Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California
DRAFT
PREPARED FOR:
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
January 10, 2012
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. Ground Water Resources Development P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711 | P (909) 451-6650 | F (909) 451-6638 | www.gssiwater.com Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
STORMWATER FLOW AND CAPTURE ANALYSIS ‐ ACTIVE RECHARGE PROJECT FOR THE TRIBUTARIES OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ...... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 7 2.1 Purpose and Scope ...... 7
2.2 Approved Modifications to Scope of Work ...... 8
2.3 Sources of Data ...... 9
3.0 QUANTIFICATION OF THE AMOUNT OF STORMWATER GENERATED BY EACH TRIBUTARY TO THE SANTA ANA RIVER (NOT INCLUDING THE SANTA ANA RIVER) LEAVING THE SBBA ...... 11 3.1 Quantification of Historical Stormwater Flows from Outside Tributaries to the SBBA ...... 11
3.2 Quantification of the Amount of Surface Flow that Leaves the SBBA ...... 12
3.2.1 Watershed Model Development ...... 12
3.2.2 Watershed Model Calibration ...... 13
3.2.3 Watershed Model Verification...... 15
3.2.4 Watershed Model Sensitivity Analysis ...... 16
3.2.5 Predictive Model Scenarios ...... 17
3.3 Quantification of the Amount of Surface Flow that Leaves the SBBA ...... 18
3.4 Quantification of the Amount of Water Generated Internally within the SBBA ...... 19
4.0 CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS FOR FACILITIES THAT WILL BE USED TO MAXIMIZE THE CAPTURE OF STORMWATER BY EACH TRIBUTARY TO THE SANTA ANA RIVER (NOT INCLUDING THE SAR) LEAVING THE SBBA ...... 21 4.1 Documentary Research and Field Inventory of Existing Retention/Debris and Spreading Basins ...... 21
i Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
4.2 Field Infiltrometer Tests of Selected Tributary Creeks (New and Existing Basin Areas) ...... 21
4.3 Existing Claims on Water from Tributary Creeks ...... 23
4.4 New Facilities to Optimize Capture of Stormwater Including New Retention/Debris Basins, Expanded, and New Spreading Basins ...... 24
4.4.1 Selection of Potential On‐Stream Recharge Locations ...... 25
4.4.3 Conceptual Designs for Facilities That Will Be Used to Maximize Capture of Stormwater ...... 31
4.4.4 Engineers Estimate for Construction of Capture Facilities ...... 32
4.4.5 Proposed Physical and Operational Modifications to Maximize Stormwater Capture at Existing Facilities ...... 33
4.4.6 Potential Modifications to Existing Detention Basins to Maximize Stormwater Capture ...... 33
4.4.7 Potential Operational Changes to Existing Detention Basins to Maximize Stormwater Capture ...... 34
5.0 QUANTIFICATION OF THE AMOUNT OF STORMWATER GENERATED BY EACH TRIBUTARY TO THE SANTA ANA RIVER (NOT INCLUDING THE SAR) LEAVING THE SBBA, ASSUMING THAT CAPTURE AND USE HAS BEEN MAXIMIZED ...... 36 5.1 Ground Water Percolation from Stormwater Capture ...... 36
5.2 Results from Project Stormwater Capture (Scenario 5) ...... 38
5.2.1 Net Ground Water Recharge Under Project Conditions ...... 38
5.2.2 Quantification of the Amount of Surface Flow that Leaves the SBBA Under Project Conditions ...... 38
6.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... 40 6.1 Historical Stormwater Flows from Outside Tributaries to the SBBA ...... 40
6.2 Quantification of the Amount of Surface Flow that Leaves the SBBA ...... 40
6.3 Quantification of the Amount of Water Generated Internally within the SBBA ...... 42
ii Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
6.4 Field Infiltrometer Tests of Selected Tributary Creeks (New and Existing Basin areas) ...... 42
6.5 Potential New On‐Stream Recharge Facility Locations ...... 43
6.6 Potential Project Capture Volumes from Tributary Creeks ...... 43
6.7 Proposed Physical and Operational Modifications to Maximize Stormwater Capture at Existing Facilities ...... 44
6.8 Ground Water Recharge from Stormwater Capture ...... 45
6.9 Quantification of the Amount of Surface Flow that Leaves the SBBA under Project Conditions...... 46
6.10 Estimate of Cost for Active Recharge Project ...... 47
7.0 REFERENCES ...... 48
FIGURES, TABLES, APPENDICES
iii Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
FIGURES No. Description 1 Project Location and Tributary Sub‐Watersheds
2 2005 Land Use Conditions in the SBBA
3 1963 Land Use Conditions in the SBBA
4 Hydrolologic Soil Types in the SBBA
5 Isohyetals Precipitation and Gaging Station Locations
6a Channel Lining and Debris Basins – pre‐1969
6b Channel Ling and Debris Basins ‐2005 Conditions 6c Retention Basin, Debris Basin, and Spreading Basin Locations 7 Annual Surface Flow at Lytle Creek near Fontana Gaging Station (11062001) – 1934 to 2008 8 Annual Surface Flow at Cajon Creek below Lone Pine Creek near Keenbrook Gaging Station (11063510) – 1934 to 2008
9 Annual Surface Flow at Devil Canyon Creek near San Bernardino Gaging Station (11063680) – 1934 to 2008 10 Annual Surface Flow at East Twin Creek near Arrowhead Springs Gaging Station (11058500) – 1934 to 2008 11 Annual Surface Flow at City Creek near Highland Gaging Station (11055801) – 1934 to 2008
12 Annual Surface Flow at Plunge Creek near East Highlands Gaging Station (11055501) – 1934 to 2008 13 Annual Surface Flow at Mill Creek near Yucaipa Gaging Station (11054001) – 1934 to 2008
14 Annual Surface Flow at San Timoteo near Redlands Gaging Station (11057000) – 1934 to 2008
15 Annual Surface Flow at Cable Creek – 1934 to 2008 16 Annual Surface Flow at Sand Canyon Creek – 1934 to 2008
17 Annual Surface Flow at Waterman Canyon Creek – 1934 to 2008
iv Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
FIGURES (CONT.) No. Description 18 Annual Total Surface Flow from Outside Tributaries (Not Including Santa Ana River) to SBBA – 1934 to 2008
19 Schematic Diagram of HSPF
20 HSPF Model Watershed Areas
21 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Santa Ana River at E Street Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008
22 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at San Timoteo Creek near Loma Linda Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008 23 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Lytle Creek at Colton Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008
