DOCSLIB.ORG

Groundwater Quality Assessment Report, April 27, 2015 Hydrofocus, Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Groundwater Quality Assessment Report, April 27, 2015 Hydrofocus, Inc San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition Groundwater Quality Assessment Report, April 27, 2015 HydroFocus, Inc. Davis, Ca 95618 Steven Deverel Principal Hydrologist Professional Geologist 8690 Expiration date March 2016 1 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Key Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Non-Delta Area ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Delta Area ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Groundwater Quality Assessment Report .............................................................................................. 11 Phasing of the Groundwater Quality Assessment Report .................................................................. 13 Report overview .................................................................................................................................. 13 Hydrologic context .................................................................................................................................. 13 Non-Delta Area ................................................................................................................................... 13 Delta Area ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Groundwater Vulnerability Areas and Monitoring ................................................................................. 25 Vulnerability ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................... 26 Methods and Data Sources ......................................................................................................................... 27 Non-Delta Area ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Database and Geographic Information System .................................................................................. 27 Water Quality Data ............................................................................................................................. 28 Water-Level Data ................................................................................................................................ 29 Land Use, Soils, Subsurface Lithology Well Information..................................................................... 29 Groundwater Recharge ....................................................................................................................... 34 Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment Methods .............................................................................. 35 Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 37 Table 5. Assigned Weights for standard and pesticide DRASTIC features ......................................... 39 Topography ............................................................................................................................................. 41 Delta Areas .............................................................................................................................................. 43 Land Surface Elevation ........................................................................................................................ 43 Lithology .............................................................................................................................................. 43 Groundwater and Surface Water Levels ............................................................................................. 45 Water Isotope Data ............................................................................................................................. 46 2 Groundwater Quality Data .................................................................................................................. 47 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 47 Non-Delta area ........................................................................................................................................ 47 Distribution and Temporal Variability of Groundwater Nitrate Concentrations ................................ 47 Particle Tracking .................................................................................................................................. 78 Regression and Covariance Analysis ................................................................................................... 80 Use of Indicator Kriging to Preliminarily Delineate Vulnerability Areas ................................................. 82 DRASTIC Results ...................................................................................................................................... 83 Proximity to CV-SALTS Basins.............................................................................................................. 98 Prioritization within the High Vulnerability Area ................................................................................ 98 Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta ............................................................................................................ 103 Land-Surface Elevations .................................................................................................................... 103 Groundwater Levels and Artesian Areas .......................................................................................... 103 Water Isotopes and Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions ....................................................... 108 Discussion.................................................................................................................................................. 110 Non-Delta .............................................................................................................................................. 110 Groundwater Nitrate Concentrations in Non-Delta Areas ............................................................. 110 Groundwater Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 112 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ............................................................................................................. 112 Subsurface lithology, groundwater levels, artesian areas and flow to drainage ditches ................. 112 Water Isotopes Data and Surface-Groundwater Interactions .......................................................... 113 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 117 Non-Delta .............................................................................................................................................. 