DOCSLIB.ORG

SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT to REDUCE RIVER DISCHARGE in SUPPORT of INCREASED RECYCLED WATER REUSE Environmental Impact Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Draft SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT TO REDUCE RIVER DISCHARGE IN SUPPORT OF INCREASED RECYCLED WATER REUSE Environmental Impact Report Prepared for August 2019 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Draft SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT TO REDUCE RIVER DISCHARGE IN SUPPORT OF INCREASED RECYCLED WATER REUSE Environmental Impact Report Prepared for August 2019 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 www.esassoc.com Bend Oakland San Diego Camarillo Orlando San Francisco Delray Beach Pasadena Santa Monica Destin Petaluma Sarasota Irvine Portland Seattle Los Angeles Sacramento Tampa D170647.08 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Background ..................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................ ES-5 ES.4 Project Description .......................................................................................... ES-5 ES.5 Summary of Impacts........................................................................................ ES-8 ES.6 Areas of Known Controversy......................................................................... ES-12 ES.7 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ........................................... ES-12 ES.8 Project Alternatives........................................................................................ ES-13 ES.9 Organization of this EIR ................................................................................ ES-15 Chapter 1, Introduction ........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR ....................................................................................1-1 1.2 Intended Use of the Draft EIR ............................................................................1-1 1.3 CEQA Environmental Review Process ..............................................................1-2 1.4 Organization of the Draft EIR .............................................................................1-8 Chapter 2, Project Description ............................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Location ..................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Project Background ............................................................................................2-1 2.4 Project Objectives ...............................................................................................2-3 2.5 Water Reclamation Facilities ..............................................................................2-3 2.6 Montebello Forebay ............................................................................................2-8 2.7 Relationship of Project to Recycled Water Programs ........................................2-9 2.8 Discharge Operation Modifications ................................................................. 2-12 2.9 Project Construction ........................................................................................ 2-13 2.10 Uses of Recycled Water and Reuse Customers............................................. 2-13 2.11 Project Approvals ............................................................................................ 2-20 Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................... 3.0-1 3.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 3.0-1 3.1 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 3.1-1 3.2 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................... 3.2-1 3.3 Recreation ...................................................................................................... 3.3-1 Chapter 4, References ..........................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Executive Summary............................................................................................4-1 4.2 Project Description .............................................................................................4-1 4.3 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................4-1 4.4 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................4-3 4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................4-4 4.6 Recreation ..........................................................................................................4-6 Chapter 5, Alternatives .........................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Overview of Alternatives Analysis ......................................................................5-1 5.2 Proposed Project Summary ...............................................................................5-2 5.3 Alternatives Selected for Analysis ......................................................................5-3 San Gabriel River Watershed Project to Reduce River Discharge In Support of Increased Recycled Water Reuse i ESA / D170647.08 Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2019 Table of Contents 5.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................5-4 5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................................5-6 Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations .............................................................................6-1 6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Effects That Were Found Not to Be Significant .................................................6-1 6.3 Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ..........................6-2 6.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ................................................6-2 6.5 Growth-Inducing Impacts ...................................................................................6-3 Chapter 7, List of Preparers ................................................................................................7-1 San Gabriel River Watershed Project to Reduce River Discharge In Support of Increased Recycled Water Reuse ii ESA / D170647.08 Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2019 Table of Contents Appendices Appendix A1: San Gabriel River Watershed Project to Reduce River Discharge in Support of Increased Recycled Water Reuse Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (February 2019) Appendix A2: Notice of Preparation and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting (February 5, 2019) Appendix A3: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Comments Appendix B1: Updated Biological Resources Report, San Gabriel River Watershed Project to Reduce River Discharge in Support of Increased Recycled Water Reuse (July 2019) Appendix B2: Biological Resources Technical Memorandum, San Gabriel River Watershed Project to Reduce River Discharge in Support of Increased Recycled Water Reuse (July 2018) Appendix C: San Gabriel River Benthic Macroinvertebrate (BMI) Baseline Conditions Assessment Appendix D: Evaluating Effects of Reduced WWTP Discharge on the Ecology of the San Gabriel River Estuary Study (January 12, 2018) Appendix E1: Using an Environmental Hydrology Model of the San Gabriel River to Assess Water Reclamation Plant Flow Reductions (Hydrology Report, 2019) (June 3, 2019) Appendix E2: Assessing the Effects of the San Gabriel River Watershed Project to Reduce River Discharge in Support of Increased Recycled Water Reuse on Downstream Hydrology (Hydrology Report, 2018) (July 2018) Appendix E3: Stetson Engineers, Inc. Reports (March 26, 2019 and May 15, 2019) Appendix E4: SJC002 Discharge Observations and Monitoring Study (January 11, 2019) Appendix F: El Monte and Baldwin Park Quadrangles Dibblee Geologic Map (1999) Appendix G: Native American Tribal Consultation Letters (March, 2018) Appendix H: Draft Adaptive Management Plan for Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts San Gabriel River Watershed Project to Reduce River Discharge in Support of Increased Recycled Water Reuse (July 2019) San Gabriel River Watershed Project to Reduce
Recommended publications
  • The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan

