DOCSLIB.ORG

Arizona Missing Linkages: Hualapai-Cerbat Linkage Design

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arizona Missing Linkages: Hualapai-Cerbat Linkage Design ARIZONA MISSING LINKAGES Hualapai - Cerbat Linkage Design Paul Beier, Emily Garding, Dan Majka 2008 HUALAPAI - CERBAT LINKAGE DESIGN Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We thank Dr. Phil Rosen, Matt Good, Chasa O’Brien, Dr. Jason Marshal, Ted McKinney, and Taylor Edwards for parameterizing models for focal species and suggesting focal species. Catherine Wightman, Fenner Yarborough, Janet Lynn, Mylea Bayless, Andi Rogers, Mikele Painter, Valerie Horncastle, Matthew Johnson, Jeff Gagnon, Erica Nowak, Lee Luedeker, Allen Haden, Shaula Hedwall, and Martin Lawrence helped identify focal species and species experts. Robert Shantz provided photos for many of the species accounts. Shawn Newell, Jeff Jenness, Megan Friggens, and Matt Clark provided helpful advice on analyses and reviewed portions of the results. Funding This project was funded by a grant from Arizona Game and Fish Department to Northern Arizona University. Recommended Citation Beier, P, E. Garding, and D. Majka. 2008. Arizona Missing Linkages: Hualapai-Cerbat Linkage Design. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. III TERMINOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................... VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... VII INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 NATURE NEEDS ROOM TO MOVE ............................................................................................................................... 1 A STATEWIDE VISION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HUALAPAI-CERBAT LINKAGE ............................................................................ 2 EXISTING CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS ................................................................................................................... 3 THREATS TO CONNECTIVITY ...................................................................................................................................... 7 LINKAGE DESIGN & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 10 TWO ROUTES PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY ACROSS A DIVERSE LANDSCAPE ................................................................ 10 LAND OWNERSHIP, LAND COVER, AND TOPOGRAPHIC PATTERNS WITHIN THE LINKAGE DESIGN ........................... 10 IMPACTS OF ROADS ON WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................................ 15 Mitigation for Roads ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Existing Crossing Structures on Interstate 40 ..................................................................................................... 22 Existing Crossing Structures on Route 66 ........................................................................................................... 23 Existing Crossing Structures on Highway 68 ...................................................................................................... 23 Existing Crossing Structures on County Highway 10 .......................................................................................... 24 Existing Rail lines in the Linkage Design ............................................................................................................ 24 Recommendations for Highway and Railroad Crossing Structures .................................................................... 30 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AS BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT .............................................................................................. 31 Urban Barriers in the Linkage Design Area ........................................................................................................ 32 Mitigation for Urban Barriers ............................................................................................................................. 36 APPENDIX A: LINKAGE DESIGN METHODS .................................................................................................. 38 FOCAL SPECIES SELECTION ...................................................................................................................................... 38 HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELS ............................................................................................................................... 39 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BREEDING PATCHES & POTENTIAL POPULATION CORES .................................................. 40 IDENTIFYING BIOLOGICALLY BEST CORRIDORS ....................................................................................................... 40 PATCH CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 43 MINIMUM LINKAGE WIDTH ...................................................................................................................................... 44 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 44 APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ANALYSES .......................................................................................... 45 SPECIES MODELED BY BEST BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 48 BADGER (TAXIDEA TAXUS) ........................................................................................................................................ 49 BLACK-TAILED JACKRABBIT (LEPUS CALIFORNICUS) ................................................................................................ 53 GILA MONSTER (HELODERMA SUSPECTUM) .............................................................................................................. 57 JAVELINA (TAYASSU TAJACU) .................................................................................................................................... 61 KIT FOX (VULPES MACROTIS) .................................................................................................................................... 