DOCSLIB.ORG

Revised 2019 Mining/ Land Reclamation Plan and Plan of Operations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revised 2019 Mining/ Land Reclamation Plan and Plan of Operations REVISED 2019 MINING/ LAND RECLAMATION PLAN AND PLAN OF OPERATIONS FORT CADY PROJECT NEWBERRY SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA San Bernardino County No. 94M-04 Bureau of Land Management Nos. CACA33044; CAMC 20175 CA MINE ID # 91-36-0124 Prepared for: San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415 and Bureau of Land Management Barstow Field Office 2601 Barstow Road Barstow, CA 92311 Prepared by: FORT CADY CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 16195 Siskiyou, Suite 210 Apple Valley, CA 92307 MAY 1993 REVISED APRIL 2019 Approved by County of San Bernardino - July 10, 1994 Approved by BLM Barstow – December 30, 1994 Revised 2019 Plans Fort Cady Project Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 4 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Glossary of Terms ..................................................................................................................................... 6 I. Revised 2019 Mining Plan & Plan of Operations ................................................................................. 8 A. Request for Revisions - 2019 ................................................................................................................ 8 B. BLM Requirements ............................................................................................................................. 11 C. Summary of EIS/EIR Findings and Revised Plan............................................................................... 11 1.0 Mining Operations ................................................................................................................................ 16 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 16 1.1.1 Summary of 1993 Plan ............................................................................................................... 16 1.1.2 Current Description of the Project ............................................................................................ 19 1.1.3 Summary of Technology ............................................................................................................. 21 1.1.4 Ore Reserves .............................................................................................................................. 22 1.1.5 Land Holdings Status ................................................................................................................. 23 1.2 Project Development ......................................................................................................................... 25 1.2.1 Mine Site Approval and Reclamation Plan ................................................................................ 25 1.2.2 Waste Discharge Permit ............................................................................................................ 25 1.2.3 Air Quality Permit ...................................................................................................................... 25 1.2.4 Hazardous Waste and Toxic Control ......................................................................................... 25 1.2.5 Office of Building and Safety – Building Permit ........................................................................ 26 1.2.6 Groundwater Quality ................................................................................................................. 26 1.2.7 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................................. 26 1.3 Commercial Plant Operations ........................................................................................................... 27 1.3.1 Applied Technology.................................................................................................................... 27 1.3.2 In-Site Mining ............................................................................................................................ 28 2.0 Ore Processing Method ......................................................................................................................... 33 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 33 2.2 Well Field Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 35 2.2.1 Well Field Layout ....................................................................................................................... 35 2.2.2 Mining Sequence ........................................................................................................................ 35 2 of 86 Revised 2019 Plans Fort Cady Project 2.2.3 Well Field Construction ............................................................................................................. 37 2.2.4 Well Completion Details ............................................................................................................ 38 2.2.5 Well Monitoring ......................................................................................................................... 41 2.2.6 Well Field Corrective Actions .................................................................................................... 42 2.2.7 Plugging and Abandonment Plan .............................................................................................. 43 2.3 Boric Acid Processing Plant ............................................................................................................. 43 3.4 Solvent Extraction ............................................................................................................................. 45 3.4.1 Solvent Extraction and Crystallization ...................................................................................... 45 2.4.2 Gypsum Production and Acid Regeneration .............................................................................. 