DOCSLIB.ORG

In Reply Refer To: R2/ES-TE CL 09-0015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Reply Refer To: R2/ES-TE CL 09-0015 In Reply Refer To: R2/ES-TE CL 09-0015 November 16, 2001 Consultation No. 2-21-95-F-114R2 Mr. Ronald Pearce Director of Range Management Marine Corps Air Station P.O. Box 99100 Yuma, Arizona 85369-9100 Dear Mr. Pearce: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the proposed and ongoing activities by the Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma (MCAS-Yuma) in the Arizona portion of the Yuma Training Range Complex (YTRC) on the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), Yuma and Maricopa counties, and its effects on the Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) and threatened Peirson’s milkvetch (Astragalus magdalenae peirsonii) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). In response to Defenders of Wildlife, et. al., v. Bruce Babbitt, et. al. (Civil Action No. 99-927 [ESH]), Judge Ellen Huvelle of the United States District Court (Court) for the District of Columbia issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on February 12, 2001. The Court found that the Service failed to address the impact of various Federal actions on the Sonoran pronghorn when added to the environmental baseline and failed to include in the environmental baseline the impacts of all Federal activities in the area that may affect, directly or indirectly, the pronghorn. The Court provided the Service 120 days to produce, in consultation with the defendants, revisions of the following biological opinions: Air Force (USAF) (August 1997), Army National Guard (ARNG) (September 1997), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (December 1997), Marine Corps (April 1996), and National Park Service (NPS) (June 1997). The Court ordered that the Service, in consultation with the Federal agencies whose biological opinions have been remanded, must reconsider those portions of the opinions that have been found to be contrary to the dictates of the ESA. This includes the scope of the action area, analysis of the environmental baseline, and analysis of the effects of incidental take in context with a revised environmental baseline. On April 12, 2001, the Court granted the Service an extension until November 16, 2001, to complete this task. Peirson’s milkvetch was listed after the 1996 biological opinion on this action was issued and was not known to occur in the action area until recently. It is included in this formal consultation. Your original request asked for our concurrence that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) and cactus ferruginous pygmy owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum), Mr. Ronald Pearce 2 which was proposed for listing as an endangered species at the time, and was subsequently listed as endangered in 1997. Our response to your requests for concurrence is in Appendix 1. Your original request included conferencing on the flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii), which was proposed for threatened status at the time. The proposal to list the lizard was withdrawn in July 1997. The withdrawal was remanded to the Service in a July 31, 2001, decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 24, 2001, the District Court ordered the Service to reinstate the previously proposed listing rule within 60 calender days. Upon reinstatement, the 12-month ESA deadline for the final listing determination for the lizard shall commence. Refer to our April 1996 biological and conference opinion on MCAS-Yuma’s YTRC, which included a conference on the lizard, for information on effects of the proposed action on the lizard and recommended actions to conserve the species. If the lizard is listed, MCAS-Yuma should coordinate with the Service to determine if further consultation is necessary. This biological opinion is based on information provided during the previous consultation on this action, updated information on the proposed action provided by your agency, new information on the status of the pronghorn and milkvetch, telephone conversations, field investigations, and other sources of information as detailed in the consultation history. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in the Phoenix, Arizona, Ecological Services Field Office (ESO). CONSULTATION HISTORY Before consultation began on the MCAS-Yuma Arizona portion of the YTRC, the Service and MCAS-Yuma had previously consulted informally on some aspects of the proposed action, including AV-8B harrier activities (consultation number 2-21-89-I-195), and Weapons Tactics Instructor (WTI) course (consultation numbers 2-21-88-I-46, 2-21-88-I-48, and 2-21-90-I-180). In regard to AV-8B activities, the Service reviewed an environmental assessment (EA) on proposed activities and recommended that MCAS-Yuma initiate formal consultation. Informal consultation on the WTI course consisted of coordination and review of an EA addressing WTI (consultation number 2-21-87-I-126), a request for a