HomeMy WebLinkAboutDay, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek Drainage Plan Water Conservation ReportDAY, ETI14ANDA AND
SAN SEVAINE CREEKS
DRAINAGE PLAN
WATER CONSERVATION REPORT
Bill Mann & Associates
1814 Commercenter West, Suite A
San Bernardino, CA 92408
March, 1983
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION II. GROUNDWATER RECHARGE TERMINOLOGY FACTORS 8
SECTION III. GROUNDWATER RECHARGE IN SPREADING 18
GROUNDS AND WATER CONSERVATION BASINS
SECTION IV. GROUNDWATER RECHARGE IN GRAVEL PITS 26
SECTION V. CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER SUPPLY FROM DAY 31
CREEK AND ETIWANDA CANYONS
SECTION VI. ESTIMATED ANNUAL CONSERVABLE RUNOFF 35
SECTION VII. CHINO BASIN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY 54
APPENDIX
1. REFERENCES
2. PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION BASINS
AND SPREADING GROUND PLANS
3. SCHEMATIC SAND AND GRAVEL MINING
PLAN FOR DAY CREEK SPREADING GROUNDS
i
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
1. GENERAL
Although the main purpose of the development of the drainage
plan for the Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek System is
for flood control, an important part of the overall drainage
plan is the water conservation element. By retaining drainage
flows within the watershed area and reducing runoff downstream,
in addition to reducing the downstream flood problem, water con-
servation is also enhanced.
The Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek drainage areas are
within the Chino Groundwater Basin. As producers of groundwater
within the Chino Basin are aware, the water levels have dropped
tremendously during the last few decades, as much as five to
ten feet per year in some cases. This trend, extended over wet
and dry cycles, has shown the basin to be in overdraft. This
means water in excess of safe yield continues to be mined.
Figure No. 1 is a vicinity map showing the drainage areas and
creek systems, and Figure No. 2 indicates the Chino Basin boundary.
The Chino Basin has been adjudicated and the Chino Basin Water -
master was established under the Judgement entered in Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino,
as a result of Case No. 164327 entitled, "Chino Basin Municipal
Water District vs. City of Chino et al", on January 27, 1978.
The adjudication established the safe yield of the basin at
approximately 145,000 acre-feet per year, whereas the Chino Basin
extractions have been higher in recent years, such as the 181,000
acre-feet extraction in 1975/76 prior to the adjudication. The
"I i •I .I\ J -,1i I,. a I ...�N•. t • eg71
IL- - L+E;-� > ! }•' \\ \. I I' . � :� , t' 1 �1},� 1�T' i �; ' i1 � • X14• , ' to " t ,\ C, _.% - :--,7•'1 : � "� � "`♦,.'^, w � o+. 3i�:
w-
C
p i' •
"�!- a� ./ i .. j ►. .i., .Ki 11 . y - 41,11 ;E
1. - /� r /✓ " i 1 I pLt\ \1 g q \
- ? 6' _ � - �` ti - -' ':i-«••�__` \Lij
- • -_ - _� _-� i_-�,v,^• � j Vii'e
- .- e -- rP -"_ .'� .,n � Z U I y.� I.` •_ •', r I ' • I i ��� �� i l ."•.•f,.h� � :,. ;• •y l,ieii �\
fn LU I..
- r _ - '� -.•'"� I ! . f �• �.. .., - _ rFr .yvq. ,. i I - ,� - A. -.'- •w•InV , ,' _ �.. i •`t`w fit. } s1' ��-•-+.
�^-_.-"'.°•a^-_- '--'-'_,-r--- — `_ ...-_.:}� i, -...-_' r -! y. - _ ..: ,.. - '=-rA::-' — .i ., _al -_`-- - -._...._-v:+�����..--. = ;ate+ �-----^ --�
` _ I
i
' - _ - Cay 1,: I ■ - , f - ..ly \ ��'i^ 'r - a;;•
_ :r ?? i ` � .; •. - y _ ��_ �` - `�'\ I � _ - rf I{ .�, 113•`J �;r: ... Cj'1 .'.'' � VI' i. 3. i;
(i� L yin •_ - � _ _ w �i - _ Qs :-•\V -
v r
n_
_rl _ . Y -i . ` Z : -i"i, ' f ' ' �� ` :�-a. ,� •'� 'i .. �'..�"�_ , e i"',+•�1
-- //tt _ .� 1'I JI i♦.Illr_. t x'f
j, .. - '•ti f _ �: .�` r _ US a I Z/ i... .. �-: +�;"! ,If �� - - i, �J"s q s• ..�\�,_
.i�• f' ,a `'•�� _ H tII a Q LI +J_ '•"U:' -^I t'jlPP _ ,..`\\\<< •..y .1 y. m±... -�-'flll
/ a'
J til_'
"{ �� — N m c. 3
n
= Z .
Ow _ tit ,4j$ - Air �' I �' ��•. - `a�',r" _ \
I j _- r -
I
Q w aZ II � '• 'I • �+ uu
Z Z .IL i' !L{I -•. \�• l t Z's+e'• is
L N
to Z r..
.: f�.; ,-r �r '� .':: ,.- ``._---_ _y -- • - - i` - - - - -- - -- - � - -'r � - - rte- -- - --- _
+ - - _ W as „•„µ ','` _ 11* -fir - - c s ..t
W ty j -" r"°" Q r"y�:.•�.ap,--cl 'D' i
`t } ' +t'•_ �..•,:,' Z i - � z Z W �\ I— — — — — F � .. I m CI 4 � y'"'t� � II .. � , a.t ;fp ! S. �R:: ® t/?^:. _ w �p1 � � �..�j}�
-'^y ]: - _ >� „i.,` I.l•'EJ ;':- WQO _/ �� 4 �� J� JZ'. �'"t, r ,•I •fes i _ f ._� �f i<,Is,,,2 a>' Q) �" T. \' i rZ V_' tM� `T}o- }y a •�/t
..: - .-.' .. ' _: : i - . '�.�9'. :Ir'•, '.t.% i+/ �>'��.C' �LL] U` � { � ,"i�a::r•f:,�+, �: '?arac4•• ;� _ _ ' � - d Q I..n. � � ' . .. u . `—"=cjQ: ` .. '-a.a..`1R y .\" \•. �.
n
i
7
— \l_iti
.
- F �. - _ e1�.1 ! ``�, '� 1, +• j sm:. •. 4) i. t ri y_c:
�',v !�,; +L. \\ '\ ./ �:Y' - •, Q s 0` , , - • Wiz- E W f ` �.._.• Z 0 W '_f,- h • • f ' _i
_ v •i, f'.- I. _y�,y�r r.=p• .. , \ �+ sit Z' m! ` ' i-♦, s _ 5 - - O fG O ` _
�� - 'tr �+c` r• ?r�.�•��i• "'.�,�;'�-#tom \e1 � -_� � '-�-�•.���:\ .F:, �' .. - - .ol -- ? — ._ J P t.a
~.�' .` �:..ch?�" f`-�ty. ,>>~5�. _t� _ Z �1._ .' - �jtir�^ •li
qNI
>, ! N �I• _ .. 3S NGS Q� G
Z I�' � .,� . � •t • i p,• -�"rAi
1 .. is .• .... • .�/�,,p : i �'+ -- • "i � � t�� h ;L N I`
r
`Ld In
,µi'i'i, �, .�`, � _ i I `� *• �I 1`: a w •� . F I
rj
iiiiiiiij! yi338� AVG _. t�.._ p_j W al mIl a' E
_ =
L 11 -I s 3 Lf 174
♦ o PROP
w
' F
-
OSED
r
• � --�
IST
EX F
us
XV -1...
.. .. ,.. "f.
V. W U
a Q
i
—1 Q
�.
_ %� �. sL � s '• ♦ ... •^ .. � • -S x�:,., �' r • - �'7-T:'� - :.L:i�:�,*. _., . _ � .�. 3 - - s-.- y -5.�� � -• - !-F,--�� —� -T-•_- :r « .. �/�---•_._—___ _ •.'r_.. � I � ��_
m• � ... .� � _- '< '.ter/ *�.,� 4_ 5" ' a f 1 ... �� � .I ... - s.--�"�-_ f (T A i.-...• _
.•"�`.,`�.'� _ ^:s-..xN..�. ice. I7 _ .�}+ ';i nliR �'•. f'�I t r r.,R.•-•.. • �%i C Bf�
J•E1 + L
I
C--
.� • - X♦> :. I.'K - ^. .-. o'L.•H i. iz!`.J .ax' _. , �-y��r i `i'I'f� - _ �.i - g
Wlylrli���l�—`.'!1�. - -. ,./ 'F __" _- /' '. .. .f ,: � - r_` _ l_ •. - '/^ . ' �I • f��� .. � _ its.. '-ii ;a ".._ ;-�:'= ,. 3 .. . ..
Chino Basin Watermaster has initiated a program of groundwater
replenishment by purchasing exported water. According to the
Fourth Annual Report of the Chino Basin Watermaster dated 1980/81,
approximately 90,000 acre-feet of water have been percolated
into the basin from imported supplies since implementation of the
Judgement through June 30, 1981.
Because all the proposed water conservation basins and flood
storage basins within this drainage plan area overlie the Chino
Basin, all groundwater percolation assists in recharging the
basin. Therefore, the greater the groundwater recharge with
storm flows and local runoff, the less amount of replenishment
water that has to be purchased to maintain the basin safe yield
of 145,000 acre-feet.
For information purposes, the following tables are taken from
the Fourth Annual Report of the Chino Basin Watermaster, 1980/81.
Table No. 1 shows the total water used within Chino Basin during
the period 1974/75 to 1980/81. Table No. 2 shows the production
by pool for the same period.
Table No. 1
4
Total Water Used
Within Chino Basin**
(acre-feet)
Fiscal
Chino Basin
Other
Year
Extractions
Imported Supplies
Total
1974/75
175,757
39,383
225,140
1975/76
181,017
57,686
238,703
1976/77
173,355
55,765
229,120
1977/78
154,675
61,567
216,242
1978/79
141,412
75,864
217,276
1979/80
141,574
70,727
212,301
1980/81
144,416
77,120
221,536
4
Table No. 2 -
Production by Pool
(acre-feet)
Overlying Overlying
Fiscal Appropriative (Agricultural) (Non -Agricultural)
Year Pool Pool Pool Total
1974/75
70,312
96,567
8,878
175,757
1975/76
79,312
95,349
6,356
181,017
1976/77
72,707
91,450
9,198
173,355
1977/78
60,659
83,934
10,082-,,
154,675
1978/79
601597
74,026
7,127
141,750
1979/80
63,834
70,377
7,363
140,566
1980/81
701726
68,040
5,650
144,416
*Includes 3,945 acre-feet of mined water pumped by the Edison
Company as agent for the Chino Basin Municipal Water District.
**Fourth Annual Report - Chino Basin Watermaster.
As related above, one form of corrective action being taken is
the recharge of imported water to augment the natural recharge
that occurs through rainfall, mountain runoff, and return of
applied irrigation water to the underground basin. Another
corrective action that can be taken is to increase the amount of
natural recharge that occurs. The more natural recharge of the
basin that occurs, the less imported water that has to be pur-
chased for groundwater replenishment.
The drainage plan will include hard lining of Day, Etiwanda and
San Sevaine Creeks. That amount of percolated water lost by
lining the channels will have to be replaced by offsite recharge
facilities, namely the use of recharge basins. The amount of
groundwater recharge lost by hard lining of channels can readily
be replaced by the use of recharge basins. It is intended .to
increase the amount of groundwater recharge over that obtained
naturally, by developing additional groundwater recharge facilities
5
as a part of the drainage plan. This will be accomplished by
turning flows out of the channels into recharge basins, the
increased use of the spreading ground areas, the use of retention
basins as a part of development, and the development of flood
retardation basins and debris basins.
Successful water resources management plans must satisfy at least
three basic requirements: 1) social acceptance, 2) legal con-
formances, and 3) organizational effectiveness. In the imple-
mentation of a management scheme, successful management will
develop and implement programs and operations that satisfy these
requirements. The existing Watermaster program does or can meet
the above requirements. The main problem will be the technical
ability of recharging the groundwater basin.
Recharge in a groundwater management plan is influenced by two
factors. The first is the potential demand for groundwater.
This in turn is influenced by economic and legal considerations,
both of which can be altered by management processes. The second
factor is the physical limitations of the groundwater basin.
