GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013
INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
REDLINE VERSION OF AMENDED SECTIONS OF THE PLAN
Note: This Appendix to the 2013 Greater Los Angeles County IRWM Plan addresses the California Department of Water Resourcss 2016 IRWM Guideline Requirements ATTACHMENT 3
A3-1
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
1. CHAPTER 1 GOVERNANCE AND PARTICIPATION
a. Section 1.1 Background (page 1 -2) – Revised to reference California Water Plan Update 2013.
As noted in the California Water Plan Update 2009 (Bulletin No. 160 -09) and Update 2013:
“The watersheds of the Metropolitan Los Angeles Planning Area have been subjected to some of the densest urbanization in California and have issues associated with urban runoff, groundwater contamination, and the loss of major historical ecosystems.” This Plan also provides an opportunity to include information on the Region’s needs and future at a scale that can contribute to the California Water Plan.
b. Figure 1-2 Leadership Committee Representation (page 1-6) – Revised organization chart (attachment) and description of representation for the Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Subregion.
Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Subregion
Gateway Water Management Authority (GWMA). GWMA is the Chair of the Lower SG & LA SC. GWMA formed a joint powers authority (JPA) in 2007 in response to the State’s requirement to integrate regional watershed activities such as water supply, recycled water, stormwater, conservation measures, wastewater, etc. GWMA currently has 29 cities and water agencies responsible for coordinating the regional watershed needs of 2 million people in the Gateway Region located in Southeastern Los Angeles County.
Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) WRD is the Vice-Chair of the Lower SG & LA SC. WRD manages groundwater for nearly four million residents in 43 cities of Southern Los Angeles County and is the official Groundwater Level Monitoring Entity for the Central Basin and West Coast Basin.
Watershed Conservation Authority (WCA). The WCA is the Vice-Chair of the Lower SG & LA SC. WCA is a joint powers entity between the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) and LACFCD whose focus is to provide multiple benefits such as open space, habitat restora tion, and recreational opportunities in the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Watersheds.
c. 1.5 Stakeholder Involvement
i. Regional Stakeholder and Public Outreach (page 1 -11) – Inserted new language describing the involvement of land use planning entities in information and collaboration activities with the Steering Committees.
Regional Stakeholder and Public Outreach
The majority of stakeholder input to the IRWMP is conducted at the Subregional level which is then reported to the LC through the Su bregional representatives during a ATTACHMENT 3
A3-2
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
standing LC meeting agenda items called “Subregional Reports.” Since Subregional SC meetings are held locally, they increase the ability and time allowed for individual stakeholder participation. Land Use planning entities are invited to SC meetings.
Information sharing and collaboration with regional land use planning entities as described in Section 2.11 takes place primarily through the steering committee meetings. All GLAC stakeholders and general public are a lso invited to attend the monthly LC meetings and can speak during the public comment period.
ii. Table 1-1. Subregional Steering Committee Membership (page 1 -14) – Revised to reflect current list of membership (attachment).
iii. Disadvantaged Community Involvement Program (page 1 -19) – Inserted a new subsection and description for the Disadvantaged Community Involvement Program above the subsection on “Tribal Outreach.”
Disadvantaged Community Involvement Program
In 2016, a Disadvantaged Community Involvement Program (DACIP) Task Force for the Los Angeles -Ventura Funding Area was established to facilitate a consensus -based approach to implement a Funding Area -wide DACIP that meets the objectives of the Proposition 1 DACIP IRWM Grant Program. All three IRWM Regions (GLAC, Upper Santa Clara River, and Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County) have identified the need for resources to support a more comprehensive assessment and education process as a critical step forward in further understanding the water management needs within their disadvantaged communities, economically distressed areas, an d underrepresented communities (collectively referred to as DACs) including Native American tribes, migrant and resident farmworkers, and homeless people (Map 1-4, Los Angeles-Funding Area DACIP Disadvantaged Communities). Results and lessons learned from each Region’s planning efforts over the past eight years have helped frame the Funding Area’s water management needs and engagement strategies to assist in addressing those needs.
For the GLAC Region DAC Committee outreach surveys and workshops were conducted. While these showed a desire from the community for Outreach and Education, as well as Project Site Assessment, Project Development and Coordination, and Technical Assistance, these surveys and workshops also showed that there are missing resour ces needed to fully connect and involve the community in the IRWM process. Funding of the DACIP to carry out local outreach, partnering, and local capacity building through technical assistance will ensure the opportunity for involvement in IRWM planning efforts. of DACs including Native American tribes and homeless people . The results of the DACIP efforts will be fully described in a report after its completion in early 2021.
iv. Tribal Outreach (pages 1-19 to 1-20) – Inserted new language to reference tribes as sovereign nations and as such the government -to-government coordination that takes place with them. The recent participation of the Mission Band of Gabrielino Indians and Tongva was also included.
Tribal Outreach
A specialized task was conducted as part of the Plan Update to determine tribal stakeholders and interests in the Region and then conduct outreach to these interests in an effort to encourage participation in ongoing IRWM activities including the Plan Update.
It should be noted that Tribes are sovereign nations, and as such coordination with Tribes is on a government-to-government basis.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-3
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
The GLAC Region contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine if the Region was home to any federally-recognized tribes or tribal interests.
The response from the NAHC indicated that the Region is not home to any current tribes or tribal lands but provided the contact name and information of several individuals listed as having tribal interests that reside within the GLAC Region. A letter was sent by the LC to each of the individuals on the listing to explain the IRWM Plan Update process, provide contact and Website infor mation and encourage participation. Since then, the GLAC Mission Band of Gabrielino Indians and Tongva expressed interest in the GLAC IRWM process.
d. 1.8 Future Plan Updates or Amendments (page 1-25) – Inserted new language as a second paragraph and revised the third paragraph.
1.8 Future Plan Updates or Amendments
To incorporate other planning documents into the GLAC IRWMP , the Subregional Steering Committees will review and upon approval, recommend incorporation of these plans to the Leadership Committee. The Leadership Committee takes a vote to incorporate the plan. Planning documents that have been approved by the Leadership Committee through this process are included as appendices.
There are, however, on -going IRWM processes that are described in this Plan Update that could result in constant changes - such as new and modi fied Plan projects and prioritization and progress on Plan performance and meeting objectives and targets.
Because of the dynamic nature of these IRWM processes, this Plan Update documents the process used to allow for these changes. These project development and review processes and information on how to access current project list ings and prioritizations are detailed in Chapter 5. The GLAC IRWM process for documenting plan performance and data management are included as part of Chapter 7. As part of the normal plan management activities, the benefits and impacts will be reviewed with each IRWM Plan Update.
Given the amount of resources and time necessary for full Plan updates (such as this 2013 Update) future updates will be dependent upon the need to meet changing DWR requirements and the funding available but will occur no less frequent than every five yearsas often as necessary. Plan amendments to incorporate planning documents or additional information in response to new State IRWM Program Guidelines and eligibility requirements to qualify for funding would not automatically trigger re -adoption of the IRWMP.
2. CHAPTER 2 REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
a. 2.2 Overview
i. North Santa Monica Bay Subregion (page 2-4) – Revised to add relevant information regarding the Subregion.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-4
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
North Santa Monica Bay Subregion
The North SM Bay differs substantially from the other Subregions with respect to land use, water supply, groundwater and surface water quality, aquatic resources, open space and recreation. Over 85 percent of the North SM Bay is still undevel oped open space; remaining land uses in the area are primarily residential and concentrated along the coastline and interior valleys where its 107,000 residents reside. There is little heavy industry. The northern headwaters of the subegion are dominated by the geologic Modelo Formation that is part of the Monterey Formation, California’s primary petroleum source rock, which is a known source of natural contaminants. As a result, Thethe North SM Bay depends almost entirely on imported water due to naturally -poor groundwater quality and low- yielding wells limited surface storage opportunities. Per capita recycled water use is among the highest in the nation, but further expansion is limited to areas that are difficult to reach due to steep mountain slopes. Aquatic habitat protection and restoration is a special priority, as the North SM Bay inc ludes the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, several State Parks, a state desig nated ASBS, and Malibu Lagoon, all heavily used for recreation. The North SM Bay is also home to over a dozen endangered and threatened species, including the sou thernmost Steelhead Trout population in the state.
b. 2.7 Water Quality
i. Ground Water Quality (page 2-42 – 2-43) – Minor revision to the second paragraph.
The third paragraph was also revised to state that additional information regarding AB 1249 requirements are found in the subregional plans. The list of water quality issues in each of the Region’s groundwater basins was also updated.
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality varies throughout the Region, based on naturally occurring conditions, historical land use patterns, and groundwater extraction patterns.
Naturally occurring soil and geologic conditions in the Region often result in elevated levels of dissolved solids in groundwater (measured in terms of TDS). Commonly referred to a s “hard” water, these dissolved solids include inorganic salts (including calcium, magnesium, potassium,sodium bicarbonates, chlorides and sulfates) and small amounts of organic matter. Increases in groundwater TDS concentrations are a function of the recharge of storm and urban runoff, imported water, recycled water, and incidental recharge. Naturally hard water precludes the use of groundwater throughout one of the GLAC IRWMP Subregions, the North Santa Monica Bay Subregion. They are also attributed in part to the legacy of salt contamination from past agricultural and land uses, including fertilizer use and waste disposal.
Groundwater quality in some portions of the Region has been degraded by elevated levels of nitrates primarily from past agricultural land use practices and plumes of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the past disposal of industrial solvents. These inc lude trichloroethylene (TCE), a common degreaser and cleaning product, and perchloroethylene (PCE), commonly used in dry cleaning of clothing. In addition, ATTACHMENT 3
A3-5
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
perchlorate contamination, associated with the manufacturing and testing of solid rocket propellants, is another major concern. The solid salts of ammonium perchlorate, potassium perchlorate, or sodium perchlorate are soluble in water and can persist for decades. Groundwater contamination has also occurred in some locations from the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) a gasoline additive used to increase octane ratings and reduce emissions. Although the use of MTBE was discontinued in 2003 (following the discovery of MTBE in groundwater wells in the City of Santa Monica), many underground gasoline storage tanks leaked and created the potential for contamination.
The location and extent of groundwater contamination in the Region, and the potential resulting impacts to the communities within the Region are described in the subregional plans. Groundwater cleanup efforts are being coordinated by various agencies and cities, including the San Gabriel Basin WQA and WRD.
The following is a summary of water quality issues in each of the Region’s groundwater basins:
• Main San Gabriel Basin: VOCs, NDMA, nitrate, perchlorate, hexavalent chromium, and TDS
• Puente Basin: TDS, nitrate, hexavalent chromium, VOCs • Six Basins: nitrate, perchlorate, VOCs, arsenic, radon • Raymond Basin: TDS, nitrate, perchlorate, VOCs
• San Fernando Basin: TCE, PCE, hexavalent chromium, nitrate, sulfate, TDS • Verdugo Basin: MTBE, nitrate
• Sylmar Basin: nitrate
• Central Basin: TDS, VOCs, perchlorate, nitrate, iron, manganese, chromium, arsenic
• West Coast Basin: TDS, VOCs, manganese
• Santa Monica Basin: TCE, PCE, perchlorate, MTBE
• Hollywood Basin: TDS
c. 2.11 Land Use (page 2-56) – Revised to describe the role of local land use agencies and regional planning departments in “Land Use” IRWM planning efforts.
2.11 Land Use
Land Use within the Region is recognized as the responsibility of the cities and counties.
This reflects the historic pattern of urbanization, as most of the coastal plain and interior valleys are occupied with residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional uses, and most of the foothills and mountains are principally open space. Increasingly, the local land use agencies and regional planning departments are collaborating with water purveyors to more effectively manage the Region’s water demand and infrastructure with respect to climate change impacts. A breakdown of land use in the Region is provided in Table 2-6, and depicted on Maps 2-14(a) through 2-14(e).
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-6
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
d. 2.14 Climate Change (pages 2 -67 through 2 -71) – Revised to include additional information required for “Climate Change”.
2.14 Climate Change (third paragraph )
On a state -wide level, these impacts are expected to impact local water resources as follows (California Water Plan Update 2013, Volume II, South Coast Region, 2014; Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, 2014; DWR, 2011):
Effects of Climate Change on the GLAC Region (second paragraph)
The need for and interest in more refined geographic and temporal scale climate change models has precipitated two recent climate change analysis efforts that were recently completed within the GLAC Region. These two studies inform the latest vulnerabilit y assessments.
Climate Change in the Los Angeles Region: A modeling effort being led by UCLA for a partner ship of the Los Angeles Regional Collaborative for Climate Action and Sustainability and the City of Los Angeles to refine climate modeling for the Greater Los Angeles area between 2041 to 2060. The results of the temperature and precipitation modeling have already been released and have been incorporated into the climate change effects described here. The modeling effort will also produce precipitation, hydrology, cloud cover, wind and sea level rise impacts – however the results of these analyses were not yet available for this section.
Los Angeles Basin Stormwater Conservation Study: A partnership between the US Bureau of Reclamation and the LACFCD to refine climate change projections influenced by localized geographic differences between coastal and inland areas, as well as changes in topography. The Los Angeles Basin Study assessed t he Region’s major water conservation and flood risk management infrastructure to prepare for future drivers that may impact water supply, such as changes to climate and population. The study is a long-range planning effort that evaluated the potential of existing facilities and additional new stormwater capture concepts to increase the resiliency and sustainability of local water supplies under an uncertain future. Resulting climate projections will be simulated in existing LACFCD facilities and hydrologic models to identify potential flooding and supply effects and vulnerabilities. Since the effort was begun in February 2013, the results were not yet available for use in this 2013 Plan Update.
Regional Climate Change Impacts
Climate change impacts and effects are based on different climate change assumptions and analysis approaches. Table 2 -7 summarizes the impacts and effects of climate change on the GLAC Region by 2100 (unless otherwise indicated), which are typi cally based on an average of various c limate change analyses. However only temperature projections are available at a refined scale for the GLAC Region as shown in Table 2.7.
Climate change is expected to increase average temperature by at least 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit by mid-century with the number of hot days (with temperatures greater than 95° F) tripling at the coast. This effect is further exacerbated in the inland areas.
Precipitation is expected to decrease by at 2 to 5 inches throughout the South Coast of ATTACHMENT 3
A3-7
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
California with the most extreme reductions taking place in the higher elevations. These temperature effects are presented in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 from the UCLA climate change modeling effort. Interestingly, climate change is projected to have minor impacts on average annual rainfall within the Region. Annual precipitation totals are anticipated to undergo little to no change. Rainfall intensity is projected to increase over the higher elevation portions of the Region while little change in intensity is expected over the central and coastal areas.
Recent sea level rise studies have estimated a range of 17-66 inch average 11 inch rise along coastal areas in Southern California by the year 2100. The Region uses a system of seawater barriers to prevent saltwater intrusion into the coastal groundwater aquifers and safeguard this water supply source. As sea level rises, the Region will need to be vigilant in the monitoring of its coastal aquifers and use adaptive management techniques as necessary to ensure the health of this supply.
The three major imported water supplies feeding the Region – State Water Project, Colorado River Aqueduct, and Los Angeles Aqueduct – are also anticipating delivery decreases as a result of climate change.
e. Table 2.7: Impacts and Effects of Climate Change on Region (page 2-69) – Revised to update information using the Los Angeles Basin Study Summary Report. See attachment.
Identification of Vulnerabilities (page 2-71)
The Climate Change Subcommittee conducted an exercise to answer vulnerability questions taken from Box 4 -1 of the Climate Change Handbook and associated the answers with potential water management issues/vulnerabilities. See Appendix O for an updated summary of the analysis. Included in this analysis are qualitative vulnerability questions framed to help assess resource sensitivity to climate change and prioritization of climate change vulnerabilities within a region. Answers to vulnerability q uestions are given for the GLAC Region with local examples provided as justification for the answer.
Vulnerability issues are prioritized in the next section.
Prioritization of Vulnerabilities
The justification as to why the following vulnerability issue s were classified as high priority is provided below:
• Decreased ability to meet and/or maintain conservation goals: There is concern that it will may be very difficult for the Region to reachmaintain levels of conservation consistent with the state goal of a 20 percent reduction in per capita potable water use by 2020 and achieve the efficiency targets contemplated under the Governor ’s proposed framework for “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” . In addition, demand hardening will reduce the water use efficiency options available to make further reductions in use beyond the current goal of 20 percent. Although conservation programs reduce the amount of water needed by customers, not all long-term conservation programs have not generated overall cost savings to those the customers. Water supply agencies must still maintain and operate supply facilities so decreased revenues as a result of conservation must be balanced through rate adjustments or decoupled rates. Increased costs to customers could discourage them some from continuing water conservation.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-8
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
3. CHAPTER 3 OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES
a. 3.2 Objectives: Improve Water Supply (pages 3-3) – Revised to include additional information required for “Climate Change”.
Improve Water Supply
Optimize local water resources to reduce the Region’s reliance on imported water Most years, the San Gabriel Mountains receive substantial rainfall and existing dams and natural storage slowly release runoff, providing an impor tant source of high-quality and low-cost water that can be treated for direct use or recharged into groundwater basins for later use. At several locations, recharge is limited by the capacity of existing recharge facilities. Rehabilitation and expansion of rec harge facilities, modified operation of existing storage facilities, rehabilitation and enlargement of upstream storage capacity, and optimization of operational practices could improve the utilization of this local water source. Further, diversifying the water supply portfolio equips the Region to continually adapt to climate change.
The Region’s concern about water shortages has increased the local interest in graywater reuse as a source of non-potable water supply. The California Plumbing Code was amended in August 2009 when Chapter 16A was adopted to allow the use of graywater from clothes washers without a permit from local government subject to some environmental protection conditions. Local governments are reviewing options for expanding the graywater reuse opportunities for more fixtures while addressing potential impacts on a case-by-case basis. Total graywater within a residence may account for as much as 60 percent of the total indoor water consumption. The LADWP estimates that the residential graywater reuse capacity may range from 50 to 165 million gallons per day.
Lastly, diversifying the water supply portfolio helps the Region to better adapt to climate change.
b. 3.2 Objectives: Reduce Flood Risk (page 3 -5) - Revised to include additional information required for “Climate Change.”
Reduce Flood Risk
Reduce flood risk in flood prone areas by either increasing protection or decreasing needs using integrated flood management approaches
Although, abundant sunshine is one of the Region’s main attractions, occasional storm events have the potential to generate substantial amounts of runoff which can create significant flood risks. The Region’s extensive flood management system must be operated, maintained, and enhanced where needed to protect lives and property.
Additionally, c limate change is projected to create more intense storm events and in some cases, may warrant modifications to flood control infrastructure or expansions. As elements of the flood protection system warrant s ignificant repair or replacement, consideration should be given to the implementation of more integrated flood management systems. Projects that propose to: 1) reduce runoff via onsite best ATTACHMENT 3
A3-9
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
management practices (BMPs); 2) capture and treat urban and storm water runoff for treatment; 3) expand groundwater recharge; or 4) restore habitat, must also preserve or enhance existing flood protection levels.
c. 3.2 Objectives: Address Climate Change (page 3-5) - Revised to include additional information required for “Climate Change.”
Address Climate Change
Adapt to and mitigate against climate change vulnerabilities The potential effects , and impacts and vulnerabilities of climate change impacts were assessed in the context of the vulnerabilities of on the GLAC Region were assessed as part of the 2013 Plan Update and described in Chapter 2. In general, the Region can expect to have significant temperature increases, and little to no change in annual precipitation, and more intense storm events decreases (by 20102100) that will impact local water demands, supplies, water quality and habitat. The resulting runoff from these storm events is projected to have higher flows, yet the overall seasonality of the runoff is not expected to change much. Sea level rise and the more intense storm events are also expected to impact the Region causing flooding, water quality and other water management and land use issues. With the three major imported water supplies feeding the Region are also anticipating delivery decreases as a result of climate change, the Region recognizes that it must be ready to adapt to these impacts.
d. 3.3 Planning Targets (page 3-7) - Revised to include additional information required for “Climate Change.”
