University of

Reno

Hydrogeologic Significance Of Landsat Thematic Mapper Lineament Analyses In

The Great Basin

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Hydrology/Hydrogeology

by

Paul Edward McBeth Jr. MINE* l ibr ar y

1^1 ;£3i 5 The thesis of Paul E. McBeth Jr. is approved: A ) 3 5

____ /.'i

Thesis Advisor

University of Nevada

Reno

July, 1986 iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank his advisors for their technical guidance, literary critiques and encouragement. Dr. Clarence Skau, Dr. Steve Wheatcraft,

Dean James Taranik and Michael Dettinger spent a considerable amount of their time throughout the two years of my Masters program providing direction and advice.

In addition, I would like to recognize and thank my wife, Sharon. Her love and support allowed me to dedicate one hundred percent of my time towards graduate school. Finally, I must thank my daughter Andrea, who unknowingly provided excellent encouragement through the last several months of work on this thesis. IV

ABSTRACT

Hydrogeologic Significance of Landsat Thematic Mapper Lineament Analyses In

The Great Basin

Paul E. MeBeth Jr.

University of Nevada, Reno

July, 1986

Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper digital data covering the Coyote Spring

Valley area of southeastern Nevada was enhanced to produce a false color composite image that highlighted lineaments. Lineaments were analyzed based on their statistical distribution and with correlations to geologic maps, regional ^ geophysics (aeromagnetics and gravity) and field discontinuity data to produce a conceptual model of aquifer conditions of the southern White River Flow

System.

Lineaments were combined with geophysics to interpret large structures

that delineate the basement of the regional carbonate aquifer. Whereas the C

geophysics often provided the basis for interpretations, lineaments provided a

mappable boundary that was unrecognized in the field and on small scale

photographs. The extension of bedrock lineaments across alluvial basins

identified underlying carbonate blocks that complicated the flow system. Field

discontinuity data indicated the distribution of secondary porosity correlated

with the distribution of lineaments; the lineaments provide an indication of the

anisotropic properties of the carbonate system. V

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABSTRACT iv INTRODUCTION 1 LINEAMENTS 3 DEFINITION 3 SYMBOLOBY 7 OTHER LITERATURE 8 HYDROGEOLOGIC SIGNIFICANCE 9 COYOTE SPRINGS LINEAR FEATURES CONCEPTUAL MODEL 16 INTRODUCTION 16 Location 16 Geology 16 White River Flow System 24 Previous Work 27 LINEAR FEATURES MAPS 29 Image Construction 29 Lineament Criteria 31 Lineament Maps 31 REGIONAL LINEAMENTS 34 TREND ANALYSIS 37 Background 37 Strike Frequency Histograms 37 Linear Feature Concentration Contour Maps 38 Linear Features Analysis 38 FIELD DISCONTINUITY DATA 46 Introduction 46 Discontinuity Criteria 47 Graphical Representation of Pole Data 53 Lineaments 55 Field Sites 55 Double Canyons 55 Fault Canyon 64 Rattlesnake Canyon 64 Crooked Canyon 74 Page Composite Plots 74 Composite Poles and Lineament Trend Data 78 Summary 78 RELATION OF GEOPHYSICAL DATA BASES TO LINEAMENTS 81 Lineaments and Gravity 81 Lineaments and Magnetics 83 Summary 85 HYDROGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATIONS 86 Significance of Lineaments 86 Carbonate Aquifer 87 CONCLUSIONS 91 REFERENCES CITED 92 APPENDICES 101 A. METHODOLOGY 102 Landsat Thematic Mapper Data 103 Advantages 103 Landsats 4 and 5 104 Data Collection 104 Choice of Data 108 Image Production 116 Computer Processing 117 Contrast Manipulation 117 Spatial Filtering 122 Image Development 126 Contrast Enhanced Image Analysis 128 Filtered Image Analysis 130 Combination Image 132 B. LINEAMENT DATA VALUES 136 Azimuth and Length 137 C. FIELD DATA VALUES 141 Discontinuity Poles 142 Transect Data 100 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Secondary Porosity Developed Along Fractures and Lineament Traces. 10 2. Relationship Between Groundwater Well Productivity and Location To Fracture Traces. 14 3. Relationship Between Groundwater Well Productivity and Location To Lineaments. 14 4. Mapped Lineaments In Bedrock and Alluvium. 15 5. Extended Lineaments That Define Fracures In Alluvial Areas. 15 6. Location Map For Study Areas. 17 7. Columnar Section of Rocks Exposed In the Arrow Canyon Range, Nevada. 19 8. Stratigraphic Cross-section Through the Muddy Mountains-Arrow Canyon Range-Pahranagat Range. 20 9. Generalized Hydrostratigraphic Units of the Study Area. 21 10. Simplified Tectonic Map of the Study Area. 23 11. , White River Flow System. 25 12. Lineament Map of Study Area. 33 13. Frequency Plots of Lineament Data. 40 14. Lineament Concentration Contour Plot (0° to 180°). 41 15. Lineament Concentration Contour Plot (50° to 100°). 42 16. Lineament Concentration Contour Plot (160° to 180°). 43 17. Lineament Concentration Contour Plot (110° to 130°). 44 18. Photograph At South Double Canyon Transect. 48 19. Photograph Illustrating Jointing In Carbonates. 50 20. Photograph Illustrating Solution Porosity. 51 21. Photograph Illustrating Discontinuity Measurement Technique On Joint Surface. 54 22. Equal Area Stereonet Projection. 56 23. Equal Area Contour Plot of Discontinuity Poles. 56 24. Lineament Map of Field Study Area. 57 25. Site Location Map For Double Canyons. 58 26. South Double Canyon Reconnaissance Poles. 61 27. South Double Canyon Transect Poles. 61 28. North Double Canyon Reconnaissance Poles. 62 viii Page 29. North Double Canyon Transect Poles. 62 30. Double Canyons Composite Poles. 63 31. Double Canyon Composite Contours. 63 32. Site Location Map For Fault Canyon. 65 33. Fault Canyon Reconnaissance Poles. 66 34. Crooked Canyon Reconnaissance Poles. 66 35. Site Location Map For Rattlesnake and Crooked Canyons. 67 36. Upper Rattlesnake Canyon Reconnaissance Poles. 69 37. Upper Rattlesnake Canyon Reconnaissance Contours. 69 38. Lower Rattlesnake Canyon Reconnaissance Poles. 70 39. Lower Rattlesnake Canyon Reconnaissance Contours. 70 40. Rattlesnake Canyon Transect #1 Poles. 71 41. Rattlesnake Canyon Transect #2 Poles. 71 42. Rattlesnake Canyon Composite Poles. 72 43. Rattlesnake Canyon Composite Contours. 72 44. Photograph Illustrating Solution Porosity Developed Along A Discontinuity Surface. 75 45. Photograph Illustrating Solution Porosity Developed Along A Carbonate Bedding Plane. 76 46. Composite Poles For Field Study. 77 47. Composite Contour Plot For Study Area. 77

LIST OF TABLES 1. Geologic Uses of the Term "Lineament" and "Linear" Between 1904 and 1973. 5 & 6 2. Lineament Statistics (1:100,000 scale) 39 3. Field Discontinuity Pole Results. 80

LIST OF PLATES 1. Image of Project Area (1:550,000 scale). 2. Regional Lineament Map Overlay (1:550,000 scale). 3. Lineament Map (1:250,000 scale). 4. Regional Gravity Map and Lineaments 5. Regional Aeromagnetic Map and Lineaments 6. Interpretation Overlay IX APPENDIX FIGURES AND TABLES Figure Page A l. Electromagnetic Spectrum Showing Absorption Regions. 105 A2. Flightpath of Landsats 4 and 5. 107 A3. Landsats 4 and 5 16-day Orbit Pattern. 107 A4. General Configuration of Landsats 4 and 5. 109 A5. Landsats 4 and 5 Communications Pattern. 110 A6. Sun Illumination Relationships For Landsats. 115 A7. Solar Elevation Angle For Landsat 4 and 5 As A Function Function Of Latitude. 115 A8. Typical Histogram Of Digital Number Values For Landsat Images. 119 A9. Histograms Illustrating Extreme Contrasts and Radiances. 119 A10. Concept of Linear Contrast Stretch. 120 A ll. Image: North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range (raw data). 121 A12. Image: North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range (raw data with histogram). 121 A13. Image: North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range (linear contrast stretch). 123 A14. Image: North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range (linear contrast stretch with histogram). 123 A15. Concept of Spatial Frequency Enhancement. 125 A16. Sample High and Low Pass Filters. 125 A17. Image: North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range (3x3 filter). 127 A18. Image: North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range (5x5 filter). 127 A19. Lineament Analysis of Contrast Stretched Image. 129 A20. Lineament Analysis of Filtered Image. 131 A 21. Image: North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range (linear stretch + filtered image). 134 A22. Image: North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range (false color composite + filter). 135 A23. Image: North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range (false color composite) 135 X Table Page A l. Electromagnetic Spectral Bands. 105 A2. Landsat Periods of Operation. 106 A3. Radiometric Characteristics of Landsats 4 and 5. 106 A4. Thematic Mapper Band Applications. 111 A5. Thematic Mapper Radiometric Sensitivity. 111 A6. Thematic Mapper Parameters. 112 A7. Thematic Mapper Performance Requirements. 112 A8. Sample of Landsat 5 Available Data. 113 1 INTRODUCTION

Lineaments have been recognized as surface expressions of geologic

structures for nearly eighty years. In the last forty years, hydrogeologists have

successfully used lineament mapping on aerial photographs to find major

fractures in hard rock which are avenues for groundwater flow. With the

advent of Landsat 4 imagery in 1982, the principles established using aerial

photography could be carried out at a regional scale, taking full advantage of

the better resolution of Thematic Mapper data.

The objectives of this study are to 1) create a Thematic Mapper image

base which enhances linear features in the Great Basin and 2) test the y-

hypothesis that lineaments interpreted from digitally enhanced Landsat Thematic

Mapper imagery could represent large scale structures which define groundwater y

flow and flow boundaries in the Great Basin. The area chosen for the study is

at the terminus of the White River Flow System in southeast Nevada. Regional

southwest flow in an extensive carbonate aquifer is funneled through the rocks

beneath Pahranagat and Kane Spring Washes into the Coyote Springs Valley.

Rather than discharge down gradient in the valley, some or all of the flow

emerges in a separate basin to the east at Muddy Springs. This regional flow

system has been discussed by several authors, with differing boundaries and

groundwater sources applied to the system. This study introduces lineaments as

possible indicators of groundwater flow paths, and as indicators of barriers to regional flow.

Digital processing of satellite data is becoming a useful and available tool.

This technology is introduced to the hydrogeologic community, as special attention is paid to the digital image processing methodology developed for highlighting structures in the Great Basin (Appendix A). Background material on Landsats is summarized, followed by a digital processing "recipe" that 2

i n cludes test case linea ment analyses of filtered and contrast enhanced i mages.

To explore the significance of linea ment maps, field reconnaissance data, outcrop fract ure (discontin uity) surveys, regional gravity and aero magnetic data

bases are exa mined. Each is correlated to nearby linea ments, and with a statistical distribution of the entire linea ment map. A definitive test of V linea ment significance would involve a nest of production wells; so mething which will not be co mpleted for at least 30 years. Ho wever, this study provides V interpretations involving the most funda mental infor mation for ground water flo w ^ analyses; the aquifer geo metry and boundary conditions. In addition, the i magery provides a reconnaissance level data base fro m which to choose drill V targets and plan a regio nal hydrological investigatio n.

An underlying assu mption in this study is that linea ments as seen by surface expression represent structures at depth. In this study, the assu mption is often verified with co mparison to other data bases. Many linea ments correspond to faults fro m geologic maps. Others correlate to geophysical data, fro m which a structural basis may be inferred. Linea ments often line up with

+■ . and appear as extensions of large surface structures such as frontal faults.

Ho wever, not all linea ments can be explained and so me structural origin is assu med to be the underlying cause. 3 LINEAMENTS

DEFINITION

The term "lineament" has been used in the geologic literature since the

Early 1900's. Hobbs' (1904) original introduction was meant to describe significant linear geomorphic features that were surface expressions of zones of weakness or structural displacement in the crust of the earth. These included

"crests of ridges or boundaries of elevated areas, the drainage lines, coast lines, and boundary lines of formations, of petrographic rock types, or lines of outcrops". Following Hobbs, a host of authors redefined lineament and linear to designate specific structural criteria. Wilson's (1941) definition stated that lineaments were formed by "the great scarps and troughs which cross all

Precambrian rocks". At a later date, Lattman (1958) included the limitation that a lineament be "expressed continuously or discontinuously for many miles". Hills

(1963) added an adjective to define megalineaments as "a term for large, somewhat vague, controversial lineaments of continental dimensions". Over the years, a list of synonyms has been added to the many definitions, obscuring the geologic significance of the term lineament.

A recent trend adopts terminology that was presented in a paper by

O'Leary and Friedman (1976). They reviewed historical usage of the terms

"linear" and "lineament", and proposed a set of definitions that is consistent with Hobbs' original interpretation. Table 1, from O'Leary and Friedman, shows the different geologic usage which appeared in print between 1904 and 1973.

The terms, as used in this paper, conform to O'Leary and Friedman and are defined below:

Lineament is a mappable, simple or composite linear feature of a surface, whose parts are aligned in a rectangular or slightly curvilinear relationship and which differ distinctly from the patterns of adjacent features and presumably 4 reflect a subsurface phenomenon. The surface features which control the

lineament may be physiographic or tonal. The physiographic expressions (relief)

consist of isolated or continuous landforms, the boundaries of morphologically

distinct areas, or breaks in a uniform terrain. Examples of these include straight

stream segments, aligned valleys, fault scarps and even non-topographic features

such as geophysical anomaly alignments. Tonal expressions are straight

boundaries between areas of contrasting tone, or a stripe contrasted against its

background. These include vegetation, soil and moisture differences seen as

changes in either the visible or thermal areas of the electromagnetic spectrum.

A lineament may be a single continuous feature, a series of a single kind

of feature (simple), or a variety of contiguous or detached features (composite).

The features must be aligned in natural succession (noncultural) that is closely spaced. There is no minimum length criteria, and any distinct change in

direction of alignment represents a different lineament (even if they are connected).

Some linear features or groups of features may be strongly curved. These distinctly arcuate features are called curvilineaments with no other modification in terminology. Examples of these include volcanic craters, topographic basins, impact craters and sinkholes.

The term linear is reserved in geologic literature as an adjective and should never be substituted as a noun for lineament. Linear expresses a geometric quality, similar to planar, circular and triangular and should be left as such. In the past, much confusion caused by liberal substitution (Table 1) has been generated. Therefore, a lineament is described as linear in the same manner that a curvilineament is described as circular. 5

Reference Definition Comment Hobbs (1904) A lineament is "nothing more than a Term introduced to chorocterize spotiol generally rectilinear earth feoture" relationships of "I) crests of ridges or (p .485). boundaries of elevoted areas, 2) drainage lines, 3) coast lines, 4) boundory lines of formations, or petrographic rock types, or lines of outcrops" (p. 485). Any of these moy be joined end to end. Term is scale related: "lineaments . . . (ore) rectilinear . . . only in proportion os the scale of the map is small " (p. 486). Lineaments tend to be obscure. Hobbs (1912) Lineaments are "significant lines of Features include ravines, volleys, and visible landscape which reveal the hidden lines of fracture or foult breccia zones but ore architecture of the rock basement (p. in every case some surface expression of o buried 227); "the character lines of the earth's feature. Many ore equivalent to "seismotectonic physiognomy" (p. 227). lines." They ore composite features.

Sonder (1938) "The lineament of o region then denotes Used in a general, regional sense; individual a definite direction which is contained features (compare Hobbs, 1904, 1912) are in the tectonics, the jointing, ond the termed "linears". relief (p. 223).

Wilson 0941) Lineaments are "straight and gently Emphasized structure: "Their association in curving lines" formed by "the great definite patterns strongly suggests that they ore scarps ond troughs which cross all the members of connected systems of faulting" Precambrian rock's" (p. 496). (p. 496). Described os regional feotures better seen in air photos than on ground.

Kaiser (1950) "A lineament is a straight linear surface "Lineaments ore well shown on aerial photographs feoture thot is at lecst mony hundreds ond . . . moy consist of I) linear topogrophic of feet and commonly many miles long" features, either trenches or ridges; 2) lineor (p. 1475). vegetation patterns; 3) linear patterns of soil color or texture. Gops and stream segments typicolly form parts of lineaments" (p. 1475).

Gross (1951) "The stroight line or gently curved "Lineors"genero!ly foult related; synonyms physiographic features on the eorth's are "topographic linear" and "lineal topo­ surface are known as I inears" (p. 79). graphic feature." Used "lineal" os adjectival substitute for "linear." Used "linection" to refer implicitly to general trend of linears. (compare Sonder, 1938).

Kelly (1955) “In general terms a lineament is a Lineaments are usually "interrupted or discon­ rectilinear feoture of considerable ex­ tinuous features" not readily mapped in the tent on the surface of the earth. A field and ore "agreements of boundary or tectonic lineament . . . (is) either c line observed generally on regionol maps" general alignment of structural features (p. 58). Term is usually reserved for "transverse or a boundory between contrasting or oblique alignments of one sort or onother" structural features" (p. 58). (p. 58), but included “in the broodest sense" (p. 58) are feotures such as the eastern Rocky Mountains.

Kupsch and Wild No specific definition. Related lineaments to extended faults. Tonal lineo- (1958) ments "ore believed to reflect differences in soil moisture resulting perhops from microrelief" (p. 129). Noted thot "linear" is an etymologically undeslroble term; suggested use of "linear trends, linecr feotures, or lineaments" (p. 129) instead.

Lottman (1958) A lineament is "a natural linear feature Lineaments ore expressions of subsurfoce faults consisting of topogrophic (including Defined "fracture troce" os a lineament "expressed straight stream segments), vegetation, or continuously for less than one mile" (p. 569), soil tonal alignments, visible primarily the expression of local jointing or small faults; on oerial photographs or mosiocs, and included "only naturol linear feotures not expressed continuously or discontinuously obviously related to outcrop pattern of tilted for mony miles" (p. 569). beds, linection ond foliotion, ond strotigrophic contacts . . . included . . . ore joints mopped on aeriol photographs where bore rock is exposed" (p. 569).

Parkinson in Lueder "Any linear feature of the landscape which An implicit definition: "Bedrock linears (1959) possesses on abnormal degree of regularity . . . represent the surfoce traces of such . . . whether stroight or gently curving, geologic planar feotures as foults, contacts, Gs) generally believed to be the surface joints, ond bedding planes" (p. 343).

Table 1 Geologic Usage of Terms "Lineament" and "Linear" Between 1904 and 1973 (O'Leary and Friedman, 1976) 6

expression of some structural feature in the They also represent "one of several structural the bedrock. Experience ond careful judge­ features" (p. 343), including schistosity, ment are required . . . to distinguish a gneissosity, or narrow dikes. diagnostic linear from random river stretches, hills, and similar results of random erosion" (p. 343).

Hill. (1963) * Megalineament is a term for large, some­ Megalineaments form definite patterns "over what vague, controversial lineaments of areas os large as subcontinents or ocean continental dimensions" (p. 460). basins" (p. 460) (compare Hobbs, 1904, 1912).

Dennis (1967) Lineaments ore "rectilinear or gently Lineament "most commonly refers to regional curved alignments of topographic features features; ' linear1 has a more local connota­ on o regional scale, generally judged to tion ond is used for lines of unsure origin on reflect crustal structure" (p. 102). aeriol photographs" (p. 103).

Billings (1972) "In the broad sense of the word, a linea­ Lineaments presumably represent the "traces ment is a line resulting from natural proce: of a fracture or fracture system on the surface. that may be observed or inferred" (p. 208) Most lineaments ore caused by steeply dipping "A lineament is expressed on the surface faults or joint systems", but the "exact cause is of the earth as a relatively straight line" unknown" (p. 419).' "The term may be used (p. 419). "The lineament may be a long even if the cause is well established" (p. 419). depression on a long ridge" (p. 208). They may be easily confused with ridges and volleys resulting from the erosion of steeply dipping interbedded strata of varying hard­ ness" (p. 208). Noted that the term "linear" is somewhat misused for "lineament".

G ay (1972) N o specific definition Applied concept to aeromagnetic maps. Lineament is a "disruption in the contour pattern" (p. 5) manifested by two or more "elements"; (I) termination of highs, (2) termination of lows, (3) change in contour gradient, (4) linec ’ traight) contour patterns. Elements may not be contiguous.

Brock (1972) "A lineament is defined briefly as a Types include "seismic," "coastal," and geological or topographical alignment "island arc lineaments." Scale is emphasized: too precise to be fortuitous ** (p. 187). "If it does not show up on a map it is not a lineament" (p. 188). They occur on all scales from air photos to outlines of conti­ nents (for example, the Andes, which ore "rectilinear for 2,000 miles"; (p. '87). Cited a tectonic relationship, but noted that no spe­ cific structure need be ascribed.

A G I Glossary of Geology Photogeologic (compare AJIum, 1966, p. May also be manifested by stream beds and Gary and others, 1972) 31): "A lineament Is any line on on alignments of vegetation, and so forth. aerial photograph, that is structurally controlled . . . the term is widely applied to lines representing beds, lithologic horizons, mineral bandings, veins, faults, joints, unconformities, and rock boundaries" (p. 408).

