DOCSLIB.ORG

Arizona Department of Water Resources Depth to Water and Water - Level Altitude, Sheet 1 of 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arizona Department of Water Resources Depth to Water and Water - Level Altitude, Sheet 1 of 3 A.D.W.R HYDROLOGIC MAP SERIES REPORT NO. 35 PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DEPTH TO WATER AND WATER - LEVEL ALTITUDE, SHEET 1 OF 3 R. 4 E. T. 9 N. CAREFREE EXPLANATION FOUNTAIN HILLS LAKE PLEASANT R. 5 E. UPPER NUMBER, 95, IS DEPTH TO 95 WELL IN WHICH DEPTH TO WATER WAS MEASURED IN 1997-1998 AND 2002-2003. HASSAYAMPA WATER IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE. LOWER NUMBER,1084, IS THE ALTITUDE OF THE WATER LEVEL IN FEET R. 3 E. 112 00 1084 ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL. DATUM IS REFERENCED TO THE NATIONAL VERTICAL GEODETIC DATUM OF 1929. R. 3 W. WEST SALT RIVER VALLEY T. BASIN-FILL DEPOSITS, (SILT, SAND, CLAY, GRAVEL, CONGLOMERATE, SANDSTONE, MUDSTONE, EVAPORITES, AND 112 30 VOLCANICS). 8 EAST SALT RIVER VALLEY N. 34 00 34 00 R. 2 E. HARDROCK (GRANITIC, METAMORPHIC, VOLCANIC OR CONSOLIDATED SEDIMENTARY ROCK - WATER MAY OCCUR IN RAINBOW VALLEY R. 2 W. WEATHERED OR FRACTURED ZONES, JOINT SYSTEMS, OR FLUVIAL DEPOSITS OVERLYING BEDROCK). R. 4 W. T. 7 INDIAN RESERVATIONS Sub-Basins in the Phoenix AMA N. NEW RIVER MOUNTAINS R. 5 W. R. 6 W. MAJOR HIGHWAY 112 45 R. 6 E. R. 1 W. R. 7 W. R. 1 E. MAJOR WATERWAY R. 8 W. 111 45 T. HIEROGLYPHIC MOUNTAINS 1650 GENERAL DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW IN THE PRIMARY PART OF THE MAIN AQUIFER 113 00 VULTURE MOUNTAINS 6 N. 2150 112 15 BOUNDARY BETWEEN HARDROCK AND BASIN FILL 1600 2200 1500 1550 Cave Creek 1300 1450 WATER LEVEL CONTOURS - SHOWS THE APPROXIMATE ALTITUDE OF THE WATER-LEVEL. THE NUMBER 1100 1400 2100 1100 REPRESENTS 1100 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL. DASHED WHERE INFERRED. 1250 1450 1500 1400 R. 7 E. SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY 1350 2250 1300 1300 1200 RIVER 1250 BOUNDARY OF PHOENIX AMA 1250 RIVER 1350 T. 1150 HIGHWAY SYMBOL (Source: Jim Mossman, Data Deja Vu, 2002) 5 FRIA N. 1300 1000 1200 FOR READERS WHO PREFER TO USE METRIC UNITS RATHER THAN INCH-FEET UNITS, 1150 1200 1050 1250 UNION HILLS RIVER THE CONVERSION FACTORS FOR THE TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT ARE LISTED BELOW: 33 45 HASSAYAMPA CAP CANAL AGUA PINNACLE 33 45 1250 PEAK ENGLISH UNITS METRIC UNITS 1200 1150 1 INCH 25.4 MILLIMETERS Luke Air Force Base 1100 1050 NEW 1050 1 FOOT 0.3048 METERS 1000 1150 1 MILE 1.609 KILOMETERS 950 950 MCDOWELL MOUNTAINS T. 1 SQUARE MILE 2.59 SQUARE KILOMETERS HEDGPETH 1000 CAP CANAL 1 ACRE-FEET 0.001233 CUBIC HECTOMETERS 4 HASSAYAMPA PLAINS HILLS N. 1100 CREEK BELMONT MOUNTAINS 1200 SKUNK VERDE RIVER 1100 1200 750 900 CAVE CREEK 800 1000 WHITE TANK MOUNTAINS T. 800 3 1150 900 850 Fountain HILLS N. 900 750 1150 SCALE BARS TONOPAH DESERT 800 1100 800 900 GRANITE 5 0 5 STATUTE MILES CAP CANAL 950 1050 REEF DAM 750 Paradise Valley 900 800 950 1000 1050 5 0 5 10 KILOMETERS Scottsdale Tonopah 1050 USERY T. 850 2 1000 1100 MOUNTAINS 33 30 33 30 N. 1000 R. 8 E. 1200 SALT RIVER 1150 1100 111 30 950 900 Phoenix 1150 PALO VERDE HILLS 900 1050 R. 11 E. 900 1050 T. 111 15 R. 9 E. 1 850 1100 N. R. 10 E. 900 900 23rd Ave R. 12 E. WWTP 800 Discharge 1050 SALT RIVER SUPERSTITION MOUNTAINS 850 Apache Junction Tempe Mesa 750 1050 800 850 91st Ave 950 WWTP 1000 T. 700 Discharge R. 13 E. Arlington RIVER 1 1100 S. GILA SOUTH MOUNTAINS 1050 BUCKEYE GILA RIVER HILLS 800 1000 1150 CENTENNIAL WASH CAP CANAL 850 750 SIERRRA ESTRELLA MOUNTAINS 800 33 15 33 15 33 15 GILA BEND Queen Creek 1150 T. 1150 1200 2 113 00 1150 S. MOUNTAINS 112 45 1100 QUEEN CREEK GILLESPIE DAM 1150 1200 1050 750 1150 800 WATERMAN WASH 1100 111 15 850 GILA RIVER T. 3 S. SANTAN MOUNTAINS 112 00 114 113 112 111 110 109 1200 37 37 1100 1250 112 30 36 36 T. COCONINO 1150 111 30 4 Flagstaff KINGMAN EXPLANATION APACHE S. FIG . 