DOCSLIB.ORG

North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms Stormwater Management Plan Morongo Wash and Thousand Palms Watersheds Alternatives Analysis Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms Stormwater Management Plan Morongo Wash and Thousand Palms Watersheds Alternatives Analysis Report North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms Stormwater Management Plan Morongo Wash and Thousand Palms Watersheds Alternatives Analysis Report September 30, 2013 DRAFT North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms Stormwater Management Plan Thousand Palms and Morongo Wash Watersheds Alternatives Analysis Report September 30, 2013 Prepared for: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Operations 75 – 525 Hovley Lane East Palm Desert, CA 92211 Contact: Tesfaye Demissie, P.E. DRAFT Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants 3950 Industrial Blvd, #100c West Sacramento, California 95691 Phone: 916.371.7400 Contact: Ken Rood File 500058 Report Prepared by: ______________________________ Brady McDaniel, PE, Project Engineer ______________________________ Andrey Shvidchenko, Project Hydraulic Modeler _______________________________ Ken Rood, Principal-in-Charge DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices and is intended for the exclusive use and benefit of the Coachella Valley Water District and their authorizedDRAFT representatives for specific application to stormwater management in North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms, CA. The contents of this document are not to be relied upon or used, in whole or in part, by or for the benefit of others without specific written authorization from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc and its officers, directors, employees, and agents assume no responsibility for the reliance upon this document or any of its contents by any parties other than the client for whom the document was prepared. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) issued a task order to Northwest Hydraulic Consultant (NHC) to develop a regional stormwater master plan for North Cathedral City and the community of Thousand Palms. Earlier studies by NHC examined hazards in North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms from floods from Morongo Wash, Long and Wide Canyons and from Willow Hole (referred to as the “riverine flows”) and evaluated the hazard reduction benefits of CVWD’s Thousand Palms Flood Control Project. The general conclusion of the earlier studies was that stormwater management in the North Cathedral and Thousand Palms planning units required an integrated approach that addressed all the sources of flooding in order to have appreciable benefits. The objective of this report was to develop concept-level details and costs for three stormwater management alternatives for North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms and evaluate their benefits in reducing areas of flooding and peak flows. The Thousand Palms FCP is the only alternative that CVWD is considering to manage 100-year floods from the Thousand Palms Watershed. As a result, the alternatives developed in this report all included the Thousand Palms FCP as one component of the design and cost. The alternatives evaluated in the report were: • Alternative 1: Thousand Palms FCP and a flood channel to convey flows from the I-10 culverts beneath the SPRR and to the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel (WWRSC); • Alternative 2: Thousand Palms FCP and a flood channel that collected 100-year floods from Morongo Wash fan and Willow Hole and conveyed them to the Sun City Palm Desert flood channels; and • Alternative 3: Thousand Palms FCP and a new bridge beneath I-10 to convey the 100-year flood from Morongo Wash fan to the WWRSC. Alternative 1 reduced the area of inundation in the two planning units from the 100-year riverine flood by about 1,900 acres and also reduced peak flows crossing properties along the corridor, at a cost of about $98 million. Alternative 2 eliminated about 6,500 acres of flooding in the planning units from the riverine flows; costs ranged fromDRAFT $305 to $350 million, depending on the alignment of the flood channel. Alternative 3 reduced the area of flooding by 5,000 acres and greatly reduced peak flows crossing properties near I-10, at a cost of about $120 million. North Cathedral/Thousand Palms SMP i September 30, 2013 Alternatives Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... iii List of Appendices .................................................................................................................................... iii 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Development of Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Objectives and Approach .................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Sources of Information ....................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Report Organization ............................................................................................................................ 5 2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Flood Control Structures ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.4 Hydraulic Modeling ............................................................................................................................. 