65 MOUNTAIN LION (PUMA CONCOLOR) ........................................................................................................................ 69 MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS) ..................................................................................................................... 73 SPECIES MODELED BY PATCH CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 77 BLACK BEAR (URSUS AMERICANUS) .......................................................................................................................... 78 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP (OVIS CANADENSIS NELSONI) ............................................................................................. 82 ELK (CERVUS ELAPHUS) ............................................................................................................................................ 86 PRONGHORN (ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA) .................................................................................................................. 90 Arizona Missing Linkages i Hualapai – Cerbat Linkage Design APPENDIX C: SUGGESTED FOCAL SPECIES NOT MODELED................................................................... 94 APPENDIX D: CREATION OF LINKAGE DESIGN .......................................................................................... 96 APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTION OF LAND COVER CLASSES .......................................................................... 97 APPENDIX F: LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 100 APPENDIX G: DATABASE OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................... 105 Arizona Missing Linkages ii Hualapai – Cerbat Linkage Design List of Tables & Figures List of Tables TABLE 1: FOCAL SPECIES SELECTED FOR HUALAPAI-CERBAT LINKAGE ..................................................................... VIII TABLE 2: APPROXIMATE LAND COVER FOUND WITHIN LINKAGE DESIGN. .................................................................... 11 TABLE 3: CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MAKE SPECIES VULNERABLE TO THE THREE MAJOR DIRECT EFFECTS OF ROADS (FROM FORMAN ET AL. 2003). ............................................................................................................................. 16 TABLE 4: HIGHWAYS AND RAILROADS (BOLD) AND OTHER ROADS IN THE LINKAGE DESIGN ...................................... 22 TABLE 5: HABITAT
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions
    United States Department of Agriculture Wilderness Visitors and Forest Service Recreation Impacts: Baseline Rocky Mountain Research Station Data Available for Twentieth General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-117 Century Conditions September 2003 David N. Cole Vita Wright Abstract __________________________________________ Cole, David N.; Wright, Vita. 2003. Wilderness visitors and recreation impacts: baseline data available for twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p. This report provides an assessment and compilation of recreation-related monitoring data sources across the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Telephone interviews with managers of all units of the NWPS and a literature search were conducted to locate studies that provide campsite impact data, trail impact data, and information about visitor characteristics. Of the 628 wildernesses that comprised the NWPS in January 2000, 51 percent had baseline campsite data, 9 percent had trail condition data and 24 percent had data on visitor characteristics. Wildernesses managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service were much more likely to have data than wildernesses managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. Both unpublished data collected by the management agencies and data published in reports are included. Extensive appendices provide detailed information about available data for every study that we located. These have been organized by wilderness so that it is easy to locate all the information available for each wilderness in the NWPS. Keywords: campsite condition, monitoring, National Wilderness Preservation System, trail condition, visitor characteristics The Authors _______________________________________ David N.
    [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]
  • Circus Friends Association Collection Finding Aid
    Circus Friends Association Collection Finding Aid University of Sheffield - NFCA Contents Poster - 178R472 Business Records - 178H24 412 Maps, Plans and Charts - 178M16 413 Programmes - 178K43 414 Bibliographies and Catalogues - 178J9 564 Proclamations - 178S5 565 Handbills - 178T40 565 Obituaries, Births, Death and Marriage Certificates - 178Q6 585 Newspaper Cuttings and Scrapbooks - 178G21 585 Correspondence - 178F31 602 Photographs and Postcards - 178C108 604 Original Artwork - 178V11 608 Various - 178Z50 622 Monographs, Articles, Manuscripts and Research Material - 178B30633 Films - 178D13 640 Trade and Advertising Material - 178I22 649 Calendars and Almanacs - 178N5 655 1 Poster - 178R47 178R47.1 poster 30 November 1867 Birmingham, Saturday November 30th 1867, Monday 2 December and during the week Cattle and Dog Shows, Miss Adah Isaacs Menken, Paris & Back for £5, Mazeppa’s, equestrian act, Programme of Scenery and incidents, Sarah’s Young Man, Black type on off white background, Printed at the Theatre Royal Printing Office, Birmingham, 253mm x 753mm Circus Friends Association Collection 178R47.2 poster 1838 Madame Albertazzi, Mdlle. H. Elsler, Mr. Ducrow, Double stud of horses, Mr. Van Amburgh, animal trainer Grieve’s New Scenery, Charlemagne or the Fete of the Forest, Black type on off white backgound, W. Wright Printer, Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, 205mm x 335mm Circus Friends Association Collection 178R47.3 poster 19 October 1885 Berlin, Eln Mexikanermanöver, Mr. Charles Ducos, Horaz und Merkur, Mr. A. Wells, equestrian act, C. Godiewsky, clown, Borax, Mlle. Aguimoff, Das 3 fache Reck, gymnastics, Mlle. Anna Ducos, Damen-Jokey-Rennen, Kohinor, Mme. Bradbury, Adgar, 2 Black type on off white background with decorative border, Druck von H. G.
