DOCSLIB.ORG

BRRTP ANF Supplemental Water Resources Technical

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

June 2011 BARREN RIDGE RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT Water Resources and Hydrology Supplemental Technical Report PROJECT NUMBER: 122708 PROJECT CONTACT: ALLISON CARVER EMAIL: [email protected] PHONE: 714-507-2700 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. BRRTP – WATER RESOURCES AND HYDROLOGY SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE ANF Water Resources and Hydrology Supplemental Technical Report for the Angeles National Forest PREPARED FOR: LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER 111 NORTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90012 PREPARED BY: POWER ENGINEERS, INC. (714) 507-2700 WWW.POWERENG.COM ALLISON CARVER WATER RESOURCES (714) 507-2705 MICHEL YBARRONDO, P.E. (HYDROLOGY) (208) 288-6131 ANA 119-150 (PER-02) 122708 (JUNE 2011) AC POWER ENGINEERS, INC. BRRTP – WATER RESOURCES AND HYDROLOGY SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE ANF TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Issues ............................................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 3 3.1 General Description ...................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 7 4.1 Water Resource Inventory .......................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Watersheds .................................................................................................................................. 10 4.2.1. Liebre Gulch-Piru Creek Watershed (HUC 180701020509) .............................................. 10 4.2.2. Upper Castaic Creek Watershed (HUC 180701020303) .................................................... 11 4.2.3. Fish Creek-Piru Creek Watershed (HUC 180701020602) .................................................. 11 4.2.4. Lake Piru-Piru Creek Watershed (HUC 180701020603) ................................................... 12 4.2.5. Lower Castaic Creek Watershed (HUC 180701020306) .................................................... 13 4.2.6. San Francisquito Canyon Watershed (HUC 180701020402) ............................................. 13 4.2.7. Lower Bouquet Canyon Watershed (HUC 180701020202) ............................................... 14 4.2.8. Elizabeth Lake Watershed (HUC 180701020301) ............................................................. 15 4.2.9. Elizabeth Lake Canyon Watershed (HUC 180701020304) ................................................ 15 4.2.10. Agua Dulce Canyon Watershed (HUC 180701020104) ..................................................... 16 4.2.11. Mint Canyon Watershed (HUC 180701020106) ................................................................ 17 4.2.12. Upper Bouquet Canyon Watershed (HUC 180701020201) ................................................ 17 5.0 GUIDING LAWS, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND DIRECTION ......................................... 19 6.0 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES (DESIRED CONDITIONS) ..................................................... 21 7.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 22 7.1 Impact Model .............................................................................................................................. 22 7.1.1. RUSLE Analysis ................................................................................................................. 22 7.1.2. Hydrologic Modeling .......................................................................................................... 22 7.2 Resource Sensitivity .................................................................................................................... 23 7.2.1. Sensitivity Values ............................................................................................................... 23 7.2.2. Access Levels and Ground Disturbance ............................................................................. 24 7.3 Impact Levels .............................................................................................................................. 24 7.4 Impact Assessment Methodology by Project Component .......................................................... 25 7.4.1. 230 kV Transmission Line .................................................................................................. 25 7.4.2. New 230 kV Circuit ............................................................................................................ 25 7.4.3. Reconductoring ................................................................................................................... 26 7.4.4. New Haskell Canyon Switching Station ............................................................................. 26 7.4.5. Expansion of Barren Ridge Switching Station .................................................................... 26 7.5 Impacts and Mitigation Planning ................................................................................................ 26 7.5.1. Types of Impacts ................................................................................................................. 37 8.0 IMPACT RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 40 8.1 Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................................ 40 8.2 Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................................ 40 8.3 Alternative 2a .............................................................................................................................. 41 8.4 Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................................ 42 8.5 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................. 42 9.0 CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS ................................................................................... 43 9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 43 ANA 119-150 (PER-02) 122708 (JUNE 2011) AC i POWER ENGINEERS, INC. BRRTP – WATER RESOURCES AND HYDROLOGY SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE ANF 9.2 Impact Area ................................................................................................................................. 43 9.3 Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ............................................................................. 43 9.3.1. Transmission Projects ......................................................................................................... 43 9.3.2. Transportation and Public Facilities.................................................................................... 44 9.3.3. Maintenance and Landscape Management Projects............................................................ 44 9.3.4. Local Projects ...................................................................................................................... 45 9.4 Cumulative Effects Analysis ....................................................................................................... 45 9.4.1. Direct and Indirect Effects Summary .................................................................................. 45 9.4.2. Cumulative Effects Evaluation ........................................................................................... 46 10.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 47 APPENDIX A: RUSLE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX B: STUDIED WATERSHED MAPS .................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX C: ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS ................................................................................... 50 TABLES Table 1. Watersheds in the BRRTP Area. .................................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Condition Categories for Watersheds in the USFS Pacific Southwest Region............................... 8 Table 3. Water Resources Impacts by Access Level Category ................................................................... 24 Table 4. General Practices .......................................................................................................................... 28 Table 5. Specifically Recommended Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 31 ANA 119-150 (PER-02) 122708 (JUNE 2011) AC ii POWER ENGINEERS, INC. BRRTP – WATER RESOURCES AND HYDROLOGY SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE ANF 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Los Angeles Department
Recommended publications
  • Center Comments to the California Department of Fish and Game