8 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 9 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 9 3.2 Alternative 1: Flood channel and Thousand Palms FCP ...................................................................... 9 3.2.1 General Features .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.2 Design Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.3 Hydraulic Performance .............................................................................................................. 11 3.2.4 Future Modifications .................................................................................................................. 11 3.2.5 Concept Level Costs ................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Alternative 2: Conveyance to SCPD and Thousand Palms FCP ......................................................... 11 3.3.1 General Features ........................................................................................................................ 11 3.3.2 Design Hydrology .......................................................................................................................DRAFT 13 3.3.3 Hydraulic Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.3.4 Future Modifications .................................................................................................................. 14 3.3.5 Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 14 3.4 Alternative 3: New I-10 Bridge and Thousand Palms FCP................................................................. 14 3.4.1 General Features ........................................................................................................................ 14 3.4.2 Design Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 16 3.4.3 Hydraulic Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.4.4 Future Modifications .................................................................................................................. 17 3.4.5 Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 17 North Cathedral/Thousand Palms SMP ii September 30, 2013 Alternatives Analysis 4. FLOOD HAZARDS WITH THE ALTERNATIVES................................................................... 17 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 17 4.3 Areas of Inundation .........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Request for Proposal No. PWG117-FLOOD-2154 West Fontana Channel Bioswale Improvements
    Request for Proposal No. PWG117-FLOOD-2154 West Fontana Channel Bioswale Improvements County of San Bernardino Flood Control Engineering Division 825 E. Third Street, Rm. 140 San Bernardino, CA 92415 Release Date: August 18, 2016 Deadline Date: September 8, 2016 (Rev 1/30/2015) San Bernardino County Request for Proposal No. PWG117-FLOOD-2154 Flood Control District West Fontana Channel Bioswale Page 2 of 48 Improvements TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ............................................................................................................................................... 3 B. PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 C. TERM OF AGREEMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 3 D. QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 E. CORRESPONDENCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 F. ADMONITION TO PROPOSERS ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase I FINAL REPORT
    ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Project Report No. 593 Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase I FINAL REPORT by Andrew J. Erickson, Jessica L. Kozarek, Kathryn A. Kramarczuk, and Laura Lewis St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, 2 Third Avenue SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 Prepared for University of Minnesota Water Resources Center, Minnesota Stormwater Research Council December 2020 Minneapolis, Minnesota Cite as: Erickson, AJ, Kozarek, JL, Kramarczuk, KA, and Lewis, L. (2020). “Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase 1 Final Report.” Project Report No. 593, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. December 2020. Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase I Final Report – December 2020 This project was supported by the Minnesota Stormwater Research and Technology Transfer Program administered by the University of Minnesota Water Resources Center through an appropriation from the Clean Water Fund established by Minnesota Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment and from the Minnesota Stormwater Research Council with financial contributions from: ● Capitol Region Watershed District ● Comfort Lake-Forest Lake Watershed District ● Mississippi Watershed Management Organization ● Nine Mile Creek Watershed District ● Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District ● South Washington Watershed District ● City of Edina ● City of Minnetonka ● City of Woodbury, and ● Wenck Associates ● Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition For more information about the Center and the Council, visit: https://www.wrc.umn.edu/projects/storm-waste-water For more information about the Minnesota Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, visit: https://www.legacy.mn.gov/about-funds Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Water Resources Center or the Minnesota Stormwater Research Council.
