DOCSLIB.ORG

Arizona Wildlife Linkages Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arizona 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. Eilerts Siobhan E. Nordhaugen Arizona Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Services Statewide Natural Resources Management Group Ray Schweinsburg Arizona Game and Fish Department Research Branch E-mail: [email protected] Photo by Kelly Roberts 1 1 0 22 4 430 470 1 1 0 610 4 550 450 20 30 510 440 600 Page 300 410 460 10 Mexican 1 10 Fredonia 420 Water 1 Littlefield 3 20 590 540 3 540 310 400 500 570 Kayenta 410 560 550 400 580 580 530 490 66 530 320 390 5 380 3807 5 590 520 340 7 480 330 350 370 470 600 360 510 360 88 350 460 610 500 9 340 9 North Rim Tuba 450 490 City Chinle 330 Grand Canyon 440 260 480 320 250 240 270 330 10 280 340 360 430 290 470 11 00 230 11 33 350 400 20 Cameron 370 430 420 380 390 410 420 Window 460 450 Rock 220 440 30 400 Ganado 410 460 260 450 470 40 Peach Springs 210 250 110 390 400 100 120 1 1 11 22 90 1 1 440 50 200 240 390 80 380 70 Seligman 11 88 430 60 120 140 230 110 190 380 60 130 1 4 370 Williams 1 4 1 7 70 350 20 100 140 220 1 7 11 99 10 50 60 150 420 90 170 180 210 330 340 22 00 70 80 160 220 Bullhead Ash Fork 190 11 66 200 60 Kingman 360 1 5 Flagstaff 230 360 320 360 City 40 22 11 1 5 240 240 Winslow 310 430 100 390 350 400 350 330 250 300 2 8 340 290 2 8 350 3022 99 2 2 2 3 260 230 2 2 380 2 3 270 Holbrook 420 110 340 Sedona 320 330 280 320 370 310 340 20 30 30 Clarkdale 310 320 10 330 360 330 120 2 5 310 380 33 00 340 2 4 2 5 20 Wikieup 3 5 350 2 4 310 330 200 3 5 330 300 22 77 340 320 30022 66 130 210 300 370 350 190 33 33 33 66 290 10 320 Prescott 290 Snowflake Lake Havasu City 140 290 10 Camp Verde 350 3 1 10 44 00 St. Johns 3 1 180 150 310 220 360 20 280 280 Heber 310 370 380 370 11 11 11 3 7 230 240 250 330 3 7 300 320 170 300 280 350 160 270 270 33 99 44 22 360 380 270 3 2 3 4 290 270 290 310 Show 3 2 1 1 3 3 4 Cordes Junction 280 320 1 1 3 260 Low 160 170 260 260 330 390 280 350 360 4 1 340 370 400 150 33 88 Payson 4 1 380 390 180 250 350 Parker 11 11 44 270 250 Young 310 330 390 1 1 2 360 410 1 1 2 100 240 380 140 370 390 190 260 5 2 410 44 33 20 90 5 2 300 320 55 88 Wickenburg 240 130 230 5 7 350 380 400 44 44 44 66 80 55 11 270 310 5 7 420 30 11 11 55 110 5 3 55 55 290 390 70 90 100 230 220 5 3 430 55 00 10 320 120 60 20 260 300 340 44 55 40 120 30 250 280 290 11 11 66 50 210 44 99 250 55 66 330 110 40 130 11 55 22 220 240 20 30 Hope 4 7 10 11 22 11 20 30 270 280 4 7 40 11 22 22 140 240 50 200 240 230 100 Quartzsite 60 260 270 44 88 70 150 210 40 190 230 80 10 220 66 44 90 10 10 210 55 44 230 220 11 11 88 100 6 5 180 260 6 5 160 20 220 901 1 9 110 130 50 200 210 55 99 6 3 1 1 9 140 250 1 1 7 6 3 120 10 Globe 200 1 1 7 200 200 240 150 190 30 11 22 00 11 55 11 Phoenix 180 230 170 60 80 66 88 160 40 210 220 260 190 50 66 66 270 11 22 33 11 22 44 140 280 160 160 290 180 70 190 77 33 180 170 220 160 7 4 150 150 300 130 7 4 40 140 170 170 1 2 7 30 150 11 22 55 1 2 7 10 160 60 11 22 66 180 Clifton 140 140 Florence 140 310 Gila Bend 170 160 11 22 88 10 130 140 11 33 00 110 66 77 100 120 190 330 130 130 130 150 50 90 170 140 6 2 390 11 33 11 80 140 160 120 Safford 6 2 77 22 70 120 6 0 77 66 120 6 0 60 10 7 8 120 40 150 160 170 7 8 340 6 1 380 66 99 50 1 4 8 200 120 110 350 6 1 1 2 9 30 40 1 4 8 360 370 1 2 9 20 20 30 380 20 210 100 110 10 140 120 Yuma 77 11 11 55 00 110 220 130 100 8 4 10 11 44 99 88 33 120 8 4 30 110 100 11 33 88 11 44 33 230 90 77 00 88 11 88 22 77 99 1 3 3 11 44 66 90 1 3 3 40 240 88 00 11 44 11 Ajo 80 350 11 33 99 11 33 55 11 44 44 50 88 99 99 00 11 33 22 11 33 66 250 340 360 7 5 70 370 7 5 60 Tucson Willcox 330 380 1 3 4 70 8 5 340 390 1 3 4 11 44 00 80 8 5 170 88 88 11 44 22 90 260 330 1 4 7 60 7 7 160 1 4 7 7 7 K1080 7 350 8 7 270 60 11 33 77 150 K90 320 100 140 280 130 Benson 11 44 55 70 290 310 50 50 300 60 110 120 40 K80 9 4 50 1 0 2 88 66 K70 9 4 40 1 0 2 80 10 290 40 Lukeville Green Valley 50 300 50 30 40 99 22 K60 300 310 40 9 7 30 410 40 9 7 60 Tombstone 20 30 K50 99 55 50 99 99 320 30 310 400 K40 20 30 99 88 99 11 10 20 320 20 99 33 99 66 1 0 0 330 330 390 K30 20 1 0 0 380 Sierra 10 10 340 Bisbee 11 00 11 K20 Vista 1 0 3 10 330 350 370 1 0 3 10 350 10 K10 340 360 Nogales Douglas 1 0 8 11 00 99 