DOCSLIB.ORG

Friant-Kern Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction Project | Vii Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Friant-Kern Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction Project | Vii Table of Contents 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact 2 Report 3 Friant-Kern Canal Middle Reach 4 Capacity Correction Project 5 EIS/EIR-18-057 6 State Clearinghouse No. 2019120007 Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this EIS/EIR $2,050,000 Bureau of Reclamation Interior Region 10 California-Great Basin California*, Nevada*, Oregon* *Partial September 2020 1 Mission Statements 2 The mission of the Department of the Interior is to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural resources 3 and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provide scientific and other 4 information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create 5 opportunities for the American people, and honor the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special 6 commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them 7 prosper. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related 8 resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. 9 Friant Water Authority is a public agency formed by its members under California law to operate and 10 maintain the Friant-Kern Canal and to represent our members in federal or state policy, and in political 11 and operational decisions that could affect the Friant Division’s water supply. Friant’s goal is to provide 12 dependable, sustainable water from Millerton Lake to Friant Contractors. 1 Friant-Kern Canal Middle Reach Capacity 2 Correction Project 3 Final Environmental Impact 4 Statement/Environmental Impact Report 5 NEPA Lead Agency: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Interior 6 Region 10 California – Great Basin 7 CEQA Lead Agency: Friant Water Authority 8 State Clearinghouse # 2019120007 9 Since completion of construction by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in 1951, the Friant-Kern 10 Canal (FKC) has lost its ability to fully meet its previously designed and constructed capacity, resulting 11 in restrictions on water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. The reduction in capacity 12 is a result of several factors, including regional land subsidence that has occurred over the past several 13 decades, original design deficiency, and other factors that prevent the intended flow capacity. Hydraulic 14 modeling, completed as part of the Friant-Kern Canal Capacity Restoration Feasibility Report, 15 authorized pursuant to Section 10201(a)(1) of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, in 16 Public Law 111-11, confirmed the reduction in FKC capacity. 17 Reclamation and the Friant Water Authority, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the 18 California Environmental Quality Act, respectively, have prepared this Final Environmental Impact 19 Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS/R) to analyze the Friant-Kern Canal Middle Reach 20 Capacity Correction Project. The Final EIS/R analyzes the proposed alternatives to restore an 21 approximately 33-mile reach of the FKC from milepost 88 to milepost 121.5. 22 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 23 Rain Emerson, Environmental Compliance Branch Chief 24 Bureau of Reclamation 25 1243 N Street, Fresno, CA 93721 26 Phone: (559) 262-0335 27 Email: [email protected] 28 Doug DeFlitch, Chief Operating Officer 29 Friant Water Authority 30 854 N. Harvard Ave. Lindsay, CA 93277 31 Phone: (559) 562-6305 32 Email: [email protected] Table of Contents 1 Table of Contents 2 Page 3 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... xi 4 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... xii 5 CEQA Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................. xii 6 Alternatives Evaluated in this Final EIS/R ............................................................................. xii 7 Environmental Commitments/Mitigation Measures .............................................................. xiv 8 Summary of Environmental Impacts by Resource ................................................................ xiv 9 Chapter 1. Introduction, Purpose and Need, and Project Objectives ......................................1 10 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement and Act ...................................................................3 11 NEPA Purpose and Need ...........................................................................................................4 12 CEQA Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................................4 13 Agency Coordination .................................................................................................................4 14 NEPA Cooperating Agencies ....................................................................................................5 15 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................7 16 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................7 17 No Action/No Project Alternative .............................................................................................8 18 Project Alternatives ....................................................................................................................8 19 General Construction Practices ................................................................................................13 20 Comparison of Existing Conditions with Project Alternatives ................................................14 