The possibility of coordination of a groundwater recharge opera-
tion with the State Division of Water Resources/Metropolitan
Water District conjunctive use study is being explored. Also
the physical limitations of the basin, particularly in the area
of existing or potential recharge sites, must be considered.
Some of these limitations include basin storage capacity, re -
chargeability of recharge basin sites, transmissivity of aquifers
under and around the recharge sites, land area appropriate for
replenishment activity, and other related matters which will
be explored later in this report.
0
The quality of water in the Chino Basin can be enhanced by in-
creasing the basin recharge with local drainage and flood flows.
This is due to the fact State Project imported water has an
average total dissolved solids (TDS) of 260 and Colorado River
imported water has a TDS of 750. Storm flows and local runoff
has a TDS ranging from 180 to 220. Therefore, any increase in
groundwater recharge with natural runoff will improve the water
quality of the basin.
7
SECTION II
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE TERMINOLOGY FACTORS
Groundwater recharge is not an exact science. It requires a con-
siderable amount of soils testing, geologic investigation, field
evaluation and historical observation. The proper understanding of
groundwater recharge technology requires at least a passing under-
standing of the terminology. Some of the more important definitions
are given below to assist in later evaluation of this report.
1. INFILTRATION RATES
Recharge capacity is the volume rate (cubic feet per second) of
water that can be recharged for extended periods at a given site.
The potential recharge rate, which is the infiltration rate (feet
per day) that can be maintained over extended periods under normal
basin operating conditions, is based on controlling geologic and
hydrologic factors. Estimated recharge rates range from less
than one foot (1') per day in areas underlain by older alluvium
to four feet (4') per day in areas underlain by coarse-grained
younger alluvium. The recharge capacity (cfs) equals one-half
the recharge rate (feet per day) times the area (acres).
Data supplied by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District
and USGS provides useful design criteria based on numerous years
of experience operating spreading areas and research. However,
in most cases, certain design criteria were not available or
precisely applicable to the spreading areas of interest. The
infiltration rates used for the immediate area below the base of
the San Gabriel Mountains are 3 cfs/wetted acre, or about 6 feet/
day; however, it is doubtful that this is a long-term rate.
The U. S. Geological Survey in their publication "Artificial
Recharge in the Upper Santa Ana Valley" has estimated recharge
capacity figures for recharge facilities in the San Bernardino
Valley Area. These estimated rates are used in this report.
A portion of that tabulation is included in this report as Table
No. 3. The recharge capacity figures are based on existing con-
ditions and not developed basins_ Information is not available
for all basin areas.
Table No. 3
Recharge Capacity Factors in Existing Facilities
Surface Estimated
Infiltration Perching Recharge Rate
Recharge Facility Rate Siltation Layers (feet/day)
Day Canyon
A
C
A 3
Spreading Grounds
Day Creek
A
C
A 3
Spreading Grounds
Etiwanda Conser-
B
B
C 2
vation Basins
Etiwanda Spreading
A
C
A 3
Grounds
Wineville Basin
B
C
C 1
San Sevaine
A
C
A 3
Spreading Grounds
Surface -Infiltration Rate
A: very permeable, coarse-grained younger alluvium -5 ft/day
B: permeable, fine-grained younger alluvium -2 to 5 ft/day
C: moderately permeable older alluvium -3 ft/day
D: low permeability, consolidated rocks -1 ft/day
Siltation
A: source water relatively clear, few silt problems
B: source water relatively clear, some silt problems
C: source water potentially turbid, moderate silt problems
D: source water potentially turbid, serious silt problems
Perching Layers
A: none exist
B: exist at depth
C: exist near surface, may affect recharge rate
Recharge capacity (cfs) equals one-half recharge rate (feet/day) times
area (acres).
9
2. TRANSMISSIBILITY
Transmissibility as defined and used by the USGS is the amount
of water in gallons per day that would flow through a one foot
(1') width of the saturated portion of aquifer under a unit
hydraulic gradient and prevailing water temperatures. It quanti-
tatively describes the ability of the aquifer to transmit water.
3. PERMEABILITY
The permeability of a porous medium describes the ease with
which a fluid will pass through it and indicates its capacity
for transmitting water under a differential head.
The field coefficient of permeability is the flow of water, in
gallons per day, through a cross-section of aquifer one foot (1')
thick and one mile wide under a hydraulic gradient of one foot
(1') per mile, at field temperature.
Coefficients of permeability and transmissibility pertain to the
character of the porous materials found primarily in the zone of
saturation.
4. DEEP PERCOLATION
After water enters the soil through surface infiltration, it
must move downward to a zone of saturation before it can be re-
claimed. Generally, water must reach the water table before it
can be economically recovered. However, in some places, the zone
of saturation may be a perched water body that has developed to a
sufficient quantity to make extraction through wells feasible.
10
In the unsaturated zone, a complex interplay of forces controls
the movement. In addition to the obvious gravitational and
frictional forces that control flow in saturated material,
matrix forces, such as capillary, may substantially affect flow
in unsaturated sediments. The matrix forces are dependent not
only upon the physical character of the matrix, but also upon
moisture content, chemistry, temperature, and previous condition
(hysteresis effects). Water movement in the unsaturated zone
caused by the resultant of these forces is complex and difficult
to predict. See Figure No. 3 for pictorial view.
For the purpose of this report, matrix forces are assumed to be
negligible, and water in the unsaturated zone is assumed to move
vertically downward until it reaches the water table or a zone of
significantly reduced permeability. When water reaches a zone of
reduced permeability, a perched water body develops that grows
until leakage through or around the zone is equal to the recharge.
The potential formation of perched water bodies, particularly
where the perched water mound may rise to intersect the surface,
is an important factor in evaluation of recharge potential. The
known low permeability zones below the potential recharge sites
are given on Table No. 4. The information was obtained from the
U. S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, "Artificial
Recharge in the Upper Santa Ana Valley" open -file report dated 1972.
The permeability zones are provided for reference only and based
on known data. The permeability factors were used by USGS in
estimating recharge capacities, which are used in this report.
Table No. 3 indicates the estimated recharge rate in feet per day
for Wineville Basin which is one foot/day. This may be slightly
on the low side. The U.S.G.S. report referred to above indicates
the recharge rate ranges from one to two feet per day. The low
number has been used in this report for the most part.
11
Table No. 4
Low Permeability Zones Beneath Recharge Facilities
(based on logs of nearby wells)
Approximate
Depth to Water
(feet below Confining Beds
Facility land surface) (depth-feet/thickness-feet)
Day Canyon
Spreading Grounds
Day Creek
Spreading Grounds
Etiwanda Conserva-
tion Basins
Etiwanda
Spreading Grounds
Wineville Basin
San Sevaine
Spreading Grounds
500 (1)
500 (1)
375 25/65, 100/35, 135/70, 210/10,
250/300, 320/10, 335/15
550 (1)
230 5/5, 25/5, 40/20, 70/40, 160/35,
205/70
550 (1)
(1) No reliable driller's logs in the vicinity. Geologic environment
indicates that no shallow confining beds exist. Based on U.S.G.S.
Report dated 1972. Also see Table No. 3.
5. INCREASED RUNOFF FROM URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Although not a part of groundwater terminology in the strict
sense, conserving increased runoff from urban development is an
important factor in the basin groundwater recharge. Increased
runoff due to urban development decreases the available water
supply. To conserve this runoff, recharge facilities need to be
developed to replace permeable areas lost to urban expansion.
The number, size and location of facilities needed in the future
can only be estimated based on the proposed or projected urban
development and the estimation of conservable runoff. See
Section III,2 for further discussion on urban runoff.
12
6. CONSERVABLE RUNOFF
That amount of urban runoff of storm flows that can be "conserved"
or precolated back into the ground is conservable runoff. Con-
servable runoff is approximately the difference between the average
annual water supply from precipitation and the average losses by
evaporation and transpiration. The residual runoff, after the
losses of transpiration and evaporation, includes surface and/or
subsurface flows which are theoretically recoverable. See Sec-
tion VI,2 for formula for "conservable runoff"
7. SILT CLOGGING
Surface deposition of silt from flood water may reduce the re-
charge capability of a conservation basin in a very short time.
Silt carried into a recharge facility is not only deposited as
a crust over the basin floor, silt may also move some distance
into the natural soil before depositing. The major siltation
problem is due to deposition on the basin floor and silt movement
into the natural soil to a depth of 4 to 8 inches.
Maintenance of the recharge facilities, such as silt removal
and disking or plowing of the basin floor, is necessary to main-
tain the recharge capability. Removal of the silt from the
basins is the best maintenance method.
8. GROUNDWATER ZONES
A. Zone of Aeration
Water occurring in the zone of aeration may be more or less
permanent of "suspended" water, or water on its way downward
13
to the zone of saturation (see Figure No. 3). Water in
this upper zone is acted upon by the opposing forces of
gravity and of molecular attraction. The latter, acting
over only very small distances, tendsto hold the water in
the very minute interstices that occur in the rock between
soil particles, or within the minute cracks and crevices
of the rock itself, and also to spread water in thin films
over rock surfaces and granular particles, this action being
against the downward pull of gravity. The remaining space
in the interstices is occupied by atmospheric gases. In
some areas there may be practically no zone of aeration,
and the water table may be at or close to the ground surface.
The zone of aeration is divided into three belts: (a) The
belt of soil water, (b) the intermediate belt, and (c) the
capillary fringe. The belt of soil water extends to a depth
from which water can be discharged into the air be trans-
piration through plants. This distance is seldom more than
from 10 feet to 15 feet, although in areas of deep rooted
plants, such as alfalfa and mesquite, it may extend to a
depth of from 30 feet to 50 feet, or even more (see Figure
No. 3).
Water held in this zone against gravitational action may
later pass into the atmosphere by transpiration or soil
evaporation.
The intermediate belt, ranging in thickness from nothing to
several hundred feet, extends downward to the top of the
capillary fringe. Water moving into it from the belt of
soil water continues its slow downward passage until it
reaches the zone of saturation.
14
The capillary fringe, which lies just above the zone of
saturation, contains water that is held above this zone by
capillary force. Its thickness may range from a fraction
of an inch in coarse material with large interstices, to
8 feet or more in very fine material. All interstices near
the base of the fringe may be completely filled with
capillary water, but the water content decreases as the top
of the fringe is approached. In areas where the water table
is near the surface, the capillary fringe may extend upward
to plant roots, or even to the surface of the ground,
allowing water from the zone of saturation to discharge
directly into the atmosphere.
FIGURE N0. 3
Groundwater Zones
4- m
O Y U
00
d 0 3
O of O
N V_
Land Surface
Belt of
Soil Water
Soi I Water
C
O
0
Intermediate
Q
Belt
0
N
Intermediate
N
Capillary
Fringe
4- m
O Y U
00
d 0 3
O of O
N V_
Land Surface
Soil Water
L
L
+.
vd
� o
Intermediate
O N
Water
o
ao
N
v
�
Fringe Water
Ground Water,
(Phreatic Water)
15
Internal Water
B. Zone of Saturation
The zone of saturation lies below the zone of aeration.
Its thickness varies greatly, extending downward to depths
where the interstices have been closed. All interstices in
the zone of saturation are completely filled with water
under hydrostatic pressure. It is in this zone that
groundwater storage, as herein discussed, occurs. Where
the upper surface of the zone of saturation is under atmos-
pheric pressure, and is free to rise and fall with changes
in volume of stored water, it is referred to as the "water
table". Water occurring under these conditions is called
"free" or "unconfined" groundwater. Where the upper surface
of this zone is under hydrostatic pressure, due to a more or
less overlying impermeable formation, the water is termed
"confined" groundwater, or "artesian water".
In places, the main zone of saturation is overlain by un-
saturated material that contains an impervious formation,
above which a local zone of saturation may occur. Ground-
water in such a zone is termed "perched" water, and its
upper surface is a "perched" water table.
C. Recharge of Groundwater Reservoirs
Of the total precipitation infiltrating below the ground
surface, a part may appear later as runoff, whereas the
remainder passes downward into the zone of aeration. Of
this, part will be returned to the atmosphere by evaporation,
part may be brought to the surface by capillary action and
evaporated, part will enter plants through their root systems
and transpired, part will be used to make up deficiencies in
16
soil moisture, and the remainder will ultimately reach the
zone of saturation (see Figure No. 3). That water not
reaching the zone of saturation, or otherwise not reclaim-
able by pumping, is considered in the "losses" in the
"conservable runoff" formula (see Section VI ).