species list by MCAS-Yuma and transmittal of that list to MCAS-Yuma by the Service (consultation number 2-21-88-I-46), a concurrence by the Service that the proposed WTI course would have no effect on the pronghorn (consultation number 2-21-88-I-48), and a request for informal consultation from MCAS-Yuma and a reply from the Service for more information on the proposed action (consultation number 2-21-90-I- 195). Informal consultation on the Arizona portion of the YTRC began on May 17, 1993, with the publication in the Federal Register of a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the use of the YTRC. A coordination meeting at which the project was described and discussed was held on May 27, 1993, in Phoenix among the Service, MCAS- Yuma, BLM, and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). Alternatives included actions to improve training procedures, develop new training facilities, and reconfigure airspace in the western portion of the BMGR, Arizona, and at the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range, Imperial County, California. A second coordination meeting between the Service and MCAS- Yuma was held in Phoenix on June 24, 1993. An administrative draft EIS was distributed to the Service and other agencies and interested parties in July 1994. The Arizona ESO submitted comments to MCAS-Yuma on the administrative draft EIS in a letter dated August 5, 1994. Comments were from all concerned Service offices in Arizona, including Cabeza Prieta, Kofa, Cibola, Bill Williams, and Havasu National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). Review and comment on project features in California were coordinated by the Service's Carlsbad ESO. The MCAS- Mr. Ronald Pearce 3 Yuma responded to our comments in a letter dated September 27, 1994. In a memorandum to the Carlsbad ESO, dated October 19, 1994, the Arizona ESO volunteered to take the lead on a programmatic consultation for the YTRC, including proposed activities in both Arizona and California. In a memorandum dated November 8, 1994, the Carlsbad ESO agreed. A third coordination meeting was held among the involved Service offices in Arizona and MCAS-Yuma on November 9, 1994. The results of that meeting were summarized in a memorandum from Dames and Moore to the meeting participants, dated December 6, 1994. Other scoping and coordination meetings with the public and other agencies were held to receive comment on and discuss the proposals (MCAS-Yuma 1995). Separate draft biological assessments (BA) addressing proposals in the Arizona and California portions of the YTRC were received by this office on December 8, 1994, accompanied by a letter from MCAS-Yuma asking for our review and comment. As agreed upon, the draft BA for actions in California were forwarded to the Carlsbad ESO for their review. Service comments on the draft BA for the Arizona portion of the YTRC were sent to the Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, in a letter dated February 3, 1995. This letter included comments from the Cabeza Prieta NWR and the Arizona ESO. The final BA was received by the Service with the October 13, 1995, request for initiation of consultation and conferencing. In addition to activities described in the draft EIS, the BA included proposed installation of 17 new threat emitters on the Tactical Aircraft Combat Training System (TACTS) Range within the BMGR. Because the finalization of the two BAs (BMGR, Arizona, and the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range, California) were on different timetables, separate consultations were initiated for the California and Arizona portions of the YTRC. Consultation on actions in California were initiated in mid-1995 with the Carlsbad Field Office. The two opinions addressed different species: Mojave population of the desert tortoise on the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range versus Sonoran pronghorn and flat-tailed horned lizard on the BMGR. Thus, effects of the action in regard to listed and proposed species were easily separated at the state line. This is still the case. During consultation, the Service informally requested from Bill Fisher (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division, San Diego, CA, January, 1996), and promptly received, clarifications on the proposed action. The Service met with the Sonoran Pronghorn Core Working Group on February 22, 1996, to discuss the proposed action. At that meeting, MCAS-Yuma revised proposed low-level helicopter flight routes and use of two stinger team operating areas to reduce potential adverse effects to the pronghorn. Further revisions in the helicopter corridors were made during a conference call on March 7, 1996, among the Service, AGFD, and MCAS-Yuma. One final change was made in the corridors on April 11, 1996, in response to concerns expressed by the Service about possible adverse effects to the lesser long- nosed bat. On April 17, 1996, the Service issued its biological opinion on the MCAS-Yuma Arizona portion of the YTRC.
