DOCSLIB.ORG

San Diego Basin Study Task 2.3 – Existing Structural and Operations Guidelines Response Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Diego Basin Study Task 2.3 – Existing Structural and Operations Guidelines Response Analysis San Diego Basin Study Task 2.3 – Existing Structural and Operations Guidelines Response Analysis U.S. Department of the Interior City of San Diego Bureau of Reclamation Public Utilities Department August 2017 Mission Statements The mission of the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department is to ensure the quality, reliability, and sustainability of water, wastewater and recycled water services for the benefit of the ratepayers and citizens served. The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Cover Photos: Clockwise from top left: San Vicente Reservoir facing northwest; Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant facing northeast; Carlsbad Desalination Plant facing east; and City of San Diego facing north. San Diego Basin Study Task 2.3 – Existing Structural and Operations Guidelines Response Analysis August 2017 Prepared by: Bureau of Reclamation Lower Colorado Region Engineering Services Office Prepared for: City of San Diego Public Utilities Department Bureau of Reclamation Lower Colorado Region Southern California Area Office Peer Reviewed by: Ken Weinberg Water Resources Consultant Water Resources Consulting LLC San Diego Basin Study Task 2.3 – Existing Structural and Operations Guidelines Response Analysis Contents Page Contents .......................................................................................................................................... i Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... vii Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ ix Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 Study and Task 2.3 Overview ................................................................................................... 1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 1 Findings..................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................3 1.1. Study Overview and Purpose ........................................................................................ 3 1.2. Overview of Task 2.3 .................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Study Background ......................................................................................................... 4 2. Study Area ..........................................................................................................................6 2.1. Study Area Overview .................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Study Area Water Supplies ........................................................................................... 9 2.2.1. Surface Water .........................................................................................................9 2.2.2. Groundwater .........................................................................................................10 2.2.3. Recycled Water ....................................................................................................10 2.2.4. Seawater Desalination ..........................................................................................11 2.2.5. QSA Water ...........................................................................................................11 2.2.6. MWD Purchases ...................................................................................................11 2.3. Study Area Water Demands........................................................................................ 12 2.4. Study Area Water Resources Infrastructure and Operations ...................................... 13 2.4.1. Reservoirs .............................................................................................................13 2.4.2. Pipelines ...............................................................................................................13 2.4.3. Pump Stations .......................................................................................................14 2.4.4. Seawater Desalination Plants ...............................................................................14 2.4.5. Water Treatment Plants ........................................................................................14 2.4.6. Recycled Water Facilities.....................................................................................14 2.4.6.1. North City Water Reclamation Plant ...........................................................14 2.4.6.2. South Bay Water Reclamation Plant ............................................................14 2.4.6.3. San Luis Rey Wastewater Treatment Plant ..................................................15 3. CWASim Model ...............................................................................................................17 3.1. CWASim Model Layout and Schematic..................................................................... 17 3.2. Model Representation of System Infrastructure and Operations ................................ 19 3.2.1. Reservoirs .............................................................................................................19 3.2.2. Pipelines ...............................................................................................................23 3.2.3. Pump Stations .......................................................................................................25 3.2.4. Seawater Desalination Plants ...............................................................................26 i San Diego Basin Study Task 2.3 – Existing Structural and Operations Guidelines Response Analysis 3.2.5. Water Treatment Plants ........................................................................................27 3.2.6. Recycled Water Facilities and Potable Reuse Facilities ......................................28 3.3. Other Model Features ................................................................................................. 28 3.3.1. Model Water Losses .............................................................................................28 3.3.1.1. Evaporation Losses ......................................................................................29 3.3.1.2. Reservoir Spill Losses ..................................................................................29 3.3.1.3. General Losses .............................................................................................29 3.3.2. Power Generation/Use..........................................................................................29 3.4. Model Representation of Water Supply ...................................................................... 