DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Evaluation for the Copper Cities Reclamation Plan of Operations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Evaluation for the Copper Cities Reclamation Plan of Operations BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR THE COPPER CITIES RECLAMATION PLAN OF OPERATIONS Prepared for: SRK Consulting, Inc. Prepared on behalf of: BHP Copper Inc. Prepared by: WestLand Resources, Inc. Date: March 15, 2017 Project No.: 815.24 07 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 1 2. ANALYSIS AREA DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 2 2.1. Land Uses .......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2. Physical Features ............................................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Surface Water Features .................................................................................................................... 3 2.4. Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................... 4 3. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES SCREENING ANALYSIS METHODS ....................................... 4 3.1. Special Status Species Identification .............................................................................................. 4 3.2. Surveys Within the Analysis Area................................................................................................... 5 3.3. Special Status Species Screening ..................................................................................................... 5 4. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS ........................................... 6 4.1. Arizona Hedgehog Cactus ............................................................................................................. 15 4.2. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher .................................................................................................. 16 4.3. Yellow-Billed Cuckoo .................................................................................................................... 17 4.4. Ocelot ............................................................................................................................................... 18 4.5. Arizona Toad ................................................................................................................................... 19 4.6. Lowland Leopard Frog .................................................................................................................. 20 4.7. Sonora Mud Turtle ......................................................................................................................... 20 4.8. Golden Eagle ................................................................................................................................... 21 4.9. Pinyon Jay ........................................................................................................................................ 22 5. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 24 TABLES Table 1. Screening Analysis Potential for Occurrence of ESA Listed Species within the Analysis Area ............................................................................................................... 8 Table 2. Screening Analysis Potential for Occurrence of BLM Phoenix District Sensitive Species within the Analysis Area .................................................................. follows text Q:\Jobs\800's\815.24\ENV\BE\Submittal 2017_03_15\CC RPO BE_2017_03_15.docx WestLand Resources, Inc. Biological Evaluation for the Copper Cities March 15, 2017 Reclamation Plan of Operations Page ii FIGURES (follow text) Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Aerial Overview Figure 3. Geological Resources Map APPENDICES Appendix A. 2016 US Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Conservation Report (IPaC) Online Query Appendix B. Updated (February 2017) Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species List for Arizona Appendix C. Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Database Management System (HDMS) On-Line Review Appendix D. Representative Photographs of the Analysis Area Q:\Jobs\800's\815.24\ENV\BE\Submittal 2017_03_15\CC RPO BE_2017_03_15.docx WestLand Resources, Inc. Biological Evaluation for the Copper Cities March 15, 2017 Reclamation Plan of Operations Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand) was retained by SRK Consulting, Inc. on behalf of BHP Copper Inc. (BHP) to evaluate the potential for special status species to occur on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within unpatented claims at the Copper Cities Unit (the Analysis Area; Figure 1). Special status species screened for this report include those that have been recorded or have some potential to occur within or near the Analysis Area, and are: 1) Species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that: a. are identified by the USFWS Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) tool (Appendix A), and/or b. are listed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the Phoenix District, and 2) Species listed as BLM Arizona Sensitive Species for the Phoenix District (Appendix B). The Analysis Area is located in Gila County, north of Miami, Arizona within portions of Sections 11 to 14 of Township 1 North, Range 14 East of the Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian (Figure 1). The Analysis Area occupies approximately 219 acres