Comparison of Late Cretaceous Plutonic Rocks Across the San Antonio Canyon Fault, San Gabriel Mountains

Comparison of Late Cretaceous Plutonic rocks across the San Antonio Canyon Fault, San Gabriel Mountains

By Daniel E. Heaton Geological Sciences Department California State Polytechnic University Pomona, CA

Senior Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the B.S. Geology Degree

Comparison of Late Cretaceous Plutonic rocks across the San Antonio Canyon Fault, San Gabriel Mountains.

Contents Contents ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 Geologic Setting ...... 2 Geological Map ...... 6 Field Observations and Sampling ...... 9 Major Plutonic Units ...... 9 Samples ...... 9 Analytical Data ...... 12 Sample Preparation for Geochemical Analysis (Modified from Anderson, 2005) ...... 12 Data Plots ...... 13 Discussion and Interpretation ...... 18 Unit and Map Correlation ...... 18 Major Element Analysis ...... 18 Trace Element Analysis ...... 18 Conclusion ...... 20 Cited References ...... 21 Appendix A: Samples Collected ...... 23 Appendix B: Waypoint, Notes and Measurements ...... 24 Appendix C: Major and Trace Element Table ...... 31 Plate 1: Compilation Map of the marble quarry and vicinity showing ...... locations of analyzed samples...... in pocket

Introduction The San Antonio Canyon Fault (SACF; see Fig. 1) of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains is part of a large system of left‐lateral faults that were activated during mid‐Miocene time when the incipient San Andreas transform fault was in its developmental stages. The purpose of my thesis is to help confirm the amount of horizontal displacement along the left‐lateral San Antonio Canyon Fault by comparing the geochemical signature of a distinctive plutonic sequence including a hornblende quartz monzonite, which is located just north of Potato Mountain and on the north face of Sugarloaf Peak of Upper San Antonio Canyon.

To test one aspect of the hypothesis of 10 km of left‐lateral displacement, mapping of the structural relationships between the pertinent geologic units in both lower and upper San Antonio Canyon was carried out. To test another aspect, I then collected pertinent samples to take back to the lab in order to complete a geochemical analysis and analyzed the results. In addition to my own mapping, I will also use unpublished mapping by Dr. Jon Nourse and two additional Cal Poly Pomona senior theses maps previously completed in the marble quarry area.

Geologic Setting The southeastern end of the San Gabriel Mountains has experienced multiple stages of faulting, uplift, and translation. The area (Figure 1) is thought to have once been a Neoproterozoic to Paleozoic miogeoclinal setting due to its similarities to miogeoclinal sequences in other areas of southern California. For temporal control, dextral zircons from the Potato Mountain quartzite yield a maximum age of ~1100 Ma (Premo et al., 2007). This quartzite is part of a metasedimentary package that overlies Paleoproterozoic gneissic granite basement (1769 ± 11 Ma; Premo et al., 2007) The miogeoclinal sediments on Ontario Ridge were intruded by a ~85 Ma tonalite and a 78 ± 8 Ma leucocratic granite (May and Walker, 1989). And north of the San Gabriel fault, several samples of Late Cretaceous a tonalite‐quartz diorite‐diorite range from 76 to 73Ma and one sample of Late Cretaceous leucogranite was given an age of 70±1 Ma (Nourse and Premo, unpublished data). To restore the metasediments and intrusive units, a reworking of the many faults in the San Gabriel area must be completed.

Peak

(2002)

Nourse

from Sugarloaf

modified (2007),

Area

Premo

From

Study areas.

comparison

two

Quarry locations

showing

Marble ESGM

Map

Geologic 1:

Figure After the plutonic intrusions, there was a period of early Tertiary quiescence. Then, beginning in mid‐Miocene time, the San Gabriel Mountains endured major strike‐slip movement and rapid uplift associated with development of the Pacific‐North American transform plate boundary. The extent of the movement is described by Nourse (2002). His palinspastic reconstructions restores the central and southeastern San Gabriel Mountains basement to a 12 Ma configuration by sequential back‐slip restoration of late Cenozoic strike‐slip faults (Figure 1). The reconstruction restores 16 km of Quaternary dextral displacement on the Scotland‐San Jacinto‐Glen Helen fault system. During Pliocene‐ Quaternary time, there were separate, minor (1‐3 km), sinistral fault movements on the Stoddard Canyon, San Antonio Canyon, Sunset Ridge, San Dimas Canyon‐Webber, and Pine Mountain faults. There was 22 km of Late Miocene dextral displacement on the north branch of the San Gabriel‐Icehouse Canyon‐Middle Fork Lytle Creek fault system, with hypothetically 15 km of additional Late Miocene dextral displacement on the Sawpit Canyon‐Clamshell fault system. The resulting paleogeography, “resolves issues regarding disposition of the south branch San Gabriel fault and its relationship to early strands of the southern San Andreas Fault system” (Nourse 2002).

My thesis concentrates on the left‐lateral movement history the SACF. Nourse et al. (1994) and Nourse (2002) outline individual time periods with their respective bursts of movement involving the SACF. To be more specific, two phases of movement appear to have occurred on the SACF. The youngest phase of movement is recorded in 3.5 km of sinistral deflection and offset of the Late Miocene‐Early Pliocene San Gabriel fault (SGF) to Icehouse Canyon (Figure 1). “Quaternary activity of the SACF, manifested as left‐lateral oblique reverse motion, is also suggested by: (a) disruption of northwesterly fault trends in upper North Fork Lytle Creek drainage, (b) uplift and tilting of stream terraces in lower San Antonio Canyon, and (c) seismicity associated with the 1988 and 1990 Upland earthquakes” (Nourse et al., 1994). The second and older phase of movement on the SACF is implied by the mismatch of basement when the SGF is realigned. The older movement is done by restoring 6.5 km of sinistral displacement and aligning north‐dipping metasedimentary gneiss/tonalite contacts and outcrops presently exposed on Sugarloaf Peak (Figure 2) and near the marble quarry. This movement is believed to have occurred during Early Miocene because it postdates the intrusion of Early Miocene dikes (Nourse et al. 1994).

It is believed that the Marble Quarry, Potato Mountain, and Ontario Ridge rock units are one complex because they display similar crosscutting geologic contacts and share similar units. Ontario Ridge has a sequence of Cretaceous plutonic units intruded into north‐dipping metasedimentary rocks

LFRC IH #2 7/23/99 #4

IH #3

DH 3/6 #21,22,23,24

DH 11/24 2,3,4,5 7/23/99 #3

Figure 2: Detailed geologic map of Sugarloaf Peak area. Bedrock units are: quartzite (orange), leucocratic biotte granite (pink), hornblende quartz monzonite (purple), granodiorite (green), and biotite gneiss (blue). (Nourse unpublished mapping 1991‐94) (May & Walker, 1989) and it also has a unique hornblende quartz monzonite that, north of Sugarloaf Peak, is in contact with marble unit (Figure 2). A similar sequence also occurs north of Potato Mountain where there are folded units of metasediments and Cretaceous plutonic units also a distinct hornblende quartz monzonite. (Ehlig, 1958, Nourse, 2001) The senior theses completed by Blaney (1992) and Iverson (1981) were centered/focused on the marble quarry, an area that includes the Evey Canyon fault (ECF), SACF, the quartz monzonite, metasedimentary and gneissic units that I am studying in this thesis. Their theses generally dealt with the geologic relationships between the intrusive and metasedimentary rock units and the likely folding that resulted from the emplacement of the intrusive units and their movements along the ECF. Blaney (1992) and Iverson (1981) provided valuable context for this paper although neither thesis mentions the hornblende quartz monzonite.