    Center Comments to the California Department of Fish and Game

    July 24, 2006 Ryan Broderick, Director California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Improving efficiency of California’s fish hatchery system Dear Director Broderick: On behalf of the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity, we are writing to express our concerns about the state’s fish hatchery and stocking system and to recommend needed changes that will ensure that the system does not negatively impact California’s native biological diversity. This letter is an update to our letter of August 31, 2005. With this letter, we are enclosing many of the scientific studies we relied on in developing this letter. Fish hatcheries and the stocking of fish into lakes and streams cause numerous measurable, significant environmental effects on California ecosystems. Based on these impacts, numerous policy changes are needed to ensure that the Department of Fish and Game’s (“DFG”) operation of the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not adversely affect California’s environment. Further, as currently operated, the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Administrative Procedures Act, California Endangered Species Act, and federal Endangered Species Act. The impacts to California’s environment, and needed policy changes to bring the state’s hatchery and stocking program into compliance with applicable state and federal laws, are described below. I. FISH STOCKING NEGATIVELY IMPACTS CALIFORNIA’S NATIVE SALMONIDS, INCLUDING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Introduced salmonids negatively impact native salmonids in a variety of ways. Moyle, et. al. (1996) notes that “Introduction of non-native fish species has also been the single biggest factor associated with fish declines in the Sierra Nevada.” Moyle also notes that introduced species are contributing to the decline of 18 species of native Sierra Nevada fish species, and are a major factor in the decline of eight of those species.
  • ASSESSMENT of COASTAL WATER RESOURCES and WATERSHED CONDITIONS at CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle

    ASSESSMENT of COASTAL WATER RESOURCES and WATERSHED CONDITIONS at CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/354 Water Resources Division Natural Resource Program Centerent of the Interior ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL WATER RESOURCES AND WATERSHED CONDITIONS AT CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, marine resource management, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top Left: Santa Cruz, Kristen Keteles Top Right: Brown Pelican, NPS photo Bottom Left: Red Abalone, NPS photo Bottom Left: Santa Rosa, Kristen Keteles Bottom Middle: Anacapa, Kristen Keteles Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Channel Islands National Park, California Dr. Diana L.
  • State of California

    State of California

    Upper Piru Creek Wild Trout Management Plan 2012-2017 State of California Department of Fish and Game Heritage and Wild Trout Program South Coast Region Prepared by Roger Bloom, Stephanie Mehalick, and Chris McKibbin 2012 Table of contents Executive summary .................................................................................. 3 Resource status ........................................................................................ 3 Area description ...................................................................................................... 3 Land ownership/administration ............................................................................... 4 Public access .......................................................................................................... 4 Designations ........................................................................................................... 4 Area maps............................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1. Vicinity map of upper Piru Creek watershed ............................................ 5 Figure 2. Map of upper Piru Creek Heritage and Wild Trout-designated reach....... 6 Fishery description.................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3. Photograph of USGS gaging station near confluence of Piru and Buck creeks ..................................................................................................................... 7
  • 2016 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER REPORT Castaic Lake