46 2.5 Sulfate of Potash ............................................................................................................................... 47 2.6 Processing Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 47 2.7 Product Loading and Shipping .......................................................................................................... 48 2.8 Cogeneration and Ancillary Facilities ............................................................................................... 50 2.9 Process and Storage Tanks ................................................................................................................ 50 2.10 Railroad Spur, Natural Gas Pipeline and Access Roads ................................................................. 51 3.0 Mine Waste ........................................................................................................................................... 52 3.1 Recovery Process .............................................................................................................................. 52 3.2 In-process Solutions .......................................................................................................................... 52 3.3 Gypsum Storage Facility ................................................................................................................... 52 3.4 Other Wastes ..................................................................................................................................... 54 4.0 Water Supply ........................................................................................................................................ 55 5.0 Erosion and Sediment Control .............................................................................................................. 58 II. Land Reclamation Plan - 2019 ............................................................................................................... 59 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 59 1.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................... 59 1.2 Visibility ........................................................................................................................................... 60 1.3 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................................... 60 1.4 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................. 61 2.0 Reclamation .......................................................................................................................................... 61 2.1 Pre-Construction Surveys ................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mojave Miocene Robert E
    Mojave Miocene Robert E. Reynolds, editor California State University Desert Studies Center 2015 Desert Symposium April 2015 Front cover: Rainbow Basin syncline, with rendering of saber cat by Katura Reynolds. Back cover: Cajon Pass Title page: Jedediah Smith’s party crossing the burning Mojave Desert during the 1826 trek to California by Frederic Remington Past volumes in the Desert Symposium series may be accessed at <http://nsm.fullerton.edu/dsc/desert-studies-center-additional-information> 2 2015 desert symposium Table of contents Mojave Miocene: the field trip 7 Robert E. Reynolds and David M. Miller Miocene mammal diversity of the Mojave region in the context of Great Basin mammal history 34 Catherine Badgley, Tara M. Smiley, Katherine Loughney Regional and local correlations of feldspar geochemistry of the Peach Spring Tuff, Alvord Mountain, California 44 David C. Buesch Phytoliths of the Barstow Formation through the Middle Miocene Climatic Optimum: preliminary findings 51 Katharine M. Loughney and Selena Y. Smith A fresh look at the Pickhandle Formation: Pyroclastic flows and fossiliferous lacustrine sediments 59 Jennifer Garrison and Robert E. Reynolds Biochronology of Brachycrus (Artiodactyla, Oreodontidae) and downward relocation of the Hemingfordian– Barstovian North American Land Mammal Age boundary in the respective type areas 63 E. Bruce Lander Mediochoerus (Mammalia, Artiodactyla, Oreodontidae, Ticholeptinae) from the Barstow and Hector Formations of the central Mojave Desert Province, southern California, and the Runningwater and Olcott Formations of the northern Nebraska Panhandle—Implications of changes in average adult body size through time and faunal provincialism 83 E. Bruce Lander Review of peccaries from the Barstow Formation of California 108 Donald L.
    [Show full text]
  • 9.3 PISGAH 1 2 3 9.3.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 4 5 6 9.3
    1 9.3 PISGAH 2 3 4 9.3.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 5 6 7 9.3.1.1 General Information 8 9 The proposed Pisgah SEZ has a total area of 23,950 acres (97 km2) and is located in 10 San Bernardino County in southeastern California, about 100 mi (160 km) northeast of Los 11 Angeles (Figure 9.3.1.1-1). In 2008, the county population was 2,086,465. The nearest 12 population center to the SEZ is the City of Barstow, which is located about 25 mi (40 km) to 13 the west of the SEZ and had a 2008 population of 24,596. Interstate 40 (I-40) runs east–west 14 through the proposed Pisgah SEZ, bisecting it into a northern portion that contains about two- 15 thirds of the SEZ acreage and a southern portion with the remainder of the acreage. Access to the 16 SEZ from I-40 is available from exits at Fort Cady Road (to the west of the SEZ), Hector Road 17 (midway through the SEZ), and Pisgah Crater Road (at the eastern end of the SEZ). Hector Road 18 runs north–south through the middle of the SEZ, and a number of other local dirt roads cross the 19 SEZ. The National Trails Highway (historic U.S. 66) also passes through the SEZ as it runs 20 south of and parallel to I-40. The BNSF Railroad serves the area and traverses the SEZ from the 21 northwest to the southeast, running approximately parallel to and about 0.8 mi (1.3 km) north of 22 I-40.