Geological Map In order to accurately map the geologic units of my study areas I used a GPS Garmin GPSMap 60CS to mark the pertinent contacts I observed and locations of samples collected. A Brunton compass was also used to measure the structural relationships wherever possible. In general, I was able to distinguish three different plutonic units based on their field characteristics and context (Figure 4).

My objective in mapping was to locate the contacts of the metasediments with the Late Cretaceous hornblende quartz monzonite, granodiorite and leucocratic biotite granite units. Most of my mapping focused on the exposures in the marble Figure 3: Contact between hornblende quartz monzonite (top) with metasediments (bottom) quarry. I also ventured north of the quarry and south of Spruce Canyon and marked the contact of the hornblende quartz monzonite and leucocratic biotite granite. The outcrops located in the marble quarry were extensively weathered and faulted, which made it difficult to collect fresh samples for analysis (Figures 3,9). I utilized Dr. Jon Nourse’s detailed field maps of the Spruce Canyon, Evey Canyon, and Potato Mountain and referenced the Blaney (1992) and Iverson’s (1981) maps to compile my digital map of the area.

The compiled geologic map of the marble quarry is bounded to the east by the SACF, to the west by the ECF, and to the south by Potato Mountain. A small version of this map is shown in Figure 4 and the larger version, on Plate 1. The geologic map displays a general pattern from of southeast to northwest for all the units mapped. In the southeast portion of the map are exposures of the metasedimentary units: quartzite (orange), and marble and calc silicates (blue). There is a large outcrop of quartzite, which makes up Potato Mountain, and the marble and calc silicates are located to the north. The biotite gneiss (brown) and phyllite units are interlayed in with the quartzite units. To the northwest of these metasedimentary rocks lie the Late Cretaceous igneous intrusive units. The leucogranites (pink) make up the section between ECF and the biotite gneiss and quartzite. Within the

Figure 4: Compiled geologic map of the marble quarry and vicinity. leucogranite unit, we have the unique hornblende quartz monzonite (purple). Lining the ECF zone, we have the Late Cretaceous tonalite and diorite (dark green).

A map compiled by Nourse (unpublished mapping, 1990‐96; see also Figure 2) of the Sugarloaf Peak and Icehouse Canyon area exhibits similar units and stratigraphic sequences. Looking from south to north of Sugarloaf Peak, there is a roughly linear sequence of units: a large outcrop of quartzite, next the metasedimentary units mixed in with biotite gneiss, then the Late Cretaceous leucogranite, next the hornblende quartzite monzonite, and, finally, the contact with tonalite and diorite units of Icehouse canyon.

Figure 5: Compiled geologic map with sample locations.

Field Observations and Sampling

Major Plutonic Units

Samples Samples from the marble quarry were collected for the purpose of analyzing their geochemical properties and comparing them with samples collected in the Sugarloaf Peak area. The samples represent the three major plutonic units that are present within the study areas on both sides of the San Antonio Fault. Locations of the marble quarry samples are shown in Figure 5. The Sugarloaf Peak samples are located on Figure 2.

Hornblende quartz monzonite The hornblende quartz monzonite (map unit Khqmz) is variable with respect to major mineral constituents. The rock unit, with respect to its volume as a whole, contains mainly plagioclase, ranging from 33‐47%, quartz, ranging from 8‐30%, and potassium feldspar, ranging from 5‐29%. The only mafic mineral within this unit is hornblende, which is present as phenocrysts ranging from 1‐7mm in length and range from 5‐20% of the whole rock. With this highly variable mineral content, this field unit covers a wide spectrum of rock types from diorite to monzogranite. An important distinction to make about this unit is, biotite is never present. The samples collected from both the marble quarry (Figure 5), and Sugarloaf peak (Figure 6), exhibit similar ranges in mineral assemblages. The collected samples exhibited no indications of metamorphism other than a weak magmatic foliation in the Sugarloaf Peak samples.

Figure 7 Khmqz Sample from marble quarry. Figure 6: Khmqz sample from Sugarloaf Peak.

Leucocratic biotite granite The leucocratic biotite granite, Map unit Klbgr, located near the quarry is usually highly weathered (Figures 7,9) but if you travel closer to Mt. Baldy Rd. fresh samples may be obtained. The Klbgr is generally ~20‐45% plagioclase, ~25‐35% quartz, ~25‐45% potassium feldspar with <5% biotite. Hornblende is never observed in this field unit. Figures 8 and 9 compare the leucocratic biotite granite samples from Sugarloaf Peak and from the marble quarry, respectively. We can see that the Sugarloaf Peak samples are nice and fresh from intact outcrops while the sample collected in the marble quarry is weathered, which is evident by the brown staining from the biotite being altered. Figure 10 shows a typical weathered and fractured leucocratic biotite granite outcrop. When attempting to sample this particular outcrop, it crumbled and easily turned to powder.

Figure 8: Klbgr from Sugarloaf Peak. Figure 9: Klbgr from marble quarry.

Figure 10: Outcrop of Klbgr at marble quarry Granodio rite Quartz diorite‐tonalite‐granodiorite (Map unit Ktn‐gd) is located north of the quarry and is intruded by the leucocratic biotite granite. Good granodiorite outcrops are only located in areas that have been exposed by stream erosion or road cuts. The granodiorite is phaneritic with large phenocrysts of plagioclase, ~55%, potassium feldspar, ~17%, hornblende, ~5%, and small crystals of quartz and flecks of Mica, that combine for ~5%. Figure 10 and 11 illustrate the similarities in the two hand samples. Both have large phenocrysts of k‐spar and hornblende but we can see that the marble quarry sample has been significantly altered and weathered.

Figure 11: Ktn‐gd from the marble quarry. Figure 12: Ktn‐gd from Sugarloaf Peak.

