JOSEPHINE AXT EXPLAINS WHERE WE ARE IN THE CORPS PLANNING PROCESS
“Our Study is Ecosystem Restoration”
Josephine Axt: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ ARBOR [Alternatives with Restoration Benefits and Opportunities for Revitalization] Study, which covers the nine mile stretch from just upstream from the Verdugo Wash at the border with Glendale to 1st Street in downtown L.A., is looking at ecosystem restoration. This is our primary mission area.
Right now Tetra-Tech is writing up our planning charette, held in late winter 2010, and putting together a working list of all the alternatives and different ideas we considered. We will be looking at regional economic development and other social effects. We’ll have some preliminary alternatives that will be refined, some conceptual designs that we’ll analyze for the costs and benefits, then we will come up with a final array of alternatives – five or so – and bring in the Corps’ Division and Headquarters to get their take on our analysis, and then determine which plan we propose.
Next there is an independent, external peer review. These are people from outside the Corps who are experts in their fields who will evaluate everything we’ve done. We’ll then choose a tentative plan, refine it, based on everybody’s comments, and further analyze the alternatives just a bit more. We’ll then put out a draft report for community review in the fall of 2011 – assuming expected funds are in place. We’ll have to fight for the Federal dollars and everything costs more in cities to begin with.
Regarding the Piggyback Yard
What the Corps of Engineers is really trying hard to be able to say is “we can cost-share that, we’ve gotta do that.” Although the PBy proposals are conceptual plans, they should be closely coordinated with what the Corps’ Los Angeles River study is doing. Everything has to be tied into not doing things that impair or impede the flood damage reduction function of the River, otherwise our engineers will say “It’s working well now, it’s getting that water down to the ocean, it’s doing what it’s supposed to do.”
We want to get something built. But whatever we build, we want it to have very low maintenance. High maintenance costs for a restoration project just don’t make sense. To me, it’s an oxymoron.
I can speak directly to the concept of having tiers, where if the water in a flood event reaches a certain level you have another area of flooding. I think that’s a good way to go. The Corps does that in our basins. It makes sense that you have managed recreation – soccer fields, ball fields, etc. – that can be used in the same space where the water will go in a flood event.
I personally love the combination of everything you’re doing. We are trying to work closely with our non-Federal sponsors and create projects that don’t get up to headquarters and receive a “you’re non-policy compliant” response or OMB says “no way” or it “doesn’t fit into the criterion box.” We want to see projects that get the approval, the response “It can be in the President’s budget, supported by the administration.
Josephine Axt, Chief of Planning at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Greater Los Angeles Area
“It’s a Wonderful Site, a Great Site For Water Detention”
Kathleen Bergmann (USACE): Some of your ideas are very similar to the ideas that came out of our charette – the widening here, the soft bottom here, the wetlands there, daylighting the stream –another idea from the charette. The Piggyback Yard is a wonderful site and it’s a great site for retention. It also provides a great transition to the whole upstream area we’re working on, very helpful in making the transition work. The more restoration in the plan the better – for our project. These are all great plans. But In terms of design, we’re not as far along in the details as the Piggyback Group is.
Ira Artz: A lot of the Piggyback Group’s ideas are in Tetra-Tech’s formulation process for the feasibility study. Whether it will end up looking like your plan is a question; but it’s already listed among the alternatives. Tetra-Tech and the Corps are looking at the whole Piggyback parcel, though we’re not assuming right now that the land is available.
If it were for sale, the City of L.A. would have to buy it; but there might be many more entities to help pay for it, if there was development associated with it around the edges.
“The Ultimate Goal is to Create Habitat for Native Species”
Kathleen Bergmann: The ultimate goal is to re-create historical habitat for native species. If you return it to riparian, you assume certain species will inhabit the habitat. Your species diversity will also increase.
Erin Hardison (USACE): Restored habitat ought to benefit numerous bird species and small mammals, even amphibians that are not on the endangered species list but whose populations have been reduced, especially in urban areas; because their willow habitat has been diminished.
Jessica Hall: When you restore natural flooding to a river system, you’re going to have young willows which will allow things like the Southwest Willow Fly-Catcher and the Least Bell’s Vireo to re-populate. We’re going to start to see those kinds of birds come back. Anything we could do to increase the abundance of these species would be an incredible victory for the region.
