Copies of this pubitcat~onmay be obtained from the Publkcations Unrt, U S F ~ s hand Wildlde Service, 18th

and C Streets, N W , Mall Stop 1111, Arlington Square Bullding, Washrnglon, DC 20240, or may be
purchased from the Rlationai lechn~caiInforn~at~on Serv~ce(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA

Cover: Top left. drawing of California sycamore by W. Bailey; top right, drawing of predaceous nymph of the
Gaiilsmia spreatfwing; photograph of the Santa Margarita River which has the least disturbed riparian habitat in Sari
Diego County.
 B i o l o g i c a l Report 85 (7.27)
September 1989

THE ECOLOGY OF RlPARlAN HABITATS OF THE SOUTHERN

CAblFORNlA COASTAL REGION: A COMMUNITY PROFILE

Phyll i s M. Faber
Ed K e l l e r
Anne Sands
Barbara M. Massey
212 Del Casa
Mill Valley, CA 94941

Project Officer
J a y F. Watson
U.S. Fish and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e
Lloyd 500 Building, S u i t e 1692
500 NE Multnomah S t r e e t
Port1 and, OR 97232

Prepared f o r
U.S. Department of t h e I n t e r i o r
Fish and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e
Research and Development
National Wet? ands Research Center
Washington, DC 20240
i a b c r , ?.A,, C . Keller, A. Sands, and B . M . Massegc, 1989. Ihe ecology o f riparian
hab~ t a t s o f the Southern Cal i i ' c r r n ~ ac o d s t a l region: a comirltini Ly p r o f i l e . U.S. F i s h
Wildl. Serv. B i a f . Rep. 8 5 6 7 . 2 7 ) . l i 2 p p .
 PREFACE
This description of the riparian
community of Southern California i s a part
of a s e r i e s of p r o f i l e s describing the
coastal h a b i t a t s of the United S t a t e s . I t s
purpose i s t o describe the s t r u c t u r e and
functioning of t h e r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t in
Southern Cal i f o r n i a . Cowardin e t a1 .
(1979) c l a s s i f y t h i s h a b i t a t as occurring
in the Ca1 i f o r n i a province, estuarine,
r i v e r i n e , and pal u s t r i ne systems.
The p r o f i l e brings together a wide range
of information on t h e physical and biologic
features of the r i p a r i a n community in
Southern Cal i forni a and some practical
information on governmental j u r i s d i c t i o n s
and h a b i t a t r e s t o r a t i o n . Most of the
r i p a r i a n type of h a b i t a t has been l o s t in
the past one hundred years from human
a c t i v i t i e s , though determining the amount
remaining was beyond t h e scope of t h i s
p r o f i l e . Added as an appendix are s i t e s
within the study area where examples of
riparian habitat remain and can be v i s i t e d
by the pub1 i c .
Information in t h i s p r o f i l e will be
useful t o 1and managers, resource planners,
iii
environmental consultants, ecology
students, and i n t e r e s t e d c i t i z e n s . The
level of presentation, format, and s t y l e
should make t h e p r o f i l e useable f o r a
d i v e r s i t y of needs from managing t h e land
t o preparing reports f o r c l a s s e s o r public
presentations.
Chapter 1 defines t h e concept of r i p a r i a n
and o u t l i n e s t h e p r o f i l e study area;
Chapter 2 describes t h e physical s e t t i n g
and some of t h e geofluvial processes;
Chapter 3 o u t l i n e s t h e e f f e c t of water
regime on t h e establ ishment and succession
of plant communities and describes t h e most
common species of r i p a r i a n plants; Chapter
4 d e t a i l s t h e fauna t h a t i s dependent upon
and t h a t uses t h e r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t ; Chapter
5 summarizes some of the ecosystem pro-
cesses and values; Chapter 6 s p e l l s out t h e
myriad of governmental j u r i s d i c t i o n s and
r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t a f f e c t t h e use of and
the a b i l i t y t o conserve t h i s h a b i t a t type;
and Chapter 7 presents information on
riparian h a b i t a t r e s t o r a t i o n including a
number of case s t u d i e s .
 CONVERSiON TABLE
Metric to U.S. Customary

Multiply BY 70Obtain
millimeters (mm) inches
centimeters (cm) inches
meters (ni) feet
meters fathoms
kilometers (kni) statute miles
kilometers nautical miles
square meters (m2) 10.76 square feet
square kilometers (krn2) 0.3561 square miles
hectares (ha) 2.471 acres
l~ters(I) gallons
cubic meters (m3) cubic feet
cubic meters acre-feet
milligrams (rng) ounces
grams (g) ounces
kilograms (kg) pourlds
metric tons (t) pounds
metric tons short tons
k~localories(kcal) 3 968 f3rit1shthernial units
Cels~usdegrees (" 6) 1 8 (" C) 4 32 fnhrenhe~tdegrees

U.S. Customary lo Metric

incties 25.40 nitllimeters

incfies 2.54 ccntrrrleters
feet ( f t ) 0.3018 meters
fathoms 1.829 meters
statute miles (mi) 1.609 kilometers
nautical miles (nmi) 1.852 kilonietcrs
square feet ft2) square meters
square mfles jm?) square kilometers
acres hectares
gallons (gal) liters
cubic feet (ft3) cubic meters
acre-feet cubic rneters
ounces (oz) 26350.0 milligranis
ounces 28 35 grams
pounds (lb) 0.4536 kilograins
pounds 0 00045 meiric tons
short tons (ton) 0.9072 metric tons
Britrsh thermal unrts (Btv) 0 2520 ktlocaiories
Fahrenheit degrees (" F) 0 5556 (" F - 32) Cels~trsdegrees
 CONTENTS

PREFACE ........................................................................ iii

CONVERSION TABLE ............................................................... iv
FIGURES ........................................................................ viii
TABLES ......................................................................... ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................ xii

CHAPTER 1 . INTRODUCTION .......................................................

1.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n .........................................................
1.2 R i p a r i a n H a b i t a t D i s t r i b u t i o n ........................................
1.3 Disturbance E f f e c t s ..................................................
1.4 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Systems ...............................................
1.5 Study Area ...........................................................

CHAPTER 2 . PHYSICAL SETTING AND PROCESSES ..................................... 5

.........................................................
2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 5
2.2 The F l u v i a l System ................................................... 5
2.3 Basic Concepts ....................................................... 6
2.3.1 Channel-Floodplain Environment ................................ 6
2.3.2 Channel P a t t e r n ............................................... 7
2.3.3 F l u v i a1 Hydro1 ogy ............................................. 7
2.3.4 Bed Forms ....................... .
. ........................... 8
2.4 Thresholds i n Stream and R i v e r Systems ............................... 9
2.5 Human I n t e r f e r e n c e i n t h e R i v e r i n e Environment ....................... II
2.6 Southern Cal if o r n i a Stream-River System .............................. 11
2.6.1 Geology and S o i l s ............................................. I1
2.6.2 Cl imate, Hydrology, Sediment Production, and F i r e ............. 13
2.6.3 Channel Disturbance ........................................... 16
2.7 Summary .............................................................. 18

CHAPTER 3 . THE RIPARIAN COMMUNITY: PLANTS .............................. ...

3.1 H i s t o r y of R i p a r i a n Forests o f Southern C a l i f o r n i a ...................
3.2 The R i p a r i a n Community .............................................
3.2.1 Water Regime ..................................................
3.2.2 Community S t r u c t u r e ...........................................
3.2.3 ..
Deciduousness and P r o d u c t i v i t y ................... ...........
3.2.4 Regeneration ..................................................
3.2.5 Succession ....................................................
3.2.6 Tolerance o f Flooding .........................................
3.3 Common P l a n t s i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a " R i p a r i a n Community ............
3.4 Rare and Endangered P l a n t s ...........................................
3.5 I n t r o d u c t i o n and D i s t r i b u t i o n o f E x o t i c P l a n t s .......................
 Southern California Riparian Habitat ................................
3.6.1 Channel Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 . 6 . 2 Coastal Streams in Santa Barbara County .......................
3 . 6 . 3 Coastal Streams o f the Santa Monica Mountains .................
3 . 6 . 4 Ventura and Santa Clara Riverr ..............*.................
3 . 6 . 5 San Gabriel Mountain Range ....................................
3 . 6 . 6 San Bernardino Mountain Drainage ..............................
3 . 6 . 7 San Jacinto Range .............................................
3 . 6 . 8 Santa Ana Mountains ...........................................
3 . 6 . 9 San Diego County Coastal Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary ..............................................................

. THE RIPARIAN COMMUNITY: ANIMALS ...................................

Insects ..............................................................
4 . 1 . 1 Aquatic Insects .........................................+....a
4 . 1 . 2 Terrestrial Insects ...........................................
4 . 1 . 3 Role of Insects in Riparian Ecology ...........................
Fish .................................................................
4.2.1 Native Fish ...................................................
4.2.2 Introduced Fish ...............................................
Amphibians and Reptiles ..............................................
Birds ................................................................
4 . 4 . 1 Breeding Birds ................................................
4 . 4 . 2 Distribution o f Breeding Birds ................................
4 . 4 . 3 The Breeding Season ...........................................
4 . 4 . 4 Needs of Breeding Birds .............. .......................
4 . 4 . 5 Food and foraying .............................................
4 . 4 . 6 Bfrds as Agents of Insect Control .............................
4 . 4 . 7 Changes in Status .............................................
4 . 4 . 8 Species of Special Concern ....................................
4 . 4 . 9 Expanding Species .............................................
Non Breeding Birds ...................................................
4 . 5 . 1 Winter Bird Use ...............................................
4 . 5 . 2 Taxonomic Aspects of the Riparian Bird Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mammal s ..............................................................
4 . 6 . 1 Riparian-Associated Mammals ...................................
4 . 6 . 2 Status of Riparian Mammals ....................................
Sumary ..............................................................

5 . ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES AND VALUES .....................................

Ecosystem Processes ..................................................
5.1.1 Primary Productivity .........................................
5.1.2 Riparian Vegetation and Stream Ecosystems .....................
5.1.3 Role of Fire in Nutrient Cycling Between Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . .
Riparian Habitat Values ..............................................
5.2.1 Water Qua1 ity and Quantity and Stream Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Habitat for Wildlife ............................. . ............
5.2.3 Availability of Water .........................................
5.2.4 Migratory Corridors ...........................................
5 . 2 . 5 Riparian Habitat Dependency of Aquatic insects ................
5.2.6 Ripariaa H a b i t a t Oep~ndency of Fish ...........................
5.2.7 Riparian Habitat Dependency of Birds ..........................
5 . 2 . 8 Habitat for Mama1 s ...........................................
Positive Values for People ...........................................
5.3.1 A i r and Water Quality .............................. .......... .
 5.3.2 B e n e f i t s t o A g r i c u l t u r e ....................................... 94
5.3.3 A e s t h e t i c and R e c r e a t i o n a l Values ............................. 95
5.4 Human Impacts Adverse t o t h e R i p a r i a n Ecosystem ...................... 95
5.4.1 S e n s i t i v i t y t o D i s t u r b a n c e .................................... 96
5+4.2 R e c r e a t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s ....................................... 97
5.4.3 Gravel M i n i n g ................................................ 98
5.4.4 Water Impoundments ............................................ 98
5.4.5 A g r i c u l t u r e and Grazing ....................................... 99
5.4.6 U r b a n i z a t i o n and Road B u i l d i n g ................................ 99
5.5 Summary .............................................................. 101

CHAPTER 6 . GOVERNMENT JURISDICTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS ......................... 102

6.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n......................................................... 102
6 . 2 Federal Government ................................................... 102
6.2.1 Federal Laws ................................................. 102
6.2.2 Federal Programs and Agencies ................................. 103
6.3 S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a .................................................. 104
6 . 3 1 C a l i f o r n i a Laws ............................................... 104
6.3.2 S t a t e R e g u l a t i o n s and Agencies ................................ 106
6.4 Local Government ..................................................... 107
6.4.1 Local Government Plans ........................................ 107
6.4.2 Ordinances .................................................... 108
6.4.3 Southern C a l i f o r n i a J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Plans ...................... 109
6 . 5 Summary ............................................................ 111

CHAPTER 7 . RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ..................................... 112

7 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ......................................................... 112
7.2 Land Use and Ownership P a t t e r n s ...................................... 112
7.3 C o n f l i c t i n g O b j e c t i v e s ............................................... 112
7.4 Timing C o n f l i c t s i n R e s t o r a t i o n P r o j e c t s ............................. 113
7.5 Enforcement o f M i t i g a t i o n ............................................ 113
7.6 R e s t o r a t i o n P o t e n t i a l i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a ......................... 114
7.6.1 Development o f R e s t o r a t i o n Plans .............................. 114
7.6.2 E s t a b l i s h i n g G o a l s ............................................ 114
7.6.3 C r i t i c a l Elements i n a R e s t o r a t i o n Design ..................... 115
7.6.4 Implementation ................................................ 116
7.6.5 Management and Maintenance .................................... 117
7.6.6 T e c h n i c a l M o n i t o r i n g .......................................... 117
7.6.7 M i l e s t o n e s f o r Measuring Progress ............................. 118
7.7 A Case Study o f R i p a r i a n Revegetation ................................ 118
7.8 Recommended References ............................................... 120
7.9 Sources o f P l a n t s and Seeds .......................................... 121
7.10 Summary .............................................................. 121

REFERENCES ..................................................................... 123

APPENDIXES ..................................................................... 139

.
A Birds t h a t Breed i n R i p a r i a n H a b i t a t i n Coastal S ~ u t h e r nC a l i f o r n i a ....... 139

B. B i r d st h a t Use R i p a r i a n H a b i t a t f o r Other t h a n Breeding Purposes .......... 143

C . Mammals Associated w i t h R i p a r i a n Mabi t a t i n Coastal Southern

C a l i f o r n i a ................................................................ 145

D . Examples o f R i p a r i a n H a b i t a t i n Coastal D r a i n i n g Watersheds o f

Southern C a l i f o r n i a ............................................... 147
 FIGURES

Number
1 ....
Study a r e a showing major c o a s t a l d r a i n a g e s i n Southern Cal i f o r n i a 3
2 The Southern C a l i f o r n i a drainage a r e a showing runoff i n inches ....... 6
3 The f l u v i a l system ................................................... 6

4 Ideal i r e d diagram showing a r e a s of convergent and d i v e r g e n t f l ow ..... 8

5 Pool - r i f f l e morphology ............................................... 9

6 H i e r a r c h i c a l r e v e r s a l o f bottom v e l o c i t y i n a pool - r i f f l e sequence ... 10

7 Threshold c o n d i t i o n of s l o p e c o n t r o l l i n g channel p a t t e r n ............. 10
8 Comparison o f a n a t u r a l channel with an a r t i f i c a l channel ............ 12
9 Generalized map of t h e Southern C a l i f o r n i a d r a i n a g e a r e a showing
t h e l o c a t i o n of major a c t i v e o r r e c e n t l y a c t i v e f a u l t s ............... 13
Mean annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n in inches f o r San Diego. Los Angeles.
and Santa Barbara. C a l i f o r n i a ........................................ 14

R e l a t i o n s h i p between mean annual flood and recurrence

i n t e r v a l s f o r s e v e r a l r i v e r s ......................................... 14

1..ass o f r e s e r v o i r s t o r a g e in G i b r a l t a r Lake from 1920 t o 1980 ........ 18

Past and p r e s e n t geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of box e l d e r and a l d e r .... 22

Pine and incense c e d a r near edge of Mill Creek i n San

Bernardino Mountains ................................................. 22
A1 d e r a1 ong seasonal l y flooded streambank. Wheeler Gorge
Campground on Sespe Creek ............................................ 23
View of a l l u v i a l fan p l a n t community along San J a c i n t o River ......... 24

Mil lows a t Tapia County Park near Ma1 i bu ............................. 25

Thickets of mulefat i n t h e streambed i n P i r u Creek ................... 27

White a l d e r (Alnus rhombi fol ia ) ....................... ..........-... 28
G o o d d i n g ' s W i l l o w ( S a 1 i x q o o d d i n ~ i i ) ................................. 29

viii
Number
2l Arroyo willow ( S a I i x I&sjd_e&) ..................................... 30

22

23 Gal i f o r n i a sycamore ( P I a t a n u s raceniosa) .............................. 31

24 Boxelder (& nesundo) .............................................. 32
25

26 ...................................
Black walnut ( J u s l a n s c a l i f o r n i c a ) 33
German i v y (Senecio U a n i o i d e s ) along San J o s e Creek i n Goleta ...... 35
A c r o s s s e c t i o n of San J o s e Creek in Goleta Valley ................... 41
C o r r i d o r of r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n r e v e a l s t h e presence of a s t r e a m
descending i n t o Ventura River ........................................ 42

Mountain dudleya (Dudleya d e n s i f l o r a ) on rocky c l i f f s above stream

i n Fish and San Gabriel Canyons ...................................... 45

Cross s e c t i o n o f t h e Santa Ana River between Horeshoe Bend

and F e a t h e r l y Park ................................................... 48
The Santa Margarita. t h e l e a s t d i s t u r b e d r i v e r i n San Diego County ... 50

Predaceous nymph and a d u l t of t h e Cal i f o r n i a spreadwing

(Archil e s t e s c a l i f o r n i c a ) ..................................... .... 54

W h i r l i g i g b e e t l e s (Dinetus s p . ) on t h e s u r f a c e of an eddy
i n a stream .......................................................... 56

Lorquin's admiral ( L i m e n i t i s l o r a u i n i ) l a r v a . pupa. and a d u l t ........ 58

Rainbow t r o u t (Salmo s a i r d n e r i ) from Ma1 i bu Creek

and t h e San Gabriel River ............................................ 62

Unarmored t h r e e - s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k ( G a s t r e r o s t e r u s a c u l e a t u s
w i 11 i amsoni) ......................................................... 63

A mating p a i r of C a l i f o r n i a t r e e f r o g s (m cadavarina)
67
on a g r a v e l bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + e v e . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Willow f l y c a t c h e r (Em~idonaxt r a i l l i i ) ....................... ........ 74

Least B e l l ' s v i r e o (Vireo b e ' i l i i ~ u s i l l u s ff e e d i n g a brown-headed

cowbird ...................................................... . 75
A beaver dam on t h e Santa Margarita River ............................ 81

Riparian v e g e t a t i o n r e q u i r e s l a r g e amaunts o f f r e e o r unbound water .. 85

Re1 a t i o n s h i p s between r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n and stream components ...... 86
Number
44 Riparian zones along rivers and streams serve as corridors
between habitat types .........................~~+~..~............. 98

Riparian zones often have many edges and strata in a small area
with habitat for a variety of wildlife ...........+..,........s.e..a.. 92
Wilderness Gardens Preserve along the San Luis River ................. 95
Riparian zones must be considered delicate due to restricted area,
distinct microcl imate, vegetative structure and composition,
and water quality and quantity ....................................... 95
Percentage change from control in transportable sediment, detritus,
and detrituslsediment ratio in narrow buffered and unbuffered
streams in Northern California ...,................................... 97

Cottonwood trees adversely affected by lowered water tables on the

$an Jacinto River floodplain ......................................... 98
Gravel operation on the San Luis Rey River ........................... 98
Cement apron rep1 aces riparian understory in Temecul a . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Road construction in riparian zones reduces their usefulness

as wild1 ife habitat .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 100

Public works project on a Santa Margarita River tributary ......... ... 104

Riparian restoration in an urban area along the San Diego River ...... 117
 TABLES

Number
f Suspended sediment y i e l d s f o r s e l e c t e d r i v e r s .......................... 16
2 Sediment y i e l d f o r seven s e l e c t e d r i v e r s i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a ........ 17

3 Channel c o n d i t i o n s and a d j a c e n t land use f o r s e l e c t e d r i v e r s

i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a ................................................. 18
Some common s p e c i e s in t h e modern r i p a r i a n f o r e s t of Southern
C a l i f o r n i a and t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n t h e l a t e T e r t i a r y f o s s i l
record o f t h e western United S t a t e s .................................... 21
Rare and endangered r i p a r i a n p l a n t s p e c i e s ............................. 34

Common r i p a r i a n p l a n t s i n c o a s t a l d r a i n a g e s o f Southern Ca1 i f o r n i a ..... 37

Moths ( l a r v a e ) and t h e i r r i p a r i a n h o s t p l a n t s .......................... 59

B u t t e r f l i e s (1a r v a e ) and t h e i r r i p a r i a n h o s t p l a n t s .................... 59
Endangered. r a r e . and s e n s i t i v e b i r d s p e c i e s i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a .... 72
Orders o f b i r d s breeding in r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i n Southern Gal i f o r n i a .... 78

Water temperature changes i n small streams caused by r i p a r i a n

v e g e t a t i o n removal i n r e l a t i o n t o undisturbed c o n d i t i o n s ............... 87
Average percentage change i n suspended sediment i n t h e Alsea.
Oregon. watershed s e v e r a l y e a r s a f t e r fogging .......................... 97

Local t o o l s f o r r e s o u r c e management .................................... 188

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The a u t h o r s o f t h i s community p r o f i l e
acknowledge t h e s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f
i n f o r m a t i o n , u n p u b l i s h e d data, and h e l p f u l
a d v i c e t h a t was g e n e r o u s l y p r o v i d e d by a
number o f people, i n c l u d i n g : Jon Atwood,
M i t c h Beauchamp, D a v i d Bontrager, Mark
Borchart, Bayard Brattstrom, Timothy
B r o t h e r s , Oscar C l a r k e , Paul C o l l i n s , Robin
Cox, Jeanine Derby, Wendy E l i o t , M i k e
Evans, Jack Fancher, Wayne Ferren, Jr., Ted
Hanes, Michael Hami 1t o n , Dean Harvey, Glen
H o l s t e i n , Charles Hogue, Jon Keeley, Tom
Keeney, Steve Lacey, Steve Loe, Don
McFarl and, R i c h Mi nnach, B r i a n Mooney,
C h r i s Nagano, Tom Oberbauer, John Rieger,
J i m S t . Amant, A l a n Schoenherr, Sam Sweet,
Camm S w i f t , Tim Thomas, Steve Timbrook,
P h i l 1 Uni tt, R i c h a r d Vogl , R i c h a r d Warner,
C i n d i Weber, Howard Wier, and R i c h a r d
Zembal .
The d r a f t m a n u s c r i p t was reviewed i n i t s
e n t i r e t y by C h r i s Onuf and Michael Brody o f
t h e N a t i o n a l Wetl ands Research Center i n
S l i d e l l , L o u i s i a n a , J a y Watson o f t h e U.S.
F i s h and Wild1 i f e Service, Portland,
Oregon, and R i c h a r d Zembal, U.S. F i s h and
W i l d l i f e Service W i l d l i f e Biologist i n
laguna N i g u e l , C a l i f o r n i a . Parts o f the
rnanuscri p t were reviewed by Jon Atwood,
Jack Fancher, Ted Hanes, C h a r l e s Hogue,
Glen H o l s t e i n , E l i z a b e t h McCl i n t o c k , Steve
Low, Joe McBride, A1 an Schoenherr, and Camm
S w i f t . The c r i t i c a l comments o f r e v i e w e r s
have c o n t r i b u t e d t o a significantly
improved f i n a l v e r s i o n o f t h i s p r o f i l e .
A t t h e N a t i o n a l Wetl ands Research Center,
Beth V a i r i n e d i t e d t h e m a n u s c r i p t , Daisy
S i n g l e t o n prepared t h e camera-ready copy,
and Sue L a u r i t z e n designed t h e 1 ayout.
E r r o r s and omissions a r e t h e s o l e
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e authors. Ed K e l l e r
was p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r Chapter 2;
Barbara Massey f o r Chapter 4 ; Anne Sands
and P h y l l i s Faber, i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h
Bruce Jones, Environmental C o n s u l t a n t , f o r
Chapter 6; Anne Sands f o r Chapter 7; and
P h y l l i s Faber f o r Chapters 1, 3, and 5,
Appendix 0, o r g a n i z a t i o n , e d i t i n g , and
photographs u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e noted. PI a t e s
i n Chapter 2 were d r a f t e d by D.G. Crouch.
Wendy B a i l e y was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e
drawings i n Chapter 3 and f o r r e d r a w i n g
several figures. S a l l y P o r t e r t y p e d much
o f t h e manuscript. Nora Harlow t y p e d
s e v e r a l t a b l e s and d i d f i n a l e d i t i n g . The
a u t h o r s are g r a t e f u l t o each o f these
people.
1.I INTRODUCTION
Annual f l oodi ng, with accompanying
o v e r f l ows o f streams and r i v e r s , p r e d a t e s
man's presence i n C a l i f o r n i a . In t h e 200
y e a r s s i n c e Cal i f o r n i a ' s s e t t l e m e n t by
Europeans, almost every r i v e r i n Southern
Cal i f o r n i a has been channel i zed o r dammed
t o allow development on t h e f l o o d p l a i n s .
Only r e c e n t l y has t h e r e been concern about
t h e l o s s of a h i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e and d i v e r s e
ecosystem, c a p a b l e not only o f s u p p o r t i n g
a r i c h assemblage of p l a n t s and animals,
but a l s o o f f u l f i l l i n g o t h e r r o l e s y e t
poorly understood. Perhaps a s much a s 95
t o 97 p e r c e n t of t h e r i p a r i a n community has
been e l i m i n a t e d i n f l o o d p l a i n a r e a s of
Southern Cal i f o r n i a , y e t remnants remain,
p a r t i c u l a r l y a t h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n s where
development p r e s s u r e s have been l e s s
intense.
This communi t y p r o f i l e assembles t h e
small amount of information a v a i l a b l e on
the riparian habitat of Southern
C a l i f o r n i a , an important but n e g l e c t e d
h a b i t a t t y p e . I t has n o t been p o s s i b l e t o
e s t a b l i s h d e f i n i t i v e values f o r l o s s e s of
riparian h a b i t a t o r f o r t h e extent of
remaining r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t . The e a r l i e s t
a e r i a l photographs o f t h e Los Angeles
Basin, taken i n t h e l a t e 1920s by
F a i r c h i l d , show t h a t t h e San G a b r i e l , Los
Angeles, and Santa Ana Rivers were a l r e a d y
channelized by t h a t d a t e . Vegetation can
be determined on r e c e n t i n f r a r e d a e r i a l
photographs; however, i t i s beyond t h e
scope of t h i s study t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e
between qua1 i t y h a b i t a t with n a t i v e t r e e s
and an undisturbed o r i n t a c t u n d e r s t o r y and
d i s t u r b e d o r degraded h a b i t a t with e x o t i c
p l a n t o r t r e e s p e c i e s and 1 i t t l e o r no
understory. The d i f f e r e n c e i s o f extreme
importance i n determining w i l d l i f e v a l u e s ,
but e x t e n s i v e ground checks of a e r i a1
photographs a r e necessary f o r t h i s kind o f
determination.
1.2 RIPARIAN HABITAT DlSTRlBUTlON
R i p a r i a n h a b i t a t o c c u r s a1 ong streambanks
where s o i l s a r e f e r t i l e and water i s
abundant, a t l e a s t f o r some p o r t i o n of t h e
year. I t o f t e n appears a s a deciduous
g r e e n b e l t along p e r e n n i a l and i n t e r m i t t e n t
watercourses and t h e i r f l o o d p l a i n s .
The r i p a r i a n comrnuni t y i s a complex
ecosystem: In t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o R i ~ a r i a n
Resources of the C e n t r a l Vallev
Cal i f o r n i a Desert (1983), Warner develops
a r i o a r i a n a l o s s a r v based on t h e Latin word
m', meaniig ban( o r s h o r e of a stream o r
river. The o r i g i n a l meaning has been
r e t a i n e d and t h e a d j e c t i v e " r i p a r i a n " i s
defined a s pertaining t o t h e t e r r e s t r i a l o r
emergent zone ( a s opposed t o a q u a t i c o r
submersed zone) immediate1 Y a d j a c e n t t o
f r e s h w a t e r ( ~c tii o n a r y of Geol o a i i a ~Terms,
1962; Webster's Third New I n t e r n a t i o n a l
D i c t i o n a r y , 1963). Although c u r r e n t usage
sometimes expands t h e meaning o f " r i p a r i a n "
t o i n c l u d e t i d a l and e s t u a r i n e zones, t h i s
s t u d y g e n e r a l l y adheres t o t h e o r i g i n a l
usage of t h e term, r e s t r i c t i n g i t f a r t h e
most p a r t t o a zone a d j a c e n t t o a
f r e s h w a t e r stream o r r i v e r , recognizing
t h a t w i l d l i f e usage of h a b i t a t a r e a s
t r a n s c e n d s t e c h n i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s of h a b i t a t
types.
Amphibians, r e p t i l e s , b i r d s , and m a m a l s
a1 1 move back and f o r t h a c r o s s t h e r i p a r i a n
zone from streams i n t o a d j a c e n t wetland and
up1 and a r e a s . Primary and secondary
production d e r i v e d from up1 and and r i p a r i a n
comrnunf t ies goes i n t o s t r e a m and rivers,
n s u r i shing a q u a t i c organisms t h a t i n t u r n
support r i p a r i a n organisms, In o t h e r
words, the riparian cornunity is
interdependent with a d j a c e n t a q u a t i c and
up1 and communi t i e s . Two r i p a r i a n b i r d s ,
t h e d i p p e r and t h e k i n g f i s h e r , p r o v i d e
examples. The d i p p e r f e e d s on a q u a t i c
stages of insects (dragonfl i e s ,
d a m s e l f l i e s , midges, c a d d i s f l i e s , e t c . )
t h a t a r e nourished and p r o t e c t e d by
riparian vegetation; the kingfisher
i n h a b i t s t h e r i p a r i a n community but f e e d s
on f i s h i n an a q u a t i c community t h a t , i n
t u r n , feed on t e r r e s t r i a l i n s e c t s from t h e
a d j a c e n t r i p a r i a n community.
Warner d e f i n e s t h e a d j e c t i v e " r i p a r i a n "
a s " p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e banks and o t h e r
adjacent t e r r e s t r i a l ( a s opposed t o
aquat t c ) e n v i r o n s a f f r e s h w a t e r b o d i e s ,
watercourses, and t h e surface-emergent
a q u i f e r s ( s p r i n g s , s e e p s , o a s e s ) whose
t r a n s p o r t e d w a t e r s provide s o i l m o i s t u r e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n excess of t h a t otherwise
a v a i l a b l e through l o c a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n . " An
upland community, a s opposed t o a r i p a r i a n
community, i s then d e f i n e d a s one above a
f l o o d p l a i n in a zone f a r enough above o r
away from t h e t r a n s p o r t e d waters o f
f r e s h w a t e r bodies, watercourses, and
surface-emergent a q u i f e r s t o be e n t i r e I y o r
l a r g e l y dependent upon l o c a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n
f o r i t s water supply.
Riparian h a b i t a t i s u s u a l l y seen a5 an
ecotone, a t r a n s i t i o n a l community between
an a q u a t i c and an upland communit.y,
Immediately a d j a c e n t t o t h e watercourse, i n
c o n t r a s t with t h o s e o f t h e a d j d c e n t upland
tommun 1 t y , p l a n t s a r e t a l l e r , have 1a r g e r
leaves, and a r e o f t e n deciduous. As a
r e s u l t of i t s dependence on a supplemental
water s o u r c e , t h e r i p d r i a n commux~ity i s
i n t i m a t e l y t i e d t o t h e meanderings o f
i t r e a m dnd r i v e r w a t e r c o u r s e s . As a
f u n r t i o n ~ n gecosystem, i t i s open and h a s
high energy, nutrient, and biotic
interchanges with a q u a t i c systems on t h e
lrrncr margin and upland t e r r e s t r i a l systems
on t h e o u t e r margin. The boundary between
upland and r i p a r i a n camrnuniLies s h i f t s i n
years of high o r low r a i n f a l l a s f l o o d i n g ,
s e d i m e n t a t ~ a n ,and water t a b l e l e v e l s v a r y .
Warner (1983) c l a i m s that riparian
c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t t o approximately t h e 100-
year f l o o d zone, Where streams a r e
i n t e r m i t t e n t t o ephemeral , t h e up1 and
boundary i s i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t t o
discern. The presence o r absence o f
certain plants or t h e i r overall s i z e
r e l a t i v e t o those in an upland s e t t i n g
becomes the e a s i e s t determining f a c t o r .
A r i p a r i a n zone provides a c l a s s i c c a s e
of t h e e c o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e of "edge"
effect. Both d e n s i t y and d i v e r s i t y of
s p e c i e s tend t o be higher a t t h e land/water
ecotone than in adjacent upland
communities. Many animals move from one
community t o a n o t h e r t o f o r a g e , r e s t , o r
b u i l d n e s t s . Large animals r e q u i r e access
t o streams f o r s u r v i v a l . In a d d i t i o n , a
contiguous r i p a r i a n s t r i p provides a
n a t u r a l highway along which animals can
move s a f e l y from one p l a c e t o another.
I n c r e a s i n g l y , r i p a r i a n c o r r i d o r s a r e valued
by urban d w e l l e r s i n t h a t they provide a
welcome r e l i e f from urban i n d u s t r i a l and
a g r i c u l t u r a l development. The soi 1 and
v e g e t a t i o n a1 s o provide a n a t u r a l f i 1t e r i n g
system f o r removing a i r p o l l u t a n t s , a
subject of increasing importance,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e densely populated urban
c e n t e r s of Southern Cal i f o r n i a .
1.3 DISTORBANCE EFFECTS
Disturbances of t h e r i p a r i a n ecosystem
a r e sometimes r e v e r s i b l e . Irreversible
a1 t e r a t i o n s of t h e r i p a r i a n ecosystem
r e s u l t from t h e d i v e r s i o n o r l o s s of t r a n s -
p o r t e d water t a t h e system through d i k i n g ,
damming, channel i z a t i o n , l e v e e b u i l d i n g , o r
road c o n s t r u c t i o n . Clearing f o r c r o p s ,
grazing, o r golf courses i s potentially
r e v e r s i b l e a s long a s t h e w a t e r supply
remains u n a l t e r e d . The cumulative e f f e c t s
of land clearing f agricul tural and
u r b a n i z i n g ) , e a r t h moving (water d i v e r s i o n
and sedimentation), and pollutants
( p e s t i c i d e s , h e r b i c i d e s , o r g a n i c chemical s )
a l l r e s u l t in a l e s s vigorous and
deteriorating ecosystem with reduced
f u n c t i o n s and a1 t e r e d p l a n t and animal
populations.
1.4 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
In t h e U.S. Fish and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e ' s
(USFWS) C ' l a s s i f i c a t i o n aWetlands &
Deepwater H a b i t a t s 01 United S t a t e s , by
Cowardin e t a l . ( 1 9 7 7 ) T b i t a t s a r e
c1 ass! f ied according t o hydrologic a n d
geomorphic f a c t o r s t o which v e g e t a t i o n
types are related. Using t h i s system,
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t can be found in t h e
estuarine, riverine, and palustrine
categories, This community p r o f i l e of
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i n Southern Cal i f o r n i a
i n c l u d e s segments of t h e p a l u s t r i n e system,
d e f i n e d a s n o n t i d a l wet1 ands dominated by
trees, shrubs, persistent emergents,
emergent mosses o r l i c h e n s , and a l l such
wetlands t h a t occur i n t i d a l a r e a s where
s a l i n i t y due t o ocean-derived s a l t s i s
below 0.5 p a r t s p e r thousand. The USFWS
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s n o t e n t i r e l y
satisfactory for defining "riparian" as i t
does not appear t o t a k e i n t o account t h e
e f f e c t of high w a t e r t a b l e s i n f l o o d p l a i n
a r e a s t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y determine t h e
assemblage of p l a n t s i n r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t .
An example of the use of this
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system can be found i n
Appendix 1 of Onuf (1983).
The C a l i f o r n i a Natural D i v e r s i t y Base, i n
a modified v e r s i o n (1983) of an O u t l i n e of
Cal i f o r n i a Natural Communities by Cheatham
and Hal l e r (1975), r e c o g n i z e s r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t s a s a major c a t e g o r y , with
d i v i s i o n s and s u b d i v i s i o n s based on
geographic and v e g e t a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s .
The c a t e g o r i e s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t o f Southern C a l i f o r n i a a r e
Bottomland F o r e s t and Savanna
Ci smontane Bottoml and F o r e s t
Coast Live Oak Bottoml and F o r e s t
Arroyo Mi 1 low Bottoml and F o r e s t
Black Cottonwood Bottoml and F o r e s t
Riparian F o r e s t
Cismontane R i p a r i a n F o r e s t
Southern Ripari at) F o r e s t
A1 1uvi a1 Wood1 and
Sycamore Woodl and
A1 1 uvial and R i p a r i a n Scrub
Willow Scrub
C i smontane Wi 11ow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
1.5 STUDY AREA
Southern C a l i f o r n i a , a s d e f i n e d i n t h i s
community p r o f i l e , c o v e r s t h e cismontane o r
c o a s t a l a r e a between t h e Coast Range
Mountains and t h e s e a a s shown i n Figure 1.
The study a r e a i s bounded on t h e n o r t h by
P o i n t Conception i n Santa Barbara County

Boundary of Southern

-
I Santa Barbara
Coastal Streams

2 Ventura

3 Santa Clara
4 L o s Angeles

5 San Gabriel
6 Santa Ana -
@ SB-Sanfa Borbara
7 Santa Margartfa
s V-Ventura
8 San Luis Rey
9 San Diego
SD-San Diego
i 0 Tljuana

Figure 1. Study area showing major coastal drainages in Southern Caiilarilia.

and extends eastward along the crest of the
Santa Ynez Mountains in the Transverse
Range, along coastal -draining portions of
the San Rafael Mountains drained by the
Ventura and Santa Clara Rivers, across the
San Gabriel and $an Bernardino Mountains,
both drained to the west by major rivers,
the Los Angeles, §an Gabriel, and Santa
Ana, all crossing the vast Los Angeles
floodplain. The study area then continues
southeast Lo the Mexican border i n the
cismontane area From the crest of the San
Jacinto and Santa Ana Mountains and the
Coast Range in Orange and San Diego
Counties t s t h e Pacific Ocean. The Santa
Monica Mountains are included within this
region, and brief mention is given to the
Channel Islands, considered to be a
westward extension of the Santa Monica
Mountains.
 CHAPTER 2. PHYSICAL SETTING AND PROCESSES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Human use and i n t e r e s t in the r i v e r i n e
envi ronment of Southern Cal i forni a extends
back more than one hundred years.
P a r t i c u l a r l y in the l a s t eighty years,
rapid and extensive urbanization has
significantly a1 tered the Southern
Cal i forni a envi ronment , and streams and
r i v e r s have been extensively modified f o r
the purposes of flood control and water
supply. The Los Angeles River, which
flooded during the storms of 1938 t h a t
k i l l e d 87 people while i n f l i c t i n g $78
mi 11 ion in damage, has been so a1 tered as
t o scarcely resemble i t s natural condi-
t i o n s . For i t s s i z e , t h e Los Angeles River
may be t h e most extensively controlled
r i v e r in the world. There are 290 check
dams, 75 d e b r i s dams, 8 control and storage
reservoirs, and 2 1arge flood-control
basins in the 2,155 square kilometer
drainage basin of the Los Angeles River
(Brownlie and Taylor, 1981), and nearly 90
percent of the banks have been straightened
and/or 1ined with concrete.
The t o t a l drainage area of streams and
r i v e r s in Southern Cal i f o r n i a exceeds
32,000 square kilometers, of which about 53
percent i s controlled by dams and r e s e r -
voirs (Brown1 i e and Taylor, 1981). Figure
2 shows t h e Southern California drainage
area and l i s t s some of the major r i v e r s .
Although we can sometimes control a r i v e r
by constructing massive dams and channel
works t o d i s s i p a t e the disastrous e f f e c t s
of floods and droughts, we s t i l l know too
l i t t l e about the processes by which natural
r i v e r systems a r e formed and maintained.
Only recently have we recognized t h a t
physical d i v e r s i t y in t h e natural system i s
necessary to maintain biological
productivity and d i v e r s i t y , and t h a t past
modification of the r i v e r i n e environment
f o r human purposes has caused d e t e r i o r a t i o n
of r i v e r i n e ecosystems.
In t h i s chapter we present fundamental
concepts necessary f o r understanding the
f l u v i a l system and discuss the nature and
extent of human modification of the
Southern California r i v e r i n e environment.
2.2 THE FLUVIAL SYSTEM
The f l u v i a l or r i v e r system may be
discussed in terms of t h r e e major zones:
(1) the erosion zone, where much of the
sediment i s produced i n the headward
portions of a drainage system; (2) the zone
of storage and t r a n s p o r t of sediment in the
downstream o r middle portion of the
drainage system; and ( 3 ) the zone of
deposition of sediment, which i s usually a
lake o r ocean, as shown in Figure 3
(Schumm, 1972). A1 though t h i s idealized
system i s useful in understanding general
concepts about stream and r i v e r processes,
t h e r e a r e many exceptions. Some exceptions
a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y common in Southern
Gal i f o r n i a because of the wide variation in
physical conditions from t h e mountains t o
t h e sea.
The natural r i v e r i n e environment a1 so can
be viewed as a system composed of t h r e e
i n t e r r e l a t e d parts: the f l u i d o r water;
t h e main channel and floodplain; and the
network of channels t h a t makes up the
drainage basin. As t h e system evolves and
changes, a l l three p a r t s will mutually
adjust and influence the others. Adjust-
ment involves a mu1 ti tude o f i n t e r a c t i o n s
t h a t tend t o maintain a d e l i c a t e balance
within the system. In most streams and
r i v e r s , t h a t balance i s a quasi -equil ibriurn
(Leopold and Maddock, 1953) o r dynamic
 Sonta Barbara

S A N DIEGO R.

KILOMETERS

Figure 2. The Southern California drainage area showing annual runoff in inches (after California Water
Atlas, 1979).

.. . e q u i l i b r i u m (Hack, 1960). In o r d e r t o
understand t h e q u a s i - e q u i l ibrium o r dynamic
e q u i l ibrium, we must recognize t h a t (1)
t h e stream and r i v e r channels and a d j a c e n t
f l o o d p l a i n comprise an e r o s i o n a l , t r a n s -
p o r t a t i o n a l , and d e p o s i t i o n a l environment
i n which form and p r o c e s s evolve i n
harmony; ( 2 ) s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n t h e
f l u v i a l system o f t e n occur when a t h r e s h o l d
storoge has been c r o s s e d ; and ( 3 ) human i n t e r f e r -
ence with t h e f l u v i a l system g e n e r a l l y
reduces t h e physical v a r i a b i l it y o f t h e
o f sediment channelandfloodplain,resultinginaloss
of hydrologic v a r i a b i l i t y and b i o l o g i c a l
productivity.

2.3 BASIC CONCEPTS

2.3.1 Channel -Fl o o d ~al i n Environment

Figure 3. The fluvial system (modified after The stream o r r i v e r channel and a d j a c e n t
Schumm, 1978), f l oodpl a i n a r e p a r t o f a unique environment
c h a r a c t e r i z e d by e r o s i o n a l , t r a n s p o r t a -
t i o n a l , and d e p o s i t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s i n t h e
f l u v i a l system. The f l o o d p l a i n , a p a r t of
t h e n a t u r a l f l u v i a l system, i s produced by
d e p o s i t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s d u r i n g flows o f
moderate magnitude and frequency.
Formation and maintenance of t h e f l o o d -
p l a i n involves two main p r o c e s s e s : (1)
overbank flow and r e s u l t a n t v e r t i c a l a c c r e -
t i o n of f i n e sediment; and ( 2 ) l a t e r a l
migration o f t h e stream channel with depos-
i t i o n and f l o o d p l a i n c o n s t r u c t i o n on t h e
i n s i d e o f bends. Which of t h e s e two p r o -
c e s s e s dominates t h e formation and main-
tenance o f a p a r t i cul a r f7 oodpl a i n depends
upon l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s . In g e n e r a l , how-
e v e r , i n h i g h l y meandering streams t h e r a t e
of l a t e r a l m i g r a t i o n may g r e a t l y exceed
t h a t of v e r t i c a l a c c r e t i o n . In streams
with s t a b l e meanders and 1 i t t l e migration
from s i d e t o s i d e , v e r t i c a l a c c r e t i o n may
be t h e dominant p r o c e s s i n t h e formation of
t h e f l o o d p l a i n . In t h e s t e e p e r headwater
p o r t i o n s o f s t r e a m s , f l o o d p l a i n s may be
1 acking o r poorly developed.
Under n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s a stream o r
r i v e r u s u a l l y has s u f f i c i e n t d i s c h a r g e t o
emerge from i t s bank and f l o o d a d j a c e n t
a r e a s on t h e average of once every y e a r o r
two. Overbank flow o f t e n s u p p l i e s water t o
a d j a c e n t low1 ands on t h e f l o o d p l a i n , which
s e r v e a s s t o r a g e s i t e s f o r ground water
l a t e r r e l e a s e d slowly t o t h e stream during
d r i e r p o r t i o n s o f t h e y e a r . People l i v i n g
near r i v e r s must recognize t h a t overbank
flows ( f l o o d s ) a r e a n a t u r a l process of t h e
f l uvial system. To maintain t h e i n t e g r i t y
of t h e f l u v i a l system, t h e stream o r r i v e r
channel and a d j a c e n t f l o o d p l a i n must be
considered a complementary system t h a t has
evolved i n harmony o v e r a period o f y e a r s .
Modification of t h e environment t o reduce
overbank f l o o d i n g wi 11 reduce hydrologic
v a r i a b i l i t y and degrade t h e r i v e r i n e
environment. In r e c e n t y e a r s t h e r e has
been a move away from a b s o l u t e c o n t r o l of
t h e r i v e r system t o f l o o d p l a i n management,
which i n v o l v e s zoning of t h e f l o o d p l a i n t o
reduce damage from t h e n a t u r a l process o f
flooding.
2.3.2 Channel P a t t e r n
The p a t t e r n o f a stream o r r i v e r channel
a s viewed from t h e a i r i s c a l l e d t h e
channel p a t t e r n . Natural s t r e a m s f a l l i n t o
two major t y p e s of channel p a t t e r n s : (1)
braided channels, c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an
abundance o f mid-channel i s l a n d s o r b a r s
t h a t c o n t i n u a l l y d i v i d e and r e u n i t e t h e
channel ; and ( 2 ) c h a n n e l s t h a t a r e not
braided. S t r a i g h t channels a r e r a r e i n
n a t u r e and a r e g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with
g e o l o g i c o r s t r u c t u r a l c o n t r o l . Therefore,
most non-braided channels a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d
by numerous bends and may be d e s c r i b e d a s
sinuous. A p a r t i c u l a r t y p e o f sinuous
stream, c h a r a c t e r i z e d by very r e g u l a r
bends, i s l a b e l e d a meandering stream. In
t h e headward p o r t i o n of s t r e a m s , where t h e
g r a d i e n t i s s t e e p and c o n t r o l l e d by t h e
geology, channel p a t t e r n s a r e d i f f i c u l t t o
d i s t i n g u i s h , but g e n e r a l l y a r e s t r a i g h t t o
sinuous and c o n f i n e d t o a s t e e p , V-shaped
valley. A f t e r emerging from a mountain
f r o n t , streams may flow a c r o s s an a l l u v i a l
p l a i n and be e i t h e r b r a i d e d o r meandering,
depending upon t h e s l o p e of t h e channel,
t h e sediment load c a r r i e d , and t h e
hydrologic c o n d i t i o n s . Streams w i t h a high
load o f c o a r s e sediment ( g r a v e l ) and s t e e p
s l o p e f a v o r t h e b r a i d e d p a t t e r n , whereas
t h o s e with a l e s s e r s l o p e and g r a v e l load
a r e more l i k e l y t o be sinuous. Streams
emerging from a mountain f r o n t w i l l o f t e n
wander back and f o r t h a c r o s s t h e a l l u v i a l
p l a i n , producing a system o f c o a l e s c i n g
a l l u v i a l f a n s . In o t h e r c a s e s , s t r e a m s may
c u t a c r o s s a l l u v i a l f a n s o r p l a i n s and
d e p o s i t t h e i r load d i r e c t l y i n a l a k e o r
ocean w i t h o u t long-term s t o r a g e o f t h e
sediment on a l l u v i a l p l a i n s .
2.3.3 F1 uvi a1 Hvdrol oqy
i n most stream and r i v e r c h a n n e l s , t h e
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c forms a r e produced by
highmagnitude flows ( f l o o d s ) and may be
modified o r s l i g h t l y changed only d u r i n g
lowflow p e r i o d s . The p r i n c i p l e s a f
conventional hydro1 ogy apply d u r i n g t h e
low-flow p e r i o d when t h e stream i s
essentially a rigid container f o r the fluid
phase with l i t t l e o r no sediment t r a n s p o r t .
A t high flow, when sediment i s being
eroded, transported, and deposi l e d ,
convent1 onal hydrol ogy i s no 1anger
auof i c a b l e because o f t h e many v a r i a b l e s
(tbl iavsky, 1966; Haddock, 1969). Thus i t
i s necessary Lo d i s t i n g u i s h f l u v i a l
hydro1 ogy from more conventional hydrol ogy
i n o r d e r t o understand t h e n a t u r a l f l u v i a l
system and r i v e r i n e environment.
 Three important p r i n c i p i e s of f l u v i a l
hydrology a r e ( I ) in no part of the natural
channel are contiguous stream1 ines
(hypothetical l i n e s t h a t represent the
d i r e c t i o n of flow) p a r a l l e l t o one another
or o a r a l l e l t o t h e banks of t h e channel ;
( 2 ) t h e g r e a t e r the curvature o f the
channel, the deeper the scour i s l i kely t o
be; and ( 3 ) during high (bankful) flow
events, scour i s associated with horizontal
convergence o r narrowing of streamflow and
deposition with horizontal divergence or
widening of streamfl ow (Lel iavsky, 1966).
The t h i r d p r i n c i p l e , i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure
4 , i s known as t h e convergence-di vergence
c r i t e r i o n . I t suggests t h a t , in general,
areas t h a t converge during high-fl ow events
will scour t o form pools, while areas t h a t
diverge during high-flow events tend t o be
c - D -----'
-D+
-
C CONVERGENT FLOW
D DIVERGENT FLOW
E -- - - 3' CROSS SECTION LINE
p o x
POINT BAR
WATER SURFACE
Figure 4. Idealized diagram showing areas of
convergent and divergent flow.
associated with deposition and the
formation of bars or r i f f l e s .
2.3.4 Bed Forms
A bed form i s any i r r e g u l a r i t y produced
on the bed of a stream o r r i v e r by t h e
i n t e r a c t i o n s between flowing water and
moving sediment (Simons and Richardson,
1966). In most stream and r i v e r systems,
two main types of bed forms may be present:
(1) pools, r i f f l e s , point bars, and other
bars t h a t give the stream i t s basic mor-
phology and generally are 1 arge enough t o
be measured in channel widths; and ( 2 )
r i p p l e s , dunes, and antidunes, which a r e
primarily controlled by t h e hydrologic
phase of the f l u v i a l system and may not be
a s i g n i f i c a n t part of the basic - channel
morphology (Kel l e r and Me1 horn, 1 9 7 3 ) .
Pools, r i f f l e s , and point bars are best
developed in a1 1uvi a1 meandering streams
with a gravel bed, whereas mid-channel bars
and side-channel bars are probably best
developed in braided channel systems. If
t h e r e i s an appreciable amount of f i n e r
bed-load material (sand), then r i p p l e s and
dunes are more l i k e l y t o be present, which
a t low flow may migrate through the channel
system, p a r t i a l l y masking more s t a b l e bed
forms, such as pools, r i f f l e s , and point
bars.
Pools, r i f f l e s , point bars, and mid-
channel bars may be i d e n t i f i e d by basic
morphology (Kell e r , 1971). Pools are
topographic low areas (deeps) produced by
scour (convergent flow) during high
channel -forming events. R i f f l e s are
topographic high areas (shallows) produced
by deposi t ional processes (di vergent f l ow)
during high channel-forming events. Point
bars are depositional forms located on the
inside of meander bends. The pool and
point bar together produce an asymmetric
cross-channel p r o f i l e , whereas t h e r i f f l e
often forms a more symmetric cross-channel
p r o f i l e (Figure 5 ) . Other mid-channel and
side-channel bars a r e formed by deposi -
tional processes during high channel -
forming events. The best developed
mid-bars and islands are associated with
braided channels characterized by steep
channel gradient and abundance of bed-
load material being transported and
deposited .
 sensory stimul i and physical and biological
c o n t r a s t s , such as shallow, bubbling water
on r i f f l e s versus the slower water in
pools, shaded versus sunl i t water, and the
d i f f e r e n t spectra of organisms t h a t prefer
one o r the other.
Many stream and r i v e r channels are
I I I I characterized by regul a r l y spaced pool s and
I ! ' I
I I
r i f f l e s . In these channels, pools tend t o
( R ; ~ h o n n i bed
l droiiie i ! remain in approximately the same f ocation
over a period of years, and such channels
may be considered morphologically s t a b l e .
In a l l u v i a l stream and r i v e r channels, as
(C)Cross-sections well as some bedrock channels, pools are
most commonly spaced a t about f i v e t o seven
A times the channel width. R i f f l e s are found
Riffle between pools and thus have a similar
spacing. Adjacent pools and r i f f l e s form
pool - r i f f l e sequences, and many streams
consist of a channel morphology dominated
by regularly recurring pool - r i f f l e
sequences. We1 1 -developed pool - r i f f l e
-bonk erosion c-oss-section sequences a r e most commonly found in
gravel -bed a l l u v i a l streams with a channel
-.. tholweg
R
r i f f l e area slope l e s s than 0.01 (1 m drop per 100 m
P pool a r e a (crossing) horizontal), but may a l s o be found in
fipoint bar bedrock channels and steep mountain
streams. For the l a t t e r , pools are often
Figure 5. Pool-riffle morphology. associated with l a r g e amounts of organic
debris or l a r g e in-stream boulders. In
such streams t h e r e may not be a regularly
spaced p o o l - r i f f l e sequence because the
spacing of pools i s controlled by the
organic debris or boulders. Most of the
Pools and r i f f 1 e s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y pools i n t h e steep bedrock portions of
s i g n i f i c a n t bed forms in the r i v e r i n e streams in Southern California a r e of t h i s
environment. A t low flow, pools are type.
characterized by slow, deep waters while
r i f f l e s a r e characterized by f a s t , shallow
waters. This hydrologic d i v e r s i t y meets 2.4 THRESHOLDS IN STREAM AND RIVER
feeding, breeding, and cover requirements SYSTEMS
f o r a wide v a r i e t y of r i v e r i n e organisms.
A t high flow, boulders in r i f f l e s may Many hydrol ogic and morphol ogi c changes
provide s h e l t e r f o r organisms t h a t would be t h a t take place i n streams and r i v e r s are
damaged by excessive water velocity in t h e in response t o exceeded thresholds. In
stream channel. Pools and r i f f l e s s o r t general, when a threshold i s crossed, a
stream gravels so t h a t f i n e r materials a r e change in process ( f o r example, erosion t o
found in pools and coarser materials i n deposition) occurs. One of the b e t t e r -
r i f f l e s ; t h i s s o r t i n g allows a wider known hydrol ogic thresholds in stream and
variety of f i s h and aquatic i n s e c t s t o use r i v e r systems i s t h a t defined as the
the bottom of the stream channel f o r velocity necessary t o i n i t i a t e bed-load
breeding, r e s t i n g , and feeding. They a1 so motion along the bottom of the stream or
promote t h e development of a d i v e r s i t y of r i v e r channel. T h i s threshold r e s u l t s from
streambank vegetation. Tree-shaded pool s a positive feedback mechanism, since
and more sunl i t r i f f l e s provide a d i v e r s i t y initiation of movement of bed-load
of cover and food f o r r i p a r i a n srgani sms. p a r t i c l e s f a c i l i t a t e s movement of other
Pools and r i f f l e s provide a d i v e r s i t y of p a r t i c l e s . Another we1 f -known hydrologic
threshold occurs when the Froude number
exceeds 1 (the Froude number i s defined as
the r a t i o of the i n e r t i a l force t o the
gravity force of flowing water). When the
Froude number i s less than 1, flow i s
labeled tranquil, and there i s a
characteristic s e t of bed forms such as
ripples and dunes. I f the Froude number
exceeds 1, then a threshold i s crossed and
the bed forms change t o plain beds or
antidunes,
Streams and r i vers with we1 1-devel oped
pool - r i f f 1 e sequences produce another type
of hydrologic threshold t h a t helps form and
maintain these bed forms. Pools a t low
flow are characterized by deep, slow-moving
water compared t o r i f f l e s , where the flow
i s f a s t e r and shallow. However, a t high
flow, the opposite may be t r u e ; pools may
have a higher velocity or flow of water
than adjacent r i f f l e s . This process of
hierarchical change of velocities i n pool s
and r i f f l e s i s described in Keller's (1971)
hypothesis of velocity reversal and i s
shown in a generalized form in Figure 6.
As discharge increases over the pool-riffle
sequence, the i n i t i a l velocity in the
r i f f l e exceeds t h a t of the pool. However,
with t ncreasing streamflow t o near bankful ,
a threshold i s eventually crossed beyond
which the velocity of water in the pool may
exceed that on the r i f f l e . The concept of
velocity reversal is important in
explaining why pools tend t o scour a t high
flow and f i l l a t low flow, whereas r i f f l e s
f i l l a t high flow and scour a t low flow.
The s c o u r - f i l l pattern associated w i t h
velocity reversal i s a hydrologic threshold
characterized by negative feedback t h a t
allows pools and r i f f l e s t o be maintained
over a number of flows and years. The
occurrence of velocity reversal or shear-
s t r e s s reversal has a1 so been documented by
Andrews (1979) and b i s l e (1979). However,
the reversal apparently does not occur in
a l pool - r i f f l e sequences, In some
channels there i s simply a convergence of
velocities over the pool and r i f f l e with
increasing discharge. The e f f e c t of t h i s
i s similar t o t h a t of reversal in that i t
will allow pools t o scour.
Several thresholds also tend t o control
the morphology and channel pattern of a
stream or river. Perhaps the best known of
these are the threshold values of channel
slope, which tend t o control channel
pattern (Figure 7 ) . The major conclusion
t h a t may be drawn regarding these thres-
holds i s that a change in channel pattern,
rather than being continuous, tends t o
occur quickly as threshold slopes are
exceeded (Schumm and Kahn, 1972). Foll ow-
ing the change, feedback mechanisms tend t o
be negative or self-enhancing t o maintain
a quasi-equilibrium o r dynamic equilibrium
in the stream or r i v e r system.
As a final example of thresholds in the
r i verine system, consider the processes o f
l a t e r a l migration of a meandering channel
i n cohesive alluvial bank materials. Most
l a t e r a l migration may occur by bank caving

4 21
Relativeiy Low
------- ;:S;iR;E "
- R e l a t i v e i y Htgh

Figure 6. HierarchicaI reversal of bottom velocity in

a pool-riffle sequence. Data from Dry Creek near figure 7. Threshold condition of slope controlling
Winters, California(Keller, 4984). channel pattern (after Schurnm and Khan, 1972).
or slumping following a high-flow event.
Water during high flow i s stored in the
channel bank materials, and, following
rapid drawdown of water during flood
recession, t h i s water i s 1e f t unsupported
and the shear strength of t h e bank materi-
a l s i s lowered. Often t h e drawdown i s
rapid enough t h a t the shear strength of the
materials f a l l s below a c r i t i c a l threshold
of s t a b i l i t y and f a i l u r e occurs. This
p a r t i c u l a r threshold i s a negative-feedback
mechanism in the adjustment of channel
slope t h a t allows t h e stream or r i v e r t o
migrate l a t e r a l l y while maintaining a
constant channel morphology .
Changes in sediment transport, bed form,
and channel pattern may take place abruptly
when a threshold i s exceeded. Furthermore,
changes t h a t take place may be character-
ized by p o s i t i v e feedback, which tends
toward a disequilibrium i n t h e f l u v i a l
system o r , more commonly, negative feed-
back, which tends t o maintain t h e dynamic
or quasi-equilibrium in f l u v i a l systems.
2.5 HUMAN INTERFERENCE IN THE RlVERlNE
ENVIRONMENT
Human use of the r i v e r i n e environment has
included a v a r i e t y of land-use changes t o
control the flow of water and sediment.
Two of t h e more important a l t e r a t i o n s a r e
channel i z a t i o n and t h e construction of dams
and reservoirs. Channel i z a t i o n , whether
called channel works or channel improve-
ment, i s a controversi a1 p r a c t i c e because
of the p o t e n t i a l l y adverse e f f e c t s on the
system ecosystem. Loss of f i s h and wild-
l i f e h a b i t a t t o channelization i s well
documented in many instances. Many chan-
nel ization projects control floods and bank
erosion and improve navigation, but we a r e
not always able t o predict which projects
a r e l i k e l y t o cause unacceptable ecological
damage. In general, channel ization pro-
j e c t s reduce t h e hydrologic and physical
v a r i a b i l i t y of streams and r i v e r s , and the
v a r i a b i l i t y of biological communities as
well. Figure 8 c o n t r a s t s some of the
differences between a natural channel and
an a r t i f i c i a l channel. Channelized streams
a r e usually s t r a i g h t e r , with poorly sorted
stream gravels and l e s s v a r i a b i l i t y i n
depth and velocity of flow during low-fl ow
periods. During high flow o r floods,
channel ized streams have l e s s variation in
flow v e l o c i t y and consequently 1e s s she1 t e r
f o r aquatic organisms. Channel ization
generally a l s o reduces t h e a e s t h e t i c appeal
of streams by reducing physical, biologi-
c a l , and visual d i v e r s i t y of t h e r i v e r i n e
environment .
Channel i z a t i o n is not necessarily
undesirable, but channel s must be c a r e f u l l y
designed so t h a t environmental degradation
i s minimized. This is b e s t accomplished by
designing channel s t o provide f o r physical
and hydrologic variabil i t y s i m i l a r t o t h a t
found in natural channels (Keller, 1976).
In other words, we must design with nature
t o minimize environmental degradation
associated with channel i z a t i o n .
Construction of dams and r e s e r v o i r s also
may d i s r u p t t h e r i v e r i n e ecosystem. Reser-
voirs tend t o t r a p sediment, and downstream
from a r e s e r v o i r t h e stream o r r i v e r bed
may become armored with a l a y e r of coarse
bed material a s f i n e materials a r e removed
from t h e system. Unless sediment i s added
below via t r i b u t a r i e s , t h e r e will be an
impoverishment of f i n e r bed materials
downstream from dams and a reduction in
physical vari abil i t y . Upstream from dams
and r e s e r v o i r s , deposition will occur as a
flowing-water environment is replaced by a
s t i l l - w a t e r environment. Construction of
dams on r i v e r s a l s o blocks sediment t h a t
would otherwise reach t h e coastal environ-
ment, and beaches may be deprived of t h e i r
natural supply of sediment. Dams and
reservoirs a l s o tend t o reduce flow vari-
a b i l i t y as flooding is reduced and t h e low-
flow discharge becomes more constant. Such
hydro1 ogic changes reduce physical vari -
abil i t y in t h e r i v e r i n e ecosystem, which i n
turn reduces the d i v e r s i t y of t h e biologi-
cal community.
2.6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STREAM-RIVER
SYSTEM
2.6.1 Geolosv and Soilq
The coastal drainage area f a l l s within
two major geologic provinces i n Southern
California: The Transverse Ranges and the
Peninsular Ranges, as shown i n Figure 9.
Also shown i n t h i s f i g u r e are t h e numerous
a c t i v e f a u l t s found within t h e Southern
Cal if o r n i a drainage area, including t h e San
Andreas f a u l t . Rock types within the
 NATURAL CHANNEL
SUITABLE WATER TEMPERATURES:
A M O U A T E SHADING; GOOD C W E R FOR FISH
LIFE; MINIMAL VARIATION IN TEMPERATURES;
ABUNDANT L E A F MATERIAL INPUT.
// POOL-RIFFLE SEQUENCE
k t
ooru gravef
SORTED GRAVELS PROVIDE MVERSlFlED HABITATS
FOR MANY STREAM ORGANISMS.
POOL ENVIRONMENT
HIGH FLOW
DIVERSITY ff WATER VELOCITIES:
H I W IN POOLS LOWER IN RIFFLES. RESTING AREAS
ABUNMNT BE~EATHUIDERCUT BANKS OR BEHIND
LARGE ROCKS, *to.
W F I C I E N ? WATER DEPTH TO SUPPORT FlSH AND
OTHER AWATIC L F E DWIlNG DRY SEASON.
Figure 8. Comparison of a natural channel
(modified after Corning, 1975).
Transverse and Peninsular Ranges vary from
young sedimentary rocks t o older igneous
and metamorphic rocks. However, i n many
instances t h e rocks a r e intensely sheared
and a1 tered by ongoing mountain-building.
Rates of u p l i f t and subsidence vary from
l e s s than 1 m a year t o several millimeters
a year, and horizontal motion along t h e San
Andreas and re1 ated f a u l t s i s several
centimeters a year. The r a t e of u p l i f t o r
horizontal motion along f a u l t s in t h e
Southern Ca1 i f o r n i a area i s highly variable
and s i t e - s p e c i f i c , but the g r e a t e s t r a t e s
o f v e r t i c a l u p l i f t a r e i n the western
Transverse Ranges from the Ventura area
south t o Los Angeles. l e s s e r r a t e s of
up1 i f t a r e found south of Los Angeles t o
ARIlFiClAL CHANNEL
INCREASED WATER TEMPERATURES:
NO SHADING* NO COVER FOR FISH L I F E .
RAPID OAILY'AND SEASONAL FLUCTUATI~)NS
IN TEMPERATURES; REDUCED LEAF MATERIAL
INPUT.
. -\
MOSTLY RIFFLE \\
UNSORTED GRAVELS :
\:-:\
.
REWCTION IN HABITATS; FEW ORGANISMS
HIGH FLOW
~$EH~~U~~$E,"I~Ev~~,"C~~~H$~~,"~.
OR NO RESTING PLACES.
YE","
INSUFFICIENT DEPTH OF FLOW WRING O W
SEASONS TO SUPPORT DIVERSITY OF FlSH
AN0 AQUATIC LIFE. FEW IF ANY POOLS
( A L L RIFFLE).
with an artificial channel
San Diego. In t h e Transverse Ranges, r a t e s
of u p l i f t a r e several times the r a t e of
denudation, producing steep mountain
topography t h a t r i s e s t o elevations in
excess of 3,000 m. Along t h e coast south
of Los Angeles t o San Diego, where r a t e s of
u p l i f t a r e apparently l e s s than in t h e
Transverse Ranges, t h e topography is more
subdued and often characterized by f l a t -
topped mesas.
The geology, and p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e a c t i v e
mountain-building, of Southern Cal i f o r n i a
has a tremendous impact on land forms,
streams, and r i v e r s of t h e area. Hany
streams and r i v e r s flow along a c t i v e f a u l t s
f o r a t l e a s t p a r t of t h e i r length, and
 Figure 9. Generalized map of the Southern California drainage area showing the location
ofmajor active or recently active faults.
stream gradients, and thus sediment
delivery and rate of runoff, are affected
by geologic processes. In particular, the
combination of weak crushed rocks and
occasionally intense seasonal precipitation
leads to periodic high rates of sediment
production.
Soils in the Southern Cal ifornia drainage
area are variable and dependent upon rock
type, tectonic activity, topography, and
climatic conditions, as well as time. In
general, soils on floodplains and low river
terraces are youthful and poorly developed,
whereas better developed soi 1 s are found on
older upland surfaces. Because rates of
denudation are high in the Transverse
Ranges where uplift rates are high, preser-
vation of land forms and soils older than
a few hundred thousand years is uncommon.
On the other hand, in areas where up1 ift
rates are low, residual soils on bedrock
and soils on alluvial surfaces may be con-
siderably 01 der. Older soi 1s are generally
recognized by thicker profiles and "5" soil
horizons with redder colors and higher clay
content.
2.6.2 Climate, Hvdrolosv, Sediment
Production, and Fire
The climate of the Southern Cal ifornia
drainage area is Mediterranean,
characterized by periodic rainfall between
the months of November and March. It i s
not unusual for most precipitation to fall
in a few storms. During cool winter
months, most precipitation results from
unstable polar air masses that move into
the area from the north Pacific. During
fall and winter, tropical disturbances from
the south occasionally produce intense
precipitation; rainfall intensities of 2.6
cm in 1 minute, 29.2 cm in 2 hours, and
 u a w vr * - + a a
C i M V L A T i V E P€.QCEWT DEPARTURC: FROM AVERAGE w1.c u 5 w o -4-
r+* m w m r + c V)
r+ 1 0 PJrtc,
m n w
1cca
3Z: -3- 5-
7 % w3
-n' " g $
sm4.3u,
3 1 3
zZ-3

m
g-WUP)
3 ,cog ;;:
g 5 - . 3 . ~ w
=i *dLI-

W
-.
g g-?.
V)rto
7
1 r + w 3
s % r t
Z = W LI1-r.d
W 3 -0 5
--.am a m

DISCHA9GE. R A T I O TO M E A N ANNUAL FLOOD IRI 2 3 3 ) V)w 4.O U

T S J W "I
m m E O e -.m*
0 - N w o m m 5
N
o
W
o o
D
o o o V)d.nV)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I
0 0
I I i
0 0 0
iem : ,+ -0 -a-
-3 0y.w
g g Wm3" -3
&". W7
3 2.V) + @ Q)
p, ag5
g g 2 J i-4.
%a=,.