Analytical Data

Sample Preparation for Geochemical Analysis (Modified from Anderson, 2005) The first step in sample preparation was to cut the hand sample down to a size that would fit into a Chipmunk jaw crusher (<8cm). The actual cutting was performed using a diamond saw. The sample was then placed into the steel jaw crusher. After the sample has been crushed, it is poured into a sample splitter. The splitter reduces the sample volume to that necessary for ball milling. The sample is then put into a holder for the ball mill. After the sample has been secured in the holder, the ball mill is run for 30 minutes. After 30 minutes, the sample is sieved through a –60 micron sieve. The oversized sample is reground for approximately 15 minutes. Ideally 50% of the sample should pass through the fine mesh sieve. Once a sample has been sieved, it is made into a “pellet.” Six grams of powdered sample are weighed onto an analytical balance and 1.2 grams of cellulose binder is added. The powder and binder are then mixed in the ball mill, without a steel ball, for approximately 1‐3 minutes. The next step involves pelletizing the powdered sample using a die and press. Initially, an aluminum cup is placed in the die and the sample poured in. The sample is compacted by hand and then placed in a hydraulic press where the pressure is manually pumped to at least 15 tons. The pellet is allowed to stay in the press for one minute at 15 tons of pressure and then the pressure released. The result is a flat, disc‐ shaped “pellet.” All samples were prepared in this manner. The pellets are then placed into the x‐ray spectrometer. The spectrometer analyzed the samples using whole rock and trace element computer programs. Every sample was analyzed once utilizing the whole rock analysis based upon the USGS Standards. The spectrometer measured the major elements present in each sample (Si, Al, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Na, K, P, Ti). After running this program, trace elements were analyzed utilizing a program created by Dr. David Jessey at Cal Poly University, basalt_trace. The trace elements that were analyzed were Ba, Ce, Cr, La, Nd, Rb, Sr, Sc, Y, Zr, and Sm. After raw data was collected for all samples, a computer software package, Ig‐Pet 2006, was used to make the petrographic diagrams discussed in the subsequent section.

Data Plots Figure 13 displays the main coloring scheme for the following geochemical plots and diagrams. The red units are from the Sugarloaf Peak area while green units are from the marble quarry area. The light green squares and light red hexagons signify the leucocratic biotite granite samples, the medium red and green filled circles signify the hornblende Figure 13: Symbol Legend monzonite samples, and the dark red and dark green filled crosses signify the granodiorite samples.

Figure 14 is a modified LaBas diagram showing that the samples collected increase in silica content with alkali percentage. The diagram was altered from the volcanic rock LeBas diagram in that I replaced the volcanic rock names with their phaneritic equivalent. This diagram displays simple geochemical Figure 14: Modified LeBas diagram (LeBas 1986) trends and overlap, as well as confirming and reiterating the samples’ nomenclature. The leucocratic biotite granite falls into three fields: syenite, quartz diorite and dominantly the granite field. The hornblende quartz monzonite units covers a wide range of fields including diorite and granodiorite/quartz diorite. The granodiorite unit spans the gabbro and diorite fields. According to this plot it would be better to call the hornblende quartz monzonite field unit a “granodiorite” and name the granodiorite field unit “diorite” There is some of overlap with each different set of rock units. But there is no ideal overlap of tight clusters.

Figure 15 displays elements that are the least likely to be affected by weathering and metamorphic Figure 15: Immobile Major Element Diagram‐Elements least likely to be cause by weathering.

13 processes as opposed to the potassium and sodium oxides (alkalis), which are likely to be altered first. This diagram thus portrays chemical patterns of essentially fresh, new, unadulterated samples, which reveals chemical trends important to differentiating similar units. The leucogranites f0rom Sugarloaf Peak and the marble quarry cluster together and appear to have very similar chemical characteristics. The hornblende quartz monzonite samples from Sugarloaf Peak overlap with the marble quarry field but we can see there are still tw o distinct clust ers. Th e granodiorites form two Figure 16: Alkali‐Total Iron‐Magnesium Diagram. Irvine‐ Baragar (1971) separate fields although there is still a small amount of overlap.

Figure 16 is an AFM diagram (Alkali, Total Iron, and Magnesium). The diagram initially tells us that the samples are almost all calc‐alkaline. The diagram also displays a distinct trend in which the leucogranites are more alkali enriched relative to the hornblende quartz monzonites or the iron‐rich granodiorites. The leucogranites match up well with each other, alluding to the possibility that the units of the two areas are one in the same. The hornblende quartz monzonites and granodiorites again form seperate clusters. This diagram suggests that the leucogranites are likely the same unit but the same assumption cannot be made for the hornblende quartz monzonite and granodiorite.

Figure 17 is a diagram showing the relationship between major cation proportions. We still see similar trends and clusters that are also evident in the previous diagrams. The leucogranites are grouped and overlap rather well while the hornblende quartz monzonite units and granodiorite units overlap a small

Figure 17: Compositions of analyzed samples in terms amount but still form separate distinct clusters. This of (Na+Ca), (Fe+Mg+Ti), and K, cation proportions. (Solar and Brown, 2001) plot also emphasizes that the leucogranites plot very similarly and are potentially the same unit while the hornblende quartz monzonite and granodiorite are somewhat correlative but not as strongly so as the leucogranites.

Figure 18 is an alumina saturation diagram. While three leucogranite samples from the marble quarry fall within the peraluminous region, the rest of the samples are metaluminious, they thus should lack aluminum rich minerals, such as muscovite, topaz, and corundum. The leucogranites and granodiorites from the marble quarry show a large range of alumina saturation. The hornblende quartz monzonite shows distinct Figure 18: Alumina Saturation Diagram (Maniar and Piccoli, 1989) clustering and does not overlap at all with the other two plutonic units suggesting the hornblende quartz monzonites from each area are distinct units. Overall, this diagram is essentially inconclusive except to show the units from the marble quarry overlap slightly with their respective equivalents of Sugarloaf Peak.

Figure 19 is derived from the CIPW normative calculation in Igpet2006. Again, the volcanic rock names were removed and replaced with their phaneritic igneous equivalent. The results are spread out. There is a small amount of overlap with the leucogranites and also minor overlap with the granodiorites‐diorites. The Sugarloaf Peak granodiorites have slightly more quartz than the marble quarry’s samples. The Sugarloaf Figure 19: Altered Streckeisen diagram (Streckeisen 1979) Peak and quarry hornblende quartz monzonites have a significant amount of overlap with the main clustering of samples in the center of the graph. Like with the modified LeBas Diagram, the samples may not plot on or near their allocated hand specimen names. This diagram also shows inconclusive overlap. A more accurate classification would need to be done through Modal analysis of thin sections via with point‐counting.

Figure 20 is also derived from the CIPW normative calculation in Igpet2006 and uses the albite, anorthite and orthoclase proportions to give estimations of the phaner itic igneous rock typ e. The rock samples plot close to their relative assigned petrographic name, although th e possible rock names are very limited, for example there are no fields for monzonite or quartz monzonite, compared to Streckeisen. Again, this analysis would be much more conclusive if point counts were done in thin section of Figure 20: An‐Ab‐Or normative classification (Barker, actual mineral modes using a petrographic 1979) microscope. The leucocratic granites overlap each other on this diagram but there is still two relatively distinct clusters. The same can be said for hornblende quartz monzonites and granodiorites. The marble quarry samples appear to have a higher calculated anorthite content than Sugarloaf Peak samples. This diagram also displays, like several of the previous diagrams, that the similar units from the two study areas may potentially be the same unit, as seen in the minor overlap of their clusters. The samples also plot very well with respect to their respective hand specimen names.