    [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]
  • Scorpiones: Vaejovidae)
    New Species of Vaejovis from the Whetstone Mountains, Southern Arizona (Scorpiones: Vaejovidae) Richard F. Ayrey & Michael E. Soleglad January 2015 — No. 194 Euscorpius Occasional Publications in Scorpiology EDITOR: Victor Fet, Marshall University, ‘[email protected]’ ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Michael E. Soleglad, ‘[email protected]’ Euscorpius is the first research publication completely devoted to scorpions (Arachnida: Scorpiones). Euscorpius takes advantage of the rapidly evolving medium of quick online publication, at the same time maintaining high research standards for the burgeoning field of scorpion science (scorpiology). Euscorpius is an expedient and viable medium for the publication of serious papers in scorpiology, including (but not limited to): systematics, evolution, ecology, biogeography, and general biology of scorpions. Review papers, descriptions of new taxa, faunistic surveys, lists of museum collections, and book reviews are welcome. Derivatio Nominis The name Euscorpius Thorell, 1876 refers to the most common genus of scorpions in the Mediterranean region and southern Europe (family Euscorpiidae). Euscorpius is located at: http://www.science.marshall.edu/fet/Euscorpius (Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia 25755-2510, USA) ICZN COMPLIANCE OF ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS: Electronic (“e-only”) publications are fully compliant with ICZN (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) (i.e. for the purposes of new names and new nomenclatural acts) when properly archived and registered. All Euscorpius issues starting from No. 156 (2013) are archived in two electronic archives: Biotaxa, http://biotaxa.org/Euscorpius (ICZN-approved and ZooBank-enabled) Marshall Digital Scholar, http://mds.marshall.edu/euscorpius/. (This website also archives all Euscorpius issues previously published on CD-ROMs.) Between 2000 and 2013, ICZN did not accept online texts as "published work" (Article 9.8).
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Geological Association Publication 30.Pub
    Utah Geological Association Publication 30 - Pacific Section American Association of Petroleum Geologists Publication GB78 239 CENOZOIC EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN COLORADO RIVER EXTEN- SIONAL CORRIDOR, SOUTHERN NEVADA AND NORTHWEST ARIZONA JAMES E. FAULDS1, DANIEL L. FEUERBACH2*, CALVIN F. MILLER3, 4 AND EUGENE I. SMITH 1Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Mail Stop 178, Reno, NV 89557 2Department of Geology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 *Now at Exxon Mobil Development Company, 16825 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060 3Department of Geology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235 4Department of Geoscience, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154 ABSTRACT The northern Colorado River extensional corridor is a 70- to 100-km-wide region of moderately to highly extended crust along the eastern margin of the Basin and Range province in southern Nevada and northwestern Arizona. It has occupied a criti- cal structural position in the western Cordillera since Mesozoic time. In the Cretaceous through early Tertiary, it stood just east and north of major fold and thrust belts and also marked the northern end of a broad, gently (~15o) north-plunging uplift (Kingman arch) that extended southeastward through much of central Arizona. Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata were stripped from the arch by northeast-flowing streams. Peraluminous 65 to 73 Ma granites were emplaced at depths of at least 10 km and exposed in the core of the arch by earliest Miocene time. Calc-alkaline magmatism swept northward through the northern Colorado River extensional corridor during early to middle Miocene time, beginning at ~22 Ma in the south and ~12 Ma in the north.
