CC SR 20210316 02 - Preserve Parking and Access
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 03/16/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action regarding the City Council-adopted directives to
address parking and access issues for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a report on carrying capacity for the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve (Preserve) based on other open space agencies;
(2) Direct Staff to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for a consultant to conduct a
capacity management assessment for the Preserve to help assess impacts of
public access to the Preserve, develop management recommendations to
improve current conditions, and develop metrics and standards by which to
evaluate future conditions;
(3) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority to operate the Preserve Shuttle
Program for a period of three months, as to form approved by the City Attorney;
(4) Approve an additional appropriation of $20,000 in Proposition A Funds for the
pilot Preserve Shuttle Program;
(5) Receive and file Willdan Engineering’s traffic study prepared specifically to
address vehicle movements at parking zones B and F along Crenshaw
Boulevard; and,
(6) Adopt Resolution 2021-___ implementing the Willdan Engineering’s
recommendations to:
a. Prohibit parking for a distance of 200’ measured northward from the center
of the Crenshaw Blvd. and Park Place intersection
b. Prohibit parking for a distance of 44 feet north of Valley View Rd.
c. Prohibit parking for a distance of 100 feet south and 80 feet north of the
St. John Fisher Church driveway on Crenshaw Blvd.
(7) Via minute order, lift the temporary parking restrictions adopted by the City
Council on December 15, 2020 via Resolution No. 2020-73.
(8) Receive and file a status update on search engine optimization conducted by
Tripepi Smith.
1
FISCAL IMPACT: $20,000 is recommended to be appropriated to cover costs
associated with the operation of the pilot Preserve Shuttle Program which will be funded
through Proposition A, from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Local Return Program.
Amount Budgeted: $774,600
Additional Appropriation: $20,000
Account Number(s): 216-400-0000-5120
(Proposition A – Transit Programs)
ORIGINATED BY: Dan Trautner, Deputy Director of Recreation and Parks
Katie Lozano, Senior Administrative Analyst
Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
Ramzi Awwad, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: Cory Linder, Director of Recreation and Parks
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 2021-__ establishing permanant parking restrictions on
Crenshaw Blvd. (page A-1)
B. Sample Capacity Studies from Claremont Hills Wilderness Park, Puente
Hills Preserve, and Orange County Nature Reserve (page B-1)
C. Agreement with Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (page C-1)
D. Willdan Engineering Traffic Analysis (page D-1)
BACKGROUND:
The Portuguese Bend Reserve experiences approximately 658 daily visits, resulting in
vehicular traffic and noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, especially on
weekends and holidays. The area that is the most impacted is the stretch of Crenshaw
Boulevard south of Crest Road. In response, the City Council has engaged in a Holistic
Preserve Parking and Access Effort to balance public access, safe parking and access,
neighbor quality of life, and natural resource protection. This effort includes the
following action steps:
• Preserve capacity analysis
• Web and social media campaign
• Traffic and parking analysis
• Parking solutions specific to Crenshaw Boulevard and Park Place
• Increasing parking enforcement
• Establishing reservation and fee-based parking system
• Increasing parking citation fines
• Installing access gates at Burma Road and Rattlesnake trailheads
2
• Dispersing public use to alternative reserve locations
• Beautifying Alta Vicente Reserve/Civic Center
• Establishing a Preserve Pilot Shuttle program
The City Council has discussed and provided directives addressing the Holistic
Preserve Parking and Access effort at previous meetings on August 18, 2020,
September 1, 2020, October 20, 2020, December 15, 2020, January 19, 2021 , and
February 16, 2021.
This evening, the City Council will consider the following action items as part of its
continued efforts to address vehicular traffic and noise impacts on surrounding
neighborhoods (Staff recommends the City Council consider each action item
separately and in the order listed below):
1. Receive a report on carrying capacity for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
based on other open space agencies;
2. Consider issuing an RFP to have a consultant prepare a capacity management
assessment for the Preserve;
3. Enter into an MOU with PV Transit to operate the Pilot Preserve Shuttle
Program;
4. Review an engineering traffic study prepared specifically to address vehicle
movements at parking zones B and F along Crenshaw Boulevard; and,
5. Adopt a resolution to implement Willdan Engineering’s recommendations to:
a. Prohibit parking for a distance of 200’ from the center of the Crenshaw
Blvd. intersection with Park Place
b. Prohibit parking for a distance of 44 feet north of Valley View Rd.
c. Prohibit parking for a distance of 100 feet south and 80 feet north of the
St. John Fisher Church driveway on Crenshaw Blvd.
6. Lift the temporary parking restrictions adopted by the City Council.
7. Receive and file a status update on search engine optimization conducted by
Tripepi Smith.
DISCUSSION:
1. Capacity Analysis for Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
Overcrowding at trailheads and trails is an increasingly prevalent issue faced by open
space managers in Los Angeles County and beyond. This is partly due to the ever-
increasing popularity of natural open space areas and significant increased use during
the COVID-19 pandemic. The City coordinates with the L.A. County-wide Trails Task
Force and L.A. County Regional Directors Meetings on related policy and management
issues. Managers are reporting increased use by novice users unfamiliar with open
space recreation and subsequent impacts. Novice users can be unaware of the
negative impact of litter in natural areas, and untrained in trail safety and trail etiquette.
Managers are reporting that with technology and mapping, trail users have more
sophisticated tools to find unauthorized open space entry points as ma nagers increase
3
management of popular trailheads. Managers are taking steps to understand and
manage use including installing trail counters and stationing extra staff, volunteers, and
traffic control at popular trailheads. Some trail managers have completed formal
carrying capacity analysis.
City Staff has studied other agency’s carrying capacity studies, methods used, and
results yielded to help determine what analysis is available to the City. Different agency
methodologies go about establishing capacities in particular ways; however, a common
thread is that there is no single formula to apply to open space areas to arrive at a
particular number of visitors an area can accommodate at any time. In fact, these
studies are departing from the term “carry capacity study” and are more accurat ely
referred by the type of management analysis they entail. Staff looked into the following
three recent studies:
• 2015 Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority Report Regarding Visitor
Management
• 2016 Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Master Plan
• 2019 Recreation Use and Human Valuation on the Nature Reserve of Orange
County, California
• L.A. County Managers’ formula to comply with pandemic-related L.A. County
Health Department orders
Staff will summarize the approaches listed above and will provide options for the City to
consider in creating a carrying capacity analysis for the Preserve, as discussed below.
Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority Report Regarding Visitor Management
In 2015, the Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority conducted a management study
largely in response to concerns from residents about dramatic increases in visitor use
and resulting quality-of-life issues starting around 2010. Puente Hills has nearly 4,000
acres of continuous open space, including 22 miles of trails and six official trailheads.
Parking in the various trailhead parking lots and street parking immediately outside the
parking lots can accommodate approximately 286 vehicles. Current average daily use is
2,600 visitors, equating to 950,000 per year. However, the heaviest used areas (70%)
are Hellman Park and Turnbull Canyon. Puente Hills’ methodology objectives included
identifying key management issues to address the ways impacts are related to
recreation uses and behaviors, identifying standards – including specification on when
impacts become unacceptable, identifying management actions to address
unacceptable impacts, and options for developing and maintaining a monitoring
program.
The Puente Hills capacity study utilized a consultant to identify issues to be addressed
and evaluated and identified management goals for each set of issues. Issues were
broken down into three categories: ecological (habitat protection and fire hazard),
recreational quality (trail conflicts between user groups, parking/traffic congestion at
trailheads, trail conditions), and depreciative behavior (graffiti and vandalism, litter and
4
dog waste, crime, and personal safety). Clear management goals were identified for
each category, and actions were identified to reduce or mitigate impacts. In the case of
parking/traffic congestion near trailheads, the following actions to reduce or mitigate
impacts were identified:
• Increase parking at trailheads, although there is little space available at existing
access points
• Improve organization and delineation of parking spaces to ensure that available
spaces are used efficiently
• Develop non-roadside parking at locations aside from trailheads
• Increase permit-only parking as needed
• Conduct a user survey and use monitoring
• Work to develop a transit option from Uptown Whittier
• Develop capacity for Whittier trailhead or overall Preserve use, which would
require a daily permit*
*It’s important to note that the Puente Hills study found that use limits (e.g., a permit
system) are the most direct mechanism that can be used to maintain a capacity for a
recreation use area such as the Preserve. These are common in many backcountry
areas, but usually for overnight users on longer river or wilderness trips. In most higher
use settings like the Preserve, use is typically controlled through parking facilities rather
than permits.
The Puente Hills study cost $18,000 in 2015. One contributing factor to the low cost is
that the Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority already had many of the metrics
required for analysis at the time the consultant began work.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Capacity Study
In 2016, the City of Claremont completed a master plan for the 2,500-acre Claremont
Hills Wilderness Park (CHWP). The city worked with MIG Consulting and BonTerra
Psomas Consulting to complete the carrying capacity portion of the master plan. The
study explored the relationships between visitor use levels and 1) social factors, 2)
biological factors, and 3) physical factors. Social factors pertain to the extent to which
visitors are comfortable with the level of encounters they have with other visitors,
biological factors pertain to the types of plants and animals and their habitats , and
physical factors pertain to roads, trails, and parking lots.
Ultimately, the study was not able to establish a direct relationship between visitor use
levels and social or biological factors. After evaluating social, biological, and physical
factors, the consultant concluded that no direct relationship exists between visitor use
levels and social or biological factors, and that parking is the major limiting factor to
visitor use at CHWP. The area has 177 parking spaces located within two parking lots
and in street parking, and there were not enough parking spaces in the parking lot to
accommodate use during peak times (weekends and holidays). As a result, visitors
spilled onto nearby residential streets, creating quality of life issues for neighbors.
5
Therefore, the study concluded that parking capacity is the limiting factor and should
serve as the basis for managing park visitation.
The following management practices resulted from the carrying capacity study:
• Residential permit parking zones
• A paid parking permit system
• Extensive studies on parking behaviors, parking limitations, visitor behavior, and
the impacts on the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods
• To achieve a better balance between parking supply and demand, reduc tion of
parking demand by using increased peak time pricing and increased parking
restrictions on residential streets
• Additional monitoring and studying of parking recommended because parking
behavior and impacts are dynamic. As regulations change, behavior will change
in anticipated and unanticipated ways.
The following management practices were explored, but not pursued:
• Shuttle system (found to be cost prohibitive)
• Permit system to enter the park (found to be cost prohibitive and labor
intensive)
• Directing visitors to alternative sites (raised concerns with impacts to
neighbors)
It’s hard to determine the cost of the CHWP capacity study because it was one smaller
element of the master plan.
Recreation Use and Human Valuation on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
This study was a management analysis to understand how visitor use patterns and
motivations may be affecting conservation goals on 38,000 acres of reserve lands in
Orange County managed by OC Parks, California State Parks, and the Irvine Ranch
Conservancy. The study used a combination of spatial analysis, social science, and
recreational monitoring techniques. This method relies heavily on data collection and
sampling. The study tracked visitor movement through reserve properties with GPS
devices, and proximity to sensitive resources. It used surveys to gather information on
visitors perceptions and demographics.
This analysis was a multi-year study, with 2017-2019 focusing on user experience
including social and biophysical field sampling. The second stage will take place in
2020-2021 and will start evaluating resulting natural resource impacts. This study was
partly funded through grant funding. The first stage of the project cost $492,000.
6
L.A. County Set Formulas Related to Pandemic-Related Health Department Orders
Some L.A. County trail managers created a formula to calculate how many visitors trails
could accommodate while remaining in compliance with pandemic-related L.A. County
Department of Public Health orders pertaining to limitations on group size and social
distancing. This formula allows one trail group to be spaced 10 feet from the next trail
group through the trail system. Staff applied this formula to Portuguese Bend and
Filiorum Reserves, both of which have Crenshaw Boulevard as their primary parking
and trailhead access point. Together these two reserves have 12.5 miles of trails. If the
average hiking group is two individuals, the two reserves could accommodate 13,200
users at any given time. Currently, the City’s trail counters pick up an average of
approximately 660 users per day. Setting a carrying capacity using the L.A. County trail
managers’ formula would result in a drastic increase in visitors likely to have significant
impacts to natural resources, traffic, and surrounding neighborhoods.
Another way to calculate the number of individuals the Preserve can accommodate is
by evaluating the number of parking spaces available at the Burma Road and
Rattlesnake trailheads along Crenshaw Boulevard, Crest Road, and Park P lace. If all
parking spaces on Park Place, Crest Road, and Crenshaw Boulevard north and south of
Crest Rd. were utilized, it would equate to approximately 190 cars. If an average of 2
people visited per car, parking would accommodate approximately 380 visitors at one
time at full parking capacity. A common turnover is two hours. If 190 parking spaces
turned over every two hours and accommodated 2 visitors per car during Preserve
operating hours in the summer, this would equate to approximately 2,470 visitors per
day. It should be noted that parking in this area is not commonly at 100%, but it can
reach much higher capacity during peak use, such as holidays, sometimes even
extending onto Crestridge Road. However, this count method is an estimate that takes
into account available parking, not natural resource protection, impacts to surrounding
neighbors, or public perception of overcrowding. Attendance at the Burma and
Rattlesnake trailheads during recent holidays were as follows:
• New Year’s Eve 2020: 2,130
• New Year’s Day 2021: 2,620
• Martin Luther King Jr. Day 2021: 2,260
• Presidents Day 2021: 2,170
Both formulas/methods yield much higher usage than the average of 660 visitors per
day these two reserves currently see. The City and Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy (PVPLC) actively manage public use at current levels to minimize impacts
to natural resources. Relying solely on these set formulas is not recommended,
because it is likely that such an increase in use would have a significant impact on
natural resources, traffic, and Preserve neighbors.
7
Bolsa Chica Reserve
Members of the public have referred to Bolsa Chica Nature Reserve as a potential
model of how to provide public access and parking. Bolsa Chica Reserve is nearly the
same size, 1,400 acres, as the City’s Preserve and contains a Marine Protected Area
(MPA). Bolsa Chica offers 60 parking spaces within two off-street parking lots. Some
paid and free street parking is available with a small walk. Bolsa Chica has onsite staff
for enforcement, and they call the Sheriff’s Department and Cal Tip when additional
assistance is needed. Bolsa Chica is different from the Preserve in that it is one
contiguous reserve, and large areas are composed of bodies of water and tidal cells
which are not accessible to the public. Additionally, they have a large fenced area
closed off from public access. In total, Bolsa Chica Reserve has five miles of trails for
public access compared to the City Preserve’s 33 miles of trails.
City Baseline Information
The City collects baseline information for Preserve use at four of the several access
points. Staff began tracking use at Burma Road Trail (Portuguese Bend Reserve),
Rattlesnake Trail (Filiorum Reserve), and Pirate Trail (Forrestal Reserve) in 2018 using
trail counters. Staff also tracks cars that enter the Abalone Cove parking lot. The
majority of these visitors come to hike through the Abalone Cove Reserve to visit
Abalone Cove and Sacred Cove beaches.
Staff, with the help of PVPLC Volunteer Trail Watch (VTW) members, has also been
monitoring some key Preserve access points that are more likely to experience
increased use as a result of access changes on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest
Road. It’s important to note that many trail managers in L.A. County are reporting that
as technology and mapping improves, trail visitors are finding their way to a variety of
open space area access points, including unauthorized access points. Staff and VTW
are specifically monitoring Alta Vicente Reserve, Forrestal Reserve, and Filiorum
Reserve in this regard.
PVPLC and NCCP/HCP Addresses Natural Resource Monitoring and Management
The City works with PVPLC to monitor natural resources in the Preserve to meet
Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP)
conservation requirements. As the NCCP/HCP Habitat Manager, PVPLC is responsible
for conducting a variety of biological monitoring and reporting including, but not limited
to:
• Biotic surveys (wildlife and botanical surveys of covered species)
• Comprehensive monitoring and management report
• Annual reports
• Habitat restoration (5 acres/year)
• Invasive plant removal
• Restoration site monitoring and maintenance
8
• Photo documentation
The PVPLC meets several times per month with City Staff on Preserve management.
Moreover, PVPLC, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, make Preserve management recommendation s to
address habitat impacts that may occur due to several reasons, including environmental
conditions and public use.
A common principle in the capacity study methods, as quoted in the Puente Hills study,
is “in many cases, biological conditions are related to the type of use and how it is
managed rather than the amount of use.” Moreover, impacts to the trails themselves are
sometimes more strongly related to poor design and placement rather than the number
of people that use them. The City, PVPLC and wildlife agencies created the Public Use
Master Plan (PUMP) in 2013 as an NCCP/HCP requirement. The PUMP establishes
public use management guidelines to allow public recreation access in a way that
minimizes negative impacts to protected species and their habitat. It includes
management guidelines pertaining to public access such as trails, public access,
parking, prohibited uses, signage, trail use, and more. Based on the management
studies referenced above, there are strong indications that generally regulating the
number of individuals allowed in the Preserve will not likely have a direct impact on
natural resources. However, a capacity management analysis (which differs from a
solely carrying capacity analysis) for the Preserve would be a very useful tool to
reference as the City updates the PUMP and works to manage increasing use levels
since 2013. Since the PUMP was adopted in 2013, the City and PVPLC have better
metrics and added information that is now known on the protected species within the
Preserve.
If the City Council desires a capacity management study, Staff recommends utilizing a
consultant with expertise in the field. Staff also seeks direction from the City Council on
the type of information to be targeted in the study. This information will help Staff work
with a consultant on the appropriate method and metrics. Below is an example of the
types of information a management study can yield:
• Establish whether a negative relationship exists between quantity of use and 1)
impacts to natural resources, 2) social aspects (feelings of overcrowding), 3)
physical characteristics (trails, available parking, etc.) .
• Identify key issues to be addressed through the management study.
• Provide management recommendations to address key Preserve issues.
• Provide recommendations for monitoring use levels and other useful metrics.
• Define methods for the City to capture baseline metrics and to help record and
adapt to changes in use at trailheads.
• Provide management recommendations to minimize impacts to neighbors and
habitat, which will help in the City’s obligation to update the PUMP document
based on current increased use levels.
It is recommended that the City Council direct Staff to issue a request for proposals
(RFP) for a consultant to conduct a capacity management assessment for the Preserve
9
to help assess impacts of public access to the Preserve, develop management
recommendations to improve current conditions, and develop metrics and standards by
which to evaluate future conditions.
2. Pilot Preserve Shuttle Program
On December 15, 2020, the City Council approved a 90-day pilot shuttle program to
connect and provide access to certain key Preserve areas. The City is in the process of
entering into a MOU with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA) to
operate shuttle services on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. The shuttle hub
will be located at the Civic Center/Alta Vicente Reserve, and shuttle stops will exist at
the following three locations:
• Point Vicente Interpretive Center
• Abalone Cove Park/Reserve/Beach
• Portuguese Bend Reserve (formerly known as Gateway Park)
The program would begin April 2, and run from 7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. PVPTA shuttles
operate within LA. County Health Officer Order mandates, and for this reason, the 24-
passenger busses would run at half capacity. The City is working with the PVPLC for a
shuttle ambassador and/or docent to provide interpretive information to riders.
The City will pay a total cost not to exceed $20,000 for the initial pilot program with the
option to extend the term of the program for an additional nine months at an additional
cost of $60,000. If the pilot program is successful, the annual cost would be $80,000.
Costs associated with the operation of the shuttle will be funded through Proposition A,
from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Local Return
Program. The draft MOU was reviewed and approved by the PVPTA Board of Directors
on March 4, 2021 and is now before the City Council for approval. The MOU has been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office as to form.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the MOU between the City and the PV
Transit Authority to operate the Preserve Shuttle Program for a period of up to one year.
4. Traffic Analysis Along Crenshaw Blvd. South of Crest Road
On March 15, 2021, the City Council directed Staff to conduct a comprehensive parking
and traffic analysis adjacent to the Preserve including Crenshaw Boulevard - north and
south of Crest Road, Park Place, the Point Vicente Interpretive Center, Abalone Cove,
and the toe of Portuguese Bend Reserve in the area formerly referred to as Gateway
Park. The City Council will consider a professional services agreement for this study in
April, with the study to be completed this summer. Prior to completion of the
comprehensive parking and traffic study, the City Council requested an expedited study
be conducted for parking zones B and F to analyze line-of-sight and where parking
prohibitions are warranted.
10
Willdan Engineering has provided a specific parking and traffic analysis (Attachment D)
of parking zones B and F, as described below.
Zone B
Zone B begins approximately 80 feet from the center of the Crenshaw Blvd. and Park
Place intersection. Willdan found that parking should be prohibited for a distance of 200’
from the center of this intersection to provide for recommended line-of-sight. Based on
the line-of-sight triangle, this means that 3 of the 9 parking spaces in Zone B of the
temporary parking restricted zone would permanently prohibited parking. The remaining
6 spaces will return to public parking spaces.
Zone F
Zone F is approximately 400 feet between Valley View Rd. and Crest Rd. Willdan
Engineering analyzed line-of-sight issues on Crenshaw Blvd. between the St. John
Fisher Church driveway and Valley View Drive. For the purpose of traffic safety and
line-of-sight, Willdan Engineering recommends prohibiting parking for a distance of 44
feet north of Valley View Rd., 100 feet south and 80 feet north of the St. John Fisher
Church driveway on Crenshaw Blvd.
It is important to note that these new permanent parking restrictions will reduce paid
parking spaces and will reduce initial revenue projections by an estimate of $40,000.
Initially, staff very conservatively projected that 25% usage would achieve full cost
recovery. Full cost recovery includes the ParkMobile app, seven day per week parking
enforcement, and associated equipment. With the new reduction in paid parking
spaces, staff will continue to monitor use and cost recovery. Staff will report back to the
City Council with any concerns of less than full cost recovery.
Staff recommends receiving and filing Willdan Engineering’s traffic study prepared
specifically to address vehicle movements at parking zones B and F along Crenshaw
Boulevard south of Crest Rd.
5. Establish Permanent Parking Restrictions Along Crenshaw Blvd. South of
Crest Road.
In order to implement the parking restrictions recommended by Willdan Engineering, the
City Council is being asked to adopt a resolution that would:
• Prohibit parking for a distance of 200’ from the center of the Crenshaw Blvd.
intersection with Park Place
• Prohibit parking for a distance of 44 feet north of Valley View Rd.
• Prohibit parking for a distance of 100 feet south and 80 feet north of the St. John
Fisher Church driveway on Crenshaw Blvd.
11
6. Lift Temporary Parking Restrictions Along Crenshaw Blvd. South of Crest
Road.
On September 1, 2020, the City Council established a temporary parking restriction
along Crenshaw Blvd. between Park Place and Rattlesnake Trailhead. This parking
restricted area was temporarily placed along a section of Crenshaw Blvd. south o f Crest
Road near where the road narrows to provide immediate traffic relief to the area until a
traffic analysis could be performed to assess traffic improvements and traffic calming
measures in the Del Cerro area.
On December 15, 2020, the City Council extended the temporary parking restrictions
until March 15, 2021. In order to formally memorialize ending the temporary parking
restrictions, Staff recommends the City Council, via minute order, lift the temporary
parking restrictions adopted on December 15, 2020 via Resolution No. 2020 -73.
7. Status Update on Search Engine Optimization Efforts
Staff is continuing to work on our public outreach campaign and search engine
optimization. Staff is currently focused on work with our SEO consultant, Tripeppi
Smith. Tripeppi Smith has executed initial research and benchmarking to determine
which trail-related webpages people are currently visiting and how they are finding
them. They have also been supporting OSM staff with claiming and/or editing Google
My Business listings and Google Map information. Staff is working with Tripeppi Smith
to optimize four trail-related webpages. Once the trail-related webpages are complete,
Tripeppi Smith with begin working with staff on third-party blog/site outreach to help
correct incorrect public information on the Preserve.
Additionally, staff has been disseminating information through social media on alternate
reserves for the public to visit to disperse use away from the very popular Portuguese
Bend Reserve.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Notification
Extensive public outreach regarding this item has been conducted via public notices in
the Daily Breeze and Peninsula News, listserv messages, social media, and notices at
major trailheads. On February 25, 2021, a public notice was published in the Daily
Breeze and Peninsula News newspapers.
Public Comments
To date, the City has not received any public correspondence. Public comments
submitted after the transmittal of this staff report will be provided to the City Council as
late correspondence.
12
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1) Do not move forward with a consultant to analyze carrying capacity at this time;
and continue to work with PVPLC and the Wildlife Agencies to monitor natural
resources, continue to address parking and access issues as they arise, and
continue to monitor use levels at multiple trailheads.
13
01203.0001/701944.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING
PARKING AND STOPPING ON PORTIONS OF
CRENSHAW BOULEVARD SOUTH OF CREST ROAD
NEAR THE ENTRANCE OF THE PORTUGUESE BEND
RESERVE
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (“City”) is a general law City
located in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 22507(a) provides that local
authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking,
or standing of vehicles on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all
or certain hours of the day, and that, with the exception of alleys, the ordinance or
resolution shall not apply until signs or m arkings giving adequate notice thereof
have been placed; and
WHEREAS, on or around 2010, residents adjacent to the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve began expressing concerns to the City Council regarding adverse
impacts associated with the volume of vehicles in their neighborhood. The concerns
varied between illegal parking and stopping, unlawful turning movements, excessive
vehicle speeds, and line-of-sight impacts to name a few; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2020, City Council in an effort to enhance the
public’s safety on the roadway and minimize conflicts among drivers, directed staff
to implement a temporary parking and stopping prohibition along Crenshaw Blvd.
south of Crest Road up to the Burma Road Trailhead gate for 60 days, unless
extended by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, this temporary parking and stopping prohibition was put in place
to allow the City to study the parking problems associated with this area of
Crenshaw Blvd. and develop permanent solution; and
WHEREAS, this temporary parking and stopping prohibition was extended in
both October and December of 2020, and is set to expire on March 15, 2021; and
WHEREAS, to assist with studying the parking issues in this area, the City
contracted with Willdan Engineering, a civil engineering firm, to provide a traffic
study of the portion of Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Road; and
WHEREAS, the traffic study recommends removing a portion of the
temporary parking and stopping prohibition on Crenshaw Blvd., making the
remaining portion of the temporary parking and stopping prohibition on Crenshaw
Blvd. permanent; and imposing a permanent parking and stopping prohibition on
A-1
01203.0001/701944.1 Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 2 of 4
Crenshaw Blvd. north of Valley View, south of St John Fisher Church Driveway, and
north of St John Fisher Church Driveway, as further detailed below; and
WHEREAS, the temporary parking and stopping prohibition on Crenshaw
Blvd. will expire on March 15, 2021, and no further action is necessary remove that
prohibition; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to impose a permanent parking and
stopping prohibition at the locations described herein .
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE , AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2: That the City Council hereby adopts the following findings:
A. The City and its residents have recently experienced significant
congestion and other public health, safety, and welfare issues related to the high
volume of people seeking to access the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
(“Preserve”).
B. Due to the Preserve’s popularity, the portion of Crenshaw Boulevard
south of Crest Road near the Rattlesnake and Burma Road trailheads o ften
become impacted with vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians seeking to enjoy the
facilities. Parking is limited and when full, drivers must turn around to find parking
elsewhere.
C. The popularity of the Preserve in this area and the associated parking
problems have resulted in congestion, which may increase the risk of vehicular and
pedestrian accidents due to obstructed visibility, trespassing , and other criminal
activities and noise and other public nuisance impacts in the residential
neighborhoods the entrance to the Preserve, to the detriment of the residents’
health, safety, and welfare.
D. The parking and stopping prohibitions described here are designed to
lessen congestion on Crenshaw Blvd., nearby streets, and the area around the
Rattlesnake and Burma Road trailheads.
Section 3: That, based on the findings set forth in Section 2, and in order to
protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, the City Council hereby
prohibits parking and stopping at any time at the locations listed below, as more
accurately described in Attachment A.
A-2
01203.0001/701944.1 Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 3 of 4
• The three parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd. north of the Park Place
intersection;
• A 44 (forty four) foot portion of Crenshaw Blvd. north of Valley View;
• A 100 (one hundred) foot portion of Crenshaw Blvd. south of the St. John
Fisher Church’s driveway; and
• An 80 (eighty) foot portion of Crenshaw Blvd. north of the St. John Fisher
Church’s driveway.
Section 4: That, in accordance with Vehicle Code Section 22507, t he
parking restrictions set forth in Section 2 shall not apply or be enforced until signs or
markings giving adequate notice of the restrictions have been placed. The City
Manager, or his or her designee, as soon as practicable after adoption of this
resolution, shall cause the placement of signs along the subject portions of
Crenshaw Boulevard. The number and location of the signs or markings shall be as
deemed necessary by the City Manager to give adequate notice of the restrictions.
The signs shall read substantially as follows:
NO PARKING OR STOPPING AT ANY TIME. VEHICLES
IN VIOLATION ARE SUBJECT TO BEING CITED AND
TOWED AT OWNER’S EXPENSE. LOMITA SHERIFF’S
STATION 310-539-1661. [Referencing this resolution by
number].
Section 5: That this resolution shall take effect immediately.
Section 6: That if any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this resolution. The City Council hereby
declares that it would have adopted this resolution, and each and every section,
subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses,
phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 7: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and
adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and its certification to be
entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council of the City.
Section 8: That the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a
“project” within the meaning of Section 15378 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as the parking restrictions do not have the potential
for resulting in either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonable
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Therefore, this resolution
is not subject to CEQA.
A-3
01203.0001/701944.1 Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this ____ day of March, 2021.
_____________________
Eric Alegria, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify
that the above Resolution No. 2021-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted
by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March ____, 2021.
___________________________
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
A-4
01203.0001/701944.1 Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 5 of 4
Attachment A
Description of Parking Prohibition Locations
1. The three parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd. closest to Park Place (the parking
and stopping prohibition area marked in red):
A-5
01203.0001/701944.1 Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 6 of 4
2. A 44 (forty four) foot portion of Crenshaw Blvd. north of Valley View(the parking
and stopping prohibition area marked in red):
A-6
01203.0001/701944.1 Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 7 of 4
3. A 100 (one hundred) foot portion of Crenshaw Blvd. south of St John Fisher
Church Driveway (the parking and stopping prohibition area marked in red):
A-7
01203.0001/701944.1 Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 8 of 4
4. An 80 (eighty) foot portion of Crenshaw Blvd. north of St John Fisher Church
Driveway (the parking and stopping prohibition area marked in red):
A-8
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park
Final Draft
Master Plan
PREPARED BY THE CITY OF CLAREMONT
ASSISTED BY MIG
May 2016January 2016
Final Draft Master Plan
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park
PREPARED BY MIG
B-1
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park
Master Plan
Prepared by:
City of Claremont
Colin Tudor, Assistant City Manager
Kathleen Trepa, Former Community Services Director
Anne K. Turner, Human Services Director
Loretta Mustafa, City Engineer
Bevin Handel, Public Information Officer
Technical Advisory Committee
Bobby Gomez, Neighborhood Representative
Butch Henderson, Community and Human Services Commission Chair
Carolyn Gonzales, Member-at-Large
Charlie Gale, Neighborhood Representative
Cynthia Humes, Planning Commission Chair
Dean McHenry, Claremont Wildlands Conservancy
Don Pattison, Claremont Hills Conservation Corporation
Gail Sparks, High Point HOA Representative
Gary Mizumoto, Padua Hills Community Representative
Hugh Wire, Member-at-Large
Richard Weiner, Claremont Hills Conservation Corporation
Steven Llansua, Claraboya HOA Representative
Terry Grill, Claremont Wildlands Conservancy
Assisted by:
MIG, Prime Consultant
John Baas
Paola Bassignana
Mark Brandi
Ashley Davenport
Esmeralda Garcia
Ivy Ku
Steve Lang
Steve Leathers
Steve Ridone
Jose Rodriguez
Ruby Tumber
Rick Zimmer
B-2
BonTerra Psomas, Biological and Cultural Resources Consultant
David Hughes
David Smith
KOA, Traffic Consultant
Brian Marchetti
B-3
City of Claremont May 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction ………………………………………..………………. 1-1
1.1 Background……………………………………………………………. 1-1
1.2 Vision of the Master Plan ……………………………………………. 1-4
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Master Plan ………………………………… 1-4
1.3.1 Guiding Principles ……………………………………….….. 1-5
1.3.2 Alignment with Other Planning Documents ………………. 1-6
1.4 Changes to the Master Plan …………….. …………………..…..…. 1-7
1.5 Organization of the Master Plan ……………..………………………. 1-8
Chapter 2 Background ………………………………………..………………. 1-1
2.1 Background …………………………………………………………… 2-1
2.1.1 History of Acquisitions ……………………………………… 2-1
2.1.2 Acquisition Funding ………………………………………… 2-2
2.1.3 Guiding Deeds and Agreements…………………………… 2-4
2.2 Master Plan Impetus ………… ……………………………………… 2-5
2.2.1 Increasing Popularity of the Park – Parking Impacts….… 2-5
2.2.2 Annual Visitation Estimates………………………………… 2-7
2.2.3 Visitor Characteristics – Intercept Questionnaires…..…… 2-8
2.2.4 Carrying Capacity…… ……………………………………… 2-9
2.2.5 Technical Advisory Committee..…………………………… 2-12
2.3 Conclusion ……………………..………...…………………………… 2-13
Chapter 3 Resource Management Plan ….………………..………………. 3-1
3.1 Introduction……………………...……………………………………… 3-1
3.1 Project Location and Site Description…..………………… 3-1
3.2 Survey Methods ..……………………….......………………………… 3-2
3.2.1 Biological Surveys…………….......………………………… 3-2
3.2.2 Cultural Resources Survey….......….……………………… 3-3
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Table of Contents
Final Draft Master Plan Page i
B-4
City of Claremont May 2016
3.3 Biological Survey Results ..…………….......………………………… 3-1
3.3.1 Vegetation Types …………………………………………… 3.4
3.3.2 Exotic Vegetation…………….......………………………… 3-10
3.3.3 Special Status Vegetation Types....………………………… 3-10
3.3.4 Special Status of Plants and Wildlife Species…………… 3-11
3.3.5 Special Status Plants ..……….......………………………… 3-11
3.3.6 Watershed Resources…….......……………………….…… 3-12
3.4 Cultural Resources Survey Results …………………………………. 3-17
3.4.1 Native American Sacred Lands File Review ……..….…… 3-18
3.4.2 Paleontological Records Search ……………………...…… 3-18
3.4.3 Archaeological Field Survey ………………….……….…… 3-18
3.5 Management Considerations ………………………………………… 3-19
3.5.1 Invasive Species Management …………………………….. 3-19
3.5.2 Habitat Restoration …………………………………….…… 3-21
3.5.3 Wildfire Hazard Reduction …………………………….…… 3-23
3.5.4 Trail Maintenance ……………………………………….…… 3-26
3.5.5 Unauthorized Trails ….………………………………….…… 3-27
3.5.6 Water Quality and Groundwater Recharge ………….…… 3-29
3.5.7 Litter and Graffiti……………………………………….…… 3-29
3.5.8 Biological Resource Protection….…………………….…… 3-30
3.5.9 Trail Maintenance ……………………………………….…… 3-30
3.5.10 Cultural Resource Protection………………………….…… 3-30
3.6 Recommendations ……. ……………………………………….…… 3-31
3.6.1 Invasive Species Management……………………….…… 3-31
3.6.2 Habitat Restoration …………………………………………. 3-31
3.6.3 Wildfire Hazard Management ……………………………… 3-31
3.6.4 Unauthorized Trails ………… ……………………………… 3-32
3.6.5 Water Quality and Groundwater Recharge………..……… 3-32
3.6.6 Biological Resources Protection …………………………… 3-32
3.6.7 Wildlife Movement …………………………………………… 3-32
3.6.8 Cultural Resources Protection ……………………………… 3-32
3.7 References …………………………………………………………..… 3-33
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Table of Contents
Final Draft Master Plan Page i
B-5
City of Claremont May 2016
Chapter 4 Operations, Maintenance, and Management .………………. 4-1
4.1 Guidelines and Standards…………….......……….………………… 4-4
4.2 Park Management …………….......………………………………..… 4-5
4.2.1 Public Outreach……………….......………………………… 4-5
4.2.2 Programming ………………….......………………………… 4-5
4.2.3 Volunteer Engagement ……….......………………………… 4-9
4.2.4 Enforcement……………….......……………………………. 4-11
4.3 Park Operations and Maintenance ….......….……………………… 4-12
4.3.1 Trail Maintenance …………….......………………………… 4-12
4.3.2 Trail Ameneities ……………….......………………………… 4-14
4.3.3 Fuel Vegetation Management.......………………………… 4-16
4.3.4 Parking Management………….......………………………… 4-17
4.3.5 Parking Lots ……………….......………………………….… 4-17
Chapter 5 Future Acquisition, Future Study, and Reassessment….…. 5-1
5.1 Future Acquisition ……..……………….......………………………… 5-2
5.2 Environmental Preservation, Watershed Protection, and
Future Study …………………………………………………………… 5-2
5.3 Changes to the Master Plan and Reassessment Time Frames .… 5-3
Tables
Table 2-1: CHWP Funding Sources
Table 3-1: Vegetation Types and Other Areas Mapped Within the Study Area
Table 3-2: Summary of Invasive Species Observed in Study Area
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map …………………………………………………….……………………………….. 1-2
Exhibit 2: Project Area ……………………………………………………………….…………………….. 1-3
Exhibit 3: Wilderness Area Land Acquisitions…..………………………………….…………………….. 2-3
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Table of Contents
Final Draft Master Plan Page i
B-6
City of Claremont May 2016
Exhibit 4: Existing Trail Conditions………………………………………………….…………………….. 2-11
Exhibit 5: Existing Vegetation….…………………………………………………….…………………….. 3-7
Exhibit 6: Soils ……….……………………………………………………………….…………………….. 3-13
Exhibit 7: Jurisdictional Waters..…………………………………………………….…………………….. 3-16
Exhibit 8: Fire History …………………………………………………..…………….…………………….. 3-24
Exhibit 9: Recommended Actions For Unauthorized Trails……………………….…………………….. 3-28
Appendices
Appendix A: White Papers and Related Planning Documents
Appendix B: Baseline Environmental Assessment
Appendix C: Public Outreach
Appendix D: Park Rules (Municipal Code 11.10)
Appendix E: Los Angeles County Trail Manual
Appendix F: Plant and Animal Lists
Appendix G: Park Signage
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Table of Contents
Final Draft Master Plan Page i
B-7
City of Claremont May 2016
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1:1 BACKGROUND
The purpose of the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park (CHWP) Master Plan is to guide the
management of the 2,000-acre park owned by the City of Claremont, a community of
approximately 35,000 in east Los Angeles County. The CHWP is located in the foothills of the
San Gabriel Mountains adjacent to the southern edge of the Angeles National Forest. The
CHWP receives half a million visits annually from across the region (Exhibit 1). The proximity to
the 10 and 210 Freeways and regional arterial streets provide convenient access for visitors.
The park has multiple access points, with its busiest entrance located at the northern terminus
of N. Mills Ave. The original trail network is comprised of Los Angeles (LA) County fire roads,
which can be navigated with relative ease by users of different experience levels. The trail
system cuts through hilly terrain with spectacular views across the valley to the south and
majestic Mt. Baldy to the north (Exhibit 2).
In the late 1980's and early 1990's, the City of Claremont and Pomona College negotiated the
purchase of 1,345 acres of hillside land the Garner Padua Hills Trust had given to the
College. After two years of payments and further negotiations, the City gained title to 1,220
acres of open space. This purchase became the core of the Wilderness Park that was
established in 1996.The College kept 125 acres of land that had been designated as a housing
cluster area.
Shortly after the park was established, the City adopted a Management Plan to serve as the
primary steering document to guide park management. However, the popularity of the park
grew rapidly and the park quickly became a regional destination. The increased visitors created
safety concerns and impacted the neighborhoods surrounding the park leading to increased
community dialogue. During peak hours, hundreds of visitors parked along the shoulders of Mt.
Baldy Road and N. Mills Avenue, as well as other surface streets. Pedestrians, cyclists, horses,
and drivers competed for roadway space. Residents in adjacent neighborhoods became
increasingly disturbed by the intensive parking along residential roads, visitors using the park
after hours, noise, litter, lack of privacy, and heightened security concerns.
Based on mounting concerns associated with traffic safety and neighborhood impacts, the City
Council directed staff to undertake a more comprehensive Master Planning process, which
began in 2013. The Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Master Plan was developed after more
than a year of planning efforts orchestrated by the City, with the assistance of MIG, Inc. and
other resource management and planning consultants, the Claremont Wildlands Conservancy,
neighborhood representatives, and many active community members. The Master Plan and
Implementation Plan illustrate the shift from passive management of the park to active
management of the park. Active management of the park in the future will be key to managing
the balance between users, neighbors, and the environment over the life of the park.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 1. Introduction
Final Draft Master Plan Page 1-1
B-8
B-9
Exhibit 1 : Vicinity Map
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Master Plan
.. ~. 0 0.5 !Miles .
Legend
-North America Interstate Highways
--CA Major Roads
[: ~ Claremont City Limit
-Claremont Hills Wilderness
li S
B-10
Exhibit 2: Project Area
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Master Plan
W~E .
Legend
+ Neighborhood Interface Access
-North America Interstate Highways
-cA Major Roads
--Street Centerline
C.: 1 Claremont City limit
-Claremont Hills Wilderness
--5-mile Loop Trail
II
City of Claremont May 2016
1:2 VISION OF THE MASTER PLAN
The Claremont Hills Wilderness Park was created to preserve open space in Claremont’s
hillsides and protect this environmental resource while secondarily allowing for human access
for passive recreation, education, and enjoyment. The park has become a distinctive feature of
the city and is enjoyed as an ecological preserve, educational resource, and recreation
destination.
The Master Plan offers guidance for protecting and preserving the Claremont Hills Wilderness
Park for future generations, and seeks to mitigate the negative impacts the park’s popularity
has had on nearby residential neighborhoods. In time, the expectation is that the CHWP will
grow to include additional open space in the Claremont hillsides and will connect with open
spaces in neighboring communities to create a regional wilderness corridor for environmental
preservation and passive recreation. The Master Plan’s three primary goals follow from this
vision.
1:3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE MASTER PLAN
The primary goals of this Master Plan are to:
• Preserve the park as an environmental resource;
• Manage the park as a passive recreational 1 opportunity; and
• Minimize the impact park attendance has on surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
The hillsides are a natural resource to be conserved, protected, preserved, and appreciated for
the benefit of habitat, wildlife, and humans. The Master Plan emphasizes the critical need to
preserve and conserve the environment for present and future generations. Through
education, the plan encourages park visitors to behave in a manner consistent with the spirit of
“leave no trace.”2 Also paramount is managing park visitation in a manner to not unduly impact
the surrounding neighborhoods. These goals are not mutually exclusive, and balance among
them can be achieved when visitors and neighbors alike embrace a culture of mutual respect
and consideration for each other and for the environment.
1 Passive recreation is considered to be low impact activities such as walking, running, hiking, cycling,
equestrian, etc. Active recreation would include activities such as off road motorized vehicle usage, sports
fields, playgrounds, etc. 2 Leave No Trace refers to a set of outdoor ethics promoting conservation in the outdoors, including: plan
ahead and prepare, travel and camp on durable surfaces, dispose of waste properly, leave what you find,
respect wildlife, and be considerate of other visitors.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 1. Introduction
Final Draft Master Plan Page 1-4
B-11
City of Claremont May 2016
In addition, the Master Planning process aimed to fully engage community members, users, and
the community at large in developing a blueprint to manage the park for years to come. The
City set out to create a balance among the goals and to give consideration to the diverse
opinions of the many community groups. Over the course of the input process, individual
groups have asked that the City prioritize one goal over the other. Establishing a hierarchy of
goals should be established by the City Council after additional study.
The Master Plan builds upon the original management plan, adopted in 1996, and provides a
flexible blueprint to manage the park into the future. The new plan will adhere to original
management plan goals while setting forth guidelines and standards for maintenance and
operations. The Master Plan is intended to be a guiding document for the active management
of the park for at least twenty years, sufficiently flexible to remain relevant and evolve with
changing conditions, yet firm in its commitment to the original goals.
The City retained MIG, Inc. as the lead consultant to develop the Master Plan in concert with
significant staff and community participation. MIG was tasked with evaluating numerous
documents associated with the various hillside acquisitions, land use, and other relevant
documents. MIG completed a baseline environmental assessment and an inventory of the
informal and formal trail network to evaluate trail and habitat conditions, human impacts, and
opportunities for enhanced resource management. An assessment of parking options, visitor
management policies, and operational best practices were also included in MIG’s overall scope
of work. Finally, public participation was intended to not only solicit community input but to
also foster an understanding of diverse perspectives.
1:3:1 Guiding Principles for the Master Plan
Guiding Principles
Guiding principles were developed to help steer the Master Planning process and guide future
decision-making for the next twenty or more years. The Master Plan is designed as a policy and
management document, rather than a proscriptive set of operating procedures. These guiding
principles were developed based upon existing City policies and documents, as well as public
input.
Preservation: Environmental and cultural resources within the current park must be
preserved and protected. As additional open-space lands in Claremont's hillsides
become available, efforts shall be made to acquiring the land and annex the land to the
park when fiscally feasible. Special attention should be given to preserving the hillsides'
function as watershed for the cities of the San Gabriel Valley. Appropriate resource
management promotes the long-term viability of the natural and cultural landscape,
inspiring future generations to care for and respect these resources. The natural
environment and the overall conditions of the Park shall be managed to minimize
impacts from human recreational activities.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 1. Introduction
Final Draft Master Plan Page 1-5
B-12
City of Claremont May 2016
Stewardship: The Master Plan will promote a park culture in which visitors treat nature,
park neighbors, and one another with respect and courtesy. Everyone associated with
the park—visitors, neighbors, City staff members—will be encouraged to see
themselves as stewards of the park, protecting its resources. City staff will educate
visitors about these expectations and enforce park rules in a fair and friendly manner.
Access: Inclusive and managed public access is provided as secondary to preserving the
natural environment and limiting the impacts to surrounding properties. The CHWP
allows for passive recreational opportunities that connect people to nature and
promote healthy lifestyles.
Education: Active education is the cornerstone of fostering visitors' safe and responsible
behaviors in the park. With effective outreach to the community, a variety of
educational and interpretive programs (such as field trips and docent-led hikes) will
enhance their understanding and appreciation of the park's culture and its natural
resources.
Public Engagement: Public collaboration is integral to ensuring sound policy decision-
making, and providing opportunities for the community to contribute their knowledge,
expertise, and energy to actively support Park management.
Funding: Achieving the Goals of the Master Plan and realizing the manifestation of the
Guiding Principles is only possible with funding generated from parking fees and grants
to support active park management, operations and maintenance.
