DOCSLIB.ORG

Mojave Water Agency I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mojave Water Agency I ,...... ~ . Mojave Water Agency i BOOkman-_ Edmonston _ A DIVISion of GEl Consultants Geotechnical December 16, 2005 Environmental and 042180 \X!ater Resources Engineering Mr. Norman T. Caouette Assistant General Manager Mojave Water Agency 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley, CA 92307-4304 Subject: Technical Study to Evaluate a Potential Long-Term Water Management Program Between the Mojave Water Agency and Metropolitan Water Storage District Dear Mr. Caouette: Bookman-Edmonston a division of GEl Consultants in association with Science Applications International Corporation is pleased to submit our report entitled "Technical Study to Evaluate a Potential Long-Term Water Management Program Between the Mojave Water Agency and Metropolitan Water Storage District." We are prepared to present the findings ofthis report to the local community or other parties. We are also available to provide any further technical support, including evaluation ofadditional scenarios or response to comments. It has been our privilege to provide this service to Mojave Water Agency and to Metropolitan Water District. Sincerely, Richard A. Rhone, P.E. Managing Executive Engineer Enclosures cc: Robert Beeby, SAlC ww,v.ge ico nsul [<1 n [S.COIl1 GEl Consultants, Inc. 225 West Broadway, Suite 400, Glendale, California 91204-1331 818.244.0117 fax: 818.242.0480 Technical Study to Evaluate a Potential Long-Term Water Management Program Between The Mojave Water Agency and Metropolitan Water District Date: December 2005 Project No: 042810 in association with Table of Contents Introduction v Organization of Report vi Executive Summary 1 Program Alternatives 1 The Recommended MWA/Metropolitan Program 2 Cost Sharing Opportunities 4 Program Cost Summary 5 1.0 Existing Water Management Program and Initial Screening of Alternatives 6 1.1 Current MWA Operations 6 1.1.1 Current Water Management Principals 6 1.1.2 Land Use and Water Requirements 6 1.2 Water Supplies 7 1.2.1 Surface Water 7 1.3 Groundwater 8 1.4 Geology 9 1.5 Hydrogeology 10 1.6 Groundwater Quality 10 1.7 Existing Facilities 11 1.7.1 State Water Project 11 1.7.2 MWA Facilities 11 1.7.3 Local Water Purveyors 12 1.7.4 Demonstration Banking Report 13 1.8 MWA/Metropolitan Water Management Program 14 1.8.1 Storage of Supplemental Water 14 1.8.2 Recovery of Stored Water 14 1.9 Screening Matrix 15 1.10 Criteria and Assumptions 15 1.11 Alternatives 17 1.11.1 Multipurpose Opportunity Alternatives 17 1.11.2 Water Transfer and Storage Alternatives 18 1.11.3 Recovery Operations 19 1.12 Conclusion and Recommendations 19 2.0 Preliminary Engineering and Hydrogeology Review for Put Alternatives 22 2.1 Summary of Put Alternatives 22 2.2 Description of Put Alternatives 25 2.2.1 Alternative P1 – Mojave River Dam Storage 26 2.2.2 Alternative P2 – Mojave River via Cedar Springs Dam 26 2.2.3 Alternative P3A – Alto Subarea via Mojave River Pipeline and East Branch 27 2.2.4 Alternative P4A and P4B – Alto Subarea via Morongo Basin Pipeline 28 2.2.5 Alternative P5 – In-Lieu Recharge via Water Treatment Plant 29 2.2.6 Alternative P7 – Oeste Spreading Along East Branch 29 2.2.7 Alternative P8 – Alto Spreading Along East Branch and in Oro Grande and Antelope Valley Washes 30 2.2.8 Alternative P9 – Upper Mojave River via East Branch through Unnamed Wash 31 2.3 Hydrogeology Review of Put Alternatives 32 2.3.1 Alternatives P7 and P8 - Close to the East Branch 33 2.3.2 Antelope Wash 35 2.3.3 Alternatives P3 and P4 – Along the Mojave and Morongo Basin Pipelines 35 2.3.4 Alternatives P1, P2, and P9 – Mojave River Recharge Alternatives 37 2.4 Screening of Put Alternatives 38 2.5 Cost Assessment of Put Alternatives 38 2.5.1 Alternative P2 – Mojave River via Cedar Springs Dam 41 2.5.2 Alternative P3A – Alto Subarea via Mojave River Pipeline and East Branch 41 2.5.3 Alternatives P4A and P4B – Alto Subarea via Morongo Basin Pipeline 42 2.5.4 Alternative P5 – In Lieu Recharge via Water Treatment Plant 42 2.5.5 Alternative P7 – Oeste Spreading Along the East Branch 43 2.5.6 Alternative P8 – Alto Spreading Along East Branch and in Oro Grande and Antelope Valley Washes 43 2.5.7 Alternative P9 – Upper Mojave River via East Branch through Unnamed Wash 44 2.6 Ranking of Alternatives 44 2.7 Conclusions and Recommendations 46 3.0 Metropolitan