DOCSLIB.ORG

Climate Change Analysis for the Santa Ana River Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Climate Change Analysis for the Santa Ana River Watershed Technical Memorandum No. 1 Climate Change Analysis for the Santa Ana River Watershed Santa Ana Watershed Basin Study, California Lower Colorado Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation August 2013 Mission Statements 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. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Water and Environmental Resources Division (86-68200) Water Resources Planning and Operations Support Group (86-68210) Technical Services Center, Denver, Colorado Technical Memorandum No. 86-68210-2013-02 Climate Change Analysis for the Santa Ana River Watershed Santa Ana Watershed Basin Study, California Lower Colorado Region Prepared by: Kristine Blickenstaff, Hydraulic Engineer Subhrendu Gangopadhyay, Hydrologic Engineer Ian Ferguson, Hydrologic Engineer Laura Condon, Hydrologic Engineer Tom Pruitt, Civil Engineer Peer reviewed by: Marketa Elsner, Hydrologic Engineer i This page intentionally left blank. ii Contents Page Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 1 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose, Scope, and Objective of Study .................................................... 5 1.1.1 Location and Description of Study Area ......................................... 5 1.2 Summary of Previous and Current Studies ................................................ 7 1.2.1 Historical Trends ............................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Climate Projections ........................................................................... 9 1.2.3 Hydrological Projections .................................................................. 9 1.2.4 Climate Change Impacts ................................................................. 10 1.3 Identification of Interrelated Activities .................................................... 10 1.3.1 Federal – WaterSMART ................................................................. 10 1.3.2 State – Proposition 84 and IRWM .................................................. 11 1.3.3 Local – OWOW .............................................................................. 11 2.1 Climate Projections .................................................................................. 12 2.2 Hydrology Models for the Santa Ana River Watershed .......................... 13 2.2.1 Surface Water .................................................................................. 13 2.2.2 Groundwater ................................................................................... 18 Development of Groundwater Model Inputs ...................................... 23 Historical Input Data (1990-2009) ...................................................... 23 Groundwater Elevation (ht) ........................................................... 23 Precipitation (Pt) ........................................................................... 25 Evaporative Demand (Et) .............................................................. 25 Streamflow (Qt) ............................................................................. 25 Municipal and Industrial Demand (Mt) ........................................ 27 Agricultural Demand (At) ............................................................. 27 Trans-basin Imported Water (It) ................................................... 27 Exogenous Variable (Xt) ............................................................... 27 Projected (Future) Input Data (2010-2099) ........................................ 28 Precipitation (Pt) ........................................................................... 28 Evaporative Demand (Et) .............................................................. 28 Streamflow (Qt) ............................................................................. 28 Municipal and Industrial Demand (Mt) ........................................ 28 Agricultural Demand (At) ............................................................. 29 Trans-basin Imported Water (It) ................................................... 29 Exogenous Variable (Xt) ............................................................... 29 3.0 Water Supply and Demand Projections ..................................................... 30 3.1 Water Supply ........................................................................................... 30 3.1.1 Hydroclimate Projections ................................................................ 30 Timeseries Plots .................................................................................. 30 Spatial Plots ........................................................................................ 32 3.1.2 Impacts on Runoff Annual and Seasonal Cycles ............................ 35 3.1.3 Groundwater Impacts ...................................................................... 38 iii 3.2 Water Demands ........................................................................................ 43 3.2.1 Water Demand Projections ............................................................. 