DOCSLIB.ORG

Improvement Plan for the Upper Granite Creek Watershed, Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2012 Improvement Plan for the Upper Granite Creek Watershed, Arizona Version 2.1 Prescott Creeks & the Granite Creek Watershed Improvement Council 12/31/2012 Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vii Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 1: Background ................................................................................................................... 7 Watershed Description ................................................................................................................... 7 Watershed Topography and Hydrology .................................................................................... 11 USFS Watershed Condition Framework ................................................................................... 11 Impaired Waters ....................................................................................................................... 13 Evidence of Impairment ........................................................................................................ 13 Standards and Designated Uses ........................................................................................... 14 Evidence to Support Escherichia coli (E. coli) Impairment ................................................... 15 Critical Conditions ................................................................................................................. 16 TMDL Findings or Status of Development ............................................................................ 16 Bioassessments ..................................................................................................................... 17 Water Quality Concerns ................................................................................................................ 17 Potential Sources of Pollution .................................................................................................. 17 Aging Sewer Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 17 Failing or Ill‐Maintained Septic Systems ............................................................................... 18 Water Reuse (Treated Effluent and Gray Water) ................................................................. 19 Horses, Cattle, and Other Livestock ...................................................................................... 20 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................. 20 Pets ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Fire ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Impervious Cover and Stormwater ....................................................................................... 22 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 24 Environmental and Health Risks ............................................................................................... 25 Algal Blooms .......................................................................................................................... 25 Fish Kill .................................................................................................................................. 25 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 25 Public Health ......................................................................................................................... 26 Past Water Quality Improvement Projects and BMPs .............................................................. 26 Upper Granite Creek Watershed Improvement Plan, August 2012 i General Permit BMPs Applied in Watershed ............................................................................ 31 Yavapai County ..................................................................................................................... 31 City of Prescott ...................................................................................................................... 32 Arizona Department of Transportation ................................................................................ 32 Chapter 2: Watershed Investigations and Findings ...................................................................... 33 Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 33 Nutrients and Bacteria .............................................................................................................. 33 Data Summary ....................................................................................................................... 34 Analysis of Creek Segments .................................................................................................. 34 Recommendations for Future Monitoring ............................................................................ 38 Microbial Source Tracking......................................................................................................... 38 Data Summary and Findings ................................................................................................. 39 Pharmaceuticals & Related Contaminants ............................................................................... 40 Data Summary and Findings ................................................................................................. 41 Preliminary Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 43 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 43 Watershed field survey ................................................................................................................. 43 Survey Methods ........................................................................................................................ 43 Source Categories ..................................................................................................................... 45 Survey Analyses and Findings ................................................................................................... 45 Photos ................................................................................................................................... 45 Data Limitations .................................................................................................................... 47 Survey Summary by Stream .................................................................................................. 47 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 48 Riparian Buffer Assessment .......................................................................................................... 49 Survey Methods ........................................................................................................................ 49 Riparian Transect Analysis Methods ......................................................................................... 51 Riparian Scores ...................................................................................................................... 51 Bare Soil Scores ..................................................................................................................... 54 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 56 Watershed Residents’ Survey ....................................................................................................... 57 Delivery Modes ......................................................................................................................... 57 Data Analysis Methods ............................................................................................................. 57 Upper Granite Creek Watershed Improvement Plan, August 2012 ii Limitations............................................................................................................................. 58 Survey Findings ......................................................................................................................... 58 Protection and Restoration in Relation to Knowledge, Involvement and Commitment ..... 58 Willingness to Support a Watershed Fee ............................................................................. 59 Information Sources.............................................................................................................. 60 Awareness of Pollution Sources............................................................................................ 60 Septic Tank Owners; Dog Walkers .......................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Geologic Map of the Chino Valley North 7½' Quadrangle, Yavapai County, Arizona

