IrorfTl B I .TOl'N R. BYERLY. INC. I I Z Test Pit No. 6 I- Z Q >' uJ .... (!) .... U I 0:- ~ Z- <~ 0....0...... tz_ - :Jlt >0.. w >:11: 0: .... ~ - ~ o -- 0 I/) .... ! 6 ....~ I ~ a: o pli . . Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) I 100 0.5 86 '. ' .. (dry, moderately dense) 97 3.6 80 1 2 •I- ..... '.' I . . ." It:l . ' .. 3 pte .' . 95 1.5 82 I 4 l- '.... 5 6 I ., '":." Grey fine to coarse sand (SW) I- '., (dry, loose) 7 ' .. I - 8 9 Total depth 10.0 feet I 10 H---l No free ground water encountered 11 I-
I 12 I- Caving below 6.0 feet . I 13 I- 14 I- I 15 I- 16 I- I 17 I- 18 I-
19 I- Enclosure 2, Page 6 I Rpt. No.: 8844 20 File No.: S-4559 I ; orlTl 8 I .ro '.'i R. BYERl'{, INC. I I I Z I-z Q >-' uJ ..... l-' ..... U Tes' Pit No. 7 0:- t: z~ o(~ .... t;: 0...... I z_ Vl 0.....~z z.~ u~ 0...... t;: ...... U OU l,:). o~ w0:0:: 0: .... ,.., z0.. z~ :>- - :::di~ >0.. W I >:.: 0:: .... o 0 I/) - ....-- -- (5 ~ 2S .oJ ~ a: ·1 o Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) (dry, loose, porous) 1 I 90 4.2 75 2 3 I 90 5.3 74 4 I I' 99 2.6 82 5 I 6 Grey, 1t , brown fine to coarse sand Is w/lenses of silt, (dry & loose) 7 8 I 9 10 I 11 Total depth 11.0 feet 12 No free ground water encountered I . 13 No caving 14 I
. 15 16 I 17 I 18 Enclosure 2, Page 7 19 Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: S-4559 I 20 I .JOHN R. BYERLY, INC. 1 1
I ..... z z Q '>- W ..... ~ r- Ll cr- ~ Z- <- Test Pit No. 8 wI: or- o.r- I Z_ .n ~Z U~ W z:;: OW .... U ULl :r C),t ~~ a: ~ a: a: 0. Z~ w'''' W >- - ~~ >0. o 1 >:1' a: r- - r-- 0 en - ~-- 0 S ~ a::.,j Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (5W) I 0 JlII''. . ...I' . (dry, slightly dense, w/some silt) 77 I 91 1.5 1 • 'f.-:r 94 2.0 82 .... 2 i- .. 3 ',1 : I 92 2.0 80 1. -, 4 ... , , ,I', ' I 5 i- .: ,I, 6 Lt. brown to grey interbedded fine to coarse sands, (dry, loose) I 7 i-
i- ' , , 8 " , , I 9 i- 10 l- I Total depth 11.0 feet II No free ground water encountered 1 12 .... . 13 ~ No caving 1 14 i....- 15 .... 1 16 I- 17 I- 1 18 >- Enclosure 2, Page 8 19 i- Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: 5-4559 1 20 .1 I Jm,~ R. BYERLY. INC. I I
z I ~ z 0 >-'" uJ ~ l-' U Test Pit no. 9 er- ~. r- <~ .... t;: z- O-~ I LIl Oz ~Z Z_ Z- W ....U ....OW ....t;: U uU :x: ~. O~ era::w a:: I- ~ W".1 a. Z~ ~ ;:)~ >0- w ,I S;:lII:_ .... a:: I- - - ~ o 0 en r- ~ 6 ~ ~ a::.oJ I o Grey fine to coarse sand (SW) (dry, moderately dense) 1 . . ·1 101 2.6 87 .. 2
99 2.0 83 3 I· 4 'I '. 5 100 1.5 85 6 7 I· 8 I 9 Total depth 9.5 feet 10 No f~ee ground water encountered I 11 Caving below 3.0 feet 12 I 13 14 '1 I . 15 16 I 17 I 18 Enclosure 2, Page 9 Rpt. No.: 8844 19 File No.: 5-4559 I 20 I I for"" 8 JOHN R. BYERLY. INC. I I
Z I ...- Q >- Z ...- .
Z ,I I- 0 >- .....Z I- Test Pit No. 11 ~ .... U 0::- ~ <~ 01-z- Q.I- ....tZ VI :l: Z, ..... - z.-.. u5 OW I wU vU l:)t;; ~~ 0::0:: 0:: ~ ~ w·u a.. z~ >- ::J~ >Q. w S;:l' 0:: I- ~ - ~ o 0 en I- I ~-- 0 :5 ~ ',j 0:: I 0 Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) I -,: 'I 1 (dry, mod. dense w/some silt) 96 3.6 82 I'". ' . ·1 ' . 2 I " I, 102 3.6 87 3 . " I· I 4 5 'I' , , I I ,I " 6 Total depth 6.0 feet 7 No free ground water encountered I 8 Caving below 1.0 feet 9 I' 10 I 11 12 I 13 : 14 'I . 15 16 I 17 18 I Enc 108uI',;;: 2, Page 11 19 Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: S-4559 20 I I Iform '8 JOHN R. BYERLY. INC. I I _.
z I ... 0 Test Pit No. 12 z • >- W ... I!J U cr- t: ... <- wt;: z- 0.. ... I z_ VI 0'" ~z z.~ U~ OW I .... t; ~~ wU oUa: l-'. a:a: ~ zo.. .r w'''' w a: - :::>~ >0.. >:llC_'OJ ... o I 0 V'I - t--- ! O ....5 I ~ ex: o ~7 .... Grey to It. bro~l fine to coarse sand 80 2.0 70 1 .:.... (5W) (dry, loose, w/some silt) '. " I 77 2.5 67 · . " 2 I- .': . · ..'", I- ' ... 3 . ' . I . . ~ ' .. 4 " .'. I 5 6 ...... I 7 ~ ...... ,' ." I 8 9 ~ .' I- :.... 10 . '. I ' ... 11 I- · . 12 I- . I · .' 13 I- :..... 14 Total depth 14.0 feet I , 15 ~ No free ground water encountered
16 I- Caving below 3.0 feet I. 17 .... I 18 I- Enclosure 2, Page 12 19 I- Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: 5-4559 I 20 ~-~ I forl'\ 8 JOHN R. BYERLY, INC. I I I
z I ... 0 >- ....z ... (!J U Test Pit No. 13 lr- ~ ... o(~ z~ Cl. ... wt;: l.f) z_ z.~ 0'" ~z I ...... u3 0...... t ....u vU t:). o~_. a:: a:: a:: ~ w hJ c, z~ ~ ::)~ w ~:ll:: >Cl. a:: I- - - a -- 0 en I- - I ! 0 ....5 ~ a:: ,I o Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) 88 2.0 76 1 (dry. loose w/some silt) ,I 2 3 85 4.2 73 Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) I I 4 (dry, loose)
I " 5 I I' Lt. brown silty fine to coarse sand (Sr- 6 (dry, loose) 7 I 8 9 I 10 Total depth 10.0 feet I 11 No free groun~ water encountered 12 No caving .1 13 14 I 15 16 I 17
18 Enclosure 2, Page 13 I 19 Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: S-4559 20 I I I JOFN H. BYERLY. INC. I I
~ z Q Test Pit No. 14 I '>- wz ~ V' U I- <0(_ a- t: z- o..~ wt
I 0 , I' ,I,' " ' Lt. brown silty fine to coarse sand (S~ 87 2.6 75 I 1 ,....I : I (dry, loose) 94 1.0 79 2 ~.I,·T I 3 ,... .. I. I 4 ,...,~"·I: I 5 ;.. ',I',. i 6 -1':1',.. _ 0 •• Occasional gravels at 7.0 fe~t 7 I 1.1 ." '0 I" 8 f- . (. ~ o , ' 0 I 9 f- .1·" Total depth 9.5 feet 10 - No free ground water encountered 11 I - No caving 12 - I 13 - 14 - I 15 f- I 16 - 17 - 18 I - Enclosure 2, Page 14 19 Rpt. No.: 8844 - File No.: S-4559 I 20 I JOHN R. BYERLY. INC. I ,I I
z ~ Q Test Pit No. 15 >- ...,z ~ I l!l .... U a- t: <- .... t;: z- Q.~ z_ iii 0 .... ~z ...... z-~ u3 0"" I ....u oU t.:)"'=' ~~ IX IX IX s Z~ ;:l .... W hJ 11. ~ - >11. w S;:'lI:: IX ... ~ o 0 U) ...-- !-- 5 5 I ~ .... Ill: I o Lt. brown silty fine to coarse sand (SM 82 0.5 71 1 (dry, loose) I, 2 3 87 1.5 75 I 4 5 Occasional gravels at 5.0 feet " I 6 Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) 7 ... I . '., 8 9 I " " .' ' .. ",. 10 Total depth 10.0 feet 11 No free ground water encountered. I 12 No caving 13 I 14 ,. I I· 15 16 I 17 18 Enclosure 2, Page 15 I 19 Rp t . No.: 8844 File No.: S-4559 20 ~-~ ,I I I,
TEST DATA I LABORATORY STANDARD: ASTM D 1557-70, Mehtod A: 4-Inch Diamter Hold; 1/30 Cubic Foot Volume; 5 Lay ers ; 25 BLows Per Layer; 10 I Pound Hanmer; 18 Inch Fall; -No.4 Material. Optimum Maximum I Classification Noisture(/o) Density(PCF) A Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) 12.0 115.5 ,I B Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) 12.5 118.0 C Lt. brown silty fine to coarse sand 11.0 121.5 I (SM) I ,I I· I. II I I -.1 I
I Enclosure 3 Rpt. No.: 8844 I File No.: 8-4559 I I ,I-
GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES / ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
1906 SO. COMMERCENTER EAST. SUITE 207 • SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92408 • {714J 888·2422 • (714) 625.9052 I I I I,
GEOLOGY OF BORREGO SPRINGS PARK I, (BORREGO SPRINGS COUNTRY CLUB) FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WEST OF BORREGO VALLEY ROAD AND 1,300 FEET SOUTH OF PALM CANYON DRIVE I BORREGO SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA June 13, 1979 I Project No. 1503 ,I I il I' ·1 I I Prepared for I John R. Byerly, Inc. 2230 South Riverside Avenue Bloomington, California 92316 I ,I I - _. ------
Enclosure 5 GlL'l.Y S. l\ASlIUS5EN s ASSOCIATES. INC. Project No. 1503
140 100
68 o 50 o
s
------10 10
.-....'~~_...,.,...... -:" -,":.;:-,---: --:::- ...... ~~:""-;': ...~-::-.. - ..-:" .':~Xi:~~:it>~{~,f~:l,J~~;:i~;~~?;~:;~~?;~~~,,~~~~~~{:~·L;~~{~\>;:· I JOHN R. BY ~ R LY, INC. ~230SOUTH r"Vl~HSIDE AVENI H': • BLC>UMINGTON. CALIFORNIA 923161
PHONt::S: BLOOMiNGH)~J (/14) 87;'-1:324 HIVERSIDE (714) 684·9775 I June 20, 1979 I
Federated Development Company Rpt. No .: 8883 I ·1100 Glendon Avenue File No.: S-4559 Los Angeles, California 90024 I Attention: Mr. Hershel Berkes Subject: Proposed Borrego Springs Development, Borrego Springs, I California
Reference: Preliminary Soils Investigation, Rpt. No. 8844, '1:'- June 1, 1979 Gentlemen: ·1 The referenced report presents our conclusions and recommendations concerning soil conditions encountered during an investigation at the subject site. Enclosure 4 to the referenced report presents I , ' I' an engineering geology report pi'cpared for the subject development by Gary S. Rasmussen and Associates, of San Bernardino. In the geology report, Mr. Rasmussen discussed the existence of a soil formation known as the Indio Silts. This soil formation is shown I on USDA Soil Maps and. is indicated as 11aving a significant settle- ment potential. Mr. Rasmussen concluded that these soils should be specifically addressed by the Soils Engineer. I Porous, compressible silts similar to the Indio silt formation were ,- not encountered in any of our test pits during our preliminary soils investigation. However, inasmuch as the soil formation is indicated as existing in an area of the site not heavily explored during our _investigation, we are currently conducting an additional investi- I gation in that area. Our additional investigation will involve the exploration of several test pits at selected locations utilizing hand equipment. The soils encountered will be exam i.ned and visually ,I classified by one of our staff engineers. Should compressible silts be encountered, uud i st ur bed samples will be obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing and evaluation. Based upon our field ,- observations and laboratory test data, an addendum to the referenced' report wifl be prepared providing specific recommendations concerning the Indio silts. Our field investigation should be conlpleted by the- end of this week and our recommendations available within 2 ur 3daysl thereafter. I
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS I MATERIALS TESTING AND INSPECTION I GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES I ENGINEERING GEOLOGY I 1906 SO. COMMERCENTEREAST.SUITE 207 SAN BERNARDINO.CA 9240B • (714) B6B.2422 • 17141 B25.9052 June 13, 1979 ,I John R. Byerly, Inc. Project No. 1503 2230 South Riverside Avenue I Bloomington; California 92316 Subject: Geology of'Borrego Springs Park (Borrego Springs Country Club) for Environmental Impact Report, West of Borrego Valley Road and 1,300 I Feet South of Palm Canyon Drive, Borrego Springs, California. I A geology investigation of the Borrego Springs Park Development also referred I to as Borrego Springs Country Club, Borrego Springs, California ha~ been con- dUGted at your request. The purpose of our investigation·was to determine the I' existing geologic setting and assess the probable impact of the geology on the proposed development. The 1087 acre site is located approximately 1/2 mile southeast of the Borrego Springs Christmas Circle. It is our understanding I that the site wili be developed in fiYe stages and will contain a golf.course, clubhouse, community center, sewage treatment plant, single family residences, I 'patio homes, attached single family residential units, 5-acre ranchettes, 10- acre ranches, and open space. The site contains 1,087.,3acres with a total of I 835 residential units planned, resulting in 0.77 units per acre. A.majority of the site has previously been graded, with the golf course; clubhouse faci- I lities, selier treatment plant, and occasional residences already in existence. A 400-scale plat map, drawn by Richardson, Nagy, ~Iartin Architecture/Planning I of Newport Beach, California, dated September 22, 1978, was used for our in- vestigation. Proposed grading plans were not available at the time of our in- I vestigation, but additional grading of those areas previously graded is anti- cipated to be minimal, with those areas not previously graded probably requiring maximum cut and fill slope heights of the order of 3± feet. The location of 11 the site and property boundaries are shown on the index map on page 2, as well as on the safety element, soil survey, and the geologic maps included as En- I' closures I, 2, and 3.
I A geologic field reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area was conducted I during ~Iay, 1979. In addition to the field work, our investigation i~cluded I ...... I
i :~ ~o" j.J. '- ~ '~J:~~L\IS .\fll • , l.' -" . ,".' • . ~,4:", 1 11 ~"~I. 1r-LL.. ·- ~·'.'H..~~_=~~_~~L~_- _~l.~ -.-e~f.l~··--C:~~'2!:!~--- :n"" ~:I.Borrego "~" \ :..: : : .~~~r.,go School : . '" • .. Ii U • •••• • '~+"",::,--
'"~! "'] .. SpringsII " ...' ? II" ~I •_~ "" :1 ..... ~ :'5( i }/ CD' -n b ...... ,I i/.._--"- \ INDEX MAP John R. Byerly, Inc. 1087+ Acre , Borrego Springs, California Legend '...... -"---T--?-Fault, dashed where approx., querried . whe~e questionable ....-560 Contour lines of equal elevation, dotted where approximate I Tr ) , Subsurface investigation trench -=- ==== Roadway, dashed where unimproved .... Base Map: USGS Clark Lake (1974), Borrego Sink, (1959) 7.5 series Quadrangle, Scale 1"=2000' Project No. 1503 -2- I Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates, Inc. John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 Borrego Springs, California June 13, 1979 review of stereoscopic pairs of aerial photographs flown in 1953; review of pertinent geologic literature and maps, including previous reports on the site and surrowlding area by other firms; excavation of four short backhoe trenches at selected locations; and review of significant seismic information, including recorded, historic earthquakes. A list of references is enclosed (Enclosure 4). SITE TOPOGRAPHY The index map on page 2, a composite 2,000-scale topographic map of the Clark Lake, Borrego Springs Quadrangles, shows a gradual 1 to 2 percent slope of the gr?und surface to the.northeast. Localized, southeast trending swales (minor depressions) were observed on the northwest portion of the site and indicate drainage from this area previously flowed towards the Borrego Sink. No classi- cal topographic evidence of faults (scarps) was found on the site during our investigation or on aerial photographs. Three vegational lineaments were ob- served on the aerial photographs, one of which was associated with a linear drainage. Due to the relative close proximity and parallel trend to known faults ·in the area, plus the observed trend of plotted epicenters (all north- west trending), the possibility existed that these lineaments could be fault related. Therefore, trenches, with a total lineal footage of 414 feet, were excavated across these features, as shown on the index map, to determine if .they were in fact caused by active faulting. No faults were found. The procedure utilized for conducting the subsurface portion 6f our investi- gation was to excavate trenches perpendicular to the trend of the lineaments and known faults in the area, to a depth of 10-12 feet. Trenching of sediments to lOt feet is consistent with the current state-of-the-art for investigating recency of faulting for the type of use intended for the site. Trenching enables a detailed visual inspection of subsurface materialS for faults, fault related features, and other near surface geologic features. The exact age of sediments at depths of 10-12 feet is not known but is estimated to be late Holocene. The trench logs are enclosed (Enclosure 5). The undeveloped portions of the site contained natural vegetation in the form -3- . GARY s. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 I Borrego Springs, Californ'ia June 13, 1979 ,I of mesquite and sage with the developed portions of the site containing mature date palm trees and occasional grass, as well as a variety of trees. Previ- I ously, the northern portion of the site had been used for agricultural purposes. grain and cotton, while the southern portion reportedly has remained in its I natural state. I A northwest trending scarp (bench) is located approximately1300 feet northeast of the northerneasternmost portion of the site. This scarp may be the surface I expression of a fault, or alternatively, it may be the remnant of an old stream bank or dune deposit. This scarp, if extended to the southeast, would cross a portion of the golf course not containing any human occupancy structures and I no structures are proposed in the area on the development plan. If the scarp is fault related and continues to the southeast, it would run through the I extreme northeast portion of the golf course (index map on page 2). I SITE GEOLOGY I~ The Borrego Springs Park Development is located in Borrego Valley, which lies within the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is defined by a linear and narrow I depression which encompasses the low-lyi.ng areas of the Colorado River Delta Region in ~Iexico and the Imperial and Coachella Valley Regions of southern I California, comprising a physiographic province 1400 kilometers (875 miles) long. The land surface in the north-central section of the Salton Trough is below sea level, having been cut off from the Gulf of California by the deposi- I tion of a delta cone of the Colorado River within the last 11,000 years (HOIOCene)1 This Salton Trough Basin has been periodically inundated by bodies of water, the latest having formed the Salton Sea in 1905 (Mendenhall, 1909). The present geographic lind ts of the Salton Trough correspond approximately to the boundaries ,I of the San Andreas fault system (San Andreas, San Jacinto, Agua Caliente and Elsinore fault zones). Intermittent, right-lateral movement along the south- I east fault zones within this system have continued to change the shape of the basin with.vertical displacement forming the dominant physiographic elements I 0nountains) within the Trough and Ilordering ~reas. These mountain masses in- clude the Borrego !.!ountains,Fish Creek Mountains, Superstition r·!ountains,and I -4,... I GARY RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES I _1_ S. I John R. Byerly, Inc. -Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 Borrego Springs, Ca lifoj-ni.a I June 13, 1979 I the Coyote Mountains (Sharp, 1972). Sediments in the Salton Trough range from older gravel (or its consolidated I fanglomerate equivalents) through predominately sandy flood-plain and deltaic deposits including marine silts and clays. Deposition through the erosion of I continental materials may have prevailed in some marginal parts of the trough throughout its history, although much of the depositio~ has alternately been I marine and non-marine. Other lithology found within the trough included bedded gypsum deposits (Ver Planck, 1952) and Mat ri o volcanic rocks (Allen, 1957). I Widespread and various source areas around the Salton Trough have contributed clastic material at various times. I The entire site lies on Quaternary alluvium (Rogers, 1965) as shown on the geologic map (Enclosure 3). Data from water wells drilled on-site indicates I : that this alluvium continues toa minimum depth of 600 feet below the surface and consists of sands, clays, fine gravel and gravels (Department of Water 1 Resources, January, 1968). This alluvium is underlain by crystalline rock (metamorphic and granitic) which rises to the west and forms the San Ysidro I Mountains. I SEISMIC SETTING I The principal fault zones in the Salton Trough consist of the San Andreas, '\ located near the northeast margin; a group of unnamed boundary faults that I; \ are concealed along the southwest edge of Coachella Valley; the widely branch- I' I :ing San Jacinto fault zone, which crosses the southwest portion of the Trough; and the Aqua Caliente and the Elsinore fault zones located along the southwest I edge of the Trough. All of these fault zones are considered part of the San Andreas fault system and display the surficial features characteristic of this I system: linearity, northwest-southeast trends, evidence of Holocene activity, I and right-latcrial, strike-slip offset. San Andreas Falllt Zone I The San Andreas fault zone consists of two principal faults in the northern I -5- GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCl:ATES John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 I Borrego Springs, California -June 13, 1979 I Coachella Valley, the Mission Creek and Banning faults. TileMission Creek fault, an eastern branch of the San Andreas fault zone, extends along a ·1, nearly straight line to the Little San Bernardino Mountains from Indio (Allen, 1957, Proctor, 1968). The Banning fault, the western branch, I curves to a nearly east-west trend at the north end of the Salton Trough and mergeswith the Mission Creek fault near Indio. Near the City of Indio, the I San Andreas fault zone includes a number of subsidiary breaks that lie along the northeast side of the main fault. Southeast of Indio, the San Andreas I zone is relatively straight and continues to the northeast shore of the Salton Se (Allen, 1957). Throughout most of the Coachella Valley, the fault zone I is well defined in alluvium by scarps and by ground water and/or vegetational lineaments. Geophysical data indicates that the basement rocks have been vertically displaced a minimum of 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) along the south- I west side of the San Andreas fault zone in Coachella Valley (Biehler, Kovack and Allen, 1964). J Southeast of the Salton Sea, the surficial expression of the San Andreas fault I zone is not readily apparent. Following the fault trace of the San Andreas fault zone from the northwest to the southeast results in an intermittent I surficial expression of the fault evident in the northern part of the Imperial Valley (Babcock, 1971). Historic movement on the San Andreas fault zone I within the Salton Trough has not been recorded in conjunction with any earth- quakes, prior to the Borrego Mountain event in 1968 (Sharp, 1972). I San Jacinto Fault Zone I The San Jacint.o fault zone, trending northwest-southeast, enters the Salton Trough through the Santa Rosa mountains and cuts diagonally into the basin. I The San Jacinto fault zone, in the vicinity of the Salt.onTrough, consists of three recognizable faults forming a zone of approximately 10 kilometers I wide (6.25 miles). The northern fault (Clark) extends through Clark Valley and along the southern tip of the Santa Rosa Mountains, with the middle fault I lying along the west edge of Clark Valley and extending southward from the Clark fault into the Borrego Badlands, where it possibly dies out (Sharp, 1967). I -6- I GARY s. RASMUSSEN & ASSOC:IATES I John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 Borrego Springs, California I June 13, 1979 . The sou thwe sto rnmo st f'nuIt within t hu San .Incinro fnu lt zonc is the Coyote Creek fault, located approximately 5. '/:'kilometers (3.6 miles) northeast of I ----. the site. The Coyote Creek fault experienced substantial movement during the I 1968 Borrego Mountain earthquake. This fault is an en echelon feature with fault splays that generally follow the northeast edge of the Borrego Valley I and traverse along the margins of the Borrego Mountains and the Borrego Bad- lands to a point near the easternmost Fish Creek Mount ains , Other faults lying farther southeast and extending into Mexico have also been regarded I as part of the San Jacinto fault zone (Beal, 1915; Dibblee, 1954; Biehler, et.al., 1964; Merriam, 1965; Sharp, 1968). These include the Superstition I Mountain fault and the Superstition Hills fault as well as a fault extending . : I southeastward from the Cerro Prieto'in Baja California. The Imperial fault, as defined by the 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake, may I also belong to the San Jacinto fault zone. The Imperial fault lies nearly along the projection of the Clark fault and may join at depth (Sharp , 1968)'. I Alternatively, it has also been suggested that the movement on the Imperial fault is partially transferred northeastward to'the San Andreas fault by crustal spreading near the southern portions of the Salton Sea (Lomnitz, et. I al,, 1970). I Elsinore Fault Zone I ,The Elsinore fault zone, as described in this report, includes the Aqua Caliente fault and is a discontinuous zone of fractures extending southeast- I ward from the Peninsular Ranges into 'the Salton Trough near the Terra Blanca Mountains, approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) southwest of the site. Con- I tinuity between many individual faults within the Elsinore fault zone are concealed by alluvium within the Imperial Valley. The total strike-slip I displacement along the Elsinore fault zone is relatively small when compared 'with the San Jacinto and San Andreas fault zones (Sharp, 1968; Baird, et.a!. 1970). Historic movement has not been documented within the Salton Trough I along the Elsinore fault zone, with only the southern section of this zone I characterized by appreciable seismicity in recent times (Sharp, 1972). -7- I GARY S, RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES I John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 Borrego Springs, California June 13, 1979 I SEISMIC HISTORY I The Salton Trough region is considered to be one of the most seismicaily I active areas of tectonicism in California (Enclosure 3). The Salton Trough ~as been dominated in this century by earthquakes of intermediate magnitudes (Richter magnitudes 3,.6).originating along two members of the San Andreas I system, the San Jacinto fault zone and the Imperial fault. Nine or more earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6+.have occurred along these faults since I 1915 (Sharp, R.V., 1972). Of these nine historic earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6 or greater, six were located within 88 kilometers (55 miles) of I the site, with eight of these earthquakes having occurred on or near fault breaks within the San Jacinto fault zone (Sharp. R.V., 1972). These earth- I quakes have caused relatively little damage, mainly because they were centered in sparsely settled desert regions. The most important of these earthquakes, I in relation to the proposed development,was the 1968 Borrego Mountain earth- quake of Richter magnitude 6.4, which occurred along the Coyote Creek fault I within the San Jacinto fault zone. This earthquake resulted in horizontal (right-lateral)' surface displacement along the Coyote Creek fault approxi- mately 4 miles northeast of the site, as well as along several other faults I within the complex San Jacinto fault zone. This Richter magnitude 6.4 earth- quake ranks among the larger'shocks recorded in southern California since the I establishment of modern seismographic stations, and resulted in faulting along a 33 kilometer (20 mile) segment of the Coyote Creek fault (Clark,1972). The I Borrego Noun tai n earthquake triggered a small displacement along a number of distant faults far outside the aftershock area (Allen, 1972) with these after- I shocks lasting for several months after the main shock. The San Jacinto fault zone, of which the Coyote Creek fault is a member, has been the location of I repeated moderate seismic activity within the entire historic record (Allen, 1965). This fault zone has been well delineated by seismic activity, with no one location along the San Jacinto fault zone in the Salton Trough seeming more I prone to earthquake faulting. Many of the epicenters of these earthquakes have II been about equidistant along the fault, with the 1968 Borrego ~Iountain epicenter lying approximately midway between the epicenters of the lower Borrego Valley I earthquake (Richter magnitude 6.5) and the Santa Rosa earthquake (Richter -8... I GAR yo S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 I. Borrego Springs, California I June 13, 1979 magnitude 6.2) of 1954. The 1968 Borrego Mountain earthquake resulted in I visible surface waves which caused anchored objects' (utility poles, build- ings) to move at the proposed developmental site (Sharp, R.V., 1972, Plate I 4) • I T.he location of the site, in relation to earthquake epicenters between 1934 and 1968 in San Diego County, is shown on Enclosure 3 (Seismic Safety Element to the County of San Diego). Two epicenters between Richter magnitudes 2.0 I to 3.0 have been plotted as having occurred at depth below the site. I SOIL SURVEY I. The entire site is located on alluvium, part of a large bajada (nearly flat surface of confluent alluvial fans) which skirts the mountains to the west. I The barren slopes of these mountains provide runoff from precipitation which has deposited the alluvium in the valley. I .The soils of the area and on-site are divided into two associations (Mecca- I Indio, Rositas-Carrizo) ari~four series (Enclosures 2 and 2A). These soils (alluvium) may be generally characterized as loosely consolidated, highly ( permeable, and susceptible to wind and water erosion, with one of these I series (Indio Silt Lome) being subject to settling (See Enclosure 2A for I detailed description). I HYDROLOGIC SETTING The Borrego Valley is a structural depression created by the Coyote Creek I fault and is a desert basin located in the northeast portion of San Diego County. The area contributing water to the Borrego Valley consists of appro- I ximately 280 square miles, of which 195 square miles are steep rocky slopes (Lough, C.F., 1974). The remaining portion of the Borrego Valley watershed, consists of approximately 85 square miles (55,000 acres) and is the valley I portion of Borrego Valley. The basin is filled to an unknohTI depth with I alluvium and based on water well data on-site, is a minimum of 600 feet 1n -9- I GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOC:IATES I John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrugo Springs Park /'rojectNo. 1503 Borrego Springs, California June' 13, 1979 I thickness. This alluvium is comprised of randomly sequenced lithological I units of sand, silts, clays, and gravels. The average annual precipitation varies from less than 4 inches on the valley floor to 15 inches in the I mountains to the west and is the only known source of water rech~rge for the basin. A majority of the water recharge occurs between the mouth of Coyote Creek and the present agriculture area. Natural discharge is largely I by transpiration from mesquite bushes growing in Borrego Valley and around Borrego Sink. It has been estimated that 100,000-acre-feet of precipitation I falls on the drainage area during the average year, with only a small por- tion of this precipitation reaching the valley floor th~ough runoff (Lough, I C.F., 1974). A majority of this precipitation is taken up as soil moisture along the hillsides. ,I GROUND WATER , I , ! I The alluvial materials under the site continue to a minimum depth of 600 I I' feet, based on water well data (Department of Water Resources, 1968). The development is currently supplied by a private water supply system on-site, with the ground water being drawn from various subsurface aquifers. The I minimum depth (ground water) from which water is drawn was 70 feet in 1965, with the deepest recorded aquifer located at approximately 325 to 345 feet I. (California Department of Water Resources, 1968). A well on site, with a 16 inch louvered casing, initially (1945) had a static water level 45 feet I below the ground surface, which has subsequently been lowered to 75 feet below the surface by 1978. This we lI had an approximate drawdown of 250 feet in . I 1978 (David, T., personel communication). ·1 Large quantities of ground water have been withdrawn from the shallower aquifers in Borrego Valley for irrigation and domestic purposes, with a resulting lowering of the ground water table. This ground water lowering has been I documented as much as approximately 20 feet over a period of 12 years (1954- 1965 inclusively). This reduction in ground water may be a contributing I factor in the collapse fissures located along fractures associated with breaks along the Coyote fault. No evidence of subsidence cracking through the site I -10- I GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES I John R. Byerly. Inc. -Borrego Springs Park Borrego Springs. California I June 13. 1979 Project No. 1503 I was observed during Our field investigation. I GEOLOGIC AND SOIL IMPACT I At the completion of the proposed five-stage development. the land will be utili,ed in a manner wherein any future agriculture use will not he fuasihle. I while still allowing for substantial areas of native vegetation. The soils on-site are highly alkaline with little or no potential use as a I natural reSOurce. I Erosion through wind and water are a potential problem. This potential can he reduced through the planting of windhreaks and vegetation that have proved I ~ USeful in other areas of Borrego Valley. Settlement of soils within the Indio Silt (lOA) series can be mitigated through proper engineering by the I Soils Engine~r. The site developmental plan indicates that only a small portion of the site. the extreme northeast portion. will be on this soil I type. The golf course and a dedicated flood channel will occupy most of this area. with only a small portion planned for residential plirposes. I LandSliding or shallow surface failures do not appear to be a problem as the site is relatively flat and is not located adjacent to any hillside portions I which COuld fail onto the site. I SEISMIC ANALYSIS I ;.Signifi,ant earthquakes affecting the site are likely to occur on the nearhy San JaCinto (Coyote Creek). Elsinore or the more distant San Andreas fault I Zones during the life of the proposed structures. Recurrence intervals for ,maximum probable earthquakes cannot yet be precisely determined from a stati- I l stical standpoint. as recorded information on seismic activity does not en- compass a sufficient span of time. BDI,-ever.based on the information available I at this time. it is Our opinion that the fOllowing maximum probable earthquakes should be expected (at least 50 percent chance of OCcurrence within the next I -11- ,...... ---- John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 I Borrego Springs, California June 13, 1979 I 100 years); up to Richter magnitude 7.0 along the San Jacinto fault zone and Richter magnitude 6.5 along the Elsinore fault zone. An earthquake of I these magnitudes along the nearby San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones can be expected to produce maximum peak .accelerations in bedrock under the site I of approximatelj O.SSg and 0.30g respectively (Schnabel and Seed, 1973). These correspond to maximum repeatable accelerations of approximately 0.36g I and 0.20g respectively (Ploessel and Slossen, 1974). These accelerations should not necessarily be used as a design value as they are peak accelera- I tions and are estimated for bedrock which is a minimum of 600 feet below the site. Larger earthquakes could occur on any of these faults, but their pro- bability of occurrence for shorter time periods is much lower. Large earth- I quakes could occur within other fault zones (San Andreas fault zone) but are considered less significant to the site because of their greater distance I and/or lower probability of occurrence within that time period. I CONCLUSIONS I No evidence of active faulting along three vegational lineaments, as observed on the aerial photographs, was found by trenching to a depth of 10+ feet. I Therefore, fault rupture is not anticipated through the site during the life of the proposed structures. A possible fault scarp was observed off the property but would project through the extreme northeast portion of the golf I· course as shown on the index map on page 2. No human occupancy structures should be placed across this feature unless trenching proves it is not an I ·active fault. This area is not scheduled for development other than the existing golf course. The feature observed in the field is short and does I not continue to the northwest or southeast. I Severe seismic shaking of the site should be expected within the next 100 years from an earthquake on one or more branches of the .San Jacinto and/or I Elsinore fault .zones , Two earthquake epicenters of Richter Magnitude 2.0- 3.0 have been plotted as having occurred on the site between 1931-1968 (San I I Diego County Seismic Safety Element). I I I The north-central portions of the site have a strong potential for flooding -12- I GARY s. RASMUSSEN & ASS=IATES I John R. Byerly, Inc.-Bor-regoSpri.ngsPark Project No. 1503 Borrego Springs, California I June 13, 1979 during periods of intense precipitation. This is evidenced by the presence I of a youthful stream cour se; growing vegetation and the depth of silt as observed in our subsurface investigation. I Earthquake induced landslides, sieches, and flooding is not expected as the I site does not contain any large bodies of water and is not located adjacent to any hillside areas, or does it contain any reservoirs which could cata- I strophically fail during an earthquake. Liquefaction and other shallow ground water related hazards are not expected I as the ground water table is currently estimated to be more than 70 feet below the surface. Semi-perched ground water may occasionally occur under I the site as water well drilling logs and our subsurface investigation in- I dicates that intermittent. clay layers exist below the site. Subsidence cracking through. . the site is not expected as the major geologic I contact between the bedrock mountains and the alluvial valley is along the Coyote fault trace, approximately 3 3/4 miles northeast of the site. Major I subsidence cracking would be expected to occur along a relatively narrow zone along this fault trace. Subsidence cracking due to excessive grolmd water withdrawal along the westside of Borrego Valley is expected to occur I farther west, closer to the bedrock-alluvial contact there. I Subsidence of the ground surface on a regional basis should be expected as .the ground water basin is expected to be continually overdrafted in the I future. I Some potential for settlement of the Indio Silts (loA) as shown on Enclosures 2 and 2A exists according to USDA soil maps. These need to be specifically I addressed by the Soils Engineer. The topographic and geologic environmental impacts of the additional develop- I ment are considered minimal. The potential for windblohTI sand within the I vicinity of the development will be slightly decreased by the placement of -13- I GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES I I John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Spring~ Park Project No ..1503 Borrego Springs, California June' 13, 19i9 I structures and roadways on the site. I RECOt-1MENDATIONS I A maximum probable earthquake of Richter magnitude 7.0 is expected along the San Jacinto fault zone in the Salton Trough, 3.6 miles from the site; there- I fore, we recommend human occupancy structures be designed accordingly. I No.human occupancy structures should be placed across the possible fault through the extreme northeast portion of the golf course unless trenching I proves the possible fault to be non-existent or inactive. I The potential for flooding on site should be evaluated and mitigated by the design engineer. I That portion of the site shown on Enclosure 2 as containing the Indio Silt (loA) series should be investigated by the Soils Engineer for possible I special foundation recommendations. I Respectfully submitted, I GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES I Daniel D. Bush, Staff Geologist I t7/::;;;,tAk~ _ I Gary S. Rasmussen DDB:GSR/rc Engineering Geologist, EG 925 Enclo~ures: I-Gcologic Map I 2, 2A-Soil Survey and Description 3-Seismic Safety Element 4-References I 5-Trench Logs Distribution-John R. Byerly, Inc. (8) I -14- I GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I I I I I I ENCLOSURE 1 I GARY S. RAS~lliSSEN& ASSOCIATES, INC. Geologic Map John R. Byerly, Inc. Borrego Springs, California. I Legend Quaternary Qs Sand dune deposits I Qa1 Alluvium Q1 Lake deposits Qt Non-marine terrace I deposits Qc Pleistocene non-marine Mesozo i c I gr Granitic rocks Paleozoic gr-m r,ranitic and metamorphic I rocks Base Map Santa Ana Sheet (Rogers, 1965) Scale 1:250,000 (1"=20,833+ feet) I!i' I Project No. 1503 I ------, MpA2 I I -- . ------.,.I I CANYON [;RIVE loA E~ClC'3;::\.E 2 GARY S. RAS~!USS2:; ; .;SSOCIATES. ixc. John R, Sye r l y , Inc. Borrego Sp~:~~s. California Leo:e:1d loA Ind io Silt Loam J.loA ~l;-,:ca Sandy Loam flpA2 ~!e;:-.::a Fi ne Sandy Loam RsA R~si~as Loamy Coarse Sand MoA Base jtap : l..:SDA So I 1 Cons e rvat ion Service Soils Classification Scale 1"-2000' Projec: ~o. 1503 BORREGO I. I Enc Io sure 2A Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates John R. Byerly, Inc. I Borrego Springs, California I SOIL CAPABILITY AND CHARACTERISTICS Suitability as I Land Individual Erodibil~ty . Topsoil .. Soils Slope Capability Characteristics. I Severe Poor Indio Silt 0-2% IIIs:"6 Subject to flooding, .-,'" Loam ponding or overflow, (loA) slow infiltration I r at e; s et t lab l e Severe Fair Mecca Sandy 0-2% IIIs-6 Subject to flooding, I Loam ponding or overflow, (l-1oA) moderate infiltration rate I Severe Good Mecca Fine 0-2% IIe-4 Moderate infiltration Sandy Loam rate, subject to wind erosion and aorasion I V1pA2) Severe Poor Rositas Loamy 0-2% IVs-4 High infiltration Coarse Sand rate, well drained I (RsA) I *Notes e Main limitation is risk of erosion I s Limited because it is shallow, droughty, or stony 4 Coarse texture or excessive gravel 6 Salts or alkali 'I II "Ioderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. III Severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require special I conservation practices, or both. IV. Very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require I very careful management, or both. I I I GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASS=IATES I REFERENCES I I Advance Planning and Research Associates, August, 1978, Draft Environ-' mental report, Rodgriquez Borrow Pit, p. 77-64, EAD Log No. 77-5-4, I Borrego Springs, California, Report No. 78-0704. Allen, C.R. 1957, San Andreas fault zone in San Gorgonio Pass, southern I California: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 68, no. 3, pp 315-350 Allen, C.R., Saint Amand, P., Richter, C.F., and Hordquist, J.M., 1965, I Relationship between seismicity and geologic structure in southern California region: Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 55, no. 4, pp. 753-797.' I Babcock, E.A., 1971, Detection of active faulting using.oblique infarred aerial photography in the Imperial Valley, California, Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 82, P 3189-3196. I Baird, A.K. " Welday, E.E., and ..Badrd ; K.W., 1970, Chemical variations in batholithic roc~ of southern California: Geologic Society of America, I abstracts with programs, v. 2, no. 2, p. 69. Beal, C.H., 1915, The earthquake in Imperial Valley, California, June 22, I 1915: Seismological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 5, pp.130-149. Bennett, J.H., & Rodgers, D.A., 1975, Crustal'movement investigations' along the San Andreas fault in southern California, in CrOl~ell,J.C. , I ed., 1975, San Andreas fault in southern California,-a guide to San Andreas fault from Mexico to Carrizo Plain: Calif. Div. Mines & Geol. Special Report 118, pp 53-60. '1 Biehler, S., Kovach, R.L. ,and Allen, C.R., 1964, Geophysical framework of northern end of Gulf of California structural province, in Van Andel I T.H., and Shor, G.G., Jr., Marine Geology of Gulf of California; American Association of Petroleum Geologist, Mem. 3, p. 126-143. Bonilla, 1970, Surface faulting and related effects in Earthquake engineering, I Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Ch. 3, pp 47-74. California Department of Water Resources, 1964, Crustal strain and fault I nlovement investigation-faults and earthquakes in California: Department of Water Resourcesffiulletin 116-2. I California Department of Water Resources, 1968, Water Wells and springs in Borrego, Corrizo and San Felipe Valley areas; Dept. of Water Resources Bulletin 91-15. I Clark, M.M., Grantz, A., and Rubin, M., 1972, Holocene activity of the Coyote Creek fault as recorded in sediments of Lake Coahuila, Professional Paper 78~, pp 112-130, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. I i I GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES I I Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1968, Displacement of the San Andreas fault system in the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mount ains, southern California, in Dickinson, W.R., and Grantz, A., eds., Conference of geologic I problems of San Andreas fault system, Stanford, California, 1967, Pro- ceedings, Stanford University Publications, Dept. of Geol. Sciences, v. II, pp 260-276. I Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1970, Regional geologic map of the,San Andreas and related faults in eastern San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, western San Jacinto Mountains and vicinity, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, I and Riverside Counties, CA: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file report. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1975, Late Quaternary uplift of the San Bernardino I "Mountains on the San Andreas and related faults, in Crowell, J.G., ed; , 1975, San Andreas fault in southern California, a-guide to San Andreas fault from Mexico to Carrizo Plain: California Division of Mines and I Geology Special Report 118, p. 127-135. Dickinson, W.R., and Grantz, A., 1968, Indicated cumulative offsets along the San Andreas fault in the California coast ranges; proceedings, I Conference on Geological Problems of San Andreas fault system, Stanford University Publications, Geological Sciences, Publisher, Stanford, I California, Vol. 11, pp 117-119. Friedman, M.E., Whitcomb, J.H.~ Allen, C.R., and Hileman, J.A., 1976. Seismicity of the southern California region, 1 January 1972, to 31 I ,December 1974, Seismological laboratory, California Institute of Technology. Greensfelder, R.W., 1972, Crustal movement investigations in California, I their history, data, and significance: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 37. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earth- I quakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 23. I Hart, E.W., 1976, Fault hazard zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, Revised Edition. I Heaton, T.H., HeImberger, D.V., April 1977, A study of strong ground motion of the Borrego Mount.adn California earthquake, in Bulletin of the Seismol. Soc. of America, v. 67, no. 2. I Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R., and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern California region" 1 Jan 1932 to 31 Dec 19,72: Seismol. Lab. I California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, p. 404. Hope, R.A., 1969, Maps showing recently' active breaks along the San Andreas and related faults between Cajon Pass and Salton Sea, California: I U.S. Geological Survey Open-file report, 1:24,000. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault map of California with locations of volcanoes, I ,thermal springs and thermal wells: California Division of '·Iinesand Geology, 1:750,000. I ii GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES I Lamar, D.L., Merifield, P.M., and Proctor, R.J., 1973, Earthquake I recurrence intervals on major faults in southern California; 'in Moran, D.E., and others, eds., 1973, Geology, seismicity and environmental impact: Assoc. Engineering Geologist, Spec. Pub., pp 265-276. I Lomnitz, et. al., 1970, Seismicity and tectonics of the norther Gulf of California region, Mexico. Preliminary results. Geofisica Internacional, vol. 10. no. 2, pp 37-48. I Lough. C.F., November 1974, Water budget for Borrego Valley, San Diego County Planning Div., San Diego County, California. I McEven, Robert, Piuckney, C.J .• Seismic Risk in San Diego, Studies on the geology and geological hazards in greater San Diego Area, California and I San Diego Society National History Transactions, v. 17, p. 33-62, 1972. Mendenhall, W.C., 1909, Ground water of the Indio region, California: I I U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 225. p 56. I Ploesse1, M.R., & Slossen, J.E., 1974, September, Repeatable high ground accelerations from earthquakes; from California Geology, vol. 27, no. 9, I pp 195-199. Proctor. R.J .• 1968, Geology of the Desert Hot Springs-Upper Coachella I Valley area, California: California Pivision of Mines and Geology Special Report 94. I Richter, C.F., Allen, C.R., and Nordquist, J.M .• 1958, The Desert Hot Springs earthquakes and their tectonic environment: Seismol. Soc. America Bulletin. pp 315-337. I Rogers, T.H., 1965, Geologic map of California. Olaf P. Jenkins edition, Santa Ana Sheet: California Division of Mines and Geology. I Rogers Engineering Company, August 1977, Non-electric applications of geothermal resources at Desert Hot Springs, California, quarterly report for period ,May 23, 1977-August 12, 1977: Prepared for the Energy Research I and Development Administration, Div. of Geothermal Energy. San Diego County Seismic Safety Element to the General Plan, Part V, 1975. I Schnabel, P.B., and Seed, H.M., 1973,.Accelerations in rock for earth- quakes in the western United States: Seismol. Soc. America Bull .• v. 63. I no. 2, pp 501-516. Sharp, R.V., 1967, San Jacinto fault zone in the Peninsular Ranges of southern California, Geological' Society of America Bulletin, v. 78, pp 705-730. I Sharp, R.V., 1972, Map showing recently active breaks along the San Jacinto fault zone between the San Bernardino area and Borrego Valley, Calif: U.S. I Geological Survey ~Iisc. Geologic Investigations Map 1-675, Scale 1:24,000. Sharp, R.V., 1972, The Borrego Mountain earthquake of April 9, 1968, Geologic I Survey Professional Papers 787. iii I GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES I I State-of-the-art for assessing earthquake hazards Slen~ons. D.B.• 1977. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station in the United States: I Report 6 Tyler. S.J .• 1974. Analog model study of the ground water basin of the I Upper Coachella Valley. California: USGS Water Supply Paper 2027. U.S.D.A. Stereoscopic aerial photographs. May 12. 1953. photo numbers I AxN 12M 130-133, AXN 13M 69-72, AXN 14M 171-174. AXN 17M 20-23. Nominal scale 1"=1.667'. Ver Planck. W.E .• 1952. Gypsum in California: Calif. Div. of Mines and I Geology Bulletin 163. P 151. Wallace R.E .• 1970, Earthquake recurrence intervals on the San Andreas I fault: Geological Society of America Bulletin. v. 81, pp 2875-2889. Woodward. Clyde. Sherard & Associates. Soil investigation for the proposed I Borrego Springs Park Development. San Diego. California. April, 1962. I I I I I I I I I I I iv -ea A "" ...... TTSSEN &> ASSOCl:ATES JOHN R. BY E 1 PHONES: BLOOMING-ION (714) 877-1324 • RIVERSIDE (714) 684-977.5 I I PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION I PROPOSED BORREGO SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT FEDERATED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY I I I I .'., ., I I I I I I I I I CONSULT NG SOIL AND FOUNDATlCN ENGINEERS MATERIALS TESTING AND INS 'ECTION I I- I We trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Should questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact I this office. I Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. BYERLY, INC. ,I I ~-{bi4 Engineer RAS:lw I Copies: (3) Client (3) Boyle Engineering I Attention: Wesley Hylen I I Rpt. No ,: 8883 File No.: S-4559 ,I I I I I I I I I '.. I I J_O_~_N__ R_._B_YER LY, INC. . 1 ~2:JO SUUTI! 1~IVE.I~SIUI:.·AVI:NlJE • BLOOM IN\..;rUN, CAL1FOI~N!A 92316 PilON!::::;: BLOOMII\lG'ION (/14) l::ITI-1324 • HIVEI~S!DE (714)684.97751 July 26, 1979 I I Federa ted Deve lop me n t Company Rpt. No.: 8977 1100 Glendon Avenue ' Fi Ie No.: S-4559 Los Angeles, California 90024 I Attention: Mr. Hershel Berkes I Subject: Proposed Borrego Springs Development, Borrego Spri/Igs, Califorllia; Addendum to Preliminary Soils Investigation I Reference: Preliminary Soils Investigation, Report No. 8844, June 1, 1979 I Gentlemen: The referenced report presents our conclusions and recommendations I concerning soil conditions encountered during an investigation at the subject site. Enclosure 4 to the referenced report presents an engineering geology report prepared for the subject development by Gary S. RaSIDussen G Associates of San Bernardino. In the geolo- I gy report, Mr. Rasmussen discussed the existence of a soil forma- tion known as the Indio Silts. This soil formation is shown on USDA soil maps and is indicated as having significant settlement I potential. Mr. Rasmussen concluded that these soils should be specifically addressed I)y the Soils Engineer. I InasDluch as our illitial investigation did not heavily explore ,areas believed to be underlain by the Indio Silt formation, additional investigation was performed by this firm. Our additional investiga- tion involved the excavation of 3additional test pits excavated to I a maximUln depth of 7.0 feet utilizing hand equipment. The soils encountered were examined and visually classified by one of our field engineers. Undi~turbed samples of the Indio Silts were ob- I tained at selected levels within the test pits and returned to the laboratory for testing and evaluation. Included in our laboratory testing were moisture-density determinations on all undisturbed samples. In addition, selected samples were tested in consolida- I tion in order that we might evaluate the settlement potenti~l of I I CONSUI.TING SOIL AND mUNDATION ENGINEERS I MATEf1IALS TESTING AND INSPECTION I le de ra t c d llc v c l o p mc n t C:OlllP~IIY Rp t, No . : 0')77 I July 26, 197~) Fi I e No.: 5-455') P~ge 2 I this soil to rma ti on . Ou r test pit logs, together with our iuo i s t u rc density da t a , is p re s c nt e d Oil l.ncl os urc 2. The test pit logs show I the subsurface condit.ions ~t the loc~tions ~nd datc indic~ted and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at othcr loca- tions and t Liuc s . The stratification lines presented on the test I pit logs represent the approxilll~te bounJaries bctween soil types and the t r an s i t ion s may be gradual. Summa r i e s of our consoli- I dation tcsts ~re prescnted on Enclosure 3. Our laboratory test d a t.a indicates that the Indio Silts are sub- ject to significant consolid~tion under the anticipateJ foundation l oads , especially upon saturation. To p r ovi.de adequate foundation I support, residential structures placed in areas known to be under- lain by the Indio Silts should be founded on a compacted fill mat. A compacted fill iuu t w il I p r ovi de a un i f orm , dense, high strength I soil arca layer to distribute the foundation loads over the compres- sible underlying soils. In a dd i t ion , a compacted fill mat will proviJe a rel~tively impermeable soil layer to inhibit percolation I of surface wu t e r to the collapsible underlying soils. We antici- pate that conventional sllread or COlltillUOUS wall footings may be safely utilized in conjunction with a c ompac t e d fill mat. Additional measures to mi nimi ze s e t t l e mon t wo u l d be positive drainage away I froln the structures. III addition, residences in these areas should be provided with cave gutters and downspouts. I We trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. If we lIIay be of further assistJl1ce or should questions arise, please I do not hesitate to contact this office. ReSIJectfully submitted, I I Roger J\. Shervington, Civil Engineer I" Enclosures: (l) Plot PL.lIl ( 2) Tc St Pit Lo gs (3) Consolidation Test Data I cc: (3) Boyle En3incering Attn: l':eslcy Hy l e n I I I I I I /~//I?~'~"'.rt:-.. / __"'7,,;6- I' " I? kczf, ,5.,;/.,(, / I I _. : TP12 I _ TPI4- I:ITPll , I TPI~ • • T~ r: I • I I TPc.> ______I TF'4 ------ Enclosure 1 I Rpt. No . ~ 8977 File '; .. ,,0 . :. ::,-4559 I I I .JOHN H. Ill' EH!.Y. INC. I I ..... z z 0 >- W ..... It' ~ U I a--' C z- 01(- ....t O~ a..~ z._ IJl ~z Test Pit No. 16 W z~ U~ OW U U I <.:l,t ~~ w v a ~ aa a.. z~ ;>- W"" I =>~ >0...... >:1'_ ..... a ~ o 0 .1 Te s t Pit No. l7 'I Grey fine sandy silt (Ml.) (dry ~ firm) I 78 2 .2 (porous) I 78 2.5 91 1.7 Total depth 3.0 feet I No free ground water encountered I Enclosure 2, Page 1 Rp t , No.: 8977 I File No.: 5-4559 I I I JOHN R. BY EHLY. iNC. I I z le dcr at c d Development Company I ~ 0 Proposed Borrego SJ)rings DevclopmeQt >- z ...... , ~ U a- ..... Test Pit No. 18 I C Z- IL<- ..... wtz_ I 0.05 j c: 0.10 1s: u I , , I I c 0.15 t --I- .-1- --I' Gl / uI 0.20 I 0.25 I 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10 50,000 Prsssure I (Lb s . Par Sq. ft.) moisture Content Dry Density Bef'ore A f'ter Lba./Cu.ft. Curve Boring Depth ~,c)il 1 16 0.0 Grey fine sandy silt eML) 1.8 , 77 .1 I 2 16 l.0 Grey fine sandy silt (ML) 5.4 79.9 I 3 18 7.0 Grey fine sandy silt (ML) 4.7 87.1 I Lnc losure 3 R p t. ~!o . : 'O'JT! C.1c::t.n I I I· I I I I APPENDIX D I SOILS INVESTIGATION WOODWARD-CLYDE-SHERARD AND ASSOC,IATES I I I I I I I I I I I ~------r JI Ji ....r JI SOIL I~~ESTIGATION FOR Tilli PROPOSED BORREGO SPRINGS PARK DEVELOPHENT Ji San Diego, California r- JI ]1 by JI HOODRUD-CLYDE-SHERARD A~D ASSOCLArZS JI Consulting Soil and Fo~~d~tion Engineers JI San Diego, California 1'1 .;j JI II BORREGO SPRINGS PARK 'J 3010 COHley H.::.y San Diego, California 11., I ------_.------'._------..,...... \'! I"~· r, -:: (,' r. (' ! ~ '1" E'S ~.!.' u" n\J nU'~J ~ •••o D CLYDE o r~v u V VI t'. ~ ------'------:- -. __ . ..,.-_-,-.J ~a7 KURTZ SHEET 0 SAN DIEGO 10, CALIFORNIA 0 TeLEPHONE AC:'~U/;Y 2·1187 o r ..v.r s. COLO. I\ ....r~s;..s CITY-, MO. Soil and Foundation Eng;,.e(~r.g .. \ OfdU,Ai, c. CAll F. ()t.~AHA. NEB., I r.~O::TCl::.IR,. ~L J. I S~" DICCO, CALIF. _._. __ . NO" YORK,'N, Y. AprH. 13" 1Q62 I .Job No. 62.,.1'64 -r I ....i 'Borrego Springs Park 3010 Cowley Way San Diego, California I ]c Attention: Mr. Vince }bttingly I Gentlemen: -I At the requst of Mr. Vince Mattingly of your organization, we have 11' ... made an investigation of the underlying soil conditions at the site of' the proposed Borrego Springs Park development. I Jl' The accompanying report gives our conclusions and reco~cndations as we Ll, as the results of the subsurface exploration and laboratory tests .~{ upon which thcsc recommendations arc based. j,: I Very truly yours, HOOD\~ARD-CLYDE-SHERARD & ASSOCLA'.r;'$ I .! , : 1 J By C~...-=r.:·_C\, ~ ~~~ Gcrald L. Bakcr, R. E.l~112 } I " ... 1 / ..~,.;/f'....or o , .~I" ..r. •• I Rev Lcwe d by " ':~._'.'.',../..~/,/..,.,. :.~- -- .J Douglas;C. Noorhouse, R. E. 9027 I ]1 (8 cc) ,) \ t I I' I '~ , 11 I I .J, '. '1 I,~D 4 I ..J I .. 1 t I .I ..l I I I TABLE OF CO~ri1mrS PAGE I LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL - SCOPE 1 , FIELD I~~ESTIGATION 1 LABO~~TORY TESTS 2 ....I SITE A~~ SOIL CO~~ITIO~S 2 ...I DISCUSSION 3 CONCLUSIONS 5 I, ! I,..4 2 - LOGS OF TEST nORI~GS 3 THROUGH 7 3 - LOGS OF TEST BO~I:\GS 8 THROUGi-l10 I" ..~ 4 - LOGS OF TEST BO,UNGS 11 THRO;jGH 14 ,I 5 - FILL SUITABILITY TESTS .....; 6 - FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ·1 .•.l ·7 - FILL SUITABILITY TESTS '., TABLL 1 KESULTS OF PERCOLATION TESTS ~,, :, 2 - Ri::SULTSOF FIELD ?EiU-illA13ILITYTSSTS ;.'.3 3 - RESULTS OF CO~TI~ED CO~~RESSION TESTS -II ...;i ATTACH. 1 - EARTl-mO?K SPECIl'ICATIONS ··1 :.:J .~ y- o ... ~ ··1.! -. "J ,! I II SCOPE I , This report descr Lbe s an invcs tigat ion of the uudcz Ly Lng soil cond itions at \I the site of the proposed Borrego Springs Park develop::lent)located in portions I of Sections 4) 5, 8) aItd'9) TllS) R6E SEEM) near Borrego Springs) California. The study is intended to determine the most suitable foundation type) required I I , footing depths and allowable soil bearing pressures for residential construct~n) I as we Ll as' to make recommendations regarding site grading. In addition) the re- quireraents of the Federal Hous ing Adminis tration and the San Diego Department of, I Public Health'regarding sewage disposal are presented. [ "I r FIELD I~~ESTIGATION Fourteen test borings were made with a 6-inch dia:::eterpower auger at the I locations shown on the Site Plan) Figure 1. The drilling was done on March 29) I 30 and 31) 1962) under the supervision of a staff engineering geologist. Field boring logs were prepared by the geologist on the basis of an examination of ~~e I samples secured and the exc~vated oaterial. The Logs of Borings presented on Figures 1 through 4) arc based on an inspection of the samples) on the labora- I tory test results, and on the field boring logs. The vertical posicion of each I sa::lpleis shown on the Logs of Borings. In addition to the work dO:1<: to de t ertm ne the soil conditions, cve Ive per> I colation tests and four field permeability t cs t s were .pe rforraed to aid in esti- ~a::ing the requirements for sewage disposal systems. The percolation tests were I 1 ::ladeat a depth of 3 feet and in accordance with the procedure outlined on page ,l I 4 of l~':anualof Septic Tank Practice" published by the U.S. .Departmenr of l~alth) Education and Welfare. The field per~eability tests were pe.fo.~ed in accorc- I ance with test'Designution,E-19,. as described in the '~a~th }~nual" published j'. ; I by the V.' S. Depcr tmanr of the Ln t er.Lor , Bureau of Reclamation. The results of ", OJ, these ~ests a~e given in Tables 1 and 2. :.'. ; I -I I U.EOR,\TO:1.YTESTS I The soils encountered were vicually classified and evaiua:ed with respect to Gtrcngth, compressibility characteristics, dry dcncity and moisture content. The I classification was substantiated by grain size an~lys~s on representative sa~ples I- of the soils. Fill sui t abIlity t cs t s , inc 1uding co~,li-'~'ctiontest s , direc t shear - tectc, and grain size analYGes were performed on rcprecentative samples of the on- J cite soils. The strength of the soils was evaluated by consideration of the de nsI- ty and moisture content of the samples and the penetration resistance of the cam- j pier. Compressibility characteristics were evaluated by confined corapr essLon tests on undisturbed samples and consideration of the density of the samples and the pen- 1.-. etration resistance of the sampler . The resultc of tests on undicturbed camples, c;;ccpt for the confined COffi?reS- sion t cs t s , are shown with the pe netration res ist ancc of the sampler at the cor ra-o -I sponding sample locat ion on the Lots of Bor Lng s , The confined c omprcssion t ests are reported in Xable 3, and the fill cuitability testc are reported on Figures 5, t 6 and 7. i SITE A~~ SOIL CONDITIONS .~ -I The site is located in the west~rn portion of Borrego Valley along the eastern _i margin of the alluvial :.:J.nsextendingeastward £rorr.the mountains. The ground sur- face slopes gradue lly t owar d the northeas t at a rnax ; ...urn grade of about 1 percent. I_.I, As indicated on the sit~ plan, a portion of the cite is used for dcte o~ch~rds. An t ry , -J-,,!' unpaved airstrip end hree high capacity we lls also exist on the proper The -I northern portion of the property has bce n used in the past to raise vari cus grains ," tion h~s always rcrr.aincd dOl.'"::'I.:lnt. The coils encour.tered at the site co~sist of sands and silts va~yirl& in con- , :·is~cn~yfrc~ loose to dens. In gc~cralJ th~ soils D~CO~~ £ine~ in t2x:~re and -', I ,J, I ,-" ~3tely 560 feet. the soile 3rc looee silty s3nds to a depth of 1 to 2 fcct, and .[ I t .:...i ar e underlain by medium dense to dc ns e silty sands. '~elo\~ an e Lcva Lon of appr oz i- I r" matcly 560 feet, the coils arc loose silty sends and s~ndy silts to depths varying -I, ";' I fro~ 3 to 13 feet; these 50ils are underlain by medil:m-densc to dense silty sands I -- q i and sandy silts. I ..J 7he maxLmumdepth of the alluvial mat er LaI is not known, although the logs of .. 1 ) the wel Ls on the pr ope r ty LndLca t c that they extend be Low a depth of 630 feet. I J .--.; Ground wat er was not encountered in any of the borings, and the soils, except; for t...J I •~j some 'of the underlying s f l t .l aycr s wer e very Low in moisture content . r- o."'"'!' ., ,; I ..," DISCUSSION -'" l J"," ,.. I "~ i under the load. Second, the settlement must not exceed the. amount permissible for I ,•• :1 , the particular type of structure. II 1 ...... " 'I I I ,~, Sandy soils, 'such as those enccunt.er ed at the site, have good shear strengths .~ when properly confined. Settlement on such soils is not excessive if' the bearing I, capac i ty is gove r ne d b~! t he compac t nc s s of the materiel. Compactness is best r.;ea- s ur e d by ~t:-.C: dr y density of the !;.::t'TI?:C and t he r e s Ls t anc e to pe ne t r a t Lon of :he s am- I Rler. As mentioned previOUSly, below an elevation of approxi~ately 560 feet, the I soils t e nd to be 10",; in dc ns i t y t o greater dcp t hs , It: their present cond i t Lon , scee .~ of these soils could' density cnder normal residential footing loads, resulting in , 1 ..j undesirable settlements of the structcres. Additional densification could take , -. • place if the soils became saturated at a latc~ date, for exa~ple. from lawn water- I ing, It is ant i c ipe t cd that this ccr.d i t Lcn cz,n be a Llcv Lst ed by surface compaction I· with a heavy v Lbra t Lng s hccps foo t roller, although chc type and extent of 'treatment ..{l necess:.ry can best be determined when develo?ment plans showing the location and • I ... oJ ...' .., .•• 1 I , ..•.1 T~e pcrcolation ~nd perrneability te~t ~~ta indic~te t~at the soils at the sitt ere cc?~ble of readily accepti~g water, ~nd for the most part, the mi~imum accept- ..2I ·1 able lengths of disposal trenches ",illbe sat Ls f act ory . Howcver , we have discus- ...:.i sed this project with }:r. Edwi,n Heimlich, Chicf Land Planner for the San Diego of- -I f i ce of the Federal Housing Administration and l·jr.J. H. Hhitrr.