Increase capture and direct use of stormwater runoff by 26,000 AFY
Stormwater runoff is a largely unde rutilized resource within the Region and seen as a key resource to help adapt to climate change . The Region’s highly urbanized areas generate a large amount of runoff during winter storms that is only partially captured for direct use or to recharge local aquifers. However, this supply is very seasonal and so it is often infeasible to construct and operate facilities to store larger amounts of surface water supplies, so much of the w inter storm flows are lost to the ocean. It is possible to capture urban runoff for direct use through the implementation of both small, decentralized projects as well as storage reservoirs.
e. 3.3 Planning Targets (page 3-12) - Revised to include additional information required for “Climate Change.”
Implement mitigation strategies that decrease emissions of GHGs Decreasing the amount of energy required to produce water supply is one of the greatest ways that the Region can mitigate against further climate change impacts. By optimizing facilities and using less energy intensive water resource strategies to meet nee ds, the Region and its stakeholders can reduce GHG emissions and contribute to lessening the future climate impacts. The Region can also consider implementing green infrastructure projects that use natural solutions such as carbon sequestration and/or projects that use renewable energy to reduce GHG emissions. Additionally, Ssome “no regret” strategies, like water use efficiency, will directly reduce GHG emissions by not requiring water to be produced to meet the same need. The GLAC Region is supportive of strategies that both ATTACHMENT 3
A3-10
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
help adapt to mitigate against climate change , such as considering the strategies in CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. The strategies that can be used to meet these targets are provided in Chapter 4.
4. CHAPTER 4 REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT
a. 4.1 Introduction (page 4 -1) – Revised to include reference to California Water Plan Update 2013 Resource Management Strategies.
4.1 Introduction
As part of the 2017 amendment process for the GLAC IRWM Plan, 2013 Plan Update process, the GLAC Region reviewed the management strategies called out in the 2006 Plan relative to the new IRWM Plan 2013 the Plan objectives and the Resource Management Strategies (RMS) listed in the California Water Plan Update 20092013 (DWR, 20092013)., includ ing the new additions . The purpose of reviewing these Management Strategies in this context is to identify which ones will help achieve the Plan objectives through project or program implementation within the GLAC Region . In order to determine which strategies are suitable for the Region ,. Subregional SC meetings and a public review process were held to solicit feedback and input from the Region’s stakeholders. Section 4.3 describes each of the Resource Management Strategies that the stakeholders were determined were to be relevant to the GLAC Region. Those RMS’s not discussed in Section 4.3 were considered not applicable. This chapter presents the strategies considered by the SC stakeholders for the 2013 Plan Update, and updatesamends the 2006 2013 Plan language accordingly . This chapter also specifically includes an evaluation of the adaptability of water management systems in the Region to climate change.
b. 4.2 California Water Plan Resource Management Strategies (page 4-1) – Revised to include reference to California Water Plan Update 2013 Resource Management Strategies
4.2 California Water Plan Resource Management Strategies Division 43,Proposition 1, Chapter 27 Regional Water Security Climate and Drought Preparedness (California Water Code, Section 79740-79748)75206(a) of the California Water Code authorizes funding (pursuant to Proposition 84) to improve regional water self-reliance security and adapt to the effects on water supply arising out of climate change for long -term water needs of the state , and requires that eligible projects implement IRWM Plans that address the water management strategies identified within the California Water Plan Update 20092013:
c. Table 4-1 DWR California Water Plan Update 2013 Management Strategies (pages 4-2 through 4-3) – Revised Table 4-1 to reflect the California Water Plan Update 2013 Management Strategies, replacing the 2009 Management Strategies. See attachment.
d. 4.3 2017 GLAC Region Water Management Strategies
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-11
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
i. Stormwater Quality, Flood, and Sedimentation Management (pages 4-17 and 4-18) – Minor revision on paragraph 9 and inserted information on sedimentation management before and after paragraph 9.
Stormwater Quality, and Flood, and Sedimentation Management (RMS # 15, 17, 19, 27, & 284, 16, 18, 20, & 27)
Package Natural
treatment plants treatment systems
Increase recharge Use stormwater
of stormwater for landscape irrigation
Figure 4-13. Stormwater currently lost to the ocean is a potential candidate for capture treatment, recharge, and reuse.
Stormwater Quality, Flood and Sedimentation
Management Opportunities
Package
treatment plants
Natural treatment systems
Increase recharge of
stormwater
Use stormwater for
landscape irrigation
Pursue feasible sediment
management alternatives
Use sediment materials
for beneficial uses
Figure 4-13. Stormwater currently lost to the ocean is a potential candidate for capture treatment, recharge, and reuse. Sediment materials currently captured which have beneficial uses can assist in reducing flood risks.
In recent years, new sediment management challenges have been identified. In particular, recent wildfires have led to an increased inflow of sediment and debris within flood management structures. This has put pressure on the remaining capacity of existing sediment placement sites. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s Sediment Management Strategic Plan (SMS Plan) was developed to consider new alternatives that can reduce the environmental and social impacts of sediment management. The SMS Plan provides a balanced approach to ensure the flood management and water conservation system remains operational well into the future and able to provide flood control and water conservation purposes by proactively addressing key issues affecting sediment management.
Opportunities to enhance flood management include projects such as the Sun Valley Watershed Plan, which addresses an area of chronic flooding with alternative approaches Stormwater Quality and Flood
Management Opportunities
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-12
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
to construction of a flood conveyance channel through the use of using gravel pits and underground drains below parkland to infiltrate runoff and thereby enhance groundwater recharge. If successful, the Sun Valley Plan can serve as a model for future localized flood management improvements. Flood attenuation to reduce peak flood flows, via expanded on-site infiltration and increased upstream storage, represents an opportunity to enhance the potential for river channel modifications, such as those proposed in the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan.
Opportunities to facilitate sediment management alternatives for reservoirs and debris basins in the Region include a combination of removal, transportation, beneficial uses and placement. Sediment removal includes excavation, sluicing, dredging, and sediment flushing. Transport of sediment can be by way of conveyor belts, slurry pipes, and trucks.
Beneficial uses and placement include daily cover at solid waste landfills, fill at pits, or sediment placement sites.
The San Gabriel Reservoir Sedimentation Management Project is an example of a potential project using a combination of the above alternatives. The San Gabriel Reservoir has 23.8 MCY of sediment removal planned over the next 20 years and another 3.4 MCY that could potentially be sluiced or delivered by slurry pipeline from the upstream Cogswell Reservoir.
ii. Ecosystem Restoration RMS # 22,28 (page 4 -20) – Deleted reference to CWP Update 2009 and inserted 2013 on the second paragraph.
Ecosystem Restoration (RMS # 22, 28)
In recent decades, technologies have emerged to restore function and productivity to degraded or destroyed ecosystems. Scientists, engineers, and community groups have begun working with federal, state, and local governments to restore ecosystem function to the Region’s native ecosystems. According to the CWP Update DWR 20092013 (Ecosystem Restoration, Chapter 22), ecosystem restoration improves the condition of modified natural landscapes and biological communities to provide for their sustainability and for their use and enjoyment by current and future generations . Few, if any, of California’s ecosystems can be fully restored to their condition before development. Instead, efforts must focus on rehabilitation of important elements of ecosystem structure and function. Successful restoration increases the diver sity of native spec ies and biological communities, and the abundance and connectivity of habitats.
iii. Open Space and Recreation (page 4 -23) – Revised title from “Open Space, Recreation” to “Open Space and Water-Dependent Recreation and added new RMS #
31. Open Space, Recreation
Recreation and Public Access (RMS # 23, 24 24 & 26, 31) iv. Watershed Planning RMS #27 (page 4-28) – Deleted reference to CWP 2009 and replaced it with CWP 2013 in paragraph 4.
v. Outreach and Engagement RMS #29 (page 4-28) – Inserted description for n ew RMS.
Outreach and Engagement (RMS #29)
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-13
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
The California Water Plan describes outreach and engagement for water management as the “use of tools and practices by water agencies to facilitate contributions by public individuals and groups to ward good water management outcomes.” Improved education, outreach and engagement has increased the public’s awareness of critical water issues and their understanding of benefits, costs and impacts of water resources management alternatives leading to be tter engagement and contributing towards good water management.
The 2013 Plan Update includes several discussions within the Stakeholder Involvement section (1.5) which describes outreach and recruitment of stakeholders, the public, disadvantaged communities, local planning entities, and other IRWM Regions.
In 2013, DWR sponsored two local studies to evaluate and recommend strategies for future DAC engagement processes. Council for Watershed Health carried out the DAC Outreach Evaluation Study on effective outreach strategies to DACs within the Region, and th e San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy published the Alcanza Project, engaging disadvantaged communities in the planning process of developing projects. These efforts show that the most effective engagement strategies are based on highly localized efforts where “links” in the form of partnerships between water management agencies, municipalities, nonprofits, and community-based groups are supported, and that the community values outreach and education, project site assessment, project development, and technical assistance. The DACIP effort is intended to support collaborative work involving DACs, community-based organizations, and stakeholders in IRWM planning efforts, increase understanding, and where necessary, identify water arrangement needs of DACs, and develop strategies and long- term solutions that appropriately address the identified DAC water management needs.
Outreach and Engagement Opportunities
Increase outreach
Improve educational
outreach material design
and tailor information to
targeted communities
Increase
engagement
Expand and improve
partnerships among
agencies, nonprofits, and
community-based groups
Figure 4-21. The Region is continually expanding and
improving its Outreach and Engagement activities.
vi. Water and Culture RMS #30 (page 4-28) – Inserted description for new RMS.
Water and Culture RMS # 30
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-14
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
Reaching out across our cultural divides is one necessary factor to achieve successful water management planning. Thus, this RMS is included in the IRWM Plan based on the important principles it conveys to “link cultural considerations to water management. ” Although the RMS acknowledges it represents more of an annotated outline than a fully developed strategy and that is often difficult to define culture or cultural groups, the GLAC Region has actively incorporate d practices and processes to be inclusive of all stakeholders. The GLAC Region is truly multi-cultural with a myriad of ethnicities, Native American tribes presence and practices, surfing and beach culture, and a strong environmental movement, to list a few.
The GLAC Region aims to increase involvement with the diverse communities in the Region through the DAC Involvement Program (DACIP). The DACIP began in 2017 and aims to increase engagement by underrepresented minorities, economically disadvantaged areas and tribal members. Through these efforts and others, the GLAC IRWM anticipates local communities will become more engaged in the collaborative process and in future water -related planning and projects. Furthermore, project sponsors are responsible for considering and outreaching to stakeholders within project specific boundaries.
Water and Culture Opportunities
Water and
Culture
Consider cultural values
and uses and its effects on
water management
Figure 4-22. The Region is continually expanding and
improving its Water and Culture activities.
vii. Climate Change (page 4-28) – Updated list of climate change related documents and inserted new text in the last paragraph.
4.4 Climate Change
The strategies discussed above can be used to help the Region adapt to the climate change vulnerabili ties identified in Chapter 2, and mitigate furt her climate change impacts. The Climate Change Subcommittee reviewed the Resource Management Strategies discussed above, and also developed an initial list of both adaption and mitigation strate gies through review of relevant climate change related docume nts.
These documents include:
• Managing an Uncertain Future (DWR, 2008)
• Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB, 2006)
• Climate Action Team Biennial Report (CalEPA, 2010)
• Resolution on Sea Level Rise (OPC, 2010)
• Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan for Los Angeles County Coast (USACE, 2012)
• Los Angeles Basin Study (LACFCD/USBR, 2015)
• Regional Adapt LA: Coast Impacts Planning in the Los Angeles Region (USC, 2017)
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-15
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
• Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans (CNRA, 2014)
IRWM Plan projects that implement any of these climate change and/or GHG mitigation strategies would therefore be helping the Region meet the specific targets identified that support the objective.
CHAPTER 5 INTEGRATED REGIONAL PROJECTS
a. 5.2 Project Review and Selection Process (page 5 -2) – Revised l ast bullet under “What types of projects are encouraged ”. to address new “Climate Change” requirements.
• Adapt to and mitigate against climate change vulnerabilities , and reduc e energy consumption and overall GHG emissions
b. 5.5 Selecting Projects Integration (page 5-5) – Revised paragraph 3 to address new “Climate Change” requirements.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Region wants to maintain flexibility to prioritize projects as needed, based on issues the Region is facing at the time, such as severe drought, flooding conditions, emerging climate change effects or other unforeseen circumstances. Not prioritizing projects also gives the Region more flexibility to select projects for funding from various grant programs that may not be at/near the top of a prioritized list, but may be well supported by a deserving community.
For a ll these reasons, the Region’s decision was to maintain a list of projects, but without prioritizing them. The process occurs at the direction of the LC and the most recent project selection is posted on the project database webpage. The general process and criteria to be used to determine the priority level of projects are provided in the box below. These could be superseded by specific grant criteria c. 5.3 Project Integration (page 5-6) – Revised first paragraph to address new “Climate Change: requirements
5.3 Project Integration
As DWR notes in the Guidelines, IRWM planning decisions can lead to existing or “off the shelf” projects being combined or replaced by new and/ or different projects. Part of the advantage of regional planning is addressing similar objectives of local interests with a regional project. Resources of personnel, finance, and equipment to implement multiple smaller efforts may benefit from economies of scale when similar local interests can be met with a regional project. IRWM pl ans must contain provisions for reviewing project objectives and considering new, expanded, or even different solutions that meet multiple local needs. The decisions made in the IRWM Plan should consider the interconnected needs of the Region and not just the needs of specific entities in the RWMG. The RWMG should also consider integrating solutions that adapt to climate change and help to mitigate GHG emissions. Opportunities for project integration are regular topics of ATTACHMENT 3
A3-16
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
discussion at GLAC Subregional S Cs’ monthly meetings and during quarterly project review workshops.
d. Table 5.3 Glace IRWMP Approved Projects as of August 2017 (pages 5-21 to 5-2) – Replaced with a list of approved projects as of August 2017. See attachment.
6. CHAPTER 7 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
a. 7.5 Adaptive Management and Planning Needs (page 7 -12) – Revised to provide additional information to address “Adaptive Management” requirement.
An adaptive management process will be used to analyze project and plan performance and identify the need for modification of projects and the need for additional Region planning through the GLAC IRWM Program.
Adaptive management and monitoring is critical to ensure that the IRWM Plan remains relevant and projects function properly in light of different stressors. The following strategies are especially helpful for adapting to and mitigating climate change. These are also useful for other emerging factors that require action as well.
7. LIST OF ACRONYMS – Attached is a revised list of acronyms.
8. APPENDIX I . LOWER SAN GABRIEL & LOWER LOS ANGELES RIVERS SUBREGIONAL PLAN – Attached are revised pages in compliance with providing information to address AB 1249 requirements.
9. APPENDIX J. NORTH SANTA MONICA BAY SUBREGIONAL PLAN – Attached is a revised page in compliance with providing information to address AB 1249 requirements.
10. APPENDIX K. SOUTH BAY SUBREGIONAL PLAN – Attached are revised pages and three maps in compliance with providing information to address AB 1249 requirements.
11. APPENDIX L. UPPER LOS ANGELES RIVER SUBREGIONAL PLAN – Attached are revised pages and three maps in compliance with providing information to address AB 1249 requirements.
12 APPENDIX M . UPPER SAN GABRIEL & RIO HONDO SUBREGIONAL PLAN – Attached is a revised page in compliance with providing information to address AB 1249 requirements.
13. APPENDIX O CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY EXERCISE
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-17
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
a. The description was revised to provide additional information to “Climate Change Vulnerability” requirements.
The GLAC IRWM Climate Change Subcommittee conducted an exercise to answer a vulnerability questionsassessment aligned with taken from Box 4 -1 of the Climate Change Handbook and associated the answers with concerning potential water management issues/vulnerabilities. Table 1 summarizes the analysis and was updated based upon the latest local climate research within the Los Angeles Region. Qualitative vulnerability questions are framed to help assess resource sensitivity to climate change and prioritization prioritizeof climate change vulnerabilities within a Region. Answers to vulnerability questions are given for the GLAC Region with local examples provided as justification for the answer.
b. Table: 1 Region’s “Climate Change Vulnerability Indicator Questions” – Minor revisions. See attachment.
14. Appendix P (New)- List of “Other Planning Documents” that have been incorporated by reference to the IRWM Plan, such as Gateway IRWM Plan, Stormwater Resources Plans, and others. See attachment. Additional information specific to each planning document can be accessed at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/irwmp/Prop1SWRP.aspx ATTACHMENT 3
A3-18
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013
INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
REVISED FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDICES
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-19
Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management P(an Subregional Representation
`dater Management Focus Area Representation
Figure 1-2. Leadership Committee Representation. The Leadership Committee consists of representatives from each Steering Committee and each Water Management Area.
1-6 ~ Governance and Participation
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-20
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-21
Lower
San
Gabriel
and
Los
Angeles
Rivers
North
Santa
Monica
Bay
South
Bay
-
~ - ~ ~ -
•
California
Coastal
Conservancy
•
Central
Basin
Municipal
Water
District
•
Council
for
Watershed
Health
•
County
Sanitation
Districts
of
Los
Angeles
County
•
From
Lotto
Spot
•
Gateway
Water
Management
Authority
•
Los
Angeles
County
Flood
Control
District
•
Orange
County
Resources
and
Development
Management
Department
•
Water
Replenishment
District
•
Watershed
Conservation
Authority
•
California
Department
of
City
of
Los
Angeles
Bureau
o'
Transportation
Sanitation
•
City
of
Agoura
Hills
City
of
Torrance
•
City
of
Calabasas
•
City
of
Malibu
•
City
of
Westlake
Village
•
Los
Angeles
County
Flood
Control
District
•
Las
Virgenes
Municipal
Water
District
•
Los
Angeles
County
Board
of
Supervisors,
3rd
District
•
Malibou
Lake
Mountain
Club
•
Mountains
Restoration
Trust
•
Resource
Conservation
District
of
the
Santa
Monica
Mountains
•
Water
District
# 29
Los
Angeles
County
Department
of
Public
Works
•
West
Basin
Municipal
Water
District
•
Westlake
Lake
Management
Association
•
California
Department
of
Parks
and
Recreation
•
Los
Angeles
County
Beaches
&
Harbors
•
National
Park
Service
-Santa
Monica
Mountains
NRA
•
Santa
Monica
Bay
Restoration
Commission
•
Santa
Monica
Waterkeepers
•
Santa
Monica
Mountains
Conservancy
•
Triunfo
Sanitation
District
•
Heal
the
Bay
•
Los
Angeles
County
Flood
Control
District
•
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Water
a
Power
•
County
Sanitation
Districts
of
Los
Angeles
County
•
Santa
Monica
Bay
Restoration
Commission
•
South
Bay
Cities
COG
•
Water
Replenishment
District
•
West
Basin
Municipal
Water
District
•
Westside
Cities
COG
Non
-Voting
Members
•
Los
Angeles
County
Beaches
and
Harbors
•
Los
Angeles
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
Upper
Los
Angeles
River
•
Arroyo
Seco
Foundation
•
Burbank
Water
and
Power
•
City
of
Calabasas
•
City
of
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Water
and
Power
•
City
of
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Recreation
&Parks
•
City
of
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Public
Works,
Bureau
of
Sanitation
•
City
of
Pasadena
•
City
of
South
Pasadena
•
Council
District
9 •
Council
for
Watershed
Health
•
Foothill
Municipal
Water
District
•
Glendale
Water
and
Power
•
Los
Angeles
County
Flootl
Control
District
•
Mountains
Recreation
and
Conservation
Authority
•
Pacoima
Beautiful
•
The
River
Project
•
Tree
People
•
Tujunga
Watershed
Area
•
The
River
Project
Upper
San
Gabriel
and
Rio
Hondo
Rivers
•
City
of
La
Veme
•
City
of
Monrovia
•
City
of
Arcadia
•
Council
for
Watershed
Health
•
County
Sanitation
Districts
of
Los
Angeles
County
•
Los
Angeles
County
Flood
Control
District
•
Main
San
Gabriel
Basin
Watermaster
•
Puente
Basin
Water
Agency
•
Raymond
Basin
Management
Board
•
Rivers
and
Mountains
Conservancy
•
San
Gabriel
Basin
Water
Quality
Authority
•
San
Gabriel
Mountains
Regional
Conservancy
•
San
Gabriel
Valley
Municipal
Water
District
•
San
Gabriel
Valley
Water
Association
•
Three
Valleys
Municipal
Water
District
•
Upper
San
Gabriel
Valley
Municipal
Water
District
•
Los
Angeles
County
Flood
Control
District
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-22
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-23
~~
~\
Propi
Los
Angeles
-Ventura
~~~
Funding
Area
~,
!'~ S„.