*5.2%
%; -2
0

= e m 3 m
m 5 - 5 w r
-5 s g
m w
g g g - . 2;
g 2,art 3
r[) V) =-"@
3' rtmJ<
0 Zt+?

o
2 T g
d.
p "3- 0CT. 4.

0 w-..
4 . S " "2 3:
2
1
2 5E r+rt
-3IY2Y--
=I mccm
d = r 3m -5 -1.
e J r m - 5 s 2 J
rDd.0 r+
x3--ha
w V) 7
3 4. 4.
ua mv,
--'I3 t.q TU =T
m
*
".
*22m
 Table 1. Suspended sediment yields for selected rivers (sfata from Kelsay,
1977; Brownlie and Taylor, 1981).
Drain e area
Drainage b a s i n (km 3?
Southern Cal i f o r n i a
Ventura R i v e r
Santa C l a r a R i v e r
San Diego R i v e r
N o r t h e r n Cal if o r n i a
Eel R i v e r
Van Duzen R i v e r
Redwood Creek
O t h e r i n U.S.A.
Schuyl k i 11 R i v e r , Pa.
Delaware R i v e r , N.J.
R i o Grande R i v e r , N.M.
M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r , La.
a ~ o n t r o led.
l
hatural.
Some s t u d i e s have suggested t h a t a f t e r a
f i r e , sediment y i e l d s i n c r e a s e o n l y about
10 p e r c e n t ; o t h e r s t u d i e s have shown t h a t
sediment y i e l d s may be increased many
times. C e r t a i n l y t h e e f f e c t s a r e most
pronounced i n t h e first few y e a r s
immediately f o l l o w i n g a f i r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y
i f t h e y a r e wet y e a r s , and impacts decrease
as v e g e t a t i o n becomes r e e s t a b l ished. F i r e
i s a f r e q u e n t occurrence, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n
t h e up1 and d r a i n a g e b a s i n s throughout
Southern Gal i f o r n i a, and s t u d y o f i t s
e f f e c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y on r i p a r i a n vegeta-
t i o n and a q u a t i c communities, should be
expanded.
P o s s i b l e e f f e c t s o f f i r e on sediment
p r o d u c t i o n a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 12,
which shows t h e change i n sediment s t o r a g e
i n G i b r a l t a r Lake, Santa Barbara's p r i m a r y
r e s e r v o i r , f r o m 1920 t o 1980. The graph
suggests t h a t i f t h e h e i g h t o f t h e dam had
n o t been r a i s e d i n 1949, t h e l a k e would now
be c o m p l e t e l y f i l l e d w i t h sediment. Fire
occurrences a r e shown on t h e graph. Steep
p o r t i o n s o f t h e c u r v e r e f l e c t t i m e s when
sediment was b e i n g d e l i v e r e d a t an
a c c e l e r a t e d r a t e and a r e c l o s e l y c o r r e l a t e d
t o f i r e s i n t h e drainage basin. For
example, t h e 1964 Coyote Creek f i r e , which
burned 40,000 a c r e s (16,188 ha) i n t h e
Yield
t I t o n s / h /yr)
585
4,219
1,119
7,778
570
720
4,902
17,560
67,153
3,220,665
G i b r a l t a r watershed, was a s s o c i a t g d r i t h
l o s s o f 4,521 a c r e - f e e t (5.57 x 10 m ) o f
s t o r a g e i n G i b r a l t a r Lake o v e r t h e f i v e -
y e a r p e r i o d i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e burn.
The f i r e a f f e c t e d 28.5 p e r c e n t o f t h e
G i bra1 t a r watershed, and t h e d a t a suggest
t h a t a s i m i l a r f i r e might f i l l the
r e s e r v o i r w i t h sediment, p r o d u c i n g a l o s s
o f w a t e r s u p p l y t o t h e c i t y o f Santa
Barbara.
2.6.3 Channel D i s t u r b a n c e
It i s d i f f i c u l t t o assess t h e impact o f
human use on t h e streams and r i v e r s o f
Southern Cal if o r n i a because o f t h e 1arge
number o f p o t e n t i a l d i s t u r b a n c e s , i n c l u d i n g
channel i z a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n o f dams and
r e s e r v o i r s , m i n i n g o f t h e streambed f o r
sand and g r a v e l , l a n d - u s e changes, and
recreational use. A quantitative
assessment o f t h e o v e r a l l impact on t h e
Southern Cal if o r n i a d r a i n a g e a r e a i s beyond
t h e scope o f t h i s c h a p t e r . However, t o
approximate t h e e f f e c t s o f human use and
i n t e r e s t on t h e r i p a r i a n environment, a
p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e n t o r y has been made o f
channel c o n d i t r ' o n and a d j a c e n t l a n d use
a l o n g t h e main channels and major
t r i b u t a r i e s o f seven d r a i n a g e systems i n
Southern Cal i f o r n i a : Ventura, Santa Clara,
 'A-
w s
w 0
nc,
U P -
 1:130,600) w i t h a l i m i t e d f i e l d check.
Data from t h i s survey a r e shown on Table 3.

The r i v e r systems s t u d i e d d i f f e r con-

Figure 12. Loss of reservoir storage in Gibraltar
Lake from 1920-1980 (data from City of Santa
Barbara, 1981).
s i d e r a b l y i n channel c o n d i t i o n and a d j a -
c e n t I and use. F o r example, 82 p e r c e n t o f
t h e channel i n t h e Los Angeles R i v e r b a s i n
i s 1 i n e d w i t h c o n c r e t e , compared w i t h o n l y
2 p e r c e n t o r l e s s i n t h e Ventura, San L u i s
Rey, and San Diego R i v e r s . Probably t h e
most encouraging aspect o f t h e d a t a i s t h a t
along t h e Ventura, Santa C l a r a , San
G a b r i e l , Santa Ana, San L u i s Rey, and San
Diego R i v e r s t h e r e i s s t i l l an a p p r e c i a b l e
amount o f r i v e r b e d and banks t h a t a r e n a t u -
r a l i n appearance and some have a s i g n i f i -
c a n t amount o f r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n . T h i s
suggests t h a t i n some areas t h e r e remains
a p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n o r enhancement
o f r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t f o r f i s h and w i l d l i f e .

Los Angeles, San G a b r i e l , Santa Ana, San
L u i s Rey, and San Diego R i v e r s . In all,
o v e r 2,000 km of stream channels were
i n v e n t o r i e d f r o m a e r i a l photography ( s c a l e
2.7 SUMMARY
O f t h e t o t a l d r a i n a g e area o f Southern
C a l i f o r n i a , 53 p e r c e n t , more t h a n 32,000
km2, i s c o n t r o l 1ed by dams and r e s e r v o i r s .

Table 3. Channel conditions and adjacent land use for selected rivers in Southern California. Data from
1:130,OOO scale aerial photographs (1979 or 1983) collected by Cindy Hovind with supervision by the author.

San
Santa Los San Santa Luis San
Characteristic Ventura Clara Angeles Gabriel Ana Rey Diego

Length o f r i v e r s observed (km)" 144 515 378 170 448 227 227
Channel c o n d i t i o n s
Natural 70% 59% 12% 4 2% 36% 60% 69%
straightenedb 2 7% 3 5% 6% 4% 35% 39% 30%
Concrete l inedC 2% 6% 83% 5 5% 29% 0% I%
Riparian vegetationd 100% 60% 17% 4 7% 46% 100% 96%
Land use a d j a c e n t t o channele
Eaatural 5 5% 67% 14% 4 5% 44% 65% 68%
Urban 2 2% 16% 85% 5 5% 4 0% 9% 34%
A g r i c u ?t u r e 2 4% 26% 1% 0% 19% 28% 4%

a T o t a l l e n g t h o f main channel and m a j o r t r i b u t a r i e s i n v e n t o r i e d .

'A1 t e r e d b u t n o t c o n c r e t e - l i ned.
"Channels w i t h c o n c r e t e banks w i t h o r w i t h o u t a c o n c r e t e bed.
d
Trees, bushes, and brush w i t h i n o r on t h e banks o f r i v e r channels, whether n a t i v e o r
introduced.
ePercentages do n o t t o t a l 100% because o f d i f f e r e n t l a n d uses on o p p o s i t e s i d e s o f
channel.
The stream or r i v e r channel and adjacent
floodplain are characterized by processes
o f erosion, t r a n s p o r t , and deposition.
Hydro1 egic and morphological changes in
streams and r i v e r s occur in response t o
thresholds t h a t are exceeded, and often
these changes take place abruptly.
Channel i n a t ion projects reduce the
hydrologic and physical variabil it y of
streams and r i v e r s , and thus the d i v e r s i t y
o f biological comuni t i e s a s we1 l . Because
of the extreme v a r i a b i l i t y in precipitation
and runoff, flows of water in streams and
r i v e r s tend t o be extreme with large flows
a s f l a s h floods r e l a t e d t o storms.
Suspended sediment y i e l d s a r e high, though
not as high a s in Northern California, and
a r e often associated with f i r e .
 CHAPTER 3. THE RIPARIAN CQMMUNiTY: PLANTS

3.1 HISTORY OF RIPARIAN FORESTS OF such a s boxelder (m nequndo var.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA c a l i f o r n i c u s ) and val l e y oak (Quercus
l o b a t a ) , were e l i m i n a t e d from t h e northern
According t o Axel rod (Robichdux, 19771, p a r t o f t h e i r ranges and became r e s t r i c t e d
who has considered t h e evidence from t o California. Other s p e c i e s , such a s
numerous f o s s i l f l o r a s now known i n t h e yellow wil low ($11 i x 1 a s i a n d r a ) , remained
western United S t a t e s , modern p l a n t com- i n t h e n o r t h but g r a d u a l l y were confined t o
m u n ~ t i e s of C a l i f o r n i a a r e composed of t h e mild c o a s t a l s t r i p where t h e e f f e c t s of
assemblages o f taxa derived from d i v e r s e changing c l i m a t e were s m a l l e s t . Still
f l o r i s t i c sources. Axelrod (1950, 1967) o t h e r s p e c i e s , such a s white a l d e r (Alnus
has examined s p e c i e s composition ( i n d i v i - rhombi f o l i a j , a p p a r e n t l y were a b l e t o
d u a l l i n e a g e s and communities) in t h e s u r v i v e in unmodified Form in t h e northern
context of former topographic, c l i m a t i c , i n t e r i o r regions. Robichaux s p e c u l a t e s
dnd v e g e t a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s , concluding t h a t t h a t when an a s s o c i a t i o n of s p e c i e s in a
i n today's r i p a r i a n cornmuni t y of Southern f o s s i l f l o r a resembles t h o s e i n a modern
community, t h e community was formed i n t h e
t d 1 i f o r n i a t h e r e a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from
both d southern m a d r o - t e r t i a r y x e r i c e l e - a n c i e n t landscape with h a b i t a t requirements
mtwt and frorn a n o r t h e r n a r c t o - t e r t i ary simi l a r t o t h o s e of i t s modern c o u n t e r p a r t .
m e s i c element. The southern element
inrlutles &rbgtts, &Jt-tsta~hjJ-gs, Ceano- 3.2 THE RIPARIAN COMMUNITY
thc~.,, C(y-coc,w&us, f i t p r e y u s , Qiierci~s, and
U ~ n b t lll u l nri a , whclrchas t h e northern element
3 . 2 . 1 Water R u e
includes s p e c i e s i n such genera as A x , Riparian v e g e t a t i o n i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d
A 11 , C - s - t q ~ ~ g5 s, i : r a ~ & g , Pi=$, t o t h e physiography and hydrology of stream
Q\~f:-rcl?_s, and $ ~ a o 3 . Modern communities systems, i n c l u d i n g f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g t o
d r * ~ l~mi)overishedr e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of r i c h e r , watershed dimension ( s i z e , e l e v a t i o n , slope
mortl gcneral ized a n c e s t r a l communi t i e s . exposure, stream g r a d i e n t , e t c . ) . Where
ldxa were g r a d u a l l y el iminatcd from Cal i- s l o p e s a r e s t e e p , s w i f t water scours t h e
f o r n i d during t h e l a t e T e r t i a r y period in streambed down t o bedrock. Major storms
re5ponse t o a gcneral trend toward a t e a r o u t l a r g e s t a n d s of v e g e t a t i o n and
c o o l e r , drier c l i m a t e and a s h i f t in t h e frequent1y a1 t e r stream c o u r s e s . Where
s ~ ~ ~ s o n ddils t r r but ion of p r e c i p i t a t i o n . gradients are shallow, alluvium is
Suartl o f t h e s p e c i e s r n t h e motlorn r i p a r i a n d e p o s i t e d , providing s i t e s f o r p l a n t s t o
rcirntnun~t y are a s s o d ~ a t e d , as a n c e s t r a l become e s t a b l i s h e d . General f l o r i s t i c
forms, I n fossil cumrn~inities tt~roughout p a t t e r n s i n r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t remain in a
most of Caf i f a r n i a ' s l a t e T e r t i a r y and perpetual s t a t e o f s u c c e s s i o n , f o l f owing
Uuatcrnary h ~ s t a r y ,covering a time span of changes in land forms and water regimes.
20 n i i 11 ion y e a r s .
a . Perennial streams form i n t h e higher
M o b ~ c h a u x (1977) compared p r e s e n t and mountain ranges from s p r i n g s , c o a l e s c e i n t o
p a s t d i s t r i b u t i o n s of some dominant woody l a r g e streams, and f i n a l l y f1 ow out of t h e
s p e c i e s i n t h e r i p a t i d n coniniiitlity (Tabje miitintaii-is onto t h e f l o o d p l a i n a s s i z a b l e
4 ) " One example i s provided i n Figure 13. rivers. Above 7,000 f t , a s s o c i a t e d
As the c l imabe beearne c o o l e r and d r i e r with riparian vegetation consists almost
more dr s t i n c t s e a s o n s , c e r t a i n s p e c i e s , e n t i r e l y of shrubby montane s p e c i e s of
 Table 4. Some corntnon species in the modern riparian forest of Southern
Caljlornla and their counterparts In the late Tertiary fossli record of the
Western United States (adapted from Roblchaux, 1977).

Modern speciesa f o s s i l speciesb

_
Acer nequndo A. minor
Alnus -----
- rhombifol i a %. holl andiana,
- 4. merriami
--
Cornus cal ifornica -C . ovalis
Fraxinus l a t i f o l ia F . coul t e r i , E. caudata
Juul an$ cal ifornica j. pseudomoraha
Pl atanus racemosa -P . paucidentatg
P o ~ u l u sfremonti i -P. prefremonti i
Quercus lobata p. prel obata, Q. morasensi s
Sal ix lasiandre - S . hesoeri a
Salix l a s i o l e o s i % -S. wildcatensis
Sal ix l a e v i s a t a - S. laevisatoides
S a l i x gooddinsii -S. truckeana
Sal ix hindsiana -S . endenens i s
Joxi codendron di versi 1- -T . franci scan
"Nomenclature f o l l ows Munz, 1953.
b ~ e a f and seed impressions o f the f o s s i l species are
generally indistinguishable from those of t h e i r modern
counterparts. A d i f f e r e n t name i s assigned t o t h e f o s s i l
taxon t o avoid the d i f f i c u l t i e s of equating modern and
f o s s i l species.

willow (Salix s p p . ) . Jeffrey pine (Pinus
j e f f r e y i ) and incense cedar (Calocedrus
decurrens) often grow near the edges of
streams (Figure 1 4 ) . Below 7,000 f t , white
alder and willow commonly occur along
seasonal l y f1 ooded streambanks between 1 ow-
water and maximum flood l e v e l s , often i n
dense stands of young t r e e s (Figure 1 5 ) .
Cottonwood ( P o ~ uus l spp. ) and sometimes
sycamore (Platanus racemosa) grow in the
seasonally flooded habitat but more
commonly on banks, c r e s t s of banks, and
terraces along the .stream above the zone of
seasonal inundation but in an area where
the water table remains close t o the
surface and where roots are probably i n
saturated s o i l (Ferren, 1984). Sycamore,
coast 1 ive oak (Quercus aqrifol i a ) , and
California bay (Umbel1~ 1 a r i acal ifornica)
grow t o very large s i z e s on f i r s t , second,
and t h i r d t e r r a c e s above the streambed.
Here, where s u f f i c i e n t 1 ight penetrates f o r
shrub and herb develoflment, can be found
the r i c h e s t assemblages of understory
riparian species, incf uding mu1e f a t
(Baccharis q l u t i n o s a ) , dogwood (Carfius
21
spp. ) , elderberry (Sambucus mexicanaf , and
wild grape ( V i t i s s i r d i a n a ) . I n areas
where there i s a well-developed canopy,
perennial water flow, and rocky or cobbly
s u b s t r a t e , only s c a t t e r e d , nonpersistent
vegetation grows (Ferren, 1983). Under-
s t o r y plant d i v e r s i t y increases signi -
f i c a n t l y near low-energy portions of the
stream, p a r t i c u l a r l y where s i l t accumulates
and there i s g r e a t e r sunlight penetration
between older and t a l l e r t r e e s .
b. Hybrid streams, characterized by
perenni a1 or year-round aboveground f ?ows
i n some years and intermittent flows i n
o t h e r s , often form in mountains a t lower
elevations or on smaller watersheds. In
t h e s e streams alder drops out; wfllow,
cottonwood, sycamore, and coast l i v e oak
remain a s dominant species, the l a t t e r two
o f t e n a t t a i n t ng large s i r e s from subsurface
water suppl ies.
c. Intermittent streams flow f o r a t
l e a s t p a r t of the year aboveground. In
Box older (Acernesurni) \. * " -- - . -

Figure 14. Plne and incense cedar grow near the

edge of Mill Creek at 5,900 ft In the San Bernardino
Mountains,

these streambeds s o i l s a r e kept moist, not

saturated, by winter r a i n s and subsurface
water l e v e l s and a r e often sheltered by
north-facing slopes o r adjoining b l u f f s t o
the south, and willow and cottonwood drop
out. Typically, sycamore moves down i n t o
the streambed, along with coast l i v e oak
and California bay, sustained by subsurface
water sources (Ferren, 1983).
The d i v e r s i t y of emergent herbaceous
plants increases s i g n i f i c a n t l y in i n t e r -
_..- mi t t e n t streams with exposed sand and
Afder (Alnus rhombifolia) gravel substrates t h a t receive d i r e c t
sun1 ight through an open o r non-existent
Mictcene floras = A Pbistocene floras = X riparian canopy (Ferren, 1983).
Pliocene floras = @ Presem distr~bulions= 0
d - F~hemeral streams flow in years of
heavy r a i n f a l l , p a r t i c u l a r l y during 1arge
Figure 13. Past and present geographical distribu- storms. Coast l ive oak, t y p i c a l l y of
tions of box elder and alder (from Rsbictraux, 1977). small e r s t a t u r e , remains the dominant
22
 Figure 15. Wheeler Gorge Campground on Sespe Creek. Alder, the most reliable riparian indicator species,
grows along seasonally flooded streambanks between low-water and maximum flood levels.
s p e c i e s i n a h a b i t a t with l e s s c e r t a i n and
l e s s abundant water supply. This h a b i t a t
o f t e n appears a s a continuum o r ecotone
with v e g e t a t i o n on n o r t h - f a c i n g s l o p e s , a s
can be seen i n t h e Santa Monica Mountains
where Caf if o r n i a walnut (Jusl ans
c a l i f o r n i c a ) grows i n streambeds and up
onto n o r t h - f a c i n g s l o p e s .
e . Floodolains and a l l u v i a l f a n s of a
number of watercourses flowing o u t of t h e
San G a b r i e l , San Bernardino, and San
J a c i n t o Mountains support a d i s t i n c t i v e
plant community, structurally and
f l o r i s t i c a l l y d i v e r s e , c o n s i s t i n g of an
unusually l arge p r o p o r t i o n o f a r b o r e s c e n t
evergreen shrubs and a r i c h assemblage of
subshrubs, a s shown i n Figure 16 (Smith,
1980).
3.2.2 Community S t r u c t u r e
S t r u c t u r e and composition o f r i p a r i a n
forests are directly related t o factors
such a s water regime, frequency o f d i s -
turbance, a i r temperature, root-zone
a e r a t i o n , depth of ground water, w i d t h and
e l e v a t i o n o f t h e f l o o d p l a i n , and t h e s t a n d
age of t r e e s . The community can be divided
i n t o t h r e e zones: an a c t i v e zone c l o s e s t
t o t h e stream t h a t i s most s u b j e c t t o d i s -
turbance from w i n t e r storm damage and i s
c h a r a c t e r i z e d by willow and a l d e r ; a border
zone t h a t i s l e s s s u b j e c t t o d i s r u p t i o n but
has a r e 1 i a b l e water supply and i s c h a r -
a c t e r i z e d by l a r g e r t r e e s of willow,
cottonwood, sycamore, and a we1 l devef oped
u n d e ~ s t o r ywi t h c o n s i d e r a b l e p l a n t d i v e r -
s i t y ; and an o u t e r zone on h i g h e r t e r r a c e s
Flgirre 16. Vicw of an alfuvfal fan plant community, a distinctive community of shrubs and subshrubs that
or-rcccovered much of the LOSAngeles Basin. Thls remnant Is along t h e San Jacinto River at 2,500 ft.
t h d t at-e only o c c a s i o n a l l y s u b j e c t e d t o
f l o o d i n g but where t r e e s , p a r t icuf a r l y
sycdalores and oaks, take advantage of t h e
highor water t a b l e s found a d j a c e n t t o
uivcvs and streams and grow t o very l a r g e
sires.
A v a i l a b i l i t y of water, f r e q u e n t l y i n
~ v m b i n a t i v n with deep s o i l s , i n c r e a s e s
p l a n t biomass production and provides a
suitable s i t e for plants that are limited
i n a d j a c e n t up1 and cornmuni t i e s by inade-
quate water and shallow s o i l s (Minore,
197Q). Riparian communities, p a r t i c u l a r l y
In t h e border zone, often exhibit
considerable d i v e r s i t y in plant species.
l h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e f o r t h o s e adapted
t a wet o r moist c o n d i t i o n s (lrlaxinrov, 19'31;
Campbe; 1 and Green, 1968; ifortone, 1972) .
I h e s e pl a n t s general 7y are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by
l a r g e , s o f t l e a v e s ; examples a r e w i l d g r a p e
and e l d e r b e r r y . L i t t l e emphasis has been
placed on t h e understory i n t h i s community
p r o f i l e , but i t should be pointed o u t t h a t
i t plays a major r o l e i n t h e r i p a r i a n
community. Many fauna, b i r d s , and i n s e c t s
a r e c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d with and dependent
an t h e dense, l u s h f o l i a g e and i t s
a s s o c i a t e d microclimate.
Riparian zones u s u a l l y have a high r a t e
of recovery and develop a range of
successional v e g e t a t i o n where t h e h a b i t a t
i s p r o t e c t e d o r a p p r o p r i a t e l y managed.
from information on r i p a r i a n f o r e s t s o f t h e
Sacramento River t h a t i s p e r t i n e n t t o t h e
r i p a r i a n f o r e s t s o f Southern Cal i f o r n i a ,
Strahan 11981) observed t h a t cottonwood and
willow a r e t h e c l a s s i c p i o n e e r s p e c i e s of
riparian forests. Seeds o f both s p e c j e s
initfafly become established almost
e x c l u s i v e l y on r e c e n t 1 y d e p o s i t e d exposed
a1 luvium. These t r e e s predominate i n young
s t a n d s on low t e r r a c e s near t h e r i v e r .
More mesic s p e c i e s , such a s boxelder and
black walnut, e n t e r cottonwood/wil low
s t a n d s over time and predominate i n s t a n d s
away from t h e r i v e r . Oak and sycamore a r e
found i n o l d s t a n d s on high t e r r a c e s and
a l o n g banks high above t h e r i v e r . S p e c i e s
d i v e r s i t y i n c r e a s e s a s s t a n d s age, r e a c h e s
a maximum i n s t a n d s w i t h mixtures o f
pioneer and 1a t e r s u c c e s s i o n a l s p e c i e s , and
may d e c l i n e s l i g h t l y i n o l d e s t s t a n d s
(Figure 17).
I t has been shown t h a t when d i s t u r b a n c e
i s high, willow dominance s h i f t s t o sandbar
willow (Sal i x h i n d s i a n a ) and, when somewhat
l e s s s e v e r e , t o Goodding's willow ( S a l i x
goodi nqi i ) . Cool growing seasons f a v o r
bl ack cottonwood, whereas t u r b u l e n t , we1 l -
a e r a t e d water c l o s e t o t h e s u r f a c e allows
white a l d e r t o become dominant. When water
t a b l e s a r e deep, sycamore i s t h e usual
dominant s p e c i e s where a e r a t i o n of t h e s o i l
i s high, and v a l l e y oak i s dominant where
a e r a t i o n i s low ( H o l s t e i n , 1981).
From a s t u d y o f f o u r c o a s t a l streams i n
Santa Barbara County, Ferren (1983)
reported t h a t w h i t e a l d e r and willow
Figure 17. Tapia County Park near Malibu. Willows are pioneer pliants that predominate
the stream, while cottonwood and sycamore predominate on higher terraces.
u s u a l l y grow i n s e a s o n a l l y f l o o d e d h a b i t a t s
between low water and seasonal maximum
f l o o d l e v e l s a s determined by a l i n e of
d e b r i s along t h e streambank. Sycamore,
black cottonwood, c o a s t 1 i v e oak, toyon
(Heteromeles a r b u t i f o l i a ) , Gal i f o r n i a bay,
l a u r e l sumac (b 1a u r i na) , and e l d e r b e r r y
u s u a l l y grow on banks, c r e s t s of banks, and
t e r r a c e s along streams above t h e zone of
seasonal inundation, where t h e water t a b l e
remains c l o s e t o t h e s u r f a c e and where t h e
r o o t s a r e probably i n s a t u r a t e d s o i l . The
l a t t e r t h r e e s p e c i e s a l s o c o n t i n u e up t h e
r a v i n e s l o p e s and a r e found i n southern
c o a s t a l oak woodland o r c o a s t l i v e oak
f o r e s t communities. As a p a r t of t h e
r i p a r i a n community, t h e y a r e not dependent
on t h e a d d i t i o n a l w a t e r s o u r c e , but a r e
to1 e r a n t of occasional f l o o d i n g and
s a t u r a t e d soi 1 s.
In a s t u d y of p l a n t d i s t r i b u t i o n
g r a d i e n t s from s t r e a m s i d e r i p a r i a n t o
a d j o i n i n g upland h a b i t a t s on t h e west f o r k
of t h e San Gabriel River, Brothers ( i n
p r e s s ) found t h a t o f t h e v e g e t a t i o n i n a
r i p a r i a n zone, a few s p e c i e s were r i p a r i a n
and a much l a r g e r number were from a d j a c e n t
o n iow terraces near
nonriparian areas integrading i n t o the
r i p a r i a n zone. He found c o n s i d e r a b l e
v a r i a t i o n i n s p e c i e s composition between
north- and s o u t h - f a c i n g s l o p e s and between
small and l a r g e r b a s i n s , i n d i c a t i n g t h e
importance o f m o i s t u r e a v a i l a b i l it y .
Syvertsen (1974) s t u d i e d moisture s t r e s s
(stem water p o t e n t i a l ) i n c o a s t l i v e oak
during a dry y e a r and found i t t o vary with
s l o p e p o s i t i o n . A l l s p e c i e s s t u d i e d showed
lower s t r e s s a t t h e bottom of t h e s l o p e .
Stand d e n s i t y i n f l u e n c e s moisture s t r e s s
where t o t a l water supply i s l i m i t e d , so
t h a t s t a n d s w i t h widely spaced t r e e s s u f f e r
l e s s moisture s t r e s s i n d r y seasons than do
t r e e s i n dense s t a n d s (Rundel, 1980).
C a l i f o r n i a walnut and toyon both had lower
s t r e s s i n open s o u t h - f a c i n g p l o t s than i n
t h e denser n o r t h - s l ope s t a n d s (Syvertsen,
1974).
3.2.3 Deciduousness and P r o d u c t i v i t y
The presence of winter-deciduous vegeta-
t i o n i n t h e r i p a r i a n communities of
C a l i f o r n i a i s an anomaly i n a s t a t e known
For i t s Mediterranean-type c l i m a t e and
sclerophyl lous evergreen vegetation
( H o l s t e i n , 1981). Oeciduousness I s pro-
moted whenever a long, productive growing
season i s p a i r e d w i t h minimally productive
but not n e c e s s a r i l y s t r e s s f u l cool o r cold
season. Trees with r i c h s t o r e s of food can
a f f o r d t h e energy c o s t of producing a new
crop o f l e a v e s each y e a r . The p r o d u c t i v i t y
p o t e n t i a l i n Ca? i f o r n i a , f r e q u e n t l y unful-
f i l l e d because o f summer drought, i s
realized in the r i p a r i a n vegetation t h a t
l i n e s perenni a1 s t r e a m s . These streams
carry t h e p a r t of t h e w i n t e r water s u r p l u s
t h a t i s slowly r e l e a s e d from deep a q u i f e r s
and me1 t i n g mountain snow, making i t a v a i l -
a b l e t o lowland r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n i n sum-
mer when l i t t l e w a t e r i s a v a i l a b l e from
l o c a l c ? imate. The g r e a t e r p r o d u c t i v i t y
a n d biomass o f t h i s v e g e t a t i o n i s p a r t i c u -
l a r l y obvious when c o n t r a s t e d with t h a t of
nearby communities t h a t l a c k imported water
( H o l s t e i n , 1981).
Riparian systems s e r v e as seed sources
f o r downstream ecosystems. Seeds a r e
t r a n s p o r t e d w i t h i n t h e r i p a r i a n system from
one p o i n t i n a stream t o a downstream
location o r are carried into the riparian
system from a d j a c e n t ecosystems by w i n t e r
runoff and a r e deposi t e d by f l ood w a t e r s .
Seasonal v a r i a t i o n o f f l ow regimes
greatly i n f l uences e s t a b l lshment and
s u r v i v a l o f p i o n e e r s p e c i e s , cottonwood and
willow, on g r a v e l b a r s . According t o
Strahan (19811, e s t a b l i s h m e n t and s u r v i v a l
o f r i p a r i a n s p e c i e s a r e r e l a t e d not o n l y t o
t h e physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f landforms
but t o a sequence o f f l u v i a l e v e n t s .
During t h e w i n t e r , streamflows must remove
humus and f r e s h l y f a l l e n l e a f l i t t e r from
t h e s u r f a c e s o s e e d s l a n d on mineral s o i l .
A receding water l e v e l i n l a t e s p r i n g and
e a r l y summer must c o i n c j d e w i t h cottonwood
and wi 1low seed d i s p e r s a l . W i 11ows a r e
more commonly found on f i n e r t e x t u r e d
d e p o s i t s , while cottonwoods develop on t h e
more c o a r s e l y t e x t u r e d d e p o s i t s . Gotton-
wood seeds r e q u i r e a moist s u r f a c e f o r
germination. Fresh s e e d s germinate more
r a p i d l y than o l d seeds and, i n s t u d i e s i n
Arizona, Fremont cottonwood s e e d s remained
v i a b l e f o r only f i v e weeks under n a t u r a l
c o n d i t i o n s (Fenner e t a1 ., 1984).
Rapid r o o t growth r a t e s a r e e s s e n t i a l f o r
cottonwood s e e d l i n g s because t h e moist
a?luvium d e p o s i t e d i n t h e s p r i n g d r i e s
r a p i d l y w i t h t h e o n s e t o f high summer
temperatures. The d e c l i n i n g water t a b l e
a l s o promotes r o o t growth t o g r e a t e r
d e p t h s . Before f u r t h e r f l o o d i n g , s e e d l i n g s
must achieve s u f f i c i e n t s i z e t o w i t h s t a n d
mechanical i n j u r y . The s u b s u r f a c e o f b a r s
must remain moist throughout t h e summer i n
order f o r seedlings t o withstand l a t e
summer drought. While i n i t i a l seed? i n g
d e n s i t y i s u s u a l l y very high, w i n t e r f l o o d s
and summer drought account f o r s i g n i f i c a n t
seed1 ing mortal i t y (McBridge and S t r a h a n ,
1984).
Within t h e mature r i p a r i a n f o r e s t t h e
l i n k between r e g e n e r a t i o n and flow regime
i s not as direct. Floods may remove o r
bury i n s i l t seed1 ings e s t a b l ished f o r one
o r more seasons. Boxelder, black walnut,
and oak s e e d s a l l germinate through l i t t e r
and under t h e shade o f e s t a b l i s h e d
cottonwood and wi'i low f o r e s t s ( S t r a h a n ,
1981).
3.2.5 Succession
Riparian pa a n t communities undergo a
natural and p r e d i c t a b l e sequence o f
r e v e g e t a t i o n a f t e r d e s t r u c t i o n by f l o o d i n g .
Such succession may t a k e 50 t o 75 o r more
y e a r s t o complete, s t a r t i n g from b a r e sand
and culminating i n a mature r i p a r i a n f o r e s t
o r woodland community on t h e f l o o d p l a i n
extending varying d i s t a n c e s from t h e stream
channel, depending on 1and c o n t o u r s (Smith,
1979). In c o n t r a s t t o t h e mature f o r e s t o r
woodland f a r t h e s t from t h e watercourse,
which r e q u i r e s y e a r s t o mature, immature
e x p r e s s i o n s of t h e r i p a r i a n communi t y
develop rapidly, forming gravel -bar
t h i c k e t s and open f l o o d - p l a i n v e g e t a t i o n .
Often t h i s a c t i v e zone w i l l c o n s i s t s o l e l y
of widely s c a t t e r e d h e r b s o r of immature
willow ( F i g u r e 18). According t o Smith
(1979), t h o s e mixed s t a n d s o f willow and
cottonwood t h a t t y p i c a l l y develop on middl e
Figure 18. Thickets of mulefat become established between floods srr graver bars a s seen along Piru Creek at
4,600 ff elevation.
t e r r a c e s of streams may be t h e o l d e s t
s t a n d s o f t r e e s along t h e Santa C l a r a
River. These a r e a s a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o
f l o o d i n g and e r o s i o n a s o f t e n a s lower
l e v e l s , and t h u s t h e v e g e t a t i o n can achieve
a more advanced s t a g e of s u c c e s s i o n t h a n on
f 1 oodpl a i ns and g r a v e l b a r s . Large
sycamore and cottonwood, found on middle
t e r r a c e s , and oak t r e e s , found on t h e upper
t e r r a c e s o f f l o o d p l a i n s and i n canyons, a r e
r a r e l y s u b j e c t e d t o f l o o d s and grow t o very
l a r g e s i z e s ( P h i l l i p s , 1963); however, t o o
o f t e n many a r e c u t down t o provide
a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s . I t i s t h e middle and
o u t e r zones o f t h e r i p a r i a n community t h a t
a r e t h e most d e p l e t e d .
3.2.6 To1 e r a n c e of Flooding
Teskey and Hinkely (1980) and Walters et
.
a1 (1980) have reviewed t h e 1i t e r a t u r e on
long- and s h o r t - t e r m responses o f p l a n t s t o
flooding. The major e f f e c t of flooding o r
o f saturated s o i l s i s t o create an anaer-
obic environment surrounding t h e r o o t
system as water replaces a i r spaces i n the
substrate. The anaerobic environment
(oxygen/CO, 1eve1s and ion-exchange
reactions) i n t e r f e r e s w i t h normal r o o t
metabolism, r e s u l t i n g i n p l a n t stresses
t h a t a f f e c t physiological a c t i v i t i e s such
as water and n u t r i e n t uptake, xylem and
phloem transport, photosynthesis, and
transpiration. A r o o t system formed under
aerobic condi t i a n s becomes dormant o r
begins t o d i e inmediately a f t e r flooding,
A p l a n t ' s tolerance o f lengthy periods o f
flooding i s d i c t a t e d by i t s a b i l i t y t o grow
adventitious r o o t s and new secondary roots
under low-oxygen conditions. A flood-
t o l e r a n t species can maintain a r o o t system
developed under aerobic conditions i n a
p a r t i a l l y anaerobic rhizosphere while
producing new secondary o r adventitious
roots. I n t o l e r a n t species not only s u f f e r
normal r o o t system l o s s but are unable t o
produce advent1 t i o u s roots (Hosner, 1958,
1960) .
Sycamore, cottonwood, and w i l l o w are a1 1
considered flood-tolerant, whereas b i g - l e a f
maple, C a l i f o r n i a bay, and coast 1 i v e oak
are a11 cons4dered intermediately t o l e r a n t , Figure 19. White alder (Wr m . Drawing
t h a t is, able t o withstand 1 t o 3 months o f by W. Bailey.
flooding during t h e growing season (Marri s
e t a1 ., 1979). A l t e r n a t i n g periods o f
watershed runoff, r e s u l t i n g i n flooding o f
the r i p a r i a n ecosystem, followed by periods on the Mentone f o r k o f the Santa Ana River
o f summer drought, appear t o be essential (T.L. Hanes, C a l i f o r n i a State University,
for preserving the d i v e r s i t y o f r i p a r i a n Fullerton; pers. corn.). Alder i s an e a r l y
vegetat i a n (Onuf, 1983) . pioneer f o l l o w i n g major storm scouring,
which s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r s streambeds, and
reestablishes q u i c k l y by vegetative growth
3.3 COMMON PLANTS IN SOUTHERN from e x i s t l n g r o o t systems and by seed.
CALIFORNIA'S RIPARIAN COMMUNITY Trees grow r a p i d l y , showing a maximum
growth i n diameter o f 3.84 cm a year (Long,
White a l d e r ( ), ranging 1982). White alder grows from 30 t o 100 ft
from Southern C a l i f o r n i a n o r t h t o B r i t i s h t a l l , w i t h a t h i n , open crown and a
Columbia, i s a r t p a r i a n deciduous t r e e s t r a i g h t , slender trunk 1-3.5 ft i n
(Figure 19). I n coastal o r cismontane diameter. Trees are monoecious, producing
Southern C a l i f o r n i a , i t i s r e s t r i c t e d t o male and female catkins on a s i n g l e t r e e
permanent streams and thus i s a more and seeds i n cone-1 ike structures t h a t form
re1 Sable i n d i c a t o r o f t h e presence o f water i n greater abundance i n f u l l sun1 i g h t than
than e l t h e r sycamore o r cottonwood (Jepson, i n p a r t i a l shade. Reproductive success i s
1923). At 6,500 ft and below, a l d e r forms best i n moist o r wet sand, gravel, o r humus
dense groves a t the heads of mountain s o i l , where seed1ings grow r a p i d l y and form
streams and intergrades w i t h cottonwood and open stands on stream borders (Sudworth,
willow a t lower elevations. It descends t o 1967). The ecological f a c t o r t h a t most
the mauths o f canyons only where c o l d a i r controls the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f white alder
and abundant water p e m i t , as, for example, seems t o be the need f o r consistent
28
s a t u r a t i o n of i t s r o o t zone by c o o l , well- l i m i t e d t o t h e r i p a r i a n zones o f t h e
aerated water. Central Valley, Southern C a l i f o r n i a , and
t h e d e s e r t s o f t h e Southwest suggests a
Willows (Sal i x spp. ) a r e fast-growing need f o r a long, hot growing season and
deciduous t r e e s t h a t a r e f a i t h f u l indica- abundant ground water (Holstein, 1984)
t o r s of r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t . The genus name (Figure 20).
i s derived from t h e C e l t i c &, near, and
u, water, in r e f e r e n c e t o i t s place of
growth, o r from t h e Latin word f o r willow.
Arroyo willow ( S a l i x l a s i o l e ~ i s )i s a l s o
c a l l e d white willow because of t h e smooth,
Willows spread vegetative1 y from r o o t ash-gray bark of young t r e e s and branches
sprouts i n t o l a r g e s t a n d s , o f t e n forming of o l d e r t r e e s . I t i s widely d i s t r i b u t e d
t h e dominant o v e r s t o r y , usually with a deep i n cismontane Southern Cal i f o r n i a . Along
l i t t e r l a y e r o r herbaceous understory. perennial streams a t low e l e v a t i o n s , down
Trees a r e of one sex only, and a stand w i l l t o 100 f t , i t grows i n t o small t r e e s 15-25
o f t e n be a l l male o r a l l female, with f t t a l l . A t e l e v a t i o n s up t o 2,500 f t and
female s t a n d s u s u a l l y outnumbering male along i n t e r m i t t e n t watercourses where t h e r e
stands. Flowers a r e both i n s e c t - and wind- a r e moist benches, depressions, and g e n t l e
p o l l i n a t e d and develop i n c a t k i n s from slopes with damp humus and rocky o r
which numerous seeds, winged with s i l k y g r a v e l l y s o i l , i t assumes a spreading,
down, a r e produced and dispersed by wind. shrubby form. In a d d i t i o n t o i t s ash-gray
bark, arroyo willow can be i d e n t i f i e d by
i t s 1eaves, which a r e dark ye1 1ow-green and
Red willow ( S a l i x l a e v i a a t a ) grows a t glabrous on t h e upper s u r f a c e and exchange
e l e v a t i o n s up t o 4,000 f t , o f t e n with
ye1 1ow wi 1 low, along fast-flowing perenni a1
streams i n cismontane Southern C a l i f o r n i a
and on C a t a l i n a I s l a n d . Trees a r e of
medium s i z e , 20-40 f t t a l l , and can be
recognized by t h e i r dark, rough trunk bark
and reddish bark on young branchlets
(McMinn and Maino, 1967).
Ye1 1ow wi 11ow (Sal i x 1 a s i andra) extends
i n t o cismontane Southern Cal i f o r n i a t o
e l e v a t i o n s of 8,000 f t and onto Santa Cruz
Is1 and, where i t grows a1 ong streambanks
and i n p e r e n n i a l l y wet places. While t h e r e
i s considerabl e h a b i t a t over1 ap between
yellow and red willow, t h e former may have
less tolerance for habitats along
i n t e r m i t t e n t streams than red willow and
t h u s need more permanent water. According
t o G. Holstein (University of C a l i f o r n i a ,
Davis; pers. comm.), t h i s observation needs
v e r i f i c a t i o n . A t lower e l e v a t i o n s , yellow
willow grows i n t o medium-sized t r e e s 15-45
f t t a l l and a t higher e l e v a t i o n s i n t o
shrub-1 i ke forms. I t i s e a s i l y recognized
by t h e yellow c o l o r of i t s 1-year-old
branchlets, i t s gl andul ar-warty p e t i o l e s ,
and i t s long, t a p e r i n g leaves.

Goodding's willow (Sal i x qooddinai i var.

v a r i a b i l i s ) i s found along streambanks and
i n wet places i n d r i e r h a b i t a t areas i n
cismontane Southern Ca1 i f o r n i a to
e l e v a t i o n s of 1,500 f t , where i t grows i n t o Figure 20. Goodding's willow (W 1.
t r e e s 20-60 f t t a l l . I t s d i s t r i b u t i o n , Drawing by W. Baiky.
reactions, interferes with normal silvery, mountains and the sea. Disjunct popula-
often silky, in appearance on the lower tions grow on Santa Cruz and Santa Catalina
surface (Figure 21). islands (Griffin and Critchfield, 1976).
Fremont cottonwood is confined to a1 1uvial
Sandbar willow (Sal ix hindsiana) is very stream bottoms and their borders in moist,
common along sandbars and riverbeds, par- sandy, and humusy soils or moist, gravelly
ticularly near the coast, but it is found ones, rarely growing in dry foothills
up to 3,000 ft in cismontane California. except along perenni a1 streams. Growing
Sandbar willow grows as a tree, up to 20 ft from 50 to 100 ft tall, with a diameter of
tall, or as a shrub; it can be distin- 1.5-4 ft, this tree will occasionally
guished by its gray, furrowed bark and become establ i shed along intermittent
gray, sil ky-haired leaves with excep- streams where it rarely survives to a
tionally short petioles (Peattie, 1953). mature age (Peattie, 1953).
Fremont cottonwood (Popul us fremontii) is Fremont cottonwood (Figure 22) is a
scattered throughout Southern Cal iforni a short-lived, fast-growing, deciduous tree
along streams and on lowlands between the that grows in strips along streambanks, in
small pure stands, or scattered in mixtures
of willow. It occasionally grows with
California sycamore and, at higher el eva-
tions, with white alder. It revegetates
from root shoots or by seed. Flowers
appear before leaves in the spring, are
pollinated by wind, and grow in long
catkins with the sexes on separate trees.
. Innumerable minute, short-1ived, cottony

I *j

Figure 21, Arroyo willaw (Sal& . Drawing Figure 22. Fremont cottonwood (Populu~
by W. Bailey. fremontil). Drawing by W.Bailey.

30
seeds are effectively disseminated by wind.
These have a high rate of germination, but
a transient vitality (Fenner, 19634;
Sudworth, 1967).
B1 ack cottonwood (Po~ulus b
grows at higher elevations than Fremrorat
cottonwood and along the coast, Hn
ci smontane Southern Cal ifornia the ranges
general ly over1 ap. There are d isjunct
populations on Santa Cruz, Santa Catal ina,
and Santa Rosa Islands (Sudworth, 1967;
Griffin and Critchfield, 1976). Beyond
elevational distribution, the two species
differ in size and in leaf shape and color.
Black cottonwood is the tallest species of
poplar, growing 80-125 ft high at lower
elevations and smaller at higher eleva-
tions, where it grows with white alder,
incense cedar, and occasionally big-cone
Douglas fir. Seedlings survive well on
moist, bare humus or sandy solls and are
often abundant on wet gravel bars.
California sycamore (Pl atanus 1 //'
is abundant at elevations below t $/f
throughout ci smontane Southern Cal iforn 4 a
along streams and near springs, on alluvial
benches or in moist gull ies where water Figure 23. California sycamore (
from streams or ground-water suppi ies are Drawing by W. Bailey.
either perennial or intermittent (Sudworth,
1967). Every 1 ikely canyon and creek
bottom has sycamore trees (Figure 23).
They grow in small groups in pure stands ar sycamores still stands on Milpas Street in
mixed with white alder, big-leaf maple, Santa Barbara, a quarter mile from the
Gal ifornia walnut, and occasionally willow, beach. A lantern was once hung in the
with a coastal sage-scrub or herbaceous upper branches on stormy nights to guide
understory. When growing close to a stream boats along the coast before the harbor was
where soils regularly shift from periodic built (Peattie, 1953).
flooding, sycamores may exhibit extensive
leaning, sprawl ing, or Fork-shaped growth. Boxel der (w var.
Trees growing farther from the streambank -1, another deciduous riparian tree, is
grow upright, 40-90 ft tall, with thick, limited in coastal Southern California to
barrel-shaped trunks supporting massive the Santa Ynez Mountains in Santa Barbara
crowns of wide-spreading 1 imbs ' Cafi forni a County, below Fort Tejon and Canada de las
sycamore is a tenacious tree, repeatedly Uvas in the Tehachapi Mountains, and in
repairing damage to its crown and limbs by elevated canyons on the western slopes of
vigorous sprouts and growth of wood. It is the San Bernardlno and San Jacinto moun-
a deciduous tree with broad leaves, 5 - 11 tains. Trees are few and widely scattered
inches long and wide, for which the genus with wide gaps in distribution along
is named (the Greek word platys means borders of perennial streams, bottoms of
broad). It has tiny unisexual wind- moist canyons, and gulches. Cal-iforlria
pollinated flowers borne in ball -1ike boxelder is found in strips and patches of
c'ttisters ari the same tree. The large, pure growth, but camonly grows with white
bristly, globular frujt breaks up at alder, sycamore, and willow, It is a
maturity, releasing the numerous small short, stacky tree, growing 20-50 ft tall
nutlets that are disseminated by drifting and is moderately tolerant of shading,
an the wind in fall. One of the l a w e s t especially in its early ilfe. It is
31
 dioecious w i t h male flowers i n s h o r t
c l u s t e r s and females hanging i n racemes on
separate t r e e s (Jepson, 1923). Female
flowers are wind-pol 1 i n a t e d and produce
f i n e l y pubescent samaras w i t h wings t h a t
are on1y sl i g h t l y divergent (Figure 2 4 ) .

B i g - l e a f maple (m macro~hvllum) i s
almost e n t i r e l y r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e r i p a r i a n
zone i n Southern Cal i f o r n i a , s c a t t e r e d
along banks o r benches o f perennial streams
and on s p r i n g - r i c h mountain sides i n moist
canyons. This handsome, broad-crowned t r e e
can grow t o 80 ft t a l l . B i g - l e a f maple
endures shading w e l l d u r i n g e a r l y 1i f e , b u t
grows best and produces the most seed i n
open woods w i t h good i i g h t from above.
Flowers a r e o f two kinds, p e r f e c t ( w i t h
stamens and p i s t i l s ) and staminate, and are
found together i n the same hanging raceme
on t h e same t r e e (Jepson, 1936). Fruits
are winged samaras t h a t , when dry, disperse
by f l o a t i n g on t h e wind (Figure 25).

Cal i f o r n i a b l a c k walnut (Jug1 an$ caf i-

-f g r n i c q ) i s a deciduous, sometimes-riparian

Figure 25. Big-leaf maple (Am1 mac;laPb~!!~).

~ r i w i by
n ~W. Bailey.

t r e e n a t i v e t o southeastern Santa Barbara

County. It i s l o c a l l y common below eleva-
t i o n s o f 2,500 f t from t h e Santa Ynez
Mountains southeastward t o t h e Santa Ana
Mountains i n t h e watersheds o f t h e Santa
Ynez, Ventura, M a t i l i j a , Piru-Sespe, and
Newhall Rivers. I t i s a l s o found i n the
Santa Monica Mountains and on south
slopes o f the San Gabriel Mountains; on
south and west slopes o f t h e San Bernardino
L e Mountains up t o e l e v a t i o n s o f 3,000 ft; i n
i
I Waterman Canyon up t o e l e v a t i o n s o f 2,900
ft; and on low slopes o f t h e Santa Ana
Mountains, i t s southern l i m i t . A specimen
found growing on Cuyamaca Peak i n San Diego
County i s probably n o t indigenous ( G r i f f i n
and C r i t c h f i e l d , 1976). A colony of
Cal if o r n i a walnut growing an J a l ama Creek
i n western Santa Barbara County i s con-
sidered t o be a n a t u r a l d i s j u n c t l o c a l i t y
( G r i f f i n and C r i t c h f i e l d , 1976). The habi -
t a t o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a walnut i s s i m i l a r t o
t h a t o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a sycamare, namely,
1. * the margi ns o f perenni a1 and i n t e r m i t t e n t
streams, u s u a l l y i n moist, g r a v e l l y o r
Figure 24. Boxelder (4a.r tl~:wn_d.p).
Drawing by W. sandy s o l 1 , and sometimes i n d r y s i t u a t i o n s
Bailey. where i t i s sustained by ground-water
suppl 1 es (Sudworth, 1967). However, i t
d i f f e r s from sycamore in t h a t extensive
stands are found on f o o t h i l l slopes not
associated with r i p a r i a n habitats.
Jepson regarded the Cal i forni a walnut i n
Northern Cal i f o r n i a t o be a shrub architec-
tural l y , though often of "elephantine
proportions," since stems from t h e base
give the appearance of several trunks
curving up and then dropping down nearly t o
the ground. This c r e a t e s a handsome crown,
12-20 f t high. Small c l u s t e r s of incon-
spicuous female flowers are wind-pol 1 inated
from male catkins found on t h e same t r e e .
Fruits develop i n t o nuts t h a t are small but
exceptionally hard (Figure 26).
3.4 RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS
There a r e few r a r e and endangered p l a n t s
in t h e riparian community. Rather, t h e
e n t i r e community type i s endangered by a
variety of man's a c t i v i t i e s , principally
agriculture, dam and watershed a1 t e r a t i o n s ,
road construction, and residenti a1 and
Figure 26. California black walnut ( J ! S
caiifornica). Drawing by W. Bailey.
commerci a1 development . Table 5 shows
plants on the California Native Plant
Society's List Ib, Rare and Endangered
Plants i n California (Smith, 1984), t h a t
a r e found in t h e r i p a r i a n communities of
t h e study area. Many of these a r e endemic
t o small areas and a r e threatened by human
activities.
3.5 lNTRODUCTlON AND DISTRIBUTION OF
EXOTIC PLANTS
Purposeful introduction of exotic plants
i n t o Cal i f o r n i a began in 1769 when Father
Junipero Serra e s t a b l i shed t h e f i r s t
European settlement a t San Diego. Accord-
ing t o Frenkel (1970), a t l e a s t 16 species
of exotic plants were established i n
California during t h e period of Spanish
colonization from 1769-1824; 63 more
species were established during Mexican
occupation from 1825-1848; and 55 during
American pioneer settlement from 1849-1860.
By 1968 Munz and Keck l i s t e d a t o t a l of 975
exotic plants, most introduced acci -
dentally. New weeds a r e being established
i n Cal i fornia continuously ; some spread
aggressively, while others do not. Some
species p e r s i s t only where i r r i g a t i o n
provides needed summer moisture; others
become t r u l y naturalized and grow along
with or i n competition with native species.
There a r e numerous introduced species i n
t h e riparian plant community of Southern
Cal i forni a. Zembal (1984a) 1 i s t s 99
introduced vascular species in a checklist
f o r Prado Basin, Santa Ana River Canyon,
and environs, 31.8 percent of t h e t o t a l
species found, and 144 introduced vascular
species, o r 27.6 percent of t h e t o t a l
species found, f o r t h e Santa Margarita
River watershed.
Three introduced species in t h e riparian
pl ant comrnuni t y of Southern Cal ifornia
deserve special mention, as they may
eliminate native species of plants and
s i g n i f i c a n t l y change t h e character of
habitat f o r w i l d l i f e : s a l t cedar o r
tamari sk (Tamarix spp. ) , German ivy
(Senecio mi kanioides) , and giant reed grass
o r cane (Arundo donax).
S a l t cedar (Tamarix ramosissirna), a
summer-fl oweri ng small t r e e native from
eastern Europe t o central Asia, was
introduced i n t o t h e United S t a t e s f o r
 Table 5. Rare and endangered riparian plant species.
P
.- - -- --

Plant name Location Statusa

Delohinium h e s ~ e rum i Cuyamaca Lake CDFG r a r e

s s p . cuvamacae CNPS r a r e and endangered
(Cuyamaca 1a r k s p u r )
Downinqia concolor v a r . Cuyamaca Lake CDFG endangered
brevo i r CNPS r a r e and endangered
(Cuyumaca Lake downingia)
Dudleva densi f l o r a San Gabriel Mts CNPS r a r e and endangered
(Santa Gabriel Mts. dudl eya)
Dudleva mu1 t i c a u l i s L . A . , Orange, Riv., CNPS r a r e and endangered
(many -stemmed dudl eya) San Bern., San
Diego Counties
S r i a s t r u m $ens1 fol ium San Bern. Co. CNPS r a r e and endangered
s s p . sanctorum
(Santa Ana River w o o l l y - s t a r )
Limnanthes g r a c i l i z var. San Diego Co. CDFG endangered
parishi i CNPS r a r e and endangered
( P a r i s h ' s meadowfoam)
Mahonb L . A . , Riv., San CNPS r a r e and endangered
( N e v i s 9 s barberry) Bern., San Diego
counties
Monardell a 1 i n o i d e s spp. San Diego Co. CNPS r a r e and endangered
----
vimineq
(San Diego Co. monardella)
Sidalcea pedata San Bern. Co S t a t e & Federal endangered
( b i r d - f o o t e d checker CNPS r a r e and endangered
ma1 l o w )

'CDFG = C a l i f o r n i a Department o f Fish and Game; CNPS = C a l i f o r n i a Native P l a n t S o c i e t y .

ornamental purposes i n t h e e a r l y 1800s and on newly d e p o s i t e d a l l u v i a l s o i l s , d r i v i n g

today i s t h e dominant s p e c i e s i n many
v i p a r i an p l a n t conimuni t i e s (Robinson,
1965). Tt was a l r e a d y well adapted t o
southwestern r i p a r i a n systems, p a r t i c u l a r l y
those i n t h e d e s e r t . S a l t cedar i s found
along many small stream channels i n San
Diego County, with a p a r t i c u l a r l y 1arge
stand, almost 100 p e r c e n t cover, in t h e San
Diego River i n Lakeside near t h e high
school. I t invades r a p i d l y a f t e r f l soding
out native willow and cottonwood,
p a r t i c u l a r l y when s o i l s dry r a p i d l y a f t e r
flooding. According t o Brothers (1981),
s a l t cedar i s b e t t e r a b l e t h a n t h e n a t i v e
f l o r a t o c o l o n i z e a h a b i t a t c r e a t e d by
a l t e r a t i o n of t h e n a t u r a l runoff regime.
I t p r e f e r s a l k a l i n e s o i l s and i s q u i t e
s a l t -to1 e r a n t . G I ands f o r e x c r e t i n g s a l t ,
l o c a t e d on i t s l e a v e s , e n a b l e s a l t cedar t o
invade s a l i n e s o i l s , The presence of s a l t
cedar promotes s a l t accumulation on t h e
s o i l s u r f a c e t h a t d e t e r s germination and
growth of n a t i v e s p e c i e s . S a l t cedar
matures r a p i d l y and begins producing 1arge
numbers of small wind- and water-borne
seeds w i t h i n a y e a r . I t s s u c c e s s may be
a t t r i b u t a b l e t o i t s pro1 onged annual seed
production and lower moisture requirement
compared with n a t i v e r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n
(Horton, 1972). S a l t c e d a r grows i n dense
s t a n d s and i s deciduous. A f t e r 15-20 y e a r s
of growth o f s t a n d s , f i r e becomes a r e a l
hazard. A f t e r a f i r e , t r e e s s p r o u t from
r o o t crowns w i t h i n a few days. S a l t cedar
withstands f l o o d i n g by developing a d v e n t i -
t i o u s r o o t s . Anderson and Ohmart (1977)
c i t e r e c o r d s of r a p i d invasion by s a l t
cedar i n t h e southwest, where i t has become
t h e dominant community t y p e .
German i v y (Senecio mikanioides) i s a
perennial v i n e t h a t was f i r s t recorded i n
C a l i f o r n i a i n 1890. I t i s found a s an
Figure 27. German Ivy ( ), an exotic weed that blankets asad eveMual!y kills native
vegetation, is shown growing along San Jose Creek in Goleta.
introduced e x o t i c from n o r t h of San
Francisco Bay south t o t h e Los Angeles
b a s i n , with on1y i s o l a t e d patches o c c u r r i n g
f a r t h e r south a t Chula V i s t a and along
c r e e k s i n San Diego and Escondido. Heavy
i n f e s t a t i o n s grow along c o a s t a l streams i n
Santa Barbara county, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n
disturbed residential areas. I t s slender
twining stems r e a c h o u t and b l a n k e t nearby
understory v e g e t a t i o n , which e v e n t u a l l y
d i e s out ( F i g u r e 2 7 ) . Invasion by German
ivy c r e a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t h a b i t a t change
f o r wild1 i f e .
Giant r e e d o r cane (Arundo donax) i s a
t a l l perennial g r a s s , 20-23 f t t a l l , w i t h
broad bl ades and 1a r g e , p1 ume-1 i ke
i n f l orescences . Introduced from Europe, i t
i s now widely d i s t r i b u t e d i n moist p l a c e s
i n d e s e r t and c i smontane Gal i f o r n i a and has
d i s p l a c e d e x t e n s i v e amounts o f n a t i we
v e g e t a t i o n along streams and waterways,
p a r t i c u l a r l y a t e l e v a t i o n s below 1,000 f t .
I t grows i n t o dense, impenetrable t h i c k e t s
along stream margins o r on i s l a n d s . Bird
i n v e n t o r i e s conducted a1 ong t h e San Diego
River i n d i c a t e t h a t i t has l i t t l e h a b i t a t
value and i s a p p a r e n t l y n o t used, even by
r e e d - l o v i n g b i r d s . Residents a t Fall brook
i n San Diego County unsuccessful 1 y t r i e d t o
e l iminate g i a n t reed on one s t r e t c h o f t h e
Santa blargarita River by manual and
chemical means.
3.6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RIPARIAN HABITAT
Because t h e geographic area of t h i s
community p r o f i l e i s s o l a r g e , with
c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n c l imate and
topography, t h e r i p a r i a n community c o n t a i n s
distinctive variations. Weather and
temperature p a t t e r n s a r e c o n s i d e r a b l y
moderated by c o o l i n g winds and fog from t h e
P a c i f i c Ocean along t h e s h o r t c o a s t a l
streams of Santa Barbara County and t h e
Channel I s l a n d s and along ocean-facing
streams of t h e Santa Monica Mountains i n
Los Angeles County and t h e Santa Ana
Mountains of Orange County. This c o a s t a l
i n f l u e n c e i s diminished i n t h e watersheds
o f streams and r i v e r s t h a t flow l o n g e r
d i s t a n c e s from mountain ranges f u r t h e r
i n l a n d , notably from t h e San Gabriel and
San Bernardino Mountains, and t o a l e s s e r
degree from t h e Coast Range Mountains i n
San Diego County. The s i z e of watersheds
v a r i e s from small acreages along t h e Santa
Barbara c o a s t t o very l a r g e acreages i n t h e
San Bernardino Mountains. The v e g e t a t i o n
was mapped by Weislander (1929) between
1929 and 1935.
The following section high1 i g h t s
s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n r i p a r i a n
v e g e t a t i o n from l o c a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e study
a r e a f o r which information i s a v a i l a b l e .
The small number o f r a r e and endangered
p l a n t s growing in t h e r i p a r i a n community
a r e l i s t e d . S p e c i e s information i s 1 imited
t o a r e a s where f l o r i s t i c s t u d i e s have been
undertaken; t h u s t h e l e v e l and qua1 i t y of
information v a r i e s and geographic coverage
i s uneven, Information about willow
d i s t r i b u t i o n i s included where a v a i l a b l e .
Di s t r i botional p a t t e r n s o f w i l l ow s p e c i e s
have n o t been s t u d i e d ; however, more
information on f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e s e
p a t t e r n s would provide useful information
f o r s u c c e s s f u l r e s t o r a t i o n e f f o r t s . Table
6 provides information on t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n
and abundance of common r j p a r i a n t r e e s and
shrubs i n t h e s t u d y area. Appendix D
provides examples of r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i n
c o a s t a l - d r a i n i n g watersheds i n t h e study
area where t h e r e i s a c c e s s ,
3.6.1 Channel I s l a n d s
The geographic e x t e n t of riparian
v e g e t a t i o n on t h e Channel Is1 ands r e f l e c t s
c l i m a t i c , s i z e , and e l e v a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s
among i s l a n d s . O f the eight off-shore
i s l a n d s forming t h e Channel Is1 ands, only
t h r e e o f t h e l a r g e s t , Santa Cruz, Santa
Rosa, and Santa C a t a l i n a ( a l l between 100
and 150 mi2 with e l e v a t i o n s under 2,400 f t )
support r i p a r i a n communities, and t h e s e a r e
depauperate, dominated by a few s p e c i e s of
cottonwood and willow ( P h i l b r i c k and
Hal 1 e r , 1977).
Thorne (1967) noted t h e presence o f both
black and Fremont's cottonwood, r e d and
arroyo willow, and e l d e r b e r r y i n t h e
r i p a r i a n communi t i e s of Middle Ranch and
Cottonwood Canyons on Santa Catal ina
I s l a n d . S i m i l a r r i p a r i a n assemblages occur
on S a n t a Cruz I s l a n d , i n c l u d i n g a h a l f
dozen small t o medium-sized s t a n d s o f big-
l e a f maple (mr n a c r o ~ h v lum) l occurring a t
low e l e v a t i o n s on t h e north s i d e o f t h e
i s l a n d ( P h i l b r i c k and Hal l e r , 1977).
Cal i f o r n i a bay and sycamore, both common
s p e c i e s i n t h e Santa Barbara r i p a r i a n
assemblage, a r e missing from t h e n a t i v e
f l o r a of t h e i s l a n d s (Timbrook, Santa
Barbara Botanic Garden, Santa Barbara;
p e r s . comm. 1984). Minnich (1980) r e p o r t s
t h a t a few sycamores were i n t r o d u c e d t o
Santa Cruz and Santa C a t a l i n a I s l a n d s i n
t h e e a r l y 20th c e n t u r y . F o s s i l s e e d s of
C a l i f o r n i a wax m y r t l e (Myrica c a l i f o r n i c a )
have been r e p o r t e d on Santa Cruz along
Willow Creek, i n d i c a t i n g w e t t e r c o n d i t i o n s
i n t h e p a s t (Chaney and Mason, 1930).
About 20 groves o f Fremont cottonwood occur
on S a n t a Cruz I s l a n d , some forming long
g a l l e r y f o r e s t s along streams; willow forms
impenetrable s t a n d s where there i s
permanent water. Mu1 e f a t commonly occurs
a1 ong ephemeral stream washes, p a r t i c u l a r l y
where t h e r e has Seen s e v e r e e r o s i o n
(Minnich, 1980). There a r e no r a r e o r
endangered pl a n t s r e p o r t e d i n t h e r i p a r i an
community of t h e Channel I s l a n d s .
h.?I
0 X
OF-
r.5
Orn
3 r

mgzc,
5

ia
h
0
w

C2

5l.i
4 0
vce-
.F

-
L-
a m
v
a,.
X L
o m
UI

CO >
 -
a
L 3
w L
a--
CPV)

