DOCSLIB.ORG

AB3030 Groundwater Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AB3030 Groundwater Management Plan FINALFINAL AB3030 Groundwater Management Plan Prepared for Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District November 2007 Todd Engineers with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants FINAL AB3030 Groundwater Management Plan Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District Kern County, California Prepared for: Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District 12109 Highway 166 Bakersfield, CA 93313 Prepared by: Todd Engineers 2200 Powell Street, Suite 225 Emeryville, CA 94608 with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 1000 Hill Road, Suite 200 Ventura, CA 93003-4455 November 2007 Table of Contents List of Tables....................................................................................................................... v List of Figures..................................................................................................................... v List of Appendices............................................................................................................... v Executive Summary...................................................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................1 1.1. Background......................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Goals and Objectives of the Plan........................................................................ 2 1.3. Public Participation............................................................................................. 2 1.4. Accuracy of Values in Plan................................................................................. 2 2. Management Area....................................................................................................... 4 2.1. District Boundaries............................................................................................. 4 2.2. DWR Groundwater Basin................................................................................... 4 2.3. Physical Setting................................................................................................... 5 2.3.1. Topography................................................................................................. 5 2.3.2. Geology....................................................................................................... 5 2.3.3. Land Use..................................................................................................... 6 2.4. Hydrologic Setting.............................................................................................. 8 2.4.1. Precipitation ................................................................................................ 8 2.4.2. Evapotranspiration ...................................................................................... 9 2.4.3. Surface Water.............................................................................................. 9 2.4.4. Imported Water......................................................................................... 10 2.4.5. Groundwater ............................................................................................. 10 2.4.5.1. Aquifers and Hydrostratigraphy ....................................................... 10 2.4.5.2. Subareas ............................................................................................ 11 2.4.5.3. Groundwater Recharge and Discharge ............................................. 12 2.4.5.4. Regional Groundwater Flow............................................................. 13 3. Assessment of the Groundwater Basin ..................................................................... 14 3.1. Water Levels and Groundwater Flow............................................................... 14 3.1.1. Water Level Data ...................................................................................... 14 3.1.2. Water Level Trends and Fluctuations....................................................... 14 3.1.2.1. Maricopa Subarea............................................................................. 15 3.1.2.2. Wheeler West Subarea...................................................................... 16 3.1.2.3. Wheeler East Subarea ....................................................................... 17 3.1.2.4. White Wolf Subarea.......................................................................... 17 3.1.3. Groundwater Flow.................................................................................... 18 3.2. Groundwater Quality........................................................................................ 19 3.2.1. Water Quality Data ................................................................................... 19 3.2.2. Inorganic Water Quality ........................................................................... 19 3.2.3. Organic Constituent Testing ..................................................................... 20 3.3. Groundwater Use.............................................................................................. 21 3.3.1. Estimates of Historical Crop Demand ...................................................... 