Lower Santa Ana River Prado Dam Seven Oaks Dam Project Partners

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Lower Santa Ana River Prado Dam Seven Oaks Dam Project Partners

Lower Santa Ana River SEVEN OAKS DAM was completed in November 1999. It is located in San Bernardino County about six miles east of the City of Highland. At 550 feet in height, Seven Oaks Dam is the 6th highest dam in the United States. The earth and rock fill dam is operated by the flood control districts of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Prado Dam • COST: $539 million • Embankment height = 550 ft Project Partners: • Embankment length = 2,980 ft U.S. Army Corps of • Reservoir capacity = 145,600 acre-ft Engineers and the Flood • Reduce the inflow rate from 85,000 Control Districts of cfs to 7,000 cfs Orange, Riverside and San • Designed to withstand an Seven Oaks Dam Bernardino Counties earthquake with a magnitude of 8.0 on the Richter scale SOD Intake Tower Updated September 2014 COST: $588 million Improvements to 30.5 miles of existing channel from Prado Dam to the Pacific Ocean includes channel widening, improvement to the existing Greenville-Banning Channel located parallel to the river near the coast, relocation of Talbert Channel ocean outlet and construction Prado Dam was completed in April 1941. It is located in Riverside of rock jetties and derrick stone jetties at the mouth of the river, and County about two miles west of the city of Corona. The dam sits at bridge modifications to accommodate the widened channel. the upper end of the Santa Ana River Canyon. The Prado Dam Project consist of raising the dam 28.4 feet, raising the spillway 20 feet and reconstructing the dam‘s outlet increasing its capacity three fold. In addition, the project included expanding the dam’s reservoir to increase its flood control storage and construction of dikes to protect existing infrastructure such as California Institute for Women and the Corona Treatment Plant. The reconstruction in the Santa Ana Canyon area includes the relocation of 4 miles of the Santa Ana River Interceptor Line, a major sanitary sewer line. INTAKE STRUCTURE OUTLET WORKS • COST: $925 million • Raise dam embankment 28.4 feet • Acquire approximately 1,600 acres • Increase storage from 217,000 to 362,000 acre-feet • Increase outlet capacity from 10,000 cfs to 30,000 cfs .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Chapter 3 Watershed Setting
Chapter 3 Watershed Setting Physical Setting, Hydrology, and Geomorphology Dunne and Leopold (1978) define a watershed as an area of land that drains water, sediment, and dissolved materials to a common outlet at some point along a stream channel. The Santa Ana River Watershed, depicted in Figure 31, drains a 2,650 square‐mile area. The watershed is home to over 6 million people and includes the major population centers of parts of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, as well as a sliver of Los Angeles County. The Santa Ana River flows over 100 miles and drains the largest coastal stream system in southern California. It Figure 31 discharges into the Pacific Ocean at the City of Santa Ana River Watershed Huntington Beach. The total length of the SAR and its major tributaries is about 700 miles. The watershed boundaries nearly match the boundaries of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, an organization with whom SAWPA has worked closely for many years. In addition, its boundaries match the IRWM region and the recognized Santa Ana Funding Area, as defined by the Proposition 84 IRWM program. Although there are many sub‐watershed planning efforts, OWOW attempts to bring all these efforts, as well as all different jurisdictions in the watershed, into a single watershed‐wide vision. Over the years, SAWPA has participated in the development of sub‐regional IRWM plans, with the understanding that such plans would be complementary to OWOW. Today much of the lower Santa Ana River has lost its historical character. Geologic and Hydrologic Features of the Watershed Much of the movement of materials, energy, and organisms associated with the channel environment and adjoining upland environment depend on the movement of water within the Watershed.