21 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ..................................................................................16 22 Environmental Commitments/Mitigation Measures ................................................................18 23 Chapter 3. Affected Environment/ Environmental Setting .....................................................21 24 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................21 25 Air Quality ...............................................................................................................................21 26 Biological Resources ...............................................................................................................23 27 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................25 28 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................28 29 Greenhouse Gases/Climate Change .........................................................................................34 30 Hazards and Hazardous Materials/Wildfire .............................................................................35 31 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................37 32 Land Use and Planning and Agricultural Resources ...............................................................42 33 Noise ........................................................................................................................................47 34 Transportation ..........................................................................................................................48 35 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................49 36 Utilities and Service Systems and Energy ...............................................................................51 37 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences/ Environmental Impacts .......................................53 38 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................53 39 Air Quality ...............................................................................................................................54 40 Biological Resources ...............................................................................................................63 41 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................71 42 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................76 Friant-Kern Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction Project | vii Table of Contents 1 Greenhouse Gases/Climate Change .........................................................................................80 2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials/Wildfire .............................................................................85 3 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................89 4 Land Use and Planning and Agricultural Resources ...............................................................93 5 Noise ........................................................................................................................................99 6 Transportation ........................................................................................................................103
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Water Quality Performance and Greenhouse Gas Flux Dynamics
    University of Vermont ScholarWorks @ UVM Graduate College Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 2018 Water Quality Performance And Greenhouse Gas Flux Dynamics From Compost-Amended Bioretention Systems & Potential Trade-Offs Between Phytoremediation And Water Quality Stemming From Compost Amendments Paliza Shrestha University of Vermont Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/graddis Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons, and the Soil Science Commons Recommended Citation Shrestha, Paliza, "Water Quality Performance And Greenhouse Gas Flux Dynamics From Compost-Amended Bioretention Systems & Potential Trade-Offs Between Phytoremediation And Water Quality Stemming From Compost Amendments" (2018). Graduate College Dissertations and Theses. 851. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/graddis/851 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks @ UVM. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate College Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ UVM. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WATER QUALITY PERFORMANCE AND GREENHOUSE GAS FLUX DYNAMICS FROM COMPOST-AMENDED BIORETENTION SYSTEMS & POTENTIAL TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN PHYTOREMEDIATION AND WATER QUALITY STEMMING FROM COMPOST AMENDMENTS A Dissertation Presented by Paliza Shrestha to The Faculty of the Graduate College of The University of Vermont In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Specializing in Plant and Soil Science May, 2018 Defense Date: December 06, 2017 Dissertation Examination Committee: Stephanie E. Hurley, D.Des, Advisor Beverley C. Wemple, Ph.D., Chairperson Elizabeth Carol Adair, Ph.D. Josef H. Görres, Ph.D. Cynthia J. Forehand, Ph.D., Dean of the Graduate College ABSTRACT Stormwater runoff from existing impervious surfaces needs to be managed to protect downstream waterbodies from hydrologic and water quality impacts associated with development.
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY San Luis Field Division San Joaquin Field Division