    Geologic Map of the Chino Valley North 7½' Quadrangle, Yavapai County, Arizona

    DIGITAL GEOLOGIC MAP DGM-80 Arizona Geological Survey www.azgs.az.gov GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE CHINO VALLEY NORTH 7½’ QUADRANGLE, YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, V. 1.0 Brian. F. Gootee, Charles A. Ferguson, Jon E. Spencer and Joseph P. Cook December 2010 ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geologic Map of the Chino Valley North 7½' Quadrangle, Yavapai County, Arizona by Brian F. Gootee, Charles A. Ferguson, Jon E. Spencer, and Joe P. Cook Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map DGM-80 version 1.0 December, 2010 Scale 1:24,000 (1 sheet, with text) Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress St., #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 This geologic map was funded in part by the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, award no. 08HQAG0093. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. Table of Contents Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Geologic Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3 Quaternary faulting ...........................................................................................................3
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A

    Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A

    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
  • Peak List Please Send Updates Or Corrections to Lat/Lon to Mike Heaton

    Peak List Please Send Updates Or Corrections to Lat/Lon to Mike Heaton

    Operation On Target Arizona Peak List Please send updates or corrections to Lat/Lon to Mike Heaton Description Comment Latitude Longitude Elevation "A" Mountain (Tempe) ASU campus by Sun Devil Stadium 33.42801 -111.93565 1495 AAA Temp Temp Location 33.42234 -111.8227 1244 Agassiz Peak @ Snow Bowl Tram Stop (No access to peak) 35.32587 -111.67795 12353 Al Fulton Point 1 Near where SR260 tops the Rim 34.29558 -110.8956 7513 Al Fulton Point 2 Near where SR260 tops the rim 34.29558 -110.8956 7513 Alta Mesa Peak For Alta Mesa Sign-up 33.905 -111.40933 7128 Apache Maid Mountain South of Stoneman Lake - Hike/Drive? 34.72588 -111.55128 7305 Apache Peak, Whetstone Mountain Tallest Peak, Whetstone Mountain 31.824583 -110.429517 7711 Aspen Canyon Point Rim W. of Kehl Springs Point 34.422204 -111.337874 7600 Aztec Peak Sierra Ancha Mountains South of Young 33.8123 -110.90541 7692 Battleship Mountain High Point visible above the Flat Iron 33.43936 -111.44836 5024 Big Pine Flat South of Four Peaks on County Line 33.74931 -111.37304 6040 Black (Chocolate) Mountain, CA Drive up and park, near Yuma 33.055 -114.82833 2119 Black Butte, CA East of Palm Springs - Hike 33.56167 -115.345 4458 Black Mountain North of Oracle 32.77899 -110.96319 5586 Black Rock Mountain South of St. George 36.77305 -113.80802 7373 Blue Jay Ridge North end of Mount Graham 32.75872 -110.03344 8033 Blue Vista White Mtns. S. of Hannagan Medow 33.56667 -109.35 8000 Browns Peak (Four Peaks) North Peak of Four Peaks Range 33.68567 -111.32633 7650 Brunckow Hill NE of Sierra Vista, AZ 31.61736 -110.15788 4470 Bryce Mountain Northwest of Safford 33.02012 -109.67232 7298 Buckeye Mountain North of Globe 33.4262 -110.75763 4693 Burnt Point On the Rim East of Milk Ranch Point 34.40895 -111.20478 7758 Camelback Mountain North Phoenix Mountain - Hike 33.51463 -111.96164 2703 Carol Spring Mountain North of Globe East of Highway 77 33.66064 -110.56151 6629 Carr Peak S.
  • Chapter 1: Introduction