    [Show full text]
  • The Barstow-Newberry Springs Area, California
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DMG OPEN-FILE REPORT 97-16 MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION OF A PART OF SOUTHWESTERN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: THE BARSTOW-NEWBERRY SPRINGS AREA, CALIFORNIA 1997 THE RESOURCES AGENCY STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DOUGLAS P. WHEELER PETE WILSON LAWRENCE J. GOLDZBAND SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES GOVERNOR DIRECTOR DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY JAMES F. DAVIS, STATE GEOLOGIST Copyright © 1997 by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the Division of Mines and Geology. 'The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose." MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION OF A PART OF SOUTHWESTERN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: - THE BARSTOW-NEWBERRY SPRINGS AREA, CALIFORNIA By Stephen P. Bezore, Associate Geologist Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) With Contributions by Rodger H. Chapman, Senior Geophysicist, DMG, retired Gordon W. Chase, Associate Geophysicist, DMG, retired Leslie G. Youngs, Associate Engineering Geologist, DMG Robert L. Hill, Senior Geologist, DMG Russell V. Miller, Senior Geologist, DMG Dinah O. Shumway, Associate Geologist, DMG OPEN-FILE REPORT 97-16 1997 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY-- 801 K STREET, MS 12-30 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 PREFACE The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted to promote the conservation of the State's mineral resources and to ensure adequate reclamation of mined lands. Among other provisions, SMARArequires the State Geologist to classify land in California for mineral resource potential. Presently, mineral land classification studies are being conducted in several areas of the state on a county basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Neogene Extension and Regional Rotation of the Central Mojave Desert, California
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1994 Neogene Extension and Regional Rotation of the Central Mojave Desert, California. Timothy Michael Ross Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Ross, Timothy Michael, "Neogene Extension and Regional Rotation of the Central Mojave Desert, California." (1994). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 5701. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/5701 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrougb, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Admin Draft WEMO Appendix B WEMO Subregion
    APPENDIX B SUBREGION DESCRIPTIONS WEST MOJAVE (WEMO) ROUTE NETWORK PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX B WEST MOJAVE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AREAS AND SUBREGIONS Introduction One of the first steps in the off-road vehicle designation process was the identification of travel management areas (TMA) for travel network. Eight travel management areas provide the geographical framework for implementation of the travel network through specific transportation and travel management (TTM) plans. The factors used in the development of boundaries for TMA are primarily natural transportation boundaries (e.g. highways, jurisdictional, geographic boundaries). Because of the size of the West Mojave (WEMO) Planning area, the eight TMA were further subdivided into 36 Subregions. The boundaries of the 36 Subregions that compose the TMA consider the natural transportation boundaries, law enforcement patrol areas, designated management areas, and issue-driven factors. By comparison, the 2006 WEMO Plan had identified 20 different Subregions, which included much but not all of the West Mojave Planning area, from which they examined 11 subregions to build the WEMO network. The 2006 WEMO Subregions are based on similarities in certain biological characteristics but do not readily lend themselves to on-the-ground implementation of the transportation network. The 2006 WEMO Subregion boundaries roughly correlate to the new Subregion boundaries as feasible. The following discussion provides a general overview of each of the Travel Management Areas and the Subregions within it. B.1 Travel Management Area (TMA) 1 Afton Canyon Subregion The Afton Canyon Subregion comprises the northeastern third of TMA 1, extending south from Interstate 15 to include both the Afton Canyon ACEC and the northern two-thirds of the Cady Mountains Wilderness Study Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Surficial Geology and Stratigraphy of Pleistocene Lake Manix, San Bernardino County, California
    Surficial Geology and Stratigraphy of Pleistocene Lake Manix, San Bernardino County, California Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3312 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey 1 2 3 4 Cover: 1, View to east of playa and distal-fan deposits of unit Qmr (Mojave River formation) near western end of Buwalda Ridge in Cady subbasin; 2, view showing Q17 over Qia (vertical cliff) over Qvg (more gullied, steeply sloping) over pink QTcg with white calcic soil at top; 3, view to northeast of playa and distal-fan deposits of unit Qp in Afton subbasin; and 4, Units Ql8, Ql7, and Ql6 exposed on south side of Mojave River, Afton subbasin, station M11–109. Surficial Geology and Stratigraphy of Pleistocene Lake Manix, San Bernardino County, California By Marith C. Reheis, Joanna R. Redwine, Elmira Wan, John P. McGeehin, and D. Paco VanSistine Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3312 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Newberry Springs 30'X 60
    Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Newberry Springs 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California By G.A. Phelps, D.R. Bedford, D.J. Lidke, D.M. Miller, and K.M. Schmidt Pamphlet to accompany Open-File Report 2011–1044 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS Suggested citation: Phelps, G.A., Bedford, D.R., Lidke, D.J., Miller, D.M., and Schmidt, K.M., 2012, Preliminary surficial geologic map of the Newberry Springs 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1044, pamphlet 68 p., 1 sheet, scale 1:100,000. (Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1044/.) Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. ii Contents Contents .........................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary Stratigraphy, Drainage-Basin Development, and Geomorphology of the Lake Manix Basin, Mojave Desert
    Quaternary Stratigraphy, Drainage-Basin Development, and Geomorphology of the Lake Manix Basin, Mojave Desert Guidebook for Fall Field Trip, Friends of the Pleistocene, Pacific Cell, October 4–7, 2007 Open-File Report 2007–1281 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photo: A modern restoration of Lake Manix at the 543-m highstand level. View to the northwest from above the Cady Mountains. Clockwise from left center are the Troy Lake subbasin, Newberry Mountains, Mojave River, Calico Mountains, Coyote Lake subbasin, Tiefort Mountains (right skyline), and Afton subbasin. Modern-day Afton Canyon lies at the easternmost point of the Afton subbasin in this image. Eolian sand sheets east of the lake would have been less extensive prior to draining of Lake Manix. Visualization created in Visual Nature Studio (v. 2.53, 3D Nature Co.) by Paco Van Sistine (USGS) using 30-m DEMs and 1-m NAIP orthophotos. Quaternary Stratigraphy, Drainage-Basin Development, and Geomorphology of the Lake Manix Basin, Mojave Desert Guidebook for Fall Field Trip, Friends of the Pleistocene, Pacific Cell, October 4–7, 2007 By Marith C. Reheis, David M. Miller, and Joanna L. Redwine Principal Trip Leaders: Marith Reheis, Dave Miller, Joanna Redwine, Stephanie Dudash, and Jack Oviatt Open-File Report 2007–1281 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS —the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern California Alluvial Basins
    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALLUVIAL BASINS REGIONAL AQUIFER-SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: A BIBLIOGRAPHY By W. R. Moyle, Jr., Peter Martin, R. C. Schluter, Linda R. Woolfenden, Karen Downing, Ann L. Elliott, and Dorothy E. Maltby U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 85-695 ro ro I Sacramento, California 1986 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report may write to: be purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2234 U.S. Geological Survey Sacramento, California 95825 Box 25425, Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Telephone: (303) 236-7476 CONTENTS Page Abstract------------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction--------------------------------------------------- 2 Organization of the bibliography------------------------------- 4 15-minute topographic quadrangle maps--------------------- 4 Map sheets------------------------------------------------ 4 Military reservations and national monuments-------------- 5 Count ies-------------------------------------------------- 5 Southern California and offshore-------------------------- 5 Arizona, California, Mexico, and Nevada------------------- 5 Use of the bibliography---------------------------------------- 6 Sources of publications---------------------------------------- 6 The bibliography----------------------------------------------- 39 Category 1: 15-minute topographic quadrangle
    [Show full text]
  • ALTERNATIVES Prepared by Susan V
    ALTERNATIVES Prepared by Susan V. Lee SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS In the CEC’s analysis of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generation Station (ISEGS) project, 23 alternatives to the ISEGS project have been developed and evaluated. These include eight alternative site locations, a range of different solar and renewable technologies, generation technologies using different fuels, and conservation/demand- side management. Of the 23 alternatives, the only alternative that was determined to be both feasible and have the potential to result in lesser impacts was the No Project/No Action alternative. Since no other ROW application was brought forward by the applicant, the BLM will respond to the ROW application for the ISEGS project as proposed. Therefore, the only alternatives that are within the agency’s jurisdiction, and that meet the purpose and need for the proposed project, are approval of the right-of-way (the Proposed Project Alternative) and denial of the right-of-way (No Project/No Action Alternative). A detailed analysis of these two alternatives is presented within the resource-specific sections of this FSA/DEIS. Although only the Proposed Project and No Project/No Action Alternatives are within the agency’s jurisdiction, Section 1502.14(c) of the NEPA regulations requires that the agency develop and evaluate reasonable alternatives that are not within the jurisdiction of the agency, and which are outside of the capability of the applicant to implement. This situation is specifically addressed in Question Number 2a of the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) guidance document of NEPA’s 40 Most Asked Questions. The CEQ response to Question Number 2a, which requests guidance on alternatives analysis with respect to federal consideration of permit applications, requires that reasonable alternatives outside of the lead agency’s jurisdiction be developed and analyzed.
