DOCSLIB.ORG

Confluence Regional Water Resource Project Conceptual Design

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Confluence Regional Water Resource Project Conceptual Design WatershedWatershed ManagementManagement ImprovementsImprovements inin thethe ChinoChino BasinBasin PREPARED FOR: Chino Basin Water Conservation District 4594 San Bernardino Street Montclair, California 91763 Associates 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 110 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 O 239.204.5300 F 866.398.2426 JUNE 2018 FINAL REPORT www.waterscienceassociates.com Watershed Management Improvements in the Chino Basin PREPARED FOR: Chino Basin Water Conservation District 4594 San Bernardino Street Montclair, California 91763 Roger Copp Senior Water Resource Modeler JUNE 2018 FINAL REPORT W. Kirk Martin, P.G. 79 Principal Hydrogeologist Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 1 SECTION B ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ....................................... 3 SECTION C PLANNED FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................. 6 SECTION D CONFLUENCE REGIONAL WATER RESOURCE PROJECT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN .................................................................................................................. 7 SECTION E WATER QUALITY BENEFITS OF THE CONFLUENCE REGIONAL WATER RESOURCE PROJECT .................................................................................................... 12 SECTION F ADDITIONAL PROJECTS TO CAPTURE AND RECHARGE STORMWATER............... 13 SECTION G RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 14 SECTION H REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 16 FIGURES Figure 1 Map of the Chino Basin ....................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Recharge Basins in the Chino Basin .................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 Estimated Streambed Iniltration in the Chino Basin and Increased Recharge Resulting from Recharge Master Plan ................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4 Measured Water Levels in the Brooks Recharge Basin ..................................................... 8 Figure 5 Measured Water Leves in Montclair Recharge Basins 1, 2, and 3 ..................................... 9 Figure 6 Estimated Capture Volumes for the Proposed Confluence Project and Total Annual Flow for Chino Creek at Schaeffer Ave. ...................................................... 10 TABLES Table 1 Summary of Flows Captures by the Confluence Project .................................................... 7 Table 2 Water Quality Benefits Associated with the Confluence Project ...................................... 12 APPENDICES Appendix A Water Quality Analysis for the Confluence Water Storage Project Table A-1 Average Concentrations of Water Quality Constituents for Chino Creek at Central Ave. ...................................................... A-2 Figure A-1 Measured Fecal Coliform Levels vs Flow for Chino Creek at Central Ave. ...................................................................... A-2 Figure A-2 Measured Electrical Conductivity vs Flow for Chino Creek at Central Ave. ...................................................................... A-2 Figure A-3 Measured Total Suspended Solids vs Flow for Chino Creek at Central Ave. ...................................................................... A-3 Figure A-4 Measured Nitrate Nitrogen for Chino Creek at Pine Ave. ............... A-3 Appendix B Proposed Water Quality Monitoring Program Table B-1 Information on Sampling Locations ................................................ B-1 Table B-2 Proposed Water Quality Constituents for Analysis ......................... B-1 Figure B-1 Map of Sampling Stations ............................................................... B-2 SECTION A INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Water Science Associates conducted a planning level assessment of existing and proposed watershed management efforts in the Chino Basin with the objective of recommending additional projects that will have the potential to increase groundwater recharge, reduce salt content in the Chino Basin aquifers, and improve water quality. This effort was conducted for the Chino Basin Water Conservation District (CBWCD). The Chino Basin is located primarily in San Bernardino County in southern California east of Los Angeles County, north of the Santa Ana River, and includes the cities of Upland, Montclair, portions of Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Eastvale, Chino, Chino Hills, Norco, Pomona, and others. The sphere of influence for CBWCD includes portions of Upland north of I-210, portions of Rancho Cucamonga north of I-210 and east of