HomeMy WebLinkAboutWSA-WVWD_FlowAndSoluteTransportModelRialto-ColtonGW.5EOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc., Ground Water Resources Development
P.O. Box220, Claremont, CA 91711 1 P: 909.451.6650 I F: 909.451.6638 1 www.gssiwater.com
GEOSCIENCE
~
Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL CALIBRATION
OF RIALTO-COLTON BASIN GROUNDWATER MODEL
CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................•..................................................................................... 6
2.1 Purpose ·--·--···················--·····································--···············--···················································6
2.2 Background of Existing Groundwater Models .....•.. ._ ..........•............ ._ ........................................ 6
2.3 Multi-Agency Cooperative Technical Effort ............................................................................... 7
3.0 RIALTO-COLTON BASIN GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL .......................................................... 10
3.1 Model Conceptualization ...... ._ . ._._ ....... ._ ............ ._ ............. ._ ... ._ .. ._ .... ._ ......... ._ . ._ .......... ._ ............. 10
3.1.1 Model Codes and Stress Periods ..................... .-........................................................ 10
3.1 .2 Model Grids and Cells ...................... ._ ....................................................................... 11
3.1.3 Model Layers ............................................................................................................. 11
3.1.4 Boundary Conditions ................................................................................................. l2
3.2 Aquifer Parameters .................................................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity ............................................................................ 13
3.2.1.1 Calculating Hydraulic Conductivity Based on Specific Capacity Data and
Constant Rate Pumping Test Data ................................................................. 14
3 .2.1.2 Calculat ing Hydraulic Conductivity Based on Type of Lithology ................... 14
3.2.1.3 Determ ining an Average Km Value for Each Lithologic Type (Km,ave) ............. 15
3.2.1.4 Calculating KaveiJ,Jt ...................................................... ._ •. ._ • ._ • ._ . ._,._ ••. ._ .• ._ • ._._._._.lS
3.2.2 Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity ...... ._ ........ ._ . ._,._,._ ..... ._ .. ._ ..... ._ ..... ._ .......... ._ ............. ._._16
3.2.3 Specific Yield .................................. ._ ........ ._ ............. ._ ............ ._ ... ._ ....... ._ .................... 17
3 .2.4 Storativity ......... ._ ............ ._ ......... ._._._ ............... ._ .... ._ ..... ._ .................... ._ .......... ._ .......... 17
3.2.5 Horizontal Flow Barriers .. ._._ ...................................................................................... 18
3.3 Model Recharge and Discharge Terms .................................................................................... 18
3 .3.1
GEOSCIENCE
""""V7'"'"
Underflow Inflow from Lytle Basin ........................................................................... 19
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
3.3.2 Underflow In f low from Bunke r Hill Basin ................................................................. 20
3.3.3 Artificial Recharge of Imported Water ...................................................................... 21
3.3.4 Ungaged Runoff and Subsurface Inflow from the San Gabriel Mountains ............... 21
3.3.5 Ungaged Runoff and Subsurface Inflow from the Badlands ..................................... 21
3.3.6 Anthropogenic Return Flow ...................................................................................... 21
3.3.7 Areal Recharge from Precip itation ............................................................................ 22
3.3.8 Streambed Percolation from the Santa Ana River and Warm Creek ........................ 23
3.3.9 Percolation from Irrigation Canal .............................................................................. 23
3.3.10 Groundwater Pumping .............................................................................................. 24
3.3 .11 Underflow Outflow to North Riverside Basin ........................................................... 24
3.3.12 Underflow Outflow to Chino Basin ........................................................................... 24
3.3.13 Evapotranspiration .................................................................................................... 24
3.4 Model Calibration ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.4.1 Steady State Calibration Results ............................................................................... 25
3.4.2 Transient Calibration Results .................................................................................... 26
3.4.3 Water Balance ........................................................................................................... 28
3:4.4 Change In Groundwater Storage ............................................................................... 29
4.0 RIALTO-COLTON BASIN SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL .............................................................. 30
4.1 General Description and Purpose of Model. ............................................................................ 30
4 .2 Development of Solute Transport Model ................................................................................ 30
4 .3 Solute Transport Model Calibration ......................................................................................... 30
4.3.1 Initial Concentration ................................................................................................. 31
4.3.2 Sinks and Sources ...................................................................................................... 31
4.3.3 Transient Calib r ation Results .................................................................................... 32
GEOSCIENCE
~ ii
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Co lton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibrati on of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 34
6.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................... 36
7.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 37
FIGURES, TABLES, APPENDICES
GEOSCIENCE
~ iii
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
FIGURES
No. Des cription
1 General Location
2 Groundwater Model Grid
3 Schematic of the Rialto-Colton Basin Aquifer Systems
4 Model Layer Thickness
5 Boundary Conditions
6 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity
7 Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity
8 Secondary Storage Coefficient (Specific Yield)
9 Primary Storage Coefficient (Storativity)
10 Horizontal Flow Barriers
11 Location of Underflow from Lytle Basin
12 Annual Underflow from Lytle Basin to Rialto-Colton Basin
13 Location of Underflow from Bunker Hill Basin
14 Annual Underflow from Bunker Hill Basin to Rialto-Colton Basin
15 Location of Artificial Recharge of Imported Water
16 Annual Artificial Recharge
17 Location of Ungaged Runoff and Subsurface Inflow from the San Gabriel Mountains
18 Annual Ungaged Runoff and Subsurface Inflow from the San Gabriel Mountains
19 Location of Ungaged Runoff and Subsurface Inflow from the Badlands
20 Annual Ungaged Runoff and Subsurface Inflow from the Badlands
21 Location of Anthropogenic Return Flow and Areal Recharge from Precipitation
GEOSCIENCE Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/Oty o f Co lton ~ iv
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
FIGURES (Continued)
No. Description
22 Annual Anthropogenic Return Flow
23 Annual Recharge from Precipitation
24 location of Cactus Basins Recharge
25 Annual Recharge at Cactus Basins
26 Location of Streambed Percolation from the Santa Ana River and Warm Creek
27 Annual Streambed Percolation from the Santa Ana River and Warm Creek
28 Location of Irrigation Canal
29 Annual Percolation from Irrigation Canal
30 location of Groundwater Pumping
31 Annual Groundwater Pumping
32 Location of Underflow to North Riverside Basin
33 General Head Boundary Groundwater Elevations
34 Annual Underflow to North Riverside Basin
35 Location of Underflow to Chino Basin
36 Annual Underflow to Chino Basin
37 Annual Evapotranspiration
38 Steady State Modeled Groundwater Elevations
39 Steady State Measured vs. Model-Calculated Water Levels
40 Modeled 2014 Groundwater Elevations
41 Model Layer 1 Selected Hydrographs
42 Model Layer 2 Selected Hydrographs
1-Dec-15
GEOSCIENCE
~ v
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibrati on of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
FIGURES (Continued}
No. Description
43 Model Layer 3 Selected Hydrographs
44 Model layer 5 Selected Hydrographs -1 of 2
45 Model Layer 5 Selected Hydrographs-2 of 2
46 Model layer 6 Selected Hydrographs -1 of 2
47 Model layer 6 Selected Hydrographs-2 of 2
1 -De c-15
48 Vertical Groundwater Gradient between Middle Water Bearing Unit Shallow and Upper
Zones
49 Measured vs. Model-calculated Water Levels-All Layers
so Temporal Distribution of Water Level Residuals-AIIlayers
51 Histogram of Water Level Residuals-All Layers
5 2 Measured vs. Model-Calculated Water levels-Layer 1
53 Temporal Distribution of Water level Residuals-Layer 1
54 Histogram of Water Level Residuals-Layer 1
55 Measured vs. Model-Calculated Water Levels-Layer 2
56 Temporal Distribution of Water level Residuals-Layer 2
57 Histogram of Water Level Residuals -layer 2
58 Measured vs. Model-calculated Water levels-Layer 3
59 Temporal Distribution of Water level Residuals -layer 3
60 Histogram of Water Level Residuals-layer 3
61 Measured vs. Model-Calculated Water levels-Layer 5
62 Temporal Distribution of Water level Residuals -layer 5
GEOSCIENCE
~ vi
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
No.
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
FIGURES (Continued)
Description
Histogram of Water Level Residuals -layer 5
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Water Levels -Layer 6
Temporal Distribution of Water level Residuals-Layer 6
Histogram of Water Level Residuals-Layer 6
Average Residual of Observed and Modeled Groundwater Elevations in Layer 1
Average Residual of Observed and Modeled Groundwater Elevations in Layer 2
Average Residual of Observed and Modeled Groundwater Elevations in Layer 3
Average Residual of Observed and Modeled Groundwater Elevations in Layer 5
Average Residual of Observed and Modeled Groundwater Elevations in Layer 6
Average of Measured vs. Model-Calculated Spring-High Water Level Elevations of Rialto
Basin Index Wells (Rialto-4, WVWD-11, and WVWD-16)
Groundwater Balance-Annual Average of Model Calibration Period
Annual Change in Groundwater Storage-Rialto-Colton Basin
Cumulative Annual Change in Groundwater Storage
Location of Wells with Measured Perchlorate Data
Location of Selected Target Wells for Solute Transport Model Calibration
Initial Perchlorate Concentrations for Rialto-Colton Basin Solute Transport Model
Location of Mass Loading in Source Areas
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well CMW-2A -2000
through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well CMW-1A -2000
through 2014
GEOSCIENCE
~ vii
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
No.
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
FIGURES (Continued}
Description
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations In Welt PW-2 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well PW-3 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in We ll N-25 -2000 through
2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrati ons in Well EMW-OSA -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrat ions in Well EMW-058 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW-OSC -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concent rations in Well EMW-04A -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW-048 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW-04C -2000
through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrat ions in Well PW-8A -2000
through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well PW-88 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in We ll s PW-8C, 80 and BE -
2000 through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrati ons in Well WVWD-225 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well WVWD-220-2000
through 2014
GEOSCIENCE
~ viii
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City o f Co lton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
No.
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
FIGURES (Continued}
Description
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW-03A -2000
through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW-038 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW-Q3C -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EPA-MW9A -2000
through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EPA-MW9B-2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-SA and SB -
2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-SC, 50 and SE-
2000 through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW-Q1A -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW-Q1B -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells 1S/SW-3AS and
1S/SW-3A6-2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Weii1S/SW-3A7 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well Rialto-6 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW9A, 9B and 9C-
2000 through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW9D, 9E, 9F and
9G -2000 through 2014
GEOSCIENCE ---v---ix
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Cotton Basin Groundwater Model 1-0ec-15
No.
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
FIGURES (Continued)
Description
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-lOA and lOB -
2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-12A and 12B-
2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells EPA-MP8A, MPSB
and MPSC-2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells EPA-MPSO and
MPSE-2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-11A and 11B-
2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-llC, 110 and
llE -2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells EPA-MP7A, MP7B
and MP7C-2000 through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations i n Wells EPA-MP70 and
MP7E-2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells CPW-16A, 1GB, 16C
and 160-2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells CPW-16E, 16F and
16G -2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-13A and 13B-
2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-148 and 14C-
2000 through 2014
Measured vs . Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells CPW-17A and
178-2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells CPW-17C and
170-2000 through 2014
GEOSCIENCE Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton "'""'7""" X
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
No.
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
FIGURES (Continued)
Description
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well Colton-17 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well Colton-15 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well N-5 -2000 through
2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well F-6 -2000 through
2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well F-6A5 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well N-35-2000 through
2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well N-30 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well N-85 -2000 through
2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well N-80 -2000
through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well N-12-2000 through
2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells M-3 Zl, Z2, Z3 and
Z4-2000 through 2014
Measured vs . Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells M-3 Z5, Z6 and Z7-
2000 through 2014
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well Rialto-3 -2000
through 2014
Measured Perchlorate Concentrations and Model-Simulated Perchlorate Plume in
Selected Periods -Model layer 3
GEOSCIENCE
~ xi
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
No.
138
139
FIGURES (Continued)
Descri ption
Measured Perchlorate Concentrations and Model-Simulated Perchlorate Plume In
Selected Periods -Model Layer 5
Measured Perchlorate Concentrations and Model-Simulated Perchlorate Plume in
Selected Periods-Model Layer 6
GEOSCIENCE Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton ~ xii
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
No. Description
1-Dec-15
TABLES
1 Groundwater Production Wells in the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin
2
3
Rialto-Colton Joint Groundwater Model Calibration -Groundwater Balance for the
Period 1945 to 2014 (Units in Acre-ft)
Perchlorate Mass Load ing Amounts
GEOSCIENCE .... ,<?;» xiii
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
Ltr.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
APPENDICES
Description
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to Balleau Groundwater's 3-Jun-15 Comments on the Draft
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to City of Colton's 3-Jun-15 Comments on the Draft Flow and
Solute Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to Balleau Groundwater's 18-Jun-15 Comments on the Draft
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to EPA/CH2M Hill's 18-Jun-15 Comments on the Draft Flow
and Solute Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to USGS's 22-Jul-15 Comments on the Draft Flow and Solute
Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to EPA/CH2M Hill's 6-Aug-15 Comments on the Draft Flow and
Solute Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to UTC's 10-Aug-15 Comments on the Draft Flow and Solute
Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to City of Colton's 14-Aug-15 Comments on the Draft Flow and
Solute Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton ~ xiv
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL CALIBRATION
OF RIALTO-COLTON BASIN GROUNDWATER MODEL
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-Dec-15
The Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin (Rialto-Colton Basin or Basin), located in western San Bernardino
County, California, is the subject of significant groundwater management issues. Such issues include
perchlorate and TCE contamination that has impacted and continues to impact the Basin-requiring
extensive groundwater investigation and remediation efforts. The water purveyors that manage the
Basin also believe that due to significant drawdown in the Basin water levels, efforts will be required to
recharge the Basin using other water sources . Such serious issues require a groundwater model that all
stakeholders in the Basin can rely upon. Therefore, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. (GEOSCIENCE)
was tasked to develop a Joint Groundwater Model (JGWM) that is spatially and temporally refined from
that of the various existing models of the Rialto-Colton Basin . The JGWM contains a flow model
component as well as a solute transport model component to evaluate potential Impacts of various
groundwater management and water quality remediation program scenarios on existing perchlorate
plumes.
The flow and solute transport model calibration process of JGWM of the Rialto-Colton Groundwater
Basin was a cooperative technical effort involving:
• Representatives of participating parties, including San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District (Valley District), West Valley Water District (West Valley), Goodrich Corporation
(Goodrich), City of Rialto, and City of Colton;
• Representatives of participating parties' consultant Balleau Groundwater (BGW);
• Technical advisors representing the USEPA, USEPA's consultant CH2M Hill, and the USGS.
Collaboration by these representatives to calibrate the flow and solute transport JGWM of the Rialto-
Colton Groundwater Basin was achieved through participation at project conference calls, model
workshops, and reviewing and commenting on draft technical memorandums and model files . A total of
16 conference calls and three model workshops were held during the model calibration periods.
The first draft technical memorandum of the Flow Model Calibration of the Rialto-Colton Groundwater
Model was submitted to TAC for review on 18-Aug-14 (GEOSCIENCE, 2014b) and the flow model
calibration results were presented at the 20-Aug-14 model workshop. A revised draft technical
GEOSCIENCE
~ 1
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
memorandum incorporating the reviewers' comments was submitted on 14-0ct-14 (GEOSCIENCE,
2014c).
Solute transport model calibration began after the revised flow model technical memorandum was
submitted. During the progress of the solute transport model calibration, the TAC decided to extend the
solute transport model calibration from 2000 through 2011 to 2000 through 2014. The purpose of the
model extension was to include the dry hydrology that occurred during the past three years so that the
effects on groundwater level elevations, flow directions, and seepage velocity would be included in the
model. In addition, the model was able to be calibrated to recent perchlorate data collected from wells
PW-13, PW-14, and CPW-16. These wells show the recent extent of the perchlorate plumes. The flow
model calibration period was also updated f r om 1945 through 2011 to 1945 through 2014 in order to
generate input data for the solute transport model.
During the development and calibration of the solute transport model from October 2014 through May
2015, the flow model was refined in order to match the observed perchlorate concentrations.
Refinements to the flow model include:
• Refinement of distributions of inflow from Lytle Basin,
• Refinement of Horizontal Flow Barrier characteristics for the Unnamed Fault and Barrier J,
• Refinement of bottom elevations for Model Layer 3,
• Refinement of vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivities, and
• Refinement of the BC Aquitard boundary.
GEOSCIENCE presented preliminary results of the model calibrations to TAC at the 27-Mar-15 model
workshop. The comments received from TAC on preliminary results were incorporated in the TM issued
on 15-May-15 (GEOSCIENCE, 2015}. Meanwhile, model flies were submitted to BGW and USGS for
revi ew on 8 -May-15.
From May 2015 through August 2015, comments on the draft model calibration TM and comments on
the flow and solute t ransport models were received including:
• June 3, 2015 from BGW (see Appendix A for comments and GEOSCIENCE's responses),
• June 3, 2015 from City of Colton (see Appendix B f or comments an d GEOSCIENCE's response s},
• June 18, 2015 from BGW (see Appendix C for comments and GEOSCIENCE's responses),
GEOSCIENCE
"V7"" 2
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Mode l Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
• June 18, 2015 from EPA/CH2M Hill (see Appendix D for comments and GEOSCIENCE's
responses),
• July 22, 2015 from USGS (see Appendix E for comments and GEOSCIENCE's responses),
• August 6, 2015 from EPA/CH2M Hill (see Appendix F for comments and GEOSCIENCE's
responses),
• August 10, 2015 from UTC (see Appendix G for comments and GEOSCIENCE's responses), and
• August 14, 2015 from City of Colton (see Appendix H for comments and GEOSCIENCE's
responses).
To address these comments, GEOSCIENCE adjusted the flow model and the solute transport model In
June 2015. Adjustments to the flow model and solute transport model include:
• Adjustment of bottom elevations for Model Layers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7,
• Adjustment of Horizontal Flow Barrier characteristics for Barrier H,
• Revision of surface flow input for Warm Creek,
• Addition of water level measurements published in February 2015 into the calibration dataset,
• Removal of water levels for Colton Wells 8, 13, 14, 16, 21 and 22 from the calibration dataset,
• Addition of recharge in the cactus Basins from October 1982 through March 1987,
• Revision of water levels used in the General Head Boundary (GHB) Package, and
• Refinement of initial perchlorate concentrations.
After incorporating all the comments, updated results of the model calibrations were presented to TAC
at the 18-Jun-15 Conference call, 23-Jul-15 model workshop, and 14-Aug-15 Conference call.
The JGWM flow model was successfully calibrated through a steady state calibration for 1945 and a
transient calibration from 1945 through 2014. The transient calibration uses annual stress periods from
1945 through 1969 and monthly stress periods from 1970 through 2014. Numerical accuracy problems
are often derived from inappropriate model grid spacing, time steps, and closure criteria for
convergence. The global budget error measures numerical accuracy and is calculated as the difference
of total inflows and total outflows divided by the average of the total inflows and outflows. The JGWM
steady state flow model calibration has a global budget error of 0.00% while the transient flow model
calibration has a global budget error of 0.02%; a global budget error of less than 1% is considered
acceptable. The acceptable model calibration is also reflected by a relative error of 4.3% for the steady
GEOSCIENCE
~ 3
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
state calibration and 6.2% for the transient calibration. Common modeling practice is to consider a good
fit between measured and model~calculated water levels if the relative error is below 10% (Spitz and
Moreno, 1996). Results of the flow model calibration indicate that:
• Over the JGWM calibration period (1945-2014), Basin storage decreased by an average of
3,830 acre-ft/yr.
• Cumulative annual change in groundwater storage over the period from 1970 to 2014 declined
by 64,200 acre-ft.
The JGWM solute transport model was successfully calibrated from 2000 through 2014 using a monthly
stress period. The solute transport model calibration has a relative error of 2.7% which is well below the
recommended modeling error of 10%. Results of the solute transport model calibration indicate that:
• In general, the model-calculated perchlorate concentrations match the observed values and the
model correctly illustrates the concepts of the plume migration.
• The calibrated model is not able to match the monitoring well PW-2 where perchlorate
concentrations increased from 40 IJ.g/L in mid -2005 to over 10,000 11g/L in spring 2006 in
response to the extremely wet winter of 2005. This underestimation may be explained in that
the model simulates the average concentration of each model layer instead of calculating the
concentration at a particular depth.
• The calibrated model overestimates or underestimates the perchlorate concentrations in some
wells near the boundary of the Eastern Plume (e .g., N-25, EMW-SA, EMW-38 and PW -11). This
result is caused by minor differences in flow direction between those simulated in the flow
model and actual conditions.
• The calibrated model overestimates perchlorate concentrations in Wells PW-11 and PW-12.
The model-calculated migration rates of the perchlorate plumes agree w ith the rates estimated from
observed data . By the end of the modeling period (i.e., December 2014), the leading ed ge of the
perchlorate plumes is close to PW-14 and close to Barrier Q .
GEOSCIENCE understands that the JGWM will be used to help manage the Rialto-Colton Groundwater
Basin for many years in the future. As such, recommendations of further model updates and
improvements are listed below:
GEOSCIENCE
~ 4
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-COlton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
• Continue collecting water level and perchlorate concentration measurements in the monitoring
wells and update the model on a regular basis incorporating the new water level and
perchlorate data.
• As groundwater remediation efforts progress, establish a database of perchlorate mass
removed from the aquifer. Use this data as an additional calibration factor for future efforts on
model development.
North of the unnamed and Barrier J faults , the JGWM overstates water-level changes in an area where
localized flow through faults Is poorly understood. Cautious use of the model in this area is
recommended until model performance can be improved.
GEOSCIENCE
~ 5
Valley Distr ict/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
2.0 INTRODUCTION
1-0ec-15
The Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin (Rialto-Colton Basin or Basin) Is in western San Be r nardino County,
California, approximately 60 miles east of Los Angeles (see Figure 1). The Rialto-Colton Basin is the
subject of significant groundwater management issues . Such issues include perchlorate and TCE
contamination that has impacted and continues to impact the Basin, requiring extensive sroundwater
Investigation and remediation efforts. The water purveyors that manage the Basin also believe that due
to significant drawdown in the Basin water levels, efforts will be required to recharge the Basin using
other water sources. Such serious issues require a groundwater model that all stakeholders in the Basin
can rely upon. Therefore, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. (GEOSCIENCE) was tasked with developing
a Joint Groundwater Model (JGWM) that is spatially and temporally refined from that of the various
existing models of the Rialto-Colton Basin.
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to present a summary of the flow model and the
solute transport model calibration results for the JGWM of the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin.
2.2 Background of Existing Groundwater Models
The first numerical groundwater model of the Rialto-Colton Basin was developed in 2001 by
Woolfenden and Koczot of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to simulate the aquifer response
to artificial recharge . The USGS Model is modeled on an annual time period from 1945 through 1971
with a model cell size of 820 ft by 820 ft. CH2M Hill, on behalf of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), adapted the County/GLA model in 2010 during preparation of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and Record of Decision (ROD). In 2012, CH2M Hill exten.ded the
model domain throughout the Rialto-Colton Basin. The CH2M Hill model is modeled on an annual time
period from 1970 through 2009 with a model cell size of 205ft by 205ft. ERM-West, Inc. (ERM), on
behalf of the Emhart Industries, Inc. {Emhart), updated the USEPA/CH2M Hill 2012 Model by
incorporating data from relevant stakeholders. The ERM/Emhart draft modeling report was submitted
to the USEPA In April 2013. The ERM model is modeled on a quarterly time period from 1970 through
2011 with a model cell size of 205 ft by 205 ft . Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. (GLA), on behalf of the County
of San Bernardino, developed a groundwater flow and solute transport model of the upper Rialto-Colton
Basin to evaluate the groundwater impacts originating from the County Remedy Area in 2007 . The most
recent County/GLA model update was conducted in 2010. The GLA Model does not incorporate the
entire Rialto-Colton Basin, but it does have a solute transport component.
GEOSCIENCE
~ 6
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
2.3 Multi-Agency Cooperative Technical Effort
1-Dec-15
Flow and solute transport model calibration process of JGWM of the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin
was a cooperative technical effort involving:
• Representatives of participating parties, Including San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District (Valley District), West Valley Water District (West Valley), Goodrich Corporation
(Goodrich), City of Rialto, and City of Colton;
• Representatives of participating parties' consultant Balleau Groundwater (BGW);
• Technical advisors representing the USEPA, USEPA's consultant CH2M Hill, and the USGS.
Collaboration by these representatives to calibrate the flow and solute transport JGWM of the Rialto-
Colton Groundwater Basin was achieved through participation at project conference calls, model
workshops, and reviewing and commenting on draft technical memorandums and model files. A total of
16 conference calls and three model workshops were held during the model calibration periods.
The first draft technical memorandum of the Flow Model Calibration of the Rialto-Colton Groundwater
Model was submitted to TAC for review on 18-Aug-14 (GEOSCIENCE, 2014b) and the flow model
calibration results were presented at the 20-Aug-14 model workshop. A revised draft technical
memorandum incorporating the reviewers' comments was submitted on 14-0ct-14 (GEOSCIENCE,
2014c).
Solute transport model calibration began after the revised flow model technical memorandum was
subm itted. During the progress of the solute transport model calibration, the TAC decided to extend the
solute transport model calibration from 2000 through 2011 to 2000 through 2014. The purpose of the
model extension was to include the dry hydrology that occurred during the past three years so that the
effects on groundwater level elevations, flow directions, and seepage velocity would be included in the
model. In addition, the model was able to be calibrated to recent perchlorate data collected from wells
PW-13, PW-14, and CPW-16, which show the recent extent ofthe perchlorate plumes. The flow model
calibration period was also updated from 1945 through 2011 to 1945 through 2014 in order to generate
input data for the solute transport model.
During the development and calibration of the solute transport model from October 2014 through May
2015, the flow model was refined in order to match the observed perchlorate concentrations.
Refinements to the flow model include:
GEOSCIENCE -=::yr 7
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
• Refinement of distributions of inflow from lytle Basin,
1-Dec-15
• Refinement of Horizontal Flow Barrie r characteristics for the Unnamed Fault and Barrier J,
• Refinement of bottom elevations for Model layer 3,
• Refinement of vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivities, and
• Refir~ement of the BC Aquitard boundary.
GEOSCIENCE presented preliminary results of the model calibrations to TAC at the 27-Mar-15 model
workshop. The comments received from TAC on preliminary results were incorporated In the TM issued
on 15-May-15 (GEOSCIENCE, 2015). Meanwhile, model files were submitted to BGW and USGS for
review on 8-May-15.
