DOCSLIB.ORG

August 2012 Santa Catalina/Rincon-Galiuro Linkage

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
August 2012 Santa Catalina/Rincon-Galiuro Linkage August 2012 Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages Santa Catalina/Rincon – Galiuro Linkage Design Lower San Pedro River Arizona Game and Fish Department Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County Santa Catalina/Rincon – Galiuro Linkage Design Recommended Citation Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2012. Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages. Santa Catalina/Rincon – Galiuro Linkage Design. Report to the Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County. ii Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages Santa Catalina/Rincon – Galiuro Linkage Design Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We would like to thank the following: CorridorDesign Team at Northern Arizona University: Paul Beier, Dan Majka, Jeff Jenness, and Emily Garding (CorridorDesign Team) for authoring the Arizona Missing Linkages. Content from the Arizona Missing Linkages (Beier et al 2006a, Beier et al 2006b), is used directly throughout this report with permission. Models in this report were created using methods developed by Majka et al. (2007). Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup: Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Game and Fish Department, AZTEC Engineering, Bureau of Land Management, Defenders of Wildlife, Northern Arizona University, Sky Island Alliance, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Workgroup: Arizona Game and Fish Department, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, Defenders of Wildlife, Pima County, Sky Island Alliance, Town of Marana, Tucson Audubon Society, University of Arizona, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County: The Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County for funding the Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment project, which this report is part of. Arizona Game and Fish Department: Dean Pokrajac, primary author, GIS analyst, and field investigator for this project. Julie Mikolajczyk and Ray Schweinsburg for providing project development and administration. Dennis Abbate, Scott Blackman, Jeff Gagnon, David Grandmaison, Shawn Lowery, and Scott Sprague for wildlife connectivity and road mitigation expertise. Kirby Bristow for species information from Arizona Game and Fish Department Research Branch. Arizona Game and Fish Department wildlife managers Brad Fulk, Mark Frieberg, and Karen Klima, for providing on the ground support. Jim Heffelfinger, Kristin Terpening, and John Windes for additional species information and project support from Arizona Game and Fish Department Region V. Jessica Gist, Bill Knowles, Shea Meyer, Mark Ogonowski, Dana Warnecke, and Kelly Wolff-Krauter for providing technical support and report review. Cristina Jones, Angela McIntire, Amber Munig, and Johnathan O’Dell for reviewing and updating species background information authored by the CorridorDesign Team at Northern Arizona University. George Andrejko, Randy Babb, Thomas Jones, and Audrey Owens for providing many of the photographs used throughout this report. iii Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages Santa Catalina/Rincon – Galiuro Linkage Design Table of Contents LINKAGE DESIGN .................................................................................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................................... III LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... VI TERMINOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................... IX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... XI INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 NATURE NEEDS ROOM TO MOVE ...................................................................................................................................... 1 BENEFITS OF WILDLIFE LINKAGE PLANNING ......................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL PLANNING EFFORTS THAT ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSERVING WILDLIFE LINKAGES .............. 3 LINKAGE PLANNING IN ARIZONA: A STATEWIDE-TO-LOCAL APPROACH ..................................................................................... 5 OVERVIEW OF THE PIMA COUNTY WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. 6 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND EXISTING CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS OF THE SANTA CATALINA/RINCON – GALIURO LINKAGE PLANNING AREA ...................................................................................................................... 7 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SANTA CATALINA/RINCON – GALIURO LINKAGE PLANNING AREA ............................................. 7 CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS IN THE SANTA CATALINA/RINCON – GALIURO LINKAGE PLANNING AREA ......................................... 8 THE SANTA CATALINA/RINCON - GALIURO LINKAGE DESIGN ............................................................................... 11 ONE LINKAGE PROVIDES CONNECTIVITY ACROSS A DIVERSE LANDSCAPE ................................................................................. 11 REMOVING AND MITIGATING BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT .................................................................................... 13 IMPACTS OF ROADS ON WILDLIFE .................................................................................................................................... 15 IMPACTS OF STREAM AND RIPARIAN IMPEDIMENTS ON WILDLIFE .......................................................................................... 28 IMPACTS OF UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ON WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX A: LINKAGE DESIGN METHODS ........................................................................................................... 33 FOCAL SPECIES SELECTION ............................................................................................................................................. 33 HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELS ........................................................................................................................................ 34 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BREEDING PATCHES AND POTENTIAL POPULATION CORES ................................................................... 35 MINIMUM LINKAGE WIDTH ........................................................................................................................................... 38 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 38 APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES MODELING PARAMETERS .............................................................................. 39 BADGER, TAXIDEA TAXUS ............................................................................................................................................... 47 BLACK BEAR, URSUS AMERICANUS ................................................................................................................................... 50 BLACK-TAILED JACKRABBIT, LEPUS CALIFORNIUS ................................................................................................................. 