DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-B000-2019-0006-EA June 2019 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale February 13, 2019 PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Battle Mountain District, Nevada 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Background and Summary .................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action, and Decision to be Made .................................................................... 5 1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance .............................................................................................................. 5 1.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Policy ................................................................................ 7 1.5 Scoping and Public Involvement ........................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 2. Proposed Action and No Leasing Alternative ........................................................................... 13 2.1 Description of the Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 13 2.2 Description of the No Leasing Alternative ....................................................................................... 13 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................................ 14 3.1 Analysis Process Overview ............................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1 Methods and Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 14 3.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................... 16 3.1.3 Time Period Considered ............................................................................................................. 17 3.1.4 Analysis Area ............................................................................................................................. 17 3.1.5 Other Terms Used ...................................................................................................................... 17 3.1.6 Supplemental Authorities and Other Resources Considered ..................................................... 17 3.1.7 Environmental Consequences of the No Leasing Alternative (All Resources) ......................... 19 3.2 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ................................................................................. 19 3.2.1 Air Quality, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gases ............................................................... 19 3.2.2 Soils............................................................................................................................................ 23 3.2.3 Paleontological Resources ......................................................................................................... 24 3.2.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 25 3.2.5 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................. 28 3.2.6 Forestry and Woodland Products ............................................................................................... 29 3.2.7 Noxious Weeds and Invasive, Non-Native Species ................................................................... 30 3.2.8 Wildlife Resources ..................................................................................................................... 31 3.2.9 Wild Horses and Burros ............................................................................................................. 34 3.2.10 Grazing Management ............................................................................................................... 38 3.2.11 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 39 3.2.12 Native American Cultural Concerns ........................................................................................ 40 3.2.13 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 41 2 3.2.14 Visual Resources ...................................................................................................................... 42 3.2.15 Wilderness Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 43 3.2.16 Geology and Mineral Resources .............................................................................................. 45 3.2.17 Land Use Authorizations ......................................................................................................... 47 3.2.18 Socioeconomic Values ............................................................................................................. 48 3.2.19 Waste, Hazardous and Solid .................................................................................................... 49 Chapter 4. Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 52 4.1. Methods and Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 52 4.1.1 Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................................. 52 4.1.2 Cumulative effects study area, timeframe, and RFD ................................................................. 52 4.1.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (RFFAs) ..................................................................... 52 4.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis ............................................................................................................. 53 4.2.1 Cumulative Effects to Air Quality, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gases .................................. 