DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Draft Environmental Assessment Doe/Ea-1853 Perrin Ranch Wind

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Draft Environmental Assessment Doe/Ea-1853 Perrin Ranch Wind PUBLIC DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOE/EA-1853 PERRIN RANCH WIND ENERGY INTERCONNECTION PROJECT COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration Desert Southwest Region P.O. Box 6457 Phoenix, Arizona 85005 Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants 3033 N. Central Avenue, Suite 145 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 274-3831 www.swca.com May 2011 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 AGENCY PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Western Area Power Administration ............................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Bureau of Reclamation .................................................................................................... 4 1.3 APPLICANT’S UNDERLYING PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................... 4 1.4 AUTHORIZING ACTION .......................................................................................................... 5 1.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................................... 5 1.5.1 Scoping Comment Summary ........................................................................................... 6 1.6 TRIBAL CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................ 7 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................... 9 2.1 WESTERN’S PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................... 9 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................ 9 2.2.1 Overview of the Project ................................................................................................... 9 2.2.2 Proposed Facilities ......................................................................................................... 11 2.2.3 Construction .................................................................................................................. 40 2.2.4 Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................................... 44 2.2.5 Construction Waste Management .................................................................................. 48 2.2.6 Restoration/Reclamation and Abandonment ................................................................. 48 2.2.7 Applicant-committed Best Management Practices and Conservation Measures .......... 49 2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................................................. 51 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION .................................................................................................................... 51 2.4.1 Other Locations ............................................................................................................. 51 2.4.2 Adjustments at This Location ........................................................................................ 52 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................ 53 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 53 3.1.1 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................... 54 3.2 RESOURCES AREAS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ........................ 55 3.3 RESOURCE AREAS CONSIDERED IN DETAIL .................................................................. 60 3.3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ................................................................................... 60 3.3.2 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 79 3.3.3 Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 86 3.3.4 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................... 95 3.3.5 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 102 3.3.6 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................... 122 3.3.7 Native American Religious Concerns ......................................................................... 127 3.3.8 Transportation .............................................................................................................. 129 May 2011 i Contents Perrin Ranch Wind Energy Interconnection Project Public Draft EA 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................................. 133 5. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................... 135 6. LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................... 137 Appendices A. Reclamation and Restoration Plan B. Western Area Power Administration Standard Construciton Project Practicies and Mitigation C. Cumulative Action D. Summary of Cultural Resources in the Project Area of Potential Effects E. Coconino County Resolution No. 2011-04 F. Avian and Bat Protection Plan G. Perrin Tribal Government Contacts Figures 1.1. General location of the Project Area. ................................................................................................. 2 2.1a. Short-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 1 of 6). ................................................................. 13 2.1b. Short-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 2 of 6). ................................................................. 15 2.1c. Short-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 3 of 6). ................................................................. 17 2.1d. Short-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 4 of 6). ................................................................. 19 2.1e. Short-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 5 of 6). ................................................................. 21 2.1f. Short-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 6 of 6). ................................................................. 