43 3.3 Supply and Demand Summary ................................................................ 45 4.0 Decision Support and Impact Assessment ................................................. 46 4.1 Impacts on Recreation in Lake Elsinore .................................................. 46 4.1.1 Background ..................................................................................... 46 4.1.2 Methodology ................................................................................... 47 4.1.3 Results ............................................................................................. 47 4.2 Alpine Climate Impacts ........................................................................... 48 4.2.1 Background ..................................................................................... 48 4.2.2 Methodology ................................................................................... 49 4.2.3 Results ............................................................................................. 49 Recreation at Big Bear ........................................................................ 49 Jeffrey Pine Ecosystem ....................................................................... 51 4.3 Extreme Temperature Impacts ................................................................. 54 4.3.1 Background ..................................................................................... 54 4.3.2 Methodology ................................................................................... 54 4.3.3 Results ............................................................................................. 54 4.4 Flood Impacts ........................................................................................... 56 4.4.1 Background ..................................................................................... 56 4.4.2 Methodology ................................................................................... 58 4.4.3 Results ............................................................................................. 59 4.5 Sea Level Rise Impacts ............................................................................ 62 4.5.1 Background ..................................................................................... 62 4.5.2 Methodology ................................................................................... 62 4.5.3 Results ............................................................................................. 64 4.6 Decision Support and Impact Assessment Summary .............................. 66 5.0 Demand Management to Inform Adaptive Strategies ............................... 69 5.1 Background ............................................................................................... 69 5.2 Methods.................................................................................................... 70 5.3 Application ............................................................................................... 72 6.0 Uncertainties ................................................................................................. 75 6.1 Climate Projection Information ............................................................... 75 6.1.1 Global Climate Forcing................................................................... 75 6.1.2 Global Climate Simulations ............................................................ 76 6.1.3 Climate Projection Bias Correction ................................................ 76 6.1.4 Climate Projection Spatial Downscaling ........................................ 76 6.2 Assessing Hydrologic Impacts ................................................................. 77 6.2.1 Generating Weather Sequences Consistent with Climate Projections................................................................................................. 77 6.2.2 Natural Runoff Response ................................................................ 77 6.2.3 Hydrologic Modeling .....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment for the SR 55 Improvement Project Between I
    Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 2.8 Hydrology and Floodplains 2.8.1 Regulatory Setting EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to refrain from conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable alternative. The FHWA requirements for compliance are outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart A. To comply, the following must be analyzed: • The practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments • Risks of the action • Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values • Support of incompatible floodplain development • Measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any beneficial floodplain values affected by the project The base floodplain is defined as “the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide having a one percent chance of being exceeded in any given year.” An encroachment is defined as “an action within the limits of the base floodplain.” 2.8.