Tectonic: Lineoments are "straight or Have varied origins — for instance, "faults, gently curved lengthy features of the aligned volcanoes, and zones of intense earth's surface, frequently expressed jointing . . . but the meaning of others is topographically as depressions or obscure . . . and their origins may be . . . lines of depressions" (p. 408). purely accidental" (p. 408).

Gay (1973) "Basement fracture lineament" (1. 101): Generally a direct manifestation of basement a lineament observed directly on "base­ fractures (or faults). ment" or its shallow cover.

Joint lineament' (p. 101): lineament Generally less than 1 to 2 km long; equivalent caused by jointing not coincident with to Blanchet's (1937) microfractures" and Lottmon's basement fractures. (1936) "froctur. traces."

Fracturo trace lineoment" (p, 101) Terminology ond usage presumes an accurate Itnow- compare Blanche!, "macrofrocture, ledge of structural geology. Lattman, "photogeologic lineament".

Table 1 Geologic Usage of Terms "Lineament" and "Linear Between 1904 and 1973 (O'Leary and Friedman, 1976) 7

SYMBOLOGY

The next step in standardizing lineament interpretation is to design a

mapping symbology. Since the terminology above was designed to be universal

and generic, allowing for a certain amount of differentiation in geologic

interpretation, the symbology should allow for various degrees of confidence of

interpretation. O'Leary and Friedman (1978) followed their terminology paper

(1976) with a proposed symbology. This has not been as widely accepted in the field as their previous work, but provides a logical procedure for organizing lineament data.

The assignment of symbols to linear features is in reality a classification scheme. Numerous ways to classify lineaments are currently in use; e.g., such as in accordance with mode of detection, size (length and width), physical characteristics or genesis. If a symbology is oriented to describe one parameter, it will have drawbacks in that the others may be ignored. O'Leary and

Friedman's (1978) symbology scheme circumvents these drawbacks. First, the symbology is hierarchical, allowing levels of confidence that linear features can be morphologically identified. It is qualitative, providing for levels of geological significance and finally, it is keyed to geology because lineaments are surface expressions of some form of geologic control.

The proposed hierarchy uses three classes of linear features:

Lineament: A mappable (at 1:25,000 and smaller scales), simple or composite linear feature of a surface, the parts of which are aligned in a rectilinear or slightly curvilinear pattern of adjacent features and which presumably reflect a subsurface phenomenon

Alignment: An interpretive line which joins aligned linear or non-oriented features separated by relatively great distance (i.e., the spacings are equal to 8 or greater than the lengths of the features) and which passes through or abuts

those features, such as tributary junctures, bunched meanders, volcanoes, dikes,

ridge offsets, magnetic anomalies, etc.. The features in alignment are distinct

from the pattern of the surrounding surface.

Line: A linear feature geometrically recognizable but with uncertain

physiographic expression, i.e., possibly cultural, meteorological or, if

physiographic, defined by changes in tone or terrain pattern such that definite placement of a border line is not possible. It may represent a zone rather than

a line.

O'Leary and Friedman (1978) propose a system of symbols to note each of

the classes of lineaments. For this study, strict controls on lineament recognition are used to define only those which are interpreted as a fracture or

fault cutting bedrock or alluvium. These receive the "lineament" symbol of a single line.

OTHER LITERATURE

Linear features are often subtle on imagery, with many preferentially enhanced by varied illumination conditions and computer processing. For these reasons, a number of authors have investigated the subjectivity of lineament mapping. Siegal and Short (1977) show that with four analysts working separately on the same images, significant differences in both number and length of of the lineaments were recorded. The actual coincidence of lineaments recognized on a particular image was low, and cluster analysis of orientation correlated to analysts rather than images. For this reason, extreme caution must be used when comparing results from multiple authors. Podwysocki (1975) conducted a study with similar results where less than 1% of lineaments were recognized by all four of the analysts.

Graphical and statistical display of orientation data as an aid in interpretation and analysis has been investigated by many authors (Abdel

Rahman 1976, Abdel Rahman 1978, McGuire and Gallagher 1976, Sawatzky 1978,

Werner 1976). The emphasis of these reports include: 1) determination of peak orientations, 2) comparison of orientation patterns, 3) associations between differing orientation patterns and 4) comparisons of different graphical and statistical methods as to geological significance.

HYDROGEOLOGIC SIGNIFICANCE

The hydrologic applications of remotely sensed data fits into several categories with proven applications (Moore 1979, Middleton 1980): precipitation

measurement, snow and ice measurement, surface water delineation, outlining

water surface features, delineation of physical water quality, watershed hydrology, estimation of evapotranspiration, land use cover mapping and groundwater hydrology. In groundwater hydrology, 1) detection, delineation and interpretation of hydrogeologically significant structures, 2) shallow groundwater exploration based on landforms, drainage patterns and vegetation, ^

3) detection of groundwater seeps and geothermal groundwater and 4) aquifer recharge and discharge have been studied using Landsat data. This study deals with structural mapping, as lineaments are expected to represent either avenues of groundwater flow or barriers to flow through bedrock in southern Nevada.

Flow of groundwater through many "hard" rocks is dominated by secondary porosity and permeability provided by fractures. The largest fractures represent conduits, with the regional gradient superimposed on the system providing the impetus for flow. If the fracture system is detectable as lineaments, it represents a target for groundwater exploration. Figure 1 illustrates the concept of increased secondary porosity associated with lineaments and fracture traces. On the other hand, if the secondary porosity has been sealed by mineral precipitation, the fracture can become a barrier to flow. 1 0

■ V»oce . \t /

m g £ ^ ~ r- r

— ^ «-. ___ • • ' ' * - s '— • \ _ Tixturot Ti.tiirnl ond nnd • „' C ? C ~-r^r- . Co mpositional — ‘ ■' v ‘ ‘ Voriolion

1 0 0 - -

2 0 0

I Z o n e of / Fracture / Concentration

3 0 0 -L-

Figure 1 Relationship Between Fracture Traces (Lineaments) and Increased Secondary Porosity in Carbonate Bedrock (from Lattman and Parizek, 1964) 11

The relationship between groundwater and lineaments/ fracture traces

(lineaments less than 1.5 km in length) in carbonate terrain of Pennsylvania was

established by Lattman and Parizek (1964). Lineaments were found to represent

fracture zones underlain by localized weathering, increased permeability and

porosity. A comparison of water wells drilled off, on and at the intersection of

fracture traces revealed specific capacities (gal/min/ft per drawdown/ft per

saturated thickness) of 10 to 100 times greater in the latter two. Furthermore,

wells along fractures had numerous cavernous openings compared to few within

the non-fractured strata.

Cline and Parizek (1975) used a 10.4 meter width for fracture traces in

siltstones, shales and sandstones to correlate well location and high yields. Also,

ten fracture intersections were mapped, drilled and tested to reveal a positive

relationship of proximity of traces to increased production.

Parizek (1979) presented evidence for establishing a relationship between

fracture traces and major lineaments from Landsat imagery (MSS data) and

increased permeability and porosity in carbonate rocks in Pennsylvania.

Thirty-seven wells of known construction and geologic conditions were tested

and ranked as to lineament or non-lineament location. Results indicated that both lineament and non-lineament wells can be productive if they penetrate zones of fracture concentration. However, lineament wells were more consistent in yield and showed less yield variability for the same setting. Figure 2 shows the relationship between well productivity and location with respect to fracture trace. A similar plot shows the lineament and non-lineament wells (Figure 3).

Additional conclusions include:

1) Increased soil moisture and perched groundwater are frequently aligned along lineaments.

2) To maximize the recognition of fractures, multiple scale imagery/photography along with temporal data should be analyzed. This results

in a 5% to 10% increase in fractures identified.

3) Lineaments are underlain by structural features that increase the

physical and chemical weathering of bedrock of all types.

Regional groundwater studies using Landsat MSS data were completed by

Zall and Russell (1979) in Africa, where the imagery was used as a first phase^-

of reconnaissance. Once potential groundwater areas were delineated using

structural, lithologic, soil and fracture interpretations, phase two aerial photo

and final phase field work were successfully completed. Results indicate that

computer enhanced imagery can be utilized as a primary data source in

groundwater investigations. Other studies with similar conclusions were

completed by Falconer and others (1979) and Kruck (1979).

Finch and Wright (1970) found that the large Running Water Draw-White

River lineament of northern Texas was a major control for the localization of

Ogallala aquifer drainage and sedimentation, distribution of groundwater in the

Ogallala and the location of present day drainages and depressions. Conclusions

indicate that artificial recharge of the aquifer would be most efficient along

linear drainages and the alignment of depressions.

Taranik and Trautwein (1976) designed a workshop exercise in southern

Arizona to demonstrate the application of Landsat imagery and principles to hydrogeologic interpretation and to the development of cost-effective plans for ground water exploration in semi-arid environments. Hydrologically significant features that were identified on the basis of image patterns were: 1) bedrock and alluvial basins, 2) stream drainage alignments, 3) drainage texture, 4) lineaments and 5) vegetation patterns. Lineaments related to hydrogeologic conditions as they often represent fractures which extend from the bedrock outcrops to under the basin fill. These act as conduits for recharge, and any deformation along them could create groundwater barriers/conduits, with increased or decreased permeabilities. Figure 4 is a lineament map of all features identified in the bedrock and alluvial areas of their study. Lineaments that align across valleys or form groups are mapped as lineament extensions

(Figure 5), which are used to interpret the hydrogeologic "plumbing" of the system.

Groundwater exploration using Landsat imagery in consolidatd rock aquifers has generally consisted of lineament or fracture analyses. In the humid east, lineaments in carbonate terrains often reflect zones of increased solution development. These zones represent groundwater flow paths and are targeted for well locations. In this study, lineaments in an arid carbonate terrain are examined in respect to their hydrogeologic significance. 14

Figure 2 Comparison of Productivity Frequency Graphs of Fracture Trace Wells (Parizek, 1979)

EXPLANATION - PERCENTAGE OF WELLS WITH PRODUCTIVITY EQUAL TO OR MORE THAN THE STATED VALUE Gotesburg Fbrmotion . c/> Ll o v - • Lineomenl Well* O Ll I H-Z 10° \ ♦ Non*lineomenl Wells o * o o 7 ^ 5 5 Figure 3 Comparison of 3 s PER D D T Ll I 2 Productivity Frequency Ll I h- \ t - < Graphs of Wells Located i i I0*1 £ On Lineaments (Parizek, 1979) — h- 3; ? < 7 in 5 o Ll I _ 5 a. i- 3 < co 1— 2 V \ o . _J ° 10* 7 O 5 s S

3 PER ITY, 2 > 2

-I ia 5 2 Q 7 ? < 5 10 iO 30 « 0 50 60 70 EO 90 95 PERCENTAGE OF WELLS WITH PRODUCTIVITY EQUAL TO OR MORE THAN THE STATED VALUE 15

wiii'30’ W tIO'OO' EXPLANATION

Uaeanenlj

Figure 4 Lineaments in Bedrock Areas. (Taramk, 1978)

W111*30' W 1 lO'OO1

kilometres

Figure 5 Lineaments Extended From Bedrock Into Alluvial Areas. (Taramk, 1978) COYOTE SPRING LINEAR FEATURES CONCEPTUAL MODEL

INTRODUCTION

Location

The study area is centered around Coyote Spring Valley in southeastern

Nevada (Figure 6), encompassing a 3000 square mile area of the Basin and

Range Province which includes the Sheep, Las Vegas, Arrow Canyon Ranges and the Southern Meadow Valley Mountains (Approximate longitudes 114°40' to

115°30' and latitudes 36°20' to 37°151). This area includes and surrounds the terminus of the White River Flow System where waters from beneath

Paharanagat and Kane Spring Valleys (Eakin, 1966) are believed to flow into

Coyote Spring Valley and across to the Muddy Springs in Upper Moapa Valley.

Within this area, a subareas centered on the north tip of the Arrow Canyon

Range was chosen for detailed lineament interpretations and reconnaissance field verifications. This is located 45 miles north-northeast of Las Vegas and encompasses 25 square miles.

Geology

The geologic setting is a typical Basin and Range horst bedrock and alluvial-filled graben series. Hydrologically, these can be split into valley-fill and carbonate-bedrock aquifers, and igneous, Precambrian clastic, volcanic and pluvial silt aquitards. The carbonate aquifer consists of Cambrian through

Permian formations, which are considered to be a single hydrostatigraphic unit.

The ranges of the Coyote Spring Valley area consist primarily of

Paleozoic carbonates, where over 10,000 feet of Ordovician through Permian crop out in the Arrow Canyon Range. A columnar section (Figure 7) and stratigraphic section from the Muddy Mountains through the Arrow Canyon

Range to the Pahranagat Range (Figure 8, Langenheim and others, 1962) present individual formations. Starting with the youngest formations, the Bird Spring, Topographic Map of Southern Nevada Scale = 1:1,000,000

Area of Image Coverage N

Area of Lineament Analysis

i : Field Study Area

Figure 6 Site Location Map (Modified From 1972 Nevada Bureau of Mines Series) 18

Monte Cristo Limestone, Sultan Limestone, Lone Mountain Dolomite and Ely

Springs Dolomite represent a thick aquifer sequence spanning from Middle

Ordovician to Permian. Underlying this, the thin Eureka Quartzite has been reported as a minor aquitard of Middle Ordovician age (Ertec, 1981). Next, the

Pogonip Group of Lower Ordovician and undifferentiated Upper and Middle

Cambrian Limestones represent another thick aquifer sequence. The basement of the system is a series of Cambrian and Precambrian elastics, underlain by

Precambrian elastics and igneous basement. These basement rocks also constitute the gravity and magnetic basement used for the geophysical interpretations. Due to the overall thickness of the carbonate aquifer units compared to the thickness of included aquitards (only 100 feet of Eureka

Quartzite), the carbonates are considered a single aquifer unit for this regional scale study. Figure 9 illustrates the general hysrostratigraphic units for the study area.

Tertiary rocks include very abundant volcanics in the northern part of the

Coyote Spring Valley and are predominantly derived from centers near central

Lincoln County. The rocks range from tuffs to basalts with ages between 14 and 26 million years.

The Late Miocene Muddy Creek Formation consists of lacustrine and deltaic facies deposits that fill Lower , Coyote Spring

Valley and upper Moapa Valley. The lacustrine facies consists of cycles of thick to thin bedded claystone, siltstone and sandstone. The deltaic facies is found near margins and consists of detrital conglomerate and sandstone. The thickness of the Muddy Creek varies with underlying tectonic relief, but is estimated to be as thick as 1738 feet in the center of Coyote Springs Valley

(Anderson and Jenkins, 1970). 19

Figure 7 Composite Columnar Section of Rocks Exposed In the Arrow Canyon Range (Langenheim and others, 1962) 20

Figure 8 Stratigraphic Sections of Arrow Canyon Range in Comparison with Muddy Mountains and Pahranagat Range-Spring Mountains (Langenheim and others, 1962) 21

E XPLANATION

□ Valley fill principally clay, silt, sand, and gravel; locally may include fresh­ water limestone or evaporite; consolidated to unconsolidated. Deposited under subaerial, stream or lacustrine environments. Lower Tertiary deposits involved In deformation; upper Tertiary and Quaternary deposits moderately deformed, locally. Sand and gravel deposited in stream channels and alluvial fans transmit water freely;fine-grained deposits, where saturated, transmit water slowly but contain a large volume o* water in storage

Volcanic rocks Principally volcanic tuff and welded tuff or Ignimbrite, but include other volcanic rock types and locally sedimentary deposits.Generally transmits water slowly, but locally highly fractured welded tuff may yield water readily. In mountains differential transmissibility, bedding planes, or fracture systems result in semiperched ground water which supplies many small springs. Where saturated transmits water slowly but contain a large volume of water in storage

Paleozoic rocks undivided Principally limestone and dolomite. Secondary fracture or solution openings result in transmission of substantial quantities of water, at least locally.In gross where saturated, store a large volume of water. Principal regional aquifer.

Include some shale, sandstone, and quartzite which generally Q.< act as a barrier to ground-water movement. Locally,however, fractured or weathered zones transmit some water

Project Area

Figure 9 Generalized Hydrogeologic Map of Study Area (modified from Eakin, 1966). The structure of the Coyote Spring Valley area was formed during two

periods of deformation; compression during the Mesozoic-early Tertiary Sevier

Orogeny and Basin and Range extension during the Miocene to Holocene.

Structural discussions are taken from county geologic maps (Longwell and

others, 1965; Tschanz and Pampeyan, 1970; Ekren and others, 1977) and a

tectonic interpretation from Wernicke and others (1984).

The Coyote Spring Valley lies in a northeast trending orogenic belt that

includes the majority of Lincoln and Clark counties. Compressional transport

was directed towards the east and southeast. The bordering faults are the Gass

Peak thrust in the Las Vegas Range on the west and the Glendale-Mormon

thrust on the east (Figure 10). Horizontal displacement is estimated at 18.6

miles (Wernicke and others, 1984) along the Gass Peak with an age of Early

Cretaceous to Late Triassic.

During Late Tertiary, extensional tectonics formed a characteristic Basin

and Range topography in southern Nevada. Horizontal extension on deep-seated, low-angle detachment faults caused the brittle upper crust to break along large high-angle (listric) faults, forming the north trending basins and ranges.

Differential horizontal extension between major regions causes shear failure

(transform faults), which are identified as major lineaments. Two of these major transform faults bound the Coyote Spring Valley area: the Las Vegas and

Pahranagat shear zones. The Las Vegas shear cuts south of the southern Sheep and Las Vegas Ranges, trending northwest with a right-lateral movement (Figure

10). North of the area, the Pahranagat shear trends northeast with left-lateral movement (Snyder, 1983). Included in the Pahranagat shear is the strike-slip zone of the Kane Springs Wash. Components of strain within this region suggest overall east-west extension in the wedge-shaped region, which accounts for the north-trending range-front faults. 23

HIGHER THRUSTS Figure 10 Simplified tectonic map of Coyote Springs Valley area (modified from Burchfxel and others, 1974 . Sevier thrusting which borders the area includes the KEYSTONE-MUDDY MTN- Gass Peak Thrust of the Las Vegas GLENDALE PLATE Range to the west and the Glendale-Mormon Thrust to the east. Basin and Range extensional Features include the Las Vegas Shear with right-lateral movement RED SPRING- MORMON to the south and the Pahranagat shear and Kane Springs Wash with PLATE left-lateral movement to the north. These features encompass a relatively stable allocthon terrain which includes the Las Vegas and Arrow Canyon Ranges and North Muddy AUTOCHTHON Mountains. 24 Wernicke (1984) describes the study area (Las Vegas, Arrow Canyon and

Meadow Valley Ranges) as a "stable allochthon" in an extensional terrain. This

accounts for the simple extensional structures and less disrupted stratigraphy in

these areas. Because of this, lineament interpretations are simplified as

fracturing is believed to be predominantly post-Sevier.

White River Flow System

A regional scale groundwater system including 770 square miles along the

ancestral White River system in eastern Nevada was first proposed by Eakin

(1966). The system includes thirteen distinct topographic basins (Figure 11) along a north-south distance of 175 miles. Topographically, the washes of the present White River drop from 5500 feet at the north to about 1800 feet in the southern end at Muddy Springs. Mountains are from 2000 to 4000 feet higher than the adjacent valleys. An average groundwater gradient along the wash is

21 feet per mile (to the south), although locally this is quite variable.

Three groups of valley springs discharge 100,000 acre-feet annually along the flow system. The northern two groups include the Warm Springs in the

White River Valley and the Pahranagat Valley Springs. The majority of their discharge is lost to evapotranspiration in their respective valleys. Muddy Springs is the third discharge area, where 37,000 acre-feet discharge to the Muddy

River annually.

Recharge throughout the system is principally from precipitation, which is assumed to increase with elevation. Based on empirical estimates (Eakin and others, 1951), annual recharge is 104,000 acre-feet. Most of this occurs in the northern half of the system because of higher elevations there. Discharge, however, occurs primarily in the lower valleys; a condition which supports the idea of regional flow. 25 120° 117.

01 Coyole Springs Pahranagal Long o> Sc? Pahroc n _ Valley White River Valley , , Jakes Valley Valley 2 u 6ooo - l I ____ LI -D ^ 4000 - Scale (mi) 0 16 32 •1 s 2000

Figare 11 White River Flow System (Modified from Eakin, 1966) 26

The identification of the White River System (Eakin, 1966) is based on:

1) The relative hydraulic properties of the major rock groups in the area;

including Paleozoic carbonates, young volcanics, valley fill alluvium and

Precambrian clastic and intrusives. The carbonate rocks contain secondary

fracture and solution porosity, which combined with an estimated maximum

thickness of 30,000 feet tends to favor a regional hydraulic continuity.

Volcanics are fine grained or welded and generally have low permeabilities.

The valley fill alluvium is partially consolidated and can locally yield modest

supplies of water. The Precambrian rocks have a negligible fracture porosity

and are considered the lower limit of groundwater circulation (aquitard).

2) Regional groundwater movement is inferred from potential hydraulic gradients.

3) The relative distribution and quantities of recharge and discharge imply interbasin movement of water.

