DOCSLIB.ORG

Delisting of Agave Arizonica

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Delisting of Agave Arizonica Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 117 / Monday, June 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 35195 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Weber described this species in the eastern Pinal County, and northeastern ‘‘Cactus and Succulent Journal’’ in 1970 Pima County. Agave toumeyana ssp. Fish and Wildlife Service (Gentry and Weber 1970). This bella is restricted to the eastern slope of perennial succulent has leaves growing the Bradshaw Mountains in eastern 50 CFR Part 17 from the base in a small basal rosette Yavapai to northwestern and central to RIN 1018–AI79 (i.e., an arrangement of leaves radiating southern Gila County, and northeastern from a crown or center), and is Maricopa to northern Pinal County. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife approximately 20–35 centimeters (cm) A comparison of plant characters and Plants; Delisting of Agave (8–14 inches (in)) high and 30–40 cm showed Agave arizonica to be arizonica (Arizona agave) From the (12–16 in) wide. The leaves are dark intermediate to the other two agave Federal List of Endangered and green with a reddish-brown to light gray species with which it is always found in Threatened Wildlife and Plants border extending nearly to the base, association (DeLamater and Hodgson approximately 13–31 cm (5–12 in) long 1986). Pinkava and Baker (1985) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and 2–3 cm (1 in) wide. The slender, suggested that plants recognized as Interior. branched flowering stalk is 2.5–4 meters Agave arizonica may be the result of ACTION: Final rule. (m) (8.2–13 feet (ft)) tall with urn- continuing production of hybrid shaped flowers 25–32 millimeters (mm) individuals rather than a distinct SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and (1 in) long (Hodgson 1999). Some Wildlife Service (Service), under the species, based on observations that plants, including Agave arizonica, are hybrid individuals are found only Endangered Species Act of 1973, as able to produce copies of themselves amended (Act), have determined that it where the ranges of the putative parents without sexual reproduction. These overlap; they are found only in random, is appropriate to remove Agave copies (clones) may remain physically arizonica (Arizona agave) from the widely scattered locations of individual connected to the original plant plants and clones; their putative parents Federal List of Endangered and (vegetative offsets) or may be physically Threatened Wildlife and Plants. This have overlapping flowering periods; separate plants. Agave arizonica’s morphological determination is based on a thorough Agave arizonica is found on open review of all available data, which characters are intermediate between the slopes in chaparral or juniper grassland putative parents; and, they appeared to indicate that this plant is not a discrete in Gila, Maricopa, and Yavapai counties taxonomic entity and does not meet the be subfertile (reduced fertilization), between 1,100–1,750 m (3,600–5,800 ft) producing pollen with a low percent of definition of a species under the Act. in elevation. The plants are often found stainability (a measure of pollen Evidence collected subsequent to the associated with native junipers viability). Agave arizonica has the same listing indicates that plants attributed to (Juniperus spp.), mountain mahogany chromosome count ((2n) of 60) as both Agave arizonica do not constitute a (Cercocarpus montanus), Opuntia spp., of its parents which allows for distinct species but rather are sotol (Nolina microcarpa), and banana continued reproduction with its parents individuals that have resulted from yucca (Yucca baccata), among other (backcrossing). Polyploidy (a genetic recent and sporadic instances of species common to the chaparral/ variation wherein an individual plant hybridization between two species. juniper-oak transition (Hodgson and has more than the two normal sets of Current taxonomic practice is not to DeLamater 1988). There are estimated to homologous chromosomes) is one factor recognize such groups of individuals as be fewer than 100 plants in the wild, a species. Since Agave arizonica is not occurring mainly on the Tonto National in determining if a hybrid between two recognized as a species, it no longer Forest and a few locations on private species can become genetically stable. qualifies for protection under the Act. property. Agave arizonica plants are This condition is not present in the genetic constitution of Agave arizonica. DATES: This rule is effective July 19, associated with shallow, cobbled, and 2006. gravelly soils on strongly sloping to very Survey work continued in areas that steep slopes and rock outcrops on mid- supported populations of the two parent ADDRESSES: Supporting documentation species. These surveys resulted in the for this rulemaking is available for elevation hills and mountains. The soils are well-drained and derived from a discovery of two clones in the Sierra public inspection, by appointment, Ancha Mountains, 100 miles disjunct during normal business hours at the variety of rocks, including granite, gneiss, rhyolite, andesite, ruffs, from the New River Mountain locations. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office limestone, sandstone, and basalt To date, plants and clones have been of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (Hodgson and DeLamater 1988). Plants identified in three areas on the Tonto 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, typically flower from May to July. National Forest (New River Mountains, Phoenix, Arizona 85021–4951. Field studies on Agave arizonica Sierra Ancha Mountains, and the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: began in 1983. A natural distribution Humboldt Mountains). The New River Mima Falk, U.S. Fish and Wildlife study was not finalized until August population is the most numerous, Service, located in the Arizona 1984 (DeLamater 1984), after the final located 17.94 kilometers (km) (10.7 Ecological Services Tucson Sub-office, listing rule (49 FR 21055, May 18, 1984) miles (mi)) west-northwest of the Sierra 201 North Bonita Avenue, Suite 141, was published. Surveys for this study Ancha population. Only one individual Tucson, Arizona 85745 (telephone 520/ were conducted in the New River was found in the Serra Anch Mountains 670–6150 ext. 225; facsimile 520/670– Mountains, and by 1984, ten new clones (Tra¨bold 2001). The Humboldt 6154). were found in these mountains. These Mountains support a population of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: were individual clones of 2–5 rosettes. Arizona agave, as well as another agave All of the clones occurred together with hybrid. This different hybrid agave is Background two other agaves, Agave toumeyana ssp. produced from a cross between A. Agave arizonica, a member of the bella and A. chrysantha, neither of toumeyana ssp. toumeyana and A. agave family, was first discovered by which is considered rare. A. chrysantha chrysantha (Pinkava and Baker 1985). J.H. Houzenga, M.J. Hazelett, and J.H. is found in southern and eastern That hybrid is a triploid (3n=90), and Weber in the New River Mountains of Yavapai County, through much of Gila therefore has a different chromosome Arizona. Drs. H.S. Gentry and J.H. and Maricopa counties, northern and count than Agave arizonica. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:59 Jun 16, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM 19JNR1 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES 35196 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 117 / Monday, June 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations The Desert Botanical Garden (DBG), phenotypic (visible) variations; not all number (2n=60) with the putative in Phoenix, initiated ecological studies seedlings presented ‘pure’ Agave parents, indicating that there are no of Agave arizonica in the mid-1980s arizonica traits. The fact that Agave chromosomal barriers (i.e., reproductive through 1994. They conducted arizonica can be reliably produced by isolating mechanisms) in place to numerous surveys on the Tonto crossing the putative parents ex situ facilitate genetic stability, (2) flowering National Forest, collected seeds in situ lends support to the hypothesis that periods of the putative parents overlap, (in the natural or original environment), Agave arizonica is a recurring F1 (3) morphological characters of Agave conducted experimental crosses in situ hybrid. All evidence supports that arizonica are intermediate with those of and ex situ (in an artificial Agave arizonica individuals are derived the putative parents, (4) Agave arizonica environment), and started an ex situ from crosses between different species. only occurs where there is overlap with collection. DBG’s work has shown that In other words, each individual Agave the putative parents, (5) it appears to be Agave arizonica can produce viable arizonica was created spontaneously subfertile, producing pollen with low seed. In 1985, three different crosses and independently from separate percent stainability, (6) Agave arizonica were performed on clone #52, in situ, crossings of the putative parental can be created, ex situ, by crossing the using flowers from different panicles species (M. Baker, pers. comm. 2004). putative parents, indicating that there (flower stalks). One cross used frozen Agave arizonica plants are rare in the may be no unique genetic characters pollen collected from Agave arizonica at wild. The likelihood is low that two of associated with these plants, and (7) it the DBG, the