[Show full text]
Lawsuit Planned Over Water Release from Seven Oaks Dam Near Highland; Critics Say Santa Ana River Fish Habitat Harmed – Press Enterprise
Lawsuit planned over water release from Seven Oaks Dam near Highland; critics say Santa Ana River fish habitat harmed – Press Enterprise . LOCAL NEWS Lawsuit planned over water release from Seven Oaks Dam near Highland; critics say Santa Ana River fish habitat harmed https://www.pe.com/...armed/?utm_content=tw-pressenterprise&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social[12/12/2019 7:54:26 AM] Lawsuit planned over water release from Seven Oaks Dam near Highland; critics say Santa Ana River fish habitat harmed – Press Enterprise Slide gates are lifted below Seven Oaks Dam above Highland on Thursday, May 23, 2019 to allow water to flow into a sedimentation basin. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG) By CITY NEWS SERVICE | [email protected] | PUBLISHED: December 11, 2019 at 7:46 pm | UPDATED: December 11, 2019 at 7:47 pm Two wildlife advocacy groups Wednesday announced their intent to sue the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, as well as other regional and federal government agencies, for allegedly putting a fish species’ habitat at risk with the release of water from the Seven Oaks Dam, which the defendants say was necessary to reduce potential public safety hazards. According to the Tucson, Ariz.-based Center for Biological Diversity, the outflows that started on May 11 and continued for several days resulted in high sediment levels that disrupted the spawning activity of Santa Ana sucker fish, which populate the Santa Ana River, coursing through Orange, Riverside S and San Bernardino counties. CBD officials allege foraging grounds were overwhelmed with muck and debris, damaging the https://www.pe.com/...armed/?utm_content=tw-pressenterprise&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social[12/12/2019 7:54:26 AM] Lawsuit planned over water release from Seven Oaks Dam near Highland; critics say Santa Ana River fish habitat harmed – Press Enterprise sucker’s food supply and smothering fishes’ eggs.
[Show full text]
1.0 Executive Summary
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Executive Summary for the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land Management Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State of California Clearinghouse No. 2004051023) has been prepared according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. This EIR has been prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) under contract to the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (Lead Agency or District) to identify the proposed project’s potential impacts on the environment, to discuss alternatives, and to propose mitigation measures that will offset, minimize, or otherwise avoid significant environmental impacts. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15120 through 15132, 15161, and other applicable sections regulating the preparation of EIRs. 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND In 1993, representatives of numerous public and private agencies including Cemex Construction Materials Limited Partnership [LP] (Cemex) and Robertson’s Ready Mix, Ltd. (Robertson’s) formed a Wash Committee to discuss and coordinate proposals for aggregate mining in the Santa Ana River Wash (Wash). As shown in Figure 1.1 (or 3.1) the Wash Area is generally that land area between Greenspot Road on the east, Alabama Street on the west, Greenspot Road and Plunge Creek on the north, and the Santa Ana River on the south. Subsequently, Robertson’s and Cemex forged ahead and submitted applications to mine on Wash lands leased from the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (District). Representatives from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had significant issues with the proposals, believing that the land to be mined would significantly disturb important wildlife habitat.
[Show full text]
Santa Ana River Watermaster
SANTA ANA RIVER WATERMASTER ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT v. CITY OF CHINO, et al. CASE NO. 117628--COUNTY OF ORANGE WATERMASTER MAILING ADDRESS Samuel H. Fuller c/o SBVMWD Roy L. Herndon 380 East Vanderbilt Way Thomas A. Love San Bernardino CA 92408-3593 Michael R. Markus Telephone (909) 387-9200 John V. Rossi FAX (909) 387-9247 April 30, 2011 To: Clerk of Superior Court of Orange County and all Parties Re: Watermaster Report for Water Year October 1, 2009 - September 30, 2010 Ladies and Gentlemen: We have the honor of submitting herewith the Fortieth Annual Report of the Santa Ana River Watermaster. The supporting basic data Appendices are bound separately. The principal findings of the Watermaster for the water year 2009-10 are as follows: At Prado 1 Measured Outflow at Prado 243,776 acre-feet 2 Base Flow at Prado 103,099 acre-feet 3 Annual Weighted TDS in Base and Storm Flows 443 mg/L 4 Annual Adjusted Base Flow 125,179 acre-feet 5 Cumulative Adjusted Base Flow 4,905,004 acre-feet 6 Other Credits (Debits) 1,489 acre-feet 7 Cumulative Entitlement of OCWD 1,680,000 acre-feet 8 Cumulative Credit 3,263,211 acre-feet 9 One-Third of Cumulative Debit 0 acre-feet 10 Minimum Required Base Flow in 2010-11 34,000 acre-feet SANTA ANA RIVER WATERMASTER FOR ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT v. CITY OF CHINO, et al. CASE NO. 117628 - COUNTY OF ORANGE FORTIETH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER WATERMASTER FOR WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1, 2009 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 APRIL 30, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I - WATERMASTER ACTIVITIES AND WATER CONDITIONS Introduction ............................................................................................................