    The Coastal Scrub 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 A Project of California Partners in Flight and PRBO Conservation Science The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California Version 2.0 2004 Conservation Plan Authors Grant Ballard, PRBO Conservation Science Mary K. Chase, PRBO Conservation Science Tom Gardali, PRBO Conservation Science Geoffrey R. Geupel, PRBO Conservation Science Tonya Haff, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at Museum of Natural History Collections, Environmental Studies Dept., University of CA) Aaron Holmes, PRBO Conservation Science Diana Humple, PRBO Conservation Science John C. Lovio, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, U.S. Navy (Currently at TAIC, San Diego) Mike Lynes, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at Hastings University) Sandy Scoggin, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at San Francisco Bay Joint Venture) Christopher Solek, Cal Poly Ponoma (Currently at UC Berkeley) Diana Stralberg, PRBO Conservation Science Species Account Authors Completed Accounts Mountain Quail - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Greater Roadrunner - Pete Famolaro, Sweetwater Authority Water District. Coastal Cactus Wren - Laszlo Szijj and Chris Solek, Cal Poly Pomona. Wrentit - Geoff Geupel, Grant Ballard, and Mary K. Chase, PRBO Conservation Science. Gray Vireo - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Black-chinned Sparrow - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Costa's Hummingbird (coastal) - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Sage Sparrow - Barbara A. Carlson, UC-Riverside Reserve System, and Mary K. Chase. California Gnatcatcher - Patrick Mock, URS Consultants (San Diego). Accounts in Progress Rufous-crowned Sparrow - Scott Morrison, The Nature Conservancy (San Diego).
  • 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report

    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report

    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
  • NWS Public Information Statement

    NWS Public Information Statement

    Page 1 of 4 Send to Printer PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NOUS46 KLOX 040045 PNSLOX PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA 445 PM PST MON FEB 03 2008 ...PRELIMINARY RAINFALL TOTALS... THE FOLLOWING ARE RAINFALL TOTALS IN INCHES FOR THIS RAIN EVENT THROUGH 400 PM THIS AFTERNOON. .LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN AVALON............................ 0.83 HAWTHORNE (KHHR).................. 0.63 DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES.............. 0.68 LOS ANGELES AP (KLAX)............. 0.40 LONG BEACH (KLGB)................. 0.49 SANTA MONICA (KSMO)............... 0.42 MONTE NIDO FS..................... 0.63 BIG ROCK MESA..................... 0.75 BEL AIR HOTEL..................... 0.39 BALLONA CK @ SAWTELLE............. 0.40 BEVERLY HILLS..................... 0.30 HOLLYWOOD RSVR.................... 0.20 L.A. R @ FIRESTONE................ 0.30 DOMINGUEZ WATER CO................ 0.59 LA HABRA HEIGHTS.................. 0.28 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY VALLEYS BURBANK (KBUR).................... 0.14 VAN NUYS (KVNY)................... 0.50 NEWHALL........................... 0.22 AGOURA............................ 0.39 CHATSWORTH RSVR................... 0.61 CANOGA PARK....................... 0.53 SEPULVEDA CYN @ MULHL............. 0.43 PACOIMA DAM....................... 0.51 HANSEN DAM........................ 0.30 NEWHALL-SOLEDAD SCHL.............. 0.20 SAUGUS............................ 0.02 DEL VALLE......................... 0.39 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY SAN GABRIEL VALLEY L.A. CITY COLLEGE................. 0.11 EAGLE ROCK RSRV................... 0.24 EATON WASH @ LOFTUS............... 0.20 SAN GABRIEL R @ VLY............... 0.15 WALNUT CK S.B..................... 0.39 SANTA FE DAM...................... 0.33 WHITTIER HILLS.................... 0.30 CLAREMONT......................... 0.61 .LOS ANGELES COUNTY MOUNTAINS AND FOOTHILLS http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/cnrfc/printprod.php?sid=LOX&pil=PNS&version=1 2/3/2008 Page 2 of 4 MOUNT WILSON CBS.................. 0.73 W FK HELIPORT..................... 0.95 SANTA ANITA DAM..................
  • Watershed Summaries