Water Storage Assessment 48 3.1 Activities Relating to Storage Options 48 3.2 Metropolitan’s Water Supply 49 3.3 Metropolitan’s Storage Programs 50 3.3.1 Coachella Valley Water District and Desert Water Agency 51 3.3.2 Semitropic Water Storage District 51 3.3.3 Arvin-Edison Water Storage District 53 3.4 Metropolitan’s Range of Storage Programs with Mojave Water Agency 54 3.5 Program Flexibility 54 3.6 Conclusion 54 4.0 Preliminary Engineering for Take Alternatives 56 4.1 Effect of Entitlement Exchange on Return Scenarios 57 4.2 Description of Take Alternatives 58 4.2.1 Alternative T0 – Direct Return Through Regional Sub-Projects from Alto Subarea 58 Bookman-Edmonston, a division of GEI Consultants, Inc. ii 4.2.2 Alternative T1 – Direct Return through the Mojave River Pipeline from Alto Subarea 59 4.2.3 Alternative T2 – Direct Return through the Morongo Basin Pipeline from Alto Subarea 60 4.2.4 Alternative T3 – Direct Return from the Floodplain Aquifer 61 4.2.5 Alternative T4 – Direct Return from Oeste Subarea 61 4.2.6 Alternative T5 – Entitlement Exchange Alternative 62 4.2.6.1 Environmental Considerations 63 4.2.6.2 Other Considerations 63 4.3 Hydrogeology Review of Take Alternatives 63 4.4 Fatal Flaw Screening of Take Alternatives 64 4.5 Cost Assessment of Take Alternatives 64 4.5.1 Alternative T1 – Direct Return Through Mojave River Pipeline from Alto Subarea 64 4.5.2 Alternative T2 – Direct Return Through Morongo Basin Pipeline 65 4.5.3 Alternative T3 – Direct Return from Floodplain Aquifer (in combination with Alternative T0) 66 4.5.4 Alternative T4 - Direct Return from Oeste Subarea 67 4.5.5 Alternative T5 – Entitlement Exchange Alternatives 68 4.6 Ranking of Alternatives 68 4.7 Conclusions and Recommendations 69 5.0 Local Water Agency Participation 71 5.1 Potential Benefits for Participating Local Agencies 71 5.2 Screening of Local Agencies 72 5.2.1 Proximity to the East Branch 73 5.2.2 Existing Production Data 73 5.2.3 Projected Growth and Future Production 73 5.3 Selection of Local Water Agencies 73 5.4 Existing and Potential Facilities of Interested Local Agencies 74 5.4.1 Victor Valley Water District 75 5.4.1.1 Proposed Facilities 76 5.4.2 Baldy Mesa Water District 77 5.4.2.1 Proposed Facilities 77 5.4.3 Hesperia Water District 78 5.4.3.1 Proposed Facilities 78 5.4.4 San Bernardino County Special District 70L and 70J 79 5.4.4.1 Proposed Facilities 80 5.5 Integration of Local Agency Information 80 5.5.1 Potential Local Agency Involvement in MWA/Metropolitan Program 82 5.6 Potential Mitigation Planning for Alternatives 82 5.7 Conclusion and Recommendations 83 6.0 Institutional Issues Screening of Alternatives 88 6.1 Overview of Institutional Issues 88 6.1.1 Adjudicated Groundwater Basins 88 Bookman-Edmonston, a division of GEI Consultants, Inc. iii 6.1.2 Conjunctive Use Agreement 89 6.1.3 Use of State Water Project Supplies and Facilities 90 6.1.4 Other Agreements 91 6.2 Issues with Existing Groundwater Banks 93 6.3 Screening of Alternatives by Institutional Issues 95 7.0 Facilities Cost Estimate 97 7.1 Formulation of Possible MWA/Metropolitan Program Matrix 97 7.1.1 Mutual Exchange Program 98 7.2 Sizing the MWA/Metropolitan Program 99 7.2.1 Facility Composition with Entitlement Exchange 101 7.3 Program Facilities 103 7.4 Cost Evaluations 106 7.4.1 Annual Cost Evaluations 107 7.5 Project Flexibility 108 7.6 Conclusion 108 Appendices A Local Model Simulating River Recharge and Pumping Scenarios B Cost Estimates Bookman-Edmonston, a division of GEI Consultants, Inc. iv Introduction The MWA is a regional water management entity created by special act of the California legislature. It is one of the 29 contractors with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and has a contract for up to 75,800 acre-feet of water from the State Water Project (Table A entitlement). The MWA encompasses over 4,900 square miles within the High Desert Region of San Bernardino County in southern California and contains several distinct groundwater basins and subareas. Plate1 illustrates the MWA area. Two of those basins, Mojave Area Basin including its five subareas, and the Warren Valley Basin which is a subarea of the Morongo Basin/Johnson Valley Basin, have been adjudicated because of the long-term overdraft of groundwater for agricultural, municipal, and industrial water supplies. The region has historically imported a negligible amount of SWP water and has been dependent upon its groundwater supply, the region has experienced cumulative groundwater overdraft since the early 1950s. Groundwater has been the primary source of water for the MWA. Consequently, MWA programs have focused on ways to increase the availability and reliability of the local water supply through the continued review and improvement of its management of groundwater resources. MWA recognizes that years of cumulative overdraft have increased the available groundwater storage. This presents an opportunity for enhanced conjunctive management of groundwater and surface water resources, both local and imported.