23 2.2a. Long-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 1 of 6). ................................................................. 25 2.2b. Long-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 2 of 6). ................................................................. 27 2.2c. Long-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 3 of 6). ................................................................. 29 2.2d. Long-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 4 of 6). ................................................................. 31 2.2e. Long-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 5 of 6). ................................................................. 33 2.2f. Long-term disturbance in the Project Area (map 6 of 6). ................................................................. 35 2.3. Conceptual design of the General Electric 1.6-MW XLE turbine (from NextEra 2010). ................ 37 3.1. Visual resources Study Area and Key Observation Points. .............................................................. 61 3.2. Junipine Estates KOP, view facing north. ........................................................................................ 63 3.3. Red Lake Mountain Ranch KOP, view facing west. ........................................................................ 64 3.4. Howard Mesa Ranch KOP, view facing southwest. ......................................................................... 65 3.5. Designated Campsite 1 KOP, view facing north. ............................................................................. 65 3.6. Designated Campsite 2 KOP, view facing northeast. ....................................................................... 66 3.7. Designated Campsite 3 KOP, view facing southwest. ..................................................................... 67 3.8. Viewshed delineation. ...................................................................................................................... 71 3.9. Junipine Estates photographic simulation. ....................................................................................... 72 ii May 2011 Perrin Ranch Wind Energy Interconnection Project Public Draft EA Contents 3.10. Red Lake Mountain Ranch photographic simulation. ...................................................................... 72 3.11. Howard Mesa Ranch photographic simulation. ............................................................................... 73 3.12. Designated Campsite 1 photographic simulation. ...........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BRECCIA-PIPE AND GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SOUTHEASTERN PART OF THE HUALAPAI INDIAN RESERVATION AND VICINITY, ARIZONA By George H. Billingsley, Karen J. Wenrich, and Peter W. Huntoon 2000 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE HUALAPAI TRIBE Pamphlet to accompany GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS SERIES I-2643 (I Printed on recycled paper CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................. , . 1 Geologic setting ........................................................................................ ;. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 Structural geology ................................................................................... , . 3 Tectonic overview .............................................................................. , . 3 Cenozoic uplift and erosion .................................................................. ·..................................... 4 Deformation of the Paleozoic section .......................................· ............ ~.................................... 4 Laramide monoclines .......................................................................... , ................ ;. 5 Late Cenozoic faulting and extension . .. 5 Paleogeographic reconstructions ........................................................ , . 7 Breccia pipes . •. 8 Introduction ....................................................................................... , . 8 Structural control
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Wind Development Status Report
    Arizona Wind Development Status Report Date: September 2009 Submitted to: Arizona Corporation Commission By: Karin Wadsack (for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Arizona Wind Working Group) Introduction Wind power development in Arizona has been slow and faltering. Reasons for this include: the perception that Arizona has relatively poor wind resources compared to its neighbors; the fact that inexpensive coal power makes Arizona wind energy less competitive; the reticence of electric utilities to purchase naturally intermittent and variable resources; the burden placed on developers by the differences in local, state, and national guidelines regarding permitting, zoning, and pre-construction environmental monitoring; the checkerboard nature of Arizona land and the fact that much of the wind resource falls on tribal lands, which are governed by entirely different authorities; and lack of access to large available quantities of transmission.1 Nevertheless, wind power is emerging in Arizona as a viable, stably-priced and local renewable electricity source. The Dry Lake wind plant, located near Snowflake, Arizona is the first utility-scale project to be built in the state of Arizona. The 63 megawatt (MW) project is completely constructed and unofficially went on-line in August, sending power to the electric grid. Several other projects are under way, in various stages of the development process, from wind resource monitoring, to capital investment exploration, to permitting and environmental monitoring.2 Interest in Arizona’s wind development potential is growing, as evidenced by a dramatic increase in inquiries to the Arizona Wind Working Group, increased attendance at AWWG events (from 16 in July 2002 to 62 in March 2009), and increased use of the Arizona Wind Resource Map and other web resources that the AWWG maintains.