1 1200 NAVAJO 35 35 MOHAVE The Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA) is subdivided into seven legislatively defined sub-basins The Central Arizona Project (CAP), a 336-mile aqueduct designed to carry about 1.5 million acre-feet YAVAPAI Holbrook (fig. 1, sheet 1): three hydrologically interconnected east valley sub-basins [East Salt River Valley of surface water annually from the Colorado River to Maricopa, Pinal and Pima Counties, began de- (ESRV), Carefree and Fountain Hills] and four hydrologically interconnected west valley sub-basins livery to the Phoenix metropolitan area in 1985. In 2003, deliveries of CAP water to the Phoenix AMA Prescott [West Salt River Valley (WSRV), Lake Pleasant, Hassayampa and Rainbow Valley]. Hydrologic inter- totaled more than 300,000 acre-feet (CAP, 2004). 900 connection between the east and west valley sub-basins is minimal. Hydrographs and maps showing 34 34 MARICOPA groundwater level contours are presented for each of the sub-basins. Discussion of groundwater con- Climate in the Phoenix AMA is semi-arid. Precipitation averages about 7.6 inches per year (WRCC, L A PAZ GILA ditions and water-level changes focuses on the larger East and West Salt River Valley sub-basins. The 2004a). The Phoenix area as well as much of the State of Arizona is in the midst of a drought that PHOENIX sub-basins of the Phoenix AMA are located almost entirely within Maricopa County except for a portion began in 1996 (fig. 3, sheet 1). During this drought, average annual precipitation has been below of the southeastern ESRV, which is located in Pinal County and small hardrock areas of the northern normal in six of the past eight years. 33 33 YUMA Hassaymapa, WSRV and Lake Pleasant Sub-basins located in Yavapai County. 33 00 GRAHAM GREENLEE 33 00 111 45 PINAL Y uma Water-level data presented in this report were collected and compiled by the Field Services Section of T. TUCSON the Arizona Department of Water Resources from November 2002 to February 2003. Historic pump- P I M A Fig. 34 112 15 age data were compiled by the Hydrology Division and the Phoenix AMA Office. 5 32 Total Annual Precipitation (inches) 32 COCHISE (Phoenix WSFO AP, Station:026481) S. 114 Land and Water Use SANTA 113 16.0 CRUZ Land use within the Phoenix AMA has become increasingly urban with the expansion of the Phoe- 112 Nogales nix metropolitan area into native desert and previously irrigated agricultural areas. The population of 111 110 109 Maricopa County, which includes the Phoenix metropolitan area, has increased more than 50 percent 0 50 100 MILES since 1990 from approximately 2,122,100 to 3,194,800 in 2001 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). By 1995, T. urban land use in the Phoenix AMA (Maricopa county portion only and excluding the Gila River Indian Carefree Sub-basin 12.0 6 0 50 100 150 KILOMETERS Reservation) exceeded agricultural land use (ASU CAPLTER, 2003). Combined irrigated acreage of Hassayampa Sub-basin agricultural land in the East and West sub-basins (Maricopa county only and excluding the Gila River S. Groundwater in the Carefree Sub-basin occurs under a variety of conditions. Water bearing units Hydrographs for selected wells throughout the AMA are presented in Sheet 3. The Hydrographs were INDEX MAP SHOWING AREA OF REPORT (SHADED) Indian Reservation) decreased from approximately 264,000 acres in 1995 to less than 200,000 acres in The Hassayampa Sub-basin is further divided into the upper Hassayampa Plain and the Lower Has- may consist of unconsolidated streambed alluvium, and various members of the Carefree Formation prepared using data from ADWR’s Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) Database. 