24 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐ Simulated Daily Streamflow at Warm Creek near San Bernardino Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008 25 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Santa Ana River at E Street Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008 26 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at San Timoteo Creek neara Lom Linda Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008 27 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Lytle Creek at Colton Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008 28 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Warm Creek near San Bernardino Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008
29 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Santa Ana River at E Street Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008 30 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at San Timoteo Creek near Loma Linda Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008
31 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Lytle Creek at Colton Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008
32 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Warm Creek near San Bernardino Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008
v Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
FIGURES (CONT.) No. Description 33 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Santa Ana River at E Street Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008
34 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at San Timoteo Creek near Loma Linda Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008
35 Scatterplot of Measured andl Mode ‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Lytle Creek at Colton Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008
36 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Warm Creek near San Bernardino Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008 37 Exceedance Probability Curve of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Santa Ana River at E street Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008 38 Exceedance Probability Curve of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at San Timoteo Creek near Loma Linda Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008 39 Exceedance Probability Curve of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Lytle Creek at Colton Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008 40 Exceedance Probability Curve of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Warm Creek near San Bernardino Gaging Station – 1998 to 2008 41 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Santa Ana River at E Street Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
42 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at San Timoteo Creek near Loma Linda Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972 43 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Lytle Creek at Colton Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
44 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Warm Creek near San Bernardino Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972 45 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Santa Ana River at E Street Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
46 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at San Timoteo Creek near Loma Linda Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
vi Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
FIGURES (CONT.) No. Description 47 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Lytle Creek at Colton Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
48 Hydrograph of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Warm Creek near San Bernardino Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
49 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Santa Ana River at E Street Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
50 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at San Timoteo Creek near Loma Linda Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972 51 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Lytle Creek at Colton Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972 52 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Warm Creek near San Bernardino Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972 53 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Santa Ana River at E Street Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
54 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at San Timoteo Creek near Loma Linda Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972 55 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Lytle Creek at Colton Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
56 Scatterplot of Measured and Model‐Simulated Monthly Streamflow at Warm Creek near San Bernardino Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972 57 Exceedance Probability Curve of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Santa Ana River at E street Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
58 Exceedance Probability Curve of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at San Timoteo Creek neara Lom Linda Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972 59 Exceedance Probability Curve of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Lytle Creek at Colton Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
60 Exceedance Probability Curve of Measured and Model‐Simulated Daily Streamflow at Warm Creek near San Bernardino Gaging Station – 1962 to 1972
vii Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
FIGURES (CONT.) No. Description 61 Annual Surface Flow that Leaves SBBA – 1934 to 2008: Scenario 1 (1963 Land Use, 1963 Stream Channel and 1963 Retention Basin)
62 Annual Surface Flow that Leaves SBBA – 1934 to 2008: Scenario 2 (1963 Land Use, 2005 Stream Channel and 1963 Retention Basin)
63 Annual Surface Flow that Leaves SBBA – 1934 to 2008: Scenario 3 (1963 Land Use, 1963 Stream Channel and 2005 Retention Basin)
64 Annual Surface Flow that Leaves SBBA – 1934 to 2008: Scenario 4 (2005 Land Use, 2005 Stream Channel and 2005 Retention Basin) 65 Annual Stormwater Generated from Within SBBA – 1934 to 2008
