DOCSLIB.ORG

Geology and Ground Water :N Napa and Sonoma Valleys Napa and Sonoma Counties California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geology and Ground Water :N Napa and Sonoma Valleys Napa and Sonoma Counties California Geology and Ground Water :n Napa and Sonoma Valleys Napa and Sonoma Counties California By FRED KUNKEL and J. E. UPSON "EOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1495 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of W^ater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1960 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. Geological Survey Library catalog card for this publication appears after page 252 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract.. ________________________________________________________ 1 Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Location and extent of the area_________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope of the report-________________________________ 2 Earlier work-_-_---_-_-_________--___-__-__-________-_-_--__-- 3 Acknowledgments _____________________________________________ 3 Geography_ _.___-___-___-___-_______________--__-__-____-___-_-- 4 Topographic features.._____________-__--_______-___-___-_-_---- 4 Climate--____--__-_--_______________-___-___________------_-- 5 Culture. _-.---------------_-------------_---_-_-------------- 8 Well-numbering system. _______________________________________ 10 Geology._________________________________________________________ 11 Geologic formations and their water-bearing properties-____________ 11 Consolidated sedimentary and metamorphic rocks _____________ 11 Petaluma and Merced formations...------------------------- 15 Sonoma volcanics._________________________________________ 15 General features.__-___________._-_____-_-____------_-- 15 Lithology and water-bearing properties.__________________ 19 Sonoma volcanics, undifferentiated-__-_-_-_---------- 19 Diatomaceous member.____________________________ 22 St. Helena rhyolite member.._______________-_-----_ 24 Unconsolidated deposits of late Pliocene (?) to Recent age_____ 25 Glen Ellen formation_________-______________--_---_-- 25 Huichica formation.____.______-._-_-___.______--------- 26 Older alluvium._______._______..__________-_-...------ 29 Terrace deposits and older alluvial fans__________________ 32 Younger alluvium_____________________________________ 33 Geologic history._--___________________..-_-__--.___-_._-__----- 35 Ground water.-_---__---__-._____________-.___-___-___-__.-__----- 37 Napa Valley._________________________________________________ 38 Water in the younger and older alluvium.____________________ 38 Water in the Sonoma volcanics______.-____________---_-_---_ 41 Milliken-Tulucay Creeks area- _________________________ 41 Suscol area___--___-_________-______-_________-_--__-- 43 Calistoga area______________-_-____-___-___--_--_---- 44 Water in the Huichica formation____________________________ 45 Pumpage.________________________________________________ 45 Fluctuations of water levels________---________-_------------ 47 Quality of water.._______________--___-_-_____-.__-_----_-- 51 Younger and older alluvium_____________________________ 53 Sonoma volcanics..._________.-_-_-_________---._------ 56 Huichica formation___._______._____-_________-_------_ 60 Marine formations____-___--__-_-_------_----_--------- 60 Ground-water storage capacity-____-__--_-_-__--___--------- 61 Methods of computation____.-___--__-________--_------ 62 Limitations of the methods- ___--_____--_______-__-_---- 67 Limitations on usability of ground-water storage capacity.- 69 m IV CONTENTS Ground water Continued Sonoma Valley._______________________________________________ 70 Water in the younger and older alluvium.____________________ 70 Water in the Huichica and Glen Ellen formations ard Sonoma volcanics ____________-__ _ _-_ -'--._ _ 71 Pumpage._ ___-_--_____________-__-_-___---_----_----_-.__ 73 Fluctuations of water levels.._________-__-_--_-__-_--_-_____ 74 Quality of water..____ _ _ __ _-_ _ -- -_ _ 75 Unconfined water in the younger and older alluvium___.___ 75 Confined water..___--__-__-____---_----_----_--------_ 76 Ground-water storage capacity.__-____---__----------_-_-___ 78 Methods of computation.-_-___-_-__------------------_ 78 Limitations on usability of ground-water storage capacity. _ _ 84 References cited.______---_-_____-__-_____-__---------------_-----. 