DOCSLIB.ORG

Gila Bend - Sierra Estrella Linkage Design

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ARIZONA MISSING LINKAGES Gila Bend - Sierra Estrella Linkage Design Paul Beier, Emily Garding, Daniel Majka 2008 GILA BEND - SIERRA ESTRELLA LINKAGE DESIGN Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We thank Dr. Phil Rosen, Matt Good, Chasa O’Brien, Dr. Jason Marshal, Ted McKinney, and Taylor Edwards for parameterizing models for focal species and suggesting focal species. Catherine Wightman, Fenner Yarborough, Janet Lynn, Mylea Bayless, Andi Rogers, Mikele Painter, Valerie Horncastle, Matthew Johnson, Jeff Gagnon, Erica Nowak, Lee Luedeker, Allen Haden, Shaula Hedwall, Bill Broyles, Dale Turner, David Brown, Jeff Servoss and Martin Lawrence helped identify focal species and species experts. Robert Shantz provided photos for many of the species accounts. Shawn Newell, Jeff Jenness, Megan Friggens, and Matt Clark provided helpful advice on analyses and reviewed portions of the results. Funding This project was funded by a grant from Arizona Game and Fish Department to Northern Arizona University. Recommended Citation Beier, P., E. Garding, and D. Majka. 2008. Arizona Missing Linkages: Gila Bend – Sierra Estrella Linkage Design. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. III TERMINOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... VI INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 NATURE NEEDS ROOM TO MOVE ............................................................................................................................... 1 A STATEWIDE VISION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND EXISTING CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS IN THE REGION ...................................... 2 THREATS TO CONNECTIVITY ...................................................................................................................................... 3 LINKAGE DESIGN & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 5 TWO LINKAGES PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY ACROSS A DIVERSE LANDSCAPE ............................................................... 5 LAND OWNERSHIP, LAND COVER, AND TOPOGRAPHIC PATTERNS WITHIN THE LINKAGE DESIGN ............................. 5 REMOVING AND MITIGATING BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT ......................................................................................... 10 IMPACTS OF ROADS ON WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................................ 10 Mitigation for Roads ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Existing Roads, Rail Lines, and canals in the Linkage Design Area ................................................................... 14 Recommended Crossing Structures in the Gila Bend-SDNM Linkage ................................................................ 15 Recommended Crossing Structures for highways and railroads in the SDNM-Estrella Linkage ........................ 15 IMPACTS OF CANALS ON WILDLIFE .......................................................................................................................... 18 Canals in the Gila Bend Mountains-Sonoran Desert National Monument Linkage ............................................ 18 Mitigation for Canals .......................................................................................................................................... 18 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AS BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT .............................................................................................. 21 Urban Barriers in the Linkage Design Area ........................................................................................................ 22 Mitigation for Urban Barriers ............................................................................................................................. 25 IMPEDIMENTS TO THE GILA RIVER ........................................................................................................................... 26 Importance of Riparian Systems in the Southwest ............................................................................................... 26 Stream Impediments in the Linkage Design Area ................................................................................................ 26 Mitigating Stream Impediments ........................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX A: LINKAGE DESIGN METHODS .................................................................................................. 28 FOCAL SPECIES SELECTION ...................................................................................................................................... 28 HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELS ............................................................................................................................... 29 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BREEDING PATCHES & POTENTIAL POPULATION CORES .................................................. 30 IDENTIFYING BIOLOGICALLY BEST CORRIDORS ....................................................................................................... 31 PATCH CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 32 MINIMUM LINKAGE WIDTH ...................................................................................................................................... 33 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 34 APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ANALYSES .......................................................................................... 35 BOBCAT (LYNX RUFUS) ............................................................................................................................................. 37 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP (OVIS CANADENSIS NELSONI) .............................................................................................. 41 DESERT TORTOISE (GOPHERUS AGASSIZII) ................................................................................................................ 45 GILA MONSTER (HELODERMA SUSPECTUM) .............................................................................................................. 49 JAVELINA (TAYASSU TAJACU) .................................................................................................................................... 53 MOUNTAIN LION (PUMA CONCOLOR) ........................................................................................................................ 57 MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS) ..................................................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX C: SUGGESTED FOCAL SPECIES NOT MODELED................................................................... 65 Arizona Missing Linkages i Gila Bend – Sierra Estrella Linkage Design APPENDIX D: CREATION OF LINKAGE DESIGN .......................................................................................... 66 APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTION OF LAND COVER CLASSES .......................................................................... 68 APPENDIX F: LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX G: DATABASE OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................. 77 Arizona Missing Linkages ii Gila Bend – Sierra Estrella Linkage Design List of Tables & Figures List of Tables TABLE 1: FOCAL SPECIES FOR THE GILA BEND – SIERRA ESTRELLA LINKAGE ............................................................ VII TABLE 2: APPROXIMATE LAND COVER IN THE LINKAGE DESIGN .................................................................................... 6 TABLE 3. CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MAKE SPECIES VULNERABLE TO THE THREE MAJOR DIRECT EFFECTS OF ROADS (FROM FORMAN ET AL. 2003). .............................................................................................................................. 10 TABLE 4: MAJOR ROADS AND CANALS IN THE LINKAGE DESIGN ................................................................................. 15 TABLE 5: HABITAT SUITABILITY SCORES AND FACTOR WEIGHTS FOR EACH SPECIES. SCORES RANGE FROM 1 (BEST) TO 10 (WORST), WITH 1-3 INDICATING OPTIMAL HABITAT, 4-5 SUBOPTIMAL BUT USABLE HABITAT, 6-7 OCCASIONALLY USED BUT NOT BREEDING HABITAT, AND 8-10 AVOIDED.
Recommended publications
  • CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX

    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX

    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE PHOENIX AMA Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Brown and Caldwell Project No. 23481.001 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 9 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE ....................................................................
  • The Lower Gila Region, Arizona

    The Lower Gila Region, Arizona

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HUBERT WORK, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 498 THE LOWER GILA REGION, ARIZONA A GEOGBAPHIC, GEOLOGIC, AND HTDBOLOGIC BECONNAISSANCE WITH A GUIDE TO DESEET WATEEING PIACES BY CLYDE P. ROSS WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1923 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 50 CENTS PEE COPY PURCHASER AGREES NOT TO RESELL OR DISTRIBUTE THIS COPT FOR PROFIT. PUB. RES. 57, APPROVED MAT 11, 1822 CONTENTS. I Page. Preface, by O. E. Melnzer_____________ __ xr Introduction_ _ ___ __ _ 1 Location and extent of the region_____._________ _ J. Scope of the report- 1 Plan _________________________________ 1 General chapters _ __ ___ _ '. , 1 ' Route'descriptions and logs ___ __ _ 2 Chapter on watering places _ , 3 Maps_____________,_______,_______._____ 3 Acknowledgments ______________'- __________,______ 4 General features of the region___ _ ______ _ ., _ _ 4 Climate__,_______________________________ 4 History _____'_____________________________,_ 7 Industrial development___ ____ _ _ _ __ _ 12 Mining __________________________________ 12 Agriculture__-_______'.____________________ 13 Stock raising __ 15 Flora _____________________________________ 15 Fauna _________________________ ,_________ 16 Topography . _ ___ _, 17 Geology_____________ _ _ '. ___ 19 Bock formations. _ _ '. __ '_ ----,----- 20 Basal complex___________, _____ 1 L __. 20 Tertiary lavas ___________________ _____ 21 Tertiary sedimentary formations___T_____1___,r 23 Quaternary sedimentary formations _'__ _ r- 24 > Quaternary basalt ______________._________ 27 Structure _______________________ ______ 27 Geologic history _____ _____________ _ _____ 28 Early pre-Cambrian time______________________ .
  • The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012

    The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012

    The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012 (Photographs: Arizona Game and Fish Department) Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ i RECOMMENDED CITATION ........................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ iii DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ iv BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1 THE MARICOPA COUNTY WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................... 8 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT AND ASSOCIATED GIS DATA ................................................... 10 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 MASTER LIST OF WILDLIFE LINKAGES AND HABITAT BLOCKSAND BARRIERS ................ 16 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................................................................
  • A Study of Uranium Favorability of Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks, Basin

    A Study of Uranium Favorability of Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks, Basin