~n,Assistant Chief, Division of Sanitation, San Diego Department of Public Health, and Mr. Arthur Swa- jian, Chairrr.an,Water Pollution Control Board, Colorado River Basin, Region 7. T~ese gentle:nen indicate that if multiple family dwc Ll i ngs on large lots are pro- posed, a sewage treatment plant must be constructed. It appears , though, that if the development consists of s~ngle fa~ily residences on individual lots, individu- al septic tanks and disposal fields will be acceptable. For this case, the other agencies have indicated that the requirements of the San Diego Department of Public :.1 Health will govern. For the types of soils cncouu t ered , the pub lfcat Lons of the .~• San Diego Department of Public He ccte that two-compartment septic tanks having a minimum capacity of 960 gallons \vil:!. be required Bnd two 100 root lo~g disposal trcnches will probably suffice for each -I lot. The Department of Public Health does not encourage the use of seepage pits •..i (rather than disposal trench~5), ho~cver, according to local residents standard practicein·the Borrego Springs area appears to be the use of a horizontal seepage I pit 4 feet wide, 6 feet ceep, and 10 feet long. The Department of Public Hcalth ., •• A also requires th~t at least twenty percent of the lots in a subdivision be tested ·:1.. ; to det~rmine the rate of percolation. ,,'II If the proposed dcve Lcprne nt consists of nultiple family living units on large : ... lots~ :he req~i~C~2nts for se\vaee t~cat~~nt cnc disposal will b2 determined by the I, Federal nousing Ad~inistr~tion and the State Water Pollution Control Board. Both .j , of these agencies have indicated that the requirements for treatment·and disposal .. , I. r~QQ~~'ij:i~Jr; CLYDE 0 SHErJ~f{D & ,~,SSOCL~TES .', ..~ . _. - -1.)- - I can be:dc tcrmi.ned only ;).£::.::r:::s t udy 0:: the P1"O;J0:~i.;" d~·\'e:lopr:'.el1t.T!,e:;:o~·;:,..::li);'':'- I cedure is to submit pl.:lnsfor the propo~ed Jcveloprnent, including p13ns c~owing t he rnc t ho d of sewage t r e a trnc n t and d Ls pos a l , Thcc e age nc Le c \vill then study the I plans to determine if the proposed treatment is satisfactory and recoIT~end modi- fications where necessary. I CONCLUSIONS I 1. Footings for res LdentiaI struct ur cs placed on the under lying medium-dense undisturbed native soils (above elevation 560 feet) or properly compacted fill may I be designed for a bearing pressure of 1500 psf at a depth of 8 inches or 2000 psf at a depth of 12 inches below rough lot grade. .; ... 2. "''hendevelopnent plans for the northeast portion of the site (below ele- I i : vation (560 feet) are oV;).ilab1e,additional study should be made of this area to ;.J I ,,. - determine the possible effects of saturation of the loose soils under the lead. T~e -!, I ,I study should include field plate bearing tests on saturated areas and laboratory ...... ii I tests on both undisturbed and compacted samples. Ii, . " ..d 3. The soils expected to be used in fills have low vel~~e change character- I !, istics. I .;..... ! 4. If single family residences on individual lots are planned for this devel- ..r op~ent, two-compa~tment s~ptic t&nks having a mini~~~ cap~city of 960 gal~o~s will I be required for eacn residence. Dispos~l of the eIflue~t ca~ probably be accom- plished by two 100 foot lo~g dispos~l trenches or o~e seepage pit 4 feet wide 6 I l . feet deep and 10.Ieet long. At least twenty p~rcent of the lots in a subdivisio~ ; ..' .~ I ., must be tested to determine the rate of percolation. :I 5. If the proposed de ve Loprne nt; consists of multiple family l Lv Lng' un Lt s on .... , ....:, I l~rge latc) a ze,~age tre£t~e~~ ?l~~t will be req~ired by the S~~ Diego Depart~e~t .,, ~ . .'J of Public Health and the Federal Housing Adminis::ration. The design of the trea:- I .. Die ::le:1t p l anr and the: me ans 0: cii£?os4:.1 of effluent rnus t be appr ove d by t he Federal . " ...... I '.~ I I I REC 0!-11'2 ND.'; TI Ol~S I 1. It is recommended that the loo~e ~urf~ce soils not removed by grading op- erations be compacted before rootings or slabs are placed. :-1.... 2. It is recommended that a study.of the disposition of the loose material i~ -I the nort hcast portion of the s i.t e be made whcn devc Lopment plans are available. It I ~ is anticipated that ·compaction from the ~urface by heavy,co~paction equipment will -·1 de nsi fy the s oi Ls sufficiently. although it may be necessary to remove part of these ,;../ -I materials and replace them as c ompac t ed fill. 3. A set of eart hwork specifications is c t t achccl, The r econmenda t i ons made ... , as a part of this preliminary soils report phall become a part of t~e earthwork spe- .J cifications• ..J ...... LIMITA TI0:-;5 .The reco~endations made in t~is report ~re based on the assumption t~at the ·1I .,...' soil conditions do not devi~te appreciably from those disclosed by the.borings. If ·1 variations are encountered during construction, we should be notified so we may II ~ake supplemental reco~endations if this should oe required • .. ..4 I -I ·1 I .~ I -" -. -: ''':''';i~i::'' l'.- " ,,'Ie. 1: I ! ·.~i.OIUIJ-C(r_;~l "y. LIGHT !iIlQII" OO'"1~" . Sl~TV $".0 (:,1\./ ec .. 1-2J C IftCt [ :~'C- 1':;- CC-l~.rl 5 Ht------__._ ~[~S[, C~Y. LICHT 8~OWN W[LL 0 ~.AD[O SI~'Y 56.0 (S~-~~) ~ '"~ 560 0 10 · < · I ; '"0 O(h~t, DRY, LICH' BROliN .CLL 0 \ u .. C_AOED SILTY SAND ($~-SU) , 0· \ 15 '"· u 580 u ·, '"c , ;' "a o~ ~· , ~~ ..WATEP CO~T[h I. P[ltC[HT Of O~Y ~[I~HT. u o· 00 .. ~I'!Y :Jet.lSITY .. .Les./Cu".r,. Be ..NO~8[~ OF BL -S'e"f ",:C-lo. 'UU"'Clt FALL"'C 3(J ".'hi.~ TO O~,¥[ SAUPLE" 12 IHeN[5. S...UH.Cft :'47 .. 10 .. 2.0", ~o .. 2.5", }O J (~.~) .. CIlIQUP [l"S!., ,CATIO,,'SYU6DL IN ACCOltO ..... C[ _ITM I 1~( ~IFICw ~ IL CL...S~I',C.TI~N SVSTtu. };j OENSE, DRY, LltHT B.~U~ FINE 5 Il TV su:o (&-.t) 4J SITE PLAN AND LGGS OF i(~7 Sr?'INGS 1 & 2 BvR~(~G SPRING~ ?~RK ------';C9- ~". 62-16.;------.. ------ v 0 ~~.~l'-';"L~OSE, Oft..,., 8~O~N SILTy ~I~! ~(jl~U_~E~S£.. o~y. lIC~T 8~OW~ ...c~ ,- . -[LL ;-.o£.o S'LTY SaNO (S::-SM) -I oo-ros 11 r"'_'_".c°-,(-,,Sl_,',-) - _ :! II Be. 14 M£.o,u"'-:J('J5~, C"\J;>. LI(;IoIT fJ"'~'"", 00-'" - 1 .J1I'::'.J a:_ 1.3 I SOL TV S'NO (S'_') i I "c- ~Ji.:.. I :.t:: .. 1- 00.104 2 r',·1 , ;2 i 5 5 D~-1 14 :-- 5 1 sc- n 1,1 &':- II 15J i ;',c- ~J1!:! '::r;.. 11., 00.121 ri·1r-:------jG.l'J; f'-: ] !)~NS[, OU'P, 1.II;IoIT 9~Q'4'N SilTY 10 Be-}6 [":.\ 10 - !iC_ 18J l.' -U'------!\:I S,"O (SM) ~ !)(Nst, O:'l'Y, L"IGHT 8ltO· ..... SILTY SlUiO (SM) I . I.e_ 2""'! i I ~:,~~~11::j'".'"''"" u:'.11'J ~ 3C... 32j "1 ~ 15 - ! ...~ 15 - , 15 • .'! I ~ ;;C. 1-; i i u i/·..·!' Co...j'9 j-! ~< ! , 19 - 3C- ,6 i-'UfJ------191 '"· 20 - 0 :, 0 9'4, •• 5 (EL'V. 555) co E::~~;!I tee ac , DIt v , 8"011'" SILTY ~,lHO · (s,"~! 0• ~ 25 ...• ,- '.'£i)llJU.OE,.SE, oev , 8:"OWH SILTY -I ~' '" ,.. . ,\uO (9.1) : ~ ~ OilY, LI,; ... 0 !1·..~';IOt~.;S(~ r alf~V'I~ SII.TY ] , SHIO lSI!.) . ':>l__5E, .:u.up. e,..:M,. SILTY 5""0 i:II!;' D[NS~. YOIST, LIGHT ,'''OW" FIN£. ( s,-·) l S"OV SILT ('_'L) ~~ III 10 - ~5 ~'~ III I! 15 ! '7-:,------40 - ",,:0£N5£., UOI5T, eac ....,. w!.1..!.. elUOED we. 141',"'..I ':'.1 Sil TV SAND (S'I:-SlJ.) 00.11; ~ .." 19 - SC. ~a_ ILC·-CIL- _ LC;,~ cr T€ST 5~RI~GS 3 ~e"'C~:rl 7 al'~"E~O srRI~;:j ~~;~ .: :.:; :1(,. 61-~:J': r ; I , , • &.0 ~ 110':;' B (L_: .,,_...... :;-=.)-=)-=)'- _ 0-' ~Cv ~N,~",;!i:i to~~t~ D.~Pt ~-C.~ ~l~[ ~.h:Y o II LeOSE, o~~.LICh~ h~O~~ ~tLT~ 00- 87 1 .j'l SILT V·'...) J"lfr:E !>APa· (::.~!) 0:;· t ';C- BC. BC- 4 Ii t 00. we- ~~ :'I L 00:; (-.-o-,-u-.-.-.-."'o"',"',-, "',"',"',"'.",,"- !: ... ':i ~; 1:1 ,''C· C9 BC- 00- OD.' J i I (S'-') ,;l~'14 2·' I 9 ; 5 BC- sc- !f-".~ii--""-'[-'-"-U-u---O-C-.-5-[-.-0-'-' '-'-'-'-.-.-'-.-.-0-'-.-- 00- I :: SI~lY fl"'t !tun:. (~l.!j BC- it !f.., :""::"!::-,,-.-o-,-.-,.---o-.-.-,-c-.-o-,-.-.-. -L-' 0-.-'-.-'-0-'-. I, i ~ILTY FtN~ s~~~ (9~) "C- I/{;.00"'9 '5fi- r..i ~i! _ O). 9~ , '\ I 10 10 6C- 40 ~.',..{:;j OC"'S[. DU'''. e-O.l.N SILTY s,.u;!) BC- MrOluU-DEN$E, D'UP. LICHT a_oaN 10 10 I:i (se) !oIL'. S.No (s«) 1<:: .u t;[u[ .. '(O u "- ~~~IU~-Ot~S~ TO OENS" a.up, 15 15 :!:;~~~ 1; I er.~.N WELL C~&D[O 51LTY SAN~ u u )'1 (5\·;-5 ....) :\:J "-~ /1 "C- 1 " 03-116[fJ'<1 : 19 :~:: '"0 BC· 6: 'i ; 20 j<:! ~0 c i I s OE~St. ~AV~t LI~HT 6~~~N ~ILry 0 -' LIU[V u ~.~O (~~) ~ITH L.V[~S '" ~fLTY SArlO J ~c • ~AT(~ CO~'[~ I~ ~£~C[~T o~ o_v ~[IC"T. •e, 25 u I '" DO. 0 ..... UtfrOSIT,.!" Les./CL'Jr. ec _ ~U~8(~ OJ" eJ~s 8Y 140-La. H'UV[~ ~'LlINC }O IkC~[S T~OAIV[ SAUPLC_ ~2 ,NCMES. S.vrL[~ D'T~ fO· 2.0", 00 - ~.5". }O (,.'L) - G_oo~ C~AS!~IC."ON SYV~OL IN ACCG_OAHC£ THt UNI~ltGJ(IL CL'SSI~IC.TI~H SVSTEu. I ~E~SE. &AUF. LI~HT e~O~N ~ILTY I ".0 (sv) I, LG~S ~r 7~ST eOR:~GS a "!"E.=.:til";!-! 10 E:~~[~O$P~I~GSr;;~ J~e ~O. 62-~6~ ------_.------ e.:· .. : .. : (f,," . :-:.'::.1 ______--~ .• ;'.;: 1'J \::~~~" ~,i~~ _ 0 " 0 -I ;;1;::1( LC::..( '·£CIL:·.,-:·~··:<:t, LJ"U~, \';C· ;,e· .:: j ';. . f. to"f •...... ~T 91100:'''' ':,,,;( ,.-, Jo;C S .. ;.:;'!' S II. ! :)"0':'.': (':C' ~0- i ... c .... ~'~·r ('::"1 {UICAtCOUS) L' Ow, '. 1!. ~ 00..{Pii;:j ".C= t) J I I. • • 16 t ... I Be------_ ..._-- 'C ".~;._..l-'-":--·------\',c- LOOH r c r.;(CllJ·J-r;rt!~!. r, .. ;.J~ , ... • ~,·;'.!or. (lrv. l:C~T ···c;"N SilTY 4~iili~ l t :OWl 1I"'e;,,,,'/ rts: !' ,';C" s ILT I J OD· 90 - ,'I. Ii ~~~~n',~(~'U'O '9.') 5 fJC- 1~ i11il!l: (t'l) 5 5 -, i I Il'tj'l1"''1' 1 ~lll!!i , .YC· 6 - i; I' , 10 j') Bw' 14 Ii'I :;; "?""'~ III w IIII!! ~ IIII 1 t!"~lt:"'-O[~~!, t:.Cl(T, II ~olT w wc· }~::.: 8"0 ... v SILTY :;0"";:" (~.,) ~ 15 ~~: 1;~ '::~'.~_ 15 L -~ I; c j ..:::. ~z 0 '/C· 7J.tili'.J 1 ..,. 1? 5C·120 ·\'~r.:"It:"',,[i!:"!:L' r,.r.u:". ll-:....' e ec ..... ~• . SHey cn r (::L; (cr"r..hT[O) ,0 j 0-.·,.,.: 1.: (ELn. 550) ~ c lEG(~.) 25 p{oIle:;: •• r,,.,. ".C - ,'.'l" CC"'l!;N~ ~.. o. e: •c e r , {;;) [if;,. OC:"~! IT .. Lr.s./c".rT. I ec . ~"U',::£ • C' fo,t o , s .v l.1D-Lo. Yo;':':"'(" l' Iol:' , ... c. ~o '''',''i~ o'".! \'L !'.I. ,.It l i:" '2 ,,:<:. .. [ ~. "I! '" -' :''J.. , . - I~' s."!'.ll'. £1\. :J.;. 1 J. : I~ 2.V' • . 2.)" . :.0 c-T'7.~~::-~~-:------. JD ac ... l:Jli. i ···~'::::::·"-~(~~E, r"""''',.LI:;...' {S.~:,~ U"'-'t:~ tlA!.!.I':·CA~I,')~. SV"P.'·.'L u; .lc.:rJll,r". "'C[ w 11H ,I ~'I';;: ::.~..."" SILT (I...... ) 1 '!'''£ iJhl'-I(:> SCi!l Cl.l ~~ I l= IC~T I (;t: 5V$1[". i I }5 1 I ! ~O -' ~~~5 ~r T~5i R:~INGS 1i T'i~~,lU';H1': ~c~~~~~SFqi~GS r~RK ....ce r~C'. 6~-1t.~ .. " '~'. t ...,.'" ~"--. ... l_ '_ i.. .~ _~. ". . _.: r------.---'------__.._--_ ....• \ DIRECT SHEAR TEST 100 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA 1 2 3 \ Of:V DENSITY, pcr 115 118 80 -- --- INITIAL WATEA CONTENT, ---.----'------'---'--f---l---'-.:.+~~% 11.1,6.9 7.5 60 rfUA~ WATER CONTENT,___% -+_+2:..q.16.4 14.5 13.5 I 40 ApPAREUT COHESION, pcr 210 I ArPARENT FRfCTIOU ANGLE, 20 --_-J..._-l...~_L....:...:...J34 I I I f. Sfl.' Ct ,-y I:IAXIlIU~' DRY 90 'DEliS I TV, PCF WOOOWA"O-CLV[lE-SHEIUAO l. l!'="'Cf.TlS ---I OPTIMUM MOISTUftE FILL 5U1T~BILITY TEST~ , BOt?/lrr,O 5r·~I~i;:2.!-·~~ __..._.___ I JO[1 ilL 62- H:·..; I 10 20 30 40 _.sPEC I~E.~_.~_._~I"'~~~_~~-1 i L! LABORATORY C.cUPACTION TEST _~~_~L"'"'' £I ::JAIit'Llq-I i _ '-_-----_-_---""'_---_""--'_--_-._-_-'-=-=~-.. ~~~~r~-s~ r - ~-1...=:..-_--~~.-~-'~-:Ti . , OIH(CT.SH£AR TEST I.IECHAtllCAL MIAL YS I 5 y' 3 4"4 10 40 200 .---- 100 '-, '-o-rl DIHLC-T SHEAR nST CAB 1 2 3 - ---t\--1--1-l~------=+--1 \ Or-y DENSITY, PCF lHl 119 104 80 r-C _ 7. ! - INITIAL WATE" C<:lNTEflT, % 8.1 fl.8 16.? 60 . ~~:-:,:.~t--I , 1 -"\ \ i I f."OL '''AT(R COIHENT, % 15. :.: 13.l 21.4 .. 40 /.PPI.i>EOlT COI 7. -- • ~\- _ .. i ~ -+--1- ; I , f . L~l_J2if-I-- - .~._- I CH~RACTE~ISTICS [----1 2 ; I ~I I i 1..J \\ \ ZU!O AI? -.'o'o~ CUOYlS [XFA!;::'':'L lTY I i .I , , 'i ~i-r--+--Il j 4--. -~'~I?'K LIQ.UIO-L' ... IT, ! ~f- - I ------t~-\ "'I" _.---- f----r--; FL~STI~nY IIIOU(, I• ~ - -- f --,--I ~ I-- - -+- - lSJ'\ SHRIt4'~iGE LIMIT, :' ------1---I I a1-'~.I--I-1- ._~ -~t~t~~I~ COLLr'2'L CC1ITENT, ~ 10') -- i FOTE"'''''L EXPANSIBILITY: IJ J ~h X IIIUlI OilY 1 2 3 ~ 90 DOIS,TY, PCF 131.0 13;>.5 116.0 r\. OPTIUUM ~ISTURE 0.5 11..0~~~" «.f) FILL SUITABILITY JESTS Co lIT OIT, 7" ,'-, ...... 10 20 30 40 LABOflATOflY COMPACT I (IN Tt5T .- .:.:::£::::.:-~"'" .~~_...?~ .... -_._.. _- ..~. --'-- ..._....:...... ---- ~ _.... -.- •... __.. -.. t,... _ "l •. _ 1.. __ &._ •. - l. 1... ~_. I..... ~ L .._ .. ' L ... ..---~---_.-'------'------~------_. __ •. _->- - DIHECT SHlAR TEST OIRE~T SHEAR TEST OA1·A 1 I~I~!'L WATEn CO~TEI'T, % ---...... ;1----1---+---1 ,yJ! -\~\ ?1.2 40· : i I \~\ ~PP.=:N! Fp'CTION AIIGlE, 20\---- , i ·\1\ '---'-----''-----' H-r- I\~ 120! I ~\ \ ~L --~-.~ 'j . \1. ~: 1 _.'7 ~ -R.\i~\.~· ~ ~-='!. ::: I \\ luo A I r: '(';1 os CURVES DIPiSIBfLITY CH"l"lACT~~ISTICS 1~-;-1 LI~UIC LnllT, I~~--~i=,===s-.t\__ ~-R ...... 1 t;E. I~ :~ l.u. T,':' ------~+-----,--1 i~ .._-1-' . _. ..I 1CI.>--!------'- .. COlLOIOIL ~ONTENT, ~ ---.-. ------L-+-t-+-l-+- - 1\ 1\ - G .- I f\. \~. -P~C 1F I C PA_".U.! fOTENTIAl EXPANSIBiliTY: --- .".:..70 H-t-t--+--t--I--f--t--- . '. 2.60 .' Un I IAU" Dny 1 2 l\ ~!\. 2.50 9CrO 5 r 1-"_'_1 _' T_y_,_p_C_F +-1_1..;.6..;.•..;.O-\-__ +-_---j·~~~.< r-_W_O_O_D_"_A_ft_D_-_C_l_Y_D_E_-_S_H_E_ft_A_R_D_lx_A__S_S_O_C_I_1·_' <., !- , (jPTI'AU'"Mo ISTURE I '\.:. ~ 13.) !~ CO"TE~T, .,. ; ~...." '- FILL SUITABILITY TESTS II f-I---r~-,--_'-+:-_"-.1--r-L.-_r-L--+-L..i.-r-L.J...._:1=--'r--r1---,i,,..L-· r r ~, ).. !------B01lHEG0 sr'f\ IriGS r ARK I L &~"'---'-..!--'--'-.-1MOISTURE CONTE~T, -'-'-_-'--'---'_I% I ~.....n>-I t-- .}OO NO...... _.(.?-1~~ I o 10 20 }J 40 -'--.--_.S~ECI~EN 1: S~WPlE 12-31._------, LABORATORY COMPACTION rES! .. .. '="~-liIiiiiilir"''''''''~"""''1_=J~~------;'--.-_~-__..--.~;~~~:~. i ------• -- - -, - - ',. .. - -, - - - ------TAnr.r: 2 - iU':SULTS OF fIELD l'El(llF.!\HILITY TESTS Pc rrnc ab iI Lt y .:: of Hell Depth of Hat~r Rate of Flo\'/ T,::; t Ikpth of H~11 Radius fee t _ ~,<:t_- ___ _J'~t3!Hi,n. __ _...islssss:_ ;-:o , L'~_.'_U:Jon .._------fl.~'-~t lj·.O .122 '17,000 1 Bo r i1l}3 1 5.0 0.25 1•• 0 .030 410 ') l~uL".i.ll~ 3 5.0 0.25 til 0 If.O .030 ) BJL" il:~ LO 5.0 0.25 1:·.0 .070 . 950 II- B\.) 1: i.n~ 12 5.0 0.25 ,.. PL:i.'In~Clbi.lity determined fl'OI:1 Fil3un~ 19-(, "Earth Hauua l " U.S. ])l:p o f Interiot", Bureau of Itcc'lnmatiull. ; . '"1 - , I····· I r- •.•... 1' .. ~ ....., •.•. j . '--~'1 ,. .-., '.'':. I. I"•• L L '1. i; 1- ------~----_._.TAJILE 1 - J:Eft:LTl; (IF rn~r;C!l.",\'no:;--~---- rrsrs .:~:: 'ref;t Depth of Hiltel: I'r- r c o La t; io n nil te Test Depth uf Hatel: I'c rc o Ln t J.ou ]';:1>' .... No .....; th Time ------Luchc s _-.J'li n..t2l~'Cf;II nc,_h_ Time -_._._----Luchr-r. _J.L~.1!."0.~,-::..l.·!.~~.I".J!. 1 8:00 7.0 7 10 :51, 6.0 8 :10 3.0 11 :04 u , 5 8:20 0 11 :04 6.0 8:20 7.0 11 :11(. l~.5 0.15 8:30 3.0 _n 8 :llO 0 0.30 .0 10:51 6.0 11 :07 ll.5 2 S :1~i 6.0 11 :07 6.0 8:25 0 11 :.17 ll.5 O.l'i S :25 6.0 8:35 0 0.60 9 11 :00 6.5 11 :10 5.5 3 S :/13 6.0 11 :10 7.0 S : ~.)3 1.:3 11 :20 6.0 0.10 8:55 6.5 9 :25 2.2 0.l13 10 1 :/,7 8.0 1 :/~'/ 1,.0 II 3:02 S ..O 2:10 0 3:12 1.8 2 :11 7.0 3: 15 6.5 2:21 3.5 3:25 1.7 0'/18 2:31 0 O. J~-I 5 1:35 7 •Je- II 3:30 7.0 1 :/15 6.25 S :/,0 5.0 1:55 4.75 8:50 2.0 2:05 3.5 9:00 1.0 0.10 2:15 2.5 2:25 1. 25 12 7 :l15 3.0 2:35 0 0.12 7:55 4.0 3:05 1.0 6 1 :39 7.0 8 :15 6.0 1 :(19 5.75 3:25 3.0 2:00 ll.5 8:35 0 0.30 2:10 3.25 2:20 2.0 ')': Tests wcr c PCI: Formed ;ltljacent to n'~rinr.:; 2:30 1.0 0.10 wi th same uumhc I: if"';': Computed fOI: tlw last 10 rninu tc r, __ .i . - .------" - -, -' - ~-...' - _ - -- I. I.. i. ---- - ' ... '- -,"- - '- .- - - lIIII· - - H[~~lIL 1 S ('IF CO~)F II'JED COI,II'RICS'> I ON TeSTS S,~I','lC r--- 1.,'TIAl 1_-,:-D~Er.I;[:F.OF 5ATU" ....'TIUI~--·----r Or r o nu s r ron ... - ..... , _1'l~!.._,~...II!'i;!'i;~~-fJ]' liSI !:::-ll~~~~~!Sf:;~':;T-~ I" I 11 ~~__ r I II I ~II LOA[' 'I f'ERCr.rn OF I,; IlT' Al fIr I Gin .", f'CF Dr.,- i'i",IGllr PEr-ceNT PElle!'.",' ('SF (>,(0:,,·[ ~ATl''''TIM;, "r1f" S',Tl'"""" _-_:~:"~~:_·_:_="_--_:;1-_(l-._1=.9~.~_-'"_::7._--_-_'~~~.~_·-_"__ ---13" ,.---::; . 500 C 1.0 r~~~=~=:::"c,,,I 10;>. ? 1000 li 8- 2 'Jr). 1) ·-,:---O-9--- --5.-0·- (I." ---(;~~-.-- -. I )--I------/~·:-~- n----1 8-2 9'.,' 3,? ""'I 94 1000 1.7 I O,-7_-_~.·~-...·i 1 I--.--,L------'-- .--1 ----.---- .. -----l'.. --I 9-1 8n.0 1 2 • ., 31 94 ---:----·'t-500 o. 'f ----O.rJ I 1 9-1 F--'In ,-;--.- 1(,,1 -I ~IEI . ----;-8--- 10;)0 1.1 1" i ~',--r---7=--'1~-'-_.~,-- I 1 j 94 --5;·;~)--:----1-.:-)-----1. --~.". ,. ; '10-11_·_~ __ 1-- ·~;~-_-_-_l.~=-_1-2----f---9-1--. 1000 2.,' .,·<)-1 -- -J c, o lD .-.o 0'\ Iv ~, 0, -1.• 11 , .. -. .., ~,:.;,., , .... .' ... I I I GENERAL R.EQUBE~ffii\TS I This spcci£ic~tions covers the method of control end supervision, end pre~ par a t ion of e::i~t;i~g s ur f ac c s to r c c e Lve fill; t hc t7iH:: 0::= s o i l s u i t ab Le ; the I control of ccmpa c t Lon anel methods of t e s t i.ng compac t ed fills. SCOPE I The: <;:\I'::),I;('rll shnl l cour.Let of p,~t'f(Jnn:i,nt: n11 c'i'crl.l::ion~. no c cssa ry to e x- c ava t « l·~~l·l.h :uld r oc k tr om t!H~ cut {Ii.'/";ur. f n:; (!cJ~,~.i"'lll:~l:I.11,ni cbl.' plalH.; to e xcu- I vu t e d it c hc s , f.nc l ud Lng d'itcl'Jl..':": u r t.hi: t:lJP I.~fell:' ,:.l'llh:t;. c ha nuc l u , a nd Lor r cw pit~ i to bu i ld f Ll ls in the l.occ rioru. 1J'1U t:,'. r.lu c lcva r f o m: :mel f orm s hov-n on the plans; to dispose of ,:,11 uus u i t z.b Le mat cri a I :,,:,,1 ,,::cc.:ssc.:~:cl,vationas s hown on the plans or as directed by the Soil Engineer; opd to perform all incidental I work of whe t s oeve r na t ur e which may be required fo~ cutting) filling) and gr ad- inz as sho~~ on the plans; and to maintain the finished products in the form specified until the co~pletion and acceptance of the contract. EXCAVATION I Excavation shall be made to the elevations and the form planned, with fin- ish gracies and slopes cut truc and straight in conformity with the plans and I .i specifications . ! Select material from tho uxcrrva tLons 1,;]1:111 he: plnc e d and cornpuc cud as here- in:l!I:",: ::p"cil'iod in tho "fill(l<.1 t1"OI"~" 1111.1 111,: l':lH'IJI~ "II t.ho tl1l.lnr.. I C01,lPACTED FILLS I Generd :rills shall be co ns t r uc t cd t o t he depth and e Lcvs t Lons as shown on the grad- I ing plan by placing and compacting select soil, as hereinafter specified, with finished gracies and slopes true and straight in conformity with the plans. Clearing. GruQbin~ and Preparing Areas to be Filled I (a) All ti~bcr. logs, trees, brush and other ru~bish shall .be removed, piled and burned or otherwise disposed of so as to leave the arcas that hEV~'" I been disturbed with a ne a t and finished appearance free f rcm unsightly' . de br if, . I I (I.» II 11 v"l;'.ol:nblu1II1lt:LIn' Ilh"lJ Ill' !:(,'\IH,IVI:"! frolll ::11;, ::111'!::'''': upo u l~hJ.ch til" I'Ll f,,; Le.' be; pll:H;r:d lind tlk full dt'pth t.f 1"":,,, ,;oi1e: ./ l "h'll1 be l'''''K'""d. The 5ur tllce.sh:l11 ::hen be, plo~'ecl 0;:- iiC.:ll'ific·;,! to a d"p::h of six inc!.es (6"), erHl until the surface is free £ro~ ruts, hc.n:::oc: ------'--~------I (c ) ~·:~:.::rc.: :fills .::.~(: T:'!3."::~ o i: :::'~~:.::i.':':,"::; c.':: :"".:.;_.:-:.(..~.:) ~:h~ ::lo7)C: 0:: c.;;\,., o:.~i~':':~.::.l I zruuno .....?un h-:'1ich :~(: ::'11 i:: to ~)e P:.3.C~i..: ~,::...:..1J.. be plo ...-c d O~ s c ar Lf i c d dec?ly or whera the slope ra:io of =~:2 ori:i~~l ~round is ct~cpcr :~1an 6 horizont~l to 1 ver:ic~l, the b~nk sh~ll be stepped or bcnc~cd. I (d) After the foundation fo~·the fill has bC12n cleared, plowed or scarificd, - it shell be disced or bl~ded until it is uniform and free fro~ large clods brou3ht to the proper ~oisture conten~ and compacted to not less I than nine t y pcrcent (90%) of "l,,::ir.:tlm dens it y in accordance wi t h A.fJ.SHO - test No. nBO-57 H12thodA., or other density t est methods which \,'i11ob- I tain equivelent results. Select Materials ]- Select ~aterial shall be any soil excav~ted £ro~ the cut areas which, in the .0pinion of the Soil Engineer, is suitable for use in co~scructing fills, c~d ,~hich co~tains no rocks or hard lumps six inches or over in di~mcter, und Hhich co~tai~s at least 40~~of ...at eri aL smaller than cne e quar t er inch (J~") in diameter. The rna- I' tcrial used within two feet of rough lot grade shell be nonexpansive select ~ater- LaL, For the purpose of this specLfi cat Lon nor.cxpancLve materials arc defined as these materials which have a liquid limit leES th~n 30 percent, a plasticity index il less t han 10 percent and wh Lcn SHell less than en" percent when compac t ed as here- inafter specified for compacted fill ~nd when subject"d to an axial pressure of i.1 150 pounds per square foot. No material of a perishable, spongy, or o t herwice of an improper nature shall il be used in filling. Placim:. S"readim:, and Com:>acting Fi11 ~:aterial (a) The selected fill material shall be placed Ln layers wh i ch when compacted :.1 shall not cxceed six inches (6"). Each layer shall be spread evenly.and shall be thoroughly blade mixed during the spreading to insure uniformity of material in each layer. (b) W1(!n the mo i.st ure coritsnz of the fill raat er i cI is below that specified by the Soil Engineer, water shall be added until the moisture content is as I specified to assure thorough bonding during the compacting process.' (c) j·rnenthe mo i st ure conter.tof the fill ma t crisI is above that specified by the Soil Engineer, the fill material s~all be aerated by blading or other ':1 satisfactory methods until ~~e moisture concent is as specified. (d) After each layer has been placed, 6ixed and spread evenly, it shall be I thoroughly compacted to not less t har, ninety percent (907.) of maximum den- si t y in accordance \'liththe P_fJ.SHOTestNo. TISO-57 Hethod A, or other den- sity tests which v7illobtain equivalent results. Compaction shall be ac- I t I complished by sheepsfoot rollers ..mcIt LpLec vhae I pneumatic-tired rollers or other types of acceptable rollers. Rollers ~hall be of such d~sig~ that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. !1-01- ling shall be continuous over its entire ~rea and the roller shall ~ake 'I sufficient trips to insure th&t the desired d3nsity has been obtained. I I ... I (c ) Fill s Lcp e c shall be cc;:-:?,"ct(;.:lb:.' :::c";:~cof c:'".:l?cfool: r o l Lcr s or c t ae r I s u i t ab I.e e qu i.pmc n t , C0:::P.:lC;:i.~~ cp:':l-:.:io:1S c hz L'l be co nt Lnuc d un c i; t;)~ slo?es are stahle but no: too dense for pl:.nting and there i~ no ~P?=e- c i ab Lc amount; of Loo se soil on t he s lopes. Ccrr.p ac t Lng of t ac s Lc pe s IT£Y ··1 ~e done progressiv~ly in increments of 3 to 5 fcet in fill heieht or after the fill is brought to its total heisht. (f) Field density tests shall be made L1 aceordance with A.S.T.~l. Test No. I D1556-5ST by the Soil Eng Lneer fo::cach Layer of fill. Density tests :nay be made a t Lnt e rv a l s no t e xc e c d ing 2 ice~ of fill hc i.gh t provided all layers are: t e s t cd , "i-Jhcre s hccpc fo o t .r c l l e r s are: us ed the soil may be dis:urbed to a depth of sc\reral inches. Density tests shall be made I in the compacted mater LaIs be Low .t he di.st urbcd sur face. i[,.icnthese 'tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill o~ portion thereof -' 'is below the required (90%) density, the partic~lar layer or portion I shall be reworke d until the required density has bee.nobtained. S-..:pervision Supervision by the Soil Engineer shall be made during the filling and com- pacting operations so that he can certify that the fill was .made in accordance I with accepted specifications. I During grading operations, soil types oth~r th~n those analyzed in the pre- lininary soils report may be encountered. The Soil Ensineer shall decide the suit- ability of t~ese soils. Any special treatm2nt reco~~endcd by the Soil Engineer in I t he preliminary and subsequent sui t cbt H t y soil reports, which is not covered in ., ehe Earthwork Specific~ticins, shall bcco~e cn eddenduD to the ~arthwork Specifica- tions. .1 Rc?~esentative sample5 of ~Gterial to b~ used for fill 2nd/or sub-base shall be test2c ~n the la~o~atory in o~dGr to cletcrmi~c the ncxinum dencity, optimu~ wate~ content, and classification. In addition, tbe laboratory shall determine the approx- ir.atebearing value of a recompa ct ed , set urat cd sample by direct shear or other I::e.th- od applicable to the particular soil. I '., . .! I ., .:. ; ..! I _-~··.ir···---:-._- -.-._ l..IIiii ,... ~ i_ ....1 l.:; J •.••• t I. .I I. .' I _..• " ··------~:·~:;·:~~:·:;·:>~.I·Strip as Specified ·i.t· 1/!~"~f-_OrigiMl Ground Slope ROJ t.Lo Ii H H Fill :.~;.:::. :. ." .r, -,."...... I t ~ t ~-liOJ:!:~;...- ..__ .- 'nit: 1~f.ld.lLU'" ~!i.dLh "J>" of key "h;').l he 2 fr,e!: lJi. Ke)':; n re TC~I'Jil .. r1 \·;hl'J'(~ the un t ur a I s Lope is steeper I than 6 h o r Lzon t n l t" 1 vc r t.i ce L, or wh c r e s p e cLf Lcd by Soi J. Enr,i ne or . I WOODWARD· CLYDE· SHERARD & ·ASSOCIATES I CONSULTING SOIL ENGINEERS ANO GEOLOGISTS December 21, 1967 '1' 3467 Kurtz Str •• t S.n 01•• 0 Project 67-103-115 CoUfoml.92110 (714) 224·2911 I Federal Mortgage Investors 10889 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1040 I Los Angeles. California Attention: Mr. Keith A. Miller ,I I BORREGO SPRINGS PARK, CALIFORNIA 'I In accordance with your request,' we have obtained two representative samples of soil from the area of the proposed'1ake at the subject site. Chemical and grain size analyses were performed on these materials ·1 in order to determine their general characteristics in relation to pos- sible reaction with the .proposed lining materials. the test results are presented on the attached forms. I' I I LJL/jsk I (4) Federal Mortgage Investors (2) Campbell, Miller &. Associates 'I I I ,I I I J..J~ccrnDCl· (..., .. 7V' M(·H.u'R OF: hI'''''"EA O~, AM~~ICA1'\ soc.arr ~O~ MfTALS AMC;Alo.N WELCI"G SOCieTY . ' ....STliUH: 'vF ENVi~O~Mr:f'\TAL SCl~NCES SOCI£TY ~OR NO"~.ST~UC'iV. '.~TING SO~I~TY 0;: APPlIEC> SP&;C~TR":'>SCOPY "'MER. "'SSN. ~OR TH .... ov, 0; SCieNCE SOCIETY ~OR .XP.RIM£NT ...L srscss ...N...LYSIS N...T10N.o.( RI~LE ASSN. O~ "'MER'o. . CHEM. MET ASSOCIATES WIT(t1[lL r. CHL1I~lrt\,\l" f. Mol. Q. f. 0...... 'btl I AiOYNAAD WAY SAN OI~ClO. CAllI:ORNIA 9210J :lYLI.M6:l Dt'lr.ombor20,1967, Woodward. Clyde Sher~rd & Associl'ltes' JOB.NO: 67-103-115 3467 Kurtz Street Borrego SpringsP~rk SRn Diego.CAlifornia 92110 . 2-Sl'lmplesRec'd:12-l9-67AM REPORT OF DETERMINATIONS OF SOLUBLE SALTS IN TI10 SOIL SAMPLES: At your request we made the following determinqtions on two soil ,s"lmples which you 5ubmitted.prepared for extraction,from test drillings: S&.MPLE 1519-1 .. SAMPLE 1519-2" "BorreRo Springs Pqrk "Borrego Springs P~rk@6'7", \'Jol~ fi @6~" mO'So\lth of Green 1126:" "H:12 lkq11ne) 97f51"'ii"nYATifAL'I'N'E 'I 0.0004% ..4 ppm 0.0006% ...6 ppm I~~o;).. Nil Nil 0.0005% 0.0012% ~~~?): 0.0210% 0.0365% (Mg) a 0.0014% 0.0045% (Na) a 0.1550% 0.2240% (Fe) ... Nil Nil (lv"m) ... Nil Nil (C1) 0.1860% 0.2940% (S04) 0.0440% 0.0620% .' (C03) Present LARGE AMOVNTS Present.Lqrge Amounts These are both definitely"IAlk"llie"' soils and the presence of the high sulf'qte. content would indicate deleterious rel'lctionswith Concrete.buried structures even if Low Alkqlie Cement were used. This "might "llso be true of cert"lin pl"lstic membrane mAterials. but a well gr~ded.Asphqltic Concrete with ~ chlorin"lted- rubber sealant to protect against Ultrq Violet degred"ltion of the bitumins, should be satisfl'lctoryin contact with this caustic soil. C"ll1f. ~-~._------.. [. t:':'l,ac'- r ····~;Cdi·u~~~E:~I~~-····---_·~::-,n-o·~··3 ._~~and ~L_A_Y _ IJ SillVO Number Hydromoter Anoly~l. .._---..., r------..,...--~---- I r- I I 10 20 40 60 140 200 ,IC 1004 I 90 I 90 1- I SO \ 0 \ IJ 'e:="70 Vi Vi \ ~ 60 \ sl 't- \ \ 1./ lIST -Z z l.Ll o 0::50 \Y l.Ll 51 0- \ 1519-1\ . ...1 V\ t-« ...... 0 1 t- 30 31 1.-.0 ,i : 20 I I 10 'I I --:-- -I--- Ii I I I" II I I. 1 I IIII -lei 0 .001 . 2 I .5 .2 .1 .05 .02 .01 .005 .002 GRAIN SIZE - MILLI METERS I SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL 1519-1 1519-2 I I " ,\ I !I WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD &. ASSOCIATES, GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES I oorrego ~pnngs .t-'arl< I 67-103-115 III I! L I I 'I' I I I, I I' APPENDIX E ,I BIOLOGICAL DATA ULTRASYSTEMSJ INC, I I ·1 ,I tl I, I I' I I I . . [Vst. . · .. I e APPENDIX E TABLE 1 PLANTS OBSERVED* ON THE PROJECT SITE I' CREOSOTE BUSH SCRUB/CREOSOTE - MESQUITE ASSOCIATION I Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence** Asteraceae - Sunflower Family I Arrowweed Pulchea -_.-sericea 0 Burrobrush Ambrosia dumosa C I Cheesebush Hymenoclea salsola D Desert Baccharis Baccharis sergiloides I I Desert Dandelion Malacothrix glabrata I Pincushion Flower Chaenactis stevioides I 'I Spanish Needle Palafoxia linearis I Sweetbush Bebbia juncea I I, Cactaceae - Cactus Family Beavertail Cactus Opuntia basilaris I I' Silver Cholla O. echinocarpa I Pencil Cactus O. ramosissima I ,I Caryophyllaceae - Pink Family Frost Mat Achyronychia cooperi I I Cucurbitaceae - Gourd Family NCN Cucurbita palmata I Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Family I Croton Croton californicus I Rattlesnake Weed Euphorbi'a a1boma rgi nata o I NCN Euphorbia setiloba I * Nomenclature Munz (1974) ** Occurrence I D = Dominant S = Scattered R = Restricted I = Infrequent 0 = Occasional NCN = No Common Name 'I I I I ·. ..t ll':\'t s. I e. . APPENDIX E CONTINUED 'I PLANTS OBSERVED* ON THE PROJECT SITE I CREOSOTE BUSH SCRUB CONTINUED Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence** I Fabaceae - Pea Family Palo Verde Cercidium floridum I I Mesquite Prosopis juliflora I Smoke Tree Dalea spinosa I I' Krameriaceae - Krameria Family Krameria Krameria grayi o 'I' Nyctaginaceae - Four-O'Clock Family I Wish bone Mirabilis bigelovii Onagraceae - Evening Primrose Family Evening Primrose Camissonia claviformis o I Evening Primrose C. refracta I I Dune Primrose Oenothera deltoides I Plantaginaceae, - Plantain Family I Woody Plantain Plantago insularis C Poaceae - Grass Family I. Abu Mashi Schismus barbatus D Gallita Grass Hilaria rigida o 'I Polemoniaceae - Phlox Family NCN Langloisia setosissima I I Polygonaceae - Buckwheat Family Buckwheat Eriogonium thomasii I I Desert Trumpet E. inflatum I I * Nomenclature Munz (1974) ** Occurrence D = Dominant S = Scattered R = Restricted I I = Infrequent 0 = Occasional I - o 0 I eo APPENDIX E CONTINUED I PLANTS OBSERVEO* ON THE PROJECT SITE Q \ CREOSOTE BUSH SCRUB CONTINUED I 1 ! Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence** Zygophyllaceae - Cal trap Family I Creosote Bush Larrea tridentata C ,I NCN Kallstroemia californica I SALTBUSH SCRUB/DISTRUBED Amaranthaeceae - Pigweed Family I Fringed Pigweed Amaranthus fimbriatus o Arecaceae - Pa~m Family 'I Date Palm Phoenix dactyl fer C Asteraceae - Sunflower Family -I' Alkali Goldenbush Haplopappus acradenius I Annual African Daisy Dimorphotheca sinuata I ,I Brittle Bush Encelia farinosa I Cheesebush Hymenoclea salsola o Desert Sunflower Geraea canescens o 'I' Mule Fat Baccharis glutinosa I Sow Thistle Sonchus oleraceus o I Telegraph Weed Heterotheca grandiflora o 1 ,I Boraginaceae - Borage Family I, j .,1 Comb-Bur Pectocarya pen1cillata I 1 ,j Fiddleneck Amsinckia tessellata I ,1 ,I } Popcorn Flower Cryptantha augustifolia D j , , Brassicaceae - Mustard Family 'j London Rocket Sisymbrium irio C 'I .I ,J Oriental Mustard Sisymbrium orientale I " Pepper Grass Brassica tournefortii o Pepper Grass Lepidium lasiocarpum o Pepper Grass !:.;virgiriicum o I Short Pudded Mustard Brassica geniculata I NCN Tropidocarpumgracile I I * Nomenclature Munz (1974 ) ** Occurrence I D • Dominant S ..Scattered R a Restricted I ! I = Infrequent o - Occasional "i .1 NCN = No Common Name 1 I .. -, IeI. APPENDIX E CONTINUED 'I PLANTS OBSERVED* ON THE PROJECT SITE I SALTBUSH SCRUB/DISTURBED I Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence** Poaceae - Grass Family Continued) Foxtail Chess Bromus rubens o I Ripgut Grass B. diandrus I Salt Grass Distichlis spicata o I Sand Dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus C Stinkgrass Eragrostis cilianensis I I Salicaceae - Willow Family Fremont Cottonwood Populus fremontii I I Solanaceae - Nightshade Family Desert Datura Datura discolor I I Ground Cherry Physalis acut1f~lia I Silverleaf Nettle Solanum elaeagnifolium o I Tamaricac~ae - Tamarisk Family Athel Tree Tamarix aphylla o o I Salt Cedar T. ramosissima Typhaceae - Cat-Tail Family I Cat-Tail Typha domingensis I Zygophyllaceae - Cal trap Family 'I Puncture Vine Tribulus terrestris o I I I * Nomenclature Munz (1974) ** Occurrence D = Dominant S = Scattered R = Restricted I I = Infrequent o = Occasional I ···· I .. e. ,I APPENDI X E TABLE 2 I BIRDS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT SITE I I COMMON NAME* SCIENTIFIC NAME* NUMBER STATUS** HABITAT*** OBSERVED I Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 1 N,R CS American Kestrel Falco sparverius 1 N,R CS Gambel's Quail Lophortyx gambellii 25 N,R CS I Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 42 N,R DIS Roadrunner Geococcyx californianus 5 N,R CS I White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis 6 N,R CS Common Flicker Colaptes auratus 2 R R I Common Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 22 R DIS Common Raven Corvus corax 2 N,R DIS I Le Conte's Thrasher Toxostoma lecontei 1 R CS Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 5 R CS, DIS I Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 3 N,R DIS Starling Sturnis vulgaris 19 N,R DIS Verdin Auriparus flaviceps 1 R CS I House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 20 N,R DIS Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 R DIS ,I White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 25 M,Sp. ,FW CS Anna's 'Hummingbird Ca lypte anna 2 N,R CS, DIS J * Nomenclature: American Orinthologists' Union (1957, 1973). I ** Status Designation from Sams and Stott (1959) and the Anza-Borrego Desert Natural History Association Birds of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park: I R = Resident M = Migrant Sp = Spring F'= Fall V = Visitant N = Nests S = Summer W = Winter *** Habitat Key I CS = Creosote Bush Scrub DIS= Disturbed Area R = Riparian I I I I APPENDIX E TABLE 3 I BIRDS EXPECTED* ON PROJECT SITE I COMMON NAME** SCIENTIFIC NAME** STATUS** I Violet-Green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina M,Sp Ba rn Swa 11ow Hirundo rustica M,Sp I Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota M,S,F Purple Martin Progne subis V,Sp ,J Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii R Cactus Wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapills R Canyon Wren , Catherpes mexicanus R I Rock Wren Salpinctes bsoletus R Crissal Thrasher Toxostoma dorsale Sp,S,F I Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana M,Sp,F,W Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Sp,F I Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Polioptila melanura R Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedro rum Sp,F,W I Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens R Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta R Scott's Oriole Icterus pari sorum R,Sp,S,F,W I Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psattria N,R Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus N,R I Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza belineata F,W Sage Sparrow Amphispiza bell i F,W 'I Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri S,F,W * Compiled from Anza-Borrego Natural History Association Birds in the I Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Area. ** Nomenclature: American Ornithologists' Union (1957, 1973) *** Status Key I R = Resident V = Visitant S = Summer W = Winter M = Migrant Sp = Spring F = Fall I' I I I I TABLE 3 CONTINUED BIRDS EXPECTED* ON PROJECT SITE I COMMON NAME** SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS*** I Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura R I' Sharp Shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus M,Sp,F,W Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii R,Sp,F,W I Red Shouldered Hawk Buteo 1ineatus V,Sp,F,W Rough Legged Hawk Buteo 1agopus M,F ,W I, Ferruginous Hawk Buteo rega1is R Golden Eagle Aguila chrysaetos R Prairie Falcon Fa1co mexicanus R I Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus M,Sp,S,W Killdeer Charadrius vociferus M,Sp,F ,I Rock Dove Columba 1ivia R Ground Dove Co1umbina passerina R I Barn Owl Tyto alba R Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus R ,I Burrowi ng Owl Athene cunicu1aria R Long Eared Owl ----Asio otus R Poor-Will Pha1aenopti1us nutta11ii R Lesser Nighthawk Chordei1es acutipennis Sp,S,F - White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxata1is R t Costa's Hummingbird Ca1ypte costae M,Sp,W Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius V,F I Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens R Black Phoebe Sayornis nigricans R Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya R I * Compiled from Anza-Borrego Natural History Association, Birds in the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Area. I ** Nomenclature: American Ornithologists' Union (1957, 1973) *** Status Key 'I R = Resident V = Visitant S = Summer W = Winter M = Migrant Sp = Spring F = Fall I I I I TABLE 4 'I MAMMALS OBSERVED AND EXPECTED ON PROJECT SITE I COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME* DETECTION** HABITAt Desert Cottontail Syl vilagus auduboni 0 CS 'I arizonae Black-tailed Jack Lepus californicus deserticola 0 CS Rabbit I White-tailed Antelope Ammospermophilus leucurus 0 CS Squirrel leucurus Round-tailed Ground Spermophilus tereticaudus 0 DIS I Squirrel tereticaudus Southern Pocket Gopher Thomomys bottae boregoensis B DIS I Coyote Canis latrans 0, S CS, DIS I EXPECTED I Merriam's Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys merriami arenivagus il Desert Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys deserti deserti Desert Woodrat Neotoma lepida lepida Western Pipestrel Pipistrellus hesperus hesperus I Pall id Bat Antrozous pallidus pallidus California Myotis Myotis californicus californicus I Brazilian (Mexican) Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana Free-tailed Bat I Little Pocket Mouse Perognathus longimembris bangi Desert Pocket Mouse Perognathus penicillatus angustirostris Spiny Pocket Mouse Perognathus spinatus rufescens I Cactus Mouse Peromyscus eremicus eremicus Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus'sonoriensis I Southern Grasshopper Onychomys torridus pulcher Mouse I * Nomenclature Bond (1977) ** 0 = Observed; B = Burrow; S = Scat *** Habitat I CS = Creosote Bush Scrub DIS = Disturbed I :1 I I I TABLE 5 I AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OBSERVED OR EXPECTED * NUMBER COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OBSERVED I Leopard Lizard Crotaphytus wislizeni. 1 I' Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus occidentalis 8 Desert Spiny 19uana Sceloporus magister 1 Desert Side Blotched I Lizard Uta stansburiana stejnegeri 2 Long-tailed Brush Lizard Urosaurus graciosus 3 I Expected ** Desert Iguana Dipsosaurus dorsalis dorsalis I Zebra-tailed Lizard Callisaurus draconoides Co 11ard Lizard Crotaphytus collaris I Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Phrynosoma m'callii Desert Banded Gecko Coleonyx variegatus variegatus I Western Brush Lizard Urosaurus graciosus Desert Horned Lizard Phrynosoma platyrhinos ,I Gilbert Skink Eumeces gil berti Sonora Gopher Snake Pituophis melanoleucus affinis Common King Snake Lampropeltis getulus I Colorado Desert Crotalus cerastes laterorepens Sidewinder I Colorado Desert Shovel- Nosed Snake Chionactis occipitalis annulata Red Racer Masticophis flagellum piceus I Southwestern Speckled Rattlesnake Crotalus mitchelli pyrrhus I Red Diamond Rattlesnake Crotalus ruber ruber Desert Night Snake Hypsiglena torguata deserticola I * Nomenclature from Stebbins (1966) and Sloan (1964). ** Anza-Borrego Desert Natural History Association. The Reptiles and Amphibians I' of Anza-Borrego State Park. I I I I TABLE 5 (CONTINUED) I AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OBSERVED OR EXPECTED I COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Western Long-nosed Snake Rhinocheilus lecontei lecontei I Desert Patchnosed Snake Salvadora hexalepis Southern Pacfic Rattle- snake Crotalus viridis helleri I Pacific Tree Frog ~ regilla Great Basin Whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris tigris I Western Spadefoot Toad Scaphiopus hammondii 'I Cal ifornia Toad Bufo boreas ha~ophilus I I I I I 'I I I I' I I ':1"-'""1-" -·'-----:-II-----TI.rj--"oc-., ----"l~:',------~~:::-:J,:-!--ii,---,I- ' .,(e-,e \ II II " 'Cpu II f" 11 'II J,'~ J)11 II'" "11 I 11 I IIT,r~i'irII II j! 11 t~lr~, ~ !: J",- ",'"- L ---- -yJe-. \1 ... •• _',"'," ~ 1 Iii ...I "Borrego School , II_-r- II! ~':. I, I" I 4 3 1Well j I Sao \ 3 I \ , '- I ~ SOurce: Title: ULTRASYSTEMS, INC. U.S.G.S. MAP I . . s~,· I e. . APPENDIX E I THE RARITY-ENDANGERMENT-VIGOR-DISTRIBUTION CODE* I I R (RARITY) 1 - Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely I enough that the potential for extinction or extirpation is low at this time. 2 - Occurrence confined to several populaHons or to one extended I population. 3 - Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, I or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. E (ENDANGERMENT) I 1 - Not endangered. 2 Endangered in a portion of its range. I 3 - Endangered throughout its range. v (VIGOR) I 1 - Increasing or stable in number. 2 - Declining in number. I 3 - Approaching extinction or extirpation. D (DISTRIBUTION) I 1 - More or less widespread outside California. 2 - Rare outside Calfiornia. 'I' 3 - Endemic to California. I I * California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered I Vascular Plants, Special Publication NO.1 (2nd Edition) April 1980. I I I I Literature Cited I Anza-Borrego Desert National History Association - The Birds of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park: The Mammals of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park; The Reptiles and Amphibians of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. I Burt, W. H. and Grossenheider R. P. 1976. A Field Guide to Mammals. Hougton Mifflin Company, Boston. 189 pp. I California Native Plant Society: Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1. (2nd Edition) April, 1980. I Higgins, E.B. 1949. Annotated Distributional List of the Ferns and Flowering Plants of San Diego County. California. Occ , Pap. S.D. 'I Soc. Nat. Hist, No.8. 174 pp. McMinin, H.E. 1974. An Illustrated Manual of California Shrubs. Univ. Calif. Press. 663 pp. I Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. Univ. Calif. Press 1085 pp. I Sams, J.R. and Stott, K. 1959. Birds of San Diego County, California. An Annotated Checklist. Occ. Pap. S.D. Soc. Nat. Hist. No.10. 49 pp. I Sloan, A.J. 1964. Amphibians of San Diego County. Occ. Pap. S.D. Soc. Nat. Hist. No.13. 40 pp. I Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston. 179 pp. I Udvardy, M.D.F. 1977. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds: Western Region. Alfred A. Knoph, Inc. 855 pp. I I I I I' I ,I 1& I .~ PROJECT BIOLOGISTS I David Clark I Ultrasystems, Inc. (714) 752-7500 I Survey: January 30, 1981 Ted L. Hanes, Ph.D. California State University, Fullerton I (714) 773-3614 I Survey: April 9, and April 14, 1981 Oscar F. Clark University of Calfiornia, Riverside I (714) 686-3746 Survey: February 18, 1981 (Report incorporated by reference from Borrego I Country Club General Plan Amendment EIR) I I I I I. I I I I I I . . :·~···~· e. , ..,' I DR. TED L. HANES Dr. Hanes is Associate Professor of Biology at California State I University, Fullerton. ~e teaches courses in plant ecology, general ecology, botany, biology, crisis biology, ecological internship and I graduate seminars in ecology and environmental assessment. His current research interests are in fire ecology of California chaparral and the I inventory of natural areas in Southern California. Dr. Hanes holds three degrees in plant sciences from UCLA, a I Master's degree from Claremont Graduate School in Science Education, and has done graduate work on various subjects in biology at Indiana Univer- I sity, California Institute of Technology, University of Iowa, and Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies. He has received research grants I from the National Science Foundation and the National Park Service to carry out work on fire ecology, pollution problems, and natural areas. He has been resident ecologist and naturalist several summers at the National I Audubon Camp of the West, Dubois, Wyoming. He is active in several local, state and national ecology and conservation organizations and is a con- I sultant to Ultrasystems, Inc. on environmental planning, wildland manage- ment, and ecological impact studies. I His professional memberships include: National: Sigma Xi I Ecological Society of America American Institute of Biological Sciences American Association for the Advancement of Science I American Scientific Affiliation The National Audubon Society The National Geographic Society I State: California Native Plant Society Southern California Botanists (1961-present; Board Member 1968-present; President 1969-1971) I The Nature Conservancy, Southern California Chapter (1963-1972; board member, past treasurer and vice chairman 1967-1971) I Tri-County Conservation League Southern California Academy of Sciences California Natural Areas Coordinating Council (Director I and Regional Chairman) California Native Plant Society. President of the Southern California Botanists Chapter (1972). I I I . . I - , '·· e. ".." I DR. HANES (Continued) I Dr. Hanes has recieved honors from: W. Atlee Burpee Award - UCLA, 1950 National Science Foundation Faculty Fellowship - UCLA, 1961-1962 N.S.F. Research Grant - Chaparral Succession, 1966-1968 I California State College, Fullerton Faculty Grant, 1969-1970 National Park Service Grant - UC Davis, 1971-1972 I Consultant: Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder, Colorado 1971-1972 Dr. Hanes' publications include: I Hanes, T.L., 1973. Chaparral ecology of the San Gabriel Mts., Cal ifornia I In preparation: ~ __ ~ ~' 1973. The vegetation called chaparral. Proceedings Symposium on Living with the Chaparral, Univ. Calif. Riverside, Calif. I (in press) . 1971. Succession after fire in the chaparral of I -so-u....,.tLhe-r-n-C""'a-.'-;"iMonogr.~.7Cfornia.Ecol.(1): 27-52 ~.--~~ __ ~' 1970. California sage and chaparral. Grizzly - I Bul. Tucker Wildlife Sanc. 1(2): 7-10 ~~ __ ~~ __ . 1967. Problems related to biology in the junior I college. Amer. Bio. Teacher 29 (8): 639-640 Hanes, T.L. and H.W. Jones. 1967. Postfire chaparral succession in I southern California. Ecology 48 (2): 259-264 Hanes, T.L. et al. 1966. General Biology laboratory manual. Brown Book Co., Iowa. 295 pp. I Hanes, T.L. 1965. Ecological Studies on two closely related chaparral shrubs in southern California. Ecol. Monogr. 34: 213-235 ,I Patric, J.H. and T.L. Hanes. 1964. Chaparral succession in a San Gabriel Mountain area of California. Ecology 45 (2): 353-360. J I I I I I David D. Clark Mr. Clark is a Project Manager at Ultrasystems, Inc., I and is primarily responsible for the preparation of environmental impact reports (EIR's), environmental assessments (EA's) and I related special studies. Mr. Clark received his Master of Science Degree in I Ecology and Bachelor of Arts Degree in Biology from California State University, Fullerton. Mr. Clark has augmented his educational background with additional study in Environmental Impact Analysis, I Statistical Analysis, Urban Planning Problems, etc. He is currently pursuing a Master of Business Administration Degree from California I Polytechnic University, Pomona. Prior to joining the professional staff at Ultrasystems, I Inc., Mr. Clark was employed as an Environmental Systems Analyst and Proposal /'1anagerwith Systems Control, Inc. (formerly Olson I Laboratories). During this period, he was actively involved with I a number of U.S. E.P.A. Inspection/Maintenance programs for the I i control of automotive emissions at the State level. Mr. Clark has conducted a number of biological assess- II, I ments under the sponsorship of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). His most recent effort has included an exhaustive analysis of utility I construction impacts on the vegetation and soils of arid environments. Project emphasis was placed on vegetational inventories, soil dynamics and computer modeling. I He has taught environmental and ecological courses at California State University, Fullerton, and Cerritos College. He I holds a Teaching Credential in California. I, Mr. Clark has numerous publications in both the engineering and environmental fields. Recent publications include: I 1. "Resource Allocation Patterns in Two Annuals of the California-Sonoron Desert." Submitted to Ecologia, 1979. I I I ------I . . · -,. . I e David D. Clark - (Continued) 2. "An Analysis of Construction Effects on Vegetation I and Soil s of the Colorado Desert." Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Ri"ersi.de',.," I 3. "Xylem Anatoll\Y Variati.on· in Creosote Bush (Larrea tridentata) of the Southwest Deserts." In prepara- I tion. 4. "Evaluation of Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance ,·1 Programs for the Control of Automotive Emissions." :1 U.S. E.P.A. I I :1 1 ,I· .1 :1 ·1 I :1 :1 I .1 I I TABLE 5 (CONTINUED) AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OBSERVED OR EXPECTED I COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME I Western Long-nosed Snake Rhinocheilus lecontei lecontei Desert Patchnosed Snake Salvadora hexalepis I Southern Pacfic Rattle- snake Crotalus viridis helleri I Pacific Tree Frog .t!l.!!. reg i11a Great Basin Whiptail Cnemidophorus~igri~ tigris Western Spadefoot Toad Scaphiopus .hammondi i I California Toad Bufo boreas halophilus I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I :1 APPENDIX F ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA -I DR. DAVID M. VAN HORN I I I I 'I I I I I I "'1"",., ,.; '1"'::' " .;'.:: EIBLIOGRAPay ..~....~ .' ":1":'·' '. . Bean, L.J. and K.S. Sau.bel . '....~..~.:::..' II C,~huilla 2thnobotcJnical Notes. The Aboriginal 'Uses 1961 . :'·1:····:. .:. of The Hesqui t e and Scn:~wbean.II ~ A=cnaeological . Survey k~nual Report. .:'. ····1··\ Bean, John Lowel . :"''':'''~:'' ..:j 1972 Mukat's People. Banning: Malki Museum Press. I I Bean, L.J. and K.S. Saubel :.1 :j and Usage of I 1972 'l'emalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge ".";.' " Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning. 1961 Cahuilla Ethnobotanical. Notes: The Aboriginal Uses' ..' .',:.::(~ of 'leneOak, ~ Archi"leolocricalSurvey Annual Report.··~ Bean,1978~~i~~~;Of~~t~:s~~~~~~:::~:c~orthAmericanIndians,. Lowell, J. and Shipek, Florence C. ·:1.:1.:; '. " .;." Bet~~~~er, o:~~~~t t~~ Perris Reservoir Assemblages. Perris '::'"./.:.:I.· ...·..·...:.~.. Reservoir Archaeology. Archaeological Report 14, :::~r::::t o:n:a::n:::a:::r::t:::~iSs:::::::::: ..."~ 1974 Perris Reservoir Ar.chaeology. ,:-rchaeological Report 14'.·':~1'·:~:.·:; Cal. Dept. of Parks and Recreat~on. Sacramento. .:'.,:;:;::. Colton, 9,.5. ··•.•;?i~ 1939 An Archaeological Survey of Northwestern Arizona, Including the Descriptions of Fifteen new Pottery Types. Bulletin of the ~us~ of Ar i zone , 16 '·····1·:;:·: .s- 1956 pottery Types of the Southwest. Ceramic Series 30, Museum of ~or.thern Arizona. :,"1/; Euler, Robert C. & Henry Dobyns 1956 'I'izonBrown ~'''are in Pottery Types of the Soutrn"est. j\ Edited by B.S. Colton. £'!.u.~~ 2f Northern ~~ C~Fami£ Series No. 3D. Flagstoff. Heizer, ;'.•F. and whipple, H.A. I 1951 Th2 Californiil Indians .• University of California 1973 Press, Berk.eley I I Hubbs, C.L., G.S. Bien, alld H.E. Suess 1960 La Jolla Natural Radiocarbon Neasurements I. Radioc0;-iJor,2:197-223. Kroeber, .:>•• L. 1925 Handbook of the IE,ii.,-;n,. of C.~.li':ornia.\\Tashington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute, Bureuu of: American Ethnology Bulletin, 78: 1-995. Kroeber, Alfred L. and M.J. Harnei 1955 :·1ojavePottery. U .C. Anthropological Records 16(1). ·". ';' Berkeley. c,,:· '. May, Ronald V. 1975 A Brief Survey of Kumeyaay Ethnography: Correlations Between Environmental Land-Use Patterns, Material Culture, and Social Organization.' PCAS 11:4: 1-25. 1977 No Title. Unpublished.Manuscript Draft. l>1eighan,Clement W. 1959 Archaeological Resources of Borrego State Park. Archaeological Survey Annual Report. 1958-1959, pp. 185-216. UCLA. -. 1965 Pacific Coast Archaeology. In The Quarternary of the · " United States, Wright and Frey, Eds. 1954 "A LClte Complex in Southern California Prehistory." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 10, No.2, pp. 215-227. University of New l-iexicoPress, Albuquerque •. Michelsen, Ralph C. 1967 "Pecked l-1etatesof Baja Cz Lif orn i.a;" The 1-iasterkev Southwest Museum Publications. Hcratto, 1972 ~ Study of Prehistory in the Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation presented to the Dept. of Anthropology, University of Oregon. O'Brian, T.P. 1973 Ceramic t).r-tifacts in Por r i s Ros e rvo i r 1.....rc:..acc Loqy e J..atc Prdlistoric Dernoqraph i c Change in sout.heaet.crn Cz Li f ~ J.F. 0'Connell et aL, , Eds , J\rchaeological Report 14, California Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. I I 1936 "Yuman Pottery Ivlaking." San _D_i_e_g_o_MuseumPapers, No. 2, S~n Diego. I Pn.:,l:istory" Soutrn·j02ste,rnJourn;:;l •1 ", of Anthropolocy .L"","" • (2): 167':'198. I Schroede=, Albert H. 1958 Lower Colorad9 Buff Ware in Pottery Types in the I, I:, Southwest. I-:useumof Northern Arizona Ceramic Series. 31. Spier, Leslie I:·· 1923 "Southern Digueno Customs". University of California Publications in Americun Archueology and Ethnology. Vol. 20, No. 16, pp. 297-360. Berkeley. I Strong, W.D. 1929 "Aboriginal Society in Southern California.", I' .. ". Universitv of California Publications in American Archaeoloqy and Ethnology 26. Berkeley I True, D.L. 1970 "Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego, California." I Archaeological Survey Monograph, University of Calif., Los Angeles. I~ Wallace, W.J. and E.S. T2ylor I. 1960 T'ne Indian Hill Rockshelter: Preliminary Excavat~ons. The j-lasterkey VoL 34, pp. 66-82. I Wilke, Phillip J. :1 1974 Scttlcme~t and Subsistence at Perris Reservoir: A SurnmLiryof Archaeological Investigations. Perris Rcs~i£ Archaeolo~ Late Prehistoric Demographic Cr:antft.::.in Sout~1(~:?l~3tcrnCc.~lit o r n i a , S.F. c: Cannel, I et al., eds. Archaeological Report 14. Sacramento Dept. of Parks and Recreation. I' I I I I I I List of Figures Fig. 1 Subject property plotted on the 7.5' USGS Clark Lake and I Borrego Sink Topographic Quadrangles. I Fig. 2 Archaeological sites on subject property. Fig. 3 Survey route map. , I Fig. 4 A. Southern portion of subject property looking northwest. B. Northern portion of subject property looking northwest. Area shown is part of the abandoned golf course now over- I grown with weeds. Fig. 5 A. Modern development 1n south-central portion looking I northwest. I B. Golf course on perimeter of modern development. c. Old irrigation ditch in northern portion of property looking east. I Fig. 6 A. Site A looking north. Northern boundary of site is approximately 50 yds. in front of the date palms. I B. Tizon Brown Ware sherd (just right of stake) at Site A. I Fig. 7 A. Site B looking southwest. Note trailer park beyond site. B. Sherds at site B. Fig. 8 A. Vicinity of light sherd scatter designated as Site-C. I tooking northwest. I B. Sherds at the site shown above. I I I I I I I '.1,' ,. 'Hi I -.s~+~JfL _ c~y.~ -----'11-'---'- I , &.I " n ! "Horregn School n" .I! I: / " I I , ,',.:Y I ~weu I' I t ~i o I 0::. z I· q -, Q < \ ':,-- I '\ I '. , . \1--- e o <, 8,! "--'B ~, . 0 ~ , I gl ~ ~rings I ~'\ I I\ III ( C1l j,. ,.) I, 0 I 'i' . ",il ""..a -I,' .. IIJ': 0. I "o -, \, . I '.-II \ .. . ~,'" . ,. '~ ,','" i I r. RY v- ", \ 'COUNr '" ,. " :; " , ~ RANGO ~ .. ,WAY ': 8M 50 ,.~ \ ' ...... ; ... - 1- '-,".--, \ o \ I I Figure 1. Property Survey- ed Plotted on 7.5' USGS I Clark Lake and Borrego Sink Topographic Quad- rangles. I I .-/\.. I 'I'\?O~}~'~~\t '\.) .'c.'<: 0' r I J FIGURE 2 I A large scale map depicting the location of the archaeological I sites on the project site is available for review by qualified archaeo- I logists at the County of San Diego Environmental Analysis Division. I I I I I I I I I I I <; I I I I DI CiIOIPGIO RD.~' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80RREGO 1/",fI.L.cy RO.,J , . F-igllre 3~"S~:;rVeY--R~ut~ r.1~;. I I L~~~_....~~~~~~~~~, I I I ------_.~------,__9-~O_~~ I I I I ··L:·-·~.'., 01 . , I _..... '.,." II. Sou t.hcr-n pod:'; 011 of sub j e ct p r-ope i-t.y l.ouki IIg no rthwe s t.. I I ~--_()O()l~ ..-=------I I I I I ". No rt he I'll PO!'tio n of subicc t. pl'nplTt.y l ook i ng I IWI'( 111,<'>'(. Ar-e a shown is pad "I' the abandoned go j f cour-se 110\, over-grown I wi Ll. weeds. I I I I Of)() I .: ()()()l~ .·----.-~···I I I I I I .... j< lUll It 13 • Golf course on perimeter of I II. Modern development in ~outh-central portion modern developJ:\ent lookiug northwest. I I I I I I I ." " I c. Old irrigation ditch in northern portion of property looking east. I I I I I I I I I I 1\. site 1\ look'ing uort.h , Nor-t.he r-n boundar-y of si t e 1 S I approxi,mately 50 yds. in front of the date palms. I 00011 I I I I I I I II • Tizon Brown Ware sherd (just right of stake) at I Site 1\. I I I 00011 .__ ... -.-- ._..... - --~_..._--. ._--...._'---._._---~- ..•_---- I I I I I I I A. Site B looking southwest. Note trailer park beyond site. I 00011 I I I I I I I \1,,11 u. shcr-ds at Si te s , I I Fig.? I I ooo II I .------~'-;-:;,-:1?::~ I .- ,-' I I I I A. Vicinity of light sherd I scatter designated on Site C. Looking northwest. I 000 11 I . _ .._-----_._-----_._------I I I I I I wu " 13. Shcrds at the site shown I above. I Fie.8 I �';Ih'" C"~/tl'ln~,- n.• J:,''''''~C'tC "fII"',"V NY" ":""'!I\tl or fA"'>"!' "":0 !-IH.~f...n()M Ar.Ct·;r()LO(~;r.:I\L SIT!:. ~,I;iWEy ;CEcCOHD I SiTE No. "_._'-'--_._ ..- ~_.-...~....~. I None ".r•. ., c. US(1~, C~:t::; !l!!r:!:.~~~.~.~~~-_...---.5.-- ..- 1" x IS' un,f..c:,,'!:"in,!~~ 3678,400 N; 59.280 E I '--'-' ...... -..... ~._.._~...._ ..•..... ~...._ ...... _ ..._ .. , .....--- _." ~.•.....•--- ....-_.__ ..._ ..-...-._-_.-_...-.-.-.._- .... ::.. hoiP .. .l_l_~._.__.._...... __.. f?,~"" .__ ~~_. ... : .. ~~ .. :.; d _.~w. ~;of S(>.~,_._-:.. .. _._. __ 6. L("':~I;,m 50 to 100 meters south of a date palm orchard and 50 meters I .,._ .._---.....__ ._--_.__ ..__ .-...... _._---_ ..._._-_ ..._--_._----_ ..__._--...__ ._. east of DiGiorgio Road about 1 mile southeast of Borrego Springs. _.-_ _.~._,-~._ _~•.._ '-'-_.'" _ _- .-"-'-'- ..__ ..- .-- , .._-- _. _ ---_._- _.__ _.-.-.- " _-_._ . '- --.- ...... _---_. _ •• "'- .•• __ ._- .... ~ ... ,._ •••• __ .. _------¥ ...... _--- ••.• _ ... _--_. __ .. --._---_ •• ...- .. - "'-. --- - ..... _. I - ...-.- ..... ---.- ...-.---.--.-.----. -_ ...._-._ ...__ ... _.__ . . ._._._ ..._4 .._ .._ ..._. ... _ .... _.~.-._ •• _ .~ '." •••• 4 __ _ •••• _ •••••••••••• _._ ••• •• _ __ •• _. __ '._ _ ••••• _. _. _._ .. _. __ .. ._ ,_._._ I 7. C.OnlOOJ' 5.6.0.____ e. 9. Sj\~ Oescription I ..sea t tel.:.. 1.... ts. 5"", ~~::;i! _~..!:L~.~.~_l.:.?a"!.._ ... S..movndi'·lg Soil --.~~~----.-.---_.-.-.- .. -._-- I 1G. ?;·('· ..a)t:~ E:f:::,~:-"illion None ..__ ._ -_ _ .._ _ ..__ ..__._ -..-.•..._-;' --_..-_.._-----_ ..__ - _-.- 17. Sti.f: J~·';~l!f.L:~jii;e None ---'-'" --- _,. -. __ _._ .._ - __ _._._-_ .•.._ __._-_._------_._-_ __ .._- 'fl. Oi'-;;l,uc~;,~n?v~';H)i'ity Property scheduled for development ••• _-- •• _ ...... , ...... ~ .. --- •• - ..... ---_.- ••• - ... -.-~ •• _-- ... - ... - __ ._. ooa •• I 1(). r~a'.\111!'5 None '---"" -.__ ..._-_ ..-----._.__ .._------.._-_ ....._-- --_._ .._-_ ...... __ .__ . 20. None ..-...... __ .__ .._---- .._ ..._---~_.----_..-..._._-_ .._._-----_ .._-...._-_.__ .._- I 'l·jzon·Brown Ware sherds - no other cultural materials observed • .__ ._~-_.._ ~..-._. - - ~.-.- - -, _ ..-'- ~.,.•.- _ ~..~._-_..__ _.~_.~.- _._--.- ----_._----- _ _.-0- ..•.. - _ • ...•. _ ._ •.._.,•..•._ .•. _ ,, .__ """_._~ _ ..__ ._._. ._. .._.. _ I ~._¥ •.••._._._ -'''_ ...•__ .-.••- ._- ._ .. _..~_.._-_ ..-. "---'-' •• _._._ _ •. _.-.-._ _ ••_------_-----_ .._ .•_ •. --_.__ .._._-_ ...._- ..-_.~-...... -_•...'--_._----_ ..._---- ...... __ ._..__ .. _---_._--_ .._._-- . I -'-'''-'--- _ ...... _..-'._-"-'--"--'-" _.... _.- .._.__ ...... --_ •.._-..... _._ .....__ .._....-_...._._ ..------_ ...__ .._. •.._--_ ------_ _ _- _".._._- __ -..- _._- -_. _._ .._.._--~-----___ ._- I " '.J.., •• _hx>.oli.e.1:l. .• ,, __ .._ ._ •• ... _.. _ ,__._...... _. . • .._ ••• .• I 24. I ::ji:" TV;Jp.ls)."!u"W_._ lcl -.._---.._-_.- --_..-._._-._~-_.-...- .._._,-_ .._-_ ..__ ..~--_.'-~"-'"--_ ..__ .._ .._ .._-_ ..... ---_._._----~-.---_._.- --- I \ '.' ._------_._._---_._-_._--_ _---_._-.---_.---_._----- .._------_._ - I I Attached I I I I I I Attached I I I I I I iuV;-tJ :.;i~·::;·,::: I CO'<;(aM,~:,;~. (\J. :n:J.u :';'1"0 Of Cftti~'('l~n;""-. Tn...P.'l'~,,y;;!:11 A~ .. t>EP.H!lMPlT or "AI1t..~;.tNO "'~':m;"'lIO/ll M,CHE0tOGIC/.L StH ~;~':RVry Hf=CORO I SITE No . I .r • N onu . .- _. ""." -._~ ~._ . 3. i.l:';C::~: O .-J _B.'UI.«£..O ..~\.J.l.L _ _._._ 7~·"_._~_ 1~" V,,,,,,__ ._!959 •• __ 36 36 5 5 4. I UTMC'v~na1e:, __..' 7:x,.~g.Q.__..__ ?~!..?ggl'J.i._. ~.~!.?~..9.._ _.__ ?~.!..~.9.9E.._ _.__ .._ .. T~J;) •.nS _ _ f1ci·';>.· ...•• _ ..?~~ ; <:a.st.e.~.l or'.~~. ._ ,.•(If Sec._._~ ..•.._._ .. c. Lur~l;(,r. _9.f}.~!lL~.l~.S.!i!~~L ..~.'?E~e,g.'~_..~E!:.L~Il~....J.~~~_~._'?.!'....~iG~~rgio Rd:..•_ I and north of a modern trailer park (not shown on Quad). -,. '.',_._ •• _ •••••• - ••• _.- ••••• -." •••••••• --"'-- •.~ •• "_ •• _- _ _ •• _.~_ •• ~~ ••• __ ••••• 0" _ •• _ _ ••• _ •• • --_._."-'-'- --_.....-.._-_ ..... ---.-_.. -~....--~------.._--. __ .._~...._---_ ..._.- .-.'...... - ..__ ...... _------I _.-._ .._--_.- ...._-.__ ...,------...._------_ ..------_._ .._-'---_ .._._---_ ..._ ....__ ..... - ~•. -.------~_ •.~_,-"·_0' _. _~.~.... .•••• • •.• __ ••__ • _ ._.•.•. _' •••• __ ._ _. ~_ _._. •••_. ._. ._._ ..__ •• I 7. COfl(O',jf. '..5.B.O ---.8 . G·,."TI~~& ;\ddrt.'"SS ...<,;.e~el" de ...... +- d....D ~~ ' n~~~n+- ...... -...... '''_''__r ,« .••• _.__ 9. ;·t~~'6\c.\rt:.-,,-__ F tt1fl:JfjJ··:tP~II(; ._._ Hilo'()J'~c 10. $jte Di1~;,ivth:m I ------_._--,------_ ..._-_ ...._.--_.-. ...------:------I 11. A;,,;, 1.Q.Q.. ' l.1.Q. ",e'm. !.~.6-,.QQ.2-. :''lu:.re ",etC!!.. 12. D"Pfh of "'i\loe~~':.e~!~~,:~.~_.. Sj:~ Vt.·~F~~;~;on~.r_E1.2.~_ 14. lu,,~!i,)!o~ PII"cjmil" u~W~:..r Well for da te palm orchard, no perennial water in vicini tfl -_..- .•. _ .._ ...._ .... -~--~-.__ ._---,_ ...-... . - ._----_ ..... 15. Sj,.~SO" c;!rv sa.99..Yloam Surroundirl\! Soil Same -_ ... _-- _..------_._._-----_._-_ ....-.. ..--_.- 1G. ?(t" ..;,)u~ '2.'\:.!...·rHio=' None "~-_._..__..' _.._ .._..._._--~..__ ._..._._-_._, _.__..------"'._------I· 11. -'-_ ....uncertain_ ...•.. '._._~_._.._._-_._._ .....__ ...__ .....-.- ....__ .... _ ..__ .•._------_._--._-- 18. D"" tr _ " _--., - -_._ .._ __ ._..- __ .__ ._._ ..-_..__ ._._ __ __._.__ __ _---_ .._ _-----_ - --...-_._-_ .._--_ ...._------~.-...... _. _. _.- ~~-_.'-'-----_._ ..._--_ ..-_..._---_._---_._-- :~'i. F 8;1:-}';"'· r\(:·~I:SJj"l.~ .-NaRe-.e9&G.p.v6G ..._ ._.~__ ._,__ ...... __•._..... __.- . _ I ...•.. __.-_._~. - ...... ~"...... - .•- .•. -- ..- ..--~--- __ .•_.,_ ... __ • _.....A·••.A_._ ..... __ .~•._...__ ._A_._._~ .. ~ 4.._ _ ...._~._ ..._...._._ .._--..~.-..-...._.- .._ ..-~''''-', "'--,,--- _..~....-...-.._._.-- -.------_ ...~_. I Probably a gathering site. N'I indications of occupation ...... -. - .•...... , -,- ..-._ _ __ ..- _.._ --_..-.__ ~-_.-_._--_._._------_._~.- ...._._ .. "..•- _,--- _ - -_. -,-,,'._---- - _ .._--_ --.._-_ '_ .._ -. -----_._-_._- I 24. /.oJ..". Riolo:.:..'!'.h.-(j By ,...V.an....llo.r.o ._. _ 1 Of'R 422 (R;;\I. 9;76) I f JI, I H ::';,: ",:, :,~, ~',;,~(~ __ ~,', De ,,,, '1' ';.:>iic'l1 ",oJ,,' ;"~1:~'r_'~~:;·:~i"'l'!"..X I I I fl E:r.~,'.n;::~i. ,..P.r9.P.Ab ly" •.!1_ I I " , : ~.:ttet nt c.1iftl""~;- Thl\- ~or"':..l'';'~ Af"C'':'V C'fP4IHMIiIVT or f' .. .,.~ "'.,w "lH'''~'''lll:\N ARCHi-'()L()C;iC;.\t $t"rf: \\)f\~/EY FfE:Cf)RD I SiT E flJo...... _._._ .... I I I I J. US '_i~.(}....A-: .fJ.§l1.'.~_~~1y...._.,.. .._ /",' .~ _ 1S' _. __ . Ycal _._t~~.~__..__ __., I I ~. UT~JC~...:,cjin~tc'~ 36.79• 320N' _._ .._.2_ .•.••....• 559 1 160E " -•.__ _._ •• _-.-- _-._ ..• - . I I o. h·:;:o..•.•. }}.~._._ _ _ H.'.ln')" .§~__ : .§~._ _.•._"~ d ••_1'i~ ,. 'Jf Sec. __ ._4 _ . I I I i;, L~)':~\.(,;r. ~!-d.J~~!;~~to_~~~~ ic.I~, 9f._Dit!..~~EEi.9_:.!3~.:.-L.._2...1!~_~ndJi.llli l~L,._. . I ESE of Borrego springs. I> ...... ~ -..- ~_ _ ,_ _ '_.-•.._._ ,., ._ _ _.'_.~..__ .- .-.'- .". - ._. --_ ,._.- ---_ ..---~-----;..__ .,_ _ _----_.-. I I -_.- -._-._- _ - .._~~-_.._- _ _ -._--_.- .--_.~-----_ ~- _ _--~_._._.~._-_-~ _._- ~---_. I I f, ...... _ -..-_. __ ._.---~_._-_._-- __ ._-_._-_ _---_ ..__ -_ - __ .. _----_._ .._._--_._ __ _ ..-.•~ , " _~ ••• __ ...... __ ... _. _. _ ••• __ ._ ... _ ••••• _ ••••• _ •• ·N ••• •• _ •• _ ••• _._ ••• _ ...... - .... _ •• _ •••••• __ • __ •••••••• _ ••••• _ •• _._. _ ..... _._ ...... _ .. -._._-_ •• -.-.-- .~-.- I 7. C(·nl~" .... 520 9. Site DCSl.:flptiop I ...__J~.gh.t...~h.~.r9.._~9.a.t.ts:x _ _ __ --.-.--- .. -- --.-- --.---.------. --_.-_._ ..._---•..._-_._-_ ..--_.__ .--. _ ...- ..._-~._.•._---_._-_ •.._ ..__ ._.--_._ ...... _-_ .._._._.----- I I L~lJ!ioi'I:~ jJ'Joxi:~'ljt'( \;1\~JfJt-?r ..9.~~_;y...~.99:~~.wel~~ il}--'!.i9i.ni ty ._...... _..._..._. Slt~ ~::)j; ...... ?-!.:~._~~~_'!Y_IO~I?. •• Surr('W.J:->Cing Soil 2.~ ..__.__._..-: ...... _. _ Pl·£" ..:jt'l- ~ E'I(.:;:vation _ _.~-?_l?:~ _ __ _.._ _._ ._ ._._ _._. _ I S;tf::J;,;;~,'~.JI'£e__.... __ .~_O!;.s.!!.:~!i?~_.~t.·._1?~0_..?!1ii.~.-l,I.~--_· ..·_·.....:. •__ _..pe.r::c.en.tag.e. •.of....s.ite. __ -- -.- ..------.-- --.----- •.._ _-'-.