4) The relative uniformity and long-term fluctuation of discharge of regional springs implies long flow paths. Muddy Springs, at the southern end of the system, averages 50 cfs, with little variation from local recharge.

5) The physical properties of water discharging from major springs suggests a long pathway through carbonate rocks (e.g. Muddy Springs is >30°C).

In relationship to this report, the most important part of Eakin's work is the designation of regional flow boundaries. He assumes that in the basin and range, mountains are generally hydraulic barriers. Cited evidence includes:

1) Consolidated bedrock forming the mountains is virtually impermeable.

Secondary porosity from fracturing extend only a few hundred feet.

2) The major structural trend is generally parallel to the topographic axis of the range. Ordinarily, faults and structural alignments tend to act as barriers to groundwater movement across or at right angles to them. 27 3) Since the mountains receive the greatest amount of precipitation, a

hydraulic high will form beneath the higher mountains and act as a groundwater

divide.

4) Surface water divides are coincident with topographic divides, which

suggests that the groundwater divide is also aligned with the topographic divide.

The evidence as stated supports the regional system following the

ancestral White River Wash System, but supplies little information concerning

how the flow paths cross between 13 topographic divides. It further suggests

that secondary porosity is not well developed through the ranges, either from

relief jointing or faulting. Faults which do cross the ranges are considered as

barriers. These points will be explored, as this thesis concentrates on an area

where the White River System crosses the Arrow Canyon and Meadow Valley

Mountains to discharge at Muddy Springs.

Previous Work

The White River Flow System has been studied by several authors since

the idea was first proposed by Eakin (1966). However, little agreement has

been reached as to the source, and even less work has been done to define the

geometry and boundary conditions of the system. Mifflin (1968) evaluated flow

systems throughout Nevada, separating them into two groups on the basis of

presence or absence of interbasin flow. This was followed by Rush and others

(1971) who prepared a summary of information concerning water resources and

interbasin flow. Hess and Mifflin (1978) and Mifflin and Hess (1979) further described the regional carbonate systems in Nevada and prepared a feasibility study for water production. During the early 1980's, an Environmental Impact

Analysis Process study was conducted for determining the feasibility of siting

MX missiles in Coyote Springs Valley (Ertec, 1981). This comprehensive report included test wells near the northern tip of the Arrow Canyon Range; one of 28

which yielded substantial quantities of groundwater. Finally, the USGS in cooperation with the USDI Bureau of Reclamation initiated a 10 year study of

the carbonate aquifer to evaluate the carbonate aquifer characteristics and limits of the resource represented by it. Due to the success of the MX wells

and previous work in the area, the USGS focused on the Coyote Spring

Valley-Upper Moapa Valley for the first year of the study (USDI, 1985). 29 LINEAR FEATURES MAPS

Image Construction

Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper data was processed on the University of

Nevada-Reno Vax-based IDIMS digital processing system to create an image data

base of the Coyote Spring Valley area, Nevada. This imagery is presented as

Plate 1. A summary of processing follows:

Scale Optional, depends of photographic processing of image negative. Distortion is negligible.

Coverage 2870 square miles of Las Vegas and Caliente AMS sheets.

Data Base Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper Data Date August 17, 1984 9:45 AM Scene ID's 5004317424-Q1 5004317422-Q3 Resol ution Spatial 28.5 x 28.5 meters/pixel Quantization 8-bit (256 Gray Levels/Band) Spectral 7 Bands between 0.45 and 12.5 pm

Image Band Assignments TM Band Assigned Color Wavelength (pm) 2 Blue 0.52-0.60 (Visible Green) 4 Green 0.76-0.90 (Near Infrared) 7 Red 2.08-2.35 (Short Infrared)

Digital image processing techniques of contrast enhancement and spatial

filtering were completed on the individual band data (TM bands 2,4 and 7)

before the imagery was constructed. The following enhancement recipe was

performed in creating this image:

A high-pass LaPlacian convolution filter was passed over the raw data in

each band to enhance high frequency features such as lineaments and edges at

the expense of area radiometry. The filtered output image highlights geologic structures, especially in the alluvial areas and shadow zones along the west

flanks of steeper ranges. This filtered data was then added to the original

image data (for each band). During the addition, weighting factors were applied

to the two sets such that the filtered data represented only 25% of the output 30 image. This allowed subtle enhancement of structures without reducing overall

topographic expression on the final product.

Following the filter processing, a linear contrast stretch was performed

on each band. Exactly 1% of the data was clipped from the upper and lower

limits of a density histogram of pixel values for the entire scene. The clipped

pixels were saturated to white and black respectively and then the remaining

98% of the distribution stretched to fill the entire range of the gray scale

(0-255). This process increases scene contrast and balances radiance. The three

data sets can be used to create single band black and white images, or

combined to form the False Color Composite (FCC).

The False Color Composite Image was constructed by the addition of

three single band, black and white images. Each band image consists of an equal

number of picture elements (3500 x 2600 pixels) which have a designated level

in a gray scale (digital number between 0 and 255). A primary additive color of

red, green or blue is assigned to each image such that gray level information is

represented by color brightness. With various amounts of the three colors, the

resulting composite image contains all possible hues.

Detailed information on Landsat data and the computer processing

techniques used are discussed in Appendix A, where emphasis is placed on the processing methodology used to enhance hydrogeologically significant lineaments. This appendix represents a "recipe" for either ordering imagery from a custom laboratory or performing digital image processing.

Two FCC images were created at scales of 1:100,000 and approximately

1:550,000. The smaller scale image is presented as Plate 1. The larger scale image is at a prohibitive size (30" x 40") and cost for presentation with each thesis copy. This large image contains good detail in all areas, as examination with a lOx hand lens identified several subtle lineaments. From this image, a 31 2000 square mile area centered on Coyote Springs Valley was chosen for a detailed lineament analysis. In addition, the image represents a reconnaissance base from which to plan the hydrogeologic investigation; geophysical studies, geologic mapping, drill site selection, structural interpretation and geochemical studies. The smaller image (1:550,000) is used to interpret lineaments at a regional scale (tectonics), identifying transform, thrust and extensional features which may relate to boundary conditions of the White River Flow System.

Lineament Criteria

Lineament analyses were completed on each image using identification criteria tailored to reflect hydrogeologic parameters. For the small-scale

(tectonic) analysis, criteria include:

1) Length must exceed one mile;

2) Every lineament (as defined in the Symbology section) that could represent a fracture or fault that appears to cut alluvium or bedrock is to be identified;

3) No minimum time limit is set for the analyst to identify linear features;

4) Lineaments which are recognized as hydrogeologically insignificant are not recorded. These include bed planes as seen by upturned bedding trending north along the Arrow Canyon Range and;

5) The area of coverage (Figure 6) includes 3600 square miles.

Criteria for the 1:100,000 scale analysis include the list above except:

1) Length must exceed one-quarter mile and;

2) The area of coverage is limited to 2000 square miles.

In each case, the lineament length is based on the shortest recognizable lineament which meets the significance criteria at the particular scale.

Lineament Maps

Lineaments were traced onto clear acetate directly from the images. 32 Since image distortion is negligible, these were digitized into x,y coordinates and plotted at scales of 1:24,000, 1:62,500, 1:100,000, 1:250,000, 1:500,000 and

1:1,000,000 onto mylar for analyses with other data bases (geography, topography, geology, hydrology, aeromagnetics and gravity). The lineaments mapped from the 1:100,000 scale imagery are presented at a scale of 1:500,000

(Figure 12) and at 1:250,000 (Plate 2). Plate 2 is annotated as to the major ranges and valleys to serve as reference for the following interpretive sections.

Lineaments from the 1:550,000 scale map (Plate 3) are generally longer than the lineaments from the 1:100,000 scale map. With less detail at the smaller scale, regional features can be extended by the analyst to define major structural boundaries (i.e. range boundaries, extensions of range boundaries and anomalous traces which dissect ranges). This lineament map covers a larger area than the 1:100,000 scale map and will be used to correlate with the regional geophysics. 33

115 °00' n ------

SCALE = 1:500,000 Compiled from the 1:100,000 scale image. See location Figure 6 or Plate 2 for area identification.

Figure 12 Lineament Map of Study Area. 34 Regional Lineaments

The regional lineament analysis at a scale of 1:550,000 (Plate 3) illustrates three structural trends which relate to Basin and Range tectonism.

These include north trending frontal faults, northeast normal faults and southeast normal faults.

Lineaments mapped along range frontal faults of the Sheep, Las Vegas and Arrow Canyon Ranges trend roughly north. These are steep angle, normal faults that act as boundaries in the horst-graben system. They have been active for 14 ma (Wernicke and others, 1984) and are considered as possible groundwater flow paths. Eakin (1966) used these large frontal systems to bound the White River System into large graben sections.

The northeast and southeast-trending lineaments cutting the Sheep and

Arrow Canyon Ranges are normal faults which are subparallel to either the

Pahranagat or Las Vegas shear systems. Starting at the Pahranagat shear and progressing south in the Sheep Range, northeast trending lineaments cut entirely through the range. Tschanz and Pampeyan (1970) mapped several of these and describe them as steeply dipping faults with little or no displacement and a drop to the north. In the central Coyote Springs Valley, lineaments are easily extended across alluvial areas, through the northern Las Vegas Range and into the Kane Springs Wash and northern Arrow Canyon Range.

Lineaments of the southern Sheep, southern Las Vegas and southern

Arrow Canyon Ranges trend roughly parallel to the Las Vegas shear zone (SE).

This pattern is recognized as far north as Hidden Valley, where the dominant trend swings into the Pahranagat pattern (NE). This change in the trend of lineaments is clearly seen in the Arrow Canyon Range on Plate 3. Due to the overall length of these features (cutting through ranges), the area where the lineament trend switches is identified as a deep-seated structural "anomaly". In 35 addition, the southern limit of the White River Flow System is situated at this

point.

Lineaments appear to be related to the extensional system (i.e. transforms

and frontal faults). In fact, the compressional thrust boundaries are not

recognized as lineaments, and are only identified with the aid of geologic maps.

If the major structures (as interpreted as hydrogeologically significant

lineaments) in the study area are post-Sevier, then the controls on the White

River System may also be limited to younger features.

The longest lineament of the area (35 miles) is an extension of the frontal

fault bordering the west side of the Meadow Valley Mountains. From there, it

can be traced across alluvium, through the eastern Arrow Canyon Range and

into northern Dry Lake Valley. With a length of over 30 miles, this previously

unmapped structure must be considered as a potential control of the White

River Flow System.

Of particular interest is a lineament connecting the Coyote Spring Valley

with Muddy Springs (Warm Springs Lineament; labeled on Figure 24). This

lineament trends 123° and cuts across the north tip of the Arrow Canyon

Range, through the Muddy Creek Formation and southeastern Meadow Valley

Mountains to terminate at Muddy Springs. Criteria of recognition include an

obvious linear erosional break in the bedrock and a linear alignment of the

Muddy Springs. Although there is no mapped structural displacement, the

overall length and unique position along the White River Flow System identifies

this as prime candidate for a regional flow path.

At this point, the significance of lineaments is unclear. The analyses

illustrates that lineaments can be grouped in patterns and and that these patterns can change. Also, individual lineaments can be traced for long distances, cutting through the topography. To determine if these can control 36 regional flow, other data bases must be incorporated into the interpretation.

* 37 TREND ANALYSES

Background

The recognition and analysis of lineament patterns (statistical

distribution) has classically involved plotting numerically-significant trends on

polar or histogram diagrams (Werner, 1976). For example, the number of

lineaments in a study area are commonly plotted in 10° azimuth increments to

define dominant directional characteristics. Sawatzky and Raines (1978) found

that by performing a length-weighted lineaments analysis, additional information

was extracted. Significant trends identified in the non-length-weighted analysis

were seldom eliminated in the length-weighted analysis. Often, new trends

were revealed which consisted of a few, very long lineaments.

Taking the trend analysis a step further, Sawatzky and Raines (1978)

generated linear feature concentration maps, which illustrate the spatial

distribution (density) of linear features. By separating these plots into azimuth

ranges (e.g. plotting the density of lineaments between 70° and 80°) the trends

in lineament orientations can be illustrated. Assuming that lineaments of the

study area represent faults and fractures, this type of analysis can quantify the

areas and azimuths of most probable secondary porosity development.

Strike Frequency Histograms

The 1:100,000-scale lineaments (plotted on Plate 2) were digitized to an x-y format directly from the image. A total of 366 lineaments are converted to an azimuth-length format from 0° north through east and to 180° south

(Appendix B). A summary of azimuth-sorted lineaments is presented as Table 2.

Lineaments data is plotted by 10° azimuth ranges on histograms as 1) number of lineaments, 2) lineaments lengths and 3) average lineament lengths (Figure

13). Inspection of the three plots show the greatest number of lineaments between 60° and 100°. When these are length-weighted, this relationship 38 remains and a second trend at 160°-180° appears. Examination of the average

length histogram identifies a third trend, where relatively few lineaments

between 110° and 130° are the longest of the study area (averaging from 2 to 3

miles).

Linear Feature Concentration Contour Maps

In order to investigate the aerial distribution of lineaments, digital

lineament data was sent to Don Sawatzky (USGS-Denver) for plotting as linear

feature concentration maps at selected azimuth ranges (based on the analysis of

histogram distributions). The entire lineament set is contoured as Figure 14

(see Plate 3 for location of ranges) Contour interval is 100,000 feet per square

100,000 feet (for explanation of contouring routine, see Sawatzky and Raines,

1978) Bedrock areas are clearly outlined with maximum concentrations

overlying the Arrow Canyon, Meadow Valley and central Sheep Ranges.

Concentration contour plots at selected azimuth ranges of 50°-100°,

110°-130° and 160°-180° are presented as Figures 15 through 17, respectively.

The 50°-100° lineaments represent the largest group in both numbers and

composite length. Using the same criteria, the 160°-180° range comprises a

second group. The final range (110°-130°) plots the longest lineaments of the

study area.

Linear Features Analysis

A statistical analysis of the lineaments reveals several polar and spatial patterns. The largest number of lineaments (and therefore the greatest composite length) fall between 50° and 100°. These are primarily normal faults

(discussed in Regional Analysis Section) which parallel the Pahranagat shear system. If the assumption that secondary porosity develops along structures, and those structures are recognizable as lineaments is true, then the NE trend represents a primary direction in the potential for secondary porosity. The Table 2 Lineament Data For 1:100,000 Scale Lineament Map

AZIMUTH LINEAMENTS LINEAMENT LENGTHS RANGE Total# % of Total Total % of Total Average Rank Length Rank Length Rank (feet) (feet) S 18 0 °-171 ° 17 7 4.6 139,035 10 4.8 8,179 3 17 0 °-161° 17 7 4.6 162,676 8 5.6 9,569 4 160 °-151° 4 18 1.2 36,382 18 1.2 9,096 5 150 °-141° 6 17 1.6 45,579 17 1.6 7,597 10 140 °-131° 9 13 2.4 67,789 15 2.3 7,532 11 130 °-121° 11 11 3.1 163,283 7 5.6 14,844 1 120 °-lll° 13 10 3.6 138,438 11 4.7 10,649 2 110°-101° 22 6 6.0 186,613 4 6.4 8,482 8 100 °-91° 33 4 9.0 176,869 5 6.1 5,360 18 * 90 °-81° 35 3 9.6 222,945 3 7.6 6,370 14 80 °-71° 52 1 14.2 307,826 1 10.6 5,920 17 70 °-61° 39 2 10.6 242,752 2 8.3 6,224 15 60 °-51° 25 5 6.8 166,552 6 5.7 6,662 13 50 °-41° 14 9 3.8 140,953 9 4.8 10,068 3 40 °-31° 8 16 2.2 48,507 16 1.7 6,063 16 30 °-21° 9 13 2.4 79,784 12 2.7 8,865 6 20 °-ll° 9 13 2.4 77,384 13 2.7 8,598 7 N 1°-10° 11 11 3.1 76,874 14 2.6 6,989 12 00 00 Curves 32 - • 434,367 - 15.0

Totals 366 100.0 2,914,610 100.0

Total Lineament Length = 2,914,610 feet Average Lineament Length = 7,963 feet 40

Azimuth Ranges of Lineaments

Figure 13 Frequency Histograms of Lineament Data In 10° Azimuth Increments. Numbers above boxes represent rank. 41

Figure 14 Lineament Concentration Contour Plot (0° to 180°) Coyote Springs Valley Area. Contour Interval 100,000 feet per square 100,000 feet. Scale = 1:625,000 42

Figure 15 Lineament Concentration Contour Plot (50° to 100°) Coyote Springs Valley Area. Contour Interval 100,000 feet per square 100,000 feet. Scale = 1:625,000 N 43

Figure 16 Lineament Concentration Contour Plot (160° to 180°) Coyote Springs Valley Area. Contour Interval 100,000 feet per square 100,000 feet. Scale = 1:625,000 "1 44

Figure 17 Lineament Concentration Contour Plot (110° to 130°) Coyote Springs Valley Area. Contour Interval 100,000 feet per square 100,000 feet. Scale = 1:625,000 N1 45 spatial distribution of this azimuth range (Figure 15) shows concentrations in all

mountain ranges, with the densest area in the northern Arrow Canyon Range.

The second group of lineaments, ranging between 160° and 180°, are

found mostly along the Arrow Canyon and Meadow Valley Ranges (Figure 16).

To the North, these are west bounding range front faults. On the south, they

dissect the Arrow Canyon Range into en-echelon sections.

Lineaments in the 110° to 130° range quantitatively represent only a few

percent of the total number and composite length (Figure 13). However, they

are the longest in the study area and are often superimposed onto more than

one topographic setting (i.e. cutting across the Basin and Range grain). Figure

16 shows these to be located predominantly in the southern ranges, as they are

subparallel to the Las Vegas shear zone. Assuming that lineament length is

related to depth, these reflect a group of deep-seated structures. This is

discussed in detail in the Regional Geophysics section.

The concentration contour map for the entire lineament set (Figure 14) illustrates the relative density for the study area. Given a homogeneous carbonate area, the ranges with the most faulting and fracturing (as identified by lineament densities) could have a higher chance of sustaining a groundwater flow path. The three areas with high lineament densities are the northern

Arrow Canyon Range, central Meadow Valley Mountains and central Las Vegas

Range. 46 FIELD DISCONTINUITY DATA

Introduction

A quantitative understanding of the distribution of fractures within the carbonate rock sequence provides hydrologic information concerning the directional character of secondary porosity and estimates of bulk porosity.

The collection of this type of data involves field discontinuity surveys at carefully chosen outcrops, which are analyzed using stereographic pole plots to define statistically dominant orientations. Based on this analysis, anisotropy in the secondary porosity can be characterized and correlated with large structural (lineaments) features.

Discontinuity data is commonly used in the field of rock mechanics to classify rock masses. From an engineering point of view, the joints, fractures, bedding planes and faults are the factors controlling displacements, stability problems and groundwater movement. The rock mass is merely thought of as a set of blocks, which are controlled by the discontinuities (or planes of weakness) in an otherwise continuous medium.

Therefore, a complete description of the set of discontinuities which define the bounds of the block is needed to predict and explain failures.

The formation of fracture and joint discontinuities is controlled by the stress field of the rock mass. At depth, (high confining pressures) rocks can undergo plastic deformation above the elastic limit. Upon uplift, in-situ stresses cause the now brittle rock mass to be in tension. Relief from this results in the formation of joints, which generally form at right angles to the tensional stresses.

In the carbonate terrain of Southern Nevada, groundwater moves along secondary pores which are characterized as either discontinuities or solution features. The field effort is primarily concerned with discontinuities, and 47 adopts the methodology used in rock mechanics to survey, collect and analyze

these features as to how they relate to lineaments. A field area at the north tip of the Arrow Canyon Range (Figure 6) was chosen because several major lineaments intersect at this point. Field methodology was either adapted or designed by the author to fit the needs of a hydrologic study. Also, a short discussion on the development of solution porosity along bedding and discontinuities is included.

Discontinuity Criteria

The criteria used for determining a hydrologically significant discontinuity are a function ol the rock mass; lithology, deformational history and size and shape of discontinuities (number and openness or aperature). For these reasons, field reconnaissance is essential before setting guidelines. Based on this fieldwork, discontinuities in the Paleozoic carbonates of the Coyote Springs area are characterized as follows:

* Bedding Planes: Beds range in thickness from 1" to many feet and are

generally deformed to a dip of 1° to 15° (although the dip is generally

consistent for a given transect in the order of a few hundred feet).

Aperature or fracture width along beds is generally negligible and

groundwater movement along beds is considered minimal. Figure 18 shows

a typical section of limestone at the Double Canyon site. Bedding is

evident due to differential surficial weathering.

* Joints; Joints are defined as any break in the continuous rock mass with

no recognizable parallel or shear movement. These are very common and

generally discordant to bedding (70° to 90°). Close inspection reveals

two types. 1) Small cracks and facets which intersect nearby bed planes

and terminate. These are not connected to other joints. 2) Larger

joints which are continuous over several bed planes. These can be 48

Figure 18 South Double Canyon Transect Site. Author is Recording a Dip and Dip Direction on an Open Joint Face. Each "Effective" Pore is Mesured Along the Transect Tape. Bedding in the Carbonate Rocks is Nearly Horizontal and is Evident From Differential Surficial Weathering. 49 connected and are therefore considered to be avenues for "effective"

porosity. Both types of joints are presented in Figure 19.