I-15, and Fontana. The Chino Basin is bounded by the Cucamonga Basin and the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the Rialto-Colton Basin to the northeast, the chain of the Jurupa, Pedley, and La Sierra Hills to the southeast, the Temescal Basin to the south, the Chino and Puente Hills to the southwest, and the San Jose Hills and Pomona and Claremont Basins to the northwest as shown in Figure 1. The Chino Basin has experienced years of land use changes that have reduced groundwater recharge, extracted groundwater for agricultural and public water supply, and introduced contaminants such as total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate-nitrogen in the aquifer (Wildermuth Environmental and Black & Veatch, 2001; Wildermuth, 2015). These activities have reduced groundwater levels in the basin and contributed to land subsidence in portions of the basin by more than seven feet along with ground fissuring (Wildermuth Environmental, Inc., 2017a). In September 2000, the Superior Court of the State of California approved the Peace Agreement and authorized the implementation of the Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program to protect and enhance the safe yield of the Chino Basin. The Peace Agreement II of 2007 is an update to the original agreement (CBWM, 2013). Prior to and following the Peace Agreement, numerous projects have been implemented to increase groundwater recharge while minimizing excess TDS concentrations in the groundwater of the Chino Basin. The CBWCD involved in a Four Party Agreement and has worked collaboratively with Chino Basin Watermaster, San Bernardino Flood Control District, and Inland Empire Utilities Agency to develop and implement a recharge master plan that was developed in 2007 and is updated every five years. Due to the extent of water challenges in the Chino Basin, a detailed summary of legal and engineering activities related to the Peace Agreement and the Recharge Master Plan will not be provided in this report. Additional information can be obtained by reviewing the References section of this report. The following tasks were completed as part of this project: • Assessment of existing watershed management efforts within the Chino/San Antonio Basins • Evaluation of watershed management efforts currently being planned and/or constructed by Chino Basin watershed management agencies, such as the Chino Basin Watermaster (CBWM), Inland Empire Water Utilities Agency (IEUA), City of Pomona, Monte Vista Water District (MVWD), San Bernardino County, Santa Ana Watershed Protection Authority (SAWPA), Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (SCMWD), and the Chino Basin Desalter Authority. • Assist Wagner & Bonsignore in development of a conceptual design of a water storage facility on a 15.76-acre property recently purchased by the CBWCD which is located at the junction of Chino and San Antonio Creeks south of Riverside Drive in unincorporated 1 San Bernardino County, CA. This property is referred to herein as the Confluence Regional Water Resource Project or the Confluence Project. • Identify potential water quality benefits of the Confluence Project and recommend a monitoring program for the project. • In addition to the Confluence Project, evaluate the potential for additional capture and recharge of basin flows that will reduce the overall salt content of the aquifers of Chino Basin. The assessment of existing and proposed recharge efforts within Chino Basin provides a basis for the conceptual design of the proposed Confluence Regional Water Resource Project. Figure 1 – Map of the Chino Basin (Source: Wildermuth et.al., 2010) 2 SECTION B ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT The Parties to the Peace Agreement have been working collaboratively to implement recommended recharge projects. Reports such as the 2013 Amendment to the 2010 Recharge Master Plan Update (Wildermuth Environmental, Inc., 2013) provide details on implementation progress and status reports are provided weekly (e.g. IEUA, 2018) and semi-annually (Wildermuth Environmental, Inc., 2017b). The 2013 Amendment to the 2010 Recharge Master Plan Update describes existing spreading basins (see Figure 2), enhancements to improve recharge basin performance, and recharge via aquifer storage and recovery (ASR). Lower Cucamonga Basins Figure 2 – Recharge Basins in the Chino Basin (Source: Wildermuth Environmental, 2013) One of the unintended consequences of water resources development projects from the 1950’s through the 1990’s was a loss of groundwater recharge due to concrete lining of San Antonio, Chino, Cypress, Cucamonga, Deer, Day, and San Sevaine Creeks. Historically, runoff from the 3 San Gabriel mountains flowed south into the alluvial deposits
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is the Santa Ana River Watershed?