second cross was self- these plants would breed with one has not, to our knowledge, reproduced fertilization of clone #52, and the third another because it is unlikely that two sexually in the field. cross was uncontrolled outcrossing of such plants would be close enough to Previous Federal Action clone #52 (flowers were left open to be one another and bloom in the same year. Clones still attached or near to the pollinated by various donors). Seed was Federal Government action parent plant may produce flowers at the collected from all three crosses. Cross #1 concerning Agave arizonica began with same time, but spatially separated produced 250 seeds, cross #2 produced section 12 of the Act, which directed the clones may not all bloom at the same 20 seeds, and cross #3 produced a large Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State
    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
    [Show full text]
  • Kaibab National Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Kaibab National Forest Forest Service Southwestern Potential Wilderness Area Region September 2013 Evaluation Report The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover photo: Kanab Creek Wilderness Kaibab National Forest Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas .................................................................................................. 2 Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • History of Watershed Research in the Central Arizona Highlands
    Beginning of Water Studies in the Central Arizona Highlands Gottfried, DeBano, and Baker Chapter 2 Beginning of Water Studies in the Central Arizona Highlands Gerald J. Gottfried, Leonard F. DeBano, and Malchus B. Baker, Jr. government under the National Reclamation Act to build a dam on the Salt River below the confluence with Tonto Introduction Creek. The Roosevelt Dam, the first of 6 dams on the Salt and Verde Rivers, was completed in 1911. Water has been recognized as an important resource in In the early 20th century, watershed managers became central Arizona and has affected populations occupying concerned that erosion on the adjacent and headwater the Salt River Valley for centuries. Water related activities watersheds of the Salt River would move sediment into have been documented since about 200 before the com- the newly constructed Roosevelt Reservoir and decrease mon era, when Hohokam Indians settled the Valley and its capacity. Measurements indicated that 101,000 acre-ft constructed canals to irrigate their fields. Europeans be- of coarse granitic sediments had accumulated behind gan to settle in the Phoenix area in the late 1860s and Roosevelt Dam between 1909 and 1925. The Summit Plots, depended on irrigation water from the Salt River for located between Globe, Arizona and Lake Roosevelt, were agriculture. However, water supplies fluctuated greatly established in 1925 by the USDA Forest Service 15 mi because the river often flooded in winter and dried up in upstream from Roosevelt Dam to study the effects of the summer. There were no impoundments to store water vegetation recovery, mechanical stabilization, and cover for the dry seasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the New River SE 7.5' Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona
    Geologic Map of the New River SE 7.5' Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona by Robert S. Leighty and 1Stephen D. Holloway Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-21 November, 1998 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite 100, Tucson, AZ 85701 Includes 25-page text and 1:24,000 scale geologic map. I Department o/Geology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1404 This report was supported by the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, with funds provided by the Us. Environmental Protection Agency through the State Indoor Radon Grant Program, the us. Geological Survey via the STATEMAP and EDMAP programs, Arizona State University, and the Arizona Geological Survey. This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards INTRODUCTION The New River SE 7.S-minute Quadrangle is located in the northern fringe of the Phoenix metropolitan area and is bordered by Biscuit Flat to the west, the Union Hills to the south, Paradise Valley to the southeast, and the New River and New River Mesa areas to the north (Figure 1). The quadrangle is bounded by latitudes 33°4S'00"N and 33°S2'30''N, and longitudes 112°00'00"W and 112°07'30"W. Given its location, the area has become highly urbanized during the last few decades and is still undergoing rapid population growth. Thus, the knowledge of the distribution and character of bedrock and surficial deposits is important to make informed decisions concerning management of the land and its resources. Geologic mapping of the New River SE Quadrangle is related to other 1:24,000 scale mapping projects of the Arizona Geological Survey in and around the Phoenix metropolitan area (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of Pine-Oak Woodland in Southern Arizona and Adjacent Mexico