17
SECTION III
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE IN SPREADING GROUNDS
AND WATER CONSERVATION BASINS
1. POTENTIAL AREAS OF RECHARGE
There are a number of existing and potential areas where water
(natural or imported) may be percolated into the underground
for recharge of the groundwater basin. The recharge of ground-
water basins can technically be accomplished by a number of
agencies, since the enabling legislation of various organiza-
tions permits the recharge of various types of water into the
underground. This includes flood control districts, conserva-
tion districts, municipal water districts, county water districts,
cities and special corporations such as water companies. In
actual fact, the great majority of recharge area comes under the
jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District
because of its responsibility for handling of flood runoff and
ownership of most of the channels and water spreading areas.
Plans for the future development of the water conservation basins
and spreading grounds are included in the Appendix of this report.
The existing and proposed area within the recharge facilities,
the recharge capacity, and the storage capacity of the various
recharge facilities is tabulated in Table Nos. 5 through 7.
Figure No. 1 shows the proposed spreading grounds and water con-
servation basins within the Day and San Sevaine Creek Systems.
The recharge areas are listed below in Table Nos. 5 and 6,
showing the existing and proposed useable area for water sprcading
and the storage capacity of the facility.
Table No. 7 expands the data on the recharge facilities,
showing the estimated recharge rates, proposed recharge capacity,
and the storage capacity. "Recharge rate" and "recharge capa-
city"are defined in Section II,1.
Table No. 5
Day Creek Channel System Recharge Facilities
Existing Area Proposed Area Proposed Storage
Facility (acres) (acres) Capacity (ac -f t)
Day Creek 826 719 265b,*
Spreading Grounds
Day Creek Basin
23
28
650
Wineville Basin
50c
48
700
Riverside Basin
50c
44
1,100
Total
949
839
2,715
Lower San Sevaine
Table
No. 6
1,720
San
Sevaine Creek Channel System
Recharge
Facilities
19
Existing Area Proposed Area** Proposed Storage
Facility (acres) (acres) Capacity (ac -ft)
Etiwanda Creek 73 6 Oa
Spreading Grounds
Etiwanda Basins
42
8
59
San Sevaine
155
155
Oa
Spreading Grounds
San Sevaine Basins
51
47
440
Lower San Sevaine
19
71
1,720
Basin
Victoria Basin
19
19
240
Jurupa Basin
19
46
1,300
Total
378
352
3,759
* Figure is for interim recharge plans. The ultimate storage capacity
based on possible future gravel operation is 459 acre-feet/day recharge
capacity and 6,684 acre-feet of storage capacity.
** Proposal Area - useable bottom area for water spreading.
19
a)
rd cd
aJ
41
cd 0 a) cd
'd M
•rl is \
4J CO 4J
m 4 4H
W U �
a)
r4
al �
00 cd
41
a) 41 4-4
a u Cd
'd cd
Q)
m cd
O U m
P4 4-4
O U
)a
W
M -i —4 M M M M M M -4
•'�K •k -�K
—4 v1 c/1 r+ N \ -It —4 U') �t Ln
r-+ z .--i N 1 00
(O\ 00 00 m N C .••c t\ "NM I 01
Lr) N N .-� \ t, O N N N
z •-4 �t
I'll
Cd
r� m 4-J
v cd O
m
w E-+
v ul vm •ri Q)
o m m m a1 o •rl O pa 7 ri
to cd ca cd a) i + m )-c a) m
0 ca as m p 0 a) c5 a) cn cd •ri
CC ae a) a) " bD •rel 60 -H G cmd
pq
aa)) .11 (1) a1) r�-1 b b •� b ? •r -I P cn -H
p •d p •ri m 0 Id 0 a) 'd a) p cd
U ami a) 3 a3) Cd M ol
a) aCn ni �°t
cd acd r♦ rl iJ a +J cd G4 Cd 0 ri :jA V) A 3 Pa W in W U) cn cn a �> h
20
a)
.n
ri w
m O
m
O
a�
G 44
O t1
b �
v u
m m
ro
•n �
00
u w
cd 'b U
a0 a
cd cd o
U '-1
D, m
bo "i a)
Cd U b
p cd rl
o a m
41 cd
m u 4-I
O
a -t 0 P:
cc) H O
cd ri
.� .0 11
4.1 u U
r♦ a) a)
F4 n
0
.� cd a
H 'd
\ r -I
.0 cd
� •N
U O
w cd X.
Cd Ln
U
3 t •ri a)
b
r�l 0 r -i
)�+ •rl U
� s•+
4J
p O +j •ri
44 r -i 'u cud
a) Q) co. cad
p u u u
m a) 60
a) a) bo �+
0 0 m .�
bD 11 O u
wi
44 cn P4
•x
3
O
to
bo
Cd
Cd
U)
o
0 0
�+
G
4j
4.)
ul
U)
a,
°
P
z
z
a) +-1 .-.
Ic
cd
cd
W •rl 4t
cry
0 0 0
0
m o
0 0
0 0
W U W
%D
Lr) O O
to
N
-,t O
t�
p cd I
N
%O
N M
.t
O u
4-) cd cd
Cn U �
a)
rd cd
aJ
41
cd 0 a) cd
'd M
•rl is \
4J CO 4J
m 4 4H
W U �
a)
r4
al �
00 cd
41
a) 41 4-4
a u Cd
'd cd
Q)
m cd
O U m
P4 4-4
O U
)a
W
M -i —4 M M M M M M -4
•'�K •k -�K
—4 v1 c/1 r+ N \ -It —4 U') �t Ln
r-+ z .--i N 1 00
(O\ 00 00 m N C .••c t\ "NM I 01
Lr) N N .-� \ t, O N N N
z •-4 �t
I'll
Cd
r� m 4-J
v cd O
m
w E-+
v ul vm •ri Q)
o m m m a1 o •rl O pa 7 ri
to cd ca cd a) i + m )-c a) m
0 ca as m p 0 a) c5 a) cn cd •ri
CC ae a) a) " bD •rel 60 -H G cmd
pq
aa)) .11 (1) a1) r�-1 b b •� b ? •r -I P cn -H
p •d p •ri m 0 Id 0 a) 'd a) p cd
U ami a) 3 a3) Cd M ol
a) aCn ni �°t
cd acd r♦ rl iJ a +J cd G4 Cd 0 ri :jA V) A 3 Pa W in W U) cn cn a �> h
20
a)
.n
ri w
m O
m
O
a�
G 44
O t1
b �
v u
m m
ro
•n �
00
u w
cd 'b U
a0 a
cd cd o
U '-1
D, m
bo "i a)
Cd U b
p cd rl
o a m
41 cd
m u 4-I
O
a -t 0 P:
cc) H O
cd ri
.� .0 11
4.1 u U
r♦ a) a)
F4 n
0
.� cd a
H 'd
\ r -I
.0 cd
� •N
U O
w cd X.
Cd Ln
U
3 t •ri a)
b
r�l 0 r -i
)�+ •rl U
� s•+
4J
p O +j •ri
44 r -i 'u cud
a) Q) co. cad
p u u u
m a) 60
a) a) bo �+
0 0 m .�
bD 11 O u
wi
44 cn P4
•x
Notes to Tables
a) The Etiwanda Creek Spreading Grounds and the San Sevaine
Creek Spreading Grounds are flow-through areas with no
storage capability.
b) Day Creek Spreading Grounds is a flow-through area at the
present time with no storage capacity. The ultimate plans
for the spreading grounds include significant storage
capacity. Refer to plans in Appendix for possible storage
and recharge capacity from conceptual gravel mining operation.
c) The existing areas shown in Table Nos. 5 and 6 are the bottom
of the existing basins. The existing bottom areas have been
reduced by plans to deepen the basins.
The spreading grounds have a higher potential for percolation
because they overlie coarser ground materials that permit higher
rates of percolation. Conversely, the water conservation basins
which are located lower down on the alluvial fan are located in
areas of finer grained materials and thus have reduced rates of
percolation. As indicated in Table No. 7, estimated perco-
lation rates range from approximately one to three feet per day.
Wineville, Jurupa and Riverside Basins have lower percolation
capacity, whereas the Day Creek and San Sevaine Creek Spreading
Grounds have a higher percolation capacity.
2. PRECIPITATION AND RUNOFF
A. General
As urban developments replace agricultural and undeveloped
acreage, rooftops and paved areas replace permeable recharge
areas. Under natural conditions, the surface material
overlying most of the study area is sufficiently permeable
to absorb almost all precipitation, except for severe storms.
Only in a few areas of low permeabilities or in times of
intense rainfall would runoff occur from the valley area.
The natural condition, of course, predates any development.
21
In urban areas, however, much of the permeable area is re-
placed by hard surfaces, thus substantially decreasing the
absorption capacity and increasing runoff.
In addition to the above, urban expansion also increases
the need for flood control facilities to protect life and
property. This requires that flood waters be channeled
to prevent inundation of the developing areas. Because of
the high erosion ability of the major streams, channeling
of flood flows often necessitates complete lining of channels.
Thus, natural recharge is lost not only in the overflow areas,
but also in the streambeds. Replacement of these areas is
imperative if the prime local source of water supply, runoff
from mountain areas, is to be conserved. We can show that
off stream recharge basins not only can replace the groundwater
recharge lost by hard lining channels, but can also increase
the recharge over the natural channels by turnouts from the
channels into selective sites.
The natural water supply (as opposed to imported water or
wastewater reuse) originates as precipitation, nearly 75%
of which occurs during the period of December through March.
The average annual precipitation ranges from less than 15
inches per year in the lowest part of the valley floor to
more than 45 inches near the crest of the San Gabriel Moun-
tains. The average season rainfall in the Rancho Cucamonga
area is approximately 17 to 20 inches.
Runoff is the residual of precipitation after the extrac-
tions of evaporation, transpiration, and percolation have
taken their share. Runoff tends to be more variable than
the precipitation. The rainfall -runoff process on an urban
watershed consists of hydrologic and hydraulic components.
22
Rainfall losses due to groundwater infiltration and surface
depression storage and the resulting routed overland flow
comprise the hydrologic component and can be characterized
by an inlet hydrograph. The summation of inlet hydrographs
and the routing of the resultant flow through the drainage net-
work comprise the hydraulic component.
While the hydraulic aspects of flow routing through conduit
networks have been understood for some time, the hydrologic
phenomena, involving much more complex interrelationships
between many different physical processes, are not well
understood. The hydrologic component, regarding precipita-
tion losses, are discussed in Sections II and VI.
A continuity equation for the precipitation -runoff process
can be written as:
V = V + V
P r e
where:
V = the volume of precipitation
V = the volume of precipitation losses, and
V = the volume of runoff.
r
This equation is shown in a slightly different form in
Section VI,2and is expressed as "conservable runoff". Con-
servable runoff is defined in Section VI.
Surface runoff increases following urban development; flood
volumes have been observed to increase by 1.5-2 times, and
flood peaks two or more times. These effects are generally
illustrated by Figure No. 4. Storm drainage systems are
installed to remove this excess water from urban surfaces.
23
3
0
J
W
W
O
W
H
Q
CC
When these systems are discharged into local streams and
the capacity of these streams is exceeded, the streams are
straightened, deepened, widened or enclosed, and the problem
is passed on downstream. Downstream solutions become more
difficult and costly because structures such as bridges
and culverts must be enlarged or constructed, channels must
be constructed, and because flood plains are occupied by
costly construction that must be protected. Additionally,
storage facilities have to be constructed to conserve or
detain runoff.
Figure No. 4
TIME
URBANIZATION INCREASES PEAK FLOWS AND RUNOFF VOLUMES
(THE AREA UNDER THE CURVES)
24
It is the conservation of this increased runoff that is
emphasized in this report. If storm runoff can be captured
and percolated back into the underground water basin, it
not only decreases the downstream runoff problems, but also
increases the available water supply for the people overlying
the groundwater basin.
The facilities proposed for water conservation are shown in
Table Nos. 5 through 7 and the plans for these facilities
are included in the Appendix. An estimation of the "con-
servable runoff" is given and discussed in Section VI.
25
SECTION IV
RECHARGE IN GRAVEL PITS
1. GENERAL
Two major types of major recharge facilities are used in the
San Bernardino Valley area. One type is the use of existing
and/or abandoned gravel pits which are used as recharge
basins. Existing or abandoned gravel pits are found at
various locations in the Santa Ana River, Lytle Creek Wash,
Cucamonga Spreading Grounds, San Antonio Spreading Grounds,
and other minor spreading grounds or water conservation areas.
The second type of major recharge facilities consist of a
complex of levees, interconnecting ditches, and small shallow
basins generally located on the alluvial fans below the toe
of the mountains. These type of facilities are located in
the Deer Creek Spreading Grounds, Etiwanda and San Sevaine
Creek Spreading Grounds, as well as many other locations on
the alluvial fans.
