Appendix H1B: Cadiz Groundwater Modeling and Impact Analysis

Prepared for: Brownstein Hya Farber Schreck, LLP 

Prepared by: 

GEOSCIENCE GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., 

Ground Water Resources Development 

P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711 

www.gssiwater.com 

P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 

Cadiz 

Groundwater 

Modeling 

and Impact 

Analysis 

September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011


Prepared by: 





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 

VOLUME 2: 

APPENDIX A 






September 1, 2011

WBG040910053237SCO/CADIZ_DRD3019_R1.DOC/101030015 

Cadiz Groundwater 

Conservation and Storage 

Project 

Prepared for 

Cadiz, Inc. 

550 South Hope Street, Suite 2850 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

July 2010 

325 East Hillcrest Drive, Suite 125 

Thousand Oaks, California 91360

Contents 

Section Page 

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... vi 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. ES-1 

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.2 Scope....................................................................................................................... 1-2 

2.0 Setting ............................................................................................................................. 2-1 

2.1 Physiography ......................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.1 Overview of Setting.................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.2 Topography ................................................................................................ 2-1 

2.1.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................... 2-2 

2.1.4 Dry Lakes (Playas)...................................................................................... 2-2 

2.2 Climate ................................................................................................................... 2-2 

2.2.1 Precipitation ................................................................................................ 2-3 

2.2.2 Temperature ............................................................................................... 2-3 

2.3 Geology .................................................................................................................. 2-4 

2.3.1 Regional Geology ....................................................................................... 2-4 

2.3.2 Structural Geology ..................................................................................... 2-6 

2.3.3 Surficial Geology and Soils ........................................................................ 2-7 

2.4 Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................ 2-7 

2.4.1 Hydrogeologic Units .................................................................................. 2-9 

2.4.2 Groundwater Movement ........................................................................... 2-9 

3.0 Groundwater in Storage................................................................................................ 3-1 

4.0 Recoverable Water ......................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 Application of INFIL3.0 - Watershed Soil Mositure Budget Model .................. 4-1 

4.1.1 Model Geometry and Grid ........................................................................ 4-3 

4.1.2 Topography ................................................................................................ 4-3 

4.1.3 Climate Parameters .................................................................................... 4-4 

4.1.4 Soil Parameters ........................................................................................... 4-6 

4.1.5 Hydrogeologic Parameters ........................................................................ 4-6 

4.1.6 Vegetation and Root Zone Parameters ..................................................... 4-7 

4.1.7 INFIL3.0 Simulation Results ...................................................................... 4-7 

4.1.8 Discussion of Recoverable Water Results ................................................. 4-8 

4.2 Groundwater Flow through Fenner Gap........................................................... 4-10 

4.2.1 Local Hydrogeology of the Fenner Gap Area ........................................ 4-11 

4.2.2 Numerical Model Development.............................................................. 4-13 

4.2.3 Application of PEST to Estimating Groundwater Flow through 

Fenner Gap ........................................................................................................... 4-14 

4.2.4 Discussion of Groundwater Flow Model Results .................................. 4-17 

5.0 References Cited ............................................................................................................ 5-1 

WBG040910053237SCO/CADIZ_DRD3019_R1.DOC/101030015 I

Tables 

2-1 Summary of Precipitation Stations In the Area of Study 

3-1 Cadiz Study Area Groundwater Storage Calculations 

4-1 Monthly Atmospheric-Parameters Used in INFIL3.0 Simulations 

4-2 Monthly Climate-Regression Models Coefficients used in INFIL3.0 Simulations 

4-3 Soil Parameter Values Used in INFIL3.0 Simulations 

4-4 Root-zone Porosity, Initial and Calibrated Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity for 

Bedrock and Deep Soil Used in INFIL3.0 

4-5 Vegetation Properties Used in INFIL3.0 Simulations 

4-6 Geologic Units In Fenner Gap Area 

4-7 Summary of Aquifer Test Data – Fenner Gap Area 

CONTENTS 

4-8 Summary of Survey Data and Groundwater Elevation Measurements – Fenner Gap 

Area 

Figures 

1-1 Overall Cadiz and Fenner Valleys Location Map 

2-1 Overall Cadiz and Fenner Valleys Location Map 

2-2 Topography 

2-3 Drainage Map 

2-4 Vegetation 

2-4b Vegetation Coverage 

2-5 Climate Stations 

2-6 PRISM Isohyets for the 1971-2000 Period 

2-7 Cumulative Departure from Mean Precipitation for Selected Precipitation Stations 

2-8 Simplified Geologic Map 

2-9 Geology of Fenner Gap Area 

2-10 STATSCO Soil Map 

2-11 Percentage of Grains Greater Than 2mm 

2-12 Percentage of Clay from Fines 

2-13 Conceptualization of Groundwater Occurrence and Movement in Area of Study 

2-14 Schematic Cross Section showing Occurrence and Movement of Water 

2-15 Wells and Springs Map 

2-16 Groundwater Level 

3-1 Base of Alluvial Aquifer Elevation 

WBG040910053237SCO/CADIZ_DRD3019_R1.DOC/101030015 II

3-2 Storage Zone 

4-1 Schematic of Water Balance Processes Simulated In INFIL3.0 

4-2 INFIL3.0 Grid – Fenner Watershed 

4-3 INFIL3.0 Grid – Orange Blossom Wash Area 

4-4 INFIL3.0 Flow Accumulation/Routing – Fenner Watershed 

4-5 INFIL3.0 Flow Accumulation/Routing – Orange Blossom Watershed 

4-6 Climate Stations Used in INFIL3.0 for Fenner Watershed and Orange Blossom 

Wash Areas 

4-7 Monthly Precipitation Versus elevation Regressions Used in INFIL3.0 

4-8 Soil Depths Determined from STATSGO Database 

4-9a INFIL3.0 Modeled Average Annual Precipitation for 1971-2000 Period 

Compared with PRISM – Fenner Watershed 

4-9b INFIL3.0 Modeled Average Annual Precipitation for 1971-2000 Period 

Compared with PRISM – Orange Blossom Watershed 

4-9c INFIL3.0 Modeled Average Annual Precipitation for 1958-2007 Period 

Compared with PRISM – Fenner Watershed 

4-9d INFIL3.0 Modeled Average Annual Precipitation for 1958-2007 Period 

Compared with PRISM – Orange Blossom Watershed 

4-10a INFIL3.0 Average Annual Infiltration for 1958-2007 – Fenner Watershed 

4-10b INFIL3.0 Average Annual Infiltration for 1958-2007 – Orange Blossom Watershed 

4-11 Fenner Watershed Recoverable Water INFIL3.0 Simulation Results 

4-12 Orange Blossom Watershed Recoverable Water INFIL3.0 Simulation Results 

4-13 Fenner Watershed Recoverable Water INFIL3.0 Versus GSSI High Estimate 

4-14 Fenner Watershed Recoverable Water INFIL3.0 Versus GSSI Low Estimate 

CONTENTS 

4-15 Orange Blossom Watershed Recoverable Water INFIL3.0 Versus GSSI High Estimate 

4-16 Orange Blossom Watershed Recoverable Water INFIL3.0 Versus GSSI Low Estimate 

4-17 NDVI for May 16, 1990 

4-18 NDVI for March 16, 1991 

4-19 NDVI for May 19, 1991 

4-20 NDVI for March 10, 1992 

4-21 NDVI for May 14, 1995 

4-22 NDVI for August 13, 1995 

4-23 Geology of Fenner Gap Area, Location of Cross Sections and Test Borings/Wells 

4-24 Generalized Stratigraphic Column of Fenner Gap Area 

4-25 Cross Section E-E’ 

WBG040910053237SCO/CADIZ_DRD3019_R1.DOC/101030015 III

4-26 Cross Section B1-B1’ 

4-27 Cross Section D1-D1’ 

4-28 Cross Section B-B’ 

4-29 Cross Section F-F’ 

4-30 Cross Section I-I’ 

4-31 Cross Section H-H’ 

4-32 Cross Section J-J’ 

4-33 Structure Contour Map of Base of Alluvium in the Fenner Gap Area 

4-34 Isopach Map Saturated Alluvium 

4-35 Estimated Extent of Consolidated Fanglomerates in the Fenner Gap Area 

4-36 Isopach Map of Carbonate Rock Unit in the Fenner Gap Area 

4-37 TO BE PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER 

4-38 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map in the Fenner Gap Area 

4-39 Groundwater Flow Model Extents, Grid and Boundary Conditions 

4-40 PEST Pilot Points and Targets in Layer 1 

CONTENTS 

4-41 PEST Pilot Points and Targets in Layer 3 

4-42 PEST Simulated Groundwater Contours and Target Residuals – K Limit = 600 ft/d 

4-43 PEST Computed Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution in Layer 1 with 

K Upper Limit = 600 ft/d 



4-45 PEST Simulated Groundwater Contours and Target Residuals – K Limit = 400 ft/d 





4-48 Scatter Plot Showing Observed Versus Simulated Groundwater Levels from PEST 

Simulations 

4-49 Hydrogeologic zones and Catchment Area of the Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio 

region Texas (from Lindgren et al., 2004) 

4-50 Simulated distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity for calibrated Edwards 

Aquifer model, San Antonio region Texas (from Lindgren et al.., 2004) 

WBG040910053237SCO/CADIZ_DRD3019_R1.DOC/101030015 IV

Plates 

CONTENTS 

1 Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map Database of the Amboy 30x60 Minute Quadrangle 

2 Estimated Extent of Pediments and Adjacent Areas of Thin Alluvial Cover – 

East Mojave National Scenic Area 

Appendixes 

A Field Investigation Report (CD) 

WBG040910053237SCO/CADIZ_DRD3019_R1.DOC/101030015 V

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AF acre-feet 

AFY acre-feet per year 

ASP aspect 

BRGAP USGS’ Biological Resources National Gap Analysis Program 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

bgs below ground surface 

cm/d centimeters per day 

CPC Climate Prediction Center 

DEM digital elevation model/map 

ELEV elevation 

ft/yr feet per year 

GIS geographic information system 

gpm gallons per minute 

HUC hydrologic unit codes 

km kilometers 

km2 square kilometers 

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

m meters 

mg/l milligrams per liter 

mi2 square miles 

MUID map unit identifier 

NED National Elevation Dataset 

NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index 

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

PEST parameter estimator 

PRISM Parameter-Elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model 

SL slope 

WBG040910053237SCO/CADIZ_DRD3019_R1.DOC/101030015 VI

TDS total dissolved solids 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

UTM Universe Transverse of Mercator 

WESTVEG western region vegetation map 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

WBG040910053237SCO/CADIZ_DRD3019_R1.DOC/101030015 VII

Executive Summary 

Cadiz, Inc. owns 34,000 acres of largely contiguous land in the Cadiz and Fenner valleys, 

located in the eastern Mojave Desert, where they have farmed successfully for more than 

15 years (Figure ES-1). Cadiz desires to develop a water conservation project that involves 

capturing natural recharge in the Fenner and northern Bristol valleys that would otherwise 

discharge to the Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes and then evaporate. In addition, Cadiz proposes 

to implement a groundwater storage component of the project that involves extraction of 

native groundwater from subsurface groundwater in storage. The company’s intent is to 

develop storage conditions that would allow native water to be conserved and imported 

water to be transported, stored, and recaptured in the project area for beneficial uses, 

including environmental mitigation purposes. 

Cadiz requested CH2M HILL to review previous studies and conduct additional studies to 

provide an updated assessment of 1) potential recoverable water that could be conserved over 

the long term (by intercepting water that would otherwise discharge by evapotranspiration 

from Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes) and 2) groundwater in storage in the Fenner Valley and 

northern Bristol Valley area. This updated assessment included collection of additional field 

data, development of a watershed soil-moisture budget model based on the USGS INFIL3.0 

model, and development of a three-dimensional groundwater flow model, based on the USGS 

MODFLOW-2000 computer code, of the Fenner Gap area. The purpose of the update was to 

assess the quantity of groundwater flowing through the gap. The groundwater is expected to 

be a large part of the long-term average annual recharge to the Fenner Watershed, which is 

flowing toward the Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes. These assessments indicated that a reasonable 

estimate of potential recoverable water is 32,000 acre-feet per year and the volume of 

groundwater in storage is reasonably estimated to be between about 17 million to 34 million 

acre-feet in the alluvium of the Fenner Valley and northern Bristol Valley area. 

Summary of Field Investigations 

Field investigations were a part of this study and included the following activities: 

Geologic reconnaissance to directly observe geologic, hydrologic, and geomorphic 

features and conditions in the field 

Drilling of four boreholes to better delineate the subsurface geology and hydrogeology 

Three aquifer tests and one packer test to provide estimates of hydrogeologic properties 

Survey of wells and measurements of groundwater levels to define hydraulic gradients 

and groundwater level fluctuations 

Collection of water samples from new wells to assess groundwater quality 

Figure ES-2 shows a geologic map of the Fenner Gap area and locations of wells, including 

new wells completed as a part of this study. Appendix A presents the details of the field 

investigations completed as part of this study. Following is a summary of findings from 

these field investigations. 

WBG040910053237SCO/CADIZ_DRD3019_R1.DOC/101030015 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The primary purpose of well TW-1 was to assess the hydrogeologic properties of the 

carbonate rock units in the Fenner Gap. A video log of the open borehole from 454 feet 

below ground surface (bgs) to about 1,000 feet bgs shows extensive fracturing, cavities, and 

dissolution features, resulting in significant secondary porosity and permeability. 

Approximately 500 feet of the carbonate rock unit was pumped for 3 days at 1,160 gallons 

per minute (gpm), which resulted in about 0.5 foot of drawdown (after an initial rise in 

groundwater level), demonstrating the substantial water transmitting properties of this 

hydrogeologic unit. This test indicated that hydraulic conductivity values of the carbonate 

rock units can be in excess of 1,000 feet per day. 

The purpose of well TW-2 was to assess the thickness and hydrogeologic properties of the 

alluvium in its thicker section through the Fenner Gap. Wells TW-2 and TW-2B confirm a 

thickness of about 860 to 810 feet of alluvium, respectively. An aquifer test conducted for 

3 days at 1,130 gpm on TW-2 indicated an average hydraulic conductivity value of about 

600 feet per day, demonstrating substantial water transmitting capacity of the younger 

alluvium in the Fenner Gap. 

Well TW-3 indicated that the eastern side of the Fenner Gap is underlain by older alluvium 

(fanglomerates) that are consolidated and less permeable than the younger alluvium. 

Packer tests in this hydrogeologic unit indicate an average hydraulic conductivity of 

3.1 x 10 -3 feet per day. 

A recent well survey and groundwater-level measurements confirm a steep hydraulic 

gradient upstream of the Fenner Gap and a flattening of the gradient in and downstream of 

the gap, which is consistent with an increase in water transmitting properties of those 

hydrogologic units through and downstream of the gap. 

Groundwater samples were collected from wells TW-1 and TW-2. Total dissolved solids 

(TDS) in groundwater samples collected from wells TW-1 and TW-2 screened in the alluvial 

aquifer range from 260 to 300 milligrams per liter (mg/l). The TDS of groundwater in the 

carbonate rock unit from well TW-1 is 220 mg/l. Overall, groundwater quality meets all 

primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels for those constituents analyzed in the 

samples collected as a part of this study (see Appendix A). 

Summary of Groundwater in Storage 

Estimates of the volume of groundwater in storage were updated from those developed 

previously by Geoscience Support Services Inc. (GSSI, 1999). These estimates were updated 

based on more recent field investigations conducted as a part of this study, as previously 

described, and recent studies conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). As 

a part of their assessment of the geology and mineral resources of the East Mojave Scenic 

Area, the USGS (2006) developed estimates of the thickness of the alluvial sediments north 

of Interstate 40that were used in this study to refine the distribution of alluvial sediments in 

the Fenner Watershed. The volume of groundwater in storage is reasonably estimated to be 

about 17 million to 34 million acre-feet in the alluvium of the Fenner Valley and northern 

Bristol Valley area. Section 3 provides the details of the estimates of groundwater in storage. 


Summary of Recoverable Water 


Section 4 presents estimates of potentially recoverable water, water that would otherwise 

discharge to the Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes and then evaporate. The estimates were 

developed using the USGS INFIL3.0 watershed soil moisture budget model and then tested 

through application of the USGS MODFLOW-2000 model of groundwater flow through the 

Fenner Gap. Figure ES-3 conceptually illustrates groundwater occurrence and movement in 

the Fenner and Bristol valley areas. Groundwater originates as precipitation falling on the 

surrounding mountains. A portion of this precipitation infiltrates into the groundwater 

system as recharge, then flows, principally through alluvial and carbonate rock units and to 

a lesser extent through volcanic deposits, towards and through the Fenner Gap on its way to 

the Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes, where it ultimately evapotranspires, leaving behind salts 

that are carried with the groundwater. 

Total recoverable water, therefore, is equal to the amount of recharge to the groundwater 

system in the Fenner Watershed, which is approximately equal to the amount of 

groundwater flow through Fenner Gap through the alluvial and carbonate rock units 

(flow through other rock units is expected to be substantially less than through these two 

hydrogeologic units). By intercepting this groundwater flow through the gap, a reduction of 

evapotranspiration from Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes is expected, but there would be no 

reduction in groundwater storage. 

The USGS computer program INFIL3.0 was used to assess the quantity of recharge to the 

groundwater system and, therefore, recoverable water. The USGS released INFIL3.0 in 2008. 

INFIL3.0 is a grid-based, distributed–parameter, deterministic water-balance watershed 

model used to estimate the areal and temporal net infiltration below the root zone 

(USGS, 2008). The model is based on earlier versions of INFIL code that were developed by 

the USGS in cooperation with the Department of Energy to estimate net infiltration and 

groundwater recharge at the Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear-waste repository site in 

Nevada. Net infiltration is the downward movement of water that escapes below the root 

zone and is no longer affected by evapotranspiration and is capable of percolating to, and 

recharging, groundwater. Net infiltration may originate as three sources: rainfall, snow 

melt, and surface water runon (runoff and streamflow). 

INFIL3.0 requires a number of inputs including (1) a grid (based on uniform squares over 

the watershed); (2) an estimate of the initial root-zone water contents; (3) a daily time-series 

input of total daily precipitation and maximum and minimum temperatures; and (4) a set of 

model input variables that define drainage basin characteristics, model coefficients for 

simulating evapotranspiration, drainage, and spatial distribution of daily precipitation and 

air temperature, average monthly atmospheric conditions, and user-defined runtime 

options. INFIL3.0 will compute daily, monthly, and annual average water-balance 

components for multi-year simulations. 

Input required for INFIL3.0 was obtained from the following sources: 

National Elevation Dataset (NED) to define topography 

National Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) to define watershed and sub-watershed 

boundaries 



San Bernardino County and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) Climate Data Center to develop temporal and spatial distributions of daily 

precipitation and temperatures 

STATSGO soil database (STATSGO2, 2009) to define the distribution of soils and soil 

properties 

USGS and the state of California for geologic mapping, including the recent map, 

Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map Database of the Amboy 30x60 Minute Quadrangle, 

California (Bedford et al., 2006) 

WESTVEG GAP regional vegetation mapping to characterize vegetation in the area 

The average annual recoverable water quantities for Fenner Watershed, Orange Blossom 

Wash area and combined (Fenner and Orange Blossom wash area) in total are: 30,191 acrefeet 

per year (AFY); 2,256 AFY; and 32,447 AFY, respectively, based on calendar years 1958 

through 2007. The annual quantities vary with annual precipitation. In general, the period 

prior to about 1975 was much drier than the long-term average, while the period after 1975 

was much wetter than average. So, the period 1958 through 2007 covers both a long-term 

dry and long-term wet periods. 

Validation of Recoverable Water Estimate 

Fenner Gap is the path of groundwater flow through alluvial and bedrock aquifers (such as 

carbonate units) from Fenner Valley into Bristol and Cadiz valleys. The long-term steadystate 

flow of groundwater through the gap is expected to be similar to long-term 

groundwater recharge in the Fenner Watershed. A three-dimensional groundwater flow 

model of the Fenner Gap area was developed for the purposes of validating the 30,000 AFY 

estimate of steady-state groundwater flow through Fenner Gap, previously described. The 

model is used to solve the inverse problem, that is, given a boundary inflow of groundwater 

at the north end of the gap of 30,000 AFY, and measured steady-state groundwater levels, 

what distribution of aquifer properties (specifically hydraulic conductivity) is required to 

allow for this flow and is this distribution likely given available information on aquifer 

properties? 

The question was answered using a software program called PEST, which is often used in 

inverse modeling to aid in calibrating groundwater flow models. PEST is a modelindependent 

parameter estimator (PEST) computer program that provides for nonlinear 

parameter estimation for use with almost any numerical model. PEST has been widely used 

and extensively tested since 1994 by scientists and engineers around the world working in 

many different fields, including biology, geophysics, geotechnical, mechanical, aeronautical 

and chemical engineering, ground and surface water hydrology, and other fields (Doherty, 

2004). PEST is used to estimate groundwater model parameter values, such as hydraulic 

conductivity, where measurements of groundwater levels and stresses (such as pumping or 

recharge) are known. PEST calculates values of hydraulic conductivity that makes the 

groundwater flow model “calibrate” to the measured values. PEST makes many (often 

thousands) model simulation runs to find the best set of parameter values that minimizes the 

residuals (differences) in simulated and observed measurements (e.g., groundwater levels). 



PEST was used in the Fenner Gap groundwater model to estimate hydraulic conductivity 

distributions for the alluvial aquifer and carbonate rock units in the Fenner Gap given the 

following constraints (1) areal and vertical distribution of alluvial and carbonate rock units 

as previously described, (2) constant head values (groundwater elevations) of 660 feet and 

590 feet on the northern and west-southern boundaries, respectively, (3) a target flux across 

the northern boundary of 30,000 AFY, (4) target groundwater-level measurements from 

monitoring wells in the Fenner Gap area based on recent groundwater levels and, 

(5) estimates of hydraulic conductivity from aquifer tests from previous studies and as a 

part of this study. These PEST-estimated hydraulic conductivity values are evaluated in the 

context of the hydrogeology of the gap, including available aquifer test data, to determine if 

these parameter estimates are reasonable. If these hydraulic conductivity values are 

considered reasonable, then it is reasonable that groundwater flow through the Fenner Gap 

is 30,000 AFY. 

PEST results produced two distributions of hydraulic conductivity that are both reasonable 

and consistent with observed data from aquifer tests, while maintaining 30,000 AFY of 

groundwater flow through the gap and matching observed groundwater levels in 

monitoring wells. Because of this match, it is reasonable to assume that 30,000 AFY is 

flowing through the gap and, therefore, that 30,000 AFY is a reasonable estimate of 

potentially recoverable water. 

In total, data obtained from field investigations, INFIL3.0 watershed soil-moisture budget 

assessments, and Fenner Gap three-dimensional groundwater flow model simulations 

support a 32,000 AFY estimate of potentially recoverable water from the Fenner and 

northern Bristol Valley area. However, numerical models are based on simplified 

conceptual models of the more complex physical groundwater system and processes. 

Model construction and calibration results in non-unique models, which is demonstrated 

herein, in that two conceptual models provide a good fit to observed data (groundwater 

levels and range of hydraulic conductivity values). The Fenner Gap models suggest a large 

area of highly transmissive alluvium and carbonate rock units, especially along the eastern 

side of the gap, extending into the Bristol Valley. This area should be the focus of any 

additional field investigations as might be required for development of an operations plan 

and subsequent environmental impacts assessments, which also will provide further 

support of these potentially recoverable water estimates. 

It is important to note that it was not the purpose, or within the scope, of the present study 

to develop an operations plan for development of the water resources or to provide an 

assessment of those environmental impacts associated with this development. Findings 

of this study are intended only to serve as a foundation for defining a groundwater 

conservation and storage project on lands owned by Cadiz, Inc. An operations plan that 

would include locations, quantities and timing of extractions, recharge, and storage and 

recovery operations would be the logical next step, followed by assessments of 

environmental impacts associated with the proposed operations. Those environmental 

assessments could include additional field investigations to further confirm the findings of 

this study and provide additional data as may be required to complete the environmental 

assessments. 


3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

36°0'0"N 

34°0'0"N 

32°0'0"N 

5 90000 

I15 

5 90000 

120°0'0"W 

120°0'0"W 

California 

Los Angeles 

San Diego 

B U L L I O N M O U N TA I N S 

116°0'0"W 

6 00000 

6 00000 

Nevada I15 

Las Vegas 

Twentynine Palms 

Palm Springs 

116°0'0"W 

Bagdad 

112°0'0"W 

Utah 

I40 

Arizona 

112°0'0"W 

6 10000 

6 10000 

GRANITE 

MTNS, 

B R I S T O L M T N S . 

Amboy 

6 20000 

BRISTOL DRY LAKE 

36°0'0"N 

34°0'0"N 

32°0'0"N 

6 20000 

Kelso 

M ARB L E M T N S . 

S H E E P H O L E M T N S 

Legend 

6 30000 

C A L U M E T M T N S . 

6 30000 

Cadiz Study Area 

Interstates 

Highways 

Roads 

Rail Roads 

6 40000 

Cima 

P R O V I D E N C E M O U N TA I N S 


CADIZ Inc. 

Agricultural Fields 

CADIZ DRY LAKE 

6 40000 

CLIPPER 

MTNS, 

FENNER 

GAP 

6 50000 

SHIP 

MTNS, 

DANBY DRY LAKE 

NEW YORK 

MTNS 

WOODS MTNS. 

COXCOMB 

MTNS 

6 50000 

6 60000 

F E N N E R VA L L E Y 

HACKBERRY 

MTNS. 

Essex 

Chubbuck 

6 60000 

O L D W O MAN M T N S . 

IRON 

MTNS 

6 70000 

Fenner 

6 70000 

I40 

P I U T E M T N S . 

6 80000 

Goffs 

6 80000 

Figure ES-1 

Location Map 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8 Miles 

0 2.5 5 10 Kilometers 

Projected Coordinate System: 

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N meters 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\FigES-1_CADIZ_TM_StudyArea_V1_MH.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

Legend 

6 39000 

6 39000 

Test Wells 

Test Borings 

Fault 

Interstates 

Roads 

Rail Roads 

45 

45 

6 40000 

45 

6 40000 

55 35 

Geology Units 

Alluvium 

Teritary Volcanics 

6 41000 

35 

6 41000 

Modified from Liggett (2010) and Bishop (1963) 

20 

6 42000 

6 42000 

TW-1 

TW-2B 

TW-2 

Mesozoic Granitic Rocks 

Permian/Pennsylvanian Carbonate Rock Units 

Cambrian Carbonate Rock Units 

Precambrian Granitic Rocks 

6 43000 

6 43000 

6 44000 

6 44000 

TW-3 

40 

6 45000 

80 

6 45000 

25 

6 46000 

25 

60 

80 

45 

6 46000 

25 

6 47000 

20 

0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 

0 0.25 0.5 1Kilometers 



Vertical Datum NAVD88 

6 47000 

45 

6 48000 

25 

6 48000 

25 

25 

30 

60 

Figure ES-2 

Field Map of New Boreholes and 

Test Wells Locations 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\FigES-2_CADIZ_TM_Location_of_New_Boreholes_TestWells _V1_MH1.mxd 

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000

WB052009005SCO386303 AA 05 Cadiz conceptual v3 rev ai 3/10 

Existing Agriculture 

SOUTHWEST 

Bristol 

Mountains 

Bristol 

Dry 

Lake 

Bristol 

Mountains 

Brine 

INTERSTATE 

40 

Portion of Cadiz Inc. Land Ownership 

in the Cadiz & Fenner Valleys 

5 miles 

Fenner 

Gap 

Marble 

Mountains 

Orange 

Blossom 

Wash 

Carbonate 

Rock Unit 

Providence Mountains 

Clipper 

Mountains 

Natural 

Recharge 

Bedrock 

LOOKING NORTHWEST 

Fenner Watershed 

INTERSTATE 

40 

NORTHEAST 

FIGURE ES-3 

Conceptualization of Groundwater 

Occurrence and Movement 

In the Area of Study

1.0 Introduction 

Cadiz, Inc. (Cadiz) owns 34,000 acres of largely contiguous land in the Cadiz and Fenner 

valleys, located in the eastern Mojave Desert (Figure 1-1). Under land use approvals issued 

by San Bernardino County, Cadiz has successfully farmed about 1,000 acres of land on the 

property for more than 15 years. 

Cadiz recognized the potential for developing a water supply project on its properties in the 

early 1990s and reached out to partner with water supply agencies. Cadiz selected the 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) to evaluate the feasibility 

of operating a groundwater storage and transfer project. The project would have involved 

transporting surplus Colorado River water to the project site, recharging it through a series 

of recharge basins, storing the water, and then extracting the stored water during times of 

drought. A pipeline would have been constructed from the Colorado River aqueduct to the 

project site to convey water across Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to and from the 

project site. This project was referred to as the “Cadiz Groundwater Storage and Dry-Year 

Supply Program.” The United States Department of Interior issued a right of entry for the 

pipeline after finding the proposed project would not cause any significant environmental 

harm. However, although the feasibility studies completed under the partnership 

demonstrated a significant potential for water supply development, Metropolitan decided 

not to pursue the project in 2001. 

Cadiz continues to pursue partnerships to develop a water supply project in a different 

manner than the project previously contemplated with Metropolitan. In particular, Cadiz 

desires to emphasize water conservation that involves capturing natural recharge in the 

Fenner and northern Bristol valleys that would otherwise discharge to the Bristol and Cadiz 

dry lakes and then evaporate. The groundwater storage component involves extraction of 

native groundwater from groundwater in storage to develop storage conditions that would 

allow native water to be conserved and imported water to be transported, stored, and 

recaptured in the project area for beneficial uses, including environmental mitigation 

purposes. 

Cadiz is a publicly traded renewable resources company founded in 1983. Between 1984 

and 1994, Cadiz installed seven production wells to support irrigated agriculture that now 

extends to approximately 1,600 acres and includes table grapes, lemons, and various row 

crops. Currently, Cadiz is actively pursuing options to site utility-scale solar energy projects 

at their properties and to utilize renewable energy to power project-related facilities (such as 

well pumps and booster pump stations). 

1.1 Purpose 

The purpose of the current study is two-fold: (1) to develop an estimate of the recoverable 

water that can be prudently conserved over the long term (water that can be intercepted and 

that would otherwise flow to the Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes and evaporate) and (2) develop 

an estimate of groundwater in storage in the Fenner Valley and northern Bristol Valley area. 

This work is intended to complement and update the substantial earlier technical work 

WBG040910053237SCO/CADIZ_DRD3019_R1.DOC/101030015 1-1

1.0 2BINTRODUCTION 

conducted in connection with the evaluation the proposed joint project with Metropolitan. 

These recoverable water and storage estimates are a refinement on earlier work and also 

provide an independent basis for the ultimate development of a scope of a water supply 

project that includes water supply and storage components. It is not the scope of the current 

study to assess potential environmental impacts associated with development of a water 

supply project. The analysis of potential environmental impacts will be the subject of 

subsequent studies, based on the definition of a specific water supply project. 

1.2 Scope 

The scope of this study includes review of a substantial body of existing technical 

information developed in connection with the joint Cadiz/Metropolitan project, access to 

recent published reliable information from federal databases, including the United States 

Geological Service (USGS), the development of new data, including new field investigations, 

to assess recoverable water and groundwater in storage that can be used to establish the basis 

for defining a groundwater conservation project in the Cadiz area. 

A large body of information, including data from project-specific field investigations was 

compiled as part of the Cadiz Groundwater Storage and Dry-Year Supply Program 

feasibility study. The feasibility study is presented in a report entitled Cadiz Groundwater 

Storage and Dry-Year Supply Program, Environmental Planning Technical Report, Groundwater 

Resources, prepared by Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (GSSI) in November 1999. 

GSSI included an evaluation of recoverable water and groundwater in storage as a part of 

their study. GSSI estimated the range of groundwater recharge to the Fenner, Bristol, and 

Cadiz watershed areas to be 20,000 to 58,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) and the amount of 

groundwater available to the project area to be 30,000 AFY. The volume of groundwater in 

storage within aquifers of the Fenner Watershed was estimated by GSSI to range from 13 to 

23 million acre-feet (AF) and the volume of groundwater in storage in the aquifers of the 

project area ranges from 4 to 7 million acre-feet. Although thorough, GSSI’s 1999 report was 

subject to review and evaluation by third parties. 

The current study is focused on providing a new independent assessment of recoverable 

water and groundwater storage estimates presented by GSSI (1999), including their 

responses to critiques of their 1999 report. The specific scope of work of this study includes 

the following elements: 

1. Review of previous studies on hydrology, geology, hydrogeology, groundwater 

conditions, vegetation, and land use in the Fenner, Bristol and Cadiz valleys, 

including the third-party reviews of the GSSI 1999 report. 

2. Compilation of information regarding climate data (e.g., precipitation and 

temperature data), geologic investigations, data on wells, springs and groundwater 

conditions, soils mapping and characterization, and vegetation studies since the 

publishing of the earlier 1999 GSSI study. 

3. Revisions to the depth to bedrock contour map and groundwater-level contour map 

to update estimates to groundwater in storage. 


1.0 2BINTRODUCTION 

4. Application of a soil-moisture budget model, specifically INFIL3.0 published by the 

USGS (2008), to estimate net infiltration of water below the root zone and 

recoverable water in the Fenner Watershed and Orange Blossom Wash areas. 

5. Survey of monitoring wells in the Fenner Gap area and measurement of 

groundwater levels. 

6. Drilling of four deep boreholes and installation and testing of three deep wells in the 

Fenner Gap to further assess hydrogeologic properties and groundwater conditions 

in the gap, including characterization of the alluvial aquifer unit and carbonate units 

underlying the alluvial aquifer. 