Figure 21 is a Spider diagram that plots the trace elements of the analyzed samples against the Upper Continental Crust norm as first done by Taylor‐McLennan (1985). This diagram allows us to determine whether the samples have similar trace element characteristics by comparing the average trace element constituents of the units of each study area. Figure 21a compares the granodiorites of the two areas, Figure 21b compares the hornblende quartz monzonites samples. Figure 21c compares the average leucogranite samples. The samples of 21b in particular do not appear to directly correlate. The Sugarloaf samples show higher values of incompatible elements while having lower amounts of compatible elements when compared to quarry hornblende monzonite samples.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 21: Spider Diagram with an Upper Continental Crust Norm. (Taylor‐McLennan, 1985)

Discussion and Interpretation

Unit and Map Correlation The map and field relations support the left‐lateral offset of plutonic and metasedimentary units across the SACF. Units from both study areas exhibit nearly identical intrusive sequences and contacts, like the contact with the metasedimentary and biotite gneiss units. The marble quarry and Sugarloaf Peak areas are the only known locations with the distinct hornblende quartz monzonite unit. The sequence in the marble quarry is thinner and strikes northeast and dips northwest, whereas the Sugarloaf Peak sequence strikes easterly and dips north. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the marble quarry sequence was likely dragged along the SACF and telescoped by movements of the Even Canyon fault. Another unique feature seen exclusively in this area is the large body of quartzite that occurs south of both Sugarloaf Peak and the marble quarry.

Major Element Analysis The granodiorites and the hornblende quartz monzonite units did not correlate very well in any of the plotted diagrams. The hornblende monzonites from the marble quarry generally showed a lower amount of alkali, a higher amount of quartz, anorthite, titanium, iron and magnesium oxides.

It is difficult to argue good correlation with the granodiorite‐quartz diorite units due to the small amount of samples collected. The samples from the Sugarloaf Peak area formed distinct clusters while the marble quarry samples were spread out and usually created a larger field range.

The difference of major element variations in the samples due to the extensive weathering was ruled out by Figure 8. The immobile elements still showed distinct clusters.

Figure 16 is an AFM diagram that shows that the collected samples are almost all Calc‐Alkaline. The diagram also exhibits a linear trend of the collected samples. This trend may be a result of fractionation during cooling of the Late Cretaceous batholith. The trend is consistent with field sequence observed from crosscutting relationships, i.e. intrusion of granodiorite, then hornblende quartz monzonite then leucogranite. The diagram shows that the granites have a similar range of values but the hornblende monzonites and the granodiorites show two distinct clusters with very little overlap.

Trace Element Analysis The leucocratic granite samples from Sugarloaf Peak and the marble quarry showed close matches in incompatible and compatible element amounts. Correlation between these elements is

18 quite good, thus we can state that the marble quarry and Sugarloaf Peak samples are similar enough to be considered the same geologic unit.

Figure 20, the spider diagram for the leucocratic biotite granites (Figure 20c), displays similar trends and it would be safe to conclude that these are basically the same rock since they do not have large differences in any particular element. The same can also be seen with the spider diagram of the granodiorites‐diorite (Figure 20a). The sample base for the granodiorites is very poor but we can see that the lines of this graph cross each other at numerous points which may indicate that there is not enough statistical data to give us a proper plot of the elemental trend with the granodiorite samples.

Figure 20b shows that the hornblende quartz monzonite units from Sugarloaf Peak and the marble quarry are two different rocks since they have distinct trace element differences (Dr. Jessey personal comm., 2008). The Sugarloaf Peak samples show higher amounts of incompatible elements and the marble quarry display higher amounts of compatible elements. This crossed trend suggests that the Sugarloaf samples are older than the marble quarry samples but could be derived from the same magma (Dr. Jessey, per comm. 2008). Thus it is possible that the Sugarloaf samples are part of the same intrusion as the marble quarry but crystallized somewhat later. If so, this diagram could be showing that these two sets samples, from Sugarloaf and the marble quarry, are coming from different levels of the same intrusion. The fact that Sugarloaf is at higher elevation than the marble quarry may explain why the Sugarloaf samples would have a higher concentration of the incompatible elements. As the magma rose during its intrusion and concomitant crystallization, its source became more depleted in concentration of incompatible elements. This essentially caused the “last drop” of melt extracted from the source to have a lower concentration of incompatible elements than the first drop.

Another trace element pattern can be seen when comparing Figure 20a and 20b. In both diagrams, the Sugarloaf Peak samples are depleted in compatible elements compared to the marble quarry samples. This may also indicate a similar process as explained above that these samples crystallized from two separate parts of the intrusion.

The major and trace element geochemistry results show a nice correlation for the leucocratic biotite granite units and a reasonably close match for the granodiorites. But why is the geochemistry of hornblende quartz monzonite so heterogeneous? The following are a couple of considerations.

The hornblende quartz monzonite showed high textural and mineral variation from various outcrops in both of the study areas as seen in Figures 5 and 6. The unit may also be a temporally and

19 chemically intermediate phase of the sequence of intrusions. It also is volumetrically smaller compared to the adjacent granodiorite and leucogranite intrusions. The smaller intrusion of hornblende quartz monzonite may have had higher chemical variance over a some distance compared to a larger intrusion such as the leucocratic biotite granite intrusion which may not vary very much chemically over the same distance.

It is possible, that complexities in this area were cause by tectonic activity driven by accelerated Late Cretaceous – Early Tertiary plate convergence. Large variability in the data from the hornblende quartz monzonite may signify that the intrusion was being uplifted and cooled at a high rate. This would hinder the “even” dispersal of elements throughout in the intrusive pluton, therefore, creating a unit that is variable in major element chemistry.

If it is assumed that the correlation could be made from the marble quarry and Sugarloaf Peak the match demonstrates that there is approximately 10 km total left‐lateral offset on the SACF.

Conclusion

Comparison of Geologic map units and their geometric configuration supports a general correlation between the marble quarry and Sugarloaf Peak areas.The geochemical results suggested that the leucogranites and granodiorites correlate well between the two areas. However, this data set does not directly support a correlation of the hornblende quartz monzonite unit of Sugarloaf Peak and the similarly described unit of the marble quarry. Still, the results do not preclude that the hornblende quartz monzonite units may have crystallized from different parts of the same magma body at different times.

The geochemical results imply that there is a possibility that the two areas may be different. If so this means there is less than 10 km of lateral offset along the SACF. In order for the correlation to be more precise a more complete set of samples needs to be collected along with analysis of thin‐sections to confirm accessory minerals and compare textured details. More samples need to be collected from a broader area from both the marble quarry and Sugarloaf Peak in order to get the best statistical data.

