DOCSLIB.ORG

Correlation of Late Cenozoic Tuffs in the Central Coast Ranges of California by Means of Trace- and Minor-Element Chemistry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Correlation of Late Cenozoic Tuffs in the Central Coast Ranges of California by Means of Trace- and Minor-Element Chemistry Correlation of Late Cenozoic Tuffs in the Central Coast Ranges of California by Means of Trace- and Minor-Element Chemistry GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 972 Correlation of Late Cenozoic Tuffs in the Central Coast Ranges of California by Means of Trace- and Minor-Element Chemistry By Andrei M. Sarna-Wojcicki GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 972 A geochemical approach to the correlation of tuffs in Pliocene and Pleistocene marine and nonmarine strata of central California UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1976 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR THOMAS S. KLEPPE, Sf'af)lat}' GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Sarna-Wojcicki, Andrei M. Correlation of late Cenozoic tuffs in the central coast ranges of California by means of trace- and minor-element chemistry. (Geological Survey Professional Paper 972) Bibliography: p. 29-30. Supt. of Docs. no. I 19.16:972 1. Volcanic ash, tuff, etc. California-Coast Range. 2. Stratigraphic correlation-California-Coast Range. 3. Geochemistry­ California-Coast Range. 4. Geology, Stratigraphic-Cenozoic. I. Title: Correlation of late Cenozoic tuffs in the central coast ranges of California ... II. Series: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 972. QE461.S324 552'.2 76-608254 For !tale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 024-oot-o2880-8 CONTENTS Page Page 1\bstract---------------------------------------------------- 1 Discussion __________________________________________________ 24 Introduction and scope of study------------------------------ 1 Description of units ---------------------------------------- 26 i\cknowledgments __ ___ __ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ ____ __ 1 Thick sections of volcanic deposits ______________________ 26 Geolo.gic setting __ ______ ____ ____ ______ _________ __ _ _____ ___ __ 3 Sonoma Volcanic, Monticello Road section, southeastern Sonoma volcanic field ---------------------------------- 3 part of Sonoma volcanic field, east of Napa ________ 26 Clear Lake volcanic field -------------------------------- 4 Sonoma Volcanics, southernmost Sonoma volcanic field Southern Cascade Range volcanic field __________________ 4 north of Suisun Bay (Goodyear Station section) ____ 26 i\nalytical methods __ ____ __ ______ __ _______ ________ ______ ___ 4 Pinole Tuff ---------------------------------------- 26 Refractive indices of glass ------------------------------ 4 Widespread tuffs interbedded with detrital sedimentary Mafic-mineral analysis---------------------------------- 4 deposits __________________________________________ 27 X-ray fluorescence spectrometric analysis ________________ 4 Western part of the main study area ---------------- 27 Methods of evaluating chemical data ________________________ 7 Tuff in the type section of the Merced Formation __ 27 Graphic methods________________________________________ 7 Tuff in the Merced(?) and Petaluma Formations of Similarity coefficient------------------------------------ 8 SonomaCounty ------------------------------ 27 Cluster analysis ---------------------------------------- 8 Southeastern part of the main study area ------------ 27 Results of analyses__________________________________________ 9 Lawlor Tuff ------------------------------------ 28 Tuff correlations-------------------------------------------- 14 South of Mount Diablo -------------------------- 28 Tuff in the Merced(?) Formation of Sonoma County ________ 15 Northeastern part of the study area------------------ 29 PinoleTuff -------------------------------------------- 16 Putah Tuff Member of the Tehama Formation ____ 29 Lawlor Tuff-------------------------------------------- 16 Nomlaki Tuff Member of the Tehama Formation-- 29 Putah and Nomlaki Tuff Members of the Tehama Formation 21 References cited _______________________________________ ----- 29 Tuff in the type section of the Merced Formation __________ 23 ILLUSTRATIONS Page FIGURE 1. Generalized geologic map showing location of samples, central Coast Ranges ---------------------------------------- 2 2. Stratigraphic section exposed along Monticello Road, southeastern part of Sonoma volcanic field ---------------------- 4 3. Cross section showing structure of Sonoma Volcanics in vicinity of Monticello Road ---------------------------------- 5 4. Similarity coefficient matrix comparing trace- and minor-element analyses of all glass samples analyzed ______________ 10 5. Dendrogram from cluster analysis of all analyzed samples----------------------------------------------------------- 12 6. Ternary diagram showing provincial differences between tuffs in central Coast