* Faults and Large Fractures; These features extend for hundreds of feet,

crossing many bed planes and have the largest aperatures (up to several

feet, but generally filled with gouge or calcite). For a given outcrop,

these represent the most probable avenue for groundwater movement.

Figure 20 shows a typical large fracture (small fault) with up to three

feet of aperature width. Solution porosity is well developed along the

discontinuity plane.

Based on these observations, criteria for collecting field data are

outlined below:

1) Area with good exposures; Canyons and steep walled cuts offer a large

two-dimensional exposure. If the canyon is winding or cut by cross faults, a

fuU 180° exposure is provided. This minimizes bias from shallow angle or

parallel joint sets which are not seen in a planar exposure. A correction

factor for this type of bias is provided by Terzaghi (1965). Structurally

controlled canyons provide discontinuity data for a locally deformed setting

and can be correlated to lineaments. On the other hand, narrow, winding

(antecedent type) canyons offer a locally undeformed setting where regional

stresses account for the trends in discontinuities.

2) Stratigraphy; While the Paleozoic formations are genetically similar,

their mechanical reaction (as seen in development of discontinuities) to local

and regional stresses may be unique due to differing lithologies, mineralogies

and mechanical properties. A full appraisal of this would include

discontinuity surveys under strictly controlled conditions, where lithology, local deformation (structure) and regional setting are recognized. A set of surveys for each lithology could define relative differences in development of 50

Figure 19 Jointing in Carbonate Rock at South Double Canyon. Large Joints Which Dissect Several Beds Are Interconnected and Considered to Contribute to Secondary Porosity Flow Paths. Small Hairline Joints (bottom right) Are Not Interconnected. 51

Figure 20 Solution Porosity Developed Along Discontinuity (small fault) in Rattlesnake Canyon. Solution Development is Primarily Along Discontinuity Plane. 52 secondary porosity.

3) Consistent Bedding Deformation; A consistent bedding dip for a given

transect provides a more consistent data set. A problem encountered in

analysis of stresses (and subsequent discontinuity development) in folded

rocks is that the physical properties of the rock will change as folding takes

place (Price, 1966). Joint development is localized, relative to the size and

type of fold, and size and strength of the rock mass. Therefore, a

nondeformed or consistently deformed section (gentle dip) is more

representative of the regional stresses.

4) Bedding Thickness; Defining the bed thickness provides stratigraphic

information and puts bounds on definition of "effective" joints.

5) Bedding Orientations; The bedding dip and dip direction are collected at

intervals along each survey and transect to assure minimal or equal

deformation.

6) Discontinuity Measurements; Measurements are performed at two levels; reconnaissance surveys to define the major joint sets, and transects to quantify porosity. The reconnaissance surveys involve measuring every

"effective" discontinuity along a given outcrop section using a Clar compass.

This tool is designed to measure dip and dip direction quickly and accurately, providing many poles which can be statistically analyzed to define trends

(dominant directions) of major joint sets.

The transect surveys require more time, but provide quantitative estimates of bulk porosity and the discontinuity density. A cloth tape is stretched along the outcrop and each "effective" discontinuity is measured as described below. Since the joints in the Paleozoic carbonates are predominantly discordant to bedding, the tape is set sub-parallel to bedding.

A two dimensional bulk porosity estimate from aperature thickness over the 53 tape distance is computed 1) for the total aperature thickness (including all

fillings) and 2) for the actual open fracture/pore space. Since these

transects are run across large outcrop faces, they provide data for relatively

stable sections of the carbonates. On the other hand, areas of large

fractures or faults usually weather to topographic lows and do not lend

themselves to transect surveys. These would be expected to have higher

discontinuity densities. Figure 21 shows the technique for measuring a large

joint along a transect.

Discontinuities are based on the following guidelines;

1) Measure effective pores, recognized by:

a. continuous through several bed planes (30 feet was chosen for this

study based on outcrop observations. This length could be much less

in thinly bedded units.)

b. recognizable aperature thickness

e. interconnectedness

Figure 18 shows the measurement of an "effective" pore. The set of major parallel joints approximately two feet apart are measured. Between these, many short (1 to 3 inches) joints with negligible aperatures are ignored.

2) Dip Direction

3) Dip Angle

4) Aperature Thickness

5) Filling Thickness and Type

6) Miscellaneous; Structure, Slickensides, Weathering

Graphical Representation of Pole Data

The dip direction is an azimuth orientation in the direction that the discontinuity is dipping. A right angle to this defines the strike of the discontinuity. Provided the discontinuity is a planar feature, the strike 54

Figure 21 Technique For Measuring Dip and Dip Direction of Large Discontinuity. Field Notebook is Sited Along Average Trace of the Discontinuity. 55 represents the direction (anisotropy) of secondary porosity. Since this study is

concerned with groundwater flow along the secondary pores, each dip direction

is converted to a strike before analysis.

Each strike and dip can be represented by a single pole on a

stereographic projection. Figure 22 is an equal-area stereonet, where the dip

is plotted from the center of the circle (0°) to the circumference (90°) and

the strike is plotted around the center from 0° to 360°. Due to the

equal-area distribution within the sphere, concentrations of poles can be

contoured to define density distributions, which represent trends in

discontinuities (Figure 23). Hoek and Bray (1981) and Goodman (1976) reserve

several chapters to stereographic plots and analysis methodology. Plots in

this study were processed by a micro-computer package written by Gen Hua Shi

(1984), which plots poles and contour concentrations.

Lineaments

Lineaments for the field study area were duplicated from the 1:100,000

lineament analysis. Figure 24 illustrates major lineaments, lineaments

orientations and field sites. This data is used to correlate major structures

with discontinuity trends at a ground scale.

Field Sites

The following are detailed analyses of each site. Poles and contour plots from the field sites are presented on equal-area stereo plots (Figures

26 through 47).

Double Canyons

Double Canyons are narrow channels cut through the Monte Cristo

Limestone near the northern tip of the Arrow Canyon Range (Figure 25). These steep-walled cuts trend roughly north, with relief of 150 feet on the east side.

To the west, the Arrow Canyon Range rises in a stair-step sequence to 2700 JO

Equal Area Stereonet

Point at 45 degree dip and 120 degree azimuth direction

Figure 22 167

20 ___.n __.. 69 >, C1l /61 >"' 0" __.,-go "'c ..._ c. VI .....C1l 0 >, 0 \"y u

-....._<-! 81 106 165

Lineament Map With Azimuths From Landsat Thematic Imagery Scale 1:100,000 Coyote Springs Valley to Muddy Springs Area

Figure 24 58

Figure 25 S ite Location Map For Double Canyons 59 feet (600 feet relief). Due to the lack of evidence of displacement, these canyons are interpreted to be subsequent and as such, provide data for a regional setting (undisturbed by local faulting).

Carbonate bedding within the canyon is fairly consistentwith a dip direction of 115° and dip of 4° to 10°. Bed thickness averages 8 inches, with a range from two inches to a few feet (Figure 18). Bed planes are recognized from weathering on outcrop or slight coloration changes. Secondary porosity is not developed along bedding, although differential surface weathering tends to

form parallel cavities along less resistant beds.

Discontinuities exposed in 180° along canyon walls tend to be discordant

to bedding and sub-parallel. If all joints are considered, density is high,

with only an inch or two of separation. On the other hand, the idea of

"effective" porosity eliminates 75% of the joints and increases the spacing to

feet or tens of feet. Aperature widths range from less than 1/4 inch to two

feet in gouge filled faults. Calcite filling is evident to various degrees in nearly every discontinuity, cutting possible bulk porosities in half. Field

data values for all surveys and transects are presented as Appendix C.

Five data bases are plotted on equal-area stereonets for the Double

Canyons. These include two reconnaissance surveys, two transects and a

composite plot. Figure 26 illustrates the pole plot for the South Double

Canyon reconnaissance survey. Concentrations of poles indicate dominant

discontinuity strike directions at azimuths of 59°-70° and 138°. A minor

trend can also be identified at 5°. The South Double Canyon transect (Figure

27) verifies the trends at 64° and 138°. A porosity value for this transect

is computed using a composite aperature thickness over the tape length and

assumes there is no carbonate filling (Bulk Porosity = 0.54V50' = 1.1% per

unit thickness of rock mass). If the carbonate filling is entered into the 60 equation, the actual field porosity drops to 0.78%. Solution porosity was not evident either along bedding or fracture discontinuities.

Poles plotted for the North Double Canyon reconnaissance survey and transect (Figures 28 and 29) indicate a very strong trend from 43° to 82° and a minor trend at 153°. Bulk porosity calculations are 1.7% for no filling and

0.72% for the actual open pore measurements.

A composite plot of all Double Canyon poles (Figures 30 and 31) uses density contours to define the dominant trends for the area. These are at 50° to 80° with a center at 72° and a wide scatter centering at 153°. The concentration of poles at the center of the plot are horizontal features and represent bedding plane partings.

The significance of these trends is related to the structure and major lineaments near the northern tip of the Arrow Canyon Range. Lineaments

(Figure 24) are found in three dominant sets. First, the range is cut by a series of NE trending faults (identified as lineaments) which dissect the range at intervals of less than 1/2 mile. These normal faults trend from 54° to 81°, averaging around 65° and provide an excellent correlation with the ground-based discontinuity data in both range of azimuths and average trend.

The next lineament set is found along the northeast tip of the range, where three lineaments trend 148°, 151° and 152° (average length 1.8 miles). This set correlates with the second major discontinuity trend at 153°. Also, the

North Double Canyon is itself a linear feature (Figure 25) and trends 145°, casting suspicion that it is structurally controlled rather than subsequent.

In summary, two discontinuity trends which are defined by pole contours correlate strongly with lineaments in the Double Canyon area. For this case, large-scale lineament mapping can be used to predict the anisotropy in secondary porosity as defined by discontinuities. 61 62

943 0 North Double Canyon 13 Reconnaissance Poles 63 Double Canyons

N 64 Fault Canyon

Fault Canyon is one of the northeast-trending normal faults cutting through the north tip of the Arrow Canyon Range (Figure 32). This canyon is easily identified as a lineament (trending 80°) and was chosen to provide data along a major structure. A reconnaissance survey was conducted along the northeast canyon face (striking roughly 80°) where bedding ranged from three inches to two feet thick and dipped at 5° to the northeast.

Plotted poles (Figure 33) indicate three major trends; 15°, 100°-119° and

157 . The 157 trend correlates with Double Canyons data (153° lineament set). The other two, however are less easily explained and the absence of the dominant 50°-80° set is disappointing. One explanation for the absence in this latter range could be the outcrop exposure used for the survey (80°), in which case subparallel discontinuity sets would not be seen.

The 100°-119° trend could be a reflection of a large lineament at 112° which terminates just to the east of fault canyon.

Rattlesnake Canyon

Rattlesnake Canyon is located at the southwestern tip of the Meadow

Valley Mountains where Wildcat Wash drains into Pahranagat Wash (Figure 35).

The steep walled canyon cuts through the Pogonip Group with relief of 200 to

300 feet above the channel. The canyon is structurally divided into two sections; an upper section which is apparently antecedent (formed as topography was uplifted and is not structurally controlled) as it winds through a narrow gorge and a lower section which is fault controlled with a wide base up to several hundred feet. The upper section is 1500 feet in length and provides data from a full 180° exposure. A single, high angle fault (94°) controls a short section of the canyon. The lower section lies along a 139° fault and is approximately 1500 feet in length. With the canyon 65

Figure 32 Site Location Map For Fault Canyon 66 67

7.5 Minute Quadrangle Wildcat Wash SE

Scale 1:24,000 Contour interval 40' T13S, R63E

Figure 35 S ite Location Map For Rattlesnake and Crooked Canyons 68 divided into these structural sections, a comparison can be made between

discontinuities developed in a locally controlled setting (lower canyon) and a

more regional setting (upper canyon).

Three major lineaments form a triangle in the area of Rattlesnake Canyon

(Figure 24). The large, east-west lineament which joins the Coyote Spring

Valley with Muddy Springs (trend of 123°) terminates at the base of the

canyon. A large frontal fault for the southwest Meadow Valley Mountains

(167°) and a conspicuous (27°) cut into the southern range form the other two.

Results from two reconnaissance surveys and two transects (Figures 36

through 43) indicate several strong trends in discontinuities. The Upper Canyon

reconnaissance survey poles are scattered (Figure 36), but the contour plot

(Figure 37) indicates a strong trend at 1° and 124° to 146°. A third trend is

much weaker at 90°. The lower canyon reconnaissance survey (Figures 38 and

39) pole and contour plots indicate three major trends; 45°, 87° and 143°.

Transects in the lower canyon (Figures 40 and 41) verify these with major

trends centered at 45°, 90° and 139°. A composite plot and contour (Figures

42 and 43) show the poles to be quite scattered, but indicate centers at 1°,

45°, 87° and 127° to 146° (average at 136°).

Bulk porosity values based on total discontinuity width are 1.6% and

0.6% for transects 1 and 2, respectively. When actual carbonate filling is entered into the equation, these values drop to nearly 0%, as most of the discontinuities are completely filled.

The major structure in the Rattlesnake Canyon is the lower canyon fault

(139°), although it is not recognized as a lineament at 1:100,000 scale (due to the spatial resolution of Thematic Mapper data). This correlates with a major trend in discontinuities, which was seen on each survey. However, this does not represent the highest density on the composite plot. The high 69 70 71 72 73 density is found scattered from 30" to 60°, with no lineament explanation.

A comparison between the upper and lower canyons indicates that each

has three major discontinuity trends, two being similar at 90° and 140°. The

third trend is at 45° in the lower canyon and 1° in the upper canyon. A

possible explanation for the lack of 45° discontinuity in the upper canyon is the

orientation. This section trends roughly 40° (Figure 35), allowing for most 45°

discontinuities to be subparallel and thus missed during field

surveys.

In summary, there is a strong correlation between discontinuities and the

fault controlling the lower canyon. Other joint trends correlate with lineaments, but the large amount of pole scatter on the plots suggests this area is quite complex.

Secondary porosity from solution features is well developed along the

Lower Canyon reach. Figure 44 shows up to two feet of cavity developed along a major joint (fault?). Figure 45 shows solution development along a bedding plane. Additional evidence includes solution cavities and pipes throughout the limestone and into the adjacent Muddy Creek conglomerate. Although no estimates of porosity were made, it is evident that large quantities of water have moved through this "plumbing" system.

Proceeding into the Upper Canyon from the structurally controlled lower section, the amount of solution features drops steadily. After a few hundred feet into the upper section, only the largest fractures have any evidence of solution. Beyond this point, solution is restricted to localized areas in outcrop high on the canyon walls, not too much unlike many of the other field sites. This suggests that solution porosity, with its large capacity to move water, develops prefferentially along structures. Many of these are mapped as lineaments, suggesting that the Landsat lineament analysis could indicate 74 areas of solution development.

Crooked Canyon

Crooked Canyon is a small headward cut into the Pogonip Group in the

southern Meadow Valley Mountains (Figure 35). The canyon is approximately two

hundred yards long, with a winding channel providing a full 180° exposure.

Bedding dips slightly to the southeast (8°) and averages a foot in thickness.

Aperatures in major joints are one inch and filled with calcite, leaving

essentially no secondary porosity. The pole plot (Figure 34) indicates two

major trends at 11° and 93° to 104°. Neither of these can be correlated to nearby lineaments and there is a marked lack of similarity in pole plots to the nearby Rattlesnake Canyon data.

Solution porosity is developed along a single bed plane on both canyon walls. Some cavities are up to 8 feet in diameter, but pinch out to small pipes a few inches across. Discontinuities show little evidence of solution.

Composite Plots

Poles for the entire field study are plotted and contoured as Figures 46 and 47. The distribution is very scattered, but contours define concentration centers at 0°, 71°, 123° and 148°. The strongest trend (71° with a range from

50° to 85°) correlates with the lineaments cutting through the Arrow Canyon

Range. The second trend at 123° correlates with the large Coyote Valley-Muddy

Springs lineament, and the third trend at 148° matches the three large lineaments along the northeast Arrow Canyon Range. The 0° trend does not correlate with any mapped lineaments, however it could be a reflection of the general north trend of the Basin and Range frontal faults..

The distribution of poles at high dip angles show that the stresses responsible for discontinuity development are from a tensional stress field

(Price, 1966). Discontinuities apparently developed after the compressional

78 Sevier period and during the Basin and Range extension.

Composite Poles and Lineament Trend Data

A comparison of composite discontinuity (poles) pole data (Table 3) with

the lineament trend data (Table 2 and Figure 13) illustrates several strong

correlations. The major pole concentration of 50° to 90° with a center at 71°

correlates exactly with the largest lineament numbers and composite lengths.

The second pole concentration is at 0° is seen as a second lineament

concentration ranging from 160° to 180°. The third pole concentration at 123°

does not correspond to a large concentration of lineaments, but does match the

largest average length at 120° to 130°.

Summary

Discontinuity trends measured in outcrops along the northern tip of the

Arrow Canyon Range strongly correlate with major structures which have been

identified as lineaments at a scale of 1:100,000. A similar relationship is

found in the south end of the Meadow Valley Mountains, although the

correlation is not nearly as strong. A possible reason for this is a much

more complex structural setting, where several major lineaments (faults)

intersect. A composite pole and contour plot for all sites show the data base

to have a large scatter. However, density contour centers indicate four

dominant trends, three of which correlate strongly with major lineaments and

the statistical distribution of lineaments for the entire study area.

Bulk porosities based on composite aperature widths along several

transects provide values of 1% to 2% when the calcite filling is ignored.

Actual values which include the filling are much less than 1%.

Solution porosity is well developed along a fault in the lower Meadow

Valley Mountains. Within several hundred feet of and normal to the fault trace, solution features are scarce. Lineaments, which represent major 79 structures, may be prime targets tor solution porosity development and as such

are indicators of the carbonate aquifer plumbing system.

Pole distribution from the composite plot indicates the stress field

responsible for generation of discontinuities is extensional as related to

Basin and Range tectonics.

For quick reference, a summary of results is presented as Table 3.

* TABLE 3 Trends in Discontinuity Data Site Dominant Strikes

Double Canyons South Reconnaissance 5° 64°-70° 138° South Transect 64° 138° North Reconnaissance 43-82° 153° North Transect 72° Total 72° 153° Fault Canyon Reconnaissance 15° 54° 100°-119° 157° Rattlesnake Canyon Upper Reconnaissance 1° 90° 134° Lower Reconnaissance 45° 87° 143° Transect #1 78°-94° 144° Transect #2 30°-■53° 139° Total 1° 45° 87° 135° Crooked Canyon Reconnaissance 11° 93°-104° Composite 0° 71° 123° 148°

Bulk Porosities Site Assumed 0% Filling,Actual Pore Widths

South Double Transect 1.1* 0.78% North Double Transect 1.7* 0.72% Rattlesnake Transect #1 1.62% 0% Rattlesnake Transect #2 0.63% 0% 81 RELATION OF GEOPHYSICAL DATA BASES TO LINEAMENTS

As part of the USGS carbonate aquifer project (1984 and ongoing), regional geophysical studies were undertaken to investigate the hydrogeologic controls on the fracture system in the Coyote Spring Valley area (Blank and others, written communication, 1985). In order to evaluate the regional significance of gravity and aeromagnetics, the investigation was expanded to 25

15' quadrangles centered on the north end of the Arrow Canyon Range.

Geophysical interpretations suggest regional structures which may represent carbonate-aquifer boundaries. A comparison of the lineament maps with regional geophysics shows a strong correlation suggesting that lineaments may reflect these very deep structures and can be inferred to have regional hydrogeologic significance. However, the lineaments alone (without supporting geophysics) can not be interpreted to define specific aquifer boundaries.

Lineaments and Gravity

Plate 4 shows the regional lineaments overlain on a portion of the complete gravity maps of Kane and others (1979) and Healy and others (1981).

The Pahranagat and Las Vegas shear zones are noted by heavy dark lines.

Major lineaments (>20 miles and/or those which correlate with geophysical anomalies) are noted by medium heavy lines and other lineaments with fine lines.

Blank (written communication, 1985) states that the rock densities for

Nevada into a range from 3.0 to 1.4 gm/cm . In general, the Precambrian basement of metamorphic and granitoid units are the densest. These are followed in order by Paleozoic carbonates, Tertiary volcamcs and alluvial basins as the least dense.

Kane and others (1979) and Healey and others (1981) show an anomaly in the complete Bouguer gravity of the study are which extends from the Mo m Mountains on the northeast to the Las Vegas Valley on the southwest (shaded as

Las Vegas-Mormon Mountain Anomaly). This gravity ridge is 5 to 9 mgals above the adjacent terrain. Relief on this surface appears as local lows (1-5 mgals) associated with the alluvial basins at Meadow Valley Wash and California Wash.

One other low is found beneath the area between the and

the Arrow Canyon Range (Muddy Springs Saddle).

Several boundaries of the Las Vegas-Mormon Mountain Anomaly correlate

with lineaments. The southern edge is bounded by a southeast trending

lineament that traces from the north end of Hidden Valley to California

Wash. To the north, the Warm Springs Lineament trends southeast and could

represent a boundary between the anomaly and the gravity low associated with

the Meadow Valley Wash. Finally, the western flank of the anomaly correlates

with the range-front fault (and lineament) of the Arrow Canyon Range. The

significance of these relationships is dependent on the interpretation of the

source for the anomaly, and will be discussed below (section on Lineaments and

Magnetics).