•.. I 24. HXOI!lI.-d By ._-llal:l.-Io1=- __ • ...__ :.'6. !)~t~ f\(~;~L;..~.!!"o.1 ._~....3/1.3./..'l.9_.:_ .._...._...- :~?.. I '/".o. I ? I!oau cons l.rue t.j oil : ! "";',:". -:.., 'I , -, I , v- I I I flEru_r,;.~~.; -Much _._~ ..~~.,.•.._ of .• - .•.'--.----site .. probably ------_ ••. __ '~'"destroyed •.._.~ •...• by _.'_'_". DiGiorgio ~_ ... __•..•,_._u. __ --:~•._ Road. .• _ •... __ •.. More of.._ .._'._._ the site ...... _..••. may "__ • _ _.._he_ p,resent.. ..an ..th.e,..w.est_side._uf_ ..th e rpa d .•..._tlii..s-ar.ea..w.as. ...no t SJ! rY.fW.e.d..as ...i±..._._ ._.l'(a§...!lQ.1dLmt.r:t....2.f....tb...e _§.IJ!?j_~. ,1 Attached I I I I Attacned I I ,1 I I o .....i \,.. IP .r-...... ~ I to ...... ~.,._w·",•• ,.. _.. ''''. w ..... l:3S0 EI P'ado, Ba!boa Park, San D;('~Jo,Calilorn;a 92101, Telephone (714) 239·2001 1 Page of 11 REPORT Gt~ J\!(CHAEOLOGIC.tU. SITE FILES RECOIlD SfA~CH ------_.._ ...-._-----,- Al'C·(I·.nO"'A-··~~al ·1U~"'I,·~':~t··.-.: r)...'..·~,·l,:,",'."\"1":", •• ,) '~':'''''!'''','.~, Sou r ce of Request :__ " ,~,; .:."LJ ,.< ,,' .... ':"=::"_' ..~.:_~ .__ .,::: ._ I Date of Request: 29 January 1979 (A)Letter ()Telephone ( ) In pcrsl Ira t e Request' Recei,ved: 30 January 1979 (I: )Map Received Returned Name 'of Project: Borrep,c Springe are8 I ,-I- ( ) The MU,seumof ~!an files show no r ecnrd ed sites for the pr oj ec t arca. I ?( ) The !o!useumor ~Ian files shew the following sites ( )within (X)in the vicinity of I I·:: the project area. i w";, , I, . 'j Site No. C-l,31 CuI ture (s) :_C:.:a:.:h.:,:u::i:::l:::1R=-- -I1- Description: Gener's L site num"ber for Borrt!go VAlley; many campsites uith cobbf.e hp.srths, cremations, shcrds,etc. No specific locations. I Re corded by: ..:~.~r.Rog~ __ t·; Site No. (",..u90 Culture(s): r~te Pre-historic Description: Camp site; hearths; stacked rock circle; hammeratones; core~; 1- flakea/debitage; scrapers; metatee; manos; sherds; shell; retouched tools; milling slabs. Recorded by: R.MaX 1977 I- CuI tur e (5) : _.. Site No.---- Description: I I ~ ' !' ,i , ' Please ncte: The project area may conr.a t n archaeological re scur ce s in addition to those I not.ed above. ThLs report is made from San Diego Museum of Man files only and may not include data pertaining to localities other than those covered in pre v ious Museum of l"UJtl surveys or gathered by other institutions or by individuals. I Record check by: Grace Johnaon~~ _ Oate : 31 January 1979_ Signed: ~~~~U1~ ...... ;; ~."...r:: .,,' :.. ~'I. ~., " ~. J{'" I , ,, I ! I :;-:t :.: , ...',;..~" .' "I. :,:'.'.-' ••- I~7"0 ", I ", I~ : :;:;: .,'-' ...... 1 ·••..~'l I I , ....~.. ~,i e I - . ..).~ I' ' , .~~~.~..-~-, i .•. ~ .~ '. ---~...... ~ _~;._ ~. " ,.- ." ... .. ' , ~1- ' . . v; _ '" • ..~ r >, ./3' I : J, ~ ,'.:':';-~ ":. ':;- :.: .: .:. .5 ;'1'I I '. '0; I , " I, I ! .' DIEGO UNIVERSITY SAN DiEGO. CAliFORNIA 92182 I I BEJ')RT 01; ABC;-i,GOLOGICAL SITE 1'1123 Rf~CJaT.J Si::ARCH I Source of Request-- AHC;U~0r~GI~ALAJS08IATE3,~TD I Date of R€~uest--January 29, 1979 I Date R~quezt Received- -Ianuary 30, 1979 I I Project Identification-- CLark Lake, Borrego SiCk I I ( X) The San Dicbo 3tate University files show no recorded site for the Project ar ( ) The files show positive site locations in the vi~inity/on the project area. Site forms are 1n~luded. II .. R"'cord check Date-:39~ \) 117'1 I Si..g:led-- I I I I : 1 I I .. 1 I THE CALIFORNiA STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGtS I .1 · ('," ..... ~~,:~',:. ~ ,il I'" . I I I I 'h'.,,~ 11 I I I j " :1 1 i I'"� ,I ...I .." t··, ".<-' .- ~ . . I j i ...~.. ~ I II I I ._.... I .- ~I ::- ...~ '-'.. ',." ~ ~.' I :; I' :;. , ~" CI ''>• 't, t,..,.11 • . ,~-, \ .":,, l II!.I••·.... I e o . . ...~.. '. I .". > .' , '., .~.. ~~ ...... ~ " -, I It! M ... o . , e ''b, ' .. ~ o :::: . , Ql ..... -'. , . I I ·}~~i~'. ., llom:g, . rJ~04_~. "' ... :-, - '. , I 1,'\~~, 1:) : " i c I ...." ).1~""81 \. ... I~,I. ;"." SAN DIEGO MUSEUM OF MAN , . I 1350 EI Prado, Balboa Park. San Diego. California 92101. Telephone (714) 239-2001 Page 1 of 1 REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ~ILES RECORD SEARCH - -I Source of Request: Archaeological ASfiociates - David M. Van Horn Date of Request: 29 January 1979 (X)Letter ()Telephone C) In Per sol Date Request Received: 30 January 1979 (x )Map Received (X)Map Returned Name of Project: Borrego Springs area I ( ) The Museum of Man files show no recorded sites for the project area. I ~) The Museum of Man files show the following sites ( )within (X)in the vicinity of the project area. I Site No, C-131 Cul ture (s) :_C:::a:::h.:,:u:::i:.::1::l::::a:...- _ , ;. Description: General site number for Borrego Valley; many campsites with cobble i~ hearths, cremations, sherds,etc. No specific locations. I I Recorded by: M.J.Rogere Site No, C-u90 CultureCs): Late Pre-historic I Description: Camp site; hearths; stacked rock circle; hammerstones; cores; flakes/debitage; scrapers; metates; manos; sherds; shell; retouched tools; milling slabs. Recorded by: R.May 1977 I Site No, _ Culture (s) :__ -'- 1 Description: Recorded by: 1 CuI ture (s ) : Site No.----- 1 Description: Recorded by : ~ __ -II Site No. _ Culture (s) : _ ,r Description: I Recorded by: Site No. _ Cul ture (s) : ----!!!!!..1 Description: Recorded by: _I Please note: The project area may contain archaeological resources in addition to those noted above. This report is made from San Diego Museum of Man files only I and may not include data pertaining to localities other than those covered in previous Museum of Man surveys or gathered by other institutions or by individuals. I Record check by: Grace Johnson Date: 31 January 1979 , Signed: ~4H.'/ l~) L , ,' I .... ~ ,,' I ... s .' . .; l ~ I ~::1 N: ,<, ~.. ,,' I' ~, .. 32 ..,i Ii i ", -'1';:1 ' " '\ -,' SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92182 Oepanmf>nt 01 AnthropolOgy BEPORT ON ARCHMOLOGICAL SITE PILES RECORD SEARCH Source of Request-- ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, LTD Date of Re~uest--January 29, 1979 Date Request Received-- January 30, 1979 Project Identification-- Clark Lake, Borrego Sink ( X) () l() Date-~ THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGES 29 I .' " <, I I I - i ~I ~ ,- , I ~ I I~ I '.1 ,•• :: I " '1 'n'WI' ingsi '.,., .. I. <. ,;,1 .. ;. \1._ ~I • i i. 1\' ~ '\ 4 3 . ;'" -, , I , <:..,1 ,,'J:, , h, II ,. .\.iji~:-~~~,· T; 'If ," :.t>*,".1 '" ' ",. ..-;: . , , " " \ '.1:. Ii 1 I ;H I . ""'I' \' ,,, .._~,._.. i.nlollm , -.: n·--·· ..-" ,', , ~.. '. ,\, ,1, [ " u" :;H :t :: &,: I' I •• 1' o, I I I J I ··t I I" I ,. :1 ~ I "t~ APPENDIX G I TABLE 1 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS/TILTING T DRIVE I Average Daily Traffic 7300. Percent Medium Trucks .5 Percent Heavy Trucks .5 I Speed-Autos (MPH) 40. Speed-Trucks (MPH) 40. I CNEL Criteria (dB) 55. Distribution of Traffic Percent Daytime Percent Evenin~ Percent Night Time I Autos 77.5 12.9 9.6 M-Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 I H-Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 Noise Barrier Geometry Horizontal Distance from Source to Barrier (Ft.) 65.0 I Height of Barrier Base Above Roadway Base (Ft.) 0.0 Horizontal Distance From Source to Receptor (Ft.) 80.0 I Height of Receptor Above Roadway Base (Ft.) 5.0 Traffic Noise Levels and Noise Barrier Heights Traffic Noise Level (CNEL) Without Noise Barrier 59.9 I Noise Barrier Height to Meet CNEL Criteria 6.0 Height of Top of Barrier Above Roadway Base 6.0 I Attenuated Noise Level (CNEL) Achieved With Barrier 54.9 I I I I I I I I- APPENDIX G I TABLE 2 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS/BORREGO VALLEY ROAD I Average Daily Traffic 16000. I Percent Medium Trucks 1.5 Percent Heavy Trucks .5 Speed-Autos (MPH) 45. I Speed-Trucks (MPH) 40. CNEL Criteria (dB) 55. Distribution of Traffic I Percent Daytime Percent Evening Percent Night Time Autos 77.5 12.9 9.6 I M-Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 H-Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 I Noise Barrier Geometry Horizontal Distance From Source to Barrier (Ft.) 65.0 Height of Barrier Base Above Roadway Base (Ft.) 0.0 I Horizontal Distance From Source to Receptor (Ft.) 80.0 Height of Receptor Above "Roadway Base (Ft.) 5.0 I Traffic Noise Levels and Noise Barrier Heights Traffic Noise Level (CNEL) Without Noise Barrier 64.7 Noise Barrier Height to Meet CNEL Criteria 10.0 I Height of Top of Barrier Above Roadway Base 10.0 Attenuated Noise Level (CNEL) Achieved With Barrier 54.9 I I I I I I I' I �e APPENDIX G TABLE 3 I' TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS/DI GIORGIO ROAD I Average Daily Traffic 6000. Percent Medium Trucks .5 Percent Heavy Trucks. .5 Speed-Autos (MPH) 40. I Speed-Trucks (MPH) 35. CNEL Criteria (dB) 55. I Distribution of Traffic Percent Daytime Percent Evening Percent Night Time Autos 77.5 12.9 9.6 I· M-Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 H-Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 I Noise Barrier Geometry Horizontal Distance From Source to Barrier (Ft.) 65.0 Height of Barrier Base Above Roadway Base (Ft.) 0.0 I Horizontal Distance From Source to Receptor (Ft.) 80.0 Height of Receptor Above Roadway Base (Ft.) 5.0 I Traffic Noise Levels and Noise Barrier Heights Traffic Noise Level (CNEL) Without Noise Barrier 58.8 Noise Barrier Height to Meet CNEL Criteria 6.0 I Height of Top of Barrier Above Roadway Base 6.0 Attenuated Noise Level (CNEL) Achieved With Barrier 53.8 I' I: 1- 'I I I I', r BORREGO SPRINGS PARK i San Diego County, California SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DATA FOR FLOOD CONTROL, WATER, AND SEWERAGE FACILITIES Prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation 1501 Quail Street Newport Beach, California 92660 January 1980 SOLlIe EnQineerinQ Corporation ;,.... ' FEDERATED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY May 8, 1980 Attention 11k. Herschel Berkus, Vice President 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1212 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Borrego Springs Country Club Flood Control, Water and Sewerage Facilities This report concludes an engineering investigation concerning flood control·, wcrer and sewerage facilities required for the ultimate development of Borrego·S·prings Country Club. Its purpose is to provide supplemental information that con be used in a more comprehensive EIR (by others) that will satisfy CEQA requirements for the property. Recommendations are made for the type of flood control, water end sewerage faci Iities based on an analysis of alternatives that ore presented. Environmental impects end mitigation measures are discussed for the el rernct lves , The water supply study in this report is based on a separate study performeci by 11k. David A. ?hoenix entitled "An Appraisel of the Groundwarer Resources in the Northern Subbasin of the Borrego Vel ley Reservoir, San Diego County, with Emphasis on the Recovery of Groundwater from the Borrego Springs Pork Area, " dated July 1979. BZf_rQING CORPi·ORATiON Victor E. OPince~ Senior Civil Engineer\ ---- " '..,.;',.:'.. ;..'..; ;- '. ; :', "-....J vm Encl. W-FOl-001-01 • 1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS ') Section Page I 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1 I 1.1.1 New Development 1-1 1.1.2 Flood Control 1-2 1.1.3 Water Supply i 1-3 1 1.1.4 Sewerage Facilities 1-3 .... 1.2 APPLICATION AND PERMITS 1-4 I 1.2.1 Flood Control 1-4 1.2.2 Water Supply 1-5 1.2.3 Sewage Reclamation 1-5 1.3 MATERIALS TO BE TREATED AND DISCHARGED 1-5 1.3.1 Flood Control 1-5 1.3.2 Water 1-7 1.3.3 Sewage Reclamation 1-8 1.4 METHOD OF TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE 1-9 1.4.1 Flood Control 1-9 1.4.2 Water Supply 1-10 1.4.3 Sewage Reclamation 1-10 1.5 EXISTING FACILITIES 1-10 1.5.1 Flood Control 1-10 1.5.2 Water System 1-10 1.5.3 Wastewater 1-11 1.6 NEW FACILITIES 1-12 1.6.1 Flood Control 1-12 1.6.2 Water 1-13 1.6.3 Sewage 1-1"1 1.7 SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY 1-15 1.7.1 Flood Control 1-15 1.7.2 Water Supply 1-15 1.7.3 Sewage Reclamation 1-15 2.0 ENVIRONMENT AL SETTING 2-1 2.1 LOCATION 2-1 2.2 REGIONAL SETTING 2- 1 2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 2-2 Table of Contents - 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Section 2.4 GEOLOGY 2-3 2.5 TOPOGRAPHY 2-5 2.6 CLIMATE 2-6 2.7 WATERSHED PHYSIOGRAPHY 2-7 2.8 WATERSHED HYDROLOGY 2-9 2.9 GROUNDWATER 2-14 2.9.1 Existing Setting 2-14 2.9.2 Groundwater Basin Characteristics 2-15 2.9.3 Groundwater Basin Recharge 2-17 2.9.4 Groundwater Basin Use 2-19 2.10 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER QUALITY 2-20 2.11 MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY 2-22 2.12 RECEIVING WATERS 2-26 2.13 EXISTING EFFLUENT COMPLIANCE 2-27 3.0 IMPACTS 3-1 3.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 3-1 3.2 CHANGES IN SURFACE WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY 3-2 3.2.1 Flood Control 3-2 3.2.2 Water Supply 3-3 3.2.3 Sewage Reclamation 3-3 3.3 CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY 3-3 Flood Control 3-3 Water Supply 3-4 Sewage Reclamation 3-5 3.4 LAND- USE CHANGES 3-6 3.4.1 Flood Control 3-6 3.4.2 Water Supply 3-6 3.4.3 Sewerage System 3-7 3.5 REGIONAL AND LOCAL POLICIES 3-7 3.5.1 Flood Control 3-7 3.5.2 Water Supply 3-7 3.5.3 Sewage Reclamation 3-8 3.6 REGIONAL AND LOCAL SERVICES 3-8 3.6.1 Flood Control 3-8 3.6.2 Water Supply 3-9 3.6.3 Sewage Reclamation 3-9 Table of Contents - 2 1 \ TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Section Page 3.7 AIR QUALITY 3-9 3.7.1 Flood Control 3-9 3.7.2 Water Supply 3-9 3.7.3 Sewage Treatment Plant 3-10 -1 I 3.8 OPERATION OF FACILITIES 3-10 3.8.1 Flood Control 3-10 3.8.2 Water System 3-11 3.8.3 Sewage Treatment Plant 3-11 3.9 ENERGY 3-12 4.0 FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 4-1 4.1 NO PROJECT 4-1 4.2 LEVEE PROTECTION SYSTEM 4-2 4.3 CONVENTIONAL FLOOD-CHANNEL SYSTEM 4-4 4.4 IMPOUND SYSTEM 4-5 4.5 ELEV ATED BUILDING PADS SYSTEM 4-7 4.5.1 Ten-Acre Ranch Residences 4-7 4.5.2 Five-Acre Ranchette Residences 4-8 4.5.3 Single-Family Type Residences 4-8 4.5.4 Patio-Home Type Residences 4-9 4.5.5 Attached Single Family Residences 4-9 4.5.6 Communi ty Center 4-9 4.5.7 Open Space. Golf Course. Maj or Circulation. and Existing Development 4-9 4.5.8 Conclusion 4-10 4.6 RECOMMENDED FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM 4-10 5.0 WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES 5-1 5.1 NO PROJECT 5- 1 5.2 BORREGO GROUNDWATER BASIN 5-1 5.2.1 Water Supply 5-1 5.2.2 Water Demand 5-2 5.2.3 Water Storage 5-4 5.2.4 Water Distribution System 5-5 5.2.5 Cost Estimate 5-5 5.3 IMPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SUPPLY 5-6 5.4 RECLAMATION OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT 5-11 5.5 REGIONAL WATE,R SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 5-12 5.6 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 5-13 Table of Contents - 3 .....r TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Section Page 6.0 SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES 6-1 6.1 NO PROJECT 6-1 6.2 EXP ANSION OF EXISTING PLANT 6-1 6.3 WASTE TREATMENT DISCHARGE STANDARDS 6-2 6.4 WASTE TREATMENT FOR PERCOLATION 6-2 6.5 WASTE TREATMENT FOR RECLAMATION 6-3 6.6 EXPORTATION OF EFFLUENT 6-7 6.7 REGIONALIZATION OF FACILITIES 6-7 6.8 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ·6-8 7.0 MITIGATION 7-1 7.1 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 7-1 7.2 FLOOD CONTROL 7-3 7.3 SOILS AND GEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 7-4 7.4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 7-4 7.5 GROUNDWATER QUANTITY 7-6 ***** Table 2-1 ,'BORREGO SPRINGS PARK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED LAND- USE CLASSIFICATION 2-3 2-2 BSPCWD EXISTING WELL CAPACITY 2-23 2-3 BSPCWD DOMESTIC WATER QUALITY 2-24 2-4 BSPCWD ULTIMATE POPULATION 2-26 2-5 BSPCWD EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS 2-28 3-1 ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION WITHIN BSPCWD 3-12 5-1 BSPCWD ESTIMATED PEAK DAY DEMANDS WITH FIRE FLOWS 5-3 5-2 BSPCWD ESTIMATED WATER USE AT ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT 5-3 5-3 BSPCWD WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS 5-4 5-4 BSPCWD ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF MAJOR WATER FACILITIES FOR ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT 5-6 5-5 PROJECT CONVEYANCE FACILITIES DATA TO IMPORT WATER TO BORREGO VALLEY 5-10 5-6 ESTIMATED COST OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO IMPORT WATER TO BORREGO VALLEY 5-10 L Table of Contents - 4 Appendix 1 FLOOD CONTROL COMPUT ATrONS Table of Contents - 5 .::t...... 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1.1 New Development. Additional flood control, water, and sewerage facilities are required to complete the development of 1,087.3 acres known as Borrego Springs Park located in Borrego Springs, San Diego County, California. Figures 1-1 and 1- 2 show the vicinity map and general location of the proposed Borrego Springs Park development. The existing general plan for the area consists of three classifications: residential, rural residential, and multiple rural use. The develop- ment plan proposes a variety of housing types, densities. and conse- quently price ranges to meet that demand. Ultimately, -32.g single family units, 202 patio homes, 244 attached units, forty 5-acre ranchettes, and twenty 10-acre ranchettes are proposed in addition to existing homes for a total of 967 dwelling units. The plan proposes to provide permanent as well as seasonal housing for future residents. Many residents are expected to be retired and the developer plans to propose incorporation of energy conservation measures in the design of housing to reduce utility demand: evap-coolers in place of air-conditioners. solar heating in pools, north window orientation. and roof overhangs. A resort complex and community center incorporating com- mercial development is also proposed. It is expected to offer local convenience shopping, hotel facilities, and future office space, some of which could be devoted to medical and dental offices. It is pro- posed to be located along Tilting Drive on the east side of the 1-1 1 '! i development. This centr-al location will serve residents with a 'I minimum of travel distance. The central shopping area in Borrego Springs is 1 mile to the northwest of the site. The proposed development meets the recreation and open space requirements by the retention of a nine-hole golf course and a par-3 , i golf course as two open space entities surrounded by and integrated with the residential units. Additional open space is proposed around an existing sewage treatment plant on the east side of the site and along flood control levees which are either existing or will be neces- sary within the site. Tennis courts. a clubhouse. and a driving range are included in the recreation designation. Table 2-4 summarizes the total development for Borrego Springs Park which is completely within the boundary of Borrego Springs. 1.1.2 Flood Control Flood protection provisions are required for the ultimate build out of the Borrego Springs Park development. The recommended flood protection for Borrego Springs Park is to control intermittent upstream runoff around and through the development utilizing earth levees, drainage s wal es , ditches. raised building pads. and the existing golf course areas in a manner that will maintain the integrity of the onsite impr-overn ent s and minimize adverse effects to any downstream properties. Onsite drainage runoff mostly follows the natural drainage pattern and will be directed utilizing drainage swal es , streets. and the existing golf courses to the areas designated to car-ry the upstream runoff. This can be accomplished by the flood control system shown in Figure 4-1. 1-2 1.1.3 Water Supply Water supply. storage. pumping. and dis trib ution fac ili ties are required for the development of 835 residential units and related facilities proposed in the Borrego Springs Park plan. The develop- ment is completely within the boundary of the Borrego Springs Park County Water District (BSPCWD) and will be supplied by water from that entity. The water district owns and maintains water wells and a distri- bution system to serve existing development. The District's system will need to be expanded to serve the proposed development which will result in a buildout condition within the District. The proposed water system improvements consist of a 1.5- million gallon (MG) below- grade reservoir. booster pumping station with at least one fire pump driven by an engine for emergency power outages. and a new well as backup to the District's existing supply wells. All new facilities would be built as part of the Borrego Springs Park development and turned over to the District. The purpose of these improvements to the water system is to provide a reliable source of water within the District in accord- ance with sound engineering practices for a high qual ity water system. This system will meet standards set by the state health department effective January 6. 1980. under Title 17 of the California Adminis- trative Code. 1.1 .4 Sewerage Facilities Sewage collection. treatment. and disposal facilities are also required for the Borrego Springs Park development. The BSPCWD will also provide this service to the development since it currently l ----"1_-..:..3 _ ..... operates the sewage system that serves existing homes within the District and is master planned to serve the proposed Borrego Springs Park development (i.e •• which will completely build out the area within the District). The treatment and disposal facilities proposed for the District to serve the ultimate development consist of constructing a new second- ary treatment plant. Chlorination and filtration of the effluent will be provided so it can be used for irrigation of the golf course areas. During low flow or wet weather periods. the District will have the option of percolating the effluent into the basin by using percolation areas within the treatment plants ite . Significant cost savings may be realized by construction of this plant under joint-powers agreement with the adjacent Borrego Water District with adequate capacity to serve new development in both districts. The cost savings would not only be in the capital costs but also in the long-run annual operational and maintenance expense. The purpose of the new treatment facilities is to provide ade- quate treatment to meet requirements of the state and local regulatory agencies. 1.2 APPLICATION AND PERMITS 1.2.1 Flood Control The earthen levees at the northern end of the project site are intended to eventually become part of the Borrego Valley General Plan for Flood Control Improvements under the authority of the Zone 5. Advisory Commission of the San Diego Flood Control Dis- trict (ACSDFCD No.5). Application to the ACSDFCD No.5 will be made to assure the coordination of flood control improvements in the Borrego Valley. 1.2.2 Water Supply The BSPCWD currently has the appropriate permits to operate the existing water supply system. The expansion of the existing water supply system to construct a new well will require application to the State of California Board of Health to document the quality of the well. 1.2.3 Sewage Reclamation The BSPCWD currently has Order No. 76-10 from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), Colorado River Region, setting waste discharge requirements for the existing develop- ment. The BSPCWD has applied for a permit with discharge require- ments for the utilization of sewage effluent for golf course irrigation from an expanded treatment plant. The following two objectives will be required to provide sewage treatment and disposal at the Borrego Springs Park development: 1) Processing of a new wastewater discharge permit by the CRWQCB. 2) The construction of fully operational facilities which comply with treatment and discharge requirements. 1.3 MATERIALS TO BE TREATED AND DISCHARGED 1.3.1 Flood Control In order to protect the site to the most efficient and effective extent feasible, a system of levees, drainage ditches, and utilization of raised building pads would be built to divert flow around and away from proposed structures. Fi!SUre 4-1 shows the direction and volume of the peak 100-year canyon runoff flows that sheet across the Borrego Valley floor from the mountain watersheds to the Borrego Sink. Figure 4- 2 shows the proposed floodworks diverting or controlling the flows. l 1-5 \ i The peak flows shown in Figure 4-1 were compiled in the San Diego County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control 1972 l Borrego Valley report using the hydrograph method for the mountain watersheds. Due to the individual geography of each canyon and j history of valley floods, these peaks are not considered by the county """] I to occur simultaneously. These individual peak flows pass from the ! mouth of the canyons", meandering in many cases, forming a series of channels. Structures would be protected from the worst case since the floodworks are sized to divert or control the largest peak runoff flow from the mountain watersheds. Structures would be protected from the northerly direction with a 4-foot-high levee diverting flows around the north end of the project for the 11, 700-cubic foot per second (cfs) flow from Borrego Palm Canyon, the largest of the northwesterly mountain watersheds. Structures would be protected from the westerly direction by raising the building pad on the 10- acre ranch parcels just west of Di Giorgio Road 2 feet above the calculated depth of flow and then controlling the flow at Di Giorgio Road to divert the flow around and through the project site for the 1,300-cfs flow from Dry Canyon. the largest uncontrolled westerly mountain watershed. Tubb Canyon. the largest of the westerly watersheds, has been effec tive ly diverted around the project site. Even in the worst case of this diversion being removed, the raised structures and diversions would still protect the project site. The appendix contains the calculations for the depths of flow and veloci- ties using the Federal Flood Insurance guidelines for alluvial fan special flood hazard zone mapping. 1-6 The lOO-year frequency onsite runoff was calculated by the unit hydrograph method to show an approximate 8 percent increase be- tween the existing condition before development versus the proposed condition after development. The following is a summary of these - computations: ONSITE RUNOFF Before Development After Development Area 1.087.3 acres 1,087.3 acres Runoff 1.2 1, 336 cfs 1.442 cfs cfs/acre 1.23 1.33 1100-year frequency. 6-hour precipitation for Borrego Valley zone found to be 3 inches per Sheet II-A-7. County of San Diego hydrology manual approximated for computation method. 2County of Orange Flood Control District hydrology manual method for development of unit hydrograph computations. 1.3.2 Water The BSPCWD currently provides service to 132 dwelling units (i . e .• 92 existing and 40 under construction). In addition. it is capable of serving the two golf courses within the District which are not currently being used. Previous studies for per capita now rates in similar desert communities in California 1 have found a variation from 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in January to 330 gpcd in July. These per 1California Department of Water Resources. "Urban Per Capita Water Use Study. 1971-1977." November. 1978. l 1-7 , \ -l capita flow rates take into account water for all municipal and indus- trial purposes (i . e .• residential, commercial. parks, etc i ) • When large golf course areas are included in a service area. the per capita flows must be increased to account for the large irrigation require- ments . An analysis of the type of land use within the water district was used to estimate the water use at ultimate development. A t i summary of this analysis (Table 5-2) is as follows: Water Use in BSPCWD Based on Development Status (acre-feet/vear) TyPe of Water Use Existing New Total Residential 58 521 579 Nonresidential 172 172 Golf Course Irrigation 23i 750 981 289 1,443 1.732 The golf course irrigation demand on the domestic water system can be reduced by using reclaimed water from the sewage treatment plant. This is discussed further in Subsection 1.3.3. The wells used by the water district are of adequate quality to meet drinking water standards. Treatment of the weli water is not required. 1.3.3 Sewage Reclamation The development of Borrego Springs Park within the BSPCWD will add 835 dwelling units within the District's service area. The per capita flow rate to establish the des ign flow for the existing and proposed development is 70 gpc c , or 240 gallons/dwelling unit/ day. The resulting estimated sewage flow is as follows: 1-8 Existing Dwelling Units 132 x 240 = 31,700 gallons per day (gpd) New Dwelling Units 235 x 240 = 200,400 gpd 232,100 gpd As indicated by these figures, the estimated quantity of sewage from the new development will be approximately 86 percent of the total flow within the District. This will result in the following quantity of sewage and sludge to be handled by the District: Resource Unit Existing New Total Treated Effluent Acre-Feet/Year 38 238 276 Treated Sludge Dry Tons/Year 13 73 86 It is proposed to use treated effluent to irrigate the golf courses to reduce the need for groundwater. During wet weather or seasonal low flow periods, the effluent will be percolated into the basin within the treatment pl ant stte . The digested and dried sludge can readily be used on the golf course by mixing it with sand and other materials to fertilize a greens nursery where grass can be grown to use as "plugs" on the golf course. The use of sludge in this marme r would reduce the need to import soil amendments to the site for the same purpose. 1.4 METHOD OF TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE 1.4.1 Flood Control There may be a precipitation of sediments as runoff passes across the project due to a reduction in flow velocity of this runoff, thus encouraging the settlement of solid sediments. 1-9 1.4.2 WaterSupplv There is sufficient well water of good quality from the BSPCWD such that any newly developed or existing well water sources with excessive chemical constituents or total dissolved solids (TDS) may be brought to an acceptable level by blending. 1.4.3 Sewage Reclamation The alternative selected for this project to provide sewage treat- ment is to construct a new treatment facility and reclaim the effluent· for irrigation on the golf courses. This can be accomplished in a properly designed treatment facility that is properly operated by a public agency, such as the BSPCWD, with a full-time operator. 1.5 EXISTING FACILITIES 1.5.1 Flood Control Earthen levees have been built in the past across the northern portion of the project site but appear to be minimally effective. Based on observation of subsequent storm runoff. a rock dike behind a row of tamarisk trees along Di Giorgio Road near Well No. 2 was constructed several years ago to direct runoff fr-om the western watershed area toward a dip crossing in Di Giorgio Road to pass across the property. The existing drainage pattern for the original Borrego Country Club development is shown in Figure 4-2. The new. flood control system proposed for this project will be integrated into the existing onsite drainage pattern. 1.5.2 Water System The existing water system is operated by .BSPCWD and serves 132 dwelling units and a small golf course. It also serves to supply irrigation water for an 18-hole golf course and clubhouse that have not been used for several years. 1-10 The water supply is from a 387-foot-deep well with 14-inch- diameter casing with a 125-horsepower pump capable of producing 1,200-gallon per minute (gprn) . The well is pumped into the system and into a 10,OOO-gallon storage tank. The distribution pipelines consist of 12-, 10-, and 8-inch-diameter mains. The well water is not treated. The District has another well that is reserved for emergency demands capable of 400-gpm capacity. The existing water supply and distribution system is shown in Figure 5-1. 1.5.3 Wastewater The existing wastewater system is operated by BSPCWD and serves the same dwelling units as the water system. The 75,000- gpd plant is an 18-year-old activated sludge packaged plant located on the east side of the District. Treated effluent flows into a per- colation area adjacent to the plant where it both evaporates and percolates underground. Sludge is removed from the aerobic digester periodically and placed on a drying bed adjacent to the plant. Dried sludge has been stored on the plantsite due to its low quantity. The sewage collection system consists of a gravi ty system from the dwelling units until approximately 50 feet from the treatment plant where a lift station intercepts the flow and pumps it up to the treatment plant. There are two 5-horsepower pumps that lift the sewage approximately 30 feet to the tr-eatment plant. 1-11 1.6 NEW FACILITIES 1.6.1 Flood Control To protect the project from potential floods. a series of levees and drainage ditches as illustrated in Figure 4- 2 are designed to divert and control the 100-year peak runoff for the largest potential individual contributing watershed. A 4-foot-high levee with a rip rap 2:1 sloped facing and a 12-foot width at the top would divert the 11. 700-cfs flow potentially occurring from Borrego Palm Canyon away from the structures at the north end of the project across Borrego Valley Road towards the Borrego I.'> Sink. This type of levee which would be used was one of the recom- mended designs in the San Diego County Borrego Valley Flood Con- trol Master Plan. The drainage ditch that parallels Di Giorgio Road would be improved to pick up the flows resulting from the 1.300-cfs flow potentially occurring from Dry Canyon carrying them down either north or south to a culvert designed to pass these flows. The flows being carried northerly will pass under Di Giorgio Road and again enter a drainage ditch to carry the flows through the project to Borrego Valley Road where they are discharged toward the Borrego Sink. The flows intercepted to be carried southerly will be passed around the southern end of the project to a culvert across Borrego Valley Road to be discharged to Tubb Canyon Wash. Final engineer- ing has not been completed but preliminary calculation indicates a -- -chann-eI-af acePth of 6--re-et-and_14_feeLwide.a t.Lta-top-woul.d. be 1-12 necessary to carry the flow. The excavated material may be used to construct the new flood control levees. The culvert would be de- signed such that if sedimentation should plug a portion of the culvert. flows could pass over the road without structural damage. Building pads for the 10-acre ranch-style parcels at the westerly end of the project will be elevated 2 feet above the calculated one- half foot depth of flow from the Dry Canyon sheet flow. The flows will then be collected at the drainage ditch along Di Giorgio Road. Drainage within the project from onsite r-aInfa.II will utilize the street gutters essentially following the exiStting onsite drainage pattern. Golf courses will be used as drainage swales to collect onsite drainage. Onsite drainage would be discharged across Borrego Valley Road just south of the sewage treatment plant. The energy consumption associated with the flood control im- provements for continued operation and maintenance will be minimal since this function will be part of the normal road maintenance for the area. 1.6.2 Water The proposed water facilities to serve the Borrego Springs Park development will consist of a 1.5-MG storage reservoir. a booster pumping s1ation with an emergency power source. and a new well to back up the existing wells. The water system will be designed to supply water for the maximum day demand at ultimate development plus fire flow. Treatment of the groundwater is not required based on historical records from the water district. Water samples will be taken at six-month in~e!"ra::'~to detect possible lateral migration of nitrates 1-13 into the area being pumped by the wells. The new water storage reservoir will PT0vide blending of the well water should the nitrate levels in anyone of the wells exceed 45 milligrams per liter (mg/l) , the maximum allowed by the state health department. The estimated energy consumption of the wells and booster < pumping station to supply both domestic and irrigation demands at i e ; ultimate development is 650,000 kilowatt-hours (kwh) per year. 1.6.3 Sewage The proposed wastewater treatment plant to serve the project l. . :._. .... ~ .• will consist of an oxidation ditch plant with chlorination and filtra- tion of effluent to meet a coliform bacteria count of 2.2 MPN / 100 milligrams (mg) . The treated effluent will be pumped to the golf course within the District for spray ir-r-Igation of the greens and turf area. The new plant will have a design capacity of 0.23 million gallons per day (mgd) with allowance in the design for peak flows through key components for proper operation and consistent effluent quality. The oxidation ditch is an extended aeration process using a long narrow continuous oval or circular channel with a paddle- wheel or jet pumps for aeration. A combination of conservative design and a basically simple process for small communities is increasing the popularity of this type of treatment. The oxidation ditch process for the new plant will use two circular reactor basins with surface aerators to maintain circula- tion and aeration. Separate basins will be required for clarifica- tion and chlorination. Waste sludge will be treated in an aerobic digester. 1-14 The process flow schematic and site plan are shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2. The design criteria and cost estimates are shown in Tables 6-1,6-2, and 6-3. respectively. The estimated annual energy consumption to operate the new facility is 297.000 kwh/year. This includes the cornmfnutor , aera- tion equipment. sedimentation tanks. chlorination. sludge handling. and aerobic digestion. 1.7 SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY 1. 7.1 Flood Control The earthen levees at the northern end of the project are pro- posed to be part of the ACSDFCD No. 5 General Plan. which serves the entire Borrego Valley. There will be a drainage ditch along Di Giorgio Road and several culverts which will be within the limits of the San Diego County Road Department service area. The remaining flood control facilities will be within the limits of the project boundary. 1. 7.2 Water Supply The existing and proposed water supply system will be served by the BSPCWD. 1.7.3 Sewage Reclamation The existing and proposed wastewater reclamation plants will be served by the BSPCWD. 1-15 2.0 ENVIRONMENT AL Sf:TTING LOCATION j Borrego Springs Park encompasses 1,087.3 acres of land located approximately 1 mile southeast of Borrego Springs in San Diego ! J County, California, as shown in Figure 1- 2. The project site is bordered on the east by Borrego Valley Road, on the west by Di Giorgio Road, and is about 1 mile south of Palm Canyon Drive. Water supply, transmission, and storage facilities to serve the domestic and irrigation requirements of the project will be from the BSPCWD, a public agency that includes the project area within its boundary (Figure 2-1). The District pumps water from the ground- water basin to serve its existing and future demands. Sewage collection, treatment, and reclamation facilities will also be served by the BSPCWD. The sewage treatment plant is located on the east side of the District's boundary adjacent to Borrego Road. 2.2 REGIONAL SETTING The project site is located in the northeastern section of San Diego County within Borrego Valley as shown in Figure 1- 2. The Borrego Valley is a 70-square-mile privately held enclave within the Anza-Borrego Desert about 60 miles inland from Oceanside. The valley is fairly flat with an elevation drop in 15 miles from 1,000 on the northwest side to 600 on the northeast side. This small topographic variation is in sharp contrast to the surrounding Anza-Borrego State Park with its rugged terrain, steep canyons. and high peaks. The valley has three centers of recreation golfing activity: the De Anza Country Club. the Road- Runner Club. and the 2-1 Club Circle Golf Course which is located within the boundary limits of the project site. The north end of the valley is primarily agri- cultural; the westerly and central portions of the area are primarily residential and recreational areas. The project is part of the original site of the old Ensign Ranch. The first well in the valley was drilled for the Ensign Ranch in 1913. and the first irrigation well was drilled on this ranch in 1926. and for many years it was the center of agriculture in the valley. The ranch grew alfalfa. barley. and date palms as well as operating a dairy farm and a hog farm at various times in its history. The old Ensign Ranch airstrip also operated on the project site. The ranch was sold in 1957. A portion of the ranch was developed for residences and golf courses as the Borrego Country Club. An 18-hole golf course operated from 1964 to 1970. after which only the nine holes around the residences were left operating. 2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Borrego Springs Park involves the subdivision of 1.087.3 acres of vacant land into 835 single family dwelling units of various types. Table 2-1 has a breakdown of the land use proposed for the proj ect . The proposed project involves trie expansion of the existing BSPCWD water and sewerage sys terns to accommodate water demands and project-generated wastewater. 2-2 TABLE 2-1 BORREGO SPRINGS PARK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED LAND- USE CLASSIFICATION I Land Use Area Units 1 Single Family 154.5 329 i Patio Homes 65 i 202 j Attached Single Family 50.2 244 i ,, 5-Acre Ranchettes 288 40 10-Acre Ranches 200 20 Open Space 69.1 Community Center 43 - Golf Course 163.5 Major Circulation 49 Water Reclamation Plant 5 ~ ;:' 1.087.3 835 2.4 GEOLOGY Borrego Springs Park is located in the western portion of Borrego Valley along the eastern margin of the alluvial fans extending eastward from the mountains. This surface alluvium is part of a larger bajada which forms the Borrego Valley. The soils encountered at the project site consist of sands and silts varying in consistency from loose to dense. In general. the soils become finer in texture and slightly lower in density in a northeast direction. Above an elevation of approximately 560 feet. which is in the southwesterly portion of the property. the soils are loose silty 2-3 sands to a depth of 1 to 2 feet and are underlain by medium dense to dense silty sands. Below an elevation of approximately 560 feet. the soils are loose silty sands and sandy silts to depths varying from 3 to 13 feet; these soils are underlain by medium dense to dense 1 silty sands and sandy silts. The maximum depth of the alluvial material is not known. al- though the logs of the wells on the property indicate that they extend below a depth of 630 feet. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the soil borings. and the soils. except for some of the underlying sil t layers, were very low in moisture content. Storm runoff is usually intercepted and reduced as the water passes over the onsite porous soils percolating into the groundwater basin. Onsite reclamation of sewage effluent by the BSPCWD is feasible since the alluvial deposits were amenable to rapid percolation. Reclamation can be either by the current method of percolation of effluent or by using the effluent for irrigation landscape. Regarding seismicity, a draft environmental impact report (EIR) dated May. 1977. stated that: "The Borrego Valley is seismically active. The project site is between two major fault zones shown in Figure 2- 3, the San Jacinto and the Agua Caliente. There are at least four other small faults within 5 miles of the project site. Further to the east is the San Andreas Fault. All of the faults pose a major threat to residents in the Borrego Valley. lWoodward. Clyde. Sherard and Associates, "Soil Investigation for the Proposed Borrego Springs Development." San Diego. California. 1967 • .... "'-----~~~~~~~~ 2-....:...4 _ "The epicenters of many earthquakes have been located in the Borrego Valley and one was located within the project boundary. A strong magnitude (6.4) earthquake occurred to the east of the project site in 1968 on the Coyote Creek Fault, a branch of the San Jacinto. which produced local intensities between VIII and -, J IX."2 2.5 TOPOGRAPHY Borrego Park is located on a relatively flat area (1 to 2 per- cent slope) and is interrupted by one intermittent stream course. Drainage flows in the development are easterly toward Borrego Val- ley Road. Runoff is collected in the street pattern and directed to the existing golf courses which act as drainage swales. The runoff is then directed to its exit on Borrego Valley Road just south of the existing sewage treatment plant. The gentle slope of the terrain will minimize necessary grading. Gravity sewerlines will follow drainage patterns established by the existing developed area and the final design of the new tracts with the BSPCWD boundary. The sewage must be lifted by a pumping station to the surface for treatment at the reclamation plant. The existing water system is pressurized directly by pumps since there are no hills nearby on which to locate ground storage reservoirs. The District will continue to serve the new develop- ment with a similar system. 2-5 2.6 CLIHATE The climate in North Borrego Valley is severely arid, abundant sunshine, little rainfall, little or no humidity with hot dry summers and cool dry winters; it is characteristic of the lowland desert regions of Southern California. It is also a climate where the extremes are 0 highly noticeable. Diurnal changes in temperature exceeding 60 F are common summer and winter; uncommon but severe rainfall originating from warm tropical storms in the summer are broadly cyclical in occurrence. They create flood conditions over much of the valley, but their frequency of occurrence is unknown. Borrego Valley is an area where mean minimum temperatures in January are about 360 F, but mean maximum temperatures in July are about 1060 F.; the winters are comfortably cool, the summers uncomfortably hot. Mor-e importantly to its water supplies, it is also an area where potential evapotranspiration far exceeds actual precipitation; the native vegetation is capable of using far more water than is supplied by precipitation, and thus it is an area of water deficiency. According to 20 years of record at Borrego Desert Park on the west side of the valley, the normal annual precipitation is about 8 inches and rainfall occurs mainly between November and lvlarch on the central and west side of the valley floor. In the mountains and elevated small valleys bordering the west side of Borrego Valley, temperatures are cooler and average annual precipitation is 16 inches or more and perhaps very locally as high as 40 inches. 2 -6 2.7 WATERSHED PHYSIOGRAPHY The watershed areas may best be described as consisting of two components: the mountain watersheds and the valley floor watershed. The mountain canyon watersheds are tYPically steep and rigid. emptying out onto the rather flat valley floor alluvial fans. The nature of the canyon watersheds is to concentrate flows to the mouth of the canyon where they are then carried in intermittent streambeds across the valley floor. These valley streambeds ordinarily do not have the capacity to carry the flows that may be generated from local thunderstorms or rainstorms. Such flow paths are prone to lateral migration and to sUdden relocation to any other portion of the fan during a single runoff event. This erratic. unpredictable behavior SUbjects all portions of the fan to potential flood hazard. regardless of location (see Figure 4-1). In this manner. new channels are found and old channels are lost. The water and sediment tend to spread out in a fan from the mouth of the canyon abandoning the traditional existing chsnnels. sheeting across the valley floor. and deposHing any accOmpanying sediment as the velocity of the water decreases. thus creating the tYPical desert allUvial fan of which Borrego Valley is an example. The project site is situated on the Southerly part of the Borrego Valley bajada. a confluence of the several allUvial fans formed by the mountain watersheds to the western edge of the valley. Runoff from the mountain watershed approach the project site from the west and the northwest (see Figure 4-1). The ridge upon which the Montezuma 2-7 Grade Road descenda into the Borrego Valley effectively splits the i contributing ",atersheds that approach the project aite into aouth- \ .. 1 westerly and northwesterly approaches. southwesterly of the project site. the Tubb Canyon watercourse at one time split into t"'o directiona at the south",est edge of the Borrego Springs community. One ",atercourse aplit to the northeast to converge ",ith tne Dry Canyon watercourae• then pruceeded tuward' the Borrego Spring' community and the project aite. The other water- course splii southeaaterly around the southerly end of the Borrego Springs community and away from the southern edge of the project site. Since 1968. the runoff from Tubb Canyon nas been directed t to the southess around the developed srea in the valley by an 6-foo - t high rock and wire reinforced revetment levee. Historically. nash noods have fanned out from the mouth of Tubb Canyon at a relatively shallow depth.3 Dry Canyon and the relatively smsll watershedS northerly to the end of the Montezuma Grade Road are the only con- tributing runoff to the western edge of the project site. The northern edge of the project site is approached by runoff nn from the Hellhole. Borrego-palm. and Henders Canyon water- sheds. Just at the northern boundary of the project site along Di Giorgio Road. these nows are joined hy the runoff from the watersheds to the west of the project site. The connuence of this runoff goes across the northern boundary of the property where it is either intercepted by Borrego Valley Road going down to the 3Teleco • George Howard. San Diego County Department of Sanitation .nd Flood Control.n and Pat Kelly. Boyle Engineering corporation. Novem- ber 29. 1979 . ..... ~~~~~2~-8 ~ _ dip-cross just south of the eXisting sewage treatment plant4 or \ I sheets across Borrego Valley Road towards Borrego Sink. This has been the characteristic of sheet flows around and across the project site during the 1976 and 1977 flash floods, respectively, from tropical storms Kathleen and Doreen. These flash floods have been equated to have a recurrence frequency of 100 and 50 years. respectively, and were the largest storm runoff events in the valley's recent history.5,6 It is probable that any future flows will fOllow this same pa ttern. 2.8 WATERSHED HYDROLOGY The hydrology used to obtain the 50-year and 100-year flood diScharges from the Borrego mountain watersheds which were used in the project flood analysis (see Appendix 1) is defined in the San Diego County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control. July 1972 Borrego Valley General Plan for Flood Control Improvements: "The hydrology for (the General Plan) study • • • was approached by estimating the rainfall in this area for 50-year. 100-year and maximum storms and computing the runoff by applying this rainfall to the terrain characteristics of Corporation,4Conversation, October Tom 31, Davis, 1979. BSPCWD. and Pat Kelley, Boyle Engineering 5"TroPical Storm Kathleen - Storm Report." County of San Diego Com- mUnity Services Agency. Department of Sanitation and Flood Control, Septem- ppber 2-7. 9-10. 1976 (inclUdes Borrego Valley Thunderstorm, September_ 23), 611TroPical Storm .Doreen - Sto·r~ Report." County of San Diego Community Services_Agency,1977, pp 2-8. Department of Sanitation and Flood ControL.._ August 15-17. 2-9 each canyon. This approach was adopted because of availability of rain gage records and the lack of long-term stream gage records. "Flood peaks and runoff quantities were computed by developing hydro graphs using Corps of Engineers methodology for Southern California areas. The hydro graphs are applied to specific watersheds by adjusting the vertical scale to con- form to design rainfall and the horizontal scale to conform to the combination of basin characteristicS. The flood peak is indicated at the top of the curve and the acre-feet of runoff is proportional to the area beneath the curve. "The rainfall estimates were derived from statistical analysis of 223 total gage-years of desert rainfall data in the Salton Sea Basin. The short-term records from rain gages in Borrego Valley (all less than 20 years) were analyzed and compared with long-term records from Indio (92 years) and Mecca (65 years). Storms were found to be either local thunderstorms or general rainstorms by checking rainfall in surrounding areas. Rainfall recurrence curves were plotted for each station. The curve from Borrego Park Station was representative and was selected for use in determining 50- year and 100-year rainfall for both summer and winter storm types. These were compared with data from the U. S. Weather Bureau Technical Paper 40. The maximum rainfall was taken directly from the Corps of Engineers report on Tahquitz Creek. 2-10 1 "These rainfall quantities were applied to the canyon areas , I using a precipitation pattern measured during the most severe i I. thunderstorm recorded in the California desert." 1 In addition to the hydrological data used to find the 1aO-year and 50-year frequency floodflows fro:n the mountain watersheds 1 j which surround Borrego Valley and the project site, data from the September 1976 and August 1977 tropical storms Kathleen and Doreen can provide a basis of flood behavior at the project site. The effects on the Borrego Valley area of these thunderstorms were varied. Tropical storm Kathleen in 1976 resulted in no large flow quantities being measured in the storms as the rain fell on open desert areas (Borrego Valley) and was not concentrated into a single flow. Damage was limited to road washouts and minor flooding of residences and businesses. This storm may be typical of the desert flOor thundershower (tropical storm) which results in shallow sheet flows that would come from the project site itself and from a short area upstream from the project site. 7 The storm report for tropi- cal storm Doreen in 1977 describes as a different type of event, where rainfall was in the mountain watersheds and concentrated the storm- flows at the mouth of the canyons and their reasonably stable, well- defined channels. 8 The Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) has not prepared an official flood hazard boundary map for the Borrego Valley, since the FIA has not designated this area as having any special flood 7"Tropical Storm Kathleen - Storm Report." 8"TroPical Storm Doreen - Storm Report." 2-11 hazard.9 The United States Geological Survey (USGS). however. has prepared flood inundated maps which delineate the approximate boundaries of areas that may be inundated by a loo-year flood fre- quency event (Figure 4-1). Figure 4-1 shows that the Borrego Val- ley is subject to lOO-year frequency sheet flooding from intermittent watercourses. Some areas near the mouth of the mountain water- sheds in the Borrego Valley have been specially designated as flood- prone watercourses but none of these extended to the project area. The available hydrological information will be utilized in con- junction with the FIA instructions. "Alluvial Fan Special Flood Hazard Mapping. " to calculate the limits of flood hazards and to determine the depth of flooding and velocity of flooding at the project from the mountain watersheds' lOO-year discharges. The initial step in the quantitative determination of flood hazard on an alluvial fan is to develop an appropriate lOO-year peak discharge value. This project study uses the peak runoffs generated in the 1972 Flood Con- trol General Plan. per the peak hydro graph method which is described at the beginning of this section. The approach outlined in the FIA instructions makes use of statistical analyses that relate the probability of given discharges at the apex of a fan to the probability of certain ciepths and velocity of flow occurring at any point on the fan below the apex. At the time of maximum flow during a maj or flood event on an active fan. flow does not spread evenly over the fan surface but is confined to a single channel that carries the water from the 9Telecon. Ray Lenaberg. FlA. San Francisco. California. and Pat Kelly. Boyle Engineering Corporation. 2-12 apex to the toe of the fan. A channel is formed by the flow itself through erosion of the loose material that makes up the fan. Below I the apex of the fan, the channel will occur at random locations at ) any place on the fan surface; and under natural conditions, it is no more likely to follow a preexisting flow path than it is to follow 1 I a new flow path. This channel has an approximately rectangular cross section. 10 The probability of a point being flooded in a given flood event decreases from the apex to the toe of a fan, because the downslope widening of the fan surface provides a greater area over which a channel of given width may occur. 11 Once the calculated depth of flooding is found. the necessary height of bUilding pads and of the flood control levees to protect the proj ect site from flooding may be found. The following table summarizes the calculations from Appendix 1, which was the Federal Insurance Administration Alluvial Fan Special Flood Hazard Mapping guidelines. Item Max. Max. Depth Velocity Watershed Q100 At Site At Site Dry Canyon 1,300 cfs o .5 ft 3.5 fps Borrego-Palm Canyon 11,700 crs 1.5 ft 5.5 fps Tubb Canyon 7,700 cf's 1 .5 ft 5.5 fps 10"Appendix •. LUluvial Fan Special Flood Hazard Zone Mapping." FIA, July 17.1979, pp 1-3. 11Ibid. / 2-13 2.9 GROUNDWATER The analysis of the groundwater supply to the project site is primarily based on an engineering study by Mr. David A. Phoenix .12 Mr. Phoenix is a groundwater expert whose fields of expertise are hydrology and geology. He has a California registration in geology. His report is included with this study as Appendix 2. 2.9.1 Existing Setting The only water available to homes and agriculture in the valley is that which comes from local sources. Inasmuch as the area is a desert. the water supply is limited and almost entirely underground. It is within the reach of wells. some deeper and more costly than others. but available over most of the valley floor. The ground- water reservoir is large and it probably contains about 700.000 acre-feet or more of usable water. enough to provide a "s tandby" resource in periods of drought and enough to last for many years if uncontaminated and used carefully in accordance with the natural supply. Over a 40-year period. the valley has changed from a thinly populated. remote. and primitive desert into an attractive resort and agricultural community. It has been accomplished by the pumpage of underlying groundwater. 12David A. Phoenix. "An appraisal of the groundwater resources in the northern subbasin of the Borrego Valley Reservoir • .San Diego County. with emphasis on the recovery of groundwater from the Borrego Springs Park area." July. 1979. 2-14 1 i, Well measurements made during the period 1952 to 1965 indi- cated that a decline in water levels had occurred in the area north of Borrego Sink. 13 Later in 1974. a contour map of the water table in Borrego Valley showed decline to coincide with an area of ; i extensive irrigation development. During the 12-year period. in places the decline was 30 to 40 feet. Further south it was from 20 to 44 feet; and in the vicinity of the project site. the decline was locally as much as 20 feet below the early period of water level measurements .14 However. at current rates of usage. the calculated recoverable water in storage in the upper 100 feet of saturated sediments. about 770.000 acre-feet. is sufficient to support a growing rural desert- modified community for many years. providing changes in water quality do not seriously influence use of the water and providing the demand for water for agriculture reverses in years to come. A reversal from below-average to above-average precipitation may also result in rep1enishmeni. of the accumulated groundwater deficit in the valley. 2.9.2 Groundwater Basin Characteristics The alluvium that underlies Borrego Valley has originated by erosion of rocks in the nearby mountainous areas; it is porous and permeable sand and gravel. particularly so near the mountains and 13W. R. Moyle. Jr .• Water Wells and Springs in Borrego Carrizo and San Felipe Valley Areas. California. Department of Water Resources. Bulletin No. 91-15.1968. 14W. R. Moyle. Jr .• Geohydrologic Map of Southern California. U. S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Invoice No. 48-73. Open File. 1974. 2-15 opposite the mouths of canyons where it has been winnowed and sorted by streamflow and deposited as broad alluvial fans. Farther from the mountains in lower and more planar parts of the valley, the under- lying sediments are less permeable, fine-grained sand, silt, and clay. The specific capacity of wells in North Borrego Valley reflect the general physical and water-bearing properties of the sediments. In the northern and most western parts of the valley, specific capacities for most of the wells are between 40 to greater than 100 gallons of yield per foot of dra wdown. In the central and planar parts of the valley near Borrego Sink, the specific capacity of wells is about 30 or even less. The geologic logs of wells in various parts of the valley15 also indicate that the water-bearing strata underlying the valley are highly lenticular. In general, between adjacent wells, the deposits are uniform in their heterogeneity; extractions of water in one area will reflect upon water levels in nearby areas. Also, ex- tractions or additions of water over extended periods of time will be reflected by the lowering or raising of water levels in large parts of North Borrego Valley. The deposits of siltstone. sandstone, and clay underlie deposits of alluvium beneath much of Borrego Valley. and the deposits of alluvium also extend into a smaller adjacent valley, Clark Valley, lying to the northeast of the central part of Borrego Valley. The northwesterly trending Coyote Canyon Creek Fault located at the north boundary of the valley transects all of these rocks. Erosion and displacement along this fault has controlled the development l5W. R. Moyle, Jr .• Water Wells and Springs in Borrego Carrizo and San Felipe Valley Areas. California. 2-16 and trend of Coyote Creek and Coyote Canyon and the northeastern boundary of the North Borrego Valley groundwater reservoir. Dis- placement along this fault has been sufficient to interfere with the movement of groundwater between Clark and North Borrego Valleys, ; j but the degree of interference is not known. 2.9.3 Groundwater Basin Recharge The main source of recharge to the groundwater reservoir comes by the infiltration of streamflow rather than from direct precipitation. Some of this recharge is hidden from sight, for it enters the reservoir via the alluvium beneath the streams (underflow), but most of it is measurable as streamflow. As it leaves the canyons and within a short distance, it percolates into the permeable sand and gravel that underlies alluvial slopes of the valley and from here it disperses widely into the groundwater reservoir. Other sources of recharge to Borrego Valley include underflow through alluvium underlying each of the streams as well as water which may enter the sediments from deeply buried sources. As for the first item, underflow, the amount entering the valley depends upon the wetted cross-sectional area of alluvium beneath each stream. the transmissivity of the alluvium. and the hydraulic gradient. The alluvium underlying Coyote Canyon is probably the greatest source of perennial underflow to the valley; underflow from the other canyons is probably ephemeral in somewhat the same pattern as is discharge from the ephemeral streams that occupy these canyons. The material underlying each channel is more than likely highly permeable sand and gravel. 2-17 Groundwater recharge to the area originates by infiltration into alluvial fans below the mouths of Tubb , Culp , and Henderson Can- yons and probably to a lesser degree from Coyote Canyon. Re- charge from the nearby canyons is ephemeral and on the average not great. probably no more than 300 to 400 acre- feet per year. Heavy rains occur in the area and probably help to replenish the groundwater reservoir. but the occurrence of these rains, although probably broadly cyclical. is unpredictable. Furthermore, most of the groundwater from Coyote Canyon in the northern part of the valley is probably intercepted by wells before it reaches the Borrego Springs Park area. Today. the hydrologic budget has been modified considerably from its original condition. During the period 1954 to 1965, pumpage from North Borrego Valley groundwater reservoir each year annually exceeded the amount replenished (Bureau of Reclamation. 1969). The consequence was an annual lower-Ing of the water table. greater in some areas than others, but still sufficient to reflect an average de- cline of about 1.7 feet per year over this period of development. During this period. a peak amount of 23,470 acre-feet per year (Threet. 