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the Location Hydraulic Study State Route 55 Improvement Project From Interstate 5 to State Route 91 (LHS) (April 2018), the Water Quality Technical Memorandum (November 2018), Stormwater Data Report (March 2019), and the Preliminary Drainage Report State Route 55 Widening Project (October 2018) prepared for the proposed project. 2.8.2.1 Regional Hydrology The proposed project is located within the Santa Ana River hydrologic unit and within two subhydrologic areas: the Lower Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek, both of which are part of the East Coastal Plain Hydrologic Sub-Area (801.11). In addition, the proposed project is located within three watersheds: the Lower Santa River Watershed, Santiago Creek Watershed, and San Diego Creek Watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Santa Ana River Watershed?
    32 1 32 1 2 3 Discharge of the Santa Ana River Below Prado Dam Water Year 1969 - 1970 2 3 4 5 – Gordon K. Anderson, former Chief of Planning, California Regional Water Quality Control Board “Too many people and not enough water to go around – that’s what led to the seemingly endless rounds of lawsuits and countersuits that characterized the 1960s in this watershed [which] takes in parts of three separate counties.” – Gordon K. Anderson, former Chief of Planning, California Regional Water Quality Control Board 1 4 5 6 7 ItIt All All StartedStarted withwith ConflictConflict AfterAfter decades decades of of disputes disputes dating dating to to the the early early 1900s, 1900s, two two major major lawsuits lawsuits were were filedfiled in in 1963, 1963, involving involving surface surface water water and and groundwater groundwater pumping pumping rights rights in in thethe Santa Santa Ana Ana River River Watershed. Watershed. One One lawsuit lawsuit was was filed filed by by Western Western MunicipalMunicipal Water Water District District and and the the other other by by Orange Orange County County Water Water District. District. InIn reference reference to to the the Orange Orange County County lawsuit, lawsuit, Corona Corona City City Attorney Attorney Robert Robert TimlinTimlin and and Don Don Stark, Stark, Counsel Counsel for for the the Chino Chino Basin Basin Municipal Municipal Water Water District,District, declared declared in in 1968, 1968, “The “The suit suit was was the the largest largest and and most most complex complex ever
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F Archaeological Assessment
    Appendices Appendix F Archaeological Assessment Warner Avenue Widening from Main Street to Grand Avenue Draft EIR City of Santa Ana Appendices This page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks January 2015 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE WARNER AVENUE FROM MAIN STREET TO GRAND AVENUE WIDENING PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 09-1749, CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: The Planning Center 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Authors: Amy Glover and Sherri Gust Principal Investigator: Sherri Gust Registered Professional Archaeologist Orange County Certified Professional Archaeologist May 2009; revised May 2013 Project Number: 1679 Type of Study: Archaeological Assessment Sites: None USGS Quadrangle: Tustin 7.5’ 1965 Area: 1 linear mile Key Words: Juaneño, Gabrielino, Orange County, Cultural Resources Survey 1518 West Taft Avenue Branch Offices cogstone.com Orange, CA 92865 West Sacramento - Morro Bay - Inland Empire – San Diego Office (714) 974-8300 Toll free (888) 497-0700 F-1 Warner Avenue Widening TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................... IV INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Phase I Cultural Resources Report
    Santiago Basin Saddle Repair Project Appendix D Phase I Cultural Resources Report Phase I Cultural Resources Report Orange County Water District Santiago Basins Saddle Improvement Project Prepared for Daniel Bott Principal Planner Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, California 92708 Prepared by David M. Smith Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA Cultural Resources Director BonTerra Psomas 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92707 T: 714.751.7373 April 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Report Orange County Water District Santiago Basins Saddle Improvement Project Submitted by: David M. Smith Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA Cultural Resources Director BonTerra Psomas 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92707-8794 (714) 751-7373 Submitted to: Daniel Bott Principal Planner Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, California 92708 Key Words: Gabrieleno, 7.5 Minute Orange Quadrangle; T4S R9W Section 22 Santiago Basins Saddle Improvement Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Federal Legislative Framework ...................................................................................... 1 3.0 Project Location and Description .................................................................................. 2 3.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................ 2