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY A Study of Uranium Favorability of Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks Basin and Range Province, Arizona Part I General Geology and Chronology of Pre-late Miocene Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks By Robert Scarborough and Jan Carol Wilt Open File Report 79-1429 1979 This report was funded by U.S. Geological Survey Grant No. 14-08-0001528. It;has not been edited for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey standards or with accepted U.S. Geological Survey stratigraphic nomenclature. FOREWORD This report by Robert Scarborough and Jan Carol Wilt summarizes the results of a study made for the U.S. Geological Survey jointly by the Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology and the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry, College of Earth Sciences, University of Arizona, under Grant No. 14-08-0001528. Age dating by the K/Ar method was cost-shared with. NSF Grant No. EAR78-11535 which supports volcanic rock studies by the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry. It is considered that this report adequately fulfills the agreement objectives. Principal Investigator: H. Wesley Peirce, Principal Geologist Geological Survey Branch Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology University of Arizona, Tucson Co-Principal Investigator: Paul E. Damon, Chief Scientist Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry Department of Geosciences College of Earth Sciences University of Arizona, Tucson CONTENTS Page Abstract ,....,,...,...,........« « 1 Introduction ...,.,..*....««..« «« 3 General statement ........ , ».....,....». 3 Purpose and scope .«..,,.....,.......... 3 Acknowledgments ..................... * . 4 Location and physiographic setting .............. 4 Approach ........................... 5 General Cenozoic geology of Basin and Range Province sediments . General statement ...................... 7 Group I localities with radioactive anomalies ........ 9 Mineta Formation ..................... 9 Cardinal Avenue sediments ................
  • Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan

    Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan

    Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan Adopted August 16, 2004 Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Trail Commission Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Maricopa County Planning and Development Flood Control District of Maricopa County We have an obligation to protect open spaces for future generations. Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan VISION Our vision is to connect the majestic open spaces of the Maricopa County Regional Parks with a nonmotorized trail system. The Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan - page 1 Credits Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Andrew Kunasek, District 3, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Maricopa County Trail Commission Supervisor Max Wilson, District 4 Chairman Supervisor Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Parks Commission Members: Citizen Members: Laurel Arndt, Chair Art Wirtz, District 2 Randy Virden, Vice-Chair Jim Burke, District 3 Felipe Zubia, District 5 Stakeholders: Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Fred Pfeifer, Arizona Public Service (APS) James Duncan, Salt River Project (SRP) Teri Raml, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ex-officio Members: William Scalzo, Chief Community Services Officer Pictured from left to right Laurel Arndt, Supervisor Andy Kunasek, Fred Pfeifer, Carol Erwin, Arizona’s Official State Historian, Marshall Trimble, and Art Wirtz pose with the commemorative branded trail marker Mike Ellegood, Director, Public Works at the Maricopa Trail
  • Central Arizona Salinity Study --- Phase I

    Central Arizona Salinity Study --- Phase I

    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix D HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE GILA BEND BASIN Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 D-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 8 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT ................................... 8 4.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY .............................................................................
  • Final Environmental Assessment

    Final Environmental Assessment

    DOE/EA-1683 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE TO ABENGOA SOLAR INC. FOR THE SOLANA THERMAL ELECTRIC POWER PROJECT NEAR GILA BEND, ARIZONA U.S. Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program Office Washington, DC 20585 May 2010 DOE/EA-1683 CONTENTS Acronynms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. viii SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................x 1 Purpose and Need for Agency Action .......................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Public Participation .................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Document Organization ............................................................................................. 1-5 1.4 Availability of the Environmental Assessment .......................................................... 1-6 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................ 2-7 2.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 2-7 2.2 Solana CSP Project Construction............................................................................. 2-13 2.3 Solana CSP Project Operations ...............................................................................
  • Final Environmental Assessment for Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn

    Final Environmental Assessment for Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn

    Final Environmental Assessment for Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 6 October 2010 This page left blank intentionally 6 October 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION............................................ 1 1.1 Proposed Action.............................................................. 2 1.2 Project Need................................................................. 6 1.3 Background Information on Sonoran Pronghorn . 9 1.3.1 Taxonomy.............................................................. 9 1.3.2 Historic Distribution and Abundance......................................... 9 1.3.3 Current Distribution and Abundance........................................ 10 1.3.4 Life History............................................................ 12 1.3.5 Habitat................................................................ 13 1.3.6 Food and Water......................................................... 18 1.3.7 Home Range, Movement, and Habitat Area Requirements . 18 1.4 Project Purpose ............................................................. 19 1.5 Decision to be Made.......................................................... 19 1.6 Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Plans . 19 1.7 Permitting Requirements and Authorizations Needed . 21 1.8 Scoping Summary............................................................ 21 1.8.1 Internal Agency Scoping.................................................. 21 1.8.2 Public Scoping ........................................................
  • Arizona's Wildlife Linkages Assessment