From May 2015 through August 2015, comments on the draft model calibration TM and comments on
the flow and solute transport models were received including:
• June 3, 2015 from BGW (see Append ix A for comments and GEOSCIENCE's responses),
• June 3, 2015 from City of Colton (see Appendix B for comments and GEOSCIENCE's responses),
• June 18, 2015 from BGW (see Appendix C for comments and GEOSCIENCE's responses),
• June 18, 2015 from USEPA/CH2M Hill (see Appendix 0 for comments and GEOSCIENCE's
responses),
• July 22, 2015 from USGS (see Appendix E for comments and GEOSCIENCE's responses),
• August 6, 2015 from USEPA/CH2M Hill (see Appendix F for comments and GEOSCIENCE's
responses),
• August 10, 2015 from UTC {see Appendix G for comments and GEOSCIENCE's responses), and
• August 14, 2015 from City of Colton (see Appendix H for comments and GEOSCIENCE's
responses).
To incorporate these comments, GEOSCIENCE adjusted the flow model and the solute transport model
in June 2015. Adjustments to the flow model and solute transport model include:
• Adjustment of bottom elevations for Model layers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7,
• Adjustment of Horizontal Flow Barrier characteristics for Barrier H,
• Revision of surface flow input for Warm Creek,
GEOSCIENCE
~ 8
Valley Dist r ict/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
• Addition of water level measurements published in February 2015 into the calibration dataset,
• Removal of water levels for Colton Wells 8, 13, 14, 16, 21 and 22 from the calibration dataset,
• Addition of recharge in the Cactus Basins from October 1982 through March 1987,
• Revision of water levels used in the General Head Boundary (GHB) Package, and
• Refinement of initial perchlorate concentrations.
After incorporating all the comments, updated results of the model calibrations were presented to TAC
at the 18-Jun-15 Conference Call, 23-Jul-15 model workshop, and 14-Aug-15 Conference Call.
GEOSCIENCE
""'V7"" 9
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
3.0 RIALTO-COLTON BASIN GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL
3.1 Model Conceptualization
1-Dec-15
A conceptual model is the basis for building the structure of a groundwater model so that it best
represents the hydrogeologic syste m. The conceptual model for the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin is
based on known and interpreted physical and hydrologic characteristics of the groundwater system
gathered from previous studies of the Basin.
3.1.1 Model Codes and Stress Periods
The JGWM flow model was constructed using MODFLOW-NWT, a block-centered, modular
finite-difference groundwater flow code developed by the USGS (Niswonger et al., 2011). The USGS
MODFLOW -NWT is a Newton-Raphson formulation for MODFLOW -2005 and represents an improved
solution for unconfined groundwater flow problems.
MODFLOW-NWT is modular in the sense that a standard fo r mat has been estab li shed for the interface
between each module of the program, as well as the common var iables that must be accessible to all
modules. The modules or packages used include Basic (BAS), Evapotransp iration (EVT), Streamflow
Routing (STR), Upstream Weighting (UPW), Recharge (RCH), Newton Solver (NWT), Horizontal Flow
Barrier (HFB), Multi-Node Well 2 (MNW2), Well (WEL), and General-Head Boundary (GHB). The Input
data for the MODFLOW-NWT modules is based on an annual basis (i.e., annual stress periods) from 1945
through 1969 and on a monthly basis (i.e., monthly stress periods) from January 1970 through
December 2014.
The pre-and post-processors used to manipulate model input and output data arrays include the
following:
• Geographical Information System (GIS);
• Groundwater Vistas; and
• Pr op rietary software developed by GEOSCIENCE.
The GIS software used was ERSI ArcMap 10.2. Groundwater Vistas, which was developed by
Environmental Simulations, Inc. (1999), is a Windows graphical user interface for 3-D groundwater flow
and transport modeling. FORTRAN source codes, custom -developed by GEOSCIENCE, were used to
prepare MODFLOW model input data for the well and recharge packages and hydraulic conductivities.
GEOSCIENCE
-=::::::7"" 10
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
The JGWM flow model has annual stress periods from 1945 through 1969 and monthly stress periods
from 1970 through 2014. The monthly stress periods provide the ability to model the seasonal aspects
of fluxes such as areal recharge, return flow, pumping, mountain front runoff, underflow, and
streambed percolation.
3.1.2 Model Grids and Cells
The JGWM grid covers an area of approximately 97 square miles (62,280 acres) with a finite-difference
grid consisting of 278 rows in the northeast to southwest direction and 938 columns in the northwest to
southeast direction for a total of 260,764 cells per layer, or 1,825,348 celts total. Each model cell of the
JGWM represents an area of approximately 102 ft x 102 ft (see Figure 2).
3.1.3 Model Layers
The Rialto-Colton Basin contains a series of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated alluvial deposits, river
and stream deposits, and interbedded sands and clays underlain by consolidated bedrock. The
stratigraphic units In the Basin do not form well-defined aquifers and containing units; so they must be
separated into water bearing units for modeling purposes. A conceptual schematic of the Rialto-Colton
aquifer system is shown in Figure 3. Each of the layers in the JGWM are hydraulically connected . The
JGWM consists of seven model layers per the decisions of the TAC. The seven model layers include:
• Layer 1-River Channel Deposits;
• Layer 2-Upper Water-Bearing Unit;
• Layer 3-Middle Water-Bearing Unit Shallow Zone (Intermediate Aquifer or B Aquifer);
• Layer 4-Middle Water-Bearing Unit Upper Deep Zone (BC Aquitard or Perching Layer);
• Layer 5 -Middle Water-Bearing Unit Lower Deep Zone (Upper Regional Aquifer or C Aquifer);
• Layer 6-Lower Water-Bearing Unit (Lower Regional Aquifer); and
• Layer 7 -Consolidated Deposits.
The division of the Middle Water-Bearing Unit into three layers allows for the modeling of the perched
areas separately. The base elevations of each model layer were determined from the lithologic model
developed using lithologic data from geophysical borehole logs and driller's logs. During the solute
transport model calibration, the thickness of Model Layer 3 was refined and increased in order to avoid
problems in perchlorate migration caused by dry celts (in transport model simulation, the celt becomes
GEOSCIENCE
"""""7'"" 11
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
inactive once the cell is dry). The final model layer thicknesses for each layer in the JGWM are shown in
Figure4.
3.1.4 Boundary Conditions
A boundary condition is any external influence or effect that acts either as a source or sink, adding or
removing water from the groundwater flow system. They are used to simulate the model's interaction
with the surrounding regional system . The boundary conditions used in the model include: no-flow,
general-head and well (specified flux) (see Figure 5). Active and inactive model cells are assigned based
on the Basin boundary and geologic map. For example, model cells in the bedrock of the San Gabriel
Mountains were assigned as inactive (i.e., no-flow) cells. The no-flow cells assigned to the non-alluvial
or bedrock portions of the model area are depicted as gray on Figure 5. The red cells (primarily located
along active/inactive boundaries) represent specified flux boundary conditions that are used to si mulate
underflow inflow from the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin near lytle Creek, Warm Creek and the Santa
Ana River (SAR), mountain front runoff and underflow from the San Gabriel Mountains and Badlands,
percolation from the irrigation canal , artificial recharge at linden Pond, and underflow outflow to Chino
Groundwater Bas in. The green ce ll s represent gene r al-head boundary outflow conditions to North
Riverside Groundwater Basin.
3.2 Aquifer Parameters
Various aquifer parameters are necessary to simulate groundwater flow. The following table
summarizes the types of data used by the JGWM:
Model Aquifer Parameters
Initial Water Level Elevation
Top Elevat1on of Layer
Bottom Elevation of Layer
Horizontal and Vertical Hydraulic ConductiVIty
Spedfic Yield
Specific Storage
Characteristic of Horizontal Flow Barrier
GEOSCIENCE
""V7"" 12
ft, amsl
ft, amsl
ft, amsl
ft./day
unitless
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
3.2.1 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity
The hydraulic conductivity is based on averaged data over JGWM layer thicknesses f ro m the lithologic
model and then adjusted during model calibration. The horizontal hydraulic conductivity for each model
cell of each layer (K 1,1,k) is calculated using the following equation:
Where :
KIJ.k = KaYt!IJ)< X Kadjhi,j,k X K~J,k
KiJ,k = Horizontal hydraulic conductivity for model cell i,j of laye r k, ft/day.
KaYt!IJ,k = Weighted average horizontal hydraulic conductivity for model cell i,j of layer k
calculated based on the lithologic types and thickness from the lithologic model,
ft/day_
KadJhlJ.k = Adjusted factor for model cell i,j of layer k to represent the sorting and facies of the
lithologic sediments.
KadJvi,J,k = Adjusted factor for model cell i,j of layer k to account for the decrease in hydraulic
conductivity with depth.
Flowmeter and spinner logs were analyzed to adjust KadJviJ,k to simulate decreasing conductivity w ith
depth, as shown in the following table:
Initial Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Adjustments with Layer Depth
GEOSCIENCE
-=::::::?""'
~---1
2
3
4
13
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City o f Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
After the original flow model calibration, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity values were refined in
order to improve the solute transport model calibration . The spatial distribution of final calibrated
horizontal hydraulic conductivity is shown on Figure 6.
3.2.1.1 Calculating Hydraulic Conductivity Based on Specific Capacity Data and Constant Rate
Pumping Test Data
The following sections describe the approach to estimate Kaveij.k • The first step was to calculate the
average hydraulic conductivity for the screened interval of wells with specific capacity or constant rate
pumping test data. Specific capacity (0/s), in gallons per minute per foot drawdown (gpm/ft), is
calculated from the pumping rate (gallons per minute-gpm) divided by the drawdown (ft). The specific
capacity value can be used to estimate the transmissivity of the aquifer. Driscoll (1986) provides the
following equation to estimate transmissivity (T), in gallons per day per foot of drawdown (gpd/ft):
T =2000XQ/s
Transmissivity values were also obtained for two wells (WVWD-33 and WVWD-54) based on the results
of constant rate pumping tests.
Hydraulic conductivity (Kp}, in ft/day, is then calculated from transmissivity using the equation below:
Where:
T
Kp = 7 .48b
b =screen interval, ft.
3.2.1.2 Calculating Hydraulic Conductivity Based on Type of Uthology
The second step was to calculate the average horizontal hydraulic conductivity for the screened interval
of the same wells using the type of lithology. The original borehole lithologic logs were analyzed based
on 15 lithologic types and a set of Km (K11 K2, ••• K15) values was assigned to each well.
For each well, hydraulic conductivity based on the type of lithology (KL), in ft./day, at the screened
interval can be calculated from:
GEOSCIENCE
""'7" 14
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
Where:
Km = hydraulic conductivit y assigned to lithologic type m (m = 1 to 15), l n ft/day,
bm = the total thickness of lithologic type m, in ft, (b1 + b2 + ... + b15 = total screen interval
of b)
3.2.1.3 Determining an Average K, Value for Each Lithologic Type (Km,-)
The assigned Km values are adjusted to match KL with Kp in each well, meanwhile approaching a
narrower range of Km value for each lithologic type .
3.2.1.4 Calculating KaveiJ,k
Following the calculation of average hydraulic conductiv ity for each lithologic type, the weighted
average horizontal hydraulic conductivity for each model cell of each model layer can be calculated
using the following equation :
Where:
K1 btt 'k + Kz bzt 'k + ... + Kts hts · 'k K -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
av ei,j,k -b + b + + b 1 . 'k z· ')c ... 1s· 'k y, y l~
i<ave1J,k "' Weighted average horizontal hydraulic conductivity for model cell i,j of layer k, ft/day.
Km,ave = Average horizontal hydraulic conductivity for lithologic type m (m = 1 to 15), ft/day.
bm = Total thickness of lithologic type m for model cell i,j of layer k, ft.
In the JGWM, layer horizontal hydraulic conductivity rang es are summarized in the following table:
GEOSCIENCE
~ 15
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Ria lto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Ranges
-
I .I I . , j . , I< .. · M n mum K ••••J.~ Maxrmum • ..,,1, ·Laver I .. · ! [ft(day)
1
[tt,lday}
1 2 2~ ~
I 3 1.88 292
----~------------~-----------1
1 4 o5o 40 ~ 5 t ___ c:~---t=+----=--3_0_0 =-----1
I 6 t 044 I 129 r-----+-I I 7 I 0.34 0 .34
3.2.2 Venical Hydraulic Conductivity
1-Dec-15
In the JGWM, flow from one model layer to another is controlled by the vertical hydraulic conductivity
(K.,). Vertical hydraulic conductivity values were initially estimated from pumping test data and lithology
samples and adjusted during model calibration . Figure 7 shows the spatial distribution of the vertical
hydraulic conductivity values for Model Layers 1 through 7, which are also summarized in the following
table:
Venical Hydraulic Conductivity Ranges
2 0.22 28 6
3 0.001 7.7
4 000005 4.0 ---·-
5 0.0025 8.0
6 004 S2
7 0.034 0.034
A vertical hydraulic conductivity value of 0.00005 ft/day was used to represent the BC Aquitard in the
model layer 4. Based on discussions and comments from the TAC, the extent of the BC Aqultard was
modified during the model calibration process (see area in Model Layer 4 with a vertical hydraulic
conductivity of <0 .50 ft/day on Figure 7). This BC Aquitard boundary is similar to the boundary used by
GEOSCIENCE
~ 16
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basi n Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
CH2M Hill with minor modification in the location of wells M-3 and F-49A. This refinement improves the
perchlorate calibration for wells PW-5 and F-49A, which are located in the BC Aquitard boundary area.
3.2.3 Specific Yield
Specific yield (Sy), or secondary storage coefficient, is used in unconfined aquifers while storativity is
used for confined aquifers. The JGWM is set up so that either may be used. This means that values for
the primary (storativity) and secondary storage coefficients are provided and the model uses the
appropriate value based on whether the aquifer is confined or unconfined. Spatial distributions of
specific yield are shown on Figure 8. The secondary storage coefficient values for Model Layers 1
through 7 are summarized in the following table:
Secondary Storage Values (Specific Yield) Ranges
3 0.02 0.3
4 002 03
5 0.02 0.3
6 004 03
7 0.01 0 .01
3.2.4 Storativlty
Storativity (S) is also referred to as the primary storage coefficient. In confined aquifers, storativity is
equal to the specific storage (Ss) times the aquifer thickness (b):
S=Ssxb
Storativity values from the CH2M Hill and USGS Models were used initially in the JGWM and further
refined through calibration. However, since MODFLOW-NWT uses specific storage, the storativity values
were divided by the JGWM layer thickness in preparation for model input. The storatlvity for Model
Layers 1 through 7 are summarized in the following table and the spatial distribution of storativity is
shown on Figure 9.
GEOSCIENCE -=v---= 17
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
Storativity Ranges
I
Lnye1
1
Minimum~ Maximum s
1 NA NA
2 7.3E-04 1 OE-03 --·--------
~~ 2.5E-OS 2.5E-03
4 5 OE-06 1.3E-03
-i·---6.0E-06 l.OE-03
2 SE-05 1 OE-03
7 l.SE-04 l.SE-04
3.2.5 Horizontal Flow Barriers
The location and extent of the faults in the Rialto-Colton Basin is not consistent in previous stud ies
conducted in the area. Paulinski (2012) describes the differences and delineations of faults from
multiple geologic and seismic studies. The position of the faults has important Implications on
groundwater flow because faults are often low permeability features that can restrict the movement of
groundwater. In all of the previous Rialto-Colton models, faults in the Rialto-Colton Basin were
designated as horizontal flow barriers (HFBs) by evaluating water levels on either side of a fault, and
were modeled us ing an HFB package .
In the JGWM, Barrier J, the Unnamed Fault, and Barrier H are modeled as HFBs (refer to Figure 1 for
fault designations). As shown on Figure 10, Barriers J and H are modeled in Layers 2 through 6, and the
Unnamed Fault is modeled In Layers 1 through 6. During the solute transport model calibration, the HFB
characteristic values were decreased for the Unnamed Fault and increased for Barrier J in order to
match the observed direction of plume migration .
3.3 Model Recharge and Discharge Terms
Recharge and discharge components of the refined JGWM ar e summa ri ze d i n the following table, along
with the MODFLOW-NWT Package used to simulate each term.
GEOSCIENCE
~ 18
Valley District/West Valley/Goodri ch/
City of Ria lto/City o f Co l ton
Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
JGWM Recharge and Discharge Terms
1-Dec-15
···----------·--------"·-·------------··----·---:--·--.. --·---· ···-· ----·-
Underflow from Bunker Hill Basin Well Package
-· -.. _ .............. __ , ---------------·---··--··-----1--·-··-----
Artificial Recharge of Imported Water Well Package
-·--·--------------------------------1----·-·· ·--·------
Ungaged Runoff and Subsurface inflow from the San Gabriel
Mountains
Ungaged Runoff and Subsurface Inflow from the Badlands
Anthropogenic Return flow
Areal Recharge from Precipitation
Streambed Percolation from the SAR and Warm Creek
Streambed Percolation from Irrigation Canal
Groundwater Pumping
Well Package
Well Package
Recharge Package
Recharge Package
Well Package
Multi-Node 2 Well Package
···-------·---·-· ·-----------· --· --·-· -· ---------+·--··-
Underflow to North Riverside Basin General-Head Boundary
Underflow to Chmo Basm Well Package
Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration Package
3.3.1 Underflow Inflow from Lytle Basin
Groundwater underflow inflow from Lytle Basin occurs in the upper northeast portion of the
Rialto-Colton Basin (see Figure 11). The GEOSCIENCE water balance analysis estimated the underflow
using the same approach used by the USGS Model (Woolfenden and Koczot, 2001). The San Bernardino
Basin Area (SBBA) Groundwater Model developed by the USGS (Danskin, et al., 2005) also used the
same approach to initially estimate the underflow outflow from lytle Basin to the Rialto-Colton
Groundwater Basin .
The underflow values were estimated by taking a percentage of the flow from lytle Creek, since
groundwater levels in the vicinity are greatly influenced by recharge from the creek. It was found that
35% of the total discharge from Lytle Creek was able to produce water levels similar to those observed
in nearby wells for most of the model years. For wet years in which the measured flow was at least two
standard deviations greater than the mean, Lytle Creek discharge was multiplied by 15% instead of 35%.
Underflow inflow from the upgradient Lytle Bas in was applied to the JGWM in Model layers 3 and 5
along the northeast boundary (see Figure 11). The inflow was assigned through a series of injection
wells (wells with positive fluxes) in the MODFLOW well package. The distribution of the underflow
GEOSCIENCE
~ 19
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
between the layers was calculated using the model simulation with a constant head boundary at lytle
Creek based on 1945 water levels (Woolfenden and Koczot, 2001). The modekietermined distribution
is approximately 80% in Model Layer 3 and 20% in Model layer 5. The final calibrated JGWM flow
model distributes SO% of the inflow to the cells above Barrier J, and SO% below-as determined through
model calibration of the USGS Model {Woolfenden and Koczot, 2001). Previously, the JGWM had
distributed 25% of the flow to the cells above Barrier J, and 75% below. This refinement was made to
improve the solute transport model calibration.
During the calibration process, it was determined that the initial underflow from lytle Creek did not
create enough of a recharge response observed in water level data during peri ods of consecut ive wet
years (1978 through 1985 and 1993 through 1998). During these extended wet periods, it is likely that
the increased soil moisture Induces more rapid recharge to the aquifer. Groundwater recharge
depends on the amount of rainfall, antecedent soil moisture conditions, the water table depth and
hydraulic conductivity. During an extended wet period with increased rainfall, antecedent soil moisture
content increases and water table depth decreases. All of these factors conjunctively increase
groundwater recharge. Based on this concept, the underflow from Lytle Creek was increased during the
above mentioned wet periods to Improve the calibration. This amounts to an additional215,600 acre-ft
from 1978 through 1985 and 77,500 acre-ft from 1993 through 1998. After this adjustment, the average
underflow inflow from lytle Basin is 12,340 acre-ft/yr from 194S through 2014 (see Figure 12).
3.3.2 Underflow Inflow from Bunker Hill Basin
Groundwater underflow inflow from Bunker Hill Basin occurs in the lower southeast portion of the
Rialto-Colton Basin (see Figure 13). GEOSCIENCE originally esti mated the underflow based on the
method used in the USGS Rialto-Colton Groundwater Model (Woolfenden and Koczot, 2001). However,
during the following discussion, the group decided to change the approach which used a regression
between reported water levels in the Johnson No. 1 Well and estimated underflow for 1943 through
1960 by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (DWR, 1971). This approach is simflar to
the one used by the USGS SBBA Groundwater Model (Danskin et al., 2005). The only difference Is that
the USGS SBBA model used the water levels measured in the Heap Well while GEOSCIENCE used the
water levels measured in the Johnson No. 1 Well. The switch in the well used for the regression was
made because the Heap Well has been dry since the late 2000s. Based on this calculation, the average
underflow inflow from Bunker Hill Basin is 4,320 acre-ft/yr from 1945 through 2014 (see Figure 14).
GEOSCIENCE
~ 20
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
3.3.3 Artificial Recharge of Imported Water
1-Dec-15
Artificial groundwater recharge occurred at linden Pond in the northwest part of the Basin during the
1980s and 1990s. In 2014, West Valley Water District (WVWD) recharged 1,439 acre-ft during February
and October to Cactus Basin No.2 for testing purposes. Figure 15 shows the location of Linden Pond and
Cactus Basin No .2. Recharge that occurred here represents measured quantities. The total artificial
recharge is approximately 580 acre-ft/yr during the period from 1945 to 2014 (see Figure 16).
3.3.4 Ungaged Runoff and Subsurface Inflow from the San Gabriel Mountains
Recharge from mountain front runoff {both ungaged runoff and subsurface inflow) from the San Gabriel
Mountains was applied in the northern part of the Rialto-Colton Basin in Model Layers 3 and 5, as shown
on Figure 17. GEOSCIENCE used the same approach as the USGS Model (Woolfenden and Koczot, 2001)
and CH2M Hill Model (2012). Ungaged runoff estimates made by Woolfenden and Kadhim (1997},
which represented unit discharge values multiplied by the drainage areas for the small creeks and
mountain fronts, were used in the USGS model from 1945 through 1996. Beyond this, discharge values
from Lytle Creek were used to estimate the ungaged volumes, following the approach outlined by the
USGS model report. Subsurface inflow from the mountains was assumed to be a constant
1,200 acre-ft/yr, based on work done by GEOSCIENCE (1994). Recharge from ungaged runoff and
subsurface inflow from the San Gabriel Mountains in the JGWM averaged 2,830 acre-ft/yr from 1945
through 2014 (see Figure 18).
3.3.5 Ungaged Runoff and Subsurface Inflow from the Badlands
Recharge from ungaged runoff and subsurface inflow from the Badlands was applied to Model Layer 2 In
the southern end of the Rialto-Colton Basin (see Figure 19). GEOSCIENCE used the same approach as
the USGS model (Woolfenden and Koczot, 2001) and CH2M Hill Model (2012). Estimates made by
Woolfenden and Kadhim (1997) were used to model ungaged runoff in the USGS Model from 1970
through 1996. Beyond this, discharge values from San Timoteo Creek were used to estimate the
ungaged volumes, following the approach outlined in the USGS model report. Subsurface inflow from
the Badlands was considered negligible and was therefore not modeled . In the JGWM, recharge from
the Badlands averaged 200 acre-ft/yr {see Figure 20).
3.3.6 Anthropogenic Return Flow
Anthropogenic return flow refers to the amount of water that returns to the aquifer after application of
water to the land surface in the form of irrigation, or from leaks in water and sewer lines. This return
GEOSCIENCE
'""7' 21
Valley District/West Valley/Good rich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
flow was estimated to be 30% of the groundwater pumping. This assumption is the same one used by
the USGS Ri alto-Colton Model (Woolfenden and Koczot , 2001) and the SBBA Model (Danskin et
al., 2005).
The anthropogenic return flow was applied to urban buildup areas shown on Figure 21. During the
model simulation, the 1963land use distribution was used from 1945 through 1969, while the 2005 land
use distribution was used from 1970 through 2014. Recharge from anthropogenic return flow was
applied to the highest active layer · in the JGWM . In the GEOSCIENCE water balance analysis,
anthropogenic return flow was estimated to be 4,030 acre-ft/yr (see Figure 22).
3.3.7 Areal Recharge from Precipitation
Ar ea l rec harge, or the direct infiltration of precipitation, was distributed evenly throughout t he
uppermost layer in the USGS Model. A recharge value of 0.5 inches per year was applied for the entire
model simulation, based on the recharge value used in the Bunker Hill Basin Model (Hardt and
Hutchinson, 1980). This assumption is the same one used by the USGS Rialto-Colton Model
(Woolfenden and Koczot, 2001) and SBBA Model (Danskin et al., 2005). After applying 0.5 Inches per
year to the entire basin, areal recharge from precipitation was estimated to be 870 acre-ft/yr (see Figure
23). Then 870 acre-ft/yr of areal recharge was redistributed to open space/non-irrigated agriculture
areas shown on Figure 21 . Similarly to anthropogenic return flow, 1963 land use was used from 1945
through 1969, while the 2005 land use distribution was used from 1970 through 2014.
During the final calibration model development, recharge at the Cactus Basins was added for the period
of October 1982 to March 1987 to match the observed water level s in these extreme wet years. The
following table shows the recharge amount:
GEOSCIENCE
~
Recharge at Cactus Basins
· . ,· ·Recharge AmQunt
Time Period ·
· : AcTe·ft
I__ Oct_1982_: Dec 19~~ I ---.. ·--~,188 ·-·. ___ j ~83-Dec 19831 12,641 i ~~-g;-~[;e~=t~·---12,690 j
' Jan 1985-Dec 1:~±=· _ 12 ... s J
Jan 1986-Dec 1986 12,646 -----... ---·-·-·-
Jan 1987-Mar 1987 i 3,119 i ----_----l,.. __________ _!
22
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
On the 3-Jun-15 biweekly conference call, BGW pointed out that the May 2015 flow model
(GEOSCIENCE, 2015) was not able to catch water levels in the middle of the basins during the storm
events from the 1980s. BGW also observed vegetation and ponding near the cactus Basins area from
historical imagery. In order to better understand this point, GEOSCIENCE performed several sensitivity
runs by recharging different amounts of water to the groundwater through the Cactus Basins during this
period and results were presented to TAC on the 18-Jun-15 biweekly conference call. Sensitivity runs
showed that recharge of 57,000 acre-ft (i.e., about 0.5 ft/day) in Cactus Basins No 1, No 2, and No 3
between October 1982 and March 1987 would improve the calibration significantly during the very wet
period (see Figure 24 and Figure 25). After further discussion, TAC agreed to add this recharge to the
final calibration model run. However, some amount of recharge has likely occurred in the Cactus Basins
during other periods in addition to the 1982 through 1987 time frame where Cactus Basin recharge has
been incorporated into the final calibration model. Further consideration of cactus Basin recharge may
be warranted during future updates of the JGWM.
