Los Angeles Basin Stormwater Conservation Study Los Angeles County - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
los angeles basin stormwater conservation study
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Los Angeles Basin Stormwater Conservation Study Los Angeles County - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 24, 2024 271 likes •661 views

Los Angeles Basin Stormwater Conservation Study Los Angeles County Flood Control District U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau Of Reclamation TASK 4 Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Plans Analysis Public Webinar

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Los Angeles County Flood Control District U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau Of Reclamation TASK 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Plans Analysis Public Webinar September 25, 2014

Los Angeles Basin Stormwater Conservation Study

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Overview

  • Study Background
  • Progress Update / Schedule
  • Task 4 Findings

 Dams  Spreading Grounds  Channel Outlets

  • Next Steps

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Study Partnership

Collaboration between »

  • Los Angeles County Flood Control District
  • U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Reclamation

Cost Estimate » $2.4 million Study Length » 3 Years

  • Completion in December 2015
  • Task 4 Started January 2014

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Study Objectives

Study Objectives

1) Evaluate existing water conservation under future conditions 2) Evaluate potential new facilities and operational changes for a future climate

Methodology

  • Detailed scientific, engineering & economic analyses
  • Coordinating with existing & proposed planning efforts
  • Developing partnerships & stakeholder involvement

Outcome

  • Tool for future planning by LACFCD and
  • ther local partners

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Key Considerations

  • Climate Change
  • Population growth

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 Population (Millions) Year

Los Angeles County Population Projection

California Department of Finance, - State and County Population Projections USGS - CMIP5 Global Climate Change Viewer

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Study Area

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-7
SLIDE 7

1

Project Management

2

Water Supply & Water Demand Projections

3

Downscaled Climate Change & Hydrologic Modeling

4

Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Analysis

5

Infrastructure & Operations Concepts

6

Trade-off Analysis & Recommendations

7

Final Report

Study Tasks

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-8
SLIDE 8

2

Water Supply & Water Demand Projections

3

Downscaled Climate Change & Hydrologic Modeling

4

Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Analysis

5

Infrastructure & Operations Concepts

6

Trade-off Analysis & Recommendations

Major Study Tasks

Water Supply & Water Demand Projections Downscaled Climate Change & Hydrologic Modeling Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Analysis Infrastructure & Operations Concepts Trade-off Analysis & Recommendations

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Study Schedule

  • Water Supply & Demand Literature Review
  • Supply Analysis
  • LACFCD Water Conservation System Contributions
  • Report Review & Publishing (In Progress)
  • General oversight and project guidance
  • Study Task Facilitation/Coordination
  • Study Outreach (Ongoing)
  • Response to Current Climate
  • Response to Future Climate
  • Report Review & Publishing (Review Draft Report)

TASK 2 – Water Supply

& Demand Projections

  • Downscaled Climate Change Modeling
  • Hydrologic Modeling – Current/Projected
  • Report Review & Publishing (Complete)

TASK 3 – Downscaled

Climate Change & Hydrologic Modeling

TASK 4 – Existing

Infrastructure Response & Operations Plans Analysis

September 2013

to

September 2014 January 2013

to

December 2015 March 2014

to

November 2014 February 2013

to

December 2013 TASK 1 – Study Project

Management

ACTION SCOPE TARGET

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Study Schedule

TASK 5 – Infrastructure

& Operations Concepts

  • Develop Concepts
  • Evaluate and Refine Concepts
  • Appraisal-Level Planning
  • Report Review & Publishing (Kickoffs Soon)

TASK 6 – Trade-Off

Analysis & Recommendations

  • Conduct Economic Analysis
  • Conduct Non-Economic Analysis
  • Develop Trade-off Matrix
  • Cost Effectiveness
  • Develop Recommendations
  • Report Review & Publishing

TASK 7 – Final Report

  • Prepare Final Report
  • Final Reviews
  • Publish and Distribute Final Report

July 2014

to

August 2015 November 2014

to

September 2015 June 2015

to

December 2015

ACTION SCOPE TARGET

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Task 4 Overview

  • Existing Infrastructure
  • Task 4 Subtasks

 Task 4.1 – Analyze Response to Current Climate

  • Investigate existing water conservation and flood control facilities

 Task 4.2 – Analyze Response to Future Climate

  • Assess existing facilities under future climates
  • Dam Methodology & Results
  • Spreading Ground Methodology & Results
  • Channel Outlet Methodology & Results