In-
3.6.2 Coastal Streams i n Santa Barbara
County
Coastal streams i n Santa Barbara County
d r a i n t h e southern s l o p e o f t h e Santa Ynez
Mountains in t h e Transverse Range and flow
i n t o t h e P a c i f i c Ocean w i t h i n a few miles
of t h e i r o r i g i n . These mountains r i s e t o
e l e v a t i o n s o f around 4,500 f t , s o several
thousand f t can s e p a r a t e t h e upper l i m i t s
o f a stream watershed and s e a l e v e l .
Nearly continuous winds and s o u t h - f a c i n g
s l o p e s combine t o c r e a t e x e r i c s o i l
c o n d i t i o n s , which a r e somewhat modified by
moist c o a s t a l fog ( F l e t c h e r , 1983).
Ho71 i s t e r Ranch, covering t h e most
western p o r t i o n o f t h e s t u d y a r e a , extends
8 . 5 m i eastward from P o i n t Conception t o
Gaviota, 25 mi west of Santa Barbara, and
from t h e mean h i g h - t i d e l i n e t o t h e c r e s t
of t h e Santa Ynez Mountains. A f l o r a of
t h i s ranch l i s t s scrub/shrub wetlands on
saturated, seasonally or temporari l y
flooded soi 1 s a1 ong streambanks of upper
canyons, s e e p s , and some lower canyons.
Arroyo willow i s t h e dominant p l a n t spe-
cies. Forested wetlands a r e found along
streambanks and s e e p s on n o r t h - f a c i n g
s l o p e s i n A l e g r i a , Quarta, and Santa Anita
Canycns, with sycamore, bl ack cottonwood,
c o a s t l i v e oak, red willow, yellow willow,
and arroyo willow a l l l i s t e d a s dominant
types ( F l e t c h e r , 1983). Extensive grazing,
f i re-prevention p r a c t i c e s , and c l e a r i n g f o r
avocado groves have degraded o r eliminated
much o f t h e r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t on the ranch
( F l e t c h e r , 1983).
Four c o a s t a l streams t h a t d r a i n t h e
southern s l o p e o f t h e Santa Yner Mountains
i n t h e Goleta Valley watershed in Santa
Barbara County were s t u d i e d b e f o r e a U.S.
Army Corps o f Engineers f l o o d - c o n t r o l pro-
j e c t was s t a r t e d ( F e r r e n , 1984). Upstream
acreages a d j a c e n t t o t h e s e streams a r e
1 a r g e l y planted i n avocados, whereas land
a d j a c e n t t o downstream a c r e a g e s i s r e s i -
d e n t i a l and c o m m e r c i a l / i n d u s t r i d . San
J o s e Greek s u p p o r t s t h e most d i v e r s e
assemblage o f r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n of any of
t h e f o u r c r e e k s s t u d i e d (Figure 28).
Dominant t r e e s and shrubs i n c l u d e white
a l d e r , western sycamore, bl ack cottonwood,
red willow, yellow willow, arroyo willow,
and Cal i f o r n i a bay. Cal i f a r n i a 1 i v e oak i s
common along upper streambanks and extends
i n t o upland communities. Arroyo willow i s
t h e most comon t r e e o r shrub, p a r t i c u l a r l y
toward t h e f l o o d p l a i n ; toyon i s found
o c c a s i o n a l l y in t h e streambank community,
whereas b i g - l e a f maple i s r a r e throughout
t h e Santa Barbara c o a s t a l -stream study
area. Yellow willow, r a r e a t low
e l e v a t i o n s and i n c r e a s i n g i n frequency
upstream, dominates a narrow 1 ow-el e v a t i o n
f l o o d p l a i n . Seedlings of w h i t e a l d e r and
black cottonwood appear s c a t t e r e d through
t h e understory, suggesting t h a t , i f l e f t
undisturbed, t h e e x i s t i n g dominance o f
yellow willow may be a l t e r e d i n t h e f u t u r e
(Ferren, 1983).
Dominants of t h e shrubby understory
include virgin's bower (Clematis
l i a u s t i c i f o l l a ) , red o s i e r dogwood (Cornus
s t o l o n i f e r a ) , a s c r u b form of black
cottonwood, coffeeberry (Rhamnus
cal i f o r n i c a ) , Cal iforni a blackberry (Rubus
u r s i n u s ) , arroyo willow, and poison oak.
H a b i t a t p r e f e r e n c e s a r e observed among
t h e s e shrubs, For example, dogwood i s
r e s t r i c t e d t o s e a s o n a l l y flooded a r e a s ,
arroyo willow and black cottonwood grow a s
scrub v e g e t a t i o n i n streambeds o r along low
banks, and blackberry and poison oak
u s u a l l y grow on banks, s l o p e s , and t e r r a c e s
(Ferren, 1983). There a r e no r a r e o r
endangered p l a n t s r e p o r t e d f o r t h e r i p a r i a n
community o f c o a s t a l Santa Barbara County.
3.6.3 Coastal Streams o f t h e Santa Monica
Mountains
The Santa Monica Mountains extend e a s t -
west f o r 47 mi from G r i f f i t h Park i n Los
Angeles t o Point Mugu and from t h e P a c i f i c
Ocean on t h e south approximately 7 mi north
t o t h e San Fernando and Simi v a l l e y s . The
mountain range i s young g e o l o g i c a l l y with
h i g h e s t e l e v a t i o n s of about 2,800 f t .
Slopes a r e s t e e p (80 percent a r e i n excess
of 25 percent g r a d i e n t ) and t h e r e a r e 49
s h o r t c o a s t a l streams t h a t a r e a l l highly
erosive. In a d d i t i o n , t h e a r e a i s
p a r t i c u l a r l y s u b j e c t t o major w i l d f i r e s
f u e l e d by t h e Santa Ana winds, a seasonal
weather phenomenon o f Southern C a l i f o r n i a ,
and by a combination o f s t e e p s l o p e s and
highly combustible vegetation (U.S.
National Park S e r v i c e , 1383). The southern
h a l f o f t h e mountain range i s now included
w i t h i n t h e boundary of t h e Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area, and
a c q u i s i t i o n s a r e being added by S t a t e ,
Federal, and p r i v a t e agencies. Some
r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n o c c u r s a1 ong many
canyon bottoms, b u t r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i s
s p e c i f i c a l l y noted i n t h e National Park
S e r v i c e Plan (1983) f o r t h e following
canyons: C o r r a l , Trancas, Tuna, Pera, and
Solstice.
White a l d e r i s i n f r e q u e n t , found o n l y i n
t h e lower p a r t s o f s t e e p canyons along
perennial streams. Arroyo willow i s
abundant and i s t h e dominant r i p a r i a n
s p e c i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n flood-p1 a i n a r e a s .
Red willow i s common throughout t h e
r i p a r i a n c o r r i d o r s a t higher e l e v a t i o n s
where i t i s l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e t o f l o o d i n g
(Thomas, 1984). Sandbar wi 1low (Sal i x
hindsiana) i s not found w i t h i n t h e National
Recreation Area, but i s p r e s e n t a t low
e l e v a t i o n s along t h e n o r t h s i d e o f t h e
range a l ~ n g r i v e r b e d s and t o t h e west
bordering s a l t marshes. Goodding's and
yellow willow a r e not found i n t h e Santa
Monica Mountains (Raven and Thompson,
1966). B i g - l e a f maple i s found o n l y i n
n o r t h s l o p e s n e a r s p r i n g s on r i d g e s a t
2,000 f t o r h i g h e r where water c o l l e c t s and
cold a i r flows down canyons. The Santa
Figure 29. Marrow corridor sf riparian vegetation revesals the presence of a Stream descending into the
Ventura River.
Monica Mountains a r e t h e c e n t e r o f
d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r C a l i f o r n i a walnut, which
grows on mofst r i p a r i a n t e r r a c e s and onto
n o r t h - f a c i n g slopes (Thomas, 1984; Minnich,
1980). Flowering ash ( F r a x i n u s d i p e t a 1 a )
and E. v e l u t i n a v a r . c o r i a c e a a r e both
found only on t h e i n l a n d side of t h e high
c e n t r a l and western p o r t i o n o f t h i s range.
No r a r e o r endangered p l a n t s a r e r e p o r t e d
i n t h e s i p a r l a n community o f t h e Santa
Monica Mountains,
3.6.4 Ventura and Santa C l a r a R i v e r s
Both t h e Ventura and Santa C l a r a Rivers
d r a i n p a r t s o f t h e Los Padres National
F o r e s t i n t h e T r a n s v e r s e Range where a
number of peaks exceed e l e v a t i o n s o f 5,000
f t . Upper r e a c h e s o f t h e Ventura River,
such a s M a t i l i j a Creek, d r a i n canyons of
Old Man Mountain and Nordhoff Ridge and a r e
r e l a t i v e l y u n d i s t u r b e d , but when t h e s e
c r e e k s descend i n t o t h e v a l l e y t h e y form a
wash a t about 1,000 f t ( F i g u r e 29). Orange
and walnut groves a r e p l a n t e d r i g h t up t o
t h e edges o f t h e wash. Willow, e u c a l y p t u s ,
and cane grow i n s c a t t e r e d p l a c e s along t h e
wash and o c c a s i o n a l l y along t h e edge o f t h e
r i v e r , which i s channelized c l o s e r t o t h e
ocean.
The Santa Clara River i s a long r i v e r
flowing east-west. I t i s fed by several
streams flowing south out of t h e San Rafael
Mountains i n t h e Transverse Range in
Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.
comparison of a e r i a l photographs of t h e
lower Santa Clara River from 1927, 1941,
1969, and 1979 shows t h a t much of t h e
middle- and u p p e r - t e r r a c e zones had a1 ready
been converted t o a g r i c u l t u r e by 1927
( F a i r c h i l d Aerial Photograph C o l l e c t i o n ,
W h i t t i e r College). The d i s t r i b u t i o n and
g r o s s e x t e n t of r i p a r i a n woodlands, t h e
characteristic vegetation of higher
t e r r a c e s , have not diminished markedly over
t h e l a s t 50 y e a r s ; however, i n recent
y e a r s , a c t i v i t i e s such a s o f f - r o a d v e h i c l e
t r a f f i c , mining, n a t u r a l flooding, and
urban development have r e s u l t e d i n thinning
and fragmentation o f t h e s e woodlands. The
d i s t u r b e d n a t u r e o f t h e vegetation a t t h e
mouth of Santa Paula Creek exemplifies such
damage. The major d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e n a t u r e
of t h e r i v e r vegetation between 1927 and
today, a s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e photographs, i s
t h e c u r r e n t absence of r i p a r i a n t h i c k e t s on
t h e flood-pl a i n and low gravel b a r s i n many
places. P a s t photographs show t h a t such
t h i c k e t s were once c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e
entire riverbed. A t p r e s e n t , gravel -bar
vegetation i s extremely s p a r s e o r 1 acking,
e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e v i c i n i t y of mining
o p e r a t i o n s , due i n p a r t t o n a t u r a l scouring
and i n p a r t t o lowered water t a b l e s caused
by gravel i n mining.
Mature, undisturbed r i p a r i a n wood1 ands
a r e l o c a t e d on t e r r a c e s above t h e riverbed
and a r e most frequent downstream from t h e
Highway 101 bridge and upstream from Santa
Paula Creek, with a few s c a t t e r e d patches
between. Poorly developed r i p a r i a n
vegetation occurs on r e c e n t l y flooded
gravel b a r s , along t h e main channel
throughout t h e l e n g t h of t h e r i v e r , and on
t e r r a c e s i n t h e v i c i n i t y of gravel
e x t r a c t i o n o p e r a t i o n s . Mature, undisturbed
r i p a r i a n woodlands a r e l o c a t e d 10-12 f t
above t h e r i v e r bed and a r e s t r u c t u r a l l y
d i v e r s e (Smith, 1979). Tree s t r a t a , 30-
60 f t high, c o n s i s t of arroyo willow, red
wi 11ow, bl ack cottonwood, and occasional
Fremont cottonwood. Thickets of g i a n t
reed, mulefat, and young willows grow
beneath t h i s dense tree canopy, and a
d i v e r s e understory of n a t i v e v i n e s such a s
poi son oak, b1 ackberry, and herbs develops.
An e c o l o g i c a l l y important t y p e of r i p a r i a n
vegetation grows around undisturbed
s i l t a t i o n ponds and n a t u r a l depressions
along t h e Santa Clara River banks (Smith,
1979). Standing water i n t h e s e a r e a s
A allows t h e development o f a freshwater
marsh containing p l a n t s such a s c a t t a i l
( T v ~ h a spp. ) , bulrush ( S c i r ~ u sr o b u s t u s ) ,
sedge (Carex spp. ) , rush (Juncus spp.), and
numerous a q u a t i c s p e c i e s t h a t provide
important h a b i t a t and food f o r waterfowl.
Numerous c r e e k s d r a i n v a s t a r e a s of t h e
Transverse Range t o t h e n o r t h , much o f
which i s included i n t h e Los Padres
National Forest. Santa Paula Creek, a
s h o r t system, i s unaffected a t i t s upper
reaches, but t h e r i p a r i a n vegetation
l o c a t e d a t i t s confluence with t h e Santa
Clara River i s a r r e s t e d a t an immature
s t a t e from p a s t gravel -mining o p e r a t i o n s ,
which lowers water t a b l e s , and by n a t u r a l
flooding. H a b i t a t h e r e i s s p a r s e and
d i s t u r b e d (Smith, 1979). Sespe Creek, t h e
l o n g e s t o f t h e t r i b u t a r y c r e e k s and
undammed t o d a t e , flows from e a s t t o west
from a p o i n t n e a r t h e border between Santa
Barbara and Ventura Counties through t h e
Los Padres Forest Condor Refuge, where i t
t u r n s south and j o i n s t h e Santa C l a r a
River. Riparian h a b i t a t is reduced by t h e
frequency and s e v e r i t y of f l o o d s and by
c a t t l e grazing. P i r u Creek d r a i n s a v a s t
a r e a t o t h e n o r t h i n t h e Los Padres
National Forest. I t i s d a m d a t Santa
Fel i c i a , c r e a t i n g Lake Piru. Mature
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t a1 ong both c r e e k s and
t h e i r tributaries i s disturbed, principally
by e x t e n s i v e grazing. No s t u d i e s have been
made of s p e c i e s compositjon i n t h e s e v a s t
a r e a s , and no r a r e o r endangered p l a n t s a r e
reported f o r riparian habitat.
3.6.5 $an Gabriel Mountain Ranae
The San Gabriel Mountains, p a r t of t h e
l a r g e r Transverse Range, extend from t h e
Ridge Route of 1-5 and Soledad Canyon
( C a l i f o r n i a Route 14) on t h e west t o Cajon
Pass ( I n t e r s t a t e 15) on t h e e a s t and
occupies the northern f o u r t h o f Los Angeles
County and a small p o r t i o n o f southwestern
San Bernardino County. Most o f t h i s range,
which has an east-west o r i e n t a t i o n , is
within the Angeles National Forest; the
extreme eastern p a r t i s within the San
Bernardino National Forest. Elevations in
the San Gabriel Mountains are high, 800-
10,000 f t , and watersheds are drained on
the coastal side, forming three major
rivers: t o the west, Tujunga Creek and i t s
t r i b u t a r i e s form t h e Los Angeles River; in
the central portion of the mountain, San
Gabriel Creek and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s form the
San Gabriel River; and t o the e a s t Lytle
Creek in San Bernardino County joins
drainages from the San Bernardino Mountains
t o form the Santa Ana River. Each of these
r i v e r s flow many mi 1 es across t h e broad and
highly urbanized Los Angeles floodplain
before emptying i n t o t h e Pacific Ocean.
According t o photographs in the Fairchild
Aerial Photo Collection, Whittier College,
a l l t h r e e r i v e r s were channelized before
1927.
Riparian wood1 ands are severely
r e s t r i c t e d by the a v a i l a b i l i t y of water
from perennial streams or subsurface
moisture in the semiarid climate of the San
Gabriel Mountains and stand out in sharp
re1 i e f against adjacent low-growing scrub
and shrub lands. A t elevations of 2,000-
5,000 f t , the riparian community contains
elements of a mjxed evergreen f o r e s t found
in the Coast Ranges, particularly in cold
canyons (Hanes, 1976). Dominant species
include shrubby forms of Sal i x , big-1 eaf
maple, Ca1 i f o r n i a bay, black cottonwood,
canyon 1ive oak (Ouercus chrvsol eai s ) , and
big-cone Doug1 a s fir (Pseudotsuua
macrocarpa) . A t middle elevations, streams
are domjnated by white alder, and a t low
elevations on riparian terraces by arroyo
wil law, mulefat, Fremont cottonwood, and
western sycamore (Hanes, 1976). Mistletoe
(Phoradendron tomentosum subsp.
macro~hvl1urn) i s a common hemi parasi t e on
dominant t r e e species. Coast l i v e oak
grows on upper riparian terraces,
p a r t i c u l a r l y north-facing ones, some
distance from perenni a1 water supplies.
As creeks emerge from the San Gabriel
Mountains onto gravelly a1 1 uvial
floodplains, t h e r e are remnants of a vast
a1 luvial scrub h a b i t a t t h a t once covered
much o f the Los Angeles Basin, part.icularly
on higher t e r r a c e s l e s s subject t o severe
scouring in major storms ( T , L . Hanes, pers.
corn.). Most of the streams draining
d i r e c t l y onto t h i s floodplain are now
damned. Aerial photographs of the flood
basin r e f l e c t the presence of three
physiographic zones of d i f f e r e n t ages t h a t
support d i s t i n c t types of vegetation: a
wash, a terrace above the wash, and a
higher alluvial t e r r a c e (R. L. Smith, 1980).
The youngest zone, the wash, supports
scattered, short-statured pioneer species
and contains islands o r remnants of a
higher alluvial terrace, most of which has
been destroyed by erosion during past
floods, These older islands now support
1 arge shrub populations. The terrace
immediately above a wash supports a uniform
and dense scrub vegetation dominated by
buckwheat (Eriosonum fascicul atum). The
highest zone of the floodplain, mature
a1 1uvi a1 terraces, and t h e uneroded
a1 1uvial islands support a combination of
shrubs and subshrubs t h a t distinguishes the
fan and floodplain vegetation by i t s r i c h
diversity (Srni t h , 1980). Laurel sumac
(b1 aurina) , lemonadeberry (B.
inteqrifol i a ) , Leaidosoartum sauamatum,
Cal i f o r n i a buckwheat (Erioaonum
fasciculatum), California juniper
(Juniaerus cal i fornica) , and prickly pear
( O ~ u n t i aspp.) are the dominant species.
Mature stands are diverse and appear t o
represent a climax vegetation t h a t develops
a f t e r severe periodic flooding. R . L . Smith
(1980) regards t h i s plant assemblage as a
specialized form of coastal sage scrub.
Leaidos~artumsauamatum i s t h e one species
of t h i s plant assembl age t h a t i s r e s t r i c t e d
t o alluvial substrates and i s thus confined
t o drainages. On the other hand, Juniaerus
cal i fornica i s unusual on t h e floodplain,
growing more typical l y on desert slopes
(Munz, 1974). Smith suggests t h a t major
drainages such a s the San Gabriel River a c t
as corridors f o r dispersal of juniper seed
from dry i n t e r i o r mountain slopes.
Dominance of lemonadeberry, primarily a
coastal species, i s unusual t h i s f a r
inland.
With the exception of a remnant of
riparian woodland habitat heavily invaded
by exotic plants a t Whittier Narrows County
Nature Center, nothing remains of a once-
extensive willow f o r e s t t h a t folloraed t h e
San Gabriel River across i t s f'loodplain.
Intermittent immature stands of willow and
mulefat now grow in wash areas on upper
parts of the r i v e r .
Canyon Road near Yorba Linda t o the ocean
in work t h a t was c a r r i e d o u t l a r g e l y before
1927 (Fairchi l d Photo COT 1e c t i o n ) . Prado
Dam was b u i l t a t t h e head of Santa Ana
Canyon i n 1941.
Because o f t h e l a r g e s i z e and high
e l e v a t i o n s of t h e upper watershed, winter
flooding, though infrequent, can be severe.
Storms t o r e out v a s t s t a n d s of willow
f o r e s t , a l d e r , and o t h e r vegetation in
1938, 1962, and 1969 (Minnich, 1976). The
Santa Ana River, Mill Creek, Plunge Creek,
and City Creek a l l emerge from t h e i r
canyons in t h e f o o t h i l l s of the San
Bernardino Mountains a t Mentone, forming a
floodplain a l l u v i a l wash 10 m i long and an
average of 2 mi across with a riverbed 0.5
mi wide. Where Mill Creek emerges t h e
e l e v a t i o n i s 3,000 f t ; where t h e wash ends
t h e e l e v a t i o n i s 1,100 f t ( I n g l e s , 1929).
A r i p a r i a n a l l u v i a l scrub community
dominated by Lepidosoartum sauamatum,
Croton cal i f o r n i c u s , young willow, and
mulefat forms s c a t t e r e d patches throughout
t h e wash. A study a r e a described by 1ngles
in 1929 was not i d e n t i f i a b l e , p a r t l y
because of major storms in 1932 and 1969
which devegetated t h e wash and p a r t l y
because of extensive rep1 acement of will ow,
sycamore, and oak t e r r a c e vegetation by
a g r i c u l t u r e and housing. A few specimens
of western sycamore, black wil low,
cottonwood, and c o a s t l i v e oak, some
heavily festooned with wild grape, remain
on upper r i v e r t e r r a c e s mixed with e x o t i c s
such a s Eucalvutus spp. Where not replaced
by a g r i c u l t u r e o f housing, a coastal
chapkrral and c o a s t a l sagebrush community
intergrades with t h e r i p a r i a n community.
Most o f t h e r i p a r i a n p l a n t s above 7,000
f t elevation a r e shrubby s p e c i e s of S a l i x .
They a r e well adapted t o heavy winter snows
character! st! c of high e l e v a t i o n s . Minnich
(1978) r e p o r t s willows, f l a t t e n e d by
avalanches, s p r i n g i n g up v e r t i c a l l y t h e
fol lowing summer. Gri nnell (1908), a
z o o l o g i s t working i n the San Bernardino
Mountains in t h e e a r l y 1 9 0 0 ~ reported ~ fashion along most wash bottoms and many
arroyo willow t o be abundant along a l l
streams t o t h e head of t h e Santa Ana River
(6,800 f t e l e v a t i o n ) and black w i l l ow t o be
found growing t o l a r g e t r e e s i z e an t h e
upper Santa Ana a t 6,800 ft e l e v a t i o n and
on Fish Creek a t 6,900 ft.
The U.S. Forest S e r v i c e (USES) has mapped
the vegetation o f o r d e r I I H streams i n t h e
San Bernardino National Forest (USFS 1984).
The most widespread and b e s t adapted
r i p a r i a n t r e e < s white a l d e r , which i s
often found i n t h e middle of boulder-strewn
washes between 2,900 f t and 7,000 f t
elevation (Minnich 1976). Most populations
were devastated i n a 1969 storm, but many
young t r e e s now grow along stream channels.
Occasionally a mature t r e e remains on a
higher t e r r a c e . Gri nnell (1908) reported
t h a t a l d e r s grew l u x u r i a n t l y along most
P a c i f i c Slope watercourses; he described
them on t h e upper s l o p e s of t h e Santa Ana
River a s l i n i n g e i t h e r s i d e o f t h e r i v e r
and "meeting overhead t o form a dense and
almost continuous canopy. " In deep
canyons, she1 t e r e d from wind, they become
t a l l and s t r a i g h t ; i n broad open v a l l e y s
and a t higher e l e v a t i o n s t h e y a r e more
scrubby (Grinnell , 1908). While t h e r e i s
some undisturbed o r moderately d i sturbed
h a b i t a t in t h i s a r e a today, "dense and
almost continuous canopy" i s a r a r i t y .
Fremont cottonwood is found
i n t e r m i t t e n t l y along many watercourses
below 7,000 f t , whereas black cottonwood
(Pooul us t r i c h o c a r ~ a ) i s r a r e (Minnich,
1976). One individual can be seen from
Highway 38 i n t h e Santa Ana River Canyon a t
7,400 f t . Grinnell reported black
cottonwood t o be abundant along canyons of
t h e P a c i f i c Slope from t h e f o o t h i l l s up t o
6,700 f t e l e v a t i o n on t h e upper Santa Ana.
He thought t h e examples of Fremont
cottonwood t o be seen below Mill Creek had
been pl anted (Grinnell , 1908)- Whereas t h e
genus i s well represented i n t h e San
Bernardino Mountains f l o r a . i t i s r a r e in
terms of cover (Minnich, 1976). A d i s j u n c t
s i n g l e stand of quaking aspen (P.
tremuloides) occurs along Fish Creek i n t h e
San Gorgonio Wilderness Area; i t i s t h e
only confirmed stand between t h e southern
S i e r r a Nevada and t h e S i e r r a San Pedro
Martir of northern Baja Gal i f o r n i a
(Grinnell , 1908; Minnich, 1976).
Western sycamore grows i n s c a t t e r e d
t e r r a c e s be1 ow 4,000 f t . Sycamore dwindles
in s i z e a s i t approaches 3,000 f t in
e l e v a t i o n (Grinisel 1 , 1908). Big-l e a f map1 e
i s mare common i n smaller drainages and on
s i d e banks above stream channels t h a t a r e
subjected to less intense erosional
d i sturbance.
More r a r e r i p a r i a n pl a n t s inci ude dogwood
(Cornus m t t a l 7 ii), which occurs along
watercourses and on shaded s l o p e s near Lake
Arrowhead and bake Gregory. A few
populations o f boxefder grow on n o r t h -
facing canyons on Mill Creek Ridge and Oak
Glen. Mountain maple (a qlabrum) has
been r e p o r t e d on t h e north f a c e of
Sugar1 oaf Mountain near 10,000 f t e l e v a t i o n
(Minnich, 1976). G r i n n e l l (1908) r e p o r t e d
t h a t n e t t l e ( U r t i c a h o l s e r i c e a ) , which grew
5 t o 6 f t t a l l , was abundant along streams
wherever shaded by a l d e r canopy and t h a t
c l e m a t i s (Clematis l i q u s t i c i f o l i a ) grew a t
e l e v a t i o n s o f up t o 5,500 f t .
The r i p a r i a n woodland i n t h e Prado Basin
i s t h e l a r g e s t i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a . A
USFWS study (Zembal, 1984a) of t h i s b a s i n ,
t h e Santa Ana River Canyon, and e n v i r o n s
p o i n t s out t h a t a small number of s p e c i e s
accounts f o r much of t h e p l a n t cover. A
t o t a l of 99 s p e c i e s were i d e n t i f i e d i n
floodplain and riparian habitats.
Approximately o n e - t h i r d of t h e p l a n t s i n
t h e s t u d y were i d e n t i f i e d a s introduced o r
non-native s p e c i e s .
Two small and widely separated
populations of t h e r a r e many-stemmed 1i v e -
f o r e v e r (Dudleva mu1 t i c a u l u s ) (CNPS L i s t
I b , 3. Smith and York, 19841, growing on
n e a r l y v e r t i c a l rock o r d i r t w a l l s i n t h e
r i v e r canyon a r e t h r e a t e n e d by devef opment.
Santa Ana River e r i astrum ( E r i a s t r u m
densi f o l ium) , thought to have been
e x t i r p a t e d , was found i n a nearby canyon
(Lathrop and Thorne, 1978). Recently a few
s t a n d s were l o c a t e d i n t h e n o r t h e r n
p o r t i o n s o f t h e p l a n t ' s h i s t o r i c range
growing above main watercourses where
flooding and scouring have been i n f r e q u e n t
enough t o a17ow open s h r u b l a n d s t o p e r s i s t
in the floodplain. Zembal and Kramer
(1984) e s t i m a t e t h a t s u i t a b l e h a b i t a t f o r
t h e p l a n t has been reduced by 90 p e r c e n t .
Both s p e c i e s a r e proposed f o r Federal
l i s t i n g under t h e Endangered S p e c i e s Act.
Black willow i s very common along t h e
Santa Ana watercourse and throughout t h e
b a s i n ; sandbar willow i s common along
watercourses growing i n s c a t t e r e d dense
s t a n d s ; and a r r o y o willow i s found
o c c a s i o n a l l y along some b a s i n watercourses
and commonly along o t h e r s . Red willow and
black coltonwoad a r e uncomon along t h e
Santa Ana River Canyon, and Fremont
cottonwood and sycamore a r e uncomon but
f o c a l l y conspicuous a? ong t h e o u t e r f r i n g e s
and h i g h e r ground o f t h e w a t e r c o u r s e s ,
o f t e n growing i n g r o v e s o f s e v e r a l t o
s e v e r a l dozen t r e e s . Flowering ash i s
uncommonly found i n t h e undergrowth, and
Cal i f o r n i a walnut i s p r e s e n t but uncommon
i n t h e bordering shrubland (Zembal , 1984b),
Below Prado Dam, b u i l t i n 1941, remnants
of perennial stream r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n
remain, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n F e a t h e r l y County
Park, s i t u a t e d on an a l l u v i a l plan (Marsh
and Abbott, 1972). Alonq t h i s p o r t i o n of
the river el b a t i o n a l - gradients are
reduced, r e s u l t i n g i n ponding and t h e
development of a s i z a b l e instream f l o r a ,
i n c l u d i n g bur-marigold (Bidens 1aevi s j ,
w a t e r c r e s s ( R o r i ~ ~nasturtium-aauaticum),
a
c a t t a i l ( T v ~ h as p p . ) , and bulrush ( S c i r ~ u s
spp. ) . Cottonwood, wi 1 low, and mulefat
dominate a dense g r e e n b e l t o f t r e e s and
shrubs l i n i n g t h e r i v e r margin. Older
t r e e s a r e commonly f e s t o o n e d w i t h wild
g r a p e , which c r e a t e s shade f o r a r i c h
understory o f herbaceous annual and
b i e n n i a l s p e c i e s . Sycamore and c o a s t l i v e
oak grow t o 1a r g e s i r e s on upper t e r r a c e s ,
supported by a high w a t e r t a b l e .
Marsh and Abbott (1972) l i s t 367 s p e c i e s
of p l a n t s i n a study c o v e r i n g 31 m i of t h e
lower Santa Ana River from Prado Dam t o t h e
r i v e r mouth. These p l a n t s belong t o 252
genera and r e p r e s e n t 72 f a m i l i e s . Of t h e
t o t a l number o f s p e c i e s , 229 a r e n a t i v e and
138 a r e e x o t i c . There a r e 62 s p e c i e s i n
t h e sunflower family and 11 s p e c i e s each of
sedges and buckwheat. I n t r a n s e c t s a c r o s s
t h e r i v e r i n t h e Horseshoe Bend/Featherly
Park a r e a 250 p l a n t s p e c i e s were
i d e n t i f i e d , many of which a r e l i s t e d i n
Howell (1929) and many introduced s i n c e
t h e n (Marsh, 1972). F i g u r e 31 shows a
cross s e c t i o n of t h e S a n t a Ana River
between Horseshoe Bend and F e a t h e r l y Park.
3.6.7 San S a c i n t o Ranqe
The San J a c i n t s Range, approximately 40
mi l o n g and 15 mi wide, i s s e p a r a t e d from
r I
Left Unrik (North) Former R ~ v e Co~lrse
r
I I

Figure 31. Cross section of the Santa Ana River between Horseshoe Bend and Featherly Park (adapted from
I I
R ~ g h Bank
t
(South)

Marsh, 1972).

t h e San Bernardino Range by t h e t r o u g h - l i k e The most e x t e n s i v e drainage i s toward t h e

San Gorgonio Pass, through which runs t h e west i n t h e n o r t h f o r k o f t h e San J a c i n t o
San Andreas f a u l t . A t 10,831 ft, San R i v e r and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s , many o f which
J a c i n t o Peak i s t h e second h i g h e s t i n are p e r e n n i a l streams. F l o o d i n g i s common
Southern Cal i f o r n i a . The range, forming i n y e a r s o f heavy r a i n f a l l because o f t h e
t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e P e n i n s u l a r Ranges, l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s o f water c a r r i e d i n w i n t e r
r u n s southeast, on t h e e a s t r i s i n g and s p r i n g . The most e x t e n s i v e r i p a r i a n
p r e c i p i t o u s l y f r o m t h e Col orado Desert i n community occurs on t h e m o i s t western
the upper Coachella V a l l e y and on t h e west slopes, p a r t i c u l a r l y an t h e f a i r l y l e v e l
from a s e r i e s o f f o o t h i l l s , l o w ranges, benches a t m i d d l e e l e v a t i o n s . Stands of
so%it a r y peaks, and o c c a s i o n a l v a l 1 eys. On white alder frequently l i n e f a s t - f l o w i n g
t h e south, t h e San J a c i n t o Mountains grade perenni a1 streams. Ye1 1ow w i l l ow grows
i n t o t h e Santa Rosa P l a t e a u and Mountain intermittently a1 ong stream courses
Range. The e n t i r e range i s w i t h i n throughout t h e h i g h e r mountain drainages.
R i v e r s i d e County, and most i s w i t h i n t h e A t h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n s dense assemblages of
San Bernardino N a t i o n a l Forest w i t h herbaceous perenni a1 s surround wet s p r i n g s ,
ownership shared by t h e USFS, t h e S t a t e , w i t h p l a n t s such as Senecio t r i a n s u l a r i s
v a r i o u s I n d i a n t r i b e s , and some p r i v a t e and several species of Eoilobium
inhofdings. predominating . Twaybl ade (Listera
convallarioides), a rare plant for t h i s
a r e a , grows a t about 8,000 f t near t h e
north f o r k o f t h e San J a c i n t o River
(Hamilton, 1983). Below 8,000 f t , arroyo
willow grows along streams in t h e wider
canyons i n patches where small benches slow
t h e water flow. The r i p a r i a n understory i s
s p a r s e , with western azal e a (Rhododendron
o c c i d e n t a l e ) , e l d e r b e r r y , and Ri bes spp.
growing o c c a s i o n a l l y . Below Lake Hemet t o
t h e Cranston Ranger S t a t i o n , r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t i s r e l a t i v e l y p r i s t i n e . Elements
o f t h e Sonoran Desert f l o r a merge i n t o t h e
riparian plant assembl age at lower
e l e v a t i o n s with O ~ u n t i a spp. growing
commonly, Yucca whioolei and Aqave spp.
l e s s f r e q u e n t l y (Hamil t o n , 1983). Willows
become l u s h a s c r e e k s merge and flow out
onto t h e wide a1 l u v i a1 floodplain.
Remnants of a l l u v i a 1 s c r u b h a b i t a t can be
seen on higher t e r r a c e s . Below t h e ranger
s t a t i o n t h e r e i s f r e q u e n t d i s t u r b a n c e and
only a patchy canopy o f cottonwood and
sycamore remains. Occasional 1arge and
u s u a l l y o l d specimens of t h e s e t r e e s remain
on an i n c r e a s i n g l y urbanized f l o o d p l a i n .
3.6.8 Santa Ana Mountains
The Santa Ana Mountains p a r a l l e l t h e
southeastern trend of the Southern
C a l i f o r n i a coast1 i n e ; t h e y a r e approxi-
mately 40 mi long, vary i n width from 4 t o
13 mi, and a r e l o c a t e d 20-25 mi inland from
t h e ocean. This narrow and p r e c i p i t o u s
range has an average h e i g h t of 3,500 f t and
several peaks with e l e v a t i o n s exceeding
5,000 f t . Most o f t h e range s t r a d d l i n g
Orange and R i v e r s i d e Counties i s in p u b l i c
ownership i n t h e Cleveland National F o r e s t ,
with p r i v a t e holdings f o r homes and cabins
i n S i l v e r a d o and Trabuco Canyons and c a t t l e
ranching in t h e western f o o t h i l l s and Black
S t a r Canyon.
Santiago and Trabuco Creeks a r e t h e main
streams d r a i n i n g t h e mountains t o t h e west.
In 1951 Pequegnat r e f e r r e d t o t h e s e streams
a s p e r e n n i a l , whereas in 1976 Vogl
described them a s i n t e r m i t t e n t . Short
ephemeral streams feed i n t o t h e l a r g e r
streams and d r a i n t h e e a s t e r n s i d e (Vogl,
1976). Larger stream d r a i n a g e s a r e l i n e d
with occasional s t a n d s o f white a l d e r and
an abundance of willow and Fremont's
cottonwood (Vogl , 1976). Black cottonwood
i s l e s s common b u t o c c u r s throughout t h e
range (Lathrop and Thorne, 1978). Poison
oak and wild grape o f t e n grow i n willow and
mulefat t h i c k e t s . Clematis l i q u s t i c i f o l i a
i s found i n f r e q u e n t l y c l imbing over shrubs.
With an i n c r e a s e i n a l t i t u d e , a l d e r i s
rep1 aced by b i g - l e a f maple, and lowland
w i l l ow by arroyo willow (Pequegnat, 1951).
Smaller streams a r e f l a n k e d with c o a s t
1i v e oak and Cal i f o r n i a bay; flowering ash
i s s c a t t e r e d throughout. Canyon oak
(Ouercus c h r v s o l e ~ i s ) and i n t e r i o r 1 i v e
oak (9. wisl i z e n i i ) a r e p r e s e n t a t
h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n s and a t heads of canyons,
where they o f t e n form pure s t a n d s of a
s i n g l e s p e c i e s . Dense s t a n d s of canyon
oak have s t a b i l i z e d some o f t h e s t e e p e s t
p a r t s of Modjeska and S a n t i a g o Peaks (Vogl ,
1976). Gal i f o r n i a walnut i s found
i n f r e q u e n t l y i n t h e r i p a r i a n woodlands,
mainly i n Hagador, Santa Ana, and lower
San Juan Canyons (Lathrop and Thorne,
1978).
3.6.9 San Dieso County Coastal Rivers
The c o a s t a l ~ r o v i n c eo f San Diego County
has a s e r i e s of wide marine t e r r a c e s , known
a s mesas, which range from e l e v a t i o n s o f
50-60 f t a t t h e c o a s t t o 800-1,200 f t
inland. These mesas a r e d i s s e c t e d by a
number of e a s t - w e s t - f l owing streams and
r i v e r s t h a t a r i s e i n t h e mountains t o t h e
e a s t (6,500 f t a t t h e i r h i g h e s t p o i n t ) .
The c l i m a t e i n San Diego County i s semiarid
with a c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f r a i n f a l l i n a few
major storms, causing s o i l e r o s i o n and
l o s s . All of t h e major r i v e r s i n $an Diego
County a r e dammed somewhere along t h e i r
course b e f o r e t h e y reach t h e f l o o d p l a i n ,
which r e s u l t s i n g r e a t e r c o n t r o l o f storm
water flows but a l s o i n t h e r e t e n t i o n o f
s o i l s behind t h e dams and i n a1 t e r a t i o n s i n
t h e r i p a r i a n county.
The r i p a r i a n community o f San Diego
County was once abundant along water
courses flowing o u t of t h e mountains before
c u t t i n g a c r o s s broad mesas towards the
P a c i f i c Ocean. Today, however, t h e r e i s
I it t l e contiguous riparian habitat,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e southern p a r t of t h e
county where u r b a n i z a t i o n p r e s s u r e s have
been g r e a t e s t .

The Santa Margarita i s t h e l e a s t
d i s t u r b e d r i v e r i n San Diego County. I t s
watershed i s about 60 mi long ?and eqcom-
passes an a r e a o f about 740 mi extending
inland n e a r l y t o t h e San J a c i n t o Mountains
(Zembal, 1984b). The headwaters of i t s
t r i b u t a r i e s a r e a t low e l e v a t i o n s and some
a r e long d i s t a n c e s from t h e c o a s t . T r i b u -
t a r i e s of t h e Santa Margarita River a r e
perennial o r i n t e r m i t t e n t . The r i v e r
s l o p e s g r a d u a l l y toward t h e c o a s t and
during most of t h e y e a r i s shallow with a
f l a t , sandy bottom ( F i g u r e 3 2 ) . Deeper
water i n t h e form o f oxbows, small pools,
o r ponds o c c u r s along lower p o r t i o n s of t h e
r i v e r where t h e f l o o d p l a i n i s broad. The
upper reach of t h e r i v e r i s rockstrewn with
l i m i t e d r i f f l e s , a few boulder d e p o s i t s ,
and deeper h o l e s .
In a USFWS study of a proposed Santa
Margari t a Bureau o f Recl amation dam
Figure 32. The Santa Mergarita, the !east itdisturbed river in Saki Diego County, Is shallow with a fiat sandy
bottom.
p r o j e c t , Zernbal (398451 d e s c r i b e s arroyo
willow a s the mast abundant and widespread
s p e c i e s . Mild grape and poison oak con-
t r i b u t e t o t h e canopy o f Fremont c o t t o n -
wood, western sycamore, and c o a s t 1i v e oak.
Tree d e n s i t i e s a r e h i g h e s t i n young o r
s h o r t willow woodland (about 16 f t t a l l ) .
Stands forming between s a n d b a r s , a d j a c e n t
t o water c h a n n e l s , and i n o l d e r woodlands
u s u a l l y c o n s i s t of sandbar o r a r r o y o w i l -
low. Over 100 s p e c i e s make up t h e low
groundcover; however, mu1 e f a t , mugwort
(Artemi s i a d o u s l a s i a n a ) , willow s p r o u t s ,
Doug1 a s mulefat (Baccharis doucal a s i i ) ,
poison oak, wild g r a p e , wild blackberry
(Rubus u r s i n u s ) , sweet c l o v e r (Me1 i 1o t u s
s p , ) , s c o u r i n g rush (Esuisetum s p . ) , s t i n g -
ing n e t t l e ( U r t i c a h o l o s e r i c e a ) , and nut
g r a s s (Cvperus s p . ) a r e t h e most common.
One r a r e and endangered p l a n t , s t i c k y
dudleya (Dudleva v i s c i d a , CNPS L i s t l b , J .
Smith and York, 19841, and one p l a n t of
l imited d i s t r i b u t i o n , San Miguel potmint
( S a t u r e S i a c h a n d l e r i , CNPS L i s t 4 , J , Smith
and York, 1984) grow on v e r t i c a l canyon
w a l l s above t r i b u t a r i e s of t h e Santa
Margari t a R i v e r .
The San Luis Rey River i s considered t o
be one of t h e l e a s t modified and e a s i l y
r e s t o r a b l e r i v e r s i n urbanized Southern
C a l i f o r n i a , d e s p i t e t h e e x t e n s i v e conver-
sion of floodplain riparian habitat t o
a g r i c u l t u r a l and o t h e r uses (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, ( y r p s ) 1981). Its
watershed c o v e r s 565 mi . The r i v e r o r i g -
i n a t e s i n t h e f o o t h i l l s around s l o p e s of
Mount Palomar ( e l e v a t i o n 6,138 f t ) c l o t h e d
with ponderosa pine and covered with snow
i n winter. I t flows s o u t h , then north-
w e s t e r l y through c o a s t a l sage s c r u b and
chaparral communities b e f o r e emptying i n t o
Lake Henshaw, a r e s e r v o i r w i t h i n t h e Cleve-
land National F o r e s t . Lake Henshaw con-
t r o l s about o n e - t h i r d of t h e San Luis Rey
River watershed. West of Lake Henshaw, t h e
San Luis Rey River flows through c o a s t a l
oak woodl ands, c h a p a r r a l , and c o a s t a l sage
scrub canyons a s i t passes through t h e
t h r e e Indian r e s e r v a t i o n s of Pal a , Rincon,
and La J o l 1a . These n a t i v e communities a r e
g r a d u a l l y being r e p l a c e d by c i t r u s and
avocado o r c h a r d s , c a t t l e and horse ranches,
go1 f c o u r s e s , and r e s o r t condominiums.
Flow i s i r r e g u l a r i n t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e
r i v e r , varying with t h e amount of water
r e l e a s e d a t t h e dams upstream. Farther
west and downstream much o f t h e n a t u r a l San
Luis Rey River f l o o d p l a i n has a l r e a d y been
turned i n t o t r u c k farms, wheat and b a r l e y
f i e l d s , high-and medium-density r e s i d e n t i a l
a r e a s , commerci a1 zones, and i n d u s t r i a1
parks. Sand-mining o p e r a t i o n s a r e f r e q u e n t
along t h e lower reaches of t h e r i v e r .
Before emptying i n t o t h e P a c i f i c ocean a t
t h e c i t y of Oceanside, t h e San Luis Rey
River flows through subcl imax r i v e r i n e
r i p a r i a n and wooded r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t s and
a s e r i e s of f r e s h t o brackish water marshes
with a s a l t w a t e r lagoon a t t h e mouth. The
mouth of t h e r i v e r a t Oceanside was
converted i n t o a marina i n t h e e a r l y 1960s-
I t s a d j a c e n t wet1 ands were f i l l e d f o r
r e s o r t and condomi ni um development and
highway c o n s t r u c t i o n .
Detailed f l o r i s t i c s t u d i e s have n o t been
c a r r i e d o u t along t h e San Luis Rey River;
however, most of t h e remnants have been
d i s t u r b e d , and n a t i v e v e g e t a t i o n has been
replaced by n o n - n a t i v e p l a n t s such a s t r e e
t o b a c c o , g i a n t r e e d , and brome g r a s s e s .
Freshwater marsh and u n d e r s t o r y r i p a r i a n
v e g e t a t i o n i n c l u d e s c a t t a i l ( f i ~ h a sp. ),
b u l r u s h ( S c i r ~ u sssp.), wild c e l e r y ( A ~ i u m
spp. ) , mul e f a t , e l d e r b e r r y , poison hemlock
(Coni um maculatum) , and wild grape. Numer-
ous sycamores, e s t i m a t e d t o be 50-100 y e a r s
o l d , grow b e s i d e t h e r i v e r i n t h e f l o o d -
p l a i n along with a s s o c i a t e d willow. The
San Luis Rey i s t h e s o u t h e r n l i m i t f o r
b l a c k cottonwood. An assortment o f under-
s t o r y p l a n t assemblages a r e found, ranging
from t h o s e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f r e s h w a t e r
marshes t h a t develop i n o l d oxbow forma-
t i o n s t o weedy e x o t i c s a s s o c i a t e d with
human - a1 t e r e d environments. The r a r e and
endangered s t icky dud1 eya (Dud7 e ~ vai s c i d a )
grows i n s e v e r a l l o c a t i o n s i n t h e narrows
where t h e r e a r e v e r t i c a l c l i f f w a l l s near
perennial creeks.
The r i v e r s i n San Diego County south of
t h e §an Luis River have been s e v e r e l y
d i s t u r b e d o r degraded s o t h a t only remnants
of r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t remain on t h e
f l o o d p l a i n , o f t e n between a road and a
streambed. Some of t h e b e t t e r remnant
s i t e s a r e l i s t e d i n Appendix D. Over t h e
p a s t 50 y e a r s d i s t u r b a n c e s have been from
a g r i c u l t u r e and sand mining, and i n t h e
p a s t 20 y e a r s , from r a p i d u r b a n i z a t i o n .
White a l d e r i s found only above 4,000 f t
a l o n g mountain streams, where i t i s t h e
most re1 i abl e i n d i c a t o r of water. Western
a z a l e a (Rhododendron o c c i d e n t a l e ) occa-
s i o n a l l y grows above 3,000 f t . Mountain
dogwood (Cornus n u t t a l l i i ) i s found on
shaded s l o p e s o r along streams on Palomar
and Cuyamaca mountains (Higgins, 1949).
Boxelder was r e p o r t e d by Higgins i n 1949 an
t h e La Posta Indian Reservation and i n
Doane Valley on Palomar Mountain.
Red willow i s t h e most common willow i n
San Diego County, where i t i s found growing
a l o n g streams from t h e c o a s t i n t o t h e moun-
t a i n s . Arroyo willow i s found i n a shrubby
form, sometimes a s a small t r e e , from Point
Loma e a s t t o the Cuyamaca Mountains. Ye1 -
low willow o r lance-'leaf P a c i f i c willow
(Saf i x 1a s i andra v a r . 1anci f o l i a ) i s uncom-
mon, growing o n l y a s a s h r u b along San
Mateo Creek, i n Murphy Canyon, and on Hot
S p r i n g s Mountain. Goodding" wwil low grows
f a i r l y c o m o n i y along streams i n Moosa
Canyon, San Pasquaf , and Lakeside.
Graybark willow (Sal i x hindsiana v a r .
leucodendroides) grows a s a shrub i n o r
c f ose t o c o a s t a l streams.
Common t r e e s of San Diego County along
streambeds o r on f l o o d p l a i n s include Fre-
mont cottonwood, Cal i forn i a sycamore, and
c o a s t l i v e oak, which grows t o very l a r g e
s i z e on t h e m o i s t u r e - r i c h f l o o d p l a i n .
E l d e r b e r r y , u s u a l l y a shrub but sometimes
a small t r e e , i s common along streams
throughout t h e county up i n t o t h e moun-
t a i n s . C a l i f o r n i a walnut i s r a r e , with a
specimen r e p o r t e d by tliggins (1949) i n
Del uz. C a l i f o r n i a bay i s not found on t h e
c o a s t a l s i d e o f San Diego County, but only
i n r e l i c t u a l s t a n d s on t h e e a s t e r n d e s e r t
slope. Flowering a s h , n o t known in t h e
county p r i o r t o 1950, i s now r e p o r t e d t o
grow i n Sloan Canyon. Lvthrum cali-
fornicum, unconinlon i n San D i ego County,
grows i n t h e Otay River Va?+iey.
A r a r e p l a n t , San Diego monardelfa
(Mgnardell a 1 ino ides subsp. viminea, CNPS
L i s t l b , Smith, 19841, occurs in l a r g e r
canyons along ephemeral streams t h a t sup-
p o r t a f l o o d - d i s t u r b a n c e type of vegeta-
tion. According t o a study f o r t h e
C a l i f o r n i a Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
(CALTRANS) by Scheid (1985), small popuf a -
Lions can be found growing on c o a r s e ,
rocky, sandy alluvium on f l o o d p l a i n s , on
benches c u t from t h e banks of channels, on
s t a b i l i z e d sandbars, along t h e banks of
channels and d r a i n a g e s , and even i n stream-
beds i n sonie l o c a t i o n s . Though occurring
in s e v e r a l physical s e t t i n g s , t h e l o c a t i o n s
a r e a l l s i m i l a r i n s o i l s and a s s o c i a t e d
p e g e t a t i a n and in t h e processes leading t o
t h e physical developlnent of t h e s i t e s
w i t h i n t h e stream system.
Because of e x t e n s i v e d i s r u p t i o n along
r i v e r s and streams, e x o t i c s p e c i e s a r e now
a major coniponent of San Diego County's
ripariara h a b i t a t . S a l t cedar arid g i a n t
reed t h r i v e and a g g r e s s i v e l y rep1 ace n a t i v e
r i p a r i d 0 s p e c i e s I n r i v e r c o u r s e s below
S,OOi) f t . Examples a r e widespread, but a
p a r t i c u l a r t y l a r g e invasion of s a l t c e d a r
can be seen along t h e San Diego River near
t a k e s i d c and o f g i a n t r e e d , o f f Mission
Gorge Road and t h e F a t h e r S e r r a Trial Woad.
E f f o r t s in Fallbrook t o e l i m i n a t e g i a n t
reed by manual o r cheniical means have been
marginally successful. Castor bean
(Ricinus communis) , though p r e v a l e n t , does
not have a perennial r o o t a s do s a l t cedar
and g i a n t r e e d , and t h u s has not become a
dominant pl a n t ; however, where a1 I uvi um has
been removed and poorer s o i l s remain, huge
t h i c k e t s of c a s t o r bean become e s t a b l ished,
excluding l i g h t and precluding t h e e s t a b -
lishment of n a t i v e s p e c i e s . German ivy i s
a 'less s e r i o u s p e s t i n San Diego County
than f a r t h e r north i n Santa Barbara County
but i s well e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e s i d e c r e e k s
near Chul a V i s t a . Ludwiqia urusuayensis
has become a dominant water-covering
a q u a t i c weed t h a t c r e e p s up and covers
streambanks ,
3.7 SUMMARY
The modern r i p a r i a n p l a n t community of
Southern C a l i f o r n i a i s d e r i v e d from a
southern m a d r o - t e r t i ary x e r i c element and
a northern a r c t o - t e r t i a r y mesic element.
Species d i s t r i b u t i o n i n t h i s flood-prone
h a b i t a t i s c l o s e l y t i e d t o t h e water regime
of streams, not o n l y f o r water supply i n a
s e a s o n a l l y d r y landscape but f o r a s e r i e s
of e v e n t s important in p l a n t e s t a b l i s h m e n t
and s u c c e s s i o n . Common t r e e s i n c l u d e white
alder (a riparian indicator species),
wit 1ow, cottonwood, and sycamore. The zone
c l o s e s t t o t h e water i s most f r e q u e n t l y
d i s t u r b e d by storms and i s dominated by
a l d e r and willow, while cottonwood,
sycamore, and oak grow t o l a r y e s i z e s on
t e r r a c e s above t h e r i v e r . This p a r t o f t h e
r i p a r i a n community i s t h e most d e p l e t e d .
Species composition v a r i e s somewhat from
north t o s o u t h , c o a s t a l t o i n l a n d , and low
t o high e l e v a t i o n a l g r a d i e n t s . There a r e
only a few r a r e o r endangered p l a n t s
a s s o c i a t e d with r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t , but t h e
r i p a r i a n community i t s e l f i s an endangered
community due t o t h e a c t i v i t i e s of man, I n
addi t i o n , s e v e r a l i n v a s i v e e x o t i c s p e c i e s
a r e reducing t h e e x t e n t and q u a l i t y o f t h e
small amount of remaining r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t .
 CHAPTER 4. THE RIPARIAN COMMUNITY: ANIMALS
C a l i f o r n i a ' s i n s e c t fauna i s so huge,
with an e s t i m a t e d 27,000-28,000 s p e c i e s ,
t h a t t h e r e i s no S t a t e l i s t (Powell and
Hogue, 1979). In t h e Los Angeles b a s i n ,
t h e r e a r e somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000
s p e c i e s (Hogue, 1974). For comparison, t h e
S t a t e has about 500 s p e c i e s of b i r d s
(Small, 19741, t h e 1 a r g e s t v e r t e b r a t e
cl ass.
The l i t e r a t u r e on i n s e c t s i s v a s t , but
much o f i t i s taxonomic; new s p e c i e s
continue t o be d e s c r i b e d and f a m i l i e s
r e v i s e d . The r i p a r i a n i n s e c t fauna a s a
group has not been dealt with
comprehensively, and o n l y r a r e l y has a
s c i e n t i f i c paper on t h e fauna o f a Southern
C a l i f o r n i a a r e a included i n s e c t s . One
exception was I n g l e s (1929), who examined
t h e fauna, i n c l u d i n g i n s e c t s , o f t h e upper
Santa Ana River wash i n Los Angeles County
a t a time when c o n d i t i o n s were q u i t e
n a t u r a l along t h a t p a r t o f t h e r i v e r . His
d a t a were q u a l i t a t i v e ; he was more
i n t e r e s t e d i n d i s t r i b u t i o n t h a n abundance.
He d e f i n e d f o u r p l a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s , one of
which was r i p a r i a n ( w i l l ow/cottonwood) , and
h i s f i s t o f r i p a r i a n i n s e c t s included
s p e c i e s from 8 o r d e r s : O r t h o p t e r a (8
s p e c i e s ) ; Ephemeroptera ( 1 ) ; Odonata (10) ;
Hemiptera (3); Coleoptera ( 3 8 ) ; Lepidoptera
( 2 3 ) ; D i p t e r a ( 2 4 ) ; and Hymenoptera ( 8 ) .
He considered h i s f i n d i n g s an a f f i r m a t i o n
of common know1 edge concerning t h e animals
o f t h e wash; i t i s now o f h i s t o r i c a l value
a s an i l l u s t r a t i o n of what t h e i n s e c t faun5
of a lowland r i v e r used t o be i n Southern
Ca1 i f o r n i a .
Recently, l i s t s s f i n s e c t s have been
inc? uded i n some environmental impact
r e p o r t s , along w i t h a d i s c u s s j o n o f t h e
impact of a proposed p r o j e c t on t h e fauna.
These documents a r e n o t r e a d i l y o b t a i n a b l e ,
and only one has been c i t e d - - a s t u d y of t h e
Santa Barbara c o a s t a l c r e e k s (Onuf, 1983) .
I n s e c t s occupy a l l t y p e s o f r i p a r i a n
space and i n c l u d e s o i l d w e l l e r s , p l a n t
b o r e r s , l e a f u s e r s , and w a t e r d w e l l e r s .
Aquatic i n s e c t s a p p a r e n t l y a r e adapted o n l y
s e c o n d a r i l y t o l i f e i n t h e water; t h e i r
a n c e s t r a l o r i g i n s a r e thought t o be
t e r r e s t r i a l (Usinger, 1956). Many i n s e c t s
a r e , however, a q u a t i c , and i n d i s c u s s i n g
r i p a r i a n i n s e c t s i t i s convenient t o t r e a t
a q u a t i c and t e r r e s t r i a1 forms s e p a r a t e l y .
4.1.1 Aauatic I n s e c t s
Many r i p a r i a n i n s e c t s a r e a q u a t i c i n t h e
nymphal o r l a r v a l s t a t e and a s a d u l t s a r e
terrestrial or aerial. Adults o f t h e s e
s p e c i e s (e.g., d r a g o n f l i e s , s t o n e f l i e s ,
d o b s o n f l i e s , mosquitoes, and midges) s t a y
c l o s e t o t h e w a t e r i n which t h e y w i l l l a y
t h e i r eggs. Several o r d e r s , n o t a b l y t h e
true bugs and b e e t l e s , a r e a q u a t i c a s
a d u l t s a s w e l l , but whereas l a r v a e and
nymphs a r e adapted t o o b t a i n i n g oxygen
under water through g i l l s , s p i r a c l e s , o r by
cutaneous r e s p i r a t i o n , a d u l t s must b r e a t h e
a i r . Ingenious methods, such a s c a r r y i n g
an a i r bubble, have evolved f o r maintaining
an a i r supply under w a t e r (Usinger, 1956).
Aquatic nymphs and l a r v a e a r e o f t e n
predaceous and a r e i n t u r n prey f o r f i s h .
The immature stages usually are
s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e a d u l t
forms, and many have n o t y e t been
identified. I n v a l u a b l e s o u r c e books on
t h i s s u b j e c t a r e Usinger (1956) and M e r r i t t
and K.W. Cummins (1978).
The f o l lowing b r i e f account high1 i g h t s
some of t h e more important groups
associated w i t h riparian habitat in
Southern Cal i f o r n i a .
.
a. M a y f l i e s (Ephemeroptera) The nymphs,
c a l l e d t h e " c a t t l e " o f t h e aquatic
environment f o r t h e i r r o l e i n t r a n s -
f o r m i n g p l a n t i n t o animal t i s s u e (Day,
1956), r e q u i r e weeks o r months t o
develop, Aerial adults l i v e only a
few days (Edmunds e t a l . , 1976). The
nymphs a r e a m a j o r f o o d source f o r
f i s h , d r a g o n f l i e s , and b i r d s (Day,
1956). There a r e about 170 species i n
C a l i f o r n i a; Powel 1 and Hogue (1979)
l i s t t h r e e genera t h a t a r e common i n
Southern C a l i f o r n i a ' s c o a s t a l streams
and 1 akes: b l ue-winged duns
( E ~ h e m e r e l l a ) , flat-nymphed m a y f l i e s
( E ~ e o r u s ) , and s t i l t - l e g g e d f l i e s
( C a l l ib a e t i s) . One species of
C a l l i b a e t e s , 5;. p a c i f i c u s , i s u b i q u i -
t o u s i n s t i l l - w a t e r ponds and i s an
i m p o r t a n t f o o d ssurce. Mayfl i e s are
an e x c e l l e n t i n d i c a t i o n o f e n v i r o n -
mental q u a l i t y and have been used by
t h e U. S. Environmental P r o t e c t i o n
Agency f o r t h i s purpose (C. Nagano,
N a t u r a l H i s t o r y Museum, Los Angeles
County; p e r s . corn.). Figure 33. A predaceous nymph and adult of the
California spreadwing, a dalnselfly common i n
freshwater bogs. Photo courtesy of Charles l-iogue.
b. Damsel f l i e s and d r a g o n f l ies (Odonata) .
The nymphs ( a l s o c a l l e d naiads) a r e
Dredaceous w a t e r d w e l l e r s , e a t i n s
immature insects, crustaceans; source f o r t r o u t ( J e w e t t , 1956). Win-
t a d p o l e s , f i s h , and young s a l amanders t e r s t o n e f l i e s (F. Capni idae) mature
(Essig, 1926). They do n o t u s u a l l y e a r l y i n t h e y e a r and a r e a f o o d
chase t h e i r p r e y b u t l i e i n w a i t f o r source when o t h e r i n s e c t s a r e u n a v a i l -
i t (Needham and W e s t f a l l , 1955). They a b l e (Powel 1 and Hogue, 1979). There
s e r v e as f o o d f o r f i s h , b i r d s , and a r e about 100 species o f s t o n e f l i e s i n
f r o g s (Smith and P r i t c h a r d , 1956). California, w i t h a t l e a s t 3 important
A d u l t s f e e d on mosquitoes and g n a t s genera in Southern California:
(Powel 1 and Hogue, 1979). Widespread Nemoura, Pteronarcys, and Acroneuria.
wherever t h e r e i s permanent, c l e a n
f r e s h w a t e r , t h e a d u l t s a r e handsome
i n s e c t s , i n t e r e s t i n g t o watch and much
.
d. C r i c k e t s ( O r t h o p t e r a ) Orthopterans
a r e n o t u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h water,
valued by c o l l e c t o r s (Figure 33). b u t t h e pygmy mole c r i c k e t s (Tri-
There a r e about 100 s p e c i e s o f t h i s d a c t y l us spp.) a r e an e x c e p t i o n . They
o r d e r i n C a l i f o r n i a (Powell and Hogue, are f o s s o r i a l , burrowing i n loose s o i l
1979). The commonest d r a g o n f l i e s a r e b o r d e r i n g water, and swim w e l l (La
t h o s e i n t h e L i b e l l u l i d a e o r skimmer Rivers, 1956). T h e i r r o l e i n r i p a r i a n
f a m i l y ; t h e c o r n o n e s t damsel f l i e s a r e ecology has n o t been we1 1 researched.
t h e b l u e t s (F. Coenagrionidae) .
e. True bugs (Hemipteraj . Water bugs
c . Stonefl i e s ( P l e c s p t e r a ) . Stonefly g e n e r a l l y o v e r w i n t e r as a d u l t s and lay
nymphs r e q u i r e moving w a t e r and a r e eggs i n t h e s p r i n g . The nymphs h a t c h
associated mostly with mountain and develop i n summer, become a d u l t s
streams, where t h e y a r e a m a j o r f o o d i n l a t e summer, and c o n t i n u e t h e
 annual cycle (Usinger, 1956). In many
families a1 1 stages a r e aquatic; a few
have f o s s o r i a l a d u l t s , Most water
bugs can f l y b u h r e more a t home in
water,
There a r e several families in Southern
Caf i forni a. The water boatmen (Cori -
xidae) feed on algae, diatoms, r o t i -
f e r s , and mosquito larvae and are
themselves preferred food f o r many
f i s h (Usinger, X956), Backswimmers
(Notonectidae) swim upside down and
prey on mosquitoes and snlall f i s h .
They can i n f l i c t a painful b i t e
(Usi nger, 1956). Water s t r i d e r s
(Gerridae) prey on organisms t h a t f a l l
i n t o the water. The most common spe-
c i e s in Southern California i s Gerris
remisis (Powell and Hogue, 1979).
Giant water boatmen (Belostomatidae)
occur in streams and ponds and h u n t
from under water. Amons t h e l a r q e s t
i n s e c t s , they prey on other i n s e c t s ,
tadpoles, f i s h , and even snakes.
Females of some genera lay eggs on the
back of the male, where they are
carried until they hatch (Usinger,
1956). One species, t h e e l e c t r i c
1 ight bug (Lethocerus americanus), may
no longer e x i s t in Southern Califor-
n i a ; i t was dependent on freshwater
ponds. Common species in Southern
Cal i f o r n i a a r e the t o e b i t e r s (Abedus
indentatus) and Belastoma flumineum.
All g i a n t water boatmen can i n f l i c t a
painful b i t e . The creeping waterbugs
(Naucoridae) a r e inhabitants of slow
streams with pebbly bottoms. They are
highly predaceous -and e a t water boat-
men, mosquito larvae, and mollusks.
They a l s o can i n f l i c t a painful b i t e .
The common Southern Gal i f o r n i a species
i s Ambrvsus occidental r's (Powell and
Hogue, 1979).
f . Dobsonff i e s (Neuroptera) . Adults
deposit egg masses on objects over-
hanging water, The larvae are f u l l y
aquatic, have powerful mandibles, and
are high1 y predace3us. Nature 1arvae
burrow i n t o banks above water and
pupate (Powell and Hogue, 1979).
Neohermes f i1 i corn! s l arvae are
i z p a r l a n t f i s h food,
g. Caddisfl i e s (Vrichoptera) . The
aquatic larvae of many species form
cases of s i l k with pebbles and plant
fragments attached, a r e stationary,
and feed on plants. They are food f o r
f i s h and have often been used as b a i t .
There are about 300 species i n 14
families in California (Powell and
Hogue, 1979). The family Limne-
phi1 idae dominates Gal if o r n i a ' s
Tricopterans, with more than 40
species described. The genus Limne-
g h i l u s i s widespread in t h e f o o t h i l l s
and mountains and i s a major food f o r
t r o u t (C. Hogue, pers. corn.).
h. Moths (Lepidoptera) . Only a few moths
have adapted t o aquatic h a b i t a t ,
mostly in t h e subfamily Nymphul i n i .
In one genus, P a r a r ~ v r a c t i s , a l l
stages except a d u l t s are aquatic. The
1 arvae are rock-dwell e r s and construct
silken t e n t s from which they feed on
algae and diatoms (Lange, 1956).
Beet1 e s (Col eoptera) Water beetl e s ,
1 ike the water bugs, include p a r t i a l l y
and f u l l y aquatic species. Adults as
well a s eggs and l a r v a e o r nymphs a r e
often aquatic; only the pupal stage i s
t e r r e s t r i a l . Adults c a r r y t h e i r a i r
supply with them in t h e form of a
bubble or a sheet of a i r held by f i n e
hairs (Leech and Chandler, 1956). The
l arvae are general l y predaceous, a s
are many a d u l t s (with some exceptions,
such as scavenger b e e t l e s ) . Many
fami 1 i e s a r e represented i n Southern
California. A few of t h e more common
ones are l i sted be1 ow.
(1) Predaceous diving beetl es
(Dyti scidae) . Common from sea
level t o 4,000 m i n many
freshwater s i t u a t i o n s ; the larvae
a r e predaceous and cannibal 4 s t i c ,
feeding on larvae and a d u l t s of
other i n s e c t s , worms, 1eeches,
s n a i l s , tadpoles, and small f i s h ,
Adults a r e prey for a1 1 classes of
vertebrates; among b i r d s , they a r e
particul a r l y sought by ducks and
waders (Leech and Chandler, 1956),
( 2 ) Whirligig beetles (Eyrinidae) .
These beetles can d i v e and f l y but
a r e most a t home on the surface of
t h e water, which i s t h e i r foraging
niche (Figure 3 4 ) . Found t n a

