DOCSLIB.ORG

Fremont Basin IRWM Plan Financing Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fremont Basin IRWM Plan Financing Plan FREMONT BASIN INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FEBRUARY 2019 Prepared by the Regional Water Management Group of the Fremont Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Region Fremont Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan February 2019 Prepared by the Regional Water Management Group of the Fremont Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Region With assistance from Woodard & Curran Acknowledgements The Regional Water Management Group acknowledges the many working group members, representatives of agencies, non-governmental organizations, community members, and dedicated stakeholders for their participation in the development of this Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. In addition, we specifically acknowledge the California Department of Water Resources for their guidance and financial assistance in preparing this Plan. Fremont Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................iii List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................... ix List of Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................................. xi 1 Governance and Planning ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Integrated Regional Water Management Overview ................................................................ 1-1 1.1.2 Fremont Basin IRWM Region ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2 Governance ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.2.1 Regional Water Management Group .............................................................................................. 1-4 1.2.2 Governance Structure and Decision-Making .............................................................................. 1-5 1.3 Stakeholder Involvement ........................................................................................................................... 1-7 1.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement and Public Outreach ......................................................................... 1-7 1.3.2 Disadvantaged Community Outreach ..........................................................................................1-10 1.3.3 Native American Tribal Outreach .................................................................................................1-11 1.4 Regional Coordination ...............................................................................................................................1-12 1.4.1 Coordination with Neighboring IRWM Regions ......................................................................1-12 1.4.2 Coordination with State, Federal, and Local Agencies .........................................................1-14 1.5 IRWM 2018 Plan Development ..............................................................................................................1-15 1.5.1 Public Notices ........................................................................................................................................1-15 1.5.2 Stakeholder Meetings .........................................................................................................................1-15 1.5.3 DAC Outreach for Plan Development ..........................................................................................1-17 1.5.4 Media .........................................................................................................................................................1-17 1.5.5 Plan Adoption ........................................................................................................................................1-18 1.6 Technical Analysis .......................................................................................................................................1-18 1.7 Relation to Local Water and Land Use Planning .............................................................................1-19 1.7.1 Groundwater Management Plan ....................................................................................................1-20 1.7.2 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan ............................................................................................1-20 1.7.3 Urban Water Management Plans ...................................................................................................1-21 1.7.4 City and County General Plans .......................................................................................................1-21 iii Fremont Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 1.7.5 Regional Conservation Plans ...........................................................................................................1-21 1.7.6 Stormwater Resource Plans ............................................................................................................1-22 1.8 Plan Update Process ...................................................................................................................................1-22 2 Region Description ................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Regional Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Fremont Basin IRWM Regional Boundary ................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Neighboring IRWM Regions .............................................................................................................. 2-3 2.2 Physical Setting ............................................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.1 Climate ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.2.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................... 2-8 2.2.3 Watersheds and Surface Water Features ...................................................................................2-10 2.2.4 Internal Boundaries ............................................................................................................................2-14 2.3 Sources of Supply and Infrastructure ..................................................................................................2-20 2.3.1 Water Agencies .....................................................................................................................................2-20 2.3.2 Imported Water Supplies .................................................................................................................2-22 2.3.3 Groundwater ..........................................................................................................................................2-23 2.3.4 Surface Water ........................................................................................................................................2-32 2.3.