1:3:2 Alignment with Other Planning Documents
The Master Planning process evaluated existing documents pertaining to the CHWP, including
the Claremont General Plan (2006), Claremont Wilderness Park Management Plan (1996,
revised 2006), Claremont Wilderness Park Vegetation Management Plan (1996, updated 2003),
Draft Conceptual Area Protection Plan (CAPP) for the North Claremont Ecological Reserve
(2001), Claremont Hillsides Wilderness Park and Thompson Creek Trail Parking Permit Policy
(2013), Claremont Sustainability Plan (2013), and the Sycamore Canyon Master Plan (1975). In
particular, the CHWP Management Plan and the Vegetation Management Plan helped
formulate the outline for this Master Plan, maintaining alignment with existing policies
regarding facilities, visitor, and resource management. Policies and restrictions from these
documents were incorporated into the Master Plan.
A $200,000 State Bond financed feasibility study, “Thompson Creek Spreading Grounds:
Acquire, Restore, Preserve,” made under the auspices of the League of Women Voters of the
Claremont Area and the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, was completed in December
2010. Purchasing Thompson Creek Spreading Grounds from its owner, the Pomona Valley
Protective Association is still anticipated. There has been an assumption that the land and the
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 1. Introduction
Final Draft Master Plan Page 1-6
B-13
City of Claremont May 2016
management of its water resources would go to the City of Claremont as another addition to
the CHWP. However, that agreement has not been formalized at this time.
A White Paper regarding Claremont Hillsides History, Acquisitions, Deeds, Agreements, and
Related Policies was published on the City website on July 28, 2014 (Appendix A.1). The
acquisition history of the parcels comprising the CHWP is found in Appendix A.2, and the
planning documents referenced above are found in Appendix A.3.
1.4 MASTER PLAN CHANGES
The Master Plan is intended to provide long term guidance for park management, generally
assumed to be at least twenty years. However, the Master Plan should be considered a flexible
document that can evolve with time based on changing circumstances. From time to time,
modifications to the document may be appropriate. Changes would go through the normal City
review process including Parks, Hillsides and Utilities Committee, Community and Human
Services Commission, and finally the City Council if necessary. In addition to the standard
process, ad hoc committees, community meetings, or workshops may be needed prior to
beginning the Committee/Commission/Council review process, depending on the nature of
changes being considered.
In order to have a truly living document that allows for adaptive implementation based on
changes in conditions, it is important to have established systems and time frames to gather
fresh empirical data. To that end, the specific time frames are recommended in Chapter 5 and
section 6.4 of the Implementation Plan for additional parking, user, and environmental survey
coordination with community resources such as the Claremont Colleges. Results of studies and
data-gathering efforts should be shared with the Friends of the CHWP, the community as a
whole, the Traffic and Transportation Commission, the Community and Human Services
Commission, and the City Council.
Parking
Parking behaviors and impacts should be measured throughput the first year of the
implementation of any new parking fees, restrictions or changes to parking patterns. When no
changes are made to the parking, reexamination should be done every two years. Areas of
study should include, but not be limited to, number of cars parking outside the Residential
Permit Parking Zone, empty spaces in the lots, parking meter usage data, and disruptive aspects
of parking as reported by neighbors.
Usage Estimates and User Profile
In order to ensure that proper implementation efforts are undertaken, it is vital to make sure
that the community, staff, and City Council have accurate and current information on the
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 1. Introduction
Final Draft Master Plan Page 1-7
B-14
City of Claremont May 2016
number of park users, how often they are using the park, why they are using the park and who
the users are. To obtain this detailed information, user surveys and usage estimates should be
performed every two years.
Environmental Evaluation
The Master Plan Chapter 3 presents the current environmental analysis and resource
management plan to guide the long term preservation of the CHWP. As with usage, the natural
environment is ever changing. The impacts of usage, weather, and watershed need to be
monitored regularly. In addition to the supplemental study described in the Implementation
Plan, environmental evaluation should be performed every five years in order to provide
updated environmental data to guide decision making.
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THIS MASTER PLAN
The Master Plan is organized into five chapters as summarized below:
Chapter 1: Introduction. The purpose, goals, planning principles and desired outcomes
are provided as the framework for the Master Plan. Guidelines and standards are also
introduced.
Chapter 2: Background. This chapter provides more detail regarding the community
context for the Master Plan and relevant background research which served as the
foundation for the Master Plan recommendations, including a history of the hillside
acquisitions, estimated visitation, and visitor characteristics.
Chapter 3: Resource Management Plan. This chapter describes existing biological,
cultural and physical resources. It provides guidance to manage habitat conditions, as
well as offering possible habitat restoration or enhancement opportunities.
Chapter 4: Operations, Maintenance, and Management. This chapter includes guidelines
and standards for managing visitors and volunteers, enhancing public outreach and
information, developing a consistent sign program, and providing other trail amenities
to address visitor needs. The trail network is more thoroughly described in this chapter.
Chapter 5: Future Acquisition, Future Study and Reassessment. This chapter
recommends specific time frames for review and processes for changes to the
document over time.
Appendices. These include all background documents, technical reports, deeds,
summaries of the public outreach process, and surveys.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 1. Introduction
Final Draft Master Plan Page 1-8
B-15
City of Claremont May 2016
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND MASTER PLAN PURPOSE
2.1 BACKGROUND
2.1.1 History of Acquisitions
The Claremont Hills Wilderness Park, as it is generally known today, encompasses almost 2,000
publicly accessible acres (Exhibit 1) at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, with the
Claremont community to its south and the Angeles National Forest to the north. The area is
comprised of rolling foothills with steep elevation gains, undulating ridgelines and numerous
drainage gullies. Moving from west to east along the southern perimeter are the Claraboya
neighborhood at the northern terminus of Mountain Avenue, the neighborhoods adjacent to
the Thompson Creek Trail and the Thompson Creek Spreading Grounds at the toe of the
foothills, and the neighborhoods of Padua Hills, Stone Canyon and Palmer Canyon to the east
(Chapter 1 Exhibit 2).
The earliest inhabitants of the area were the local indigenous Serrano and Tongva, whose
communities were later replaced by Spanish-era missionaries and rancheros. With the advent
of railroads, population migration (eastward and westward), and the founding of Pomona
College in the 1880’s, the Claremont community was born in 1887. The City formally
incorporated in 1907, with just under four square miles of land primarily centered around the
Village, a much smaller version of its fourteen square miles today. Early residents quickly
realized the ideal growing conditions for citrus trees, and commercial groves soon paralleled
higher education as an important part of the community’s economic and social fabric. Over
time, the groves gave way to housing to support the region’s growing population, and new
neighborhoods started a slow migration up the grade toward the foothills.
Development in the foothills dates back to as early as the 1920’s, when the County of Los
Angeles approved the Padua Hills neighborhood on a ridgeline in the unincorporated area
northeast of town. In 1930, the Garner family opened the Padua Theatre, and the enclave
attracted visual and performing artists to live and work, as well as the aficionados who
supported them.
Development pressure continued in subsequent decades leading to efforts to annex the
hillsides to control development. In the 1970’s, after an extensive community planning effort,
the City approved a program to allow the transfer of development credits, which authorized
clusters of development within designated areas while retaining most of the hillsides as open
space.
The first hillside area obtained by the City for both open space preservation and passive
recreational use was Sycamore Canyon, when the developer of the Claraboya neighborhood at
the northern terminus of Mountain Avenue dedicated 40 acres to the City in 1975.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 2. Background and Master Plan Purpose
Draft Master Plan Page 2-1
B-16
City of Claremont May 2016
The City’s adoption of a bold and imaginative Hillside Ordinance containing a “Transfer of
Development Credits” program enabled higher densities of homes in housing cluster areas to
be built than would otherwise have been allowed in exchange for leaving large open space
acreage undisturbed in perpetuity.
In the late 1980s/early 1990s Claremont worked with Pomona College to purchase 1345 acres
of hillside land (and the Padua Hills Theater) that the Garner Padua Hills Trust had given to the
College. The City aimed to pave the way for development of a 125-acre portion of Pomona’s
land along Baldy Road (Stone Canyon), identified in the Hillside Ordinance as a housing cluster
area, in order to secure the remaining 1,220 acres as permanent open space.
In the face of a deep recession and following two years of option payments to the College of
about $1.2 million for the approximately $16 million purchase which would have included the
developable 125-acre cluster area, plus another $800,000 in planning documents, the City and
the College came to an agreement that left the College with the valuable housing cluster area
and enabled the City to accept 1,220 acres that was to become the core of the Wilderness Park.
Development pressure continued, spurring the Claremont Wildlands Conservancy (CWC) to
form in 2000 with the goal of preserving more of Claremont’s hillsides from development, and
more particularly Johnson’s Pasture, which was being considered for a 125 home development.
Since that time, the CWC, City leaders, and other motivated residents have jointly worked to
acquire additional hillside land. The City eventually acquired Johnson’s Pasture in 2008 after an
extensive effort involving City staff, the CWC, regional environmental groups, and ultimately
the support of Claremont voters who approved Measure S. The measure authorized up to $12.5
million in general obligation bonds to help fund the acquisition of 180 acres in Johnson’s
Pasture. Funds were specifically earmarked for acquisition purposes, and are not available to
support operations and maintenance.
The City and interested environmental groups have continued to pursue additional hillside
acquisitions, and today the City of Claremont owns approximately 2,000 acres of open space,
which is collectively managed as the CHWP. The current boundaries of the park are included in
Exhibit 3, A Map of the CHWP Acquisitions. Because the City continues to evaluate acquisition
opportunities, this Master Plan recommends that all future hillside acquisitions be
automatically folded into the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park for management purposes.
2.1.2 Acquisitions Funding
The City utilized a variety of funding sources and developer agreements to obtain hillside
parcels, as outlined in Table 2-1 below. Of the nearly $20 million used to fund open space
acquisitions to date, approximately 40% or $8,064,850 came from the State and regional
funding sources. While the hillsides may be viewed as a local resource, significant non-local
funding sources contributed to these acquisitions to support regional wildlife corridors and
public access to open space.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 2. Background and Master Plan Purpose
Draft Master Plan Page 2-2
B-17
B-18
CllremontHIIII
WlldllrMMPIIrk
expan•lon-•cR:8ml ,..,
Wilderness
Area Land
Acquisitions
Exhibit 3: Wilderness Area Land Acquisitions
C/e1'8111ont Hills Wilderness Park Master Plan wi•
Claremont Hilts
WlldemeeePark , ...
I
Legend
-CHWPTRAIL
--5-MILE LOOP TRAIL
Sycarncwe Canyon Park
Cla~mont Hills Wildiii'T'IIIN Park
CHWP Expansion-McKenna
Qll'ioe1110nt
I
Rancho De Los Amlgos Property-addldon to CHWP
Johnson'6 Pa&ture
Gale Ranch
Palmer Canyon Association -Vscllllon 2009
Parcels
c:::J Claremont Hilla Wilderness
li S
City of Claremont May 2016
Table 2-1: CHWP Funding Sources
Date Acquisition Name Acres Funding Source Regional
Funds Local Funds
1973-
75
Sycamore Canyon 40 Developer Exchange
for density bonus
1996 CHWP 1,225 Development Agmnt,
Prop A grant
$ 317,850 $ 932,150
2003 Los Amigos 240 Grants, San Gabriel &
Lower LA RMC
$1,000,000
2003 McKenna 129 Grant, Wildlife
Conservancy Board
$ 774,000
2004 Wang 104 Grant, Wildlife
Conservancy Board
$ 623,000
2007 Johnson’s Pasture 180 Grants & Bonds $ 500,000 $11,000,000
2011 Cuevas / Gale
Ranch
152 Multiple grant sources $4,850,000
GRAND TOTAL $8,064,850 $11,932,150
2.1.3 Guiding Deeds and Agreements
As part of the various hillside acquisitions, a variety of documents were approved and adopted
confirming how the properties should be utilized and managed. Many of these guiding
documents indicate the goals of preserving the natural environment while providing access to
the hills for passive recreational use. Two key documents are summarized below.
• 1996 Wilderness Park Deed: “Perpetual hillside open space shall permit only watershed,
pasture, low intensity recreation, trails, and scientific study (no such use requiring more
than minor structures or minor terrain modifications), uses of a nature similar to the
foregoing and accessory uses as are necessary to support the foregoing uses, and with
prohibitions against hunting, shooting guns, and use by motorcycles and motorbikes.”1
• Johnson’s Pasture Deed: “This Grant Deed is executed, and the Property conveyed, on the
condition that the property permanently be used solely for open space, conservation, and
associated recreational purposes, provided that this restriction shall not be deemed to
prevent the construction of structures and improvements consistent with such uses.”2
Therefore, a primary strategy of this Master Plan is to continue the vision and intent of these
acquisitions by recommending additional measures to manage these resources appropriately,
balancing public access with environmental and neighborhood preservation.
1 1996 Wilderness Park Deed (Appendix A.3.8)
2 Johnson's Pasture Deed (Appendix A.3.9)
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 2. Background and Master Plan Purpose
Draft Master Plan Page 2-4
B-19
City of Claremont May 2016
One particular note relates to the Claremont Hills Conservation Corporation (CHCC), which was
established in 1995 essentially to ensure that the original land dedication was utilized as
intended - perpetual open space and passive recreational access. The Board consists of nine
members, three appointed by Pomona College, three by the Claremont City Council, and three
by the six CHCC board members. Terms are staggered and the Board meets annually each April.
This Board will continue to monitor use of the original CHWP acquisition, while the City will
manage all of its hillside holdings as one entity with the same name.
A White Paper summarizing the history of hillside acquisitions, deeds, agreements, and related
policies is included in Appendix A.1 as reference.
2.2 MASTER PLAN IMPETUS
2.2.1 Increasing Popularity of the Park –
Parking Impacts
The original CHWP was served by a small parking
lot of approximately 20 spaces at the terminus of
N. Mills Ave., which was constructed as part of the
initial dedication of the park in 1996. An additional
43 spaces were also, and continue to be, available
in the south / Thompson Creek Trail lot.
However, popularity of the park began increasing with the new
millennium, and increasingly visitors sought parking opportunities along N. Mills Ave.,
Adirondack and Mt. Baldy Rd., to the disturbance of the neighbors along those impacted
streets.
In 2008, the City Council temporarily approved dusk
to dawn Residential Permit Parking (RPP) for two
years on Via Santa Catarina in Claraboya to address
parking and noise impacts from visitors entering
Johnson’s Pasture. In 2009, around the clock
restrictions were also approved for Adirondack near
the main entrance on N. Mills Ave. The City Council
permanently approved both these temporary
measures when restrictions expired two years later.
While impacts to these two streets were addressed with restricted parking, other streets
adjacent to the main entrance at N. Mills Ave. became increasingly crowded. It was common
for pedestrians, often with children, strollers or dogs, bicyclists, and other drivers passing
through to compete for roadway space. Traffic safety concerns mounted, as did the frustration
of residents living in the area. Staff received numerous complaints about not only a constant
South/Thompson Creek Trail Lot
Source: Google Earth
North Lot prior to improvements
Source: Google Earth
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 2. Background and Master Plan Purpose
Draft Master Plan Page 2-5
B-20
City of Claremont May 2016
stream of vehicles driving and parking on residential
streets, but also related to noise from visitors closing
car doors and setting alarms, radios, people talking,
and yelling while unloading or loading vehicles, dogs
barking, and litter strewn about. Others reported
occasional public urination or defecation as people
relieved themselves on private property or in the
public right-of-way. Some residents expressed
concerns about invasions of privacy and safety risks
associated with the number of strangers in their
neighborhoods. The basic message communicated by
residents adjacent to the Mills entrance was that the
previously quiet, rural streets were no longer peaceful.
In 2012, the City Council authorized the
construction of the new north lot to provide 134
parking spaces. The project also included several
other physical and regulatory strategies: the
existing pedestrian path from the east side of N.
Mills Ave. was relocated to the west side to reduce
impacts to the two homes adjacent to the path;
regulated parking in both lots was implemented;
and no parking areas were established on Mt. Baldy
Rd. (Mills Ave. to Via Padova) and Mills Ave.
(Pomello to the park entrance). The new parking lot
opened and the regulations became effective in
April 2013, at a total project cost of approximately $750,000. This cost was offset by a
$150,000 grant from the County of Los Angeles using Proposition A funds.
Following the opening of the new north lot and the
implementation of on-street restricted parking, park
rangers monitored both parking lots and adjacent
streets during the weekends for several months.
Staff monitored the same areas during the week.
Staff noted that the parking lots provided sufficient
capacity during most operating hours, except for
Saturday and Sunday early mornings when the lots
had a tendency to be full from 7:00 – 9:00 a.m.
Interestingly, even in the south / TCT lot, most of
the vehicles parked there did not display resident
permits. Staff also noted that the south / TCT lot
would be full, although the north lot had ample
capacity to accommodate many more cars. Staff also noted that some cars parked on surface
Parking near south/Thompson Creek Trail Lot
Source: City of Claremont
Parking near south/Thompson Creek Trail Lot
Source: City of Claremont
Parking near south/Thompson Creek Trail Lot
Source: City of Claremont
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 2. Background and Master Plan Purpose
Draft Master Plan Page 2-6
B-21
City of Claremont May 2016
streets beyond the no parking restrictions, particularly on the weekend. Pomello Dr., west of
Mills Ave., in particular was heavily impacted following the changes in April 2013.
Following the initial restrictions, staff expected some level of parking migration and monitored
where visitors were parking, as did those neighborhood residents. Residents very quickly
submitted petitions for a number of streets, which were approved after the standard review
process. However, visitors to varying degrees continued to seek parking opportunities on other
residential streets. By summer 2013, the City Council had directed that staff undertake a
Master Plan to address community concerns as residents continued to submit additional
petitions requesting that RPP zones be extended to include their streets, and parking continued
to migrate. The master planning process began in February 2014, and in June 2014, the City
Council declared a moratorium on any additional neighborhood parking restrictions until the
Master Plan was approved. Several submitted petitions were left in pending status with more
streets considering petitions due to visitor parking.
2.2.2 Annual Visitation Estimates
As noted, the number of visitors has significantly increased through the years. Prior to the
escalation, annual visitation had been estimated at approximately 30,000 visits; however, the
source of the estimate is not well documented. As visitation increased and parking pressures
escalated, community and staff began to question how many people were visiting the park.
In the spring of 2011, City staff counted visitors at the main entrance for a one-week period and
estimated approximately 300,000 annual visits. This exponential increase in park usage has
anecdotally been attributed to the proliferation of social media and electronic communication,
convenient access to the CHWP, and increasing awareness about maintaining healthy lifestyles.
Much of the use occurs along the 5-mile Loop Trail (Chapter 1 Exhibit 2).
In 2012, the City initiated a contract with ALTA Planning to undertake an estimate of annual
visitation. However, concurrently, the City had begun construction of the north parking lot and
was developing a regulated parking program for both the north and south lots. ALTA
coordinated two separate count periods during five days at five entrances to the CHWP. The
counts occurred in December 2012, prior to the parking changes, and in May 2013, after the
regulated parking lots had opened and the first phase of on-street parking restrictions was
implemented. Given the significant change in parking opportunities between counts, the data
were insufficient to develop an estimate. By summer 2013, the Council had directed staff to
undertake the Master Plan. The contract was cancelled and the raw data provided to MIG,
which was awarded the contract to undertake the master plan.
MIG was also tasked with developing its own count program, which was implemented by a
team of volunteers in conjunction with visitor intercept questionnaires. Counts were taken on
16 different days between May to July, to include two hour time blocks during various days of
the week. MIG prepared a white paper summarizing this process, “2014 Annual Estimate
Count,” Appendix A-4. Based on the data MIG obtained through its own count process, coupled
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 2. Background and Master Plan Purpose
Draft Master Plan Page 2-7
B-22
City of Claremont May 2016
with the data collected during the ALTA process, along with vehicle counts conducted by the
Park Rangers for the last several years, MIG estimates annual visitation at approximately
500,000 visits to the CHWP. Approximately 80% of those visits are through the main entrance
on N. Mills Ave.
It is important to note that a more accurate count of annual users can only be determined with
a far more intensive effort than has been undertaken to date, the most accurate of which
would be a daily count during operating hours over the course of a complete year. The U.S.
Forest Service regularly estimates annual visitor usage at its facilities through a rigorous
estimation program, and it acknowledges its estimates have a possible variance of ± 20%.
Therefore, the 500,000 visits currently estimated by MIG is, at best, a very general estimate.
For the purposes of developing the CHWP Master Plan, however, an understanding of general
magnitude of annual visitation is sufficient to develop guidelines and standards to manage
conditions and impacts at the Park.
It should be noted that the estimated number of annual visits (500,000) is not the same as the
actual number of individuals who come to the park, since the vast majority of park users (86%)
are repeat visitors. Using data from the intercept questionnaires can be estimated that the
total number of individuals who visit CHWP at least once per week is only a few thousand. This
represents a reasonably small and stable core group of regular park users which the City would
need to target to create a park culture of stewardship and mutual respect.
2.2.3 Visitor Characteristics – Intercept Questionnaires
The Claremont Hills Wilderness Park (CHWP) Intercept Questionnaire was designed to collect
information from the perspective of park users upon completing their visit to the CHWP. From
Monday, May 5, 2014 to Friday, July 18, 2014, the City of Claremont conducted intercept
questionnaires with visitors to the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park. Questionnaires were
administered by volunteers over approximately 16 days in 2-hour time blocks, during weekdays
and weekends within those dates. Visitors were asked upon exiting the trails if they would
participate in the questionnaire. To ensure a representative sample of visitors, volunteers were
scheduled throughout various times of the day and were simultaneously stationed at five
different hillside access points including: 1) North Mills Avenue, 2) Pomello Drive/TCT, 3)
Mountain Avenue, 4) Padua Avenue, and 5) Pomona College’s Evey Canyon trail head.
Based on information obtained through these questionnaires the majority of visitors arrive by
car (88%), access the CHWP from the North Mills Avenue entry (80%), and are not first-time
visitors (86%). The overwhelming majority of survey respondents stated they were using the
Park for exercise and to stay in shape (96%), with additional reasons given as experiencing
peace and quiet (27%), viewing scenery (25%), and socializing with friends (20%). A strong
majority of visitors use the park for walking/hiking (75%) or jogging/running (20%), with fewer
numbers biking (5%) and horseback riding (< 1%). Among those visitors providing zip code
information, 18% were from Claremont and 82% from neighboring communities. A strong
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 2. Background and Master Plan Purpose
Draft Master Plan Page 2-8
B-23
City of Claremont May 2016
majority of visitors from other communities (86%) enter at the North Mills gate to enjoy the
loop.
When asked what detracts from a positive experience in the Park, respondents mentioned lack
of parking (23%), trash on the trail (17%), lack of restroom facilities (15%), and trails being too
crowded (14%). Recommendations are made in Chapter 4 of the Master Plan and in the
Implementation Plan to address these issues. Significantly, when asked whether the number of
visitors seen on the trail had a negative effect on their experience, 92% said No, 3% said Yes,
and 3% were Unsure.
Visitors also were asked what makes for an enjoyable visit to the CHWP. The top three
responses were loop trails (66%), long distance rides and hikes (46%) and observing the scenery
(44%). Other positive experiences included socializing with friends (30%), seeking solitude
(23%), and observing and learning about nature (22%). It is encouraging that over 88% of both
Claremont residents and others indicated that they consider conservation either very important
(73%) or important (15%), and that 54% of respondents expressed positive or strong support
for the development of interpretive programs to learn about natural and cultural resources in
the CHWP.
2.2.4 Carrying Capacity
A core issue to address for the master planning process was determining at what point visitor
use resulted in substantial environmental and/or social impacts, including those to the
surrounding neighborhoods. To evaluate carrying capacity for this Master Plan, MIG used a
framework developed by Dr. Bo Shelby, a national subject matter expert on visitor carrying
capacity. Dr. Shelby (Shelby and Heberlien 1986) has stated that in order to establish visitor
carrying capacities, there must be a relationship between visitor use levels and at least one of
the following: social, biological, or physical factors. Social factors pertain to the extent to which
visitors are comfortable with the level of encounters they have with other visitors. Biological
factors pertain to the types of plants and animals and their habitats in the host facility. Physical
factors pertain to roads, trails, and parking lots. In previous research to evaluate trail use levels
and impacts to these three factors, it has been difficult to find relationships between the
number of visitors and impacts to biological and physical resources. Impacts to biological
resources as a function of trail use are often mixed and complex, and impacts to the trails
themselves are sometimes more strongly related to poor design and placement rather than the
number of people that use them. However, social factors can be more readily evaluated as a
potential limiting factor with visitor surveys, as some visitors may negatively evaluate
interactions with other visitors encountered (e.g., crowding) during a park visit.
Physical trail conditions were rated using a system developed by Mr. Timothy Best, a certified
engineering geologist, for the Marin County Road and Trail Management Plan. While the fire
roads, which are maintained by LA County Fire, were generally considered to be in good
condition during trail inspections conducted in the spring of 2014, erosion was noted at 25 of
the 38 trail locations throughout the Park (Exhibit 4). Further analysis showed that most fire
road locations with erosion were either not designed to facilitate proper drainage, or drainage
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 2. Background and Master Plan Purpose
Draft Master Plan Page 2-9
B-24
City of Claremont May 2016
structures were not functioning properly (Appendix A.5: Trail Inventory Results). Therefore,
because of trail design and maintenance issues, the physical condition of fire roads and trails is
not a quantifiable factor to limit visitor levels in the CHWP.
Biological and cultural resource conditions were evaluated
by BonTerra Psomas. Overall, they found biological and
cultural resources in the CHWP to be in good condition.
Visitor impacts were considered minimal and were noted
as: 1) trash and litter, 2) sanitation (human waste), and 3)
erosion along unauthorized trails. None of these three
categories are having major impacts on the overall
condition of biological or cultural resources. In regard to
sensitive plants, a Nevin’s barberry plant was found
immediately adjacent to the 5-mile loop trail in Cobal
Canyon. In regard to large mammals that are found in the
CHWP, there are no substantial migration barriers to the
national forest lands located north of the Park. Environmental impacts attributable to the
number of park visitors are not significant and can be mitigated with on-site trail amenities, trail
management, public education, and enforcement.
Nevin's barberry plant
Source: BonTerra Psomas
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 2. Background and Master Plan Purpose
Draft Master Plan Page 2-10
B-25
B-26
1100m
14
.11
71 10
6 e s
4 5
8 ~~~
,e24m
..... -..
" .. ~ ~ j 1!
i 3: 0::
"0
0:
j
li
0
o<
3
.... I
J -· I
I
r'
eP&.! ~
U I
~ I
t I ~ I or I
·or:
:--__ !_1
" . <C.
~
.& ,y
Exhibit 4: Existing Trail Conditions
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Master Plan wi•o ~ ___ O:..o.2:.:..5 __ ___:;0.5Miles
--,
Clwemont
GoUCo.ne
I ndepeodence· Dr
E Miramar Ave G
tJDr ~·
.c4' ~ .,
g
ell
E Radelille Dr
or=;
I
J
..
~
i
"
·Alamosa Or
SebastopOl St
Bluefield Or.
Way
E B8se l"me Rd
Sollll!biUIIllr
Clanon PI
Bladt· Hills Or
Rockfotaor,
p AI
m
r-----...... -·-----
'• i ~
I
i
~ l....-.----~.......-------.
-:..--~----~----
/-1
I ./
( , ..
)
I
I
I
Tr8110cc::.:~~PI
E Lenibnello St'
Roadbed Erosion
• None
• Minor
Minor/Major
• Major
• Major/ Severe
I ~. ,l!
I
I
• Neighborhood Interface Access
-System Trails
--5-mile Loop Trail
[:~Claremont City Limit
Claremont Hills Wilderness
Note: Inventory Conducted in April and May, 2014.
City of Claremont May 2016
Additional details for these conclusions are found in Chapter 3, Resource Management Plan.
Therefore, based on the Baseline Environmental Assessment (Appendix B), biological and
cultural resources are not a quantifiable factor to limit visitor use levels in the CHWP.
Social conditions were evaluated by conducting a park intercept survey at CHWP access points.
Survey respondents were asked to estimate how many people they saw during their visit (40%
indicated 0-25 people, and 32% indicated 26-50). However, the majority of survey respondents
(93%) indicated that the number of people they saw did not negatively impact their experience.
Therefore, interactions with other visitors is not deemed an appropriate factor to limit visitor
levels based on visitor feedback.
Parking that occurs outside of the designated parking areas has created a nuisance for
neighbors adjacent to the main entrance. Car counts conducted by City ranger staff found an
average of 182 cars parked on streets within one mile of the North Mills Avenue entrance
during early weekend mornings (7:30-9:30 a.m.) and an average of 113 cars during late
weekend mornings (11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.). Therefore, the number of parking spaces within
the parking lots is an identified physical limiting factor that could be used to determine CHWP
carrying capacity. This conclusion is similar to one reached in the 2013 version of the Merced
River Comprehensive River Plan. The National Park Service found that although some visitors
experienced crowding along trails and at attraction points under some conditions, the most
limiting factor to visitor use in the Yosemite Valley was a lack of day use parking. For the
CHWP, after evaluating physical factors (roads, parking, and trails), biological factors (plants,
wildlife, and habitats), and social factors (visitor experiences), MIG concluded that parking is a
limiting factor to visitor use at CHWP. There are currently a total of 177 parking spaces in both
lots. Recommendations are made in the Implementation Plan to address parking impacts.
2.2.5 Technical Advisory Committee
Technical Advisory Committees are commonly used to help guide development for Park Master
Plans. For the CHWP Master Plan a thirteen member Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to
represent diverse community stakeholders was formed to facilitate public vetting and to
develop collaborative solutions for park management. The TAC was comprised of
representatives from each of the five adjacent neighborhoods (including a County
unincorporated area), representatives from both the Claremont Wildlands Conservancy and the
Claremont Hills Conservation Conservancy, representatives of the Community and Human
Services Commission and the Planning Commission, and two members at large. The overall
purpose of the TAC was to provide the City feedback into the public engagement process and
input on specific issue areas to be addressed by the Master Plan. Other tasks the TAC carried
out included educating and informing the broader community about research undertaken
during the master planning process, promoting constructive dialogue about issues being
addressed by the Plan, and reconciling competing interests and objectives. TAC members
coordinated two meetings in community member homes with interested members of the
public to address two topic areas: 1) neighborhood relations and parking issues and 2) trail
sharing within the Park. Meeting participants were divided into two groups to address each of
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 2. Background and Master Plan Purpose
Draft Master Plan Page 2-12
B-27
City of Claremont May 2016
these topic areas. Meeting dialogue was summarized for the City to help inform development
of Master Plan recommendations (Appendix C). Specifically, the meeting summaries
highlighted ways to address sanitation and trash along the trails, trail sharing, the need for
coordination between the City and LA County for maintenance issues, and the need for more
ranger staff. The TAC also coordinated two hikes for TAC members, staff, and neighbors to hike
the main loop together to discuss observations onsite. The TAC also played a substantial role in
reviewing staff reports that included results of technical studies and potential management
options to address issues. In addition, the CWC helped develop the Park intercept
questionnaire and volunteered to coordinate the visitor intercept surveys and count. Several
TAC members assisted with that process throughout the summer. The volunteer engagement
in survey efforts significantly increased the amount of data about Park visitors that MIG was
able to process and analyze in developing Master Plan recommendations.
2.3 CONCLUSIONS
This chapter provides a brief background about the CHWP, and its formation, funding sources,
and deed restrictions. It discusses the impetus for the Master Plan, followed by an overview of
key results from the technical studies that guide the recommendations found throughout the
Master Plan. From 1973 to 2011, $20 million (a combination of local and regional funds) was
spent to acquire the various parcels that currently comprise the CHWP. Deed restrictions and
easements associated with these acquisitions require the City to preserve open space while
allowing passive forms of recreation. Visitor use of the park has increased from about 30,000 to
more than 500,000 annual visits in 2014. A carrying capacity analysis was conducted by MIG to
determine the number of visitors that the CHWP could accommodate, and focused on
biological, physical, and social factors. The analysis concluded that biological and social factors
are not impacted by visitor use, but that a lack of parking facilities during peak use periods was
impacting neighborhoods adjacent to the CHWP. Residents in those neighborhoods have
experienced a loss of privacy and solitude, as well as vandalism, and have expressed concerns
about their safety in addition to the safety of park visitors.
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to represent residents was formed to facilitate public
vetting and to develop collaborative solutions for park management. The purpose of the TAC
was to provide the City feedback on the public engagement process and input on specific issue
areas to be addressed by the Master Plan. Other tasks the TAC has been involved with included
educating and informing the broader community about research undertaken during the master
planning process, promoting constructive dialogue about issues being addressed by the Plan,
and reconciling competing interests and objectives.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 2. Background and Master Plan Purpose
Draft Master Plan Page 2-13
B-28
City of Claremont May 2016
CHAPTER 3: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter documents current natural and cultural resource conditions at the Claremont Hills
Wilderness Park (CHWP) to support the development of a Master Plan (Master Plan) and
ongoing efforts to manage the natural resources within the City-owned hillsides. Specifically,
the purpose of this chapter is to (1) describe current site conditions; (2) analyze the potential
for various special status plant and wildlife species to occur at CHWP; (3) describe
archaeological resources on or near the project site; (4) identify and discuss prominent land
management issues; and (5) provide recommendations for long-term management of the
biological, archaeological, and watershed resources of the CHWP.
3.1.1 Project Location and Site Description
The study area for the environmental work is located in Los Angeles County, directly adjacent to
the southwestern boundary of San Bernardino County, in the northern portion of the City of
Claremont (City) (Exhibits 1 and 2). Thompson Creek - with its tributaries from Cobal, Williams,
and Palmer Canyons – is the easternmost tributary of the San Gabriel River. It is comprised of
approximately 2,000 acres that make up the CHWP. The study area is located on the southern
slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains, between residential neighborhoods in the City of
Claremont and wilderness areas of the Angeles National Forest. The study area is located on the
U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS’) Mt. Baldy 7.5-minute quadrangle map. Topography of the area
includes foothills and creek bottoms with elevations ranging from approximately 1,500 to
3,100 feet above mean sea level (msl). The environmental study area does not include isolated
parcels to the northeast of main portion of the CHWP.
Private residences occur along the southern and southeastern edges of the study area along
Mt. Baldy Road, the Thompson Creek Trail, and in a small neighborhood west of Sycamore
Canyon Park. Native habitat areas in the Angeles National Forest are located north of the study
area. The Thompson Creek Reservoir, which is owned and maintained by the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works (LACDPW), is located south of the study area adjacent to
the Mills parking lot. Immediately south of the Reservoir and north of Pomello Drive are the
Thompson Creek Spreading Grounds, owned by the Pomona Valley Protective Association.
Additional County of Los Angeles and County of San Bernardino flood-control facilities are
located east of the study area. Surrounding land uses include open space, recreation, and
residential.
Access to the CHWP is provided principally at the southeastern corner of the park near the
northern terminus of N. Mills Avenue where the City operates the park’s main parking lot. An
additional parking lot is located nearby at the corner of N. Mills Ave. and Mt. Baldy Rd., which
also provides parking for Thompson Creek Trail users. Additional park access is available at (1)
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-1
B-29
City of Claremont May 2016
the southwestern corner of the park off Via Santa Catarina and Highpoint Drive and (2) the
Sycamore Canyon portion of the CHWP via the Thompson Creek Trail. No parking lot facilities
are present at these entry points, although a small parking lot is located on N. Indian Hill
Boulevard across from La Puerta Park with access to the Thompson Creek Trail.
One of the most prominent attractions of the study area is the presence of a trail system that
serves both as fuel breaks for fire management and for recreational hiking. The Claremont Hills
Wilderness Park is comprised of more than 9 miles of trails including the main loop, Johnsons
Pasture, Gale Mountain, and Sycamore Canyon. The main loop trail begins at the primary
entrance to the park on N. Mills Ave., inclusive of Burbank and Cobal Canyons, before
proceeding mostly through upland areas and along ridgelines before returning to the main
parking lot off Mills Avenue, for a total distance of approximately 4.5 miles. From this loop trail,
additional trails extend northeast into the Angeles National Forest, to the west to Marshall
Canyon County Park, to the north Palmer and Evey Canyon and Potato Mountain, and to the
south toward the Via Santa Catarina/Highpoint Drive park entry points, extending southward to
the Sycamore Canyon portion of the park. Because of these connections, the CHWP trails are
part of a regional trail system, in addition to the very popular main loop.
3.2 SURVEY METHODS
Reconnaissance level surveys by BonTerra Psomas staff members consisted of field visits and
records searches to document the presence or potential presence of biological and cultural
resources. Reconnaissance level surveys are a widely accepted best practice for conducting
natural and cultural resource inventories. More intensive survey efforts are only warranted
when specific ground disturbing activities in specific locations have been identified as part of
further research efforts for specific projects. This section describes the methods used to
perform the surveys and analyses undertaken for the master planning effort. MIG
acknowledges that the City commissioned biological and cultural resource surveys in 1996;
these surveys have been consulted in the preparation of the information below.
3.2.1 Biological Surveys
Records Search
The California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2014) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s
(CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2014) were reviewed prior to
the survey to identify special status plants, wildlife, and habitats known to occur in the vicinity
of the study area. The CNPS Inventory references the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR), which
categorizes species as either List 1A (“Plants Presumed Extinct in California”); List 1B (“Plants
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere”); List 2A (“Plants Presumed
Extinct in California but More Common Elsewhere”); List 2B (“Plants Rare, Threatened, or
Endangered in California But More Common Elsewhere”); List 3 (“Plants that Require More
Information”); or List 4 (“Plants of Limited Distribution”). These databases are standard tools
for determining the potential for special status species to occur on a project site. Database
searches included the USGS Mt. Baldy, Glendora, Crystal Lake, Mount San Antonio, Telegraph
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-2
B-30
City of Claremont May 2016
Peak, Cucamonga Peak, Guasti, Ontario, and San Dimas 7.5-minute quadrangles. Federal
Endangered Species Act (FESA) Critical Habitat documents were used to identify any portions of
the study area occurring within proposed or designated Critical Habitat.1 The literature review
also included a review of the Angeles National Forest Threatened, Endangered, Proposed,
Candidate, and Forest Service Sensitive Plants and Animals (USFS 2011).
Field Visits
BonTerra Psomas Senior Biologist/Botanist Jennifer Pareti and Biologist Sarah Thomas
conducted a general biological reconnaissance survey and vegetation mapping in the Claremont
Hills Wilderness Park study area on March 18, 20, and 24, 2014. Ms. Pareti performed follow-up
site visits on April 9, and 12, 2014, to refine the vegetation mapping. Representative
photographs of the park were taken during these field visits and are provided in Attachment A.
Plants were identified using Baldwin et al. (2012) and the Jepson Flora Project (2012).
Taxonomy follows Baldwin et al. (2012) and current scientific data (e.g., scientific journals) for
scientific and common names. Vegetation communities were generally classified using A
Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). Additionally, communities described in
Holland (1986) and the CDFW’s Natural Communities List (CDFG 2010) were considered while
classifying vegetation. Vegetation was mapped in the field on an aerial photograph at a scale of
1 inch equals 200 feet (1″=200′). Assumptions were made utilizing current aerials and Google
Earth for portions of the study area that were not accessible. All species observed were
recorded in field notes. A list of plant species observed is included as Attachment B.
Active searches for reptiles and amphibians included lifting, overturning, and carefully replacing
rocks and debris. Birds were identified by visual and auditory recognition. Surveys for mammals
were conducted during the day and included searching for and identifying diagnostic signs,
including scat, footprints, scratch-outs, dust bowls, burrows, and trails. Taxonomy and
nomenclature for wildlife generally follows Fisher and Case (1997) for amphibians and reptiles,
American Ornithologists Union (1998) for birds, and Baker et al. (2003) for mammals. All species
observed were recorded in field notes. A list of wildlife species observed is included as
Attachment B of the BonTerra Psomas report (Appendix B.1).
Additionally, unauthorized trails, non-native invasive plant species, and other biological
resources of interest were mapped in the field on an aerial photograph at a 1″=200′ scale.
3.2.2 Cultural Resources Survey
Records Search
BonTerra Psomas Senior Archaeologist David M. Smith conducted a cultural resources records
search and literature review at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at
California State University, Fullerton on May 13, 2014, to determine if the property had been
subject to a cultural resources survey and if any cultural resources had been recorded on or
within a one-mile radius. The SCCIC is the designated branch of the California Historical
1 Critical Habitat, as defined in the Federal Endangered Species Act, refers to specific geographic areas that contain features
essential for the conservation of a Threatened or Endangered species and that may require special management and
protection.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-3
B-31
City of Claremont May 2016
Resources Information System (CHRIS) for the project area and houses records concerning
archaeological and historic resources in Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties. Data
sources consulted at the SCCIC included archaeological records, Archaeological Determinations
of Eligibility, historic maps, and the Historic Property Data File (HPDF) maintained by the
California Office of Historic Preservation. The HPDF contains listings for the California Register
of Historic Resources (CRHR) and/or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California
Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.
Paleontological Resources Records Search
A review of the vertebrate paleontology records housed at the Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County (NHMLAC) was completed by Dr. Sam McLeod on May 23, 2014 (McLeod 2014).
Native American Heritage Commission Notification
On May 8, 2014, BonTerra Psomas notified the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
of the proposed project and requested a review of their Sacred Lands File to determine if
Native American cultural resources and/or sacred places were located on or near the park. The
NAHC responded in writing on May 16, 2014, and provided a list of Native American groups and
individuals who may have additional knowledge regarding Native American cultural resources
not formally listed on any database. Tribes and individuals were notified in writing of the
proposed project on May 19, 2014, and were invited to provide comments or questions
regarding the project.
Field Visit
On May 29, 2014, Mr. Smith visited the park to locate the cultural resources previously
observed on the property.
3.3 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
3.3.1 Vegetation Types
Vegetation types and land covers that were observed in the study area were broken into six
vegetative communities: coastal sage scrub communities, chaparral communities, riparian
areas, woodlands, non-native communities, and other areas. A map of vegetation types that
exist within the park boundaries is provided in Exhibit 5. Within these six habitat communities,
vegetation types include California buckwheat scrub, California sagebrush scrub, sagebrush –
annual grassland ecotone, laurel sumac scrub, laurel sumac scrub/annual grassland, chamise –
black sage chaparral, chamise chaparral, scrub oak chaparral, California sagebrush – laurel
sumac scrub, coast live oak woodland, California sycamore – coast live oak riparian woodland,
California sycamore – coast live oak woodland – restoration, California sycamore woodland,
willow thickets, mule fat thickets, coast live oak woodland, annual grassland, eucalyptus stands,
ornamental, developed, and disturbed (Table 3-1).
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-4
B-32
City of Claremont May 2016
Table 3-1: Vegetation Types and Other Areas
Mapped Within the Study Area
Vegetation Types or Other Areas Amount
(Acres)
Sage Scrub Communities
California buckwheat scrub 5.9
California sagebrush scrub 262.1
sagebrush – annual grassland ecotone 48.0
Sage Scrub Communities Subtotal 316.0
Chaparral Communities
laurel sumac scrub 57.0
laurel sumac scrub/annual grassland 57.0
chamise – black sage chaparral 240.3
chamise chaparral 249.3
scrub oak chaparral 171.3
Chaparral Communities Subtotal 774.9
Sage Scrub – Chaparral Ecotone
California sagebrush – laurel sumac scrub 232.4
Sage Scrub – Chaparral Ecotone Subtotal 232.4
Riparian Communities
coast live oak riparian woodland 113.4
California sycamore – coast live oak riparian
24.0
California sycamore – coast live oak woodland –
0.3
California sycamore woodland 26.8
willow thickets 0.8
mule fat thickets 0.4
Riparian Communities Subtotal 165.7
Upland Woodland Communities
coast live oak woodland 25.2
Upland Woodland Subtotal 25.2
Non-Native Communities
annual grassland 145.7
eucalyptus stands 10.8
ornamental 2.7
Non-Native Communities Subtotal 159.2
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-5
B-33
City of Claremont May 2016
Table 3-1: Vegetation Types and Other Areas
Mapped Within the Study Area
Vegetation Types or Other Areas Amount
(Acres)
Other Areas
developed 4.6
disturbed 25.9
Other Subtotal 30.5
Total 1,703.9
Sage Scrub Communities
California buckwheat scrub occurs in small patches or strips scattered throughout the western
and southern portions of the study area. This vegetation type is dominated by California
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) with scattered California sagebrush (Artemisia
californica), coastal deerweed (Acmispon glaber), and sessileflower goldenaster (Heterotheca
sessiliflora). The understory consists of herbaceous species dominated by non-native grasses
(Bromus spp.).
California sagebrush scrub occurs throughout the eastern portion of the study area. This
vegetation type is dominated by California sagebrush, with California buckwheat, white sage
(Saliva apiana), black sage (Salvia mellifera), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and toyon
(Heteromeles arbutifolia). The understory includes herbaceous species such as blue dicks
(Dichelostemma capitatum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and red brome (Bromus
madritensis ssp. rubens).
Sagebrush – annual grassland ecotone occurs on south-facing slopes in the southern portion of
the study area. This vegetation type represents areas of transition due to previous disturbances
such as grazing. These areas contain significant quantities of non-native grasses such as ripgut
brome, red brome, and slender wild oat (Avena barbata) with native annual species including
succulent lupine (Lupinus succulentus), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), and blue
dicks occurring throughout. Emergent coastal sage scrub species are present throughout and
include pinebush (Ericameria pinifolia), California sagebrush, and California buckwheat.
Chaparral Communities
Laurel sumac scrub occurs in the southern portion of the study area. This vegetation type is
dominated by laurel sumac, with other shrubs such as California sagebrush and white sage
scattered sparsely throughout. Understory species are the same as those found in the other
scrub vegetation types described above.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-6
B-34
B-35
Exhibit 5: Existing Vegetation
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Master Plan
.. A . 1.3.oo!!!!!!!!!!6!!!5ii0iiiiiiiiil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~, .300 y • Feet .
Coastal Sage Scrub Communities II Coast live oak woodland
California sagebrush scrub D california sycamore~ coast live oak woodland
California sagebrush-laurel sumac scrub • California sycamore~ coast live oak woodland-Restoration
California buckwheat scrub D California sycamore woodland
Sagebrush-annual grassland ecotone • Willow thickets
Chaparral Communities • Mule fat thickets
Laurel sumac scrub
Laurel sumac scrub/annual grassland
Chemise -black sage chaparral
Chamise chapanal
Scrub oak chaparral
Woodlands
• Coast live oak woodland
Other Areas
D Eucalyptus Stands
D Ornamental
D Developed
• Disturbed
D Approximate Boundary of
CHWP Parcels Not Included
In Environmental Baseline
ln"""tay-See Exhibit3
~ ...