30 3.4.1. Supply Sources Represented as Annual Demand Reductions .............................30 3.4.2. Dynamically Modeled Supply Sources ................................................................30 3.4.2.1. Local Surface Water .....................................................................................30 3.4.2.1.1. Unadjusted Surface Water Supplies (No Climate Change) ............... 30 3.4.2.1.2. Climate Change Adjusted Surface Water Supplies ............................ 30 3.4.2.2. Seawater Desalination ..................................................................................30 3.4.2.3. MWD Purchases ...........................................................................................31 3.4.2.4. QSA Water ...................................................................................................32 3.5. Model Representation of Conservation ...................................................................... 32 3.6. Model Representation of Water Demand ................................................................... 32 3.6.1. Demand Nodes .....................................................................................................32 3.6.2. Annual Member Agency Demand Volumes ........................................................34 3.6.2.1. Gross Demands ............................................................................................34 3.6.2.2. Net Demands ................................................................................................34 3.6.3. Demand Inputs and Settings .................................................................................35 3.6.3.1. Unadjusted Demand Inputs (No Climate Change) .......................................35 3.6.3.2. Climate Change Demand Adjustment Factors .............................................35 3.7. Model Operational Logic for Water Deliveries and Shortages .................................. 35 3.7.1. Water Source Availability and Priorities .............................................................36
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Committee San Diego County Water Authority Board Meeting
    S San Diego County Water Authority Board Meeting Documents February 26, 2015 Committee Administrative and Finance Engineering and Operations Imported Water Legislation, Conservation and Outreach Water Planning Formal Board Frank Gehrke, chief of snow surveys at the California Department of Water Resources, measures snow depth in the Sierra Nevada on January 29, 2015. Photo © California Department of Water Resources. Page 1 of 258 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ AND STANDING COMMITTEES’ REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2015 BOARD ROOM WATER AUTHORITY HEADQUARTERS BUILDING 4677 OVERLAND AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 1. UNIFIED AGENDA: This unified agenda provides a brief description of each item to be considered by the Board and its Administrative and Finance, Engineering and Operations, Imported Water, Legislation, Conservation and Outreach, and Water Planning Committees. For convenience, the agenda for each of the Committees and for the formal Board meeting are stated separately; however, all agendas shall be considered as a single agenda and any item listed on the agenda of any Committee may be acted upon by the Board. All items on the agenda of any Committee, including information items, may be deliberated and become subject to action by the Board. 2. DOCUMENTS: Staff reports and any other public information provided to the Board or Committee before the meeting relating to items on the agenda are available for public review at the San Diego County Water Authority 4677 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 during normal business hours. Additional documents may be distributed at the meeting. Copies of individual items, including the background information, are available through the Clerk of the Board at (858) 522-6614.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report
    Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Newland Sierra Specific Plan December 2015 (Revised - July 2016) Prepared for Vallecitos Water District This page is intentionally left blank. Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Newland Sierra Specific Plan Contents 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 3 3 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 5 4 Vallecitos Water District .................................................................................................................... 11 5 Historical and Projected Water Demands ......................................................................................... 13 5.1 Demand Management ............................................................................................................. 14 5.1.1 BMP Categories ......................................................................................................... 14 5.1.2 Senate Bill X 7-7 ......................................................................................................... 16 6 Existing and Projected Supplies .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Purpose and Need for the Project Chapter 1.0 – Purpose and Need for the Project
    CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT CHAPTER 1.0 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT 1.1 INTRODUCTION The General Services Administration (GSA) proposes the reconfiguration and expansion of the existing San Ysidro Land Port of Entry (LPOE). The San Ysidro LPOE is located along Interstate 5 (I-5) at the United States (U.S.)-Mexico border in the San Ysidro community of San Diego, California. The proposed San Ysidro LPOE improvements are herein referred to as the “Project.” The total area of the Project Study Area, which comprises the anticipated maximum extent of disturbance, including improvements, staging areas, and temporary impacts resulting from Project construction, encompasses approximately 50 acres. Figure 1-1 illustrates the regional location of the Project, and Figure 1-2 shows the Project Study Area and the Project vicinity. The Project is included in the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP; SANDAG 2007); and the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP; SANDAG 2008), which covers Fiscal Years (FY) 2009 through 2013. 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.2.1 Purpose of the Project The purpose of the Project is to improve operational efficiency, security, and safety for cross-border travelers and federal agencies at the San Ysidro LPOE. Project goals include: Increase vehicle and pedestrian inspection processing capacities at the San Ysidro LPOE; Reduce northbound vehicle and pedestrian queues and wait times to cross the border; Improve the safety of the San Ysidro LPOE for vehicles and pedestrians crossing the border, and for employees at the LPOE; Modernize facilities to accommodate current and future demands and implementation of border security initiatives, such as the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program (US-VISIT), and the Secure Border Initiative (SBI).