1979) was being applied to about 2,500 acres of agriculture, whereas the average was about 14,500 acre-feet per year (Webb, A.A., Fig. C3. pp C16-C17, 1977). Today it would appear that less than this amount of water. probably about 10,000 acre-feet. is being used for mixed forms of agriculture. and the average annual rate of water level decline in the southern part of the reservoir is less than one-half the average rate during the early 1952-1964 period of 2-18 1 pumpage. Water budget calculations based upon rates of consumptive .use and calculated volumetric changes in storage resulting from de- elining water levels establish a natural recharge of 8.500 acre-feet J per year, 1950-1958. or 12,104 acre-feet per year. 1950-1965 1 (Webb, A.A., pp C9-C17, 1977), depending upon the period of con- sumptive use selected for calculation. One of these latter methods 1 suggests that current use of water is very nearly in balance with the rate of replenishment during the 1950-196 5 period. 2.9 .4 Groundwa ter Basin Use The greatest amount of groundwater is withdrawn from North Borrego Valley for the benefit of homes and agriculture. Irrigation wells are located chiefly in the central and north end of the valley. and several large wells are used for public water supply to homes and small businesses located along the west side and in the central part of the valley. About 30 large turbine-pump equipped wells have been used for irrigation or public water supply purposes. but of that number probably no more than eight or ten are now operating at anyone time. The irrigation wells probably operate continuously during the summer and intermittently during the winter; those used for public water supplies operate more intermittently in the summer when the population is low than in the winter when the population is greater. Wells servicing individual homes and small business establishments are scattered throughout the central part of the val- ley; most of these wells are connected to pressure tanks and most ---- 2-19 supply water to homes occupied by full-time residents in the valley. There are about 50 domestic wells in the valley and between 30 to 40 of these are believed to be in constant use. The project area has had a long history of groundwater develop- ment . The first well in the valley was drilled for the Ensign Ranch. now the Borrego Springs Park area. in 1913, and the first irrigation well in the valley was drilled on this ranch in 1926. Irrigation from wells was an important activity in the park area until it was devel- oped for homesites in the early 1960's. The park area, Sections 4 and 9, T. 11 S.• R. 6 E .• and the adjoining section of land to the north and east have been explored by almost 45 wells ranging in depth from 120 to 600 feet. Currently. groundwater discharge is taking place at no more than ten of them. seven of which are used for domestic purposes and three for public water supply (the Road- Runner Club. the Club Circle area. and a public school). It is estimated that no more than 100 to 200 acre-feet of water is with- drawn from the underlying groundwater reservoir each year by these wells. A small amount of this discharge, probably no more than 20 acre-feet per year. is returned to the reservoir by infiltra- tion to the water table and is later recycled back to the surface by pumpage. 2.10 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER QUALITY The chemical quality of the groundwater has been summarized by almost 200 complete and partial analyses of water collected from wells throughout the va IIey , mos_tly during the period _1952 to 1965. -=-~~---- i ~, 2-20 The groundwater at the north end of the valley, with its high cone en- ') tration of magnesium and nitrate, contrasts with the water from I other areas of the valley, such as along the west side of the valley, J_ including the state park headquarters, the project area, and as far I east as Desert Lodge. The water there is a relatively dilute calcium -, or sodium-bicarbonate solution with smaller amounts of sulfate. , Nitrate concentrations in the water are ordinarily less than 5 parts per million (ppm) and TDS concentration is between 300 and 400 ppm or less. Fluoride is a characteristic constituent in in these waters, but its concentration is less than 1 ppm. This water is of somewhat different chemical composition, and it is more dilute in TDS than that from directly below Coyote Canyon in the northern part of the valley. It has probably mostly originated as runoff from the ephemeral streams in the nearby Peninsular Ranges a short distance to the west and, hence, has had little opportunity to react chemically with the soils and fine-grained sediments that underlie more central parts of the valley. Drinking water in the north end of the valley is obtained by reverse osmosis from the well water used by the ranches in this area. All wells in the project area provide water with less than 8-ppm nitrate. Storm runoff normally flows only a short distance before it evaporates or percolates into the alluvial deposits. Only very major storms produce significant runoff that passes across the entire valley floor. Floodwater uses. except for recharge of ...... - 2-21 the groundwater basin. are limited since they are intermittent and short lived before they are absorbed into the alluvial soils. Portions of Coyote Creek are a perennial stream being only intermittent in the valley. The nature of floodwaters is that of high-velocity flows that are relatively highly erosive in the confined limits of the upper portions of their watercourses. As a result. these floodwaters are usually accompanied with suspended sediment as they begin to fan out acros s the valley floor. Storm floodwaters then have poor surface water quality until these flows have had time to settle out the suspended sediment. Once this has occurred. they will usually have the water quality characteristics of the local surface waters. such as in the upper portions of Coyote Canyon. 2.11 MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY The BSPCWD is the water supplier to the Club Circle Golf Course and for the proposed Borrego Springs Park development (Figure 5-1). The existing development is supplied by two wells within the project area. well No. 1 and well No.4. Well No. 4 is the primary source of domestic water with well No. 1 serving as a backup during peak demands. Wells Nos. 2 and 3 are presently not in use. It is anticipated that we ll No. 3 will be tied into the existing BSPCWD domestic water distribution system prior to the ultimate development of the Borrego Country Club is completed. Well No.2 is adjacent to the Date Palm Garden which is no longer being culti- vated. Table 2-2 summarizes the total capacity of pumped well water from the BSPCWD. 2-22 1 I TABLE 2-2 BSPCWD EXISTING WELL CAPACITY 1 Available Existing System Proposed System Total Pump Pump Capacity Pump Capacity Capacity : (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) j Well No.1 400 400 400 No.2 Not Used Not Used 750 No.3 Not Used Not Used 750 No.4 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.600 1.600 3.100 1per Tom Davis. BSPCWD. Operator. The well water is pumped directly into the existing distribution system and a 10.000-gallon pressure storage tank. The existing distribution lines consist of 12-inch. 10-inch. and 8-inch pipelines as shown per Figure 4-1. When the pumps are not in service. the distribution system is fed from the storage tank. There is no treat- ment of this well water. The quality of this well water is shown in Table 2-3. The quality of Well Nos. 2 and 3 is similar to Well No.1. per Tom Davis of BSPCWD. 2-23 TABLE 2-3 BSPCWD DOMESTIC WATER QUALITY Concentra tion 1 (mg/I) Constituent Well No. 12 Well No.4 Calcium (Ca) 96 29 Magnesium (Mg) 17 4.1 Sodium (Na) 198 93.5 Potassium (K) 7.3 5.0 Sulfate (S04) 280.5 106 Chloride (CI) 174.5 61 .5 Flouride (F) 1.1 1.35 7.1 1.6 Nitrate (N03) 90 Total Hardness (Ca C03) 310 Dissolved Solids 997.5 323.5 1Average measurements for 1977 and 1978. 2See Figure 5-1 for well location. In evaluating the ultimate BSPCWD demands. the project area will not be treated as a resort community or a "second home" com- munity. Previously. in determining the annual demands for the Borrego Valley area. it was assumed that 60 percent of the units were occupied year round. and hence. the per capita consumption demands were reduced by 40 percent. This was equivalent to using the criteria from the San Diego County "Water Budget for Borrego ) Valley,,16 report which assumed the dwelling unit consumption to be !- .5 acre-foot/dwelling unit. But. in assessing the ultimate demands on a water system. it is conceivable that 100 percent of the population could occur. and thus. it will be used as the design popula tion , Table 2-4 shows the projected BSPCWD ultimate population the ; .L BSPCWD domestic water system is to be designed to. Historical domestic water use within the District for a seasonal popula tion is as follows: Domestic Water Use Year (acre-feet/year) 1972 54 1973 65 1974 61 1975 52 1976 51 1977 46 1978 43 Irrigation water delive:-ies to the golf course run at approximately the same level as domestic consumption. 16Charles F. Lough. "Water Budget for Borrego Valley." November. 1974. 2-25 TABLE 2-4 BSPCWD ULTIMATE POPULATION Household Ultimate Units Size Population Borrego Springs Park Existing: Condominiums 921 3.0 276 Single Family 40 3.5 140 Total Existing 132 3.15 416 Borrego Springs Park Expansion: Single Family 329 3.5 1, 152 Patio Homes 202 3.5 707 Condominiums 244 3.0 732 5-Acre Ranchettes 40 3.5 140 10-Acre Ranchettes 20 3.5 70 Total Future 835 3.35 2,801 Total Ultimate 967 3.33 3,217 1Includes 30 units under construction. 2.12 RECEIVING WATERS The portion of the groundwater basin underlying the l?SPCWD is considered to have relatively good quality (see Table 2-3). The static water table is approximately 120 feet deep. The BSPCWD has obtained discharge requirements from CRWQCB, Colorado River Region to mix groundwater with sewage treatment plant effluent under two situations: discharging into ponds for percolation and evaporation and golf course irrigation. Waste discharge requirements have been set for the existing treatment plant for the BSPCWD in Order No. .',, 76-10 by the CRWQCB. Colorado River Region. A copy of this order i is attached in Appendix A. 2.13 EXISTING EFFLUENT COMPLIANCE The existing treatment plant is located on the east side of the water district boundary and consists of an 18-year-old 75.000-gpd package-type activated sludge plant. The collector system feeds from 62 condominiums. 40 single family homes. and about 30 more condominiums that are under construction (see Figure 6-1). The system is gravity fed until the trunklines are within about 50 feet of the treatment plant. At this point. the sewer is about 20 feet in the ground and discharges into a lift station utilizing about 5- horsepower pumps which pump the sewage up to the treatment plant level. The treatment plant effluent is discharged to two unlined ponds for disposal by evaporation and per-cola tron , The ponds are approximately 50' x 100' x 5' deep and are 1oca ted adj ac ent to the trea tment plant. At the present time. the tr-eatment plant is operating below its manufacturer's rated design capacity. and the effluent BOD is very low. The actual capacity that can be handled through the treatment plant is estimated to be below the rated design capacity from 30.000 to 35.000 gpd according to information from the District personnel. Effluent characteristics for several sampling periods are shown on Table 2-5. The total discharges from the treatment plant are fairly 2-27 constant at 15.000 to 16.000 gpd , Over the last several years. the peak discharge reported to the regional board was 22.000 gpd and the minimum discharge was 13.000 gpd . TABLE 2-5 . BSPCWD EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS1 (mg/l) Dec. June Dec. Oct. March ... Constituent 1978 -1978 -1977 1977 1977 BOD 9.4 5.1 8.5 12.0 12.0 TDS 531 456 597 508 575 Cl 91 93 88 100 S04 115 104 112 115 F 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 lSource: RWQCB. 2-28 3.0 IMPACTS 3.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The grading of the flood control improvements and the construc- tion of water storage and new wastewater treatment facilities will result in changes to the natural topography. In addition. visual fea- tures will be altered by the construction of flood control facilities. The existing Borrego Springs Park Country Club Community and the eastern fringes of the Borrego Springs Community in the vicinity of the flood control improvements will experience short-term noise im- pacts resulting from grading and construction activities associated with the above improvements. The construction activities will cause the following short-term unavoidable adverse impacts: 1) The creation of noise. dust. and air pollution from the opera- . tion of mechanical construction equipment. 2) Disturbance to natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. 3) Landform alterations through the movement of excavated material generated by construction activities and cut and fill operations required for emplacement of the levees. 4) Increased risks of erosion. sedimentation. flooding. fire. and accidental injury. In addition. the project will require gasoline and diesel fuel for use in private vehicles. At this time. energy utilized during the con- struction phase is difficult to calculate. The engergy consumed will depend upon the amount and type of earthmoving equipment. number 3-1 of days allotted for grading. number of workers. and distance traveled to and from the construction site. These factors are presently unknown. The magnitude of these short-term impacts during the project construction will be reduced substantially through the incorporation of mitigation measures in the project design and construction con- tracts. but their effects cannot be eliminated entirely. CHANGES IN SURFACE WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY Flood Control The effect of constructing levees and drainage swales to chan- nelize a IOO-year flood will be to concentrate the typical desert valley sheet flows from runoff events into channels. As a result. the waters that would have distributed themselves across the project property and onto the downstream property in the same manner will now be concentrated in a channel before being outlet onto the down- stream property. The storm waters. once past the project levees and drainage swaIe s , will tend to fan out across the downstream property. These waters will be to a small degree in greater quantity than if there had been no flood protection facilities made. sinc.e these facilities will reduce the time retention of the storm waters on the property and therefore their ability to be lost to percolation into the ground. The differential increase of storm water due to the develop- ment of the project plus most of the expected upstream sheet flows will be directed to existing floodways terminating at the Bor-r-ego Sink which is approximately 3 miles southeasterly of the project. At the point of discharge from the levees. the water will have a greater 1 ,I L velocity there than they would have had if the waters had been distri- buted in sheet flow. This will increase the trend for erosion of the J streambed at this point of discharge. This immediate impact will be reduced through the incorporation of energy dissipa tion and erosion I protection mitigation measures. Impacts to the downstream properties from the project site, due to the implementation of the general plan flood control levee system and the other onsite drainage improvements for the project, may be mitigated by some kind of consensus for a drainage easement or waiver with the downstream property owners on any changes to the existing flow pattern for their property. 3.2.2 Water Supply Water supply for the project will be from BSPCWD's existing and proposed wells. There will be minimal runoff from irrigated areas due to minimal watering requirements of the landscaping. Any runoff would be of the same quality as the well water, since there will be no opportunity to collect minerals or sediment. 3.2.3 Sewage Reclamation Golf course irrigation will be a mixture of treated sewage effluent and well water. It is anticipated that most of the sewage effluent will be utilized in this manner. Whatever is not utilized by the golf course may be percolated ,utilizing the ground as a filter. This will result in no impact to the surface drainage courses. 3.3 CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER QUA.N7ITY AND QUALITY 3.3.1 Flood Control The full implementation of a levee flood control system will have an impact on the availability of area for storm runoff to percolate into 3-3 3-4 canyons to the west and southwest of the District. This recharge would create a water mound that could act to stop the southerly migration of contaminated water. The quality of the domestic water supply will be improved by 1 the blending of the various qualities of water in the new 1.5-MG ~' \ water storage reservoir. This blending capability can result in ~ a lower TDS water consumed and returned to the District for ultimate treatment and reclamation. Sewage Reclamation The impact to the basin by the District's sewage reclamation efforts will be minor compared to the nitrate contamination from the agricultural operations. The primary impact from sewage is an increase in the TDS concentration of the domestic water from 250 to 300 mg/l. However. the District's existing wells are producing water that ranges from 323 to 997.5 mg/l which is consistent with the variation found within the basin at different wells. The use of lower TDS water can be increased with the new water storage reservoir by blending a ratio of high and low TDS water to obtain a 500-mg/1 TDS concen- tration. This would result in a sewage effluent TDS of 750 to 800 mg/l. The CRWQCB. Colorado River Basin Region. has also assessed the impacts of development to the Anza-Borrego Basin in their "Water Quality Control Plan Report." dated April. 1975. The stated chemical quality objectives for Anza-Borrego are as follows: 3-5 Average Annual Value Constituent 90th Percentile Value 330/750 100/250 20/100 0.6/0.9 B 0.1/0.35 TDS 840/1.750 The regional board's report pointed out that a small amount of degradation may occur in local areas. but that the small amount of wastewater that will reach the groundwater should not measurably change its quality within the planning period. This eliminates the need for either tertiary treatment of the sewage effluent to reduce the mineral concentration or the exporta- tion of effluent to the Borrego Sink where the water quality of the groundwater basin is very low. 3.4 LAND- USE CHANGES 3.4.1 Flood Control The proposed flood control levees follow the recommended plan - for flood control improvements by the San Diego County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control. The construction of the proposed flood control levees does not preclude present uses for this area or suggested uses outlined in Part 1 of the Open Space Element for Floodplain Use from the 1990 General Plan. 3.4.2 Water Supply The new reservoir. booster pumping station, and well will require approximately 1 acre of land within the District for their 3-6 -t I \ construction. The reservoir will be constructed below grade to minimize its impact on the desert floor. Its impact could be further reduced by integrating the roof into recreational facilities. such as tennis courts. The booster pumping station will be located in an aesthetically , j pleasing above-grade structure with interior soundproofing to i eliminate motor and engine noise from its equipment. The water well will have a minimal impact on land use due to its small space requirements. 3.4.3 Sewerage System The sewerage system's impact on land use will be minimal since the new plant can be located within the existing plants 8-acre site. The plant will consist of low structures to house the aeration basins. clarifiers. and chlorination chamber. In addition. a s mall building will be necessary for the laboratory and electrical control gear. 3.5 REGIONAL AND LOCAL POLICIES 3.5.1 Flood Control The proposed flood control improvements are intended to be designed in accordance with regional and local policies established by the county of San Diego and the Zone 5 Flood Control Advisory Commission. 3.5.2 Water Supply This project. as well as the existing development within the proj- ect site. is served by the BSPCWD. The domestic water supply will be designed and operated in accordance with criteria set forth by the California Department of Health Service. These standards were revised as of January 6. 1980. and apply to new construction. 3-7 3.5.3 Sewage Reclamation BSPCWD will also serve the proposed project to provide sewage collection. treatment. and disposal. The District presently has a permit from the regional board setting discharge standards for its sewage effluent. The expansion of the District's treatment plant to replace the existing deteriorated facility and accommodate the project will be done to meet new discharge standards set by the regional board. The policy of the District is to serve the area within its boundary. 3.6 REGIONALAND LOCAL SERVICES 3.6.1 Flood Control The construction of the proposed flood control levees at the northerly end of the project site will require maintenance by the authority of the Regional Flood Control Commission. The mainte- nance of this levee which is intended to be part of the Borrego Valley 1972 General Plan flood control levee system will consist of periodic visits at the beginning of the rainfall and summer thundershower season. plus a review after each significant rainfall event. Repair or at least inspection of the levee system may be necessary after each significant rainfall event that would cause the storm water to lap against the levees. Many of the facilities are within public road right-of-way and therefore subject to maintenance by the San Diego County Transportation Department. The transportation department has existing facilities to maintain the local roads. Once the extent and limit of any repair is Identifi ed , the Regional Flood Control Com- mission could then contract with the San Diego County Road Depart- ment as it has done in the past or with a local contractor to do the appointed work as necessary. -1 I, 3.6.2 Water Supply This project will require the expansion of domestic water supply services provided by BSPCWD. The development of the project will require the construction of the reservoir and booster pumping station 1 in the initial phase of the project. Personnel can then be added as the customers within the District increase with an anticipated full- 1 time staff of three to four people. Service to the existing develop- ment within the project site will be more reliable, since new storage, pumping, and additional sources and pipelines will be available. 3.6.3 Sewage Reclamation This project will require the expansion of sewage treatment and reclamation services provided by BSPCWD. These capabilities will be added during the initial phase of the project construction. Service to the existing development may be considered to be more reliable, since a new treatment system will be built and more personnel will be available to maintain the system. 3.7 AIR QUALITY 3.7.1 Flood Control The project flood control system will have no impact to the local and regional air quality. 3.7.2 Water Supply The existing and proposed domestic water supply wells will operate by electric motors. The proposed booster pumping station will have a diesel engine-driven pump (for emergency power outages) that will meet the Air Quality Maintenance District's permit re- quirements for a stationary power sour-ce v 3-9 3.7.3 Sewage Treatment Plant A potential concern with wastewater treatment facilities is the emission of odors which may (or may not) be offensive to some people. The two most common reasons for such odors are (1) bio- logical upset of the plant, or (2) waste solids handling. One of the major reasons for selecting the oxidation ditch treatment process is its ability to withstand shock loadings and not be subject to biological upset. In addition, selection of aerobic. digestion of the sludge minimizes odors from solids handling • . However, even the best designed and operated plants will create minor musky odors which mayor may not be offensive to people. Digested sludge will be pumped to sludge drying beds on the end of the fairway where adequate area will be provided for drying. Local drainage will be diverted around the beds to eliminate flood- ing of the beds. The dried sludge can be used in the golf course's nursery for raising "plugs" to be used on the course. Odors from the sludge beds will be minimal and far removed from the residen- tial and clubhouse area. 3 .8 OPERA TION OF FACILITIES 3.8.1 Flood Control The only operations associated with the proj ect flood facilities will be the maintenance of the facilities to assure their proper function. The drainage ditches along Di Giorgio Road and Borrego Valley Road are anticipated to be maintained by the San Diego County Road Depart- ment. The levee at the northerly end of the project is anticipated to be maintained by the authority of the Regional San Diego County Flood ______2'l-----L1LlOL- _ , i Control Board, since this levee is part of the proposed Borrego Valley ) Flood Control System. Facilities within the project are anticipated to be maintained by a flood control assessment district with work per- formed by a contractor. There will be an increase in the amount of work to be performed by the San Diego County Road Department. 1 3.8.2 Water System i Proper operation of the water system requires good operator 'I ,! skills, routine maintenance procedures, and maintenance of the water sampling program required by the State Health Department. An important aspect of operating the water system is to set water rates at the proper level to provide an adequate budget with which to make repairs and purchase new equipment parts. Electrical power outages in the Borrego Valley can shut down ":'. all of the existing electrically driven wells, thus interrupting water .service for domestic or firefighting uses. This potential problem can be eliminated by a water stor-age reservoir with a diesel-driven pump to maintain water service during periods of power outages. 3.8.3 Sewage Treatment Plant Proper oper-ation of the sewage treatment plant will require good operator skills and routine monitoring. An important aspect of operation is an adequate budget with which to make repairs and purchase new parts. Electrical power outages in the valley is one aspect of opera- tion that can make the plant inoperative during which time the biological process can become upset and fail, thus resulting in strong odors. This potential problem can be eliminated by including an electrical generator for standby power during outages. 3-11 The treatment plant will normally discharge its oxidized. dis- infected. and filtered effluent to the golf course during the night hours for irrigation. During wet weather periods (or when the sewage flow is low due to seasonal variations in population). the effluent will gravity flow to the percolation ponds. Dried sludge can be recycled through the golf course nursery to raise "plugs" for the greens and fairways. This can be done by mixing the sludge with sand and soil amendments to make a growing medium in which to raise the "plugs. II" 3.9 ENERGY Total annual energy consumption for the water and sewerage facilities within the District is estimated to increase from 74.000 kwh/yr at the present time to 1,186.000 kwh/yr at the time of ultimate development (Table 3-1). TABLE 3-1 ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION WITHIN BSPCWD January. 1980 Energy Used (kwh per year) Existing Ultimate Water System Wells 40.000 270.000 Booster Pumps N/A 520.000 Sewerage System Lift Station 4.000 26.000 Treatment Plant 30.000 314.000 Reclaimed Water Booster Station N/A 56.000 TOTAL 74.000 L 186.000 3-12 4.0 FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 4.1 NO PROJECT If the project is not implemented, the existing development within the boundary limits of the Borrego Springs Park project will continue to be subject to the meandering streamflows and uncontrolled .. sheet flows from the northwesterly and westerly watersheds. The San I Diego County Flood Control General Plan for Borrego Valley1 states the following: liThe alternative of 'no action' would virtually preclude the orderly development of the private enclave. Flood problems are recurrent in valley areas and floods of disastrous propor- tions have been measured in similar areas nearby. When the waters of a flash flood discharge from the surrounding canyons onto the valley floor, they spread out in freely changing. un- predictable flow patterns. The shifting nature of these unde- fined watercourses precludes intelligent land-use planning and casts the shadow of calculated risk over the existing population as well as any future development which might take place. This area surrounded by the park is available for private use and a degree of expansion appears to be inevitable. L'1 light of this, some method of flood protection must be considered as vital to orderly well-planned growth in harmony with the natural environment. One of the objectives of this study, there- fore, has been to provide a plan to coordinate the localized - -~.---- 1? 4-1 flood control measures to be taken by private developers and thus insure the maximum safety of people and property with minimum environmental impact." Figure 4-1 shows the USGS lOO-year flood inundation map which indicates the entire project area is subject to flooding. This alterna- tive is not considered a reasonable alternative. since this would leave the existing development within the project area as a public liability to future flood control problems. 4.2 LEVEE PROTECTION SYSTEM This type of flood control protection was recommended in the Borrego Valley Flood Control General Plan2 which states: " •. ' • a system of earth levees is the least costly of several alternate systems due to reduced excavation, simple construc- tion, and less maintenance. This type of construction has the least environmental impact, in our opinion. "Levees are generally used to direct flood flows safely along chosen natural watercourses. In Borrego Valley. flood waters would be directed from the western canyons through de- veloped areas into relatively flat agricultural fields. Areas outside the levees would, in this way, be protected from flooding . "Inside the levees. open space would be available for rec- reation. agriculture, equestrian. or other uses compatible with infrequent inundation • By using relatively wide areas for in- fi.l tr-ation along the stream. water loss to the Borrego Sink is minimized. L 4-2 "A levee system requires neither dams nor excavated channels but still affords a high degree of safety from uncon- I trolled floods. This type of system has been used successfully in desert areas of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties." 1 The effectiveness of the levee system proposed in the General 1 Plan is dependent upon the full upstream implementation of the pro- posed levees. The Borrego Valley Flood Control General Plan recommends and shows a 4-foot-high levee at the northern boundary of the project site. This levee and its upstream counterparts would protect the project site from the northwesterly watersheds, Hellhole Canyon, Borrego- Palm Canyon, and Henderson Canyon floodflows , The project site would be protected from the westerly watersheds, Tubb Canyon and Dry Canyon. in the proposed levee system by a levee that would divert the storm floodflows from these watersheds around to and away from the southern end of the project site. If fully implemented, this system would effectively protect the project site. Presently, there is no plan to fully implement this levee system propos ed in the 1972 Flood Control General Plan. Sinc e 1972, there have been modifications to the implementation of the plan and the ultimate implementation of the plan. An a-foot-high earthen levee with wire and rock revetment facing has been built across the Tubb Canyon alluvial fan diverting flood streamflows around the southerly end of the Borrego Springs community and beyond the southerly boundary of the project site. Recently. there has been discussion about building a phased levee system to carry the flows from the 4-3 northwesterly canyons beyond the project site at Borrego Valley Road.3 "The plan is dependent on obtaining funds and the donation of right-of-way." This new proposal affects the project site in the same manner as did the 1972 Flood Control General Plan. The property site has been protected in the past with low levees. These levees have since deteriorated .with no maintenance. The con- cept of protecting the project site with levees is not a new concept. Any levee construction on the project site would allow for the ultimate implementation of the flood control levee plans and would take into account the status of upstream levee construction. The levee system of flood protection is feasible and appropriate to pro- tect this project when the upstream conditions are taken into account. 4.3 CONVENTIONAL FLOOD-CHANNEL SYSTEM This system utilizes open channels with debris basins and dams at its beginning. The San Diego County Flood Control Master Plan states the following: "At each of the four larger canyons wes t of Borrego Valley. the feasibility of debris basins was studied. Dams for these basins would be constructed of fill, with 3:1 side slopes. 20-foot crest width. and 36-inch drains. "Each dam would be provided with an ungated concrete or masonry spill way with capacity for the maximum probable flood . • • Below each dam. a trapezoidal channel was studied with capacity for the 50-year or lOO-year flood ... Concrete 3Borrego Sun. May 24. 1979. AA • lining would be necessary in the steeper portions of the channels near the mountains. due to the excessive slopes and high-velocity flows. "The debris dam and flood channel system would utilize 1 concrete-lined flood control channels resulting in impediments 1 to wildlife movement and decreased percolation of runoff into the groundwater. The water which would finally be released 1 near the Borrego Sink would be contaminated by the natural sulfates in that area. The structures involved ••• would have been much more prominent visually. thus reducing the scenic value of the area." ., The consequence of this system would be an extensive perennial maintenance program to assure the efficiency of the facilities. Opera- tion and maintenance would involve occasional excavation of debris from the debris retention structures to maintain the minimum design capacity of the facilities. The channel structures would also require a certain maintenance of their des ign efficiency. This system of flood control protection from upstream watersheds is not feasible unless the entire system is built which is beyond the scope of this project. This system would remove a large percentage of the valley floor from the opportunity of groundwater recharge from floodflows. This project will not use this concept so as to maximize the opportunity for groundwater recharge. 4.4 IMPOUND SYSTEM This flood control system consists of large basins and dams which impound stormflows as well as debris. As stated in the Flood Control General Plan: 4-5 ". • • large flood channels would be reduced in size by spreading the basins over considerable area (averaging about 150 acres per basin). Sufficient capacity would be available to impound an entire flash flood. including water plus debris. The main advantages to impounding reservoirs are that nearly all of the runoff would infiltrate into the groundwater and large flood channels would not be required •. As compared with an equivalent levee flood protection system. impound dams are more costly for priority construction and include the hazards associated with any dam located upstream from a populated area. "Besides being more expensive •••• the impound system • would have had much greater impact on the aesthetic and environmental characteristics of the area. The impound system would have required high dams at several of the canyon mouths along with a system of channels for release of the contained flood waters. Among the adverse effects of this system would be a partial blockage of the wildlife forage routes up and down the canyons to feeding and watering areas." The implementation of this system is beyond the scope of this project. The largest benefit from this system would be the recharge of the groundwater basin. Flood protection of the project site would still be necessary. This system would only affect the magnitude of this protection; rather. this system would lessen the severity of any flood event. The flood protection for the site will not assume that this system will be implemented. whereupon if this system is im- plemented. the project site will have additional flood protection. 4-6 ------_ .. - 4.5 ELEVATED BUILDING PADS SYSTEM This type of flood protection would elevate pads for onsite dwell- ings up to 2 feet above the surrounding desert floor with a minimum of 1 foot above the sheet floodflows. This allows street improvements and drainage swales to carry sheet flows across the project site and gives floodwater more of an opportunity to percolate into the ground- water basin. This flood control system will reduce the peak of floodflow , but it does not remove the project site from the need to provide flood protection. This system will reduce the amount of floodflows the project site would need to be protected against. This system may or may not be implemented in the future as this is beyond the concept of this project and the project site will need to be protected from potential floodflows. The effect on the proposed residential development in the project would be varied according to the density of the development's land use as shown in Table 1-1. The following discussion lists the resi- dential land uses and the expected result of elevating bufidingpacs for flood protection. 4.5.1 Ten-Acre Ranch Residences This type of development with a density of 0.1 dwelling untts ,' acre occupies 18 percent of the project area and will have little ef- fect upon the existing nature of sheet flows across the pr-ojec t ar ea . The residential dwelling and appurtenant facilities will be raised above the surrounding topography with the sheet flows passing around. It is expected that onsite dwellings and facilities will represent be- tween 1 to 3 percent for each of the 10-acre residential sites. During 4-7 the period of sheet flood flows , the occupants of each site will be es- sentially isolated until the flows subside. In some cases, it may be necessary to clear the driveway roads to each residence after the flooding has ceased. 4.5.2 Five-Acre Ranchette Residences This type of development with a density of 0.2 residential unit/ acre occupies 26 percent of the total project area. The construc- tion of cul-de-sacs to gain access to these residential sites will have the most significant effect on the existing nature of sheet floodflo ws across the property. It is expected that the residence and facilities will occupy between 2 to 5 percent for each of the 5-acre residenti2.1 sites. The residence and any facilities will have little effect on sheet flows. During periods of floods, access will be limited, since once the sheet flows have crossed the property, they will tend to concen- trate on the access roads and cul-de-sacs. 4.5.3 Single- Family TyPe Residences This type of residence with a density of 2.1 residential um ts ,' acre occupies 14 percent of the project area. Existing sheet flow drainage will be significantly aff'ecte d by these residences. It is expected that the residence and facilities will occupy 20 to 25 percent for each of the 0 .47-acre residential sites. Streets and dr-aina ge swales between each residence will be expected to intercept the eneet flows and channel them to flood control drainage swales and catch basins. It may be expected tna t after each flood occurrence. project area access roads will need to be cleared. L 4-8 4.5.4 Patio-Home TyPe Residences This type of residence with a density of 3.1 residential units/ acre occupies 6 percent of the project area. It is expected that the residences and facilities will occupy 40 to 50 percent of each of the 0.32-acre sites. Consequences to sheet flows will be somewhat -1 more significant than that for the single- family type residence. ,I Streets. rather than drainage s wal es , will be expected to transmit i more of any flood flows • 4.5.5 Attached Single Family Residences This type of residence with a density of five residential units/ acre occupies 4.6 percent of the project area. Each one of the three proposed sitings will be completely removed from the occur- renee of sheet flows. All flows will be diverted to streets and flood control drainage swales. It may be expected that after each flood occurrence. project area access roads will need to be cleared. 4.5 .6 Community Center This portion of the development occupies 4 percent of the project area. The consequences to sheet flow will be the same as tha t iot: the attached single family residences. 4.5.7 Open Space. Golf Course. Major Circulation. and Existing Development The streets. drainage ditches. and golf cour-ses will be utilized to collect and transmit the sheet flows off the project site. A certain amount of maintenance and repair of these facilities will be necessary after each flood occurrence. 4-9 4.5.8 Conclusion This type of flood protection has been used successfully in the sparsely populated low-density areas of the Borrego Valley where random sheet flows are encountered. The 10-acre and 5-acre residences appear to be well suited for this type of flood protection. The golf course can serve as a good means of collecting water draining from the streets and the relatively high-density areas of the project without wholly relying on the streets. thereby minimizing interruption of the transportation within the project site. The single- family. patio-home. and attached single- fa::nily type residences which may be considered high-density areas are not suited for this type of protection. 4.6 RECOMMENDED FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM The recommended system of flood protection for this project is the combination of several conventional flood protection systems. These proposed systems are adapted to the several types of housing densities within the project area and are adapted to the historical drainage pattern of floodflows that has been established. The fol- lowing is a summary description of Figure 4-2 outlining the flood control protection for the project site. 1) A 4-foot-high levee will be cons tr-ucte d on the northern boundary of the project site. This is in conformance with the 1972 Borrego Valley Flood Control General Plan and the most recent available proposed modification to this plan. This is a design to pr-otect the project site from the northwesterly watersheds I floodfl ows • .i _1 0 2) A drainage ditch on the east side of Di Giorgio Road will collect the sheet flows from the westerly watersheds of the project site. The twelve lO-acre ranch residences to the west of Di Giorgio Road will be protected from I sheet floodflows by raising their building pads 2.5 feet. 1 The expected depth of sheet flow is calculated to be 0.5 foot above the surrounding ground. The drainage l ditch will then convey the intercepted flood according to the existing drainage pattern either northerly or southerly along Di Giorgio Road. Some of the flow will be carried to the drainage .swale at the northern end of the property. at which point it is to be collected in a drainage swale and dispersed into the watercourse defined by the northerly levees for the northwesterly watershed. The remainder of the western project site drainage will be carried in a drainage ditch to a drainage swale at the southern end of the property. This drainage swale will then convey this intercepted flow along the southern boundary of the property eventually into the Tubb Canyon drainage course. 3) The project onsite drainage will be conveyed on streets to drainage swales through the golf course following the existing pattern where it exists onto Borrego Valley Road. 4-11 5.0 WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES 5.1 NO PROJECT If the project is not implemented to construct new water facilities, there will not be sufficient' pumping and storage capacity to accom- modate the proposed new residential development and related com- munity center. The existing wells and distribution system will be adequate to serve the existing residential development and the two existing golf courses. A water storage reservoir should still be built to serve as a source of water during emergency outages which would shut down the wells. The size of the reservoir would be determined by the number of days of emergency supply desired by the District. There would be no additional demand on the groundwater basin since the total annual water demand would be the same as it is presently. 5.2 BORREGO GROUNDWATER BASIN 5.2.1 Water Supply The annual total water demand for the ultimate development within the District's boundary is estimated to be 1,732 acre-feet annually. Of this total demand, 1,443 acre-feet would result from new residen- tial and commercial development and reactivation of the 18-hole .golf course. The remaining 289 acre-feet is a result of the existing residential development and one nine-hole golf course. An extensive analysis of the groundwater basin as part of this project has been prepared by David A. Phoenix, a geologist who is 5-1 an expert in analysis of groundwater basins. His report is entitled "An appraisal of the groundwater resources in the northern subbasin of the Borrego Valley reservoir, San Diego County, with emphasis on the recovery of groundwater from the Borrego Springs Park area." The Phoenix report concludes there is a calculable reservoir of 1 about 770,000 acre-feet of water in the upper 100 feet of saturated i sediments in the Borrego Valley which can support a desert com- munity for many years. Phoenix further comments that the total annual demand on the basin should not increase as residential development replaces agricultural uses, resulting in a trade-off in water demand. The total annual demand for groundwater to irrigate the golf courses can be reduced approximately 270 acre-feet annually by • reclamation of sewage from the District's plant. This would result ..' in a total annual demand of 1,460 acre-feet in the District at ultimate development. 5.2.2 Water Demand The water supply system must be capable of meeting a combina- tion of domestic demands and fire demands. Th·" pumping, storage. and pipeline facilities are sized based on the estimated maximum now rates and the capacity of the total water supply source. The water requirements of the existing and new development are sum- marized in Tables 5- 2 and 5- 3 . The estimated peak day demands plus Tire flows for the domestic system are shown in Table 5-1. 5-2 TABLE 5-1 BSPCWD ESTIMATED PEAK DAY DEMANDS WITH FIRE FLOWS Water Demand (gpm) Estimated Peak Maximum Day in Fire Development Status Population July Flow Total Existing Residential 416 190 1,000 1,200 Ultimate Residential 3,262 1,500 1,800 3,300 TABLE 5-2 BSPCWD ESTIMATED WATER USE AT ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT Water Use New Development (acre- feet/year) 1.· Single family homes (desert style landscaping) 329 units at .75 acre-feet/unit/year 247 2. Patio and attached single family homes 446 units at .3 acre-feet/unit/year 134 3. Ranchettes (5-acre sites, desert style landscaping) 40 units at 2.0 acre-feet/unit/year 80 4. Ranches (lO-acre sites, desert style Iands capmg) 20 units at 3.0 acre- feet/ unit/ year 60 5. Community center 43 acres at 4 acre-feet/ acre/year 172 6. Golf course ,. 125 acres at 6 acre-feet/ acre/year '750 SUBTOTAL 1,443 Existing Development 7. Single family homes 40 units at .75 acre-feet/unit/year 30 8. Condominiums 92 units at .3 acre-feet/unit/year 28 9. Golf course 38.5 acres at 6 acre-feet/acre!year 231 SUBTOTAL 289 TOTAL 1.732 5-3 TABLE 5-3 \ BSPCWD WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS System Demand Description Domestic January - 150 gpd per capita July - 330 gpd per capita Average - 200 gpd per capita Golf Course 6 acre-feet/ acre /year Peak Hour 200% of average daily demand Peak Day 400% of average daily demand Fire Flows Insurance Services Organization Criteria System Pressure Minimum of 20 psi during peak day plus fire flow . Golf Course Irrigation Occurs during nighttime only 5.2.3 Water Storage The water supply capacity r-equir-ernerita to meet the projected July 3 .300-gpm peak day and fire flow requirement can be reduced by water storage facilities and a booster pumping station". A water storage facility meets four criteria: (1) regulation of hourly fluctuations in water demand; (2) firefighting; (3) emergency outages or disruptions of source water; and (4) blending of various quality groundwater to meet minimum water quality requirements. The water district has indicated that Wells 1 and 4 can produce 1.200 gpm and 400 gpm (see Table 2- 2) for a total source capacity of 1.600 gprn . Based on this as a firm supply. the following quantity of water storage should be provided for ultimate development: 5-4 Quantity Storage Purpose (gallons) Regulation o Fire Flows 750,000 Emergency - One Average Day 750,000 TOTAL 1,500,000 5.2.4 Water Distribution System The water distribution system should consist of a centrally located 1.5-MG storage reservoir into which all well water would be pumped. A booster pumping station with standby power would pump from this reservoir into the system and maintain system pressure. A pump for fire flows should be driven by an engine in case the power supply to the electric motors is cut off. A schematic of the proposed water distribution system is shown in Figure 5-1. As indicated on the scnernat ic , an additional well with at least 1, OOO-gpm capacity should be developed as backup to well No.4. This well should be located in the southwest cor-net- of Section 9 per the Phoenix report recommendation. 5.2.5 Cost Estimate The estimated capital cost of the water supp ly, storage, ano transmission facilities is $1,995,000 (Table 5-4). This excludes the cost of distribution pipelines within the development. The annual energy r-equlr-ement at ultimate development is 630, 000 kwh based on average annual demand estimates for domestic and irrigation water with a total dynamic head of 300 feet for the pumping system. 5-5 TABLE 5-4 BSPCWD ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF MAJOR WATER FACILITIES FOR ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT January, 1980 i ! 1- Well 1 - New Pump and Motor $ 20,000 t Well 4 - New Pump and Motor 20.000 New Well and Pump 100.000 2. Water Storage Reservoir 1.5-MG Capacity. Below-Grade Concrete 750.000 3. Booser Pumping Station Electric and Diesel-Driven Fire Pump 500.000 4. Transmission Pipelines 12-Inch Diameter 200.000 5. Technical Services Water Wells 20.000 Reservoir 75.000 Booster Station 50.000 Transmission Pipelines 20.0GO 165.000 6. Contingencies at 15% 2';'0.000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST $1.995.000 5.3 IMPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL WA'T"SP.SUPPLY Importation of water into Borrego Valley is an al te rns tive source of water to allow BSPCWD to meet the water- demand of new develop- ment (1.443 acre-feet as shown in Table 5-2). However. the cost to import 1,443 acre-feet. or 0.6 mgd , a: Ieas t 41 miles would be eco- nomically unfeasible unless it were done 0':1 a regional basis (t . e .• in excess of $15.000.000). 5-6 While it is physically feasible to import wate r to the Borrego Valley area. there are potential problems which exist. First. the cost of importation may not be justified except for a very intensive development plan. Secondly. there may not be an allotment of Colorado River water or State Project water available. Since the source of a future supplemental water supply is not known at this time. it was decided to examine several development plans that were presented in a i 968 USBR report which are be- lieved to be representative of alternatives that may be available in the future. Each plan would require a terminal reservoir for peaking ,,1' municipal and industrial water suppl ies . This peaking reservoir (proposed Borrego Springs Reservoir) could be located near Borrego Springs Community Center. The r-eser-voir- would have sufficient capacity to allow the pipeline to flow at a uniform rate of 25 cf's and would also provide the emer-gency storage required in case of G' pipeline outage. to meet a one-week demand during the maximum monthly demand period. There are three possible sources of impor-ted water for the Bor- rego Springs area. The three representative points of diversions that were considered are located on the San Diego Aquecuc t , in Coachella Valley near Oasis. and on the Imperial Irrigation District's Westside Main Canal of the All-American Canal System. The three aLernatives are shown on Figure 5-2 and are briefly described as follows: Importation of Water From the San Diego Aqueduct ,. Imported water from the San Diego Aqueduct to be referred to as the Escondido- Borrego Route would be diverted through a S-7 pipeline called the Escondido- Borrego Route to the proposed Borrego Springs Reservoir. That proposed route is 52 miles long and would require a total static lift of 7 .200 feet. Importation of Water From Coachella 1 Delivery of import water through the Coachella distribution system would be taken near Oasis. California. to be referred to as the Oasis-Borrego Route. From this delivery point. a pipeline called Oasis-Borrego Route would convey the water to the pro- posed Borrego Springs Reservoir. The proposed route is 41 miles long and requires a lift of 980 feet. Importation of Water From the Imperial Irrigation District Delivery of import water through the Imperial Irrigation Dis- trict's canal system would be from the Westside Main Canal to be referred to as the Westside-Borrego Route. From this point. the water would be conveyed by a pipeline called Westside-Borrego Route to Borrego Springs Reservoir. The proposed route is 53 miles long and requires a lift of 800 feet. Table 5-5 shows the alternative project data for the convey- ance facilities which provide suppIemen ta l imported water sup- plies to the Borrego Valley. Table 5-6 shows the estimated costs in 1968 dollars as proposed by the USBR r-epor-t, The report concluded that: "Unless extremely low initial water costs become obtainable in the coastal area of southern California. importations through the Escondido-Borrego Route would not appear feasible. ,The Oas{s~ Borrego and the Westside- .:»> Borrego 'Routes are potentially feasible for importation 5-8 of water and future selection will depend upon provision of a dependable economical source of water." By evaluating the least expensive alternative in today's dollars and assuming a project life of 50 years. the cost of delivering water from the diversion points at the maximum capacity to the Borrego Springs area would be on the order of $500 per acre-foot. This does not include the cost of the water that is delivered to the diversion point which would add about $100 per acre-foot. l 5-9 TABLE 5-5 PROJECT CONVEYANCE FACILITIES DATA* TO IMPORT WATER TO BORREGO VALLEY 1 Total Static 1 No. Lift For Conveyance Design Length of Pipeline System Capacity (miles) Pump (feet) 1 ~ I Escondido- Borrego 25 cfs Steel Pipeline ", Route (17,000 A-F/yr) (57-Inch Dia.) 52 9 7,200 ! Oasis-Borrego 25 cfs Steel Pipeline Route (17,000 A-F /yr) (57-Inch Dia.) 20 Concrete Pipeline (57-Inch Dia.) 21 3 980 Westside- Borrego 25 cfs Steel Pipeline Route (17,000 A-F/yr) (57-Inch Dia.) 13 Concrete Pipeline (57-Inch Dia.) 40 1 800 *USBR Report 1968. TABLE 5-6 ESTIMATED COST OF DEVELOPMENT PLANSl, 2 TO IMPORT WATER TO BORREGO VALLEY Total Conveyance Cons true tion Annual Annual System Cost OM&R Power- Cost E scondido- Borrego Route $53,402,000 $318,300 $1,980,CJOO Oasis-Borrego Route 30,122,000 87,000 267,000 Westside- Borrego Route 33,427,000 45,000 220,000 1Source: USBR Report 1968. 2Cost Estimates in 1968 Dollars. 5-10 Importation of Water From the Salton Sea In 1968. the USBR evaluated this alternative for a de- mineralized supplemental water supply as follows: "Each year over 1.000.000 acre-feet of brackish water flows from Coachella and Imperial Valleys into the Salton Sea. It would be possible to place an electrodialysis demineralizing plant within one of these areas to intercept some of this brackish water. This plant could convert brackish waters from approximately 3.000 ppm to 500 ppm of total dissolved solids. However. records indicate there are undesirable concentrations of boron in this water that probably would not be removed by this process. Moreover. the processing and exportation of water now flowing into the Salton Sea would further aggravate the existing salinity and water level problems at the sea. Therefore. this plan does not offer an acceptable prospect for future study. 11 5.4 RECLAMATION OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT The irrigation water demand to water the golf courses car. be partially met with reclaimed water from the BSPCWD Sewage Treat- ment Plant. However. to have reclaimed water. there mus t be development to generate sewage. The existing domestic water demand is substantially less than the potential water requirements of both golf courses if both were in full operation. At ultimate development. the estimated sewage flow will be 0.23 mgd , or 273 acre-feet, annually. Assuming a total reclama- tion program. the golf course irrigation -de mand could be 'r-educed from 980 acre- feet annually to 707 acre- feet annually. a 28 percent reduction in water usage. 5-11 1, l 5.5 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT The Phoenix report points out the lack of overall coordination and recordkeeping for the groundwater supply in Borrego Valley. This ,. lack of regional management is made more complex because of the i many purveyors of water in the valley (Table 5-7). The integration of BSPCWD into a regional plan could not only result in a better understanding of the groundwater basin but also of joint participation in wells, storage reservoirs, and pipelines. Regional planning could also develop artificial recharge projects as recommended in the Phoenix report to increase the yield to the groundwater supply in the valley. TABLE 5-7 WATER SERVICE AGENCIES1 Name of Water Agency TyPe of Water Service Agencv Borrego·Springs Water Company Commercial Borrego Springs Air Ranch Mutual Incorporated Mutual Water and Improvement Company Borrego Valley Water District Public Borrego Springs Park County2 Puo lic Water District Golden Sand Mutual Water Company Incorporated Mutual OcotilloWells Mutual Water Company Unverified Agency. Rancho Borrego Mutual Water Company Incorporated Mutual South Borrego Mutual Unverified Agency 1Sources: "Directory of Water Service Agencies 'In California," Bulletin No. 114, State of California Department of Water Resources, June, 1962, and "Property Valuations. Tax Rates, Useful Information for Taxpayers," County of San Diego. June 30,1967. 2proj ect service area. 5-12 5.6 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE It is recommended that groundwater continue to be used to supply water within the BSPCWD. supplemented by reclaimed water to irri- gate the golf courses. The water supply and distribution system should be developed to include a new well. water storage reservoir. and booster pumping station with an emergency engine-driven pump to develop fire flows. (See Section 5.2.) The alternative to supplement the groundwater basin is not required for many years and must be done on a regional basis to be cost effective. The alternative to join in with regional planning is practical and should be done when an agency is established with the appropriate authority. 5-13 6.0 SEWAGE TREATMENT AND m:::iPOSAL ALTERNATIVES 6.1 NO PROJECT No new sewage treatment and disposal facilities would be con- structed for the ultimate development within BSPCWD under this alternative. The existing plant would continue to be used until its maximum treatment capacity of 75,000 gpd was reached based on its ability to treat peak flow rates. This would limit development within the water district to approximately 150 dwelling units. The existing facility is an 18-year old "packaged plant" that is rerching the end of its anticipated 20- to 25-year life. It is in de- teriorated condition and will require either replacement or rehabili- tation within the next two years to simply maintain its treatment capability to meet required discharge standards. Benefits which could be realized from water conservation by reclamation would not be realized under this alternative. EXP ANSION OF EXISTING PLANT The capacity of the existing plant is adequate to treat sewage from about 150 residential units. The plant will have to be expanded to treat the additional 817 dwelling uni t s proposed at ultimate develop- ment within the District. The nonmodular design of the plant limits expansion possibilities to new facilities separate from the existing one. Due to the deterio- rated condition and cost to rehabilitate the plant. it will be cost effective to replace the existing plant's facility in the new one and abandon the old plant. 6-1 6.3 WASTE TREATMENT DISCHARGE STANDARDS New treatment facilities will have to meet discharge standards set forth by the Colorado Regional Water Quality Control Board. Colorado River Basin Region. The new standards for ultimate development within the District are anticipated to be similar to the District's existing Waste Discharge Standards. Order 76-1 0 (Appendix) • Order 76-10 was established to allow the District to percolate effluent into the groundwater basin. Reclamation of the effluent will require more stringent conditions so the effluent will be in compliance with the state health department's Title 22 regulations. which require varying levels of disinfection depending on the pro- posed type of reclamation. Landscape irrigation for golf courses requires an oxidized effluent with a median coliform count of 2.2/100. 6.-~ 4 WASTE TREATMENT FOR PERCOLATION Secondary waste treatment to provide an oxidized effluent will be required for continued percolation of the effluer.t. The following alternative types of treatment processes were analyzed for the Dis- trict to economically treat sewage at its ultimate development of approximately 3 .300 people: extended aeration. contact stabilization. and oxidation ditch. The most economical and reliable process for the District is the oxidation ditch. The advantages of this process compared to the dis-. advantgages are as follows: Disadvantages Advantages . ' ... , 1. Stable process when proper 1. Major maintenance requires sludge management is crane to remove equipment. performed. 6-2 Advantages Disadvantages 2. High quality effluent. 2. Requires good operator skills and routine monitoring. 3. Predictable process. 3. Sufficient oxygen supply should 4. Low energy. be provided for nitrification and pH may need to be 5. Low sludge yield. controlled. 6. High shock load capacity. 7. Small land area usage. The treatment facility will be sized for a per capita flow rate of 70 gpcd , which amounts to a total capacity of 3,262 people x 70 gpcd = 0.23 rngd , The process flow schematic and site plan are shown in Figure S -1 • The design criteria and cost estimate for this facility are shown in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. 6.5 WASTE TREATMENT FOR RECLAMATION Reclamation of the wastewater- will require chlorination and fil- tration to meet the Title 22 standard for 2.2/100 median coliform count. Filtration is required in addition to chlorination to ensure removal of algae and other suspended material in the effluent so it will not clog up sprinkler heads on the goif course and lessen its desirability. The chlorination and sand filtration facilities wiil add additional cost to the treatment facilities since it would require not only use of chlorine but also will r-equir-e a reclaimed water pumping station. The chlorine contact chamber design criteria is also shown in Part B of Table 6-1. The estima ted additional cos t of chlorinating and filtering the effluent for reclam-ation by golf course irrigation - - ::..--- --i~-;hown in Table 6-3, 6-3 TABLE 6-1 BSPCWD DESIGN CRITERIA SUMMARY FOR WASTE TREATMENT PLANT Unit Process Units Design Criteria A. PERCOLATION OF EFFLUENT Suspended Growth - Biological Treatment Detention time hours 24 @ 2 x Qave SRT days 20 Waste. sludge Ib/lb of BOD 0.6 Oxygen supply lb/lb of BOD 2.0 Final Sedimentation Overflow rate gpd/SF 600 @ 2 x Qave Detention hours 3 Aerobic Digestion Detention days 15 Sludge concentration percent 15 Sludge drying beds SF /lb/ day of 20 solids Percolation Ponds Loading acre-feet/ day 0.5 B. RECLAMATION OF EFFLUENT Chlorine Contact Chamber Contact retention at peak flow hours 1 @ 2 A Qave Dosage at peak flow mg/l 10 Sand Filters Loading gpm/SF 20 6-4 TABLE 6-2 BSPCWD COST ESTIMATE FOR WASTE TREATMENT PLANT TO PERCOLATE EFFLUENT January, 1980 A. CONSTRUCTION COST Item Description Estimated Cost ($) 1. Parshall flume 15,000 2. Rotary screens 50,000 3. Oxidation ditch 125,000 4. Secondary clarifiers 40,000 5. Return sludge pumping station 40,000 6. Sludge drying beds 5,000 7. Percolation ponds 30,000 8. Emergency generator 40,000 9. Electrical work 75,000 10. Plant water system 10,000 11. Piping, valves, and fittings 150,000 12. Plant paving and fencing 50,000 Construction Cost Subtotal 630,000 Contingencies @ 15% 95,000 Estimated Construction Cost 725,000 Technical Services, Inspection, Legal. and Administrative @ 20% 145,000 Total Project Cost 870,000 B. POWER REQUIREMENTS Item Description Estimated Horsepower 1. Rotary screens 2 2. Oxidation ditch with aspirating propeller pump aerators 17 3. Secondary clarifier 1 4. Return sludge pumps 3 5. Miscellaneous (lights, etc c ) 1 24 Power consumption = (24 hp) (. 