11 00 44 11 00 55 11 00 66 11 00 77 1 0 8 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT i Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The phenomenal growth of Arizona’s human population, economy, with biologists, engineers, planners and land managers from state document have been created at the same scale so that the and federal agencies, universities, consulting firms and private transparency of the Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Map included in the and infrastructure present challenges to maintaining natural sector conservation organizations. Individuals were divided into front of this document may be used as an overlay. Furthermore, the ecosystems and wildlife populations that constitute an important part groups to address specific geographic regions. They used map report was drafted in a manner to allow each individual chapter to be of Arizona’s wealth. In particular, roads, urbanization, canals, transparencies and tailored questionnaires to assist in the used as a stand-alone tool. For that reason, terminology common railways, energy corridors and activities of illegal migrants and identification of habitats, wildlife species, wildlife behavior and throughout the entire document is defined in each section.
Load more

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 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 ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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______________________ .
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona
    2.SOB nH in ntoiOGIGM. JAN 3 1 1989 Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1701-C Chapter C Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona By ED DE WITT, S.M. RICHARD, J.R. HASSEMER, and W.F. HANNA U.S. Geological Survey J.R. THOMPSON U.S. Bureau of Mines U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1701 MINERAL RESOURCES OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS- WEST-CENTRAL ARIZONA AND PART OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publlcatlon Data Mineral resources of the Harquahala Mountains wilderness study area, La Paz and Maricopa counties, Arizona. (Mineral resources of wilderness study areas west-central Arizona and part of San Bernardino County, California ; ch. C) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1701-C) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1701-C 1. Mines and mineral resources Arizona Harquahala Mountains Wilderness. 2. Harquahala Mountains (Ariz.) I. DeWitt, Ed. II. Series. III. Series: U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1701. QE75.B9 no. 1701-C 557.3 s [553'.09791'72] 88-600012 [TN24.A6] STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona
    Scholars' Mine Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations 1965 Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona Elias Zambrano Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses Part of the Geology Commons Department: Recommended Citation Zambrano, Elias, "Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona" (1965). Masters Theses. 7104. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/7104 This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GEOLOGY OF CIENEGA MINING DISTRICT, NORTHWESTERN YUM.1\, COUNTY, ARIZONA BY ELIAS ZAMBRANO I J'i~& A THESIS submitted to the faculty of the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT ROLLA in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN GEOLOGY Rolla, Missouri 1965 ~!'Approved by ~2/~advisor) ~ ~·-~~ ii ABSTRACT In the mapped area three metamorphic units crop out: calc-silicates and marble, gneiss, and a conglomerate- schist section. The first one consists of a series of intercalations of calc-silicate rocks, local marbles, and greenschist. Quartzite appears in the upper part of the section. This section passes transitionally to the gneiss, which is believed to be of sedimentary origin. Features indicative of sedimentary origin include inter­ calation with marble, relic bedding which can be observed locally, intercalation of greenschist clearly of sedimentary origin, lack of homogeneity in composition with both lateral and vertical variation occurring, roundness of zircon grains, and lack of zoning in the feldspars.
