Geohydrology of the Yuma Area, Arizona and California

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Geohydrology of the Yuma Area, Arizona and California Geohydrology of the Yuma Area, Arizona and California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 486-H Geohydrology of the Yuma Area, Arizona and California By F. H. OLMSTED, O. J. LOELTZ, and BURDGE IRELAN WATER RESOURCES OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER-SALTON SEA AREA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 486-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. 73-600011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $11.60 Stock Number 2401-02391 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract _____ _______________________ HI Geology Continued Introduction _______________________ 6 Stratigraphy Continued Location of area ___________________ 6 Volcanic rocks (Tertiary) Continued History of water-resources development _____ 6 Basalt or basaltic andesite of unknown Yuma Valley ____________________ 6 age ______________________ H38 Yuma Mesa ____________________ 9 Age of volcanic rocks ___ _ 39 Other areas _____________________________ 9 Older marine sedimentary rocks (Tertiary). 39 Mexicali Valley __________________ 10 Bouse Formation (Pliocene) ___________ 40 Objectives of present investigation and scope of Transition zone (Pliocene) _________ _ 45 report _______________________________ 11 Conglomerate of Chocolate Mountains (Ter­ Methods of investigation ______________ 12 tiary and Quaternary) _____ 45 Geologic mapping __ ________________ 12 Older alluvium (Pliocene and Pleistocene) _ 45 Geophysical exploration ___________ 12 Distribution and thickness ______ _ 46 Test drilling ____________________________ 12 Age and correlation 46 Studies of formation samples __________ 13 Classification of deposits by source 47 Wireline logging ______ ____________ 14 Deposits of local origin _ ____ 47 Inventory of existing wells and well records- 14 Stream-terrace and piedmont deposits 47 Quantitative determinations of aquifer char­ Deposits of mixed origin __ _ 48 acteristics _____ _ _ ____ __ _ _ 15 Deposits of the old Colorado and Gila Chemical analyses of ground-water samples _ 15 Rivers ________ ___ _ 48 Measurements of ground-water temperature. 15 Younger alluvium (Quaternary) __ 53 Analog-model studies _ ____ _ __ 15 Deposits of the Colorado and Gila Rivers 53 Earlier investigations _____ _______ __ 16 Alluvial-fan deposits _ 56 Geologic studies __ _______________ 16 Wash and sheet-wash deposits 56 Hydrologic studies _ _ __ ____ 16 Windblown sand (Quaternary) __ 56 Acknowledgments ____________________ ___ 16 Structure ___ ______ 57 Well-numbering systems ______________ 17 Regional structural patterns __________ 57 Geology ____ ______ ________ __ 18 Pre-Tertiary structural features _ 57 Geomorphology ______________ _ _ 18 Basin and Range structural features (Ter­ Regional setting ________________ 18 tiary) ___________________ _ 58 Classification of landforms ________ ___ 19 Late Tertiary and Quaternary structural Mountains and hills _________________ 19 features __________ ___ 60 Dissected old river deposits __ _ 23 Algodones fault and related faults ________ 61 Dissected piedmont slopes _______ ___ 24 Ground-water hydrology _______ __ 63 Undissected piedmont slopes ______________ 24 The ground-water reservoir ____ ___ _ _ 63 River terraces and mesas _____ _ _ 26 Major subdivisions of the reservoir ______ 63 Sand dunes _____________________________ 28 Definition of fresh water 63 River valleys _ _______ _ 28 Poorly water-bearing rocks of Tertiary age _ 64 Stratigraphy ____ ___ _ _ 30 Nonmarine sedimentary rocks ________ 65 Classification of rocks _______________ _ 30 Older marine sedimentary rocks ____ 65 Crystalline rocks (pre-Tertiary) __________ 30 Bouse Formation ___ _ _ 65 Nonmarine sedimentary rocks (Tertiary) __ 32 Transition zone _________________ 66 Red beds __ ___ _ ________ 33 Water-bearing deposits of Pliocene to Holo- Breccia and conglomerate __ _ _____ 33 cene age 66 Kinter Formation __ _____ _ 34 Wedge zone ___ - 66 Other nonmarine sedimentary rocks _ _ 37 Coarse-gravel zone _ _ ___________ 67 Volcanic rocks (Tertiary) ____ ________ 37 Upper, fine-grained zone -________ 68 Older andesite ___ _____ _____ 37 Older alluvium, undivided _________ 69 Pyroclastic rocks of silicic to interme­ Origin of ground water and sources of recharge _ 70 