2000 while urban land use has increased from approximately 280,000 acres to more than 420,000 over sayampa Area. Groundwater in the upper Hassayampa Plain occurs primarily under unconfined (HydroSystems, 2000). Local areas of fractured schist, gneiss and granite also yield water to wells the same time period (ASU CAPLTER, 2003). Prior to the early 1990’s agriculture was the dominant (Littin, 1979). Groundwater conditions in the basin-fill deposits (Long, 1983). The upper Hassayampa Plain is predominantly land use in the Phoenix AMA. 8.0 undeveloped with few existing wells scattered over a large area. Average References Groundwater occurs under generally unconfined conditions throughout most of the alluvial-filled basins The Carefree Formation is the major water-producing unit, with the majority of water pumped in the basin coming from its various members (HydroSystems, 2000). Pumpage in the Carefree Sub-basin Despite the decrease in agricultural land use, groundwater withdrawn for agriculture still exceeds that and local hardrock areas of the Phoenix AMA. Depths to water range from just below land surface to Groundwater in the Lower Hassayampa Area occurs primarily under unconfined conditions in the precipitation (inches) precipitation is primarily for domestic use, municipal use and golf course irrigation. Reported pumpage in the sub- ADWR, 2001, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrology Division Water Resources Section. withdrawn for municipal and industrial use. In 2000, agricultural use accounted for approximately more than 800 feet below land surface. basin-fill deposits (Stulik, 1974), with smaller amounts under locally confined, artesian, or perched basin has decreased from approximately 3,700 acre-feet in 1990 to less than 2,100 acre-feet in 2002. Memo to File, Water Availability review for a Certificate of Assured Water Supply, Verde 54.7% of all groundwater withdrawn in the AMA, and municipal (including domestic) and industrial conditions (Long, 1983).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX
    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE PHOENIX AMA Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Brown and Caldwell Project No. 23481.001 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 9 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Arizona 'Highways
    Sc:~r1ic: VOL. XXXIII NO. 3 MARCH 1957 RAYMOND CARLSON, Editor U. S. Highway 89, Arizona's main artery of north­ GFORGE M. AV EY, Art Editor south trayel, is one of the most scenic of all 0~1r roads. Its JAJ\LCS E. STEVENS, Business Manager some 600 miles through the state offer a Yarietv of eleva­ LEGEND tion, terrain and scenic interest. Each mile unfoldi1we:, be- "89" ENT ERl'-'G HousEROCK VALLEY FRONT COVER fore the traveler is an interesting mile and different from ~ . R .,, y MANLEY'S PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS the one preceding. "89" brings :--·ou into the state at GLORIOUS NORTHERN ARIZONA VISTA. Fredonia. It leaves the state at Nogales. As eYen the most ARIZONA S CRAPBOOK . 2 S:-.:11PSHOTS OF SCEN IC INTEREST casual glance at a map ·will reveal, "89'' cuts right through ALO ~G "89," BORDER TO BORD ER . the heart of Arizona and covers a lot of interesting· coun­ PIPE SPRI NG NATIONAL MoNUJVIENT 4 try between Utah and J\1e.\'ico. The Strip, the cool J(aibab, \VF. PAY A VISIT TO HISTORIC the s,1 ·eeping panorama of Houserock Valley, Vermilion SHR INE GLORIFYING OUR PIONEERS. and Echo Cliffs, the lofty forested reg·ion ~f San Fran­ IO \VE TAKE A TRIP ON A HIGHWAY cisco Peaks, the high pla~eau countr:v ~bet\\·een vVillia1m OF INTE RNAT IONAL GRANDEUR. and Prescott, or by Alternate "89" Oak Creek and the OLD BrLL WrLLTAJVrs' FAVORITE MouNTAIN 34 Verde Va llev, the desert and then the historic Santa Cruz D ESC RIPTIO N OF A MOUNTAIN THAT Vallev- all of these and more, too, make up the travel JS LA NDM ARK IN NORTHERN ARIZONA.
