DOCSLIB.ORG

Arizona's Wildlife Linkages Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. 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 ARIZONA'S WILDLIFE LINKAGES 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 0 0 230 11 3 3 350 400 20 Cameron 370 430 420 380 390 410 420 Window 460 450 Rock 220 440 30 400 460 Ganado 410 260 450 470 40 Peach Springs 110 210 250 390 400 100 120 11 2 2 90 11 1 1 440 50 200 240 390 80 380 70 Seligman 11 8 8 430 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 9 9 10 50 60 150 420 90 170 180 210 330 340 22 0 0 70 80 160 220 Bullhead Ash Fork 190 11 6 6 200 60 Kingman 360 1 5 Flagstaff 230 360 320 360 City 40 22 1 1 1 5 240 240 Winslow 310 430 100 390 350 400 350 330 250 300 2 8 340 290 2 8 350 3022 9 9 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 0 0 340 2 4 2 5 20 Wikieup 3 5 350 2 4 310 330 200 3 5 330 300 22 7 7 340 320 30022 6 6 130 210 300 370 350 190 33 3 3 3 6 290 10 3 6 290 320 140 Prescott Snowflake Lake Havasu City 290 10 Camp Verde 350 St. Johns 33 1 1 10 44 0 0 3 1 180 150 310 220 310 360 20 280 280 Heber 370 380 370 11 1 1 1 1 3 7 230 240 250 330 3 7 300 320 170 300 280 350 160 270 270 33 9 9 44 2 2 360 380 270 3 2 3 4 290 270 290 310 Show 33 2 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 8 8 Payson 4 1 380 390 180 250 350 Parker 11 1 1 4 4 270 250 Young 310 330 390 1 1 2 360 410 1 1 2 100 240 380 140 370 390 190 260 5 2 410 44 3 3 20 90 5 2 300 320 55 8 8 Wickenburg 240 130 230 5 7 350 380 400 44 4 4 44 6 6 80 55 1 1 270 310 5 7 420 30 11 1 1 5 5 110 90 5 3 55 5 5 290 390 705 0 100 230 220 5 3 430 5 0 10 300 320 120 40 60 20 260 340 44 5 5 120 30 250 280 290 11 1 1 6 6 50 210 44 9 9 250 55 6 6 330 110 40 130 11 5 5 2 2 220 240 20 30 Hope 4 7 10 11 2 2 1 1 20 30 270 280 4 7 40 11 2 2 2 2 140 240 50 200 240 230 100 Quartzsite 60 260 270 44 8 8 70 150 210 40 190 230 80 10 220 66 4 4 90 10 10 210 55 4 4 230 220 11 1 1 8 8 100 6 5 180 260 6 5 160 20 220 901 1 9 110 130 50 200 210 55 9 9 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 2 2 0 0 11 5 5 1 1 Phoenix 180 230 170 60 80 66 8 8 160 40 210 220 260 190 50 66 6 6 270 11 2 2 3 3 11 2 2 4 4 140 160 280 160 290 180 70 190 7 3 180 170 220 160 7 3 150 7 4 150 300 130 7 4 40 140 170 170 1 2 7 30 150 11 2 2 5 5 1 2 7 10 160 60 11 2 2 6 6 180 Clifton 170 140 140 Florence 140 310 Gila Bend 160 11 2 2 8 8 10 130 140 11 3 3 0 0 110 66 7 7 100 120 190 330 130 130 130 150 50 90 170 140 6 2 390 11 3 3 1 1 80 140 160 120 Safford 6 2 77 2 2 70 120 6 0 77 6 6 120 6 0 60 10 7 8 120 40 150 160 170 7 8 340 6 1 380 66 9 9 50 1 4 8 200 120 110 350 6 1 1 2 9 30 40 1 4 8 360 1 2 9 20 370 20 30 380 20 210 100 110 10 140 120 Yuma 77 1 1 11 5 5 0 0 110 220 130 8 4 10 11 4 4 9 9 100 88 3 3 120 8 4 30 110 100 11 3 3 8 8 11 4 4 3 3 230 90 77 0 0 88 1 1 88 2 2 77 9 9 1 3 3 11 4 4 6 6 90 1 3 3 40 240 88 0 0 11 4 4 1 1 Ajo 80 350 11 3 3 9 9 11 3 3 5 5 11 4 4 4 4 50 88 9 9 99 0 0 11 3 3 2 2 11 3 3 6 6 250 340 360 7 5 70 370 7 5 60 Tucson Willcox 330 380 11 3 3 4 4 70 8 5 340 390 11 4 4 0 0 80 90 8 5 170 88 8 8 11 4 4 2 2 260 330 1 4 7 60 7 7 160 1 4 7 7 7 K1008 7 350 8 7 270 60 11 3 3 7 7 150 K90 320 100 140 280 130 Benson 11 4 4 5 5 70 290 310 50 50 300 60 110 120 40 K80 9 4 50 1 0 2 88 6 6 K70 9 4 40 1 0 2 80 10 290 40 Lukeville Green Valley 50 300 50 30 40 99 2 2 K60 300 310 40 9 7 30 410 40 9 7 60 Tombstone 20 30 K50 99 5 5 50 99 9 9 320 30 310 400 K40 20 30 99 8 8 99 1 1 10 20 320 Legend 20 99 3 3 99 6 6 330 330 390 1 0 0 K30 20 1 0 0 380 10 Sierra 340 10 K20 Bisbee 11 0 0 1 1 10 Vista 330 350 11 0 0 3 3 10 370 10 K10 340 350 360 Nogales Douglas Potential Linkage Zone 1 0 8 11 0 0 9 9 11 0 0 4 4 11 0 0 5 5 11 0 0 6 6 11 0 0 7 7 1 0 8 Habitat Block 015 30 60 90 120Kilometers Fracture Zone Miles 012.5 25 50 75 100 Note: Linkage numbers are for identification purposes only.