53 COUES’ WHITE-TAILED DEER, ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS COUESI .......................................................................................... 56 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP, OVIS CANADENSIS NELSONI .......................................................................................................... 60 DESERT BOX TURTLE, TERRAPENE ORNATE LUTEOLA ............................................................................................................ 64 GIANT SPOTTED WHIPTAIL, ASPIDOSCELIS BURTI STICTOGRAMMUS ........................................................................................ 67 GILA MONSTER, HELODERMA SUSPECTUM ........................................................................................................................ 70 JAGUAR, PANTHERA ONCA ............................................................................................................................................. 73 JAVELINA, TAYASSU TAJACU ............................................................................................................................................ 76 KIT FOX, VULPES MACROTIS ........................................................................................................................................... 79 LOWLAND LEOPARD FROG, RANA YAVAPAIENSIS ................................................................................................................ 81 MOUNTAIN LION, PUMA CONCOLOR ................................................................................................................................ 84 iv Pima
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Final Recovery Plan April 2007 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Rana chiricahuensis) RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, or Director, as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-M. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Southwest Region 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 500 Gold Avenue, S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Sell-0717 , Rincon Mountains, AGS Field Trip, Nov. 1971 , AZ, Pima Co. ,MILS
    CONTACT INFORMATION Mining Records Curator Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress St., Suite 100 Tucson, Arizona 85701 520-770-3500 http://www.azgs.az.gov [email protected] The following file is part of the James Doyle Sell Mining Collection ACCESS STATEMENT These digitized collections are accessible for purposes of education and research. We have indicated what we know about copyright and rights of privacy, publicity, or trademark. Due to the nature of archival collections, we are not always able to identify this information. We are eager to hear from any rights owners, so that we may obtain accurate information. Upon request, we will remove material from public view while we address a rights issue. CONSTRAINTS STATEMENT The Arizona Geological Survey does not claim to control all rights for all materials in its collection. These rights include, but are not limited to: copyright, privacy rights, and cultural protection rights. The User hereby assumes all responsibility for obtaining any rights to use the material in excess of “fair use.” The Survey makes no intellectual property claims to the products created by individual authors in the manuscript collections, except when the author deeded those rights to the Survey or when those authors were employed by the State of Arizona and created intellectual products as a function of their official duties. The Survey does maintain property rights to the physical and digital representations of the works. QUALITY STATEMENT The Arizona Geological Survey is not responsible for the accuracy of the records, information, or opinions that may be contained in the files. The Survey collects, catalogs, and archives data on mineral properties regardless of its views of the veracity or accuracy of those data.
    [Show full text]
  • Coronado National Forest Draft Land and Resource Management Plan I Contents
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Coronado National Forest Southwestern Region Draft Land and Resource MB-R3-05-7 October 2013 Management Plan Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico 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 for 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. Front cover photos (clockwise from upper left): Meadow Valley in the Huachuca Ecosystem Management Area; saguaros in the Galiuro Mountains; deer herd; aspen on Mt. Lemmon; Riggs Lake; Dragoon Mountains; Santa Rita Mountains “sky island”; San Rafael grasslands; historic building in Cave Creek Canyon; golden columbine flowers; and camping at Rose Canyon Campground. Printed on recycled paper • October 2013 Draft Land and Resource Management Plan Coronado National Forest Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona Hidalgo County, New Mexico Responsible Official: Regional Forester Southwestern Region 333 Broadway Boulevard, SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 842-3292 For Information Contact: Forest Planner Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress, FB 42 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 388-8300 TTY 711 [email protected] Contents Chapter 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Galiuro Mountains Unit, Graham County, Arizona MLA 21
    I MI~A~J~L M)P~SAL OF CORONADO I NATIONAL FOREST, PART 9 I Galiuro Mountains Unit I Graham County, Arizona I Galiuro Muni~Untains I i A IZON I,' ' I BUREAU OF MINES UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR f United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF MINES INTERMOUNTAIN FIELD OPERATIONS CENTER "m II P.O. BOX 25086 II BUILDING 20, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER DENVER, COLORADO 80225 November 22, 1993 Nyal Niemuth Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources 1502 West Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 Dear Mr. Niemuth: Enclosed are two copies of the following U.S. Bureau of Mines Open File Report for your use: MLA 21-93 Mineral Appraisal of the Coronado National Forest, Part 9, Galiuro Mountains Unit, Graham County, Arizona If you would like additional copies, please notify Mark Chatman at 303-236-3400. Resource Evaluation Branch I i I MINERAL APPRAISAL OF THE CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST PART 9, GALIURO MOUNTAINS UNIT, I GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA I I by. I S. Don Brown I MLA 21-93 I 1993 I I, i Intermountain Field Operations Center I Denver, Colorado I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary BUREAU OF MINES I HERMANN ENZER, Acting Director I I I PREFACE I A January 1987 Interagency Agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Forest Service describes the purpose, authority, and I program operation for the forest-wide studies. The program is intended to assist the I Forest Service in incorporating mineral resource data in forest plans as specified by the National Forest Management Act (1976) and Title 36, Chapter 2, Part 219, Code of i Federal Regulations, and to augment the Bureau's mineral resource data base so that it can analyze and make available minerals information as required by the National I Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act (1980).