7. Preparation of detailed geologic cross-sections through the Fenner Gap based on 

previously published work and field investigation conducted as a part of this study. 

8. Development of a local three-dimensional groundwater flow model of the Fenner 

Gap to estimate the likely flow of groundwater through the gap. 

9. Comparison and discussion of recoverable water estimates, groundwater flow 

through Fenner Gap, and evaporation of water from Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes. 

10. Preparation of a report to summarize information and present findings and 

conclusions of this study. 

It is important to note that it was not the purpose or within the scope of the present study to 

develop an operations plan for development of the water resources or to provide and 

assessment of those environmental impacts associated with this development. Findings of 

this study are intended only to serve as a foundation for defining a groundwater 

conservation and storage project on lands owned by Cadiz. An operations plan that would 

include locations, quantities, and timing of extractions, recharge, and storage and recovery 

operations would be the logical next step, followed by assessments of environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed operations. Those environmental assessments could 

include additional field investigations to further confirm the findings of this study and 

provide additional data as may be required to complete the environmental assessments. 


3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

36°0'0"N 

34°0'0"N 

32°0'0"N 

5 90000 

I15 

Bagdad 

Bagdad 

5 90000 

120°0'0"W 

120°0'0"W 

California 

Los Angeles 

San Diego 

B U L L I O N M O U N T A I N S 

116°0'0"W 

6 00000 

6 00000 

Nevada I15 

Las Vegas 


Palm Springs 

116°0'0"W 

Bagdad 

Bagdad 

29 Palms 

112°0'0"W 

Utah 

I40 

Arizona 

112°0'0"W 

6 10000 

6 10000 

GRANITE 

MTNS, 


Amboy 

6 20000 


36°0'0"N 

34°0'0"N 

32°0'0"N 

6 20000 

Kelso 

M A R B L E M T N S . 


Legend 

6 30000 


6 30000 


Interstates 

Highways 

Roads 

Rail Roads 

6 40000 

Cima 

P R O V I D E N C E M O U N T A I N S 


CADIZ Inc. 



6 40000 

CLIPPER 

MTNS, 

FENNER 

GAP 

6 50000 

SHIP 

MTNS, 


NEW YORK 

MTNS 

WOODS MTNS. 

National Trails 

COXCOMB 

MTNS 

6 50000 

6 60000 

F E N N E R V A L L E Y 

HACKBERRY 

MTNS. 

Essex 

Chubbuck 

6 60000 


IRON 

MTNS 

6 70000 

Fenner 

6 70000 

I40 


6 80000 

Goffs 

6 80000 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8Miles 




Figure 1-1 

Overall Cadiz and Fenner 

Valleys Location Map 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig1-1_CADIZ_TM_StudyArea_V3_MR.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

2.0 Setting 

This section presents an overview of the setting of the larger area of study that includes the 

Fenner, Bristol, and Cadiz watersheds, and the focused area of study, which includes the 

Fenner Watershed, Orange Blossom Wash, and northwestern Cadiz Valley areas. Following 

is a brief overview of the physiography, climate, geology, and hydrogeology of the larger 

area of study. More comprehensive discussions of each of these topics can be found in GSSI’s 

1999 report and references cited therein, as well as references listed in each section below. 

2.1 Physiography 

2.1.1 Overview of Setting 

Figure 2-1 shows the location of the larger area of study that includes the Fenner, Bristol, 

and Cadiz watersheds. These watersheds are located in the Eastern Mojave Desert, which is 

a part of the Basin and Range Province of the western United States. The Basin and Range 

Province is characterized by a series of northwest/southeast trending mountain and valleys 

formed largely by faulting (Burchfiel et al., 1980). One of the prominent features of the area 

is the Bristol Trough, a major structural depression caused by faulting (Thompson, 1929; 

Bassett et al., 1964; Jachens et al., 1992). The Bristol Trough encompasses the Bristol and 

Cadiz watersheds that together form a relatively low land area that extends from just south 

of Ludlow, California, on the northwest to a topographic and surface drainage divide 

between the Coxcomb and Iron mountains on the southwest. The Bristol and Cadiz valleys 

are bounded on the southwest by the Bullion, Sheep Hole, Calumet, and Coxcomb 

mountains and on the northeast by the Bristol, Marble, Ship, Old Woman, and Iron 

mountains. The Cadiz and Bristol dry lakes are separated by a low topographic and surface 

drainage divide. 

The Fenner Watershed is located north of the Bristol Trough. This watershed encompasses 

approximately 1,100 square miles (mi 2). It is bounded by the Granite, Providence, and 

New York mountains on the west and north and the Piute, Ship, and Marble mountains on 

the east and south. Fenner Gap occurs between the Marble and Ship mountains, where the 

surface drainage exits Fenner Watershed and enters the Bristol and Cadiz watersheds. The 

Clipper Mountains rise from the southern portion of the watershed, just northwest of 

Fenner Gap. 

2.1.2 Topography 

Figure 2-2 shows a topographic map of the larger area of study based on the National 

Elevation Dataset (NED) (USGS, 2006). Figure 2-3 shows drainage areas within the Fenner, 

Bristol, and Cadiz watersheds based on the National Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) 

(NRCS, 2009). 

The New York Mountains rise to elevations of approximately 7,532 feet above the National 

Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1988 (NGVD). The Granite and Providence mountains range 

from 6,786 feet to 7,178 feet above NVGD, respectively. The Piute Mountains range up to 

4,165 feet above NVGD. The Clipper Mountains rise to an elevation of more than 4,600 feet 


above NVGD. Finally, the Marble and Ship mountains range up to 3,842 and 3,239 feet 

above NGVD, respectively. Generally, the Fenner Valley slopes southward toward the 

Fenner Gap, which is the surface water outlet from the valley, at an elevation of about 

900 feet above NGVD. 

2.0 3BSETTING 

Mountain ranges surrounding the Bristol and Cadiz watersheds are lower in elevation than 

those mountain ranges surrounding the Fenner Watershed. Peak elevations for these 

mountains include the following: Bristol, 3,422 feet above NGVD; Iron, 3,296 feet above 

NGVD; Bullion, 4,187 feet above NGVD; Sheep Hole, 4,685 feet above NGVD; Calumet, 

1,751 feet above NGVD; and Coxcomb, 4,416 feet above NGVD. 

The Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes represent the lowest elevations at 595 and 545 feet above 

NGVD, respectively. 

2.1.3 Vegetation 

Figures 2-4 and 2-4b show the distribution of vegetation in the larger area of study based on 

a western region vegetation map (WESTVEG) compiled as a part of the USGS’s Biological 

Resources National Gap Analysis Program (BRGAP, 2009). The BRGAP digital vegetation 

maps are developed using satellite imagery and other records based on the National 

Vegetation Classification System (Hevesi, 2003). The WESTVEG plant associations in the 

larger area of study include the following: blackbush scrub, desert dry wash woodland, 

desert saltbrush scrub, Mojave creosote bush scrub, Mojave mixed steppe, Mojave mixed 

woodland and succulent scrub, Mojave mixed woody scrub, Mojavean pinyon and juniper 

woodland, semi-desert chaparral, and Sonoran creosote bush scrub. The Mojave creosote 

bush shrub is the most prevalent plant association and covers most of the valley floors; 

however, it is relatively sparse even in these areas. The Pinyon and juniper woodlands 

vegetation association occurs at higher elevations where precipitation is higher and 

temperatures are cooler. 

2.1.4 Dry Lakes (Playas) 

The Bristol and Cadiz dry lake playas are located at the lowest elevations in the larger area 

of study. The Bristol and Cadiz watersheds are closed, so the only natural outlets for 

surface water and groundwater are evaporation from the dry lake surfaces. The lake 

surfaces are normally dry but flash flooding from sudden spring snow thaws and/or late 

summer thunderstorms of high intensity can result in standing water (Bassett et al., 1959; 

Koehler, 1983; GSSI, 1999; Liggett, 2009). 

The playas are made up of a variety of surface types, including salt crust and soft puffy 

porous surfaces and are largely devoid of vegetation. Clay and silts are the predominant 

soil types beneath the surface. Puffy surfaces are believed to be formed from capillary 

groundwater movement causing salts to precipitate and clays to swell on the surface, 

resulting in a network of polygons and hummocky relief (Czarnecki, 1997). This puffy surface 

is reported to cover more than 60 percent of Bristol Dry Lake (Kupfur and Basset, 1962). 

2.2 Climate 

The eastern Mojave Desert is characterized as an arid desert climate with low annual 

precipitation, low humidity, and relatively high temperatures. Winters are mild and 


2.0 3BSETTING 

summers are hot, with a relatively large range in daily temperatures. Temperature and 

precipitation vary greatly with altitude, with higher temperatures and lower precipitation at 

low altitudes and lower temperatures and higher precipitation at higher altitudes. 

2.2.1 Precipitation 

Davisson and Rose (2000) describe environmental factors that complicate the distribution of 

precipitation through southeastern California and western Nevada. These factors include 

the rain-shadow effect of the Sierra Nevada, San Gabriel, and San Bernardino mountains, 

and storms moving up from the Gulf of California that create more precipitation in the 

eastern Mojave Desert than in the western Mojave Desert. The rain-shadow effect of the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains has its greatest impact on precipitation just east of the Sierra 

Nevadas and decreases eastward into Nevada. In general, Davisson and Rose (2000) show 

that precipitation versus elevation is higher east of the 116 o W longitude than west of it. The 

Fenner Watershed lies to the east of this demarcation, so this watershed is expected to have 

higher precipitation with increases in elevation as compared to watersheds in the western 

Mojave Desert. 

Figure 2-5 shows precipitation and temperature stations in the study area. Those stations 

with relatively long and complete records in the immediate area of study include Mitchell 

Caverns and Amboy stations. Stations with short and less complete records in the area and 

vicinity include the San Bernardino County stations of Goffs, Essex, and Kelso. Table 2-1 

summarizes the records available for these stations. The long-term annual average 

precipitation at Mitchell Caverns, located at an altitude of 4,350 feet, is 10.47 inches. Amboy 

is represented by two stations, Amboy – Saltus Number 1, with an elevation of 624 feet and 

a long-term annual average precipitation of 3.28 inches (from 1967 through 1988) and 

Amboy – Saltus Number 2, with an elevation of 595 feet and long-term annual average 

precipitation of 2.71 inches (1972 through 1992) 

Figure 2-6 shows isohyets of average annual precipitation for the larger area of study based 

on the Parameter-Elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) map for the 

period 1971 through 2000. PRISM was developed by Dr. Christopher Daly of Oregon State 

University starting in 1991. PRISM uses point estimates of climate data and a digital elevation 

model (DEM) to generate estimates of climate elements, such as average annual, monthly, and 

event-based precipitation among other elements (www.prism.oregonstate.edu). This isohyet 

map shows average annual precipitation that varies from about 4 inches in Bristol Valley to 

more than 12 inches in the New York Mountains. 

Figure 2-7 shows the cumulative departure from mean precipitation for the Mitchell 

Caverns and Amboy stations. The trend of relatively dry conditions prior to the mid-1970s 

(overall declining trend in the cumulative departure curve) and relatively wet conditions 

(overall rising trend in the cumulative departure curve) since the mid-1970s is typical of 

much of southern California. 

2.2.2 Temperature 

Air temperature in the eastern Mojave Desert reaches highs in the summer and lows in the 

winter. The average winter temperature is between 50 oF and 55 oF, with average daily 

maximum near 65 oF and average daily minimum near 40 o F. Average daily temperature in 

the summer months is over 85 oF, with maximum temperatures hovering around 100 oF and 


2.0 3BSETTING 

occasionally exceeding 120 oF. Average daily minimum temperatures in the summer are 

around 70 oF, so the range of daily temperatures may exceed 20 oF to 30 oF. 

The two weather stations in the area, Amboy and Mitchell Caverns, record air temperature. 

The minimum monthly temperature at Amboy is reported to be 50.7 oF in December and the 

maximum monthly temperature is 94.7 oF in July. The minimum monthly temperature at 

Mitchell Caverns is reported to be 46.3 oF in January and the maximum monthly 

temperature is 82.1 oF in July. The average annual temperatures at Amboy and Mitchell 

Caverns are 71.8 oF and 62.6 oF, respectively. 

2.3 Geology 

Information on the regional geology and structure is excerpted largely from the Final 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement on the Cadiz Groundwater Storage 

and Dry-Year Supply Program (“Final EIR/EIS,” Metropolitan, 2001) and summarized below. 

A recent report published by the USGS entitled: Geology and Mineral Resources of the East 

Mojave National Scenic Area, San Bernardino County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 

2160 (USGS, 2006) provides additional detail on the geology and geologic structure of the 

northern part of the larger area of study. This report also provides additional information on 

the vertical extents of alluvial deposits in northern Fenner Valley that was not available 

during the GSSI study. In 2002, the USGS published the Sheep Hole Mountains 30x60 Minute 

Quadrangle, Riverside and San Bernardino County, California (Howard, 2002), which provides 

geologic details through the Bristol and Cadiz troughs, for most of the southern portion of 

the larger area of study. In addition, the USGS published a surficial geologic map entitled: 

Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map Database of the Amboy 30x60 Minute Quadrangle, California 

(Bedford et al., 2006), which covers a large portion of the area of study. This map is 

reproduced as Plate 1, provided in the pocket attached to this report. This later map 

provides valuable information on the surficial geology in the area of study. 

2.3.1 Regional Geology 

The larger area of study is located within the Basin and Range province of North America. 

Figure 2-8 is a simplified geologic map of the larger area of study showing the distribution 

of bedrock and alluvial/dune/lacustrine deposits. Bedrock includes igneous, metamorphic, 

and consolidated sedimentary rocks (including carbonates). Alluvial/dune/lacustrine 

deposits are unconsolidated sediments deposited by streams, wind, or in playa lakes for the 

purposes of this map. In general, bedrock forms the perimeter of the major watersheds. 

Large bedrock masses occur within watersheds, such as Clipper Mountains, which are 

located in the Fenner Watershed. 

The Bristol and Cadiz watersheds form a broad depression that is referred to as the Bristol 

Trough (Thompson, 1929; Bassett et al., 1964; Jachens et al., 1992). This depression is 

thought to be six to ten million years old (Rosen, 1989), having formed as a result of regional 

movement along faults. 

The crystalline basement rocks exposed in the mountain ranges of the project area consist 

primarily of Precambrian granitic and metamorphic rocks that are locally overlain by a 

sequence of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. The Paleozoic rocks consist of sandstones, shales, 

slates, limestones and dolomites. These Paleozoic sediments and the underlying basement 

rocks have been faulted and folded by numerous periods of regional tectonism. 


2.0 3BSETTING 

The crystalline basement rocks are generally much less permeable than alluvium and 

typically yield only small quantities of water to wells (Freiwald, 1984). Some of the 

Paleozoic sedimentary sections, particularly those limestone and dolomites sections that are 

fractured or contain solution cavities, can and do yield large quantities of water to wells, as 

further described in Section 4.2. Mictchell Caverns, located on the eastern side of the 

Providence Mountains, occur in karstic limestone of this section. The widespread 

distribution of these carbonate units can be seen by the distribution of other outcrops that 

can be found on the eastern slope of the New York Mountains, in Lanfair Valley, just north 

of Clipper Mountains, in the Marble Mountains, in the Ship Mountains, in the southeast end 

of Bristol Mountains, the Kilbeck Hills on the south, and the Old Woman Mountains on the 

east (see USGS, 2006; Howard, 2002; and Bedford et al., 2006, Hazzard, 1956) for locations of 

these carbonate units). These carbonate units are expected to be significant aquifers where 

dissolution features are present in the subsurface. 

The basement complex and the overlying Paleozoic section were locally metamorphosed 

and intruded by granitic plutons during Mesozoic time. In the Old Woman Mountains, the 

Precambrian and Paleozoic section was also intensely deformed by ductile thrusting that 

accompanied the Mesozoic plutonism (Karlstrom et al., 1993). Throughout the project area, 

mostly fractured crystalline basement rocks form the boundaries of the groundwater aquifer 

system. 

In the Fenner Valley, the Paleozoic section is unconformably overlain by clastic sediments 

and interbedded volcanic rocks of mid- to late-Tertiary age. The Tertiary volcanic rocks 

consist of lava flows of basaltic to andesitic composition, and pyroclastic tuffs of rhyolitic to 

dacitic composition. The USGS (2006) reports that a shallow trap-door caldera roughly 10 

kilometers (km) in diameter is centered in the eastern Woods Mountains, based on gravity 

and aeromagnetic anomalies, and was formed from a major eruption 15.8 million years ago, 

with resurgent eruptions filling the caldera with rhyolitic flows and tuffs. Dikes of similar 

composition are exposed in the Marble and Ship mountains. The Tertiary sediments consist 

of conglomerate, fanglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, water-laid tuff, and lake sediments, 

which form a composite section more than 7,000 feet thick (Dibblee, 1980). The Tertiary 

sediments and interlayered volcanic rocks are gently dipping, due to extensional normal 

faulting of late-Tertiary age. 

The Quaternary and late-Tertiary alluvial fill in the basins is largely derived from the 

Precambrian basement rocks, Paleozoic sediments, and Tertiary volcanic rocks. The USGS 

(2006) mapped alluvial deposits exceeding 300 meters (m) in thickness in the northern 

Fenner Valley (see Plate 2 provided in the pocket attached to this report and reproduced 

from USGS, 2006). Geophysical evidence indicates this alluvial fill locally exceeds 3,500 feet 

in thickness beneath a portion of the southern Fenner Valley (Maas, 1994) and even greater 

under Bristol Valley; a depth-to-bedrock map is shown in Section 3. These alluvial 

sediments form one of the principal aquifers in the study area. 

The playa sediments underlying the Bristol, Cadiz and Danby dry lakes consist of brinesaturated 

clay, silt, fine-grained sand, and evaporite deposits. The clastic sediments were 

deposited when stream flow and sheet flow from the surrounding alluvial fans spread onto 

the playas during major storm events (Gale, 1951). The evaporite deposits formed from 

evaporation of both surface water and groundwater that seeps into the playa sediments 

from the adjacent alluvial fans (Rosen, 1989). 


2.0 3BSETTING 

Bristol, Cadiz and Danby dry lakes have static groundwater levels at or near the playa 

surfaces (Moyle, 1967; Rosen, 1989). Sodium chloride and/or calcium chloride are currently 

being recovered from trenches and brine wells on all three of these playas. Thompson 

(1929), Gale (1951), Bassett et al. (1959), Handford (1982), and Rosen (1989) concur that the 

principal recharge to the playas occurs as diffuse seepage of groundwater onto the playas 

from the adjacent alluvial fans. 

Cadiz and Bristol dry lakes are locally bordered by active dunes formed by fine to mediumgrained 

windblown sand. These Holocene deposits overlie older playa deposits of 

differentiated Quaternary age (Moyle, 1967). 

Amboy Crater, located near the western margin of Bristol Dry Lake, is a basaltic cinder cone 

and lava field believed to be as young as 6,000 years (Parker, 1963; Hazlett, 1992). 

2.3.2 Structural Geology 

The larger area of study is located at the eastern margin of the eastern California shear zone, 

a broad seismically active region dominated by northwest-trending right-lateral strike-slip 

faulting (Dokka and Travis, 1990). Roughly a dozen fault zones showing evidence of 

Quarternary movement (during the last 1.6 million years) have been identified in and 

adjacent to Bristol, Cadiz, and Fenner valleys (Howard and Miller, 1992). 

Cadiz Valley is underlain by two major northwest-trending faults, inferred on the basis of 

gravity and magnetic data (Simpson et al., 1984). These fault zones have strike lengths of at 

least 25 miles, and may merge to the north and northwest with extensions of the Bristol- 

Granite Mountains and South Bristol Mountains fault zones (Howard and Miller, 1992; 

see the Final EIR/EIS for locations). 

Right-lateral slip of as much as 16 miles along the Cadiz Valley fault zone has been 

postulated on the basis of correlation of a distinctive Precambrian gneiss unit across the 

zone (Howard and Miller, 1992). Slickenside surfaces produced by fault movement and 

steeply dipping sediments recovered from cored drill holes beneath Cadiz Dry Lake suggest 

the fault zone displaces sediments of Pleistocene age (Bassett et al., 1959). 

Bristol Dry Lake is bordered by probable extensions of the Cadiz Valley and South Bristol 

Mountains fault zones to the east, and by probable extensions of the Broadwell Lake and 

Dry Lake fault zones to the west (Howard and Miller, 1992). Geophysical data indicate this 

structural depression may exceed 6,000 feet in depth (Simpson et al., 1984; Maas, 1994). 

Drill cores recovered from depths of more than 1,000 feet beneath Bristol Dry Lake suggest 

that subsidence of this basin began by Pliocene time and continues to the present (Rosen, 

1989), and therefore may be tectonically active. 

Fenner Gap appears to be a structural half-graben, formed by a system of northeasttrending, 

northwest-dipping normal faults, some of which are exposed in outcrops of the 

bedrock that flank the gap, as shown in Figure 2-9. The presence of these northeast-trending 

faults beneath the alluvial deposits that underlay the gap can be inferred from surface 

geology mapping, gravity surveys, a seismic reflection survey conducted across the gap by 

NORCAL Geophysical Consultants, Inc. (1997), and recent test wells drilled as a part of the 

this current study (see Section 4.2). 


2.0 3BSETTING 

The system of normal faults that formed the half-graben of Fenner Gap displace and tilt 

volcanic rocks of mid- to late- Tertiary age, as shown in Figure 2-9. However, these faults do 

not displace Quarternary sediments and are, therefore, not considered to be either active nor 

potentially active. 

2.3.3 Surficial Geology and Soils 

This section summarizes information on surficial geology and soils in the study area. 

2.3.3.1 Surficial Geology 

Traditional geologic mapping often does not provide details on erosional surfaces and 

surface hillslope deposits. These deposits can serve as important conduits of precipitation 

for enhancing infiltration and groundwater recharge. Bedford et al. (2006) present a surficial 

geologic map of the Amboy 30x60 minute quadrangle, California. This map covers 

significant portions of the area of study (Plate 1 in attached pocket). Bedford et al. (2006) 

map two types of erosional and hillslope type deposits: abundant hillslope deposits 

(Holocene and Pleistocene) and Sparse hillslope deposits (Holoecene and Pleistocene). 

Definitions of these deposits are as follows: 

Abundant hillslope deposits - Hillslope materials such as colluvium, talus, weathering 

products, and landslide deposits; disaggregated cover greater than rock exposure. 

Generally less than 2 meters thick or patchy distribution with a small fraction of the area 

covered by deposits thicker than 2 meters. 

Sparse hillslope deposits – Hillslope materials such as colluvium, talus, weathering 

products, and landslide deposits; disaggregated cover less than rock exposure. 

Generally less than 2 meters thick and patchy distribution. 

As shown on Plate 1 most bedrock in the area of study is mapped as abundant hillslope 

deposits. 

2.3.3.2 Soils 

The Soil Conservation Service has developed a geographical database of soils for each state 

called STATSGO. STATSGO provides information on soil types by a single map unit 

identifier (MUID). Each MUID represents a group of similar soil types. Figure 2-10 shows 

the distribution of MUIDs in the larger area of study from the STATSGO database. 

There are 19 unique soil MUIDs in the larger area of study. Figures 2-11 and 2-12 show the 

percentage of grain sizes larger than 2 mm and percentage of clay for that grain size fraction 

less than 2 mm, respectively. In general, the soils in the area contain high percentages of 

coarse-grained materials and little clay in the fines (based on the fraction of materials that 

are less than 2 mm), based on averages using the combined weight of layer thickness and 

area for the soil components in each MUID. Additional soil moisture characteristics are 

given in Section 4.1. 

2.4 Hydrogeology 

The primary sources of replenishment to the groundwater system in the project area include 

direct infiltration of precipitation (both rainfall and snowfall) in fractured bedrock exposed 

in mountainous terrain and infiltration of ephemeral stream flow in sand-bottomed washes, 


particularly in the higher elevations of the watershed. The source of much of the 

groundwater recharge within the regional watershed occurs in the higher elevations 

(Metropolitan, 2001; USGS, 2000; Davisson and Rose, 2000). 

2.0 3BSETTING 

Figure 2-13 presents a conceptualization of groundwater occurrence and movement in the 

area of study. Figure 2-14 presents a schematic cross-section showing occurrence of 

groundwater in fractured bedrock that is recharged by precipitation. Precipitation infiltrates 

and moves downward to the water table. In some cases, the infiltrating water may be 

diverted to the land surface or groundwater may intersect land surface creating a spring. 

Otherwise, this infiltrating water moves vertically downward where it ultimately reaches 

the regional groundwater system and continues to flow downgradient through principal 

aquifer systems. 

Groundwater occurrence in fractured bedrock of the watershed-perimeter mountains has 

been known since before the turn of the twentieth century (Mendenhall, 1909). The USGS 

documented the occurrence of wells and springs (referred to as “some desert watering 

places”) throughout southeastern California and southwestern Nevada for the benefit of 

travelers and prospectors (Mendenhall, 1909). The USGS documented at least 10 wells and 

springs in the mountains and hills around the Fenner Watershed and a number of wells 

drilled into the alluvium by the Santa Fe Railroad. Another USGS study by Thompson 

(1929) provided additional information on more wells and springs in the study area i to 

survey, mark, and provide protection of watering places. Additional wells and springs were 

identified in the area of study and described by Thompson (1929). A more recent USGS 

survey of wells and springs in the area of study was conducted by Freiwald (1984). 

Figure 2-15 includes the distribution of wells and springs inventoried as a part of that study 

(USGS, 2009). These studies provide evidence of the fractured nature of the surrounding 

bedrock and the continuous infiltration of precipitation and movement of water through 

these perimeter rocks. 

Although some groundwater is tapped by vegetation near the range fronts, the remainder 

moves slowly downgradient through Fenner Valley and Orange Blossom Wash into the 

Bristol and Cadiz depressions, where it eventually discharges to Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes. 

Evaporation of groundwater and surface water from the dry lakes over the past several 

million years has resulted in thick deposits of salt (primarily calcium chloride and sodium 

chloride) and brine-saturated sediments (Rosen, 1989). 

Bristol, Cadiz, and Danby dry lakes have static groundwater levels at or near the playa 

surfaces (Moyle, 1967; Rosen, 1989). Sodium chloride and/or calcium chloride are currently 

being recovered from trenches and brine wells on all three of these playas. Thompson 

(1929), Gale (1951), Bassett et al. (1959), Handford (1982), and Rosen (1989) concur that the 

principal source of groundwater recharge to the playas occurs as diffuse seepage of 

groundwater into the playa sediments from the adjacent alluvial fans. 

The mountain ranges that define the boundaries of the regional watersheds are comprised 

predominantly of granitic and metamorphic basement rock, as described previously. This 

less permeable basement complex forms the margins and bottoms of the aquifer systems 

(Freiwald, 1984). More permeable carbonate bedrock of Paleozoic age occurs locally within 

the boundaries of these watersheds (see previous discussion for general distribution and 

Section 4.2 for details in the Fenner Gap). 


2.4.1 Hydrogeologic Units 

2.0 3BSETTING 

Based on available geologic, hydrologic, and geophysical data, the principal formations in 

the study area that can readily store and transmit groundwater (aquifers) have been divided 

into three general units: an upper (younger) alluvial aquifer; a lower (older) alluvial aquifer; 

and a carbonate rock unit aquifer (principally carbonate units are aquifers, but the unit 

contains interbedded quartzite and shale, see Section 4.2). 

The younger alluvial aquifer consists of Quaternary and late-Tertiary alluvial sediments, 

including stream-deposited sand and gravel with lesser amounts of silt (Moyle, 1967; GSSI, 

1999). The thickness of the upper alluvial sediments ranges to approximately 1,000 feet 

(GSSI, 1999; Section 4.2 of this report). The lower alluvial aquifer consists of older sediments, 

including interbedded sand, gravel, silt, and clay of mid- to late-Tertiary age. Where these 

materials extend below the water table, they yield water freely to wells but generally may be 

less permeable than the upper aquifer sediments (Moyle, 1967; GSSI, 1999; Appendix A of 

this report). Production well PW-1, located in Fenner Gap, draws water primarily from the 

upper and lower aquifers and yields 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) with less than 20 feet of 

drawdown (GSSI, 1999). The Cadiz, Inc. agricultural wells draw water from the alluvial 

aquifers and typically yield 1,000 to more than 2,000 gpm. 

Based on findings from recent drilling in Fenner Gap, carbonate bedrock of Paleozoic age, 

located beneath the alluvial aquifers, contains groundwater and is considered a significant 

aquifer (GSSI, 1999; findings of this study as described in Section 4.2). Groundwater 

movement and storage in this carbonate bedrock aquifer primarily occurs in secondary 

porosity features (i.e., joints, faults, and dissolution cavities that have developed over time). 

The full extent, potential yield, and storage capacity of this carbonate aquifer have not been 

quantified at this time. 

As previously noted, granite and metamorphic basement rock form the subsurface margins 

of the aquifer system. This basement rock is generally less permeable and typically yields 

smaller quantities of water to wells (Freiwald, 1984). 

2.4.2 Groundwater Movement 

In general, groundwater within the watersheds flows in the same direction as the slope of 

the land surface. In the Fenner Valley, groundwater generally flows southward and 

discharges through Fenner Gap toward Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes. 

In Orange Blossom Wash, located between the Marble and Bristol mountains, groundwater 

flows generally southward from the Granite Mountains into Bristol Dry Lake. 

Figure 2-16 presents a generalized contour map of groundwater elevations and horizontal 

flow directions in the area of study. The contours in this figure are based on water levels 

measured in more than 80 wells (GSSI, 1999). In some cases, published water level 

elevations have been adjusted to reflect more accurate reference elevations, obtained from 

updated topographic maps of the area (GSSI, 1999). 


3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

36°0'0"N 

34°0'0"N 

32°0'0"N 

5 90000 

I15 

Bagdad 

Bagdad 

5 90000 

120°0'0"W 

120°0'0"W 

California 

Los Angeles 

San Diego 

B U L L I O N M O U N T A I N S 

116°0'0"W 

6 00000 

6 00000 

Nevada I15 

Las Vegas 


Palm Springs 

116°0'0"W 

Bagdad 

Bagdad 

29 Palms 

112°0'0"W 

Utah 

I40 

Arizona 

112°0'0"W 

6 10000 

6 10000 

GRANITE 

MTNS, 


Amboy 

6 20000 


36°0'0"N 

34°0'0"N 

32°0'0"N 

6 20000 

Kelso 



Legend 

6 30000 


6 30000 


Interstates 

Highways 

Roads 

Rail Roads 

6 40000 

Cima 



CADIZ Inc. 



6 40000 

CLIPPER 

MTNS, 

FENNER 

GAP 

6 50000 

SHIP 

MTNS, 


NEW YORK 

MTNS 

WOODS MTNS. 


COXCOMB 

MTNS 

6 50000 

6 60000 


HACKBERRY 

MTNS. 

Essex 

Chubbuck 

6 60000 


IRON 

MTNS 

6 70000 

Fenner 

6 70000 

I40 


6 80000 

Goffs 

6 80000 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8Miles 




Figure 2-1 

Overall Cadiz and Fenner 

Valleys Location Map 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-1_CADIZ_TM_StudyArea_V3_MR.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

I15 

Soda Dry Lake 

250 0 

2500 

Mesquite Lake 

2500 

1000 

1500 

20 00 

4000 

4000 

5 90000 

2500 

2 500 

5 90000 

300 0 

Legend 

1500 

4 0 0 0 

3500 

3500 

2000 

30 00 

3500 

3000 

300 0 

20 0 

4000 

3 000 

2500 

3000 

6 00000 

3000 

Bagdad 

Bagdad Lake (Dry) 

3000 

3500 

2500 

3 5 00 

2500 

2000 

6 00000 

Cities/Communities 

Elevation 

1000 ft interval 



3 

000 

3000 

6 10000 

GRANITE 

MTNS, 

3 5 00 

350 0 

3000 

3000 

4 500 

2 000 

3000 


3000 

6 10000 

3000 

3500 

30 00 

30 00 

2 5 00 

4 000 

55 00 

6000 

Amboy 

55 00 

Bristol Lake (Dry) 

1500 

250 

Interstates 

WaterBodies 

Rail Roads 


4000 

5000 

0 

3500 

6 20000 

2 500 

4500 

4000 

4000 

2500 

4500 

3500 

6 20000 

2 500 

2500 

3000 

300 0 

Kelso 

3000 

4000 


200 

2 0 00 

5 50 0 

4000 

0 

6 30000 

1500 

500 0 

5000 

2 500 

6 30000 

5 500 

5000 

5500 

5000 

Cima 


15 00 

2500 


2 500 

6 40000 

200 0 

3000 

6 40000 

5500 

5000 

CLIPPER 

MTNS, 


FENNER 

GAP 

3500 

450 0 

4 000 

4 00 0 

1500 

5500 

3000 

35 00 

2000 

SHIP 

MTNS, 

1000 

Cadiz Lake(Dry) 

3 500 

2500 

6 50000 

5000 

2000 

3500 

6 50000 

5 500 

60 00 

3 0 00 

6500 

4500 

6 60000 


4 500 

Essex 

4500 

Chubbuck 

6 60000 

2000 

25 

350 0 

O L D W OMA N M T N S . 