    [Show full text]
  • 11320 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
    11320 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations #Depth in #Depth in Report and Order, MM Docket 88±195, feet above feet above 54 FR 3781, January 26, 1989. Source of flooding and location ground. Source of flooding and location ground. *Elevation *Elevation EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1996. in feet in feet (NGVD) (NGVD) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, ± ± ± PENNSYLVANIA (202) 418±2180. Portsmouth (Township), Bay County (FEMA Docket No. 7097) Smithfield (Township), Huntingdon SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Saginaw River: County (FEMA Docket No. 7149) Approximately 1.7 miles downstream Background of the downstream corporate limits Juniata River: Channel 272C1 was substituted for (near McGraw Avenue) .................. *586 Approximately 2,650 feet above con- At the upstream corporate limits ........ *587 fluence of Raystown Branch Juni- Channel 272A at Onawa, IA, and Maps available for inspection at the ata River ......................................... *608 Channel 272A was substituted for Portsmouth Township Hall, 1711 Upstream corporate limits .................. *639 Channel 272A at Vermillion, SD, so that West Cass Avenue, Bay City, Michi- Crooked Creek: Station KOOO's construction permit gan. At confluence with Juniata River ........ *619 Approximately 0.71 mile upstream of could be modified to specify the higher ± ± ± confluence with Juniata River ......... *619 powered channel. MINNESTOA Maps available for inspection at the Need for Correction Smithfield Township Building, 13th International Falls (City), Koochiching and Mt. Vernon Avenue, Huntingdon, As published, the final regulation County (FEMA Docket No. 7138) Pennsylvania. Rainy River: contains a wrong channel allotment at Onawa, IA, which is misleading and Approximately 3.7 miles downstream VIRGINIA of Toll Bridge .................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology of the Tapeats Amphitheater and Deer
    HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE TAPEATS AMPHITHEATER AND DEER BASIN, GRAND CANYON, ARIZONA : A STUDY IN KARST HYDROLOGY by Peter Wesley Huntoon A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the COMMITTEE ON HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1968 AC NOWLEDGEMENT The writer gratefully acknowledges Drs . John W . Harshbarger, Jerome J . Wright, Daniel D . Evans and Evans B . Mayo for their careful reading of the manuscript and their many helpful suggestions . t is with deepfelt appreciation that the writer acknowledges his wife, Susan, for the hours she spent in typing this thesis . An assistantship from the Museum of Northern Arizona and a fellowship from the National Defense Education Act, Title V, provided-the funds necessary to carry out this work . TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa aP L ST OF TABLES vii L ST OF LLUSTRAT ONS viii ABSTRACT x NTRODUCT ON 1 Location 1 Topography and Drainage 1 Climate and Vegetation 2 Topographic Maps 4 Accessibility 5 Objectives of the Thesis ' . , 6 Method of Study . 7 Previous Work , , , , , , , , , , , , 7 ROC UN TS : L THOLOG C AND WATER BEAR NG PROPERT ES , , 10 Definition of Permeability 11 Precambrian Rocks 12 Paleozoic Rocks 13 Tonto Group 15 Tapeats Sandstone 15 Bright Angel Shale , 16 Muav Limestone 17 Temple Butte Limestone 19 Redwall Limestone , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 20 Aubrey Group - ' - 22 Supai Formation 23 Hermit Shale 25 Coconino Sandstone , 25 Toroweap Formation 26 aibab Formation 27 Cenozoic
    [Show full text]
  • Projectile Points As Indicators of Preceramic Occupation of the Coconino Plateau by Michael G. Lyndon a Thesis Submitted In
    Projectile Points as Indicators of Preceramic Occupation of the Coconino Plateau by Michael G. Lyndon A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology Northern Arizona University August 2005 Approved: ___________________________ Francis E. Smiley IV, Ph.D., Chair ___________________________ Christian E. Downum, Ph.D. ___________________________ Robert T. Trotter II, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Projectile Points as Indicators of Preceramic Occupation of the Coconino Plateau Michael G. Lyndon The study presented here represents the first regional analysis of how preceramic site distributions on the Coconino Plateau changed through time. Although a growing body of literature focuses on the ceramic-era Cohonina people that inhabited the area after A.D. 700, only a few projects have offered any insight into the 12,000 year period of human occupation prior to that time. The paucity of data regarding the preceramic period on the Coconino Plateau has long frustrated attempts to develop a complete culture-history for the region. As Hanson (1996:2) notes, “[t]he chronology of the Archaic west of the [San Francisco] Peaks is not well developed and the identity of the antecedent Archaic populations is not possible with the current evidence.” This study seeks to identify such populations by using the temporally diagnostic projectile points they left on the landscape in order to develop an initial culture chronology for the Coconino Plateau. I argue throughout this thesis that the absence of such a chronology coupled with the lack of archaeological investigation into the preceramic periods on the Coconino Plateau has biased archaeological site data for the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology of the Tapeats Amphitheater and Deer Basin, Grand Canyon, Arizona: a Study in Karst Hydrology