    State of California California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Division of Engineering CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY San Luis Field Division San Joaquin Field Division June 2017 State of California California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Division of Engineering CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY Jeanne M. Kuttel ......................................................................................... Division Chief Joseph W. Royer .......................... Chief, Geotechnical and Engineering Services Branch Tru Van Nguyen ............................... Supervising Engineer, General Engineering Section G. Robert Barry .................. Supervising Engineering Geologist, Project Geology Section by James Lopes ................................................................................ Senior Engineer, W.R. John M. Curless .................................................................. Senior Engineering Geologist Anna Gutierrez .......................................................................................... Engineer, W.R. Ganesh Pandey .................................................................... Supervising Engineer, W.R. assisted by Bradley von Dessonneck ................................................................ Engineering Geologist Steven Friesen ...................................................................... Engineer, Water Resources Dan Mardock .............................................................................. Chief, Geodetic
    [Show full text]
  • County Kings
    COMPREHENSIVE KINGS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY COUNTY 2015 california ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & JOB TRAINING OFFICE Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee 4 About Kings County Economic Development Corporation (Kings EDC) 5 Kings County Demographic Profile 6 Population Birth Rate Educational Attainment Labor Force Industry Employment Industry Trends & Outlook 10 Trade, Transportation & Utilities Manufacturing Education & Health Services Government Geography & Weather 12 Economic Factors 12 Per Capita Income Housing Median Home Prices Building Permits Issued Taxable Sales Property Tax Values Transportation & Utilities 15 Naval Air Station Lemoore 16 Kings County Communities 17 Avenal Corcoran Hanford Lemoore Economic Overview and Targeted Industries 25 EDA Project Successes 26 EDA Projects 28 City of Hanford #1 City of Hanford #2 City of Avenal CEDS Committee Recommendations 32 Resources 34 1 Executive Summary The Kings County Economic Development Corporation (Kings EDC) is pleased to present Kings County, California’s Compre- hensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). This report presents a socio-economic overview of Kings County and high- lights economic development activities and projects undertaken by public and private entities to create jobs, improve the economy and provide services to the residents of Kings County. Kings County is located in the heart of California’s rapidly growing San Joaquin Valley, the richest agricultural area in the world. With that distinction also comes the challenges of an economy which has historically been dependent on seasonal agriculture and low wages. Government is the largest employer, followed by agriculture, trade, transportation & utilities, education & health care, and manufacturing. The region suffered through a persistent drought during the last half of the 2000’s decade.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maine Bugle 1894
    r THE MAINE BUGLE. Entered at the Po$t Office, Rockland, Me., at Second-Ctati Matter. Campaign I. January, 1894. Call i Its echoing notes your memories shall renew From sixty-one until the grant! review. UBLISHED QUARTERLY, JANUARY, APRIL, JULY AND OCTOBER, AND WILL BE THE ORGAN OF THE " MEN OF MAINE " WHO SERVED IN THE WAR OF THE REBELLION. NO OTHER STATE HAS A PROUDER RECORD. IT WILL CONTAIN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THEIR YEARLY REUNIONS, MATTERS OF HISTORIC VALUE TO EACH REGI- MENT, AND ITEMS OF PERSONAL INTEREST TO ALL ITS MEMBERS. IT IS ALSO THE ORGAN OF THE CAVALRY SOCIETY OF THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND WILL PUBLISH THE ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS OF THAT SOCIETY AND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE VARIOUS REGIMENTS NORTH AND SOUTH WHICH PARTICIPATED IN THE WAR OF THE REBELUON. PRICE ONE DOLLAR A YEAR, OR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS A CALL Editors, Committees from the Maine Regiments. Published by the Maine Association. Address, J. P. Cuxey, Treasurer, RoCKlAND, Mainb. L rs^^ A . A. 41228 Save Money. — Regular Subscribers and those not regular subscribers to the Bugle may, by ordering through us the periodicals for which they arc subscrib- ers, add Bf r.i.E at a greatly reduced price if not without cost. Thus if you wish, let us say, Cosmopolitan and Harper^s Monthly, send the money through this ofTice and we will add Bugle to the list without extra cost. Regular With Price Bugle Arena, *5-oo Army and Navy Journal, Atlantic Monthly, Blue and CIray, Canadian Sportsman, Cassel's Family Magazine, Century, Cosmopolitan, Current Literature, Decorator and Furnisher, Demorest's Family Magazine Fancier, Godey's Ladies' Book, Harper's Bazar or Weekly, Harper's Magazine, Harper's Young People, Home Journal, Horseman, Illustrated American, Journal of Military Service and Institution, Judge, Life, Lippincott's Magazine, Littell's Living Age, North American Review, New England Magazine, Outing, Popular Science Monthly, Public Opinion, Review of Reviews, Scicntiiic American, Supplement, Both, same address.