3.3.8 Streambed Percolation from the Santa Ana River and Warm Creek
After 1995, the majority of the streambed channels in the Rialto-Colton area were lined. This fact was
not reflected in any of the existing models, but is accounted for in the JGWM. SAR and Warm Creek
streambed percolation was estimated by a simplified approach of multiplying an assumed recharge rate
of 2ft/day by the estimated wetted perimeter of the SAR for dry, average, and wet years. Based on
historical photographs, it was assumed that Warm Creek and most of the SAR were lined after 1995,
reducing the overall streambed percolation significantly.
Recharge in the form of streambed percolation from the SAR and Warm Creek was applied in the JGWM
using a streamflow routing package. The streamflow routing package assigns recharge to stream cells
that are sequentially numbered in the downstream direction. The cells used to represent the location of
the SAR and Warm Creek are shown on Figure 26 in Model Layer 1. Model input for the routing package
includes stream inflow, stream channel geometry, and streambed conductance. For the JGWM, the
recharge from streambed percolation was estimated to be 3,160 acre-ft/yr during the period from 1945
through 2014 (see Figure 27).
3.3.9 Percolation from Irrigation Canal
In the USGS Model (Woolfenden and Koczot, 2001), recharge from percolation occurs along an irrigation
canal located off from Warm Creek (see Figure 28). Water from Warm Creek was diverted into this
unlined canal from 1945 through 1955. The recharge values from the irrigation canal were determined
by applying the same percentage of seepage as that experienced in the SAR and Warm Creek
GEOSCIENCE
""""7'"" 23
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
(Woolfenden and Koczot, 2001). This recharge averaged 150 acre-ft/yr from 1945 through 2014 (Figure
29). The diversions to the Irrigation canal ended in 1955. The JGWM model accounts for this recharge
by using a series of wells with an assigned positive flow rate .
3.3.10 Groundwater Pumping
Groundwater pumping represents a significant source of discharge from the Rialto-Colton Model. For
the JGWM, pumping data from 58 wells (see Table 1) were collected from the Western-San Bernardino
Watermaster Database (provided by the USGS) and individual water purveyors (provided by CH2M Hill}.
The pumping locations are shown on Figure 30. Annual pumping rates were provided by the Santa Ana
River Watermaster and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) from 1947. For the two model years
prior to this, pumping was assumed to be the same as that in 1947. Gross pumping rates are shown on
Figure 31 and averaged 13,420 acre-ft/yr from 1945 through 2014.
3.3.11 Underflow Outflow to North Riverside Basin
Groundwater outflow from the Rialto-Colton Basin to North Riverside Basin occurs in the lower
southwest portion of the model area in Model Layers 1 through 5 (see Figure 32). Outflow values from
the JGWM are model-determined through a general-head boundary (GHB). At a GHB, the flow of water
is dependent on the difference in groundwater elevation between the model boundary cell and a point
outside the active model area, as well as on the conductance value at the boundary. Figure 33 shows
the groundwater elevation modeled at the northwest and southeast end of the GHB . As shown on
Figure 34, outflow from the JGWM averaged 19,590 acre-ft/yr for the period from 1945 through 2014.
3.3.12 Underflow Outflow to Chino Basin
Based on water level data, the Rialto-Colton Fault is considered to be a groundwater flow barrier
between the Rialto-Colton Basin and adjacent Chino Basin (refer to Figure 1}. Only small amounts of
groundwater movement occur through the Rialto-Colton Fault (lzbicki et al., 2013). Figure 35 shows the
location of underflow into Chino Basin in JGWM Model Layers 3 and 5. While the USGS Model
(Woolfenden and Koczot, 2001) and ERM Model (2013) assumed no underflow, the JGWM assumes an
underflow outflow of 100 acre-ft/yr (see Figure 36).
3 .3.13 Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration decreases with decreasing groundwater elevation and is the highest in areas where
the groundwater level elevations approach or exceed the ground surface. Outflow values from the
GEOSCIENCE
~ 24
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
JGWM are model-determined through the evapotranspiration package . In the JGWM, groundwater loss
due to evapotranspiration was set at a maximum rate of 38 inches per year and was applied to the
entire model layer 1 grid up to a depth of 15 feet. This setting is consistent with what was used in the
Bunker Hill Basin model (Danskin et al., 2005). The outflow due to evapotranspiration averages 0 acre-
ft/yr (see Figure 37).
3.4 Model Calibration
Calibration is the process of adjusting the model parameters to produce the best-fit between simulated
and observed groundwater system responses . During the process of flow model calibration, model
parameters were adjusted using reasonable anticipated values until model generated water levels
matched historical water levels. The JGWM flow model calibration consisted of:
• Steady state calibration (1945), and
• Transient calibration (annual stress periods from 1945 through 1969 and monthly stress periods
from 1970 through 2014).
3.4.1 Steady State calibration Results
The JGWM calibration included a steady state calibration period for 1945, which provided initial
conditions for the transient model calibration for the period from 1945 through 2014. The goal of a
steady state calibration is to model an acceptable water level distribution based on observed water
levels. The initial calibration was conducted under 1945 steady state conditions using a trial-and-error
approach as described by Danskin et al. (2005). Parameter values adjusted during the calibration
included vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivity, storativity/specific storage, specific yield, and
hydraulic characteristics of the HFBs.
The JGWM calibrated steady state groundwater elevations are shown on Figure 38 for each model layer.
Model-calculated water levels for the steady state calibration are compared to measured levels in the
calibration target wells that are screened in the River Channel Deposits, Upper Water-Bearing Unit,
Middle Water-Bearing Unit, and Lower Water-Bearing Unit in Figure 39 .
Numerical accuracy problems are often derived from inappropriate model grid spacing, time steps and
closure criteria for convergence. The global budget error measures numerical accuracy and is calculated
as the difference of total inflows and total outflows divided by the average of the total inflows and
outflows. The JGWM steady state calibration has a global budget error of 0.00%, where a global budget
error of less than 1% is considered acceptable.
GEOSCIENCE
~ 25
Valley District/West Valley/Good rich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
The following table summarizes the steady state residual calibration statistics:
Steady State Model Calibration Statistics
Stati?tic I JGWM
Mean Residual
I
__ .!_ 24.13 ft
M1mmum Residual ·13 60ft
Maximum Residual 150.80ft
Res1dual Standard
Dev1at1on
35-SOft
Relative Error _L_ 4.08% l
3.4.2 Transient Calibration Results
The JGWM has annual transient calibration results from 1945 through 1969 and monthly calibration
results from 1970 through 2014. The goal of the transient calibration was to model the overall water
balance with an acceptable water level distribution based on observed water levels. The initial
calibration was conducted using a trial-and-error approach as described by Dansk in et al. (2005).
Parameter values adjusted during the calibration included vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivity,
storativity/speclflc storage, specific yield, and hydraulic characteristics of the HFBs .
Numerical accuracy problems are often derived from inappropriate model grid spacing, time steps and
closure criteria for convergence. The global budget error measures numerical accuracy and is calculated
as the difference of total inflows and total outflows divided by the average of the total inflows and
outflows. The JGWM transient model calibration has a global budget error of 0.02%, where a global
budget error of less than 1% is considered acceptable.
The JGWM calibrated groundwater elevations for December 2014 are shown for each model layer on
Figure 40. Figures 41 through 47 show the JGWM calibration results for selected hydrographs with
observed and model-calculated water levels.
The division of the Middle Water-Bearing Unit into three layers allows for the modeling of the perched
areas separately and for the analysis ofthe vertical gradient. Here, the vertical gradient is the difference
in groundwater levels in the Upper and Lower Water-Bearing Units, which are separated by the BC
GEOSCIENCE
""'7 26
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Bas i n Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
Aquitard in the northeast area of the model. Figure 48 shows the difference in groundwater elevations
above and below the BC Aquitard. The change in water level ranges from 0 near the Cactus Basins to
approximately 230 ft at Barrier J.
Model-calculated water levels for the transient calibration were compared to measured levels in the
calibration target wells that are screened ln the River Channel Deposits, Upper Water-Bearing Unit,
Middle Water-Bearing Unit, and lower Water-Bearing Unit. There are a total of 335 wells with 27,140
target data points and the residual statistics for the model calibrations are summarized in the following
table and on Figure 49.
Transient Model calibration Statistics for All Layers
St3tlstle I JGWM
Mean Residual -6.66 ft
M1nrmum Res1dual -628 30ft
..
I
Maximum Residual I 492.30 ft
Resrdual Standard
Devratlon
69.4ft
-
I
' Relative Error 6.2%
----
In addition, the temporal distribution and the histogram of the groundwater level residuals are plotted
on Figures 50 and 51, respectively.
The statistics for each individual JGWM layer has been summarized in the table below.
GEOSCIENCE
"""V7" 27
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
Transient Model Calibration Statistics for Individual Layers
2 218 -628 3 2187 1319 71 15
3 ~12.4 -141.0 214.9 28.1 1 4.2 98
.1
4 NA NA NA NA NA NA
~ -· . r --112 ··r·· 5 I -().7 -126.9 492.3 40.0 I 4.5 l I ! '.
' 6 ~22.7 ~544.7 3605 90.5 10.7 106
I I • ··!· ·-. • •
7 NA ! NA ; NA NA i NA I NA i
·--·--··! ........... _. ___ ~---···-· ·········-------·· ______ !_ ___ , ____ ·-··-· ----···----.-.!
1-0ec-15
3,019
7,758
NA
9,814
6,329
NA
Figures 52 through 66 show the residual scattergrams, temporal residual distributions and the residual
histograms for each individual layer. Figures 67 through 71 depict the average residuals of observed and
modeled groundwater elevations in each model layer.
Based on the 1961 Decree, San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Number 81264, the average
spring-high groundwater level elevations (i.e., water levels in March, April and May) in three
Rialto-Colton Basin index wells (Rialto-4, WVWD~ll, and WVWD~l6), were used to determine the
pumping amount for each water purveyor. When the average water level of the index wells is above
1,002.3 ft amsl, pumping is unlimited. When the average water level of the index wells is between
969.7 ft amsl and 1,002 .3 ft amsl , pumping will be limited to the amounts imposed by the 1961 Decree .
Furthermore, pumping will be reduced by 1% for every foot, if the average is below 969.7 ft amsl, up to
a maximum of 5096. Figure 72 shows the measured and model-calculated average water levels of the
index wells. In general, the model~calculated water levels match the observed water levels pretty well,
except for the period from 1984 to 1991 when the observed water levels exceeded 1,002.3 ft amsl.
3.4.3 Water Balance
As discussed previously, inflow terms for the JGWM model include underflow inflow from Lytle and
Bunker Hill Basins, artificial recharge of imported water, streambed percolation from the SAR and Warm
Creek, ungaged runoff and subsurface inflow from the San Gabriel Mountains and from the Badlands,
irrigation or anthropogenic return flow, areal recharge from precipitation, and percolation from the
GEOSCIENCE
~ 28
Valley District/West Valley/Good rich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
irrigation canal. Discharge terms include groundwater pumping, underflow to North Riverside Basin and
Chino Basin, and evapotranspiration. The difference between the total inflow and total outflow is equal
to the change in groundwater storage.
Figure 73 shows the annual average budgets of the JGWM for the period from 1945 through 2014,
which are also summarized annually in Table 2. As shown in Figure 73, basin storage for the JGWM
calibration period (1945-2014) decreases by an average of 3,830 acre-ft/yr.
3.4.4 Change in Groundwater Storage
Change in groundwater storage is the difference between inflow terms and outflow terms. The annual
change in storage is shown graphically on Figure 74. On Figure 75, the cumulative annual change in
storage is compared to the existing USGS, CH2M Hill and ERM groundwater model results from 1970
through 2014. The JGWM shows a cumulative annual change in groundwater storage over the period
from 1970 to 2014 as a decline of 64,200 acre-ft.
GEOSCIENCE
"""'7"" 29
Valley Distri ct/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
4.0 RIALTO-COLTON BASIN SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL
4.1 General Description and Purpose of Model
1-Dec-15
The purpose of the JGWM solute transport model is to evaluate potential impacts of various scenarios
on ex isting perchl or ate plumes . The objective of the model calibration process was to ensu r e that the
calibrated solute transport model provides satisfactory agreement between model results and
groundwater conditions observed within the Basin, and that the model will be capable of producing
reliable predictive results for the evaluation of groundwater management and water quality
re med iation progra ms in the Ba si n. GEOSC IENCE incorporated knowledge from TAC members based on
their previous experience with Rialto-Colton perchlorate contamination into the JGWM . Solute
transport modeling was carried out using MT3DMS, a modular three-dimensional multi-species
transport model, which was developed by the University of Alabama In the Department of Geological
Sciences (Zheng and Wang, 1999). The JGWM solute transport model requires input data from the
JGWM flow model {e .g., seepage velocities and flow directions). The flow in and out of each model cell
is read by MT3DMS and used to track concentrations advectively and dispersively. The modules or
packages used for the JGWM solute transport model Include Advection (ADV), Dispers ion (DSP) and
Source Sink Mixing (SSM).
4.2 Development of Solute Transport Model
In addition to the aquifer parameters used for the JGWM flow model, the JGWM solute transport model
requ i res effective porosity as well as longitudinal, transverse, and vertical dispersivity values to simulate
transport of chemical constituents. The effective porosity values were set equal to the specific yield
values used in the flow model (see Figure 8). The assumed values for longitudinal, transverse, and
vertical di spersivity are 20ft, 2 ft, and 0.2 ft, respectively.
4.3 Solute Transport Model Calibration
The transient calibration goal was to model the overall mass balance and an acceptable simulated
concentration distribution based on observed perchlorate concentrations. A transient solute transport
model calibration was performed using a trial-and-error method with monthly stress periods from
January 2000 through December 2014. The monthly stress periods provide the ability to model the
seasonal aspects of fluxes such as areal recharge, return flow, pumping, mountain front runoff,
underflow, and st reambed percolation that may affect the pe rchlo rate plume migration.
GEOSCIENCE
~ 30
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
Model-calculated concentrations were prepared and used for comparison with measured
concentrations in the calibration target wells that are screened in the different model layers. The 276
wells with available measured perchlorate concentrations are shown on Figure 76. The 93 target wells
selected for solute transport model calibration (2000 through 2014) are shown on Figure 77. The
selected calibration target set consists of measured groundwater perchlorate concentrations from a
representative distribution of wells within the contamination area.
4.3.1 Initial Conc:entration
Figure 78 shows the initial perchlorate concentrations used in the JGWM solute transport model. It was
initially delineated based on the available observed data between 1998 and 2004, and was revised
during the calibration process.
Along the flow direction, the farthest available perchlorate measurements reflecting the initial condition
(i.e., perchlorate concentrations in 2000) are in Well Rialto-6 which showed non-detected
concentrations. This observation indicates that the main body of the Eastern Plume had not reached
Rialto-6.
Although efforts had been made by changing the seepage velocity to affect the migration of the plume,
the model was not able to fully match the perchlorate concentrations in downgradient wells (i.e., CPW-
16, PW-13, and PW-14) at the end of the modeling period. In order to solve this issue, a high initial
perchlorate concentration was assigned to the area near wells PW-10 and PW-12 (see Figure 78).
However, there is no actual data in year 2000 to support this assumption. This assumption may be
reevaluated in the future model update.
4.3.2 Sinks and Sources
The JGWM solute transport model required input of perchlorate mass loading to simulate point sources
in source areas. Based on previous modeling works and suggestions provided by the TAC, mass loading
was applied at the Goodrich Burn Pit and the Mclaughlin Pit in the 160-acre source area, and the
Robertson's Ready Mix Wash Pond Mobilization and the Stonehurst Site in the Western Plume source
area (see Figure 79}. The amount of perchlorate introduced to the model was varied iteratively to
match observed concentrations (see Table 3}.
GEOSCIENCE
""'7'""" 31
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
4.3 .3 Transient Calibration Results
1-Dec-15
Three types of t a rget wells were used during calibration for the comparison of model-calculated
perchlorate concentrations with measured perchlorate concentrations.
1 . Single well screened in o ne model laye r
2. Multiple wells screened in one model layer
3. Single well screened in multiple model layers
For the first type, model-calculated concentrations were directly compared to measured data. For the
second type, one weighted observed value was calculated from each screened depth measurement
based on transmissivity values . Then the weighted observed perchlorate concentrations were used to
evaluate the accuracy of the solute transport model. For the third type, model-calculated values for
multiple layers were weighted and then compared to the measured values.
Calibration results for the Eastern Plume target wells are shown on Figures 80 through 125. In general,
the model-calculated perchlorate concentrations match the observed values and the model correctly
illustrates the concepts of the plume migration. In the 160-acre source area, the model matches the
high perchlorate concentrations in the Intermediate Aquifer in Wells CMW-2A, CMW-1A and PW-3. The
calibrated model is not able t o match the monitor ing well PW-2 where perchlorate concentrations
increased from 40 llg/L in mid-2005 to over 10,000 l!g/l in spring 2006 in response to the extremely wet
winter of 2005. This underestimation may be explained in that the model simulates the average
concentration of each model layer instead of calculating the concentration at a particular depth. Other
than the source area, there are a number of downgradient wells where high concentrations have been
observed (i.e., PW-8, WVWD-22, PW-5, 1S/SW-3A, Rialto-6, PW-9 and CPW-16) in the Regional Aquifer
over time. The calibrated solute transport model matches the perchlorate concentrations in these wells
very well. The calibrated model overesti mat es or underestimates t he perchlorate concentrations in
some wells near the boundary of the Eastern Plume (e .g., N-25, EMW-SA, EMW-4A and EPA-MW9A).
This result is caused by minor differences In flow direction between those simulated in the flow model
and actual conditions. For the area downgradient of Rialto-6, the May 2015 solute transport model
matched perchlorate concentrations in Wells PW-10, EPA-MP7, CPW-16 and PW-13, but overestimated
concentrations in Wells PW-11 and PW-12, and underestimated concentrations in wells close to the
leading edge area (i.e., PW-14 and CPW -17) (GEOSCIENCE, 2015). Sensitivity runs were performed
during the final calibration model run development. By changing initial perchlorate concentrations,
GEOSCIENCE was able to improve the calibration in Wells PW-11, PW -12 and PW-14 . However, the final
calibrated model still overestimates perchlorate concentrations in Wells PW-11 and PW-12 by 30 ~l,
and slightly underestimates perchlorate concentrations in Well CPW-17 by 4 ~L. With more available
GEOSCIENCE
""V"""" 32
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/Oty of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Mod e l calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
perchlorate concentration measurements, these overestimations and underestimations can be further
refined by adjusting the seepage velocity and initial perchlorate concentrations in the future model
updates .
Model-calculated perchlorate concentrations compared to measured values for the Western Plume
target wells are shown on Figures 126 through 136. For target well N-35, the calibrated model was able
to match the changing trend of perchlorate concentrations, but was not able to match the high
concentration values in early 2003. For all of the other target wells in the Western Plume, the
model-calculated concentrations match the measured values very well .
Figures 137 through 139 depict the footprint of the Eastern Western Plumes in January 2000, December
2004, December 2009, and December 2014 in Model layers 3, 5 and 7, respectively. The model -
calculated migration rates of the perchlorate plumes agree with the rates estimated from observed
data. By the end of the modeling period (i.e ., December 2014), the leading edge of the perchlorate
plumes are close to PW-14 and above Barrier Q.
The JGWM solute transport model calibration Includes a total of 1,721 perchlorate concentration
measurements before the weighted calculation, and 1,417 data points after the weighting from 93
target wells . The model has a mean residual of 29 ~Land a relative error of 2.7%. In general, model
calibration is considered to be acceptable with a relative error of 10% or less (Spitz and Moreno, 1996;
Zheng and Bennett, 2002}.
Relative error is the standard deviation of the water quality residuals divided by the observed range.
GEOSCIENCE
~ 33
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1-Dec-15
Th e JGWM flow model wa s successfully calibrated through a steady state calibration for 1945 and a
transient calibration from 1945 through 2014. The transient calibration uses annual stress periods from
1945 through 1969 and monthly stress periods from 1970 through 2014. Numerical accuracy problems
are often derived from inappropriate model grid spacing, time steps, and closure criteria for
convergence . The global budget error measures numerical accuracy and is calculated as the difference
of total inflows and total outflows divided by the average of the total inflows and outflows. The JGWM
steady state flow model calibration has a global budget error of 0.00% while the transient flow model
calibration has a global budget error of 0.02%; a global budget error of less than 1% is considered
acceptable. The acceptable model calibration is also reflected by a relative error of 4.3% for the steady
state calibration and 6.2% for the transient calibration. Common modeling practice is to consider a good
fit between measured and modei·calculated water levels if the relative error is below 10% (Spitz and
Moreno, 1996). Results of the f low model calibration indicate that:
• Over the JGWM calibration period (1945-2014}, Basin storage decreased by an average of
3,830 acre·ft/yr.
• Cumulative annual change in groundwater storage over the period from 1970 to 2014 declined
by 64,200 acre·ft.
The JGWM solute transport model was successfully calibrated from 2000 through 2014 using a monthly
stress period. The solute transport model calibration has relative error of 2.7% which Is well below the
recommended modeling error of 10%. Results of the solute transport model calibration indicate that:
• in general, the model-calculated perchlorate concentrations match the observed values and the
model correctly illustrates the concepts of the plume migration.
• The calibrated model Is not able to match the monitoring well PW·2 where perchlorate
concentrations increased from 40 ~L in mid-2005 to over 10,000 ~L in spring 2006. This
increase was in response to the extremely wet winter of 2005. This underestimation may be
explained in that the model simulates the average concentration of each model layer instead of
calculating the concentration at a particular depth.
• The calibrated model overestimates or underestimates the perchlorate concentrations in some
wells near the boundary of the Eastern Plume (e.g., N-2S, EMW-SA, EMW -38 and PW-11). This
variation is caused by minor differences in flow direction between those simulated in the flow
model and actual conditions.
• The calibrated model overestimates perchlorate concentrations In Wells PW-11 and PW-12.
GEOSCIENCE
~ 34
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
• The calibrated model slightly underestimates perchlorate concentrations in Well CPW-17.
The model-calculated migration rates of the perchlorate plumes agree with the rates estimated from
observed data . By the end of the modeling period (i.e ., December 2014), the leading edge of the
perchlorate plumes are close to PW-14 and close to Barrier Q.
GEOSCIENCE understands that the JGWM will be used to help manage the Rialto-Colton Groundwater
Basin for many years in the future; therefore recommendations of further model updates and
improvements are listed below:
• Continue collecting water level and perchlorate concentration measurements in the monitoring
wells and update the model on a regular basis incorporating the new water level and
perchlorate data.
• As groundwater remediation efforts progress, establish a database of perchlorate mass
removed from the aquifer. Use this data as an additional calibration factor for future efforts on
model development.
• North of the Unnamed and Barrier J faults, the JGWM overstates water-level changes in an area
where localized flow through faults is poorly understood. Cautious use of the model in this area
is recommended until model performance can be improved.
GEOSCIENCE
""'V7'" 35
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
6.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
1-Dec-15
While groundwater models are useful tools for evaluating water levels, basin management strategies,
and remediation strategies, all models are a simplified approximation of a complex hydrogeologic
system. As such, there are certain built-in assumptions. The accuracy of the predictions made by the
model is therefore dependent on the simplifying assumptions used. Assumptions for the JGWM include
the following:
• Groundwater flow is assumed to be horizontal within each model layer and vertical between
layers,
• The layers are horizontally isotropic,
• Changes in the groundwater storage in the model layers occur instantaneously with changes in
hydraulic head, and
• Recharge, like that from return flow, reaches the water table immediately (i.e., no time delay for
travel time through unsaturated materials}.
limitations for the JGWM include the following:
• Some of the perchlorate measurements are collected from thin well screen, and they are not
able to represent the cond it ion of the entire aquifer. Calibration based on these measurements
may cause some overestimation in the model. However, the main purpose of this model is to
understand the changing of concentrations through time (i.e ., plume migrations), not
quantifying the mass.
• The solute transport model of the JGWM is able to simulate the perchlorate penetrated from
Eastern Plume and Western Plume source areas . However, there is non-synthetic perchlorate in
portions of the Rialto-Colton Basin and the JGWM is not able to simulate this non-synthetic
perchlorate due to the limited data. As documented in the ESTCP study of perchlorate sources,
Well Colton 15 contained non·synthetic perchlorate as well as Colton 17. This occurrence of
non-synthetic perchlorate helps explain the model's underestimation of source-area perchlorate
concentrations in these two wells.
• The updated flow model uses a Revised Multi-Node Well (MNW2} Package to simulate the
pumping. Compared to the original Multi·Node Well (MNW) Package, MNW2 has a slightly
larger numerical error in the model.
GEOSCIENCE
~ 36
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
7.0 REFERENCES
1-Dec-15
Balleau Groundwater, Inc. (BGW), 2015 . Peer Review: Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model-Draft,
July 2015 .
California Department of Water Resources {DWR), 1971. Meeting water demands in the Bunker Hill -
San Timoteo area -geology, hydrology, and operation-economics studies: California
Department of Water Resources Bulletin 104-5, Memorandum Report, text and plates, 395 p.
CH2M Hill, 2012. Numerical Groundwater Flow Model Report, Rialto-Colton Basin. June 1, 2012.
Danskin, W.R., McPherson, K.R., and Woolfenden, L.R., 2005 . Hydrology, Description of Computer
Models, and Evaluation of Selected Water-Management Alternatives in the San Bernardino
Area, California. January 2005.
Driscoll, Fletcher G., 1986. Groundwater and Wells . Second Edition . Johnson Screens, St. Paul,
Minnesota .
Environmental Resource Management (ERM), 2013. Groundwater Flow Modeling Report: Source Area
Operable Unit, B.F. Goodrich Superfund Site. July 2013.
Environmental Simulations, Inc., 1999. Groundwater Vistas, version 2.1.Dupre, William R., 1975.
Quaternary History of the Watsonville Lowlands North-Central Monterey Bay Region, California.
Geo-Logic Associates (GLA), 2010. Updated Hydrogeologic Model of Perchlorate Transport Conditions in
the Northern RCB, San Bernardino County, California. February 2010.
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. (GEOSCIENCE), 1994. Opinions as to Conditions In the Rialto-Colton
Groundwater Basin .
GEOSCIENCE, 2013a. Workplan for the Development of a Joint Groundwater Model for the Rialto-
Colton Groundwater Basin, September 27, 2013.
GEOSCIENCE, 2013b. Review of the Existing Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Models, December 12,
2013.
GEOSCIENCE, 2014a. Water Balance Analysis of the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin, April29, 2014.
GEOSCIENCE, 2014b. DRAFT Flow Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model, August
18,2014.
GEOSCIENCE -=:::vr 37
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
GEOSCIENCE, 2014c. Flow Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model, October 14,
2014.
GEOSCIENCE, 2015. Draft Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of the Rialto-Colton
Groundwater Model, May 15,2015.