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses
    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc CHAPTER 2 BENEFICIAL USES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USES ..........................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ..1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT .................................................2 BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ..................................................................................7 BENEFICIAL USES FOR SPECIFIC WATER BODIES ........................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF RARE BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT BENEFICIAL USE ...............................................9 DESIGNATION OF SPAWNING, REPRODUCTION, AND/ OR EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SPWN) BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................................11 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY ..................................................................................11 EXCEPTIONS TO THE "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER" POLICY................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Mussel Self-Inspection Launch Certification Permi Tt
    Don Pedro Recreation Agency Quagga & Zebra Mussel Prevention Program MMMUUUSSSSSSEEELLL SSSEEELLLFFF---IIINNNSSSPPPEEECCCTTTIIIOOONNN LLLAAAUUUNNNCCCHHH CCCEEERRTTTIIIFFFIIICCCAAATTTIIIOOONNN PPPEEERRRMMMIIITTT Display Permit on Dashboard When Launching CA Fish & Game Code Sections 2301 & 2302 DPRA Regulations and Ordinances Sections 2.2.1 & 2.2.3 Answer all questions below, complete, sign & date this Permit and place it on the dashboard of your vehicle before launching your vessel. 1. Is your vessel and all equipment clean of all mud, dirt, plants, fish or animals and drained of all water, including all bilge areas, fresh water cooling systems, lower outboard units, ballast tanks, live-wells, buckets, etc. and completely dry? Yes __ No __ If you answered No to question #1, you may not launch your vessel. Your vessel must be cleaned, drained and completely dry before it will be permitted to launch. Do not clean or drain your vessel by the lake or at the launch ramp. 2. If you answered Yes to question #1, has your vessel been in any of the infested waters listed on the back page of this form within the last 30 days? Yes __ No __ If you answered No to question #2, you are ready to launch, complete, sign and date this Launch Certification Permit and display it on the dashboard of your vehicle. 3. If you answered Yes to question #2, was your boat and trailer thoroughly cleaned and allowed to completely dry for at least 30 days since you last launched, or has it been professionally decontaminated? (Thoroughly cleaned Yes __ No __ requires removal of all dirt and organic material from the boat, flushing and draining of all live wells, bilge areas, ballast tanks and fresh water cooling systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of Source Water System
    CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SOURCE WATER SYSTEM 2.0 Description of the Source Water System During the last 100 years, the CSD’s water system has evolved into a very complex system. It is now estimated to serve a population of 1.4 million people spread out over 370 square miles (Table 2.1). The CSD treats imported raw water and local runoff water at three City WTPs which have a combined capacity of 378 MGD. The CSD treats water by conventional technologies using coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection. Recently, all CSD water treatment plants have been modified to provide for the addition of fluoride to the potable water supply. To ensure safe and palatable water quality, the CSD collects water samples at its reservoirs, WTPs, and throughout the treated water storage and distribution system. The CSD’s use of local and imported water to meet water demand is affected by availability, cost, and water resource management policies. Imported water availability decreases the need to carry over local water for dry years in City reservoirs. CSD policy is to use local water first to reduce imported water purchases; this policy runs the risk of increased dependence on imported water during local droughts. Table 2.1 - City of San Diego General Statistics Population (2010) 1,301,621 Population (Estimated 2014) 1,381,069 Population percent change 6.1 Land Area Square Miles 370 Population Density per Square Mile 3733 Water Distribution Area Square Miles 403 Number of Service Connections (2015) 279,102 2.1 Water Sources (Figure 2.1) Most of California's water development has been dictated by the multi-year wet/dry weather cycles.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitigated Negative Declaration
    Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan PROJECT LOCATION: Otay River Valley ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: APNs: 644-090-04 (Mitigation Site) Portions of 647-130-00, 647-130-01, 647-130-02, 647-130- 07, 647-130-08, 647-130-10, 647-130-12, and 644-100-01-9 (Weed Treatment Activities to protect Restoration Site) PROJECT APPLICANT: HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC CASE NO.: IS-15-006 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: March 14, 2016 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: TBD A. Project Setting The project site, the focus of which is a 100-acre restoration site, encompasses an approximately 300-acre parcel (mitigation site) located in and owned by the City of Chula Vista in southwestern San Diego County, California (see Attachment 1 for all figures; see Figures 1 and 2, Regional and Local Vicinity Maps). The project site also includes portions of seven additional parcels upstream owned by the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and United States of America Public Domain, that would be treated for weeds to protect the restoration site (see Figure 3, Parcels Map). The site occurs within the upper portion of the Lower Otay River Watershed, approximately 1 mile downstream from Savage Dam. It is generally south and west of the Lower Otay Reservoir and surrounded by open space largely within the Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) preserve system managed in partnership by the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. The project site is designated as Open Space Preserve by the City of Chula Vista and Open Space Conservation and Recreation by the County of San Diego.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Summaries
    Appendix A: Watershed Summaries Preface California’s watersheds supply water for drinking, recreation, industry, and farming and at the same time provide critical habitat for a wide variety of animal species. Conceptually, a watershed is any sloping surface that sheds water, such as a creek, lake, slough or estuary. In southern California, rapid population growth in watersheds has led to increased conflict between human users of natural resources, dramatic loss of native diversity, and a general decline in the health of ecosystems. California ranks second in the country in the number of listed endangered and threatened aquatic species. This Appendix is a “working” database that can be supplemented in the future. It provides a brief overview of information on the major hydrological units of the South Coast, and draws from the following primary sources: • The California Rivers Assessment (CARA) database (http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara) provides information on large-scale watershed and river basin statistics; • Information on the creeks and watersheds for the ESU of the endangered southern steelhead trout from the National Marine Fisheries Service (http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/SoCalDistrib.htm); • Watershed Plans from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) that provide summaries of existing hydrological units for each subregion of the south coast (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcbs/index.html); • General information on the ecology of the rivers and watersheds of the south coast described in California’s Rivers and Streams: Working