    [Show full text]
  • Overboard in the Mojave: the Field Guide
    O v e rb o a rd in the Mojave 20 million years of lakes and wetlands edited and compiled by Robert E. Reynolds and David M. Miller and Abstracts of Proceedings: the 2010 Desert Symposium compiled by Robert E. Reynolds Desert Studies Consortium California State University, Fullerton April, 2010 FRONT COVER : The Troy Lake arm of Manix Lake laps against the Newberry Mountains, January 24, 2010. BACK COVER : Above: The Barstow Formation in the Mud Hills is the type locality for the Barstovian land mammal age of the North American continent. Biostratigraphic ranges of taxa are constrained by dated volcanic ashes and magnetostratigraphic polarity. Below: Strata of the Barstow Formation have been folded, faulted, and planed by erosion in the last 10 million years. The colorful Miocene sediments are unconformably overlain by flat-lying tan arkosic sandstone. TITLE PAGE : Rob Fulton kayaked on Silver Lake in 2005. 2 2010 Desert Symposium Table of contents Overboard in the Mojave: the field guide ......................................................................................................................... 7 Robert E. Reynolds and David M. Miller Environments of nearshore lacustrine deposition in the Pleistocene Lake Manix basin, south-central California ............................................................................................................................................................24 Marith C. Reheis and David M. Miller Stratigraphy and paleontology of the middle to late Pleistocene Manix Formation, and paleoenvironments
    [Show full text]
  • Characterisation of Aeolian Sediment Accumulation and Preservation Across Complex Topography
    Geomorphology 383 (2021) 107704 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Geomorphology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Characterisation of aeolian sediment accumulation and preservation across complex topography Alex S. Hay a, D. Mark Powell a, Andrew S. Carr a,⁎, Ian Livingstone b a School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK b The Graduate School, University of Northampton, Northampton NN1 5PH, UK article info abstract Article history: Topography fundamentally influences the distribution and morphology of aeolian landforms via the modification of Received 19 June 2020 surface wind flow and the creation of space for sediment deposition. This has been observed at both landform Received in revised form 15 March 2021 (individual topographic dune forms) and macro-landscape (sand sea) scales. Although previous studies have Accepted 16 March 2021 considered several aspects of the impact of topography on aeolian landforms, the patterns of landscape-scale Available online 20 March 2021 aeolian sediment accumulation that emerge at the meso-scale, within topographically complex environments Keywords: have received less consideration. fi LandSerf To address this, we present an approach that combines information on the presence of sur cial sand (via remote Mojave Desert sensing) with the morphometric feature classification method, LandSerf. Using the Cady Mountains in the Sand ramp Mojave Desert as a case study, we explore the relationships between sand cover and topographic indices over Climbing dune length scales of 102–103 m. Field observations are then used to refine our understanding of these patterns. DEM Aeolian deposits across the Cady Mountains are strongly controlled by the topography.
    [Show full text]