Cited References Anderson, Cami Jo, 2005, A Geochemical and Petrographic Analysis of the Basalts of the Ricardo Formation Southern El Paso Mountains, CA, unpublished Senior Thesis, Cal Poly Pomona, 37p. Barker, F. (1979). Trondhjemite: definition, environment and hypotheses of origin. In: Barker, F. (ed.) Trondhjemites, Dacites and Related Rocks. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1–12. Blaney, T.P., 1992, The Evey Canyon Fault and its Local Tectonic Significance, unplublished Senior Thesis, Cal Poly Pomona, 35p. Ehlig, P.L., 1958, Geology of the Mount Baldy region of the San Gabriel Mountains [Ph.D. thesis]: Los Angeles, California, University of California, 192 p. Irvine, T.N., and Baragar, W.R.A., 1971. A guide to the chemical classification of the common volcanic rocks. Can. J. Earth Sci., 8:523‐548. Iverson, Stephen S., 1981, Geology of the Marble Quarry Area in Lower San Antonio Canyon, unpublished Senior Thesis, Cal Poly Pomona, 30p. LeBas, M.J., LeMaitre, R.W., Streckeisen, A., and Zanettin, B., 1986. A chemical classification of volcanic rocks based on the total alkali silica diagram. J. Pet. 27:745‐750. Maniar, P.D. and Piccoli, P.M., 1989. Tectonic discrimination of granitoids. Geol. Soc. America Bull. 101:635‐643. May, D.J., and Walker, N.W., 1989, Late Cretaceous juxtaposition of metamorphic terranes in the southeastern San Gabriel Mountains: Geological Society of America Bulletin v. 101, p. 1246– 1267. Nourse J.A., 2002. Middle Miocene reconstruction of the central and eastern San Gabriel Mountains, southern California, with implications for evolution of the San Gabriel fault and Los Angeles basin. Special Paper 365: Contributions to Crustal Evolution of the Southwestern United States: Vol. 365, No. 0 pp. 161–185 Nourse, J.A., Hazelton, G.B., and R.K., Jones, 1994, Evidence for two phases of late Cenozoic sinistral displacement on the San Antonio fault, eastern San Gabriel Mountains, California: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 26, no. 2, p. 77. Premo, Wayne R., Nourse, Jonathan A., Castineiras, Pedro, and Kelly, Karl S., 2007. New Shrimp – RG U‐ Pb Zircon Ages, and Sm‐Nd Analysis of Proterozoic Metamorphic Rocks of the San Gabriel Basement Terrane: Keys for Laurentian Crustal Reconstruction?

Streckeisen, A. and Le Maitre, R.W. 1979. A chemical approach to the Modal (QAPF classification of the igneous rocks. N. Jb. Miner.Abh. v. 136 vol 2, p 169‐206. Taylor, S.R. & McLennan, S.M (1985). The Continental Crust: its Composition and Evolution. An Examination of the Geochemical Record Preserved in Sedimentary Rocks. Oxford: Blackwell Science

Appendix A: Samples Collected

Quarry Sugarloaf Peak Klbgr Khqmz Kgd Klbgr Khqmz Kgd DH 3/4 #14 10/3 #1 DH 3/4 #16 DH 3/6 #22 11/24 #3 7/23/99#4 DH 4/11 #5 10/3 #2 DH 3/4 #18 DH 3/6 #23 11/24 #4 7/23/99#3 DH 4/11 #6 1/19 #7 DH 3/6 #24 11/24 #5 IH#2 DH 4/11 #8 1/19 #9 3/6 #21 IH#3 DH 4/11 #15 1/19 #10 wypt60 LFRC 3/4 #12 DH 3/4 #17 DH 4/11 #1 DH 4/11 #2 DH 4/11 #3 DH 4/11 #4 ec6/04#2 DH 4/11 #13

Appendix B: Waypoint, Notes and Measurements

Datum,NAD27 CONUS, UTM, 11S Notes and Measurement

Date and WP# Easting Northing Time N11E/46NW SACF graphite (west) and a footwall of 09‐OCT‐07 foliated qtx diorite hanging wall is meta sed. 50 cm of 1 437581 3781786 9:25:55AM graphite. West of the SAF will be meta sed, phylliye, schists, brown and biotite rich 09‐OCT‐07 2 437380 3781694 Mbl( east) and biotit e gneiss contact 10:21:07AM 09‐OCT‐07 3 437363 3781708 N34W/79SW, RAKE 39SE: N65W/74SW, RAKE 37SE 10:25:28AM 09‐OCT‐07 4 437334 3781706 Contact granite(west) mbl (east) N11E/44NW 10:31:50AM 09‐OCT‐07 5 437310 3781725 Mbl foliation S27W/53NW 10:43:00AM

09‐OCT‐07 Mbl outcrops stop abruptly at N70W trending canyon 6 437291 3781743 10:48:30AM bottom. Covered with colluvial deposits to the south.

09‐OCT‐07 Outcrop of red meta sed biotite rich between two 7 437272 3781756 10:51:44AM tributaries. Mbl lies ontop and on bottom. N35W/50SW

09‐OCT‐07 8 437231 3781759 Contact mbl and biotite gneiss. N51W/72SW 11:01:06AM 09‐OCT‐07 Foliation of mbl S10W/66NW. Contact Mbl(east) 9 437204 3781764 11:11:31AM gneiss(west)

09‐OCT‐07 Striated fault zone within mbl.N30W/90 10NW RAKE. 10 437195 3781769 11:20:44AM Lueco qtz biotite (pegmatitic) width 80 cm

Top end of mbl unit, possibly on projection with fault. 09‐OCT‐07 11 437191 3781776 Rock to the west is either calc‐silicate or lueco granite. 11:21:37AM Badly crushed. Sample 10/07 #1 Khqmz

Highly weathered dike, N14W/53SW, Hbl rich. Intruding 10‐OCT‐07 into a weathered bio/hbl dominant igneous rock w/plag. 12 437593 3781824 2:24:51PM 1m south another dike, N32W/74SW, composing of k‐ spar,bio, lacks hbl

10‐OCT‐07 13 437698 3781845 Weathered Outcrop of hbl, quartz, w/bio? Mica? 2:37:37PM 10‐OCT‐07 Weathered fault zone ~2ft thick. Epi,Qtz, bio. 14 437680 3781846 2:44:55PM N13W/72SW 10‐OCT‐07 Pegmatite Dike N2W/65SW. ~2m North Pegmatite Dike, 15 437642 3781850 2:55:01PM Baked Zone ~3in N21E/51NW. 10‐OCT‐07 16 437648 3781873 Pegmatite Dike. N50E/60NW 3:08:15PM 10‐OCT‐07 17 437631 3781851 Pegmatite Dike. N40E/50NW 3:19:43PM 10‐OCT‐07 18 437630 3781860 Foliation in host rock N73/63NW 3:26:57PM 10‐OCT‐07 19 437603 3781786 N42W/80SW small fault/fracture 3:40:55PM 10‐OCT‐07 20 437604 3781808 N43W/72SW small Fault zone ~1ft thick 3:43:45PM 10‐OCT‐07 21 437605 3781817 Pegmatite Dike into quartz diorite. N55W/64SW ~1.5ft 3:49:51PM 10‐OCT‐07 SAF ZONE S13W/27NW ‐ GRAPHITE. 2m south 22 437564 3781853 3:59:06PM S52W/47NW nio diorite lineation/foliation 10‐OCT‐07 23 437597 3781829 Pegmatite Dike into qtz diorite. N75W/69SW. 4:04:00PM 11‐NOV‐07 27 437557 3781871 Outcrop of a plag rich igneous body. 12:54:18PM 11‐NOV‐07 lueco igneous rock w/plag intruding into dark 28 437592 3781904 1:01:51PM metamorphosed rock 11‐NOV‐07 Highly metamorphosed Qtz Diorite? Intruded by K‐spar 29 437600 3781908 1:07:04PM rich dike S19W/71NW. 11‐NOV‐07 30 437613 3781912 Dark Green Metamorphosed rock. 1:09:42PM 11‐NOV‐07 31 437618 3781946 Multiple Dikeletts . S39W/60NW 1:11:43PM 11‐NOV‐07 32 437607 3781966 SACF ZONE ‐ GRAPHITE 1:17:03PM 11‐NOV‐07 33 437600 3781978 Qcv covers the outcrops along the road 1:19:08PM 11‐NOV‐07 34 437576 3782025 Outcrop of a plag rich igneous body. 1:20:17PM 11‐NOV‐07 Lueco granite/monzonite? 5ft high topped by dark green 35 437565 3782049 1:24:19PM metasedimentary unit