Because of the ability of gravel pits to capture and hold
large amounts of storm flows, the recharge capability is
much greater than the flow-through spreading grounds. Due
to the large water conservation capability of the gravel
pits, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District has
promoted sand, rock and gravel mining operations in the
spreading ground areas.
Water conservation basins developed in the valley area below
the alluvial fans are also important as outlets for storm
drain systems and turnouts from major flood channels. However,
26
the recharge capability in the conservation basins are minor
in comparison to the spreading ground areas due to their
lower recharge rates. The recharge rates in the spreading
ground areas can vary from three feet/day to five feet/day,
whereas the recharge rates in the water conservation basins
are generally in the order of one foot/day to two feet/day.
The difference is due to the location of water conservation
basins further down on the alluvial fans in the moderately
permeable older alluvium. Due to silt clogging and other
factors, the sustained recharge rates are less, in the order
of one foot/day to three feet/day.
Because of the aforementioned groundwater recharge capability
of gravel pits, the enhancement of water conservation in
coordination with rock and gravel mining operations was con-
sidered early in the development of the Day, Etiwanda and
San Sevaine Creek Drainage Plan. This concept was supported
by the Technical and Steering Committees.
The Day Creek Spreading Grounds provide the optimum location
for a sand and gravel operation within the Drainage Plan
drainage area. This is due to its size (830± acres), the
existing levee system, and the size of the mountain drainage
area (5± square miles). Other areas that could be reviewed
for sand and gravel operations are the San Sevaine Creek
Spreading Grounds and the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds. How-
ever, those areas are not considered for sand and gravel
mining operation in this report. They should be considered
for future gravel mining operations.
27
2. DAY CREEK SPREADING GROUNDS
There are approximately 800 acres within the spreading
grounds from the proposed debris dam site to Highland Avenue.
The major part of the spreading grounds is owned in fee by
the San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
The daily production rates for most large sand and gravel
operations are in the 300 tons/hour to 650 tons/hour range.
This is approximately equivalent to 575,000 to 1,250,000
tons per year.
Based on discussions with several sand and gravel mining
operators, a 20 -year reserve is necessary to establish a
large sand and gravel mining plant. Based on a 1,250,000
per year production rate, a 25,000,000 ton reserve would be
required.
In order to determine the available material in the spreading
grounds, a preliminary excavation plan was developed. The
preliminary plan was developed solely to determine possible
available mining material and it is not assumed the plan
provided herein is the most desirable, or the most optimum
mining and processing plan.
The following assumptions were made in developing the prelim-
inary plan:
A. No excavation within the SCE or LADWP right-of-way.
B. The processing plant will require approximately 20 acres
for the plant itself and 40 acres for storage.
C. A mininum pit depth of 40 feet and a maximum pit depth
of 90 feet were used. Side slopes for the pits were
assumed to be 3:1. These dimensions could vary, depending
upon an approved plan.
D. The plant site was established in the approximate middle
of the spreading grounds. This would remove the plant
from Highland Avenue, but minimize the haul distance
from Highland Avenue.
Based on the above preliminary assumptions and the schematic
plan, the available material that can be mined in the Day
Creek Spreading Grounds is approximately 35,000,000 tons.
It is emphasized the analysis was done to indicate a 20 -year
material reserve for a mining operation is available.
3. WATER CONSERVATION
Based on the schematic plan for gravel and sand mining opera-
tions referenced above, an estimate was made on the storage
capacity that would be available in the excavated pits,
assuming the pits were completely excavated to the plan.
The bottom area of the pits was also calculated to provide
an estimate of the recharge capacity that would be available
in the completed pits. These estimated values are shown in
Table No. 8 below.
29
NOTES:
Based on a recharge rate of three feet per day on bottom
area only with no consideration of percolation through
side walls.
The schematic gravel mining plan for the Day Creek Spreading
Grounds referred to above is included in the Appendix.
30
TABLE NO. 8
Day Creek Spreading
Grounds
Gravel
Pit Recharge
Capacity
Recharge
Recharge '�
Storage
Bottom Area
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Pits
(acres)
(ac-ft/day)
(cfs)
(ac -ft)
1
36
108
54
1,455
2
31
93
47
1,225
3
33
99
50
1,512
4
33
99
50
1,512
5
20
60
30
980
TOTAL
153
459
231
6,684
NOTES:
Based on a recharge rate of three feet per day on bottom
area only with no consideration of percolation through
side walls.
The schematic gravel mining plan for the Day Creek Spreading
Grounds referred to above is included in the Appendix.
30
CT?t"PT(INT 17
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER SUPPLY FROM
DAY AND ETIWANDA CANYONS
The Cucamonga County Water District presently utilizes the water
supply from Day and East Etiwanda Canyons. The Day Canyon System
consists of two tunnels., Bee Tunnel and Smith Tunnel, along with
a surface catchment in the main channel from which the major water
supply from this source is obtained.
The East Etiwanda Canyon System consists of a surface diversion
located at a narrow bedrock construction immediately below the con-
fluence of the main channel and west fork of East Etiwanda Creek.
The locationsof the systems are shown schematically on Figure No. 5.
Based on a report by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.,
entitled "Cucamonga County Water District Water System Development
Plan", dated May, 1974, the maximum potential water supply is given
in Table No. 9.
TABLE NO. 9
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY
FROM DAY AND EAST ETIWANDA
Maximum Potential
Area Precipitation Evaporation Water Supply
Canyon (acres) acre-feet/year acre-feet acre-feet
Day 2,957 7,747 3,943 3,804
E. Etiwanda 1,786 4,437 2,381 2,056
The above information is from the referenced Montgomery Engineers'
Report. They also estimate the long term average water supply from
31
Day Canyon at 2,400 acre-feet per year and an average annual supply
from East Etiwanda Canyon of 1,000 acre-feet.
For varying reasons, it is not possible or practical to try to re-
cover all of the maximum potential water supply at the Cucamonga
County Water District intake systems. A significant quantity of
the water will pass through the collection works as subsurface flow,
or as surface flow during heavy storms. The canyon flows not inter-
cepted by the Cucamonga County Water District intake works should
and can be intercepted downstream by adequate recharge basins.
The recoverable yield at the mountain canyons would be approximately
the difference between the average annual water supply (from precipi-
tation), and the average annual water loss (by evaporation and trans-
piration). The residual runoff would include surface and subsurface
flows which are theoretically recoverable.
In summary, the water quantities considered by the Montgomery Report
as ultimate annual Cucamonga County Water District supply are as
follows:
Day Canyon - 2,400 acre feet
East Etiwanda Canyon - 1,000 acre-feet
Any remaining canyon flows would be recoverable downstream in spreading
areas. These remaining canyon flows can be significant during periods
of heavy storm flow.
The Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan was updated by Mont-
gomery Engineers in December, 1981. It is noted from that -report the
1980 diversion from Day Canyon was 1,320 acre-feet. The estimated
future diversion from Day and Etiwanda Canyons are still 2,400 acre-
feet and 1,000 acre-feet, respectively.
32
For ready reference, a schematic map from the Montgomery Report of
1974 is included herein as Figure No. 5. The schematic map shows
the approximate location of the intake and distribution facilities
from Day and Etiwanda Canyons. Refer to the Cucamonga County Water
District Master Plans dated 1974 and 1981 by Montgomery Engineers
for a detailed analysis of the canyon flow diversions.
33
1. V,,.�
U)
V)
U_ 0
W914 tv Ix
LLJ
LLJ
0 L'J PM4
<
Ld
co
LLJ 0 LLI
V,
7_7
< F
of
NU)
'4.
Ld
LLJ
Lj
cd
0
I.J5.
Y,
J'
-Z
41
�4 �4
Xv
4J
VC
A t4
%
rn 0 M
cd
W) tO
4J
�4
r4 (3)
."V
0 4J
4J 1:41
�4
0 0
P4 U
T"t(
'[4 OOH
r)
0 ;j
�cb
34
SECTION VI
ESTIMATED ANNUAL CONSERVABLE RUNOFF
1. GENERAL
It is relatively easy to estimate the recharge capacity of
various recharge facilities if sufficient data is known about
the soil matrix conditions. The recharge capacity is a func-
tion of the estimated recharge rates and the available area
for percolation of runoff.
However, it is not a simple matter to estimate the volume of
flood and drainage flows available for recharge. The runoff
available for groundwater recharge is a function of precipita-
tion, the area over which the precipitation occurs, storm
frequency, and precipitation losses due to many factors. At
best, the amount of runoff available for groundwater recharge
can only be estimated using historical data, average annual
precipitation data, and an estimate of losses based on either
historical recorded data and other studies and analysis.
There is very limited historical data recorded in the Day,
Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek watershed. Also, there is
limited data on conservable runoff estimates, most of which
have been compiled by the U.S.G.S.
Often the terms "salvageable runoff", "conservable runoff",
or "recoverable yield" are used interchangeably, referring
to the amount of runoff that can be recovered from the ground-
water table. In this report, the term "conservable runoff"
is used to indicate the estimated amount of annual runoff
that can be conserved for future use by recharging the under-
ground basin.
35
This analysis is based on the assumption the Day, Etiwanda
and San Sevaine Creek Channels will be improved and the
various proposed storm drains in the various subareas will
be constructed to conduct drainage flows to the main channels.
In the event no water conservation facilities, either basins
or spreading grounds, are developed to capture the conservable
runoff, the runoff will be conducted to the Prado Basin by
the storm drain and channel systems. Also, the precipitation
losses have been estimated, based on the information available
in the form of past studies, historical data, and best engi-
neering judgement.
The estimated "conservable runoff" definition is discussed
below in Section VI,2. Research provided very limited infor-
mation on a reasonable estimate of conservable runoff appli-
cable to the Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek System
watershed, and particularly the Day Creek System. The Day,
Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek watershed will consist ul-
timately of an elaborate system of storm drains and flood
channels below the toe of the San Gabriel Mountains. Because
of the_proposed system, precipitation in the valley areas will
run off very quickly and be conducted to a channel and/or a
water conservation basin. If adequate water conservation
facilities are not provided to retain and percolate the runoff,
the runoff will be lost to the lower Chino Basin area.
A summary of the known analysis on conservable runoff is pro-
vided below for information purposes, although in most cases
the results are not entirely applicable to the study area
watershed. The study area watershed below the mountains is
almost entirely proposed for development, a large percentage
of which will be developed as industrial and commercial uses.
This will increase the runoff factor, or more importantly, the
36
conservable runoff factor, over that of most of the studies
referred to below. The watershed conservable runoff is
estimated in Section VI,2 below.
2. CONSERVABLE RUNOFF
The computation of "recoverable yield" or "conservable runoff"
from annual precipitation is at best only an approximation.
The recoverable yield or conservable runoff may be defined as
the difference between the average annual water supply (from
precipitation) and the average annual water loss from evapora-
tion and transpiration. Theoretically, the remainder of the
precipitation should be recoverable.
Conservable runoff is expressed as follows:
Conservable Runoff = Average Annual Precipitation x
drainage area - losses
= acres x inches-- - losses
12
= acre-feet/year - losses
The runoff average has a very wide range and can vary from
approximately 15% to more than 50%. The highly developed
areas and the mountain areas will produce more runoff than
the non-developed areas and the valley areas. An estimation
of conservable runoff is developed later in this report.
A brief summary of researched analysis of runoff and/or con-
servable runoff is given below. Although not applicable to
the study watershed in most cases, they are provided for infor-
mation and reference purposes. The reports are listed in the
Appendix under "References".
37
A. According to the "Hydrology Handbook, ASCE Manual of
Engineering Practice No. 28", dated 1949, the country -wide
average precipitation is 30 inches per year, in contrast
with average runoff of 8.5 inches. The difference of
21.5 inches (losses) is indicative of the quantity that
is abstracted annually by evapo-transpirative process.
The 21.5 -inch loss is eventually returned to the atmos-
phere by the combined influences of evaporation and trans-
piration. The average runoff of 8.5 inches, or 28.3% of
total average precipitation, remains as all or mostly
available for conservation.
This analysis is based on the nation-wide macro -system
and assumes the runoff is eventually recovered and/or
returned to the hydrologic cycle.