    Arizona's Wildlife Linkages Assessment

    ARIZONAARIZONA’’SS WILDLIFEWILDLIFE LINKAGESLINKAGES ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT Workgroup Prepared by: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment Prepared by: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Siobhan E. Nordhaugen, Arizona Department of Transportation, Natural Resources Management Group Evelyn Erlandsen, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Habitat Branch Paul Beier, Northern Arizona University, School of Forestry Bruce D. Eilerts, Arizona Department of Transportation, Natural Resources Management Group Ray Schweinsburg, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Terry Brennan, USDA Forest Service, Tonto National Forest Ted Cordery, Bureau of Land Management Norris Dodd, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Melissa Maiefski, Arizona Department of Transportation, Environmental Planning Group Janice Przybyl, The Sky Island Alliance Steve Thomas, Federal Highway Administration Kim Vacariu, The Wildlands Project Stuart Wells, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT First Printing Date: December, 2006 Copyright © 2006 The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written consent from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written consent of the copyright holder. Additional copies may be obtained by submitting a request to: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup E-mail: [email protected] 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Mission Statement “To identify and promote wildlife habitat connectivity using a collaborative, science based effort to provide safe passage for people and wildlife” 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT Primary Contacts: Bruce D.
  • Grand Canyon Council Oa Where to Go Camping Guide

    Grand Canyon Council Oa Where to Go Camping Guide

    GRAND CANYON COUNCIL OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE GRAND CANYON COUNCIL, BSA OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE Table of Contents Introduction to The Order of the Arrow ....................................................................... 1 Wipala Wiki, The Man .................................................................................................. 1 General Information ...................................................................................................... 3 Desert Survival Safety Tips ........................................................................................... 4 Further Information ....................................................................................................... 4 Contact Agencies and Organizations ............................................................................. 5 National Forests ............................................................................................................. 5 U. S. Department Of The Interior - Bureau Of Land Management ................................ 7 Maricopa County Parks And Recreation System: .......................................................... 8 Arizona State Parks: .................................................................................................... 10 National Parks & National Monuments: ...................................................................... 11 Tribal Jurisdictions: ..................................................................................................... 13 On the Road: National
  • Public-Private Partnership Potentials

    Public-Private Partnership Potentials

    Public‐Private Partnerships Potential for Arizona‐Mexico Border Infrastructure Projects Executive Summary ADOT Task Assignment MPD 31‐09 30 September 2009 Public‐Private Partnerships Potential for Arizona‐Mexico Border Infrastructure Projects Executive Summary Table of Contents Final Report 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 2.0 Methodology......................................................................................................................2 3.0 Overview of the Arizona‐Mexico Ports of Entry..........................................................4 4.0 Review of Key Border Initiatives and Innovative Finance Initiatives from FHWA...............................................................................................................................10 5.0 Existing and Planned Use of Public‐Private Partnerships and Private Sector Involvement at Border Crossings .................................................................................11 5.1 Identified Implementation Issues for Public‐Private Partnerships at Border Crossings ..........................................................................................................................12 6.0 Cross Border Commodity Movements between Arizona and Mexico ...................13 Exhibit 1: 2007 Exports and Imports through Arizona’s Ports of Entry......................................13 6.1 Exports to Mexico ...................................................................................................13
  • Arizona Missing Linkages: Patagonia – Santa Rita Linkage Design

    Arizona Missing Linkages: Patagonia – Santa Rita Linkage Design

    ARIZONA MISSING LINKAGES Patagonia – Santa Rita Linkage Design Paul Beier, Emily Garding, Daniel Majka 2008 PATAGONIA – SANTA RITA LINKAGE DESIGN Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We thank Dr. Phil Rosen, Matt Good, Chasa O’Brien, Dr. Jason Marshal, Ted McKinney, Michael Robinson, Mitch Sternberg, Dr. Robert Harrison, and Taylor Edwards for parameterizing models for focal species and suggesting focal species. Catherine Wightman, Fenner Yarborough, Janet Lynn, Mylea Bayless, Andi Rogers, Mikele Painter, Valerie Horncastle, Matthew Johnson, Jeff Gagnon, Erica Nowak, Lee Luedeker, Allen Haden, Shaula Hedwall, Bill Broyles, Dale Turner, Natasha Kline, Thomas Skinner, David Brown, Jeff Servoss, Janice Pryzbyl, Tim Snow, Lisa Haynes, Don Swann, Trevor Hare, and Martin Lawrence helped identify focal species and species experts. Robert Shantz provided photos for many of the species accounts. Shawn Newell, Jeff Jenness, Megan Friggens, and Matt Clark, and Elissa Ostergaard provided helpful advice on analyses and reviewed portions of the results. Funding This project was funded by a grant from Arizona Game and Fish Department to Northern Arizona University. Recommended Citation Beier, P., E. Garding, and D. Majka. 2008. Arizona Missing Linkages: Patagonia – Santa Rita Linkage Design. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................................