Ranges and southern Cascade Range ____ 15 7. Binary diagram showing provincial differences between tuffs in central Coast Range~ and southern Cascade Range ____ 15 8. Maps showing maximum known areal distribution of five major eruptive tuff units ---------------------------------- 16 9. Correlation chart of late Cenozoic tuffs----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 10. Histogram of principal mafic mineral frequencies of three size fractions of tuff in the Merced(?) Formation of Sonoma County _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 20 11. Ternary diagram showing correlation of the Pinole Tuff with volcanic deposits of the Sonoma Volcanics exposed along Monticello Road east of Napa _______________ _________ __ ___ ______ _____ __ ____ ___ _____ __ ________ ____ ___ __ ____ ____ 20 12. Ternary diagram showing correlation of the Pinole Tuff with tuffs in Tessajara area south of Mount Diablo ____________ 20 13. Diagram showing correlation of the Pinole Tuff at Rodeo with tuffs south of Mount Diablo, in the Highland syncline sec­ tion, Tassajara area___________________________________________________________________________________________ 20 14. Histograms of concentrations of minor and trace elements in volcanic glass of the Lawlor Tuff and its correlatives------- 20 15. Histograms of concentrations of minor and trace elements in volcanic glass of the Putah and Nomlaki Tuff Members theTehamaFormation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 16. Similarity coefficient matrix comparing trace- and minor-element analyses of glass samples of the Putah Tuff Member and tuff in the Merced(?) Formation of Sonoma County---------------------------------------------------------- 22 17. Dendrogram from cluster analysis of trace- and minor-element data, using distance function---------------------------- 23 III IV CONTENTS TABLES Page TABLE 1. List of units studied ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ---- 6 2. Analytical data on potassium-argon dates ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 3. Summary of X-ray fluorescence spectrometer analytical conditions -------------------------------------------------- 7 4. Comparison of glass compositions of a silicic and an intermediate tuff------------------------------------------------ 9 5. Chemical analyses and petrographic data _____________________________________________________________ -------------- 13 6. Average minor- and trace-element composition of volcanic glass of the Lawlor Tuff and correlative localities------------ 21 7. Trace- and minor-element analyses of volcanic glass of two thin water-laid tuffs in the Livermore Gravels of Clark (1930) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 8. Average similarity coefficients comparing trace- and minor-element analyses of volcanic glass of two thin water-laid tuffs in the Livermore Gravels of Clark (1930) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 CORRELATION OF LATE CENOZOIC TUFFS IN THE CENTRAL COAST RANGES OF CALIFORNIA BY MEANS OF TRACE- AND MINOR-ELEMENT CHEMISTRY By ANDREI M. SARNA-WOJCICKI ABSTRACT the effect of detrital contamination, and the general Deformed late Cenozoic tuffs in the central Coast Ranges of scarcity of material suitable for dating within California have been correlated by means of trace- and minor­ sedimentary sections. element chemistry of volcanic glass, supported by potassium-argon Because of the problems in fossil and radiometric age dates, petrographic data, and stratigraphy. Cluster analysis of the correlation, many of the late Cenozoic deposits in the chemical data indicates that four orders of chemical variability exist in the trace- and minor-element composition of volcanic glass. The central Coast Ranges are lumped into a broad, ill­ greatest differences are between tephra of silicic and intermediate defined "Plio-Pleistocene" category. A more detailed composition. Considering silicic tephra alone, the greatest differ­ regional correlation of these deposits on the basis of ences are observed between tephra erupted in different volcanic tephrochronology, supported by radiometric, strati­ provinces. Differences between samples of silicic tephra erupted graphic, and paleontological data, can serve as one of within the same volcanic field are smaller, while the smallest differ­ ences are observed between samples of tephra from individual erup­ the basic tools in the solution of several longstanding tions. geologic problems, such as the late Cenozoic Five widespread tuffs and composite tephra units erupted during
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