~
f
\
Integrated
Reganal
Water
~
`"
0!~JQ
`~J
Management
QRWM)
Areas
l^\
IRWM
Subre~gwns/
~~T
~,y~
~✓
Subwatersh
ds
``
gp~'-~...;~
WCVC
/
USCR
Desgnated
~,,,
~
DAC
Prrorrty
AcirvRy
Areas
~„~~~.,
`~~ ~~
GLAC
DAC
Outreach
Study
Communities
~(
DWR
DAC
Desgnatron
Santa
tiara
Rrver
watarsned
UPPER
SANTA
i
Underrepresented
^'=
~
Communmes
CLARA
RNER
fffl
j
~
~
~..`~~
IRWM
~
~
~~
I
I
WATERSHEDS
COALITION
~.S'~.,
`/
~
;;
h
v
wm.nh.a
~
OF
VENTURA
COUNTY
'"—''~
~
p~
~
~~
IRWM
,~
~l
3 ~
~3
.~
~
..
i~
_
_
y..
._
._
_
n Y~
.-~.-
..
~
•Uv
~~
~
~~
Upper
Los
Angeles
f
~~J
~
River
,.
_.
_
..
..
_.
~
ceue~ua.
c.eek
Watershed
~ `~~~~~'.
~
~
GREATER
LOS
ANGELES
~~
~'-
-'~
.~—•..~~~
~
tit,p
:.
couNry
IRWM
up~~r
sin
c,~.~~i
and
Rio
Mando
Rivers
~~'
~
7l
NoRh
Santa
Menica
Ray
p`~
..
-
Q
m
,~
V
~
m
~
9 O
~~~
,s
p
m
'~
€7
f~l
~
@
".,
'
..i...
m
. Q
~
k-~!
___
~
Q
d
, Q
rm
„
..
._
-
-.
-~
~
m
•~'
f}3
Lower
San
Gabriel
and
Les
Anyalas
_.
_.~
'.
-
..
~
....
_
~
South
C'~
~
Rivers
1""
.
'_`
„~
~a~a°~~'
y
Bay
,..
_. ..~
it/
~
,r
r
Island
}
~~
e
Map
1-4
LA
-Ventura
Funding
Area
~~
M..
—
_ .._ -.
~u~
~J
~
—
~ ----'
""
~
D~fGIP
Disadvantaged
Communities
DESIGNATED
DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES
WITHIN
THE
PROP
1 LOS
ANGELES-VENTURA
FUNDING
AREA
1 - Adems/Cmt.al
63. Mid~Ciry
Wert
7~ArlingtoNHarvard
Heightz
6/
-North
Lynwood
3~Arls
DisrcicVWe:t
Boyle
Hoghn
65 -Northeast
Pauden~
~~Alweter
Wllage
66 -North
Long
beach
S~Axuv/Ciwz
67-Nwthem
Low<.
LAR
Gees
6-BeNllower/Southeast
Downey
60-Nonhem
Taaena
7-Boyle
Hnghm
69-NoMwest
Gla~sdl
Park
B~CalPoly
Pomona
70 -Northwest
Norwalk
9-CanogaCwndor
71~Outer
6po
Par4
10 ~ Central
Burbank
72 ~ Pacoima
11 ~ Cmhal
Glendale
73. Palma
12 - Canval
Huncngton
Perk
74 ~ Panorama
Ciry
13 ~ Cennal
Lang
beach
75 ~ Peremount
10Central
Pomona
76 -Pico
Unbn
15-Canval
Rezeda/S.
Nonhndge
77~Rowland/Industry
16-Cemral
San
Pedro
78 -San
Fernando
17-Cenval5outh
Gace
79 -Soma
Mon
<a
l-lO
Corridor
1B~Cenval
Wh'lt
er
BO-Sawtelle
19 ~ Central
Winelka
Bt
-S'Iverlake
20-ChmalowNComfield
82 -South
Boyle
Heights
21~Gry
Tnrare
83 -South
Centel
22~CommercdBell
Gardens
84-S.
Harbor
Gateway/Weat
Gown
23 -County
Hospital
BS
-South
Park/Fashwn/Lohs
DisV¢t
20 ~ Crenshaw/Baldwin
Hills
B6
-Sough
Puente
Valley
25-CSUTA
and
Nmghborhaod
87 -Sun
Valley
Eazt
]6
~Cypreas/Glascell
Perk
BB
-Sun
Valley
South
27 ~ Eart
Cmtnl
Long
Beech
89 -Soulhwast
Mar
Vista
YB
~Eaat
Del
ftey
90-Sylmar/Feothdl
Blvd
Camm.
29-EastHdlywaod
91-Tujunga/Foothill
Blvd
30.Eut
WMontebellWPi<o
Rivera
92~Velley
GleMValley
Yllage
31 - Eutem
Wesc
Hollywood
93 -Van
Nuys
32•El
Sareno
94 -Vera
Nuys
Airport
33 ~ Elyvan
Park
95 Vmmont
Knolls
34-ElyHan
Vallry/Fogmwn
96 •Vermont
Square
35 -Florence
Firea~one
97 Wanz
Proper
36-Garde~a/N
Harbor
Gateway
9B
Wattz
West
37~GIan~6ank
99 -West
Adams/JeNeraon
Par4
38 • GoodyearNan
Meter
Springs
100
-West
Lang
Beach
39 ~ Greater
Athens
101
-West
SGV
iD
Freeway
40 ~ Greater
Baldwin
Park
102
-Western
South
Whinier
Ol-Greater
Compmn
103-WesJake
42 ~ Greater
Echo
Park
100
~ Westmont
43 - G~wtei
EI
Monte
105
~ W~Immgmn
4d
-Greeter
~ncoln
He
ghb
106-Gsitas
5p~ngs
45 -Greater
North
Hopywaod
107
EI
R
o
46 ~ Greater
W~Ilowbrook
70B
~ F'llmwe
97 , Hewa
ion
Gardere
109
-Nyland
Acies
48-Maw~home
110~O.vrd
49 -Highland
Park
111
.Piro
50 ~ Hollywood
112
-Santa
Paula
S1~HydNHarvard
Park
113
-Sat
<oy
52 ~ Inglewood
114
Weat
Ventura
53~Korearown
IIS-Boquet
Canyon
50 - Lawndale
116
~ Canyon
[ounvy
55 - lsimert
Par4
117
- Cntalc
56 ~ Lennoa
11 B
lake
Hughes
57-~Me
TokyoRay
DistncUSkd
Raw
119
-Newhall
58-Lomlm/Southwest
Gaon
120
-Santa
Clarita
59 -Les
Feliz
121
. Val
Verde
60 •ins
Niems
122.
Agua
Dulre
61-Mencherte~Marvaid/ChesteAidd
lI3-Acton
62 -Mid{iry
116.
Avalon
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-24
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-25
Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management .. ..
Impact to Effect
Coastal LA Basin: Increases of 3.5 to 4°F (2040-2060)
Inland LA Basin: Increases of 4 to 4.5°F (2040-2060)
Mountains &Desert: Increases of 4.5 to 5.5°F (2040-2060) Temperature Source: Walton et al 2075
Change
Extreme Hot Days: Number will triple in coastal areas and central Los Angeles, quadruple in San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys (2040-2060) Source: Sun et al 2075
Across the entire LA Basin: Little to no change (approximately 0%) is expected over Precipitationthe next century (2011-2095)
Source: LA Basin Study Task 3.1
Decrease of 1 % in gallons per capita per day due to a combination of projected Demand temperature increases and the ranges of precipitation.
Source: LA Basin Study Task 2, Water Supply &Demand Projections State Water Project:
• Delivery decrease of 7-10% by 2050
• Snowpack decrease of 48-65°/a (2070-2099)
• Delivery decrease of 21-25°/a by 2100
Source: DWR 2009
Colorado River:
Imported Flows to decrease by 7-9% by 2050
Supply Shortages to Lower Basin of:
o 1 MAF over any 2-year window up to 51 % of the time
0 1.5 MAF over any 5-year window up to 59°/a of the time Source: Reclamation 2012
Los Angeles Aqueduct:
• Decrease in "base-of-mountain" runoff of approximately 1.7% (2040-2069) • Decrease in "base-of-mountain" runoff of approximately 5.0% (2070-2099) Source: LADWP UWMP 2011
Sea Level Rise Rise of 5-24 inches by 2050(along the LA Rise of 17-66 inches by 2100region coastline Source: Grifman et al 2013
Non—Santa Ana Fires: Burned area to increase 77% (±43%) (2040-2060). This type Wildfire Risk of fire will change the most in the future and start to dominate the summer season.
Santa Ana Fires: Burned area to increase by 64°/o (±76%) (2040-2060).
Source: Jin et al 2015
Local Decreases of between 31-42% (2040-2060)
Snowpack Decreases of between 31-66% (2080-2100)
Source: Sun et al 2013
Source: LA Basin Study Summary Report
Regional Description 12-69
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-26
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-27
Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Flood Management Strategies that decreasing the potential for flood-related damage to property or life including control or management of floodplain lands or physical projects to control runoff.
Maintaining, optimizing use of, and increasing the reliability of regional treated and 5 Conveyance -Delta untreated water conveyance facilities. Included within this strategy is maintaining the ability to obtain and convey imported water supplies into the Region.
Strategies include improvement conveyance systems, upgrading aging distribution systems, promoting development of more extensive interconnections among water Conveyance — resources systems, establishing performance metrics for quantitative and qualitative Regional/ Local indicators (e.g., quantity of deliveries, miles of rehabilitated conveyance facilities, and resiliency of conveyance to earthquakes and fewer regulatory conflicts), and assuring adequate resources to maintain the condition and capacity of existing constructed and natural conveyance facilities.
Managing surface storage facilities to optimize the availability and quality of stored water 7 System Reoperationsupplies and to protecUenhance beneficial uses. Includes balancing supply and delivery forecasts, coordinating and interconnecting reservoir storage, and optimizing depth and timing of withdrawals.
8 Water Transfers Contracting to provide additional outside sources of imported water to the Region over and above contracted State Water Project and Colorado River supplies.
Conjunctive Using and managing groundwater supplies to ensure sustainable groundwater yields while 9 Management and maintaining groundwater-dependent beneficial uses, including coordinating management Groundwater of ground- water and surface water supplies (conjunctive use). 10 Desalination
(Brackish and Sea Develo inP 9 Potable water supplies through desalination of seawater. Includes disposal of Water) waste brine.
~ ~ Precipitation Increasing precipitation yields through cloud seeding or other precipitation enhancing Enhancement measures.
~ 2 Municipal Recycled Developing usable water supplies from treated municipal wastewater. Includes recycled Water water treatment, distribution, storage, and retrofitting of existing uses. 13 SurFace Storage — Developing additional CALFED storage capacity or more efficiently using existing CALFED CALFEDState storage capacity.
Surface Storage — ~veloping additional yield through construction or modification (enlargement) of local or ~ 4 Regional/Local regional surface reservoirs or developing surface storage capabilities in out-of-region reservoirs.
Drinking Water Includes improving the quality of the potable supply delivered to potable water customers 15 Treatment and by increasing the degree of potable water treatment. Strategy also may include Distribution conveyance system improvements that improve the quality of supply delivered to treatment facilities.
16 Groundwater/Aquifer Includes strategies that remove pollutants from contaminated groundwater aquifers Remediation through pumping and treatment, in situ treatment, or other means. 4-2 Regional Water Management
Agricultural Water Increasing water use efficiency and achieving reductions in the amount of water used for 2 Use Efficiency agricultural irrigation. Includes incentives, public education, and other efficiency-enhancing programs.
Urban Water Use Increasing water use efficiency by achieving reductions in the amount of water used for 3 Efficiency municipal, commercial, industrial, irrigation, and aesthetic purposes. Includes incentives, ublic education, and other efficienc -enhancin ro rams.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-28
Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Pian Strategies that prevent pollution, including public education, efforts to identify and control 18 Pollution Prevention pollutant contributing activities, and regulation of pollution-causing activities. Includes identifying, reducing, controlling, and managing pollutant loads from non-point sources.
Salt and Salinity Recommendations that encourage stakeholders to proactively seek to identify sources, 19 quantify the threat, prioritize necessary mitigation action and work collaboratively withManagement entities with the authority to take appropriate actions. 20 Urban Stormwater Includes strategies for managing or controlling urban runoff, including intercepting, Runoff Management diverting, controlling, or managing stormwater runoff or dry season runoff.
Includes strategies for promoting continued agricultural use of lands (e.g. agricultural preserves), strategies to reduce pollutants from agricultural lands, and strategies to 21 Agricultural Land maintain and create wetlands and wildlife habitat within agricultural lands. Stewardship Stewardship strategies for agricultural lands include wetlands creation, land preserves, erosion reduction measures, invasive species removal, conservation tillage, riparian buffers, and tail water management.
Strategies that restore impacted or impaired ecosystems, and may include invasive 22 Ecosystem species removal, land acquisition, water quality protection, revegetation, wetlands creation Restoration and enhancement, and habitat protection and improvement, habitat management and species monitoring.
Strategies that promote forest management include long-term monitoring, multi-party coordination, improvement in communications between downstream water users and 23 Forest Management communities and upstream forest managers, residents, and workers, and revisions of water-quality management plans between the State Water Board and forest management agencies to address concerns with impaired water bodies.
Includes land use controls to manage, minimize, or control activities that may negativelyLand Use Planningz4 affect the quality and availability of groundwater and surface waters, natural resources, orand Management endangered or threatened species.
Recharge Area Includes land use planning, land conservation, and physical strategies to protect areas thatZS Protection are important sources of groundwater recharge.
Sediment Includes strategies for source, sediment deposition, and transport management, as wellz6 Management as debris management. It is also a key consideration in flood management.
Watershed Comprehensive management, protection, and enhancement of groundwater and surface27 Management waters, natural resources, and habitat
28 Economic IncentivesIncludes economic incentives (e.g. loans, grants, water pricing) to promote resource preservation or enhancement.
includes outreach and engagement strategies to reach the broader public, target specificOutreach and 29 fields or professionals, and increase knowledge and participation in public discussions ofEngagement water issues. 30 Water and Culture increase awareness of how cultural values, uses and practices are affected by water management and how they affect water management.
31 Water-Dependent Enhancing and protecting water-dependent recreational opportunities and public access to Recreation recreational lands.
Other Resource Management Strategies include:
32 Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers
Dewvaporation/Atmospheric Pressure
Desalination Fog Collection
4-3 Regional Water Management
~ ~ Matching Water Optimizing existing resources by matching the quality of water supplies to the requires Quality to Use quality associated with use.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-29
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Greater Los Angeles County Lower SG & LA Advanced Water Meter Replacement Project Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority Lower SG & LA Adventure Park Multi-Benefit Project Water Supply County of LA DPW Lower SG & LA Broadway Neighborhood Stormwater Greenway Project Water Supply City of LA Bureau of Sanitation Lower SG & LA Cabrillo Lane Well Improvement Project Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority Central-Jefferson High Green Alley Network Storm Water
Lower SG & LA Capture Project Water Supply The Trust for Public Land Lower SG & LA Changeover of irrigation at Parks to use of recycled water Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority Lower SG & LA City of Bell Water Resources Management Program Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority Lower SG & LA City of Signal Hill Recycled Water System Phase 1 Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority Dominguez Gap Spreading Grounds West Basin Percolation
Lower SG & LA Enhancement Water Supply LACFCD
Lower SG & LA Downey Groundwater Well Nos. 27 and 28 Project Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority Lower SG & LA Feasibility Stutly of Infiltration Trench Project Flood/Stormwater Gateway Water Management Authority Furman Park/Rio Hondo Elementary School Recycled Water
Lower SG & LA Main Extension and Irrigation System Improvement Project Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority Gateway Cities Regional Recycled Water System Expansion Lower SG & LA Project
Lower SG & LA Groundwater Reliability Improvement Project (GRIP) Lower SG & LA Jordan Downs Daylighting Study
Los Angeles Forebay Perchlorate and VOC Cleanup -
,Lower SG 8~ I.A Phase 1 Project
Lower SG & LA Manhattan Wells Improvement_.
• - - Optimization of Current Emergency Interconnections to avert Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority
Water Supply WRD
Multi-jurisdictional Agencies-LA City Housing and
Environmental PW
Water Suppler WRD
Water Supply LADWP / WRD
..
Lower SG & LA and mitigate tV~1,r~1~t~~,~?lK,smergenciesWater Supply Gate..~,1~Vater Managem thority ~; Lower SG & LA Paramount Blvd. Turf Replacement Project Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority ~:awer SG & LA PRWA Plant No~ ~; Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority Reservoir and Booster Pump Station at Well No. 28 and
New Well No. 29 at the Santa Fe Tank Site Improvements
Lower SG & LA Project Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority titer Reclamation Plant East Process
Lower SG & LA The Urban Orchard Water Quality Gateway Water Management Authority Lower SG & LA Water Quality Protection Plan Well Facility Retrofit Water Supply Gateway Water Management Authority Lower SG & LA WRD Eco Gardener Program Water Supply WRD North SM Bay Alternative Decker Canyon Recycled Water Extension Water Supply Las Virgenes Municipal Water District North SM Bay County Yard Treatment Facility and Wetlands Water Quality Agoura Hills Integrated Regional Projects 5-21
North SM Bav Cold Creek Diamond Acquisition Environmental Mountains Restoration Trust ATTACHMENT 3
A3-30
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Greater Los Angeles County Project Titie
Creek Crossings Repairs
North SM Bay Decker Canyon Recycled Water System Extension Encinal Emncy Connection
North SM Bay Gates Canyon Park Project
rayfish Removal from Las Virgenes
Primary Benefits Implementing Organization
Water Supply LACWD No. 29 ;
Water Supply Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
Water Supply LACW~~~ m
Water Quality County of LA DPW
Environmental ours tns es ot1
North SM Bay Invasive Non-native Crayfish Removal from Medea Creek Environmental Mountains Restoration Trust Las Virgenes-Calleguas Municipal Water District
North SM Bay Interconnection Project Water Supply Las Vir enes Municipal Water District.. LVMWD Woodland Hills Golf Course Recycled Water _ , .._ North SM Bay Pipeline Extension Water Supply Las Virgenes Municipal, Water Distri, North SM Bay Malibu Civic Center Area Recyled Water Delivery ProjectWater Supply_~~.__City of Malibu,~~m_ ,.
North SM Bay
_
Malibu Rainwater Harvesting ~~~- -~-~M'~-~~ Water QualityGity of Malibu North SM Bay Malibu Road/Malibu Colony Stormwater Management Water QualityCity of Malibu North SM Bay Medea Gre~k,~as~tacation at Chumash Park ~ µ EnvironmentalCiills~_~~ North SM Bay Oak Park Green Streets Urban Retrofit Water QualityCounty of Ventura North SM Bay Oak Park Med iro ~ Moun~a~ R toration~~~
North SM Bay Raw Wastewater Diversion to the City of Los Angeles Water QualityLas Virgenes Municipal Water District North SM Bay Recycled Water Storage. and Di&tribution System ExpansionWater Supply Las Virgenes Municipal Water District Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Westlake Elementary
North SM Bay Recycled Water System Extension Water Supply Las Virgenes Municipal Water District .North SM Bay ~panga Connection Acquisition~~ ^ EnvironmentalMountains Restoration T~y;~.- North SM Bay Trancas Flood Control Channel Restoration Flood/Stormwater RCD of the Santa Monica Mountains North 5M Bay Trancas Lagoon, Restoratioq ,ironmental
Triunfo Community Park and Evanstar Park Recycled Water North SM Bay Extension Water Supply Las. Virgenes Municipal Water District North SM Bay Viewridge Super Green Strests ~- Water QualityCounty, North SM Bay Water Budget Based Rate Implementation Water Supply Las Virgenes Municipal Water District North SM Bay Westward Beach Road Bioinfiitration'~I ro Water QualityCity o North SM Bay Winter Canyon Biofiltation Project Water QualityCity of Malibu iSouth Bay. 25mgd Sea ~ •, ~ Water Suppl
South Bay Agua Amarga Lunada Canyon Habitat Restoration Environmental ._..~__,.PV Peninsula Land Conservancy &City of RPVm„ .._ .