    Watershed Summaries

    Appendix A: Watershed Summaries Preface California’s watersheds supply water for drinking, recreation, industry, and farming and at the same time provide critical habitat for a wide variety of animal species. Conceptually, a watershed is any sloping surface that sheds water, such as a creek, lake, slough or estuary. In southern California, rapid population growth in watersheds has led to increased conflict between human users of natural resources, dramatic loss of native diversity, and a general decline in the health of ecosystems. California ranks second in the country in the number of listed endangered and threatened aquatic species. This Appendix is a “working” database that can be supplemented in the future. It provides a brief overview of information on the major hydrological units of the South Coast, and draws from the following primary sources: • The California Rivers Assessment (CARA) database (http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara) provides information on large-scale watershed and river basin statistics; • Information on the creeks and watersheds for the ESU of the endangered southern steelhead trout from the National Marine Fisheries Service (http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/SoCalDistrib.htm); • Watershed Plans from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) that provide summaries of existing hydrological units for each subregion of the south coast (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcbs/index.html); • General information on the ecology of the rivers and watersheds of the south coast described in California’s Rivers and Streams: Working
  • Los Angeles County

    Los Angeles County

    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of Los Angeles County Arroyo Sequit Arroyo Sequit consists of about 3.3 stream miles. The arroyo is formed by the confluence of the East and West forks, from where it flows south to enter the Pacific Ocean east of Sequit Point. As part of a survey of 32 southern coastal watersheds, Arroyo Sequit was surveyed in 1979. The O. mykiss sampled were between about two and 6.5 inches in length. The survey report states, “Historically, small steelhead runs have been reported in this area” (DFG 1980). It also recommends, “…future upstream water demands and construction should be reviewed to insure that riparian and aquatic habitats are maintained” (DFG 1980). Arroyo Sequit was surveyed in 1989-1990 as part of a study of six streams originating in the Santa Monta Mountains. The resulting report indicates the presence of steelhead and states, “Low streamflows are presently limiting fish habitat, particularly adult habitat, and potential fish passage problems exist…” (Keegan 1990a, p. 3-4). Staff from DFG surveyed Arroyo Sequit in 1993 and captured O. mykiss, taking scale and fin samples for analysis. The individuals ranged in length between about 7.7 and 11.6 inches (DFG 1993). As reported in a distribution study, a 15-17 inch trout was observed in March 2000 in Arroyo Sequit (Dagit 2005). Staff from NMFS surveyed Arroyo Sequit in 2002 as part of a study of steelhead distribution. An adult steelhead was observed during sampling (NMFS 2002a). Additional documentation of steelhead using the creek between 2000-2007 was provided by Dagit et al.
  • 20. Hydrology and Water Quality Modeling of the San Gabriel River Watershed

    20. Hydrology and Water Quality Modeling of the San Gabriel River Watershed

    SEPTEMBER 2009 20. Hydrology and Water Quality Modeling of the San Gabriel River Watershed Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Travis Longcore and Jennifer Wolch for their comments and edits on this paper. The authors would also like to thank Eric Stein, Drew Ackerman, Ken Hoffman, Wing Tam, and Betty Dong for their timely advice and encouragement. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 100 N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Road Azusa, CA 91702. Preferred Citation: Sheng, J., and Wilson, J.P., 2009. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California: 21. Hydrology and Water Quality Modeling for the San Gabriel River Watershed Model. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California. Our goals are to protect and restore natural areas, restore natural hydrological function, promote equitable access to open space, and maximize support via multiple-use facilities. The Plan is a joint venture between the University of Southern California and the San Gabriel and lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Coastal Conservancy, and Baldwin Hills Conservancy.
  • Chapter 3: the Built Environment