Figure 34. Whirligig beetles (Dineutu~sp.) on the
surface of an eddy in a stream. Photo courtesy of
Charles Hogue.
v a r i e t y of freshwater habitats,
the larvae are predaceous and
cannibal is t i c (Leech and Chandler,
1956) .
( 3 ) Water scavenger beet1 es (Hydro-
phi1 idae). Most species of water
beetles a r e in t h i s family. They
are generally vegetarian and move
more slowly than the predaceous
b e e t l e s . Both adults and larvae
are an important food source f o r
f i s h and aquatic birds (Leech and
Chandler, 1956).
( 4 ) Water pennies (Psephenidae) . The
larvae a r e round and f l a t , with
the body margins expanded t o cover
the head and legs (Powell and
Hogue, 1979). They cling t o the
surfaces of rocks l i k e limpets.
Adults a r e t e r r e s t r i a l and a r e not
e a s i l y seen. klater pennies are
found throughout California in
c l e a r , f a s t streams, usually below
1,600 m (Leech and Chandler,
1956).
FS i e s , g n a t s , midges, mosquitoes
(Diptera). Approximately half of t h i s
l a r g e and diverse order are aquatic in
the e a r l y stages. The adults are
a e r i a l or t e r r e s t r i a l . Dipterans per-
form many ecological functions; they
prey on other invertebrates, serve as
food f o r b i r d s , amphibians, and f i s h ,
and are useful indicators of environ-
mental q u a l i t y . The b i t i n g habit of
some f l i e r i s highly i r r i t a t i n g t o
humans, and several species transmit
serious mammal ian diseases.
(1) Net-winged midges (Blephariceri -
d a e ) . Larvae are found in swift-
water streams from 40 t o 4,000 m.
They are vegetarian and, as they
a r e s e n s i t i v e t o p o l l u t i o n , are
indicators of the health of the
stream. One species, Aqathon
comstocki, i s an important food of
t h e dipper (Cincl us mexicanus).
This family i s under study in t h e
San Gabriel Mountains.
(2) Craneflies (Tipulidae). One
species, the giant cranefly
(Holorusia rubiqi nosa) , has a
huge, semiaquatic larva t h a t i s a
major food source f o r birds.
( 3 ) Mosquitoes (Cucul idae) . Both
larvae and pupae are aquatic
(Wirth and Stone, 1956) and
generally vegetarian (Essig,
1926). They are ubiquitous in
ponds and many s t i l l w a t e r s i t u a -
t i o n s , as we17 as in streams.
( 4 ) Midges (Chironomidae). Midges in
a l l stages of metamorphosis are a
prime source of food f o r f i s h
(Wirth and Stone. 1956). Larval
feeding h a b i t a t s vary; some are
predaceous, while others feed on
detritus. There are about 200
species in California (Powell and
Hogue, 1979) and, i n the familiar
swarms t h a t occur in spring and
summer, the number of individuals
can be astronomical. Chironomids
have been used as indicators of
environmental qua1 i t y .
4 . 1.2 T e r r e s t r i a l Insects
T e r r e s t r i a l i n s e c t s range from t i n y
primitive wingless s o i l -reducing spring-
t a i l s t o l a r g e highly evolved flying social
a n t s . There a r e probably more species of
beetles than any o t h e r order ;n t e r r e s t r i a l
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t , which i s not surprising
since Coleoptera i s the l a r g e s t order i n
the animal k i ngdom (Powel 1 and Hogue,
1979) .
Certain plants host an astonishing
variety of i n s e c t s , both larvae and a d u l t s .
Some of these host/insect re1 a t ionships are
noted below; more complete l i s t i n g s are
found in indexes of host plants in Essig
(19261, Tietz (1972), and Emmel and Emmel
(1973). The more important orders are
brief1 y described be1 ow.
a. Springtail s , e t c . (Protura, Diplura,
Col lembol a ) . These primitive i n s e c t s
a r e almost microscopic. They do not
undergo metamorphosis; many lack eyes
and antennae. They a r e vegetarian and
t h e i r h a b i t a t i s moist s o i l , l e a f
l i t t e r , and r o t t i n g wood. There are
only a few species of Proturans and
Diplurans in Cal i f o r n i a , but about 150
Col 1embol a ( Powel 1 and Hogue, 1979).
They a r e not well studied, but are
known t o be important s o i l reducers.
b. Bird l i c e (Ma1 1ophaga) . These ecto-
p a r a s i t e s feed on h a i r , f e a t h e r s , and
dried blood around wounds on the host.
They can cause g r e a t discomfort and
even death i f the i n f e s t a t i o n i s
severe. Eggs are deposited on the
host. Many r i p a r i a n bird species are
a f f l i c t e d by Mallophagans. A l i s t of
host species i s given by Emerson
(1964).
c. True bugs (Hemiptera). Three species
in d i f f e r e n t famil ies are common plant
bugs in r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t : western
boxelder bug (Leptocori s rubrol inea-
-
t u s ) feeds on the f o l i a g e of boxelder
and maple (Powell and Hogue, 1979);
giant willow aphid (Tuber01achnus
saliqnus) feeds in l a r g e , compact
colonies on the trunks and branches of
willows (Essig, 1926); and t h e oak
treehopper ( Platycot i s v ittata)
i n s e r t s i t s eggs in twigs on oaks
throughout Cal iforni a and occasionally
on other broadleaved t r e e s (Essig,
1926).
d. f l i e s , gnats, midges, mosqui toes
(Diptera) . As noted previously, about
ha1 f t h e Dipterans have aquatic
larvae, and a d u l t s usually s t a y close
t o water. Some, such a s mosquitoes,
horsefl i e s , and d e e r f l i e s , a r e severe
nu1 sances t o humans. Several fami 1i e s
with aquatic larvae whose a d u l t s play
important roles in riparian
t e r r e s t r i a l ecology are:
( I ) Moth ff i e s (Psyrhodidae). The
lance-winged moth f l y , Maruina
lanceolata, is cornon along
streams, crawl ing on boulders and
feeding on diatomaceous and algal
films on the s u b s t r a t e (Powell and
Hogue, 1979).
f 2 ) Mosquitoes (Cucul idae) .
This i s
probably the most thoroughly
studied family of D i ptera because
of t h e diseases transmitted by
mosquitoes and t h e i r general rof e
a s nuisances. Only the females
b i t e . There a r e 47 known species
i n California (Powell and Hogue,
1979).
(3) Horse f l i e s , deer f l i e s (Tabani-
dae). There a r e about 75 species
i n California (Powell and Hogue,
1979). Most a r e strong f l i e r s and
t h e females a r e wicked b i t e r s ; t h e
males a r e mostly nectar sippers
(Cole, 1969). Some species a r e
suspected of transmitting
diseases, including tularemia and
anthrax. The common horse f l y in
Ca1 i f o r n i a i s Tabanus ~ u n c t i f e r ;
t h e females feed on the blood of
1arge mammals but r a r e l y b i t e man
(Powel 1 and Hogue, 1979).
Other Dipterans a r e r i p a r i a n without
being aquatic. Many a r e associated
with damp s o i l and r i p a r i a n t r e e s such
as willows and oaks. Eggs are l a i d in
moist s o i l , leaf mold, or under bark,
and the larvae are general iy
vegetarian. Some examples are:
( 4 ) Cranefl i e s (Tipul idae) . The
common c r a n e f l i e s of t h e genus
I are a c t i v e i n mo-irt
wood1 ands and are nectar-feeders,
The larvae are found i n r i c h , damp
s o i l and feed on roots and
decaying vegetation (Cole, 1969).
 (5) March f l i e s ( B i b i o n i d a e ) . Larvae
f e e d on p l a n t r o o t s and decaying
v e g e t a t i o n ; a d u l t s swarm i n t h e
spring. The a d u l t s have an
a f f i n i t y f o r blossoms and may be
of v a l u e a s p o l l i n a t o r s (Cole,
1969).
(6) Pomace f l i e s (Drosophil i d a e ) . The
t r a i l g n a t (Amiota ~ i c t a ) i s a
small and extremely i r r i t a t i n g
p e s t t o h i k e r s . Adults a r e found
n e a r streams and a r e a t t r a c t e d t o
human e y e s . Larvae a r e unknown
(Powell and Hogue, 1979).
e . Moths, b u t t e r f l i e s (Lepidoptera). The
eqqs a r e l a i d on o r near food, and t h e
l a r v a e a r e l a r g e l y v e g e t a r i a n , feeding
on a wide v a r i e t y of h o s t s ( T i e t z ,
1962). Mature moths and b u t t e r f l i e s
a r e g e n e r a l l y n e c t a r - f e e d e r s and a r e
prime p o l l i n a t o r s f o r many flowering
plants. Moths a r e g e n e r a l l y noc-
t u r n a l , while b u t t e r f l i e s a r e a c t i v e
b
during t h e day (Powell and Hogue,
1979). The 1 arvae a r e seldom damaging
t o t h e i r h o s t s ; t h e l i s t of c a t e r -
p i l l a r s t h a t feed on r i p a r i a n t r e e s
and shrubs i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a i s
long and i n c l u d e s s p e c i e s from many
f a m i l i e s (Figure 3 5 ) . Table 7 l i s t s
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r i p a r i a n moths and
t h e i r host p l a n t s . The h o s t t r e e
harbors t h e l a r v a l s t a g e u n l e s s o t h e r - Figure 35. Lorquin's admiral (u brauini)
wise noted. Table 8 l i s t s r i p a r i a n larva, pupa, and adult. The larvae feed on willows
b u t t e r f l i e s ( l a r v a e ) and t h e i r h o s t and cottonwoods. Photo courtesy of Charles Hogue.
pl a n t s .
B e e t l e s (Coleoptera) . Terrestrial
riparian beetl e s i n c l ude ground
dwell e r s (Cicindel i d a e , Carabidae) ,
b o r e r s (Cerambycidae, Curcul i o n i d a e ) , beetle, -C . t r a n a u e b a r i c a
l e a f miners (Chrysomel i d a e ) , p r e d a t o r s v i r i d i s s i m a , i s being considered
on o t h e r i n s e c t s ( F . Coccinell i d a e ) , f o r 1 i s t i n g a s an endangered
and many more. Only t h e b r i e f e s t s p e c i e s (Zembal , 1984a). It
coverage i s p o s s i b l e h e r e . i n h i b i t s t h e S a n t a Ana River
d r a i n a g e (C. Nagano, p e r s . comm).
(1) T i g e r b e e t l e s (Cicindel i d a e ) . The
fast-moving a d u l t s i n h a b i t sandy ( 2 ) Predaceous ground b e e t l e s (Carabi -
o r g r a v e l l y s h o r e s of l a k e s and dae) . The eggs o f t h e s e b e e t l e s
streams ( E s s i g , 1926). Larvae a r e u s u a l l y l a i d on t h e ground.
l i v e i n burrows i n t h e same Both 1 a r v a e and a d u l t s a r e a c t i v e
h a b i t a t (Powell and Hogue, 1979). p r e d a t o r s , t h e a d u l t s mastly a t
The Oregon t i g e r b e e t l e , Cicindel a n i g h t ( E s s i g , 1926). This i s a
oreqona, i s a common Southern huge and d i v e r s e family with 800
C a l i f o r n i a s p e c i e s (Powel 1 and species i n California. Tule
Hogue, 1979)- The g r e e n e s t t i g e r b e e t l e s (Auonum s p p . ) a r e common
 fable 7. Wflotfi~(lawae) and their riparian host plants (from Powell and Hogue, 1979).

Common name S c i e n t i f i c name Host t r e e

Locust cl earwi ng Paranthrene r o b i n i ae Willow, sycamore, cottonwood

Carpetworm P r i o n ~ ~ ryo b~i nt i ~a e~
- Alder, cottonwood, 1 i v e oak,
map1 e
Cal i f o r n i a oak moth Phrvsanidia c a l i f o r n i c a Live oak
W i11ow nestmaker I c t h v u r a aoi c a l i s Willow
Annaphi 1a A n n a ~ h i l aspp. Willow ( a d u l t s )
Yellow-spotted Hal i s i d o t a maculata Wil 1 ow, o t h e r broad-leaved
t i g e r moth trees
Nevada buck moth Hemi 1euca nevadensi s Willow
Eyed sphinx Smeri nthus c e r i s v i Willow

Table 8. Butterflies (larvae)and their riparian host plants (from Emrnel and Ernrnel, 1973).

Common name S c i e n t i f i c name Host p l a n t o r t r e e

Western t i g e r
swallowtail P a ~1iio r u t u l us Sycamore, wi 11ow
Lorqui n' s admiral Limentis l o r q u i n i Willow

S a t y r angl ewi ng Polyqoni a s a t y r u s Creek n e t t l e

Urt i c a hol o s e r i c e a
California s i s t e r Adel a ha bredowi Live oak

Mourning c l o a k Nvmohal i s a n t i o ~ a Willow, a l d e r , cottonwood

Sylvan h a i r s t r e a k Satvrium s v l v i n u s 1 anceol a t 4

 i n marshy p l a c e s i n Southern
C a l i f o r n i a ; t h e bombardier b e e t l e ,
Brachinus t s c h e r n i k h i , i n h a b i t s
rocky margins o f l a k e s and streams
(Powell and Hogue, 1979), a s do
t h e fa1 s e bombardiers, Chl a e n i u s
spp. (Hogue, 1974).
(3) Ladybirds (Coccinell i d a e ) . Both
l a r v a e and a d u l t s o f most s p e c i e s
e a t aphids and o t h e r s c a l e i n s e c t s
and a r e considered benef i c i a1
( E s s i g , 1926). The convergent
l adybird beetle, Hi opodamia
converaens, i s a common s p e c i e s i n
Southern Cal i f o r n i a ; g r e a t masses
of these beetles hibernate i n
c o a s t a l canyons, then m i g r a t e
downstream t o t h e v a l l e y s i n e a r l y
s p r i n g t o f e e d on aphids (Powell
and Hogue, 1979).
( 4 ) Longhorn b e e t l e s (Cerambycidae).
Larvae bore i n t o wood of dead and
dying t r e e s , and i n t o t h e r o o t s o f
l i v i n g t r e e s and shrubs. Adults
commonly v i s i t flowers ( E s s i g ,
1926). The branded a l d e r b o r e r ,
Rosa1 i a f u n e b r i s , a t t a c k s a l d e r
and California laurel ; the
California prionus, Prionus
cal ifornica, bores i n t o oaks
(Powell and Hogue, 1979).
( 5 ) Weevil s (Curcul i o n i d a e ) . Both
l a r v a e and a d u l t s a r e v e g e t a r i a n
and a r e extremely d e s t r u c t i v e t o
t h e i r hosts. Females bore i n t o
t r e e t r u n k s , t w i g s , and flowers t o
l a y e g g s , and t h e l a r v a e hatch i n
t h e i r food supply. This huge
family has more than 1,000 s p e c i e s
i n Cal i f o r n i a , a t t a c k i n g many
p l a n t s (Powell and Hogue, 1979).
In r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t t h e r o s e
curcul i o , Rhvnchi t e s bicolor,
commonly i n f e s t s wild r o s e s and
b l a c k b e r r i e s along streams.
(6) Leaf beet1 e s (Chrysomel i d a e ) .
Both a d u l t s and l a r v a e feed on
l e a v e s and a r e very d e s t r u c t i v e t o
their h o s t s . I n r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t
t h e r e a r e numerous s p e c i e s ; some
general i s t s , o t h e r s s p e c i a l i s t s .
Members of a t l e a s t f o u r genera
(m, Di sonvcha, Gal e r n c e l l a ,
Pachvbrachvs) feed p r i m a r i l y on
willow 1 eaves; s e v e r a l s p e c i e s
of Lina have a predel Sction f a r
riparian trees, including
cottonwood, willow, and aspen
(Essig , 1926).
f. Ants, wasps, bees (Hymenoptera).
These h i g h l y evolved, o f t e n s o c i a l
insects are not particularly
a s s o c i a t e d with r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t , but
t h e r e a r e some e x c e p t i o n s .
(1) S a w f l i e s ( T e n t h r e d i n i d a e ) . Fe-
males u s u a l l y c u t s l i t s i n young
s h o o t s o r l e a v e s and i n s e r t t h e i r
eggs; t h e l a r v a e feed on t h e
leaves. In Southern Cal i f o r n i a
the green willow sawflies,
R h o s o ~ a s t e r spp. , a r e common
(Powell and Hogue, 1979). Some
sawflies cause g a l l s , e.g., the
willow l e a f g a l l sawfly, Euura
p a c i f i c a . Larvae of t h i s s p e c i e s
a r e p a r a s i t i z e d by a braconid wasp
( E s s i g , 1926).
(2) Gall wasps (Cynipidae). The l a r g e
fami 1 i a r oak g a l l i s caused by t h e
C a l i f o r n i a oak g a l l wasp, Andricus
c a l i f o r n i c u s , which i s i n turn
p a r a s i t i z e d by t h e oak g a l l
chalcid, Torvmus cal ifornicus
(Powel 1 and Hogue, 1979).
4.1.3 Role o f I n s e c t s i n R i o a r i a n Ecolosy
E c o l o g i c a l l y , r i p a r i a n i n s e c t s a r e prey,
p r e d a t o r s , pal 1i n a t o r s , w a t e r p u r i f i e r s ,
g r a z e r s , s o i 1 r e d u c e r s , mosqui t o - c o n t r o l
a g e n t s , and more. As a s o u r c e o f food f o r
o t h e r animals t h e i r importance cannot be
o v e r s t a t e d ; t h e y f e e d a l l c l a s s e s of v e r t e -
b r a t e s , a s we11 a s o t h e r i n s e c t s . Birds i n
p a r t i c u l a r depend on them; t h e g r e a t blooms
of i n s e c t s i n l a t e s p r i n g and summer
provide food f o r t h e migrants t h a t come t o
breed (Pequegnat, 1951), and r e s i d e n t b i r d s
u s e t h i s supplemental food s o u r c e t o r a i s e
t h e i r young (Rosenberg e t a7. 1982). As
predators, riparian insects act as
reguf a t o r s o f v e g e t a t i v e growth, a r o l e f o r
which they a r e n o t u s u a l l y accorded
r e c o g n i t i o n . Qf prime importance i s t h e i r
role in pollination. Bees a r e t h e b e s t
known o f t h e p o l l i n a t o r s ; s o l i t a r y bees
( G r i g a r i c k , 1968) and bumble bees (Thorp e t
a1 ., 1983) a r e major pol 1 i n a t o r s of n a t i v e
California flowering plants. The
1 it e r a t u r e on i n s e c t pol 1 i n a t i o n i s l a r g e
but d i f f u s e , and c u l l i n g information on
riparian plants i s d i f f i c u l t .
The n i c h e occupied by any i n s e c t i s
d i c t a t e d by i t s food and r e p r o d u c t i v e
requirements, and t h e two a r e o f t e n 1 inked.
Eggs a r e l a i d where t h e l a r v a e w i l l f e e d
when they hatch. Brucs (1946) d i s t i n -
guished f o u r t y p e s of i n s e c t s i n terms of
t h e i r food h a b i t a t : ( 1 ) t h o s e t h a t feed on
1 i v i n g p l a n t s , which i n c l u d e s about h a l f
t h e known s p e c i e s ; ( 2 ) predaceous i n s e c t s
that consume living animals; (3)
saprophagous insects whose food is
dead/decaying animal m a t t e r ; and ( 4 )
p a r a s i t e s , both i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l .
In occupying t h e s e n i c h e s , i n s e c t s play
a v i t a l r o l e i n t h e e c o l o g i c a l balance o f
t h e i r h a b i t a t s . Not o n l y a r e they a c t i v e l y
e a t i n g , and thus r e g u l a t i n g , t h e p l a n t s and
animals w i t h which they a r e a s s o c i a t e d , but
they a r e s e r v i n g a s food f o r o t h e r s f a r t h e r
up t h e food c h a i n .
There a r e no Southern Cal i f o r n i a r i p a r i a n
i n s e c t s l i s t e d a s endangered o r t h r e a t e n e d .
The r e c e n t i n c l u s i o n o f t h e g r e e n e s t t i g e r
b e e t l e i n a group t o be considered f o r
1 i s t i n g (Zembal , 1984a) i s t h e f i r s t r i p p l e
i n what may become a l a r g e wave. This
b e e t l e i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e Santa Ana River
basin i n Orange, R i v e r s i d e , and San
Bernardino Counties where h a b i t a t a l t e r a -
t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y stream channel i z a t i o n ,
has s h a r p l y reduced i t s range ( C . Nagano,
p e r s . comm.).
The impact of streambed a l t e r a t i o n on
a q u a t i c i n s e c t s has received 1i t t l e
a t t e n t i o n and d e s e r v e s more. One such
study on t h e San Gabriel River showed t h a t
water b e e t l e s were e x t i r p a t e d from t h e
cement-1 ined p o r t i o n s of t h e r i v e r and
could be found only i n a few p l a c e s along
i t s course on t h e c o a s t a l p l a i n ( P e r k i n s ,
1976). The e c o l o g i c a l imp1 i c a t i o n s were
not d i s c u s s e d and probably not known.
In summary, both i n numbers of s p e c i e s
and numbers of i n d i v i d u a l s , i n s e c t s a r e t h e
major fauna i n r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t . They
occupy every e c o l o g i c a l niche and s e r v e a s
both p r e d a t o r s (mostly on o t h e r i n s e c t s )
and prey ( f o r a l l t h e v e r t e b r a t e c l a s s e s ) .
Many a r e a q u a t i c in one o r more of t h e i r
developmental s t a g e s ; some a r e t o t a l l y
aquatic. Terrestrial insects in riparian
h a b i t a t i n c l u d e s o i l - d w e l l e r s , flower-
sippers, l e a f - e a t e r s , bark-borers, bird
p a r a s i t e s , and o t h e r s . The 1 i f e c y c l e s of
most s p e c i e s a r e poorly known, and on1 y t h e
most general information i s a v a i l a b l e f o r
many famil i e s . A monograph on t h e r i p a r i a n
i n s e c t fauna would be o f g r e a t v a l u e .
4.2 FISH
The streams and l a k e s of Southern
C a l i f o r n i a have never supported a very
d i v e r s i f i e d f i s h population. Coastal
streams have a1 ways been i n t e r m i t t e n t ,
t h e i r flows dependent on good w i n t e r
rainfall. Near t h e c o a s t t h e s m a l l e r
streams a r e o f t e n d r y f o r s e v e r a l months of
t h e y e a r ; a s f i s h h a b i t a t , they have never
been very h o s p i t a b l e . There a r e e i g h t
f a m i l i e s of n a t i v e f r e s h w a t e r f i s h , each
r e p r e s e n t e d by one o r two s p e c i e s . Only
f o u r s p e c i e s o f s u b s p e c i e s a r e endemic ( s e e
checklist below); they were found
o r i g i n a l l y i n t h e f o u r r i v e r s o f t h e Los
Angeles and Ventura Basins (Santa Ana, San
Gabriel, Los Angeles, Santa C l a r a ) .
According t o Hubbs, t h e s e r i v e r s used t o
i n t e r c o n n e c t i n t h e i r headwaters d u r i n g
y e a r s o f high water (Moyle, 1976). The
following annotated check1 is t covers a1 l of
t h e n a t i v e f r e s h w a t e r f i sh (nomencl a t u r e
follows American F i s h e r i e s S o c i e t y , 1980).
4.2.1 Native Fish
a . Petromyzonidae: lampreys. Pacific
1amprey, Lamoretra t r i d e n t a t a . The
most p r i m i t i v e of i t s genus, t h i s
p a r a s i t i c s p e c i e s i s a wide-ranging,
anadromous f i s h , found most from
Monterey north (Moyle, 1976). Despite
predaceous h a b i t s , i t does n o t appear
t o a f f e c t p o p u l a t i o n s of o t h e r l o c a l
f i s h (Moyle, 19761, a s does t h e
introduced 1 amprey, Pteromyzon
marinus, of t h e Great Lakes. Formerly
i n t h e Santa Ana R i v e r , i t has been
r e p o r t e d r e c e n t l y o n l y from t h e Santa
C l a r a River i n Ventura County f C ,
S w i f t , Natural H i s t o r y Museum, Los
Angel e s County; p e r s . comrn, ) .
b. Salmonidae: t r o u t and salmon.
Rainbow t r o u t , Salrno s a i r d n e r i (Figure
36). This t r o u t i s native t o coastal
streams from t h e hos Angeles River
U E b W -W2- -a - U C D W C
at o a~ w m c OF wr.- a,r.~.~-
C, bCX U L m Z - - A & N &

- c m - a L w
,mL 2
n o - U & h v r ~ar
rr-
E- r n m m . C O L T
m m J -E L-F-
. L O L . C - , ~ - ~
wfi t a 3 0 % S rda m aP-
m m.-- o u.L,.- ha c,=eC)L m
.? .*-
~ ~ m
> u C > L pTs CCB I C) J
~ - ~ a ~ r n ~ i i , ~ r n o \ c , i v ,
c, W E C X ~ = L>. num m d m C L . ~

- ' U W
I-
.-
i
U? i n n
i
m -22%
2 m > r - .&2
 Gal i f o r n i a State Universi t y
j f u l l e r t o n ) ; p e r s , camm. ) .
( 2 ) Speck1 ed d a c e , Rhinichthys oscu-
l u s . This endemic f i s h i s found
-
throughout C a l i f o r n i a , but not i n
most c o a s t a l streams (MoySe,
1976). There i s a r e a l h i a t u s i n
i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n along t h e c o a s t ;
i t i s n a t i v e only t o t h e Santa Ana
River system and t o San Luis Obis-
po Creek ( M i l l e r , 1968). This i s
a r i f f l e f i s h and a bottom brows-
e r , feeding on small i n v e r t e b r a t e s
and p l a n t s . I t i s found mainly i n
c o o l , fast-moving streams with
rocky bottoms, but sometimes i n
other types of freshwater h a b i t a t s
i n t h e western United S t a t e s
(Hubbs e t a l . , 1974).
d . Catostomatidae: s u c k e r s . Santa Ana
s u c k e r , Catostomus s a n t a a n a e . A small
endemic of l i m i t e d range, i t i s known
only from t h e Los Angeles, San Figure 37. Unarmored three-spine stickleback
G a b r i e l , and Santa Ana Rivers and from (G~S&~Q= aculeatus williamsoni), an endangered
t h e Santa C l a r a River, where i t was fishof the Southern California coastal streams.
probably introduced ( M i l l e r , 1968). Photo courtesy of Carnm Swift.
A bottom- browser t h a t f e e d s on small
i n v e r t e b r a t e s and p l a n t s , i t p r e f e r s
c l e a r , c o o l , rocky and g r a v e l l y
streams with a moderate g r a d i e n t (Lee
e t a1 ., 1980). The l i f e h i s t o r y o f
t h i s f i s h was s t u d i e d by G r e e n f i e l d
and co-workers (1970 i n t h e Santa ( M i l l e r , 1960); i t i s now found only
C l a r a River, where i t was then only i n t h e Soledad Canyon S e c t i o n of
abundant. t h e Santa C l a r a River and a few o f i t s
small t r i b u t a r i e s . A natural r i v e r
e . Cyprinodontidae: p u p f i s h , k i l l i f i s h . with c l e a r , slow flow i s i t s e s s e n t i a l
California killifish, Fundulus h a b i t a t ; t h e r i v e r s i n t h e Los Angeles
parvi~innis. In shallow c o a s t a l b a s i n a r e no l o n g e r s u i t a b l e . There
w a t e r s from Monterey t o southern Raja a r e only f o u r known p o p u l a t i o n s i n t h e
Gal i f o r n i a , Mexico, t h e s e f i s h a r e upper Santa C l a r a River. I t was
s t i l l plentiful. Formerly found i n l i s t e d i n 1970 a s an endangered
freshwater streams in Southern s p e c i e s by the USFWS and i n 1972 by
C a l i f o r n i a , such a s San Juan Creek i n t h e Cal if o r n i a Department o f Fish and
Orange County i n t h e 1940s (Moyle, Game. There a r e i n t r o d u c e d papuf a-
19761, i t s c u r r e n t s t a t u s a s a t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i a l l y armored
f r e s h w a t e r f i s h i s u n c e r t a i n . Recent s t i c k l e b a c k , a. 2. microcephalus, in
e f f o r t s t o f i n d a r e l i c t population i n San Juan Creek i n Casper" Park and i n
San Juan Creek were unsuccessful ( A . t h e San Joaquin Marsh on San Diego
Schoenherr, p e r s . comm. ) . Creek, and c a r e m u s t be taken t o
prevent h y b r i d i z a t i o n ,
f. G a s t e r o s t i d a e : sticklebacks. Un-
armored threespine stickleback, g . Gobi idae: gobies. Tidewater goby,
G a s t e r o s t e u s aculeahus w i l l iamsoni f_ucrclosabius newberry1 . Adapted XQ
( F i g u r e 3 7 ) . T h i s small endemic f i s h b o t h f r e s h - and s a l t w a t e r , t h e goby's
was once abundant i n t h e r i v e r s of t h e h a b i t a t i s c o a s t a l lagoons and t h e
Los Angeles and Ventura b a s i n s 1ower reaches of' streams from Humboldt
 County t o San Diego County. I t i s no
longer found in most coastal streams
and i s scarce in lagoons (C. Swift,
pers. comm.). Gobies spawn in coarse
sand on stream bottoms and in lagoons,
preferring s l ow-movi ng areas of
streams. Their s t a t u s i s under
investigation by Swift, and appears t o
be desperate. The tidewater goby i s
a l i k e l y candidate f o r l i s t i n g as an
endangered species.
h. Cottidae: sculpins.
(1) P a c i f i c staghorn sculpin,
L e ~ t o c o t t u s armatus, and prickly
sculpin, Cottus asper. These
common bottom f i s h e s a r e found in
both s a l t - and freshwater; both
appear t o be adaptable t o a l t e r a -
t i o n s in t h e i r environment and are
n o t in apparent trouble. The
staghorn sculpin i s d i s t r i b u t e d
from Alaska t o San Quintin Bay,
Baja Cal i f o r n i a , and inhabits bays
and i n l e t s in the southern part of
i t s range. I t i s common in
freshwater close t o the coast
(Moyle, 1967). The prickly
sculpin's southern 1imi t i s the
Ventura River (Lee, 1980); i t i s
found well inland in lakes and
reservoirs as well as streams.
( 2 ) The striped mullet, Musil
c e ~ h a l u s ,i s a marine species t h a t
often moves up into the lower
reaches of streams in Southern
Ca1 i f o r n i a (Moyle, 1976). I t s use
of freshwater in t h i s area i s
considered casual.
A minimum of 28 species of non-native
f i s h have become established in Southern
Cal i f o r n i a ' s coastal streams. Moyle (1976)
l i s t s eight major reasons f o r t h e i r
introduction: t o improve f i s h i n g , t o
provide forage f o r game f i s h e s , t o provide
b a i t , t o use f o r insect and weed control,
as pets, f o r aquaculture, and by accident.
Most of the del i berate introductions were
game and food f i s h such as bass, bullhead,
and t r o u t . The impact of these introduc-
tions i s d i f f i c u l t t o assess; competition
between two species f o r a food supply and
the elimination of a native species by an
introduced predator are extreme1 y dd f f icul t
t o document. Introductions have often been
concurrent with radical a l t e r a t i o n s of the
waterways, and mu1 t i p l e variables have
compl icated s c i e n t i f i c analysis. There i s
one c e r t a i n t y , however: introduced species
have r a d i c a l l y changed the nature OF our
f i s h fauna and a r e now the most abundant
f i s h e s in most of t h e S t a t e ' s lnland waters
(Moyle, 1976). In terms of species,
introduced f i s h f a r outnumber t h e 10 native
species in Southern Gal i f o r n i a. In
addition t o the 28 species l i s t e d by Moyle
(1976), t h e r e are probably 18 more t h a t a r e
we1 l establ ished in Southern Cal i f o r n i a (A.
Schoenherr, pers. comm. ) .
The s t a t u s of native f i s h e s in t h e
coastal streams i s catastrophic. Qf t h e 10
species t h a t once thrived, only the 2
sculpin are apparently sustaining normal
populations. The major reason For t h i s
alarming s i t u a t i o n i s destruction of
habitat, Extensive damming and
channelizing of coastal waterways and
mining and other silt-producing operations
have deprived f i s h , p a r t i c u l a r l y stream
f i s h , of most of t h e i r h a b i t a t . The few
r i v e r s t h a t are s t i l l i n t a c t o r have i n t a c t
sections should be examined f o r possible
re1 i c t populations, p a r t i c u l a r l y the Santa
Margarita River, the upper reaches of the
San Luis Rey River, and t h e mountain
t r i b u t a r i e s of t h e Santa Ana, San Gabriel,
and Los Angeles Rivers.
4.3 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c herpetofauna of the
San Gabriel Mountains was described by
Schoenherr (1976); t h e description i s
generally appl icable t o the o t h e r mountain
ranges in coastal Southern Cat i f o r n i a .
Schaenherr delineated nine plant com-
munities, and f o r r i p a r i a n woodland he
1 i s t e d the following as obl i g a t e amphibians
(nomenclature fol laws Coll i n s et a1 , .
1978) : Gal i f o r n i a treefrog, !&&
cadaverina; red-legged frog, Rana aurora;
foothi 1 1 ye1 low-1 egged frog, Rana bovlei ;
mountain ye1 low-legged frog, muscosg;
and the introduced bullfrog, Rana
catesbeiana. The red-legged frog and t h e
mountain yellow-legged frog a r e not widely
d i s t r i b u t e d ; t h e l a t t e r occurs only i n t h e Among t h e amphibians, t h e salamanders and
San Gabriel Mountains and very l o c a l l y t r e e f r o g s seem t o be f a r i n g b e t t e r t h a n
e l sewhere i n Southern Cal i f o r n i a ( S t e b b i n s , the t r u e f r o g s , Salamanders a r e n o t
1966). S p e c i e s commonly found i n both r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e r i p a r i a n community; t h e y
r i p a r i a n and o t h e r h a b i t a t s were t h e a r e a d a p t a b l e t o woodlands, gardens, and
Cal i f o r n i a newt, Taricha t o r o s a ; e n s a t i n a , o t h e r h a b i t a t s and t h u s have a range of
Ensatina eschschol t z i ; Cal i f o r n i a s1 ender c h o i c e . In g e n e r a l , amphibians dependent
salamander, Batrachoceos n e q r i v e n t i s - - a on r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t a r e d i s a p p e a r i n g .
r e c e n t l y r e v i s e d taxon (Yanev, 1980) ; Oddly enough, t r e e f r o g p o p u l a t i o n s a r e
western t o a d , Bufo b o r e a s ; southwestern f a i r l y s t a b l e , even though t h e canyon
t o a d , BufQ microscaphus; P a c i f i c t r e e f r o g , t r e e f r o g i s considered s t r i c t l y r i p a r i a n ,
r e e i l f a ; and western s p a d e f o o t ,
Scaphiorus hammondi. The red-legged f r o g i s becoming i n -
The o b l i g a t e r e p t i l e s were t h e western c r e a s i n g l y s c a r c e i n S a n t a Barbara County
pond t u r t l e , Clemmvs marmorata, and t h e (McKeown, 1974), which was probably i t s
western a q u a t i c g a r t e r snake, Thamnophi s l a s t lowland s t r o n g h o l d i n Southern
couchi . Nonobl i g a t e r e p t i l e s were t h e Cal i f o r n i a . I n d i s c r i m i n a t e c o l l e c t i n g and
c o l l a r e d 1 i z a r d , Crotaphvtus c o l l a r i s ; heavy r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e o f streams a r e
western fence 1i z a r d , blamed
Sceloporus destruction. f o r i t s d e c l i n e , along w i t h h a b i t a t
occidental i s ; sideblotched 1i z a r d , ! .I&
I t i s f u l l y p r o t e c t e d (CFG
s t a n s b u r i ana; western s k i nk, Eumeces Commission Regulations, 1983, T i t l e 14) and
ski1 t o n i a n u s ; G i l b e r t ' s s k i n k , Eumeces can be taken o n l y by s p e c i a l p e r m i t , The
g i l b e r t i ; western w h i p t a i l , Cnemidoohorus f o o t h i l l y e l l o w - l e g g ed frog has
tiqri s; southern a1 1 i g a t o r 1i z a r d , mysteri o u s l y disappeared from Southern
Gerrhonotus mu1 t i c a r i n a t u s ; Cal i f o r n i a i n r e c e n t y e a r s .
Cal i f o r n i a widespread Formerly
l e g l e s s 1i z a r d , Annie] 1a pul c h a r a ; ringneck and f a i r l y common in the
snake, Diadoohus t r i v i r q a t a ; Cal i f o r n i a Southern Cal i f o r n i a c o a s t a l mountains, it
mountain king snake, Lamoro~elt i s z o n a t a ; has not been seen s i n c e 1975 d e s p i te
s t r i p e d r a c e r , Masticophi s l a t e r a l i s ; repeated s e a r c h e s (Sweet, 1983). Damage t o
gopher snake, P i tuophi s me1 anoleucus; and montane stream h a b i t a t by overuse,
western r a t t l e s n a k e , C r o t a l u s v i r i d i s . particularly from o f f - r o a d vehicles,
coupled with t h e c o i n c i d e n c e of two major
Many of t h e s e s p e c i e s a r e s t i l l f a i r l y with f l o o d s i n t h e w i n t e r o f 1969, a r e c r e d i i e d
common; mountain streams have not g e n e r a l l y causing t h e a p p a r e n t e x t i n c t i o n o f
been s u b j e c t e d t o a l t e r a t i o n s a s s e v e r e a s t h i s s p e c i e s (A. Schoenherr and S. Sweet,
t h o s e a f f e c t i n g v a l l e y streams. In t h e Natural H i s t o r y Museum, Los Angeles County;
lowlands, a few n a t u r a l r i v e r c o u r s e s s t i l l p e r s . comm.) .
support h e a l t h y communities o f amphibians
and r e p t i l e s , but such h a b i t a t i s The most t h r e a t e n e d r e p t i l e i s t h e
exceedingly r a r e . The Santa Margarita western pond t u r t l e . A t home i n streams
River i s one such p l a c e , and i n 1982 t h e and l a r g e r i v e r s a s well a s l a k e s and
following amphibians were found t h e r e i n ponds, t h i s t u r t l e i s a l s o well adapted t o
riparian habitat: Cal i f o r n i a s l e n d e r Southern Ca1 i f o r n i a ' s summer-dry, w i n t e r -
s a l amander, Cal i f o r n i a newt, western t o a d , wet Mediterranean cl imate (Bury, 19721, I t
southwestern t o a d , Cal i f o r n i a t r e e f r o g , was c o l l e c t e d i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y f o r the p e t
P a c i f i c t r e e f r o g , western s p a d e - f o o t , r e d - t r a d e and by i n d i v i d u a l s u n t i l S t a t e law
legged f r o g , and b u l l f r o g . Reptiles l i m i t e d t a k i n g t o two p e r person (CFG
included t h e western pond t u r t l e , western Commission Regulations, 1983, T i t l e 14).
fence l i z a r d , western s k i n k , orange- During t h e 1970s, t h e t u r t l e ' s s t a t u s was
throated whiptail ( C n e m i d o p h o r u s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h e Cal i f o r n i a
h v p e r v t h r u s ) , western w h i p t a i l , r o s y boa Department of Fish and Game a s a p o s s i b l e
(Lichanura t r i v i r q a t a ) , a q u a t i c g a r t e r c a n d i d a t e f o r l i s t i n g . Passage of t h e
snake, western bl ind snake ( L e ~ t o t v o h l o p s above law has a l l e v i a t e d some of t h e
humi 1 i s ) , and western r a t t i e s n a k e (Zemba? , p r e s s u r e , and the t u r t l e i s r e p o r t e d l y
1984b). The o r a n g e - t h r o a t e d w h i p t a i l has doing well i n S a n t a Barbara County,
a r e s t r i c t e d range; i t s n o r t h e r n l i m i t s a r e a1 though t h e r e i s no information from o t h e r
i n Southern Orange County ( S t e b b i n s , 1966). p a r t s of Southern Cal i f o r n i a .
 Two introduced s p e c i e s appear t o be
t h r e a t e n i n g some of t h e n a t i v e s p e c i e s .
The b u l l f r o g i s now widespread in
C a l i f o r n i a , and i t s voracious a p p e t i t e
i n c l u d e s a t a s t e f o r o t h e r f r o g s . In Santa
Barbara County, e f f o r t s a r e being made t o
keep t h e b u l l f r o g o u t of t h e Santa Ynez
River d r a i n a g e and Cuyama Val l e y in o r d e r
t o p r o t e c t t h e red-legged f r o g . A more
r e c e n t i n t r o d u c t i o n i s t h e African clawed
f r o g , Xenoous l a e v i s which i s spreading
r a p i d l y and i s now i n a l l t h e f l o o d - c o n t r o l
channels i n Los Angeles and Orange c o u n t i e s
(G. S t , Amant, C a l i f o r n i a Department of
Fish and Game, Region 5 , Long Beach; p e r s .
comm.). The Fish and Game Department has
i n i t i a t e d a c o n t r o l program i n Agua Duice
Canyon t o keep t h i s voracious p r e d a t o r out
of t h e h a b i t a t of t h e unarmored t h r e e s p i n e
s t i c k l e b a c k , an endangered f i s h . Other
than t h a t , t h e f r o g i s not under
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and i t s inipacts and t h e
e x t e n t of i t s spread a r e unknown.
An i n t e r e s t i n g a s p e c t of t h e re1 a t i o n s h i p
between r e p t i l e s and r i p a r r a n h a b i t a t i s
t h e use of stream washes by several 1 i z a r d s
t o expand t h e i r rdnges. The c o l l a r e d
1 iaard has moved a c r o s s t h e d i v i d e from t h e
d e s e r t s i d e t o t h e P a c i f i c s l o p e of t h e San
Gabriel Mountains and a s 1 o c a l l y abundant
i n Cajon Wash, i y t l e Creek, and t h e upper
e a s t f o r k of t h e San Gabriel River i n t h e
1970s (Schoenherr, 1 9 7 6 ) . The z e b r a - t a i l e d
1 i z a r d (Call iS ~ I I ~ I I draconoides)
S , desert
horned l i z a r d (i)hrynoson\i j11 atyrtiinos) ,
leopard 1 i a a r d ( C r a t a a p w i s wisl i z e n i i ) ,
and coachwhr p (@\__tjroi~h~s_ f l aqel luni)
appdrently have a l s o moved v;a stredm
channels i n Cajon and Sulcdad canyons and
a r e now i n t h e San Jacirlto River drainage
(Schoenherr, 1976; S t e b b i n s , 1966).
Ihe following annotated l i s t covers only
amphibians and r e p t i 1 o s t h a t a r e dependent
u p o n , o r prefer-, r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t :
a . Cal i f o r n i a newt, Taricha t o r o s a .
Common i n pools and slow-moving
streams fron: !\car sea l e v e l t o 2000
meters (Stebbins, 19661, the
Cal i f o r n ia newt is general 7 y
r e s t r i c t e d to t h e low p a r t s of
streams, even though ?urier r eaches ai-e
o f t e n d r y i n summer, s i n c e high
streams a r e t o o s t e e p and f a s t
(Pequegnat, 1951). I t has been
c o l l e c t e d i n oak woodland i n t h e $an
Gabriel Mountains a s well a s i n
streamside h a b i t a t . There i s no
i n d i c a t i o n t h a t p o p u l a t i o n s a r e i n any
s t r e s s (Schoenherr, 1976).
b. E n s a t i n a , Ensatina eschschol t z i .
Ensatinas a r e found i n a v a r i e t y of
h a b i t a t s i n t h e San Gabriel Mountains
and appear well adapted t o oak
woodland and chappara1 a s we71 a s t o
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t (Schoenherr, 1976).
Uncornmon i n t h e Santa Ana Mountains
(Pequegnat, 1951), they have been
recorded from only a few l o c a t i o n s i n
San D i ego County (Sf oan, 1964).
c. Cal i f o r n i a slender salamander,
Ratrachoceos m r i v e n t i s . Common t o
-
abundant throughout c o a s t a l Southern
California, this salamander is
m o i s t u r e - l o v i n g and i s found i n l e a f
1 i t t e r , under rocks, along streams, i n
oak woodland, and has adapted well t o
gardens (McKeown, 1974).
d - Arboreal s a l amander, Anei d e s I usubri s .
Also c a l l e d t h e oak salamander because
of i t s a f f i n i t y f o r oak woodland, t h e
a r b o r e a l salamander i s widespread
throughout c o a s t a l Southern Ca? i f o r n i a
wherever t h e r e i s a p p r o p r i a t e h a b i t a t .
I t has been r e p o r t e d a s l o c a l l y common
(Pequegnat, 1951; Schoenherr, 1976)
except i n San Diego County, where i t
was not e a s i l y found (Sloan, 1964).
e a C a l i f o r n i a canyon t r e e f r o g ,
cadavarina ( F i g u r e 3 8 ) . Found i n t h e
San Gabriel Mountains, t h e Cal i f o r n i a
treefrog i s restricted t o riparian
h a b i t a t and i s most abundant i n f a s t
streams from 460 t o 1,000 m
(Schoenherr 1976). In t h e Santa Ana
Mountains i t s lower l i m i t i s about
where t h e streams d r y up i n summer
(Pequegnat , 1951). f t has been
reported a s moderately common t o
abundant except i n San Diego County,
where i t was uncommon even i n t y p i c a l
h a b i t a t ( S l oan, 1964).
f . Pacific treefrog, r e s i ?1a.
Usual?y considered t h e most abundant
anuran i n c o a s t a l Southern Cal i f o r n i a ,
P a c i f i c t r e e f r o g i s found n e a r almost
every pool of s t a n d i n g water i n t h e

Figure 38. A mating pair of California tree frogs
w!lit ) on a stream gravel bank.
Photagraph courtesy of Alan Schoenherr.
San Gabriel Mountains (Schoenherr,
1976). Unlike t h e canyon t r e e f r o g , i t
a l s o occurs i n many o t h e r h a b i t a t s .
I t p r e f e r s slow streams and i n h a b i t s
a wide range of e l e v a t i o n s (Sloan,
1964).
g . Red-legged f r o g , Rana a u r o r a . This
f r o g i s an i n h a b i t a n t of permanent
pool s , ponds, and marshes (Schoenherr,
1976). Formerly widely d i s t r i b u t e d ,
i t has become s c a r c e and 1ocal . Full y
p r o t e c t e d by t h e C a l i f o r n i a Department
o f Fish and Game, i t cannot be taken
without a s p e c i a l permit. The
b u l l f r o g i s a major p r e d a t o r on young
red-legged f r o g s j u s t emerging from
t h e t a d p o l e s t a g e . I t i s s t i l l found
i n f a i r numbers l o c a l l y along t h e
Santa Margarita River (Zembal, 1984).
Mountain yellow-legged f r o g ,
muscosa. This i s one of two s p e c i e s
of yellow-legged f r o g s i n t h e moun-
t a i n s o f Southern C a l i f o r n i a , both of
which have been c o l l e c t e d in t h e same
l o c a l i t y a1 ong t h e Worth Fork ~f the
San Gabriel River i n t h e San Gabriel
Mountains. The mountain yellow-legged
f r o g i s found u s u a l l y a t higher e l e v a -
tions. I t s preferred habitat i s f a s t -
flowing montane streams. While
abundant i n t h e San Gabriel Mountains
in t h e 1950s (Schoenherr, 19761, i t s
present s t a t u s i s not know.
i. F o o t h i l l yellow-legged f r o g , Rana
b o u l e i . T h i s f r o g i s found a t lower
e l e v a t i o n s than t h e mountain s p e c i e s
and p r e f e r s slower moving water and
wide pools (Schoenherr, 1976). I t has
not been s i g h t e d s i n c e 1975 and may be
e x t i n c t i n Southern Cal i f o r n i a .
j. Bull f r o g , Rana c a t e s b e i a n a . An
introduced pond-dwell i n g s p e c i e s , t h e
b u l l f r o g h a s spread throughout c o a s t a l
Southern C a l i f o r n i a , except i n t h e
Santa Ynez River watershed. I t has
a l s o been c o l l e c t e d i n streams
(Schoenherr, 1976). Because i t i s a
voracious p r e d a t o r , t h e r e i s concern
t h a t i s t h r e a t e n i n g t h e red-legged
f r o g (S. Sweet, p e r s . comm.).
k. African clawed f r o g , X e n o ~ i s l a e v i s .
This i s a r e c e n t l y introduced s p e c i e s
t h a t could s p e l l d i s a s t e r f o r some
n a t i v e amphibians, f i s h , and i n s e c t s .
L i t t l e i s known about t h i s f r o g except
t h a t i t i s spreading r a p i d l y and has
a voracious a p p e t i t e . A s t u d y of i t s
p r e s e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n and impacts on
n a t i v e amphibians i s u r g e n t l y needed.
1.Western pond turtle, Clemmvs
marmorata. Found from B r i t i s h
Columbia t o Baja C a l i f o r n i a , Mexico,
mostly on t h e west s i d e of t h e
Cascade-Sierra c r e s t t o 2,400 m
( S t e b b i n s , 1966), t h i s i s t h e only
t u r t l e n a t i v e t o Southern C a l i f o r n i a .
Formerly abundant, i t has d e c l i n e d i n
numbers a s a r e s u l t o f h a b i t a t
destruction and indiscriminate
collecting. I t i s now p r o t e c t e d by
t h e Department o f F i s h and Game.
m. Western aquatic garter snake,
Thamno~hiscouchi, T h i s i s a r i p a r i a n
snake t h a t appears t o p r e f e r slow-
moving p a r t s of streams where pools
form (Schoenherr, 1976), A live-
bearer, i t i s found from sea level t o
t h e high mountains and f e e d s on f i s h
and t h e i r eggs, f r o g s , t o a d s , t a d -
p o l e s , salamanders, earthworms, and
 leeches (Stebbins, 1966). Uncommon i n
5anta Barbara Caunty (McKeown, 19741,
I t was not found i n a r e c e n t survey of
t h e c o a s t a l streams i n Goleta (Onuf,
1983). I t was found r e g u l a r l y along
t h e Santa H a r g a r i t a River in 1982
(Zembal, 1984b) where r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t
i s s t i l l in n e a r - p r i s t i n e conditions.
Like a t h e r riparian-dependent v e r t e -
b r a t e s , i t may be i n t r o u b l e and i t s
s t a t u s should be i n v e s t i g a t e d .
In surnariary, only a few species of amphi-
bians and r e p t i l e s in Southern C a l i f o r n i a
a r e r i p a r i a n dependent. These include t h e
C a l i f o r n i a t r e e f r o g , red-legged frog,
f o o t h i l l yellow-legged f r o g , mountain
ye1 low-legged f r o g , and western pond
t u r t l e . Many nrsre use r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t but
a r e a l s o Found i n o t h e r h a b i t a t s . The
ubl i g a t e r i p a r i a n s p e c i e s in general have
s u f f e r e d serious popul a t ion dccl i n e s , and
carre, t h e f o o t h i l l ytlllow*legged f r o g , i s
grtlbabty e x t i n c t . The combined e f f e c t s of
hahi t a t destrtrctlon (danrming, channel i z i n g ,
and cementing s treatrtb~dsf , i n troduet ion of
e x u t f c species, degradation of h a b i t a t by
improper r e c r e a t i o n a l use, and natural
catcr~trwphessuch a s inajor flouds have a l l
been d c v a s l a t j n g . The introduced b u l l f r o g
and African clawcd Frog a r e expanding t h e i r
ranges a t the expense of n a t i v e anurans.
l o prc?vent ftrrther l o s s , c o a s t a l streams
t h a t s t i l l h a v e naturqnl scgmcrits should be
praaservc*d ~mnd pr-otcc t e d , iind corrtrot of
orrt t-oditccc! spec i e s should Re top p r i o r i t y .
ltre sn?f~plexs u b j e c t of r i p d r i a n b t r d s can
bi: difdrcssrrl try dncilyzing types of use
(br.et?dt n c ~ 3rd nunbrcotfinij) ; seasonal i t y
[ b l n l r r i n y b i r d s , fillgrants, summer v i s i -
tctrar;, re%ttlc>rttS ) ; o r re1 a t i v e abundance
f rtr~irnori t o r d r e spec i p s ) . tlerc t h ~ aai fau-
rid arc2 drvidtlcl t r l t u b r c c t l i n g and nonbrced-
rng q ~ c ~ c ~ uattd b , o t h e r relovant t o p i c s a r c
d9:cusied r n r e l a t r o n t o 4h1s dichotomy.
In t r y r n g t o r.fraw t h e 1 i l l t i t s o f r i p a r i a n
Rabi t a t f o r birds i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a ,
I t 1s nut posbibte Lo adhere t o the s t r i c t
d e f i n i t i o n gfven by t h e hford m 1&
QL$Lj99n_arv,1.e. 'kuf, p e r t a i n i n g t o , o r
?i:ling at? the bank o f a r i v e r . " Ponds,
l a k e s , fi~arskes,and wet montane rneadows a r e
a ? l intinrately a s s n c i a t ed w i t h streams i n
Southern Caf i f o r n i a , and b i r d s do not
acknowledge boundaries, Riparian h a b i t a t
thus has been divided i n t o two major
categories: streams and o t h e r types o f
freshwater communities. There is abundant
overlap; many streamside b i r d s a l s o use
marshes, wet meadows, and o t h e r f r e s h w a t e r
habitats.
4.4.1 Breedf nq Birds
A c h e c k l i s t of t h e breeding b i r d s ,
compiled from seven r e c e n t sources, i s
provided i n Appendix A . Included a r e a1 l
species t h a t have been documented a s
nesting i n r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t , whether o r n o t
they nest i n o t h e r h a b i t a t s a s w e l l . There
a r e 140 s p e c i e s 1 i s t e d ; 88 a r e r i p a r i a n i n
t h e s t r i c t sense ( n e s t i n g along v a l l e y and/
o r four montane streams); 23 n e s t along
streams but a l s o on ponds, l a k e s , marshes,
and/or wet meadows; and 29 a r e n o t
associated with streams but breed i n o t h e r
freshwater h a b i t a t s . The degree o f
dependency on r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i s noted f o r
each species in column three; it
encompasses obl i g a t e n e s t e r s , p r e f e r e n t i a l
n e s t e r s , b i r d s t h a t n e s t i n many h a b i t a t s
including r i p a r i a n , and occasional n e s t e r s .
M i l l e r (1951) r a t e d t h e b i r d s of C a l i f o r n i a
by nesting-habi t a t p r e f e r e n c e , recognizing
21 h a b i t a t types ( i n c l u d i n g r i p a r i a n
woodl and, freshwater marsh, e t c .) . For
each species he l i s t e d a l l o f t h e h a b i t a t s
where nesting had been documented, i n o r d e r
of preference. For some s p e c i e s t h e r e was
only one l i s t i n g ; f o r o t h e r s t h e r e were up
t o 12. Although t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n here i s
d i f f e r e n t , t h e r e i s no confl i c t between t h e
d a t a i n t h e appended t a b l e and M i l l e r ' s
f i n d i n g s . S c i e n t i f i c nomenclature i n t h e
checklist follows the American
O r n i t h o l o g i s t s Union Check1 i s t (1983).
4.4.2 Q i s t r i b u t i o n o f Breedina Birds
Most breeding s p e c i e s a r e not l i m i t e d by
l a t i t ~ d e and can be found throughout t h e
Southern Cat i f a r n i a coastal region.
Exceptions a r e t h e wood duck ( A i x suonsa),
which breeds only on t h e Santa Ynez River
and occasionally i n t h e Santa Monica
Mountains; t h e chestnut-backed chickadee
(Parus rufescens) and ye1 low-bi l l e d magpie
(Unut t a l l ii ) , whose southern 1 imi t i s
Lhc fehachapi Hountatnst and the common
ground-dove (Col umbina ~ a s s e r i n a,) which i s
not found north of Orange County ( G a r r e t t
and Dunn, 1981).
 Altltudinal limjtations are much more
s i g n i f i c a n t , a s can be seen in Appendix A.
Val ley riparian habitat hosts 66 species of
passerines, 29 of which are r e s t r i c t e d t o
valley streams; t h e r e s t can nest from sea
level t o a t l e a s t 2,800 m. Seven montane
species are not found below 1,300 m
{Grinnell and Miller, 1944).
The topography of the habitat i s a major
underlying f a c t o r in bird d i s t r i b u t i o n , as
i t d i c t a t e s t h e amount and type of vegeta-
t i o n , and thus nesting habitat. Broad,
s l ow-movi ng vall ey r i v e r s deposit 1arge
belts of sediment t h a t support a rich and
dense f l o r a . The density and d i v e r s i t y of
bird species along such watercourses (which
are now r e l i c t in Southern California) are
very great compared t o t h a t along mountain
streams. Narrow gorges, steep grades, and
f a s t flows c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of mountain
streams prevent the deposition of sediment
and thus 1imi t the establ i shment of plants.
Where the 1and f l a t t e n s , whatever the
a1 t i tude, wet meadows, c i enegas, and even
ponds develop, and the resul ting vegetation
provides nesting h a b i t a t .
4.4.3 The Breedinq Season
The great wave of nesting takes place
from May through July, when migrants
returning from Central and South America
join the resident birds, many of which have
already been breeding f o r several months.
The breeding cycles of resident birds in
lowland riparian habitat are more attuned
t o the wet/dry cycle in Southern California
than t o such factors as photoperiod, tem-
perature, or flowering, which t r i g g e r the
migrants. Harrison (1979) gives beginning
dates f o r nesting as early as December f o r
Anna's hummingbird ( C a l w t e u) and Cali -
fornia thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum),
February f o r common bushti t (Psal triparus
minimus) and Hutton's vireo (Vireo h u t -
m), and March f o r Nuttall's woodpecker
(Pi coides n u t t a l l i i), hairy woodpecker
(Picoides v i l l o s u s ) , plain titmouse (Parus
inornatus) , and red-winged blackbird
(Aqelaius hoen nice us). The record f o r the
longest nesting season probably goes t o the
resident subspecies of Allen's hummingbird,
which has bred on Palos Verdes Peninsula in
Los Angeles County every month except
September and October (Wells and Baptista,
1979). Resident species t h a t nest a t high
elevations, such as red-breasted sapsucker
) and Cassin's finch
(Car~odacus c a s s i n i i ) , follow a more
r e s t r i c t e d seasonal schedule similar t o t h e
migrants.
4.4.4 Needs of Breedins Birds
Riparian birds nest in l i v i n g and dead
t r e e s , shrubs, reeds, grasses, rocky
c l i f f s , s o f t banks, and rock ledges in
streams and behind waterfalls. They also
build floating nests on s t i l l waters.
Throughout the a1 t i tudinal range covered
by coastal streams, w i 1lows ( p a r t i c u l a r l y
willow t h i c k e t s ) are used f o r nesting.
Val 1ey species t h a t prefer w i 11ows i ncl ude
the ye1 low-bi 1led cuckoo (Coccvzus
americanur) , will ow flycatcher &(g-
t r a i l l i i ) , Bell's vireo (Vireo b e l l i t ) , and
blue grosbeak (Guiraca caeruleg)
species nest in t h e same type of habitat in
. These
the Sacramento Valley (Gaines, 1977). A t
higher a l t i t u d e s , MacGillivrayfs warbler
(O~ororni s tolmiei) and bl ack-headed
grosbeak (Pheucticus me1 anoceohal ug) a r e
closely associated with willows.
Oaks, which a r e often a component of t h e
riparian t r e e community in t h e f o o t h i l l s ,
are preferred (and often e s s e n t i a l ) t r e e s
f o r the band-tailed pigeon (Col umbq
fasciata), spotted owl {strix
occidental is ) , saw-whet owl (Aesol ius
acadi cus) , acorn woodpecker (Me1 aneraes
formicivorus) , plain titmouse, Hutton's
vireo, phainopepl a ( P h a i n o ~ e ~ l ni
a tens),
and dark-eyed junco (Junco jwemal i s)
(Verner, 1979).
Dead t r e e s and snags of sycamores,
wi 1lows, cottonwoods, oaks, and alders
provide essenti a1 habitat f o r a large
number of cavity nesters. All of the
woodpeckers are in t h i s group, plus such
diverse species a s the wood duck, American
i f , several species
kestrel (Fa1 co s ~ a r v e rus
of owl, ash-throated flycatcher (Mviarchus
ci nerascens) , purple mart i n (Prome subi s ) ,
house wren (Troof odvtes aedon) , and
European star1 ing (Sturnus v u l a a r i ~ )
(Grinnell and Miller, 1344).
Several species, such as the belted
kingfisher (Cerv1e a1 cvon) , rough-winged
swallow (Stels4doptervx serrioennis), and
bank swal law (Rirsaria r j p a r l a ) , burrow i n t o
s o f t banks along streams t o make nest
 Twenty-three s p e c i e s d e s c r i b e d a s common
o r f a i r l y common b e f o r e 1940 a r e now much
reduced i n numbers: American b i t t e r n ,
l e a s t b i t t e r n (Ixobrvchus exi 1 i s ) , g r e a t
blue heron, snowy e g r e t , g r e a t e g r e t ,
whitefaced i b i s ( P l e q a d i s c h i h i ) , Cooper's
hawk ( A c c i a i t e r coooeri i), V i r g i n i a r a i l ,
s o r a , American a v o c e t , barn owl, screech
owl, h a i r y woodpecker, wi1 low f l y c a t c h e r ,
purple m a r t i n , bank swall ow, western
b l u e b i r d (Si a1 i a mexi cana) , 1oggerhead
shrike (Lanius 1 udovici a n u s ) , yellow
warbler, Wilson's warbler (Wil s o n i a
p u s i l l a ) , yellow-breasted chat ( I c t e r i a
v i r e n s ) , blue grosbeak, and Lazul i bunting
( P a s s e r i n a amoena). Six s p e c i e s t h a t were
a l r e a d y showing population r e d u c t i o n s by
t h e 1930s have continued t o d e c l i n e :
northern h a r r i e r (Circus cvaneus) , red-
shouldered hawk (Buteo 1 i n e a t u s ) , yellow-
b i l l e d cuckoo, be1 t e d k i n g f i s h e r , l e a s t
B e l l ' s v i r e o , and ye1 low-headed blackbird
(Xanthocenkal us xanthoceohalus) The black .
r a i l ( L a t e r a l l u s l a m a i c e n s i s ) , now a r a r e
breeding b i r d i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a , i s s o
s e c r e t i v e t h a t i t s s t a t u s i n t h e past i s
u n c e r t a i n ; i t may never have been more
abundant (Wilbur, 1974). A few s p e c i e s
a p p a r e n t l y have i n c r e a s e d i n numbers; they
a r e b i r d s t h a t a d a p t well t o u r b a n i z a t i o n :
American k e s t r e l , American crow (Corvus
b r a c h v r h ~ n c h o s ) , n o r t h e r n mockingbird, and
house f i n c h ( C a r ~ o d a c u smexicanus).
4.4.8 Soecies o f S p e c i a l Concern
R i p a r i a n - a s s o c i a t e d s p e c i e s considered
endangered, r a r e , s e n s i t i v e , o r of speci a1
concern by t h e C a l i f o r n i a Department o f
Fish and Game (1980), t h e USFWS (1982,
1983), o r t h e National Audubon S o c i e t y
(NAS) (Tate and T a t e 1982) a r e shown i n
Table 9. Some o f t h e s p e c i e s l i s t e d by
NAS, such a s Bewick's wren (Thryomanes

Table 9. Endangered, rare, and sensitive bird species in Southern California.