    [Show full text]
  • A GUIDE to the GEOLOGY of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: the Geology and Life Zones of a Madrean Sky Island
    A GUIDE TO THE GEOLOGY OF THE SANTA CATALINA MOUNTAINS, ARIZONA: THE GEOLOGY AND LIFE ZONES OF A MADREAN SKY ISLAND ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 22 JOHN V. BEZY Inside front cover. Sabino Canyon, 30 December 2010. (Megan McCormick, flickr.com (CC BY 2.0). A Guide to the Geology of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: The Geology and Life Zones of a Madrean Sky Island John V. Bezy Arizona Geological Survey Down-to-Earth 22 Copyright©2016, Arizona Geological Survey All rights reserved Book design: M. Conway & S. Mar Photos: Dr. Larry Fellows, Dr. Anthony Lux and Dr. John Bezy unless otherwise noted Printed in the United States of America Permission is granted for individuals to make single copies for their personal use in research, study or teaching, and to use short quotes, figures, or tables, from this publication for publication in scientific books and journals, provided that the source of the information is appropriately cited. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new or collective works, or for resale. The reproduction of multiple copies and the use of articles or extracts for comer- cial purposes require specific permission from the Arizona Geological Survey. Published by the Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, #100, Tucson, AZ 85701 www.azgs.az.gov Cover photo: Pinnacles at Catalina State Park, Courtesy of Dr. Anthony Lux ISBN 978-0-9854798-2-4 Citation: Bezy, J.V., 2016, A Guide to the Geology of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: The Geology and Life Zones of a Madrean Sky Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammals of the Rincon Mountain District, Saguaro National Park
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Mammals of the Rincon Mountain District, Saguaro National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/SODN/NRR—2011/437 ON THE COVER Jaguar killed in Rincon Mountains in 1902, photographed at saloon in downtown Tucson. Photograph courtesy Arizona Historical Society. Mammals of the Rincon Mountain District, Saguaro National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/SODN/NRR—2011/437 Author Don E. Swann With contributions by Melanie Bucci, Matthew Caron, Matthew Daniels, Ronnie Sidner, Sandy A. Wolf, and Erin R. Zylstra Saguaro National Park 3693 South Old Spanish Trail Tucson, Arizona 85730-5601 Editing and Design Alice Wondrak Biel Sonoran Desert Network 7660 E. Broadway Blvd., Suite 303 Tucson, AZ 85710 August 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service’s Natural Resource Stewardship and Science offi ce, in Fort Collins, Colo- rado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the informa- tion is scientifi cally credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Surveys of Saguaro National Park Protected Natural Areas
    Floristic Surveys of Saguaro National Park Protected Natural Areas William L. Halvorson and Brooke S. Gebow, editors Technical Report No. 68 United States Geological Survey Sonoran Desert Field Station The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona USGS Sonoran Desert Field Station The University of Arizona, Tucson The Sonoran Desert Field Station (SDFS) at The University of Arizona is a unit of the USGS Western Ecological Research Center (WERC). It was originally established as a National Park Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit (CPSU) in 1973 with a research staff and ties to The University of Arizona. Transferred to the USGS Biological Resources Division in 1996, the SDFS continues the CPSU mission of providing scientific data (1) to assist U.S. Department of Interior land management agencies within Arizona and (2) to foster cooperation among all parties overseeing sensitive natural and cultural resources in the region. It also is charged with making its data resources and researchers available to the interested public. Seventeen such field stations in California, Arizona, and Nevada carry out WERC’s work. The SDFS provides a multi-disciplinary approach to studies in natural and cultural sciences. Principal cooperators include the School of Renewable Natural Resources and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at The University of Arizona. Unit scientists also hold faculty or research associate appointments at the university. The Technical Report series distributes information relevant to high priority regional resource management needs. The series presents detailed accounts of study design, methods, results, and applications possibly not accommodated in the formal scientific literature. Technical Reports follow SDFS guidelines and are subject to peer review and editing.