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]
  • Central Arizona Salinity Study --- Phase I
    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix D HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE GILA BEND BASIN Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 D-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 8 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT ................................... 8 4.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY .............................................................................
    [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]
  • Tectonic Geomorphology of the Luke Air Force Range, Arizona
    Arizona Geological Society Digest, Volume XII, 1980 63 Tectonic Geomorphology of the Luke Air Force Range, Arizona by William C. Tucker, Jr.1 Abstract In arid and semiarid regions the relative rates of tectonic activity and the approximate age of the last major tectonic pulse can be ascertained by analyzing the landforms of the mountain fronts and their adjacent piedmonts. Tectonic activity triggers a change in the base level of fluvial systems that causes the development of a characteristic suite of land­ forms. It is these landform characteristics that are examined in making a tectonic geomor­ phic analysis of an area. The Luke Air Force Range, an Air Force missile and gunnery training range in south­ western Arizona, is an area of typical basin-and-range topography of generally linear mountain ranges separated by broad, flat valleys. While overall the ranges are quite linear, the mountain fronts are, for the most part, highly sinuous, pedimented, and lacking a thick accumulation of recent alluvial material on the piedmont. A tectonic geomorphic analysis of the Luke Air Force Range shows that the area has been almost entirely free of tectonic activity for at least the Holocene and Pleistocene epochs and probably for part of the Pliocene. A few mountain-front segments show signs of slight tec­ tonic activity during the Pleistocene. One mountain- front segment displays landforms indica­ tive of tectonism continuing into the Holocene. Introduction The major portion of the basin-and- range tectonism can be dated with fair reliability us­ Southwestern Arizona has had a long history ing the volcanic rocks and their relationship to of tectonic and igneous activity .
    [Show full text]
  • Jurassic and Cretaceous Tectonic Evolution of the Southeast Castle Dome Mountains, Southwest Arizona Jonathan Hunter Reis Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2009 Jurassic and Cretaceous tectonic evolution of the southeast Castle Dome Mountains, southwest Arizona Jonathan Hunter Reis Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Earth Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Reis, Jonathan Hunter, "Jurassic and Cretaceous tectonic evolution of the southeast Castle Dome Mountains, southwest Arizona" (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 12198. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/12198 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jurassic and Cretaceous tectonic evolution of the southeast Castle Dome Mountains, southwest Arizona by Jonathan Hunter Reis A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major: Geology Program of Study Committee: Carl E. Jacobson, Major Professor Paul Spry Chris Harding Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2009 Copyright © Jonathan Hunter Reis, 2009. All rights reserved. ii Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................... iv List of
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory and Analysis
    INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS Demographic Characteristics and Projections This portion of the Rainbow Valley Area Plan includes analysis of existing demographic and land use conditions. Planning Area Growth and Change The original Little Rainbow Valley Planning Area encompassed approximately 48 square miles. Due to anticipated residential growth south of the original planning area and comments received during the public participation process, the study area was extended south to the northern boundary of the Sonoran Desert National Monument. The extended area adds approximately 34 square miles, bringing the total area of the updated planning area to approximately 82 square miles. Figure 2-Original Plan Boundary shows the geographical extent of the old plan versus the expanded area of the updated plan. Demographic figures for the original plan have been retained to help ensure historical accuracy. Population and Demographic Characteristics: Rainbow Valley Planning Area This section highlights historic and projected population and housing unit data to the year 2010. Census data is reviewed for the original planning area, the extended planning area, and for Maricopa County as a whole. Population projections are derived from Maricopa County, the Arizona Department of Economic Security, and Maricopa Association of Governments models, and estimates are based on present and historic census figures and trends. The Rainbow Valley planning area analyzes parts of the incorporated communities of Buckeye and Goodyear. Table 1 shows historic and projected population that was prepared for the 1992 Little Rainbow Valley Land Use Plan, and adds updated population figures available from the 2000 U.S. Census. Alternative scenarios for projected population are discussed later in this section under Future Population and Housing Trends.
