DOCSLIB.ORG

Arizona Missing Linkages (US-93: Wickenburg to Santa Maria River Linkage Design)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arizona Missing Linkages (US-93: Wickenburg to Santa Maria River Linkage Design) ARIZONA MISSING LINKAGES US-93: Wickenburg to Santa Maria River Linkage Design Paul Beier, Daniel Majka submitted July 2006 last revised March 14, 2007 US-93: WICKENBURG TO SANTA MARIA RIVER 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, and Shaula Hedwall 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., and D. Majka. 2006. Arizona Missing Linkages: US-93: Wickenburg to Santa Maria River 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...............................................................................................................................II TERMINOLOGY..................................................................................................................................................... IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................V INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 NATURE NEEDS ROOM TO MOVE ...............................................................................................................................1 A STATEWIDE VISION .................................................................................................................................................1 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS LINKAGE ...........................................................................................................1 EXISTING CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS ...................................................................................................................3 THREATS TO CONNECTIVITY ......................................................................................................................................3 LINKAGE DESIGN....................................................................................................................................................7 MITIGATING BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT ....................................................................................................................12 IMPACTS OF ROADS ON WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................................12 EXISTING ROADS AND CROSSING STRUCTURES IN THE LINKAGE DESIGN AREA ......................................................12 MITIGATION FOR ROADS ..........................................................................................................................................13 EXISTING CROSSING STRUCTURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US-93................................................................19 APPENDIX A: LINKAGE DESIGN METHODS..................................................................................................22 FOCAL SPECIES SELECTION ......................................................................................................................................22 HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELS ...............................................................................................................................23 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BREEDING PATCHES & POTENTIAL POPULATION CORES ..................................................24 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................................................25 APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ANALYSES ..........................................................................................26 BADGER (TAXIDEA TAXUS ) ........................................................................................................................................28 BLACK -TAILED JACKRABBIT (LEPUS CALIFORNICUS )................................................................................................31 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP (OVIS CANADENSIS NELSONI )..............................................................................................34 JAVELINA (TAYASSU TAJACU ) ....................................................................................................................................38 KIT FOX (VULPES MACROTIS )....................................................................................................................................41 MOUNTAIN LION (PUMA CONCOLOR )........................................................................................................................44 MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS ).....................................................................................................................47 DESERT TORTOISE (GOPHERUS AGASSIZII ) ................................................................................................................50 GILA MONSTER (HELODERMA SUSPECTUM ) ..............................................................................................................54 SUGGESTED FOCAL SPECIES NOT MODELED ............................................................................................................57 APPENDIX C: DESCRIPTION OF LAND COVER