CDFG USFWS NAS

Species E R S E S BL SC

American b i t t e r n
Least b i t t e r n
White-faced i b i s
Northern h a r r i e r
Cooper's hawk
Red-shouldered hawk
Black r a i l
Ye1 low-bil l e d cuckoo
Long-eared owl
Hairy woodpecker
Will ow f l y c a t c h e r
Purple martin
Western b l u e b i r d
loggerhead s h r i k e
l e a s t Bell's vireo
Ye1 low warbl e r
Ye1 low-breasted c h a t
CDFG = Ca1 i f o r n i a Department of Fish and Game, 1980; Remsen,
1979
USFWS = U.S. Fish and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e , 1980, 1982
HAS R a t i o n a l Audubon S o c i e t y , Tate and T a t e , 1982
=
E = Endangered S p e c i e s , R = Rare, S = S e n s i t i v e ,
BL = Blue L i s t , SC = Special Concern
bewicki i), a r e considered s c a r c e in v a r i o u s
p a r t s of t h e i r r a n g e s , althaugh not i n
Southern C a l i f o r n i a ; t h e y have not been
included h e r e . Eight s p e c i e s appear on
more than one l i s t , and t h e willow f l y -
c a t c h e r i s 1 i s t e d by a1 l t h r e e compilers.
There a r e o t h e r s n o t y e t l i s t e d but
acknowledged as becoming s c a r c e in Southern
Cal i f o r n i a: bl ue-grey gnatcatcher
(Pol i o o t i l a c a e r u l e a ) and warbl ing v i r e o
(Vireo Q ~ ~ V Ua Sr e) almost e x t i r p a t e d a s
breeders i n San Diego County ( U n i t t , 1984);
blue grosbeak, Lazul i bunting, and Wilson's
warbler a r e now uncommon breeders i n t h e
1owl ands; be1 t e d ki ngf i s h e r and ye1 low-
headed blackbird a r e now extremely r a r e
breeders i n c o a s t a l Southern Cal i f o r n i a ,
and bank swall ow has v i r t u a l l y disappeared
( G a r r e t t and Dunn, 1981).
The following b i r d s appear t o be o f most
concern i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a ; t h e y a r e
listed in order of the American
O r n i t h o l o g i s t s Union Check1 i s t (1983), not
n e c e s s a r i l y i n o r d e r of p r i o r i t y o f
concern. Some s p e c i e s l i s t e d in Table 9
a r e not included because t h e y a r e doing
well i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a o r have always
been s c a r c e . Unless otherwise s t a t e d ,
documentation i s from t h e same sources
l i s t e d in 4.4.7.
a . Cooper's hawk, A c c i ~ i t e r c o o g e r i i .
Cooper's hawk n e s t s p r e f e r e n t i a1 l y i n
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t from s e a l e v e l t o
about 2,600 m, most o f t e n i n l i v e oaks
and sycamores, but more o f t e n i n t h e
lowlands. The major reason f o r i t s
decline i s habitat loss.
b. Ye1 l o w - b i l l e d cuckoo, Coccvzus
americanus. Nesting only in v a l l e y
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t , t h e yellow-billed
cuckoo p r e f e r s old-growth willows and
cottonwoods with a dense understory of
blackberry and g r a p e . I t i s almost
e x t i r p a t e d a s a breeding b i r d in
c o a s t a l Southern C a l i f o r n i a , t h e only
r e c e n t record being on t h e Santa Ana
River i n 1983. Loss of h a b i t a t i s
considered t h e major reason f o r
d e c l i n e , but o t h e r f a c t o r s such as
p e s t i c i d e s may a1 so be involved
(Gaines, 1977).
c . tong-eared owl, Asio o t u s . The long-
eared owl breeds only in v a l l e y
riparian habitat, preferring tall
w i l lows, cottonwoods, and l i v e oaks.
Already d e c l i n i n g i n t h e 1930s and now
extremely r a r e , i t has been found
r e c e n t l y i n small numbers along t h e
Santa Margarita River, Santa Ana
River, and on S t a r r Ranch Audubon
Sanctuary. In San Uiego County i t has
been documented r e c e n t l y only i n t h e
d e s e r t . Loss of h a b i t a t i s t h e major
reason f o r i t s d e c l i n e .
d . Be1 t e d k i n g f i s h e r , C e r ~ l ealcvon. The
be1 t e d k i n g f i s h e r n e s t s i n burrows
excavated i n e a r t h e r n banks along
streams o r l a k e s . By 1940, a l r e a d y
reduced i n numbers, i t was t a r g e t e d by
fishermen a s "vermin" and s h o t
regul a r l y ( 6 r i n n e l and M i l l e r , 1944).
The only r e c e n t r e c o r d s f o r San Diego
County show two n e s t i n g p a i r s on t h e
Santa Margarita River i n 1982-83.
This b i r d i s not on any l i s t . Its
p r e s e n t r a r i t y i s presumably due t o
l a c k of s u i t a b l e n e s t i n g h a b i t a t . A
survey of t h e breeding population
should be done t o a s c e r t a i n s t a t u s .
e . Hairy woodpecker, Picoides v i l l o s u s .
This woodpecker n e s t s i n montane
f o r e s t s where t h e r e a r e dead t r e e s o r
limbs f o r n e s t h o l e s ; i n f o o t h i l l
canyons i n t h e lowlands i t n e s t s i n
r i p a r i a n t r e e s . Considered common and
sometimes abundant formerly, i t i s
s t i l l f a i r l y common i n t h e mountains,
but much reduced a t lower e l e v a t i o n s .
Destruction of low1 and riparian
h a b i t a t i s t h e prime cause of d e c l i n e
(Yeager, 1955).
f . Willow f l y c a t c h e r , Empidonax t r a i l l i i
(Figure 3 9 ) . Nesting only i n willow
t h i c k e t s along v a l l e y streams and
mountain canyons, t h e willow f l y -
c a t c h e r was formerly common where
c o n d i t i o n s were s u i t a b l e ; i t i s now
extremely r a r e i n Southern Cal i f s r n i a .
The presence of a few s i n g i n g males on
t h e Santa Margarita River, Sun Luis
Rey River, and s e v e r a l o t h e r l o c a l e s
i n San Diego County i n 1982 and one an
t h e Santa Ana River i n 1983 i n d i c a t e
t h a t t h e r e a r e s t i l l a few p a i r s 6n
t h e lowlands. There i s no information
f o r t h e mountains, A combination a f
h a b i t a t l o s s and p a r a s i t i s m by t h e
 -
1 . - i2
. 4. d.

1 I3
roc S d- - 'Qe nT2 N m3
".v, I-D+ O 9J a?+
+ * Y W P-'.?.
VI 4 . W rn " - 5
$-
3 1 - - J m 3 -
a.aa % m ~ c : r n +
m m av, -to
n o r o w m w

3
cn'
a
- d - 5 Lr, -5
-r.m 0 0 5 3 e m luy
3 - t , o w w
fJJ

3 u s
4.c an, o
w B, --'.
7 C 3 m
co a m P
.
m m i.m s *n, r + m
- - j w ~ 3 = 7 7 m T - ' .
I -a, an, I a m rt
 endangered s t a t u s ( F i g u r e 4 0 ) . In May
1986 i t was added t o t h e Federal
endangered s p e c i e s f i s t (51FR 15474).
Marbling v i r e o , Vireo q i l i ~ u s . This
v i r e o n e s t s i n deciduous t r e e s Sn
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t ; i t was s a i d by
Grinnell and M i l i e r (1944) t o be
dependent on t h e t r e e s r a t h e r than on
t h e proximity of w a t e r . I t was common
i n v a l l e y and montane r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t
up t o 3,400 m, but t h e e f f e c t s of
cowbird parasitism were a1 ready
e v i d e n t i n t h e e a r l y 1940s. Now i t i s
uncommon i n v a l l e y r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t
and n e a r l y exterminated i n San Diego
County, with only a few p a i r s s t i l l
breeding on t h e Santa Margarita and
San Luis Rey Rivers. I t s t i l l breeds
i n c o a s t a l Santa Barbara County i n
Figure 40. Least Bell's v i r e ~(Vireo bellii pusilfus),
recently listed as an endangered species, suffers
from habitat loss and cowbird nest parasitism. it is
shown here feeding a brawn-headed cowbird.
Drawing by Cameron Barraws.
1imited numbers (13 p a i r s were found
on San J o s e Creek i n 1983). I t may be
Faring b e t t e r i n t h e mountains, but
i t s s t a t u s needs i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t i s
not y e t on any l i s t ; i t s d e c l i n e i s
probably due c h i e f l y t o p a r a s i t i s m by
cowbirds and 1o s s of h a b i t a t .
m e Yellow warbler, Dendroica p e t e c h i a .
This w a r b l e r n e s t s i n deciduous t r e e s
and shrubs i n r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i n t h e
lowland v a l l e y s and up t o about
2,800 m. I t was common and even
l o c a l l y abundant i n t h e 1940s; i t has
decl ined c o n s i d e r a b l y i n t h e 1owl ands,
a1 though pockets o f breeding b i r d s a r e
s t i l l p r e s e n t i n Santa Barbara County,
along t h e Santa Ana River i n R i v e r s i d e
County, and along t h e Santa Margarita
and San Luis Rey Rivers and probably
s e v e r a l o t h e r s i n San Diego County.
I t s s t a t u s i n t h e mountains i s n o t
known. Cowbird p a r a s i t i sm and l o s s o f
h a b i t a t a r e major f a c t o r s i n i t s
decl i ne.
n. Wilson's w a r b l e r , Wilsonia p u s . t l l a .
This bl ack-capped w a r b l e r n e s t s c l o s e
t o t h e ground i n willow t h i c k e t s and
dense shrubs along streams, favoring
t h e humid c o a s t a l b e l t and high, wet
montane meadows. I t i s now an un-
common breeder i n both h a b i t a t s . A
few may s t i l l n e s t along t h e Santa
Ynez River. I t i s not on any l i s t .
Cowbird p a r a s i t i sm and 1 o s s of h a b i t a t
a r e t h e major problems.
o . Yellow-breasted c h a t , I c t e r i a v i r e n s .
Nests a r e placed i n low, dense
r i p a r i a n growth, p a r t i c u l a r l y willow
t h i c k e t s and t a n g l e s o f b l a c k b e r r i e s
and g r a p e s i n lowland v a l l e y s and
f o o t h i l l canyons. Formerly f a i r l y
common, i t i s now an uncommon and
1 ocal breeder i n smal l numbers a1 ong
t h e Santa Ynez and Santa Ana Rivers.
Loss of r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i s t h e majar
reason f o r i t s d e c l i n e ; cowbird
p a r a s i t i s m may be involved and should
be i n v e s t i g a t e d .
p . Blue grosbeak, Guiraca c a e r u l e a . The
blue grosbeak n e s t s i n low, t h i c k
r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n i n t h e v a l l e y s and
f o o t h i l l s t o about 1,600 rn. I t was
once f a i r 1 y common m here a p p r o p r i a t e
h a b i t a t occurred b u t i s now reduced i n
 numbers. The g r e a t e s t c o n c e n t r a t i o n
r e p o r t e d r e c e n t l y was about 25 p a i r s
on t h e Santa Ana River. I t i s rare
and l o c a l i z e d i n c o a s t a l Santa Barbara
and San Qiego Counties. I t i s n o t on
any l i s t . Causes of i t s d e c l i n e
i n c l u d e l o s s of h a b i t a t and perhaps
cowbird p a r a s i t i s m . I t s s t a t u s needs
investigation.
q. Lazul i b u n t i n g , P a s s e r i n a amoena.
T h i s s o n g s t e r breeds along water-
courses, usually in adjacent
v e g e t a t i o n on d r i e r ground, from sea
l e v e l t o a t l e a s t 3,000 m. I t was
common and i s s t i l l f a i r l y common
l o c a l l y i n t h e lowlands i n Santa
Barbara County and along t h e Santa Ana
and Santa Margarita Rivers, but i t s
s t a t u s i s n o t well known. It is
probably s t i l l doing well i n t h e
mountains. I t i s n o t on any l i s t .
Several s p e c i e s t h a t breed p r e f e r e n t i a1 l y
i n f r e s h w a t e r marshes have d e c l i n e d s h a r p l y
i n numbers s i n c e t h e 1940s. The V i r g i n i a
r a i l , s o r a , American b i t t e r n , and l e a s t
b i t t e r n a r e r a r e l y found breeding now.
These b i r d s , l i k e t h e black r a i l , a r e
s e c r e t i v e and hard t o c o u n t , but used t o be
common enough t o be r e p o r t e d r e g u l a r l y .
The ye? 1ow-headed bl ackbi r d , never common
i n Southern Cal i f o r n i a , was a1 ready reduced
i n numbers i n t h e 1940s. There has been no
r e c e n t documentation of n e s t i n g , and i t may
be e x t i r p a t e d a s a breeding b i r d in c o a s t a l
Southern Cal i f o r n i a .
4.4.9 Exoandinq S p e c i e s
Four s p e c i e s t h a t have expanded t h e i r
ranges i n t o Southern C a l i f o r n i a ( a s opposed
t o introduced s p e c i e s ) a r e of concern
because of t h e i r impact o r p o t e n t i a l impact
on n a t i v e b i r d s :
a . C a t t l e e g r e t , Bubulcus a. First
recorded i n C a l i f o r n i a i n 1964 a t
Imperial Beach, San Diego County, t h i s
a d a p t a b l e heron has spread widely and
i s now common i n c o a s t a l Southern
Cal i f o r n i a , i n c l u d i n g Santa Barbara
County. The f i r s t documented n e s t i n g
was a t t h e S a l t a n Sea i n 1970; 5 t f s
now t h e most abundant heron t h e r e and
has l a r g e l y d i s p l a c e d t h e snowy e g r e t .
I t has n e s t e d r e c e n t l y i n b r a c k i s h
lagoons and f r e s h w a t e r marshes i n
c o a s t a l San Diego and R i v e r s i d e
Counties and i s s t i l l expanding i t s
range northward.
b. European s t a r 1 ing, S t u r n u s v u l q a r i s .
Now an abundant b i r d i n Southern
C a l i f o r n i a , t h e European s t a r l i n g
f i r s t appeared i n t h e l a t e 1940s. A
c a v i t y - n e s t e r and an a g g r e s s i v e ,
s o c i a l s p e c i e s , i t o f t e n breeds i n
v a l l e y r i p a r i a n woodl and, usurping t h e
n e s t h o l e s o f o t h e r b i r d s . Although
i t has o f t e n been s t a t e d t h a t t h e
s t a r l i n g i s causing t h e d e c l i n e o f
o t h e r s p e c i e s such a s t h e common
f l i c k e r and p u r p l e m a r t i n , t h e r e a r e
no d a t a t o confirm t h i s assumption.
T r o e s c h l e r (1976) s t u d i e d t h e impact
of s t a r l i n g s on a community o f acorn
woodpeckers and found t h a t , a1 though
t h e s t a r l i n g s usurped t h e i r h o l e s , t h e
woodpeckers excavated new ones and
t h e i r population remained s t a b l e over
t h e 6 - y e a r study p e r i o d . Troeschl e r
a l s o reviewed t h e l i t e r a t u r e and could
f i n d no documentation o f t h e d e c l i n e
of a species attributable to
s t a r 1 ings.
c . Brown- headed cowbird, Mol o t h r u s a t e r .
The cowbird was n o t I i s t e d T s
o c c u r r i n g i n Los Angeles County i n
1898 ( G r i n n e l l , 1898) but was we11
e s t a b l ished by 1933 ( M i l l e t , 1933).
Its rapid range expansion and
exploding p o p u l a t i o n i n Cal i f o r n i a i n
t h i s century a r e associated with t h e
spread of a g r i cul t u r e and c a t t l e
g r a z i n g . I t i s a brood p a r a s i t e t h a t
l a y s i t s eggs i n t h e n e s t s o f o t h e r
b i r d s , p a r t i c u l a r l y small p a s s e r i n e s .
The h o s t s p e c i e s i n c u b a t e s t h e eggs
and then f e e d s t h e young a t t h e
expense o f i t s own progeny. It is
s t r o n g l y imp1 i c a t e d i n t h e d e c l i n e o f
t h e l e a s t Bell 's v i r e o (Goldwasser,
1980); indeed, t h e f i r s t published
a c c ~ u n t o f cowbird breeding i n San
Diego County was a c a s e o f p a r a s i t i s m
of t h e B e l l ' s v i r e o ( U n i t t , 1984).
The cowbird a l s o p a r a s i t i z e s t h e
willow f l y c a t c h e r , warbling v i r e o ,
bl ue-gray g n a t c a t c h e r , yellow w a r b l e r ,
and W i 1 son ' s warbl e r i n 1owl and
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t . As o f 1977, cowbird
eggs had been found i n t h e n e s t s of
216 s p e c i e s , i n c l u d i n g some unl i k e l y
h o s t s t h a t do n o t f e e d t h e i r young,
 such as the spotted sandpiper and
k i l l d e e r (Friedman e t a 1977)-
Recent accounts of cowbird a c t i v i t y in
the S i e r r a Nevada document i t s
ubiquity in the high mountains, where
i t p a r a s i t i z e s a t l e a s t 2 2 species of
small passerines (Rothstein, 1980) and
i s implicated in the decline of the
warbl i ng vireo (Verner and R i t t e r ,
1983). Cowbird control has been
advocated by several investigators
(Goldwasser, 1980; Sal a t a , 1983),
p a r t i c u l a r l y where remaining small
populations of the l e a s t Be1 1 ' s vireo
are threatened.
d. Great-tailed grackle, Oui scalus
mexicanus. A newcomer t o coastal
Southern Cal i forni a , the g r e a t - t a i l e d
grackle was f i r s t found nesting in
r i p a r i a n habitat in sizable numbers
along the Santa Ana River in 1983.
The grackle population has increased
in s i z e and expanded i t s range in
i n t e r i o r southeastern Cal i forni a since
the f i r s t record of i t s appearance in
1964. Associated with farming and
ranching, i t i s 1 ikely t o become a
common r e s i d e n t , as have the cowbird
and s t a r l i n g . I t s impact on native
birds remains t o be seen.
4.5 NONBREEDING BIRDS
Great waves of migrants, mostly
passerines, move through Southern
California's riparian areas in spring and
f a l l . They are t r a n s i e n t s , b u t the h a b i t a t
i s nevertheless c r i t i c a l f o r t h e i r needs;
food and r e s t stops are an e s s e n t i a l
feature of successful migration. Year-
round nonbreeding users compose a small
group, foraging in r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t but
breeding in grassland, pine f o r e s t , o r
other nearby h a b i t a t . This group includes
such species as t h e introduced ring-necked
pheasant (Phasianus c o l c h i c u s ) , mountain
chickadee (Parus gambel i),and pine s i s k i n
(Carduelis p i n u s ) . A few species are
present only in summer as v i s i t o r s , such a s
the California least tern (Sterna
antillarum) and lesser nighthawk
(Chordeiles acutipennis), which feed in o r
over lakes and marshes while breeding
elsewhere in the region. I t may seem odd
t o l i s t t h e California l e a s t tern as a
freshwater forager, b u t t h e r e i s amp1 e
documentation f o r t h i s statement (Lehman,
1982; Atwood and Minsky, 1983).
Wintering birds a r e major users of
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t ( s e e 4.5.1); these a r e
migratory birds t h a t s t a y through t h e
winter in Southern Cal i f o r n i a , a s opposed
t o migrants t h a t continue south t o winter
in the t r o p i c s . The winter population
includes a l s o those breeding birds t h a t a r e
residents.
4.5.1 Winter Bird Use
Avian use of valley r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t in
t h e upper Santa Ana River wash was well
documented earl i e r in t h e century by Ingles
(1929). He found 43 species in a 6-month
period between October and April. For 33
of them, r i p a r i a n was t h e preferred h a b i t a t
among the four plant communities investi -
gated. All but t h r e e were residents; t h e
t h r e e wintering species were ruby-crowned
kinglet (Resul us calendula), ye1 1ow-rumped
warbler (Dendrocia coronata), and white-
crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia I e u c o ~ h r v s ) .
The most abundant species were l e s s e r
go1 df i nch (Carduel i s ~ s at lr i a ) and bushti t
(Psal t r i o a r u s minimus).
Since 1975 t h e r e have been many winter
bird population s t u d i e s i n valley and
f o o t h i l l r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t s in coastal
Southern Cal i forni a. Areas covered include
creeks, lakes, marshes, and r i v e r s i n Santa
Barbara, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
and San Diego Counties.
Appendix B l i s t s species from 25 winter
bird counts reported i n American Birds
between 1975 and 1984. Eight of these
winter bird counts were done on t h e Santa
Margarita River in San Diego County in 1982
(American Birds, 38(1) :46-51). They give
the most comprehensive d a t a on current
winter bird use because they were a l l done
along one 12-mi s t r e t c h of t h e r i v e r .
Ninety-four species were detected,
including a71 of those seen by Ingles in
1929. In order of abundance t h e 15 most
common were: song sparrow (Me1a s ~zai
me1 odi a ) , ye1 low-rumped warbler, b u s h t i t ,
1e s s e r go1dfinch, common ye1 lowthroat
(Geothl v ~s it r i c h a s ) , ruby-crowned Kinglet,
Bewick's wren, rufous-sided towhee ( P i o f l o
ervthroahthal mus) , American goldfinch
(Carduel i s t r i s t u s j , house finch ( C a r ~ o d a -
cus mexicanus), wrenti t (Chamaea fascf a t a ) ,
-
red-winged b l a c k b i r d , p l a i n titmouse (Parus
i n o r n a t u s ) , white-crowned sparrow, and
Hutton's v i r e o . A17 but t h r e e fyellow-
rumped warbler, ruby-crowned k i n g l e t ,
white-crowned sparrow) were r e s i d e n t s .
Song sparrow and ye1 1 ow-rumped warbl e r were
t h e most abundant; each was more than twice
a s numerous a s t h e next most abundant b i r d
on t h e l i s t . Nine s p e c i e s were among t h e
t o p f i f t e e n i n both t h e I n g l e s (1929) study
and t h e 1984 Santa Margarita study:
bushti t , Bewick's wren, ye1 low-rumped
warbler, rufous-sided towhee, brown towhee
( P i ~ i l o s c u s ) , song sparrow, white-
crowned sparrow, house f i n c h , and l e s s e r
goldfinch.
Montane r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t has been
neglected i n w i n t e r b i r d censuses; t h e r e
a r e no published s t u d i e s of c u r r e n t w i n t e r
b i r d use.
4.5.2 Taxonomic Aspects of t h e Riparjan
Bird Community
The importance of r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t f o r
b i r d s i s discussed i n Chapter 5; however,
i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t birds
breeding i n r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i n c o a s t a l
Southern Gal if o r n i a belong t o f o u r t e e n
different orders. Table 'aC l i s t s them
phyl ogenet i c a l l y (AOU, 1983) and shows
species preferences within t h e riparian
h a b i t a t ( t h e t r e e / s h r u b community along t h e
streams o r t h e more open lake/rnarsh/wet
meadow h a b i t a t ) . Three general i z a t i o n s can
be made from examination of t h e l i s t .
F i r s t , p a s s e r i n e s ( P a s s e r i formes) a r e t h e
dominant o r d e r , comprising 54 p e r c e n t of
t h e avian s p e c i e s t h a t breed i n Southern
Cal i f o r n i a ' s c o a s t a l r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t .
Second, b i r d s t h a t n e s t i n marshes,
l a k e s , and wet meadows are predominantly
e s t u a r i n e b i r d s ( g r e b e s , herons, r a i l s ,
waterfowl, s h o r e b i r d s ) t h a t have moved
in1 and t o u s e f r e s h w a t e r h a b i t a t s s i m i l a r
t o c o a s t a l lagoons and marshes. Many a r e
l a r g e and n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y a e r i a l ; they
tend t o n e s t on t h e ground o r on water and
f i n d t h e i r food i n t h e water o r i n s o i l
a s s o c i a t e d with w a t e r .

Table 70. Avian species breeding in riparian habitat In Southern California (listed
by order).

Habi t a t 2
Order Stream Marsh Both Total

Podicipedi formes ( g r e b e s )
Ciconiifarmes ( h e r o n s )
Anseri formes (swans, geese, ducks f
Fa1 coni formes (hawks, fa1 cons)
Gal 1 iformes (quai 1, grouse)
Grui formes ( c r a n e s , r a i l s )
Charadri iforrnes ( s h o r e b i r d s )
Co l umbiformes (pigeons, doves)
Cucul i formes (cuckoos)
S t r i g i f o r m e s (owls)
Apadiformes ( s w i f t s , hummingbirds)
Coraci iformes ( k i n g f i s h e r s )
Piciformes (woodpeckers)
Passeriformes (perching b i r d s )
TOTALS

aStream = streamside h a b i t a t ; Marsh = marshes, l a k e s , wet meadows.

78
 Third, passerines are the predominant
streamside b i r d s , both in number o f species
and in number of individuals, They are
generally smaller, nest in t r e e s and
shrubs, and are predominant] y insectivo-
rous. Many are migratory.
The close association of passeri nes with
riparian h a b i t a t , and p a r t i c u l a r l y the
a f f i n i t y shown by tropical species t h a t
migrate north t o breed ( e . g . , f l y c a t c h e r s ,
swall ows, vireos, warbl e r s ) , is so marked
t h a t i t deserves more a t t e n t i o n . This
group i s now under severe pressure because
of destruction of the tropical f o r e s t s
where they winter; they are thus pressed
f o r h a b i t a t on both breeding and wintering
grounds.
In summary, the r i p a r i a n areas of coastal
Southern California provide breeding
habitat f o r 140 species of birds. The vast
majority are r e s i d e n t s , joined in spring by
migrants from south of the U.S. border.
Nest s i t e s include t r e e s , dead snags,
shrubs, reeds, grasses, c l i f f banks, and
water ( f l o a t i n g n e s t s ) . Food f o r these
birds ranges from minute invertebrates t o
small mammals. Only a few species are
granivorous; the l a r g e s t group, t h e pas-
s e r i n e ~ ,c o n s i s t s mainly of insectivores.
Loss of r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t in t h i s century
has resulted in the decline of many
species, p a r t i c u l a r l y those t h a t have
i n f l e x i b l e breeding requirements. Several
are close t o e x t i r p a t i o n from coastal
Southern C a l i f o r n i a , including the yellow-
b i l l e d cuckoo, l e a s t Bell's vireo, and
willow flycatcher. Seventeen species are
1i s t e d by various agencies as endangered,
threatened, or of speci a1 concern.
Conversely, a few of the more adaptable
species have increased in numbers ( e . g . ,
northern mockingbird, house finch) .
In addition t o providing nesting h a b i t a t ,
riparian areas serve as major stopovers f o r
migratory birds and as wintering areas f o r
many species t h a t go t a northern l a t i t u d e s
t o breed.
The v a l u e o f r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t f o r birds
has been well documented; i t supports more
species of breeding birds than any other
type of pl ant communi t y in Cal i f o r n i a . As
nesting h a b i t a t f o r passerines i t has
special importance; 54 percent of t h e avian
breeding species in r i p a r i a n areas are
members of t h i s order.
4.6 MAMMALS
Forty-four species of mammals can be
found in association with Southern
Cal i f o r n i a ' s r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t . Appendix G
l i s t s them and indicates t h e degree of
dependency f o r each. Numeri ca1 values a r e
intended only as i n d i c a t o r s ; some a r e
undoubtedly open t o challenge. Four
species are not native t o Southern
Ca1 iforni a; one, t h e Virginia opossum
( D i d e l ~ h i svirqiniana), was introduced from
the eastern United S t a t e s , but t h e beaver
(Castor canadensis), red fox ( V u l ~ e s
f u l v a ) , and black bear (m arnericanus)
were resident in t h e S i e r r a Nevada and
introduced i n t o Southern California from
there.
Several species a r e limited in t h e i r
l a t i t u d i n a l range. The northern f l y i n g
squirrel (61 aucomvs sabri nus) does not
occur south of t h e San J a c i n t o Mountains
and i s localized in the San Gabriel, San
Bernardino, and San J a c i n t o mountains
(Keeney and i o e , 1984). The porcupine
(Erethizon dorsatum) has i t s southern 1imi t
in the San Bernardino Mountains (Keeney and
Loe, 1984). The l ong-tongued bat
(Choeronvcteris mexicana) i s a Mexican
species t h a t barely extends north i n t o
lower San Diego County (Bond, 1977).
Several species have a1 t i tudinal range
1imits. The Virginia opossum, r i n g t a i l
mouse (Bassariscus a s t u t u s ) , and pinyon
mouse (Peromvscus true!) a r e not reported
from the high mountains; the northern
flying s q u i r r e l i s found only a t high
elevations.
Streams serve a s corridors f o r the spread
of some mammal i an species. Gri nnell (1933)
noted t h a t t h e opossum fa1 3 owed stream
courses up i n t o the f a a t h i l l s . The westersa
grey squirrel (Sci urus a r i seus) is
r e s t r i c t e d t o oak woodland, and i t s geo-
graphic d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Southern California
has been influenced by t h e presence o r
absence o f r i p a r i a n "bridges" between
mountains (Pequegnat, 1951), The red f o x
has spread by moving along r i v e r s and has
become well established i n several s a l t
marshes--e.g., i n Mugu Lagoon and a t Seal
Beach National Wildl i f e Refuge--within t h e
p a s t decade by using r i p a r i a n c o r r i d o r s .
4.6.1 R i ~ a ran-Associ
i ated Mammals
The following annotated 1 i s t i n c l u d e s
mammals t h a t a r e most c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d
with r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t (Category 1, column
4, Appendix C) o r use r i p a r i a n a s well a s
o t h e r h a b i t a t s (Category 21, but not casual
u s e r s (Category 3 ) . The nomenclature
follows Hall (1981).
a. V i r g i n i a opossum, Didel ~ h u s
v i r a i n i a n a . The V i r g i n i a opossum i s
not n a t i v e t o t h e P a c i f i c Coast, but
i s found throughout Cal i f o r n i a except
i n t h e c o l d e s t and d r i e s t r e g i o n s
( I n g l e s , 1965). A1 ready p r e s e n t i n
t h e San Gabriel River bottom in 1906
(Grinnell , 1933), i t occurs commonly
around human h a b i t a t i o n , i n woodlands,
and along streams (Burt and
Grossenheider, 1964) and i s s t i l l
common i n r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t along t h e
Santa Margari t a River (Zembal , 1984b).
Omnivorous, i t i s known t o e a t f r u i t ,
eggs, young b i r d s , and small mammals
( I n g l e s , 1965).
b. Ornate shrew, Sorex o r n a t u s . The
o r n a t e shrew i s r e s i d e n t along streams
i n v a l l e y s , f o o t h i l l s , and high
mountains throughout c o a s t a l Southern
Cal i f o r n i a . C l o s e l y associ ated with
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t , i t i s very common
along t h e Santa Margarita River
(Zembal, 1984b). I t s d i e t i s not well
known but i n c l u d e s t h e l a r v a e , pupae,
and a d u l t s of many i n s e c t s ( I n g l e s ,
1965). I t s r o l e i n r i p a r i a n ecology
merits study.
c . Broad-footed mole, S c a ~ a n u s7 atimanus.
Widely d i s t r i b u t e d i n Gal i f o r n i a a t
a l l e l e v a t i o n s , t h i s mole i s most
common i n mountains where i t burrows
i n s o f t s o i l i n stream v a l l e y s and
meadows. I t s h a b i t a t may be d i c t a t e d
more by t h e presence o f s o f t s o i l than
by water (Bond, 1977).
d . Botta's pocket gopher, Thomomvs
bottae. A ground-burrowing mammal
widely d i s t r i b u t e d i n C a l i f o r n i a
(except i n t h e h i g h e s t mountains),
B o t t a ' s pocket gopher a l s o burrows i n
s o f t s ~ i l i n v a l l e y s and meadows.
Found u p t o 3,680 m i n wet meadows of
t h e San Bernardino Mountains (Grinnel,
1908), i t i s a l s o q u i t e common i n t h e
r i p a r i a n / u p l and i n t e r f a c e and l o c a l l y
i n r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t along t h e Santa
Margari t a River (Zembal , 1984b). I t
i s e a t e n by ~ w l s , hawks, coyotes,
f o x e s , badgers, and snakes ( I n g e l s,
1965). A v e g e t a r i a n , f e e d i n g on
grasses and plants i n natural
s i t u a t i o n s ( I n g l e s 19651, i t i s
considered b e n e f i c i a1 i n mountains,
where i t "ploughs" t h e s o i l s , but a
p e s t i n o r c h a r d s , g r a i n f i e l d s , and
farms, where i t gnaws r o o t s and stems.
e . Bats. As an o r d e r , b a t s a r e c l o s e l y
associated with freshwater habitat.
Most s p e c i e s a r e a e r i a l i n s e c t i v o r e s
and feed on c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of i n s e c t s
o v e r o r c l o s e t o streams and l a k e s .
In Southern C a l i f o r n i a only one
s p e c i e s does n o t f e e d on i n s e c t s : t h e
long-tongued b a t , a t r o p i c a l n e c t a r
feeder t h a t occasionally s t r a y s north
i n t o San Diego County (Bond, 1977).
The t h i r t e e n s p e c i e s on t h e c h e c k l i s t
(Appendix C) a r e r e p r e s e n t e d by
mu1 t i p l e specimens in museum
c o l l e c t i o n s i n Cal i f o r n i a . There a r e
no major r o o s t s i n c o a s t a l Southern
C a l i f o r n i a , a s t h e r e a r e no l a r g e
caves o r mines. The most common b a t
i n Southern California riparian
h a b i t a t i s t h e western p i p i s t r e l l e
( P i pi s t r e l l u s h e s ~ e r u s ,) which
f r e q u e n t s both lowlands and mountains.
Other common s p e c i e s a r e Yuma myotis
(Mvoti s yumanensi s ) , Cal i f o r n i a myotis
(Mvoti s c a l i f o r n i c u s ) , b i g brown b a t
( E o t e s i c u s f u s c u s ) , and Mexican f r e e -
t a i l e d b a t (Tadarida b r a s i l i e n s i s ) .
The hoary b a t ( L a s i u r u s c i n e r e u s ) used
t o be much more common; i t was o f t e n
c o l l e c t e d i n summer i n t h e mouths o f
canyons i n Beverly Hi1 1 s , Glendale,
and Pasadena (D. McFarl ane, Natural
H i s t o r y Museum, Los Angel e s County;
p e r s . comm.). Loss o f h a b i t a t has
reduced t h e l o c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h i s
and s e v e r a l o t h e r s p e c i e s now found
mostly a t h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n s .
Bats i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a r o o s t i n
t r e e s f l o n g - e a r e d myotis, red b a t ,
hoary b a t ) , i n b u i l d i n g s (Cal i f o r n i a
myotis, big brown b a t ) , and on c l i f f
 ~3

m
-II)
2
m
- ,
C

o L s L L r fi., ~r - G
z . -E
Z +~a ~ m a ~
.
C.',,,-.r ~
r
J
L r - u m ~ r o E

& P Z f;;P$%.. z*.f.'"

. ~ - r 3 ~E
-
u
'
0 3 c
~ u
~ a . r . r ~ ~ . r
7,- 0 m - o L 3-0 a, 0 w
@ m o r m m r d s C C * a ) L E
v u 3: O O Z Erd m - r S z - 0
C

mu-m
s c -m
- a,
0 a r
7- C-CI
m 3 m E C
ou m
u-
"m a r a C N v l
=Iu
,mbQJ
-&
v,
c s
0.25
m
,
. . .
m m a r
G L 4.r
c w m.,
3 > - ?<-

L-g
=zF-
a,

ma z'
-r 5 a,
LL w'C L
-> OC,
 ( I n g l e s , 1965), i t i s i t s e l f prey f o r
many b i r d s and mammal s .
i . Deer mouse, Peromyscus manicul a t u s .
Widely d i s t r i b u t e d a c r o s s t h e United
S t a t e s , t h e d e e r mouse i s found in a l l
h a b i t a t s . A1 though not p a r t i c u ? a r l y
i d e n t i f i e d with r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t , i t
was found t h e r e abundantly i n w i n t e r
along t h e Santa Margarita River
(Zembaf , 19846). I t f e e d s on s e e d s ,
n u t s , a c o r n s , i n s e c t s (Burt and
Grossenheider, 1964) and i s prey f o r
many b i r d s and mammal s .
j. Brush mouse, Peromyscus boy1 i i .
Although supposedly a r e s i d e n t of a r i d
r e g i o n s , t h i s mouse has been Found
regularly in r i p a r i a n habitat in the
San Bernardino Mountains ( G r i n n e l l ,
1908), t h e San Gabriel Mountains
(Vaughn, 1954), the Santa Ana
Mountains (Pequegnat, 1951), and along
t h e Santa Margarita River and i t s
drainage i n t h e c o a s t a l lowlands
(Tembal, 1984b). I t was t h e most
common rodent trapped in the
streamside/wi 1low wood1 and communi t y
i n t h e Santa Ana Mountains by
Pequegnat (1951). I t f e e d s on pine
nuts, a c o r n s , s e e d s , and b e r r i e s (Burt
and Grossenheider, 1964) and i s prey
f o r many b i r d s and mammals.
k. D u s k y - f o o t e d woodrat, Neotoma
f u s c i ~ e s . Widespread in C a l i f o r n i a
from s e a l e v e l t o high i n t h e f o o t -
hi 1 l s , the dusky-footed woodrat
p r e f e r s heavy c h a p a r r a l , s t r e a m s i d e
t h i c k e t s , and deciduous and mixed
woodlands (Burt and Grossenheider,
1964). I t i s widely r e p o r t e d i n t h e
San Bernardino Mountains (Grinnell ,
1908), t h e San Gabriel Mountains
(Vaughn, 19541, and t h e Santa Ana
Mountains (Pequegnat, 19511, as we1 l
a s along c o a s t a l streams i n Santa
Barbara County (Onuf, 1983) and San
Diego County (Zembal , 1984b). I t i s
v e g e t a r i a n and i t s e l f food f o r owls,
f o x e s , c s y o t e s , and l a r g e snakes
( I n g l e s , 1965).
I . California vole, Microtus ca1 i -
f o r n i c u s . The Ca? i f g r n i a v g ? e p r e f e r s
marshy ground and meadows along
streams from lowlands t o h i g h rnoun-
t a i n s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e s t a t e (Burt
and Grossenheider, 1964). Comlon i n
t h e l o c a l mountains [ G r i n n e l l , 1908;
Vaughn, 1954; Pequegnat , 1951) and
along c o a s t a l c r e e k s i n San Diego
County (Zembal, li984b), i t f e e d s on
g r a s s e s , sedges, and o t h e r green vege-
t a t i o n (Burt and Grossenheider, 1964).
m. Raccoon, Procyon l o t o r . Raccoon i s
widely d i s t r i b u t e d i n Ca1 i f o r n i a along
watercourses and l a k e s i n v a l l e y s and
f o o t h i l l s , but not a t high e l e v a t i o n s
( I n g l e s , 1965). Omnivorous, i t
f r e q u e n t l y washes i t s food before
eating i t . I t s preferred habitat is
c l o s e t o streams, 1a k e s , and marshes
( G r i n n e l l , 1933). I t i s probably an
important p r e d a t o r on b i r d eggs, and
t h i s merits study.
n, Ringtail, Bassariscus astutus. A
s e c r e t i v e , n o c t u r n a l mammal , r i n g t a i I
u n t i l r e c e n t l y was be1 ieved t o p r e f e r
brush and rocky s l o p e s ( I n g l e s , 1965).
Two s t u d i e s have now documented a
p r e f e r e n c e f o r r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t ; one
i n Texas (Toweill and T e e r , 1980),
a n o t h e r i n t h e C e n t r a l Valley of
Cal i f o r n i a (Be1 lournini , 1983). Found
i n lowlands and f o o t h i l l s , but not
o f t e n a t high e l e v a t i o n s , i t f e e d s on
small r o d e n t s , o c c a s i o n a l b i r d s , and
f r u i t ( I n g l e s , 1965).
o . b o n g - t a i l e d weasel, Nustel a f r e n a t a .
l o n g - t a i l e d weasel has been found i n
a l l h a b i t a t s t h a t a r e c l o s e t o water
and a t a l l e l e v a t i o n s ( I n g l e s , 1965).
Carnivorous, f e e d i n g on small r o d e n t s
and o c c a s i o n a l r a b b i t s , b i r d s , and
eggs, i t i s a c t i v e i n d a y l i g h t but
a l s o hunts a t n i g h t . An a g i l e
c1 imber, i t may be an important
p r e d a t o r on b i r d e g g s .
p. Spotted skunk, S ~ i f o s a l e p u t o r i u s .
Spotted skunk i s found i n brush o r
wooded a r e a s near streams a t a l l
elevations (Ingles, 1965). In
Southern C a l i f o r n i a i t i s most o f t e n
noted a t low e l e v a t i o n s (Grinnel,
1908; Pequegnat, 1951; Bond, 1977) and
is Frequently near human h a b i t a t i o n .
D i s t r i b u t e d through most o f t h e
western Ynited S t a t e s , !t i s a nec-
t u r n a l h u n t e r t h a t preys on i n s e c t s ,
r o d e n t s , b i r d s , and eggs. I t can
carry rabies .
 q , Striped. skunk, Menhitis m e a h i t i s ,
S t r i p e d skunk i s found i n logged-over
a r e a s , weedy f i e l d s , and streamside
t h i c k e t s where food i s abundant
(Ingles, 1965) i n lowlands and
mountains up t o a t l e a s t 2,600 m
(Grinnell, 1908). I t i s d i s t r i b u t e d
throughout the United States.
P r i m a r i l y a nocturnal h u n t e r , i t a l s o
f o r a g e s by day, e a t i n g i n s e c t s ,
r o d e n t s , eggs, c a r r i o n , and almost
anything a v a i l a b l e . I t i s taken f o r
i t s f u r . I t sometimes c a r r i e s r a b i e s
(Burt and Grossenheider, 1964).
4.6.2 S t a t u s of R i a a r i a n Mammals
The r o l e o f mammals i n r i p a r i a n ecology
and t h e v a l u e of r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t f o r
mammals a r e d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 5. There
a r e no r i p a r i an-dependent mammal s on e i t h e r
S t a t e o r Federal 1 i s t s of endangered, r a r e ,
o r s e n s i t i v e s p e c i e s . There a r e some whose
s t a t u s i s n o t well known and should be
i n v e s t i g a t e d . The r i n g t a i l i s a s e c r e t i v e
animal about which l i t t l e i s known.
Belloumini (1983) found d e n s i t i e s of 10.5
t o 20.5 r i n g t a i l s p e r h e c t a r e i n r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t i n C a l i f o r n i a ' s Central Valley. A
comparative study i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a
would be of i n t e r e s t . Bats a r e an even
more d i f f i c u l t o b j e c t of study; t h e range,
population s i z e , h a b i t a t p r e f e r e n c e s , and
needs of t h e 13 s p e c i e s a s s o c i a t e d with
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a a r e
poorly known. Most s c i e n t i f i c work on b a t s
has been taxonomic, and an a t l a s o f t h e
b a t s of Southern C a l i f o r n i a i s i n
p r e p a r a t i o n a t t h e Los Angeles County
Museum. F i e l d s t u d i e s would a l s o be
useful.
In summary, 44 s p e c i e s of mammals a r e
associated with r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i n coastal
Southern C a l i f o r n i a ; t h e y range i n s i z e
from t h e t i n y C a l i f o r n i a vole t o t h e black
bear. Although t h e l a r g e mammals ( d e e r ,
bighorn sheep, b e a r ) a r e not a s s o c i a t e d
p r i m a r i l y with r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t , t h e y use
i t d a i l y for water and f o r a g e . Mamals a r e
both p r e d a t o r s and prey i n t h e food c h a i n ;
small r o d e n t s a r e prey f o r both b i r d s and
1a r g e r c a r n i v o r o u s mammal s . Bats a r e t h e
least-known o r d e r of mammals a s s o c i a t e d
with r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t , although t h e r e a r e
13 r i p a r i a n - a s s o c i a t e d s p e c i e s .
4.7 SUMMARY
Cal i f o r n i a ' s i n s e c t fauna i s huge,
encompassing an e s t i m a t e d 27,000 t o 28,000
s p e c i e s . Riparian i n s e c t s f i l l a v a r i e t y
of e c o l o g i c a l n i c h e s and play an important
r o l e i n t h e r i p a r i a n community a s both
p r e d a t o r s and prey.
Fish p o p u l a t i o n s i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a
a r e l i m i t e d i n d i v e r s i t y and s i z e and a r e
d i s a p p e a r i n g r a p i d l y because of h a b i t a t
d e s t r u c t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y from dams and
channelization projects.
Amphibians a r e p r e s e n t around undisturbed
mountain streams and lowland r i v e r s but a r e
s c a r c e o r e l i m i n a t e d where r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t
i s d i s t u r b e d o r d e s t r o y e d o r where
r e c r e a t i o n a l use i s heavy.
O f 140 s p e c i e s of breeding b i r d s l i s t e d
f o r Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 88 a r e s t r i c t l y
r i p a r i a n and 23 a r e u s e r s of r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t . Eighty-two s p e c i e s o f nonbreeding
b i r d s a r e 1 i s t e d , and many o f t h e s e depend
on r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t f o r food and r e s t
during m i g r a t i o n . The l o s s of r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t most d i r e c t l y a f f e c t s the 76
s p e c i e s i n t h e p a s s e r i n e o r d e r of b i r d s , o f
which 59 n e s t i n r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t and a r e
predominantly i n s e c t i v o r o u s .
F o r t y - f i v e s p e c i e s o f mammals i n Southern
Cal i f o r n i a a r e a s s o c i a t e d with r i p a r i a n
habitat.
 CHAPTER 5. ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES AND VALUES
5.1 ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES
5.1.1 Primary P r o d u c t i v i t y
Green p l a n t s are d i s t i n g u i s h e d from o t h e r
l i v i n g organisms p r i n c i p a l l y by t h e i r
a b i l it y t o a s s i m i l a t e carbon dioxide,
oxygen, water, n i t r o g e n compounds, and
minerals and t o synthesize them i n t o
organic sugars, starches, and p r o t e i n s .
The t o t a l amount o f organic matter manu-
factured by green p l a n t s i s c a l l e d the
gross primary p r o d u c t i v i t y o f an ecosystem.
Net primary p r o d u c t i v i t y i s the t o t a l
amount o f organic matter manufactured and
stored by green p l a n t s beyond t h e i r own
r e s p i r a t o r y needs. Primary p r o d u c t i v i t y
may be i n t h e form o f leaves, woody tissue,
fruit, nectar, pollen, or detritus
( B i l l ings, 1978; Mum e t a1 . , 1984).
Determination o f t h e n e t primary produc-
t i v i t y o f a r i p a r i a n f o r e s t i s complex
because c a l c u l a t i o n s must take i n t o account
the r a p i d t u r n o v e r o f s h o r t - l ived herba-
ceous p l a n t s and t h e accumulation o f p r o -
d u c t i v i t y o f shrub l a y e r s and o f s t i l l
l o n g e r - l i v e d t r e e s ( w h i t t a k e r and Niering,
1975).
The major environmental g r a d i e n t o r
l i m i t i n g f a c t o r o f a r i p a r i a n system i s t h e
a v a i l a b i l i t y o f moisture. The percentage
of winter-deciduous trees and the
percentage o f l a r g e - l e a v e d t r e e s c l o s e l y
f o l l o w s t h i s g r a d i e n t from x e r i c slopes t o
perennial streams (Whi t t a k e r and Niering,
1365; Campbell, 1988). The r i p a r i a n zone
i s characterized by vegetation t h a t
r e q u i r e s l a r g e amounts o f f r e e o r unbound
water, as shown i n Figure 42. The leaves
and annual increment o f woody biomass o f
r i p a r i a n t r e e s and shrubs are l a r g e r than,
f o r example, those o f chaparral o r coastal
scrub species; thusl n e t primary produc-
t i v i t y f i g u r e s f o r r i p a r i a n vegetation
would be expected t o be h i g h e r than those
f o r d r i e r h a b i t a t types, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r
older, more mature stands. According t o
Whi t t a k e r ( L i e t h and Whittaker, 1975), t h e
p r o d u c t i v i t y o f temperate wood1 ands and
shrub1 ands (excluding dese:ts) appears t o
be between 250 and 800 g/m / y r . There are
no p r o d u c t i v i t y estimates f o r t h e r i p a r i a n
community i n Southern Cal if o r n i a; however,
Ho1s t e i n (1981) s t a t e s t h a t C a l i f o r n i a ' s
riparian communities are its most
productive because they r e c e i v e abundant
water d u r i n g hot, cloudless summers which
are i d e a l f o r maximum photosynthesis.
The primary p r o d u c t i v i t y o f green p l a n t s
serves as a d i r e c t energy source f o r
decomposing b a c t e r i a and d e t r i t i v o r e s ,
which f u r t h e r fragment decomposing p l a n t s .
These organisms, p a r t o f t h e secondary
p r o d u c t i v i t y o f a r i p a r i a n ecosystem,
serve, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , as an energy
source f o r a succession o f o t h e r organisms
and are an important component o f a r i c h
food web t h a t culminates i n l a r g e insects,
r e p t i l e s , b i r d s , and mammal s. Biomass
produced w i t h i n t h e r i p a r i a n ecosystem can
be used e n t i r e l y w i t h i n the r i p a r i a n
community, moved t o and used i n adjacent
communities, o r used by animals moving
between r i p a r i a n and adjacent communities.
5.1.2 Riuarian Veqetation and Stream
&osvstemq
R i p a r i a n vegetation is important n o t o n l y
w i t h i n t h e r i p a r i a n ecosystem but beyond i t
t o the s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n o f t h e
adjacent stream ecosystem. Some o f t h e
major c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f r i p a r i a n vegetation
t o in-stream components are shown i n Figure
43, a model developed from a study o f
S i e r r a Nevada streams.

Sedges and rushes 1
Emergents, I
Figure 42. Riparian vegetation requires large amounts of free or unbound water (adapted from
Thomas, 1978).
a. Detri t a l Food Base. Woodl and streams
d e r i v e most of t h e i r biological energy from
organic materi a1 t h a t comes from adjacent
terrestrial comuni t i e s (Knight and
B o t t o r f f , 1984; Hynes, 1970). Detritus
provided by r i p a r i a n vecetation i s a source
of up t o 90 percent of t h e n u t r i e n t s con-
sumed by instream a q u a t i c communities
(Hubbard, 1977; Cumins, 1975; Merri t t ,
1978; Hart, 1975). D e t r i t u s and n u t r i e n t s
from adjacent up1 and ecosystems (e.g.,
chaparral and c o a s t a l scrub) a r e recycled
through natural processes o f f i r e and flood
Sagebrush and grass
and transported downstream i n t h e r i p a r i a n
ecosystem (R. Vogl, Gal i f o r n i a S t a t e
University (Los Angel e s ) ; pers . comm. ) .
The c o n t r i b u t i o n s of organic matter from
r i p a r i a n vegetation t o stream ecosystems
has been appreci ated only r e c e n t l y
(Cumins, 1974). Natural changes in r i p a r -
ian vegetation and t h e b i o t i c processing of
d e t r i t u s , among o t h e r f a c t o r s , determine
t h e kinds and abundance o f aquatic inverte-
b r a t e s 7 iving i n streams, from headwaters
t o t h e r i v e r d e l t a (Hynes, 1970).

FOOD, R E S T , AND
H I D I N G FOR
Figure 43. Relationships between riparian vegetation and stream components (from Knight and Bottorff,
1981).
Knight and B o t t o r f f (1984) summarize t h e
r o l e of a q u a t i c organisms i n c o n t i n u a l l y
processing and transforming o r g a n i c m a t t e r
from t h e time i t e n t e r s t h e stream. The
process o f l e a c h i n g d i s s o l v e d o r g a n i c
m a t t e r (DOM) from c o a r s e p a r t i c u l a t e
o r g a n i c m a t t e r (CPOM) such a s l e a v e s ,
p o l l e n , and f r u i t begins once i t r e a c h e s
the water. Fungi and b a c t e r i a r a p i d l y
colonize organic matter undergoing
l e a c h i n g , and a q u a t i c i n s e c t s such a s
s t o n e f l y nymphs, c r a n e f l y 1arvae, and
c a d d i s f l y l a r v a e shred o r break down CPOM
and a r e c a l l e d " s h r e d d e r s . "
CPOM i s broken down i n t o f i n e p a r t i c u l a t e
o r g a n i c m a t t e r (FPOM) by t h e f e e d i n g a c t i o n
o f s h r e d d e r s and microorgani sms, t h e
physical a b r a s i o n o f stream t u r b u l e n c e , and
t h e f i n e p a r t i c l e s t h a t a r e eroded from
streambed algae or the surrounding
watershed. The f i n e p a r t i c l e s a r e food f o r
organisms known a s "cot 1e c t o r s , " which
g a t h e r o r f i l t e r p a r t f c l e s from flowing
water. A t h i r d group o f a q u a t i c animals,
L T E R S WATE
8 LIFE CYCLES 8 Q U A L I T Y FOR
OF A Q U A T I C
INVERTEBRATES
c a l l e d " s c r a p e r s , " have mouth p a r t s adapted
t o s c r a p i n g up and consuming a l g a l scum,
which a1 s o c o n t a i n s microscopic animals.
S t i l l o t h e r a q u a t i c i n v e r t e b r a t e s and
v e r t e b r a t e s prey on s h r e d d e r s , c o l l e c t o r s ,
s c r a p e r s , and each o t h e r . The amount,
kind, and timing of v e g e t a t i v e a d d i t i o n s t o
t h e stream and t h e shading provided by
s t r e a m s i d e p l a n t s w i l l determine, t o a
degree, which f e e d i n g groups p r o s p e r a t any
given s i t e , b u t , p a r t i c u l a r l y , which
s p e c i e s w i t h i n each f e e d i n g group w i l l
prosper.
The s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n o f a q u a t i c
communities along a r i v e r system have been
organized i n t o a River Continuum Concept
( C u m i n s , 1974, 1975; Vannote e t a1 . , 1980)
which i n v o l v e s s e v e r a l stream f a c t o r s t h a t
i n t e r a c t t o i n f l u e n c e t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of
food f o r stream animal s- -temperature,
s u b s t r a t e , w a t e r v e l o c i t y , stream marpho-
logy, and energy i n p u t s from a d j a c e n t
t e r r e s t r i a l communities o r from s o u r c e s
w i t h i n t h e stream. According t o t h i s
concept, these factors should vary primary p r o d u c t i v i t y and c a u s e a l g a l mats
p r e d i c t a b l y from headwater tca downstream i n small streams (Brown and Krygier, 1967,
and should produce predictable 1970; Brown e t a l . , 1971; Likens, 1970;
d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f feeding groups ( s h r e d d e r s , Graynoth, 1979). Shade moderates stream
col 1e c l o r s , and s c r a p e r s ) a9 cang t h e temperatures, o f t e n p r e v e n t i n g summer
continuum. T h i s model should be appl i c a b l e temperatures t h a t may be l e t h a l t o i n v e r t e -
t o streams and r i v e r s i n t h e study a r e a , b r a t e s o r f i s h . Stream w a t e r temperature
t a k i n g i n t o account t h e reduced temperature a f f e c t s numerous stream f u n c t i o n s : pro-
f l u c t u a t i o n s , extended p e r i o d s of l e a f c e s s i ng r a t e s of o r g a n i c m a t t e r , chemical
fa1 I , and t h e wet/dry annual c y c l e common r e a c t i o n s and c o n c e n t r a t i o n s , metabolic
i n Southern Cal i f o r n i a . r a t e s o f stream i n v e r t e b r a t e s , and cues f o r
l i f e c y c l e e v e n t s (Knight and B o t t o r f f ,
b. Stream Shade from R i ~ a r i a n 1981). Table I 1 p r o v i d e s f i g u r e s f o r water
Vegetation. Shade c r e a t e d by r i p a r i a n temperature changes i n small streams caused
v e g e t a t i o n i s a major f a c t o r c o n t r o l l i n g by removal o f r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n . S t u d i e s
l i g h t i n t e n s i t i e s reaching a l g a e and of c l e a r - c u t watersheds show t h a t when
macrophytes, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n headwater r i p a r i a n b u f f e r s t r i p s remain, stream
streams, and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e l e v e l o f temperatures a1 s o remain e s s e n t i a l l y t h e
primary p r o d u c t i v i t y i n s t r e a m s . Shade same a s i n untouched watersheds (Brown and
removal has been demonstrated t o i n c r e a s e Krygier, 1970; S w i f t and Messer, 1971;

Table 11. Water temperature changes in small streams caused by riparian

vegetation removal in relation lo undisturbed conditions (from Knight and
Bottom, 1984).