    [Show full text]
  • Ajo Peak to Tinajas Altas: a Flora of Southwestern Arizona
    Felger, R.S., S. Rutman, and J. Malusa. 2014. Ajo Peak to Tinajas Altas: A flora of southwestern Arizona. Part 6. Poaceae – grass family. Phytoneuron 2014-35: 1–139. Published 17 March 2014. ISSN 2153 733X AJO PEAK TO TINAJAS ALTAS: A FLORA OF SOUTHWESTERN ARIZONA Part 6. POACEAE – GRASS FAMILY RICHARD STEPHEN FELGER Herbarium, University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 & Sky Island Alliance P.O. Box 41165, Tucson, Arizona 85717 *Author for correspondence: [email protected] SUSAN RUTMAN 90 West 10th Street Ajo, Arizona 85321 JIM MALUSA School of Natural Resources and the Environment University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 [email protected] ABSTRACT A floristic account is provided for the grass family as part of the vascular plant flora of the contiguous protected areas of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and the Tinajas Altas Region in southwestern Arizona. This is the second largest family in the flora area after Asteraceae. A total of 97 taxa in 46 genera of grasses are included in this publication, which includes ones established and reproducing in the modern flora (86 taxa in 43 genera), some occurring at the margins of the flora area or no long known from the area, and ice age fossils. At least 28 taxa are known by fossils recovered from packrat middens, five of which have not been found in the modern flora: little barley ( Hordeum pusillum ), cliff muhly ( Muhlenbergia polycaulis ), Paspalum sp., mutton bluegrass ( Poa fendleriana ), and bulb panic grass ( Zuloagaea bulbosa ). Non-native grasses are represented by 27 species, or 28% of the modern grass flora.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reintroduction of the Tarahumara Frog (Rana Tarahumarae) in Arizona: Lessons Learned
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 15(2):372–389. Submitted: 12 December 2019; Accepted: 11 June 2020; Published: 31 August 2020. REINTRODUCTION OF THE TARAHUMARA FROG (RANA TARAHUMARAE) IN ARIZONA: LESSONS LEARNED JAMES C. RORABAUGH1,8, AUDREY K. OWENS2, ABIGAIL KING3, STEPHEN F. HALE4, STEPHANE POULIN5, MICHAEL J. SREDL6, AND JULIO A. LEMOS-ESPINAL7 1Post Office Box 31, Saint David, Arizona 85630, USA 2Arizona Game and Fish Department, 5000 West Carefree Highway, Phoenix, Arizona 85086, USA 3Jack Creek Preserve Foundation, Post Office Box 3, Ennis, Montana 59716, USA 4EcoPlan Associates, Inc., 3610 North Prince Village Place, Suite 140, Tucson, Arizona 85719, USA 5Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, 2021 North Kinney Road, Tucson, Arizona 85743, USA 6Arizona Game and Fish Department (retired), 5000 West Carefree Highway, Phoenix, Arizona 85086, USA 7Laboratorio de Ecología, Unidad de Biotecnología y Prototipos, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Avenida De Los Barrios No. 1, Colonia Los Reyes Iztacala, Tlalnepantla, Estado de México 54090, México 8Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract.—The Tarahumara Frog (Rana tarahumarae) disappeared from the northern edge of its range in south- central Arizona, USA, after observed declines and die-offs from 1974 to 1983. Similar declines were noted in Sonora, Mexico; however, the species still persists at many sites in Mexico. Chytridiomycosis was detected during some declines and implicated in others; however, airborne pollutants from copper smelters, predation, competition, and extreme weather may have also been contributing factors. We collected Tarahumara Frogs in Sonora for captive rearing and propagation beginning in 1999, and released frogs to two historical localities in Arizona, including Big Casa Blanca Canyon and vicinity, Santa Rita Mountains, and Sycamore Canyon, Atascosa Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Scorpiones: Vaejovidae)
    New Species of Vaejovis from the Whetstone Mountains, Southern Arizona (Scorpiones: Vaejovidae) Richard F. Ayrey & Michael E. Soleglad January 2015 — No. 194 Euscorpius Occasional Publications in Scorpiology EDITOR: Victor Fet, Marshall University, ‘[email protected]’ ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Michael E. Soleglad, ‘[email protected]’ Euscorpius is the first research publication completely devoted to scorpions (Arachnida: Scorpiones). Euscorpius takes advantage of the rapidly evolving medium of quick online publication, at the same time maintaining high research standards for the burgeoning field of scorpion science (scorpiology). Euscorpius is an expedient and viable medium for the publication of serious papers in scorpiology, including (but not limited to): systematics, evolution, ecology, biogeography, and general biology of scorpions. Review papers, descriptions of new taxa, faunistic surveys, lists of museum collections, and book reviews are welcome. Derivatio Nominis The name Euscorpius Thorell, 1876 refers to the most common genus of scorpions in the Mediterranean region and southern Europe (family Euscorpiidae). Euscorpius is located at: http://www.science.marshall.edu/fet/Euscorpius (Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia 25755-2510, USA) ICZN COMPLIANCE OF ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS: Electronic (“e-only”) publications are fully compliant with ICZN (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) (i.e. for the purposes of new names and new nomenclatural acts) when properly archived and registered. All Euscorpius issues starting from No. 156 (2013) are archived in two electronic archives: Biotaxa, http://biotaxa.org/Euscorpius (ICZN-approved and ZooBank-enabled) Marshall Digital Scholar, http://mds.marshall.edu/euscorpius/. (This website also archives all Euscorpius issues previously published on CD-ROMs.) Between 2000 and 2013, ICZN did not accept online texts as "published work" (Article 9.8).