21 3.3.2. Estimates of Groundwater Extraction....................................................... 23 Final GWMP ii Todd Engineers 11-08-07 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 3.3.3. Estimated Locations of Groundwater Extraction...................................... 24 3.3.4. Water Sources and Future Demand .......................................................... 25 3.3.4.1. State Water Project Water (SWP)..................................................... 26 3.3.4.2. Water Banking Programs and the District ........................................ 28 3.3.4.3. Kern Water Bank.............................................................................. 28 3.3.4.4. Pioneer Project.................................................................................. 28 3.3.4.5. Berrenda Mesa.................................................................................. 29 3.3.5. Assessment of Future Groundwater Use in SWSA .................................. 29 3.4. Land Subsidence............................................................................................... 31 4. Monitoring Program and Protocols........................................................................... 33 4.1. Water Level Monitoring ................................................................................... 33 4.1.1. District Water Level Monitoring Program................................................ 33 4.1.2. DWR Water Level Monitoring ................................................................. 34 4.1.3. Additional Water Level Monitoring ......................................................... 34 4.2. Water Quality Monitoring................................................................................. 34 4.2.1. District Water Quality Monitoring Program............................................. 34 4.2.2. Water Quality Standards for User Input Program..................................... 35 4.2.3. Water Quality Monitoring by Other Agencies.......................................... 35 4.2.4. GAMA Monitoring near Bakersfield........................................................ 35 4.3. Surface Water Monitoring ................................................................................ 36 4.4. Imported Water Monitoring.............................................................................. 36 4.5. Land Subsidence Monitoring............................................................................ 36 4.6. Climatic Monitoring..........................................................................................37 4.7. Coordination with Other Programs................................................................... 37 5. Basin Management Objectives ................................................................................. 38 5.1. Prevent a Return to Historical Overdraft .......................................................... 38 5.2. Maintain Groundwater Quality......................................................................... 38 5.3. Monitor Water Levels, Water Quality, and Groundwater Storage ................... 39 5.4. Estimate Groundwater Use and Future Groundwater Demands....................... 39 5.5. Update the Progress on Achieving BMOs........................................................ 39 6. Management Actions................................................................................................ 40 6.1. AB3030 Checklist............................................................................................. 40 6.1.1. Overdraft, Replenishment, and Conjunctive Use ..................................... 40 6.1.2. Well Construction and Relationship with Other Agencies....................... 42 6.1.3. Groundwater Quality and Wellhead/Recharge Zone Protection .............. 42 6.1.4. Monitoring Groundwater Levels and Storage........................................... 43 6.2. Recommended Management Actions ............................................................... 43 6.2.1. Optimize the Integration of the District’s Water Sources......................... 43 6.2.2. Secure Additional Water Sources as Needed............................................ 44 6.2.3. Prepare a Groundwater Development Program ........................................ 44 6.2.3.1. Evaluate Range of Operating Water Levels.....................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Edison-Maricopa Area Kern County, California
    Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Edison-Maricopa Area Kern County, California By P. R. WOOD and R. H. DALE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1656 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Heater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. Geological Survey Library catalog card for tbis publication appears on page following tbe index. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract______________-_______----_-_._________________________ 1 Introduction._________________________________-----_------_-______ 3 The water probiem-________--------------------------------__- 3 Purpose of the investigation.___________________________________ 4 Scope and methods of study.___________________________________ 5 Location and general features of the area_________________________ 6 Previous investigations.________________________________________ 8 Acknowledgments. ____________________________________________ 9 Well-numbering system._______________________________________ 9 Geography ___________________________________________________ 11 Climate.__-________________-____-__------_-----_---_-_-_----_ 11 Physiography_..__________________-__-__-_-_-___-_---_-----_-_- 14 General features_________________________________________ 14 Sierra Nevada___________________________________________ 15 Tehachapi Mountains..---.________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Connectivity Planning for Selected Focal Species in the Carrizo Plain