    [Show full text]
  • FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality
    SEPTEMBER 2013 Arizona Department FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Janice K. Brewer, Governor • Henry R. Darwin, Director Publication Number: FS 13-11 Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Upper Hassayampa Basin: A 2003-2009 Baseline Study – June 2013 Introduction A baseline groundwater quality study of the Upper Hassayampa basin was con- ducted from 2003 to 2009 by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Ambient Groundwater Monitor- ing Program. ADEQ carried out this task pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §49-225 that mandates ongoing moni- toring of waters of the state including its aquifers. This fact sheet is a synopsis of the ADEQ Open File Report 13-03.1 The Upper Hassayampa groundwater basin covers approximately 787 square miles within Maricopa and Yavapai counties and is located about 60 miles Map 1 – Sample sites in the northwest of Phoenix (Map 1). The basin Upper Hassayampa basin is characterized by mid-elevation moun- are color-coded according to their water quality status: No tains and had an estimated population Water Quality Exceedences, 2 of 10,479 in 2000. The largest popula- Secondary MCLs Exceedences, Primary MCL Exceedances, and Primary and Secondary MCL Exceedances. (Map by Jean Ann Rodine) tion center is the Town of Wickenburg. tions range from approximately 7,000 Other communities include Congress feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the and Groom Creek. Low-intensity livestock Bradshaw Mountains to 1,900 feet amsl grazing is the predominant land use and along the Hassayampa River about five most ranches have limited acreages of ir- miles south of Wickenburg. The basin is rigated pasture to raise additional animal comprised of federal land managed by feed.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Wulfenite 2009 3 12
    Geologic Settings of Wulfenite in Arizona by Jan C. Rasmussen Curator, Arizona Mining and Mineral Museum and Stanley B. Keith, MagmaChem Exploration March 21, 2009 Arizona is famous for its spectacular wulfenite specimens. The butterscotch-colored, bladed crystals from the Glove Mine in the Santa Rita Mountains south of Tucson and the bright red, chunky blades from the Red Cloud Mine in the Silver district north of Yuma are prized highlights of many mineral collections. Most of these famous mineral localities are no longer available to collectors, making the historic specimens even more valuable. Outline Figure 1. Wulfenite from the Glove mine, Santa Rita Alkali-calcic Pb-Zn-Ag Mountains Laramide (75-65 Ma) Glove, Tyndall, Turquoise, Empire dist. Wulfenite is lead molybdate, PbMoO4. It forms Mid-Tertiary (30-20 Ma) in the oxidized zones of lead deposits where the Hilltop, Tonopah, Hull, Red Cloud white needle-like crystals of cerussite (PbCO3) (Silver dist.), Ripsey, Grand Reef, Purple have developed. Surprisingly, the presence of Passion mines molybdenite is not required. Wulfenite rarely Quartz Alkalic Au-base metal occurs in the same mineral deposits as Jurassic (180-160 Ma) molybdenite, and then only in the later stages of Bisbee the deposits. Even there, wulfenite does not Laramide (75-70 Ma) occur unless cerussite or mimetite is present. Old Yuma There had to be enough lead in the system in a Mid-Tertiary (28-22 Ma) relatively soluble mineral to allow the Tiger, Rowley molybdenum in the ground water to combine Calc-alkalic porphyry copper stage 4 with lead and oxygen as wulfenite.