of BLM-administered land within the approximately 4,465 total acres of the Copper Cities Unit (Figure 2). The Analysis Area boundary was determined by a combination of BLM surface management mapping, unpatented claims data, and on-site survey. The Analysis Area includes undisturbed land as well as portions of an inactive leach dump and an inactive overburden rock pile, unpaved haul and access roads, a few structures, surface water management facilities, and old mine workings. The Copper Cities Unit was a copper extraction and beneficiation facility operated by a predecessor firm from 1951 until 1982, although some prospecting and minor mining took place earlier. Activities during the operational period included open pit mining and ore processing. Sulfide ore was processed by flotation recovery and oxide ore by dump leaching. In the interim since shutdown, virtually all processing infrastructure has been removed and the facility has remained inactive and unstaffed. Neither open-pit mining nor sulfide ore processing were ever conducted on the Analysis Area. A small portion of the oxide ore leaching operation was conducted and a portion of one overburden rock pile was placed on BLM-administered land. Neither the leach dump nor the overburden rock pile have been added to since facility shutdown in 1982. Other active facilities appurtenant to the mining operation (e.g., roads and water management facilities) are also on the BLM-administered land. Current activities on the Analysis Area are limited to periodic reclamation projects, water management, and general maintenance and support. Generally, the proposed reclamation and closure activities are intended to promote the establishment of a self-sustaining ecosystem consistent with the biotic communities of the surrounding area, with consideration of the specific conditions that exist at the Q:\Jobs\800's\815.24\ENV\BE\Submittal 2017_03_15\CC RPO BE_2017_03_15.docx WestLand Resources, Inc. Biological Evaluation for the Copper Cities March 15, 2017 Reclamation Plan of Operations Page 2 Analysis Area. Post-closure monitoring and maintenance will follow the completion of reclamation to ensure success of the program and compliance with performance criteria. 2. ANALYSIS AREA DESCRIPTION The Copper Cities Unit lies within a landscape heavily altered by mining activities over the last 65 years; the Analysis Area is at the southern edge of the disturbed lands within Copper Cities Unit. The location, land uses, and physical and biological resources of the Analysis Area are described below. 2.1. LAND USES The Analysis Area consists of both disturbed and undisturbed lands. Portions of an overburden rock pile and a leach dump occur within the Analysis Area, as well as water management facilities, some utility lines, a network of unpaved roads, and old mine workings. The western portion of the Analysis Area, south of the Diamond H Pit and south and west of Lost Gulch, contains rocky and rugged terrain that has not been affected by mine activities and remains relatively undisturbed. Access roads associated with the operation of the Copper Cities Unit and subsequent reclamation activities have impacted portions of the Analysis Area. General land-clearing activities for construction yards and transmission lines have impacted some portions as well. Some of the facilities have naturally revegetated since the mine shutdown in 1982, with dense vegetation growth on the top surface, but sparse vegetation on the side slopes. Roads and ponds are bare of vegetation. 2.2. PHYSICAL FEATURES The Analysis Area is located in the Central Highlands Physiographic Province, a transitional area between the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province and the Basin and Range Physiographic Province (Ffolliott 1999). Elevation within the Analysis Area ranges from approximately 3,700 to 4,200 feet (ft) above
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Curriculum Vita - Stephen J
    Curriculum Vita - Stephen J. Reynolds School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-1404 (480) 965-9049 (work) Website: http://reynolds.asu.edu email: [email protected] Degrees/Registration University of Texas, El Paso: B.S., Geology, 1974 University of Arizona: M.S., Geosciences, 1977, Ph.D., Geosciences,1982 Arizona Registered Geologist #26773 (1993-present) Recent Professional Experience Arizona State University, Dept. of Geology: Professor (6/97 to present), Associate Professor (8/91 to 6/97). Teaching responsibilities include Advanced Geologic Field Mapping, Advanced Structural Geology, Applied Arizona Geology, Cordilleran Regional Geology, Geology of Arizona, Geotectonics, Introductory Geology, Orogenic Systems, Summer Field Geology, Methods of Geoscience Teaching ASU Center for Research on Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Associate Director (6/99 to present); chairman of founding committee. Arizona Geological Survey and Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology: Research Geologist (6/88 to 7/91), Associate Research Geologist (6/87 to 6/88); Assistant Research Geologist (2/81 to 6/87). University of Arizona, Dept. of Geosciences: Visiting Associate Professor, (1991 to ~1997); Adjunct Associate Research Scientist (1987 to 1991); Research Associate and Assistant (1/75 to 12/80); Teaching Assistant (8/74 to 7/75) Geologist and Consulting Geologist: Clients include Animas Resources (2007 to present), Pediment Exploration, Ltd. (2007 to present), Clear Creek
    [Show full text]