Kathleen Bergmann: The one place I could see a contradiction between our plans and yours would probably be the soccer fields. You can’t get habitat benefits for Soccer fields. Soccer fields can be there; but our regulations are very clear: it has to be passive recreation, usually described as just trails and maybe signage.
CAROL ARMSTRONG: HOW WE CAN GET THIS DONE
The City’s Master Plan and the Army Corps Study
The L.A. River Revitalization Master Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2007, building on the County Master Plan adopted in 1996. The County Plan looks at the entire 51 miles of the River, including the easement space, greening and creating a trail system. The City adopted those same kinds of ideas in our Master Plan of 2007.
Now we want to expand outside the River channel and look at acquiring land and creating a park and trail system into the communities from the Santa Monica Mountains, the Verdugos, and throughout the watershed; but we also want to remove the concrete from the River’s channel. So for the first time we proposed that. And, our Army Corps study is basically going to tell us if that’s possible.
The Army Corps study is due to be completed in 2012, and when it’s done it’s going to recommend a large scale project. And Senator Feinstein has already forwarded for inclusion in the Water Resources Development Act of 2011 a contingent construction authorization asking the federal government for $120M that can actually be allocated for building the study’s recommended project. This is the public sector side of our River stewardship.
Making it Happen: The City’s River Revitalization Corp.
The private sector side is our River Revitalization Corporation that was appointed by the Mayor and the City Council In December 2009. There are a lot of organizations that have been focused on the River in terms of environment, public health and community advocacy. But the Revitalization Corporation, which is staffed by Jason Neville at the Community Redevelopment Agency, is the first one looking at how to make the River viable in terms of business.
The City’s Philanthropic Arm
The third sector, the philanthropic, is a foundation that’s going to bring fundraising support to the River in terms of cultural activities, arts programs, concerts, bike rides, things like that, to support the work of groups like FoLAR and others – taking it to the next level.
FOLAR RIVER CLEAN UP, 2010
How Else Can the City Help?
The City can support the Piggyback Yard project by promoting it and highlighting how it is consistent with the goals of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan; however, as long as it remains in private ownership, we (at the staff level) cannot advocate for its purchase for the designed use. The City’s elected officials can help with approaching others, such as federal officials, to expand the coalition in support of the project.
There’s been a lot of talk about creating some kind of R&D, clean, green use on the site; and multiple entities have mentioned a college campus. This could happen through, say, a partnership with the Los Angeles Community College District, which has bond money for construction of new facilities.
CAROL ARMSTRONG
What Can L.A. County Do?
One possibility is that the County and the federal government (through FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency]) could purchase the site for flood protection (a public health and safety benefit) that would ensure greater protection for the City of L.A. and the downstream cities – so the County Supervisors and the downstream elected officials would need to be on board with the idea.
What About the Federal Government?
The Corps could contribute funds for the ecosystem restoration components as part of their LA River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, for which the City is the local sponsor, but it might also pay for the flood protection benefits if Congress decides that is in the national interest. The LA Congressional delegation would need to support the project and they would then have the option of identifying the project for federal funding—through the Army Corps or other agencies, as they deem appropriate. For example, there may be an opportunity for the US Department of Transportation (which includes the Federal Railroad Administration) to provide mitigation funds toward purchase and/or development of the property if the federal High Speed Rail project’s impacts to the Army Corps’ ecosystem restoration are deemed significant in the environmental review process.
Once acquired, the property could potentially attract funds from the USEDA and USEPA for clean-up. At the City, the CRA, through the River Revitalization Corporation, Clean Tech Corridor, and brownfield redevelopment folks, would likely be important leads.
A River Champion
One person who must be acknowledged every time we talk about the River and its future is Councilman Ed Reyes—our “river champion” but maybe “river king” is also appropriate given his last name…as always, Councilman Reyes is our leader in all things River. He has been to Washington multiple times—raising considerable national awareness of our cause. He has really pushed the establishment of the River Revitalization Corporation and in the future he’ll be pushing the River Foundation.
Telling the Story of the River on a Grand Scale
I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank everyone who has worked on the Piggyback Yard project, because this study is really awesome. I think it’s reasonable, and I think it’s doable. What you’ve done here is not shy away from asking the tough questions, talking to everyone, taking on the flood control issues, taking on the neighborhood issues, just everything that makes sense for the River and how we can be big and bold about the vision. This is something that helps us really tell the story of the L.A. River and what is possible and how we can do it on a grand scale.
So Go River!
Carol Armstrong: City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, LA River Project Office