    [Show full text]
  • The Formation of San Francisco Bay
    The Formation of San Francisco Bay Watch the segment online at http://education.savingthebay.org/the-formation-of-san-francisco-bay Watch the segment on DVD: Episode 1, 14:19–17:33 Video length: 3 minutes 33 seconds SUBJECT/S VIDEO OVERVIEW Science The west coast of North America once extended 27 miles west of the Golden Gate. The San Francisco Bay as we know it is a very young landform in geologic time. History In this segment you’ll learn that: GRADE LEVELS the west coast of North America has changed dramatically over time. 6–8 the Bay with which we are familiar was created just 10,000 years ago. San Francisco Bay is a flooded river canyon that CA CONTENT formed as a result of rising sea levels at the end of STANDARDS the last ice age. Grade 4 Earth Sciences TOPIC BACKGROUND 5.a. Students know some changes in the earth are due There is a sense of permanence in the Bay Area landscape. Yet the familiar three-bay to slow processes, such as formation is very young on a geologic time scale—just 10,000 or so years old. A million erosion, and some changes years ago, there were rolling grasslands in the region where today lies the San are due to rapid processes, Francisco Bay. An enormous inland sea called Corcoran Lake covered what is now the such as landslides, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes. Central Valley. Over time, geologic processes slowly transformed the land into the now familiar landscape. Grade 7 About 560,000 years ago, as the earth’s huge tectonic plates slowly shifted, the land Life Sciences—Earth and sank and the southern end of Lake Corcoran rose.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Wastewater Treatment Plants on Retainment of Plastic Microparticles to Enhance Water Quality—A Review
    Journal of Environmental Protection, 2021, 12, 161-195 https://www.scirp.org/journal/jep ISSN Online: 2152-2219 ISSN Print: 2152-2197 The Effect of Wastewater Treatment Plants on Retainment of Plastic Microparticles to Enhance Water Quality—A Review Rana Zeeshan Habib1, Ruwaya Al Kendi1, Thies Thiemann2* 1Department of Biology, College of Science, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates 2Department of Chemistry, College of Science, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates How to cite this paper: Habib, R.Z., Al Abstract Kendi, R. and Thiemann, T. (2021) The Ef- fect of Wastewater Treatment Plants on Microplastics, plastic pieces of ≤5 mm in size, are ubiquitous in ther envi- Retainment of Plastic Microparticles to En- ronment and can be found in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. This hance Water Quality—A Review. Journal of manuscript reviews the literature on the fate of microplastics in wastewater Environmental Protection, 12, 161-195. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2021.123011 treatment and briefly highlights novel developments in the removal of micro- plastics from aqueous systems. Received: January 27, 2021 Accepted: March 16, 2021 Keywords Published: March 19, 2021 Microplastics, Nanoplastics, Wastewater Treatment Plants, Sludge Copyright © 2021 by author(s) and Treatment, Plastic Retainment Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). 1. Introduction http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access One year has passed since our first review on microplastics and wastewater treatment plants [1]. Since then, a number of other reviews on the topic have appeared [2]-[11] that complement reviews that had been there previously [12] [13] [14] [15] [16].