    2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN December 15, 2010 Zone 7 Water Agency Livermore, CA 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared by: Zone 7 Water Agency 100 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, CA 94551 (925) 454-5000 Version: December 15, 2010 ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY Report Contributors: Kurt Arends, P.E. – Assistant General Manager of Engineering Boni Brewer – Public Information Officer Jarnail Chahal, P.E. – Principal Engineer Jill Duerig, P.E. – General Manager Amparo Flores, P.E. – Associate Engineer JaVia Green – Staff Analyst Matt Katen, P.G. – Principal Engineer Brad Ledesma, P.E. – Associate Engineer Robyn Navarra – Water Conservation Coordinator Sal Segura, P.E. – Associate Engineer Vince Wong, P.E. - Assistant General Manager of Operations Report Contact: Amparo Flores, (925) 454-5019, [email protected] or Brad Ledesma, (925) 454-5038, [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Previous Urban Water Management Plans ........................................................................ 1-1 1.2 The Purpose of the 2010 UWMP ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Plan Contents and Organization......................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Changes from the 2005 UWMP ......................................................................................... 1-2 2. General Service Area ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey Geologic Map of the Las Positas, Greenville, and Verona Faults, Easte
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE LAS POSITAS, GREENVILLE, AND VERONA FAULTS, EASTERN ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By DARRELL G, HERD Open-file report 77-689 INTRODUCTION Livermore Valley, a large east-trending valley in eastern Alameda County, California, approximately 50 kn east of San Francisco, is unique in the central Coast Ranges, where all other major valleys trend northwest* Bounded on the west and east by two major right-lateral strike-slip fault zones the Calaveras-Sunol and the Greenville, Liverraore Valley was originally believed to be crossed by other northwest-trending faults, inferred from ground-water level differences and geophysical anomalies (California Dept. Water Resources, 1963, 1966, 1974; Wight, 1974). Recent mapping in Liverraore Valley and surrounding areas (Herd, 1975) has revealed the existence of the Las Positas fault zone, a high-angle, northeast- trending fault zone that forms the southern limit of the valley and extends from La Costa Valley, east of the Calaveras-Sunol fault zone, northeastward to the Greenville fault zone. The Las Positas fault zone is the first reported northeast-trending fault zone in the central Coast Ranges of California with a history of Quaternary movement. Purpose of map This map depicts the geologic setting of the Las Positas and Greenville fault zones, which bound Livermore Valley on the south and east, and the Verona fault, which lies southwest of Liverraore Valley. The map presents a new interpretation of the geology of Livermore Valley and adjoining areas, and contains new subdivisions of the Quaternary stratigraphy. The recency and recurrence of displacements along the three faults is assessed and an interpretation of the tectonic setting of Livermore Valley proposed.
    [Show full text]
  • AT Dublin Project Water Supply Assessment
    DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT Board of Directors NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING TIME: 6 p.m. DATE: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 PLACE: Regular Meeting Place 7051 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, CA AGENDA Our mission is to provide reliable and sustainable water, recycled water, and wastewater services in a safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible manner. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL – Members: Duarte, Halket, Howard, Misheloff, Vonheeder-Leopold 4. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS/ACTIVITIES 5. PUBLIC COMMENT (MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC) At this time those in the audience are encouraged to address the Board on any item of interest that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board and not already included on tonight’s agenda. Comments should not exceed five minutes. Speakers’ cards are available from the District Secretary and should be completed and returned to the Secretary prior to addressing the Board. The President of the Board will recognize each speaker, at which time the speaker should proceed to the lectern, introduce him/herself, and then proceed with his/her comment. 6. REPORTS 6.A. Reports by General Manager and Staff Event Calendar Correspondence to and from the Board 6.B. Joint Powers Authority and Committee Reports 6.C. Agenda Management (consider order of items) 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.A. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2018 Recommended Action: Approve by Motion 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters listed under this item are considered routine and will be enacted by one Motion, in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a Member of the Board of Directors or the public prior to the time the Board votes on the Motion to adopt.