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eclamx
    ECLAMX ION Managing Water in the West ~\~ Nalional Environmental Policy Actt 9\' ~l! FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a\' <!J\ No. 10-SCAO-002-FONSI Upper Mojave River Groundwater Regional Recharge and Recovery Project and Oro Grande Groundwater Recharge Project San Bernardino County, California The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is providing American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds to the Mojave Water Agency (MWA) to implement two components of their Integrated Regional Water Management Plan in San Bernardino County, California. The projects will install groundwater wells, pipelines, reservoir storage tanks, a pump station, and a chlorination facility for aquifer storage and recovery using California State Water Project supplies and the Mojave River groundwater basin. Financial assistance agreements have been prepared for the Oro Grande Groundwater Recharge Project (Oro Grande Project) and for the first phase of the Upper Mojave River Groundwater Regional Recharge and Recovery Project (R3 Project). Additional phases of the R3 Project may be funded in the future. Based on our review of the attached Environmental Assessment (EA) and other supporting documents including an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2005041103, prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), we have determined that the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Accordingly, preparation of an environmental impact statement on the proposed action is not required. l~t~jQ~j~·- Recommended: uc4: ' Date: Doug McPherson, Environmental Protection Specialist I 91?(~ Date: 11-~" 0 Reviewed By: 2 '7 Dennis Wolfe, :AJOea Engineer Approved: _~~~~\-¥-!~~ Date: I~'" 9- 07 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Watershed Management Approach to Assessment of Water Quality And
    A Watershed Management Approach to Assessment Of Water Quality and Development of Revised Water Quality Standards for the Ground Waters of the Mojave River Floodplain Christopher R. Maxwell Christopher R. Maxwell is an Associate Geologist with SECOR International Incorporated. Mr. Maxwell has a B.S. degree in Geology from California State Polytechnic University at Pomona. He previously worked for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for ten years, where his duties included management of watershed activities for the Mojave Watershed. His professional experience includes regulatory involvement in activities related to landfills, mines, dairies, underground storage tanks, sewage treatment plants, military installations and ground water recharge projects. Mr. Maxwell has other publications with topics including natural attenuation, bioremediation and site investigation and remediation. Abstract The Mojave River watershed is located in the arid high-desert region of Southern California in San Bernardino County. In the 1970s and 1980s the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) established numerical water quality objectives (WQOs) for several locations in the watershed. Because the Mojave River flows underground for much of its 120 miles, some of the numerical WQOs apply to both surface waters and ground waters. In 1996 the RWQCB assembled a watershed management team of local stakeholders for the Mojave Watershed. A primary goal identified by the stakeholders was to assess the current state of water quality for the Mojave River system. A possible long-term goal is the development of total maximum daily loads as required by the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Mojave River is listed as a water quality limited segment in accordance with Section 303(d) of the CWA.