    [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]
  • Flora of Southwestern Arizona
    Felger, R.S., S. Rutman, and J. Malusa. 2014. Ajo Peak to Tinajas Altas: A flora of southwestern Arizona. Part 6. Poaceae – grass family. Phytoneuron 2014-35: 1–139. Published 17 March 2014. ISSN 2153 733X AJO PEAK TO TINAJAS ALTAS: A FLORA OF SOUTHWESTERN ARIZONA Part 6. POACEAE – GRASS FAMILY RICHARD STEPHEN FELGER Herbarium, University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 & Sky Island Alliance P.O. Box 41165, Tucson, Arizona 85717 *Author for correspondence: [email protected] SUSAN RUTMAN 90 West 10th Street Ajo, Arizona 85321 JIM MALUSA School of Natural Resources and the Environment University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 [email protected] ABSTRACT A floristic account is provided for the grass family as part of the vascular plant flora of the contiguous protected areas of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and the Tinajas Altas Region in southwestern Arizona. This is the second largest family in the flora area after Asteraceae. A total of 97 taxa in 46 genera of grasses are included in this publication, which includes ones established and reproducing in the modern flora (86 taxa in 43 genera), some occurring at the margins of the flora area or no long known from the area, and ice age fossils. At least 28 taxa are known by fossils recovered from packrat middens, five of which have not been found in the modern flora: little barley ( Hordeum pusillum ), cliff muhly ( Muhlenbergia polycaulis ), Paspalum sp., mutton bluegrass ( Poa fendleriana ), and bulb panic grass ( Zuloagaea bulbosa ). Non-native grasses are represented by 27 species, or 28% of the modern grass flora.
    [Show full text]
  • White Tank Mountain Regional Park
    White Tank Mountain Regional Park Master Plan Update 2014-2034 {This page intentionally left blank.} {This page intentionally left blank.} {This page intentionally left blank.} Acknowledgements This master plan update was a collaborative process that involved the guidance and expertise of many. The Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department would like to thank the Planning Team who committed their time to monthly meetings and document review; likewise to the Stakeholder Advisory Group who took time out of their personal lives to provide their invaluable input. Planning Team Stakeholder Advisory Group R.J. Cardin, Director Jamil Coury Jennifer Waller, Operations Manager Linda Gilgosch Jennifer Johnston, West Side Superintendent John Pesock Raymond Schell, Park Supervisor Frank Salowitz Michele Kogl, Planning and Development Manager Allen Ockenfels, Trails Development Manager Fareed Abou-Haidar, GIS Technician Leigh Johnson, Park Planner This Master Plan update was also made possible by the contributions and guidance of the following: • Maricopa County Board of Supervisors o Denny Barney, District 1 o Steve Chucri, District 2 o Andy Kunasek, District 3 o Clint L. Hickman, District 4 o Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 • Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Commission o Jack Stapley, District 2 o Anne Lynch, District 3 o Dr. Robert Branch, District 4 o Carlton Yoshioka , Member-at-Large o Rod Jarvis, Member-at-Large • Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department staff • Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Mountain Patrol Division • Bill “Doc” Talboys, Interpretive Ranger, MCPRD (retired) • Shelly Rasmussen, Interpretive Ranger, MCPRD (retired) • Public meeting participants The Department would also like to thank its agency partners at the City of Surprise, City of Buckeye, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the Bureau of Land Management - Phoenix District Office for their input and guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • Section VII Potential Linkage Zones SECTION VII POTENTIAL LINKAGE ZONES