    [Show full text]
  • 905 Xxii. Appendix
    APPENDIX 905 XXII. APPENDIX 1. Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 PUBLIC LAW 101–628—NOV. 28, 1990 104 STAT. 4469 Public Law 101–628 101st Congress An Act To provide for the designation of certain public lands as wilderness in the State of Nov. 28, 1990 Arizona. [H.R. 2570] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.—Titles I through III of this Act may be Arizona Desert cited as the “Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990”. Wilderness Act of 1990. TITLE I—DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS TO BE 16 USC 460ddd ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT note. National Wilderness SEC. 101. DESIGNATION AND MANAGEMENT. Preservation System. (a) DESIGNATION.—In furtherance of the purposes of the 16 USC 1132 Wilderness Act, the following public lands are hereby designated as note. wilderness and therefore, as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System: (1) certain lands in Mohave County, Arizona, which comprise approximately 23,600 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled “Mount Wilson Wilderness” and dated February 1990, and which shall be known as the Mount Wilson Wilderness; (2) certain lands in Mohave County, Arizona, which comprise approximately 31,070 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled “Mount Tipton Wilderness” and dated February 1990, and which shall be known as the Mount Tipton Wilderness; (3) certain lands in Mohave County, Arizona, which comprise approximately 27,530 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled
    [Show full text]
  • Prey, Predator, Human and Climate Change Interactions in the Himalaya
    Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Prey, predator, human and climate change interactions in the Himalaya, Nepal Achyut Aryal 2013 Prey, predator, human and climate change interactions in the Himalaya, Nepal A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Conservation Biology at Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand Achyut Aryal 2013 1 Acknowledgement My deepest gratitude and the sincerest thanks go to my supervisors Prof. Dr. Dianne Brunton, Prof. Dr. David Raubenheimer, and Dr. Weihong Ji for all your support, insight, and guidance which made this PhD research possible. I am highly appreciative that you all always put me on right track for good science “THANK YOU VERY MUCH”. I specially thank to Prof. David, who taught me in the field to undertaken research and to set up my project. I still remember the day when the “dog bit you” in upper Mustang but you never gave up with the situation and you continued to searching for snow leopards and blue sheep in the Himalayas. I am inspired by your way of working, teaching, and guiding. Thanks also to Dr. Shanta Raj Jnawali and Dr. S. Sathyakumar for their advisory, logistic, and administrative support to conduct research in Nepal. Thanks to the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation/Department of National ParkWildlife Conservation-Government of Nepal, and the National Trust for Nature Conservation/Annapurna Conservation Area for granting permission to conduct this study; Specially Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona's Wildlife Linkages Assessment
    ARIZONAARIZONA’’SS WILDLIFEWILDLIFE LINKAGESLINKAGES ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT Workgroup Prepared by: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment Prepared by: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Siobhan E. Nordhaugen, Arizona Department of Transportation, Natural Resources Management Group Evelyn Erlandsen, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Habitat Branch Paul Beier, Northern Arizona University, School of Forestry Bruce D. Eilerts, Arizona Department of Transportation, Natural Resources Management Group Ray Schweinsburg, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Terry Brennan, USDA Forest Service, Tonto National Forest Ted Cordery, Bureau of Land Management Norris Dodd, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Melissa Maiefski, Arizona Department of Transportation, Environmental Planning Group Janice Przybyl, The Sky Island Alliance Steve Thomas, Federal Highway Administration Kim Vacariu, The Wildlands Project Stuart Wells, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT First Printing Date: December, 2006 Copyright © 2006 The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written consent from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written consent of the copyright holder. Additional copies may be obtained by submitting a request to: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup E-mail: [email protected] 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Mission Statement “To identify and promote wildlife habitat connectivity using a collaborative, science based effort to provide safe passage for people and wildlife” 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT Primary Contacts: Bruce D.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Special Uses in Wilderness Areas: Management Survey
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 2004 Special Uses in Wilderness Areas: Management Survey University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons Citation Information Special Uses in Wilderness Areas: Management Survey (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). SPECIAL USES IN WILDERNESS AREAS: MANAGEMENT SURVEY (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. SPECIAL USES IN WILDERNESS AREAS: MANAGEMENT SURVEY Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado School of Law 401 UCB Boulder, Colorado 80309-0401 March 2004 Table of Contents SPECIAL USES IN WILDERNESS AREAS: MANAGEMENT SURVEY................................................ 1 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Survey Results........................................................................................................................ 2 A. General Management ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]