    [Show full text]
  • MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the Tesla Road
    Draft INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the Tesla Road Winery ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Alameda County CDA Planning Division Prepared by: Denise Duffy & Associates Contact: Denise Duffy 947 Cass St. Suite 5 Monterey, California 93940 July 31, 2015 This page left intentionally blank. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project: Tesla Road Winery Lead Agency: Alameda County PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), supported by the attached Initial Study (IS), evaluates the environmental effects of a proposed multi‐use wine facility at the northeast corner of the Greenville Road and Tesla Road intersection outside of Livermore, within unincorporated Alameda County, California. The applicant, RAO Company, is proposing the construction of a new 19,944 square foot (sq. ft.) building on the the property. The building’s primary function would be to provide space for wine tasting, tours, and special events, and administrative offices for employees. The building would provide a dedicated space to process wine, serve customers, and hold events. Alameda County is the lead agency for this project and has prepared this MND. FINDINGS An IS has been prepared to assess the projects potential effects on the environment and the significance of those effects. Based on the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project would not have any significant effects on the environment once mitigation measures are implemented. This conclusion is supported by the following findings: 1. The proposed project would have no impact related to greenhouse gas emissions, aesthetics, agricultural resources, hazards/hazardous materials, land use/planning mineral resources, population/housing, public services, and recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • Recycled Water Trucking and Delivery
    DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT Board of Directors NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING TIME: 6:00 p.m. DATE: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 PLACE: Regular Meeting Place 7051 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, CA AGENDA (NEXT RESOLUTION NO. 67-15) (NEXT ORDINANCE NO. 338) Our mission is to provide reliable and sustainable water and wastewater services to the communities we serve in a safe, efficient and environmentally responsible manner. BUSINESS: REFERENCE __________________________ Recommended Anticipated Action Time 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL – Members: Duarte, Halket, Howard, Vonheeder-Leopold 4. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS/ACTIVITIES 5. PUBLIC COMMENT (MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC) At this time those in the audience are encouraged to address the Board on any item of interest that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board and not already included on tonight’s agenda. Comments should not exceed five minutes. Speakers’ cards are available from the District Secretary and should be completed and returned to the Secretary prior to addressing the Board. The President of the Board will recognize each speaker, at which time the speaker should proceed to the lectern, introduce him/herself, and then proceed with his/her comment. 6. REPORTS A. Reports by General Manager and Staff • Event Calendar • Correspondence to and from the Board B. Agenda Management (consider order of items) C. Committee Reports Tri-Valley Water Policy Roundtable July 22, 2015 Financial Affairs August 4, 2015 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of Executive Services Approve August 4, 2015 Supervisor by Motion Dublin San Ramon Services District Board of Directors Agenda, Regular Meeting, September 1, 2015 Page 2 BUSINESS: REFERENCE __________________________ Recommended Anticipated Action Time 8.