T e m ~ e r a t u r echanqe
Location Forest type Summera Winter

Oregon coniferous + 8 (A)

+15 (B)
+ 8 (A)

A1 aska coniferous
Kansas deciduous
New Hampshire deciduous

West V i r g i n i a deciduous
North Carol i na deciduous + 7 (A)
+13 ( E )
New Zeal and mixed c o n i f e r o u s
and deciduous

'Sumer i n c r e a s e i n water temperature based on:

( A ) mean monthly maximum water temperatures
(8) i n s t a n t a n e o u s water temperatures recorded f o r one y e a r
(C) i n s t a n t a n e o u s water temperatures recorded for one
summer day
(D) mean weekly w a t e r temperatures
(E) weekly maximum water temperatures
Graynoth, 1979) and stream macroinverte-
b r a t e d i v e r s i t i e s remain high (Erman e t
a l . , 1977).
c. l i f e Cycles of Aauatic I n s e c t s .
Vegetation growing a d j a c e n t t o streams
plays an important r o l e i n t h e l i f e c y c l e s
of many a q u a t i c i n s e c t s (Knight and
B o t t o r f f , 1981). Some emerge i n t o t e r r e s -
t r i a l ecosystems a s a d u l t s with wings f o r
d i s p e r s i n g and s e a r c h i n g f o r mates. Fol i-
age i s used f o r f e e d i n g , r e s t i n g , h i d i n g ,
and sometimes i n mating r i t u a l s . Some
i n s e c t s l a y eggs on r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n
overhanging t h e stream s o t h a t upon
hatching t h e l a r v a e w i l l drop i n t o t h e
water f o r t h e a q u a t i c l i f e s t a g e s . With
reduced v e g e t a t i o n , t h e number of niches
f o r i n s e c t s i s reduced, r e s u l t i n g i n
reduced numbers o f s p e c i e s and populations.
Insectivorous b i r d s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e
feeding on l e a f - f e e d i n g i n s e c t s , conse-
quently l o s e both food supply and cover.
5.1.3 Role of F i r e in N u t r i e n t Cvclinq
Between E c o s ~ s t e m s
A v a s t amount o f t h e r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t o f
Southern Cal i f o r n i a intergrades with
chaparral o r c o a s t a l scrub communities.
Chaparral v e g e t a t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y prone
t o f i r e because o f i t s dense, contiguous
growth and l a c k of moisture. Often t h e
chaparral community produces an abundance
of f u e l t h a t accumulates f a s t e r than i t
decomposes because of r e s i s t a n c e t o decay
o r c l imatic f a c t o r s . These p l a n t
accumulations a r e highly flammable; t h u s ,
f i r e i s a r e g u l a r occurrence under n a t u r a l
c o n d i t i o n s and i n f r e q u e n t but i n e v i t a b l e
under f i r e - e x c l u s i o n pol i c i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y
near urban a r e a s .
R . Vogl ( p e r s . comm.) suggests t h a t t h e
r i p a r i a n community s e r v e s an important r o l e
i n f ire/f?ood sequences i n Southern
C a l i f o r n i a , r e s u l t i n g i n energy flows
between p l a n t c o m u n i t i e s . F i r e s reduce
organic m a t t e r t o a bouyant ash and
charcoal. 7he f l o t s a m component i s u s u a l l y
t r a n s p o r t e d i n an emulsion t h a t r e s i s t s
b u r i a l and a s s u r e s widespread s u r f a c e
deposition, During w i n t e r r a i n s and
ft oods, charcoal and emu?s jf i e b m i n e r a l
products a r e c a r r i e d i n t o streams, where
they a r e r e d e p o s i t e d onto t h e land by flood
waters o r c a r r i e d downstream toward c o a s t a l
wetlands. N u t r i e n t s bound i n l i g h t ,
vaowwettable fragments of charcoal and ash
emulsions a r e bouyant and remain in t h e
upper 1 a y e r s of f l o o d - d e p o s i t e d sediments,
r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e t o new p l a n t growth.
Nutrients derived from a chaparral
comuni t y i n a f i r e / f l o o d c y c l e may remain
in t h e same c o m u n i t y o r be t r a n s p o r t e d t o
t h e banks o r f l o o d p l a i n o f an a d j a c e n t
r i p a r i a n community; t o a flooded a d j a c e n t
coastal scrub, oak, or broadleaved
evergreen wood1 and community; o r downstream
t o a c o a s t a l f r e s h w a t e r o r s a l t w a t e r marsh.
The r i p a r i a n c o r r i d o r t h u s becomes a kind
of c i r c u l a t o r y system l i n k i n g p l a n t
communities i n t h i s f i r e / f l o o d model.
In a r e a s where r i p a r i a n cover has been
removed, l e a f - 1 i t t e r 1eve1 s a r e reduced o r
e l i m i n a t e d and s o i l s a r e exposed. As a
r e s u l t , stream sediment l o a d s from e r o s i o n
a r e increased and water v e l o c i t y i n c r e a s e s ,
minimizing t h e e n e r g y - t r a n s f e r p o t e n t i a l o f
f i r e / f l o o d c y c l e s . N u t r i e n t s may then be
transferred in fast-flowing waters
downstream and l o s t i n t h e ocean.
No energy flow s t u d i e s e x i s t f o r t h e
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t o f Southern Cal i f o r n i a .
The model presented in Figure 43 i s
h y p o t h e t i c a l and t h e s i z e o f t h e energy
flows i s unknown. In y e a r s o f heavy,
g e n t l e r a i n , t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f an
a d j a c e n t upland ecosystem t o t h e r i p a r i a n
system i s g r e a t e r than in d r y y e a r s , when
t h e r e i s l i t t l e movement of n u t r i e n t s ,
d e t r i t u s , and l e a f l i t t e r . In y e a r s of
f l a s h f l o o d s , m a t e r i a l and n u t r i e n t s move
though t h e system t o o q u i c k l y t o be made
a v a i l a b l e t o r i p a r i a n organisms (R. Vogle,
p e r s . comm. ) .
5.2 RIPARIAN HABITAT VALUES
5.2.1 Water Qua1i t v and Ouanti t y
and Stream Maintenance
The r i p a r i a n ecosystem, with i t s 1i n e a r
form, p l a y s important and l i t t l e - r e c o g n i z e d
roles in tying together adjacent
ecosystems: in nutrient recycling, a s a
source f o r seed d i s p e r s a l , and a s c o r r i d o r s
f o r wi l d l i f e moving between ecosystems.
The r i p a r i a n ecosystem enhances t h e h a b i t a t
val ue of a d j a c e n t systems. Where r i p a r i an
v e g e t a t i o n i s removed, e n t i r e l y o r i n p a r t ,
h a b i t a t v a l u e s a r e diminished. This i s
p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e f o r t h e lush understory
growth, so frequently ignored or cleared as
a nuisance to man (Odum, 1978).
Riparian vegetation plays a major role i n
downstream water qua1 i ty. It stabil izes
streambanks by reducing the erosive energy
of rainfall and of flowing water. Trees,
shrubs, herbs, and their leaf litter all
cushion the force of falling raindrops and
thus reduce the amount of sediment carried
into streams. For a given amount of pre-
cipi tation the quantity of sediment eroded
from plowed land is 80 times that from
grassland (Leopold et al., 1964). In areas
undergoing rapid urbanization and subjected
to poor watershed planning and careless
construction techniques for roadways and
housing projects, erosion rates may be
several thousand times as great as those
found i n an undi sturbed forest (Bormann and
Likens, 1977; Jones, 1982).
In addition, the shading effect of
riparian vegetation affects water quality
by moderating water temperatures and thus
the kinds and rates of chemical reactions.
Organic matter in the soil retains moisture
and influences pH and ion exchange
(Leopold, 1964). Vegetation a1 so plays an
important role in stream maintenance,
protecting streambanks from watercourse and
surface runoff erosion by binding the soil
with extensive root masses, by maintaining
soil porosity, and by impeding the rate of
surface runoff through the accumulation of
leaf litter (Knight and Bottorff, 1981).
In these ways the severity and frequency of
minor floods are reduced (Jones, 1982).
Ground-water basins in Southern
California are in arid valleys, while most
precipitation occurs in the mountains.
Natural recharge of ground-water basins
occurs mainly by percolation of water from
streams after they enter the permeable
alluvial soils of valleys. The interaction
of riparian vegetation with associated
streams is critical to this process of
ground-water recharge. Vegetation promotes
maximum infiltration of rainfall bv
creating a loose organic soil, ready to
absorb either sparse rainfall or the
occasional flood. During floods, riparian
vegetation reduces the velocity of moving
water, causing it to remain in contact with
soil banks and floodplains for l onger
periods of time and enhancing the process
of ground-water recharge QBormann and
Likens, 1977). Since the roots of riparian
trees can be located in perennial ground-
water or in the capillary fringe above the
water table, they reduce ground-water
level s through transpiration, and, in dry
areas, water yields have been increased by
the removal of riparian vegetation (Ohmart
and Anderson, 1977). To determine the best
management practices for a given site,
close examination of vegetation and soi 1s
is required.
5.2.2 Habitat for Wildlife
The riparian plant community in Southern
Cal ifornia covers 1ess acreage than other
communities such as chaparral or oak
woodland, but it receives
disproportionately heavy use by animals
(Beidleman, 1948, 1954; Dumas, 1950;
Wooding, 1973; Bottorff, 1974; Kelly, 1975;
Kirby, 1975; Gaines, 1977; Hubbard, 1977;
Hinschberger, 1978; Jahn, 1978; Ohmart and
Anderson, 1980). Much of the information
in this chapter is based upon work carried
out in riparian systems outside the study
area, since almost no documentation of the
above statement has been undertaken in
Southern California. In an unpublished
report, Warner points out that there is a
growing body of information regarding
previously unrecognized functions and
values of riparian habitat, but predicts
that it would be a decade or more before
all of the major values of this complex
dynamic ecosystem could even be identified.
The ninth annual report of the U.S. Council
on Environmental Qua1 ity (1978) states that
"no ecosystem is more essential than the
riparian system to the survival of the
nation's fish and wildlife." Johnson at
.
a1 (1977) calcul ate that western riparian
ecosystems contain 42 percent o f the mama1
species of North America, 3% percent of the
reptiles, and 14 percent of the breeding
birds. Wubbard (1979) states that 75
species of fish of the southwest are
dependent on riparian ecosystems.
While there are numerous reasons why
riparian habitat i s important to wild1 ife,
the full list sf values does not apply t o
each stream or watercourse. The size of
the water source, the physical parameters
of iradivldual riparian zones, the diversity
 S t u d i e s of t h e f e e d i n g h a b i t s of a q u a t i c
i n s e c t s have shown t h a t many a r e omnivorous
and that food needs change with
devel opmental s t a g e s (Chapman and Demory,
1963; Winterbourn, 1971 ; Mecom, 1972;
Anderson and C u m i n s , 1939; Erman, 1981).
An i n s e c t t h a t e x i s t s on a l g a e produced
within t h e stream i n i t s e a r l y s t a g e s may
l a t e r shred decaying l e a v e s from t h e
r i p a r i a n zone and l a t e r s t i l l become
carnivorous (Erman, 1981).
The second a s p e c t o f r i p a r i a n use by
aquatic insects i s that t h e i r t e r r e s t r i a l
s t a g e s can be d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e a r e a s :
feeding; c a s e - b u i l d i n g ( i n T r i c h o p t e r a ) ;
pupating on land along stream edges and
banks o r in decaying s h o r e l i n e t r e e s o r
stumps ; emergence and mating, using
v e g e t a t i o n f o r r e s t i n g o r a s mating
platforms; and e g g - l a y i n g , u s u a l l y on
overhanging v e g e t a t i o n s o eggs o r newly
hatched l a r v a e drop i n t o t h e water (Erman,
1981).
5.2.6 Riparian H a b i t a t Oeoendencv of Fish
Though f i s h a r e not u s u a l l y considered
p a r t o f a r i p a r i a n community, t h e y i n t e r a c t
with and a r e dependent on t h i s community i n
a number of ways (Nunnally, 1978; B a l t z and
Moyle, 1981). They feed on t e r r e s t r i a l
i n s e c t s , use overhanging v e g e t a t i o n a s
cover, o r use flooded v e g e t a t i o n f o r
spawning. N u t r i e n t r e c y c l i n g and t h e
e f f e c t of r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n on water
flows and temperatures a r e a l s o important
t o fish habitat. The most important
physical parameters f o r f i s h a r e stream
depth, current velocity, substrate
composition, cover, and temperature. All
o f t h e s e change when t h e r i p a r i a n comuni t y
i s a l t e r e d because t h e r i p a r i a n system t i e s
t o g e t h e r a q u a t i c and t e r r e s t r i a l components
through energy exchange, i n t e r a c t i o n with
flow regimes, and impact on temperature
regimes ( B a l t z and Moyle, 1981). In
a d d i t i o n , spawning success i s adversely
a f f e c t e d by increased sediment loads
(Cordone and Kelley, 1961).
5.2.7 Rioarian H a b i t a t De~endencvof Birds
Riparian h a b i t a t , w.i t h i t s 1ush pl ant
understory, thermal cover, and s p e c i a l
microcl imate, s u p p o r t s more s p e c i e s of
b i r d s than any a t h e r h a b i t a t t y p e i n
C a l i f o r n i a ( M i l l e r , 1951) and i s well known
for the abundance and d i v e r s i t y of i t s b i r d
fauna (Gaines, 1977). The e x t e n s i v e l o s s
of r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a
has caused a r a p i d d e c l i n e i n s e v e r a l b i r d
species (Remsen, 3379). Breedi ng
popul a t i o n s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y important
because they i n c l u d e s p e c i e s t h a t occur i n
v i r t u a l l y no o t h e r Cal i f o r n i a h a b i t a t
( H o l s t e i n , 1981). M i l l e r (1951) del i n e a t e d
2 1 p l a n t communities i n t h e S t a t e and
l i s t e d t h e breeding b i r d s f o r each; t h e r e
were 75 s p e c i e s n e s t i n g i n r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t ; i n montane f o r e s t s , t h e h a b i t a t
with t h e next h i g h e s t number of s p e c i e s ,
t h e r e were 70. Gaines (1977) has shown
t h a t many o f t h e s e b i r d s a r e i n s e c t i v o r o u s
f o l i age-gl e a n e r s t h a t w i n t e r i n t r o p i c a l
forests, habitat with high net
p r o d u c t i v i t y . I n s e c t s , which a r e primary
consumers, would be e x p e c t e d t o i n c r e a s e i n
abundance with i n c r e a s i n g warmth and
primary p r o d u c t i v i t y . Cody (1978) found
t h a t i n s e c t biomass d o e s , i n f a c t , peak i n
t h e s p r i n g and f l u c t u a t e s with primary
productivity throughout t h e year i n
C a l i f o r n i a upland v e g e t a t i o n .
Pequegnat (19511, i n h i s study o f t h e
b i o t a of t h e Santa Ana Mountains, noted
t h a t in oak woodlands 75 p e r c e n t of t h e
b i r d s were r e s i d e n t s p e c i e s and only 20
percent were summer b r e e d e r s ; i n s t r e a m s i d e
v e g e t a t i o n only 35 p e r c e n t were r e s i d e n t s
and n e a r l y 60 p e r c e n t summer v i s i t o r s . M e
a t t r i b u t e d t h i s discrepancy t o differences
i n t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f food. The huge
i n s e c t populations i n s p r i n g i n r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t c r e a t e a n i c h e f o r migrants t o use
f o r t h e i r b r i e f n e s t i n g p e r i o d . No o t h e r
c l a s s of v e r t e b r a t e s has a l a r g e component
of migrants t h a t can e x p l o i t t h i s seasonal
food source. H o l s t e i n (1981) found t h a t
b i r d abundance a p p e a r s t o be r e l a t e d ts
c o m u n i t y p r o d u c t i v i t y , suggesting t h a t
riparian bird p o p u l a t i o n s would be
augmented re1 a t i ve t o up1 and h a b i t a t s when
c o n t r a s t s between drier up1 and and m o i s t e r
r i p a r i a n prodtactivi Ly a r e t h e g r e a t e s t .
Such c o n t r a s t s occur when aerenni a1 streams
bring water t o semiarid lands such a s t h o s e
found i n t h e study a r e a .
Riparian manes a r e usually dominated by
deciduous v e g e t a t i o n t h a t provides one t y p e
o f h a b i t a t d u r i n g the f u l l f o l i a g e o f
summer and another following winter l e a f - important Lo ni Id1 i f e , p a r t i c u l a r l y birds
fall. In a study of t h e tower Colorado (Bottorff, 1974; Patton, 1975). Where
River, Anderson and Bhmart (1977) streams f l o w through canyons, the canyon
determined t h a t b i r d usage and requirements wall s combine with the r i parian zone t o
of riparian h a b i t a t varied seasonally and form a unique h a b i t a t complex. Many vege-
t h a t dense vegetation i s more important i n t a t i v e s t r a t a can be exposed i n s t a i r s t e p
the e a r l y summer than a t other times of t h e fashion, often of contrasting form (deci-
year. They found t h a t winter residents may duous vo. evergreen; shrubs vs. t r e e s ) ,
have 1arger populations and be more which provides diverse nesting and feeding
specialized in h a b i t a t use than local opportunities f o r birds and bats (Figure
populations of permanent residents. They 45). The association of p a r t i c u l a r birds
suggest t h a t since winter requirements a r e with d i s t i n c t layers of vegetation has been
d i f f e r e n t from, but a s important a s , repeatedly demonstrated (Thomas, 1978).
breeding requirements, they should receive
a t l e a s t equal a t t e n t i o n , particui a r l y in
view of t h e g r e a t e r specialization of
winter migratory birds.
The dramatic c o n t r a s t between a r i p a r i a n
plant assemblage and one from a d r i e r
surrounding upland community adds t o the
structural d i v e r s i t y of t h e area (Jain,
1976). Open wet meadows o r groves of
deciduous t r e e s around seeps provide
habitat edges with sharp c o n t r a s t s ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y when they a r e surrounded by
d r i e r grasslands o r shrub1 ands. The l inear
shape common t o r i p a r i a n zones maximizes
the development of h a b i t a t edge which i s so

VEGETATIVE STRATA

e
EDGES

Flgure 45. Riparian zones have high numbers of strata levels and edges; five strata levels (1-5) and
five verticafedges (as) are shown (adapted from Thomas, 1978).
 The degree o f disturbance o f r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t i s important, p a r t i c u l a r l y here
t h e understory i s removed o r a l t e r e d .
Where escaped e x o t i c s are i n v a s i v e and
dominant , h a b i t a t becomes 1ess valuable t o
w i l d l i f e . Xn a study along t h e Santa C l a r a
River, 24 species o f b i r d s were observed i n
a stand o f r i p a r i a n woodland t r e e s w i t h an
undisturbed understory, i n c o n t r a s t t o 6
species observed i n a s i m i l a r stand o f
r i p a r i a n woodland t r e e s w i t h a d i s t u r b e d
understory (Smith, 1979). Nests i n the
open are more s u s c e p t i b l e t o predators,
inclement weather, and o t h e r environmental
f a c t o r s (Best and S t a u f f e r , 1980).
A l t e r a t i o n o f r i v e r s and streams has
almost i n v a r i a b l y r e s u l t e d i n l o s s o f
w i l d 1 i f e h a b i t a t value. Ohmart and
Anderson (1978) s t u d i e d avian use o f t e n
freshwater h a b i t a t types along t h e lower
Colorado R i v e r : r i v e r be1ow dam, o l d r i v e r
channel, oxbow l e f t by r i v e r - s t r a i g h t e n i n g ,
unchannel i z e d r i v e r w i t h adjacent r i p a r i a n
vegetation, P h r a ~ mt ie s marsh, dense c a t t a i l
marsh. moderately dense c a t t a i l marsh,
b u l r u s h marsh, - reservoir, rip-rapped
channel i z e d r i v e r , and unchannel i z e d r i v e r
w i t h adjacent canyon w a l l s . There were
c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e r numbers of b i r d s i n t h e
first seven areas, which represent
re1 a t i v e l y undisturbed sections o f t h e
river. Unusually heavy use o f t h e o l d
r i v e r channel was demonstrable f o r several
months o f t h e year; moderately dense
c a t t a i l marsh showed t h e g r e a t e s t species
diversity,
The i n t e r f a c e between r i p a r i a n and
agricu?t u r a l systems supports a 1arge
number o f b i r d species and i n d i v i d u a l s
because i t o f f e r s a v a r i e t y o f food and
s t r u c t u r a l resources t h a t are e s p e c i a l l y
apparent i n w i n t e r (Emmerich and Vohs,
1982). Anderson e t a l . (1984) suggest t h a t
such an i n t e r f a c e can be used e f f e c t i v e l y
t o m i t i g a t e l o s s o f n a t u r a l h a b i t a t by
interspersing agricultural 1ands w i t h
n a t i v e vegetation. This, o f course, would
n o t compensate f o r l o s s o f h a b i t a t f o r
r i p a r i a n species o f b i r d s such as t h e
yellow-billed cuckoo or the willow
flycatcher. Gaines (1977) c i t e s r e p o r t s
t h a t a t t r i b u t e t h e d e c l i n e o f riparian
b i r d s t o t h e brood p a r a s i t i s m o f t h e
r e c e n t l y introduced brown- headed cowbird,
b u t notes t h a t i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Arizona
occurred before a d e c l i n e i n r i p a r i a n
avifauna. Wauer (1977) c i t e s t h e l i n k a g e
o f t h e cowbird w i t h t h e v i r t u a l e x t i r p a t i o n
o f t h e r i p a r i a n and i n s e c t i v o r o u s l e a s t
Be11 's v i r e o from Cal i f o r n i a and Arizona,
but notes t h a t these species c o e x i s t i n t h e
l e s s a g r i c u l t u r a l Rio Grande area o f Texas.
H o l s t e i n (1981) suggests t h a t t h e massive
quantities of insecticides used in
a g r i c u l t u r a l areas adjacent t o r i p a r i a n
c o r r i d o r s should be i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r
impacts, p a r t i c u l a r l y on t h e breeding
success o f i n s e c t i v o r o u s species.
I n v a s i o n o f e x o t i c p l a n t s has u s u a l l y
diminished t h e qua1 i t y o f r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t
f o r birds. On t h e lower Colorado River,
r i p a r i a n b i r d s show a s t r o n g preference
within the habitat for two plant
communities : cottonwood/wi 11ow and honey
mesquite, and eschewed the introduced s a l t
cedar (Meents e t al., 1981). Clearing o f
s a l t cedar from heavi 1y invaded r i p a r i a n
areas r e s u l t e d i n increased use by b i r d s
(Anderson and Ohmart, 1981).
5.2.8 H a b i t a t f o r Mammals
Unl ike b i r d s , which a r e p r i m a r i l y
predators, mammals are b o t h predators and
prey. Small rodents form t h e p r i n c i p a l
prey group; t h e C a l i f o r n i a mouse, dusky-
f o o t e d woodrat, and o t h e r s a r e food f o r t h e
carnivores--coyote, r i n g t a i l , l o n g - t a i l e d
weasel, bobcat- -p? us hawks, owl s, and
snakes. Some o f t h e c a r n i v o r e s are
omnivorous, such as t h e b l a c k bear, which
feeds on r o o t s , f r u i t s , nuts, grasses,
insects, and small rodents--and garbage.
The raccoon has an even more v a r i e d d i e t ,
i n c l u d i n g crayfish, t u r t l e s , frogs, b i r d s ,
eggs, and f r u i t , as we'll as i n s e c t s and
rodents ( I n g l e s , 1965).
Several orders o f mammals are p r i m a r i l y
insectivorous, n o t a b l y t h e shrews and m01es
( l n s e c t i v o r a ) and b a t s (Chiroptera) . Their
prey i s d i f f e r e n t ; t h e shrews and moles a r e
f o s s o r i a l and forage below o r on t h e
ground, w h i l e bats are s t r i c t l y a e r i a l
feeders,
Pequegnat (1952), i n h i s study o f t h e
b i o t a o f t h e Santa Wna Mountains, noted
t h a t t h e number of mammals i n r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t was small compared w i t h t h e i r
numbers in chaparral and sagebrush
communities. Several recent studies,
however, r e p o r t very d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s ,
O f t h e e i g h t h a b i t a t s B l e i c h (1973)
examined on t h e F a l l b r o o k Naval Annex, the
most d i v e r s e rodent fauna present was i n a
streamside woodl and community, a?though
l a r g e r numbers were found i n t h e coastal
sage community. I n a more r e c e n t study on
the Santa Rosa Plateau, capture r a t e s were
b e t t e r i n r i p a r i a n woodland than i n
chaparral (R. Zembal , USFWS, Laguna Niguel ;
pers. comm.) . percolates through s o i 1 i n c l u d e zinc,
I n a USFWS study (Zembal , 1984b) on the
Santa M a r g a r i t a River, t h e h i g h e s t capture
r a t e s and g r e a t e s t species d i v e r s i t y were
i n r i p a r i a n habi t a t s - - f a r above values
found i n coastal scrub h a b i t a t , u s u a l l y
considered t h e most p r o d u c t i v e f o r rodents.
The d i v e r s i t y and abundance o f small
mammals on t h e Santa Margarita R i v e r
appeared t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e near-ground
habitat structure; t h e more d i v e r s e
h a b i t a t s had larger and more d i v e r s e rodent
populations. Riparian h a b i t a t , w i t h i t s
abundant cover i n t h e form o f 1 i t t e r , low-
growing vegetation, and s t r u c t u r a l re1 i e f ,
afforded small rodents both food and water,
and was t h e most d i v e r s e o f t h e h a b i t a t
types along t h e r i v e r .
Larger species o f mammals--deer, bighorn
sheep, mountain li o n , and bear--use streams
and adjacent r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t f o r water and
forage. A v a i l a b i l i t y o f water, forage, and
thermal cover i s c r i t i c a l f o r t h e i r
survival, even though they are not
p r i m a r i l y associated w i t h r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t .
Along t h e Santa Margari t a River, bedding
pads where deer t a k e cover are abundant,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e summer, when deer
seek r e l i e f from t h e heat and browse on
green vegetation near t h e water (Zembal,
1984b) .
5.3 PBSJTiVE VALUES FOR PEQPLE
5,3.1 A i r and Water O u a l i t v
Inherent i n t h e r i p a r i a n ecosystem are
b e n e f i c i a l values f o r man t h a t have not
been adequate1y recogni zed. Riparian
h a b i t a t i s capable o f improving a i r and
water qua1 it y through i t s a b i l it y t o f ilt e r
pollutants, R i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n removes
p a r t i c u l a t e s from t h e a i r by d i r e c t
adsorption o n t o l e a f s u ~ f a c e sand gases by
absorption into leaves, Chemical
d e t o x i f i c a t i o n o f s u l f u r d i o x i d e , ckf orine,
and carbon monox'rde can then occur (one
acre of t r e e s can remove 3.7 tons o f s u l f u r
d i o x i d e and 12,9 tons o f d u s t per year)
(Bormann, 1977). N i t r o u s oxide, a common
pollutant i n automobile exhaust, is
absorbed by vegetation and s o i l organisms
and thus r e s t r i c t e d from e n t e r i n g ground
and surface water suppl ies . Other
p o l l u t a n t s removed from water as i t
copper, n i c k e l , 1ead, manganese, some
radioisotopes, and p e s t i c i d e s . Substantial
q u a n t i t i e s o f n u t r i e n t s move between
r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n and t h e s o i l ; however,
l i t t l e escapes i n t o t h e watercourse, except
during periodic flooding. I f the
vegetation i s d i s t u r b e d o r removed, t h e
n u t r i e n t - h o l d i n g c a p a c i t y o f t h e system i s
reduced, n u t r i e n t s l e a c h o u t o f t h e s o i l ,
and p o l l u t i o n o f r u n o f f water r e s u l t s .
C u r r e n t l y , some l a n d managers f a v o r t h e
maintenance o f n a t u r a l stream channels as
the best management p r a c t i c e i n areas o f
l i m i t e d water resources (R. Vogl, pers.
comm.). An e q u i l ibrium can be reached by
p e r m i t t i n g a stream t o meander and by
stabilizing its banks with native
vegetation. The r e s u l t s produce l e s s
erosion, h i g h e r stream p r o d u c t i v i t y , and
b e t t e r water q u a l i t y than i n streams
a l t e r e d and channelized. Ground water i s
recharged more e f f i c i e n t l y because water
can p e r c o l a t e more s l o w l y and t h e r a t e o f
r u n o f f i s slowed ( X a r r and Schl osser,
1978).
5.3.2 Benefits t o Asricul t u r e
Although riparian vegetation is
frequently removed to reduce
t r a n s p i r a t i o n a l 1 osses (Robinson, 19851,
r i p a r i a n b a r r i e r s can b e n e f i t a g r i c u l t u r a l
1andowners. By p r o v i d i n g a n a t u r a l fence,
r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n can prevent trespassing
and p o t e n t ia1 vandal ism o f property.
Riparian h a b i t a t a1 so supports predators of
rodents and i n s e c t s t h a t are a g r i c u l t u r a l
pests. B i r d s s f prey r e q u i r e perching
s i t e s where they hunt, Most r i p a r i a n b i r d
species feed e x c l u s i v e l y on i n s e c t s and
thus p r o v i d e p e s t contra1 f o r those who
a l l o w t h e i r r i p a r i a n f o r e s t s t o remain
(McFarl ane, 1976; McNichol , 1982). In
a d d i t i o n , because o f t h e h i g h s o i l moisture
and s o i l qua1 i t y adjacent t o streams, t h e r e
i s a small p o t e n t i a l f o r sustained y i e l d s
of timber f o r firewood or specialty
hardwood production, such as the native
black walnut ( R . Vogl , pers. comm. ) .
5.3.3 Aesthetic and Recreational Values
Many d i r e c t benefits accrue t o local
residents from the preservation of r i p a r i a n
habitat and w i l d l i f e . Some of the same
q u a l i t i e s t h a t a t t r a c t w i l d l i f e , such as
water and shade, a l s o a t t r a c t people seek-
ing recreation (Figure 46). The vegetation
canopy can a c t as a visual screen and a
noise buffer t o c r e a t e a f e e l i n g of wilder-
ness, even though a busy freeway may be
j u s t over t h e adjacent levee. The l i n e a r
parks in r i p a r i a n corridors are some of the
most popular in Sand Diego County. Pic-
nicking, camping, nature study, f i s h i n g ,
hunting, hi king, canoeing, and photography
are a l l a c t i v i t i e s enhanced by the q u a l i t y
of riparian h a b i t a t . However, the value of
Figure 46. The Wiiderness Gardens Preserve along the San Luis Rey River protects
habitats,
parkland f o r w i l d l i f e i s almost always
diminished when the r i p a r i a n understory i s
removed t o open u p t h e area for t r a i l s ,
picnic t a b l e s , r e s t rooms, campsites, and
1 aw enforcement patrol routes, p a r t i c u l a r l y
i f the ensuing use i s heavy (Heberlein,
1977; Lewis and Marsh, 1 9 7 7 ; Schmidly and
Ui t t o n , 1 9 7 8 ) .
5.4 HUMAN IMPACTS ADVERSE TO THE
RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEM
The genera? t o p i c of human impacts and
di sturbance in r i p a r i a n systems has been
well covered (Carothers, 1 9 7 7 a ; Schmidly,
1978). There i s l i t t l e o r no r i p a r i a n
habitat in Southern Cal i fornia t h a t has not
been affected t o some degree by man's
activities. Some a c t i v i t i e s , such as
stream channel i z a t i o n , el iminate a l l
riparian h a b i t a t and wild1 i f e values.
Other a c t i v i t i e s cause severe disturbance.
a remnant of riparian
5.4.1 S e n s i t i v i t y t o Disturbance water qua1 i t y , quantity,
and temperature
with d i r e consequences f o r t h e fauna
(Boussu, 8954; Ccll ings and Myrick, 1966;
In Southern Cal i f o r n i a , r i p a r i a n zones Tuinstra, 1967; Gunderson, 1968; Campbell,
occupy small a r e a s and a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y 1970).
vulnerable t o severe a1 t e r a t i on. More
mature stands of vegetation provide more The amount and s i z e of sediments in
d i s t i n c t s t r a t a and ecological edges and stream s u b s t r a t e s i s a r e s u l t of many
thus a g r e a t e r d i v e r s i t y of h a b i t a t s . processes, some of which can occur in t h e
Disturbance usually reduces t h e s t r u c t u r a l r i p a r i a n zone. Sediment loads may be
and species d i v e r s i t y of t h e plant increased from such human a c t i v i t i e s a s
community, which i n t u r n reduces the logging, clearing for development,
d i v e r s i t y o f h a b i t a t s f o r wild1 i f e (Figure agricul t u r e , and road building o r from such
47). Disturbance a l s o a l t e r s the micro- natural causes a s l a n d s l i d e s . Table 12
climate of t h e r i p a r i a n c o r r i d o r (Ames, shows the change i n suspended sediment i n
1977). Changes in canopy cover can a l t e r a watershed a f t e r logging.

~ s f i i c structure
t I

Figure 47. Riparian zones must be considered delicate due to the combination of restricted
area, distinct microclimate, vegetative structure and composition, and water quantity (adapted
from Thomas, 1978).
Table 12. Average percentage increase in
suspended sediment in the Alsea, Oregon,
watershed 7 years after Isgging.
Method % Change
Control 0-1
Clearcut with buffer s t r i p 54.0
C t earcut 205.0
How f a s t sediment loads a r e moved through
t h e stream depends on such f a c t o r s as
slope, instream sediment t r a p s , and the
frequency of large storms. I t may e a s i l y
take 5 years f o r a pulse of sediment t o
flow completely through a stream system
(Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Thus t h e amount
of sediment i n a stream a t any given moment
i s the summation of a l l t h e land-use
a c t i v i t y adjacent t o t h e stream and the
weather p a t t e r n s t h a t have prevailed i n the
stream basin f o r several preceding years
(Mahoney, 1981).
Buffer s t r i p s of vegetation l e f t along
streams affected by human a c t i v i t i e s have
NARROW BUFFER
Figure 48. Percentage change from control In transpanable sediment, detritus, and the
detrituslsediment ratio in narrow buffered and unbuffered streams In Northern California
(dates are year of initial logging; from Mahoney and Erman, 4981).
been shown t o kelp protect t h e i n t e g r i t y of
a stream system. Figure 48 shows changes
in transportabt e sediment in narrow
buffered and nonbuffered streams. Vegeta-
tion i s important not only i n protecting
the stream immediately adjacent t o i t , but
also i n protecting the biota downstream
from excessive sediment pul s e s (Cordone,
1961). Downstream b e n e f i t s usually a r e not
included in cost-benefi t analyses of pre-
serving buffer s t r i p s adjacent t o streams;
they need t o be more r e a l i s t i c a l l y eval-
uated (Mahoney and Erman, 1981).
As shown in Figure 49, p r o l i f e r a t i o n of
domestic o r a g r i c u l t u r a l we1 1s adversely
affects riparian trees growing on
floodplain t e r r a c e s by lowering water
t a b l e s from l e v e l s t h a t once supported
t h e i r 1arge growth.
5.4.2 Recreational A c t i v i t i e s
Stream courses and associated r i p a r i a n
vegetation and wild1 i f e sometimes a r e
d r a s t i c a l l y impacted by recreational use
when they a r e readily a c c e s s i b l e t o a large
urban population, as i n t h e San Gabriel
Mountains. Dirt bikes use the stream
a SEDIMENT I
NO BUFFER
 I ma)
mn
Ez

0 'Q
, " u
'Q a,
7 .?:.
.,--U Y

-.2 = *
w
z ? a J

m
L

a .?-
E ~ " 0
E.P-g o2
#-a

+,Lo
'Q C-'
C + Q
.r 0 0
0

s*
m

-
.F- 3
C? L .o
m iot-
na
Ti-
.P

L+J x
.? .F

m r . o w * . a , -9, 0

E w---C-'
rb K 0 E a U
m w h m+-O*Oc,C
Q c C h 3 - r0 0 C m
L om+-' sc-'E a) a o
+J
n w 3
d J ' , m a w b
* a)
.,--
L
L7
"
G ~a a
W L
L 0 w arc-.,
L r n ~ c .-
o >$,:.>,0-73
a, U"$j X

* m Cs) a c
a,
Ow 2
,
~3 4 'Q

E:
W S m J
,--- o z a
@ L L .
10,
,A .$?g +-'
E ,. K
m.2: a, 2
+-' 5o %% w
L.PJ m L J *Z"
@ -
naU@3E
'2 Q4-J *c,k
4
.r';;" !3g w% '(Cull.@
*mma)
Ss5
w w c-,
a + J a w i2.g 0
v) &
-C 0 - Lo- w
I=
@ a, w.;;
> - F w
2 2u= - woL' r, cn
id *F- '42 w,o
.r iF1 .r U CU&O&
L e Pr- ,r-*-i3 (B a
IU
m ' ~ r u m* *
~ a c w w
g o @ & LJ ao-o m w L.
-?-P X U 0 a, a, r o L.-
L tlW6Cr- mn. m 4 an
r e l e a s e d a s r i v e r s recede. Seed v i abi 1it y
i s s h o r t -1 ived, and s u c c e s s f u ? germination
and seed1 ing e s t a b l i shment a r e dependent on
f r e s h l y d e p o s i t e d a1 l uvi urn (Fenner, 1984).
S t u d i e s conducted b e f o r e and a f t e r can-
s t r u c t i o n of t h e Glen Canyon Dam on t h e
Colorado River show t h a t , p r i o r t o con-
s t r u c t i o n , t h e r i v e r overflowed i t s banks
during annual f l o o d s and c r e a t e d backwater
and marshy a r e a s , h a b i t a t s c r i t i c a l a s
breeding a r e a s f o r f i s h and o t h e r organisms
(Carothers and No1 a n , 1982). These n a t u r a l
high/low flow p a t t e r n s no l o n g e r occur
because of c o n t r o l l e d d i s c h a r g e s from t h e
reservoirs r e s u l t i n g in reductions in
numbers and abundance of s e v e r a l s p e c i e s .
Along with a l t e r e d waterflows are
d r a s t i c a l l y reduced downstream sediment
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s , s i n c e most sediments and
a s s o c i a t e d n u t r i e n t s a r e r e t a i n e d behind
t h e dam. These n u t r i e n t s , normally c a r r i e d
by annual f l o o d w a t e r s , a r e t h u s no l o n g e r
a v a i l a b l e f o r r e c h a r g i n g s o i l s . The bottom
and banks o f t h e r i v e r w i l l e v e n t u a l l y be
scoured f r e e o f sand and s i l t , l e a v i n g
boulders, c o b b l e s , and g r a v e l i n t h e
r i v e r b e d . Changes i n 1i g h t p e n e t r a t i o n of
t h e water column and of t h e s u b s t r a t e w i l l
provide a d i f f e r e n t h a b i t a t , s u i t a b l e f o r
d i f f e r e n t organisms. Releases o f r e s e r v o i r
water have a narrow range of temperature
f l u c t u a t i o n , which f u r t h e r a1 t e r s h a b i t a t ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r t h o s e whose r e p r o d u c t i v e
behavior i s cued t o temperature f l u c t u a -
tions. The presence of year-round flows
can cause i n c r e a s e s of r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n
and expand h a b i t a t f o r b i r d s , r o d e n t s ,
r e p t i l e s , and amphibians. On t h e Colorado
River, l e a s t B e l l ' s v i r e o and s e v e r a l o t h e r
small b i r d s and r e p t i l e s have i n c r e a s e d i n
population a s a r e s u l t of i n c r e a s e s i n
breeding h a b i t a t ( C a r o t h e r s , 1982). Water
impoundments a f f e c t i n g streams and r i v e r s
i n t h e s t u d y a r e a a r e s m a l l e r i n s c a l e , but
t h e impacts a r e s i m i l a r .
5.4.5 Asricul t u r e and Grazing
Most of t h e f l o o d p l a i n o r r i v e r - b o t t o m
land i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a has been
converted t o urban, g r a z i n g , o r a g r i c u l -
t u r a l u s e s , C i t r u s groves along t h e Santa
Clara River extend from t h e b l u f f s t o t h e
edge o f t h e r i v e r c o u r s e , covering t h e
e n t i r e f l o o d p l a i n f o r m i l e s between I n t e r -
s t a t e 5 and t h e ocean. Riparian animals
a r e r e s t r i c t e d t o a narrow s t r i p of vegeta-
t i o n a t t h e r i v e r ' s edge. I n c r e a s i n g l y , a s
a resuf t of f a v o r a b l e t a x b e n e f i t s , avocado
groves a r e being p l a n t e d on s t e e p h i l l -
s i d e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n San Diego and River-
s i d e c o u n t i e s . These o r c h a r d s a r e p a r t i c u -
l a r l y d e v a s t a t i n g because of t h e e x t e n s i v e
d i s r u p t i o n o f n a t i v e s o i l -binding vegeta-
t i o n and t h e r e s u l t a n t s i l t l o a d s . In some
o f t h e s e new avocado g r o v e s , f u t u r e r a i n s
w i l l c a r r y unprecedented sediment l o a d s t o
t h e streams.
Grazing o f t h e f o r e s t may lower reproduc-
t i o n d e n s i t i e s i n f l o o d p l a i n a r e a s . When
g r a z e d , f o r e s t s a r e kept c l e a r of ground
cover and young t r e e s . When g r a z i n g i s
excluded, regrowth of a t h i c k understory
may a l s o prevent s e e d l i n g s from becoming
e s t a b l ished. Thus, g r a z i n g could be
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e 1ack of e s t a b l i shment
of c e r t a i n age c l a s s e s i n t h e flood-induced
age s t r u c t u r e through s e e d l i n g e l i m i n a t i o n
( S t r a h a n , 1981).
5.4.6 Urbanization and Road Buildinq
Extensive a r e a s of f l o o d p l a i n s have been
converted t o housing and o t h e r urban
developments with a concomitant l o s s of
n a t u r a l c o v e r . The need f o r f l o o d c o n t r o l
inexorably accompanies such development .
In both urban and suburban planning, t h e
economic b e n e f i t s of p r e s e r v i n g r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t a r e o f t e n ignored ( F i g u r e 51).
Following l o s s o f t h i s h a b i t a t , r e p a i r of
e r o s i o n damage i s c o s t l y and t e c h n i c a l l y
d i f f i c u l t i n Upper Newport Bay i n Orange
County and t h e lagoons o f San Diego County,
In a d d i t i o n , i t i s n o t t h e developer but
t h e p u b l i c t h a t u s u a l l y pays t h e long-term
c o s t s of stream r e p a i r and e r o s i o n c o n t r o l .
Rarely have t h e r e been a t t e m p t s t o p r e s e r v e
r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t i n t h e process of f l o o d -
c o n t r o l p r o j e c t s . The lower f l o o d p l a i n s
of t h e Los Angeles, San G a b r i e l , and Santa
Ana Rivers, a l l channelized by 1930, show
how c h a n n e l i z a t i o n o f r i v e r c o u r s e s may
e l i m i n a t e most r i p a r i a n f e a t u r e s ,
Road c o n s t r u c t i o n can have major adverse
impacts on r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t . Roads i n
stream and canyon bottoms n o t only d e s t r o y
t h e h a b i t a t on which t h e y a r e b u i l t , but
a l t e r n f c r o - c l i m a t e s , a s shown i n FSgure
52. Roads i n t r o d u c e d i s t u r b a n c e s from
people, p e t s , and v e h i c l e s ; they compact
s o i l s ; and t h e y impact water q u a l i t y
 Figure 51. A cement apron replaces the riparian understory in a development in Ternecula.

ROADS IN RIPARIAN ZONES

1. Destroy habitat
2. Alter microclimate
3. Introduce disturbance
4. Impact water quality

Figure 52. Road construction in riparian zones reduces their usefuiness a s wildlife habitat by
altering vegetative structure and microclimate, reducing the sire of riparian zones, disturbing
wildiife, and lowering water quality (adapted from Thomas, 1978).
through siltation from road construction
(Thomas, 1978).
5.5 SUMMARY
In summary, vegetation of the highly
productive riparian pl ant community is used
within the riparian community or in
adjacent stream systems. The riparian
plant community serves an important role in
fi re/fl ood sequences in Southern Cal iforni a
in nutrient recycling. Riparian habitat
protects water qua1 ity and quantity; it
provides wildlife with water, shade, and
migratory corridors; it maintains natural
barriers and habitat for pest predators for
agriculture; and it offers aesthetic and
recreational opportunities.
Remaining riparian habitat and downstream
areas are sensitive to disturbance.
Adverse human impacts result from such
activities as clearcutting to stream
borders, gravel mining , water impoundments,
overgrazing, urbanization, recreation, and
road building.
 CHAPTER 6. GOVERNMENT JURISDICTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
A1 though many 1 aws and regulations a f f e c t
riparian h a b i t a t , generally they f a i l t o
protect t h i s ecosystem. Federal and S t a t e
1aws have created overlapping j u r i sdictions
and r a r e l y s e t minimum standards. In
addition, budgetary problems r e s u l t in weak
monitoring and enforcement. Local
governments, plus hundreds of independent
special d i s t r i c t s , are largely unacquainted
with the management of watersheds or
riparian resources (Kusler, 1978; John Muir
I n s t i t u t e , 1979; Shute and Mihaly, 1981).
The r e s u l t i s a lack of statewide or
local l y coordinated programs t o protect the
riparian ecosystem.
6.2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
6.2.1 Federal Laws
a. Clean Water Act. Section 404 of t h i s
act ( P D 92-500) authorizes the Corps t o
regulate the discharge of dredge s p o i l s or
f i l l i n t o the waters of the United S t a t e s .
This has been interpreted by court
decisions and regulations t o mean navigable
waters, lakes over 10 acres, and streams
even beyond t h e i r headwaters (the point
where the flow i s 5 f t 3 / s ) . A MWF &
- - settlement in 1984 caused the Corps
Marsh
t o revise t h e i r regulations and increase
t h e i r responsibil i t i e s in wet1 ands above
the headwaters of streams. More d i r e c t l y
applicable t o riparian systems i s Section
208 of the a c t , which has led t o regional
"non-point" pol l u t i a n - c o n t r o l plans
intended t o impact area-wi de water probl ems
such as erosion and sedimentation. These
plans universal Sy endorse the "best manage-
ment practice" of r e t e n t i o n and enhancement
of vegetation, especial 1y at ong streams, t o
d i m i n i sR bank erosion and f i l t e r overland
runoff before i t reaches water bodies.
However, regul atory standards have not
evolved from these plans.
b. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(16 USC Sec 661 e t s e a . This a c t pro-
vides f o r consul t a t ion by Federal agencies
with the Service, as well a s the s t a t e ' s
wild1 i f e agency, when "waters of any stream
or other body of water are proposed t o be
controlled or modified." The USFWS a l s o
advises t h e Corps in i t s regulatory r o l e .
Resources a r e t o be conserved t o t h e degree
possible, consistent with the primary
purposes of the p r o j e c t .
c . Endanqered S ~ e c i e sAct (16 USC 1531
e t sea.). The section of primary i n t e r e s t
in t h i s a c t allows t h e Service t a define
c r i t i c a l h a b i t a t areas f o r endangered
species. Threats t o these areas can
t h e r e a f t e r be addressed by acquisition,
development reviews, o r establishment of
mitigation and enhancement measures.
However, i t should be noted t h a t habitat
does not necessarily have t o be defined as
c r i t i c a l t o be considered important by the
USFWS.
d. Small Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (PL84-566; 16 USC 10021.
Often referred t o as the a c t f o r PL566
p r o j e c t s , i t authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture t o d i r e c t the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) t o conduct s o i l conservation
and flood-control projects in areas not
exceeding 250,008 acres and f o r reservoirs
storing not more than 25,000 acre-feet of
water. Current funding arrangements have
resulted i n Federal monies being used t o
fund stream channel i z a t i o n , while financing
only half of the f i s h and w i l d l i f e
mi t i g a t i o n measures. PL566 projects have
almost uniformly resulted i n destruction of
riparian systems (Jones, 1982).
 e. Federal Flood D i s a s t e r P r e v e ~ t f o nA c t farmers t h r o u g h t h e S t a t e s ' Resource
iQL93-2341. T h i s a c t e s t a b l i shed t h e Conservation D i s t r i c t s . P r o j e c t s funded
Federal Flood I n s u r a n c e Program, which has under t h e Small Watershed A c t (PL 84-566)
p r o v i d e d some i n c e n t i v e s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n u s u a l l y i n v o l v e stream channel i z a t i o n and
o u t s i d e f'lood-prone areas. To a 1 i m i t e d r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n removal. I n a d d i t i o n ,
degree, t h i s has reduced d e s t r u c t f o n o f S e c t i o n 216 o f t h e F l o o d C o n t r o l A c t o f
riparian vegetation by developments. 1950 a l l o w s t h e SCS t o p r o v i d e emergency
P r e s i d e n t C a r t e r i s s u e d two e x e c u t i v e a c t i o n s t o c o n t r o l r u n o f f and reduce
orders i n a r e l a t e d e f f o r t : E011988 erosion, The O f f i c e o f Coastal Zone
directed Federal agencies to avoid Management prepared a paper on t h e r o l e o f
c o n s t r u c t i o n i n f l o o d - h a z a r d areas and t o t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n d i s t r i c t s i n t h e Coastal
seek r e s t o r a t i o n and p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e Zone Management Program (NACD, 1980).
natural and beneficial values of
floodpl ains; E011990 d i r e c t e d Federal d . U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e . The
agencies t o m i n i m i z e t h e d e s t r u c t i o n , l o s s , USFWS, i n t h e Department o f t h e I n t e r i o r ,
o r d e g r a d a t i o n o f wet1 ands. i s t h e Federal agency r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
p l a n n i n g and management o f many o f t h e
f. N a t i o n a l Environmental Pol i c y A c t (42 nation's f i s h and w i l d 1 if e resources
USC 4321 e t sea. l. T h i s a c t s e t s general (anadromous f i s h a r e t h e concern o f b o t h
g o a l s o f environmental p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e USFWS and t h e N a t i o n a l M a r i n e F i s h e r i e s
Federal agencies and r e q u i r e s p r e p a r a t i o n Service). The USFWS implements t h e F i s h
o f Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) f o r and W i l d l i f e C o o r d i n a t i o n A c t (16 USC 661,
many f e d e r a l l y f i n a n c e d p r o j e c t s . L i k e t h e e t seq. ) and Endangered Species A c t (16 USC
-
Cal if o r n i a Environmental Qua1it y Act 668, seq.). I t a l s o a c q u i r e s h a b i t a t
(CEQA), i t i s f r e q u e n t l y t r e a t e d i n a areas under t h e M i g r a t o r y B i r d Conservation
p e r f u n c t o r y f a s h i o n (Jones, 19821, b u t has Act (16 USC 715 e t sea.) and t h e Land and
potential for flood-pl ain management Water Conservation Fund A c t (PL 88-578; 16
( W i l l i a m s , 1979). USC 4601 e t sea.). The USFWS has been t h e
most a c t i v e o f a l l Federal and S t a t e
6.2.2 Federal Proarams and Asenci es agencies i n promoting p r o t e c t i o n o f
r i p a r i a n systems (Jones, 1982). One o f i t s
a. Armv C o r ~ so f Ensineers. The Corps products w i t h the SCS is "Channel
i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a broad m i x o f programs, Modification Guide1 i n e s , " (Federal
i n c l u d i n g r e g u l a t i o n ( S e c t i o n 404 p e r m i t s R e g i s t e r , March 1, 19781, which i n c l u d e s
under t h e Clean Water A c t ) and c o n s t r u c t i o n the following:
o f water, f l o o d , and n a v i g a t i o n p r o j e c t s .
The Corps was given nationwide I t i s t h e p o l i c y o f t h e SCS and t h e
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f l o o d works by t h e Flood USFWS t h a t c a r e and e f f o r t will be
C o n t r o l A c t o f 1936, and t h e s e p r o j e c t s made t o m a i n t a i n and r e s t o r e streams,
g e n e r a l l y r e s u l t i n s u b s t a n t i a l removal o f wetlands, and r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n as
r i p a r i a n vegetation. functioning parts of a viable
ecosystem upon which f i s h and w i l d l i f e
b. Farmers Home A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The r e s o u r c e s depend.
Farmers Home Administration in the
Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , i s a r u r a l e. U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . The USFS, i n t h e
c r e d i t s e r v i c e agency f o r farmers, r u r a l Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , manages 20
r e s i d e n t s , and small communities. Loans m i l l i o n acres o f l a n d i n C a l i f o r n i a . As
can be f o r improvements on farm l a n d s and e a r l y as 1975 t h e C a l i f o r n i a r e g i o n o f t h e
f o r e s t s , i n c l u d i n g development o f d r a i n a g e USFS i s s u e d a b o o k l e t e n t i t l e d "Management
and o t h e r s o i l and w a t e r c o n s e r v a t i o n o f R i p a r i a n Mabi t a t s , * which o f f e r e d
f a c i l it i e s . There a r e r;o f i r m c o n d i t i o n s o b j e c t i v e s t o "preserve t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y o f
on these l o a n s t o ensure t h a t t h e y a r e n o t r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t s t h r o u g h maintenance of
used t o remove r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n . v e g e t a t i v e s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and i n t e g r i t y . "
N a t i o n a l l y , t h e USFS Manual, S e c t i o n 2526
c . S o i l Conservation S e r v i c e . 7 he SCS (1980), includes an objective of
i n t h e Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , p r o v i d e s r e c o g n i z i n g t h e "unique v a l u e s o f r i p a r i a n
a broad range o f s e r v i c e s f r o m s o i l areas and emphasize the protection,
conservation t o f l o o d c o n t r o l , working w i t h management, and improvement o f them d u r i n g
the planning and implementation of land and
resource management activities. " USFS
Region 5 (including California) has a
pol icy seeking buffer strips for streams,
recognizing riparian habitat as "one of the
most productive areas for flora and fauna
in the forest environment," and call ing for
"minimum disturbance from management
activities."
6.3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6.3.1 California Laws
California laws with the most significant
effects on riparian resources are listed
be1 ow.
a. Doctrine of the Publ ic Trust. This
doctrine, derived from Engl ish common 1aw,
Figure 53. Public works projects carried out in the riparian corridor are frequently exempt from the
CEQA process, as shown here in a project on a tributary to the Santa Margaaita River in San Diego
County. Photograph by Anne Sands.
104
provides an important p h i l o s o p h i c a l ,
historic, and legal base for governmental
regu?atisns to protect tidal and submerged
lands and navigable waterways. The Pub1 ic
Trust Doctrine does not affect riparian
vegetation directly, but has been relied
upon to justify the reservation of instream
flows necessary to support fish, wild1 ife,
and habitat.
b. Land use.
1. Act (Pub1 ic Resources Code
Sections 21000 et sea.1. The CEQA pravides
a mandate to arotect California's
environmental qualiiy but is too often
circumvented (Jones, 19821, as shown in
Figure 53.
2. Resource Conservation Act (Pub1ic
Resources Code Sectjon 9001 et sea. ) . This
law provides for a good state-local
cooperative process t h a t could g r e a t l y
advance the use of "best management
practices" for soils and streams
management. Inadequate funding of the
S t a t e Resource Conservation Comission and
t h e Division of S o i l s Conservation,
Department of Conservation has 1e f t
resource conservation d i s t r i c t s t o t h e i r
own i n i t i a t i v e s . In f a c t , these d i s t r i c t s
work more c l o s e l y with t h e SCS than with
t h e S t a t e of California (Jones, 1982).
3 . Surface Minina and Reclamation Act
(PRC2710 e t sea.1. This a c t r e q u i r e s the
S t a t e Mining and Geology Board t o adopt
S t a t e policy f o r t h e reclamation of mined
lands. Buffers and protection of water
resources and r i p a r i a n vegetation are
required.
c. Water manasement.
1. Gal iforni a Water Code, Sect ions
1243. This section declares the
reservation of water f o r the enhancement
and protection of f i s h and w i l d l i f e t o be
a beneficial use.
2. Davis-Dolwia Act (Water Code,
Sections 11900-11925). This a c t funds the
mitigation of adverse impacts from water
project development and requires d i r e c t
planning e f f o r t s t o protect resources as
part of p r o j e c t design. The a c t s e t s f o r t h
e x p l i c i t S t a t e p o l i c i e s requiring p r o j e c t s
t o avoid o r minimize impacts on waterways.
3. Porter-Colosne Water Oual i t r
Control Act. This i s t h e S t a t e ' s primary
water law, i t gives t h e S t a t e Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the
nine regional water qual i t y control boards
s u b s t a n t i a l a u t h o r i t y t o r e g u l a t e water
use. In 1983 t h e SWRCB established
standards f o r r e t e n t i o n of instream
reservation of waters. This e f f o r t
promises t o be one of t h e S t a t e ' s
important programs t o protect t h e i n t e g r i t y
of waterways, wetl ands, and adjacent
r i p a r i a n vegetation.
d. River and stream manasement.
1. C a l i f o r n i a biater Code. Section
8125-8127. This i s t h e a u t h o r i t y f o r
counties t o improve ( t h a t i s , a l t e r f o r
f l ood-control purposes) non-navigable
streams. I t i s not matched with c l e a r
S t a t e policy o r mandates t o preserve t h e
environmental f e a t u r e s of these streams o r
t o avoid o r minimize t h e placement of f i l l
i n them. These s e c t i o n s could be amended
t o e s t a b l i s h a S t a t e policy supporting
conservation of streams (Jones, 1982).
2 . Stream A1 t e r a t i o n Controls (Water
Code, Sections 5653, 1505, 1601-1606). The
Department of Fish and Game's a u t h o r i t y
over the use of suction dredges (Fish and
Game Code, Section 5653), a l t e r a t i o n s of
f i s h spawning areas (Fish and Game Code,
Section 1505), and a l t e r a t i o n s of stream
beds in general (Fish and Game Code,
Sections 1601-1606) a r e a l l useful t o o l s
f o r t h e protection of i nstream resources
(but general 1y not f o r r i p a r i a n vegetation
outside of t h e stream o r overflow a r e a s ) .
The 1601- 1603 agreements (1601 covers
pub1 i c p r o j e c t s , while 1603 addresses
p r i v a t e work) do not have t h e s t a t u s of
S t a t e approval s under 1aw, instead
providing f o r a negotiation and agreement
process.
e. F l o o d ~ l a i nmanagement. The S t a t e has
substantial legislative vehicles for
constructing flood-control f a c i l i t i e s , but
1i t t l e statewide a u t h o r i t y t o e s t a b l i s h
regulations 1imi t i n g development in
floodways and f l o o d - r i s k areas, ca7 led
"non-structural f l oodpl ain management. " A
comprehensive S t a t e floodplain management
a c t could provide an e f f e c t i v e umbrella f o r
protecting a l l water-related resources--
streams, wetl ands, overflow areas, and
r i p a r i a n vegetation--as we1 l as upgrading
the protection of public health and
safety.
f . Coastal zone manasement . The Coastal
Act (Pub1 i c Resources Code, Section 30000
e t sea.1. The most e f f e c t i v e wetland and
stream protection pol i c i e s in any Federal
o r S t a t e law are found in t h e Coastal Act
most of 1976, e s p e c i a l l y Section 30231 as
f o l l ows:
The biological productivity and t h e
qual it y of coastal waters, streams,
wetl ands, e s t u a r i e s , and 1 akes appro-
p r i a t e t o maintain optimum populations
of marine organisms and f o r the
protection of human health s h a l l be
maintained and, where Feasible,
enhanced through, among other means,
minimizing adverse e f f e c t s of waste
 water discharges and entrainment,
control l ing runoff, preventing
depletion of ground-water suppl i e s and
substantial i n t e r f e r e n c e with surface
waterflow, encouraging waste water
reclamation, maintaining natural
vegetation buffer a r e a s t h a t protect
riparian h a b i t a t s , and minimizing
a1 t e r a t i o n of natural streams.
Policies such a s the above have been
administered through the Coastal Cornis-
sion's permit authority. C e r t i f i c a t i o n of
local coastal programs t r a n s f e r s resource
protection i n t o local government processes.
Of special i n t e r e s t i s t h e Coastal
Commission's document, I n t e r ~ r e t i v e r e s t o r e riparian h a b i t a t on public lands.
Guidelines f o r Wetlands Other Wet
~nvironmentafi S e n s i t i v e Habitat Areas
(adopted February 5, 1981). These
guidel ines have improved management of
coastal resources, and p a r t i c u l a r l y the
maintenance of "environmentally s e n s i t i v e
habitat areas. * Regarding development near
these areas, the guidel i n e s r e l y on the use
of hundred-foot nondevelopment buffer
zones. No a t t e n t i o n i s given t o c r i t e r i a
f o r the design and s i t i n g of adjacent
construction t o minimize adverse impacts
(Jones, 1982). The Gomission has
attempted t o provide an example for other
jurisdictions in preserving riparian
habitat on the south-central coast;
however, the area of j u r i s d i c t i o n i s narrow
and the outlook uncertain as local
governments take over a u t h o r i t y (Zentner,
1981; Capelli and Starkey, 1984).
g. Wildlife Habitat Conservation. The
S t a t e has substantial d e c l a r a t i o n s of
pal icy regarding t h e preservation of rare
and endangered species and t h e wise manage-
ment of a l l 1 iving resources. However,
there i s l i t t l e legal o r regulatory
process--except i n the Coastal Act--to
reduce and mitigate impacts on w i l d l i f e
habitat (much of which i s waiter-related) .
Cal i fornia, f o r example, l acks t h e Federal
Endangered Species Act requirements t h a t
pub? i c investments and a c t ions be withheld
where they would damage c r i t i c a l habitats
of threatened species (Jones, 1982).
6.3.2 S t a t e Resul a t ions and Asencies
a . Deaartment of Fish and Game. Much of
the work of Department o f Fish and Game i s
oriented toward saving wetland, aquatic,
and riparian h a b i t a t , b u t t h e agency has
few tools t o do so. Of special i n t e r e s t i s
the Department of Fish and Game authority
in Sections 1601-1606 of the Fish and Game
Code t o execute stream-bed a1 t e r a t i o n
agreements f o r any a c t i v i t y t h a t will
d i v e r t , obstruct, or change the natural
flow or bed of a r i v e r , stream, o r fake.
This i s an important negotiation and
mediation process, b u t i t s u f f e r s from
personnel shortages and lack of public
awareness (Jones, 1982). Long- term
preservation of r i p a r i a n habitat would be
advanced i f Department of Fish and Game
were t o i n i t i a t e programs t o s o l i c i t . land
donations of r i p a r i a n corridors and t o
b. Deoartment of Water Resources. Under
the previous administration, Department of
Water Resources increased i t s pol icy
support f o r preservation of riparian
vegetation and instream retention of water
(see Policies and Goals California
Water Manaqement for the Next 20 Years,
public review d r a f t of Bulletin 4 ,
September 1981). Under the current
admini s t r a t i o n , pol i c i e s protecting
riparian vegetation have been given low
p r i o r i t y (Jones, 1982). I n 1982 Department
of Water Resources began an Urban Streams
Cleanup and Restoration Program t h a t
included vegetation pl anting and
r e s t o r a t i o n . The program was refunded in
October 1984.
c. S t a t e Coastal Conservancy. Thi s
agency works with local agencies,
landowners, and nonprofit organizations t o
enhance, r e s t o r e , and protect coastal
resources. Since 1978 i t has been funding
coastal restoration and enhancement
projects, including several wetl ands in
Southern California. In recent years a new
emphasis has been placed on watershed
management and t h e r e s t o r a t i o n of streams
and r i p a r i a n zones ; however, the agency's
wetl and program does not require co-
sponsoring local j u r i s d i c t i o n s t o o f f e r
guarantees t h a t they w i 7 1 establ i sh
adequate erosion control s j in c l ud i rig t h e
use of r i p a r i a n vegetation zones) i n the
watershed t o minimize sedimentation t h a t
could erase pub1 i c investments in wet1 ands
by a severe winter storm (Jones, 1982).

d, Department of Parks and Recreation.
This agency is responsible tor the purchase
and management of lands suitable for pub1 ic
recreation. Department of Parks and
Recreation can class1 f y wet1 ands, streams,
and riparian forests within the park system
as natural preserves, which prohibits
development of these areas for parking
lots, camping grounds, and other intensive
uses. According to the deparlment, the
designation has not been used extensively
(Jones, 1982).
e. De~artment of Conservation. The
department is concerned 1argely with regu-
lating mining and gas/oil operations, but
a1 so has a l imi ted soil -conservation pro-
gram. Its Division of Mines & Geology
regulates gravel and sand mining. A condi -
tional use permit is required, as is a
recl amat ion plan under the Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act of 1975. The status of
riparian systems and river restoration is
supposed to be monitored annually in mining
areas. In its useful but never officially
released pub1 ication, Cal ifornia Soils: An
Assessment (19791, the department ranked
streambed erosion as the third most severe
of California's 11 soil problems.
Retention of riparian vegetation as a
protective measure was not stressed in this
document. The otherwise excellent Erosion
-
and Sediment Control Handbook (1978)
suggests only that "vegetative lining
reduces the erosion along the channels and
provides for the filtration of sediment.. .
and improves wild1 ife habitat." In South-
ern Cal ifornia each county has a Department
of Conservation-approved ordinance regu-
lating sand and gravel operations.
f. De~artment of Health Services.
Concerns of this department illustrate the
competing interests that must be considered
in water-re1ated resources management. For
instance, thickets of streamside growth,
especially blackberry tangles in urban
areas, can harbor rats and are, therefore,
di scouraged by the department.
g. Wi l d l i fe Conservation Board. The
Gild1 ife ConservatSon Board has an a c t i v e
wetland and riparian forest acquisition
program that can include restoration of
such areas. Within the study area, for
example, the W i Id1 ife Conservation Board
has purchased the Hidden Valley Wildlife
Area on the Santa Wna River (1,267 acres).
6.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT
6.4.1 Local Government Plans
There is great variation among
jurisdictions in the plans and ordinances
used for resource management. In most
cases there are no state standards for
consistency, adequacy, or effectiveness of
1ocal pl ans and ordinances. Tool s
avai 1 able to 1ocal governments for resource
management are listed in Table 13. This i s
followed by a description of some of these
tools.
a. General ~lans. The local government
general plan, as defined in Government
Code, Sections 65300 through 65403, is a
vehicle for the collection and presentation
of local and State policies (including
goals, objectives, and sometimes
recommendations) regarding the future
development of the area. The text of the
general plan is essentially a nonbinding
statement of intent. However, the land-use
maps that are part of the general plan
(usually the land use and circulation
elements) must be compatible with the
zoning designations, as mandated by the
legislature in 1971 in Government Code,
Section 65860. Policies in local plans can
be presented as a call for action or as a
recommendation for future consideration,
which is often a misleading substitute for
commitment (Jones, 1982).
b. Area olans. These are mini -general
plans developed for a specific region or
portion of the jurisdiction. They have the
advantage of allowing a jurisdiction with
many types of terrain or varying
devel opment pressures to address 1and -use
concerns more thoroughly. Their
effectiveness, however, still depends on
the specificity and integrity o f the
implementing ordinances.
c. Stream conservation a1 ans, Local
government interest in streams has been
1imited 1argely to flood-contra7 projects,
Conservation plans and programs for
watewlrays have not been cornan.
 Table 43, Local took far resource management.
-
1. Plans
- General plan (including 1and use/circul ation elements; open space/conservation
elements; recreation/scenic highway elements; and safety elements).
- Area plan
- Stream conservation plans
- Significant resource area inventories
2. Ordinances
- Zoning ordinances
- Local ordinances
- Use permits
- Open space, conservation, or resource management districts
-- Overlay or combining districts
Watercourse or streamside protection ordinances
- Fl oodpl ai n management ordinances
- Setback requirements
- Grading ordinance
- Erosion control ordinances
- Surface mining and reclamation ordinances
- Design control district ordinance
3. Jnteqrated Plans and Ordinances
- Pl anned unit developments
- Specific plans
- Special planning area ordinances
- Subdivision ordinances
- Local coastal programs

d. Siqnificant resource area- agricultural, and, since the 1970s, some

inventories. The identification of "signi-
ficant" resource areas, with policies for
their protection, can be incorporated into
the conservation/open space element of the
general plan or placed in a separate docu-
ment. For example, Los Angeles County has
incorporated an inventory of 65 significant
ecological areas in its conservation/open
space element (19791, including streams,
riparian vegetation areas, and marshes.
The use of zoning or some variation of the
police power is, of course, the vital
element. Lists of such areas accomplish
protection only when they are connected
with Gal ifornia Environmntal Qua1ity Act
(CEQA) and regulatory processes.
6.4.2 Ordinances
a. The zonin~ordinance. The zoning
ordinance i s one expressian of the pal i c e
powers available to local governments to
regulate land use. Typically the zoning
districts include blocks of Sand for
residential, comrcial, Ondustrial,
open-space uses. There are variations and
subgroups with each category (such as
residential/single-dwelling and
residential/multiple-dwell ing) . Designa-
tions and names of zoning districts vary
among jurisdictions. While most open-space
districts do not include specific
comprehensive standards for all forms of
uses and impacts, there i s no reason why
they cannot.
b. Local ordinances. Other ordinances
can be used to manage or protect resources,
especially when a uniform rule of conduct
is needed for consistent appl ication across
a17 land use zones (such as for the
protection of stream resources).
c. The use permit. Local governments
have numerous types of permits for the many
uses they must regulate. A use permit i s
simply a regulatory tool that, when backed
up with an explicit ordinance, allows the
jurisdiction to authorize developments or
uses subject to conditions that protect
 .m v l ->
*+A
m
O W 6 . G
m
3 -.r
m - E~
c E ls-r
3'- ma, E
or- r
Q -a
u7 /IE OI L
W'A- RIG 0
L 4-Jb
J
c, E
a, 2L=-3
(U-eJ" m.'-
>m E
3% 2 k
m a