7'-i6) " 430 kwh/ day (157, 000 kwh/year) 6-5 TABLE 6-3 BSPCWD COST ESTIMATE FOR ADDITIONAL TREATMENT FACILITIES TO RECLAIM EFFLUENT January, 1980 A. CONSTRUCTION COST Item Description Estimated Cost ($) 1• Chlorine contact chamber 75,000 2. Chlorina tion building 34,000 3. Laboratory 25,000 4. Sand filters 30,000 5. Reclaimed water pumping station 55,000 6. Electrical work 25,000 7. Piping, valves. and fittings 10,000 8. Reclaimed water force main to golf course 16,000 Construction Cost Subtotal 270,000 Contingencies @ 15% 40,000 Estimated Construction Cost 310,000 Technical Services, Inspection, Legal, and Administrative @ 20% 60,00\2. Total Project Cost 370.000 B. POWER REQUIREMENTS Item .Description Estimated Horsepower Reclaimed water pumping sta:ion 20 500 gpm @ 200' TDH Efficiency @ 80% Pumping time - 12 hr-/ day 2. Miscellaneous (lights, etc v) 1 21 Power consumption = (21 hpj (.746) = 384 kwh/day (140,000 kwh/year) 6-6 6.6 EXPORTATION OF EFFLUENT The effluent from the treatment plant could be exported out of the basin into the Borrego Sink to eliminate mixing with the groundwater 1 in storage. It is anticipated that waste treatment discharge standards I for disposal to the sink area would be the same as those for the per- 1 colation basins- -i.e., an oxidized effluent. I Since the groundwater basin in the Borrego Sink is quite saline. there would probably be no mineral limitations on the effluent. How- ever, the exported effluent would be a total loss to the Borrego Valley and would defeat the efforts to minimize water utilization of the basin. Effluent would be conveyed to the Borrego Sink by a 5-mile-Iong gravity pipeline. The estimated cost of the pipeline is over $800.000. Thus, the cost of secondary treatment plus the pipeline is in excess of $1.67 million. 6.7 REGIONALIZATION OF FACILITIES The development of property in the vicinity of BSFCWD should lead to consolidation of small treatment plants into a larger facility. This can result in substantial cost savings not ~)nlyon the capital coat but also on the annual long-term operations and maintenance costs. A draft EIR was recently co mple ted for the "Rams Hill Country Club" for the Di Giorgio Development Corporation. A new sewage treatment plant with capacity to treat 0.224 mgd to serve this develop- ment was proposed in the report. The location of the proposed plant is approximately 3 miles from the site of the existing plantsite operated by BSPCWD; and it appears that sewage could gravity flow into the existing plantsite from Rams HilL 6-7 / The estimated cost of a single 0.45-mgd treatment facility (0.23 plus 0.22 for Borrego Springs Park and Rams Hill) is approxi- mately $1.5 million. A gravity sewerline approximately 3 miles long would have to be constructed. but a reclaimed water pumping station and pipeline could also be eliminated in the Rams Hill Country Club plan. Effluent could be used on the lower elevation golf courses to eliminate its pumpage to higher elevations, thus :-esulting in reduced groundwater usage from the basin- -Ci goal of both developments. The long-term annual operating costs would be reduced since duplication of a very costly item--Iabor--would be eliminated. It would also make regulation of the effluent for compliance to the Regional Board's requirements easier since they would be monitoring one plant. 6.8 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE The regionalization of facilities is the most cost-effective alter- native for the areas to be served. It provides for one small "r-egtonal" plant instead of two very small treatment plants, thus resulting not only in capital cost savings to the developers, but perhaps more im- portantly, long-term reduced ope r-aung expens es to the future popula- tion who have to pay the bills after the ar-ea is developed and the developers are gone. The alternative to expand the existing plant is not feasible due to both its nonmodular construction and its deteriorated condition. The alternative to only treat the effluent for disposal by percola- tion does not meet the Regional Board's goal to reclaim water when there is sufficient volume to work wi tn (i . e., when flows are over 100,000 gpd) , L 6-8 1, The alternative to reclaim the effluent for irrigation of the golf course is a practical method to reduce groundwater demand and maxi- mize the use of effluent. When the seasonal variation in effluent is below 100,000 gpd, it should probably be percolated to reduce trea t- ment and laboratory testing costs; but, this alternative for the devel- opment only with BSPCWD is not as cost effective as combining the - - plant with the proposed facility to treat sewage from the Rams Hill Country Club project. The alternative to dispose cf effluent by exporting it to the Borrego Sink is effective in removing it out of the Borrego Valley Basin but wasteful of a valuable resource in an ar-Id climate. This is not an economically viable alternative. 6-9 / 7.0 MITIGATION 7.1 CONSTRUCTIONPROCEDURES Where applicable, the following protective measures will be incorporated in construction contracts to reduce environmental degradation to a minimum. Specifications will be written into the contracts to limit definable impacts. All laws with regard to en- vironmental conservation will be obeyed. Measures must be taken after construction to return the areas not built upon, as early as practicable, to the original state or better. All roads must be kept open to traffic, as this is a requirement for emergency vehicles (e. g., fire departments, police, etcv) • Construction noise should be minimized by maximal use of muffled or quiet equipment and scheduling work to minimize noise intrusion. The- state has legal restrictions on noise for internal combustion engines. Occupational Safety and Health Act noise exposure requirements will nt be exceeded as to residents. busi- nesses, or workmen. Protective equipment will be used by work- men exposed to high noise levels. Contractors I spectrtcations snoul d include measures to pr-o- tect the public's health and safety during the construction phase. Safety is a major consideration, even though the site will not be accessible to the public. Safe construction procedures should be enforced. Equipment and machinery must be stored where children cannot gain ready access to it; thus. fencing and security measures will be required to preclude any injur-ies occurring on the project site. L 7-1 free movement of wildlife. Further, the levees will be a source of high ground for resident species which might not be otherwise adapted to survival in the event of inundation. Preservation of wildlife in the Borrego Valley area is further provided for by the 470,000 acres of Anza - Borrego Desert State Park, the world's largest." 7.3 SOILS AND GEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS Design of the treatment plant expansion. water storage reservoir. and booster pumping station will require the following analysis by a qualified soils engineer and geologist: 1) Types of foundations and depths. 2) Soil bearing pressures. 3) Compaction and backfill requirements including erosion control for slopes. 4) Groundwater. 5) Expected cut slopes and embankment slopes. 6) Geologic-seismic factors with recommended seismic acceleration. 7) Slope stability for reservoir walls. This analysis will provide design data to mitigate earthquake factors. soil factors. and geological considerations for the proposed project. 7.4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY Mitigation of groundwater quality will be through a strict adherence to the discharge standards from the reclamation plant set forth by the CRWQCB, Colorado River Basin Region. The 7-4 water quality objectives are documented in the board's basin plan and are implemented when discharge standards are set for each treatment plant facility. In general, the requirements for pub- licly owned facilities are to provide secondary treatment that meets the following Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria: Unit of 3D-Day Parameter Measurement Mean Value BOD mg/l 30 Suspended Solids mg/l 30 Fecal Coliform Bacterial No./lOO ml 20C pH pH units Between 6.0 and 9.0 The primary emphasis on disposal is to return usable water to the usable water supply through reclamation or iniiltration to the groundwater. If the regional board sets standards similar to the Order No. 76 for the existing plant, it will not be necessary to provide any treatment beyond "secondary" to meet their- r-equir-emenrs . Prohibition of regenerative-type water softeners will be required to minimize the addition of salts to the effluent to main- tain the allowed incremental increase in TDS in the new discharge permit. Mitigation of nitrates in the domestic water supply due to migra- tion from the northerly portion of the basin underlying the agricul- tural areas can be accomplished by pumping from the new well pro- posed on the southwesterly side of the water district's service area. 7-5 -. \ \ Urbanization of the area and diminishing agricultural activities will reduce groundwater pollution from the fertilizers and insecticides used on the various crops. 7.5 GROUNDWATER QUANTITY Mitigation of the quantity of groundwater used is both the respon- sibility of the developer and the BSPCWD. The developer can reduce the amount of groundwater used onsite to minimize the withdrawal of water from the basin by the following methods: 1) Toilets with 3.5 - gallon tanks. 2) Shower with 3-gpm-rr.aximum flow rate. 3) Faucets with 1.5-gpm-maximum flow rate. 4) Pressure-reducing valves set at 50 psi. 5) Automatic clothes washers and dishwashers. 6) Use of native plants in landscaping. 7) Time-controlled sprinklers for any exterior watering. The installation of water conservation devices and careful exte- rior landscaping can reduce water use from 10 to 55 percent or more. This would result in a significant r-eduction in tile historical per capita water usage rates found in sirni lar- desert communities. Deed restrictions prohibiting the use of water-consumptive plants can be placed on all single family lots with requirements that drought- resistant plants be used in landscaped areas. The water district can r'educe the amount of water by active pursual of the reclamation program to provide irrigation water to the golf course. In addition, the District can participate in basin- wide management and support recharge programs to capture storm water runoff. 7-6 Mitigation of the long-term water supply to the Borrego Basin will involve regional planning that may require importation of water as proposed by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. It is estimated that this planning may be required in 50 to 100 years based on current forecasts for consumptive water use with and without urban development as a trade-off to agricul- tural development. 7-; .,. ._,._i .., . -,-~ ~"'.' · r { r' ( r r r r r r r" -,. r WIII'au , us 1I5IlIi, \~::=~~~~~\ C.---','\.-i ....·Ii;:,' '~ IUtl'· ClIII • lII'on lun ,-. LOCATION ~ N ~ NO SCALE Pacific Ocean 'FIGURE BDI...J/e EnQ/IJeE!l'" JQ COf'PIOt'i'.'f.Aon.------[JJJ, consuUlnQ RnQlnE't?rs , i"IrcflURCls REGIONAL VICINITY MAP I-I ,~~":"' __~:::'_~_"'::'::::::_,::::::'=::::::N~"~..--1. --1. _ FIGURE ~. t:Clnsultl"C enOI" •• r. , .r~"Ic:.c:t. LOCATION MAP 1- 2 -I - )1 I :1 ,I I I ;\ I .J : 1 ~ BORReGO SPRINGS '1 BORREGO ISPRINGS. PARK --' -t~'~ . --.i-==...... -i-_-::_-"F""'!prbL-_---:J'ri:.~·:1.__ ...... ,.._ .. I ----- I I I , p, •...--BORREGO SPRINGS .- PARK COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BOUNDARY: :' . j_- BORREGO COUNTRY CLUB (e.K/STlNG) I I, ~ I 1 . I i'-, NO SCAI.E BORREGO SPRINGS PARK COUNTY FIGURE WATER O:STRICT 2-1 I SERVICE AREA --- - - EXIST. FACILITIES NEW FACILITIES I I I i ~ , I WELL NO.3 ~ (400 gpm) I DISTRIBUTION TRANSMISSION ~.;OISTR IBI .. SYSTEM MAINS __ ~ r SYSTEM I I WELL NO. t I 1.5 i\tG. BURIED ~ --~---'---f! " RESERVOli ~ I BOOSTER I PUMPING ~ STATION WELL NO.4 I GAS/DIESEL., n ~ (~1200 ;pm) ENGINE i=OR~ Ii FIRE PUMP. L ~ -~r-- -[ ------~,i ------~[ r DISTR!BlITION ~ ~SYSTEM 10,000 gal. f . 3 t nORAGE TANK .,.._L ...... r .. J' --""._, .... f e, .....:>. \ E:!t t\e-e ...... c \ ~ ~ 'I GOLF t TRANSMISSION \ COURSE I MAINS \ / "....._- ." NEW 1000 gpm. WELL BORRE GO SPRiNGS ?ARK COUNTY FIGU SOLlIe EJ lCJ* L=eJi JCJ CotPOatJOIl WATE R DISTRICT '~. con.ult,no .no,n •• ,. '_.. '." .."t.c--=.::t.:...... JI...... >.n..Jc..I..i-Jl.U../"'lc..l..il.L...... I..Ll----.I.!~Au:r.J..l:'o.l....l.._~y.!.._'>l.S ...L.IoollL..aJ--L1----l!!!5~ j COMPOSTING AREA . ' FOF< SCREENINGS COMMINUTOR PARSHALL (LUME HEADWORKS OXIDATION PONDS AERATION (2) i r I CLARIFIERS (2) I I ! ~ ~ 1 RAS r --_-.._------_. CLARIFICATION WAS _ i ~U:;G;:' : AEROBiC - ~ - DIGESTOR ~DRYING CHLORINE i i I BEDS ,'-- __ ~l DISINFECTION CHLORINATION CHAMBERS (2} 8: i='ILTRAT10N ~ PU~O} f I .....--- .... 'f) .11 ~---l'1~-1G~.i-.------'lP~ TO GOLF r i COURSE L(\-;w "--" . PERCOLATION PONOS SAND F'H..TEF FIGURF I SCJI.J/Iif ED 0 La. JCJ CDlr.x::w atJoi j u. 6"- V APPENDIX 1 FLOOD CONTROL COMPUTATIONS - Alluvial Fan Special Flood Hazard Zone Mapping - Dry Canyon Borrego-Palm Canyon - Di Giorgio Road Drainage Ditch - Onsite Runoff _..:.-_: __ 1 ..l_. __ •__ .--"_ • .....;....-__ ~__ . __ :...-. ..:.._. • _ ,I I:.'. .: .', "; ,l.JSE:: l.{S t., S_:_~/_l:1A-P :CJE~--'--Q;:)!:L~-R/2.lJb~E:~-At£&$---- I' - ~-.lL~~:--:_~--'..:.---.S-c;.&z..~-, ' __- ~ I :': ': i ~ r .! ~ ,I ) I I I • . ; .: ; i ; ~ : ; I 1\ i .; ~" _ ._ ..;---:", -----,---;--r I' : ' _"------~p~--.A-)_~- td ~~_9;~~---.'J:::1.-4~<._ .'5:_f10/..':!.~ --:._ c?·IT/,-~C_-:' l:'.~~S' ' : ! ~ !' I': Xs; ! ecu::p~_:_~/ E' CQ~_E@I\·c:~ i!,r~4._~ ' ; ; ; ~ - ~_~_-:.£~Qh1~...:5_~s:T--:_F.:.-q~:-- 6Ni? ~L,.O ..C-'';.:-_.JL·L~_.---- . :__:__:_~_-;-_,__., ~~£E j-"-Lt~~._:__L~J)1.J:~L s. :~.;-.r:.: --:-----~--- __ ---', .__ -__~_'_~_~_~ 2_£Lt-I-.ILV../ A';::: ~;.:.F'--., 1,t":~~L.'l.':L~::.---.------=-~-·~=L: i-L~- ~Jj;~~i;~-==Sili ~ ~,_=~:;-_~i.O;~~2(?!.J..&£ ~. - - - - _ : i : _ : : lSJ- Ii: i ! ,I I ;. : _,' ::,' -;,- -t-t-r- , _'_~--~-_;..--I .4g.~'7l.:_...:..~!):2:f____'.:C_"':l __ ::?~:E!_fi}§:.._"L'.!fl(.1=!J.IJl3L.~- .. i,· . . _ ..__: '-.~ :._ ~__.}._.LP~. __ PClC.H/J_I,.._ _ E'-<)-:J~ C.rMl-I.J:LFJ...L_--'-hll...,!;::O'. _ -_ .._. ~...:- :_. :-.~I_~~il..I/.#.L-;~- _C2i=;: ~'j=:f-O'i-J.-' __Li:l 1.J/!32~::E~"k~~~ ______, .__~.~- :...__~_LaMA!..g5_~ ._--~ ------.--~ ------.-.--.---.--~.------___:_~__._~__.,__. ~_'_'.__.2 _-_AJ2E): .. __ ?2~ yA_t-_t...E'L __ ALI.j) )L~L_~ .._ _~=-====--c--~~_~--=_:=-~-:=-'-~Zz..!~~:_~.;,~~_~r.;~;;:E-:;';E--- __ u :______. ~ __ - _ ~€?" B/J/ 1.../'::::A/L-'SD _~/-',L __.__~ hj I-!!! «c: -_ .._ ..__ ._-_. -_ ...._-_._. --"-- --._.-._-_ .._ .. _-.'- - - - ._...- _." --. -- - ..-.----- ...- .-- _.'- _ ..------~.__ ._. --- -- . __.__.__ -.: ._. ~__._. ._ .._.__-_0-"---'- .,__.._.._ ..~_.. "-_._. ---- -.--.-.-.--- -.-.--.-_ - --_. __ -- ••• __ ._ ••• _:'. __ . __ ._ ••• _. : • __ •.•••• '_"_" ~_. __ • ,__ •• '_. _ ••• _ _ .•••• __ •.•• _ •• _0 __ .... 4 ._. •• • · •• : -.,:. SU8JI:CT _ BY OATI: __ ._ SHr::I:T NO. O...... l....a. JOB NO. _ CHKO.8Y __ OATI: _ _ --__._~_=~~:=;.. .l= :~~_.:-~.=i.=:·=:. ,-.'~:=~:_=:_=~=~~:~.i··.=·,··._ .. .._ '--'-'-- GAl L.· .u L. . ~t."····:!' I . • : • •... . - ~-+-:-lSt~;..-:--C--+-c;.e~rnlU,[<:.c-+"',u~, =;-~5D-+-4_C-P~-~~--.-: _.~.-::.1-~~:EL&~%:~~-~~-+Ii,;'L{J ~c-;-J-~;f=i,~~~=~~~~~~-~~-; L._~:-.....;.-.~--:- __ L_·~_~!2.rz...e-E;'2.'Ef2A.t!2/L',/...Q~.-.l-.ZO-.L ...A-'--:.5t::fE,-J.E'-~ ....:.--.--- ~ : I : j I ~ ; i j !: i , ! . _; : : . ' , : : '- '. . . .I 0.....· : ·--·~_·--~·-r---i·-·-~i :--d2£.T.?TJf.I -', ._--;-. i'··-'·';··--; ---;------;..-UJ'4..."'LC.R...... ·-;-4-7--"'- . _.,.-."---_.__ ..._---'- , ._-_ ..._--_. --_._------_.--- 1~' ~ l~ i ~ !,': ~ Aii-' ~__:._~_.:..___~_'_:~. .,=':"-;i' i !~:~·F0Y::!.~t::L,-· _~C.~M S_~ __ ::-~-1...-EQ.1J!),.LJrL: -:----'-_~_~.-: .Eem::-~._ Ttr' .~.l:1j;::;7,r:!. ...:.0 E=:_. _:.7::tt'';:._ ca (',Jt£..1.U:ff . . . .A}.1D .. ~ ... SitJ/JOAAD._ .'Dev.Jr\1JO,,-! ..... -- .H_'--~.:FO'X~,.,·-.-T~ _~.. t.aD.. ylZ.-_ ...ANh_ ..=:;Q. Yl.?;.... _._.~._.~_;-..,;-:-;-~-l.--:_.__.f =-='E£...POD_;:=:-L..O~'5 ...... -..... --.- . : I .- -:---I-:·-'-:··----:---·-~ I !' ; : . ,.-.------.---.-- ..----.----.------..--.---.-.-- ..-- ..------.---- • . .__ ....:_~--.-.-.--. _?....:._ • _. ~6A8.!.~ /.:~>~_. ~£_.C:(:(.: ..)f:;;./,1/JC~ _"...... ::-~...... ~.. _...;.__:_._.-:_~_j-""':"'-_' _;~_:.-~ ....-r:.f€ .'.LOG, "':' r~1/Z.~.P .: ~7"/.Pe'".... ( (r _ __ ' _.:...._'---'-"'S7XV../.DAe.D_ .. PeY/.M e:._ ...l.3...... t:.£u:.~;.i."-"L-=C ._._.____ :M.D..._~t:LVZ/~"AT£D ....FO/~-__~_ ..jJ£r71LtJE.tJ//o ...... :. .. ._ •.:-._: __ : ~_.~_ ... __ i __ J"Y:>/i)~._ ~r/ _..3_..c·~:. 17.1=_._ .. .._ ... ______._._.__ ._:_..._._.~.~__: _._~._ ...V..:5~ .L!.J .,!C:;._.c __ (... VI:JL7.t.~ __ STL:7!':.=:'t.: __ ...... :..._:. __ • .. __ • __ ., __ .-.~_.--. '7' __.:_._..w~,-~-.5-cJ.IjRc{~ ... CLJ/)}.J.. ~IL~ __.... _ ....._. -.-.-.---.----.--.-.---c...-"--I!... ..6t2LD:E...t...!../Y.t:-S-.-E.o/F- __..~E.":~i;;.-t:'.!.I.e.!L~. , ,I. .I ' . \ ...... _.: .... :.. __. __;,."...;.....j,._._~ .__ ;-~ ..E.t-oc'P .__..F(..O.uJ .E~¢:~Q ~IEN_C\I'.;_... ___.__: .__..__._~._..:.._.:__:._..:__.'_....:..__...:;:-~~E l~:J J.._._~_3'y !..t&T!!:!..~ ..1'7t4 .. ._ .. .__ .._.. _ .. .__ 4_.·. _ .. _ ..._. .. -.-. __ .- ..__ .,_ ....._._ ..,._----_._ ..'-----_._._._'~.----.-----' ..__ ._~_..._~_. _ .. _._- ._--- ._-- ---_._-_._-_.~-_... _.._-,-_. -_.---.-._ .... _---._.-_.-: _.---_. _. :-.- -"_. •. __ :. ,._ ••. ---:. . ._ •• _ •• , ••" __ •__ • ....:..__ • __ :._' ••• _ •• _ .. _ "~"".'_ • ~ •.. __ . __ , ._ •• __ .. __ .4_ •.• _. •. _. ._._· __ ·.._·_·_···_·· • _ SUaJI:CT _ ::z.. 1-- .~----_DATI:- _ SH KilT NO...... '-_ O,.-l._dJ.- JOB NO•• _ CHKD. BY DATI: _ -. '-j\J-! -.-.------ ,...--;--_--"---i-_~__+___L_i'wLJ:L<;J~: ,/; -'~~~---'- _ :Q --; ;-.J --.- ~-, .---'~ ----. --, ~T;----'----~--, ~-,--. -'T"--:--R--reo'- , ____ '_~-,----"_-~-:.E~-.-:.--Td.a.-:'-.~---'-L.,___: . . '- '___ -:'__ -":__~__.J_'d.J)RQ~CH:,;v·~I2A-!..4'__r---- , I I II I ! " '' ~ . . ___: .L ;-: _~_; _--+ __ ~_...:-.__: ., ..__ ! _ .. _ _~_ - 3o/.?f:.£..6_o __'_YA_~L..E.\;:_.---- ______. .__ : .:. _:__ (~.£)y~--g./i~_.24Af::!_~_r_::Ql~______,__. __ --__ ._.__ Ei.?Q_;>.._._c..D6JI[fP_~ · __ __-; .. , _~-~-~---:-_:-.~-,-- ". : '-----tH..Pf?o.Y_._H£?:ITST __J:...'-..!_~~.l· , :_._~_'_.-.__ : ~L':L~Z_ . ~_._ ..:..---.--- , I i I I II ' ' , ': ' . ,---;- , ~ I : , , I I: !:: -: J ~,-- ; (('1--.!.--__t·--:-~--~:-- _____ '__, ._.!tv~_~- __ --"-"-'"--.-:--- 2---t.: -~-str-.sl; -b.: ---rot)- -j- -- ,,I I I I I / - - ··-r-···---.-··_··_··---· .----.-.-.- ..--- ....--..---- . ...--.----. -- - - - .:._.-l.. __ -. --.---.-----,--.- ..------;----.---- '-, K--~ . ,...., I Clu _____ • • • ._ •• _ ...-._._~-.-. . ._. .1 ._._ ••. ,. __ ._ .•_ .•.. _ •• _,_. ._. . _ ~:=-=~~~=_~~:~~~~~_.._~~~_-~~~~;=:~K~~C~'}~--~-=L:..Q~~-~=-~~'~~~~=~-~ '.._----_._-----_._._._~ __'_-:_.~__.-_!_-- _.~---~-~_.-.------"'-- ---~-_:_.__:------~ • " ! i' .' ~ 2 ' . . .--_._--_.._.:...._-:-~_._.-:--_._._~---=-----_._-_._...,.__..__._----_ .._._-_._---_._-_.__ ._. __ ..__ ._-_._-_._... SUBJI:CT _ BY DAT~ __ CHKD. BY DATI: __ -._--_._------. , ~(,E_S_. -'-- •.-.--,----.- ---_.-.-_._-- I c ~C- l_ ;_~_-lJ;Q: c.!==. ~ I .I• ~------_. __ . ...:..._---.:..-.--.:. -----,------_ ..--' --- --_.- _._- __ ------_._------'-I ---- _. ._ .. _----- __ .l....- ...... :.--~ ! _._.--~ ----.--. -_.-----_.:_------__ ,. I , . I ____ ,-_:_._-r~M~ _.: ~.idSJ.ZJ_~ ._:.. .A'22~.'P- LX--- :$.__,_ (!_.s._~ ~ __c;,--:- G_y:::~~:t;i;,;//>: _ .-:-_-;-__ .-:-_-;-_.-J_,--- __'_;...:. =r:H:£- 'S ~ ~W (~_c; EO.F.='.J C!..8...lr_[::';__,+--_~_ . __. . -'- ~ -/5. ...- 'D.O'--J?..e?· -.U-S-I.&.I, 1~.L c;..C;·I.C!.=:.<_.IMC . i . . ____ ._.__~_~-;_...l--.'--i-~~·~-C~':(Ag.T-+ -----:-~--: -.--;-----,-----,.----.--- -:--._- __-;--._.:_-~-_i_._:---:_~_-~; . .; ~--;--:·-~i~--p·~-~-~;-·~-~J.--J~~-:.-?~3-i-~~~ _ -~b-.r-o-" -.-..I..-L--t~_·-·,""""'" "~-)---, _. - _;,.J __ I • '-" .' .! I ' _._., __ .:... : ._...... ;... ._"" ..0-••__ -_. ..-~- _.' -.-. _._-_.--_.- .------_._------ I' : --,._-_._. __ . __ .•.. - _.__ ._._-_._-._--_._._---_._._._._------L c r \-. OiD - _.,,_._~.---LL(!)I'.. -'0 ...... _.-C) --- ______J:=lM\'::> I.~ Gi..:.. _. $.- _"." ~_. _._::t, __ .. .. ______.,.._---.------....------;---:------;---._-:t'~--.-"-_..------..-----.-.~------:------.- .._ ..__._.._-_0 ,_'._,, ._._ ._-- - - -_. ------,--.------'- -"------._--':'~'-6-._- ... ---- .-.------...... __ ' ~_.~_~ __ :__=___ .... _~~. "!-:.~ ~ __._...:-___- O...S.B-C::.-?-5-· )Y-----DAT& _ SU.JI:c:T _ SHIt&T NO.,_~"",-_Or _;.._=.~_ C:HKD.• V _DATI: _ JOB NO, _ -----; ; ._--'-'-'-1-' , i ,. "':""-i L ~-.,- .....--.,.---~-T--+--' ._,._---_._-~, i . ~ r _____ i 1 -1..._ i--J ------.,---r--- -_~ !ElM. ~.J.bI.Jl~_~_ ..,..._..__.__._,,__, '----, i , : i : j I ! I: r.: f 'J I I i , 1 ~;; J_.~,_:_"~Wr-:·(4"~.L~O:-~-~.cG-~~S;-~l ii, l Iii I I ' ~ '-'---'----i---:- - ,T------.-. __. l-:-.~--~:!-~-~.-b.D5-zJ_.~~__1 _ ~-: -'1---: --!'~-"-:--'-.~._~ ! ! I I C} :! ! __ L ---r-', i -r'~' 1 • 1'- - ~---:-·--r--T--:- t • I il,:! i '--'--1 -l·_-i-·'·-·~--"'··-'-_··-··;-·--,--, _.._.:-~ '-_'__'_--'-~.':"-~'--,_.----. ---'-----'.~~-~.- I : ; -r--~--;-~~~-_+--!--;-~--;----.-7--: F/4.Q I ':!", i ,'I I IbL~' t ~,- __ ....J.__ -':-, -''''''''';-- ,. ,,-L'-;--I-:-.-L'-'i~-+---+---7-~-;--~-:-._-~_;_,-'-__. ... _ ; ,,~, ..:;---"-,..-...i--~_r_-_--'-_;...: .. ~&~:L.)cQ:.ez.J~·d.G2-~~'i(O,~.G.:'{._ ".-'~-=--=-~-.---, _ i : : . , ' ..1 .,.--'-~--'--~-...,....--'.'--_r---'-~------.z, _;~ ; ; , • : : i , : ,_-, .. ,_ , , ,..----'--".----'--r-j .-T~e~-:-·-·--~--,----I'---,-.,--~-_..---- ._--;.-+--!----+-~_.__._-...~..::..-+-~- .:.....~- -'------'-'- _._.:...... :_--.,....-- '--,...-- , ~._-_.._._----_._-_._-_._'.-_.,_.---_. __ .._._- .._- .-._----_., ' . ~~ :_-~~ _~~: ~::;, ~ ..:5~,'-A~Z~~-----".- ._.-_. -_ ..._-,_.- -'----_._-._--_._-~- _ ..-_._" --.------. '--""-' _ •....._-,._---_._ ... _------_ .._--_.-----_. ----T-----·------;·-~--i-·--·---·-! " '. I .._--·-·-··-··.---..-.------.--.• . _ , , _..~ __ ; -L-..1.----.+_ .._l I _'-- .._ •. . . . _. __ . . . _ " --I' --1'--·-- ! ----, --,---, ---'. I '-'--,,-,~,---,,-,-,----_-!, , ._.__._ " I " . , ---- ..-.....:..--'-,--"-~_:~-. :'US1./--J. ~.-._ ..-L-:A.6.LE....-~_,';f ...... t-I.L.2:2ec~C-~l~...: ...P-I\16; . , '. ! • .---.-...:....------7---·--'----' -_I ._.' . ..__.__:.__._.__...__.. "_._. .. '. , _ .._------~_..__ .._.._._-._._-_.-_._._------.-_ ..._ .. "- -_._---_._'--._._-_._---_._------, _.-.. _ ....-.--- -~--. ----.----.- ~-.-Q~(;:-'.-:::-- :_S ~..QO-"7'-_.:CE_~ .. ._.._· .._.__ ---- -_ .... - .._--_._ .._. -.- ----_._--_.------_. __ .---,._.- -_._-_.,._ .. - ..__ ._._-_._. -..--._ ..._----_ ..------ -- ••----.-,---~ -- •• _. __ •• "0. _ •• _,.,_:., _. _~ ,.__ •• _. ' ._._ •••.__ •• _ ••• • ._ •• _._._._ ••_. • __ •__ •__ .~.:.... ._. __ •••• "._--_._~-_.__ .._-_._._------._-_ .._--_ .._-,---_ .._-.-_ .._-_ ..__ ._-_._-_._--'---_._-._-_._--._.---_., SUIlIJECT _ ~ i "7 BY OATE _ 5Hii:E:T NC._=":-_OF"_' _ JOIll NO. _ _C_H_K_O_"_B_y_-_-._-_O_A_T_E.==== .-r-----..-.- ..-.----.--.--.-- ..-,.-...... -.-.- ....----...--._..-,- _. __.- • .I. ! ;-----.----~~-!.._,------,.-----~-_-.'7"" .._~-.~--.---- ..~----.---.--.------..-.- ! ! ' I ;' . ~-+--,-._:._. (!)'--7-~-'80--: .-_.._"-- ,--1------_··_···_----- I ! . " ~.~.__:__+-L_!_-':-_.~.~__~.._ · __._.;_~~ V; --_., _._---_. ------_.------_ .•._------!: I ,I,.' (!)~ z: "7 Z (.,. II, I..I -r-'--, ---I --··-·T--~·-:·--·-~-~-~r·--~·-~---, ---,--~.--~. .: !' ! f f 1 '__ "':'__ '-_.Ll I .' I I I' !.:' I; I ,i' __ •__ 1 __ ,• __ .' __ · 1 __ '----- __ 1 .' __ , __ : - ,---,---.-~-t-·-:·--t--I-·-·--....;.._.i---.;.~-- II I '- .- ~-' _. : Ii? - .()'9-B~ : , , : , '! i' .' --~-"':'_-r--.J...: .'--I--t-~--~~~~-~-~.·~-_...';_.__:__.~__..._l_~ .--.---'-----~ ...... ;.----- -+ ! I' I: I:I.; ! .~ .. ~ l__j_. J - - ,--7"1 --I-~I·--r;·---I'--·--i--·-·I--1- , I : -! I ' I•I- • i: i i .r-. - --:- : I , .-- .....-----. ,! 'J],':':" I 11A -?J I '. ~ t'! !,! II'I ! I ': ! ' ' ~I' __ -:--___ '..-1,• __I\JI~"'" :...... L: __N • • ~ 'I I I, t-t- ..-.. • I• IL I' -.----- ..------• _. ------• II ! II(: 'I I I i I: ;,' ', 1 ' I,'·, ' -r-~-; i-I-' i~o ~ ' I)' -,-=~-;""-LQ-' ;' , .. ' ~ --: ~O--;-a;;:r.;-~.." .,.----::--:..-. r-' :__ ---;.__ L. ~_+ :.L-r-- _{~~~=..!-~ __ ~:.E'-="'O-~_.J__._;~--~ ~~4·)\..-~.·~_~~:::,-~_....G;':. !_: II "I,,!! ;-, !- ¥ '- _._--,------'----.----'--- ! :! Y: , i.' ------~_. ----_- --:.... 1 ,-:---.---- .• -.--.-.------.---.------._~---,------,-4--~-=-.L-:I~j:L-·-~-----~------.--.------ i I•, '-"'-"-' ._.__ .._ ...._ ...... •_---- _._.- .._ ..---- ._-,_. ------_._---.------_._ .._ .._---- _ , ' ._'-'- ---...--._-- _._ .._I __ .--...:..._-.f_,,-.-!. -._.J _ , ! ---_:_-_._---'------_._------_._-- - _.- -_.'-_.'- ... - _..- ....._._. ! • I _. -r;_L NJ):.I..N -~ __~__:__~ .----~------.....------ .------,--.------L..._.__ : -_--;------.•• ,------'------..V------~- ~~_-~t-:__>-~~~'-~~JI~~'~_~~<'-l.YG~;;-''-==- --====~ - ,~--_._. --.----- .---._---.- ...__ .__._------_. - ._. -~.- _____:...._.__ ~_ ,,2:5"":'_.2 0 04- ,_ ...__ ..._.__ ._-- _._._-_._---_._~----_._._._._-- -_.._-,--_ .. _------~------=-' ~ ,- _ • __ •. _ •• • _. .. __ •• __ •• _.~ . , • __ .• _. w •• ···_·_ "-- .._ ....- -- . __ ."----- ..- ...._ ..---,_._----_ .._ ..- _.- -,-_ .. _~-_..._ ..._._-,-~_. --'._ ..---- ~ ..._--_. __ ... _-.- .._-.-_ .. _._.:_~.._~.__:.__ ._.-:-_: __ ._. - '-"--~--.. _ ..- .-._-"_ .._-_._ ..~-.._---_ .. ----_._--,._,-_._._---_ ..- Ij &1latlAllI 11liioii.... ~ IhiitJ:I /lI>~ ~ ....-.. - - -.,-. -,.,,, I r I r III r r I r Ti\I3LE 1. .tYDHOLOGY DATA 5!'Jll:.Il:.efi,o VALLcV J:=:~. ff AS7EJ'- 'PUdN PeakRuno ff , cfs 3- hour Runoff Quantity, ac. ft. yr. -~lax. Rainfall, in. Debr is Runoff -Watershed Area, Sq. ~li. 50 yr. 100 Prob. COYOTE 137 12,500 23,200 ---- - 2.8 ---- 13,800 CREEK EL VADO 5.8 2,200 4,000 10,400 3.0 177 400 HENDERSON 8.2 3,400 6,300 15,100 3.0 458 600 CANYON , BORREGO PAUl 25.0 6,300 11,700 32,700 3.4 1,042 2,870 CANYON --1------f- IIELLIIOLE 12.5 4,200 7JJ!!O 19,400 3.9 790 1,680 CANYON ----._ .. -----,--- TUBB 12.2 4,200 2.,700 20,200 3.8' 788 1,640 CANYON ..- >--. ._------_.-._----1-- 100 DRY 1.6 -_.700 1,300 3,500 3.0 75 CAI'-JYON ._-~- ._ ..~ ------_ ... '------....._------_.- t ! ___.-J , I I i I I I I I I -I -I i I ! I tI I I I i ! -I t . cPI. rrt.•..! r;. WlAliEii i -,i -- I -- I- c:II lf~r,I I I! II ! n.. ! i ~ -LEO! ," -- I I i : , I - ! 1- 'I I ,I I I I I ---I- i I j . i I I i I I ! I i i ! ! i I --i I I I I I I ! , I I I I 1--- i"- - III- I b_t I I I , - 1- _ I_ SUI!lJECT _ I!IV DATE _ SHEET NO. CHKD .• V DATIt _ JO. NO. _ . i -,. , .,... --, ._~ -+----- i--· I i -~_._._._---- ----;--. ---'I• .. ~ .._,__ .___.J .---.----. --_:"'-'\'--' -- ·----'1---- _.__..L ._- ._._-- -- ...... _._-_. -~ ..- :------:------.-'------. j". I :!. I _ , ~-:--~[~~-~~J~-='P~:K_3 D~~li~~:l3·~;~';-~~l' -':--. , i ' ! 1 ; ; i! ! 1 I,.!,! l . .--'---'-'~--'-'-r-~ ! _~+-_:-----'- __ _;__-._L___;__,_ . _ I. , --'--.,-----,C---.;--,;....--j--I .- I';., .__l-. .__ . -'- .~_. '----'--~....J(? IN r:J I._N_,~_~_:__;--'-:'--i--- ______---;-.-_...__..__._....:...... _.. .__..__----l-r--;--.---.-- ..-.---.---- __~~~75B .. ._._. . _ --1-;--' ------, . -1. _~ . ~~ __ .._ .•__ ._ i i.-:---:-.,-~--:---;--:--:--,~----.----- j_.~-;__.....,__I .~_ •• _.-+_. __ :_ ...... __ .!__!._. ~ ! .. '_ .. ,--'-~-.--. , , ._:._-...:...... __ ._~----.-_._-----. ------______..._. ., . , .:..--i. . . ~-~- -.---_'-.-_ ------~----- ._-_._------,. ----,_._-- -'---,------ _. __ . -1 .._...__ . .__ :_._. --.-----:....-----'--.--~---.~~--. _.~ ~_._----.-_._----_._._---~.._._-_-..--- ...._-_ .._-- _.._._---.-:..~------_.-----._-'-----_....:_----- .._----_._.- --_.__ .-.__ ...- -_._------_.;- ----_. ------_._- --_ ..~--'-. _.------_ .._.----::-._..--- -_ .._~p_. ---_._--, ---'- .:..---_ .. '_ ..__ ._.. ~. __ .._--.--":----:-----~-_.,-- ---:-._---_._._-_ ... ---_._------ ----- _._, ------_._._--- ._- -'-"'- -- _._-_ ..._ ... _-----_._--- 0'" I? , "-+--+-~-7--r--l-.J ':-'1---"--'--; __ -1. , -"--, --;- -.,--;------p ___ ~___':__ _L__" -, , _ __ .._~ .:_..~__.L__.__.;...__....__ ,-----.- __ ~ __...;.._._1 __ .,-_. ,__ ,. . "_" .--:_. _ ,----~ __ ~l ~,.w_tL::' ~_~__ I__ ~ : _~. _: __ ~ __ ;_'-:-""..:--.:---:~ " _ '~~~=~"=-=-:--~~-~--Wt:ITQ:.;~~~"_~"~L~ri~"~1i5Q}Q~~\(l~~1-_>_(p,"~~=I:~J~)~=~=--- " " "---- .._-----_._.- --_~. ..------_: ..._-- -- -_. -- --_. ----~-_.- ____ . -l__ " " :-- .---'._., ~-. .__. ------._------,.---' _._.:..-_ .. __ .:.---_._----_. --"-----" _._---_. __ ._------,--c- ..-:---.,----"-- --_"-_..:-.-_. .__-. . ------' ._._-_ ..._---'--._---- -'--'- .._.. _._._._----~._,---_.--.: ..__ ._-._._----_._--_ .._,------_.-_. SUBJI:CT _ BY DATE _ : .1=: ;-i , :z:;. '. ._.--'-' . , '----_. ------' -'-. I ,Cijj -; ~: P~~~l i L....-,- : ' I' .,',' I. ~_: --'_~ _ _'__:_J..U.J~'_:• ,Ji77 1: : ~--K... -' • I' I pe'(' I : t,: , . _"__ .--'------~---:-- ..-.--.l..--- ..------.- 0--_ - -.;--'---~-- .~ •..--.-:-'-.---:---~.---.--::_ •• _--.--- --_._------r- '-+-·--T·-i--"7"·--:-~---:--~- , ,:::;.] ./.~3}- .L. J I'~~~- -~---~---:-'-'---; , . l:-,-p-.~~--:----"!:.. 1 .:'-'-'---'--_. -_ .._------_ ..-- ._-_._-,-_._-_._--_._._.,....~--_.----- ... ~ .~._~_:_.~._,-:-.-.·-_~_j2.._lL2...Q:---· - ..-...~-' -:-~---- l' , . .----'.- -_._- -_ ..__ .---- -_.._._------_. --_.:- -_.__.._-_ .._------_._.---- , I' • . ._. _. __ , • __ ._.~_. _. ._. •. _ •. • 1. __ • ._ •• _._._ ~ - ----.- •• --- •.. ------, ...... :_ ....__...:lL~_~._A P..P..E!--t.Pcx'_._? ··7 __ ·_ 7:Lt.I.:t,·J-..IT!J.!.--.L:zA-.---- . , ' : ...... _,.....; . . ._...__...~_,_.__,._._~_._.;_ ~. __..:__ . _._.~,._0-_--"-"·- .__..__.--_.._.~- - _._._._- .._-,._~_._--_._._- _._,_...._,,_.__._ ...__...~__._, .;_,E_~-c_O_ ~tS:.Z-.. ~G:. __ . ._. _. -- ..-----~. . i .. ..__ ._...-.:..-._._._._. :_.._.. .._. ~.._". -_0"-'--"-- ~-----_ ..._----'-_. - _._--~.---_.-'_._._--,-_.------..-_._------.---~_._.._--.._. ------_.-_ .. ---_._------._--- Jt ._,:~t ,-----"_...:.-_--'--'----..:--,.-....,._...:.--,-- , ~ ;-! 1-, .O~_2_Z_3__:_____..,._ .'!' ~-~----;_: 1 _____ 1 ! I _ I _ .__ ' _ __:_'_.~~UJ_~~_:~l?DtthL-3--:_.U-S-t.0-5~-c,.-i~.b(n::IL.PO~_!l'-'/':~- ______'_. I' . i i I '10_'_' _· . .-r:::lllLlL~-: _.._.~. . . f' • ,_.. . .__... ,_--,---- ..- ._-/.---,~.-.------'-::-c-' ----- _-.--L--~--:..------_:--_----~-~ 5:--- _ ..:..~ !-~--~-.-----.----- " ~' I ==:~_4s..e , ._.~ ~-.-_._:__.-' :'' ....1-. -t-'.._._._ .:------~.-~----.------~.- ...-_--_- . ._ .. .•._. __ ..._ ... .:...... -__ 0- .. __ .. __ .• _._. , . - ._.~._._ . .--.:-,,--- .--,-----'---- .. ----. -.I • ._.. _-- .._._ .._-'._. __ .._,-_ .._._.~----- .__ ._._._-.-----_._--.-_ ....,--_ ..._----_ .._._------ -.-_ ..------_.~-.-.._----_ .. __ ._. __ . _ ... ~. -_ .. :-- ._ . .'-----;---_._- -_ .._-,-- -~._ ..__ .._._------~-'-- BY ·SUBJECT _ DATE _ SHEET NO. '3 0,.-1.· JOB NO., _ _C_H~~BY - DATE====:.._===:::::-_=, ==,=:::::::::===:::::=::::::::==~:-:: L._,--_ j-----:--r---: -~-~~-" .__ .,----. , __ l---,-...... !._ -l-- __ ' -:'-+-T- --,---; --.------. '-~-"--""""-':'-_C'__=_-'--~--""""-""""-;'---: : .--~-;----i--~---~.--;---'-,~---.-.:--.---;----_.--. r= _{It,ll? ~.J _.1>.l..Q'l~1,1 r~_:.''Dc.- ---,-_PI1-1 _ __._._ ' • 0.' ~ _' _~L~"-':: I\~ I, .L\__"I' • ..,---~-- : : . I: j : i , ?W~ . ' ~..l1:E-~....:£:iLu_:6:J"D_R.-1 _ Less.....;_ -rr~~ __._.CL.~_- r-- ~ L .~_'______"______''____e (:;1:..c_. _&..tiL~C}....L t-,L~-=S-~- .'-- ....--- ...-.---.--. --' __ ...l...-_. __ ' -··~~--;~-I· j I''" .' L,--.-~---: -.--- I ,I ! . , i I I. i . . I ! I: i I I ,; : _. - ; I \ ' ' . '. _: I' J ; .~~_~_.-.~~--,-~~~-~.~h:-.5~-..~.-~·.LoG__: .4:S:.S.~;-D~-J1)~~(o~~2)-CO-Lg.B..ct\, , . -, ~ ',~ '- I. . ,------_._ .._ .._- -_. ----_ .._,.__ ._.----- ...... '.'- .- .. ~ " ,:' I . 0. r:::, I' ...... _: ~. _:.__.__ . _t-_...:_.!-~ ~_D_J.O-Q....._'__ .------.----.------. i' 1.__ ._._ .._ .. , ---,------_.---- ___.__....__.. ~_.. ..;__~_ ~_= :::-:::~C~'1.6:.~--.--'_. ._.__ ._:...... -.-.- -----_ .._._------_._--_._._------_._-- ._._:. __==0,.____.-"""":"""---.--.- ....- ~- __.~U-~A:-·---~ief£Lj.DIx..=-3.o---(js u"ui..c.._._1._ !6.fJiy~~~~iiu.u..~~~=.. . . ;__. ~_...:.__~. .~ __ :....t="UJJ~ __ .__ :_. ..:. .__ . .._ 1 ! SHEET NO._J"",--_Ol" I ~ --'-,; .~~------_.._--_._.- I i I i , i I I '. / :/"!t1~'I"~ ,--'---t---'---'--,---'- -_ .._._. -'---,,-_.-._---_._. ~~-+-;---l--"D~E:Y~~f-.P . . I "- ._. , _._.....!- __ .. _i '. .'--_._: ~ : : I---'--""'-T--'-~-----~-'~'--;'-~ :" '!. J=:' i ; ------.--• " -.-I 'O-;::l-~""""-= ~4..qC~L_9::J~~._._-:=:-.!__Q ;. .32.-..+.0.5. ~)(P.!..'1§~r\ . " "'-:. ~ . '_._' __ . __ i _~' _;_._,_~_. _~.~ ._. ~ __ ':"'-.-: ._,. . __ • __ : ._ ._.,,_.~ :_. • .. , '. ;;:::; :.! : I CJ."16G:. ___.._--1__ . . .: .!....._._._~ __ .L_---:__ ,~__ .._ ..-r- __ ..t-t- '. _.__ .. .. _ ----.------.---.- . ! ,.. '. . --J..I __1 - .II;...... • . _' : r I l ; . : .• ~ T" ~ •..cL2.,,_L+--"_.-'. -:'--. -. -:~--_.-- I . I :_'-'---: -__:-=-~_-JJ.-S-:I M~ ...,..::--c-A.~m~ £.:---3 ;__Ls_~I?.L~_.ff;~f:!)~r;N G_~ ~._-- .:_.-:_~--:-8tJ.~__L:_: __ "_"__"_' _ ... ' _. : ~._i -',...-e.== __~_Q.__s:08 __: .;.. ._~__:_.:...... _:_._ :--._--,-p-!-G i .F. / A AUljll£. FAN_l:.(/II>EU~ ' , ~"~":~"~':''''':''7:;'-:'':.:~.::-r:.. ":'..::;:'::~: ,j < .,..' ," ... 5. Determine Discharges for Depth and Velocity Zones a. Discharges (Q) in cubic feet per second that correspond to the various depth zone boundaries should be selected using the following table. This table was derived from the relationship Q a 280 02•5 where 0 is the total depth in feet due to pressure head and velocity head. Q 49.5 772 2770 6420 12000 D 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 1, ., ", b. Depth zones are designated from zone boundaries as follows: Depth of Depth of Depth of Zone Lower Boundary Opper Boundarv 1 0.5 1.5 2 1.5 2.5 3 2.5 3.5 4 3.5 4.5 etc. c. Discharges (Q) in cubic feet per second ~~at cor=espcnd to ~~e various velocity zone boundaries should be selected using the following table. This table was derived from the rela~icnship Q_ 0.13V5. where V is velocity L~feet per second. Q 68 240 654 1510 3080 5770 V 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 d. Velocity zones are designated from zone boundaries as follows: Zone Velocity of Velocity of Velocitv Lower Boundary Opper Boundar' 4.0 3.5 .4.5 5.5 I. 5.0 4.5 6.0 5.5 6.5 7.0 6.5 7.5 8.0 7.5 8.5 . ,",," ."." ...... ,.,~ ~ ' .._ ,~ ...•..•.... :,,· ... 1•••• - ": _.~ __ _,.- ..-_ __ '-' .o' .. ' .•... -. . ~'. ~ .. :'.,~' .r::~':-'. I .. ~.::." ... ~.~.::...~.->..~:.:..,' 1"_.:,:_,0,' . ~. ,:I /7A G =0.6- G =0.4 G =0.5 G =0.2 G =0.3 p G =0.0 G =0.1 -2.89907 -2.70836 -2.52507 -3.29921 -3.09631 -2.35549 -3.7190;:> -3.50703 -2.65390 -2.50257 0.9999 -2.96698 -2.80889 -2.26780 -3.2911~~ -3.1c767 -2.53261 -2.39867 0.9995 -2.fl0786 -2.66915 -2.161-184 -1.09021 -?94H34 -2.39942 -2.28311 0.9990 -2.f.-.3672 -2.51741 -2.01644 -?.9nl~ -2.7S706 -2.20092 -2.10825 0.9980 -2.38795 -2.29423 -1.88029 -?57')83 -2.413187 -2.02933 -1.95412 0.9950 -2.17840 -2.10394 -1.72033 -;>. V63<; -~.252"8 -1.83361 -1.77116 0.9900 -1.94499 -1.88959 -~.0537S -1.Q9473 -1.76427 -1.71366 -1.66253 0.9f:100 -1.A63f:l0 -1.81427 -1.52830 -1.QS99b -1.91219 -1.60574 -1.56740 0.9750 -1.67999 -1.6432':l -1.45762 -1.75069 -1.71SI-I0 -1.52357 -1.49101 0.9600 -1.58607 -1.55527 -1.20028 - 1~6t, 4 U<; -!.f,1594 -1.23114 -1.21618 0.9500 -1.25824 -1.24516 -0.A5718 -1.2~15t:; -1.21037 -0.85508 -0.85653 0.9000 -0.1-14986 -0.85285 -0.58757 -0.84\162 -0.B4f>11 -0.56867 -0.57840 ( 0~8006) -0.54757 -0.55839 -0.34198 -0.5('440 -·0.536c4 -0.31362 -0.32796 --0.7QJl..O_- -0.?8403 -0.29897 -0.27047 -0.25335 -0.?6I3HZ -0.24037 -0.25558 w 0~6000 Q -0.20925 -0.22492 -0.09945 I -0.17733 -0.1933 -0.06651 -0.08302 N 0.5704 -0.03325 -0.04993 0.07191 0.0 -0.016b2 0.11154 0.09478 0.5000 0.14472 0.12820 0.15589 0.1771] 0.16111 0.18916 0.17261 0.4296 0.22168 0.20552 0.44352 o •I:'<;33C; 0.?3763 0.47228 0.45812 0.1.000 0.49921 0.48600 0.79950 o .S24t,O .>: 0.<;1201 0.81638 0.80829 0.3000 0.83044 0.82371 1.32850 0.A41h;> O.fcl3t>39 1.31671 1.32309 '- . 0.2000 1.30105 1.30936 1.79701 1.?£\I<;<; 1,2':1178 1.75048 1.71428 0.1000 1.6g9'll 1.72562 f. t, ~\<; 1.f,(219 1.91022 1.93896 .. " 1• 4 1.88039 : ", 0.0500 l.tl1756 1.84949 2.22102 .• t,' 1•'f ') l)f) Q 1.7ty.b2 2.14202 2.18505 0.0400 2.0~290 ?09795 Q ?.006:3~ 2.31084 2.35931 0.0250 I. S99h 2.21081 2.26133 2.106'17 2.159]5 2.68572 2.75:'14 _;.>- 0.0200 2. OS37':; ) 2.54421 2.61539 QS\) 2.39-)hl 2.472C6 3.04102 3.13232 __.,.0.0100 ;>.3263~ 2.856]6 2.94900 2.66<16') 2.76321 3.48737 3.60M72 G.. ,(\\:) 0.0050 ?• 5 7 ~)H3 3.24371 3.36566 2.9':l':l78 3.12169 3.81090 3.95567 0.0020 2.p7/111-, 3.52139 3.66608 3.?3322 3.37703 4.12443 4.29311 0.0010 3.09(\21 3.78820 3.95605 3.45513 3.62113 4.82141 5.0471B 0.0005 3.29053 4.37394 4.59687 3.93'.53 ',.15301 0.0001 ].71902 I " { , .i _,_..,4 I ~"'~ __ I )5 . ~o . It I,'., .'; :/ , ,. if ,. J\ .' Jr. . ;.': " I _,/ -,I o ; ... '.:5 ~ c;? 1'" ~J'""" ~. •~ J1 ~1f'lU e-, GENERALIZED SKEW COEFFICIENTS OF LOGARITHMS OF ANNUAL MAXIMUM STREAMFLOW AVERi\GE S~(EW COEFFICIENT BY ONE DEGREE QUADRANGLES tower number in each qUildranglc is number of stream gaging stations lor which the average shown above it was computed 17A GENERALIZED SKEW COEFFICIENTS OF ANNUAL MAXIMUM STREAMFLOW LOGARITHMS AUGUST 1975 EDITION The generalized skew map was developed for those guide users who prefer not to develop their Own generalized skew relationships. The map was developed from readily available data. Users are encouraged to make detailed studies for their region of interest using the procedures outlined in Section V,B-2. It is expected that Plate I will be revised as more data become available and more extensive studies are completed. The map is of generalized logarithmic skew coefficients of annual peak discharge. It is based on skew coefficients at 2,972 stream gaging stations. These are all the stations available on USGS tap~ files with drainage areas equal to or less than 3,000 square miles that had 25 or more years of essentially unregulated annual peaks through water year 1973. Periods when the annual peak discharge likely differed from natural flow by more than about 15 percent were not used. At 144 stations the lowest annual peak was judged to be a jow outlier by equation 5 using ~ from figure 14-1 and was not used in computing the sk~w coeffi- cient. At 28'stations where the annual peak flow for one or more years was zero, only the remaining years were used in computing the low outlier test and in computing the logarithmic skew coefficients. No attempt was made to identify and treat high outliers, to use historic flood informa- tion, or to make a detailed evaluation of each frequency curve. The general ized map of skew coefficients was developed using the averaging technique described in the guide. Prel iminary attempts to determine prediction equations relating skew coefficients to basin characteristics indicated that such relations would not appreciably affect the isopleth position. Average~ used in defining the isopleths were for groups of 15 or more stations in areas covering four or more one-degree quadrangles of latitude and longitude. 1 L The average skew coefficients for all gaging stations in each one- i degree .quadrangle of latitude and longitude and the number of stations 1- are also shown on the map. Average skew coefficients for selected groups of one-degree quadrangles were computed by weighting averages for one- 1_ degree quadrangles according to the number of stations. The averages for various groups of quadrangles were used to establish the maximum and 1 minimum values shown by the isopleths and to position the intermediate ~., lines. Because the average skew for 15 or more stations with 25 or more years of record is subject to time sampling error, especially when the stations are closely grouped. the smoothed lines are allowed to depart a few tenths from some group averages. The standard deviation of station values of skew coefficient about the isopleth line is about 0.55 nation- wide. Only enough isopleths are shown to define the variations. Linear interpolation between isopleths is recommended. The generalized skew coefficient of -0.05 shown for all of Hawaii lis the average for 30 stream gaging stations. The generalized skew ~. coefficient of 0.33 shown for southeastern Alaska is the average for the 10 stations in that. part of the St~te. The coefficient of 0.70 shown for the remainder of Alaska is based on skew coefficients at nine stations in the Anchorage-Fairbanks area. The average skew of 0.85 for these nine stations was arbitrarily reduced to the maximum generalized skew coefficient shown for conterminous United States in view of the possi- bility that the average for the period sampled may be too large. I3CILJ/I2 ElIL")hi!E!» 'hQ COIpa'stJon ... BY ePb. DATE c1nh, ~EET NO. O,.-l::.. CHKD .• Y DATE~ JOB NO. u.J t=ol Q;?, pI ...... , I' l ' I,; I I• '·---i-ti-,-.-,-_'-· ,-----''-0------,- '-O~?-?,OJ!J-~~--4aeld-, ' :...--.,...--.:-- --: __ l I., ,: _ -;_C ~- ~ ,--;----"--~-""3?-r-3:s-"""--;-c-o.5--:E-r-".--~---~--- --, -;--. 1Il1o '~. '''! :;;/:::J ::' I: -'---''-' __ '-'C-'-_ _ ,-_,-- , __ '_ '--_' __ 1 - __ ___~_:-_:~j ' 5.~_~a~4~-~-,-,----~----' ---~ --'---l--i-----, ' _-'----,-_ ---,-,---,-- i ' ...... _.__ ._------~------_.-..-._._-_.1 I ------' ------_:-.- '=---:_~:-=-~---:-~-O=--~__~~_~=!: --- --_.------i' . ------_ .._------_ .•._- _.~----_.,._.....:....._-_., __ .:..---_ .._,~--- _:=?_ . n _ 1 \ SUaJI:c:T _ 0,. '-- .:.- DATE _ , .., ' ~------.i --.--~------:.,----_.---:--' . ._' __ . _~_~.,.. _-'- __ -i-- .---"-- ------_ . ._---~ , . _----_. __ ._-----~------" , . --_._------_._------;._.__..._...._-:------+--_._~--.-.,~--" ; •.. .4 •• _. • , •• -;-~---.-',- ••• ·--·:------·~---:...-: •. ----.-----.-~.---~---'-.---,-- " . •__ ._~ __ l__ ; ._ .•_·· ·_·,· :__ ~,· __ .:-...._•.--,._.,. __ •__ ..~-_.-,_-:.-._.~_ ••- ---.----.-- - .---_.__ ._- -'--'-~-'- ._---- -_ .. _. -..;-----_.~._--- _ ..__ ._------_._- .._- _ ..--- .. _. BY £Pb DATE 7~ /Iih SUBJEC:T EEl2f??(!!Ef> p~C'- ('0 SHEET No. l 01" -z. C:HKD. BY __ DATE~ l~t.l ;8leIAlbS ,q<. JOB NO. _ . "~-'"1 .• - ,.. ..' -''''. ,4u (,J V14,- ~1J_.IJ1J1J LV SI.5 __ --.Of£.: -- , l.'''iJOoJ __ c..FS __._ _I Pc~- __ .. __-.. ...... - . - - _~? __.V_ A- _. : wi C~#5;aJpr v elite - - --.A AC4~C.· -.:(\~~;) - - .4~~AL. ,. ~ 'FIND ll't£ . Qo,~ - "q(" . T!JI£ 1)J~c~T.!C)I-.j -?of Nf ()F- "T llrc Cf V(:---eS//l N _ '\:::./l""C.ii ~fJD It':G" /~L '- lJ \I ,A '- F A IV r;- '- UUJ r::-I Al D : ------~----~- .:..- DATE _ SUBJIICT _ SHIlIlT NO . JOB NO. _ .! CH~D. BV _ DA.TI: ! _t .....:FUJD .. 1·...----.. . •. L,_ ;.__ . __ ._ ....;.._,. __ ....._ .. , ' .....&..:: .4!.c.. \1.= 5.oL . ...4(~ ...... 5;02..• -, ',' ";. ·"--ru ..~et5 L. ...b...1-. /4 ....8~...... - ....- .... -' L SHEET NO. I 0,._ JOB NO. IN f()1 dell d I .A,··..P;/./l:> ../~. ~~:YZ.-.F~.-·' ·iz.;;;;;;;F;;_:·-.-£~;:'--·-~>7E .. __ ....._.._.CCJI.(,&)(};2.£.. :."eFol!:..e i~.4~. __.P6!Y~PHeqr_ ....._.._ I .. , "- ••... _-__ .••.•• _ .•__ ._. -. ._ •••. ". __ ._ .•. __ .• ~._ ·1_.,, __ • ' ••__ .•. __ .•• __ ._.__ ~•• ,_. ,. _ •.~_ ___ ., • ••••• __ ._ •.• "____ -_.• ",-.-,", .. _.-. __ ...., ..~._- ._ .. ~._-,,_ ...._._ ...,._ .. -.. . .. - .... - •••• _""H_" •.• ~...~ f/.• ecrelLe- .....etJ.f).,5 .... . n -A P1fCYt- - ...o..a/5 .. ,,-" .. " . ... ,,'-- - .. - -~- .. -. "'.- .- .: /vHrr .HV~~f)l+ __.Mc.7HtJO .. A~ !Z.E:Ci:J~uf=";UDCD p~ . 7Tr ~ A- c.. ... PoJ?:- W~i7~~D..s... o. S> I~. 1'1J "2- (p. ~---r:A - . <3 I ,~ /':1l:)2..\ . ... r;.) OJcPv~~lje. FAA.... Z __b #1f.. . ". . . 6·/-M- PtI~ArI()1J ~..:zr - A- 7 (!) 80121!£60 J:4LL-EV ~e - 3~/NI.,~ - j/fPt1JXf Hire --0 5 tIf- D U r2.Ail {NJ 1 \ Bc1I.JJe EJ 7Qkr'--,ea'hQ COtParatJon ) SUBJItCT _ 0" _ E>. DATE _ SHEET NO. 7 JOB NO. _ lcHKD. BY_DATE _ } I t/5£. ._cXI){]1 .. --_ -- _---- .. ' - _ -._---. - ..__ .,- ._-.- .., _.._-_._ .•._., _-~".-.._- - .,...._ .. ------_.- ..-- --- .------_._--_. ----- ._._--_. BOVI.EENGINEERING CORPURATION ·-··-IIj:;r.jjU~3~A~;~~f:~~~~'~~33Si.~~~C~k:~~r.NMi:fiiOil·---····------.-.----- ... BURk[~n fiPGSP_NK.OlfiCHARGr.BEFURE UEV --.-_.._-- _.------_.- .__ .. - - -_._-----_._ .. ---_ ... - - -- -_. ----_.-.._--_._-_._- ----~-_._._------._._._...--_._------_.-,------_ ..__ ._- _.._-- _._.-_ ..----- Ok_IN AHr.A (SU HI) 1.500 UNIT PERlnu (HR) e TO' 0.2S ~OSS RATE (IN/HR) 0120 ... ___.. &~~HU~~EL(FI) 5:g:. .._._.. ~~~~/tr.~y~~n~~~~.~!·_)__52g: ..__~~~PJlLELEV ..(nL.~~t~.----...------.-.- L (HILES) 1.2110 LCA (1IJ1.t:fiJ .500 SI.UPE(f"TlIIJ)•S : )1. BASIN rAC·,OR (NI .OJO LAG (HUURS) .1l7 K:bH(UR AREA)ITO' )810. 'LA~:IOO(T)/LAG= 78.8 100-VR 3-HR pT RAINfALL: 1.50 HAI"FA~I. AUJ rAC .455 --.---- -Ii ( ieoj-;-:r:;jiJir------H(bO)="3;1)15--'-- ..-..----oil( JO )-.-i~A·~--·------1fnn=T:J'fO·--·------··:·------:- _ . .. ._ ~C~:(A~~~~~'.,._:t::I~U;•oh __.O~L_ .lIlo--.o1 _...lh .l~5._ .•0~6-_.0B8 __ .•J;L J~Lj .Ho J~5.._-...- LUCAL lOO~YEAH- _ - - .020 .014 .011 .011 .056 .062 .0311 .045 .119 .194 .62) .'20 EfrEC1IVr. __ - - - - .002 .001 .00J .001 .016 .022 .004 .005 .139 .154 .58J .IHO .-.------.------·---·---·-----'-LAG"-TO---~~cHEIL--crs--. - .-..--..-.-...-----.---..---- ..-- d~:~-- ~~:t---13:~---rn~:--'-----·------_·--·---·--····· IQb.9 17.6 r s,u b9b •. ------·----···---·---·--··-·---··-·-···------~i·t:~-·---3~:=---·1:~----c--Hl~:-----,------27~.7 8b.0 9.S J2H. 512.0 ~6.1 2.J 88• ...... __.__..._._.. . .. _J~~:~__J~:t.._.J:8 __. J~: .__·-..-- 14H.J 99.4 .8 '11. 0'1.1 99.9 .5 IH. 90~.O 100.0 .1 6. _.--_._-- --_.~---_._._------_._- --_._------_._-._-_._------ _.-.. - - _.~ .__.. . ~~ . .~ .._.._._-----_.__._-_._------_...0--.------_. __.._.--_.--.._ -..---.-.._._----_.- -- - -- _.. - ..- --..- -_ ..- -_.-._ ..-----_ .._- --_. __ ._----.._ ..._------_.~-_._- ---'- ---- .._ ..__ ...- .- - ...... _ _ .. _-_.__ ._- _ -.._-----_. ----_ _._--_._-_ .. _.._.-- ._------_. __ .._-- ---_.------_._._-_ _ _____ ~_._. __ ._._ • __ • .~ __ • •••• __ - • 0 •• • ._._ .~_. • ------_ .. _--_._.- ... _. ... -. -_ ..- -_....__ ..._._- _ .._._ .. - _. -_ .... _- ..... _-_. --_._ .... ------_.- _ ... _---_._--_ .._-- -- . ; •.• ·r.::~· ""'f. -+-~- --~_ ...~._~._-~~ --.-' I, ,I ! I ~''1,":-~. . ... _ IIIO:'yt:AH -.-I.UOlJIIYlJHUr.II~I·H UOIlREGU sP~~ PAR~-lJrSrHAIlr.~ uffUIIF o~v 01:;(11"" 11 -E f F ~ l 1 1 ~ E II A 1 II r A s. I. - 1 N r II r :; - - lOYAl. .001 .00] .OUI .Ol~ .Ol2 .OU4 .00S .IJq .1~4 .5u1 .IUO n.U(1lJ .002 (n:;) 0''''reF:;) ·2~ 40~. 1. U. O. o. u. o. o. o. o. o. u. O. t. o. t • •5u I U9' • _ 4. I. o. _o. _ u , U. U. o. 0._ II. U. _u, 1. o. ~• • 1:.- b9b. 1. l. 1. o. I', U. O. o. o. o. O. O. 5. O. 5. I .nu J '1-U,.' 01.. I. b. I. u. o. o. o. o. 0.- o. O. A. o. e. 1.2~ I u. 2. J. 1. U. O. u. o. o. u. O. 1'. O. 1'. I:~~---I~~:----- 8:---~:------1:--A:---l~:--- 41: -- ~:----g:--g~3:----g:----g:·_-~~:----g:---~~:--_._------2.ou 61. o. O. o. O. 5. I~. 1. 2. O. O. O. O. JO. O. J~. 2.15 19. O. O. o. O. J. 1. J. 9. 51. u. O. O. 1Q. O. 19. 2.5U ___2':1. 0. __.__ 0.__ 0. u , _ _l. _ 'I. I._ _3. __ 264. 63. 0. 0. 331. U. --- __331. 1. h IU. O. U. u. u. I. J. 1. 2. 91. 292. l]U. O. 6J]. O. 6J3. LOu b. O. U. U. II. I. 2. U. I. 4&. 101. I10b. 14. 13J6. O. 13J6. ].15 U. U. o. o. U. I. I. u. I. 25. 50. '105. J42. e2~. O. 826. ___).5u__ 1. 1~ --3:----g: -3:---g:-- --3: 3:---I: .-- 3:---8:--B:-n:-U}:--I~~:--1~~:--8:--I~~:------4.°0 o. o. u. o. o. u. o. o. O. 8. lJ. 72. 32. 12~. O. l~~. 4.2S 4. su 3: .g: _. _ ~: _.__...~:. ~: _,._...g: __.. g:....__..~:.__.._._..~: ~:. .::. -.---~~:_._.~~ :~.._ ...: ~:_--8 :_-_....-:V : __.-.. -----.-.- ...-.- 4.1~ u. o. o. o. u. u. o. o. O. J. 4. 7J. II. 41. O. 41. 5.0U u. O. U. O. 0. o. o. O. O. I. J. 17. 1. 28. O. lA. U. O. u. O. O. O. 0. O. O. O. I. II. 5. 11. O. 11. _____ 5.505.2~ 5.15 --,3:_..~~--g:-- 8: --- g:--..-~:.-.--~:..--·--g:----·3:---g:--·g·:---g:--~:~:_--l:~~·--" l:·------~---·--··· ______PEAKJLUII__;L_ 13J6. _ SUM_= _ lH7u. _. _ ..._--.----_. _ .. ------_._--~--~---_._------._._- ._ ..._------~-_._-_._--_.------ .---- _._.__._._._-.-._---.__.-.__..-_..- .~..-_._ _._--._._-_.._---+-----_._------_._--_. ------.-_ ..-_ - --_ __ . _.__.- . ------,------_.------ . _ ...-._---- - ..._-- _ .._ .. _. _._. __ .- -_ ... _ ...__ .-_._----_ ..._----_._-_. __ . --_._ .._----_ .._------_._-----_._-~------_._~._---_ .._---_._- ._ .. ~_...._. __ .. _ .. --_._ .. __ . --_ ... _ .... _---_._ .._.__ ._-_.------_. ----_._ .....-,._._---_._------._-_ ..._- .... _ .. ~.__ _.- ._ .. _- _-_._.~-~_..~.._-_ _-_ ..__ ~..•._ ..__ ..__ .. _--_. __ .._._--_ .. ------_ .._------.-_ .._ ..----~_-_ __ .._- ._ - - _. -- -- ~~~ nr,.. :"...... ,~-.,....,. ( ._-_.- '~-_.'----'-'------_._------~_ .._-----_ ....__ .--- --_._- _._ .. .------.__ ._-_._-_._-_ ..__ ._--_. ---- -.------_.- --.-. -.-- ..------" UnTI.~ ~NGJN~ERING COHPURATION _ .._. ..._.__ ...__ ._ .. __._ ... .__.__..__._. .__._.. !.OCAL lOO~YUR_fLUOO_ CALCULAUON__..:------.------.-- .. ---- ..-.-. IlAI;f.lJ urUN II.C.F .C.O. H'fURUI,Uef MANIJALM~TIIOU RURIlF:GI) svcs I'AIlI(-OlSCIIARGF: At-TER OEVEI. ------_._--_._------_._-- _._.- - _.- - ---_.~----_._----_._---_ ...------_._. ~-... ------.". _.__ ... - -_.------_ ..-. OIlAIN AIlEA ISU MI) 1.500 UNIT P~RIOU IIIR) = T = 0.2S LOSS RATE (JN/HA) 0.20 P~RVJOUS , ~S. IlASf. FLOW (CfS/SU.MJ.) O. ZONf.. VALL~r ______------~I'~~Vi,H~V -IFT) -- - -ShY: 2i/ii --- t~:E~"H~~j trT L - 520: 50/1---- gl,~~-d~T~~n-!rp=.-.--·~V:._- IIAS!N FAcrOR IN) .015 LAG ItWURS) .l:>9 1(=&45IlJR AREAIIT = JR10. ,,1,At:=IOOITI/LAG= \:>1.5 100-TIl J-1I1l pT RAINFAI.L= \.50 RAINfALl, AUJ FAC .4S5 ------iiiT~nj- ;--f:2qO------il(6o)--=2~b.,5------iH fO)=T;-1isS--· RC151 '" l.l70 --.-----.---- .. -.-..------. ______~~~~tA~~~~~~:'"_:E:~~~~_.uh .• oll __ .ot9 .!J1l ._.1~J.__•th~O~6. __~O:8_.. J~L_~U6_1.HL-_-J~S ------. LUCAL 100-YlAIl- .020 .Ol. .Oll .Ol4 .05b .0&2 .ol9 .045 .119 .l94 .b2l .220 EfF~ClIVF: .002 .nol ,OOJ .00\ .028 .OJ4 .uI~ .017 .l5l .166 .sqs .19l. _.__._._. ..---~---.------Ci.-At;- ,-,,-.-- _l~CgE~_ crs ----.----- .--..---.---.---..--.-~-.------.--.----·------ll~:~-----~1:l--H:8-----IH3:-----.------. ------.------.--.--..-- J9J.8 92.4 \0.0 JAb. 551.4 9&.9 4.6 111. ------.--.------·--:_-·------·------~U:~----n:l_---2:l --H:'------.------.- 1024.0 lOo.O .1 l • ._- ---.-..._.-'" ._. -- - - ... _. ---~---'---'-' -_._------_. __ ... __ ._. --_._-"- -_. __ ._~-_.--_.------_._---~---_._-_ .._ ..--_ .._---_._ .. -~._-_.__ .-._--_._~------_.__ ._. __ .----. ------_. __ ._- ._---_ .._---- ,~,-_... __ . __ .- -_ ... __ ."'--' ..._ ..... _--_ ..._ .. - .._-_ ...._._~--_. __ ._---_._._- . _ .... _---.------_ .. _-_._------_ .. ------_._.--_._------_ .._---_ .. -- ---_. __ .,.- ...- ..---_ ..---_. __ ._.---_. --- ._----_ .._---_ ..__ ..--_._------_. ---_.--- --'------_ .... __ .--_._. __ .__ .__ ..._------_ .. _----_ ...-. __ ...•._,---_._--_ ...__ ._----~------_._-----_._-----_ .....- _ ..._. __ .- ._----_.------_ .. _------_._------_._-_.----_.------ ...._._-_ •.._----_._._--_ ..__ .------_.~.. ,---_._ ..-_.-._ ..._._~_.-.__ .... _---_._------_._._-_. ------_. __ ....._---- ._ ..- - ._.__ .... -~_'·")or ....~ ~ .....~ ..._ .. -~.. ._.-"" - , -.J .-1 .....J , ...... -.~~...... ;...~:-- ._------iilo;Yu-ii-f':;oi'ill !i'DROCRAPH UORRECU SPGS PAR~·DlSC"A"G~ AfTER UEVEL ur. 11" IlISC/f _ ~ f f E C T 1 V ~ RA 1 h f ALL - 1 N C H E 5 ------PRnJ UASE TOTAL TIMt: llRIl .002 ..001 . .OU1 .001 .. ._.._. .O~8 ._... .014 .012 . .__ .0)7 . . .ISI -,--__ .lb6 . .5~5 .1~1 f"unolCfSJ __(CfSl_·lCU)_.fLOV fLOOU .__ --.------_Illll) ICFS) ______:~a__JU8:- J:.-J' 8:...-8:---8~-a:-8:-.8=--8:-8:--8:-8' ~~-.-.8:-~:,_~_ .15 JRb, J. 1. 4. O. O. o. o. o. o. o. O. O. A. U. A. t,Oo 111. O. 1. 6. 2. u. O. o. o. o. o. o. U. 9. O. 9. 1.2~ Al, O. O. 1. 3. 18. O. O. o. o. o. O. O. 42, O. 42. I:~g ]1: - ~:- H: .. -- A: ----- A: - -' H: -- t~:·--- •~:---'--8 :--- g: -----g :-.----g: ----~ :----3~:---8:---;~:'------2.00 O. O. o. o. O. S. 13. 22, 21, O. U, O. O. 61. O. 61. ______~:~3 8: g : __ ~ : __ g :_.- g :_-~ .; ~: __ J:__~~:_~~~:_22~:__ g: __ g :--~g. g:-~g: 2.7:; O. U. O. O. U. O. 1. I. 1. 5H. 10H. 196. O. lIoR. O. 1168.----- 1.00 O. O. O. U. U. u. o. O. I. 21. 64. 1101. 2S8. 1452. O. 14S? 1.25 u. O. U. O. O. O. O. I. IJ. 29. 210. 151. 629. O. 629. ].5u O. 0... U. _.__._u.o. __ ._.U •.. o. O. ._0._. __ .0. __. 5._._.14 ...__1115.-----14._. __ 19'1 •. 0. 19'1. ._._. __ ].75 U. O. 0; O. U, O. 0, O. O. 0, 6. 49. 14, 90, O. gO. 4.00 O. O. 0, o. o. o. O. O. ·0, o~ O. 2~. 16. J~. . O. 16, 4.2~ O. 0, 0, 0, 0, U. O. o. 0, O. U, 2, b. 8., o. 8. 4 .. !)u ..._ ..__.0 .. .0 ~.--._ ..o. __~_u __ o. o• .o.~ __ o.~ o_.__ · _O. Q. ...D._---.1 t....._.~. ..1... :;11,.; ld7u. P~AK rLuv = 145'. ..._-_._~_ .. --. __ ._--_._-_ .._------_ ..- --._ ...._----_._------_ .....-- .----- _..._--_._ ..__ .. ------"--'---'''---''- .. -"-'- --_ .... _---_. ------_ .. --- .-,.'---- ...... ~.__ ...._-_. _ .._ ..... - .._. --_. __ ._---_.- ..__ ..._.__ .._----~---,._...__ .__ ._._ .... _ ...~_._-_. ..- ._. ---~_. ,._ .._. ----- _._---_._--.- ._--_. ----_._---_.---- .------'------..... "-_ - .•._ .._-. _.- " .._ - _ .._ ..--_ ..-_._ _ -. ---- - _._--- -'.----_._. · .... ,. . ,.. ~ APPENDIX B AN ApPRAISAL OF THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES IN THE NORTHERN SUBBASIN OF THE BORREGO VALLEY KESERVOIR DAVID A. PHOENIX \ I I ; ) I I 1 I .. "\ \ An appraisal of the groundwater resources in the northern subbasin of the Borrego Valley reservoir. San Diego County. with emphasis on the recovery of groundwater from the Borrego Park area. --~ ---..---- . .') .'.... For FEDERATED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY by David A. Phoenix July. 1979 --_. -- CONTENTS Section LO INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING AND HISTORIC DEVELOPMENTS 2 3.0 H~STORICAL CHANGES IN THE GROUNDWATER AND RESUME 4 4.0 CL.IMATE AND STREAMFLOW 7 5.0 GEOLOGY AND WATER-BEARING PROPERTIES OF THE ROCKS 11 14 6.0 GROUNDWATER IN THE ALLUVIUM VOLUMETRIC ESTIMATES OF AVAILABLE GROUNDWATER IN STORAGE 15 19 6. L 1 Inflow-Outflow Estimate Inflow 19 Outflow 23 Summary of Inflow-Outflow Calculations 29 6.2 CHEMICAL QUALITY OF GROUNDWATER IN ALLUVIUM 30 32 6.3 CURRENT PATTERNS OF PUMPAGE AND EFFECTS 6.4 RECOVERY OF GROUNDWATER BY PUMPAGE BORREGO SPRINGS PARK AREA 36 ESTIMATED SAFE YIELD, BORREGO SPRINGS PARK 6.5 38 AREA 40 6.6 ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE IN BORREGO VALLEY 6.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ** ** * Contents - 1 CONTENTS - Continued ILL USTRATrONS Figure 1 Map of the Borrego Valley area showing water-level contours for 1964. directions of groundwater movement I and wells for which water levels were determined. June, 1979. "1 ! t Table 1 Estimated use of groundwater for various purposes in Borrego Valley, 1978 - 1979 •. Table 2 Measured water levels in wells. Borrego Valley, June 20 - 27, 1979 ***** Contents - 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION / water supplies where the landowner is often in ignorance concerning the physical and hydrologic properties of the underlying reservoir, its reaction to climatic influences, to pumpage, and to land use prac- tices as conceived by he or his neighbors. It is the purpose of this report to briefly describe the setting and the geology of "the ground- I .. '.... water reservoir, i s e , , those dimensions and features of the area that govern the availability of the groundwater; to introduce ob- servations concerning the dynamic properties of the reservoir, its recharge and discharge, and to provide useful criteria for future use and management of the reservoir particularly as they apply to some 1,200 acres of land in the western part of the basin and in the vicinity of the Ensign Ranch (Sections 4 and 9, T. 11 S., R. 6 E). 2.0 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING AND HISTORIC DEVELOPMENTS Borrego Valley, near sea level but about 60 miles due east of the Pacific Ocean, lies on the eastern side of the Peninsular Range in Southern California. It occupies a shallow indentation along the base of the northwesterly trending escarpment of these mountains (see Figure 1); it is about 17 miles long from the abraided channel of San Felipe creek in the south end of the valley to the mouth of Coyote Canyon in the north end, and in the central most populated part it is about 9 miles wide. The valley floor covers about 84 square miles. Although the west side and north end of the valley are enclosed - by-steep escarpments and high mountains, in places arising to alti- tudes between 6,000 and 8,000 feet above sea level, the east side is enclosed by low-lying, somewhat aligned but poorly connected. hills, Coyote Mountain, Clay Hills, and Borrego Mountain that are less than 1,200 feet above sea level and overlook the Salton Sea and Im- perial Valley to the east. The area encompassed by the drainage divide encircling Borrego Valley is 280 square miles. The valley is on the western edge of the most arid desert in North America and its western side and northern end yield the bulk .. -... - --' .- .~.... -~------of-its-water-supply-.-Stream channels enter the valley from the west ...:...-.- .. - side and the north end. Coyote Creek on the north end is perennial, ! -2- but those on the west side are all ephemeral. With the exception of San Felipe Creek. which enters the west central side of the valley and trends accurately across the valley to leave around the north end of Borrego Mountain. all channels from the north and wes t merge and eventually drain into Borrego Sink in the north central part of the valley. Oiled highways connect the valley to the coast. San Diego on the 'southwest and Oceanside on the west. and to inland parts of Southern California. Imperial Valley and the Salton Sea and Palm Desert and Palm Springs in Coachella Valley to the east and north- east. All of the larger communities in Southern California are between one and one-half and two hours drive from the shopping center in Borrego Valley. Since the 1920's. the valley has been a focal point for efforts in development. In the early 1930's. when the Ensign Ranch was operating in the central part of the valley. it was supporting hay- fields and cattle and. for a time. considerable hope and expectation was placed in sizeable acreage devoted to dates. It is reported that the first irrigation well in the valley was constr-ucted on this ranch in 1926. Later. in the mid-forties. attention was directed to the northern part of the valley; several thousand acres in this area were devoted to farming grapes, and for a time these were com- panion to colorful crops of gladiolus. Reportedly. the valley pro- duced some of the: finest taole grapeE:' in~S;:ll.lthJEJ:n~lifor~ia. By '--- the late 1950's and early 1960's. attention was finally diverted to citrus, to specialty crops for desert landscaping. and to homes for \ \ people. Today the population of the area depends upon the season of the year. In summer it is between 1,500 and 1,800. but from Octo- ber to May when the desert climate is comfortable. the population is between 7,000 and 8,000. Within the last 15 years it has become well known as a desert resort area with attendent recreational "1 facilities, including golf courses and swimming pools, but also sup- I I ports about 900 acres of lemon and grapefruit, about 250 ac.res of palm and related desert-specialty nursery stock, and about 320 acres of permanent pasture for livestock. Over a 40 -year-period the valley has changed from a thinly. populated, remote and primitive desert, into an attractive resort and agricultural community. It has been accomplished by the pumpage of underlying groundwater. This water, subject to the limitations that first created a desert of the valley, has also been subject to changes and in some areas they are as dramatic as has been the .transition from desert to farms and gardens. 3.0 HISTORICAL CHANGES IN THE GROUNDWATER AND RESUME Well measurements made during the period 1952 to 1965 indi- cated that significant decline in water levels had occurred in the area north of Borrego Sink during that period (Moyle, 1968, page 10). Later in 1974 a contour map of the water table in Borrego Valley showed the decline to coincide. with an area of extensive irrigation development. During the 12-year-period, in places. the decline was 30 to 40 feet. Further south it was from 20 to 44 feet, and in the vicinity oLthe.iol d Bnsign Ranch' the··decline was locally as much -4- as 20 feet below the early period of water-level measurements (Moyle. 1974). Parallel to these changes and primarily in the area of agricultural development in the northern part of the valley. changes were also taking place in the chemical quality of the ground- water. In some wells in this area. total dissolved solids in the water more than doubled from 600 to 700 parts per million (ppm) to 1.200 to 1,500 ppm. The increase was accompanied by an increase in so- dium and sulfate and by an alarming increase in nitrate, from 20 to 30 ppm to more than 200 ppm in places. These chemical changes were not going on in the more southern parts of the valley; the water remained suitable for domestic use in the vicinity of the Ensign Ranch and Borrego Sink, probably because the stress of pumping in these. areas had not been sufficiently great to cause the nitrate-laden groundwater to migrate in these directions. Today, 14 years after the first careful compilation of ground- water data had been completed. the author has revisited a number of the wells in Borrego Valley to remeasure water levels and to de- termine the amount of change in the groundwater since the previous studies. The results were meager. but interesting. About 40 wells were visited during the investigation at various localities throughout the central and northern part of the valley. Many of the irrigation and public water-supply wells were either abandoned and sealed, or enclosed by large turbine pumps and not constructed for water- level observation; the newer wells were in use and hence not suitable for measurements. However. water levels were measured in 10 wells. mainly used for domestic water supplies. for which -5- previous observations had been made and in all these wells there was a decline in the water level over the earlier (1965) period of observation. As to be expected, the decline was not consistent from place to place. Ranging from an extreme of 28 feet for a well lo- cated near irrigated hayfields to about 6 feet at a U.S.G.S. obser- vation well near the airport. The average annual decline over the 1965 to 19·79period was 0.7 foot and this decline is representative of the change in water levels that have occurred in the central part of the vall-ey where most of the water used is for low-consumptive purposes. Nitrates remain at dangerously high leveis in the groundwater from the agricultural area at the north of the valley, and reportedly one or two of the public water- supply wells in the central part of the valley have been shut down or-deepened to avoid the apparent migrating influence of nitrate. Further south, nitrate in the groundwater of the Ensign Ranch and Borrego Sink areas has reportedly remained at low levels. Both the decline in water levels and the adverse influence of nitrate in the groundwater are the result of pumpage in excess of groundwater recharge. In effect. a process that originated three decades ago. that of "mining" the underground reservoir for water. is still going on. - The imbalance or depletion of the reser- voir depends upon the method used for calculating groundwater inflow. One method derives an average annual inflow of 3,200 acre-feet from all measurable sources; a second method obtains about 9.500 acre-feet per year as an index to available -6- recharge. Adjustments for error in both methods suggest that actual recharge may average 5.000 to 6,000 acre-feet per year. Groundwater depletion has and will continue to have its greatest effect in the Borrego Valley groundwater reservoir north of San Felipe Creek where pumpage is localized. Greater use of the groundwater resource in this area will cause further depletion of a calcula.ted available storage of about 565, 000 acre-feet of water. unless a new source of water such as imported water is obtained for artificial recharge. Continued depletion will also be attendant to gradual chemical enrichment of the remaining ground- water as migratory routes are adjusted to lowered water tables and as new patterns of water usage are developed at the surface. Periodic basin wide and accurate measurements of water quality. pumpage , and water levels will clarify the relations discussed in this report. 4.0 CLIMATE AND STREAMFLOW The climate in Borrego Valley is severely arid, abundant sun- shine, little rainfall, little or no humidity with hot dry summers and cool dry winters; it is characterisiic of the lowland desert regions of Southern California. It is also a climate where the extremes are 0 highly noticeable. Diurnal changes in temperature exceeding 60 F are common summer and winter; severe rainfall originating from warm tropical storms in the summer are broadly cyclic in occur- renee. They erode new steam channels in the mountains and create flood conditions over much of the valley. It is an area where mean minimum temperatures in January are 0 about 360 F but mean maximum temperatures in July are about 106 F; 1 I , the winters are comfortably cool. the summers uncomfortably hot. More importantly to its water supplies. it is also an area where po- I tential evapo-transpiration far exceeds actual precipitation; the native vegetation is capable of using far more water than is supplied by pre- 1 cipitation and thus. it is an area of water deficiency (Piper. 