66 Infiltrometer Test Locations 67 Water Rights Points of Diversion ‐ SBBA and San Bernardino Mountain Front Area 68 Potential Locations of New Stormwater Capture Facilities 69 Potential Stormwater Recharge Area San Bernardino Valley – Lytle Creek 70 Potential Stormwater Recharge Area San Bernardino Valley – Cajon Creek 71 Potential Stormwater Recharge Area San Bernardino Valley – Cable Creek 72 Potential Stormwater Recharge Area San Bernardino Valley – City Creek 73 Potential Stormwater Recharge Area San Bernardino Valley – Plunge Creek 74 Potential Stormwater Recharge Area San Bernardino Valley – Mill Creek 75 Potential Stormwater Recharge Area San Bernardino Valley – Mission Zanja Creek 76 Potential Stormwater Recharge Area San Bernardino Valley – San Timoteo Creek 77 Potential Stormwater Recharge Area San Bernardino Valley – Warm Creek 78 Potential Stormwater Recharge Area San Bernardino Valley – Warm Creek Channel 79 Lytle Creek Recharge Basins – Design Concept
80 Cajon Creek Recharge Basins – Design Concept 81 Cable Creek Recharge Basins – Design Concept
82 City Creek Recharge Basins – Design Concept
viii Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
FIGURES (CONT.) No. Description 83 Plunge Creek recharge Basins – Design Concept
84 Mill Creek recharge Basins – Design Concept
85 Mission‐ Zanja Recharge Basins – Design Concept
86 San Timoteo Creek Recharge Basins – Design Concept
87 Warm Creek recharge Basins – Design Concept
88 Annual Percolation at Lytle Creek Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture – 1934 to 2008 89 Annual Percolation at Cajon Creek Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture – 1934 to 2008 90 Annual Percolation at Cable Creek Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture – 1934 to 2008 91 Annual Percolation at City Creek Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture – 1934 to 2008
92 Annual Percolation at Plunge Creek Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture – 1934 to 2008 93 Annual Percolation at San Timoteo Creek No. 1 Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture – 1934 to 2008 94 Annual Percolation at San Timoteo Creek No. 2 Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture – 1934 to 2008
95 Annual Percolation at Mission Creek Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture – 1934 to 2008
96 Annual Percolation at Warm Creek Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture – 1934 to 2008
97 Total Annual Percolation at Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture – 1934 to 2008
98 Annual Decrease in Streambed Percolation Due to Stormwater Capture Project – 1934 to 2008
99 Annual Net Ground Water Recharge from Stormwater Capture Project – 1934 to 2008
ix Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
FIGURES (CONT.) No. Description 100 Annual Surface Water that Leaves SBBA Under Project Conditions (Scenario 5) – 1934 to 2008
x Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
TABLES No. Description 1 Annual Surface Flow from Outside Tributaries to SBBA
2 Annual Surface Flow that Leaves SBBA
3 Annual Stormwater Generated from Within SBBA
4 Data for Existing Basins Associated with Tributary Creeks
5 Existing Water Rights Points of Diversion, San Bernardino Basin Area
6 Average Dry, Average and Wet Cycle Run‐Off Volumes (Acre‐ft/Year), San Bernardino Valley Tributary Creeks to the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley Area 7 Assumptions for Calculation of Ground Water Percolation at Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture Project 8 Annual Percolation at Spreading Grounds from Stormwater Capture
9 Annual Decrease in Streambed Percolation Due to Stormwater Capture Project 10 Annual Net Ground Water Recharge from Stormwater Capture Project 11 Annual Surface Water That Leaves SBBA Under Project Conditions (Scenario 5)
xi Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
APPENDICES Ltr. Description A Field Infiltration Test Documentation
B Engineer’s Estimates for Proposed New Stormwater Capture Facilities – Prepared by Bonadiman and Associates
xii Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
acre‐ft/yr acre‐feet per year
Alluvial A geologic term describing beds of sand, gravel, silt, and clay deposited by flowing water. amsl above mean sea level
Aquifer A geologic formation or group of formations which store, transmit, and yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs. bgs below ground surface CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology CSWM Calibrated San Bernardino Basin Area Watershed Model CLOMAR/LOMAR Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision‐ amendments to the Federal Emergency Amendment Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps DEM Digital Elevation Model District San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD)
Drawdown The change in hydraulic head or water level relative to a background condition.
DWR California Department of Water Resources EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ET Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration The combined loss of water from a given area by evaporation from the land and transpiration from plants. eWRIMS Electronic Water Rights Information Management System
Fault A fracture in the earth’s crust, with displacement of one side of the fracture with respect to the other.
Formation A geologic term that designates a body of rock or rock/sediment strata of similar lithologic type or combination of types.
1 Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS (CONT.)
ft feet, foot
ft/day feet per day
GEOSCIENCE Geoscience Support Service, Inc. gpm gallons per minute
Ground Water Water contained in interconnected pores located below the water table in an unconfined aquifer or located in a confined aquifer. Head Energy, produced by elevation, pressure, or velocity, contained in a water mass.
HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program ‐ Fortran Hydraulic Conductivity The measure of the ability of the soil to transmit water, dependent upon both the properties of the soil and those of the fluid. in. inch K See Hydraulic Conductivity mg/L milligrams per liter
MODFLOW‐2000 A modular finite‐difference flow model developed eby th United States Geologic Survey (USGS) to solve the groundwater flow equation. MT3DMS A modular three‐dimensional solute transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in ground water systems. Permeability The capability of soil or other geologic formations to transmit water. The term is used to separate the effects of the medium from those of the fluid on the hydraulic conductivity. PEST Parameter ESTimation software SAR Santa Ana River SBBA San Bernardino Basin Area
SBCFCD San Bernardino County Flood Control District
2 Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS (CONT.)