ESouth Bay Alond Water QualitySuccessoµ_µ_ __
Andrews Park Subsurface Storage, Use and Infiltration
South Bay Project Water QualityCity of Redondo Beach
Ballona Creek Water Quality and Beach Improvement & , _ ,. _ ...., ' South Bay Beneficial Use Project Water QualityCity of LA Bureau of Sanitation WPD~ South Bay Baseball Field Basin Water QualityCity of Torrance DPW C Marvin Brewer Desalter Brackish Groundwater Facility
iSouth B ;, Water Supply
South Bay
..,
Carson Regional Water Recycling Project Water Supply
South Bare Away Phase it Water Quality
South Bay Conservation Budget Based Tiered Rate Structure Water Supply 1 ump Tributary to Mach►
h Bay Lakes for Nutrient and Toxics TMDL BMPs _ Water Quality Culver Boulevard Realignment and Stormwater
South Bay InfiltrationlRetention Regional Project Water Quality Deauville Distributed Water Reuse Project Water Supply
West Basin Muniei~.Y~~tae.Rist[ict
West Basin Municipal Water District
City o
;
West Basin Municipal Water District
City of Torrance
City of Culver City
City of Santa Monic~-~-
Integrated Regional Projects 5-22
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-31
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Greater Los Angeles County Subregion ~ . v~ Project Title ~ ~~_ W___~.._W.._..__
P(f~ary Benefits Implementing Organization
South Bay Del Rey Lagoon Water Quality Improvement Project_._ EnvironmentalCity of LA Bureau of Sanitation WPD Demonstration Gardens at Los Angeles County Fire
South Bay Department Stations Water Supply West Basin Municipal Water District South Bay Dominguez Channel EnvironmentalLACFCD
Dominguez Channel Trash Reduction Via ARS Installation in South Bay the City of Carson, CA Water QualityCity of Carson, DDSD Eng. Svcs. Div. .South Bay Edward Vincent Jr Park Storm' P
South Bay Freeway Runoff Infiltration Demonstration Project Water Supply City of Santa Monica youth Bay Golds ~ r Supply City of Torrance
Green Streets and Water Effecient Landscape on Burton
South Bay Way Median Water QualityCity of Beverly Hills ~~Hermosa Avenue Green Street ~~'~~~Ilater QualityCity of Hermosa Beach South Bay Hermosa Beach Infiltration Facility Water QualityCity of Hermosa Beach y rmosa Gr , `on ~_ Water Quality~y„p,~,J~gr[n~a~e,~h,
South Bay Herondo Parking Lot and Beach Infiltration Water QualityCity of Redondo Beach "" ' — lfiiprovementsro Storm D ain Channel for Storm or~ance~'~$~TMDL Jurisdictional tl uth Bay Water Infiltration and Habitat Restoration Water Supply Grps 5 & 6 South Bay Inglewood New Well No. 7 Water Supply City of Inglewood ~outh
La Cienega and` egional S
Bay Project ater QualityCity of Beverly Hills - "- -"
South Bay Ladera Park Stormwater Capture Project Water QualityCounty of Los Angeles South Bay
__
Landscape Irrigation Efficiency Program (LIEP) mater Supply West Basin Municipa(Water Distract -- South Bay Manhattan Strand 28th Street Subsurface Infiltration Trench Water Quality City of Manhattan Beach South Bay Milton SUeet Park and Green Street project - Balfona Creek Environmental MRCA . .
South Bay North Torrance Well Field Project, Phase III Water Supply City of Torrance South Bay Northeast Gardena Recyded Water Line Water Supply West Basin Municipal Water District-~~--~ Northeast Gardena Storm Water Quality Park, Recycled
South Bay Water Line, and Landscape Makeover Water Supply Council for Watershed Health Northeast Gardena Water and Landscape Makeover. ~. ..:
South Bay Community Involvement Module Water Supply Council for Watershed Health South Bay Ocean Friendly Garden (OFG) Program Water Supply West Basin Municipal Water District !south Bay
_
Oxford Retention Basin Multi-Use Enhancement Project
_Flood/StoRnwater LACFCD
_ _~
South Bay Ozone Park Runoff Treatment and Reuse Project Water Supply City of Santa Monica South Bay Palos Verdela Satelliacilities Study Wat West Basin Municipal Water District South Bay Palos Verdes Recycled Water Lateral Water Supply West Basin Municipal Water District South Bay Recycled Waterman-Site I~jects Wa ply West Basin Municipal Water District, South Bay Recycled Water Supply for Palos Verdes Golf Course Water Supply City of Palos Verdes Estates South Bay Residen ' Plu ,;~ ;~,,,WaterSupply ~~jp~~istrict South Bay San Ramon Canyon Stormwater Flood Reduction ProjectFlood/Stormwater City of Rancho Palos Verdes South Bay SMURRF Dr, ct
South Bay South Coast Botanic Gardens Water QualityLos Angeles County DPW South Bay South Park Subse Infi~ra ~~Nal~ality
South Bay Southeast Gardena Recycled Water Line Water Supply West Basin Municipal Water District .South. Bay Stormwater Diversion to Walnut Avenue Sump ~„ South Bay Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Water Supply City of Santa Monica `~ Terminal Island WRP Advanced Water on Fly W
,_c~,~~,,r~~.:_ ,... ~_n;Qtra~~r;~r,. s#A►►,:F,~„~~r,.. .~ .Water Supply LADWP Terminal Island WRP Advanced Water Purification Facility South Bay and Distribution System Expansion Project Water Supply LADWP Integrated Regional Projects 5-23
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-32
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Greater Los Angeles County South Bay Torrance Airport Underground Infiltration Gallery Water Quality City of Torrance, DPW_. of Inglew ~,~~
South Bay Turf's Up Water Use Efficiency Program Water Quality West Basin Municipal Water District South Bay
.. _..._ .
Van Ness and Slauson Infiltration Best Management Project Water QualityCity of LA of S n WPD _, Vermont Avenue Storm Water Capture and Green Street
South Bay Beautification Project Water QualityCity of LA Bureau of Sanitation WPD flan~ ..V brat ~ _ ~... ,. ; _ _ .-Cou ' . tershed Hear South Bay Victoria Street CSUDH Water Reuse Concept Proposal Water Supply City of Carson nut Storm Water Capture
South Bay plenishment Basin Phases ater Qu ~ ity ofTonance D Washington Boulevard Stormwater Diversion Regional
South Bay Project Water QualityCity of Culver City
South E, W,#tar Schools Pilot Program~~~ Water Supply West. Basin Municipal Water District South Bay Well No. 2 Rehabilitation Water Supply City of Inglewood So ~ s~oas ~ ectWater4. _ _. II~11 _~_~_ Su IPPY ~' ~ ~'-`~ South Bay Westwood Neighborhood Greenway Project Water QualityCity of LA Bureau of Sanitation WPD__. iting St. ~ . ... uth cture Y r 4u ofi EI Segundo
South Bay FALSE Water Supply West Basin Municipal Water District `Upper LA Aliso Creek -Limekiln Creek ResiTG W ~ ~ P~
Upper LA Arroyo Seco Confluence Gateway EnvironmentalArroyo Seco Foundation Upper LA `• Arroyo Seco North Branch Creek_Da li , Environme Upper LA Be A Water Saver Water Conservation Program Water Supply City of Burbank Water and Power Upper LA Bette Davis Park Water Recyclin~ ~ Water Supp
Upper LA Big Tujunga Dam Spillway Dam Water Supply LACFCD Upper Big Tujunga Reservoir Sediment Remova._ Flood/Stormwater LACE.~.
Upper LA
__
Boulevard Pit Stormwater Capture Project Water Supply LADWP 'Uppe~ Branford Spreading Basin Pump Station and P~~ Water Sup LACF~ ~- Bull Creek Channel Diversion System Pipeline to Pacoima Upper LA Spreading Grounds Project Water Supply LACFCD
Bull CreekLos Angeles Reservoir Water Quality
rovement Proj Water
Upper LA Burbank Partnership Water Recycling Project Water Supply LADWP an and Power Recycl ~ f ~y , ~, .x
Upper LA ~ an 3 _ _ , , ~~ ter Supply City of Burbank Water and Po Upper LA Caballero Creek &Los Angeles River Confluence Park Water QualityMRCA Upper ~ Camino el ecycl ro Water Supply Glendale Water & Power~~~~~_ Canterbury Powerline Easement (PLE) Stormwater Capture
Upper LA Project Water QualityLADWP,,.Upper LA Stormwater Greenway Water QualityCity of LA Bureau of Sanitation WPD. 5~t_r_eet Upper LA Chevy Oaks Recycled Water Project Water Supply Glendale Water &Power Upper U~~~reen Street Project Water Supply City of Calabasas ,~„" Upper LA Crescents Valley County Park Stormwater Recharge FacilityWater Supply Crescents Valley Water District Crescents Valley Water District Nitrate Removal Treatment _,
Upper LA Facility at Well 2 Project,. ~ ~~ Water Sup ~ Valley Water Upper LA Devil's Gate Dam and Reservoir Water Conservation Water Supply LACFCD Devil's Gate Reservoir Sedimenf Removal and Manag
Upper LA Project Floo FCD
Upper LA East Valley Baseball Park Water Supply LADWP
Integrated Regional Projects 5-24
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-33
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Greater Los Angeles County Upper LA Elysian Reservoir Water Quality Improvement Project EnvironmentalLADWP :WaterSuppiyLApW
_1~,_..r
Upper LA Foothill Municipal Water District Recycled Water Project Water Supply Foothill Municipal Water District~__Glen Oaks Storm Water Capture-.__. _,
Los Angeles ; m
Upper LA Glendale Narrows Habitat Enhancement Project EnvironmentalCouncil far Watershed Health pply The River Project ~~
Upper LA Hansen Dam Water Conservation Project Water Supply LACFCD 'environmentalLADWP
Upper LA Headworks Ecosystem Restoration EnvironmentalLADWP ~ppel Scli!_Recycled Water Proj ~ ly Glendale Watei~_-
Upper LA Humboldt Stormwater Greenway Water QualityCity of LA Bureau of Sanitation WPD Jo~inny" rson Park Strearri Restoration and Park
;Upper LA Revitalizati "'" `" ~ `" Environmental City of Burbank Upper LA LA River Sixth Street Bridge Greenway Water Quality City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Eng.
Upper LA Lopez t Water Supply Los Angeles County Flood Cont 'ct~ Los Angeles River Center and Gardens Green Conference
Upper LA Center
Upper
Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan 32 Mile
Upper LA Channel and Easement Greening
Upper LA Los An WateProject
Water Quality MRCA
Water Quality City of LAs Bureau of Sanitation WPD
Environmental City of Los An4eles, Bureau of
Upper LA Los Angeles-Burbank Groundwater System Interconnection Water Quality LADWP /Burbank Water and Power Angeles-Glendale Groundwater System Interconnection Water Supply LADWP 1 Glendale Water and Power Upper LA Marsh Park, Phase II EnvironmentalMRCA
Mission Hills Green Belt Wa#er Supp~~'~oject
Upper LA Mission Wells Improvement Water Supply LADWP
Uppd~~North Hollywood Central Treatment Water Quality
North Hollywood Groundwater and Surface Water Benefits
Upper LA Study Water Supply Council for Watershed Health Upper LA jod Str Wa#er QualityCity of Los Angeles ~'~~~- North Hollywood Transmission Corridor Easement
Upper LA Stormwater Capture Study Water Supply Council for Watershed Health,~._.m._,~ . 'Upper~A
_
W _.~~_m~______ .
ater Qualify
~__ ___.___.__.____~ ~...~ .,.____
LADWP ~'
Upper LA Old Pacoima Wash Stormwater Project Concept Report Water Supply LACFCD Upper LA Pacoima Dam InIetlQutlet Wo ~ 'Water Supply LACFCD Upper LA Pacoima Reservoir Sediment Removal Flood/Stormwater LACFCD Upper LA Pacoima S~re~adino Grounds lmprov _ Water Supply LACFCD Upper LA Pasadena Non-Potable Water Project -Phase 1 Water Supply Pasadena Water and Power Upper LA -Phases 2-6 Water Supply Pasadena Water and Power Upper LA Pollock Wellhead Treatment Water QualityLADWP
~- - Crescents Valley Water District and Glendale~;
~I.ePer LA Rockhav_era WeU _ __ i Water Supply ,Water and Power__ Upper LA San Rafael Creek Restoration EnvironmentalArroyo Seco Foundation pity o~LA ~reau of Sanitation Wastewater Eng.
Upper LA Septic-To-Sewer Drinking Waterwell Protection Project Water QualitySvcs. Div.
Sepulveda Basin Sports Complex Multi-Purpose Open
Upper LA Space Project EnvironmentalCity of Los Angeles, Bureau of Eng.
Upper LA Sepulveda Basin Sports Complex Riparian Buffer ~.
Integrated Regional Projects 5-25
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-34
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Greater Los Angeles County Upper LA Sheldon Pit Water Supply LADWP
Shoestring
Upper LA Silver Lake Reservoir Bypass &Regulator Station EnvironmentalLADWP un V lle Watd Rory M. Shaw Wetlan
em V1letlands Park) rmwe
Upper LA Taylor Yard River Park Parcel G2 EnvironmentalCity of LA Bureau of Eng.
Tujunga Central and Wellhead Treatment ~~ uality
Upper LA Two-Strike Park Recycled Water Project Water Supply Crescenta Valley Water District Upper Los Angeles River Big Tujunga Restoration Arundo
Eradication Project ~ - ironmentalNational F ~~~
Upper LA Valley Generating Station Stormwater Capture Project Water Supply LADWP 4Upper LA .1~er,klills Stormwater Pr __:_~ __..~W_.._.._.__.._ V ronme of LA Bureau of Sanitation WPD:- Upper LA Water LA Phase 2 Water Supply
_
The River Project
~iMa t~F WY Powerline Easement Stormwater Capture .~'
Upper L ",".`_ _ Water Supply LAD
Upper LA Whitsett Sports Field Water Supply LADWP
~~ n J. Martin Park Stormwater Capture Multi-Benefit
Upper SG & i2H Project _~ W f
Upper SG & RH Arboretum of Los Angeles County Water Supply City of ArcadialLos Angeles County Upper SG & RH Barnes Park Stormwater Capture and Infiltration Project W _. _.
Bassett High School Stormwater Capture Multibenefit
Upper SG & RH Project Water QualityCounty of LA DPW _..
Upper SG & RH Bassett Park Stormwater Capture Multi-Benefit Project Water QualityCounty of LA DPW ; Upper SG & RH Big Dalton Sluiceway Rehabilitation Flood/StormwaterLACFCD :,Upper SG & RH Big Dalton Spreading Grounds Improvements Water Supply LACFCD ~ '~ City of Monrovia Fire Department -Training Center Water Upper SG & RH Recycling Project Water Supply USGVMWD
we am' ~ utet Works Rehabilitation Project b r'
Upper SG & RH Cortez Park EWMP Project Water QualityWest Covina ~~`bowntov±~~ ~ rm Water Quality Improve
__ w
~
~Upper SG & RH Projec~ ~_ ,~ Water QualityCity of ~lendo , Upper SG & RH Eaton Spreading Grounds Intake Improvements Water Supply LACFCD ~er SG & RH . as i bam 1nlef/4utlet Vorks Rehabilitation ProjectFloodlStormwater LACFCD Upper SG & RH Eisenhower Park Water Supply City of Arcadia Upper SG & RH unto P Water Supply City of Du ._
Improvements to San Gabriel River Diversion and San
Upper SG & RH Gabriel River Water Committee Canal and Appurtenances Water Supply Azusa Light and Water ~Jpper 5G & RH Indirect Reuse Repl ' `µ~ Water Supply USG Upper SG & RH L. Garcia Park Water Supply City of Monrovia La Puente VaUe~ Gaunlr District Rec
H P rY :.
Upper SG & RH LADWP Easement Water QualityCity of Azusa Upper SG & RH
_.
La - n SuNey and Retrofit P er Supply
_.
USGVMW
Upper SG & RH Live Oak Dam Inlet/Outlet Rehabilitation Flood/Stormwater LACFCD Upper SG & RH Live Oak Spreading Grounds Improvement Proje ~-Water Supply LACFCD Upper SG & RH Memorial Park Water Supply City of Azusa
Upper SG & RH Miller Pit Spreading Basins Water Supply
Upper SG & RH Olive Pit Water Conservation Park Water Supply LACFCD .. G & RH Peck Water ConseNation Improvement Projec~~~upp~! Upper SG & RH Recreation Park Water Supply City of Monrovia Integrated Regional Projects 5-26
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-35
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Greater Los Angeles County Upper SG & RH
Upper _SG & RH
Upper SG & RH
G&RH
Upper SG & RH
Upper.S,~i. & RH
Upper SG & RH
Uppe ~ ~H
Upper SG & RH
Upper S(H
Upper SG & RH
Upper SG & RH
Regional USGR EWMP Project - Kahler Russell Park Water Quality City of Covina_...____ _.______ ~_~_..n~_.._... ~..~__..mm_~_.._~,____.~,._ __ __m _._...w~ ~._.. __ Regional Water Supply Reliability Program Phase 1Water SupRIY Puente Basin Water Agency Royal Oaks Trail Water Supply City of Bradbury
San ngelo Stormwater Capture Multi-Benefit Project ~ ~~j San Gabriel Dam Penstock Coatings and Valve Repair Flood/Stormwater LACFCD San Gabriel Valley Water Recycling Project (Phase t -Rose Hills Expansion) _ Water Supply USGVMWD
Santa Anita Dam Seismic Rehabilitation Flood/Stormwater LACFCD Santa Fe Spillway Basin ~ ~ ~ r ~ ater Supply LACFCD
Sawpit Debris Dam Seismic Strengthening Project Flood/Stormwater LACFCD _Vista Park ~ ~ _~ ~ y City of Sierra Madre
Six Basins and Puente Basin Integrated Water Supply Projec Water Supply Puente Basin Water Agency ut 1 Monte Recycled Water xpansion Project a ~r upply USGV MWD & SGV Water Company South EI Monte Recycled Water Expansion Project Package Upper SGRH 1 ~~_ ~_ Wately ~SGV MWD & SGV Water Company Upper SG & RH Walnut Creek Spreading Basin Improvements Water Supply LACFCD._.._. _. _. __.~.mm.~- Upper SG E~ RH Well 15. ~ ~~ Water Supply San Gabriel County Water District Integrated Regional Projects 5-27
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-36
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-37
Integrated Regions! Wa#er Management Plan ~ ~ ~:~~ A,ea::F ~s~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ACS American Community Survey
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
Army Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers
ASBS Area of Special Biological Significance
AV Antelope Valley
BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
BMP Best Management Practice
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevarion Monitoring CARB California Air Resources Board
CCA Critical Coastal Area
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEDEN California Environmental Data Exchange Network
CEIC California Environmental Information Catalog
CERES California Environmental Resource Evaluation System cfs cubic feet per second
COG Council of Governments
Council Council for Watershed Health
CRA Colorado River Aqueduct
CREST Cleaner Rivers through Effecrive Stakeholder-led TMDLs CSMI' Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan
CWP California Water Plan
CLTWCC California Urban Water Conservarion Council
DAC Disadvantaged Community
DDT Dichloro-Biphenyl-trichloroethane
DMS Data Management System
DWR California Department of Water Resources
DWSAP Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection
EJ Environmental justice
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FoLAR Friends of the Los Angeles River
GAMA Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment
GHG Greenhouse gas emissions
GLAC Greater Los Angeles County
GOPR Governor's Office of Planning and Research
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
HOSP Habitat and Open Space
IRP Integrated Resources Plan
IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Table of Contents vii
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-38
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-39
I. Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Subregional Plan ATTACHMENT 3
A3-40
Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles
Rivers Subregional Plan
Final
Prepared by:
tlltnter anti Errviro»men i
In Association with:
Geosyntec ~
cansultantti
Amended October 2017
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-41
GLAC IRWM Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles
Rivers Subregional Plan
Surface Water
There is no direct potable use of surface water within this Subregion; however, surface water flow from the Los Angeles River, Rio Hondo and the San Gabriel River are used to recharge groundwater at spreading grounds which are discussed further in the groundwater section.