    [Show full text]
  • Location Hydraulic Study Report
    Mojave River Bridge at Yucca Loma Road Town of Apple Valley and City of Victorville San Bernardino County, California Location Hydraulic Study Report Prepared for: Prepared by: and February 2009 Location Hydraulic Study Report Mojave River Bridge at Yucca Loma Road Town of Apple Valley and City of Victorville, San Bernardino County, California Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................... iv Acronyms........................................................................................................................... vi 1 General Description............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Description...............................................................................................1 1.1.1 No-Build Alternative......................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Build Alternative ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 Need for Project ...................................................................................................5 1.3 Project History.....................................................................................................5 1.4 Creek, Stream, and River Crossings ....................................................................5 1.4.1 Geographic Location ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River
    The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River Mark Q. Sutton and David D. Earle Abstract century, although he noted the possible survival of The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River, little documented by “perhaps a few individuals merged among other twentieth century ethnographers, are investigated here to help un- groups” (Kroeber 1925:614). In fact, while occupation derstand their relationship with the larger and better known Moun- tain Serrano sociopolitical entity and to illuminate their unique of the Mojave River region by territorially based clan adaptation to the Mojave River and surrounding areas. In this effort communities of the Desert Serrano had ceased before new interpretations of recent and older data sets are employed. 1850, there were survivors of this group who had Kroeber proposed linguistic and cultural relationships between the been born in the desert still living at the close of the inhabitants of the Mojave River, whom he called the Vanyumé, and the Mountain Serrano living along the southern edge of the Mojave nineteenth century, as was later reported by Kroeber Desert, but the nature of those relationships was unclear. New (1959:299; also see Earle 2005:24–26). evidence on the political geography and social organization of this riverine group clarifies that they and the Mountain Serrano belonged to the same ethnic group, although the adaptation of the Desert For these reasons we attempt an “ethnography” of the Serrano was focused on riverine and desert resources. Unlike the Desert Serrano living along the Mojave River so that Mountain Serrano, the Desert Serrano participated in the exchange their place in the cultural milieu of southern Califor- system between California and the Southwest that passed through the territory of the Mojave on the Colorado River and cooperated nia can be better understood and appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Mojave River Groundwater Basin Dynamics
    ABC’s Of Water... As you are taking your seats please take a moment to look at the items on display (Look but don’t touch!) Going Subterranean in the Desert: The Story of Groundwater Recharge ABC’s of Water March 27, 2018 Why did I decide to work in Water? Why do I still work in Water? Introduction Geology Groundwater Aquifers Groundwater Basins Water Quality Groundwater Resources Groundwater Recharge But first… Pre-Presentation Review Soil Types Well Models Aquifer Model Soil Types Well Models Groundwater Model What Lies Beneath? Regional Geology Tectonic Environment Eastern California Shear Zone Local Basins Hydrogeology Hydrogeology What is groundwater? What is a groundwater basin? What is Groundwater? Ground Water Groundwater Basin Conceptual Local basins Why “ours” are so cool (later) Aquifer – Bathtub Local Basins 1. AMES VALLEY 13. GOLDSTONE VALLEY 25. LUCERNE VALLEY 2. ANTELOPE VALLEY 14. GRASS VALLEY 26. MEANS VALLEY 3. BESSEMER VALLEY 15. HARPER VALLEY 27. MIDDLE MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY 4. CAVES CANYON VALLEY 16. INDIAN WELLS VALLEY 28. MORONGO VALLEY 5. COPPER MOUNTAIN VALLEY 17. IRON RIDGE AREA 29. PILOT KNOB VALLEY 6. COYOTE LAKE VALLEY 18. JOHNSON VALLEY - SOGGY LAKE 30. SALT WELLS VALLEY 7. CRONISE VALLEY 19. JOHNSON VALLEY - UPPER 31. SEARLES VALLEY 8. CUDDEBACK VALLEY JOHNSON VALLEY 32. SUPERIOR VALLEY 9. DEADMAN VALLEY - 20. JOSHUA TREE DEADMAN LAKE 33. TWENTYNINE PALMS 21. KANE WASH AREA VALLEY 10. DEADMAN VALLEY - SURPRISE SPRING 22. LANGFORD VALLEY - 34. UPPER MOJAVE RIVER LANGFORD WELL LAKE VALLEY 11. EL MIRAGE VALLEY 23. LOST HORSE VALLEY 35. UPPER SANTA ANA VALLEY 12. FREMONT VALLEY - CAJON 24.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring and Analysis of Erosion and Deposition in the Desert Knolls Wash