B. In a study by the U.S.G.S. entitled "Generalized Stream -
flow Relations of the San Bernardino and Eastern San
Gabriel Mountains", dated 1972, the runoff averaged 23%
of the annual average precipitation. This study was based
on 29 stations studied with annual precipitation on the
drainage areas of a range from 10 to 35 inches, with
runoff ranges from 0.54 to 17.2 inches. The runoff average
for the 29 stations was 6.34 inches, or 23% of the average
precipitation. This analysis was based on primarily moun-
tainous streams where high losses would occur. The runoff
in an urban area would tend to be higher.
C. In a study by Omer H. Brodie & Associates, Consulting
Engineers, entitled "Report on the Comprehensive Plan of
Water Resources Conservation", dated October, 1968, it was
estimated that the residual conserved runoff after losses
was equal to 17% to 22% of the annual applied runoff.
In this study, the drainage area was predominantly
residential. The study was based on historical rainfall
and runoff records provided by the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District. The study was considered to be
somewhat conservative and involved long drainage travel
times in unlined facilities which would tend to decrease
the conservable runoff totals.
D. Based on a study by Lowry -Engineering Science, Consulting
Engineers, entitled "Preliminary Investigation -San Diego
Creek Watershed Project in Orange County, California",
dated May, 1971, it was estimated that the amount of water
that could be conserved for that particular project was
approximately 14% of the average annual water production
in the area. That study states that historically water
storage reservoirs in the area of the study conserved
about 1.5 acre-feet (96 ac-ft/mit) for every 10 acres of
tributary drainage area. The Lowry -Engineering Science
study was done for the Orange County Flood Control District
and the San Juan Capistrano Soil Conservation District.
This study was on a predominantly agriculture, open space
area where water development for agriculture reuse was
proposed. Therefore, the losses were very high and the
conservable runoff relatively low.
E. Based on an analysis by Montgomery Engineers on the Cuca-
monga County Water District water supply from the Day and
Etiwanda Canyons, the "maximum potential water supply
39
(acre-feet)" from the average annual precipitation
averaged 48%. This was based on an estimated evapo-
transpiration or the potential evapo-transpiration, or
approximately 16 inches per year of an average rainfall
of approximately 30 inches. The maximum potential water
supply from the canyons was estimated to be 5,860 acre-
feet from 12,184 acre-feet of precipitation per year.
However, the 48% figure (potential conservable runoff)
is probably not comparable to the conservable runoff that
is available in the valley area. Part of the yield is
percolated water that returns quickly to the surface or
is captured by tunnels, where as part of the percolated
water in the valley area is held in the upper soil profile
and is later lost by additional evaporation and/or trans-
piration processes.
F. According to Warren Viessman, John W. Knapp and Gary L.
Lewis in their book entitled "Introduction to Hydrology",
dated 1977, they estimate that out of 30 inches of water
received annually by precipitation in the U. S., 70% is
returned to the atmosphere through evapo-transpiration.
The remaining 30% appears as runoff to the oceans or
lakes, and would therefore be recoverable if it could be
captured and percolated into the underground water table.
This analysis is also based on a nation-wide macro -system.
G. According to Bulletin No. 104-3, Meeting Water Demands in
the Chino -Riverside Area, by the State of California,
Department of Water Resources, the percentage of precipi-
tation that is percolated is approximately 30%. Their
analysis was based on a mean rainfall of 15.7 inches over
40
the entire valley area throughout the period 1970-2015.
Using the curve development in that report (Seasonal
Percolation of Precipitation vs. Seasonal Equivalent
Precipitation), the percentage of rainfall estimated that
will be percolated into the water table over the Day
Creek -San Sevaine Creek Watershed would vary from 27%
to 40%.
This would appear to be a conservative percentage of
"conservable runoff" for our watershed which is approxi-
mately 24% industrial/commercial areas. The DWR study
was done over a large valley watershed (Upper Santa Ana
River). The Day Creek -San Sevaine Creek Watershed and
particularly the Day Creek Watershed will have a much
higher runoff due to the proposed development. The Day
Creek Watershed will have a very high ultimate runoff
factor because the high percentage (45%) of industrial/
commercial area in the watershed.
3. ESTIMATED CONSERVABLE RUNOFF
A. General Discussion on Methodology
Groundwater recharge terminology was discussed in Sec-
tion II. As indicated previously, the determination and
predictability of groundwater recharge is not an exact
science. The estimation of conservable runoff is a complex
analysis which has to be based on many factors. These
factors include the degree and type of proposed develop-
ment in the study area, the proposed storm drain system,
if any, the proposed artificial recharge methods, precipi-
tation losses, and many others.
41
The components of percolation, as considered in this
analysis, are artificial recharge and percolation of
precipitation. These two components will be discussed
further below. Three types of recharge facilities are
considered in this analysis. One type is a system of
complex levees, ditches, and shallow basins in the major
spreading ground areas such as the Day Creek Spreading
Grounds and San Sevaine Creek Spreading Grounds. Another
is the water conservation basins such as Wineville,
Riverside, Lower San Sevaine, and Day Creek Basins. The
other major type of recharge facility is abandoned or
existing sand and gravel pits, such as proposed in the
Day Creek Spreading Grounds. Artificial recharge does
not include normal percolation occurring in residential
backyards, open spaces, landscaped areas, and unlined
streams and/or drainage ditches.
Percolation of precipitation is considered to include
both percolation of precipitation on the land surface
and in the stream channels. Because of the proposed
lining of most natural streams in the watershed area
below the foothills, streambed percolation is not a factor
in future percolation.
Percolation of precipitation is equal to the sum of pre-
cipitation less the sum of losses or consumptive use',
which in this analysis is considered to be all losses due
to evaporation, transpiration, and possibly water held in
the soil. The "recoverable water" or "conservable runoff"
is comprised of waters that percolate below the "belt of
soil water" and eventually reaches the zone of saturation
(see Section II,8).
42
The various studies and analyses on "conservable runoff"
referred to in Section VI,2 above were provided for
reference purposes. Upon detailed study of the referenced
analyses, it appears that a 30% runoff or "conservable
runoff" factor generally prevails for a large watershed
analysis. The 30% runoff factor is low for the Day Creek -
San Sevaine Creek Watershed area because of proposed
development and the proposed system of flood channels and
storm drains. The general 30% storm flow runoff referred
to in the reference studies is based on macro -systems,
consisting in most cases of large drainage areas without
the type of development and/or proposed drainage system
proposed for the Day Creek -San Sevaine Creek area. There-
fore, the runoff in this study area will be much higher.
Because of the lack of historical artificial recharge data
and difficulty in assessing percolation of precipitation
in the watershed area, the conservable runoff was estimated
using hydrologic methods based on acceptable runoff cri-
teria. The runoff criteria was based on estimated runoff
coefficient ("C" factor) presently in use in the area and
the average annual rainfall.
The methodology and estimated conservable runoff is dis-
cussed below.
B. Estimating Conservable Runoff
The draft "San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual", dated
January, 1983, was used in this analysis to determine the
runoff of flood and drainage flows. For purposes of the
estimation, a rainfall intensity of one inch per hour
43
and "Soil Group A" were used. The various coefficients
of runoff for the various types of conditions and/or
development from the charts in the manuals were used.
It was assumed the above referenced charts and criteria
accounts for losses that should be deducted from rainfall
as it pertains to the specific sites in the watershed area.
Other losses occurring in the water conservation basins,
in the storm drain or channel systems, as well as other
minor losses, are discounted from the site runoff coef-
ficient to arrive at an overall conservable runoff percen-
tage.
The runoff factors assumed for the various conditions
within the Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek Watersheds
are summarized below in Table Nos. 10 and 11. These were
derived from the "San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual"
presently being prepared. The runoff factors ("C" fac-
tors) were then adjusted to compensate for the basins,
freeways, open areas (such as SCE corridor), and other
similar areas within the overall drainage area.
To arrive at a conservable runoff factor (%) to compute
the estimated amount of "conservable" or "recoverable"
runoff, the "C" factors (runoff factors) were further
adjusted to compensate for the following losses:
1) Evaporation from the conservation basins and spreading
grounds
2) Losses in the "Belt of Soil Water" zone due to trans-
piration and/or evaporation (see Figure No. 3).
44
3) Losses in the "Capillary Fringe" zone
4) Losses in drainage pipe and/or channel system, if any
The above losses were estimated to be 5% and effectively
reduced the percentage of conservable runoff from the
adjusted "C"factor (runoff coefficient). The "conservable
runoff factors" that were applied to the estimated pre-
cipitation are shown on Table Nos. 12 and 13.
The "average annual rainfall" is shown on Figure No. 6
and on Table Nos. 12 and 13. Based on the tributary
drainage areas, the average annual precipitation in acre-
feet per year was computed and shown on Table Nos. 13 and
14. The estimated conservable runoff in acre-feet per
year was computed by applying the conservable runoff
factors (%) to the average annual rainfall. The results
are shown on Table Nos. 12 and 13.
45
Table No. 10
Storm Runoff Coefficients
Day Creek Watershed
Reach
"C"
Factor
Range
Adjusted
"C" Factor
Above Debris Dam
.50
.50
Debris Dam to Highland Avenue
.24
to .50
.40
Highland Avenue to Foothill Blvd
.24
to .58
.49
Foothill Blvd to Riverside Basin
.24
to .84
.80
NOTES
1. The storm runoff coefficients ("c" factor) were derived from
the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Refer to Figure
No. D -4a in Hydrology Manual.
2. The storm runoff coefficients ("c" factor) were weighted to
account for open space in the drainage area, such as the SCE
corridor, basins, freeways, etc.
46
Table No. 11
Storm Runoff Coefficients
San Sevaine Watershed
"C" Factor Adjusted
Reach Range "C" Factor
Above Debris Dam .50 .50
Debris Dam to Devore Freeway .24 to .58 .50
Devore Freeway to AT & SF Railroad .24 to .84 .59
AT & SF Railroad to Pomona Freeway .24 to .84 .64
NOTES
1. The storm runoff coefficients ("c" factor) were derived from
the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Refer to Figure
No. D -4a in the Hydrology Manual.
2. The storm runoff coefficients ("c" factor) were weighted to
account for open space in the drainage area, such as the SCE
corridors, basins, freeways, etc.
47
Scale
I" = 9000,
35" _ , 35"
48
30"
25"
20"
1811
16"
-- 14"
_. _AL RAINFALL
FIGURE N0. 6
"C3
.f +
(n
3-I 4-1
W 44
Cd r4
P4
N al
4J r-4
W 4
p
a) m
a) ri
U U
cd
A
49
O
Ln
--i
cpd 44 �,
O�
O
N
ul
p 44
O
4
--J'
�+ O41
-t
N
4j
N
-It
00
U)
M
{r P5 U
O cd
M
N
O
M
p
ra
,O
11
II
> PC4
v
E-4
a) 4.4
M
n
a) 4H
0 O
O
O
O G
a
-H
U
�
G
�
O
•rl i.
v)
r4
O
Cd >1
N
OO
01%
r-
4 -J \
M
Ln
N
N
-H 4-1
00
4-I
3A
-H I
N
00
U U
a) cd
U
Pa
O
P v
$4 O
Pa
r -I
O •rl
cd
p
v
4J b1
11
cd a)
N
M
%D
r-4
4-J a) N
-t
ul
00
M
:j w p
O
N
10
Ul
$4
al
to
0 cd
M
M
-
�O
•N v
H
b
cd
I'D
H
t1
A
N
•co
G
4-4
O
OD
O
'd O
.,-I
0000 r-1 cid
-
cn
-
CO CO 4J
ir)
O
cn
p d -rl
ri
O
Ul fA
(1) r4 a
o
vi
co
ui
-
M
N
ri
Qi U
H
�
n M
a)
sa
00
b
a
a
rl
co H
O
N
W
?4
W
O
•d
+�
•rl
U
O
� O
A
O
0adi
a)
ED
4-J11
a)>
ri
'd
4
Q,
-�4 GA
FQ
Cd
A
nU
0
p rH-I
r�I
4J
•rl
,.d
-
cd
4 4)
41 U
A
p .d
C . 4j
cn
U) cd
O
,O b0
bD O
O d U)
rl
v 0
PI
U) P4
-4
A x
x FX4
F� 3
49
O
Ln
--i
I'D
O
1.0
M
O
M
N
-It
00
Z
M
N
O
ra
,O
11
II
co
E-4
H
O
O
a
-H
�
c
v)
r4
O
N
v
N
V)
3A
U
Pa
O
$4 O
r -I
O •rl
a)
p
4J b1
11
4-4
w �
3
cd
4- U
$4
al
to
a)
b
cd
I'D
U b
t1
•co
4-4
OD
O
'd O
O
ani
0w
+�
�O
P4
ri
O
Ul fA
H
�
n M
-d
00
b
a
tr)
rl
co H
O
N
?4
W
U
O
� O
O
a)
•rl
ri
'd
4
r 41
�
O
3-+ a)
4J
•rl
,.d
4-I cn
cd
a.
cn
I~
rl
v 0
r1
U
O
(1) 4J
+)
CN
a
b (1)
Ln
w
a) w
a)
�t
cd
(1)
P4
+J
r�
O0
rn
(1)
d
a)
•rl
(n UJ
a)
p 11)
w
cd
O O
cd
N
O
.0 r -I
a�
-rt
u
co
i
44 CO
-H
+1
G
II
rl
44 O
44
�
o
-
rrj
o
4.4
aj
d b
d
G
w cd
cd�
i
ca
a)
cd w
r.
w
o
o
a�
OD
o u
aa))
fA
cd
U U
U
V)
v)
U
H 4
H
U)
H
cn
O
iw
E-+
N
u1
O
z
m
r4
O
z
cd
H
a) "t
.-I ..