2500 

3000 

Fenner 

4500 

Danby Lake 

00 

20 00 

150 0 

2500 

1000 

4 00 0 

3500 

3 500 

3000 

6 70000 

4000 

2500 

I40 


3000 

Goffs 

Danby Lake(Dry) 

150 0 

6 70000 

50 00 

1500 

3000 

2500 

3500 

6 80000 

3000 

4500 

3 5 0 0 

20 00 

6 80000 

3500 

2000 

3 0 00 

6 90000 

2500 

150 0 

2000 

1 500 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8 Miles 

0 2 4 8Kilometers 



Figure 2-2 

Topography 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-2_CADIZ_TM_ElevationContourMap_V3_MR.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

Soda Dry Lake 

Mesquite Lake 


181001003002 

Shadow Mountain 

Wonder Valley 


5 90000 

6 00000 

6 00000 

Legend 

Watershed Boundaries 

HUC10 

1810010025 

1810010026 

1810010027 

1810010028 

1810010029 

1810010030 

6 10000 

181001002601 

181001002502 

Amboy - Saltus #2 

6 10000 

1810010031 

1810010032 

1810010033 

1810010034 

1810010035 

1810010036 

1810010037 

Climate Stations 

181001002901 

181001002902 

6 20000 

181001002701 

181001002602 

181001003003 

181001002802 

181001003401 

Amboy - Saltus #1 


181001002703 

181001002803 

Wonder Valley F.S. - East 

Dale Lake - Craine 

6 20000 

Kelso (Soda Lake Valley) 

Mitchell Caverns 

181001002702 

181001003001 

181001003202 

181001003402 

181001003706 

181001002801 

181001003203 

181001003201 

Dale Dry Lake - Barnett'S Trading Pos 

USGS CA Flow Gages 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 

WaterBodies 

Drainage 

6 30000 

6 30000 

6 40000 

6 40000 

181001003302 

181001003204 

181001003504 

181001003505 

181001003701 

181001003707 

181001003605 

181001003603 

6 50000 

181001003101 

181001003304 

181001003205 

181001003301 

181001003501 

181001003502 

181001003702 


6 50000 

CARUTHERS C NR IVANPAH CA New York Mountains 

181001003303 

181001003503 

181001003305 

181001003704 

181001003705 

181001003606 

181001003604 

181001003602 

181001003601 

6 60000 

181001003102 

Essex Cal Trans Yard 

6 60000 

181001003703 

181001003103 

181001003104 

181001003308 

6 70000 

181001003105 

181001003307 

I40 

Ivanpah County Yard 

Danby Lake 

181001003306 

Goffs 


6 70000 

6 80000 

Iron Mountain 

6 80000 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8Miles 

0 2.5 5 10Kilometers 



Figure 2-3 

Drainage Map 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-3_CADIZ_TM_WatershedBoundaries_V4_MR.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

5 90000 

Legend 

6 00000 

6 00000 

6 10000 

Urban or Built-up Land 

Desert Saltbrush Scrub 

Bare Exposed Rock 


6 10000 

Cadiz Study Area Vegetation 

Interstates Common Name 

Rail Roads 

Agricultural Land 

Alkali Playa 


Big Sagebrush Scrub 

Blackbush Scrub 

Desert Dry Wash Woodland 

Desert Dunes 

6 20000 

Alkali Playa 

6 20000 

6 30000 

Mojavean Pinyon and Juniper Woodlands 

Mojave Mixed Woody Scrub 

Mojave Mixed Woody and Succulent Scrub 


Desert Dunes 

Alkali Playa 

6 30000 

6 40000 

Mojave Mixed Steppe 




6 40000 



Alkali Playa 

6 50000 







Mojave Creosote Bush Scrub 





Semi-Desert Chaparral 

Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub 




Desert Dunes 


6 50000 

6 60000 




Desert Dunes 

6 60000 

6 70000 

I40 




6 70000 

6 80000 

6 80000 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8 Miles 




Figure 2-4 

Vegetation 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-4_CADIZ_TM_VegetationMap_V3_MR.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

5 90000 

Legend 

6 00000 

6 00000 


Interstates Vegetation 

Rail Roads Percentage Cover 

0 

1 - 5 

6 - 25 

26 - 35 

36 - 50 

6 10000 




6 10000 

6 20000 

Alkali Playa 

6 20000 

6 30000 





Desert Dunes 

Alkali Playa 

6 30000 

6 40000 





6 40000 



Alkali Playa 

6 50000 








Desert Dunes 


6 50000 

6 60000 




Desert Dunes 

6 60000 

6 70000 

I40 




6 70000 

6 80000 

6 80000 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8Miles 




Figure 2-4b 

Vegetation Coverage 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-4b_CADIZ_TM_VegetationMap_V3_MR.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

35°30'0"N 

35°15'0"N 

35°0'0"N 

34°45'0"N 

34°30'0"N 

34°15'0"N 

34°0'0"N 

33°45'0"N 

33°30'0"N 

Dry Lake 

Silver Lake (Dry) 

Legend 

Soda Dry Lake 

Broadwell Lake(Dry) 

116°0'0"W 

TWENTYNINE PALMS U.S.M.C. 

Mesquite Lake 

Temperature Data 

Salton Sea 

I15 

YUCCA GROVE 


NOAA3450-11575AMB_1 

AMBOY - SALTUS #2 Bristol Lake (Dry) 

SHADOW MOUNTAIN 

TWENTYNINE PALMS COU 

TWENTYNINE PALMS 

116°0'0"W 

NOAA Grid Precipitation 

San Bernardino County Precipitation 

115°45'0"W 

I10 

Ivanpah Lake 

MOUNTAIN PASS MOUNTAIN PASS 

NOAA3525-11575 

NOAA3525-11550 

NOAA3500-11575 

NOAA3500-11550 

KELSO (SODA LAKE VALLEY) 

NOAA3475-11575 

AMBOY - SALTUS #1 

NOAA3425-11575 

MITCHELL CAVERNS 

NOAA3475-11550 

NOAA3450-11550 

NOAA3425-11550 

WONDER VALLEY F.S. - EAST 

DALE DRY LAKE - BARNE 

115°45'0"W 

115°30'0"W 

115°30'0"W 

interstates Elevation 

states 

metes 

Rail Roads 

Dry Lake Beds 

High : 2394 

Cadiz Study Area Low : -87 


115°15'0"W 

I40 

NEVADA 

CALIFORNIA 

NOAA3525-11525 

NOAA3525-11500 

NEW YORK MOUNTAINS 

NOAA3500-11525 

NOAA3475-11525 

ESSEX CAL TRANS YARD 

NOAA3450-11525 

NOAA3425-11525 

115°15'0"W 

IRON MOUNTAIN 

115°0'0"W 

GOFFS 


NOAA3500-11500 

NOAA3475-11500 

NOAA3450-11500 

NOAA3425-11500 

115°0'0"W 

114°45'0"W 

114°30'0"W 

NEEDLES COUNTY HIGY YARDNEEDLES 

114°45'0"W 

NEEDLES F.A.A. 

PARK MOABI REGIONAL PARK 34°45'0"N 

NEEDLES PUMPING PLANT 

Name Station# EAST NORTH ELEV(m) 

TWENTYNINE PALMS 6048 588520.1861 3776986.3786 602.0 

NEEDLES PUMPING PLANT 6059 718933.3123 3841265.8182 426.7 

MOUNTAIN PASS 6063 632465.8634 3926145.7808 1441.7 

YUCCA GROVE 6109 609877.2024 3918075.1628 1204.3 

NEEDLES F.A.A. 6110 717833.2488 3849008.8513 278.6 

NEEDLES 6156 719478.4432 3856817.2860 146.3 

NEEDLES COUNTY HIGY YARD 6178 719478.4432 3856817.2860 137.5 

GOFFS 6179 677212.1024 3865889.1957 788.5 

KELSO (SODA LAKE VALLEY) 6193 623178.6727 3874984.6796 654.7 

MITCHELL CAVERNS 6215 636069.4599 3867402.7543 1319.8 

DALE DRY LAKE - BARNE 6245 619844.5862 3779551.1851 371.9 

AMBOY - SALTUS #1 6298 619305.1409 3821691.1470 190.5 

AMBOY - SALTUS #2 6300 615703.0829 3816099.8078 181.4 

SHADOW MOUNTAIN 6397 594008.5786 3781475.5129 414.5 

NEW YORK MOUNTAINS 6398 670151.0362 3901261.1581 1408.2 

TWENTYNINE PALMS U.S.M.C. 6402 578219.6903 3795747.1719 610.8 

IRON MOUNTAIN 7114 673319.7591 3780384.4573 285.9 

TWENTYNINE PALMS COU 9004 586655.5319 3779186.9426 577.6 

PARK MOABI REGIONAL PARK 9006 727985.8352 3845925.1453 164.6 

MOUNTAIN PASS 9008 632465.8634 3926145.7808 1443.2 

WONDER VALLEY F.S. - EAST 9016 615207.7280 3781711.4063 373.1 

ESSEX CAL TRANS YARD 9020 660221.9816 3844496.0097 524.3 

AMB_1 1001 617504.1119 3818895.4774 185.9 

NOAA Grid Node Number EAST NORTH ELEV(m) 

NOAA3425-11575 5001 615098.8957 3790582.7344 809.1 

NOAA3425-11550 5002 638120.4564 3790893.7326 567.0 

NOAA3425-11525 5003 661142.9887 3791261.3197 273.6 

NOAA3425-11500 5004 684166.6542 3791685.5176 276.3 

NOAA3450-11575 5005 614757.3470 3818306.3473 184.2 

NOAA3450-11550 5006 637710.5534 3818618.4062 244.0 

NOAA3450-11525 5007 660664.7070 3818987.2467 680.2 

NOAA3450-11500 5008 683619.9655 3819412.8905 480.8 

NOAA3475-11575 5009 614413.6096 3846031.0427 1073.1 

NOAA3475-11550 5010 637298.0240 3846344.1386 767.6 

NOAA3475-11525 5011 660183.3614 3846714.2043 535.0 

NOAA3475-11500 5012 683069.7753 3847141.2617 674.7 

NOAA3500-11575 5013 614067.6898 3873756.8242 647.4 

NOAA3500-11550 5014 636882.8759 3874070.9332 1349.5 

NOAA3500-11525 5015 659698.9606 3874442.1962 1056.0 

NOAA3500-11500 5016 682516.0936 3874870.6346 860.6 

NOAA3525-11575 5017 613719.5940 3901483.6954 1177.1 

NOAA3525-11550 5018 636465.1166 3901798.7937 1282.8 

NOAA3525-11525 5019 659211.5136 3902171.2256 1499.0 

NOAA3525-11500 5020 681958.9307 3902601.0125 987.3544 

0 2 4 8Miles 

0 5 10 Kilometers 



Figure 2-5 

Climate Stations 

114°30'0"W 

35°30'0"N 

35°15'0"N 

35°0'0"N 

34°30'0"N 

34°15'0"N 

34°0'0"N 

33°45'0"N 

33°30'0"N 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-5_CADIZ_TM_ClimateStations_V4_MR.mxd

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

Soda Dry Lake 

5 90000 

Legend 

4 in 

6 in 

8 in 

6 in 

6 in 

5 in 

7 in 

7 in 

6 i n 

4 in 

6 in 

5 in 

6 00000 

6 in 


6 in 

6 00000 

5 in 

5 in 

Interstates 

Rail Roads 

Fenner Valley Model Boundary 

Orange Blossom Model Boundary 

Dry Lake Beds 

Geology 

Rock 

dune sand; Alluvium 

6 in 

6 10000 

6 in 

4 in 

6 10000 

9 in 

10 in 


4 in 

6 20000 

8 in 

5 i n 

8 in 

4 in 

6 20000 

6 in 

5 in 

6 in 

6 30000 

9 in 

5 in 

9 in 

8 in 

6 30000 

9 in 

9 in 

8 in 

6 in 

5 in 

5 in 

7 in 

6 in 

PRISM Annual Average Precipitation from 1971-2000 

Inches 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 40000 

6 40000 

4 in 

Isohyets created from PRISM data 

PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://www.prismclimate.org, created 4 Feb 2004. 

7 in 

7 in 

6 50000 

9 in 10 in 

5 i n 

11 in 


7 in 

5 in 

6 50000 

5 in 

8 in 

8 in 

6 60000 

8 in 

6 in 

6 60000 

8 i n 

4 in 

9 in 

9 in 

8 in 

6 70000 

6 70000 

I40 

9 in 

7 in 


5 i n 

6 80000 

6 80000 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

0 5 10 

12 Figure 2-6 

7 in 

4 in 

6 90000 

7 i n 

7 in 

6 in 

4 in 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8 Miles 

2.5 Kilometers 



3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

PRISM Isohyets for the 1971-2000 period 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-6_CADIZ_TM_PRISM_IsohyetMap_V5_MR.mxd

Annual Cummulative Departure from Mean (mm) 

500 

0 

-500 

-1000 

-1500 

-2000 

1935 

1940 

1945 

Figure 2-7 

Cumulative Departure From Mean Precipitation For Selected Precipitation Stations 

1950 

Annual Cumulative Departure from Mean Plot 

Twentynine Palms Mitchell Caverns Amboy#1 Amboy#2 

1955 

1960 

1965 

1970 

Year 

1975 

1980 

1985 

1990 

1995 

2000 

2005

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

Soda Dry Lake 

5 90000 

Legend 

6 00000 

Bagdad 


6 00000 



Interstates 

Rail Roads 

6 10000 

6 10000 

Dry Lake Beds 

Geology 

Rock 

Alluvium 

Dune Sand 

Amboy 

6 20000 


6 20000 

Kelso 

6 30000 

6 30000 

6 40000 

Cima 


6 40000 

6 50000 


6 50000 

6 60000 

Essex 

Chubbuck 

6 60000 

6 70000 

Fenner 

Danby Lake 

6 70000 

I40 

Goffs 


6 80000 

6 80000 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8 Miles 




Figure 2-8 

Simplified Geologic Map 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-8_CADIZ_TM_AluviumBedrockMap_V3_MR.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

Legend 

6 39000 

6 39000 

Fault 

Interstates 

Roads 

Rail Roads 

45 

45 

6 40000 

45 

6 40000 

55 35 

6 41000 

35 

6 41000 

20 

6 42000 

6 42000 

Geology Units 

Alluvium 







6 43000 

6 43000 

6 44000 

6 44000 

40 

6 45000 

80 

6 45000 

25 

6 46000 

25 

60 

80 

45 

6 46000 

25 

6 47000 

20 

0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 

0 0.25 0.5 1Kilometers 




6 47000 

45 

6 48000 

25 

6 48000 

25 

25 

30 

60 

Figure 2-9 

Geology of Fenner Gap Area 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-9_CADIZ_TM_GeologyofFennerGap_V1_MH.mxd 

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

5 90000 

6 00000 

6 00000 

Bagdad 

CA913 

6 10000 

CA916 

CA913 

CA919 

CA909 

CA919 

6 10000 

Legend 

STATSGO Soil Types 

MUNAME 

ARMOINE-LOMOINE-PETSPRING (CA782) 

BADLAND-BITTERWATER-CAJON (CA910) 

BLACKTOP-DOWNEYVILLE-ROCK OUTCROP (CA788) 

CAJON-ARIZO-VICTORVILLE VARIANT (CA931) 

CALVISTA-ROCK OUTCROP-TRIGGER (CA919) 

CARRIZO-ROSITAS-GUNSIGHT (CA922) 

GUNSIGHT-RILLITO-CHUCKAWALLA (CA927) 

MCCULLOUGH-RILLITO-BLUEPOINT (CA933) 

NICKEL-ARIZO-BITTER (CA930) 

CA931 

CA907 

6 20000 

CA782 

CA927 

Amboy 

CA923 

CA922 

6 20000 

Kelso 

CA909 

CA930 

CA927 

CA907 

CA913 

6 30000 

CA909 

CA907 

CA921 

CA782 

CA918 CA927 

CA921 

6 30000 

CA905 

CA906 

CA930 

Cima 

CA913 

6 40000 

CA907 


CA909 

CA919 

CA909 

CA930 

CA927 

6 40000 

CA919 

CA926 

CA923 

PENELAS-UBEHEBE-RODAD (CA906) 

PLAYAS-ROSITAS-MELOLAND (CA923) 

ROCK OUTCROP-HYDER-LOMITAS (CA916) 

ROCK OUTCROP-LAPOSA-QUILOTOSA (CA918) 

ROCK OUTCROP-LITHIC TORRIORTHENTS-CALVISTA (CA913) 

ROCK OUTCROP-LOMOINE-ARMOINE (CA926) 

ROCK OUTCROP-ST. THOMAS-TECOPA (CA905) 

ROCK OUTCROP-TECOPA-LITHIC TORRIORTHENTS (CA907) 

ROCK OUTCROP-UPSPRING-SPARKHULE (CA909) 

ROSITAS-CARSITAS-DUNE LAND (CA921) 

CA913 

CA927 

6 50000 

CA788 

CA913 

CA909 

CA921 CA907 

CA913 

CA909 

6 50000 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 


CA933 

CA927 

6 60000 

CA909 

CA907 

CA919 

CA927 

Essex 

Chubbuck 

6 60000 

CA931 

CA919 

CA931 

CA927 

CA907 CA910 

CA913 

6 70000 

Fenner 

6 70000 

I40 

6 80000 

Goffs 

6 80000 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8 Miles 




Figure 2-10 

STATSGO Soil Map 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-10_CADIZ_TM_SoilsMap_SoilTypes_V3_MR.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

5 90000 

Legend 

6 00000 

6 00000 

Bagdad 

CA913 

6 10000 

CA916 

CA913 

CA919 

CA909 

CA919 

6 10000 

CA931 

CA907 

CA927 

Amboy 

Cities/Communities STATSGO Soil Types 

Interstates Percentage of grains >2mm 

Rail Roads 

0.0 - 10.0 

10.1 - 20.0 

20.1 - 30.0 

6 20000 

CA782 

CA923 

CA922 

6 20000 

Kelso 

CA909 

CA930 

CA927 

CA907 

30.1 - 40.0 

40.1 - 50.0 

50.1 - 60.0 

60.1 - 70.0 

70.1 - 80.0 

CA913 

6 30000 

CA909 

CA782 

CA907 

CA921 

CA918 CA927 

CA921 

6 30000 

CA905 

CA906 

CA930 

Cima 

CA913 

6 40000 

CA907 


CA909 

CA919 

CA909 

CA930 

CA927 

6 40000 

CA919 

CA926 

CA923 

CA913 

CA927 

6 50000 

CA788 

CA931 

CA913 

CA909 

CA921 CA907 

CA913 

CA909 

6 50000 

CA933 

CA927 

6 60000 

CA909 

CA907 

CA919 

CA927 

Essex 

Chubbuck 

6 60000 

CA931 

CA919 

CA927 

CA907 CA910 

CA913 

6 70000 

Fenner 

6 70000 

I40 

6 80000 

Goffs 

6 80000 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8Miles 




3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

Figure 2-11 

Percentage of grains greater than 2mm 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-11_CADIZ_TM_SoilsMap_SoilTypes_V3_MR.mxd

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

5 90000 

Legend 

6 00000 

6 00000 

Bagdad 

CA913 

6 10000 

CA916 

CA913 

CA919 

CA909 

CA919 

6 10000 

CA931 

CA907 

6 20000 

CA782 

CA927 

Amboy 

CA923 

CA922 

6 20000 

CA909 

CA930 

CA927 

CA907 

Cities/Communities STATSGO Soil Types 

Interstates Percentage of Clay from grains

WB052009005SCO386303 AA 05 Cadiz conceptual v3 rev ai 3/10 

Existing Agriculture 

SOUTHWEST 

Bristol 

Mountains 

Bristol 

Dry 

Lake 

Bristol 

Mountains 

Brine 

INTERSTATE 

40 

Portion of Cadiz Inc. Land Ownership 

in the Cadiz & Fenner Valleys 

5 miles 

Fenner 

Gap 

Marble 

Mountains 

Orange 

Blossom 

Wash 

Carbonate 

Rock Unit 

Providence Mountains 

Clipper 

Mountains 

Natural 

Recharge 

Bedrock 

LOOKING NORTHWEST 


INTERSTATE 

40 

NORTHEAST 

FIGURE 2-13 

Conceptualization of Groundwater 

Occurrence and Movement 

In the Area of Study

Northwest 

WB052009005SCO386303.AA.05 Cadiz_CrossSection_v2.ai 11/09 

Providence 

Mountains Clipper 

Looking Northeast 

Mountains 

Mitchell 

Caverns 

Clipper Valley 

Clipper Wash 

Interstate 40 

Southeast 

FIGURE 2-14 

Schematic Cross Section 

Showing Occurrence and 

Movement of Water

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

Soda Dry Lake 

Mesquite Lake 

5 90000 

Legend 

6 00000 


6 00000 

CADIZ Wells 

CADIZ AG Wells 

Springs 

Wells 

003N010E34J001S 


014N013E10D003S014N013E10D004S 

014N013E10D002S 

014N013E10D001S 

014N013E11P001S 

HBP2 27 DEG BE 


014N016E03F003S 

014N016E07L001S 014N016E03R001S 

014N016E09A001S 

014N016E17B001S 

014N014E18E002S 014N014E19C001S 

014N013E23R003S014N013E23R001S 

014N013E23R002S 

014N013E25M004S 014N013E25M003S 

014N013E25M002S 

014N013E25M001S 

014N016E14P001S 

014N016E22G001S 014N016E14Q001S 

014N015E23K001S 

014N016E22M002S 

014N016E22M001S 

014N016E28J001S 014N016E28JS02S 

014N016E29MS01S 

014N016E30LS01S 

014N017E14F001S 

014N017E23L001S 

014N017E27A001S 

013N014E06J002S013N014E05J001S 

013N015E04E001S 

013N014E06J001S 

013N015E04M001S 013N016E06P001S 

013N014E05P001S 

013N015E09G001S013N015E02P001S 

013N014E11N003S 013N015E09H001S 013N015E09NS01S 013N016E07B001S 

013N015E11G001S013N015E11F001S 

013N014E11N002S 

013N014E10R001S 

013N015E13C001S 

013N015E22D001S 

013N015E22G001S 

013N015E22J001S 

013N017E18N001S 

013N018E18H001S 

013N017E31B001S 

013N015E36A001S013N015E36A002S 

013N015E34K001S013N015E34M001S 

013N015E34N001S 012N015E01ES01S 

013N015E36N001S 

012N015E36N001S 

012N015E07A001S 

012N015E03L001S 

012N015E03M001S 012N015E11B001S 

013N017E31J001S 

012N017E04D001S 

012N017E04P001S012N017E04N001S 

012N017E18A001S 

012N015E08D001S012N015E08D002S 012N015E11G001S 

012N014E13N001S012N015E09Q002S 

012N015N09Q003S 012N016E18L001S 

012N015E17N001S 

012N016E19C001S 

012N015E19H002S 

012N015E17N002S 

012N016E19C002S 

012N014E24E001S 012N015E20P001S 012N015E27BS01S 

012N015E20P002S 

012N015E29C001S 012N015E34AS01S 

012N014E36J001S 012N015E33D002S 

012N017E17J001S 

012N018E30E002S012N018E30C001S 

012N018E30E001S 

012N018E24DS01S 

012N015E33M001S 012N015E33D001S 

012N014E36R001S 

012N015E31M001S 

011N015E06C001S 

011N014E11FS01S 011N015E06J001S 

011N014E11C001S 011N015E08K001S 

011N015E17M001S 

011N015E08R001S 

011N015E08R003S 

011N015E08R002S 

011N015E17M002S 

011N017E05R002S011N017E05R003S 

011N017E05R001S 

011N016E01PS01S 011N017E04RS01S 

011N018E09L001S 

011N012E25G002S 

011N014E27E001S 

011N014E26RS01S 

011N014E35M001S 011N015E32DS01S 

011N014E33N001S 

010N011E06R001S 010N015E07B001S 

006N011E30G001S 

001N010E36P001S 

6 10000 

010N014E22K001S 

009N014E08R001S 

009N014E29ES01S 

009N014E29P001S 

008N014E08D001S 008N014E05N001S 

008N013E10E001S 

008N013E08QS01S 

008N013E18FS02S008N013E18F001S 

008N013E08RS01S 

008N013E17MS01S 008N013E15P002S 

008N013E08QS02S 

008N013E15P003S 

008N013E17GS01S 

008N013E15P001S 

008N013E17BS01S 

008N013E15N001S 

008N013E23DS01S 

007N012E01F001S 

006N012E35F001S 

006N012E32R001S 

001N012E20D002S001N012E17N002S 

001N011E21C001S 001N012E20D001S 

001N012E20D004S 

6 10000 


Interstates 

Water Bodies (Dry/Wet) 

Rail Roads 

Rock 

Dune Sand; Alluvium 

6 20000 

6 20000 

6 30000 

006N014E35B001S 

010N015E29A003S 

010N015E29A001S 

010N015E29A002S 

008N017E02D001S 

009N017E35N001S 

008N017E04E001S 

008N015E12D001S008N017E02D002S 

008N016E13M001S 

008N016E13M002S 

010N018E35B003S010N018E26R002S 

010N018E26R001S 

010N018E35B001S 

I40 

009N018E36D001S009N018E36D002S 

009N018E36E001S 

008N016E36R001S 

008N017E31N001S 

007N016E01A001S 

007N018E08E002S007N018E08E001S 

006N017E02M001S 

006N015E01H001S 

007N015E35R001S 

006N016E06Q002S 

006N016E06K001S 

006N016E06Q001S 

006N017E11H001S 

006N016E06Q003S 

006N017E13DS01S 

005N015E04F001S005N015E04G001S 

005N014E15K001S005N014E13M001S 

005N013E22J002S005N013E22J001S 

011N014E02B001S 

D-SWIMMING POOL 

010N016E18GS01S 

010N014E32GS02S010N014E32G001S 

010N018E35B002S 

010N014E28PS01S 

009N014E03F001S009N014E03C001S 

009N014E03CS02S 

009N014E03FS02S 

6 30000 

6 40000 

6 40000 

6 50000 

008N015E23GS01S 

007N015E22DS01S 

6 50000 

008N016E30KS01S 

004N015E24E001S 

HBP1 41.5 DEG BE 

6 60000 

6 60000 

6 70000 

007N017E13DS01S 

006N017E26E001S 

006N017E27LS01S 

002N017E11M001S 

6 70000 

008N018E28FS01S 


6 80000 

6 80000 

0 1.5 3 6 Miles 




Figure 2-15 

Wells and Springs Map 

6 90000 

6 90000 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-15_CADIZ_TM_WellLocationMap_V5_MH.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

§¨¦ I15 

Soda Dry Lake 

Mesquite Lake 

5 90000 

Legend 

6 00000 


6 00000 

Fenner_BND 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 

Groundwater Level ft 

WaterBodies 

6 10000 

1000 

900 

6 10000 

800 

700 

640 

620 

3200 3300 

2300 

2000 

1700 3400 

1600 

1500 

1400 

1300 

1200 


Simplified Geology 

Alluvium/SandDunes 

Rock 

6 20000 

6 20000 

1000 

900 

800 

700 

680 

6 30000 

6 30000 

1800 

660 

1700 

1600 

580 

1500 

1200 

6 40000 

2700 

580 

1900 

800 

690 

670 

640 

6 40000 

1400 

1300 

1100 

1000 

700 

650 

680 

630 

610 

2800 

2500 2400 

2200 

660 

6 50000 

3700 

3600 

2100 


6 50000 

900 

600 

2900 

1000 

800 

1400 

6 60000 

900 

700 

3000 

1800 

1700 

1600 

6 60000 

1400 

3100 

2600 

1500 

3500 

3400 

6 70000 

6 70000 

§¨¦ I40 

3800 


6 80000 

6 80000 

¯ 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8 Miles 

Figure 2-16 

Groundwater Level 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 



NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N meters. Vertical Datum NAVD88 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig2-16_CADIZ_TM_GroundwaterLevel_V3_MH.mxd

3.0 Groundwater in Storage 

This section presents estimated volumes of groundwater in storage in the focused area of 

study: Fenner Valley and in the fresh (approximately less than 1,000 milligrams per liter 

[mg/l] of total dissolved solids) groundwater portion of the Orange Blossom Wash and 

northern Bristol Dry Lake area. GSSI (1999) estimated groundwater in storage for the 

alluvium of these approximate areas. Their estimate of groundwater in storage for the 

Fenner Valley ranges from 12,762,000 AF to 23,340,000 AF and in the area described as the 

“area of influence of proposed program operations,” it ranges from 3,646,000 AF to 

6,689,509 AF. Approximately 432,596 AF are for the carbonate unit. 

Updated estimates of groundwater in storage are provided in Table 3-1. These estimates 

are for groundwater in storage in the alluvial aquifers and should not be taken as a total 

volume that could be pumped out of these alluvial aquifers. These estimates are based on 

independent mapping of groundwater levels and depth to bedrock as a part of this study. 

Groundwater-level contours were drawn from available groundwater-level data for the 

study area. Groundwater levels are generally consistent with GSSI (1999) groundwater-level 

contour maps in the southern part of Fenner Valley, Orange Blossom Wash, and northern 

Bristol Dry Lake area. Figure 2-16 presents this updated groundwater-level contour map. 

Figure 3-1 is a structure contour map on top of bedrock (or on the base of alluvial aquifers) 

based on geophysical surveys of Maas (1994), USGS (2006), and NORCAL (1997), and drill 

intercepts in the Fenner Gap (GSSI, 1999; Section 4.2.1 of this study). In addition, detailed 

cross-sections prepared of the Fenner Gap subsurface geology were used to develop 

detailed bedrock contours in the Fenner Gap area (see Section 4.2). 

Figure 3-2 shows the storage zones used in the calculations of groundwater in storage. 

Table 3-1 also includes estimates of the following variables: volume of aquifer, determined 

as the volume between the groundwater table and the base of the alluvium (saturated 

thickness), percent of aquifer saturated thickness that is expected to be an aquifer (to 

exclude clay and silt intervals that do not yield water readily), and estimated specific yield. 

Low and high ranges are provided for each of these variables based on GSSI’s (1999) 

previous estimates. The range of groundwater in storage in the focus area of study ranges 

from 16,981,600 AF to 34,415,000 AF. Approximately 12,533,800 AF to 24,407,400 AF of 

groundwater is in storage in the Fenner Watershed, which is comparable to those estimates 

provided by GSSI (1999). 

These estimates of groundwater in storage are very conservative because (1) this estimate 

does not include the northernmost area of the Fenner Watershed due to the paucity of 

groundwater-level data for completing a groundwater-level contour map and (2) it does not 

include any storage in the carbonate aquifer or other bedrock units. Storage of groundwater 

in these latter units is likely to be very large. As a simple example calculation, if one 

assumes 500 feet of geologic materials with an effective porosity of 0.02 (2 percent) over the 

approximate 1,100 mi 2 watershed, the volume of groundwater in these materials would be 

more than 7 million AF. Again, this is not groundwater that could be completely dewatered, 

but it provides an indication of the vast quantities of groundwater in the watershed. 


3.0 4BGROUNDWATER IN STORAGE 

The quantities of groundwater in the area of study can be put into perspective by 

comparison to volumes of groundwater in storage in some of the larger groundwater basins 

in Southern California. Following are estimated volumes of groundwater in storage for a 

few basins in Southern California (Metropolitan, 2007) and for the Mojave Desert 

(CDWR, 2010). 

Basin 

Area of Basin 

mi 2 

Groundwater Storage 

Capacity (AF) 

Main San Gabriel 167 8,600,000 

Los Angeles Coastal Plain 435 21,800,000 

Orange County Basin 350 66,000,000 

Chino Basin 240 6,000,000 

Ventura County Basins 177 3 to >6 million 

Upper Los Angeles River Area 226 3,670,000 

Upper, Middle, and Lower Mojave 1,422 23,850,000 


3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

5 90000 

Legend 

6 00000 

6 00000 

Fenner_BND 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 

Simplified Geology 

Alluvium/SandDunes 

Rock 

6 10000 

-1500 

0 

6 10000 

500 

-3000 

-500 

-2500 

-3500 

500 

2500 

-3500 

0 

-5000 

2000 

-2500 

-4500 

-5500 

-2000 

-500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

-5000 

6 20000 

2000 

500 

-6000 

-3000 

3000 

0 

-4000 

-7500 

-6500 

6 20000 

-1000 

500 ft interval Base of Alluvium 

-4500 

500 

-500 

-1500 

-2000 

-500 

-1000 

-1500 

-1500 

-1000 

6 30000 

-1500 

-2500 

6 30000 

1500 

2000 

-2000 

-2000 

3000 

-1000 

2500 

0 

-1500 

2000 

1500 

500 

-2000 

-500 

3000 

500 

2500 

-3000 

500 

6 40000 

500 

1500 

1500 

-1500 

-500 

6 40000 

2000 

-2000 

-2000 

500 

-2500 

-500 

1000 

-2500 

500 

500 

1000 

1000 

1000 

1000 

-1500 

1000 

-1000 

6 50000 

2000 

2000 

1500 

-1500 

2000 

-500 

6 50000 

2000 

-2000 

500 

-500 

-1000 

1000 

1500 

1500 

-500 

-1500 

1500 

-1000 

-500 

-2000 

0 

0 

1000 

-500 

1000 

1500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2000 

500 

2500 

0 0 

6 60000 

1500 

6 60000 

500 

1000 

1500 

1000 

6 70000 

1000 

500 

6 70000 

500 

1000 

I40 

1500 1500 

6 80000 

6 80000 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8 Miles 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 




Figure 3-1 

Base of Alluvial Aquifer Elevation 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig3-1_CADIZ_TM_StructureContourBAlluv_V2_MR

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

5 90000 

Legend 

6 00000 

6 00000 

Fenner_BND 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 

6 10000 

6 10000 

Fenner Valley Storage Zones 

Fenner 

Goffs 

Zones 1 & 2a 

Zone2 

Zone3 

6 20000 

Zone4 

6 20000 

CadizValley_Zones 

Zone4 

Zone5 

6 30000 

Zone5 

6 30000 

6 40000 

6 40000 

Zone3 

Fenner 

Zones 1 & 2a 

6 50000 

6 50000 

6 60000 

Zone2 

6 60000 

6 70000 

Goffs 

6 70000 

I40 

6 80000 

6 80000 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8 Miles 




Figure 3-2 

Storage Zones 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig3-2_CADIZ_TM_GroundwaterStorageZones_V1_MR.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

4.0 Recoverable Water 

A number of attempts have been made to estimate recoverable water in the area of study. 