    Habitat Connectivity Planning for Selected Focal Species in the Carrizo Plain BLM Chuck Graham Chuck Graham Agena Garnett-Ruskovich Advisory Panel Members: Paul Beier, Ph.D., Northern Arizona University Patrick Huber, Ph.D., University of California Davis Steve Kohlmann, Ph.D., Tierra Resource Management Bob Stafford, California Department of Fish and Game Brian Cypher, Ph.D., University of Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program also served as an Advisory Panel Member when this project was under the California Energy Commission’s jurisdiction. Preferred Citation: Penrod, K., W. Spencer, E. Rubin, and C. Paulman. April 2010. Habitat Connectivity Planning for Selected Focal Species in the Carrizo Plain. Prepared for County of San Luis Obsipo by SC Wildlands, http://www.scwildlands.org Habitat Connectivity Planning for Selected Focal Species in the Carrizo Plain Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 2.1. Background and Project Need 3. Project Setting 3.1. The Study Area 3.1.1. Location 3.1.2. Physical Features 3.1.3. Biological Features 3.1.4. Human Features 3.2. The Proposed Energy Projects 3.2.1. Topaz Solar Farm 3.2.2. SunPower – California Valley Solar Ranch 4. The Focal Species 4.1. Pronghorn antelope 4.2. Tule elk 4.3. San Joaquin kit fox 5. Conservation Planning Approach 5.1. Modeling Baseline Conditions Of Habitat Suitability And Connectivity For Each Focal Species 5.1.1. Compilation And Refinement Of Digital Data Layers 5.1.2. Modeling Habitat Suitability 5.1.3. Modeling Landscape Permeability 5.1.4. Species-Specific Model Input Data And Conceptual Basis For Model Development 5.1.4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographic Names
    GEOGRAPHIC NAMES CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES ? REVISED TO JANUARY, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911 PREPARED FOR USE IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BY THE UNITED STATES GEOGRAPHIC BOARD WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY, 1911 ) CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. The following list of geographic names includes all decisions on spelling rendered by the United States Geographic Board to and including December 7, 1910. Adopted forms are shown by bold-face type, rejected forms by italic, and revisions of previous decisions by an asterisk (*). Aalplaus ; see Alplaus. Acoma; township, McLeod County, Minn. Abagadasset; point, Kennebec River, Saga- (Not Aconia.) dahoc County, Me. (Not Abagadusset. AQores ; see Azores. Abatan; river, southwest part of Bohol, Acquasco; see Aquaseo. discharging into Maribojoc Bay. (Not Acquia; see Aquia. Abalan nor Abalon.) Acworth; railroad station and town, Cobb Aberjona; river, IVIiddlesex County, Mass. County, Ga. (Not Ackworth.) (Not Abbajona.) Adam; island, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester Abino; point, in Canada, near east end of County, Md. (Not Adam's nor Adams.) Lake Erie. (Not Abineau nor Albino.) Adams; creek, Chatham County, Ga. (Not Aboite; railroad station, Allen County, Adams's.) Ind. (Not Aboit.) Adams; township. Warren County, Ind. AJjoo-shehr ; see Bushire. (Not J. Q. Adams.) Abookeer; AhouJcir; see Abukir. Adam's Creek; see Cunningham. Ahou Hamad; see Abu Hamed. Adams Fall; ledge in New Haven Harbor, Fall.) Abram ; creek in Grant and Mineral Coun- Conn. (Not Adam's ties, W. Va. (Not Abraham.) Adel; see Somali. Abram; see Shimmo. Adelina; town, Calvert County, Md. (Not Abruad ; see Riad. Adalina.) Absaroka; range of mountains in and near Aderhold; ferry over Chattahoochee River, Yellowstone National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Thermal IR for Geology
    FIG. 1. Index (nap showing major physiographic features and approximate location of areas described and illustrated in this report. EDWARDW. WOLFE* U.S. Geological Survey Flagstaff, Ariz. 86001 Thermal IR for Geology An evaluation for Caliente and Temblor Ranges in Southern California compares pre-dawn and post-dawn imagery and a conventional photograph. (Abstract on next page) in the Caliente Range, and unpublished maps by both T. W. Dibblee and G. Vedder HERMAL INFRARED IMAGERY, recording J. radiation from 8 to 13 micrometers in were used to evaluate the imagery in the T Temblor Range. wavelength, was flown by NASA on June 18, 1965, in the Carrizo Plain of southern Calif- Figure 2 is a generalized geologic map of ornia. A line approximately normal to the re- the area in which imagery was studied