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]
  • Narbonapass.Pdf
    FIRST-DAY ROAD LOG 1 FIRST-DAY ROAD LOG, FROM GALLUP TO GAMERCO, YAH-TA-HEY, WINDOW ROCK, FORT DEFIANCE, NAVAJO, TODILTO PARK, CRYSTAL, NARBONA PASS, SHEEP SPRINGS, TOHATCHI AND GALLUP SPENCER G. LUCAS, STEVEN C. SEMKEN, ANDREW B. HECKERT, WILLIAM R. BERGLOF, First-day Road Log GRETCHEN HOFFMAN, BARRY S. KUES, LARRY S. CRUMPLER AND JAYNE C. AUBELE ������ ������ ������ ������� ������ ������ ������ ������ �������� Distance: 141.8 miles ������� Stops: 5 ���� ������ ������ SUMMARY ������ �� ������ �� ����� �� The first day’s trip takes us around the southern �� �� flank of the Defiance uplift, back over it into the �� southwestern San Juan Basin and ends at the Hogback monocline at Gallup. The trip emphasizes Mesozoic— especially Jurassic—stratigraphy and sedimentation in NOTE: Most of this day’s trip will be conducted the Defiance uplift region. We also closely examine within the boundaries of the Navajo (Diné) Nation under Cenozoic volcanism of the Navajo volcanic field. a permit from the Navajo Nation Minerals Department. Stop 1 at Window Rock discusses the Laramide Persons wishing to conduct geological investigations Defiance uplift and introduces Jurassic eolianites near on the Navajo Nation, including stops described in this the preserved southern edge of the Middle-Upper guidebook, must first apply for and receive a permit Jurassic depositional basin. At Todilto Park, Stop 2, from the Navajo Nation Minerals Department, P.O. we examine the type area of the Jurassic Todilto For- Box 1910, Window Rock, Arizona, 86515, 928-871- mation and discuss Todilto deposition and economic 6587. Sample collection on Navajo land is forbidden. geology, a recurrent theme of this field conference. From Todilto Park we move on to the Green Knobs diatreme adjacent to the highway for Stop 3, and then to Stop 4 at the Narbona Pass maar at the crest of the Chuska Mountains.
