DOCSLIB.ORG

Half Dome Trail Stewardship Plan Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Yosemite National Park Yosemite, California Half Dome Trail Stewardship Plan Environmental Assessment January 2012 Half Dome Trail Stewardship Plan Environmental Assessment Yosemite National Park Lead Agency: National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior ABSTRACT In 1964 Congress passed the Wilderness Act, creating the National Wilderness Preservation System, “to secure for the American people an enduring resource of Wilderness.”1 In 1984, Congress designated 95% of Yosemite National Park, including Half Dome and the Half Dome Trail, as a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Many Yosemite visitors travel into the wilderness to seek the beauty, solitude, and challenge that Congress sought to protect with wilderness designation. The California Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law [PL] 98–425) directs the National Park Service (NPS) to manage areas designated as wilderness according to provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Half Dome is an iconic, granite peak visible from many spots in Yosemite National Park, and rising 5,000 feet above the Yosemite Valley floor in one dramatic sweep of sheer rock. Its summit is a goal for a broad cross section of the public; beginning and experienced hikers, first-time and lifelong park visitors, an array of ethnicities and cultures, children to grandparents, and people from all around the world. For many, this may be their first hike in designated wilderness. The combination of the long hike, an exhilarating, exposed ascent of the cables, and a spectacular view from the summit can combine to be a highlight of a person’s summer or even a life-changing event. The popularity of the Half Dome Trail has resulted in crowding along the Trail and the summit and adversely impacts wilderness character of the area by compromising visitors’ opportunities for solitude. High use levels also adversely impact wilderness character due to adverse impacts to natural resources. Crowding has raised concerns about the safety of both the public and that of rescue personnel on the cables. Crowding subjects hikers to long travel times and delays in ascending and descending the Half Dome Cables and may prevent them from getting down from the exposed portion of the Trail in a timely manner so as to avoid rain and lightning storms. These conditions on the Trail, as they existed at the start of this EA process, are counter to the Wilderness Act and National Park Service policy. The EA determines how to best manage the Half Dome Trail in accordance with the above law and policy. This document presents and analyzes five alternatives for public review and comment regarding wilderness character and risk management on the Half Dome Trail, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. The No Action Alternative represents retaining the cable system and continuing to manage the Half Dome Trail as it was through 2009, without day-use limits. The No Action Alternative would result in impacts to both visitor safety and wilderness character, thereby violating NPS policy and is being carried forward as an alternative solely to demonstrate baseline conditions and allow direct comparison with the action alternatives. Therefore, the following four action alternatives represent a reasonable range of options to satisfy the purpose of and need for the project, while also meeting all relevant legal requirements: Alternative B: 400 People per Day (Minimum Management Action) Alternative C: 300 People per Day (Preferred) Alternative D: 140 People per Day Alternative E: Remove the Cables 1 Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136) Table of Contents Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ iv INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................................... iv PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................................................................................................................... iv OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................................ v ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................... ix ORGANIZATION OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. x CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................... 1-1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 NEED FOR THIS PROJECT................................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 PROJECT SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 POLICY AND PLANNING CONTEXT................................................................................................................................................ 1-6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................................................................................... 1-10 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................................. 2-1 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................................. 2-2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED .................................................................................................................. 2-13 IDENTIFICATION OF THE MINIMUM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................... 2-16 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................... 2-16 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................. 2-16 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................................... 2-17 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........ 3-1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................. 3-1 IMPACT TOPICS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 3-1 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION ................................................................................................................................ 3-2 WILDERNESS............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3-3 VISITOR EXPERIENCE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-11 VISITOR EXPERIENCE – ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION ................................................................................................. 3-12 PUBLIC SAFETY– MANAGING PERSONAL RISK .................................................................................................................... 3-15 NATURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-19 NATURAL RESOURCES – ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION ................................................................................................ 3-23 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................... 3-26 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES – ALTERNATIVES A, B, C and D ................................... 3-28 PARK OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3-28 PARK OPERATIONS – ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION .....................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Yosemite National Park U.S

