the requirements for implementation of the various procedures?

4. Can the results of the special downstream report and environmental impact statement, for the Warm Springs Dam-Lake Sonoma Project be extrapolated to other, similar projects?

This paper will endeavor to provide some preliminary answers to these questions. Some further background information will be provided in order to give the reader a better understanding of the special conditions which could affect the decisionmaking process.

Setting

The Dry Creek Valley is part of the Russian River watershed, and has an economy based on viticulture. The valley is small, 2.4 km. (1.5 mi.) wide and 22.4 km. (14 mi.) long from the dam to the confluence with the Russian River. The moist soil riparian zone extends out beyond the present narrow corridor of remaining riparian vegetation immediately adjacent to Dry Creek itself. It has been largely cleared of its riparian vegetation to permit intensive agricultural use of the rich alluvial soils. It is the remaining narrow streamside corridor of riparian vegetation, rather than the entire riparian zone, that is being considered here.

Land ownerships on both sides of the creek number less than 100. Many of the parcels are small (some less than 4.2 ha. (10 ac.)) but intensively cultivated, because of the present high return on the sale of wine grapes. There is no such thing as a "typical" Dry Creek rancher; tenure ranges from three generations to very recent and from owner-operator to absentee landlord.

It has been estimated that the surrounding region could generate a potential annual visitation at Lake Sonoma of 2,479,000 recreation days. Based on carrying capacity of the lake environs, visitation of 1,520,000 recreation days per year is anticipated. A total of 5,400 vehicle trips per day along Dry Creek Road are predicted for peak recreation periods.^[5] All of these visitors will pass through the valley on their way to the dam. Some overflow of recreational activity onto the creek itself could be expected, such as fishing, boating, and off-road vehicle traffic.

Fishing activity can be regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). No fishing will be allowed until the dam is completed and the lake filled to capacity, anticipated in 1985. Fishing can be limited to steelhead, the normal season for which is in mid-winter, thus attracting a hardier, more serious angler. The impact of steelhead fishing at prescribed access points would not be as great as would that of summer angling, if it were allowed. Flows in the creek would be high during the winter, and dense vegetation would inhibit streambank use by fishermen, so that access to the stream would be physically limited at this time of year.

[6] Elgar Hill Environmental Analysis and Planning. In preparation. Special report and environmental impact statement downstream, Warm Springs Dam-Lake Sonoma Project.

Travel downstream by canoe and raft could have a greater impact than fishing, if access to the upper end of the stream were allowed. Experience on the nearby Russian River shows the popularity of such excursions. At least 750 canoes make the Russian River trip on a peak use day. The recreationists stop for a swim, a picnic lunch, etc., on their way downstream. The riparian vegetation quickly becomes damaged, the soil surface becomes packed, and seedlings are trampled at those points. Unwanted vegetation, such as thistles, find an advantage under such conditions. On Dry Creek, it appears that fences would be required to inhibit recreationists from venturing into the vineyards.

A possible advantage to constant summer flows will be discouragement of 4-wheel-drive vehicle enthusiasts who presently find their way into the Dry Creek bottom. Their vehicles loosen sand and gravel on gravelbars and make it easier for current to shift sediment further downstream. Damage to the vegetation and streambanks from 4-wheel-drive vehicles had been observed.

If administration remains with individual ranchers, no cohesive program of dealing with large scale recreation use can be expected. Each landowner will be responsible for protection of his streambank and crops.

Although many ranchers have stated that they are capable of maintaining their own streambank and riparian vegetation, there is evidence to show that exceptions exist. While it may be true that many of the landowners have sufficient streambank management capability and experience, ownerships in the valley are constantly changing. In the past few years, six to seven parcels each year (5%) have changed hands.^[7] There is no way to predict how many of the new owners (for instance, those landowners using the property for tax write-off), will successfully manage their property and be dedicated to preserving the riparian vegetation.

It has been documented (California Division of Mines and Geology 1977) that piecemeal bank protection procedures by individual landowners can lead to destruction of the neighbor's property on the opposite bank. When streamflows are impeded, the stream's energy may be redirected toward the other bank, depending on the type and location of the protection measure with respect to meander potential of the stream. Streamflows in the future will be more constant and the impact of major storms will be dampened by regulation of flows at the dam, so that the erosive energy of the stream should be less. It remains to be seen, however, how much water would have to be released following a major storm (25- to 100-year event) and what would be the effect. It has also been predicted that constant flows will produce a bottom-scouring effect immediately downstream from the dam which could downgrade the channel and cause future bank sloughing.^[8]

If no legal/administrative action were taken, it is possible that management practices would continue as before. It is also possible that new owners would be either more or less responsible in riparian management than in the past. It appears that limited access for steelhead fishing would not appreciably damage the riparian zone. On the other hand, potential impacts to the riparian corridor from large-scale boating use would be significant without more cohesive management.