    32 1 32 1 2 3 Discharge of the Santa Ana River Below Prado Dam Water Year 1969 - 1970 2 3 4 5 – Gordon K. Anderson, former Chief of Planning, California Regional Water Quality Control Board “Too many people and not enough water to go around – that’s what led to the seemingly endless rounds of lawsuits and countersuits that characterized the 1960s in this watershed [which] takes in parts of three separate counties.” – Gordon K. Anderson, former Chief of Planning, California Regional Water Quality Control Board 1 4 5 6 7 ItIt All All StartedStarted withwith ConflictConflict AfterAfter decades decades of of disputes disputes dating dating to to the the early early 1900s, 1900s, two two major major lawsuits lawsuits were were filedfiled in in 1963, 1963, involving involving surface surface water water and and groundwater groundwater pumping pumping rights rights in in thethe Santa Santa Ana Ana River River Watershed. Watershed. One One lawsuit lawsuit was was filed filed by by Western Western MunicipalMunicipal Water Water District District and and the the other other by by Orange Orange County County Water Water District. District. InIn reference reference to to the the Orange Orange County County lawsuit, lawsuit, Corona Corona City City Attorney Attorney Robert Robert TimlinTimlin and and Don Don Stark, Stark, Counsel Counsel for for the the Chino Chino Basin Basin Municipal Municipal Water Water District,District, declared declared in in 1968, 1968, “The “The suit suit was was the the largest largest and and most most complex complex ever
    [Show full text]
  • S a W P a SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY 11615 Sterling Avenue, Riverside, California 92503 • (951) 354-4220
    S A W P A SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY 11615 Sterling Avenue, Riverside, California 92503 • (951) 354-4220 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 ISSUED BY GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM ON MARCH 19, 2020, THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED VIRTUALLY. ALL VOTES TAKEN DURING THIS VIRTUAL MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED BY ORAL ROLL CALL. This meeting will be accessible as follows: Meeting Access Via Computer (Zoom)*: Meeting Access Via Telephone*: • https://sawpa.zoom.us/j/93208815039 • 1 (669) 900-6833 • Meeting ID: 932 0881 5039 • Meeting ID: 932 0881 5039 * Participation in the meeting via the Zoom app (a free download) is strongly encouraged; there is no way to protect your privacy if you elect to call in by phone to the meeting. AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2021 – 10:00 A.M. (*or immediately following the 9:30 a.m. SAWPA Commission meeting, whichever is earlier) REGULAR MEETING OF THE PROJECT AGREEMENT 24 COMMITTEE Inland Empire Brine Line Committee Members Eastern Municipal Water District Inland Empire Utilities Agency Paul D. Jones, General Manager Directo r Jasmin A. Hall Director David J. Slawson (Alt) Shivaji Deshmukh, General Manager (Alt) San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Western Municipal Water District Directo r T. Milford Harrison, Chair Directo r Brenda Dennstedt, Vice Chair Director Gil Botello (Alt) Craig Miller, General Manager (Alt) 1. CALL TO ORDER | PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (T. Milford Harrison, Chair) 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public may address the Committee on items within the jurisdiction of the Committee; however, no action may be taken on an item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by Government Code §54954.2(b).
