DOCSLIB.ORG

LA Sustainable Water Project: Los Angeles River Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LA Sustainable Water Project: Los Angeles River Watershed LA SUSTAINABLE WATER PROJECT: LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERSHED This report is a product of the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, UCLA Sus- tainable LA Grand Challenge, and Colorado School of Mines. AUTHORS Katie Mika, Elizabeth Gallo, Laura Read, Ryan September 2017 Edgley, Kim Truong, Terri Hogue, Stephanie Pincetl, Mark Gold ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS UCLA Grand Challenges, Sustainable LA This research was supported by the City of Los 2248 Murphy Hall Angeles Bureau of Sanitation (LASAN). Many Los Angeles, CA 90005-1405 thanks to LASAN for providing ideas and direc- tion, facilitating meetings and data requests, as well as sharing the many previous and current re- UCLA Institute of the Environment and search efforts that provided us with invaluable in- Sustainability formation on which to build. Further, LASAN La Kretz Hall, Suite 300 and LADWP provided data and edits that helped Box 951496 to deepen and improve this report. Any findings, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1496 opinions, or conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of LASAN. Colorado School of Mines 1500 Illinois Street Golden, CO 80401 We would like to acknowledge the many organiza- tions which facilitated this research through providing data, conversations, reviews, and in- sights into the integrated water management world in the Los Angeles region: LADWP, LAC- DPW, LARWQCB, LACFCD, WRD, WBMWD, MWD, SCCWRP, the Mayor’s Office of Sustaina- bility, and many others. 1 | LA Sustainable Water Project: Los Angeles River Watershed Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 5 Background ............................................................................................................................. 11 I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 12 A. Los Angeles River Watershed Study Area ................................................................. 12 B. Hydrology of the Los Angeles River Watershed ........................................................ 13 C. Donald C. Tillman, LA Glendale, & Burbank Water Reclamation Plants ................. 13 D. Upper LAR Area groundwater basins ........................................................................ 15 II. Stormwater Quality Modeling ........................................................................................ 17 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 17 B. Policy Background ..................................................................................................... 17 a. Upper LAR MS4 Programs .................................................................................... 17 b. Total Maximum Daily Loads .................................................................................. 19 C. Stormwater Modeling for Metal TMDLs ................................................................... 21 a. Metals TMDL Background ..................................................................................... 21 b. Site-Specific Objectives for Copper and Lead ........................................................ 21 c. Modeling Selection and Comparison ...................................................................... 24 d. SUSTAIN Model Setup, Calibration, Validation ................................................... 24 e. BMP Technologies in SUSTAIN ............................................................................ 32 f. Cost Background ..................................................................................................... 34 g. BMP Optimization .................................................................................................. 35 h. Modeling Results .................................................................................................... 36 D. Policy Analysis ........................................................................................................... 42 a. Dry Weather Load-Based TMDL ........................................................................... 42 b. Nutrient TMDL ....................................................................................................... 48 c. LID Redevelopment Rate Impacts .......................................................................... 50 d. Stream Buffer Ordinances ....................................................................................... 53 e. Discussion ............................................................................................................... 56 III. Historical Flow Analysis in Mainstem and Selected Tributaries ............................... 59 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 59 B. Flows in LAR and selected tributaries ....................................................................... 61 a. Runoff Ratio............................................................................................................ 61 2 | UCLA IoES, UCLA GC, CSM September 2017 b. Historic Flow Percentiles ........................................................................................ 63 c. Historic Seasonal Flows .......................................................................................... 64 d. Low Flow 7Q Analysis ........................................................................................... 