1965. pp 3-5. pl , 2). According to 20 years of record at Borrego Desert Park on the ~;------west side of the valley. the normal annual precipitation is about 8 inches and rainfall occurs mainly between November and March on the central and west side of the valley floor; in the mountains and elevated small valleys bordering the west side of Borrego Valley. temperatures are cooler and average annual precipitation is 16 inches or more. and perhaps very locally as high as 40 inches. The rocks ., .' in the mountains. mostly dense igneous and metamorphic types. are incapable of absorbing water readily and they are mantled only by a thin cover of soil; soil moisture from precipitation quickly returns to the dry atmosphere by evaporation and plant transpiration (evapo- transpiration). but in excess of t~ese preemptive demands it combines to form streamflow. Very little water is stored as groundwater in the mountainous areas. Precipitation that falls on the east side of the valley and over most of the valley floor is rarely believed to he sufficient to exceed the requirements for evapo-transpiration. ___ Surfacewater from perennial and intermittent streams enters - ~----':..- the north end and west side of the valley. Coyote Creek at the north end of the valley and the only perennial steam in the area has a -8- drainage area of 144 square miles. Streamflow past the mouth of the canyon where it enters the valley at the gaging station has been measured since 1950 and for the period 1950 to 1973 is unmodified by upstream diversions. Since 1973. an ungaged amount of water has been diverted above the gaging station to serve irrigation re- quirements in Borrego Valley. The annual discharge of Coyote Creek past the gaging atatton since 1963 is summarized as follows·: Discharge Calendar Year (acre-feet) 1963 1,320 1964 1,100 1965 1,580 1966 1,190 1967 1,140 1968 888 1969 965 1970 1, 110 1971 908 1972 980 1973 412 1974 1,110 1975 353 1976 448 Prior to 1973, the year at which diversions of streamflow were installed above the gaging station, the average annual discharge of Coyote Creek for 22 years of record was 1.99 cis or 1,440 acre-foot per year. Borrego Palm Creek on the northwest side of the valley is typical of the small desert drainage basins that contribute runoff to Borrego ..--.; Valley; runoff occurs during the winter months and during periods of heavy unseasonal rain. Streamflow past the gaging station at the mouth of Borrego Palm Canyon originates from about 22 square l _0_ miles of steep, rugged terrain; it is unhindered by diversions and it occurs primarily during the period December to May. The average discharge of Borrego Palm Creek for the 27-year-period 1950 to 1977 was 0.32 cfs or 232 acre-feet per year. The maximum dis- charge past the gaging station for the period 1955 to 1976 was I 2,000 cfs and this was exceeded during a severe summer storm 1 August 15, 1977 when maximum discharge was 2,160 cfs • .- ~.~. Henderson Canyon, Hellhole Canyon, and Culp Canyon, all desert- stream channels on the west side of Borrego Valley, also give rise to str-eamflow during periods of moderate-to-heavy rainfall. However, their combined drainage area is only about 28 square miles. They drain an environment similar to that for Borrego Palm Canyon and because of this the unit area runoff for these small basins is probably comparable to that for Borrego Palm Canyon. The annual discharge of all three of these ungaged drainage basins is pr-obably no more than 250 acre-feet per year. San Felipe Creek discharges into the southern and central part of Borrego Valley. Its drainage area above the mouth of its canyon covers about 180 square miles and tributaries of San Felipe Creek are all ephemeral except in a few places where they are fed by springs from the consolidated rocks or from shallow reservoirs of alluvium. Runoff from the upper one-half of the basin has been gaged in Sentenac Canyon since 1958 and at this station, surface water dis- ...... ;. charge occurs primarily during the months from mid-November to June; the average discharge for the period of record is 0.23 cf s or 167 acre-feet per year; whereas maximum discharge occurred August 22.1927 and was 1,050 cf's . -10- The drainage basin of San Felipe Creek below the Sentenac gaging station is somewhere lower in average altitude than is the gaged portion above the canyon and hence. the lower portion probably receives less overall precipitation. An estimate of runoff based upon decreasing increments of evapo-transpiration and upon in- creasing increments of precipitation with greater altitude indicates that the lower basin probably contributes between 120 to 140 acre- feet per year to str-eamflow into Borrego Valley. It is believed that an average of about 300 acre-feet per year are contributed to Bor- rego Valley from San Felipe Creek. The streams are the most important features in Borrego Valley with regard to its long-term water supply. Probably as much as 80 to 90 percent of their average annual flow enters the alluvium at the mouths of the canyons and reaches the groundwater reservoir be- neath Borrego Valley. The extremes in streamDow - the occasional flood - add a valuable increment of water to the area. and this is re- flected locally by the recovery (rise) of water levels in wells near and upon the alluvial fans on the west side of Borrego Valley following one of these short periods of heavy rainfall. 5.0 GEOLOGY AND WATER-BEARING PROPERTIES OF THE ROCKS The rocks that occur in the mountains surrounding Borrego Valley and the sediments that underlie the valley present distinctly different geologic influences upon the area's water supplies. The rocks in the Peninsular Range on the western side of the valley are. for the most part. crystalline or they are highly compressed so that their porosity is very low. Although they are fractured and in places 1 , mantled by a thin veneer of alluvium. they are nearly impermeable and retain only small ephemeral amounts of groundwa tel'. These properties are important because these mountains receive most of the precipitation that falls in the area. The rocks are also transected by a major northwesterly trending fault (Caliente fault zone) and by several subparallel faults. The zones of fractured and sheared rock associated with them have had an influence upon the development of local landscape features in the Peninsular Range. but their influence upon the occurrence of ground- water in Borrego Valley is negligible. The rocks on the eastern side of the valley include crystalline igneous rocks and metamorphosed limestone underlying Crystal Mountain. a large area of consolidated siltstone. sandstone. and clay southeast of Coyote Mountain and much younger deposits. the uncon- solidated alluvium that blanket these latter deposits in many places. The deposits of siltstone. sandstone. and clay underlie deposits of alluvium beneath much of Borrego Valley. whereas the deposits of alluvium that cover these older sediments in Borrego Valley also ex- tend into a smaller adjacent valley. Clark Valley. lying to the north- east of the central part of Borrego Valley. The northwesterly trending Coyote Canyon Creek fault transects all of these rocks and erosion and deplacement along this fault has controlled the development and .trend of Coyote Creek and Coyote Canyon and to a large degree the northeastern boundary of the Borrego Valley groundwater reservoir. Displacement along this fault has been sufficient to interfere with the movement of groundwater between Clark and Borrego Valleys. but the degree of interference is not known ~ -12- In the mountains. precipitation is temporarily stored in aI- luvium; it evaporates and it is used by plants and. if it is sufficient to satisfy these requirements. it quickly gathers as streamflow and it eventually reaches the floor of the Borrego valley. The sharp fluctuations in streamflow in response to rainfall as measured at the gaging station in Borrego Palm Canyon. reflects the temporary absorptive influence that rocks in the mountains have upon the storage of precipitation during periods of heavy rainfall. * SELECTED PERIODS OF STREAMFLOW BORREGO PALM CREEK Daily Discharge Year Period (ds) 1977 August 13 . 0.0 14 0.0 15 89.0* 16 3.1* 17 45.0* 18 4.1* 19 0.32* 20 0.01 21 0.0 1970 December 20 0.0 21 .25 22 .96 23 .26 24 .04 25 0.0 *This runoff accompanied the heavy tropical rain that seriously damaged and flooded parts of the d'esert regions in San Diego County in August. 1977. The alluvium that underlies Borrego Valley has originated by erosion of rocks in the nearby mountainous areas; it is porous and permeable sand and gravel. particularly so near the mountains and __ -t3~ _ opposite the mouths of canyons where it has been winnowed and sorted by streamflow and deposited as broad alluvial fans. Farther from the mountains in lower and more planar parts of the valley, the underlying sediments are less permeable, fine-grained sand, i I silt, and clay. The specific capacity of wells in Borrego Valley .~, l reflect the general physical and water-bearing properties of the ! sediments. In the northern and most western parts of the valley, specific capacities for most of the wells is between 40 to greater than 100 gallons of yield per foot of drawdown. In the central and planar parts of the valley near Borrego Sink, the specific capacity of wells is about 30 gallons yield or even much less. The geologic logs of wells in various parts of the valley (Moyle , 1968, pp D1 to D40) also indicate that the water-bearing strata underlying the val- ley are highly lenticular. In general, between adjacent wells, the deposits are uniform in their heterogeneity; extractions of water in one area will reflect upon water levels in nearby areas •. Also, large extractions or additions of water over extended periods of time will be reflected by the lowering or raising of water levels in large parts of Borrego Valley. 6.0 GROUNDWATER IN THE ALLUVIUM There are two procedures used for estimating the amount of available water in a groundwater reservoir. The first is a direct computation of the volume of available water in storage from the area covered by water-bearing sediments, the thickness of the sedi- merrts , and their porosity and specific yield.:;: The second method, -14- the inflow-outflow method. uses the fact that under natural condi- tions and prior to the drilling of wells. a groundwater reservoir is in hydrologic balance because over a period of years the amount of water entering the reservoir will equal the amount leaving it. For a developed groundwater reservoir such as Borrego Valley, the inflow-outflow method provides an assessment of the items in depletion or surplus in the water supply: whereas, the volumetric method provides guidance in evaluating changes in water level in a reservoir in terms of water added to or extracted from the reservoir. Both methods are subject to considerable latitude in interpreta tton . 6.1 VOLUMETRIC ESTIMATES OF AVAILABLE GROUNDWATER ( IN STORAGE . A groundwater reservoir the size of that underlying Borrego Valley, some 84 square miles, contains a large quantity of water in storage. It is therefore useful to determine the amount in stor- age, for it serves as a buffer in times of drought and in times when annual overdraft inadver-tently exceeds the annual replenishment. The estimate of the amount of groundwater in storage makes many assumptions, for not only do the water-bearing properties of the sediments differ from place to place. but also the dynamic conditions *The specific yield of a rock or soil is the ratio of (1) the volume of water. which after being saturated. it will yield by gravity to (2) its own volume. -15- in the aquifers differ; in places, the groundwater is unconfined and under water-table conditions; in others, it is semi-confined and under artesian pressure. Subsurface data coming from well tests and geologic logs pro- vide a good description of the water-bearing materials in a number "1 of widely scattered parts of the valley (Moyle, 1968), but there is I I little information concerning the dynamic behavior of groundwater in the aquifers. However. using the available geologic data in a manner analogous to methods employed in designing- a hydrologic model of a groundwater basin and assuming that water-table conditions prevail at least in the upper 100 feet of saturated sedi- ments, it is then possible to compartmentalize the valley into areas of similar water-bearing properties and yield. For example, in the north end and along the west side of the valley where most of the large production wells have been drilled, water-bearing materials 3 4 have a high permeability, probably between 10 and 10 gallons per day per foot, their porosity is moderate, probably about 25 percent, and judging from the specific capacity of more than 20 wells in this area (Moyle, 1969, pp E2-E9). the specific yield of the sediments is high, possibly as great as 25 percent. The area underlain by these kinds of water-bearing materials is about 42 square miles. The central part of the valley, the area underlying Borrego Sink. the airport, and as far north as Oliver Ranch contains the least pro- ductive wells and here water-bearing materials are, for the most part, fine- grained sand interbedded with much thicker deposits of -16- clay. These deposits have a correspondingly low overall permeabil- ity. probably on the order of 10 gallons per day per foot. Although their porosity is high. probably as great as 25 or 30 percent. the low specific' capacity of the wells indicates that the specific yield of the sediments is low. probably no greater than 12 percent or less. About 12 square miles of Borrego Valley is underlain by these de- posits. ThE!!remainder of the valley e , about 30 square miles. is underlain by materials with overall water- bearing properties inter- mediate between these two extremes. An additional source of water than simple gravity drainage is that which originates from compaction of the sediments. For the purpose of calculation. it is assumed that subsidence under a theoretical basin-wide water level decline of 100 feet will be no more than 3 feet. It will take place in an area with a diameter of about 6 miles and this will be localized in the area where the sedi- ments are mostly silt. fine sand. and clay and it will diminish to insignificant amounts where the sediments are mostly coarse sand and gravel. In other words. compaction of the sediments - the cause of subsidence - with an average porosity of 0.25. will yield water as a "one-shot deal." equal in amount to that occupying a shallow inverted cone with a maximum depth of 0.75 foot and a radius of 3 miles. The amount is about 4.500 acre-feet of recover- able storage for each 100 feet of water level decline in the Borrego Valley. D,sing these assumptions. then it is possible to calculate the volume of water that must be extracted from the basin to effect a -17- uniform lowering of 100 feet in the water table. The yield for a layer of sediment 1-foot-thick and 100-feet-thick is summarized as follows: Specific Yield I Area Acres Porosity Yield (acre-feet) -.... 1 (margins) 26,880 0.25 0.25 1,680 I 2 (midsections) 19,200 0.25 0.17 816 3 (central) 7,680 0.30 0.12 277 Totals 68,480 2,773 x 100 277,300 Yield By Compaction 4,500 281,800 It is important to realize that this amount of water is available only under theoretical circumstances. In practice, the water table is a dimpled surface depending upon the number and location of wells as well as the amount of pumpage and water-bearing properties of the sediments. Costly or harmful groundwater conditions can de- velop, therefore, in some parts of a groundwater reservoir before they occur to other parts of the reservoir. and before this or greater amounts of idealized recoverable water are used. It is also to be noted that a previous estimate places the amount of recoverable water in storage in the first 200 feet of saturated aIIuvi um as 1,000,000 acre-feet (California Department of Water Resources, 1975). This amount is more than double the amount estimated by the writer. No doubt both calculations are in error and will be adjusted as water management becomes a mor-e urgent responsibility in the Borrego Valley and more information becomes available. -18- 6.1.1 Inflow-Outflow Estimate Inflow: The infiltration of precipitation falling on the valley floor and streamflow and associated underflow entering the valley are the primary sources of groundwater recharge in the Borrego Valley. The infiltration of precipitation is a consequence of the duration, in- tensity, and amount of precipitation that occurs during storms that envelope the floor of the valley and hence, the amount will differ from time to time. However, in valley ar-eas of the desert south- west where elevations are low and where average annual precipitation is less than 10 inches, experience has shown that no more than one percent of the average annual precipitation moves downward and be- yond the influence of evapotranspiration and becomes groundwater recharge (Heindl, 1965, P. 14). Thus, for the Borrego Valley with an area of about 85 square miles or 55,000 acr es , an average alti- tude of about 700 feet above sea level and an average annual precipi- tation of about 7 inches, probably no more than about 320 acre-feet of water reaches the water table each year from precipitation that falls directly on the valley floor. This figure for recharge from direct precipitation on the valley is believed to be conservative. A more generous source of recharge to the groundwater reser- voir than direct precipitation comes by the infiltration of stream- flow. Although some of this recharge is hidden from sight, for it enters the reservoir via the alluvium beneath the stream (underflow), much of it is measurable as streamflow. As it leaves the canyons. and within a short distance, it percolates into the permeable sand and gravel that underlies alluvial slopes of the valley and from here -19- 1 it disperses widely into the groundwater reservoir. Details of the discharge for Coyote Creek and Borrego Palm Creek are provided in the section of this report on climate and streamflow; the average • unmodified discharge for Coyote Creek for 22 years of record tI (1951 to 1973) is 1,440 acre-feet per year; the average discharge "j for Borrego Palm Canyon for 27 years of record is 232 acre-feet; ,;• and the estimated annual average discharge for San Felipe Creek is 300 acre-feet per year. Other small drainage basins on the west side of the Borrego Valley have geologic and topographic character- istics similar to the Borrego Palm Canyon drainage basin, but their topographic relief and individual catchment areas are much less. It is unlikely that their total average discharge exceeds that for Borrego Palm Canyon; probably no more than 250 to 300 acre-feet of runoff per year originate in those small drainage basins. On the east side of the Borrego Valley, the western slopes of Coyote Moun- tain, Clay Hills and Borrego Mountain probably provide some runoff to the valley, but it occurs only during the rare heavy storm and it probably does not have a significant influence on groundwater under- lying Borrego Valley. Average annual runoff into the valley from the various streams itemized above is believed to be no less than 2,222 acre-feet per year and probably no more than 2,500 acre-feet per year, andof this water, probably as much as 2,200 acre-feet enters the ground- water reservoir as natural recharge each year. Other sources of recharge to Borrego Valley include underflow --- -th~~gh alluvium underlying each of the streams as well as water I -20- / which may enter the sediments from deeply buried sources. As for the first item, underflow, the amount entering the valley depends upon the wetted cross-sectional area of alluvium beneath each stream, the transmissivity of the alluvium, and the hydraulic gradi- ent , The alluvium underlying Coyote Canyon is probably the only significant perennial supply of underflow to the valley; underflow from the other canyons is probably ephemeral in somewhat the same pattern as is discharge from the ephemeral streams that occupy the canyons. The material underlying each channel is more than likely highly permeable sand and gravel. The wetted cross-sectional area for Coyote Creek is roughly triangular,' 150 to 200 feet wide, and probably no more than 150 feet deep and the water-table gradient is about 100 feet per mile; therefore. using the formula Q=TIW where Q is underflow in gallons per day; T is the coefficient of transmis- sivity (permeability times thickness); I is the hydraulic gradient in feet per mile above the gaging station and W is the average width of the saturated alluviated section in miles; the underflow is calculated to be about 300. 000 gallons per day or about 350 acre- feet per year. Using similar reasonable estimates for the cross-sectional area, the lithologic composition and the hydraulic gradient for subsurface conditions in other canyons that enter the west side of the Borrego Valley, it is estimated that probably no more than 600 acre-feet of water enters the Borrego Valley as underflow in the alluvium under average conditions of steam discharge each year. _21_ I I Summarized below are the natural sources of groundwater in flow (recharge). the estimated average quantity for each source. and the estimated total in acre-feet per year for the Borrego Valley. Infiltration from precipitation on the valley floor 320+ Infiltration from streamflow entering the valley 2.200 Underflow from alluviated canyons 600+ I Upward percolation from deeply buried sources Unknown I I Total 3.200+ Another method of estimating potential gr-oundwater- recharge from mountain basins in Southern California has been described by Crippen (1965) for areas where streamflow data are not adequate. Application of this indirect method uses increments of rainfall and .. potential evapotranspiration corresponding to various altitudes in the drainage basin as an index to recoverable water. This and simi- lar techniques designed for hydrologic studies in the lower basin of the Colorado River (Hely and Pe cke , 1964) yield estimates of water available for recharge to the Borrego Valley of between 9.000 and 10.000 acre-feet per year. Both of these methods for analysis have been used as carefully as possible and they both have value in the determinations of water supplies for Southern California. For the Borrego Valley. however. the imbalance between the two methods of calculation is a large amount in acre- feet of wa te r , and in terms of the valleys I water supply the amount is serious. Errors inherent in the streamflow method include unknown and "extra" amounts of water that originate from ungaged drainage basins. -22- uncalculated quantities that enter as underflow, and uncalculated quantities that occur by direct infiltration on the valley floor. The function of torrential rains is a serious element of uncertainty in the calculations of the hydrologic budget for the area. The method proposed by Crippen also has its uncertainties. Most of the data used in calculations for this method originate from streamflow records and climate records located on western slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains and on western slopes of the Peninsular Ranges, where values for precipitation and potential- evapo'-transpiration are quite unlike those that prevail on the easterly desert-facing slopes of these same ranges. A further uncertainty in the method, like all attempts to generalize, lies in the scarcity of representative data in the solution of local problems. Greater information is needed on rainfall, soil moisture, evapo-transpiration, and stream runoff at various altitudes and in various geologic settings in the desert, be- fore this method can be used with confidence in the Borrego Valley area. It seems to the author of this report that a value for ground- water inflow to the Borrego Valley arising as runoff from the moun- tainous areas of the Peninsular Ranges probably lies somewhere be- tween the two figures proposed as the result of this and other studies in the area, and that it would be prudent to use a conservative esti- _mate of groundwater recharge in support of future water management for Borrego Valley. Outflow: Outflow or discharge of groundwater from the Borrego Val- ley is by several means, each of which can be analyzed in a manner similar to the methods used for inflow. One of the important means -23- of discharge is by lateral migration in the subsurface. and the geo- hydrologic map of Southern California (Moyle. 1974) indicates that 1 groundwater movement easterly from the valley is hindered by the Coyote Canyon fault; its movement westerly is prevented by the 1 crystalline rocks of the Peninsular Range. and its movement south 1 toward Ocotillo Wells is the most obvious means of escape. How- ever. movement in this direction from the northern part of the Bor- l rego Valley is impeded. if not prevented. by a groundwater mound built up opposite. the mouth of San Felipe Creek and lying athwart of the valley (see Figure 1). If groundwater escapes from the northern and central part of the Borrego Valley by subsurface migration and •, moves' toward Ocotillo Wells. it does so by deep patterns of circula- tion not shown by the water level contours and it does so in such small quantities as to support only meager amounts .of phreatophyte vegetation. Most of the water moving toward Ocotillo Wells is be- lieved to originate by infiltration from San Felipe Creek in its reach across the valley. There is a constant loss of groundwater from the valley as the result of transpiration by native vegetation. This loss is localized "'in areas where the capillary fringe above the water table is within the root zone of desert plants; hence. the loss by transpiration is dependent upon the species of plants. Willow. salt cedar. and palm are localized in Coyote Canyon and in small areas in Borrego Palm -24- Canyon and elsewhere in the vicinity of small springs in the Penin- sular Range. but their total extent does not exceed about 30 or 40 acres. Water use by these plants is probably no more than 3 to 4 acre-feet of water per acre per year or about 90 to 120 acre-feet per year. Other types of nonbeneficial vegetation that send their roots to the capillary fringe also occur in the valley. Tamarix (salt cedar) has been used extensively as windbreak. it is also in rare association with scattered clumps of mesquite and creosote bush surrounding Borrego Sink. Salt cedar and mesquite are both believed to extend their roots to great depths and they are therefore capable of trans- piring gr-oundwater- from the capillary fringe and above the water table in parts of the Borrego Valley. In the aggregate. they probably cover about 200 acres where the water table is less than 40 feet below land surface. principally around the periphery of the Borrego Sink. The amount of water used by this type of vegetation is in the range of 3 to 4 acre-feet per year. and in the Borrego Valley transpiration from this community is probably about 600 acre- feet per year. The greatest amount of groundwater is withdrawn from the Bor- rego Valley for the benefit of homes and agriculture. Irrigation wells are located chiefly in the central and north end of the valley and several large wells are used for public water supply to homes and small businesses located along the west side and in the central part of the valley. About 3a large turbine- pump -equipped wells have been used for irrigation or public water supply purposes. but of that number probably no more than eight or ten are now operating at any ----~ 1 I one time. The irrigation wells probably operate continuously during the summer and intermittently during the winter; those used for public water supplies operate intermittently, more so in the summer when the population is low, than in the winter when the population is greater. Wells servicing individual homes and small business estab- --, I lishments are scattered throughout the central part of the valley; most j of these wells are connected to pressure tanks and most supply water to homes occupied by "full-time residents in the valley. There are about 50 domestic wells in the valley and between 30 to 40 of these are believed to be in constant use. For various reasons, it was not possible to determine the actual amount of water pumped from the valley. However, it is possible to estimate this quantity within a reasonable degree of accuracy by as- sessing the various purposes for which water is used according to (against) consumption use figures obtained from many years of water-management studies in the nearby Imperial and Coachella Val- ley areas (U. S. Soil Conservation Service, Indio, and El Centro, California). Acreages in the Borrego Valley devoted to various agri- cultural uses were estimated by field inspections and road traverses in the valley during June 1979, as was the number of wells used for irrigation; population of the valley, a highly seasonal variable, was provided by the Borrego Valley Chamber of Commerce. An estimate of the water furnished by wells to support agriculture is summarized on the following table. -26- TABLP. --- ESTIMATI~') usn OF GROUNDWATlm FOil VAIIIOUS I'UIIPOSES IN IJORR~:GO VALLEY 1918 - 1919 Purpose Irril(alion Adjusted Annual lise Method of Applicslion Consumptive Consumptive Use Acreage (Acre-Feet) Crop Irrlga tlon Efficiency· Use 1.5 900 6.150 CIlt'IIs Drip ond row 90 1 Po 1m 1.5 250 1.815 (Nur ae r-y) Dr lp nn: "OW 90 1-8 pe r-mnn ent 8 320 2,560 Pasture Sprinkle 10 5.5 200 2,800 Golf I 14 N COlll'SC ,SI't'lnkle 35 5 -a 13,985 I Total Annual Use (Acre- Feet) Populs lion lIorne and No. of Population (Winter) Ussge/UIlIl. 585 Garden Unll PersonA (Summer) 200 gpd 14.5111 Home 2 1,500 R,OOO Ove "R II Totn I .Sandy loom Bolls. Coachella nlld Impe rla l Valley a , Most of the water applied to the land for irrigation is consumed by plants to satisfy their growth requirements. However. a part of the water escapes the plants and is lost directly to evaporation or percolates downward and reaches the water table. This amount represented by the application efficiency differs for each method of irrigation and depends upon the permeability of the soil and climate. Judging from the established application efficiencies for crops in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. and assuming that climate and soil. conditions are similar for the Borrego Valley. it seems reasonable to assume that between 2.500 and 3.500 acre-feet of applied water is divided between evaporation and infiltration. and it is either re- turned to the atmosphere or eventually reaches the water table and becomes available for recycling back to the surface by pumpage , An arbitrary amount of 1.500 acre-.feet is assigned to groundwater recharge by irrigation. Summarized below are the methods of groundwater outflow (dis- charge). the estimated quantity for each method. and the estimated total in acre-feet for the Borrego Valley. Transpiration (native vegetation) 600 acre-feet Pumpage Consumptive use (irrigation. e tc .) 13.985 acre- feet (domestic use) 585 acre-feet Underflow leaving the valley Unknown Subtotal 14.570 acre-feet Less return seepage from applied irrigation -1 .500 acre- feet 13.070acre-feet Less return seepage from domestic use -300 acre-feet Total 12.770acre-feet -28- 6.1.2 Summary of Inflow-Outflow Calculations Inflow to the basin has been calculated from average annual run- off da ta measured at three stream- gaging stations in the Borrego Valley watershed from precipitation records for the valley. and from geologic and groundwater calculations for stream-channel underflow. Two of .the stream- gaging stations. Coyote Canyon and Borrego Palm Canyon. record di schar-ge at or very near the point at which most of the runoff from their -respective watersheds, enter Borrego Valley. The third station measures runoff from the uplands and here reflects runoff conditions in the area of relatively high precipitation. The records of discharge at the Borrego Palm Canyon station reflect the nature and amount of runoff to be expected from ungaged , smaller basin watershed areas. on the west side of the Bor-r-ego Valley. Streamflow to the eastern side of the valley is insignificant to the inventory. The es tima te for average annual underflow entering the valley is believed to be within the realm of per-mi s s ive-apeculatton as is the estirriate for average annual recharge from direct precipi- tation on the valley floor. There are no disguised sources of water to the Borrego Valley from which supplies of groundwater can be de- rived. except contributions which may come from the unseasonal ungaged downpour associated with the occasional tropical storm. and by buried and undetected percolation such as Clark Valley. The outflow fTom the groundwater reservoir. both natural and man induced. is based chiefly upon analogy with the results of studies and groundwater research during the last 50 or 60 years in the desert southwe-st. It seems quite certain that the amount of water extracted !"'to I i from the Borrego Valley groundwater reservoir each year. during the period 1954 to 1965. had annually exceeded the amount replen- ished by several fold; pumpage was largely for agricultural use . (Bureau of Reclamation, 1969). The consequence was an annual lowering of the water table, greater in some areas than others, but still sufficient to reflect a decline of several feet per year over this period of development. During -thi s period. an average of 22,400 acre-feet per year were being applied to about 2,500 acres of agri- culture. Today it would appear that less than this amount of water. probably only one-half, is being used for mixed agriculture (golf courses included). 6.2 CHEMICAL QUALITY OF GROUNDWATER IN ALLUVIUM The chemical quality of the groundwater is summarized by almost 200 complete and partial analyses of water collected from wells throughout the valley, mostly during the period 1952 to 1965 (Moyle, 1968, pp C1-C6). In the northern part of the valley opposite the mouth of Coyote Canyon, the groundwater is a calcium sulfate. bicarbonate type. with about 1-part per million (ppm) flour-io e , 3- to 5-ppm nitrate, and 670- to 725-ppm total dissolved solids. Further north in the valley. in the vicinity of most of the irrigated acreage, appreciable changes in the chemical composition of tf.1.ewater took place during the period from 1952 to 1965. In 1952, the groundwater from the area of irrigated land was like that nearer the mouth of Coyote Canyon. However, by 1965, the water was an interesting and complex combination of all the major cations and anions; it contained an unusual concentration of magnesium. and in most places. it con- tained greater than 100 ppm nitrate; the dissolved solids concentration -30- exceeded 1.000 ppm in most places. It is interesting to compare the chemical character of this water from the northern end of the valley. with water collected from wells along the west side of the valley. In contrast to the complex composition of water in the north. with its high concentration of magnesium and nitrate. the water from along the west side of the valley. including the state park headquarters. the Ensign Ranch, and as far east as Desert Lodge, is a relatively dilute calcium or sodium-bicarbonate solution with smaller amounts of sulfate. Nitrate concentrations in the water are ordinarily less than 5 ppm and total dissolved solids concentration is between 300 and 400 ppm or less. Flouride is a characteristic constituent in those waters, but its conceritration is less than 1 ppm. This water is of somewhat different chemical composition, and it is more dilute in total dissolved solids than that from directly below Coyote Canyon in the northern part of the valley. It has probably mostly originated as runoff from the ephemeral streams in the nearby Peninsular Ranges a short distance to the west. No water samples were collected for chemical analysis during the brief period allotted to field work; however, it was interesting to learn from horticulturalists in the palm and desert plant nurseries in the agricultural area in the northern part of the valley. that the underlying groundwater used for irrigation was sufficiently concen- trated in nitrate as to obviate the use of nitrate fertilizer on their nursery stock. Drinking water is obtained by reverse osmosis from the well water used by the ranches in this area. It was also reported that further south. several wells had been abandoned as a source of " 1 r 1 domestic water because of increasing amounts of nitrate in the water. All wells in Sections 4 and 9. T. 11 S•• R. 6 E •• provide water with less than a-ppm nitrate. but these water supplies should be monitored at six-month intervals to detect possible lateral migration of nitrate away from the area of nitrate enrichment in the northern part of the valley. 6.3 CURRENT PATTERNS OF PUMPAGE AND EFFECTS The heaviest pumpage in Borrego Valley takes place in the ar-eas of irrigated acreage in the northern part of the valley and north of the east-west Palm Canyon Drive across the valley. This area con------. - _. tains large diameter irrigation wells used for the maintenance of citrus. nursery stock of palms. etc •• hayfie Ids , and a 9-hole and 18-hole golf course with landscaping and nearby gardens. The ir- rigation wells. although somewhat scattered. lie across the valley from the De Anza Country Club at the base of the Peninsular Range on the west side of the valley. to the Coyote Canyon Fault. en the east side. They are in position to intercept groundwater recharge coming from Coyote Creek Canyon. Hellhole Canyon. Borrego Palm Canyon. and Henderson Canyon on the west and from Coyote Moun- tain on the east. It was in this area that the decl.irie in water level during the 1954 to 1965 period was most serious. In June. 1965. depth-to-water measurements were successfully made in only two wells in the area. They were not sufficient to de- termine whether water levels were declining as the result of the cur- rent patterns of pumpage or had. in fact. stabilized or even recovered as reported by the Borrego Springs Water District. The water level -32- in one well in June. 1979.28 Dl (N.W. 1/4. N.W. 1/4. Sec. 28. T. 10 S•• R. 6 E.). an unused Di Giorgio irrigation well was 8.7 feet above the water level measured in July. 1965. The only other well in which the depth to water could be measured in the northern part of the valley was 29N1 (S.W. 1/4. S.W. 1/4. Sec. 29. T. IDS., R. 6 E.). The water level in this well, an idle irrigation well. was 28.2 feet below a measurement made in July, 1965. Reportedly, the Borrego Springs Water Company well in the southwest 1/ 4 of Section 18, T. 10 S•• R. 16 E. and near the outlet of Henderson Canyon. has not shown any decline despite its almost continuous usage as a .source of domestic water (L. R. Bu r-zel.l , personal communication. May, 1979). Water levels were also measured in wells in the central part of the valley south of Palm Canyon Drive and in the vicinity of the Borrego Park Development area. The area is believed to receive groundwater recharge from the northern part of the valley and from the west side as far south as CuI;:>Canyon. and wells in the area have penetrated water-bearing sediments to a depth of 600 f'eet . Most of the wells in the area yield no more than 1 or 2 acre-fee. per year. primarily for domestic use. but Well 4IVI (N. W. 1/4. S.W. 1/4. Sec. 4. T. 11 S•• R 6 E.) furnished about 25 acre-feet of water for the community of Club Circle and another Well 3D3 (N.W. 1/4. N.W. 1/4. Sec. 3. T. 11 S•• R. 6 E.) has consistently provided water to the community school. Fluctuations in water level in this area occur throughout the year as the result of natural influences. and they also occur as the result of pumpage from nearby wells. -33- Ordinarily, if water levels in wells are measured at the same time, the influence of natural events follows a similar annual pa t- tern in each well. In addition, departures from the previous year's measurement if above, would indicate recharge or replenishment I of the reservoir; if below, the previous year-ts measurement would 1 indicate discharge or depletion of the underground reservoir. Water levels in nine idle wells about equally spaced and distributed -, over most of the central part of the valley were measured in June, 1979 (see Figure 1). The water leve l in each of the wells was below the water level measured at nearly the same time of year in 1965. The decline in water level in the various wells ranged from 4.6 feet .. to 17.13 feet and the average annual decline in water level was 0.7 foot (see Table ). It is of further interest to note that during the 1953 to 1966 period when pumpage had created serious declines in water level in the northern part of the valley, that wells in the southern area underwent declines ir; water level from 10 to 43 feet during the period, 8:1.Gthat the average decline in water- level was 1.75 feet per- year or more than double the rate that has occurred since that t irne . The decline in water levels' in the central part of the valley is believed to represent a general trend in depletion that has been established by pumpage in excess of groundwater replenishment. It may be the result of pumpage in the northern part of the valley, from individual wells in the south or a combination of these two influences. The change in the rate of decline is also difficult to clearly assess. Diminished irrigation and pumpage in the north is ------'-- -' - - - -34- TABLE -- MEASUREO WATER LEVELS IN WEI.LS BOltltEGO VALLEY. JUNE 20-27. 1979 Waler Level Recovery Ul or Below LRn<1Surfnce Oecline (-) Loca tlon 01\11 Since 1965 Dnle (reel) Number' ~ Uoe July 1965 -163.1 10 S •• It 6 1': •• DI Georglo WeII +8.7 T. June 1979 -154.4 16 1>1 Co. Idlc .holy 1965 -133.83 10 S •• H 6 E •• -28.2 T. June 1979 -162.01 29 NI Pecorr Ih·otlH~I·B Itl 1" I July 1965 -240 T. 10 S •• It. 6 E .• Borl'egn Sprlnp,a +35.4 Idle MAy 1979 -119 (lteporled) 32 It I Waler' Co. No. I Aug. 1965 -78.74 T. 10 S" H. 6 I, •• -11.41 D .lune 1979 -90.15 34 III Aug. 19611 -65.73 III S •• H. 6 E •• U.S.G.S. -4.47 T. June 1979 -70.20 36 QI OI>oervAtion Well 0 Aug. 1965 -40.13 II S •• It 6 ~~•• U.S.G.S. -12.12 T. Apr. 1979 -52.30 i N4 . Oboen'atlon Well 0' Aug. 1965 -63.44 ,!.'. II S •• n 6 E •• -10.8 .Iune 11179 -74 .05 ~ A2 Wnl'd lIulton IJ Aug. 1065 -89.61 I IS •• R 6 E .• Borrego Sprlnl~8 -2.4 ,:r • A June 197!l -92.00 4 MI Pnrk I Aug. 1965 -66.81 I IS .• It 6 I';•• BOCl'ego Vtllngc n -4.6 il'· June 1979 -73 .40 ,10 NI Heeorl (ltlle) Aug. 1965 -32.29 II S •• H 6 E •• IJ -10.36 r. (Idle) June 1979 -42.65 14 113 A-I Lodge Aug. 1065 -45.00 II S •• H. 6 E •• SIn Ie lit gh wny -17.13 T. .June 1!l70 -62.13 15 G I Maintennnce D probably the greatest change that has taken place in water use since ) 1965, and if this is true, then it is possible that this change is re- I flected by the diminished rate of decline in the central part of the valley. However, systematic measurements of water levels and '1 pumping rates over long periods of time are necessary before these 1 and similar changes can be properly evaluated. 6.4 RECOVERY OF GROUNDWATER BY PUMPAGE BORREGO SPRINGS PARK AREA " The Borrego Springs Park area is in the west-central part of Borrego Valley about 1-1/2 miles east of the base of the Peninsula Range. It is underlain by water-bearing sediments. interbedded clay and sand with lesser amounts of gravel, to a depth in excess " of 600 feet. Groundwater recharge to the area originates largely by infiltra- tion into alluvial fans below the mouths of Tubb, Culp, and Henderson Canyons. Recharge from these canyons is therefore ephemeral and on the average not great. probably no more than 300 to 400 acre-feet per year. Unpredictable heavy r ains occur in the area and probably help to replenish the groundwater reservoir, but their occurrence, although broadly cyclical, is unpredictable. Other sources of ground- water are in the northern part of the valley, but much of the recharge from this direction is intercepted by wells before it reaches the Bor- rego Springs Park area. Groundwater discharge is by the pumpage from wells and the area has had a long history of groundwater development. The first well in the valley was drilled for the Ensign Ra nch , now the Borrego - ". Springs Par-k area,'Tn 1913,-and later in 1926 the first irrigation well in the valley was drilled on the same ranch. The park area, -36- Sections 4 and 9. T. 11 S•• R. 6 E •• and the adjoining section of land to the north and east have been explored by almost 45 wells ranging in ,depth from 120 to 600 feet. Currently. groundwater dis- charge is taking place at no more than ten of these wells. seven of which are used for domestic purposes. and three for public water supply. one to the Roadrunner Club. one to the Club Circle area. and one to the public school. It is estimated that no more than 100 acre-feet of water is withdrawn from the underlying ground- water reservoir each year and that 70 or 80 acre-feet is withdrawn by the public water-supply wells. A small amount of this discharge. probably no more than 20 acre- feet per year. is returned to the reservoir by infiltration to the water table and it is Iate r- recycled back to the surface by purnpage . The larger wells have reportedly sustained discharge rates of between 400 and 900 gallons per minute for several days' time and it would appear. therefore. with car-eful construction and develop- ment. that other large-capacity wells could be drilled in the area. However. the pumpage from such wells will cause the water level in the groundwater reservoir to decline. more so near the pumping well than at greater distance from the well. In all probability, it will also increase the annual rate of storage depletion (0.7 foot) in the central part of the Borrego Valley. groundwater reservoir. The seriousness of these influences upon local areas in the ground- water reservoir and upon the reservoir at large cannot be calculated without pump tests of the aquifer and without systematic records of discharge and water levels in observation wells in Borrego Valley. -37- To avoid the interference effects between wells and to obtain the benefits of recharge from Tubb and Culp Canyons. it would be best if new wells in the Borrego Park area were placed near the south- west corner of Section 9 as far from other wells as possible. 6.5 ESTIMATED SAFE YIELD. BORREGO SPRINGS PARK AREA. ., 1. If no water is imported to Borrego Valley. water use must be maintained at a balance such that recharge and discharge are equal over the long term. bepartures from this balance in the direction of water depletion can be tolerated. but only so much as can be remedied by periods of water surplus. Safe yield in the Borrego Park area is therefore dependent upon rates of recharge. rates of pumpage , rates of chemical enrichment. and rates of groundwater movement that occur locally as well as regionally in the valley and its tributaries. It has been shown that average annual recharge as calculated from average annual precipitation and streamflow records is 3.200 acre-feet. and possibly more. Recharge based upon the most reliable of other methods is about 9. 000 acre- feet; the difference of 5.800 feet is puzzling but not unexpected. for both methods of calcula- tion have possibility in error. Actual recharge is within the realm of these two extremes and probably no more than 6. 000 acre-feet per year. Discharge from the valley calculated from consumptive demands for water by agriculture and people and extrapolated from nearby ~. . -38- desert areas could be as great as 12,700 acre-feet per year. How- ever, it could be less depending upon the extent of advanced irrigation techniques used in the valley-, probably as little as 11,000 acre-feet per year. The effects of overpumpage have been measured valley wide for the period 1953 to 1965 and they are represented by declines in water level as much as 40 feet in places. Since that time, in the Borrego . . .Park area, the average annual decline has diminished from 1.7 to 0.7 feet. The amount of overpumpage believed to be about 5,000 acre-' feet per year or more, represents the annual deficit that will be in- curred if additional water is not forthcoming and present-day condi- tions of consumptive use continue in the valley. Pumping an additional 1,500 to 2,000 gpm from one or two wells in the Borrego Park area will cause water levels to further decline in the central part of Bor- rego Valley. In effect, the project will be additionally "mining" the underground reservoir for water, a process that originated more than three decades ago and is apparently s till going on. A further consideration upon the safe yield of the groundwater reservoir in the valley is the occur-renee and migration of nitrate- enriched groundwater into areas of heavy purnpage . Nitr-are- enriched groundwater is being pumped from wells in the areas ofir- rigated ~creage and reportedly, in recent years, nitrate has become a problem in some of the wells south of the irrigated acreage of land. The general trend of groundwater movement is southerly and south- easterly toward Borrego Sink, and under the influence of increased .- '- -39- water withdra wals in Borrego Park area; thus. southward move- ment could be accelerated. However. the rate of nitrate migration and the degree to which it has entered various aquifers north of Borrego Park area is not known. It could require many years of pumpage in Borrego Park area before it would appear in the ground- water from wells in the area. Until the major uncertainties can be eliminated from the report. there is little purpose in forecasting the influence of usage or long- term safe yield for Borrego Valley. 6.6 ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE IN BORREGO VALLEY Artificial recharge of floodwater is both feasible and desirable in Borrego Valley. The alluvial fans below the mouths of the sev- eral canyons on the west side of Borrego Valley offer excellent properties for the dispersion and infiltration of floodwater by the several methods that are used for this purpose. including the use of ponds. spreading ditches or furrows. and natural channels to collect and disperse water. The county of San Diego has explored these methods and prepared a general plan for flood control (1972) in Bor- rego Valley. that includes a system of levees designed to check the flow velocity of floods and disperse runoff into areas of least pot en- tial damage. Competion of this plan with some modifications to achieve greater dispersion of runoff over the slopes of the alluvial fans would probably add to the groundwater inflow reaching Borrego Valley. particularly in those areas that lie along the toe of the a1- 1uvia1 fans opposite the mouths of the canyons. The "modest" -40- storms. that is. those that reoccur at intervals of less than 50-year frequency. are apt to do least damage to earthen flood control works and to provide maximum opportunity for groundwater recharge. Of particular interest to artificial recharge will be the availa- bility of the channel of Coyote Creek in transmittal of water from Anza in the north to the highly permeable alluvial sediments under- lying the north end of Borrego Valley. This area and all others that lie along the base of the Peninsular Ranges on the west side of Bor- rego Valley contribute water that ultimately reaches the groundwater beneath Borrego Park -41- l BIBLIOGRAPHY Byerly. John R•• 1979. Preliminary soils investigation. Proposed Borrego Springs Development. Borrego Valley. Borrego Springs. California: John R. Byerly. Inc •• 2230 South Riverside Ave •• Bloomington. California. 92316. r-ept , no. 8844; 4 pp •• 16 figs. 1 California Department of Water Resources. 1975. California's groundwater: Department of Water Resources Bull. No. 118. 135 pp •• 33 figs •• 2 tables. 1 map. County of San Diego. Department of Sanitation and Flood Control. 1972. General--Plan for flood control improvements. Borrego Valley: . De- partment of Sanitation and Flood Control. 5555 Overland Ave •• San Diego. California. 92123. 44 pp •• 3 tables. appendix. Crippen. J. R•• 1965. Natural water loss and recoverable water in moun- tain basins of Southern California: U. S. Geol . Survey Prof. Paper 417-E. 11 figs •• 11 tables. Cruff, R. W. and T. H. Thomps on. 1967. A comparison of methods of estimating potential evapotranspiration from climatological data in arid and subhumid environments: U. S. Oeol . Survey!Water- Supply Paper 1839-M; 27 pp •• 4 figs •• 10 tables. Hetndl e , L.A •• 1965. Groundwater in the southwest - a perspective in Ecology of Groundwater in the southwestern United States; Sym- posium. Arizona State University. American Association for the Advancement of Science. April 18 and 19. 1961; Arizona State. University Bureau of Publication. pp. 4-28. Helg. AUgen G. and E. L. Peck. 1964. Erecipitation. Runoff and water loss in the Lower Colorado River - Salton Sea area: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 486-B. 16 pp. 7 pl s •• 10 figs •• 1 table. Lough. C. F •• 1974. Water Budget for Borrego Valley: County of San Diego. Office of Integrated Planning; 27 pp •• 12 figs •• with comments by R. L. Threet. Professor of Geology. San Diego State University. Mer-if'ield , P. M•• and D. L. Lamar. 1978. Report on two years of water level monitoring along San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. Southern California: Lamar- Merifield Consultants. Geologists. 1318 Second Street. Suite 27. Santa Monica. California. 90401; Technical report 78-5.89 pp •• 71 figs •• 7 tables. -1- BIBLIOG RAPHY (Continued) Moyle. W. R. Jr •• 1968. Water wells and springs in Borrego Carrizo and San Felipe Valley areas: California. Dept. of Water Resources. Bull. no. 91-15. figs. 3. tables 5. pgs , 119. Moyle. W. R. Jr •• 1974. Geohydrologic map of Southern California: U. S. Geol. Survey. Water Resources Inv , No. 48-73. Open file. Rasmussen. Gary S•• 1979. Geology of the Borrego Springs Park (Borrego Springs Country Club) for environmental impact report west of Borrego Valley Road and 1.300 feet south of Palm Canyon Drive. Borrego Springs. California: Gary S. Rasmussen and Associates. 1906 South Commercenter East. Suite 207. San Bernardino. Cali- fornia. 92408. project no. 1503; 14 pp •• 4 figs. Todd. David Keith. 1959. Groundwater Hydrology; John Wiley and Sons. Inc. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1968. Reconnaissance Investigations. Interim Rept •• Inland Basins Projects. Borrego Valley. California: U. S. Bureau Rec •• Region 3. Boulder City. Nevada. 89005. 60 pp •• 2 figs •• 16 tabl es s ' Webb. H. A. and Associates. May. 1977. Draft. General plan amendment reports. Draft. Environmental Impact Report. Borrego Country Club: Albert A. Webb Associates. Consulting Engineers. Riverside. California; File No. 2364.2. 10 chapters. 18 figs •• 8 appendices. -2- 1 1 --, I APPENDIX C -:4 PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION JOHN R. BYERLYJ INC . . ~' ( ( ,;t-· • tlt'-.~._.-~. MA1ERIAl~ lABORA10RY, INC. __ "._'7''',_ =<'4 ,1t~-~\r.fE:1::J. ~~-=-_.-....:=~~_":...:~-=...:.,-,,-~,-,-,-,c..;::..,-,-,- ...... --:...;..0....::..'-- Phone (714) BaS·57l': 1526 No. "E·· Succt, Son Be,noruino. Colif. 92': 13 P. O. Box 3027 January 22, 1979 Boyle Engineering 118 Airport Drive, Suite 210 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Attn: Wes Hyland Subject: Observations and Conclusions Borego Springs· Park Annex 1 and 2 Borego Springs, California Dear Sir: On January 16, 1979, a representative of this firm observed the conditions within the subdivisions known as Boreyo Springs Park, Annex 1 and 2, as these conditions relate to construction of individual dwellings within these subdivisions. Our observations and conclusions follow. The subject subdivisions are known as Borego Springs Park, Annex 1 and 2. Annex No.1 is 41 lots, Lot Nos. 30 through 70 inclusive, located along Foursome Drive while Annex No.2 is a total of 104 lots, lots 90 through lS3 inclusive,loca~ed generally along Back Nine Drive, Short Nine Drive, and Foursome Drive. At the time of our observations, all of the lots within both subdivisions had previously been graded. The time of grading was not known to this firm. The lots are generally constructed by elevating the building pad areas them- selves approximately 2 to 4 feet above street elevation. Each lot is separated by a drainage.swale, approximately 2 to 3·feet in depth. At the time of our observations, none of the streets within the subject subdivisions had· been paved. All of the subject lots were covered with grasses approximately 3 feet in height. making it nearly impossible to detect other than gross topographical differences. January 22, 1979 ( ( Soil conditions within the subject properties generally consist of very fine to fine' silty sands on the building pad areas. Soils other than the building pad areas generally consisted of silty sands, fine to medium, occasionally with traces of coarse sand. It would appear, based upon the topography and the soil conditions, that the subject pads themselves were built by removing dirt from the street and drainage areas and constructing the actual physical building pad. In general, it would appear that all building pads within both subdivisions contained approximately 2to 4 feet offill. At the time of our observations, water lines were .being installed within a portion of Annex No.1. ·Compaction tests were taken at random on Lots 93 and 189 of Annex No.2. The number of lots which could be tested was limited by the vehicular access problems caused by the recent rains. The results of the compaction tests taken on these lots indicate that in general, the soils were in place in a state of compaction less than would be expected for adequate structural support. In summary, the building pad areas within the subject projects have been graded. No streets are paved within the subject project. The building pad areas are apparently constructed of fill with the fill being approximately 2 to 4 feet in maximum depth. The lots generally are separated by sideyard swales approximately 3 feet deep. The soil co~ditions at the site consist of silty sands, very fille to fine in the building pad areas, while the origi- nal ground soils appear to be a silty sand, fine to medium with traces of coarse sands. Based upon the observations made at the two subdivisions, it is the recommen- dation of this firm that before any construction proceed at. the site, that an investigation be performed to determine the compaction of the on site soils in building pad areas. An investigation should be performed to deter- mine if silt materials, possibly of a collapsible nature, are located at depth beneath the site. -- '.:'" ... - ..... ''';:' January 22, 1979 ( ( C' Jr-iI.-, The above conclusions are based upon a limited observation and investigation performed at the site, and are not intended to supercede any recommendations which might be determined after a more detailed investigation of the site cond itions. Should you have any questions or comments concernin9 this information, please feel free to contact this firm at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, C.H.J. MATERIALS L ., INC. 27060 RJJ/jp Attachment: Test Data Summary Sheet IN 79045-3 FIELD DENSITY -I .. "T SUMMARY SHEET Job No. ]00·15-1__ Sh. of __ PR OJ E CT: 8_o_r_e.;:.9_o_r_,_'n--=9::..s_P_a_r_k..:.._A_n_n_e_x__a_n_d_2....:...,_B_o_r_e-=:9_o~S:..-Pr_,_'n...:9:.:S:...P s _ Depth DENSITIES Test Depth Of Soil Remark s Date Location Of Test Of Dry Max. ReI. MC% No. Type Ret'?st C Cut Fill Test (lbs/cubic footl .....- ...... 1/16/79 FG-l Lot 93, Center 0.1-0.6 98.3 123.0 80 1.0 FP-l Lot 93, Center 1 .0- 1 .5 87.7 121. 5 72 1.0 , FG-2 Lot 189, Center 0.1-0.6 91. 2 121. 5 75 2.0 FP-2 Lot 189, Center 1 .0-1 .5 86.3 121. 5 71 9.5 ....--- LEGEND: (SG) Tests on Subgrade Elevation; (SF) Tests on Bnck flll: (FPI Tests on Fill in Prowess (FGI Tests on Finish Grade Elevation; (Mcl Moisture Content; (RE Ll Relative; ('.1 Denotes Failure JOHN R. BY ~ R LY, INC. ------._-_ ..._- --- 2?3CJ SOlJI H 1~IVI:RSIDEINI::NUt:: • UL.00MINGTOi'I, CALIFORNIA 922 PHONt:~; 8LOOfvllf"GT0j'. (714) 877·1324 • HIVERSIDE (714) 684·9775 PRELIMI~ARY SOILS INVESTIGATION JUNE 1, 1979 PROPOSED BORREGO SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT BORRECO VALLEY BORREGO SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED AT TilE REQUEST OF: FEDERATED DEVELOP;,jENTCmlPANY 1100 GLENDON AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 ATTN: t-m.. HERSCHEL BERKES RPT. NO.: 8844 FILE NO.: S-4559 DISTRIBUTION; (3) Client (3) Boyle Engineerin8 Attn: Wesl~y Hylell CONSUL T1i";C Sail N,m rOU;·JD/\TIOi'~. ~rN-,-,(~;IN~E=-=E~RS=---- _ INTRODUCTION During Hay of 1979, a field and Labor a t or y invl:::;Li/',ationof the soil conditions un derLy Lng the proposed Borrego Sp ri.ngs Develop- ment located in Borrego Springs, California, was conducted by this firm. The purpose of our investigation was to explore and evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at the site in order that we might provide geotechnical data for the project Environmental Impact Report. Of particular interest was a gen- eral definition of soil conditions, outlining major soils-relat- ed problems, and to review possible remedial construction, if 1 needed. Concurrent with our investigation, the engineering geo- logic aspects of the site were explored and evaluated by Gary S. Rasmussen and Associates, Engineering Geologists. Our profession- al services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lie~ of all other warranties either expressed or implied. DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Although development plans are still in the conceptual stag~, we understand that the site is to be subdivided into lots vary- ing in size from 0.5 acre to 10.0 acres. Each lot is to receive a single family residence. The development will include restora- tion of an existing golf course, construction of a hotel and com- munity center and tennis courts. Construction of interior and access roads for the site will probably entail cuts and fills to a maximum depth of approximately 4 feet. SITE CONDITIONS The approximately 1100 acre site is located b2tween Borrego Valley Road and Di Giorgio Road in the community of Borrego Springs. The project area lie::;along the eastern margin of coalescing alluvial fans that extend eastward from the mountains. In general the site slopes to the northeast at less than 1 percent. Currently the site contains a Club House, 2 nine hole golf courses, a sew- er treatment plant, a date orchard, and numerous private residences. Vegetation consists of a moderate cover of desert flora over the majority of th~ area and numerous trees located around the resi- dential portions of the site. FIELD AND LAB01~TORY INVESTIGATION The soils underlying the subject !;ite were explored by means of 15 test pits excavated with a traetor-mounted backhoe to a maxi- mum depth of 14.0 feet below the existing ground surface. The ap- p rox i.mat e locations of our test pi 1:8 are indicated on Enclosure 1. Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: S-4559 -1- The soi ls were exruni.nc d SOIL CONDITlO~~S Data from our test pits indicate that the site is underlain by loose sands and ~ilty sands with varying amounts of cementation to the maximum depths penetrated. Neither free ground water nor significantly expansive soils were encountered during our in- vestigation. CONCLUSIONS Based upon our field observations and test data, the soil conditions at the site appear to be compatible \-Jiththe proposed development. \ However, the upper native soils are generally loose and will re- i quire precompaction to provide adequate support for the intended ,structures. We anticipate that conventional spread or continuous (wall footings !Oay be safely utilized. Detailed recommendations for foundation design, support of concr.ete slabs-an-grade and site preparation should be developed during a detailed soils investiga- tion concducted after specific development plans are available. Generalized recommendations for site preparation are provided below. SITE PREPARATION Grading of the subject site should be performed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code or appli- c ab Lc local ordLnan ce s . The f oLlowi.ng reconmiendaticns are presented for your assis~ance in establishing proper grading criteria. All areas to be graded should be stripped of significant vegetation and other Jclcterious materials. These materials should be removed from the site for disposal. Any existing man-made uncontrolled fills encountered,during con- struct ion s ho ul.d be cornpeltely removed, cleaned of significant de- leterious materials, and stockpiled pcn~ing replacement as compacted fill. Rpt. No.: File No.: The cavities created by rCIToval of trees of other sllbsurface ob- structions should be tlloroeghly cleaned of loose suil, organic matter and other deleterious materials, shaped to provide access for construction equipment, and backfilled as recommended for site fill. ..