Along the northern Sheep Range and within the Coyote Spring Valley, a

few small gravity anomalies are present (shaded on Plate 4). Unpublished

gravity data (Blank, written communication, 1985) identified several more of

these alternating high and low anomalies. In the valley, these are interpreted

as representing relief of the bedrock beneath the alluvium in a horst and graben

setting. Many of the northeast-trending lineaments of the Sheep Range can be

extended into Coyote Springs Valley to form boundaries for these bedrock

blocks. Within the Sheep Range, the anomalies correlate to large vertical

offsets of bedrock blocks making up the range and are outlined by

northeast-trending lineaments. The recognition of these blocks with regional

geophysics suggests there has been marked displacement and that the lineam 83 may represent deep-extending faults across the range.

Lineaments and Magnetics

A total intensity aeromagnetic map (Plate 5) showing the earth’s magnetic field was constructed for southern Nevada by Zietz and others (1977).

Interpretations for the study area are provided by Blank (written communication, 1985). The most common source rocks for magnetic anomalies in the area are Precambrian basement, Tertiary and Cretaceous intrusives and

Tertiary volcanics. Carbonates, found throughout the Coyote Spring Valley area, are weakly magnetic at best and are essentially transparent to the magnetic field of the earth. Consequently, the aeromagnetic map does not reflect topographic expressions (Sheep, Las Vegas and Arrow Canyon Ranges), but rather the underlying highly-magnetic rocks. This has strong implications as to the total thickness of the sedimentary rocks that comprise the aquifer as the sedimentary section is generally considered to end at the Cambrian clastie/Precam brian complex boundary. The actual maximum depth of groundwater flow could be well above this point depending on how deep solution features and fractures extend.

Regional lineaments are superimposed onto the magnetic map (Plate 5,

Zietz and others, 1977) at a scale of 1:500,000. The Pahranagat and Las Vegas shear zones are noted by heavy dark lines. Major lineaments (>20 miles and/or those which correlate with geophysical anomalies) are noted by medium heavy lines and other lineaments with fine lines.

Regional magnetic interpretations by Blank (written communication, 1985) follow. A localized high anomaly found overlying the Mormon Mountains area represents mostly structural relief of the Precam brian basement (shaded as

Mormon Mountain Anomaly) The metamorphic rocks that generate this anomaly actually outcrop on the east side of the range (Tschanz and Pampeyan, 1970). 84 A large anomaly centered under the Las Vegas and Arrow Canyon Ranges has

several discrete highs and subdued amplitude relief (shaded as Hidden Valley

Anomaly). The dominant high is centered over Hidden VaUey between the Las

Vegas and Arrow Canyon Ranges. Other relief includes a low over California

Wash and a high in the North Muddy Mountains. To the northeast, the anomaly

tapers o ff to a saddle separating this anomaly from the Mormon Mountain

anomaly (Muddy Springs Saddle). When combined with the Mormon Mountain

Anomaly, this structure generally coincides with the gravity high (Las

Vegas-Mormon Mountain Anomaly), although the fit is not exact.

The source for the Hidden Valley Anomaly is speculative at this point.

No magnetic rocks have been mapped as exposed in the area covered by the

anomaly. By analogy with the other magnetic anomalies in the region, it is

inferred to be an area of elevated basement. Regardless of the source, whether

it is basement or igneous material, the relative position of this anomaly to the

boundaries of the White River Flow System is important. Water flowing

southward beneath the Coyote Spring Valley may be impeded by an uplift of the

impermeable basement rocks or by the presence of low-permeability intrusives

(refer to Figure 11). Also, the size of this anomaly indicates that the feature

is quite extensive, underlying several basin and range structures (i.e., Hidden

Valley and portions of Las Vegas and Arrow Canyon Ranges).

Major lineaments appear to bound the Hidden Valley Anomaly at several

points. First, the Muddy Springs Geophysical Saddle is separated from the

Hidden Valley Anomaly by the Warm Springs Lineament. The long, north-trending lineament bounding the west face of the Meadow Valley

Mountains nicely separates the prominent high of the Hidden Valley Anomaly

from two local highs o ff its east edge (see section on Regional Analyses).

Other major lineaments bound the anomaly along north and northwest flanks. 85 Summary

The contribution of regional geophysics to understanding the carbonate system is the identification of structures that may represent aquifer boundary conditions. Lineaments tend to corroborate those structures (e.g., major lineaments bounding the Hidden Valley Anomaly), narrows the locations mapped, and in some cases help date the most recent movement on the structures.

Lineaments may also indicate anomalous areas where additional structures may exist. Whereas potential geophysical mehtods tend to "smear" the structural relief, the lineaments provide a definite target because they are literally lines on a map. In the study area, because the lineaments are correlated with displacements of the basement surface as well as shallower rocks, alluvium and even mountain blocks, one may conclude that the lineaments represent boundaries of important and "deep-extending" structures that pass through essentially the entire carbonate section beneath the ranges and alluvial valleys. 86 HYDROGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATIONS

Significance of Lineaments

Based on the analysis of lineaments in the study area, several

hydrogeologic interpretations concerning aquifer conditions are presented. The scale of the interpretations ranges from 1) regional level interpretations of

large structures which may represent boundaries of the carbonate aquifer, to 2)

local level interpretaions of individual lineaments which may represent flow

paths, and finally to 3) an outcrop level where the statistical distribution of

lineaments is found to correlate with the directional trends in secondary

porosity (as defined by discontinuities). For the following discussion, refer to

to Figure 11 and Plates 1, 3 and 6.

At a regional scale, major lineaments (>20 miles) were found to correlate

with geophysical anomalies that were interpreted as reflecting basement

conditions underlying the carbonate aquifer. The lineaments could not be used

to predict conditions such as elevated basements, but were useful in placing

more meaning on geophysical interpretations (e.g., actual fault zones that

coincide with basement offsets are represented at the surface as lineaments).

In future hydrogeologic studies, major lineaments or lineament trends can serve

as an indicator of possible anomalous conditions at depth. In addition, the

statistical analyses may identify anomalous lineaments or groups of lineaments

that can be correlated to specific underlying conditions (e.g., the long,

southeast trending lineaments that were exposed in the statistical analysis

appear to correlate with the Hidden Valley Anomaly).

Lineaments in conjunction with geophysics suggest horst and graben

structures beneath alluvial valleys. This is evidenced in Coyote Spring Valley,

where extensions of lineaments in the surrounding ranges correlate with

stair-stepped gravity anomalies: a condition which complicates the alluvial 87 aquifer, flow paths in the underlying carbonates and the inter-relationship between the two. Through interpretation of the lineaments, the geometry of the aquifer is better defined.

Lineament-concentration maps reflect the relative fault densities of ranges. For example, the Arrow Canyon Range has a much higher lineament density than the southern Sheep Range. Provided secondary porosity develops along major faults, and those faults can are relfected in lineaments, the Arrow

Canyon Range has a relatively higher chance of sustaining regional flow.

The lineament map represents a bedrock-fracture map for the study area.

Individual lineaments, groups of closely-spaced lineaments and lineament intersections are clearly displayed at chosen scales and may be used as targets for groundwater exploration. For example, the alluvial valley just north of the north tip of the Arrow Canyon Range is an area where several lineaments intersect. Lineament density is also very high. Two wells drilled into the carbonates at this spot (Ertec, 1981) yielded large quantities of groundwater; their success could have resulted from this being a highly fractured area.

At a small scale, the orientations of discontinuities (seen as joints and small faults) correlates with the statistical distribution of lineaments.

Lineaments may be useful as an indicator of overall directional trends in the secondary porosity of a mountain range or group of ranges.

Carbonate Aquifer

Coyote Spring Valley and the surrounding ranges can be separated into six areas based on lineament analyses. The areas each have their own distinct

"lineament styles" that may have significance to the hydrogeology of the area.

These include the 1) Coyote Spring Valley, 2) northern Sheep and northern Las

Vegas Ranges, 3) southern Sheep and southern Las Vegas Ranges, 4) southern

Arrow Canyon and Central Las Vegas Ranges, 5) northern Arrow Canyon Range, and 6) Meadow Valley Mountains (Plate 6).

The Coyote Spring Valley (Area 1 of Plate 6) is bordered by range front faults and is considered a major avenue for White River Flow System (WRFS) water. However, the lineament analyses provided little evidence of possible south-trending structures (outside of range front faults). Any displacements in the alluvium were either to small to be recognized on the imagery or were obscured by fan deposition. It is assumed that WRFS waters funnels southward beneath the valley as proposed by Eakin (1966). The discussion below presents II conditions within the surrounding carbonate rocks that may affect this water.

The geometry of the carbonate aquifer beneath the northern Coyote

Spring Valley appears to be very complex. Northeast-trending lineaments define several carbonate blocks with boundaries that align normal to the WRFS groundwater flow direction. These structures suggest that the carbonates beneath the valley are fractured and the flowpaths may be quite tortuous.

The northern Sheep and northern Las Vegas Ranges (Area 2 of Plate 6) are highly dissected by northeast-trending lineaments that cut entirely through the mountain blocks. Rather than representing a major impermeable barrier as was described in Eakin's original concept, these ranges actually may be highly segmented by faults that extend deep into the carbonate sequence and perhaps into the underlying materials. These major fractures could provide secondary avenues for WRFS water to flow to or from the west.

The southern Sheep and Las Vegas Ranges (Area 3 of Plate 6) have a low lineament density relative to other ranges in the study area. Many of the lineaments do not cut entirely across the block of bedrock (i.e., from alluvial valley to alluvial valley). Any groundwater flow related to lineaments would be discontinuous (localized) and in this context, the area probably acts as a barrier to groundwater flow. 89 Lineaments of the southern Arrow Canyon and central Las Vegas Ranges

(Area 4 of Plate 6) are apparently related to a major structure at depth This

was determined with geophysics, patterns in the regional lineaments md the

recognition of a few very long, southeast-trending lineaments. However the

hydrogeologic significance of this structure can not be determined ’from

lineament analyses alone. Careful review of all data bases was needed before

proposing that the lineaments may represent boundaries to a basement uplift. In

this case, the lineaments relate to a potential groundwater barrier.

The northern Arrow Canyon Range (Area 5 of Plate 6) flanked by

north-trending lineaments representing range-bounding faults with large and

offsets. These faults are proposed as the boundaries of the WRFS

(Eakin, 1966). Another set of lineaments trends northeast and cuts entirely

through the range. These have the highest contour density in the study area.

This suggests there is a high potential for the development of secondary

porosity and for WRFS waters to migrate to the east.

The Meadow Valley Mountains (Area 6 of Plate 6) are dissected by many

long lineaments and the contour density is fairly high. However, most

lineaments are not continuous through the range and it appears as a fairly

competent block. The most important feature in this area is the east trending

Warm Springs Lineament. This lineament is continuous between the Coyote

Spring Valley and Muddy Springs and aligns with the present spring discharges.

addition, carbonate deposits associated with regional-spring discharges during

the deposition of the Muddy Creek Formation (Tertiary) have been identified

adjacent to nearly its entire length (personal communication, Dwight Schmidt).

Thus, the lineament is suspect as a structure along the regional flowpath and becomes a target for further investigation.

Geophysical data indicates the Warm Springs Lineament is at the 90 boundary between a basement uplift (Hidden Valley Anomaly) and a thick block of carbonate rocks (Muddy Springs Saddle). The lineament may represent a southern limit or boundary of the carbonate aquifer where Coyote Spring waters

can flow across to the Muddy Springs. Once again, the lineament should be

considered a target for further investigations. 91 CONCLUSIONS

Thematic mapper data provided an image base that worked particularly well in an arid environment. A lack of forest vegetation left the geologic structure exposed, thus allowing the analyst freedom to define lineaments based on an interpretation of their hydrogeologic significance. The desert weather patterns provided a cloud-free image with minimum atmospheric scattering of sensor return. A potential problem of shading of the steep western slopes was solved with a filtering algorithm, which highlighted lineaments across these areas.

This type of analysis could easily be adapted to other climatic regions.

The key to success is an understanding of the hydrogeology of the area so the image processing can be designed to highlight features that are believed to be hydrogeologically significant. For example, the processing "recipe" developed in this study used a spatial enhancement (i.e., filtered image added back to the raw data) to provide edge enhancement in alluvial areas. In a more humid enviroment, spectral enhancement may prove to be more useful (e.g., separating vegetation patterns related to faulting and the "recipe" could be entirely different.

It is important to keep in mind that remote sensing is a geophysical tool.

This study provides more questions than it does answers (e.g., the significance of the Warm Springs Lineament). However, the analysis is used at a reconnaissance level to plan the hydrogeologic investigation and the questions become targets on which to focus. OX-VA DeLaMare Library / 262 University of Nevada - Reno TY\e!>\S Reno, Nevada 89557-0044 93 Abdel Rahman, M.A., 1976, A statistical method for determining the orientation relationship between geologic variables: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Basement Tectonics, Basement Tectonic Committee, Inc., Newark Delaware.

Abdel Rahman, M.A., 1978, Sampling and statistical analysis of multi-modal orientation data: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Basement Tectonics, Basement Tectonics Committee, Inc., Durango Colorado.

Anderson, R.E., and Jenkins, E.C., 1970, Geologic studies in Dry Lake Valley and Hidden Valley, southern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-47455 (NTS-176), 35 p.

Barrett, E.C. and Curtis, L.F., 1976, Introduction to environmental remote sensing: 2nd Edition Chapman and Hill.

Blank, R.H., Duval, J.S. and Sawatzky, D.L., 1985, Regional geophysics of Coyote Spring Valley and vicinity, unpublished report, US Geological Survey, Denver, CO

Bowden L.W. , 1979, Manual of Remote Sensing: American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, VA, 2144p.

Burchfiel, B.C., Fleck, R.J., Secor, D.T., Vincelette, R.R., and Davis, G.A., 1974, Geology of the Spring Mountains, Nevada: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.85, p.1013-1027.

Cline and Parizek, 1975, Factors influencing well yields in folded sandstone-siltstone-shale terrain, Northumberland and Schuylkill Counties, Pennsylvania, unpublished document. 94

Eakin, T. E. , 1966 , A regional interbasin ground-water system in the White River area, Southeastern Nevada: Water Resources Research 2 (2) p. 251-71.

Eakin, T.E. and Maxey, G.B., 1951, 1951, Ground water in Ruby Valley, Elko, and White Pine Counties, NV. in: Contributions to Hydrology of Eastern Nevada, State of NV., Water Resources Bulletin 12, p.67-96.

Ehrich, R.W., 1976, Detection of global lines and edges in heavily textured images: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Basement Tectonics, Basement Tectonics Committee, Inc., Newark Delaware.

Ekren, E.B., Orkild, P.P., Sargent, K.A. and Dixon, G.L., 1977, Geologic map of Tertiary rocks, Lincoln County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map 1-1041.

EROS Data Center, 1982, Computer Listing of Landsat Data: U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls SD.

Ertec Western Inc., 1981, MX siting investigation water resoures program, Coyote Springs, Nevada: Ertek Western Inc., 3777 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, California.

Falconer, A. and others, 1979, Observations on Lake Ontario basin hydrogeology from optical enhancements of Landsat imagery: in Satellite Hydrology, American Water Resources Association, pp.427-436.

Finch, W.I. and Wright, J.C., 1970, Linear features and groundwater distribution in the Ogalalla Formation of the southern high plains: Ogalalla Aquifer Symposium, Texas, p.49-57. 95

Gen Hua Shi, 1984, Reference materials for basic programs to plot poles and pole concentrations, unpublished document, University of California, California.

Gillespie, A.R., 1976 , Directional fabrics introduced by digital filtering of images: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Basement Tectonics, Basement Tectonics Committee, Inc., Newark Delaware.

Goetz, A.F., 1981, Geologic remote sensing: Science v.211, pp781-791.

Goodman, R.E., 1976, Methods of Geological Engineering: West Publishing Company, New York, 472 p.

Healey, D.L., Snyder, D.B., Wahl, R.R. and Currey, F.E., 1981, Bouguer Gravity Map of Nevada, Caliente Sheet: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Map 70, Reno, NV.

Hess, J.W. and Mifflin, M.D., 1978, A feasibility study of water production from deep carbonate aquifers in Nevada: University of Nevada, Desert Research Institute Publication no. 41054, Reno, NV, 125 p.

Hills, E.S., 1963, Elements of structural geology: John Wiley and Sons, Publishers, New York.

Hobbs, W.H., 1904, Lineaments of the Atlantic border region: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull, v.15, p.483-506.

Hoek, E. and Bray, J. , 1981, Rock Slope Engineering: Stephen Austin and Sons Limited, Hertford, England. Kane, M.F. , Healey, D.L., Peterson, D.L., Kaufmann, H.E. and Reidy, D., 1979, Bouguer Gravity Map of Nevada, Las Vegas Sheet: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Map 61, Reno, NV.

Kruck, W.,1979, Hydrogeologic interpretations of Landsat imagery in arid zones of South Africa and West Africa: Satellite Hydrology, American Water Resources Association.

Landsat Data Users Notes, 1982, Issue 23, July: U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls SD, 16p.

Langenheim, R.L.'Jr., and others, 1962, Paleozoic section in Arrow Canyon Range, Clark County, Nevada: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists vol.46, no.5, p.592-609 .

Lattman, L.H., 1958, Technique mapping of geologic fracture traces and lineaments on aerial photographs: Photogramm. Eng. v.24, p.568-576.

Lattman, L.H., and Parizek, R.R., 1964, Relationship between fracture traces and the occurrence of ground water in carbonate rocks: Journal of Hydrology 2 (1964) 73-91.

Longwell, C.R., Pampeyan, E.H., and Boower, B., 1965, Geology and mineral deposits of Clark County, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines Bulletin 62.

McGuire, M.J., and Gallagher, J.J., 1976, Techniques for computer-aided analysis of lineaments: Proceedings of the second international conference Basement Tectonics, Basement Tectonic Committee, Inc., Newark Delaware. Middleton, E.M. , 1980 , Landsat — What is operational in water resources: 6th Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Mifflin, M.D., 1968, Delineation of ground-water flow systems in Nevada: University of Nevada, Desert Research Institute Technical Report H-W 4, Reno, Nevada, 89 p.

Mifflin, M.D. and Hess, J.W., 1979, Regional carbonate flow systems in Nevada: Journal of Hydrology, v. 43, pp. 217-237 .

Moore, G.K., 1979, Present status and future need for satellite remote sensing: a hydrologic marriage of impending necessity: WRD Bulletin— July-Dee, Sioux Falls, SD.

NASA Data Users Handbook, 1980: U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD.

Nevada Bureau of Mines, 1972, Topographic Map of Nevada, 1:1,000,000 Scale: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology.

O'leary, D.W. and Friedman, J.D., 1976, Lineament and linear, a terminological reappraisal: Second International Conference On Basment Tectonics, Basement Tectonics Committee, Inc., Newark Delaware.

O'leary, D.W. and Friedman, J.D., 1978, Towards a workable lineament symbology: Third International Conference on Basement Tectonics, Basement Tectonics Committee, Inc., Durango Colorado. Parizek, R.R., 1979, On the nature and significance of fracture traces and lineaments in carbonate aquifers and other terrains: In Karst Hydrology and Water Resources, WRP Fort Collins, CO, LIB# 76-012972.

Podwysocki, M.H., 1975, Quantification of geologic lineaments by manual and machine processing techniques: NASA Earth Resources Survey Symposium, Houston, Texas

Price, N.J., 1966, Fault and Joint Development in Brittle and Semi-brittle Rock: Pergamon Press, 176 p.

Rush, F.E., Scott, B.R., Van Denburgh, A. S. and Vasey, B.J. , 1971, State of Nevada water resources and inter-basin flows: Nevada Division of Water Resources.

Sabins, F.F., 1978, Remote sensing principals and interpretation: W.H.Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA., 426p.

Sawatzky, D.L., and Raines, G.L., 1978, Geologic uses of linear—feature maps derived from small-scale images: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Basement Tectonics, Basement Tectonics Committee, Inc., Durango Colorado.

Schmidt, D.L. and Dixon, G.L., 1985, Geology and aquifer system of Coyote Spring Valley area, Southern Nevada, A preliminary report: unpublished document, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.

Schowengerdt, R.A., 1983, Techniques for Image Processing and Classification in Remote Sensing: Academic Press, New York, 249p. 99 Siegal, B . S. , and Gillespie, A. R. , 19 80 , Remote sensing in geology: John Wiley and Sons Publishers, New York, 702p.

Siegal, B.S., and Short, N.M., 1977, Significance of operator variation and the angle of illumination in lineament analysis on synoptic images: Modern Geology, vol.6 , pp.75-85.

Slemmons, D.B., 1976, A procedure for analyzing fault controlled lineaments and the activity of faults: Second International Conference on Basement Tectonics, Basement Tectonics Committee, Inc., Newark Delaware.

Snyder, D.B., 1983, Interpretation of the bouguer gravity map of Nevada: Caliente Sheet: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Report 37, 8p.

Swain, P.H. and Davis, S.M., 1978, Remote Sensing: The Quantitative Approach: McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York, 396p.