66 e. Impacts of BMPs on Streamflow ............................................................................ 69 f. Impacts of WRPs on Streamflow ............................................................................ 74 g. Historical Flow Discussion ..................................................................................... 76 C. Establishing minimum flows to protect and enhance beneficial uses on the LAR .... 78 a. LAR Background .................................................................................................... 78 b. Recent Work ........................................................................................................... 81 c. Complexities around Removing River Flows ......................................................... 84 d. Assessing Minimum Flows ..................................................................................... 85 IV. Groundwater ............................................................................................................... 88 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 88 B. Upper LAR Area Groundwater Basins ....................................................................... 91 a. San Fernando Groundwater Basin .......................................................................... 91 b. Sylmar Groundwater Basin ..................................................................................... 95 c. Verdugo Groundwater Basin .................................................................................. 96 d. Eagle Rock Groundwater Basin .............................................................................. 97 e. Groundwater Storage .............................................................................................. 97 f. Salt and Nutrient Management Plan ....................................................................... 99 C. Remediation Efforts .................................................................................................. 100 a. Current Projects, Plans, and Partnerships ............................................................. 100 b. Future Remediation Efforts................................................................................... 106 D. Increasing Stormwater Recharge .............................................................................. 108 a. Current and Planned Projects ................................................................................ 108 b. Increasing Stormwater Capture ............................................................................. 112 E. On Groundwater Recharge and Extraction ............................................................... 117 a. Remediation .......................................................................................................... 117 b. Recharge ............................................................................................................... 118 c. Explore Additional ULARA Opportunities .......................................................... 119 V. Wastewater and Recycled Water .................................................................................. 122 A. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 122 B. Water Reclamation Plants Background .................................................................... 122 C. Groundwater Recharge ............................................................................................. 125 3 | LA Sustainable Water Project: Los Angeles River Watershed a. Recycled Water Production .................................................................................. 125 b. Recycled Water Recharge (Spreading Grounds) .................................................. 128 D. NPR and Other Uses ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Glendale Narrows
    Vegetation Activity Wildlife Viewing Wildlife Native Equestrian Signage Greenway Access Greenway Management Management and insects. and Interpretive Interpretive River LA Stormwater Stormwater birds, mammals, mammals, birds, Elysian Valley path. Los Angeles River Map and Guide attract plants native storage; activities, and a bike bike a and activities, water underground natural the vegetation, equestrian equestrian vegetation, Metro Stop River & Kayaking Exit adventures: River replenishes and stormwater signage, natural natural signage, Public Art Bicycle Access your for points starting few a are Marsh St. A 3.9-acre park filters filters park 3.9-acre A St. Marsh features interpretive interpretive features Here Here fish. jumping even and birdlife, Recreation Zone Class I, II/III Bike Path 2960 and Bikeway River Davis Picnic Area, Area, Picnic Davis * abundant vegetation, of plenty see North L.A. from accessed also park, next to the Bette Bette the to next park, r to stretch this throughout location e h is Park St. Gleneden c 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 mi linear This Glendale Visit any any Visit t 2 River. natural-bottom le S F This map is intended for recreational use only. Information displayed is 2944 and St. Rosanna 1300 Garden Street in in Street Garden 1300 a derived from sources deemed reliable; however, accuracy is not guarenteed. scenic, a is result The harden. to n Published in July 2014. 2999 at entrances lot F the concrete along the riverbed riverbed the along concrete the e walk: river r n Parking Marsh Park: Marsh stretch making it impossible for for impossible it making stretch a narrows Glendale n d The Mountains Recreation and o Conservation Authority (MRCA), seven-mile this throughout up Marsh Park bubble springs Freshwater drain.