    [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 P. Joseph Grindstaff c/oSBVMWD Douglas D. Headrick 380 East Vanderbilt Way Roy L. Herndon San Bernardino CA 92408-3593 Michael R. Markus Telephone (909) 387-9200 John V. Rossi FAX (909) 387-9247 April 30, 2015 To: Clerk of Superior Court of Orange County and all Parties Re: Watermaster Report for Water Year October 1, 2013 - September 30, 2014 Ladies and Gentlemen: We have the honor of submitting herewith the Forty-Fourth 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 2013-14 are as follows: At Prado 1 Measured Outflow at Prado 86,486 acre-feet 2 Base Flow at Prado 63,536 acre-feet 3 Annual Weighted TDS in Base and Storm Flows 582 mg/L 4 Annual Adjusted Base Flow 69,784 acre-feet 5 Cumulative Adjusted Base Flow 5,282,666 acre-feet 6 Other Credits (Debits) 0 acre-feet 7 Cumulative Entitlement of OCWD 1,848,000 acre-feet 8 Cumulative Credit 3,474,674 acre-feet 9 One-Third of Cumulative Debit 0 acre-feet 10 Minimum Required Base Flow in 2013-14 34,000 acre-feet April 30, 2015 Page 2 of 2 At Riverside Narrows 1 Base Flow at Riverside Narrows 32, 313 acre-feet 2 Annual Weighted TDS in Base Flow 646 mg/L 3 Annual Adjusted Base Flow 32,313 acre-feet 4 Cumulative Adjusted Base Flow 1,958,244 acre-feet 5 Cumulative Entitlement of IEUA and WMWD 671,000 acre-feet 6 Cumulative Credit 1,287,244 acre-feet 7 One-Third of Cumulative Debit 0 acre-feet 8 Minimum Required Base Flow in 2013-14 12,420 acre-feet Based on these findings, the Watermaster concludes that there was full compliance with the provisions of the Stipulated Judgment in 2013-14.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment
    CREEKSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O Appendices Appendix D Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment September 2020 CREEKSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO Appendices This page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE CREEKSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: PlaceWorks 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Authors: Sandy Duarte, B.A., Molly Valasik, M.A., Kim Scott, M.S. Principal Investigator: Molly Valasik, M.A., RPA, Orange County Certified Principal Archaeologist Kim Scott, M.S., Orange County Certified Principal Paleontologist Date January 2020 Cogstone Project Number: 4743 Type of Study: Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Sites: None USGS Quadrangle: San Juan Capistrano 7.5’ Area: 15.3 acres Key Words: Negative survey, cultural resources assessment, paleontological resources assessment, late Miocene to early Pliocene Capistrano Formation, Pleistocene axial channel deposits 1518 West Taft Avenue Field Offices cogstone.com Orange, CA 92865 San Diego • Riverside • Morro Bay • Sacramento • Toll free 888-333-3212 Office (714) 974-8300 Arizona Federal Certifications WOSB, EDWOSB, SDB State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE D-1 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Creekside Specific Plan Project TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GENERAL PLAN APPENDIX December 2012 TABLE of CONTENTS
    County of Orange GENERAL PLAN APPENDIX December 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS LAND USE ELEMENT Appendix III-1 Growth Management Program Guidelines …………………………………………… 1 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Appendix IV-1 Growth Management Transportation Implementation Manual ……………………… 9 Appendix IV-2 Planning Criteria for Determining Arterial Highway Classifications ……………….. 30 Appendix IV-3 Bikeway Designation Planning Guidelines ………………………………………….. 36 Appendix IV-4 County Designation Scenic Highways and Candidate Corridors ……………………. 38 Appendix IV-5 Scenic Highways Corridor Implementation Planning Guidelines …………………… 44 Appendix IV-6 List of Acronyms/Abbreviations …………………………………………………….. 48 RESOURCES ELEMENT Appendix VI-1 List of Acronyms/Abbreviations …………………………………………………….. 56 RECREATION ELEMENT Appendix VII-1 Local Park Implementation Plan Criteria: Private Parks, Facilities and Improvements 60 Appendix VII-2 Local Park Guidelines: Site Characteristics, Acquisition, Design, Maintenance & Funding 66 Appendix VII-3 Local Park Site Criteria ……………………………………………………………… 75 Appendix VII-4 Policy for Allocating Funds for Trail Development ………………………………… 81 Appendix VII-5 Trail Descriptions …………………………………………………………………… 85 Appendix VII-6 Staging Areas ……………………………………………………………………….. 109 Appendix VII-7 Trail Design Standards ……………………………………………………………… 115 Appendix VII-8 Regional Recreation Facilities Inventory …………………………………………… 119 Appendix VII-9 List of Acronyms/Abbreviations ……………………………………………………. 129 NOISE ELEMENT Appendix VIII-1 Noise Element Definitions and Acronyms …………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • Tectonic Geomorphology of the Santa Ana Mountains
