DOCSLIB.ORG

3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section describes the drainage features, stormwater quality, flooding hazards, and flood-protection improvements within the City’s Planning Area. Regulatory agencies governing stormwater quality and flooding hazards are also discussed. The City’s Planning Area is comprised of the City’s boundaries and adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI). The County’s Planning Area consists of unincorporated land within the One Valley One Vision (OVOV) Planning Area boundaries that is outside the City’s boundaries and adopted SOI. Together the City and County Planning Areas comprise the OVOV Planning Area. With implementation of the proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies potential impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. EXISTING CONDITIONS Surface Water Drainage Patterns within City’s Planning Area Surface water drainage patterns are dependent on topography, the amount and location of impervious surfaces, and the type of flood control that is located in an area. The size, or magnitude, of a flood is described by a term called a “recurrence interval.” By studying a long period of flow record for a stream, hydrologists estimate the size of a flood that would have a likelihood of occurring during various intervals. For example, a five-year flood event would occur, on the average, once every five years (and would have a 20 percent chance of occurring in any one year). Although a 100-year flood event is expected to happen only once in a century, there is a 1 percent chance that a flood of that size could happen during any year. The magnitude of flood events could be altered if changes are made to a drainage basin, such as by diversion of flow or increased flows generated by additional impervious surface area. Additionally, flood control would help manage the surface runoff that occurs in a particular area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped most of the flood risk areas within the United States as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Most communities with a 1 percent chance of a flood occurring in any given year have a floodway depicted on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Figure 3.12-1, 100-Year Flood Zone of the City’s Planning Area, shows the 100-year flood event boundaries for the major watercourses in the Planning Area. These areas are indicated on Figure 3.12-1 as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). These SFHA are generally located within and directly adjacent to the Santa Clara River and its tributaries, and along portions of Castaic Lake. Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.12-1 One Valley One Vision Draft Program EIR 0112.023 City of Santa Clarita September 2010 3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality The City‘s Planning Area contains many natural streams and creeks that function as storm drain channels, conveying surface runoff into the Santa Clara River. From its headwaters in the San Gabriel Mountains to its mouth at the Pacific Ocean, the Santa Clara River drains a watershed of 1,643 square miles, approximately 80 miles in length and about 25 miles in width. Ninety percent of the river’s watershed consists of mountainous terrain; the remaining portion is a mix of valley floor, floodplain, and coastal plain. Within the headwater areas of the City of Santa Clarita, discharge during rainfall events tends to be rapid due to the steep terrain. High intensity rainfalls, in combination with alluvial soils, sparse vegetation, erosion, and steep gradients, can result in significant debris-laden flash floods. The Santa Clara River and its tributary streams play a major part in moving the large volume of runoff generated from the Valley and surrounding foothills and mountains. The drainage system, including natural streams as well as constructed storm drain infrastructure within the City’s Planning Area, is adequate to handle normal precipitation in the region (8 to 22 inches per year). With the rapid urbanization of the Valley since 1960, stormwater volumes have increased due to increased impervious surface area from parking lots, rooftops, and streets. Flood control facilities have been constructed to mitigate the impacts of development on drainage patterns throughout the City’s Planning Area. Throughout the central portion of the Planning Area, some streams have been channelized into soft bottom channels with concrete sides to allow for development in the floodplain of the Santa Clara River. Rainfall The 100-year average annual rainfall within the City‘s Planning Area is between 8 and 22 inches. However, annual rainfall fluctuates from year to year as well as from site to site. Drainage Facilities Los Angeles County formed a special district to provide flood control services throughout the County and to enable the County to collect a fee for these services. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) was formed by an act of the State Legislature. Parcels in the County of Los Angeles pay a fee on their annual tax bill for these services. Currently, the fee provides additional funding to meet the mandates of the Federal Clean Water Act as implemented through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that are issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The NPDES permit is the responsibility of the cities within the County and LACFCD. Projects are reviewed by the City of Santa Clarita for compliance with NPDES. Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.12-2 One Valley One Vision Draft Program EIR 0112.023 City of Santa Clarita September 2010 JO SO AVE L HN N RD W Lancaster T R S I D G H E T 0 R 7 O U COLUMBIA WY T E R D D R N O NY CA O IT U OAD Q S R IS E N C H RA EL G F IZA U AN BET Palmdale H S H LA KE K E R L A D k S ek PU e re N C K re c Y C i C F W a AN ish t Y e s ON ILL RD s a R D E H t D D B C O r G INTERSTATE a n P c i h ru 5 C a C li r fo ee rn k ia A q u e d u c NYO N RD t C A T UE UQ BO R ID Palmdale G E D OA R R O N YO U AN T C E O IT U R Q O S C I A AN G D FR O N OVOV Planning Area LD SA EN Upper Piru D R S ES t T H uc A HU G d T E e Legend: K u City of Santa E A L q D A A F O R R Clarita Boundary E s CASTAIC S e FEMA DFIRM E E l LAKE W H e G U g A H n County Boundary Y E n A K A o L SIERRA HWY y Special Flood Hazard Areas D RI n s R DG T E a o N H Mint Canyon SOI Boundary E L O R C O Y (SFHA) High-risk Zones L O N A D U Eastern D C R T o D t A E i E O CASTAIC C RO u R L A LAGOON U 100-Year Floodplain Special Flood Hazard D q D s Santa Felicia i N A U O LIFORN CA IA c Y G n N A A a C Areas (SFHA) Low r O C CONDID ANYON RD 14 GIS Projection - CA State Plane, Zone 5, NAD83, Feet. F ES T E U to Medium-risk Zones n Q U a n O o Source: City of Santa Clarita - Planning, S B RT y Y DAVE N PO R n A O D a A DA RT R City Boundary, 2007, Watersheds, 1999; W D VE NPO Es C RAILROAD AVE c H ondi QU G d o HIL VAS EZ I Thomas Bros., Hydrology, Waterbodies, LCREST PK CANY Watershed Boundary H WY ON H A RO S A RA and Streets; LA County - Planning, OVOV Boundary L D R (Calwater v. 2.2) EY SIE CA National Forests; FEMA: FIRM 100 Year Layer 2008. N Y C ON R OPPER HILL DR (Name) OAD E D U R D HAS L N A EY C RD N O AN E Y N S O O R V E Y E A L C L N L A O A S V C L Y A L A C N E O I P D W L L D H C U C M R K L M E A A D R P E OVOV Planning Area M NYO Y P N N N A A A NEWH D K C A RD O P E R Y O k A S E L NCH C R Y W L RA O e C O RO D O R R O A E e A N C N H E N r D LIFORN R N CA IA RD A E A R S NT C R F NYON A A R VE O C E S CA C R D DAD LA I Y E O A S E T B R O D OL c N R H C O N i T L N A E A City of Santa Clarita Boundary a E M L 14 E O FOR L E Y C t LI N Y CA IA R D A DA n s D O V D N o A R L CA T a I D y I V C E PE n U R NT O 126 A E L a O Q I SANTA C E H A V A MA SOI C I D G R R IC A RA R M ANYON RO I IL n L C A C R D OU AD D V OA o N C ED I D TA L E IF ls O IN O PAC S Y S R A e A PAR N N KW D M A BOULEVARD A Incorporated Areas RY I Y C R N C E N A U IO N N A H VAL VIA E I L PR N Y R IN Y A C LIFORNI O E CA A S O W S A Santa Clarita A INTERSTATE Angeles National Forest K D N R A Y A A 126 5 V W R P IG H O H A M N D D CBEA ROA A County Boundary R N O R E Y I N MAIN ST S A C Waterbody and Y IL E N ROAD W O T Y C ITTLE E AVENUE D A L AN LYONS O TA NY D P E I ON Perennial Stream IC C V C R RDPLACE A C A T O R I T O R K E A A W PLAC NY R U T O L E N J U S NEWHALL AVE I L L E N E R Y D Y R G A E S Aqueduct L T L A C V A N Y GIS Projection - CA State Plane, Zone 5, NAD83, Feet.
Recommended publications
  • Land for Sale in Fillmore, CA “The Last Best Small Town in Southern California”