    Hydrogeology of the Tapeats Amphitheater and Deer Basin, Grand Canyon, Arizona: a study in karst hydrology. Item Type Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); text Authors Huntoon, Peter W. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 04/10/2021 14:06:32 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/191507 HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE TAPEATSAMPHITHEATER AND DEER BASIN, GRANDCANYON, ARIZONA: A STUDY IN KARST HYDROLOGY by Peter Wesley Huntoon A Thesis Submitted to the Facultyof the COMMITTEE ON HYDROLOGY AND WATERRESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1968 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable with- out special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar- ship. In all otherinstances,however, permission must be obtained from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • MESA 4 WHEELERS HORN NEWSLETTER June 201 9 Mesa 4 Wheelers, PO Box 107, Mesa AZ 85201
    MESA 4 WHEELERS HORN NEWSLETTER June 201 9 Mesa 4 Wheelers, PO Box 107, Mesa AZ 85201 http://mesa4wheelers.com MESA 4 WHEELERS STAF F President Dan Smith 641 - 521 - 7 766 Some of the other animals we saw on this t ri p were: Vice President Bob Nyberg 480 - 390 - 5241 s teers (cows), h orses, d onkeys, r abbits, g round s quirrels, Secretary Pat Jenkins 480 - 834 - 0517 b obcat “ d ehydr ated”, b uffalo and a d inosaur “ f ake” . Treasurer Ray Jenkins 480 - 834 - 0517 Corres.Secretary Hazel Hart 480 - 994 - 1260 Back at Camp, we all had a shower and then went to supper at Membership Lori Moore 602 - 647 - 1685 the Copper Cart. Back at the h otel, we talked to a guy who was Editor Mike Drawsky 480 - 502 - 9507 flying a n Ultra Lite to Colorado, but had to set down early Remembrance Gert Leible 623 - 869 - 8434 because of the wind. Trophies Clete Hruska 602 - 568 - 1140 Safety Chairman John Hart 480 - 994 - 1260 June 25th - We had breakfast and headed up Historic Route 66 Publicity OPEN to Grand Canyon Caverns. (an Arizona Natural Wonder) . After Next Meeting arriving at the c averns we left on the 10:30 t our down the June 21 , 201 9 Adams Hotel elevator...which was an old Otis! Third Friday of every month, 7:00 PM. Bass Pro Down in the Caverns we heard the story of the c avern which is 1133 North D obson, Mesa, AZ 85201 only in the 1% of Cavern ’ s that are dry .
    [Show full text]
  • North Central Arizona Water Supply Study
    North Central Arizona Water Supply Study Report of Findings U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado October 2006 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. ___________________________ The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. North Central Arizona Water Supply Study Report of Findings U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado October 2006 Disclaimer The water demand assumptions and resulting future conditions described in this Report of Findings reflect the position of the study’s partners and stakeholder groups. The use of these assumptions and resulting future conditions in the Report of Findings does not reflect any agreement by the Bureau of Reclamation and has no bearing on the position the Department of the Interior may take with respect to the Indian water rights settlement negotiations or litigation. North Central Arizona Water Supply Study—Report of Findings Executive Summary Study Purpose As the result of ongoing drought conditions in the Coconino Plateau region and the findings of the North Central Arizona Regional Water Study Phase One Report, stakeholders in the region requested that the Bureau of Reclamation conduct a regional water study to: • Determine if water demand in the demand areas is unmet (projected to the year 2050) • If the demand is unmet, determine if there is at least one regional alternative to meet future demands • Determine if there is a Federal objective in which there exists at least one regional plan that can be recommended to be carried forward into a Feasibility Study.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnographic Resources in the Grand Canyon Region