    [Show full text]
  • C. Natural Stream Processes
    Natural Stream Processes Guide No. 03 Streams in their natural state are dy- agency officials, and others to start a recycle nutrients from natural pollution namic ecosystems that perform many thoughtful inquiry into the true source sources, such as leaf fall, to purifying beneficial functions. Natural streams of local stream management problems. the water. The natural stream tends and their flood plains convey water The material contained in this guide to maintain itself through the flushing and sediment, temporarily store excess makes evident that the source of many flows of annual floods that clear the flood water, filter and entrap sediment stream problems is in the watershed, channel of accumulated sediments, and pollutants in overbank areas, far from the main stream channel. debris, and encroaching vegetation. recharge and discharge groundwater, Landowners, local officials, and oth- Extreme floods may severely disrupt naturally purify instream flows, and ers concerned with streams need to the stream on occasion, but the natural provide supportive habitat for diverse work together across property lines balance of the stream ecosystem is plant and animal species. The stream and jurisdictional boundaries to find restored rapidly when it is in a state of corridors wherein these beneficial func- suitable solutions to stream problems dynamic equilibrium. tions occur give definition to the land and to implement practices to protect, and offer “riverscapes” with aesthetic restore and maintain healthy stream qualities that are attractive to people. ecosystems. CHANNEL FORMING Human activities that impact stream AND RECONDITIONING ecosystems can and often do cause STREAMS ARE problems by impairing stream functions PROCESSES and beneficial uses of the resource.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide
    United States Office of Research EPA/600/R-04/121 Environmental Protection and Development September 2004 Agency Washington DC 20460 Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide: Volume 1 General Considerations EPA/600/R-04/121 September 2004 Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide Volume 1 General Considerations By Michael L. Clar, P.E. Ecosite, Inc. Ellicott City, Maryland, 21042 Billy J. Barfield, P.E., Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department of Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma Thomas P. O’Connor Urban Watershed Management Branch Water Supply and Water Resources Division National Risk Management Research Laboratory Edison, NJ 08837 Order No. 1C-R059-NTSX Project Officer Thomas P. O’Connor Urban Watershed Management Branch Water Supply and Water Resources Division National Risk Management Research Laboratory Edison, NJ 08837 NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CINCINNATI, OH 45268 Notice The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development partially funded and collaborated in the research described here under Order Number 1C-R059- NTSX to Ecosite, Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii Foreword The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Landscapes of the UK 1. Where Are the UK's Main Upland
    Lesson 1: Physical Landscapes of the UK 1. Where are the UK’s main upland areas? North and west 2. Where are the majority of the UK’s cities? Lowland areas on the UK’s main rivers 3. Listen to the following descriptions and name the physical landscapes: a) ‘Part of the Highlands. Home to Ben Nevis, the highest mountain in the UK. Steep, rocky and sparsely populated.’ Grampian mountains b) ‘A National Park located in the north-west of England that is very popular with tourists. This is due to the glaciated environment that has formed spectacular scenery that includes many bodies of water.’ Lake District c) ‘A National Park located in northern Wales. It was designated a national park due to its spectacular glaciated scenery with steep mountains and valleys.’ Snowdonia d) ‘An area on the north-east coast that is eroding rapidly due to the underlying soft boulder clay. The eroded material has been transported in a southerly direction to form Spurn Head.’ Holderness Coast e) ‘An area on the south-western coast that stands proud within the landscape. The alternate bands of hard and soft rock has led to the formation of headlands and bays and associated landforms.’ Dorset coast f) ‘Flat low-lying marshy area on the eastern side of the UK near Norfolk. A lot of this area has been drained for farming.’ The Fens g) ‘A wide lower valley with flood plain upon which Glasgow is situated.’ River Clyde (9 marks) Lesson 2: The Long profile of a river 1. What is the long profile of a river? The gradient of a river as it journeys from its source to its mouth 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.5 Bioretention