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water ..................................................................................................2-32 2.4 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................2-34 2.4.1 Beneficial Uses ......................................................................................................................................2-34 2.4.2 Groundwater Quality ..........................................................................................................................2-37 2.4.3 Surface Water Quality ........................................................................................................................2-42 2.4.4 Imported Water Quality ....................................................................................................................2-42 2.4.5 Recycled Water Quality .....................................................................................................................2-43 2.5 Flood Control .................................................................................................................................................2-43 2.6 Environmental Resources ........................................................................................................................2-46 2.6.1 Critical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kern County, California
    2503 Eastbluff Dr., Suite 206 Newport Beach, California 92660 Fax: (949) 717-0069 Matt Hagemann · Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: [email protected] August 22, 2012 Gideon Kracov Attorney at Law 801 S. Grand Ave, llu' Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Subject: Comments on the Beacon Photovoltaic Project Dear Mr. Kracov: We have reviewed the July 2012 Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR"i for the Beacon Photovoltaic Project ("Project"). The Project proposes to build a 250-megawatt solar generation facility on approximately 3.6 square miles of land four miles north of California City in Kern County, California. Project components include: • A photovoltaic (PV) solar power generation facllity containing approximately 972,000 panels; • 230 ki lovolt overhead transmission line; • Operations and maintenance building, parking lot, office, and sewer system; and • Access roads (DEIR, p. 3-9). We have reviewed the DEIR for issues associated with air quality, hydrology and water quality, and ha za rds and hazardous materials. The DEIR fails to adequately disclose potentially significa nt impacts from Project constru.ction on workers and offsite r eceptors. A revised DEIR needs to be prepared to adequately disclose and analyze these impacts and provide mitigation, if necessary.· Air Quality The Project is located in t he Eastern Kern Air Pollution Cont rol District ("EKAPCD") and the M ojave Desert Air Basin ("MOAB"). Both the EKAPCD and t he M DAB are designated non-attainment for PMlO (DEIR, pp. 4.2-3, 22). Significant emlssion.s of P:MlO and its contributing sources, such as NOx, will lead 1 to a worsening of regional air quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Storage Development Plan
    Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Energy Storage Development Plan Grid Planning and Development System Studies and Research Group September 2, 2014 This space is intentionally left blank Table of Contents: Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 A. Background ............................................................................................................. 1 B. Scope and Objectives .............................................................................................. 1 C. Energy Storage Targets ........................................................................................... 1 1. Overview and Policy ....................................................................................................... 3 A. Purpose .................................................................................................................... 3 B. Background ............................................................................................................. 3 C. ES Regulation, Policy, and Legislative Impacts ..................................................... 5 2. Scope & Objectives ......................................................................................................... 5 A. Energy Storage System Development Strategy ...................................................... 6 B. Energy Storage System Target Development Schedule ......................................... 6 3. Description of Existing
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the El Paso Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Kern County, California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP MF-1S27 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE EL PASO MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Brett F. Cox and Michael F. Diggles STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS age assignment is confirmed by four potassium-argon ages ranging from 15.1±0.5 m.y. to 17.9±1.6 m.y. The Black Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas Mountain Basalt is chemically distinctive, consisting of potassium-poor high-alumina basalt that is transitional The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public between tholeiitic basalt and alkali-olivine basalt. The basalt Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S. Geological was erupted mostly from east-west fissures, reflecting north- Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines to conduct mineral south extension between the Mojave Desert block and south­ surveys on certain areas to determine the mineral values, if western Basin and Range during early and middle Miocene any, that may be present. Results must be made available to time. the public and be submitted to the President and the The middle part of the Ricardo Formation was Congress. This report presents the results of a geologic deposited disconf ormably upon the Black Mountain Basalt and survey of the El Paso Mountains Wilderness Study Area the lower part of the Ricardo Formation during middle and (CDCA-164), California Desert Conservation Area, Kern late Miocene time. The deposits are composed of granitic County, California. and volcaniclastic detritus derived from the Mojave Desert block. Lacustrine mudstone is predominant within the area of the map but gives way to alluvial-fan sandstone and conglom­ ABSTRACT erate southwest of the map area.