    California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations Office of aduateGr Studies 12-2015 MONITORING AND ANALYSIS OF EROSION AND DEPOSITION IN THE DESERT KNOLLS WASH Samson Rajan Lamech California State University - San Bernardino Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd Recommended Citation Lamech, Samson Rajan, "MONITORING AND ANALYSIS OF EROSION AND DEPOSITION IN THE DESERT KNOLLS WASH" (2015). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 263. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/263 This Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of aduateGr Studies at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MONITORING AND ANALYSIS OF EROSION AND DEPOSITION IN THE DESERT KNOLLS WASH A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Earth and Environmental Sciences by Samson Rajan Lamech December 2015 MONITORING AND ANALYSIS OF EROSION AND DEPOSITION IN THE DESERT KNOLLS WASH A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino by Samson Rajan Lamech December 2015 Approved by: Dr. Norman Meek, Committee Chair, Geography and Environmental Studies Dr. Brett Stanley, Committee Member Dr. Rajrani Kalra, Committee Member © 2015 Samson Rajan Lamech ABSTRACT The goal of this Project was to monitor and measure ongoing changes in the geomorphology of one reach of The Desert Knolls Wash (DKW), an unstable ephemeral stream channel in Apple Valley, California.
    [Show full text]
  • On Extracting Sediment Transport Information from Measurements of Luminescence in River Sediment
    On extracting sediment transport information from measurements of luminescence in river sediment Harrison J. Gray1,2*, Gregory E. Tucker2, Shannon A. Mahan1, Chris McGuire3, Edward J. Rhodes3,4 1 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado – Boulder, CO 2 U.S. Geological Survey Luminescence Geochronology Laboratory, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 3 Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 4Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, United Kingdom *corresponding author: [email protected] KEY POINTS We develop a model coupling sediment transport of fine sand and luminescence, in order to explain the patterns of luminescence observed in river sediment The model successfully reproduces the patterns of luminescence measurements in river systems Best-fit values from the model produce sediment transport information for fine sand within orders of magnitude from other river systems ABSTRACT Accurately quantifying sediment transport rates in rivers remains an important goal for geomorphologists, hydraulic engineers, and environmental scientists. However, current techniques for measuring transport rates are laborious, and formulae to predict transport are notoriously inaccurate. Here, we attempt to estimate sediment transport rates using luminescence, a property of common sedimentary minerals that is used by the geoscience community for geochronology. This method is advantageous because of the ease of measurement on ubiquitous quartz and feldspar sand. We develop a model based on conservation of energy and sediment mass to explain the patterns of luminescence in river channel sediment from a first- principles perspective. We show that the model can accurately reproduce the luminescence observed in previously published field measurements from two rivers with very different sediment transport styles.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical and Temporal Isolation of Mountain Headwater Streams in the Western Mojave Desert, Southern California1
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION Vol. 43, No. 1 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION February 2007 PHYSICAL AND TEMPORAL ISOLATION OF MOUNTAIN HEADWATER STREAMS IN THE WESTERN MOJAVE DESERT, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA1 John A. Izbicki2 ABSTRACT: Streams draining mountain headwater areas of the western Mojave Desert are commonly physic- ally isolated from downstream hydrologic systems such as springs, playa lakes, wetlands, or larger streams and rivers by stream reaches that are dry much of the time. The physical isolation of surface flow in these streams may be broken for brief periods after rainfall or snowmelt when runoff is sufficient to allow flow along the entire stream reach. Despite the physical isolation of surface flow in these streams, they are an integral part of the