  • The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012
    The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012 (Photographs: Arizona Game and Fish Department) Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ i RECOMMENDED CITATION ........................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ iii DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ iv BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1 THE MARICOPA COUNTY WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................... 8 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT AND ASSOCIATED GIS DATA ................................................... 10 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 MASTER LIST OF WILDLIFE LINKAGES AND HABITAT BLOCKSAND BARRIERS ................ 16 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Public Service Sun Valley to Morgan 500/230 Kilovolt
    TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 General Setting of Project Area .............................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Resource Values and Uses Brought Forward for Analysis ..................... 3-1 3.1.3 Analysis Area ......................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Air Quality and Climate Change ......................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards ..................................... 3-3 3.2.1.1 State and Local Air Quality Regulations ................................. 3-3 3.2.1.2 Federal Rules ......................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Study Area .............................................................................................. 3-7 3.2.3 Study Area Overview .............................................................................. 3-8 3.2.4 Existing Air and Climate Quality ............................................................. 3-8 3.2.4.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................. 3-8 3.2.4.2 Clean Air Act Attainment Status ........................................... 3-11 3.2.5 Climate Change .................................................................................... 3-12 3.2.5.1
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Mapping in the Hieroglyphic and Wickenburg Mountains in Yavapai and Maricopa Counties; Partial Support Was Provided by the U.S
    I .. Annual Report '- Arizona Geological Survey * ,-- I I L Fiscal Year 1986 - 1987 (July 1, 1986-June 30, 1987) ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN·FILE REPORT 1I..- 87-13 , Cover Illustration: earth fissures formed in response L to ground-water withdrawal near Chandler Heights; artwork by Peter F. Corrao. L * The Arizona Geological Survey is the Geological Survey Branch of the Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology, a Division of the University of Arizona, Tucson. This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards Highlights • Provided information or assistance to more than 3,200 persons who visited the office, telephoned, or wrote; sold publications totalling $19,431. • Completed 36 geologic maps and reports; presented 9 technical papers and talks and gave 10 non-technical talks; conducted or participated in 5 workshops or field trips. • Published map showing land subsidence and earth-fissure zones; project was done cooperatively with the u.s. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Arizona Departments of Water Resources and Transportation. • Assisted Pima County Health Department in investigating potential indoor radon occurrences in southwestern Tucson by determining location and natural radioactivity levels of a uranium-bearing limestone. • Assisted Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency in planning a statewide indoor radon survey by providing information about the distribution of rocks that contain elevated uranium content. • Assisted State Land Department in minerals ownership exchanges by assessing potential for mineral resources in specified areas. Published bibliographies of metallic mineral districts • for Yuma, La Paz, Mohave, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties. • Completed detailed geologic mapping in the Hieroglyphic and Wickenburg Mountains in Yavapai and Maricopa Counties; partial support was provided by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Coral Mountain Resort Draft Eir Sch# 2021020310
    CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT DRAFT EIR SCH# 2021020310 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Focused Bat Survey Report Appendix D.2 June 2021 CARLSBAD FRESNO IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND May 6, 2021 RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE Garret Simon SAN LUIS OBISPO CM Wave Development, LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Subject: Results of Focused Bat Surveys for the Proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Development Project in La Quinta, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Simon: This letter documents the results of focused bat surveys performed by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) for the proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project (project). The study area for the proposed project site comprises approximately 385 acres and is situated south of 58th Avenue and directly west of Madison Street in the City of La Quinta, in Riverside County, California. In order to determine whether the proposed project could result in potential adverse effects to bat