· All surfaces to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of at J• least six (6) inches. The .Rcarified soils should be moistened to a near op t Lruum mo i.st.urecontent and compacted to a relative com- t paction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D 1557-70). ! · The on-site soils should provide adequate quality fill materials provided they are free from organic ma t t er and other deleterious materials. Import fill should be inorganic, granular soils, free from rocks or lumps greater than eight (8) inches in maximum di- mension. Sources for import fill should be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineers prior to their use. Fill should be spread in 8-inch or less lifts, each lift moistened to a near optimum moisture content, and co~pacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D 1557-70). Cut and fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2 horizon- tal to l.vertical. Fill slopes should be ove'rf i.Ll.ed during construc- tion and thell cut back to expose fully compacted soil. A suitable ., alternative would be to compact the slopes during construction and .. then roll the final slope to provide a dense, erosion-resistant surface. EROSION CONTROL Inasmuch as the native soils are highly susceptible ~o erosion by running water and wind, it is our recorrmendation that the following erosion control measures be provided. Lot drainage should be by sheet flow or approved drainage structures. Runoff should not be permitted to concentrate. Lots should be graded to drain away from the tops of slopes. Run- off over slope faces should not be permitted. Slopes and yard areas should be planted as soon as possible after completion to provide maximum protection against erosion by wind or running water. The use of succulent ground covers such as ice- plant or sedurn is not recor.mtend ed for slopes. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the field and laboratory investigaton described herein and represent our. best engineering judgment. Should conditions be encountered in the field that appear different than those described in this report, we should be con t ac t ec immediately in order that appropriate recommendations might be rrepared. Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: S-4559 -3- This report is i.lltendedto provi.Je information necessary for the completi.on of the environmental i.mpact study. Prior to construction, we recommend that a del"iled soils i.r.ves t Lga t i.on be conducted in order to provide specific design recon@enda- V tions for the project. The f oLl.owi.ng enclosures are attached to and complete this report: Enclosure 1: Plot Plan Enc losure 2· Test Pit Logs Enclosure 3: Field and Laboratory Test Data Enclosure 4: Engineering Geology Report Respectfully submitted, ;?2;?~ Kelvin L. Kaup, Staff Engineer ~~6~Engineer KLK/RAS: dr Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: 5-4559 -4- I \ I ----- ..TPI4. q"TPl • I • I TPc., -- BTP4-- J Enclosure Rnt. No.: 1 8844 Fi 112 No .. S-4559 For'" El JOHN H. BYERLY. INC. z .... Q >-'" z .... -..I U l.!l .... <- Federated Development Company er- i: z- Cl. .... wt: 0 Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) ... . . (dry, loose w/some silty) 2.0 76 1 ill' I .. • 92 .' . 2 r- .1. -.'. I 3 88 2.0 73 ~ ... I :. . .. 4 - .. 5 '. ·1 92 2.6 76 Wi " .. 6 Grey medium to coarse sand (SW) 7 ~ .. . (dry, loose, w/occasional gravels) 8 ~" .. 9 ...... 10 _ '.": ... 11 _ • 12 Total depth 12.0 feet 13 ~ No free ground water encountered 14 ~ Caving below 6.0 feet 15 >- 16 - 17 - 18 - Enclosure 2, Page 1 19 ~ Rpt. No.: 8844 20 File No.: 5-4559 ·)O'N R. BYERl Y , INC. ! z I I- 0 Test Pit No.2 >- z >- l!) .... u I 1 a- ..... ! C z- a..<- ..... \ "'"t:z_ If> 0>- ~z ...... z-u.. u~ OW wU VU I \' L.:- ~~ aa: a: I- 1 z!!: w'oJ c, r - :::>~ > a.. w \ >:1' a: ..... o 0 14 I- I 15 I- 16 r- I 17 I- 18 r- Enclosure 2, Page 2 I Rpt. No.: 8844 19 r- File No. : S-4559 20 fnrl'l €I JOHN H. BYERLY. INC. z ... Q z ... Test Pit No. 3 >- L>J U ~ l- a:- ~ z- Cl.<- ... wt:z_ 0....::,;Z z- u~ 0...... 1- '" ...... u VU x C:)~ 0: I- t.'L.:- cece 0.. L>J '''' ze: >- - ::>~ >Cl. W S;:lC a:: I- - - o 0 l/) I- - -- i:5 ~ ~ .u ~ a: 0 :I. Lt. brown' fine to coarse sand (SW) (dry, slightly 'dense, 'w/some 'silt) 1 96 12.6 81 2 98 3.1 83 3 4 " , " 5 72 87 2.6 Grey fine to coarse sand (SW) (dry, 6 loose, w/lenses of cemented silt) 7 8 9 10 Total depth feet 11 11.0 12 No free ground water encountered 13 No caving 14 15 16 17 18 Enclosure 2, Page 3 , , Rpt. No.: 8844 19 File No.: S-4559 20 JO: .~ R. BYERLY, me. z � ~ 0 z Test Pit No. Lt >- u.J ~ l!) U - (: .... er- z- <-Q.~ ....t v» 0 .... Z ~z .... - z-.... u~ OW ....U uU I 1.:)1:; ~~ erer er I- zQ. W ,.. Q. >- :::::llr W S;:ac a: - ~~ o 0 ....C/) - .... ~-- (5 ~5... ~ a: 0 Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) ' , 'j, 93 1.0 80 1 C' (dry, loose, w/some silt) 86 2.6 71 2 ,.-1 ., ' I, ' . 97 4.2 80 3 II 4 , - . 5 ~ I', 6 f- 7 -: I,' , f- 8 " ,I 9 f- ',' -,I' 10 I 11 - 'I Total depth 12.0 feet 12 No free ground water encounterd 13 f- 14 f- No caving 15 I- 16 I- 17 - 18 - Enclosure 2, Page 4 , . 19 .... Rpt. No.: 8844 Eile No.: S-4559 20 ,10PN R. BYERLY. INC. ~ Z z 0 >- uJ ... ~ U 0:- t: ... <- .....t z- Cl. ... Test Pit No. 5 Z 0 Brown fine to coarse sand (SW) 1 ...... (dry, loose) 2 .... '. 3 .... . , 4 ~ ., ' . 5 t- , . Grey to It. bro\V11interbedded fine ' . 6 to coarse sand (SIn & fine to coarse '~, sand w/cemented silt, (loose) 7 r- , , 8 ~ 9 i-' ' ' 10 ....~:'I, , 11 ~ I.' , . . 12 JotDl depth 12.0 feet 13 f- No free ground water encountered 14 f- Caving below 6.0 feet 15 i- 16 ~ 17 f- 18 i- . 19 .... Enclosure 2, Page 5 • Rpt. No.: 8844 20 File No.: S-4559 .TOl:N R. BYERLY. INC. i i z Test Pit No. 6 I- 0 Z I- >- W I C) .- U 0::- ~ z- a...-<- wt: Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) o ~. , (dry, moderately dense) 100 0.5 86 t.o. . . . 97 3.6 80 1 FiiI .. 2 -' . . . 3 ~.,1:~ . ' ... . 95 1.5 82 4 _.' 5 -". 6 Crey fine to coarse sand (SW) 7 ~. (dry. loose) : I 8 .I 9 Total depth 10.0 feet 10 11 f- No free ground water encountered 12 - Caving below 6.0 feet . 13 - 14 ~ 15 I- 16 - 17 .... - - - - . -18 - 2, 6 ------19 -I Enclo~ure Pa~e Rpt.. No.: 8844 20 File No.: S-4559 ; or,,", 8 :0 '.' R. BYERl'{, INC. z >-z 0 >-' w ..... l.!l U Te s: Pit No. 7 ..... o(~ cr- t: z- Cl...... t:: V'l 0.....~z Z z-... u~ 0...... - ....u ...,u I L?t;: ~~ cx:CX: ex: ..... zCl. w '.J a. r - ::J::r >Cl. w ex: ..... o >:ll: lI'I - .....- 0 - -- (5 ~ ....:s ~ a: 0 Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) ' .. (dry, loose, porous) .. ' : 1 W··· 90 4.2 75 2 ~ 3 90 5.3 74 ~ 4 ,.... 5 .. 99 2.6 82 ~ 6 ..... Grey, le, brown fine to coarse sand w/lenses of silt, (dry & loose) 7 - " . 8 -' 9 .. ."-': 10 -' , .' Total depth 11.0 feet 11 I 12 ~ No free ground water encountered . 13 ..... No caving 14 ..... 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - Enclosure 2, Page 1 8844 19 Rpt. No.: - File No.: S-4559 20 1 ifnrlT\ El JOHN n. BYERLY, INC. J z ...... 0 z ...... '>-'" W t.!) z ~ z Q >- w ~ - U Test Pit no. 9 0:- ~, <~ z- 0..>- .....t: I.Il O~ ~z z_ Uw ....t- z- 0.... ""' ... wU UU x I.:)L.:- O~ a:: a:: a: ~ w· ... 0.. z~ ~ - :J~ >0.. W 5')( a:: I- - o I-- - -- 0 '" ~ 0 :5 ~ •.J ex: 0 Grey fine to coarse sand (5W) (dry, moderat~ly dense) 1 II".... , 2.6 87 101 . , 2 - 2.0 83 3 I" .. 99 . " 4 - . , , .' 5 .. , 100 1.5 85 t;S" 6 >- ,, 7 .... ,.- 8 .. 9 - Total depth 9,5 feet >- 10 No £~ee ground water encountered 11 >- Caving below 3.0 feet 12 >- 13 >- 14 - , I . 15 - 16 >- 17 >- 18 r- Enclosure 2, Page 9 Rpt. No.: 8844 19 >- File No.: 5-4559 i 20 F'nrll'\'8 JOHN R. BYERLY. INC. z >-z 0 >- w >- '\tJ .... U t; Test Pit No. 10 0::- t: <- W wt:;: z- Q. .... z_ V'l 0- ~z .... z:;:: u~ OW WI: U uU I.:l. ~lr crcrw cr r; z~ W· ... Q.. > - ::>~ >Q.. W Slo:: cr .... o 0 V') - ....- - !-- 6 :5 ~ .... 0: , 0 Grey fine to coarse sand (SW) 94 1.0 80 (dry & slightly dense w/some silt 1 Q.<' '~'. 95 1.0 80 and gravel) 2 ,..... 91 77 3 '. a 1.0 ~ :-." o .. 4 ~ . . . . . • 5 l- .. Total depth 6.0 feet 6 ,.., No free ground water encountered t 0- 8 .... Caving below 1.0 feet , 9 10 ~ 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 r- 16 r- 17 t- 18 r- Enclosure 2, Page 10 Rpt. No.: 8844 19 r- File No.: S-4559 20 JO<:~ R. BYERLY. INC. z ..... Q z ..... Test Pit No. 11 >- w U ~ ..- <- er- ~ z- 0...... t:: LIl 0"- Z ~z w- z.-.... ut. 0"'" ..- U oU :I: olr wera: a: ..... "l.<:- ..... '.J a.. zo.. >- > a.. w a: - ~:r o >:.<: .... 5 f- I ,I Total depth 6.0 feet 6 No free ground water encountered 7 l- 8 I- Caving below 1.0 feet 9 l- 10 I- 11 l- I 12 I- 13 l- 14 I- 15 l- 16 I- 17 l- 18 I- EncloS1tl'(:;2, Page 11 19 I- Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: 5-4559 20 ,JOHN n. BYEnLY. INC. i z I ~ 0 Test Pit No. 12 >- Z .... ~ w U cr:- .... C Z- 0..1-<- wt: LIl 0.... Z_ ~Z z.::: U~ 0...... t: ....U vU l:j. ~~ a: a: a: ~ .. 0.. Z~ r - ::>~ ....>0.." w 5:.1: a: I- - o til I-- -- 0 - ~ 6 ....5 ~ a: o ~ .... Grey to It. bro~1 fine to coarse sand 80 2.0 70 1 ~.:.". (SW) (dry, loose, w/some silt) 77 2.5 67 .... " , .'i- :': ' 2 . .', . , 3 4 5 .... 6 -' ' 7 f- ' .' .' 8 I-- ' .. " 9 - 10 - . " 11 ..... ' " 12 r-' '.. 13 - ' 14 Total depth 14.0 feet 15 f- No free ground water encountered 16 I- Caving below 3.0 feet 17 r- 18 - Enclosure 2, Page 12 19 .... Rpt. No. : 8844 File No.: S-4559 20 for'" 8 JOHN R. BYERLY. me. Z I-z Q >- ...... l!} v Test Pit No. 13 ... <- «- c z- 0...... e:z_ l/'l 0'" ~z z-... v~ OW W~ ....v Vv I <.:>~ ~~ a:: a:: a:: I- ~ W Iv 0.. z~ r ::>~ >0.. w >~ ex: I- - - o -- 0 en ... - ~ 6 S ~ ex:•.1 0 Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (5W) 88 2.0 76 1 (dry, loose w/some silt) 2 85 4.2 73 3 Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (5W) 4 (dry, loose) 5 I. Lt. brown ~.Llty fine to coarse sand (5 6 I" : .' ~ (dry, loose) ',1· 7 : 1-, I' i 8 . I.' .. 9 :1: '. '.1 10 Total depth 10.0 feet 11 No free ground water encountered 12 No caving 13 14 15 16 17 18 Enclosure 2, Page 13 19 Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: 5-4559 20 Jm'N H. BYERLY. me. ~ z z 0 Test Pit No. 14 >- w ... I.!:' U cr- ... <~ C z- 0.. ... 'J ....c a .I ~ I,' " ' Lt. brown silty fine to coarse sand (5 87 2.6 75 .... 1 I: I (dry, loose) 2 ,I.T 94 1.0 79 ~ 3 .... . I. I 4 >0- I:l 5 I- '.1'·. i 6 .... I T Occasional gravels at 7.0 fe~t >0- 0 7 1,1,0 ·0 r 8 .... I' 0- No free ground water encountered 11 I- No caving 12 ..... 13 I- 14 f- 15 ..... 16 f- 17 ..... 18 f- Enclosure 2, Page 14 19 f- Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: 8-4559 20 for"" 8 JOHN R. BYERLY, INC. Z I- Q Test Pit No. 15 z l- >- W e!' .... U 0:- t: z~ <- wt: 0....0...... z_ Viz~ ~z w,...... U~ 0...... U uU J: l.:l~ olr a: .... a: a: ...... J a.. z~ >- - ::>~ >0.. w >:0: a: I- - o II) - -- 0 .... - :5 5 ~ ~ a:.u 0 Lt. brown silty fine to coarse sand (S ·I':j', ' (dry. loose) 82 0.5 71 1 'l.'l 2 '\'" ~" 3 : 1"'"1 87 1.5 75 4 -1"-'\',':.. Occasional gravels at 5.0 feet 5 -1",\ ,I'" 'I' :' 6 Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) 7 .. , ' 8 '' 9 10 Total depth 10,0 feet 11 No free ground water encountered 12 No caving 13 14 15 16 17 18 Enclosure 2, Page 15 19 Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: S-4559 20 TEST DATA LABORATORY STANDARD: ASTH D 1557-70, l-lehtodA: 4-Inch Dd.amter Hold; 1/30 Cubic Foot: Volulll~;5 L.:Jyers;25 Blows Per Layer; 10 Pound Hanmer; 18 Inch Fall; -No.4 l-lat:eria1. Optimum Maximum ~ Classification No isture (/0) Density (PCf") A Lt. brown fine to .coar se sand (SW) 12.0 115.5 1 I B Lt. brown fine to coarse sand (SW) 12 .5 118.0 C Lt. brown silty fine to coarse sand 11.0 121. 5 (SM) Enclosure 3 Rpt. No.: 8844 File No.: S-4559 ·. GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES / ENGINEF.RfNG GEOLOGY ,~ ...,. : ,.. ." >.' .. ' • .c;;, ~•. ~; -.,. •••• ~'. -'" ~" . -.. . .., . , ~ 1906 SO. COMMERCENTER EAST, SUITE 207 • SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 • (7\4J e68·2422 • (714) 825.90~2 GEOLOGY OF BORREGO SPRINGS PARK (BORREGO SPRINGS COUNTRY CLUB) FOR ENVIRON~lENTAL H1PACT REPORT WEST OF BORREGO VALLEY ROAD AND 1,300 FEET SOUTH OF PALM CANYON DRIVE BORREGO SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA June 13, 1979 Project No. 1503 Prepared for John R. Byerly, Inc. 2230 South Riverside Avenue Bloomington, California 92316 t . , . Enclosure S G/\'lY S. R,\S:1l1SSEN& ASSOCIATES. INC. 5 Project No. 1503 10 N45E ( 140 100 50 o o 5 ",:~r:TA.r (LI\'J ::- .. -,-:. •• ~"'""O. 10 N34E 68 50 o o o 5J o -t- ---==----~=-==----~J-~~------=--=t-t- .1-'-_ / _ .-r~SJLr 5 5 10 10 ,..35\.t' ( Be ". (... .,;I.... ) ... .;Yo • R. BYERLY, INC. 2230 SOUTH I;lVEllSIDE AVI::NI Il: • BU.JUMINGTON. CALIFORNIA 0231 A PHONt::S: BLOOrvlINC"1u~l (/14) 87/·1324 • F J un e 20, 197 9 Rp t , No .: 8883 Federated Development Company File No.: 5-4559 1100 Glendon Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024 Attention: Mr. Hershel Berkes Subject: Proposed Borrego Springs Development, Borrego Springs, California Reference: Preliminary Soils Investigation, Rpt. No. 8844, June 1, 1979 Gentlemen: The referenced report presents our conclusions and recomnlendations concerning soil conditions encountereu during an investigation at the subject site. Enclosure 4 to the referenced report presents an engineering geology report prepared for the subject development by Gary S. Rasmussen and Associates, of San Bernardino. In the geology report, Mr. Rasmussen discussed the existence of a soil formation known as the Indio Silts. This soil formation is sho~n on USDA Soil Maps and is indicated as IIBving a significant settle- ment potential. Mr. Rasmussen concluded that these soils should be specifically addressed by the Soils Engineer. Porous, compressible silts similar to the Indio silt formation ",ere not encountered in any of our test pits during our prelilninary soils investigation. However, inasmuch as the soil formation is indicated 3S existing in an area of the site nbt heavily explored during our _investigation, we are currently conducting an additional investi- gation in that :lrea. Our additional investigation will involve the exploration of several test pits at selected locations utilizing hand equipment. The soils encountered will he examined and visually classified by one of our staff ellgineers. Should compressible silts be encountered, uud i st ur bed samples "ill be obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing :IIH1 evaluation. Based upon our field observations and laboratory test data, an addendum to the referenced report will be prepared providing specific recommendations concerning the Indio silts. (Jur field investigation should be completed by the end of this week and our recommend:ltions available w i t.h in 2 or 3 da'"- thereafter. CONSULTING SOIL AND FourmATIOtJ ENGINEERS GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES / ENGINEERING GEOLOGY '906 SO. COMMERCENTER EAST. SUITE 207 SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92408 • (714) 688.2.422 • (71.4) 82.5.90.52 June 13, 1979 J John R. Byerly, Inc. Project No. 1503 2230 South Riverside Avenue 1 Bloomington, California 92316 Subject: Geology of·Borrego Springs Park (Borrego Springs Country Club) for l Environmental Impact Report, West of Borrego Valley Road and 1,300 J Feet South of Palm Canyon Drive, Borrego Springs, California. A geology investigation of the Borrego Springs Park Development also referred to as Borrego Springs Country Club, Borrego Springs, California has been con- ducted at your request. The purpose of our investigation was to determine the existing geologic setting and assess the probable impact of the geology on the proposed development. The 1087 acre site is located approximately 1/2 mile southeast of the Borrego Springs Christmas Circle. It is our understanding that the site will be developed in f~e stages and will contain a golf course, clubhouse, community center, sewage treatment plant, single family residences, patio homes, attached single family residential units, 5-acre ranchettes, 10- acre ranches, and open space. The site contains 1,087.3 acres with a total of 835 residential units planned, resulting in 0.77 units per acre. A majority of the site has previously been graded, with the golf course, clubhouse faci- lities, sewer treatment plant, and occasional residences already in existence. A 400-scale plat map, drawTI by Richardson, Nagy, ~lartin Architecture/Planning of Newport Beach, California, dated September 22, 1978, was used for our in- vestigation. Proposed grading plans were not available at the time of our in- vestigation, but additional-grading of those areas previously graded is anti- cipated to be minimal, with those areas not previously graded probably requiring maximum cut and fill slope heights of the order of 3:!:feet. The location of the site and property boundaries are shown on the index map on page 2, as well as on the safety element, soil survey, and the geologic maps included as En- closures 1, 2, and 3. A geologic field reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area was conducted during May, 1979. In addition to the field work, our investigation included r-'" I I ..,.····~o 0 .' I, :",: ../-' ,, ':> ..... F? ~ i I 10', I, <, I .... ~., I I. i .-::--_.:.:--_1"'_' '------i'-.:'ll I ==0:::==-1·· ....···.. ~.(' . II J. " .# a .u.- \ II" "11.9 II .... " ~ .~.1~.fI;:.· ::D• INDEX MAP .. • ~. --q.", \j John R. Byerly, Inc. __ D, •.••• iIII:~t. _ " :"_: ~: -' , 1087+ Acre " : '" II I , ., Borrego Springs, California '<.... , • 'B M 50.0: '>- Borrego ,:~ -~~~~..&t~. Legend ~, --'r-?-Fault, dashed where approx., querried ,, 15 ~.' ~, .....I'.' whe~e questionable ". '/::r .,:: '.~.• ' ) .. ' . ____560 ' Contour 1ines of equal elevation, IGravel dotted where approximate r.> Pit I Tr ) I Subsurface investigation trench ~ . I -==- ==== Roadway, dashed where unimproved ...... Base Map: USGS Clark Lake (1974), Borrego Sink, (1959) 7.5 series '_.... "'~._ .. D·····:····_··_·_·:-·····I-'. J Quadrangle, Scale 1"~2000' ,. Well ROAD . ~J~ Project No. 1503 - :-__""'_~_.r~ ~:""_~_"";-::.__ , . -2- .i-: John R. Byerly, Inc. -Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 Borrego Springs, California June 13, 1979 review of stereoscopic pairs of aerial photographs flown in 1953; review of pertinent geologic literature and maps, including previolls reports on the site and surr ound ing area by other firms; excavation of four short backhoe trenches at selected locations; and review of significant seismic information, including recorded, historic earthquakes. A list of references is enclosed (Enclosure 4). SITE TOPOGRAPHY The index map on page 2, a composite 2,000-scale topographic map of the Clark Lake, Borrego Springs Quadrangles, shows a gradual 1 to 2 percent slope of the ground surface to the northeast. Localized, southeast trending swales (minor depressions) were observed on the northwest portion of the site and indicate drainage from this area previously flowed towards the Borrego Sink. No classi- cal topographic evidence of faults (scarps) was found on the site during our investigation or on aerial photographs. Three vegational lineaments were ob- served on the aerial photographs, one of which was associated with a linear drainage. Due to the relative close proximity and parallel trend to known faults in the area, plus the observed trend of plotted epicenters (all north- west trending), the possibility existed that these lineaments could be fault related. Therefore, trenches, with a total lineal footage of 414 feet, were excavated across these features, as shown on the index map, to determine if they were in fact caused by active faulting. No faults were found. The procedure utilized for conducting the subsurface portion of our investi- gation was to excavate trenches perpendicular to the trend of the lineaments and known faults in the area, to a depth of 10-12 feet. Trenching of sediments to 10± feet is consistent with the current state-of-the-art for investigating recency of faulting for the type of use intended for the site. Trenching enables a detailed visual inspection of subsurface materials for faults, fault related features, and other near surface geologic features. The exact age of sediments at depths of 10-12 feet is not known but is estimated to be late Holocene. The trench logs are enclosed (Enclosure 5). The undeveloped portions of the site contained natural vegetation in the form -3- GARY s. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCl:ATF.S )'rojcct No. 1503 John R. Byerly, Inc. -Borrego Springs Park Borrego Springs, Cal if'orni a June 13, 1979 of mesquite and sage with the developed portions of the site containing mature date palm trees and occasional grass, as well as a variety of trees. Previ- ously, the northern portion of the site had been used for agricultural purposes, grain and cotton, while the southern portion reportedly has remained in its natural state. A northwest trending scarp (bench) is located approximately1300 feet northeast of the northerneasternmost portion of the site. This scarp may be the surface expression of a fault, or alternatively, it may be the remnant of an old stream bank or dune deposit. This scarp, if extended to the southeast, would cross a portion of the golf course not containing any human occupancy structures and no structures are proposed in the area on the development plan. If the scarp is fault related and continues to the southeast, it would run through the extreme northeast portion of the golf course (index map on page 2). SITE GEOLOGY The Borrego Springs Park Development is located in Borrego Valley, which lies within the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is defined by a linear and narrow depression which encompasses the low-lyi.ng areas of the Colorado River Delta Region in ~lexico and the Imperial and Coachella Valley Regions of southern California, comprising a physiographic province 1400 kilometers (875 miles) long. The land surface in the north-central section of the Salton Trough is below sea level, having been cut off from the Gulf of California by the deposi- tion of a delta cone of the Colorado River within the last 11,000 years (Holocene) This Sa'lt.onTrough Basin has be en periodically inundated by bodies of water, the latest having formed the Sal ton Sea in 1905 (Mendenhall, 1909). The present geographic limits of the Salton Trough correspond approximately to the boundaries of the San Andreas fault system (San Andreas, San Jacinto, Agua Caliente and Elsinore fault zones). Intermittent, right-lateral movement along the south- east fault zoncs within this systcm have continued to change the shape of the basin with vertical displacement forming the dominant physiographic elements (mountains) within the Trough and ho rdc r i.ng areas. These mountain masses in- clude the Borrego !.1ountains, Fish Creek ~Iountains, Superstition j.lountains, and -4- 1I John R. Byerly. Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 Borrego Springs. Cal Lfo rn ia June 13, 1979 ) the Coyote Mountains (Sharp, 1972). Sediments in tile Salton Trougll rllnge from older gravel (or its consolidated fanglomerate equivalents) through predominately sandy flood-plain and deltaic deposits including marine silts and clays. Deposition through the erosion of continental materials may have prevailed in some marginal parts of the trough -1, throughout its history, although much of the deposition has alternately been ! marine and non-marine. Other lithology found within the trough included bedded gypsum deposits (Ver Planck, 1952) and Matrie volcanic rocks (Allen, 1957). Widespread and various source areas around the Salton Trough have contributed clastic material at various times . ... The entire site lies on Quaternary alluvium (Rogers, 1965) as shown on the ..• 1' 1 I geologic map (Enclosure 3). Data from water wells drilled on-site indicates .r that this alluvium continues to.a minimum depth of 600 feet below the surface and consists of sands, clays, fine gravel and gravels (Department of Water Resources, January, 1968). This alluvium is underlain by crystalline rock (metamorphic and granitic) which rises to the west and forms the San Ysidro Mountains. SEISMIC SETTING The principal fault zones in the Salton Trough consist of the San Andreas, located near the northeast margi.n; a group of unnamed boundary faults that are concealed along the southwest edge of Coachella Valley; the widely branch- ing San Jacinto fault zone, which crosses the southwest portion of the Trough; and the Aqua Caliente and tile Elsinore fault zones located along the southwest edge of the Trough. All of these fault zones are considered part of the San Andreas fault system and display the surficial features characteristic of this s)'stem: linearity. northwest-solltheast trends, evidence of Holocene activity. and right-Iaterial, strike-Slip offset. San Andreas Fault Zone The San Andreas fault zone consists of two principal faults in the northern -5- John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 Borrego Springs, Cal i forni a June 13, 1979 Coachella Valley, the Hission Creek and Banning faults. The Hission Creek fnu lt , an eastern hr anch of the San Aud rens fault lone, extends along a nearly straight line to the Little San Bernardino Nount ai.ns from Indio (Allen, 1957, Proctor, 1968). The Banning fault, the western branch, curves to a nearly east-west trend at the north end of the Salton Trough and merges with the />lissionCreek fault near Indio. Near the City of Indio, the San Andreas fault zone includes a number of subsidiary breaks that lie along the northeast side of the main fault. Southeast of Indio, the San Andreas zone is relatively straight and continues to the northeast shore of the Salton Se (Allen, 1957). Throughout most of the Coachella Valley, the fault zone is well defined in alluvium by scarps and by ground wat er and/or vegetational lineaments. Geophysical data indicates that the basement rocks have been vertically displaced a minimum of 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) along the south- west side of the San Andreas fault zone in Coachella Valley (Biehler, Kovack and Allen, 1964). r Southeast of the Salton Sea, the surficial expression of the San Andreas fault zone is not readily apparent. Following the fault trace of the San Andreas fault zone from the northwest to the southeast results in an intermittent surficial expression of the fault evident i.n the northern part of the Imperial Valley (Babcock, 1971). Hi.storic movement: on the San Andreas fault zone within the Salton Trough has not been recoYded in conjunction with any earth- quakes, prior to the Borrego Mountain event in 1968 (Sharp, 1972). San Jacinto Fault Zone The San Jacint.o faul t zone, trending northwest-southeast, enters the Sal ton Trough through the Santa Rosa mountains and cuts diagonally into the basin. The San Jacinto fault zone, in the vicinity of the Salton Trough, consists of three recognizable faults forming a zone of approximately 10 kilometers wide (6.25 miles). The northern fault (Clark) extends through Clark Valley and along the southern tip of the Santa Rosa Mountains, with the middle fault lying along the west edge of Clark Valley and extending southward from the Clark fault into the Borrego Badlands, \\herc it possibly dies out (Sharp, 1967). -6- John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 Borrego Springs, California June 13, 1979 . The S()lItlll~estl'rnlllostfault. w.i th in the San .Inci nro [;11111.' zonc is the Coyote Creek fault, located approximately 5.·/~. k i lome t ers (3.C, mi les) northeast of the site. The Coyote Creek fault experienced substantial movement during the 1968 Borrego Nountain earthquake. This fault is an en echelon feature with fault splays that generally follow the northeast edge of the Borrego Valley and traverse along the margins of the Borrego Mountains and the Borrego Bad- 1 lands to a point near the easternmost Fish Creek Nountains. Other faults 1 lying farther southeast and extending into Mexico have also been regarded I as part of the San Jacinto fault zone (Beal, 1915; Dibblee, 1954; Biehler, et.al., 1964; Merriam, 1965; Sharp, 1968). These include the Superstition Mountain fault and the Superstition Hills fault as well as a fault extending southeastward from the Cerro Prieto in Baja California. The Imperial fault, as defined by the 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake, may also belong to the San Jacinto fault zone. The Imperial fault lies nearly along the proj ection of the Clark faul t and may join at depth (Sharp , 1968). Al ternati vely, it has al so been suggested that the movement; on the Imperial fault is partially transferred northeastward to the San Andreas fault by crustal spreading near the southern portions of the Sa lt on Sea (Lomnitz, et. a1., 1970). Elsinore Falilt Zone The Elsinore fault zone, as described if,this report, includes the Aqua Caliente fault and is a discontinuous zone of fractures extending southeast- ward from the Peninslllar Ranges illto the Salton Trough near the Terra Blanca Mountains, approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) southwest of the site. Con- tinuity between many ind ivi dua l faults wi thin the Elsinore fault zone are concealed by aLl uv i.umwi.t h in the Imperial Va lLey , The total strike-Slip displacement along the Elsinore fault zone is relatively small when compared with the San Jacinto and San Andreas fault zones (Sharp, 1968; Baird, et.a1. 1970). Historic mcvement has not been documen t cd wi.t hin the Sal ton Trough along the Elsinore falllt zone, with only the southern section of this zone characterized by appreciable seismicity in recent times (Sharp, 1972). -7- GARY S, RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Project No. 1503 Borrego Springs, California June 13, 1979 SEISMIC HISTORY The Salton Trough region is considered to be one of the most seismically active areas of tectonicism in California (Enclosure 3). The Salton Trough has been dominated in this century by earthquakes of intermediate magnitudes (Richter magnitudes 3,.6) originating along two members of the San Andreas system, the San Jacinto fault zone and the Imperial fault. Nine or more earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6+ have occurred along these faults since 1915 (Sharp, R.V., 1972). Of these nine historic earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6 or greater, six were located within 88 kilometers (55 miles) of the site, with eight of these earthquakes having occurred on or near fault breaks within the San Jacinto fault zone (Sharp. R.V., 1972). These earth- quakes have caused relatively little damage, mainly because they were centered in sparsely settled desert regions. The most important of these earthquakes, in relation to the proposed development,was the 1968 Borrego Mountain earth- quake of Richter magnitude 6.4, which occurred along the Coyote Creek fault within the San Jacinto fault zone. This earthquake resulted in horizontal (right-lateral)' surface displacement along tile Coyote Creek fault approxi- mately 4 miles northeast of the site, as well as along several other faults within the complex San Jacinto fault zone. This Richter magnitude 6.4 earth- quake ranks among the larger shocks recorded in southe;-n California since the establishment of modern seismographic stations, and resulted in faulting along a 33 kilometer (20 mile) segment of the Coyote Creek fault (Clark,197J). The Borrego Nount.ai n earthquake triggered a small displacement along a number of distant faults far outside the aftershock area (Allen, 1972) with these after- shocks lasting for several months after the main shock. The San Jacinto fault zone, of which the Coyote Creek fault is a member, has been the location of repeated moderate seismic activity within the entire historic record (Allen, 1965). This fault zone has been well de Li.neat.ed by seismic activity, with no one location along the San Jacinto fault zone in the Salton Trough seeming more prone to earthquake faultillg. Many of the epiccnters of thcse earthquakes have been about equidistant along the fault, with the 1968 Borrego ~Iountain epicentel lying approximately midway between the cpicenters of the lower Borrego Valley earthquake (Richter magnitude 6.5) and the Santa Rosa earthquake (Richter -8- 1. John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Springs Park Borrego Springs, California Project No. 1503 "i June 13, 1979 a.Yl ] magnitude 6.2) of 1954. The 1968 Borrego Mountain earthquake resulted in visible surface waves which caused anchored objects (utility poles, build- ings) to move at the proposed developmental site (Sharp, R.V., 1972, Plate 1 4). T.he location of the site, in 1 relation to earthquake epicenters between 1934 and 1968 in San Diego County, is shown on Enclosure 3 (Seismic Safety Element to the County of San Diego). 1 Two epicenters between Richter magnitudes 2.0 to 3.0 have been plotted as having occurred at depth below the site. 1 SOIL SURVEY The entire site is located on alluvium, part of a large bajada (nearly flat ,.. ! surface of confluent alluvial fans) which skirts the mountains to the west. The barren slopes of these mountains provide runoff from precipitation which has deposited the alluvium in the valley. The soils of the area and on-site are divided into two associations (Mecca- Indio, Rositas-Carrizo) an~four series (Enclosures 2 and 2A). These soils (alluvium) may be generally characterized as loosely consolidated, highly permeable, and susceptible to wind and water erosion, with one of these series (Indio Silt Lome) being subject to settling (See Enclosure 2A for detailed description). HYDROLOGIC SETTING The Borrego Valley is a structural depression created by the Coyote Creek fault and is a desert basin located in the northe -9- GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSO=ATES Project No. 1503 John R. Byerly, Inc.-Borrego Spring~ Park Borrego Springs, Califor~ia June' 13, 19i9 structures and roadways on the site. RECm1J\IENDATlONS ,j A maximum probable earthquake of Richter magnitude 7.0 is expected along the \ San Jacinto fault zone in the Salton Trough, 3.6 miles from the site; there- I fore, we recommend human occupancy structures be designed accordinglY· \ \ No. human occupancy structures should be placed across the possible fault ! ! through the extreme northeast portion of the golf course unless trenching proves the possible fault to be non-existent or inactive. The potential for flooding on site should be evaluated and mitigated by the design engineer. That portion of the site sho"m on Enclosure 2 as containing the Indio Silt (loA) series should be investigated by the Soils Engineer for possible special foundation rccommendations. Respectfully submittcd, GAE.\"s. RI\St-fLlSSEN& i..SSOC I",rES Daniel D. Bush, :»~:;7~----Staff Geologist Gary S. RasmuSsen DDB:GSR/rc Engineering Geologist, EG 925 Enclosures: I_Geologic Map 2, 21\-Soil Survey and Description 3-SeiSlnic Safety Element 4_References 5-Trench Logs Distribution~John R. Bycrly, Inc. (8) -14- GARY S. Qs Qal Ql Qt Qc gr Tocks gr-m and metamorphic rocks Base ~lap Santa Ana Sheet (Rogers, 196::') Scale 1:250,000 (1"=20,833+ feet) Project No. 1503 ------, MpA2 I 1------, I I C'lIVE PALM CANYON loA ~--_._._-_.-._~.- 10.'; 1:-..::0 Silt Loam t.lo.\ ~.:=,:';:3. Sandy 1.08;71 HpA2 :~~~.-:-;;.Fine Sandy Lc-.:.:a ?.sA ~:::: :. : ;! ~ La.1.TilY [0:1r s e MoA E;1se Hap tS:;:. 3-:! 1 C{Ji~St:rv BORREGO Enclosure 2A Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates John R. Byerly, Inc. Borrego Springs, California SOIL CAPABILITY AND CHARACTERISTICS Suitability as Individual Land Erodibility Topsoil Soils Slope Capability Characteristics Severe Poor Indio Silt 0-2% IIIs~6 Subject to flooding, Loam ponding or overflow, (loA) slow infiltration rate';,set t lab le Fair !-leccaSandy 0-2% IIIs-6 Subject to flooding, Severe Loam ponding or overflow, (~loA) moderate infiltration rate Good Necca Fine 0-2% IIe-4 ~loderate infiltration Severe Sandy Loam rate, subject to wind (~lpA2) erosion and abrasion Severe Poor Rositas Loamy 0-2~o IVs-4 High infiltration' Coarse Sand rate, well drained (RsA) *Notes e !-lainlimitation is risk of erosion s Limited because it is shallOW, droughty, or stony 4 Coarse texture or excessive gravel 6 Salts or alkali II ~loderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. III Severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require special conservation practices, or both. IV, Very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. REFERENCES Advance Planning and Research Associates, Augus t , 1978, Draft Environ- mental report, Rodgriquez Borrow Pit, p. 77-64, EAD Log No. 77-5-4, Borrego Springs, California, Report No. 78-0704. . Allen, C.R. 1957, San Andreas fault zone in San Gorgonio Pass, southern California: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 68, no. 3, pp 315-350 Allen, C.R., Saint Amand, P., Richter, C.F., and Hordquist, J.M., 1965'~ Relationship between seismicity and geologic structure in southern California region: Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 55, no. 4, pp. 753-797. Babcock, E.A., 1971, Detection of active faulting using oblique infarred aerial photography in the Imperial Valley, California, Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 82, P 3189-3196. Baird, A.K.,·Welday, E.E., and ..Baird, K.W., 1970, Chemical varia1;ions in batholithic rock of southern California: Geologic Society of America, abstracts with programs, v. 2, no. 2, p. 69. Beal, C.H., 1915, The earthquake in Imperial Valley, California, June 22, 1915: Seismological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 5, pp130-149. Bennett, J. H., & Rodgers, D.A., 1975, Crustal movement i.nvestigations· along the San Andreas fault in southern California, in CrO\o/ell,J .C., ed., 1975, San Andreas fault in southern California,;; guide to San Andreas fault from Mex i co to Carrizo Plain: Calif. Div. ~lines & Geol. Special Report 118, PP 53-60. Biehler, S., Kovach, R.L., and Allen, C.R., 1964, Geophysical framework of northern end of Gulf of California structural province, in Van Andel T.H., and Shor, G.G., Jr., Marine Geology of Gulf of California; American Association of Petroleum Geologist, ~lem. 3, p. 126-143. Bonilla, 1970, Surface faulting and related effects in Earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Ch. 3, pp 47-74. California Department of Water Resources, 1964, Crustal strain and fault movement investigation-faults and earthquakes in California: Department of Water Resources .:Bulletin 116-2. California Department of wat er Resources, 1968, Water Wells and springs in Borrego, Corrizo and San Felipe Valley areas; Dept. of Water Resources Bulletin 91·15. Clark, M.M., Grantz, A., and Rubin, M., 1972, Holocene act~v~ty of the Coyote Creek fault as recorded in sediments of Lake Coahuila, Professional Paper 787, pp 112-130, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. i· Dibblce, T.W., Jr., 1968, Displacement of the San Andreas fault system in the San Gabriel, San Dernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains, southern California, in Dickinson, W.R., and Grantz, A., eds., Conference of geologic problems of San Andreas fault system, Stanford, California, 1967, Pro- ceedings. Stanford University Publications, Dept. of Geol. Sciences, v. II. pp 260-276. Dibblee. T.W., Jr., 1970, Regional geologic map of the San Andreas and related faults in eastern San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, western San Jacinto Mountains and vicinity, Los Angeles, San Bernardino. and Riverside Counties. CA: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file report. Dibblee, T. W., Jr., 1975, Late Quaternary uplift of the San Bernardino Mountains on the San Andreas and related faults, in Crowell, J.e., ed., 1975, San Andreas fault in Southern California, a-guide to San Andreas fault from Mexico to Carrizo Plain: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 118. p. 127-135. Dickinson. W.R., and Grantz, A .• 1968, Indicated cumulative offsets along the San Andreas fault in the California coast ranges; proceedings, Conference on Geological Problems of San Andreas fault system. Stanford University Publications, Geological Sciences, Publisher, Stanford. California. Vol. II. pp 117-119. Friedman, M.E., I\'hitcomb, J.H., Allen, C.R., and Hileman, J.A .• 1976. Seismicity of the southern California region. 1 January 1972, to 31 ,December 1974, Seismological laboratory, California Institute of Technology. Greensfelder. R.W., 1972. Crustal movement investigations in California, their history, data, and significance: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 37. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earth- quakes in California: California Division of ~lines and Geology Map Sheet 23. Hart, E.I\'.,1976, Fault hazard zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, Revised Edition. Heaton, T.H., HeImberger, D.V., April 1977, A study of strong ground motion of the Borrego Noun tain Cal ifornia earthquake, in Bulletin of the Seismol. Soc. of America, v. 67, no. 2. Hileman. J.A., Allen, C.R., and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern Cal ifomia region, 1 Jan 1932 to 31 Dec 19.72: Seismol. Lab. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California. p. 404. Hope, R.A .• 1969, Maps Showing recently active breaks along the San Andreas and related faults between Cajon Pass and Salton Sea, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file report, 1:24,000. Jennings. C.W., 1975, Fault map of California with locations of volcanoes, thermal springs and themal wells: California Division of I.linesand Geology, 1:750,000. ii GARY S. RASMUSSEN .... A Q=~ • _ Lamar, D.L .• Nerifield. P.M .• and Proctor. R.J .• 1973, Earthquake recurrence intervals on major faults in southern California; in Moran. D.E .• and others. eds .• 1973. Geology. seismicity and environmental impact: Assoc. Engineering Geologist, Spec. Pub .• pp 265-276. , Lomnitz. et. al .• 1970. Seismicity and tectonics of the norther Gulf of ! .I California region. Mexico. Preliminary results. Geofisica Internacional. vol. 10. no. 2. pp 37-48. Lough. C.F .• November 1974. Water budget for Borrego Valley. San Diego County Planning Div .• San Diego County, California. McEven. Robert. Piuckney. C.J .• Seismic Risk in San Diego. Studies on the geology and geological hazards in greater San Diego Area. California and San Diego Society National History Transactions. v. 17. p. 33-62, 1972. ~Iendenhall. W.C., 1909. Ground water of the Indio region. California: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 225. P 56. Ploessel, M.R., & Slossen. J.E., 1974, September. Repeatable high ground accelerations from earthquakes; from California Geology. vol. 27, no. 9. pp 195-199. Proctor. R.J., 1968, Geology of the Desert Hot Springs-Upper Coachella Valley area. California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 94. Richter, C.F .• Allen. C.R .• and Nordquist, J.M .• 1958, The Desert Hot Springs earthquakes and their tectonic environment: Seismo1. Soc. America Bulletin. pp 315-337. Rogers. T.H., 1965. Geologic map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins edition, Santa Ana Sheet: California Division of Mines and Geology. Rogers Engineering Company. August 1977, Non-electric applications of geothermal resources at Desert Hot Springs, California, quarterly report for period May 23, 1977-August 12, 1977: Prepared for the Energy Research and Development Administration. Div. of Geothermal Energy. San Diego County Seismic Safety Element to the General Plan, Part V. 1975. Accelerations in rock for earth- Schnabel, P.B., and Seed, H.M., 1973, Seismol. Soc. America Bull .• v. 63, quakes in the western United States: no. 2, pp 501-516. Sharp, R.V., 1967, San Jacinto fault zone in the Peninsular Ranges of southern California, Geological· Society of America Bulletin, v. 78, pp 705-730. Sharp, R.V., 1972, Map showing recently active breaks along the San Jacinto fault zone between the San Bernardino area and Borrego Valley, Calif: U.S. Geological Survey ~Iisc. Geologic Investigations Map 1-675, Scale 1:24,000. Sharp. R.V .• 1972, The Borrego Mountain earthquake of April 9. 1968. Geologic Survey Professional Papers 787. iii Stllte-of-the-art for assessing earthquake hazards Slen~ons, D.B., 1977, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station in the United States: Report 6 Tyler, S.J., 1974, Analog model study of the ground water basin of the Upper Coachella Valley, California: USGS Water Supply Paper 2027. U.S.D.A. Stereoscopic aerial photographs, May 12, 1953, photo numbers AXN 12M 130-133, AXN 13M 69-72, AXN 14M 171-174, AXN 17M 20-23, Nominal scale 1"=1,667'. Ver Planck, W.E., 1952, Gypsum in California: Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Bulletin 163, P 151. Wallace R.E., 1970, Earthquake recurrence intervals on the San Andreas fault: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 81, pp 2875-2889. Woodward, Clyde, Sherard & Associates, Soil investigation for the proposed Borrego Springs Park Development, San Diego, California, April, 1962. iv JOHN R. BY ~ 1< L Y, INC. ------2;~:10SOUTH f~IVEHSIDc AVENUE· I3LOOMINGTON, CALIFORNIA 923Jf PHONES: BLOOIViIi\lGHi!\l (714) 877-1324 • RIVERSIDE (714) 684-9/. ~ PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BORREGO SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT FEDERATED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CONSULT NG SOIL AND FOUNDATICN ENGINEERS ------l We trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Should questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. BYERLY, INC. ~1!6?ci~ Engineer RAS:lw Copies: (3) Client (3) Boyle Engineering Attention: Wesley Hylen Rpt. No.: 8883 File No. : 5-4559 '.- .. JOHN R. BY~RLY, INC. ------2~'.)U ~;uuIII 1~IVI.I~::;IUI. I\VI:NlJl. • I H..OOMIN(..; IUN, CALlt'OI~NII\ 923 PIIONl:.S: BLOOMII'lGION (114) l:l] /·1324 • f~IVEI July 26, 1979 8977 Pe de ra ted De v e l.o p me n t Company Rpt. No.: 1100 Glendon Avenue File No . : 5-4559 Los Angeles, California 90024 At ten t ion: 1<1r.11c I' 5 he 1 B c I'ke s Subject: Proposed Borrcgo Springs Developmcnt, Borrego Springs, California; Addendum to Preliminary Soils Investigation Reference: Preliminur\' Soils Investigation, Report No. 8844, ..June 1, 19'79 Gentlemen: The referenced report presents our conclusions and reconlmendations concerning soil conditions encounteI'ed during an investigation at the subject site. Enclosure 4 to the referenced report presents an engineering geolog)' report prepared for the subject developnlent by Gary S. Rasmussen (j Associates of San Bern3rdino. In the geolo- gy report, Mr . Rasmussen discussed the existence of a soil forma- tion known as the Illdio Silts. l'}lissoil formation is s]lown on USDA soil Inallsand is indicated as 11aving significant settlelnent potential. Nr, Ra smu sse n concluded t h a t these soils should be specifically aJdressed by the Soils Engineer. Inasmuch as our in i t ial investigation did not heavily explore areas believeJ to be underlain by the Indio Silt formation, additional investigation was performed by this firm. Our additional investiga- tion involved the excavation of 3additional test pits excavated to a maxilnuln depth of 7.0 feet utilizing hand equipment. The soils encountered were examined and visually classified by one of our field engineers. Undistllrhed samples of the Indio Silts were ob- tained at selected levels w i t h i n the test pits and returned to the laboratory for testing and evaluation. Included in our laboratory testing were moisture-density determinations on all undisturbed samples. In addition, selected samples were tested in consolida- tion in order that we might evaluate the settlement potential of CONSUI.TING SOil AND !'OUNDATIOt-.J EI\:GINEERS lc d c ra t vd !lvvelUplllL'l1l t:U:llp:ll1)' I.~pt • ~~LJ. o~) 7-; J u 1 y :: II, 1 ~J7 ~) Fi l e xo . S-4SS'.J Page 2 t h i s sui 1 t'orura t io n . (lUI' t c s t pit logs, together w i t h our uro i s t u rc de n si r y da t a , i s p re s c ntc d 011 l.n c l o s urc 2. The test pit logs s h ow the subsurface conditions at the 10c:Jtions :Jnd date inu.ic:Jted and :nay not he represcnt:Jt.ivc of suhsurface conuitions at other loca- tions u n d t Liuc s . The s t r a t i f i c a t i on lines p r e s e n t e d on the test pit l o gs represent the a p p r o x imut c b o un da r i c s between soil types arid the t r a n s i t ion s may be g r a dua l . Sumnia r i e s of our consoli- dation tests arc p r e s e n t e d on Enclosure 3. Our Lu bo ra t o ry lest d a t a indicates that the Ln d i o Silts are sub- ject to s i.gn i Li c u n t co n s o Li da t i.on under the anticipated foundation loads, e s p e c ia l l y UpOI1 saturation. To p r o v i dc a de q ua t e foundation support, r c s i.d c n t i u l s t r uc t urc s p l aced in a r e a s k n own to be under-, lain by the Indio Silts should be founueu on :l compacted fill mat. A compacted fill 1I1:Jt w il I p r ov i dc a un i f o rm , de ns e , high strength soil area Lu y e r .to d i s t r ib u t c the foundation 10:1ds over the compres- sible underlying soils. III .r d d i r i on , a c ompa c t e d fill ma t wi l I provide a r e l a t i ve l y impc rme a b l e soil layer to inhibit percolation of surface wu t e r to the c o l La p s i b l c underlying soils. \~e antici- pate t ha t conventional SjHC:JU or continuous W:111 footings may be safely u t i Li ze d in conjunction wi t h a c ompa c t e d fill ma t . Additional measures to minimize s c t r l cmc n t wo u l d be positive drainage away from the structures. In a dd i t Lon , residences in these areas should be proviJed wi t h cave gutters :JnJ d owns p ou ts . We trust t h i s i n fo rmn t ion ,is sufficient for your needs a t t h i s t i nie . If we lII:Jy be of iu r r h c r u s s i s t a nc c or should questions a r i s e , please don 0 t II L: S .i t a t l' toe O!lt :1C t t his 0 f f icc . Rc s p e c t f u l l y s ub.n i t t e d , J~oger A, Sh e r v in g t on , Civil Enclosures: (I ) Plot PI:J!l ( 2 ) Te s t P.i t Lo gs ( :)) Consol.iJ:Jtion l'cst Ditta cc: ( :)) Boyle Eri:; j !lee ring Attn: \','('slc)' Hyle!l r-- •I I •I I ~,0G,,-~ I I I - 0 ~ TP~ L'---TP" - I I ~ 11"8 I I,Pl / / I • , I ,Pc" , TP5". I TP4L ~ _._-~-- - - Enclosure 1 Rp t . No . 8977 File ",,0. .. : S-4559 .JOHN H. Ill' EHI.Y. INC. 'I'c s t Pit No. 16 (;rcy Li ne s an dy silt (Ml.) (dry ~ finn) (porolls) 'I'otal dellt]l 1.5 feet No free ground water encountered Te 5 t Pit No. 17 78 , ") Gr e y fine sandy silt (I'lL) (dry ~ firm) (porous) 78 2. 5 91 1 . 7 Total depth 3.0 feet No free ground water encountered Enclosure 2, Page 1 Rp t , No.: 8977 File No.: 5-4559 - -- ~ -' .JOHN R. BY EHLY. lNC. z FedeT:ltcd Dc ve l opme n t Company ~ Q Proposed Borrego Springs Development >- z ..... ~ ...... u Tc s t Pit xo . 1 8 a- t: 4( wr;: Z- Cl..~ z_ Vl 0 .....~z z.- u~ 0 .... w ...... ,u U ..,": ~~ aa: V a: ..... lU z~ ;.- - ::dr ~:.:: a: ..... ->Cl.. -- 0 Vl - ..... - ! 6 ~ ~ cz:,'" o ere)' f i ne s a n dy s i 1t (ML) (d r y and Li r m) (porous) 92 1.7 1 2 - 3 80 :l.S 4 5 As above, w/inclusions of fine sand ( 6 7 'l'ot<.11 depth 7.S feet 87 :1 . 1 8 ~o free ground water encountered 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Enclosure 2, Page ') 18 Rpt. No . : S977 P i 1e No . : S-4SS9 PROJECT: BOI\JZLCU Sl'lUNCS CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA 0.00 , , - ·l~ 0.05 0.10 ,:I, .3 Tl J T , , , ... 0.15 I ,, --i·r -- ";~H , , -TT, " -,? I.,'Tl .• 1 --. ! , , tTl', I! I.JI I i--~+-++--:"i-- I -j ~T -+- •• -++ l1'-4· , 0.20 ...0.....-..+- ____ !, !! i ,I I +-+---to 'n .1 I, • 1. ! , I: ri I ,'" ! I I ! II ! I ! I , I I, t-rt~ ,,, ,I , " 1 I l~ Ii 11 ; ,T , , I , -. -.-Til 'I 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 50,000 Pressure lO\2~~ (Lo s . Per Sq. Ft.) moisture Cont.ent Dry Densit.y Curve Boring Dept.h :. o i 1 Before Aft.er Lbs./Cu.ft.. 1 16 U,U (;rcy I' j ne s.mdy s i It (fo.11.) 1.8 77,1 5,4 79.~) 2 16 .. loU. ~;re)" finc s~nJy s il t (M1.) , . 3 18 7.0 Grc)' sundy silt (~lL) 87.1 fine . 4..7 Ene l o s u r e :; Rp t . f';:o. ~ ':!-.'~';}/ ) -! r jl SOIL HNESTIGA nON FOR rnz PROPOSED ,C BORREGO SPRINGS PARK DEVELOPHE",'T ~ 1 San Di~go, California r' . ::..-. ~i ~ , ..J , by r -." -! ; : , , j,.,,! j.- , 1 HOOD1'lARD-CLYDE-SHERAflD AXD ASSOCIJ..7:S Consulting Soil and ?o~~c~tior.E~gi~eers San Diego, Ca1ifcr~i~ BON~EGO SPRINGS PARK 3010 Co",ley \~.:y San Diego, California I ~ r. ~;;;o·('; ~·I·"S e CLYDE g (~ ..,j..., '"' i:--. ~ ._---_. ~a7 KURTZ SHEET .. SI.N DIEGO 10. CALlFOR:nA 0 HLlPIiON[ AC;.~UI.Y 2·lle7 or xvr s . c o ic. ":·:;S;"S CITY. MO. Soil ur.d FOUfUu.t:On £,..g;rw?l"rir.; OAKU.:.O. CAUf. o f.',J.I:A, NrB. r.~O;;l'Cl:'lk. ~:. J. _.-._-S"" ~l(CO, C'L1f, ~£\'I Yon, N. Y, -r April 13, 1962 ..! ,- Job No. 62-164 -'I ~! 'Borrego Springs Park 3010 Cowl c y Way San Diego, California Attention: ~lr. Vince H.:lttingly Gent lcracn: I,t the requst of y~. Vince Mattingly of yo~r organization, we have made an investigation of the undcrlyin3 soil conditions at the site of the proposed Borrego Springs Park dcvelop:;Jcnt. The acco~pa~ying report gives our concl~~ion~ ~nd rcca~cnd~tion5 as well as the results of the subsurface c~~lorDtion and laboratory tests upon \-i:'ichthese r ec ornmcnda t i ons are bas e d . HOODl~ARD-CLYD:-S:iERARD 0: ASSOCIJ..TES .... B)' C~_'-""=-::""_ '-- ~I-~ GC:-3.1d L. E2.kcr) ~~. E. '12l12 ./ : /' ,1~' il.evie \i'" d oy_-=-=-:---,-",:;-+,-,-_,_,_'7-_',:,,'_'~~:.,/":-,/~/_..:..'.;.'.....:''::/-::.=~''-"_ J Do~glas/-:. )';oorho~se, R. z , 9027 , -I i 1 , ' (8 cc) -.:: : - , ) ~//' J -- ( ... n.l j~U . .., ,, i ) TABLE OF cO:':7EmS PAGE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL SCOPE 1 I, FIELD Ih~ESTIGATIO!\ 1 --i • LABO~~TORY TESTS 2 SITE Ah~ SOIL COh~ITIOXS 2 DISCUSSION 3 CONCLUSIONS 5 ... REcm::-SNDAnONS 6 L!HITATlONS 6 ... FIGUH.E 1 - Srrc PlAN AND LOGS OF TEST EO:~I~~GS 1 & :: 2 - LOGS or TSST nom ~GS 3 THROUGH 7 3 - i.ocs or ;::ST BO:,I:,GSb TEitOl,;G:il 10 ~I, LOGS OF T::ST n:J?~Ixes 11 THrl.O:';GIi14 5 - F~~L SUITATIILITl TESTS o - FILL SUI:AnI~ITY TESTS ...~ 7 - FILL SVIT~DILITY TSSTS 'I'AELE 1 - ?2S~LTS or P2RCOLP.TIO~ TESTS 3 - P~SULTS or CO~TIKED CO~~P~SSION TESTS ... �COPE This report de s cr i bcs an inv~~:'iz:·n:ioll of t hc und.ci'"lying s o i I c o nd i t i onc 'It the site of the proposed Borrego Springs P2rk dcvclop~ent, located in portions of Sections 4, 5, 8, a~d 9, TIIS, R6E SBEM, near Borrego Springs, California. The stuuy is intended to determine the most Suitable foundation type, required footing depths and allowable soil bearing pressures fo. residential constructwn, as well as to make reco~~endations regarding site ~raeing. In adcition, the re- c:uirements of the FcderaI Housing Administration ami the San Diego Department of Public Health regarding sewage disposal are presentee. r FIELD I~~ESTIGATI0N Fourteen test borings were made wlth a 6-inch di ame t er pover auger at the locations sho~~ on the Site Plan, Figure 1. 7h~ drilling was done on ~~rch 29, . - 30 and 31, 1962, under the supervision of a staff engineering geologist. Field i boring logs were prepared by the geologist on t~e basis of an exa~ination of ~~e samp Les secured and the cxccva t ed raat erLaL, The Logs 0: Borings presented on Figures 1 t hr ough 4, ar e based on an Lris pe c t i.on of t he s anp l c s , 0':1. t he Labor a- to~y test res~lts) ~nd on the iicl2 bo~ing log~. The vertical posi~io~ of each col~tion tests and £o~r field per~caDility tc~t$ \~er€?crfo~~ed to ~i~ i~ esti- ~ece c~ a d~pth 0: 3 feet ~nd in accorceTIcc ~ith t~e p~ocecur~ o~tli~eci on page 4 of '~·;z.n~alofSeptic Tank Practice" pub Lf.shed by the U.S ...Departraentof B::al:h, ~ducation and Welfare. The field per~eabili:y te~ts were p".:cr~ed i~ accord- by t:'ieU. S. Depcrtment;of the Ln t eri or , Bureau of Rec laraat Lori. The results of ~ri.',_ ~~ese =c~ts a=e given in T~bles 1 a~c 2. 11:!"o~""~''':P'''!~ 1'LJ._1I ~ '.r ",0 ... , 1 .. , I The soils encoUnte~cd were visually classified end evaluated wit~ respect to Etre.:ngth,con:prilssibility Ch.:lracteristics, dry density and noiSture content. The classificatio:1 vas substanti.:ted by grain size an.~l:.'",,£ on l"(,~preSent.::.tivesaT-?les of :he soils. Till suit.:lbility tests. includin[; co~.l;·'~'Ctiontests,di~ect s:-Icar tests, and grain ~izc analyses were performed on repreSe:1t tive samples of the on- c site soils. The strength of the Soils was evaluated by consideratio:1 of the censi- ty and moisture content of the samples and the penetration resistance of the cam- pIer. _I CompresSibility charaCteristics we::e eV.:lIUlltedby confined CO;:'lpressiontests on undisturbed samples and consideration of the.: del~sity of the samples and the pen- etration resistance of the sampler. The results of tests on undisturbed samples, e~;ccpt fo:: the confined comp~es- sion tests, are sholv:1with the penet::ation resistance of th~ saT-pIe::at the cor.e-. sponding sample locc.tiol~on the Logs of Borin8c. a'. "p'r, •• in X••,. 3, 'n' 'h. 'il' '.i'.""" ,••,. 'r, r.,o" •• on Pi••,•• 5, 6 and 7. A!\1) SOIL COXDITro~;s •• 'n'i",•• o. 'h•• ,., pl••, • pcr'ion of 'h. cl,. i••••• for .". 0"'." •. A. '0'"". pO"i •• of 'b. P'o""y '0••••••,.,i. 'b. p_" '0 ,.i•• "r, ••• "'i •• The::soils encO~nte::-c;jat t ho Site cO:1si:t of s;:;n:1s2nd silts v2ryinr; in COn- :is~ency frc~ lOose to dens. =at~ly 560 f~~t, t~C 50ilc 3rc Ioocc silty s3ndc to ~ ~~?th of 1 to 2 feet, and ar e undc r Lai.n by medium dense to dc ns e silty cands . '~10\-1 an elevation' of 2?pro::i- -' t, OJ I ..; :h'0::: 3 to 13 feet; t he s e soils ar e unde:rl.:iin by mcdi-.:r.l-clence to dense silty sands and s andy silts. ::he max irnum depth of the alluvial rna t cr i:::l is not knovn , although the logs of the we Lls on the pr ope r ty Lnd i.ca t c that they c:,;tcnu bc l ov .:i depth of 630 feet. Grot:nd wa tel' was not encountered in any of the borings, and the soils, e:{cept lor .., so~e of the underlying silt layers were very low in moisture content . DISCUSSION it ':n~st Two require~ents must be fulfilled by a~y foundation material. First, be s a fc aga Lns t shear failure, ;.;:-.ich \·.'0-.:10 result in lateral movement of s c i I fro:!: Second, the settle:ent must not exceed the amount permissible for under the load. the particular type of structt:re. good s~car Sandy soils) "£uch zs those enccu~tcre~ si:€:) h':VE: Set:iem2n: on such so~l£ is not excessive if the b~a=ins \:~en properly con::'ned. loads, -:esulting in Additio~al ~ensification could t~l ..,.[1 necessary can be s t be dcter::1ined vhe n dcvelo~'l:lc~t p l.ans c::;:;'",i,,:; t nc location ar.d c....~ ..' .~ 1""1 "ole lengths of disposal trenches ,:i11 b,; s at Ls f cc t ory , Hoocve r , WE: have di s cus > sed this project with };r. Edvri.nHe irnlf ch , Ch i.ef Land Pl anne r for the San Diego of- '- 'i I :ice of the Fe dc r a l Hous Lng Adrc i.n i s t r a t Lori a nd l·~::-. J. H. '\~it::-.\:n, As s Ls t anz Chief, .~~.. Division of Sanitation, San Diego Department of Public He a Lt h , and Mr. Arthur Swa- , jian, Cheir~an, Water Poll~tion Co~trol B05rJ, Colorado River nasin, Region 7. T~ese gentlemen indicate that if multiple family dwellings on large lots are 1'ro- ,- . posed, e selvage treatment plant must be constructed. It appears, though, that if the ccvelop~ent co~si~~s of s~nglc £~~ily reside~ccfi on in2ividu~1 lots, individc- al SE:~tic tanks and disposal fields will bc acc~ptable. For this case, the other agencies have indicated that the requirecents of the San Diego Department of Public Health will govern. For the types of soils encountered, the p~blications of the San Diego Department of Public Health (Ordi~ance 1258 New Series, and SA~ 88) indi- c.:.te that t.wo-ic ompar trae n t s e p t i c t c nks having .::l rru n i.mura capacity of 960 gallons ~.:il:' b~ ~equired c~d two 100 ~oot lo~£ di5?o~al ~rcn=h~~ will probably su£iice fo~ each lo~. 7~e Depart~c~t of P~blic Hc~l:h ~Qes not Cl:cou~ag2 the ~se of seepage pirs ?it 4 ~eet wide, 6 fEet deep, a~d 10 ~Qe: long. The Department of Public Health to det~r~ine t~~ rete of pc~ccl~tio~. If the proposed dcvelo?m~nt cO~5i5tS o~ multiple family living units on large Fe de r a I Eo~sins .Ad::-.:'ni.s::·.:::'o:-!. a nd t:10 Stz:c l~.::ter Po I Lu t i on Cor.t r o l Bo ar c , :Do:h 0: t he s e agencies have Lnd Lc a z e d :r,.::t t he r e qu i r emc nt s for z r e a tme nt and d Ls p os a I r:C0:~·~~~~?::to GLYD: 0 S.HE~~:~~D& ?~S~JCL~::S • ,.,: ;..,., .... ,: ... ;,.._ "=" ••.• : .• 8 .' -f' plans to dete=nine if the proposed tre~t~c~t is s~tis£~ctory and reco~~en~ ~odi- £icetions where nece~sary. CO"'CLUS:r.O~:S 1. Footings for r cs i dentLa l s t r uc t ur cs placed on the underlying medh:::l-cicnsa ..J r Cot a depth of 12 inches beLow rough lot grade. " .. 2. i.nen dcvelopnent plans for the northeast por t i on o f the site (be Low e Le > vation (560 feet) are ~v~ilable, additional stuciy choul~ bc ~ade o£ this a~ea to determine the possible effects of saturation of the loose soils ~ndcr the lc~c. T~; -)I I ~ st~dy shOuld i~clud~ field pl~te beari~g te~ts on sat~rated areas and labcra:o~y -" i . tests o~ both undisturbed and cO::lpactcd sa~?lcs. I; I .3. 7~e soils cxpe c t cc :0 be us e d i:-: :~ll.s a ave l.:)\,~ vc l urne change c haz ac t e r> is t i cs . b~ re~uired for c~c~ rcside~ce. D~spos~l o~ tt~ cf£luc~t C3~ projably be ~cco~- ~y ?li~h~ci :wo 100 foo: lo~g ~ispo£~l t r c nc hc s 0:- o nc pit 4 £e~: deep n~d 10 feet long. At least t~~~~y p0~~~n: of th~ lots i~ ~ s~bdivisio~ ~~~t be tested to det~=~i~c the ~~:20: p~rcolat~o~. 5. . ~ -...... l co~s~sts c: n~ltl?Le f ami.l y living ',,;:1:":5 ,.1-1: ::lC~: ;::~ilr.: and the; rnczns o£ di spcs cI o£ ::-.ust be <:??roved by t hc Feder aI U' effluent .... .• . .. . ~\':':':;;:"r'.':'.s ::":::. J.O:"'. RECO:·c,Zi'D.; TI O~\S 1. It is recommended that the loo~e ~u~f~ce so:ls not renoved by gracing op- erations be conpacted before £ootin~s or slabs arE"; pli3.ceci. :. It is r cc omraendcd that a s t udy ro ; t ac cJ.::'5position of the loose material i~ the northeast portion of the site be made whc n devc l opmcnt plans ar e available. It i s ant Lcipa t ed t ha t compaction f r o:n the s ur f ac e by he avy .cornpact i on ec;uipnent \"ill ...J dens Lfy the s oi Ls sufficiently, although it may be neccs s ar y to remove part 0: these material:; £..nd replace them u.s co~p.:.cted fill. 3. A s e t of e a r t hwor k specifications is a t t achc d , The recomnznd~tio~s mace as a part of this pr e Lirmnar y s oi.l s .r epor t shall become a part of t he ear thwork spe- .. cifications . Ln:ITJ.. TI OXS The reco~e~dations made in =his r2pO~t ~~e based O~ the assunptio~ :~at the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably fi:O:7l those disclosed by the.bo=inSs . .. ~, , i ______. ~ . _t------, -.------:.....,.. ""Y, L IGHT fio~O.'" ...,(,.SE, o~Y, l.ICHT DftO.~ .£l.t. 0 ;A'OlG SI~lY S'~O (S~-~~) ~ '"~ 500 u, - , 10 e. 10 ~ '"· I i 0 I u '. u I 0 \ ~· ~" L OlM:(, Ofty, ll'HT BftOwN 'IN( 560 15 - SANOY SILT (IAL) (Ult.t£OUS) u u I L J>·" I iJ - -, 20 i '-'·, 0 I " I iC _ ~.T[~ CO~T(h '" 25 J . I, to l.cs./CoJr.r., . 0 · I at - ~UU3[ft OJ 8l A!'5, '~C-lB. HAUUla ~'LLINC ):"J I he",,!. TO O~I¥[ SAUPL(a '2 IHCH(5. ~~:,2~1~; S ...uJ-ll" J"T. '0 - 2.0·, 00 • 2.5", I sc- (1 ; jO J, (5.':) - CIlOUP tL&50!.1 ,C.lTIOH SYu6Dl IN 'CCO"O'N(.( _11M i 110.( L,FI[ti c It. (l"S!.I"I( .. TI~H SvSTt ..... I ! , I Ii }) ' 1------i "I I D[~s( •• O~Y LI,"I eft~a~ FI~l "'::"'j 51l TT SUD (~.'.,) OiJ.::~~O 1 BCu ~i - 0 _ ,.J SITE PLAN ",..;0 LCC.S Of "aS"7 sr?If;~~ 1 .i :' BOR~(~OSPRI~G~r;~~ ":1.9 ~O. 62-16~ - 1 " .... ;, -- • ;. L o ·:(j' ....v-or vs r , O"Y, llC"" 8"'O~~ -----T lOGS! 1'J ~!OIU~-O~~:~. ~.~~. ;.c- -ELL :-'0[0 5IL1"V S."O (S::-S") w e· 3 --. ! O...-:-.:m Stl'" "I~t S'." (S~.~) ::0·'" -'- 00.1 '0 I" 8C- 8 n :·s- 1 i2 i ','iC_ -;'1...; i 5 [).)-1'4 :--- 5 ., . l~--·------~ 5 5~_ 15J 00-111 ~ j t.'(Cluu-:lE"SC, a"H', ".0 .... !illtv j~ 8C- 14 j j ! SaND (s-..) i ~ : ..r;, .. 1 :, :i:-l 10 ':i; ;"; 10 - ~C .. 18 J !'"l·Jjl------, O,"S[, cev, lIGt4T 81'1'0'"'' SILTY IUD (5.\') /·e.. 2 -; j / • 4 . 0::'.'1'] :- .,j 9C .. 32.1 ! "1 15 - 15 - ,. w ... -;» ,; I u CD .. : 19 jj; · 3(·~6j"~LU_------", '9 - '9 - 3l'5(, o ..ve , 8"'''''''' SIl.TT SIHO 30 (5'.') 10 -- 35 15 40 - '9 - . 3 ;!'"--'r"i.::-.rl 7 =~'~'£.:~J :;rR!;.:j .:.\:;;.: _·~s :/·,i. 52-I:;": '------.------J------_ ---_ ..------• I _ ...._----_._----- !!c.-.·.r. !O (fu'l. :,'.":' ~O""'''' U (L.:~. ~.~:,) o -. ---,._-_._--- - -' ._------I i Lc osr , n~'. llr. .. ~ 1'''':,\·'1 ~.I\.T'f ~~:8~N~!if~0~~'~;~~~:~-. \\C.. I: Lo oot , e""p, b-O"'· ~-;-::=:-~;;-- ~E;D~1\' r v t "'" to") ~Jl' 00.le9 , : (5'.') 8e - C) I.-.-f- ,:c:s 4- ~ l 5 - .! i I:[:>IU"'-D[H~[. cev , ...Ie.'" '·0.... 'j '5.1~,y 'I'll( !oAf,;:- (~t,l! 00 .. 9~ ~ ------I Be- 1'~ , l '/[I),I,;U-O(PlS(. [.&ur. tlC.'" (1"0"" wc· "-J- ~' \' s Ol" '"'' "" (~•.') 1 _~!,"-O-[-'-'_ -,-, ------.---- OJ· 96' ~ ---- ~1:~~J1r!----, ~ O'v~, e-O_N SilT' ~.~~ 10 6t. 10 \ '.'[(1,,,"-0['1$[, O'UP. llC'" 8-0"" 10 - (5") 10 . ~lllY S.ND (SV) Ii 4 ~E~~·d _~ (~:l) _ r."O"'~ C:'IIo!I,IC"'OH SY\'~O:' IN 'C("C.ft'J,NCE 'll'" 11"[ \;",,,.,.r;.:(II.. CL,~!.Ir-I;:.TI~~ SV'5T(U. "C- } 00-'05 1 9t· 50 ------~------_.- l!"':'S U ·~ST F2;; :~;(S (1 '!~;~:L;r,~ 10 E:~:.~":.~ 5r:?:!~:;s I.:::';.: F.E ~~·I. f,:- ~(,~ L-.. ------.------.---J / ---I ,""--. ' ------_._------ o _.-_._._------~.~---_._----- :.e· ':1 -f., t, •. , ... r • .... Y !l·C·~'" ""[ I t,.,'c.:, :;"". ll~"! e e c.• N ~lll":" 0:..:.. 7:. i~.i, _ . ",:.~ :-:,~ 'r ('::..) ,,,,o([C'ud !'~:'"(s...~~ :-:= ".ll~~: . _ ..c- :q;?l i , ".H. (,pov. l:C>..;T ~,. 'f.." !-llTY co- €7Ji . ; I. v r ~., 11\1 ~S,..) 5 I ~C- 1:' ! ;) 1 C, - 10 1) . ,., ·L c "c· c- · ~o - !;l:: .• "';' '': (~ ... rv. 5~":») -----, ..~------:.r: .. ,1 i ~~(,O~I.. ;)-Y, !.~G"'t e.c~", !.ll':"T ~::".:0~.!1! J r I~:E ~.::D (9:. ~C... ji Lf.H'.J ie· 'l! .i O[;-~·)") H f1~.. 1:...J l:" i ;! ~~~I"~ ..i~ ':"J C·''''': ~"'::L;::' ~? ,·:r.~l~. Sn,1r.p, Jnl: ;i). 2.~;". :0· ?"". ~E 'Co" ."." I C;" '; '.~J4j;:~~'~~,"~:':;,~'(':,.~)' ,..... '-''\vl:~ ~l.~~.,-'C.":'l.:,·. ~T...r·"L I': l~~ll,.r,.~.c( w.,. .. h t , r.• v'", LIC."" I&.~Y.'" ::;t~1'" ,------_._----- • .. [ I..~"'''I[~ S~tL CL_<;",':''':;.'IGP, Si!.'Ttl:. s .. :: (~~.~) ~~~5~, ~~5iR:~I~GS 1; T.;:-~:u~"''': ~~~f...t~JSf::n~;GS f·:';'u~ ...Cf: !;C. 6;:-1£": '------1•. I.