    [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]
  • Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Detrital Valley Basin: an ADEQ 2002 Baseline Study
    Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Detrital Valley Basin: An ADEQ 2002 Baseline Study normal pool elevation of Lake Mead. Dolan Springs is the largest community in the basin. In the DET, 27 percent of land is managed by the National Park Service as part of the Lake Mead National Recreational Area. The remainder is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (42 percent) and State Trust land (9 percent) or consists of private lands (22 percent). III. Hydrology Groundwater from the alluvial aquifer underneath Detrital Valley is the principle water source in the basin and has the ability to supply up to 150 gallons per minute (gpm).3 However, depths to groundwater, approaching 800 feet below land surface (bls) in the valley, make tapping this aquifer for 2 Figure 1. In a bit of hydrologic serendipity, during the course of ADEQ’s study of the Detrital domestic use an expensive proposition. Valley basin, Lake Mead receeded to levels low enough to expose Monkey Cove Spring for the first time since July 1969. The spring flowed at an amazing 1,200 gallons per minute in 1964. I. Introduction factsheet reports upon the results of groundwater quality investigations in The Detrital Valley Groundwater Basin the DET and is a summary of the more (DET), traversed by U.S. Highway 93, extensive report produced by the is roughly located between the city of Arizona Department of Environmental Kingman and Hoover Dam on the Quality (ADEQ).1 Colorado River in northwestern Arizona (Map 1). Although lightly populated II. Background with retirement and recreation-oriented communities, the recent decision to The DET is approximately 50 miles construct a Hoover Dam bypass route long (north to south) and 15 miles wide for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior U.S
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGION 2 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS CONTAMINANTS IN BIGHORN SHEEP ON THE KOFA NATIONAL WIL DLIFE REFUGE, 2000-2001 By Carrie H. Marr, Anthony L. Velasco1, and Ron Kearns2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 August 2004 2 ABSTRACT Soils of abandoned mines on the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) are contaminated with arsenic, barium, mercury, manganese, lead, and zinc. Previous studies have shown that trace element and metal concentrations in bats were elevated above threshold concentrations. High trace element and metal concentrations in bats suggested that bighorn sheep also may be exposed to these contaminants when using abandoned mines as resting areas. We found evidence of bighorn sheep use, bighorn sheep carcasses, and scat in several abandoned mines. To determine whether bighorn sheep are exposed to, and are accumulating hazardous levels of metals while using abandoned mines, we collected soil samples, as well as scat and bone samples when available. We compared mine soil concentrations to Arizona non-residential clean up levels. Hazard quotients were elevated in several mines and elevated for manganese in one Sheep Tank Mine sample. We analyzed bighorn sheep tissues for trace elements. We obtained blood, liver, and bone samples from hunter-harvested bighorn in 2000 and 2001. Arizona Game and Fish Department also collected blood from bighorn during a translocation operation in 2001. Iron and magnesium were elevated in tissues compared to reference literature concentrations in other species. Most often, domestic sheep baseline levels were used for comparison because of limited available data for bighorn sheep.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and ,Vildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: AESO/SE 22410-2006-F-0459 April 13, 2016 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico (ARD-ES) (Attn: Michelle Shaughnessy) Chief, Arizona Branch, Re.. gul 7/to . D'vision, Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix, Arizona From: Acting Field Supervisor~ Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion on the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona This biological and conference opinion (BCO) responds to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requirement for intra-Service consultation on the proposed issuance of a section lO(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit (TE-84356A-O) to Pima County and Pima County Regional Flood Control District (both herein referenced as Pima County), pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (ESA), authorizing the incidental take of 44 species (4 plants, 7 mammals, 8 birds, 5 fishes, 2 amphibians, 6 reptiles, and 12 invertebrates). Along with the permit application, Pima County submitted a draft Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). On June 10, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) requested programmatic section 7 consultation for actions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A), including two Regional General Permits and 16 Nationwide Permits, that are also covered activities in the MSCP. This is an action under section 7 of the ESA that is separate from the section 10 permit issuance to Pima Couny.
    [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]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • A Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model for Fossil Springs, Western
    A CONCEPTUAL HYDROGEOLOGIC MODEL FOR FOSSIL SPRINGS, WESTERN MOGOLLON RIM, ARIZONA: IMPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL SPRINGS PROCESSES By L. Megan Green A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Geology Northern Arizona University May 2008 Approved: _________________________________ Abraham E. Springer, Ph.D., Chair _________________________________ Roderic A. Parnell, Jr., Ph.D. _________________________________ Paul J. Umhoefer, Ph.D. ABSTRACT A CONCEPTUAL HYDROGEOLOGIC MODEL FOR FOSSIL SPRINGS, WEST MOGOLLON MESA, ARIZONA: IMPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL SPRINGS PROCESSES L. Megan Green Fossil Springs is the largest spring system discharging along the western Mogollon Rim in central Arizona and is a rare and important resource to the region. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the source of groundwater discharging at Fossil Springs. This was accomplished by (1) constructing a 3-D digital hydrogeologic framework model from available data to depict the subsurface geology of the western Mogollon Rim region and (2) by compiling and interpreting regional structural and geophysical data for Arizona’s central Transition Zone. EarthVision, a 3-D GIS modeling software, was used to construct the framework model. Two end-member models were created; the first was a simple interpolation of the data and the second was a result of geologic interpretations. The second model shows a monocline trending along the Diamond Rim fault. Both models show Fossil Springs discharging at the intersection of the Diamond Rim fault and Fossil Springs fault, at the contact between the Redwall Limestone and Naco Formation. The second objective of this study was a compilation of regional data for Arizona’s central Transition Zone.
    [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]