    Land for Sale in Fillmore, CA “The Last Best Small Town in Southern California”

    Land for Sale in Fillmore, CA “The Last Best Small Town in Southern California” $750,000 27,436 SF Commercial Highway Zoned Land (CH) Table of Contents 4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Investment Overview Investment Highlights 6. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Local Map Regional Map Land Use Map Zoning Map Plot Map Demographics 13. DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION Zoning Ordinances Development Standards Econmic Development New Developments 16. COMPARABLES On-Market LandSale Recent Land Sales Retail Sold Comp 19. MARKET OVERVIEW Market Highlights City of Fillmore Economy Investment Contacts: Gary Cohen James DeBuiser Direct: (805) 351-7143 Direct: (805) 351-7144 Cell: (818) 804-1227 Cell: (805) 368-4313 Lic. 00988655 Lic. 01965942 [email protected] [email protected] The information contained herein is proprietary and strictly confidential. It is intended to be reviewed only by the party receiving it from mar- cus & millichap real estate investment services, inc (“m&m”) and should not be made available to any other person or entity without the writ- ten consent of m&m. This material has been prepared to provide summary, unverified information to prospective purchasers, and to establish only a preliminary level of interest in the subject property. The information contained herein is not a substitute for a thorough independent due dillengence investigation. M&m, as a real estate licensee is not qualified to discuss or advise on legal, accounting, or other matters outside of those permutted by state law. M&m has not made any investigation, and
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network

    Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network

    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
  • 2016 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER REPORT Castaic Lake

    2016 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER REPORT Castaic Lake

    2016 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER REPORT June, 2017 Prepared by Castaic Lake Water Agency CLWA Santa Clarita Water Division Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36 Newhall County Water District Valencia Water Company 2016 Santa Clarita Valley Water Report prepared for: Castaic Lake Water Agency CLWA Santa Clarita Water Division Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36 Newhall County Water District Valencia Water Company June 2017 JUNE 2017 2016 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER REPORT Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 2016 Water Requirements and Supplies ............................................................................. ES-1 ES.2 Alluvial Aquifer ................................................................................................................... ES-2 ES.3 Saugus Formation............................................................................................................... ES-4 ES.4 Imported Water ................................................................................................................. ES-5 ES.5 Recycled Water ................................................................................................................... ES-6 ES.6 2017 Water Supply Outlook................................................................................................ ES-6 ES.7 Water Conservation ...........................................................................................................
  • United Water Conservation District Iron and Manganese Treatment Project Proposal Contents (Cont'd)

    United Water Conservation District Iron and Manganese Treatment Project Proposal Contents (Cont'd)

    WaterSMART Drought Response United Water Program: Conservation District Iron Drought and Manganese Resiliency Treatment Project Project Grants for FY 2018 February 13, Bureau of Reclamation FOA No. BOR‐DO‐18‐F008 2018 Proposal Contents Proposal Contents ................................................................................................ i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... iii Section 1: Technical Proposal and Evaluation Criteria ................................ 1 1.1 Executive Summary ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Background Data ................................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Proposed Project Location ......................................................... 4 1.2.2 Water Supplies and Demands .................................................... 4 1.2.3 Water Delivery System............................................................... 5 1.2.4 Past Working Relationship with Reclamation ............................. 5 1.3 Technical Project Description ................................................................ 6 1.3.1 Project
  • Exhibit a Scope of Work Addendum 1 1

    Exhibit a Scope of Work Addendum 1 1

    IFB# 10144736 Page 36 of 55 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK ADDENDUM 1 1. Contractor agrees to provide the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Southern Field Division (SFD), Maintenance and Repair of Card Readers and Gates as described herein. Department has the authority to add and remove equipment, and locations as deemed necessary. Any additional requested work will be serviced at the unit’s rates herein. 2. The services shall be performed at: Various Locations within Southern Field Division: a. William E. Warne Power Plant- North end of Pyramid Lake via Smokey Bear Road off Interstate 5, Gorman, California 93243 b. Oso Pumping Plant and Sub-Center - 300th Street West off Hwy 138 Gorman, California 93536 c. Alamo Power Plant -300th Street West off Hwy 138, Gorman, California 93536 d. Vista Del Lago Visitor Center - 35800 Vista Del Lago Road, Gorman, California 92343 e. Castaic- 31849 North Lake Hughes Road, Castaic, California 91384 f. Pearblossom O&M - 34534 116th Street East, Pearblossom, California 93553 g. Devil Canyon Power Plant - 6900 Devil Canyon Road, San Bernardino, California 92407 h. Mojave Siphon Power Plant -16001 Highway 173, Hesperia, California 92345 i. Cedar Springs Sub Center – 16051 State Highway 173, Hesperia, California 92345 j. Greenspot Pumping Station - Greenspot Road, Highland, California 92346 k. Crafton Hills Pump Station - Mill Creek Road, Mentone, California 92359 l. Cherry Valley Pumping Plant - Mill Creek Road, Mentone, California 92359 m. Citrus Pumping Station - 9401 Opal Avenue, Mentone, California 92359 3. Location: Electric Gates and Type a. Castaic Sub Center: arm gate b. Castaic Lagoon seepage pit: slide gate c.
  • 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report