117 Delta ...................................................................................................................................................... 118 3 Figures Figure 1. Location of San Joaquin County Delta Water Quality Coalition Service Area. ............................ 12 Figure 2. The legal Delta within the Coalition Service Area. ....................................................................... 19 Figure 3. Conceptual model for groundwater-surface water interactions ................................................. 21 Figure 4. Distribution of Department of Pesticide Regulation Groundwater Protection Areas and Hydrogeologic Vulnerability Areas defined by the State Water Resources Control Board. ....................... 26 Figure 5. Soil textural triangle. ................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 6. Distribution of average nitrate concentrations, 1969 to 1973. .................................................. 48 Figure 7. Distribution of average nitrate concentrations, 1974 to 1978. .................................................. 49 Figure 8. Distribution of average nitrate concentrations, 1979 to 1983. ................................................... 50 Figure 9. Distribution of average nitrate concentrations, 1984 to 1988. .................................................. 51 Figure 10. Distribution of average nitrate concentrations, 1989 to 1993. ................................................ 52 Figure 11. Distribution of average nitrate concentrations, 1994 to 1998. ................................................ 53 Figure 12. Distribution of average nitrate concentrations, 1999 to 2003. ...............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C LMA-Specific Hazards and Projects
    Appendix C Appendix C LMA-Specific Hazards and Projects Lower San Joaquin River and Delta South Regional Flood Management Plan November 2014 Appendix C --Page initially blank-- Lower San Joaquin River and Delta South Regional Flood Management Plan November 2014 Appendix C Contents 1 Overview to Appendix C 1 2 Lower San Joaquin River Region 5 2.1 Cities 5 2.1.1 City of Stockton/San Joaquin County 5 2.1.2 City of Lathrop 33 2.1.3 City of Manteca 41 2.2 Reclamation Districts 45 2.2.1 RD 17 Mossdale 45 2.2.2 RD 403 Rough and Ready Island 50 2.2.3 RD 404 Boggs Tract 51 2.2.4 RD 828 Weber Tract 56 2.2.5 RD 1608 Lincoln Village West 56 2.2.6 RD 1614 Smith Tract 60 2.2.7 RD 2042 Bishop Tract 62 2.2.8 RD 2064 River Junction 62 2.2.9 RD 2074 Sargent Barnhart Tract 67 2.2.10 RD 2075 McMullin Ranch 70 2.2.11 RD 2094 Walthall 74 2.2.12 RD 2096 Weatherbee Island 77 2.2.13 RD 2115 Shima Tract 78 2.2.14 RD 2119 Wright-Elmwood Tract 80 2.2.15 RD 2126 Atlas Tract 83 3 Delta South Region 85 3.1 Cities 85 3.2 Reclamation Districts 85 3.2.1 RD 1 Union Island East 85 3.2.2 RD 2 Union Island West 92 3.2.3 RD 524 Middle Roberts Island 96 3.2.4 RD 544 Upper Roberts Island 103 3.2.5 RD 684 Lower Roberts Island 108 3.2.6 RD 773 Fabian Tract 111 3.2.7 RD 1007 Pico & Nagle 115 3.2.8 RD 2058 Pescadero 118 3.2.9 RD 2062 Stewart Tract 123 3.2.10 RD 2085 Kasson District 127 3.2.11 RD 2089 Stark Tract 130 3.2.12 RD 2095 Paradise Junction 136 3.2.13 RD 2107 Mossdale Island 140 3.2.14 RD 2116 Holt and Drexler Tract & Drexler Pocket 142 i Lower San Joaquin River and Delta South Regional Flood Management Plan November 2014 Appendix C --Page initially blank-- ii Lower San Joaquin River and Delta South Regional Flood Management Plan November 2014 Appendix C 1 Overview to Appendix C This appendix contains information for each city and local maintaining agency (LMA) within the Regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA
    UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Title Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8(2) ISSN 1546-2366 Authors Deverel, Steven J Leighton, David A Publication Date 2010 DOI https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2010v8iss2art1 Supplemental Material https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw#supplemental License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California august 2010 Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Steven J. Deverel1 and David A. Leighton Hydrofocus, Inc., 2827 Spafford Street, Davis, CA 95618 AbStRACt will range from a few cm to over 1.3 m (4.3 ft). The largest elevation declines will occur in the central To estimate and understand recent subsidence, we col- Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. From 2007 to 2050, lected elevation and soils data on Bacon and Sherman the most probable estimated increase in volume below islands in 2006 at locations of previous elevation sea level is 346,956,000 million m3 (281,300 ac-ft). measurements. Measured subsidence rates on Sherman Consequences of this continuing subsidence include Island from 1988 to 2006 averaged 1.23 cm year-1 increased drainage loads of water quality constitu- (0.5 in yr-1) and ranged from 0.7 to 1.7 cm year-1 (0.3 ents of concern, seepage onto islands, and decreased to 0.7 in yr-1). Subsidence rates on Bacon Island from arability.
    [Show full text]
  • Subsidence Reversal for Tidal Reconnection
    PERFORMANCE MEASURE 4.12: SUBSIDENCE REVERSAL FOR TIDAL RECONNECTION Performance Measure 4.12: Subsidence Reversal for Tidal Reconnection Performance Measure (PM) Component Attributes Type: Output Performance Measure Description 1 Subsidence reversal 0F activities are located at shallow subtidal elevations to prevent net loss of future opportunities to restore tidal wetlands in the Delta and Suisun Marsh. Expectations Preventing long-term net loss of land at intertidal elevations in the Delta and Suisun Marsh from impacts of sea level rise and land subsidence. Metric 1. Acres of Delta and Suisun Marsh land with subsidence reversal activity located on islands with large areas at shallow subtidal elevations. This metric will be reported annually. 2. Average elevation accretion at each project site presented in centimeters per year. This metric will be reported every five years. Baseline 1. In 2019, zero acres of subsidence reversal on islands with large areas at shallow subtidal elevations. 2. Short-term elevation accretion in the Delta at 4 centimeters per year. 1 Subsidence reversal is a process that halts soil oxidation and accumulates new soil material in order to increase land elevations. Examples of subsidence reversal activities are rice cultivation, managed wetlands, and tidal marsh restoration. DELTA PLAN, AMENDED – PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOVEMBER 2019 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURE 4.12: SUBSIDENCE REVERSAL FOR TIDAL RECONNECTION Target 1. By 2030, 3,500 acres in the Delta and 3,000 acres in Suisun Marsh with subsidence reversal activities on islands, with at least 50 percent of the area or with at least 1,235 acres at shallow subtidal elevations. 2. An average elevation accretion of subsidence reversal is at least 4 centimeters per year up to 2050.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History