hydrologic cycle. Water infiltrated from headwater streams moves through the unsaturated zone to recharge the underlying ground-water system and eventually discharges to support springs, streamflow, isolated wetlands, or native vegetation. Water movement through thick unsaturated zones may require several hundred years and subsequent movement through the underlying ground-water systems may require many thousands of years – contributing to the temporal isolation of mountain headwater streams. (KEY TERMS: hydrologic cycle; infiltration; recharge; vadose zone; surface water ⁄ ground-water interactions; arid lands.) Izbicki, J.A., 2007. Physical and Temporal Isolation of Mountain Headwater Streams in the Western Mojave Desert, Southern California. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 43(1):26-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00004.x INTRODUCTION have discussed the extent of ‘‘waters of the United States,’’ including streams in arid areas that are iso- lated from larger hydrologic systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Supply in the Mojave River Ground-Water Basin, 1931-99, And
    Water Supply in the Mojave River Ground-Water Basin, 1931-99, and the Benefits of Artificial Recharge The Mojave River and the associated aquifer system are important water supplies in the Mojave Desert of southern California. The river and aquifer system are in hydraulic connec- tion in many areas, and when flow conditions change in one, the other usually is affected. The river is an unpredictable source of water; therefore, residents of the basin rely almost entirely on ground water for their water supply. This reliance on ground water has resulted in overdraft conditions that have caused water-level declines, changes in the quantity and spa- tial distribution of recharge from the Mojave River, and loss of riparian habitat. The U.S. Geo- logical Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Mojave Water Agency (MWA), has completed several studies to determine the likely effects of overdraft on the ground-water and surface- water relations along the Mojave River. This report summarizes those studies, highlighting some of the simulation results from a ground-water flow model, and describes the ground- water and surface-water conditions of the Mojave River Basin. 117 30' 117 00' 116 30' Mojave River Ground-Water ° ° ° Mojave River 0 20 MILES Basin Surface-Water 0 20 KILOMETERS Kern Co Kern Drainage Basin Mojave River Regional aquifer The Mojave River ground-water San Bernardino Co Ground-Water Floodplain aquifer basin is in the western part of the Basin Mojave Desert and is about 80 Coyote miles northeast of Los Angeles, Lake California. The basin encompasses 35 Harper Baja ° Lake Afton about 1,400 square miles and is 00' 15 Canyon Centro subarea divided into six management sub- subarea Barstow areas: Oeste, Este, Alto, Transition zone of the Alto (hereinafter refer- Mojave River Channel Troy Iron red to as the Transition zone sub- Mtn Lake Newberry 40 area), Centro, and Baja (fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Mojave River Exhibit
    APPENDIX D MOJAVE RIVER EXHIBIT Floor Unit The floor unit will be a free-standing, three dimensional representation of the Mojave River and adjacent lands. Pleistocene lakes and present day features will be labeled. See Figure 1. Four horizontal panels will be attached to the floor unit. Two large vertical panels will be adjacent to the floor unit. One will be the modified existing panel on Afton Canyon and Pleistocene Lake Manix. Figure 1. Map For Floor Unit (after Automobile Club of Southern California, 2002; Reheis, et al, 2015). D-1 Panels Adjacent to Floor Unit The four panels mounted on the sides of the floor unit will contain addition information about subjects related to the Mojave Desert, both during the Pleistocene and Holocene. The four panels going clockwise from the top of the exhibit will discuss thermoregulation by the shasta ground sloth (Nothrotheriops shastensis), eolian activity, the flood plain aquifer, and gold processing. Each panel will contain text and diagrams. Free Standing Panels The existing panel with information on Afton Canyon and Lake Manix is shown in figure 2. The heading will be changed to "The Mojave: the River that Grew in Your Own Backyard". Otherwise, it will be unchanged. The text of the existing panel is difficult to read in Figure 2; its text is given below: Afton Canyon: During the later part of the Pleistocene Epoch, Lake Manix extended eastwards as far as Cave Mountain and the Cady Mountains, just west of Soda Lake. After approximately 21,000 years ago, as the last glacial pulse of the Ice Ages was waning, Lake Manix overtopped its eastern threshold and catastrophically drained to the east, forming a new lake - Pleistocene Lake Mojave.