    [Show full text]
  • REVISED EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, October 16, 2020 12:30 P.M
    REVISED EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, October 16, 2020 12:30 p.m. COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF WILL ATTEND VIA TELECONFERENCE Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order No. N-29-20 and the Alameda County Health Officer’s current Shelter in Place Order, effective March 31, 2020, the East Bay Regional Park District (“Park District”) Headquarters will not be open to the public and the Board Legislative Committee and staff will be participating in the meetings via phone/video conferencing. Members of the public can listen to the meeting in the following way: Via the Park District’s live audio stream, on the Park District’s YouTube channel, which can be found at: Public comments may be submitted one of three ways: 1. Live via zoom. If you would like to make a live public comment during the meeting this option is available through the virtual meeting platform: https://zoom.us/j/98767572198 Note that this virtual meeting platform link will let you into the virtual meeting for the purpose of providing a public comment. If you do not intend to make a public comment, please use the YouTube link at https://youtu.be/E8Ug-y-kl1g to observe the meeting. It is preferred that those requesting to speak during the meeting contact the Finance Committee Recording Secretary by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 15, 2020 via email at [email protected] or voicemail (510) 544-2400 to provide name and the subject line public comments – not on the agenda or public comments – agenda item #.
    [Show full text]
  • Countywide Pedestrian Plan in 2006
    • Art Dao, Executive Director • Chair: Mayor Mark Green, City of Union City • Beth Walukas, Deputy Director of Planning • Vice Chair: Supervisor Scott Haggerty, Alameda • Tess Lengyel, Deputy Director of Policy, Public County, District 1 Affairs and Legislation • Supervisor Richard Valle, Alameda County, • Rochelle Wheeler, Bicycle and Pedestrian District 2 Coordinator (consultant to Alameda CTC) • Supervisor Wilma Chan, Alameda County, District 3 • Diane Stark, Senior Transportation Planner • Supervisor Nate Miley, Alameda County, District 4 (former) • Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County, District 5 • Vice Mayor Rob Bonta, City of Alameda • Mayor Farid Javandel, City of Albany • Councilmember Laurie Capitelli, City of Berkeley • Mayor Tim Sbranti, City of Dublin • Midori Tabata (Chair) • Councilmember Ruth Atkin, City of Emeryville • Ann Welsh (Vice-chair) • Councilmember Suzanne Chan, City of Fremont • Mike Ansell • Councilmember Marvin Peixoto, City of Hayward • Mike Bucci • Mayor John Marchand, City of Livermore • Alexander Chen • Councilmember Luis Freitas, City of Newark • Lucy Gigli • Councilmember Larry Reid, City of Oakland • Jeremy Johansen • Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, City of Oakland • Preston Jordan • Mayor John Chiang, City of Piedmont • Diana LaVigne • Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, City of Pleasanton • Heath Maddox • Vice Mayor Michael Gregory, City of San Leandro • Sara Zimmerman • Director Greg Harper, AC Transit • David Boyer (former member) • Director Tom Blalock, BART • Marcy Greenhut (former member) • Gil Johnson
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Update 2013 Chapter 4 San Francisco
    California’s Groundwater Update 2013 A Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013 April 2015 State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources SAN FRANCISCO BAY HYDROLOGIC REGION Chapter 4. San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region Contents Chapter 4. San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update ................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Findings, Data Gaps, and Recommendations .............................................................................. 3 Findings ................................................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater Supply and Development ............................................................................... 3 Groundwater Use and Aquifer Conditions ........................................................................... 3 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts ......................................................................................... 4 Groundwater Management and Conjunctive Management .................................................. 4 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................................. 5 Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................... 5 Basin Assessments ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118
