DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report Final ReP-ort Hydrological and Biological Support to Lower Santa Margarita River Watershed Monitoring Program Water Years 2008-2009 February 21. 2010 Prepared for United States Bureau of Reclamation ~~~pr.RTMENT OF THE INTE:o ·'". .,. eea..._..~o.. Southern California Area Office, Temecula, California FINAL REPORT HYDROLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SUPPORT TO LOWER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED MONITORING PROGRAM WATER YEARS 2008-2009 TASK ORDER: 07PE308086 GSA CONTRACT: GS-10F-0404P PREPARED FOR UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA OFFICE TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY SCOTT THOMAS, JOEL BARNARD, STEPHANIE GINDLESPERGER, MOLLY PALMER, KEN REICH, STEVE REICH STETSON ENGINEERS INC. SAN RAFAEL, CA AND MATT RAHN, ROBERT CHAPMAN SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO, CA FEBRUARY 21, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NO. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................XVI 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 STUDY DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 STUDY AREA............................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 GENERAL WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................... 1-2 1.3.1 Geologic Setting............................................................................................................................ 1-3 1.3.2 Climate.......................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.3 Streamflow.................................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.4 Habitat and Species....................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.3.4.1 Southern California Riparian Forest..............................................................................................1-7 1.3.4.2 Southern California Coastal Stream ..............................................................................................1-8 1.3.4.3 Riparian Forest, Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral Ensemble ....................................................1-8 1.3.4.4 Coastal Wetland and Dune Ensemble ............................................................................................1-8 1.4 WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.4.1 Sampled Constituent Sources.......................................................................................................1-10 1.4.1.1 Urban Runoff................................................................................................................................1-10 1.4.1.2 Agriculture ...................................................................................................................................1-11 1.4.1.3 Reclaimed Water ..........................................................................................................................1-11 1.4.2 Document Review and Historical Data Collection ......................................................................1-11 1.4.3 Water Quality Thresholds and Basin Plan Limits ........................................................................1-13 1.5 CWRMA .................................................................................................................................................1-18 1.5.1 Background..................................................................................................................................1-18 1.5.2 Simulation of Natural Flow..........................................................................................................1-20 1.5.3 Summary of CWRMA Releases ..................................................................................................1-20 2.0 METHODS............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 CONCEPTUAL MODELS.............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 WATER QUALITY COLLECTION METHODS ................................................................................................ 2-4 2.2.1 Approach to Sampling .................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.2 Locations of Sampling .................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.3 Timing of Sampling ...................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.4 Organization of Sample Suites...................................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.5 Sampling Methods .......................................................................................................................2-10 2.2.5.1 Field Measurements of Water Quality..........................................................................................2-10 2.2.5.2 Sampling for Laboratory Analysis................................................................................................2-10 2.2.5.3 Continuous Monitoring ................................................................................................................2-10 2.2.5.4 Methods for Macrophyton and Periphyton Sample Collection.....................................................2-11 2.2.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)..............................................................................2-11 2.2.7 Methods for Data Cataloging, Access and Control......................................................................2-12 2.3 FLOW EXPERIMENT METHODS .................................................................................................................2-12 2.3.1 Modification of CWRMA Flows .................................................................................................2-13 2.3.2 Flow Measurements .....................................................................................................................2-13 2.3.3 Cross-Sections..............................................................................................................................2-14 2.3.4 Pool Measurements......................................................................................................................2-14 2.3.5 Rapid Biological Assessment Protocol ........................................................................................2-15 3.0 ANALYSIS OF WATER QUALITY......