Groundwater
Groundwater is a major water supply in this Subregion, representing approximately 55% of water supplies in X92017. The primary groundwater basin is Central Basin, in addition to the West Coast Basin, La Habra Basin and Orange County Basin.
The Central Basin is adjudicated through the Central Basin Judgment, with the total amount of allowable extraction rights set at 217,367 AFY. The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRDI~~,;~ ...,:~ T'e~~,~-~e~+ ~~ `x'~+e~ ~e~~„~~e~ serves as administrative Watermaster for the Central Basin, and is responsible for ensuring an
adequate supply of replenishment water to offset groundwater production through monitoring, and various groundwater reliability programs and projects.
Groundwater recharge in the Central Basin occurs via existing and restored natural channel bottoms, percolation of rainwater (natural recharge), underflow from neighboring basins, irrigation, and other incidental recharge; however, natural recharge is typically insufficient to maintain basin water levels and current pumping levels due to the extent of impervious surfaces. To augment the groundwater which naturally recharges Central Basin, artificial recharge using river water, imported water, recycled water and runoff augments and blends with groundwater, and is eventually extracted for potable use. Artificial recharge facilities in the Central Basin include the following (LACDPW, 2011):
• Dominguez Gap Spreading Grounds —recharge controlled flows from the Los Angeles River and uncontrolled flows from storm drains
~ Rio Hondo Coastal Spreading Grounds —recharge controlled releases from San Gabriel Canyon Dams, Santa Fe Dam and Whittier Narrows Dam, uncontrolled runoff via San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo channel, and imported and recycled water
• San Gabriel Coastal Spreading Grounds —recharge controlled and uncontrolled releases from San Gabriel Canyon Dams, Santa Fe Dam and Whittier Narrows Dam, and imported and recycled water
• San Gabriel River at Montebello Forebay — in-river recharge controlled releases from San Gabriel Canyon Dams, Santa Fe Dam and Whittier Narrows Dam, uncontrolled runoff via San Gabriel River, and imported and recycled water
• Alamitos Gap Barrier Project —injects imported water and recycled water to prevent seawater intrusion
The West Coast Basin, also adjudicated, lies mostly in the South Bay Subregion to the west, but a small portion lies in the Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Subregion. Like Central Basin, West Coast Basin is managed by the WRD. This basin is
hydrologically connected to Central Basin, receiving underflow across the Newport-Inglewood Uplift. Groundwater basin recharge can occur via existing and restored natural channel bottoms, percolation of rainwater irrigation, and other native incidental recharge; however natural recharge is typically insufficient to maintain basin water levels and current pumping levels due to the extent of impervious surfaces and the presence of clay soils in parts of the Subregion. There are currently injection wells in place in the West Coast Basin which inject recycled water and imported water along the coast to form barriers to seawater intrusion in two locations (the Dominguez Gap and West Coast Basin Barriers). (West Basin MWD, 2011)
8 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-42
GLAC IRWM Lower San Gabriel and Los
Angeles Rivers Subregional Plan
The Orange County Basin underlies the eastern portion of the southeastern portion of the Subregion, and is separated from the Central Basin boundary along Coyote Creek and the Los Angeles/Orange County line.
This basin is managed by the Orange County Water District. Recharge to the Orange County Basin is primarily from the Santa Ana River through permeable sands and gravels within the forebay areas. Recharge also occurs through precipitation, irrigation, and other native incidental recharge.
Artificial recharge activities include injection through wells at the Talbert and Alamitos seawater barriers, and spreading of imported and recycled water at spreading grounds. Artificial recharge facilities overlying the Orange County Basin allow for the recharge of Santa Ana River water, imported water, and recycled water. These facilities are located in the cities of Anaheim and Orange, as well as along the Santa Ana River. and include the following:
• Santa Ana River in the forebay areas
• Conrock and Warner Percolation Basins
• Burris Pit Percolation Basin
• Talbert seawater barrier
• Alamitos seawater barrier
La Habra Basin is located in northern Orange County, north of the Orange County Basin. Little groundwater production occurs in this basin due to low transmissivity and poor water quality caused by high TDS, sulfates, nitrates and color. The La Habra Basin is currently~an older name for a basin now part of both die Central Basin and Orange County Basin. It is managed by either WRD (for the portion in the Central Basin) or Orange County Water District (for the portion in flee Orange County Basin), or mana eg d separately in the cities of La Habra and Brea.
In addition to the above discussed basins, some water agencies utilize groundwater pumped from the San Gabriel Basin to the northeast of the Subregion, including: the City of Whittier, California Domestic Water Company, San Gabriel Valley Water Company and Suburban Water Systems.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-43
GLAC IRWM Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles
Rivers Subregional Plan
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality varies throughout the Subregion, based on naturally occurring conditions, historical land use patterns, and groundwater extraction patterns. Poor groundwater quality can be attributed to several factors including over-drafting of groundwater basins (sometimes resulting in seawater intrusion), industrial discharges, agricultural chemical usage, legacy contaminants in urban runoff, and naturally occurring constituents. The cost of treating these contaminants is often significant, and for some improperly disposed chemicals, effective treatment has not yet been identified.
Central Basin is generally of good quality but has some localized areas of poor quality, primarily along the basin margins and in those aquifers affected by seawater intrusion. As stated previously, WRD monitors and manages both levels and water quality in Central Basin. The primary constituents of concern in this basin include: TDS, VOCs, perchlorate, nitrate, iron, manganese, arsenic, and chromium. ~x'D~~ a~se~~s, ~e~~~~~a~e~~ s~e~~~~t, ~,4'~'~~, ~e~a~ e~ga~i~sa~be~, se~e~ a~~~eZs~ate, ~e ~e~—Pere a In order to mitigate localized groundwater quality problems, WRD established a Safe Drinking Water Program to provide pumpers with wellhead treatment equipment to remove VOCs from the groundwater which has restored over ~A8938,000 AFY of groundwater to beneficial use. Seawater intrusion is controlled in the basin through the Alamitos Gap Barrier Project run by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. (WRD, 2012)
West Coast Basin has high levels of TDS in the Torrance/Hawthorne area, which are outside the Subregion, that can be attributed to both sea-water intrusion and naturally occurring soil and geologic conditions in the region. Increases in groundwater TDS concentrations are primarily attributed to seawater intrusion, but are also a function of the recharge of storm and urban runoff, imported water, and incidental recharge. Seawater intrusion is attributed to the extraction of groundwater above natural replenishment levels. To reduce this, Los Angeles County operates and maintains two seawater intrusion barrier systems along the coast that utilize recycled water and imported water to reduce the seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers. Additionally, West Basin MWD and WRD operate desalting facilities to reduce these high TDS levels. (MWD, 2011)Water quality in the Orange County Basin is managed by the Santa Ana Water Project Authority (SAWPA). In addition to quality issues (including high TDS) due to seawater intrusion, this basin's constituents of concern include: nitrate, VOCs, perchlorate, color, and NDMA. There are several groundwater treatment projects within the basin, though they don't fall within this Subregion. (MWD, 2011)
Near-Shore Ocean Water Quality
There are several indicators of coastal water quality. One of the most publicized is the annual report by Heal the Bay. The annual report evaluates California beaches from Memorial Day to Labor Day giving them a grade of A to F based on tests for bacterial pollution, which indicate how likely the water is to make swimmers sick. Statewide, 92% of California beaches earned A or B grades over the summer, the same as last year, according to the 2011 report. Additionally, constituents such as PCBs, metals, DDT and other pesticides, and PAHs have been found in coastal waters.
2.5 Environmental Resources
Due to the Subregion being highly urbanized, with its rivers engineered to protect homes and businesses from flooding, large areas of aquatic habitat have been lost. Despite their altered state, the Subregion's channels still serve as habitat for wildlife.
18 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-44
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-45
J. North Santa Monica Bay Subregional Plan
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-46
North Santa Monica Bay
Subregional Plan
Final
Prepared by:
~.
In Association with:
~eosyrttec
cc~risultstnrs
Amended October 2017
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-47
GLAC IRWM North Santa Monica Bay
Subregional Plan
2.4 Sources of Water Supply
Sources of supply vary throughout the Subregion, as shown in Table 1. This table was developed based on 2010 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) from the following agencies:
• Las Virgenes (portion within the Subregion — 87°/o area) • Los Angeles County Waterworks District #29
• Calleguas
• West Basin
• California Water Services Company, Westlake
• Lake Sherwood
• Triunfo Sanitation District /Oak Park Water Service
Table 1: Actual Retail Supplies (acre-feet per year)
..
Groundwater
~ ~
<1,000
Im orted 35,000
Rec cled Non-Potable Reuse 5,000
Surface Water Diversions ~
Desalinated Ocean Water ~
Water Use Efficient <1,000
Stormwater Ca ture and Use <1,000
Total 40,000
Data sources: 2010 Urban Water Management Plans of agencies listed above Supplies are rounded to the nearest thousand acre-feet per year.
Groundwater
Groundwater represented less than one percent of the Subregion's supplies in 2010. The Hidden Valley, Russell Valleyz-ate Thousand Oaks Areal and Malibu Valley Basins are the only groundwater basins „~a~r,~,:~~- *'~~ c.,'~~~~~~in the North Santa Monica Bav Subregion included in the Los Ange, les Regional Water Oualitv Control Board's Basin Plan and in the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program (Figure 7). Each basin is r~'small with relatively low yield and for the most part produces poor quality •T~~+~~ +'~~~ ~~ ~~+ non-potable water with high concentration of total dissolved solids and sulfates, chloride or alkalinity. There are no public potable supply wells. The CASGEM Basin Prioritization process listed the basins as very low priority. There are groundwater wells located in these basins and throughout the subregion, but the numbers and extent to which they are used for drinking water is unknown. There are concerns that in some cases these wells decrease streamflow and could have negative impacts on aquatic habitat. Little else is known about their water quality, including whether any has nitrate, arsenic, Perchlorate or hexavalent chromium contamination. Given that there is no heave industry or significant agriculhire in the region, the presence of those contaminants is unlikely. The Russell Valley Basin is used by Las Virgenes MWD to aunt
supplies for its recycled water system and by the Westlake Lake Management Association to maintain lake levels and environmental flows to Triufino Creek. The maximum yield of this basin is 400 AFY, and the basin is not adjudicated. T~,o~o ^... ^a.^~*or w~~:~~ ~ ~* „*:';~oa w•..•.~*or ~ e e ,:«,,:~ ~',o ~. (MWDSC, 2007)
10 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-48
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-49
K. South Bay Subregional Ptan
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-50
South Bay
Subregional Plan
Final
Prepared by:
VYrsfer card EnvrrflnmenF
In Association with:
CrE'OS~1~eC ~
ccrosultants
Amended October 2017
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-51
GLAC IRWM South Bay Subregional Plan
1 Background and Purpose of Subregional Plan
The South Bay Subregional Plan is one of five subregional plans that make up the Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (GLAC IRWM Plan). This Subregional Plan outlines the South Bay's physical setting, sources of water supply, water quality, environmental resources, planning objectives and targets, and partnership and multi-benefit opportunities. The purpose of the South Bay Subregional Plan is to outline its expected contribution to meeting the GLAC regional planning goals, objectives, and targets.
2 South Bay Subregion Description
2.1 Physical Setting
The South Bay Subregion of the Greater
Los Angeles County Integrated
Regional Water Management Region
(GLAC IRWM Region) is located in the
southwest area of Los Angeles County
and is composed of the southeastern half
of the Santa Monica Bay Watershed,
along with the Dominguez Channel
Watershed. The Subregion's watersheds
consist of three defining
characteristics—its coastline, its
population and its industry. More than
30 miles of coastline in the South Bay
attracts tens of millions of visitors every
year, serves as an important recreation
Figure 1: GLAC Subregional Boundaries
I+i` ~ *w~ ~ ~,
.~~ g ., ,.~c x.~ .. , <. .,
Lower San Ga6r~a1 enst ry"'~~~~~;~
lower tas s a~ve,s '~N ,+ :,
r,«n, s~;te ~,«,~ s~v ,~~.~sUum aay _..
~' ~ , Upper tos Msge►es Rover . +i~,. ". . `'
u~,e, s«, c~a~;a ~t~r one ,~
R~ tkrndt+
area for the area's residents, and in a
few remaining pockets such as the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Madrona Marsh, Ballona Wetlands, portions of the Santa Monica Mountains and Baldwin Hills, supports a diverse population of birds and other wildlife.
With over 2.6 million residents according to the 2010 census, the South Bay is one of the most dense and economically diverse urban areas of the region, creating both challenges to preserve and enhance local water resources and the natural environment, as well as unique opportunities for collaboration. Population projections from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimate that the population within the South Bay could increase to over 3 million residents by 2035. The South Bay's industries--oil refining, power generation and transportation via the Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles International Airport and major freeways—_provide similar challenges and opportunities. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012; SCAG, 2012)
Political Boundaries
The South Bay Subregion is located within i-1-i~Los Angeles County and includes over 20 cities and unincorporated areas. Figure 2 depicts the county and city boundaries of the South Bay Subregion.
Clirnate, Temperature, crud Rainfall
The South Bay is within the Mediterranean climate zone, which extends from Central California to San Diego, and is characterized by winter precipitation, mostly falling in a few major storm events between November and March, followed by dry summers. Long-term annual average rainfall is approximately 12 inches per year, but can vary greatly from year to year and between the coast and the Santa Monica Mountains.
1 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-52
GLAC IRWM South Bay Subregional Plan
Water Sztppliers and Infrastructure
The water suppliers in the Subregion can be divided into wholesalers and retailers. Wholesalers (Figure 4) provide imported water and/or recycled water and to other agencies, while retailers (Figure 5) sell water to end users. The major wholesalers in the Subregion include West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC). The major retailers in the Subregion include Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and the cities of Santa Monica, Torrance, and Beverly Hills(shown in Figure 5). The retailers that are customer agencies of WBMWD include California American Water Company, California Water Service Golden State Water Company, Los Angeles County Waterworks District #29, City of Lomita, City of Manhattan Beach, City of Inglewood, and City of El Segundo. These suppliers use a combination of imported water, groundwater, and recycled water to serve potable and non-potable demand in their service areas. Each of these major suppliers has written a comprehensive 2010 UWMP to estimate future water supply demands and availability, and which were utilized in the estimation of supplies discussed later in this plan.
Given that this Subregion is highly urbanized, there is extensive water infrastructure in place for the production of water and the delivery of water to both retailers and to end-users. A number of cities have groundwater wells in place for the pumping of the groundwater basins in the area. In addition, the MWDSC delivers water through imported water feeder pipelines to WBMWD, Torrance, Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills.
2.3 Sources of Water Supply
The South Bay has developed a diverse mix of local and imported water supply sources. Local water resources include groundwater, recycled water, water conservation, and water transfers. Water is imported through the California State Water Project (SWP), the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Major water supply sources are described below.
Sources of retail supply vary throughout the Subregion, as shown in Table 1. This table was developed based on 2010 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) whose service areas cover a majority of the Subregion. These agencies include:
• WBMWD (portion within Subregion)
• City of Torrance
• City of Beverly Hills
~ City of Santa Monica
• City of Los Angeles (portion within Subregion)
In addition to retail supply, replenishment supply is needed to both replenish the West Coast Groundwater Basin and to use with injection wells serving as seawater bamers. Table 2 shows 2010 supplies used to meet replenishment needs.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-53
GLAC IRWM South Bay Subregional Pian
(MGD), and treat nearly 40,000 AFY, using tertiary and advanced treatment, and reused for municipal uses (e.g., irrigation), industrial applications, and maintenance of seawater barriers in groundwater basins along the coast. The remainder is discharged to creeks and rivers, supporting riparian habitat in some locations, or directly to the ocean. The primary producers of recycled water in the Subregion are the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, the City of Los Angeles, and WBMWD. Existing and future recycled water projects in the Subregion that were identified in the MWDSC's Integrated Water Resources Plan are shown in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively (MWD, 2010).
Table 3: Existing Recycled Water Projects
LADWP Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility i 1,000Phase I-IV City of Santa Monica Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling 280 Facilit SMURRF
Torrance Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility ,, 7,g00Phase I-IV West Basin MWD ' Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility !~~., 54,800Phase I-IV Table 4: Future Recycled Water Projects
LADWP LAX Coolin Towers 240
Carson Regional Water Recycling
Facility Phase II Expansion Project to 9,300
serve LADWP
Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility ,
Phase V 5,026West Basin MWD
Carson Regional Water Recycling
Facility Phase II Expansion Project to 2,100
serve BP
Desalinated Ocean Water
Desalinated ocean water can add to the Region's water supply reliability by diversifying its water supply sources. Froin 2010-2014. WBMWD operateds the Ocean Water Desalination Demonstration Facility and Water Education Center to evaluate and demonstrate ocean protection, energy recovery and cost reduction technologies with the goals of ensuring a full scale ocean-water desalination facility will be done in a cost and energy efficient manner while protecting the ocean. WBMWD will decommissionis this facility while workin own plans for afull-scale facility ~'~~r~~b ~~ ~ ~~^~'~~R *',~~ ~'~~~'~*~~ in the future to provide up to 21,000 AFY of desalinated ocean water.
Stormwater Capture and Use
Stormwater capture and use is a method that can be used by municipalities both to add a source of supply to its water portfolio, and to reduce runoff that can contribute to flooding and water quality issues. Because this watershed has minimal opportunity to capture large quantities of water for infiltration to underlying water supply basins, stormwater capture and use will largely be used for irrigation purposes rather than directly for drinking water consumption. Stormwater use is currently taking place at a local level Band the City of Los Angeles has completed ' 'ts-a Stormwater Capture Master Plan_; ake 11 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-54
GLAC IRWM South Bay Subregional Plan
In addition, the City of Santa Monica and WBMWD~ actively promotes the use of rainwater for various non-potable applications through free workshops in addition to rain barrel and cistern rebates.
2.4 Water Supply and Demand
As water agency boundaries are not aligned with the subregional boundaries, water demand was estimated based on review of 2010 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) for:
• West Basin MWD (portion within Subregion)
• City of Torrance
• City of Beverly Hills
• City of Santa Monica
• City of Los Angeles (portion within Subregion)
The demand projections in WBMWD's Regional UWMP were included as its service area covers the areas not covered by the individually listed cities. Given that the City of Los Angeles covers multiple subregions, the portion included in the South Bay Subregion was applied to the total demand estimated in the City of Los Angeles's UWMP to approximate the demand of the City of Los Angeles within the South Bay Subregion.
Demand projections for the South Bay Subregion can be seen in Table 5 Table 5: Current and Projected Subregion Water Demand
426,000 AF ' 477,000 AF 498,000 AF 507,000 AF 518,000 AF 522,000 AF
2.5 Water Quality
The GLAC Region has suffered water quality degradation of varying degrees due to sources associated with urbanization, including the use of chemicals, fertilizers, industrial solvents, automobiles and household products. Both surface water and groundwater quality have been impacted by this degradation which can be classified as either point or nonpoint sources. Regulations are in place to control both types of sources, and are often updated to control constantly changing water quality issues.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, amended in 1977, are commonly known as the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and gave the USEPA the authority to implement pollution control programs. In California, per the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, responsibility for protecting water quality rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).