The most recent estimates are presented by GSSI (1999), USGS (2000), and Davisson and 

Rose (2000). GSSI (1999) based their estimates of recoverable water on a watershed model 

that accounts for variables affecting the daily water balance of the watershed, including 

precipitation, runoff, vegetation interception, infiltration, evapotranspiration, soil moisture, 

and percolation. GSSI estimated recoverable water for the entire Bristol, Cadiz, and Fenner 

watersheds to range between 19,886 to 58,268 AFY. Their estimate for the Fenner Watershed 

ranges from 14,646 to 37,254 AFY and for the Orange Blossom Wash area, they give a range 

of 1,193 to 4,285 AFY, for a combined total (Fenner and Orange Blossom) of 15,839 to 

41,539 AFY. 

The USGS (2000) developed a preliminary modified Maxey-Eakin model of the entire 

Bristol, Cadiz, and Fenner watersheds and estimated a median recharge rate of 2,550 to 

11,800 AFY (2,070 to 10,343 AFY for the Fenner Watershed only). The modified model is 

based on a continuous exponential curve fitted to the original Maxey-Eakin step function, 

which is used to estimate recharge as a percentage of average annual precipitation within 

discrete elevation-precipitation-recharge zones. 

Davisson and Rose (2000) of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) reviewed 

the USGS (2000) Maxey-Eakin estimates and concluded that the USGS (2000) underestimated 

recharge to the Fenner Watershed due to lack of geographic scale and context in their 

analysis of precipitation-elevation data, use of an uncalibrated Maxey-Eakin model, and lack 

of observational experience in the Fenner Watershed. Davisson and Rose (2000) developed a 

separate new Maxey-Eakin model of the Fenner Watershed. They estimated a recharge rate 

of 29,815 AFY based on local precipitation, but noted a worse-case scenario lower limit of 

7,864 AFY, which they state is unlikely, but provided this lower number as a risk-based 

lower limit for use in analyses of potential environmental impacts. 

Presented below is an updated estimate of recoverable water for the Fenner Watershed and 

Orange Blossom Wash area based on the recently released USGS (2008) INFIL3.0 model. 

This analysis is followed by an evaluation of groundwater flow through the Fenner Gap, 

which is the outlet for groundwater flow from the Fenner Watershed into the Bristol and 

Cadiz valleys. The analysis of groundwater flow through the Fenner Gap is used to 

substantiate the likely long-term quantity of recoverable water generated in the Fenner 

Watershed. 

4.1 Application of INFIL3.0 - Watershed Soil Moisture Budget 

Model 

INFIL3.0 is a grid-based, distributed–parameter, deterministic water-balance watershed 

model, released for public use by the USGS in 2008, and used to estimate the areal and 

temporal net infiltration below the root zone (USGS, 2008). The model is based on earlier 

versions of INFIL code that were developed by the USGS in cooperation with the 


4.0 5BRECOVERABLE WATER 

Department of Energy to estimate net infiltration and groundwater recharge at the 

Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear-waste repository site in Nevada. Net infiltration is the 

downward movement of water that escapes below the root zone and is no longer affected 

by evapotranspiration and is capable of percolating to and recharging groundwater. Net 

infiltration may originate as three sources: rainfall, snow melt, and surface water run-on 

(runoff and streamflow). 

Figure 4-1 shows a schematic of the water balance processes controlling net infiltration in 

the INFIL3.0 model. These processes can be described in mathematical terms as follows: 

Where: 

d is day 

NI 

i 

d 

SM 

RAIN 

RI 

D 

i is the cell number, grid location for the computation 

i 

d 

i 

d 

i 

d 

WBG040910053237SCO/CADIZ_DRD3019_R1.DOC/101030015 4-2 

i 

d 

 

6 

 

j1 

i 

( w 

) 

NI is the total net infiltration from the bottom of the root zone 

SM is snowmelt 

RAIN is precipitation occurring as rain 

RI is water that infiltrated the root zone from surface-water runon 

D is surface-water discharge (outflow) 

d 

6 

 

j1 

( ET 

w is the change in the root-zone water storage for layer j (up to 6 layers) 

ET is the evapotranspiration from layer j 

INFIL3.0 computes a daily water balance on a grid overlay of a given watershed. There are 

several other second-level equations in the model that calculate each one of the components 

of Equation 1. A more detailed description of all model equations is presented in the 

INFIL3.0 documentation (USGS, 2008). 

INFIL3.0 requires a number of inputs including (1) a grid (based on uniform squares over 

the watershed), (2) an estimate of the initial root-zone water contents, (3) a daily time-series 

input of total daily precipitation and maximum and minimum temperatures, and (4) a set of 

model input variables that define drainage basin characteristics, model coefficients for 

simulating evapotranspiration, drainage, and spatial distribution of daily precipitation and 

air temperature, average monthly atmospheric conditions, and user-defined runtime 

options. INFIL3.0 will compute daily, monthly, and annual average water-balance 

components for multi-year simulations. 

The following section provides a summary of key inputs to INFIL3.0 for the Fenner 

Watershed and Orange Blossom Wash areas, used to compute recoverable water for these 

specific areas. 

i 

d 

) 

j

4.1.1 Model Geometry and Grid 


Two model grids are used to cover the Fenner Watershed and Orange Blossom Wash areas. 

The model area of the Fenner Watershed is defined based on the watershed area 

contributing to the Fenner Gap, that is, the surface water discharge area of the Fenner 

Watershed. The watershed boundaries are based on the National HUCs that are extensively 

used throughout the United States and that were extensively reviewed to match, to a 

minimum, the USGS topographical 7.5 minute quads. The Fenner Watershed modeled area 

comprises part of the 8-digit national HUC drainage area 18100100, all the 10-digit HUC 

watersheds 1810010031, 1810010032, 1810010033, 1810010034, and subwatersheds located 

within the 1810010027 and 181001003135 watersheds. The total Fenner Watershed modeled 

area equals 2,816 square kilometers (km 2) or 695,845 acres. 

The Orange Blossom Wash area is a much smaller area. The total Orange Blossom Wash 

area equals 412.75 km 2 or 101,992 acres, approximately 15 percent of the Fenner Watershed 

area. 

Initially, the model grid resolution was defined based on the total number of cells that 

would have to be modeled. INFIL3.0 allows a maximum of 60,005 cells. A very fine terrain 

resolution is available (10-m resolution). A 500 m by 500 m grid cell resolution is selected as 

the input grid for the INFIL3.0 model simulations. This resolution is small enough to 

spatially represent all the soil, vegetation, and climate data, without major generalization of 

their boundaries, and large enough to provide reasonable runtimes for simulations. 

Figures 4-2 and 4-3 show the grid overlays used in the INFIL3.0 model simulations. 

4.1.2 Topography 

Topography is used in INFIL3.0 for the following purposes: estimate evapotranspiration as 

a function of location in the watershed (see INFIL3.0 documentation for detailed discussion 

of simulated evapotranspiration processes), estimate precipitation as a function of elevation 

(see additional details on precipitation versus elevation, below), and route runoff through 

the watershed. 

Topography of the Fenner Watershed and Orange Blossom Wash areas, represented by a 

digital elevation map (DEM) file, was obtained from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) 

at a horizontal resolution of 10 m times 10 m. The NED is derived from diverse source data 

that are processed to a common coordinate system and unit of vertical measure. NED data 

are distributed in geographic coordinates in units of decimal degrees, and in conformance 

with the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). All elevation values are in meters and, 

over the conterminous United States, are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum 

of 1988 (NAVD 88)(USGS, 2006a). NED data set coordinates where projected into the 

Universe Transverse of Mercator (UTM) Zone 11 projection, so these data could be used in 

INFIL3.0. 

The DEM for both areas had to be converted into a x,y,z file format to be used in INFIL3.0. 

The Geospatial Watershed-Characteristics (GWC) file is one of the main files of the INFIL3.0 

model. The GWC file requires the following parameters: CELLCODE, EASTING and 

NORTHING; LAT and LONG; ROW and COL; ELEV; SL; ASP; LOCID; IWAT; UPCELLS; 

SOILTYPE; DEPTH; ROCKTYPE; VEGTYPE: SKYVIEW RIDGE (36). Following is a brief 



explanation of each of these parameters. A more detailed discussion can be found in Hevesi 

(2008). 

CELLCODE, EASTING, NORTHING, LAT, LON, grid ROW and COL are all location input 

parameters that are extracted from the DEM file. 

Elevation (ELEV), slope (SL) (in degrees) and aspect(ASP) are all parameters derived from 

the DEM file and geographic information system (GIS) processing. 

LOCID, is an ID number for each cell given that the DEM is sorted in descending order; 

therefore, the highest cell will have LOCID value 1. IWAT represents the LOCID ID of the 

cell that will be receiving flows from the current watershed simulation (cell at the lowest 

point in the watershed). UPCELLS represents the number of cells upstream from that 

location. All these three variable values are obtained from the DEM file using GIS 

processing techniques. The grid cell numbering is accomplished using a GIS flow 

accumulation/routing routine to ensure that INFIL3.0 routes runoff downstream through 

the watershed domain. Figures 4-4 and 4-5 show the flow accumulation/routing for 

Fenner Watershed and Orange Blossom Wash areas, respectively. 

SOILTYPE is an integer code number that represents a soil type with unique properties that 

can be assigned to different cells in the grid. The code is linked to a soils table with specific 

soil parameters for each soil type within the model boundaries. DEPTH refers to soil depth 

in meters. Soil parameters are discussed further in Section 4.1.4. 

ROCK is an integer code number that represents a unique rock type (which are geologic 

materials below the soil zone, so these are not necessarily rocks, but may include alluvium 

or other unconsolidated deposits). Each rock type code is linked to a rock type file with 

unique parameters of porosity, unsaturated and saturated vertical hydraulic conductivity. 

Rock parameters are discussed in Section 4.1.5. 

VEG is an integer representing a vegetation code with unique vegetation characteristics. 

Vegetation parameters are discussed further below in Section 4.1.6. 

SKYVIEW is total fraction of viewable sky, as fraction of hemisphere (dimensionless) 

(see Hevesi, 2008), which affects evapotranspiration. 

RIDGE(36) are the 36 blocking ridge angles related to the SKYVIEW parameter (see Hevesi, 

2008), which affects evapotranspiration. 

Both SKYVIEW and RIDGE parameters are derived from a FORTRAN program that was 

obtained from USGS INFIL3.0 authors (Flint, 2009). 

4.1.3 Climate Parameters 

Two sets of climate parameters are required for INFIL3.0: monthly atmospheric conditions 

and daily precipitation and air temperatures (daily pairs of maximum and minimum 

temperature). 

4.1.3.1 Monthly Atmospheric Conditions 

Monthly atmospheric conditions are needed in INFIL3.0 and include monthly values of 

ozone layer thickness in centimeters, precipitable atmospheric water in centimeters, mean 

atmospheric turbidity, circumsolar radiation, and surface reflectivity. These conditions are 



assumed to be the same as those conditions used in previous USGS studies realized for 

the Death Valley, Yucca Mountain, and Joshua Tree areas in San Bernardino County 

(Hevesi et al., 2003; Hevesi et al., 2002; Nishikawa et al., 2004; and Rewis et al, 2006). 

Table 4-1 shows the model input values for each of these atmospheric conditions. 

4.1.3.2 Precipitation and Air Temperature 

Data sources for precipitation and air temperature include San Bernardino County, PRISM, 

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Figure 4-6 shows all 

the stations, including NOAA grid locations, for which precipitation and temperature data 

and estimates are available and used in INFIL3.0 simulations, as described below. 

San Bernardino County has six stations with precipitation and minimum and maximum 

temperature data. A summary of the date ranges of available data from these stations is 

given in Table 2-1. As indicated in Section 2, there are only a few stations in the larger area 

of study with long-term precipitation records. 

A second source of precipitation data accessed for this study is NOAA Climate Prediction 

Center (CPC) .25 x .25 Daily US UNIFIED Precipitation data. The data description can be 

obtained from the CPC website (CPC, 2009). The CDC of NOAA dataset is derived from 

3 sources: NCDC daily co-op stations (1948 through 1998), CPC dataset (River Forecast 

Centers data + 1st order stations - 1992 through 1998), and daily accumulations from hourly 

precipitation dataset (1948 through 1998). There are about 13,000 station reports each day for 

1992 through 1998, and about 8,000 reports before that yielding about three times the reports 

of any existing historic and operational analyses as of 2000. The data were reviewed to 

eliminate duplicates and overlapping stations, and standard deviation and buddy checks 

were applied. Then they were gridded into 0.25 x 0.25, 140W-60W, 20N-60N using a 

Cressman Scheme. A grid of points was created in a 0.25 x 0.25 degree interval to cover 

areas that did not have any historical climate data and to provide interpolated values within 

the area of study. 

CDC data were not available after 1998. Data sets after 1998 (1998 through 2008) were 

extrapolated by comparing annual precipitation values for Mitchell Caverns with annual 

precipitation values from the CDC data set. Those years from the CDC data set 

corresponding to comparable precipitation to Mitchell Caverns were selected as a surrogate 

time series and then multiplied by a scale factor so that the year average matches the true 

year average observed at Mitchell Caverns. 

Figure 4-6 shows all the stations, including NOAA grid locations, for which precipitation 

and temperature data and estimates are available. 

INFIL3.0 also requires monthly regression model for precipitation and air temperature to 

calculate daily values at each grid cell of the model. INFIL3.0 has an internal subroutine that 

takes into consideration grid cell elevation and the surrounding monthly precipitation from 

available stations when computing precipitation for a specific cell. The precipitation as a 

function of elevation can be estimated by a linear or quadratic function. 

Average monthly precipitation and average minimum and maximum temperatures were 

calculated for available climate stations in the region. These monthly average data were 

used to develop linear equations that estimate precipitation and minimum and maximum 

temperature as a function of elevation for each month. Regression coefficients are derived 



for each month and entered into INFIL3.0’s monthmod file. The equation used by INFIL3.0 

is as follows: 

where, 

Em i – Am (ELEV i) + Cm 

Em i is the estimated monthly climate parameter (daily precipitation or air 

temperature for grid location, i, and month, m 

Am and Cm are regression coefficients for each month, m 

ELEV i is the elevation for grid location, i 

Figure 4-7 shows the linear regression of monthly precipitation values in the area of study. 

Table 4-2 shows the regression coefficients used in the monthmod table of INFIL3.0 for this 

study. 

4.1.4 Soil Parameters 

Soil data used in INFIL3.0 model simulations are obtained from the STATSGO soil database 

(STATSGO2, 2009) as described in Section 2. The STATSGO soil database has two 

components: a spatial map with polygons representing soil units (also called map units), 

and a database containing several tables that link to soil polygon map units. Each individual 

soil map polygon, or map unit, can have multiple soil components with multiple layers. 

A FORTRAN program referred to as STATSGO36 (Hevesi, 2009) was used to process the 

STATSGO soils data and obtain soil parameters in the study area for use in INFIL3.0. 

STATSGO36 computes the necessary soil parameters for INFIL3.0 including, soil thickness, 

soil porosity, wilting-point water content, field capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, 

and drainage curve coefficient from the STATSGO database and those map units found in 

the modeled area. The soil thickness computed by the STATSGO36 procedure was checked 

against a second source that also computed weighted average soil thickness for the entire 

U.S. The second soils data source is available online and uses the STATSGO database to 

compute soil parameters that are commonly used in environmental modeling (Miller and 

White, 1998). The two results compare favorably for soil thicknesses of the various soil units 

in the study area. 

There are a total of 15 different map units for the Fenner Watershed and nine for the Orange 

Blossom Wash area. Figure 2-10 shows the distribution of soil types in the area of study. 

Figure 4-8 shows the thickness of each soil map unit in the study area. Soil porosity is 

estimated in STATSGO36 using bulk density data from STATSGO and modified for coarse 

fractions (Maidment, 1993). Soil texture data are used with equations from Campbell (1985) 

to estimate the drainage coefficient, wilting point and field capacity. Saturated hydraulic 

conductivity is the layer-weighted average of the high and low values provided in the 

STATSGO database (Hevesi, 2009). Table 4-3 lists the soil parameter values for each soil 

map unit. 

4.1.5 Hydrogeologic Parameters 

Available geologic mapping is used to define the spatial distribution of different rock types 

(those geologic materials below the soil zone) in the area of study. These maps include the 



geologic map of California for the northernmost portion of the area and the Preliminary 

Surficial Geologic Map Database of the Amboy 30x60 Minute Quadrangle, California 

(Bedford et al., 2006). The spatial distribution of geologic units determines the values for 

saturated hydraulic conductivity and root zone storage capacities assigned to the bottom 

root zone (layer 6 in INFIL3.0) for all model grid cells. 

Site-specific values of hydraulic conductivity and porosity values are not available for each 

lithology occurring in the area of study, except for the percolation testing in the alluvium 

that was completed as a part of the Cadiz Groundwater Storage and Dry-Year Supply 

Program (GSSI, 1999). Hydraulic conductivity and porosity values assigned to various rock 

types are based on a field reconnaissance and literature values for similar rock types. 

Bedinger et al. (1989) present hydraulic properties of rocks in the Basin and Range Province 

and a later study by Belcher et al., (2002) provides additional data on hydraulic conductivity 

distributions for comparable rocks in Death Valley as part of a regional groundwater system 

assessment. These studies, as well as the GSSI (1999) percolation test in the alluvium, are 

used as guides to defining the parameters for Table 4-4, which presents estimates of porosity 

and hydraulic conductivity for rock types in the area of study. In general, the saturated 

hydraulic conductivity is assumed to be one order of magnitude higher than the 

unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. 

In addition to the basic rock types, the surficial geologic map of Bedford et al. (2006) 

discussed in Section 2.3.3 shows extensive hillslope deposits, including colluvium, talus, 

and other coarse-grained porous deposits throughout the area of study. These hillslope 

deposits are anticipated to provide conduits for precipitation to reach bedrock and infiltrate 

more readily than for bare exposed rocks. Therefore, those parameters given in Table 4-4 are 

likely to be generally more conservative than compared to parameter values that more 

directly accounts for these deposits. 

4.1.6 Vegetation and Root Zone Parameters 

The WESTVEG GAP regional vegetation map (Figure 2-4) of vegetation types is used to 

define estimates of vegetation cover and root zone density. Vegetation types were grouped 

into estimated vegetation associations that have similar root-zone depths and densities, 

comparable to those used by Hevesi et al., (2003) for the Death Valley region. Vegetation 

cover was estimated from the GAP vegetation types, using the higher values for cover. 

INFIL3.0 parameters for vegetation include percentage of land covered by a given type of 

vegetation, root density of each vegetation type for six layers, root-zone depth from land 

surface for Layers 1 through 5, and root-zone thickness for Layer 6. Table 4-5 shows the 

vegetation root zone parameters for each vegetation type in the area of study. 

4.1.7 INFIL3.0 Simulation Results 

Figures 4-9a through 4-9d show modeled average annual precipitation over the area of 

study for two time periods: 1971 through 2000 and 1958 through 2007. The first time period 

allows for comparison with PRISM average annual isohyets. The second time period is for 

the period over which recoverable water is estimated for the area of study. As shown in 

Figure 4-9a and 4-9b, the distribution of precipitation compares favorably with the more 

regional PRISM isohyets. INFIL3.0 shows slightly higher values of precipitation over the 

Clipper Mountains compared to PRISM. INFIL3.0 uses local elevation and precipitation 

relations to refine the distribution of precipitation over mountainous areas, such as the 



Clipper Mountains. INFIL3.0 simulated precipitation over the Clipper Mountains is 

consistent with PRISM precipitation over the Old Woman Mountains, which are comparable 

in altitude. INFIL3.0 simulated precipitation in the Providence Mountains is also slightly 

higher than PRISM values, which are also due to the refinement in precipitation versus 

elevation modeling at this local scale and are consistent with the findings of the Davisson 

and Rose (2000) analysis of local precipitation compared to more regional analyses of 

precipitation. In general, INFIL3.0 modeled precipitation has overall lower annual average 

precipitation for the period 1958 through 2007, compared with the period 1971 through 

2000, which is consistent with the cumulative departure from mean analysis discussed in 

Section 2.2.1. 

INFIL3.0 simulation results for Fenner Watershed and Orange Blossom Wash Area are 

shown in Figures 4-10a and 4-10b, respectively. As expected, the majority of recharge occurs 

at higher altitudes in the mountains, where precipitation is highest and temperatures are 

lowest (thus lower evapotranspiration). This trend, highest infiltration at higher altitudes, is 

consistent for other INFIL3.0 simulations in the Basin and Range Province and southern 

California (e.g., Hevesi et al., 2003; Hevesi et al., 2002; Nishikawa et al., 2004; and Rewis 

et al, 2006). 

Figures 4-11 and 4-12 show estimated annual recoverable water quantities for each area. 

The average annual recoverable water quantities for Fenner Watershed, Orange Blossom 

Wash area, and in total are 30,191 AFY, 2,256 AFY, and 32,447 AFY, respectively, based on 

calendar years 1958 through 2007. 

4.1.8 Discussion of Recoverable Water Results 

Simulation results of recoverable water using INFIL3.0 are compared to those most recent 

estimates of GSSI (1999), USGS (2000), and Davisson and Rose (2000) and to estimates of 

groundwater discharge from Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes. 

4.1.8.1 Comparison to Most Recent Recoverable Water Estimates 

INFIL3.0 simulation results compare favorably to GSSI (1999) watershed water balance 

modeling results and the Davisson and Rose (2000) Maxey-Eakin recoverable water estimate 

of 29,815 AFY, and are much higher than the USGS (2000) Maxey-Eakin model estimates of 

2,070 to 10,343 AFY (for the Fenner Watershed only). 

Figures 4-13 through 4-16 compare the INFIL3.0 simulation results against GSSI (1999) high 

and low estimates of recoverable water for the Fenner Watershed and Orange Blossom Wash 

areas. GSSI (1999) presented estimates of recoverable water for a range of model input 

parameters, with field capacity and soil thickness showing the greatest impacts on their 

estimates. GSSI (1999) changed parameters over the entire watershed to observe sensitivities, 

when in actuality, those changes would not likely change from the mean values over the 

entire watershed, but likely vary lower and higher around the mean value across the 

watershed, which is why GSSI (1999) selected the middle or mean value as the expected 

value of recoverable water. In general, INFIL3.0 results, which also uses expected values 

(or means) for input parameters, tracks between these two recoverable water estimates as 

expected, even though results are based on a completely different set of numerical 

algorithms. However, INFIL3.0 simulation results show significantly less spiking in 

infiltration during wet years as compared to GSSI’s (1999) high infiltration case. The 



INFIL3.0 annual spikes (highest infiltration rates) compare more closely to the highest spikes 

(highest infiltration) of GSSI’s low-estimate case. This is true for both the Fenner Watershed 

and Orange Blossom Wash area. 

The INFIL3.0 simulation results are based on setting IROUT equal to 1 (see USGS, 2008, for 

full discussion of model input options). By setting IROUT equal to 1, INFIL3.0 will route 

daily runoff to downstream cells as surface water runon. Runon can infiltrate back to the 

root zone and contribute to net infiltration. The INFIL3.0 simulation, with IROUT equal to 1, 

results in no surface water outflow from the watershed; that is, all runoff generated at 

model cells is infiltrated downstream before it can leave the watershed. INFIL3.0 

simulations were conducted using IROUT equal to 0 for both the Fenner and Orange 

Blossom Wash watersheds. For the case with IROUT equal to 0, INFIL3.0 routes all 

generated runoff downstream and out of the watershed so it is not allowed to infiltrate at 

downstream grid cells. These INFIL3.0 simulations generated 28,380 AFY and 2,060 AFY of 

net infiltration and runoff out of the watershed, respectively, for the Fenner Watershed and 

2,170 AFY and 90 AFY of net infiltration and runoff out of the watershed, respectively, for 

the Orange Blossom Wash area. Field observations after rainfall events indicate generation 

of runoff in washes in the Fenner Gap area, as reported in previous studies and observed 

during this study. Therefore, the division of total recoverable water is likely to lie between 

these two extremes of runoff conditions. 

As stated in the introduction to this section, the USGS (2000) used precipitation data from a 

very large regional area, including data from precipitation stations west of the 116 o W 

longitude to compute an elevation-precipitation relation for their Maxey-Eakin model. As 

demonstrated by Davisson and Rose (2000), the USGS (2000) estimates are too low due to 

lack of geographic scale and context in their analysis of precipitation-elevation data, use of 

an uncalibrated Maxey-Eakin model, and lack of observational experience in the Fenner 

Watershed. The Davisson and Rose (2000) estimate of 29,815 AFY of recoverable water is 

similar to the estimate developed in this and GSSI (1999) studies. 

4.1.8.2 Groundwater Discharge at Dry Lakes 

Bristol and Cadiz dry lake playas are areas of groundwater discharge in the larger area of 

study. Groundwater flow from the Fenner Watershed is expected to be the most significant 

source of groundwater that is evapotranspired at these dry lake playas. The relative 

significance is shown by GSSI (1999), who estimated that Fenner and Orange Blossom wash 

areas contributed approximately 74 percent of the recoverable water in the larger area of 

study. 

A qualitative assessment was undertaken to assess the occurrence of moist soils at Bristol 

and Cadiz dry lake. This assessment was made using a Normalized Difference Vegetation 

Index (NDVI). NDVI gives a measure of vegetation cover on the land surface over wide 

areas. Dense vegetation shows up very strongly in the imagery and areas with little or no 

vegetation are also clearly identified. Negative NDVI values indicate the presence of water, 

snow, or clouds. 

Vegetation differs from other land surfaces because it tends to strongly absorb the red 

wavelengths of sunlight and reflect in the near-infrared wavelengths. Water and moist soils 

have more reflectance in the red wavelengths than the near infrared, while the difference is 

almost zero for rock and bare soil. NDVI takes values between -1 and 1, with vegetation 



NDVI values typically from 0.1 up to 0.6, with higher values associated with greater density 

and greenness of the plant canopy. Surrounding soil and rock values are close to zero while 

the differential for water bodies such as rivers and lakes have the opposite trend to 

vegetation and the index is negative. 

The NDVI formula is given by the equation (NIR-RED/NIR+RED), where RED and NIR 

correspond to Channels 3 and 4, respectively, for Landsat TM Satellite images. 

In this study, we have used six Landsat TM satellite images to produce NDVIs. 

A classification system was designed using the unsupervised classification method and 

ERDAS software to differentiate between the land cover types within the larger area of 

study. Four NDVI classes were created for each subset image. Class 1 NDVI values range 

between -1 to -0.2 and indicate the presence of water; Class 2 values (-0.2 to 0) indicate the 

presence of moist and humid soils. Class 3 (0 to 0.1) is a combination of bare soil and rocks. 

NDVI values higher than 0.1 were combined in Class 4 and classified as vegetation. 

Figures 4-17 through 4-22 present the results of this analysis for Landsat TM Satellite 

images, including: May 16, 1990, March 16, 1991, May 19, 1991, March 10, 1992, May 14, 

2005, and August 13, 2005. In all of these images, Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes stand out as 

having the lowest NDVI values (indicating very moist soils or water near the surface). 

GSSI (2000) developed a range of estimates of evapotranspiration from Bristol and Cadiz 

dry lakes, using three different methods. They estimate a range of 11,665 AFY to 

105,436 AFY. The upper range of values are based on evapotranspiration estimates at 

Franklin Dry Lake playa by Czarnecki (1997), who used energy-balance eddy-correlation 

techniques to estimate evapotranspiration from the playa lake surface, which resulted in 

evapotranspiration rates of 0.1 to 0.3 centimeters per day (cm/d) (approximately 1.2 to 

3.6 feet per year [ft/yr]). 

The USGS (Laczniak et al., 2001) has estimated evapotranspiration for a number of areas in 

the Death Valley regional flow system, which includes estimates for open playas similar to the 

Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes. The USGS estimated evapotranspiration rates range from 0.1 to 

0.7 ft/yr . They adjust these evapotranspiration rates by the estimated long-term average 

annual precipitation rate (by subtracting the precipitation rate) to get evapotranspiration 

rates ranging from 0.15 to 0.21 ft/yr. However, Laczniak et al. (2001) state that the 

contribution of precipitation to evapotranspiration is uncertain. Given the high rate of 

evaporation in these arid environments, precipitation may not effect the evapotranspiration 

rates as estimated from micrometerological measurements. Using a range of 0.1 to 0.7 ft/yr 

(which are those estimated evapotranspiration rates from measured micrometeorological 

parameters) gives a range of evapotranspiration rates of 5,965 to 41,755 AFY for the Bristol 

and Cadiz dry lakes. Actual evapotranspiration rates are determined by site-specific 

conditions; however, it seems plausible that groundwater discharge from the Bristol and 

Cadiz dry lakes exceeds the recoverable water estimates for Fenner Watershed and 

Orange Blossom Wash area. 

4.2 Groundwater Flow through Fenner Gap 

Fenner Gap is the path of groundwater flow through alluvial and bedrock aquifers (such as 

carbonate rock units) from Fenner Valley into the Bristol and Cadiz valleys. The long-term 

steady-state flow of groundwater through the gap is expected to be similar to, and represent 



long-term groundwater recharge in the Fenner Watershed. A three-dimensional 

groundwater flow model of the Fenner Gap area was developed for the purposes of 

validating the 30,000 AFY estimate of steady-state groundwater flow through Fenner Gap, 

as previously described. The following sections provide a brief description of the local 

hydrogeology of the Fenner Gap, development of a three-dimensional groundwater flow 

model, and inverse modeling to assess the potential groundwater flow through the gap. 

4.2.1 Local Hydrogeology of the Fenner Gap Area 

The Fenner Gap occurs between the Marble Mountains on the west and the Ship Mountains 

on the east, with an alluvial plain in between these mountains as shown in Figure 4-23. 

Available geologic maps (e.g., GSSI, 1999; Liggett, 2010; Bishop, 1963), surface geophysical 

surveys (GSSI, 1999), field mapping done as part of this study, previous drilling and aquifer 

test data, and drilling and aquifer testing as a part of this study were synthesized to develop 

a conceptual model of the hydrogeology of the Fenner Gap area. 

The following formations are present in the Fenner Gap area (Hall, 2007; Hazzard, 1933; 

Murbach and Baldwin, 1994; and Bishop, 1963): Precambrian granitic rocks in the southern 

Marble Mountains; Lower Cambrian rocks, including Zabriskie quartzite, Latham shale, and 

Chambless limestone; Middle Cambrian rocks, including the Cadiz Formation and Bonanza 

King Formation; Upper Paleozoic (Pennsylvanian and Permian(?)) carbonate rocks 

(Goodsprings Formation(?) (Hazzard, 1933, and Bishop, 1963); Mesozoic granitic rocks 

(Ship Mountains); Tertiary volcanics, Plio-Peistocene older alluvium, and Holocene 

alluvium. Figure 4-24 provides a generalized stratigraphic column of geologic units in the 

Fenner Gap area, and Table 4-6 summarizes the characteristics of these units, including their 

range of thickness. 

In general, those geologic units considered most important for transmitting and storing 

groundwater in the Fenner Gap are the younger alluvium (referred to as “alluvium” herein) 

and those carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite) within the Paleozoic sequence. 

Carbonate rocks in this region have been subjected to dissolution and karstification, which 

is evidenced by the Mitchell Caverns in the nearby Providence Mountains (Hall, 2007) and 

in field and well video log observations made as a part of this study (see Appendix A). 

Field testing, as done in previous studies and as a part of this study, demonstrate substantial 

water transmitting and storage properties of these units (see Appendix A). Those granitic 

rocks, Cambrian shales and metamorphic rocks, Tertiary volcanics and older alluvium are 

not expected to transmit or store water in significant quantities as compared to these other 

geologic units; however, there could be significant flow along fracture zones, possibly 

associated with faulting. For purposes of this study, the younger alluvium and carbonates 

rocks (limestones and dolomites) are considered aquifers. The Paleozoic sequence includes a 

series of carbonate units, quartzites, and shales, however, it is not practical to differentiate 

the various lithologic units into multiple hydrogeologic units, so the whole sequence is 

treated as one hydrogeologic unit and referred to as the Carbonate Rock unit. In addition, 

Younger Alluvium transitions to a more complex sequence of younger alluvium, older 

alluvium, interbedded volcanics, and possibly lacustrine deposits to the north and south of 

the Fenner Gap area. However, for purposes of this assessment, these finer details are not 

considered significant for assessing groundwater flow through the Fenner Gap as discussed 

in Subsection 4.2.4 below. 



A series of normal faults underlie the Fenner Gap area (see Figure 4-23) and have a 

significant effect on the distribution of the Carbonate Rock units. Figures 4-25 through 4-32 

are cross-sections through the Fenner Gap, showing the distribution of hydrogeologic units 

in the subsurface. These cross-sections illustrate the significant occurrence of Carbonate 

Rock units in the southern Marble Mountains and along the western flank of Ship 

Mountain. Thick sections of Carbonate Rock units dip easterly off of the northern and 

eastern flanks of the Marble Mountains, extending northward under the Fenner Watershed. 