- ,- * c E
c't w 0 6
-r L
m w z
C1-r c U
T Oc' o w w
U L.7 € 5 4 L
n
3 a m 4: 0 C
V) C L m
rc a, a L.
.c m
r e q u i r e s t h a t a new d i v e r s i o n channel be
b u i l t around t h e excavation a r e a and t h a t
a minimum 60 f t - w i d e b u f f e r zone on both
s i d e s of t h e channel be "maintained f r e e o f
a l l excavation and o t h e r o p e r a t i o n s t o
p r o t e c t r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n and c o n t r o l
sediment."
In t h e county's Local Coastal Program,
Environmentally S e n s i t i v e H a b i t a t Areas a r e
d e s i g n a t e d f o r use i n t h e c o a s t a l zone.
Included i n t h e LCP d i s c u s s i o n i s t h e
impartance of protecting riparian
v e g e t a t i o n along creek c o r r i d o r s , but t h e r e
a r e no s p e c i f i c p o l i c i e s o r ordinances t o
implement t h a t g o a l .
c . Los Anseles County. The Conserva-
tion/Open Space Element f o r Los Angeles
County (adopted a s p a r t of t h e general plan
r e v i s i o n o f 1979) i n c l u d e s language t h a t
s t a t e s t h e need " t o p r o t e c t ...watershed,
streams, and r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n t o mini-
mize water p o l l u t i o n , s o i l e r o s i o n , and
sedimentation, maintain n a t u r a l h a b i t a t s ,
and t o a i d i n ground water r e c h a r g e . "
There a r e 65 i d e n t i f i e d s i g n i f i c a n t eco-
l o g i c a l a r e a s i n t h i s element t h a t a r e
l i s t e d i n a r e p o r t e n t i t l e d "Land Cap-
abi 1 i ty/Sui t a b i 1 i t y Study, Los Angel e s
County General P1 an Revision Program"
(1976). Streams, r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n
a r e a s , and marshes a r e included i n t h i s
l i s t i n g , but a r e p r o t e c t e d p r i m a r i l y
through t h e CEQA environmental review
process (1 ocal permits can be conditioned
Lo p r o t e c t them but a r e not r e q u i r e d t o be
so w r i t t e n ) .
The county's Flood P r o t e c t i o n D i s t r i c t
r e q u i r e s t h a t s t r u c t u r e s be kept away from
stream c o u r s e s t o prevent bank e r o s i o n .
d. Oranqe Countx. The Orange County
General Plan Land Use Element (March 1975)
c o n t a i n s general pol icy language t o
r e s t r i c t development i n d e s i g n a t e d flood
p l a i n s and on o r a d j a c e n t t o r i v e r s ,
c r e e k s , streams, and o t h e r r i p a r i a n a r e a s .
Additional p o l i c i e s s u p p o r t t h e concept o f
maintaining stream c o u r s e s , e s t u a r i e s , and
o t h e r water bodies i n t h e i r n a t u r a l s t a t e ,
c o n s i s t e n t with pub1 i c s a f e t y .
The Open Space Element (June 1973) seeks
Ba p r e s e r v e " t h e n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e
county, p l a n t and animal ' r i f e , f i s h and
wild1 i f e h a b i t a t , study a r e a s , r i v e r s and
streams and t h e i r banks, bays and
e s t u a r i e s , and watershed 1 ands. "
The Conservation Element (January 1978)
i s more d e t a i l e d i n i t s recommendations and
t e x t but a g a i n i s not backed up by
implementing o r d i n a n c e s . The l o c a l Coastal
Plan has n o t y e t been completed by Orange
County o r c e r t i f i e d by t h e Coastal
Commission (November 1985).
e . R i v e r s i d e County. As p a r t of t h e
R i v e r s i d e General PI an, an open- space and
c o n s e r v a t i o n plan has been developed t o
p r e s e r v e , p r o t e c t , and manage resource
a r e a s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e Open Space and
Conservation Inventory. This is
accomplished through r e s o u r c e maps and
programs t h r o u g h o u t t h e Environmental
Hazards and Resources Element of t h e
general p l a n . A v e g e t a t i o n r e s o u r c e s map
identifies riparian areas. I t i s the
p o l i c y o f t h e county t o maintain and update
t h e s e i n v e n t o r i e s , but review of a l l
development proposal s in identified
r i pari an a r e a s i s accompl i shed o n l y through
t h e CEQA p r o c e s s .
C r i t i c a l h a b i t a t s a r e d e l i n e a t e d on t h e
Vegetation Resources Map a s e i t h e r water
r e s o u r c e s / f l ooding a r e a s o r wildl ife/
v e g e t a t i o n a r e a s . Both a r e r e s t r i c t e d t o
open-space and 1imi t e d r e c r e a t i o n a l uses;
research and educational uses are
additionally permitted in wild1 i f e /
v e g e t a t i o n a r e a s . The c o u n t y ' s open space
zoning d e s i g n a t i o n s f u r t h e r c a r r y o u t t h e
o b j e c t i v e s and p o l i c i e s o f t h e Open Space
and Conservation P I an.
f. San Dieclo County. The following
p o l i c i e s a r e s e t f o r t h i n t h e Conservation
Element (May 1983) o f San Diego's General
PI an:
F l aod c o n t r o l measures shal 1 , whenever
p r a c t i c a l , u t i l i z e n a t u r a l floodways
and f l o o d p l a i n s , maintaining r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t s and h i s t o r i c stream flow
volumes. No s t r u c t u r e s o r excavations
which a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t f l o o d - p l a i n
v e g e t a t i o n and wildl if e , o r decrease
t h e i r v a l u e a s migration c o r r i d o r s
should be p e r m i t t e d .
Storm d r a i n runoff should be planned
and managed t o . . .enhance w i 1d l i f e , and
reduce t h e impact of e r o s i o n .
 She county will act f.s conserve and
enhance vegetation, wildlife, and
Bi sheries resources.
The element also calls for the lase of
mitigating measures for projects with
unavoidable adverse impacts on habitat.
It recognizes the Resource Conservation
Area (RCA) overl ay designation, as
defined i n its Land Use Element, which is
applied to several areas with riparian
wood1 and.
in the county's open-space element
(August 1977) are objectives seeking
conservation of the habitats of rare or
endangered plants and wildlife, plus the
"use of streams as 1ocal open spaces." The
el ement call s for the development of
"comprehensive plans for the floodplains"
of all major rivers under the County's
control . One such plan, prepared for the
San Dieguito River (March 1982), states
that:
maintaining the floodplain in an open
condition provides the opportunity for
an environmental system involving a
riparian and floodplain ecosystem...
and live stream. A natural riparian
system ...will maintain the scenic
quality of the river area.
These goals would be accomplished by
prohi bi ti ng devel oprnent in the f l oodway and
encouraging clustering of houses outside
the boundaries of the floodplain. There is
no specific prohibition against removing
riparian vegetation or encouragement of Its
enhancement.
The county's Local Coastal Program
includes the San Dieguito Land Use Plan
(July 1382). ~n a section on
environmentally sensjti we habitats is a
prohibition of "any development or other
significant disruption" o f riparian habitat
in the study area. The LCP also includes
a zoning ordinance (March 21, 1984) that
establ i shes an Ecol ogi cal Resource Area
that i s designed primarily to protect
wetlands but is also applied to "lagoons
and their tributary streams and adjacent
up1 ands within the Cal i fornia Coastal
Zone." Removal of riparian vegetation i s
not specifically prohibited or regulated,
although development standards are intended
to "conserve the widest variety of physical
and vegetation conditions to maintain
habitat diversity."
6.5 SUMMARY
There are numerous Federal and State laws
and agencies, as well as local ordinances
and districts, that have regulatory
functions affecting riparian zones. Many
of the laws and regulations conflict or
overl ap. Some protect resources; others
permit resource consumpti on or degradation.
The best protections are offered by the
Coastal Act of 1976; however, the
boundaries of the coastal zone are narrow
and do not extend upstream or consider
watersheds (see Figure 1 in Chapter 1,
which depicts the project study area). A
comprehensive management program with a
clear enumeration of resource priorities
that apply to overl appi ng jurisdictions
would provide greater riparian protection
and restoration potenti a1 .
 CHAPTER 7. RlPARIAN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

7.1 INTRODUCTION need t o gain the cooperation o f numerous

1andowners and 1ocal government j u r i s-
Since the mid-1960s there has been dictions. I n Northern C a l i f o r n i a , there
increasing i n t e r e s t i n protecting r i p a r i a n might be three l a r g e ranch properties
habitat, both on a national l e v e l and i n located i n one o r two counties. In
Cal i f o r n i a (Jahn, 1978). The USFWS and the Southern Cal if o r n i a, however, 1and owner-
Cal if o r n i a Department o f Fish and Game, ship along a r i v e r u s u a l l y includes many
both charged w i t h wild1 i f e management, have small parcels w i t h frequent changes i n
developed p o l i c i e s and goals r e l a t i n g t o ownership. I n addition, there are many
p r o t e c t i o n o f r i p a r i a n areas. A number o f incorporated areas, and counties frequently
environmental groups, including the manage small parcel s between incorporated
National Audubon Society, the S i e r r a Club, cities. P r o j e c t s become complex and
and The Nature Conservancy, have made the require time-consuming coordination
p r o t e c t i o n and r e s t o r a t i o n o f r i p a r i a n efforts.
h a b i t a t a high p r i o r i t y . They view
riparian areas as important up1and Rivers and streams in Southern
extensions o f marshes and wetlands. By C a l i f o r n i a , some d r a i n i n g s i z a b l e water-
p r o t e c t i n g creeks, reducing erosion, and sheds, also are d i v i d e d i n t o numerous
preserving o r reestabl ishing r i p a r i a n ownerships, and thus are n o t e a s i l y
vegetation, they f e e l i t i s possible t o incorporated i n t o a regional watershed
improve the health of downstream marshes management plan. I n general, the more
(Nunnal ly, 1978). complicated t h e ownership along a r i v e r ,
t h e greater t h e chances f o r f a i l u r e i n
Nevertheless, the primary social trend i n reaching a management consensus among a17
Southern C a l i f o r n i a is still toward landowners. I f any owner chooses n o t t o
development o f the flood plains, which p a r t i c i p a t e , the o v e r a l l success o f the
almost always involves e l i m i n a t i o n o f restoration program is diminished.
r i p a r i a n c o r r i d o r s o f vegetation (Warner, Depending on the size o f the parcel i n
1983). New requirements f o r r e s t o r a t i o n o f question, any omission has the p o t e n t i a l t o
degraded r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t have been viewed reduce the effectiveness o f a watershed
as a nuisance by some developers, since management o r r i p a r i a n r e s t o r a t i o n plan.
r e s t o r a t i o n and m i t i g a t i o n p l ans cost money
t o implement and can add time t o p r o j e c t
schedules. I n addition, r i p a r i a n c o r r i d o r s 7.3 CQNFLlCTlNG OBJECTIVES
are considered overgrown jungles r a t h e r
than a feature t h a t enhances property Protecting and r e s t o r i n g r i p a r i a n areas
values. Examples o f r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t are often i s i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t with t r a d i -
l i s t e d i n Appendix D. t i o n a l f l o o d p l a i n management (Detwi 1er,
1980; Goldner, 1981; Jordan, 1984). Since
high p r i o r i t y i s given t o p r o t e c t i o n o f
7.2 LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP PAUERMS p u b l i c property, t h e m a j o r i t y o f r i v e r s i n
Southern C a l i f o r n i a , i n both urban and
One a f the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n carrying out a g r i c u l t u r a l areas, have s t r u c t u r a l flood-
s i g n i f i c a n t stream r e s t o r a t i o n p r o j e c t s i n control devices, dams, and concrete
southern coastal areas r e s u l t s from t h e channels. L i t t l e o r no a t t e n t i o n has been
given to maintaining natural meanders, to
kydraul ic processes in streams, to w i f dl ife
needs, or to impacts on downstream wetlands
( K i bby, 1978). Many activities permitted
i n flood plains, such as public parks, golf
courses, and agriculture, el iminate or
drastically reduce riparian habitat and are
very damaging to riparian wild1 ife.
Because of the lack of base1 ine data on
restored riparian areas, uniform guidel ines
for successful restoration projects have
not been developed (Dawson, 1981). Each
permit appl ication involving restoration
work is conditioned independently.
Conditions on permits vary considerably,
depending on the qua1 ifications of staff
and available time for review. Consultants
preparing EIRs must propose mitigation
measures for impacts on riparian areas in
the absence of accepted criteria for
measuring these impacts. As a result,
restoration plans tend to be based on
estimates of potential impacts of a project
and restoration work that may be needed
rather than on long-range habitat
enhancement objectives (Prunuske and
Morrison, 1982). The criteria for design
of a revegetation plan should be agreed
upon before the project i s designed.
M i thout this early agreement among the
parties involved, it is highly probable
that a restoration program will fail.
W i ldl i fe-management agencies w i 11
sometimes agree on overall goal s of habitat
restoration, but w i l l fail to agree upon
specific plans because of their focus on an
individual species. Should vegetation be
managed for red-shouldered hawk habitat and
other raptors that require a mature
overstory, or for the rare and endangered
least Bell's vireo and willow flycatcher
that require young w i l l o w thickets (Fitch
et a1 ., 1946; Zembal, 1984b)? Deter-
minations of management objectives must
rely on subjective judgments since vireo,
flycatcher, and raptors are all in need of
habitat protection. Better interagency
coordination could help in resolving
management conflicts, but there will always
be differences of opinion over which
species "deserves" more protection.
Negotiation is a critical step i n
determining revegetation pl an requirements.
If this process is unsatisfactory for any
of the parties involved, the solution is
1 jkely to be a political one and the entire
program may suffer (Fisher and Ury, 1984).
7.4 TIMING CONFtlCTS IN RESTORATION
PROJECTS
A number of permitting procedures create
confusion and conflicts for those
implementing a restoration project. Most
procedures do not provide for advance
planning in ordering pl ants from nurseries.
For example, the CALTRANS (Cal ifornia
Department of Transportation) staff may not
know what mitigation will be required by
the USFWS and the Department of Fish and
Game until just before construction begins.
There is often too little time to ensure an
adequate supply of a desired species from
the nursery.
The timing of construction may create
another kind of difficulty in that
construction may be 1 imited to late summer
because of bird migration or nesting
events. If construction is completed in
fall, plantings may not be well enough
established to survive winter rains; if
planting is postponed until winter or
spring, rains may cause extensive spoil
erosion. In addition, early spring
plantings may interfere with early spring
nesting.
The third type of conflict occurs when a
time limit is set on agency funding. For
example, when CALTRRNS funds a mitigation
project as part of a bridge construction
project, the mitigation is considered to be
part of the project cost. CALTRANS,
however, considers any activities after the
2-year construction period to be main-
tenance, and that agency does not pay for
maintenance. If a riparian revegetation
program has not been imp1 emented before the
2-year period has el apsed, CALTMNS
considers itself no longer responsible for
funding the program (J. Rieger, CALTRANS,
Sacramento; pers. comm., 1984).
7.5 ENFORCEMENT OF MITlGATlQN
A major constraint in achieving resto-
ration of riparian habitat is the lack of
regulatory mechanisms to enforce mi tigal.ion
conditions. In a Rumber of cases in the
Southern Cal ifornia study area, permits for
c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t s have been issued and
a b r i d g e o r f a c i l i t y has been b u i l t , but no
r e v e g e t a t i o n h a s been attempted (Wheeler
and Fancher, 1981). A1 though c o n s i d e r a b l e
time may have been devoted t o working o u t
c o n d i t i o n s t o m i t i g a t e p r o j e c t impacts,
nothing was done t o e n f o r c e t h e s e condi-
t i o n s and t h e m i t i g a t i o n never took p l a c e .
Funds a r e n o t g e n e r a l l y a v a i l a b l e t o
c i t y , county, S t a t e , o r Federal agencies t o
conduct a monitoring program f o r r i p a r i a n
habitats. These agencies u s u a l l y do n o t
have t h e inhouse e x p e r t i s e needed t o
monitor and i n t e r p r e t r e s u l t s observed
during r e v e g e t a t i o n p r o j e c t s . When
i n s p e c t i o n s do o c c u r , t h e i n s p e c t o r s o f t e n
do not have t h e t r a i n i n g t o determine
whether t h e v e g e t a t i o n s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e
being followed o r t o understand what t h e
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s mean and how c r i t i c a l t h e y
can be. For example, i n one c a s e , time
requirements f o r r e v e g e t a t i o n were wai wed
so t h a t when t h e v e g e t a t i o n was f i n a l l y
i n s t a l l e d a t t h e wrong time of y e a r t h e
p l a n t s d i d not s u r v i v e (3. Rieger, p e r s .
comm.). There i s no formal process o r
enforcement power t o e n s u r e t h a t permit
c o n d i t i o n s a r e compl i e d with o r a r e c a r r i e d
out i n a way t h a t e n s u r e s s u c c e s s .
In a d d i t i o n t o l a c k of enforcement and
follow-up o f r e v e g e t a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s , l o c a l
grading ordinances o f t e n c o n t a i n weak
language such as "where f e a s i b l e . "
Riparian c o r r i d o r s o f t e n a r e s e v e r e l y
damaged d u r i n g c l e a r i n g and grading
o p e r a t i o n s by bul l d o z e r o p e r a t o r s who a r e
not given s p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s t o follow
when working near c r e e k s . Slopes may be
properly o r improperly formed, and e r o s i o n
from w i n t e r r a j n s may c r e a t e g u l l i e s and
c a r r y o f f v a l u a b l e s o i l (Gray and b e i s e r ,
1982). Because o f t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e
enthusiasm of f i e l d s t a f f o f l o c a l , S t a t e ,
and Federal agencies f o r protecting
w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t t o o o f t e n wanes due t o
lack o f enforcement and followup a t t h e
administrative level.
7,6 RESTQRP\tlON PQTENTIAL IN SOUTHERN
GALlFaRNIA
Hany r i v e r s and streams i n Southern
California s t i l l support l a r g e stands of
r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n , although some a r e
severe1y degraded, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e under-
s t o r y . Other rivers have 1 i t t l e remaining
v e g e t a t i o n b u t have not been e x t e n s i v e l y
channel i zed* Where s u f f i c i e n t water flows
f o r some p o r t i o n o f t h e y e a r , and t h e r i v e r
has n o t been c h a n n e l i z e d , t h e r e i s a
p o t e n t i a1 f o r r e s t o r a t i o n o f r i p a r i a n
habitat. Where w a t e r t a b 1 e s have been
lowered by g r a v e l mining and t h e n a t u r a l
stream c o n t o u r s s e v e r e l y a1 t e r e d , t h e
p o t e n t i a l f o r r e s t o r a t i o n i s reduced.
The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s d i s c u s s a b a s i c
approach t o r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t r e s t o r a t i o n ,
much o f which i s d e r i v e d from t h e e x p e r i -
ence o f t h o s e involved i n a summary of
r e s t o r a t i o n p r o j e c t s c a r r i e d o u t i n South-
e r n Cal i f o r n i a and 1 i s t e d i n Appendix E.
7.6.1 Develo~mentof R e s t o r a t i o n PI ans
A t t h e o u t s e t of a r e s t o r a t i o n p r o j e c t ,
t h e following q u e s t i o n s need t o be
answered:
- Who a r e t h e i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s and
what r o l e s w i l l each play?
- Who w i l l pay? Who w i l l b e n e f i t ?
- What p u b l i c a g e n c i e s and i n t e r e s t
groups wi 11 be involved?
- What a r e t h e r e s t o r a t i o n g o a l s ?
- What work needs t o be done?
- Who w i l l t a k e t h e l e a d i n design and
implementation?
- Who will manage and m a i n t a i n t h e s i t e
and f o r how long?
- Who w i l l monitor and how o f t e n ?
- What a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be allowed o r
restricted?
The s i z e of t h e p r o j e c t and t h e number of
interested parties will influence the
complexity o f t h e answers t o t h e s e
questions. An a d v i s o r y committee t o
oversee t h e p r o j e c t , t o e s t a b l i s h g o a l s ,
and t o keep e n e r g i e s focused on t h e d e s i r e d
outcome may be h e l p f u l t o a l l p a r t i e s
concerned (EPA, 1972; Detwi 1e r , 1980;
Werbkersman, 1982).
7.6.2 E s t a b l i s h i n s Goals
Often, t h e primary goal o f a r e s t o r a t i o n
plan i s t o m i t i g a t e t h e e f f e c t s of
unavsidabl e h a b i t a t l o s s e s by c r e a t i n g o r
 3 3 m w r t m
0 d.*3 a . w
J *-+,art2
-a. d. m w
rt# 0
w - h o
m w 7
rtn m
5 4-w
g
3 rco
-r+
d. d.

w J
d.r+
w m
0
5 -h
Lv
rt 3
g-2 2
g mz sa
o s *
art$
;;;'" a
=I
a
cn 0
-' -h 7
g ".

2"
. g ' - r t ~ a. wr
I W J ~ ~
a-mrt I
of a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e r s t o r y p l a n t s . In
d i s t u r b e d areas, t h e u n d e r s t o r y may be
d i f f i c u l t t o r e - e s t a b l i s h because o f t h e
dominance o f n o n - n a t i v e i n t r o d u c e d p l a n t s ,
s p e c i f i c a l l y t a m a r i s k (Tamarix spp.), cane
p l a n t (Arundo donax), and c a s t o r bean
( R i c i n u s communis) . Nevertheless, i t i s
f e a s i b l e t o remove t h e u n d e s i r a b l e p l a n t s
and r e v e g e t a t e w i t h n a t i v e u n d e r s t o r y
species.
c. Buffers. B u f f e r s a r e an e s s e n t i a l
p a r t o f many r i p a r i a n r e s t o r a t i o n plans,
b u t few p l a n n e r s agree on how wide a b u f f e r
should be o r on what a c t i v i t i e s a r e accept-
a b l e i n a b u f f e r zone. More needs t o be
known about what a c t u a l l y happens t o
r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n w i t h and w i t h o u t b u f f e r
areas. A t present, i t i s g e n e r a l l y assumed
t h a t b u f f e r s a r e necessary, y e t r e q u i r e -
ments v a r y from p r o j e c t t o p r o j e c t .
B u f f e r s , which i n c l u d e n a t i v e p l a n t s ,
should be designed t o p r o v i d e some h a b i t a t
values as w e l l as a e s t h e t i c values. They
should s e r v e as a t r a n s i t i o n zone between
t h e o r d e r l y urban landscape and t h e
n a t u r a l l y random r i p a r i a n f o r e s t ,
Features a l l o w e d i n t h e b u f f e r area c o u l d
i n c l u d e b i k e paths, p e d e s t r i a n walkways,
and o t h e r p a s s i v e r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s .
M o t o r i z e d v e h i c l e s should be p r o h i b i t e d ,
except as necessary f o r s a f e t y o r main-
tenance. C r i t e r i a f o r establishing the
s i z e o f b u f f e r areas w i l l depend on such
standards as:
- biological significance of the
adjacent r i p a r i a n lands;
- sensitivity of wildlife to dis-
turbance,
- s u s c e p t i b i l i t y o f r i p a r i a n area t o
e r o s i o n f r o m landward development;
- use o f n a t u r a l t o p o g r a p h i c f e a t u r e s t o
b u f f e r development ;
- use o f e x i s t i n g man-made f e a t u r e s
(roads, levees, e t c . ) t o l o c a t e b u f f e r
zones ;
- t y p e and s c a l e o f development p r o -
posed.
The a p p r o p r i a t e b u f f e r w i d t h w i l l v a r y
a c c o r d i n g t o t h e standards menti oned above,
b u t a minimum o f 100 f t i s d e s i r a b l e .
d. C o r r i d o r s . There i s a need t o l i n k
riparian w i l d l if e corridors whenever
feasible, r a t h e r than t o a l l o w continued
i s o l a t i o n o f small r i p a r i a n groves. In
designing a revegetation plan, it i s
important t o maintain o r r e - e s t a b l i s h
c o n t i n u i t y w i t h adjacent h a b i t a t s . This
means a1 1 owing " f i n g e r s " o f c h a p a r r a l
v e g e t a t i o n t o extend down i n t o t h e r i p a r i a n
zone. T h i s a l l o w s movement o f upland
w i l d l i f e i n t o t h e r i p a r i a n c o r r i d o r and
provides a d d i t i o n a l foraging h a b i t a t f o r
r i p a r i a n w i l d l i f e species.
Likewise, t h e r e i s a need t o r e - e s t a b l i s h
connections between riparian groves
separated by development. T h i s can be
accompl ished by rep1 a n t i n g narrow bands o f
v e g e t a t i o n t o l i n k t h e d i s j u n c t groves.
R i p a r i a n c o r r i d o r s a r e l o g i c a l candidates
f o r g r e e n b e l t and open-space d e s i g n a t i o n
and can add a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t i e s as w e l l as
b i o l o g i c a l v a l u e s t o t h e p r o p e r t y (Sal ata,
1983). Any e x i s t i n g and p o t e n t i a l w i l d 1 i f e
h a b i t a t on t h e s i t e should be c o n s i d e r e d
f o r incorporation i n t o the revegetation
plan. Flood r e t e n t i o n b a s i n s are
candidates f o r r e v e g e t a t i o n and can g r e a t l y
enhance t h e p r o p e r t y ' s v a l u e f o r w i l d l i f e .
S u i t a b l e v e g e t a t i o n can be p l a n t e d i n a
c o r r i d o r c o n n e c t i n g a pond o r b a s i n w i t h a
r i p a r i a n r e v e g e t a t i o n area, increasing
o v e r a l l w i l d l i f e use by p r o v i d i n g a
p r o t e c t e d t r a v e l r o u t e between t h e two
h a b i t a t types.
7.6.4 Implementation
As a general r u l e , a v e g e t a t i o n p l a n
should be implemented d u r i n g o r immediately
a f t e r p r o j e c t c o n s t r u c t i o n ( F i g u r e 54).
R e s t o r a t i o n should be performed i n stages,
each w i t h a s p e c i f i c d a t e o f completion.
T h i s a1 1ows c a r e f u l m o n i t o r i n g o f progress
and assures t h a t a p l a n t i n g schedule w i l l
be f o l l o w e d . Whenever pass ib l e, con-
s t r u c t i o n should be done b e f o r e o r a f t e r
c r i t i c a l n e s t i n g and r e a r i n g p e r i o d s f o r
ansite w i l d l i f e t o a v o i d unnecessary
impacts. I f v e g e t a t i o n must be removed,
t h i s should be accompl i s h e d we1 1 b e f o r e t h e
n e s t i n g season. I f a l o n g s e c t i o n o f r i v e r

Figure 54. Mitigation of a construction project has
resulted in riparian restoration along an urban
portion of the San Diego River.
will be affected, work should be phased,
where possible, so that small increments
are carried out at disjunct locations in
order to avoid massive wildlife impacts.
While one area is disturbed during
activities such as channelization and
vegetation removal, wildlife can move to
an undisturbed site nearby. After resto-
ration is achieved, wild1 ife can gradually
move back into recovered and restored
habitats.
One approach is to allow only a certain
percentage of the river reach to be dis-
turbed at any one time. 'Subsequent phases
of a project could not be undertaken until
prior phases are completely restored and
well estabf ished. Phasing decisions should
be based on site-specific biological and
hydroiogical data. ihi s approach should
reduce the cumulative loss of wildlife
habitat that occurs when an entire project
is built at once.
3.6.5 Manaqement and Maintenance
A plan for management, maintenance, and
monitoring of the project site should be
developed at the same time as the
restoration plan. Although this may seem
an obvious point, most revegetation
programs do not include a mechanism for
long-term management and maintenance. Once
the plants are in the ground, there is a
strong tendency to move on to other
projects.
To ensure the success of a revegetation
program, the plan must include provi sions
for ongoing maintenance. Typical
activities that must be planned for are
rep1 acement of di seased and dying pl ants;
maintenance of irrigation systems;
protection of young plants from tramp1 ing,
vandalism, and browsing; control of
erosion; judicious use of herbicides,
pesticides, and rodenticides; pruning,
topping, or removal of vegetation; and
any other activities necessary to maintain
the site in a condition that meets the
original goals o f the program (Gray and
Lieser, 1982). The pf an must specify who
will be responsible for carrying out and
funding maintenance and management.
General ly , the devel oper wi 11 be expected
to do this under terms of a maintenance
agreement between the developer and the
permi tt in,g agencies.
7.6.6 Technical Monitoring
A technical monitoring program is essen-
tial to judge the success of a revegetation
program. Thi s monitoring effort should be
specified in the maintenance agreement
described above and include a determination
of who will be responsible for carrying out
the work. Reports should be required for
a minimum of 5 years as part of the
maintenance agreement and should be sent to
the appropriate permitting agencies, Local
university students might be involved in
annual monitoring as a class project.
Two indicators are typically used to
monitor success of revegetation programs:
vegetation devei opment and bird usage. Any
professional monitoring work should include
hydrol~gica'idata. The emphasis of the
monitoring program must be on analysis and
conclusions rather than simp1 y the
col f e c t i o n of d a t a .
Data col l e c t i o n techniques could include
use of a e r i a l i n f r a r e d photography t o may
vegetation e x t e n t and monitor h e a l t h .
Photos should be taken i n s p r i n g (May-June)
and j u s t before fa1 1 dormancy (August -
September); they may be used t o l o c a t e
dying t r e e s as well as t o a s s e s s any
s t r e s s e s a f f e c t i n g t h e h e a l t h of t h e
p l a n t s , inct uding o v e r d r a f t i n g of water
t a b l e s , i n c r e a s e s in upstream d i v e r s i o n s ,
d i s e a s e s , compaction of s o i l i n r o o t zones,
~ n u n d a t i o n f o r long p e r i o d s , and drought.
51 ack-and -whi t e o r c o l o r photos should a1 so
be taken from permanent s t a t i o n s on t h e
ground t o provide a record of progress.
Other niore t r a d i t i o n a l techniques f o r
measuring veget a t r a n growth Involve
t ransct l a n d l y s i s t o determine f o l ? a g e
d e n s ~ t y , diversity, p a t c h ~ n e \ r . and
spec t t . 5 lip@(t f ! C growth r a t e and surv rval .
Mvttlcld\ developed f o r rxpari d n sys teins a r e
tfrsc r 1 tted r n MdcArthi~rdnd MdcArChur (1961 )
dtiti Ancicrson dnti Ohmart (1977). t3ird
surveys shokrltf bc conducted to dtlttlrmi n e
n r i t ~ n g ,w r n t e r l n g , dnd migratory uses of
the z t t c Elmien, 1911, 1377; Anderson artd
O h r n ~ ) * f, X 984) .
I f vciqc" ton dnd w i it11 i re a r e present on
dt
t lit, i t p r r o r t a p r o j e c t devt.lopnit;nt,
bas6.l r r w wrldltfu and p l a n t datd should b e
<,is1 t eif ds d relurc.rrcc~ pcrlnt Pot. post
l r l r
p r o j t ' c t, f utid~t fans ~znd r~vegc?Cdt ion.
Aririttrer w r i 1 - e s t d b l i s h e d r i p d r i d n ared
;irotilij be s f u d 16" ~1t)kf U S C ? ~d $ a c o n t r o l t o
I ctrritidue w t t h t h e r e v e g c t a t ton pro,]cat P .
Iht5 cst.kt;I t :,trntenI of 't isbe 1 ~ n c s o r
1 t i t o r m ~ a s ~ t r ~ nprogress
g 3s a
u<.eSiiti appr o s c h . Cr?t e r l a f o r s e t t $nil
rcfisl~:! l c m r l c s t o n c \ , howcver, $ r e not wcli
dcvss1 o y i b l r . It is rtlcontmc~ntic;.d t h a t
prrcuntdye of p l a n t s u r v l v d l be u ~ c da s d n
uvrrai 1 r n d i c a t o r of S U ~ C C S SSurvival. of
a qrvrn pilrcentaye In a s y e c l f l c p e r ~ o do i
tanre 1s t h e usladl method of exyresblorl s t i t t i
d i 90 p e r r e n t p l a n t sur-viva1 90 ddys a f t e r
planting.
URatever f i g u r e s a r e used, t h i s approach
must t a k e i n t o account the s p e c i e > berng
planted and t h e d i f f i ~ u l t yo f rearlriy t h d t
species. For example, w ~ l i o w s would be
expected t o grow q u i c k l y withocii. special
a t t e n t i o n , whereas small understory p l a n t s
o f t e n need e x t r a p r o t e c t i o n and c a y @ .
Another milestone m i g h t be t h e number of
riparian bird species t h a t successfully
n e s t and r e a r young 3 y e a r s a f t e r
r e v e g e t a t i o n of a s i t e . Bird, mamnlal, and
o t h e r w i l d l i f e censuses c-ould be used Lo
measure w i l d l i f e use of a c o n t r o l area and
a revegetated s i t e . More b a s i c research
i n t o w i l d l i f e uses of r i p a r i a n a r e a s i s
needed before such d a t a can be used l o
establ ish reasonable milestones for
revegetation projects.
I n a d d i t i o n t o v e g e t a t ~ o n h e a l t h and
wtlrll if^ [Ares, nioni t o r i n g r e p o r t s could
cover t o p i c s such a s hydraul ? c e f f i c i e n c y
of channelr, recovery and s t a b i l i t y o f
channels, and a e s t h e t i c and r e c r e a t i o n a l
pottanti a1 . Reports should g i v e some
qcneral commcnts about t h e o v e r a l l succcss
of ttw p r o j e r t along w l th recunrniendat ions
f o r wh,t2 nliyitt bc dune t o xnlyrove the
project o r ini t ~ q d t e prut)lc)srs thcat hlive
or c u r r e d . Shcre 1 % l i t t l e + n t h ~
l l t e r d t u r e on rnonltoriny of r e s t o r d t i o n
work. R e v c ~ g r t d t ~ o ni s a young s c i e n c e ,
u s p c c l d l l y i n L a h f o r n l a , and mar~itorirlg
r e p o r t s w ~ l lIre t-,xtrt~rrrelyustftltl f o r f u t u r e
r k b ~ t o r a~t o n@ tf o r t s .
7.7 A CASE STUDY OF' RIPARIAN REVEGETATION
Ihe t o n ~ r p tof t h e i i r s t San Dieqo River
Iaprovcment P r r o j e ~ t ( f SDIII P ) a s a l o c a l l y
sponsurcd f lovd managcmcnt p r o j e c t evolved
from a more t r a d i t i o n a l S o u f h t > r n C a h f o r n ~ a
flootl con1 rot projet t b c \ r q n . I n 1916 t h e
tor-ps was approat hcti by t o s d l govcr raniettt
unt i t ~ e st o design d flood c o n t r o l projock
f a r t h e Sdn D l ~ g o Rrver. The l n t t r a l
f e a s r b i 1 i t y s t u d i e s ~ n d ~ c d t eadn unfdvor
a b l e b c n c f i t t o c o s t r d t i o , d n d t h e Corps
d ~ d not proceecf. L"i~velo~,ment of t h e
M r s s r u n Val 1 cy rtig I an cont I nucd, however,
dnd t t bccam~c l e a r t h a t some k ~ n dof flood
control w a s n e c e s s a r y . l ocal o p p o s ~ t ~ ot no
a t r a d t~lonal c h a n n e l lzed waterMay was
s t r o n g , and t h e a l t e r n a t i v e of a g r a s s
1 ~ n e d chdnnel was a l s o r e j c c t e d , I n the
1970% property owners along t h e San Dtego
, * k c C)u f i~ .f il %
R-.,-?. i ~ g
;A: $ h ~ d ?~ 5 3 k!?:? $t3d!L!m W?Y
?
began c l ~ s c u s s r n g a greenbcl t floodway
d e s yr) ~ e m p h d s r s t n g r e c r e a t i o n and human
use.
 The C i t y o f San Diego's Planning
Department s t a f f was r e q u i r e d , under a
Corps p e r m i t c o n d i t i o n suggested by t h e
USFWS, t o develop a %betlands management
p l a n f o r t h e San Diego R i v e r , p a r t i c u l a r l y
the s t r e t c h f l o w i n g through Mission Valley.
The r e s u l t was t h e 1983 San Diego R i v e r
Wet1 ands Management Pl an, the primary
purpose o f which was t o e s t a b l i s h a means
o f m a i n t a i n i n g and i m p r o v i n g t h e qua1 i t y o f
t h e wetlands a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e San Diego
R i v e r w h i l e s t i l l a l l o w i n g f o r development
i n Mission Valley. A strong goal o f t h e
p l a n was t o i n c o r p o r a t e b i o l o g i c a l con-
s i d e r a t i o n s i n t o p l a n n i n g f o r development
and f l o o d management.
P r i v a t e developers t o o k t h e n e x t s t e p and
formed t h e i r own p l a n f o r a p o r t i o n o f t h e
Mission Valley c o r r i d o r . Their plan,
FSDRIP, is a l o c a l l y proposed c o m b i n a t i on
o f flood control, n a t u r a l area, and
parkway. The Corps i s i n v o l v e d o n l y as a
p e r m i t t i n g agency under S e c t i o n 404 o f t h e
Clean Water A c t , n o t as a c o n s t r u c t i n g
agency. The C i t y o f San Diego, t h e
Cal i f o r n i a Department o f F i s h and Game, and
t h e USFWS a r e r e p r e s e n t e d on an a d v i s o r y
committee t o oversee t h e development and
implementation o f t h e p l a n .
I n 1983 t h e FSDRIP p l a n was approved by
t h e City o f San Diego and an E I R was
c e r t i f i e d . The EIR c a l l e d f o r a d e t a i l e d
r e v e g e t a t i o n p l a n , which was prepared by
Nasl and Engineering, Mooney- L e t t i e r i and
Associates, and Wier B i o l o g i c a l (1984).
A1 though h e a v i l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e d e s i g n o f
t h e r e v e g e t a t i o n p l a n , and aware t h a t i t
was prepared by know1 edgeabl e 1 ocal
r e v e g e t a t i o n b i o l o g i s t s , some agency s t a f f
remained skeptical about the plan's
feasibility. The two main concerns were
t h a t t h e r e s u l t s would n o t l o o k n a t u r a l and
t h a t t h e p l a n would n o t r e p l a c e r i p a r i a n
values l o s t . Some b i o l o g i s t s a l s o were
concerned about t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d f o r
complete r e v e g e t a t i o n and t h e h a b i t a t l o s s
and impact on w i l d l i f e i n t h e i n t e r i m .
FSDRIP i s a p r e c e d e c t - s e t t i n g p r o j e c t .
No o t h e r r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n p l a n o f t h i s
s c a l e has been attempted o r proposed i n
Southern C a l i f o r n i a . Other r e v e g e t a t i o n
pa ans c j e n e r z l l y have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
p a r k c o n s t r u c t i o n , where r e c r e a t i o n i s t h e
primary purpose and p r e s e r v a t i o n of
wi I d 1 i f e h a b i t a t secondary o r even
i n c i d e n t a l . The o n l y a v a i l a b l e model f o r
FSDRIP i s work done by Anderson e t a l .
(1984b) i n Arizona, who s u c c e s s f u l l y
t r a n s p l a n t e d and r e v e g e t a t e d areas u s i n g
n a t i v e cottonwoods and who was c o n s u l t e d i n
connect i o n w i t h t h e FSDRIP p l an. Anderson,
however, has n o t emphasized u n d e r s t o r y
v e g e t a t i o n , and t h e r e s u l t s have been a
form o f g r e e n b e l t p a r k r a t h e r than
restoration of a complete riparian
ecosystem.
Since no o t h e r r e v e g e t a t i o n e f f o r t s o f
t h i s magnitude have been attempted i n
C a l i f o r n i a , t h e FSDRIP p l a n i s designed t o
p r o v i d e a model and d a t a base f o r f u t u r e
riparian restoration efforts. The p l a n
emphasizes s p e c i f i c v e g e t a t i o n development
and management m i l e s t o n e s w i t h assured
f u n d i n g f o r remedial measures along w i t h
long-term protection. The i n t e n t i s t o
m i t i g a t e impacts on p l a n t s and animals from
t h e channel i z a t i o n o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7,000
f t o f t h e San Diego R i v e r i n t h e M i s s i o n
V a l l e y area. Under t h i s p l a n , t h e newly
c o n s t r u c t e d e a r t h e n channel would be
planted with riparian woodland and
f r e s h w a t e r marsh v e g e t a t i o n t o enhance i t s
v a l u e as w i l d 1 i f e h a b i t a t . About 42 acres
o f woodland and 15 acres o f marsh would be
c r e a t e d and m a i n t a i n e d . C o n s t r u c t i o n was
scheduled t o b e g i n i n l a t e 1986.
The channel has been designed t o a l l o w
commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l developments
approved by t h e C i t y as p a r t o f t h e FSDRIP
p r o j e c t . The channel has been engineered
t o handle up t o t h e 100-year f l o o d event.
I t has been designed t o f u n c t i o n w i t h f u l l y
developed r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n a l o n g i t s
banks. I s 1 ands c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e channel
would a l s o be p l a n t e d w i t h n a t i v e r i p a r i a n
v e g e t a t i o n . T h i s s e c t i o n o f t h e San Diego
R i v e r has been s u b j e c t e d t o v a r y i n g degrees
o f d i s t u r b a n c e f r o m sand e x t r a c t i o n , f i l l s ,
u n a u t h o r i z e d dumping, and o f f - r o a d v e h i c l e
use. Nevertheless, a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount
o f wetland h a b i t a t s t i l l e x i s t s a l o n g t h i s
portion o f the r i v e r .
The p l a n a n t i c i p a t e s c r e a t i o n o f wetland
and r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t t y p e s t y p i c a l o f
n a t i v e woodl ands and marshes, These habi -
t a t t y p e s a r e used by w i l d l i f e , p a r t i c u -
l a r l y these s p e c i e s t h a t have d e c l i n e d due
t o d e s t r u c t i o n o f ?owland r i p a r i a n and
f r e s h w a t e r marshes. The emphasis i s on
i n c l u d i n g a l a r g e number o f p l a n e species
and a h i g h d i v e r s i t y o f stand types w i t h An excel l e n t example o f a we? l -designed
v a r i a t i o n i n h e i g h t and d e n s i t y . The p l a n plan. Includes design c r i t e r i a and
does n o t attempt t o p r o v i d e f o r n a t u r a l g u i d e l ines for site preparation,
succession o f community types. The p r o - i r r i g a t i o n , p i anting, maintenance, and
posed revegetat i on would r e p l ace 1 o s t m o n i t o r i n g and l i s t s c r i t e r i a f o r r i v e r
wetland h a b i t a t a t a r a t i o o f 1 t o I o r c o r r i d a r developments.
more.
Stanley, John T., and Winthrop A. S t i l e s ,
Since t h e p l a n was developed i n consul t a - 111. 1983. Revesetation Manual .
t i o n w i t h w i l d l i f e management agencies, i t Alameda County Flood Control and Water
provides developers some assurance t h a t , if Conservation D i s t r i c t , 399 Elmhurst
they adhere t o t h e plan, t h e i r p r o j e c t s Street, Wayward, CA 94544. 183 pp.,
w i l l be approved. I t should a l s o d i s - appendixes.
courage some p r o j e c t s t h a t would over-
develop t h e f l o o d p l a i n and reduce t h e Includes g u i d e l i n e s f o r p1 a n t i n g p l ans,
f r i c t i o n t h a t now occurs between developers i r r i g a t i o n systems, contract specifi -
and p e r m i t t i n g agencies . cations, maintenance, p l a n t d e s c r i p t i o n s ,
and l i s t o f n u r s e r i e s . Easy t o use and
One weakness o f t h e p l a n i s t h a t much o f we1 1 organized.
t h e 1 anguage r e q u i r e s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by
c i t y planners i n assessing consistency Smith, Gregory. 1980. Arroyo Cone.io
between t h e p l a n and proposed p r o j e c t s . R e f o r e s t a t i o n R e ~ o r t . C i t y o f Thousand
The success o f FSDRIP w i l l depend on t h e Oaks, P.O. Box 1496, Thousand Oaks, CA
d e d i c a t i o n o f p r o j e c t proponents and 91360. 79 pp., appendix.
government agencies t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f
t h e plan. I t does, however, a1 low the C i t y Report on r e f o r e s t a t i o n o f a major
o f San Diego t o i n t e g r a t e preservation o f wastewater pipe1 i n e i n s t a l 1a t i o n . Includes
valuable wetlands i n t o t h e planning p r o - step-by-step discussion o f r e p l a n t i n g
cess. Other c i t i e s i n Southern C a l i f o r n i a e f f o r t , i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h before and a f t e r
w i l l c e r t a i n l y be f o l l o w i n g t h e progress a f photographs, d e s c r i p t i o n s o f p l a n t s used,
t h i s unique e f f o r t ; based on t h e experience and discussion o f f o l l o w - u p p l a n t i n g a f t e r
of San Diego, they w i l l be able t o design heavy f l oods .
t h e i r own f l o o d - p l a i n management plans,
g i v i n g f u l l r e c o g n i t i o n t o t h e need t o Gray, Donald, and Andrew T. L e i s e r . 1982.
i n c l u d e r i p a r i a n v e g e t a t i o n and w i l d 1 i f e Biotechnical Slope P r o t e c t i o n Erosion
h a b i t a t as p a r t o f a floodway design. Control. Van Nostrand Reinhold. 271 pp.
Enforcement i s s t i l l a v a i l a b l e through t h e
F i s h and Game Code (Section 1600 t o 1606) Guide t o erosion c o n t r o l using vegetation
and t h e Corps 404 Permit Program. The i n conjunction w i t h o t h e r bank-protection
planning process has tended t o de-emphasize techniques. Covers d e t a i 3 s o f s i t e
t h e proponent's r o l e i n t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e analysis, species s e l e c t i o n , seeds and
p r o j e c t , b u t i t has assured t h a t funds are p l a n t i n g stocks, s i t e preparation, p l a n t i n g
avai l able f o r an adequate program. techniques, a f t e r c a r e maintenance. We1 1
w r i t t e n , w i t h case s t u d i e s and sample
designs and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r s t r u c t u r a l
7.8 RECOMMENDED REFERENCES components o f bank p r o t e c t i o n .

I n f o r m a t i o n on designing r e v e g e t a t i o n Schiechtl , Hugo. 1980. B i o e n s i n e e r i n q for

plans can be found i n t h e f o l l o w i n g -
Land Recl amat ion and ~ o n s e r v a ton.
i
documents. A1 1 are recowended reading f o r U n i v e r s i t y o f ~l
berta-ess. 404 pp.
anyone attempting r i p a r i a n r e v e g e t a t i o n .
Handbook on erosion c o n t r o l and slope
Nasl and Engineering, Mooney-Lettieri and protection techniques, including
Associates, and V i e r B i o l o g i c a l . 1984. windbreaks, avalanche w a l l s, rockfall
Revegetation PI an f o r t h e F i r s t San Dieso b a r r i e r s , and waterway bank p r s t e c t i a n .
River Im~rovement Pro_iect (FSDRIP). Technical examples, plant selection
Nasl and Engineering, 4855 Ruffner, San c r i t e r i a , common mistakes i n bioengineering
Diego, CA 82111. 38 pp., maps. p r o j e c t s and how t o avoid them.
Restorati~n& Manaqement Notes. Journal
pub1 ished by University of Wisconsin
Press, Journals Divisaon, 114 N. Murray
Street, Madison, W I 53715.
Described as " a forum for the exchange of
news, views , and informat S on among
ecologists, land reclamationists, managers
of parks, preserves, and rights of way,
naturalists, engineers, landscape
architects, and others committed to the
restoration and wise stewardship of pl ant
and animal communities."
7.9 SOURCES OF PLANTS AND SEEDS
There are many native plant nurseries in
California, and a current listing may be
obtained from nursery trade magazlnes and
the State Department of Forestry. The USDA
Forest Service pub1 ishes a 1 ist of
nurseries and seed suppliers dealing in
species used in forest and conservation
planting. The USDA Soil Conservation
Service and forestry agencies have suppl ies
of some native shrubs and forest trees.
Cal i forni a Department of ldater Resources
Bulletin No. 209 lists plants for
Cal ifornia 1 andscapes.
Lists of native plant nurseries and seed
suppl iers are publ ished in the Revesetation
Manual (Alameda County, 1383) and the
Arroyo Cone-io Reforestation Report (G.
Smith, 1980). The Cal ifornia Native Plant
Society journal, Fremonti a, contains
articles on native species and also runs
advertisements for nurseries and seed
suppl iers. The Saratoga Horticultural
Foundation publ i shes Selected Cal ifornia
---
Native Plants with Commercial Sources.
7.10 SUMMARY
There i s increasing interest in
protecting and restoring riparian habitat
in Southern California, but these efforts
are complicated by highly fragmented land
ownership patterns and confl icts with
flood-control objectives. Mitigation
measures in project permits are often
inadequate or are not carried out at all.
Successful restoration work requires early
agreement on project goal s, site-specific
restoration design, correct project
imp1 ementation, enforcement of permit
conditions, a maintenance and management
program, and long-range monitoring.
 REFERENCES

A i t c h i s o n , S.W. 11877. Sorne e f f e c t s of a 190-196 R . E . Warner and K.M. Hendrix,

campground on breeding b i r d s i n Arizona. eds. C a l i f o r n i a r i p a r i a n systems:
U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM- ecology, c o n s e r v a t i o n , and productive
43:175-182. management. U n i v e r s i t y o f Cal i f o r n i a
P r e s s , Berkeley.
A l ameda County. 1983. Revegetat i on Manual
f o r the A1 ameda County Flood Control and Anderson, B.W., R.D. Ohmart, and J . Disano.
Water Conservation D i s t r i c t Revegetation 1978. Revegetating t h e r i p a r i a n f l o o d -
Program. Wayward. 184 pp. plain for wildlife. Pages 318-331 jr~
R . R . Johnson and J . F . McCormick, t e c h .
American F i s h e r i e s S o c i e t y . 1970. A l i s t coords. Symposium proceedings:
of common and s c i e n t i f i c names of f i s h e s s t r a t e g i e s f o r p r o t e c t i o n and management
from t h e United S t a t e s and Canada. of f l o o d p l a i n wetlands and o t h e r r i p a r i a n
ecosystems, Cal laway Gardens, GA. U.S.
American O r n i t h o l o g i s t s Union (ABU). 1983. For. Serv. Gen. Tech, Rep. WO-12.
C h e c k - l i s t of North American b i r d s , 6th
ed. Allen P r e s s , I n c . , Lawrence, KS. Anderson, B.W., J . Disano, D . L . Brooks, and
877 pp. R.D. Ohmart. 1984. M o r t a l i t y and growth
of cottonwood on d r e d g e - s p o i l . Pages
Ames, C . R . 1977. W i l d l i f e c o n f l i c t s in 438-444 _i_t! R . E . Warner and K.M. Hendrix,
r i p a r i a n management: g r a z i n g . U . S. For. eds. California riparian systems:
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43:49-51. ecology, c o n s e r v a t i o n , and productive
management. U n i v e r s i t y o f Cal if o r n i a
P r e s s , Berkeley.
Anderson, B.W., and R , D . Bhmart. 1977.
Vegetation s t r u c t u r e and b i r d use i n t h e Anderson, N . Hof . , and K.W. C u m i n s . 1979.
lower Colorado River Valley. Pages 23-34 d i e t on the i f e h i s t o ries
-in R . R . Johnson and D.A. J o n e s , eds. o f a q u a t i c i n s e c t s . J . F i s h . Res. Board
Symposi um proceedings : importance, Canada 36:335-342.
p r e s e r v a t i o n , and management o f r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t . U.S. For. Serv. Gen. ~ e c h . .Rep. Andrews, E . D . 1979. Scour and f i l l i n a
RM-43. stream channel, East Fork River, western
Wyoming. U.S. Geol. Stirv. Prof. Pap.
Anderson, B.W., and R.D. Ohmart. 1984. 1117. 49 pp.
Avian use o f r e v e g e t a t e d r i p a r i a n zones.
Pages 526-634 h R.E. and K . M s Atwood, J . L . , and 0.E. Minsky. 1983.
Hendrix, e d s . riparian Least t e r n foraging ecology a t t h r e e
systems: ecology c o n s e r v a t i o n , and major eal iforni a breeding colonies.
productive management. University of West. B i r d s 14:
Cal if o r n i a P r e s s , Berkeley.
Anderson, B.#. , R.D. Ohmart, and H . A . Axel rod, D. 1. 1950. The Piru Gorge f l o r a
Allen, J r . 1384. Riparian b f r d s i n t h e of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , Carnegie Irtst,
riparianlagricultural interface. Pages Mash, Pub1 . 590: 159-224,
Axelrod, D.I. 1967. History of the
coniferous forests, Cal ifornia and
Nevada. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 70:1-62. Bormann, f . H . , and G.E. Likens. 1977. The
fresh air-clean water exchanges. Hat.
Bailey, F.M. 1902. Handbook of birds of Hist, 86(4) :62-71.
the Western United States. Houghton
Mifflin Co. The Riverside Press, Bottorff, R.L. 1974. Cottonwood habitats
Cambridge. 570 pp. for birds in Colorado. Am. Birds
28(6) :975-979.
Bal tz, D.M., and P.B. Moyle. 1984. The
influence of riparian vegetation on Boussu, M.F. 1954. Re1 ationship between
stream fish communities of California. trout populations and cover on a small
Pages 183-187 R.E. Warner and K.M. stream. J. Wildl . Manage. 18(2) :229-239.
Hendrix, eds. Cal ifornia riparian
systems: ecology, conservatian, and Brothers, T.S. 1984. Historical
productive management. University of vegetation change in the Owens River
Gal ifornia Press, Berkeley. riparian woodland. Pages 75-84 ~JJR.E.
Warner and K.M. Hendrix, eds. 1984.
Barbour, R.W., and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats Cal ifornia riparian systems: ecology,
of America. U~iversity Press of conservation, and productive management.
Kentucky, Lexington. 286 pp. University of Gal iforni a Press, Berkeley.
Beidleman, R.G. 1948. The vertebrate Brown, G.W., and J.T. Krygier. 1967.
ecology of a Colorado cottonwood river Changing water temperatures in small
bottom. M.A. Thesis. University of mountain streams. J. Soil and Water
Colorado, Boulder. 351 pp. Conserv. 22(6):242-244.
Belloumini, L.A. 1983. Ringtail Brown, G.W., and J.T. Krygier. 1970.
( Bassari scus astutus) distribution and Effects of clear-cutting on stream
abundance in the Central Valley of temperature. Water Res. 6: 1133-1139.
California. M.S. Thesis. California
State University, Sacramento. Brown, G.W., G.W. Swank, and J. Rothacher.
1971. Water temperature i n the Steamboat
Bent, A.C. 1921-1985. Life histories of drainage. U.S. For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-
North American birds. Dover Publ i- 119. 17 pp.
cations, New York.
Brown1 ie, W.R., and B.D. Taylor. 1981.
Best, L . B . , and D.F. Stauffer. 1980. Sediment management for southern
Factors affecting nesting success in California mountains, coastal plains, and
riparian bird communities. Condor shoreline. Calif. Inst. Technol. EQL
82(2) :149-158. Rep. 1 7 4 . 314 pp.
Bierman, G.C., and S.G. Sealy. 1980. Brucs, C.T. 1946. Insects, food, and
Parental feeding of nest1 ing Ye1 low ecology. Dover Publ ications, New York.
Warblers in relation to brood size and 154 pp.
prey availability. Auk 99:332-342.
Burt, W.H., and R.P. Grossenheider. 1964.
Billings, W.D. 1978. Plants and the A field guide to the mammals. Houghton
ecosystem. Wadsworth Publ ishing Co., Mifflin Go,, Boston. 284 pp.
Belmont, CA. 177 pp.
Bury, R.B. 1972. Habits and home range of
Bleich, V . C . 1973. Ecology of rodents at the Pacific pond turtle (Clemmvs
the U.S, Naval Weapons Station Seal marmorata) in a stream community. Ph.0.
Beach, Fallbrook Annex, U.S. Fish and Thesis. University of Gal ifornia,
Wildlife Service, San Diega, CA. 43 pp. BerkeZ ey .
Bond, S.K. 1977. An annotated list o f the Busby, D.G., and S.G. Sealy. 1979.
mammals of San Diego County, CA. Trans. feeding ecology o f a population of
 nesting Yellow Warblers. Can. J . Zsol.
5 9 : 1670-1681.
Cal iforni a Council on Intergovernmental
Relations [now absorbed into Office of
PI anni ng and Research]. 191Q.
A 1 location of pub1 ic service
responsi bil i ties. Cal ifornia Department
o f Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Campbell, C.J., and W. Green. 1968.
Perpetual success of stream-channel
vegetation in a semi-arid region. J.
Ariz. Acad. Sci. 5(2):86-98.
Campbell , J.C. 1970. Ecological
imp1 ications of riparian vegetation
management. J. Soil Water Conserv.
25(2) :49-52.
Campbell , B. 1980. Some mi xed hardwood
forest communities of the coastal ranges
of Southern Cal i forni a. Phytocoenologia
8:297-320.
Capelli, M.H., and S.J, Stanley. 1984.
Preserving riparian vegetation along
Cal i forni a's south central coast. Pages
673-677 R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix,
eds. Cal i forni a riparian systems:
ecology, conservation, and productive
management. University of Cal iforni a
Press, Berkeley.
Carothers, S.W. 1977. Importance,
preservation and management of riparian
habitat: an overview. U.S. For. Serv.
Gen Tech. Rep. 43. 217 pp.
Carothers, S.W., and R.R. Johnson. 1977.
Some eco?ogical considerations associated
with river recreation management. Pages
222-225 Proceedings: ri ver
recreation, management, and research
symposium. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rep. NC-28.
Carothers, S.W., and R. Nolan. 1982. Dam
changes of the Colorado River. Nat. His.
91(1) :74-84.
Chaney, R.W., and H.L. Mason. 1930. A
pleistocene flora from Santa Cruz Island,
California. Carnegie Inst., Wash. Publ.
No. 415, pp. 1-24.
Chapman, D.W., and R.L. Demory. 1963.
Seasonal changes in the food ingested by
aquatic insect larvae and nymphs in two
Oregon streams. Ecology 44:140-146.
Cody, M., and H. Mooney. 1978.
Convergence versus nonconvergence in
mediterranean climate ecosystems. Annu.
Rev. Ecol . Syst. 9:265-321.
Cole, F.R. 1969. The flies of Western
North America. University of Cal i fornia
Press, Berkeley. 693 pp.
Collings, M.R., and R.M. Myrick. 1966.
Effects of juniper and pinyon eradication
onstream flow from Corduroy Creek Basin,
Arizona. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap.
491-8. 12 pp.
Collins, J.T., J.E. Huheey, J.L. Knight,
and H.M. Smith. 1978. Standard common
and current scientific names for North
American amphibians and reptiles.
Herpet. Soc. Cir. 7. 36 pp.
Cordone, A. J., and D.E. Kel ley. 1961. The
i nf1 uence of inorganic sediment on the
aquatic life of streams. Calif. Dep.
Fish Game 47(2):189-228.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and
E.T. LaRoe. 1977. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the
United States. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 p p .
Cummins, K.W. 1973. Trophic relations of
aquatic insects. Ann. Rev. Ent. 18~183-
206.
Cumins, K.W. 1974. Structure and
function of stream ecosystems.
Bioscience 24:631-641.
Cumins, K.W. 1975. The ecology of
running water; theory and practice.
Pages 277-293 H.B. Hynes, ed,
Proceedings of Sandusky River Basin
symposi um. International Joint
Commission of the Great Lakes,
Heidleberg College, Tiffin, OH.
Dawson, K. J. 1984. Planting design
inventory techniques for mode? i n g the
restoration of native riparian
1 andscapes. Pages 465-470 R.E. Warner
and K.M. Hendrix, eds. Gal ifornia
riparian systems: ecology, conservation,
 and productive management, University of
Cal ifarni a Press, Berkeley.
Day, W.C. 1956. Ephemeroptera. Pages 79-
105 R.L. Usinger, ed. Aquatic insects
of California. University of California
Press, Berkeley .
Department of Water Resources, The
Resources Agency, State of Ca? ifornia.
1980. California flood management: An
evaluation of flood damage prevention
programs. Cal if. Dep. Water Res. Bull.
199. 277 pp.
Detwi'er*
public policy: 1980. what works new
Pub'icguides Or
development in Cal ifornia? Cal if. Off.
Plan. Res. 3. 3(1):34-44.
Dick-Peddie, W.A., and 3.P. Hubbard. 1977.
Classification of riparian vegetation.
U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43:89-
90.
Dorst, J. 1974. The 1 ife of birds.
Columbia University Press, New York. 717
PP.
Dumas, P.C. 1950. Habitat distribution of
breeding birds in southeastern
Washington. Condor 52(5) :232-237.
Dunne, T., and L . B . Leopold. 1978. Water
in envi ronmental planning . W .H. Freeman
Co., San Francisco. 818 pp.
Edmunds, G.F., Jr., S.L. Jensen, and L.
Berner. 1976. The mayflies of North
America. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis. 330 pp.
Emerson, K. C. IgG4.
Mall ophage of North America. of
Pt the
1.
Suborder: Ischnocera, Pt 2. Suborder:
Amblycera. Dugway Proving Ground.
Dugway, U'f.
Ernfen, J.T+ 1971. Population densities of
birds d e r i v e d for transect counts. Auk
88 :323 -342.
Ernlen, J.T. 1977. Estimating breeding
bird densities from transect counts. Auk
34~455-468,
Ernmel, T.C., and J.F. Emmel. 1973. The
butterfl ies of Sauthern Cal i fornia. Nat .
Hist. Mus. Los Ang. Cty, S c i - Ser, 26.
Emerich, J.M., and P.A. Mohs, 1982.
Comparative use of four woodl and habitats
by birds. 9. Wildl. Hanage. 46(1):43-
49.
Englebert, E,A. 1979. California water
planning and policy--selected issues.
University of California, Kellogg
Foundation. June 1979.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) .
1372. Don't leave it to the experts.
U.S. Government Printing Office. 1972 0-
478-748.
Erman,
1977.
D.C.. Newvold, and K.B. Roby.
3.D.
Evaluation of streamside
bufferstrips for protection of aquatic
organisms. Water Resources Center
contract 165. University of Cal ifornia,
Davis. 45 pp.
Erman, N.A. 1984. The use of riparian
systems by aquatic insects. Pages 177-
182 R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix, eds.
Cal ifornia riparian systems: ecology,
conservation, and productive management.
University of Ca7 ifornia Press, Berkeley.
Essig, E.O. 1926. Insects of North
America. The Macmillan Co., New York.
1035 pp.
Farmer, A.H. 1979. Development of
mi tigation a1 ternatives: a process.
Pages 327-330 G.A. Swanson, tech.
coord. The mi tigation symposium: a
national workshop on mi tigating losses of
fish and wildlife habitats. U.S. For.
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-65.
Fenner, P., W.W. Brady, and D.R. Patton.
1984. Observations on seeds and
seed1 ings of Fremont cottonwood. Desert
Plants 6(1) 155-58.
Ferren, W . R . , Jr. 1983. The vegetation
and flora of the streams and slough. Jn
C.P. Onuf, ed. The proposed Corps o f
Engineers flood control and ground water
recharge project for the Goleta Valley,
Santa Barbara County, Cal ifornia:
inventories of the biological resources
o f t h e a f f e c t e d creeks and an analysis of
effects on the creeks and the slough.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Santa Barbara.
 F i s h e r , R., and W , Ury, 1984, G e t t i n g t o Gray, D.H., and A.T. L e i s e r . 1982.
yes. Negotiating agreement w i t h s u t Bi otechni c a l s l o p e p r o t e c t i o n and e r o s i o n
g i v i n g i n . Penguin Books, New York, 161 control. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
PP. York. 271 pp,
Fitch, H.S., F. Swenson, and B.F. Gray, M . V , , and J . Greaves. 1984. The
T i 1lotson. 1946. Behavior and food r i p a r i a n f o r e s t a s h a b i t a t f o r t h e Least
h a b i t s of t h e r e d - t a i l e d hawk, Condor B e l l ' s Viero (Vireo b e l l ii p u s i l l u s ) .
48(5) :205-237. Pages 605-611 R . E . Warner and K.14.
Hendrix, eds. California riparian
F l e t c h e r , M. 1983. A f l o r a o f H o l l i s t e r systems: ecology, c o n s e r v a t i o n , and
Ranch, S a n t a Barbara County, CA. The p r o d u c t i v e management. U n i v e r s i t y of
Herbarium, Dep. o f Biol . Sci . U n i v e r s i t y Cal i f o r n i a P r e s s , Berkeley.
of Ca1 i f o r n i a , Santa Barbara, Publ .
No. 2. Graynoth, E. 1979. E f f e c t s of logging on
stream environments and f a u n a s . N.Z. J .
Frenkel , R . E. 1970. Ruderal v e g e t a t i o n Mar. Freshwater Res. 13:79-109.
along some Ca1 i f o r n i a r o a d s i d e s . Univ,
C a l i f . Publ. Geogr. 20:l-163. G r e e n f i e l d , D.W., S.T. Ross, and G.D.
Deckert. 1970. Some a s p e c t s of t h e l i f e
Friedman, W., L.F. Kiff, and S . I . h i s t o r y of t h e Santa Ana s u c k e r ,
Rothstein. 1977. A f u r t h e r c o n t r i b u t i o n Catostoma (Pantosteus) santaanea
t o knowledge o f t h e h o s t r e l a t i o n s o f t h e (Snyder). C a l i f . Dep. Fish Game Fish
p a r a s i t i c cowbirds, Smi t h s o n i a n Contri b. B u l l . 56: 166-179.
Zool . 235. 75 pp.
G r i f f i n , J.R., and W.B. C r i t c h f i e l d . 1972.
Gaines, 0. 1974. A new look a t t h e The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f o r e s t t r e e s i n
nesting riparian avifauna of the C a l i f o r n i a . U.S. For. Serv. Pap. PSW-82.
Sacramento Val 1 ey, Cal if o r n i a . West. 114 pp.
Birds 5:61-80.
G r i g a r i c k , A . A . , and L.A. Stange. 1968.
Gaines, D . A . 1977. The v a l l e y r i p a r i a n The p o l l e n c o l l e c t i n g bees of t h e
f o r e s t s o f C a l i f o r n i a : t h e i r importance Anthidini o f Cal i f o r n i a (Hymenoptera:
t o b i r d p o p u l a t i o n s . Pages 57-85 A. Magachi 1 idae) . Bul I . Cal i f . I n s e c t Surv.
Sands, ed. Riparian f o r e s t i n Cal if o r n i a: 9:1-113.
ecol ogy and c o n s e r v a t i o n . I n s t . Ecol .
Publ . 15, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Grinnel, J. 1898. Birds o f t h e P a c i f i c
s l o p e o f Los Angeles County. Pasadena
Davis.
Acad. S c i . Publ. 2.
G a r r e t t , H . , and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of
Southern Cal i f o r n i a: status and G r i n n e l l , J . 1908. The b i o t a o f t h e San
distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Bernardino Mountains. Univ. Cal i f . Pub1 .
Society. ZOO^. 5:1-170.
Goldner, B.H. 1984. Riparian r e s t o r a t i o n G r i n n e l l , J . 1933. Review of t h e Recent
e f f o r t s a s s o c i a t e d with s t r u c t u r a l l y mammal fauna o f Cal i f o r n i a . Univ. Cal i f .
modi f ied P l ood c o n t r o l channels . Pages Pub1 . Zoo1 . 4 0 ( 2 ) :71-234.
445-451 R.E. Warner and K . M . Wendrix,
eds. California riparian systems: G r i n n e l l , 3 . , and A . H . M i l l e r . 1344. The
ecology, c o n s e r v a t i o n and productive d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the b i r d s of Ca? i f o r n i a .
management. U n i v e r s i t y of Caf i f o r n i a Pac. Coast Avifauna 27. Cooper Ornith,
P r e s s , Berkeley . C l u b , Berkeley .