.n >4
W 44 a
> W \
>4 O 4J
a) a 4a
O cd
U �
M
rUI 10-r
ca 0
> W
fa
W 4-
1 44
G O
O
U
b
Ln
O
Ln
co
�
—1
LO
O
00
cn
•r1
.�
r�
O
cd
a. 4-i
3
4-4
-,� I
>%Cd
44
ami 0
W v
O
�
3
m
P4
3
vii
q
aa)
ani
ri
a�
�4
a
_
al
>
cd to
A
A
W
U
a)
on �+
ur-�
cc U
II
II
U
v
H •�
.�
cd
A
p U)
H
G
a%
N
0
O
A
A
00 r--1 cd
cd cd +J
•a
50
Q) G
a)
P4
N ,q
cn cd
c
n P4
O %D LO 1�0
%D I -I Ln N
�t M -'h co
M C7�
Ln Ln --:T m
-I � Ul Ln
m
Ln
O
Ln
co
M
—1
LO
%.D
00
cn
%D
.�
r�
O
%D 1.0 M Ln
N �D 1D O
%D O O N
00 Co
N N 1-4 I
O
Ln
O
+1
.�
r�
O
o
A
-
>%Cd
w
D,
O
�
3
3 N
�
3
-r1
q
aa)
ani
ri
(1)
a
W
A
A
W
f4 P4
a
.a
II
II
cd
N
N
p U)
H
G
0
0
A
A
A
W
50
Ln
.�
r�
O
o
-
-+
O
O
z
M
M
a
r-1
.a
II
II
cd
H
0
0
r�1
o
U1
b
q�
3
�
cin
�
U
a)
cn
cn t~
co
U
a
°
rr-4
o °
w
k
+W rn
41
I
cn
LH
w
3
cd
4I U
is
a1
cn
a)
_
b
cd
�-D
U b
41
•rl
a)
9-c
W
cd
00
O
b0
O
z
� 44+W
ani
G
pq
00
CdH
0
W
�D
N
0
•M M
v
0
b
a
W
G
G
y
O
1�
.rq.r-(
b
4-1
w
0 u
a)
44 U)
ca
aA
•r1
b O
U
a)
a) 41
O
>-c
cd
p
m
a
b v
00
cd
a)
(Yi
4-)
Cl)
41
a)Cd
O
0
co
v
v
(1)
r1
Cl) a)
a)
cd
A
O O
cd
I•+
O
+1
>
4-J
cd r1
(1)
cd
cd
4-4 cd
•rl
+�
r.
II
-H
4-1 O
44
o 41
o
-a'
4-4
a)
:1 b
O
r.
w
ca
(1)
a)
:
a)
40+
c*Od
D
v r.
(3) rl
cn 41
00
0 OU
0 N
N
0
U
U fn
a)
ca
cud
U
r7
H 40-+
E-4 clUl
H
E/)
O
W
N
M
cn
O
z
C. Summary
The estimated conservable runoff is given in Tables 12
and 13. The conservable runoff for the Day Creek System
is 10,836 acre-feet/year and for the San Sevaine System
is 31,117 acre-feet/year. The estimated numbers do not
include the potential water supply diverted by the Cuca-
monga County Water District of 2,400 acre-feet and 1,000
acre-feet for Day Canyon and Etiwanda Canyon respectively.
Tables 12 and 13 show the approximate sub -area breakdown
of the runoff from the mountains to the approximate San
Bernardino -Riverside County Line. It should be recog-
nized the conservable runoff figures are estimates only
based on best judgement, historical data, previous
studies, and a reasonable knowledge of what the watershed
will look like in the future. The conservable runoff
totals are based on the ultimate development of the
watershed. This is a reasonable analysis due to the long
range need for water supply and the long life of the
flood control and drainage facilities, once they are
constructed.
1) Day Creek Watershed
The estimated conservable runoff for the Day Creek
Watershed is 10,836 acre-feet. The total proposed
interim storage capacity for drainage flows is approx-
imately 2,715 acre-feet in the interim period. If
the Day Creek Spreading Grounds are developed for
maximum water spreading, either through future gravel
excavation pits or development of conservation basins
within the spreading grounds, the storage capacity can
51
be increased to approximately 9,000 acre-feet or
more. (See Table Nos. 6 and 7.)
Due to the higher percolation rates in the Day Creek
Basin and Day Creek Spreading Grounds (3 feet/day or
more vs. 1-2 feet/day in the lower area), a maximum
effort should be to develop those areas for water
spreading. That is the reason a gravel -sand mining
operation in the spreading grounds is important.
However, in the interim period the Wineville and
Riverside Basins must be utilized to the fullest
extent because of their existence and proposed de-
velopment, although the percolation rates are low.
Based on the data in Table No. 7, the estimated
interim recharge capacity within the Day Creek System
is 354 acre-feet/day. If you assume,for instance,
that the basins and spreading grounds will have water
in them 30 days out of a year, then the recharge
would be in the range of 10,620 acre-feet. Although
no in-depth analysis has been made of the recharge
capabilities, the above figures are given to indicate
the need to develop the recharge capability of the
upper watershed area in the vicinity of the Day Creek
Spreading Grounds. Also, it is important to recognize
that even though the Wineville and Riverside Basins do
not have high recharge rates, the recharge capability
of the basins is significant and should be utilized
to the greatest extent possible for groundwater re-
charge in the interim period.
Wineville and Riverside Basins will have 1,800 acre-
feet of storage for water percolation when developed
and a 116 acre-feet/day recharge capacity.
52
2) San Sevaine Creek Watershed
The estimated conservable runoff for the San Sevaine
Creek Watershed is approximately 32,100 acre-feet/
year. The total proposed storage capacity for
drainage flows is approximately 3,700 acre-feet.
Except for Jurupa Basin, almost all of the storage
capacity is north of Baseline Avenue. Therefore,
there are abundant spreading areas and proposed con-
servation basins to capture mountainous runoff, but
limited water conservation capacity for the urbani-
zing area below Baseline Avenue.
Based on the data in Table No. 7, the proposed recharge
capacity within the San Sevaine Creek System is ap-
proximately 500 acre-feet/day. If you assume the
spreading grounds and basins will have water in them
30 days out of the year, the recharge would be approx-
imately 15,000 acre-feet/year.
Unless there are additional recharge areas developed
in the area south of the Devore Freeway and north of
the Jurupa Hills, there will be a significant amount
of conservable runoff that will be lost to the upper
Chino Basin area.
53
SECTION VII
CHINO BASIN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY
In early 1980, the California Department of Water Resources and
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California joined
together to fund a feasibility study of a program for groundwater
storage in Chino Basin. Conjunctive use, in the context of overall
State water management, is the coordination of underground storage
with above ground storage as an overall water management tool.
The purpose of the conjunctive use study is to determine the feasi-
bility of developing additional water supply for the State Water
Project by utilizing the Chino underground basin as a storage facility
in wet years when excess water is available. The stored water would
be pumped from the basin for use in dry years.
The range of possible storage in the Chino Basin at one time was
estimated at 500,000 to 1,000,000 acre-feet. It is understood other
alternatives are being reviewed by the State DWR, MWD and the Engi-
neering Consultant. These alternatives include the possibility of
storing water in the Chino Basin by substituting treated SWP water
for groundwater pumped from the basin during periods of SWP excess.
The use of injection wells is also being reviewed as a means of con-
ducting flows into the basin.
Although alternatives to water spreading and percolation are being
looked at by DWR and MWD, it is assumed some imported water will be
conducted into the Chino Basin by the use of water spreading facili-
ties. There are not sufficient recharge facilities presently
developed to satisfy the Conjunctive Use Program needs.
The Day, Etiwanda 'and San Sevaine Creek Drainage Plan proposes the
expansion and development of water conservation basins and spreading
54
grounds for conservation of local storm flows and flood flows.
These facilities include the Lower San Sevaine Basin and the Day
Creek Spreading Grounds and Day Creek Basin. Whereas the ground-
water recharge with storm flows and imported water is compatible,
the same facilities can be used for both purposes if regulated
properly.
It is therefore recommended an effort be made to promote and coordi-
nate the joint use of basins and that possible sharing of costs in
developing groundwater recharge facilities be explored. Refer to
Figure No. 1 for location of existing and proposed water conserva-
tion facilities. Table Nos. 5 through 7 give the proposed storage
capacity and estimated recharge capacity of the various proposed
facilities.
55
APPENDIX
1. References
2. Proposed Water Conservation Basins and
Spreading Ground Plans
3. Schematic sand and gravel mining plan for
Day Creek Spreading Grounds
REFERENCES
1. Chino Basin Municipal Water District, "Fourth Annual
Report of the Chino Basin Watermaster", 1980/81
2. Bill Mann & Associates, "Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine
Creek Drainage Plan", February, 1983
3. ASCE Manual No. 40, "Groundwater Management", 1972
4. U. S. Geological Survey, "Artificial Recharge in the
Upper Santa Ana Valley", 1972
5. State of California, Department of Water Resources,
Bulletin No. 104-3, "Meeting Water Demands in the Chino -
Riverside Area", 1970
6. ASCE Manual No. 28, "Hydrology Handbook", 1949
7. Warren Viessman, Jr., John Knapp, Gary Lewis, "Introduc-
tion to Hydrology", 1972
8. James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., "Cuca-
monga County Water District Water Supply Development Plan",
1974
9. James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., "Cuca-
monga County Water District Water System Master Plan
Update", 1981
10. U. S. Geological Survey, "Generalized Streamflow Relations
of the San Bernardino and Eastern San Gabriel Mountains",
1972
11. Omer H. Brodie & Associates, "Report on the Comprehensive
Plan of Water Resources Conservation", 1968
12. Lowry -Engineering Science, Consulting Engineers, "Pre-
liminary Investigation -San Diego Creek Watershed Project
in Orange County, California", 1971
13. San Bernardino County, "Hydrology Manual", Draft Copy,
dated January, 1983
St. R/W �C Patton Rd.
Future St. R/W
Transition
li
i
3 -12'W x 10 H R.C.B.--
Basin Inlet Spillway-
3O'x 7.5'
To p o �
Elev. 825
EI. 805
utlet Spill
icket Dissipator
8
w
0
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
RIVERSIDE BASIN
DATEI SCALE: HORiZ. I"= 200' I SHEET No.
VERT, I"=20' 6 of 37
4+
M.B Sloe As Necessary
Protect asm p
a
Inlet Spill way--�\
_,�t
J
`
"
W
---825 —
�
4
S,
FD
(D
a
aP e
e alppp
a
Inlet Spill way--�\
_,�t
J
`
"
W
---825 —
S,
FD
(D
a
aP e
e alppp
��
R. SDO' ?%
�
N
�� ��
4F CMP Interim
Ci
``'
*3� �,, ;
BASIN PLAN
Basin Drain
u
MAXIMUM STORAGE VOLUME
h
II0O ACRE 'FEET
BILL MANN a ASSOCIATES
1814 COMMERCENTER NEST
�� �i•
SUITE A
SAN BERNARDINO,CA.92408
�w
BILL C. MANN C.E.14)26
IU o
9p o
�0d
Flip Bucket
Dissipator
TRANSMISSION
TOWERS
J 4
G
FAI
Prop. 96" Storm Drain--\
_SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
RIVERSIDE BASIN
DATE SCALE: SHEET No.
OCT. 1982 I"=200' 5 of 37
Elev.825
I
St. R/W (L Patton Rd.
