DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydraulics Sediment Transport Groundwater

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hydraulics Sediment Transport Groundwater Appendix F Hydraulics, Sediment Transport, and Groundwater Analysis, Arroyo Seco Canyon Project Diversion, August 2018 Hydraulics, Sediment Transport, and Groundwater Analysis Arroyo Seco Canyon Project Diversion Prepared for Pasadena Water & Power 150 S. Los Robles, Suite 200 Pasadena, California 91101 Prepared by Psomas 225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000 Pasadena, California 91101 T: (626) 351-2000 August 2018 Arroyo Seco Canyon Project Diversion TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Project Setting ................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................ 2 3.0 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Project Purpose and Need .................................................................................... 3 3.2 Project Components .............................................................................................. 3 4.0 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................. 4 5.0 Hydraulic Model .............................................................................................................. 6 5.1 Model Description .................................................................................................. 6 5.1.1 Equations of Motion ................................................................................... 6 5.2 Topographic Representation and Model Extent .................................................... 7 5.3 Manning’s Values .................................................................................................. 7 5.4 Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................. 7 5.5 Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 7 5.6 Hydraulic Assumptions ........................................................................................ 10 6.0 Hydraulic Model Output ................................................................................................ 11 6.1 Dry Year Velocity ................................................................................................. 11 6.2 Dry Year depth .................................................................................................... 11 6.3 Average Year Velocity ......................................................................................... 12 6.4 Average Year Depth ............................................................................................ 12 6.5 Wet Year Velocity ................................................................................................ 12 6.6 Wet Year Depth ................................................................................................... 13 7.0 Sediment Transport Model ........................................................................................... 14 7.1 Model Description ................................................................................................ 14 7.2 Model Input .......................................................................................................... 15 7.3 Sediment Data ..................................................................................................... 15 7.4 Transport Equation Selection .............................................................................. 16 7.5 SAM Model Runs ................................................................................................ 16 8.0 Sediment Transport Model Output .............................................................................. 17 9.0 Hydraulic and Sediment Modeling Conclusions ........................................................ 18 R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS010700\Hydraulics\Arroyo Seco Diversion_Hydraulics Impacts Analisys-080618.docx i Table of Contents Arroyo Seco Canyon Project Diversion 10.0 Groundwater Assessment ............................................................................................ 19 10.1 Physiography ....................................................................................................... 19 10.2 Geology ............................................................................................................... 19 10.2.1 General Geology...................................................................................... 19 10.2.2 Structural Features and Faults ................................................................ 20 10.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................. 21 10.3.1 Precipitation ............................................................................................. 21 10.3.2 Surface Water .......................................................................................... 21 10.3.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................ 25 10.4 Groundwater Conclusions ................................................................................... 26 11.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 27 TABLES Table Page 1 Wet and Dry Annual Runoff Volume by Relative Deviation Percent at USGS Gage #11098000 .............................................................................................................. 