Goldwazser, S . , D . G a i n e s , a n d 5 . R . W f l b u r . Gunderson, 3.R. 1968. FSoodpFain use

1980. The Least B e l l ' s Virea i n r e l a t e d t o stream morpbro7ogy and f i s h
C a l i f o r n i a : a d e f a c t o endangered r a c e . gopuf a t i ons. 3. W i 1d l . Manage.
Am. Birds 34:743-745. 3263) :509-514.
Gustafson, J.R. 1975. Winter bird census,
riparian woodland, E l Gapi tan State
Beach. Am. Birds 29:765-766.
Hack, J.T. 1960. Interpretation of
erosional topography in humid temperate
regions. Am. J . Sci. 258:80-97.
Hall, E.R. 1981. Mammals of North
America. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Vol . 1 and 2.
Hamilton, M. 1983. A floristic basis for
the management of rare species and their
communities in the San Jacinto Mountains,
Calif. James San Jacinto Mountains
Reserve, Idyl lwild.
Hanes, T.L. 1976. Vegetation types of the
San Gabriel Mountains. Pages 65-77 jr~J.
Latti ng , ed, Symposium proceedings :
plant communities of Southern Cal ifornia.
Calif. Native Plant Soc. Spec. Publ.
No. 2.
Harris, R.W., A.T. Leiser, and R.E.
Fissell. 1979. Tolerance of oaks to
flooding. U.S. Pacific Southwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley.
Harrison, C. 1979. A field guide to the
nests, eggs and nest1 ings of North
American birds. Wm. Collins Sons & Co.
Itd., Glasgow. 416 pp.
Hart, S.D. 1975. The decomposition of
leaves in two Southern California
streams. Master's Thesis. University of
Cal iforni a, Santa Barbara.
Heberlein, T.A. 1977. Density, crowding,
and satisfaction: Sociological studies
far determining carrying capacities.
Pager 67- 76 & Proceedings: river
recreation, management, and research
symposium. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rep. N5-28.
Herbkersman, C.N. 1982. 4 guide to the
George Palmiter River restoration
techniques. Institute o f Environmental
Sciences, Miami University, Oxford, OH.
52 PP.
Higgins, E.$, 1349, Annotated
distributional list of the ferns and
f i o ~ e r s ~ pg i a n t s of San Diegcr County,
California. San Diego Soc. Hat, Mist.
Bccas. Pap. 8. %O pp.
Hi nschberger, M.S. 1978. Occurrence and
re1 at i ve abundance of small mammal s
associated with riparian and up1 and
habi eats al ong the Col umbi a River.
Master's Thesis. Oregon State
University, Corvallis. 78 pp.
Hogue, C.L. 1974. The insects of the Los
Angeles Basin. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Ang.
Cty. Sci. Ser. 27. 173 pp.
Holstein, G . 1984. California riparian
forests: deciduous islands in an
evergreen sea. Pages 2-22 j r ~R. E. Warner
and K.M. Hendrix, eds. California
riparian systems: ecology, conservation,
and productive management. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Horton, J. S. 1972. Management problems in
phreatophyte and riparian zones. J. Soil
Water Conserv. 27(2):57-61.
Hosner, J.F. 1958. The effects of
complete inundation upon seedl i ngs of six
bottomland tree species. Ecology 39:371-
373.
Hosner, J.F. 1960. Relative tolerance to
complete inundation of fourteen
bottomland tree species. For. Sci.
6: 146-251.
Howell, J.F. 1929. The flora of the Santa
Ana Canyon region. Madrono 1:243-253.
Hubbard* J.P. 1977. Importance of
riparian ecosystems: biotic
considerations. Pages 14-18 b R.R.
Johnson and D.A. Jones, eds. Symposium
proceedings: importance, preservation
and management of riparian habitat. U.S.
For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43.
Hubbs, C.L., R.R. Miller, and L.C. Hubbs.
1974. Hydrographic history and re1 ict
fishes of the north central Great Basin.
Hem. Calif. Acad. Sci. 7. 259 pp,
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of
running water. University of Toronto
Press, Toronto. 555 pp.
Ingles, L.G. 1929. The seasonal and
associatianal distribution o f the fauna
sf the upper Santa Ana River wash. 3.
E n t . Zoo?. 21:l-96.
Ingles, L.G. 3965. Mamals of the Pacific
States. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA. 506 pp.
Irvine, J.R., and N.E. West. 1979.
Riparian tree species distribution and
succession a1 ong the 1ower Escal ante
River, Utah. Southwest. Nat. 24(2) :331-
346.
Jahn, L.R. 1978. Values of riparian
habitats to natural ecosystems. Pages
157-160 R.R. Johnson and J.F.
McCormick, tech. coords. Symposi um
proceedings: strategies for protection
and management of floodplain wet1 ands and
other riparian ecosystems, Call away
Gardens, GA. U.S. For Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rep. WO-12.
Jain, S. 1976. Vernal pools: their
ecology and conservation. Univ. Calif.
Inst. Ecol. Publ. 9. 93 pp.
Jenks, J.S., T.C. MacDonald, and 3.P.
Grath. 1984. Pages 405-413
city west drainage study: urban
North
stormwater management in coastal areas.
A. S .C.E., Bl ackburg, VA.
Jepson, W.L. 1923. The silva of
California. University of California,
Berkeley. Mem. Vol. 2. 480 pp.
Jewett, S.G., Jr. 1956. Plecoptera.
Pages 155-181 in R.L. Usinger, ed.
Aquatic insects of California.
University of Cal iforni a Press, Berkeley.
John Muir Institute. 1979. Erosion and
sediment in Gal ifornia watersheds: a
study of institutional controls. June
1979. John Muir Institute, Berkeley.
102 pp.
Johnson, R.R., L.T. Haight, and J.M.
Simpson. 1977. Endangered species
versus endangered habitats: a concept.
U , S , For, Serv, Gen, Tech. Rep. RM-43:79.
Jones, B.E. 1982. Report on California
governmental programs and l egi sl at i o n
affecting water-re1ated resources.
Caj ifornia Resources Agency, Sacramento.
Jordan, W.W., 111. 1984. Working with the
ri ver (The George Palmiter approach) .
Restoration Manage. Notes 2(1):4-10.
Karr, J.R., and I.J. Schlosser. 1978.
Water resources and the land-water
interface. Science 201:229-234.
Keeney, T., and S. Loe. 1984. California
wild1 ife and their habitats: Southern
California. U.S. Forest Service.
Keller, E.A. 1971. Areal sorting of bed-
load material: the hypothesis of
velocity reversal. Geol . Soc. Am. Bull .
$2:753-756.
Keller, E.A. 1976. Channel i zation :
environmental, geomorphic and engineering
aspects. Pages 115-140 a D.R. Coates,
ed . Geomorphology and engineering .
Dowden, Hutchi nson and Ross, Inc.,
Stroudsburg, PA.
Keller, E.A. 1977. The fluvial system:
selected observations. In A. Sands, ed.
Riparian forests in ~alifornia: their
ecology and conservation. Uni v. Cal if.
(Davis) Inst. Ecol, Publ. 13--reprinted
1980 Univ. Calif. (Berkeley) Agric. Sci.
Publ. 4101.
Keller, E.A., and W.N. Melhorn. 1973.
Bedforms and fl uvial processes in
a1 1 uvial stream channels: sel ected
observations. Pages 253-284 M.
Muri sawa, ed. Fl uvi a1 geomorphology.
State University of New York, Binghamton.
Kelly, W . , R. Hubbell, S. Loe, and L.
Shi kany. 1975. Management of riparian
habitats. U.S. For. Serv. Coord. Guides
Wildl. Hab. 9:9.
Kennedy, C.E. 1977. Wildlife confls'cts in
riparian management: water. U. S. For.
Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43:52-58,
Kibby, H.V. 1978. Effects o f wetlands on
water quality. P a p s 289-298 & R,R.
Johnson and J. F. McCormick, tech. coords,
Symposium proceedings: strategies for
protection and management o f floodplain
 wetlands and other riparian ecosystems,
Callaway Gardens, GA, U.S, For. 5erv.
Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12.
Kirby, R.E. 1975. Wild1 ife utilization of
beaver flowages on the Chippewa National
Forest, Fjlorth Central Minnesota. Loon
47(4):180-185.
Knight, A.M., and R.L. Bottorff. 1984.
The importance of riparian vegetation to
stream ecosystems. Pages 160-167 R.F.
Warner and K.M. Hendrix, eds. California
riparian systems: ecology, conservation,
and productive management. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Kondolf, G.M., and R.R. Curry. 1984. The
role of riparian vegetation i n channel
bank stability, Carmel River, California.
Pages 124-133 R.E. Warner and K.M.
Hendrix, eds. California riparian
systems: ecology, conservation, and
productive management. University of
Cal ifornia Press, Berkeley.
Kusler, J.A. 1978. Regulating critical
riparian lands: a challenge in inter-
governmental cooperation. Pages 332-335
-
in R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick, tech.
coords. Symposi um proceed! ngs: stra-
tegies for protection and management of
floodplain wet1 ands and other riparian
ecosystems, Call away Gardens, GA. U.S.
For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12.
lange, W.H., Jr. 1956. Aquatic
kepidoptera. Pages 271-288 j~ R.L,
Usinger, ed. Aquatic insects of
California. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
La R i v e r s , 1. 1956. Aquatic Orthoptera.
Pages 154 a R.L. Usinger, ed. Aquatic
i n s e c t s of Cai ifornia. University of
Cal i fornia Press, Berkeley.
lathrop, E , W . ,and R.F. Thorne. 1968.
Flora af t h e Szsnta Rosa Plateau of the
Santa Ana Mountains, California. Aliso
6/4):17-40.
iathrop, E , W , , and R.F. Thorne. 1978. A
flora o f the Santa Ana Mountains,
Cal i fornia. A t iso 9 ( 2 ) :197-278.
Lee, D.S., C . R , Gilbert, C.M. Nocutt, R.E.
Jenkjns, D.E. McAllister, and J.R.
Stauffer, Jrr 1980+ Atlas of North
American freshwater fishes, Bio1. Surv.
Publ, 1989-12, NC.
leech, H . B . , and H.P. Chandler. 1956.
Aquatic Coleoptera. Pages 293-371
R.L. Usinger, ed. Aquatic insects of
Cal ifosnia. University o f Cal ifornia
Press, Berkeley.
Lehman, P. 1982. Status and distribution
of the birds of SanLa Barbara County, CA.
M.8. Thesis. University of California,
Santa Barbara.
Leliavsky, S. 1966. An introduction to
fl uvial hydraulics. Dover Pub1 ications,
New York. 351 pp.
Leopold, L.B., and T. Maddock, Jr. 1953.
The hydraul ic geometry of stream channels
and some physiographic imp1 ications.
U.S. Geol. Surv. Proj. Pap. 252. 57 pp.
Leopold, L,B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P.
Mi 11er . 1964. F l uvi a1 processes in
geomorphology . W .H. Freeman, San
Francisco, CA.
Lewis, D.E., and G.G. Marsh, 1977.
Problems resulting from the increased
recreational use of rivers in the west.
Pages 27-31 Proceedings: ri ver
recreation, management, and research
symposium. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rep. NC-28.
Lieth, H., and R.H. Whittaker. 1975.
Primary productivity of the biosphere.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Likens, G.E., F.H. Bormann, D.W. Fisher,
and R.S. Pierce. 1970. Effects of
forest cutting and herbicide treatment on
nutrient budgets in the Hubbard Brook
Matershed-ecosystem. Ecol . Monog . 40: 23-
47.
Lines, I.L., Jr., J.R. Garlson, and R.A.
Corthell. 1978. Repairing flood-damaged
streams in the Pacific Northwest. Pages
195-200 R.R. Johnson and J.F.
McCorrnick, tech. coords. Symposium
proceedings: strategies for protection
and management of floodplain wet1 ands and
other riparian ecosystems, Gal l away
Gardens, GA, U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rep. WO-12.
 x
n 9,
00, 4 0,
D, 3 4.3 W
- am
ma, -nu3
a-0 C
- - 4
4.
-
ern
&a
yY-3 0
a
-4. A. 3 e n a, 0
ma
J. a
0

(DJ
0 & A

m"

m m w m
1 -5 7:" 5
~n < on
d.0, -hEO m
*C+OSJC V) b-4
d . 3 4 9 V) w
0 a z &-+-..!a9
0 a
-h" 8 , 4
&.my
0 ;B
3

WCJ-r-m-J
z w o s a v,w 0, r-5
3:
El
MRJ *ClJ --* m w m - 5 c c 3 3 m -3.
O-JV) L n FD ' ~ -1C + D 3 a a w
* --1. @-I --.' C+ U
--.( -he
-h m * w w m o V, r+
OIn-5
4 --'-a xl
3- m .
4'3 rCx
8,-'"ID.
-*CI
m 4. tn az
r+ 0 5 0 3
4.-

-5 r c w
gf+-53
cr ='=ga
cfP
LU 4,fZt "z?
2 ?4 . 0Z F
n 3 r9-i
yr
c1: 1 0
9
a. rt3
'P 4.

Z-eZ
2 2-"

ma-' 4 S " W
-5
< V ,
-
3 ru
d.Our0
-hQ.V) P, -4
3 - 5 .
-4.m
3 s .
Miller, R.R. 1968. Records of some native
freshwater fishes transplanted into
various waters of California, B a j a
California, and Nevada. Cal i f . Dep. Fish
Game Fish Bull. 54~170-179.
Minnich, R.A. 1976. Vegetation of the San
Bernardino Mountains. Pages 99-125 jrJ J.
Latting, ed. Symposium proceedings:
plant communities of Southern Cal iforni a.
Cal if. Native Plant Soc. Spec. Pub1 . 2.
Minnich, R.A. 1980. Vegetation of Santa
Cruz and Santa Catal ina Islands. Pages
123-137 D.M. Power, ed. The
California Islands: proceedings of a
multidisciplinary symposium. Santa
Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Minore, D. 1970. Seedling growth of eight
northwestern tree species over three
water tables. U.S. For. Serv. Res. Note
PNW-113. 9 pp.
Mooney-Lettieri and Associates. 1984.
Final EIR/EA for the Pamo Reservoir.
Vol. 1. San Diego County Water
Authority.
Moring, J.R. 1975. The Alsea watershed
study: effects of logging on the aquatic
resources of three headwater streams of
the Al sea River, Oregon. Part I I. Oreg.
Dep. Fish Wildl. Fish. Res. 9. 91 pp,
Moyle, P,B. 1976. Inland fishes of
California. University of California
Press, Berkeley. 405 pp.
Mudie, P. 1969. Survey of coastal
vegetation of northern San Diego County.
Cal ifornia Department of Fi sh and Game.
Munz, P.A. 1974. A flora of Southern
California. University of California
Press, Berkeley, 1086 pp.
Munz, P-A,, and D.D. Keck. 1968. A
California flora. University of
Gal ifornia Press, Berkeley. 1681 pp.
Nasland Engineering, Mooney-Lettieri, and
Wier Biological. 1984. Revegetation
plan for the First San DZegs River
Improvement Project (FSDRTP) . 38 pp,
National Association of Conservation
Districts (NACD). 1980. The role of
conservation districts i n the coastal
zone management program. Office o f
Coastal Zone Management, Natl . Oceanic
Atmosph. Admi n . U. S, 5ep. Commerce.
Needham, J.G., and F1.J. Westfall. 1955.
A manual of the dragonflies of North
America. University af California Press,
Berkeley. 615 pp,
Nunnal l y, N.R. 1978, Improving channel
efficiency without sacrificing fish and
wildlife habitat: the case for stream
restoration. Pages 394-399 j r ~ R.R.
Johnson and J. F. McCormick, tech. coords.
Symposium proceedings: strategies for
protection and management of floodplain
wetlands and other riparian ecosystems,
Callaway Gardens, GA. U.S. For. Serv.
Gen . Tech. Rep. WO-12.
Odum, E.P. 1978. Ecological importance of
the riparian zone. Pages 2-4 jrJ R.R.
Johnson and J. F. McCormick, tech. coords.
Symposium proceedings : strategies for
protection and management of floodplain
wet1 ands and other riparian ecosystems,
Callaway Gardens, GA. U.S. For. Serv.
Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12.
Odum, W.G., T.J. Smith, 111, J.K. Hoover,
and C.C. McIvor. 1984. The ecology of
tidal freshwater marshes of the United
States east coast: a community profile.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-83/17.
177 pp.
Ohmart, R.D., and R.W. Anderson. 1977.
North American desert riparian
ecosystems. Pages 433-467 G.L.
Bender, ed. Reference handbook of the
deserts of North America. 1982.
Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
Ohmart, R.D., and R.W. Anderson. 1980.
Wildlife use values of wetlands in the
arid Southwestern United States. Proc.
Natl . Symp. Wetlands,
Onuf, C.P. 1983. The proposed U . S . Army
Corps a f Engineers flood control and
general ground water recharge project for
the Goleta Valley, Santa Barbara County,
CA: inventories of the biological
resources of the affected creeks and a
prel iminary analysis of possible effects
including the Galeta Slough. U.S, Army
Corps of Eng., tos Angeles, CA.
Ornduff, W. 1974, An i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Remsen, J.V., J r . 1979. Species of
California plaat l i f e . U n i v e r s i t y of s p e c i a l concern: Cal i f o r n i a ' s imperiled
Cal i f o r n i a P r e s s , Berkeley. 152 pp. b i r d s . Nest. Tanager 45(8) :1-8.

Patton, D.R. 3975, A d i v e r s i t y index f o r Riley, A . , and A . Sands. 1984. The design
quantifying "edge. " WbBild3, Soc, Bull. and planning approach t o flood damage
3(4):%71-373- reduction--a way t o r e s t o r e t h e r i p a r i a n
environment. Pages 82-86 a J.P. Rieger
P e a t t i e , D . C . 1953. A n a t u r a l h i s t o r y of and B.A. S t e e l e , eds. Sympos i um
western t r e e s . Bonanza Books, New York. proceedings: native plant revegetation
751 p p .
symposium. C a l i f o r n i a Native Plant
Society, San Diego Natural History
Pequegnat, W , E . 1951. The b i o t a o f t h e Museum, San Diego.
Santa Ana Mountains. J . E n t . Zool. 42:1- Robichaux, R. 1977. Geologic h i s t o r y o f
84. the r i ~ a r i a n forests of California.
Perkins, P.D. 1976. Psammophi l o u s a q u a t i c Pages 21-34 in A . Sands, ed. Riparian
b e e t l e s i n southern C a l i f o r n i a : a study f o r e s t s i n C a l i f o r n i a , t h e i r ecology and
of microhabitat p r e f e r e n c e s with notes on conservation. Univ. CaT i f . (Davis),
responses to stream a1 t e r a t i o n I n s t . Ecol . Publ . 1 5 . - - r e p r i n t e d 1980
(Col e o p t e r a : Hydraenidae and Univ. C a l i f . (Berkeley) Agric. Sci . Publ .
Hydrophil i d a e ) . Coleopt. B u l l . 30:309- 4101.
324. Robinson, J . 1953. A taxonomic and
Peterson, A. 1967. Larvae o f i n s e c t s . e c o l o g i c a l study of t h e f l o r a of t h e San
6th ed. 2 vol. Edwards Brothers, Ann Gabriel River Canyon. Master's Thesis.
Arbor, MI. W h i t t i e r College, W h i t t i e r , CA.

P h i l b r i c k , R . N . , and J.R. H a l l e r . 1977. Robinson, T.W. 1965. I n t r o d u c t i o n , spread

The Southern Cal i f o r n i a Is1 ands. Pages and a r e a l e x t e n t of s a l t cedar (Tamarix)
893-909 M . G . Barbour and J . Major, i n t h e western s t a t e s . U.S. Geol. Surv.
eds. T e r r e s t r i a1 vegetation of Pap. 491-A. 15 pp.
C a l i f o r n i a . John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Robinson, T.W. 1985. Phreatophytes. U.S.
P h i l l i p s , W.S. 1963. Depths of r o o t s in Geol . Surv. Water Supply Pap. 1423. 52
s o i l . Ecol ogy 44: 424. PP.

Pinkowski, 5. 1978. Feeding of n e s t l i n g Rosenberg, K . V . , R.D. Ohmart, and B.W.

and f l e d g l ing e a s t e r n b l u e b i r d s . W i 1son Anderson. 1982. Community o r g a n i z a t i o n
Bull. 90:84-98. of r i p a r i a n breeding b i r d s : response t o
an annual r e s e r v e peak. Auk 99:260-274.
Powell, J.A., and C . L . Hogue. 1979.
California insects. U n i v e r s i t y of Rothstein, S . I . , J . Verner, and E. Stevens.
Cal i f o r n i a P r e s s , Berkeley. 388 pp. 1980. Range expansion and d i u r n a l
changes i n d i s p e r s i o n a f the brawn-headed
cowbird i n t h e S i e r r a Nevada. Auk
Prunuske, E., and H. Morrison. 1982. 97:253-268.
Final r e p o r t , Cal i f o r n i a Department of
Water Resources urban streams cleanup and Runde'l, P. 1980. Adaptions of
r e s t o r a t ion program. C i r c u i t Rider mediterranean-climate oaks to
Productions, Windsor, CA. environmental s t r e s s , Pages 43-54 T.
Plumb., t e c h . coard. Proceedings of t h e
Raven, P . H . , and H.J. Thompson. 1966. symposi urn on t h e eco7 ogy, management, and
Flora of t h e Santa Monica Mountains, utilization of California oaks.
California. U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Claremant, CA. U.S, For. Serv. Gen.
Los Angeles. 189 pp. Tech. Rep, PSU-44. 368 pp.
Salata, L.R. 1983. Status o f the Least Simons, D,B., and E.Y. Richardson. 1965.
B e l l ' s Vireo w i t h i n the Santa Margarita Resistance t o f l o w i n a l l u v i a l channels.
p r o j e c t area. U.S. F i s h and W i l d l j f e U.S. Geol, Surv. Prof. Pap. 422-5,
Service, Laguna Niguel , CA.
Sloan, A.3. 1954. M p h i b i a n s o f San Diego
Scheid, G a A . 1985 ( d r a f t ) . Habitat County. San Diego Soc. Nat. H i s t . Occas.
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f w i l l o w y manardel 16, Pap. 13.
Monardella l i n p i d e s ss. giminea, i n San
Diego County. Prepared f o r GALTRANS. 40 Small, A. 1974. The b i r d s o f C a l i f o r n i a .
PP. Uinchester Press, New York. 309 pp.

Schiechtl, H. 1980. Bioengineering f o r Smith, C.F. 1976. A f l o r a o f t h e Santa

land reclamation and conservation. Barbara Region, Cal i f o r n i a. Santa
U n i v e r s i t y o f A1 b e r t a Press, Edmonton, Barbara Museum o f Natural H i s t o r y . 331
Canada. 404 pp. PP.
Schmidly, D.J., and R.B. D f t t o n . 1978. Smith, G. 1980. Arroyo Conejo
R e l a t i n g human a c t i v i t i e s and b i o l o g i c a l r e f o r e s t a t i o n r e p o r t . C i t y o f Thousand
resources i n r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t s i n western Oaks Planning Department. 83 pp.
Texas. Pages 107-117 &J R.R. Johnson and
J.F. McCormick, t e c h . coords. Symposium Smith, J.P., J r . , and R. York. 1984.
proceedings: strategies f o r protection Inventory o f r a r e and endangered vascular
and management o f f 1oodpl a i n wet1 ands and p l a n t s o f C a l i f o r n i a . C a l i f o r n i a Native
o t h e r r i p a r i a n ecosystems, C a l l away P l a n t Society, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Gardens, GA. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rep. WQ-12. Smith, R.F., and A.E. P r i t c h a r d . 1956.
Odonata. Pages 106-153 R.L. Usinger,
Schoenherr, A. 1976. Herpetofauna of the ed. Aquatic i n s e c t s o f Cal i f o r n i a .
San Gabriel Mountains. Southwestern U n i v e r s i t y o f Cal if o r n i a Press, Berkeley.
H e r p e t o l o g i s t s ' Society.
Smith, R.L. 1979. Santa C l a r a sand and
Schum, S.A., and H.R. Kahn. 1972. gravel master study. F i n a l environmental
Experimental study o f channel p a t t e r n s . impact report. Envi corn Corp .
.
Geol . Soc. Am. B u l l 83: 1755- 1770. ( c o n t r a c t o r s ) Nov. 28, 1979. Ventura
County Resource Management Agency.
Schwabe, J . , G . Gavin, B. Ford, and R .
Blyther. 1984. P r a i r i e Creek h a b i t a t Smith, R.L. 1980. A l 1u v i a1 scrub
r e s t o r a t i o n plan. A project o f the vegetation o f t h e San Gabriel River
Redwood Community Action Agency, floodplain, California. Madrono 27
C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e Coastal Conservancy, (3):126-138.
Oakland. 10 pp.
Stanley, J.T., and W.A. S t i l e s , 111. 1983.
Short, C . , and M. Schamberger. 1979. Revegetation manual f o r t h e A l ameda
Evaluation o f impacts on f i s h and County Flood Control and Water
wi l d l ife h a b i t a t and development o f Conservation District revegetation
m i t i g a t i o n measures. Pages 331-335 & program. Hayward, CA. 211 pp.
G , A . Swanson, tech. coord. The m i t i g a t i o n
symposium: a n a t i o n a l workshop on State OF C a l i f o r n i a . 1979. California
m j t i y r a t i a n losses o f f i s h and w i l d l i f e water a t l a s . Sacramento. 118 pp.
habitats. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Reg, RM-65. Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A f i e l d guide t o
western reptiles and amphibians.
Shute, E.C., Jt-. , and B. Mihaly, 1981. Houghtan M i f f l i n Co., Boston. 278 pp.
Anal yr is of powers exercS sed by
regul atot-y agencies over diked wetlands S t i l e s , W.A., IXI. A brSef review o f
and recomendatfons, r e p o r t t o Bay n a t u r a l r e v e-s e t a l i o n i n excavated stream
Conservation and Dewel opment C o m i s s i on, channels. Santa Clara Val ley Water
September 30, 1981, San Francisco. D i s t r i c t . 15 pp.
Strahan, J . 1984. Regenerati on of
riparian forests of the Central Valley.
Pages 58-67 jr~ R.E. Warner and K.M.
Wendrix, eds. Cal ifornia riparian
systems: ecology, conservation, and
productive management, University of
Cal ifornia Press, Berkeley,
Sudworth, G.B. 1967. Forest trees of the
Pacific slope. Dover Pub1 ications, Mew
York. 455 pp.
Sweet, S. 1983. Mechanics of a natural
extinction event: -Rana b o y in
Southern Cal ifornia. Abstract. 31st
Annu. Meet. Herpetol . League, Salt Lake
City, UT.
Swift, L.W., and J.B. Messer. 1971.
Cuttings raise temperatures of small
streams in the Southern Appalachians. J.
Soil Water. Conserv. 26:lll-116.
Syvertsen, J. P. 1974. Re1 ative stem water
potenti a1 s of three woody perenni a1 s in
a southern oak wood1 and community. Bull.
South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 73:108-113.
Tate, J., Jr,, and D.J. Tate. 1982. The
blue list for 1982. Am. Birds 36:126-
135.
Taylor, B.D. 1983. Sediment yields in
coastal Southern Cal ifornia. Am. Soc.
Civil Eng. J. Hydrol. Eng. 109(1):71-85.
Teskey, R.O., and T.M. Hinckley. 1980.
Impact of water level changes on woody
riparian and wet1 and communities. Vol .
1. Plant and soil responses to flooding.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Off. Biol. Serv.
FWS/OBS-77/58.
Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek.
1978. Riparian zones in managed
rangelands--theirimportance to wild1 ife.
Pages 21-31 &J O.B. Cope, ed. 1979.
Proceedings of a forum - grazing and
ri par! an/stream ecosystems. Trout
Unlimited, Inc. Denver.
Thorne, R.F. 1967. A flora of Santa
Catalina Island, California. Aliso
6(3): 1-77.
Thorp, R.W., D.S. Horning, J r . , and L.L.
Dunning. 1983, Bumble bees and cuckoo
bumble bees of Calif. Bull. Calif.
Insect. Surv. 23:1-79.
Tietz, H.M. 1972. An index to the
described 1 ife histories, early stages
and hosts of the macrolepidoptera of the
continental U.S. and Canada. Vols. 1 &
2. A.C. Allyn, Sarasota, FL. 1041 pp.
Toweill, D.E., and J.G. Teer. 1980.
Homerange and den habits of Texas
Ringtail s (Bassariscus astutus) & Proc.
Worldwide Furbearer Conf. Vol . 1-111.
Bal timore, MD.
Troeschl er, R. G . 1976. Acorn woodpecker
breeding strategy as affected by Star1 ing
nest-hole competition. Condor 78:151-
166.
Tuinstra, K.E. 1967. Vegetation of the
floodplains and first terraces of Rock
Creek, near Red Lodge, Montana. Ph.D.
Thesis. Montana State University,
Bozeman. 110 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles
District. 1981. San Luis Rey River.
GDM main report, supplemental final
E.I.S. 233 pp. and appendixes.
U.S. Council on Environmental Qual ity.
1978. Environmental Quality. The Ninth
Annual Report of the Council of
Environmental Qual ity . U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC [Stock
NO. 041-011-00040-81. 599 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982.
Republication of the lists of endangered
and threatened species. Fed. Reg.
48:34182-34196.
U.S. National Park Service. 1983. Draft
Land Protection Plan for the Santa Monica
Mountains. Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreational Area. 75 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 1384. San Bernardina
National Forest Wetland Study, Order 111
Stream Survey, Vegetation Mapping, Series
Level . (Reports and maps on file in U. %.
Riverside office.)
Unitt, P. 1984. The birds o f San Diego
County. San Diego Museum of Natural
History, San Diega. 276 pp.
Usinger, R.L, 1956. A q u a t i c Hemiptera. Webster, R,, P. Lehman, and L. B e v i e r .
Pages 182-228 R.L. Usihger, ed. 1980, The b i r d s a$ Santa Barbara and
Aquatic insects of Cal i f o r n i a . Veratura Counties. Santa Barbara Mus .
U n i v e r s i t y o f Cal i f o r n i a Press, Berkeley. Nat, M i s t . Occ. Pap. 10.
Vannote, L G.W. Minshall, K.W. Weisl ander v e g e t a t i o n t y p e maps. 1929-
Cummmins, J.R. S e d e l l , and C.E. Gushing. 1935. P a c i f i c Southwest F o r e s t and Range
1980. The r i v e r continuum concept. Can. Experiment S t a t i o n , B e r k e l e y .
J. F i s h . Aquat. S c i . 37:130-137.
Wells, S . , and L.F. Baptists. 1979.
Vaughn, T.A. 1954. Mammals o f t h e San Breeding of A1 len' s Hummi ngbi r d
G a b r i e l Mountains. Univ. Kan. Publ. Mus. (Selasuhorus s a s i n s e d e n t a r i u s ) on t h e
Nat. H i s t . 7(9)3513-582. Southern C a l i f o r n i a main1 and. West.
B i r d s 10:83-85.
Verner, J. 1979. Birds o f California's
oak h a b i tats--management imp1 i c a t i o n s . Wheeler, G.P., and J.M. Fancher. 1984.
Pages 246-264 jr~T.R. Plumb, t e c h . coord. San Diego County r i p a r i a n systems:
Proc. symposium on ecology, management c u r r e n t t h r e a t s and s t a t u t o r y p r o t e c t i o n
and u t i l i z a t i o n o f C a l i f o r n i a oaks. U.S. efforts. Pages 838-843 jr-I R.E. Warner
For. Serv. P a c i f i c SW F o r e s t & Range Exp. and K.M. Hendrix, eds. California
Sta., Berkeley. r i p a r i a n systems: ecology, c o n s e r v a t i o n ,
and p r o d u c t i v e management. U n i v e r s i t y o f
Werner, J., and L. R i t t e r . 1983. C u r r e n t C a l i f o r n i a Press, Berkeley.
s t a t u s o f t h e brown-headed cowbird i n t h e
S i e r r a N a t i o n a l F o r e s t . Auk 100:355-369. W h i t t a k e r , R . H . , and W.A. N i e r i n g . 1975.
Vegetation of the Santa Catal i n a
Vogl, R.J. 1976. An i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e Mountains, Arizona: a g r a d i e n t a n a l y s i s
p l a n t communities o f t h e Santa Ana and o f t h e south slope. Ecology 46:429-452.
San J a c i n t o Mountains. Pages 77-91 jr-I J.
L a t t i n g , ed. Symposi um proceedings: Wilbur, S.R. 1974. The 1 i t e r a t u r e o f t h e
p l a n t communities o f Southern Cal i f o r n i a. C a l i f o r n i a B l a c k r a i l . U.S. F i s h W i l d l .
Cal i f . N a t i v e P l a n t Soc. Spec. Pub, 2. Serv. Spec. S c i . Rep. W i l d l . 179.

Wogl, R.J. 1980. The e c o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s Wilcox, C., and B.W. Massey. 1983. W i n t e r
that produce perturbation-dependent b i r d census, r i p a r i a n wood1 and and
ecosystems. J. Cairns, Jr., ed. The f r e s h w a t e r marsh, Orange County, CA. Am.
r e c o v e r y process i n damaged ecosystems. B i r d s 37:45.
Ann A r b o r Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
Wiilet, 6 . 1933. Revised l i s t o f t h e
Walters, M.A., R.O. Teskey, and T.M. birds of southwestern Cal i f o r n i a .
H i n c k l e y . 1980. Impact o f w a t e r l e v e l P a c i f i c c o a s t A v i f a u n a 21. Cooper
changes on woody r i p a r i a n and wetland Ornithological Society.
communities, Vol . V I I, Mediterranean
Region and Western A r i d and S e m i - a r i d W i l l i a m s , P. 1979. The E . I . R . process as
Region. U.S. F i s h W i l d l . Serv., O f f . a t o o l f o r implementing f l o o d p l a i n
Biol , Serv., FWSfOBS-78/93. management p o l i c i es. DWR F l o o d Manage.
Conf. Rep. No. 44 SSN0575-4968.
Warner, R. 1983. R i p a r i a n resources o f
t h e C e n t r a l V a l l e y & C a l i f o r n i a Desert: W i l l i a m s , T. 1983. Country d o c t o r h e l p s
a r e p o r t on t h e i r n a t u r e , h i s t o r y , sick streams r u s h back to life.
s t a t u s , and f u t u r e ( O r a f t ) . Cal i f o r n i a §mi thson. Mag. 14(2) :72-78.
Department o f F i s h and Game, Sacramento,
CA. 231 pp.. Winegar, W . 1977. Camp Creek channel
f e n d i n g - - p l a n t , w i l d l i f e , s o i l and water
Wauer, R.H. 1977. S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e R i o response. Rangeman's J. 4(:) : 1 0 - 1 2 .
Grande riparian systems upon the
avifauna. U.S. F o r - Serv,, Gen. Tech. Winterbourn, M. J. 1971. An e c o l o g i c a l
Rep. RM-43:165-174, study of Banksoila crotchi banks
 ( T r i c h a p t e r a : Ph~grganeidae) i n Marion ilembal, R. 1984a. Survey of v e g e t a t i v e
hake, B r i t i s h Columbia, Can. J . Zool. and v e r t e b r a t e fauna i n t h e Prado Basin
493537-645. and t h e Santa Ana River Canyon, CA. U.S,
Army Corps o f Engineers, Los Angel es.
Wirth, W . , and A . S t o n e . 1956. Aquatic
D i p t e r a . Pages 372-482 j~ R.I. Usinger, Zembal, R. 19846. Fish & Wildlife
ed. Aquatic i n s e c t s o f Cal i f o r r i i a . Coordination Act Report, Santa Margari t a
U n i v e r s i t y o f Gal if o r n i a P r e s s , Berkeley. River P r o j e c t , San Diego County, CA.
U. S. Bur. Recl amati on, Lower Colorado
Wooding, J . 1973. Census o f t h e breeding Region, Boulder C i t y , NV. Biol. Op. 1-1-
b i r d s o f t h e Roaring Creek watershed. 84-F-9.
Col . F i e l d O r n i t h o l . 18:36-41.
Zembal, R . , and K. Kramer. 1984. The
Yanev, K , P. 1980. Biogeography and known d i s t r i b u t i o n and unknown f u t u r e of
distribution of three parapatric Santa Ana River w o o l y - s t a r (Aeriostrum).
salamander s p e c i e s i n c o a s t a l and Crossosoma 10(5) :1 - 8 .
border1 and Gal i f o r n i a . D.M. Power,
ed. The Cal i f o r n i a I s 1 ands: proceedings Zentner, J . 1984. P r o t e c t i o n o f r i p a r i a n
of a mu1 t i d i s c i p l i n a r y symposium. Santa systems i n t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o a s t a l zone.
Barbara Museum of Natural H i s t o r y . Pages 634-642 j~ R.E. Warner and K.M.
Hendrix, eds. Cal i f o r n i a riparian
Yeager, L . E . 1955. Two woodpecker systems: ecology, c o n s e r v a t i o n , and
p o p u l a t i o n s i n r e 1 a t ion t o environmental productive management. U n i v e r s i t y of
change. Condor 57: 148- 153. Cal i f o r n i a P r e s s , Berkeley.
 Birds That Breed i n Riparian Habitat i n Coastal Southern California.

Name

Pied-bil f ed grebe, Podi l rrnbus podiceos

Eared grebe, Podice~snisricoll is
Western grebe, Aechmo~horusoccidentafis
American bittern, Botaurus lentisinosus
Least bittern, ~xobrvchusexilis
Great blue heron, Ardea herodias
Great egret, Casmerodius albus
Snowy egret, Eqretta thula
Cattle egret, Bubulcus ibis
Green-backed heron, Butorides stri atus
Bl ack-crowned night heron,
Nvcticorax nvcticorax
White-faced ibis, Pleqadis chihi
Wood duck, Aix sponsa
Ma1 1 ard, Anas pl atvrhvnchos
Northern pintail, Anas acuta
Cinnamon teal, Anas cvano~tera
Northern shoveler, Anas cl v~eata
Gadwall, Anas stre~era
Redhead, Avthra ameri cana
Ruddy duck, Oxvura jamai censi s
Bl ack-shouldered kite, El anus caerul eus
Northern harrier, Circus cvaneus
Cooper's hawk, Acci~iter cooperii
Red-shouldered hawk, Buteo 1 ineatus
Red-tailed hawk, Buteo jamaicensis
Americen kestrel, Fa1 co soarverius
Cal i fornia quail , Gal l ipeola cal ifornica
Mountain quai 1, Oreortvx pictus
Black rail, Laterallus .iamaicensis
Virginia rail, Rallus 1 imicola
Sora, Porzana carol ina
Common moorhen, Gal 1i nu1 a chl oroDus
American coot, Fulica americana
Killdeer, Charadrius voci ferus
Black-necked stilt, Himanto~usmexicanus
American avocet, Recurvi rostra americana
Spotted sandpiper, Acti ti s macul ari a
Common snipe, Gallinago sallinaso
Band-tailed pigeon, Cot umba fasciata
Spotted dove, Stre~to~elia chinensis
Mourning dove, Zenaida macroura
Common ground dove, Col umbi na ~asserina
Ye1 1ow-bi1led cuckoo, Coccvzus americanus
Common barn owl, Tyto alba

(Continued)
139
 Appendix A , (Continued)

Habi t a t B
Name V M LM sourcesb Status/Dependency

F l ammul a t e d owl , Dtys f l arnrneol us

Western screech owl, Otus k e n n i c o t t i i
Great horned owl, Bubo v i r q i n i anus
N o r t h e r n pygmy owl, G l aucidium gnoma
Spotted owl, S t r i x o c c i d e n t a l is
Long-eared owl, A s i n o t u s
N o r t h e r n saw-whet owl, A e a o l i u s acadicus
B l a c k s w i f t , Cvpseloides n i q e r
B l ack-chinned hummingbird, A r c h i l ochus
a1 e x a n d r i
Anna's hummingbird, C a l v u t e
Costa's hummf n g b i r d , C a l v ~ t ec o s t a e
C a l l i o p e hummingbird, S t e l 1u l a c a l l i o p e
A l l e n ' s hummingbird, S e l a s ~ h o r u ss a s i n
B e l t k i n g f i s h e r , Cervl e alcvon
Acorn woodpecker, Me1anerpes f o r m i c i vorus
Red-breasted sapsucker, & h . v r a ~ i c u s r u b e r
N u t t a l l ' s woodpecker, P i c o i d e s n u t a l l ii
Downy woodpecker, P i c o i d e s uubescens
H a i r y woodpecker, P i c o i d e s v i l l o s u s
N o r t h e r n f l i c k e r , Col antes a u r a t u s
01 i v e - s i d e d f l y c a t c h e r , Contouus b o r e a l i s
Western wood pewee Contouus s o r d i d u l u s
W i l l o w f l y c a t c h e r , Emuidonax t r a i l 1 ii
Western f l y c a t c h e r , Emuidonax d i f f i c i l i s
B l ack phoebe, Savorni s n i g r i c a n s
A s h - t h r o a t e d f l y c a t c h e r , Mviarchus cinerascens
Cassin's k i n g b i r d , Tvrannus v o c i f e r a n s
Western k i n g b i r d , Tyrannus v e r t i c a l i s
P u r p l e m a r t i n , Procine subi s
Tree swallow, T a c h v c i n e t a b i c o l o r
V i o l e t - g r e e n swallow, Tachvcineta t h a l a s s i n a
N o r t h e r n rough-winged swallow, S t e l s i d o p t e r y x
s e r r i ~ e n ns i
Bank swallow, R i o a r i a r i p a r i a
C l i f f swal low, Wirundo ~ v r r h o n o t a
Barn s w a l l ow, Hi rundo r u s t i c a
S t e l l e r ' s jay, Cyanocitta s t e l l e r i
Scrub j a y , Aphel ocoma c o e r u l escens
Ye1 l o w - b i l l e d magpie, Pica n u t t a l l i
American crow, Corvus brachvrhvnchos
Common raven, Corvus c o r a x
Chestnut -backed chickadee, Parus r u f e s c e n s
PI a i n t i trnouse, Parus in o r n a t u s
B u s h t i t , Psal t r i ~ a r u sminimus
Whi t e - b r e a s t e d n u t h a t c h , S i t t a c a r o l i n e n s i s
Brown creeper, C e r t h i a ameri cana
Canyon wren, Cather~esmexicanus

(Continued)
 Appendix A. f Conti nued)

Name

Bewick's wren, Thryomanes b e w i c k i i x x

Mouse wren, T r o q l o d y t e s aedon x x
Marsh wren, C i s t o t h o r u s p a l u s t r i s x
American d i p p e r , C i n c l u s mexicanus x x
B l u e - g r a y g n a t c a t c h e r , Pol i o ~ t ia l c a e r u l e a x
Western b l u e b i r d , S i a l i a mexicana x
Townsend's s o l i t a i r e , Myadestes townsendi x
Swainson's t h r u s h , Catharus u s t u l a t u s x
American r o b i n , Turdus mi s r a t o r i us x x
W r e n t i t , Chamea f a s c i a t a x
N o r t h e r n mockingbird, Mimus p o l v s l o t t o s x
C a l i f o r n i a t h r a s h e r , Toxostoma r e d i v i v u m x
Phai nopepl a, Phai nopep1 a n i t e n s x
Loggerhead s h r i k e , Lani us 1 u d o v i c i a n u s x
European s t a r 1 ing, S t u r n u s v u l q a r i s x
Least B e l l ' s v i r e o , V i r e o b e l l i i w i l l u s x
Sol it a r y v i r e o , V i r e o s o l it a r i u s x x
Mutton's v i r e o , V i r e o h u t t o n i x x
Warbl ing v i r e o , V i r e o q i 1vus x x
Orange-crowned w a r b l e r , Vermivora c e l a t a x x
Ye1 1ow w a r b l e r , Dendroica o e t e c h i a x x
MacGill i v r a y ' s warbler, Ooorornis t o l m i e i x
Common ye1 l o w t h r o a t , Geothl Y D s~ t r i c h a s x x
Wilson's w a r b l e r , W i l s o n i a o u s i l l a x x x
Ye1 1ow-breasted c h a t , I c t e r i a v i r e n s x
B l ack-headed grosbeak, P h e u c t i c u s
me1 a n o c e ~ h aUS l x x
01 ue grosbeak, Gui r a c a c a e r u l e a x
L a z u l i b u n t i n g , P a s s e r i n a amoena x x
Rufous-sided towhee, P i ~1oi ervthrophthalrnus x x
Brown towhee, P i u i l o f u s c u s x
Fox sparrow, Passerel 1a i1 iaca x
Song sparrow, M e l o s u i z a m e l o d i a x x x
L i n c o l n ' s sparrow, Melospiza 1 i n c o l n i i x x
Dark-eye junco, Junco hvemal i s x x x
Red-winged b l a c k b i r d , A s e l a i u s hoen nice us x x x
Tri-colored blackbird, Aselaius t r i c o l o r x
Western meadow3 a r k , S t u r n e l l a n e a l e c t a x
Ye1 1ow-headed b l a c k b i r d , Xanthoceohal us
xanthoceohal us x
G r e a t - t a i l e d g r a c k l e , O u i s c a l u s mexicanus x x
Brewer's b l a c k b i r d , E u ~ h a s u scvanocephal us x x x
Brown-headed cowbird, Mol o t h r u s ater x
Hooded o r i o l e , I c t e r u s ~ e c t o r ai ls x
N o r t h e r n o r i o l e , I c t e r u s s a l bu7 a x x
P u r p l e f i n c h , Carpodacus p u r ~ u r e u s x x
Cassin's f i n c h , Caroodacus c a s s i n i i x
House f i n c h , C a r ~ o d a c u smexi canus x x x

(Continued)
 Append1 x A. (Concl uded)

Habi t a t a
Name V M LM ~ourcesbtatus/~e~endency

Lesser g o l d f i n c h , Carduel i s psal t r i a x x 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 R 3

Lawrence's g o l d f i n c h , Carduel i s l awrencei x x 1,2,4,5,7 R 2
American g a l d f i n c h , Carduel i s t r i s t i s x x 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 R 2
House sparrow, P a s s e r domesticus x x x 2,3,5 R 3

a - Habitat: V = v a l l e y s ; M = montane; LM = l a k e s , marshes, wet meadows.

- Sources: 1
U n i t t , 1984; 5 -
= G a r r e t t and Dunn, 1981; 2 = Keeney and Loe, 1984; 3 = Onuf, 1983; 4
Zembal, 1984a; 6 = Zemba?, 1984b; 7 = Webster e t a l . , 1980.
=

Seasonal S t a t u s : R = Resident; M = Migrant

R i p a r i a n Dependency: 1 = obl i g a t e r i p a r i a n n e s t e r s
2 = r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t p r e f e r r e d f o r n e s t i n g , but o t h e r h a b i t a t s
used
3 = v a r i e t y of h a b i t a t s used f o r n e s t i n g , i n c l u d i n g r i p a r i a n
4 = r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t o c c a s i o n a l l y used
 Birds That Use Riparian Habitat f o r Other Than Breeding Purposesa

Name

Red-throated loon, Gavia s t e l l a t a x

Doubl e-crested cormorant, P h a l acracorax auri Lus x
Canada goose, Branta canadensi s x
Green-winged t e a l , Anas crecca x
Bl ue-winged t e a l , Anas di scors x
American wigeon, Anas americana x
Canvasback, A ~ t h v aval i s i n e r i a x
Ring-necked duck, Avthya col l a r i s x
Lesser scaup, Aythya a f f i n i s x
Common goldeneye, Buce~hala cl ansul a x
Buff1 ehead, Buceohal a a1 be01 a x
Common merganser, Mersus mersanser x
Red-breasted merganser, Meraus s e r r a t a x
Turkey vulture, Cathartes aura x x
Osprey, Pandion ha1 iaetus x
Bald eagle, Hal i aeetus 1 eucoceohal us x
Sharp-shinned hawk, A c c i ~ i t e rs t r i atus x x
Rough-J egged hawk, Buteo 1asoous x
Golden eagle, Aaui 1a chrysaetos x
Merl i n , Fa1 co col umbarius x x x
P r a i r i e falcon, Falco mexicanus x
Bl ack-bell ied plover, Pluvial is sauatarol a x
Greater ye1 l owl egs, Trinqa me1 an01 euca x
Lesser yellow1 egs, Trinqa f l avioes x
Wi 11e t , Catootro~horussemi oalmatus x
Whimbrel, Numenius o h a e o ~ u s x
Long-bil led curlew, Numenius americanus x
Marbled godwi t , Limosa fedoa x
Western sandpiper, Cal i d r i s maurj x
Least sandpiper, Cal i d r i s minutilla x
Dunlin, C a l i d r i s a l ~ i n a x
Long-bi 11ed dowitcher, L i mnodromus scol ooaceus x
Bonaparte" g u l l , Larus phi ladel ~ h i a x
Weermann's g u l l , Larus heermanni x
Mew gul I , Larus canus x
Ring-bill ed g u l l , Larus del awarensi s x
Cal i f o r n i a g u l l , Larus ca9 ifornicus x
Western g u l l , Larus occidental i s x
Caspian t e r n , Sterna caspia x
Forster's t e r n , Sterna f o r s t e r i x
Short-eared owl, Asia f l ammeus x
Vaux's s w i f t , Chaetura vauxi x x x
Whi te-throated s w i f t , Aeronautes saxatal i s x x x
Red-breasted sapsucker, S ~ h ~ r a ~ i ruber cus x
Say's phoebe, Savornis sava x

(Continued)
 APPENDIX B. (Concl uded)

Name

Hammond's f l y c a t c h e r , E m ~ i d o n a xhammondi i x x
Dusky f l y c a t c h e r , E m ~ i d o n a xoherhol s e r i x x
Mountain chickadee, Parus qambel i x x
W i n t e r wren, T r o q l o d v t e s t r o q l o d v t e s x x
Golden-crowned k i n g l e t , Resul us s a t r a p a x x
Ruby-crowned k i n g 1 e t , Resul us c a l endul a x x
H e r m i t t h r u s h , Catharus a u t t a t u ~ x x x
Water p i p i t , Anthus s o i n o l e t t a x
Cedar waxwing, Bombvci 11a cedrorum x
N a s h v i l l e w a r b l e r , Vermivora r u f i c a p i l l a x x
Ye1 1 ow-rumped w a r b l e r , Dendroi ca c o r o n a t a x x
Bl a c k - t h r o a t e d g r a y w a r b l e r , Qendroica n i q r e s c e n s x x
Townsend's w a r b l e r , Dendroica townsendi x x
H e r m i t w a r b l e r , Dendroica o c c i d e n t a l i s x
B l a c k and w h i t e w a r b l e r , M n i o t i l t a v a r i a x
Western tanager, P i r a n s a 1u d o v i c i a n a x x
G r e e n - t a i l e d towhee, P i ~ i l ac h l o r u r u s x
Rufous-crowned sparrow, Airnophila r u f i c e p s x
Fox sparrow, Passerel 1 a i1 iaca x x
L i n c o l n ' s sparrow, M e l o s ~ i z a1i n c o l n i i x x
Golden-crowned sparrow, Z o n o t r i c h i a a t r i c a ~ll ia x x
Whi te-crowned sparrow, Z o n o t r i c h i a 1e u c o ~ h r v s x

'Sources: Compiled f r o m 25 w i n t e r b i r d p o p u l a t i o n s t u d i e s pub1 i s h e d

i n American B i r d s : 1975, 29(3):765; 1976, 30(6):1068; 1978,
32(1):39,40,41,44,45; 1979, 33(1):49; 1981, 35(1):29; 1982,
36(1):37,42,43; 1983, 37(1):45; 1984, 38(1):46,47,48,49,50,51.

b ~ a b i t a t : V = V a l l e y streams; M = montane streams; LM = l a k e s ,

marshes, wet meadows.

'Season: W = w i n t e r use; M = m i g r a n t ; YR = y e a r - r o u n d use.

 APPENDIX @

Mammals Associated With Riparian Habitat in Coastal Southern Cal ifornia.

Name Sourcesa ~ e ~ e n d e n c y ~ Comments

Virginia opossum, Didel~hiq

virsiniana 2,4,5,6,7,8?9 2 Introduced
Ornate shrew, Sorex ornatus 2,4,5,8,9 1
Broad-footed mole, Sca~anus
1atimanus 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 2
Cal i fornia 1 eaf-nosed bat,
Macrotus waterhousi i 2,4,5
Yuma myotis, Mvoti s yumanensis 1,2,4
Fringed myotis, Mvotis thvsanodes 4,5
Long-legged myotis, Mvotis volanx 4,5
Long-eared myotis, Mvotis evotis 2,4
California myotis, Mvotis
cal ifornicus 2,3?475,8
Western pipistrelle, Pi~istrellus
hes~erus 2,4,5,8
Big brown bat, E~tesicusfuscus 2,3,4,5,8
Red bat, Lasi urus boreal is 4,5
Hoary bat, I asiurus cinereus 2,4,5
Big-eared bat, Plecotus townsendi i 4,5
Mexican free-tailed bat, Tadarida
brasi 1inensis 4,5
Western mastiff bat, Eumo~speroti s 3,4,5,9
Western grey squirrel , Sci urus
ari seus 3,4,5,9 3 Oak woodland
Northern flying squirrel,
Gl aucomvs sabrinus 3,4,5 3 Pine forest
Botta's pocket gopher, Thomomvs
bottae 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 2
Beaver, Castor canadensis 2,5,8 1 Introduced
Western harvest mouse,
Rei throdontomvs mesalotis 4,5,6,8 2
California mouse, Peromvscus
cal ifornicus 2,4,5,8,9 2
Deer mouse, Peromvscus maniculatus 2,3,4,5,6,8 2
Brush mouse, Peromvscus bovl ii 2,3,4,5,7,8,9 2
Pinyon mouse, Peromvscus truei i 3,4,5 3 A1 l woodl ands
Desert woodrat, Neotoma 1e ~ i d a 2,4,5,8,9 3
Dusky-footed woodrat,
Neotoma fuscipes 1,2,3,4,6,7,9 2
California vole, Microtus
cal i fornicus 1,2,3,4,5,7,9 1
Porcupine, Erethi zon dorsatum 4,s 3 All forests
Coyote, latrans 2,4,5,6,7,$ 3 All forests
Gray fox, Urocvon cinereoaraenteus 2,3,4,5,6,8,9 3 Open forests
Red f ~ x ,Vulues fulva 5 3 Introduced
Black bear, Ursa americanus 2,5,6 3 1ntroduced

(Continued)
 Appendix & . (Concluded)

Name Sourcesa Oependencyb Comments

Ringtai 1 , B a s s a r i s c u s a s t u t u s 2,4,5,7,9 1
Raccoon, P r o c ~ o n1 o t o r 2,4,5,6,7,899 1
Long-tailed weasel, Mustela f r e n a t a 2,4,5,6,8 1
Badger, Taxidea t a x u s 2,4,5,6,8 3 Open country
Spotted skunk, S ~ i l o s a l e
putorius 2,4,5 2
S t r i p e d skunk, Mephitis m e p h i t i s 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 2
Mountain l ion, Fel i x concol o r 2,4,5,6,8 3 All f o r e s t s
Bobcat, Lynx f u f u s 2,4,5,6,7,8 3 chaparral
Mule d e e r , Odocoileus hemionus 2,3,4,5,6,8 3 All f o r e s t s

'Sources: 1 = r e q u i r e s o r p r e f e r s r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t
2 = found e q u a l l y i n r i p a r i a n and o t h e r h a b i t a t
3 = u s e s r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t but p r e f e r s o t h e r h a b i t a t
 Exampl e s o f Rlpari an H a b i t a t i n Coastal
Draining Watersheds of Southern C a l i f o r n i a .
Santa Barbara County
Location
Hol 1 i s t e r Ranch
(sea level t o ridge)
R a t t l e s n a k e Canyon
(above Skof iel d County
Park, Las Canoas Rd.,
Santa Barbara)
Upper Santa Inez R i v e r
(be1 ow Lake Cachuma,
e l e v a t i o n 3,000 f t )
Middle Santa Inez River
( e l e v a t i o n 2,000 f t )
Lower Santa Inez R i v e r
( e l e v a t i o n 1,000 f t )
Channel Is1 ands
Location
Santa Cruz I s l a n d
Ventura River Watershed
Location
M a t i l i j a Creek
( e l e v a t i o n 3,000 f t
Wheeler Gorge Campground
( e l e v a t i o n 2,000 f t )
Los Padres National
Forest
Ventura River Wash
( e l e v a t i o n 650 f t )
Description Access
Coastal streams Permission r e q u i r e d from
many overgrazed H o l l i s t e r Ranch, Gaviota
Re1 a t i v e l y undisturbed Wal k- i n a c c e s s
riparian habitat
Ranching has e l iminated I n a c c e s s i b l e except by
most h a b i t a t except i n 4-wheel - d r i v e o r
r i v e r bed: few young backpacking
trees
Several F o r e s t S e r v i c e Poor a c c e s s road
campgrounds
Intermittent creeks, Easy road a c c e s s t o
A1 i s o and Oso Creeks Los P r i e t o s Ranger
Description Access
Best r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t a t Contact The Nature
P r i s o n e r ' s Harbor, Valdez Conservancy
canyon: depauperate
compared mai nl and
Description Access
Willows, cottonwood Good r o a d s i d e a c c e s s
Cal i f o r n i a wa1 n u t
Riparian c o r r i d o r Matil i j a Campground
Nature f r a i 1 l o c a t e d
along c o r r i d o r , a c c e s s
t o undisturbed a r e a s
Route 150 c r o s s e s wash
(Continued)
 4-4
0 0
uu
D, w
1 3
m a
w w
V)O
rtw
w a
*'-c
m 0
3
w
w rJJ
-5-
x a
a

*OD
(D
-5
T e m
0
rta
w 0 - 5
-
0 3 V)
m z
rn 0 0
0 3
a V)
0 r+
3 -5
m
J W
4- 3
m
s m
(D n
-5a
CD

--
San Gabriel River (Continued)
Location
Chantry F l a t s
(elevation 2,000 f t )
San Gabriel River
(elevation 1,000 f t )
Santa Fe Regional Park
Whi t t i e r Narrows
Wild1 i f e Sanctuary
(elevation 300 f t )
San Bernardino Mountains (Santa Ana River watershed)
Locat i on
Heartbar and
Southfork Campground
(elevation 6,600 f t )
Southfork Campground
(elevation 6,200 f t )
Mill Creek
(elevation 4,000 f t )
Mountain Creek Home
(elevation 4,000 f t )
Mentone
(elevation 2,000 f t )
Riverside Regional
Park (elevation 700 f t )
River Road e a s t of
Corona above Prado Dam
(elevation 500 f t )
APPENDIX O (Continued)
Description Access
We1 1-developed r i p a r i a n Above Arcadi a in Santa
community with a l d e r , Anita Canyon
cottonwood, bay
Good remnant of a l l u v i a l Irwindale e x i t from
scrub h a b i t a t Highway 210
277 acres of r i p a r i a n Trail access
h a b i t a t with many
e x o t i c species
Description Access
Upper reaches of Santa Campground access
Ana River; willow and
J e f f r e y pine
Alder, wd l low, J e f f r e y Campground access
pine
Scattered a l d e r , Roadside access
Cottonwood, willow, big-
1 e a f maple, with sycamore
and oak on higher t e r r a c e s
Large a l d e r grove Roadside access
Beginning of Santa Ana Roadside access
Wash fed by smaller creeks
heavily scoured by 1932
and 1968 storms; a l l u v i a l
scrub
Half-mile-wideriparian Parkaccess
c o r r i d o r ; willow f o r e s t ,
cottonwood, sycamore, oak
on higher t e r r a c e s
Wide r i p a r i a n c o r r i d o r o f Limited roadside access
wi 1low t h i c k e t s invaded
by cane, cottonwood,
sycamore
(Continued)

San Bernardino Mountains (Santa Ana River watershed) (Continued)
Location
Feather1 y County
Park ( e l e v a t i o n 300 f t )
San J a c i n t o River
Location
F u l l e r and Mill Creek
( e l e v a t i o n 6,000 f t )
Cranston Guard
Station (elevation
2,000 f t )
Lamb Canyon ( e l e v a t i o n
2,000 f t )
Santa Ana Mountains (Orange County)
Location
Santiago Oaks Regional
Park un S a n t i a g o Creek
( e l e v a t i o n 1,000 f t )
OfNeil l Regional Park on
Trabuco Creek, n o r t h o f
El Taro ( e l e v a t i o n
1,000 f t )
Caspers Wilderness Park
on San Juan Creek
( e l e v a t i o n 1,008 f t )
Appendix D f Cont i nued)
Description Access
Remnants of r i p a r i a n Gypsum Canyon Road n e a r
h a b i t a t with willow, Yorba Linda
wild grape,mulefat,
cottonwood, 1 a r g e
sycamores on higher
t e r r a c e s ; many e x o t i c s
Description Access
Wi 11ow, a l d e r , a z a l e a Roadside a c c e s s
w i t h Coul t e r and
ponderosa pine near
streams
Willow, m u l e f a t , c o t t o n - Roadside a c c e s s e a s t of
wood, l a r g e 1 i v e oak on V a l l e V i s t a o f f Route 74
t e r r a c e above; c o a s t a l
sage s c r u b on a d j a c e n t
slopes
Large willows: c o t t o n - Roadside a c c e s s
wood, willow beside
underground r i v e r
Description Access
Large oaks on upper 518 e a s t o f Garden
t e r r a c e s next t o narrow Grove Freeway; walk-in
riparian corridor access
600 a c r e s of overgrazed Wal k- i n a c c e s s
riparian corridor;
handsome 1 i ve oaks; Holy
Jim T r a i l i n nearby
C l eve1 and National F o r e s t
l e a d s t o unusual a l d e r
grove, w a t e r f a l l
Sand mining has destroyed Off Ortego Highway
l a r g e sycamore and oak
a1 ong c r e e k t e r r a c e s
(Continued)
150
 Appendix D (Gsnti nued)
---
San Diego County (Santa M a r q a r i t a River)
-
Location Description Access

Santa Rosa P l a t e a u Vil low t h i c k e t s ; very Off Highway 79 n e a r

( e l e v a t i o n 1,000 f t ) l a r g e sycamores, oaks on Near Temecul a
t e r r a c e s above stream

Deluz Road Re1 a t i v e l y undisturbed Roadside a c c e s s n o r t h

( e l e v a t i o n 600 f t ) r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t with o f Fa1 1brook
w i l l o w , cottonwood, oak
sycamore, understory

Camp Pendl e t o n S i z a b l e remnants of wide Permission r e q u i r e d

( n e a r sea l e v e l ) w i l l o w s c r u b f o r e s t with
ponded a r e a s

San Diego County (San Luis Rey River)

Location
Wilderness Gardens
Preserve ( e l e v a t i o n
1,000 f t )
Bridge a t Bonsall and
along Highway 76
( e l e v a t i o n 170 f t )
Description Access
Some willow, cottonwood, Ten m i l e s e a s t of
sycamore, oak i n a p a r k I n t e r s t a t e 5 on Highway
p l a n t e d with e x o t i c s 76
Over 160 a c r e s o f c o a s t a l Roadside a c c e s s
f l o o d p l a i n willow t h i c k e t
w i t h cottonwood, sycamore,
f r e s h w a t e r marsh and
r i p a r i a n understory

San Diego County (Santa Ysabel Creeks)

Location
B a t t l e Monument
( e l e v a t i o n 525 f t j
Old Pasquale Road and
San Pasquale Road
( e l e v a t i o n 500 ft)
Los Penesqui t o s Canyon
Preserve
Description
Good s t a n d s of willow and
m u l e f a t on r i v e r wash;
most sycamore and oak
removed
Willow t h i c k e t b e s i d e
f r e s h w a t e r marsh
F i v e m i l e s of r i p a r i a n
c o r r i d o r with s t r e a m s i d e Black Mountain Road
w i 11 ow and mu7 e f a t ,
ponded a r e a s with c a t -
Lai 1 , and l a r g e sycamore
and oak; some d i s t u r b a n c e
and e x o t i c s
(Continued)
Access
5 m i l e s e a s t of Wild
Animal Park on Highway
78
View from r o a d s i d e
only
Foot a c c e s s from
west o f I n t e r s t a t e 15
t o Sareno Valley Road
Interstate 5
 L
V) u
m e c
w r m
u m

m
L O L
0 U aJ
-
E ..,-u
I
!
7

~
-
c o a s t a l region:
Author(s)
P.M. Faber,

\-G.-&ponror:ng
-.
--

-.

..
E. K e l _l e r_, A . _-
9 Pcdormrng Orgsnlzat!on Name and Address

-_I_.-
i f . Supplementan Notes

.. -.
__

16. Abstract (Llmtt: 200 words)

..
a conimunity p r o f i l e

Sands,_ _B.M. _MasseY

- .-. . ..-.
.
Organlration Name and Address

U.S. Department of t h e I n t e r i o r
Fish and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e
Research and Development
National Wet1 ands Research Center
Washington, DC 20240

--
_ .
.
_

.
.
-_-_-___--

-- - .- -

___l__l_

--
-.-
..

- - . - ._. .
_I

.
-
I
..
.
-
- _._I___
_-_

".. -- -~

In t h e 200 y e a r s s i n c e C a l i f o r n i a ' s s e t t l e m e n t by Europeans, almost every r i v e r i n

Southern C a l i f o r n i a has been c h a n n e l i z e d o r dammed t o allow development on t h e
f l o o d p l a i n s , causing t h e l o s s o f a h i g h l y productive ecosystem. The r i p a r i a n zone
occurs a1 ong streambanks where s o i l s a r e f e r t i1e and water i s abundant; amphi bi ans,
r e p t i l e s , b i r d s , and mammals a l l move b a c k and f o r t h a c r o s s t h e r i p a r i a n zone from
streams i n t o a d j a c e n t wet1 and and up7 a n d a r e a s . I r r e v e r s i b l e a l t e r a t i o n s of t h e
r i p a r i a n ecosystem r e s u l t from t h e d i v e r s i o n o r l o s s of t r a n s p o r t e d water t o t h e
system through d i k i n g , damming, channel iz a t i o n , levee b u i l d i n g , o r road c o n s t r u c t i o n .
--
___

1
8. Performing Organtratron cot

10 Prolect/Task/Work

Clearing f o r c r o p s , g r a z i n g , o r g o l f c o u r s e s i s p o t e n t i a l l y r e v e r s i b l e a s long a s t h e
Und No

C >G r a n t W No.
l * . - C ~ ~ t ~ a c t (or
NO

water supply remains u n a l t e r e d . S u c c e s s f u l r e s t o r a t i o n work r e q u i r e s e a r l y agreement

on p r o j e c t g o a l s , s i t e - s p e c i f i c r e s t o r a t ion design, c o r r e c t p r o j e c t implementation,
enforcement of permit c o n d i t i o n s , a mai ntenance and management program, and long-
range monitoring.

-
17. Document Analysis a Descriptors

Ecology Habitat Fauna

Flora Ecosystem

Riparian Fluvial system

Southern Cal i f o r n i a Hydrology
F1 oodpl a i n R e s t o r a t i on
c COSATl Fleld/Group
- - __ -- -
1 8 Auallabslity Statement 19 class ,ih,s Rrporl,
security -it&=
irgts

Unl imi t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n ,
m. Security Class C h i s Page) 22. P n r e
Unclassified
(See ANSI-239 18) OPTIONAL FORM 292 ( 6 3 7
(Formerly NTIS-35)
GspiRment of Commerre