species, a daytime bat-roosting habitat assessment was conducted to locate any suitable bat-roosting habitat within the study area. Follow-up nighttime acoustic and emergence surveys were performed in April 2021 at locations that were identified as having the potential to house roosting bats. In addition to discussing the results of the focused bat surveys, this document also provides recommendations to minimize potential project-related adverse effects to roosting bats. It should be noted that the focused nighttime survey results and the associated recommendations provided in this document are preliminary, and will be updated following the completion of additional nighttime acoustic and emergence surveys in June 2021. Performing the surveys in June, during the peak period of the maternity season when all local bat species can be expected to occupy their maternity roosts, will maximize the probability of detection for all bat species that may maternity roost within the study area.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats
    Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats A agnella, Kerivoula 901 Anchieta’s Bat 814 aquilus, Glischropus 763 Aba Leaf-nosed Bat 247 aladdin, Pipistrellus pipistrellus 771 Anchieta’s Broad-faced Fruit Bat 94 aquilus, Platyrrhinus 567 Aba Roundleaf Bat 247 alascensis, Myotis lucifugus 927 Anchieta’s Pipistrelle 814 Arabian Barbastelle 861 abae, Hipposideros 247 alaschanicus, Hypsugo 810 anchietae, Plerotes 94 Arabian Horseshoe Bat 296 abae, Rhinolophus fumigatus 290 Alashanian Pipistrelle 810 ancricola, Myotis 957 Arabian Mouse-tailed Bat 164, 170, 176 abbotti, Myotis hasseltii 970 alba, Ectophylla 466, 480, 569 Andaman Horseshoe Bat 314 Arabian Pipistrelle 810 abditum, Megaderma spasma 191 albatus, Myopterus daubentonii 663 Andaman Intermediate Horseshoe Arabian Trident Bat 229 Abo Bat 725, 832 Alberico’s Broad-nosed Bat 565 Bat 321 Arabian Trident Leaf-nosed Bat 229 Abo Butterfly Bat 725, 832 albericoi, Platyrrhinus 565 andamanensis, Rhinolophus 321 arabica, Asellia 229 abramus, Pipistrellus 777 albescens, Myotis 940 Andean Fruit Bat 547 arabicus, Hypsugo 810 abrasus, Cynomops 604, 640 albicollis, Megaerops 64 Andersen’s Bare-backed Fruit Bat 109 arabicus, Rousettus aegyptiacus 87 Abruzzi’s Wrinkle-lipped Bat 645 albipinnis, Taphozous longimanus 353 Andersen’s Flying Fox 158 arabium, Rhinopoma cystops 176 Abyssinian Horseshoe Bat 290 albiventer, Nyctimene 36, 118 Andersen’s Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arafura Large-footed Bat 969 Acerodon albiventris, Noctilio 405, 411 Andersen’s Leaf-nosed Bat 254 Arata Yellow-shouldered Bat 543 Sulawesi 134 albofuscus, Scotoecus 762 Andersen’s Little Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arata-Thomas Yellow-shouldered Talaud 134 alboguttata, Glauconycteris 833 Andersen’s Naked-backed Fruit Bat 109 Bat 543 Acerodon 134 albus, Diclidurus 339, 367 Andersen’s Roundleaf Bat 254 aratathomasi, Sturnira 543 Acerodon mackloti (see A.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 POST-MINERAL NORMAL FAULTING in ARIZONA PORPHYRY SYSTEMS by Phillip A. Nickerson a Dissertation Submitted To
    1 POST-MINERAL NORMAL FAULTING IN ARIZONA PORPHYRY SYSTEMS By Phillip A. Nickerson _________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2012 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Phillip A. Nickerson entitled Post-Mineral Normal Faulting in Arizona Porphyry Systems and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Eric Seedorff _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Mark Barton _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 George Davis _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Peter Reiners _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Charles Ferguson Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012
    [Show full text]
  • Chiropterology Division BC Arizona Trial Event 1 1. DESCRIPTION: Participants Will Be Assessed on Their Knowledge of Bats, With
    Chiropterology Division BC Arizona Trial Event 1. DESCRIPTION: Participants will be assessed on their knowledge of bats, with an emphasis on North American Bats, South American Microbats, and African MegaBats. A TEAM OF UP TO: 2 APPROXIMATE TIME: 50 minutes 2. EVENT PARAMETERS: a. Each team may bring one 2” or smaller three-ring binder, as measured by the interior diameter of the rings, containing information in any form and from any source. Sheet protectors, lamination, tabs and labels are permitted in the binder. b. If the event features a rotation through a series of stations where the participants interact with samples, specimens or displays; no material may be removed from the binder throughout the event. c. In addition to the binder, each team may bring one unmodified and unannotated copy of either the National Bat List or an Official State Bat list which does not have to be secured in the binder. 3. THE COMPETITION: a. The competition may be run as timed stations and/or as timed slides/PowerPoint presentation. b. Specimens/Pictures will be lettered or numbered at each station. The event may include preserved specimens, skeletal material, and slides or pictures of specimens. c. Each team will be given an answer sheet on which they will record answers to each question. d. No more than 50% of the competition will require giving common or scientific names. e. Participants should be able to do a basic identification to the level indicated on the Official List. States may have a modified or regional list. See your state website.