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 WATER QUALITY RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 Stetson Engineers Inc. ii Final Report Santa Margarita River February 21, 2010 Hydrological and Biological Support 3.1.1 Field Measurements of Water Quality .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Laboratory Results of Water Quality Samples.............................................................................. 3-2 3.1.2.1 Adobe Creek ...................................................................................................................................3-5 3.1.2.2 Arroyo Seco and Cole Creek ..........................................................................................................3-5 3.1.2.3 Roblar Creek at Falls.....................................................................................................................3-5 3.1.2.4 Santa Margarita River at FPUD Sump near Fallbrook .................................................................3-5 3.1.2.5 Santa Margarita River at MWD Crossing (SMER) ........................................................................3-5 3.1.2.6 Santa Margarita River near Temecula...........................................................................................3-6 3.1.2.7 Santa Margarita River at Ysidora ..................................................................................................3-6 3.1.2.8 De Luz Creek near De Luz .............................................................................................................3-6 3.1.2.9 Devils Creek at Via Novilla, SMER................................................................................................3-6 3.1.2.10 Fallbrook Creek near Fallbrook ....................................................................................................3-6 3.1.2.11 Rainbow Creek ...............................................................................................................................3-7 3.1.2.12 RCWD CWRMA Outfall .................................................................................................................3-7 3.1.2.13 Sandia Creek near Fallbrook .........................................................................................................3-7
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 5.15: Water Supply
    General Plan Update Section 5.15: Water Supply This section analyzes projected impacts to water supplies and distribution systems that may result from the implementation of the proposed General Plan 2035. The purpose of this analysis is to document and describe the existing water supply, water consumption, and distribution infrastructure in the City of Murrieta, and to evaluate impacts associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan 2035. This section is based upon information from the Eastern Municipal Water District (refer to Appendix L1); Elsinore Valley Water District (refer to Appendices M1, M2, and M3); Rancho California Water District (refer to Appendices N1, N2, and N3); and Western Municipal Water District (refer to Appendices O1 and O2). The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a Federal law intended to protect surface waters of the United States (U.S.), which include lakes, rivers, coastal wetlands, and “waters of the U.S.” The CWA regulates all discharges to waters, which are considered illegal unless authorized by an appropriate permit. Discharge of dredged and fill materials, construction-related storm water discharges, and other activities that may result in discharges of pollutants to waters of the U.S. are regulated by the permit. If waters of the U.S. are located on a project site, the project is likely to discharge to them, due to site topography and/or drainage characteristics. Potential discharges to such waters would be considered an impact, and the applicant would be required to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Setting 2
    2.0 Environmental Setting 2 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting 2.1 Planning Context 2.1.1 Project Location The city of Moreno Valley (city) is located within the northwestern portion of Riverside County in the southern Inland Empire portion of the state of California. Moreno Valley is located approximately 63 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, 49 miles east of the city of Irvine, and 43 miles west of the city of Palm Springs. State Route 60 (SR-60), which runs in an east and west direction through the northern portion of Moreno Valley (east and west direction), and Interstate 215 (I-215), which runs in proximity to the westerly city limits (north and south direction), serve to connect the city to other communities throughout the southern California region. The city is accessible via public transportation by rail, through Metrolink located approximately one-half mile west of the city limits, and the city is accessible via aircraft at the Inland Port Airport located at the March Air Reserve Base (MARB), which is situated south and west of the city limits. The city’s picturesque valley setting is bounded to the north by the Box Springs Mountains, the Badlands to the east, and the mountains of the Lake Perris Recreation Area, Mystic Lake floodplain, and San Jacinto Wildlife Area to the south. The city is also bounded by MARB to the southwest and the city of Riverside to the west. Moreno Valley is a diverse and growing community of approximately 207,000 people. It has a relatively young and dynamic majority Latino population.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Improvement Plan Submitted By