PSOMAS -
City of Claremont May 2016
Laurel sumac scrub/annual grassland occurs throughout the southern portion of the study area.
These areas are similar to the laurel sumac scrub described above, with areas of annual
grassland incorporated throughout. This vegetation type contains the same dominant species
as laurel sumac scrub, but with the inclusion of a high density of non-native annual grassland
species such as ripgut brome, red brome, and slender wild oat.
Chamise – black sage chaparral occurs in large areas in the western portion of the study area
and smaller portions of the eastern study area. This vegetation type is co-dominated by
chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) and black sage. Additional species commonly occurring in
this vegetation type include California sagebrush, hoaryleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus crassifolius),
bush monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), laurel sumac, and toyon, with an understory of
non-native grasses.
Chamise chaparral occurs in the northern, central, and western portions of the study area. This
vegetation type is dominated by chamise with hoaryleaf ceanothus, laurel sumac, black sage,
California sagebrush, and toyon. Areas of chamise near the intersection of Johnson’s Pasture
and Burbank Roads are degraded with shortpod mustard (Hirshfeldia incana) and non-native
grasses.
Scrub oak chaparral occurs on north-facing slopes across the study area. This vegetation type is
dominated by San Gabriel scrub oak (Quercus durata ssp. gabrielensis), with hoaryleaf
ceanothus, little leaved red berry (Rhamnus crocea), skunk bush (Rhus aromarica), hillside
gooseberry (Ribes californicum), heart-leaved bush-penstemon (Keckiella cordifolia), southern
honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata var. denudata), chamise, white sage, and scattered bush
monkeyflower.
Sage Scrub – Chaparral Ecotone
California sagebrush – laurel sumac scrub occurs throughout the central and eastern portions of
the study area. Within this vegetation type, California sagebrush is co-dominated by laurel
sumac. Other shrub species mentioned above are also found in lesser amounts within this
vegetation type. The understory consists of herbaceous species dominated by non-native
grasses.
Riparian Communities
Coast live oak riparian woodland occurs along drainages throughout the study area. Coast live
oak riparian woodland is dominated by coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia), with canyon live
oak (Quercus chrysolepis), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), San Gabriel scrub oak,
toyon, and California bay (Umbellularia californica). The understory is open and dominated by
western poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), with mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), giant
wild rye (Elymus condensatus), wild cucumber (Marah macrocarpus), common miner’s-lettuce
(Claytonia perfoliata ssp. perfoliata), and non-native grasses including ripgut brome and hare
barley (Hordeum murinum var. leporinum).
California sycamore – coast live oak riparian woodland occurs in the southeastern drainage of
the study area as well as additional smaller drainages throughout the study area. This
vegetation type has a dense tree canopy that is dominated by western sycamore and coast live
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-8
B-36
City of Claremont May 2016
oak. Additional species include blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea), arroyo willow
(Salix lasiolepis), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), and scattered California sagebrush and
chamise.
California sycamore – coast live oak woodland – restoration occurs along Sycamore Canyon in
the southern portion of the study area. Areas here have been cleared along the riparian
drainage, and western sycamore and coast live oak have been planted. These planted trees are
young; therefore the canopy is open and coastal sage scrub species including California
sagebrush, laurel sumac, and deer weed (Acmispon glaber var. glaber) are present with ripgut
brome, shortpod mustard, and hare’s ear cabbage (Sisymbrium orientale).
California sycamore woodland occurs in the drainages throughout the study area. This
vegetation type is dominated by western sycamore and mule fat, with blue elderberry,
California gooseberry (Ribes californicum), coast live oak, black willow (Salix gooddingii),
narrow-leaved willow (Salix exigua), oak mistletoe (Phoradendron serotinum ssp. tomentosum),
and chaparral nightshade (Solanum xanti). The understory consists of herbaceous species
including non-native grasses.
Willow thickets occur in the basins adjacent to the eastern and southwestern boundaries of the
study area. These areas are dominated by young arroyo willow, with mule fat and cattails
(Typha sp.).
Mule fat thickets occur along the California sycamore woodland riparian drainage in Johnson’s
Pasture and consist of dense mule fat.
Upland Woodland Communities
Coast live oak woodland occurs on north-trending slopes in Johnson’s Pasture and is dominated
by coast live oak. Additional species occurring in this vegetation type include San Gabriel scrub
oak, chamise, and laurel sumac, with an understory of non-native grasses.
Non-Native Communities and Other Areas
Annual grassland occurs throughout Johnson’s Pasture in the southwestern portion of the study
area. This vegetation type is dominated by non-native grasses, including slender wild oat, ripgut
brome, and red brome with non-native weedy species including shortpod mustard, common
horehound (Marrubium vulgare), and sourclover (Melilotus indica), and annual native species
such as California milkweed (Asclepias californica) and blue dicks. Scattered chaparral species
and sage scrub species listed above also occur throughout the grasslands. Additional disturbed
or cleared areas occur in the study area and are comprised of non-native grasses, mustards,
and other disturbance-following species including red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium),
strigose lotus (Acmispon strigosus), and miniature lupine (Lupinus bicolor).
Eucalyptus stands occur primarily in the southwestern portions of the study area in Johnson’s
Pasture and Sycamore Canyon. The eucalyptus stands in Johnson’s Pasture are generally upland
stands of eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.) with an understory of semi-natural herbaceous
species as listed above. The eucalyptus stands in Sycamore Canyon occur along the
downstream portion of a riparian corridor. This area is dominated by eucalyptus trees with
scattered black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and coast live oak. Mule fat, ash trees (Fraxinus
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-9
B-37
City of Claremont May 2016
sp.), fan palms (Washingtonia sp.), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), mugwort, and western
poison oak are present in the understory. Additional stands of eucalyptus occur along Cobal
Canyon with Peruvian pepper trees (Schinus molle) and pines (Pinus sp.).
Ornamental areas occur in the eastern portion of the study area and consist of planted rows of
olive trees (Olea europaea). A stand of pine trees occurs in Johnson’s Pasture and is included as
ornamental vegetation.
Developed areas in the study area consist of paved roads and concrete utility pads.
Disturbed areas consist of dirt roads that have little to no vegetation. These dirt roads include
the Cobal Canyon, Burbank, and Johnson’s Pasture trails. Transitional areas immediately
adjacent to the fire road trails include disturbance-following species such as red-stemmed
filaree, strigose lotus, miniature lupine, Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), slender wild oat, and
ripgut brome.
3.3.2 Exotic Vegetation
Exotic vegetation is commonly found in many parts of the study area, though instances of non-
native invasive plant species are relatively low. Non-native vegetation observed in the study
area consists mainly of eucalyptus trees, castor bean (Ricinus communis), tree tobacco, Spanish
broom (Spartium junceum), pine trees, and Peruvian pepper trees. Along the main trails, a
consistent cover of non-native grasses and mustards extends a few feet from the edge of the
trails, which is a result of constant disturbance from fire clearance and human and/or dog
traffic. Non-native grasses and shortpod mustard also occur at isolated locations along trails
where spoils from trail maintenance have disturbed adjacent side slopes.
3.3.3 Special Status Vegetation Types
In addition to providing an inventory of special status plant and wildlife species, the CNDDB also
provides an inventory of vegetation types that are considered special status by State and
federal resource agencies, academic institutions, and various conservation groups (such as the
CNPS). Determination of the level of imperilment is based on the NatureServe Heritage
Program Status Ranks that rank both species and vegetation types on a global (G) and
statewide (S) basis according to their rarity; trend in population size or area; and recognized
threats (e.g., proposed developments, habitat degradation, and non-native species invasion).
The ranks are scaled from 1 to 5. NatureServe considers G1 or S1 communities to be critically
imperiled and at a very high risk of extinction or elimination due to extreme rarity, very steep
declines, or other factors; G2 or S2 communities to be imperiled and at high risk of extinction or
elimination due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, steep declines,
or other factors; G3 or S3 communities to be vulnerable and at moderate risk of extinction or
elimination due to a restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and
widespread declines, or other factors; G4 or S4 communities to be apparently secure and
uncommon, but not rare with some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other
factors; and G5 or S5 communities to be secure (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2009).
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-10
B-38
City of Claremont May 2016
All vegetation alliances 2 that have State ranks of S1 to S3 are considered to be highly imperiled.
Currently, association ranks are not provided, but associations ranked as S3 or rarer are noted.
These vegetation types in the study area would be considered special status: scrub oak
chaparral, California sycamore – coast live oak riparian woodland, California sycamore
woodland, and willow thickets.
3.3.4 Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species
Plants or wildlife may be considered to have “special status” due to declining populations,
vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Certain special status species have
been listed as Threatened or Endangered under the California and/or Federal Endangered
Species Acts. A summary of special status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the
project region and their potential to occur in the study area is provided in Attachment C.
3.3.5 Special Status Plants
Several special status plant species are known to occur or have historically occurred in the
vicinity of the study area. Five of these species are federally and/or State-listed Threatened or
Endangered: Braunton’s milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii), Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii),
thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi
var. fernandina), and slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras). Brand’s star
phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) is a Candidate species for federal listing. Potentially suitable habitat
exists in the study area for each of these species. Nevin’s barberry was observed during the
reconnaissance survey. Any impacts to this species, if present, would be considered significant
under Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
In addition to species formally listed by the resource agencies, multiple species reported in the
vicinity of the study area are designated by the CRPR as List 1B and 2 plant species that may be
considered constraints on project-related activities according to CEQA. Potentially suitable
habitat exists in the study area for the following List 1B and List 2 plant species: round-leaved
filaree (California macrophylla), slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis), late-
flowered mariposa lily (Calochortus fimbriatus [Calochortus weedii var. vestus]), intermediate
mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius), Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi), San Gabriel River dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. crebrifolia), many-stemmed dudleya
(Dudleya multicaulis), San Gabriel bedstraw (Galium grande), mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula), California satintail (Imperata brevifolia), knotted rush (Juncus nodosus), white
rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis),
San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum), Greata’s aster (Symphyotrichum greatae),
and Sonoran maiden fern (Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis). Impacts on these species
would be considered potentially significant depending on the size of the population, if present,
relative to populations in the region.
2 A vegetation alliance is “a classification unit of vegetation, containing one or more associations and defined by one or
more diagnostic species, often of high cover, in the uppermost layer or the layer with the highest canopy cover” (Sawyer et
al. 2009).
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-11
B-39
City of Claremont May 2016
Several of the species listed above are also listed as sensitive species by the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS). While the project site is not within the Angeles National Forest boundary, these species
are included in Table C-1 in Attachment C to identify possible opportunities to augment
management or conservation programs with the USFS.
Special Status Wildlife
Several special status wildlife species are known to occur in the vicinity of the study area
(CDFW 2014). One of these species, the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica) is federally listed as threatened, and potentially suitable habitat occurs in the study
area. Historical occurrences of coastal California gnatcatcher have been documented
approximately five miles west of the study area, but are presumed extirpated from this area
due to development. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Final Critical Habitat for
the gnatcatcher occurs approximately 4.5 miles to the southwest of the study area in Bonelli
Park. No contiguous habitat occurs between Bonelli Park and the study area, which reduces
potential for dispersal to the study area, but does not entirely eliminate potential. The study
area is contiguous with open space to the east along the foothills, where potentially suitable
habitat for the gnatcatcher occurs. Potentially suitable habitat occurs in the scrub vegetation
types in the southern portion of the study area.
In addition to species formally listed by the resource agencies, additional special status species
may occur within the study area. Potentially suitable habitat for the following species exists in
the survey area: silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), coast (San Diego) horned lizard
(Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii), coast range newt (Taricha torosa torosa), San Bernardino
ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus modestus), San Bernardino Mountain kingsnake
(Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra), coastal rosy boa (Lichanura [Charina] trivirgata roseofusca),
coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus),
white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), long-eared owl (Asio otus), burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s
big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), western mastiff
bat (Eumops perotis californicus), pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus), big
free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus
fallax fallax), southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona), Los Angeles pocket
mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida
intermedia), and American badger (Taxidea taxus).
3.3.6 Watershed Resources
Soil Types
Soil data for the study area is taken from three sources: (1) the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA’s) Report and General Soil Map for Los Angeles County (USDA 1969); (2) the USDA’s
Report and General Soil Map for the Angeles National Forest (USDA 1980); and (3) the
LACDPW’s Hydrology Manual for Los Angeles County (LACDPW 2006). Exhibit 6 shows soils that
are described in the LACDPW Hydrology Manual as this source provides the most detailed
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-12
B-40
B-41
Soil Types
D 007-HANFORD GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM
• 011-PLACENTIA LOAM
• 015-TUJUNGA FINE SANDY LOAM
• 081 -UPPER SAN GABRIEL RIVER
• 088 -UPPER SAN GABRIEL RIVER
Exhibit 6: Soils
Claf!lmont Hills Wilderness Park Master Plan wi• 1,3!0!!0 !!!!!!!!!!6!i5;i;O iiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!l1,30~eet PSOHAS
City of Claremont May 2016
information for soils within the study area. Results from each of these sources are discussed
below. The study area is covered by the Los Angeles County General Soil Map, but soil is only
described to the association level. This report identifies most of the study area as containing
the Vista-Amargosa association, with one area containing the Ramona-Placentia association.
Vista-Amargosa soils are found in steep mountainous areas. Vista soils make up 45 percent of
the association, with Amargosa soils making up 40 percent. The remaining 15 percent consist of
5 percent Godde soils, 5 percent Saugus soils, and 5 percent rock land. The surface layer is
coarse sandy loam, about 14 to 20 inches deep. Subsoils are brown sandy loam, approximately
14-20 inches thick, resting on hard granitic rock. These soils are well drained and have
moderately rapid soil permeability. Sheet and rill erosion are moderate on Amargosa soils,
which has led to the removal of 25 to 40 percent of the surface soils, with rock outcrops
covering 2 to 10 percent of the surface. Vista-Amargosa soils have low shrink-swell potential
and low corrosivity. Soil erosion hazard is high to very high.
Ramona-Placentia soils are also found on strongly sloping land up to 3,900 feet above msl.
Ramona soils make up about 80 percent of this association and Placentia soils contribute about
15 percent. Hanford soils make up the remaining 5 percent. These soils in the Los Angeles Basin
are generally more than 60 inches deep, and are well drained with slow subsoil permeability.
They are characterized by loam to sandy loam surface layers that are about 18 inches thick with
brown to reddish-brown coloration. Subsoils are brown to reddish-brown with a clay to clay
loam texture. These soils tend to have low permeability and are very erodible especially on
steep slopes. The dense subsoil restricts the movement of air and water and the development
of roots. Inherent fertility is low.
Areas immediately to the north of the study area are within the Angeles National Forest and are
included in that general soil map and report. Though this area is off site, this soil report is
referenced as soils are classified to the series level, providing somewhat more detailed
information for the northern portion of the study area. Soils along the northern edge of the
study area (presumably extending down into the study area) consist of (1) Trigo Series, granitic
substratum – Exchequer families – rock outcrop complex, 60 to 100 percent slopes and (2)
Chilao-Trigo Series, granitic substratum – Lodo families complex, 55 to 85 percent slopes.
Trigo soils are typically found in mountainous areas at least 1,800 feet above msl. The top layer
of soil consists of loam to a depth of up to three inches. Subsoils are gravelly sandy loam to a
depth of up to 17 inches deep on top of weathered bedrock. These soils are somewhat
excessively drained.
The Chilao-Trigo series consists of approximately 35 percent Chilao family soils, 30 Trigo soils,
20 percent Lodo soils, and 15 percent minor components. These soils are found in mountainous
areas at least 1,800 feet above msl. The top layer of soil is up to five inches deep, consisting of
gravelly loam. Subsoils are very gravelly loam, up to 18 inches deep, on top of weathered
bedrock. These soils are somewhat excessively drained.
The LACDPW prepared a hydrology manual to assist in their efforts to predict runoff rates
based on rainfall amounts to assist in their planning efforts for flood control and water
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-14
B-42
City of Claremont May 2016
retention activities. This manual includes information on soils in their study area, including the
CHWP. Though no reference information is provided in the report to indicate how these soil
types were mapped, they included the following soils in the study area: (1) Hanford gravelly
sand loam; (2) Placentia loam; (3) Tujunga fine sandy loam; and (4) Upper San Gabriel River.
Soils in the Hanford series consist of very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately
coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite. The top layer of soil is up to 12 inches deep,
pale brown sandy loam. Subsoils are up to 60 inches deep consisting of loam or sandy loam
soils. These soils are well-drained, with moderately rapid soil permeability and a relatively low
potential for erosion. They are slightly acidic to mildly alkaline.
Placentia soils consist of well drained or moderately well-drained soils found at elevations from
50 to 2,500 feet above msl. Placentia soils are over 18 inches deep and are characterized by a
brown to reddish-brown surface layer with a dense dark reddish-brown clay loam subsoil.
These soils tend to have low permeability and are very erodible, especially on steep slopes. The
dense subsoil restricts the movement of air and water and the development of roots and is
therefore considered limiting for effective soil depth. Inherent soil fertility is low.
No information could be discovered regarding soils described as “Upper San Gabriel River”,
which cover most of the study area.
Jurisdictional Waters
Much of the study area contains “waters of the U.S.” and “waters of the State” that are under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the State Water Quality Control
Board, and the CDFW (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “resource agencies”). The basis
for identifying these waters as jurisdictional by the USACE is the direct connection that the
various channels have with the Pacific Ocean, a Traditional Navigable Waterway (TNW) as
defined by Federal regulations. Principally, these waters consist of Palmer Canyon Creek,
Williams Canyon Creek, and Cobal Canyon Creek in the East Side Loop Zone; Burbank Canyon
Creek in the West Side Loop Zone; Gale Canyon Creek in the Johnson’s Pasture area; and
Sycamore Canyon Creek in the Sycamore Canyon area (Exhibit 7). Various additional unnamed
streams that are tributary to the aforementioned creeks also occur in the study area.
All of the various streambeds are ephemeral (i.e., seasonal) waters that are found at the
bottom of steep canyons. Riparian vegetation associated with these streambeds is generally
either California sycamore woodland or California sycamore – coast live oak riparian woodland
as described above in Section 3.1. Because streambed areas tend to be in steep canyons, access
to these features is limited. The CHWP trail system is generally relegated to upland areas that
go around the upper streambed areas. As a result, streambeds and associated riparian
vegetation tends to be in an undisturbed condition, with mature vegetation and very little non-
native vegetation.
While the streambeds in the study area are in generally good condition, disturbance is
evidenced in various locations. Residential areas are located immediately east of Palmer
Canyon and immediately west of Sycamore Canyon. Therefore, the upper banks of these areas
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-15
B-43
B-44
)
Exhibit 7: Jurisdictional Waters
C/an~mont Hills Wilderness Park Master Plan wi• 1,3_1!oo!!!!!!!!!!!!6§50i;;;;;iiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!i,30~eet
,., __
A N G-ffi ~ E S N A T I 0 N fr.. L\ F 0 R E S i
I I
~ 8/ese(votr
P<~m~llo :r
"' 0:::
~
" ,
~
AJamoss 0..-
~ StudyArea
--Authorized Trails
Jurisdictional Waters
Ridge Lines
5-Mile Loop Trail
D Approximate Boundary of CHWP Parcels
Not Included in Environmental Baseline
Inventory-See Exhibit 3
kilifM
PSOMAS
City of Claremont May 2016
are subject to vegetation management for the purpose of fuel reduction to comply with the Los
Angeles County Fire Code. This vegetation management results in a reduction of overall
vegetative cover and encourages non-native plant establishment due to associated soil
disturbance. Significant cover of non-native vegetation has not been observed, but is an
ongoing potential source of riparian habitat degradation.
Areas adjacent to Gale Canyon Creek in the Johnson’s Pasture area have experienced
disturbance resulting from previous land use, likely livestock grazing. Native vegetation occurs
along the streambed, though it is more sparse than other portions of the study area. Non-
native annual grass species such as slender wild oat, ripgut brome, and red brome are a
common component of the areas adjacent to Gale Canyon Creek.
The Cobal Canyon Creek riparian area is one of the most heavily visited portions in the study
area. As a result, it also contains the most litter and off-trail human incursions. The presence of
a maintained fire road/hiking trail adjacent to the lower portion of Cobal Canyon Creek
provides non-native species a pathway to spread into the creek itself; however, only isolated
occurrences of non-native species were observed during the field visits for this report.
However, conditions change and if additional environmental resource management efforts are
approved, the area could be monitored as part of an invasive species control program. Palmer
Canyon Creek, Williams Canyon Creek, and Cobal Canyon Creek all enter the Thompson Creek
Reservoir, a flood-control basin operated by the Pomona Valley Protective Association, a
private corporation that owns and maintains (e.g., reads the gauges for water on) the Spreading
Grounds; the reservoir is located immediately west of the CHWP N. Mills Avenue parking lot.
These creeks all cross the Cobal Canyon trail near the entrance to the park before entering
Thompson Creek Reservoir. Because of this interaction between foot traffic and potential water
movement, these locations are critical for preventing litter and sediment from entering the
stream system. Thompson Creek Reservoir drains into Thompson Creek flood-control channel; a
short distance downstream of Thompson Creek Reservoir, Burbank Canyon Creek, Gale Canyon
Creek, and Sycamore Canyon Creek all outlet into Thompson Creek. Water from Thompson
Creek subsequently outlets into San Jose Creek which, in turn, outlets into the San Gabriel
River, eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean. Because a direct connection exists between the
streambeds in the study area and a TNW (in this case, the Pacific Ocean), all the streambeds
described above would be considered “waters of the U.S.”, and any CHWP projects that would
potentially affect these streambeds would require resource agency permits.
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS
This section summarizes the findings of the Cultural Resources Study that was performed in
support of the project Master Plan. The full report is provided in Appendix B.2.
Cultural Resources Records Search and Data Review
The results of the literature review showed that one cultural resources survey had been
conducted within the park boundary. That survey encompassed 360 acres of parklands within
Sections 21 and 27 of Township 1 North and Range 8 West on the Mt. Baldy 7.5-minute
quadrangle. No cultural resources were observed or recorded during that survey.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-17
B-45
City of Claremont May 2016
The remainder of the park has not been intensively surveyed.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Management
Plan (1992) identified the existence of a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) temporary camp
(unknown location) and a possible shepherd’s camp in Palmer Canyon in the far eastern portion
of the park. No conclusive documentation for the existence of the CCC camp was uncovered
during any of the records searches or literature reviews. However, Human Services Manager
Bill Pallotto obtained a history book for Claremont, which notes that the CCC and Works
Progress Administration had constructed many of the roads in the foothills north of Claremont
in the early 1930s. No mention is made of a particular CCC site located within the park
boundaries. The shepherd’s camp was informally documented on October 3, 1993, by
archaeologist Anne Stoll. In May of 2014, Ms. Stoll provided BonTerra Psomas copies of her
field notes, which included: a photo, several sketch maps, and a typed description of the site.
Ms. Stoll speculated that the site might represent a structure built by an Indian shepherd.
However, according to the Chief of the Shoshone Gabrielino Nation, Ya’Anna Vera Rocha, the
area was used for grazing by Basque Sheepherders, a commonly observed activity occurring
well into the late 20th Century throughout the San Gabriel Mountains.
3.4.1 Native American Sacred Lands File Review
The NAHC search of the Sacred Lands File did not identify the presence of Native American
cultural places on or near the project site. The NAHC also provided a list of Native American
individuals/organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in proximity to the
project area that are not documented in the Sacred Lands database. Each contact on the list
was notified in writing of the proposed undertaking and was invited to comment on the project.
The only response that was received from the contact list was from Mr. Daniel McCarthy of the
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. Mr. McCarthy indicated that while a Native American
presence in the area was possible, he was unaware of any cultural resources at CHWP.
3.4.2 Paleontological Records Search
BonTerra Psomas requested a paleontological records search from the Los Angeles County
Museum of Natural History to determine if any fossiliferous rock units are present within the
park. The results indicate that the geology in the park is composed primarily of plutonic igneous
and metamorphic rocks that would not contain fossils. However, there may be older deposits of
Quaternary alluvium within the park. Similar deposits near the City of Chino have yielded
fossilized camel and horse remains.
3.4.3 Archaeological Field Survey
On May 29, 2014, BonTerra Psomas Senior Archaeologist David M. Smith visited the park to
determine if the CCC site, the shepherd’s camp, and a building foundation in Sycamore Canyon
still existed and to talk to the Park Rangers about any observations they may have made of
cultural resources elsewhere in the park. Ranger Barry Mullins escorted Mr. Smith to the
general area in Palmer Canyon where the shepherd’s camp was thought to exist. After an
extensive search, the site was not observed and the search was abandoned. Ranger Mullins
then showed Mr. Smith a potentially historic well site and the building foundation in Sycamore
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-18
B-46
City of Claremont May 2016
Canyon, which is identified by a plaque as the site of a Boy Scout cabin built in 1933 on land
donated by the Johnson family. The Park Rangers were not aware of the CCC site. Because of
limited information regarding the CCC site, Mr. Smith did not attempt to locate the site.
3.5 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
During field visits to the CHWP and through the public participation process for development of
the Master Plan, several management issues were raised that are discussed in this section.
These management issues are considered with the Master Plan’s goals in mind of (1) park
preservation; (2) managing the park as a passive recreational resource; and (3) minimizing
impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods, along with the Master Plan’s guiding principles of
Preservation, Stewardship, Access, Trail Maintenance, Education, and Participatory
Management.
In addition to the Master Plan’s goals, regional conservation and land management plans were
consulted to identify opportunities for the CHWP to enhance and augment regional efforts.
Principally, these regional plans consisted of the Angeles National Forest Land Management
Plan (USDA 2005) and Southern California Mountains and Foothills Assessment, Habitat and
Species Conservation Issues (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).
3.5.1 Invasive Species Management
Invasive plant species degrade native habitat and displace native plants and wildlife, increase
wildfire potential; increase slope erosion potential; and degrade recreational opportunities.
Therefore, invasive plant species control and management are important components to
preserving the integrity of CHWP’s native habitat. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC)
rates non-native plant species in California, and their invasiveness and impact on native plant
communities are rated as high, moderate, or limited. These ratings are defined below (Cal-IPC
2014):
• High: These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal
communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are
conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment. Most are widely
distributed ecologically.
• Moderate: These species have substantial and apparent—but generally not severe—
ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation
structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to
high rates of dispersal, though establishment is generally dependent upon ecological
disturbance. Ecological amplitude and distribution may range from limited to widespread.
• Limited: These species are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide
level or there was not enough information to justify a higher score. Their reproductive
biology and other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness. Ecological
amplitude and distribution are generally limited, but these species may be locally persistent
and problematic.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-19
B-47
City of Claremont May 2016
Non-native species that have been observed in the study area that are listed by Cal-IPC are
summarized below in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Summary of Invasive Species Observed in Study Area
Botanical Name Common Name Cal-IPC Rating
Ageratina adenophora crofton weed Moderate
Avena barbata slender wild oat Moderate
Brassica nigra black mustard Moderate
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Moderate
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens red brome High
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Moderate
Erodium cicutarium red-stemmed filaree Limited
Ficus carica edible fig Moderate
Gazania linearis gazania Moderate
Hirschfeldia incana shortpod mustard Moderate
Hordeum murinum hare barley Moderate
Marrubium vulgare horehound Limited
Olea europaea olive Limited
Pennisetum setaceum crimson fountain grass Moderate
Ricinus communis castor bean Limited
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Limited
Salsola tragus Russian thistle Limited
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree Limited
Silybum marianum milk thistle Limited
Spartium junceum Spanish broom High
Stipa miliaceum smilo grass Limited
Tamarix ramosissima salt cedar High
Cal-IPC: California Invasive Plant Council
Source (Ratings): Cal-IPC 2014.
Based on the Cal-IPC rating system, three species are highly invasive: red brome, Spanish
broom, and salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima). Therefore, invasive plant management efforts
should focus on controlling the presence of these species within CHWP. It should be noted that
the species rating system is based on State-wide impacts; a species that is rated as moderate or
limited can still be highly impactful on native vegetation communities on a regional basis.
Additional species listed in Table 3-2 that should be a priority for control at CHWP include black
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-20
B-48
City of Claremont May 2016
mustard (Brassica nigra), ripgut brome, edible fig (Ficus carica), crimson fountain grass
(Pennisetum setaceum), castor bean, Russian thistle, and milk thistle (Silybum marianum). In
addition to potentially displacing native plant species and degrading native habitat for wildlife,
black mustard, ripgut brome, and crimson fountain grass provide dry, fine fuel in the
summertime which increases wildfire potential in the park. Edible fig and castor bean can
proliferate rapidly in the understory of riparian woodland areas and potentially degrade the
quality of the various riparian corridors in the park. Eucalyptus trees can become established in
riparian areas and either displace or become co-dominant with native riparian trees. Castor
bean produces fruit that is toxic to humans and animals. Russian thistle and milk thistle can
become established along trails and their thorns can scratch visitors.
In addition to the Cal-IPC list, Stephenson and Calcarone (1999) list several non-native species
that are of particular concern to mountain and foothill areas in the region. Several of these
regionally concerning species occur at CHWP including salt cedar, Spanish broom, and various
Mediterranean grasses (e.g., slender wild oat, ripgut brome, red brome, hare barley). Additional
species of regional concern that have not been observed at CHWP include giant reed (Arundo
donax), star thistle (Centaurea spp.), and pampas grasses (Cortaderia spp.). If any of these
species are observed at CHWP, their removal should be an immediate priority to prevent their
establishment and spread, if an invasive species control program is developed and approved.
Though several potentially harmful invasive plant species occur on the site, currently they are
generally found sporadically in small populations (sometimes only single individuals were
observed). As a result, their potential to harm native vegetation communities can be lowered
with a relatively modest effort of herbicide treatment. Larger shrubs and trees should be cut
down and the cut stump should be immediately treated with herbicide to prevent re-growth,
rather than removing the stump which disturbs the soil, creates erosion potential and involves
the use of mechanical equipment with even greater impacts. A minimal quantity of herbicide is
very effective at killing problematic species, and spot application (non-aerial) is consistent with
best practices for tree stumps. Any herbicide use should be performed by a Qualified Pesticide
Applicator with the proper license, though no resource agency approval is needed for pesticide
use if it is applied outside of riparian zones. Though the presence of most non-native
herbaceous, tree, and shrub species is limited, non-native grasses dominate large portions of
the Johnson’s Pasture area and are commonly found on the spoils of maintained trails.
Controlling non-native grass dominance of large areas of Johnson’s Pasture would require
sustained habitat restoration activities that would re-establish native shrubs and trees that
were likely displaced by earlier land disturbance (likely livestock grazing) in the area.
3.5.2 Habitat Restoration
As discussed in Section 3.1, nearly 90 percent of the study area contains native vegetation
types. Based on a brief visual inspection, these vegetation types appear to be in excellent
condition, with high native plant coverage dominated by mature plants with low non-native
species presence. However, opportunities for habitat restoration and enhancement do exist in
the CHWP study area and should be part of the long-term management of CHWP. For example,
the benefits of converting annual grassland areas to native shrub and tree-dominated
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-21
B-49
City of Claremont May 2016
vegetation types would enhance wildlife habitat and likely reduce the potential for wildfires.
Evaluating specific projects was not included in the scope of the Master Plan; however, the plan
was intended to provide a framework to support the potential for future projects as they are
identified, prioritized and funded with Council authorization. Representative examples are
noted below.
As summarized above in Table 3-1, approximately 159.2 acres of non-native vegetation exist in
the CHWP study area. This primarily consists of annual grassland areas, with smaller areas of
eucalyptus stands and ornamental vegetation. These areas are mostly located in the southern
portion of the study area within the Johnson’s Pasture and Sycamore Canyon management
zones. Annual grass species provide fine fuel that is easily ignited when it dries out in the mid to
late summer. Therefore, conversion of non-native grassland areas to native sage scrub,
chaparral, or woodland reduces the opportunity for wildfires to occur in the park. Native shrubs
and trees are also capable of burning, but are less likely to ignite than dried grasses.
Existing sycamore woodland can be enhanced along the lower portions of Gale Canyon Creek
by planting additional sycamore trees, removing eucalyptus trees, and establishing more native
understory. Sycamore woodland can also be expanded into the mid and upper portions of Gale
Canyon, though the uppermost portions are likely better suited to shrub-dominated
communities such as scrub oak chaparral and sagebrush scrub. Hillsides adjacent to upper
portions of Gale Canyon Creek can also be converted to scrub oak chaparral (on north-facing
slopes) and California sagebrush scrub (on south-facing slopes).
Habitat restoration activities have occurred in the Sycamore Canyon area in the recent past,
mostly focused on removing eucalyptus stands within a degraded California sycamore
woodland. Additional restoration opportunities exist in this area, through removing additional
eucalyptus trees; establishing California sycamore and coast live oak trees; establishing native
understory species; and converting adjacent annual grassland hillsides to laurel sumac scrub.
Any proposed habitat restoration projects should be required to use plant material that
originates from the CHWP and natural areas that are immediately adjacent to CHWP to the
extent feasible. Commercially produced seed and container plant stock whose source cannot be
documented should not be used. Furthermore, it should be noted that the CDFW should be
consulted prior to any work performed in streambed areas. This is especially necessary if any
tree removal or other activities are performed that would reduce bank stability or result in
sedimentation to the stream.
Eucalyptus stands exist in small pockets at several locations in the study area. Though these are
non-native trees, they also represent potential nesting and perching habitat for raptors.
Therefore, plans to remove these trees should fully consider the impact on local raptor activity
and ensure that no direct impacts on active raptor nests occur as a result of their removal.
The principal obstacle for restoring significant areas of degraded habitat at CHWP is the cost
associated with controlling non-native species, installing native plants and seed, and
maintaining a site until native plants are fully established. Aside from the costs, the main
logistical challenge of habitat restoration in the Johnson’s Pasture and Sycamore Canyon areas
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-22
B-50
City of Claremont May 2016
is installing a temporary irrigation system that will support newly installed plants until they
have become established and can survive on natural precipitation. A detailed Habitat
Restoration and Enhancement Plan is a potential project that could be developed as a next step
to prioritize areas for restoration; determine appropriate restoration goals; identify methods
for supplying water to new plants; and calculate a necessary budget and funding sources to
perform this work.
3.5.3 Wildfire Hazard Reduction
Fuel modification is the process of reducing the presence of flammable vegetation near
inhabited areas to reduce the potential for wildfires to spread from natural areas to residential
areas and vice-versa. The CHWP area has been subject to the following significant fire events in
recent history: the 1962 Webb Fire, the 1975 Village Fire, the 1979 Millie Fire, the 1990 Webb II
Fire, the 2002 Williams Fire, and the 2003 Padua Fire. Because the CHWP area is subject to
ongoing threat of destructive wildfires, fire management is of utmost importance to overall
park management (Exhibit 8).
Though the CHWP is a large area, fuel modification zones only exist in two locations adjacent to
the study area. These include the Palmer Canyon area adjacent to the Padua Hills neighborhood
and the residential area that is located immediately west of Sycamore Canyon Creek. The
Palmer Canyon fuel modification area extends approximately 4,700 linear feet from the park
entrance up to residences beyond the Padua Hills Theater. Fuel modification along Sycamore
Canyon Creek would affect approximately 3,000 linear feet of slopes adjacent to the creek.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) developed a Vegetation Management Plan
(Claremont 1999) that was revised in 2003 to identify strategies that would reduce wildfire risk
to life and property. The City of Claremont adopted the original plan in 1999; the plan was
subsequently revised in 2003. The Vegetation Management Plan identifies a variety of
biological and mechanical methods to reduce the amount of potentially flammable brush near
structures adjacent to the CHWP. These methods include (1) clearing brush (approximately 50
percent of live brush and 100 percent of dead vegetation) to a distance of 200 to 300 feet from
structures adjacent to CHWP; (2) converting an historic firebreak to a fuelbreak (i.e., allow
limited plant growth in a previous vegetation clearance area); (3) utilizing existing roadways in
CHWP as a fuelbreak system; (4) using goats to graze on vegetation in vegetation maintenance
areas to reduce potential fuel; and (5) using controlled burning on a limited basis.
Though the LACFD Vegetation Management Plan discusses the potential of livestock grazing
and controlled burning as management methods, these are not compatible with the overall
park management goals. Consultation with CDFW staff indicated they do not support grazing as
a wildfire hazard reduction tool. Controlled burning is very difficult to accomplish in southern
California due to restrictions on burning imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District. The number of allowable burn days in southern California are typically low and do not
always coincide with other requirements regarding wind velocity and relative humidity.
Moreover, the potential for escaped controlled burn always exists in burning conditions that
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-23
B-51
B-52
Exhibit 8: Fire History
Claremont Hills Wilderness Pari< Master Plan
·i ·
Legend
• Fire Stations
+ Neighborhood Interface Access
--Street/ Trail --5-Mile Loop Trail
D Claremont Hills Wilderness Study Area
L-=:J Claremont City limit
c:J Approximate Boundary of CHWP
Parcels Not Included in Environmental
Baseline Inventory-See Exhibit 3
Fire History
-2003 -Padua Fire
-2002-Williams Fire
-1997 -Amarillo TankFire
-1993 -Mills Fire
-1990 -Webb Fire II
1989 • Sycamore Fire
II
City of Claremont May 2016
were initially acceptable (low wind velocity, high relative humidity) but change unexpectedly.
Therefore, these methods are not considered in this plan.
Ultimately, the challenge of wildfire management at CHWP is to minimize the potential for
wildfire to damage property and threaten human life while minimizing degradation of the
habitat areas that occur in the fuel management areas. Vegetation thinning and removal that is
performed to comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Code should (1) target the removal of
non-native plants and more flammable native plants; (2) protect native vegetation that
naturally resists fire; (3) trim lower tree branches to minimize the opportunity for fire to spread
from the ground into the tree canopy; (4) avoid removal of trees and large shrubs so that their
root systems are protected for erosion control; and (5) convert areas that contain large
amounts of flammable vegetation to communities with more fire-resistant plant material.
The Los Angeles County Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines (LACFD 2011) identify undesirable
(i.e., highly flammable) native plant species that should be targeted in fuel modification
activities. These species include some that occur in the study area: chamise, California
buckwheat, white sage, and black sage. These species, along with mule fat that may incidentally
occur on slopes, should be preferentially removed. Laurel sumac is another species that, when
ignited, can burn intensely. However, this species also has an extensive root system that helps
to stabilize slopes. If this species does burn, it readily re-sprouts, and the root system can
provide important slope stability in a post-fire environment. Laurel sumac scrub is common
along the western Sycamore Canyon area, so if laurel sumac shrubs are retained in this area,
other vegetation should be cleared to a distance of twice the diameter of the retained shrub.
Though the Vegetation Management Plan indicates that distances of up to 300 feet from
nearby structures should be thinned, such a fuel modification zone would extend into Palmer
Canyon Creek and Sycamore Canyon Creek. Riparian species (especially coast live oak and
western sycamore trees) are generally more fire resistant than upland shrub vegetation, and
therefore these areas should not be subject to brush clearance. Additionally, any vegetation
removal within or adjacent to streambed areas would require a permit from the CDFW to
comply with the California Fish and Game Code. Brush clearance activities also have the
potential to impact active bird nests. Therefore, brush clearance should be undertaken outside
of the peak nesting season for birds (approximately March 1 through September 15) or a
qualified biologist should be retained to determine the locations of nesting activity to avoid or
minimize impacts to birds that are protected by State and federal law.
As a long-term fire management strategy, highly flammable chaparral communities that occur
near homes can be converted to less flammable vegetation types. Coast live oaks are known to
be fire resistant and are native to many portions of the CHWP. Establishing coast live oak
spaced approximately 60 feet on center combined with an understory of native grasses would
provide native habitat that provides excellent slope stabilization while requiring minimal
ongoing brush clearance.
In addition to maintaining fuel modification zones in compliance with the Vegetation
Management Plan and the Los Angeles County Fire Code, nearby residents should be educated
on steps they can take to minimize fire risk. Brush clearance activities are designed to avoid
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-25
B-53
City of Claremont May 2016
direct flame contact and lessen convective heat that would ignite a structure. However,
airborne embers also have the ability to ignite flammable vegetation on a homeowner’s
property or to blow into a house or garage that would ignite the structure. Educational
materials should be regularly provided to area residents to instruct them on properly
maintaining their houses to protect against fire damage.
Another important aspect to wildfire management at CHWP is reducing the risk of fire within
the park. Annual grasses and mustard species are common to the study area and they produce
fine, dry fuels that are easily ignited during much of the year. Reducing the potential for fire to
start in the park would require (1) trail maintenance that does not result in dirt spoils being
pushed up along the trail edges, which encourages annual grass establishment; (2) treating
annual grasses that are growing along trail edges on an as-needed basis; and (3) prohibiting
actions by park users (e.g., smoking) that have the potential to ignite vegetation.
Given the above information, updating the current Vegetation Management Plan and preparing
a Community Wildfire Protection Plan would be worthwhile efforts to undertake as next steps.
Those documents could be incorporated into the Master Plan when complete.
3.5.4 Trail Maintenance
As described in Section 2.2.2, trails at CHWP consist of a 5-mile loop trail that begins and ends
at the main park entrance near the Mills Avenue parking lot, along with spur trails that lead to
the Marshall Canyon County Park, and the Johnson’s Pasture and Sycamore Canyon areas.
These trails serve not only as hiking trails for park visitors but also as firebreaks and fire roads
that are utilized and maintained by the LACFD.
Trails have the potential to affect several aspects of the environment at CHWP such as (1)
wildlife movement; (2) habitat fragmentation; (3) soil erosion; (4) weed dispersal; and (5)
noise/dust production. Though these issues have the potential to affect the natural
environment, no significant impacts were observed during field visits to the study area. Park
trails are heavily traveled only on an intermittent basis, which minimally discourages wildlife
movement through the area. Trails are generally narrow (less than 20 feet wide) and there are
relatively few of them at CHWP compared to the size of the area, leaving large blocks of high
quality habitat. Rivulets and minor gullies were observed on some trails shortly after a
moderate rain event, but no evidence of recent landslides or significant erosion on trails was
observed at the time field assessments were conducted, although mild to severe erosion was
noted in some areas. Trails can serve as vectors for the spread of non-native plant species when
humans unknowingly transport seeds on shoes and clothing (Wells et al. 2012), but this impact
is minor as patches of non-native plants were observed to be small and isolated. Trail
maintenance activities can be noisy and generate dust that can affect wildlife, but these effects
are infrequent and temporary.
Two negative impacts on the natural environment resulting from trail maintenance activities
include (1) soil disturbance on the edge of trails that encourage weed establishment and (2) soil
build up at the base of native trees. When trails are maintained by LACFD, construction
equipment creates spoils of excess soil along the edge of the trails. These spoils are commonly
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-26
B-54
City of Claremont May 2016
dominated by non-native plants (especially grass species) that can, in turn, invade adjacent
habitat areas. In a few locations, excessive amounts of spoils were observed to have spilled
down adjacent slopes. At these locations, pre-existing native plants are damaged and non-
native plants (especially grass and mustard species) become dominant species. These locations
tend to be small (usually a few hundred square feet), but many years are required for native
plants to re-establish dominance. Finally, at several locations within Cobal Canyon, excessive
amounts of spoils were deposited at the base of oak trees. Excessive soil build up can smother
tree roots and create a favorable environment for oak tree pathogens that can attack the trunk
and root system of oak trees.
3.5.5 Unauthorized Trails
Illegal foot and bike traffic have created multiple unauthorized trails throughout the study area
that emanate from the authorized trail system. Though many of these unauthorized trails are
narrow, they represent a potentially serious threat to the CHWP’s natural environment. In all, a
total of approximately 3.1 linear miles of unauthorized trails were mapped during the field
surveys (Exhibit 9). MIG photographed each unauthorized trail location. Those photographs are
numbered to correspond with the numbers on Exhibit 9, and may be found in Appendix A.5.
Most unauthorized trails are a few feet wide and well established. The length of the
unauthorized trails varies greatly; some are small and appear to be used as mountain bike
jumps, while other trails meander a great distance from the main trail. Park users were
infrequently observed using these unauthorized trails during the site visits, the majority of
which were mountain bike riders. However, along the main loop some visitors do utilize the
single track trails that parallel the fire road. Numerous small foot trails leading to large shrubs
just off of the main trail are being used by Park users to access areas of privacy in order to
urinate and/or defecate.
Though most unauthorized trails appear to be used infrequently, they exhibit a range of minor
to severe erosion in limited areas, and the potential exists for those areas to widen. The
potential for single track trails to proliferate if not managed is a common problem, requiring
continual vigilance to prevent such trails from establishing. The negative effects of these trails
can escalate if they eventually connect to other unauthorized trails. Unauthorized trails not
only result in direct impacts to vegetation that is trampled but, at the interface between
disturbed areas and native habitat, the disturbed areas have a spillover effect on the
undisturbed habitat, commonly known as an “edge effect”. Edge effects vary widely, depending
on the level of disturbance, type of habitat, and species involved. However, edge habitat has
been associated with lower overall species diversity (Atauri and De Lucio 2001), increased
presence of invasive plant species (McDonald and Urban 2006), and lowered bird nesting
success (Manolis et al. 2002). When landscapes become highly fragmented, there may be no
interior habitat that is protected from edge effects (Bennett and Saunders 2010). Therefore, if
unauthorized trails are allowed to proliferate, the edge effect from these trails can multiply
rapidly and dramatically alter biological processes.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-27
B-55
B-56
ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST
_..;
\
\
\
)
r""
Sunset Ridge True!!. "fr\
,,
I ,""
_,
'V\ ...
O"'P.
''"\,..... I •/
'"
/
Baseline Rd
Exhibit 9: Recommended Actions for Unauthorized Trails
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park Master Plan .
w~o 1,350 675 1,350
Feet
... ..
I
~------------~-~
Thom,.on c ....
Reservoir
.. __
\
\
I
I
I
,•
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
' I
t
/
/
Pomel/o Dr
GJ Study Area
o Human Waste Locations
Authorized Trails
/
5-Mile Loop Trail
Unauthorized Trails to Be Designated System Trails e Unauthorized Trails to be Closed (Jurisdictional Waters)
Drainage Corridor (1 00 ft. Width)
Ridge Lines
+ Neighborhood Interface
B Eroded Trails (Temporary Closure)
D Approximate Boundary of CHWP Parcels Not Included
In Environmental Baseline Inventory-See Exhibit 3
Note: See Appendices for Site Photos.