SBVMWD San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
SBVWCD San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS total dissolved solids
TD&A Tom Dodson and Associates
TIN Triangulated irregular network USGS United States Geological Survey yr(s) year or years
3 Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
STORMWATER FLOW AND CAPTURE ANALYSIS ‐ ACTIVE RECHARGE PROJECT FOR THE TRIBUTARIES OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In order to better manage surface water available to the San Bernardino Basin area (SBBA), the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (the District) commissioned this study to determine:
The volume of surface water which has historically migrated out of the San Bernardino Basin Area (SBBA), The volume eof surfac water that is generated internally within the SBBA as the result of historical and on‐going urbanization of the SBBA, The quantity of stormwater that is generated by the major tributary creeks to the Santa Ana River, The location and preliminary (conceptual) designs of potential new stormwater capture facilities that could maximize the capture and recharge of surface water flows, Potential modifications to existing retention basins and spreading grounds to further increase surface water capture and recharge, and The volume of potential additional recharge to the SBBA and the effect to surface water volumes leaving the SBBA that will occur as a result of implementation of an active recharge project.
To answer these questions a phased approach was used: First, it was necessary to construct a calibrated watershed model to calculate surface flow volumes generated from both outside and within the SBBA on the major tributaries eto th Santa Ana River (SAR). This report includes a description of the construction of the calibrated SBBA Watershed Model (CSWM).
Second, the CSWM was used to provide annual average, wet and dry stormwater flows generated by the tributary creeks and to determine preliminary optimum locations where the flows could be captured.
Third, the District commissioned an analysis of potential environmental constraints for each of the selected tributary creeks. The environmental analysis showed that various environmental concerns exist for all of the tributary creeks when considering construction of new recharge facilities. The environmental analysis was used to select areas for new recharge facilities that will encounter the least amount of environmental constraints for construction and operation of the active recharge project. Sites with the least amount of potential environmental constraints and if possible, owned by the San
4 Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
Bernardino Flood and Water Conservation District (SBCFCD), were selected for further analysis. The SBCFCD properties were selected, as the mission of SBCFCD and SBVMWD overlap in the desire and responsibility to manage and conserve surface water flow for beneficial uses. During the course of the study, it was determined that modification or revised operational strategies for existing basins was not considered “project” conditions for the active recharge project being that specific modifications and operational changes will require discussion, scoping, and consensus by stakeholders prior to implementation. The CSWM can be used to evaluate specific projects involving modifications or re‐ operation of specific existing facilities.
Fourth, field testing was conducted at existing and selected potential areas of new stormwater capture facilities to provide site specific data for design of new capture facilities.
Fifth, based on the environmental constraints analysis and field testing, conceptual designs for potential new capture facilities were prepared for facilities on eight of the tributary creeks.
Sixth, using the CSWM, further analysis was conducted to evaluate potential surface flows that can be captured under “project” conditions by new capture facilities, the amount of additional ground water recharge that would occur under “project” conditions and the effect on surface water outflow efrom th SBBA as a result of implementation of the project.
The following is a summary of report findings:
Stormwater flow from the selected tributary creeks (not including the Santa Ana River) that enters the SBBA during wet, dry, and average hydrologic conditions is 212,790, 45,790, and 98,373 acre‐ft/yr respectively, Stormwater flow from selected tributary creeks leaving the SBBA is 118,841, 14,576, and 53,712 acre‐ft/yr for wet, dry, and average hydrologic conditions respectively, Additional stormwater flow is generated internally within the SBBA as the result of urbanization and changes to channels and basins. The annual stormwater flow generated within the SBBA for wet, dry, and average hydrologic conditions is 7,011, 2,041, and 4,275 acre‐ft/yr respectively, Under 1963 land use conditions, the annual stormwater flow leaving the SBBA for wet, dry, and average conditions is 109,081, 11,099, and 47,602 acre‐ft/yr respectively, and Under 2005 land use conditions, the annual stormwater flow leaving the SBBA for wet, dry, and average conditions is 118,841, 14,576, and 53,712 acre‐ft/yr respectively.
5 Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis ‐ Active Recharge Project for the Tributaries of the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino Valley, California 10‐Jan‐12
The comparison of 1963 and 2005 land use conditions show increased stormwater flows leaving the SBBA during wet, dry and average hydrologic conditions as a result of growing urban conditions.
Under “project” conditions annual net ground water recharge will increase to 24,829, 6,078, and 12, 954 acre‐ft/yr for wet,, dry and average hydrologic conditions respectively. Under “project” conditions annual stormwater flows leaving the SBBA will decrease to 90,925, 9,922, and 40,917 acre‐ft/yr for wet, dry, and average hydrologic conditions respectively. This is a decrease of 23%, 32%, and 24% for the wet, dry, and average conditions respectively.