CLASSES..........................................................................58 APPENDIX D: LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................61 APPENDIX E: DATABASE OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS..............................................................................65 Arizona Missing Linkages i US-93: Wickenburg to Santa Maria River Linkage Design List of Tables & Figures List of Tables TABLE 1: FOCAL SPECIES SELECTED FOR LINKAGE DESIGN SURROUNDING US-93 FROM WICKENBURG TO THE SANTA MARIA RIVER ....................................................................................................................................................... VI TABLE 2: PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF LAND COVER CLASSES WITHIN ½ MILE (800 M ) OF US-93..............................7 TABLE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF OPTIMAL AND SUITABLE HABITAT OF FOCAL SPECIES IN 5-MILE SEGMENTS OF US-93.......7 TABLE 4: 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 . ............................................................26 List of Figures FIGURE 1: LAND OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE LINKAGE PLANNING AREA ALONG US-93. MILEPOSTS ON US 93 ARE INDICATED ..............................................................................................................................................................4 FIGURE 2: LAND COVER AND FIELD INVESTIGATION WAYPOINTS (R ED STARS ) WITHIN THE LINKAGE PLANNING AREA ALONG US-93. THE ACCOMPANYING CD-ROM INCLUDES PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT WAYPOINTS ........................5 FIGURE 3: EXISTING CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS WITHIN THE LINKAGE PLANNING AREA .........................................6 FIGURE 4: FACING NORTH FROM WAYPOINT 022, THE SANTA MARIA RIVER PROVIDES IMPORTANT WILLOW AND COTTONWOOD RIPARIAN HABITAT ..........................................................................................................................8 FIGURE 5: NORTHEAST (AZIMUTH 64) FROM WAYPOINT 020, A JOSHUA TREE FOREST MIXED WITH PALOVERDE AND CREOSOTEBUSH VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS DOMINATES THE LANDSCAPE . ..........................................................9 FIGURE 6: SOUTHWEST (AZIMUTH 240) FROM WAYPOINT 021, A LOWER REACH OF BLACK CANYON WASH CROSSES US-93 NEAR MP 165............................................................................................................................................10 FIGURE 7: LOOKING EASTWARD FROM WAYPOINT 019, DATE CREEK IS A SANDY XERORIPARIAN WASH . ....................11 FIGURE 8: NORTHEAST FROM WAYPOINT 018, THE LAND SURROUNDING US-93 NEAR MILEPOST 177 IS FLAT AND DOMINATED BY DESERT SCRUB (HERE : MOSTLY CREOSOTEBUSH ASSOCIATIONS ).................................................11 FIGURE 9: CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MAKE SPECIES VULNERABLE TO THE THREE MAJOR DIRECT EFFECTS OF ROADS (FROM FORMAN ET AL . 2003). .............................................................................................................................12 FIGURE 10: POTENTIAL ROAD MITIGATIONS (FROM TOP TO BOTTOM ) INCLUDE : HIGHWAY OVERPASSES , BRIDGES , CULVERTS , AND DRAINAGE PIPES . FENCING (LOWER RIGHT) SHOULD BE USED TO GUIDE ANIMALS INTO CROSSING STRUCTURES .........................................................................................................................................................14
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality
    SEPTEMBER 2013 Arizona Department FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Janice K. Brewer, Governor • Henry R. Darwin, Director Publication Number: FS 13-11 Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Upper Hassayampa Basin: A 2003-2009 Baseline Study – June 2013 Introduction A baseline groundwater quality study of the Upper Hassayampa basin was con- ducted from 2003 to 2009 by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Ambient Groundwater Monitor- ing Program. ADEQ carried out this task pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §49-225 that mandates ongoing moni- toring of waters of the state including its aquifers. This fact sheet is a synopsis of the ADEQ Open File Report 13-03.1 The Upper Hassayampa groundwater basin covers approximately 787 square miles within Maricopa and Yavapai counties and is located about 60 miles Map 1 – Sample sites in the northwest of Phoenix (Map 1). The basin Upper Hassayampa basin is characterized by mid-elevation moun- are color-coded according to their water quality status: No tains and had an estimated population Water Quality Exceedences, 2 of 10,479 in 2000. The largest popula- Secondary MCLs Exceedences, Primary MCL Exceedances, and Primary and Secondary MCL Exceedances. (Map by Jean Ann Rodine) tion center is the Town of Wickenburg. tions range from approximately 7,000 Other communities include Congress feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the and Groom Creek. Low-intensity livestock Bradshaw Mountains to 1,900 feet amsl grazing is the predominant land use and along the Hassayampa River about five most ranches have limited acreages of ir- miles south of Wickenburg. The basin is rigated pasture to raise additional animal comprised of federal land managed by feed.