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Channel Outlet

Existing Infrastructure

  • 18 Dams
  • 14 LACFCD
  • 4 Army Corps
  • 26 Spreading

Grounds

  • 5 Major Channel

Outlets

Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW | Los Angeles Basin Stormwater Conservation Study

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Task 4 Subtasks

  • Task 4.1 – Analyze Response to Current Climate
  • Investigate existing water conservation and flood control facilities
  • Use current operation guidelines & existing capacities
  • Review and update existing WMMS facility models
  • Analyze current climate results for stormwater
  • Task 4.2 – Analyze Response to Future Climate
  • Assess current operation guidelines & existing capacities under future climates
  • Analyze a range of future climate scenarios
  • Rank facilities for the future climate scenarios

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Task 4 Modeling

Watershed Management Modeling System

  • Historic Hydrology for Existing Conditions
  • Water Year 1987-2000
  • Baseline Conditions
  • Projected Hydrology for Future Conditions
  • Water Year 2012-2095

WMMS Update 6 Future Climates

Analyze Existing Facilities

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Future Hydrology Projections

  • 100%
  • 50%

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 2011 2023 2035 2047 2059 2071 2083 2095 Percent Change Water Year

Variability in Average Annual Stormwater Runoff Volume

Areal Watershed Average for WY 2012-2095

50% of Projections Maximum Variation Ensemble Mean

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-16
SLIDE 16
  • 100%
  • 50%

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 2011 2025 2039 2053 2067 2081 2095 Percent Change Water Year

Average Annual Stormwater Runoff Volume – 47 Projections

Areal Watershed Average for WY 2012-2095

Future Hydrology Variability

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-17
SLIDE 17
  • 100%
  • 50%

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 2011 2025 2039 2053 2067 2081 2095 Percent Change

Average Annual Stormwater Runoff Volume – 6 Projections

Areal Watershed Average for WY 2012-2095 High1 High2 Middle1 Middle2 Low1 Low2

Future Projection Selection

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Methodology – Dams/Reservoirs

Review and Update Existing WMMS Dam F-Tables

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Discharge (cfs) Storage Volume (ac-ft)

Morris Dam Storage-Discharge Relationship

WMMS F-Table

Valve Releases Spillway Releases F-Table "Transition Zone" Modeled Behavior

True Behavior

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Dam Metrics & Criteria

Analysis of the dams and reservoirs used four key stormwater metrics to determine their performance:

  • Average Annual Volume of Stormwater Captured or Retained
  • Average Annual Volume of Stormwater Discharged through Spillway
  • Frequency of Spillway Events
  • PMF Exceedance Events

Ranking criteria for each of the dams included the following:

  • D1. Historic capture efficiency
  • D2. Future capture efficiency
  • D3. Change in capture efficiency from historic to future
  • D4. Historic frequency of spillway events
  • D5. Future frequency of spillway event

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Dam Ranking Criteria

𝑬𝑬 =

𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑫𝑩𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑫𝑩𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰+ 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑻𝑫𝑰𝑾𝑾𝑻𝑩𝑻 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰

𝑬𝑬 = 𝑵𝑰𝑵

𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑫𝑩𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝟕,𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑫𝑩𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝟕,𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩+ 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑻𝑫𝑰𝑾𝑾𝑻𝑩𝑻 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝟕,𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩

𝑬𝑬 = 𝑬𝑬 − 𝑬𝑬 𝑬𝑬 =

𝑶𝑫𝑾𝑶𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝒑 𝑻𝑫𝑰𝑾𝑾𝑻𝑩𝑻 𝑭𝑩𝑩𝑵𝑫𝑰 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑬𝑬 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝒁𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑰

𝑬𝑬 = 𝑵𝑩𝑵

𝑶𝑫𝑾𝑶𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝒑 𝑻𝑫𝑰𝑾𝑾𝑻𝑩𝑻 𝑭𝑩𝑩𝑵𝑫𝑰 𝟕,𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 𝟗𝑬 𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 𝒁𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑰

𝑮𝑰𝑵𝑩𝑾 𝑺𝑩𝑵𝑺 = 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 [𝑬𝑬, 𝑬𝑬, 𝑬𝑬, 𝑬𝑬, 𝑬𝑬]

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Performance Levels

Performance Level Performance Description Prospective Enhancements Priority I

  • High Efficiency
  • High Resiliency to Climate

Change Projections Potential Exists Low

↕

High II

  • Moderate Efficiency
  • Moderate Resiliency to Climate

Change Projections Moderate Potential III

  • Low Efficiency
  • Low Resiliency to Climate

Change Projections High Potential

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Dam Rankings

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

LACFCD Dams D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Average Level Big Dalton 1 4 4 1 4 2.8 II Big Tujunga 13 13 13 10 10 11.8 III Cogswell 11 11 12 7 7 9.6 II Devils Gate 12 12 11 13 13 12.2 III Eaton Wash 9 8 9 14 14 10.8 III Live Oak 1 2 2 1 2 1.6 I Morris 14 14 7 8 5 9.6 II Pacoima 7 7 6 5 6 6.2 II Puddingstone 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 I Puddingstone Diversion 5 5 5 12 12 7.8 II San Dimas 8 9 14 10 11 10.4 II San Gabriel 10 10 10 9 9 9.6 II Santa Anita 6 6 8 5 8 6.6 II Thompson Creek 1 3 3 1 3 2.2 I

Table A-2. LACFCD Dams – Final Performance Levels

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Task 4 Results – Dams

Dams/Reservoirs – Performance Levels # LACFCD Dams Level # LACFCD Dams Level 1 Big Dalton II 11 San Dimas II 2 Big Tujunga III 12 San Gabriel II 3 Cogswell II 13 Santa Anita II 4 Devils Gate III 14 Thompson Creek I 5 Eaton Wash III 6 Live Oak I # USACE Dams Level 7 Morris II 1 Hansen II 8 Pacoima II 2 Santa Fe II 9 Puddingstone I 3 Sepulveda II 10 Puddingstone Diversion II 4 Whittier Narrows II

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Methodology – Spreading Grounds

Review and Update Existing WMMS Spreading Ground Model

SWS = Subwatershed WMMS F-Table

SWS 5103 (Reservoir/Dam) SWS 5102 (Spreading Ground) SWS 5101

GW Recharge

(Perc. Rate)

Current System

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

SWS 5102 (Channel Forebay) SWS 5101 S.G. Spillway

(S.G. Intake) (Perc. Rate) (Rtrn. Rate)

SWS 5103 (Reservoir/Dam)

Remodeled System

GW Recharge

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Spreading Ground Metrics & Criteria

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

Analysis of the spreading grounds used two key stormwater metrics to determine their performance:

  • Total Annual Volume of Stormwater Captured
  • Total Annual Volume of Stormwater Bypassed

Ranking criteria for each of the dams included the following:

  • S1. Historic recharge
  • S2. Historic capture efficiency
  • S3. Capture volume versus spreading ground wetted area
  • S4. Capture volume versus spreading ground surface storage volume
  • S5. Capture volume versus spreading ground percolation rate
  • S6. Change in future recharge
  • S7. Change in future capture efficiency
  • S8. Range of potential capture
slide-26
SLIDE 26

𝑻𝑬 = 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑺𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑻𝑬 =

𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑺𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑺𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰+ 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑪𝑻𝑫𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰

𝑻𝑬 =

𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑺𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑻𝑫𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑻𝑰𝑵𝑩 𝑯𝑩𝑾𝑫𝑵𝑻 𝑿𝑩𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑻 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩

𝑻𝑬 =

𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑺𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑻𝑫𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑻𝑰𝑵𝑩 𝑯𝑩𝑾𝑫𝑵𝑻 𝑻𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩

𝑻𝑬 =

𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑺𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑻𝑫𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑻𝑰𝑵𝑩 𝑯𝑩𝑾𝑫𝑵𝑻 𝑸𝑩𝑩𝑰𝑾𝑾𝑩𝑫𝑰𝑾𝑵 𝑺𝑩𝑫𝑩