11‐NOV‐07 36 437528 3782080 Dark Green Metamorphosed rock. CalkAlkaline? 1:31:23PM 11‐NOV‐07 37 437514 3782063 Contact Meta Sed and Mbl S8E/56SW 1:34:43PM 11‐NOV‐07 38 437526 3782059 Fold in Meta Sed rock Trend/ Plunge S4E/48SW 1:42:44PM 11‐NOV‐07 39 437538 3782059 Contact MetaSed and Undiff igneous S26E/88NE 1:51:35PM 11‐NOV‐07 41 437542 3781958 Contact MetaSed and Undiff igneous 1:57:53PM Contact lueco igneous rock.Appears to be alternating 11‐NOV‐07 42 437516 3781941 between the fine grain dark rock and the plag rich leuco 2:03:56PM rock. 11‐NOV‐07 43 437488 3781944 Large conact area btwn undiff and mbl(bottom) 2:08:51PM 11‐NOV‐07 lueco igneous rock. Continues along the road to the 44 437479 3781862 2:21:52PM south. 11‐NOV‐07 Metamorphosed Diorite and unmeta diorite. Peg. Dike 45 437473 3781843 2:29:36PM N62W/66SW 11‐NOV‐07 46 437467 3781821 2:33:18PM Small fault N70W/82NE 11‐NOV‐07 Meta diorite appears top out at this point. S52W/84NW 47 437466 3781835 2:37:28PM Peg. Dike 11‐NOV‐07 Undiff lueco igneous rock nearly vertical contact. Dipping 48 437458 3781847 2:41:31PM to the North 11‐NOV‐07 49 437455 3781876 Mbl conact(N), Lueco (S) 2:44:09PM 11‐NOV‐07 50 437449 3781891 Upper Mbl contact N14W 2:45:33PM 11‐NOV‐07 51 437477 3781965 Top of Mbl Unit 2:49:48PM 11‐NOV‐07 52 437398 3781962 N89W/83NE undiff lueco 2:54:44PM 11‐NOV‐07 Low Contact w/mbl. To the west is a zone of green/blue 53 437374 3781978 2:59:14PM metasedimentary 11‐NOV‐07 54 437394 3781838 Mbl contact 3:21:21PM 11‐NOV‐07 55 437442 3781805 N15E strike of mbl unit 3:27:39PM 11‐NOV‐07 Mbl Contact. Below is a thin layer of meta diorite 3‐4 feet 56 437452 3781780 3:37:45PM thick which then turns into luecogranite

18‐JAN‐08 Taken in stream runoff. Topped by Qal and Luecogranite 1 437433 3782025 1:32:48PM to the east. Mbl to the west

Contact between mbl(E) leuco rock(W), Alluvium covers 18‐JAN‐08 2 437256 3781989 the ridges. The out crops of the luecogranite have been 1:57:37PM severly weathered. The luecogranite has banding of qtz.

18‐JAN‐08 3 437171 3781928 Leucogranite contact with diorite Sample #2 1/18 2:14:54PM 18‐JAN‐08 4 437055 3781832 Qtz Monz. Sample #3,4,5 1/18 2:33:45PM 18‐JAN‐08 6 437538 3781820 Leuco granite with orange staining, probably biotite 2:52:33PM

Contact mbl(W) and undiff ig/metamorphic a highly 05‐FEB‐08 13 437448 3781799 weathered green rock that appears to be pure biotite. 12:47:35PM There are also lenses of plagioclase. (E)

05‐FEB‐08 15 437447 3781798 Contact Mbl and Meta Sed S35E/65SW 1:08:25PM 05‐FEB‐08 Plag‐bio peg dike ~2 feet thick N72E/74NW intruding into 16 437444 3781812 1:16:45PM meta sed and mbl 05‐FEB‐08 N30W/43SW on red/brown high biotite meta sed. 17 437440 3781819 1:37:39PM Contact with mbl. 05‐FEB‐08 Mbl (se) contact with red/brown meta sed (nw) general 18 437430 3781807 2:12:08PM strike S39W 05‐FEB‐08 19 437420 3781813 Red/Brown meta sed N5W/41SW 1:59:08PM 05‐FEB‐08 20 437398 3781822 Metamorphosed Ig Rock Pic. 523 2:10:32PM 05‐FEB‐08 21 437388 3781827 Contact meta sed (E) and mbl (W) 2:26:09PM 05‐FEB‐08 22 437390 3781836 Contact Mbl and Meta Sed Pic 523 2:30:23PM 05‐FEB‐08 23 437390 3781859 Contact mbl and Ig intrusion 2:39:35PM 05‐FEB‐08 24 437409 3781825 Outcrop of Ig rock and contact with Meta sed (E) 2:46:39PM 05‐FEB‐08 25 437406 3781813 Outcrop of Ig rock and Meta Sed(E) 2:54:16PM 05‐FEB‐08 26 437389 3781804 Contact Mbl (W) and Ig(E) 3:01:27PM

05‐FEB‐08 Contact Mbl and Ig N26W bearing. N42W/62SW on Ig 27 437388 3781810 3:08:33PM surface 05‐FEB‐08 Top of Mbl layer(S) with Ig sandwhiched between two 28 437403 3781775 3:13:52PM layers 05‐FEB‐08 29 437391 3781796 Mbl contact with Ig layer 3:28:30PM 05‐FEB‐08 30 437417 3781793 Contact Mbl and Meta Sed/Ig N9W/44SW 3:35:17PM 05‐FEB‐08 31 437429 3781803 Contact Mbl(S) and Meta Sed 3:38:25PM 12‐FEB‐08 32 437576 372787 klbgr could be thmz and also in a fault zone 2:26:55PM 12‐FEB‐08 33 437553 3782789 S86W/64NW Contact klbgr and thmz 2:26:55PM 12‐FEB‐08 34 437583 3782781 Meta sed? Klbr 2:42:42PM 12‐FEB‐08 35 437585 3782775 N46W/50SW contact/fault of klbgr and meta sed 2:55:14PM 12‐FEB‐08 36 437614 3782740 No mbl outcropping 3:05:37PM 12‐FEB‐08 37 437566 3782712 Contact thmz(W) and klbgr (E) 3:16:17PM 12‐FEB‐08 38 437553 3782712 Contact thmz and klbgr 3:32:37PM 12‐FEB‐08 40 437536 3782710 Out crop thmz 3:47:17PM 04‐MAR‐08 41 437610 3782873 Sample #10 3/4 hmz 2:10:20PM 04‐MAR‐08 42 437541 3782770 Sample #11 3/4 hmz 2:27:59PM 04‐MAR‐08 43 437519 3782762 Sample #12 3/4 hmz 2:39:23PM 04‐MAR‐08 44 437516 3782732 Sample #13 3/4 hmz 2:48:25PM 04‐MAR‐08 45 437414 3782706 Sample #14 3/4 klbgr 2:56:02PM 04‐MAR‐08 46 437546 3782611 Sample #15 3/4 Meta Sed rock 3:07:45PM 04‐MAR‐08 47 437476 3782605 Outcrop hmz. Sample #16 3/4 (IH Cyn Grano Diorite) 3:35:43PM