9 2 Monthly Mean Flow for Arroyo Seco Near Pasadena, CA (USGS Station No. 11098000) ....................................................................................................................... 22 EXHIBITS Exhibit Page 1 Regional Location and Local Vicinity ................................................................................ 2 2 Project Location Areas 1, 2, and 3 .................................................................................... 2 3 HEC-RAS Model Extent .................................................................................................... 7 4 USGS Stream Gage Data for the 1988/1989 to 2013/2014 Water Years ......................... 7 5 Existing (EX) and Proposed (PR) Modeling Hydrographs for the Wet (W), Average (A) and Dry (D) Runoff Years ........................................................................... 10 6 Representative Dry Year Maximum Velocity ................................................................... 11 7 Representative Dry Year Maximum Depth ...................................................................... 11 8 Representative Average Year Maximum Velocity ........................................................... 12 9 Representative Average Year Maximum Depth .............................................................. 12 10 Representative Wet Year Maximum Velocity .................................................................. 12 11 Representative Wet Year Maximum Depth ..................................................................... 13 12 Average Grain Size Distributions .................................................................................... 16 13 Arroyo Seco Watershed Boundary .................................................................................. 19 14 Surficial Geology of the Upper Arroyo Seco Area ........................................................... 19 15 Precipitation Reported from LA County Gage 508C ....................................................... 21 16 Groundwater Subareas within the Raymond Groundwater Basin ................................... 25 R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS010700\Hydraulics\Arroyo Seco Diversion_Hydraulics Impacts Analisys-080618.docx ii Table of Contents Arroyo Seco Canyon Project Diversion ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Topography B HEC-RAS Models C SAM Models D Preliminary Geologic Map of the Los Angeles Quad R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS010700\Hydraulics\Arroyo Seco Diversion_Hydraulics Impacts Analisys-080618.docx iii Table of Contents Arroyo Seco Canyon Project Diversion LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Acronym and Abbreviation Definition CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Center River Analysis System h depth Q volumetric discharge JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS010700\Hydraulics\Arroyo Seco Diversion_Hydraulics Impacts Analisys-080618.docx iv Table of Contents Arroyo Seco Canyon Project Diversion 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) operates a diversion structure located approximately 0.25- mile north of Millard Creek on the Arroyo Seco. PWP has surface water rights of 25 cfs and and diverts streamflows into an intake structure. Upon entering the intake, the water is piped downstream approximately 3,000 feet to the PWP’s spreading basins for groundwater recharge. The diversion structure and intake structure were damaged due to the debris flows following the 2009 Station Fire. Since then, the structures have operated at a reduced capacity. The proposed Arroyo Seco Canyon
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attachment E Part 2
    Response to Correspondence from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy Regarding the ArtCenter Master Plan Note that the emails (Attachment A) dated after April 25, 2018, were provided to the City after the end of the CEQA comment period, and, therefore, the emails and the responses below are not included in the EIR, and no response is required under CEQA. However, for sake of complete analysis and consideration of all comments submitted, the City responds herein and this document is made part of the project staff report. Response to Correspondence This correspondence with the Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy occurred in the context of the preparation of the EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The formal comment letter from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy included in this correspondence was responded to as Letter No. 6 in Section III, Response to Comments, of the April 2018 Final EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The primary correspondence herein is comprised of emails between John Howell and Mickey Long discussing whether there is a wildlife corridor within the Hillside Campus, as well as emails between John Howell and CDFW regarding whether there is a wildlife corridor and whether CDFW will provide a comment letter regarding the ArtCenter Project for the Planning Commission hearing on May 9, 2018. Note that CDFW submitted a comment letter on May 9, 2018, after completion of the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The City has also provided a separate response to this late comment letter. This correspondence centers around the potential for the Hillside Campus to contribute to a wildlife corridor. The CDFW was contacted during preparation of the Final EIR to obtain specific mapping information to provide a more comprehensive description of the potential for wildlife movement within the Hillside Campus within the Final EIR.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources
    Preliminary Investigation B: Water Resources Prepared by: Tim Brick, Arroyo Seco Foundation The Arroyo Seco watershed is a major source of local water supply. The Arroyo Seco and its mountain watershed contribute about 40% of the water supply for Pasadena and neighboring communities. The Raymond Basin The Arroyo Seco watershed feeds the Raymond Basin aquifer, a 40 square mile groundwater basin that extends from La Canada and the San Rafael hills on the west to Santa Anita Canyon on the east, from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the Raymond fault, a seven mile seismic feature, which runs along the boundary between Pasadena and South Pasadena and then extends out through San Marino and Arcadia to Santa Anita Canyon on the east. The groundwater basin is recharged by the Arroyo Seco, a tributary of the Los Angeles River, and by Eaton Canyon, Santa Anita Canyon and other streams in the watershed of the San Gabriel River. The Arroyo Seco stream contributes approximately one third of the natural replenishment of the aquifer. The long-term average yield of the Raymond Basin is about 30,000 acre-feet per year. Pumping rights in the Raymond Basin are adjudicated, i.e. determined by a court order, and managed by the Raymond Basin Management Board. The goal of the basin management program is to ensure a safe yield which will balance extraction with natural replenishment. Sixteen pumpers have rights to pump from the Raymond Basin. Three major subareas make up the aquifer: the Monk Hill subarea, which underlies La Canada and Northwest Pasadena, the larger Pasadena subarea, which underlies Pasadena and Altadena, and the Santa Anita subarea, which underlies Arcadia and Sierra Madre.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
    January 2018 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis SECTION 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects on hydrology and water quality from implementation of the proposed project. Data for this section were taken from the Glendale Emergency Plan, Glendale General Plan Safety Element Technical Background Report, the EPA, and Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Watermaster. Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.8.5 (References). 4.8.1 Environmental Setting Surface Water The proposed SGCP area is within the Los Angeles River watershed, which includes 834 square miles of Los Angeles County. The eastern portion of the watershed spans from the Santa Monica Mountains to the Simi Hills and in the west from the Santa Susana Mountains to the San Gabriel Mountains. The watershed encompasses and is shaped by the Los Angeles River. The river flows adjacent to the western and southern borders of the proposed SGCP area in a concrete lined channel. The upper portion of the watershed (Upper Los Angeles River Watershed), where the proposed SGCP area is located, contains a network of flood control dams and debris basins that flow to the Los Angeles River (LACDPW 2016). The Upper Los Angeles River watershed is home to approximately 2.3 million people, mostly in high density development in the interior valleys and foothills. Precipitation within the Upper Los Angeles River watershed typically falls in a few major storm events between November and March to an average of 19 inches per year.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Pasadena 175 North Garfield Avenue Pasadena, Ca 91101-1704
    CITY OF PASADENA 175 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE PASADENA, CA 91101-1704 INITIAL STUDY In accordance with the Environmental Policy Guidelines of the City of Pasadena, this analysis, and supporting data constitute the Initial Study for the subject project. This Initial Study provides the assessment for a determination whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION I - PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: Pasadena General Plan Update 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pasadena, Planning & Community Development Department 175 N. Garfield Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Scott Reimers, Planner Planning & Community Development Department City of Pasadena (626) 744-6710 4. Project Location: The project site is the entire City of Pasadena, which is in the west San Gabriel Valley in central Los Angeles County, six miles northeast of the Los Angeles Civic Center (see Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Aerial Photograph). 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Pasadena Scott Reimers, Planner Planning & Community Development Department 175 N. Garfield Avenue Pasadena, CA 91109 6. General Plan Designation: Various; see Section 8, below. 7. Zoning: Various; see Section 8, below. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed General Plan Update would apply to the entire City, spanning 14,802 acres from the southern slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains in the north to the west-central San Gabriel Valley in the south. The junction of the Interstate 210 (I-210), State Route 134 (SR-134), and I-710 freeways is near the western end of the City’s Central District; the I-210 then extends east across the central part of the City and north through the northwest part of the City.