    [Show full text]
  • PETITION to LIST the SONORAN DESERT TORTOISE (Gopherus Agassizii) UNDER the U.S
    PETITION TO LIST THE SONORAN DESERT TORTOISE (Gopherus agassizii) UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Photo courtesy of George Andrejko © In the Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service United States Department of Interior October 9, 2008 Petitioners: WildEarth Guardians Western Watersheds Project 312 Montezuma Ave. P.O. Box 2364 Santa Fe, New Mexico Reseda, California 91337 87501 (818) 345-0425 (505) 988-9126 October 9, 2008 SENT VIA CERTIFIED U.S. POSTAL MAIL Dirk Kempthorne Dale Hall, Director Secretary of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240 Washington, DC 20240 Dr. Benjamin Tuggle, Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Re: Petition to List the Sonoran Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act The following petitioners hereby petition for a rule to list the Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) as “threatened” or “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act and to designate critical habitat to ensure its recovery (16 U.S.C § 1531 et seq.): • WildEarth Guardians WildEarth Guardians is a regional conservation organization with offices in Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. The mission of WildEarth Guardians is to protect and restore wildlife, wild rivers, and wild places in the American West. • Western Watersheds Project Western Watersheds Project is a regional conservation organization with offices in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. The mission of Western Watersheds Project is to protect and restore western watersheds and wildlife habitats through education, scientific study, public policy initiatives, and litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Gap Ranch Biological Resource Evaluation
    RED GAP RANCH BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION Prepared for: Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc. Prepared by: WestLand Resources, Inc. Date: February 14, 2014 Project No.: 1822.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 1 2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................... 2 2.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2. Physical Environment ................................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Biological Environment and Resources ....................................................................................... 3 3. SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................................ 5 3.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2. Screening Analysis Results .......................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1. USFWS-listed Species ...................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2. USFS Coconino National Forest Sensitive Species ........................................................ 15 3.2.3. USFS Management Indicator Species ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 6, Number 2 Fall 2010
    Volume 6, Number 2 Fall 2010 Keen’s myotis (confirmed by DNA). Photo by David Nagorsen. Keen’s myotis has a restricted distribution along the west coast of North America. It is closely related to other long-eared species and is difficult to identify in the hand. Genetic studies of this long-eared species complex are ongoing (page 10). WBWG Newsletter, Fall 2010 Page 1 WESTERN BAT WORKING GROUP NEWSLETTER Fall 2010 Volume 6, Number 2 PRESIDENT’S CORNER ................................................................................................ 4 40TH NORTH AMERICAN SYMPOSIUM ON BAT RESEARCH (NASBR) ...................... 7 AUCTION ITEMS NEEDED FOR APRIL 2011 WBWG MEETING ................................. 9 STATE/PROVINCIAL UPDATES .................................................................................... 9 CANADA ...................................................................................................................... 9 Northwest Territories (NWT) .................................................................................................9 British Columbia .................................................................................................................10 Alberta ................................................................................................................................11 USA ........................................................................................................................... 11 Idaho ..................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Wickenburg, Southern Buckhorn, and Northwestern Hieroglyphic Mountains, Central Arizona
    Geologic Map of the Wickenburg, southern Buckhorn, and northwestern Hieroglyphic Mountains, central Arizona _ by James A. Stimac, Joan E. Fryxell. Stephen J. Reynolds, Stephen M. Richard, Michael J. GrubenskY, and Elizabeth A. Scott Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-9 October, 1987 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 This report is preliminalY and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards INTRODUCTION This report describes the geology of the Red Picacho quadrangle and parts of the Wickenburg, Garfias Mountain, and Wittmann quadrangles (Fig. 1). Geologic mapping was completed between January and April of 1987, and was jointly funded by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology as part of the cost-sharing COGEOMAP program. Mapping was done on 1:24,000-scale topographic maps and on 1:24,000-scale color aerial photographs provided by Raymond A. Brady of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. GEOLOGIC OVERVIEW The map area includes the Wickenburg Mountains and contiguous parts of the Buckhorn and Hieroglyphic Mountains (Fig. 1). Adjacent parts of the Vulture Mountains were mapped by Grubensky and oth_ers (1987) and adjacent parts of the Hieroglyphic Mountains were mapped by Capps and others (1986). The overall geologic history of the area is complex, but the regional stratigraphy developed in these reports carries well from range to range. The map area is composed of a metamorphic-plutonic basement unconformably overlain by Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The oldest rocks, assigned to the Proterozoic (1.8-1.7 b.y.) Yavapai Supergroup, consist of amphibolite, schist, and gneiss, intruded by granite, leucogranite, and pegmatite.
    [Show full text]