    Final Technical Report ACTIVE DEFORMATION AND EARTHQUAKE POTENTIAL OF THE SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES BASIN, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Award Number: 01HQGR0117 Recipient’s name: University of California - Irvine Sponsored Projects Administration 160 Administration Building, Univ. of CA - Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-1875 Principal investigator: Lisa B. Grant, Ph.D. Department of Environmental Analysis & Design 262 Social Ecology 1 University of California Irvine, CA 92697-7070 Program element: Research on earthquake occurrence and effects Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior, under USGS award number 01HQGR0117. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. p. 1 Award number: 01HQGR0117 ACTIVE DEFORMATION AND EARTHQUAKE POTENTIAL OF THE SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES BASIN, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Eldon M. Gath, University of California, Irvine, 143 Social Ecology I, Irvine, CA, 92697-7070; tel: 949-824-5382, fax: 949-824-2056, email: [email protected] Eric E. Runnerstrom, University of California, Irvine, 143 Social Ecology I, Irvine, CA, 92697- 7070; tel: 949-824-5382, fax: 949-824-2056, email: [email protected] Lisa B. Grant (P.I.), University of California, Irvine, 262 Social Ecology I, Irvine, CA, 92697- 7070; tel: 949-824-5491, fax: 949-824-2056, email: [email protected] TECHNICAL ABSTRACT The Santa Ana Mountains (SAM) are a 1.7 km high mountain range that form the southeastern boundary of the Los Angeles basin between Orange and Riverside counties in southern California. The SAM have three well developed erosional surfaces preserved on them, as well as a suite of four fluvial fill terraces preserved in Santiago Creek, which is a drainage trapped between the uplifting SAM and a parallel Loma Ridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Didn’T “Cause Harm” to the Lower Watershed, Which Is the Opposite of the Current Claim of Being Separated & Distinct
    28 100 100 400 100 Six Page Intentionally Blank Funding Round 1 Round 1 Round 2 Round 2 Area General DAC General DAC Santa Ana $21,925,000 $2,205,000 $21,925,000 $4,095,000 50% 35% 50% 65% Proponents Draft complete Public review Project Call-for- submittal Rating & period of Solicitation projects details Ranking proposed seeking •QA/QC screening by criteria Package projects and grants SAWPA staff applied Released by •Eligibility criteria programs DWR screening 10/5/18 11/26/18 Ends 1/10/19 Ends 2/25/19 DWR Pre- OWOW SC Application Approved Final Workshop Final list Public Public QA/QC Application •SAWPA & submitted for Release of meeting of Proponents present pre- Draft Ranked package to DWR top projects submitted •Receipt of application Project List comments from DWR workshop with DWR June, 2019 Late April Late March Ends 3/15/19 2/28/19 • Past efforts by OC Stakeholders was to ensure the upper watershed didn’t “cause harm” to the lower watershed, which is the opposite of the current claim of being separated & distinct • The future is one where the upper watershed will recycle and capture stormwater, further isolating the water management of the upper and lower watersheds. Groundwater Management Zones, Streams & Water Bodies PROP 84 MILLIONS 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Available Grants $105 $1,950 Grant Requests Local Match to Grants $650 % total land Watershed Square % total area (not County Area Miles land area including LA) Orange 536 18.9% 19.2% Riverside 1,244 43.8% 44.5% San Bernardino 1,014 35.8% 36.3% Los Angeles 43 1.5% Watershed:
    [Show full text]
  • FMATS Organizational Study
    Fourth Supervisorial District Bikeways Strategy Background . Fourth District Collaborative (initiated in April 2011) . Objectives: Build consensus on regional bikeway corridors Improve cross-jurisdictional connectivity Foster inter-agency partnerships Encourage bicycling . District 4 includes Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, and Placentia. 2 Collaborative Planning Process 3 Regional Bikeway Corridors . Gap closures . Connect major activity centers Employment centers Transit stations Colleges and universities . Serve beginners through advanced users 4 Regional Bikeway Corridors 5 Regional Bikeway Corridor Prioritization . Performance criteria Bikeway Priority Index Ranking Public input Bikeway linkages Ease of implementation Physical constraints Agency support Safety (collisions and traffic volume) 6 Tiers 1-4 Length Tier Corridor Total Score (miles) Brea Mall – CSUF – Santa Ana River +21 9.9 (Brea, Fullerton, Placentia, Anaheim) Santa Ana River to Coyote Creek Trail 1 +20 11.3 (Anaheim, Fullerton, Buena Park) Union Pacific ROW +20 8.8 (La Habra, Brea, Yorba Linda) Brookhurst Street– Gilbert Avenue +19 9.9 (La Habra, Fullerton, Anaheim) Brea Creek – Bastanchury Road +18 12.5 (Buena Park, Fullerton, Brea, Placentia) 2 Coyote Creek +18 9.6 (La Habra, Fullerton, La Mirada, Buena Park) Fullerton Station +18 13.0 (La Habra, Fullerton, Anaheim) Orangethorpe Avenue 3 +16 12.0 (Buena Park, Anaheim, Placentia) Edison Transmission +14 9.6 (Buena Park, Anaheim) 4 Orange – La Palma +13 8.2 (Buena Park, Anaheim) CSUF – California State University, Fullerton ROW – Right-of-way 7 Priority Projects 8 Action Plan 1. Implement potential easy-to-implement projects 2. Develop implementation plans for Tier 1 corridors More-detailed implementation planning (block-by-block analysis, conceptual engineering, etc.) .