53 4.2.2 Cumulative Effects to Soils and Vegetation .............................................................................. 53 4.2.3 Cumulative Effects to Paleontological Resources ..................................................................... 53 4.2.4 Cumulative Effects to Water Resources, Forestry and Woodland Products .............................. 53 4.2.5 Cumulative Effects to Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species .................................................... 54 4.2.6 Cumulative Effects to Wildlife Resources ................................................................................. 54 4.2.7 Cumulative Effects to Wild Horses ........................................................................................... 54 4.2.8 Cumulative Effects to Grazing Management ............................................................................. 55 4.2.9 Cumulative Effects to Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 55 4.2.10 Cumulative Effects to Native American Cultural Concerns .................................................... 55 4.2.11 Cumulative Effects to Recreation, Visual Resources, and Wilderness Characteristics ........... 56 4.2.12 Cumulative Effects to Geology and Minerals, Land Use Authorizations ................................ 56 4.2.13 Cumulative Effects to Socioeconomic Values ......................................................................... 57 4.2.14 Cumulative Effects to Waste, Hazardous and Solid ................................................................ 57 References ................................................................................................................................................... 57 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix A: List of Nominated Parcels ................................................................................................... 1 Appendix B: Stipulations and Lease Notices .......................................................................................... 13 Appendix C: Soil Types and Biotic Communities .................................................................................. 43 Appendix D: Special Status Species List ................................................................................................ 50 Appendix E: Hydraulic Fracturing Technology ...................................................................................... 55 3 Appendix F: Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................... 68 Appendix G: Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario ................................................... 71 Appendix H: Proposed lease parcels intersecting inventory units that have wilderness characteristics . 73 Appendix J: Environmental Justice Analysis .........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Figure 3-72. Groundwater Usage in Nevada in 2000. (Source: DIRS 175964-Lopes and Evetts 2004, P
    AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – CALIENTE RAIL ALIGNMENT Figure 3-72. Groundwater usage in Nevada in 2000. (Source: DIRS 175964-Lopes and Evetts 2004, p. 7.) There are a number of published estimates of perennial yield for many of the hydrographic areas in Nevada, and those estimates often differ by large amounts. The perennial-yield values listed in Table 3-35 predominantly come from a single source, the Nevada Division of Water Planning (DIRS 103406-Nevada Division of Water Planning 1992, for Hydrographic Regions 10, 13, and 14); therefore, the table does not show a range of values for each hydrographic area. In the Yucca Mountain area, the Nevada Division of Water Planning identifies a combined perennial yield for hydrographic areas 225 through 230. DOE obtained perennial yields from Data Assessment & Water Rights/Resource Analysis of: Hydrographic Region #14 Death Valley Basin (DIRS 147766-Thiel 1999, pp. 6 to 12) to provide estimates for hydrographic areas the Caliente rail alignment would cross: 227A, 228, and 229. That 1999 document presents perennial-yield estimates from several sources. Table 3-35 lists the lowest (that is, the most conservative) values cited in that document, which is consistent with the approach DOE used in the Yucca Mountain FEIS (DIRS 155970-DOE 2002, p. 3-136). DOE/EIS-0369 3-173 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – CALIENTE RAIL ALIGNMENT Table 3-35 also summarizes existing annual committed groundwater resources for each hydrographic area along the Caliente rail alignment. However, all committed groundwater resources within a hydrographic area might not be in use at the same time. Table 3-35 also includes information on pending annual duties within each of these hydrographic areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Southern Reveille Range, Nye County, Nevada
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones 5-2008 Geology of the southern Reveille Range, Nye County, Nevada Matthew Alan McKelvey University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Geology Commons, Stratigraphy Commons, and the Volcanology Commons Repository Citation McKelvey, Matthew Alan, "Geology of the southern Reveille Range, Nye County, Nevada" (2008). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1447. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/3434676 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GEOLOGY OF THE SOUTHERN REVEILLE RANGE, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA by Matthew Alan McKelvey Bachelor of Science Austin Peay State University 2001 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master Degree of Science in Geoscience Department of Geoscience