City of Claremont May 2016
Preventing the creation of unauthorized trails is extremely important to protecting the CHWP’s
soils, which are quite fragile and easily damaged. Soils generally consist of a thin layer of sandy
or loamy soil on top of partially decomposed granite. Therefore, once the top layer of soil is
damaged, the ability for native vegetation to become re-established is severely compromised.
Revegetation of these trails may require suitable soil for plant growth to be imported to the
site.
Although signage exists in the CHWP indicating users should stay on “designated trails,” this
signage is limited, and it may be unclear to visitors which areas are designated and which are
not. Clear signage that discourages off-trail activity along with educational signage explaining
the fragile nature of soils and vegetation at the park are recommended.
3.5.6 Water Quality and Groundwater Recharge
As shown in Exhibit 6, the study area contains a number of streambed features that drain into
Thompson Creek Reservoir and Thompson Creek. These streambed features are generally in an
undisturbed condition and are located in steep canyons that are inaccessible to park visitors.
Therefore, current park activities appear to have little effect overall on the quality of water
leaving the site.
On the other hand, there are potential threats to water quality in the study area. First, soils in
the study area are highly erodible, meaning that degradation of vegetation on canyon side
slopes can lead to sedimentation of the streambeds.
Secondly, the park’s trails cross streambeds principally at four locations along the main loop
trail: (1) Palmer Canyon Creek near the park entrance; (2) Cobal Canyon Creek approximately
0.1 mile north of the park entrance; (3) Cobal Canyon Creek approximately 0.75 mile northwest
of the park entrance; and (4) Burbank Canyon Creek approximately 0.7 mile northwest of the
park entrance. Because foot traffic passes through these locations, the potential exists for litter
and pet waste to be washed into the various stream systems which would negatively affect
water quality.
Lastly, evidence of park users urinating or defecating on the ground was observed in a few
locations off the main trails. Though human waste presents a potential source of water
pollution, the locations where toilet paper was observed occur in upland areas away from
streambeds. Though bathroom facilities are found at the park entrance, human waste locations
were found far away from the bathrooms (Exhibit 9). Additional bathroom facilities along the
main loop would be expected to help reduce the incidents of park visitors urinating or
defecating on the ground.
Though there is potential for park activities to impact water quality, no specific threats to water
were observed during field visits.
3.5.7 Litter and Graffiti
Litter and graffiti were observed throughout the site to a relatively low degree. The trash
observed on site during the site visit generally consisted of hydration bottles, toilet paper, and
fruit peels. The majority of the graffiti observed in the study area occurred in areas along
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-29
B-57
City of Claremont May 2016
unauthorized trails that led to areas out of view of the main trail. Graffiti was also observed on
large rocks in Cobal Canyon.
The majority of the Park users visit for the purpose of exercising and many of those observed
during site visits were carrying hydration bottles. Many drink bottles were observed left by the
side of the main trail within a mile of the park entrance. Toilet paper was observed multiple
times behind large shrubs where park users have urinated or defecated. Fruit peels from
oranges were observed multiple times throughout the park, usually near benches. Five 30-
gallon metal trash cans are placed strategically throughout the park, though they are open top
without lids, making trash in the cans accessible to wildlife. The park would likely benefit from
more numerous, closed-top, waste receptacles.
3.5.8 Biological Resource Protection
During field visits to the study area, one special status plant species, Nevin’s barberry, was
incidentally observed. Mariposa lilies (Calochortus sp.) were observed near the Cobal Canyon
trail that had yet to bloom, preventing positive identification of the species. Several mariposa
lily species, some of them special status, have potential to occur in the vicinity of the park.
Focused botanical surveys would allow the mariposa lilies to be accurately identified, and the
full extent of these species could be documented. Then the presence/absence of additional
special status species with potential to occur in the study area could be determined. Since
mariposa lilies are sensitive to soil disturbance, foot traffic is a potential threat to this species.
No evidence of significant hiking traffic was observed during field surveys; however, if this
changes, signs or protective fencing to discourage visitors may be needed.
3.5.9 Wildlife Movement
The study area is bordered to the north, northeast, and northwest by largely undisturbed native
habitat, while areas to the south, southwest, and southeast are dominated by dense residential
development. Wildlife species obviously pass through the study area, including large mammals
such as deer, bears, and mountain lions. Due to the dense residential development along the
southern portions of the study area, wildlife species would be expected to only pass in an east-
west direction. Because ample native habitat is located along the northern boundaries of the
site, the CHWP would not be considered a critical wildlife corridor by regulatory standards.
Therefore, no specific management strategies are proposed to maintain or enhance wildlife
movement at this time.
3.5.10 Cultural Resource Protection
In Section 3.4, three specific cultural resource features are discussed: (1) a Civilian Conservation
Corps (CCC) temporary camp; (2) a possible shepherd’s camp in Palmer Canyon; and (3) a
potentially historic well site and the foundation of a Boy Scout cabin in Sycamore Canyon
associated with a Boy Scout Camp. The only sites with any visible remains are the Boy Scout
cabin and the well site. The well site and the Boy Scout cabin should be recorded on California
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Series Site Record forms. This site is a
potentially significant site of local history and should be protected.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-30
B-58
City of Claremont May 2016
The remaining acres of the park have not been surveyed intensively. In compliance with CEQA,
they should be surveyed by a qualified Archaeologist to determine the presence or absence of
any historic or prehistoric sites prior to any project resulting in significant soil disturbance. Any
additional sites discovered should be recorded and reported in a technical report specific to
that endeavor.
3.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
This section summarizes the recommendations with regard to invasive species management,
habitat restoration, wildfire hazard management, and unauthorized trails that are discussed in
Section 3.5.
3.6.1 Invasive Species Management
1. Invasive species control should focus on eradicating the following species: edible fig, castor
bean, Russian thistle, milk thistle, Spanish broom, and salt cedar.
2. Cobal Canyon had the highest number of different invasive species (i.e., highest diversity of
species, not total cover of invasives), likely because this is probably the most heavily visited
portion of the park. Spanish broom, castor bean, salt cedar, and edible fig (along with
ubiquitous annual grasses) were all observed in the Cobal Canyon area. Given this high
diversity of invasives and high foot traffic (providing a vector for ongoing weed transport),
the Cobal Canyon area should receive regular invasive species control.
3. Grass species occurring on trailside spoils should be removed on an as-needed basis to limit
their spread into less disturbed areas and to reduce fire risk.
3.6.2 Habitat Restoration
1. The City should commission a study to analyze costs and benefits of habitat restoration and
to prioritize areas for restoration activities as a next step
2. Plant material used for habitat restoration projects should originate from the CHWP area to
the extent feasible.
3. Prior to removing eucalyptus trees for habitat enhancement, the importance of these trees
for raptor nesting and perching should be determined.
3.6.3 Wildfire Hazard Management
1. The City should work with the LACFD to update the CHWP Vegetation Management Plan so
that it is consistent with the Master Plan, current CHWP park management goals, the
California Fish and Game Code, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The goal of revising the
Vegetation Management Plan is to identify methods of minimizing fire risk while protecting
biological resources and park access to the greatest extent possible.
2. Woody perennial plants with sizeable root systems should be preferentially retained in fuel
modification zones, with areas cleared around these plants to a distance of twice the
diameter of the retained plant (i.e., a plant with a 10-foot-wide canopy would not have any
plants within 20 feet of it).
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-31
B-59
City of Claremont May 2016
3. Removal of species from fuel modification zones that are identified as “highly flammable” in
the Los Angeles County Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines should be prioritized. These
species include chamise, California buckwheat, white sage, and black sage.
4. Additional native species to be preferentially removed include mule fat and laurel sumac.
5. No oak trees should be removed for fuel modification purposes.
6. Removal of riparian vegetation for fuel modification purposes should not occur unless
permitted by the CDFW.
7. Brush clearance should be performed outside of the nesting season for birds, generally from
January through September 15.
8. Establishment of native fire-resistant species (e.g., coast live oak) should occur in fuel
modification zones to minimize the need for ongoing brush clearance.
9. Smoking and camp fires are prohibited within CHWP and should be strictly enforced.
3.6.4 Unauthorized Trails
1. Signage should be posted at existing unauthorized trails to discourage off-trail exploration.
2. Educational materials should be provided to park visitors that explain the environmental
effects of off-trail disturbances.
3. The City could consult with a soil remediation expert to determine how disturbed soils can
be improved so that native vegetation can naturally re-establish along unauthorized trails as
a next step.
3.6.5 Water Quality and Groundwater Recharge
1. Locations where the main loop trail crosses streambed areas should be prioritized for
cleanup activities so potential contaminants (e.g., litter) will not wash into streams during
rain events.
2. The installation of additional bathroom facilities in the interior of the park to reduce the
incidence of human waste should be studied.
3.6.6 Biological Resources Protection
1. As a next step, focused botanical surveys should be undertaken to document the presence
and extent of special status species at CHWP that were observed during the reconnaissance
survey (Nevin’s barberry and Mariposa lily); this would allow for strategies to be created for
the protection of any special status species.
3.6.7 Wildlife Movement
1. The City should work with qualified organizations to monitor and document wildlife
movements. Specific monitoring requirements should be developed in consultation with
CDFW.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-32
B-60
City of Claremont May 2016
3.6.8 Cultural Resources Protection
1. The Boy Scout cabin and well site in the Sycamore Canyon area should be formally recorded
on DPR 523 forms.
2. Additional field surveys by a qualified Archaeologist should occur prior to any ground-
disturbing projects to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic
sites.
3.7 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American Birds (7th ed).
Shipman, VA: Buteo Books.
Atauri, J. A. and De Lucio, J. V. 2001. The role of landscape structure in species richness
distribution of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopterans in Mediterranean
landscapes. Landscape Ecology Vol 16: 147–159
Baker, R.J., L.C. Bradley, R.D. Bradley, J.W. Dragoo, M.D. Engstrom, R.S. Hoffmann, C.A. Jones, F.
Reid, D.W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003 (December). Revised Checklist of North American
Mammals North of Mexico, 2003. Occasional Papers (No. 229). Waco, TX: Museum of
Texas Tech University.
Baldwin, B.G., D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (Eds.). 2012. The Jepson
Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Second ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Bennett, Andrew F. and Denis A. Saunders 2010. Habitat fragmentation and landscape change
(pages 88-106). In: Conservation Biology for All. (N. Sodhi and P. Ehrlich eds.). New York:
Oxford University Press
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010 (September). List of Vegetation Alliances
and Associations, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. Sacramento, CA:
CDFG.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014 (March). California Natural Diversity
Database. Records of Occurrence for the USGS Mt. Baldy, Glendora, Crystal Lake, Mount
San Antonio, Telegraph Peak, Cucamonga Peak, Guasti, Ontario, and San Dimas
7.5-minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFW, Natural Heritage Division.
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2014. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database.
Berkeley, CA: Cal-IPC. http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2014. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California. Records of Occurrence for the USGS Mt. Baldy, Glendora,
Crystal Lake, Mount San Antonio, Telegraph Peak, Cucamonga Peak, Guasti, Ontario,
and San Dimas 7.5-minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA:
CNPS. http://www.cnps.org/inventory.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-33
B-61
City of Claremont May 2016
Claremont, City of. 1999 (January, as revised in 2003). Claremont Hills Wilderness Park
Vegetation Management Plan. Claremont, CA: the City.
Los Angeles, County of, Department of Public Works (LACDPW). 2006. Hydrology Manual.
Water Resources Division: Alhambra, CA
Los Angeles, County of, Fire Department (LACFD). 2011. Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines: A
Firewise Landscape Guide for Creating and Maintaining Defensible Space. Los Angeles,
CA: LACFD, Prevention Services Bureau. http://www.fire.lacounty.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/Fuel-Modification-Plan-Guidelines-8-10-11.pdf.
Faber-Langendoen, D., L. Master, J. Nichols, K. Snow, A. Tomaino, R. Bittman, G. Hammerson, B.
Heidel, L. Ramsay, and B. Young. 2009. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments:
Methodology for Assigning Ranks. Arlington, VA:
NatureServe. http://www.natureserve.org/publications/ConsStatusAssess_RankMethod
ology.pdf.
Fisher, R.N. and T.J. Case. 1997. A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Coastal
Southern California. San Mateo, CA: Lazer Touch.
Hickman, J.C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Sacramento, CA: CDFG, Non-game Heritage Program.
Jepson Flora Project 2012 (v. 1.0). Jepson eFlora. Berkeley, CA: Regents of the University of
California. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html.
Manolis, J.C., Andersen, D.E. & Cuthbert, F.J. 2002. Edge effect on nesting success of ground
nesting birds near regenerating clearcuts in a forest-dominated landscape. Auk 119:
955–970.
McDonald, R.I. and D. L. Urban. 2006. Edge effects on species composition and exotic species
abundance in the North Carolina Piedmont. Biological Invasions Vol 8: 1049–1060.
McLeod, Samuel. 2014. Letter. Paleontological Resources for the proposed Claremont Hills
Wilderness Park project, in the City of Claremont, Los Angeles County, project area.
Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (Second
Edition). Sacramento, CA: CNPS.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available online. Accessed January 2015.
Stephenson, J.R. and G.M. Calcarone. 1999. Southern California Mountains and Foothills
Assessment: Habitat and Species Conservation Issues (General Technical Report GTR-
PSW-175). Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research Station.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-34
B-62
City of Claremont May 2016
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2005 (September). Land Management
Plan: Part 2, Angeles National Forest Strategy. Berkeley, CA: USFS, Pacific Southwest
Region.
———. 1999 (December). Southern California Mountains and Foothills Assessment Habitat and
Species Conservation Issues. Berkeley, CA: USFS, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1980 (Revised). Report and General Soil Map, Angeles
National Forest, California. Lancaster, CA: Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).
———. 1969 (Revised). Report and General Soil Map, Los Angeles County, California. Lancaster,
CA: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Wells, Floye H., William K. Lauenroth, and John B. Bradford, 2012. Recreational Trails as
Corridors for Alien Plants in the Rocky Mountains, USA. Western North American
Naturalist. Vol 72(4): 507-533.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 3. Resource Management Plan
Draft Master Plan Page 3-35
B-63
City of Claremont May 2016
CHAPTER 4: MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
This chapter discusses the management, operations and maintenance of the Claremont Hills
Wilderness Park (CHWP). The chapter is intended to provide broad guidelines about how the
park should be managed and operated to meet the goals and desired outcomes developed in
this Master Plan. Guidelines are supplemented by pertinent operations and maintenance
standards for various park functions. This chapter provides recommendations and guidelines
that shall serve as the policy basis for park operations for the next twenty years. The policies in
this chapter as well as the adoption of the Master Plan as a whole are part of a paradigm shift in
park management from passive to a more actively managed public space. The increases in
usage and associated impacts in and around the CHWP in the last ten years have necessitated
this shift to more active management.
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
The purpose of this chapter is to strengthen the management, operations, and maintenance of
the CHWP consistent with the goals and guiding principles developed during the Master
Planning process. Together, these policy level statements provide the strategic “framework”
for managing the park. These precepts were developed and refined based on significant public
input before and during the Master Planning process, as well as input from the consultants
regarding best practices associated with open space management. Staff then refined the
recommendations for the local community context.
The overarching goals of the Master Plan are as follows:
• Preserve the park as an environmental resource;
• Manage the park as a passive recreational opportunity; and
• Minimize the impact park attendance has on surrounding residential neighborhoods.
These broad goals include an inherent tension common in the world of open space and outdoor
recreation management, which entails both protecting natural resources while providing public
access. However, these goals are not mutually exclusive and the challenge of balancing these
goals can be addressed in different ways depending upon the purpose of the natural area, the
characteristics of the adjacent land use, and the values of the host community.
An urban city park may substantially alter a natural environment to add playgrounds, sports
fields, passive turf areas and various amenities for picnicking and relaxing. Its intended use is
very different from how and why the public experiences a large open space or back country
area. In a suburban / urban environment, users expect better trail conditions, amenities, and
public services. Such visitors are less prepared for the rigors of long distances, steep inclines,
weather extremes, and wild animals which they may encounter in the CHWP; they expect risks
to be managed and mitigated for individual and general safety.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-1
B-64
City of Claremont May 2016
In back country areas, users expect that trails may be single-tracked, rutted, eroded, and
inherently more risky to traverse. Trash cans, benches, and latrines are minimally provided, if
at all, with the understanding by most users that you pack out what you pack into the park. The
motto of “leave no trace” is understood and embraced, and the risks inherent with entering a
back country area with wild animals far from assistance and even cell phone coverage is tacitly
accepted by the typical trail user.
Like other regional open space facilities, the CHWP itself is a balance between open space and
urban park given its unique location within the urban-wildland interface zone. It is bounded by
a suburban region to the south and the vast natural areas of the San Gabriel Mountains to
north, which results in a mix of expectations from park users.
This Master Plan proposes a blend of management philosophies, managing, and operating the
facility in the context of its natural setting while recognizing not only the needs of suburban
visitors but also the opportunity to educate them about the value of respecting and preserving
our natural resources and habitat. Hence, six guiding principles inform specific
recommendations related to park management, operations and maintenance. These principles
are as follows:
Preservation: Environmental and cultural resources within the current park must be preserved
and protected. As additional open-space lands in Claremont's hillsides become available, efforts
shall be made to acquiring the land and annex the land to the park when fiscally feasible. Special
attention should be given to preserving the hillsides' function as watershed for the cities of the
San Gabriel Valley. Appropriate resource management promotes the long-term viability of the
natural and cultural landscape, inspiring future generations to care for and respect these
resources. The natural environment and the overall conditions of the Park shall be managed to
minimize impacts from human recreational activities.
Stewardship: The Master Plan will promote a park culture in which visitors treat nature, park
neighbors, and one another with respect and courtesy. Everyone associated with the park—
visitors, neighbors, City staff members—will be encouraged to see themselves as stewards of
the park, protecting its resources. City staff will educate visitors about these expectations and
enforce park rules in a fair and friendly manner.
Access: Inclusive and managed public access is provided as secondary to preserving the
natural environment and limiting the impacts to surrounding properties. The CHWP
allows for passive recreational opportunities that connect people to nature and
promote healthy lifestyles.
Education: Active education is the cornerstone of fostering visitors' safe and responsible
behaviors in the park. With effective outreach to the community, a variety of educational and
interpretive programs (such as field trips and docent-led hikes) will enhance their understanding
and appreciation of the park's culture and its natural resources.
Public Engagement: Public collaboration is integral to ensuring sound policy decision-making,
and providing opportunities for the community to contribute their knowledge, expertise, and
energy to actively support Park management.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-2
B-65
City of Claremont May 2016
Funding: Achieving the Goals of the Master Plan and realizing the manifestation of the
Guiding Principles is only possible with funding generated from parking fees and grants
to support active park management, operations and maintenance.
These guiding principles are intertwined and relate to one or more of the three Master Plan
goals. The intent of this Master Plan is to manage the CHWP as a natural area. As such, visitors
enter at their own risk and should be prepared to encounter back country conditions, including
rough terrain, potential extreme weather conditions and potentially dangerous wildlife, such as
bears, mountain lions, and rattle snakes. However, a goal of park management is not only to
advise the public of such risks, but also to educate visitors of the need to respect and protect
natural resources as well as the adjacent neighborhoods. Promoting a culture of mutual
respect and consideration for natural areas, other visitors and park neighbors is a key strategy
to achieving a balance among the Master Plan goals and is woven throughout many of the
guiding principles.
FUNCTIONAL AREAS
Park management, operations, and maintenance include several
functional areas. Overall management of the park includes four
primary functions: (1) disseminating relevant public information
(Public Outreach); (2) developing educational and recreational
opportunities (Programming); (3) engaging volunteers and developing
public collaborations (Volunteer Engagement); and (4) developing
and enforcing park rules (Enforcement). The first three activities fall
within the purview of the Human Services Department, while
enforcement has been shared between the Police Department and
theRangers. To date police staff has been the primary entity issuing
citations. In June of 2015 City Council extended citing authority to
Park Rangers.
Management strategies for parks and natural areas can be both direct and indirect. Direct
management techniques result in limiting visitor choice by defining rules and regulations (e.g.,
littering is prohibited) while indirect management actions encourage a visitor to act or behave
in a certain way (e.g., educational strategies encouraging visitors to use trash receptacles).
Typically, outdoor recreation areas are managed using a combination of direct and indirect
strategies that lead to desirable visitor behavior consistent with goals and desired outcomes.
For example, a direct management technique to enforce no littering is to cite violators. To do so
requires an enforcement officer to see the violation. Effectiveness is limited to those individual
citations. However, public information coupled with volunteer engagement is a powerful
combination of indirect management techniques to achieve the same end goal of minimizing
litter in the park. An ongoing public information program will be augmented by permanent
signage related to park rules, strategically placed trash receptacles, and an engaged volunteer
Source: Claremont Resident
/TAC Member, Hugh Wire
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-3
B-66
City of Claremont May 2016
group interacting with other visitors. This public information program will achieve a broader
and more positive educational impact than would a limited and more negative practice of
citing a few violators.
A grassroots effort has already sprung up for this very circumstance with a Technical Advisory
Committee member who regularly hikes the main loop bringing an extra garbage bag marked
with a label, “Clean Trails, Help Out.” He has dubbed this social experiment “Befriend the
Loop.”
As he picks up trash, he engages in conversation with other visitors and offers the extra bag for
his new friend to do the same. The “pay it forward” concept is like throwing a stone into a lake:
the ripple effect extends the message and encourages subsequent action. A key strategy
recommended in this Master Plan is to enhance park management to promote a number of
Master Plan goals and desired outcomes by facilitating efforts such as “Befriend the Loop.”
Supplementing park management are various activities that fall within the functional area of
Operations and Maintenance. Operations and maintenance in the industry of outdoor
recreation management includes activities related to operating and maintaining the physical
infrastructure of the facility. In Claremont that responsibility falls primarily within the purview
of the Community Services Department, with assistance from the rangers. For this Master Plan,
these activities have been organized within four primary functional areas: (1) trail maintenance;
(2) trail amenities; (3) fuel and vegetation management; (4) parking. It is critically important
that operations and maintenance be aligned with park management to ensure goals and
desired outcomes are understood and consistently embraced. An enhanced ranger program is
an opportunity to solidify a critical linkage between both facets of overall operations.
4.1 GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
Guidelines help define a course of action or provide a general management direction that aims
to achieve the Master Plan goals. They should be adhered to as much as possible,
understanding that some flexibility may be necessary when applied to specific circumstances. If
a guideline can be reasonably implemented, it should be carried out without deviation.
Guidelines have been developed for park management as well as operations and maintenance.
Standards are mandatory actions or agreed upon best practices that are applied across
operations and maintenance to ensure consistency and adherence to management goals.
For example, a guideline related to park operations and signage would state that all entrances
to the CHWP should include signage related to hours of operation, a specific set of rules, and
whether trails are opened or closed. Another example of a guideline would state that trail
signage should provide sufficient information regarding rules, user etiquette, and a way of
finding information without detracting from vistas and sight lines to the degree possible. An
example of a standard would be that all signage shall include consistent design elements, such
as mounting methods, weather resistant material, lettering, and use of color.
4.2 PARK MANAGEMENT
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-4
B-67
City of Claremont May 2016
Management actions include leading, planning and organizing various activities to achieve goals
and desired outcomes. For the CHWP, management is divided into four parts: Public Outreach,
Programming, Volunteer Engagement, and Enforcement.
4.2.1 Public Outreach
As was noted in Chapter 2, the current level of park usage is not creating significant
environmental impacts or detrimental user experience. The limiting factors in carrying capacity
are the availability of parking, the secondary effects of the parking (e.g., extra driving), and
users’ accessibility to the park from the parking lots. In managing the park, recommendations
are made to mitigate user impacts in the park, such as use of unauthorized trails and informal
latrines. While considering these impacts and the carrying capacity issues, staff considered
options to manage admission to the park through fees or daily maximums rather than through
the parking lot and permit system proposed in the Implementation Plan. The nature of the park
– with multiple entrances and open access - makes restricting pedestrian and bicycle access
infeasible. Controlling the number of visitors and distribution of visitors through the programs
offered in the Implementation Plan allows for management of park use without expensive and
problematic additions such as walls and staffing level requirements beyond what can be
supported by the park.
Regarding parking issues, it is important to note that, at the time this plan was developed,
parking capacity issues occur only during peak periods on Saturday and Sunday mornings. At all
other times, the existing parking lots are more than sufficient to meet the demand. Based on
this information, recommendations about parking and fees focus on addressing these weekend
peak-period problems.
Public Information
Informing the public about CHWP regulations, safety, amenities, and appropriate behavior is a
key management activity to achieve goals and desired outcomes. Some visitors may not
encounter City staff or volunteers while visiting the CHWP. Therefore, information provided
through community resources, websites and signage at park entrances and along the trails may
be the only method to inform visitors. Because the majority of park visitors, particularly those
who enter through the main entrance on Mills, are not local residents, the City’s website and
park signage are particularly important as primary messaging tools.
City staff currently maintains public information on its website and provides updated
information as necessary through its standard methods. However, opportunities exist to
expand the type and frequency of public information.
Policy Tenet: Public information should be developed and regularly disseminated to promote
the preservation and conservation of natural resources, trail etiquette, and a positive park
culture that embraces mutual respect and consideration for the area, other visitors, and park
neighbors.
Public Information Guidelines:
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-5
B-68
City of Claremont May 2016
• Information regarding park rules and trail etiquette shall be clearly posted on the City’s
website, in park kiosks, and on signage at park entrance points.
• Information regarding rules, safety, programming, and resource conservation shall be
regularly disseminated through standard City methods, including the website, quarterly
newsletter, the City Manager’s weekly updates, the recreation brochure, press releases,
and other venues.
• Outreach information shall be regularly refreshed for interest, and designed to engage,
inform and educate visitors and neighbors in order to reinforce management goals and
desired outcomes.
Sign Program
Signage is a key management tool as many visitors do not encounter City staff or volunteers
during their visits, and non-residents may not receive
updated information from local resources. Signs have
been installed at the CHWP through the years for
various purposes using different materials with no
consistent standard. Many signs are worn and faded,
and multiple signs at trail junctions create an
appearance of “sign pollution” inconsistent with a
back country area. The focus has been to provide
some wayfinding guidance, inform visitors of rules and
trail etiquette, and to mark property boundaries.
Implementation has been sporadic and inconsistent,
given limited oversight and management of the
hillsides.
Newer signage was developed in recent years, principally related to the construction of the
north parking lot and the implementation of regulated parking. An effort has also been made
to install signage at all park entry locations to
promote hours of operation and park rules.
Policy Tenet: Any sign program should direct, guide,
and educate visitors, which will not only maximize
visitor enjoyment and safety, but also aid in
protecting and preserving the area. comprehensive
sign program consists of several types of signs:
Regulatory: Signage that informs visitors of
rules, such as operating hours and
unauthorized activities as listed in the
Municipal Code, enforceable with citations.
These are installed at primary entrances to
the facility where visitors have a reasonable
opportunity to see them.
Multiple signs lacking consistent format and
content
Source: City of Claremont
Recent signs installed in the CHWP
Source: City of Claremont
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-6
B-69
City of Claremont May 2016
Trail Etiquette: Signage that informs visitors how to share the trail (yielding protocols)
and that promote a culture of respect and courtesy for other users and the
environment. These are installed at primary entrances to the facility and as reminders
along the trail. They include rules for acceptable behavior not necessarily included in
the Municipal Code but subject to enforcement by park rangers.
Safety: Signage that advises users of trail conditions, authorized usage, park rules, and
cautionary information, including wildlife advisories.
Wayfinding: Signage that informs visitors of the authorized trail network, including
names and locations, and any closed trails, which should not be traversed. Contact
information to request assistance should be included on wayfinding signage.
Informational or Interpretative: These signs provide educational information to
promote an understanding and appreciation for the environment, including
geographical, habitat, and wildlife information.
The CHWP is first and foremost a natural area. Sign guidelines and standards have been
developed to minimize visual impacts along the trail, while providing sufficient information for
user safety. This information has been included in the Operations and Maintenance section
presented later in this chapter.
Examples of potential sign styles and types are included in Attachment 4 as reference only. The
CHWP sign program should be developed in a collaborative effort with staff from both the
Community and Human Services Departments and park users actively engaged in this effort.
The sign program shall be considered by the Parks, Hillsides and Utilities Committee and the
Community and Human Services Commission and approved by the City Council. The adopted
sign program shall be incorporated into the Master Plan as an addendum.
Kiosks and Signage
Public information is a key management tool to address a variety of goals and desired outcomes
related to enforcing rules, promoting a respectful park culture, enhancing visitor experience
and personal safety. Because many visitors do not encounter City staff or volunteers during
their visits, and non-residents may not receive updated information from local resources,
information displayed in kiosks and through a comprehensive sign program is the most direct
and effective way to communicate with park visitors.
The park has three information kiosks - one at the south / Thompson Creek Trail lot and two at
the north parking lot. Due to the north parking lot construction (at the time this was written),
the kiosks at the end of N. Mills are no longer located in an area most visitors pass as they enter
the park. Kiosks should be located in highly visible areas to maximize the effectiveness of
disseminated public information.
As mentioned in the Park Management section above, signage has been installed in the CHWP
through the years for various purposes, using different materials with no consistent standard.
Posted information can be significantly improved for wayfinding purposes, for enhancing
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-7
B-70
City of Claremont May 2016
personal safety, and to minimize sign clutter and visual distractions as appropriate for a natural
setting. A more comprehensive sign program includes a variety of sign types which, once
developed, should be incorporated into the sign maintenance program. Budgets permitting,
and as signs are replaced, the following guidelines and standards should be followed.
General Kiosk and Sign Guidelines:
• Kiosks should be located at primary entrances to maximize public visibility.
• Signs should provide sufficient information regarding rules, user etiquette and
wayfinding information, and installed in a manner aesthetically consistent with the
natural context without detracting from vistas and sight lines to the degree possible.
• Along trails, sign placement should be discrete but visible, and set against vegetation,
berms or outcroppings rather than open space sight lines, unless providing information
specific to the vista.
• Signage at trail entrances should adequately inform visitors of park rules, trail etiquette
and "back country" precautions.
• All major trail junctions (fire roads) should be signed for wayfinding purposes.
• Any trail segments closed due to detrimental environmental impacts or other reasons
should be clearly posted as ”Closed, passage prohibited.”
General Kiosk and Sign Standards
• Kiosks should be constructed in a style appropriate for a natural context and include
easy yet secure access.
• Signage should include consistent design elements, such as mounting methods,
weather-resistant material, lettering, and use of color as approved and incorporated
into the Master Plan.
• Worn and damaged signs shall be replaced as funding permits, consistent with an
adopted sign program.
• Signage should conform to ADA guidelines for exterior signs.
• Mounting height should not exceed eye level for regulatory signs; signs should be
installed at a height appropriate for the purpose of the sign.
• Regulatory and trail etiquette signage should be installed at CHWP entry points.
• Wayfinding signage should include emergency and non-emergency contact information
to request assistance and report maintenance and / or safety concerns.
4.2.2 Programming
From 2002 to 2012, the Human Services park rangers provided docent led hikes for local youth,
elementary through high school, which reinforced classroom curriculum. The hikes provided an
opportunity for local children and teens who might not otherwise visit the CHWP to experience
a natural area and learn about habitat and wildlife native to the San Gabriel Mountains. This
introduction to the natural environment was intended to initiate a lifelong appreciation for
conserving natural areas while encouraging physical activity, such as hiking or biking. The
CHWP offers a tremendous opportunity to serve as a “natural classroom.” Unfortunately, the
program was eliminated due to staffing shortages.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-8
B-71
City of Claremont May 2016
Given mounting public policy concerns associated with rising obesity rates and associated
health issues, providing outdoor physical fitness opportunities is important for healthy
lifestyles. The main loop provides an invigorating five mile opportunity to hike or bike in a
natural setting that is appealing to numerous people. Promoting the park rangers as liaisons to
these various groups to communicate park rules, trail etiquette, neighborhood consideration,
and to coordinate group activities would aid in achieving management goals and desired
outcomes.
Policy Tenet: The CHWP is a resource that can allow for education, understanding, and
appreciation of conservation, the outdoors, wildlife and healthy physical activity.
General Programming Guidelines
• Programming organized and implemented by Human Services should promote the goals
of environmental stewardship and conservation, outdoor physical exercise, and a
culture of mutual respect and consideration for the natural environment, other visitors,
and park neighbors.
• Program participants should be encouraged or incentivized to carpool to the main
entrance, park in designated lots, and visit the CHWP during non-peak hours to the
degree possible.
4.2.3 Volunteer Engagement
Harnessing the energy of volunteers to achieve goals and outcomes can be extremely successful
if effectively managed. Volunteer activities should align with adopted goals and desired
outcomes, and supplement and enhance staff efforts rather than divert resources to satisfy
volunteer initiatives. Volunteers require active management to support their efforts, ensure
alignment, and maximize effective outcomes. A more robust ranger program is necessary to
support an active volunteer engagement program.
Community input in recent years illustrates the passion that neighbors and park users alike feel
about the CHWP. Through the efforts of many Technical Advisory Committee members,
committed residents, and vested neighbors, progress has been made to better align
perspectives and facilitate collaboration for undertaking CHWP activities. Many community
members engaged in the Master Planning process have expressed a desire to continue to foster
a forum, such as the Friends of the CHWP, for mutual communication and collaboration. This
group would allow interested community members and park users to come together to share
concerns, coordinate projects, and communicate with City staff about park management and
operations. This ongoing, collaborative process would significantly aid in maintaining a balance
among the three primary goals of the Master Plan: promoting environmental preservation,
providing public access, and mitigating negative neighborhood impacts.
Policy Tenet: The CHWP is a community asset and, as such, should have a community group
(Friends of the CHWP) that actively works to preserve, program, support, and facilitate
communication among park users, neighbors, and City staff.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-9
B-72
City of Claremont May 2016
The Friends of the CHWP would not provide oversight for CHWP management and operations,
as that function currently resides with the Parks, Hillsides, and Utilities Committee and the
Community and Human Services Commission. Rather this group would actively engage in
CHWP related projects and activities and offer recommendations to the aforementioned
advisory bodies. Human Services and Community Services staff would participate to provide
guidance on helpful projects and to participate in the community dialogue that has become
established as part of the Master Planning process. This group would self-organize with
support from the City to achieve adopted goals and desired outcomes.
A trained volunteer group could assist staff with numerous projects, from picking up litter,
serving as volunteer liaisons to park visitors to reinforce trail etiquette and park rules, assisting
with disseminating information and undertaking special projects, such as dog checkpoints to
verify licensing or staff a “Be Prepared” public information stand during hot days. In high
temperatures, it is common for visitors and pets to be overcome by heat, lack of water, and
physical exertion on the main loop. Many first time visitors are unprepared for the rigors of the
trail during hot days and need assistance. Volunteers could also monitor neighborhoods and
parking lots for unwanted conditions and activity and to assist visitors. Organized volunteers
could be rewarded and engaged with a branded t-shirt, regular newsletters, and through
annual recognition by the City for their efforts.
Policy Tenet: Park rangers will be responsible for coordinating volunteer activitiesincluding
those of the Friends of the CHWP, Scout projects, and other efforts.
Staff resources are constrained and insufficient to develop a more active volunteer program to
assist with managing, operating and maintaining the CHWP. A more robust ranger program
could coordinate and support an active volunteer program that supplements staff efforts.
Scouts could undertake elements of implementing the sign program while additional volunteers
can focus on ongoing activities such as picking up litter. Staff and the Friends of the CHWP
could develop project lists for volunteers to accomplish as they come forward.
Volunteer Management Guidelines
• The park ranger program will coordinate CHWP volunteers so that activities supplement
staff efforts and contribute to the management goals and desired outcomes of the
Master Plan.
• An effective volunteer management program should include constructive engagement,
effective communication, and recognition for personal contributions.
4.2.4 Enforcement
Throughout the Master Planning process a general theme from public input has been the need
to increase enforcement of park rules, specifically related to operating hours and littering.
Another significant theme that evolved during public dialogue related to developing a park
culture that promotes mutual respect and consideration for the environment, other visitors,
and park neighbors. Developing a park culture not only includes enforcing specific rules but
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-10
B-73
City of Claremont May 2016
also promoting an awareness and respect for others and the environment that is achieved
through positive outreach and visitor engagement.
Managing the use of any open space or recreational facility includes promoting and enforcing a
reasonable set of rules and regulations to ensure general safety, appropriate behavior, and
acceptable activities in order to minimize negative
impacts to other users, neighbors, and the
environment. A number of park rules for the CHWP
have already been codified in Municipal Code
Chapter 11.10, which is included in Appendix D as
reference. Rules include hours of operation for the
park and parking lot, which adjust each month
generally by the amount of available daylight hours;
specific lists of authorized and unauthorized
activities; and general prohibitions related to the
park. Any violation of these codified rules and
prohibitions is a citable offence under the Municipal
Code.
Achieving compliance with rules and regulations includes a variety of methods and techniques,
both direct and indirect, including: public information and signage to inform and educate
visitors; verbal reminders from staff, volunteers, and other visitors; encouraging visitors to
model appropriate behavior and compliance; and formal enforcement through citations. To
date all of these methods have been undertaken by staff and engaged community members.
The rangers have verbally enforced these rules through their interactions with park visitors,
while police officers have issued citations primarily for violations of park and parking lot hours
and parking lot regulations.
Policy Tenet: In order to (1) preserve the park, (2) maintain positive experiences for users, and
(3) mitigate impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, park rules must be adopted and
enforced to foster acceptable norms of behavior in and around the CHWP.
Enforcement Guidelines
• Information regarding park rules shall be disseminated to the public and visitors through
various means to facilitate compliance to the degree feasible; visitors are responsible for
following posted rules.
• Park rules shall be enforced fairly and reasonably through various strategies at the
discretion of assigned staff.
• Enforcement can serve to positively engage visitors to achieve compliance; it can
encourage the development of methods, activities and programs to promote acceptable
park norms and a culture of respect and appreciation for the environment, other
visitors, and the neighbors.
User Etiquette Sign
Source: City of Claremont
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-11
B-74
City of Claremont May 2016
• Effective enforcement is only possible with sufficient ranger staffing levels and
enforcement presence at opening, closing and other critical and high use times of the
park.
4.3 PARK OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Operations and maintenance in the industry of
outdoor recreation management include activities
related to operating and maintaining the physical
infrastructure of the facility. In Claremont, that
responsibility falls primarily within the purview of
the Community Services Department with some
assistance from the rangers. For this Master Plan,
these activities have been organized within four
primary functional areas: (1) trail maintenance; (2)
trail amenities; (3) parking lots; and (4) fuel and
vegetation management.
4.3.1 Trail Maintenance
The trail network within the City-owned hillsides are
comprised of LA County maintained fire roads and a series of
informal or unofficial single track trails established primarily
by bike riders but also used by hikers. Several short single
track trails also cross into "Waters of the US" and "Waters of
the State", which are protected habitat areas. Because
unauthorized trails were developed for the enjoyment of the
users rather than consistency with proper trail standards,
they have the potential to erode, encroach into wildlife
corridors, damage vegetation, and generally disturb overall
habitat conditions. Efforts to deter access to heavily eroded
trail segments by blocking areas with benches have resulted
in users going around and continuing to access those
locations.
Trail erosion is caused more by impacted drainage structures, impeded drainage flows and
deficient trail design than by the number or type of park users. Although CHWP rules and
signage indicate visitors should remain on designated trails, no trails have been signed as
unofficial, closed or passage prohibited; therefore, messaging is incomplete and enforcement
not possible.
Unauthorized Trail
Source: City of Claremont
Unauthorized Trail
Source: City of Claremont
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-12
B-75
City of Claremont May 2016
The fire roads were graded at a pitch to sheet flow either away from the slope and off the road,
or toward the slope to access culverts under the trail. The roads are maintained by the LA
County Fire Department consistent with its
standards, which typically involves scraping the
roads as necessary to provide passage for
emergency equipment, the primary goal of their
maintenance program. However, repeated
scraping has created spoil berms over time,
impeding drainage flows off the edge of road down
slope or blocking drainage culverts on the interior
side. Over time ruts develop and widen. With
additional resources and in coordination with LA
County Fire, additional maintenance could be
performed to provide openings in the berms to
facilitate sheet flow off the trail and to regularly
remove accumulated sediment from trail culverts.
The fire roads and single track trails should be actively managed to avoid negative
environmental impacts and maintained to standards consistent with those of a natural area.
While periodic maintenance does occur and may be enhanced on CHWP trails as the budget
allows, visitors should be prepared to encounter rutted trail conditions, debris from storms, and
a variety of conditions inherent in back country conditions. Visitors pass at their own risk.
Should additionalfunding sources become
available, opportunities exist for enhanced
trail management and maintenance to
improve environmental conditions, habitat
stewardship, and visitor experience.
Policy Tenet: Established trails should be
maintained by the City with coordination with
LA County Fire for fire road maintenance.
Trail Maintenance Guidelines:
• Established single track trails shall be monitored for severe erosion and detrimental
habitat or watershed impacts and closed as necessary until funds are secured to
undertake trail relocation, renovation and / or revegetation.
• Non-conforming trails in Waters of the US and Waters of the State shall be closed in
accordance with Federal and State resource regulations.
• Grading and maintenance of the trails shall be performed during the dry months when
erosion can be reduced.
Extreme erosion on 5-mile Loop Trail
Source: City of Claremont
Evidence of switchback cutting
Source: City of Claremont
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-13
B-76
City of Claremont May 2016
• Rangers and maintenance staff shall monitor trail conditions to ensure proper trail use
and deter the formation of unauthorized trails, the cutting of switchbacks, and other
conditions detrimental to environmental conditions and visitor safety.
Trail Maintenance Standards:
• Any new trails shall be designed and existing trails maintained in accordance with the
standards set forth in the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation
Trails Manual, included in Appendix E, to the degree economically feasible.
4.3.2 Trail Amenities
Limited amenities are provided for CHWP visitors consistent with a back country management
philosophy, although some facilities and amenities have been installed to enhance visitor
experience and safety and minimize human impacts on the environment. Trail amenities
include temporary restrooms in the parking lot and two along the main loop, lidded waste
containers, and natural benches built by the rangers with tree stumps from downed trees and
other simple material.
Sanitary Facilities and Trash Receptacles
The sanitary facilities currently in use are temporary porta-potties. Four porta-potties are
located next to the north parking lot and two are located on the main loop. The porta-potties
and trash receptacles are serviced regularly, although the need for enhanced sanitary service is
evident. The main loop porta-potties have proven to be inefficient for contractors to service
given their remote locations on a dirt road. With limited restroom facilities on the trail, visitors
have created a number of informal locations to relieve themselves. The two porta-potties on
the main loop are heavily used and the limited service level has generally not been adequate
for the amount of use.
Policy Tenet: Park usage should not detrimentally impact the natural environment. Therefore,
sufficient sanitary facilities, trash receptacles, and other necessary minor improvements should
be installed and maintained - not to encourage increased park usage, but to limit the impact of
ongoing human usage on the environment and animal residents of the park.
Trash receptacles are located in several locations along the main loop and consist of 55-gallon
drums painted green with lids clamped on to prevent birds and small rodents from scavenging.
The lids are generally effective for smaller animals but not for bears. Trash disposed in the
receptacles consists primarily of water bottles, pet waste, and food wrappers, which are not
attractive to bears; therefore, incidents of bear scavenging have been infrequent. Trash cans
used in the park should be designed to discourage scavenging by small animals and birds.
Manufactured bear-proof lidded receptacles would help minimize bear scavenging should such
behavior be observed in the future.
Sanitary Facilities Guidelines
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-14
B-77
City of Claremont May 2016
• Sanitary facilities and trash receptacles shall be provided to minimize negative human
impacts within the CHWP. Need shall be determined by the Community and Human
Services Departments, subject to budgetary considerations and standard project or
purchasing approvals that require Commission and / or City Council approval.
Sanitary Facilities Standards
• Service of sanitary facilities, including cleaning and stocking of restroom facilities and
emptying trash receptacles, shall be scheduled as necessary to maintain clean facilities,
minimize litter, and deter the use of informal off trail latrine areas.
• Sanitary facilities and trash receptacles shall be in colors consistent with a natural
setting to minimize visual distractions.
• Sanitary facilities and trash receptacles shall be located against vegetation, berms or
outcroppings rather than within open space sight lines.
• Trash receptacles shall be located with other amenities to limit the occurrence of man-
made fixtures along the trail.
Benches and Rest Areas
In addition to the shelter at the top of the main loop, the rangers have constructed and
installed a number of benches primarily along the main loop as well as a few elsewhere in the
park to provide rest areas for visitors. These benches consist primarily of stumps from downed
trees and boards provided by the rangers through a variety of means, including donated
supplies. The seating is rustic and actively used by visitors. Although manufactured benches
are available at varying costs, the tree stumps and rustic benches are in keeping with the
natural setting.
General Bench and Rest Area Guidelines
• Benches should be located in areas set back from trail traffic against vegetation, berms,
or outcroppings rather than within open space sight lines unless used as barriers.
• Some existing benches are located at vistas in view sheds / open space sight lines and
may stay at the discretion of the park management, provided no additional benches are
added in other such locations.
General Bench and Rest Area Standards
• Benches should continue to maintain a rustic feel, and be made of natural or natural
looking material consistent with the current aesthetic.
• Large flat even surfaces should be avoided to deter graffiti. Open slatted and rough
uneven surfaces are preferred.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-15
B-78
City of Claremont May 2016
4.3.3 Fuel and Vegetation Management
Fuel and vegetation management is guided by the City Council approved Vegetation
Management Plan, which was updated in 2003 following the Grand Prix Fire. The plan was
prepared by the LA County Fire Department for the City of Claremont and is intended to
“provide long-term wildfire hazard mitigation and reduce associated threats to life, property,
and the environment” within the limitations of environmental and regulatory constraints.
The CHWP is located in a historic fire corridor along the San Gabriel Mountains’ urban-wildland
interface, which has experienced a series of brush fires throughout the decades. In fact many
of the region’s plant communities, such as Manzanita, are not only tolerant of periodic fires,
but dependent upon fire to germinate and thrive. Due to steep topography, heavy fuels, severe
fire weather, extreme drought, and higher than normal seasonal temperatures, the very real
potential exists for brush fires to occur again. Whether a fire starts within the Claremont-
owned hillsides or blows in from the east, as was the case with the 2003 Grand Prix Fire, the
Claremont community should prepare for wildfires as it does for earthquakes.
Within its own hillsides, the City of Claremont undertakes a number of measures to mitigate
fire risk, including enforcing the prohibition against glass containers, smoking, or camp fires in
the CHWP. In addition, each year the Community Services Department undertakes brush
clearance activities at the perimeter of the park in proximity to nearby structures, work which is
inspected by LA County inspectors to certify compliance with the current Vegetation
Management Plan.