Taranik, J.V. and Trautwein, C.M., 1976, Integration of geologic remote sensing techniques in subsurface analysis: USGS OFR 76-402.

Taranik, J.V ., 1978, Characteristics of the Landsat multispectral data system: USGS OFR 78-187.

Terzaghi, R.D., 1965, Sources of error in joint surveys: Geotechnique, v. 15, pp. 278-304.

Tschanz, C.M., and Pampeyan, E.H., 1970, Geology and mineral deposits of Lincoln County, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines Bulletin, v. 73, 187 p. 100

U.s. Department of Interior, 1985, A proposed program to study the water resources of the carbonate-rock aquifer system of eastern Nevada, USDI, Washington ,D.C., 14p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1982, Landsat data users notes: Issue 23, USGS Eros Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD., 16p.

Werner, E. , 1976 , Graphical display of orientation data for visual analysis: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Basement Tectonics, Basement Tectonics Committee, Inc., Newark Delaware.

Wernicke, B., Guth, P.L. and Axen, G.J., 1984, Tertiary extensional tectonics in the Sevier belt of southern Nevada: in Lintz, J.Jr., 1984, Western Geologic Excursions, v. 4, Geoloical Society of America: Reno, University of Nevada, Mackay School of Mines, pp. 473-510.

Wilson, J.T., 1941, Structural features in the Northwest Territories: Amer. Journal Science, v.239, p.493-502.

Zall, L. and Russell, 0., 1979, Ground water exploration programs in Africa: Satellite Hydrology, American Water Resources Association, pp416-425.

Zietz, I., Stewart, J.H., Gilbert, F.P. and Kirby, J.R., 1977, Aeromagnetic Map of Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-902. D\-V4 DeLaMare Library / 262 University oi Nevada - Reno 'T'rveS^S Reno, Nevada 89557-0044 Si VS S' DeLaMare Library / 262 University of Nevada - Reno Reno, Nevada 89557-0044 103 LANDSAT THEMATIC MAPPER DATA

Landsat satellites have provided remote sensed earth resources data since the first Landsat was launched in 1972. Since that time, four more have been launched with payloads of multispectra] scanner sensors. Today, over 100 nations routinely use the data for resource evaluation and management in such areas as oil and mineral exploration, agriculture, land use monitoring, forestry, range management, map making and water resources.

Advantages

The advantages of using Landsat data are summarized as follows:

1) Cloud-free images are available for most of the world with no political or security restrictions.

2) The low to intermediate sun angle enhances many subtle geologic features.

3) Repetitive coverage provides data at different seasons and illumination conditions

4) Color composite images can be made using many combinations of bands.

5) The cost is low.

6) Image distortion is negligible.

7) Images are available in digital format for computer processing.

8) Limited stereo coverage is available (Sabins, 1978).

During the time that the first three Landsats were operational, it became apparent that the Multi-Spectral Scanner (MSS), which was the primary sensor, had limitations. A new sensor with improved spatial resolution, spectral separation, geometric fidelity and radiometric accuracy was developed for use on Landsats 4 & 5. This second generation sensor, the Thematic Mapper (TM) offered greater flexibility to the earth scientists.

TM improvements over earlier MSS systems include a finer spatial resolution (30 x 30 meters in 6 of the bands and 120 x 120 meter resolution in a 104 thermal infrared band compared to 80 x 80 meters for MSS), additional spectral bands located in new regions of the spectrum and a greater number of data quantization levels (8-bit, 256 gray levels compared to 6-bit, 128), which take advantage of the enhanced radiometric sensitivity. A comparison of sensor attributes along with Landsat history is included as Tables A l, A2 & A3 and

Figure A l.

Landsats 4 & 5

Landsats 4 and 5, which have payloads of both TM and MSS sensors travel in repetitive, sun-synchronous orbits at an altitude of 705 KM. The orbits have an inclination angle of 98° with respect to the equator, with each orbit taking about 99 minutes and the satellite crossing the equator at 9:45 p.m. local solar time. This altitude, sensor optics and a 15.4° scan angle produce a ground view swath of 185 km wide. Overlapping of swaths along the east-west margins in adjacent paths produces stereo coverage of varying width (dependent on latitude). The ground distance between two consecutive orbits is 2752 km at the equator (Landsat Data Users Notes, 1982). This allows for a 16 day repeat cycle for the platform to return to a particular ground tract, completing world-wide coverage (Figures A2 & A3).

Data Collection

The TM system is an object-spaceline scanner which uses a moving mirror assembly to scan across the spacecraft ground tract and the orbital motion of the spacecraft to scan the along tract direction. The mirror reflects earth radiation through a telescope onto detectors within a prime focal plane, and through a set of mirrors onto separate detectors within a cooled focal plane.

Detectors of the prime focal plane filter the radiation into the three visible and one near IR TM bands, while the cooled detectors are for the two mid-IR and thermal IR bands. The separated energy is converted to electronic signals, 105

Near- Ultra- infrared

£

Wavelength (cm)

Figure Al Electromagnetic Spectrum Showing Absorption Regions (Goetz, 1981)

Electromagnetic spectral bands

Band Wavelength Remarks

Gamma ray <0.03 nm Incoming radiation from the sun is completely absorbed by the upper atmosphere, and is not available for remote sensing. Gamma radiation from radioactive minerals is deleted by low-flying aircraft as a prospecting method. X-ray 0.03 to 3 nm Incoming radiation is completely absorbed by atmosphere. Not employed in remote sensing. Ultraviolet, UV 3 nm to 0.4 /im Incoming UV radiation at wavelengths <0.3 nm is completely absorbed by ozone in the upper atmosphere. Photographic UV 0.3 to 0.4 /im Transmitted through the atmosphere. Detectable with film and photo­ detectors, but atmospheric scattering is severe. Visible 0.4 to 0.7 fim Detected with film and photodetectors. Includes earth reflectance peak at about 0.5 pm. Infrared, IR 0.7 to 300 jim Interaction with matter varies with wavelength. Atmospheric transmission windows are separated by absorption bands. Reflected IR 0.7 to 3 nm This is primarily reflected solar radiation and contains no information about thermal properties of materials. Radiation from 0.7 to 0.9 jim is detectable with film and is called photographic IR radiation. Thermal IR 3 to 5 ftm These are the principal atmospheric windows in the thermal region. 8 to 14 fim Imagery at these wavelengths is acquired through the use of opt'" mechanical scanners, not by film. Microwave 0.3 to 300 cm These longer wavelengths can penetrate clouds and fog. Imagery it , be acquired in the active or passive mode. Radar 0.3 to 300 cm Active form of microwave remote sensing.

Table Al Electromagnetic Spectral Bands (Sabins, 1978) landsat Periods of Operation

Landsat launch Deactivation

-1 23 July 1972 6 January 1978 -2 22 January 1975 27 July 1983 -3 5 March 1978 7 September 1983 -4 16 July 1982 -5 1 March 1984

Table A2 Landsat Periods of Operation

Radiometer Characteristics

Thematic Mapper Multispcctral Scanner Subsystem ITM) (MSS)

Radiometric Radiometric Micrometers Sensitivity (NEAp) Micrometers Sensitivity (NEAp)

Spectra! Band 1 0.45- 0.52 0.8% 0.5-0.6 0.57% Spectral Band 2 0.52- 0.60 0.5% 0.6-0.7 0.57% Spectral Band 3 0.63- 0.69 0.5% 0.7-0.8 0.65% Spectral Band 4 0.76- 0.90 0.5%' 0.8-1.1 0.70 % Spectral Band 5 1.55- 1.75 1.0% Spectral Band 6 10.40-12.50 0.5 K (NEAT) Spectral Band 7 2.08- 2.35 2.4% Ground IFOV 30 m (Bands 1 -6) 82 m (Bands 1-4) 120 m (Band 7) Date Rate 85 Mbps 15 Mbps Quantization Levels 256 64 Weight 258 kg 68 kg Size 1.1 x 0.7 x 2.0 m 0.35 x 0.4 x 0.9 m Power 332 watts 50 watts

Table A3 Radiometric Characteristics of Landsats 4 & 5 (Bowden, 1979) 33 c O cd3 a< cd r~ O cp {I)

c5 o a ^2 CDi o> 2 rr oa 9 -> 10Ul 8 U1 §Q. *<} -J 03 o ' ro o 33 a> •p*. n to. g > o

l^C* t

Figure A2 Flight Path of Landsats 4 & 5 (Landsat Data Users Notes, 1982) ; j 108 which in turn are amplified, then quantized to 8-bits (0-255) digital counts. The digital information is transmitted to the ground via Tracking and Data Relay

Satellite System (TDRSS). The TDRSS eliminates the need for on-board recorders, which were the weakest link of the Landsats 1, 2 and 3 systems.

Once received, the data is processed for radiometric and geometric corrections before going to EROS Data Center for public distribution (Landsat Data Users

Notes, 1982). Figure A4 shows the configuration of Landsat 4 and Figure A5 is a flow chart showing Landsat 4 <5c 5 pathway from satellite to user. Tables A4,

A5, A6 and A7 list technical information concerning TM band applications, radiometric sensitivity and performance requirements.

Choice of Data

With Landsat 5 currently completing a worldwide data set every 16 days, multiple coverage of many areas are available from the EROS Data Center.

When ordering either digital data or images, the analyst has choices of tape quality, amount of cloud coverage and temporal variation which includes sun angle, vegetation patterns and various forms of weather (soil moisture, snow cover, surface water stages).

The first step in ordering data is to request from EROS a printout of all available scenes for the area of interest. The listing includes scene

identification number, path and row, exposure date, scene corner and center

coordinates in longitude and latitude, quality rating and percent of cloud cover.

Data quality is reported for each band on a scale of 1 to 8 (8 is best). Cloud

cover is reported as a percentage of the total image. With these options, the

analyst often selects data based on a trade-off with clouds, quality an

temporal considerations. Table A8 is an example of TM data available

Nevada as of July, 1984. 3) c o 3 CD= < CDr~ 109 O rt> CO

Figure A4 General Configuration of Landsats 4 & 5 (Bowden, 1979)

Characteristics of the landsat-4 and -5 Thematic Mapper z -<■ -> Wavelength w o © Band Range Spectral a>a “Z r— Number (pm) Region Application •co ® ? 1 0 . 4 5 - 0 .5 2 Blue Designed for water body penetration, making it useful tj » for coastal water mapping; also useful for differentia­ o i w o 2 J ® tion of soil from vegetation, and deciduous from coni­ Ji ® N ferous flora * § 2 0 . 5 2 - 0 .6 0 G re e n Designed to measure visible green reflectance peak of vegetation for vigor assessment 3 0 . 6 3 - 0 .6 9 Red A chlorophyll absorption band important for vegeta­ 5 ^ 2 tion discrimination c X, 4 0 . 7 6 - 0 .9 0 Reflected Useful for determining biomass content and for de­ in fra re d lineation of water bodies \P 5 1 . 5 5 - 1.75 Reflected Indicative of vegetation moisture content and in fra re d soil moisture; also useful for differentiation of snow from clouds 6 10.40-12.50 T he rm al For use in vegetation stress analysis, soil moisture in fra re d discrimina^'m, and general thermal mapping 7 2 . 0 8 - 2 .3 5 Reflected Potential for discriminating rock types and for in fra re d hydrothermal mapping

A4 Thematic Mapper Band Applications

Thematic Mapper Radiometric Sensitivity

Sign al to

Optical Responsivity Band Transmission (AAV) Minimum Maximum Specified Actual* S p ecified

1 0 .7 7 0 .3 3 32 5 2 2 0 .7 7 0 4 0 35 6 0 3 0 .9 0 0 .4 5 26 4 6 4 0 .7 6 0 .5 6 32 3 5 5 0 .6 9 1.2 13 4 0 7 0 6 6 1.6 5 21

6 0 5 3 •

Table A5 Thematic Mapper Radiometric Sensitivity (Landsat Data Users Notes, 1982) JJCO 2.CD 11 2 o

OpttCS 40 6 em Ap<•rture f/6 a t Pru-ne Focus 42.5,...-ad Jtov. Bands 1·4 f/3 at Relay Focus 43 8·prad llf'OV. &,ncis 5.7 170·,...-ad FiOV. Band 6

S>gnal: 52 kHz. 3 dB. Bands 1 ·5. 7 1 3 kHz. 3 dB. Band 6 1 SamptenFOV 8 Bits/Sample 84 9 ·Mbps Mult•r>lexed Output

·rab l e A6 Thematic Mapper Parameters (Landsat Data Users Notes, 1982)

Scan Profile Repeatability 6m

Band to BAnd Repeatability 6m

Along Track Overlap-Underlap 6m

Swath Width 185km

Signal Quantization 256 bits

Data Rate 84.9 Mbps

Weight 243 kg

Power 332 Watts

Spectral Coverage 0.45-12.5pm

Table A7 Thematic Mapper Performance Requirements (Landsat Data Users Notes, 1982> I D C O 1 1 3 c3 d r< J r" < D o C D J D 'z a. s f •=? B O » O)C L " Z f [r — 1 V j H r i 1 1* 1 « c 9 « c ♦ 1 « 3 o o - J c — a —J C _ o 00 2 ^ K N C O g 01 1 w r- l i- K - s *■ Q . - o . 0 0- - a a - x a a . - a . *. : r i 1 ' X . ; : 2 C Xj W J «-• * x u U l « 3 o <_ o u CM K 4 A n n o - K > A IA © n C l A o ■» X Ml VJ < n 6 ' w •M r <2 4 O • C - 4 o 4 C X 4 o 3 3 f l ) n * -« u o un O n t n © u c m o 3 C U o / C t n O / in CD M o n 4 -» r 'fi r 2 r © c X o r « X i n c \ r K. _ k i ‘ A f A (VJ o ~) U 3 o Q r- U J r > A K i n K l K vfi e u s oo * o SJ f vl ( M CM NJ ' 2 CSJ O vl C C M o 1 C M ^ O' O 1a O o a O b 2 O c c Cl o 2 C < 3 o 3 C i s o 2 f»v a O' » 1 O' o r O' © o a o K. O u - o 2 Kl © A c Kl o n n K l K. K l K- A o r o Q X r . X« r Z « r c X O 3 Z CDC M o 4 o r X © X 2 x o 4 C - 4 o 4 C 4 © J - t o 4 t-i V j 9 © • o It © M 2 t » © • r V © * c t t c • o 1 3 o c > o t 1 o o CD IA a A • n A I A A A a m A A l A A 1 A A t A A < A I A> n o o 3 O -P in o a o ** O o o 3 o o 3 2 . O •• 3 : & ■ •• . a I* 3 f t •-* •X X Ov «-) o f t in *- t O' O ' r x O' -l O' 2v fH •H r * ■ X • x H f t iti lA *- • m X n x l /. K A —• Lf > -X n f « V A X O * ^ » C- o a o X 2 4 © B 2 2 OX 4J ■ * o o 3 o 3 o 3 o 2 £ «L JC IA a A a i n A. l A A I A A A Ml B- A U J * - r o O ' > - r « 0 - 4 - 4 • U 4 1 4 m 4 >• 4 r - 4 Q p D o 3 o o 3 © 2 O © © X Q o c X o x o a. 3 a. o * a a o O x o m «? c C N m . r k - «lj P vfi fi A'- ^ K r CO ( - r •_ < •tf - c v x X - 4 ■ 4 r * 4 4 f t 4 o • a o o • x Q »X © - • C. * x K o f X O' 2 T O' * o O' O' 3 C O' x O' 3 T O' ■ X O' 3; X O' 2 * OS *- r o n K > Kl Kl K. K l K l K» w in X VI X I A x i n X i n x m X I A 4 M > X u o *• c © •• c r D m o O Kl o Kl O Kl o Kl O Kl O Kl O Kl CJ * B X a M* B • • 9 A. ft * • X *» •* o © a O 3 C l * ~ Ml m l A 0. l A M i n A; m W- 4 UJ U 9 f t I A e M > f t o Q o « - o o o o o O s K» K l CJ 2 K. o t n 3 K l o K l o 4 p r X 4 r 4 r . 4 y 4 r 4 X 4 4 X CM sjO UJ x U J Z Ml * *fi z m X C M n m Ml i n Ml t n O t n M l M l Ml Ml Ml UJ M • CJ M < C J M l CJ <« © 4 CJ 4 © 4 a « o «* J t o AJ «L g w m j j j ■ J O O WJ S V . - X f X S f r - < V V N . * x S * ■* o V Kl i n O - X •c. T 1 K. O' c > C M X » * X ^ *- ■ N a t H C > c j » 3 * v 'N a . ~ r lA i a IA O l A O MO m a ? t Ml IA a k IA m Mi l A k i m K a a 'A * X ' O vfi f t f i CJ 'O > 0 M C 'O O ' O O .O O ' O C j IJ M Cl f i u c /» H « - r > r » O © O n t v O r f l M o M X Z X r T X Z T . V a r V X V X a V K' ft- K l f t' Kl » » CV l » f ; h k i K 4 * M M M K > • * b 'l M » A r 3 » O X o © —. n O H O • x o P t © ■ < o - < o m c c l C M O o O O < c f t _ o o O • x C 3 K © © o K i o H - O a » - — O 1 - * H o f X f t - n o •-* •X H «K ■ * 4 C > f t - r ■ 4 ■ 4 4 4 4 -# o • 4 o - r - 1 X n - 4 O X X • < « X • r • MV JC IT « r V X ♦ - = « « X > - i n r . * • « * ♦ • •• M H - J V M « • • • * « ♦ M h - _ j _ j i r A (M A < M • C M « CM 1 CM ■ < t r CM • N • CM • C M * *v < < M c m • < « > M • < I T A* ( O A * tfl At 1 1 %« u O M %» ( A %. 0 I t T A. M M f - c i " " o J C C l u- r O « n 0 m I/O r i n * r •* A c n ifl l A K » vf * m l A I I I f c j i r Ml 3 ? I f K l S = j o * n u * n C J O Cv. CM i n K 0 T O t l i ^ m »A I f X 3 M M CM 0 0 Av m ~ 4 a *- 4 i n r vj - I 4 * 4 X - 4 4 o r. X n . X a * X t r it T X r . X X ►- 4 ►- ►- B. vfi t n UJ f t - c O' c o C U J N. U J UJ © 4 Ml o U J o - r • M • « r % ^ • • I T • - r * • • Ml A 1 Ml • * 9 L t « . » Ml * . > o ^ r O A C A. O o O k . r K © K. C ►> n o O C O C O • « X vfi H U» *- 4 UJ f X i n f i r •- < w ~* H » n > r *-* t d X t O •* f t v A O »•’ O * n C i i f O » f © • t O f • u O - c ~ •X C l r - c H o - < r . - t « O H < c * - * 4 f 1 3 t o r f i • X .i B M 3 a J 9 4 M A. ifi 5 J - i i n •.« I f • < l A U u • < IA Ml i n 1 9 * IA »» f i 1 9 •• m o ^ o “ vfi r n u vfi C D U f C •fi CD d x a u > x a UJ CO u i n l : x cr U > z c c \ 0 i n U i n V i n UJ t r M i n 1 / UJ UJ UJ r r o f - X © a r »* c r o r o Kl c V r £ c r M x * ■ • x x r ► CM A > n M 0 >■ CM K CV ► l V A * *-• A > l A l, f IA K N f Ifl m r - H K O K l J r C M C o H * ■ o C 3 c > c © c e S s n r* o U r O o o 3 o H C o 5 * F o r 3 C 4 N C o a s M C 0 er. j . 4 r 4 0 X • • * H • r a - 4 * 3 * 7 N 4 4 U r ~ f N • Z. X X f t f z z -X 4 - u Z T . N ' n - r i (V w •« r •* A 4 p f t • t n r •I X T «' r •-* ^ * —* • 4 CM A* 1 c = S « f t » Kl * •* CM N r *» t a * •* X * It i + u ft- r •• c * M O N C H © M r M t M O t n • l S l A _ c r M c i r 1 l A i n Aj 1/ •A * •A » - u l A * — u «A m * UJ * n • t I vl I V ► - K ft J— < '•» M V l . l i » l — • A U- •A U- 4 c 4 • n k • A • < t ■ < t 1 Q 4 a ■ < O r Z 1 P : T - r B' n ► X » -i o 4 4 • x • < o 2 © a Q -J D 3 E C a 1 f G m J Q -J -J c c L OC a e c c OC t O 3 o wfc o “ o 1 C 3 o u o o 3 o o n CM o 4 ml CNJ o f sl CM J C l C l f A o K l u C l 1 c C l K l u K - IA I f l U J - f ►- M* - ► - Ml ►f ♦ — u - N M- Ml A 4 •A X A X 1 t : o . * 1 / X l A r. / z l A X > 1 X • n X X * H » s; * H - * •-» X r k x 1 O h" H r - Jr T W T m a s 1- * 4 o . o w □ . a ;- u l a ■ C l OC >. a w c a. o c *. o c c £ Q- X CL CL a. O- CL X r n i a . i n f \n f r m 3 u- a . X » ac ■ oc T 1 C U. t - UJ N U J CM CM I « • CM « ■ i J X 1 4 *~ UJ f u i - c ►- U J H- u J - l ^ K > < X 5 X X k U J - € X X X 4 X a D 4 - X U Ml ac I A C L - * : 5 A / ac Ml If K 1/ a c IA 3 if 0 C 2d o, D O m u c m « ; tt O S C C J CJ i 1* M t- O O a c a X O C » X c £ J o M z 2 O X L > z O ►X X c » X ‘ - o 4 U z M 2 O M 4 u ►- 2 U z U « X X K- a u > » > o M X X X ; J «K « Ml i -J - -J > j M . < a. _ -J -J t t. t u . a . 4 ■ Since Landsat crosses a given tract of ground at the same time of day for each path (9:22 A.M. in Southern Nevada), many of the steep slopes which fall in shadows are obscured to some degree throughout the year. The effect of this is a consistent bias on the image which highlights linear features (mountain ranges, drainages) that are normal (roughly striking north-south) to the sun ground tract and suppresses features which align parallel. A morning sun casts shadows on steep western slopes, with sensor return from these areas limited to backscatter. Figures A13 and A21 of the study area reveal dark shadows on the west slopes of the Arrow Canyon Range, obscuring lithologies and exhibiting this major drawback of Landsat data.