diate composition ___ _ __ 37 Colorado River ____________________ 70 Basaltic andesite or basalt of Chocolate Gila River ______________________ 71 Mountains _______________ _ 38 Irrigation _______________________ 71 Flows and vent tuff of Laguna Moun­ Local precipitation ___________ 72 tains 38 Local runoff __________________ 72 ill IV CONTENTS Page Page Ground-water hydrology Continued Ground-water hydrology Continued Hydrologic characteristics of aquifers ______ H72 Temperature of ground water Continued Definition of terms __________________ 72 Variations in temperature with time H113 Transmissivity _____________________ 75 Vertical variations in temperature _ _ 116 Determinations by previous investiga­ Areal variations in temperature 121 tors ________________________ 75 Chemical quality of ground water 124 Determinations during present investi­ Chemical changes in ground water derived gation __ ________________ 75 from the recent Colorado River __ 124 Storage coefficient __________________ 78 Concentration by evapotranspiration 126 Movement of ground water _______________ 82 Softening ________ 126 Direction of movement under natural con­ Carbonate precipitation 127 ditions ___________________________ 84 Sulfate reduction _________________ 127 Hardening ___ ___ _ _ 128 Rate of movement under natural conditions- 87 Summary of hypothetical analyses 129 Alluvial section between Pilot Knob and Subdivision of Yuma area for description Cargo Muchacho Mountains ______ 87 of quality of water ______ _ _ 129 Limitrophe section of Colorado River __ 87 Gila Valley subarea __ _ - - --_ 129 Yuma Valley __________________ 87 Gila Siphon sector _ 132 Direction of movement in 1960 ___________ 88 East sector __ 132 Rate of movement in 1960 ___________ 91 East-central sector 133 Alluvial section between Pilot Knob and West-central sector __ _ 133 Cargo Muchacho Mountains ______ 91 West sector 133 Limitrophe section of Colorado River __ 91 Upper valley subarea __ _ _ _ 134 Yuma Valley _________________ 93 "Laguna Valley" sector __ 134 Movement after 1960 _______________ 95 North Gila sector ___ 134 Water budgets _________________ 95 Bard sector __ __ 135 "Laguna Valley" subarea _____________ 98 The Island sector ____ 135 Reservation and Bard subarea _______ 99 Winterhaven sector _ 135 The Island subarea ______________ 100 Yuma Valley subarea _____ __ _ _____ 136 North Gila Valley subarea ___________ 100 California sector 137 South Gila Valley subarea ___________ 100 East sector _______________ 137 Yuma Mesa subarea ______________ 101 Central sector ___ __ _ _ 138 Yuma Valley subarea ______________ 102 Floodway sector ____ 138 Summary of subarea budgets _______ 103 Yuma Mesa subarea _ 139 Yuma area ____-_______________ 103 Fortuna sector _______ _ 139 Ground-water discharge to the Colorado Arizona Western sector ___ _ 139 River between Imperial Dam and the Citrus sector ____ ______ _ 140 northerly international boundary _____ 105 City sector ____ __ _ _ 140 Analog-model studies __________________ 107 South sector _________ 141 Model characteristics _______________ 107 References _ _ __ -- 141 Transmissivity values ____________ 108 Appendix A. Records of wells _____ _____ _ _ 146 Storage-coefficient values _________ 109 Appendix B. Selected logs of water wells __ _ 170 Stresses applied to the modeled system ___ 109 Appendix C. Chemical analyses of ground water _ 195 Verification studies _______________ 113 Appendix D. Selected pumping tests _____ ____ __ 208 Reliability of the analog model _______ 113 Appendix E. Moisture investigations _ __________ 216 Temperature of ground water ___________ 113 Index _____________________ 225 ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates are in separate volume] PLATE 1. Topographic map of the "Upper Mesa" showing trace of the Algodones fault and the effect of the fault on ground-water levels, Yuma-area, Arizona and California. 2. Topographic map of the Yuma Mesa, Yuma area, Arizona and California. 3. Geologic map of the Yuma area, Arizona and California. 4. Geologic map of southeastern Laguna Mountains and north end of Gila Mountains, Yuma area, Arizona. 5. Geologic sections A-A', B-B', C-C', D-D', and E-E' across northern Yuma Valley and northwestern Yuma Mesa, Yuma area, Arizona and California. 6. Geologic sections F-F' along limitrophe section of Colorado River and G-G' along southerly international boundary, Yuma area, Arizona and California. 