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Steelhead Populations Are in Danger of Extinction Within the Next 25-50 Years, Due to Anthropogenic and Environmental Impacts That Threaten Recovery
    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STEELHEAD Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Critical Concern. Status Score = 1.9 out of 5.0. Southern steelhead populations are in danger of extinction within the next 25-50 years, due to anthropogenic and environmental impacts that threaten recovery. Since its listing as an Endangered Species in 1997, southern steelhead abundance remains precariously low. Description: Southern steelhead are similar to other steelhead and are distinguished primarily by genetic and physiological differences that reflect their evolutionary history. They also exhibit morphometric differences that distinguish them from other coastal steelhead in California such as longer, more streamlined bodies that facilitate passage more easily in Southern California’s characteristic low flow, flashy streams (Bajjaliya et al. 2014). Taxonomic Relationships: Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) historically populated all coastal streams of Southern California with permanent flows, as either resident or anadromous trout, or both. Due to natural events such as fire and debris flows, and more recently due to anthropogenic forces such as urbanization and dam construction, many rainbow trout populations are isolated in remote headwaters of their native basins and exhibit a resident life history. In streams with access to the ocean, anadromous forms are present, which have a complex relationship with the resident forms (see Life History section). Southern California steelhead, or southern steelhead, is our informal name for the anadromous form of the formally designated Southern California Coast Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Southern steelhead occurring below man-made or natural barriers were distinguished from resident trout in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing, and are under different jurisdictions for purposes of fisheries management although the two forms typically constitute one interbreeding population.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations
    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This chapter presents an overall summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the water resources on their reservations. A brief description of each Tribe, along with a summary of available information on each Tribe’s water resources, is provided. The water management issues provided by the Tribe’s representatives at the San Diego IRWM outreach meetings are also presented. 4.1 Reservations San Diego County features the largest number of Tribes and Reservations of any county in the United States. There are 18 federally-recognized Tribal Nation Reservations and 17 Tribal Governments, because the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation. All of the Tribes within the San Diego IRWM Region are also recognized as California Native American Tribes. These Reservation lands, which are governed by Tribal Nations, total approximately 127,000 acres or 198 square miles. The locations of the Tribal Reservations are presented in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Two additional Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized lands: 1) the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians (though the Band remains active in the San Diego region) and 2) the Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians. Note that there may appear to be inconsistencies related to population sizes of tribes in Table 4-1. This is because not all Tribes may choose to participate in population surveys, or may identify with multiple heritages. 4.2 Cultural Groups Native Americans within the San Diego IRWM Region generally comprise four distinct cultural groups (Kumeyaay/Diegueno, Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño), which are from two distinct language families (Uto-Aztecan and Yuman-Cochimi).
    [Show full text]
  • 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
    4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES This section evaluates the potential impacts to visual resources and aesthetics associated with implementation of the 2050 RTP/SCS. The information presented was compiled from multiple sources, including information from the San Diego County Draft General Plan and its associated Draft EIR (2010), and the SANDAG 2030 RTP EIR (2007). 4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Regional Character The San Diego region is an area of abundant and varied scenic resources. The topography of the region contributes greatly to the overall character and quality of the existing visual setting. In general terms, the region is characterized by four topographical regions: coastal plain, foothills, mountains, and desert. The visual character of each is described briefly below. The coastal plain ranges in elevation from sea level to approximately 600 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and varies from rolling terraces to steep cliffs along the coastline. The coastal plain provides expansive views in all directions, with the coastline visible from some local roadways. Much of the coastal plain is already developed with varying densities of urban and suburban development. Agricultural uses within the coastal area include row crops, field flowers, and greenhouses. The foothills of the San Diego region range in elevation from 600 to 2,000 feet AMSL and are characterized by rolling to hilly uplands that contain frequent narrow, winding valleys. This area is traversed by several rivers as well as a number of intermittent drainages. The foothills are also developed with various urban and rural land uses. Agriculture consists of citrus and avocado orchards as well as row crops.
    [Show full text]
  • East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029
    Attachment 1 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029 December 2018 Prepared for: Padre Dam Municipal Water District 9300 Fanita Parkway Santee, CA 92071 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029 Prepared for: Padre Dam Municipal Water District 9300 Fanita Parkway Santee, CA 92071 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 December 2018 | KJC-24.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................ F-1 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................... 18 I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 19 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ..................................................................................... 23 III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]