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic EA for Outdoor Tests
    FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR JET PROPULSION LABORATORY PERIODIC SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING ACTIVITIES ON-SITE AND IN THE ARROYO SECO NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PREPARED BY Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 104 W. Anapamu Street, Suite 204A Santa Barbara, California 93101 MARCH 2018 FINAL FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR JET PROPULSION LABORATORY PERIODIC SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING ACTIVITIES ON-SITE AND IN THE ARROYO SECO 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code [USC] 4321, et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) policy and procedures (14 CFR Part 1216, Subpart 1216.3), NASA has made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the proposed JPL Periodic Scientific Development and Testing Activities On-Site and in the Arroyo Seco. NASA has reviewed the Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) prepared for the proposed periodic scientific development and testing activities and determined that it presents an accurate and adequate analysis of the scope and level of associated environmental impacts. NASA hereby incorporates the PEA by reference in this FONSI. The PEA programmatically assesses environmental impacts associated with a suite of outdoor scientific development and testing activities at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) on-site and within other appropriate landscapes in close proximity to NASA JPL, including the adjacent Arroyo Seco. These outdoor testing actions are small-scale, non-intrusive, short-duration outdoor testing, verification, and calibration activities, and are necessary to support and fulfill NASA scientific and technology demonstration missions as well as tasks conducted by NASA JPL under technology development agreement with other Federal agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • GOCHA Landfill Position Paper
    GLENOAKS CANYON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S (GOCHA) POSITION ON THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHOLL CANYON LANDFILL 2015 INTRODUCTION GOCHA represents the families of approximately 775 single-family homes within Glenoaks Canyon (“Canyon”), which is located at the eastern part of Glendale in the San Rafael Hills. The Scholl Canyon Landfill (“Landfill”) forms the easternmost boundary of the Canyon and is situated at the summit of a section of the San Rafael Hills directly above the Canyon. The Landfill extends from the summit of the San Rafael Hills to the bottom of Glenoaks Canyon where it terminates at the Lower Scholl Canyon Park. The Landfill’s address is 3001 Scholl Canyon Road, Glendale, California, 91206. It can be reached from the Ventura Freeway (State Route 134) by taking the Figueroa Street exit in Eagle Rock area of the City of Los Angeles. The Landfill consists of 535 acres, of which 440 acres of which are designated for landfill operations and 95 acres are designated for other related operations. Of the area designated for landfill operations, 314 acres are currently active and 126 acres are inactive. The Landfill was first opened in 1961 and currently serves a waste shed consisting of the cities of Glendale, Pasadena, La Canada-Flintridge, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena, and the unincorporated communities of Altadena, La Crescenta, Montrose, and East Pasadena. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GOCHA is opposed to the City of Glendale (The City) prolonging the current more than 50-year-life of the Scholl Canyon Landfill (1961 to 2015) either through the construction of an anaerobic digestion facility or expansion of the landfill site for waste disposal, as proposed in the Environmental Impact Report that will soon come before the City Council for review.
    [Show full text]
  • Detrital U–Pb Provenance, Mineralogy, and Geochemistry of the Cretaceous Colombian Back–Arc Basin