At the equator, adjacent swaths overlap at the edges by 7.6%, allowing some stereo coverage. This sidelap increases towards the poles, as Landsat maintains a 185 KM swath (Landsat Data Users Notes, 1982).

Temporal coverage offers the analyst a choice of sun elevation angle.

Figure A6 is a diagram showing how the angle is measured and Figure A7 charts the angle for Landsats at latitudes and seasons for a time of 9:42 AM. Central

Nevada at 37° latitude has a range from 30° to 60°, as illustrated on Figure

A7. For structural interpretation, low sun angle (winter months) imagery highlights subtle linear features (Slemmons, 1976). However, the approach has two drawbacks. First, areas of high or sharp relief (Basin and Range) contain larger shadowed zones. Second, features that align parallel to the azimuth are suppressed on the imagery. In these cases, higher sun angles (i.e. summer) will minimize the problems, while providing more consistent illumination useful for lithologic interpretation.

Another temporal factor is vegetation. In an arid environment, geobotany plays a significant role in structural interpretations. Faults and fractures are generally permeable, providing a zone of increased soil moisture, with an 115

Figure A6 Sun Illuminationship For Landsats (NASA Data Users Handbook)

0° 10«

20° 35° 30* 35* 40«

Figure A7 Solar Elevation Angle For Landsat As A Function Of Latitude (NASA Data Users Handbook) associated concentration of vegetation. Soils, whose formation is related to the source rock, often support distinctive plant communities. On the other hand, vegetation can cover geologic information, as lush growth has a very high reflectance in the near infrared regions. Because of these variables, the analyst must have a clear understanding of the ecological system and choose the data set accordingly.

The choice of TM bands to use in analysis is function of the area under consideration. In an arid region, TM bands 4, 5 or 7 of the infrared portion of the spectrum offer several advantages for structural interpretation. Atmospheric scattering is minimal in the longer wavelengths, resulting in better scene contrast. Also, rocks, soil, unconsolidated materials have a high reflectance in the infrared, which is less effected by vegetation. When choosing bands, examination of the relative spectral responses of targets over the seven band pass intervals and research of case studies offer the greatest help. Four texts which are particularly useful are Sabins (1978), Siegal (1980), Barrett and Curtis

(1976) and Swain and Davis (1978).

Image Production

Construction of a false color composite image (FCC) involves the processing of TM bands or combinations of bands to produce three gray images which are assigned the three primary colors of red, green and blue. This processing can involve anything from a simple linear contrast stretch of a single band to a complex principal component analysis of several bands using matrix transformations (Siegal, 1980). In any case, the objective when forming a FCC is to use three input bands which have a low correlation (high difference in relative reflectance for a given object in different bands), and as such, provide an image with maximum information. Inspection of the TM wavelengths (Table

A3) shows that the wavelength band passes of bands 5 and 7 are located adjacent in the infrared. Similarly, bands 1, 2 and 3 are close in the visible

spectrum. Each set would be expected to have a high correlation in the overall

image. Therefore, a choice of 5 or 7, 4 and either 1, 2 or 3 is probably a good

selection for a false color composite.

A major advantage of Landsat imagery is the variable scale. Scale is set

by computer processing and the conversion of digital data to an image or

photograph. The operator designates the number of rows and columns of 28.5 x

28.5 meter pixels on the screen. At this point, the data can be written to a

digital tape and sent to an image processing lab for transfer to a negative using

laser-optic techniques, or the display can be photographed with standard 35mm

film. Once a negative is produced, photo-optical techniques are used to

produce a positive print at the desired scale.

Interpretation of TM imagery at different scales is useful in identifying

lineaments. Large lineaments found on a 1:1,000,000 image are often

unrecognizable at 1:100,000. Conversely, shorter features are often overlooked

at smaller scales. An investigation should start with small scale images, mapping

major structural features, then proceed to larger scales in areas of interest,

culminating with aerial photographs. Landsat 5 TM data with its 28.5 meter pixel size can be interpreted at scales as large as 1:50,000 without the image

appearing to lose resolution from recognition of individual pixels.

COMPUTER PROCESSING

A wide variety of digital image processing algorithms are available to improve display of the image to the analyst. Two of the simplest algorithms, contrast manipulation and spatial filtering are discussed.

Contrast Manipulation

Contrast manipulation is a pixel (represented by a digital number, DN) transformation that improves contrast and/or shifts the radiance of low contrast images. Each pixel's gray level is changed by a specified transformation provided by a look-up table, and is without regard to the neighboring pixel values. The first step in any contrast manipulation is to examine a histogram, which is a probability density representation of gray levels in the image.

Figure A8 shows a typical histogram with the gray scale (horizontal axis), which is black (DN of 0) at the origin and white (DN of 255) at the end-of-scale. The percent density axes (vertical axis) is a normalized number from 0 to 1, based on the DN with the highest number of assigned pixels in the image. Examination of the curve shows that the scene is of high contrast (using the full range of the gray scale).

Radiance is the general brightness of the scene as measured by the position of the histogram curve along the DN axes. Figure A9 illustrates histograms with extreme contrasts and radiances.

Contrast enhancement represents a set of algorithms which perform the radiometric transformations described above. In this study, linear contrast stretches were used exclusively to improve display for the analyst. They involve the "clipping" of end member values and expansion of the gray level range to fill the original range of the display device (0 to 255). Gray values on either extreme of the axes are saturated to black or white. The choice of these saturation points depends on the areas of interest to the analyst and can occur at any point in the histogram. Figure A10 shows an example of a linear stretch with input and output histograms.

Figure A l l is an image from the Coyote Valley study area constructed from raw data of TM band 7. A histogram with the gray level ranges from 0 to

255 is superimposed onto the print, identifying it as a low contrast image

(Figure A12). Figure A13 is the same area after a linear contrast stretch was TM i r i t

Figure A8 Typical Histogram Of Digital Number Values For Landsat Image (Sabins, 1978)

LOW RADIANCE SCENE HIGH RADIANCE SCENE

LOW CONTRAST SCENE HIGH CONTRAST SCENE

Figure A9 Histograms Illustrating Extreme Contrasts and Radiances ISchowengerdt, 1983) 3J c o a > 120 3 < cd r~ o CO £1) f - t ^ w o ® RAW DATA UNEAR STRETCH oo 2 ^ io g su Xj 01 6o 33 ' o>w £>■ ® M * E

oor* t \n

Conceptual Contrast Stretch (Schowengerdt,1983 ) Fiaure AlO N

Scale 1:170,000

Figure All North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range; Thematic Mapper Band 7 Raw Data Image

N

Scale 1:170,000

Figure A12 rtorth Tip of Arrow cany°" R®n9*; ^ ® matic MaPPer Band 7 Raw Data Image with Histogram 122 performed on the digital data. Gray level values from 0 through 31, which represent 1% of the total data, were saturated to 0, while 140 through 255 (1% on bright end) were saturated to 255. To illustrate the difference in density distribution, the histogram for the enhanced image is presented in Figure A14.

The contrast stretch algorithm does not have to be a linear function; logarithmic, sine, Gaussian and exponential and Raleigh stretches are commonly used. These provide a preferential or nonlinear stretch over certain densities, manipulating the contrast and radiance to improve display. However, these methods require a good understanding of the reflectance ranges of targets and will only stretch certain areas of the density range. Another option available is the piecewise linear stretch, where a series of linear stretches is performed in

certain ranges of the gray scale. For example, DN's from 0 through 80 could be

stretched to 0 to 190, and DN's 81 to 255 could fill the remaining range of 191

to 255. The result is an assignment of DN's 0 through 80 to 75% of the display

device at the expense of DN's 81 through 255. A combination of these nonlinear

and piecewise stretches can provide excellent displays and are only limited by

the analysts imagination and understanding of the spectral characteristics of the

targets.

Filtering

Spatial filtering is a pixel-by-pixel transformation in which the value

assigned as a gray level to each pixel is dependent on the neighboring gray

levels. While the algorithm focuses on a particular pixel value, several

neighboring pixels are examined and incorporated into the calculations for a

new value of the central pixel. Several types of filters exist which are used

individually or combined to form complex filters; low pass filters smooth the

detail of an image and reduce gray level range, high pass filters enhance detail

at the expense of area radiometry, and band pass filters are used for isolating Figure Al3 North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range; Thematic Mapper Band 7 Linear Contrast Stretch Image (2% clip)

N

Scale 1:170,000

Figure A14 North Tip of Arrow Canyon Rainge; ^ P®r Band 7 Linear Contrast Stretch with Histogram periodic noise or are combined with the other types. For purposes of this study, high pass filters offer preservation of high frequency features such as edges and linears, and suppression of low frequency features (Schowengerdt, 1983). Figure

A15 illustrates the concept of this spatial frequency enhancement.

Filtering may be done either in the spatial or frequency domain. In the spatial domain, the convolution algorithm is used to filter the discrete function:

M N D N SS - 2 S WmnD/V^m s+n m --M n=-N

Where, W = weight matrix, DN^ is the DN of the unfiltered image at line

1 and sample s and DN’ is the new DN value (Seigal, 1980).

The weight matrix or box consists of a set of numbers surrounding a

central pixel or kernel. Figure A16 illustrates several types of weight matrices.

During convolution, the box is superimposed onto the image pixels such that the

kernel overlies the target pixel. Each DN is multiplied by the value in the

overlying box, with the sum of these representing the new DN. For the case of

a high pass filter, the kernel value is a relatively high positive number, which

insures that subtle changes within the area covered by the box are enhanced. !• li

Conversely, areas with little change are suppressed with a low output DN. A

special type of filter, LaPlacian, is defined as a box where the kernel value is

equal to the sum of the surrounding box values, which regulates spatial integrity

in the output scene.

Box filters can be directional or non-directional. A non-directional filter

has a symmetry of values around the kernel, providing for equal enhancement in

all directions. The directional filter or mask is constructed such that the

values around the kernel are assymetrical. This causes preferential

enhancement in certain directions (e.g., SW,W, or NE). Directional filters are

126 most commonly used in areas where a dominant feature trend overwhelms other target trends. For this study, non-directional filters were used exclusively because they create the least bias in the output image.

The size of a matrix effects the sharpness of the output image. In the most extreme case (3x3 matrix), only eight surrounding pixels are used to compute the new DN value. As filters get larger, more neighbors are incorporated into convolution, resulting in a smoothing effect. Figures A17 and

A18 are images created from passing 3x3 and 5x5 high pass filters over the raw data values used to create Figures A ll through A14. The 3x3 product is sharper and contains many more edges in the alluvial areas. For these reasons,

3x3 filters were used to create the images for this study.

High pass filters have three effects on an image. First, because random noise is evenly distributed and scene data is of low frequency, the suppression , i. of low frequency causes the image to be more "noisy". Second, high pass filters 31 tend to "ring" o ff sharp edges or boundaries. Third, certain filters will cause exaggerations of features in preferred orientations, creating a texture on the image. A complete explanation of these is provided by Siegal (1980), along with possible solutions. Gillespie (1976) addresses the directional fabric problem and suggests an expensive (cpu time) solution.

Image Development

A variety of filtering and enhancement algorithms offer the analyst many choices in developing an image from which to interpret lineaments. For this project, processing objectives include:

1) Identification of large bedrock lineaments.

2) Identification of subtle alluvial lineaments.

3) Recognition of cultural features.

4) Recognition of gross lithologic types. High Pass Laplacian Box Filter 1-21 -24-2 I 1-2 1 N

Is 170,000

Figure A17 North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range; Thematic Mapper Band 7 with 3x3 Convolution High Pass Filter • •' - J - . .

5) Preservation of overall image "integrity" such that photo-geologic skills could be used to interpret geologic structures (e.g., bed planes are considered insignificant in defining groundwater flow paths and are not identified as lineaments).

To test various processing techniques for choosing an image processing

"recipe", lineament analyses were performed on individual filtered and contrast

enhanced images (Figures A13 and A17). Results are reported as follows.

Contrast Enhanced Image Analysis

An area of 512 x 512 pixels (9 miles on a side) of the northern tip of the

Arrow Canyon Range was processed with a linear contrast stretch of TM band 5

(Figure A13). This area was chosen because of the author's familiarity with the

geologic and structural conditions, as well as limited field exposure.

Lineaments were identified using the criteria discussed previously (Section on

Linear Features Maps). The lineament map is presented as Figure A19.

First, the major N-S trending Basin and Range normal faults were

identified. These trend along the west flanks of the major ranges. Next, other

lineaments associated with the bedrock areas (interpreted as fault or fracture

traces) were recorded, followed by any alignments in the alluvium. Several

strong lineaments that resulted from the upturned bedding planes were not

mapped, as their hydrogeologic significance was interpreted as insignificant.

Using a single band with linear contrast stretching allowed for the

following observations:

1) Lineaments resulting from large normal faults along horst structures were

easily recognized.

2) Lineaments resulting from upturned beds were recognized; the analyst

could interpret these and choose to either record them or ignore them. 129

Figure A19 Lineament Analysis of Figure A13 : North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range; Thematic Mapper Band 7 with Linear Contrast Stretch 130 3) Major bedrock lineaments were easily recognized (regardless of of strike).

4) Shadowing of the steep west flanks of ranges obscured interpretation.

5) Subtle lineaments in the alluvium were either barely distinguishable, or not recognized at all.

6) A northeast trending lineament pattern was recognized in the bedrock.

7) Cultural features were easily recognized (e.g., roads, power lines, and agriculture).

8) Image maintained topographic/geologic "integrity" allowing for interpretation based on photo-geologic experience.

The contrast enhanced single IR band image provides a base for

identifying the major lineaments, while allowing certain freedom to make

interpretations of significance. This is due to the minimal processing

(derivations of original digital numbers) from the raw data base.

Filtered Image Analysis

The same data that was used to create the contrast stretched image was

filtered with a LaPlacian 3x3 non-directional mask. This product was linearly

stretched (Figure A17) and a lineament analysis performed (Figure A20). Results

include:

1) Lineaments resulting from large normal faults along horst structures were

easily recognized.

2) Lineaments resulting from upturned beds were often indistinguishable from

other sources.

3) Bedrock lineaments were easily recognized, many more than with the

previous image.

4) Shadowing of the steep west flanks of ranges had a minimal effect on the

image, as lineaments could be traced across shadows.

5) Lineaments in the alluvium were easily detected; although the large 131

Figure A20Lineament Analysis of Figure A17: North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range; Thematic Mapper Band 7 with 3x3 Laplacian Convolution Box Filter 132 number formed by contrast between the playa and alluvium obscured interpretation. Also, drainage texture from alluvial fans was very distinct.

6) The northeast trending lineament pattern in the bedrock was obscured with a northeast trending texture caused by the filtering process.

7) Cultural features were not easily recognized, as many were interpreted as lineaments.

8) Many "false" lineaments were created by the processing (noise and ringing).

9) Image did not maintain topographic/geologic "integrity", as interpretations based on photo-geologic experience was limited.

The filtered single IR band image significantly enhances subtle lineaments, bringing out alignments in the shadow zones and alluvial areas which were not recorded on the linearly enhanced data. However, many disadvantages were noticed which detract from the effectiveness of the filtered image. First, a slight texture (SW-NE) is found on the image which is caused by processing.

This can be minimized by choosing different weights of filters, but is expensive because of computer time. Another problem exists with the sharp "ringing" of edges, which obscures image integrity and minimizes analyst interpretations.

This was evident on each filter that was attempted, although the effect could be minimized with contrast enhancement.

Combination Image

A method of processing is available which takes advantage of the strong points found with each of the two lineament analyses. Addition of data is accomplished by completing the algorithms which produced the images (Figures

A13 & A17), assigning an arithmetic weight to the data sets and adding the products. The output image incorporates the hydrogeologic integrity of linear enhancement and the better lineament recognition of the filter (trace of 133 lineaments through shadow zones and recognition in alluvial areas). Figure A21 was processed by assigning a weight of 1 to the linear enhancement and 0.5 to the filtered image. This processing was completed individually on three TM bands, which are each assigned a primary additive color (red, green or blue) to form a false color composite image (Figure A22). For comparison, Figure A23 is a false color composite constructed without the filter data added back. The alluvial areas in Figures A21 and A22 contain many more edges than similar areas in Figure A23.

The advantages of interpreting a color image vs. a gray image include:

1) Human eyesight can only distinguish 15 to 20 discrete gray levels, but

easily recognizes several hundred hues;

2) The information contained on three black and white images is contained

on a single color image;

3) Color assignments can be switched to highlight target areas; and

4) Lineaments resulting from spectral characteristics are more easily

recognized. m

A

N

Scale 1:170,000

Figure A21 North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range; Thematic Mapper Band 7 with Linear Stretch of Composite Image Constructed from 100% Raw Data + 50% Filter Data 135

A

Scale 1:170,000

Figure A22 North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range; Thematic Mapper False Color Composite of Bands 7=red, 4=green, & 2=blue. Each Band Has 30% Added Filter.

A N

Scale 1:170,000

Figure A23 North Tip of Arrow Canyon Range; Thematic Mapper False Color Composite 5=red, 3-green, 1 bl e DeLaMare Library I 262 University of Nevada - Reno Reno, Nevada 89557-0044 DC O CD3 3< CDr~ 137 O CD p) ‘z a s COYOTE SPRING VALLEY LINEAMENTS 8> ju 2 ® (converted to radial coordinates and azimuth sorted) o. z l r~

# Azimuth Length # Azimuth 1 178.3 5503 Length 55 127.2 2 177.2 3421 5233 56 126.1 3 177.1 8260 6084 57 124.9 4 176.8 4424 12091 58 124.6 30790 5 176.2 10105 59 124.3 4438 6 176.1 12361 60 123.3 34785 yJ ( * X, 7 175.8 10277 61 123.2 8 175.7 4429 20825 !s 62 122.5 3260 9 174.3 15912 63 122.2 4532 10 173.7 2264 64 121.9 37992 11 173.6 5199 65 120.9 15921 12 172.9 18812 66 i2 0.4 5603 13 172.2 5551 67 119.0 4476 14 171.9 5303 68 117.3 21654 15 171.7 5221 69 117.1 8050 16 171.5 18114 70 116.8 9429 17 3877 171.3 71 116.2 5851 18 171.0 6919 72 115.7 10362 19 170.7 5151 73 115.1 20988 169.7 12537 20 74 115.0 2759 6554 21 168.3 75 114.3 21856 4854 22 168.1 76 114.3 4662 23 167.6 6228 77 113.7 6828 24 167.2 9057 78 110.9 6067 25 167.0 11886 79 110.0 11705 8894 26 167.0 80 109.9 5140 27 166.0 12713 81 109.7 9911 28 164.1 7280 82 108.4 3953 29 163.9 10840 83 106.8 9227 30 163.9 14137 84 105.9 9100 31 163.5 4693 85 105.7 4934 32 163.1 12021 86 105.3 5701 33 162.7 14049 87 105.0 9662 34 162.4 14864 88 104.8 7499 35 160.9 7142 89 104.5 2324 36 157.8 11885 90 104.4 3355 37 157.3 7135 91 104.0 5154 38 155.9 10221 92 103.4 16534 39 148.3 9991 93 103.0 10006 40 148.3 8719 94 102.9 4104 41 148.3 7447 95 102.3 14073 42 144.7 8370 96 101.8 3661 43 144.2 3701 97 101.8 15069 44 141.4 7353 98 101.7 15575 45 140.7 16048 99 101.4 13859 46 139.7 5026 100 100.6 5001 47 137.8 3599 101 100.5 2288 48 135.3 9959 102 100.4 17620 49 135.0 4007 103 100.0 9138 50 133.2 5483 104 99.7 3973 51 131.9 5488 105 98.5 10112 52 131.8 12865 106 98.1 5893 53 131.2 5315 107 97.7 6223 54 129.8 3254 108 97.4 1933 0 \ 0 - A De La Mare Library / 262 University of Neva da - Re no T v \ e S i S Reno, Nevada 89557-0044 S i \ Z S

-C ro h 4 O p o i n p p VO 0 0 r - c p cr. CP <— i r —i •— 1 0 0 H H i n h 4 ■— 1 C N i n m h 4 p p P p P r o P r o P r o P P r H H* CP i n V O VO i n o C N m o 0 0 VO p C P v o CN » n o C P v o r o C N CNH i—I p C P 0 0 H 4 p o CN < p i n m 0 0 C P i n H 4 C P P v o CP i n H 4 V O CP 0 0 VO ro O p p o v o h 4 ro h 4 n 4 0 0 o o C N r r ' —I CO VJD •—I 0 0 o r o r o p r H C Np H 4 C N P r H v o H

-C -P d r o r o r o r o r —I CP 0 0 p p i n i n C N C P 0 0 p p p r o CP p « n r o i —l r H o O OO v o m i n h 4 >— 1 0 0 o vo vo in CN . H o CPCP 0 0 P i n H 4 C N CP CP v o r o C N o C P e • OO o o o o O CP C P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p P p p p P v o v o m i n H 4 H 4 H 4 H 4 r o r o r o r o r o r o r o C N CNCNCNCNCN i — 1 TJ N 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 p p p p p p p p p P r - p p p p p p p p P p p p p p P P P P P PPP P P PPP P OC-. Cfl i» i'f i / n o r ' C i ) m o H r N r > H n n i ii M j j ( i i O H N r O ' » i m o M » » o H < N n " » i o ii ) ^ o o o i o ^ ( \ i n 'i'i m i ) M n o > O H N n < " m o #vovD^ D^iDvovDrs»rs h'rv- M s'ry>ts‘ rN rs cocococooooocofX)a Da)cr\^(jiO M TiCr>o\c^(^aiO O O'D O O O O O Or- m Hr H H H s z +- » S ‘ 3 c d 'O r - 3 C/3 cu c d > H ^ W £ J O J ° C N O OOO o o i — 1 P r H CP 0 0 V O P H 4 r H i n r o O C P O H 4 V O P 0 0 0 0 r o V O C N C N o 0 0 i n < ° o o o r o I — 1 o v o i n V O 1— 1 0 0 r o p —I m v o 0 0 0 0 H 4 ‘O C O fO r o 00 VO CN VO H4 r H H 4 i n o m r o ■^r i n i —i P 1— 1 H 4 m 0 0 r H i — 1 CP CN C N v o H 4 CN P o m C N P in in CP —1 VO P > 2 v o v o i n r o r o i n N 4 r o p CN H 4 r o H 4 O CN H 4 CP i n i n CN H 4 v o H 4 C O r o P C N H 4 VO r o i n O '-3 rH rH r H rH z g 0 Q* *-> ' O H 4 0 0 , 5 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 3 , i , 9 , 7 , 7 , 0 , 9 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 6 . 5 . 4 , 0 , 7 , 7 , 9 , 6 . 4 , 4 . 4 . 3 , 2 . 1 r H O o O C P CP00000000p p VO•n •n i n i n H 4 r o r o CNCN CN CNCN CN CNCN CN i— 1 nj —I CN r o H 4 i n v o P 0 0 CP O r H CN £ c r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o H 4 H 4 H 4 H 4 H 4 H 4 H 4 H 4 H 4 H 4 inm m in m ininm •n VO v O VO O o '— 1 r H r H ■—I i— 1 i —f < H «H r H »H r H >— 1 r H •H r H i— 1 r H i— 1 i—f r H r H r H •— 1 r H » H ■—f •—i i—l »H ' —f r H 0 3 '!

