DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydrogeological Characterization of the Eastern Turlock Subbasin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hydrogeological Characterization of the Eastern Turlock Subbasin Final Report Hydrogeological Characterization of the Eastern Turlock Subbasin March 2016 2 PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION Phyllis Stanin, PG 5311, CEG 1899, CHG 482 Vice President and Principal Geologist Liz Elliott, PG 8446, CHG 973 Senior Hydrogeologist Maureen Reilly, PE 67841 Senior Engineer Dan Craig, PG 5048, CHG 66 Senior Hydrogeologist Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... ES‐1 2. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 3. Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 2 3.1. Physical, Geologic, and Hydrologic Data Collection .................................................. 2 3.2. Hydrogeologic/Groundwater Data Collection .......................................................... 2 3.3. Land Use Data Collection .......................................................................................... 3 4. Land Use Analysis ............................................................................................................. 5 4.1. Irrigated agricultural area ......................................................................................... 5 4.1.1. DWRe Land Us Maps ......................................................................................... 5 4.1.2. County Crop Maps ............................................................................................ 5 4.1.3. DWR Tabular Irrigated Acreage ........................................................................ 5 4.1.4. Irrigated Acreage in the Study Area .................................................................. 6 4.2. Applied Water ........................................................................................................... 7 4.2.1. Crop Coefficients, ET, and Precipitation ........................................................... 7 4.2.2. Irrigation Efficiency ........................................................................................... 8 4.2.3. Total Water Demand ......................................................................................... 8 4.3. Groundwater Use Database ...................................................................................... 8 5. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model .................................................................................. 10 5.1. Physical Setting ....................................................................................................... 10 5.1.1. Topography ..................................................................................................... 11 5.1.2. Climate ............................................................................................................ 11 5.1.3. Surface Water ................................................................................................. 12 5.1.4. Soils and Restrictive Layers ............................................................................. 13 5.1.5. Geologic Setting .............................................................................................. 13 5.1.6. Groundwater Basin ......................................................................................... 14 5.2. Aquifer Evaluation ................................................................................................... 14 5.2.1. Mehrten Formation Information from Technical Reports .............................. 15 5.2.2. Evaluation in Study Area Wells ....................................................................... 15 5.2.3. Aquifer Textures .............................................................................................. 18 5.2.4. Groundwater Levels ........................................................................................ 20 Hydrogeologic Characterization of the Eastern Turlock Subbasin i TODD GROUNDWATER 5.3. Water Balance ......................................................................................................... 21 5.3.1. Groundwater Inflows ...................................................................................... 22 5.3.1.1. Infiltration from Precipitation ................................................................. 22 5.3.1.2. Turlock Lake Leakage .............................................................................. 23 5.3.1.3. Streamflow Leakage ................................................................................ 23 5.3.1.4. Irrigation Return Flows ........................................................................... 24 5.3.1.5. Domestic Return Flows ........................................................................... 24 5.3.1.6. Eastern Boundary Subsurface Inflow and Base Upflow .......................... 24 5.3.2. Groundwater Outflows ................................................................................... 