04‐MAR‐08 48 437469 3782616 Sample #17 3/4 hmz 4:00:06PM 04‐MAR‐08 49 437439 3782627 Sample #18 3/4 4:22:25PM 04‐MAR‐08 50 437403 3782646 S42W/63NW fault trend Fault zone just north 4:30:34PM 06‐MAR‐08 51 441252 3789465 Sample 3/6 #20,21,22,23,24,25 10:37:35AM 11‐APR‐08 97 437047 3781774 DH 4/11/08 #1 hmz in ocntact with meta sed 10:25:27AM 11‐APR‐08 98 437060 3781728 Outcrop hmz. 10:39:58AM 11‐APR‐08 99 437101 3781665 hmz top of hill 10:48:33AM 11‐APR‐08 Contact hmz and mbl(E) Green altered rock. 4/11 DH 100 437152 3781624 11:03:03AM #2,3,4 11‐APR‐08 101 437110 3781559 4/11 #5 diorite w/biotite 11:19:37AM 11‐APR‐08 102 437067 3781544 4/11 #6 granite faulting between 101 and 102 11:31:47AM 11‐APR‐08 103 437081 3781554 Strike of fault N45W 11:40:06AM 11‐APR‐08 104 437080 3781276 4/11/08 #8,9 diorite intruding mbl 11:57:23AM 11‐APR‐08 105 437075 3781248 4/11/08 #10 No Mbl 12:06:46PM 11‐APR‐08 106 437079 3781365 Mbl contact with bearing N39E 12:12:14PM 11‐APR‐08 107 437117 3781428 End of Mbl layer. Calc‐Silicate rock to north 12:16:44PM 11‐APR‐08 108 437131 3781487 trend of fault 12:20:40PM 11‐APR‐08 Outcrop of Calc Silicate rock, up ridge it goes into hbl rich 109 436984 3781600 12:52:00PM rock 11‐APR‐08 110 437023 3781623 DH 4/11 #13 hmz 1:00:44PM 11‐APR‐08 Meta Sed.(E) S31W/87NW bends down to (W) 111 437074 3781627 1:07:41PM S36W/55NW 11‐APR‐08 113 436796 3781913 DH 4/11 #14 Granite 2:23:49PM

11‐APR‐08 114 437397 3781965 DH 4/11 #15 Granite 3:05:35PM 11‐APR‐08 115 437280 3780314 Trace of SACF 3:51:16PM

Appendix C: Major and Trace Element Table Sample SiO[2] TiO[2] Al[2]O[3] FeO MnO MgO CaO DH 3/4 #14 66.598 0.510 18.105 2.949 0.045 0.915 2.083 DH 4/11 #5 72.526 0.291 14.118 2.106 0.022 0.484 1.317 DH 4/11 #6 64.992 0.491 18.783 3.127 0.054 0.824 2.499 DH 4/11 #8 69.474 0.213 13.679 1.382 0.048 0.834 5.077 DH 4/11 #15 67.814 0.737 15.523 4.031 0.059 1.477 2.500 Granite Quarry Avg 68.281 0.448 16.042 2.719 0.046 0.907 2.695 DH 10/3 #1 59.047 0.770 13.179 8.885 0.254 4.156 7.334 DH 10/3 #2 61.775 0.506 14.699 6.771 0.181 3.012 6.596 DH 1/19 #7 62.453 0.654 13.128 8.028 0.263 3.231 6.626 DH 1/19 #9 69.267 0.380 12.759 4.563 0.136 2.335 6.192 DH 1/19 #10 64.613 0.529 13.391 6.299 0.174 3.148 6.004 DH 3/4 #12 61.234 0.891 14.206 8.345 0.180 3.531 7.404 DH 4/11 #1 62.205 0.652 12.586 7.683 0.208 4.010 6.516 DH 4/11 #2 63.958 0.565 14.582 5.218 0.139 2.995 6.501 DH 4/11 #3 62.231 0.728 12.733 4.575 0.258 3.941 10.784 DH 4/11 #4 65.436 0.542 13.971 4.647 0.137 2.796 6.536 DH 4/11 #13 66.638 0.464 13.359 5.124 0.156 2.882 6.653 ec6/04#2 61.814 0.704 13.711 7.341 0.183 3.660 6.575 Monzonite Quarry Avg 63.389 0.615 13.525 6.457 0.189 3.308 6.977 DH 3/4 #16 53.957 1.944 14.487 11.986 0.225 6.650 4.843 DH 3/4 #17 59.094 1.049 13.306 8.677 0.149 5.547 6.208 DH 3/4 #18 50.282 1.709 13.373 13.965 0.228 8.781 7.674 Granodiorite Quarry Avg 54.444 1.567 13.722 11.543 0.201 6.993 6.242 DH 3/6 #22 68.875 0.309 15.065 3.024 0.052 1.242 4.218 DH 3/6 #23 71.392 0.197 14.843 1.423 0.009 0.506 2.231 DH 3/6 #24 75.213 0.173 12.807 1.219 0.018 0.430 1.219 Granite Sugarloaf Avg 71.827 0.226 14.238 1.889 0.026 0.726 2.556 DH 11/24 #3 67.948 0.441 13.596 3.661 0.110 2.020 4.704 DH 11/24 #4 63.599 0.556 15.050 5.153 0.163 2.880 6.215 DH 11/24 #5 65.709 0.531 13.700 4.608 0.154 3.122 5.854 DH 11/24 #6 62.285 0.642 14.195 6.130 0.221 3.703 6.650 DH 3/6 #21 63.647 0.455 14.109 5.496 0.156 2.986 6.169 Monzonite Sugarloaf Avg 64.638 0.525 14.130 5.010 0.161 2.942 5.918 7/23/99#4 57.476 1.348 14.042 9.893 0.192 6.093 6.327 7/23/99#3cc 55.630 1.463 15.417 9.163 0.161 6.224 5.364 IH#2 60.561 1.188 14.152 7.720 0.135 4.605 5.224 IH#3 59.942 1.265 14.794 7.775 0.136 4.866 4.772 LFRC 58.864 1.344 15.206 8.343 0.136 5.357 5.540 Granite Sugarloaf Avg 58.495 1.322 14.722 8.579 0.152 5.429 5.445