in gional geologic structure was selected for detail. The stratigraphic nomenclature used detailed analysis and is shown in Figure 1. A on the map and in this report is that of preliminary report on imagery from the Car- Dibblee (1962). Its use herein does not consti- rizo Plain was made by Wallace and Moxham tute adoption of the names by the U.S. (1966). A published geologic map by Vedder Geological Survey. and Repenning (1965) was extensively used In the image area the Caliente and Temblor Ranges are underlain by steeply dipping * Publication authorized by the Director, U.S. clastic rocks of late Tertiary age. In addi- Geological Survey. tion, three basalt flows occur within the Caliente Range sequence. The Caliente and Figure 5, an aerial photograph of the north- Temblor Ranges in the image area are largely eastern part of the imaged strip, was taken mantled by debris derived from the under- from about 35,000 feet on a midsummer day.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ethnogeography of Salinan and Northern Chumas Communities – 1769 to 1810
    California State University, Monterey Bay Digital Commons @ CSUMB Government Documents and Publications First Nations Era 3-10-2017 2005 – An Ethnogeography of Salinan and Northern Chumas Communities – 1769 to 1810 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/hornbeck_ind_1 Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Education Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation "2005 – An Ethnogeography of Salinan and Northern Chumas Communities – 1769 to 1810" (2017). Government Documents and Publications. 4. https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/hornbeck_ind_1/4 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the First Nations Era at Digital Commons @ CSUMB. It has been accepted for inclusion in Government Documents and Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CSUMB. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Ethnogeography of Salinan and Northern Chumash Communities – 1769 to 1810 By: Randall Milliken and John R. Johnson March 2005 FAR WESTERN ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH GROUP, INC. 2727 Del Rio Place, Suite A, Davis, California, 95616 http://www.farwestern.com 530-756-3941 Prepared for Caltrans Contract No. 06A0148 & 06A0391 For individuals with sensory disabilities this document is available in alternate formats. Please call or write to: Gale Chew-Yep 2015 E. Shields, Suite 100 Fresno, CA 93726 (559) 243-3464 Voice CA Relay Service TTY number 1-800-735-2929 An Ethnogeography of Salinan and Northern Chumash Communities – 1769 to 1810 By: Randall Milliken Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. and John R. Johnson Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Submitted by: Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. 2727 Del Rio Place, Davis, California, 95616 Submitted to: Valerie Levulett Environmental Branch California Department of Transportation, District 5 50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Contract No.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    DOE/EIS–0458D DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VOLUME I DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE TO ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND FOR CONSTRUCTION AND STARTUP OF THE TOPAZ SOLAR FARM SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA US Department of Energy, Lead Agency Loan Guarantee Program Office Washington, DC 20585 In Cooperation with US Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District March 2011 COVER SHEET Lead Federal Agency: US Department of Energy Cooperating Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers Title: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the US Department of Energy Loan Guarantee to Royal Bank of Scotland for Construction and Startup of the Topaz Solar Farm, San Luis Obispo County, California Contact: For additional copies or more information on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), please contact: Ms. Angela Colamaria US Department of Energy Loan Programs Office (LP-10) 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202-287-5387 Electronic mail: [email protected] Abstract: The US Department of Energy is proposing to issue a loan guarantee to Royal Bank of Scotland to provide funding to Topaz Solar Farms, Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) to construct and start up the Topaz Solar Farm, a nominal 550-megawatt photovoltaic solar energy generating facility. The facility would be located in unincorporated eastern San Luis Obispo County, California, approximately one mile north of the community of California Valley and six miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The proposed facility would consist of a solar field of ground-mounted PV modules, an electrical collection system that converts generated power from direct current to alternating current and delivers it to a Project substation for collection and conversion from 34.5 to 230 kV for delivery via a new on-site Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) switching station, and the PG&E switching station that interconnects the Project to PG&E’s existing Morro Bay to Midway 230-kV transmission line.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from Lowtemperature Thermochronometry Into