[Show full text]
The Development of Flood Control for the Santa Ana River Basin
History in the Making Volume 3 Article 7 2010 A Watershed Event For a Watershed Community: The Development of Flood Control for the Santa Ana River Basin Adam Scott Miller CSUSB Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/history-in-the-making Part of the United States History Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Adam Scott (2010) "A Watershed Event For a Watershed Community: The Development of Flood Control for the Santa Ana River Basin," History in the Making: Vol. 3 , Article 7. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/history-in-the-making/vol3/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Arthur E. Nelson University Archives at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in History in the Making by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Adam Scott Miller A Watershed Event For a Watershed Community: The Development of Flood Control for the Santa Ana River Basin BY ADAM SCOTT MILLER ABSTRACT: Southern California receives the vast majority of its yearly rainfall in the relatively short time period between the months of December and March. Occasionally, this intense rainfall creates floods that have historically threatened and devastated the communities of this region. The twentieth century proved challenging for local flood control agencies. California experienced tremendous population growth, resulting in migrants settling on the existing floodplains. Unaware of the periodic, hidden menace, newcomers were ruined when rivers and their tributaries flooded. It became clear that a significant change in flood control methods was required.
[Show full text]
Hydrology, Description of Computer Models, and Evaluation of Selected Water-Management Alternatives in the San Bernardino Area, California
In cooperation with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Hydrology, Description of Computer Models, and Evaluation of Selected Water-Management Alternatives in the San Bernardino Area, California U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1278 Pending release as USGS Professional Paper 1734 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ountains rdino M erna Seven Oaks n B Y Sa Dam uc aip Crafton a B asin Mill Cr Hills Fault Redlands Andreas River San Zanja San Bernardino Ana Newmark plume Redlands plumeThe Former Santa Muscoy plume (1900) marshland Lytle Creek Cover. Oblique view showing the San Bernardino Mountains rising above the Bunker Hill and Lytle Creek basins. The area simulated with the ground-water flow model is outlined in white. Also shown are selected water-management issues including the former marshland, Seven Oaks Dam, and the Newmark, Muscoy, and Redlands plumes. Hydrology, Description of Computer Models, and Evaluation of Selected Water-Management Alternatives in the San Bernardino Area, California By Wesley R. Danskin, Kelly R. McPherson, and Linda R. Woolfenden In cooperation with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Open-File Report 2005-1278 Pending release as USGS Professional Paper 1734 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
[Show full text]
Dodecahema Leptoceras (Slender-Horned Spineflower)
Dodecahema leptoceras (slender-horned spineflower) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation [Photo or illustration, if available] Dodecahema leptoceras (slender-horned spineflower). Photocredit: Mark W. Skinner (USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Carlsbad, California October 1, 2010 1 2010 Slender-horned Spineflower 5-year Review 5-YEAR REVIEW Dodecahema (Centrostegia) leptoceras (slender-horned spineflower) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed.
[Show full text]
Stormwater: Resource and Risk Management
Chapter Findings and Recommendations Summary The purpose of this Chapter is to 1) describe the mission, facilities, and operations of Flood Control Management agencies in the Santa Ana River Watershed; 2) identify past, current, and emerging key watershed priorities; 3) evaluate how key priorities have been, and potentially can be, addressed by Flood Control Districts/Divisions (FCDs) using a range of strategies; and 4) recommend the strategies and projects most likely to be effective to ensure watershed sustainability over a range of timescales. Finally, this OWOW 2.0 Plan (Plan) updates and revises the 2010 Plan. Priority Issues Water supply is challenged by increased demand due to population growth in the watershed; reductions in imported water supplies; reduced groundwater recharge from expansion of urbanization and impervious surfaces placed over viable recharge areas; losses to the ocean due to concrete channelization and lost recharge in the channels themselves, seawater intrusion due to decreased groundwater recharge in coastal areas, and uncertain, but expected, long-term reductions in average annual precipitation due to climate change. High priority water quality problems include maintaining the salt balance in the watershed (see Chapter 5.5 Beneficial Use Assurance), reducing anthropogenic pollutants in surface water runoff to optimize beneficial uses, preventing pollutants from contaminating groundwater; and cleanup and management of existing contaminated groundwater sites (Chapter 5.5 Beneficial Use Assurance). 1 | Flood Risk Management / Stormwater Management Watershed management efforts of past decades were driven largely by individual entity priorities or programs. However, more comprehensive and integrated projects driven by a multi-stakeholder project paradigm can more effectively and more efficiently address watershed needs.