The Subregion has 303(d) listings related to both human activities and natural sources. Human activities can produce poor water quality due to trash, nutrients from wastewater treatment effluent, metals, and toxic pollutants. These pollutants can be carried in storinwater runoff and through point source discharges, impacting streams, canyon ecosystems, and eventually beaches and offshore waters. Natural sources of contaminants primarily include minerals and metals from underlying local geology.
Even though agencies and cities in the Subregion have significantly reduced pollutants that are discharged to water bodies from individual point sources since the Clean Water Act was established, many of the major water bodies are still considered impaired due to trash, bacteria, nutrients, metals, and toxic pollutants. Water quality issues affecting the Subregion's local surface waters and groundwater basins are discussed below. 12 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-55
GLAC IRWM South Bay Subregional Plan
The City of Santa Monica pumps, treats, and distributes groundwater for drinking water purposes from the Santa Monica Basin. Within the Santa Monica Basin, there are three City well fields, the Arcadia Well Field located in the Arcadia Subbasin, the Santa Monica Well Field located in the Olympic Subbasin, and the Charnock Well Field located in the Charnock Subbasin (Figure 8-A). The City actively monitors the groundwater in these Subbasins in accordance with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board: Division of Drinking Water Programs. Extensive groundwater
monitoring and chemical analysis are performed to confirm compliance with Federal and State Drinking Water standards.
The City of Santa Monica reported no detections of Perchlorate during the 1st Period (2011-2013) and the Second Period (2014-2016) of the Third Compliance Cycle for the groundwater from the Santa Monica Basin entering the City of Santa Monica's Arcadia Water Treatment Plant —System No. 1910146 and Amended Permit No. 1910146PA-003.
The two City drinking water wells located at the Water Treatment Plant and in the Arcadia Subbasin are non-detect for Perchlorate. In the Charnock Subbasin, there have only been 31ow and sporadic detections of Perchlorate in the more than 17 years of groundwater monitoring efforts. Well RMW-19 revealed a Perchlorate detection of 2.9 ppb and 3.1 ppb in July 2010. Well RMW-9 revealed a Perchlorate detection of
2.2 ppb in July 2013. The CA State MCL for Perchlorate is 6.0 ppb. Perchlorate was not detected in both wells before and after these reported detections.
In the Olympic Subbasin, Perchlorate was detected in 2 of the 3 aquifer zones, according to the October 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Report, prepared by AMEC Geomatrix. It was detected in the upper A and B zones. Perchlorate concentrations ranging from non-detect to 37.3 ppb were detected in the A zone.
Perchlorate concentrations ranging from non-detect to 77.0 ppb were detected in the B zone. Perchlorate was not detected in the lower aquifer C zone where the City pumps groundwater for drinking water use.
Figures 8-A, 8-B, and 8-C present Perchlorate concentrations in the 3 aquifer zones as reported in 2010. The RWQCB determined that Perchlorate contamination in the upper aquifer zones was not significant and further groundwater monitoring was not required.
There has been no impact to the City of Santa Monica and surrounding communities located within the Santa Monica Basin due to the localized and low-level detections of Perchlorate. Perchlorate has not been detected in groundwater influent to the Santa Monica Water Treatment Plant.
There are no efforts being undertaken in the region to address the localized and low-level detections of Perchlorate in the Santa Monica Basin. The presence of Perchlorate in the Santa Monica Basin is not considered significant and does not present a health risk. No further efforts are required.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-56
GLAC IRWM South Bav Subregional Plan
Figure 8-A: Perchlorate 1-4-Dioxane, and Hexavalent Chromium Concentrations Zone A 6p.,~~ Laatsnatl~i;~~ind~~rtcm~
imt3:cir~ eKl. Sie~,:~f!` Jtr x; i~
lm~]bn a~hsn~f:n CC a~nct~
~~2' ~ rtG~t~m;li~(G'Afjrta'f:f3y~;'.
ter¢-0a~i1~r i}f0
~" a}.~a~arxn~~w~vsr4a;~~€
YNG'~E~i,1 ~ '433, ~1!
~u+3we i n ~:` ~6'+31.i~2„$f~i7M5f G76 :#kik:{£
..~*v~ ~ ~ mrtxs~tc3P ~*+~s IW~+g
haar.#~aetlrxr~ra;aa~,~ I
~,: ~,.td k~ ~ _a~.xn, b a
gl~tL~'.95&T{~i.
...__.. 9;~~
Mfr ~"~ °~
,~ 2,t~
-, ~ a .a ~ ~
.ts as 1 a, t
-~f ~ C
' r"~'~`Zi 5ac~#krd'sC~,,
ri'i~2~ ' a~
~, ~,
~~.~.: ~o ~ r~a"aTwm ~~.m asp■l
3 9-1 ~1 a
rr.i ~'. .s a i <>
MI Uf I ~~
p >es e ,~ ai
(fill H1... ~ i
n~s es L am, >r ~a ~
._ ~~
t
S c ~ ~.+1i9$ i ~~ .•• {,'~„~y:YLQ:"~~[t7l~.3j'}3~j3'aG~16i ~--'~.+'••r; ~«e:+v i4.asa as i ~y S, :n ~ ~ 14~r~ei True- om~,~[~
LO 5b ~ M N d
+ x al ~ ~J~'. 1
~ •~~q
~ ~~~•~n
arca~ ta-au~ wuoa o- er.+s x ~ ~~`"
S x a i_ s '~ u 'f . r 1k* «
~ ,~
~ ~m+esT~«wax t4a.v e ~y,rmiy,° v ~ :w~ Cteaa
~ y ~i ~cs~es w [s ~ f ~ f ~t
~ «. t~ n"a ,r~ r'` {
'~ GH~~3 ~._, ... ~,I ~ ~ `~~ ~ ..+e~~~. d ~ ~ ~ cu~~
- br4sR erg ths~e - ~~~ ~
N!~"it ^Ma~~ ~.. t ~4sx 5 Onv 6 i ,' ~ fi! R9 C .11
'' .^ YI 9 1 III 1 i ~ ? ,.•~,/,~,,J , ~~
~~~CY~MY ~ MTsh t3~w { ~Tu.1 .~~ t iFl ri t f ' ,i r,
f
I ~.
~'~~
k~Si13J~ 5!: CAM ~:~P. i»l 1(Q C~'i iC4
,'GA'•114, G#-23 pYs,:: 41n1 x; TdG14.; r
ata~lia~ ~~:m; rr~ 3~?'~e2 a
hy~'dg~lic r ~ ~tL 4 7triai'~
r~a~d Cali pn's.
,r'' r i'
.~"y.r ` ~
4 ✓' ~ i
tI ~~'
a, t
d
r,.r'
d'~ ~,.
.s~ ~,•
~ r'~ ry^~ r
r'~
s r.,.
1 ~xtrgrtdi7Csm C~t?~x3sf~a:v~'s
GfN:Ff.~4TE,1,4~C10Y4',~,APJGHE~J~'tA:.E'{T
GHi3~AlII,Fp C1~k,BiTR4~~~S I~tA-~~'.'iiEs~lD
t{t14 aW!~~ 5'~t1Q4Y bX~'IIT~ 1tGYlElic
FiifRr3 ~'~3' I~E ~t3C~9~j
~a`4~ kS71ICd, ~3~A?8
AMEG ~eDrtta$P~c i ~}~ g
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-57
GLAC IRWM South Bav Subregional Plan
Figure 8-B: Perchlorate 1-4-Diorane, and Hexavalent Chromium Concentrations 7.one B E~~~~
! ',
~wn2~ ..t~r~id,m~;,r~xtis~:, n4.
~C~.m;wsl,s~.say~_.~0 ,~'
~,~,, ~ ~t~Ema~':'~siinhnd~lrtau ~~ °~,
tt~E4: atN Ft~ '~; ~a:~tg ~, `,s1r¢~it.Mfr~~t0 __`:=:;aim rrus~ s ~rir.~-i' GRj a.$i'li ~1Y.a ~S k~(S~ep~ f` +J
r' ' ~ $3~ 4i~ t °ats~
d ~`~~_ p3~2L,t~1~..t~vatd x~rr:Vrta~ ~ atve i Cmr. r' I s`d_ r~ a t ~t, IY ►~e+t(i~utirm,+C~iEk~ ~rx..,<i k~+rs< ,~-~ ~.~ ~ = u ~" — ~; ,`~rm~xu;t;~3gpg~, ~ ~~~ ~: i ~ ~ .
Ri t~,`!iTdf~: Ci:''sltfi wiL.3td'~'iE -"~ ,`•° .. . ° `~~sr e p -'e p s
__..._
a ~ ~YY-m9Y' ~1.:Y~M !4~nYYS tixe:~6 F ~9
1 : iv' yL .. 4.. ~
,; z ..~ ,C,1F}71~d4.'s'¢.LGIN~ — n ...'..,.~ _, ~ ~ ~~'6y'q"--^' ~ 4~+'
i T~Seit: ;~oa ~.u.;a~, is.~,a ua~ Fa~~s~=mow rn+wn.~ i„~~~~r i~—~ ui d as xtk o. d i a d~l r :'~y~
K1 u d~: ' ~A'
~, ~.~.._
~ ~ V F~J~•;7 ~' ~+ t%'; d 4
:iY~'.s
j,..*,.
,f~ ~
~ ~~
j .,~ ~e
{'~
'p~~~~~
pis rera t :e.-.te ~:;wu ~ ~r i
j 45~i17 .51 r~ b~
~~ ~.~'
h4ti3ig ~fiiG~~ Si25ttss#r~; a
a4;a= CR 9:;~ ~E?~~'t lat
h~N:~e}2 t►: ~+t~ air, rtak Ex,
rtatikt-~a~5z-~'~i(i (+a'~
~,,. `, j,
~,: '; a i
i
~`~ °~ r~~
~r ~
~ f ~
> "" ~ 1
rr
~~A
t~,
~~_
s '
FERCkiflaTE, ~,aAC~~1!~,~41~:~'~~'fi~.~tli
~:8F~1MI~,E Dh~;H~TPa~LYi3 fN &Z;it~
f~k"}P~~i&ii6V~.15
Fr!'3~tk~43Fa~2j'
~a~a y~1:a ;pia-
~1c~ ~i~QEI1c3~~19R ~ Fx~: 13
~' .,.. r. ~~ L "~~~ ~i
}~ ~ `'"
~,~rw
ISaixs~e 31~%a5'pt~;ir~ f'~ ~~~fi
r ~' s
rte. ~: '`~ y ~„n~' ~
~1'~
.+'~,~tq ~.~' ~ ~re:~p fir. xs, c ¢~ae i anz~7~
~o.
r
~ ~~C~ ~„ r
,~1~ ri
~~,~~Re 4~~.~h_c_ua vY.aw +:c:.;.
~'`~ 4
o~-
elf i:r.Ganpta: Ja'eaYtts
5~ ~(6~ I1~Tt41~~tt
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-58
GLAC IRWM South Bay Subregional Plan
Figure 8-C: Perchlorate 1-4-Dioxane, and Hexavalent Chromium Concentrations Zone C ~~t 0 Lcca~c~a ~~i det'a~ d r~r~i~ua.~~
m;~il~nt~1 N3i~iG1tP, rrcri~~i~ ~!y
s~:!~~1in,@tr2Gift
~+'
' r~ - cr+m,,s P8'iC1a~, i~4{ixkJ7~2~r3 ~"
— s~, ~r '~m~i`~~td'mcsma'+r;~~d:rs ~r~
,, ',
~s 4c!~+~ec•t~ar~~fi~n;w~raa~~4e ~.n~ saatg~.1'r ~.
i~'ek~sartpEng f ~ ,
/;'' ~ 9 ~ . w' ,
,~
~y~~r~w r r~~
u ~"~ r~~ ~ .,
x ~t~u,~nl~~~~l Vii{ ~ ~~ ~r•`~ /j
~szs r~i . .0 .r(8~10.SC'32~I ~b~ +~~ f ~ a~ ~ acw .ion. ~.e ~-1
~~~ - -Fr~s+n wa~.c +..aana ~~~Y f; ~3e'k'1 j r,,,,.~r
'}~
~ /xl p Yi ~ ~ J
' ' '~ ~ ~ ~~~;~ ..~, h
a~as:~~~Gkrmri'.tnJ r ,,.~M,. f .~' P ,,i ~ aY'Pai
~ert7 G6f'Fh~ J F*~ ; ~~ ~ ~ 0 , ' !t ~ ~ ~ Srxk l~ ~6
^.^,.,, J~ r ~,
i
. 7 raan s EF:5 i
_ 3 r-t i ti e i m .~~~r~' a ~ b s~ rs~ :~v ar r
`Lyt~~Y~S
1 *'4 ~•
f~
t °" x
,~'f ~` r ~r !` t
w '~ ^ ~~.r
~d~r ~ H ~ f ~ !f f
"~ ~'r~~'i .CI K• li 16
LYv M:;
A Ji ui1
f .p -0 43
:at: tHl I dl
- ~3aa `~
.''~ '~ t
i
C
r
r~ rea x~~ cr , ~iYClF~~
ai '~..:
se~'n Y i tire" ~.-gran' ~ j ! 1~~'..' :=._ 1~ s ~ ai l ' ~ r ~.. '~' Its! 7 I i! I U '~ i
I. p~~ t ~F3 ~ ,r'
~a +~oso~.~xue:~r..i
rug uy ~e fs ~:
nan ~.. .a .~ &>
rs~: M1a ",s' a +G:
~.6 ~ t qx
)~ 1~
.F r I`r,! J
~ii
l 'j~
~EAC~iGfb7~ ~rt~0~kh=~74ti0Ff~A7.4LN"
GtC~'A~Ui/{LtiC~t~ r,STICNiM rZ0!F
—r~ s' at{4i~Er=A h4~%17Pti6'~Y3L
~~~,~~ ~ .
E~:xpxtll~ifm[~s,*~.'.Custi~5 ~~-~: ICs:.tT"~:C;. ~R-,is~l~~.l~;~a~t~4Cs~bJb. s ~ At~ECGeomafrix F;=r a~
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-59
GLAC IRWM South Bay Subregional Plan
Madrona Marsh
The Madrona Marsh Preserve, located in Torrance, is the last vernal marsh remaining in the South Bay Subregion and one of few aquatic habitats located within its urban landscape. Formed eons ago when the mountains of the Palos Verdes Peninsula rose to the south, Madrona Marsh is a shallow depression fed by wet season storms, as the name "vernal" indicates. After the rainy season, evaporation, percolation and transpiration reduce the water depth by about one-quarter of an inch (6 mm) per day. By the end of August, the aquatic habitat is dry and remains so unril the following rainy season. Situated on land that was set aside for oil production in 1924, Madrona Marsh was never developed—unlike the surrounding city—and remains a valuable natural habitat for birds, reptiles, insects and even small mammals. (Friends of Madrona Marsh, 2012)
Machado Lake
Machado Lake, located in Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park along the Wilmington Drain, is a perennial freshwater lake and marsh that provides aquatic habitat to a number of species. Due to contamination by surrounding urban land uses, this area ~shas undergone~g ecosystem rehabilitation by the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County (SDLAC, 2010). Partial funding for this rehabilitation ~:,ame from the Proposition 50 Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program.
2.6.2 Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat is typically a linear corridor of variable width that occurs along perennial, internuttent, and ephemeral streams and rivers. In undisturbed areas, two distinguishing features of riparian ecosystems are the hydrologic interaction that occurs between the stream channel and adjacent areas through periodic exchange of surface water and groundwater, and the distinctive geomorphic features and vegetation communities that develop in response to this hydrologic interaction.
Due to the extensive urbanization on the coastal plain and inland valleys, current riparian habitat within the Subregion bears little resemblance to the pre-development conditions. Faber et al. (1989) estimated that 90- to 95-percent of the riparian habitat has been lost. Most native riparian habitat in the Subregion is located in the Santa Monica Mountains; in the restored riparian corridor below the Westchester Bluffs.
Ballona Creek
Ballona Creek is an approximately nine mile long flood control channel surrounded by urban development and traversed by roads, freeways, and infrastructure. The creek has the potential of providing a habitat comdor from Baldwin Hills to the Ballona Wetlands, but currently does not contain significant riparian habitat. However a 50 acre riparian corridor and freshwater marsh for stormwater management purposes were completed in the early 2000's and contains many willows, cattails and tole habitat areas.
The Ballona Creek Greenway Plan is the result of collaboration between the Ballona Creek Watershed Task Force and the SMBRC. It is a plan that will explore issues related not only to short-term recreational improvements but also to longer-term restoration design possibilities. The Task Force is comprised of state and local agencies, environmental organizations, private businesses, and resident stakeholders.
Concurrently, SMBRC -with the aid of partner agencies such as the State Coastal Conservancy, Baldwin Hills Conservancy (BHC), Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority (MRCA), and City and County of Los Angeles —have embarked on the Lower Ballona Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study (LBERF) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Stone Creek
UCLA and the University Lab School (ULS) campuses are conducting restoration efforts at Stone Creek which runs through the UCLA campus. Since 2007, the SMBRC has been working with support of the State Coastal Conservancy and the RWQCB to restore the stream with monthly volunteer weeding and planting events.
20 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-60
GLAC IRWM South Bay Subregional Plan
Dominauez Channel
The Dominguez Channel extends from the Los Angeles International Airport to the Los Angeles Harbor and drains large if not all portions of the cities of Inglewood, Hawthorne, El Segundo, Gardena, Lawndale, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Carson and Los Angeles. Dominguez Channel is in the Dominguez Watershed which is comprised of approximately 110 square miles of land in the southern portion of Los Angeles County. The remaining land areas within the watershed drain to several debris basins and lakes or directly to the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. Because of the largely industrial land base in this watershed, very little native riparian vegetation remains. (RWQCB, 2008) Madrona Marsh
The Madrona Marsh Preserve, located in Torrance, is the last vernal marsh remaining in the South Bay Subregion. Ongoing efforts are restoring native plants including wildflowers and butterfly species. The area has long been popular with bird watchers and the Audubon Society has used Madrona Marsh for their annual bird census since 1967. El Camino College uses it as an outdoor biology and botany lab. Torrance operates the Madrona Marsh Nature Center in cooperation with the Friends of the Madrona Marsh. (Friends of Madrona Marsh, 2012)
Bixby Marshland
The Bixby Marshland is a remnant of a formerly extensive, natural-freshwater aquatic habitat known as Bixby Slough. Over the years, most of Bixby Slough was destroyed due to development. The Bixby Marshland, a 17-acre marsh, located to the northwest of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) near the intersection of Figueroa Street and Sepulveda Boulevard in the City of Carson, has recently been restored by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (SDLAC, 2012). Partial funding for this restoration se~e~-came from the Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Program.
Beach Bluff Restoration
Beach bluff restoration is underway at several locations within the Subregion. The Los Angeles Conservation Corps is working with at-risk youth to restore three acres of bluff habitat adjacent to a Youth Center at Dockweiler Beach. The site is a priority restoration site due to its proximity to other native plant habitat supporting the federally endangered El Segundo blue butterfly within the dunes just west of Los Angeles International Airport. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) has implemented a number of nature preserves that will preserve beach bluff areas, including the Vicente Bluffs, Abalone Cove, Alta Vicente, and the future Ocean Trails preserves. (Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, 2012)
2.6.3 Upland Habitat
Upland habitat that exists further inland serves as a linkage between aquatic habitats. Within the Subregion, these habitats include the Los Angeles Coastal Plain and the Santa Monica Mountains to the north. A majority of the coastal plain has been urbanized, which inhibits linkage between aquatic habitats. The small portion of the Santa Monica Mountains in the northern portion of the Subregion are by contrast mostly open space and free of development, but impacted by invasive species and water quality issues. (RWQCB, 2011) PVPLC has developed preserves in upland areas, including the following: Agua Amarga, Three Sisters, Upper Filiorum, Portuguese Bend, and San Ramon. In addition, Rolling Hills Estates has established the Linden H. Chandler Preserve and the George F. Canyon Nature Preserve, and San Pedro has established the Fuel Depot managed area and the White Point Nature Preserve. 21 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-61
GLAC IRWM South Bay Subregional Plan
4 Partnership and Multi-benefit Opportunities
Many agencies and other entities have successfully been working together for decades on many collaborative projects. For instance in this Subregion, the entire system of flood management, conservation of local water supply, and recreation is a longstanding set of activities and facilities that represents collaboration and integration among the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, `x'~~.--MWD, the Water Replenishment District, other water agencies, LA County Dept of Parks &Recreation and others.