    San Francisco Hydrologic Region California’s Groundwater Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 2-10 • Counties: Alameda and Contra Costa • Surface Area: 69,600 acres (109 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology The Livermore Valley lies about 40 miles east of San Francisco and 30 miles southwest of Stockton within a structural trough of the Diablo Range. The groundwater basin extends from the Pleasonton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills (about 14 miles) and from the Livermore Upland north to the Orinda Upland (about 3 miles). Surface drainage features include Arroyo Valle, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo las Positas as principal streams, with Alamo Creek, South San Ramon Creek, and Tassajara Creek as minor streams. All streams converge on the west side of the basin to form Arroyo de la Laguna, which flows south and joins Alameda Creek in Sunol Valley. Some geologic structures restrict the lateral movement of groundwater, but the general groundwater gradient is to the west, then south towards Arroyo de la Laguna. Elevations within the basin range from about 600 ft in the east, near the Altamont Hills, to about 280 ft in the southwest, where Arroyo de la Laguna flows into Sunol Groundwater Basin. Average annual precipitation ranges from 16 inches on the valley floor to more than 20 inches along the southeast and northwest basin margins. Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations The entire floor of Livermore Valley and portions of the upland areas on all sides of the valley overly groundwater-bearing materials. The materials are continental deposits from alluvial fans, outwash plains, and lakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Setting
    Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Table of Contents 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Land Use ................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Land Use Categories ........................................................................ 2-3 2.2.3 Land Use Controls ........................................................................... 2-7 2.2.4 Open Space (Public Lands and Private Easements) ........................ 2-9 2.3 Physical Resources ............................................................................... 2-15 2.3.1 Location ......................................................................................... 2-15 2.3.2 Topography ................................................................................... 2-15 2.3.3 Geology and Soils .......................................................................... 2-16 2.3.4 Climate .......................................................................................... 2-19 2.3.5 Hydrology ...................................................................................... 2-21 2.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................ 2-23 2.4.1 Methods ........................................................................................ 2-23 2.4.2 Biological Diversity
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2021-22 Proposed Budget
    County of Alameda PROPOSED BUDGET 2021-2022 HEALTHY, THRIVING & RESILIENT PRESENTED BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Presented to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Keith Carson, President 5th District David Haubert Richard Valle 1st District 2nd District Wilma Chan Nate Miley, Vice President 3rd District 4th District By Susan S. Muranishi, County Administrator Cover Images feature artworks created by Alameda County artists. The artworks are part of the County’s Public Art Collection and are installed at two County locations, the East County Hall of Justice in Dublin and the Cherryland Community Center in the unincorporated community of Cherryland. Front Cover Images (from top to bottom, left to right): Artworks created by Hilda C. Robinson, “In the Neighborhood” 2018, oil pastel on paper; Karen Kramer, “Harvest Bounty” 2016, watercolor on paper; Usha Shukla, “Yarrow” 2019, oil on panel; Jean Sanchirico, “In the Hills” 2018, chalk pastel on paper; Yan Inlow, “Butterflies Enjoying Poppies on a Spring Day #1” 2016, silk embroidery; Anthony Holdsworth, “A Café in Dublin, Alameda County” 2019, oil on canvas. Back Cover Images (from top to bottom, left to right): Artworks created by John Paul Marcelo, “Lake Merritt Afternoon” 2019, oil on wood panel; Robert Anthony Daulton, “Tassajara 11, Cirsium Occidentale, almost stepped upon” 2019, cut paper; Hilda C. Robinson, “Saturday at the Market” 2018, oil pastel on paper; Robert Anthony Daulton, “Tassajara 9, Eucalyptus Globulus, overhanging water itself” 2019, cut paper; Fernando Reyes, “Shadows Crossing Meek Mansion” 2016, oil on wood panel; Karen Kramer, “In the Gardens of Cherryland No.2” 2016, watercolor on paper. Photographs of artworks by Dana Davis and Berkeley Giclée.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological and Environmental Hazards Assessment Report
    August 2018 | Geological and Environmental Hazards Assessment Report PROPOSED PROMENADE SCHOOL SITE Dublin Unified School District Prepared for: Dublin Unified School District Contact: Joe Sorrera 7471 Larkdale Avenue Dublin, California 94568 925.828.2551 Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: Michael Watson, PG Associate Geologist 2850 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite B Ontario, California 91764 909.989.4449 [email protected] www.placeworks.com PROPOSED PROMENADE SCHOOL SITE GEOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ASSESSMENT REPORT DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Table of Contents Section Page 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.4 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 1 2. Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 STATE STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES .................................................................
    [Show full text]