    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Narratives-Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The
    Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta A Report to the Delta Protection Commission Prepared by the Center for California Studies California State University, Sacramento August 1, 2015 Project Team Steve Boilard, CSU Sacramento, Project Director Robert Benedetti, CSU Sacramento, Co-Director Margit Aramburu, University of the Pacific, Co-Director Gregg Camfield, UC Merced Philip Garone, CSU Stanislaus Jennifer Helzer, CSU Stanislaus Reuben Smith, University of the Pacific William Swagerty, University of the Pacific Marcia Eymann, Center for Sacramento History Tod Ruhstaller, The Haggin Museum David Stuart, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Leigh Johnsen, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Dylan McDonald, Center for Sacramento History Michael Wurtz, University of the Pacific Blake Roberts, Delta Protection Commission Margo Lentz-Meyer, Capitol Campus Public History Program, CSU Sacramento Those wishing to cite this report should use the following format: Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015). Those wishing to cite the scholarly essays in the appendix should adopt the following format: Author, "Title of Essay", in Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015), appropriate page or pages. Cover Photo: Sign installed by Discover the Delta; art by Marty Stanley; Photo taken by Philip Garone.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Adapts Draft Flood Hazard Assessment Technical Memo
    DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL A California State Agency DELTA ADAPTS: CREATING A CLIMATE RESILIENT FUTURE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN RIVER DELTA CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT DRAFT FLOOD HAZARD ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL MEMO NOVEMBER 5, 2020 November 2020 1-1 Delta Adapts: Creating a Climate Resilient Future Chapter 1. Introduction CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Open Science and Key Assumptions ........................................................................1-5 1.4 Overview of Approach ..............................................................................................1-6 CHAPTER 2. Tidal Datums Analysis .......................................................................... 2-2 2.1 DSM2 Model Runs .....................................................................................................2-2 2.2 Methods ....................................................................................................................2-5 2.3 Results ........................................................................................................................2-6 CHAPTER 3. Peak Water Level Analysis ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Subsidence Reversal for Tidal Reconnection
    PERFORMANCE MEASURE 4.12. SUBSIDENCE REVERSAL FOR TIDAL RECONNECTION Performance Measure 4.12: Subsidence Reversal for Tidal Reconnection Performance Measure (PM) Component Attributes Type: Output Performance Measure Description Subsidence reversal1 activities are located at shallow subtidal elevations to prevent net loss of future opportunities to restore intertidal wetlands through tidal reconnection in the Delta and Suisun Marsh. Expectations Preventing long-term net loss of land at intertidal elevations in the Delta and Suisun Marsh from impacts of sea level rise and land subsidence. Metric 1. Acres of Delta and Suisun Marsh land with subsidence reversal activity located on islands with large areas at shallow subtidal elevations. This metric will be reported annually. 2. Average elevation accretion at each project site presented in centimeters per year. This metric will be reported every five years. Tracking will continue until a project is tidally reconnected. Baseline 1. In 2019, zero acres of subsidence reversal on islands with large areas at shallow subtidal elevations. 2. Soils in the Delta are subsiding at a rate of between 0 cm/year and 1.8 cm/year. 1 Subsidence reversal is a process that halts soil oxidation and accumulates new soil material in order to increase land elevations. Examples of subsidence reversal activities are rice cultivation, managed wetlands, and tidal marsh restoration. DELTA PLAN, AMENDED – DRAFT MAY 2020 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURE 4.12. SUBSIDENCE REVERSAL FOR TIDAL RECONNECTION Target 1. By 2030, 3,500 acres in the Delta and 3,000 acres in Suisun Marsh with subsidence reversal activities on islands with at least 50 percent of the area or at least 1,235 acres at shallow subtidal elevations.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclamation District 1614 December 2018 District Superintendent Report January 7Th 2019 Board Meeting'
    Reclamation District 1614 December 2018 District Superintendent Report January 7th 2019 Board Meeting' Routine station checks for the month found one problem at Lake ct. station. The bubbler float had to be replaced due to a leak. All other stations doing fine. As reported last month, the District contracted with Dino & Son to repair the beaver den originally found at 2016 Canal Drive. That work led to the discovery of a much larger beaver den issue that led to repairs moving east to the next two properties. Work, as of early last week, has been completed with all property owners satisfied at the finished product. I was made aware of another potential beaver issue at 1964 Canal Drive. I made the homeowner aware that due to the time of year and that no imminent danger to the levee is noticeable, I will make contact again in the spring or early summer. Respectfully Submitted Orlando Lobosco R.D. 1614 Superintendent Reclamation District 1614 December, 2018 Bills ILNAME I INVOICE # I AMOUNT I TOTAL $ WARRANT # I CHECK # ISUBVENTION FUND Kevin Kauffman $100.00 5680 $100.00 Ben Koch $50.00 5681 $50.00 Christian Gaines $50.00 5682 $50.00 Rhonda Olmo $870.00 5683 $870.00 Neumiller & Beardslee 296428 $5,418.29 5684 $5,418.29 Kjeldsen, Sinnock & Neudeck, Inc. 24240 $1,597.50 5685 24241 $806.25 24242 $177.50 24243 $850.00 24244 $5,081.79 24245 $777.00 24246 $7,772.00 $17,062.04 Delk Pest Control 38408 $220.00 5686 $220.00 Stockton Tree Surgery, Inc.
    [Show full text]