84 Tables of basic data___-_______________-__---__---_-------___-__- 87 Index.__._____-_-__-_-_--____________-_-_-__--_-_----_--_-_-.-- 249 ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates in pocket] PLATE 1. Map showing areas of ground-water investigations. 2. Map and sections of Napa and Sonoma Valleys showing geology and location of wells and springs, Napa and Sonoma Counties, Calif. 3. Geologic sections through Napa and Sonoma Valleys 4. Map of Napa and Sonoma Valleys showing water-level contours. 5. Map of Napa and Sonoma Valleys showing ground-wter storage units. Page FIGURE 1. Well-numbering system...._____-_____--____-__--___-_____ 10 2. Hydrograph of well 6/4-22P2 in Napa Valley and rainfall at the Napa State Hospital...___-____----_-----__--_-_-_-- 49 3. Hydrographs of wells 7/5-16B1 and 8/6-10Q1 in Nr.oa Valley. 50 4. Water-analysis diagram of surface water and vater from younger and older alluvium in Napa Valley.-_____________ 52 5. Water-analysis diagram of water from the Sonoim. volcanics in Napa Valley..__-______-__-_-_----__--__-____-___-_- 57 6. Hydrographs of wells 5/5-28N1 and 5/6-14G1 in Sonoma Valley-. - -- - - 74 7. Water-analysis diagram of ground water from Sono*na Valley. 76 TABLES Page TABLE 1. Annual precipitation at representative stations in Napa and Sonoma Valleys._-_______.______-_______-__-______-_-_- 6 2. Stratigraphic units distinguished in Napa and Sonor^a Valleys. 12 3. Estimate of total pumpage from wells in Napa Valley for the year ended March 31, 1950 ___._.__________.______ 45 CONTENTS V Page TABLE 4. Pumpage from the Suscol wells, Napa Valley, for years ending March 31, 1946-52...___________________________________ 46 5. Estimates of pumpage from wells in Napa Valley for irrigation for the years ending March 31, 1946-50.________._._._____ 47 6. Area of younger and older alluvium in Napa Valley, in acres, at 0, 10, 50, and 100 feet below land surface--_--.-_-__-___ 64 7. Estimated volume of younger and older alluvium in Nap? Valley, in acre-feet, for depth zones of 10-50, 50-100, anc1 100-200 feet.-----.-.-.-...-------.-----------.-------- 64 8. Average specific yield of depth zones and ground-water storage units, Napa Valley-----------.--------.---- ----------- 66 9. Estimated gross ground-water storage capacity of the younge~ and older alluvium in Napa Valley, in acre-feet..-.____--.._ 68 10. Water pumped in Sonoma Valley, from wells equipped with pumps of 5 horsepower or more, for the years ending March 31, 1946-50---..--------------_--.-.-----------.----.--.. 73 11. Average specific yield of depth zones and ground-water storage units, Sonoma Valley__-________-_-___ _---------_-_-- 79 12. Estimated gross ground-water storage capacity in Sonoma Valley, in acre-feet.----------.-.._.____.._._.______--__. 83 13. Description of water wells in Napa Valley.--._____-__.._.- 88 14. Water levels in Napa Valley-,.- ------------------------ 131 15. Chemical analyses of water in Napa Valley _.. ___.__-__- 154 . 16.>Partial chemical analyses of water in Napa Valley -_---._--__ 158 17. Drillers'logs of water wells in Napa Valley...______________ 163 18. Description of water wells in Sonoma Valley_._...____.__._ 210 19. Water levels in Sonoma Valley...._-_____________-_..-_-. 229 20. Chemical analyses of water in Sonoma Valley_____.___-_-_ 232 21. Partial chemical analyses of water in Sonoma Valley_ --_-_-.- 234 22. Drillers' logs of water wells in Sonoma Valley___-_-------.- 235 GEOLOGY AND GROUND WATER IN NAPA AND SONOMA VALLEYS, NAPA AND SONOMA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA By FRED KTJNKEL and J. E. UPSON ABSTRACT Napa and Sonoma Valleys are adjacent alluvium-filled valleys about 40 miles northeast of San Francisco. They occupy alined and structurally cortrolled depressions in the northern Coast Ranges physiographic province and drain south into San Pablo Bay. The valleys are surrounded and underlain by un- consolidated marine and continental sediments and volcanic rocks of Pliocene and Pleistocene age, which are water bearing in large part and togethe:- make up relatively extensive ground-water basins. Napa Valley, the eastern valley, is the larger and has a valley-floor area of about 85 square miles. Sonoma Valley has a valley-floor area of about 35 square miles; in addition, al out 10 square miles is unreclaimed tidal marsh. The rock units of Napa and Sonoma Valleys are divided into four