30 C O o> n

COYOTE SPRING VALLEY LINEAMENTS ffl O » (converted to radial coordinates and azimuth sorted) o. "Z r~ S> | S

Yj » ^ 6 ' w oHai CD K) # Azimuth Length # Azimuth Length 217 71.7 15363 271 54.1 4834 * 8 218 71.6 3953 272 53.8 5367 219 71.1 9777 273 53.7 8584 220 71.0 7932 274 53.3 14233 0 275 53.0 9283 r 221 70.9 9435 yj 222 70.9 4586 276 52.9 4283 5 223 70.7 8302 277 52.9 12433 224 70.5 8487 278 52.4 3684 225 69.9 4614 279 52.4 14735 226 69.9 3638 280 52.3 4634 227 69.8 3375 281 52.3 3267 228 69.4 6857 282 51.8 4451 229 69.2 6330 283 51.3 3202 230 68.8 5989 284 50.4 18053 231 68.7 13773 285 49.4 12293 232 68.2 3590 286 49.4 6146 233 68.2 4039 287 49.4 1537 234 67.8 2430 288 49.3 10223 235 67.8 6840 289 48.2 13633 236 67.3 8853 290 47.9 18762 237 66.8 2539 291 47.0 12087 238 66.6 9443 292 46.6 16624 239 66.6 12168 293 45.8 12906 240 66.0 4104 294 45.0 2711 1061 241 66.0 13504 295 45.0 242 65.3 4586 296 44.6 8662 243 65.3 5779 297 41.8 6256 244 65.3 6973 298 39.7 8877 7106 245 64.9 5704 299 39.3 3852 246 64.4 4622 300 38.9 3236 247 63.9 4547 301 34.5 6425 248 63.4 2609 302 33.9 32.1 5017 249 63.4 4658 303 31.7 5388 250 63.0 4770 304 31.5 8604 251 62.9 4025 305 306 30.6 4259 252 62.9 3839 307 29.1 6678 253 62.9 3652 308 27.9 11593 254 62.5 7044 309 27.6 5927 255 62.4 6113 310 23.8 14029 256 61.8 15510 311 23.4 13437 257 61.7 3691 312 22.4 4596 258 61.2 3804 313 21.9 6020 259 60.5 21644 314 21.4 13247 260 59.9 1830 315 21.0 4194 261 59.9 4817 316 20.6 19409 262 59.4 4745 317 20.2 11363 263 58.8 7889 318 18.1 4032 264 58.7 2244 319 17.2 10728 265 5548 57.3 320 14.5 10672 266 56.3 4807 321 13.2 9500 267 56.0 3721 322 11.7 2468 268 55.9 5940 323 11.5 5017 8459 269 55.8 324 8.9 2699 270 55.6 1918 De La Mare Library / 262 o v - ^ University o? Neva da - Re no T v v e S .i s Reno, Nevada 89557-0044 a v s s ’

o

XJ 0) +-> C-t iO n a m S Z* w S < ctJ W co Z 0> ►J>-a as +-> c x £ w £ j o _ J O - U 00 r —1 v o r r i— ) r - i n ao 00 in vo c o ■N* 0 0 vo 0 0 i n r - cn r o r H r H r - i n i n 0 0 v o < ° tr> '■o O r - C n i— t o o o 00 r o CN 0 0 CN cn i n cn VO •n CN r^- - H " H* r - ■— l i n O cn n * C ao r? H m i n i n 00 r - c n vo •— 1 * * r - r o cn r^- cn VO r o oo r f in in r o o oo ^ To OJ rr r o T j* 00 r o v o v o v o i n o Cn c n o c o cn cn r o vo r H o ao cn r - r H vo v o o r o O " O J r H >- H ■— I CN r- \ CN i— i 'H CNCN >— 1 CN r H i— l 2 2 jC 4 -) « o dr'CNocr>r-r-rvj(NrHcovooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo CL, 3 CN o (Ti r - r - CN CN r —t 6s • • • • • • ...... • • • • • • M - O -HQOVOVDiD^tNfNrsJCNr-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-Nh ao VO v o i n r r CNCN CNCN CxJ < o §> Lnvor-coat O Hf Nrn^inoi^cocno Hf Nro^inoh-co^o Hr Nro^inor^aocT> O Hogn^Ln ^ = :( N( Nf N' Nr N n nro n m mrn n m n Tr^rr-

Direction Dip Feature 1 8 9 Bed Plane 35 60 Joint 1 8 74 Joint 316 75 Fault 153 80 Joint 166 90 Joint 348 81 Joint 45 70 Joint 0 80 Joint 65 85 Joint 146 80 Fault 335 75 Fault 70 80 Joint 70 90 Joint 38 80 F ault 46 75 Joint 319 90 Joint 337 70 Joint 334 82 Fault 80 78 Joint 145 90 Joint 310 82 Fault 335 90 Fault 158 85 Joint 1 65 85 Fault 1 70 90 Faul t 153 88 Fault 162 90 Fault 223 90 Joint 285 9 Bed Plane 59 70 Joint 145 80 Fault 145 85 Fault 133 65 Joint 300 1 0 Bed Plane 325 80 Joint 1 80 88 Joint 140 90 Fault 78 65 Joint 150 85 Faul t 1 50 78 Joint 150 80 Joint 265 20 Bed Plane 1 55 80 Fault 55 50 Joint 145 80 Fault 144 88 Joint 63 63 Joint 243 70 Fault 244 70 Joint 145 85 Joint 150 85 Joint 155 85 Joint 65 60 Joint 143

North Double Canyon Reconnaissance Survey

Dip Direct ion Dip Feature 135 85 Joint 1 58 78 Joint 1 50 90 Joint 140 90 Fault 1 65 90 Joint 60 75 Joint 1 35 80 Joint 325 8 0 Joint S s r ift(* t 1 7 4 60 Joint 65 75 Joint v> 150 90 Joint 323 82 Joint 330 85 Joint 338 90 Joint 142 82 Joint 1 72 82 Joint 335 82 Fault 1 65 65 Joint 139 85 Fault 343 82 Joint 336 90 Joint 156 72 Joint 34 0 90 Joint 172 72 Joint 276 1 0 Bed Plane South Double Canyon Reconnaissance Survey

Dip Direction Dip Feature 328 1 2 Bed Plane 95 82 Fault 326 90 Joint 153 88 Joint 235 85 Joint 90 78 Joint 95 80 Joint 101 80 Joint

- 55 r- r) 75 Joint 88 Fault 50 65 Joint 145 75 Joint 3 2 SO Joint 60 85 Fault 315 7 Bed Plane 345 90 Joint 326 80 Joint 180 85 Joint 337 90 Fault 340 90 Fault 341 90 Fault 160 88 Joint 1 50 85 Joint 144 85 Joint 1 55 SO Joint 327 80 Joint 325 82 Joint 42 80 Joint 45 62 Joint 142 85 Joint 1 53 80 Fault 328 6 Bed Plane 35 80 Joint

ggsgggS

iii»11 nrnr 145

Z i» .s Upper Rattlesnake Canyon Reconnaissance Survey 0)0® o.a> ZZ r Direction Dip Feature oo®? 21 3 88 Joint m 215 90 Joint 335 70 Joint 270 60 Joint 25 80 Joint 275 84 Joint 278 90 Joint 215 90 Joint 253 64 Joint 217 80 Joint 95 86 Joint 240 90 Joint 234 85 Joint 92 85 Joint 40 90 Joint 35 90 Joint 37 90 Joint 218 70 Joint 35 90 Joint 42 90 Joint 1 25 75 Joint 215 80 Joint 220 84 Joint 44 88 Joint 274 86 Joint 255 80 Joint 1 75 80 Joint 175 81 Joint 1 93 25 Joint 0 84 Joint 224 20 Joint 21 5 1 7 Joint 271 78 Joint 270 82 Joint 270 70 Joint 52 83 Joint 50 90 Joint 36 90 Joint 35 89 Joint 270 75 Joint 35 88 Joint 285 8 0 Joint 90 90 Joint 320 80 Joint 4 80 Joint 0 70 Joint 276 75 Joint 270 76 Joint 280 85 Joint 276 86 Joint 345 85 Joint 1 05 4 Bed Plane 146

Upper Rattlesnake Canyon Reconnaissance Survey

Direction Dip Feature 305 1 0 Bed Plane 332 82 Joint 310 90 I Joint 295 90 Joint 278 80 Joint 270 85 Joint 27 1 65 Joint 265 50 F aul t 343 85 Joint 297 75 Joint 263 90 Joint 295 90 Joint 0 77 Joint 220 90 Joint 264 80 Joint 330 70 Joint 304 5 Bed Plane 225 88 Joint 204 70 Joint 235 80 Joint 235 90 Joint 70 80 Joint 1 1 0 82 Joint 255 j0L. 0 Joint 21 0 80 Joint 225 78 Joint 97 80 Joint 1 1 0 84 Joint 1 95 78 Joint 305 66 Joint 1 75 65 Joint 275 90 Joint 1 3 35 Joint 250 70 Joint 58 70 Joint 1 00 80 Joint 96 70 Joint 217 84 Joint 100 74 Joint 40 90 Joint 230 80 Joint 215 74 Joint 1 80 90 Fault 239 90 Fault 190 5 Bed Plane 64 84 Joint 190 5 Bed Plane 290 72 Joint 340 70 Joint 50 85 Joint 255 62 Joint 266 60 Joint 220 74 Joint 340 72 Joint cz a 1 4 7 CO D < = 1 r C ~ D o C D J U Lower Rattlesnake Canyon Reconnaissance Survey f - t e> w o ® j j i p Direct ion Dip F e a t u r e 1 3 0 8 B e d P l a n e 2 7 5 6 0 J o i n t 3 5 5 8 5 J o i n t 3 8 " ^ o l M 3 4 5 5 0 J o i n t o U f f l ■D- C D W 2 3 8 7 6 J o i n t * 8 3 4 5 5 5 F a u l t 3 4 5 6 6 J o i n t 3 5 8 2 J o i n t 5 ? r 3 1 4 5 5 J o i n t y Jr n X 2 3 5 8 5 J o i n t q ^ 5 ^ 2 3 5 6 8 J o i n t 2 8 0 5 9 J o i n t 1 6 9 7 5 J o i n t 3 3 0 6 0 F a u l t 9 7 7 0 J o i n t 1 3 5 9 0 J o i n t 3 8 5 J o i n t 3 4 7 8 2 J o i n t 3 5 2 8 2 J o i n t 1 1 0 1 B e d P l a n e 2 2 5 8 6 J o i n t 3 5 5 8 5 J o i n t 0 8 0 J o i n t 2 3 6 6 2 J o i n t 1 7 5 8 4 J o i n t 3 8 2 J o i n t 0 8 5 J o i n t 2 4 4 7 0 J o i n t 2 7 4 9 0 J o i n t 1 1 4 5 B e d P l a n e 1 6 0 8 8 J o i n t 2 3 2 7 8 J o i n t 1 5 9 0 J o i n t 2 0 0 1 0 B e d P l a n e 3 0 5 7 0 J o i n t 3 0 4 7 0 J o i n t 3 0 4 6 0 J o i n t 2 8 4 7 0 J o i n t 3 0 3 7 0 J o i n t 2 9 1 6 5 J o i n t 2 9 2 7 0 J o i n t 3 0 1 6 6 J o i n t 3 1 4 6 2 J o i n t 3 1 5 6 4 J o i n t 3 0 8 6 0 J o i n t 2 3 0 9 0 J o i n t 3 2 0 6 0 J o i n t 2 3 0 8 2 J o i n t 3 2 2 7 0 J o i n t 3 1 2 6 2 J o i n t 3 3 5 8 6 J o i n t 4 8 8 0 J o i n t 3 1 5 7 5 J o i n t 3 1 0 7 0 J o i n t Fault Canyon Reconnaissance Survey

Direction 85 Crooked Canyon Reconnaissance Survey

Direction Dip Feature 84 40 Bed Plane 335 55 Joint 259 80 Joint 275 85 Joint 73 82 Joint 1 87 8 0 Joint 188 70 Joint 1 94 80 Joint 275 78 Joint 21 6 74 Joint 285 75 Joint 21 6 74 Joint 285 75 Joint 200 75 Joint 3 73 Joint 1 85 Joint 2 90 Joint 285 80 Joint 0 90 Joint 1 1 0 90 Joint 1 84 80 Joint 190 82 Joint 144 90 Joint 1 55 85 Joint 93 90 Joint 80 90 Joint 1 22 8 Bed Plane 280 75 Joint North Double Canyon Transect

Position Dip Direction Dip Feature Aperature Carbonate (feet) (degrees) (degrees) Cinches) Filling

0.00 286 12 Open Face 0.00 None 18.00 142 90 Joint 0.20 None 22.00 158 78 Joint 0.50 None 36.00 154 85 Joint 0.00 Trace 39.00 167 90 Joint 1.00 None 51.00 162 90 Joint 1.00 None 64.00 164 78 Major Joint 6.00 None 78.00 162 78 Joint 1.00 None 87.00 161 81 Major Joint 3.00 None 93.00 165 76 Joint 1.00 None

...... CJ1 0

vvOO-LSS68 epet.aN 'ouaCj oual:l - epeAaN 10 Al!SJeA!un Z9C: I AJ'BJQ!l 9J'BV\J'Bl90 0 U ON 00*0 quxor 08 SSI 00' Tfr a o B a j , 00*0 quxof S 8 9VT 00*98 euoN 00 * I quxor 06 SSI 00**8 aoaa.1, os*o quxof 06 frST 00*08 a o H J i OS ’ I quxor S L 1ST 00*82 a o B J i 00*0 quxor 06 OfrT 00**2 P S IT T ^ 0S*0 quxop S L 082 0**22 a u o N 00*0 quxop 06 t'ST 0L * ST a o a a j , 00*0 quxor 06 L ST 00*21 B u x x t x j oo*2 quxor S9 9^ 00*11 auoN 00*0 quxop 28 SSI 00*S auoN 0 0 ' I quxor S L 882 09*8 auoN 00*0 aoa.3 uado 01 ooe 00*0

5uxxiTi3 (saqoux) (saajfiap) (saajfiap) (qaaj) aqeuoqjeo sanqaaadv ajnqBaj dxa uoxqoajxa dxa uoxqxsoa

qoasueji, u o Au b o axqnoa qqnos Rattlesnake Canyon Transect #1

isition Dip Direction Dip Feature Aperature Carbonal feet) (degrees) (degrees) (inches) Fillinc

0.00 275 60 Joint 0.25 Filled 7.00 356 85 Joint 0.25 Filled 10.00 345 50 Joint 0.25 Filled 10.30 238 76 Joint 0.25 Filled 19.00 130 8 Open Face 0.00 Trace 20.00 345 55 Major Joint 2.00 Filled 23.10 346 66 Joint 0.25 Filled 25.30 35 82 Joint 0.25 Filled 26.00 314 55 Joint 0.25 Filled 27.70 235 85 Joint 0.50 Filled 29.00 235 68 Joint 0.50 Filled 34.00 280 59 Joint 0.00 Trace 35.00 169 75 Joint 0.00 Trace 37.00 330 60 Major Joint 0.50 Filled 46.00 97 70 Joint 0.50 Filled 49.00 135 90 Joint 0.25 Filled 51.50 3 85 Joint 0.25 Filled 56.00 347 82 Major Joint 0.50 Filled 57.00 352 82 Joint 0.50 Filled 60.00 110 1 Open Face 0.00 None 62.00 225 86 Joint 0.25 Filled 63.40 355 85 Joint 0.25 Filled 68.00 0 80 Joint 0.50 Filled 73.00 236 62 Joint 0.00 Trace 77.00 175 84 Joint 0.25 Filled cn bO

** 00-13368 epBA8N 'ousy £ S .\ e ouey - BPBA8N J° An.sj8Ai.un 292 / AjEjqn ©JB^iensQ Rattlesnake Canyon Transect #1

Position Dip Direction Dip Feature Aperature Carbonate (feet) (degrees) (degrees) (inches) Filling

83.70 3 82 Joint 0.25 Filled 85.00 0 85 Joint 0.25 Filled 88.00 244 70 Joint 0.00 Trace 92.00 274 90 Joint 0.25 Filled 93.00 114 3 Open Face 0.00 Trace 96.00 160 88 Joint 0.25 Filled 97.00 232 78 Joint 0.00 Trace 153

t t Q 0‘Z.SS68 BPBA8N '0U9b 0U 9y - BPBA9N iO All.SJ9AI.Un / AjBjqn BJEiAjB-iea Rattlesnake Canyon Transect #2

Position Dip Direction Dip Feature Aperature Carbonate (feet) (degrees) (inches> Filling

0.00 200 10 Open Face 0.00 None 0.00 305 70 Open Face 0.00 Trace 2.00 304 70 Joint 0.25 Filled 8.00 304 70 Joint 0.25 Filled 10.00 284 70 Joint 0.50 Filled 10.20 303 70 Joint 0.25 Filled 11.00 291 65 Joint 0.50 Filled 13.30 292 70 Joint 0.25 Filled 14.50 301 66 Joint 0.25 Filled 18.00 314 62 Joint 0.25 Filled 19.50 315 64 Joint 1.00 Filled 21.00 308 60 Joint 0.25 Filled 21.50 230 90 Joint 0.00 Trace 26.50 320 60 Joint 0.25 Filled 27.40 230 82 Joint 0.25 Filled 31.50 322 70 Joint 0.50 Filled 33.00 312 62 Joint 0.50 Filled 34.00 335 86 Joint 0.50 Filled 36.00 48 80 Joint 0.00 Trace 38.00 315 75 Major Joint 1.00 Filled 39.00 310 70 Joint 0.25 Filled 40.00 338 75 Joint 0.25 Filled 44.00 315 58 Joint 0.50 Filled 45.00 46 90 Joint 0.50 Filled 49.00 316 65 Joint 0.50 Filled c:.n ,p.

vvOO-LSS6B epEM3N 'OU9!::J > ..'. OCI oualj - epe11aN !O Al!SJ911!un W\0 'G9(; I AJBJG!l 9JBV\1Bl90 OV-VA DeLaMare Library / 262 University of Nevada - Reno Reno, Nevada 89557-0044 a v i s ' Covote Springs Valiev Ima