    2016 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER REPORT Castaic Lake

    2016 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER REPORT June, 2017 Prepared by Castaic Lake Water Agency CLWA Santa Clarita Water Division Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36 Newhall County Water District Valencia Water Company 2016 Santa Clarita Valley Water Report prepared for: Castaic Lake Water Agency CLWA Santa Clarita Water Division Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36 Newhall County Water District Valencia Water Company June 2017 JUNE 2017 2016 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER REPORT Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 2016 Water Requirements and Supplies ............................................................................. ES-1 ES.2 Alluvial Aquifer ................................................................................................................... ES-2 ES.3 Saugus Formation............................................................................................................... ES-4 ES.4 Imported Water ................................................................................................................. ES-5 ES.5 Recycled Water ................................................................................................................... ES-6 ES.6 2017 Water Supply Outlook................................................................................................ ES-6 ES.7 Water Conservation ...........................................................................................................
  • 30-Mile Studio Zone Map N S U G Viejo E

    30-Mile Studio Zone Map N S U G Viejo E

    David Rd Banducci Rd S d Horse Thief o R d 33 r Rd a e Golf & Country Club 58 14 L iv 5 e ak g R e 99 d ld R v d O Mojave l Rid B r 166 Maricopa Maricopa Hwy Airport y d le t 166 i R 166 e Tehachapi Mountains C e e h in a Rd i m W ek Mojave n y SAN LUIS OBISPO e r Cr a ld o l O f i C l a COUNTY C Pine Cyn Rd 58 North Edwards d R yn 58 d C R d t o e o u S nw o sq o da Boron u tt p o L a e C R k T d e d R n 166 14 o y n a Backus Rd d I C r y R d w d o v d s l R in is d l g Hw R B R A F s R n i r n o a o n r t r h i California o e d il KERN r t l k p R an c r i d e s Aliso Park S i e d Aqueduct m p Cerr a S P R o c w l r en Rd l o Edwards n h T o l 58 e Noro a - c l COUNTY i Hi B L e s r e AFB v i st W e nk i a Foothill Rd K Rd j p l o ey a M h 5 c Rd a h e T Rosamond C erro N Willow Springs Airport oroest e Rd Raceway Barstow Fort Tejon Rosamond Blvd t d S n R i State Historic Park Mil P otrero Hw Rosamond Blvd n Ma Lenwood y Rosamond a S m d i er Frazier e 395 r C R ud a H Fo dy xen Va Park lle w C y F a R razier Mountain P y ny d ark Rd on R 33 d r ve B e Ri a av rs Moj LOS PADRES t ow y NATIONAL FOREST G w R o d d rm s H an R il P a o Lanc E r aster e s Quail Rd T l d t R t al d a S n R n Lake y o yo Avenue D d ti n Avenue D h w n a t C r Na e 0 s 138 l o 138 F s 2 Ali 138 e y Sisquoc 1 H Hungry Valley e 1 l Figueroa Mounta River l in Rd 0 a t State Vehicular General V h 15 d e S William J Fox p 247 VENTURA Recreation Area t y R W e W o l Cuyama t W Airfield all e N2 S V t d Sierra Madre t River n R E h S F t t Mountains ood A Avenue
  • 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.
  • Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State

    Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State

    Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Alabama Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama WILD William B. Bankhead National Forest 6,134 110 6,244 SCENIC William B. Bankhead National Forest 3,550 505 4,055 Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Arizona Fossil Creek, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 1,720 0 1,720 Tonto National Forest 1,085 0 1,085 RECREATIONAL Coconino National Forest 1,137 4 1,141 Tonto National Forest 1,136 0 1,136 Fossil Creek, Arizona Totals 5,078 4 5,082 Verde, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 525 0 525 Tonto National Forest 6,234 0 6,234 SCENIC Coconino National Forest 2,862 0 2,862 Prescott National Forest 2,148 25 2,173 Tonto National Forest 649 0 649 Verde, Arizona Totals 12,418 25 12,443 Arizona Totals 17,496 29 17,525 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Arkansas Big Piney Creek, Arkansas SCENIC Ozark National Forest 6,448 781 7,229 Big Piney Creek, Arkansas Totals 6,448 781 7,229 Buffalo, Arkansas WILD Ozark National Forest 2,871 0 2,871 SCENIC Ozark National Forest 1,915 0 1,915 Buffalo, Arkansas Totals 4,785 0 4,786
  • To Oral History