classes on the basis of their distribution and relative capacity to yield water: (a) Con­ solidated virtually non-water-bearing chiefly sedimentary (some metamorphic) rocks that range in age from Jurassic (?) to Pliocene; (b) marine shale and sand of the Petaluma formation (Pliocene) and the Merced formation (Plio­ cene and Pleistocene?) that do not crop out within Napa or Sonoma Valleys but perhaps are penetrated by some deep wells drilled in Sonoma Valley; (c) Sonoma volcanics of Pliocene age, parts of which are non-water-bearing and parts of which locally yield large quantities of water; and (d) unconsoMdated alluvial deposits mainly of Quaternary age. The deposits of classes (c) and (d) contain the most important aquifers in the area. Most of the water used in these valleys is pumped from wells in the younger and older alluvium, in the Huichica and Glen Ellen formations,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CALIFORNIA FISH and GAME ' CONSERVATION of WILDLIFE THROUGH EDUCATION'
    REPRINT FROM CALIFORNIA FISH and GAME ' CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE THROUGH EDUCATION' . VOLUME 50 APRIL 1964 NUMBER 2 ANNUAL ABUNDANCE OF YOUNG STRIPED BASS, ROCCUS SAXATILIS, IN THE SACRAMENTO- SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA' HAROLD K. CHADWICK Inland Fisheries Branch California Department of Fish and Game INTRODUCTION A reliable index of striped bass spawning success would serve two important management purposes. First, it would enable us to determine if recruitment is directly related to spawning success. If it is, we could predict important changes in the fishery three years in advance. Second, it would give insight into environmental factors responsible for good and poor year-classes. Besides increasing our understanding of the bass population, this knowledge might be used to improve recruit- ment by modifying water development plans in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta under the State Water Resources Development System. Fyke net samples provided the earliest information on young bass distribution (Hatton, 1940). They were not promising for estimating abundance, and subsequent sampling of eggs and larvae with plankton nets also had important limitations (Calhoun and Woodhull, 1948; Cal- houn, Woodhull, and Johnson, 1950). An exploratory survey with tow nets in the early summer of 1947 (Calhoun and Woodhull, 1948) found bass about an inch long dis- tributed throughout the lower Sacramento-San Joaquin River system except in the Sacramento River above Isleton. This suggested the best index of spawning success would be the abundance of bass about an inch long, measured by tow netting. In 1948 and 1949 extensive tow net surveys were made to measure the relative abundance of young bass in the Delta between Rio Vista and Pittsburg (Erkkila et al., 1950).
    [Show full text]
  • Public Sediment / Unlock Alameda Creek
    PUBLIC SEDIMENT / UNLOCK ALAMEDA CREEK WWW.RESILIENTBAYAREA.ORG ◄ BAYLANDS = LIVING INFRA STR CTY\, E' j(II( ........ • 400 +-' -L C Based on preliminary 0 analysis by SFfl. A more , detailed analysis is beinq E TIDAL MARSH conducted as part of -l/) the Healthy Watersheds l/) ro Resilient Aaylands E project (hwrb.sfei.org) +-' C QJ E "'O MUDFLAT QJ V1 SAC-SJ DELTA 0 1 Sediment supply was estimated by 'Sediment demand was estimated multiplying the current average using a mudflat soil bulK density of annual c;ediment load valuec; from 1.5 q c;ediment/rm c;oil (Brew and McKee et al. (in prep) by the number Williams :?010), a tidal marsh soil of years between 201 r and2100. bulK density ot 0.4 g sed1m ent / cm 3 c;oil (Callaway et al. :?010), and baywide mudflat and marsh area circa 2009 (BAARI vl). BAYLANDS TODAY BAYLANDS 2100 WITH 3' SLR LOW SEDIMENT SUPPLY BAYLANDS 2100 WITH 7' SLR LOW SEDIMENT SUPPLY WE MUST LOOK UPSTREAM TRIBUTARIES FEED THE BAY SONOMA CREEK NAPA RIVER PETALUMA CREEK WALNUT CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK COYOTE CREEK GUADALUPE CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK SEDIMENTSHED ALAMEDA CREEK ALAMEDA CREEK WATERSHED - 660 SQMI OAKLAND ALAMEDA CREEK WATERSHED SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE THE CREEK BUILT AN ALLUVIAL FAN AND FED THE BAY ALAMEDA CREEK SOUTH BAY NILES CONE ALLUVIAL FAN HIGH SEDIMENT FEEDS MARSHES TIDAL WETLANDS IT HAS BEEN LOCKED IN PLACE OVER TIME LIVERMORE PLEASANTON SUNOL UNION CITY NILES SAN MATEO BRIDGE EDEN LANDING FREMONT NEWARK LOW SEDIMENT CARGILL SALT PONDS DUMBARTON BRIDGE SEDIMENT FLOWS ARE HIGHLY MODIFIED SEDIMENT IS STUCK IN CHANNEL IMPOUNDED BY DAMS UPSTREAM REDUCED SUPPLY TO THE BAY AND VULNERABILITIES ARE EXACERBATED BY CLIMATE CHANGE EROSION SUBSIDENCE SEA LEVEL RISE THE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL SAN MATEO BRIDGE UNION CITY NILES RUBBER DAMS BART WEIR EDEN LANDING PONDS HEAD OF TIDE FREMONT 880 NEWARK TIDAL EXTENT FLUVIAL EXTENT DUMBARTON BRIDGE.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in Stratigraphic Nomenclature by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1973