    J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 8 S A N T A M A R G A R I T A R I V E R W A T E R S H E D M A N A G E M E N T A R E A Water Quality Improvement Plan submitted by C O U N T Y O F R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y O F S A N D I E G O R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y F L O O D C O N T R O L A N D W A T E R C O N S E R V A T I O N D I S T R I C T C I T I E S O F M E N I F E E M U R R I E T A T E M E C U L A W I L D O M A R ** This Page Intentionally Left Blank ** Acknowledgements Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Edwin Quinonez, Chief of Watershed Protection Division Stuart McKibbin, Former Chief of Watershed Protection Division Richard Boon, Senior Flood Control Planner Julianna Adams, Senior Civil Engineer Kyle Gallup, Engineering Project Manager David Garcia, Engineering Project Manager Darcy Kuenzi, Government Affairs Officer Rebekah Guill, Associate Flood Control Planner/Monitoring Program Manager Eric Lomeli, Associate Engineer/Former MS4 Permit Manager County of Riverside Scott Bruckner, Senior Management Analyst, Riverside County Executive Office Claudia Steiding, Senior Transportation Planner/NPDES Coordinator Benjie Cho, Senior Civil Engineer Steven Horn, Principal Management Analyst County of San Diego Jamie Milani, Land Use/Environmental Planner II Jo Ann Weber, Watershed Planning Program Manager City of Menifee Jamie Richards, D-Max Engineering Tad Nakatani, D-Max Engineering Yolanda Macalalad, Assistant City Engineer City of Murrieta Mai Son, Associate Civil Engineer James Ozouf, Associate Civil Engineer Bob Moehling, City Engineer City of Temecula Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer Stuart Kuhn, Associate Engineer II City of Wildomar Jason Farag, Associate Engineer Consultation Committee Erica Ryan, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Terri Biancardi, Environmental Community Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Summary for August 19-20, 2020
    Item No. 19 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 19-20, 2020 19. QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY (CONSENT) Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ (A) Receive a petition to list Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) as a threatened or endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). (B) Consider approving DFW’s request for a 30-day extension to review the petition. Summary of Previous/Future Actions • Received petition Jun 29, 2020 • FGC transmitted petition to DFW Jul 8, 2020 • Published notice of receipt of petition Jul 24, 2020 • Today’s public receipt of petition Aug 19-20, 2020; Webinar/Teleconference and action on DFW’s request for a 30-day extension • Receive DFW evaluation of petition Dec 9-10, 2020; Webinar/Teleconference • FGC determines if listing may be Feb 2021 warranted Background (A) On Jul 29, 2020, FGC received a petition (Exhibit 1) from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Endangered Species League to list Quino checkerspot butterfly as endangered under CESA. On Jul 8, 2020, FGC staff transmitted the petition to DFW for review. A notice of receipt of petition was published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on Jul 24, 2020. (B) California Fish and Game Code Section 2073.5 requires that DFW evaluate the petition and submit a written evaluation report with a recommendation to FGC within 90 days of receiving the petition; under this code section, DFW may request an extension of up to 30 days to complete the evaluation. DFW has requested a 30-day extension (Exhibit 2) which would change the due date for DFW’s evaluation from Oct 6 to Nov 5, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • The Status and Distribution of the Freshwater Fishes of Southern California
    Bull. Southern California Acad. Sci. 92(3), 1993, pp. 101-167 CO Southern California Academy of Sciences, 1993 The Status and Distribution of the Freshwater Fishes of Southern California Camm C. Swift,' Thomas R. Haglund,2 Mario Ruiz,' and Robert N. Fisher3 Section of Fishes, Natural History Museum, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007 2Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024-1606 r 3 Section of Zoology and Center for Population Biology, • 4 iTh University of California, Davis, California 95616 Abstract. —The fresh and low salinity waters of southern California include the Owens, Mohave, Colorado, and coastal drainages south of Monterey Bay to -the Mexican border. The youthful topography presents a strong dichotomy between steep rocky streams abruptly meeting relatively flat deserts or coastal plains. Little or no intermediate, foothill habitat exists. Thirty-eight native freshwater and 23 estuarine fishes have been recorded from this area. In addition, at least 100 species have been introduced, with widely varying success. Since the late 1940s and 1950s the native fishes of the Owens, Colorado, and Mohave drainages have been in jeopardy or extirpated in California. At the same time, the lowland fishes in coastal drainages, particularly on the Los Angeles Basin, also disappeared. Upland species of the coastal drainages still remain in a few isolated areas but are so reduced that special protection is needed. Only one estuarine species, Eucyclogobius newberryi, is threatened. Some tropical estuarine species of extreme southern California were last collected 50 to 80 years ago, and are very rare or extirpated here. If the remaining elements of the fish fauna are to survive, immediate action is needed to preserve the remaining habitat and to restore areas within the native range.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Santa Margarita Watershed IRWM Plan Update FINAL