The data shows that implementation of the active recharge project will result in a net increase in annual ground water recharge and supplies within the SBBA. However, a decrease in stormwater flows leaving the SBBA will occur as the result of the active recharge project.
The total estimated cost for construction of new recharge facilities on the selected tributary creeks is approximately $10,800,000. The total average annual net recharge of stormwater is calculated to be approximately 13,000 acre‐ft/yr (see Section 5.2.1). The cost to develop additional water supplies with the proposed new recharge facilities is $832 per acre‐ft. However, costs per acre‐foot for recharge projects on individual creeks may be higher or lower than this reported value.
6 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY STORMWATER FLOW AND CAPTURE ANALYSIS - ACTIVE RECHARGE PROJECT FOR THE MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT TRIBUTARIES OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA INFILTROMETER TEST
S W
t
r
?å a e s (! w 2a t
b F
e LOCATIONS k o ! r ( e
r r k y e
rk r o F C t C as C n E i o on r t y ny y e y 2b a r C n e l r vi C
a e k D e C r e y b e e l w i k 3a a a C B r a t k jo S n e e C (! S r r A e C e N k y t ! 3b BE i ( C R Að W N k A r a R o t F e D r I t m N s
O a k a
e E n M e r C O C a U l C i n N ab v y T le e o A C D n IN re S ek
L y t le
C L
r i e t S e t che l nk e k Cree k
k M
e
o
k n e
u r
e o
n
e y C
n
t
r n a o a
C a i y
b n n l n C
n o
i EXPLANATION a i C s O a d d
r w n h C e n e l 1a o T v a r D e i y a e t S n n v F D e S i s n t l l n a k o C a k a h r r e e e e e m l
C e E e e l t ! k D L r ( t d r r D C i C o C h it f r a L t e il a Devil Canyon Rd SD n l w ! v n e g a ( i n r C n e C 1b e l M lu ! Infiltrometer Test Site a P ( r D i e j l k o l w n C H a l r e H W e e e
n a n l k d s n e h e a H
SHANDIN D r n h ig
s hla n S C n o d a C n k a
HILLS w n h e al
C e C i e
h r
V a a C Summit Storm Drain . D s Existing Spreading Ground
n d n
S o n t n D e iv
y R
k a e M c rs
l l e S io
a n e or Recharge Basin e C M r e h l n a D t n o C t ne i l L y n
n i
a
w B C T
l t l l e
s a d a k s m o Cactus Ch E e anne e S l r e C C A³ e r e k g N %&h( e d e i o k e R rt r h
n d F i
C l o
r
a a k k r D d B C
S a C n t D n t
a a
co l e
m S s k u r g
e o
M D t n e
r
S S
u
t l C
ine Storm Drain e Rialto-Base L m P k k l e e
a
r re E t C
m O S ar W 5b " r ppe
H U " (!(! k e
e s 5a r
s
C
a
r p
e l y
d e B l
n (! 6a E k
n City Creek e a e Creek e Plung
h r 6c (! (! C
C
o
t m l
r a i a 6b
R L k y Ea W ek t st Timber Cre l B C e ra orm Drain nch L East Rialto St ytle C Cre e m ast Fontana Storm Drain a k E r nel j Santa Ana River West Fontana Chan o n a
C
W h a n 4a n e Drainage Lat (NAD83) Long (NAD83) Test_Date l M (! e a d
o l 1a Lytlew Creek, Site 1 34.168198 -117.393619 9-Jun-11 k A³ e U C
p n p e n 1b Lytler Creek, Site 2 34.165732 -117.390388 9-Jun-11 m F r a
e a e k h d e e C e r W 7 2a Cajonr Creek, Site 1 34.225960 -117.418381 8-Jun-11 C m r 4b (! a (! T W he 2b Cajon Creek, Site 2 34.223476 -117.414415 8-Jun-11 Z ?a l an a j n a a t 3a Cable Creek, Site 1 34.210022 -117.377586 26-May-11 C c u d e !"`$ e g u nja a Mission q Za G A 3b Cable Creek, Site 2 34.206285 -117.375034 26-May-11 s d n a B l d a e 4a Warm Creek Channel (Twin Creek), Site 1 34.087174 -117.285647 25-May-11 r R t
o n S Mo l a rre S n y a T Arr 4b Warm Creek Channel (Twin Creek), Site 2 34.073027 -117.286234 25-May-11 t oy n i o o m a o n r te C i m o a W e r a D sh 5a City Creek, Site 1 34.115694 -117.194667 5-Jan-10 id D
s t r a r S e i ll n iv i H 5b City Creek, Site 2 34.116278 -117.193528 5-Jan-10 R e 8a e 6a Plunge Creek, Site 1 34.108917 -117.150750 6-Jan-10 L (! l 8b 6b Plunge Creek, Site 2 34.105972 -117.154250na 6-Jan-10 a (! C ?Æ e d 6c Plunge Creek, Site 3 34.106056 -117.159250si 6-Jan-10 r l e ive R n R e n t c 7 Mission Creek a 34.073371 -117.258684 24-May-11 h h es e C C W e a it n r y h 8a San Timoteo, Sitey 1 34.040051 -117.220669 14-Jul-11 o c t P n i San Bernardino Co C D h a n n 8b San Timoteo, Site 2 34.035782 -117.215123 14-Jul-11 n w e o l r Riverside Co B
10-Jan-12 NORTH Prepared by: DB. Map Projection: UTM 1927, Zone 11. GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. DRAFT P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711 0 1 2 Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638 · 2012, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Miles www.gssiwater.com Figure 66
GIS_proj/sbvmwd_stormwater_capture_1-12/0_Fig_66_infiltration_loc_1-12.mxd SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY STORMWATER FLOW AND CAPTURE ANALYSIS - ACTIVE RECHARGE PROJECT FOR THE MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT TRIBUTARIES OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER, SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
WATER RIGHTS POINTS OF DIVERSION - SBBA AND SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAIN FRONT AREA Silverwood Lake
Baldwin Lake
A001445_01 !( Lake A004319_01 Arrowhead S015185_01 A012006_01 A004318_01 Big Bear Lake A003829_01 S004321_01 !( !( !( A010564_01!(!(!(!(!( !( S004318_01 A013425_01 S004320_01 S004319_01 S009682_01 A009448_01 S013402_01 S013417_01 S014807_01 S005397_01 !(!( A004330_01 A006108_01 S A009487_01 !( S013416_01 !( !( A !(!( S007764_01 !( !( !( !( S005395_01 N !( A009000_01 ?å !( BE A009037_01 A006164_01 RN !(!( A009144_01 AR W D A003564_01 IN a O A018989_01 t e A000088_01 r M F005402S_01 !( m OU EXPLANATION !( a N !( A005775_01 n T A C IN F005385S_01 !( r S e e !( k S005390_01 Water Right Diversion Classifications F005382S_01 !( A003121_01 F005381S_01 East Twin Creek Twin East S002856_01 !( A002437_01 !( !( !( !( 11058500 S002857_01 S002858_01 F005383S_01 !( Claimed &< !(!( S015524_01 !( F005388S_01 !( A002658_01 %&h( !( S007750_01 !( !( S002382_01 A031165_01 Licensed