    [Show full text]
  • Los Angeles River Jurisdictional Determination Special Case Cover
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 JUL 6 2010 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR Colonel Mark Toy District Engineer, Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 532711 Los Ange les, California 90053-2325 Dear Colonel Toy: This letter transmits the Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdictional determination for the Los Angeles River. On August 17, 2008, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water designated the Los Angeles River as a "Special Case" as defined by the EPA-Corps 1989 Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA) regarding coordination on matters ofgeographic jurisdiction. Pursuant to the MOA, designation ofthe "Special Case" made EPA responsib le for determining the extent to which the Los Angeles River was protected as a "water ofthe United States." Specifically, EPA analyzed the river's status as a "Traditional Navigable Water," one ofseveral categories ofjurisdictional waters under the Act. We conclude that the mainstem ofthe Los Angeles River is a "Traditional Navigable Water" from its origins at the confluence of Arroyo Calabasas and Bell Creek to San Pedro Bay at the Pacific Ocean, a distance of approximately 51 miles . In reaching this conclusion, Region 9 and Headquarters staffconsidered a number offactors, including the ability ofthe Los Angeles River under current conditions offlow and depth to support navigation by watercraft; the history ofnavigation by watercraft on the river; the current commercial and recreational uses of the river; and plans for future
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to Donna Downing and Andrew Hanson from the City of San Juan
    32400 PASEO ADELANTO MEMBERS OF The CITY COUNCIL SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 (949) 493-1171 SERGIO FARIAS (949) 493-1053 FAX KERRY K. FERGUSON www.sanjuancapistrano.org BRIAN L. MARYOTT PAM PATTERSON, ESQ. DEREK REEVE June 19, 2017 Via Electronic Mail Donna Downing Jurisdiction Team Leader, Wetlands Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 [email protected] Andrew Hanson Federalism Consultation Lead U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 [email protected] RE: COMMENTS ON FEDERALISM CONSULTATION REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF "WATERS OF UNITED STATES" Dear Ms. Downing and Mr. Hanson: The City of San Juan Capistrano ("City") is a municipal corporation located in Orange County, California. The City is home to approximately 34,000 people and is 14.65 square miles. The City is located adjacent to San Juan Creek, a designated Water of the United States. The City operates a municipal separate storm sewer system ("MS4") as well as a water utility. Page 1 of 14 61073.00100\29883715.1 San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future Printed on 100% recycled paper The City submits this letter to EPA pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 13132. EO 13132 requires EPA to consult with local government agencies (or their representative national organizations) prior to issuing any regulation that may impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state or local law. EPA has proposed rescinding and revising the definition of the term "Waters of the United States" ("WOTUS") for the purposes of the federal Clean Water Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Scanned Document
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Permittee: California Department of Wildlife; Attention: Timothy Chorey Project Name: Regional General Permit No. 78 Reauthorization for the California Department of the Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Permit Number: SPL-2019-00120-CLH Issuing Office: Los Angeles District Note: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official acting under the authority of the commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: To reauthorize the implementation of salmonid habitat enhancement and restoration projects conducted under the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant. Program (FRGP) in various coastal streams within Los Angeles District from San Luis Obispo County to San Diego County, California, implemented through the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Fisheries Restoration Grant Program (FRGP). Projects would be identified on an annual basis and would apply one or more of the habitat restoration treatments described in