    Chapter 3: the Built Environment

    AB 162 Built Environment Chapter (City Design Element) Amendment: Revise text as follows, under the heading “Land Use Issues”, immediately preceding the heading “Land Use Vision” (new section underlined; insert as last bullet on page 3-9): Chapter 3: The Built Environment … City Design Statutory Requirements … City Design Big Ideas … Land Use Existing Conditions … In 2007, the State adopted legislation that strengthened the long-existing requirement that a General Plan address flood management. The new law, commonly referred to as AB162, mandates that the Land Use Element identify flood-prone areas as mapped by either the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the State Department of Water Resources. To prepare and mitigate hazards from flooding, the City of Azusa participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are prepared by FEMA, identify potential flood zones. The Community Safety Element addresses this issue in detail. Land Use Vision … Azusa SB 244 Built Environment Chapter (Infrastructure Element) Amended Text New Section to be added as follows: Chapter 3: The Built of Azusa and the City of Glendora. DUCs 2 and 3 are located along the southern edge of Environment the City. All three DUCs are fully developed … with land uses that are generally consistent with the General Plan land use designations. Infrastructure DUC 1 and 2 consist of single-family homes, and DUC 3 consists primarily of single-family Statutory Requirements homes with some commercial and park land … uses. Infrastructure
  • 6.0 Other Ceqa Discussions 6.1 Growth

    6.0 Other Ceqa Discussions 6.1 Growth

    Target Store Redevelopment Project 6.0 Other CEQA Discussions Draft EIR 6.0 OTHER CEQA DISCUSSIONS 6.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the assessment of growth-inducing impacts in the EIR must describe the “ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” The project site is within a redevelopment area, which seeks to attract private investment into an economically depressed community. The proposed project would not induce growth, but would seek to stimulate the economy of downtown Azusa. The proposed project would bring growth to the area by providing 129 net new jobs. The new jobs would be available to the local community and the project applicant would be encouraged to hire locally. With the addition of jobs, the proposed project would foster economic growth in the project area. The proposed project would not create more jobs than the adopted Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) forecast for the San Gabriel Valley Cities Council of Government (SGVCCG) Subregion. The new jobs and retail use would help to revitalize the downtown Azusa area. Thus, the proposed project would meet the goals of the Merged Project Area Redevelopment Plan by stimulating economic growth in the area. The proposed project does not include the construction of housing. In addition, the operation of the proposed project is not expected to induce population growth in the project area because similar uses currently exist on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to increase population growth either directly or indirectly.
  • City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

    City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018

    City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Executive Summary The City of Azusa prepared this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the City from the effects of natural disasters and hazard events. This plan demonstrates the community’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources. This plan was also developed in order for the City to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program. Each year in the United States, natural disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters, because additional expenses to insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated. The purpose of hazard mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long- term risk to people and property from hazards LHMP Plan Development Process Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified, likely impacts determined, mitigation goals set, and appropriate mitigation strategies determined, prioritized, and implemented. This plan documents the hazard mitigation planning process and identifies relevant hazards and vulnerabilities and strategies the City will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability in the community.
  • Safety Element