    . COOPER ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY PACIFIC COAST AVIFAUNA NUMBER 32 Birds of Pine-Oak Woodland in Southern Arizona and Adjacent Mexico , BY JOE T. M-HALL, JR. BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY March 15,1957 COOPER ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY PACIFIC COAST AVIFAUNA NUMBER 32 Birds of Pine-Oak Woodland in Southern Arizona and Adjacent Mexico BY JOE T. MARSHALL, JR. BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY March 15, 1957 SPOTTED SCREECH OWL 011:\‘ 7RIcllol‘ SI.$’ Edited by ALDEN H. MILLER and FRANK A. PITELKA at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley NOTE The publications of the Cooper Ornithological Society consist of two series--The Condor, a bimonthly journal, and the Pacific Coast Avifauna, for the accommodation of papers the length of which pro- hibits their appearance in The Condor. For information as to either series, addressC. V. Duff, Business Manager, 2911 Antelo View Drive, Los Angeles 24, California, or Thomas R. Howell, Assistant Business Manager, Department of Zoology, University of California, Los An- geles, California. The Society wishes to acknowledge the generous aid given in the publication of Avifauna Number 32 by the artist, Don R. Eckelberry, and by an anonymous donor who financed the color plate. CONTENTS PAGE Introduction . 5 Acknowledgments _...................................................,.................. 8 Flora ._.................................................................................................. 9 Description of camps_____ _..... _.._...._.._ .____ ._.._........._..,........................ 15 Northeastern group ____..___..__.__.. ..__.._.._. _._.__._...___..____............, 15 Southwestern group 2 2 Vegetation __~..~____.._.._...... .._................................................ 31 Spatial relations ___..___.____ ._.._ . .._......._.._..................................3 1 Classification of pine-oak woodland 35 Heterogeneity of pine-oak woodland ___________....._.__..____.._____.__...
    [Show full text]
  • Tales from the Chiricahua Mountains As, Told
    Chiricaftua nountains Research. Symposium PROCEEDINGS Editors Andrew M. Barton and Sarah A. Sloane Pine Canyon United Methodist Camp Chiricahua Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona 16-17 March 1992 Sponsored by: National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Research Station of the American Museum of Natural History, and the Nature Conservancy Organizers Richard L. Anderson, Chiricahua National Monument, United States Park Service, Dos Cabezas Route Box 6500, Willcox, AZ 85643 Andrew M. Barton, Department of Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 J. Carrie Brown, Douglas District, Coronado National Forest, USDA Forest Service, RR#1, P.O. Box 228R, Douglas, AZ 85607 Sarah A. Sloane, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Wade Sherbrooke, Southwestern Research Station, Portal, AZ 85632 Jeanne Wade, Douglas District, Coronado National Forest, USDA Forest Service, RR#1, P.O. Box 228R, Douglas, AZ 85607 Published by: Southwest Parks and Monuments Association 221 North Court Tucson, AZ 85701 December 1992 PREFACE The Proceedings presented here are from the Chiricahua Mountains Research Symposium held from 16-17 March 1992 at the Pine Canyon United Methodist Camp in the Chiricahua Mountains. The primary purpose of the symposium was to provide a multidisciplinary forum for information exchange and discussion regarding natural science (biology, geology, environmental studies) research in the Chiricahua Mountains. Oral presentations were invited from all scientists carrying out such research or its application to management in the Chiricahua Mountains and surrounding basins. Several presentations, including the evening address by Jerram Brown, were solicited by the symposium organizers. The papers included in this volume are based on presentations given at the symposium and are primarily summaries of research to date.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Localities of Interest to Botanists Author(S): T
    Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science Arizona Localities of Interest to Botanists Author(s): T. H. Kearney Source: Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Oct., 1964), pp. 94-103 Published by: Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40022366 Accessed: 21/05/2010 20:43 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anas. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science. http://www.jstor.org ARIZONA LOCALITIESOF INTEREST TO BOTANISTS Compiled by T.