the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual (CDFW Manual). Projects may include • In-stream habitat improvements, including cover structures (divide logs, digger logs, spider logs, and log/root wad/boulder combinations), boulder structures (boulder weirs, vortex boulder weirs, boulder clusters, and single- and opposing-boulder wing- deflectors), log structures (log weirs, upsurge weirs, single- and opposing-log wing- deflectors, and Hewitt ramps) and placement of imported spawning gravel may be utilized in certain locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Supply and Habitat Resiliency for a Future Los Angeles River: Site-Specific Natural Enhancement Opportunities Informed by River Flow and Watershed-Wide Action
    Water Supply and Habitat Resiliency for a Future Los Angeles River: Site-Specific Natural Enhancement Opportunities Informed by River Flow and Watershed-Wide Action Los Feliz to Taylor Yard Funded by a Grant from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy December 2016 Los Feliz Blvd to Taylor Yard Los Angeles River Habitat Enhancement Study and Opportunities Assessment The Nature Conservancy’s Urban Conservation Program Team that includes Brian Cohen (Conservation Analyst), Shona Ganguly (External Affairs Manager), Sophie Parker, Ph.D. (Senior Scientist), John Randall (Lead Scientist), Jill Sourial (Urban Conservation Program Director), and Lara Weatherly (Intern) led the process to create this report. Land IQ conducted surveys and analysis on behalf of The Nature Conservancy with the support of the Natural History Museum, WRC Consulting, Travis Longcore at the University of Southern California, and Connective Issue. When referring to this study, cite The Nature Conservancy’s Urban Conservation Program. Contributors Chapter 1: Introduction Travis Brooks and Margot Griswold (Land IQ); Krista Sloniowski (Connective Issue) Chapter 2: Historical Ecology of the Los Angeles River Riparian Zone in the Elysian Valley Travis Longcore (University of Southern California, School of Architecture and Spatial Sciences Institute) Chapter 3: Hydrology and Hydraulics Travis Brooks (Land IQ); Lan Weber (WRC Consulting) Chapter 4: Biota of the Los Angeles River in the Elysian Valley 4.1 Introduction: Travis Brooks, Margot Griswold, and Melissa Riedel-Lehrke (Land IQ); Brian V. Brown, James P. Dines, Kimball L. Garrett, Lisa Gonzalez, Bennett Hardy, Stevie Kennedy-Gold, Miguel Ordeñana, Gregory B. Pauly (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County) 4.2 Vegetation Communities: Travis Brooks, Margot Griswold, and Melissa Riedel-Lehrke (Land IQ) 4.3 Fish Fauna Review: Margot Griswold (Land IQ) 4.4 Insect Fauna: Brian V.
    [Show full text]
  • Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) Resources South of the Golden Gate, California
    Becker Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Reining (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Resources South of the Golden Gate, California October 2008 Gordon S. Becker #ENTERFOR%COSYSTEM-ANAGEMENT2ESTORATION Isabelle J. Reining (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Cartography by David A. Asbury Prepared for California State Coastal Conservancy and The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Resources South of the Golden Gate, California Resources South of the Golden Gate, California The mission of the Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration is to make effective use of scientific information to promote the restoration and sustainable management of ecosystems. The Center is a not-for-profit corporation, and contributions in support of its programs are tax-deductible. Center for Ecosystem Management & Restoration 4179 Piedmont Ave, Suite 325, Oakland, CA 94611 Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 510.420.4565 http://www.cemar.org CEMAR The cover image is a map of the watershed area of streams tributary to the Pacific Ocean south of the Golden Gate, California, by CEMAR. The image above is a 1934 Gazos Creek stream survey report published by the California Division of Fish and Game. Book design by Audrey Kallander. Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Resources South of the Golden Gate, California Gordon S. Becker Isabelle J. Reining Cartography by David A. Asbury This report should be cited as: Becker, G.S. and I.J. Reining. 2008. Steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) resources south of the Golden Gate, California. Cartography by D.A. Asbury. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreward pg. 3 Introduction pg.