25 5.3.2.1. Irrigation Pumping .................................................................................. 25 5.3.2.2. Domestic Pumping .................................................................................. 25 5.3.2.3. Western Boundary Subsurface Outflow ................................................. 26 5.3.3. Change in Storage ........................................................................................... 26 6. Numerical Model Simulations ........................................................................................ 27 6.1. Model Updates and Simulation Scenarios .............................................................. 28 6.2. Updated Baseline Simulation Calibration Results ................................................... 31 6.3. Future Scenario Simulation Results ........................................................................ 32 6.4. Model Summary and Conclusions........................................................................... 35 6.5. Model Limitations ................................................................................................... 36 7. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 38 8. Data Gaps and Limitations .............................................................................................. 40 9. References ...................................................................................................................... 41 List of Tables Table 1. Data Collection Summary Table 2. Irrigated Crop Areas, Turlock Lake DAU Table 3. 1995 Land Use Comparison Table 4. 2002 Land Use Comparison Table 5. 2014 Land Use Comparison Table 6. Percentage of DAU Irrigated Lands in the Study Area Table 7. Total Irrigated Acreage in Study Area by Crop Table 8a. Calculated Crop Water Demand Hydrogeologic Characterization of the Eastern Turlock Subbasin ii TODD GROUNDWATER Table 8b. Calculated Applied Water Table 9. Agricultural Water Use Table 10. Summary of Wells Constructed in the Study Area Table 11. Groundwater Balance Table 12. Simulated Pumping Wells, Updated Baseline Model Table 13. Simulated Groundwater Budget, Updated Baseline Model Table 14. Simulated Groundwater Budget, Constant Future Pumping Model (Scenario 1) Table 15. Simulated Groundwater Budget, Increased Future Pumping Model (Scenario 2) Table 16. Simulated Groundwater Budget, Decreased Future Pumping Model (Scenario 3) List of Figures Figure 1. Study Area Figure 2. Township, Range, and Sections within Study Area Figure 3. Well Locations in Water Level Database Figure 4. 1995/1996 DWR Land Use Map Figure 5. 2002/2004 DWR Land Use Map Figure 6. 2014 County Crop Map Figure 7. Estimates of Irrigation Pumping by Crop Figure 8. New Wells Constructed from 1995 ‐ 2013 Figure 9. 2014 Land Use, Study Area Figure 10. Oblique View of Study Area Figure 11. Topographic Profiles Figure 12. Average Annual Isohyetal Map, 1981‐2010 Figure 13. Annual Precipitation, 1999 ‐ 2014 Figure 14. Streamflow Hydrographs, Study Area Figure 15. Soil Restrictive Layers Figure 16. Soil Permeability and Restrictive Layers Figure 17. Study Area Geology Figure 18. Wells Constructed in Study Area, 1951 to 2013 Figure 19. Average Well Depths Figure 20. Specific Capacity vs. Well Depth Figure 21. Geologic Cross Section A‐A’ Figure 22. Texture Data MERSTAN Model Figure 23. Texture Data CVHM Model, Depth of 0 to 50 Feet Figure 24. Texture Data CVHM Model, Depth of 300 to 350 Feet Figure 25. Study Area Groundwater Elevations Figure 26. Groundwater Elevations, March 1971 Figure 27. Groundwater Elevations, 2010 ‐ 2013 Hydrogeologic Characterization of the Eastern Turlock Subbasin iii TODD GROUNDWATER Figure 28. Soil Moisture Balance Zones Figure 29. Conceptual Profile, Leakage from Turlock Lake Figure 30. Model Area and Boundaries Figure 31. Model Layers and Study Area Figure 32. Pumping Comparison, TID and Updated Baseline Models Figure 33. Simulated Pumping Wells in 2012, Updated Baseline Model Figure 34. Simulated Pumping Wells, Increased Future Pumping Model (Scenario 2) Figure 35. Simulated Pumping Wells, Decreased Future Pumping Model (Scenario 3) Figure 36. Total Pumping for Future Scenarios Figure 37. Calibration Well Locations Figure 38. Observed and Simulated Groundwater Hydrographs, Updated Baseline Model 1991 ‐ 2012 Figure 39. Simulated Groundwater Elevation Map December 2012, Updated Baseline Model Figure 40. Simulated Water Budget, Updated Baseline Model
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 71St Annual Meeting Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Paris Las Vegas Las Vegas, Nevada, USA November 2 – 5, 2011 SESSION CONCURRENT SESSION CONCURRENT