    Changes in Stratigraphic Nomenclature by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1973 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1395-A NOV1419/5 5 81 Changes in Stratigraphic Nomenclature by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1973 By GEORGE V. COHEE and WILNA R. WRIGHT CONTRIBUTIONS TO STRATIGRAPHY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1395-A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1975 66 01-141-00 oM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Cohee, George Vincent, 1907 Changes in stratigraphic nomenclatures by the U. S. Geological Survey, 1973. (Contributions to stratigraphy) (Geological Survey bulletin; 1395-A) Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1395-A 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Nomenclature United States. I. Wright, Wilna B., joint author. II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series: United States. Geological Survey. Bulletin; 1395-A. QE75.B9 no. 1395-A [QE645] 557.3'08s 74-31466 [551.7'001'4] For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, B.C. 20402 Price 95 cents (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-02593 CONTENTS Page Listing of nomenclatural changes ______ _ Al Beulah Limestone and Hardscrabble Limestone (Mississippian) of Colorado abandoned, by Glenn R. Scott _________________ 48 New and revised stratigraphic names in the western Sacramento Valley, Calif., by John D. Sims and Andre M. Sarna-Wojcicki __ 50 Proposal of the name Orangeburg Group for outcropping beds of Eocene age in Orangeburg County and vicinity, South Carolina, by George E. Siple and William K. Pooser _________________ 55 Abandonment of the term Beattyville Shale Member (of the Lee Formation), by Gordon W.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.12 Paleontological Resources
    3.12 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.12 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.12.1 Definitions Paleontological resources—or fossils—are the remains of ancient plants and animals that can provide scientifically significant information about the history of life on earth. Paleontological “sensitivity” is defined as the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. This sensitivity is determined by rock type, history of the geologic unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities that are recorded from that unit. Paleontological sensitivity is assigned based on fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just at a specific site. Paleontological sensitivity ratings are described as follows: High Sensitivity. Indicates fossils are currently observed on site, localities are recorded within the study area, and/or the unit has a history of producing numerous significant fossil remains. Moderate Sensitivity. Fossils within the unit are generally not unique, or are so poorly preserved as to have only moderate scientific significance. Low Sensitivity. Indicates significant fossils are not likely to be found because of a random fossil distribution pattern, extreme youth of the rock unit, and/or the method of rock formation, such as alteration by heat and pressure. Marginal Sensitivity. Indicates the limited probability of the geologic unit composed of either pyroclastic or metasedimentary rocks conducive to the existence and/or preservation of fossils. Zero Sensitivity. Origin of the geologic unit renders it not conducive to the existence of organisms and/or preservation of fossils, such as high‐grade metamorphic rocks, intrusive igneous rocks, and most volcanic rocks. Indeterminate Sensitivity. Unknown or undetermined sensitivity indicates that the geologic unit has not been sufficiently studied, or lacks good exposures to warrant a definitive rating.