    TECTONICS, VOL. 32, 1602–1622, doi:10.1002/2013TC003377, 2013 Insights from low-temperature thermochronometry into transpressional deformation and crustal exhumation along the San Andreas fault in the western Transverse Ranges, California Nathan A. Niemi,1 Jamie T. Buscher,2 James A. Spotila,3 Martha A. House,4 and Shari A. Kelley 5 Received 21 May 2013; revised 21 October 2013; accepted 28 October 2013; published 20 December 2013. [1] The San Emigdio Mountains are an example of an archetypical, transpressional structural system, bounded to the south by the San Andreas strike-slip fault, and to the north by the active Wheeler Ridge thrust. Apatite (U-Th)/He and apatite and zircon fission track ages were obtained along transects across the range and from wells in and to the north of the range. Apatite (U-Th)/He ages are 4–6 Ma adjacent to the San Andreas fault, and both (U-Th)/He and fission track ages grow older with distance to the north from the San Andreas. The young ages north of the San Andreas fault contrast with early Miocene (U-Th)/He ages from Mount Pinos on the south side of the fault. Restoration of sample paleodepths in the San Emigdio Mountains using a regional unconformity at the base of the Eocene Tejon Formation indicates that the San Emigdio Mountains represent a crustal fragment that has been exhumed more than 5 km along the San Andreas fault since late Miocene time. Marked differences in the timing and rate of exhumation between the northern and southern sides of the San Andreas fault are difficult to reconcile with existing structural models of the western Transverse Ranges as a thin-skinned thrust system.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower and Middle Tertiary Stratigraphic Units of the San Emigdio and Western Tehachapi Mountains, California ______
    Lower and Middle Tertiary Stratigraphic Units of the San Emigdio and Western Tehachapi Mountains, California _______ GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1372-H i I JU i rt t ** I * > M t. Lower and Middle Tertiary Stratigraphic Units of the San Emigdio and Western Tehachapi Mountains, California By T. H. NILSEN, T. W. DIBBLEE, JR., and W. O. ADDICOTT CONTRIBUTIONS TO STRATIGRAPHY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1372-H UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1973 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 73-600123 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Price 35 cents domestic postpaid or 25 cents GPO Bookstore Stock Number 2401-00343 CONTENTS Page Abstract...................................................................................................................... HI Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Regional geology ...................................................................................................... 2 Previous work............................................................................................................ 4 Stratigraphic sequence ............................................................................................ 7 Tejon Formation .............................................................................................. 7 San
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Stream Channel Response to Sediment Erosion, Transport, and Deposition in a Tectonically
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Stream Channel Response to Sediment Erosion, Transport, and Deposition In a Tectonically Active Watershed: San Emigdio Canyon, Wind Wolves Preserve, Kern County, California A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in Geography By Dannon Dirgo August 2019 Signature Page The thesis of Dannon Dirgo is approved: _________________________________ _______________ Kelsha Anderson Date _________________________________ _______________ Dr. Erin Bray Date _________________________________ _______________ Dr. Amalie J Orme, Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii Acknowledgments My sincere gratitude to Dr. Amalie Orme, my advisor, for intellectual support, guidance, and encouragement during my research and completion of this thesis. Many thanks to Kelsha Anderson USFS Angeles National Forest and Dr. Erin Bray, my committee members, for intellectual discussions, advice, and assistance in completing this thesis. A special thank you to Jamie Seguerra for her friendship, humor and unwavering assistance in the field and lab. With much appreciation and thanks to Jeremy Lorenzen and Chris Notto for their assistance and dedication in the field. Thank you to Mony Sea and Luis Devera for their integrated assistance. I am grateful to the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies and the Geomatics Group, California State University Northridge for providing me with the equipment and software needed to complete this project. A special thank you to the Wind Wolves Conservancy and their dedicated staff for granting access to such a beautiful and complex study area. With the utmost appreciation for my two children for their support and encouragement during this personal and intellectual endeavor. iii Table of Contents Signature Page ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aerial Reconnaissance of Stream Terraces and Landslides Within Bitterwater Creek Watershed in Kern County, California