    [Show full text]
  • Staging Area Signs
    STAGING AREA SIGNS Signs (19x27) will be placed at staging areas to alert the public of the pilot program prior to visitors beginning their activity. Trifold 11x17 maps designating the pilot trails will be available in a brochure holder below the sign. TRAILS SUBCOMMITTEE A. PILOT PROJECT DEPLOYMENT– TRAIL USE DESIGNATIONS April 20, 2021 TRAIL SIGNS Signs (12x18) will be placed at both ends of a pilot trail to alert the public of the pilot program and new trail designations. TRAILS SUBCOMMITTEE A. PILOT PROJECT DEPLOYMENT– TRAIL USE DESIGNATIONS April 20, 2021 TRAILS SUBCOMMITTEE A. PILOT PROJECT DEPLOYMENT– TRAIL USE DESIGNATIONS April 20, 2021 11x17 maps designating the pilot trails will be available at each PILOT TRAIL MAPS staging area and distributed at the entry gate at Santiago Oaks. TRAILS SUBCOMMITTEE A. PILOT PROJECT DEPLOYMENT– TRAIL USE DESIGNATIONS April 20, 2021 April 20, 2021 OC Parks Trail Subcommitte - IV.A Pilot Project REGIONAL PARK DAY USE: 7:00 A.M. – SUNSET OFFICE HOURS: Santiago Oaks Regional Park Trail Guide: MON. – FRI. 8:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M. CACTUS CANYON TRAIL • CHUTES RIDGELINE TRAIL PERALTA HILLS TRAIL • PONY TRAIL • YUCCA RIDGE TRAIL PILOT TRAIL PROJECT multi-use multi-use multi-use multi-use multi-use Anaheim Hills Trail: DIFFICULT 1.5 miles Hawk Trail: DIFFICULT .31 miles Oak Trail: DIFFICULT .71 miles Sage Ridge Trail: MODERATE .26 miles Wilderness Trail: EASY .48 miles multi-use hiking only hiking only multi-use multi-use Arizona Crossing Trail: EASY .04 miles Historic Dam Trail: EASY .23 miles Pacifica
    [Show full text]
  • Council Takes Another Shot in Attempt to Kill $15 Million for Coyote Hills
    COMMUNITY Fullerton bsCeALErNDAvR Peage 1r 3-15 O EAR FULLERTON’S ONLY INDEPENDENT NEWS • Est.1978 (printed on 20% recycled paper) • Y 40 #3 • MID FEBRUARY 2018 Submissions: [email protected] • Contact: (714) 525-6402 • Read Online at : www.fullertonobserver.com Officers Fired After Kelly Thomas Death - Sue City to Get Jobs Back by Jesse La Tour Two former Fullerton police officers who were fired over the beating/death of local homeless man Kelly Thomas have sued the city of Fullerton to get their jobs back, plus retroactive lost pay. The officers are Jay Cicinelli and Joseph Wolfe, both of whom were charged by the Orange County District Attorney with excessive force and involuntary manslaughter in 2012 over the much- publicized beating and death of Kelly Thomas. Both officers were fired over the incident. Cicinelli, along with officer Manuel Ramos, went to trial in 2014. Both were acquitted of all charges, including exces - sive force, prompting one of the largest protests in Fullerton history. For most Fullertonians, this was the end of the tragic saga of Kelly Thomas. HAPPY LUNAR NEW YEAR : The Fullerton Chinese Cultural Association hosted a Chinese New Year celebration But for Cicinelli and Wolfe (whose at Sunny Hills High School with dancing, food, calligraphy, and more on February 10th. PHOTO BY JESSE LA TOUR charges were dropped), the acquittal pro - vided grounds for suing the city. If, Union Pacific Park according to the jury, they had done noth - Council Takes Another Shot ing wrong, by that logic, they should not Mixed Use? have been fired. in Attempt to Kill $15 Million A Request for Qualifications inviting continued on page 5 development in the Truslow, Walnut, for Coyote Hills Valencia area, including Union Pacific 7 Park, will come before the city council at .
    [Show full text]