Past experience shows that greatly increased pressure for alternative land use resulting from reservoir construction leads to zoning changes. If the present high return for agricultural investment does not continue, the pressure for zoning changes will further increase.

Without some sort of consistent management of the riparian corridor in the future, there is no guarantee that it will remain in its present condition. The present condition of the Dry Creek riparian system is not of the same quality as it was 25 years ago. The channel has downgraded, streambanks have been eroded, and the channel is much wider than before. Vegetative bank stabilization has included planting of willows and exotic bamboo, resulting in less variety in the vegetation. Higher, steeper banks do not support riparian vegetation as well as the low, sloping contours did in the past.^[9] Mature riparian vegetation no longer exists in many places, and a view of what the stream was like 25 years ago can be seen in only a few stretches of the remaining stream. Past farming practices, gravel extraction, and major floods have taken their toll on the quality of streambank riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat potential. However, there is still much habitat value remaining in comparison with other streams in the area.^[9] Past bank stabilization efforts have had positive effects. CE channel improvements,^[10] combined with controlled releases from Warm Springs Dam, should make future revegetation work feasible. An organized riparian system management program would result in increased habitat value along the stream as well as providing bank stabilization benefits. The results of earlier individual stabilization efforts seem to indicate that well-

[7] Harding, Bruce. 1981. Appraisal report for Dry Creek habitat area, Sonoma County, California. Report to be included in the special report and environmental impact statement.^[6]

[8] US Army Corps of Engineers hydrologist. 1981. Personal communication.

[9] McBride, Joe; and Jan Strahan. 1981. Fluvial geomorphic process, bank stabilization, and controlled streamflow effects upon riparian vegetation along Dry Creek, Sonoma County, Calif. Report to be included in the special report and enviromental impact statement.^[6]

[10] US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District. May, 1981. Design memorandum no. 18, channel improvements, Russian River basin, Dry Creek, Warm Springs Dam and Lake Sonoma project.

planned and implemented revegetation programs could not only stabilize but build up streambanks, depending on future streamflow patterns.

Federal Involvement

Three administrative tools involving Federal money or effort have been identified:

1) fee acquisition of all or part of the riparian corridor.

2) conservation easement purchase of the riparian corridor, to be managed by a Federal or State agency.

3) provision of funds for management by a local agency, independent organization (such as a land trust), or farmers group.

Any of these measures would provide consistent management of the entire stream. The first two would carry guarantees of long-term enforcement of regulations and maintenance of riparian vegetation. In the third case, with local management, long-term maintenance would be dependent upon the terms and amounts of the funding. Federal involvement implies, to a degree, removal of local control. The degree of Federal involvement would depend on the details of the specific arrangement. Fee acquisition would obviously imply the greatest shift in control from the current situation; local control would be limited to those rights specifically excluded from the transfer. Whichever agency became responsible for the property would need to implement rules and regulations which best serve the general public. Further maintenance may conflict with those for recreational users and with those of agricultural production. These conflicts may be real (use of land for riparian vegetation vs. crops) or they may only be perceived at this time (will the presence of fishermen or canoeists destroy habitat or crops?). In either case, the conflicts require close attention, since limitations on property and riparian rights will be involved.

Fee Acquisition

This option would transfer all rights to ownership and use of the riparian corridor, with the exception of specifically excluded rights, such as water supply. Special rights to use of the stream would also be forfeited, unless specifically retained by present owners. Some owners have supplemented their incomes through gravel sales; all landowners feel strongly about control of the stream. Some owners do not have stream ownership; others own nothing but stream bottom. Compensation, whether monetary or other, would be of considerable magnitude.

The financial value of the riparian corridor, including the stream channel, would be considerable, depending on how the property is assessed. Values could vary from $500 to $10,000 per acre, depending on the assumptions made during the appraisal.^[7] The total would depend on the width of the riparian zone, whether the area above the streambank edge is to be considered agricultural land, and what value is assigned to the gravel resource. Purchase of lands by transfer to a Federal agency would require Congressional approval, a long process with no guarantee of success.

Conservation Easement

A conservation easement limits the use of the land. In order to understand what limits should be set, information regarding the resource and its protection must be acquired. In the case of the Dry Creek riparian corridor, an appraisal of the resource value, as well as the land value, is required. The preferred boundaries of the riparian corridor must be carefully selected, for they will become the basis of the conservation easement. Most of this information has already been compiled for Dry Creek.

Once use limits and the conservation easement (riparian corridor) boundaries are set, and the potential for loss of the resource as a result of management deficiencies is established, management techniques and maintenance procedures can be developed relating to planting; plant succession; monitoring and policing; thinning; selective cutting; pesticide use; and access limitation in terms of types of vehicles, numbers of people, etc.