    [Show full text]
  • Coronado National Forest
    CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN Reviewed and Updated by _/s/ Chris Stetson ___________ Date __5/18/10 __________ Coronado Fire Management Plan Interagency Federal fire policy requires that every area with burnable vegetation must have a Fire Management Plan (FMP). This FMP provides information concerning the fire process for the Coronado National Forest and compiles guidance from existing sources such as but not limited to, the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), national policy, and national and regional directives. The potential consequences to firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and values to be protected help determine the management response to wildfire. Firefighter and public safety are the first consideration and are always the priority during every response to wildfire. The following chapters discuss broad forest and specific Fire Management Unit (FMU) characteristics and guidance. Chapter 1 introduces the area covered by the FMP, includes a map of the Coronado National Forest, addresses the agencies involved, and states why the forest is developing the FMP. Chapter 2 establishes the link between higher-level planning documents, legislation, and policies and the actions described in FMP. Chapter 3 articulates specific goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and/or desired future condition(s), as established in the forest’s LRMP, which apply to all the forest’s FMUs and those that are unique to the forest’s individual FMUs. Page 1 of 30 Coronado Fire Management Plan Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION The Coronado National Forest developed this FMP as a decision support tool to help fire personnel and decision makers determine the response to an unplanned ignition.
    [Show full text]
  • Sw - an Area Command Center Has Been Established for the Dude Fire
    FIRE MANAGEMENT SITUATION REPORT SUNDAY 07/01/90 0900 HRS. MDT. PREPAREDNESS LEVEL III HIGHLIGHTS: SW - AN AREA COMMAND CENTER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE DUDE FIRE. DICK COX IS THE AREA COMMANDER. DUDE, TONTO N.F. - 28,480 ACRES. TYPE I TEAM (SHAW) COMMITTED TO THE WEST SIDE, TYPE I TEAM (MUECHEL) COMMITTED TO THE EAST SIDE AND TYPE I TEAM (GALLEGOS) COMMITTED TO THE APACHE-SITGREAVES. GOOD PROGRESS WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN ALL ZONES. MOP-UP STARTED IN ALL ZONES, WITH MAJOR EFFORT IN AND AROUND SUB DIVISIONS THAT WERE BURNED OVER, AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ZONE 1. FIRE IS 95% CONTAINED WITH FULL CONTAINMENT EXPECTED TODAY, 7/1. FRIJOLE, GUADALUPE N.P. - 6,014 ACRES. TYPE I TEAM (DENTON) COMMITTED. FIRE WAS SLOWED BY A COMBINATION OF AIRTANKERS, HELICOPTERS BUCKET WORK AND HAND CREWS. ALL BUT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FIRE IS FULLY CONTAINED. MOP-UP CONTINUES ON THE FLANKS. SOME RELEASES OF TYPE I CREWS AND OVERHEAD HAS BEGUN. CONTAINMENT EXPECTED TODAY, 7/1. COMMISSARY, SANTA FE N.F. - 235 ACRES. TYPE II TEAM (LENTE) COMMITTED. CONTAINED. MONTOSA, ARIZONA STATE - 10,000 ACRES. TYPE II TEAM (SHIVE) COMMITTED. ERRATIC WINDS, THUNDERSTORMS AND SPOT FIRES CONTINUE TO CAUSE CONTROL PROBLEMS. CONTAINMENT EXPECTED TODAY, 7/1. MAVERICK, CORONADO N.F. - 800 ACRES. FIRE IS BURNING IN THE GALIURO WILDERNESS IN GRASS/OAK BRUSH FUELS. THE CONTROL STRATEGY IS TO USE NATURAL BARRIERS AND TO BURN OUT IF THE FIRE MOVES TO PREDETERMINED LOCATIONS. CONTAINMENT EXPECTED 7/10. APACHE, CIBOLA N.F. - 250 ACRES. HISTORICAL CABIN WITHIN A MILE OF THE FIRE IS THREATENED.