Because wildfire embers are known to travel over a mile before settling onto combustible
material or vegetation, it is paramount that the neighborhoods adjoining the hillsides take
appropriate actions to mitigate fire risk on private property.
Policy Tenet: To address changing conditions in the CHWP and to incorporate updated
technologies and practices related to mitigating the risk of wildfires, City staff must maintain
communication with LA County Fire, including for preparedness planning and critical incident
response.
General Fuel and Vegetation Management Guidelines
• Update the Vegetation Management Plan every 10 years and adhere to its guidelines for
vegetation and fuel management.
• Participate in the preparation of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and adhere to its
guidelines for City actions related to community preparedness.
• Maintain collaboration with LA County Fire Department to ensure fire roads are
maintained for equipment accessibility.
• Disseminate public information related to fire risk, prevention, and preparedness,
particularly during periods of high fire risk.
• Close the CHWP during Red Flag conditions to reduce visitor risk should a fire begin.
• Avoid conducting brush clearance during Red Flag conditions to preclude the risk of
sparks.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-16
B-79
City of Claremont May 2016
4.3.4 Parking Management
The most complex issue surrounding the Wilderness Park relates to parking. Although the
capacity and usage study determined the park trails were sufficient to carry the number of
annual visits to the park, the parking capacity is limited to the parking lots and surrounding
streets. However, street parking brings with it impacts to the neighborhoods adjacent to the
park. Residential permit parking zones and a parking permit system have been instituted to
minimize the parking impacts.
In completing this Master Plan, staff conducted extensive studies on parking behaviors, parking
limitations, visitor behavior, and the impacts on the residents in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
The following are the key findings related to these areas:
1) There is adequate parking during nonpeak times in the existing two parking lots.
2) During peak periods on Saturday and Sunday mornings there is a shortage of available parking
in the lots. Restrictions on street parking are necessary in order to direct park users to the
parking lots.
3) Implementation of Residential Parking Permit (RPP) zones have resolved the majority of
resident complaints.
4) Charging for parking and restricting on-street parking is the current recommendation to control
attendance.
5) Parking behavior and impacts are dynamic. As regulations are changed, behavior will change in
anticipated and unanticipated ways.
Additional monitoring and studying of parking will be necessary.
4.3.5 Parking Lots
Two parking lots are located on N. Mills Avenue adjacent to the CHWP. The north lot provides
134 spaces and serves as the primary parking lot for the facility. The N. Mills parking lot hours
of operation were established in relation to the operating hours of the park, which are adjusted
each month to generally match available daylight hours.
A 45 space parking lot at the trail entrance to the Thompson Creek Trail is located at the
intersection of Mt. Baldy and N. Mills and is referred to as the TCT / south lot. Its operating
hours match those of the municipal park and trail system, which is 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Both parking lots are currently regulated and require a permit. Meters are available in both lots
to purchase a temporary permit valid for up to four hours. Frequent visitors may also purchase
an annual permit. All annual permits expire January 1 and are prorated based on the purchase
date. Annual permit stickers must be displayed on the rear window of the vehicle and may be
used in either parking lot. Residents may obtain two free resident permits per household with
proof of residency. Resident permits are only valid in the south lot, which is City-owned. The
north lot is leased by City from the Pomona Valley Protective Association (PVPA), a regionally
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-17
B-80
City of Claremont May 2016
serving water agency. As a condition of the lease, PVPA required the City make access to the
parking lot available for all visitors whether they live in Claremont or not. Therefore, the
resident permit is only valid in the south lot. Parking lot fees and regulations may be adjusted
as deemed appropriate by the City Council.
The current parking lot capacity is sufficient to meet visitor demands on most days except
Saturday and Sunday mornings, which becomes a factor for determining park capacity. When
the City's consultant, MIG, was asked to evaluate “carrying capacity,” the discussion primarily
revolved around trail capacity and whether the park was too crowded. Carrying capacity is
affected by social, biological and /or physical factors. Because the trail network is primarily
comprised of wide fire roads, the trails can physically accommodate more people than currently
hike or bike (physical factor) in the CHWP. Furthermore, according to the intercept survey
results, the majority of park users do not believe the trails are too crowded (social factor). Nor
does the baseline environmental assessment indicate that the number or type of visitors is
having a significant detrimental impact to park habitat or the physical condition of the hillsides
(biological factors). Therefore, based on data collected in 2014 the park’s internal carrying
capacity has not been limited thus far by social, biological or physical factors. However, limited
parking availability in parking lots or street parking is a limiting factor in the number of visitors
that the park can accommodate. Additionally, visitor parking negatively impacted the
surrounding neighborhoods prior to the introduction of restricted parking. Therefore, parking
capacity should be considered a limiting factor and can serve as the basis for managing park
visitation.
Based on parking surveys, park visitors park outside the lots for three general reasons: 1) the
lots are full (physical capacity), 2) the visitor does not want to pay for parking in the lots
(discretionary preference), or 3) the visitor cannot afford to pay for parking (economic
limitation). Adjacent collector and residential streets have been impacted by migrating parking
from park visitors to varying degrees. As noted in Chapter 2, a series of Restricted Parking
Permit zones have been approved to address parking impacts. As part of the Master Planning
process, additional parking alternatives were evaluated, including lifting some restricted
parking areas on N. Mills, providing overflow parking areas, improving shoulder areas to traffic
safety standards to accommodate additional parking, funding a weekend shuttle from the
Metrolink parking lot in the Village, and encouraging visitors to park at other parks and walk or
bike to the main entrance. These alternatives are not recommended at this time due to
negative impacts to other neighborhoods or park user groups and the cost subsidies necessary
to provide the service. Alternatively, a park reservation system was evaluated to limit entrance
to the CHWP based upon the number of spaces available in the parking lots factoring in the
number of people walking and biking to the park. However, the capital improvement and labor
costs to secure and control entrances were prohibitive.
In order to achieve a better balance between parking supply and demand, the Implementation
Plan makes recommendations to reduce parking demand using increased peak time pricing and
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-18
B-81
City of Claremont May 2016
increased parking restrictions on residential streets to reduce supply and drive users during
these times into the parking lots.
With regard to physical operation and maintenance, the parking lots should be maintained in a
safe and good condition, including landscaping, asphalt, signage, striping, and amenities such as
bike racks, benches, sanitary facilities, drinking fountains and trash cans.
General Parking Lot Guidelines:
• Parking opportunities to support CHWP visitation shall be provided at a level deemed
necessary and / or sufficient by the City Council, and managed through a variety of
methods and means to minimize detrimental neighborhood impacts.
• Incentives should be provided to encourage visitation during off-peak periods.
General Parking Lot Standards:
• The facilities shall be inspected regularly, maintained in good and working order, and
any deficiencies repaired or corrected in a timely fashion.
• Consistent with Community Services standards, graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours
of discovery, if possible.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 4. Management, Operations, and Maintenance
Draft Master Plan Page 4-19
B-82
City of Claremont May 2016
CHAPTER 5: FUTURE AQUISITION, FUTURE STUDY & REASSESSMENT
As was noted in Chapter 1, the Master Plan was shaped by the Goals and Guiding Principles
listed below:
Primary Goals:
• Preserve the park as an environmental resource;
• Manage the park as a passive recreational opportunity; and
• Minimize the impact park attendance has on surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
Guiding Principles
Guiding principles were developed to help steer the Master Planning process and guide future
decision-making for the next twenty or more years. The Master Plan is designed as a policy and
management document, rather than a proscriptive set of operating procedures. These guiding
principles were developed based upon existing City policies and documents, as well as public
input.
Preservation: Environmental and cultural resources within the current park must be
preserved and protected. As additional open-space lands in Claremont's hillsides
become available, efforts shall be made to acquiring the land and annex the land to the
park when fiscally feasible. Special attention should be given to preserving the hillsides'
function as watershed for the cities of the San Gabriel Valley. Appropriate resource
management promotes the long-term viability of the natural and cultural landscape,
inspiring future generations to care for and respect these resources. The natural
environment and the overall conditions of the Park shall be managed to minimize
impacts from human recreational activities.
Stewardship: The Master Plan will promote a park culture in which visitors treat nature,
park neighbors, and one another with respect and courtesy. Everyone associated with
the park—visitors, neighbors, City staff members—will be encouraged to see
themselves as stewards of the park, protecting its resources. City staff will educate
visitors about these expectations and enforce park rules in a fair and friendly manner.
Access: Inclusive and managed public access is provided as secondary to preserving the
natural environment and limiting the impacts to surrounding properties. The CHWP
Chapter 5 is a new chapter which was not in the Final Draft Master Plan released in January 2016. The inclusion of the Chapter was in response to public feedback received after the publication of the January 2016 version and after review by the Commissions and public.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 5. Future Acquisition, Future Study & Reassessment
Draft Master Plan Page 5-1
B-83
City of Claremont May 2016
allows for passive recreational opportunities that connect people to nature and
promote healthy lifestyles.
Education: Active education is the cornerstone of fostering visitors' safe and responsible
behaviors in the park. With effective outreach to the community, a variety of educational and
interpretive programs (such as field trips and docent-led hikes) will enhance their understanding
and appreciation of the park's culture and its natural resources.
Public Engagement: Public collaboration is integral to ensuring sound policy decision-making,
and providing opportunities for the community to contribute their knowledge, expertise, and
energy to actively support Park management.
Funding: Achieving the Goals of the Master Plan and realizing the manifestation of the
Guiding Principles is only possible with funding generated from parking fees and grants
to support active park management, operations and maintenance.
This Master Plan provides a framework for policy direction and management of the park for the
next 20 years. However, the Master Plan is not a static document but one that will change and
evolve over time. Future acquisitions, environmental changes, usage pattern changes and
other factors will require adaptation of the Master Plan. This chapter presents policy and
guidelines to help manage this Master Plan as a dynamic document.
5.1 FUTURE ACQUISITION
The General Plan background report in 2004 notes, “Claremont City officials have stated that
they will continue to explore grants, partnerships, and other opportunities for acquiring as
much hillside open space as possible.” Since the 2004 General Plan report, the City has
purchased several parcels. Key factors in acquisition for expansion are (1) a willing seller
wanting a reasonable price and (2) available funding. Due to other significant projects affecting
the City budget, substantial general fund monies are not currently available to expand the
CHWP. However, hillside open space acquisition remains a priority for collaboration between
City staff and engaged community groups. The City will continue to actively monitor available
grant funds so that when parcels become available for sale, grant funds can be used expand the
CHWP.
Policy Tenet: Preserving open space by limiting development benefits the environment, the
wildlife in the foothills, and the entire community. Expanding the CHWP should remain a
priority, through funding acquisitions with non-General Fund revenue
While acquisition of parcels to maintain as open space remains a priority, it is vital that issues
such as parking, access, environmental impacts, and impacts on neighborhoods are evaluated.
While all future acquisitions should be folded into the CHWP to ensure consistency of rules,
hours and usage, it may be necessary for other regulations or the planning process to
accompany new acquisition in order to limit any unintended consequences of acquisition.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 5. Future Acquisition, Future Study & Reassessment
Draft Master Plan Page 5-2
B-84
City of Claremont May 2016
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION, WATERSHED PROTECTION, AND FUTURE STUDY
The baseline environmental assessment performed by the consultants as part of the Master
Plan process provided an important snapshot in time of the environmental conditions in the
CHWP. While the overall findings do not point to major environmental concerns, a more study
of the local habitat would provide additional comprehensive results to supplement those of the
consultants.
Through the community dialogue during the Master Plan process, great interest was expressed
for taking steps for additional study and planning to maintain and maximize the yield of the
watershed. There was also interest shown in additional long-term wildlife and environmental
studies performed and monitored over time.
Due to the expense of such studies, some could be done using volunteers and community
resources. In some cases, a consultant would need to be hired to manage the process, and in
others, a community ad hoc committee may need to be formed. The City must set priorities and
secure funding for such studies over the long term.
Policy Tenet: Additional study of the CHWP is beneficial to better understand, and thus better
manage, the CHWP in order to maximize preservation and environmental protection.
5.3 CHANGES TO THE MASTER PLAN AND REASSESSMENT TIME FRAMES
The Master Plan is intended to provide long term guidance for park management, generally
assumed to be at least twenty years. However, the Master Plan should be considered a flexible
document that can evolve with time based on changing circumstances. From time to time,
modifications to the document may be appropriate. Changes would go through the normal City
review process including Parks, Hillsides and Utilities Committee, Community and Human
Services Commission, and finally the City Council if necessary. In addition to the standard
process, ad hoc committees, community meetings, or workshops may be needed prior to
beginning the Committee/Commission/Council review process, depending on the nature of
changes being considered
In order to have a truly living document that allows for adaptive implementation based on
changes in conditions, it is important to have established systems and time frames to gather
fresh empirical data. To that end, the following time frames are recommended for additional
parking, user, and environmental survey and study. Gathering of this information should be
funded through parking meter revenue and/or in coordination with community resources such
as the Claremont colleges. Results of studies and data-gathering efforts should be shared with
the Friends of the CHWP, the community as a whole, the Traffic and Transportation
Commission, the Community and Human Services Commission, and the City Council.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 5. Future Acquisition, Future Study & Reassessment
Draft Master Plan Page 5-3
B-85
City of Claremont May 2016
Parking
Parking behavior and impacts should be measured throughout the first year of implementation
of any new parking fees/restrictions or other changes to how or where visitors park.
Additionally, when no changes are made to parking policy or facilities, the parking situation
should be reexamined every two years. Areas of study should include, but not be limited to,
number of cars parking outside of the Residential Permit Parking (RPP) zone, empty spaces in
the lots, parking meter usage data, and disruptive aspects of parking as reported by neighbors.
Usage Estimates and User Profile
In order to ensure that proper implementation efforts are undertaken, it is vital to make sure
that the community, staff and City Council have accurate and up-to-date information on how
many people are using the park: and how often, why and who the park users are. To this end,
user surveys and usage estimates should be performed every two years.
Environmental Evaluation
Chapter 3 of this plan presents the current environmental analysis and the resource
management plan to guide the long-term preservation of the CHWP. As with usage, the natural
environment is ever-changing, and impacts of usage, climate change, watershed concerns, and
others also need to be monitored regularly. In addition to the supplemental study described in
the Implementation Plan, environmental evaluation should be performed every five years in
order to provide updated environmental data to guide decision making.
Claremont Hills Wilderness Park 5. Future Acquisition, Future Study & Reassessment
Draft Master Plan Page 5-4
B-86
Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority
Report Regarding
Visitor Management
By Doug Whittaker and Bo Shelby
Confluence Research and Consulting
May 2015
B-87
i
Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
Guideline objectives .................................................................................................................... 2
Background and assumptions ..................................................................................................... 2
Guidelines process ...................................................................................................................... 3
Issues .................................................................................................................................... 6
Ecological Issues .......................................................................................................................... 6
Coastal Gnatcatcher habitat and disturbance ........................................................................ 8
Cactus Wren habitat and disturbance .................................................................................... 9
Wildlife disturbance from after-dark recreation use ............................................................ 10
General wildlife disturbance ................................................................................................. 13
Trail condition and erosion ................................................................................................... 15
Vehicle-wildlife collisions ...................................................................................................... 19
Human-caused fire hazards .................................................................................................. 20
Recreation quality ..................................................................................................................... 21
Hiker-biker-horse rider conflicts ........................................................................................... 22
Parking/traffic congestion in neighborhoods near trailheads .............................................. 24
Trail crowding and encounters ............................................................................................. 27
Trail conditions (hazards and aesthetics) ............................................................................. 28
Depreciative behavior ............................................................................................................... 30
Graffiti and vandalism of facilities / natural features ........................................................... 31
Trailside litter and dog waste (distinct from party-site litter) .............................................. 32
Dumping (non-recreation users) ........................................................................................... 34
Crime and personal safety .................................................................................................... 35
Other recreation management issues and options .................................................................. 35
Sidebars
Background on capacity and visitor management ......................................................................... 4
Frequently asked questions about capacity and visitor management .......................................... 5
The limits of education for solving impact problems ................................................................... 12
Relationships between use and biological impacts ...................................................................... 14
A short history of Preserve trail management ............................................................................. 18
Density and perceived crowding .................................................................................................. 25
Use limits and permit systems ...................................................................................................... 26
References........................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix A. Trail Inventory and Evaluation Form ....................................................................... 40
Appendix B: Recreation Use Objectives from Resource Management Plan (2007) ..................... 41
B-88
1
Introduction
The Puente Hills Preserve (Preserve), located at the eastern edge of Los Angeles County, is part
of the Puente-Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor (see map below). It has hilltops ranging from 700 to
1,400 feet and drainages from 400 to 600 feet. With minimal development, it provides
ecological refugia and opportunities for recreation in an otherwise urban and suburban
environment near the communities of Whittier, Hacienda Heights, La Habra Heights, and
Rowland Heights.
The Preserve was created in 1994 as a requirement of the conditional use permit for the Puente
Hills Landfill (Landfill) to protect open space and ecological resources in the area. The Preserve
is managed by the Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority (Habitat Authority) through a
Board of Directors with members from the City of Whittier, Hacienda Heights Improvement
Association, the County of Los Angeles, and the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. The
Preserve currently consists of nearly 4,000 acres, but is connected to other undeveloped public
lands (e.g., Schabarum Regional Park) or lands slated for preservation or recreational uses (e.g.,
the now-closed Landfill).
Map 1. The Puente Hills Preserve in Lose Angeles County, California.
B-89
2
The Preserve attracts considerable recreation use, including hiking, running, dog walking,
biking, horseback riding, and wildlife viewing. Most of this use occurs along trails emanating
from six access points, with the highest use coming from Whittier and Hacienda Hills.
Recreation use has increased considerably over the past nine years, with impacts on ecological
values and the quality of recreation experiences. Recreation use is expected to continue its
upward trend in the future, and the Habitat Authority is interested in developing recreation
management guidelines to address these issues.
Guideline objectives
• Identify and prioritize recreation management issues.
• Identify indicators of resource health and recreation quality for top-rated issues.
• Assess the ways impacts are related to recreation uses and behaviors.
• Identify possible standards that specify when impacts or trends become unacceptable.
• Identify management actions of increasing intensity that could be used to address
unacceptable impacts or behavior.
• Identify options for developing and maintaining a monitoring program.
Background and assumptions
The Preserve has an existing Resource Management Plan (RMP) that identifies issues and
management objectives. The present document is a supplement to the RMP; it provides more
detail about recreation management issues, standards that define resource health or recreation
experience quality, and actions that might be used to address them. Other assumptions are
listed below.
• Protecting the biological diversity of the Preserve in perpetuity through restoration and
preservation is the primary mission of the Habitat Authority, but providing low-impact
recreational opportunities and outdoor education are important secondary purposes.
• There are five developed trailheads and one additional access point as well as a network of
designated hiking and multiple use (biking, horse riding, and hiking) trails. There are also
dozens of other user-created access points and trails from nearby residences and
neighborhoods. The RMP designated several main trails (and closed others); this document
continues the process of defining a sustainable trail system, acceptable trail conditions, and
acceptable types/amounts of use based on monitoring and standards.
• Depreciative behavior by nearby residents or recreation users (including dumping,
vandalism, dog waste, litter, trail erosion, and wildlife disturbance) are related issues. The
guidelines identify types and causes of this behavior, and consider education and
regulation/enforcement actions that would reduce them.
B-90
3
• The existing RMP includes authority to open/close trails and otherwise regulate recreation
use in the area, although enforcement is an on-going challenge. The guidelines identify
education and enforcement opportunities.
• The report identifies guidelines that identify visitor use issues, indicators and standards of
resource health and recreation opportunity quality, and management actions of increasing
intensity to address impacts.
• The guidelines identify a structure for future monitoring efforts. In most cases, effective
management actions are more likely to emerge if additional planning, research, and
monitoring can identify trends and causes of impacts. This may require specific monitoring
and observations of ecological resources (e.g., species, life stages, habitats, behaviors) and
recreation or other human-related impacts.
• The guidelines are conceived as a “working document” that allows adaptive management as
new information is developed or the consequences of management actions become more
clear. The document allows the Preserve to try different management actions, assess their
effectiveness, and re-evaluate additional actions.
• Major management actions may require additional authorization by the Habitat Authority
and its Board of Directors.
Guidelines process
The report’s guidelines were developed over a six month period from September 2014 through
March 2015. The process began with a review of existing information and fieldwork in
September 2014. The draft report guidelines were developed through an interactive process
between researchers at Confluence Research and Consulting and staff at the Habitat Authority
through early 2015. After formal review by the Habitat Authority staff, Advisory Committee
and Board, this report was received and filed by the Board in May 2015. The report identifies
management actions to be considered by the Habitat Authority and its Board, but monitoring
and adaptive management will continue in the long term.
Issues are organized into three categories: (ecological, recreation, and depreciative behavior).
A series of sidebars (in shaded boxes) provide additional background on recreation
management concepts, research, or the Puente Hills Preserve. Appendices include the 2005-07
trail evaluation form and 2007 RMP goals and objectives related to recreation management.
B-91
4
Background on capacity and visitor management
This background section was adapted from “Capacity Reconsidered – Finding Consensus and Clarifying Differences”
by Whittaker, Shelby, Manning, Cole, and Haas (2011).
Visitor capacity (also known as carrying capacity) has a long history in natural resource management and has been
applied to timber, rangelands, fish and wildlife populations, and recreation use. With philosophical roots that
stretch back to Malthus’ population principle and Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” (1968), capacities recognize
that environments have limits and that ever-increasing use is likely to degrade conditions and become
unsustainable. Applications of capacity in park settings followed rapid growth in outdoor recreation after World
War II, prompting public concern over wild lands being “loved to death” (Wagar, 1946). Focusing on the amount
and type of use that natural areas can accommodate without impairing their values, visitor capacity continues to
play a fundamental role in the effort to protect high-quality environments and experiences.
Several natural resource decision-making processes from the 1960s and ’70s recognized the importance of
capacities. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969) and equivalent state laws (e.g., California’s CEQA)
encouraged agencies to systematically consider alternative management actions and their consequences. More
specific land designation laws (e.g., Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, National Trails Act) also had mandates to address
capacity and related visitor management issues.
Parallel research explored ecological and experiential impacts in these settings, showing that some impacts might
occur even with low use levels. Deciding which conditions are desirable, how much impact is unacceptable, how
use levels affect conditions, and how much use should be accommodated became the focus. Researchers
emphasized the importance of clear management goals and specific objectives for specific ecological, cultural, and
experiential resources; they developed several planning frameworks with terminology and steps that helped
identify and address impacts from recreation use (such as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum [ROS]; Limits of
Acceptable Change [LAC]; Carrying Capacity Assessment Process [C-CAP]; and Visitor Experience and Resource
Protection [VERP]). Although there are technical differences among these frameworks, they all recognize potential
trade-offs between different use levels, resource conditions, and management actions while providing high-quality
experiences (Whittaker et al. 2011).
A few basic concepts are at the center of these frameworks, including 1) the importance of separating descriptive
and evaluative information; 2) indicators and standards; 3) use-impact relationships; and 4) the need to identify
the range of management actions (including capacities) that work together to keep impacts from exceeding
standards.
Visitor capacities and related frameworks are a common management tool used by local, state, and federal
agencies (Brown 2001), and have been the focus of several national conferences, recent review papers (Whittaker
et al. 2011; Graefe et al. 2011), and federal interagency task forces (Haas et al. 2002; Cahill et al. 2012). Many
agencies have established capacities or considered them in their planning, even if they did not employ all the steps
or ideas in the research-developed planning frameworks.
Capacities have been applied to protect natural, cultural, and experiential resources in diverse recreation settings
(rivers, lakes, trails, backcountry areas, mountains, and islands, for example); to help define the appropriate size
and type of facilities (campgrounds, marinas, boat launches, transportation systems, and visitor centers, for
instance); to shape the size of agency programs (interpretation or maintenance, for example); and to determine
appropriate levels of commercial and non-commercial uses. Although capacities direct attention toward use
levels, the concept applied through modern frameworks is a much broader “umbrella” of protections, and
considers a full range of management actions beyond use limits, including education, regulation, and
infrastructure.
B-92
5
Frequently asked questions about capacity and visitor management
What are capacities?
Capacities define the type and amount of use compatible with the management prescription for an area. A
capacity is a number such as people per day or at one time (PAOT). It has units of use, timing, and location
components. Capacities identify the level of use beyond which conditions become unacceptable as defined by
management standards.
What is a management prescription for an area?
Management prescriptions are explicit set of decisions that…
…define goals and objectives for all important uses and values;
…identify desired conditions and the mix of resource uses and values;
…establish standards that quantify acceptable levels of impacts for indicator conditions;
…identify management actions that will be used to provide desired conditions and avoid exceeding standards.
Is a capacity intrinsic to an area and determined by resource characteristics?
No. Capacities are an outcome of a decision-making process. They are derived from a series of judgments about an
area’s values, desired future resource and experiential conditions (indicators and standards), and the acceptability of
management actions and facilities designed to handle use. Changing one part of the equation (such as more stringent
standards) can require a lower capacity; similarly, more regulations, enforcement, or facilities may be needed to allow
a higher capacity (while keeping conditions acceptable).
What are the limiting factors to capacity?
The amount of use an area can sustain depends on its resource characteristics, the type and quantity of use
anticipated, and the effectiveness of other (non-capacity) management actions. If visitors practice “leave no trace”
behaviors and stay on well-designed trails, an area can accommodate higher use. The factors that determine “how
much use is too much” depend on desired conditions and the type of use. This may vary across different areas in
the Preserve, with different levels of sensitivity for different species, terrain, and types of use. An area may have
one or more capacities for key locations and activities depending on the circumstances (for example, different
capacities on weekends and weekdays, or during nesting seasons for sensitive species).
How do biological values relate to user capacities?
Biological conditions can be sensitive to an amount of use, in which case they may be a limiting factor in
determining capacity. In many cases, however, biological conditions are related to the type of use and how it is
managed rather than the amount of use. For example, a trail crossing steep terrain could be vulnerable to erosion
or bird nesting habitat could be sensitive to unleashed dogs. In these situations, the behavior or type of use is the
problem, not the number of users. Improved trail construction and re-routing to avoid nesting areas, or regulations
that limit the trail to hikers or prohibit dogs might allow higher levels of use without causing unacceptable impacts.
Once such a trail and regulations are in place, biological impacts may no longer be the limiting factor for capacity.
The focus then shifts to other conditions related to numbers of users, such as crowding and social conditions.
Are capacities maximum use levels allowed?
Capacities refer to the highest use that is acceptable to meet objectives and standards. Guidelines assume use will
eventually reach capacities on most days during peak season, although lower use levels may occur in the shoulder
and off-season. In most settings, capacities eventually become “everyday use levels.”
B-93
6
Issues
This section reviews several ecological, recreation, and depreciative behavior issues in the
Preserve. For each issue, the guidelines describe background information, use-condition
relationships, indicators, standards, and management actions that can be used to address
unacceptable conditions. These discussions are at the “brainstorming” level, and more work is
needed to prioritize issues, select indicators and standards, and develop alternative
management prescriptions for public and stakeholder review.
Ecological Issues
These issues focus on preservation of biological or physical resources affected by recreation
use, the primary purpose of the Preserve. The issues are generally organized from highest to
lowest priority, and actions are ordered from easiest to hardest to implement.
Table 1. Indicators, standards, and management actions for ecological issues.
Issue / Indicators Standards Actions to meet standards
Coastal California
Gnatcatcher
Number of nesting pairs
Habitat in acres
No downward
trend
No net loss
• Increased monitoring and correlate to recreation use.
• Coastal sage scrub restoration via invasive removal.
• Disallow dogs in known breeding areas.
• Increased enforcement in nesting areas – dogs off-leash.
• Seasonal (breeding season) trail closures.
• Trail re-routes away from identified nesting areas.
• Permanent trail removals.
Cactus Wren
Habitat in acres
Number of nesting pairs
No net loss
No downward
trend
• Increased monitoring and correlate to recreation use.
• Cacti habitat restoration or expansion through plantings.
• Disallow dogs in known breeding areas.
• Increased enforcement in nesting areas – dogs off leash.
• Seasonal (breeding season) trail closures.
• Trail re-routes away from identified nesting areas.
• Permanent trail removals.
B-94
7
Table 1 (continued). Indicators, standards, and management actions for ecological issues.
Issue / Indicators Standards Actions to meet standards
Wildlife disturbance from after-dark use
Number of people leaving
Preserve after sunset
Number of night-time use
incidents (willful violations)
Reduce 50% from
baseline average
within five years
Zero tolerance
standard
• Directed education program.
• Increase clarity of sunset timing information.
• Adopt firm open/closing hours (seasonal differences)
• Improved information about violation penalties.
• Hire contractors to close Preserve gates at sunset.
• Lower fines levied more frequently (for most violations);
larger fines for extreme violations.
• Improved ranger consistency on violation enforcement.
• Tier 2 ranger position(s) with education focus.
• Increased direct ranger enforcement (Whittier).
• Increased night ranger patrols for willful violations.
General off-trail use and wildlife disturbance
Identify population trend for 3
to 5 indicator species.
No downward trend. • User-created trail removal -- sensitive areas.
• Conduct user survey and use monitoring.
• Signs, brushing, to “close” user-created trails.
• Trail re-routes to reduce fragmentation.
• Night time use education and enforcement
• Increased off-trail use enforcement.
• Permanent trail removals – sensitive areas.
Trail condition and erosion
Estimated miles of user-
created trails (8.25 miles)
Indicator segments of different
types.
Sedimentation in streams.
Counts of high bank locations.
Counts of “switchback cuts”
No new trails; reduce
20% in 5 years.
No condition class
change.
No net increase.
No net increase.
No net increase.
• Education regarding user-created trails.
• Signs, brushing, to “close” user-created trails.
• Water bars/ erosion control facilities.
• Grading to create trail crown -- reduce erosion.
• Re-vegetation of trail widths to discourage widening.
• Retaining walls and steps on steep designated trails.
• Re-design steepest trail segments.
• Make some steep trails one-way for bikes.
• Close poor condition designated trails.
Vehicle-wildlife collisions
Number and type of species
using underpasses.
Number and type of road kill
per survey
No net decrease.
No net increase.
• Education to reduce human use of underpasses.
• New wildlife underpass on Colima Road.
• Consider traffic calming options.
• Fencing in high road kill areas.
• Increase ranger enforcement.
Human-caused fire hazards
Number of smoking citations
Number of fire rings/party sites
Number of arson incidents
No increase.
Reduce to zero.
Zero tolerance.
• Education hang tag program.
• Kiosk education.
• Enforcement – party-site shutdown strategies and work
with local law enforcement
• Enforcement – higher late night and fire ring penalties.
B-95
8
Coastal California Gnatcatcher habitat and disturbance
Background
• The coastal California gnatcatcher is a
Threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
• It has specific habitat needs (shallow slopes
with coastal sage scrub habitat).
• Coastal sage scrub habitat comprises about
980 acres in the 3,870 acre Preserve.
• Gnatcatchers may be disturbed by recreation
use on trails in close proximity to habitats
they use for nesting, roosting, etc.
• Dogs off leash may exacerbate recreation disturbance.
• Redesigned or rerouted trails away from critical habitat may
improve gnatcatcher protection.
• Reduced recreation use during critical nesting periods
may improve gnatcatcher breeding success.
• Restoration efforts sometimes include removal of invasive species.
Use-impact relationships
• Trail proximity may affect whether recreation use disturbs gnatcatchers.
• Gnatcatchers may be more susceptible to disturbance during nesting (mid-February through
August).
Indicators and standards
• Number of nesting pairs through focused survey (through an annual or biennial survey); no
downward trend.
• Total acres of suitable coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat (through remote sensing); no
downward trend.
• Nesting pairs per acre of CSS in higher and lower recreation use areas; no downward trend.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Identify specific habitat (acres) in high, medium, and low use areas and monitor activity
levels and breeding success.
• Coastal sage scrub habitat restoration or expansion through invasive species removal.
• Disallow dogs in new areas where gnatcatchers are now breeding over 2+ seasons.
• Issue citations (Ranger enforcement) in accordance to Preserve rules for dogs off leash,
especially in identified nesting areas.
• Seasonal (breeding season) trail closures from specific nesting areas.
• Trail re-routes away from identified nesting areas.
• Permanent trail removals from key habitat areas (identify candidate trail sections).
Figure 1. Coast Live Oak (top) and coastal
California gnatcatcher (bottom).
B-96
9
Cactus Wren habitat and disturbance
Background
• Cooper (2009) mapped and surveyed all known
locations of Cactus Wren in the Preserve.
• Cactus Wren is a species of concern (California) and
the Puente Hills Preserve may support up to 15% of
the remaining Cactus Wren population in Los Angeles
County (Cooper 2009).
• It has specific habitat needs (nests and roosts in
prickly pear cactus patches with heights of 2.5 to 3.0 feet).
• Cactus patches are susceptible to damage from recreation use
(off trail use, litter, collection).
• Wrens may be disturbed by recreation use on trails
in close proximity to cactus patches.
• Dogs off leash may exacerbate recreation disturbance.
• Increased cacti habitat provides additional habitat for dispersing wrens.
• Redesigned or rerouted trails away from cacti habitat may improve wren protection.
• Reduced recreation use during critical nesting periods may improve Cactus Wren breeding
and roosting success.
Use-impact relationships
• Trail proximity may affect whether recreation use disturbs wrens.
• Wrens may be more susceptible to disturbance during nesting (February through July).
• Wrens commonly forage in morning and late afternoon or early evening when many people
are recreating (people often avoid the hottest times of the day).
Indicators and standards
• Number of nesting pairs on entire Preserve (five year survey); no downward trend.
• Nesting pairs per acre of cactus habitat in higher and lower recreation use areas.
• Total acres of suitable cacti habitat (remote sensing estimate); no downward trend.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Identify specific habitat in high, medium, and low use areas and monitor activity levels and
breeding success.
• Cacti habitat restoration or expansion through plantings.
• Disallow dogs in new areas where cactus wrens are breeding over 2+ seasons.
• Issue citations (increased targeted ranger enforcement) in accordance to existing Preserve
regulations for dogs off leash, especially in identified nesting areas.
• Seasonal (breeding season) trail closures from specific nesting areas.
• Trail re-routes away from identified nesting areas.
• Permanent trail removals from key habitat areas (identify candidate trail sections).
Figure 2. Prickly pear cactus habitat
(top) and Cactus Wren (bottom).
B-97
10
Wildlife disturbance from after-dark recreation use
Background
• The Preserve is closed from sunset to sunrise to provide wildlife with disturbance-free
periods; after-dark use also increases security and vandalism issues.
• This is a greater problem at Whittier trailheads more than Sycamore, Hacienda Hills, or
Powder Canyon.
• Many people are violating these regulations out of ignorance, not willful intent, especially in
winter when daylight hours are shorter. Clarity about what defines “sunset” is a frequent
refrain. Strategies for addressing willful violations vs. ignorance-based violations are
different (see discussion on types of depreciative behavior later in the document).
• Intentional violations among repeat users or after-hour partying on the trails is a larger
problem and likely to have greater impacts on wildlife disturbance (and are a more
challenging enforcement problem).
• Ranger contact information suggests after-hours use is by far the most frequent ranger-user
interaction.
Use-impact relationships
• After-hours use is probably related to overall daily use, but there has been no formal
analysis of ranger contacts/citations and use levels.
• There is little specific information about impacts of after-hours use or different kinds of
after-hours violations (for example, evening trail use vs. parties, vandalism).
Indicators and standards
• Rangers currently track post-sunset parking, warnings, and citations by location. However,
ranger protocols appear inconsistent enough that specific statistics are best viewed as
approximations for identifying trends. Future monitoring should establish a baseline
estimate of average people per day that depart the Preserve after sunset, possibly
distinguishing those who leave within one hour from those who leave later (which may
indicate differences between ignorance-based and willful violations).
• Citations or warnings for deliberate illegal nighttime use (e.g. parties that start later in the
evening) should be tracked separately.
• A zero tolerance standard is an obvious goal for all nighttime use, especially for deliberate
illegal activities such as parties.
• For ignorance-based nighttime use (for example, people who are tardy exiting the Preserve,
typically departing within an hour of sunset), monitoring should establish a current baseline
and standards could attempt to reduce the number by 50% within five years.
B-98
11
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Directed education program – go beyond kiosk signs.
• Focus on more clear timing instructions – the variable sunset/sunrise times through the
year is a constant source of confusion for some users.
• Develop firm park opening and closing hours to eliminate sunrise/sunset confusion for
some users, and encourage more consistent enforcement. The hours should vary by season
(e.g., 7 am to 5 pm from Oct to Mar and 7 am to 7:30 pm from April to September).
• Better defined consequences of violations may reduce infractions (e.g., define fine amounts
for vehicles parked behind gated parking after hours or for people departing the Preserve
after sunset).
• Reduce variable ranger discretion over which violations deserve tickets could be reduced
(more consistency would help establish social norms and encourage better compliance).
• Reduce some maintenance duties among existing rangers (and reassign to maintenance
positions) to increase ranger effort for after-dark education and enforcement.
• Reduce ranger duties associated with locking gates; spend more on education and
enforcement at key locations (especially Whittier access areas).
• Create “education-focused” or “Tier 2 Ranger” position(s) to address ignorance-based
violations. These rangers would hike and bike trails shortly before Preserve closing time
and help “sweep” users out of the Preserve by closing. Their focus would not be on
enforcement (they may not even need ticket-writing authority), but as a way to spread the
word on timing and the threat of enforcement from the Tier I Rangers.
• Lower fines that are levied more frequently may have greater success at limiting after-hours
use. The present penalties for after-hours use are possibly too severe (rangers are reluctant
to write them and magistrates are more likely to throw them out when challenged). Lower
penalties in the $25 to $50 range are less likely to be challenged in court, but may help
enforce the regulation.
• Increased night ranger patrols and enforcement to address willful violations (especially
larger party groups and potential vandals).
Figure 3. Preserve hours sign at
Powder Canyon Trailhead.
Figure 4. Hacienda Hills Trailhead parking violation.
B-99
12
The limits of education for solving impact problems
This sidebar was adapted from Whittaker, Vaske, and Manfredo (2002): Choosing actions – Problem
definition, identifying strategies, and evaluation criteria in Wildlife Viewing – A Management Handbook.
As a way to address human-caused impact problems, educational actions are often seen as a panacea
(Roggenbuck, 1992). “If people only understood what impacts they cause, we can get them to behave
differently.” Compared to regulatory approaches, education is also preferred by many managers
because they are less intrusive or expensive to implement.
In wildlife-protection settings, educational actions often focus on teaching recreation etiquette (toward
both wildlife and other users) and minimum impact practices (e.g., dogs on leashes, stay on trails).
Attempts to establish norms for these behaviors are often present in agency literature and popular
media. But while highly-involved wildlife viewers usually follow such codes, general public compliance is
often much lower.
While persuasion research applied to other natural resource issues suggests that some behavior change
is possible with well-developed educational efforts, the kind of long-term, lasting change is often both
challenging and complicated (Roggenbuck, 1992). Designing effective educational campaigns requires
clear understanding of persuasion theory and practice, and is often missing from many natural resource
persuasion efforts (Manfredo, 1992; Heberlein, 2012). A few findings from this research include:
• Educational efforts appear more effective for visitors with low knowledge levels (addressing
unintentional or uninformed behavior).
• Among information efforts, personal (e.g., face-to-face contacts with a ranger) appear more
effective than non-personal efforts.
• Among the non-personal efforts, multi-media programs (e.g., slide shows, computer programs,
videos presented to interested audiences) appear to be slightly more effective than static written
messages directed at casual audiences (e.g., signs at trailheads, brochures).
• Littering behavior studies show personal contact and role modeling by rangers appear to be more
effective than non-personal techniques, but that environmental cues can be even more important
(e.g., the lack of existing litter tends to activate norms against littering, trail barricades are often
effective cues that reduce shortcuts across switchbacks).
The limitations of education programs do not relieve managers of the responsibility to develop or
continue persuasion efforts, but managers should not expect them to dramatically change visitor
behavior. As with many behaviors based on environmental ethics, widespread conformity depends on
whether people recognize the consequences of their actions and ascribe responsibility for them
(Schwartz, 1968; Heberlein, 2012). This notion suggests that widespread adoption of wildlife viewing
ethics requires people to recognize wildlife as a commons property and understand how inappropriate
behaviors degrade viewing for themselves or others.
B-100
13
General wildlife disturbance
Background
• The Preserve is home to considerable diversity of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and
insects. This diversity is supported by a range of habitat types and complex relationships.
• Habitats include: walnut woodland, oak woodland, and coastal sage scrub.
• Flora species include: Plummer’s Mariposa Lily, Catalina Mariposa Lily, Southern California
Black Walnut, and Robinson’s Peppergrass.
• Bird species include coastal California Gnatcatcher, Cactus Wren, White-tailed Kite,
Peregrine Falcon, Swainson’s Hawk, Northern Harrier, and Cooper’s Hawk.
• Other species include: Bobcat, Mountain lion, Monarch butterfly, Western spadefoot toad,
Northern red diamond rattlesnake, and 11 species of bats (6 listed as state or federal
species of concern).
• Several species benefit from areas with limited to no human use.
• Undisturbed areas can be created spatially or temporally.
• Without identifying specific habitats for specific species, issues include habitat
fragmentation from trails, temporal invasions
during night (discussed above), and dogs off leash
(especially if they are off-trail).
• Redesigned or rerouted trails may improve
connections between habitat blocks (and reduce
fragmentation).
• Reduced recreation use during night (not allowed,
but a perennial enforcement issue) may reduce
disturbance or improve ecological function.
• Increased enforcement may reduce the proportion
of dogs off-leash or off-trail.
Use-impact relationships
• George and Crooks (2006) studied large mammal activity in an urban nature preserve within
40 miles of the Preserve. Bobcats and coyotes altered their habitat use in response to
recreation use, with negative associations evident between bobcats and hikers, bikers and
domestic dogs. In addition, there is extensive literature on general recreation impacts,
including:
o Recreation disturbance to wildlife (Cassirer et al. 1992; Knight and Gutzwiller, 1995;
Miller and Hobbes, 2001; Taylor and Knight 2003).
o Habitat fragmentation effects from recreation use (Knight & Gutzwiller, 1995; Liddle,
1997; Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006).
o Reducing nighttime human disturbance (ERO Resources, 2012).
o Wildlife impacts from dog use (Miller et al., 2001; Reed & Merenlender, 2011).
Figure 5. Unleashed dogs on Mariposa Trail.
B-101
14
Indicators and standards
• Identify 3 to 5 indicator species for different ecological fauna communities (e.g., deer or
bobcat for large mammals, a snake or lizard species for reptiles, raptors for species richness,
etc.).
• Nesting pairs per acre of cacti in higher and lower recreation use areas.
• Identify specific habitat in high, medium, and low use areas and monitor breeding success
to assess use-impact relationships.
• Estimated miles of user-created trails.
• Possible standards for any of the above: no downward trend, no net change from current,
reduction by 50% (or some lower amount if 50% is not realistic). Detailed choices among
indicator species, specific delineation of high/medium/low recreation use areas, and
possible standards is beyond the scope of this document.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Remove user-created trails (can help reduce fragmentation, among other things).
• Conduct a user survey and use monitoring.
• Re-route trails to reduce fragmentation.
• Remove permanent trails from key habitat areas (identify candidate trail sections).
• Education and enforcement about night time use.
• Stronger enforcement of Preserve rules (e.g., off-trail use).
Relationships between use and biological impacts
Many biophysical impacts appear less directly related to use levels because low levels of use
may create proportionately larger impacts (Hammitt & Cole 1987; Kuss et al., 1990). For
example, the first few groups to pioneer a campsite appear to have the greatest impacts on
vegetation loss; subsequent groups then camp in the same areas and typically cause little
additional impact (Cole, 1987). Several wildlife disturbance impacts may fall into this pattern
because some research suggests many animals adjust or habituate to human uses over time,
while initial encounters may cause flight (Knight & Cole, 1995; Whittaker & Knight, 1998).
Other research suggests that disturbance impacts can have cumulative effects, in which case
more people over a longer time period may increase disturbance problems (Anthony et al.,
1995).
B-102
15
Trail condition and erosion
Issues and background
• The Preserve has 22.7 miles of designated trails and an
estimated 8.25 miles of user-created trails. Table 2
summarizes trail lengths by different categories. A short
history of trail management in the Preserve is provided in a
sidebar below.
• The conditions of trails vary, but issues include the
following.
o “Fire road” trails with expanding widths, drainage, or
surface deterioration issues.
o Single-track trails with sections of multiple-trails.
o “High banking” erosion from mountain bikes (riding up a
trail wall).
o Hellman Park Trail (the switchback trail in the gully north
of Hellman Park trailhead) has extensive erosion that was
unsuccessfully addressed by stop-gap stairs and retaining wall development.
o Some “fire road” trails have drainage structures that send water over steep terrain and
may cause small slides/erosion areas in
side canyons.
o User-created trails that cut across
switchbacks, offer alternative routes up or
down steep slopes or along ridges, or lead
to areas reserved for wildlife.
o Multiple redundant user-created trails
appear to be created to extend exercise
opportunities.
o Users appear to have strong attachments
to using some user-created trails,
especially when they are plainly visible and
access steep slopes (a focus for exercise-
oriented users). Attempts to close these types of user-created trails through signing,
brushwork to cover the start of trails, and fences blocking access have been ineffective.
• During rain events, these conditions can create substantial erosion and sedimentation,
which may reduce habitat or create aesthetically-challenged viewsheds.
• The User Survey in 2005 showed support for temporary trail closures (59% favor) rather
than permanent trail closures (46% favor) to address wildlife impact or condition problems.
There was majority support (51% favor) for educational programs to address problems.
Figure 6. User-created trail in Powder
Canyon.
Figure 7. Erosion on a now-closed trail in Hellman Park.
B-103
16
Figure 8. Examples of Preserve trails: A wider fire
road in Turnbull Canyon (top); the single-track
Mariposa Trail (bottom right); and sign closing the
Hellman Park Trail (bottom left).
Table 2. Summary of Preserve trail mileages.
Type of trail Miles
Designated trails 22.7
Wider “fire roads” 16.4
Single-track or steeper trails 6.3
Connected non-Preserve trails
Schabarum Trail 21.0
Trails by type of use
Multi-use 13.4
Hiking only (no horses or biking) 4.5
Hiking/horses only (no biking) 3.1
Hiking/biking only (no horses) 0.6
Temporarily closed (due to hazards) 1.1
Use-impact relationships
• There is considerable literature on types and
amounts of use and its effects on trail conditions
and ecological impacts. Reviews of major findings can be found in Weir, 2000; White et al,
2006; Yorks et al., 1997; Pickering et al, 2009. In general, this literature recognizes the
complexity of impacts and ways to address them, while underlining several general findings:
o User-created or poorly-designed trails often create greater impacts.
o Pioneering use causes greater impacts compared to steady use after a trail has been
created.
o Trail design and routing matter more than level of use.
o There are variable effects from different types of use, with horses and bikes typically
producing substantially larger impacts than hiking.