    [Show full text]
  • SAN FERNANDO VALLEY COUNCIL of GOVERNMENTS a Joint Powers Authority
    SAN FERNANDO VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS A Joint Powers Authority BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING AGENDA Thursday, January 21, 2021 — 1:30 p.m. DUE TO THE CLOSURE OF CITY BUILDINGS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY CALL IN TO LISTEN TO THE MEETING Please click the link below to watch or listen to the meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89443558659?pwd=L3VSSnk1bXMvaXNZM3JKV0pnb3 J6UT09 Or call by telephone: Dial 669-900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 894 4355 8659 For those wishing to speak on an agenda item, please email [email protected] no ​ ​ later than 11:00 a.m. on the day of the scheduled meeting with the item number you ​ ​ ​ ​ wish to speak on and the phone number you will use when calling or the name you will use when logging into the meeting. You should then call or log into the meeting at least 10 minutes prior to its start time. Staff will unmute you and announce you when it is your time to speak. You will have two (2) minutes to speak, unless that time is adjusted by the Chair. If you do not have access to a computer please call 818-570-3408 to request public comment. As an alternative to speaking during the meeting, you can email your comments to the COG executive director at at [email protected] no later than 11am on January ​ ​ 21, 2021 to ensure that Staff San Fernando Valley Council of Governments Board of Directors Meeting ​ Agenda - T​ hursday, January 21, 2021 ​ 1 has time to organize the emails prior to the beginning of the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrator CS2 Template
    WATERWAY PROJECTS L.A. SAN RIVER GABRIEL RIVER L.A. River: Quest for a more natural resource Los Angeles Lining much of the river with concrete greatly reduced the flooding that used to bedevil the region, but subsequent development did not take advantage of the urban stream. Instead of incorporating it in landscaping and design, new buildings turned their backs on the river. A reversal of sorts is in the works, as planners envision a waterway that will give people a place to play, protect against flooding, improve water quality and replenish supplies of fresh Pacific Ocean water. In this latest in a series of occasional graphics, here’s a look at steps to improve the river water’s environmental qualities: DODGER STADIUM A proposal for better water One concept in the Los Angeles (To Downtown L.A.) River Revitalization plan calls Broadway for diverting, cleaning and reusing rainwater, street runoff Elysian Park and tributary water. Here’s how it could happen north of down- RAIL LINES town, where the Arroyo Seco meets the Los Angeles River: Ave. 19 METROLINK RR Los Angeles River 1 Landscaped roofs would be used to divert rainwater and Rainwater Pasadena Freeway collect it in cisterns. Street runoff 2 Street runoff, water from cisterns and the Arroyo Seco's flow would be diverted to Cistern San Fernando Rd. proposed wetlands. METRO GOLD LINE 3 The proposed Arroyo Seco wetlands would filter the water, 2 reducing some pollutants. Landscaped roof Rainwater 4 Water would flow into the 1 river. Some would sink into the 4 aquifer for future use.
    [Show full text]
  • East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project Draft
    East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences DEIS/DEIR Water Resources/Hydrology and Water Quality 4.13 Water Resources/Hydrology and Water Quality 4.13.1 Regulatory Framework and Methodology 4.13.1.1 Regulatory Framework The applicable federal, state, and local regulations that are relevant to an analysis of the proposed project’s hydrology and water quality impacts are listed below. For additional information regarding these regulations, please see the Water Resources Technical Report in Appendix Q of this Draft EIS/EIR. Federal l Clean Water Act (Sections 303, 402) l Executive Order 11988 l Federal Emergency Management Agency (Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994) l Rivers and Harbors Act State l Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 l National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System l Construction General Permit l Industrial Permit Local l Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region l General Waste Discharge Requirements for Low-threat Discharges to Surface Water l County of Los Angeles Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit (MS4 Permit) l Los Angeles County Stormwater Program l Master Drainage Plan for Los Angeles County l Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan l Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance of the County of Los Angeles l Los Angeles County Flood Control Act l Metro Water Action Plan l City of San Fernando Stormwater Program l City of Los Angeles Stormwater Program l City of Los Angeles Municipal
    [Show full text]
  • San Juan Creek Ocean Outfall Junction Structure Rehabilitation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
    San Juan Creek Ocean Outfall Junction Structure Rehabilitation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by: South Orange County Wastewater Authority 34156 Del Obispo Street, Dana Point, CA 92629 Contact: Janie Chen SEPTEMBER 2015 Initial Study and San Juan Creek Ocean Outfall Junction Structure Mitigated Negative Declaration Rehabilitation Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ............................................................ 2 1.2 Project Planning Setting ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Public Review Process ........................................................................................................ 2 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................... 3 2.2 Environmental Determination ............................................................................................. 3 3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Aesthetics .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]