7. Map showing altitude of top of coarse-gravel zone, Yuma area, Arizona and California. CONTENTS v PLATE 8. Geologic sections H~H' across margins of Yuma Valley and Yuma Mesa southeast of Somerton and /-/' across eastern South Gila Valley and northeastern Yuma Mesa, Yuma area, Arizona and California. 9. Map showing principal geologic structural features, Yuma area, Arizona and California. 10. Block diagram of the Yuma area, Arizona and California. 11. Map showing chemical character of water in the coarse-gravel zone, Yuma area, Arizona and California. 12. Maps showing thickness of clay, silty clay, and clayey silt in the upper 100 feet of the alluvium in parts of the Yuma area, Arizona and California. 13-17. Maps of the Yuma area, Arizona and California showing
Recommended publications
  • The Lower Gila Region, Arizona
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HUBERT WORK, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 498 THE LOWER GILA REGION, ARIZONA A GEOGBAPHIC, GEOLOGIC, AND HTDBOLOGIC BECONNAISSANCE WITH A GUIDE TO DESEET WATEEING PIACES BY CLYDE P. ROSS WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1923 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 50 CENTS PEE COPY PURCHASER AGREES NOT TO RESELL OR DISTRIBUTE THIS COPT FOR PROFIT. PUB. RES. 57, APPROVED MAT 11, 1822 CONTENTS. I Page. Preface, by O. E. Melnzer_____________ __ xr Introduction_ _ ___ __ _ 1 Location and extent of the region_____._________ _ J. Scope of the report- 1 Plan _________________________________ 1 General chapters _ __ ___ _ '. , 1 ' Route'descriptions and logs ___ __ _ 2 Chapter on watering places _ , 3 Maps_____________,_______,_______._____ 3 Acknowledgments ______________'- __________,______ 4 General features of the region___ _ ______ _ ., _ _ 4 Climate__,_______________________________ 4 History _____'_____________________________,_ 7 Industrial development___ ____ _ _ _ __ _ 12 Mining __________________________________ 12 Agriculture__-_______'.____________________ 13 Stock raising __ 15 Flora _____________________________________ 15 Fauna _________________________ ,_________ 16 Topography . _ ___ _, 17 Geology_____________ _ _ '. ___ 19 Bock formations. _ _ '. __ '_ ----,----- 20 Basal complex___________, _____ 1 L __. 20 Tertiary lavas ___________________ _____ 21 Tertiary sedimentary formations___T_____1___,r 23 Quaternary sedimentary formations _'__ _ r- 24 > Quaternary basalt ______________._________ 27 Structure _______________________ ______ 27 Geologic history _____ _____________ _ _____ 28 Early pre-Cambrian time______________________ .
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.3 Geology Jan 09 02 ER Rev4
    3.3 Geology and Soils 3.3.1 Introduction and Summary Table 3.3-1 summarizes the geology and soils impacts for the Proposed Project and alternatives. TABLE 3.3-1 Summary of Geology and Soils Impacts1 Alternative 2: 130 KAFY Proposed Project: On-farm Irrigation Alternative 3: 300 KAFY System 230 KAFY Alternative 4: All Conservation Alternative 1: Improvements All Conservation 300 KAFY Measures No Project Only Measures Fallowing Only LOWER COLORADO RIVER No impacts. Continuation of No impacts. No impacts. No impacts. existing conditions. IID WATER SERVICE AREA AND AAC GS-1: Soil erosion Continuation of A2-GS-1: Soil A3-GS-1: Soil A4-GS-1: Soil from construction existing conditions. erosion from erosion from erosion from of conservation construction of construction of fallowing: Less measures: Less conservation conservation than significant than significant measures: Less measures: Less impact with impact. than significant than significant mitigation. impact. impact. GS-2: Soil erosion Continuation of No impact. A3-GS-2: Soil No impact. from operation of existing conditions. erosion from conservation operation of measures: Less conservation than significant measures: Less impact. than significant impact. GS-3: Reduction Continuation of A2-GS-2: A3-GS-3: No impact. of soil erosion existing conditions. Reduction of soil Reduction of soil from reduction in erosion from erosion from irrigation: reduction in reduction in Beneficial impact. irrigation: irrigation: Beneficial impact. Beneficial impact. GS-4: Ground Continuation of A2-GS-3: Ground A3-GS-4: Ground No impact. acceleration and existing conditions. acceleration and acceleration and shaking: Less than shaking: Less than shaking: Less than significant impact.