    [Show full text]
  • County Kings
    COMPREHENSIVE KINGS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY COUNTY 2015 california ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & JOB TRAINING OFFICE Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee 4 About Kings County Economic Development Corporation (Kings EDC) 5 Kings County Demographic Profile 6 Population Birth Rate Educational Attainment Labor Force Industry Employment Industry Trends & Outlook 10 Trade, Transportation & Utilities Manufacturing Education & Health Services Government Geography & Weather 12 Economic Factors 12 Per Capita Income Housing Median Home Prices Building Permits Issued Taxable Sales Property Tax Values Transportation & Utilities 15 Naval Air Station Lemoore 16 Kings County Communities 17 Avenal Corcoran Hanford Lemoore Economic Overview and Targeted Industries 25 EDA Project Successes 26 EDA Projects 28 City of Hanford #1 City of Hanford #2 City of Avenal CEDS Committee Recommendations 32 Resources 34 1 Executive Summary The Kings County Economic Development Corporation (Kings EDC) is pleased to present Kings County, California’s Compre- hensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). This report presents a socio-economic overview of Kings County and high- lights economic development activities and projects undertaken by public and private entities to create jobs, improve the economy and provide services to the residents of Kings County. Kings County is located in the heart of California’s rapidly growing San Joaquin Valley, the richest agricultural area in the world. With that distinction also comes the challenges of an economy which has historically been dependent on seasonal agriculture and low wages. Government is the largest employer, followed by agriculture, trade, transportation & utilities, education & health care, and manufacturing. The region suffered through a persistent drought during the last half of the 2000’s decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Th12d ' (831) 427~863
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE y 725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 . SANTACRUZ, CA 95060 Th12d ' (831) 427~863 Filed: •7/3/2003 49th day: 8/21/2003 RECORD PACKET COPY 180'h day:* 12/30/2003 *PSA deadline extended to: 3/29/2004 Staff: D.Carl Staff report prepared: 2/26/2004 Hearing date: 3/18/2004 Hearing item number: Th12d COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Application number ....... 3-03-035, Williams Beach SFD Applicant ......................... E.J. Williams Project location ............... Part sandy beach and part fill area on the beach between East Cliff Drive and the Monterey Bay near Moran Lake in the unincorporated Live Oak area of Santa Cruz County (2-2796 East Cliff Drive, APN 028-481-03). Project description ......... Construct a three-story, flat-roofed, 28-foot (above the grade of East Cliff Drive), roughly 3,000 gross square foot residence (with a partially cantilevered upper story and upper story deck, middle "void" story, and bottom story garage) with a foundation consisting of 5-foot wide and 3-foot thick concrete perimeter beams on top of four 54-inch diameter and 44-foot deep concrete caissons, with eight concrete caissons atop the garage perimeter beams supporting the remainder of the structure. Project also includes a driveway, utility connections, and landscaping between the residence and East Cliff Drive. File documents ................ Santa Cruz County certified Local Coastal Program (LCP); California Coastal Commission Monterey Bay ReCAP; California Coastal Commission coastal development permit (CDP) and emergency permit files 3-81-063 (Formica and Poco), 3-83-051-G (Formica), 3-97-002-G (Formica), 3-97-005-DM (Williams), 3-02-033 (Williams), 3-03-001-G (Williams), and 3-03-024 (Williams); Santa Cruz County CDP file 00-0189 (Williams).
    [Show full text]
  • August 8, 2018 Agenda
    GWA Advisory Committee August 8, 2018 Agenda • Approval of July Meeting Minutes • Minimum Thresholds • Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model • Projected Water Budget • Project and Management Actions • September Agenda Items 2 Minimum Thresholds Developing Minimum Thresholds is an Iterative Process Projects and Management Actions Undesirable Minimum Measurable Results Thresholds Objectives Sustainability Water Budget Proposed Groundwater Levels Threshold - Objectives • Understand work completed to date • Preliminary threshold • Preliminary monitoring locations • Review and confirm with your GSA leadership prior to next meeting • A file with GSA details will be emailed to each within the week (GSA map, full basin map, file with data for wells) 5 Threshold Development • Mapped lowest elevation of 1992 or 2015 • Met with GSAs to confirm understanding • Developed alternative methodology with high/stable groundwater elevations (variance of last 5 years of data applied to lowest level recorded as a buffer) • Identified monitoring locations for groundwater thresholds 6 Proposed Monitoring Well Selection Well Characteristics • Spatial representation (>1 well per GSA) • Wells selected are CASGEM where available (pre-screened/selected by County during CASGEM process) • Wells have representative behavior of area • Good historical record • Well construction information 7 Proposed Groundwater Elevation Thresholds – First Iteration 8 Proposed Groundwater Elevation (as DTW) Thresholds 9 Preliminary Thresholds Compared to Current DTW 10 Average Domestic Well