Hardt, W.F., and Hutchinson, C.B., 1980. Development and Use of a Mathematical Model of the San
Bernardino Valley Ground-Water Ba sin, California : U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
80-516, 80 p.
lzb icki , J ., N. Teague , P.B. Hatz inger, J.K. Bohlke, and, N.C Sturchio, 2013 . Groundwater Recharge and
Movement, and Potential for Perchlorate movement in a Faulted Alluvium Aquifer.
Niswonger, Richard G., Panday, S., and lbaraki, M., 2011 . MODFlOW-NWT, A Newton Formulation for
MODFlOW 2005. USGS Techniques and Methods 6-A37, 44 p.
Numeric Solutions LlC., 2014. Technical Memorandum Summarizing the Development of a Geologic
Model for the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin, San Bernardino County, California, March 28,
2014.
Paulinski, S., 2012. Structural, Hydrogeologic Framework, and Textural Model ofthe Rialto-colton Basin
and the Ch i no and North Riverside Area. M.S. Thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
San Bernardino County Superior Court, 1961. Rialto Basin Decree. Action 81264. lytle Creek Water &
Improvement Company vs . Fontana Ranchos Water Company et al. December 22, 1961.
Spitz, K and Moreno, J., 1996. A Practical Guide to Groundwater and Solute Transport Modeling. Oxford
University Press, Inc. pp 241.
U.S . Geological Survey (USGS), 2004. Guidelines for Evaluating Ground-Water Flow Models. T.E. Reilly
and A .W . Harbaugh.
Woolfenden, LR., and Kadhim, D., 1997. Geohydrology and Water Chemistry in the Rialto-Colton Basin,
San Bernardino County, Californ ia: Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4012, 101 p .
Woolfenden, LR., and Koczot, K.M., 2001. Numerical Simulation of Ground-Water Flow and Assessment
of the Effects of Artificial Recharge in the Rialto-Colton Basin, San Bernardino County, California.
USGS Report.
Zheng, C., and Bennett, G., 2002. Applied Contaminant Transport Modeling, Second Edition. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
GEOSCIENCE
~ 38
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of
Rialt~lton Basin Groundwater Model 1-Dec-15
Zheng, C., and Wang, P., 1999. MT3DMS, A modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model for
simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater
systems: Vicksburg, Miss., Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
GEOSCIENCE
~ 39
Valley District/West Valley/Good rich/
City of Rialto/City of Colton
fiGURES
GEOSCIENCE
~
l..O.c-l5
""""l't'DJ:MI . .,.,......ftttt~l.U,lDMV:
••J.5KISG:tal~ .......... lftC:. AI JIPb--'-
"OIITII .
FLDW NfDSOWll TRAJai'DIT MCIOILCAUIIIUIIlON or fMAlTO.CDU'DiiiiiASIN IIIlO~ MOD&.
:]-
GENIIIAL LOCAllO!II
Sp~d,.; GIVUndri or !asln
locll ~ult
l"11111'4ki,.2DU)
f iJUI'1! 1
~--[-····-··
J _g
~ ....... •• t
.,.
1~f:l>15
,.,....lrr: ~ .................... !. "-tW~olMI•V.
Co llltS,IilmQiiNC(...,.......,UI .. tftol, All ....... .,.,....
J.. . ----~-----.,.--, .. ~--..-:""---:-'
GROUNDWATER
M ODB.GRIO
(::; ---
s......-. &1aundl or luln
filure Z
--: ,.__~.
, .......
-~ ....... .,_ .. ,.,,.,_,., ..... .
......... ,1 ..... lo-OO'I-• ....... -
---~----~"'-'"'··--... __
'*·
:·~
.
E1
..
SOIEMATIC OF THE
IIW.JO.COI.TON IIASIN
AQUIF!R SlSTEMS
---
1-
<10
10-100
100·200
>IJO ·IOO .... ...,
400·500
500-0ClO .... ,..
Locii~Yh
C,_,UotkLlOUJ
' ......
MOOELtAYER
THQNESS
c:::y .............. -....
&-..!Feuft
(PM~nnsk~lOUJ
COU'ItyBoundary
BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
11p11eS
_:_ ...
...........,(ft/d>i)
<I -1-4 ._,
,_,.
UI·JO ,.,_..., ..... -00-10
00-100
L 200-"""
HORIZONTAl.
HYDRAUUC
CONDITMTY
Fl&u~6
v.rtitll tcyd~lk ConduaMc.y
!ft/doyJ
U-2.0
2:.0-3.0
D 24.0 ·3GA
.........
!::::; ...................... ..
... ~ .....
-1012) Couocy-
VERTICAL
HYDRAUliC
t.ONOUCTIVITY
flaure7
.~ ~ .....
1-0<c-H
., -~IIDrQI~
CSI'BdficW.Id,.urldft'l
<0.05
O.OS·o.lC'
o.10•Q.1S
O.lS·O.ZO
O.»·CUS
o.2.5 .. aJIIl
C:) ---
LaQI,.u!t
(fl'lu11niiii,.ID12•
CoJntylaLrld.ary
D 1 J J 4 t ....
. v,
SECONDARY STOIIUIGE
COEFFICIENT
jSP£0FIC YIElD)
-l"''i'MryStora,eCotfftdtra
(.5bntMty. ~nltt.D)
O.DCI001·CI..DOOIU
QliCIQQI .QliJ01
OJXIOl·OJJOl
' ....
'·
PRIMARY STORAGE
COEFFICIENT
(SlOtiATMTY)
Flpre9
...
IIORIZONTAL
FLOW IIARIUERS
Ficu,..10
-~ .. -··--
1<lo<-15
I ---t-··
l.hl•rf'lawtiflfiiLylle&uln
t::::; ... ., ................ ..
!.ami Dull
(hui~20U)
. . ~· .,
LOCATION Of
UNOEIIflOW
RIOMLYTUIASIN
Fltp11111l
VMiey District/West Vatf!'t/Goodtidl/~ of Riallo/~ of Colton
Fl-and Solute TrMISPOrt Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
Annual Underflow from Lytle Basin to Rialto-Colton Basin
100,000
90,000
I • Uli:l 110'W rrom l\1& ~Ill, Av .-~~ of 1S4S-2G14 ~ 1:,3.~0 MY
i
I
80,000
~ ~ 70,000 ! u II c
'iii 60,000 .z
.!I
!;
E 50,000 ,g
f 4 0,000 ..
"0 c = iii 30,000 :I c c
c(
20,000
1
I
i t-t-
I -·---
I
!
I
10,000
0 l11 ~~ IIIII 11.11. II i 11 1 IIIII lu .. 1 I II 111.11 .11 I
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
GEOSOENCE SUpport Servl~s, Inc.
-·j·--
1 ... .... , ·~,.·~.·
V 'u~. ' ... ' , ,.
-Cdl
t::::J _ ......... ~ ....... ..,
~
HOII.T N
0 1 :t ) 4 5 ...
. ...
LOCAnONOF
UNDERFLOW FIIOM
IUNIIEII HILL BASIN
Flcu .. n
Valley District/West V•lley/Goodrkh/City of ~o/Oty of Cotto.
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration olllil~ Basift Groundwner Mocs.l
Annual Underflow from Bunker Hill Basin to Rialto-colton Basin
20,000
• Un~r'ltow fm•ili Bu11ke r liill ~~111, A.v~~'%>0! d' l!i-115-:<014 • 4.,3:£f) 1\I'V
18,000
~ 16,000
4? ! .. 14,000 ..
i ..
Ill
;;; 12 ,000
:I:
~ c :> 10,000 IIIII
E
~
I 8,000
'E ..
"D c
::l
iii :>
6,000
c
i 4,000
2,000
0 Ill. I .I
-
I "TT a· c 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 19 75 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 il ... ..
GEOSOENa Su pport Services, Inc.
• l.6c:ltJonofAn:tlk:llllltet:hl~
f~am lnlport.d w.ter at Linde" Polld
!::::) """'''"' Modol la""''"
LOCATION OF
ARTIFICIAL
RECHARGE OF
NPOIITm WATEit
fllure 15
Valley District/West V•...,/Goodrlch/City of Riab/Oty of Colton
Flow ...cl Solute Transpott Model Calibration of ~olton hsin Gnlundwater Model
Annual Artificial Recharge•
20,000
18,000 I • A~tltki1d Fi.~che. ~·~. Aw.ra~e uf 1SJ<4.S-20 ll4 = 5!':0 A I'Y
16,000
14,000
f .. 12,000 -·
• ~ 10,000 • ~ u .. a:
I I
I
i
I 8,000
c
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
r
I "l i'ii:ludt. •a r~;hrae a'i: Dtr:tll~ %$lri fly wvwo iFl ;:,'-' 14 I' I
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
1-Dec-15 GEOSOENCE Support Services, Inc.
Lcat.IDI'IofUniJitldRunotf•ndS'ub.Jrf.ta
lrflowftorn ttws.n liill~riel Mountalnt
LOCATION OF UNGAGED
RUNOFf liND
SUBSURFACE INFIDW
FIIOMTHE
SAN GA-L MOUIIllUNS
Flr;ure 17
V*'t District/West V*'t/6oodtldi/City ofi!Wto/City at Colton
Flaw and Solute Transport Model Calibration of RiaJto.Colton Basin Groundwater Model
Annual Unpged Runoff and Subsurface Inflow from the San Gabriel Mountains
20,000
• Uns:~sroo llul'l:ffl' <~ilcl SUbiutio.:« l~iftov< from rh~ S.Jn GaJbritsl
.;;
II: 18,000 '! II:
M au nta l r.~. A-'2t'<llti~ of l.!145--:t014 ~ 1,830 Af'V
::I
Q
:IE
'1i 16,000
;;:
.1:1 • 1:1
1: 14,000 31
! ..
E 12,000 !
i~ ;l 10,000
u ~ ~ ~
j 8,000 :I
~--
I
"' 'a
1: • I
i 6,000
1:
:I ac
1 4,000 r--
;)
'ii 2,000 ::I
1:
.1
0 u Ill II u II I II I
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
--
Ill ., a c
iil -Clll
1-Deo-15 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
-:~·~f .. )',.; •.• · ii ..... ~ .
l ..Ot t--15
·'· :r !,.
--.~ ..........
l.o«<tton d U ..... d RW101f aDd
Sub.5urftlc:e lrtlowtrom lhe .. dl1n d1
~ .... ~., .... ~ ............
• 1 il J 4 ' Ml'-
lOCATION OF UNGAGED
RUNOFF AND
SU85URFACE l'fFLOW
FIIOM THE IADIANDS
Flcure19
Valley District/West Va ley/Goodrich/Oty of Rlallo/Oty vi Coltc.
Flow .nc1 Solute Tr•nsport Model carobtlltion of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
s.ooo
-c 4,500 '! c :I
0
:1
1 4,000 .. Ill
c • "'
3,500 ..
= E 3,000 !
1!;:.
]~ 2,500 s i!
~ lil
:I
Jl 2,000 Jl .... c
" ifi c
1,500
:I "' l c
1,000
~
Ci :I c 500
c <
0
Annual Ungaged Runoff and Subsurfac:e Inflow from the Badlands
• u. ~ ge.: RtJr,cif ~roo; !-u ·uno:.~ I~ flolf• t'n B.<'db 1\d:;, Av10~ge cf
~ -~l.n.~.· = lOO f'.J"V
:. I • I d . .. I -. .II I • • . Ia ........ 1
·-
I liT .,
a· c
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 ; ..,
0
GEOSCIENCE Support Setvlc:es,lnc.
VAlLD' IMSDICT/WUT VALUY/GOODRICH/trTY OF RIALTO/C11Y Of COlTOPII
·'I .
•J
v
_______ .. --
Olltllftt « AaM-Model Arel
·~15
~,.,.,.bf' DWa t.Mo,,..;.tloM.S.tt:HtMnu,.z-'11..
••n.~'-t~IN.Mflllol<-rvM.
I
'· · .. --.. _J ..
' \
t ?~
~~. "··J.
·;:
/
f
la"O.... ~lftmtions. (OWft • Dlp.aniMnt ofYU~ ResciYJctS)
At;rla.4Me I Patti/ Gol C.WS.t
Opta S"paca/Nci'WtripMd ..........
UrblnUdup
(UrblllbUildUJlU"I'fMWtflhttd
allel"all! ofcomm.rc"lllll, hd~l~
jUlie filcillilllftd ~ l'lledh,m ., ..
lliJh 41!ns.itr resldentl•l hou1-.l
. / . '·-·· ,.-/ ~
·' ..
\
' i
i
\
lOCATION OF AN1MROPOG£NIC
ltETIMN ROW AND
AR!AI.IIECIWI&E -
PR!QPmmON
Vlllley District/West v.-.y/Goodrich/City of Ri81to/Crty of Colto.
Flow and Solute Transport Madel C.Nbration of Rialto-Colton hsln Groundwater Model
Annual Anthropopnlc Return Flow
20,000
l;;. 18,000
4?
I!! .. 16,000 •
-· --1
I
i
.. ... c
..!! ... .. ID 14,000 -· -
j
I 12,000
;;:: = 8
~ 10 ,000
::I .. .1:11 a I ... 8,000 c ..
15 c I
::1 6,000 Ill: ...,
I ~ 4,000
ii
::1 c c 2,000 c
0 Ill I II
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 19 70 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20 10
1·Dec>15 GEOSCIENCE Support Servlcu, inc.
Valley District/West Valley/Goo6t:ld'I/Oty of RHIIto/City of Calion
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calbntion of Rialto<oltan Basin Groundwater Model
20,000
18,000
~ 16,000
~ "' 14,000
c 0 .
'fij .. ~
!! tL
12,000
E 10,000 .g
~ ... .c 8,000 ~ co:
1 6,000
1 s: c < 4,000
2,000
0
1-Dec-15
Annual Recharge from Precipitation•
• Areal Recharge from Precipitation, Average of 1945-2014 = 1,690 AFY
-•tncluding additional recharge of 57,000
acre-ft at the cactus Basins during the
period of Oct. 1982 through Mar. 1987
-to account for the additional recharge in
very wet years
lllllll.llllUillJJIII_llllllllllllllll . Lllllll t 111111 f 111111111 UJ "" f&i c
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 iil
N w
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
(-
•
1-lloo-15
""'""-"~ Dl. -~SI*""nHn.ll>fi•V.
.. a'-GtOlOIICUI.,, ....... tt.N. All..,._ll
~
ti0111H
' -
·.
..
_ ... --
LDCAnONOF
CACT\JS IASINS RECHARGE
..... o --.. -
--
Flpre 24
Valley Distr1ct/West V....,/Go«<lkJt/Oty of Rialto/Oty ol Colton
R-and Solute T"nsport Model C.libration of Rialto-Colton Rain Gtoundwatef Model
Annual Recharge at Cactus Basins
20,000 .---------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
• Recharge at Cactus Basins, Total of 1945-2014 = 57,000 AF
18,000 +---------------------------------------l
16,000 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~
!;:.
4? 14,000
~ ..
l 12,000 ..
Ill ..
:I ~
Ill u
10,000 ..
Ill
~ 8,000
Ill
j
II:
1 6,000
c c c
4,000
2,000 +-----------------------------------------~ .. ~~----------------------------~
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
:!! ca c
iil
t!
1-Dec-15 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
Lo'ltfon at!llffllllbed Ptrco~M~on frwntiM:
Santa Ana Rlnr lrd W.ml O.ek
t.OCAnON Of SlllfAMIIfO
PEIICDlAllON FROM
THE SAN1ll. AliA RIVEII
AND WARM CREEK
Fi&ure26
V*'f Dlstrlct/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City af Colton
Row 1nd Solute Transport M odel Cllibratlon of Ri alto-Colton BIISin 6 roundwlteo-Model
20,000
~
!! u ..
18,000
..z 16,000 II ~
~
~ 14,000
l ..
~
i:
12,000 .. c < • .. c • "'
10,000
~
c 8,000 .52 ..
.!! ~ 6,000 II D.
1 ...
E 4,000 ..
i
'ij
:0 c
.l 2,000
0
1-Dec-15
Annual Streambed Percolation from the Santa Ana River and Warm Creek
• Streambed Percolation of Santa Ana River and Warm Creek, Average of 1945-2014 • 3,160 AFY
I It I I I I IIIII I 1111 lilt "" c c
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 iii
~
GEOSCI ENCE Su,lport Services, Inc.
LOCitlon afltrf&aiM Cln1l
t:::::; !oc\OroiModO-
Valley Dlstrkt/West V .. ley/Goodrich/Oty of Rialto/City of ColtcJn
A-and Solute Transport MocW Cllibratlon of Rialto-Colton lla*l Groundwater Model
Annual Percolation from Irrigation canal
5,000
• Percolation from Irrigation canal, Average of 1945-2014 = 150 AfY
4,500
4,000
!;:;.
~ ~ u •
3,500
J
2
~ 3,000
c
0 ·::
f 2,500
'S
c
-8 2,000 ..!! ~ ..
D.
;;;
:1 c
.i
1,500
1,000
500
0 II. .,
cC c
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Cil
t&
1-Dec-15 GEOSOENCE SUpport S.rvk:es, Inc.
,..,... ...
,..~-..,CII. M¥....-..StaeNrwUII,,loo!eV.
• .U.ii£CIItm«<S.,..IInf-_IK. Alii,.__,_ ....
•
I.OCA'IIONOF
8110UIIINWIR
PUMPING
.........
CIOU-OOUI
~
._._ ... (1111~ .. -.... 1':'\.-•.c:.-u '"" Fi&ure 30 ----· .. ~··--·--
Valley Dlrlrlct/West V.lley/Goodrlch/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Qolibratian of Rialto<olton Basin Groundlnter Model
Annual Groundwater Pumping
50,000
• Groundwater Pumping, Average of 1945-2014 • 13,420 AFY
45,000
40,000
~ ~ 35,000
~ .. .a t:: ·a. 30,000
E :I 10, .. 25,000 !
! c :I e
"'
20,000
ii :I
t:: 15,000 ~
10,000
5,000
0 I
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
.,
cO c
iiJ
w ....
GEOSCIENCE Support Servi<es, Inc.
-r-
ktlw>Model Cel
(::) ... lonoiModol_...,.
Loc•l~ult
IPA!IInsld. 2012)
lOCAllONOf
IINDBlFlDW TO
NOimiiJVERSIDE BASIN
FiiUre 32
var------------------------------,
..... +------------------4
I i ..
--t-~~~~~~~----~L-~~~~ i ••-1----------i
--+------------------;
·-~""""~~""~~~~~~""~~~~""~ -••• .... ..,.
~·OIL M..,..........,_ ... f!IIMl,U,la•\1
eau.&DJSCIIIII:I':I~.rtMc~H,IftC. .... lflhb_..... -
--~-r· ··._:r _r ~:·+'
_ _,_.
6fNtliAL "liAD IOUNDARY
GROUNDW~RB£VAnONS
..,Nina Grounds ct a,slft
t.ocaiFiult
(Ptulrns ~,2011.)
,,... .,..-------------------,
..... t-------------------1
-+------------------------------1
-+-----------------------------1
Valley District/West v .-.,/Goodrich/Crty of I!Wto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute T111nsport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
Annual Underflow to North Riverside Basin
100,000
•U~lderflo~'' to :'icrtll Rl\l~!i'Sidi! ~>In, lw~e a\' B<l·S·-1.014 "' l!I,SSf 1>.PV
90,000
~ ~
80,000
!! .., .. 70,000 c
'Ill
" .. 60,000 !
t
"' iii:
~ 50,000
0 z s 40,000 • -
0 'E
Ill "CC
0::: 30,000 :::)
ii
;I
0:::
i 20,000
10,000
0 I I
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
GEOSOENC£ Support Services, Inc.
--
·-;--~·
..,.~~
~~=:::;i.":i:i """ ... ~ ... -,.. . ...., __ --
LOCA110NOF
UNDERFLOW
TO 011010 BASIN
fi&ure35
Vdey District/West Vdey/Goodrich/City of lll*o/City of Ctlltcn
Flow and Solute T .. II$IMHt Model calibration ol Rialto-Colton Basin~ Modlll
5,000
4,500
4,000
.. ,..
4; 3,500
~ .. c 3,000 ·;; ..
Ill
0 c:
l! 2,500 u s
I
1i 2,000
"0 c
::I
;;
::J 1,5 00 c
.i
1,000
500
0
Annual Underflow to Chino Basin
• Un:1~tfio\<" t;:; f~t1lml l!ilsH1, All'l'PG:\'! of 19'45~.'-0 l.Jl = 100 I'Ff
l
-.. ·--
I I I I U I Ill I t II I I I I I I II II II I I I 11111111 I I I I I I I II Ill I II~U II I I a I I I I I I I I I II
.,
ii c
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Gl
Co)
G)
GEOSO£NCE Support S.rvtms, Inc.
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Row •nd SOlute Transport Model Cdbration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwateo-Model
Annual Evapotranspi ration
100.0 ~------------------------------------------------------------------------~
• Evapotranspiration, Average of 1945-2014 = 0 AFY
90.0 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~
~ 80.0
!!
" .. 70.0 c
0 -;:;
l 60.0 .. c
I!! i 50.0 !
iii = c c c 40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
::!!
CICII c
iil
w .......
GEOSCIENCE SUpport Servk>es, Inc;.
., ..... j _• ... -.. -·).,.
-U25-$Widyltate,....:.l
GroundwatcrE~rev~~Han~;
tft•lln!Jil
-
STEADY STAT'f
MOD£L£D
IIIIOUI'IDWAmt
EL£V.IITIONS
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Tnnport Model Cllllbrlltlon of Ri~o-Colton Bask16rouotdwMer Model
1,800
1 1,600
"' 4:: c
.!!
1 ...
~
B
i
!ii
!!
1:1
ll
"ii ...,
a ::e
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
Steady State Measured vs. Model-Calculated Water Levels
Summary of Residual
Mean Residual: 24.13 ft
Min Residual: -13.60 ft
Max Residual: 150.80 ft
Standard Deviation of Residual: 35.80 ft
Relative Error1: 4.08%
Observe d water level plus/min us
one standard deviation of wat er
level residual (i.e., +/-3S.80 ft)
Based on 24 water level measurements.
1 C<lmmon modeKn1 practico is to consider 0100d fit betwoon hlstort<:ol and modol-coneroted
data If the rolativo orror Is below 10% (Spitz and Moreno, 1996, ond Envlronmonto l Simulations, Inc., 1999)
800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Observed Groundwater Elevation, ft amsl
2,000
1-llec-15 GEOSCIENCE SUpport Services, Inc.
.,
.llll!l.YI6IIll
-m-Moclelld UIIA
Gruu~11rE~
(ft: •r:'l51~
t::::; ........ ,....,_....,
LogiFJI.Ih
IP111u iin '•~10lll
Olt.lntylowndiJY
IIIDDEUD 2014
&IIOUNDWATER
El£VATIONS
fllure40
l·l)f»li
.......... I¥ IlL .... ,....,.11-."'!WlNI,.leMV
•• 1$,. &f;mOINI:I..,...._._""' ... ,...,.,_..,...
MODEL LAYER 1
$£1KTED
HYDROGIIAPHS
-• W.IILocatian
• cannoedDIIta
ModtltfWaK ~~
fil'll~-cohenl«nt Mod•l
(::; focwed Modello~rdary
(::; ---
""' ® s,n.•rc Gro1.1ndli or Ia sin
LomtFaull
.,. ... ._." .. 201l)
CauMy-
Flpre41
' '
'-;.·
•'
...
' .. ..
..... .-----" .. "' ... =1"-1-------,
1-0oo-1..5
,. ....... 01. .... ,.....,.~"-'Dn.r...Y.
• .:II,GmiCIDICIS....,..~!-.. .............
Co-15 ... '1 ___ ...;.;;.=.;;;;;...-------,
~~ ...
"~-1 ...... .....
I:
... ... .... -~..~_ ..... -_--_ .... -_ .... _____ ,_-.~_
MODB.IAVER Z
SEIIICID)
HYDROGRAPHS
-..... ...._ . --
hlod~ waer Level •
RI~Jo4ntMDd~
t::::; _ ............ ...,
Ftavre42
·-,----'CM=w.e=SA::::..._ ____ ,
.........
,.._....,: DL Mil 'r.l'"'•~ Slim ,.. ua,z..,.v;
O»U.GmiiCIBCikltlll't~IM. M"P!i,_.,.,
1,500 .----:::CMW=-415=1:.._ ___ ---.,
FUIW AND $OLLITI TI.MISPOGMOCI[LO\UIUTION 0 ' liiiA\JDoCOl'ftliN IMIM MOUNDWAI"III MODII.
1 '< .. ·;
Ullll ,----:::CMW=-IISC=:.._----,
·~ ~-:· ~. -.:?
.. , .:,~~"'c.
...
... :~-....... --~~ ....... --l
1MI 1111 liB U '.5 1115 IHI 1111 1011
.... ·.;.F
MODEL LAYER 3
SELECI'ED
HYDROGRAPHS
. --
Mod.r• W.Wr lllv.l-
Nt~tDRJOII'Il Modt:l
!prtedlnl Graunds or luln
LDeai FI"It
(,.,...~. 1 012)
'"""" ........
Flcure43
l •bl&lS
,,...rWiy. DL Mlp~S.."'-lWI,II•~
• ...U,,IICilJtifD.IIWMIINC..MC. AII IWCI--._
"GUM
'
MODEL LAYERS
SElJ!CI'ED
HYDIIOGIIAPHS
lOF2
-. --. .__. .....
M~~tl.evel
~illtDoalllardolllt Mfld•l
!:::::; ............ ,,lo"""'"
!::::; --~-...
. .-. ..
·~": ~ r.a.•rwSKcl-sa.HIM uu,z-v.
O)ftSr,emiOIICIJiwllrlllnil;ft,l~ MrWD__..
-_.._ ________ __.
D4S HSI UN U7J UU 1115 JDO!i HU
•
•
MODEL lAYERS
SEL£CTED
HYDROGRAPHS
ZDFZ
-............
........ .,...
Modelmw.ter L-.1·
Rllto-Col10n Joint Modtl
!::::; Foc11s~~:d Model Boundary
1::::; ... lonlll Mvdd eo.Nary
cr ... ,.
Qr' Spe:ICftni~DI' .. IIII
locaiD•k
(11dflsk~2012)
County loundlry
Figure45
.....
)LUll
_,L ...
f:: ;: ...
I -: ... -... ,...
uu-
,. .......... Ell ................ t.o,"""c WU,U...V
• .U,«m:CII NCI: ........ ~IM. M rW!a'"""""' ...
uu 1 .. am a .. .... -
i
' I
·1
MODS. LAYEI 6
miC'TfD
HYDROGIIAPHS
10F2
. .........,.,..
MCIMI..t w.tr l-' ~
RI~Jo1ntMadal
. --~-...... '"""':"" . ;-· _:.:_. -'--:
,..,... ..
....... II¥< Ct.. M··~lll\d11•1W.IM1\t
e.u,.ClllOIHCI.&~.,.rts.~~ ,., .... ,.,......
-...