Sand Creek Sand !( !( !(!( A005731_01 S014014_01 S001841_01 A012182_01 S001840_01 S007756_01 A001640_01 !( 11055801 !( !( !( !( Pending &< !( A³ San Bernardino County Hospital ?a *# Seven Oaks L k y e t 1105501 Reservoir l e Selected USGS Gaging e r A013779_01 C 11055801 C A031370_01 r y F005392S_01 e t !( &< !( Station (See Appendix E for e i k C 11051501 S014805_01 !( &< reek Station Number Description) Plunge C A004807_01&
T H E B A D L A N D !"`$ S ?z
10-Jan-12
NORTH GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. Prepared by: DB. Map Projection: UTM 1927, Zone 11. DRAFT P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711 0 1.75 3.5 Tel: (909) 451-6650 Fax: (909) 451-6638 · 2012, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Miles www.gssiwater.com Figure 67
GIS_proj/sbvmwd_stormwater_capture_1-12/0_Fig_67_diversion_pts_1-12.mxd Figure 83
10-Jan-12 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District DRAFT Stormwater Flow and Capture Analysis
Annual Percolation at Plunge Creek Spreading Basins from Stormwater Capture - 1934 to 2008
50,000
45,000 Annual Average = 3,729 acre-ft/yr 40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
al Percolation, acre-ft al Percolation, 20,000 uu Ann 15,000
10,000
5,000 Figure 92
0 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1998 2004
10-Jan-12 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. APPENDIX A2 Percent Clay—San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California (Plunge) ' ' ' ' 7 5 4
' ' 2 8
1 °
7 ° 1 7 1 1 1
480800 481600 482400 483200 484000 484800 485600 486400 487200 34° 7' 37'' 34° 7' 38''
k
0 e 0
e 0 0 e 0 0 v r 6 6
A 7 7 C
7 7 y 3 3 m t l i
a C
P
t N ort Baseline St S h For h k C k c a r na e 0 l 0
u e 0 0
r h 2 2
5 C 5
C 7 7
7 e 7 3 3 g
e
n
v
u
A l
P
h
c
r B o Oak u Creek u SoC h ld C e r
0 0 k A 0 0 Cree v 4 4 City e 4 4 East Highlands HaC 7 7 7 7 3 3 5th St SoC
3rd St SoC TuB SoC SpC SpC 0 0 0 0
6 SpC 6 3 3
7 k SpC 7 7 e Ps 7 3 re pC 3 C S ity C GP
0 SpC 0 0 0 8 8 2 2
t 7 7
S 7 7
3 3
e t
g S
n a
a
r m
O a b a l A 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 7 7 7 3 3
34° 5' 0'' 34° 5' 1'' 480800 481600 482400 483200 484000 484800 485600 486400 487200 ' ' ' ' 7 4 4
' ' Map Scale: 1:34,600 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. 2 8
1 °
7 ° Meters 1 7 1 1 0 450 900 1,800 2,700 1 Feet 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 9,000
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/13/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 Percent Clay–San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California (Plunge)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI) Map Scale: 1:34,600 if printed on A size (8.5" × 11") sheet. Area of Interest (AOI) The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Soils Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map Soil Map Units measurements. Soil Ratings Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service <= 0.5 Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov > 0.5 AND <= 2.5 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 11N NAD83
> 2.5 AND <= 11.3 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. > 11.3 AND <= 12.5 Soil Survey Area: San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, Not rated or not available California Political Features Survey Area Data: Version 4, Jan 3, 2008 Cities Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 6/18/2005 Water Features The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Oceans compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting Streams and Canals of map unit boundaries may be evident. Transportation Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/13/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Percent Clay–San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California Plunge
Percent Clay
Percent Clay— Summary by Map Unit — San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (percent) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI GP QUARRIES AND PITS 0.5 103.5 8.4% HaC HANFORD COARSE SANDY 12.5 0.3 0.0% LOAM, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES Ps PSAMMENTS AND FLUVENTS, 11.3 215.5 17.4% FREQUENTLY FLOODED SoC SOBOBA GRAVELLY LOAMY 2.5 23.6 1.9% SAND, 0 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES SpC SOBOBA STONY LOAMY 2.5 893.3 72.2% SAND, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES TuB TUJUNGA LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 2.5 0.7 0.1% 5 PERCENT SLOPES Totals for Area of Interest 1,236.9 100.0%
Description
Clay as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0.002 millimeter in diameter. The estimated clay content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The amount and kind of clay affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil and the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture. They influence shrink- swell potential, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other soil properties. The amount and kind of clay in a soil also affect tillage and earth-moving operations.