    4.5. Bioretention (rain gardens) Bioretention Bioretention areas typically are landscaping features adapted to treat storm water runoff. Bioretention systems are also known as Mesic Prairie Depressions, Rain Gardens, Infiltration Basins, Infiltration Swales, bioretention basins, bioretention channels, tree box filters, planter boxes, or streetscapes, to name a few. Bioretention areas typically consist of a flow regulating structure, a pretreatment element, an engineered soil mix planting bed, vegetation, and an outflow regulating structure. Bioretention systems provide both water quality and quantity storm water management opportunities. Bioretention systems are flexible, adaptable and versatile storm water management facilities that are effective for new development as well as highly urban re-development situations. Bioretention can readily adapt to a site by modifying the conventional “mounded landscape” philosophy to that of a shallow landscape “cup” depression. Such landscape depression storage and treatment areas fit readily into: parking lot islands; small pockets of open areas; residential, commercial and industrial campus landscaping; and, urban and suburban green spaces and corridors. Bioretention works by routing storm water runoff into shallow, landscaped depressions. These landscaped depressions are designed to hold and remove many of the pollutants in a manner similar to natural ecosystems. During storms, runoff ponds above the mulch and Engineered Soil Mix in the system. Runoff from larger storms is generally diverted past the facility to the storm drain system. The runoff remaining in the bioretention facility filters through the Engineered Soil Mix. The filtered runoff can either be designed to enhance groundwater infiltration or can be collected in an underdrain and discharged per local storm water management requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Evaluation Report
    Stormwater Evaluation Report Prepared for City of Davis September 2017 011-10-17-55 REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2017 Stormwater Evaluation Report ———— Prepared for City of Davis Project No. 011-10-17-55 9/5/17 Project Manager: Kristen Whatley, PE 9/5/17 QA/QC Review: Doug Moore, PE W E S T Y O S T A S S O C I A T E S Carlsbad 2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 795-0365 Davis 2020 Research Park Drive, Suite 100 Davis, CA 95618 (530) 756-5905 Eugene 1650 W 11th Ave. Suite 1-A Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 431-1280 Irvine 6 Venture, Suite 290 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 517-9060 Pleasanton 6800 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 150 Pleasanton, CA 94566 (925) 426-2580 Portland 4949 Meadows Road, Suite 125 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (503) 451-4500 Sacramento 2725 Riverside Boulevard, Suite 5 Sacramento, CA 95818 (916) 504-4915 Santa Rosa 2235 Mercury Way, Suite 105 Santa Rosa, CA 95407 (707) 543-8506 Sunnyvale 1250 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 210 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 (408) 451-8453 Walnut Creek 1777 Botelho Drive, Suite 240 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 949-5800 W E S T Y O S T A S S O C I A T E S Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Available Workhour Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 1
    [Show full text]
  • Alluvial Fan Hazards & Design Issues for Design
    Presentation Program Outline Overview Countermeasures / Planning Process Levees / Dikes / Diversions Channelization / Conveyance Grade Control Structures Detention Basin / Debris Basin Case Study – Localized Subdivision Protection (THOUSAND PALMS, CA) Case Study – Whole Fan Facilities (INDIAN WELLS, CA) Structural Countermeasures Overview / Planning Process & Design Considerations Alluvial Fan Hazards & Design Issues for Design • Uncertainty of flow depths (R&U analysis) • Inundation extents / flow direction / impingement • Sediment deposition • Scouring and undermining • Impact forces • Channel avulsions and entrenchments • Hydrostatic and buoyant forces • High velocities • Unpredictable flow path (R&U analysis) • Flooding from both debris and water flows “Riverine” vs. “Alluvial Fan” - Structural Countermeasure Design Issues / Considerations • Flow uncertainty • Velocity • Flow duration • Sediment deposition • Seepage control • Impingement • Flow direction and path uncertainty Alluvial Fan Riverine “Whole Fan” Solutions vs. Localized Protection – Structural Countermeasures “Whole Fan” Solutions vs. Localized Protection – Structural Countermeasures Structural Countermeasures for Alluvial Fans – Basic Building Blocks Collection Channels Conveyance Channels Dispersion Channels Structural Countermeasures for Alluvial Fans – Basic Building Blocks - Example Standard Alluvial Fan Structural Countermeasures Effectiveness of Alluvial Fan Structural Countermeasures for Different Hazards Structural Countermeasure – General Design Considerations
    [Show full text]
  • Southeast Policy Area Drainage Study ————
    Southeast Policy Area Drainage Study ———— Prepared for City of Elk Grove January 2014 448-00-12-03 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Watershed Description ..................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Drainage Plan Concept .................................................................................................................... 1 4.0 Analysis Approach ............................................................................................................................ 2 4.1 Continuous Hydrologic Analysis ................................................................................................ 2 4.2 Event Based Analysis ................................................................................................................ 3 5.0 Continuous Simulation Model – Base Conditions ............................................................................ 3 5.1 Watershed Boundaries .............................................................................................................. 3 5.2 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 4 5.3 Unit Hydrographs ....................................................................................................................... 4 5.4 Precipitation