Although the cost of this option would be much less than that for fee acquisition, Congressional approval would still be necessary. A conservation easement would deed to the Government only those rights deemed necessary for protection of the riparian corridor.

Once the rights have been purchased, and needs relating to management of the riparian corridor have been identified, responsibility for management must be established along with the sources of funds. Management responsibility could be taken over by an agency with experience in wildlife habitat management, such as the DFG. On the other hand, responsibility could be placed with a private organization, a land trust.

Land Trust

A land trust is a mechanism for acquisition of an interest in land for conservation purposes. The formation of a trust takes advantage of current tax laws designed to encourage permanent open space preservation. Taxes affected include income, capital gains, estate, and property taxes. In the case of Dry Creek, most of the landowners are not in a position to greatly benefit from tax breaks. Other advantages, such as streambank protection and limitation of trespassing through consistent management, may prove more important.

Long-term maintenance of open space for wildlife habitat requires not only some form of legal transfer of land or interest in land, but also enforcement of regulations and monitoring of habitat quality. A land trust would need to be

endowed with sufficient funds to provide adequate monitoring and enforcement. The money could be held in a legal defense fund, where the interest can be used for normal expenses and the principal drawn upon only in emergencies. Once the decision to transfer the property(ies) has been made (based on management requirements for the protection of the resource), the main duties of the trust would be monitoring and enforcement. In order to monitor the resource, an understanding of the resource is necessary so that it is clear what problems to look for and when to monitor. Regulations affecting the protection of the resource should be fully spelled out, so that enforcement can be adequately carried out.

A trust organization should be independent of local landowner(s). If not, conflicts could occur between management for riparian resource value and management for agricultural resource value. The organization can be any entity capable of handling financial and legal matters involved with maintenance of a contract. The organization should be nonprofit and tax exempt, and incorporated under State and Federal law.

In the case of the Dry Creek riparian corridor, a group of landowners could advise the trust organization in such areas as definition of the resource, and determination of management procedures for processing complaints and suggestions. A presently operating land trust available to handle the protection of the Dry Creek riparian corridor is the Sonoma Land Trust. The Sonoma Land Trust is successfully managing several properties in Sonoma County. Some of these properties were outright gifts; others are the result of conservation easements. None of these properties exhibit the multiplicity of ownership or management complexity inherent at Dry Creek.

Conclusion

A consensus has yet to be reached regarding administration of the Dry Creek riparian corridor. Whether one of the options listed above will be chosen remains to be seen. It is unlikely that the riparian corridor will continue to function as a habitat for fish and wildlife with the present multiple ownership and lack of cohesive response to the impending changes. Some of the preceding statements are necessarily speculative at this time; it will be years before the reservoir is filled, and flows in the creek become standardized. It is obvious that significant changes in physical and economic relationships will come about as a result of establishment of the dam and the reservoir. Meanwhile, decisions need to be made regarding the future of the riparian corridor.

Bringing about a consensus will be very difficult. The linear nature of the stream increases the problems involved in reaching a consensus regarding property rights transfer. Most projects managed through a land trust are individual parcels; the transfer has been successful because the original owner was able to financially benefit through tax savings. This would not be the case in many situations at Dry Creek; other ways of compensating landowners, such as direct payments, would probably be necessary. There may be sufficient advantages to the landowners (in terms of protection from trespass, for instance), other than financial, to make the transfer worthwhile. It is hoped that the present process, resulting in an environmental impact statement which lays out the advantages of potentially viable alternatives and includes information from all interested parties, will indicate the correct administrative path to take for riparian system protection.

When the original commitment was made, in 1976, to investigate the potential for mitigation for the loss of riparian system values, the complexity of such an undertaking was not well recognized. In order to successfully prepare a workable plan for the protection of threatened riparian systems in a democratic society, early recognition of the concerns of the affected public and knowledge of the legal complications of land and riparian rights transfer is essential. All interested Federal, State, local, and private organizations need to be contacted and given an opportunity to make their needs and opinions known. Only then can any path be charted to a workable riparian protection plan.

Literature Cited

Bailey, Richard L. 1978. The Warm Springs riparian dilemma. p. 365–369. In : R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick (tech. coord.). Strategies for protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems: Proceedings of the symposium. [Callaway Gardens, Ga., December 11–13, 1978]. USDI Forest Service GTR-WO-12, 410 p. Washington, D.C.

California Division of Mines and Geology. 1977. Erosion along Dry Creek, Sonoma County, California. Special report 134.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1973. Final environmental impact statement Warm Springs Dam and Lake Sonoma project, Russian River basin. Office of the Chief, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.