    ISSN 1937-2809 online Journal of Supplement to the November 2011 Vertebrate Paleontology Vertebrate Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Society of Vertebrate 71st Annual Meeting Paleontology Society of Vertebrate Las Vegas Paris Nevada, USA Las Vegas, November 2 – 5, 2011 Program and Abstracts Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 71st Annual Meeting Program and Abstracts COMMITTEE MEETING ROOM POSTER SESSION/ CONCURRENT CONCURRENT SESSION EXHIBITS SESSION COMMITTEE MEETING ROOMS AUCTION EVENT REGISTRATION, CONCURRENT MERCHANDISE SESSION LOUNGE, EDUCATION & OUTREACH SPEAKER READY COMMITTEE MEETING POSTER SESSION ROOM ROOM SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS SEVENTY-FIRST ANNUAL MEETING PARIS LAS VEGAS HOTEL LAS VEGAS, NV, USA NOVEMBER 2–5, 2011 HOST COMMITTEE Stephen Rowland, Co-Chair; Aubrey Bonde, Co-Chair; Joshua Bonde; David Elliott; Lee Hall; Jerry Harris; Andrew Milner; Eric Roberts EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Philip Currie, President; Blaire Van Valkenburgh, Past President; Catherine Forster, Vice President; Christopher Bell, Secretary; Ted Vlamis, Treasurer; Julia Clarke, Member at Large; Kristina Curry Rogers, Member at Large; Lars Werdelin, Member at Large SYMPOSIUM CONVENORS Roger B.J. Benson, Richard J. Butler, Nadia B. Fröbisch, Hans C.E. Larsson, Mark A. Loewen, Philip D. Mannion, Jim I. Mead, Eric M. Roberts, Scott D. Sampson, Eric D. Scott, Kathleen Springer PROGRAM COMMITTEE Jonathan Bloch, Co-Chair; Anjali Goswami, Co-Chair; Jason Anderson; Paul Barrett; Brian Beatty; Kerin Claeson; Kristina Curry Rogers; Ted Daeschler; David Evans; David Fox; Nadia B. Fröbisch; Christian Kammerer; Johannes Müller; Emily Rayfield; William Sanders; Bruce Shockey; Mary Silcox; Michelle Stocker; Rebecca Terry November 2011—PROGRAM AND ABSTRACTS 1 Members and Friends of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, The Host Committee cordially welcomes you to the 71st Annual Meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Las Vegas.
    [Show full text]
  • 183.Full.Pdf
    DANIEL I. AXELROD Dept. Geology, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif. Post-Pliocene Uplift of the Sierra Nevada, California Abstract: Reconstructed stream profiles and paleo- The postulate of a high Tertiary barrier, and of botanical evidence suggest that in the Yosemite only 4000 (Yosemite sector) to 2000 feet (Lake region altitude increased approximately 4000 feet Tahoe sector) uplift in the Pleistocene raises prob- following the Broad Valley stage. Since this was lems: the Tertiary section has defied erosion; fine- preceded by a 2500- to 3000-foot uplift of the Late grained sediments were deposited well up in the Pliocene Boreal ("Eocene") surface during the range and at its summit; formations were deposited Plio-Pleistocene transition, total post-Pliocene up- across the crest; Tertiary rivers and basalt flowed lift is about 6500-7000 feet. across the summit; faulting and warping of dated With similar methods, divergent results have sections and erosion surfaces show post-Pliocene been reported for the Lake Tahoe sector. The uplift of 4000-9000 feet; and the scarps have re- presence in the summit region of Miocene de- sisted erosion. These "problems" disappear if the ciduous hardwood forests typical of mild-tem- range originated as a major post-Pliocene topo- perate climate, the absence there of montane graphic barrier. conifers, the spatial relations of the Miocene forest Two basic weaknesses to the method of de- zones, and the regional pattern of climate they sug- termining Tertiary altitude from ancient stream gest all imply altitudes near 2000 feet. Recon- profiles are: (1) The assumption that certain well- structed stream profiles indicate an altitude of graded stretches of the ancient streams had pretilt 5000-7000 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Ncc Preliminarypaleontologicalm
    Abstract The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in cooperation with the North County Corridor Transportation Expressway Authority, proposes to construct the North County Corridor New State Route 108 in northern Stanislaus County, California. This project proposes to relocate the current alignment of SR 108 to a more southerly alignment. The California Environmental Quality Act and Caltrans guidelines require that impacts to nonrenewable paleontological resources be considered during project implementation. Therefore, a Paleontological Evaluation Report (PER) was prepared in order to determine the potential to encounter scientifically significant paleontological resources during ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project. The PER determined that the project area contains sediments of the Pleistocene Modesto, Riverbank, and Turlock Lake Formation as well as areas of Artificial Fill. While Artificial Fill has no paleontological sensitivity, all three Pleistocene formations have the potential to produce scientifically significant paleontological resources and therefore, have high paleontological sensitivity. Because the project area contains deposits with high paleontological sensitivity, the PER recommended that a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) be developed for the project. This preliminary PMP contains information necessary to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources during ground-disturbing activities associated with this project. It includes a discussion of area geology, the types of
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Northern California : Field Trip