    [Show full text]
  • Dry Lake Valley North SEZ Analysis
    1 11.4 DRY LAKE VALLEY NORTH 2 3 4 11.4.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 5 6 7 11.4.1.1 General Information 8 9 The proposed Dry Lake Valley North SEZ is located in Lincoln County in southeastern 10 Nevada (Figure 11.4.1.1-1). The SEZ has a total area of 76,874 acres (311 km2). In 2008, the 11 county population was 4,643, while adjacent Clark County to the south had a population 12 of 1,879,093. The closest population centers to the SEZ are Pioche, located about 15 mi (24 km) 13 to the east, and Caliente, located about 15 mi (24 km) to the southeast; both communities have 14 populations of about 1,000. The smaller communities of Caselton and Prince are located about 15 13 mi (21 km) to the east of the SEZ. Las Vegas is located about 110 mi (180 km) to the south. 16 17 The nearest major road to the Dry Lake Valley North SEZ is State Route 318, which is 18 about 7 mi (11 km) to the west of the SEZ, while U.S. 93 is about 8 mi (13 km) to the south. 19 Access to the interior of the SEZ is by dirt roads. The nearest railroad access is approximately 20 25 mi (40 km) away, while nearby airports include Lincoln County Airport in Panaca and Alamo 21 Landing Field in Alamo, which are located about 13 mi (21 km) south–southeast of and 35 mi 22 (56 km) southwest of the SEZ, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Ridgecrest BUREAU of LAND MANAGEMENT
    BLM SPECIAL EDITION 1998 EXAMPLES OF AGENCY SIGNS SURFACE MANAGEMENT STATUS DESERT ACCESS GUIDE Ridgecrest BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT USDA FOREST SERVICE l:100,0()0-Scale topographic map showing: Highways, roads and other manmade structures Water features • Contours and elevations in meters Recreation sites • Coverage of former desert access guide #4 Ridgecrest NATIONAL PARK SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS Edited and published by the Bureau of Land Management National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management California State Office. Planimetry partially revised by BLM from various source material. Revised information not field . he. i-rd Base map prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey. Compiled from USGS 1:24,000 and l:62,5O0-scale topographic maps dated 1949-1973, and from advance materials. Partially revised from aerial photographs taken 1973-1989 and other source data. Revised information not CALIFORNIA STATE field checked. Map edited 1993. VEHICULAR RECREATION AREA Help protect your public lands by observing posted Projection and 10,000-meter grid, zone 11: Universal OHV designations. Watch for OHV signs and read hari'.verse Mercator. 25,000-foot grid licks based on them carefully. California coordinate system, zone 4 and 5. 1927 North American Datum. For more information contact the HIM, USDA Forest Service, National Park Service, California State Park, or California State Motorized Vechicle Recreation Area Land lines are omitted in areas of extensive tract surveys. Office (see back panel for address and phone There may be private inholdings within the boundaries of numbers).
    [Show full text]
  • Red Rock Canyon State Park
    GEOLOGICAL GEMS OF CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS | GEOGEM NOTE 38 Red Rock Canyon State Park Photo: Will Harris Geomorphic Provinces and Boundaries Red Rock Canyon lies in the Basin and Range geomorphic province which features large north-south Process/Feature: trending mountains and valleys. This park is just east Basin sedimentology along province of the southern Sierra Nevada and north of the Mojave boundaries, Paleocene and Miocene Desert geomorphic province. Features and rocks fossils, and scenic cliffs from the neighboring geomorphic provinces can be found around the park. The east–west trending Garlock Fault, just south of the park, separates the Mojave Desert from the Basin and Range. The El Paso Fault, a branch of the Garlock Fault, traces northeast through the park, near the crest of the El Paso Mountains. During two periods (55 to 65 and 5 to 20 million years ago) this area subsided and over 5,000 feet of sediments and volcanic materials accumulated. Later movement along the El Paso Fault uplifted the sediments, exposing them to erosion that formed the badland topography. Faults The Garlock Fault is an active left-lateral fault (one side of the fault moves to the left relative to the other side). The Garlock Fault runs northeasterly from its intersection with the San Andreas Fault in the Tehachapi Mountains to the Avawatz Mountains south of Death Valley. The amount of displacement on the Garlock Fault is estimated at 40 miles. Red Rock Canyon State Park GeoGem Note 38 Why it’s important: Red Rock Canyon’s rugged beauty has been the scene in western and science fiction films such as Stagecoach with John Wayne (1939), The Mummy with Boris Karloff (1933), 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954), and Jurassic Park (1993).