    [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]
  • Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan
    Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan Adopted August 16, 2004 Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Trail Commission Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Maricopa County Planning and Development Flood Control District of Maricopa County We have an obligation to protect open spaces for future generations. Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan VISION Our vision is to connect the majestic open spaces of the Maricopa County Regional Parks with a nonmotorized trail system. The Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan - page 1 Credits Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Andrew Kunasek, District 3, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Maricopa County Trail Commission Supervisor Max Wilson, District 4 Chairman Supervisor Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Parks Commission Members: Citizen Members: Laurel Arndt, Chair Art Wirtz, District 2 Randy Virden, Vice-Chair Jim Burke, District 3 Felipe Zubia, District 5 Stakeholders: Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Fred Pfeifer, Arizona Public Service (APS) James Duncan, Salt River Project (SRP) Teri Raml, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ex-officio Members: William Scalzo, Chief Community Services Officer Pictured from left to right Laurel Arndt, Supervisor Andy Kunasek, Fred Pfeifer, Carol Erwin, Arizona’s Official State Historian, Marshall Trimble, and Art Wirtz pose with the commemorative branded trail marker Mike Ellegood, Director, Public Works at the Maricopa Trail
    [Show full text]
  • Geochronology, Geology, and Listric Normal Faulting of the Vulture Mountains, Maricopa County, Arizona
    Arizona Geological Society Digest, Volume XII, 1980 89 Geochronology, Geology, and Listric Normal Faulting of the Vulture Mountains, Maricopa County, Arizona by WA. Rehrigi, M. Shafiqullah2, and P.E. Damon2 Abstract Geologic mapping and geochronologic studies in the Vulture Mountains near Wickenburg, Arizona, have led to the recognition of a large, northeast-trending batholith of 68.4-m.y. age that intrudes complex gneissic and granitic rocks of probably Precambrian age. Over- lying the denuded crystalline terrane is a sequence of late Oligocene to Miocene ( .'26 to 16 m.y.) volcanic rocks (vitrophyres, ash-flow tuffs, welded tuffs, breccias, agglomerates, and lava flows) that vary locally. Nearby source areas are suggested. A swarm of north- to north-northwest-trending porphyritic dikes intrudes the volcanics and crystalline basement. Overlying this volcanic sequence in angular unconformity is a thin section of basal conglom- erate and basalt lava flows dated at 13.5 m.y. B.P. The older, tuffaceous sequence is generally calc-alkalic but with a high proportion of rhyolites that are exceptionally rich in potassium and silica. These silicic units are peral- kaline or nearly so, and those with K20/Na2O >3 are ultrapotassic. Initial strontium ratios average 0.7081, whereas an initial ratio for the younger basalt sequence is significantly lower at 0.7054. The silicic volcanics have been severely tilted on multiple, low-angle listric normal faults. The youngest basalt flows are relatively flat lying and postdate this deformation. By geo- logic and radiometric criteria, the transition from tilted silicic volcanics to untilted basalts occurred between about 16 and 14 m.y.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Northeastern Hieroglyphic Mountains, Central Ariz Ora
    GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE NORTHEASTERN HIEROGLYPHIC MOUNTAINS, CENTRAL ARIZ ORA by Richard C. Capps, Stephen J. Reynolds, Curtis P. Kortemeier, and Elizabeth A. Scott Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 86·10 August 1986 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 Jointly funded by the Arizona Bureau o/Geology and Mineral Technology and the U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (COGEOMAP) Contract No. 14-08-0001-A0378 Principal Investigators: Stephen J. Reynolds and lArry D. Fellows This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards INTROOOCTION This report presents a preliminary 1:24,OOO-scale geologic map of the northeastern Hieroglyphic Mountains in central Arizona. The mapping, completed between January and June, 1986, was jOintly funded by the U. S. Geological Survey and the Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology as part of the cost-sharing, Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (COGEOMAP). The aim of COGEOMAP is to produce high-quality geologic maps for areas that have been inadequately mapped and that have high mineral resource or natural hazard potential. The mapping was done on 1:24,OOO-scale topographic maps and on 1:24,000- scale color aerial photographs provided by Raymond A. Brady, U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix. GEOLOGIC OVERV][EW The Hieroglyphic Mountains are composed of a metamorphic-plutonic basement that is overlain by middle Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The oldest rocks in the range are Proterozoic schist, gneiss, metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks, and several generations of plutonic rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 POST-MINERAL NORMAL FAULTING in ARIZONA PORPHYRY SYSTEMS by Phillip A. Nickerson a Dissertation Submitted To