    Region Description 2 Region Description The purpose of this chapter is to define the USMW Region through descriptions of its boundaries, water demands, supply sources, water quality, ecological and environmental processes, land uses, social characteristics, and economic trends and conditions. Understanding the unique nature of the USMW Region is key to developing truly meaningful IRWM planning needs, goals and objectives, resource strategies, and projects as described in subsequent chapters of this 2014 IRWM Plan Update. 2.1 Regional Boundaries 2.1.1 IRWM Boundaries The USMW IRWM Region covers an area of approximately 640 square miles (410,000 acres) in southwestern Riverside County, as shown in Figure 2-1. Its boundary is defined as the portions of the Santa Margarita River Watershed and the San Mateo Watershed that lie within Riverside County. The remaining portion of the Santa Margarita River Watershed lies within the adjacent San Diego IRWM Region to the south, and the remaining portion of the San Mateo Watershed lies within the adjacent South Orange IRWM Region to the west. The IRWM boundaries allow for full coverage of these watersheds without over-expanding the size of the planning area beyond stakeholders’ ability to participate. All three of these IRWM Regions compose the entire San Diego Funding Area. Figure 2-1: IRWM Region Location 2 - 1 2014 Upper Santa Margarita Watershed IRWM Plan Update FINAL Region Description 2.1.2 Watershed Boundaries Drainage in the basin is provided by the Upper Santa Margarita Watershed with flows from Temecula and Murrieta Creeks, and by portions of the Upper San Mateo Watershed with flows primarily from San Mateo Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • This Deceptively Beautiful Scene Shows a Leaking Slide Gate Repaired During Metropolitan's 2019/20 Shutdown Season, Which Cont
    This deceptively beautiful scene shows a leaking slide gate repaired during Metropolitan’s 2019/20 shutdown season, which continued even amid the COVID-19 pandemic. THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 2020 CONTENTS Chapter Page List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................ ix About Metropolitan .............................................................................................. xiii Composition of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California .............. xv Directors ............................................................................................................... xvi Board of Directors ................................................................................................ xx Board Committees ................................................................................................ xxii Historical Roll of Directors................................................................................... xxiv Organization Chart ............................................................................................... xxxvi Executive Management ........................................................................................ xxxvii Staff ...................................................................................................................... xxxviii Introduction .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
    General Plan Update Section 5.13: Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality This section describes the existing conditions related to hydrology, drainage, and water quality within the City of Murrieta. Hydrologic and drainage impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan 2035 are identified. The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a Federal law intended to protect surface waters of the United States (U.S.), which include lakes, rivers, coastal wetlands, and “waters of the U.S.” The CWA regulates all discharges to waters, which are considered illegal unless authorized by an appropriate permit. Discharge of dredged and fill materials, construction-related storm water discharges, and other activities that may result in discharges of pollutants to waters of the U.S. are regulated by the permit. If waters of the U.S. are located on a project site, the project is likely to discharge to them, due to site topography and/or drainage characteristics. Potential discharges to such waters would be considered an impact, and the applicant would be required to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The CWA specifies that discharges to waters are illegal, unless authorized by an appropriate permit. The permits regulate the discharge of dredged and fill materials, construction-related storm water discharges, and activities that may result in discharges of pollutants to “waters of the U.S.”. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the U.S. This permit program is administered by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Petition
    PETITION TO LIST THE QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY (Euphydryas editha quino) AS ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Photo credit: Robert A. Hamilton, Hamilton Biological CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY And ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE June 29, 2020 FGC – 670.1 (3/94) NOTICE OF PETITION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMISSION For action pursuant to Section 670.1, Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR) and sections 2072 and 2073 of the Fish and Game Code relating to listing and delisting endangered and threatened species of plants and animals. I. SPECIES BEING PETITIONED Common name: Quino checkerspot butterfly Scientific name: (Euphydryas editha quino) II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: List as endangered The Center for Biological Diversity and Endangered Habitats League submit this petition to list the Quino checkerspot butterfly as endangered throughout its range in California pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code §§ 2050 et seq.). This petition demonstrates that the Quino checkerspot butterfly clearly warrants listing based on the factors specified in the statute. III. AUTHOR OF PETITION Tara Cornelisse, PhD Center for Biological Diversity PO Box 11374 Portland, OR 97211-0374 503-283-5474 [email protected] I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, all statements made in this petition are true and complete. Signature: Date: June 29, 2020 The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.6 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Endangered Habitats League is a Southern California nonprofit regional conservation organization dedicated to ecosystem protection and sustainable land use.
    [Show full text]