• Trail design/construction techniques can substantially improve the ability of trails to handle
higher use levels and reduce impacts, including:
o Ditching along upslope side of trail directs water away from the trail surface or passes it
perpendicular across the trail;
o Water bars divert water to prevent trails from becoming drains or active creeks.
o Light-penetrating boardwalks provide hardened surfaces for users but allow vegetation
growth and small fauna passage;
o Overlaid gravel on filter fabrics provides hardened surface but allows water passage
across wetlands.
B-104
17
Indicators and standards
• Percent change in type/condition of designated trails.
• Estimated miles of user-created trails.
• Identify indicator trail segments of different types and monitor condition.
o Trail width
o Tread condition
o Sedimentation in side canyon transient streams.
• Counts of existing high bank locations.
• Counts of existing “switchback cuts” on existing trails.
• Possible standards for any of the above: no downward trend, no net change from current,
reduction by 50% (or some lower amount if 50% is not realistic).
Actions to reduce or mitigate trail impacts
• Education regarding user-created trails.
• Signs, brushing, and other techniques to “close” user-created trails.
• Water bars and other erosion control mechanisms on main fire roads.
• Grading to create “crown” that reduces rain-caused erosion.
• Re-vegetation of trail widths to discourage widening.
• Retaining walls and steps on steep designated trails.
• Re-design steepest trail segments.
• Make some steep trails one-way for bikes.
• Close designated trails. This could include seasonal closures (to protect sensitive species
during a nesting season), temporary closures (1 to 2 year closures to allow rehabilitation or
restoration efforts to stabilize, or until trail design/improvement funding can be obtained),
or permanent closures (to solve a recurring trail conflict issue or address systemic sensitive
habitat or erosion problems). In general, closures should be considered as progressive
steps (shorter closures should be tried first to see if they address the problem; a permanent
closure should only be used if no other option works).
Figure 9. Hikers on Turnbull Canyon trail.
B-105
18
A short history of Preserve trail management
Adapted from the 2007 RMP by Andrea Gullo, Lizette Longacre, and Doug Whittaker.
The Preserve’s primary goal is to protect habitat and natural resources, but the Habitat Authority is committed to
access and recreation opportunities. The challenge is ensuring use and access consistent with habitat protection.
In 2004, the Habitat Authority embarked on a trails evaluation and planning process. The process was guided by a
Trails Committee that included Habitat Authority staff, consultants, and stakeholders (led by Jim Donavan from the
National Park Service’s Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance program). The process included 1) a University
of Southern California-conducted User Survey to assess trail use levels and users’ desires, knowledge, and
attitudes; 2) a GPS-based trail inventory that identified about 60 miles of designated trails, fire and utility access
roads, and user-created trails and shortcuts; and 3) an on-the-ground trails evaluation by the Trails Committee that
recorded trail widths, clearances, slopes, surfaces, settings, trail conditions, estimated use levels, existing
improvements, barriers, and scenic qualities. All the information was entered into a comprehensive Geographic
Information System (GIS) to identify issues and develop recommendations. Several studies from 2004-07 assessed
natural and cultural resource values of the Preserve, including soils, small mammals, bats, birds, plant
communities, and archeological resources (also entered into the GIS).
In 2007, a Draft Trail Plan recognized a 44-mile trail network in and around the Preserve, while closing and
restoring about 16 miles to protect natural resources. It restricted access in a few areas that were unsafe or
inappropriate for users, including steep slopes where conditions were already degraded and sensitive habitat
identified for protection or restoration. The Plan also authorized temporary closures to reduce hazards or impacts.
Of the 44 designated trail miles, about 23 miles are in the Preserve, and 21 miles are part of the County’s linked
Schabarum Trail. Of the 6 miles of user-created trails identified in the Preserve, about 5 miles were slated for
closure and restoration. These user-created trails contribute to erosion, habitat fragmentation, alteration of
natural drainage patterns, introduction of exotic vegetation, degradation of native vegetation, and increased
human-wildlife conflicts. A handful of short user-created trails (totaling about one mile) were converted to
designated trails to provide loop opportunities.
After public meetings and a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, the Final Trail Plan was adopted as
a sub-element of the Habitat Authority’s RMP in 2007. Trails were named through a public process, leading to
public maps and in-the-field signs.
The adopted Trail Plan included:
• Prioritizing resource protection and locating new trails away from sensitive habitat areas
• Relocating or decommissioning trails with impacts on native habitat or other resources
• Providing diverse and interesting trail experiences to minimize unauthorized trail use
• Using best management practices in the design, construction, and maintenance of trails
• Formulating seasonal trail guidelines (if necessary), including rotation of access points during nesting seasons
or other sensitive periods
The Habitat Authority’s existing practice is to allow pedestrian and equestrian access to most trails and fire roads,
while allowing bicycle access to most fire roads but a smaller proportion of designated single-track trails. The
Habitat Authority continues to evaluate the trail/road network, seeking opportunities to minimize user impacts on
soils, water quality, native habitat, and wildlife while improving current trail opportunities. The plan also allows
limited consideration of new trails. Specific goals and objectives relating to public use of the trail network can be
found in section 5.3.3 of the RMP.
B-106
19
Vehicle-wildlife collisions
Issues and background
• Elliott (2008) documents the effects of
underpasses.
• The Preserve has roadway underpasses at
Colima Road and Harbor Blvd; the latter was
purposefully built as a wildlife underpass.
• Although the underpass built on Harbor
Boulevard is actively used by deer, bobcats,
coyotes, skunks, raccoons, and other animals,
many cross at surface level along Harbor
Boulevard and are killed by vehicles (Stapp and
Elliott 2008; Stapp and Cashin 2009). Wildlife-
vehicle collisions also occur along Workman
Mill, Colima, and Hacienda roads.
Use-impact relationships
• Literature on wildlife-crossings and roadways
does not identify human use as a major factor (Huijser et al, 2007).
• The number of collisions appears to be more closely correlated with other variables that
improve efficacy of crossings: fencing, speed limit changes, location of underpasses, and
escape ramps from fencing. There are also trade-offs of fencing that directs wildlife to
crossings and providing broader connectivity between habitats that may be split by roads.
Indicators and standards
• Number and type of species using underpasses (remote cameras)
• Number and type of road kill per survey – compare with Elliott study protocols.
• Standards should be tied to no increases or reductions to some lower level.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Education to reduce human use of underpasses (human use may discourage wildlife use).
• Build additional wildlife underpass on Colima Road (may be able to build small and medium
mammal culvert-style access).
• Traffic calming options (e.g., reduce road widths, reduce speed limits, increase
enforcement, or add warning signs).
• Fencing near heavily-used wildlife crossings (may also direct wildlife to use underpasses).
• Increase ranger enforcement effort along roads a key crossing periods (e.g., tickets for
excessive speed at dusk).
Figure 10. A bobcat struck by a vehicle on Colima Road.
B-107
20
Human-caused fire hazards
Issues and background
• There are some known party sites where smoking may produce fire hazards – some are
used during the day, while others are more likely to be used at night.
• Smoking may occur among some recreation users along trails, and may also present some
fire risk dispersed through the entire Preserve.
• Fire prevention was the most strongly favored management option in the 2005 user survey
(73% favor). Wildfires were also the most commonly noted “thing that makes you feel
unsafe about being in the park or in the park proximity” (23%), although the highest
response to this question was “nothing” at 41%.
Use-impact relationships
• Information on historical fires suggests there have been 28 fires in the Preserve since 1967,
with three fires exceeding 800 acres. Since 2010, there have been five fires but one was
about 10 acres (Sept 2010), with the remainder being “patch fires” less than an acre each.
At least one may have been associated with a nighttime party, although others appear to
have started from private property (unclear cause).
• Literature on fire education suggests there may be differences in fire hazards associated
with unintentional (e.g., improper cigarette disposal) and intentional behaviors (arson). In
both cases, higher recreation use does not appear to exacerbate the risk.
Indicators and standards
• Number and location of citations for smoking; no increase.
• Number and location of fire rings/party sites; decrease to zero.
• Number of arson incidents; zero tolerance.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Education hang tag
• Education at kiosks perhaps with periodic message, in brochures
• Enforcement – party-site shutdown strategies and work with local law enforcement
• Enforcement – after hour fine changes
B-108
21
Recreation quality
These issues focus on recreation resources or experiences affected by recreation use itself.
Recreation use is an important secondary use of the Preserve, but is a lower priority than
wildlife and habitat conservation. The issues are generally organized from highest to lowest
priority. Actions are ordered from easiest to progressively more challenging to implement (the
latter are used only if easier actions are unsuccessful). Indicators, standards, and actions are
summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of indicators, standards, and major actions addressing recreation issues.
Issue / Indicators Standards Actions to meet standards
Hiker-biker-horse rider conflicts
“Close passes per hour”
between bikers and hikers on
trail segments.
Average speed of bikers on
downhill segments
Survey: tolerances for close
calls, average speeds.
TBD based on
monitoring;
stabilize or
reduce.
• Increased education efforts (trailheads and on trails).
• Trail widening to create pass zones in key areas.
• Redesign or reroute trails to be less steep, reducing
cyclist speeds.
• One way trails for bikers (no bikes on steep downhills).
• Close some single track trails to bikes.
• Temporal zoning (no bikes on some trails after X am).
Bicycle calming features.
• Separate trails in conflict areas.
• Targeted ranger enforcement to help establish norms for
speed and minimizing reckless riding behaviors.
Parking/traffic congestion in neighborhoods near trailheads
Percent of trailhead parking
occupied by location and time.
Number of vehicles violating
permit parking regulations per
week/month based on Whittier
parking tickets.
Less than 90%
occupied is below
capacity.
TBD – monitor to
establish baseline.
Standard: no
increase.
• Improved organization / delineation of spaces.
• Develop non-roadside parking at locations aside from
trailheads (but not in conflict with residents).
• Increase permit-only parking as needed.
• Conduct user survey and use monitoring.
• Work to develop a transit option from Uptown Whittier.
• Develop capacity for Whittier trailhead or overall Preserve
use which would require a daily permit.
Trail crowding and encounters
Nine-point crowding scale –
percent reporting some degree
of crowding (3+ on scale).
People per trail segments (300
feet) from photo evaluations
(requires on-site survey
research).
< 80% weekends
< 65% weekdays
TBD
• Conduct user survey and use monitoring.
• Increase roadside areas where permitted parking is
required (this is likely to be more effective near the
Whittier trailheads.
• Develop education materials about crowding to help re-
distribute use (encouraging crowding-sensitive users to
shift to lower use times or trails).
• Develop a permit system and manage to established
capacity.
B-109
22
Table 3 (continued). Indicators, standards, and major actions addressing recreation issues.
Issue / Indicators Standards Actions to meet standards
Trail conditions (potential hazards and aesthetics)
Average widths of fire roads
and single-track trails
Number of “high marking”
areas.
Number and miles of user-
created trails.
Reduce wider
areas to average
widths
Reduce to zero or
at least no net
increase.
No redundant
trails; reduce
mileage by 50%.
• Education regarding user-created trails.
• Signs, brushing, to “close” user-created trails.
• Water bars/ erosion control facilities.
• Grading to create trail crown -- reduce erosion.
• Re-vegetation to reduce trail widths.
• Retaining walls and steps on steep designated trails.
• Re-design steepest trail segments.
• Make some steep trails one-way for bikes.
• Close poor condition designated trails.
Hiker-biker-horse rider conflicts
Issues and background
• A few single track trails have both biking
and hiking use – and may not have
enough room for easy passage
(especially if bikes travel in both
directions).
• Other trails have steep grades that may
encourage bikes to travel too fast,
endangering themselves or hikers.
• Bikes and horses may have conflicts on other trail segments.
• There have been a few reports of injuries and collisions, but this is not formally tracked.
• A website that allows bikers to upload GPS information from their exercise routes suggests
that some Preserve cyclists average more than 15 mph on downhill segments (including
some single-track trails), with 25 mph peak speeds (usually on the wider fire roads). The
Preserve bicycle speed limit is 15 mph. If there is moderate hiker use on the same trails,
these speeds could represent a substantial safety concern.
• A review of literature on trail conflicts is available from the Federal Highway Administration
and National Trails Recreational Advisory Committee (Moore, 1994).
Use-impact relationships
• Levels of use are not usually correlated with conflicts, but can exacerbate them.
• Literature on hiker-biker conflicts is available in Moore (1994) and Alleyne (2008). The
International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA; 2007) has developed standards for trail
widths, grades, and speeds and discussed approaches to risk management and trail design.
Figure 11. Bikers and hikers on trail in Hacienda Heights.
B-110
23
Indicators and standards
• Number of “close passes per hour” between bikers and hikers on different trail segments.
May be calculable from positioning a camera to focus on a section of trail over a period of
time (e.g., high bike use times in morning from 8 to 10) on high use days (weekends). The
camera should probably trigger every 15 seconds or so (480 images per 2 hours) to ensure
coverage. Photos do not allow observations of avoidance behavior by cyclists or hikers, but
they may allow measurement of distances between users during passes, or whether hikers
stepped off trail.
• Average speed of bikers on downhill segments (radar gun, data from Strava website where
users upload their own GPS data from rides).
• Survey of users to ask about number of close calls they have experienced ever, per hour,
etc. This could also be used to estimate tolerances.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Education of bikers, hikers and equestrians on conflict segments (e.g., presentations at La
Habra Heights equestrian meetings).
• Trail widening to create passing zones in key areas (e.g., in non-sensitive wildlife habitat,
and where widening would substantially reduce collision risks).
• Redesign or reroute trails to be less steep, reducing cyclist speeds.
• One-way trails for bikers (no bikes on steep downhills).
• Close some single track trails to bikes.
• Temporal zoning – for example, no bikes allowed on some segments after a certain time in
the morning. These types of actions may be challenging to enforce, but could allow short
windows without a full closure if hikers and cyclists showed consensus support. These kinds
of solutions typically require extensive stakeholder involvement.
• Create terrain changes on the trail to slow down bikers (these may actually attract some
riders who enjoy such obstacles, while others consider them hazards).
• Separate recreationists by making certain trails available only to one type of recreation
(e.g., adding bikers only trails so they do not have to use certain multi-use routes). This is
probably a best solution from a user perspective, but adding miles of trail would
substantially reduce wildlife habitat and may not be a realistic ecological option.
• Targeted enforcement to help establish norms for speed and minimize reckless riding.
Figure 12. Trail closed to biking in Hacienda Heights. Figure 13. Hikers and cyclist on Turnbull Canyon trail.
B-111
24
Parking/traffic congestion in neighborhoods near trailheads
Issues and background
• Crowded parking in residential areas is a
recent problem as use has increased.
• The problem is greater in Whittier, where
residents have successfully petitioned the
City to close several side streets to
unpermitted vehicles.
• This appears to have pushed visitor parking
to side streets without the restrictions (but
which are farther from trailheads).
• Recent complaints from Hacienda residents
suggest the problem may appear on that side.
• There is little systematic tracking of violations
of the parking permit program.
• Interaction between visitors and residents after using the preserve has been an issue (e.g.,
visitors picnicking in residents’ yards etc.)
Use-impact relationships
• Parking is probably related to use, because 83% of Hellman Park and 79% of Turnbull
Canyon users travel to the Preserve via a private vehicle (2012 Visitor use survey).
However, many users can walk to the trailheads from residences or downtown roadside
parking where permits are not necessary, which may complicate the relationship.
Indicators and standards
• Percent of trailhead parking occupied by location and time. Less than 90% occupied is
considered below capacity.
• Number of vehicles violating permit parking regulations per week/month based on Whittier
parking tickets.
• Miles of side roads in permit-only zones.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Increase parking at trailheads, although there is little space available at existing acces points
(especially Hellman and Turnbull). Improved organization and delineation of parking
spaces, however, might ensure that available spaces are used efficiently).
• Develop non-roadside parking at locations aside from trailheads (but not in conflict with
residents).
• Increase permit-only parking as needed.
• Conduct a user survey and use monitoring.
• Work to develop a transit option from Uptown Whittier.
• Develop capacity for Whittier trailhead or overall Preserve use which would require a daily
permit (see side bar on permit system considerations above).
Figure 14. Parking at Turnbull Canyon Trailhead.
B-112
25
Density and perceived crowding
Most researchers recognize a difference between use density and crowding (Shelby et al., 1989).
Density is a descriptive term that refers to the number of people per unit area (and it can be determined
objectively). Crowding is a negative evaluation of density; it involves a value judgment that the specified
number is too many. The term perceived crowding is used to emphasize the subjective or evaluative
nature of the concept. Researchers have developed a simple measure that asks how crowded they feel
during their visit (first developed by Heberlein & Vaske, 1977). Responses are given on a 9-point scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at all Slightly Moderately Extremely
Crowded Crowded Crowded Crowded
Results can be analyzed in several ways. The traditional analysis collapses the scale into a dichotomous
variable. This provides a conceptually meaningful break point between those who labeled the situation
as “not at all crowded” (scale points 1 and 2, a positive evaluation), and those who labeled the situation
as slightly, moderately, or extremely crowded (scale points 3 through 9, a negative evaluation). While
other analyses of central tendency have been proposed, a comparison showed correlations of .90 to .95
with the traditional scale (Vaske and Shelby, 2011), suggesting few differences among these choices.
Since 1975, this single item indicator has been used in over 200 studies conducted across the United
States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Korea resulting in crowding ratings for over 600 different
settings/activities (Vaske & Shelby, 2008). The activities included hiking, backpacking, wildlife viewing,
wildlife photography, hunting of many types, fishing of many types, rafting, canoeing, tubing, motor
boating, rock climbing, sailing, and driving for pleasure. The areas represented considerable diversity,
with some showing extremely high density and use impact problems, others illustrating low densities
and no problems, and still others actively utilizing management strategies to control densities and use
impacts.
A meta-analysis of 35 studies (Shelby, et al., 1989) identified five “rule of thumb” categories when the
scale was collapsed in the manner described above. The most relevant ones distinguish normal
conditions (less than 65% report some degree of crowding) from over capacity conditions (66 to 80%)
and greatly over capacity conditions (over 80%), with these thresholds options for possible standards.
This indicator would be helpful for assessing the quality of recreation experiences in the Preserve. The
2005 user survey for the Preserve did not include the standard perceived crowding measure, but future
replications could and should. It offers a quick, reliable indicator of overall crowding and can suggest if
the area needs additional attention to address these important social impacts. It allows comparisons
between Puente Hills and other locations, and within different areas in Puente Hills to identify
“crowding hot spots.”
B-113
26
Use limits and permit systems
Use limits (e.g., a permit system) are the most direct mechanism that can be used to maintain a capacity
for a recreation use area such as the Preserve. These are common in many backcountry areas, but
usually for overnight users on longer river or wilderness trips. A few exceptions include limits to climb
popular peaks (e.g., Mount Whitney, Half Dome) and the recently adopted day use (traffic) limits in
Yosemite Valley. In most higher use settings like the Preserve, use is typically controlled through parking
facilities rather than permits. But if use continues to increase, and Preserve agencies want to keep it
from exceeding capacities defined by the standards above, it is possible to design a system to achieve
this.
If a permit system were contemplated for the Preserve, considerations include the following:
• A capacity needs to be defined first, based on indicators and standards examined in these
guidelines.
• Capacities could be established for the entire Preserve or for a subset of access points (e.g., for
Hellman and Turnbull only).
• The capacities and permit system could be applied to a subset of days (e.g., weekends only, or for a
defined higher use seasons such as spring and fall).
• The system could be modified to limit use only at peak times.
• The permit system would be operated through an online website.
• Users would register online before entering the Preserve on a given day (or for a specified time
period such as mornings from 7:30 to 9:30). They would identify a name, number in their party, and
trailhead(s) they will use.
• The website would keep a running tally of registrations; once it reaches the defined capacity, no
more users would be allowed to register. The running tally lets prospective users know likely levels
of use – as the number approaches capacity, users may plan to come on another day. On Oregon’s
Deschutes River, a similar system re-distributed use from higher to lower use days so effectively that
the capacity limits were formally lifted within a few years.
• Users can print out their number (or store it on their phones) to prove they have registered.
• Rangers can access the database to check if a person has registered.
• Any user without a registration can be fined.
• Decisions are needed about how far in advance people would be able to make a registration. On the
Deschutes, different proportions of the capacity were available at different periods (e.g., 6 months,
2 months, 2 weeks, 2 days). For the Preserve, where shorter trips are the norm, some registrations
could be available about a week in advance, but most might be released daily to allow spontaneous
use.
B-114
27
Trail crowding and encounters
Issues and background
• Use has been increasing dramatically in the
Preserve. Between the 2005 and 2012
surveys, use increased as much as 800
percent at one location. On high use days, as
many as 500 people may enter the Preserve.
• The sheer volume of use has created higher
densities on trails and at resting areas that
probably detract from user experiences.
• The highest use increases have occurred
from the Whittier access points (including
attractions such as the water tower just off
the Preserve on Rose Hills Memorial Park
property). However, increases are also
evident at the Hacienda Heights access areas.
• Managing for low numbers of trail encounters
or to reduce crowding has long been a traditional concern in backcountry and wilderness
settings, where extensive research suggests people prefer less than a handful of encounters
with other groups per day.
• In higher use settings like the Preserve, there is less research defining high quality
experiences. Recent research and planning on hiking trails in Yosemite Valley suggests that
users prefer trail densities less than 25 people per 100 yards of trail, would accept about 60
people, but would leave at 90.
• With about 86% of Preserve users reporting that they use the area for exercise, while
another 25% report interest in “adventure sports,” users may be even less sensitive to
densities and crowding (2005 survey). However, about 31% of 2005 users reported they
were interested in seeing fewer users, and many reported interest in “being outdoors”
(71%), “experiencing nature”(60%), “escaping the city” (42%), and “seeing wildlife” (42%).
• There is a difference between use density and crowding (see sidebar below), but both can
be evaluated by users to help estimate acceptable use levels in recreation settings.
Use-impact relationships
• Social interaction impacts such as encounters or perceived crowding are highly correlated
with use levels (Manning, 2007).
• There is extensive literature on encounters in backcountry settings, and perceived crowding
in many settings (see sidebar below). Trail density and crowding information from
Yosemite, Arches, and Acadia National Parks may be able to help frame density information
for the Preserve, but more precise standards for this place probably requires targeted
research.
Figure 15. Saturday morning use on the
Peppergrass Trail from Hellman Park in Whittier.
B-115
28
Indicators and standards
• Nine-point crowding scale. Potential standards: < 80% feel some degree of crowding
(weekends) and < 65% weekdays.
• People per trail segments (300 feet) from photo evaluations (requires on-site use-condition
and survey research).
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Conduct a user survey and use monitoring.
• Increase roadside areas where permitted parking is required (this is likely to be more
effective near the Whittier trailheads.
• Develop education materials about trail crowding organized by time and space. This
information may re-distribute some use (encouraging crowding-sensitive users to shift to
lower use times or trails). A potential unwanted consequence of this action is that it may
sufficiently increase use on those lower use trails or periods (and thus detract from those
relatively unique lower density experiences, or increase levels of wildlife-disturbance on
those previously low use trails).
• Develop a permit system to enforce a defined capacity (see sidebar discussion below).
Trail conditions (hazards and aesthetics)
This issue is closely related to ecological impacts
from trails and trail use as discussed earlier;
however, this focuses on users’ perceived impacts
(hazards and aesthetics).
Issues and background
• Some trails and use areas have a “beat-out”
appearance; this is related to poor tread,
erosion, expanding widths, or multiple trailing.
• Some areas have user-created trails on nearly
every ridge, suggesting a “go anywhere” cluster
of trails.
• Some of these conditions (especially ruts and uneven tread) may create hazards for horses
and bikes, which may affect interactions between hikers and these other users.
• Impacts and the sheer number of trails may reduce a sense of naturalness and detract from
recreation experiences.
• Impacts may encourage depreciative behavior because they suggest the area is not being
well-tended or managed. This is related to the Wilson and Kelling (1983) “broken windows”
theory that suggests poor environmental conditions may encourage higher occurrences of
vandalism and crime.
Figure 16. Peppergrass trail from Hellman Park.
B-116
29
Use-impact relationships
• Many of these conditions are not related to use per se, but to trail design and maintenance
(see earlier discussion on ecological impacts from trail use).
• Literature on hiker-biker conflicts may help explain the link between trail design and
conflicts, identifying appropriate trail width standards for shared paths of different grades.
Indicators and standards
• Average widths of fire roads and single-track trails.
• Number of “high marking” areas.
• Number of user-created trails along main trail routes.
• Possible standards: No net increase of wider areas or high marking areas. No redundant
designated trails. Limit or reduce number of user-created trails.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Education regarding user-created trails (hang tags, kiosks, outreach).
• Signs, brushing, and other techniques to “close” user-created trails (although this has had
limited success despite concerted efforts on several trails over the past seven years).
• Water bars and other erosion control mechanisms on main fire roads.
• Grading to create “crown” that reduces rain-caused erosion.
• Re-vegetation to discourage widening.
• Retaining walls and steps on steep designated trails.
• Re-design steepest trail segments, which may include adding steps, water bars, or other
erosion control features or more radical re-designs that alter routes and reduce grades.
• Make some steep trails one-way for bikes and coordinate with Los Angeles County
Department of Parks and Recreation regarding their adjoining trails (e.g., Mariposa,
Ahwingna, and Native Oak trails).
• Close redundant designated trails.
B-117
30
Depreciative behavior
These issues focus on impacts from depreciative behavior. The issues are generally organized
from highest to lowest priority. Actions are ordered from easiest to progressively more
challenging to implement (the latter are used only if easier actions are unsuccessful).
Indicators, standards, and actions are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Indicators, standards, and major actions addressing depreciative behavior issues.
Issue / Indicators Standards Actions to meet standards
Graffiti and vandalism of trailhead facilities / natural features
Number of graffiti tags painted
over or removed per day/week
by location
Zero tolerance
goal; establish
baseline level and
then reduce by
half as standard.
• Reduce signs at trailheads that attract graffiti.
• Develop signs closer to the ground.
• Improve “sense of arrival” at Whittier trailheads.
• Increased nighttime enforcement (near party sites).
• Cameras pointed at common graffiti locations.
• Expanded abatement efforts.
• Targeted increased enforcement.
• Create graffiti abatement crew that tracks and abates
graffiti along transects (separate from routine abatement
conducted by law enforcement rangers).
Trailside litter and dog waste
Volume of litter during
specified clean-ups.
Zero tolerance
goal; establish
baseline and
reduce by half.
• Increased clean-up efforts.
• Offer dog waste clean-up bags at trailheads (experiment).
• Increase educational efforts.
• Focus education on water bottle litter.
• Limit the days dogs are allowed in the Preserve or prohibit
dogs part or all of the Preserve.
• Increased targeted ranger enforcement.
Dumping (non-recreation users)
Number of dumping incidents
by location and type.
Zero tolerance
goal; establish
baseline per year
and reduce by
half.
• Roadside barriers to discourage stopping at common
dumping sites.
• Road signs announcing rewards for whistleblowing.
• Clean-up efforts coordinated with local authorities.
• Work with local jurisdictions to restrict vehicle parking or
stopping along curbside near common dumping sites.
Crime and personal safety
Reported personal crimes. Zero tolerance
goal; establish
baseline level and
then reduce by
half.
• Increased enforcement directed by timing and locations of
documented problems.
B-118
31
Graffiti and vandalism of facilities / natural features
Issues and background
• Graffiti and related vandalism of
signs, kiosks, gates, walls, trees,
etc. are continuing problems in
the Preserve.
• Tagging appears most common
close to trailheads and along
popular trails, as well as at the
water tower (a common
destination, just outside the
Preserve).
• Rangers are split on whether tagging most commonly occurs
during the day or at night (may be both).
• There is general consensus that tagging is associated with
adolescent males, but there is uncertainty about the
proportion of graffiti associated with gangs or territorial
markings (sometimes identified separately from tagging).
• Rangers consistently remove graffiti when possible, usually by
painting it over. Literature suggests that removal within 24
hours reduces repeated tagging by the instigators (Sandag,
2012).
• There is a $500 reward for information that leads to successful prosecution of graffiti
vandals (started in 2014). The program is too new to evaluate success.
• Some suggest that tagging may be reduced in some environments by “legal walls” (where
graffiti is allowed) or by purposeful murals on walls that see frequent tagging (Crew 2006).
Use-impact relationships
• This impact does not appear to be related to level of use; it is produced by a small number
vandals.
• This type of depreciative behavior is best reduced through immediate abatement. Following
from “broken window” theory, environmental cues (“early disorder”) lead to or at least
correlate with additional vandalism and weaken other norms (Wilson and Kellen, 1982;
Skogen, 1990; Cialdini, 2006).
Indicators and standards
• Rangers currently do not systematically track the number of graffiti tags they paint over or
remove. A simple system that identified location and extent of graffiti might identify
patterns and help direct enforcement. Because there is a substantial reporting burden, it
might make sense to do this only for short periods (e.g., some nights of the week, a few
days every month, etc.) or to organize efforts through Habitat Authority volunteers. Any
Figure 17. Graffiti examples on a
gate in Hacienda Heights (left)
and a tree along Hellman Park’s
Peppergrass Trail (right).
B-119
32
program should be conducted systematically by location or time (e.g., Hacienda Heights for
one time period, Whittier for another) so we have comparable data.
• While a zero tolerance standard is an obvious goal; establishing a baseline and trying to
reduce it by half might be reasonable targets.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Reduce kiosks and signs at trailheads that attract graffiti.
• Develop signs closer to the ground that might not attract graffiti (and located off-trail so
they are not tripping hazards).
• Improve “sense of arrival” and standard of care at Whittier trailheads (Hellman and
Turnbull). Both have an undeveloped recreation setting that does not connote a Preserve /
natural setting that deserves more protection. In contrast, the wrought iron fences and
design features at Hacienda are good examples and may account for less graffiti at those
locations.
• Nighttime closure enforcement (especially near party sites).
• Cameras pointed at graffiti locations in an attempt to identify vandals (although cameras
must be hidden or protected or they will be vandalized or stolen).
• Expanded abatement efforts (e.g. coordinate further with local law enforcement).
• Directed enforcement – identify likely times and try to identify taggers.
• Create a graffiti abatement crew that tracks and abates graffiti along transects. This
program would be separate from routine graffiti abatement conducted by law enforcement
rangers.
Trailside litter and dog waste (distinct from party-site litter)
Issues and background
• Litter is a perennial problem along
heavily used trails.
• Water bottles are probably most
common, but paper and dog waste bags
are also common.
• Present litter may cue additional litter,
so prompt clean-up is the most effective
management response (Cialdini, 1990).
• Dog waste not in bags is particularly
common in the first few hundred yards of trailheads.
• Rangers track contacts with dog owners who have dogs off leash and ask whether they are
carrying waste bags (which can result in warnings or citations).
Use-impact relationships
• Littering is probably less-related to use level because it is produced by a few users.
However, only 1% of a population litters, 1,000 visitors per week will produce more litter
than 100 visitors per week.
Figure 18. Litter off a Hacienda Heights trail.
B-120
33
• Research suggests that norms (presence of other litter or observations of others littering)
are a larger contributing factor than total level of use.
• Other mediating variables include users’ ascription of responsibility (the extent to which
users believe they are personally responsible for maintaining a litter-free environment) and
their awareness of consequences (knowledge of the negative consequences of litter on
wildlife or aesthetics).
Indicators and standards
• Rangers currently do not track the amount of litter they collect during routine patrols, and
similar information is not collected during clean-up events. Both could be helpful for
assessing the current state of the problem and whether education efforts are working.
• A simple system that identified location and extent of litter removed might help identify
patterns and direct clean-up efforts. Because there is a substantial reporting burden, it
might make sense to do this only for short periods (e.g., for a week after a clean-up effort to
identify rates of new litter accumulations).
• While a zero tolerance standard is an obvious goal; establishing a baseline level and then
trying to reduce it by half might be acceptable.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Clean-up efforts.
• Experiment with trailheads providing dog waste bags. There is some evidence from dog
parks that availability of bags increases compliance.
• Increase educational and interpretational efforts.
• Although a ban on disposable water bottles might help solve the litter problem (bottles are
by far the most common type of litter), many users bring bottles but don’t manage to pack
them back out. There are health and safety needs to bring water while hiking or biking in
the Preserve (where temperatures frequently exceed 80 degree and there is little shade).
• Limit the times or locations dogs are allowed in the Preserve or prohibit dogs in part or all of
the Preserve. Implementing a demonstration “no dog week” (an idea originated by Bridget-
Teton National Forest officials in a popular wildlife use area near Jackson, Wyoming) may
send a strong wake-up message to highlight the problem and encourage better dog-owner
behavior.
• Increased targeted enforcement.
B-121
34
Dumping (non-recreation users)
Issues and background
• This issue is most prominent along Turnbull
Canyon Road, where non-recreation users
occasionally dump large items or trash bags.
Use-impact relationships
• This activity is not related to the level of
recreation use.
Indicators and standards
• Rangers should record all dumping locations so these can be tracked over the long term.
• While a zero tolerance standard is an obvious goal, establishing a baseline per year and then
trying to reduce it by half might be moderately challenging target.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Dumping is notoriously difficult to catch because it usually occurs at night in deserted
locations. If dumping happens at specific locations with turnouts, roadside barriers that
closing such sites may be helpful.
• Install roadside signs or implement joint reward program with local jurisdictions.
Announced penalties at least announce interest in reducing this depreciative behavior, and
possibly ramping up public awareness of consequences and personal responsibility.
• Clean-up efforts coordinated with local authorities are probably the best way to directly
address the impacts, but funding sources for this work can be scarce.
• Work with local jurisdictions to implement restrictions in vehicle parking or stopping along
curbside.
Figure 19. Dumping along a rural
California Highway (not in Preserve).
B-122
35
Crime and personal safety
Issues and background
• Rangers keep track of arrests and citations for
criminal activity. Most focus on violations of
Preserve rules (e.g., dogs off leash, after hours
use, prohibited bike use, drugs and alcohol use,
weapons, etc.)
• Vehicle code violations are also tracked.
Use-impact relationships
• This activity does not appear to be related to the
level of use – it is produced by a small minority of
users.
Indicators and standards
• While a zero tolerance standard is an obvious goal, establishing a baseline level and trying
to reduce it by half might be acceptable.
Actions to reduce or mitigate impacts
• Increased enforcement directed by timing and location.
Other recreation management issues and options
In addition to impacts of recreation use, visitor management plans often consider facilities and
related improvements. Opportunities in the Preserve include the following.
• Provide a diversity of trail opportunities, including ADA-accessible parking and short
interpretive trails. At present, there are accessible trails at Hacienda Hills, Arroyo
Pescadero, and Powder Canyon, but there are few miles of trail. Steep slopes may preclude
additional ADA-accessible trail development.
• All five trailheads and the Turnbull Canyon access point have kiosks with a diversity of
interpretive information, in addition to the Preserve website and school- and community-
based educational programs. Interpretive topics are rotated at the kiosks to keep messages
fresh. Continued coordination among these programs is likely to enhance their quality.
• There are portable toilets at Arroyo Pescadero, Powder Canyon, Sycamore Canyon and
Hacienda Heights, but none at the highest use trailhead (Hellman Park). The development
of a toilet at Hellman, or improvements of other toilets (from portables to vault toilets), are
options if funding becomes available. More frequent toilet pumping/cleaning of existing
portable toilets may improve these facilities as an incremental step.
• The Preserve currently does not provide dog waste bags at trailheads even though it
requires dog owners to have them. Many parks in dog walking areas have found these
Figure 20. Enforcement in the Preserve is
contracted through the Mountain Recreation
and Conservation Authority (MRCA).
B-123
36
programs reduce dog waste and eliminate an excuse for dog owners without bags. An
experimental period with free dog waste bags should be considered; monitoring can
determine cost effectiveness.
• There are garbage facilities at several trailheads and pick-up services. Users sometimes
leave their trash next to full cans (which may be knocked over or spread by wildlife). The
Preserve might consider removing the trash service altogether at some sites, at least as an
experiment. Several Forest Service recreation areas have removed garbage services to
reduce costs and found that the amount of litter also decreased. This idea stems from
littering studies that highlight the importance of a “no garbage” place (Cialdini, Reno, and
Kallgren, 1990; Cialdini, 2006).
• There are water fountains at three trailheads in the Preserve, but most users appear to
carry their own water (with empty bottles creating one source of litter). Water fountains at
the remaining trailheads with access to city water may be considered in the future,
contingent on funding. These could be valuable for people and their pets.
• An ice water concession that operated during high use periods in the warmer months at
Hellman Park or the Water Tower (Rose Memorial property just off the Preserve) could
provide a funding source for Preserve programs as well as interpretive and trail education
opportunities. Although there are some impacts from such a program (at least one vehicle
on Preserve fire roads if it is located within the Preserve; loss of naturalness), it could
provide water to thirsty users, reduce bottle use and litter, and offer contact between the
Preserve and visitors for educational messages. Even if there is not a concession, free ice
water on a few select weekend days might invoke a “reciprocity norm” that will encourage
greater attention and goodwill toward the Preserve’s messages and goals.
B-124
37
References
Anthony, R. G., R. J. Steidl, and K. McGarigal. 1995. “Recreation and bald eagles in the Pacific
Northwest.” In R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller (Eds.), Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through
Management and Research. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Alleyne, T. Social Conflict Between Mountain bikers and Other Trail Users in the East Bay. Trail Conflict.
May 2008.
Bennett, K. A. and E. Zuelke. 1999. The effects of recreation on birds: a literature review. Delaware
Natural Heritage Program, Smyrna, DE 1997
Cassirer, E.F., D.J. Freddy, and E.D. Ables. 1992. Elk Responses to Disturbance by Cross-Country
Skiers in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 4, (Winter 1992), pp.
375-381.
Cialdini, R. B. 2006. The psychology of persuasion, Revised Edition. William Morrow: New York.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallgren, C. A. 1990. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 58
(6): 1015-1026.
Cole, D. N. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: A state of knowledge review. USDA
Forest Service Research Paper INT-288, Ogden Utah. Intermountain Research Station.
Crew, P. J. (2006). The mural as graffiti deterrence. Environment and Behavior, 38(3),
422.
George, S.L. and Crooks, K.R. 2006. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve.
Biological Conservation 133:107-117.
Hammitt, W. E., and Cole, D. N. 1987. Wildland recreation: Ecology and Management. New York: Wiley
and Sons.
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 78(6): 20-27.
Heberlein, T. A., & Vaske, J. J. 1977. Crowding and visitor conflict on the Bois Brule River. Technical
completion report. Project report No. OWRT A-066-WAS. Water Resources Center. The University of
Wisconsin--Madison. 109 pp.
International Mountain Biking Association. 2007. Managing Mountain Biking.
Jordan, M. 2000. Ecological Impacts of Recreational Use of Trails: A Literature Review. The
Nature Conservancy. Cold Spring Harbor, NY. May 4.
Kuss, F. R., A. R. Graefe, and J. J. Vaske (1990). Recreation Impacts and Carrying Capacity: A Review and
Synthesis of Ecological and Social Research. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation
Association.
B-125
38
Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole (1995). “Wildlife responses to recreationists.” In R. L. Knight and K. J.
Gutzwiller (Eds.), Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Knight R. L. and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through
Management and Research. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Lenth, B., M. Brennan, and R.L. Knight. 2008. The Effects of Dogs on Wildlife Communities.
Natural Areas Journal 28(3):218-227.
Liddle, M. J. 1997. Recreation Ecology: The Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation and Ecotourism.
London: Chapman and Hall.
Lindenmayer, D. B. and Fischer, J. (2006). Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological
and conservation synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Miller, J. R. and Hobbs, N. T. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation
in lowland riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning. 50: 227-236.
Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife Responses to Pedestrians and Dogs.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1):124-132.
Moore, R.L. 1994. Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails: Synthesis of the Literature and State of the
Practice. FHWA-PD-94-031. Federal Highway Administration.
Pickering, C. M., Hill, W., Newsome, D. and Leung, Y. 2010. Comparing hiking, mountain biking and
horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America. Journal of
Environmental Management 91 (2010) 551–562.
Reed, S. E. and A. M. Merenlender. 2011. Effects of management of domestic dogs and
recreation on carnivores in protected areas in northern California. Conservation Biology
25(3):504-513.
Richardson, C.T and Miller, C.K. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human
disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25: 634-638.
Roggenbuck, J. W. (1992). Use of persuasion to reduce resource impacts and visitor conflicts. In
Manfredo, M. J. (Ed.). Influencing human behavior: Theory and applications in recreation tourism, and
natural resources management. Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing.
Sandag. (2012). Graffiti Tracker: An evaluation of the San Diego County multi-disciple
graffiti abatement program. Retrieved from
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1667_14466.pdf.
Skogan, W. G. 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay. In American Neighborhoods.
(Univ. of California Press, Berkeley).
B-126
39
Shelby, B. B, Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. 1996. Norms, standards, and natural resources. Leisure
Sciences, 18(2), 103-123
Shelby, B., Vaske, Jerry J., Heberlein, T. A. 1989. Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple locations:
results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences. 11: 269–291.
Taylor, M., (2012). Addicted to the risk, recognition and respect that the graffiti lifestyle
provides: Towards an understanding of the reasons for graffiti engagement. International
Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 10(1), 54-68.
Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated Visitor
Perceptions. Ecological Applications, 13(4), pp. 951-963.
Thurston, E. and R. J. Reader. 2001. Impacts of experimentally applied mountain biking and
hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous forest. Environmental Management 27(3): 397-409.
Vaske, J. J., & Shelby, L. B. 2008. Crowding as a descriptive indicator and an evaluative standard: Results
from 30 years of research. Leisure Sciences, 30, 111-126.
Weir, D.V. (2000): A Guide to The Impacts of Non-Motorized Trail Use. Donald V. Weir and Associates,
Edmonton, Canada
Huijser, M P; McGowen, P.T.; Fuller, J.; Hardy, A., and Kociolek, A. 2007. Western Transportation
Institute and Federal Highway Administration. Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Reduction Study: Report to
Congress. FHWA-HRT-08-034.
White, D. D., M. T. Waskey, et al. 2006. A comparative study of impacts to mountain bike trails in five
common ecological regions of the Southwestern U.S. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration
24(2): 20.
Whittaker, D., and R. L. Knight. 1998. Understanding wildlife responses to humans: A need for greater
clarity in research and management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26: 312-17.
Whittaker, D., B. Shelby, R. Manning, D. Cole, and G. Haas. 2010. Capacity Reconsidered: Finding
Consensus and Clarifying Differences. National Association of Recreation Resource Planners.
Marienville, Pennsylvania.
Whittaker, D., Vaske, J, and Manfredo, M. 2001. Choosing management actions – Problem definition,
identifying strategies, and evaluation criteria in Wildlife Viewing – A management handbook. M. J.
Manfredo (Editor). Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR.
Wilson, J. Q. and Kelling, G. L. (Mar 1982), "Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood safety", The
Atlantic. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/_atlantic_monthly-broken_windows.pdf
Yorks, T.P. et. al. 1997. Toleration of traffic by vegetation: life form conclusions and summary extracts
from a comprehensive data base. Environmental Management. 21(1): 121-131.
B-127
40
Appendix A. Trail Inventory and Evaluation Form
From 2004-07 trail planning process.
B-128
41
Appendix B:
Recreation Use Objectives from Resource Management Plan (2007)
Goal 1
USE-1: Provide a trail system that protects natural resources of the Preserve.
Objectives
USE-1.1 Consistent with the Habitat Authority’s purpose, abandon roads and trails if impacts on
native habitat or other resources are discovered.
USE-1.2 Locate new trails away from sensitive habitat areas.
USE-1.3 Minimize riparian crossings to decrease disturbance of sensitive natural areas.
USE-1.4 Consistent with the Habitat Authority’s purpose, make decisions to reconstruct or
reroute existing trails and emphasize minimizing ground disturbance.
USE-1.5 Consistent with the Habitat Authority’s purpose, provide diverse and interesting trail
experiences to minimize unauthorized trails.
USE-1.6 Use best management practices in the design, construction, and maintenance of trails,
including temporarily closing trails when needed.
USE-1.7 Implement trails in partnership with other public agencies, nongovernmental
organizations and private landowners when feasible.
USE-1.8 Implement a trail system that is considerate of adjacent landowner interests as much as
possible and consistent with protecting natural, visual, and cultural resources.
USE-1.9 Consistent with the Habitat Authority’s purpose, continue efforts to close key gaps in
the trail system and to create an interconnected system of public open spaces along the
Schabarum Trail and from nearby communities of Whittier, Hacienda Heights, La Habra
Heights, and Rowland Heights.
USE-1.10 Seek methods to establish partnerships among trail interest groups to improve
cooperation on trail use, volunteer maintenance opportunities, and preservation of
habitat consistent with the purpose of the Habitat Authority.
USE-1.11
Maintain trails in an environmentally sustainable manner by:
• Using natural materials
• Restoring damaged areas
• Reducing or avoiding the use of chemicals
• Minimizing disturbance of habitat
• Limiting runoff and grading
B-129
42
Goal 2
USE-2: Enforce protection of the varied resources and promote an enjoyable and safe
environment for visitors.
Objective
USE-2.1 Consistent with the purpose of the Habitat Authority, encourage uses that acknowledge
the natural and scenic beauty of the Preserve and facilitate enjoyment of the outdoor
experience, as well as those that promote the safety of visitors. The Preserve rules
outline appropriate uses and restrictions on the use of the Preserve.
Goal 3
USE-3: Create a trail system that provides a broad public benefit by accommodating diverse
uses and user abilities, consistent with the purposes of the Habitat Authority.
Objectives
USE-3.1 Consistent with its primary purpose, allow trail use on Preserve property.
USE-3.2 Permit use of fire protection roads by visitors on foot, on a bicycle, and with a horse, but
limit any or all uses where the use is inconsistent with the Habitat Authority purpose.
USE-3.3 Discourage the use of trails that are not part of the system of maintained trails.
USE-3.4 Prohibit the use of motorized vehicles in open space, with authorized exceptions.
USE-3.5 Where reasonably feasible, provide access for people with disabilities within the context
of the agency’s purpose, policies, and legal requirements.
USE-3.6 Connect Preserve trails to regional trails where appropriate.
Goal 4
USE-4: Accommodate parking, access points, and trail amenities that maintain the natural
character of the land, enhance resource protection and contribute to the enjoyment of
open space.