    [Show full text]
  • III. General Description of Environmental Setting Acres, Or Approximately 19 Percent of the City’S Area
    III. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. Overview of Environmental Setting Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to include a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a proposed project when the incremental effects of a project are cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts are defined as impacts that result from the combination of the proposed project evaluated in the EIR combined with other projects causing related impacts. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Section 15125 (c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to include a discussion on the regional setting that the project site is located within. Detailed environmental setting descriptions are contained in each respective section, as presented in Chapter IV of this Draft EIR. B. Project Location The City of Ontario (City) is in the southwestern corner of San Bernardino County and is surrounded by the Cities of Chino and Montclair, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County to the west; the Cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga to the north; the City of Fontana and unincorporated land in San Bernardino County to the east; the Cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the east and south. The City is in the central part of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley. This portion of the valley is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north; the Chino Hills, Puente Hills, and San Jose Hills to the west; the Santa Ana River to the south; and Lytle Creek Wash on the east.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Ana River Watermaster
    SANTA ANA RIVER WATERMASTER ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT v. CITY OF CHINO, et al. CASE NO. 117628--COUNTY OF ORANGE WATERMASTER MAILING ADDRESS P. Joseph Grindstaff c/oSBVMWD Douglas D. Headrick 380 East Vanderbilt Way Roy L. Herndon San Bernardino CA 92408-3593 Michael R. Markus Telephone (909) 387-9200 John V. Rossi FAX (909) 387-9247 April 30, 2015 To: Clerk of Superior Court of Orange County and all Parties Re: Watermaster Report for Water Year October 1, 2013 - September 30, 2014 Ladies and Gentlemen: We have the honor of submitting herewith the Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the Santa Ana River Watermaster. The supporting Basic Data Appendices are bound separately. The principal findings of the Watermaster for the Water Year 2013-14 are as follows: At Prado 1 Measured Outflow at Prado 86,486 acre-feet 2 Base Flow at Prado 63,536 acre-feet 3 Annual Weighted TDS in Base and Storm Flows 582 mg/L 4 Annual Adjusted Base Flow 69,784 acre-feet 5 Cumulative Adjusted Base Flow 5,282,666 acre-feet 6 Other Credits (Debits) 0 acre-feet 7 Cumulative Entitlement of OCWD 1,848,000 acre-feet 8 Cumulative Credit 3,474,674 acre-feet 9 One-Third of Cumulative Debit 0 acre-feet 10 Minimum Required Base Flow in 2013-14 34,000 acre-feet April 30, 2015 Page 2 of 2 At Riverside Narrows 1 Base Flow at Riverside Narrows 32, 313 acre-feet 2 Annual Weighted TDS in Base Flow 646 mg/L 3 Annual Adjusted Base Flow 32,313 acre-feet 4 Cumulative Adjusted Base Flow 1,958,244 acre-feet 5 Cumulative Entitlement of IEUA and WMWD 671,000 acre-feet 6 Cumulative Credit 1,287,244 acre-feet 7 One-Third of Cumulative Debit 0 acre-feet 8 Minimum Required Base Flow in 2013-14 12,420 acre-feet Based on these findings, the Watermaster concludes that there was full compliance with the provisions of the Stipulated Judgment in 2013-14.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Chino Dairy Area Desalination and Reclamation Project
    T WaterSMAR Lower Chino Dairy Area Desalination and Reclamation Project WaterSMART Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, FY 2017, FOA No. BOR-DO-17-F002 Previous Agreements: R11AC35306, R12AC35339, R14AC00049 and R15AC00059 Inland Empire Utilities Agency Jason Gu, Grants Officer 6075 Kimball Avenue [email protected] Chino, CA 91708 (909) 993 - 1636 tel, (909) 606-7364 fax Proposal Contents Attachments .................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... iii Section 1: Technical Proposal ....................................................................... 1 1.1 Executive Summary ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Technical Project Description ................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Project Description and Background Information ....................... 3 1.2.2 Project Activities ......................................................................... 9 Task 1 – Environmental Documentation/National Environmental Policy Act Compliance...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Report
    WATER QUALITY REPORT West Valley Connector Project April 2018 (Updated January 2020) 2018 Revision Log Date Description April 2018 Original report prepared January 2020 Project schedule update Mitigation measures update Water Quality Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... i List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ vii Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Location and Setting ................................................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................... 2 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Phase I/Milliken Alignment ....................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Phase II/Haven Alignment ........................................................................ 6 2.2 Project Alternatives .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego County Riverside County Orange County