    [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]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]
  • Geochronology, Geology, and Listric Normal Faulting of the Vulture Mountains, Maricopa County, Arizona
    Arizona Geological Society Digest, Volume XII, 1980 89 Geochronology, Geology, and Listric Normal Faulting of the Vulture Mountains, Maricopa County, Arizona by WA. Rehrigi, M. Shafiqullah2, and P.E. Damon2 Abstract Geologic mapping and geochronologic studies in the Vulture Mountains near Wickenburg, Arizona, have led to the recognition of a large, northeast-trending batholith of 68.4-m.y. age that intrudes complex gneissic and granitic rocks of probably Precambrian age. Over- lying the denuded crystalline terrane is a sequence of late Oligocene to Miocene ( .'26 to 16 m.y.) volcanic rocks (vitrophyres, ash-flow tuffs, welded tuffs, breccias, agglomerates, and lava flows) that vary locally. Nearby source areas are suggested. A swarm of north- to north-northwest-trending porphyritic dikes intrudes the volcanics and crystalline basement. Overlying this volcanic sequence in angular unconformity is a thin section of basal conglom- erate and basalt lava flows dated at 13.5 m.y. B.P. The older, tuffaceous sequence is generally calc-alkalic but with a high proportion of rhyolites that are exceptionally rich in potassium and silica. These silicic units are peral- kaline or nearly so, and those with K20/Na2O >3 are ultrapotassic. Initial strontium ratios average 0.7081, whereas an initial ratio for the younger basalt sequence is significantly lower at 0.7054. The silicic volcanics have been severely tilted on multiple, low-angle listric normal faults. The youngest basalt flows are relatively flat lying and postdate this deformation. By geo- logic and radiometric criteria, the transition from tilted silicic volcanics to untilted basalts occurred between about 16 and 14 m.y.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a – Data for Sample Sites, Butler Valley Basin, 2008-2012
    ii Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Butler Valley Basin: A 2008 - 2012 Baseline Study By Douglas C. Towne Maps by Jean Ann Rodine Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Open File Report 12-06 ADEQ Water Quality Division Surface Water Section Monitoring Unit 1110 West Washington St. Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2935 Thanks: Field Assistance: Elizabeth Boettcher and Susan Determann. Special recognition is extended to the many well owners who were kind enough to give permission to collect groundwater data on their property. Photo Credits: Douglas Towne Report Cover: Situated high above Butler Valley, a stock watering trough served by Dripping Springs in the Harcuvar Mountains is stagnant because of a frozen water line. A fresh sample (BUT-3) from the spring was obtained higher up the pipeline met all water quality standards except total dissolved solids (TDS). iii Other Publications of the ADEQ Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Program ADEQ Ambient Groundwater Quality Open-File Reports (OFR) and Factsheets (FS): Butler Valley Basin OFR 12-06, 44 p. FS 12-10, 5.p. Cienega Creek Basin OFR 12-02, 46 p. FS 12-05, 4.p. Ranegras Plain Basin OFR 11-07, 63 p. FS 12-01, 4.p. Groundwater Quality in Arizona OFR 11-04, 26 p. - Bill Williams Basin OFR 11-06, 77 p. FS 12-01, 4.p. San Bernardino Valley Basin OFR 10-03, 43 p. FS 10-31, 4 p. Dripping Springs Wash Basin OFR 10-02, 33 p. FS 11-02, 4 p. McMullen Valley Basin OFR 11-02, 94 p. FS 11-03, 6 p. Gila Valley Sub-basin OFR 09-12, 99 p.
    [Show full text]
  • Woodlands Author: Kerry Dooley Historically the Primary Interest Area for National Inventories Was Timber
    Woodlands Author: Kerry Dooley Historically the primary interest area for national inventories was timber. Consequently, the national inventory framework and collection protocols were focused on productive timber- lands (USDA Forest Service 2005). Over time, information such as estimations of carbon sequestration, wildfire fuel loads, and nontimber forest products and services (e.g., biofuels and wildlife habitat) has become topics of increasing interest. The FIA program—the national inventory used in the United States—broadened the focus of its surveys to include non- timberland forests, including woodlands, better aligning with these changing focus areas. Woodlands generally occur in less productive growing condi- tions, such as the arid Southwestern United States. Woodlands provide much, if not all, of the same services provided by forests; that is, they function as important wildlife habitat, improve water quality, serve as carbon sinks (or sources, in the event of wildfires), and provide fuel during wildfire season. The species that comprise woodlands differ in characteristics from most trees. On average, woodland species tend to be slower growing, smaller in stature, and of a form with more forks and branches near the base of the tree. Woodland species often grow as clumps of stems rather than one central stem. Beyond the characteristics of the trees classified as woodland species, specific parameters pertain to classification of the land use category of woodlands, while the Resources Planning Act (RPA) derives calculations of woodland for this report from the FIA data, the FIA and RPA definitions of woodland differ somewhat, as outlined in the following paragraphs. Forest Inventory and Analysis Definitions and Parameters FIA defines woodlands strictly along the lines of species com- position and associated forest types, and considers woodlands a subset of forest lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Western Harcuvar Mountains, La Paz
    GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE WESTERN HARCUVAR MOUNTAINS, . LA PAZ COUNTY, WEST-CENTRAL ARIZONA by Stephen J. Reynolds and Jon E. Spencer Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-8 June, 1993 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 Includes map, scale 1:24,000 Completed as part of the Cooperative Geologic Mapping Project (COGEOMAP) This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards INTRODUCTION The western Harcuvar Mountains are a fairly rugged~ fairly inaccessible range located north and northwest of Salome in west-central Arizona. The area was mapped in a detailed reconnaissance manner on a 1:24,000-scale topographic base, with the initial intention of releasing the mapping on the Salome 1:100,000 quadrangle. As we proceeded with the mapping, however, we made some exciting new, and unexpected, discoveries. As a result, we decided to compile and release the mapping at 1:24,000, even though we have not covered the entire map area at a level of detail commensurate with that scale. The mapping represents approximately 30 person-days spent in the field between 1984 and 1991. In this report, we present the results of our mapping and reconnaissance structural studies. Some of the foliation attitudes in the northeastern part of the map area were measured by Robert Scott. Some aspects of the geology of the area have been discussed elsewhere (Bancroft, 1911; Tovote, 1918; Keith, 1978; Rehrig and Reynolds, 1980; Coney and Reynolds, 1980; Reynolds, 1980, 1982; Reynolds and others, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991; Spencer and Reynolds, 1989; Spencer and Welty, 1989; Drewes and others, 1990; Reynolds and Lister, 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • A GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE and MINERAL EVALUATION WHEELER WASH AREA, HUALPAI MOUNTAINS, MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA by John Steven
    A geologic reconnaissance and mineral evaluation Wheeler Wash area, Hualpai Mountains, Mohave County, Arizona Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); maps Authors Vuich, John S., 1939- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 27/09/2021 11:31:55 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/566528 A GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE AND MINERAL EVALUATION WHEELER WASH AREA, HUALPAI MOUNTAINS, MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA by John Steven Vuich A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 19 7 4 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg­ ment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­ ship.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Issue, Vol. 53 No. 2
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 53 Number 2 Article 15 6-4-1993 Full Issue, Vol. 53 No. 2 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation (1993) "Full Issue, Vol. 53 No. 2," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 53 : No. 2 , Article 15. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol53/iss2/15 This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. T H E GREATR EAT BASINbaab7a S I1 N MTURALISTNA afufta FISTlyom llemoe ak VOLUME 53 n2na 2 JUNE 1993 BRIGHAM YOUNG university GREAT BASIN naturalist editor JAMES 11 BARNES 290 MLBM brigham young university provo utah 84602 associate editors MICHAEL A BOWERS BRIAN A MAURER blandy experimental farm university of department ofzoology brigham YoungyounguniversityyoungiuniversityUniversity virginia box 175 boyce virginia 22620 provo utah 84602 J R CALLAHAN JIMMIE R PARRISH museum of southwestern biology university of BIOWESTBIO WEST inc 1063 west 1400 north logan new mexico albuquerque new mexico utah 84321 mailing address box 3140 hemet california 92546 PAUL T TUELLER department of range wildlife and forestry JEANNE C CHAMBERS university of nevada reno 1000 valley road USDA forest service research university of ne reno nevada 89512 vada reno 920 valley road reno nevada 89512 ROBERT
    [Show full text]
  • Manganese Deposits in the Artillery Mountains Region Mohave County, Arizona
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather. Director Bulletin 936-R MANGANESE DEPOSITS IN THE ARTILLERY MOUNTAINS REGION MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA BY S. G. LASKY AND B. N. WEBBER Strategic Minerals Investigations. 1942 (Pages 417-448) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1944 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Price $1.25 CONTENTS Page 4 Abstract................................................... 417 Introduction.............................................. 418 Acknowledgments....................................... 420 Geography................................................. 420 -* Geology................................................... 422 Manganese-bearing formation........................... 425 Manganese deposits........................................ 427 General character..................................... 428 Sandstone ore..................................... - 430 Clay ore.......................................... 431 Hard or supergene ore............................. 432 Extent and thickness................................... 433 Upper zone........................................ 433 Maggie block.................................. 434 Upper Chapin block............................ 435 Lower Chapin block............................ 435 Price block................................... 437 Sees. 23 and 26, T. UN., R. 13 W............ 437 Lower zone........................................ 437 Origin................................................
    [Show full text]