    [Show full text]
  • The Voyage Home U.S. Windsurfing Nationals Bay Bridge Closure
    AYAY ROSSINGSROSSINGS “The VoiceBB of the Waterfront” CC August 2007 Vol.8, No.8 The Voyage Home Long-Haul Freighter Journey Bay Bridge Closure Behind the Labor Day Project U.S. Windsurfi ng Nationals Competition at Crissy Field Complete Ferry Schedules for all SF Lines Upscale. Downtown. Voted Best Restaurant 4 Years Running For $300,000 less. Lunch & Dinner Daily Banquets Corporate Events www.scomas.com (415)771-4383 Fisherman’s Wharf on Pier 47 Foot of Jones on Jefferson Street Zinfandel, Syrah and more. Rich, ripe, fruit-forward Zins, Syrahs–and more– Eight Orchids in downtown that get top scores from critics and Wine Spectator. Oakland’s Chinatown is Visit us to taste your way through the best of California. redefining urban style and city convenience. At a price you won’t find anywhere in San Francisco. Discover unparalleled luxury in these exceptional condominium homes. Affordably priced from the high $300,000s. The Sales Center and furnished model at 425 7th Street are open Monday 1 to 6 and Tuesday-Sunday 11 to 6. WINERY & TASTING ROOM 2900 Main Street, Alameda, CA 94501 Complimentary Wine Tasting Accessible by San Francisco Bay ferry, we’re just feet from the Alameda Terminal! Open Daily 11–6 510-835-8808 8orchidsmovie.com 510-865-7007 Exclusively represented by The Reiser Group www.RosenblumCellars.com 2 August 2007 BAYCROSSINGS www.baycrossings.com columns feature 15 SAILING ADVENTURES 12 THE VOYAGE HOME 12 Making Your Sailboat Bay Bridge Sand Takes Look Good Long Trip from Canada guides by Scott Alumbaugh by Tom Paiva 07 WATERFRONT
    [Show full text]
  • 4.11 Hydrology General Plan DEIR
    4.11 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section discusses and analyzes the surface hydrology, groundwater, and water quality characteristics of the County and the proposed project. This analysis addresses impacts to hydrology and water quality and identifies mitigation measures to lessen those impacts. See Section 4.12 (Public Services and Utilities) for a more detailed discussion regarding water supplies and demand. Specifically, this section provides the following information regarding hydrology and water quality that are evaluated in this DEIR: • Identification of current hydrologic baseline of the County associated with surface water and groundwater conditions that includes identification of key watersheds and associated water features, precipitation, flood conditions, groundwater basins and associated conditions of the basins and water quality (see Section 4.11.1 below and Appendix H). • A description of the current federal, state, regional and County policies, regulations and standards that are associated with the hydrologic conditions of the County (see Section 4.11.2 below). • Identification of significant hydrologic impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Update (see Section 4.11.3 below). The impact analysis makes use of hydrologic modeling to identify the type and degree of potential impacts based on a range of potential vineyard development conditions in the future (see Appendix H) as well as consideration of current Napa County Conservation Regulations (County Code Chapter 18.108) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are typically applied to mitigate impacts (see Appendix I). 4.11.1 EXISTING SETTING SURFACE WATER Napa County is located within the Coast Range physiographic province northeast of San Francisco. The County is bordered to the east by California’s Central Valley and to the west by the Coast Ranges.