Sample Na[2]O K[2]O P[2]O[5] Rb Ba Sr Cr DH 3/4 #14 4.865 3.842 0.088 225.530 585.471 1005.472 61.480 DH 4/11 #5 3.934 5.119 0.085 242.727 437.253 610.780 17.959 DH 4/11 #6 5.282 3.842 0.106 235.383 652.018 1032.930 57.154 DH 4/11 #8 3.028 6.174 0.091 303.862 1043.600 1190.489 26.669 DH 4/11 #15 4.161 3.415 0.284 197.883 662.651 849.905 16.564 Granite Quarry Avg 4.254 4.478 0.131 241.077 676.199 937.915 35.965 DH 10/3 #1 2.733 3.376 0.265 97.499 250.261 330.787 20.293 DH 10/3 #2 3.311 2.752 0.396 96.457 261.811 379.233 34.098 DH 1/19 #7 2.109 3.238 0.269 114.318 514.524 407.680 28.291 DH 1/19 #9 3.411 0.782 0.176 62.570 179.636 541.079 61.281 DH 1/19 #10 2.517 3.123 0.203 113.934 391.788 580.102 22.684 DH 3/4 #12 3.124 0.864 0.222 30.097 59.375 550.143 4.983 DH 4/11 #1 2.186 3.798 0.157 117.072 553.939 372.105 22.826 DH 4/11 #2 2.975 2.854 0.215 128.304 292.976 584.946 22.912 DH 4/11 #3 2.934 1.477 0.340 77.687 36.184 549.151 45.427 DH 4/11 #4 2.790 2.941 0.204 137.747 299.667 611.162 6.744 DH 4/11 #13 3.596 0.959 0.167 55.260 204.752 471.703 5.439 ec6/04#2 2.695 3.117 0.198 110.887 380.697 411.942 42.523 Monzonite Quarry Avg 2.865 2.440 0.234 95.153 285.468 482.503 26.458 DH 3/4 #16 1.362 3.944 0.601 173.342 546.514 227.611 27.271 DH 3/4 #17 1.735 3.835 0.399 77.717 1639.132 704.267 42.470 DH 3/4 #18 1.496 1.930 0.563 37.533 511.683 493.120 94.019 Granodiorite Quarry Avg 1.531 3.236 0.521 96.197 899.110 474.999 54.587 DH 3/6 #22 3.264 3.822 0.129 158.040 755.597 818.194 71.670 DH 3/6 #23 4.129 5.142 0.128 222.009 749.822 1036.555 81.064 DH 3/6 #24 3.529 5.217 0.052 287.094 504.350 498.554 76.452 Granite Sugarloaf Avg 3.641 4.727 0.103 222.381 669.923 784.434 76.395 DH 11/24 #3 2.397 4.976 0.146 189.160 509.941 533.629 42.267 DH 11/24 #4 3.551 2.646 0.188 105.206 183.989 489.910 35.407 DH 11/24 #5 4.020 2.127 0.174 95.321 50.987 500.081 50.806 DH 11/24 #6 4.144 1.802 0.228 68.662 66.616 407.024 14.885 DH 3/6 #21 2.592 4.192 0.198 136.517 477.676 498.065 22.741 Monzonite Sugarloaf Avg 3.341 3.149 0.187 118.973 257.842 485.742 33.221 7/23/99#4 1.843 2.434 0.352 74.917 775.029 467.579 14.974 7/23/99#3cc 2.502 3.542 0.534 164.342 838.460 618.774 5.496 IH#2 2.070 3.964 0.381 163.442 651.193 493.961 16.593 IH#3 2.198 3.887 0.365 190.378 432.120 434.060 25.274 LFRC 2.043 2.702 0.463 126.012 575.755 622.005 6.602 Granite Sugarloaf Avg 2.131 3.306 0.419 143.818 654.511 527.276 13.788

Sample Zr Sc La Ce Nd Sm Y DH 3/4 #14 340.289 70.074 12.869 52.327 8.753 0.222 91.047 DH 4/11 #5 255.924 82.406 3.501 46.617 3.742 2.163 92.871 DH 4/11 #6 344.722 59.581 8.864 54.633 6.567 2.555 90.629 DH 4/11 #8 333.739 79.485 9.023 62.933 9.920 6.433 100.171 DH 4/11 #15 456.350 59.040 20.140 56.835 16.459 4.398 81.469 Granite Quarry Avg 346.205 70.117 10.879 54.669 9.088 3.154 91.237 DH 10/3 #1 235.790 12.309 1.090 43.501 13.057 5.502 61.287 DH 10/3 #2 421.828 15.338 15.552 45.815 20.103 5.325 71.217 DH 1/19 #7 240.564 9.325 0.076 49.675 17.431 4.846 105.302 DH 1/19 #9 244.521 28.752 4.007 29.583 6.775 3.305 91.426 DH 1/19 #10 248.265 16.204 8.478 45.953 9.552 3.169 90.249 DH 3/4 #12 360.441 5.107 6.337 36.008 31.037 8.044 81.437 DH 4/11 #1 250.851 16.204 5.990 51.246 8.823 4.148 70.459 DH 4/11 #2 253.650 36.324 2.101 43.948 6.220 0.232 81.318 DH 4/11 #3 341.458 21.288 0.429 36.221 7.087 0.466 100.029 DH 4/11 #4 251.598 36.973 4.046 44.278 6.220 1.617 86.855 DH 4/11 #13 247.725 45.194 2.257 29.307 4.970 3.294 73.935 ec6/04#2 248.035 21.396 3.226 47.198 12.190 3.357 67.811 Monzonite Quarry Avg 278.727 22.035 4.466 41.894 11.955 3.609 81.777 DH 3/4 #16 432.464 7.595 37.755 56.734 39.367 10.866 70.205 DH 3/4 #17 312.430 26.047 1.204 79.704 23.887 4.200 52.406 DH 3/4 #18 333.995 7.378 12.091 49.976 27.948 10.637 29.714 Granodiorite Quarry Avg 359.630 13.673 17.017 62.138 30.401 8.568 50.775 DH 3/6 #22 291.135 76.024 7.856 55.464 3.048 1.330 73.339 DH 3/6 #23 291.403 85.651 8.401 53.815 8.532 4.017 89.048 DH 3/6 #24 221.045 84.353 11.161 48.280 15.266 4.611 103.217 Granite Sugarloaf Avg 267.861 82.009 9.139 52.520 8.949 3.319 88.535 DH 11/24 #3 176.824 54.930 10.267 48.226 2.818 0.268 107.347 DH 11/24 #4 224.523 25.615 5.679 41.396 12.328 0.930 94.194 DH 11/24 #5 246.680 50.819 1.129 37.511 9.968 1.763 98.724 DH 11/24 #6 217.765 9.713 1.518 35.135 16.251 6.283 109.952 DH 3/6 #21 223.308 26.047 5.523 48.606 7.087 0.534 80.713 Monzonite Sugarloaf Avg 217.820 33.425 4.823 42.175 9.690 1.956 98.186 7/23/99#4 262.252 5.431 12.364 57.804 29.058 8.866 59.136 7/23/99#3cc 358.575 13.824 20.607 60.277 25.900 9.189 59.070 IH#2 308.846 23.235 9.253 54.199 14.446 4.825 71.649 IH#3 355.423 30.591 5.014 47.858 14.133 5.461 75.451 LFRC 387.903 29.617 14.736 53.777 19.617 7.262 53.273 Granite Sugarloaf Avg 334.600 20.540 12.395 54.783 20.631 7.121 63.716