    Yosemite National Park U.S

    National Park Service Yosemite National Park U.S. Department of the Interior The Ahwahnee Comprehensive Rehabilitation Plan Where is The Ahwahnee is located in Yosemite Valley in Yosemite National Park. The Ahwahnee area the project includes a National Historic Landmark hotel, as well as guest cottages, an employee dormitory, and located? associated grounds and landscaping. Built in 1927, The Ahwahnee hotel is an iconic landmark and is used year-round by both overnight and day visitors to Yosemite Valley. After more than 80 years in service, the hotel and associated structures are in need of rehabilitation because: Why Facilities at The Ahwahnee are not fully compliant with the most recent building and undertake this planning accessibility codes, including: International Building Code (IBC) effort? National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and IBC seismic requirements; and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Many of the electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems serving The Ahwahnee facilities are aging and need to be replaced and updated. Some historic hotel finishes and landscape components are time-worn or have been altered over the years, potentially affecting the historic integrity of this property. The current operational layout of some working areas reduces the efficiency of providing a high level of visitor services. The purpose of this project is to develop a comprehensive plan for phased, long-term rehabilitation of The Ahwahnee National Historic Landmark hotel and associated guest cottages, employee dormitory, What does and landscaped grounds in order to: this plan propose? Restore, preserve, and protect the historic integrity and character-defining features of The Ahwahnee by rehabilitating aged or altered historic finishes and contributing landscape features.
  • Sketch of Yosemite National Park and an Account of the Origin of the Yosemite and Hetch Hetchy Valleys

    Sketch of Yosemite National Park and an Account of the Origin of the Yosemite and Hetch Hetchy Valleys

    SKETCH OF YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK AND AN ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE YOSEMITE AND HETCH HETCHY VALLEYS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 1912 This publication may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington. I). C, for LO cents. 2 SKETCH OP YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK AND ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE YOSEMITE AND HETCH HETCHY VALLEYS. By F. E. MATTHES, U. S. Geological Surrey. INTRODUCTION. Many people believe that the Yosemite National Park consists principally of the Yosemite Valley and its bordering heights. The name of the park, indeed, would seem to justify that belief, yet noth­ ing could be further from the truth. The Yosemite Valley, though by far the grandest feature of the region, occupies only a small part of the tract. The famous valley measures but a scant 7 miles in length; the park, on the other hand, comprises no less than 1,124 square miles, an area slightly larger than the State of Rhode Island, or about one-fourth as large as Connecticut. Within this area lie scores of lofty peaks and noble mountains, as well as many beautiful valleys and profound canyons; among others, the Iletch Hetchy Valley and the Tuolumne Canyon, each scarcely less wonderful than the Yosemite Valley itself. Here also are foaming rivers and cool, swift trout brooks; countless emerald lakes that reflect the granite peaks about them; and vast stretches of stately forest, in which many of the famous giant trees of California still survive. The Yosemite National Park lies near the crest of the great alpine range of California, the Sierra Nevada.
  • Porphyry and Other Molybdenum Deposits of Idaho and Montana

    Porphyry and Other Molybdenum Deposits of Idaho and Montana

    Porphyry and Other Molybdenum Deposits of Idaho and Montana Joseph E. Worthington Idaho Geological Survey University of Idaho Technical Report 07-3 Moscow, Idaho ISBN 1-55765-515-4 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Molybdenum Vein Deposits ...................................................................... 2 Tertiary Molybdenum Deposits ................................................................. 2 Little Falls—1 ............................................................................. 3 CUMO—2 .................................................................................. 3 Red Mountain Prospect—45 ...................................................... 3 Rocky Bar District—43 .............................................................. 3 West Eight Mile—37 .................................................................. 3 Devil’s Creek Prospect—46 ....................................................... 3 Walton—8 .................................................................................. 4 Ima—3 ........................................................................................ 4 Liver Peak (a.k.a. Goat Creek)—4 ............................................. 4 Bald Butte—5 ............................................................................. 5 Big Ben—6 ................................................................................. 6 Emigrant Gulch—7 ...................................................................
  • Yosemite Guide Yosemite