    [Show full text]
  • Abundance and Distribution of Shorebirds in the San Francisco Bay Area
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 33, Number 2, 2002 ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SHOREBIRDS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA LYNNE E. STENZEL, CATHERINE M. HICKEY, JANET E. KJELMYR, and GARY W. PAGE, Point ReyesBird Observatory,4990 ShorelineHighway, Stinson Beach, California 94970 ABSTRACT: On 13 comprehensivecensuses of the San Francisco-SanPablo Bay estuaryand associatedwetlands we counted325,000-396,000 shorebirds (Charadrii)from mid-Augustto mid-September(fall) and in November(early winter), 225,000 from late Januaryto February(late winter); and 589,000-932,000 in late April (spring).Twenty-three of the 38 speciesoccurred on all fall, earlywinter, and springcounts. Median counts in one or moreseasons exceeded 10,000 for 10 of the 23 species,were 1,000-10,000 for 4 of the species,and were less than 1,000 for 9 of the species.On risingtides, while tidal fiats were exposed,those fiats held the majorityof individualsof 12 speciesgroups (encompassing 19 species);salt ponds usuallyheld the majorityof 5 speciesgroups (encompassing 7 species); 1 specieswas primarilyon tidal fiatsand in other wetlandtypes. Most speciesgroups tended to concentratein greaterproportion, relative to the extent of tidal fiat, either in the geographiccenter of the estuaryor in the southernregions of the bay. Shorebirds' densitiesvaried among 14 divisionsof the unvegetatedtidal fiats. Most species groups occurredconsistently in higherdensities in someareas than in others;however, most tidalfiats held relativelyhigh densitiesfor at leastone speciesgroup in at leastone season.Areas supportingthe highesttotal shorebirddensities were also the ones supportinghighest total shorebird biomass, another measure of overallshorebird use. Tidalfiats distinguished most frequenfiy by highdensities or biomasswere on the east sideof centralSan FranciscoBay andadjacent to the activesalt ponds on the eastand southshores of southSan FranciscoBay and alongthe Napa River,which flowsinto San Pablo Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Dredging at Lagoon Intake Structure Initial Study
    DREDGING AT LAGOON INTAKE STRUCTURE INITIAL STUDY City of Foster City September 16, 2016 1 2 SEPTEMBER 2016 FOSTER CITY DREDGING AT LAGOON INTAKE STRUCTURE INITIAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ....................................................... 27 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................................................ 29 I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 30 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ...................................................................... 52 III. Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 54 IV. Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 74 V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 111 VI. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................ 116 VII. Hazards ........................................................................................................... 136 VIII. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ 146 IX. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Deconstructing Mare Island Reconnaissance in the Ruins
    Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/boom/article-pdf/2/2/55/381274/boom_2012_2_2_55.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 richard white Photographs by Jesse White Deconstructing Mare Island Reconnaissance in the ruins The detritus still he Carquinez Strait has become driveover country. Beginning around Vallejo and running roughly six miles to Suisun Bay, Grizzly Bay, and the Sacramento possesses a T River Delta, the Strait has, in the daily life of California, reduced down to the Carquinez and Benicia-Martinez bridges. Motorists are as likely to be searching for grim grandeur. their toll as looking at the land and water below. Few will exit the interstates. Why stop at Martinez, Benicia, Vallejo, Crockett, or Port Costa? They are going west to Napa or San Francisco or east to Sacramento. Like travelers’ destinations, California’s future also appears to lie elsewhere. Once, much of what moved out of Northern California came through these communities, but now the Strait seems left with only the detritus of California’s past. The detritus still possesses a grim grandeur. To the east, the Mothball Fleet— originally composed of transports and battleships that helped win World War II— cluster tightly together, toxic and rusting, in Suisun Bay. Just west of the bridges, Mare Island (really a peninsula with a slough running through it) sits across the mouth of the Napa River. The United States established a naval base and shipyard there in 1854, and the island remained central to US military efforts from the Civil Boom: A Journal of California, Vol. 2, Number 2, pps 55–69.