    Chapter 1: Introduction

    Chapter 1. Introduction Community vision meetings during Forest Plan Revision Location The Prescott National Forest (Prescott NF) is one of six national forests in Arizona (figure 1). It covers approximately 1.2 million acres in west-central Arizona and is located in Yavapai and Coconino Counties. The Prescott NF consists of two geographically separate land areas (eastern and western) that are administered as three ranger districts: the Chino Valley Ranger District, which covers the areas east and west of Chino Valley; the Bradshaw Ranger District, which covers the area near Prescott and south into the Bradshaw Mountains; and the Verde Ranger District, which covers the area just north of Jerome and Clarkdale and along the southern side of the Verde Valley. The Prescott NF shares boundaries with: the Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto National Forests; the Agua Fria National Monument; Bureau of Land Management - Hassayampa Field Office; Arizona State Trust lands; and several communities including Prescott, Camp Verde, and Cottonwood. Role and Contributions of the Planning Area The Prescott NF is located in a comparatively mountainous section of central Arizona between the forested plateaus to the north and the arid desert region to the south. Roughly half of the Prescott NF lies west of the city of Prescott, Arizona, in the Juniper, Santa Maria, Sierra Prieta, and Bradshaw Mountains. The other half of the Prescott NF lies east of Prescott and takes in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Prescott NF 1 Chapter 1. Introduction terrain of Mingus Mountain, the Black Hills, and Black Mesa. Elevations range between 3,000 feet above sea level along the lower Verde Valley to 7,979 feet at the top of Mount Union, the highest natural feature on the national forest.
  • Viability Analyses for Vascular Plant Species Within Prescott National Forest, Arizona

    Viability Analyses for Vascular Plant Species Within Prescott National Forest, Arizona

    Viability analyses for vascular plant species within Prescott National Forest, Arizona Marc Baker Draft 4 January 2011 1 Part 1. Description of Ecological Context (Adapted from: Ecological Sustainability Report, Prescott National Forest, Prescott, Arizona, April 2009) Description of the Planning Unit Prescott National Forest (PNF) includes mostly mountains and associated grassy valleys of central Arizona that lie between the forested plateaus to the north and the arid desert region to the south. Elevations range between 3,000 feet above sea level along the lower Verde Valley to 7,979 feet at the top of Mount Union, the highest natural feature on the Forest. Roughly half of the PNF occurs west of the city of Prescott, Arizona, in the Juniper, Santa Maria, Sierra Prieta, and Bradshaw Mountains. The other half of the PNF lies east of Prescott and takes in the terrain of Mingus Mountain, the Black Hills, and Black Mesa. The rugged topography of the PNF provides important watersheds for both the Verde and Colorado Rivers. Within these watersheds are many important continuously or seasonally flowing stream courses and drainages. A portion of the Verde River has been designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Vegetation within PNF is complex and diverse: Sonoran Desert, dominated by saguaro cacti and paloverde trees, occurs to the south of Bradshaw Mountains; and cool mountain forests with conifer and aspen trees occur within as few as 10 miles upslope from the desert . In between, there are a variety of plant and animal habitats including grasslands, hot steppe shrub, chaparral, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and ponderosa pine forests.
  • Upper Granite Creek Watershed Pollutant Reduction Plan

    Upper Granite Creek Watershed Pollutant Reduction Plan

    Upper Granite Creek Watershed Pollutant Reduction Plan Prepared for Public Works Department 433 N. Virginia Street Prescott, AZ 86301 Prepared by 4600 E. Washington Street, Suite 600 Phoenix, Arizona 85034 November 2020 Upper Granite Creek Watershed Pollutant Reduction Plan City of Prescott Public Works Department Prescott, Arizona Submitted to: City of Prescott Prescott, Arizona Submitted by: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona November 2020 Project No. 3720156008 November 30, 2020 Project No. 3720156008 Contract No. 2015-184 City of Prescott Public Works Department 430 North Virginia Street Prescott, Arizona 86301 Attn: Ben Burns, City of Prescott Matt Killeen, City of Prescott Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that states compile a list of surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards (WQS). The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) then must develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for waterbodies on the 303(d) List. TMDLs set the amount of the given pollutant(s) that the waterbody can withstand without creating an impairment of that surface water’s designated beneficial use(s). The City of Prescott (City) is named in two TMDLs, identified as: • Watson Lake TMDL: Total Nitrogen, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), pH & Total Phosphorus Targets - Finalized February 2015 (Open File Report OFR-14-03) • Final Upper Granite Creek Watershed Escherichia coli (E. coli) TMDL November 2015 (Open File Report 14-08) Since 2015, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc (Wood), has been supporting the City by performing a wide range of activities. The overall purpose of these activities was to evaluate and model pollutant reduction activities and present recommendations in the Upper Granite Creek Watershed Pollutant Reduction Plan (WPRP) and Watson Lake Reservoir Lake Management Plan (LMP).
  • 443 Subpart D—Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards

    443 Subpart D—Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards

    Environmental Protection Agency § 131.33 Subpart D—Federally Promulgated of streams located in Indian country, Water Quality Standards or as may be modified by the Regional Administrator, EPA Region X, pursu- § 131.31 Arizona. ant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, ° (a) [Reserved] a temperature criterion of 10 C, ex- (b) The following waters have, in ad- pressed as an average of daily max- dition to the uses designated by the imum temperatures over a seven-day State, the designated use of fish con- period, applies to the waterbodies iden- sumption as defined in R18–11–101 tified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section (which is available from the Arizona during the months of June, July, Au- Department of Environmental Quality, gust and September. Water Quality Division, 3033 North (2) The following waters are pro- Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85012): tected for bull trout spawning and rearing: COLORADO MAIN STEM RIVER (i) BOISE-MORE BASIN: Devils BASIN: Creek, East Fork Sheep Creek, Sheep Hualapai Wash MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN: Creek. Agua Fria River (Camelback Road to (ii) BROWNLEE RESERVOIR BASIN: Avondale WWTP) Crooked River, Indian Creek. Galena Gulch (iii) CLEARWATER BASIN: Big Can- Gila River (Felix Road to the Salt yon Creek, Cougar Creek, Feather River) Creek, Laguna Creek, Lolo Creek, Queen Creek (Headwaters to the Su- Orofino Creek, Talapus Creek, West perior WWTP) Fork Potlatch River. Queen Creek (Below Potts Canyon) (iv) COEUR D’ALENE LAKE BASIN: SAN PEDRO RIVER BASIN: Cougar Creek, Fernan Creek, Kid Copper Creek Creek, Mica Creek, South Fork Mica SANTA CRUZ RIVER BASIN: Creek, Squaw Creek, Turner Creek.
  • Outfalls Inspected FY 2020 898997 Northcentral I‐15 9.13 Virgin River

    Outfalls Inspected FY 2020 898997 Northcentral I‐15 9.13 Virgin River

    Outfalls inspected FY 2020 Outfall ID District Route MilePost Receiving water Impaired OAW 898997 Northcentral I‐15 9.13 Virgin River 985778 Southcentral I‐10 289.18 Cienega Creek 986825 Southcentral I‐10 288.82 Cienega Creek 1006202 Southcentral I‐10 284.96 Davidson Canyon 1006204 Southcentral I‐10 284.28 Davidson Canyon 1006274 Southcentral I‐10 284.41 Davidson Canyon 1006380 Southcentral I‐10 284.17 Davidson Canyon 1006409 Southcentral I‐10 284.29 Davidson Canyon 1017172 Southcentral SR 77 71.81 Rillito Creek 1017220 Southeast US 191 153.58 Gila River 1058178 Northcentral I‐17 339.85 Sinclair Wash 1062492 Northcentral SR 89A 382.28 Oak Creek 1069543 Northcentral I‐15 9.3 Virgin River 1069544 Northcentral I‐15 9.31 Virgin River 1069545 Northcentral I‐15 9.35 Virgin River 1069546 Northcentral I‐15 9.36 Virgin River 1069547 Northcentral I‐15 9.37 Virgin River 1069548 Northcentral I‐15 9.43 Virgin River 1069550 Northcentral I‐15 9.46 Virgin River 1485571 Northwest SR 89 306.41 Granite Creek 1486080 Northwest SR 89 306.33 Granite Creek 1486083 Northwest SR 89 306.48 Granite Creek 1488480 Northwest SR 69 287.98 Lynx Creek 1510550 Southcentral SR 77 79.84 Canada del Oro 1510619 Southeast US 191 153.43 Gila River 1512473 Central SR 202L 5.9 Salt River 1512474 Central SR 202L 7.99 Salt River 1512475 Central SR 202L 8.3 Salt River 1512476 Central SR 202L 8.45 Salt River 1512477 Central SR 202L 14.45 Salt River 1512486 Central SR 101L 51.38 Salt River 1512487 Central SR 101L 51.58 Salt River 1512537 Central SR 51 6.99 Salt
  • Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory

    Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory

    STATE OF ARIZONA HISTORIC PROMINVENTORY FORM Granite Creek Bridge mumy YaTapcd inventorynurh OW42 milwst 318.13 invmtory rout. SR 88 A Iocabn 0.3 rnl E Id SR 89 Came imsdMte Creek cityhriciniv Preston USGS quadrangle hot! district 85 Ul'M referem 12.370057.3831113 STRUCTURAL INFORMATION main span number 2 main span type 104 appr, span number 0 appr. vantype degrea of skew 0 guardrail type 6 main span lhgth 43.0 tuperstructve concrete three-beamdeck girder structure length 89.0 sbstrmture concrete abutmenb, wlngwalls and pier roadway width 20.1 floarldeddng concrete deck swumrre width 23.8 othn fuWr ateel TMebeam guard& HISTORICAL INFORMATION eonmuetlondete 1922 desIgnsr/snginw Adzona Highway Dement projes number FAP 19 buildn1eon~actw Windsor, Coleman & Khg information wwce ADCYT Mge records structure owner Arizona Department of Tmnsportatlon altnakn datds) m1980 ahations steel Thrie beam guardrails lnstcrlled NATIOW REGISTER NUATION For additional informakn, sw "Vehicular Bridges in Nina1880-1964" Nebnal Reglrthr Multiple Property Dosumentation Form inventory rmre 61 NRW eligibility ebglble NRH crltsris A- 0- Cx signtf, statement excellent example of early state standard brldge hpe FORM COMRElED BY Clayton B. hr,Prindpal FRASERdeeign 420 South County Road 23E Loveland, Colorado 80537 31 October MXl4 642 FRASERDESIGN GRANITE CREEK BRIDGE ~lruclvoNa w d.t. d phota: November 20G2 visw &&en north northwest +t~N: 02.1 1.263 02.11.264 FRASERDESIGN GRANITE CREEK BRIDGE CONSTRUCTON HISTORY In 1920 the Arizona Highway Department undertook an improvement of the highway linking Prescott and Jerome. AHD designated this construction as Federal Aid Project 19, to be jointly funded by the state and the U.S.
  • Compiled by William D. Johnson, Jr., and Robert B. Scarborough This Map Report Is One of a Series of Geologic and Hydro- Logic M

    Compiled by William D. Johnson, Jr., and Robert B. Scarborough This Map Report Is One of a Series of Geologic and Hydro- Logic M

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WRI REPORT 83-4114-G MAP SHOWING OUTCROPS OF PRE-QUATERNARY BASALTIC ROCKS, BASIN AND RANGE PROVINCE, ARIZONA Compiled by William D. Johnson, Jr., and Robert B. Scarborough INTRODUCTION This map report is one of a series of geologic and hydro- logic maps covering all or parts of States within the Basin and Range province of the western United States. The map reports contain detailed information on subjects that characterize the geohydrology of the province, including the ground-water hydrol­ ogy/ ground-water quality, surface distribution of selected rock types, tectonic conditions, areal geophysics, Pleistocene lakes and marshes, and mineral and energy resources. This work is a part of the U.S. Geological Survey's program for geologic and hydrologic evaluation of the Basin and Range to identify poten­ tially suitable regions for further study relative to isolation of high-level nuclear waste (Bedinger, Sargent, and Reed, 1984). This map was prepared, according to the geologic guidelines for the project (Sargent and Bedinger, 1984), from published geologic maps and reports, and from a map in preparation by Robert Scarborough, Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology, of the basaltic rocks of Arizona less than 15 million years old. As used in this report, basaltic rocks include principally basalt, basaltic andesite, and diabase, but commonly the younger basaltic deposits contain interbeds of less abundant tuffaceous and sedimentary rocks. In general the map shows the occurrences in Arizona of basaltic rocks 2 million years or more in age, but locally, basalts of Quaternary age are included, where they were not separated from older rocks on the published maps.
  • Comments on DEIS Volume 2, Appendix C: Wild and Scenic Rivers Evaluation for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests

    Comments on DEIS Volume 2, Appendix C: Wild and Scenic Rivers Evaluation for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests

    Exhibit VIII.1-1 Comments on DEIS Volume 2, Appendix C: Wild and Scenic Rivers Evaluation for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests General Comments on Evaluation Process The Forest Service deserves recognition for conducting a comprehensive evaluation of potential Wild & Scenic Rivers (WSRs) in the Forest Plans Revision (FPR) process. We appreciate that the agency incorporated its previously completed inventories, eligibility findings, and suitability recommendations. We also greatly appreciate that the Inyo and Sierra Forests determined additional streams to be eligible. However, we identified a number of problems with Appendix C that require attention – not the least of which is the Sequoia Forest’s dismal (in comparison to the Inyo and Sierra) inventory and evaluation results, which failed to identify any new eligible stream segments. We also appreciated the opportunity to review and comment on the preliminary inventory and evaluation in February 2016. However, we are disappointed to find that few of the points raised in our 26 pages of detailed comments were addressed in Appendix C. So these comments are somewhat duplicative to the ones submitted by CalWild et al dated Feb. 1, 2016, which are hereby incorporate by reference. Be advised that new additional points are included in these comments. WSR Inventory/Evaluation Comments Applicable To All Three Forests Unnamed Streams Not Inventoried (DEIS Vol. 2, App. C, pg. 379) – The inventory process appears to be restricted to rivers and streams named on 7.5-minute USGS quad maps. There is nothing in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH), federal guidelines, or in federal law that limits WSR inventories and evaluations to only named streams.
  • Description of Bradshaw Mountains Quadrangle

    Description of Bradshaw Mountains Quadrangle

    DESCRIPTION OF BRADSHAW MOUNTAINS QUADRANGLE By T. A. Jaggar, Jr., and Charles Palache. INTRODUCTION. \ massive coarse granite which has split the schists geology are by Mr. Palache; the general geology is gin of a great, series of schists rests upon field and apart as a great intrusive wedge and, under the by Mr. Jaggar: Changes occasioned by the open­ laboratory evidence. Field exploration shows Location. The Bradshaw Mountains quadran­ wearing action of atmospheric erosion, stands in; ing of mines since 1901 are not here considered. what rock types in the series are -most abun­ gle lies between parallels 34° and 34° 30' north high relief as a resistant rock. ; dant, and microscopical work determines whether latitude and meridians 112a and 112° 30' west The schists farther north, near Mayer, have DESCRIPTIVE GEOLOGY. those types contain water worn sands and pebbles. longitude. It measures approximately 34.5 miles weathered to low relief, forming a wide valley, STEATIGEAPHY. The type rock most widespread in the scnist belts from north to south and 28.6 miles from east to where the quartzite combs' are traceable for many of the Bradshaw Mountains is a sericitic phyllite west, and covers 986 square miles. "The quad­ miles by their prominence above the general level.; The Bradshaw Mountains include sedimentary, with occasional rounded quartz grains. From the rangle is in the southeastern part of Yavapai Agua Fria River skirts the edge of horizontal; metamorphic, and igneous rocks. Excluding the great abundance of this rock and of variations,