    [Show full text]
  • A Visitor's Guide to El Camino Del Diablo Leg 2B: El Camino Del Diablo from Tule Well to Tinajas Altas
    Cabeza Prieta Natural History Association A Visitor's Guide to El Camino del Diablo Leg 2b: El Camino del Diablo from Tule Well to Tinajas Altas Mile 69.0. 32°13’35”N, 113°44’59”W. Key Junction, Tule Well. At the junction head west (left) to go to Tinajas Altas. Tule Well has a cabin, well, large water tank, and picnic tables. The current cabin was built in 1989 by the US Air Force’s 832nd Civil Engineering Squadron to help celebrate the refuge’s 50th anniversary, and it replaced an earlier cabin built in 1949 for refuge staff, livestock line-riders, and border agents. Traces of the old well are visible. The campground has several picnic tables. The flagpole and Boy Scout monument northwest of the cabin were built for the refuge’s dedication in March 1941 and enhanced in 1989. The original plan was to place a life- sized statue of a bighorn sheep on the monument’s base. The scouts were instrumental in a political campaign to establish the refuge. The original hand-dug well was not there at the time of the Gadsden Purchase and subsequent boundary survey of 1854, nor did Pumpelly mention a well when he passed this way in 1861. But the boundary surveyors of 1891-1896 reported, “During the ‘early sixties’ [1860s] there was a large influx in Mexicans from Sonora to the gold diggings on the Colorado River, and an enterprising Mexican dug two wells near the road, in the purpose of selling water to travelers. But the deaths from thirst along this route became so frequent that the road was soon abandoned and for over twenty years had remained unused.” By another account, perhaps apocryphal, the enterprising Mexican who dug the wells was killed by someone who refused to pay for water.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Annual Spring Meeting Macey Center New Mexico Tech Socorro, NM
    New Mexico Geological Society Proceedings Volume 2015 Annual Spring Meeting Macey Center New Mexico Tech Socorro, NM NEW MEXICO GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 2015 SPRING MEETING Friday, April 24, 2015 Macey Center NM Tech Campus Socorro, New Mexico 87801 NMGS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE President: Mary Dowse Vice President: David Ennis Treasurer: Matthew Heizler Secretary: Susan Lucas Kamat Past President: Virginia McLemore 2015 SPRING MEETING COMMITTEE General Chair: Matthew Heizler Technical Program Chair: Peter Fawcett Registration Chair: Connie Apache ON-SITE REGISTRATION Connie Apache WEB SUPPORT Adam Read ORAL SESSION CHAIRS Peter Fawcett, Matt Zimmerer, Lewis Land, Spencer Lucas, Matt Heizler Session 1: Theme Session - Session 2: Volcanology and Paleoclimate: Is the Past the Key to Proterozoic Tectonics: the Future? Auditorium: 8:45 AM - 10:45 AM Galena Room: 8:45 AM - 10:45 AM Chair: Peter Fawcett Chair: Matthew Zimmerer GLOBAL ICE AGES, REGIONAL TECTONISM U-PB GEOCHRONOLOGY OF ASH FALL TUFFS AND LATE PALEOZOIC SEDIMENTATION IN IN THE MCRAE FORMATION (UPPER NEW MEXICO CRETACEOUS), SOUTH-CENTRAL NEW MEXICO — Spencer G. Lucas and Karl Krainer — Greg Mack, Jeffrey M. Amato, and Garland 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM R. Upchurch 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM URANIUM ISOTOPE EVIDENCE FOR PERVASIVE TIMING, GEOCHEMISTRY, AND DISTRIBUTION MARINE ANOXIA DURING THE LATE OF MAGMATISM IN THE RIO GRANDE RIFT ORDOVICIAN MASS EXTINCTION. — Rediet Abera, Brad Sion, Jolante van Wijk, — Rickey W Bartlett, Maya Elrick, Yemane Gary Axen, Dan Koning, Richard Chamberlin, Asmerom, Viorel Atudorei, and Victor Polyak Evan Gragg, Kyle Murray, and Jeff Dobbins 9:00 AM - 9:15 AM 9:00 AM - 9:15 AM FAUNAL AND FLORAL DYNAMICS DURING THE N-S EXTENSION AND BIMODAL MAGMATISM EARLY PALEOCENE: THE RECORD FROM THE DURING EARLY RIO GRANDE RIFTING: SAN JUAN BASIN, NEW MEXICO INSIGHTS FROM E-W STRIKING DIKES AT — Thomas E.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 & 2022 Fishing Regulations Fishing Regulations
    ArizonaArizona Game and Fish DepartmentDepartment 20212021 & 2022 FishingFishing Regulations i Get a GEICO quote for your boat and, in just 15 minutes, you’ll know how much you could be saving. If you like what you hear, you can buy your policy right on the spot. Then let us do the rest while you enjoy your free time with peace of mind. geico.com/boat | 1-800-865-4846 Some discounts, coverages, payment plans, and features are not available in all states, in all GEICO companies, or in all situations. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. In the state of CA, program provided through Boat Association Insurance Services, license #0H87086. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, DC 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. © 2020 GEICO ii ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT — AZGFD.GOV 2021 & 2022 ARIZONA FISHING REGULATIONS 1 AdPages2019.indd 2 12/11/2020 11:36:21 AM AdPages2019.indd 1 12/11/2020 11:35:54 AM Table of Contents Fishing License Fees GETTING STARTED Licenses available at all license dealers, Department offices and online at azgfd.gov. License Information and Fees .......................................................... 3 More information about the new licenses can be found under Commission Rules R12-4-207, R12-4-209 and R12-4-210. Regulation Changes .............................................................................4 All fishing and combo hunt/fish licenses listed are valid for the take of all aquatic wildlife, which includes legal fish species, crayfish, frogs, waterdogs and Douglas A. Ducey, Governor softshell turtles. How to Use This Booklet .................................................................... 5 Started Getting ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION LICENSES PRIVILEGES RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT Kurt R.