--~----~--~~~~--~
..U Ue U71 UU UN 20111 21015 -. -------.--.·':· ""--,.,.,-"'-'-U-"'-'-'a__,_ .. _,_r-,-,.--=.--J
"'"'
•
MOD£L lAYER 6
SEI..EC'TED
HYDROGRAPHS
20F2
Modl:tectW•rLevei -
IUiho-Colton Jalnt Mod-'
10 ....... Mo .. , ....... ..,
10 -~ .. -·~···"'
"""'""" ,,.,lhlll,lOllJ
Coumyl!louncl•ry
fllure47
L
___ .,.
-----· _ ..
"'' ....... ;01. Mlp~llaii! ... MDII,l.orMV,
•a:Ul.OICIIKIINCI ....... i!nbt,MC. ... I"CIIa-111.
<-
_...._--~·· ~-··-
_. . .-----..---;-:--:...·u.........--T"··
. ..
~
~OI!.fll
'
' .. ....
.. ,
~ 1;'
' ' .. .. ,., ' ' .. .. .. ----1 ', ', ' " -~ .. \ , '\'
,' i. \ ' ~\. \. ,. ' ' .. ' ' ' ' ,.· ,,, ., ~
' ' ', ' ... " , __ ........... ~
~, ' .. " -...........
' . . ___ .., _____ , ___ .-~-\....,.....__ ____ .. , .• ·;·
;
• .•••• J
-......
VEII11CAI.
C5ROUNDWA1ER GRADIENT
BETWEEIC MIDDLE
WATER llfARING UNIT
SHAUOWAND
UPPEilZONB
_.,_ ~~~r
Gm:IR:IIt B~twM:• .....
INIRr ~en\~ Unit
l~•ndUpperZonl!s
, .... l ...... llndll
....... __ ,Z)
.....,_
Flgure48
V...., District/West Vdey/Goockith/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow •nd Solute Transport Model c.Hbration of Ri.lto<olton hsln Grounchmer Model
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
600
1-Dec:-15
Summarv of Residual
Mean Residual: -6.66 ft
Min Residual: -628.3 ft
Max Residual: 492.3 ft
Measured vs. Model-calculated Water Levels
All Layers
Standard Deviation of Residual: 69.4 ft
Relative Errorl: 6.2%
•
I' .,
•
•
•
..
•
Observed water level plus/minus
one standard deviation of water
• level res idual (i.e.,+/-69.4 ft)
Based on 27,140 wate r level measurements
du ri ng January 1945 through December 2014
from 335 wells .
1 Common modd111 pr.octi<:e is to conslder aaood fit between historfall and mod~at.d
cbta if tho rellltivo error Is below 1'"' (Spitz ond Moreno,1996, and Etwironmentlll Slmulotions,lnc., 199!1)
"TT
800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 il' 2,200 c
Measured Groundwater Level Elevation, ft amsl CiJ
~
GEOSCIENCE SUpport Services, Inc.
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/C"rty of Ri•lto/City of Colton
Flow and Sokltl!! Transport Model calibration of RieJto.Colton Basin Groundwater Model
400
300
200
0 1
!
3: -100
-200
-300
1. !•.
l
1
1
I
. .
1
Model
Underestimation
Model
Overestimation
Temporal Dl5tribution of Water Level Residuals
AU Layers
~i~· . ~$... • · ... -.. ,..• :
~
• • .. • • • •
•
--: •
• I •
•
• • • • ••• • •
• • •
•
\
-
••
• . .... . : "'~ '" .. ""'"• .• ,. . -. ... •'\ . . . ·. . :: • • • • •
::!!
CD c
-400
1945
I r 1 .
'------------~-.-~---~· ... Cil
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
1-Dec-15
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 tn
0
GEOSCIENCE Support Senlkes, Inc.
.lQ
ftl
:I
"1:1
i
1i ~ f ... ~ .l!l ftl ..... i 3: ~
::E '5
1 I ~ J ID :Z:
Ji
ii ;,'t;
l l ~~ _I
fl
i ~ li
l5 ~
fj
I
I
• -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"'buanbaJ:t
~
Figure 51 I
>500 l 460to500
420to460 ; ...
380 to 420 I
340 to380
300to340
260to300
220to260
180to 220
140to 180
100to 140
60 to 100 4:: ......
!
20to 60 :g
-20to 20 I
j
-60to -20 ~
-100to-60 I
-140 to -100
-180to-140
-220to -180
-260to -220
-300to -260
-340to -300
-380to -340
-420to-380
-460 to -420
-SOOto-460
<-500
j ..
v.-., DistrictJWest Valley/~/Oty of Rialto/City of Colton
flow and Salute Transport Mod!! Cllibrmon of RlaiiD-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
2,000
1,800
~
E 1,600 ..
¢: r= t
Iii
1,4CO
I "D c
1,200
:II e
\:) 1,000
)
800 :II ~
1 600
::E
4CO
200
0
0
Summarv of Residual
Mean Residual: -3.8 ft
Min Residual : -21 .8 ft
Max Residual : 47.1 ft
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Water Levels
Layer 1
----------·--------------
Standard Deviation of Residual: 6.7 ft
Re lative Error1: 8 .6%
Observed water level plus/minus
one standard deviation of water
level residual (i .e ., +/-6.7 ft)
Based on 220 water level measurements
during January 1945 through December 2011
from 4 wells.
1 Common modeinc p<3ctice is to c:oruidor a 1ood flt-hinoricol ond model-a-rotad
ciiiAIIf the ..atiYe error is below 111% (Spitz and Morono,1996, and Environmental Simulation$, Inc., 1999)
.,
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
ci 2,000 c
ii1
Measured Groundwater Level Elevation, ft amsl ~
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
Valley Dlstrkt/West Valley/Gooclrtdi/Clty of Rialto/City of CDIIan
Row llfld Solute Tnnsport Modll C.lbt'lltion of RlaltcH:olton hSin Graundwater Model
Temp ora I Distribution of Water Level Residuals
400
300
200
4:: 100
-i
:I
'a
j
] ..
~
0
..
31: -100
-200
1945 1950
1-Dec:-15
r
Model
Underestimation
l
Model
Overestimation
l
1955 1960
Lllfilr 1
1965 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20 10
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
I
J
s1 ~-ii
'li'S
ii! §'
'S .1!
~~ :§~
II
.ii
li ~
. i . ~
1'. ~J
~
II :s
:s! ;
a:
1 ~PI
~~. ~!l
'5
E
.t
%
I
I I
I
~
5'l
I I
I I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
~ ~ ~ ~
% 'Aluanba.J:f
.,
Figure 54
.!:
f
1
>500 ~ 0
D.
D.
460to500 " "'
420to460 I 380to420
" 340to380
300to340
260to300
220to260
180to220
140 to 180
100 to 140
60to 100 4::: ...
::J
20 to 60 ...,
= ·20to20 a:
1 -60 to -20 ...
-100 to.oo
.. .. ~
-140 to-100
-lSOto-140
-220to-180
-260to-220
-300 to-260
-340 to-300
-380 to -340
-420to-380
-460to-420
-500to-460
<-500
~
~ ..
Cl .:,
Vdey District/West V....,/Goo4rictt/oty of Rllolto/City of Colton
Flow ~nd 5oluW Tr~~RSt~Grt Model c.llbr.tion of Rialto-Colton lain Groundw8ter Model
1,800
'iii E 1,600 ..
-= c
0
i .!!!
1,400
...
t 1,200 ;
'1::1 c :I
~ 1,000
" ... .!i
..!!
:I ... 800
Oi ~
Oi
"'8 600
~
400
200
0
0
1-Dec-15
Sum mary of Res idual
Mean Residua l: 21.8 ft
Min Residual : -628.3 ft
Max Residual : 218.7 ft
Measured vs. Model-calculated Water Levels
LayerZ
Standard Deviation of Residual : 131.9 ft
Relative Error1: 7.1%
Observed water level plus/minus
one standard devi ation of water
level residual (i.e., +/-131.9 ft)
200 400
Based on 3,019 water level measure ments
during January 1945 through December 2011
from lS wells.
1 Common modell,. proctico I• to conside r •1ood fit behwen hlstorlcoiond model-conel"'ted
doto if the rolatlve error I• below 10% (Spitz ond Moreno, 1996, a nd Environmental Simulations, Inc., 1999)
600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Measured Groundwater Level Elevation, ft amsl
1,600 1,800
.,
c 2,000 c c;
CJ'I
CJ'I
GEOSOENCE Support Services, Inc.
V .. ley District/West Valley/Goo&ic:h/City af lit. Ito/City of Colton
R-end Solute Transport Model calibr.&n af Rialto-Colton Basin Grauncloorfter Model
Temporal Distribution of Water Level Residuals
Layer 2
400
200
-= 100
-200
-300 .
Model
Underestimation
. ·~ ... ••
Model
Overestimation
400 +---------~~----~~ , ,.._-,-
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970
1-Deo-15
1975
t ' ~ J • • • l ! ' .
• • • • :• . • . . • ' ' • • ' • • .
L
1980 1985 1990
• •
• ~ • •
"1'1 c· c
Cil
1995 2000 2005 2010 Ul en
GEOSOENCE Support Services, Inc.
Oil -;;
:I
"a
iii Gl a:
'ii > 3N .. ...
Cll Cll ... > I ~ ~
I E 1 ~ .f
1:1 :z:
c:
ISJ ! 5 u oi
f;
-...:IE
fl ~~ i! s· ::J
'--------
~ * li6
-------
~ ~ ~
"'kluanb;u~
i
Figure 57 I
>500 j 460to500
420to460 i
'
380to420 §
1:1
340to380
300 to340
260 to300
220to260
~ 180to220 -140 to 180
~ 100 to 140
~
l
60to 100 4::
1
20to 60 'a 1i
-20 to 20 a:
1 -60 to -20 ..
!
-100to-60 3
-140to -100
-180 to -140
;
I
I :
-220 to -180
-260 to -220
-300to -260
-340 to -300
-380 to -340
I
I ~
-4 20to -380
-460to -420
-500 to -460
<-500
~
Oil ... .:,
~
VaHey District/West V .. ley/Goodrtch/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibr ation of lblto-Colton BIISi n Graundwllter Model
"iii
E ..
-= c
-8
I
I ..,
"' "' e
1:1 ..,
~
.)1 y ..
"'8 :E
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
SUmmary of Resi dua l
Mean Residual: -12.4 ft
Min Residual : -141.0 ft
Max Residual: 214.9 ft
Measured vs. Model-calculated Water Levels
Layer3
Sta ndard Deviation of Residual : 28.1 ft
Relative Error1: 4 .2%
Observed water level plus/minus
one standard deviation of water
level residual (i.e.,+/-28.1 ft)
Based on 7,758 wat er level measurements
during January 1945 throuah Decembe r 2011
from 98 wells.
'Common modelln1 practice Is to consider • &ood lit betwoen h istorical and model-tenol'ltod
Oatalf the rwliitNe error is b•low 10"(Spitz 1nd Moreno, 1996, and Environmental Simulations:, Inc., 1999)
0 ~~----~------~------r-------r-------~----~r------,,-----~------~------~
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Measured Groundwater Level Elevation, ft amsl
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
VIII ley District/West VIII ley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City~ Colton
Row 11\d Solute Tr•nsport Model Cdbratlon of Rialto-Colton hsin G~ Model
400
300
200
~ 100
j ..
" ~
! 0 1 ..
!! ..
i ·100
-200
-300
r
Model
Underestimation
Model
Overestimation
I
Temporal Distribution of Water Level Residuals
Layer 3
~~-r~~~,_~-T----~--~~
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
1-Dec-15 GEOSCIENCE SUpport Services, Inc.
.!!!
~ 'a
l
l
.!!lm .. ..
I !!
t E
111 Ill "' .. • If ~ l!
1:1 :z:
!i ! ~ ... 8 15 1>i 5l };a
;-s , g
~~ -f ~i !I .... :I! ~~ -.. i ~ ~i j.ll ol
t''" = ~ ~u:
I
§ ~
I
~
Iii
...
.E
Figure 60 .,-
ti J
>500 1! a .. ..
460to500 .i! ... u
420to460 z
R
380to420 e
1:1
340to380
300to340
260to 300
220to260
180to220
140 to 180
100 to 140
60to 100 -=
Oi
::1
20to 60 3! ;
·20to 20 a:
1 ·60 to -20 ~ ..
-100to-60 ~
-140 to -100
-180to-140
-220 to-180
-260 to-220
·300 to -260
-340 to -300
-380 to -340
-420to -380
-460to-420
-500to-460
<-500
~ ~
N
~
" '.bu;mba.~~
.. ..
l. • ~
Valley District/West Velley/Goodltdi/City of Ri•lto/C"rty cl Colton
Flow end Solute TrlltiSpCHt Model C.librltion of Rilllto<olton Basin Groundwmr Model
2,000
1,800
1
~ 1,600
4::
r;."
·i
.!
1,400
..
!! 1,200 ;
"0 r:. ::1 e 1,000 ~
I 800 ~ "" ...&. ..
1 600
::E
400
200
0
0
1-Dec-15
Measured Ve r sus Model-calculated Water Levels
Layer 5
Summarv of Resid ual
Mean Residual : .{).7 ft
Min Residual : ·126 .9 ft
Max Residu al : 492.3 ft
Standard Deviation of Residual: 40.0 ft
Relative Error1: 4 .5%
Observed water level plus/minus
one standard deviation of water
level residual (i.e., +/· 40.0 ft)
Based on 9.814 water level measurements
during January 1945 through December 201 1
from 112 wells.
1 Common modelln& p111ctice Is to consider il rood f1t bet ween historica l and model·1eneriltad
diltl if the re&atWt error Is below 10% (Spitz ilnd Morano, 1996, and Environmental Simulations, Inc., 1999)
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Measured Groundwater Lavel Elevation, ft amsl
GEOSOENCE Support Senria!s, Inc.
Valey District/West Vdey/Goodrich/City of R~City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transpor1 Modal Calbration of Ri*o<olton Basin Groundwater Model
400
300
200
~ 100
;i
:I ~ a: 0 ] ..
.!!
~ -100 i
-200
1945 1950
Model
Underestimation
r
I
Model
Overestimation
1955 1960
Temporal Distribution of Water Level Residuals
LayerS
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
GEOSOENCE Support 5enllees, Inc.
V*'f District/West Valley/Goodrid>/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Row and Solute~ Model ca •atlon of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Moclel
100%
80%
60%
0%
II 0, j. j. ..:.. w w ,:., ,:., v. 0 "' .... co ... 0 !!l "' 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C) s C) C) C) () .. C) 0
J,. j. ~ w ..:.. ,:., ,:., ,:..
"' ~ ... 0 2l "' co
0 0 0 0 0
l~eo-15
Histogram of Water Level Res iduals
Layer 5
I • .
lie; ' ' ~ ,:., "' !!l .... ... .... 0 0 ... 8 0 .. .. 0 0 0 .. .. 0 0 ....
C) ... .. 0 0 0 0 0 ,:., "' !!l 8 .. ' ' ~ 0 ..... .... 0 ...
~ 8 0
Water Level Residua l, ft
.... .... .... "' UJ ~ UJ ~ ~ v ... co "' "' 0 co "' !!l "' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. .. C) .... .... C) C) ... .... 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... "' "' w w UJ ~ ... "' "TT co ~ !!l 0 ... ~ "' "' 0 .a 0 0 0 0 0 0 c ;
en
Col
GEOSCIENCE Support Servic:es, Inc.
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/aty of Colton
Flow and Solute T,.nsport Model calibration of Ri*o-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
2,000
1,800
iii
E 1,600 ..
~ .:
0
] 1,400
.. a 1,200 ~ "CC c
:I
!! 1,000 1 ~
"CC
j
:I -a ....
800
i
"CC 0 600
:E
400
200
0
0
Summary of Residual
Mean Residual: -2.2. 7ft
Min Residual: -544.7 ft
Max Residual: 360.5 ft
Mea$ured V$. Model-calculated Water Level$
Layer&
Standard Deviation of Residual : 90.5 ft
Rel ative Error1 : 10.7%
Observed water level plus/minus
one standard deviation of water
level residua I (i.e., +/· 90.5 ft)
2.00 400
Based on 6,329 water level measurements
during January 1945 through Decembe r 2011
from 106 wells.
1 Comn-:on rnodelinc pr11ctioe is to consider 1good fit between hrstorical 1nd model-pner1tad
dato if the r.l:ollve error Is below 10" (Spitz ond Morano, 1996, and Envi ronmentll Slmulotlons, lnc.,l999)
600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Measured Groundwater Level Elevation, ft amsl
"''I c· c
iiJ
~
l·Dec-15 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
Vlllley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow lind Solute Transport Model Cdbratlon of Rialto-Colton linin GrOUIIChnter Model
Temporal Distribution of Water Level Residuals
Layer6
400 .-------------~----------------------------------------------------------------------~ l 300
200
-= 100
,;
::J
i = 0 1
! ~ -100
-200
-300
Model
Underestimation
r
Model
Overestimation
400 +-----~--------~y----~~~~~--~----~------~--~--~~~~------------~--
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
1-Dec-15 GEOSCifNC! Support Senllces, Inc.
~
J
l !I ~a
)j l
'ii ~ !l .... .. ~ ,
~ e
i i
! ~
" c ·;a
0 .. ~ID 8 g
'5~
is
~'0
'O j
~~ ~~ ~" ]t
-::i ~i > l!! i I! ~-~~ 0 ~
C''" = ~ ~it
I
§ ~
I
• • •
I
l 1 I
~ ~
\D
~ ., ~
" 'Aluanba.~:~
" .5
Figure 66 ff ~
"' >500 i ...
460to500 ::1 ., ... u
420to460 z ...
380to420 ~
Ill
340to380
300to340
260to300
220to260
180to220
140to 180
100 to 140
60to 100 .t::
"i
20to 60
:I
~ ...
-20to20 II:
1 -60to-20 !
-lOOto-60 .. ~
-140to-100
-lSOto-140
-220to-180
-260to-220
-300to-260
-340 to-300
-380 to-340
-420 to -380
-460to-420
-500to460
<-500
"' '3 q ..
l •Peo-U
"""-,..Wf: Dl. MlpP'Iajlciiii\:SIMPIIM Ull.~V.
e ZDJI, • ..._IG~s.'lli-., K. M lllt!U---._
---
~
NOIIITM .........
... -.~-.
., './·, ·~~ -:_:,,.,.
..... J .....
:~;.. .. ~--·
~ .,. :
AIIEIIACIE lltESIDUAl Of
OISERVED AND MDDELED
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
IN LAYIR 1
t::::J """ .. ~Modol&a•ndooy
County low!dary
Flgure67
'
•
--r
i
...... ...
' '
. t
,...,...c.,, 01.. -~SU.Ie"-11U,Z...\I.
•• Ji,OECIKIIMCI*w-tllni121,N. Alrf#b.,_,..,.,
·.
-/'""
I
l
-----1
I
I
j
AVERAGEREaDUALOF
OISEIIV!D AND MODEI.!D
GROUNDWJmR ElEVATIONS
IN IAYEJIZ
• <->II ..... ""
.......... _,.U)
~laundary
FIIUre 68
(' ~
,J , ... ,-
1.0ec:-15
.......... h: ~J,. ""-•""]rrl:\laft:SIH .... ,.lJU ,Z..\1,
e~au.ewJQIJdjy..,...~-·~--"'·
AV£11Nir RESIOWU. OF
OBSERVED AND MODELED
GROUNDWATIRELEVAnONS
IN LAYER!
. .. ..
• -lO to ZO
0 >lD
1::::::; ....... , ........ ,"<! ...
···.· .
.........
~1.1D12)
Countyloundlr¥
•
: ..
~---:-----
1..0ee-l5
,,..,....~:II. ............. 111~-WJ,~V.
~2li1S,Ca:lSQ(NQ .............. IIlt. AIIIWitf,...,...
~ _,
. ,.
"
•
'
•
•
..... -
'' .. ' ' • ' ' ' ' ~
• • •
,.,... ....
' ' .. ..., .
'.!.
_.;
AVEIWiE IIISIDUAL OF
OBSERVED AND MOOElED
GIIOUNDW.VEII El£VATION$
INUiml5
Ave"lleResldlllll
fOb&ttvcdmi,..~)(ftl
---:11121
Flgure7o
l.()oc.lS
..
•
r -···:~-• ,..
,..., ..... ~ PL ""'P""'lM'oii!I::Sblllo,_.lJU,.r-Y.
.:lllJ,.oJOM£ ........ Smlbs,hc. M,.IDNC-•.
~
WOIIl~ -....
I -
~ ~ .
:I : I
,·:
.,
)
AVERAGE RESIDUAL OF
OISERVlD AM) MODEL£D
GROUNDWATER ELEVAnONS
IN LAYER I
"""'-
(£" ----
Flcure 71
v.u.y District/West Vaky/Goodridt/Oty of Rialto/City of Colton
Fl-and Salute Transport Model C.libratlon of Rialto-Colton Basi n Groundwater Model
Average of Measured vs Model-Calculated Spring-High Water Level Elevations
of Rialto Basin Index Wells (Rialto-4, WVWD-11, and WVWD-16)
1050 T
--Average of Model-<:alculated Spring-High Water Levels
;;;
E
"' ~
.G c 0 :.l .. ~ ...
!1, ;
-a c
:I e
1:1
ll.
"' !
1040 ............... "'''•"'''·······"·'·---···•"'" .............. •··-·········· .......................... ..
• + Average of Measured Spring-High Water Levels
1030
1020
1010
1000
990
980
970
__ .. ____ ...... ________ ---... -..... --------... --------·-"'\" .-.... -. \ .
----~ ·~·~ .... ------· ·---.... ·-·--·-·---· -·-·· --------·--..... ·--·-----·-· ....
969.7 amsl
-· .. ~1~ ........ : =-· ~ .. -----~ ·_
;J "
960
. .. /
....... ··-· ... _ ..................... _____ ............. !-...................................... ,_ ................................. _. __________ ... -...... _, . ~~
950 .... • ......... ~ ........... .. •
940
930
920 ..
910
1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
\ •••
-·-··· .. J .... ~--
2008
....... ;
I
1 ... i
2013
!!
CCI
t:
iii .....
N
1-Dec-15 GEOSCIENCE Support Senlces, Inc.
Va ley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Groundwater
Pumplns
Areal
Recharge
from
Precipitation
Flow and Soka Tlwlsport Model c.llbnitlon of Rialto-Colton Basin GI'CMICiwater Model
Ungapd Runoff
and
Subsurface Inflow
from
Badlands
Streambed
Percolation from
SAR & Warm Ck.
Ungased Runoff and
Subsurface Inflow
Evapotranspiration
Percolation from
lrrisatlon Canal
Anthropocenic
Return Flow
from
San Gabriel
Mountains
Artificial
Recharge of
Imported
Water
0 148 1 [ 1,68~ ] ~~~J 1 198 II 2,831 578
Underflow
to Chino
Basin
100
to North
Riverside
Basin
19,590
Units in Ac re-Feet per Year
1-Dec-15
@ 20'1.4, GEOSCifNCE Support Services, Inc. Atl richts n"Sei'Wd.
X:\P roJects\S•,._..m~~rdlho_MUtii\29)AI•ItD_Colton_Mad •l\11~slt5_,1ow_Mod i i\R'I I5_GW'B.tl
I
~Mo~
from Lytle
Basin
1 12,34t-J
Bunker Hill Basin
[4,315 .. J
GROUNDWATER BALANCE
ANNUAL AVERAGE OF MODEL
GEOSCIENCE CALIBRATION PERIOD
"'V'"
GEOSCIIENaSUppol1~ lne.
P.O. bllO,CIIrtmor.t,CA. 91711
Tat:(901)451·6650 Fax: (909)4.51·6~1
www.pl'wlltl!f:com Figure73
Valley District/West Valley/&oo«ich/City of Rialto/City <:A Colton
Fl-and Solute n.mPGrt Model calibration d Rillito-Colton a.-Gtou nctw.ter Model
~
!! u • I
! ;
1:1 c ::1
0
G
.5 .. .. c .. ~ u
-;;;
::1 c
-1
Annual Chan~e In Groundwater Storage • Rialto-Colton Basin
100,000 r.==============-====:-::--------------l [Avera ~: Amma l Om ng ~ In G i'OOilclwd!t~r Stt1 ~ge ~ -3 ,!'!30 ila:a::_fti~
80,000 -1-------------------------------------i
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
·20,000
-40,000
·60,000
-80,000
------------
I
I
---~ I
I
-100,000 ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------J
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, 11\e.
Valley District/West Valley/Goodtt:lch/ctty of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow Mid Solute Tnnsport Model C...,...tion of Rialto<olton Basin Groundwater Model
Cumulative Annual Change in Groundwater Storage
400,000 -r------------------------------------,
0
-300,000
........ USGS (1970-1996 = 66,000 AF)
~CH2M Hill (1970-2009 = -116,800 AF}
ERM (1970-2011 = -303,800 AF}
..,._JGWM (1970-2014 • -64,200 AF}
~00,000 +-~~_.~~~~~~~~~+-~~_.~~~~~~_.~~+-~~~-+~~~~~_.~~
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
1-Dec-15 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
1-otC~-15
,..._.illot= DL ..... ~'1111'"''-'-ltN.iilo~•v.
• »D.IIOSalM'ISiwart~l~~ All ....... r--. ...
I.OCIIIIOII OF WEU.$
wmtMWUIED
1'£11011.011111"( D.tiJ"A
w.hwith'-'a.,ll'
Pe-oc:ND~eor.e.:ntntio"
Meulnme::ts
flcure 76
--·-, .... .._. ...... _, ...... "
•IL UV~ ,...,._. __ ·~--
----~ .. ----· . ..,. ----..... _
I ·-
-'
" I
-----•' , .. /
t
I ;__------
),..._.
l· ·--
'·.
IDCAllON OF SEl£CTED
'IMGETWEW JOII
sown: 'lliANSPOIIT
MODEL CALI8 RATION
""'c-~l•l:fri~tl#ft
1~\o,l.rattlllliWplt
W..O.Wca...an
I.Dclll ftult
(h!ulln11d,l0U )
~~
11011"!'~
!!~~~.!·~~~!!!·~
INITIAl. I'IIICHI.OMrE
CONCIIIITIATIONS FOil
IIIAtJO.aii:RIN IA!IN
SOWTE TRANSI'Oin' MODEL
D
D
0
1li01D200
""""""''"'
AllUre 78
1 ... t>
j .... -·~---·1
I
l .L _
lflof ..... ~ , ...... .....-.Jtn.... t ~
-.......a.K." ....... No.w .... _._~ ----------_,., ......... _ ..... _,
-
LOCAnONOF
MASS LOADING
IN SOURCE AREAS
0
D
D
~tlfr.,..r .,.
••t·l ~fVfA"lol~l
S.OnehuBlSitl!