    [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 2-21-98-F-399 July 29, 1999 John McGee, Forest Supervisor Coronado National Forest 300 W. Congress Tucson, Arizona 85701 RE: On-going and Long-term Grazing Consultation Dear Mr. McGee: This document transmits the Fish and Wildlife Service's final biological opinion on the proposed On-going and Long-term Grazing on the Coronado National Forest (Forest) in New Mexico (Hidalgo County) and Arizona (Cochise, Santa Cruz, Pima, Pinal, and Graham Counties) following section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your November 5, 1998, request for formal consultation was received on November 5, 1998. By letter of March 26, 1999, we extended the 90-day consultation period by 60 days. The draft biological opinion was delivered to you on April 16, 1999. We received your comments on the draft opinion and a summary of applicant comments and their original comments on June 21, 1999. We appreciate the cooperation and assistance of your staff and permittees during the consultation period. We look forward to assisting the Coronado National Forest with the implementation of this biological opinion. If you have any questions on the biological opinion please contact me or Doug Duncan (520/670-4860). Sincerely, /s/ David L. Harlow Field Supervisor 2 Enclosures: biological opinion zip disk 2 cc: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM (GARD-AZ/NM, PARD-ES) Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico DKD:finalbo.cnf BIOLOGICAL OPINION On-going and Long-term Grazing on the Coronado National Forest Arizona Ecological Services Field Office US Fish and Wildlife Service AESO/SE 2-21-98-F-399 July 29, 1999 Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • CHA Final Report January 29-2013 (PDF)
    Graham County Community Health Assessment 2012 - 2013 Graham County Community Health Assessment 2012 1 Graham County Community Health Assessment 2012 - 2013 Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 History and Regional Information……………………………………………………………….…….………5 Climate……………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..6 Population…………………..………………………………………………………………………….………..7 Economics……………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 Community Health Assessment……………………………………….…………………………….………...9 The Model……………….………………………………………………………………………………….……9 The Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………...….10 Community Survey……………….………………………………………………………………...…….……11 The Findings…………………………………………………………….……………………………………..12 Secondary Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………..13 Stakeholder Group Discussions ……………………………………………………………………..………15 Post Survey Community Assessment Meeting…………………………………….………………….……21 Forces of Change…………………………………………………………………………………………...…21 Voices of the Community Meetings………………………………………………………………….………23 Photo Voice…………………………………………………………………………………………………….28 Community Vision and Values Statements...………………..……………………………………………..29 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………...30 Acknowledgements………………………………..…………………………………………………………..31 References....................................................................................................................................….. 31 Note: Contents of this report were compiled and written by: Laura Rogers, Health Program Coordinator GrahamCommunity County Health
    [Show full text]
  • Crowning the Queen of the Sonoran Desert: Tucson and Saguaro National Park
    Crowning the Queen of the Sonoran Desert: Tucson and Saguaro National Park An Administrative History Marcus Burtner University of Arizona 2011 Figure 1. Copper Pamphlet produced by Tucson Chamber of Commerce, SAGU257, Box 1, Folder 11, WACC. “In a canon near the deserted mission of Cocospera, Cereus giganteus was first met with. The first specimen brought the whole party to a halt. Standing alone upon a rocky projection, it rose in a single unbranched column to the height of some thirty feet, and formed a sight which seemed almost worth the journey to behold. Advancing into the canon, specimens became more numerous, until at length the whole vegetation was, in places, made up of this and other Cacaceae. Description can convey no adequate idea of this singular vegetation, at once so grand and dreary. The Opuntia arborescens and Cereus Thurberi, which had before been regarded with wonder, now seemed insignificant in comparison with the giant Cactus which towered far above.” George Thurber, 1855, Boundary Commission Report.1 Table of Contents 1 Asa Gray, ―Plantae Novae Thurberianae: The Characters of Some New Genera and Species of Plants in a Collection Made by George Thurber, Esq., of the Late Mexican Boundary ii List of Illustrations v List of Maps ix Introduction Crowning the Queen of the Desert 1 The Question of Social Value and Intrinsically Valuable Landscapes Two Districts with a Shared History Chapter 1 Uncertain Pathways to a Saguaro National Monument, 1912-1933 9 Saguaros and the Sonoran Desert A Forest of Saguaros Discovering
    [Show full text]