    [Show full text]
  • The Golden Arrow, Clifford, and Ellendale Districts, Nye County, Nevada
    THE GOLDEN ARROW, CLIFFORD, AND ELLENDALE DISTRICTS, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. By HENRY G. FERGUSON. INTRODUCTION. In connection with other .work in central Nevada an opportunity arose for brief visits to the three small mining camps here described. Such observations as could be made in the short time available are presented as a minor contribution to information concerning the ore deposits of Nevada. Golden Arrow and Clifford are situated at the western base of the Kawich Range in Nye County, Nev., and are reached by automobile from Tonopah. The Clifford district is on the main road between Tonopah and Ely, about 35 miles east of Tonopah, and Golden Arrow is 12 miles southwest of Clifford. Neither district has yet produced much ore. At the time of visit one man was working at Clifford and three at- Golden Arrow. Ellendale, a few miles east of Tono­ pah and a'short distance south of the Tonopah and Ely road, is now abandoned. The opportunity of visiting these districts was due to the kindness of Capt. W. G. Cotter and Mr. D. Johnson, of Goldfield. The Kawich Eange and its northern continuation, the Hot Creek Eange, were visited by Spurr during his reconnaissance of southern Nevada in 1899, and the following description of the Kawich Kange 1 is quoted from his report: . P. The Kawich Range forms the southern continuation of the Hot Creek Range, from which it is separated at its northern end by a narrow transverse pass. From this point it extends due south about 60 miles, where its southern end runs out into the desert valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Correlation and Emplacement of A
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 100, NO. B12, PAGES 24,593-24,609, DECEMBER 10, 1995 Correlation and emplacement of a large, zoned, discontinuously exposed ash flow sheet: The 40ArP9Archronology, paleomagnetism, and petrology of the Pahranagat Formation, Nevada Myron G. Best,' Eric H. Christiansen,' Alan L. Deino,' C. Sherman Gr0mm6,~ and David G. Tingeyl Abstract. Many single-cryslal 4oAr/3gArages and thermoremanent magnetization directions have resolved the problematic stratigraphic correlation of the laterally and vertically zoned rhyolite ash flow sheet of the Pahranagat Formation in the southern Great Basin. This outflow sheet was previously designated by four different stratigraphic names in different locations over its highly discontinuous exposure area of 33,000 kmz.We show that it is a single cooling unit emplaced at 22.639+0.009 Ma around its source, the Kawich caldera. The volume of the outflow sheet was about 1600 h3after compensation for 50% post volcanic east-west extension. A comparablc volume of tuff likely accumulated inside the Kawich caldera. Modal and chemical compositions of bulk tuff and cognate pumice fragments, together with compositions of phenocrysts, show the preemption magma body was zoned from high-silica rhyolite (two feldspars, quartz, biotite, and titanomagnetite) to underlying, silica-poor, more mafic rhyolite and trachydacite (plagioclase, minor biotite, titanomagnetite, amphibole, and clinopyroxene). Initial cvacuation of the uppermost evolved zone produced proximal outflow hundreds of meters thick of relatively densely welded, pumice-poor, high-silica rhyolite tuff. As eruption pro- gressed, tens of meters of more mafic ejecta were deposited in distal areas and locally near the caldera and consist of less welded, pumice-rich ash flow tuff derived by physical mixing of pyroclasts from all zones of the magma chamber.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Northern Nellis Air Force Base Bombing and Gunnery Range, Nye County, Nevada
    Geology of Northern Nellis Air Force Base Bombing and Gunnery Range, Nye County, Nevada GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 651 Prepared on behalf of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Geology of Northern Nellis Air Force Base Bombing and Gunnery Range, Nye County, Nevada By E. B. EKREN, R. E. ANDERSON, C. L. ROGERS, and D. C. NOBLE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 651 Prepared on behalf of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Stratigraphy and structure of 2^OO-square-mile area of dominantly Tertiary volcanic rocks in the Great Basin, with brief descriptions of small mines and prospects UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 73-609556 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract..-._______________________________________ 1 Stratigraphy Continued Introduction. ______________________________________ 2 Tertiary Continued Location and geography_____-___--______________ 2 Rocks between the tuff, etc. Continued Purpose and scope of the investigation.___________ 3 Older rocks of Mount Helen______________ 40 Climate, vegetation, and wildlife._________________ 3 Tuff of Wilsons Camp___________________ 42 Fieldwork and acknowledgments._________________ 4 Intrusive rocks of the central core of the Previous work__________________________________ 4 Cactus Range.____._____________----- 43 Stratigraphy.______________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Fingerprints in the Great Basin