    [Show full text]
  • De Tilla Gulch SEZ Analysis
    1 10.2 DE TILLA GULCH 2 3 4 10.2.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 5 6 7 10.2.1.1 General Information 8 9 The proposed De Tilla Gulch SEZ has a total area of 1,522 acres (6.2 km2) and is 10 located in Saguache County in south-central Colorado (Figure 10.2.1.1-1). In 2008, the county 11 population was 6,903, while the four-county region surrounding the SEZ—Alamosa, Chafee, 12 Saguache, and Rio Grande Counties—had a total population of 51,974. The largest nearby town, 13 which is located about 50 mi (80 km) to the south, is Alamosa with a 2008 population of 8,745. 14 The village of Saguache is located about 8 mi (12 km) west of the SEZ on U.S. 285, which runs 15 along the northwest side of the SEZ. The SLRG Railroad serves the area. The nearest public 16 airport is the Saguache Municipal Airport near the town of Saguache. Santa Fe, New Mexico, 17 lies about 160 mi (257 km) to the south, and Denver, Colorado, is located about 130 mi (209 km) 18 to the northeast. 19 20 An existing 115-kV transmission line is accessible to the SEZ. It is assumed that an 21 existing transmission line could potentially provide access from the SEZ to the transmission grid 22 (see Section 10.2.1.2). There were no pending solar project applications within the SEZ as of 23 February 2010. 24 25 The proposed De Tilla Gulch SEZ lies in the northwestern portion of the San Luis Valley, 26 part of the San Luis Basin, a large, high-elevation, basin within the Rocky Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal Support
    U.S. Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal Support Michaela D. Platzer Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business January 27, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42509 U.S. Solar PV Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal Support Summary Every President since Richard Nixon has sought to increase U.S. energy supply diversity. Job creation and the development of a domestic renewable energy manufacturing base have joined national security and environmental concerns as reasons for promoting the manufacturing of solar power equipment in the United States. The federal government maintains a variety of tax credits and targeted research and development programs to encourage the solar manufacturing sector, and state-level mandates that utilities obtain specified percentages of their electricity from renewable sources have bolstered demand for large solar projects. The most widely used solar technology involves photovoltaic (PV) solar modules, which draw on semiconducting materials to convert sunlight into electricity. By year-end 2013, the total number of grid-connected PV systems nationwide reached more than 445,000. Domestic demand is met both by imports and by about 75 U.S. manufacturing facilities employing upwards of 30,000 U.S. workers in 2014. Production is clustered in a few states including California, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Domestic PV manufacturers operate in a dynamic, volatile, and highly competitive global market now dominated by Chinese and Taiwanese companies. China alone accounted for nearly 70% of total solar module production in 2013. Some PV manufacturers have expanded their operations beyond China to places like Malaysia, the Philippines, and Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Goals and Objectives
    Appendix C Biological Goals and Objectives Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX C. BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES C BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES C.1 Process for Developing the Biological Goals and Objectives This section outlines the process for drafting the Biological Goals and Objectives (BGOs) and describes how they inform the conservation strategy for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP or Plan). The conceptual model shown in Exhibit C-1 illustrates the structure of the BGOs used during the planning process. This conceptual model articulates how Plan-wide BGOs and other information (e.g., stressors) contribute to the development of Conservation and Management Actions (CMAs) associated with Covered Activities, which are monitored for effectiveness and adapted as necessary to meet the DRECP Step-Down Biological Objectives. Terms used in Exhibit C-1 are defined in Section C.1.1. Exhibit C-1 Conceptual Model for BGOs Development Appendix C C-1 August 2014 Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX C. BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The BGOs follow the three-tiered approach based on the concepts of scale: landscape, natural community, and species. The following broad biological goals established in the DRECP Planning Agreement guided the development of the BGOs: Provide for the long-term conservation and management of Covered Species within the Plan Area. Preserve, restore, and enhance natural communities and ecosystems that support Covered Species within the Plan Area. The following provides the approach to developing the BGOs. Section C.2 provides the landscape, natural community, and Covered Species BGOs. Specific mapping information used to develop the BGOs is provided in Section C.3.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Briefing Book