Future St. R/W
1�
Transition
0
Basin Inlet Spillway
Top of Proposed Basin Levee 30'x 7 5`
Maximum Water Surface= Elev. 823 Existing Ground
F.L. Elev. 813
4:1
utlet Spillway F.L. Elev. 790
--- - - Marimum Storage Water Surface Elev.=813
Proposed Basin Floor
EI. 790
r— FCD !?/W
—'�; 50
IMaximm Storage Water Surface Elev. =813
\ Maxirrim Water Surface = Elev. 823
--Existing Ground
F.L. Elev. 7)0 F.L. Elev. 790
Proosed Basin Floor
SECTION B-1
Flip Bucket Dissipator
St. R/W
50
I
I
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES
1614 COMMERCENTER WEST
SUITE A
SAN BBERNARDINO, CA. 52406
BILL °` MANN C.E. 14326
I
_SA_N _BERNARDINO COUNTY.
FLOOD CONTROL DIST_RLCT
DAY GEEK CHANNEL,
RIVERSIDE BASIN
DATE SCALE-. HORIZ. I"= 200' SHEET No.
VERT. I"=20' 6 of 37
'Y
Y
iY
�km
8
\~� / 890 —�——
/ Exist. I2'Wx8°H RCB- Extend as Necessary
867
9 I o0 858 b
FCD R/W—�
Proposed
P
s
36°° Sewe
See Day Creek Channel --f
on Sheetl0 j
Additional R/W to be Acquired
®®®� ----FCD R/VV 7
—®
9
Basin-Channel—
__867
Flip Bucket Dissipator
Rock tSplash Pad --A
Rock Splash Pad
�,. �44
-Existing Portion of Outlet Spillway
Eizisting 36°° RCP Basin Drain -Extend as Necessary l
858
886
s�
-Proposed Portion of Outlet Spillway
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES
1814 COMMERCEINTER NEST
SUITE A
SQA! BERNARDINO,CA.92408
LL C. MANN R.C.E. 14326
886
See Etiwanda Crk.
Channel on Sheet I
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
®AY CREEK CHANNEL
WINEVILLE BASIN
DATE SCALE; SHEET No.
I"= 200' 1 8 of 37
m
R/W Line
40
Route 31
"fie°Jday
Elev. SSS
4:1 Slope
rR/W Line
75'
i
Elev. SSS Top of Levee
--- -----'�IViaximum Water Surface-Elev. 553 ---
F.L. Elev. 858 Maximum Storage Nater Surface-Elev. 872-11.,F.L. Elev. SSSS �4 1 Slope
- Existing Basin Floor-,,, _--- — —�
R/ W Line
I
I
Proposed New Portion of Spillway
Top of Existing Channel Levees
Water Surface-�
Proposed Basin Floor
Alternate Basin Floor -Eley. 855
R/W Line
5 0' .
I
8
70' Top of Levee
Elev. 890
i Top of Levee Elev. 886 -,,---Maximum Water Surface—Eley. 883 `
\,,-4:1 Slope
� Proposed Concrete Sell Slope
Maximum Storage Water Surface-Elev. 572/
�--,xisting Basin Floor
d'=1q' ss=1.5 I S=0.007
5:1
b=18' V__r_
Proposed 72"RCP Basin Drain
Spillway
Proposed 36" Sewer
DOTE' The Exist. Spillway will be
Modified or Replaced as
Necessary
�roposed Basin Floor,, F.L. Elev. 858
\'-Alternate Basin Floor-Elev. 855 -
"'-Existing Portioi of Spillway- Elev. 8
R/W Line
0
Elev. 877
Exist. Ground
BILL MAT! a ASSOCIATES
I814 COM MERCENTER WEST
SUITE A
SAKI ERNARDINO,CA. 92405
=DATESII C. MANN R.C.E. 14326
,,,-Elev. 872
w
SECTION C -C
SAID BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
AY CREEK CHANNEL
WINEVILLE BASIN
SCALE: HORIZ. I"=200' 1 SHEET No.
VERT. C=20' 9 of 37
--rr
Existing
—Elev. 1385
ORANGE
3:1�
Elev. 1389
31
�- Existing Basin
S+OG 10+00 --_
Elev. 1389
S T. a
.t
Elev.1390 --�
Ete; 1394
Basin SpillwayI \
15+00 I �
I I 20+00
,-ConiFOI Line I I V
(SECTION A -A) I I
3:1-
Elev, 1390
T —�
3:I
Y Y /\l`
Basin Drain C Basin Inlet Chute
9 f/ Existing Basin L �\
/� Outlet Spillway S.C. E. Easemnt Existing
�-� Basin Inlet
--- --Day Creek Channe (See Sheets 23 8s 2
®®
TT
FC . o. Riw —
BASIN PLAN
MAXIMUM STORAGE VOLUME 650 ACRE FEET
BILL MANN 9 ASSOCIATES
1814 COMMERCENTER WEST
SUITE A
SARI BERNARDINO, CA. 92408
BILL C. MANRIR.C.E. 14326
I
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTJE
to
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
Y
DAY CREEK BASIN
ATE SCALE e SH0` 1982 I"= 200' 2
1
i
SL Highland Ave.
14€30
1480
Top of
Existing Basin Levee
Natural Ground--,,
I
1460
1460
Existing Basin
150'
Slope
IL Levee
/ 40�¢
1440
/
/
1440
NOTE
Top of Proposed
Basin Levee
3:1
Basin Outlet Spillway
Elev. 1430
/
Crest Elev. =1400
F.L. Elev. 14
24Maximum
Storage Water S�
---
rface Elev.=1424
1420
1420
--
Top of Existing Basin Leve
Basin Spillway---.
3:1
'�.: 3:1
1400 —
Maximum Storage W
ter Surface Eley.=1400
/
l400
� 3 1
F.L. Elev. 1389
F.L. Elev.
1390 S=0.0®43
F.L. Elev.1394
Proposed Basin Floor
\\ F.L. Elev. 1385
S=0,0043 __
--- ---
—�
—__----
—
Existing Basin Floor
1380
Existing Basin Floor
_ 1380
SECTION A—A
13G ®
o
1360
134025+00
1340
---- _
13`0 13201 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
_
0+00 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
BILL MANN &i ASSOCIATES DAY CREEK CHANNEL
1814 COMMERCENTER WEST DAY CREEK BASIN
SUITE A
SAN BERNARDINO,CA. 92408
� (f,�-��_� DATE SCALE � HORIZ.. 1��=200 SHEET VV o.
-
_ `' VERT. I = 20
BILL C. `riANN C.E. 14326 )CT. 1982 26 of 37
f
1460
1460
St. R/W--�
Control Line
Control Line
�
8
Elev. 1443
Elev. 1443
1440
1440
St. R/W�
Maximum Storage Wo
er
Elev. 1420'
Elev. 1420+
Surface Elev.=1424
1420
---
1420
---
Existing Basir
Ground Line
�,
Basin
Proposed
Ground Line
Basin
/---Existing
Ground
Lone
Maximum Storage Water
Proposed Basin
\
1400
Surface Elev.=1400
Ground Line
3: 1
3:1
1400
j
Existing Basin
FloorProposed
Basin Floor_
Sal
_Existing Basin Floor
F.L. Elev. 1391--
F. L. Elev. 131'
1380
F.L. Elev. 1387 '
F. L. Elev. 13837±111380
SECTION
SECTION
C -C
1360
1360
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
_FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
BILL MANN a ASSOCIATES DAY GEEK CHANNEL.
1814 COMMERCENTER NEST DAY CREEK BASIN
SUITE A
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92408
, DATE SCALE: HORIZ. I"=200' SHEET No.
BILL C. MANN R.C.E. 14326 OCT 1982 VERT I"=20' 27 of 37
15'
EXIST. GROUND LINE
LEGEND
SPREADING BASIN (TYP
-- 31 3:1 (TYP.)
15 � !
— v
EXIST. GROUND LINE--
-- — EXISTI RECE N L EE h
SPREADING CHAN. (TYP.) 3--1 (TYP.) r
SPREADING --e.-
CO TRUC SPRE DING SINS �PPROX.� > �
1
HAN ELS � N N�WI H
APA T
UPS REAM 5 SAgl
SP
DIN
E -
r� _ ' SP AD1AJG` ASI,NL�T
o !
1
d
cli
14
- Y
\ l
t
u� f
• V 1
i
co
Er
II l !
I
t¢
Y �
Asa DISTRIB TION %
PIPELI (C.C'.W D,
BASIN
-- -- - - --
SPREADING
!
_ U1
r
CHAN L (TYP
V
w 2
w 1� -
01
l .
r
T ,
.:
: 1
_ � E iSTIN TRAN SSI TO 1R iT
�- ; _ o , BASIN aOUTLETPICLWAY Gh , i
) O ,s -
f
a m ( 36" CP BAN DRAIN �' � S LIT RN 'C. IFQ J aE{}IS01V -EASEMENT
!
tv �
--- - _
7-7
T
� DAY CRE
If 1
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
®ILL
MANN & ASSOCIATES
DAY
CREEK CHANNEL
1814
COMMERCENTER BEST
WATER
CONSERVATION PLAN
SUITE
A
SAN
'--�'ERNARDINO,CA. 92408
DAY
CREEK SPRD. GRDS.
12p-,
DAT ESCALE : HORIZ. CzG00'
SHEET No.
SIL
3. MANN K.C. E. 14325
1 DEC. 1982
1 of 5
I
_ I1
a
),l T: .A. DEPWAT 'R
—
� POWER R/ c "
SPREiiIG '
CHA EL; (TY .) i —
�s
.p
I
. I
r"
11SP AIDING
i BA IN (TII
FC R
O /w
N
j
ON Tk, T S .REA IN BAS S F
APP 0 0 `MAPA
SH WN ,'fTH SPRfADIN
C -HA f • �'�'
Y CR EK NNr L_ — -
FCD' R/W - ��-•.
o
FAULT ZONE LEGEND
------ CONTACT
?•••• ^�^^�'^ FAULT -QUERIED WHERE
UNCERTAIN,
DOTTED WHERE BURIED,
DASHED WHERE INFERRED,
HATCHURE ON UPPER PLATE
= DEBRIS STORAGE AREA
6AY ANY
)DE R!S
{
15'
15`
r
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
5
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
EXIST GROUND LINE -;T5
3=I (TYP.)
BILL MANN ASSOCIATES
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
30'
1814 COMMERCENTER WEST
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
SUITE A
SAN BERNARDINO,CA. 92408
DAY CREEK SPRD. GRDS.
SECTION B -B
C;
DATE SCALE: HORIZ. I"=600' SHEET No.
re.Pe�
BILL C. MANN/R/C.E. 14326
DEC. 1982 2 of 5
San Sevaine Co
Channel
(See Sheet 3
C. D. EL/2L--,_
036
.l =
----48" RCP Basin Outlet Drain
jurupa Basin Outlet Channel R=5(
See Sheet 2 For Confluence With S®n Seva;ne Creek Channel 11
BILL MANN B ASSOCIATES
1814 COMMERCENTER WEST
SUITE A
SA: BERNARDINO,CA 92408
BI ;_ C. MANN K.C.E. 143
I
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
SEVAINE CREEK CHANNEL
JURLIPA BASIN
DATEj SCALE. I"= 200' SHEET No.
DEC. 1982
� 4 of 34
�_F_.C,D. R/W
FC.D. R/W
E)'s t i n g Ground Elev, 936
Elev 928.5 ____\
Maximum H.W.L. Elev. 925
2: 4.1
Storage H.W.L. Elev. 920—,,—
4-1
F LL 80 9 q 6D Basin F-.uor--_,, F 1. 896
SEC TION .-A
I
t�;�_ rld"dmnlnm
OutleT Channel
F.C.D. R/W, 6
H.W.L. Elev. 926
4:I
lop of 1 evee
Eiev. 928.5
' Max. H.W.L.EI92(-'
S P'llway Crest
F. L. 920
Spillway \,,e-4:1
F.L. 896 \ ,,--Basin Floor
OUTLET SPILLWAY SECTION
HORIZ. I"=100'
VERT. C=20'
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
–FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
BILL MANN a ASSOCIATES SAN SEVAINE CREEK CHANNEL
1814 COMMERCENTER WEST JURUPA BASIN
SUITE A
SAN BERN!./-\,c",)1N0,CA. 92408
z DATE SCALE:--HORIZ. I"=200' SHEET No.