    Interim Report Ethnographic Resources in the Grand Canyon Region Prepared by Saul Hedquist and T. J. Ferguson School of Anthropology University of Arizona Prepared for Jan Balsom Grand Canyon National Park Task Agreement Number J8219091297 Cooperative Agreement Number H1200090005 May 30, 2010 Table of Contents 1. Research Objectives .................................................................................................................... 1 2. Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 2 3. Ethnographic Resources Inventory Database ............................................................................. 3 4. Ethnographic Resources Inventory GIS Project ......................................................................... 4 5. Geographical Distribution of Ethnographic Resources in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon ... 6 Aboriginal Lands as Ethnographic Resources ............................................................................ 7 Ethnographic Resources Associated with the Proposed North Parcel Withdrawal Area ........... 9 Ethnographic Resources Associated with the Proposed East Parcel Withdrawal Area ........... 11 Ethnographic Resources Associated with the Proposed South Kaibab Withdrawal Area ....... 13 Ethnographic Resources within Grand Canyon National Park ................................................. 15 6. Tribal Distribution of Ethnographic Resources .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Coconino County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input March 2011
    The Coconino County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input March 2011 Photo by G. Andrejko, AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with Coconino County and the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup 1 Recommended citation: Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2011. The Coconino County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input. 2 Acknowledgments: This project would not have been possible without the contributions of the individuals and organizations listed below, to whom we extend our sincere appreciation. Stakeholders: Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs/Camp Navajo, Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona Public Service, Arizona State Forestry, AZTEC Engineering, City of Flagstaff, Coconino County - Community Development, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works Departments, Coconino National Forest, Defenders of Wildlife, El Paso Natural Gas, Energy Transfer Company, Flagstaff Regional Plan Citizens’ Advisory Committee, Grand Canyon Trust, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Habitat Harmony, Hopi Nation, Jenness Enterprises, Kaibab National Forest, National Park Service - Flagstaff Area National Monuments and Grand Canyon National Park, Northern Arizona Audubon Society, Northern Arizona University, Oak Creek Canyon Task Force, The Nature Conservancy, US Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey, Verde Valley Land Preservation Institute Partners: Arizona Wildlife Linkages
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphy and Environment of the Toroweap Formation (Permian) North of Ashfork, Arizona
    Stratigraphy and environment of the Toroweap Formation (Permian) north of Ashfork, Arizona Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Mullens, Rockne Lyle, 1944- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 06/10/2021 10:06:59 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/554040 STRATIGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE TOROWEAP FORMATION (PERMIAN) NORTH OF ASHFORK, ARIZONA by Rockne Lyle Mullens A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate C ollege THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 19 67 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure of the Eastern Hualpai Indian
    Arizona Geological Society Digest, Volume VII, November 1964 97 STRUC TURE OF THE EASTERN HUALPAI INDIAN RESERVATION, ARIZONA By Donaldson Koons Colby College, Waterville, Maine INTRODUC TION The eastern portion of the Hualpai Indian Reservation and adjacent areas (fig. 1) include the southern termini of the Hurricane and Toroweap faults, two of the major di splacements of the Plateau country of northern Ari­ zona, as well as the Aubrey fault and many minor displacements (fig. 2). The northern portions of the Hurricane and Toroweap faults have already received considerable attention, including studies by Powell (1875), Dutton (1882), Davis (1901, 1903), Huntington and Goldthwait (1903), Johnson (1909), Gardner (1941), Koons (1945), and Kenneth Hamblin (fieldwork in progress), but the extent and nature of these important structures in the region south of the Grand Canyon have received only passing mention by Newberry (1861), Gilbert (1875), Wheeler (1889), Robinson (1913), Darton (1915, 1925), and Moore (1925). The present report is the result of fieldwork during the summers of 1946 and 1949 and is a continuation of earlier studies by the author of the Hur­ ricane and Toroweap faults north of the Grand Canyon. The report, however, was written in 1950 and has received only a limited amount of updating since that time. Preliminary reports have already been published by the author (Koons, 1948a, 1948b). Two separate facets of the study received particular attention: (1) the character, distribution, and history of faulting; and (2) the character and origin of extensive gravel deposits of three different types. The study indicated that the gravel deposits in the western Grand Canyon area can be subdivided into geologic units, as can the consolidated sedimentary rocks.
    [Show full text]