Objectives
USE-4.1 Rely primarily on public rights of way to provide parking capacity to serve trail users
arriving by motorized vehicles.
USE-4.2 Seek to provide reasonable access points to eliminate excessive parking and avoid or
minimize traffic to the surrounding community.
B-130
43
USE-4.3 Allow trail amenities such as, but not limited to:
• Informational displays and signs;
• Portable restrooms in areas with group use;
• Facilities to provide water and tie horses;
• Trash cans;
• Facilities to encourage the pickup and disposal of pet waste; and
• Potable water.
B-131
Recreation Use and Human Valuationon the Nature Reserve of Orange County, California
Project Progress Report and Data Collection Summary
October 2019 B-132
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
2
ON THIS PAGE
Mountain bikers at the Borrego Canyon Trail, Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park
Photo by Abigail Sisnero-Kidd
ON THE COVER
A busy day at Top of the World
Photo by Abigail Sisnero-Kidd
B-133
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
3
Recreation Use and Human Valuation on the
Nature Reserve of Orange County, California
Project Progress Report and Data Collection Summary
Abigail Sisneros -Kidd, Ph.D.1,3
Ashley D’Antonio, Ph.D.2
Noah Creany , Ph.D. Candidate 1
Christopher Monz, Ph.D.1
Carli Schoenleber, MS 2
1Utah State University
Department of Environment and Society
2Oregon State University
Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society
3University of Wyoming
Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources
October 2019
B-134
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
4
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction and Background ........................................................................................................................ 7
Methods ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Study Sites ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
Data Collection and Analysis........................................................................................................................ 10
Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 14
Visitor Demographics ............................................................................................................................ 14
Visitor Motivations ................................................................................................................................ 19
Visitor Spatial Dynamics ........................................................................................................................ 26
Spatial Dynamics of Mountain Bikers ................................................................................................... 35
Visitor Use Patterns and Sensitive Resources ....................................................................................... 41
Summary of Findings and Management Implications (Implications, Future Research, and Monitoring) .. 47
Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 52
B-135
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
5
Executive Summary
Outdoor recreation, in its many forms, provides a wide range of personal, societal and economic
benefits. In an increasingly urban society, participation in some form of outdoor recreation is one of the
primary ways people interact with and experience nature. These benefits and experiences are highly
valued, and nearly 50% of the Americans participate in them on a regular basis. Providing these
opportunities, and maintaining ecological integrity in parks and protected areas, is an ever-present
management challenge, particularly in parks next to large urban populations.
This report summarizes the first phase of a multi-year visitor use and valuation study on the Nature
Reserve of Orange County, California (Reserve). The project was initiated in 2017 after a scoping process
with protected area managers documented numerous concerns about the visitor experience and
ecological conditions in the Reserve. In response to these concerns, this study was developed to gain a
fundamental understanding of the visitor experience, identify the spatial extent and location of visitor
activities, measure the current status and future potential for ecological disturbance tied to recreation
use, and assist managers in developing future monitoring and management strategies to better
accommodate visitors and protect sensitive natural resources.
Our initial data collection in 2017 and 2018 employed a standard-design visitor-intercept questionnaire
that measured basic demographics and visitor motivations; and included volunteer GPS tracking to
understand spatial aspects of a visit. Data were collected across 10 park locations currently under high
demand for recreation use. On the Reserve, visitors reported participating in a wide range of activities—
with hiking/walking, mountain biking, running and nature appreciation most popular. Overall, visitors to
areas in the Reserve were more likely to identify as white, and reported higher levels of education than
the general population of Orange County—although some locations tended to attract a more diverse
recreation population than others.
A detailed analysis of visitor motivations revealed that nature immersion/appreciation and exercise
were primary reasons for visiting the Reserve, and that visitors were highly place attached, with a
slightly stronger emotional connection (place identity) compared to a functional attachment (place
dependence). Across all activity types, visitors report a high degree of satisfaction in their ability to
realize the primary motives for their visit. The spatial extent of visitor use varied significantly by location,
but most areas had focused sites with intense use, while some visitors traveled across several Reserve
units in a single visit. In particular, mountain bike visitors exhibited the largest spatial extent of use
across user groups. Bikers that used the Strava app to track and post their visit tended to travel at higher
velocities, on average. Lastly, although approximately 35% of visitors did travel through coastal cactus
wren and coastal California gnatcatcher habitat at some point during their visit, the total duration of this
interaction was just 1.2% to 4% of their visit, with more visitor activity occurring in specific locations
unoccupied by these species.
These research findings suggest that maintaining a natural setting is essential in the future provisioning
of outdoor recreation on the Reserve, and that a suite of experience indicators developed during this
study may be an effective tool for future monitoring. Several possible management challenges exist—for
example, the high velocities of mountain bike activities and the spatial overlap of visitors and sensitive
resources—but the significance of these issues, both biological and experiential, is still unclear. Future
work will help us to understand the quality of ecological conditions in select locations, and the levels of
acceptability for visitors to specific resource and social conditions.
B-136
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
6
Acknowledgements
The authors thank The Natural Communities Coalition (NCC) for providing financial support for this
research project, and the NCC staff for extensive advice and guidance— especially James Sulentich and
Milan Mitrovich. We also thank the staff of Orange County Parks, the City of Irvine, the Irvine Ranch
Conservancy, California State Parks and the University of California Irvine for assistance with the
fieldwork and many helpful suggestions. Shannon Westrom, Angie Pacheco, Robin Graham, Jake
Gottschalk and Bella Furr helped with the field work and data collection. Chris Monz thanks the Utah
Agricultural Experiment Station, the Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism and the USU Ecology
Center for facility and financial support.
B-137
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
7
Introduction and Background
Nestled between the urban centers of Los Angeles and San Diego, Orange County, California is the third
most populated county in the state, and the sixth most populated county within the entire country
(United States Census Bureau, 2018). Orange County occupies 790 square miles and is home to
approximately 3.2 million residents (United States Department of Commerce, 2018). Despite its high
population density (approximately 4,036 people per square mile), Orange County also contains a highly
interconnected network of open space lands, set aside for protection and conservation of wildlife and
critical wildlife habitat—collectively referred to as the Nature Reserve of Orange County (Reserve)—
(Natural Communities Coalition, 2018). Reserve lands in Orange County contain 13 major vegetation
types, including coastal sage scrub, which provides habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, a
species federally designated as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (R. J. Meade Consulting,
1996). Other dominant habitat types protected by the Reserve system include chaparral, grassland,
riparian, oak woodland, cliff and rock, and Tecate cypress forest. In addition to the coastal California
gnatcatcher, these areas provide habitat for species of concern, including coastal cactus wren and
orange-throated whiptail, as well as several birds of prey, large mammals including coyote, gray fox,
bobcat, and mountain lion, and various reptile, amphibian, and plant species (R. J. Meade Consulting,
1996). In addition to protecting and conserving these species and their habitats, these Reserve lands
provide highly sought-after recreational opportunities for residents of and visitors to Orange County.
The management of nature-based recreation activities is an ongoing challenge. Recent reports suggest
outdoor recreation continues to grow, with over 146 million people in the US participating in different
forms annually, resulting in 10.9 billion recreational outings (Outdoor Industry Association, 2018;
Cordell, 2012). Much of this activity occurs in urban-proximate wildland settings (Kyle & Graefe, 2007).
These locations are often highly visited as people in an increasingly urban society seek opportunities to
experience nature for exercise and renewal— often on a daily basis. Consequently, the demand for
access and participation in a range of recreation activities is often exceptional in urban-proximate
locations. These issues raise concerns as to whether other protected area goals are being compromised
by recreation activities—such as the conservation of habitat for plant and wildlife species. Managers of
urban-proximate wildland settings often must strike a careful balance between providing nature-based
recreation experiences and the maintenance of ecological integrity.
A large body of research documents the social and ecological impacts of recreation in parks and
protected areas (Hammitt, Cole & Monz, 2015; Manning, 2011; Monz et al., 2010). Activities such as
hiking and mountain biking inevitably result in impacts to both biotic and abiotic components of
protected areas—soil, vegetation, wildlife, water, air, and soundscapes. The degree of the impact (or
environmental change) depends on the characteristics of the recreation use and associated behaviors,
such as duration of a visit, season of visit, activity type, and frequency and distribution. While recreation
results in ecological impacts, research has also documented numerous benefits to individuals, such as
benefits to mental and physical health, personal growth, improved perception of quality of life, as well
as society (Driver, 2008; Manning, 2011, Thomsen et al., 2018). On a societal level, outdoor recreation is
associated with improved community satisfaction, economic development, and improved
environmental conditions, including contribution to local and large-scale conservation efforts (Vagias,
Powell, Moore, & Wright, 2014).
Understanding how to manage ecological impacts caused by recreationists requires understanding how
visitors move through an area (their spatial patterns) their motivations, and how these motivations may
be influencing behavior. Visitor motivations have been studied since as early as the 1950s. Much of the
B-138
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
8
research on visitor behaviors has focused on why visitors engage in outdoor recreation activities in
particular settings (Manning, 2011). Results suggest that visitors often have multiple motivations for
engaging in recreational endeavors, and these motivations tend to be influenced by the activity they are
participating in, their location, and the potential benefits that might be derived from the experience
(Driver & Brown, 1978; Haas et al., 1980). Research on visitors spatial behavior patterns shows that
while most visitor behaviors tend to be concentrated at popular destinations (viewpoints, mountain
summits, lakes) and a long routes to these locations in a “node and linkage” pattern (Manning, 1979),
dispersed visitor use (use outside designated destination s areas or trails) also occurs (e.g. D’Antonio et
al., 2013). Dispersed use, in particular, can result in significant impacts to park and protected area
resources (D’Antonio & Monz, 2016). Spatial patterns of recreation have historically been understood
through the use of visitor observations, questionnaires and paper map diaries (Park et al., 2008; Hallo et
al., 2012). More recently, improvements in technology have resulted in a shift to GPS-based methods,
where researchers ask visitors to carry GPS units during their visit, and then aggregated and analyze
patterns in visitor GPS “tracks” (Hallo et al., 2012; D’Antonio et al., 2010).
Given the widespread and varied participation in outdoor recreation in the U.S., managing use in a
sustainable manner is often a significant challenge. Continuing increases in visitation have the potential
to degrade the quality of the recreation experience through crowding, conflicting uses, and the aesthetic
implications of resource impacts (Manning, 2011). Ultimately, outdoor recreation/tourism must be
managed to ensure that it is sustainable, and managers must ask to what extent we can use protected
areas before unacceptable impacts to natural resources and the quality of the visitor experience occur.
To begin answering this question as it relates to Reserve lands in Orange County, this project was
initiated at the request of the Natural Communities Coalition (NCC). In fall 2015, we began the initial
process to inform a potential long-term study of recreation use, impacts, and values on the collective
lands of the Nature Reserve of Orange County. The goals of the study were to determine use levels,
types, intensities, and spatial distributions of visitors, and to monitor these patterns over time. We
wanted to understand various aspects of the visitor experience (including visitor perceptions,
characteristics, and motivations for recreation), as well as assess the condition of biophysical resources
on Reserve lands—including possible biodiversity responses to use—in order to provide a
comprehensive picture of recreation impacts. This information could then be used to inform park
planning and management efforts relative to providing opportunities for recreation without
compromising conservation goals (Monz & D’Antonio, 2016).
This report provides a summary of ongoing research into the multiple aspects of outdoor recreation use
on Reserve lands. Specifically what follows are key findings from data collection efforts in 2017 and 2018
that examined visitor use levels, spatial distributions of visitors and visitor experience dimensions.
Detailed results and additional analysis not presented in the main body of this report are provided in a
series of appendices.
B-139
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
9
Methods
Understanding how visitor use patterns and visitor motivations may be affecting conservation goals on
Reserve lands requires the use of interdisciplinary research methods. This study utilized a combination
of spatial analysis, social science, and recreation monitoring techniques, described in detail below (Table
1).
Table 1. Data collection methodology, sampling approach, and year sampled for 2017-2018 data collection
efforts
Method Type Information Need Data Collection
Method
Sampling Approach Sampling Year
Visitor Use
Estimation
Parking lot accumulation Observational
counts
Hourly counts
during sampling
period
2017
Use levels on trails Automatic trail
counters
Continuous on
sampling days*
2017 and 2018
Social Science Visitor access, behavior,
and movement
GPS-based
tracking
Random sample of
visitors on sampling
days
2017 and 2018**
Visitor experience Quantitative post-
experience
surveys
Random sample of
visitors on sampling
days
2017 and 2018
*Sampling strategy differed slightly for each location in 2017 and 2018. In 2017 each Reserve unit was sampled on
three different days throughout the sampling period, whereas in 2018, each Reserve unit studies was sampled for
a continuous 4-5 day block.
**2018 GPS-based sampling only occurred with mountain bikers.
Study Sites
As an outcome of project scoping work, ten individual Reserve units were selected as a high priority for
recreation assessment. The initial sampling of visitors occurred in May and October of 2017 (Table 2).
Recreation opportunities within these Reserve lands range from beachfront ocean access with
opportunities for surfing and other watersports, developed front-country and backcountry camping
(Crystal Cove State Park only), to areas with multi-use double and single-track trails for pedestrian,
equestrian, and mountain-bike use, paved trails, restroom facilities, and picnic areas. Additionally, these
lands contain critical wildlife habitat. In 2018, we selected six units that had experienced the greatest
diversity of user types and highest use levels throughout the 2017 study period for a second round of
sampling.
B-140
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
10
Table 2. Sampling Locations with Unit Abbreviations and Dates Sampled
Sampling Location Abbreviation Dates Sampled
2017
Dates Sampled
2018
Peters Canyon Regional Park PECA May 3, 19, 21 May 5-8
Top of the World (Laguna Coast Wilderness Park) TOWO May 4, 25; Oct 7 May 24-29
Nix Nature Center/Willow Staging Area (LCWP) NINA/WILL May 5, 15, 20 Not Sampled
Irvine Ranch Open Space IROS May 6 Not Sampled
Aliso & Wood Canyon Wilderness Park ALWO May 9, 14, 26 May 24-29
Bommer Canyon BOCA May 10, 22, 27 Not Sampled
Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park* WHRA May 11a , 17b, 28c;
Oct 8a,b, 10c, 12a
May 10-15
Pacific Ridge Park (Laguna Coast/Crystal Cove) RIPA May 12, 29; Oct 15 May 17-22
Black Star Canyon Gate BLST May 13 Not Sampled
Crystal Cove State Park—Moro Canyon MORO May 18, 23; Oct 14 May 17-22
* Multiple trailheads were sampled at Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park.
aSampling location: Borrego Canyon Trail Entrance at Market Street.
bSampling location: Serrano Creek Trail at Wahoo’s Fish Tacos parking lot entrance.
cSampling location: Glenn Ranch Road Entrance.
Data Collection and Analysis
Sampling strategy
Sampling for the 2017 data collection took place between May 3-29 and October 7-15, during periods of
highest recreation visitation. Visitors to the Reserve units included in the study (Table 2, Fig. 1) were
randomly sampled for participation on three separate sampling days, stratified to include both
weekends and weekdays (Table 2). Groups were solicited for participation from park opening hours
(which varied between each unit from 6am to 8am daily) to two hours before park close (which varied
between each unit from 5pm to dusk) to allow for sufficient time for return of GPS units. During 2018, in
order to understand visitor spatial behavior and recreation experiences in greater detail, visitors to six
Reserve units with the highest visitation were randomly sampled on five separate sampling days,
including both weekend and weekday days. Visitor use estimation and social science methods were
conducted at all sampling locations.
B-141
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
11
Figure 1. Sampling locations with location abbreviations (refer to Table 2 for abbreviation descriptions).
Locations with an asterisk were sampled in both 2017 and 2018.
Visitor use estimation methods
During the sampling periods, visitor use levels at each trailhead were collected by installing TRAFx
automated trail counters at each trailhead on sampling days. In 2017, parking lot use data was also
collected for each location. This data consisted of hourly counts of the number of cars present in
designated parking lots for each sampling location, as well as parking that occurred on adjacent city
streets or other “undesignated” parking areas where applicable. Infrared automatic counters were used
at trailhead locations to estimate total visitor use at that location. During data collection in both 2017
and 2018, at the start of each sampling period, a TRAFx brand automatic counter was placed at the
trailhead of the study site for that day to estimate use during that sampling period (TRAFx Research Ltd.,
Canmore, Alberta, Canada). At the end of the sampling period, the automatic trail counter was removed.
A high-accuracy Trimble GPS unit was used to map the location of each TRAFx counter. Counter data
B-142
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
12
from all the sampling periods at each study site were aggregated and average use across a day was
calculated for each counter location (see results in Appendix A). Calibration techniques were utilized in
the field to estimate counter error. Calibration involved a researcher taking manual counts of the
number and travel direction of visitors passing the counter for four separate one-hour blocks where at
least one visitor passed the counter every 15 minutes (Pettebone et al., 2010).
Social science methods
GPS-based tracking
Multiple studies from recreation literature have demonstrated that GPS-based tracking techniques are
an accurate measure of visitor behavior and use patterns in outdoor recreation settings. As part of this
study, during each sampling period, a random selection of visitors was asked to voluntarily carry a GPS
unit during their recreation visit. In 2017 all activity types (hikers, bikers, runners, etc.) were asked to
participate in the GPS-tracking portion of the study. In 2018, only visitors on mountain bikes were asked
to carry GPS units in order to better understand the spatial behavior patterns of this particular group.
Visitor groups were intercepted at the main trailhead access point for each Reserve unit by a graduate
student researcher, and asked to voluntarily participate in the study by carrying a Garmin eTrex 10 GPS
unit (Garmin International, Olathe, KS, USA) during their recreation experience to collect data on visitor
spatial behaviors. Upon their return to the trailhead, visitors were asked to complete a survey
administered via iPad tablet device to collect descriptive data on visitor demographics, motivations,
experience use history, knowledge, and other variables (see details in survey section below). One visitor
per group (the visitor with the next birthday who was 18 years of age or older) was asked to carry a GPS
unit and complete the survey. Unique alphanumeric identifiers were generated for each visitor group
and recorded along with the time the group left, group size, and any other pertinent information (such
as if the group was walking a dog, or anticipated destination). No personal identifying information was
collected as part of either GPS or survey administration. GPS units recorded visitor tracking points at 15
second intervals, standard for pedestrian use in parks and protected areas (D’Antonio et al., 2010; Kidd
et al., 2015). Standard calibration techniques (see D’Antonio et al., 2010 and Kidd et al., 2015) were used
to determine GPS unit positional error. All GPS units deployed were recovered, resulting in no loss of
GPS units during the course of the study. The GPS tracks of the visitors were aggregated then brought
into ArcGIS as point data, and densities of visitor use were calculated. These densities represent
locations where mo re (darker areas on maps) or less (lighter areas on maps) GPS tracking points were
located. Areas of high densities can represent locations where many visitors recreate, where visitors
often slow down (such as very steep slopes) and also where a few visitors spend a very long time).
Visitor surveys
The questionnaire used during the 2017 sampling season was designed to understand basic visitor
information such as type of activity visitors participated in, history and frequency of recreation use,
visitor demographics (including age, gender, level of education and zip code or country of residence), as
well as knowledge of reserve values, visitor place attachment, and motivations for visiting the Nature
Reserve of Orange County lands. Visitor motivations were assessed using a suite of 37 questions derived
from the Recreation Experience Preference scale commonly used to understand motivations of
recreationists in parks and protected areas (Vaske, 2008; Manning, 2011). The survey instrument used
during the 2018 sampling season was designed to understand elements of the visitor experience,
including visitor satisfaction, visitor perception of resource conditions, and visitor perception of
B-143
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
13
recreation facilities. Survey questions for both surveys were derived from the National Park Service pool
of vetted questions, and were based on key variables commonly assessed in recreation studies. Survey
instruments for both 2017 and 2018 can be found in Appendix E.
A representative sample of visitors was solicited by randomly intercepting 4-6 visitors per hour at each
sampling location trailhead during park hours of operation (which varied by location) on each sampling
day. Upon completion of their recreation experience, visitors were asked to complete one survey per
group, administered via iPad tablet device, using Qualtrics survey software (Qualtrics International, Inc.,
Provo, UT, USA). The unique alphanumeric identifier assigned to each visitor’s GPS track was also
recorded within the survey instrument. Prior to administering survey questions to each partic ipating
group, researchers recorded the GPS unit unique alphanumeric identifier as a response field within the
survey. This pairing enabled descriptive spatial data about each group, including time spent during the
recreation visit, velocity, and total time stopped, to be connected and analyzed relative to visitor survey
responses to questions about visitor demographics, experience-use history, knowledge, motivations,
and satisfaction.
Data from visitor surveys were summarized and analyzed using Qualtrics survey software and SPSS
statistical software (v.25, SPSS INC., Chicago, IL, USA). Data analysis consisted of both descriptive
analysis of survey variables, as well as comparative and multivariate analysis of specific variables of
interest, most notably visitor motivations.
B-144
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
14
Results
Visitor Demographics
Who are Reserve visitors?
The questionnaire administered in 2017 was designed to provide a better understanding of basic
characteristics of visitors to Reserve Units in Orange County, as well as their motivations for
participating in recreation. Variables included basic demographic questions (age, education, income,
ethnicity, gender, etc.), experience use history, understanding of Reserve goals, place attachment, and
visitor motivations, all assessed using a 37-item visitor experience scale. Response rates for the surveys
ranged from 72-75%.
Across all Reserve units, the gender of visitors surveyed was 50% male and 50% female. Visitors
surveyed were asked to report their age, as well as the age of all people participating in recreation in
their group. The majority of visitors surveyed were between the ages of 21 and 60 (76%) with the most
frequently reported age group as 21-30 (26%, Fig. 2). In general, visitors to Reserve units reported high
levels of education, with the majority holding four-year college degrees or higher (63.6%, Fig. 3). Sixty
percent of visitors to all Reserve units identified as White, with 20% identifying as Hispanic/Latino (Fig .
4). The vast majority of visitors (over 90%) primarily used English as their language of choice for
communication (Fig. 5). Most visitors (83.5%) reported having a cell phone with them during their visit.
Visitor length of stay, median number of visits, travel distance to the park, group size, and median
income varied by reserve unit. A summary of these values can be found in Table 3.
Visitor Demographics
Results in this section offer descriptive information of the recreation visitors on Reserve lands.
Important findings: Reserve visitors are more likely to identify as white and report higher levels of
education than the population of Orange County.
B-145
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
15
Figure 2. Visitor age across all Reserve units.
Figure 3. Visitor education levels across all Reserve units.
4%
10%
26%
15%
17%
18%
10%
Age of All Visitors Surveyed and Age of Group Members
for All Reserve Units
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61+
0.2 0.6
5.7
1.8
12.7
8
36.8
18.9
7.9
Highest Level of Education for Visitors to All Reserve Units
(Percent of Visitors)
Less than High School
Some High School
High School Graduate
Vocational/Trade School Certificate
Some College
Two-year College Degree
Four-year College Degree
Masters Degree
Ph.D., M.D., J.D., or equivalent
B-146
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
16
Figure 4. Visitor race/ethnicity across all Reserve units.
Figure 5. Primary language used by visitors in each group across all Reserve units.
20%
2%
12%
1%
1%
60%
3%
1%
Race/Ethnicity of Visitors to All Reserve Units
Hispanic/Latino
American Indian or Alaskan
Native
Asian
Black or African
Native Hawiian or Pacific
Islander
White
Other/Prefer not to respond
93.40%
3.48%
0.58%
0.35%0.35%
0.35%0.35%0.23%
0.12%
0.12%
0.12%0.12%
0.12%
0.12%
0.12%
0.12%
6.60%
Visitor Primary Language Used Across Reserve Units English
Spanish
English/Spanish
Farsi
Korean
French
German
Vietnamese
American
Arabic
Czech
B-147
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
17
Table 3. Selected visitor summary statistics for all park units.
Statistic
Reserve
Unit
Average
length of
stay (hours)
Median
number of
visits (last 5
years)
Median
number of
visits
(lifetime)
Median
Travel
distance to
park (miles)
Average
Group
Size
Median
Income
Category
PECA 1.50 11 20 9 2.23 $50,000-
$74,999
TOWO 1.43 6 30 10 2.62 $75,000-
$99,999
NINA/WILL 1.90 6 20 10 2.30 $100,000-
$149,999
IROS 2.75 9 3 10 4.57 $100,000-
$149,999
ALWO 2.01 15 50 6 2.87 $100,000-
$149,999
BOCA 1.53 20 30 3 2.30 $100,000-
$149,999
WHRA 1.75 20 97 6 2.21 $100,000-
$149,999
RIPA 2.16 24 50 9.5 2.50 $100,000-
$149,999
BLST 3.20 2 2 17 3.06 $75,000-
$99,999
MORO 1.89 10 30 12 2.09 $100,000-
$149,999
All Units 1.84 20 30 9 2.33 $100,000-
$149,999
Are parks serving the people of Orange County?
When the race and ethnicity of visitors to all Reserve units surveyed is compared to race and ethnicity
data for the county, it appears that visitors with races/ethnicities other than white are
underrepresented in Reserve units compared to the demographic make -up of the county (Table 4).
However, when the racial/ethnic make-up of individual Reserve units are compared, results indicate that
some units (particularly Peters Canyon Regional Park) see a greater diversity of visitors than others (Fig .
6).
Table 4. Ethnic make-up of Orange County, CA. Data compiled from 2017 American Community Survey data (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2017).
Race/ethnicity Percent of Orange
County Population
Percent of Visitors
from 2017 Survey
Hispanic or Latino 34.2% 20%
White 41.4% 60%
Black or African American 1.6% 1%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.2% 2%
Asian 19.5% 12%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.3% 1%
Other 0.2% 2%
B-148
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
18
Figure 6. Visitor ethnicity by sampling location.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Number of VisitorsEthnicity by Location
Hispanic/Latino American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian
Black or African Native Hawiian or Pacific Islander White
Other/Prefer not to respond Don't Know
B-149
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
19
Visitor Motivations
What experiences do visitors seek?
A 37-question scale was used to assess visitor motivations for recreating in Reserve units of Orange
County. This scale assessed components of solitude, learning, spiritual experience/connection,
challenge, exercise/fitness, safety, and the social experience (see Table 5 for a complete list of scale
items). Visitors were asked how important these experiences were to them using a five point Likert-style
scale of importance (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree). Across all
Reserve units, visitors found most motivations to be at least moderately important, with the exception
of being alone (means score of 2.92), learning about the history/cultural significance of the area (mean
2.85), photographing wildlife (mean 2.63), learning about conservation/preservation values (mean 2.97),
experiencing risk (mean 2.69), avoiding risky situations (mean 2.48), and being near others who could
help if needed (mean 2.74, Table 5).
In order to understand the potential influence of visitor motivations on behavior, a multivariate
statistical approach was used to examine 2017 survey data on visitor motivations, following
recommendations and procedures used previously in the recreation literature (Leung & Marion, 1999;
Monz & Twardock, 2010; Kidd et al., 2018). An exploratory factor analysis using principal component
extraction and a Varimax rotation was conducted using SPSS statistical software to reduce the 37
question motivation scale into an interpretable group of factors, or domains, which represent general
“themes” for visitor motivations. The factor scores for each domain were saved and used as inputs for a
K-means cluster analysis. The cluster analysis was conducted in order to classify visitors into groups, or
“types”, based on similarities in their motivations for recreating. The cluster analysis was run with a two-
cluster, three-cluster, and four-cluster solution in order to determine the most parsimonious cluster
grouping. The cluster grouping for each individual survey was then paired to corresponding GPS-based
tracking attribute data to enable analysis of visitor spatial behavior patterns as a function of visitor
motivation type.
Visitor Motivations
Results in this section offer information relative to the motivations and satisfaction of visitors on
Reserve lands.
Important findings: Visitors are highly motivated by opportunities for nature immersion, but
exercise is an important motivation as well. Visitors report a higher place identity than place
dependence for Reserve units they visit.
B-150
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
20
Table 5. Results of factor analysis, reliability analysis and scale means
Factor Analysis, Reliability Results, and Scale Mean Scores for Visitor Experience Scale
Factors and Scale Items Rotated Factor
Loadings
Mean
Scores
Item Total
Correlation
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Solitude and Escape
To experience solitude
To experience natural quiet
To be alone
To get away from the demands of life
To enjoy the sounds of nature
To experience tranquility and contemplativeness
To get out of the city
To experience a sense of connection w/nature
To be away from crowds
To experience calmness or peace
To get away from the usual demands of life
.587
.608
.614
.721
.567
.568
.579
.510
.721
.553
.610
3.56
4.01
2.92
3.89
4.05
3.97
4.01
3.94
3.71
3.83
3.80
.57
.67
.63
.73
.73
.76
.61
.72
.63
.73
.71
.919
Learning About and Experiencing Nature
To view wildlife
To learn about history/cultural significance
To learn about plants and wildlife
To photograph wildlife
To learn about conservation/preservation values
To experience the diversity of the natural world
.649
.694
.744
.589
.719
.569
3.77
2.85
3.05
2.63
2.97
3.76
.57
.73
.78
.50
.76
.66
.867
Spiritual Renewal
To experience psychological renewal
To grow spiritually
To be in touch with my spiritual values
To experience a spiritual connection with nature
.636
.824
.755
.648
3.74
3.26
3.13
3.29
.70
.87
.82
.80
.909
Challenge
To experience risk
To experience a sense of challenge
To test my abilities
.713
.729
.787
2.69
3.78
3.61
.57
.70
.72
.815
Outdoor Exercise
To improve physical health
To view scenic beauty
To be close to nature
To get some exercise
.774
.588
.577
.750
4.41
4.36
4.29
4.46
.65
.69
.71
.61
.833
Safety
To be where things are fairly safe
To avoid risky situations
To be near others who could help if you needed
.751
.786
.517
3.36
2.48
2.74
.55
.60
.53
.735
Social Experience
To spend time with friends/family
To share this space with friends/family
.889
.755
3.87
3.73
.64
.64
.777
B-151
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
21
The factor analysis reduced the 37-item scale into seven different “factors” or motivation categories,
listed in Table 5. When factor mean scores were compared across sampling locations, only the factors of
“challenge” and “safety” were significantly different between Reserve units, with visitors to Peters
Canyon Regional Park more highly motivated by challenge than other visitors, while also placing a high
importance on safety during their experience (refer to Table B.2 in Appendix B). These seven factors
were then used as inputs for the cluster analysis. The cluster analysis resulted in two groups (types) of
visitors—those motivated by nature and those motivated by exercise (Table 6). Fig. 7 illustrates the
means for the seven main visitor motivation categories identified by the factor analysis, compared by
visitor motivation type. Fig. 8 shows differences in visitor type by Reserve unit. Across all units, visitors
tend to be highly motivated by experiencing nature immersion during their visit.
Table 6. Cluster analysis of factor scoresa from visitor experience scale
Factor Name Cluster (Visitor Type)b
1 2
N 269 459
Solitude and Escape -.53 .31
Learning -.11 .06
Spiritual Renewal -.31 .18
Challenge .28 -.16
Outdoor Exercise .50 -.29
Safety .18 -.11
Social Experience -.50 .29
aMean factor scores
bCluster names: 1= Fitness-based recreation; 2= Nature immersion (N=728)
Figure 7. Visitor motivation scores by visitor cluster type. * Indicates that means between groups are
statistically significantly different at p<.05 in an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
3.49
2.98 2.90
3.48
4.46
2.84
3.42
3.98
3.28
3.60 3.29
4.34
2.84
4.01
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Solitude and
Escape*
Learning About
and
Experiencing
Nature*
Spiritual
Renewal*
Challenge*Outdoor
Exercise*
Safety Social
Experience*
Motivations by Visitor Type
Cluster 1: Fitness-based recreation Cluster 2: Nature immersion
B-152
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
22
Figure 8. Frequency of visitor types by Reserve unit.
In 2017, visitors were also asked a suite of questions about their level of place attachment to Reserve
units. Questions were asked using a five-point Likert-style scale where 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree,
3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree. Across all Reserve units, visitors generally reported attachment
to the places where they recreate. When place attachment was broken down into components of place
identity (e.g. “This site means a lot to me”, “I strongly identify with this place”, “I feel this site is a part of
me”) and place dependence (e.g. “I enjoy recreating at this park more than any other park”, “I wouldn’t
substitute any other location for the activity I do here”, “no other place can compare to this park”)
visitors tended to rate components of place identity as slightly more important than place dependence
(Fig. 9).
Figure 9. Visitor self-reported place attachment scale component scores across all Reserve Units.
PECA TOWO NINA/
WILL IROS ALWO BOCA WHRA RIPA BLST MORO
Fitness-based recreation 49 22 10 2 30 23 55 34 8 36
Nature immersion 46 55 41 4 58 38 78 65 18 56
52%
29%
20%
33%
34%
38%
41%
34%
31%
39%
48%
71%
80%
67%
66%
62%
59%
66%
69%
61%
0510152025303540455055606570758085Frequency Frequency of Visitor Types by Reserve Unit
Place Identity Place Dependence
Mean 3.466 3.175
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Likert Scale ScoresPlace Attachment Components
Mean Reported Importance of Place Attachment Components
B-153
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
23
In 2018, visitors were asked to self-classify their motivations into four possible categories (based on
results from the 2018 visitor motivations scale): motivated by nature only, motivated by both nature
and exercise but mostly nature, motivated by exercise only, and motivated by both exercise and nature
but mostly exercise. Visitor motivations measured in 2017 with a highly sensitive 37-item scale reflected
a strong nature orientation. Visitor self-reported motivations in 2018 reflected a stronger exercise
orientation (Fig. 10), which was consistent across reserve units (see Appendix B, Fig. B.15). When visitor
self-reported motivations were examined by activity type, visitors who were engaging in dog-walking,
biking, and running tended to be more strongly exercise-motivated than those engaging in walking or
other activities. However, only 18% of visitors in 2018 reported that they were motivated by “exercise
only”, suggesting that some degree of a nature-oriented experience was fundamental to 82% of visitors.
Figure 10. Frequency of visitor motivations across all Reserve units.
In 2018, visitors were also asked how satisfied they were with their visit (using the motivation categories
identified in the 2017 survey analysis) using a Likert-style scale where 1=extremely dissatisfied,
2=somewhat dissatisfied, 3=neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4=somewhat satisfied, 5=extremely
satisfied. Visitors in general expressed high levels of satisfaction with their experience, with the
exception of “being in touch with spiritual values”, where visitors tended to feel more neutral (Fig . 11).
When visitor satisfaction was examined by motivation type (Table 7), Reserve unit (Table 8), and activity
type (Table 9), several notable differences emerged. Visitors motivated by nature tended to be more
satisfied with their ability to learn about plants and wildlife, be in touch with their spiritual values and
spend time with family and friends, whereas visitors motivated by exercise tended to be more satisfied
with being able to test their abilities and get some exercise (Table 7). Visitor satisfaction also varied by
Reserve unit, with visitors feeling least crowded at Ridge Park (RIPA), visitors most satisfied with their
ability to get exercise at RIPA and Moro Backcountry (MORO, Crystal Cove State Park), and visitors least
satisfied with their ability to spend time with family and friends at Peters Canyon Regional Park (PECA,
Table 8). However, it is important to note that these differences, though statistically significant, are
quite subtle. Finally, when visitor satisfaction was examined by activity type, visitors engaging in biking
and running were more satisfied with their ability to test their abilities and get some exercise (Table 9).
Nature Only Nature>Exercise Exercise Only Exercise>Nature
Number of Visitors 59 275 193 523
6%
26%
18%
50%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Primary Visitor Motivations Across all Parks
B-154
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
24
Figure 11. Mean visitor satisfaction (from 2017 visitor motivations) across all Reserve units.
Table 7. Visitor satisfaction by visitor self-described motivation type. Nature and Exercise categories were collapsed
from the four original categories such that Nature = visitors who responded that they were motivated by nature
only or motivated by both nature and exercise but mostly nature, and Exercise = visitor who respon ded that they
were motivated by exercise only, and motivated by both exercise and nature but mostly exercise. *Indicates
statistical significant ANOVA results at P<.05. Get
Away
from the
demands
of life
Be away
from
crowds
Learn
about
plants
and
wildlife*
Be in
touch
with
spiritual
values*
Test my
abilities*
Get some
exercise*
Feel safe
in the
outdoors
Spend time
with
friends/family*
Nature 4.5 4.13 3.72 3.96 4.04 4.55 4.36 4.35
Exercise 4.53 4.12 3.46 3.74 4.21 4.68 4.32 4.17
Table 8. Visitor satisfaction by Reserve unit. *Indicates statistical significant ANOVA results at P<.05. Get Away
from the
demands
of life*
Be away
from
crowds*
Learn
about
plants
and
wildlife
Be in
touch
with
spiritual
values
Test my
abilities*
Get
some
exercise*
Feel safe
in the
outdoors*
Spend time
with
friends/family*
ALWO 4.6 4.14 3.61 3.9 4.16 4.65 4.47 4.23
TOWO 4.41 3.87 3.48 3.76 3.98 4.49 4.17 4.35
RIPA 4.63 4.37 3.53 3.9 4.37 4.77 4.42 4.26
WHRA 4.51 4.14 3.65 3.82 4.08 4.58 4.26 4.16
PECA 4.42 4 3.41 3.74 4.14 4.61 4.31 4.08
MORO 4.56 4.19 3.56 3.68 4.18 4.75 4.41 4.45
Get Away
from the
demands of
life
Be away
from crowds
Learn about
plants and
wildlife
Be in touch
with spiritual
values
Test my
abilities
Get some
exercise
Feel safe in
the outdoors
Spend time
with
friends/famil
y
Mean 4.52 4.12 3.54 3.81 4.16 4.64 4.33 4.23
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean Visitor Satisfaction
B-155
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
25
Table 9. Visitor satisfaction by activity type. *Indicates statistical significant ANOVA results at P<.05. Get
Away
from the
demands
of life*
Be away
from
crowds
Learn about
plants and
wildlife*
Be in touch
with
spiritual
values
Test my
abilities*
Get some
exercise*
Feel safe
in the
outdoors
Spend time
with
friends/family*
Walking 4.46 4.13 3.59 3.79 4.01 4.56 4.31 4.34
Running 4.57 4.21 3.56 3.95 4.5 4.8 4.41 3.93
Biking 4.65 4.1 3.43 3.8 4.35 4.74 4.32 4.12
Dog
Walking
4.23 3.67 3 3.29 3.79 4.73 4.4 4
Other 4.62 4.23 3.85 3.92 4.08 4.31 4.69 4.08
B-156
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
26
Visitor Spatial Dynamics
Where do visitors go?
A total of 841 visitor GPS-tracks were collected in 2017, representing several different activity types,
including mountain bikers, hikers, and runners. A kernel density analysis was conducted for all of the
GPS tracks of visitors at each Reserve units. This analysis illustrates spatial patterns in visitor behavior—
particularly areas where visitor use is highest (most dense). Results for several Reserve units are
presented in figures 12-14. For this analysis, areas of high density (greatest visitor use) are depicted in
dark purple, while areas of lower density (lower visitor use) are depicted in light purple. Maps for the
remaining Reserve units can be found in Appendix B.
Visitor Spatial Dynamics
Results in this section illustrate where visitors recreate across Reserve lands, including areas of high
and low use, as well as other spatial and temporal characteristics of visits, including time spent on
trails, distance traveled, and average speed.
Important findings: Though use densities vary by management unit, areas of high use can be
identified in most locations. Overall use in each unit is broad in extent, with some visitors spanning
multiple units in a single visit.
B-157
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
27
Figure 12: Visitor use density at Pacific Ridge Trailhead. (Expected count s for density layers: low = 0 - 2
points/m2, medium = 3 - 8 points/m2, high = 9 - 36 points/m2).
B-158
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
28
Figure 13: Visitor use density at Peters Canyon Regional Park. (Expected counts for density layers: low = 0
- 6 points/m2, medium = 7 - 17 points/m2, high = 18 - 47 points/m2).
B-159
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
29
Figure 14: Visitor use density at Top of the World. (Expected counts for density layers: low = 0-1
points/m2, medium = 2 - 7 points/m2, high = 8 - 32 points/m2).
B-160
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
30
A total of 252 visitor GPS-tracks were collected in 2018. Unlike in 2017 where all user types were
sampled, GPS-based tracking was only conducted with visitors on mountain bikes in order to gain a
better understanding of the spatial behavior patterns of these visitors. As with the 2017 data, a kernel
density analysis was conducted for all of the GPS tracks of visitors at each Reserve site. In figures 15-18,
areas of high density (greatest visitor use) are depicted as darker shades of blue, while areas of lower
density are depicted in lighter shades of blue.
Figure 15. Visitor use densities mountain bike users at Aliso and Wood Canyon Wilderness Park.
(Expected counts for density layers: Low = 0-7 points/m2, Medium =8-20 point/m2, High= 20-66 point/m2,
Very High= 67-150 points/m2)
B-161
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
31
Figure 16. Visitor use densities of mountain bike users at Peters Canyon Regional Park. (Expected counts
for density layers: Low = 0-0.3 points/m2, Medium =0.3-1 points/m2, High= 2-3 points/m2, Very High= 4-7
points/m2).
B-162
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
32
Figure 17. Visitor use densities of mountain bike users at Ridge Park/Crystal Cove State Park. (Expected
counts for density layers: Low=0.3-5 points/m2, Medium=6-16 points/m2, High=17-37 points/m2, Very
High=38-87 points/m2).
B-163
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
33
Figure 18. Visitor use densities mountain bike users at Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park. (Expected counts
for density layers: Low=0.5-6 points/m2 , Medium= 7-19 points/m2 ,High=20-67 points/m2 , Very High=
67-135 points/m2).
B-164
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
34
What are the spatial characteristics of a visit?
In order to better understand the spatial characteristics of visitors’ behavior patterns, a suite of
descriptive behavioral variables was populated for each visitor GPS track. These variables include total
stoppage time for each visitor, total duration of visit, total distance traveled, and average speed.
A statistical analysis of descriptive spatial behaviors was conducted relative to visitor activity type, the
distance that visitors traveled to arrive at the park for their visit (‘Distance to park ’), number of visits
each visitor had made to the park in their lifetime (‘Total lifetime visits’), visitor motivation type (derived
from the factor and cluster analysis described in the Visitor Motivations section) and Reserve unit.
Comparative analysis was conducted using individual t-tests or Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with visitor
descriptive spatial behaviors functioning as the dependent variables and visitor activity type, motivation
type, and Reserve unit as the independent variables in the analyses.
Statistically significant differences in total distance traveled and average speed were observed for
visitors with different motivations (Table 10). When visitor activity type (pedestrian vs. biker) was
compared, statistically significant differences were observed for total distance traveled, average speed,
and total time stopped (Table 11). An ANOVA comparing differences in visitor spatial behaviors relative
to Reserve unit indicated statistically significant differences in all variables, with the exception of total
lifetime visits. These analyses are preliminary, and further analysis will be conducted in the coming
months.
Table 10. Descriptive Statistics and T -test Results for Visitor Spatial Behavior Variables by Motivation Cluster.
Variable Cluster 1 (Fitness) Cluster 2 (Nature)
Mean SD Mean SD t df p
Duration of visit
(hours:minutes)
1:44 0:55 1:38 0:50 1.260 536 .208
Total distance
traveled (km)
8.55 5.24 7.36 4.88 2.674 536 .008
Average speed
(km/h)*
5.41 2.70 4.59 2.26 3.603 383.121 .000
Total time stopped
(minutes)
10.58 15.84 13.64 19.92 -1.876 536 .061
* Equal variances not assumed. SD=Standard Deviation.
Table 11. Descriptive Statistics and T -test Results for Visitor Spatial Behavior Variables by Activity Type.
Variable Pedestrian Biker
Mean SD Mean SD t df p
Duration of visit
(hours:minutes)
1:39 0:53 1:49 0:49 -1.344 535 .180
Total distance traveled
(km)*
6.77 3.50 16.32 7.37 -9.870 60.25 .000
Average speed (km/h)* 4.35 1.80 9.42 2.63 -14.309 63.61 .000
Total time stopped
(minutes)
11.59 18.64 19.16 15.57 -2.970 535 .003
* Equal variances not assumed. SD=Standard Deviation.
B-165
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
35
Spatial Dynamics of Mountain Bikers
What do we know about mountain biker use, behavior, and factors that influence use and
behavior?
In 2018, 252 mountain bike GPS and survey responses from visitors in four parks (Whiting Ranch
Wilderness Park, Aliso-Wood Canyons/Top of the World, Ridge Park/Crystal Cove State Park, and Peter’s
Canyon Regional Park) were collected. A kernel density analysis was conducted for all of the GPS tracks
of visitors at each Reserve site, and broken down by those using the Strava app versus non Strava users.
In figures 19-22, areas of high density (greatest visitor use) are depicted as darker areas (of orange or
blue respectively), while areas of lower density are depicted in lighter areas of orange or blue.
The GPS tracks of mountain bikers were also analyzed to determine the zip codes these visitors were
coming from to recreate. The majority of visitors to Aliso and Wood Wilderness Park and Peters Canyon
Regional Park came from zip codes directly adjacent to the Reserve unit. However, more visitors to
Ridge Park/Crystal Cove State Park and Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park came from zip codes further
from the park. (For detailed analysis, see Appendix B, figures B.16-B.19).
Spatial Dynamics of Mountain Bikers
Results in this section explore the spatial patterns of use for mountain bikers on Reserve lands. In
particular, differences in use characteristics of bikers using or not using the Strava app are examined.
Important findings: Visitors engaging in mountain biking have spatial use patterns that differ
compared with other activity types. Many mountain bikers use the fitness and self-tracking app
Strava. Use of the app is associated with higher velocities on some segments of trail.
B-166
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
36
Figure 19. Visitor use densities of Strava versus Non-Strava users at Aliso and Wood Canyon Wilderness
Park.
B-167
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
37
Figure 20. Visitor use densities of Strava versus Non-Strava users at Peters Canyon Regional Park.
Figure 21. Visitor use densities of Strava versus Non-Strava users at Ridge Park/Crystal Cove State Park.
B-168
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
38
Figure 22. Visitor use densities of Strava versus Non-Strava users at Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park.
Mountain Biking Behavior and Strava Use
Early in the scoping of this project, Strava, a fitness tracking app frequently used by runners and cyclists
was identified as a possible mediator of recreation behavior. A central feature of the app is a
leaderboard, which is a game-design element used by app developers to provide motivation or
encourage a behavioral outcome. The Leaderboard adds a challenge to a ride to compete against other
Strava users for the fastest time on trail sections or “Segments” crowning the fastest man or woman
King-of-the-Mountain or Queen-of-the-Mountain (KOM/QOM).