    [Show full text]
  • From California
    Molecular Ecology (2013) 22, 508–526 doi: 10.1111/mec.12130 Crossing the uncrossable: novel trans-valley biogeographic patterns revealed in the genetic history of low-dispersal mygalomorph spiders (Antrodiaetidae, Antrodiaetus) from California MARSHAL HEDIN,* JAMES STARRETT† and CHERYL HAYASHI† *Department of Biology, San Diego State University San Diego, San Diego, CA 92182-4614, USA, †Department of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA Abstract Antrodiaetus riversi is a dispersal-limited, habitat-specialized mygalomorph spider species endemic to mesic woodlands of northern and central California. Here, we build upon prior phylogeographic research using a much larger geographic sample and include additional nuclear genes, providing more detailed biogeographic insights throughout the range of this complex. Of particular interest is the uncovering of unex- pected and replicated trans-valley biogeographic patterns, where in two separate genetic clades western haplotypes in the California south Coast Ranges are phyloge- netically closely related to eastern haplotypes from central and northern Sierran foot- hills. In both instances, these trans-valley phylogenetic patterns are strongly supported by multiple genes. These western and eastern populations are currently separated by the Central Valley, a well-recognized modern-day and historical biogeographic barrier in California. For one clade, the directionality is clearly northeast to southwest, and all available evidence is consistent with a jump dispersal event estimated at 1.2–1.3 Ma. During this time period, paleogeographic data indicate that northern Sierran rivers emptied to the ocean in the south Coast Ranges, rather than at the San Francisco Bay. For the other trans-valley clade genetic evidence is less conclusive regarding the mech- anism and directionality of biogeographic exchange, although the estimated timeframe is similar (approximately 1.8 Ma).
    [Show full text]
  • The Climate of the San Joaquin Valley, and Even the Land Under Our Feet, Has Been Changing for a Very Long Time. • We
    • The climate of the San Joaquin Valley, and even the land under our feet, has been changing for a very long time. • We are going to start our tour of the valley by going way back in time. 1 • Movement along the San Andreas Fault occurs at a pretty steady clip, just over an inch per year. • Santa Cruz used to be 150 miles south of Coalinga, opposite Bakersfield. • Now it is 150 miles north of Coalinga, on the north side of Monterey Bay. • The Temblor Sea existed in the Kern County area about 15 million years ago. • That was during the Miocene epoch, when the Earth was hot and the ocean was warm. • Sharktooth Hill NE of Bakersfield dates from this period. • The Buena Vista Museum of Natural History & Science on Chester Av in Bakersfield has nice exhibits of sperm whales, giant megalodon sharks, and huge sea lions that lived in the Temblor Sea. • As the deep ocean connection closed off about 10 million years ago, a seaway opened connecting the San Joaquin marine basin near Coalinga with Elkhorn Slough via Warthan Canyon and Priest Valley. • Think about that when you drive Highway 198 toward Pinnacles National Park. • About 5 million years ago, the valley oceanic embayment began to fill with tremendous amounts of sediment. • Several vertical miles of sediment accumulated in just a few million years. • The sand dollar fossils in the Kettleman Hills date from this period. • We are currently entering into a warmer time period than humans have ever experienced. • The period that existed about 3 million years ago is the most recent time when temperatures were substantially warmer than the present for sustained periods.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Basin Settings
    Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Draft November 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NO. 1.1 Basin Settings ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1.1 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model ........................................................................................... 4 1.1.1.1 Regional Geologic and Structural Setting ................................................................. 4 1.1.1.2 Geologic History ....................................................................................................... 4 1.1.1.3 Geologic Formations and Stratigraphy ..................................................................... 6 1.1.1.4 Faults and Structural Features ............................................................................... 26 1.1.1.5 Subbasin Boundaries ............................................................................................. 26 1.1.1.5.1 Lateral Boundaries and Boundaries with Neighboring Subbasins ............ 26 1.1.1.5.2 Bottom of the Merced Basin ..................................................................... 28 1.1.1.6 Principal Aquifers and Aquitards ............................................................................ 29 1.1.1.6.1 Aquifers in the Basin ................................................................................ 29 1.1.1.6.2 Principal Aquifers and Aquitards .............................................................
    [Show full text]