    Volume 2 Quaternary Chapter 8 Neogene https://doi.org/10.32685/pub.esp.36.2019.08 Detrital U–Pb Provenance, Mineralogy, and Published online 25 November 2020 Geochemistry of the Cretaceous Colombian Back–Arc Basin Paleogene Javier GUERRERO1* , Alejandra MEJÍA–MOLINA2 , and José OSORNO3 1 [email protected] Abstract The geology of the Cretaceous Colombian back–arc basin is reviewed con- Universidad Nacional de Colombia Cretaceous sidering detrital U–Pb provenance ages, mineralogy, and geochemistry of samples Sede Bogotá Departamento de Geociencias collected from outcrop sections and wells at several localities in the core of the Eastern Carrera 30 n.° 45–03 Bogotá, Colombia Cordillera, Middle Magdalena Valley, and Catatumbo areas. The data set supports previ- 2 [email protected] ous studies indicating a basin with main grabens in the present–day Eastern Cordillera Universidad Yachay Tech Hacienda Urcuquí s/n y Proyecto Yachay Jurassic between the Guaicáramo/Pajarito and Bituima/La Salina border faults, which operated Urcuquí, Ecuador as normal faults during the Cretaceous. Limestones are common on the western and 3 [email protected] Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos northern sides of the basin, whereas terrigenous strata predominate on the eastern Calle 26 n.° 59–65, segundo piso and southern sides. After the Berriasian, grabens were connected by marine flooding Bogotá, Colombia during the Valanginian, with two main source areas documented by distinct element * Corresponding author Triassic and mineral contents, one in the Central Cordillera magmatic arc and the other in the Guiana Shield. Some elements present in Lower Cretaceous shales, including scan- Supplementary Information: dium, vanadium, and beryllium, are not related to the sediment supply areas for the S: https://www2.sgc.gov.co/ LibroGeologiaColombia/tgc/ basin but instead are linked to Valanginian to Cenomanian hydrothermal activity and sgcpubesp36201908s.pdf Permian dikes of gabbro, diorite, and tonalite emplaced during the main phase of extension in the basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Uva-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Pleistocene centennial-scale vegetational, environmental and climatic change in the Colombian Andes: based on biotic and abiotic proxy analyses from Lake Fúquene sediments Bogotá-Angel, R.G. Publication date 2011 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Bogotá-Angel, R. G. (2011). Pleistocene centennial-scale vegetational, environmental and climatic change in the Colombian Andes: based on biotic and abiotic proxy analyses from Lake Fúquene sediments. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:09 Oct 2021 Chapter 5 Bogotá-A, R.G., Gaviria, S., Rincón-Martínez, D., Sarmiento, G., Hooghiemstra, H., Berrio J. C., Groot M. H. M., Verstraten, J. M., Jansen, B. Submitted to Journal of Quaternary Science 105 Chapter 5 Abstract ime series of a suite of geochemical elements ted and accumulated in a lacustrine environment.
    [Show full text]
  • B118 Basin Boundary Description 2003 –4 023 Raymond
    Hydrologic Region South Coast California’s Groundwater Raymond Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Raymond Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 4-23 • County: Los Angeles • Surface Area: 26,200 acres (40.9 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology The Raymond Basin is located in the northwest part of the San Gabriel Valley, in eastern Los Angeles County, and was considered a part of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin (4-13) in Bulletin 118-75 and Bulletin 118-80. The Raymond Basin includes the water-bearing sediments bounded by the contact with consolidated basement rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains on the north and the San Rafael Hills on the southwest. The west boundary is delineated by a drainage divide at Pickens Canyon Wash and the southeast boundary is the Raymond fault. Precipitation averages in the basin range from about 19 inches in valley to 25 inches in upland areas. The average precipitation over the basin is about 21 inches. Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations The water-bearing materials of Raymond Basin are dominated by unconsolidated Quaternary alluvial gravel, sand, and silt deposited by streams flowing out of the San Gabriel Mountains. Younger alluvium typically follows active streambeds and reaches a maximum thickness of about 150 feet. Older alluvium generally thickens southward from the mountain front, reaching a maximum of about 1,140 feet near Pasadena, then thins to about 200 feet near the Raymond fault (RBMB 1985). Water in the older alluvium is typically unconfined and clast sizes grade from coarser to finer moving away from the San Gabriel Mountains (DPW 1954; DWR 1971).
