Introduction

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pertaining to the second Los
Angeles aqueduct identified land that had become barren due to
changes in surface or groundwater management (City of Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power and County of Inyo 1990). These
lands have either remained barren for at least 20 years or the current
plant cover and composition is dominated by weedy annuals. The
mitigation identified in the EIR for these lands requires revegetation
with native perennial plants. Because the success of revegetation on
barren lands in the Owens Valley is largely unknown, the EIR
provides the opportunity for Inyo and Los Angeles to conduct studies
to develop effective techniques. A Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) which accompanies the EIR and long-term water agreement
requires revegetation plans and implementation schedules to be
completed by June 13, 1998.

The MOU states that the plans "will be prepared in accordance with
the procedures set forth in ...the Green Book," the technical appendix
to the Inyo-Los Angeles Agreement (City of Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power and County of Inyo 1990). These procedures
include: establishing a goal consistent with the goals and principles of
the long-term agreement; consideration of feasible alternatives to
mitigate the impact site such as cessation of pumping and use of
surface water; revegetation using native plant species; and
implementation of measures to control weeds and fugitive dust. The
Green Book also calls for an annual written report to the Inyo/Los
Angeles Standing Committee containing monitoring results and a
description of the effectiveness of the mitigation program in achieving
its goals.

As a first step towards understanding the research needs and existing
techniques that could be employed for revegetation in the Owens
Valley, a literature search was conducted in 1993 focusing on arid
lands (Yamashita 1993). Currently several revegetation studies have
been initiated in the Owens Valley. One study that began in 1991
consisted of planting containerized native plants in Laws and
subjecting them to different planting densities, irrigation, fertilizer, and
weeding regimes. Later a seeding trial was also conducted at the site
(Yamashita and Manning 1997). Additional studies have tested
protecting naturally occurring seedlings (Yamashita 1997) and
transplants with plant shelters. Results from the Owens Valley studies,
information gained from the literature search and restoration
conferences, and collaboration with others working on arid land
restoration were used to develop the mitigation plans included in this
report.

This report describes project goals, monitoring, and general
revegetation methods that will be employed at the various sites. A site
description is provided for each mitigation area which includes the site
location, environmental setting, soil description, quantified goals, site
priority, revegetation plan, and species anticipated for use. The general
site evaluation was conducted in 1993-1994 and 1997. These
evaluations involved delineating the EIR-mapped sites on aerial photos
and then visiting them to note areal extent and current conditions. Sites
were categorized as they were in the EIR according to type of impact,
either abandoned agriculture (ABAG), groundwater pumping, or into
a third category of "potential" sites that "will be considered...for
selective mitigation" by the Inyo/Los Angeles Standing Committee.
The latter are all within the Laws wellfield and have been impacted by
a number of water and land management activities such as
groundwater pumping, abandoned agriculture, water spreading, and
grazing.

Four additional sites have also been included under "potential sites" in
case the stated mitigation goals change to incorporate native plant
revegetation. Two of these are slated for "re-greening." One is an
undefined potential enhancement/mitigation (E/M) project that will
become a native plant site if permanent irrigation is infeasible (East Big
Pine), and another may be converted to alfalfa "if the natural
vegetation does not increase"(East Shepherd Creek). These sites are
briefly described here, except no on-site mapping, species list, and
quantified goals were developed. It is assumed that the initial work on
the ABAG and pumping impacted sites will increase the effectiveness
of revegetation on these potential sites should the need arise.

It is recommended that all sites be protected as soon as possible.
Other recommendations presented in this report will initially be tested
in small plots to evaluate their effectiveness and to refine techniques.
The most effective methods will then be applied over a larger portion
of the site.

The Standing Committee may consider amending this plan if an area
covered by the plan is proposed for uses other than revegetation.
Proposed uses other than revegetation may include community or
Indian reservation expansion or changes in land use such as
conversion to irrigation. Any amendment to this plan that would result
in uses other than revegetation would be subject to compliance with
applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
and with any provisions in the 1991 Final EIR pertaining to
modification of mitigation measures adopted in the EIR.

Common names for plants were used in this report. Scientific names
can be found in Appendix I, Species List.

Continued on next page