Figura 79
V .. ley District/West Valley/Gcltl*ich/City of Rlalto/aty of Colton
Flow end Solute Tnnsport Model C.libration of Rillito-Colton Basin Gtou~W~ootMer Model
l r: ~
I! ... c ell
~
8
!! e ~ :.
1-0eo-15
5,000 T
I ·~ l
4,000 ~
I
!
I
3,500 1
3,000 l
i
2,500 1
I
2,000
1.500
1,000
500
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations In Well CMW-2A
2000 throu1h 2014
····----··-·-.. --.. --····-···•-h·-·
0 Observed
layer 3
layer 5
Layer 6
-Modei-Giculated
0 ,---
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
calendar Year
::!! rc c
~
co
0
Valley District/West Vlle y/Goodrlch/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Fl-....:! Solutl! Transport Model Ollibration of RiaJto..Colton a.sln Groundwaw Model
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well CMW-lA
2000 throueh 2014
5,000 --·----------------------------------------,
4,500
4,000 --
3,500
l
c 3,000 1 § 2,500 i 2,~
1,500
1,000
500
0 Observed
----Layer 3
Layers
Layer 6
-Model-calculated
0·
I
0
"11
~·
0 c
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 iii
co ....
1~15 GEOSOENCE SUpport Senrices, Inc.
Valley Dlslrkt/West V .. '-'f/6oodlich/Clty of Rlab/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Buln Grounclwllter Model
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations In Well PW-2
2000 thi'OUih 2014
20,000 ····•· .•..... ---··· ····--·····-... ···--··· -.
18,000
16,000
14,000
0 Observed
layer 3
layer 5
Layer6
-Model-calrulated
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Calend1r Year
.o I 0 0
2009 2010 2011
.,
0 0
ii"
I I ~ c
2012 2013 2014 ;;
CD
N
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
Vd ey District/West V .. ley/Goodr!ch/City of !Uito/City of Colton
Fl-•nd Solute Transport Model C.l lntion of Rlafto.Colton Basin Grounclwfter Mod&!
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations i n Well PW-3
zooo through 2014
1,000 --·· ---------------------------------,
...
l
s!
0 ~ I! .. c ..
"' c
8 s I!
~ ~ :
0 Observed
900 Layer 3
Layer 5
Layer6
800
-Model-calculated
700
600
500
I
400 \
\
I
I
I
300 \
\
\
'
200
100
0
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
calend•r Ye•r
I
I
I
.!
0
0 0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
"'" ii c
iii
GEt w
1-l)ec·l S GEOSCI ENCE Support Services, Ill(;.
V .. ley Disn;t/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Ria ltD/City Gf Colton
f1ow and Solute Transport Model Calibration Gf Rialto-Colton h sln Gnlundwater Model
..J
l
ri .g
:!
1::
!'j
c
0 v ..
~
.B
~ .....
1,000
900
800
700
llOCl
5nil
4CD
liDO
200
0 Clbs11rued
layer
liyl'f 5
liYaf 6
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well N-25
2000 throuah 2014
-Model-Gla.ltited
0
~~ 1~----~------~~~---------------------o_eo ___ o_o.wo~ o o o
2000 2000 2noz lOOl 200A 2~ 2006 2001 2oos 2oo9 2010 2011 2012 2o13 2o14
Calendar Year
GE05CENCE Support Services, InC.
Vaky DlstrlcVWest V•Uey/Goodrtclt/Clty of ~City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport MocMI Callbratlon of RlaltcH:olton hSin Groundwat er Model
_,
l
.;
0
~ • ~ c .. u c
8
.!1
~
.5I J:.
~ :.
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations i n Well EMW -OSA
2000 through 2014
0 0~1:!"\lt'd
----Layer 3
·Layer 5
L.a yer 6
-MOU ef·tiliC uQu>rl
0 1 -
0 0 ·
"'I
~·
c
2000 2000 200 2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 a
C..lendar Year
l·Dec-15
C»
Ul
GEOSCIENCE Support Senltces, Inc.
Valley Dlslrkt/WMt Valley/Ciooclr1dVC'rty of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow •nil 5ohlte Transport Model Cdbration of Ri.tto-«:olton Basin Graundwatar Mollel
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations In Well EMW-058
2000 throu1h 2014
100
0 Observed
90 Layer 3
LayerS
80
Layer 6
-Model-calculated
70
l c 60 0 "! .. c .. 50 ~
8
!i
~ 40 0
:2
~ .. ...
30
20 .,..--......
/ ....
/ ' / '
/ '
10
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
T --,~ r-0
2000 :moo 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Calencl;ir Year
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
Valey District/West Valey/Goodrldt/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Tl'lnsport Model c.llbratlon of R~olton luln Groundwater Model
.....
l
c g
";::;
~
1: .. ..
1:
8
.!i I! .s .c ~ :.
100
90
80
70
60
so
40
30
20
10
0
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW-OSC
2000 through 2014
Obser~ed
Layer3
Layers
Layer6
--,.,..od ~·t<~lcul.:ncd
I
/
/
/
--.... ' ' ' '
0 ~-----------------~----~--------~--------~--~--------~-----------o---2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calend•Y••r
.,
Ui' c
iii
00 .....
1 -Deo-15 GEOSCIENCE SUpport Services, Inc.
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of RlaltD/Crty of Colton
Fl-and Solute Transport Mod .. calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
1.000
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perthlorate Concentrations In Well EMW-04A
2000 throulh 2014
0 Ob served
900 I l.ayer ~
·~'l'l.!l !i
laver 6
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Cale'l'lflar 're.~tr
--,
'
1-()K,.l5 GEOSCJfNCE Support~. Inc.
Valley District/West Vllley/Goodltch/City of Rillito/City of Colton
Flow lnd Solute Transport Model Cd bmion of Rialto-Colton Basin GrDUndwater Model
~
l c
i .. c .. "' c
8
B
~ :i
I! :.
1-o-15
1,000
900
BOO
700
600
500
400
300
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW-048
2000 through 2014
0 0 lm:l1Jlld
----Laye r 3
·Layer 5
Layer6
-\llod(:I~IQAI:;ll et.l
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
.... -....
/ '
/ '
/ ' /
.... -....
/ '
I ' I
I I
200 I
I
I
I
I
\
'
100 o -1----,--~~ ~
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20 12
Calender Veer
2013
I '),:qw
2014
...,
Ci' c
iii
Cll
CQ
GEOSCI ENCE Support Senllces, Inc.
Valley District/Wast Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Tnlnsport Model CaNbratlon of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwate r Model
1,000
900
800
7£)0 _,
l
~ son ..
E
~ 500
8
~ 400 .2
ti
4i ...
300
2.00
100
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW-04C
2000 through 2014
l.;yc• !
uwr
l.llY~I 6
-MOd~c-.liCulated
, ',
/ '
.I ' .I '\
.I '\
.I \
I '\
I \
I \
I ' I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
' ' ', .,; ' ... -' ' '
0 1
/ \'.\
'><: / t-----------------------------------~---a~~~~;~--~,~~~~~~~~~~----------~~~n~o--
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20os 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
calendar Year
.,
ci:i' c ;;
CD
0
GIOSOENCE Support Services, Inc.
v .. ey District/West v .. ey/Goodrldi/Oty of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow •nd Solute Transport Mod.l C.l bmion of Ri alto<olton BIISin Groundw8ter Model
1,000
900
800
700 ...
l
,:; 600 0 ;::;
I! .. c:
8 500 c:
8
! I'!
~ ~ :.
400
300
200
100
0
2000
1~15
Measured v s. Model-calculated Perchlorat e Concentrations in Well PW-8A
2000 throuch 2014
o O b~ervi!d
---·Layer3
Layer 5
Layer 6
--Model-a!culi!J!.d
2000 2002
' ...
' '
2003
' ' ' ...
2004
' ' '
2005 2006
0
2007 2008
Calendar Year
0
2009 20 10 2011
0
"TT
ID.' c
2012 20 13 2014 CiJ
co ....
GEOSOENCE SUpport Services, Inc.
Vdey District/West Valey/Goodri61/City of Rialto/Oty of Colton
Fl-and Solute Tl'an5port Model calbration of ~on Basin GrOIIIICiwater Model
l
,;
!
f .... c ..
~ 8
!!
f 0
:2!
~ :.
1,000
'100
800
700
600
500
400
300 li
I
200
100
0 Obl~n.>~d
Layer3
lliVI!t S
Layer6
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorete Concentrations in Well PW-88
2000 throuch 2014
--Model -<~lwl.ulcd
' ' '
0 ,-...-
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
!!
CD c
~
CD
N
GEOSOENCE Support Setvlc:es, Inc.
Valey District/West Vr&y/Goodrich/Citv of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute~ Model C.lbmlon of Ri81to-Colton Basin 6I"CCUUIdwm!r Model
.....
l c
0 ~ .. c: !l r: 0
IJ
i
..2 ..,
t
IL
1-Dec-15
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate COncentrations in Wells PW-8C, 80 and 8E
2000 through 2014
Observed
Layer 3
Layer 5
Layer6
I -Model-calculated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
I ' I ' I ' ' I ' I ' ...
I ' I ' I '
I
I
' I
I
' ' ' '
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' '
\
\
\
'
' '
'
"
0
..,..---,
" ' / ' " ' " ' "
0 ·1------==~~~====~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~==~
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
GEOSCIENCE Support SeMces, Inc:.
Valley District/West Vllley/GoocMch/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Fl-•nd Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rill~olton Basin Groundwater Model
1,000 --
900
800
0
700 ...
l
,; 600 0
';:1 s I c .. 500 ~ u s I
!I I
L'! i ..2 400 ..
.<:: I
~ I ... i
3001
~I
100
0 l
2000
1-Dec-15
Measured vs. Modei·Calculllted Perchlorate Concentrations in Well WVWD-225
2000 through 2014
o Observed
Layer3
LayerS
Layer6
--Model-calculated
' ' ' ' ..
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
GEOSCIENCE Support Servlees, Inc.
V811ey Dls1rlct/West Vaky/Goodridi/City of Rialto/City rtl Colton
Flow and SoluW Tr8nsport Model c.•bntlon of Rlalto<olton hsln Groun~er Model
....
l c a ~ c 8 r:: a
1.1
j
~ ...
1,000
900
800
700
GOO
500
0
400
300
200
100
0
2000
0
0 0
0 ,. ....
' '
2000
',
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well WVWD-220
2000 throuah 2014
0 Observed
----Layer 3
Layer 5
Layer 6
-Model-ca lcu lated
' ' ' ........ -....
' .,
' ' '
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
0
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Calendar Veer
2009 2010 20 11 2012 2013 20 14
"TT
~i c
Cil
CD c.n
GEOSOENCE Support Senlices, Inc.
V .. ley Distric:t/West Vll'-'f/Goodrich/Oty of Rialta/oty d Colton
Flow and Solute Transport MocW CINbratlon of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
~ c
0
~ I! .. 1:
8 1: 0 IJ
!I
"' .2 z:
~ .. A.
100
90
80
70 •
60
50
40 l
30
20 •
10
0
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations In Well EMW·03A
2000 throurh 2014
ot»arved
la:~t3
l&t(?r,
l4y~r 6
--M<!dr f-Cll lt ulatf!ll
0 ·r· --,--
/
/
/
/
/
I
I
/
"''I C!"
c
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
calendar Year
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ~
CQ en
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
V...., District/West Vel ley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Coltcn
Fl-•ncl Solute rr.nsport Model C.lbrlltlon of Rielto<olton ll8sin Groundlnter Moe»~
100
90
80
70
l c 60 :8
I! .. c ~ 50 c
0 u
$
I!
.R 40
.J:.
1:!
ell Do.
30
20
10
0
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations In Well EMW.03B
2000 throu1h 2014
Observed
Layer 3
Layers
Laye r 6
-Model-calculated
,.,,...-------
,...-'
/
/
... -!----------------==~~::--:--~------~~~--~~::~====~--------~------0 ------r------··
//
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
calendar Year
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/'
_g_
2014
1-0ec-15 GEOSCENCE SUpport Services, Inc.
Velley District/West Vdey/Go~dl/City of Rlalto/aty of Colton
Flow end Solut. Transport Model Calibration of Rillto-Coltcn Basin Groundwmr Model
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Conc:entrations in Well EMW-03C
2000 throuch 2014
100
90
80
70
60 1
50
40
20
:I
2000
0 Observed
l.iryer ~
uyerS
Layer 6
-Model-ulruta~·rl
----
,-;--------..... ..,""' ............. __ ,,~' ' --
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
calendar Year
2009 2010 2011
/
/
! A
I.
I :
, "' ,.
_/ ____.--:
a ~
2012 2013 2014
., .a· c
iii
U)
01
GEOSaliNCE Support Senrlces, Inc.
V .. ey District/West V .. ey/GooclrldVCJty of Rillito/City of Colton
R-•nd Solute Transport Mod.l C.litntion of Riat»-Colton Basin Groundwtter Model
1,000 I
900
800
700 ...
l c 600 0 >:I I! .. c .. .. c
8
500
! I!
~ ~ :.
400
300
200
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EPA·MW9A
2000 through 2014
0 Observed
----Layer 3
Layer 5
Layer6
-Model-calcula ted
---
1
i
. .l
I
0
0
~ Ll ---=,-c
1
~--~--::..:.:---:._.:..---~---_........----=-----;----"--~----~=;:::::::::::~C
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calend<lr Year
GEOSOENCE Support Services, Inc.
V81'-v District,/West Valey/~/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Tr•nsport Model calibration of lli8fto.Colton Basin Groundwater Model
1,000
900
800
700
i .: (iQO
-! ..
i u 500 l!
0 u s ..
j .too
i t! 1 ,r. j 3oo I
!
200 .j
1
100
! 0
Measured vs. Modei-Cakulated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EPA-MW9B
2000 throuih 2014
O~<~ed
bye• i
I ;ry1!r 5
Lilyer 6
--Model-calwli!ll~d
--------------
~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------~•·oo--~o>------o~-0
2000 2000 2002 :200:1 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calelllfar Year
....
8
l.o.!C-15 GE05CI£NCE Support Services, Inc-
VII ley District/West Va/ltrt/Goodlfich/City of Rlafto/City of Colton
Flow lnCI Solule Tr...spott Model caltbmlon of Rillito-Colton Basin Grounctw.ter MoM!
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-SA and SB
2000 through 2014
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400 -
300
200
100
0
2000
1-Der-15
o Observed
Layer 3
Layer 5
Layer 6
-Model-calc ulated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I "
I
I
I
I
I
2000 2002 2003
,..----.....
/ ...
/ ' I
I
oOO · ,..._ 0
' 0 0 '~ ' ' ' .... ..... _____
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20 10 2011 2012
Cllendar Ye•
,.
0
2013 2014
.,
c· c
iii ....
0 ....
GEOSCIENCE Support SeMces, Inc.
Valley Dlsb1ct/West Vdey/Goodrlch/City of Ri•lto/City of Colton
Flow and So"* T!llnsport Model Calibration of Rialto-tolton Basin Grounclweter Model
l
c'
0
I .. c:
8 c: ~
!I
j
.s::
!:! .. a.
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
0
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-SC. SD and SE
zooo throUih 2014
otl!lmled
l.l '(i'1 ~
tavt• s
t.aw E
--· M odekalc Uiitled
Q
0
0
I
I
~1
0 ~--------------~==~~---
8
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Calendar Year
Eln5' 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
.,
fi:j'
c
iii ....
0 ...,
GEOSCifNCE Support Senllces, Inc.
V•lley District/West V*'f/Goodtfch/Oty of I!Wto/Oty of Colt011
Row •nd Solute Transport Model Callbmion of ~Ito-Colton Basin GI"'UUIdwm!r Model
...
l
.:
0 ..-::;
I! .. c
41 "' c
8
!I I!
~ ~ :.
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
Measured vs. Moclei-Caleulated Perchlorate Conc:entrations in Well EMW-OlA
zooo throuch 2014
0 Observed
---·Layer 3
Layers
Layer6
-Model-calculated
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20 10 2011 2012 2013 2014
C•lenar Ye.,
"'I
irl' c
Ia ....
0 w
GEOSCIENCE SUpport Services, Inc:.
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Ri•lto/City of Colton
Fl-and Soluta Transport Model Calibration of Ri.-...colton Basin Groundwater Mode l
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
:10
20
0
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well EMW·OlB
2000 throUJh 2014
o 0 1:7<-erve d
lillie• 3
liyer S
l~\li!f I)
-Mod!!l -nlc u l.;t e d
' ' ' ' \
\
\
\
\
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
GIOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
v.rley District/West Valley/Goocltlch/City of Rlalto/Oty of Colton
A-and Solu1e T111nsport Model Calllrltlon of Rialto-Colton 8asln Groundwater Modell
1
c'
-! .. ~ 8 c 0 v
~
.S!
J: ~ ..
Q,
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 ·
2000
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations In Wells1S/SW-3AS and 1S/5W-3A6
2000 through 2014
0 Observed
Layer 3
Layer 5
Layer 6
-Model-ca lculated
1
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Celendar Year
.,
.c c
ii1
1-Dec-15 GEOSCIENCE Support Senlces, Inc.
V .. ley Distrkt/West Vahy/Goodrlch/City of Ri lllto/Oty of Colton
A-•nd Solute Transport Modll C. lib ration of Rialto-Colton hsln Groundwater Model
1,000
I
900
800
700
l c
.S! .. ~
600
0:::
Ql
)! 500
8 s
I! ..e 400 .c ~ :..
300
200
100
2000
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Weii1S/SW-3A7
2000 throuah 2014
0 O b~e~
Lm~r)
l ... '(tr !".
lilY!!( 6
-Model-calrulati!d
2000 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008
Calendar Year
2009 2010
0 ·0
2011 2012
0
2013 2014
., ce·
--;: c
Cil ....
0
0>
GEOSOENCE Support Senllces, Inc.
V811ey District/West Vllley/Goodrtc:h/City of Rillto/City of Colton
Flow 1nd SOiutl! Transport MocW Ooibl'ltion of Rialto-Colton Blsin Groundwater Model
1,000
900
800
700
_,
!
.: 600 0 ;:
::0 c
II u c 500
8
i
.2
.1:
j!
400
300
200
100
o Observed
----Layer 3
Layer 5
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations In Well Rialto-6
2000 through 2014
----------------:
Layer 6
-Model-calcul ated
2000 2002
··0
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Calendar Year
2011 2012 2013 2014
"T1 ,g·
c a; ....
0 ....,
1~15 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
Valley Dlstrkt/West Vaiiey/Gooct/ttNOty of IUalto/Oty of Colton
Row and Solute Tr1nsport Model Calibration of Rillto<olton Basin Groundw•ter M odel
....
l c
0
! c: 8
~
i
0
:E
l:! ..
Q,
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-9A, 9B and 9C
2000 throurh 2014
Observed
Layer 3
L~ver !i
layer 6
--Mode l-alQ.JIJJ~II
0
---------------------
0
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
calendar Year
"'1'1 ii' c
Cil .....
Q co
1-Dec·15 GEOSCENCE Support Services, Inc.
V.tley District/West Yaley/Goodridi/City of Rialto/City cA Collan
Row and Solu1a T111nsport Model C.lbratlon of Rialto<ottan Basin Groundwatet Model
...
l c
0
";::; :;
1:
~
8
!I I! s .c: ~ :
1-Deo-15
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
0
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-90, 9E, 9F and 9G
ZOOO through Z014
ObserVI!U
Layer 3
Layer 5
Layer 6
--Mod~L.c31WIA1 Cd
0
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20 10 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
GEOSCIENCE Support SeMc:es, Inc.
Valey Dislrid/West Valey/Gooclridi/City of Rlalto(aty of Colton
Flow and Solute TrMISport Model Calbration of Rilllto<olton BHin Gr-.clwater Model
l c
0 "D :;
c 8 c 0
IIJ
I
0 :c
~ .. a.
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-10A and lOB
2000 throUJh 2014
O!»O'Vtcf
lli~r 3
tit'(l!l !>
Lily'![ 6
--Model-Cillcultll!il
0 --,-
0
0
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
calendar Year
oo
.... -Q
Veley Dlslrlct/West V .. ll!y/Goodrk:h/City of ~!;.~to/City ol ~
Flow lind SoluW Tr1nsport Model C111nlion of Rlalto<olton Basin Grounctw.ter MocW
.....
l c
0
E c: .. u c
0 u
!! !!!
0 :c u a; ....
1.000 I
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-12A and 128
2000 through 2014
Olxf'fVed
Layer3
Layer 5
Layer 6
--Madei-GicufMl!d
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201 2 2013 2014
calendar Year
"TI c c
Cil .... .... ....
1-0ec-15 GEOSCIENCE 5utiPort Sertlces, Inc.
Valley Dlstrid/West Vakft/Goodridt/City of RialWCJty of Colton
Fl-and Solute T111nsport Model calibtation of Rialto-Colton Basin~ Model
....
l c
D ~ ~ c B c
8
!l I!
.5! .c
!:! ..
Q.
100
'
90
80
70
60
50
40
I 3.0
20
10
0
Measured vs. Modei-Cak;ulated Perchlorate Concentrations In Wells EPA·MPBA, MPSB and MP8C
2000 throu1h 2014
0 QQJ;,i'1'111t(l
ll'f'!~ l
l <IVI."'S
l t1yer 6
-Model-calt:ullred
0 p
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
GEOSCXNCE Support 5eMcles, Inc.
Valley District/West V*'f/Goodtidi/Oty of Rlalto/Oty of Colton
Flow and Solute Tnlnsport Model Callbnrtlon of Rialto-Colton l•sin GroundwMer Model
...
l c
0 ~ );
0::
8
0::
8
J!l I!
.5!
~
t! :
100
90
80
70
60
so
40
30
20
10
0
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells EPA-MPBD and MPBE
2000 through 2014
-----
Olu~vl!d
layer 3
Layer 5
Layer 6
--Modl!l a.lcul11led
0 0 .o 0 0 ~----------------------~----------------~------------_.----~~~~-
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
.... .... w
1-Dec-15 GEOSOENCE Support s.Mces, lflc.
Va lley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/aty of Colton
Flow 1nd Solute Tl'llnsport Model CaHbratlon of Rialto-Colton Basin Graundwllter Model
Measured vs. Modei-Cak:ulated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-11A and 118
2000 through 2014
100 --------··-·· ·•· -···· ..
90
80
70
60
50 .
40
30
20
10
0 Observed
Layer3
Layer 5
layer 6
-Model-calculated
0 -!------.---==
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Clllendar Year
"'I c·
c
~ .... ....
""
GEOSCIENCE Support Slrvlats, Inc.
VII ley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Row and Solute Transport Model C.lbratlon of Rlalto<olton I Min Groundwater Model
l c c ~
t! .. c
8 c c u
I
.5! ~ Q.
~~
90
80 1
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
·0
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-llC, 110 and 11E
2000 throueh 2014
Obs~d
Layer 3
Layers
Layer 6
--Modfl·c.alcutil tl!d
I
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
I
... --.... ' ' ' \
\
\
\
'\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
' ' ' ' ' ... --
0 ~
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
.,
lEI" c
iiJ .... .... c.n
1-Dec-15 GEOSCIENCE Support Senri""-Inc.
Valley District/West Valley/Gooclrldt/C'rty of Rillto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Trensport Model Calbration of Rillito-Colt on Basin Gt-*a t er Mode l
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells EPA-MP7A, MP7B and MP7C
2000 throup 2014
l
i~
... ~ "' ~
10 s
5 Q.
100
0 Observat
90 Layer 3
\..ilyer $
80
u~vet 6
-Modef-r.Jkula~E<!
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000 2000 20 02 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20 08
Calendar Year
0 0 0
~009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20 1~
0 :n
CCI c
dl ... -Cl)
GIOSOENCE SUpport Services, Inc.
VIII ley District/West Vlllley/Goodrith/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow lind Solute Transport Model C.llbrftlon « Rlafto.Colton h5ln Groundwater Model
l c
i
I! .. c
8 c
0 u
!I
I!
J! .c
::! .. II.
~f
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
·0
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrati ons in Wells EPA-MP7D and MP7E
2000 throurh 2014
Obs erved
Laye r 3
·Layer 5
Layer6
--Mqdel·ulw la red
0 0 0 ~------------------------------------~--~--------~--~----~~------2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
C•'-nd•rYear
'TI rD.
c
iiJ .... ...... ......
V811ey District/West Villley/GoocMch/City of Ri11ta/Oty of Colton
Flow and Solute Tr..,SfiOrt MocW caUbratlon of Rialto-tolton BUn Groundwater Model
l
t:.•
~·
i
1 g
\,j .,
'iii
15
2
~ .,
Co
l -tlt!!C-15
100
90
80
70
60
~~
4()
30
20
10
0
0
Measured vs. Model-(aleulated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells CPW-16A, 168, 16C and 160
2000 throu1h 2014
Obsef'llerJ
aver 3
'~Vt'l S
L;~yer 6
--Model-c.>l c:uli.:ted
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
V .. ey District/West Valey/Goodrith/aty of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow lind Solute Transport Model Cdbr.uon of RJaltxH:oltoniiMin Groundwater Model
....
l c
-8 ,;
c ~ .s
! I!
~ ~ l
100 1
90
80
70
60
so
40
30
20
10
0
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells CPW-16E, 16F and 16G
2000 throuah 2014
Observed
Layer 3
Layer 5
Layer6
I
/
I
I
I
/
I
I
-Model-ca lculated I
/
/
/
1'/
0
/
I
/
~
/
/
I
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---------------,-
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20 11 2012 2013 2014
calendar Year
"'TI ca c
iil ..... .....
CD
1~15 GEOSCIENCE Support SenriCieS, Inc.
V .. ley District/West Valey/Goo*ich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and 5c*l1e Transport Model C8libntion of Rlallo-Colton Basin Gnlunclwater Model
l
1! ~
!!! .. c ..
~ 8
!I
!!! 0
:!
~ :.
J..Dec-15
100
1
90
80
70
60
so
40
30
20
1ll
0
Measure-d V$. Modei·Calrula ted Perthlorate Conten1rationsl n Wells PW ·l3A and .138
ZOOO throu1h 2014
(}IJ~arwt!
ldyt'< 3
Lii'(t!r s
laver &
--Model -atcui;Urd.
0 .....,.....
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
calendar Year
GEOSCIENCE Support 5eMces, Inc.
V*'t Distltct/West Valey/GoodridVCity of Rhllto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Tr...sport Model C.bltlon of Rialto<olton Basin~ Model
i
li 0 ;:
I! ... c
! c
0 u
~
.R z:.
~
II A.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells PW-148 and 14C
2000 through 2014
Obsm.·ed
1-iyer 3
Lil\•er ~
Ulyn t G
-Modul ·<alc.u~t~d
o L-~------------------~----~--~----~--~~. ----,----~ -----------
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Calendar Yew
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
0
---·
1-Dee-15 GEOSCIENCE SUpport Servic-s, Inc.