    To Oral History

    100 E. Main St. [email protected] Ventura, CA 93001 (805) 653-0323 x 320 QUARTERLY JOURNAL SUBJECT INDEX About the Index The index to Quarterly subjects represents journals published from 1955 to 2000. Fully capitalized access terms are from Library of Congress Subject Headings. For further information, contact the Librarian. Subject to availability, some back issues of the Quarterly may be ordered by contacting the Museum Store: 805-653-0323 x 316. A AB 218 (Assembly Bill 218), 17/3:1-29, 21 ill.; 30/4:8 AB 442 (Assembly Bill 442), 17/1:2-15 Abadie, (Señor) Domingo, 1/4:3, 8n3; 17/2:ABA Abadie, William, 17/2:ABA Abbott, Perry, 8/2:23 Abella, (Fray) Ramon, 22/2:7 Ablett, Charles E., 10/3:4; 25/1:5 Absco see RAILROADS, Stations Abplanalp, Edward "Ed," 4/2:17; 23/4:49 ill. Abraham, J., 23/4:13 Abu, 10/1:21-23, 24; 26/2:21 Adams, (rented from Juan Camarillo, 1911), 14/1:48 Adams, (Dr.), 4/3:17, 19 Adams, Alpha, 4/1:12, 13 ph. Adams, Asa, 21/3:49; 21/4:2 map Adams, (Mrs.) Asa (Siren), 21/3:49 Adams Canyon, 1/3:16, 5/3:11, 18-20; 17/2:ADA Adams, Eber, 21/3:49 Adams, (Mrs.) Eber (Freelove), 21/3:49 Adams, George F., 9/4:13, 14 Adams, J. H., 4/3:9, 11 Adams, Joachim, 26/1:13 Adams, (Mrs.) Mable Langevin, 14/1:1, 4 ph., 5 Adams, Olen, 29/3:25 Adams, W. G., 22/3:24 Adams, (Mrs.) W.
  • 3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality

    3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality

    3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section describes the drainage features, stormwater quality, flooding hazards, and flood-protection improvements within the City’s Planning Area. Regulatory agencies governing stormwater quality and flooding hazards are also discussed. The City’s Planning Area is comprised of the City’s boundaries and adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI). The County’s Planning Area consists of unincorporated land within the One Valley One Vision (OVOV) Planning Area boundaries that is outside the City’s boundaries and adopted SOI. Together the City and County Planning Areas comprise the OVOV Planning Area. With implementation of the proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies potential impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. EXISTING CONDITIONS Surface Water Drainage Patterns within City’s Planning Area Surface water drainage patterns are dependent on topography, the amount and location of impervious surfaces, and the type of flood control that is located in an area. The size, or magnitude, of a flood is described by a term called a “recurrence interval.” By studying a long period of flow record for a stream, hydrologists estimate the size of a flood that would have a likelihood of occurring during various intervals. For example, a five-year flood event would occur, on the average, once every five years (and would have a 20 percent chance of occurring in any one year). Although a 100-year flood event is expected to happen only once in a century, there is a 1 percent chance that a flood of that size could happen during any year.
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 10/01/2009 to 12/31/2009 Angeles National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication

    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 10/01/2009 to 12/31/2009 Angeles National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication

    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 10/01/2009 to 12/31/2009 Angeles National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) Geothermal Leasing - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:02/2010 03/2010 Tracy Parker Programmatic Environmental Orders FEIS NOA in Federal Register 505-758-6310 Impact Statement 10/24/2008 [email protected] EIS Description: The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service are preparing a joint Programmatic Environmental Impac Statement to analyze the leasing of BLM and USFS administered lands with moderate to high potential for geothermal resources in 11 western states. Web Link: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwide.html Location: UNIT - Coronado National Forest All Units, Gila National Forest All Units, Lincoln National Forest All Units, Boise National Forest All Units, Bridger-Teton National Forest All Units, Clearwater National Forest All Units, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest All Units, Bitterroot National Forest All Units, Lewis And Clark National Forest All Units, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest All Units, San Juan National Forest All Units, White River National Forest All Units, Carson National Forest All Units, Cibola National Forest All Units, Cleveland National Forest All Units, Eldorado National Forest
  • California Assembly District 53 FOUNDATION State Parks Within 60 Minutes Driving Distance from District Office