    2016 Briefing Book Putting Customers First 1 Introduction 2 LADWP Leadership 3 Power System Power Facts and Figures ........4 Power Supply Transformation 5 Coal Transition ................................. 6 Road to Renewables .....................7-8 Local Solar Programs ................9-10 Rebuilding Power Plants.......... 11-12 Investing in Energy Efficiency....... 13 Greenhouse Gas Reductions ...13-14 Power Reliability ...................14 Electric Transportation......... 15 Advanced Metering ............... 15 Introduction Pre-craft Trainees ................ 16 he Los Angeles Department of leaders and other stakeholders in a Electric Rates and Finance ... 16 Water and Power (LADWP) is the widespread education and outreach nation’s largest municipal utility, effort that encompassed more 17 Water System T having provided water and power than 80 presentations and briefings Water Facts and Figures ...... 18 service to Los Angeles residents and throughout the city. The new rates, Sustainability ....................... 19 businesses for over 100 years. More which were approved by the City Urban Water Management Plan ..19 than 9,400 employees serve the City of Council in March 2016, went into Water Conservation ....................... 20 Los Angeles with water and power in effect April 15, 2016. Recycled Water .............................. 21 a cost-effective and environmentally Stormwater Capture...................... 21 Groundwater Cleanup ................... 22 responsible manner. LADWP is guided Key priorities for the rates request
    [Show full text]
  • Publications in Cultural Heritage 27
    California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeology, History and Museums Division NUMBER 27 27 PUBLICATIONS IN CULTURAL HERITAGE THE HUMAN HISTORY OF RED ROCK CANYON STATE PARK OF RED ROCK CANYON STATE THE HUMAN HISTORY AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE HUMAN HISTORY OF RED ROCK CANYON STATE PARK Cultural Heritage Publications in AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE HUMAN HISTORY OF RED ROCK CANYON STATE PARK THE RESULTS OF SITE SURVEY WORK 1986-2006 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE HUMAN HISTORY OF RED ROCK CANYON STATE PARK THE RESULTS OF SITE SURVEY WORK 1986-2006 Michael P. Sampson California Department of Parks and Recreation, San Diego PUBLICATIONS IN CULTURAL HERITAGE NUMBER 27, 2010 Series Editor Christopher Corey Editorial Advisor Richard T. Fitzgerald Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeology, History and Museums Division © 2010 by California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeology, History and Museums Division Publications in Cultural Heritage, Number 27 An Archaeological Perspective on the Human History of Red Rock Canyon State Park: The Results of Site Survey Work 1986-2006 By Michael P. Sampson Editor, Richard Fitzgerald; Series Editor, Christopher Corey All rights reserved. No portion of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Orders, inquiries, and correspondence should be addressed to: Department of Parks and Recreation PO Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296 800-777-0369, TTY relay service, 711 [email protected] Cover Images: Top left: Two Kawaiisu Men Standing in Front of Hillside in Red Rock Canyon State Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Bakersfield Cactus (Opuntia Basilaris Var. Treleasei)
    DRAFT March 2012 PLANTS Bakersfield Cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei) Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei) Legal Status State: Endangered, S2.11 California Rare Plant Rank: 1B.12 Federal: Endangered, U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Critical Habitat: N/A Photo courtesy of Neal Kramer. Recovery Planning: Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (USFWS 1998) Taxonomy Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei) is a perennial stem succulent in the cactus family (Cactaceae) (Jepson Flora Project 2011; CNPS 2011). Bakersfield cactus was originally published as Opuntia treleasei by J.M. Coulter in 1896 (IPNI 2011). Bakersfield cactus was listed as Opuntia treleasei in the Federal Register notice announcing the endangered status of the species (55 FR 29361–29370). Although some experts still consider Bakersfield cactus to be a full species, more recently, Bakersfield cactus is treated as Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei (Jepson Flora Project 2011), and the USFWS Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California also treats Bakersfield cactus as O. basilaris var. treleasei (USFWS 1998). Therefore, consideration by some experts of Bakersfield cactus as a full species is unlikely to influence its legal or conservation status. Bakersfield cactus is low growing with stem segments approximately 9 to 20 centimeters (3.5 to 7.9 inches) long (USFWS 2011; Jepson Flora Project 2011). A full physical description of the species can be found in the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2011). 1 S2: Imperiled; X.1: Very threatened. 2 1B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; X.1: Seriously threatened in California.
    [Show full text]