    Fingerprints in The Great Basin Great Fingerprints in The T he Nellis Air Force Base Regional Obsidian Sourcing Study Base Regional Obsidian Sourcing he Nellis Air Force FFingerprintsingerprints inin TheThe GreatGreat BasinBasin The Nellis Air Force Base Regional Obsidian Sourcing Study and Wagner Haarklau, Johnson, 2005 Fingerprints In The Great Basin: The Nellis Air Force Base Regional Obsidian Sourcing Study by Lynn Haarklau Lynn Johnson and David L. Wagner with contributions by Richard E. Hughes Craig E. Skinner Jennifer J. Thatcher and Keith Myhrer January 2005 Cover Illustration: Design: Sandra L. Hannum Background: Southwest face of Obsidian Butte, Nevada. Photo courtesy of Lynn Haarklau. Insert: Detail of Ishi manufacturing an Obsidian hunting point, from Hunting with a Bow and Arrow by S. T. Pope, page 34, Sylvan Toxophilite Classics, 2000. Research and publication of this book were funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, under contract DACA63-00-D-0006. Printed in the United States of America at Morgan Printing, Austin, Texas. January 2005 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................xi GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND RESEARCH DESIGN Keith Myhrer and Lynn Haarklau ....................................................................... 1 The Nellis Mission..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. 63-001 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ) ) (High-Level Waste Repository) ) December 22, 2008 ____________________________________) PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY THE COUNTY OF INYO, CALIFORNIA ON AN APPLICATION BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT A GEOLOGIC HIGH-LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY AT A GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY OPERATIONS AREA AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA Greg James Attorney for the County of Inyo 710 Autumn Leaves Circle Bishop, California 93514 Tel: (760) 873-6838 Fax: (760) 873-7095 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONER AND BASIS FOR STANDING 1 II. JOINT CONTENTIONS 2 III. CONTENTIONS CONTENTION NO. 1 INY-SAFETY-1: 3 FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE AND ANALYZE THE FLOW PATH IN THE LOWER CARBONATE AQUIFER THROUGH WHICH CONTAMINANTS MAY MIGRATE AND ADVERSELY IMPACT AREAS WITHIN THE COUNTY OF INYO CONTENTION NO. 2 INY-NEPA-1: 16 FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE DISCUSSION OF THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE REPOSITORY’S DIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON GROUNDWATER IN THE LOWER CARBONATE AQUIFER CONTENTION NO. 3 INY-SAFETY-2 26 FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE AND ANALYZE THE IMPACT OF THE REPOSITORY IN COMBINATION WITH A CONTINUATION OF EXISTING LEVELS OF GROUNDWATER PUMPING ON THE POTENTIAL MIGRATION OF CONTAMINANTS FROM THE PROPOSED REPOSITORY CONTENTION NO. 4 INY-NEPA-2 34 FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE AND ANALYZE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THE REPOSITORY IN COMBINATION WITH A CONTINUATION OF EXISTING LEVELS OF GROUNDWATER PUMPING ON THE POTENTIAL MIGRATION OF CONTAMINANTS FROM THE PROPOSED REPOSITORY CONTENTION NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Crustal Evolution of the Greatbasin and the Sierra Nevada
    p Crustal Evolution of the GreatBasin and the Sierra Nevada Edited by Mary M. Lahren and James H. Trexler, Jr., Department of Geological Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557 and Claude Spinosa Department of Geosciences, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83745 Field Trip Guidebook for the 1993 Joint Meeting of the Cordilleran/Rocky Mountain Sections of the Geological Society of America Reno, Nevada, May 19-21, 1993 Published by Department Geological Sciences Mackay School of Mines University of Nevada, Reno Reno, Nevada 89557 OLIGOCENE-MIOCENE CALDERA COMPLEXES, ASH-FLOW SHEETS, AND TECTONISM IN THE CENTRAL AND SOUTHEASTERN GREAT BASIN Myron G. Best Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602 Robert B. Scott, Peter D. Rowley, WC Swadley, R. Ernest Anderson U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado 80225 C. Sherman Gromme U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025 Anne E. Harding University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309 Alan L. Deino Geochronology Center, Institute of Human Origins Berkeley, California 94709 Eric H. Christiansen, David. G. Tingey, Kim R. Sullivan Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602 ABSTRACT Regional extension was minimal during most of the ignimbrite flareup. However, local extension The Great Basin harbors at least sixty Tertiary occurred before the flareup and major extensional and calderas and inferred sources of tuff and several tens local strike-slip faulting beginning in the early of thousands of cubic kilometers of ash-flow deposits, Miocene affected many parts of the Great Basin, making it one of the greatest manifestations of including the Caliente and Kane Spring Wash caldera prolonged ash-flow volcanism in the terrestrial rock complexes where synvolcanic faults form many record.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Test and Training Range Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Management of Approximately 2 Million Acres