    California Assembly District 53 FOUNDATION State Parks Within 60 Minutes Driving Distance from District Office

    CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS California Assembly District 53 FOUNDATION State Parks within 60 minutes driving distance from District Office Ä District Office: 320 West 4th Street, Room 1050, Los Angeles, CA 90013 )" Bolsa Chica SB )" California Citrus SHP )" Castaic Lake SRA )" Chino Hills SP Driving Distance: 33.0 miles Driving Distance: 56.5 miles Driving Distance: 43.1 miles Driving Distance: 37.5 miles Driving Time: 37 minutes Driving Time: 53 minutes Driving Time: 41 minutes Driving Time: 36 minutes Transit Time: 3 hours, 23 minutes Transit Time: 3 hours, 10 minutes Transit Time: not available Transit Time: 2 hours, 58 minutes )" Corona del Mar SB )" Crystal Cove SP )" Dockweiler SB )" Huntington SB Driving Distance: 46.1 miles Driving Distance: 48.9 miles Driving Distance: 18.9 miles Driving Distance: 38.9 miles Driving Time: 47 minutes Driving Time: 49 minutes Driving Time: 20 minutes Driving Time: 42 minutes Transit Time: 1 hour, 58 minutes Transit Time: 2 hours, 1 minutes Transit Time: 2 hours, 46 minutes Transit Time: 1 hour, 40 minutes )" Kenneth Hahn SRA )" Leo Carrillo SP )" Los Angeles SHP )" Los Encinos SHP Driving Distance: 9.5 miles Driving Distance: 42.5 miles Driving Distance: 2.0 miles Driving Distance: 19.2 miles Driving Time: 15 minutes Driving Time: 50 minutes Driving Time: 5 minutes Driving Time: 21 minutes Transit Time: 1 hour, 1 minutes Transit Time: 2 Hours, 27 minutes Transit Time: 20 minutes Transit Time: 1 hour, 25 minutes )" Malibu Creek SP )" Placerita Canyon SP )" Point Dume SB )" Pío Pico SHP Driving Distance: 34.5 miles Driving Distance: 31.6 miles Driving Distance: 35.4 miles Driving Distance: 18.5 miles Driving Time: 34 minutes Driving Time: 31 minutes Driving Time: 45 minutes Driving Time: 19 minutes Transit Time: 2 hour, 18 minutes Transit Time: 1 hour, 34 minutes Transit Time: 2 hours, 39 minutes Transit Time: 1 hour, 51 minutes )" Rio de Los Angeles State Park SRA )" Robert H.
  • Ensuring Nature's Benefits Now, and Into the Future, Following The

    Ensuring Nature's Benefits Now, and Into the Future, Following The

    Ensuring Nature’s Benefits Now, and into the Future, following the Copper, Ranch, and Sayre Fires on the Angeles National Forest Water as Nature’s Benefit: The watersheds of the Angeles National Forest are the source of nearly one- third of the Los Angeles population’s drinking water, in addition to providing for all of the plant and animal life that live within the boundaries of the Forest. The Forest’s eighteen dams and debris basins support a massive flood control system to protect and provide for the millions of people that live downstream. And these are only a few of Nature’s Benefits the Forest provides. The Angeles National Forest serves as: • The natural picturesque backdrop for one of the country’s largest and most diverse urban centers, providing access to approximately 700,000 acres of open space in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area for outdoor recreation that includes, hiking ,walking, nature viewing, camping, swimming and more. • The Forest host for between 3 and 4 million annual visitors, giving them the opportunity to explore a variety of landscapes including chaparral, oak thickets, high desert, pine woods, steep and rugged mountains, and numerous lakes, streams, and rivers. • One of the world’s vital biodiversity hot spots. The Forest contains many natural and cultural resources unique to Southern California as well as a variety of wildlife, including the California condor, spotted owl, bighorn sheep, and numerous other threatened and endangered species. • A green space neighbor to multiple communities, to include the 4th largest city in Los Angeles, Santa Clarita. Wildfire: In California, more than half of the state’s largest 20 wildfires have occurred within the last 10 years.