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

Spreading Ground Ranking Criteria

slide-27
SLIDE 27

𝑻𝟕 = 𝑵𝑩𝑵

𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑺𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝟕,𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑺𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰

𝑻𝑻 = 𝑵𝑰𝑵

𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑺𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝟕,𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑺𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝟕,𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩+ 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑪𝑻𝑫𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑫𝑾𝑩 𝟕,𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 /𝑻𝑬

𝑻𝟗 = (𝑭𝑵𝑫𝑾𝑵𝑩𝑵𝑫 𝑾𝑵 𝑻𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑾𝑻𝑩𝑫𝑩𝑩 𝑺𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩𝑩)

𝑮𝑰𝑵𝑩𝑾 𝑺𝑩𝑵𝑺 = 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 [𝑻𝑬, 𝑻𝑬, 𝑻𝑬, 𝑻𝑬, 𝑻𝑬, 𝑻𝟕, 𝑻𝑻, 𝑻𝟗]

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

Spreading Ground Ranking Criteria

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Performance Levels

Performance Level Performance Description Prospective Enhancements Priority I

  • High Efficiency
  • High Resiliency to Climate

Change Projections Potential Exists Low

↕

High II

  • Moderate Efficiency
  • Moderate Resiliency to Climate

Change Projections Moderate Potential III

  • Low Efficiency
  • Low Resiliency to Climate

Change Projections High Potential

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Spreading Ground Rankings

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

Table A-4. Spreading Ground – Final Performance Levels

Spreading Ground S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 Average Level Ben Lomond 9 6 7 11 14 5 20 3 9.4 II Big Dalton 19 10 13 1 22 17 6 9 12.1 II Branford 18 11 14 19 2 15 25 13 14.6 II Buena Vista 24 24 24 24 18 24 2 23 20.4 III Citrus 15 19 15 12 19 14 19 17 16.3 III Dominguez Gap 21 25 25 23 1 23 1 25 18.0 III Eaton Basin 14 14 10 18 16 9 15 8 13.0 II Eaton Wash 13 9 21 21 13 13 9 11 13.8 II Forbes 22 18 23 20 15 18 10 18 18.0 III Hansen/Tujunga 2 4 11 15 23 3 17 4 9.9 II Irwindale 6 1 3 16 4 2 21 2 6.9 I Little Dalton 23 17 17 2 24 16 5 16 15.0 II Live Oak 25 16 18 13 25 19 18 19 19.1 III Lopez 17 20 22 7 20 20 16 21 17.9 III Pacoima 8 15 19 14 12 10 14 15 13.4 II Peck Road 7 7 16 22 5 7 12 6 10.3 II Rio Hondo 1 3 9 10 9 8 22 5 8.4 I San Dimas 11 13 6 4 8 11 13 12 9.8 II San Gabriel Canyon 5 23 12 25 7 25 3 24 15.5 II San Gabriel Coastal 3 5 2 6 6 12 24 14 9.0 I Santa Anita 20 22 20 9 11 21 4 20 15.9 II Santa Fe 4 12 8 8 21 6 8 7 9.3 I Sawpit 16 8 5 3 17 4 11 10 9.3 I Sierra Madre 12 2 4 5 10 1 23 1 7.3 I Walnut 10 21 1 17 3 22 7 22 12.9 II

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Task 4 Results – Spreading Grounds

Spreading Ground Facilities – Performance Levels # Spreading Ground Level # Spreading Ground Level 1 Ben Lomond II 14 Lopez III 2 Big Dalton II 15 Pacoima II 3 Branford II 16 Peck Road II 4 Buena Vista III 17 Rio Hondo I 5 Citrus III 18 San Dimas II 6 Dominguez Gap III 19 San Gabriel Canyon II 7 Eaton Basin II 20 San Gabriel Coastal I 8 Eaton Wash II 21 Santa Anita II 9 Forbes III 22 Santa Fe I 10 Hansen/Tujunga* II 23 Sawpit I 11 Irwindale I 24 Sierra Madre* I 12 Little Dalton II 25 Walnut II 13 Live Oak III

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Channel Metrics & Criteria

Analysis of the channel outlets used two key stormwater metrics to determine their performance:

  • Average Annual Volume of Stormwater Discharged to the Ocean
  • Peak Flood Flow Rate