V•lley Dlstrkt/W"'st Va lley/Goomldi/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow •nd Solute Transport Model Ca libr1tion of Rialto-Colton B8sin Groundwater Model
100
80
70
l c
-!
I! .. 0:::
60
§
8
50
!I
I! :i
t!
Ql ...
40
30
20
0
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells CPW·17A and 17B
2000 throu1h 2014
o~e.ved
t.ave• 3
ta~'f'rS
~olVe>r I)
--Mod ~l -c:iltul~ltd
0 0 0 0 0
0
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 20 06 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
calendar Year
0
GEOSCIENCE Support S.Niou, Inc.
Vllley Dis1rlct/West V*'f/Goo6tidt/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute T,.nsport Model Cllllbratlon of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
l c:
:8
b c:
8 c:
0 u
i
.R ~ ..
D.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40 j
30
20
10
0
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well CPW-17C and 17D
2000 throuah 2014
Obs eJVI!d
Layer 3
, Layer 5
Layer6
--Model·nfcu!a tcd
0 +---------------------------------------~--~~o~--------~~~~02-~~o~~~----~-::-
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
calendar Veer
"II
~i c
ii1
1..0.C·15 GEOSCIENCE Support SeMces, Inc:.
Valley Disbict/West V•ky/~/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solu1ll! Transport Model Calbratlon of Rl8lto-Colton Basin Gt-.clwater Model
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentmions in Well Colton-17
2000 throuch 2014
...
l c
0
! ... c:
ti c: a 1.1
! .. _g
.c
1:! ..
II.
100 --------. -----···--·---
90
80
70
601
I
l
!
soj
!
40
30
20
10
0
2000
0 Observed
layer 3
LayerS
Layer 6
-Model-calculated
2000 2002 2003
0
2004
0 ---oocP oB/i~~ 0 00 0 0
0 0 0 :
0 0 :
000 : . --...
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
C.lendar Year
.,
.a· c
~ ....
N ....
GEOSCliNCE Support Setvlcas, Inc.
Vllley Dls1rid/West Valey/Goodl1ch/ctty of ~o/City of Colton
Flow end Solute Transport Model c.librltion of Rialto-Colton hsln Groundw.ter Model
...
l c 0 ... s c .. ... c
8
%
f :i
~
l
100
90
80
70
60
so -
40
30
20
10
0
Measured vs. Model-calwlated Perchlorate Conc:entrations in Well Colton-15
2000 through 2014
Ob~cnted
layer 3
layer 5
layer 6
-MD\1.:1 <:alrul:atEd
0
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calenda r Year
!!
CD c::
i ....
N
CJI
1-Deo-15 GEOSCIENCE SUpport Senlices, Inc.
Valley Dlstrkt/West Valley/~/City of RiaiiD/City of Colton
Flow and Salute Transport Modll Calibration of ~olton Basin Groundwater Model
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations In Well N-5
2000 throuch 2014
1,000 ····-----·"··----·-·····--··--------------·· ----
900
8001
700 j
600
500
400
I
300 1
:1
o Observed
layer 3
Layer 5
l.ayer6
-Mode l·caku lated
0
0 1~~--~--~----~~~~1 ~~~~---49~--~~0~ I
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Calendar Year
0 I
2014
!!
IQ c
iil .... ...,
en
GEOSCI ENC£ Support Servlals, Inc.
Vahy District/West Valey/Gooclrlch/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Row end Solute Transport Model Celibratlon of Rlalto<olton hsln Gr~ Model
1,000
900
800
700 ...
l
.f 600 ..
i
§ 500
8 .. ...
I!
Jl s:.
~
A.
400
300
200
100
0
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations In Well F-6
2000 through 2014
·····-------·--..... ·--·---
0 Observed
layer 3
·layer 5
layer6
-Mode l-cakulated
~oooo ooooooo
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20 13 2014
Calendar Year
'TI
i!i r:::
iil .....
N .....
1~15 GEOSCIENCE SUpport Services, Inc.
Valley District/West VWitey/Goodridt/City of Rialtcr/Cily of Colton
Flow and Salute Tram port Model C.libtation of Riallo-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well F·6AS
2000 throu,h 2014
1,000 .. ··-···--·--··-·-··-------·-···
900
800
o Observed
Layer3
layer 5
LayerS
1
-Model-cakulated
~D 1
600 I
:1
~D j
200 ~
~j
0~----,--
0
00
0
----r----1 -..
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005
0
o o oO
0
0 0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009
calendar Year
2010 2011 2012
.,
cr c
Cil
2013 2014
GlOSCI£NCE SUpport~ Inc.
Valley District/West Vllley/Goodrld!/Clty of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow lnd Solute TrM!SpOrt Model Calftntlon of Rialto-Colton hsln Groundwater Model
...
l c
0 ..
I!! .. c w ... c
8
l!l
I!! 0 :c
~ :.
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
o Obs erved
----layer3
Layer 5
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well N-35
2000 through 2014
Layer 6
--Model -calculate d
0
0
0
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Ye1r
r
l
' .,
1-Dec-15 GEOSCIENCE Support SerAces, Inc.
V .. ley Distr"JCt/West V .. ley/Goodrkh/City of R;.ltQ(aty of Colton
Fl-and Solute Transport MocW calibration of ~on Basin Gnlundwater Model
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
~
1
j
1,~00 1
1,000
BOO
600
200
0
Measured v5. Modei-Cakulated Perchlorate Concentration5 in Well N-3D
2000 through 2014
o C)b~r•v.-d
La·~cr l.
Layer 5
Layer 6
-Mod!'i-t<tlcul•h·d
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
calendar Year
GE05C1ENCE Support Services, Inc.
Valley Dll1rkt/West Vdey/Goodltch/City of ~~'-'to/City of Colton
Flow lll1d Solute Transport Mod81 Clllibmion of JUalto<olton Basin Groundwater Model
1
~
~ s
I v .. ~ ::c
~ .,
II.
1·0ec·15
1,000 -
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 Obw->'l'd
---·lil\llll 3
!Ai ya S
l.!lVe< 6
Measured vs . Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well N-8S
ZOOO through Z014
-Moc;Jnl -foilnll;n~d
0
w
0
0 ----~---~-----,---.., -
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
calendar Year
GEOSCIENCE Support 5enrices. Inc.
Valley DistrictJWest Valley/Ciclo*lch/City of Rialto,/aty of Colton
Fl-and 5olut8 Transpon Model Cal"obration of Rillito-Colton 8Min Groundwater Model
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300 •
200
100
0
o O il>f•r'VI!Cl
L~ver l
LaV4!• s
lli~•6
Measured vs. Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well N-80
2000 throup 2014
--Mooel ·ratcu~te<t
\
\
' --..... _..... '
'
\
' ' ' ' ' ----
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
calendar Year
GEOSOENCI Support Senllc:es. Inc.
V .. ley Disttlct/West V•kv/GooOridt/Oty of Rlalto/Oty ol Colton
Flow a nd Solute Tr-.nsport Model C.l bratlon of llillto-Coltcn a.ln Groundweter Model
....
l c
0
"i
8 c
8
!
~ 0
l!
l:! :
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 Obs erved
Layer 3
La yer 5
Layer 6
Measured vs . Model-calculated Perchlorate Concentrations i n Well N-12
2000 through 2014
--Mod el-cafc u!at eil
·0
0
00
~0 0 0 0 0
0
-~--~-----· ---.--·---. -·--.. ,·-----r---
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20 11 2012 2013
calendar Year
"TI
~ c
iil
2014
l..()ec-15 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
Valey DlstrtctJWest Valley/6oodrlch/City of Rillito/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Trai\Sport Model Calibration of RWID-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
1,000
900
800
700 ...
l c
0 :;::;
~
600
c .. 500 u
0::
8
~ .400 .s! .c u a; ....
300
200
100
0
2000
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrati ons in Wells M -3 Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4
2000 throuth Z014
0 omerved
l.av~r 3
~-~·s
l a y!!r E.
-Mooekalc:uli!ct~
~
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005
0 0
2014
l-1)-lS GE05CIENCE Support Servlms, lne.
Valley DGttlct/West Va lley/GooOticti/CJty of Rialto/City a/ CD!ton
Flow a nd Solute T,..nsport Model Calibration a/ Rialto<olton linin Groundwllter Model
1,000
900
800
700 ...
l
c' 600 0 ...
e! .. c ~
8
500
s
f! 400 0
J!
~ :
300
200
100
0
Measured vs. Model-Cal culated Perchlorate Concent rati ons in Wells M-3 ZS, Z& and Z7
2000 through 2014
O~ervecl
Layer 3
LayerS
Layer 6
-Mod;M-calculated
0
00 0 "'I
0 0 = 0
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005
1-()ec-15
ttl 6oOP-Q;O -..-o-
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Calendar Year
c
2013 2014
iii .... w
01
GEOSCE NCE SUpport Services, Inc.
Vdey Dbtrict/West Valley/Goodrich/City of RialtD(City of Cotton
Flow a nd Solute Transport Modl!l C.lbratlon of Rialto-Colton Basin Gtaunclwater Model
l c
.5! .. ~ c .. ... c
8 a :!
:i ~
a!
Measured vs. Model-Calculated Perchlorate Concentrations in Well Rlalto-3
zooo throurh 2014
100 ---·--· --·-·-······ .... -..
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o Observed
Layer3
LayerS
Layer6
-Model-calculated
0
0
0
0
-& ().
0 0
0
... ......
I
J I
I \ ... \
I \
' \
\
0
0 0 ' 0
oemmm~~»mmmnm~~~~--~~-~--~--~--~--~~~~~~~~
2000 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
,
.a· c
iii ...
~
GEOSCIENCE Support SarvlcM, In~
' ...
' .. . '
' ' ' ' ' ' ',, ~
. ''~"'.
,~,
" ' I ' '
•ID I ' \
I ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' ' .,
·'\.' ~ .
'
MEASURtP 'EIICHLOIIATE
CONCENTIIAnONS AND
MODEL-51MULATEO
PEN:HLOIIATE PWME
IN IIEI.ECTm HIIIOOS
MOoa IAYEII J
-PwdiiDf'IM.~~Jil
C'"CI.•Iuo/ll • • •
0 ......
0 J>50tol00
• >1IXItDlOO
~ >200 ......
>lOOtDZOD
StiOndu.rstSite
D
i!!!!!!!liiiiiiiiii .....
Flcu..,u7
, ' , '< , ' , ' , ' \ . ... ..... 'v
' .
...,.... '' I _:~,
', .. ,
' ... ...
' ... ... ' ... ,,, ., ' , \ \
... "a , ' ' ',~~~'
CdMI-17 .,, '' ''
I "· '
' ' ' '... ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
MEASUIIID PERCHI.OIUO't
ctlNC111111A110N5 AND
MODEWIMULA'IID
'IIICIIIOIUIIE PWME
IN SB.ECTED PERIODS
MODEI.L\YER5
0 M&ID5D
.) >5DtD1DD
II ~10010200
9) ,..,.
'""'"'
>UID*olOO .....
D
0
D
--
.....valeySanltatYLMdfill/
Former l11nbr 5~
fllure138
MEASUIIB) PEIIDILOUJ£
CONCEJiri'IIATIOIIS AND
MOOEL-51MUlATm
PERCHIQIUIJE PWME
IN SELICTED PERIODS
MODEL LAYER 5
0
0
fl
fll
-0
D
D
,. .. ,. ........
>100"-lDO ,,..
,. .. ,.
~so to too
~>lOOtoUJO
>200 --
M~llrtJS.nltary tandfil'l /
FGtmer lunllersa.
LocaiFJW
(hultu.ld..2012J
TABLES
GEOSCIENCE
~
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton Table 1
Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
Groundwater Production Wells in the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin
Count OWner State Well Number Watermaster Well Name
1 Colton, City of 1S/4W-18B01S 9
2 Colton, City of 1S/4W-18F01S 17
3 Colton, City of 1S/4W-18G01S 15
4 Colton, City of 1S/4W-21K01S #23
5 Colton, City of 1S/4W-27l01S Katz/Hollow
6 Colton, City of 1S/4W-27L03S 22
7 Colton, City of 1S/4W-34H 5731 -James Sullivan
8 Colton, City of 1S/4W-08Q04S #29
9 Fontana Water Company 1N/5W-30A01E 36
10 Fontana Water Company 1N/5W-31A01S NA
11 Fontana Water Company 1N/5W-32A02S F13B
12 Fontana Water Company 1N/SW-33N01S F49A
13 Fontana Water Company 1N/6W-2SA01S F15A
14 Fontana Water Company 1S/5W-04D01S 35
15 Fontana Water Company 1S/SW-05A02S 23
16 Fontana Water Company 1S/5W-OSA03S 22
17 Fontana Water Company 1S/SW-OSA04S FlOB
18 Fontana Water Company 1S/5W-05AOSS FlOC
19 Fontana Water Company 1N/5W-29R015S F13A(Oid FU #37)
20 Hayes, GEO. G. 1S/4W-18K01S 1
21 Ledig, Alfred H. 1N/5W-18D01E Unknown
22 Meeks & Daley Water Company 1S/4W-21LOSS Sper ry Well
23 Meeks & Daley Water Company 1S/4W-21N01S 36
24 Montecito Memorial Park 1S/4W-27Q Barton Road
25 Patterson 1S/4W-17M01S Patterson
26 Rialto, City of 1N/5W-27D01S Rialto #1, Cedar
27 Rialto, City of 1N/SW-34B01S Rialto #2, Highland
28 Rialto, City of 1N/SW-34M01S Ria lto #3, Airport
29 Rialto, City of 1S/SW-02E01S Rlalto#S
30 Rialto, City of 1S/5W-02G01S Rialto #6, Etiwanda
31 Rialto, City of 1S/5W-03A01S Rialto #4/Duncan
32 Rialto, City of 1S/SW-03N02S Rialto #7, Tudor
33 Rialto, City of 1S/5W-03J01S Tudor
34
Riverside Highland Water
1S/4W-28K01S CR#4 Company
35
Riverside Highland Water
1S/4W-28K02S CR4-A Company
36 Riverside, City of 1S/4W-21L01S Vaughn 1
37 Riverside, City of 1S/4W-21Q03S Johnson 1
1-Dec-15 1 of2 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/Oty of Colton Table 1
Flow and Solute TranSfiC)rt Model ta!Hx'atlon of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
Groundwater Production Wells in the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Bas i n
Count Owner State Well Number Watermaster Well Name
38 Riverside, City of 1S/4W-28C01S Meeks 1
39 Riverside, City of 1S/4W-28D01S Mill
40 Riverside, City of 1S/4W-21Q01S Johnson 3
41 Sequoia Country Club 1S/4W-07C01S Edmunds
42 Southern California Edison 1S/5W-12A01E 1AC#58
43 Southern California Edison 1S/4W-29H03E Colton
44 Taylor, John S. 1N/5W-07P02E Taylor 1
45 Taylor, John S. 1N/5W-07P03E Unknown
46 Villelli Enterprises 1S/4W-28AOSE 3
47 Villelli Enterprises 1S/4W-28G01S 1
48 West Valley Water District 1N/SW-17G01S #23/ Fontana Rnch 3
49 West Valley Water District 1N/SW-17K01S #21 I Fontana Rnch 1
50 West Valley Water District 1NISW-17K02S #24 I Fontana Rnch 4
51 West Valley Water District 1NI5W-27B01S #22A Linden VIneyard
52 West Valley Water District 1NISW-28J01S #22 I Fontana Rnch 2
53 West Valley Water Dist rict 1N/6W-24C01S #54
54 West Valley Water District 1SI5W-02C01S #10 Base line Willow
55 West Valley Water District 1SISW-02K01S #11 Victoria/Willow
56 West Valley Water District 1S/5W-03A02S #33 Shop
57 West Valley Water District 1S/5W-12L01S #161 Boyd
58 West Valley Water District 1SISW-12N01S #17 Acacia/Merrel
1-Dec-15 2 of2 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
YlltyDIItltlt/Wutv.II__./GIIod~ef RIIN~afc.IMII
n ow e.ndSM-.h,_.rtMIIIIIIei M .. I C.IIW. ... n.rlhii iii ..... .C.IIDit .. lf•l'irvulllllll_..rMM tl
UnNed UnPCed
Underflow Artlllc:lll Runoff•d Runoff and
Rlolto·ColtonJolllt Groun-... Model Collbrotlon
Groundwater Balance to< lh• Period 1945 to :1.014
(Unllsln-ft)
Stnooonbecl -Pen:oloUon Pereolat:lon Underftow Sub<urf11co Calendar from Lytle from Redl•l'leof Inflow from Subsurflea AntlaropcJienlt RKillrJB ftomdae from Tallll
y-lunktf Hll Imported Inflow from ReturaF1ow from S.ntaAAa lrTiptlon ··-..... theSa11 ..... Water Gab~ II tllo Pr.c:lpbtiae.• Rhtr end Conll
Mtns. ladlan.ts WarM Creek
1945 10,948 9,5-MI 0 2,1127 81 2,037 872 l,UZ 1,479 31,028
1946 11,734 9,194 0 3,050 44 2,037 872 3,132 1,251 31,321
1947 9,051 9,033 0 2,626 7 2,037 172 3,132 1,402 28,160
~ 4,872 8,306 0 1,'J65 • 1,989 an 3,140 1,975 23,126
1949 4,U3 11,493 0 1,a4S 4 2,1120 an 3,132 1,696 25,975
1950 3,516 7,824 0 1,750 6 3,149 an 3,132 1,115 21,363
1951 2,987 5,373 0 1,666 6 3,899 872 3,132 669 18,605
1952 13,356 7~ 0 3,307 176 2,728 872 3,140 231 31,067
1963 4,na 4.214 0 1,951 3 3,802 872 3,132 374 19,125
1964 6,471 3,&28 0 2,218 71 3,425 172 3,132 127 19,948
1955 4,820 4,727 0 1,957 10 3,073 872 3,132 3 18,593
1956 4,445 3,842 0 1,898 1 7 3,852 872 3,140 0 17,867
1957 4,722 3,454 0 1,941 6 3,605 872 3,132 0 1 7,732
19SS U,699 3,082 0 4,311 114 3,637 872 3,132 0 34,856
1959 5,966 ~.~ 0 2,137 5 3,934 872 3,132 0 19,631
1960 3,725 2,480 0 1,784 3 3,381 872 1,831 0 14,056
1961 2,805 1,511 0 1,638 19 4,345 172 1,106 0 12,297
1962 6,778 1,822 0 2,267 29 3,178 872 2,370 0 17,116
1963 4,211 755 0 1,861 4 2,924 872 3,111 0 13,737
1964 3,130 1,975 0 1,690 4 3.912 872 1,904 0 13,417
1965 11,857 1,861 0 3,070 170 3,959 872 3,132 0 24,711
1966 14,774 2,242 0 3,532 279 4,108 872 2,965 0 28,773
1967 15,939 8,342 0 3,716 65 3A8? 872 2,608 0 35,028
1968 6,152 658 0 2,168 26 4,255 172 1,917 0 16,048
1969 21.765 1,324 0 9,228 715 3,543 172 12,994 0 50,440
1970 7,534 5,130 0 2.386 56 3,465 872 1,991 0 21,434
1971 5,939 6,130 0 2,134 32 3,388 872 1,889 0 19,383
1972 4,778 5,130 0 1,950 2 3,095 872 :1,828 0 17,655
Papt of]
Table 2
Undeoflow Olmulatlve Groqndw.ter GHII toO.ino Evep-· Total O.~tnpih dl..,reln
Pumpl"l aplradon Outtlow Storap IIJin s-
6,791 27,419 100 0 34,310 -3,282 -3,282
6,791 34,88~ 100 0 41,574 ·10,253 ·13,6~5
6,791 28,131 100 0 35,522 ·7,:!0~ -<10,898
6,630 34,759 100 0 41,480 ·18,~ -~.20!0
9,449 34,452 100 0 45,981 ·11,007 .f.7.287
10,496 28,880 100 0 39,486 -18,122 -75,580
13,024 28,855 100 0 41,979 -23,374 .08,78~
9,053 18~ 100 0 27,803 3,484 .05,2118
22,7:1.0 27,469 100 0 40.289 -21 ,1~ -116,4$~
11,421 21,788 100 0 33,289 ·13,341 -129,804
10,249 19.709 100 0 30,069 ·11,468 -141 .270
12,8153 17,448 100 0 30,409 -12,542 -153,&12
12,043 18,752 100 0 30,895 ·13,163 ·188,875
12,094 13,845 100 0 2&,03(1 8,818 -158,167
13,114 18,4911 100 0 32,713 ·13,076 -171,232
11,278 16,249 100 0 27,827 -13,571 -184,803
1 4,399 1&,234 100 0 32,733 -20,458 -205,2~8
10,593 12,028 100 0 22,722 -6,006 -210,848
9,698 15,813 100 0 25,811 -11 ,874 -222,718
12,608 13,358 100 0 2&,067 ·12.680 -235,300
12,764 12,748 100 0 25,612 -W2 -236.201
13,586 10,791 100 0 24,4n 4,2116 -231,906
11,623 14,472 100 0 28,198 8,833 -223,074
13,9112 12,572 100 0 28,865 -10,606 .,233,880
11.809 8,87& 100 0 20,587 211,154 .,200,828
11,479 11,358 100 0 22,G38 ·1,603 -205,3211
11,176 14,757 100 0 28,052 .e,849 -211,978
10,105 20,2115 100 0 30,500 ·12,844 -224,823
YllltyD~•tV.Irr.--rtmJQlyot ltlllltvA .. .,....
fi.WIMI loMITni ..... MMMMocti!ICIIDirll .. llef ... III-ColtMI .... ,....,_,..,.I Rllllo-Colton Joint Groundwater Model Callbmlon
Groulldwatet 11411ana~ far th• 'llfod 1945 to Zll14
(Unholn A<n~)
u._ed
Unppll StswmloM Runoff and Uhddaw ,_
Subsurface ~·"""•' Arool , . .-Peuolotlon
Calendar u--Ra:: .. rpfllf s-..-AnthroPQithk hctl•rp from the from T-frconl.yde rnftawfrom Yoor .... 8~o~nkerHill 1m--' dlos ..
.... __
l:aturn Flow from S•IIIAM lrriptlon lnllaw
l1lln w-Gobrlol the ...... ,1111~··· ...... .-Cln•l
Mtns. ........ W1nnCNIII
1973 10.269 1,975 0 2,819 125 2,329 872 2,B12 0 2UOO
1974 8,008 5,130 0 2,1161 n 2,645 872 2,ln4 0 21.958
1975 5,.474 2,460 0 2,060 Z5 3,305 872 2,816 0 17,1114
1976 5,470 2,4110 0 2,060 41 3,445 872 2,841 0 17,198
un 5,215 2,573 0 2,019 38 2,612 872 2,915 0 16,315
1978 19,472 2,082 0 8,382 3611 2,276 871 12,580 0 46,9Da
1979 6J,ZII9 4,780 0 4,055 235 2,135 872 2,911 0 78,326
1980 G.,747 5,045 0 7,812 727 1.699 172 11$98 0 90,500
1981 21.092 6.217 0 2,148 40 1)190 171 2,842 0 35,101
1982 q,o&1 8.829 3,210 3,367 143 1.928 4 ,060 2,982 0 70.380
1!1113 55,910 1!11874 4,742 7,091 511 1,404 1.3,513 13,976 0 104,129
1984 21,5:13 7,116 3,459 2,484 59 2,709 1J 552 2,154 0 60,664
1985 19,83S 7.274 3,A174 2,090 :1.9 3,Dl0 11.517 2,795 0 52,419
1986 9,391 8,342 5,353 2,681 75 3,002 13 511 2!157 0 43,319
1987 4,820 8,190 3,Q21 1.957 5 3,934 3,991 2,737 0 26,662
1988 5,aa 8,095 4,581 2,063 0 4,244 872 2,AI01 0 26,.144
1989 4,Q2S 5.185 4,524 1,830 0 4,658 172 2,354 0 n.asa
19!Hl l,a1l 4,854 65 1,649 0 5,266 872 2 ,651 0 11,2]6
1991 5,179 3,970 441 2,124 14 41173 172 2,908 0 20,482
1992 lS,IlJ 4,104 1.547 3,644 S1 5,394 872 2,952 0 34,387
1993 36,875 3,176 3,763 7,441 984 4,991 872 11,863 0 69~964
1994 5,813 5.175 263 1,1161 78 4,711 672 2,893 0 21.265
1995 45,420 6,135 0 4,064 641 5,344 872 2,960 0 65,437
1996 1,549 3,582 71 1,541 93 5,263 872 2,111 0 23PT7
1997 6,564 4,458 0 2,231 92 4,545 872 2,181 0 20,M5
1998 41,745 3,802 0 4,502 148 3,474 872 12,242 0 66,5114
1999 4,112 4,343 14 1,972 79 3,9515 872 654 0 17,043
2000 4,299 4,708 0 1,680 99 4,097 872 651 0 16,605
Undooftow cumulltin 6roundweur E--Totol a.-•· all to O.lno 0.-··· Pumphq ..... ·-D--... StD ....
7,743 12,.084 100 0 19,1107 1.;293 -223,530
8,606 14.386 100 0 23,071 -1,113 -224,043
10,925 11$93 100 0 22,010 -6,1105 -230,247
10,931 14,813 100 0 26164!5 -4,447 -238,8115
1,069 15,1128 100 0 24,0VII •7,711 -2411,478
7,490 4.417 100 0 12.007 34,111111 -211,580
7,104 13,441 100 0 20,845 57,61J2 -1 53,808
5,663 18.959 100 0 18.$33 71,187 -82,731
M40 18,1Q2 100 0 22.542 12.959 -70,112
6,256 18,078 100 0 23,934 47,047 -23,125
4,661 27,217 10Q 0 31 ,018 72,.144 49,018
8,690 23,1141 100 0 32,439 28,226 n.243
10,0150 wou 100 0 33,86Q 18.959 08.803
9,952 24,810 100 0 34,881 8,457 104,260
13,106 26,750 100 0 38,958 ·13,l54 oo.-
14,163 30,714 100 0 44,977 -1&,133 72,133
17.9.59 28,815 100 0 4e,Q54 ..23_0118 49,088
17,932 21,733 100 a 4e,704 ~8,529 20,638
14,525 82,853 100 0 411,978 ~--1;,1150
1&,022 22,224 100 0 40,348 ~.--1 1,018
16,045 18,872 100 0 20,817 40,147 28.229
14,995 18,934 100 0 32,020 -10,763 17.-
17,460 20,886 1 00 0 38,448 211,000 ···-19,273 30,113 100 0 40,488 ~.410 18,047
14,914 15.-100 0 33,918 ·12,1178 5,074
11.571 15,21111 100 0 20,868 all,828 41,700
12,100 22,18Q 100 0 34,090 ·17,947 23,753
15,836 24,2211 100 0 40,165 ·23,660 194
v.I .... DIItrld:/W .. YIIIy .... INridl/r.tbt.riUaiiDJtllrefC:.ttM f-1nll Soldtrr._,.rt MIIIWM!Niel CIU.8tl811ofth•l&.l~n IMin GI'OUII ................ I Rialto-Colton Joint Groundwater Modol Clllbration
Grvundw-r lalanceforlhe PeriO d 194S to 2014
(Units In llcre-ft)
U_.ol U-ocl Strumlood
Underflow Ardfldol lunolfond RuhOff•ul -Penollltk>n ,. ...........