    Aerial Reconnaissance of Stream Terraces and Landslides within Bitterwater Creek Watershed in Kern County, California A Senior Project presented to the Faculty of the Natural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Earth Science; Bachelor of Science by Zachary Smith May, 2011 © 2011 Zachary Smith Introduction The California Coast Ranges are relatively recent formations, possibly still being formed, and the understanding of their development is still incomplete. The process of hillslope formation requires uplift, through volcanism, folding, and/or faulting, and subsequent erosion. By looking at a hill's morphology it is possible to understand how it developed and what local forces were involved. For this report I have mapped landslides, fluvial surfaces, and stream terraces within the Bitterwater creek watershed which can later be dated and used to advance the understanding of hillslope development, local tectonism, and climate of California’s Coast Ranges. Study Area The area of interest for this study is the Bitterwater creek watershed (fig. 1). The Bitterwater creek watershed is located within Kern County, California, as part of the southernmost extent of the Temblor Range. The Temblor Range parallels the east side of the San Andreas Fault and is the easternmost set of the Coast Ranges. It is estimated that the whole of the coastal ranges began to form starting ~ .4 Ma due to compressional stress Figure 1. Location of Bitterwater Creek watershed normal to the SAF and resultant thickening of the upper and middle crust (Page et al. 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphy of the Southern Coast Ranges Near the San Andreas Fault from Cholame to Maricopa, California
    Stratigraphy of the Southern Coast Ranges near the San Andreas Fault from Cholame to Maricopa, California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 764 Stratigraphy of the Southern Coast Ranges near the San Andreas Fault from Gholame to Maricopa, California By T. W. DIBBLEE, JR. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 764 A discussion of the regional stratigraphy of the McLure Valley area, Temblor Range, Carrizo Plain, Cuyama Valley, Caliente Range, La Panza Range, and Sierra Madre Mountains UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1973 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 72-600327 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Price: Paper cover-80 cents, domestic postpaid; 55 cents, GPO Bookstore. Stock No. 2401-00300 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract _ _ __________________________ 1 Middle Tertiary sedimentary sequence Continued Introduction _____________________________________ 1 Vaqueros and Temblor Formations Continued Scope and purpose ___________________________ 1 Temblor Formation Continued Problems of stratigraphic terminology _________ 3 Buttonbed Sandstone Member ______ 23 Chronology used _____________________________ 3 Monterey Shale ____________________ 24 Tectonic areas ____________________________ 5 Review of nomenclature _____ _ 24 Crystalline plutonic and metamorphic rocks ________ 5 Stratigraphic units southwest of the San Eugeosynclinal sedimentary
    [Show full text]
  • Aqnipis: an Archaeological Approach to Identifying Basket Production Locales in South Central California
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Contextualizing ‘Aqnipis: An Archaeological Approach to Identifying Basket Production Locales in South Central California A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology, Public Archaeology By Allison Hill August 2017 The thesis of Allison Hill is approved: ___________________________________________ ___________ Dr. David W. Robinson Date ___________________________________________ ___________ Dr. Cathy L. Costin Date ___________________________________________ ___________ Dr. Matthew R.E. Des Lauriers, Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii Acknowledgements If I were to share the depths my gratitude for everyone that helped me along the way to completing this project, the length of my acknowledgments would rival that of my thesis. For the readers’ sake, I will (try to) be brief. I would like to start by thanking my committee chair, Dr. Mathew Des Lauriers. Your knowledge of California archaeology and mastery of lithic analysis has served as a standard to which I work to achieve and our discussions about archaeology always left me feeling inspired. Dr. Cathy Costin, your guidance on this project has meant so much to me. Thank you for encouraging me to explore the wide world of craft production, providing detailed and thoughtful feedback, and challenging me to improve as a writer and a researcher. I am forever grateful. Dr. David Robinson, being a member of your field crew these past few years has been the highlight of my graduate school experience. I have learned so much from you and have had a blast along the way. Thank you for the opportunity to work with assemblages from the sites to which you have dedicated so much.
    [Show full text]