    EQEUVE SEP 11 2001 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Las Vegas Field Office 4765 W. Vegas Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89108 September 2001 DRAFT NEVADA TEST & TRAINING RANGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MISSION STATEMENT The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for stewardship of our public lands. The BLM is committed to manage, protect and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the American people. Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation’s resources within a framework.of environmental responsibility and scientific technology. These resources include recreation, rangelands, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness, air and scenic quality, as well as scientific and cultural values. BLM/LV/PL-O1/020+ 1610 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Nevada State Office P.O. Box l20()0 (1340 Financial Blvd.) Reno, Nevada 89520-0006 http://www.nv.blm.gov In Reply Refer To: 1610 (LVFO) (NV-930.1) (NV-O50) September 17, 2001 Dear Reader: Enclosed for your review and comments are the Draft Nevada Test and Training Range Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the management of approximately 2 million acres. This Plan is a revision of the existing Nellis Air Force Range Resource Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. It was specifically directed by a provision in P.L. 106-65. This Plan takes a hard look at management options for wild horses on lands which were withdrawn for military purposes. Your review and comments are needed at this time to ensure that any concems will be considered in this planning process.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program 2017
    Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ii Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program (EMAC), funded through the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO), monitors the ecosystem of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) and ensures compliance with laws and regulations pertaining to NNSS biota. This report summarizes the program’s activities conducted by National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec) and Mission Support and Test Services, LLC (MSTS), during calendar year 2017. Program activities included (a) biological surveys at proposed activity sites, (b) desert tortoise compliance, (c) ecosystem monitoring, (d) sensitive plant species monitoring, (e) sensitive and protected/regulated animal monitoring, and (f) habitat restoration monitoring. During 2017, all applicable laws, regulations, and most permit requirements were met, enabling EMAC to achieve its intended goals and objectives. Sensitive and protected/regulated species of the NNSS include 42 plants, 1 mollusk, 2 reptiles, 240 birds, and 23 mammals. These species are protected, regulated, or considered sensitive according to state or federal regulations and natural resource agencies and organizations. The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) are the only species on the NNSS protected under the Endangered Species Act, both listed as threatened. However, only one record of the cuckoo has been documented on the NNSS, and there is no good habitat for this species on the NNSS. It is considered an extremely rare migrant. Biological surveys for the presence of sensitive and protected/regulated species and important biological resources on which they depend were conducted for 19 projects.
    [Show full text]
  • PALEOZOIC STRATIGRAPHY of the NORTHERN HOT CREEK RANGE, NYE COUNTY, NEV ,ADA Redacted for Privacy Abstract Approved: 1' J.(G
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Eric Chapple Potter for the degree of Master of Science in Geology presented on August 14, 1975 Title:PALEOZOIC STRATIGRAPHY OF THE NORTHERN HOT CREEK RANGE, NYE COUNTY, NEV ,ADA Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: 1' J.(G. hnson Paleozoic dolomites, limestones, and quartz arenites, mostly of the shallow-shelf eastern assemblage, were mapped in the Morey Peak 72 minute quadrangle in the northern Hot Creek Range, Nevada. The Woodruff Formation, an allochthonous mudstone and chert unit of early Famennian age, lies in thrust contact with Middle Devonian dolomites, and was probably thrust from the west during the Antler Orogeny. The seven oldest mapped units were deposited in shallow shelf to supratidal environments.The Lower Ordovician Antelope Valley Limestone consists of about 1000 feet of wackestones, pack stones, and algal-nodule grainstone s,in ascending order.The superjacent Eureka Quartzite, of probable Middle Ordovician age, is a quartz arenite about 200 feet thick, and was probably a beach-bar-dune deposit.The contact with the overlying dolomite of the Hanson Creek Formation, of probable Late Ordovician-Early Silurian age, is transitional, and probably results from a slow deepening of marine waters.The Hanson Creek Formation is about 300 feet thick.Above the chert zone which marks the top of the formation is a coarse- grained, recrystallized dolomite which lacks primary features.An unnamed dolomite (at least 860 feet thick), probably equivalent to the upper Lone Mountain Dolomite, is the next youngest
    [Show full text]