Similarly, Carbonate Rock units dip easterly (steeply in most cases), with significant fault 

offsets (as much as 2,500 feet) beneath Fenner Gap. In some cases, faulting has resulted in 

basement rock being in direct contact with the Alluvial aquifer unit. For example, granitic 

rocks were encountered below about 860 feet below ground surface (bgs) in test well TW-2 

and exploratory borehole TW-2B (see Appendix A). These Carbonate Rock units are 

projected to terminate just south of the Fenner Gap due to down-cutting and erosion by an 

ancestral stream through the gap. Cross-sections I-I’ and J-J’ show our projection of a few 

remaining remnants of the Carbonate Rock units at these section lines. 

The Alluvium unit extends north-south through the gap. The Alluvial aquifer unit is thicker 

to the north, in the Fenner Watershed, and south of the gap, in the Bristol and Cadiz valleys. 

Cross-section D-D’ appears to be located along the apparent crest of the bedrock high across 

the gap. Older alluvium is shown in Cross-sections E-E’, B1-B1’, and D-D’ on the Ship 

Mountain side. Highly consolidated fanglomerates were encountered during drilling of 

TW-3 as a part of this study. These fanglomerates are interpreted to be Plio-Pliestocene 

alluvial deposits that have undergone consolidation over time. Core from TW-3 show 

fractures that extend through the matrix and even across individual cobbles. As shown in 

the cross-sections, it is interpreted that these fanglomerates were likely removed by downcutting 

and erosion from an ancestral stream; younger alluvium was then deposited across 

the gap. The deepest part of the Alluvial aquifer unit appears to be somewhat coincident 

with the current Schulyler Wash. 

Figures 4-33 through 4-37 show contour maps of the base of the Alluvial aquifer unit, 

saturated thickness of the Alluvial aquifer unit, base of older alluvium, thickness of the 

Carbonate Rock unit, and base of Carbonate Rock unit, respectively. As shown in 

Figures 4-33 and 4-34, the Alluvial aquifer unit is deepest (and thicker) along an axis that 

roughly parallels the Schulyler Wash though the gap. Figure 4-35 shows the extent of the 

old alluvium, but more specifically the projected extents of the consolidated fanglomerates 

encountered in TW-3. Figure 4-36 and 4-37 shows the extent of the Carbonate Rock unit 

and its variation in thickness in the Fenner Gap area, which is largely controlled by the 

series of normal faults across the gap. The absence of the Carbonate Rock units extending 

southwesterly from TW-2 is likely due to faulting of basement rocks upward along normal 

faults and down-cutting and erosion along an ancestral stream(s) in this deepest part of 

the gap. 

Aquifer tests have been completed in the Alluvium, Carbonate Rock, and Older Alluvium 

units. GSSI (1995, 1999, and 2000) summarizes available aquifer test information, including 

aquifer testing they preformed as a part of the Cadiz Groundwater Storage and Dry-Year 

Supply Program. Additional aquifer tests were conducted as a part of this current study and 

described in detail in Appendix A. The aquifer test completed at TW-1, in the carbonate rock 

unit, demonstrates the highly permeable nature of this unit, which is consistent with 



significant dissolution and karstification of those carbonate rock units in the area. An 

aquifer test completed at TW-2 also demonstrates the highly transmissive nature of the 

Alluvial aquifer unit. TW-2 is completed in what is thought to be the axis of the deeper part 

of the Alluvial aquifer unit, which is likely the coarser part of the Alluvium unit. Table 4-7 

summarizes aquifer test data for wells in the vicinity of the Fenner Gap. 

4.2.2 Numerical Model Development 

The Fenner Gap three-dimensional groundwater flow model described herein is based on 

the USGS MODFLOW-2000 numerical model. MODFLOW-2000 is a computer program that 

numerically solves the three-dimensional groundwater flow equation for a porous medium 

by using a finite-difference method (Harbaugh et al., 2000). MODFLOW-2000 is an 

enhancement to the previous MODFLOW numerical model originally documented by the 

USGS in 1984. MODFLOW-2000 requires that a conceptual model be developed of the 

groundwater system to be simulated, including, lateral and vertical extents of the system, 

definition of top and bottom of aquifers and confining units, boundary conditions (such as 

no-flow rock, specified inflows and outflows, constant heads where groundwater levels are 

maintained as constant, or some combination of these), hydrogeologic properties of 

aquifers, and observations to calibrate against (e.g., measured groundwater levels). 

The purpose of the Fenner Gap groundwater flow model in this study is to assess whether it 

is likely that 30,000 AFY of groundwater is flowing through Fenner Gap, which is the 

expected long-term average recoverable water estimated to occur in the Fenner Watershed. 

Therefore, the numerical model is being used to test the hypothesis that 30,000 AFY is 

flowing through the gap. The model is used to solve the inverse problem, that is, given a 

boundary inflow of groundwater at the north end of the gap of 30,000 AFY, and measured 

steady-state groundwater levels, what distribution of aquifer properties (specifically 

hydraulic conductivity) is required to allow for this flow and is this distribution likely given 

available information on aquifer properties? 

The conceptual model of the hydrogeology of the Fenner Gap described in Section 4.2.1 

provides the basis for defining the lateral and vertical distribution of hydrogeologic units in 

the Fenner Gap and for use in mapping the distribution of these units in the numerical 

groundwater flow model. 

Figure 4-38, a groundwater-level contour map, and historical groundwater-level data are 

used to define the lateral extents of the Fenner Gap groundwater flow model. Existing 

monitoring wells were surveyed for location and elevation and groundwater levels in wells 

were measured to obtain accurate groundwater levels in the gap. Table 4-8 shows survey 

results and groundwater levels for monitoring wells in the Fenner Gap, as obtained during 

this study. These groundwater levels, along with available groundwater-level data from the 

area, were used to construct the groundwater-level contour map shown in Figure 4-38. 

Historical groundwater-level data were reviewed to assess changes in groundwater levels in 

the area, in order to establish a steady-state groundwater-level condition through the 

Fenner Gap. 

Figure 4-39 shows the lateral extents and grid selected for the Fenner Gap groundwater flow 

model. The lateral extents are defined by the 660-foot elevation groundwater contour on the 

north. This contour appears to be a stable groundwater level north of the Fenner Gap based 



on review of historical groundwater levels. The southern and western boundary is taken as 

a 590-foot elevation groundwater-level contour, that is a hybrid between the map presented 

in Figure 4-38 and a groundwater-level contour map provided by GSSI (1999). This hybrid 

map takes into account more recent survey data and historical groundwater levels that are 

possibly more representative of historical steady-state conditions. Given the distance of this 

boundary from Fenner Gap, the model simulations are not expected to be sensitive to the 

actual delineation of this boundary. Outcrops of bedrock (granitic rocks or unsaturated 

carbonate rocks) define the extents of the model on the northern and eastern boundaries of 

the model. Outside of these boundaries, the model assumes there is no groundwater flow 

(no-flow boundary) into or out of these no-flow areas. 

The model grid is divided into square cells of 200 feet by 200 feet. Three layers are 

represented: Alluvial aquifer unit, Old Alluvium unit, and Carbonate Rock unit. PEST is 

used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity distribution of the Alluvial aquifer and 

Carbonate Rock units. The hydraulic conductivity of the Old Alluvium unit is set at 1 x 10 -3 

ft/d. The Carbonate Rock unit is represented as a single unit made up of variable rock 

types, as previously described. In actuality, those carbonate rocks are the principal watertransmitting 

units; however, for modeling purposes, these variable units are lumped 

together and average water transmitting properties are averaged in the model across the 

whole layer. Groundwater levels are simulated in the model at the center of each cell. This 

grid-cell resolution allows for good approximation of boundaries, both vertically and 

laterally, and for good resolution of variations in hydrogeologic properties and at the same 

time providing for reasonable simulation run times. 

As indicated above, the purpose of the Fenner Gap groundwater flow model is to assess the 

likelihood that 30,000 AFY of groundwater is flowing through the gap. Therefore, the 

following boundary conditions are imposed on the north and west-southern boundaries. 

Groundwater levels along the 660-foot groundwater elevation contour are assumed to be 

constant at the 660-foot level. In addition, 30,000 AFY of groundwater inflow is assumed to 

occur through this boundary into the gap from Fenner Watershed, which is the long-term 

average annual recharge in the watershed, as previously described. Groundwater levels 

along the 590-foot groundwater-level contour are expected to be constant and steady at this 

590-foot level. Also, there are no other sources of recharge or discharge within the Fenner 

Gap model domain area. 

4.2.3 Application of PEST to Estimating Groundwater Flow through Fenner Gap 

PEST is a model-independent parameter estimator (PEST) computer program that provides 

nonlinear parameter estimation for use with almost any numerical model. PEST has been 

widely used and extensively tested since 1994 by scientists and engineers all over the world 

working in many different fields, including biology, geophysics, geotechnical, mechanical, 

aeronautical and chemical engineering, ground and surface water hydrology and other 

fields (Doherty, 2004). PEST is often used in inverse modeling to aid in calibrating 

groundwater flow models. That is, PEST is used to estimate groundwater model parameter 

values, such as hydraulic conductivity, where measurements of groundwater levels and 

stresses (such as pumping or recharge) are known, so PEST calculates values of hydraulic 

conductivity that makes the groundwater flow model “calibrate” to the measured values. 

PEST makes many (often thousands) model-simulation runs to find the best set of parameter 



values that minimizes the residuals (differences) in simulated and observed measurements 

(e.g., groundwater levels). 

PEST is used in the case of the Fenner Gap groundwater model to estimate hydraulic 

conductivity values of the Alluvial aquifer and Carbonate Rock units in the Fenner Gap 

given the following constraints (1) areal and vertical distribution of Alluvial and Carbonate 

Rock units as described above, (2) constant head values (groundwater elevations) of 660 feet 

and 590 feet on the northern and west-southern boundaries, respectively, (3) a target flux 

across the northern boundary of 30,000 AFY, (4) target groundwater-level measurements 

from monitoring wells in the Fenner Gap area based on recent groundwater levels, and 

(5) estimates of hydraulic conductivity from aquifer tests from previous studies and as a 

part of this study. These PEST-estimated hydraulic conductivity values are evaluated in the 

context of the hydrogeology of the gap, including available aquifer test data, to determine if 

these parameter estimates are reasonable. If these hydraulic conductivity values are 

considered reasonable, then it is reasonable that groundwater flow through the Fenner Gap 

is 30,000 AFY. 

Regularization in combination with pilot points (Doherty, 2004) is used in the Fenner Gap 

groundwater flow model to estimate hydraulic conductivity value distributions in the 

Alluvial and Carbonate Rock unit aquifers. Regularization provides smoothing of parameter 

estimates, so that each grid cell is not considered to have a unique independent value and 

there is a smooth transition across the grid from high to low values. In addition, prior 

information is used to tell PEST the preferred values for each parameter and a range over 

which PEST may vary parameter values in order to match target values (i.e., measured 

groundwater levels). Parameter values are estimated by PEST at pilot points; then, kriging 

techniques are employed to spatially interpolate parameter values to all cells in the 

MODFLOW-2000 numerical finite-difference grid. 

Figures 4-40 and 4-41 show the distribution of pilot points in Layer 1 (Alluvial aquifer unit) 

and Layer 3 (Carbonate Rock unit), respectively. Also shown are the target wells with water 

levels obtained from monitoring wells in the area (see Table 4-8). 

Figures 4-42, 4-43, and 4-44 show simulated groundwater levels and target residuals, and 

hydraulic conductivity distributions for Layer 1 (Alluvial aquifer) and Layer 3 (Carbonate 

Rock unit), respectively, as determined from a PEST run. In this PEST run, hydraulic 

conductivity values of both the Alluvial aquifer and Carbonate Rock unit were bounded by 

a range between 1 to 600 ft/d. Groundwater levels and residuals (difference between 

measured groundwater levels and simulated groundwater levels) are posted at each 

monitoring well in Figure 4-42. The residuals are extremely low, indicating that the 

simulated groundwater levels are representative of measured groundwater levels. 

Hydraulic conductivity values in the alluvial aquifer range from less than 20 to 

approximately 600 ft/d. The lowest values occur along the northern boundary, where the 

Alluvial aquifer is thickest. The Alluvial aquifer unit is represented as one layer in the 

model, when in actuality, it is likely several layers, with some layers having high hydraulic 

conductivity and other layers having lower values of hydraulic conductivity. The modelsimulated 

values should be considered as vertically integrated averages of the true 

hydraulic conductivity. Again, these simulated values are those required to allow 

30,000 AFY of groundwater flow into the gap area, assuming the granitic and metamorphic 



rock units form the base of the groundwater flow system in this area. PEST iterated to 

values of hydraulic conductivity close to those starting values, 110 ft/d provided as input at 

pilot points, in the western and southern areas of the model domain. The highest values of 

hydraulic conductivity, ranging to just over 600 ft/d are found in the east-central portion of 

the groundwater flow model. This part of the gap includes thinner alluvium and underlying 

carbonate units that vary greatly in thickness. PEST likely adjusts the alluvial hydraulic 

conductivity values in this area to accommodate groundwater flow across the gap. 

Regardless, the hydraulic conductivity values are within the range of values determined 

from aquifer tests in the alluvial aquifer, so these values are reasonable. 

Hydraulic conductivity values in the carbonate rock unit aquifer range from less than 5 to 

approximately 600 ft/d. The highest values are located in the central portion of the model 

area. These values occur in the thinnest sections of alluvial and carbonate rock unit aquifers. 

PEST indicates that for 30,000 AFY of groundwater flow to occur through the gap, and to 

match observed groundwater levels, then average hydraulic conductivity values up to 

600 ft/d are required in the Carbonate Rock unit aquifer, given the constraints on the 

Alluvial aquifer unit. Based on aquifer testing of the carbonate rock unit aquifer at TW-1 

these values are reasonable. 

Figures 4-45, 4-46, and 4-47 show simulated groundwater levels and target residuals, and 

hydraulic conductivity distributions for Layer 1 (Alluvial aquifer) and Layer 3 (Carbonate 

Rock unit), respectively, as determined from a second PEST run. In this PEST run, 

hydraulic conductivity values of both the Alluvial aquifer and Carbonate Rock unit were 

bounded by a range between 1 to 400 ft/d. Groundwater levels and residuals (difference 

between measured groundwater levels and simulated groundwater levels) are posted at 

each monitoring well in Figure 4-45. Again, residuals are low, indicating that the simulated 

groundwater levels are representative of measured groundwater levels. 

Hydraulic conductivity values in the Alluvial aquifer range from less than 20 to 

approximately 400 ft/d. The lowest values occur along the northern boundary, where the 

Alluvial aquifer is thickest, similar to the previous PEST run. PEST iterated to values of 

hydraulic conductivity close to those starting values, 110 ft/d provided as input at pilot 

points, in the western and extreme southern areas of the model domain. The highest values 

of hydraulic conductivity, ranging to just over 400 ft/d are found in the central and eastern 

portion of the groundwater-flow model, which is larger than the extent of high conductivity 

values in the previous PEST run. PEST adjusts the alluvial hydraulic conductivity values in 

this area to accommodate groundwater flow across the gap. These hydraulic conductivity 

values are within the range of values determined from aquifer tests in the Alluvial aquifer, 

so these values are reasonable. 

Hydraulic conductivity values in the carbonate rock unit aquifer range from less than 5 to 

approximately 400 ft/d. The highest values are located in the central portion of the model 

area. These values occur in the thinnest sections of alluvial and carbonate rock unit aquifers. 

PEST indicates that for 30,000 AFY of groundwater flow to occur through the gap, and to 

match observed groundwater levels, then average hydraulic conductivity values up to 

400 ft/d are required in the Carbonate Rock unit aquifer, given the constraints on the 

Alluvial aquifer unit. Based on aquifer testing of the carbonate rock unit aquifer at TW-1 

these values are reasonable. 



Figure 4-48 shows a scatter plot of observed groundwater levels with simulated 

groundwater levels from the two PEST runs. This plot further demonstrates the good fit 

between the simulated and observed groundwater levels, i.e., the slope of the line is one to 

one. With 600 ft/d as the maximum hydraulic conductivity, the range of residuals was - 

0.27 to 0.19 feet, with a mean of -0.002 feet and a standard deviation of 0.10 feet. With 

400 ft/d as the maximum hydraulic conductivity, the range of residuals was -0.52 to 

0.62 feet, with a mean of -0.04 feet and a standard deviation of 0.34 feet. In addition, the 

residual standard deviation over the range is 0.008 and 0.026 for the first and second PEST 

runs, which are well within the 10 percent considered to be an industry standard. 

The PEST results for hydraulic conductivity are considered possible sets of hydraulic 

conductivity values that can accommodate 30,000 AFY of groundwater flow through the 

Fenner Gap and match groundwater levels in monitoring wells and the range of hydraulic 

conductivity values observed from available aquifer tests. 

4.2.4 Discussion of Groundwater Flow Model Results 

The Fenner Gap groundwater flow model relies heavily on relatively high hydraulic 

conductivity values for the Carbonate Rock unit aquifer. Carbonate rock aquifers are not 

common in California, so there are not many examples to use for comparison and as a 

reality check on the groundwater flow model results; therefore, it is necessary to look 

outside the area for comparable hydrogeologic settings. 

A carbonate rock aquifer that has been extensively studied and modeled is the Edwards 

aquifer in the San Antonio region of Texas. This aquifer is described as one of the most 

permeable and productive aquifers in the world (Lindgren, et al., 2004). Figure 4-49 shows 

hydrogeologic zones and catchment area of the Edwards aquifer from Lindgren (2004). The 

Edwards aquifer ranges to over 1,000 feet in thickness. Three types of permeability are 

recognized: matrix, fracture, and conduit. Matrix permeability is typically dwarfed by the 

fracture and conduit permeability and hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity vary over 

eight orders of magnitude and are multimodal. 

Lindgren et al. (2004) and Painter et al. (2007) show the need to upscale hydraulic 

conductivity values from single-borehole tests. They have found that hydraulic conductivity 

values need to be increased substantially for use in numerical models, compared to those 

hydraulic conductivity values obtained from single-well tests. They found that geostatistical 

methods, such as kriging and cokriging during upscaling of hydraulic conductivity 

followed by Bayesian updating based on calibration to groundwater levels provided the 

best estimation of transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity values (Painter, 2007) for use in 

numerical groundwater flow models. Two component sets of hydraulic conductivity values 

are used in the Edwards aquifer model: a base component set and a conduit component set. 

The base component set of values of hydraulic conductivity simulated in a MODFLOW-2000 

numerical groundwater flow model, using 0.25-mile grid spacings, of the Edwards aquifer 

range from less than or equal to 20 to 7,347 ft/d (Lindgren et al., 2004). The conduit 

component set ranges from 1,000 ft/d in the recharge area to as high as 300,000 ft/d in the 

confined portions of the aquifer and near spring discharge areas (Lindgren et al., 2004). 

Figure 4-50 shows the calibrated hydraulic conductivity distribution presented by 

Lindgren et al., (2004). 



The carbonate rock units in Fenner Gap are not necessarily as permeable or productive as 

the Edwards aquifer; however, it may serve as a relatively representative analog for the 

Fenner Gap carbonate rock unit. Significant permeability, including the potential for 

conduit permeability, is evidenced by dissolution features in video logs of test wells, 

minimal drawdown during constant-rate aquifer tests and flattening of hydraulic gradients 

(as between MW-7 and MW-5). In addition, Mitchell Caverns itself demonstrates the 

occurrence of caverns in these Paleozoic carbonates in the area of study. Occurrence of 

highly permeable dissolution cavities and preferential pathways are expected to exist in the 

carbonate rock units underlying Fenner Gap. The hydraulic conductivity of these zones is 

expected to exceed hundreds of feet per day and perhaps approach thousands of feet per 

day, when upscaled to numerical model grid cells. So, hydraulic conductivity values 

simulated in the Fenner Gap model are considered reasonable estimates for the actual 

hydraulic conductivity values. 

In total, data obtained from field investigations, INFIL3.0 watershed soil-moisture budget 

assessments, and Fenner Gap three-dimensional groundwater flow model simulations 

support a 32,000 AFY estimate of potentially recoverable water from the Fenner and 

northern Bristol Valley area. However, numerical models are based on simplified 

conceptual models of the more complex physical groundwater system and processes. 

Model construction and calibration results in nonunique models, which is demonstrated 

above in that two conceptual models (i.e., hydraulic conductivity distributions for Layers 1 

and 3) provide a good fit to the observed data (groundwater levels and range of hydraulic 

conductivity values). The Fenner Gap models suggest a large area of highly transmissive 

alluvium and carbonate rock units, especially along the eastern side of the gap, extending 

into Bristol Valley. This area should be the focus of any additional field investigations as 

might be required for development of an operations plan and subsequent environmental 

impacts assessments, which also will provide further support of these potentially 

recoverable water estimates. 


Snowfall 

accumulation 

Water table 

WB052009005SCO386303.AA.05 Cadiz_processes.ai 11/09 

Unsaturated Zone Unconsolidated 

Valley Fill 

Saturated Zone 

Precipitation 

Transpiration 

Infiltration 

Change in water storage 

Recharge 

Rain 

Stream 

channel 

Evaporation 

Soil 

Net 

infiltration 

Bedrock 

surface 

Run-on/ 

runoff 

Bedrock 

Snowfall 

accumulation, 

sublimation, 

and melt 

Net infiltration boundary 

(lower boundary of root zone) 

FIGURE 4-1 

Schematic of Water Balance 

Processes Simulated in INFIL3.0

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

6 20000 

6 20000 

Legend 

Kelso 

6 30000 

6 30000 

Model 500m Grid 



Interstates 

Rail Roads 


Cima 


6 40000 

6 40000 

6 50000 

6 50000 

6 60000 

6 60000 

Essex 

6 70000 

FennerI40 

6 70000 

Goffs 

6 80000 

6 80000 

0 1.25 2.5 5Miles 




3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

Figure 4-2 

INFIL3.0 Grid - Fenner Watershed 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-2_CADIZ_TM_INFIL_FNRModelGrid_V3_MR.mxd

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

Legend 

6 10000 

6 10000 

I40 

500m INFIL cell resolution 



Interstates 

Rail Roads 

Orange Blossom Model Boundary 

Amboy 

6 20000 

6 20000 

6 30000 

6 30000 


6 40000 

6 40000 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 

0 1 2 4Kilometers 



3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

Figure 4-3 

INFIL3.0 Grid - Orange Blossom 

Wash Area 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-3_CADIZ_TM_INFILF_ORBModelGrid_v1_MR.mxd

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

6 20000 

6 20000 

Legend 

Kelso 

6 30000 

6 30000 



Interstates 

Rail Roads 


Cima 


6 40000 

6 40000 

Model Drainage 

(Number of upstream cells) 

0.0 - 10.0 

6 50000 

6 50000 

6 60000 

6 60000 

Essex 

6 70000 

FennerI40 

6 70000 

Goffs 

6 80000 

6 80000 

0 1.25 2.5 5Miles 

10.1 - 20.0 

20.1 - 30.0 

30.1 - 40.0 

>40 Figure 4-4 



3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

0 5 10Kilometers 

INFIL3.0 Flow Accumulation/Routing - 


\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-4_CADIZ_TM_INFILFlowwAccFenner_v1_MR.mxd

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

Legend 

6 10000 

6 10000 

I40 

Amboy 

6 20000 

6 20000 


Model Drainage 


Upstream number of Cells 

Interstates 

0.0 - 50.0 

Rail Roads 

50.1 - 100.0 

Orange Blossom Model Boundary 100.1 - 150.0 

>150 

6 30000 

6 30000 


6 40000 

6 40000 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 

0 1 2 4 Kilometers 



3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

Figure 4-5 

INFIL3.0 Flow Accumulation/Routing - 

Orange Blossom Watershed 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-5_CADIZ_TM_INFILFlowwAccOB_v1_MR.mxd

35°30'0"N 

35°15'0"N 

35°0'0"N 

34°45'0"N 

34°30'0"N 

34°15'0"N 

34°0'0"N 

33°45'0"N 

33°30'0"N 

Dry Lake 

Silver Lake (Dry) 

Legend 

Soda Dry Lake 

Broadwell Lake(Dry) 

116°0'0"W 

TWENTYNINE PALMS U.S.M.C. 

Mesquite Lake 

Temperature Data 

Salton Sea 

I15 

YUCCA GROVE 


NOAA3450-11575AMB_1 

AMBOY - SALTUS #2 Bristol Lake (Dry) 

SHADOW MOUNTAIN 

TWENTYNINE PALMS COU 

TWENTYNINE PALMS 

116°0'0"W 

NOAA Grid Precipitation 

San Bernardino County Precipitation 

115°45'0"W 

I10 

Ivanpah Lake 

MOUNTAIN PASS MOUNTAIN PASS 

NOAA3525-11575 

NOAA3525-11550 

NOAA3500-11575 

NOAA3500-11550 

KELSO (SODA LAKE VALLEY) 

NOAA3475-11575 

AMBOY - SALTUS #1 

NOAA3425-11575 

MITCHELL CAVERNS 

NOAA3475-11550 

NOAA3450-11550 

NOAA3425-11550 

WONDER VALLEY F.S. - EAST 

DALE DRY LAKE - BARNE 

115°45'0"W 

115°30'0"W 

115°30'0"W 

Interstates Elevation 

States 

Meters 

Rail Roads 

Dry Lake Beds 

High : 2394 

Cadiz Study Area Low : -87 


115°15'0"W 

I40 

NEVADA 

CALIFORNIA 

NOAA3525-11525 

NOAA3525-11500 

NEW YORK MOUNTAINS 

NOAA3500-11525 

NOAA3475-11525 

ESSEX CAL TRANS YARD 

NOAA3450-11525 

NOAA3425-11525 

115°15'0"W 

IRON MOUNTAIN 

115°0'0"W 

GOFFS 


NOAA3500-11500 

NOAA3475-11500 

NOAA3450-11500 

NOAA3425-11500 

115°0'0"W 

114°45'0"W 

114°30'0"W 

NEEDLES COUNTY HIGY YARDNEEDLES 

114°45'0"W 

NEEDLES F.A.A. 

PARK MOABI REGIONAL PARK 34°45'0"N 

NEEDLES PUMPING PLANT 

Name Station# EAST NORTH ELEV(m) 

TWENTYNINE PALMS 6048 588520.1861 3776986.3786 602.0 

NEEDLES PUMPING PLANT 6059 718933.3123 3841265.8182 426.7 

MOUNTAIN PASS 6063 632465.8634 3926145.7808 1441.7 

YUCCA GROVE 6109 609877.2024 3918075.1628 1204.3 

NEEDLES F.A.A. 6110 717833.2488 3849008.8513 278.6 

NEEDLES 6156 719478.4432 3856817.2860 146.3 

NEEDLES COUNTY HIGY YARD 6178 719478.4432 3856817.2860 137.5 

GOFFS 6179 677212.1024 3865889.1957 788.5 

KELSO (SODA LAKE VALLEY) 6193 623178.6727 3874984.6796 654.7 

MITCHELL CAVERNS 6215 636069.4599 3867402.7543 1319.8 

DALE DRY LAKE - BARNE 6245 619844.5862 3779551.1851 371.9 

AMBOY - SALTUS #1 6298 619305.1409 3821691.1470 190.5 

AMBOY - SALTUS #2 6300 615703.0829 3816099.8078 181.4 

SHADOW MOUNTAIN 6397 594008.5786 3781475.5129 414.5 

NEW YORK MOUNTAINS 6398 670151.0362 3901261.1581 1408.2 

TWENTYNINE PALMS U.S.M.C. 6402 578219.6903 3795747.1719 610.8 

IRON MOUNTAIN 7114 673319.7591 3780384.4573 285.9 

TWENTYNINE PALMS COU 9004 586655.5319 3779186.9426 577.6 

PARK MOABI REGIONAL PARK 9006 727985.8352 3845925.1453 164.6 

MOUNTAIN PASS 9008 632465.8634 3926145.7808 1443.2 

WONDER VALLEY F.S. - EAST 9016 615207.7280 3781711.4063 373.1 

ESSEX CAL TRANS YARD 9020 660221.9816 3844496.0097 524.3 

AMB_1 1001 617504.1119 3818895.4774 185.9 

NOAA Grid Node Number EAST NORTH ELEV(m) 

NOAA3425-11575 5001 615098.8957 3790582.7344 809.1 

NOAA3425-11550 5002 638120.4564 3790893.7326 567.0 

NOAA3425-11525 5003 661142.9887 3791261.3197 273.6 

NOAA3425-11500 5004 684166.6542 3791685.5176 276.3 

NOAA3450-11575 5005 614757.3470 3818306.3473 184.2 

NOAA3450-11550 5006 637710.5534 3818618.4062 244.0 

NOAA3450-11525 5007 660664.7070 3818987.2467 680.2 

NOAA3450-11500 5008 683619.9655 3819412.8905 480.8 

NOAA3475-11575 5009 614413.6096 3846031.0427 1073.1 

NOAA3475-11550 5010 637298.0240 3846344.1386 767.6 

NOAA3475-11525 5011 660183.3614 3846714.2043 535.0 

NOAA3475-11500 5012 683069.7753 3847141.2617 674.7 

NOAA3500-11575 5013 614067.6898 3873756.8242 647.4 

NOAA3500-11550 5014 636882.8759 3874070.9332 1349.5 

NOAA3500-11525 5015 659698.9606 3874442.1962 1056.0 

NOAA3500-11500 5016 682516.0936 3874870.6346 860.6 

NOAA3525-11575 5017 613719.5940 3901483.6954 1177.1 

NOAA3525-11550 5018 636465.1166 3901798.7937 1282.8 

NOAA3525-11525 5019 659211.5136 3902171.2256 1499.0 

NOAA3525-11500 5020 681958.9307 3902601.0125 987.3544 

0 2 4 8 Miles 

0 5 10 Kilometers 



114°30'0"W 

35°30'0"N 

35°15'0"N 

35°0'0"N 

34°30'0"N 

34°15'0"N 

34°0'0"N 

33°45'0"N 

33°30'0"N 

Figure 4-6 

Climate Stations Used in INFIL3.0 

For Fenner Watershed and Orange 

Blossom Wash Area 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-6_CADIZ_TM_ClimateStations_V4_MR.mxd

Month hly Precipitation (mm) 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Regression coefficients are 

given in Table 4-2. 

Figure 4-7. 

Monthly Precipitation Versus Elevation Regressions Used In INFIL3.0 

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 

Elevation (m) 

jan 

feb 

mar 

apr 

may 

jun 

jul 

aug 

sep sep 

oct 

nov 

dec

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000 

5 90000 

I15 

5 90000 

6 00000 

6 00000 

Bagdad 

Legend 

STATSGO Soil Types 

Average Depth to Bedrock (m) 

0.0381 

0.1524 

0.1778 

0.2286 

6 10000 

6 10000 

0.2413 

0.3048 

0.3175 

0.4318 

0.762 

1.524 

Amboy 

6 20000 

6 20000 

Kelso 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 


6 30000 

6 30000 

6 40000 

Cima 


6 40000 

6 50000 

6 50000 

6 60000 

Essex 

Chubbuck 

6 60000 

6 70000 

Fenner 

6 70000 

I40 

6 80000 

Goffs 

6 80000 

6 90000 

6 90000 

0 2 4 8 Miles 




Figure 4-8 

Soil Depths Determined From 

STATSGO Database 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-8_CADIZ_TM_SoilsMap_SoilDepths_V3_MR.mxd 

3 910000 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

3 800000 

3 790000 

3 780000 

3 770000 

3 760000

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

100 

6 20000 

2 50 

6 20000 

Legend 

200 

Kelso 

1 00 

250 

1 00 

6 30000 

6 30000 

250 

25 0 

100 

Cima 

150 


100 

100 

6 40000 

6 40000 


INFIL 

Interstates 

AVG Precipitation mm/yr (1971-2000) 

Rail Roads 

75.3 

Fenner Valley Model Boundary 75.4 - 100.0 

PRISM Isohyets mm 

100.1 - 150.0 

100 

200 

6 50000 

250 

6 50000 

150.1 - 200.0 

200.1 - 250.0 

250.1 - 300.0 

300.1 - 350.0 

350.1 - 400.0 

300 

150 

200 

6 60000 

200 

6 60000 

Essex 

200 

200 

6 70000 

2 00 

FennerI40 

6 70000 

200 

200 

200 

Goffs 

6 80000 

6 80000 

0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles 




3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

Figure 4-9a 

INFIL3.0 Modeled Average Annual 

Precipitation For 1971 Through 2000 Period 

Compared with PRISM - Fenner Watershed 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-9a_CADIZ_TM_INFIL_Precip_V1_MR.mxd

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

Legend 

6 10000 

6 10000 

I40 

200 

Amboy 

250 

150 

6 20000 

100 

6 20000 


INFIL 

Interstates 


Rail Roads 

46.5 - 50.0 


PRISM Isohyets mm 

100.1 - 200.0 

100 

200.1 - 242.9 

243.0 - 250.0 

250.1 - 300.0 

300.1 - 350.0 

350.1 - 400.0 

100 

10 0 

100 

6 30000 

6 30000 

100 

2 50 

100 

150 


6 40000 

100 

100 

6 40000 

100 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

Figure 4-9b 


Precipitation For 1971 Through 2000 Period 

Compared with PRISM - Orange Blossom 

Wash 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-9b_CADIZ_TM_INFIL_Precip_V1_MR.mxd

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

6 20000 

6 20000 

Legend 

Kelso 

6 30000 

6 30000 

Cima 


6 40000 

6 40000 


INFIL 

Interstates 


Rail Roads 

75.3 


100.1 - 150.0 

6 50000 

6 50000 

150.1 - 200.0 

200.1 - 250.0 

250.1 - 300.0 

300.1 - 350.0 

350.1 - 400.0 

6 60000 

6 60000 

Essex 

6 70000 

FennerI40 

6 70000 

Goffs 

6 80000 

6 80000 

0 1.25 2.5 5Miles 




3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

Figure 4-9c 


Precipitation For 1958 Through 2007 

Period - Fenner Watershed 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-9c_CADIZ_TM_INFIL_Precip_V1_MR.mxd

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

Legend 

6 10000 

6 10000 

I40 

Amboy 

6 20000 

6 20000 


INFIL 

Interstates 


Rail Roads 

46.5 - 50.0 


100.1 - 200.0 

200.1 - 242.9 

243.0 - 250.0 

250.1 - 300.0 

300.1 - 350.0 

350.1 - 400.0 

6 30000 

6 30000 


6 40000 

6 40000 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

Figure 4-9d 


Precipitation For 1958 Through 2007 

Period - Orange Blossom Wash 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-9d_CADIZ_TM_INFIL_Precip_V1_MR.mxd

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

6 20000 

6 20000 

Legend 

Kelso 

6 30000 

6 30000 

Cima 


6 40000 

6 40000 


INFIL 

Interstates 

Net Infiltration Annual Average (mm/yr) 

Rail Roads 

0.0 - 25.0 


50.1 - 75.0 

75.1 - 100.0 

100.1 - 125.0 

125.1 - 150.0 

6 50000 

6 50000 

150.1 - 175.0 

175.1 - 200.0 

200.1 - 225.0 

225.1 - 250.0 

250.1 - 275.0 

275.1 - 300.0 

6 60000 

6 60000 

Essex 

6 70000 

FennerI40 

6 70000 

Goffs 

6 80000 

6 80000 

0 1 2 4 Miles 

0 1 2 4 Kilometers 



300.1 - 325.0 Figure 4-10a 

INFIL3.0 Average Annual Infiltration 

For 1958-2007 - Fenner Watershed 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-10a_CADIZ_TM_INFIL_Infiltration_V1_MR.mxd 

3 900000 

3 890000 

3 880000 

3 870000 

3 860000 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000 

Legend 

6 10000 

6 10000 

I40 

Amboy 

6 20000 

6 20000 


INFIL 

Interstates 

Net Infiltration Annual Average (mm/yr) 

Rail Roads 

0.0 - 25.0 


50.1 - 75.0 

75.1 - 100.0 

6 30000 

6 30000 


6 40000 

6 40000 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




100.1 - 125.0 Figure 4-10b 

INFIL3.0 Average Annual Infiltration 

For 1958-2007 - Orange Blossom Wash 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-10b_CADIZ_TM_INFIL_Infiltration_V1_MR.mxd 

3 850000 

3 840000 

3 830000 

3 820000 

3 810000

Acre-Feet 

140,000 

120,000 

100,000 

80,000 

60,000 

40,000 

20,000 

- 

Figure 4-11. 