    Yosemite Guide Yosemite

    Yosemite Guide Yosemite Where to Go and What to Do in Yosemite National Park July 29, 2015 - September 1, 2015 1, September - 2015 29, July Park National Yosemite in Do to What and Go to Where NPS Photo NPS 1904. Grove, Mariposa Monarch, Fallen the astride Soldiers” “Buffalo Cavalry 9th D, Troop Volume 40, Issue 6 Issue 40, Volume America Your Experience Yosemite, CA 95389 Yosemite, 577 PO Box Service Park National US DepartmentInterior of the Year-round Route: Valley Yosemite Valley Shuttle Valley Visitor Center Upper Summer-only Routes: Yosemite Shuttle System El Capitan Fall Yosemite Shuttle Village Express Lower Shuttle Yosemite The Ansel Fall Adams l Medical Church Bowl i Gallery ra Clinic Picnic Area l T al Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System F e E1 5 P2 t i 4 m e 9 Campground os Mirror r Y 3 Uppe 6 10 2 Lake Parking Village Day-use Parking seasonal The Ahwahnee Half Dome Picnic Area 11 P1 1 8836 ft North 2693 m Camp 4 Yosemite E2 Housekeeping Pines Restroom 8 Lodge Lower 7 Chapel Camp Lodge Day-use Parking Pines Walk-In (Open May 22, 2015) Campground LeConte 18 Memorial 12 21 19 Lodge 17 13a 20 14 Swinging Campground Bridge Recreation 13b Reservations Rentals Curry 15 Village Upper Sentinel Village Day-use Parking Pines Beach E7 il Trailhead a r r T te Parking e n il i w M in r u d 16 o e Nature Center El Capitan F s lo c at Happy Isles Picnic Area Glacier Point E3 no shuttle service closed in winter Vernal 72I4 ft Fall 2I99 m l E4 Mist Trai Cathedral ail Tr op h Beach Lo or M ey ses erce all only d R V iver E6 Nevada To & Fall The Valley Visitor Shuttle operates from 7 am to 10 pm and serves stops in numerical order.
  • Yosemite Valley Hiking Map U.S

    Yosemite Valley Hiking Map U.S

    Yosemite National Park National Park Service Yosemite Valley Hiking Map U.S. Department of the Interior To To ) S k Tioga n Tioga m e To o e k w r Road 10 Shuttle Route / Stop Road 7 Tioga . C Ranger Station C 4 n 3.I mi (year round) 6.9 mi ( Road r e i o 5.0 km y I e II.I km . 3.6 mi m n 6 k To a 9 m 5.9 km 18 Shuttle Route / Stop . C Self-guiding Nature Trail Tioga North 0 2 i Y n ( . o (summer only) 6 a Road 2 i s . d 6 m e 5.0 mi n m k i I Trailhead Parking ( 8.0 km m Bicycle / Foot Path I. it I.3 0 e ) k C m (paved) m re i ( e 2 ) ) k . Snow I Walk-in Campground m k k m Creek Hiking Trail .2 k ) Falls 3 Upper e ( e Campground i r Waterfall C Yosemite m ) 0 Fall Yosemite h I Kilometer . c r m 2 Point A k Store l 8 6936 ft . a ) y 0 2II4 m ( m I Mile o k i R 9 I. m ( 3. i 2 5 m . To Tamarack Flat North m i Yosemite Village 0 Lower (5 .2 Campground . I I Dome 2.5 mi Yosemite k Visitor Center m 7525 ft 0 Fall 3.9 km ) 2294 m . 3 k m e Cre i 2.0 mi Lower Yosemite Fall Trail a (3 To Tamarack Flat ( Medical Royal Mirror .2 0 y The Ahwahnee a m) k .
  • Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist

    Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist

    STATE OF NEVADA Steve Sisolak, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Tony Wasley, Director GAME DIVISION Brian F. Wakeling, Chief Mike Cox, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Staff Specialist Pat Jackson, Predator Management Staff Specialist Cody McKee, Elk Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder, Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist Western Region Southern Region Eastern Region Regional Supervisors Mike Scott Steve Kimble Tom Donham Big Game Biologists Chris Hampson Joe Bennett Travis Allen Carl Lackey Pat Cummings Clint Garrett Kyle Neill Cooper Munson Sarah Hale Ed Partee Kari Huebner Jason Salisbury Matt Jeffress Kody Menghini Tyler Nall Scott Roberts This publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Federal Laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against in any NDOW program, activity, or facility, please write to the following: Diversity Program Manager or Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nevada Department of Wildlife 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop: 7072-43 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 Arlington, VA 22203 Reno, Nevada 8911-2237 Individuals with hearing impairments may contact the Department via telecommunications device at our Headquarters at 775-688-1500 via a text telephone (TTY) telecommunications device by first calling the State of Nevada Relay Operator at 1-800-326-6868. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 2018-2019 BIG GAME STATUS This program is supported by Federal financial assistance titled “Statewide Game Management” submitted to the U.S.
  • Tuolumne Planning Workbook