[Show full text]
Part IV-D – Dam Failure Table of Contents
Rancho Santiago Community College District Part IV-D – Dam Failure Table of Contents A. THE CALIFORNIA DAM FAILURE THREAT ................................................................... 3 OVERVIEW OF DAM .......................................................................................................... 3 PROFILING DAM FAILURE HAZARDS .................................................................................. 4 ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL VULNERABILITY AND POTENTIAL LOSSES ..................................... 4 TYPES OF DAMS .............................................................................................................. 5 CURRENT CALIFORNIA DAM FAILURE HAZARD MITIGATION EFFORTS ................................. 7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENHANCED DAM FAILURE HAZARD MITIGATION ................................. 9 RESULTS OF A DAM FAILURE ............................................................................................ 9 B. THE ORANGE COUNTY DAM FAILURE THREAT ........................................................ 10 Figure 1: Orange County Dams .....................................................................................................................11 Figure 2: Orange County Prado Dam Map ...................................................................................................14 DAM FAILURE FLOODING ................................................................................................ 15 ORANGE COUNTY HISTORICAL FAILURE FLOODING ........................................................
[Show full text]
Introduction
Introduction The Santa Ana River Watershed historically contained an abundance of natural resources, including water captured from snowmelt in the local mountains, diverse wildlife populations, abundant aquatic life in streams and coastal waters, geological resources for building materials, and a wide range of plant communities from coastal sage, to wetlands, to evergreen forests. These assets were first utilized by Native Americans and then by European settlers, who began to change the land use in the watershed with irrigation and farming. Over the past 200 years, human population has increased greatly in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Since the 1930s, controlling floods and providing a reliable water supply have taken precedence over other critical watershed issues. These priorities have changed the natural hydrology of the Santa Ana Watershed, diminishing the once abundant natural water resources in the region. This strain on water resources and associated urbanization has left only remnants of isolated habitat in highly populated areas. Other factors including invasive plant species, frequent local fires and rogue recreational uses also have contributed to a reduction or complete loss of available habitat in some areas. The natural resources and habitat in the Santa Ana River Watershed are now a fraction of their historical values. Therefore, efforts must be made to sustain and conserve the remaining resources for the benefit of future generations of life in the ecosystems of the watershed, and even expand them where possible. The purpose of this chapter is to detail the current status of these natural resources, including their benefits as both habitat and recreational assets, and to identify opportunities to promote and 1 | Natural Resources Stewardship implement sustainability followed by recommendations for solutions that maintain ecological balance and economic health.
[Show full text]
5. Environmental Analysis
5. Environmental Analysis 5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The analysis in this section is based on information from previous technical reports, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles for Devore, San Bernardino North, San Bernardino South, Harrison Mountain and Redlands), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Manual of California Vegetation and Plant Inventory. The following technical report was used for the analysis for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: • Biological Resources Assessment. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, San Bernardino County, California, Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. November 20, 2004, Revised May 16, 2005. A complete copy of this study is included in the Technical Appendices to this Draft EIR (Volume III, Appendix B) 5.3.1 Environmental Setting Regulatory and Protection Federal and State Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, as amended was promulgated to protect and con- serve any species of plant or animal that is endangered or threatened with extinction and the habitats in which these species are found. “Take” of endangered species is prohibited under Section 9 of the FESA. Take as defined under the FESA means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Section 7 of FESA requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on proposed federal actions which may affect any endangered, threatened or proposed (for listing) species or critical habitat that may support the species. Section 4(a) of the FESA requires that critical habitat be designated by the USFWS “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, at the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened.” Critical habitat is formally designated by USFWS to provide guidance for planners/managers and biologists with an indication of where suitable habitat may occur and where high priority of preservation for a particular species should be given.
[Show full text]
Final Work Plan for Viability Assessment of Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) at Prado Dam
Final Work Plan for Viability Assessment of Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) at Prado Dam September 2019 Final Work Plan for Viability Assessment of Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) at Prado Dam Contents Contents Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................... vi 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 History of FIRO .................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................... 5 1.3 FIRO Viability Assessment Process ....................................................................................... 6 1.4 Prado Dam FIRO Steering Committee .................................................................................. 6 2. Project Background and Description ................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Santa Ana River Watershed ................................................................................................. 9 2.1.1 Physical Characteristics ......................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Environmental Assets and Considerations ..........................................................
[Show full text]