Recoverable Water 

INFIL3.0 Simulation Results 

Year

Acre-Feet 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

- 

Figure 4-12. 

Orange Blossom Wash Area 


INFIL3.0 Simulation Results 

Year

Infiltr ration (Acre-Feet) 

250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100 100,000 000 

50,000 

- 

Figure 4-13. 



INFIL3.0 versus GSSI High Estimate 

Year 

INFIL3 

GSS-High


250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100 100,000 000 

50,000 

- 

Figure 4-14. 



INFIL3.0 versus GSSI Low Estimate 

Year 

INFIL3 

GSS-Low


35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

- 

Figure 4-15. 



INFIL3.0 versus GSSI High Estimate 

Year 

INFIL3 

GSS-High


15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

- 

Figure 4-16. 



INFIL3.0 versue GSSI Low Estimate 

Year 

INFIL3 

GSS-Low

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


Legend 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 

0 5 10Miles 



Figure 4-17 

NDVI for May 16, 1990 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-17_CADIZ_TM_NDVI_05-16-1990_V1.mxd 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

Nevada 

Utah 

California Arizona 

Project Location 

Water/Snow 

Moist Soils 

Bare Soils/Rocks 

Vegetation 

Landsat Images were obtained from: 

http://glovis.usgs.gov/

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


Legend 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 

0 5 10Miles 



Figure 4-18 

NDVI for March 16, 1991 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 


3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

Nevada 

Utah 



Water/Snow 

Moist Soils 


Vegetation 



3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


Legend 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 

0 5 10Miles 



Figure 4-19 


600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 


3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

Nevada 

Utah 



Water/Snow 

Moist Soils 


Vegetation 



3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


Legend 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 

0 5 10 Miles 



Figure 4-20 

NDVI for March 10, 1992 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 


3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

Nevada 

Utah 



Water/Snow 

Moist Soils 


Vegetation 



3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


Legend 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 

0 5 10Miles 



Figure 4-21 


600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 


3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

Nevada 

Utah 



Water/Snow 

Moist Soils 


Vegetation 



3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 




I40 


Legend 


Interstates 

Rail Roads 

0 5 10Miles 



Figure 4-22 

NDVI for August 13, 2005 

600000 .000000 610000 .000000 620000 .000000 630000 .000000 640000 .000000 650000 .000000 660000 .000000 670000 .000000 680000 .000000 


3760000 .0000003770000 

.0000003780000 

.0000003790000 

.0000003800000 

.0000003810000 

.0000003820000 

.0000003830000 

.0000003840000 

.0000003850000 

.0000003860000 

.0000003870000 

.0000003880000 

.0000003890000 

.0000003900000 

.0000003910000 

.000000 

Nevada 

Utah 



Water/Snow 

Moist Soils 


Vegetation 



\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-23_CADIZ_TM_GeologyofFennerGap_XSec_Wells_V2_MH_9.2.mxd 


Figure 4-23 

Geology of Fenner Gap Area, Location of 

Cross Sections and Test Borings/Wells 

Existing Wells 

Test Wells 

Test Borings 

Cross Section 

Fault 

Interstates 

Roads 

Rail Roads 









0 0.5 1 

0.25 Kilometers 

0 0.5 1 

0.25 Miles 

Geology Units 

Alluvium 

Legend 

6 39000 

6 40000 

6 41000 

6 42000 

6 43000 

6 44000 

6 45000 

6 46000 

6 47000 

6 48000 

3 814000 

3 814000 

3 815000 

3 815000 

3 816000 

3 816000 

3 817000 

F' 

3 817000 

J' 

H' 

3 818000 

B' 

3 818000 

I' 

D' 

3 819000 

40 

BI' 

3 819000 

80 

3 820000 

MW-2 

E' 

CI-3 

PW-1 

45 

3 820000 

MW-3 

80 

MW-1 

CI-1 

60 

3 821000 

TW-2B 

005N014E13M001S 

MW-5 

CI-2 

TW-2 

TW-3 

3 821000 

MW-6 

45 

60 

F 

TW-1 

25 

30 

3 822000 

MW-7/7A 

35 

20 

G' 

H 

3 822000 

25 

55 35 

I 

3 823000 

J 

3 823000 

B 

45 

D 

25 

3 824000 

25 

45 

3 824000 

BI 

20 

3 825000 

25 

45 

3 825000 

G 

E 

25 

3 826000 

3 826000 

6 39000 

6 40000 

6 41000 

6 42000 

6 43000 

6 44000 

6 45000 

6 46000 

6 47000 

6 48000

Western Fenner Gap Area 

(Marble Mountains) 

Note: See Table 4-6 for description of geologic units. 

WB052009005SCO386303.AA.08 FennerGap.ppt 3/10 

Not to scale 

Eastern Fenner Gap Area 

(Ship Mountains) 

FIGURE 4-24 

Generalized Stratigraphic Column of Fenner Gap Area 

Cadiz Groundwater Plan

Elevation Above Mean Sea Level (feet) 

1000 

WB052009005SCO386303.AA.05 Cadiz_Cross_section_14_E.ai 3/10 

E E' 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 

? 

0 2,000 

4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 

16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 

Distance Along Cross-Section (feet) 

Legend: 

Alluvium (Cobbles, Gravel, Sand, Silt, and Clay) 

Older Alluvium (Consolidated Cobbles, Gravel, Sand, Silt, and Clay) 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

Carbonate Rocks (Dolomite, Shale, Sandy Limestone, and Quartzite) 

Granitic and Metamorphic Rocks 

? 

? 

? 

Fault 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

TW-3 

F5 (South 850 ft) F4 F3 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

F2 

1000 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 


FIGURE 4-25 

Cross-Section E-E' 



2000 

1000 

WB052009005SCO386303.AA.05 Cadiz_Cross_section_15_B1.ai 3/10 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 

-4000 

B1 B1' 

? ? 

Legend: 



? 

? 

2000 4000 6000 

8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 

16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 



? ? ? 

Fault 


? 

? 

? 

TW-3 

F5 (North 1,000 ft) 

F4 F3 

? 

? 

? 

? 

F2 F1 

? 

FIGURE 4-26 

Cross-Section B1-B1' 



1000 

D D' 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 

WB052009005SCO386303.AA.05 Cadiz_Cross_section_09_D.ai 3/10 

? 

F10 F9 

? 

0 2000 

4000 6000 8000 10,000 


12,000 14,000 

16,000 18,000 20,000 

Legend: 



? 

? ? 

TW-1 

F8 F6 F5 F4 F3 

(North 1,350 ft) 

? ? ? ? 



? 

TW-2B 

(North 400 ft) 

Fault 

TW-2 

(South 500 ft) 

? ? 

? 

? 

? ? ? ? 

? 

F2 

? ? 

F1 

1000 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 


FIGURE 4-27 

Cross-Section D-D' 



1000 

B B' 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 

0 2000 

4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 


14,000 

16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 

Legend: 



WB052009005SCO386303.AA.05 Cadiz_Cross_section_12_B.ai 3/10 

? 

? 

F10 

? 

? ? 

C1-2 

5/14-13 

(South 150 ft) MW-5 

MW-3 

F9 

(Southeast 1,950 ft) 

F8 (North 550 ft) (South 950 ft) 

F6 F5 

? ? ? ? ? 



Fault 

? ? ? 

? 

F4 

F3 

(Bend In Section) 

? ? ? ? 

? 

F2 

? 

? 

F1 

1000 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 


FIGURE 4-28 

Cross-Section B-B' 



2000 

1000 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 

-4000 

WB052009005SCO386303.AA.05 Cadiz_Cross_section_10_F.ai 3/10 

F F' 

? 

Legend: 



F10 F9 

? 

? 

PW-1 

(North 700 ft) 

2000 4000 6000 

8000 10,000 12,000 


14.000 

16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 



F8 

? ? ? 

MW-1 

(North 1,150 ft) 

? 

Fault 

? 

TH-2 

F6 F5 (South 700 ft) F4 F3 F2 F1 

? 

? 

? ? ? 

? 

? 

FIGURE 4-29 

Cross-Section F-F' 



1000 

WB052009005SCO386303.AA.05 Cadiz_Cross_section_16.ai 3/10 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 

-4000 

I I' 

E-E' B1-B1' 

Legend: 




TW-1 

? ??? ? ? ? 

Terminal of 

Fault 6 

? ? ? ? ? 

MW-5 

CI-1 

MW-2 

D-D1' (East 400') B-B' (East 100') 

(East 250') F-F' 

? 

Approximate Trace Fault 6 

? ? ? ? ? ? 

2000 4000 6000 

8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 

16,000 18,000 


? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

1000 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 

-4000 


FIGURE 4-30 

Cross-Section I-I' 



1000 


0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 

-4000 

-5000 

G 

Legend: 



? 

? 

? 

? 

Bend in Section 

G' 

2000 4000 6000 

8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 

16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 



? 

H 

E-E' 

? 

Approximate 

Fault Zone 

?? 

? 


? 

? 

TW-2 

(West 300') 

B1-B1' D-D' B-B' 



? ? 

? 

? 

MW-3 

(West 450') 

F-F' 

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

H' 

1000 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 

-4000 

-5000 


FIGURE 4-31 

Cross-Section H-H' 



2000 

1000 


0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 

-4000 

J J' 

? 

? ? ? ? 

-4000 

2000 4000 6000 

8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 

16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 

Legend: 



? 

E-E' 

TW-3 

(East 500') 

Approximate 

Fault Zone 

? ? ? ? ? ? 



B1-B1' 


D-D' 

Bend in Section 


? 

B-B' 



F-F' 

? ? ? ? ? ? 

TH-2 

(West 1100') 

? 

? 

? 

? 

2000 

1000 

0 

-1000 

-2000 

-3000 


FIGURE 4-32 

Cross-Section J-J' 


3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

800 

Legend 

6 39000 

6 39000 

-1500 

300 

6 40000 

800 

6 40000 

400 

700 

900 

0 

-500 

800 

800 

-200 

-1000 

-200 

100 

-500 

200 

-100 

-750 

6 41000 

600 

700 

-400 

6 41000 

-1000 

600 

800 

500 

-300 

0 

600 

-2000 

700 

6 42000 

-2500 

500 

6 42000 

-300 

300 

-3000 

200 100 

Fenner_BND Geology Units 

Cadiz Study Area Alluvium 

Interstates 


Rail Roads 


Base of Alluvium Permian/Pennsylvanian Carbonate Rock Units 

WaterBodies Cambrian Carbonate Rock Units 


-400 

700 

6 43000 

6 43000 

500 

400 

6 44000 

600 

1000 

800 

1000 

6 44000 

900 

-100 

1000 

6 45000 

-1500 

1000 

6 45000 

1100 

1000 

6 46000 

1000 

6 46000 

1000 

6 47000 

6 47000 

6 48000 

6 48000 

¯ 

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles 

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Kilometers 



Figure 4-33 

Structure Contour Map of Base of Alluvium 

in the Fenner Gap Area 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-33_CADIZ_TM_BaseAlluv_V1_MH.mxd

3 820000 

3 810000 

6 30000 

3000 

6 30000 

Legend 

3000 

3500 

3500 

2000 

2500 

Saturated Thickness (ft), Alluvium 

Rail Roads 

Model Domain 

1000 

1500 

500 

Boundary Conditions 

Constant Head Boundary 

No Flow Boundary 

A CADIZ Wells 

2000 

6 40000 

6 40000 

1000 

A AAA 

A 

A 

A 

A 

1500 

3000 

3500 

A 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig_4-34_CADIZ_TM_SatThick_Alluvium_FG033.mxd 

2500 

2000 

1500 

500 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




Figure 4-34 

Isopach Map 

Saturated Alluvium 

3 820000 

3 810000

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

Legend 

6 39000 

6 39000 

6 40000 

6 40000 

6 41000 

6 41000 

6 42000 

6 42000 

Fenner_BND Geology Units 

Cadiz Study Area Alluvium 

Interstates 


Rail Roads 


Base of Old Alluvium Permian/Pennsylvanian Carbonate Rock Units 

WaterBodies 

-100 

6 43000 

100 

6 43000 



Approximate Extent of Consolidated Fanglomerates 

6 44000 

-200 

400 

800 

6 44000 

-2000 

-1500 

600 

300 

-1650 

0 

500 

6 45000 

200 

700 

6 45000 

-1000 

-600 

1100 

1000 

6 46000 

6 46000 

6 47000 

-500 

6 47000 

6 48000 

6 48000 

¯ 

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles 




Figure 4-35 

Estimated Extent of Consolidated 

Fanglomerates in the Fenner Gap Area 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-35_CADIZ_TM_BaseOldAlluv_V1_MR.mxd

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

Legend 

6 39000 

6 39000 

Fenner_BND 


6 40000 

1100 

3000 

6 40000 

Interstates 

Rail Roads 

Carbonate Thickness (ft) 

Fault 

WaterBodies 

1200 

1400 

2000 

1300 

Geology Units 

Alluvium 

6 41000 

6 41000 

750 

1500 

6 42000 

6 42000 

500 

1400 

600 

900 

200 

6 43000 

750 

800 

400 

300 

700 

6 43000 






800 

1300 

700 

6 44000 

400 

1200 

1100 

0 

700 

500 

6 44000 

1000 

800 

900 

500 

300 

6 45000 

1500 

1000 

6 45000 

2000 

1500 

2300 

1000 

200 

1500 

1000 

1500 

1000 

6 46000 

500 

0 

6 46000 

0 

6 47000 

6 47000 

6 48000 

6 48000 

¯ 

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles 




Figure 4-36 

Isopach Map of Carbonate Rock Unit 


\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-36_CADIZ_TM_CarbThick_V1_MR.mxd

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

Legend 

6 39000 

6 39000 

0 

500 

6 40000 

-2000 

1000 

6 40000 

-1000 

-500 

-1000 

-1500 -1000 

6 41000 

-2000 

500 

-500 

6 41000 

6 42000 

6 42000 

Base of Carbonates Geology Units 

Fault 

Alluvium 

Fenner_BND 


Cadiz Study Area Mesozoic Granitic Rocks 

Interstates 


Rail Roads 



0 

6 43000 

-500 

-500 

6 43000 

-4500 

6 44000 

-3000 

-1000 

500 

6 44000 

-3500 

-4000 

-2500 

-500 

0 

0 

-1000 

6 45000 

-1500 

6 45000 

-1500 

500 

-1000 

-500 

0 

0 

6 46000 

1000 

6 46000 

6 47000 

6 47000 

6 48000 

6 48000 

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles 




Figure 4-37 

Structure Contour Map on Base of 

Carbonate Rock Unit in the Fenner Gap 

Area 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-37_CADIZ_TM_BaseOfCarb_V3_MR.mxd

3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

620 

580 

610 

6 

!( 

39000 

006N014E35B001S 

6 39000 

6 40000 

6 40000 

#* 

!( 

A 

005N014E13M001S 

PW-1CI-3 

A 

6 41000 

A 

A 

MW-2 

6 41000 

CI-2 

A 

A 

MW-1 

CI-1 

6 42000 

A#* 

MW-6 

TW-2B A MW-5 

MW-3 

6 42000 

660 

6 43000 

630 

MW-7/7A 

TW-1 

610 

650 

640 

#* TW-2 

#* #* 

Legend 

A Existing Cadiz Wells 

GW Elevation contour (ft msl)* 

#* Exploratory Drilling/Test Well Location 

#* CADIZ AG Wells 

!( Springs 

!( Wells 

Geology Units 

Interstates 

Alluvium 

Alluvium-Bedrock Contact Teritary Volcanics 





* Refer to Table 4 for summary of groundwater elevation measurements 

6 43000 

600 

6 44000 

6 44000 

620 

TW-3 

6 45000 

6 45000 

005N015E04G001S 

005N015E04F001S 

!( 

!( 

6 46000 

6 46000 

6 47000 

690 

6 47000 

670 

¯ 

6 48000 

6 48000 

680 

700 

0 0.25 0.5 1 Kilometers 



3 826000 

3 825000 

3 824000 

3 823000 

3 822000 

3 821000 

3 820000 

3 819000 

3 818000 

3 817000 

3 816000 

3 815000 

3 814000 

0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 

Figure 4-38 

Groundwater Elevation Contour Map 


\\cheron\Proj\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig4-38_CADIZ_TM_GW_ElevationContourMap_V1_MH.mxd

3 820000 

3 810000 

6 30000 

6 30000 

Legend 

A CADIZ Wells 

Rail Roads 

Model Domain 




Active Grid 

6 40000 

A AAA 

A 

A 

A 

A 

CI-2 

MW-5 

MW-1 

CI-1 

MW-3 

MW-2 

PW-1 CI-3 

6 40000 

MW-7/7A 

MW-6 

A 

6/15-29 

0 0.35 0.7 1.4 Miles 

00.350.7 1.4 Kilometers 



Figure 4-39 

Groundwater Flow Model Extents, 

Grid and Boundary Conditions 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig_4-39_CADIZ_TM_GroundwaterModelFlowExtents.mxd 

3 820000 

3 810000

3 820000 

3 810000 

6 30000 

E E E E E E E 

E E E E E E E E E E E E E 

E E E E E E E E E 

E E E E E 


E E E E E 

6 30000 

Legend 

A CADIZ Wells 

Rail Roads 

Model Domain 

A AAA 

A 

A 

A 

A 

E 

EE 

EE E 

EE E EE 

E 

E E E 

E 

E 

E E E E E E 

E E 

E 

E E 

E 

E 

E E 

E E 

E E 

E 

E 

E 

E E E E 

EEE E 

E 

E E 

E 

E E E 

EE E 

E 

EE 

MW-6 

5N\14E-13 

MW-1 

CI-3 

MW-5 

MW-3 

MW-2 CI-1 




6 40000 

E E E 

E E E 

E E E E 

E E E E 

E E E E 

E E E E 

6 40000 

E Groundwater Elevation Targets 

E PEST Pilot Points 

MW-7 

A 

E TW-3 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig_4-40_CADIZ_TM_PESTPilotPtsandTargetsL1_V1_SS.mxd 

E 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




Figure 4-40 

PEST Pilot Points and 

Targets in Layer 1 

3 820000 

3 810000

3 820000 

3 810000 

6 30000 

6 30000 

Legend 

A CADIZ Wells 

Rail Roads 

Model Domain 




6 40000 

A AAA 

A 

A 

A 

A 

E 

EE E EEE E 

EE 

E 

E E E E 

E E E 

E E 

E CI-2 E 

E E 

E 

E E 

A 

E E E E E E 

6 40000 



E E E E E E 

E E E E E 

E 

E E 

MW-7A 

E 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig_4-41_CADIZ_TM_PESTPilotPtsandTargetsL3_V1_SS.mxd 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




Figure 4-41 

PEST Pilot Points and 

Targets in Layer 3 

3 820000 

3 810000

3 820000 

3 810000 

6 30000 

Legend 

6 30000 

A CADIZ Wells 

Rail Roads 

Model Domain 




5N\14E-13 

-0.04 

MW-1 

0.06 

CI-3 

0.03 

6 40000 

CI-2 

-0.27 

6 40000 

A AAA 

A 

A 

A 

A 

MW-2 

0 

Residual (Obs - Sim) 

< -1 

-1 - -0.1 

-0.1 - 0.1 

0.1 - 1 

> 1 

Groundwater Contours (ft) 

595 

650 

CI-1 

0.19 

MW-7 

-0.01 

600 

655 

MW-7A 

0 

MW-6 

0.01 

MW-5 

0.04 

MW-3 

-0.03 

645 

A 

635 630 

625 

615 

640 

TW-3 

-0.01 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig_4-42_CADIZ_TM_GWContours_TargetResiduals_FG033.mxd 

3 820000 

3 810000 

Figure 4-42 

PEST Simulated Groundwater Contours and 

Target Residuals - K Upper Limit = 600 ft/d

3 820000 

3 810000 

6 30000 

E E E E E E E 



E E E E E 


E E E E E 

6 30000 

E 

EE 

EE E 

EE E EE 

E 

E E E 

E 

E 

E E E E E E 

E E 

E 

E E 

E 

E 

E E 

E E 

E E 

E 

E 

E 

E E E E E 

EEE E 

E 

E E 

E 

E E E 

EE E 

E 

E 

EE 

E 

E 

A AAA 

A 

A 

A 

A 

MW-7/7A 

MW-6 

CI-2 

MW-5 

MW-1 

CI-1 

MW-3 

PW-1 CI-3 

MW-2 

Legend 

A CADIZ Wells 

Hydraulic Conductivity Layer 1 

Rail Roads 

Kh (ft/day) 

Model Domain 

1 - 50 


51 - 100 

Constant Head Boundary 101 - 150 




151 - 200 

201 - 250 

251 - 300 

301 - 350 

6 40000 

E E E 

E E E 

E E E E 

E E E E 

E E E E 

E E E E 

6 40000 

351 - 400 

401 - 450 

451 - 500 

501 - 550 

551 - 600 

601 - 650 

651 - 700 

701 - 750 

751 - 800 

A 

6/15-29 

E 

E 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




Figure 4-43 

PEST Computed Hydraulic Conductivity 

Distribution in Layer 1 

with K Upper Limit = 600 ft/d 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig_4-43_CADIZ_TM_K_L1_FG033.mxd 

3 820000 

3 810000

3 820000 

3 810000 

6 30000 

6 30000 

E 

Legend 

A CADIZ Wells 


Rail Roads 

Kh (ft/day) 

Model Domain 

0 - 50 


51 - 100 





151 - 200 

201 - 250 

251 - 300 

301 - 350 

6 40000 

E E E E E E 

E 

E E E E E E 

E E E E E 

E 

EE E EEE E 

EE 

E 

E E E E 

E E E 

E E 

E 

E E 

E 

E E E 

EE E 

E 

EE 

E 

A AAA 

A 

A 

A 

A 

MW-7/7A 

MW-6 

CI-2 

MW-5 

MW-1 

CI-1 

MW-3 

CI-3 

MW-2 

PW-1 

6 40000 

351 - 400 

401 - 450 

451 - 500 

501 - 550 

551 - 600 

601 - 650 

651 - 700 

701 - 750 

751 - 800 

E 

E 

E E 

A 

E 

6/15-29 

E 

E 

E 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig_4-44_CADIZ_TM_K_L3_FG033.mxd 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




Figure 4-44 




3 820000 

3 810000

3 820000 

3 810000 

6 30000 

Legend 

6 30000 

A CADIZ Wells 

Rail Roads 

Model Domain 




5N\14E-13 

-0.14 

MW-1 

0.08 

CI-3 

0.05 

6 40000 

6 40000 

CI-2 

-0.41 

Residual (Obs - Sim) 

< -1 

-1 - -0.1 

-0.1 - 0.1 

0.1 - 1 

> 1 

Groundwater Contours (ft) 

600 

MW-7 

-0.5 

A AAA 

A 

A 

A 

A 

MW-2 

0.02 

595 

655 

635 

CI-1 

0.33 

600 

MW-6 

0.1 

MW-5 

0.62 

MW-3 

0.08 

MW-7A 

-0.52 

A 

630 

640 

615 

650 

625 

645 

TW-3 

-0.18 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig_4-45_CADIZ_TM_GWContours_TargetResiduals_FG032c.mxd 

3 820000 

3 810000 

Figure 4-45 

PEST Simulated Groundwater Contours and 

Target Residuals - K Upper Limit = 400 ft/d

3 820000 

3 810000 

6 30000 

E E E E E E E 



E E E E E 


E E E E E 

6 30000 

E 

EE 

EE E 

EE E EE 

E 

E E E 

E 

E 

E E E E E E 

E E 

E 

E E 

E 

E 

E E 

E E 

E E 

E 

E 

E 

E E E E E 

EEE E 

E 

E E 

E 

E E E 

EE E 

E 

E 

EE 

E 

E 

A AAA 

A 

A 

A 

A 

MW-7/7A 

MW-6 

CI-2 

MW-5 

MW-1 

CI-1 

MW-3 

PW-1 CI-3 

MW-2 

Legend 

A CADIZ Wells 


Rail Roads 

Kh (ft/day) 

Model Domain 

1 - 50 


51 - 100 





151 - 200 

201 - 250 

251 - 300 

301 - 350 

6 40000 

E E E 

E E E 

E E E E 

E E E E 

E E E E 

E E E E 

6 40000 

351 - 400 

401 - 450 

451 - 500 

501 - 550 

551 - 600 

601 - 650 

651 - 700 

701 - 750 

751 - 800 

A 

6/15-29 

E 

E 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




Figure 4-46 




\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig_4-46_CADIZ_TM_K_L1_FG032c.mxd 

3 820000 

3 810000

3 820000 

3 810000 

6 30000 

6 30000 

E 

Legend 

A CADIZ Wells 


Rail Roads 

Kh (ft/day) 

Model Domain 

0 - 50 


51 - 100 





151 - 200 

201 - 250 

251 - 300 

301 - 350 

6 40000 

E E E E E E 

E 

E E E E E E 

E E E E E 

E 

EE E EEE E 

EE 

E 

E E E E 

E E E 

E E 

E 

E E 

E 

E E E 

EE E 

E 

EE 

E 

A AAA 

A 

A 

A 

A 

MW-7/7A 

MW-6 

CI-2 

MW-5 

MW-1 

CI-1 

MW-3 

CI-3 

MW-2 

PW-1 

6 40000 

351 - 400 

401 - 450 

451 - 500 

501 - 550 

551 - 600 

601 - 650 

651 - 700 

701 - 750 

751 - 800 

E 

E 

E E 

A 

E 

6/15-29 

E 

E 

E 

\\cheron\Projects\BrownsteinHyattFarbe\386303Cadiz\GIS\ArcMap\TMFigures\Fig_4-47_CADIZ_TM_K_L3_FG032c.mxd 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles 




Figure 4-47 




3 820000 

3 810000

Simulated Head (ft) 

615 

610 

605 

600 

595 



Observed = Simulated 

590 

590 595 600 605 610 615 

Observed Head (ft) 

Figure 4-48 

Scatter Plot Showing Observed Versus Simulated 

Groundwater Levels from PEST Simulations


615 

610 

605 

600 

595 




590 

590 595 600 605 610 615 


Figure 4-48 




615 

610 

605 

600 

595 




590 

590 595 600 605 610 615 


Figure 4-48 



5.0 References Cited 

Bassett, A.M. and D.H. Kupfer. 1964. A Geologic Reconnaissance in the Southeastern Mojave 

Desert, California. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 83. 

Bassett, A.M., D.H. Kupfer, and F.C. Barstow. 1959. Core Logs from Bristol, Cadiz and Danby 

Dry Lakes, San Bernardino County, California. US Geological Survey Bulletin 1045-D. 

pp. 97-138. 

Bedford, D.R., Miller, D.M., Phelps, G.A. 2006. Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map Database of 

the Amboy 30x60 Minute Quadrangle, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2006-1165. 

Bedinger, M.S., Langer, W.H., and Reed, J.E. 1989. Ground-water Hydrology, in Bedinger, M.S., 

Sargent, K.A., and Langer, W.H., eds. Studies of geology and hydrology in the Basin and Range 

Province, southwestern United States, for isolation of high-level nuclear waste – Characterization of 

the Death Valley region, Nevada and California. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 

1370-F. p 49. 

Bedinger, M.S., Sargent, K.A., and Langer, W.H., eds. Studies of Geology and Hydrology in the 

Basin and Range Province, Southwestern United States, for Isolation of High-Level Nuclear Waste – 

Characterization of the Death Valley Region, Nevada and California. U.S. Geological Survey. 

Professional Paper 1370-F. p 49. 

Belcher, W.R., Sweetkind, D.S., and Elliott, P.E. 2002. Probability Distributions of Hydraulic 

Conductivity for the Hydrogeologic Units of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, 

Nevada and California. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 02-4212. 

p 18. 

Bishop, C.C. 1963. Needles Sheet, Geologic Map of California. California Division of Mines 

and Geology. Scale 1:250,000. 

Burchfiel, B.C. and Davis, G.A. (Davis).1980. “Mojave Desert and Surrounding Environs”. 

The Geotectonic Development of California. Ernst, W.G. ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CLIFFS. 

NJ. 

California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). 2010. California’s Groundwater. 

Bulletin 118 on the world wide web: 

http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/update2003.cfm. 

Campbell, G.S. 1985. Soil Physics with BASIC: Transport models for soil plant systems. 

Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Elsevier, Developments in Soil Science, No. 14. p 150. 

Czarnecki, J.B. 1997. Geohydrology and Evapotranspiration at Franklin Lake Playa, Inyo County, 

California, with a section on Estimating Evapotranspiration Using the Energy-Budget Eddy- 

Correlation Technique. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2377. 1997. 


5.0 6BREFERENCES CITED 

Davisson, M.L. and Rose, T.P. 2000a. Maxey-Eakin Methods for Estimating Groundwater 

Recharge in the Fenner Watershed, Southeastern, California. Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory. UCRL-ID139027. p 15. 

Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 1980a. Pre-Cenozoic Rock Units of the Mojave Desert. D.L. Fife and 

A.R. Brown, eds. Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Desert. South Coast 

Geological Society. Santa Ana, CA. 

Dibblee, T.W. 1980b. Cenozoic Rock Units of the Mojave Desert. D.L. Fife and A.R. Brown, eds. 

Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Desert. South Coast Geological Society, 

Santa Ana, CA. 

Doherty, J. 2004. PEST Model-Independent Parameter Estimation User Manual. 5 th Edition. 

Watermark Numerical Computing. p 336. 

Dokka, R.K. and Travis, C.J. (Dokka). 1990. Late Cenozoic Strike Slip Faulting in the Mojave 

Desert, California. Tectonics, v. 9. No. 2. pp 311-340. 

Flint, A. 2009. Personal communications. April 2009. 

Freiwald, D.A. 1984. Ground-Water Resources of Lanfair and Fenner Valleys and Vicinity, 

San Bernardino County, California. US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation 

Report 83-4082. 

Gale, H.S. 1951. Geology of the Saline Deposits, Bristol Dry Lake, San Bernardino County, 

California. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 13. 

GAP. 2009. http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/gap/data/meta/landcovdd.html. 

Date Accessed 

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. (GSSI). 1995. Interim Report, Evaluation of Water 

Resources in Bristol, Cadiz and Fenner Basins. Prepared for Cadiz Land Company, Inc. 

(Cadiz Inc.) and Mojave Water District. September 6. 

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. (GSSI). 1999. Cadiz Groundwater Storage and Dry-Year 

Supply Program, Environmental Planning Technical Report, Groundwater Resources, Volumes I 

and II. Prepared for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. November 1999. 

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. (GSSI). 2000. Cadiz Groundwater Storage and Dry-Year 

Supply Program – Dry Lake Evapotranspiration Estimates. Letter from Dennis Williams to 

Tom Freeman, URS Greiner Woodward-Clyde. March 9, 2000. 