    Tuolumne Planning Workbook

    National Park Service Yosemite National Park U.S. Department of the Interior Tuolumne Planning Workbook Report on Progress from Fall 2007 to Present Tuolumne River Plan July 2008 Message from the Superintendent The Purpose of this National Park Service U.S. Dept. of the Interior Dear Friends of the Tuolumne River, and how they might be translated into site plans for Tuolumne Meadows. Planning Workbook Much has happened in the past year, since we asked for your comments in For this workbook the planning team has drafted four prelimi- WHEN THE PLANNING FOR THE TUOLUMNE RIVER BEGAN IN 2005, THE the 2007 Tuolumne Planning Workbook. nary site plan concepts for Tuolumne Meadows —one for each National Park Service knew that it would be a complex, multiyear eff ort. The plan- Yosemite National Park The most recent event was the Ninth of the four original management zoning alternatives. These con- ning team was determined not to let a summer season go by without presenting a Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regard- cepts explore how functions and facilities might be organized detailed update on the plan’s progress to the culturally associated Indian tribes, For more information about the ing the Merced River Plan, which is another comprehensive and sited at Tuolumne Meadows to help carry out the intents of interested members of the public, and other stakeholders—and to provide oppor- Tuolumne River Plan, contact the plan for a wild and scenic river that the park staff is conducting the management zoning alternatives. While the planning team tunities for their input along the way.
  • Ta HOE Yellowstone a Few Hours Delightful Ride

    Ta HOE Yellowstone a Few Hours Delightful Ride

    1: T A H O E Y E L L O W S T O N E N A T 0 N A L P A R K A few ho u rs delightfu l ride from T ruckee alo ng the - banks of thel u mbli ng T ru ckeeRiver . LO W S lD E T R 1 P RAT ES S to overs ermitted on all O verland and Pu llman tickets. p p — o w i e - tri rat to thi s em of theSierra twent - three O nl one ni ht ride ea ch wa f ro m O e L s d p es g y y g y gd n . ‘ f t d S v ow miles lon thirteen wide o ver two thou sand ee ee . topo e rs a ll ed on all R a i l and P u llman uc et g, , p T k s . u st no ti f the condu cto r and he wil l arra e hi J y ng . o Fis n . Boati n and Mo u n E"cellent H o tels. Tr ut g g B ea u i f u l c t S ener . Gi ant e se rs G ‘ lai n Clim in y y b g . S E E AGE N T S ‘ 884 M a rket S t I 4 P owel l S L M arket S treet Ferr D e o t S a n F r ancisco , , y p . T I C K ET opplcg s L AK E T AH O A WA RA N S P ORT A e E R I L Y T TI ON Co ‘ , T aho .
  • Yosemite National Park Foundation Overview

    Yosemite National Park Foundation Overview

    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Overview Yosemite National Park California Contact Information For more information about Yosemite National Park, Call (209) 372-0200 (then dial 3 then 5) or write to: Public Information Office, P.O. Box 577, Yosemite, CA 95389 Park Description Through a rich history of conservation, the spectacular The geology of the Yosemite area is characterized by granitic natural and cultural features of Yosemite National Park rocks and remnants of older rock. About 10 million years have been protected over time. The conservation ethics and ago, the Sierra Nevada was uplifted and then tilted to form its policies rooted at Yosemite National Park were central to the relatively gentle western slopes and the more dramatic eastern development of the national park idea. First, Galen Clark and slopes. The uplift increased the steepness of stream and river others lobbied to protect Yosemite Valley from development, beds, resulting in formation of deep, narrow canyons. About ultimately leading to President Abraham Lincoln’s signing 1 million years ago, snow and ice accumulated, forming glaciers the Yosemite Grant in 1864. The Yosemite Grant granted the at the high elevations that moved down the river valleys. Ice Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove of Big Trees to the State thickness in Yosemite Valley may have reached 4,000 feet during of California stipulating that these lands “be held for public the early glacial episode. The downslope movement of the ice use, resort, and recreation… inalienable for all time.” Later, masses cut and sculpted the U-shaped valley that attracts so John Muir led a successful movement to establish a larger many visitors to its scenic vistas today.
  • Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias Final

    Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias Final

    Chapter 5: Bibliography CHAPTER 5: BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, M. Kat. 1993. Indian Fire­Based Management in the Sequoia Mixed Conifer Forests of the Central and Southern Sierra Nevada. Final Report to USDI National Park Service, Yosemite Research Center, Yosemite National Park, California. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. 2009. Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas. Available online at: http://www.access­board.gov. Bane, B. 2012. Archeological Inventory for the Mariposa Grove Restoration Plan, Yosemite National Park, California. Division of Resources Management and Science, Yosemite National Park, California. Barrett, Samuel, and Edward Gifford. 1933. Miwok Material Culture: Indian Life of the Yosemite Region. Yosemite Association, Yosemite National Park, California. Bennyhoff, J.A. 1956. An Appraisal of the Archeological Resources of Yosemite National Park. University of California Archeological Survey Reports 34:1­71. Berkeley, California. Borchers, J.W. 1996. Ground­Water Resources and Water­Supply Alternatives in the Wawona Area of Yosemite National Park, California Water­Resources Investigation Report 95­4229. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Brace, C.L. 1869. The Digger Indians. In The New West: or California in 1867­1868, pp. 137­152. G.P. Putnam and Son, New York, New York. Bunnell, Lafayette Houghton. 1859. How the Yo­Semite Valley was Discovered and Named. Hutchings’ California Magazine 35(May):498­504. Bunnell, Lafayette Houghton. 1990. Discovery of the Yosemite, and the Indian War of 1851, Which Led to the Event. Yosemite Association, Yosemite National Park, California. Buskirk, S.W., and R.A. Powell, 1994. Habitat ecology of American martens and fishers. In S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G.
  • Ley, So the Still Deeper Cañon of Lower Two Miles,That Is, Beyond Rather Than

    Ley, So the Still Deeper Cañon of Lower Two Miles,That Is, Beyond Rather Than

    THE CANON OF YOSEMITE 87 As Merced Cañon forms the southeast branch of Yosemite Val- ley, so the still deeper cañon of Tenaya Creek isits northeastern arm.Here the glacial story is less plain, and on first sight, from the heights on either side, it might be overlooked.For above the cañon's lower two miles,that is, beyond the foot of Mt. Watkins,it crowds to a narrow box-cañon between that great cliff and the steep incline of Clouds Rest.This might seem to be a V-shaped, stream-cut gorge, rather than to have the broader bottom commonly left by a glacier. But alittle exploration discovers glacial footprints in the terminal moraines and the lakes and filled lake-beds,withfineconnecting waterfalls, that mark aglacier's descent from the Cathedral Peak Range, south of the Tuolumne. We Overhung at Summit of the Half Dont,-. nrart have hardly entered the cañon, in- a tulle above the Valley floor nn.l Tena-u deed, before we are reminded of (allan.El Caption Is seen in the tllatanee. El Capitan moraine and the enclosed Yosemite Lake. A similar boulder ridge, thrown across the cañon here, is traversed by the road as it carries visitors on their early morning trips to see the sunrise reflections in Mirror Lake.This lakelet evidently occupies the lowermost of the glacial steps.It is a mere reminder of its former size, the delta of Tenaya Creek having stolen a mile from its upper end.Farther up the cañon, below and above Mt. Watkins, stream sediment has already turned similar lakes into meadows.
  • Geology of the Granite Peak Stock Area, Whetstone Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona

    Geology of the Granite Peak Stock Area, Whetstone Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona

    Geology of the Granite Peak stock area, Whetstone Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); maps Authors DeRuyter, Vernon Donald 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 07/10/2021 05:09:43 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555132 GEOLOGY OF THE GRANITE PEAK STOCK AREA, WHETSTONE MOUNTAINS, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA by Vernon Donald DeRuyter A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 9 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of require­ ments 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. Re­ quests 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 de­ partment or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the pro­ posed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.