BILL C. MANN 4.C.F 14326 DEC. 1982 VERT. I"=20' 5 of 34
z
C
v
U
0
c
W
Lu
0
, xi / -
Existing
Spillway
Existing Basin Drain (36 �)
Existing San Sevaine
Creek Channel
Proposed 72"RCP
Basin Drain
a
I2
460
e(9 41 0j-
MA'/"(1UMA'/"(1WUM STORAGE VOLUME
1720 ACRE FEET
a
Drainage ditch
F.C.D. R/W
1400-
14 00
400140011-04-
465
04-
465 470 475
480
Control Line 7
-Existng Basin ! (SECTION A -A)
r �
Spillway extension
Basin drain extension
F.L. Elev. 1392¢
--04—
-
1420 -k
BI
Proposed Basin Extension
FL. Elev. 1393-1
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES
1814 COMMERCEN ; ER WEST
SUITE A
SAN BERNARDINC CA. 92405
� .r
BILL C. MANN R.C.E. 14326
M
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
SAN SEVAINE CREEK SYSTEM
LOWER SAKI SEVAINE BASIM
PLAN
DATE I SCALE: SKEET No.
DEC. 1982 1 = 200' 19 of 34
0
z
FC, D. R/W
Drainage ditch
7-
0
L LO
A
0
EXIS
a S \P�l 9w
0 -
See Sheet No. 24
0
0
,SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES SAN SEVAINE CREEK SYSTEM
1814 COMMERCENTER WEST LOWER SAN SEVAINE BASIN
SUITE A PLAN
SAN BERNARDINO,CA. 92408
DATE SCALE: SHEET No.
DEC. 1982 1 200 2-0 of 34
E. 14326
BILL C. MANN
tp(2 P Iz OF, �:j IM3di z861 '030 9MPI •3;0 NNVW 'O -1-1I8
'ON JL33HS ,00Z= j °7I1JOb e TIVOS ' 3IVG
3-11JO�Jd 80t7(7,6 'V- ONIi18VN�136 NVS
NISVe 3i1IVA3S NVS �J3MO-I V 31ins
N3:)63WVVOO tISI1SSM �3
I :-IiSAS A338I0 3NIVA3S WRVS S31VIDOSSV 12 N --NVR 111
F—1:)I81Sl® 1081 109 COMA
AiNnoo Oil®8VN830 NVS
aanal q4 -JON builsixal) dol
a
OO+OSf�
00+5L�
— OO+OLS
00
+�
a9tb 00+09V 00+59fv
0t79-1
Ot72 1
09,21
s�o ole= 0921
18uuDgD g ADMIlid buidsJx-
�
081
auil I0_i4u03
�D GUIlMolJ
Jool J ulsDe pasodoid
2621
13 'TJ
J
-
r_
00tr1
001-
------ -
------------
---
Jool�
isDB ou1ls x]
dols
\ ��
I:c
I
0 tilOZVI
"nal] aoD4JnS
JGJDM a6DJ04S wnwlXDVV
-- _-
OzbI 'AG 13 /
uoisuaIX-3 ADfAlleds
OZti I
6Zt,1 'n213 aaDjJnS J@ID,V\
wnwlXDN
0t"t'1
z�bl 'nal3 aana
�o doi
0t7t71
canal yin
<; 6uI�slXa jo dol
aanal q4 -JON builsixal) dol
a
1460
1450
1460
1460
op
f exis4ing North Levee
Top of existing
South Levee
__--
�/
Existing Basin Floor --"
=Igor---
___
1440
-------
_ — — — — — — — —
1440
Exis
ing Spillway
Maxim
m Water Surface Elev. 1429
1420
IVIG
imum Storage Water Surfacd
Elev. 1420--,,,1420
Existing Basin door
1400
--------------
14®0
Basin Floor - =
Iowline at Control Line
Propose
(SECTION A-A)
1380
1350
0n;
1360
1360
1340
1340
495400 500+00 505400
13?0
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY �
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES SAKI SEVAINE CREED SYSTEM
1814 COMMERCERITER WEST LOWER SAN SEVAINE BASIN
1300
SUITE A PROFILE
SAN EERNARDK5, CA. 92405
+00 485400 4'30+OC, �; , DATE SCALE HORIZ. I°=200' SHEET No.
DILL C. MANN R.C.E. 14326 DEC. 19 '_ VERT I"= 20' 22 of 34
State R/W
60
Route 31
Freeway
Top )f Levee
l Approximate Existing Grade
Maximum Water Surface Elev. 1429
®® MC1ximum Storage Water Surface Elev. 1420
Top of
Levee
�v� o
/ Existing
!� Ditch
x-4:1 Slope
3:1 Slope Existing Basin
FL. EIev.13°---43 FL. Elev. 1393
SECTION B®B
1-10 R. I' =200
VER. 1 = 20
10 10,
Top of Levee
Elev. 1450
E Spill. I Existing Easin Floor
E —Ie—v.-11-4-45Z--
Elev. 1440
Basin Floor
Elev. 1410\ —�
SECTION C®C
1-10 R. I"= 20'
VER. I"= 20'
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES
I814 COMMERCENTER WEST
SUITE A
SAN BERNARDIN ',CA, 92408
-BILL C. MANN 'R.C.E.14326
-SA-U-BERNARDINO COUNTY
.FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
SAID SEVAINE CREEK SYSTEM
LOWER SAN SEVAINE BASIN
SECTION
DATE SCALE: SHEET 111®.
DEC. IS' 2 As Shown 23 of 34
1520
1510
1500
1470
1 l i
8
i
i
Existing BasinFloor —/
Proposed B sin Floor
Existing
Maxim u t� orage Basin No.
�i Spillway
Exi ting
Bodin Floor
Existing Maxi num Sto ge
Sp-illway
Proposed Basin Floor
14�04�5+00 500¢00 505+C'�
Bas No.4
81
Proposed Basin FI or
Basic No. 3
i
5! '00
+00 520+00 525+00
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES SAN SEVAINE CREEK SYSTEM
1814 COMNIERCENTER WEST SAN SEVAINE BASINS
SUITE A PROFILE
SAN BERARDINO , CA. 92408
t'�Ei < , C', DATE SCALE : HOR. I"=200' SHEET No.
BILL C. NN .C.E. 14326 Cali C. 1982 VER. I" =1 10' X25 of 34
fl!
O
>
Q
ro
N
�
o,
i
Top
of East Levee ��
Existinq
Spillway
Maximum Etorage
Existing
Basin -`
Top of West Leve
-- ��
Floor
Existing Basin Floor
'
Maximum �
S
e
Proposed
Basin Floor
/ Existing Spillway
Basin
No. I
8
i
i
Existing BasinFloor —/
Proposed B sin Floor
Existing
Maxim u t� orage Basin No.
�i Spillway
Exi ting
Bodin Floor
Existing Maxi num Sto ge
Sp-illway
Proposed Basin Floor
14�04�5+00 500¢00 505+C'�
Bas No.4
81
Proposed Basin FI or
Basic No. 3
i
5! '00
+00 520+00 525+00
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES SAN SEVAINE CREEK SYSTEM
1814 COMNIERCENTER WEST SAN SEVAINE BASINS
SUITE A PROFILE
SAN BERARDINO , CA. 92408
t'�Ei < , C', DATE SCALE : HOR. I"=200' SHEET No.
BILL C. NN .C.E. 14326 Cali C. 1982 VER. I" =1 10' X25 of 34
fl!
tF
Kp tis Q
Ing Ties
89
mf
r
ev.
Snee 27
uture Henderson & Mc,r
Charm
t Existing Channel &
�,r�_�--�1��Adternete��mprovem�rt
,_�/
I
V'�..
m
LEV
1510-5 07-5
15/7.5 /514.5 151311 A VE.
6-0-
i
.0
SAN SEVAINE BA
I%
�VC%
1508 •5
11410-5
cYlcxIu
5 24+30 l5oz 5
T._ S.umrn,it 1.1w
-V-v-- -
Y P�
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES
_I 1814 COMMERCEN T ER WEST
SUITE A
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
i ����v
BILL C. MANN C.E. 14326
i
23 I I'
I�
/ II
I1
I 1
150 1
F.0 . D. Mon.
�\ V — 2 0
'E I. i50�>�6�
1509-01
Co��in�ed on S1�ee1
24 -
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
SAN SEVAINE CREEK CHANNEL
PLAN
DATE SCALE: SHEET No.
)EC. 1982 I"= 200' 26 0f 34
1
4
inu
q_ l_if_erfl-a k1 -
Improvem6
Existing Channel
C,,1soD
i
i
S 546+5
xi in -Channel -
Sta.54- +50
Altey gfe roveme
1/4 Cor.
F. D. on.
V- 19
EI. 1596.36
I,
I'
I
J-4`
j I G
II
II
� I
o II
11
U II
44
�I
I�
,-� ___S.a'ntinued Sheet 26
1 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT;
BILL MANN ASSOCIATES SAN SEVAINE CREEK CHANNEL
1814 COMMERCENTER WEST PLAN
SUITE A
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 52408
�� �f. DATE SCALE : SHEET No.
BILL C. MANN R.C.E 4326 DEC. 1982 1 1 200' 27 of 34
I
,
21,
FAULT
cq, ( ^y— ...®.,�.'�+y pg mvw.mm�w. g(-®
f
lf
C 0.JNTP^'E:C�$..
. d FAULT QUERNA..SX WHERE
'F ., p'i
i.SNCERiAlN,
r ', �, SQA °` r DOTTED WHERE BURIED,
DASHED WHERE INFERRED,
HATUHURE ON UPPER PLATE
p, „...®.. �..,a,...a,�.}...
`X�s
PIT
' l
�. , � y �•� tt`-•__}***...333. .�� � � - � t i '� � i p i H
4 ; k
at
FGD %w
pp
4
T�
�CREEK7_ >„"7"' :, ••�- _ fa��3':
.:�.,.
A
4
.Y m s: ,:. :.h�,,.y.„au .TYW-! ..'.<n•'. -.4. .1. - , . . ,Y -(f' t t t - 5 r r / F U r'� , r _ ,t4 _
( c
t
YY -
eTa-, rt� r�._ .}.. .- � .:e -4'e4..,(-+.. ,£_,.+,,,..<:..-,...y}� ._. .. ✓ .:.. f _- � � .r >,.;. ,u?ffie..�3i LI, CmS
,
9 '
•. 111
SANq^*s�gq\ ��+y({r"`�{ggg,,�,}e (q�'p��y(�(y�{! [/��� j/,•'y �/+yj
L.I 4�%Ta'94 &'"F+i-RO4V L:.�( y� -
.0,00
`�
y'
'>-.+.::,-., ,,..`�,. : -. .,"+'..' a' ,n, ..- 'g , .;♦ • , ;J; - -. ::~a, ,T.-. - - + ,..
MANN...; �x��}�� 4 k 4; , ; .^w i .:. s •. f .SL - - '-�-" �',,+ ':a # ., ' - ®A SPREADING lR®J N ® IApSs•. ., x,
,.: wr ,,> = �E 1814 '�aMEctE: wEs CONCEPTUAL MINING PLANUiV, wrM
�.
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
. SAN BE
RNARDIN,-g CA. 40
,..: : ... a .,..
'TE
- E r'
BILL C MANN
MAR.
5
4_: ,
1940
y.
:.
ps a` .y.yv, t,..,�.,.-SaT� „m. � .:•. r
4.
�,. _....,. ,�.s ...,
'+ : ..
k..
.v",..
.�.%Y.e%rr•..
��
4_: ,
1940
i'
csa
/r
w
s'
•e�
� �
k
�€yl
'V
Debris
rA
nm
9520
1
Cu
48 01
-4
1
i
t1
g — -- -- 9 SAN BERNARDIN`O COUNTY'
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'
g DILL MANN ASSOCIATES DAY CREEK SPREADING GROUNDS
1814 COMMERCENTER WEST CONCEPTUAL MINING PLAN
SUITE A
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
SAN BERNA,RD14 0, CA.9240,8
., DATE SCALE: HOR`i^ I"= 40ca
81LL C. -MA.c..E.,143,26 MAR. 1983 VERS: 1*40' . e
/r
nm
9520
1
Cu
48 01
-4
1
i
t1
g — -- -- 9 SAN BERNARDIN`O COUNTY'
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'
g DILL MANN ASSOCIATES DAY CREEK SPREADING GROUNDS
1814 COMMERCENTER WEST CONCEPTUAL MINING PLAN
SUITE A
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
SAN BERNA,RD14 0, CA.9240,8
., DATE SCALE: HOR`i^ I"= 40ca
81LL C. -MA.c..E.,143,26 MAR. 1983 VERS: 1*40' . e