Most of the material is in one of three groups of clay minerals or a mixture of these clay minerals. The groups are kaolinite, smectite, and hydrous mica, the best known member of which is illite.
For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used. Rating Options
Units of Measure: percent Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/13/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Percent Clay–San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California Plunge
Tie-break Rule: Higher Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Layer Options: All Layers
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/13/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for States Department of Agriculture and other San Bernardino Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment County Southwestern Conservation Stations, and local Service participants Part, California Plunge Creek
August 13, 2010 Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app? agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://soils.usda.gov/contact/ state_offices/). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
2 for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface...... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made...... 5 Soil Map...... 7 Soil Map (Plunge Creek)...... 8 Legend...... 9 Map Unit Legend (Plunge Creek)...... 10 Map Unit Descriptions (Plunge Creek)...... 10 San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California...... 12 GP—QUARRIES AND PITS...... 12 HaC—HANFORD COARSE SANDY LOAM, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES...... 12 Ps—PSAMMENTS AND FLUVENTS, FREQUENTLY FLOODED...... 13 SoC—SOBOBA GRAVELLY LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES...... 14 SpC—SOBOBA STONY LOAMY SAND, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES...... 16 TuB—TUJUNGA LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES...... 17 References...... 19
4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
5 Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil- landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
6 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
7 Custom Soil Resource Report '
' Soil Map (Plunge Creek) ' ' 7 5 4
' ' 2 8
1 °
7 ° 1 7 1 1 1
480800 481600 482400 483200 484000 484800 485600 486400 487200 34° 7' 37'' 34° 7' 38''
k
0 e 0
e 0 0 e 0 0 v r 6 6
A 7 7 C
7 7 y 3 3 m t l i
a C
P
t N ort Baseline St S h For h k C k c a r na e 0 l 0
u e 0 0
r h 2 2
5 C 5
C 7 7
7 e 7 3 3 g
e
n
v
u
A l
P
h
c
r B o Oak u Creek u SoC h ld C e r
0 0 k A 0 0 Cree v 4 4 City e 4 4 East Highlands HaC 7 7 7 7 3 3 5th St SoC
3rd St SoC TuB SoC SpC SpC 0 0 0 0
6 SpC 6 3 3
7 k SpC 7 7 e Ps 7 3 re pC 3 C S ity C GP
0 SpC 0 0 0 8 8 2 2
t 7 7
S 7 7
3 3
e t
g S
n a
a
r m
O a b a l A 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 7 7 7 3 3
34° 5' 0'' 34° 5' 1'' 480800 481600 482400 483200 484000 484800 485600 486400 487200 ' ' ' ' 7 4 4
' ' Map Scale: 1:34,600 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. 2 8
1 °
7 ° Meters 1 7 1 1 0 450 900 1,800 2,700 1 Feet 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 9,000 Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI) Very Stony Spot Map Scale: 1:34,600 if printed on A size (8.5" × 11") sheet. Area of Interest (AOI) Wet Spot The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Soils Other Soil Map Units Special Line Features Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map Special Point Features measurements. Gully Blowout Short Steep Slope Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Borrow Pit Other Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Clay Spot Coordinate System: UTM Zone 11N NAD83 Political Features Closed Depression Cities This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of Gravel Pit Water Features the version date(s) listed below. Gravelly Spot Oceans Soil Survey Area: San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, Landfill Streams and Canals California Lava Flow Transportation Survey Area Data: Version 4, Jan 3, 2008 Rails Marsh or swamp Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 6/18/2005 Interstate Highways Mine or Quarry US Routes The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Miscellaneous Water compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Major Roads Perennial Water imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend (Plunge Creek)
San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California (CA677)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI GP QUARRIES AND PITS 103.5 8.4% HaC HANFORD COARSE SANDY LOAM, 2 TO 0.3 0.0% 9 PERCENT SLOPES Ps PSAMMENTS AND FLUVENTS, 215.5 17.4% FREQUENTLY FLOODED SoC SOBOBA GRAVELLY LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 23.6 1.9% 9 PERCENT SLOPES SpC SOBOBA STONY LOAMY SAND, 2 TO 9 893.3 72.2% PERCENT SLOPES TuB TUJUNGA LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 5 0.7 0.1% PERCENT SLOPES Totals for Area of Interest 1,236.9 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions (Plunge Creek)
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
10 Custom Soil Resource Report
where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
11 Custom Soil Resource Report
San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California
GP—QUARRIES AND PITS