Projects that seek to enhance or extend these existing activities should be encouraged, because often they will be the most cost-effective.
Implementation ofprojects is the vehicle to meeting the objectives and planning targets discussed in Section
3. Integration and collaboration can help these projects achieve synergies and, at times, increase their cost- effectiveness in meeting multiple objectives. In addition to the collaboration described above, the GLAC IRWM Region will continue to build upon a wealth of potential multi-benefit project opportunities for partnership projects including:
• Local Supply Development: Alternative supply development such as distributed stormwater capture projects are often too costly for a water supply agency to construct on their own for water supply purposes only. The near-term unit cost can be well in excess of the cost of imported water.
However, partnerships often help to share the costs, thus providing opportunities for more complex, multi-benefit projects (such as water quality improvement) that otherwise might not be accomplished.
• Improving Stormwater Quality: In preparing this update of the IRWM Plan, a methodology to identify priority drainage areas based on their ability to improve water quality for the coastal and terrestrial waters was developed. Integrated projects that can provide water quality benefits can be cited relative to that prioritization to achieve the highest benefits. • Integrated Flood Management: Earlier studies, such as the Sun Valley Watershed Management Plan (2004), demonstrated the potential for similar cost-effective synergies between flood control, stormwater quality management, water supply, parks creation and habitat opportunities. Flood control benefits usually achieved through significant traditional construction projects can sometimes be accomplished with alternative multi-benefit projects. • Open Space for Habitat and Recreation: When habitat is targeted for restoration, there are often opportunities for cost-effective implementation of flood control, stormwater management and passive recreation (such as walking and biking trails) as well.
These benefit synergies and cost effectiveness outcomes can best be attained when the unique physical, demographic and agency service area attributes of the region are considered. In addition to existing collaborative processes, the GLAC IRWMP has developed the geodatabase tool to assist in identifying areas and partnerships conducive to both inter-subregional and intra-subregional integrated project development. This section discusses these tools as well as some preliminary analyses on the South Bay Subregion's potential partnerships and integrated project opportunities.
4.1 GLAC IRWMP Integration Process and Tools
As part of the objectives and targets update process, the GLAC Region compiled and developed several geo- referenced data layers to assist in spatially identifying priorities and potential opportunities to achieve water supply, water quality, habitat, recreation and flood management benefits. These data layers were initially used individually to deternune the objectives and planning targets for each water management 32 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-62
GLAC IRWM South Bay Subregional Plan
area. However, these datasets can also be overlaid to visually highlight areas with the greatest potential to provide multiple benefits. The resulting Potential Benefits Geodatabase (Geodatabase) can also align these areas relative to other layers containing agency service areas and jurisdictions —allowing for project proponents and partners to be identified.
Potential Benefits Geodatabase
The GLAC IRWMP Potential Benefits Geodatabase is a dynamic tool that should be updated as new data is made available in order to maintain its relevance in the IRWM planning context. However, in order to provide an analysis of potential integration and partnership opportunities for the 2013 GLAC IRWM Plan, current data layers were overlaid and analyzed. The key layers used are shown in Figure 14 and described in Table 11. It should be noted that these datasets may not be complete or in need of further refinement and therefore will be updated on an as-needed basis —which is part of the dynamic process previously described. Therefore, the Geo-database should only be used as an initial step in identifying multi-benefit potential and by no means used to invalidate the potential for achieving benefits in other areas.
Figure 14: GLAC Region Potential Benefits Geodatabase Layers The Geodatabase is a dynamic visual tool. The data layers and maps shown in this Section are only some of a multitude of ways to package and view the datasets to help with the integration process. It is important to note that not all data that could be useful in identifying integration and partnership potential for the region is easily viewed spatially in this format. T~~Therefore, the Geodatabase should only be used as one of several potential integration tools or methods.
The Geodatabase can also be used to identify the potential for further integration between existing projects included in an IRWMP. Currently the GLAC Region has web-based project database (OPTI) that 33 Using the Geodatabase
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-63
GLAC IRWM South Bay Subregional Plan
References
Bay Restoration Foundation, 2011. Ballona Wetlands.
http://www.santamonicaba~orQ/ballonarestoration.html
Beverly Hills, City of, 2011.2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Santa Monica, April 12, 2017. Summar~ofl'erchlorate Contamination in Santa Monica Basin.
Friends of Madrona Marsh, 2012. Explore the Marsh.
http://www.friendsofmadronamarsli.com/j/index.php?option=com content&vie~categorv&layo ut=blog&id=34&Itemid=53
Los Angeles, City of, 2011.2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (LACDRP), 2011. Los Angeles Coa~nry General Plan 2035. Public Review Draft.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 2010. Integrated Regional Plan.
MWD, 2007. Groundwater Assessment Study. Report Number 1308. http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pa~es/vourwater/supply/groundwater/GWAS.html Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, 2011. Restoration and Land Stewardship. http://www.pvplc.or~/ lands/stewardship.as~
Regional Water Quality Control Board -Los Angeles Region (RWQCB), 2011. State of the Watershed - Report on Water Qa~aliry, The Santa Monica Bay Watershed Management Area. 2nd Edition.
RWQCB, 2011b. Shapefiles of Pernutted Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges, Industrial General Discharges, and Caltrans Discharges.
RWQCB, 2008. State of the Watershed -Report on Surface Water and Sediment Quality, The Dominguez Channel and Los Angeles/Long Beach Watershed Management Area. November.
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (SDLAC), 2012. Bixby Marshland. http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/jwncn/bixbvmarshland.asp SDLAC, 2010. Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project and Wilmington Drain Multi-Use Project. http://www.lacitysan.or /g_wpd/Siteor APropO/sitefiles/Machado/machadointro.htm Santa Monica, City of, 2011.2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2010. 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(3) List / 305(6) Report) -Statewide.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/tmdl/inteQrated2010.shtml Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2012. Adopted 2012 RTP Growth Forecast. http://www.sca~•ca•gov/forecasdindex.htm
Torrance, City of, 2011.2010 Urban Water Management Plan. 38 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-64
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-65
L. Upper Los Angeles River Subregional Plan
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-66
Upper Los Angeles River
Subregional Plan
Final
Prepared by:
W~rter and Envirvri~aaers~
In Association with:
Geosyntec ~~*
consultants
Amended October 2017
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-67
GLAC IRWM Uaaer Los Anaeles River Subregional Plan
Lincoln Park Lake
Nutrients: Ammonia, Eutrophic, Organic
Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen, Odor
Trash
Lead
1. According to
Lincoln Park Lake TMDLs
No TMDL necessary as lead determined to be
meeting numeric targets
s 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(6) Report Table 7: 303(d) Listed Waters without Approved TMDLs
Benthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments ~.
Burbank Western Char~ne~ _ _ - ;r..-. _-
Cyanide
Los Angeles River
Oil
1. According to the US EPA's 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(6) Report Groundwater quality in the LILARA Basins is managed by the ULARA Watermaster which reports on water quality, treatment and remedial investigation activities in its annual report. The overall quality of the ULARA Basins is generally within the recommended limits of drinking water standards, except for those areas of concern listed in Table 8. Groundwater pumped from these areas (for those wells that haven't been shut down) are treated to meet state drinking water standards.
Within the San Fernando Valley, three Operable Units (OUs) have been created as part of long-term groundwater remediation activities in the San Fernando Basin. These OUs include: 1) North Hollywood OU due to VOC contamination, 2) Burbank OU due to VOCs and hexavalent chromium, and 3) Glendale North and South OUs due to VOCs. Various groundwater quality investigations are also taking place throughout the ULARA Basins to determine the cause and extent of the above listed contamination.
Table 8: Groundwater Quality Concerns in the ULARA Basins San Fernando Basin —eastern portion
San Fernando Basin —western portion
Verdugo Basin
Sylmar Basin
TCE, PCE, hexavalent chromium, nitrate
Sulfate, TDS
MTBE, nitrate
nitrate
Raymond Basin groundwater quality is managed by the Raymond Basin Management Board. This basin provides potable supply, with good to fair groundwater quality in most areas. Constituents of concern include TDS, nitrate, perchlorate, and VOCs. There is one Superfund site located at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) due to liquid waste seepage which released perchlorate and VOCs into the groundwater. Water agencies which pump from the Raymond Basin have treatment facilities in place to treat groundwater for VOCs and Perchlorate.
Within the ULAR Subregion (San Fernando, Sylmar and Verdugo Basins), nitrate and hexavalent clu-omiuin contamination are known to be prevalent. As of June 2017, there are no known impacts to coininunities, as mitigation is currently underway. Water agencies that pump water must be compliant with all drinking water regulations.
Currently, a number of efforts between City of Los Angeles, City of San Fernando, City of Burbank, City of Glendale, and Crescenta Valley Water District are underway to treat goundwater contamination. Figures 11, 12, and 13 show snaps of hexavalent chroiniuin and nitrate contamination in the Eastern Portion of the San Fernando Basin.
21 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-68
GLAC IRWM Upper Los Angeles River Subregional Plan
Figure 11: Eastern San Fernando Valley- Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6) Contamination Groundwater Plume Map u. ~ (tf''~ ~~ ~ _
L..—~
r * ° ~ Al
4 ' tr ~ ~~4
Q f~~ f
a,
'Y e~' M 6 ~ w '>
as
b
a n .~.
Dr A 0 +~
~ n _ 5~y=,n MS];.
1\ ~+wnw r~ /s
I II - @ ST ~ k3. ;n Ux
81R8.R4k K'
.W~6fY'Yihk:YQ a `q~
o ty poi~..rx.». '~'1.. w.... w. ..n. &'~..
.. ...'~o~ ~..
~'1( -`+R^! ` y, -.'San47 Abnita AYo in a:ns
4"~
The U S EPA hai releasztl this contaminant pWme nea0 to update Ne public an the [urrentsWN9 of the San Femantlo Valley Superlu~W gto~NttlwatH 5de This m~is not inlenAea for enfnrcement~p~uryosea ~
. ,~
wcmbamsrr.evmsx .e.e.~m~=sc v.xatx ~R
mr~atnnaeaxmenn+m+v ~tv y.A,
~.. aM. rn..w~ wrRo~. xa..annei.+.Wee
.»~ ,R,.,,-..~.,,~ -~
o 'c94tD
y..+s.w.:.
wC~ftvoRlh:.; 4ee.
~wrer
i
~ .!' ~~
~k '
o►~.
~~ c
J p %.'~ ~ ~ -
f !'' .a uA'~, ~ W ~7 ~
~~ ~
i ~,
Legend
~ ~ Gr6 Concenkatron
~,~:~~1
50.tCU (e?1
~ ro.~awti
wNn.~m c,a vaa
., Gd dab Rmb MY➢
• Lt~WP P'oMictm Weh
• W E~rxtitn WeNs
— ma eoumxks
x a Frteways
Rwls
~-1 Rakwaa
~— se•ams
c~,~d..a~. a,~, s«~~c:y
Las Angeles Rivet
~ Undoes
__ u,«e
1 0 0: 1 3
O Miles
Hezaval~t Chromium (Cr6j
caitartxn.~1ion in CtounOwater
(Most Re[ent Co~centratlon
Jan 2070 -Sept 20'Id)
Gontumenantr W concern ar
E stem Sort Fernantlo VsNey
~trt'Ir:
24 ~,,,,"
,_ ,r-
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-69
GLAC IRWM Uaaer Los Anaeles River Subregional Plan
Figure 12: Eastern San Fernando Valley - Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6) Contamination Groundwater Plume Map a~y~ ~ —7M, _
..,,~r S,, + ti' z
~i 1f
:.
.,'~
~ r o
`~c~ -. '`~ ~ ;.
~ ja ~+' ~~ i s Legend
.. ~M 1 , I ~.. ~_'~, ° ,. :~r ' a. _ ,t ,~~ CrG Con[enhation Z.,~~ rr ~",{- ~ m ~3.... ~>r.wn~ati
if' ~,~ ,. L ~1y -~ .. ~~. ,~ ~ ~oo-,.000 ~a+-
~~,~
F /~~ 4 ... y'~ ~ 1G'A yyY
/~/(~ .~
~' ~ 0}1 V61
..
..... ~~ ~
^... r" /
-~.. a '_ ' '1l j'f' . Ncgs M1M1 C~6 GUQ~
.6 ~ C. Crl Oats PrwbElfO
Y LAUK'PPewuctim Weh
~. ~t ,~ ~ ,. _ a r ,n,N,~ .~
`, ~ a,m
t,
A[+AMt1~Liecw "`ma"""r,,.. 4~ 4 Roads
r ~--y FaAro.~s
.. e "k~~+..,. ... ~. {}~4.
.~ ewr.~~v i" ~' a Q~.wnauu, a~xr e~~.
\~''~a~, Los Angeles Rlrer4 ~'A" i"R~~ (}'~ ~.~_ ' r i •l~•~ J c~.,:y San~P.bm[a Atn~.u~a~t, ,. ~w,u.,ec ~Sr4 . ~ ~.
.~ ter' '
1 ~ ~ a os i
The U S EPA has released this conWmmant plume map to update Nie puUlk C~~~ OM~i=s ~n the [urzenl status o/the San Femantlo ~`aNey uupertuntl grourWwater sRe ~ `,, ~ Thins'map is troi intended for enloresmenf~P~~P~eseM ~ ~ a'• ~i, ~. ,` j Hexavafen~ Chromium (C[5j a,.~ .. x ~ `. a~~ ~~ `' ~ Contartvnation in Grountlwater .~ w .,. -,.- T ~\. (blast Recent Gancentratlon
~a~wµ m,.,,..~~.,..aR.. ~>a..~a.a.m..w.~..«.r«~;.a,,,.e, ~;, •~*4 ... .. ~ J~~201Q-SC[1t 2(]i4) ..,.,,..,~~~.,.~ .., $p y
a:tem Son Fcnanda Whey
.w+ tr sw.wn~rr.e.en.,, uasecrvu~,..~+s., 11 ~CYtzt,
24 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-70
GLAC IRWM Uaper Los Angeles River Subregional Plan
Figure 13: Eastern San Fernando Valley -Nitrate Contamination Groundwater Plume Map —.._ ,,
~ #~~~
'F lw.~.., ,., .,,..` ~ _~rp~ _ ,,1;, uv~ - ~
.....
LEGEND
~s`rie- ~~ ~'"'!W'
4 ~J NCB Cmc. >45 mgr.
~/''
.,..,L {'' .
~J
(Sasce~, USEPAI
Prmary S~roams~ ~ ~ '~,Ql!!!t1l~J75^"
:+^~~ 7
t ti..d SocorWay Shaams
c
~~? t~
~ `7 ..
~.~!. '+,t
.
i ~
~
Sprmding Gramds
ULARA Watorshod-k
~ ,~`~-~ Ir < ~ :San Refael Gmuidwatereasins
' ' ~i ,,~, Q \...__
10 f HiltS _
`'
~"~
~
san Farnanc~
VOfdUfJOW
-~.—., 4t~TWA v
~/7~~.,(~,,,~ v~"~-- ~ C~
v~,~- ~~.,..
! Es~o Rock
S~afaMo»Ic ~`~ r~ ~
Mountains <
n
'~ -
Nwf
t Tr M ar,¢enmMert atom mUia meprprssxsgerteiMaed lwo-0sner~so~uS 4~P'mmNaorn Waeam ws~ 'YY ~#f+b tmm Po Ma b~9 W 4, Fasiny Wee sewePsa6tcl~an Wch wwre R! Y9 xrexeea sJarvria wSst SO itN a1C~/sl~evaa.
st
y~
~
:~1
` ~2 Duebfe➢~NevMrd+zwlm ofcmtmrvtan.awNr4.n ert ~#sAica!aeee NcortLmwtmmay p[od~ce veteewJh mMamsulon MMMAtlu1 Ptl aktatia w M`.n:nap V; ~
]. Mue of eortYm.natan ra'~aua oniMmafl revert r~rG m~a4ebwNds u~egNad 10000 0 10000 Feet
2013-14 Water Year Upper Los Angeles River Area: PLATE
UTARAR ~atoe~~rmaster
NO3 Contamination (mg/L) in Shallow Zone 2010 ~ ~
25 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-71
M. Upper San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo Subregional Plan ATTACHMENT 3
A3-72
Upper San Gabriel River and Rio
Hondo Subregional Plan
Final
Prepared by:
Woterattd ~~tvironr~. ,
In Association with:
Geosynte+~~
c~nsultar~ts
Amended October 2017
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-73
GLAC IRWM Upper San Gabriel River and Rio
Hondo Subregional Plan
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality in the San Gabriel Basin (which includes all basins discussed in the Groundwater Supply section except for Raymond Basin and Six Basins) is managed by the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (Watermaster) under its authority from the court. The Watermaster administers the Main San Gabriel Basin Judgment and enforces its provisions which establish water rights and responsibility for management of quantity and quality of the groundwater. They review and adopt their "Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan" each year. In addition, the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (WQA) was created by the state legislature to promote improvement of groundwater quality in the San Gabriel Basin. Their Basin-wide Groundwater Quality Management and Remediation Plan is reviewed and adopted annually. This plan includes all projects that the WQA is facilitating, and identifies various funding sources to ensure full funding for each project. The San Gabriel Valley's groundwater basin has water quality issues across the basin that are being addressed by WQA projects with a focus on 1) accelerating removal of contaminant mass in the basin, 2) preventing migration of contamination into critical groundwater supplies, 3) integrating cleanup with water supply, and 4) minimizing economic impact to the public.
One of the primary constituents of concern in the groundwater basins of the Subregion is volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are used primarily in industrial and commercial activities. Over time, VOCs have leached into the groundwater from ground disposal of chemicals. Additionally, the basins shave been found to have high levels of NDMA, nitrate, perchlorate, and TDS, primarily caused by industrial and commercial activities. Also, hexavalent chromium, arsenic, and radon have been detected as well.
Groundwater quality specific to each basin will be discussed below.
Water pumped from the Main San Gabriel Basin is used as potable supply. Though water quality is good in most areas, constituents of concern for the Main San Gabriel Basin include high TDS, nitrate, VOCs, perchlorate, and NDMA. Hexavelent chromium has also been detected at low levels. Due to industrial and commercial contamination, five Operable Units (OUs) have been defined by the US EPA's Superfund Program: Baldwin Park OU, El Monte OU, Puente Valley OU, Whittier Narrows OU, and Area 3 OU.
Each of these OUs has a specific plan laid out to address contamination remediation. ~~Manv treatment facilities are in place to treat groundwater pumped out of this basin. (San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, 2012)
The Puente Basin underlies an area in the south east portion of the Subregion and is managed by the Puente Basin Watermaster. Puente Basin groundwater is used as anon-potable supply due to its poor quality, and is used for blending with recycled water, construction water and irrigation. Constituents of concern include TDS, Nitrate, hexavalent chromium, and VOCs. Remediation is underway to rem ~•~~address these contaminants in the US EPA's Puente Valley Operable Unit which is located in the western portion of the basin. (MWDSC, 2007) Six Basins has varying water quality, much of which can easily be considered potable through blending or other simple remediation efforts. Primary constituents of concern include nitrate, perchlorate and VOCs. Some areas also have high levels of arsenic and radon. Several of the pumpers in Six Basins treat the groundwater for these contaminants. New projects to offset the shutdown of wells due to water quality have been considered and studies are being completed to determine a means of improving this area's groundwater quality. (MWDSC, 2007) The Raymond Basin underlies the north-western portion of the Subregion and is managed by the Raymond Basin Management Board. This basin provides potable supply, with good to fair groundwater quality in most areas. Constituents of concern include TDS, nitrate, perchlorate, and VOCs. There is one Superfund site located at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) due to liquid waste seepage which released perchlorate and VOCs into the groundwater. Water agencies which pump from the Raymond Basin have treatment facilities in place to treat groundwater for VOCs and Perchlorate. (MWDSC, 2007) '~':~:~ v~ ~a '~~ r;,• ~a ~*~~, vn/~~ t,.,.,o ~1~„ l.oe„ ,7oro..roa ;.. +L.o 1..,~;.,
21 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-74
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-75
p. Climate Change Vulnerability Exercise
gppend~tes I
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-76
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-77
GLAC-IRWMP
. ~;~~~
~:~:~._.