    Safety Element

    GENERALPLAN SAFETY ELEMENT Draft Plan January 15, 2017 Approved by Planning Commission March 7, 2017 Adopted by Montebello City Council March 8, 2017 CITY OF MONTEBELLO – GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT LOGO MONTEBELLO CITY COUNCIL VIVIAN ROMERO, MAYOR WILLIAM M. MOLINARU, MAYOR PRO TEM ART BARAJAS, COUNCILMEMBER VANESSAL DELGADO, COUNCILMEMBER JACK HADJINIAN, COUNCLMEMBER MONTEBELLO PLANNING COMMISSION DANIEL GONZALEZ, CHAIR KEVORK BAGOIAN, VICE CHAIR SONA MOORADIAN, COMMISSIONER BRISSA SOTELO, COMMISSIONER SERGIO ZAZUETA, COMMISSIONER CITY ADMINISTRATION FRANCESCA TUCKER-SCHUYLER, CITY MANAGER DANILO BATSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CITY STAFF BEN KIM, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DAN FRANCES, FIRE CHIEF KEVIN MCCLURE, POLICE CHIEF DAVID SOSNOWSKI, DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES TOM BARRIO, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION STEVE KWON, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE KURT JOHNSON, FIRE MARSHALL CONSULTANTS CALIFORNIA CONSULTING EMERGENCY PLANNING CONSULTING City of Montebello | General Plan Safety Element | January 2017 - 2 - CITY OF MONTEBELLO – GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT LOGO THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY City of Montebello | General Plan Safety Element | January 2017 - 3 - CITY OF MONTEBELLO – GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT LOGO TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 6 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..................................................................................................... 6 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ..........................................................................................
  • Chapter 3.10 Water Quality and Hydrology

    Chapter 3.10 Water Quality and Hydrology

    CHAPTER 3.10 WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY 3.10 WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY This section presents a discussion of the existing hydrology, hydrological conditions, and drainage patterns in the project area and vicinity as well as a discussion of potential impacts of the Proposed Project on hydrology and drainage. The section begins with a description of the existing environment, followed by a discussion of relevant federal, State and local laws and regulations. Where potential environmental impacts are identified, a mitigation program is developed to reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. Finally, residual impacts and cumulative impacts are discussed. Information in this section of the EIR evaluates written comments on the NOP received by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (April 4, 2014); Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (April 15, 2014); and the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (April 7, 2014). A copy of each letter can be found in Appendix B of this EIR. 3.10.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Surface Water The City of Irwindale is located in the Los Angeles-San Gabriel Hydrologic Unit. The San Gabriel River watershed is the main surface water body in this Unit, covering approximately 689 square miles. The San Gabriel River flows from northeast to southwest through the City, generally flowing parallel to Interstate 605 (I-605). The San Gabriel River headwaters are located in the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. Most of the stormwater runoff in the region is directed to the San Gabriel River. The upper two reaches of the San Gabriel River watershed consist largely of undisturbed riparian and woodland habitats.
  • Santa Fe Dam Nature Center Newsletter

    Santa Fe Dam Nature Center Newsletter

    Santa Fe Dam Nature Center FebruaryPage 2011 1 Volume 2 SANTA FE DAM NATURE CENTER Issue 1 NEWSLETTER Santa Fe Dam, 15501 E. Arrow Highway, Irwindale, CA San Gabriel Mountains Regional Conservancy, P. O. Box 963, Glendora, CA 91740 (626) 335-1771 WEB: http://www.sgmrc.org/ Email: [email protected] INSIDE THIS ISSUE News Updates News Updates 1 By Thomas Chang Calendar of Events 1 The Birds Knocking at My Door 2 New Snake at the Nature Center SGMRC Serving Up a Tasty Tribute to Volunteers! 3 On January 20th, the Nature Center received White-crowned Sparrows at Santa Fe Dam 4 a beautiful Rosy Boa from the Whittier Plant Profile - Golden Currant 5 Narrows Nature Center. The Rosy Boa makes a Photographer’s Corner great addition to the Nature Center's live 6 snake exhibits, which also includes a Volunteer Profile - Nancy Begg 9 California King Snake and a Gopher Snake. Both of these snakes continue to grow and NEW Improvements at the Park & Nature thrive under the care of Volunteers Mike Center: Teamwork of County, Friends & Hoare and Taylor Chen. Volunteers! Rosy Boas are small boas, usually nocturnal, The County repaired the road leading to the but may be active in the daytime during Nature Center & Natural Area, adding more early spring. These boas are primarily parking spaces for visitors and hikers. The terrestrial but will also climb low shrubs. new parking also includes two large spaces Once common in the Foothills, the snakes may for school buses. Upgrades on Nature Center still be found in desert habitat, arid flooring, plus new water fountain access and scrub, chaparral, and ravines.