    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report

    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
  • Executive Summary the Ranch Fire Started October 20, 2007 Near

    Executive Summary the Ranch Fire Started October 20, 2007 Near

    USDA­FOREST SERVICE FS­2500­8 (6/06) Date of Report: 11/05/07 BURNED­AREA REPORT (Reference FSH 2509.13) Executive Summary The Ranch Fire started October 20, 2007 near Townsend Peak, southwest of Templin Highway and Interstate 5 on the Angeles National Forest. Intense Santa Ana winds peaking above 100 mph on the ridge tops drove the fire southwest across 13000 acres of the Angeles National Forest then onto the Los Padres National Forest and private lands in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties burning 58,401 acres total. Most of total acreage burned during the first 48 hours after ignition. The fire reached its final boundary on October 26, and was fully contained on November 3. Because of the speed of this fire suppression impacts on National Forest land were limited to two miles of dozer line on the Angeles N.F., and some hand line and water/retardant drops along the west side of the fire on the Los Padres N. F. Approximately 14,000 acres burned on the Los Padres National Forest, 13,000 acres burned on the Angeles National Forest, 1900 acres on the Hopper Mountain Wildlife Refuge, 1400 acres on BLM land, and 28,000 on private land near Val Verde and Hasley Canyon. The Los Padres manages 8000 acres of the Angeles National Forest within the burn perimeter and east of Piru Creek. Fifth­field watersheds within the Ranch Fire area used for BAER analysis include: Castaic, Sespe Creek, middle Santa Clara River and lower Piru Creek. The BAER team leader was assigned on October 23 and assembled a team which finalized field work for soils and hydrology by October 30 with other field work finalized on November 1.
  • Water Supply and Demand in California

    Water Supply and Demand in California

    Water Supply and Demand in California By Stephanie Anagnoson College of the Canyons 2018 Version 1 By StephaniePhoto By Jan Anagi Brumat noson College of the Canyons 2018 Version 1.2 Photo by Nathan Roser on Unsplash 1 | W a t e r S u p p l y Attributions Castaic Lake Water Agency College of the Canyons College of the Canyons - Water Systems Technology College of the Canyons - Open Educational Resources This textbook is licensed under CC BY 4.0 2 | Water Supply Table of Contents Introduction to Water Supply 4 Part One: Water All Around Us 5 Section 1.1 Water Cycle 6 Section 1.2 Water Management Concepts 10 Section 1.3 Water Rights 16 Section 1.4 Stakeholder Concepts 20 Part Two: Supply-Side Management 24 Section 2.1 Los Angeles Aqueduct 26 Section 2.2 Central Valley Project 30 Section 2.3 Colorado River Aqueduct 34 Section 2.4 State Water Project 38 Section 2.5 Alternative Water Supplies 42 Part Three: Demand-Side Management 50 Section 3.1 Regulations 51 Section 3.2 Water Loss 56 Section 3.3 Water Rates 59 Section 3.4 Indoor Water Use 62 Section 3.5 Outdoor Water Use 67 Section 3.6 CII Water Use 73 Section 3.7 Social Marketing Campaigns 78 3 | Water Supply Introduction to Water Supply You’re about to understand water demand and water supply more deeply. This understanding is going to change how you look at your water bill, grass in your yard and around town, and all those canals you see while driving around in California.
  • History: Before the Poppy Reserve