Map Unit Composition Pits: 50 percent Quarries: 50 percent
Description of Quarries Setting Parent material: Residuum Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Very gravelly coarse sand 6 to 60 inches: Extremely gravelly sand, extremely gravelly coarse sand, very gravelly coarse sand
Description of Pits Setting Parent material: Sandy and gravelly alluvium Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Very gravelly coarse sand 6 to 60 inches: Extremely gravelly sand, extremely gravelly coarse sand, very gravelly coarse sand
HaC—HANFORD COARSE SANDY LOAM, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES
Map Unit Setting Elevation: 150 to 900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F Frost-free period: 250 to 280 days
Map Unit Composition Hanford and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent
Description of Hanford Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 9 percent
12 Custom Soil Resource Report
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very high (about 20.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e Typical profile 0 to 12 inches: Sandy loam 12 to 60 inches: Fine sandy loam, sandy loam, coarse sandy loam
Minor Components Greenfield sandy loam Percent of map unit: 10 percent Tujunga loamy sand Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Ps—PSAMMENTS AND FLUVENTS, FREQUENTLY FLOODED
Map Unit Setting Elevation: 10 to 1,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 25 inches Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 64 degrees F Frost-free period: 250 to 350 days
Map Unit Composition Fluvents and similar soils: 50 percent Psamments and similar soils: 50 percent
Description of Psamments Setting Landform: Drainageways Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Sandy alluvium Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
13 Custom Soil Resource Report
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Frequent Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 8w Typical profile 0 to 12 inches: Sand 12 to 48 inches: Loamy sand, fine sand, sand 48 to 60 inches: Stratified gravelly sand to gravelly loamy sand
Description of Fluvents Setting Landform: Drainageways Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Frequent Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 8w Typical profile 0 to 10 inches: Gravelly sand 10 to 30 inches: Stratified gravelly sand to gravelly loam 30 to 60 inches: Stratified gravelly sand to gravelly loam
SoC—SOBOBA GRAVELLY LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES
Map Unit Setting Elevation: 30 to 4,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F Frost-free period: 175 to 250 days
14 Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Composition Soboba and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent
Description of Soboba Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability (nonirrigated): 6s Typical profile 0 to 12 inches: Gravelly loamy sand 12 to 36 inches: Very gravelly loamy sand 36 to 60 inches: Very stony sand
Minor Components Delhi fine sand Percent of map unit: 5 percent Unnamed Percent of map unit: 5 percent Tujunga gravelly loam Percent of map unit: 3 percent Unnamed Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Drainageways
15 Custom Soil Resource Report
SpC—SOBOBA STONY LOAMY SAND, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES
Map Unit Setting Elevation: 30 to 4,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 61 degrees F Frost-free period: 210 to 330 days
Map Unit Composition Soboba and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent
Description of Soboba Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 9 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 0.1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability (nonirrigated): 6s Typical profile 0 to 10 inches: Very stony loamy sand 10 to 60 inches: Very stony sand
Minor Components Ramona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Tujunga gravelly loamy coarse sand Percent of map unit: 5 percent
16 Custom Soil Resource Report
Hanford Percent of map unit: 5 percent
TuB—TUJUNGA LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES
Map Unit Setting Elevation: 10 to 2,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 25 inches Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 64 degrees F Frost-free period: 280 to 350 days
Map Unit Composition Tujunga and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent
Description of Tujunga Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: High (about 10.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability (nonirrigated): 4e Typical profile 0 to 18 inches: Gravelly loamy sand 18 to 60 inches: Loamy sand, coarse sand, loamy coarse sand
Minor Components Unnamed Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Drainageways
17 Custom Soil Resource Report
Tujunga gravelly loamy sand Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hanford sandy loam Percent of map unit: 5 percent
18 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://soils.usda.gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://soils.usda.gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/ Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://soils.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://soils.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://soils.usda.gov/
19 Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210.
20