•..• .. r------.-----.----- ..---.--. \ Oll/ECT Sli[AH lEST JI"lCT_SI'lI~HST OA~] 1 1-2-. 3-' \ _O~C_y?_[_'~:_'_l~,_P C_F__ _ 111 1_2..~2_. 11 rJ I I" I I IAL WAlE" C 0 ~n[fll, 'f, 1 1 • 1, G. '3 7.:, ._--::-._.-_._._- I -- I _~_~r~_,=--v~A2~_ COtH [NT, % 16. G 14.) _1 ).~ j'PPl.fl(t1l COH[~I(lN, rCF 125°12')0 211) ------~--·-·------1-- I, .~ r P' n [In r R , ClIO II AN G L [ , ?E1; 36 34 I I I i. ~tn VvlOS Cunv[~ 110 1O~l FILL SUlrJBILITY T[5~~ 30 40 LAOCRAlOJlY (;01.'[ A(;l I Uti TU, T _'::-"~~~-'_~.'.:..~ __:' ?~~_'_'_':.\,__'I_-_'- _ 1 ' .....- --- __ .._- ,.....-_ __ •• -, ••••• -.- ..-...::1.- -- "'.. __ ._.~~ ..,"" ..'::>O._.~SP[C'~[N~: _ _ __. S.~rlf..,~._ ~-1 --- ~._.• _ . " ~--.---: -_ ..... -..; .• ' .f I. .. : .. I. ... l.,..,." I I...... ,~ ...---- ._---_._._----- OIHEtT,SY(AH TEST '.IECHAtli CAL AtIIlL YS I 5 ._-- -- y' ~4"4 10 40 200 r r T D I ,~ SHEA'! TEST CATA 100 r--'-,- -l-~-I " . 1 2 } ' ------/\ --.::.~[S------I - -, Drv D~'~SITY, pC' 11ll 1.1~J 10,. ------._-~ 80 --- =-~_~~ t=L"E I" I T r ... L ','IA T[ FJ C~'CT["T , :.2~~1=~1 % 8, 1 11,8 16.;> ----- . ----- ._--- 60 --. --- -- 1- ~~, -- - C- -- - i --I 1"," 'L -j;" 1~" COOITENT, % !? .. .15. ;, -_..:-13, 1,.\ . -_\~ -j--I t. PP CO"'[S'~"I PCF 40 '---r--f---f--- ._.-.--j~-1 -----I ~ € '. T 210 21\0 370 !.E~~~l FRICT'':'ff ANGLE, , . ---~ J"'1, i 11"" 34 .'> 3 25 20 I---I--t--+-I---- - ~.:,:Jtoo' .: .---+--j_+-+--j I_~·'_;._ 1 o 1 I I I I I .l--;~j_ ! 10:XJ 10J 10 1.0 0.1 e.'Y·_.':,:·\ r;n.II. SIZE I" MILLIClT'.q :.::!...\'.E~i"_".o r ~I~T-l ere f' t. (I.'. v : .....--''---'-- MI _--J , orA!,:; '':'LITY CH~D.IICT~t; I.';T les '-1-- 2 - , I J i I- L f Q.t! t o·l f v '"T, c' I" - i I ,. ---- I--'--T-=~] fL'STI:,TV 1110[', r- I - - .. -- -- I Sf-fR't(J;ir,[ ~ I LIM'T, s »: -r ! ----- 1--'_------!- -I , COLlC'I:'l CC"TEPjT, "/: - - --- i FOTE"'~"L (XP_IISI8IlITV: '---1 =J I )'~ X IIwt' Orrv 900[1I$11V, PCF wooo".~O-CLVO[-Slil,._----' .. nD &. A:;r.c:;.-c:; I FILL SUITAOILITY T(51S I BC1JW(GO srlll rIGS f';.::.: , ------J·;-:cilt,io~-62:lb4--·-·- r 10 20 30 1-. ..__. ..__...._. __.. __I LA[lOflAT(}JtY COMJ>A(;11('/j usr J-.------~~~~-+~-:~~-1:--~:·~ti·_;~~4---·-- .----.-.\ .. ' J- • . . ~ ..~ .~~~ __ ,_~ __ J S"rt "Jt..~~: S"",'u_ .!..!..:.!.._. __.._.__,_ I , Lo., __ 1..... L. I...... " l. I. L. I. ----~,_.._------ Oll/Ecr SHlAf/ rt sr ----- .... _._--- '- ."r.~JI TL~r OHA 1 ;> 3 -_ .. ITY, per 1(\4 ------._------~.TEn CONTE"T, % 1ft. 2! ------r II. & '- h.\ r t n COlnEIIT, "f. ------'-- 40 Apr', :;.. ..:: COltESION, pc" .. _--_._._._---- ';;~F r"'ClION A'IGLE,' 26 201--- WOOOWARO-CLYO[-SHE~ARO , A~SDCIJ'~< FILL SUITl.OlllTY TESTS UOIIIlEG0 srRI~GS rARK o 10 20 40 I.ABpRATORY COMPACTIUN T[:~ ____ _ , ._ .. _ ...... ~., ... _.--. .~-~ ...---...... -...- """" .8I""' .,.... __ ~_~f-·~-----.=~~~~~====~:..~~'~-'.-.-=.~.~.~~'. __ .J i 1' •.,·• ..,"'\ .----, .' ..... ' -- i] t Depth 0 [ Hiltct" Rn tc of F1.oH Pu vr.rc ab i y .:: T.,,; t De l' t h o f i·!•.~I. I [,adius o f Hell [eet _J~t3/t·~~:_. __ _ .._,X_~ / 1" t::i~l_' _ f.:.I('.:iL io n i:,~,··t 1'",' t .. ...------...i;.l2..~ ----_ ...-- ..._._- _._-,_ ..--- _.~-- -'--'------~-_ _--_ .122 17,000 l no i.: iIlg I 5.0 0.7.5 ') ,. .) .030 1~L)l·.i.Jl;~ 3 5.0 O • _:J .010 J n.Jl" J.[:~ to ~;.0 0.25 1:.0 .070 t, Ih):+ i. (i;~ 17. 5.0 0.25 ." -.I TfI!:L!': I - 1:J,~:l'I;I'I: (IF I'J:I~r.(ll ....r ro.: 1'Ic:.:I~: --_._~_._-_._------.._- ..__ .----- ._.. _ .._----- _.__ ._- ':.-:: Ie!: t Depth uf 1-1:, te r rcrl",.,l;l~: ;1\11 )',': " I('.~;t Depth of. \};lll'l: P{:rcl,)l~lt. i 011 I~;lt« rIo .....: I ur: 1)(';; __ ~.~;__I~·~.l.:..:·_: I, Illrl1C:-; ___ I'1.!_'l_\!..I~r'~;_UI1.'_:_h___ Tilne _/.! ~" r:C\ ..'; T.iJ1H~ ~---_.- .. --_._.--. --_.__._--_._- 10 :5/, 1 8:00 7.0 7 6.0 U: 10 3.0 11 :0/1 IJ.5 B:20 () 11 :0/1 o. n 11: ]Jr I"t. J O. ]5 [) :~~O 7.0 8:30 3.0 n 8 :/,0 0 0.30 0 10:51 6.0 11 :07 I, • 5 2 8: t:j 6.0 11 :07 6.0 II. .'i O. t'; 3:2.'i 0 11 :)7 8 :2:i «. (I £) :]~.J 0 0, (,0 9 11 :00 6.5 r C 11 : 10 .J •. ' 3 n :/; 1 ('.0 11 :10 7.0 G : ~i3 1.:.l 11 :20 G.O O. ]IJ 8 : 5~) ('.5 9:25 2.2 O,IJ3 10 1 :/,7 8.0 1 :/}1 1,.0 :1 :07. 1;.0 2 :1.0 0 3: 12 1. ;; 2: 11 7.0 3 :15 (" ;, 2:21 3.5 3 :7.~; 1.7 0./,8 2:31 0 o , :.\:i 1:35 7.:j 11 B:30 7.0 1 :/,) (,. 7.:; I) :MJ 5.0 I, • 8:50 2.0 1:55 75 o. ]() 2:05 3.5 9:00 1.0 2 :15 2. 'i 2 :/'5 1.7-5 17. 7 :/1;> 3.0 2 :35 0 O. l:! 7 :~)5 11.0 3:05 1.0 ] ::19 7.0 8:15 6.0 :2;) 1 :I, ') 5. l ~j n 3.0 O.ll) 2 :00 I, • 5 8:35 0 7- :10 3.2~; 2 :/'0 2.0 ,': TCf; t s wc r e per f o rmc cl ~lll.i':lcent to n:l~'i.nr.:; 2 :30 1.0 0.10 \\'it 11 ~ 111llC' numl«: r ,',,', Ccunp u t c rl I o r thl~ l ns t: 10 minn t e s ~;'w~'~r----.------.~-;;-.;-,,~~.--..-.-.-··-----·--·I----r~-(f;'" !~·;.-(·)-'~~~~~~·~~~;---·I----:-1--- Dr: r C Po 1.1 ,., TI Q fl I -"J~'·-~-TJ)::~=-iJ~~-'-r-~-=f-~7;~~~~~:~:·:~:!j-:5!=-=--.:~=[;·;i~I--~.t.~-=~=CIl'-~~:~-1[nu' I r'(.~cr.rlT or 1';'f'H !'rtr,t'l ..----- --~~,-~'-'c~;;;~.;~~-·.=n~,C;":~":'~ .. ~" !y~.j';g~-="=o!~~~ -: --I'"u"" ,:;, no" '°"1 '"'' ;.:',~~~~~' I ------..------..-..-..------....--....-..--..------1------..------(,.. 1 ....r------..------""'----.----.----H,';.'.;>~. ;, 1.\ 0';'10C)() .-..:..._--,-- :? (l ---2.1 ...--,I ~;--1---~7~).~,---r-·---..-(~··-!;-- ....------..;~ ..------·-r--- (1;--- - 5'~-- --. o. 'i -----~:.-;;-_.--- .. O.. ? I 9 •. ;-- ..- T----·-~-:-::------_.._..~-:..-----..--I'---;~--' HY>" .1- 1 ..7 J ~:~------i ------T------,------r----1 r------I ------, :_:::~[_:~~~::E~~,=-:~:~E.~l--~:<·~~~-:·--:..;::~=~=-.~~==--,:~';-_ I, J I, · , ; ..' I 7h~s ~pcci~ic~tio~~ covers tl1C ~cthocl of co~trol ~~~ ~upcrvi~io~) ~nd pr~- ps r a t i or, of (;::i!;i.:.::1g s ur f acc s to r c c c ive fll~; :he: t.7i'e,; 0: !:.Qil s'..1it.;:ble; the c=~:rol of cc~p~ction ~nd mcthocl~ of ~~sti~z co~?actcd fills. SCOPE 'J'lw (,: ..,·~h\-.·.:.'rlt !:i!,')!1 c onr.Lc r (If jl\··1·f(lj·'·1;~I;·. :l'11 e,;".'r:i::i •.I1'!:-. nrC'.C'::~"''''~r'Y to e~:- C,'iV.titc ,·;:~·t!l :lJ)d l·~lCi;. 11"\.11:: l!l,' cu: ;1,,,,,:1:,. ;1: (:1~:':~','1;':1·11 \~~: t'lll' l'):;ll:'~ t(l l';:C:.t- v:,-,tl": tli:.:'.h,·:.) i.:h.:l\lC.~jll;'~ tli.t'L::ll':. ll~ :,11\' l\"ll 1'.1 1:11:. \.!.,:,,: I \.i.:.:I~a·j~.) [Jjj.;,l l)v,,-r()\J I,ll:;; rl.l L~:i.lrJ f il l n in t hr- ]o~:,·:~.i~):l:, :"'::lJ t.,1 l1;;· C~l:·J:.J( i on i. :;:H1 1,)1:r.l ~;hO\-."':1 cr. ~~'J(: pJHl'::-,; t:.) d ic po s c o f ~11 ...nt~;\d"~i.hl.c: ~;lL:,,··ri.'i} ~:;.:! ...:::(:(:~~ (-~:r..:~.:v~:tior~ ,)~; s ho on or; t he p l ar.e or- :15 d i.r cc t e d by t r,c 50:1 Enc~:n~~~:r; i.q-:d t o pc r f o r:n all i nc i dc nt c l we..rk c f \,,'::.::t::oev(;:- na t ur e vh i c b ms y b~ r c c c i r e d fo:.- c ut t Lng , fil.l:':;g, and 6r.:.:c- i~2 as sho~~ O~ ~h€ ?le~s; ~nd to maintain the finished ?rOaucts ~~ the for~ specified u~til t~e co~ple~ion and acccpt~ncc 0: the cont=act. EXCP'Vf.7ION Exczvu:io~ sh~ll be ~3de to ::hc elev~tio~s ~nd the fo~~ pla~ned) with £i~- i~h gr~G~s ~~d clo?es cut tru~ ~nc st~si~~: in ~o~io~~ity ~ith t~c plans and spcci:icZltior.s. SclC'(': 1ll~\tl'ri_nl frcln. tiH~ I'::cnv,"',: i.rJil!. I~h:i.!! li(' i,l:1\:(~(\ :.:1'1 cornpu c t u cl n r- hrr o> i.l1:I!t.I'l' jll.('i1Lt.d ill ~h\' tli~.llt'd ::~·I"I;t,:l1 :11111;\1. :::lll\"::"; 'Ill l.IH' pJt\n~ .. ?i.lls sh.:~l tl{;: .::.o:-.st!"~ctcc ~..J ::::: d~?'::: ~:;d ~lc:·\Yc~ic:-.s as shc\·m on ~hc g:-ac.- i.ng pli:r-. b:; 1=-:.:icir:g ~nd cC::i?ac~i:-:,; £[;.lcct [..'0:1) ~.:-::-:(:::'~i:" •.:;,:tC::::: s?ec~fiec) '\"li~:-: £~~ishcd £ra~es a~ci ~lc?~~ tr~s an~ s:raish: i~ co~fo~~i:y ~i~~ the plans. (a) All ti~~Qr. IO~L. tra8s. ~rush ~~{ ot~cr ru~bi~h sholl .be r~novc~, ?ila~ ~~d b~~~~d O~ o:~8r\;i~c clis?osc~ o~ LO a~ to lcove th~ ~rC2S ~h~t h£v~ been distu:-bc,:l \·:it11 .::: n(~c.'o:: ':l;""U £ir:isht.:(~, ':~j1p8lil"~r.cc; irc:c frc-:n un::igh:ly' ,;, ~1- i:,. (1.) f\ii \'I~l'.l'tjd.di· lll:d:I';- ::!l::J.I :H' r(";~ll\'I'I: ~r\I;"~: :1:\, !:\:~'1:H'{' t1~\"\:l \,'h"tch ~:h' :jll -j~. (\1 lIt· jl;:,iL.:I'd :::11~ th ... !~,lll \ll..-1"l~·. il,t" ;'..'U:I' :.'J;1:~ ~,::~:lllh:" r, ..::;..,\,I,.:t.:. 'fih.: :..ur t~c.:L:" :..h;..:ll ~hL'n te·, ~)lo\o.l(~(~ 0"::" ~;~·':':~·:'::il.-':': t"c) .:J. oL;p:r. 0:" si:-: ir\::-.t?~ (6")) 2.:",cl ·un::"l t~c sU~-:.:l.cc: is f:-ee: lro~ :-ut~, ht:::':':'.oc;<.s or o:hc!" l,;::~ve:1 £c.:.:·~::cs \}hicn \:oulc :~::c. to prcvQ:1~ unif~:'-:":"I co:-.:?action by the eq''':~?- ~er.t: ~o be used. ~::GCS~!::~~~~:;c. CL\'rJE • SHEP.k?:J £: ASSOCI:'TES .;.;.: ';1):': F~~:l:!';::":"::EI:.;i,: ...::.,I~ <::) ~:-:.. " .- , 2.!:u-..:::d "-:?.J:": \·::-::'c:: :;;:..' ::::":1 i:-. t c ~iC F':'::C~,": ~.:.__l~ 'i.-J2 p I o ....ec cr .sc=.:·::::::'~c ~ec?ly 0= w~e=2 :~c slo~c r~=~c ~f :~:2c~~~i~~l zround is ~:~cpc= :~~~ 6 hor i z o az c I to 1 ve r t i c a r , t he b.:.~-:k [::,~ll be: c t c ppe d or bc nc hc d • (c) .!·.:tcr the f ounda t i on f o;: ::;2 fill ::.J~ ~~c:;r-: c l e ar c d , p l ove d or c c a r i f i e d , it" s~&11 be disced O~ bla~ed u~~il it is ~~i£drm and free f~o~ l~rge clods b"o~3ht to the ?"opc" ~oist~~c cc~tc~~ ~~d com?~cted to not lees t ha n ni nc t y percent (90%) of :;i~::ir.:'...:::. ccus ity in ac c cr dc nce with A.t...SHO ., test ~o. 7180-57 !-ir=:nou. P.') or o:h~::, dc nc a t y r c s t me t ho ds y.,lhicn \\"ill 00- ! ruin equivelcnt rcs~lts. S~lcct Ma:crialc Select ~at2rial shall be any soil E:':C2V.:.tQ~ fro~ th2 cut ~rcas w~~c~) in the . 0?i:;:,o:1 of t hc Soil Eng i.ne e r , is s u i t ab l e for use in c or.s t r uc t i ng f i l l s , z nd \-,~:-~ich co~tains no rocl<£ or hard lumps six i~ch2~ or ovc~ in di~~ct~r) end ;~hich co~tai~s 1 s t least 40~~ of ;';"late:rio.l smaller t han cnc:-c~i.,::;:~ter i.r.c h (1.:: ) in d i arne t c r . Th~ rna- r c r ie I us e d v.~i:~)in t vo feet of r ougr; lot L:-o.;:lc shell be r.onexpcr.s rvc s c l e c t ma t e r> ia l , Fo r the: pu::pose of this s pe c i.f i c a t i on :1o:-.c::pC!1s:"v(:: me t c r ia l s cz o de f i ne d as t!:csc ~a:eri~ls which h~vc a liquid li~i: lese t~~~ 30 pcrce~t) a pl~sticity i~cie~: les.s t11.::....10 percent Gl~G.v..hi.c a swe l ; l e s s tnar, c ne pe r c e n t \..~her. c orapac t.c c as herc- i~~f:e:- s?ccifiec for co~pact~d fill ~nd wh~~ s~bjectcd to a~ axial pre£cu=e or 150 pou~cs pc" squ2re £00:. ~:o ma t e r i a I of e pe r i.s hab i e , oSP01:gy, c r o t he r wi.c e of an Lrnpr ope r nature shall be us~d i~ :i~li~b. Placin~. S::·r22.cir.~. 2:;2 CO::::J2c:ir-.t". Fill ;··~2:e-:-iQ.l (a) The selected fill i"i;3~eria.l 51-:.:.:.11be ?1,:::,c2c i:-: layers ,..~hich \·:nc!'~ c.om?actec 1' sh.:?.ll ~ot c::ceec. si>: inc:,c~ (6 ). :::ac:-:l.:yc:- s:-.3.11 -::-'e[;pread2-,.Tc:11yend shall b2 :ho~oughly b12~e ~~x~d d~ri~g th~' s?~eadi~g to insure un~£orrni:y 0: ~ateri~l i~ eGch 12ye~. (b) \·Elcn :.he: c0ist,'...::-c:: co:;t(.:-.i: 0: 4:n0 :il: :::~t~:-::'.:.~ is 'L)t2~o'''''~::-..5.~ £?2.:.:'£iec. by the Soil E~ginecr, ~~3:e~ sh~ll be a~d~cl un~il the ~cist~re c0~tent is as specified :0 ~ss~r0 :hO:-O~6t bo~cii~~ d~ri~s t2e Cc~?~c:ing process.· (c) 1':nc:1 the ::-:,Jis:'~~eco:::er-.t of ~he :::i::': :::ac(::-..i..:::' i~ z.bovc :h.::t speci::ie.= ~y the Soil E~;inecr, :h2 i:'li ~~2teri~: s~a:~ bE ae~ated by blading or other sati.s£~ct()::-y j,'".ethocs u~!:il ~.:1e !:&oiscl:.l.-c co::~cr,t is es s?ecifiecl. (d) After each layer has bee:; placed} ni~:e~ enci spread eve~ly) it stall be t~oro~gnl~· co~?acted ~o not less t~2~ ~inety pcrce~t (90%) of ~axim~m den- s:"::y in ncco-:-cancc \-7i:h t:lC': ;J:..SHO Test !\v. T180-57 l·1cthod A, O!.- o:hcr der:- sit;· ::es:s ':','l11cn\Jl.~l ob~.::in equ:'v_lc:!~[ :..-e:Si..:~t.::;. Co::-;?actio:1 shal~ be 2C- co~?lished by sheepsfoct ~ollcrs} ~~l:iple-~~ecl pn~unatic-tired rolle=s or other types of a=c~p~2blc rollers. Rollers ~~all be of such dcsig~ t:-:nt they \..'ill bc cole: :0 CO:7:.?.J.ct the £:'ll to the s?ccific;cl dens it),. :\01- ling shall b2 contin~ou~ ovc= its c~ti~c ~~2~ Z~~ t~c ~olle~ shall ~ck€ ~t.:.f£ici~nt t~ips to i~s~re :~~t t:1C dC:~~2C c~~s~:y has bee~ obtained. \.'.:,~:"'::':'.'.'.~."...~_.~~ ',""lvnc. C':"'I~::·:·:-·n.~.Z·~~Gt'\I':-I::$ _ ...._ ..:_.i.J~ I",;.;_.~.... ~ \,000 .l....""...,.,~... . . t: :.~;':~:; :OO~ (2 ) :uit.~~ c ;,;:c:~i?~cnt. C..J::-.?.:.:C;'::':-::,,:, C:)::~':':::,J:1S ~;::..:.ll b..:: CO:-.::-:-.'..1c:d :;:--~::..;. :;1"; slo?e~ ar~ s:~bl~ b'..1tno: too ~C~S0 ~O~ ?1~~:in2 ~nd tl)~=c ~~ ~,J .:.~~~c- C::'~~J.C D.:".iO\..:t".t0: 100::)12 soil on t he ~l()j1~s. C~7i.?.:.cti:-~g 0: :':1i:; ~.:C?l..:!: -:::..:::.y be done ?ro£~e~siv21y i~ in~re~cnt~ ~f 3 to 5 fee: i~ iill h~iE~:t0= after the fill is brought to its to~~l h0i~ht. (f) Field density te~tE Eh~ll b2 nada i~ ~cco=d~~c~ with A.S.!.~. 7~:: !~. D1556-5ST by t11C Soil En:inecr fo~ c~c~ lcy~= of £ill. D~~~ity tcS~s m3Y be i.'•a de a t int(;::·vi:l~. 1':0-; e:~cc:ed:'r:; 2 ~C'c: of :fill hci~:·lt p:"oviuc:d. all lr::.yers ere: t e c t c d , \'J~1c:-e shcc;?:;fo~t .r o Ll c r s a r e us e d t he :::01..l.. rn..:y b~ dis:urbecl ta a ~Epth Gi s~,r~ral i~ch~s. D~n~ity teLts sh~ll be ~&de Ln t ae c ompc c r cd rr.at c r i a Ls be i ov .:::-:~ distu:·be:c surface. ,r::c~these tes:s i~diczte that the dC~5ity cf cny 12ye~ of fill OT po=tio~ t~ereo£ is below th~ ~equircd (90%) d~r~si:y) the p~~:ic~12r leyer or portio~ sh~ll be rewo~ked ~ntil the required dcn~ity h~£ been o~~ained. S~?crvision by the Soil Engineer zhall b2 IT2de d~~ing the filling a~ci com- pacting cpcr~tions so that he can cer:~fy that Lhe fill was .made in accord~~ce ~i:h ~cccpteci s?ecifications. ---!es t s Duri~; gr&~ins ope=a:ions, soil types O:~1~~:~~~ these an~lyzed in the pre- :i~in~~y ~oils repo=: =ay be enco~nter~d. :11~Soil ~~~ineEr £h=~l decic.2 the s~it- ~0i:it) of t~~S~ soils. A~y sp~c~al treat~2~: rcco~~c~clccby th~ Soil E~gi~ee= i~ t~lC ?r~li~i~a~y and subsequent s~it~bility soil =CpOTCS, ~~~c~ is not covered in the E~rth~vrk S?ecific~tio~s, $h~ll b~co~c ~~ LdGendu~ to ~he La~:hwork Speci£ica- :ions. fill ~~d/o~ s~b-bas0 shall be !:f;S:I2C i:-: t hc l'::":Jc:.-.s.t:o:cy iT:. :;·:-C(;':" :0 det.2:.-::-:i:-.c- the ;:-;::::,:-::':":".u;r.d2:;~i.ty, O?:i:7l.1.:::: va t e r c~~tc~:) and c~as~i£icatio~. I~ ~ci~i:ion) t~~el~bG=a:ory s~all d~ter~i~e tnc Zp?=ox- i~~:~ b~a~in2 vslue of ~ ~eco~?sctcd, S~[u=~~cc ~~~?lc ~y direc~ shcc= o~ o:~~= ~ct~- o~ ~P?licable to :hc ?~~:icular soil. j" _.1 .J .:! "T"?" , •• _ ....",. ( . Stri" ;)5 ;,pecifi"d ., :./, /-.ori.gi.n.,l ...<,. '... Ground I . : .. I .. .. " .' ''\''~.... . J "" J ", :/ i Slope J(~U.o " ,. 0/. .: -; -lll /" / :.. ><. ...... "" .... ;" ...... ".," -... r-, ..... oS J.f'1-'~.: t (l he Z;\I':1t t~,-· \ .. ~.. ">oi, .' . ", -""" ...... : ' S.ln'.l~::d.lll:.or ~~1i.r!~.1l~'. . .- ...... ", c.I(l~!; u o t. o c c or / \. "-~" '. ...• : " ~::.:... -", . ", \ '\ "" .. ' . ... ..:. ... '" \ ... . -"- .. --..... ,I. . \ ""'" _.-.-'-'" i' \ :~:,:~~;:~,~~;:·.:.~L._. f-:-~;t~/\~)~';:; 11,,· I:,r,d,,'.:'" '·i<1l.h "j;" of. 1:0')' "he:!.! hI' :> ff:'!!: "i:!::,- 1.),-'\\1 Lhr: Cfl:l1j"':l':.:ti.(l!) ('(i\lir:1(.:Ilf., r.lld 1l(IL l.c s r t1J;ltl 10 fl;r.'l. Th~ olll:;jc1c cdf'," of. hOI.l"i·' h.')' r:h;ll.l be helo" l""::,,iJ or !."W;(: f'\1,:f;'''C 1,.-;',I.'."rl:,l . J:CF .11'''~ refl" i I I·d ,;I"'I'(~ t.he ""!.II1.'I1). s lo pc h; s tr- c p n r t h nu (, 11IJr L·,(,"!.!! 1 t" I v cr I. i.CI' 1, 0" vh c r e r.pc': i. fied by SoIl. EtlgiTlC'.Pf. - , f"' - ,~,.... .• '. - .".,.'-,.: : ~ l.·.~'.--.".~~,~. . '.'._ ' '.'f _ '" •.• ~._.' ~. "". __ "•. ,_._ ; ..•. '" " ~,,~ " __ _ ,,,. • ..,. _ ""'._~_ •• ,. _ . WOODWARD· CLYDE· SHERARD & ·ASSOCIATES CONSULTING SOIL ENGINEERS ANO GEOLOGISTS December 21. 1967 3467 Kurtz Str•• t San DI•• o Project 67-103-115 Callfomla 92110 (714) 224.2911 Federal Mortgage Investors 10889 Nilshire Boulevard Suite 1040 Los Angeles, California Attention: Mr. Keith A. Miller BORREGO SPRINGS PARK, CALIFORNIA In accordance with your reques"t." we have obtained two representative samples of soil from the area of the proposed lake at tile subject site. Chemical and grain size analyses were performed on these materials in order to determine their general characteristics in relation to pos- sible reaction with the proposed lining materials. The test res-..:lts are presented on the attached forms. LJL/ jsk (4) Federal Mortgage Investors (2) Campbell. Miller &. Associates J...Ii.:ce:"llLi...:J: .... , ... / ....., N..:'MY;:;::; OF: Mc.MtikR O~I A""L-~h':A" SOCj~':"Y ;\):: :"'1t'iA;"S A,"~RICAN ...·~~c;"cSCC:::7Y I"'STI';Uj~ u~ ,.~v;~O:--l"':(r\TA~ SCieNCES SOCI~TY ~o~NO:\:'::S'7~U:: IVi: ";~:.":"u.. c. SOCI£TY o~A;'lPi..I~=' S"~CST~..:J5CO;»Y AM£R. ASSN. J=Ok 7 ... ;:; A~·.'. c- ~C.ic~C£ SO'Ci&:iY ~o~(XP;RIM£""TAL SH:CSS ANALYSIS NATIONAL RIl=l~ AS!»N. 0;: A1'1&;i.ll(.A CHEM - MET ASSOCIATES ) WI1CHlll r. CHI.OUJrrutn r. IioW. o. r. 0-... 1 TlEPOwr NO: r.M-l'i1..2: D~(:~m~ar 20,196'l Woodward,Clyde Sher~rd & Associ~tes JOB.NO: 67-103-115 3467 Kurtz Street Bo~rego SDringsP~rk 1 SAn Diego,California 92110 2-S;mp1es Rec'd:12-19-67AM REPORT OF DETERMINATIONS OF SOLUBLE SALTS IN TI10 SOIL SAMPLES: At your request we made the following determin:jtions on two soi1s'1mp1es ",hiel you sUbmitted,prepared for extraction,from test drillings: S~M?LE 1519-1 SAMPLE ::'519-2· DETERMINATIONS: '. ~: "BorreRo Springs P~rk "Borrego Springs ?~rk@6'711, \./21) #'3 (0)6'-7.:1.11 lQOl.Snllt.hof Grr~en 1126:" pH Vnluc· H. J/.(~TI<'iilino) ~r:J51YEP.YATKAT11ili '/ Nitr'lte: (NO )~ ':r 0.0004% - 4 ppm 0.0006% ...6 ppm Phosph"lte: (P 205 ).. Nil Nil -- Pot'lsh: (K 0 ).. 0.0005% 0.0012% C",lciuln: (C~~ • 0.0210% 0.0365% M:'lgnesium: (Mg .. ; 0.0014% 0.0045% Sodiurr.: (Na) .. 0.1550% 0.2240% Iron: (Fe) .. Nil Nil M'l.ng'l.nese: (K'1 ) .. Nil Nil Chloride: (C1) 0.1860% 0.2940% Su1f;:lte: (S04 ) 0.0440% 0.0620% Carbonates: (C03) Present LARGE AMOUNTS ?resentL~"ge Amoun~s These are bo&h def~nite1y "A1k~lie" soils ~nd the presence of the higt sulf~te content would itidic~te deleterious re~ctions with Concrete,buried st~uctu"es even if Low Alk'l.lieCement were used.~his ·might ~lso be true of cer~~in pl~stic nembrane mRterials,but a well gr~ded,Asph'l.ltic Concrete with ~ chlorin'l~ed- rubber sealant to protect Il.gll.instU1trl'lVioletdegred'ltion of the o i tuman s, should be sntisf~ctory in contAct with this c~ustic ~6il. C'\lif. (5) w/invoices Attn:L.Lee ------.,AN-(-)--·------J [ . coone-'·' .. -,:ict1lurr; -·--L hno ~ __ ~;Il.T ond CLAY ] Sieve Number Hydrometor AnolyLI' r------I r--..------.------, 1004 10 20 40 60 140 200 I <, <, I90 90 <, 1 t-, I 1\ ,- 80 -, \ ""I-, III -, I I 'Z 70 \ Iv; I III \ 1\ I~ ,0.. '\ ", 60 I i~ 1151 -z Z \ \ ./ w IU \ Y "', Iffi 50 0.. I \ 1519-1\ ...J V 1\ l,.,. i~<+W -, \ I \ ... 1\ -, :. 30 <, .'" <, I L...0\ 20 -. I"-. -...... <; r--. I--- I 10 I I , --r-- -- - 1 I C III I III II I I I .IIII 0 II I II -- .01 .005 .002 .001 2 .5 .2 .1 .05 .02 GRAIN SIZE - MILL! METERS SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL 151 1519-2 Si It v Sand (SM) WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD ~ ASSOC1ATES GRAIN SIZE DiSTRIBUTION CURVES borrego opr m gs rarK -67-103-115 1 ) APPENDIX E BIOLOGICAL DATA ., ULTRASYSTEMSJ INC, , APPENDIX E TABLE 1 PLANTS OBSERVED* ON THE PROJECT SITE CREOSOTE BUSH SCRUB/CREOSOTE - MESQUITE ASSOCIATION Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence** Asteraceae - Sunflower Family Arrowweed Pulchea sericea o Burrobrush Ambrosia dumosa C Cheesebush Hymenoclea salsola D Desert Baccha ris Baccharis sergiloides I Desert Dandelion Malacothrix glabrata I Pincushion Flower Chaenactis stevioides I Spanish Needle Palafoxia linearis I Sweetbush Bebbia juncea I Cactaceae - Cactus Family Beavertail Cactus Opuntia basilaris I Silver Cholla O. echinocarpa I Pencil Cactus O. ramosissima I Caryophyllaceae - Pink Family Frost Mat Achyronychia cooperi I Cucurbitaceae - Gourd Family NCN Cucurbita palmata Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Family Croton Croton californicus I Rattlesnake Weed Euphorbia albomarginata o NCN Euphorbia setiloba * Nomenclature Munz (1974) ** Occurrence D = Dominant S = Scattered R = Restricted I = Infrequent 0 = Occasional NCN = No Common Name APPENDIX E CONTINUED PLANTS OBSERVED* ON THE PROJECT SITE 1 t CREOSOTE BUSH SCRUB CONTINUED i Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence** -t ! Fabaceae - Pea Family Palo Verde Cercidium floridum I Mesquite Prosopis juliflora I Smoke Tree Dalea spinosa I Krameriaceae - Krameria Family Krameria Krameria grayi o Nyctaginaceae - Four-O'Clock Family Wish bone Mirabilis bigelovii I Onagraceae - Evening Primrose Family Evening Primrose Camissonia claviformis o Evening Primrose C. refracta I Dune Primrose Oenothera deltoides Plantaginaceae - Plantain Family \~oOdy Plantain Plantago insularis C Poaceae - Grass Family Abu Mashi Schismus barbatus D Gailita Grass Hilaria rigida o Polemoniaceae - Phlox Family NCN Langloisia setosissima I Polygonaceae - Buckwheat Family Buckwheat Eriogonium thomasii I Desert Trumpet E. inflatum I * Nomenclature Munz (1974) . ** Occurrence D = Dominant S = Scattered R = Restricted I = Infrequent o = Occasional : ,"\' "i-; • C.' • � APPENDIX E CONTINUED PLANTS OBSERVED* ON THE PROJECT SITE CREOSOTE BUSH SCRUB CONTINUED Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence** Zygophyllaceae - Caltrap Family Creosote Bush Larrea tridentata C NCN Kallstroemia californica I SALTBUSH SCRUB/DISTRUBED Amaranthaeceae - Pigweed Family Fringed Pigweed Amaranthus f;mbriatus o Arecaceae - Pa1'm Famlly Date Palm Phoenix ductylf~r c Asteraceae - Sunflower Family Alkali Goldenbush Haplopappus acradenius I Annual African Daisy Dimorphotheca sinuata I Brittle Bush Encelia far;nosa I Cheesebush Hymenoclea ~alsola o Desert Sunflower Geraea canescens o Mule Fat Bacchar;s qlutinosa I Sow Thistle Sonchus oleraceus o Telegraph Weed Heterotheca qrandiflora o RoraginaceaE - Borage Family Comb-Bur Pectocarva penicillata I Fiddleneck Amsinckia tessellata I Popcorn Flower Cryptantha augustifolia o Brassicaceae - Mustard Family London Rocket Sisymbrium irio C Oriental Mustard Sisymbrium orientale I Pepper Grass Brassica tourneforti; o Pepper Grass Lepidium las;ocarpum o Pepper Grass ,!:.. virginicum o Short Pudded Mustard Brassica gen;culata I NCN Tropidocarpum aracile I * Nomenclature Munz (1974) ** Occurrence o .. Domi nant S ..Scattered R c Restricted I = Infrequent o - Occasional NCN = No Common Name APPENDIX E CONTINUED PLANTS OBSERVED* ON THE PROJECT SITE SALTBUSH SCRUB/DISTURBED I ! Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence** I Poaceae - Grass Family Continued) Foxtail Chess Bromus rubens o Ripgut Grass B. diandrus I Salt Grass Distichlis spicata o Sand Dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus C I -1 Stinkgrass Eragrostis cilianensis 1 i Salicaceae - Willow Family Fremont Cottonwood Populus fremontii I Solanaceae - Nightshade Family Desert Datura Datura discolor I Ground Cherry Physalis acutif~lia I Silverleaf Nettle Solanum elaeagnifolium o Tamaricaceae - Tamarisk Family Athel Tree Tamarix aphylla o Salt Cedar T. ramos issima o Typhaceae - Cat-Tail Family Cat-Tail Typha domingensis I Zygophyllaceae - Caltrap Family Puncture Vine Tribulus terrestris o * Nomenclature Munz (1974) ** Occurrence D = Dominant S = Scattered R = Restricted I = Infrequent 0 = Occasional· ·\· . . e. . APPENDI X E TABLE 2 BIRDS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT SITE NUMBER STATUS** HABITAT*** COMMON NAME* SCIENTIFIC NAME* OBSERVED 1 N,R CS Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicens~ 1 N,R CS American Kestrel Falco sparverius N,R CS Gambel's Quail Lophortyx gambellii 25 N,R DIS Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 42 N,R CS Roadrunner Geococcyx californianus 5 N,R CS White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis 6 2 R R Common Flicker Colaptes auratus R DIS Common Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 22 N,R DIS Common Raven Corvus corax 2 R \ CS Le Conte's Thrasher Toxostoma lecontei 1 5 R I CS, DIS Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos I I Lanius ludovicianus I 3 N,R I DIS I Loggerhead Shri ke I , 19 N,R I, DIS I Starling Sturnis vulgaris I , ! ! CS I I 1 I R Auriparus flaviceps I i, ! Verdi n 1 I 20 N,R DIS i I House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus \ i DIS I Melospiza melodia 1 R ! Song Sparrow \ 25 M ,Sp. ,FW CS White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys \ \ 2 N,R CS, DIS I, Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna \ i ! I I L______.- -_ ... __...._L_-.---... (1957, 1973). * Nomenclature: American Orinthologists' Union ** Status Designation from Sams and Stott (1959) and the Anza-Borrego Desert Natural History Association - Birds of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park: M = Migrant Sp = Spring F'= Fa11 R = Resident W = Winter V = Visitant N = Nests S Summer *** Habitat Key CS = Creosote Bush Scrub DIS= Disturbed Area R = Riparian APPENDIX E TABLE 3 BIRDS EXPECTED* ON PROJECT SITE ·1 I ! COMMON NAME** SCIENTIFIC NAME** STATUS** Violet-Green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina M,Sp Barn Swa11ow Hirundo rustica M,Sp Cl iff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota M,S,F Purple Martin Progne subis V,Sp Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii R Cactus Wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapills R' Catherpes mexicanus i R I Canyon Wren I Rock Wren Salpinctes bsoletus R I i Crissal Thrasher Toxostoma dorsale Sp,S,F 0, j I Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana r~,Sp,F,W 1 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Sp,F Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Polioptila melanura R Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedro rum Sp,F,W Phainopepla nitens I R Phainopepla I Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta I R Scott's Oriole Icterus pari sorum I R,Sp,S,F,W I I I N,F: Lesser Goldfinch I, Cardueiis psattria I I I Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus N,R Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza belineata F, y) Sage Sparrow. Amphispiza belli F,W Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri S,F,W * Compiled from Anza-Borrego Natural History Association Birds in the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Area. ** Nomenclature: American Ornithologists' Union (1957, 1973) *** Status Key R = Resident V = Visitant· S = Summer yi = Winter M = Migrant Sp = Spring F = Fall TABLE 3 CONTINUED BIRDS EXPECTED* ON PROJECT SITE STATUS*** COMMON NAME** SC IENTI FIC NAME Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura R M,Sp,F,W Sharp Shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus R,Sp,F,W Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii V,Sp,F,W Red Shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Rough Legged Hawk Buteo lagopus M, F ,W R Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis R Golden Eagle Aguila chrysaetos Falco mexicanus R Prairie Falcon ..> M,Sp,S,W Peregrine Falcon' Falco peregrinus M,Sp,F Ki11deer Charadrius vociferus R Rock Dove Columba livia R Ground Dove Columbina passerina R Barn Owl Tyto alba R I Great Horned O\~l Bubo virginianus I I R Burrowi ng Ow-' Athene cunicularia ! R I Long Ea red Owl ----Asio otus I, Phalaenoptilus nut ta11 ii R Poo r-\>Ii11 I I Sp,S,F I Lesser Nlanthawk Chordelles acutlpennls R White-throated SWlft Aeronautes saxatalis M,Sp,W Costa's Hummingbird Calypte costae V,F Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius R Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Sayornis nigricans R I, Black Phoebe I R Say's Phoebe Sayornis ~ * Compiled from Anza-Borrego Natural History Association, Birds in the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Area. ** Nomenclature: American Ornithologists' Union (1957, 1973) *** Status Key W = Winter R = Resident V = Visitant S = Summer M = Migrant Sp = Spring F = Fall TABLE 4 MAMMALS OBSERVED AND EXPECTED ON PROJECT SITE COMMON NAME SCI ENTI FIC NAME* DETECTION** HABITAT ., Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus auduboni a CS I arizonae Black-ta i1ed Jack Lepus californicus deserticola 0 CS Rabbit Whi te-ta il ed Antelope Ammospermophilus leucurus 0 CS Squirrel leucurus Round- ta i1ed Ground Spermophilus tereticaudus a DIS Squirrel tereticaudus I Southern Pocket Gopher Thomomys bottae boregoensis B I DIS Coyote Canis latrans 0, S I CS, DIS EXPECTED Merriam's Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys merriami arenivagus Desert Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys deserti deserti Desert Woodrat Neotoma lepida lepida Western Pipestrel Pipistrellus hesperus hesperus Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus pallidus California Myotis Myotis californicus californicus Brazilian (Mexican) Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana I Free-tailed Bat I I Little Pocket Mouse Perognathus longimembris bangi I Desert Pocket Mouse Perognathus penicillatus angustirostris Spiny Pocket Mouse Perognathus spinatus rufescens Cactus Mouse Peromyscus eremicus eremicus Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus sonoriensis Southern Grasshopper Onychomys torridus pulcher Mouse * Nomenclature Bond (1977) ** 0 = Observed; B = Burrow; S = Scat *** Habitat ." " CS = Creosote Bush Scrub DIS = Disturbed TABLE 5 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OBSERVED OR EXPECTED* NUMBER COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OBSERVED 1 Leopard Lizard Crotaphytus wislizeni 8 Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus occidentalis 1 Desert Spiny Iguana Sceloporus magister Desert Side Blotched 2 Lizard Uta stansburiana stejnegeri 3 Long-tailed Brush Lizard Urosaurus graciosus Expected ** Desert Iguana Dipsosaurus dorsalis dorsalis Zebra-tailed Lizard Callisaurus draconoides Co11ard Lizard Crotaphytus collaris Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Phrynosoma m'calli; Desert Banded Gecko Coleonyx varieqatus variegatus Western Brush Lizard Urosaurus graciosus Desert Horned Lizard Phrynosoma platyrhinos Gilbert Skink Eumeces gilberti Sonora Gopher Snake Pituophis melanoleucus affinis Common King Snake Lampropeltis qetulus Colorado Desert Crotalus cerastes laterorepens Sidewinder Colorado Desert Shovel- Nosed Snake Chionactis occipitalis annulata Red Racer Masticophis flagellum piceus Southwestern Speckled Rattlesnake Crotalus mitchelli pyrrhus Red Diamond Rattlesnake Crotalus ruber ruber Desert Night Snake Hypsiglena torguata deserticola * Nomenclature from Stebbins (1966) and Sloan (1964). ** Anza-Borrego Desert Natural History Association. The Reptiles and Amphibians of Anza-Borrego State Park. ! ., TABLE 5 (CONTINUED) AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OBSERVED OR EXPECTED COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Western Long-nosed Snake Rhinocheilus lecontei lecontei l Desert Patchnosed Snake Salvadora hexalepis Southern Pacfic Rattle- snake Crotalus viridis helleri Pacific Tree Frog .!:Ii!.! reg i11a Great Basin Whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris tigris Western Spadefoot Toad Scaphiopus hammondii Cal ifornia Toad Bufo boreas halophilus - ,I" ;;I ,' e'l , c.."!" 'i\ G0..,}\~ I "I I'. I·t .II" l: , II t. 1 i Trililer ~I\~ Park I' 'I I' Ii II I' i' II I jI 11 I' t; I' : I! I" I; I I" Iii! Ii i ji.,,~ PAt.M ..1~M4;d~ C;~VQ.!:!. --- - , . L.I " '·Borr~J.:" School T, 11 S j "i ," ,,0 4 :i Well o· 3 \ l'•• 500 ,.1'.- , ,10" 4 -, O' \ Well i._ "I' _·t,·~-• " ')1 ,~ ." o SITE ~ ENSIGN RANCti. 10 ; AIR STRj~ 'li'~j '.-., " ". I "'. I.... I:'" \\ I I Well ....., I. .(\ ·0 c. .../' ." ~, -s--, ." "\ :, .... \ '<'..:c..":' .r ~ . ."o r: Q' ,",.'" -Gr ave! -. ,', Pit Title: ULTRASYSTEMS, INC. U.S.G.S. MAP APPENDIX E THE RARITY-ENDANGERMENT-VIGOR-DISTRIBUTION CODE* 1 R (RARITY) 1 - Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed wideiy enough that the potential for extinction or extirpation is low at this time. 2 - Occurrence confined to several populat~ons or to one extended. population. 3 - Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. E (ENDANGERMENT) 1 - Not endangered. 2 - Endangered in a portion of its range. 3 - Endangered throughout its range. v (VIGOR) 1 - Increasing or stable in number. 2 - Declining in number. 3 - Approaching extinction or extirpation. D (DISTRIBUTION) 1 - More or iess widespread outside California. 2 - Rare outside Calfiornia. 3 - Endemic to California. * California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants, Special Publication NO.1 (2nd Edition) April 1980. Literature Cited Anza-Borrego Desert National History Association - The Birds of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park: The Mammals of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park; The Reptiles and Amphibians of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Burt, W. H. and Grossenheider R. P. 1976. A Field Guide to Mammals. Hougton Mifflin Company, Boston. 189 pp. Cal ifornia Native Plant Society: Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1. (2nd Edition) April, 1980. Higgins, E.B. 1949. Annotated Distributional List of the Ferns and Flowering Plants of San Diego County. California. Dec. Pap. S,.D. Soc. Nat. ~ist. No.8. 174 pp . . McMinin, H.E. 1974. An Illustrated Manual of California Shrubs. Univ. Cal if. Press. 663 pp . Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. Univ. Calif. Press 1085 pp , Sams, J.R. and Stott, K. 1959. Birds of San Diego County, California. An Annotated Checklist. Dec. Pap. S.D. Soc. Nat. Hist. No.1D. 49 pp , Sloan, A.J. 1964. Amphibians of San Diego County. Dec. Pap. S.D. Soc. Nat. Hist. No.13. 40 pp. Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibiar.s. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston. 179 pp. Udvardy, M.D.F. 1977. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds: Western Region. Alfred A. Knoph, Inc. 855 pp. ,I j PROJECT BIOLOGISTS I David Clark Ultrasystems, Inc. (714) 752-7500 Survey: January 30, 1981 Ted L. Hanes, Ph.D. California State University, Fullerton (714) 773-3614 Survey: April 9, and April 14, 1981 Oscar F. Clark University of Calfiornia, Riverside (714) 686-3746 Survey: February 18, 1981 (Report incorporated by reference from Borrego Country Club General Plan Amendment EIR) ~·~\·· . . ~' e."" . .. DR. TED L. HANES Dr. Hanes is Associate Professor of Biology at California State University, Fullerton. He teaches courses in plant ecology, general ecology, botany, biology, crisis biology, ecological internship and graduate seminars in ecology and.environmental assessment. His current research interests are in fire ecology of California chaparral and the inventory of natural areas in Southern California. Dr. Hanes holds three degrees in plant sciences from UCLA, a Master's degree from Claremont Graduate School in Science Education, and has done graduate work on various subjects in biology at Indiana Univer- sity, California Institute of Technology, University of Iowa, and Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies. He has received research grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Park Service to carry out work on fire ecology, pollution problems, and natural areas. He has been resident ecologist and naturalist several summers at the National Audubon Camp of the West, Dubois, Wyoming. He is active in several local, state and national ecology and conservation organizations and is a con- sultant to Ultrasystems, Inc. on environmental planning, wildland manage- ment, and ecological impact studies. His professional memberships include: National: Sigma Xi Ecological Society of America American Institute of Biological Sciences American Association for the Advancement of Science American Scientific Affiliation The National Audubon Society The National Geographic Society State: California Native Plant Society Southern California Botanists (1961-present; Board Member 1968-present; President 1969-1971) The Nature Conservancy, Southern California Chapter (1963-1972; board member, past treasurer and vice chairman 1967-1971) Tri-County Conservation League Southern California Academy of Sciences California Natural Areas Coordinating Council (Director and Regional Chairman) California Native Plant Society. President of the Southern California Botanists Chapter (1972). , ,I ·.\.· • 'Sf: e• . .f • DR. HANES (Continued) 1 Dr. Hanes has recieved honors from: W. Atlee Burpee Award - UCLA, 1950 National Science Foundation Faculty Fellowship - UCLA, 1961-1962 1 N.S.F. Research Grant - Chaparral Succession, 1966-1968 California State College, Fullerton Faculty Grant, 1969-1970 National Park Service Grant - UC Davis, 1971-1972 Consultant: Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder, Colorado 1971-1972 Dr. Hanes' publications include: Hanes, T.L., 1973. Chaparral ecology of the San Gabriel Mts., California In preparation: . 1973. The vegetation called chaparral. Proceedings ~S~ym-p-o-s~i-um--o-n~Livingwiththe Chaparral, Univ. Calif. Riverside, Calif. (in press) __ ~ __ ~~~. 1971. Succession after fire in the chaparral of southern California. Ecol. Monogr. il. (1): 27-52 ~'--~-'---077' 1970. California sage and chaparral. Grizzly - Bul. Tucker Wildlife Sanc. 1(2): 7-10 __ ~ __ ~~ __ ' 1967. Problems related to biology in the junior college. Amer. Bio. Teacher 29 (8): 639-640 Hanes, T.L. and H.W. Jones. 1967. Postfire chaparral succession in southern California. Ecology 48 (2): 259-264 Hanes, T.L. et al. 1966. General Biology laboratory manual. Brown Book Co., Iowa. 295 pp. Hanes, T.L. 1965. Ecological Studies on two closely related chaparral shrubs in southern California. Ecol. Monogr. 34: 213-235 Patric, J.H. and T.L. Hanes. 1964. Chaparral succession in a San Gabriel Mountain area of California. Ecology 45 (2): 353-360. David D. Clark Mr. Clark is a Project Manager at Ultrasystems, Inc., and is primarily responsible for the preparation of environmental impact reports (ErR's), environmental assessments (EA's) and related special studies. Mr. Clark received his Master of Science Degree in Ecology and Bachelor of Arts Degree in Biology from California State University, Fullerton. Mr. Clark has augmented his educational background with additional study in Environmental Impact Analysis, Statistical Analysis, Urban Planning Problems, etc. He is currently pursuing a Master of Business Administration Degree from California Polytechnic University, Pomona. Prior to joining the professional staff at Ultrasystems, Inc., Mr. Clark was employed as an Environmental Systems Analyst and Proposal r'1anagerwith Systems Control, Inc. (formerl Y 01son Laboratories). During this period, he was actively involved with a number of U.S. E.P.A. Inspection/Maintenance programs for the control of automotive emissions at the State level. Mr. Clark has conducted a number of biological assess- ments under the sponsorship of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). His most recent effort has included an exhaustive analysis of utility construction impacts on the vegetation and soils of arid environments. Project emphasis was placed on vegetational inventories, soil dynamics and computer modeling. He has taught environmental and ecological courses at California State University, Fullerton, and Cerritos College. He holds a Teaching Credential in California. Mr. Clark has numerous publications in both the engineering and environmental fields. Recent publications include: 1. "Resource Allocation Patterns in Two Annuals of the Ca1iforni a-Sonoron Desert." Submitted to Ecologia, 1979. , '\.-.\ ·f· . ~ • \.. . David D. Clark - (Continued) e) · 2. "An Analysis of Construction Effects on Vegetation and Soil s of the Colorado Desert." Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Riverside. 1 3. "Xylem Anatomy Variation in Creosote Bush (Larrea tridentata) of the Southwest Deserts." In prepara- tion. 4. "Evaluation of Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance Programs for the Control of Automotive Emissions." U.S. E.P.A. ;I'.' ',-- , . . . e TABLE 5 (CONTINUED) AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OBSERVED OR EXPECTED COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME western Long-nosed Snake Rhinocheilus lecontei lecontei Desert Patchnosed Snake Salvadora hexalepis Southern Pacfic Rattle- snake Crotalus viridis helleri Pacific Tree Frog ~ regilla Great Basin Whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris tigris Western Spadefoot Toad Scaphiopus hammondii Cal Hornia Toad Bufo boreas halophilus 1 li~bbs,e.L., G.S. Bien, Bllj H.~. Suess 1960 La Jolla N~tural Radiocarbon Measurements I. Radio~~~bur, 2:197-223. Kroeber, .'::J.•• L. j 1925 Handbook of the Il:,-ii.-;:::,. of C.cc1i:ornia..\"ashington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute, Bureau 0:" American Ethnology Bulletin, 78: 1-995. 1 Kr oebe r , .;lfred L. and H.J. Harner 1955 t·:ojavePottery. U .C•.Anthropological Records 16 (1). 1 Berkeley. !-lay,Ronald V. 1975 A Brief Survey of Kumeyaay Ethnography: Correlations Between Environmental Land-Use Patterns, Material Culture, and Soci~l Organization. PCAS 11:4: 1-25. 1977 No Title. Unpublished.Manuscript Draft. Neighan, Clement w. 1959 Archaeological Resources of Borrego State Park. Archaeological Survey ~,nual Report. 1958-1959, pp. 185-216. UCLA. 1965 Pacific Coast Archaeology. In The Quarternary of the United States, Wright and Frey, Eds. 1954 "A Lo:te Complex in Southern California Prehistory." Southwestern Journal 0: A~throDolocv, Vol. 10, No.2, pp , 215-227. University of New l·.exicoPress, Albuquerque •. Michelsen, Ralph C. 1967 "Pecked l·letatesof Baja Cc;1ifornia." The !';asterkev South,,·,estl'iuseurn PuoLicatii on s , l~lcratto, 1972 ~ Study of Prehistory in the Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation presented to the Dept. of Anthropology, University of Oregon. O'Brian, T.P. 197 3 ':'2 rerru c ;\:r-t i £ ~ ct.s in Pc:.-r i s Hes e r vo i r t-: ~c:~z:cGlog~": :.J~t e ?rt211i.storic Demogr-:'lp:1ic CL~ng(~ in SOU-::~0~~:.(:rn C~1..ii. :I.F. O'Conn<21l et al., I:~::'s. i'lrchaeol.ogic:'lRepoY't 1.<;, California Dept. of Pa rk s and Reo reet i on , SaCrame!lto. Rog~rs, ::.-.lcum ~J. 1936 "Yuman_ pctt,".ry:/.·akJ.'ng."San _ ~ • D;eqo~ I'v'useu- '." P=-apers, No. 2, S~'n Diego. Southw2st8rn Journal -'of Ant.h r ooo.l ocv (d): J67-198. Schroeder, Albert H. 1958 Lower Colorado Buff Ware in Pottery Types in the Southwest. ~:useum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series. 31. Spier, Leslie 1923 "Southern Digueno Customs". University of California Pu bLi cat.Lon s in Americ Strong, w, D. 1929 "Aboriginal Society in Southern California." Universitv- of California Publications- in American Archaeoloov and Ethnology 26. Berkeley True, D.L. 1970 "Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Corr.plexin Cuyamacu Rancho State Park, San Diego, California." Archaeoloaic Wilke, P~illip J. 1974 Sctt1cme:lt 3:1C subs i st cnc e at Perris Reservoir: SUI7'JLI.37"y of ;\!"c:-Jc:eclogicl::-~l Lnve s t i qa t i on s , Perris ReservoiL ..o.:-cna0clogy,Late Pr.ehistoric ;)emograohic C!:~-:-:l1(ft,::. ~ Sc,:~t;:I:-'<·::.-:::·.:.::r:1 C,::J.i. z c r c.i.e , S.F. 01 Cannel, ~ al., ens. Archaeological Report 14. Sacramento Dept. of Parks and Recreation. 1 i 1 I 1 I APPENDIX F ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA DR, DAVID M, VAN HORN Bean, L.J. nnd K.S. Saubel 1961 H C~~:·!ui.ll.=l[.'tl::j,obotonic..:;l r~otes. The Aboriginul Uses of. The Jowsqui t e and sc rewoean; " ~ Arcna~ological Survey Annual R~oort. Dean, Jo~n Lowel .... ; 1972 Mukat's People. Banning: Malki Museum Press. Bean, L.J. and K.S. saubel 1972 'I'emalpakh: CDhuilla I:.dian f"-.l10wledgeand Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning. 1961 Cahuilla Ethnobotanical Notes: The Aboriginal uses ' , .: .' .:"~ of 1ne Ock, ~ Arch~eoloaical Survey Annual Report. Bean, Lowell, J. and Shipek, Florence C. -. : 1978 Luiseno. In the Handbood of North American Indians, v. 8, 550f£. Washington, D.C. Bettinger, Robert L. 1974 Dating the Per:ds Reservoir Assemblages. Perris Reservoir Archaeology. Archaeological Report 14, Cal. Dept. of parks and Recreation. Sacramento. .1974 Environment and Ethnogrephy at Perris Reservoir • Pt':rrisR~se:voir .~.rchaeology. Archaeologicc:l Repo:::-t14~, Cal. Dept. of Parks and Recreation. Sacrame:.to. Colton, :i.S. 1939 ;' .."'1 Archaeological Survey of Northwestern Arizona, Including t.ne Descriptians of Fifteen new Pottery Types. Bc:1:!..etin 9£ the f1useum of Ar i zone , 16 ~.-'~04~ ...... y 'po ~ ...::.~. IS'56 r .....,l...... t;..... -il ~... or Ceramic Se.ries 30, Museum of Northern Arizona. Euler, Robert C. & Henry Dobyns 1958 'I'iz.(l!1 B~o·\/.'n.~'lcre in :Pcd::.tc:!-yT)-'pcs of the Sout:h'.,.,Test. Ejited by B.S. Colton. j·juseum of Northern Ariz~ ~PTC\-!~~('~,3rl'as ~_l~n~~~f~_-. ~~.::~-=- ::;..::.& ~NJo ...• ..,.;.-.~~ - l...l.,i""-~- Eeizc:::~, ;'.•F. z,nd Whipple, t-; ... \. 1951 Th2 Califcr"ii:l I':ld:i.an5 .• Universit~r of C2:ifornia 1973 Pre::.:;s, Berk e l.ey List of Figure~ Fig. 1 Subject property plotted on the 7.5' USGS Clark Lake and Borrego Sink Topographic Quadrangles. I. i Fig. 2 Archaeological sites on subject property. j Fig. 3 Survey route map. i t Fig. 4 A. Southern portion of subject property looking northwest. B. Northern portion of subject property looking northwest. -~ Area shown is part of the abandoned golf course now over- grown with weeds. Fig. 5 A. Modern development in south-central portion looking northwest. B. Golf course on perimeter of modern development. C. Old irrigation ditch in northern portion of property looking east. Fig. 6 A. Site A looking north. Northern boundary of site is approximately 50 yds. in front of the date palms. B. Tizon Brown Ware sherd (just right of stake) at Site A. Fig. 7 A. Site B looking southwest. Note trailer park beyond site. B. Sherds at site B. Fig. 8 A. Vicini Ly of light sh er-dscatter designated as Site C. Looking northwest.. B. Sherds at the site shown above. 1" ..!lM+~>J~ C~y~ .._ '::- __ ...... 'Horre~o School .,,; �I o Q:, :t. !. • -, < \ \. ~ 0' - ~'. o e··Ct.! •'). Q I •o I ~" \ \ I \ '",~, c o' \ ., "m \ o l c \, \ \ .,llil. I " wa v BM 50 \, Figure 1. Property Survey- ed Plotted on 7.5' USGS Clark Lake and Borrego Sink Topographic Quad- rangles. FIGURE 2 i A large scale map depicting the location of the archaeological i t sites on the project site is available for review by qualified archaeo- logists at the County of San Diego Environmental Analysis Division. ~.1·.~. ' ! ': ;' '. i" ',.:" ~:., .. IORGI DI " 1 c ~ 1'17- I ::\ ' . -, t BORR£G o I/AL LEY RO ..J F~'.gure 3. Survey Route Hap. O()()12 -----_. --'---'--...... _ ..._------.. 1 '1 ,i fl. SuuLhcr-n l"lt'I';UII of subj cc t. p,'upel'L'y I I'uk i Ilg uort.hwe s t., (){)()1:C ----- ;liOI'thl'I'1I pUI'1 ion of subj cc : pl'Opl'!'l.\' 1,),)l\inb IHlI'l hh'l~~ l . /\r'en shown i" 1':11'\ ,>[' til,' abandoned t-:01 r (,:\JlIr~C' JIO\\~ ove rgi-own wi til \\'L'C'd s , Fic.t1 13. "uUJ{',"' cou r-s e on ?e~"'ii:-:cter of ~ludcr'll Ucvc]upmclll 1.1 /\ . modc r» deve Loprne.rt suuLh-cCll Lr:11 po rt.i ou 1",,1, i llg nor thwc s t., ,OOOI r. UI:~; '.'~"lbc~:~r.}). c i t ch ~J: u.: r t : j e r: J :'l(-,~-~it.,j-i '.; r p rop e :.,':. 1 (l() l: '. ~:t2 t:. :,\,' " ... .-:' . .. _. M~~~' • fI • . " uorLh . lo"killb I' s i t e is b" I.IJIll OOUj 1 ,,,. ~' ,~. 13. ( ,j 1I ", t S i i t~ s, ,. 'f ' t; ~ 11' , 0001 1 A. Site B looking southwest. Note trailer park beyond site. 00011 lL shc rd- a t, si t.c H. Fig.? lhH I i I A. Vic ini ty of light sherd scatter designated on Site C. Lookir.g northwesl .. o(.() I 1 w .... ,. I). .s i1 L' rei ~.; a'., the si1.:e sriowu above , :.,J i","I' ~' I. , . , '" ~" F.il!,b .. , .. " " I.- ".' ~'... ' .. ; ~l.lh 0)' C.l/i"l ,..:; ,. n.• f; """U-~,," "'JIif"(.'\' t'1...... \n~~'_:"fl o r ~.c.ru r t·...~fJ ~h,· fJl·"''l.()~ Ar.CI·il·()L(li':;;:':i~1. Silt :.lj;\VLY rCt-coni) SiT E No ... _._...... _...". .., None .f•• x J. \.!S,,~,O,,:t:; '-'._"Borrego -" S ..·:·..·_··..·---·5·--··-j nk 0':., UTt.~c;''O'~in't~~ 3678,400 N; 59.280 E --- _- _-- - .._- __ _ - -- _ _-- _._ _.------_.-.- ..- ..-_ .. o. r\·;r. .llS _._ _..f1<,~':.: J' .•. _•.tiE _ . : SW '.;.,1 _~~ -,; of '~'.~. _._~ ...... _ .••••.. 6. L::>~;,lo"r. 50.-._to •• 100... meters south4 __ • __ '" of _ .... a date••• _. palm orchard• and• 50 meters._._ ••••• __ • east of DiGiorgio Road about 1 mile southeast of Borrego Springs. _._._ -.-._ _ -.- -_ _.~~_._--.._._-- ..__ .- .-_.. _ __ _ .. _ --_ .._- _.__ __ . _ ..-~ __ _ .. ----...'-'_._'---"'- .... -..------_.- .., ..... - ..__ ..__ .__ ._-----..- ...... _.-._..._-_ ..._----_._ ..._ .._..-...... _- _..._ .. (.~. la. ..;;cal t e.r• .lIL~[j.;?'.9.n ..• ~ r:9!".rLW ,. . '. D"l)tt. l)i f/'id:i~1) ~~~~J:..s..::~~_d_~ Same--- Well for date palm orchard, no perennial water in vicin.l ...•.... _....._ ..__ ._.. _ .._ ... --_._- -_.--_~",-.",.._------.-_.",-- ---_ ....- s,;:" ~::::i! ....d~_ sandy •._. loam •• Surf()l,r..:iiiK:.. !J 50il Same ._ •• .._ ..... __ ~__ ,~ I. None HI~. Property scheduled for development ...... _ .._~ - ...... - ..-..__ •.._ .... _~_._...... -._._'~._----_ ..---...._--- ... -_... _--_._-_ ...... None None T.i zon Brown Wa r-esher-ds- no other culturaJ ma terial s observed. 2~'. f".1:..1:·. ·~.iF~t"r""'';''~(\::' ._.•.._ -~O-~ ... __...•. _0._, ..._._ '_"_ .. _" .• ,...... _ ..... • __ .. _ ••_.b.~1l.eJ:l. .•.•.•. -.•....__ ..• _-_. _. __ _ _.__ . L :W. ~"'t.~.~F; PI,:,-·lI~'·n.--,u.nQO.U fr'-lIP.'.' r-.;(.>...... _ •. _ .•.,'/ ' .; TI -r'I""\f,l,.· ...... ' .~B'/W .. l-""'Co-" n.",." -_._._.Van Horn ._ () ) ~-, ; ·:''''1 ... _ .._ r1r:,i", o~H~I,.'r:r~1 lrtt,~'.\~, .~~~ _._: .._...__....__._....._ .•.__ -1 - •• ------.- -_ •• _ •••• __ •• _- -_. _.- ··--·----- •·• •• _d ... • __ •• __ • __ •• __ ,.~. • .. _. _~_._. _ ------._----_._-_._--_ ..._--_._. ..---_.__._------_ ..... -., __ I I Attached " Attached �~ "'_f': 04 CA~i~'C"J'"~ _. TI'lI; r-.~~...v. ';)I A$IN1'l~1' :>EP.~F"Mt: ...t or '·A~t..:~ .t:,'..:C· r.H:'::a':06.,.ICftt A q C:H i: ()LOG 1Ct, L. St l' F ~;~.:Fi\/ E Y f·lt CO RC' SITE il!o. , . .. . I\OI'I'cg" ~ i t c: " .r , NOllc • :·I~'r..:'~:ny f a.'ltI j.J~~...... • _.. _ .....__"_" . .-.. .._. .. .. •.. . , .. 3. ',o"Jo' tiE; ea s tern Y, 0 l' NE ,., (It Sec. 8 .. __ . __ ._... ~_...... - .."--'- "---'--'- _._--_._ .._._ ... C ,.O,')1,':,.-. .QD!? _J1)_~~~y~~~~.~_ 7. C:·"io:,,' ._5.&0 8. :-j'!."~:&. ;d~r~-ss ..-"-'~"'e"'---"e.d...D"""l ...... L..-..-n~m"n.t , .._"-r ». _ •.__ .._.•_.__ ~. ;·:'.'~"'\r.~rt:-x-_ rl'HI8~f::fP~I1t:~_,_ Hi.dOI.C '0. Sit>? Di!~.!vi:io:-. -----.--_._.-.~.__ .--_._--_ .._-----_ ...._----_ ..._------_._-- 101. l~'c~!;"r;;, p"" ;"';"_,)~'N~:(" _\~~I.]_.£2r_?~t_~pal~.?E':.~::.r:9..!_.nope~ennial~~.:"::'-~~_..2:.~?inltJ 1:>. S".f S,,', q!'~E9..Y_!9~I!!.._ ..... S"rrOll"j,,'iJ Soil __ .. _. S_~_e__ , ._ ..__• _ ',G. F,\."':;.)._,s ;2:o.:.:'.'.:Hio:' None .._..- .. _..__ ..' _ ..-_ .... _._--_ .._--_._---_.-. _._._ .._-----_ .._--_ .._-- 11. ::~r:::j"t<;'V:1":" ._._. __ ••Uncertain , __ •••••• __ ._._ •• _._ •• _._ ...... _ •• ••• ... _R •• _··~. __ • __ -.' .. " . • __ ... • 11i. [j.-.; •.-,.:;~., ;·;··,>;~:ility _.E.r..o£e:~y'.~.~.~.e_d.uJe9.J~E._de':~lopme!2~...... _. . '(9. r-::..:.n'JI es "---'--'.'---None- --"---' -~._...._.- .._-_.__._...-. -_._.-_.__._------_._----_ ..•_-_._-- ___ A _'. None• • • __ •• _ •• _ •• •••• • _. • _ ::~. ,'\;-l.;;~~.:_':_:; Ti zan Brown Ware sh e r-d s , s evcr-a l Lower Colorado Hi ver Buff Ware - - .._,--- ...- .- ....•...__ ..__ .- _..-- ..._.__ ...__ ..•...... _.., ..._---_ ..._ .._.__ ._._-_._--_ ..... _------. ..- •• .' •••••sherds• on• northern• ••• __ •• , •••• periphery.' ••• __ .' ••••••• _ ,_~ • __ • No other~. __ k •• ~_ ._ •• cultural• .... _. materials... observed~ . • ... ._ •...... _-_ -_._. _. ,_ .....•. -- -- _.__ ._. _ __ ..,.- ._.__ ----_._._- __ -_._-.-.------._.- .._ .._...... -.._--_.----_ .... -- .._ .•...._ ... _.- --_.-- --_._-.--_~..----...--_._ ..------_._-- ...•.-- _ ..- -..,.-_ _ -._--_ ..-._---- ..,.-_.- -. _ .., .- _ _ ...•' -..- -_ _ .•._._.- ._----,-_._.,------..~ _._- _ _ "---'-"'--' .." --- - _" ..- _ -- -- _ -.._._ ..- -.--_.._------_._- Pr-ob ah l y.. .a _,_gathering _.•.. _ .~_si _ l.e • .k.__No indications ._.·.. _.. of occupation.· .._··_~,_ - ~ _ _._--- ..'-'- .-.- _ ..- _. -,_ ---- - _ ..__ .._.•...._-_ ..__ .._ -~--.._------_ .._-_._. "J , ~'I. :··"..':.""·C" r""O __ ._ . __ ?~. · :.:~'. '.' "1, '. (1 :.·.1.• : .... ;··. ; !•.;:;-,!.~.;-. _._,- ... ~-.,-_.....- ... .._~_.,_.-... -._-_ --..---- _.~ "--"-"-" -. '~"-'- --.~ -"--_._- .•.._.._.- _ '-'-_ ..---.__ ..- .- . ----_.- ---_.,_ _--, ..,.._-_ .._- '. -- -.-..---._ .._..-._-,_ - -_ -----._ __ _-._. -~-- .... - •• - .... -.---,-- •• - ••• ------.... __ .-_._-_.-, •• __ ._-_ •• _- ._- •• _- _. __ • _._-, -.----. 0 ._- ... - '" Attached IIttached (li'~,Q,n~MrNT cr fln.n,..!= ,r.~rl ~f('f,;'~","\CH" ~. P CH r"f: ~_()G; (: ;\t. St T t:. ~:.\) 1":\ \/ F. YH r: co Rt; SiTE f~o. .__ ~_..".. -_~_...... r"h -U:' ~'..1:- :i~~:':;!')"lli(Jrt .••..• ' _ _ ~ ._ .• _ _ .,. '.'.' _ _ •.. ';' l:I~::--:": ftf',' r IL':\.~tH.·. B_QT.:'~.&.Q,-S_"Lt_e.._.C -_ ,.• :3 US~;<. V,.:.:' .f.~ils.L~~~~.._...... i', ..2S. __ 1":' . . \'eal . .J,.~.5.;l__.• ...... - _" 36 5 ~. UT~J ~~';,~d:Mt ~ ?~}}-?9.N_i._._.._5.gI.!§P£: _..-.. - -_ - -- _-- -- ' .. 6E :,j . y ...,;;:'. 11S .:; L,"':"'":',I'. .(ldj,~.:.~::-_t:.o_~~~~i.9~ ?!....Di9..~o.r.E.i..9_.!.'\.9..:...L-_9E~_~ndJ.z...!!!.i I ~~_.-_. .- ' ..ESE- of-...• Borrego-, , _.- springs'- ._. . ~_,._..•... ' ..-'- .-_ _. - __ _." -_.__ - ~__ ~_ _._' _ __ __ .- ____ •••••• •__ ._. _ ••• __ • • __ _ ••••• _~_._ ••••• •• '•• H _ •• _. ._. __ ._M •• ··_' •• _~ ~_._ r .- •••• _- .. r_'~ .• _. ,•• _~.,_ ,- ... _,_~. __ .- ._-.-.-- .. _. -,--_ •• -_ ... __ .... '._-_ •• __ •• __ ••• _, •••• _ •• _._-. ------••-.---- ... ~ •••.- _ ••-_.--'- • . ,---_ ~ _._~ ,... . _ -, __ .._ " '.'~--"-"- ._. -_ __ _.._.__ .._ .._ --- ..Ecd.c=-Lt:.d_.Uc.>.i.c.Lopmcnt.Lo...... _- .'-'.' ...... _ ... 7, Hi. -Small-- .. l.i.gttt.. ~hs:r.9 .. fi(;. __ • __ ••• .... _.,._ .. _. . •• _ .... a ••• _ .. __ ._ ••• ' ~ •• -.--- ••- •.• --.- .. --- .. -.-.-~----- 'i? 1j. ~~.rr~~20 ,4. L~;J!i:"i" .!}.. f"':'~.i:~I;~'1(;f "\~~t~~_~._S>.::~l',.~.?9:~rn.~~S _ i1}~i9.tni ty .----- ...-.-- ...... ---.-.--...--. i~. " r' ~~"i,-.9E~._~."':~..9.L.l.03..~.. --._- $ulI'-'lpdiIl9 SOil J?~ .._---._ ..------.- Hi. Pl"r'~;(Y.:~ f~~:';~';;,lOP -'---'--"-'-'"None - --_ _ ..- -._-_ ~_--_._.._-_._----.------_. __ .- 17. S." ;J;..'; -r. ..,,"c ...... ~.o~s.t;:~~:0_~~ ..~f·..I?~GLo.!".&i.. !~. r.)~.-..!~~::..;;.~.-. ~'.y.~..;tld:l·{ ..._~E~~p'e.~~J'._:::~~.~.~::~..~_-\~_~.~,..~_~.~~!-~P_~E_..__.._~-.__..__.__.-'''-----_ .... ..._ __ N()ne- . -_ .•..'.' -._. - --_ _ _- -.- ..-.__ .__ .._----_ _.-. __ ..__ ..- _ ...•---_.. ...-. N()ne...... ~.._.-._ ...._.~.~ ..-.- .. -,...... ::.:'0. _----_._----- _ - __ __ _._-- _- __ __ _.__~__ _------_.-,._ _ _- 'l'i zon Br()wn \~are sh e rd s - no other cultural material observed . .._ _ '_ .._- _ -.' - ._.- -..' .., ~ _----- '-"'-' ..~._-_.-.--, _ ~..--_.__ ._-.__..-._- .- _._ -_ _.- _- -- .....•..-..- .__ __ '.-..-_."- .-..-"'-'-'.- --_ .._ -----_.------_ _-.._ ..- ---_. "'_ _--...•.. ---_.- -_._ ..~ -._ -._-_.- - _.__ ._.._ .._-_ - _.------._.._-- _ ..--_..•- _ .... _...... _ •. ..• . .•. __ , •. ,_._ •• _ •. .•. .• _ ••.. __ • _. • • __ . w. _ ... .. __None .._._0 ... _ observed .... __ .. __.._ ...._ _- -_~_.-_ __ _---_._-_._--_ _---.- 0'_'._' __ .' ..._...._..._..__ ..__ ._...,_._~._.._ ._w. __ ·_· .. __ • . .. -._- .• ----0· ...... - ..-..-.----- ...------,~ ...-----'_. _ _._ .._.• •__ ..• _...•_ •. __.....•_.•.•~_ .• _..r.,,_ ...••__.__ ._•••••• _.•---- •.-..-- .•••------•.,.• '-"-- ;-:1 '.:''~'''"r,(!;;Is His t.o.r.ic. .. sb.e.r.ds .•als.o. ...pxe s.ent; ~__..Ro~ ..d.~.Q;Y.eQ...... ~~--_· ..·_ ....- •._ _..p.er.~g.e..Qf....si:t.e. .. _------._. ---.-.- --.----- ._ _...•.. Hoau C01\,.; l ruc t...i 01\ '.' ';, \' , , , .Il 'I:, I . t. ". I' .: .1., , . :.. " . .: ,~". ~ j. i I _ .._.b.e_.p.r e.sen:t.. ..an .±ru::....w.e.sL.si de. .nf....ihe...... r.D.aQ...", .."'....i:hi..s-ar.=-.w.as. ...D 0 t S II rv.e¥..e d . .as ...i.J:._._... ._ .•l'{Sl.§.._nQt.ii....nflX:t. ..of_..tb...e_§.l!.!?j_~.£.t.f!rop_~r.ty,__. .__ .._ ...... _...... _. Attached Attached ...... * \f... .., .'- ...... , , ...... -"-' ...~ • ,.. _. Page of -----i<.EPOi-:T U:; i\.l(CHAEOLOGIC.'-LS11E---_._------nLES ;(E:\~.OKDSfA'{C!i ._-----_ .._._-_._- )Telephone () In Pcrso' Date of Request: 29 January 1979 v na t e Re que s t Rec e fved : 30 Janu21ry 1979 (" )l1ap Received ~.(}me of I'r oj e c t : Borreec SpriTlgll are;. {or the proj ec t area. ( ) Tile Xuseum of ~~anfiles shov no recorded sites ( )witbin (X):!.n the vicinity uf ~ ) The ~useum of ~Ian files shew the following sites the project area. Sit e No. C-l31 CuI ture (s) :~C=ah::u=~::.·l::.l::a::....------_-- _ Des c r i p t i on : Ger:erc:l site TDJ,mherfoT' Bcr1~r,o V.;lJey; many campa i.t-es v.i.t.b cobr-Le h~arths, crematio~~, shcrdB,etc. No specific locations. Recorded by: ~.~i.JiQgerl'!_ Sit e !\o. (",-L90 Culture(s): !.ate Pre-hi.storie Description: Ca~p site; hearths; stacked rocy. circle; hammerlltones; cores; flakes/dr:bitage; scrapE'rs; metr.tef'il manosj sherde ; shell; ratouched,toolsj milling slabs. Recorded by: R.Mar 1977 Ple~se note: The project area may contain arch~eolocica] reEources in addition to those noted above . TIlls r epor t is made frOID San Diego }!usellffi of Man files on l.v and may not include data pertai~ling to loc6li.ties other than those cove' in previous Museu'l'. of l"w'l.Il surveys or g"thered by other institutl;.Jrts 0:- by individuals. Record check by: Grace Joh~qon Date: 31 JanuDry 1979 S:!.gned: 1 .. ,I :,7.:- , I ~, I I " :..-,':.: .e' .. i ...... ~ It I I \ I I I I .... ~. I ~i ... ~'" I -, ~I ..... - ! :I i ...... ~'-'~'" :':." -:.;-..- .. ,",. ~ ':~~"':' \."",,- '.''':'~:'' I ... t:·····~-.. ,' -'-"--r I " I ...... - .._ .. - .._ . ~- '" _ _ ...~ ...._--- -. - -~ .. ' ., .I I - I ,I . ' I ~, ~~ ~~ I ~ 1-' !,:'\ ~'". --t-; -,-. '" , t-, ", , , .'1 -" o ',-~',,{l'"""'(1 . ~i.:.~ :J •.....'1·:. -::: ,:I "~P rin g s "i': ", u ,~. ".. "f' I ii-, '1 ,'..,.-:";--r---":'"-:-~---- \ . i ,', ~.; " '" \. ., " ;'~ ~ J .. I " " I, .' 1r-GO ,"",~'AT:- DI IC- ~!f\it: Uf~IVERSiTY ~;"N DiEGO, CAliFCfi~llt, 921G2 Date o~ Rf~uest--JnnuarJ 29, 1979 1979 :Pro~e-:-t Iden-:.i.fication- CLark Lake, Borr~go Stilk (X) l'he SIil:iDicbO 3tate U:.iversity files show no recorded site for the ?,::;,jec-;; t::" L. ) The files shos.. positive site Locat Icas i.e. the vicinity/on tne project area. ~ite forms are in:lu~ed. ""4.,-:Jeu-" . . THE CAliFORNiA STATE UNII'EfiS,TY ANi) COLlEG~5 Il"'1, I -" ",': - ; -, I I I I ..',"" 1'.,,' I ( I :;1 1 -, . ~' .-. 1" . "', I t..\ " r . I ,-' I I l ...... -.;. ....~ .-. -, C;'::":''::'' _ •• •. 1 :' , , ..!tV....,:::~._._ - _ ~- , -; ,' e-. ....• :•• ...... : _ - • L.I •• - I .:.". .. ,- - 1 . H"!";f'l~n&·};r..;)l ) jY-'~ ~ I - ~1 ; .1' I ••.•.. ~ #. .,-_~' i" r __ • ~."""-- .. ,,,.< - .. ' I ..... ,'- .: - .-:~; --.- ~: , ' ",,)• • ~1-, ,- .,,~.. e ".;, ,i 0 '. -,., I} d- r r (' \re: ,;,1 " > .'; '"'~ A ",I ': ~prin~,. ...' . ~, lNr.:CN k',Neil iu . ~lIj ',Ilt;!' \ " ,. ~; \, \. ;, ,: /.'/- I v, ~ . "~'~ ~ I' ~ ; \ i', ...... "••r .- -,- w··f 16 I ,"n if, " ..'~ \ SAN DIEGO MUSEUM OF MAN \ 1 1350 EI Prado, Balboa Park, San Diego, California 92101, Telephone (714) 239·2001 Page of-I 1 REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES RECORD SEARCH Source of Request: Archaeological As~ociate~ - David M. Van Horn \ ( ) In Perso I Date of Request: ------'----29 January 1979 (X)Letter ()Telephone Date Request Received: 30 January 1979 (X)Map Received (X)Map Returned Name of Project: Borrego Springs area ( ) The Museum of Man files show no recorded sites for the project area. ~) The Museum of Man files show the following sites ( )wi thin (x) in the vicinity of the project area. Site No. C-131 CuI ture (5) :_C:::.a:::h:..:.u:::.:~::;·l::;l::a:..- _ Description: General si t e number for Borrego Valley; many campsites 'With cobble hp.arths, cremation~, sherds,etc. No ~pecific locations. Recorded by: M.J .Rogere Site No. c-h90 Cu Lture Ls ) : Late Prp.-hist.or:i.c De scri pt Lou : Camp site; hearths; stacked rock circle; hammerstones; cores; flakes!debitage; scrapers; metate~; manos; sherds; shell; retouched tools; milling slabs. Recorded by: R.MaY 1977 CuI ture (5) : _ Site No.----- Description: Recorded by: _ Site No. _ CuI ture (s ) : _ Description: Recorded by: _ CuI tun: (5) : _ Sit", Nu. ----- Description: Recorded by: _ Site No. _ Cu 1ture (s) : _ Description: Recorded by: _ Please note: The project area may contain archaeological resources in addition to thor~ noted above. This report is made from San Diego Museum of Man files on} and may not include data pertaining to localities other than those covered in previous Museum of Man surveys or gathered by other institutions or by individuals. Record check by: Grace John~on " .lanuar-v 1979 I I .\ I ..', , < ~l I .. t,~,,· ..,--- ,·'tlOI'.M\,l _.~l... ,~"l ."".- - - .. 'I'lL '-, !J.. r,"~.h\'1 I I I ,.," I Well :010, I w 33 ~I 1" '. c 34 ~I '"~."1'':-''' l . "'.,-:.• -,.•,';- ", ...- ."':'/01lo~""-"'":'.' ." ..-;.. _ ... ' . 'Q, '. !' r----T 'i .• .. I:", 'Ill"'." .... -i .,...... - .._ ~:.:.:._\Jt-._':~'.~ , I ' ~ -:.:--.-- '; ...... ~'" '. - '/'.,. '--"" • Wi,,-' .. " ' . I' . I ·&r ....ru ~'-' , . , • ,I·: '.' "J. ,.. . -.": I.. t •• -: 'i H .:". 0( 'J I "•, 4 , ,; "i, • " ' " I ...'';, ' .....~. '"s' il. C-13/ '.. ,,, o (Art o-t t?or~e\ VD..I\~I if? '°'1\ . ~, I,• • JI• \ , ." , \ -, ~ :1" , \ SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92182 Depan""f'~l 01 ,A,ntl'IIOPOIOQY REPORT ON ARC~OLOGICAL SITE FILES RECORD SEARCH Source of Request- ARCHAEOLOGICAL AJSOCIATES, LTD Date of Request--January 29, 1979 Date Bequest Received- January 30, 1979 Project Identification- Clark Lake, Borrego Sink (X) The San Diego State University files show no recorded site for the ~oject e: ( ) The files show positive site locations in the vicinity/on the project area. Site forms are included. Record Signed- T"'~ ("'AI I~""RIIJIA C:IATF LJIIJIVFRSITY AND COLLEGES __ I ,I '" < . Il"L ..... ~R <'If, I- -i' . , "'"\ -c, :.'\., '--..' ~'.;~ I ~.:'"_>,,(:'r;~._:·Wal«r 'r . .. 'I w ..u , ,. , " I • I W .. ll I 34 '.it ,., . , ·.N ...... ·'....~~.,·'lt...:.~_: ....".-',,! ...... ,,., ... t·"t;- ..····1,...--.;'....~.~rlr. ~I ." ....,"~ ...,...... , " . '0'. " I I 'i~ . __ ._6 ...... L~.1t_' ._ "_''''YO_''' .-.------.,;.;. ..;,.7:"":- ... ~C.hf''''!'''.lii·· :," . ___ .-.. ..._ .._....-.....~ ...... -...~~ T" . .. , , t ....'j .: J J"~ ~ .~--- , . . ,I ...."'Ilnrr.l:O S.h""l 11 ·rl'~f) " ~. .1~1 ings I j" ~,,. 5 w.!: . ~I '. ..'~. ~~,..:c ... ----_ .._.__ .-- 4 3 o .: ". • -, f '\, ':'; " .., " ~:I ,. \. .. u I " .- ~..- .."' \ ,.' , I o ;',',! I " I I \ -, 10 ,~I \ II '8 c \ e 'f'/" '"Q:: •••• I .: ~ :...... " ""f I ,,; \,1 -:" ~ ~' . " .Y· .. :/ ., , . (,' 'I , i-" --;--.,"-,-._.-;-'1. ' r: ,j 'I .~. 1 i I ~ .. '" .\ :'t I '! L .. j I' 'j ., ,I' . ,.. !\ , ·:~WCll , ' •• 'M I \, ; ....,: " ,§I -';i· I\ t,- "'1(, \ ,\ , ()lJ~"~""• ",. , :,'''-, \ ~\'~ •• :: : \ •! OM 604 I, 1"1 ' \ ,', 1\ !.' "'.~CJO I WA\' ) ...... ~\-' ...... ,:- _.... \ ' I '. 1,'.1 \ "u \ \ .~ ~ \ I, lJru'.1 '- ,.• t'll . ~" .. ' , '. , I I ../ .\.. b~·~~~·~l '. ) . .' ..' APPENDIX G TABLE 1 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS/TILTING T DRIVE Average Daily Traffic 7300. Percent Medium Trucks .5 Percent Heavy Trucks .5 Speed-Autos (MPH) 40. Speed-Trucks (MPH) 40. CNEL Criteria (dB) 55. Distribution of Trcffic Percent Daytime Percent Evenin~ Percent Night Time Autos 77.5 12.9 9.6 M-Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 H-Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 Noise Barrier Geometry Horizontal Distance from Source to Barrier (Ft.) 65.0 Height of Barrier Base Above Roadway Base (Ft.) 0.0 Horizontal Distance From Source to Receptor (Ft.) 80.0 Height of Receptor Above Roadway Base (Ft.) 5.0 Traffic Noise Levels and Noise Barrier Heights Traffic Noise Level (CNEL) Without Noise Barrier 59.9 Noise Barrier Height to Meet CNEL Criteria 6.0 Height of Top of Barrier Above Roadway Base 6.0 Attenuated Noise Level (CNEL) Achieved With Barrier 54.9 ' ..--.... APPENDIX G TABLE 2 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS/BORREGO VALLEY ROAD Average Daily Traffic 16000. Percent Medium Trucks 1.5 Percent Heavy Trucks .5 Speed-Autos (MPH) 45. Speed-Trucks (MPH) 40. CNEL Criteria (dB) 55. Distribution of Traffic Percent Daytime Percent Evening Percent Night Time Autos 77.5 12.9 ~. 9.6 M-Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 H-Trucks 86.5 2.7,; 10.8 Noise Barrier Geometry Horizontal Distance From Source to Barrier (Ft.) 65.0 Height of Barrier Base Above Roadway Base (Ft.) 0.0 Horizontal Distance From Source to Receptor (Ft.) 80.0 Height of Receptor Above Roadway Base (Ft.) 5.0 Traffic Noise Levels and Noise Barrier Heights . Traffic Noise Level (CNEL) Without Noise Barrier 64.7 Noise Barrier Height to Meet CNEL Criteria 10.0 Height of Top of Barrier Above Roadway Base 10.0 Attenuated Noise Level (CNEL) Achieved With Barrier 54.9 ....., APPENDIX G TABLE 3 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS/DI GIORGIO ROAD Average Daily Traffic 6000. Percent Medium Trucks .5 Percent Heavy Trucks .5 Speed-Autos (MPH) 40. Speed-Trucks (MPH) 35. CNEL Criteria (dB) 55. Distribution of Traffic Percent Daytime Percent Evening Percent Night Time Autos 77.5 12.9 9.6 M-Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 H-Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 Noise Barrier Geometry Horizontal Distance From Source to Barrier (Ft.) 65.0 Height of Barrier Base Above Roadway Base (Ft.) 0.0 Horizontal Distance from Source to Receptor (Ft.) 80.0 Height of Receptor Above Roadway Base (Ft.) 5.0 Traffic Noise Levels and Noise Barrier Heights Traffic Noise Level (CNEL) Without Noise Barrier 58.8 Noise Barrier Height to Meet CNEL Criteria 6.0 Height of Top of Barrie~ Above 'Roadway Base· 6.0 Attenuated Noise Level (CNEL) Achieved With Barrier 53.8