    History: Before the Poppy Reserve

    History: Before the Poppy Reserve The Kitanemuk, members of the Shoshonean Linguistic Group lived in the area between Fairmont and Antelope Buttes: “one of the largest and most significant archaeological sites in the Antelope Valley” • Source: http://www.avim.parks.ca.gov/people/ph_kitanemuk.s html The Kitanemuk, like other groups on the mountain margins of the Mojave Desert, lived in permanent winter villages of 50 to 80 people or more. These people dispersed into smaller mobile gathering groups during the late spring, summer, and fall months. The smaller groups made use of temporary camps for relatively short times, visiting different "environmental niches" as the important food-producing plants in them became ready to harvest. The Kitanemuk spoke a language that appears to have been a dialect of Serrano, which was spoken by groups located as far distant as modern Yucca Valley and Twenty- nine Palms, east of the San Bernardino Mountains. Historic Farming and Ranching Families: Godde Munz (east of the Reserve) Russell's (Ruined stone house near rock quarry – photo on next page) View looking north from North Poppy Loop trail – arrow shows rock quarry and approximate location of stone ruins of the Russell’s house. Quarry • “Tufa Mill” • Mined “tuff” • Used to build the Owens Valley or Los Angeles Aqueduct Los Angeles (Owens Valley) Aqueduct • The Los Angeles Aqueduct system comprising the Los Angeles Aqueduct (Owens Valley aqueduct) and the Second Los Angeles Aqueduct, is a water conveyance system operated by the LA Department of Water and Power. • Designed by engineer and LADWP director, William Mulholland, the system delivers water from the Owens River in the Eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains to Los Angeles, California.
  • APPENDIX J UWCD GSP Model Documentation

    APPENDIX J UWCD GSP Model Documentation

    APPENDIX J UWCD GSP Model Documentation TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM IMPLEMENTATION OF GROUNDWATER MODEL INPUTS FOR SIMULATIONS IN SUPPORT OF GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN DEVELOPMENT BY THE FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOVEMBER 2019 This Technical Memorandum was prepared at the request of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA). This document describes selected modeling stresses and assumptions used by United Water Conservation District to conduct simulations for the Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) prepared by FCGMA and its consultant, DUDEK, that may not be described in the GSPs. Technical Memorandum Contents Page 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2 Groundwater Flow Modeling Inputs ..................................................................................... 1 2.1 Weather Data ............................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Recharge ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.2.1 Precipitation .......................................................................................................... 2 2.2.2 Extracted Water from Wells .................................................................................. 2 2.2.3 Applied Water ......................................................................................................
  • Loc Anggtres

    Loc Anggtres

    -oF tr .|, t{ g,% g;? Loc AngGtres .::r,/i::). :,:.-,:, i:;.,...:..,. t,:. :ta:t : :.::r,: :'i ;.: :: :,.. ..,::al :,..1r,t:::,:.,:,:),,,::::. 1., ::.a..-'r.:...':.. .::t ...: ..., :. ji ::. ::::,,, :., 'Y4,,'.' ;i :a ;t:tl:tL.;::it),, : t,, :t : :,.. ii:::L/l*t:::;:l:t ,,:.:,::4,;..:)t ltat1a:: ..''.r.;r.,. :... "aa:::.):.;..t.:..:,,:':. : :'.:.. : :..: .. .:.. ..:it.;:- ' -',.;t:tt :: ; \a:.:la ::a.: a;::. :: :::),;::.: 1:., .::|ttLl:t:.:, ;a.r.:r)... - )a;t:t::i::.,.. 1)'i'?'ilt: ',.uriiti#i.]trEj* MAPS in greater detail are illustrated on these pages: PAGE 16 PAGE t4 L0$ ilnuilnr 0mns till$r luusilu$l $yttum I'A OJ AV E PAGE 6 Los Angeles-Owens River Aqueduct Castaic Hydroelectric Fairmont Resetvoir '.?;lil"anatN-Z Reservoir \y SAUGU S Los ,ll: ''r,. i,.' AN G ELES Semi-arid Los Angeles receives water from three Paralleling the Aqueduct is a portion of major aqueduct systems: The Los Angeles Owens the 846 mile long (1350 kilometers) , 800,000 volt River Aqueducts, the Colorado Aqueduct and the direct current Pacific Intertie transmission system which California Aqueduct (State Water Project) . Owned by brings energy from hydroelectric generating stations on the City and extending 340 miles (540 kilometers) the Columbia River to the Los Angeles area. northerly {rom Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Owens In describing the many features of historical and River Aqueduct System taps the vast eastern slope scenic interest on the Eastern slopes of the Sierra snow fields of California's Sierra Nevada and their Nevada and the Los Angeles Owens River Aqueduct derivative streams and lakes to provide power and 80 System, it is the DWP's goal to create an understanding percent of the water for the West's largest city.
  • Ensuring Nature's Benefits Now, and Into the Future, Following The

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

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