    [Show full text]
  • (3 of 5) Attachment E
    ATTACHMENT E (3 OF 5) ATTACHMENT E (3 OF 5) 480000 481000 482000 483000 Figure 4.1 Qualitative Reconnaissance and Field Observation Locations Victorville PBR No.1 FUDS Project No. J09CA067501 San Bernardino County, California 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 2 2 8 8 3 3 Legend ! 4 Munitions Debris Observation Location !7 3 ! Other Field Observation Location Range Boundary Project Boundary Qualitative Reconnaissance Track 0 MRS 01-Practice Bomb Target 0 0 0 0 ! 0 8 12 8 2 2 8 8 3 !8 !2221 3 !20 ! 27 !19 !! 23 ! 15 ! 28 ! 16 ! ! 24 ! 4 ! 5 14 ! !11 13 ! 17 !9 ! 18 !26 !3 !25 !1 !10 !6 Site Location in California T R O P R Image: Orthophoto, 2005 I 0 A 0 Projection: UTM Zone 11 NAD83, Map Units in Meters 0 !2 0 Y 0 0 7 T 7 2 2 ³ N 8 8 3 3 Feet U D O R 1,000 500 0 1,000 C N Y I E A L T L N A U.S. ARMY SOUTH U V O E PARSONS PACIFIC DIVISION M L P L RANGE SUPPORT CENTER P L E A DESIGNED BY: B BT Qualitative Reconnaissance and DRAWN BY: Field Observation Locations BELL MTN BT PROJECT NUMBER: CHECKED BY: SCALE: As Shown 744653.74000 BB PAGE DATE: March 2008 NUMBER: SUBMITTED BY: X:\GIS\Site_inspections_sw\Maps\ 480000 481000 482000 483000 FILE: DS victorville_ca\Fig4_1_pbr1.mxd 4-10 FINAL CHAPTER 5 MIGRATION/EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AND RECEPTORS 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.1.1 This chapter of the SI Report evaluates the potential presence or absence of migration/exposure pathways and receptors, based on site-specific conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiocarbon Dating of Anodonta in the Mojave River Basin
    Radiocarbon Dating of Anodonta in the Mojave River Basin Item Type Proceedings; text Authors Berger, Rainer; Meek, Norman Citation Berger, R., & Meek, N. (1992). Radiocarbon dating of Anodonta in the Mojave River basin. Radiocarbon, 34(3), 578-584. DOI 10.1017/S0033822200063852 Publisher Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona Journal Radiocarbon Rights Copyright © by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona. All rights reserved. Download date 26/09/2021 20:38:19 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/653393 [RADIOCARBON, VOL. 34, No. 3, 1992, P. 578-584] RADIOCARBON DATING OF ANODONTA IN THE MOJAVE RIVER BASIN RAINER BERGER Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, and Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024 USA and NORMAN MEEK Department of Geography, California State University, San Bernardino, California 92407 USA 14C 14C ABSTRACT. A 450-year correction is required to make Anodonta dates comparable to dates on other materials 14C in the Mojave River basin. The internal stratigraphic consistency of 34 conventional dates on Anodonta in this drainage 14C basin indicates that such dates are usually reliable. The validity of most conventional dates in the Mojave River basin may be a product of the basin's crystalline bedrock in a region usually typified by thick Paleozoic carbonate sections. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This paper presents the results of extensive radiocarbon dating, and the establishment of a correction term, for a freshwater pelecypod, Anodonta californiensis, in the Mojave River drainage basin of inland southern California (Fig.
    [Show full text]