Hall, Jr., C.R. 2007. Introduction to the Geology of Southern California and Its Native Plants. 

University of California Press. p 493. 

Handford, C.R. 1982. Sedimentology and Evaporite Genesis in a Holocene Continental Sabkha 

Playa Basin - Bristol Dry Lake, California. Sedimentology, Volume 29. 

Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C. 2000. MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey 

Modular Ground-Water Model – User Guide to Modularization Concepts and the Ground-Water 

Flow Process. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-92. p 121. 



Hazlett, R.W. 1992. “Some Thoughts on the Development of Amboy Crater.” Old Routes to 

the Colorado. San Bernardino County Museum Association Special Publication 92-2. 

Hazzard, J.C. 1933. Notes on the Cambrian Rocks or the Eastern Mojave Desert, California. 

California University Department of Geology Sciences Bulletin, v. 23, No. 2 Map 1, 

scale 1:187,500. 

Hevesi, J.A., Flint, A.L., and Flint, L.E. 2002. Preliminary Estimates of Spatially Distributed Net 

Infiltration and Recharge for the Death Valley Region, Nevada-California. U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4010. 

Hevesi, J.A., Flint, A.L., and Flint, L.E. 2003. Simulation of net infiltration and potential recharge 

using the distributed-parameter watershed model, INFILv3, of the Death Valley Region, Nevada and 

California. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4090. p 161. 

Hevesi, J.A. 2009. Personal communications. April/May 2009 

Howard, K. A. 2002. Geologic Map of the Sheep Hole Mountains 30’x60’ Quadrangle, 

San Bernardino and Riverside, Counties, California. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field 

Studies Map MF2344. 

Howard, K.A., E.D. Horringa, D.M. Miller and P. Stone. 1989. Geologic Map of the Eastern 

Parts of the Cadiz Lake and Cadiz Valley 15-Minute Quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside 

Counties, California. US Geological Survey Map MF-2086. 

Howard, K.A. and D.M. Miller. 1992. “Late Cenozoic Faulting at the Boundary between the 

Mojave and Sonoran Blocks: Bristol Lake Area, California.” S.M. Richard, ed. Deformation 

Associated with the Neogene Eastern California Shear Zone, Southwestern Arizona and 

Southeastern California: Redlands, California. San Bernardino County Museums Special 

Publication 92-1. pp. 37-47. 

Hunt, G.S. 1966. Ground Water Geology of the Bristol and Cadiz Valleys, San Bernardino County, 

California. M.S. Dissertation, University of Southern California 

Jachens, R.C., and Howard, K.A. 1992. “Bristol Lake Basin – A Deep Sedimentary Basin 

Along the Bristol-Danby Trough, Mojave Desert.” Old Routes to the Colorado. San Bernardino 

County Museums Special Publication 92-2. Redlands, CA. pp 57·59. 

Karlstrom. K.E., Miller, C.F., Kingsbury, J.A., and Wooden, J.L. 1993. Pluton Emplacement 

Along an Active Ductile Thrust Zone. Piute Mountains. Southeastern California. Interaction 

Between Deformation and Solidification Processes. Geological Society of America Bulletin. Vol. 

105. p 213-230. 

Koehler, J.H. 1983. Groundwater in the Northeast Part of Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base 

Baghdag Area. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 83·4053. California. 

Kupfer, D.H. and A.M. Bassett. 1962. Geologic Reconnaissance Map of the Southeastern Mojave 

Desert, California. US Geological Survey, Field Investigations Map MF-205, Scale 1:125,000. 

Laczniak, R.J., J.L. Smith, P. E. Elliot, G.A. DeMeo, and M.A. Chatigny. 2001. Ground-Water 

Discharge Determined from Estimates of Evapotranspiration, Death Valley Regional Flow System, 



Nevada and California. US Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 01- 

4195. 

Liggett, M.A., 2009a. Personal communication, Powerpoint Presentation containing photos 

of standing water on Bristol Dry Lake. 

Liggett, M.A., 2010. Generalized Geologic Map of Fenner Gap. January 3, 2010. 

Lindgren, R.J., Dutton, A.R., Hovorka, S.D., Worthington, S.R.H, and Painter, Scott. 2004. 

Conceptualization and Simulation of the Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio Region, Texas: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5277. p 143. 

Maas, J. 1994. Depth to Basement Calculated from Gravity Data. Proprietary report to Cadiz 

Land Company, Inc. (Cadiz Inc.) 

Maidment, D.R.. 1993. Handbook of Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, Inc. p 889. 

Mendenhall, W.C. 1909. Some Desert Water Places in Southern California and Southwestern 

Nevada. US Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 224. 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 1999. Cadiz Groundwater Storage and 

Dry-Year Supply Program: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. SCH No. 99021039, Report No. 1157. 


Dry-Year Supply Program: Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. SCH No. 99021039, Report No. 1169. 


Dry-Year Supply Program: Final Environmental Impact Report / Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. SCH No. 99021039, Report No. 1174 (in 4 volumes). 

Miller, D.A. and R.A. White. 1998: A Conterminous United States Multi-Layer Soil 

Characteristics Data Set for Regional Climate and Hydrology Modeling. Earth Interactions, 2. 

[Available on-line at http://EarthInteractions.org] 

Miller, D.M., Howard, K.A., and John, B.E. 1982. “Preliminary Geology of the Bristol Lake 

Region, Mojave Desert, California.” Cooper, J.D., compiler, Geologic Excursions in the Mojave 

Desert, Volume and Guidebook. Geological Society of America, Cordilleran Section 78th 

Annual Meeting, Fullerton, California, California State University. pp. 91-100. 

Miller, D.M., Miller, R.J., Nielson, J.E., Wilshire, H.G., Howard, K.A. and Stone, P. 1991. 

Preliminary Geologic Map of the East Mojave National Scenic Area, California. U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 91-435. 

Moyle, W.R. 1967. Water Wells and Springs in Bristol, Broadwell, Cadiz, Danby and Lavic Valleys 

and Vicinity, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. California Department of 

Water Resources Bulletin 91-14. 

Moyle, W.R., Langer, W.H., Woolfenden, L.R., and Mulvihill, D.A. 1984. Maps Showing 

Ground-Water Levels, Springs, and Depth to Ground-Water, Basin and Range Province, Southern 

California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 83-4116-B. 



Murbach, D., and Baldwin, J., eds. 1994. Mojave Desert. South Coast Geological Society. 

Santa Ana California, Martin Stout Volume. Fieldtrip Guidebook 22. p 669. 

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. CPC US Unified Precipitation 

data provided by the NOAA/OAR/ESRL PSD. Climate Data Center, CPC. Boulder, Colorado, 

USA, from their Web site at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/. 

Nishikawa, T., Izbicki, J.A., Hevesi, J.A., Stamos, C.L., and Martin, P. 2004. Evaluation of 

Geohydrologic Framework, Recharge Estimates, and Ground-Water Flow of the Joshua Tree Area, 

San Bernardino County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2004-5267. p 115. 

NORCAL Geophysical Consultants, Inc. (NORCAL). 1997. Seismic Reflection Survey Cadiz 

Valley, Cadiz, California. Proprietary report to Cadiz, Inc. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009a. 

http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/history.html. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture (NRCS). 

2009b. STATSGO2. U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2) for California. Available online at 

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov 

Painter, S.L., Woodbury, A.D., Jiang, Y. 2007. Transmissivity Estimation for Highly 

Heterogeneous Aquifers: Comparison of Three Methods Applied to the Edwards Aquifer, Texas, 

USA. Hydrogeology Journal, No. 15. pp. 315-331. 

Parker, R.B. 1963. Recent Volcanism at Amboy Crater San Bernardino County. California 

Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 76. p 22. 

Rewis, D.L., Christensen, A.H., Matti, J.C., Hevesi, J.A., Nishikawa, Tracy, and Martin, Peter. 

2006. Geology, Ground-Water Hydrology, Geochemistry, and Ground-Water Simulation of the 

Beaumont and Banning Storage Units, San Gorgonio Pass Area, Riverside County, California. 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5026. p 173. 

Rosen, M.R. 1989. Sedimentologic, Geochemical and Hydrologic Evolution of an Intracontinental, 

Closed-Basin Playa (Bristol Dry Lake, CA): A Model for Playa Development and Its Implications for 

Paleoclimate. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Texas. pp 266. 

Rosen, M.R. 1992. “The Depositional Environment and Evolution of Bristol Lake Basin, 

Eastern Mojave Desert, California.” Old Routes to the Colorado. Special Publication, 

San Bernardino County Museum Association. 

Simpson, R.W., R.C. Bracken, and D.J. Stierman. 1984. Aeromagnetic, Bouguer Gravity, and 

Interpretation Maps, Sheep Hole-Cadiz Wildness Study Area, California. U.S. Geological Survey 

MF 1615-B, 4 sheets, scale 1:62,500. 

Thompson, D.G. 1929. The Mohave Desert Region, California, A geographic, geologic, and 

hydrologic reconnaissance. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper, 578. pp 795. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Review of the Cadiz Groundwater Storage and Dry-Year 

Supply Program Draft Environmental Planning Technical Report, Groundwater Resources, 



Volumes I and II. Memorandum from James F. Devine to Molly S. Brady, Field Manager, 

Bureau of Land Management, Needles, California. February 23, 2000. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006a. National Elevation Dataset. http://ned.usgs.gov/ 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006b. Geology and Mineral Resources of the East Mojave 

National Scenic Area, San Bernardino County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2160. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Geology and Mineral Resources of the East Mojave 

National Scenic Area, San Bernardino County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2160. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. Documentation of Computer Program INFIL3.0 – A 

Distributed-Parameter Watershed Model to Estimate Net Infiltration Below the Root Zone. 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5006. p 98. Online only. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Online Well Database. 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/inventory and 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gwconstruction. 


@@ 

@ 

@@@@ 

@@ 

@@ 

@ 

@ 

@@ 

@ 

@ 

@@ 

@ 

@ 

@@ 

@ 

@ 

@ 

@ 

@@ 

Qya 

Qya/Qia 

Qya 

Qya 

Qya 

Qyp 

Qyag 

Qyaf 

Qya 

Qyag 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fpg 

Qya 

Qya 

Qyag 

Qyag 

Qya 

Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qyes 

Qyw 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qyv 

Qha/fpg 

Qya 

Qyae+Qya 

Qyay 

Qyay 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qyv 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qha/mr 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fp 

Qya 

Qye/Qmv 

Qyp 

Qyes 

Qya 

Qia 

Qpv-fpg 

Qyed+Qaed 

Qya 

Qya/Qia 

Qaed+Qyed 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mr 

Qyay+Qyao 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qya 

Qpv-fpg 

Qiag 

Qya 

Qyw 

Qyv 

Qha/fv 

Qyay+Qaa 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qya+Qye 

Qiad 

Qha/mr 

Qya/Qia 

Qya 

Qyea+Qae 

Qha/ca 

Qya 

Qha/ca 

Qha/fv+mv 

Qha/fpg 

Qyae 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qyag/Qia 

Qyay+Qyao 

Qha/fpg 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qyag+Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qyv+Qav 

Qyw 

Qha/fv 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qypf 

Qha/fpg 

Qya+Qia 

Qyag/Qia 

Qypf 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya/Qia+Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fp 

QToa 

Qya+Qia 

Qyag 

QToa 

Qha/fp 

Qya/Qia+Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fv 

Qyag 

Qya 

Qya+Qaa 

Qha/pc 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qyea/Qia 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qha/mr+fp 

Qye+Qha/Qmv 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qia 

Qyea+Qae 

Qha/mr 

Qha/mr 

Qyag 

Qyv 

Qyed+Qaed 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/mr+fp 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qiag/fpg 

Qha/fv 

Qyes/Qiea 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qoa 

Qiag 

Qhs/ca 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qha/fp 

Qya 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qya+Qia 

Qiao 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

QToa 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qhs/fpg 

Qyae 

Qha/mp 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qyed 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fv 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qpi-fpg 

Qyag 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qoa 

Qpi-fpg 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qyv+Qav 

Qya 

Qia 

Qhs/fp 

Qia 

Qiao+Qoa 

Qha/fv 

Qiag 

Qyea 

Qya+Qia 

Qyag 

Qpd-fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qoa 

Qia+Qya 

Qmc 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qyag 

Qyag 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qha/mv 

Qyw+Qye 

Qha/pc 

Qya 

Qiag 

Qia+Qoa 

Qyag 

Qya+Qia 

Qyag/Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qiag 

Qpv-fpg 

Qya 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qyay 

Qyae 

Qpv-fp 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fp? 

Qyag 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qpd-fp 

Qoa 

Qha/fp 

Qyag 

Qyag 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qha/ca+sl 

Qia 

Qiao 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qha/ca 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qha/Qmv 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qya 

Qyea 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qya 

Qya 

QToa 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mp 

Qoa 

Qha/pc 

Qya 

Qia? 

Qha/fp 

Qpi-fpg 

Qyag 

Qoa 

Qha/pc 

Qya+Qaa 

Qya+Qia 

Qoa 

Qyae 

Qoa 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qyag/Qia 

Qiag 

Qya 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qoa 

QToa 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qoad 

Qiao 

Qya+Qia 

Qyay+Qyao 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qha/ca 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qiag/fpg 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qmc 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qiao+Qia 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qye+Qae 

Qpv-fpg 

Qia+Qoa 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qpv-fpg 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fpg 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qyw 

Qoa 

Qyag 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qyea 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qye/Qyvo 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fp? 

Qyag 

Qaw+Qyw 

Qoa? 

Qya+Qaa 

Qyea 

Qyay 

Qya+Qia 

Qaed+Qyed 

Qha/mp? 

Qha/mv 

QToa 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fv 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qya+Qia 

Qoa 

Qya+Qye 

Qia 

Qiao 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qpi-fpg 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fp 

Qoa 

Qha/fv 

Qpv-fpg 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qyea/Qia? 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qya 

Qoa 

Qywg+Qawg 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fp 

QToa 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qye/Qyvo 

Qia 

Qia 

Qhs/fpg 

Qoad 

Qia+Qya 

QToa 

Qyag 

Qha/fv 

Qha/ca 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qia? 

Qya/Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qia? 

Qoa 

Qya+Qyg 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qya 

Qyag/Qoa 

Qha/mr 

Qia/pc 

Qia? 

Qoag/fv 

Qya 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qia 

Qya 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qmc 

Qoa 

Qye/Qmv 

QToa 

Qia? 

Qha/mr 

Qyw+Qye 

Qiag 

Qha/fv? 

Qha/fv 

Qoad 

Qya 

Qiao 

Qpd-fpg 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qya+Qye 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/ca+sl 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

QToa 

Qia+Qya 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qaa+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qya 

Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mr? 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qaw+Qyw 

Qyv 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fp 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fv 

Qya 

Qyv+Qia 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qiag+Qyag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qpi-fpg 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qiag 

Qyay 

Qya 

Qia Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qpv-fpg 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qoag 

Qoa 

Qia? 

Qya 

Qpi-fp 

Qia 

Qiao 

Qyag 

QToa 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fv 

Qia? 

Qoa 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia? 

Qoa 

Qha/mr 

Qpv-mr 

Qoa? 

Qha/mp 

Qha/mp 

Qya+Qaa 

QToa 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qpi-fpg 

Qha/fpg 

Qoa 

Qha/mp 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qpi-fp 

Qoa 

Qyao 

Qaw+Qyw 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qoa 

Qia 

QToa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyg 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qia+Qya 

QToa? 

Qmc/mv 

Qaed+Qyed 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qpi-fp? 

Qyag 

Qha/mp 

Qya 

Qyw 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/ca 

Qya 

Qpd-fpg 

Qia/pc 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qyw 

Qha/fv 

Qia? 

Qya 

Qia? 

Qia+Qya 

Qoad 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fpg 

Qya+Qia 

Qya 

Qoa 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mp 

Qya/Qoa? 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fpg 

Qpi-fp 

Qoa 

QToa 

Qha/fp 

Qyw 

Qha/pc 

Qpv-fpg 

Qia 

Qpv-fpg 

Qia 

Qiao 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

ml 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qoa 

Qha/pc 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qae/Qyea 

Qyag 

Qyag 

Qya+Qia 

Qiag 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya 

Qaa+Qya 

Qhs/fpg 

Qha/mr 

Qya+Qia 

Qya 

Qimc+Qymc 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

ml 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qya+Qia 

Qpi-pc 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qyw 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qaw+Qyw+Qye 

Qoa 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qoa? 

Qoa 

Qyay+Qyao 

Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qiag 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qiag 

Qya 

Qpv-fp 

Qya 

Qiao 

Qyag 

Qia? 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fp? 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qha/fpg 

Qia 

Qpd-fpg 

Qha/pc 

Qia+Qya 

Qaa+Qya 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qha/fv 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qye 

Qyag/Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qya/Qia 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qya 

Qoa? 

Qya 

Qia 

Qpv-fpg 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qiag 

Qha/ca 

Qya 

Qha/mr 

Qyao 

Qyae 

Qia 

Qia 

Qpi-mr 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qia? 

Qia+Qya 

Qoa? 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qya+Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qiaog 

Qha/fp 

Qya 

Qya 

Qyw 

Qoa? 

Qoa 

Qaw+Qyw 

Qia 

Qpv-fpg 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fv 

Qoa 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qyea 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qye/Qyvo 

Qiag 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/mr? 

Qya 

Qya/Qia 

QToa 

Qya/Qia 

Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fp 

Qiag 

Qya+Qia 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qha/mr 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

QToa? 

Qha/fv 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qpd-fpg 

Qia 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qyag 

Qha/pc 

Qyao 

Qia+Qya 

Qyed 

Qha/fv 

Qiag 

Qia+Qya 

Qyag 

Qia+Qya 

Qhs/fp 

Qia 

Qya 

Qha/ca 

Qpi-mr 

Qiag 

Qpv-fpg 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qoa 

Qiag 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

QToa 

Qyag 

Qha/Qmv 

Qyw+Qiw 

Qya 

Qiag 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fpg 

Qpv-fp 

Qha/fp? 

Qyea 

Qha/fp? 

Qpv-fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qye/fp 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qya Qia+Qya 

Qawg+Qywg 

Qha/mp? 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qaa+Qya 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qaag+Qyag 

Qoa 

Qyw+Qye 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

QToa 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qya/Qia 

Qoa 

Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mr 

Qiao 

Qia 

Qiag+Qyag 

QToa 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qya+Qaa 

Qpd-mr 

Qyao 

Qha/fpg 

Qya+Qaa 

Qha/fv 

Qia? 

Qha/pc 

Qia? 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qpi-fp? 

Qpv-fpg 

Qya+Qia 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mr 

Qoa 

Qya 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia? 

Qia? 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qya 

Qiad 

Qia 

Qyad 

Qya/Qia 

Qhs/fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qpi-fpg 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/Qmv 

Qya/Qia 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qya 

Qiag 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya 

Qoa 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mv 

Qyw 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qoa+Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qye 

Qha/fp 

Qpi-fpg+Qyag 

Qia 

Qye+Qia 

Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qiag 

Qaw+Qyw 

Qha/pc 

Qiag 

Qyao 

Qmc 

Qia/pc 

Qpd-fpg 

Qhs/mr+fp 

Qha/fv 

Qoa 

Qiao 

Qyay 

Qya/Qia 

Qia? 

Qyao/Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qoa 

Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qya 

Qia 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qyw 

Qiag 

Qoa 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fp 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qhs/fpg 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qyao 

Qha/mp 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qiag 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fp 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qyao 

Qha/mp 

QToa 

Qoa? 

Qia 

Qya 

Qye/Qyvo 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qyae/Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qoa 

Qha/fp 

Qiag? 

Qha/pc 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qya 

Qaw+Qyw 

Qmc 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qpd-fpg 

Qya 

QToa 

Qya 

Qaa+Qya 

Qiag 

Qpv-fpg+Qiag 

Qha/fv 

Qoa 

Qoa/mr 

Qyea 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qmc 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qia 

Qaw+Qyw 

Qiag 

Qyae+Qiae 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qmc 

Qiao 

Qyag+Qye 

Qia 

Qpv-fpg 

QToa? 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qya 

Qyao 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qyw 

Qoa 

Qyao 

Qha/mr 

Qmc 

Qoa?+Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qyag+Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qoa 

Qmc 

Qya 

Qoa 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qoa 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mp 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qiag 

Qha/mr 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mr 

Qha/mp 

Qyag 

Qia 

ml 

Qha/fv 

Qhs/fpg 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qoa/pc 

Qha/fp 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qya 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qpv-fpg 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qia 

QToa 

Qye 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qha/fv 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qpi-fp? 

Qia 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qyag 

Qha/fp 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mr 

Qha/mr 

Qyay 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyw 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qye/QToa 

Qia 

Qia 

ml 

Qya+Qia 

Qie 

Qya/Qoa 

Qha/mp? 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qya 

Qyag 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qia? 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

QToa 

Qha/mp 

Qia? 

Qoa 

QToa 

Qha/mv 

Qiag 

Qaag+Qyag 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qha/pc 

Qya/Qia 

Qaw+Qyw 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/ca 

Qia 

Qyag/Qoag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qaa 

Qiag 

Qiag+Qyag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

ml 

Qiao 

Qia/pc 

Qia 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qha/mp 

Qyae/Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia? 

Qiao 

Qya+Qaa 

Qya+Qia 

ml 

Qia/fp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/ca 

Qoa 

Qoa? 

Qya 

Qoa 

Qoa 

Qhs/fpg 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qya/Qia 

Qyw 

Qia+Qya 

Qie+Qya 

Qha/mr 

Qpi-fpg 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qyao 

QToa 

Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qya+Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qiag 

QToa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qmc 

Qia? 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mr 

QToa 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qha/pc 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

QToa 

Qha/mr 

Qoa 

Qoa 

Qya/Qia 

Qpi-fpg 

ml 

Qhs/fv 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qhs/fp? 

Qha/fpg 

Qya 

Qya 

Qha/mr? 

Qia 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qiao 

Qia 

Qya 

Qhs/fp 

Qoa 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qya+Qaa 

ml 

Qia 

Qya/Qoa 

Qha/fp 

Qya+Qia 

Qyao 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qoa? 

Qha/fp 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qiag 

Qha/mp 

QToa 

Qia 

Qiao 

Qia+Qya 

Qyw 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qia+Qya 

Qyao+Qya 

Qoa 

Qya+Qia 

QToa 

Qia/pc 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qpi-fpg 

Qia/pc 

Qia 

QToa 

Qia 

Qya 

Qyw 

Qiao 

Qya+Qaa 

Qya 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fv 

Qya 

QToa 

Qya 

Qhs/fpg 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qpi-fpg 

QToa 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qha/pc 

Qpi-fpg 

Qha/fv 

Qye/fp 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qha/ca 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qyay+Qaa 

Qhs/fpg 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fp? 

Qha/mp 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qiag 

QToa 

QToa 

Qha/mv 

Qia? 

Qya 

Qya+Qye 

Qiag 

Qha/mp 

Qpi-mr 

Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qya+Qia 

Qmc 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mr 

Qha/mp 

Qha/mv 

Qiag/fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qiao 

Qha/mp 

Qyao 

QToa 

Qha/pc 

QToa? 

Qha/fp? 

Qha/pc 

Qaa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyv 

Qpv-fp 

Qya 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qya+Qaa 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qmc 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qoa 

Qya/Qia 

Qiag 

Qia+Qya 

QToa 

Qiao 

Qya 

Qyag 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qha/pc 

Qye 

Qiag/fpg 

Qha/mv 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qoa+Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fp? 

Qia 

Qia 

Qmc 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qhs/ca 

Qpi-fpg 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qiag+Qyag 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qya 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qpd-fpg 

Qye/QToa 

Qha/mv 

Qya+Qaa 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qye 

Qmc 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qha/sl/fp 

QToa 

Qiao 

Qha/fv 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyao 

Qpv-fpg 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qyao+Qia 

Qia 

Qoa? 

Qha/mr? 

Qha/mr 

Qiag/fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qha/pc 

Qya/Qia 

QToa 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyao/Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qya 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qhs/fpg 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc? 

Qya/Qia 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qye/mp 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qaa 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mp 

Qoa 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qiag+Qyag 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qyao 

Qha/mp 

QToa 

Qia 

Qiao 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fv 

QToa 

Qha/fv 

Qiao 

Qye 

Qia 

Qya 

Qhs/fpg 

Qha/mp? 

Qya 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qia 

QToa 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qawg+Qywg 

Qia? 

Qha/mp 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mp 

Qpi-fpg 

Qpv-fpg 

Qia 

Qyw 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qiag 

QToa 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qyao/Qia 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qpv-fpg 

Qpv-fpg 

Qha/fv 

QToa 

Qia 

Qpi-fpg+Qyag 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qyag 

Qyag 

Qaa 

Qimc 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qya+Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qyae+Qaa 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fpg 

Qyao 

Qya+Qia 

Qyad 

Qpi-fpg 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia/Qoa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qpv-fpg 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qya+Qia 

Qya 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qya 

Qya+Qaa 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qyao 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qha/ca 

Qpi-fpg 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qpi-fpg 

Qiag+Qyae 

QToa 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qya 

Qia 

Qya Qha/mv Qyw+Qaw 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fv 

Qya 

Qpi-fpg 

Qha/fpg 

Qie 

Qyag 

Qia? 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

QToa 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/sl 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

QToa 

Qye+Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qiao 

Qha/fv 

Qmc 

Qha/mp? 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fv 

Qya/Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qya/Qia 

Qpv-mr 

Qya 

Qia? 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qimc 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qoa/fv 

Qaa+Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qya+Qaa 

Qyw 

Qya 

Qha/mr? 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qaag+Qyag 

Qoa 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qye/Qmv 

Qmc 

Qha/pc 

Qyag 

Qha/pc 

Qyao 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/mr 

Qiao 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qha/pc 

Qoa 

Qha/mr 

Qoa 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia+Qaa 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qha/sl? 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qya 

Qiao 

Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qya+Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qoa/fv 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qmc 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qha/ca+sl 

Qha/mp? 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qaw+Qyw 

Qha/mv 

Qpv-fpg 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qyao 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qia? 

QToa? 

Qya 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qie+Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qoa 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyae+Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qia? 

Qya 

Qia 

Qia Qpv-fpg 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qae/Qmv 

Qia 

Qyer/fp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qyg 

Qiao 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qya+Qyao 

Qha/ca 

Qia? 

Qyea 

Qia 

Qmc 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qyao 

Qyag 

Qiag 

Qya 

Qha/mp 

Qha/fv 

Qoa 

Qpd-fpg 

Qoa 

Qoag 

Qha/fv 

Qiao 

Qyea 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qoa 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qyao 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

QToa? 

Qaag 

Qyw 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qha/mr 

Qye/Qiag+Qyag 

Qoa 

Qyao 

Qye/mp 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fpg 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia+Qya 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/mp 

Qia? 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qiag 

Qiag+Qyag 

Qia 

Qya+Qoa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qyao 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia+Qaa 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qyao 

Qya/Qoa 

Qya 

Qia Qia+Qya 

Qoa 

Qpv-fp 

Qia? 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qyao 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qya 

Qha/fv 

QToa 

Qpv-fpg 

Qia+Qya 

Qiag 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qya+Qia 

QToa 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qyao 

QToa 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qha/fp 

Qha/pc? 

Qha/fpg 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qoa 

Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qya 

Qha/ca 

Qia 

QToa 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qae/Qmv 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qyao 

Qyao 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qye/fp 

Qha/fpg 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia? 

Qiag 

Qpd-fpg 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qpi-fpg 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qya 

Qaw+Qyw 

Qya/Qia 

Qyao 

Qha/ca 

Qha/fp 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qiag/fpg 

Qpv-fpg 

Qha/pc 

Qye+Qia 

Qyag/Qia 

Qiag 

Qye/mv 

Qpi-fpg 

Qyw 

Qia? 

Qha/mp 

Qia+Qya 

Qyag 

Qya 

QToa 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qya/Qia 

Qoa 

Qyv 

Qha/fp 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qya 

Qya/Qia 

Qia? 

Qya+Qia 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qia+Qya 

QToa 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fpg 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fp 

QToa 

Qye/Qyao 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qia? 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qyao 

Qoa 

Qyw/Qiw 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qoag 

Qya+Qaa 

Qha/pc 

QToa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qpi-fpg 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qmc 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qhs/fv 

Qye/QToa 

Qha/ca 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qya 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya 

Qha/mp 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qya 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qoa 

Qya+Qia 

Qiag 

Qia? 

Qaag+Qyag 

Qha/pc 

Qha/pc 

Qyao 

Qha/fv 

Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qhs/fp 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qye 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qyao 

Qiag 

QToa 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fv 

Qya+Qaa 

Qya+Qia 

Qya 

Qia 

Qye+Qyao 

Qia+Qya 

Qoa 

Qhs/fv 

Qya 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qya/Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qoa? 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qye/Qyao 

Qha/ca 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qpi-mp? 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qya 

Qyer/fp 

Qia 

Qaa 

Qia 

Qoa/fp 

Qia 

Qha/sl 

Qia+Qya 

Qya+Qaa 

Qha/pc 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fp 

Qyag 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia 

Qpv-fp 

Qha/fp 

Qha/pc 

Qya+Qia 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qyag+Qye 

Qha/fp 

Qpi-fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia/fp 

Qha/mp 

Qha/fv 

Qpi-fpg 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/ca 

Qya+Qaa 

Qya 

Qiag 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qye/Qiag 

Qha/ca 

Qmc 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qiao+Qoa 

Qiao 

Qia? 

Qha/mp? 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qpv-fpg 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qoa 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qyao 

Qya 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qia+Qya 

Qya/Qoa 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/Qmv 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qye/mp 

Qya+Qaa 

Qya/Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qha/pc 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qiag? 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qha/ca 

Qha/fv 

Qha/ca 

Qya+Qia 

Qyao 

QToa 

Qyao 

Qmc 

QToa 

Qya 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qpi-fpg 

Qha/mv 

Qyao/Qia 

Qha/fp 

QToa 

Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qiao 

Qha/mr 

Qiag 

Qye/QToa 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qya 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qia? 

Qha/mv 

Qia? 

Qia+Qya 

Qia? 

Qiag 

Qia+Qya 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia? 

Qyw/Qiw 

Qiag 

Qmc 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qia/fp 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qyao 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qha/mp? 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qae/Qmv 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qia 

QToa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia 

Qya 

Qyw/Qiw 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qyao 

Qoa/fp 

Qiao 

Qye/fp 

Qiao 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qyag 

Qia? 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mr 

Qya+Qyao 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qha/fpg 

Qia/pc 

Qia 

Qia/fp 

Qoa 

Qya+Qia 

Qya 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/mv 

QToa 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qia/pc 

Qoa/fv 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qya 

Qiag 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fpg 

Qhs/fpg 

Qha/mv 

Qoa 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qawg+Qywg 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mr 

Qoa 

Qmc 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia+Qyao 

Qpv-fpg 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mr 

QToa 

Qiao 

Qyw/Qiw 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qyao 

Qye 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fv 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mv 

Qyao 

QToa 

Qya 

QToa? 

Qoa 

Qha/pc? 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qha/sl 

Qha/ca 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qye 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fv 

Qoa 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qye 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qia/Qoa 

Qyag 

Qha/mv 

Qyw 

Qyag 

Qha/fv 

Qha/ca 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qya 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qha/mr 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qoa 

Qyao 

Qhs/fpg 

Qha/mv 

Qiag 

Qha/mp 

Qha/fv 

Qhs/fv 

Qha/mp 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/ca+sl 

Qya 

Qya 

Qya/Qia 

Qpv-fpg 

QToa 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qye 

Qaa 

Qyes/Qyvo 

Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qha/ca 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qya+Qaa 

Qpi-fpg 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qaa+Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qya/Qia 

Qae/Qmv 

Qiag 

Qoa 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

QToa 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qyag 

Qmc 

Qha/fp? 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mv 

Qha/mv 

Qia/fv 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qiag+Qyag 

Qia 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fv 

Qya 

Qha/mp 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qaa+Qya 

Qyae 

Qha/mv 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qya 

Qia/Qoa 

Qha/ca 

Qyae 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyw 

Qha/fpg 

Qiag 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qye+Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qya+Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qoa/fp 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fp 

QToa? 

Qha/mv 

Qyw+Qye 

Qie 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

Qpi-fpg 

Qya 

Qia/fp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qia 

QToa 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qyag 

Qha/fpg 

Qyag 

Qha/mr 

Qha/mv 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qia+Qya 

Qiao 

Qia 

Qiag+Qyag 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mp 

Qyw 

Qha/fp 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fp 

Qpi-fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qia/Qoa 

Qpi-fpg 

Qha/fv 

Qya 

Qye/mp 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qyer/mv 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qye/Qyag 

Qha/mv 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qyea 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qpi-fpg+Qyag 

Qha/fpg 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qaag 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fv 

Qyao 

Qoa/fv 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qiag+Qyag 

Qya 

Qpv-fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qha/pc 

Qyw/Qiw 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qya/Qoa 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qyw+Qaw 

Qia? 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qiag 

Qyw 

Qmc 

Qya 

Qia 

Qyao 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fpg 

Qia 

Qya 

Qimc+Qymc 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fv 

Qaa+Qya 

Qyag 

Qiw 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qyag+Qaag 

Qha/fv 

Qiw 

Qya 

Qha/Qmv 

Qha/fv 

Qyae 

Qyag 

Qha/mp 

Qyad 

Qyg 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qha/ca 

Qha/fv 

Qya/Qia 

QToa 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qye/mp 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qha/mv 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qoa 

QToa/fpg 

Qha/mv 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qia 

Qiao 

Qyao 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mp 

Qiag 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qya+Qaa 

Qha/mr 

Qiw 

Qiag 

Qha/fv 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mv? 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qyag 

Qha/ca 

Qyao 

Qha/pc 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fv 

Qyao 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qha/mp 

Qya+Qaa 

Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qoa 

Qhs/mp 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qia? 