    [Show full text]
  • Lies on the Western Slope of the Sierra Ancha from South Fork Was 78 Cubic Feet Per Second (Cfs), Mountains
    Post-Wildfire Peakflows in Arizona Montane Forests: Some Case Studies Item Type text; Proceedings Authors Neary, Daniel G.; Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J. Publisher Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science Journal Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest Rights Copyright ©, where appropriate, is held by the author. Download date 30/09/2021 10:12:43 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/296603 POST -WILDFIRE PEAKFLOWS IN ARIZONA MONTANE FORESTS: SOME CASE STUDIES Daniel G. Neary,1 Peter F. Ffolliott,2 and Gerald J. Gottfried3 SOUTH FORK OF WORKMAN CREEK summer storms measured on the Workman Creek A fire that was started by lightning on July 6, watersheds up to that time of record. The rainfall 1957, burned 60 acres of the ponderosa pine forest recorded in two gages located inside the burned on the upper part of South Fork, one of the three area was 3.50 and 4.05 inches, respectively, with a Workman Creek watersheds north of Rooseveltpeak intensity exceeding 2 inches per hour mid- Lake, about 50 miles north of Globe. South Forkway through the storm. The resulting peakflow lies on the western slope of the Sierra Ancha from South Fork was 78 cubic feet per second (cfs), Mountains. The steepest slopes on the 316 ac which was 2.1 times that of the highest previously watershed are situated on northerly aspects above measured peakflow on the watershed (Rich 1962). the control section. The underlying rock formation The duration of this initial post -fire peakflow was is quartzite overlaid by sandstone. Soil depths vary relatively short, however, with the recession from a few inches to more than 15 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Geologic Evolution of the Colorado Plateau
    Geological Society of America 3300 Penrose Place P.O. Box 9140 Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 357-1000 • fax 303-357-1073 www.geosociety.org This PDF file is subject to the following conditions and restrictions: Copyright © 2009, The Geological Society of America, Inc. (GSA). All rights reserved. Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees within scope of their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission, without fees or further requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a brief paragraph of text in other subsequent works and to make unlimited copies for noncommercial use in classrooms to further education and science. For any other use, contact Copyright Permissions, GSA, P.O. Box 9140, Boulder, CO 80301-9140, USA, fax 303-357-1073, [email protected]. GSA provides this and other forums for the presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide, regardless of their race, citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this publication do not reflect official positions of the Society. This file may not be posted on the Internet. The Geological Society of America Memoir 204 2009 Structural geologic evolution of the Colorado Plateau George H. Davis Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA Alex P. Bump BP Exploration and Production Technology, Houston, Texas 77079, USA ABSTRACT The Colorado Plateau is composed of Neoproterozoic, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks overlying mechanically heterogeneous latest Paleoproterozoic and Mesoproterozoic crystalline basement containing shear zones. The structure of the plateau is dominated by ten major basement-cored uplifts and associated mono- clines, which were constructed during the Late Cretaceous through early Tertiary Laramide orogeny.
    [Show full text]
  • Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Potential Wilderness Evaluation
    Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Potential Wilderness Evaluation Wilderness Need Evaluation Tables October 2012 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Factor 1 Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Wilderness and Potential Wilderness within a 100- or 130-mile Radius of Factor 2 Population Centers 3 Flagstaff ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Phoenix ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Silver City ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Tucson ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Wilderness Lands on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs .................................................................................... 7 Wilderness within a 100-mile Radius of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs ...................................................... 7 Factor 3 Tables .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]