    [Show full text]
  • Demography of Desert Mule Deer in Southeastern California
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 92(2):55-66 2006 DEMOGRAPHY OF DESERT MULE DEER IN SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA JASON P. MARSHAL School of Natural Resources University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 [email protected] LEON M. LESICKA Desert Wildlife Unlimited 4780 Highway 111 Brawley, CA 92227 VERNON C. BLEICH Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Program California Department of Fish and Game 407 West Line Street Bishop, CA 93514 PAUL R. KRAUSMAN School of Natural Resources University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 GERALD P. MULCAHY California Department of Fish and Game P. O. Box 2160 Blythe, CA 92226 NANCY G. ANDREW California Department of Fish and Game 78-078 Country Club Drive, Suite 109 Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Desert mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus eremicus, occur at low densities in the Sonoran Desert of southeastern California and consequently are difficult to monitor using standard wildlife techniques. We used radiocollared deer, remote photography at wildlife water developments (i.e., catchments), and mark-recapture techniques to estimate population abundance and sex and age ratios. Abundance estimates for 1999-2004 ranged from 40 to 106 deer, resulting in density estimates of 0.05-0.13 deer/km2. Ranges in herd composition were 41-74% (females), 6-31% (males), and 6-34% (young). There was a positive correlation (R = 0.73, P = 0.051) between abundance estimates and number of deer photographed/ catchment-day, and that relationship may be useful as an index of abundance in the absence of marked deer for mark-recapture methods. Because of the variable nature of desert wildlife populations, implementing 55 56 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME strategies that recognize that variability and conserving the habitat that allow populations to fluctuate naturally will be necessary for long-term conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Vegetation Map of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico 1
    ______________________________________________________________________________ A Vegetation Map of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico ______________________________________________________________________________ 2003 A Vegetation Map of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico 1 Esteban Muldavin, Paul Neville, Paul Arbetan, Yvonne Chauvin, Amanda Browder, and Teri Neville2 ABSTRACT A vegetation classification and high resolution vegetation map was developed for Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico to support natural resources management, particularly fire management and rare species habitat analysis. The classification and map were based on 400 field plots collected between 1999 and 2002. The vegetation communities of Carlsbad Caverns NP are diverse. They range from desert shrublands and semi-grasslands of the lowland basins and foothills up through montane grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands of the highest elevations. Using various multivariate statistical tools, we identified 85 plant associations for the park, many of them unique in the Southwest. The vegetation map was developed using a combination of automated digital processing (supervised classifications) and direct image interpretation of high-resolution satellite imagery (Landsat Thematic Mapper and IKONOS). The map is composed of 34 map units derived from the vegetation classification, and is designed to facilitate ecologically based natural resources management at a 1:24,000 scale with 0.5 ha minimum map unit size (NPS national standard). Along with an overview of the vegetation ecology of the park in the context of the classification, descriptions of the composition and distribution of each map unit are provided. The map was delivered both in hard copy and in digital form as part of a geographic information system (GIS) compatible with that used in the park.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona
    Scholars' Mine Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations 1965 Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona Elias Zambrano Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses Part of the Geology Commons Department: Recommended Citation Zambrano, Elias, "Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona" (1965). Masters Theses. 7104. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/7104 This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GEOLOGY OF CIENEGA MINING DISTRICT, NORTHWESTERN YUM.1\, COUNTY, ARIZONA BY ELIAS ZAMBRANO I J'i~& A THESIS submitted to the faculty of the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT ROLLA in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN GEOLOGY Rolla, Missouri 1965 ~!'Approved by ~2/~advisor) ~ ~·-~~ ii ABSTRACT In the mapped area three metamorphic units crop out: calc-silicates and marble, gneiss, and a conglomerate- schist section. The first one consists of a series of intercalations of calc-silicate rocks, local marbles, and greenschist. Quartzite appears in the upper part of the section. This section passes transitionally to the gneiss, which is believed to be of sedimentary origin. Features indicative of sedimentary origin include inter­ calation with marble, relic bedding which can be observed locally, intercalation of greenschist clearly of sedimentary origin, lack of homogeneity in composition with both lateral and vertical variation occurring, roundness of zircon grains, and lack of zoning in the feldspars.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012
    The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012 (Photographs: Arizona Game and Fish Department) Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ i RECOMMENDED CITATION ........................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ iii DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ iv BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1 THE MARICOPA COUNTY WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................... 8 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT AND ASSOCIATED GIS DATA ................................................... 10 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 MASTER LIST OF WILDLIFE LINKAGES AND HABITAT BLOCKSAND BARRIERS ................ 16 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Uranium Favorability of Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks, Basin
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY A Study of Uranium Favorability of Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks Basin and Range Province, Arizona Part I General Geology and Chronology of Pre-late Miocene Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks By Robert Scarborough and Jan Carol Wilt Open File Report 79-1429 1979 This report was funded by U.S. Geological Survey Grant No. 14-08-0001528. It;has not been edited for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey standards or with accepted U.S. Geological Survey stratigraphic nomenclature. FOREWORD This report by Robert Scarborough and Jan Carol Wilt summarizes the results of a study made for the U.S. Geological Survey jointly by the Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology and the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry, College of Earth Sciences, University of Arizona, under Grant No. 14-08-0001528. Age dating by the K/Ar method was cost-shared with. NSF Grant No. EAR78-11535 which supports volcanic rock studies by the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry. It is considered that this report adequately fulfills the agreement objectives. Principal Investigator: H. Wesley Peirce, Principal Geologist Geological Survey Branch Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology University of Arizona, Tucson Co-Principal Investigator: Paul E. Damon, Chief Scientist Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry Department of Geosciences College of Earth Sciences University of Arizona, Tucson CONTENTS Page Abstract ,....,,...,...,........« « 1 Introduction ...,.,..*....««..« «« 3 General statement ........ , ».....,....». 3 Purpose and scope .«..,,.....,.......... 3 Acknowledgments ..................... * . 4 Location and physiographic setting .............. 4 Approach ........................... 5 General Cenozoic geology of Basin and Range Province sediments . General statement ...................... 7 Group I localities with radioactive anomalies ........ 9 Mineta Formation ..................... 9 Cardinal Avenue sediments ................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 2-21-94-F-192R2 September 30, 2002 Memorandum To: Field Manager, Phoenix Field Office, Bureau of Land Management From: Acting Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion for Five Livestock Grazing Allotments in the Vicinity of Ajo, Arizona This biological opinion responds to your request for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531- 1544), as amended (Act). Your request for formal consultation was dated April 19, 2002, and received by us on April 23, 2002. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed reauthorization of livestock grazing on the Sentinel, Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments located in Maricopa and Pima counties, Arizona. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has determined that the proposed action for the five allotments may adversely affect the endangered Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), and the proposed action for the Cameron and Childs allotments may adversely affect the endangered cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum). In your letter, you also requested our concurrence that the proposed action on the Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments may affect, but will not likely adversely affect, the endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuena). We concur with that determination, which is based on sound analysis and guidance criteria for the species mutually agreed upon by our agencies.
    [Show full text]