Underflow S ....... rf..:o calend1r frclmlyt141 from Rec:h•1•of Inflow from. Sub6urt.c:o Anthropoten1c RKh•rs• from the ,,., T-1
Yl!ar Ba~n .. nkcrHIII Imp-.. the San lhftGwfrom Return Flow -s.rmA ... ........... lnft-
Basin Wotor Gobrlol I he Predpbtion• Rtv•end Cln•l
MtM. Bodlonds Wann Creek
2001 5,318 3,5114 0 2,041 118 5,839 872 583 0 18,365
2002 2,756 3,120 0 1,635 111 7,402 872 459 0 16,362
2003 4,908 2,849 0 1,975 66 7,762 872 532 0 18,766
2004 7,045 2,845 0 l,:US 2SO 7,286 872 617 0 21,230
2005 18,021 3,424 0 7,852 54l S,&l7 872 3,268 0 39,6C6
2006 12,077 2,452 0 3,111 1,346 5,249 872 633 0 25,740
2007 3,974 1,899 0 1,129 526 6,278 872 579 0 15,957
2DOB 6,854 1,1169 0 2,284 365 5,181 872 584 0 18.800
2009 4,916 2,231 0 1,978 653 7,036 872 593 0 1S,279
2010 9,871 2.322 0 2,&84 1,279 7.313 872 2,216 0 2&,&17
2011 9,854 2,477 0 2,761 353 6,150 872 572 0 23,048
2012 676 2,553 0 1,307 437 6,021 872 613 0 12,479
2013 175 2,482 0 1,228 489 6,289 872 542 0 12.077
2014 7110 2,429 1,439 1,323 507 6,121 872 487 0 13,959 ,...,.,.
194S1io 1U41 4,J1S 578 l,IJ1 111 4,0Jl 1.685 J,l59 148 U,ZI6
2014
Underflow Groundwet:er GHI toChiiiiO , ........... .....
19.335 21,919 100
24,&70 20,927 100
24,960 21,043 100
24,217 18,722 100
18,756 15,203 100
17,697 17,070 100
20,918 13,371 100
20,421 17,895 100
H,051 21,932 100
24,196 17,777 100
20,130 16,992 100
19,842 16,901 100
20,575 16,512 100
21,075 12,140 100
13,424 19,$90 100
• AAel rel:harp: from prcdp~llon lodudes addrtlon-' rec:hlrp of 57 JDJ acre~ at the CICW. &.sins durtnc th~ period ofOQ..1!J82 throush Mar.1117 to IQOOUot for the ;addftlanal rcthft'le fn ver;o Wl!!:t years.
Pi!ISI!Sof3
Table 2
Cumulatl~M E-otron-Total Olanpln Chrin~eln 1Plratlon Outllow S-o Stoi'IKe
0 41,354 -22,989 -22,795
0 45,&97 -29,335 -62,131
0 4&,103 -27.338 -79,-<U
0 43,039 ~1 ,&0& -101,277
0 34,0511 5,54& -05,731
0 34,8&8 -8,128 -104,859
0 34,S89 -18,431 -123,290
0 S8,415 -19,818 -142,908
0 46,083 -28,804 ·169,71C
0 42,773 -10,150 -185,1168
0 37,222 -14,174 -200,040
0 ~.843 -24,365 ~4.405
0 36,287 -24,210 -248,815
0 33,$18 -19,357 -267,972
0 13,114 -.3,128
GfOICJENtlSu .. Ofts.MMI..,_,c.
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
Table 3
Perchlorate Mass Loading Amounts
Robertson's Ready
Year Goodrich Burn Pit McLaughlin Pit Mix Wash Pond Stonehurst Site
Mobilization
[gfday]
Jan-00 0 0 0 0
Feb-00 0 0 0 0
Mar-00 0 0 0 0
Apr-00 0 0 0 0
May-00 0 0 0 5
Jun-00 0 0 0 5
Jul-00 0 0 0 8
Aug-00 0 0 0 5
Sep-00 0 0 0 5
Oct-00 0 0 0 5
Nov-00 0 0 0 68
Dec-00 0 0 0 5
Jan-01 0 0 0 5
Feb -01 0 0 0 16
Mar-01 0 0 0 5
Apr-01 0 0 0 5
May-01 0 0 0 0
Jun-01 0 0 0 0
Jul-01 0 0 0 0
Aug-01 0 0 0 2
Sep-01 0 0 0 2
Oct-01 0 0 0 2
Nov-01 0 0 0 2
Dec-01 0 0 0 2
Jan-02 0 0 0 70
Feb-02 0 0 0 70
Mar-02 0 0 0 70
Apr-02 0 0 0 70
May-02 0 0 0 70
Jun-02 0 0 0 70
Jul-02 0 0 0 1
Aug-02 0 0 0 1
Sep-02 0 0 0 5
Oct-02 0 0 0 5
Nov-02 0 0 0 5
Dec-02 0 0 0 5
Jan-03 0 0 0 6
Feb-03 0 0 0 6
Mar-03 0 0 0 6
Ap r -03 0 0 0 6
May-03 0 0 0 6
Jun-03 0 0 0 16
1-Dec-15 Page 1 of 5 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton Table 3
Row and Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rialt~on Basin Groundwater Model
Perchlorate Mass Loading Amounts
Robertson's Ready
Year Goodrich Burn Pit McLaughlin Pit Mix Wash Pond Stonehurst Site
Mobilization
[gfday]
Jul-03 0 0 0 16
Aug-03 0 0 0 16
Sep-03 0 0 0 16
Oct-03 0 0 0 16
Nov-03 0 0 0 16
Dec-03 0 0 0 16
Jan-04 0 0 0 28
Feb-04 0 0 0 28
Mar-04 0 0 0 16
Apr-04 0 0 0 16
May-04 0 50 0 16
Jun-04 0 0 0 1
Jul-04 0 0 0 1
Aug-04 0 0 0 1
Sep-04 0 0 0 1
Oct-04 0 0 0 1
Nov-04 0 0 0 1
Dec-04 0 0 0 2
Jan-OS 0 0 0 2
Feb-05 0 0 0 2
Mar-05 0 0 0 2
Apr-05 0 0 0 2
May-05 0 0 0 2
Jun-05 150 75 0 2
Jul-05 150 75 0 2
Aug-05 150 75 0 2
Sep-05 0 75 0 2
Oct-05 0 75 0 2
Nov-05 0 75 0 2
Dec-05 0 75 0 2
Jan-06 0 0 0 2
Feb-06 0 0 0 2
Mar-06 0 0 0 2
Apr-06 0 0 0 2
May-06 0 0 0 2
Jun-06 0 0 0 2
Jul-06 0 0 0 2
Aug-06 0 0 0 2
Sep-06 0 0 0 2
Oct-06 0 0 0 2
Nov-06 10 10 0 2
Dec-06 0 0 0 2
1-Dec-15 Page 2 of 5 GEOSCIENCE Support 5ervices, Inc.
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/Oty of Colton Table 3
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
Perchlorate Mass Loading Amounts
Robertson's Ready
Year Goodrich Burn Pit McLaughlin Pit Mix Wash Pond Stonehurst Site
Mobilization
[gfday]
Jan-07 0 0 0 2
Feb-07 2 10 0 2
Mar-07 0 0 0 2
Apr-07 0 0 0 2
May-07 0 0 0 2
Jun-07 0 0 0 2
Jul-07 0 0 1 2
Aug-07 0 0 1 2
Sep-07 0 0 1 2
Oct-07 0 0 1 2
Nov-07 0 30 1 2
Dec-07 0 0 1 2
Jan-08 0 0 1 0
Feb -08 0 0 1 0
Mar-08 0 0 1 0
Apr-08 0 0 1 0
May-08 0 0 1 0
Jun-08 0 0 1 0
Jul-08 1 0 1 0
Aug-08 1 0 1 0
Sep-08 0 0 1 0
Oct-08 0 0 1 0
Nov-08 0 0 0 0
Dec-08 0 0 0 0
Jan-09 0 0 0 0
Feb-09 0 0 0 0
Mar-09 0 0 0 0
Apr-09 0 0 0 0
May-09 0 0 0 0
Jun-09 0 0 0 0
Jul-09 0 0 0 0
Aug-09 0 0 0 0
Sep-09 0 0 0 0
Oct-09 0 0 0 0
Nov-09 0 0 0 0
Dec-09 0 0 0 0
Jan-10 0 0 0 0
Feb-10 0 0 0 0
Mar-10 0 0 0 0
Apr-10 0 0 0 0
May-10 0 0 0 0
Jun -10 0 0 0 0
1-Dec-15 Page 3 of 5 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton Table 3
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of RialtcH:olton Basin Groundwater Model
Perchlorate Mass Loading Amounts
Robertson's Ready
Year Goodrich Burn Pit Mclaughlin Pit Mix Wash Pond Stonehurst Site
Mobilization
[g/day]
Jul-10 0 0 0 0
Aug-10 0 0 0 0
Sep-10 0 0 0 0
Oct-10 0 0 0 0
Nov-10 0 0 0 0
Dec-10 0 0 0 0
Jan-11 0 0 0 0
Feb-11 0 0 0 0
Mar-11 0 0 0 0
Apr-11 0 0 0 0
May-11 0 0 0 0
Jun-11 0 1 0 0
Jul-11 0 1 0 0
Aug-11 0 1 0 0
Sep-11 0 1 0 0
Oct-11 1 5 0 0
Nov-11 1 5 0 0
Dec-11 1 20 0 0
Jan-12 1 20 0 0
Feb-12 1 0 0 0
Mar-12 0 0 0 0
Apr-12 0 0 0 0
May-12 0 0 0 0
Jun-12 0 0 0 0
Jul-12 0 0 0 0
Aug-12 0 0 0 0
Sep-12 0 0 0 0
Oct-12 0 0 0 0
Nov-12 0 0 0 0
Dec-12 0 0 0 0
Jan-13 0 0 0 0
Feb-13 0 0 0 0
Mar-13 0 0 0 0
Apr-13 0 0 0 0
May-13 0 0 0 0
Jun-13 0 0 0 0
Jul-13 0 0 0 0
Aug -13 0 0 0 0
Sep-13 0 0 0 0
Oct-13 0 0 0 0
Nov-13 0 0 0 0
Dec-13 0 0 0 0
1-Dec-15 Page 4 of 5 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc .
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrlch/Cty of Rlalto/aty of Colton Table 3
Flow and Solute Transport Model callblation of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
Perchlorate Mass Loading Amounts
Robertson's Ready
Year Goodrich Burn Pit Mclaughlin Pit Mix Wash Pond Stonehurst Site
Mobilization
[g/day]
Jan-14 0 0 0 0
Feb-14 0 0 0 0
Mar-14 0 0 0 0
Apr-14 0 0 0 0
May-14 0 0 0 0
Jun-14 0 0 0 0
Jul-14 0 0 0 0
Aug-14 0 0 0 0
Sep-14 0 0 0 0
Oct-14 0 0 0 0
Nov-14 0 0 0 0
Dec-14 0 0 0 0
1-Dec-15 Page 5 of 5 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.
APPEND ICES
GEOSCIENCE ·-::.y;::;:=
APPENDIX A
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to Balleau Groundwater's 3-Jun-15 Comments
on the Draft Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE
~
Val ley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Appe nd ix A Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibrat ion of Rial t o-Colton Basi n Groundwater Model
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1-Dec-15
GEOSCIENCE'S RESPONSES TO BALLEAU GROUNDWATER'S 3-JUN-15 COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL CALIBRATION TM
Balleau Groundwater's Comments
There is 1504t offset in model layer elevations
for model layer 3 through 7 in the Northeast
of the Unnamed Fault .
For the multi-screen wells simulated by the
MNW2 package, model-calculated pumping
amounts are less than input values for some of
the well s. It is recommended to modify t he
drawdown coefficients or extend the layer
deeper for these wells.
Hydrographs of nine target wells in the m id-
basin indicate that the model is not ab le to
catch the recharge event which happened In
extreme wet years duri ng late-1970's through
mid-1980's. Balleau suggested performing
sensitivity tests near Cactus Basins.
Several Fontana wells between Barrier H and
Rialto-Colton Fault are not well calibrated .
Observed water levels for some Colton Wells
have big variation. Data verification is needed
to check whether pumping levels are included
by mistake.
A-1
GEOSCIENCE's Responses
The offset in model layers 3 through 7 has been
resolved by lowering model layers 3 and 4. The
amount of loweri ng Is consistent with the
lowering so ut hwest of the Un named Fau lt .
GEOSCIENCE has solved this problem by
modifyi ng the drawdown coefficients and
extending the extraction layer for the w ells with
large pumping discr epancies.
Sens itivity runs show that recharge of 57,000 AF
i n the Cactus Basins between Oct 1982 and Mar
1987 will improve the calibration duri ng the very
wet period signi f icantly. This recha rge at Cactus
Basin has been added to the historical simulation.
Calibration in the area between Barri er H and the
Rialt o-Colton Fault was i mproved by adjusti ng the
horizontal hydraulic conductivity val ues, ve rtical
hydraulic conductivity values, and conductance of
the groundwater barriers.
Colton Wells 8, 13, 14, 16, and 21 are located in
the Bunker Hill Basi n and were inco rporated in
the model calibrat ion by mistake .
Some static water level dat a for Colt on-22 are
very similar to pumping levels and should not be
used for model calib ration.
GEOSCIENCE
~
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model Appendix A
Balleau Groundwater's Comments GEOSCIENCE's Responses
6. Some of the perchlorate measurements are
collected from thin screens, and they are not
able to represent the condition of the entire
aquifer. Calibration based on these
measurements may cause some This has been incorporated in the final calibration
overestimation in the model. However, the TM Section 6.0.
main purpose of this model is to understand
the changing of the concentrations through
time, not quantifying the mass . Address this
in the report.
7. How the perchlorate concentrations in the
leading edge area could be affected by the
recharge at Cactus Basi n. Now the model is GEOSCIENCE ha s completed the flow model not able to catch the water levels in the
recharge event during late-1970's through sensitivity runs. Impacts to the concentration in
mid-1980's, and will this affect the the downstream area are not significant.
concentration in the downstream area like in
Well PW-14.
8 . Surface flow inflow from the Warm Creek
seems les s than the actual values. In addition, The conversion errors of Warm Creek stream
lining was performed for some parts of the flow and errors on stream lining have been
Warm Creek. Need to check if model revised.
incorporated this.
9. Compared to the October 2014 model version,
the latest model has a different recharge This is due to the correction of previous errors In
amount which is simulated by the Recharge the October 2014 model version.
Package.
Water level data i ncluded in the report prepared
10. Some recent water level measurements are by Ensafe in Feb 2015 were not used in the model
not included in the flow model calibration. calibration. The extended historical data is now
included In the calibration data set .
11. The steady-state run has a lot of iterations and
it is converged by flow amounts but not This has been revi sed.
converged by head.
12. Compared to the MNWl Package used by the This Issue has been discussed in the final previous model, MNW2 Package used by the calibration TM Section 6.0. latest model has a higher numerical error.
1-Dec-15
A-2
GEOSCIENCE ""V?"'"
APPENDIX B
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to City of Colton's 3-Jun-15 Comments
on the Draft Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE
~
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
GEOSCIENCE'S RESPONSES TO CITY OF COLTON'S 3-JUN-15 COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL CALIBRATION TM
City of Colton's Comments GEOSCIENCE's Responses
Appendix B
GEOSCIENCE has incorporated this comment by
1. PW-14 was underestimated. adjusting the initial concentrations to improve
the calibration for well PW-14.
1-Dec-15 GEOSCIENCE B-1 """""7"
AP PENDIX C
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to Balleau Groundwaters 18RJunR15 Comments
on the Draft Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE ----/ --....,./
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
AppendixC Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
1 .
2.
1-Dec-15
GEOSCIENCE'S RESPONSES TO BALLEAU GROUNDWATER'S 18-JUN-15 COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL CAUBRATION TM
Balleau Groundwater's Comments
As groundwater remediati on efforts progr ess,
establish a database of perchlorate mass
removed from the aqi.Jifer . Use this data as an Noted additional calibration factor for future effort
on model development. This
recommendation is for the future.
North of the unnamed and Barrier J faults, the
JGWM overstates water-level changes in an
area where localized flow through faults is
poorly understood. Cautious use of the model Noted
in this area is recommended until model
performance can be improved. This
recommendation is for the future.
C-1
GEOSCIENCE's Responses
GEOSCIENCE
~
APPENDIXD
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to EPA/CH2M Hill's 18-Jun-15 Comments
on the Draft Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE
~-
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/Oty of Colton
Flow and So lute Transport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model Appendix D
1.
GEOSCIENCE'S RESPONSES TO EPA/CH2M HILL'S 18-JUN-15 COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL CALIBRATION TM
EPA/CH2M Hill's Comments GEOSCIENCE's Responses
For the flow model calibration it appears to be
acceptable . However, in some areas the
match between simulated versus observed Sensitivity runs show that recharge of 57,000 water levels as depicted on the hydrographs is acre-ft in the Cactus Basin between Oct 1982 and not as good as in the earlier flow model Mar 1987 will improve the calibration during the calibration effort. Specifically, some of the key very wet years significantly. wells located in the middle of the basin (e.g.
Rialto 4, Rialto 6 and WVWD-16 on Figure 43) Changes made during transport model calibration look worse. to explain the impacted water levels in this
Can Geoscience provide any thoughts on portion of the regional aquifer have been
which of the changes made during transport included in the final calibration TM Section 3.3.7.
model calibration may have Impacted water
levels in this portion of the regional aquifer?
2. The overall transport calibration results look
very good considering the size of the
perchlorate plumes being simulated and the
number of calibration targets to
match. However, we do have questions
regarding the calibration results at a few
locations. Increased mass loading to match observed 2a) The model under-predicts observed
perchlorate concentrations in newer shallow perchlorate concentrations in wells EMW-4A and
EMW-SA will result in overestimation of wells EMW-4A and EMW-SA. These wells are concentrations in wells WVWD No. 22 and located downgradient of the 160-acre PW-8A. sources. This under-prediction may indicate
insufficient mass loading. The TM indicates
that minor flow field variations may be the
cause of the under-prediction at EMW-
SA . However, did Geoscience evaluate
increased mass loading to try and better
match the observed data at these two wells?
2b) Although the model does produce high
concentrations in the regional aquifer at the GEOSCIENCE has incorporated this comment by PW-S location, the concentrations are still well adjusting the initial concentrations to Improve below the observed values. Did Geoscience
attempt to make changes to the initial
conditions to improve this match?
1-Dec-15
the calibration for well PW-S.
D-1
GEOSCIENCE '""'V7'"
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model Appendix D
EPA/CH2M Hill's Comments GEOSCIENCE's Responses
2c) The model produces perchlorate
concentrations at the PW-11 and PW-12
locations that are significantly higher than
observed, particularly at PW-12, where
perchlorate is less than 5 ug/l. Further, there
Is another EPA multi-port monitoring well (EPA
MP-1-not used as calibration target) located GEOSCIENCE has finished sensitivity runs and between PW-11 and PW-12 where perchlorate
has been essentially non-detect for a number improved the calibration by adjusting initial
of years . These simulation results appear to perchlorate concentrations. But the model still
indicate that the downgradient plume slightly over-estimated the concentrations in
PWll and PW12. This has been addressed in the incorporated into the layer 5 starting final calibration TM Section 4 .3 .3 . condition may be located too far west and is
too wide. We would like to see some
sensitivity runs conducted with a modified
starting condition to see if the simulation
results at PW-11 and PW -12 can be improved
without degrading the calibration In wells
located further downgradient.
2d) The model matches observed perch lorate
concentrations in downgradient wells (CPW-
16, PW13, PW14) in part by specifying non-
zero initial (year 2000) perchlorate
concentrations at or near wells PW10-12 (as
shown in Figure 76). The result is a set of
Initial conditions that includes non-detect
concentrations at Rialto-6 (reflecting the
measured concentration), and an area Assumption and approach regarding initial
downgradient of Rialto-6 where perchlorate perchlorate concentrations have been included in
concentrations exceed 200 ug/l. No data is the final calibration TM Section 4.3 .1.
available at PWl0-12 to verify or refute the
accuracy of the assumed 2000
conditions. Were other approaches
considered to match perchlorate
concentrations at the downgradient
wells? We request that whichever
assumptions are used, the approach will be
described In the report.
1-Dec-15
0-2 GEOSCIENCE -==-v---
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model Appendix D
EPA/CH2M Hill's Comments GEOSCIENCE's Responses
3. The report should mention the occurrence of
non-synthetic perchlorate in portions of the
Rialto-colton Basin as documented in the
ESTCP study of perchlorate sources. For
example, the study determined that the
Colton 15 well contained non-synthetic
perchlorate. This helps explain the model's
under-prediction of source-area perchlorate lh is comment has been Incorporated into the
concentrations at this well as shown in Figure final calibration TM Section 6.0.
123 (and potentially the similar result at the
Colton 17 wells shown in Figure 122). The
occurrence of non-synthetic perchlorate needs
to be considered in evaluating the solute
transport model output, particularly near the
leading edge of the plume emanating from the
16Q-acre source area.
4. There appears to be a discrepancy between the
text and Table 2. Section 3.3.7, which
discusses areal recharge from precipitation, The text has been revised. A constant areal reports that 0.5'' /yr was applied basin wide to recharge rate of 870 acre-ft/yr was used for the open space/non-irrigated agriculture areas,
and that 1963 land uses were assumed from model based on a rate of 0 .5 in/yr applied to the
1945-69 and 2005 land uses were assumed entire basin.
from 1970-2014. This statement implies that The 870 acre-ft/yr of areal recharge was then the volume of water recharged differs pre-redistributed to the open space/non-irrigated and post-1970, but Table 2 shows a constant agriculture areas based on the 1963 and 2005 amount (872 AF/yr) recharged from 1945 to land use maps. 2014. Note that Figure 23 shows a similar
distribution but states that the average rate is
870AF/yr.
5. Figure 3 provides a schematic of the aquifers
and Figure 4 shows model layer thickness. It
would be helpful ifthe report included a figure Fi gu re 3 has bee n revised t o sh ow the
that shows the relationship between the rel at ion ship between t he model laye rs and
model layers and aquifer units. We suggest aq uifer units.
that the seven model layers be added to
Figure 3 or a new figure added.
6. W e expect that the model will be used to help
manage the Rialto-colton groundwater basi n Recommendations of future improvement have for many years and that periodic been included in the final calibration TM Section improvements will be made to the model. It 5.0. may prove helpful if the report recommends
possible areas of future improvement.
1-Dec-15
D-3
GEOSCIENCE
""":::::?"""
APPENDIX E
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to USGS's 22-Jul-15 Comments
on the Draft Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE
=::::..., ~
'v"
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model Appendix E
GEOSCIENCE'S RESPONSES TO USGS'S 22-JUL-15 COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL CALIBRATION TM
USGS's Comments GEOSCIENCE's Responses
1. After USGS auditing the water level data used
in the GHB Package by comparing
Watermaster to the GEOSCIENCE dataset,
discrepancies were found ranging from 1ft to This comment has been incorporated in the final
60ft and big discrepancies happened when calib r ation model run .
GEOSCIENCE did interpola tion. For the data
with big d iscrepancies, USGS recommended to
replace it by the Watermaster data.
1-Dec-15 GEOSCIENCE E-1 """'V7""
APPENDIX F
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to EPA/CH2M Hill's 6-Aug-15 Comments
on the Draft Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
Appendix F Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
1.
2.
3 .
1-Dec-15
GEOSCIENCE'S RESPONSES TO EPA/CH2M HIU'S 6-AUG-15 COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL CALIBRATION TM
EPA/CH2M Hill's Comments GEOSCIENCE's Responses
We have reviewed the results of the sensitivity
run conducted by Geoscience and concur with GEOSCIENCE has incorporated this comment. their recommendation that it be used as the
final solute transport model calibration run.
Although we are not reque sting any further
solute transport model revisions, it appears
that the model continues to predict both a
wider perchlorate plume and higher-than-This comment has been acknowledged in the observed perchlorate concentrations in the
general vicinity of wells PW-11, PW-12 and final calibration TM Section 4 .3.3.
EPA-MP1 (located between PW-11 and PW-
12) with perchlorate concentrations less than
2 ug/L at all depths since 2009.
We suggest that the final model calibration TM
acknowledge that some amount of recharge
has likely occurred in the Cactus Basins during
other periods in addition to the 1982-1987 This comment has been acknowledged in the time frame where Cactus Ba sin recharge has final model calibration TM Section 3.3.7. been incorporated into the model. Further
consideration of Cactus Basin recharge may be
warranted during future updates to the Rialto-
Colton groundwater model.
GEOSCIENCE
F-1 ~
APPENDIXG
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to UTC's 10-Aug-15 Comments
on the Draft Flow and Solute Transport Model Calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE
~
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/City of Colton
AppendlxG Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
1.
1-Dec-15
GEOSCIENCE'S RESPONSES TO UTC'S 10-AUG-15 COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL CAUBRATION TM
UTC's Comments GEOSCIENCE's Responses
UTC agrees with the sensitivity run being used
as the final solute transport calibration run;
similar to the EPA's concerns previously listed,
we note for consideration that the simulated This comment has been incorporated into the recent concentrations for PW-11 and 12 are
higher than those actually measured, but final model calibration TM Section 4.3.3.
understand that there remains uncertainty
with initial concentrati ons due to a lack of
historical data upgradient of this area.
G-1
GEOSCIENCE
"""""'v?
APPENDIX H
GEOSCIENCE's Responses to City of Colton's 14-Aug-15 Comments
on the Draft Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration TM
GEOSCIENCE
~
Valley District/West Valley/Goodrich/City of Rialto/aty of Colton
Appendix H Flow and Solute Transport Model calibration of Rialto-Colton Basin Groundwater Model
1.
1-Dec-15
GEOSCIENCE'S RESPONSES TO CITY OF COLTON'S 14-AUG-15 COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT MODEL CALIBRATION TM
City of Colton's Comments GEOSCIENCE's Responses
Perchlorate concentrations i n Well CPW -17
This comment has been incorporated Into the wer e slightly u nder esti mat ed . Report t h is in
t he final calibration TM . final model calibration TM Section 4.3 .3.
GEOSCIENCE H-1 ~
PO. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711 1 P 909A61.6660 I F309.451.6536 I wwwBeeiweterwm