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Cretaceous Crustacea from Mexico and Colombia: Similar Faunas and Environments During Turonian Times
    Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas, Turonianv. 24, núm. Crustacea 3, 2007, p.from 403-422 Mexico and Colombia 403 Upper Cretaceous Crustacea from Mexico and Colombia: similar faunas and environments during Turonian times Francisco J. Vega1,*, Torrey Nyborg2, Alexis Rojas-Briceño3, Pedro Patarroyo3, Javier Luque4, Héctor Porras-Múzquiz5, and Wolfgang Stinnesbeck6 1 Instituto de Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, 04510 México, D.F., Mexico. 2 Department of of Earth and Biological Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda CA, 92350, USA. 3 Departamento de Geociencias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, A. A. 14490, Bogotá, Colombia. 4 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. Apartado Postal 0843-03092, Balboa, Ancon, Panama. 5 Museo de Múzquiz A. C., Zaragoza 209, 26340, Múzquiz, Coahuila, Mexico. 6 Geologisch-Paläontologisches Institut, Im Neuenheimer Feld 234, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. * [email protected] ABSTRACT Nine taxa represent the crustacean component of the Turonian fauna from the Eagle Ford Group limestones and marls that crop out in several quarries, northwest of Múzquiz, Coahuila, Mexico. Three crustacean taxa are found in common with deposits of similar age and paleoenvironment of the San Rafael Formation of Colombia. Planktic foraminifera, ammonoids, inoceramid bivalves, fi shes, marine reptiles, a pterosaur and plant remains were preserved in the Múzquiz quarries, in what has been interpreted as an anoxic, low energy bottom at a water depth of no less than 50 m. The cirriped Stramentum preserved on the ammonite Forresteria is described. Stomatopod remains of the family Pseudosculdidae are described, their incompleteness and poor preservation prevent their detailed identifi cation. One species of scyllarid lobster is included.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment Report March 9, 2018 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT
    BIOGAS RENEWABLE GENERATION PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment Report March 9, 2018 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT C.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BEHALF OF GLENDALE WATER AND POWER FOR THE PROPOSED BIOGAS RENEWABLE GENERATION PROJECT, SAN RAFAEL HILLS, GLENDALE, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA • Phase I cultural resources survey of 20.5 acres in unsectioned portions of Rancho San Rafael, as depicted on the Pasadena, CA (1994) USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle • Historic period resource SC-1 • Cultural resources survey of locations for the proposed Biogas Renewable Generation Project • San Rafael Hills, Glendale, Los Angeles County, California Submitted to: City of Glendale Water and Power Department Submitted by: Hubert Switalski and Michelle Cross Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 5500 Ming Avenue, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93309-4627 July 2017 This document may contain sensitive archaeological information. Not for public distribution. This document entitled CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BEHALF OF GLENDALE WATER AND POWER FOR THE PROPOSED BIOGAS RENEWABLE GENERATION PROJECT, SAN RAFAEL HILLS, GLENDALE, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for the account of City of Glendale Water and Power Department. The material in it reflects Stantec Consulting Services Inc. best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Lithology and Geochemistry of the Guadalupe Group Base Around Tunja, This Work Is Distributed Under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
    Boletín Geológico, 47, 35-65, 2020 https://doi.org/10.32685/0120-1425/ boletingeo.47.2020.494 Lithology and geochemistry of the Guadalupe Group base around Tunja, This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Boyacá, Colombia Received: May 12, 2020 Revised: July 27, 2020 Accepted: September 17, 2020 Litología y geoquímica de la base del Grupo Guadalupe, en los Published online: December 28, 2020 alrededores de Tunja, Boyacá, Colombia German Martínez Aparicio1, Pedro Patarroyo2 and Roberto Terraza Melo1 1. Servicio Geológico Colombiano, (SGC), Bogotá, Colombia. 2. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, (UNAL), Bogotá, Colombia. Corresponding author: German Martínez Aparicio, [email protected] Abstract The base of the Guadalupe Group, in the Tunja area of Colombia, contains cherts, porcellanites, mudstones, and siltstones with subordinate quartz arenites. The lithostratigraphic description of two stratigraphic sections showed that the dominant facies have fine granular textures and siliceous compositions, which considerably differ from those of the prevailing sandy terrigenous facies described in the type locality in the Eastern Hills of Bogotá, in the Arenisca Dura Formation, the basal unit of the Guadalupe Group in this sector. The units that form the Guadalupe Group (base of the Guadalupe Group, Plaeners, and Arenisca Tierna) markedly differ from each other morphologically, which facilitates their mapping because the base and top units generate a steep morphology, and the intermediate units form surface depressions or valleys, similar to the morphology of the Guadalupe Group in its type locality in the Eastern Hills of Bogotá. The base of the Guadalupe Group consists of cherts and porcellanites toward the NW of the study area (Alto del Gavilán section), with mudstones, siltstones, quartz arenites, and to a lesser extent porcellanites and cherts prevailing toward the SE (Vereda Salitre section).
    [Show full text]