    [Show full text]
  • Napa River Fisheries Study: the Rutherford Dust Society Restoration Reach Napa County, California
    NAPA RIVER FISHERIES STUDY: THE RUTHERFORD DUST SOCIETY RESTORATION REACH NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA JANUARY, 2005 PREPARED BY JONATHAN KOEHLER BIOLOGIST NAPA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT SUMMARY Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) have been sporadically reported in the Napa River since the 1980’s; however no data on run size, timing, or origin have been collected. In 2003 and 2004, significant numbers of fall-run Chinook salmon were documented in the Napa River and several tributaries. In 2004, the spawning period began immediately following the first storm outflow in early November, peaked in early December, and was over by the end of December. To better estimate the size and distribution of the run, we conducted redd counts and carcass surveys along a 3.6 mile stretch of the mainstem Napa River. Biweekly surveys in November and December, 2004 documented 62 redds and 102 live Chinook salmon spawning and holding. Two salmon had adipose fin clips; one fish was alive and spawning and the other was a dead carcass, from which the snout was removed for analysis. Two additional adipose fin clipped fish were found in a separate survey of Sulphur Creek, tributary to the Napa River upstream of the Rutherford reach. In total, the snouts of three adipose fin clipped carcasses were removed for coded wire tag analysis by the Department of Fish & Game; only one tag was recovered. The recovered tag showed the fish to be a 2002 spring-run Chinook salmon from the Feather River Hatchery released in Benicia in 2003. It is not clear what proportion of the entire run were of hatchery origin or wild stock; additional genetic analysis is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
    City of American Canyon ‐ Napa Airport Corporate Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 3.5 ‐ Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 3.5.1 ‐ Introduction This section describes the existing geology, soils, and seismicity setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on the Geotechnical Investigations prepared by Raney Geotechnical, Inc. and included in this EIR as Appendix E. 3.5.2 ‐ Environmental Setting Regional Geology Napa County is located within the California Coast Range geomorphic province. This province is a geologically complex and seismically active region characterized by sub‐parallel northwest‐trending faults, mountain ranges, and valleys. The oldest bedrock units are the Jurassic‐Crustaceous Franciscan Complex and Great Valley sequence sediments originally deposited in a marine environment. Subsequently, younger rocks such as the Tertiary‐period Sonoma Volcanics group, the Plio‐Pleistocene‐age Clear Lake Volcanics, and sedimentary rocks such as the Guinda, Domengine, Petaluma, Wilson Grove, Cache, Huichica, and Glen Ellen formations were deposited throughout the province. Extensive folding and thrust faulting during the late Crustaceous through early Tertiary geologic time created complex geologic conditions that underlie the highly varied topography of today. In valleys, the bedrock is covered by thick alluvial soils. The project site is located within the southern portion of the Napa Valley, which consists of a large northwest‐trending alluvial plain flanked by the Mayacama Mountains the west and the Howell Mountains to the east. The West Napa Fault is located within the southern portion of the Napa Valley and the Concord‐Green Valley Fault is located near the Howell Mountains along the east side of the valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Napa Valley Preferred Wine Country DAY TRIPS X
    NVdaytrips-0413_Layout 1 4/25/13 9:55 AM Page 1 Spring/Summer 2013 Napa Valley Preferred Wine Country DAY TRIPS x x x x FuN x FACT x NINE TRIpS WINE TASTING from Calistoga to Carneros A publication of FORTY-SEVEN9 TASTING ROOM REVIEWS Dining Directory1 47 plusand Varietals Chart NVdaytrips-0413_Layout 1 4/25/13 9:55 AM Page 2 TO CLEAR LAKE Lake E TT LAN ENNE B RD Berryessa Old Faithful ANYON TS C SUMMERS Geyser 29 BUT LANE BBS TO GEYSERVILLE ESTATE TU ALEXANDER VALLEY CALISTOGA Pre 128 LN PAGES 12>15 O NC CALISTOGA LI BALLOONS POPE VALLEY TO L A SUMMIT WINERY E SANTA ROSA W SUM A M STERLING LAKE IT LA DUN K E E G DR A VINEYARDS T T O C E T I D H W MEA POPE VALLEY ARK H L BRAVANTE OWEL L FRANK MTN E CASTELLO AN FAMILY L VIADER LE DI AMOROSA BA BURGESS CRYS TAL On & Around SPR IN G M S IU R A IT N A S HOWELL MTN RK PA R EE LODI D D9 Win PAGES 16>21 BALLENTINE HO ARK EER P W D EL ST. CLEMENT L MT N SI LEY ROS VAL CONN 29 SP RING MTN T MTN AT LL PR HOWE ST BERINGER E POP A ON MADR MERRYVALE SAGE CANYON VINEYARDS K HILL WINE CO. R OA NEWTON CHARTE VINEYARDS LOUIS M. PAGES 34>37 MARTINI RUTHERFORD ORD RF HI RUSTRIDGE E LL HILL ST. HELENA . H LN T L U D R V.
    [Show full text]