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 2-21-94-F-192R2 September 30, 2002 Memorandum To: Field Manager, Phoenix Field Office, Bureau of Land Management From: Acting Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion for Five Livestock Grazing Allotments in the Vicinity of Ajo, Arizona This biological opinion responds to your request for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531- 1544), as amended (Act). Your request for formal consultation was dated April 19, 2002, and received by us on April 23, 2002. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed reauthorization of livestock grazing on the Sentinel, Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments located in Maricopa and Pima counties, Arizona. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has determined that the proposed action for the five allotments may adversely affect the endangered Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), and the proposed action for the Cameron and Childs allotments may adversely affect the endangered cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum). In your letter, you also requested our concurrence that the proposed action on the Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments may affect, but will not likely adversely affect, the endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuena). We concur with that determination, which is based on sound analysis and guidance criteria for the species mutually agreed upon by our agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Visitor's Guide to El Camino Del Diablo Leg 2A: Darby Well Road to Tule Well
    Cabeza Prieta Natural History Association A Visitor's Guide to El Camino del Diablo Leg 2a: Darby Well Road to Tule Well "You can't see anything from a car; you've got to get out of the ... contraption and walk, better yet crawl, on hands and knees, over sandstone and through the thornbush and cactus. When traces of blood begin to mark your trail you'll see something, maybe." Ed Abbey, Desert Solitaire Mile 0.0. 32° 21’21.5”N, 112° 49’37.5”W. Key Junction. Hwy 85 at Darby Well Road to Bates Well. Take a moment here to double check that your gas gauge reads "full," your tires have air, and the ice chest is stowed for a bumpy ride. No services from here to Yuma; 130 miles of bad road lie ahead. Reset odometer. Make sure that you have your Cabeza Prieta range permit from https://luke.isportsman.net and that you check in by phone with Goldwater-West to give them your permit number or use the website http://www.rangeaccess.com/RangeAccess.aspx. The Goldwater number is on the back of your permit, but Darby Well Road may be your last reliable phone connection. Black Mountain (3,008 feet), standing to left of the road ahead, is an eroded remnant of a basaltic volcano that once covered a much larger area. The horizontal banding is due to differences in hardness between the basalt flows and softer tuffs that have been tilted and faulted. The brown- black color tinged with red is typical oxidation and weathering for such rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Gold Deposits Near Quartzsite, Arizona
    GOLD DEPOSITS NEAR QUARTZSITE, ARIZONA. By EDWARD L. JONES, Jr. INTRODUCTION. This report is based on information obtained by the writer in April and May, 1914,. while he was classifying the lands in the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The area considered includes the south­ ern part of the reservation and the region extending eastward from the reservation to the Plomosa Mountains. The geology and ore deposits within the reservation were more particularly studied, the time allotted to the examination being too short to permit detailed work in the area farther east. For information concerning placers outside the reservation the writer is indebted to Mr. E. L. Du- fourcq, who conducted the testing of placer .ground near Quartz- site. Mr. W. W. McCoy, of San Bernardino, kindly furnished the early history of the La Paz district, and Mr. Edward Beggs, of Quartzsite, gave much useful information regarding the La Paz placers. In 1909 Howland Bancroft x made a geologic reconnaissance of northern Yuma County .and much of the country around Quartz- site and farther west to the reservation line. In his report he men­ tions the La Paz district and briefly describes placers in the Plomosa Mountains and prospects on gold-bearing quartz veins in the vicinity of Quartzsite. The map that accompanies the present report (PI. IV) is compiled from the records of the General Land Office. The area within the reservation has been subdivided into sections; the land east of the reservation is unsurveyed. The mountainous areas in the reserva­ tion are indicated on this map by patterns showing the geologic rock formations; the mountains in the unsurveyed area are repre­ sented approximately by hachures.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ........................................................
    [Show full text]