    1 POST-MINERAL NORMAL FAULTING IN ARIZONA PORPHYRY SYSTEMS By Phillip A. Nickerson _________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2012 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Phillip A. Nickerson entitled Post-Mineral Normal Faulting in Arizona Porphyry Systems and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Eric Seedorff _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Mark Barton _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 George Davis _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Peter Reiners _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Charles Ferguson Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012
    [Show full text]
  • General Monitoring and Discovery Plan for the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona
    General Monitoring and Discovery Plan for the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona Prepared for City of Phoenix City Archaeology Office Parks and Recreation Department Pueblo Grande Museum 4619 E. Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85034 Pueblo Grande Museum Project No. 2017-009 Project Report No. 19-120 Desert Archaeology, Inc. Prepared by: T. Kathleen Henderson Submitted by: Patricia Castalia Desert Archaeology, Inc. 3975 N. Tucson Boulevard Tucson, Arizona 85716 July 31, 2020 ABSTRACT Report Title: General Monitoring and Discovery Plan for the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona Project Name: General Monitoring and Discovery Plan Update Project Location: Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona Project Sponsor: City of Phoenix Sponsor Project Number(s): None (Pueblo Grande Museum No. 2017-009) Lead Agency: City of Phoenix Other Involved Agencies: Arizona State Historic Preservation Office; Arizona State Museum Applicable Regulations: City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8); Arizona Antiquities Act (ARS §41-841 et seq.); Arizona state burial laws (ARS §41-844 and ARS §41-865) Funding Source: City Description of the Project/Undertaking: Provide an updated general monitoring and discovery plan for the city of Phoenix Project Area/Area of Potential Effects (APE): Lands inside the boundary of the city of Phoenix and city-owned facilities that lie outside this boundary; acreage to be established by individual projects conducted under this updated plan Legal Description: To be established by individual
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium in the Basin and Range Province of Arizona
    Cenozoic Sediments, Volcanics, and Related Uranium in the Basin and Range Province of Arizona Jan C. Wilt J. C.Wilt & Co. TLcson, Arizona Robert B. Scarborough University of Arizona TLcson, Arizona Concentrations of uranium in Cenozoic deposits of Arizona occur with carbonaceous and siliceous matter in light-colored, calcareous mudstones or fetid carbonates that were deposited in lacustrine, paludal or low= energy floodplain environments. Although uranium was deposited throughout the Cenozoic, the largest uranium resources in the state occur in the Date Creek basin in fine-grained sediments associated with ig- nimbrite volcanism of the mid-Tertiary orogeny. This concentration may be related to the coincidence of three factors: low-energy environments where fine grained, carbonaceous, lacustrine or paludal sediments were accumulating; exposure of large areas of alkalic Precambrian granite; and, extrusion of large volumes of relatively alkalic and silicic volcanics of the mid.Tertiary ignimbrites. In 1975, Union Oil Co. announced that the Anderson 1979). That investigation consisted of a survey of the mine in southern Yavapai County, Arizona, contained literature describing various Xrtiary formations, ex- 80 million pounds of uranium buried beneath rocks of amination of outcrops of uraniferous Tertiary sedi- the Date Creek basin (Sherborne and others, 1979; Eng. ments, and determination of ages of intercalated vol- Min. Jour., 1978). This discovery, coupled with the in- canics. creased price of uranium, touched off a flurry of explora- Earlier papers by Cooley and Davidson (1963), Heindl tion activity throughout the Basin and Range province (1962), and Sell (1968) correlated Cenozoic rock units of Arizona (Peirce, 1977). Much of the leasing and claim according to rock type, structural involvement, and se- staking was directed at the Date Creek basin and sur- quence.
    [Show full text]