Qyw 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fp? 

Qha/mv 

Qoa 

Qia 

Qha/ca 

Qya+Qia 

Qoa 

Qha/mp 

Qha/mr 

Qha/mr 

Qye/mp 

Qiao 

Qyag 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/pc 

Qya+Qaa 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fv 

Qha/pc 

Qia? 

Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qia Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/mp 

Qha/mr 

Qmc 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qyao 

Qye+Qia 

Qpd-fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qpi-fpg 

Qha/ca 

Qyao 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qya+Qaa 

Qyao 

Qaag 

Qha/sl 

Qha/fp 

Qmc 

Qha/fv 

Qmc 

Qya 

Qyag/Qiag 

Qye/mp 

Qha/ca 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qya 

Qiag+Qyag 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qia/fv 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/pc 

Qpd-fpg 

Qia 

Qiao 

Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fp 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qya 

Qya 

Qya 

Qha/ca 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qia+Qya 

Qia+Qya 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qyao/Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qya 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mp 

Qyw 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qye/mp 

Qmc 

Qha/fpg 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qiag 

Qha/mr 

Qye/fp 

Qiag 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qha/mv? 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qya+Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qie 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fv 

Qya 

Qoa 

Qha/pc 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qhs/fv 

Qha/mv 

Qya/Qia 

Qya 

Qyag+Qyaog 

Qyag 

Qya+Qaa 

Qha/fp? 

Qha/fv 

Qha/pc 

Qhs/fpg 

Qaa+Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qye/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mv? 

Qha/fv 

Qha/ca 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qyag+Qiag 

Qha/fv 

Qia+Qya 

Qae/Qmv 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mv 

Qha/pc 

Qya 

Qia? 

Qha/mr 

Qya/Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qiao 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mp? 

Qha/mp? 

Qha/mp 

Qha/fp 

Qaw 

Qia 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/mv 

Qya+Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qyao 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/mp 

Qha/mp 

Qha/mr 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/mp? 

Qye/mp 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qia 

Qoa 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qha/ca 

Qha/fv 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fpg 

Qya+Qaa 

Qha/mr 

QToa 

Qha/fv 

Qiag 

Qye/fp 

Qaa+Qya 

Qha/QTmv 

Qha/mv 

Qia 

Qha/mp 

Qha/sl 

Qyea 

Qia 

Qaw 

Qia 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mr 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fpg 

Qia 

Qia 

Qia 

Qhs/mp 

Qpd-fpg 

Qye/mp 

Qha/fpg 

Qia 

Qiae 

Qyao 

Qha/fp 

Qaa+Qya 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fv 

Qye/mp 

Qya/Qia 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/Qmv 

Qia 

Qha/pc 

Qha/Qmv 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fpg 

Qiao 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mr 

Qyae 

Qha/mp 

Qia 

Qia? 

Qha/mp 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/mr 

Qya 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qoa? 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mr 

Qha/pc 

Qha/mr 

Qya+Qia 

Qha/fv 

Qya/Qia 

Qia+Qya 

Qha/fv 

Qia 

Qha/QTmv 

Qha/fv 

Qye/fp 

Qha/QTmv 

Qia 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fp 

Qha/ca+sl 

Qia+Qya 

Qye/mp 

Qia 

Qye/mp 

Qya/Qia 

Qha/fp 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qha/fpg 

Qae/Qmv 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/mv 

Qya/Qia 

Qpd-fpg 

Qha/fp 

Qha/Qmv 

Qha/fv 

Qha/QTmv 

Qha/mp 

QToa 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/mv 

Qha/fv 

Qha/fv 

Qha/mp 

Qha/Qmv 

Qya 

Qha/fpg 

Qha/mr 

Qha/fpg 

Qpv-fpg 

Qye/mp 

Qha/mv 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modified base from U. S. Geological Survey, 1985 

Projection, zone 11 Universal Transverse Mercator 

1927 North American Datum 

Contours and elevations in meters 

34°30' 

35°00' 

116°00' 

116°00' 

115°00' 

35°00' 

34°30' 

115°00' 

34°45' 

34°45' 

 

I 

III 

I 

II 

I, II 

IV, I,II,III 

I, II, III 

Index to Mapping 

I. D.R. Bedford 2001-2005 

II. D.M. Miller 2001-2005 

III. G.A Phelps 2001-2004 

IV. McDonald 1994 

@ 

Contact – Dashed where location uncertain 

Gradational Contact – Dotted where gradational with eolian contribution over large distances 

Fault – Dashed where location uncertain, dotted where covered; queried where existence uncertain 

Description of Map Units 

Introduction 

Surficial geologic map units are presented as a composite of depositional process (e.g. alluvial, eolian, mass wasting) and relative age 

(e.g. old, intermediate, young, active). Numeric age ranges or dates are provided where known. The first two characters typically represent the 

age. For example unit Qya, the characters ‘Qy’ represent the age – Quaternary young. The third, and occasionally fourth, character denotes the 

depositional process. For example unit Qya, the character ‘a’ represents an alluvial depositional environment. Modifiers are commonly placed at 

the end of the unit label to denote mixed processes, age subsets, or compositional characteristics. The order of preference for placing these 

modifiers in the map unit label is process, age, followed by composition modifier. These modifiers for mixed depositional processes are 

typically used in mixed eolian and alluvial environments, and are ordered to place the character of the dominant process first. For example, unit 

Qyae would denote Quaternary young deposits of mixed alluvial and eolian processes with alluvial processes dominant. The age modifier 

(character ‘o’) is reserved for deposits that are recognized locally to be an older subset of a mapped unit, commonly unit Qya. Therefore, unit 

Qyao would represent an older subset of unit Qya and its younger subsets. Similarly the age modifier ‘y’ denotes deposits that only consist of 

the younger deposits in a map unit, and thus are known to not contain deposits of map unit with an ‘o’ identifier. Often times these units are 

inconsistently mapped or are not present in a proportion that allows them to be mapped separately from the main unit. The compositional 

modifier is presently used for deposits that are derived from grus weathering source material. These deposits have different soil development 

characteristics, but similar depositional processes and inferred ages as their companion units. Because of the disparity in soil development 

characteristics, they are mapped separately. For example, unit Qyag represents a Quaternary young alluvial deposit of grussy material. 

Soil A v and B horizon descriptions after Birkeland and others (1991). Carbonate stage morphology from Gile and others (1966), 

modified by Machette (1985). 

Surficial Deposits 

Anthropogenic Deposits 

Made land— Material moved for construction purposes and agricultural disturbance sufficiently extensive to make landforms and deposits 

difficult to identify 

Alluvial Deposits 

Active alluvial fan deposit (Holocene)— Alluvial fan deposits characterized by surfaces and channels that actively receive or have received 

sediments within the last few years or decades. Composed of unconsolidated poorly sorted gravel and sand in channels, fine sands and 

silts in overbank deposits. Deposit consists of active channel and young terrace or bar deposits. The annually active channel surfaces are 

a small part of the unit, and form discrete channels that are commonly smooth. Terrace deposits expressed with rough microtopography; 

strongly developed bar and swale throughout much of the extent of fan; less pronounced in distal fan. No soil development in active 

channels, and little or no soil development, which may be expressed as accumulations of silt in the upper horizon, in terrace deposits. 

Surfaces active on a decadal scale form terraces 10 to 60 cm above active channels. Deposits inset into most of older alluvial deposits. 

Surfaces commonly lack annual and perennial vegetation on surfaces active on annual to decadal scale, and moderately to heavily 

inhabited with annual and perennial vegetation on surfaces or channels active on decadal to centennial scale. Perennial vegetation 

commonly consists of creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) and white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa). Surfaces are prone to flooding and sheet 

flow during intense or long-lasting precipitation events. Active channels inferred to be less than 10 to 20 years or less based on flooding 

frequency, terrace and bar deposits range from 20 to 100 years based on flooding frequency from air photography at different times, and 

burial of 19th and 20th century tracks and trails by these deposits. Qaag, alluvial fan composed predominately of clasts from granitic 

source that weathers to grus. Surface undulating with smoother microtopography than unit Qaa; depths of channel incision is smaller; 

typically 10-40 cm separating active surfaces from centennial active surfaces 

Young alluvial fan deposit (Holocene and latest Pleistocene)— Alluvial fan deposits characterized by surfaces that are abandoned or receive 

flood materials on a centennial to millennial basis. Moderately- to poorly-sorted, loose to slightly compact, sand and sandy gravel. 

Coarser-grained especially near non-granitic mountain fronts where boulders and cobbles are common. No or very weak desert pavement. 

Incipient to weak varnish on clasts. Soil development consists of 1 to 3 cm thick incipient to weak fine sand and silt A v , and occasional 

reddening of subsurface (cambic B) horizons, stage I calcic development. Microtopography ranges from 20 to 60 cm in much of fan, and 

consists of moderate to faint remnants of bar and swale topography. Moderately to sparsely inhabited with creosotebush and smaller 

shrubs, typically white bursage. Can contain abundant patches of cryptobiotic soil crusts. Surfaces typically 0.3 to 1.5 m above active 

channels. This unit can contain any of the following: Qaa, Qyay, Qyao, Qyad. Qyad, young alluvial deposits dominated by debris flows 

of bouldery, matrix-supported material. Bar and swale microtopography is well pronounced on the order of 0.5 to 1 m high. Mapped 

only where determined from field study; deposits are much more widespread than shown. Common along west side of Providence 

Mountains. Qyaf, alluvial deposits dominated by fine-grained sediments in the extreme distal portions of fans or where wash deposits 

build fans onto playas such as the terminus of Fenner Wash. Commonly very subdued microtopography, very sparsely or unvegetated 

and mixed with eolian deposits. Qyay, younger alluvial deposits, mapped as areas that lack deposits of unit Qyao. Qyao, older young 

alluvial deposits, characterized by 1 to 5 m2 patches of weakly to moderately developed pavements with weak varnish on clasts that 

develop varnish. Soil development consists of 1 to 4 cm thick A v horizon, weak cambic to B tw horizon, stage I to II calcic horizon. 

Deposits inset into older (e.g. Qia) deposits and typically are incised by younger deposits (younger Qya and Qaa). Dated at about 10 ka 

by OSL in Fenner Wash near the town of Fenner (Shannon Mahan, written comm. 2003; see text), and lie on groundwater discharge 

deposits dated at 13 ka by luminescence methods (Shannon Mahan, written comm. 2000; see text) in lower Kelso Wash just north of the 

map area. Mapped only where determined from field study; deposits are much more widespread than shown. Qyag, alluvial fan deposits 

made up of clasts from granitic source that weathers to grus. Surface undulating and smooth with smaller magnitudes of channel 

dissection. Soil development is weak with sandy incipient to weak sand and silt A v , poorly developed cambic horizons, stage I to I+ 

calcic horizons. Surfaces typically 20 to 50 cm above active channels. Very common downslope of Cretaceous granite outcrops. 

Qyaog, older young alluvial deposits made up of clasts from granitic source that weathers to grus, characterized by weakly developed 

pavements that generally lack varnish. Soil development is weaker than Qyao, particularly as weak sandy A v horizons. Mapped only 

where determined from field study (mostly in the northwestern Granite Mountains); deposits are much more widespread than shown 

Intermediate alluvial fan deposit (late to middle Pleistocene)— Poorly sorted, sandy gravel alluvial fan deposits characterized by surfaces 

abandoned for tens of thousands of years. Compact. Characterized by moderately- to well-developed desert pavement with moderate to 

strong varnish on clasts, and flat smooth surface that is partly incised by narrow channels. Well-developed platy 4- 10 cm thick A v 

horizon composed of silt, very fine sand, and clay. Moderate to strongly developed B t horizon and Stage I+ to III+ calcic horizon. 

Pavement, varnish, and A v horizon subdued to absent at high altitudes (above approximately 1100 m); B t horizon typically thicker at 

high altitude, calcic horizon thin. Very sparsely vegetated on flat surfaces with creosotebush, white bursage, and Mojave yucca (Yucca 

schidigera), more densely vegetated along rounded transitions to incised areas. Moderately vegetated at high altitude with Mojave yucca, 

blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), and Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia). Qiag, alluvial fan made up of clasts from granitic source that 

weathers to grus; surface commonly is poorly developed with weak to no pavement and A v horizon; B t horizon well developed, calcic 

horizon ranges from stage II to III+ and may be 2-3 m below the surface. Qiao, older intermediate alluvial deposits; surface expression of 

2 main types: degraded pavement including exposure of the A v below disaggregated pavement clasts, or in the presence of a moderately- 

developed intact pavement, B tk horizons are thinner than for younger Qia deposits, to nearly absent. Both types with extreme rounding of 

incised edges. Stage II+ to IV- calcic horizon. Moderately vegetated with similar assemblages as unit Qia, but may be more dense. 

Mapped only where determined from field study; deposits are more widespread than shown. Qiaog, older intermediate deposits made up 

of clasts from granitic sources that weather to grus; degraded weak pavements with moderate- to well-developed A v horizon, well- 

developed B t horizon with stage III calcic development. Mapped only where determined from field study 

Old alluvial fan deposit (middle to early Pleistocene)— Alluvial fan deposits characterized by degraded remnants of abandoned surfaces 

forming bouldery ridges, or ballenas, after Peterson (1981). Poorly sorted sand and gravel, compact to well cemented. Commonly forms 

pale-colored ballenas above active washes in upper parts of alluvial fans near mountain fronts or rounded, deeply-dissected terrane with 

little or no remnant depositional geomorphology; a few meters to tens of meters higher than surrounding surfaces. Most upper soil 

horizons stripped off by erosion but commonly has superimposed weak soils developed directly petrocalcic horizon. In places may have 

remnant varnished pavement clasts at the surface, including disaggregated pieces of calcic horizon, with a very thin or absent B t horizon 

suggesting the surface once had pavement characteristics that have since degraded. Stage IV and greater calcic horizons 2 to 6 m thick. 

Moderately vegetated. The 0.74 Ma Bishop Tuff is deposited in lower part of the unit in the western Providence Mountains (McDonald 

and others, 1995), and is the only age control in the map area. Qoad, old alluvial deposits dominated by debris flows of bouldery, 

matrix-supported material. Mapped only where determined from field study; deposits are much more widespread than shown. Qoag, old 

alluvial fan made up of clasts from granitic source that weathers to grus; surface commonly modified by overland flow and lacks A v 

horizon; B t horizon rarely remains, pronounced stage III+-IV+ calcic horizon. Typically deeply incised and rounded with moderate 

vegetation 

Extremely old alluvial fan deposit (early Pleistocene to Pliocene)— Alluvial fan deposits characterized by complete lack of original landform 

and general lack of soil horizons at the surface. Poorly sorted compact bouldery gravel and sand. Forms deeply dissected terrane with 

little or no remnant depositional geomorphology; deposits generally did not form in present topography, as indicated by source 

directions or clast composition. Younger, superimposed, soil horizons locally developed, and may have several sets of paleosols exposed 

in wash-cut profiles. Moderately to well vegetated. Between Lava Hills and Bristol Mountains, commonly contains thick calcic horizons 

and is distinguished from unit Qoa by generally deeper dissection and presence of abundant exotic rhyolite clasts 

Wash Deposits 

Active wash deposit (Holocene)— Alluvial wash deposits characterized by surfaces and channels actively receiving sediments within the last 

few decades. Similar in character to unit Qaa, but generally better sorted and bedded, deposited in larger, more frequently flowing, 

integrated drainages. Composed of loose moderately- to poorly-sorted sand and gravel, moderately- to poorly-bedded. No soil 

development in active channels, and little or no soil development, which may be expressed as accumulations of silt in the upper horizon, 

in terrace deposits. Commonly lacks vegetation on active channel surfaces and moderately vegetated on decadal to centennial scale 

surfaces with creosotebush, commonly cheesebush (Hymenoclea salsola), and smoke tree (Psorothamnus spinosus) at low altitudes. 

Surfaces are prone to flooding and sheet flow during intense or long-lasting precipitation events. Mapped mainly where ephemeral 

stream flow is channelized; distributed stream flow generally mapped as active alluvial fan deposit (Qaa) or valley-axis deposits (Qav). 

Major washes include Fenner Valley, Kelso Valley and Orange Blossom Wash. Qawg, wash deposits made up of clasts from granitic 

source materials that weather to grus. Typically moderately to well-sorted sand and gravel with decreased magnitude of inset 

relationships 

Young wash deposit (Holocene and latest Pleistocene)— Largely inactive alluvial wash deposits in terraces above active wash surfaces. 

Composed of loose, moderately- to poorly-sorted, sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders common in close proximity to bedrock outcrops. 

Poorly- to moderately-bedded with common alternating beds of coarse-grained wash and fine-grained overbank sediments. Soil 

development typically consists of 1 to 3 cm thick incipient to weak fine sand and silt A v , weak to moderate B w to weak B t horizons, stage 

I calcic development. Microtopography ranges from 10 to 50 cm. Moderately vegetated, commonly with cheesebush and smoke tree at 

low elevations, creosotebush and white bursage at higher elevations. Generally forms terraces flanking active washes, approximately 50 

to 100 cm above active wash. Smaller alluvial wash tracts of similar age and characteristics generally mapped as alluvial fan deposit 

(Qya), particularly where distributed across alluvial fans rather than in confined axial channel, but designation somewhat arbitrary. 

Qywg, wash deposits made up of clasts from granitic source that weathers to grus. Soils more immature, pavements and moderately 

developed A v horizon rare. Surface undulating and smooth; with decreased magnitude of channel dissection compared to unit Qyw 

Intermediate wash deposit (late to middle Pleistocene)— Inactive remnant alluvial wash sediments generally forming high terraces along 

edges of major washes. Moderate to well sorted, well bedded sand and gravel, soil development similar to that for unit Qia. Sparsely 

vegetated. Smaller alluvial wash tracts generally designated alluvial fan deposit (Qia) 

Eolian Deposits 

Active eolian sand deposit (Holocene)— Eolian sand deposits that are active and subject to migration. Composed of loose, moderately to 

well-sorted sand. Generally lack vegetation, but may be inhabited by grasses such as galleta (Hilaria rigida) or ricegrass (Oryzopsis 

hymenoides). Most active eolian sand deposits lie within Devils Playground, from south of Soda Lake to Kelso dunes, where they are 

derived from Mojave River flood materials. Deposits also lie on lee side of large wash systems such as Fenner Wash where fine-grained 

wash materials are mobilized. Qaed, dune deposits 

Young eolian sand deposit (Holocene and latest Pleistocene)— Eolian sand deposits that are generally inactive. Loose, well to moderately 

well sorted, moderately to weakly bedded fine to medium grained sand. Sparsely vegetated, typically with perennial or annual grasses, 

and less commonly with shrubs. Little or no soil development. Dated in Kelso Dunes area as general pulses of eolian sand deposition 

from 8 to 10, 3.5 to 3.7, and 0.5 to 1.5 ka (Clarke, 1994; Lancaster, 1995). Qyed, dune deposits. Commonly steep, well bedded, and 

with corresponding steep slip faces; Qyer, ramp deposits generally on inclined surface over bedrock. Weak to moderately-bedded, may 

be well- to poorly-sorted based on mixing with colluvial materials from upper slopes; Qyes, well- to moderately- sorted sand sheet 

deposits generally forming sub-horizontal surface over unconsolidated deposits 

Intermediate eolian sand deposit (late to middle Pleistocene)— Eolian sand sediments that are generally inactive, characterized by one or 

more B t horizons and calcic horizons. Surface very flat and moderately compact. Sparsely vegetated 

Mixed Eolian and Alluvial Deposits 

Young mixed eolian sand and alluvial deposit (Holocene and late Pleistocene)— Eolian and alluvial sediments that are thoroughly mixed, 

with eolian processes dominant. Deposit predominately loose mixed sand with sparse gravel in interfingering, layered, or thoroughly 

mixed beds. Little or no soil development. Forms broad, flat surfaces with alluvial channels muted or invisible. Sparsely vegetated, 

generally with grasses dominant and commonly no creosotebush 

Young mixed alluvial and eolian sand deposit (Holocene and late Pleistocene)— Alluvial and eolian sediments that are thoroughly mixed, 

with alluvial processes dominant. Loose, gravelly sand with vague to well-defined thin bedding. Little or no soil development. Forms 

flatter surfaces than alluvial systems lacking significant eolian sand because eolian sand additions mute topography. Sparsely vegetated 

with grasses and shrubs, generally supporting creosotebush communities. Contacts with units Qyea and Qya gradational 

Intermediate mixed eolian and alluvial sand deposit (late to middle Pleistocene)— Eolian sand and alluvial deposits that are thoroughly 

mixed, with eolian processes dominant. Exhibits inconsistently developed surface pavement and B t and calcic horizons. Forms 

moderately compact, very flat surfaces with sparse vegetation. Contacts with units Qia and Qiae or Qiea gradational over tens to 

hundreds of meters 

Intermediate mixed alluvial and eolian sand deposit (late to middle Pleistocene)— Alluvial and eolian sand sediments that are thoroughly 

mixed, with alluvial processes dominant. Gravelly sand with vague to well-defined thin bedding. Exhibits inconsistently developed 

surface pavement and B t and calcic horizons. Forms moderately compact, flat surfaces with sparse vegetation. Contacts with units Qia 

and Qiae or Qiea gradational over tens to hundreds of meters 

Groundwater Discharge Deposits 

Young groundwater discharge deposit (Holocene and late Pleistocene)— Silt and fine sand in zones of former groundwater discharge. 

Commonly forms light-colored, flat areas or dissected badlands. Loose to compact silt, fine sand and calcium carbonate materials. 

Commonly exhibits capping massive to punky ‘popcorn-like’ calcium carbonate in upper exposures above fine sand and silt with diffuse 

calcium carbonate. Soil development similar to unit Qya, but horizons may be shallower in places due to effects of calcium carbonate 

and fine-grained materials. Soil development commonly more pronounced than unit Qya in finer-grained deposits, and less developed in 

more massive carbonate exposures. Amount of vegetation depends on extent of calcium carbonate, but is generally sparse. Dated at 9.5 

to 10 ka near the town of Chambless (Shannon Mahan, written comm. 2003; see text), wetland deposits in lower Kelso Wash dated at 13 

to 14 ka by IRSL (Shannon Mahan, written comm., 2000) 

Playa Deposits 

Young playa deposit (Holocene and late Pleistocene)— Playa deposits that are rarely flooded. Composed of moderately- to well-sorted silt, 

clay, commonly compact. Generally flat, to very gently undulating and lacks vegetation. In Bristol Lake, age determinations are 

difficult due to disturbance and diversion of flow from mineral mining operations; much may be active. Qypf, playa fringe deposits of 

complexly mixed eolian, lacustrine, playa, alluvial, groundwater discharge origins. Forms low gradient surface that is moderately well 

vegetated by grasses with sparse creosotebush 

Axial Valley Deposits 

Active valley-axis deposit (Holocene)— Fine-grained deposits in valley axes characterized by anastomosing washes, diffuse interfluves, and 

complexly interfingering wash and eolian sediments. Composed of loose moderately- to poorly-sorted fine gravel, sand, silt, and clay. 

Active channels typically lack vegetation, older terraces commonly inhabited by moderately dense vegetation such as creosotebush, 

white bursage, cheesebush, smoke tree, and annual grasses. Areas with increased eolian activity may be inhabited by perennial plants 

such as desert trumpet (Eriogonum inflatum) and grasses such as galleta, and annuals such as skeleton weed (Eriogonum deflexum). 

Contacts with active wash and fan deposits commonly gradational and somewhat arbitrary. Surfaces are prone to flooding and sheet 

flow during intense or long-lasting precipitation events 

Young valley-axis deposit (Holocene and late Pleistocene)— Fine-grained deposits in largely inactive valley axis locations characterized by 

anastomosing washes, gentle interfluves, and complexly interfingering eolian sediments. Composed of loose moderately- to poorly- 

sorted sand, silt and clay. Soil development similar to unit Qya. Moderately vegetated with creosotebush communities, and eolian- 

related grasses such as galleta and desert trumpet in eolian-rich environments. Qyvo, older valley-axis deposits characterized by 

moderately developed B t and A v horizons. Deposits located locally under parts of Kelso Dunes, as observed by the authors of this report 

and Yeend and others (1984) 

Erosional Surfaces and Related Hillslope Deposits 

Hillslope environment— characterized by patchy distribution of bare rock, thin deposits weathered from rock, and materials transported short 

distances by gravity and carried by water. Identified with appended substrate rock type (following hyphen in unit symbol). Divided 

into: 

Hillslope Deposits 

Abundant hillslope deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene)— Hillslope materials such as colluvium, talus, weathering products, and landslide 

deposits; disaggregated cover greater than rock exposure. Generally less than 2 m thick or patchy distribution with small fraction of area 

covered by deposits thicker than 2 m. Example color given for substrate type “fp”, see Correlation of Map Units for all unit colors 

Sparse hillslope deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene)— Hillslope materials such as colluvium, talus, weathering products, and landslide 

deposits; disaggregated cover less than rock exposure. Generally less than 2 m thick and patchy distribution. Example color given for 

substrate type “fp”, see Correlation of Map Units for all unit colors 

Mass Wasting Colluvial Deposits 

Mass-movement colluvial deposits, undivided (Holocene and Pleistocene)— Colluvial materials thicker than 2 m covering a wide area; age 

undetermined. Rocky and poorly sorted. Soil development ranges from weak to strongly developed B t and calcic horizons 

Young mass-movement colluvial deposits (Holocene)— Colluvial materials thicker than 2 m and covering a wide area. Rocky and poorly 

sorted. Little pedogenic soil development 

Intermediate mass-movement colluvial deposits (Pleistocene)— Colluvial materials thicker than 2 m and covering a wide area. Rocky and 

poorly sorted; strongly developed B t horizon, generally strongly varnished. Local development of Stage II to III pedogenic calcic 

horizon 

Pediment Surfaces 

Gently sloping erosional surfaces in various stages of erosion and burial. Generally forms in grussy granite (fpg) and partly consolidated (pc) 

materials. Divided into three general classes by surface characteristics and appended by a dash and the underlying substrate type (e.g. 

Qpv-fpg for a veneered pediment on grus-weathering felsic plutonic rocks: 

Veneered pediment— Fairly smooth veneer of sediment commonly alluvial in nature, generally less than 2 m thick on the pediment surface; 

soil development variable depending on the age of sediment. Mapped where bedrock is exposed in small knolls, roadcuts or wash 

exposures. Thicker deposits on pediments south of Granite Mountains consist of Qiag deposits, which is mapped as Qiag+Qpv-fpg, with 

Qiag deposited on the pediment surface 

Incised pediment— Incised pediment with most of the surface expressed as flat surfaces of bare rock with patchy cover of veneer and 1 to 

several meters deep channels cut into rock that transport eroded sediment through the pediment 

Deeply dissected pediment— Deeply dissected pediment identifiable by similar heights of isolated parts expressed in bedrock pinnacles and 

tors 3 to tens of meters high, may be up to 1km2 in areal extent in the southern Granite Mtns. Area between pinnacles may be covered 

with sediment or nearly bare rock 

Volcanic rocks 

Volcanic flows, cinder cones, and other deposits emplaced during the Quaternary are distinguished because they interfinger with surficial 

sediments and affect surface processes 

Mafic volcanic rocks (Quaternary)— Ejecta and lava flows of volcanic rocks of mafic composition; chiefly basaltic rocks at Amboy Crater. 

Consists mainly of cinder cones with subordinate lava flows (Parker, 1963). Dated at 79 ka at Amboy Crater (Phillips, 2003) 

Mafic volcanic rocks (Quaternary to Tertiary)— Ejecta and lava flows of volcanic rocks of mafic composition. Age unknown 

Substrate materials 

Substrate materials (pre-Quaternary)— Shallowly buried rock and partly consolidated materials that lie under surficial deposits, and under 

pediment and hillslope veneers. Ages range from Pliocene to early Proterozoic. Units mapped with overlying hillslope deposit type (e.g. 

Qha-mv) and colored accordingly. Subdivided into categories based on weathering and erosional products: 

Partly consolidated— Moderately to weakly consolidated sedimentary deposits; locally includes volcanic rocks or highly altered rocks. May 

form badland topography. Weathered materials include common silt and clay. Typically Tertiary in age. North of the town of contains 

the 4.83 Ma Lawlor Tuff (A. M. Sarna-Wojcicki, written commun. 2003) interbedded with lacustrine sediments and alluvial fan gravels. 

General unit may be mapped as QToa by some authors in parts of the map 

Mafic volcanic rocks— Volcanic rocks less than about 68 percent SiO2, such as dacite, andesite, and basalt. Includes flows and ejecta. 

Weathered materials include common clay; alluvial fans with mafic volcanic source commonly very bouldery 

Felsic volcanic rocks— Volcanic rocks greater than about 68 percent SiO2, such as rhyolite, rhyodacite, and felsite. Includes flows and ejecta. 

Weathered materials include quartz, feldspar, and clay 

Mafic plutonic rocks— Plutonic rocks less than about 68 percent SiO2, such as gabbro, diorite, monzodiorite, syenite, and alkalic rocks. 

Weathered materials chiefly feldspar, amphiboles, and micas 

Felsic plutonic rocks— Plutonic rocks greater than about 68 percent SiO2, such as granite and granodiorite. fpg, felsic plutonic rocks that 

weather to produce grus, mostly Cretaceous in age. Weathered materials chiefly quartz, feldspar, and micas 

Siliciclastic rocks— Silicic sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, such as sandstone and quartzite, shale, and siltstone. Weathered materials 

commonly quartz, silt, and clay 

Metamorphic rocks— Metamorphic rocks of complexly mixed lithology, such as gneiss, migmatite, and structurally mixed rocks. Weathered 

materials variable 

Carbonate rocks— Carbonate-mineral rocks such as marble, dolomite, and limestone. Weathered materials include common silt 

Explanatory notes 

Mapping methods 

This map represents primarily new mapping at the sale of 1:100,000 by standard field methods and interpretation of remote sensing 

images including aerial photography and Landsat 7 imagery. Field methods included examining the geomorphology, landscape position, 

surface features, and soil development. Locations of field observations were typically recorded with GPS with an accuracy of ± 5-10 meters. 

Composite symbols 

Surficial geologic units commonly exist as thin (

Bishop 

168 

Pacific Ocean 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

395 

Lone Pine 

Owens 

Lake 

NEVADA 

CALIFORNIA 

INYO 

190 

Las Vegas 

CALIFORNIA DESERT 

15 

Ridgecrest 

127 

KERN SAN Baker 

Mojave 58 

EMNSA 

Barstow 15 

95 

395 

14 

15 

40 

Needles 

Victorville 

LOS 

BERNARDINO 

ANGELES 

San Bernardino 

10 

62 

Los Angeles 

177 

RIVERSIDE 

Santa Palm Springs 

Ana 

10 

Salton 

ORANGE 

Sea 

15 

85 

78 

5 

IMPERIAL 

SAN DIEGO Brawley 

San Diego 

El Centro 

5 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000, 

Davis Dam, 1982; Amboy, Ivanpah, Mesquite 

Lake, Needles, 1985; Soda Mountains, 1993 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

CALIFORNIA 

MEXICO 

INDEX MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF EAST MOJAVE 

NATIONAL SCENIC AREA (EMNSA) 

DISTRICT 

EXPLANATION 

Unit labels—Indicate composition of detritus comprising the alluvial deposits 

(labels shown in red represent the dominant lithologic component); 

unit labels refer to units described on Plate 1 

Approximate boundaries between areas having crudely homogeneous composition of surface detritus 

Topographic range front (as interpreted from aerial photography) 

Alluvial deposits exceed 300 m in thickness on hachured side of boundary 

Drainage divide 

Distribution of mapped geologic units generalized from Plate 1: 

Quaternary and Tertiary sedimentary rocks and surficial deposits 

Quaternary and Tertiary volcanic rocks 

Mesozoic plutonic rocks 

Mesozoic to Late Proterozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks 

Proterozoic plutonic and metamorphic rocks 

Approximate boundary of East Mojave National Scenic Area (EMNSA, this report) 

Approximate boundary of Mojave National Preserve (current as of March 2007) 

CALIF. 

ARIZONA 

12 

MAGNETIC NORTH 

APPROXIMATE MEAN 

DECLINATION, 2007 

Estimated Extent of Pediments and Adjacent Areas of Thin Alluvial Cover, Including Generalized Lithologic Content 

of Piedmont Deposits and Inferred Thickness of Cenozoic Cover in the East Mojave National Scenic Area, California 

By 

John C. Dohrenwend and Mary A. McKittrick 

2007 

Geology generalized from Plate 1 of this report 

Interpretation of aerial photographs by John 

Dohrenwend and Mary McKittrick, 1989, from 

photography acquired 1970, 1980 

Digital database by R.J. Miller 

Edited by T.A. Lindquist and J.L. Zigler 

Digital cartography by R.D. Koch 

Manuscript approved for publication September 11, 1996 

MAP LOCATION 

Bulletin 2160 

Plate 3 of 6 

Sheet 3 of 6 for MF-2414 

Theodore, T.G., ed., 2007, Geology and mineral resources of the East Mojave National 

Scenic Area, San Bernardino County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2160 

Paper plots of plates for sale as MF-2414 from U.S. Geological Survey, Information 

Services, Box 25286, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225, or call 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Any use of trade, firm, or product names in this publication is for descriptive purposes 

only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government





P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638

Appendix H1B: Cadiz Groundwater Modeling and Impact Analysis

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?