    NOTICE CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS This document may contain copyrighted materials. These materials have been made available for use in research, teaching, and private study, but may not be used for any commercial purpose. Users may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material. The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. GEOLOGY OF THE SIERRA NEVADA By Paul C. Bateman and Clyde Wahrhaftig * U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California; U.S.G.S. AND University of California, Berkeley The Sierra Nevada is a strongly asymmetric moun- tending south from the Cascade Range. A blanket of tain range with a long gentle \\estern slope and a high volcanic material caps large areas in the north part of and steep eastern escarpment. It is 50 to 80 miles wide, the range. and it runs west of north through eastern California Most of the south half of the Sierra Nevada and the for more than 400 miles—from the Mojave Desert on eastern part of the north half are composed of plutonic the south to the Cascade Range and the Modoc Plateau (chiefly granitic) rocks of Mesozoic age.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeologic and Water Quality Assessment Report
    Hydrogeologic and Water Quality Assessment Report Prepared for: July 2016 City of Turlock Hydrogeologic and Water Quality Assessment Report Certificate and Seals Date: July 6, 2016 Lawrence H. Ernst Principal Hydrogeologist California Professional Geologist 5011 California Certified Engineering Geologist 1552 California Certified Hydrogeologist 390 Date: July 6, 2016 Sean J. Spaeth Project Hydrogeologist California Professional Geologist 8878 California Certified Hydrogeologist 1004 City of Turlock Hydrogeologic and Water Quality Assessment Report Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 2 Location and Physical Setting .......................................................................................... 3 3 Geology............................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Geologic Setting ............................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Conceptual Geologic Model ......................................................................................... 4 3.2.1 Modesto Formation .................................................................................................. 4 3.2.2 Riverbank Formation ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Soils
    Ascent Environmental 4.5 Geology and Soils GEOLOGY AND SOILS 4.5.1 Introduction This section identifies and evaluates potential impacts that could result from geologic or soil conditions as a result of implementation of the Dry Creek Greenway East Trail. This section is based primarily on the Dry Creek Greenway Trail Fluvial Audit (City of Roseville and Psomas 2014) and the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Dry Creek Greenway Multi-Use Trail Project, City of Roseville, CA (Parikh 2015), as well as the Engineering Design Considerations and Evaluation based on Geomorphology Study (Psomas 2014). No comments related to geology and soils were received during public review of the Notice of Preparation. 4.5.2 Environmental Setting REGIONAL SETTING The project site is located in the Great Valley geomorphic province, which consists of the central part of California between the Coast Range and the Sierra Nevada. The Great Valley is an alluvial plain that is approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long where sediment has been deposited almost continually for roughly 160 million years. The proposed project would be located in the northern part of the Great Valley, which is drained by the Sacramento River (California Geological Survey [CGS] 2002). LOCAL SETTING Geology The geology of the area consists of transitional formations between alluvial deposits of the valley and volcanic material of the Sierra Nevada. The City of Roseville is characterized by flat and rolling terrain, as well as rounded knolls and ridges separated by intermittent streams. Pleasant Grove Creek and its tributaries are the primary surface water drainages in northern Roseville; Dry Creek and its tributaries are the primary surface water drainages in southern Roseville.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.7 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
    4.7 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES This section includes a description of the existing geology, soils, and mineral resources in the planning area and an evaluation of how adoption and implementation of the Draft General Plan and GGRP would affect these resources. 4.7.1 REGULATORY SETTING FEDERAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND LAWS The U. S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) produces soil surveys that assist planners in determining which land uses are suitable for specific soil types and locations. STATE PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND LAWS California Geologic Survey The California Geological Survey (CGS) provides regulatory information pertaining to soils, geology, mineral resources, and geologic hazards. CGS maintains and provides information about California’s nonfuel mineral resources. California ranks second in the United States in nonfuel mineral production. In 2007, more than 30 nonfuel commodities were produced from 660 California mines (CGS 2008). Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 SMARA requires all jurisdictions to incorporate mapped mineral resources designations approved by the California Mining and Geology Board within their general plans. SMARA was enacted to limit new development in areas with significant mineral deposits. The California Department of Conservation’s Office of Mine Reclamation and the California Mining and Geology Board are jointly charged with ensuring proper administration of the act’s requirements. The California Mining and Geology Board promulgates regulations to clarify and interpret the act's provisions and also serves as a policy and appeals board. The Office of Mine Reclamation provides an ongoing technical assistance program for lead agencies and operators, maintains a database of mine locations and operational information statewide, and is responsible for compliance-related matters (OMR 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary Nonglacial Geology : Conterminous US
    HAMEjAIdR/k4W' U 1980 1989 The Geology of North America Volume K-2 QuaternaryNonglacial Geology: Conterminous U.S. Edited by Roger B. Morrison Morrison and Associates 13150 West Ninth Avenue Golden, Colorado 80401 t234oo051o(0 1991 931,041090035 9303 6 FDR 4ASTE TDR U ,rWRSITYOF NEVADAS LAS VEIM WI-li LBRARY 6-, Acknowledgment Publication of this volume, one of the synthesis volumes of The Decade of North American Geology Project series, has been made possible by members and friends of the Geological Society of America, corporations, and government agencies through contributions to the Decade of North American Geology fund of the Geological Society of America Foundation. Following is a list of individuals, corporations, and government agencies giving and/or pledging more than $50,000 in support of the DNAG Project: Amoco Production Company Pennzoil Exploration and ARCO Exploration Company Production Company Chevron Corporation Phillips Petroleum Company Cities Service Oi and Gas Company Sbell Oil Company Diamond Shamrock Exploration Caswell Saver Corporation Standard Oil Production Company Oryx Energy Company (formerly Exxon Production Research Company Sun Exploration and Production Getty Oil Company Company Gulf Oil Exploration and Production Superior Oil Company Company Tenneco Oil Company Paul V. Hoovler Texaco, Inc. Kencon Minerals Company Union Oil Company of California Kerr McGee Corporation Union Pacific Corporation and Marathon Oil Company its operating companim Maxus Energy Corporation Union Pacific ReOOuMcs company McMoRan 0i and Gas Company Union Pacific Railroad Mobil Oi Corporation Company Occidental Petroleum Corporation Upland Ilndusuries Corporation US. Department of Energy Data *1991 by The Geological Society of America, Inc= Lxary of Congress Catalogtng-ln-Publication All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary Geology of the Sacramento Area
    QUATERNARY GEOLOGY OF THE SACRAMENTO AREA Association of Engineering Geologists, Sacramento Section Guidebook for Field Trip, 25 March 2000 Leaders Dr. Rcy J. Shlemc-n, Consultant Dr. Tim Horner, California State University, Sacramento Dr. Joan Florsheim, University of California, Davis North tno scale ~~~----------4------------------------WhlteRock Douglas Rd. xs. 4.) 4.) ·c::tl) ~ c: :t:: J5 «! ~ 2. ~ Jackson Rd 16 Elder Creek Rd Florin-Perkins I xcelsior Rd. Quaternary Geology of Sacramento Field Trip March 25, 2000 Stops by Number X 2 / / Acknowledgments The Sacramento Section of the Association of Engineering Geologist would like to thank Roy Shlemon, Tim Horner of California State University, Sacramento, and Joan Florsheim of University of California, Davis for agreeing to lead this trip. Additionally, the Section would like to thank Julia Turney for organizing the trip, arranging for transportation, and compiling the field guide; Jay Lucas of Brown and Caldwell for providing parking and financial support for the field trip guide; Tim McCrink of the California Division of Mines and Geology for providing publications to include in the Guidebook; and Bob Sydnor of the California Division of Mines and Geology for helping locate stops for the trip and additional stop information. Editors Note: This guide is an update of the 1998 March 21 field trip written by Roy Shlemon. Additional information written by Tim Horner and Joan Florsheim has been formatted in the guide by myself. Minor editorial changes to the original text have been made
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphy and Transmissivity of the Kaweah River Fan, Visalia, California