Ranking criteria for each of the outlets included the following:

  • C1. Change in future discharge
  • C2. Change in future unit area discharge
  • C3. Change in future discharge per total discharge
  • C4. Change in future average peak flow rate

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Channel Ranking Criteria

𝑫𝑬 = 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑩𝑵𝑵𝑫𝑩𝑾 𝑬𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 − 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑩𝑵𝑵𝑫𝑩𝑾 𝑬𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑫𝑬 = 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑩𝑵𝑵𝑫𝑩𝑾 𝑬𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 − 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑩𝑵𝑵𝑫𝑩𝑾 𝑬𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑾𝒑 𝑿𝑩𝑫𝑩𝑩𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑻

𝑫𝑬 = 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑩𝑵𝑵𝑫𝑩𝑾 𝑬𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑬 𝑷𝑫𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑫 𝑼𝑾𝑫𝑩𝑾 𝑬𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩

𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩

− 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑩𝑵𝑵𝑫𝑩𝑾 𝑬𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑬 𝑷𝑫𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑫 𝑼𝑾𝑫𝑩𝑾 𝑬𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩

𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰

𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑩𝑵𝑵𝑫𝑩𝑾 𝑬𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑬 𝑷𝑫𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑫 𝑼𝑾𝑫𝑩𝑾 𝑬𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑺𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩

𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰

𝑫𝑬 = 𝑵𝑩𝑵 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑸𝑩𝑩𝑺 𝑮𝑾𝑾𝑻 𝑮𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑩𝑩 − 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑸𝑩𝑩𝑺 𝑮𝑾𝑾𝑻 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑸𝑩𝑩𝑺 𝑮𝑾𝑾𝑻 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑫𝑾𝑩𝑰𝑰

𝑮𝑰𝑵𝑩𝑾 𝑺𝑩𝑵𝑺 = 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 [𝑫𝑬, 𝑫𝑬, 𝑫𝑬, 𝑫𝑬]

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Assessment Levels

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

Assessment Level Assessment Description Stormwater Supply Watershed Priority

I

  • Low Discharge Volumes to

the Ocean Potential Exists Low

↕

High

II

  • Moderate Discharge

Volumes to the Ocean Moderate Potential

III

  • High Discharge Volumes to

the Ocean High Potential

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Channel Outlet Rankings

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

Table A-6. Major Channel Outlets – Final Assessment Levels

Major Channel Outlet Metric Rankings Location C1 C2 C3 C4 AVG Level Ballona Creek 3 4 2 5 3.50 II Dominguez Channel 1 2 1 2 1.50 I Malibu Creek 2 3 4 1 2.50 I San Gabriel River 4 1 5 3 3.25 II Los Angeles River 5 5 3 4 4.25 III

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Task 4 Results – Channel Outlets

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

Channel Outlet Assessment

# Channel (Watershed) Level 1 Ballona Creek II 2 Dominguez Channel I 3 Los Angeles River III 4 Malibu Creek I 5 San Gabriel River II

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Task 4 Q&A

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

Big Tujunga Dam

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Next Steps

Scoping Sessions / Design Charettes – Fall 2014

  • Task 5 – Infrastructure &Operations Concepts
  • Develop facility enhancements and/or new concepts

Next Task

  • Task 6 – Trade-off Analysis & Recommendations

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Contact Information

Los Angeles Basin Stormwater Conservation Study

http://www.usbr.gov/lc/socal/basinstudies/LABasin.html L ACF CD Conta c t:

L e e Ale xande r son, P. E . County of L

  • s Ange le s

De par tme nt of Public Wor ks L

  • s Ange le s County F

lood Contr

  • l Distr

ic t Wate r she d Manage me nt Division (626) 458- 4370 lale xande r son@dpw.lac ounty.gov

Re c la ma tion Conta c t:

Jac k Sime s, Planning Offic e r De par tme nt of the Inte r ior Bur e au of Re c lamation L

  • we r

Color ado Rive r Re gion Southe r n Califor nia Ar e a Offic e (951) 695- 5310 jsime s@usbr .gov

Bureau of Reclamation, LACFCD, LACDPW │ Task 4 – Existing Infrastructure Response & Operations Guidelines Analysis