Mountain bike visitor GPS tracks and paired survey responses were used to analyze visitor spatial
behavior and better understand how the Strava app may be mediating the experience of those using the
app while they recreate. (Fig. 23) shows the trail segment in Lower Serrano Creek in Whiting Ranch
Wilderness Park with velocities (meters/second) illustrated with a graduated color ramp. This section of
trail has a sign indicating the maximum speed of travel at 10 mph (4.47 m/s). Fig. 24 shows the range
and mean of these velocities between Non-Strava and Strava using mountain bikers for this trail section.
The average velocity for Strava users is approximately 1 m/s faster and the range of velocities is greater
for Strava users than non-Strava users.
Additionally, Strava hosts a trail-map that allows users to explore these trail segments in a park but does
not indicate whether the trail is designated or non-designated. Consequently, Strava presents managers
of PPAs with a host of new challenges, including communicating to visitors behaviors consistent with the
habitat conservation goals of PPAs within Orange County, despite Strava serving as a mediator of the
recreation experience and diffusing information to users inconsistent with those goals. Finally, managers
B-169
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
39
may need to consider visitor safety on multi-use trails while mountain bikers are competing in a race for
the fastest time on trails.
Figure 23: Comparison of velocities of Strava vs. Non-Strava using mountain bikers at Lower Serrano
Creek Trail, Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park.
B-170
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
40
Figure 24: Strava vs. Non Strava Velocities Boxplot: This figure shows the mean and range of velocity for
Strava and Non-Strava mountain-bikers on the Lower Serrano Creek Trail in Whiting Ranch Wilderness
Park. Strava users, on average, are traveling approximately 1 m/s faster than Non-Strava using
mountain bikers (9.7 mph vs 11.2 mph)). This section of trail has signage indicating the maximum speed
mountain bikers should travel is 10 mph.
B-171
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
41
Visitor Use Patterns and Sensitive Resources
What are the implications of the spatial extent of visitor use to sensitive resources, such
as wildlife habitat?
In Southern California, urban development has resulted in the destruction of approximately 90% of
previously extant coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat (Jensen, Torn, & Harte, as cited in Crooks, Suarez,
Bolger, & Soulé, 2001). Two species that remain dependent on fragments of CSS habitat in the Reserve
are the coastal cactus wren (CACW) (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) and coastal California
gnatcatcher (CAGN) (Polioptila californica californica) (Crooks et al., 2001). The CACW is listed as a
California State Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Solek &
Szijj, 2004) due to loss of habitat and declining population levels (Cooper et al., 2014). The CAGN is a
threatened species under U.S. Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, n.d.). This species
has been extirpated from many urban fragments of CSS, though it still occurs in larger habitat fragments
that are also thought to have high levels of recreation use (Crooks et al., 2001; Larson et al., 2018).
The purpose of this analysis is to better understand how the patterns of recreation use observed on the
Reserve interact with habitat important to these two species (especially Coastal Sage Scrub habitat) and
the locations of the species themselves. Overall, managing for both recreation use and conservation
requires an understanding of the interaction of both the social and ecological environment in the
Reserve.
Method ological Approach:
This analysis combines four different data types collected at the same spatial scale in the Reserve to
understand how recreation use interacts with the ecological components of the system. The four data
types combined in a spatial overlap analysis were: GPS tracking points of visitors collected in this study,
vegetation, and two occupancy surveys for the bird species in the Reserve (CACW and CAGN). See
Appendix D for flow charts explaining how these GIS analyses were conducted. Approaches for the bird
species overlay analysis are based on methods used in Gutzwiller et al. (2017). A goal of this analysis was
to combined social and ecological measures from the Reserve.
Visitor Use Patterns and Sensitive Resources
Results in this section investigate how the spatial distribution and b ehavior of visitors to the Reserve
relates to the location of sensitive habitat (Coastal Sage Scrub) and locations where the Coastal
Cactus Wren and Coastal California Gnatcatcher were found to be present or absent on the
landscape.
Important findings: A substantial proportion (34.5%) of visitor use intersects with critical habitat,
but for a very brief duration (2 ½ minutes) and consequently a limited spatial extent. More visitor
activity occurred around locations that were classified as unoccupied by previous bird surveys.
B-172
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
42
Overlap between recreation use & sensitive habitat:
The kernel density map for all GPS tracking data collected for this study in 2017 was overlaid with maps
of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat for the entire Reserve system (see Appendix B for kernel density
maps). Overall, small percentages of use density layers intersected with this sensitive habitat for the
CAGN and CACW (see Appendix D, Table D.1). Approximately 4% of the density layer for all GPS tracked
visitors sampled overlapped with sensitive habitat in the Reserve. Of the 4%, 1.1% was low-density use,
1.2% was made up of medium density use, and 1.4% of the high-density use areas overlapped with
sensitive habitat. To determine if differences existed between how “nature motivated visitors” used
these sensitive habitat areas compared to “exercise motivated visitors,” (see earlier section in this
report on “Visitor Motivations”), visitor use densities of these two groups were also overlaid on the CSS
habitat layers. Slightly more of the low-density use area for the nature group overlapped with the
sensitive habitat compared to the exercise motivated group. Yet, for the medium and high-density use
categories, the exercise group’s kernel density layer overlapped more with the sensitive habitat.
However, these differences were relatively small (see Table D.2 in Appendix D).
To further explore the behavior of visitors in these sensitive habitats, in addition to looking at the
different densities of visitors, individual points from the GPS tracking data was also examined. Only 1.2%
of all of GPS tracking points collected in 2017 were located within sensitive habitat for the CAGN and
CACW (Table 12); this percentage represents about 35% of all visitors entering sensitive habitat at some
point during their trip. The exercise group had a statistically higher proportion of GPS tracking points
that intersected with sensitive habitat compared to the nature group (although this difference is
relatively small; 0.3%). Approximately 43% of exercise motivated visitors recreated in sensitive habitat at
some point during their trip compared to only 29% of nature motivated visitors. On average, visitors
who recreated in sensitive habitat at some point during their visit spent 2 minutes and 23 seconds inside
those sensitive habitats (Table 12). There was no statistically significant difference (=.05) between the
exercise and nature motivated groups in average time spent in sensitive habitats.
Table 12. Intersect between avian sensitive habitat for the entire Reserve and GPS data of visitor to the Reserve.
% individuals that
intersected with sensitive
habitat
% of points that intersected
with sensitive habitat
Average time
spent
(mm:ss)
+/- SD
(mm:ss)
All GPS Tracked
Visitors
34.5% 1.2% 02:23 02:41
Exercise Group 42.8% 1.4% 02:14 02:40
Nature Group 29.3% 1.1% 02:32 02:45
B-173
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
43
Overlap between recreation use & occupancy survey results for CAGN and CACW
Buffers were placed around the sampling locations for bird surveys conducted in the Reserve for CAGN
and CACW to begin to understand the spatial relationship between recreation and these bird species.
These results are presented for all GPS-based tracking data and all bird survey locations. A relatively
small amount of the GPS point data intersected with buffers surrounding the occupied CAGN locations
(Table 13). For all buffers less than 25m, less than 1% of the GPS data intersected with the buffers, and
for the 75m buffer, about 2% of the GPS data intersected with the buffer. Putting these percentages in
the context of individual visitors, 35% of individual visitors entered the 50m buffers and 48% individual
visitors entered the 75m buffers. Statistically more visitors entered the buffers surrounding the
unoccupied CAGN locations (Table 13). For all buffer sizes, the percentage of intersecting GPS points was
statistically significantly higher in the unoccupied areas compared to the occupied areas. For the 2m and
10m buffers, less than 1% of the GPS data intersected with the unoccupied location buffers. For the
remaining unoccupied location buffers, 3% in the 50m buffer, and nearly 5 % in the 75m buffer. Again,
seeing how these percentages translate to individual visitors 72% of visitors entered a 75m buffer.
Table 13: Percentage of GPS points intersected with occupied/incidental and unoccupied CAGN location buffers in
the Reserve for all GPS tracked visitors. CAGN location sample sizes are 102 occupied/incidental and 182
unoccupied.
All GPS Tracked Visitors & CAGN Sampling Locations
Occupied & Incidental Unoccupied
Buffer
Size
# of points
overlap
N = 337,259
% points
overlap
# individuals
overlap
N= 827
# of points
overlap
N = 337,259
% points
overlap
# individuals
overlap
N= 827
2m * 7 0.002 6 117 0.035 94
10m * 175 0.052 97 2473 0.733 367
25m * 1292 0.383 211 4911 1.456 437
50m * 3538 1.049 292 10175 3.017 498
75m * 6962 2.064 398 16468 4.883 597
*Statistically significant difference between occupied and unoccupied locations (p-value<.001)
For the occupied CACW locations in the Reserve, less than 1% of the GPS data for all GPS tracked visitors
was located within the 2m, 10m, and 25m buffers (Table 14). About 1.3% of the GPS data was located
within the 50m buffer and 2.4% of the GPS data was located within the 75m buffer. This translates to
46% of visitors intersecting with the 75m buffer. In comparison, statistically more of the GPS data
intersected with the buffers surrounding the unoccupied CACW locations (Table 14). For all buffer sizes
larger than 2m, there were statistically significant differences between the occupied and unoccupied
locations in the percentage of intersecting GPS points. For all buffers smaller than 25m, less than 1% of
the GPS data intersected with the buffers. For the 50m buffer, this percentage increased to 2.5%, and
for the 75m buffer, this percentage increased to 4.8%. Again, this translates to 58% of individual visitors
intersecting with the 50m buffer and 61% individual visitors intersecting with the 75m buffer.
B-174
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
44
Table 14. Percentage of GPS points intersected with occupied and unoccupied CACW location buffers in the Reserve
for all GPS tracked visitors. CACW location sample sizes are 72 occupied and 275 unoccupied.
All GPS Tracked Visitors & CACW Sampling Locations
Occupied & Incidental Unoccupied
Buffer
Size
# of points
overlap
N = 337,259
% points
overlap
# individuals
overlap
N= 827
# of points
overlap
N = 337,259
% points
overlap
# individuals
overlap
N= 827
2m 21 0.006 20 33 0.010 30
10m * 495 0.147 250 662 0.196 244
25m * 1523 0.452 313 2742 0.813 404
50m * 4397 1.304 363 8351 2.476 481
75m * 8171 2.423 381 16090 4.771 503
*Statistically significant difference between occupied and unoccupied locations (p-value<.001)
When examining the average time visitors spent inside the buffers around the occupied CAGN locations,
visitors overall spent up to three minutes inside the largest 75-meter buffer (Table 15). In contrast,
visitors spent 1.5-3.5 times more on average inside the buffers surrounding the unoccupied CAGN
locations. These differences between the occupied and unoccupied locations were statistically
significant for all buffer sizes except the 2m buffer. Considering travel speed, we found that visitors
traveled between 1.08-1.49 meters/second through the buffers surrounding the occupied CAGN
locations (Table 15). Of the GPS points that occurred within the buffers, stopping behavior ranged from
4% to 14% of the total number of GPS points in the buffers, with each stop representing a visitor
standing still for 10 seconds. When we examined travel inside the buffers surrounding the unoccupied
CAGN locations, we found that overall, visitors traveled a little faster—between 1.24-1.36 meters/
second through the buffers (Table 15). Of the GPS points that occurred within the buffers, 5-6%
represented stopping behavior. The differences in speed between the occupied and unoccupied
locations were statistically different for only the 50m and 75m buffers.
In the occupied CACW locations, visitors spent up to about 3.5 minutes inside the 75m buffer (Table 16).
They spent more time around the unoccupied CACW locations (Table 16)—up to an average of about 5.5
minutes inside the 75m buffer. For every buffer except the 2m buffer, visitors spent statistically more
time in the buffers surrounding the unoccupied CACW locations. In the buffers surrounding the occupied
CACW locations, visitors traveled between 1.06-1.30 meters/second, depending on the buffer (Table 16)
and 5-6% of the points represented visitors stopping for 10 seconds. Visitors traveled at similar speeds
within the buffers surrounding the unoccupied CACW locations, with speeds ranging from 1.23-1.34
meters/second (Table 16). Additionally, stopping behavior characterized between 0-7% of all GPS points
occurring within the buffers surrounding unoccupied locations.
B-175
45
Table 15. Average time spent, average speed, and number of stops made in buffers around occupied/incidental & unoccupied CAGN locations for all GPS
tracked visitors. CAGN location sample sizes are 102 occupied/incidental and 182 unoccupied.
Occupied/Incidental Unoccupied
Buffer
Size
Average
time spent
(mm:ss)
SD
(mm:ss)
Average
speed
(m/sec)
SD #/ (%)
stops made
Average
time spent
(mm:ss)
SD
(mm:ss)
Average
speed
(m/sec)
SD #/ (%)
stops made
2m 00:12 00:04 1.08 0.58 1 (14%) 00:12 00:05 1.34 1.16 6 (5%)
10m* 00:18 00:14 1.25 0.97 10 (6%) 01:07 01:47 1.24 0.98 153 (6%)
25m* 01:01 00:54 1.27 0.94 61 (5%) 01:52 02:14 1.26 1.02 280 (6%)
50m*^ 02:01 01:48 1.35 1.17 169 (5%) 03:24 03:07 1.26 1.02 569 (6%)
75m*^ 02:55 02:35 1.34 1.16 385 (6%) 04:36 04:09 1.27 1.05 931 (6%)
Average time spent:
*Statistically significant difference between occupied and unoccupied locations (p-value<.001)
Average speed:
^Statistically significant difference between occupied and unoccupied locations (p-value<.001)
Table 16. Average time spent, average speed, and number of stops made in buffers around occupied & unoccupied CACW locations for all GPS tracked visitors.
CACW location sample sizes are 72 occupied and 275 unoccupied.
Occupied Unoccupied
Buffer
Size
Average
time spent
(mm:ss)
SD
(mm:ss)
Average
speed
(m/sec)
SD #/ (%)
stops made
Average
time spent
(mm:ss)
SD
(mm:ss)
Average
speed
(m/sec)
SD #/ (%)
stops made
2m 00:11 00:02 1.06 0.74 1 (5%) 00:11 00:03 1.34 0.68 0 (0%)
10m* 00:20 00:12 1.27 1.00 29 (6%) 00:27 00:23 1.28 1.03 38 (6%)
25m* 00:49 00:30 1.30 1.07 92 (6%) 01:08 01:07 1.30 1.19 151 (6%)
50m* 02:01 01:27 1.28 1.09 271 (6%) 02:54 02:53 1.26 1.10 490 (6%)
75m*^ 03:34 02:35 1.29 1.13 523 (6%) 05:20 05:25 1.23 1.06 962 (6%)
Average time spent:
*Statistically significant difference between occupied and unoccupied locations (p-value<.001, 5m: p-value=0.003)
Average speed:
^Statistically significant difference between occupied and unoccupied locations (p-value<.001)
B-176
46
Distance between recreation use and occupancy survey results for CAGN and CACW :
The distances between every GPS tracking point and the sampling locations for the two bird species
were calculated and summarized. The results were heavily skewed (see figures D.6 and D.7 in Appendix
D), thus median distances are reported. The median distance between GPS tracking points and occupied
CAGN locations was 76 meters compared to 38 meters for unoccupied CAGN locations (Table 17). The
mean distance between GPS tracking points and occupied CACW locations was 131 meters compared to
a median of 104 for unoccupied CACW location (Table 17). This indicates that recreation activity was
closer to the unoccupied locations than the occupied locations for both species.
Table 17. Median closest distance between occupied/incidental and unoccupied CAGN and CACW locations for all
GPS tracked visitors. CAGN location sample sizes are 101 occupied/incidental and 176 unoccupied. CACW location
sample sizes are 72 occupied/incidental and 267 unoccupied.
In summary, key findings include:
• Approximately 96% of recreation activities occurred outside of sensitive, Coastal Sage Scrub
habitat, but over a third of all visitor tracks entered sensitive habitat at some point during their
visit to the Reserve.
• A small percentage (5% or less, depending on the species) of GPS tracking points overlapped
with areas surrounding the CAGN and CACW documented locations. There was more overlap
between the unoccupied locations compared to the occupied locations, but this could be due to
a larger sample size of unoccupied locations for both species.
• Visitors spent more time on average recreating, and moved more slowly around unoccupied
locations for CAGN and CACW compared to occupied locations.
• Results show that recreation activity occurred closer to the unoccupied CAGN and CACW
locations in comparison to the occupied locations.
Median closest distance (meters) Max (meters) Min (meters)
CAGN
Occupied/incidental 75.71 4089.08 0.71
Unoccupied 38.07 4244.50 0.00
CACW
Occupied/incidental 131.63 3795.88 0.50
Unoccupied 104.91 5276.84 0.50
B-177
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
47
Summary of Findings and Management Implications (Implications,
Future Research, and Monitoring)
An analysis of basic demographic information of visitors revealed that male and female visitors tend to
recreate with near equal frequency. In general, visitors to the Reserve are more likely to be white and
highly educated than the general population in Orange County. While the overall ethnicity of visitors
varies by recreation site, it appears that the population of the Reserve is not representative of the
population of the surrounding county. This lack of diversity in outdoor recreation participation is not
unique to Orange County (Outdoor Industry Association, 2018). These findings indicate that there may
be constraints to visitation to Reserve lands for certain demographics. These could include lack of
information, lack of transportation, or any number of factors (safety, lack of a sense of belonging, etc.).
Additional studies of non-visitors would need to be conducted to determine why individuals of certain
demographics are not recreating on Reserve sites. It is also important to consider that the racial and
ethnic makeup of visitors to these Reserve units studied does not reflect the racial and ethnic makeup of
visitors to all Reserve units in Orange County. Other units, such as Irvine Regional Park (not examined in
this analysis), may better serve the diverse population of recreators in Orange County.
The most common activities that visitors participate in, how far they travel to recreate, and how long
visitor recreate at a given location varies by management unit. However, perceptions of crowding, level
of satisfaction and visitor motivations appear to be similar across the Reserve. This indicates that cross-
jurisdictional management could focus on managing the quality of the visitor experience across
management units and the Reserve as a whole.
Visitors to Reserve units in Orange County are highly motivated by nature and exercise. The strength of
the nature dimension as revealed in the 2017 visitor motivation scale was quite surprising. Interestingly,
in 2018, when visitors were asked to self-categorize their motivations into exercise or nature-oriented
categories, visitors tended to describe their motivations as exercise based—though 82% of visitors
indicated some or a strong motivation for a nature-oriented experience. These results indicate that
having a nature-based experience, even if a visitors’ primary motivation is exercise, is important to the
vast majority of Reserve visitors. This holds true even when visitors were asked about their motivations
for visiting in two very different ways (i.e. the long-format motivations scale administered in 2017 and
the short-form question administered in 2018).
Visitor use densities vary by management unit, but overall use in each unit is broad in extent (some
visitors travel throughout the trail system). High use areas are easily identified at most locations. In
terms of visitor use levels, while use levels vary by site, most locations experience pulses of use before
and after work on weekdays and generally higher levels of use on the weekends (see detailed results for
each Reserve unit studied in Appendix A). While visitors to the Reserve generally do not feel crowded,
are satisfied with their visit, and tend to be repeat visitors, some visitors indicate adjusting the timing of
their recreation experience to avoid these predictable and consistent times of high use. Thus, visitors
who may feel crowding or have unsatisfactory experiences may be making decisions to allow them to
cope with use levels they may find undesirable (not coming before or after work).
Visitors whose primary activity is mountain biking have distinct behavior and spatial use patterns when
compared with other primary activity types. A high proportion of mountain bikers’ use of the fitness and
self-tracking app Strava provided opportunities to analyze behavior of app u sers compared to the
B-178
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
48
general population of mountain bikers. Use of the app is associated with higher velocities on segments
of trail—and patterns of directional trail use may be influenced by the start-finish orientation of trail
segments users race for the fastest times.
Visitor use does overlap with some sensitive areas of wildlife habitat. However, analysis of the overlap
between recreationists and sensitive wildlife habitat revealed the spatial behavior of visitors to the
Reserve did not overlap to a great extent with the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or occupied/unoccupied
locations of the California gnatcatcher (CAGN) and cactus wren (CACW). Yet, a key finding of this study
was that more recreation activity occurred around unoccupied locations for these birds species in
comparison to areas where the birds where actually found when surveyed. Thus, these results imply
outdoor recreationists may not be a current significant threat to these species, and managers should
focus more on preventing habitat loss and fragmentation, a well-documented cause of the decline of
these species’ populations (Crooks et al., 2001). Additionally, managers could utilize the habitat data and
location data for the two species when planning new trail development, as to avoid building new trails
or buildings around where these species are found. Further research could also be warranted into the
response of these species to outdoor recreation as specifics related to these species sensitivity to
recreation use is not well understood. Despite the lack of literature specifically related to the CAGN and
CACW and recreation, recent studies have indicated that recreation use itself has greater impacts on
bird species compared to the impacts related to trail development (Botsch et al., 2018) and that subtle
differences in recreation activity type (running vs. walking) results in more substantial differences in the
level of disturbance experienced by a variety of bird species (Lethlean et al., 2017).
Literature Cited
Aerial Information Systems. (2015). Orange County Vegetation Mapping Update Phase II Final
Vegetation Mapping Report. Redlands, California.
Bötsch, Y., Tablado, Z., Scherl, D., Kéry, M., Graf, R. F., & Jenni, L. (2018). Effect of Recreational Trails on
Forest Birds: Human Presence Matters. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 175.
Cole, D. N. (2004). Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: A review. Environmental
Impacts of Ecotourism, 41, 60.
Cooper, D. S., Hamilton, R. A., Lucas, S. D., Hall, U. S., & Searcy, A. J. (2014). A population census of the
cactus wren in coastal Los Angeles County. Western Birds, 45(3), 151–163. Retrieved from
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
84899118574&partnerID=40&md5=9a0e72c6bbadf3ad642e9101a313ddf6%0Ahttps://www.scopus.co
m/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
84867811234&partnerID=40&md5=cc638e076197bd94850ed3f34e254d04
Cordell, H.K. (2012) Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a technical document supporting the
Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-150. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
B-179
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
49
Crooks, K. R., Suarez, A. V, Bolger, D. T., & Soulé, M. E. (2001). Extinction and Colonization of Birds on
Habitat Islands\rExtinciones y Colonizaciones de Aves en Hábitats Insulares.
D’Antonio, A., Monz, C., Lawson, S., Newman, P. Pettebone, D., & Courtemanch, A. (2010). GPS-based
measurements of backcountry visitors in parks and protected areas: Examples of methods and
applications from three case studies. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 28(3), 42-60.
D’Antonio, A., Monz, C., Newman, P., Lawson, S., & Taff, D. (2013). Enhancing the utility of visitor impact
assessment in parks and protected areas: A combined social–ecological approach. Journal of
Environmental Management, 124, 72–81.
D’Antonio, A., & Monz, C. (2016). The influence of visitor use levels on visitor spatial behavior in off-trail
areas of dispersed recreation use. Journal of Environmental Management, 170, 79–87.
Dissmeyer, G. E., & Foster, G. R. (1980). A guide for predicting sheet and rill erosion on forest land.
Driver, B. & Brown, P. (1978). The opportunity spectrum concept in outdoor recreation supply
inventories: A rationale. Proceedings of the Integrated Renewable Resource Inventories Workshop . USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report RM-55, 24-31.
Driver, B. L. (Ed.). (2008). Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation . Venture
Publishing.
Felton, V. (2004). Trail solutions: IMBA’s guide building sweet singletrack.
Gutzwiller, K. J., D’Antonio, A. L., & Monz, C. A. (2017). Wildland recreation disturbance: broad-scale
spatial analysis and management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(9), 517–524.
https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1631
Haas, G., Driver, B., & Brown, P. (1980). Measuring wilderness recreation experiences. Proceedings of
the Wilderness Psychology Group. Durham, NH: Wilderness Psychology Group, 20-40.
Hallo, J. C., Beeco, J. A., Goetcheus, C., McGee, J., McGehee, N. G., & Norman, W. C. (2012). GPS as a
method for assessing spatial and temporal use distributions of nature-based tourists. Journal of Travel
Research, 51(5), 591–606.
Hammitt, W. E., Cole, D. N., and Monz, C. A. (2015). Wildland Recreation: Ecology And Management.
John Wiley & Sons.
Kidd, A., Monz, C., D’Antonio, A., Manning, R. E., Reigner, N., Goonan, K. A., & Jacobi, C. (2015). The
effect of minimum impact education on visitor spatial behavior in parks and protected areas: An
experimental investigation using GPSbased tracking. Journal of Environmental Management, 162, 53–
62.
Kidd. A. M., D’Antonio, A., Monz, C., Heaslip, K., Taff, D., & Newman, P. (2018). A GPS-based
classification of visitors’ vehicular behavior in a protected area setting. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 36, 72-92. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I1-8287
B-180
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
50
Kyle, G. T., & Graefe, A. R. (2007). Introduction to the issues confronting the management of urban
proximate natural resource recreation areas. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 25(4), 1-
5.
Larson, C. L., Reed, S. E., Merenlender, A. M., & Crooks, K. R. (2018). Accessibility drives species exposure
to recreation in a fragmented urban reserve network. Landscape and Urban Planning, 175(May 2017),
62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.009
Leatherman Bioconsulting. (2016). Natural Communities Coalition California Gnatcatcher Study .
Lethlean, H., Van Dongen, W. F., Kostoglou, K., Guay, P. J., & Weston, M. A. (2017). Joggers cause greater
avian disturbance than walkers. Landscape and Urban Planning, 159, 42-47.
Leung, Y-F., & Marion, J. L. (1999). Characterizing backcountry camping impacts in Great Smokey
Mountains National Park, USA. Journal of Environmental Management, 57, 193–203.
Manning, R. E. (1979). Impacts of recreation on riparian soils and vegetation. JAWRA Journal of the
American Water Resources Association, 15(1), 30-43.
Manning, R. E. (2011). Studies In Outdoor Recreation, 3rd edn. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University
Press.
Monz, C.A., Cole, D. N., Marion, J. and Leung, Y-F. (2010). Sustaining Visitor Use in Protected Areas:
Future Opportunities in Recreation Ecology Research Based on the USA Experience. Environmental
Management 45: 551-562.
Monz, C. & D’Antonio, A. (2016). Recreation use and human valuation on the Nature Reserve of Orange
County, California (Project Prospectus). Logan, UT.
Monz, C. A., & Twardock P. (2010). A classification of backcountry campsites in Prince William Sound,
Alaska, USA. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(7), 156–172. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.02.030
Natural Communities Coalition (2018). About NCC. Retrieved from https://occonservation.org/about-
ncc/
Outdoor Industry Association (2018). Outdoor Participation Report. Retreived from
https://outdoorindustry.org/resource/2018-outdoor-participation-report/
Pettebone, D., Newman, P., & Lawson, S. R. (2010). Estimating visitor use at attraction sites and
trailheads in Yosemite National Park using automated visitor counters. Landscape and Urban Planning,
97(4), 229-238. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.006
R.J. Meade Consulting (1996). Central and coastal subregion natural community conservation
plan/habitat conservation plan. Parts I & II: NCCP/HCP. La Jolla, CA. Retreived from
https://occonservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/NCCP-Parts-I-II-Plan.pdf
B-181
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
51
Solek, C. W., & Szijj, L. J. (2004). California Partners in Flight Coastal Shrub and Chaparral Bird
Conservation Plan. The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Protecting
and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California. Retrieved from
http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/scrub.html
Thomsen, J. M., Powell, R. B., & Monz, C. (2018). A Systematic Review of the Physical and Mental Health
Benefits of Wildland Recreation. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 36(1).
United States Census Bureau (2018). American fact finder. Retrieved from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
United States Department of Commerce (2018). Quick facts: Orange County, California. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/orangecountycalifornia
U.S. Census Bureau (2017). American Community Survey Summary File Data. Retrieved September 9,
2019, from American Community Survey Summary File 1-Year Estimates
website: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/summary-file.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica )
Presence / Absence Survey Guidelines. Retrieved from
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=B08X
U.S. Geological Survey, 2012, USGS NED ned19_n33x75_w118x00_ca_orangeco_2011 1/9 arc -second
2012 15 x 15 minute IMG: U.S. Geological Survey
Vagias, W., Powell, R.B., Moore, D.D., & Wright, B.A. (2014) Predicting behavioral intentions to comply
with recommended Leave No Trace practices. Leisure Sciences, 38(5), 439-45.
B-182
Project Report: Recreation Use on the Nature Reserve of Orange County
52
Appendices
Appendix A: Visitor Use Estimation
Appendix B: Additional Visitor GPS-Based Tracking and Survey Results
Appendix C: Additional Resource Impact Analyses
Appendix D: Additional Visitor Use Patterns and Sensitive Resources Methods, Flowcharts, and Results
Appendix E: Visitor Survey Instruments
B-183
01203.0006/695436.4 1
RPV – PVPTA MOU
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is made and entered into
on _______________________, 2021, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and the PALOS VERDES
PENINSULA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a California joint powers authority (“PVPTA”).
City and PVPTA may be referred to, individually or collectively, as “Party” or “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. The City has an extensive network of trails and open space areas,
including the 1,400 acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (“Preserve”). The City has
experienced challenges managing the large number of visito rs wishing to use the open
space areas and trails, and some communities have been negatively impacted by the
parking, crowds, and noise generated thereby.
B. The City seeks to alleviate the negative parking impacts, in part, by
establishing a shuttle bus system to pick up visitors at designated parking areas and
drop them off at major access points to the Preserve.
C. The PVPTA operates a municipal transit system and has agreed to
operate a shuttle bus system for visitors wishing to use the open space area s and trails
in accordance with the terms described herein (“Shuttle Services”).
D. The annual cost for the Shuttle Services is $80,000. The City desires to
engage a 3-month “pilot” program for the Shuttle Services at a cost of $20,000. At the
end of the 3-month “pilot” program, the City may, in its sole discretion, extend the term
of the Shuttle Services for 9 months at an additional cost of $60,000.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the
Parties, and of the promises contained in this MOU, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this MOU.
2. Purpose. The purpose of this MOU is to establish an understanding of
each Party’s responsibilities for the Shuttle Services
3. Voluntary. This MOU is voluntarily entered into for the implementation and
operation of the Shuttle Services.
C-1
01203.0006/695436.4 2
RPV – PVPTA MOU
4. Term. This MOU shall remain in effect for one (1) year from the date of full
execution. This MOU may be renewed by mutual agreement of the Parties, unless the
City terminates the MOU following the pilot program period.
5. Responsibilities of the Parties.
5.1 PVPTA. PVPTA agrees to do the following:
(a) Provide the necessary vehicles and personnel to operate the
Shuttle Services.
(b) Operate Shuttle Services on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays
and holidays. Shuttle Services shall include both (1) picking up visitors at designated
parking areas and dropping them off at major access points to the Preserve, and (2)
picking up visitors at major access points to the Preserve and dropping them off at
designated parking areas.
(c) Work in cooperation with the City on logistics for the Shuttle
Services, including pick-up and drop-off locations, scheduling, and hours of operation.
(d) Provide Workers Compensation and liability insurance to
cover shuttle drivers and related personnel.
5.2 City. City agrees to do the following:
(a) Pay a total cost not to exceed $20,000 (Twenty Thousand
Dollars) for the initial 3-month “pilot” program for the Shuttle Services. At the end of the
3-month “pilot” program, the City may, in its sole discretion, extend the term of the
Shuttle Services for nine (9) additional months for an additional cost of $60,000 (Sixty
Thousand Dollars). The total annual cost for the Shuttle Services shall not exceed
$80,000 (Eighty Thousand Dollars).
(b) Designate pick-up and drop-off locations, and hours of
operation for the Shuttle Services.
(c) Work in cooperation with the PVPTA on logistics for the
Shuttle Services, including pick-up and drop-off locations, scheduling, and hours of
operation.
6. Indemnification. The PVPTA shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend
the City, its officers, and its employees from any and all claims, demands, or liability
arising from the PVPTA’s provision of Shuttle Services pursuant to this MOU. This
indemnity obligation will exclude such loss or damage which is determined to be caused
by the sole negligence of the City.
7. Termination and Default.
C-2
01203.0006/695436.4 3
RPV – PVPTA MOU
7.1 Termination. This MOU may be terminated upon the express
written agreement of the Parties.
7.2 Default. Each Party shall have a reasonable opportunity to assert
matters which it believes have not been undertaken in accordance with the MOU, to
explain the basis for such assertion, and to receive from the other Party a justification of
its position on such matters. If any Party concludes that another Party has not complied
in good faith with the terms of the MOU, then such Party may issue a written notice of
non-compliance (“Notice”) specifying the grounds therefor and all facts demonstrating
such non-compliance.
The Party receiving a Notice may contest the allegation of non -compliance, or
shall proceed to cure the non-compliance within 30 days. If the Notice is contested, the
Parties shall seek to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter(s)
occasioning the Notice.
If the non-compliance is not cured, or the Parties cannot reach a mutually
acceptable resolution within 60 days of the Notice, the non -delinquent Party will
determine the next course of action, which may include the termination of the MOU.
Each Party reserves the right to terminate the MOU in the event of any default by the
other Party, provided that the Party seeking to terminate the MOU first provides Notice
and an opportunity to cure in accordance with this Section , and the Parties fail to reach
a mutually acceptable resolution within 60 days of the Notice.
8. Notices. Any notice which either Party may desire to give to the other
Party under this MOU must be in writing and may be given by any commercially
acceptable means, to the addresses below:
CITY:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Attention: Cory Linder, Director of Parks &
Recreation
PVPTA:
Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority
P.O. Box 2656
P.V. Peninsula, CA 90274
Attention: Martin Gombert, Administrator
9. Interpretation. This MOU will be interpreted, construed, and governed
according to the laws of the State of California . Each Party has had the opportunity to
review this MOU with legal counsel. The MOU will be construed simply, as a whole, and
in accordance with its fair meaning. The MOU will not be interpreted strictly for or
against either Party.
10. Relationship of the Parties. The Parties are, and shall at all times remain
as to each other, wholly independent entities. Neither Party to this MOU shall have
C-3
01203.0006/695436.4 4
RPV – PVPTA MOU
power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on beha lf of the other Party unless
expressly provided by this MOU. No employee, agent, or officer of a Party shall be
deemed for any purpose whatsoever to be an agent, employee, or officer the other
Party.
11. Binding Effect. This MOU shall be binding upon, and shall be to the benefit
of the respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each Party; provided, however, no
Party may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOU without prior written
consent of the other Party.
12. Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this MOU will be construed
to create any rights in third parties and the Parties do not intend to create such rights.
13. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event that any Party commences legal action of
any kind or character to either enforce the provisions of this MOU or to obtain damages
for breach thereof, the prevailing party in such litigation will be entitled to all costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with such action.
14. Severability. If any provision of this MOU, or any portion thereof, is found
by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason,
such provision will be severable and will not in any way impair the enforceability of any
other provision of this MOU.
15. Amendment. This MOU may be amended at any time by mutual
agreement of the Parties. Any amendment must be in writing and signed by both
Parties.
16. Entire Agreement. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between
the Parties relating to the subject of this MOU and supersedes all p revious agreements,
promises, representations, understandings and negotiations, whet her written or oral,
among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.
17. Waiver. Waiver by any Party to this MOU of any term, condition, or
covenant of this MOU shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or
covenant. Waiver by any Party to any breach of the provisions of this MOU shall not
constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or
violation of any provision of this MOU.
18. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one
and the same instrument, provided, however, that such counterparts shall have been
delivered to all Parties to this MOU.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
C-4
01203.0006/695436.4 5
RPV – PVPTA MOU
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned authorized representatives of the
Parties have executed this MOU on the date and year first above written.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
By:
Eric Alegria, Mayor
Attest:
By:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA TRANSIT
AUTHORITY, a joint powers authority
By:
Martin Gombert, Administrator
Attest:
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Darold Pieper, General Counsel
C-5
March 9, 2021
Mr. Ramzi Awwad
Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
Subject: Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road Traffic Study
Dear Mr. Awwad:
Willdan Engineering is pleased to submit this traffic study to review traffic operations and safety
at three roadway locations along Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road. The segments
are:
• Crenshaw Boulevard between Park Place and 400 feet north of Park Place
• Crenshaw Boulevard at Valley View Road
• Crenshaw Boulevard at St. John Fisher Church Driveway
Crenshaw Boulevard terminates
approximately 2,500 feet south of Crest
Road. Del Cerro Park and the entrance to
the Park Place residential neighborhood are
at the end of the road. Del Cerro Park is a
popular place for hiking and recreation.
Several trails can be accessed from the
area. Due to its popularity this portion of
Crenshaw Boulevard often becomes
impacted with vehicles, bicycles, and
pedestrians seeking to enjoy the facilities.
Parking is limited and when full, drivers must
turn around to find parking elsewhere.
For the segment between Park Place and
400 feet north of Park Place, the City requested an evaluation of the existing parking prohibition
in this area. At Valley View Road, residents complained about inadequate sight distance when
exiting Valley View Road and proceeding northbound on Crenshaw Boulevard. This traffic
study (Study) presents an analysis of traffic factors such as existing roadway conditions , speed,
Figure 1: Project Site
D-1
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
March 9, 2021
Page 2
sight distance, and the signing and striping to assess the safety and operation at the three
locations along Crenshaw Boulevard.
The City received a request to review sight visibility of the driveway for St. John Fisher Church
(Church) at Crenshaw Boulevard when exiting the driveway.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road is
a collector street and has one lane in each
direction. Between Crest Road and Valley
View Road the travel lanes are separated by
a raised center median. Between Valley View
Road and Park Place the travel lanes are
separated by a yellow skip centerline stripe.
The street width varies between 64 feet and
37 feet. There is a 5-foot wide shoulder on
the east side while the westside has a 17-foot
wide shoulder with general parking and a
loading zone defined by painted parking
stalls. Parking stalls continue to Park Place after the painted shoulder ends, but parking in
these 13 stalls is restricted by red curb and NO PARKING signs. The parking restriction is a
temporary measure in response to problematic driver behavior. Parking is prohibited on the
east side of Crenshaw Boulevard between Valley View Road and Seacrest Road.
There is a downhill grade and gradual left-hand curve from north to south. The downhill grade
between Crest Road and Valley View Road becomes a slight incline between Valley View Road
and Park Place. The downhill grade is approximately 8.3 percent and the incline is
approximately 2.7 percent. The City is currently updating the Engineering and Traffic (E&T)
Survey along 34 street segments, including Crenshaw Boulevard. Traffic counts and radar
speed measurement data were obtained from the E&T Survey. The data were collected
September 2019 and indicate the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is 3,478 vehicles per day and
the prevailing speed is 41 MPH. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. Speeding above the
posted speed limit was not observed. It was noted, however, that northbound vehicles tended
to travel at or just below the posted speed limit.
Figure 2: Crenshaw Boulevard looking north
D-2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
March 9, 2021
Page 3
Street Limits
Posted
Speed
Limit (MPH)
85th
Percentile
(MPH)
Average
Daily
Traffic
(veh/day)
Crenshaw
Boulevard
Crest Road to
Park Place 40 41 3,478
Table 1: Engineering and Traffic Survey Data
Valley View Road is a 36-foot wide cul-de-sac that serves approximately thirty residences. The
posted speed limit is 25 MPH and parking is allowed on both sides of the street. The approach
to Crenshaw Boulevard is stop controlled.
The St. John Fisher driveway is located 225 feet north of Valley View Road. The driveway is
26 feet wide and provides two-way traffic to the church parking lot. The approach to Crenshaw
Boulevard is stop controlled.
ANALYSIS
Crenshaw Boulevard at Valley View Road
The available sight distance was measured
in the field and the location of existing red
curb was noted. The available sight
distance for a driver traveling westbound on
Valley View Road is approximately 290 feet
to the left and 205 feet to the right. Figure
3 shows the line of sight looking to the left.
There is red curb on the southeast corner
that extends to Seacrest Road. There is
also 16 feet of red curb on the northeast
corner.
For this analysis, the recommended sight distance is based on the stopping sight distance per
the AASHTO Greenbook, 2011 Edition, and adjusted accordingly for the roadway grade. The
edge of travel way was taken to be the edge of the parking lane. South of Valley View Road
there is an existing edge line stripe that positions vehicles closer to the center of the roadway
and away from the curb line. North of Valley View Road, parked vehicles also cause
northbound vehicles to be positioned away from the curb line.
The prevailing speed on Crenshaw Boulevard is 41 MPH and the grade is approximately 2.7
Figure 3: Westbound Valley View Line of Sight Looking Left
D-3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
March 9, 2021
Page 4
percent south of Valley View Road and approximately 8.3 percent north of Valley View Road.
The recommended sight distance is 326 feet and 362 to the left and right respectively. The
available sight distance to the left is less than the recommended distance for the prevailing
speed and roadway grade. The difference is 36 feet. The sight distance is restricted by a
power pole adjacent to the beginning of the curb return. By pulling forward 1 to 2 feet, the
sight distance is adequate and meets the recommended distance. This mirrors typical motorist
behavior in that drivers tend to creep forward to see around an object to get better visibility
prior to proceeding with the turn. No action is required to improve the sight distance as moving
the power pole is not practicable. The sight distance to the right is less than the recommended
distance. The sight distance is restricted by vehicles parked adjacent to the end of the curb
return. Extending the existing red curb 44 feet will provide the recommended sight distance.
Extending the red curb will remove two parking spaces. See Attachment A-1 for the sight
distance diagram.
Location
Recommended
Stopping Sight
Distance to the
Left (ft)
Available
Stopping Sight
Distance to the
Left (ft)
Recommended
Stopping Sight
Distance to the
Right (ft)
Available
Stopping
Sight Distance
to the Right
(ft)
Valley
View Drive 326 290 362 205
Table 2: Crenshaw Boulevard at Valley View Road Sight Distance Summary
Crenshaw Boulevard at St. John Fisher Church Driveway
The available sight distance was approximated in field by driving the site. The available sight
distance to the left for a driver exiting the Church driveway is 180 feet. The available sight
distance to the right is 150 feet. See Attachment A-2. The sight distance is obstructed by
vehicles parked adjacent to the driveway opening. The roadway grade between Crest Road
and Valley View Road is approximately 8.3 percent. The recommended sight distance is 281
feet and 362 to the left and right respectively. The available sight distance in either direction is
less than the recommended distance for the prevailing speed and roadway grade. Providing
the recommended sight distance to the left requires 100 feet of red curb south of the Church
driveway. Five parking spaces will be eliminated. Providing the recommended sight distance
to the right requires 80 feet of red curb north the Church driveway. Four parking spaces will
be removed.
D-4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
March 9, 2021
Page 5
Location
Recommended
Sight Distance
to the Left (ft)
Available
Stopping Sight
Distance to the
Left (ft)
Recommended
Sight Distance
to the Right (ft)
Available
Stopping
Sight Distance
to the Right
(ft)
Church
Driveway 281 180 362 150
Table 3: Crenshaw Boulevard at St. John Fisher Church Driveway Distance Summary
Crenshaw Boulevard between Park Place and 400 feet north of Park Place
Field observations were conducted on a Wednesday afternoon and Saturday morning.
Double parking, U-turns and vehicle backing were observed. Vehicles tended to double park
in the shoulder while waiting for park users to return. The travel lane was not blocked. U-
turns varied in frequency and were generally done in a safe manner. U-turns were mostly
performed closer to Valley View Road by drivers double parked in the shoulder who could no
longer wait for a parking space to open. U-turns made closer to Park Place generally required
a 3-point turn to complete due to the narrowing roadway. Vehicle backing was also noted.
Backing was done in the shoulder as drivers followed park users to their vehicles and did not
disrupt the travel lane. Speeding was not observed.
The sight distance was evaluated for a
vehicle traveling northbound on Park Place
and looking west to determine if parking can
be restored at 13 currently restricted
spaces. As eastbound drivers approach
Seacrest Road, their speed is reduced in
preparation for turning left onto Seacrest
Drive or turning right into the Cerro Park
parking lot. Using a 30 MPH prevailing
speed, the recommended stopping sight
distance is 200 feet. See Attachment A-3.
To maintain the recommended stopping
sight distance, the first 3 parking spaces west of Park Place should remain prohibited. The
street width is 37 feet which allows for an 8-foot parking lane and 14.5-foot travel lanes in each
direction. Allowing vehicles to park in the remaining 10 parking spaces is acceptable and will
not adversely affect traffic operations and safety. Furthermore, parked vehicles will have a
traffic calming affect by giving the roadway a narrower appearance and will help keep speeds
down.
Figure 4: Park Place Line of Sight Looking North
D-5
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
March 9, 2021
Page 6
CONCLUSION
Based on the above traffic analysis, the following conclusions have been made:
• The available sight distance to the left for a driver traveling westbound on Valley View
Drive is 36 feet less than the recommended distance. Sight distance is obstructed by a
power pole located on the southwest corner. By pulling forward 1 to 2 feet, the sight
distance meets the recommended distance. No action is required on this item.
• The available sight distance to the right for a driver traveling westbound on Valley View
Drive is less than the recommended distance. Sight distance is obstructed by vehicles
parked adjacent to the end of the curb return. It is recommended the existing red curb
be extended 44 feet to provide the recommended sight distance. Two parking spaces
will be removed.
• The available sight distance to the left for a driver exiting the Church driveway is less
than the recommended distance. Sight distance is obstructed by vehicles parked
adjacent to the driveway. It is recommended 100’ of red curb be painted south of the
Church driveway. Five parking spaces will be removed.
• The available sight distance to the right for a driver exiting the Church driveway is less
than the recommended distance. Sight distance is obstructed by vehicles parked
adjacent to the driveway. It is recommended 80’ of red curb be painted north of the
Church driveway. Four parking spaces will be removed.
• Double parking, U-Turns, and vehicle backing were observed along Crenshaw
Boulevard. These maneuvers were generally done in a safe manner and did not disrupt
the flow of normal traffic.
• To maintain sight distance for drivers exiting the Del Cerro parking lot, it is recommended
the first 3 spaces west of Park Place remain restricted. Allowing parking in 10 of the 13
restricted parking spaces west of Park Place will not adversely affect traffic operations
and safety
D-6
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
March 9, 2021
Page 7
Based on the findings of this study, our field observations, and engineering judgement, the
above items are recommended to address safety and operational concerns along this section
of Crenshaw Boulevard.
We appreciate this opportunity to serve the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the assistance
and cooperation afforded to us during the course of this study. Should you have any
questions, please contact me at (562) 368-4848.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLDAN ENGINEERING
Vanessa Muñoz, PE, TE, PTOE
Traffic Engineer
Attachments
A – Sight Distance Diagrams
D-7
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENT A
SIGHT DISTANCE DIAGRAMS
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11
/
SCA LE 1" = 40'
CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES
SIGHT DISTA NCE DIAGRAM
CR ENSHAW BOULEVARD AND PARK PLACE