    ABSTRACT STRATIGRAPHY AND TRANSMISSIVITY OF THE KAWEAH RIVER FAN, VISALIA, CALIFORNIA The Kaweah River fan is located in the Tulare Basin of the San Joaquin Valley of California. This fluvial fan supplies groundwater for several farms and cities including Visalia. The geology in this region is well studied and is generally similar to all major river fans that flow into the San Joaquin Valley from the Sierra Nevada. However, the hydrogeology of the area is not quantified. The objectives of this thesis were to: (a) Correlate stratigraphic units to hydrologic units in the region; (b) identify the spatial extent and stratigraphy of the lithologic units; (c) use correlations to identify the aquifers; and (d) measure and estimate the aquifers’ hydraulic conductivities and transmissivities. Field core samples were taken from soil surface to 132 feet (40.2 m) below surface. In this process, a new method for sampling unlithified-core for laboratory testing was created to make this study possible. The results show that stratigraphy described by Marchand and Allwardt (1981) is found throughout the study area. Together, the upper Turlock Lake and Riverbank Formations are bound in the Layer 3 aquifer which is a major host for groundwater in the Kaweah River fan and is characterized by a transmissivity of 2492 ft2/day (232 m2/day). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the San Joaquin Valley has two different models for confining beds which are the lacustrine and swamplands deposits for the terminal basin and paleosols for the fluvial fans. Dustin
    [Show full text]
  • Paleo Evaluation Report HOV 3-18-2006 (03-0H08U)
    PALEONTOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE U.S. HIGHWAY 50 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT FROM KILOPOST 1.4 to 20.6 (POST MILE 0.9 to 12.8) IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EA 03-44161 Task Order Number 9 Consultant Contract Number 03A1051 Prepared for: California Department of Transportation North Region Division of Environmental Planning 2389 Gateway Oaks Drive, #100 Sacramento, CA 95833 and URS Corporation 1333 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 Prepared by: PaleoResource Consultants F & F GeoResource Associates, Inc. 5325 Elkhorn Boulevard, #294 Sacramento, CA 95842 Contact: Dr. Lanny H. Fisk, PhD, PG 916-947-9594 [email protected] 18 March 2006 PaleoResource Consultants F & F GeoResource Associates, Inc. 5325 Elkhorn Boulevard, #294, Sacramento, CA 95842 Office Phone: 916-339-9594; Mobile Phone: 916-947-9594 10 March 2006 Mr. Ken Lastufka Environmental Coordinator California Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Management, S-1 2389 Gateway Oaks Drive, #100 Sacramento, CA 95833 Mr. Lastufka: In accordance with Caltran’s request, we have completed a paleontological resource impact assessment on the proposed Caltrans U.S. Highway 50 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes and Community Enhancements Project located in Sacramento, California. Included in the report transmitted by this letter are the results of our investigation and our recommendations for mitigating the potential adverse impacts of Project construction on paleontological resources. It is our opinion that Project construction has the potential to cause adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources, specifically Quaternary vertebrate, plant, and ichnofossils in the Modesto and Riverbank Formations. However, these potential impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level as required by CEQA, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into a monitoring and mitigation plan and that plan is fully implemented during Project excavating.
    [Show full text]
  • A Central California & Western Nevada 7- Day Geoscience Field
    Faults, Fossils, Fronts, Fire & Ice: A Central California & Western Nevada 7- Day Geoscience Field Trip Guide By Ryan J Hollister Turlock High School Geoscience Teacher Mississippi State University Teachers in Geoscience Program July 2010 Online at www.mrhollister.com TT Table of Contents Introduction 3 Itinerary 5 Trip Suggestions & Accommodations 9 Geologic Setting of Turlock 11 Climatology of Turlock 14 Environmental Geoscience of Turlock 17 Astronomy Viewed from Turlock 19 Day 1 – Watsonville to Mariposa 24 Day 2 – Mariposa to Curry Village 37 Day 3 – Curry Village to Lee Vining 50 Day 4 – Lee Vining to Tonopah, NV 60 Day 5 – Tonopah to Fallon 75 Day 6 – Fallon to South Lake Tahoe 85 Day 7 – South Lake Tahoe to San Jose 93 References and Works Cited 102 2 Introduction Tur-where? Several Good Reasons to Explore Central California and Nevada from the “Dry Lake”. From the viewpoint of an uninitiated geoscientist or layperson, Turlock, California is a rather bland and uneventful place. Its location smack-dab in the middle of the Great Central Valley, one of the least topographically varied regions in the entire world, has contributed to the teenage angst-ridden perception that Turlock, a town of just over 70,000 residents, is the most boring place on the face of the planet. Indeed, Turlock is flat, dry, hot and hazy in the summer with little in the way of amusement venues. Winter isn’t much better; occasional rains dampen the ground just enough to create a seemingly unending thickness of Tule Fog that can dampen even the most optimistic spirits.
    [Show full text]