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Hyporheic Exchange Drivers and Patterns Within a Low-Gradient, First-Order, River Confluence During Low and High Flow
    water Article Characterization of Hyporheic Exchange Drivers and Patterns within a Low-Gradient, First-Order, River Confluence during Low and High Flow Ivo Martone 1, Carlo Gualtieri 1,* and Theodore Endreny 2 1 Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, 80125 Naples, Italy; [email protected] 2 Department of Environmental Resources Engineering, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 14 January 2020; Accepted: 26 February 2020; Published: 28 February 2020 Abstract: Confluences are nodes in riverine networks characterized by complex three-dimensional changes in flow hydrodynamics and riverbed morphology, and are valued for important ecological functions. This physical complexity is often investigated within the water column or riverbed, while few studies have focused on hyporheic fluxes, which is the mixing of surface water and groundwater across the riverbed. This study aims to understand how hyporheic flux across the riverbed is organized by confluence physical drivers. Field investigations were carried out at a low gradient, headwater confluence between Baltimore Brook and Cold Brook in Marcellus, New York, USA. The study measured channel bathymetry, hydraulic permeability, and vertical temperature profiles, as indicators of the hyporheic exchange due to temperature gradients. Confluence geometry, hydrodynamics, and morphodynamics were found to significantly affect hyporheic exchange rate and patterns. Local scale bed morphology, such as the confluence scour hole and minor topographic irregularities, influenced the distribution of bed pressure head and the related patterns of downwelling/upwelling. Furthermore, classical back-to-back bend planform and the related secondary circulation probably affected hyporheic exchange patterns around the confluence shear layer.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 5.8 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
    Section 5.8 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality SECTION 5.8 HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the existing hydrological and water quality conditions within the City of Buena Park. The potential impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update are analyzed, and where significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. This section includes information contained in the Hydrology Impact and Water Quality Assessment prepared by RBF Consulting (February 2010) (Appendix F). 5.8.1 EXISTING SETTING GROUNDWATER The City relies on two major water supply sources, which include imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The groundwater basin receives water via the Santa Ana River. Each year OCWD sets a basin production percentage (BPP) for the agencies that pump from the basin. The BPP is the ratio of water produced from the groundwater to all water produced by the agency. The BPP provides a limit on how much each agency can pump from the Orange County Groundwater Basin without paying a penalty. According to the City of Buena Park 2005 Water Master Plan Study Final Report (Water Master Plan) (February 2007), the City’s basin pumping percentage is 66 percent and is anticipated to increase to the historical value of 75 percent. However, water supply conditions have changed over recent years and according to the City’s Public Works Department, the current BPP is 62 percent and the BPP is not anticipated to rise above the current rate for a number of years.
    [Show full text]
  • County of Los Angeles
    COUNTY OFLOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC WORKS 'To Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service" 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA,CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 MARK PESTRELLA,Acting Director Telephone:(626)458-5100 http://dpw.lacounty.gov ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BOX 1460 June 19,2017 ALHAMBRA.CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE: WM­9 Ms. Donna Downing United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Ms. Downing: REQUEST FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE ON DEFINITION OF"WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES" COMMENT LETTER The County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the upcoming proposal to revise the definition ofthe"Waters ofthe United States." Enclosed are ourcommentsfor your review and consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me at (626) 458-4300 or dlaff(a~dpw.lacountv.gov or your staff may contact Mr. Paul Alva at (626)458-4325 or palva(a~dpw.lacountv.aov. Very truly yours, MARK PESTRELLA Director of Publi Works DANIEL J. LAF RT Assistant Deputy Director Watershed Management Division GA:sw P:\wmpub\Secretarial\2017 Docs\Letter\WOTUS\CovLtr WOTUS Comments1C17138 Enc. cc: County Counsel(Mark Yanai) COMMENTS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CONCERNING REQUEST FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES ON DEFINITION OF “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES” I. INTRODUCTION The County of Los Angeles (“County”) and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (“LACFCD”) appreciate this opportunity to provide comments to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) (collectively referred to as “the Agencies”) in response to the Agencies’ initiative to consult with state and local government officials regarding a revised definition of what constitutes a “Water of the United States” (“WOTUS”).
    [Show full text]