    Chino Creek Middle Santa Ana River San Timoteo Wash Middle Santa Ana River Little Morongo Creek-Morongo Wash San Gabriel River 18070106 San Gorgonio River Headwaters Whitewater River Lower Santa Ana River Middle San Jacinto River Santa Ana River 18070203 Upper Whitewater River Temescal Wash Santiago Creek San Jacinto River 18070202 Whitewater River 18100201 San Diego Creek Lower San Jacinto River Upper San Jacinto River Newport Bay 18070204 Palm Canyon Wash O r a n g e C o u n t y RR ii vv ee rr ss ii dd ee CC oo uu nn tt yy Middle Whitewater River O r a n g e C o u n t y Middle San Jacinto River Newport Bay-Frontal Pacific Ocean San Jacinto River Deep Canyon Newport Bay-Frontal Pacific Ocean San Juan Creek Murrieta Creek Aliso Creek-Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina Aliso Creek-San Onofre Creek 18070301 Wilson Creek Lower Whitewater River San Mateo Creek Santa Margarita River 18070302 Aliso Creek-San Onofre Creek Santa Margarita River Lower Temecula Creek Aliso Creek-Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina Salton Sea 18100204 Santa Margarita River Upper Temecula Creek Coyote Creek Clark Valley San Felipe Creek San Onofre Creek-Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina Camp Pendleton Bank Property Middle San Luis Rey River Upper San Luis Rey River Lower San Luis Rey River Escondido Creek-San Luis Rey River San Felipe Creek 18100203 Escondido Creek-San Luis Rey River 18070303 Borrego Valley-Borrego Sink Wash Escondido Creek San Marcos Creek-Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina Upper Santa Ysabel Creek 8-digit HUC Upper San Felipe Creek Sevice Areas Lower Santa Ysabel
    [Show full text]
  • 50Th Annual Report of the SARWM 2019-20
    SANTA ANA RIVER WATERMASTER ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT v. CITY OF CHINO, et al. CASE NO. 117628--COUNTY OF ORANGE WATERMASTER MAILING ADDRESS Shivaji Deshmukh c/o SBVMWD Roy L. Herndon 380 East Vanderbilt Way Wen B. Huang San Bernardino CA 92408-3593 Michael R. Markus Telephone (909) 387-9200 Craig D. Miller FAX (909) 387-9247 April 30, 2021 To: Clerk of Superior Court of Orange County and all Parties Re: Watermaster Report for Water Year October 1, 2019 - September 30, 2020 Ladies and Gentlemen: We have the honor of submitting herewith the Fiftieth Annual Report of the Santa Ana River Watermaster. The supporting Basic Data Appendices are bound separately. The principal findings of the Watermaster for the Water Year 2019-20 are as follows: At Prado 1 Measured Outflow at Prado 160,915 acre-feet 2 Base Flow at Prado 74,465 acre-feet 3 Annual Weighted TDS in Base and Storm Flows 462 mg/L 4 Annual Adjusted Base Flow 89,234 acre-feet 5 Cumulative Adjusted Base Flow 5,804,457 acre-feet 6 Other Credits (Debits) 1,108 acre-feet 7 Cumulative Entitlement of OCWD 2,100,000 acre-feet 8 Cumulative Credit 3,746,723 acre-feet 9 One-Third of Cumulative Debit 0 acre-feet 10 Minimum Required Base Flow in 2019-20 34,000 acre-feet April 30, 2021 Page 2 of 2 At Riverside Narrows 1 Base Flow at Riverside Narrows 32,096 acre-feet 2 Annual Weighted TDS in Base Flow 627 mg/L 3 Annual Adjusted Base Flow 32,096 acre-feet 4 Cumulative Adjusted Base Flow 2,150,591 acre-feet 5 Cumulative Entitlement of IEUA and WMWD 762,500 acre-feet 6 Cumulative Credit 1,388,091 acre-feet 7 One-Third of Cumulative Debit 0 acre-feet 8 Minimum Required Base Flow in 2019-20 12,420 acre-feet Based on these findings, the Watermaster concludes that there was full compliance with the provisions of the Stipulated Judgment in 2019-20.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 7: Floods
    Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Section 7 – Floods City of Newport Beach, California SECTION 7: FLOODS Table of Contents Why Are Floods a Threat to the City of Newport Beach? ............................ 7-1 History of Flooding in the City of Newport Beach ............................................................... 7-3 Historic Flooding in Orange County .......................................................................................... 7-8 Historic Flooding in Southern California ................................................................................. 7-11 What Factors Create Flood Risk? ................................................................... 7-14 Climate ........................................................................................................................................... 7-14 Tides ................................................................................................................................................ 7-19 Geography and Geology .............................................................................................................. 7-20 Built Environment ......................................................................................................................... 7-21 How Are Flood-Prone Areas Identified? ....................................................... 7-21 Flood Mapping Methods and Techniques ................................................................................ 7-22 Flood Terminology ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prado Basin Sediment Management Demonstration Project Biological Conditions Technical Report