Climate
Change
Vulnerability
Exercise
The
GLAC
IRWM
Climate
Change
Subcommittee
~^^~~
~^+^~
~
^~^~^;~~
+^
~^~,.,~~
a
vulnerability
^~
~~—~~^^~
assessment
alined
with
+~-~,~,~
Box
4-1
of
the
Climate
Change
Handbook
~^~'
~~~^~~~+o,~
+ho
.,.,~,.,o,-~
,.,;+h
concerning
potential
water
management
issues/vulnerabilities.
Table
1 summarizes
the
analysis
and
was
updated
based
upon
the
latest
local
climate
research
within
the
Los
Angeles
region.
Qualitative
vulnerability
questions
are
framed
to
help
assess
resource
sensitivity
to
climate
change
and
prioritization
of
climate
change
vulnerabilities
within
a
region.
Answers
to
vulnerability
questions
are
given
for
the
GLAC
Region
with
local
examples
provided
as
justification
for
the
answer.
~-~~"~1
~ Page
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-78
Table
1:
Climate
Change
Vulnerability
Indicator
Questions
Water
Demand
Are
there
major
industries
that
require
N
Oil
companies
in
southern
harbor
areas
primarily
use
Industrial
demand
would
cooling/process
water
in
your
planning
recycled
water
for
cooling.
Scattergood
plus
other
OTC
increase:
increased
cooling
region?
power
plants
use
ocean
water
for
cooling
but
OTC
Policy
needs
due
to
higher
moving
plants
off
OTC.
Aerospace
industry
needs
temperatures
cooling
water,
but
is
considered
to
be
downsizing
its
presence
in
the
Region.
Are
crops
grown
in
your
region
climate-
Y
There
are
some
small-scale
farming
plots
but
no
major
Agricultural
demand
would
sensitive?
Would
shifts
in
daily
heat
agriculture.
Nurseries
may
be
vulnerable,
but
uncertain
if
increase:
evapotranspiration
will
patterns,
such
as
how
long
heat
lingers
decreasing
in
size.
increase
per
unit
of
biomass
before
night-
time
cooling,
be
prohibitive
due
to
higher
temperatures
for
some
crops?
Do
groundwater
supplies
in
your
region
N
Groundwater
basins
are
relatively
large
in
size
and
have
Lack
of
groundwater
storage:
to
lack
resiliency
after
drought
events?
replenishment
requirements.
During
the
last
drought,
buffer
drought
conditions
however,
Main
San
Gabriel
Basin
levels
were
in
their
lower
range,
but
still
had
opportunity
to
recharge.
The
recharge
potential
of
the
Region's
basins
has
not
been
fully
realized
and
it is
critical
to
further
increase
recharge
so
as
to
offset
imported
supply
and
provide
longer
term
and
seasonal
storage.
Are
water
use
curtailment
measures
Y
Demand
has
decreased
as
a
result
of
conservation
Decrease
ability
to
meet
effective
in
your
region?
programs.
Region
is
already
concerned
about
meeting
conservation
goals:
due
to
20%
by
2020
potable
use
reduction,
even
without
climate
saturation
conservation
change
effects.
programming
or
inability
to
conserve
further
Does
water
use
vary
by
more
than
50%
Y
Current
climate
requires
a
strong
peak
in
summer
Limited
ability
to
meet
higher
seasonally
in
parts
of
your
region?
demand
for
irrigation.
peaks
in
demand
(both
seasonally
and
annually):
infrastructure
sized
to
only
existing
demand
peaks.
Are
some
in-stream
flow
requirements
N
The
Regional
Board
requires
Tapia
WRF
to
discharge
to
Habitat
demand
would
in
your
region
either
currently
Malibu
Creek
when
minimum
flow
criteria
are
met
to
increase:
exacerbated
by
insufficient
to
support
aquatic
life,
or
provide
sufficient
aquatic
habitat.
However,
climate
decreased
flows,
which
are
occasionally
unmet?
change
may
increase
vulnerability.
already
challenging
No
specific
question
called
out
in
Y
Increasing
population
in
areas
of
Region
that
will
have
Municipal
demand
would
handbook
—but
vulnerability
issue
was
higher
temperatures
and
lower
precipitation
as
a
result
of
increase:
exacerbated
by
identified
independently.
climate
change.
Older
development
is
in
cooler
and
drier
distribution
of
population
parts
of
the
region
while
more
recent
development
and
increases
current
development
pressure
is
in
hotter
and
drier
areas.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-79
Water
Supply
Does
a
portion
of
the
water
supply
in
your
region
come
from
snowmelt?
Does
part
of
your
region
rely
on
water
diverted
from
the
Delta,
imported
from
the
Colorado
River,
or
imported
from
other
climate
-sensitive
systems
outside
your
region?
Would
your
region
have
difficulty
in
storing
carryover
supply
surpluses
from
year
to
year?
Does
part
of
your
region
rely
on
coastal
aquifers?
Has
salt
intrusion
been
a
problem
in
the
past?
Has
your
region
faced
a drought
in
the
past
during
which
it failed
to
meet
local
water
demands?
Does
your
region
have
invasive
species
management
issues
at
your
facilities,
along
conveyance
structures,
or
in
habitat
areas?
Water
Quality
Are
increased
wildfires
a threat
in
your
region?
If so,
does
your
region
include
reservoirs
with
fire
-susceptible
vegetation
nearby
which
could
pose
a
water
quality
concern
from
increased
erosion?
~N
~e-The
local
supply
~~Tfrom
snowmelt
in
the
San
Minimal
9decrease
in
local
Gabriel
Mountains
is
generally
negliqible
and
annual
surface
supply:
Due
to
rainfall
is
the
kev
indicator
for
the
health
of
the
local
water
decrease
in
local
snowpack
supply
Y
Large
portion
of
the
Region's
supply
comes
from
imported
water
(both
direct
uses
and
replenishment).
Y
Large
system
of
groundwater
basins
allows
the
Region
to
store
seasonal
and
annual
supply
in
basins,
but
can
only
capture
so
much
from
storms
given
limited
recharge
facility
area
available
Other
parts
of
the
Region
without
groundwater
basins
have
limited
or
no
capacity
to
carry
over
supply
surpluses.
Y
Santa
Monica
and
West
Coast
Basins
have
salt
water
intrusion
issues.
Seawater
intrusion
barriers
have
operated
since
1950s
to
mitigate
these
impacts,
however
SLR
will
further
exacerbate
the
current
situation.
Y
There
have
been
droughts
in
the
Region
where
normal
demands
were
not
able
to
be
met
so
drought
management
plans
were
implemented
to
reduce
demands
to
be
more
in-line
with
available
supplies.
In
this
way
demands
were
met.
y
Arundo,
quagga
mussels
(aqueducts)
have
been
detected
and
could
increase
-already
decreasing
infrastructure
reliability
as
well
as
alter
flood
regimes
and
alter
wildfire
regimes.
Y
The
2009
Station
fire
and
others
caused
great
damage
and
sedimentation
issues
from
large
increases
in
erosion.
Decrease
in
imported
supply:
Due
to
decreases
in
SWP
and
Colorado
supplies
Decrease
in
seasonal
water
reliability:
given
recharge
facilities
and
decreases
in
local
and
imported
surface
supply
Decrease
in
coastal
groundwater
supply:
due
to
sea
level
rise
increasing
intrusion
Reduced
resiliency
to
drought:
Increased
need
for
rationing
and
other
drought
response
Invasives
can
reduce
supply
available:
Increased
invasives
leads
to
increased
water
consumption
(and
flood
and
wildfire
regimes)
Increased
erosion
and
sedimentation:
leads
to
decreased
water
quality,
available
supply
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-80
Does part of your region rely on surface
water bodies with current or recurrent
water quality issues related to
eutrophication, such as low dissolved
oxygen or algal blooms? Are there
other water quality constituents
potentially exacerbated by climate
change?
Are seasonal low flows decreasing for
some water bodies in your region? If
so, are the reduced low flows limiting
the water bodies' assimilative capacity?
Are there beneficial uses designated for
some water bodies in your region that
cannot always be met due to water
quality issues?
Does part of your region currently
observe water quality shifts during rain
events that impact treatment facility
operation?
Y Many of the Region's local surface waters are 303(d)
listed for nutrient issues
Y Most streams in the region are naturally ephemeral or intermittent. For example, some streams that were once
intermittent are now perennial after being channelized to a depth below the summer water table. Natural streams
may have decreased flow, but the only gauged streams
are those with significant anthropogenic alteration in
upstream watersheds. Seasonal low flows in effluent
dependent water bodies are decreasing given
conservation and recycled water use.
Assimilative capacity is already compromised since
normal dry season flows are low. Any amount of
pollutants added to small volumes of water during low
flow will have a proportionally large effect.
Increased nutrient loading and
decreased Dissolved Oxygen:
leads to decreased water quality
through eutrophication
Decreased dilution flows: to
help dilute contaminants
Y There are many beneficial uses in the Region which are Decrease in recreational not being met. For example, beach closures and fishing opportunity: from poor water restrictions have occurred in the past. quality
Y Some areas that treat local surface water have issues with Increase in source control or turbidity and first flush contaminant levels during high flows.surface water treatment: for High intensity storms can also disrupt biological wastewatersurface waters to meet or stormwater treatment processes that may affect increases in contaminants minimum standing time and discharge water quality
+4 i
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-81
Sea
Level
Rise
Has
coastal
erosion
already
been
Y
Malibu,
Santa
Monica,
and
Palos
Verdes
areas
Decrease
in
land:
From
observed
in
your
region?
erosion
along
coasts
Are
there
coastal
structures,
such
as
Y
Marina
areas
and
ports
have
breakwaters.-i
the
Ballona
Damage
to
coastal
levees
or
breakwaters,
in
your
region?
Creek
channel
outlet
is
a levee.
infrastructure/recreation/
Is
there
significant
coastal
Y
Examples
of
areas
at
risk
due
to
SLR
include
wastewater
tourism:
Due
to
sea
level
rise
infrastructure,
such
as
residences,
treatment
(e.g.
Hyperion,
Terminal
Island),
stormwater
recreation,
water
and
wastewater
outfalls
at
beaches,
beach
recreation
features,
also
treatment,
tourism,
and
transportation)
potential
for
planned
desalination
facilities.
Residences
at
less
than
six
feet
above
mean
sea
(including
DACs)
and
other
non
-water
-related
level
in
your
region?
infrastructure/recreation
are
also
at
risk
along
coastal
areas
of
the
Region.
Is
there
land
subsidence
in
the
coastal
N
Nothing
prevalent
known
areas
of
your
region?
Are
there
areas
in
your
region
that
Y
The
FEMA
definition
of
flooding
includes
coastal
wave
currently
flood
during
extreme
high
uprush.
There
have
been
flooding
events
along
the
coast
tides
or
storm
surges?
when
high
tides
and
storm
surges
coincide,
generally
during
EI
Nino
events.
Are
there
climate
-sensitive
low-lying
Y
Damage
to
ecosystem/
habitat:
coastal
habitats
in
your
region?
Ballona
Wetlands
and
Malibu
Lagoon
are
examples.
Due
to
sea
level
rise
Do
tidal
gauges
along
the
coastal
parts
N
There
have
been
documented
increases,
however,
this
No
issue
just
indicates
that
of
your
region
show
an
increase
over
just
indicates
that
climate
change
is
occurring
but
is
not
a
climate
change
is
happening
the
oast
several
decades?
vulnerability
issue.
Does
critical
(water/wastewater)
Y
Assuming
yes
Increases
in
inland
flooding
infrastructure
in
your
region
lie
within
the
200
-year
floodplain?
Does
aging
critical
flood
protection
Y
See
Appendix
G
Flood
Management
Objectives
and
infrastructure
exist
in
your
region?
Targets.
Have
flood
control
facilities
(such
as
Y
Regionally
there
has
generally
been
sufficient
protection,
impoundment
structures)
been
but
there
is
still
some
localized
flooding.
Debris
basins
insufficient
in
the
past?
have
been
insufficient
in
the
past
(O&M
issue)
and
caused
debris
flows.
Long
Beach,
San
Pedro
Sun
Valley
are
example
areas
with
inland
flooding
issues.
+5 i
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-82
Are wildfires a concern in parts of your Y Annual occurrence of wildfires Increases in flash flooding and region? debris flows
Does part of your region lie within the N Not applicable No issue since it is out of Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage Region
District?
Ecosystem and Habitat
Does your region include inland or y Ballona Wetlands, and Malibu Lagoon other riparian areas Increased impacts to habitat coastal aquatic habitats vulnerable to and flow availability for species:
erosion and sedimentation issues? from various current issues and Does your region include estuarine Y Malibu Lagoon and Ballona Wetlands are examples those associated with climate habitats which rely on seasonal change
freshwater flow patterns?
Do climate-sensitive fauna or flora Y Numerous species dependent upon the Mediterranean populations live in your region? climate live in the Region Are there rivers in your region with Y Los Angeles River does not yet have flow requirements quantified environmental flow but could have them in the future —however there are requirements or known water current stressors on aquatic life. There are minimum flow quality/quantity stressors to aquatic requirements to sustain steelhead trout habitat in Malibu life? Creek that trigger a requirement to discharge recycled water each summer.
Do endangered or threatened species Y A number of endangered and threatened species exist in exist in your region? Are changes in the Region. The Region is the southern limit to species distribution already being endangered southern steelhead trout; climate change observed in parts of your region? could alter their extent.
Y Beach tourism, creeks and lakes recreation, creekDoes the region rely on aquatic or riparian habitat and river adjacent trailswater- dependent habitats for recreation or other economic activities?
Are there areas of fragmented Y, Y, N The Region has natural aquatic habitat areas that are estuarine, aquatic, or wetland wildlife severely fragmented by channelization, impassible habitat within your region? Are there culverts and lost riparian areas. There are some movement corridors for species to corridors, but no new known infrastructure projects are naturally migrate? Are there planned that would further fragment aquatic habitat. infrastructure projects planned that
might preclude species movement?
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-83
..
~
~
..
Do
estuaries,
coastal
dunes,
wetlands,
Y
Not
frequent
storms
but
there
are
exposed
beaches
Decrease
in
habitat
protection
marshes,
or
exposed
beaches
exist
in
and
habitats
that
are
at
risk
during
EI
Nino
storm
against
coastal
storms.
your
region?
If so,
are
coastal
storms
events.
possible/frequent
in
your
region?
Does
your
region
include
one
or
more
N
None
listed.
of
the
habitats
described
in
the
Endangered
Species
Coalition's
Top
10 habitats
vulnerable
to
climate
change?
HydropowerIs
hydropower
a source
of
electricity
in
Y
Small
hydropower
projects
Decrease
in
hydropower
your
region?
potential.
Are
energy
needs
in your
region
Y,
N
No
future
known
plans
for
hydropower
generation
expected
to
increase
in
the
future?
If so,
are
there
future
plans
for
hydropower
generation
facilities
or
conditions
for
h
dropower
generation
in your
region?
i
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-84
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-85
P. Other Planning Documents (October 2017)
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-86
Appendix P. Planning Documents (Sept. 2017)
SUB-REGION Plan Name IRWMP Incorporation
Lower San Gabriel1. Los Angeles River Upper Reach 2 Watershed Management 10/23/2016 & Los Angeles Plan
River Z. Gateway Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 02/22/2017
3. Los Cerritos Channel Watershed Management Plan 10/25/2017
4. Lower Los Angeles River Storm Water Resource Plan 10/25/2017
5. Long Beach Nearshore Stormwater Resource Plan 10/25/2017
6. Lower San Gabriel River Storm Water Resource Plan 10/25/2017 North Santa Monica7. Malibu Creek Watershed Stormwater Resource Plan 10/23/2016 Bay
8. North Santa Monica Bay Coastal Watersheds Enhanced 10/23/2016 Watershed Management Program / Stormwater Resource
Plan
South Bay 9. Dominguez Channel Enhanced Watershed Management 10/23/2016 Program Stormwater Resource Plan
10. Ballona Creek Enhanced Watershed Management Program 10/23/2016 Stormwater Resource Plan
11. Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictions 2 & 3 Enhanced Watershed 10/23/2016 Management Program Stormwater Resource Plan
12. Palos Verdes Peninsula Watershed Management Group 10/23/2016 Enhanced Watershed Management Program Stormwater
Resource Plan
13. Beach Cities Enhanced Watershed Management Program 10/23/2016 Stormwater Resource Plan
14. Machado Lake Watershed Enhanced Watershed 10/23/2016 Management Plan
15. Marina Del Rey Watershed Enhanced Watershed 10/23/2016 Management Program Plan
Upper Los Angeles16. Los Angeles Stormwater Captures Master Plan 10/23/2016 River
17. Upper Los Angeles River Enhanced Watershed 10/23/2016 Management Plan
Upper San Gabriel18. East San Gabriel Valley Watershed Management 10/25/17 and Rio Hondo Stormwater Resource Plan
19. Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Enhanced Watershed 10/23/2016 Management Program Stormwater Resource Plan
20. Upper San Gabriel Enhanced Watershed Management 10/23/2016 Program Plan
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-87
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013
INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2017 AMENDMENTS
STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-88
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN 2017 AMENDMENTS
PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSE
MEMBER MEMBER’S
AGENCY
COMMENT RESPONSE
Jan
Dougall
Las Virgenes
Municipal Water
District
under c. 1.5 Stakeholder involvement, iii, which
begins “For the GLAC Region DAC Committee
outreach surveys …” is a little confusing. I’m
thinking it should read “For the GLAC Region,
the DAC Committee conducted outreach
surveys and workshops.”
Accept suggested language change.
Jan
Dougall
Las Virgenes
Municipal Water
District
effects and impacts climate change …” will need
a “of” between “impacts” and “climate change.”
There are also two instances of “were
assessed.” The final sentence should read: “The
potential effects and impacts of climate changes
were assessed in the context of the
vulnerabilities of the GLAC Region as part of the
2013 Plan Update and described in Chapter 2.”
Accept suggested minor change.
Jan
Dougall
Las Virgenes
Municipal Water
District
should say “CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan” with
no space between “A” and “B.” (AB for Assembly
Bill).
Space between A and B deleted.
Wendy La Laser LLC On page 39, please add “Puente Basin Water Agency” to the list of voting members for the
Upper San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Subregion.
Table 1-1 revised to include Puente Basin
Water Agency as a voting member for the
Upper San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Subregion.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-89
GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2013 IRWM PLAN 2017 AMENDMENTS
PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSE
Wendy La Laser LLC On page 53 for Table 5-3 (approved project list dated August 2017), is it possible to generate
the latest list of approved projects from OPTI in
November 2017 to ensure that we are
submitting the latest approved project list for our
region? Please note that we recently made a
minor change to the project name (from
“Regional Water Supply Reliability Program
Phase 1b” to “Regional Water Supply Reliability
Program - California Domestic Phase II”) in the
OPTI Database.
The list of approved projects was generated by
Woodard and Curan. There is currently no
contract mechanism to revise this list further
and it is preferred to update this list more
completely for Proposition 1 implementation.
There are other projects that have been
approved since August 2017 and there will be
additional projects added as the Region
continues to call for projects for future
solicitations. For Proposition 1, the OPTI
gatekeepers for the 5 subregions will generate
the latest list of approved projects from which
each subregion will determine the projects that
will be included in the grant application in
response to future DWR grant funding
solicitations.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-90