    PRADO BASIN SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS TECHNICAL REPORT Prepared By Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Contact: Richard Zembal Daniel Bott July 2013 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1-1 2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................ 2-1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Regional Setting ................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Local Setting ......................................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Relevant Biological Resource Management Programs ......................... 3-8 4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................4-1 4.1 Methodology ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Vegetation Communities ....................................................................... 4-3 4.3 Sensitive Communities/Special Status Plants ..................................... 4-11 4.4 Wildlife ................................................................................................4-19 4.5 Wildlife Movement Corridors ............................................................... 4-51 5.0 SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................... 5-1 6.0
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Control District Interim Director  Brendon Biggs, M.S., P.E
    825 East Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 | Phone: 909.387.7910 Fax: 909.387.7911 Luther Snoke Flood Control District Interim Director Brendon Biggs, M.S., P.E. Chief Flood Control Engineer NOTICE OF EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD RE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY (NOA)/ NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CARBON CANYON CHANNEL FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CHINO HILLS, CALIFORNIA The San Bernardino County Flood Control District (District) prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the construction and maintenance of flood control improvements to the Carbon Canyon Flood Control Channel in the City of Chino Hills, California from an existing interim channel to an ultimate condition channel (See attached Figure 1: Regional Location) (Project). The Project goal is to reduce the risk of flooding during a 100-year storm event by increasing the capacity and conveyance of the District-maintained facility. The site is generally located within an area characterized as urbanized, primarily with single family residences to the north and south of the channel. There is a large Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way (ROW) south of the channel, intersecting the channel in two locations. There is a church complex at the west end of the channel (Chino Valley Community Church) as well as a recreational field with irrigated grass and ornamental plants that borders Little Chino Creek. There are commercial uses at the east end near Pipeline Avenue. The Project area covers approximately 4,850 linear feet in length and 150 feet in width where the existing interim channel already exists.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Design Report for the Chino Creek Wellfield and Chino II Expansion Wellfield Chino Desalter Phase 3 Project, Prepared for Western Municipal Water District
    PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT For the CHINO CREEK WELLFIELD WELLS I-19, I-20 AND I-21 Prepared for CHINO BASIN DESALTER AUTHORITY 2151 South Haven Avenue, Suite 202 Ontario, California 91761 And WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, (PROGRAM MANAGER) 14205 Meridian Parkway Riverside, California 92518 July 29, 2011 CONTENTS REFERENCES USED…………………………………………………………..………………………..….1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………...………..…..4 Figure 1: Project Location………………………………………………………..……..….. 5 GEOHYDROLOGIC SETTING…………………………………………………………………….………6 Figure 2: Geologic Setting………………………………………………………………….. 7 EXPECTED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS……………………………………………………….………8 Figure 3a: Lithologic Cross-Section…………………………………………………..………9 Figure 3b: Lithologic Cross-Section Map View……………………………..………………..9 ANTICIPATED PRODUCTION AND POTENTIAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED WELLS……………10 Figure 4: Well Site Considerations…………………………………………….…...............11 GROUND WATER QUALITY……………………………………………………………………………12 Table 1: Water Quality Summary of Existing CDA Wells…………………………..........13 Figure 5: Ground Water Chemistry of Chino Creek Area………………………………….15 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS…………………………………………………………………….16 Table 2: Required Permits and Governing Agencies……………………………………...17 WELL SITE CONSIDERATIONS…………………………………………………………………...……18 PROPOSED WELL SITE: I-19……………………………………………………………….....................18 Figure 6a: Proposed Well Site I-19………………………………………………………….19 PROPOSED WELL SITE: I-20…………………………………………………….…………………..…..20 Figure 6b: Proposed Well Site I-20…………………………………….……………………21 PROPOSED WELL
    [Show full text]