    2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT 41 Section VII Potential Linkage Zones SECTION VII POTENTIAL LINKAGE ZONES Linkage 1 Linkage 2 Beaver Dam Slope – Virgin Slope Beaver Dam – Virgin Mountains Mohave Desert Ecoregion Mohave Desert Ecoregion County: Mohave (Linkage 1: Identified Species continued) County: Mohave Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis ADOT Engineering District: Flagstaff and Kingman Mohave Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii ADOT Engineering District: Flagstaff ADOT Maintenance: Fredonia and Kingman Mountain Lion Felis concolor ADOT Maintenance: Fredonia ADOT Natural Resources Management Section: Flagstaff Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus ADOT Natural Resources Management Section: Flagstaff Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum AGFD: Region II AGFD: Region II Virgin Chub Gila seminuda Virgin Spinedace Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis BLM: Arizona Strip District Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus BLM: Arizona Strip District Congressional District: 2 Threats: Congressional District: 2 Highway (I 15) Council of Government: Western Arizona Council of Governments Urbanization Council of Government: Western Arizona Council of Governments FHWA Engineering: A2 and A4 Hydrology: FHWA Engineering: A2 Big Bend Wash Legislative District: 3 Coon Creek Legislative District: 3 Virgin River Biotic Communities (Vegetation Types): Biotic Communities (Vegetation Types): Mohave Desertscrub 100% Mohave Desertscrub 100% Land Ownership: Land Ownership: Bureau of Land Management 59% Bureau of Land Management 93% Private 27% Private
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstruction of Mid-Cenozoic Extension In
    Reconstruction of MidCenozoic Extension in the Rincon Mountains Area, Southeastern Arizona, USA, and Geodynamic Implications Item Type Article Authors Spencer, Jon E.; Richard, Stephen M.; Lingrey, Steven H.; Johnson, Bradford J.; Johnson, Roy A.; Gehrels, George E. Citation Spencer, J. E., Richard, S. M., Lingrey,S. H., Johnson, B. J., Johnson, R. A., & Gehrels, G. E. (2019). Reconstruction of mid Cenozoic extension in the Rincon Mountains area, south eastern Arizona,USA, and geodynamic implications.Tectonics,38, 2338– 2357. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019TC005565 DOI 10.1029/2019tc005565 Publisher AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION Journal TECTONICS Rights Copyright © 2019. American Geophysical Union.All Rights Reserved. Download date 10/10/2021 17:17:00 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/634480 RESEARCH ARTICLE Reconstruction of Mid‐Cenozoic Extension in the 10.1029/2019TC005565 Rincon Mountains Area, Southeastern Arizona, Key Points: • Structural reconstruction of the San USA, and Geodynamic Implications Pedro detachment fault in Jon E. Spencer1 , Stephen M. Richard1 , Steven H. Lingrey1, Bradford J. Johnson2, southeastern Arizona indicates 34– 1 1 38 km of top‐southwest Roy A. Johnson , and George E. Gehrels displacement 1 2 • The San Pedro fault cut through Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, Arizona Geological Survey, University of Arizona, carbonate tectonites beneath an Tucson, AZ, USA older thrust fault that formed a weak zone in the upper crust • The architecture of core complexes Abstract The Rincon Mountains metamorphic core complex, located east of Tucson, Arizona, consists may have been influenced by upper crustal weak zones inherited from of an arched footwall of foliated crystalline rocks bounded above by the generally outward dipping, older thrust faulting Oligocene‐Miocene San Pedro extensional detachment fault.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona State Office Bureau of Land Management
    ARIZONA STATE OFFICE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MINING DISTRICTS This document is a listing of all Mining District Names listed on the Mining District Sheets on file at the Office of Cadastral Surveys, Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management. The data is organized by: 1. Township referencing Mining District Number. - page 2 - 14 2. Mining District Number referencing Township Number. - page 15 - 27 3. Mining District Name referencing Mining District Number - page 28 - 35 4. Mining District Number referencing Mining District Name - page 36 - 43 At the end of the images of Mining District Sheets is an image of a U.S. Geological Survey Map upon which is annotated Mining District Numbers. This map was apparently compiled many years ago by Coe and Van Loo Consulting Engineers, Inc. Below the map is an alphabetical listing of the names of Mining Districts with a number assigned to each. The Mining Districts and numbers assigned thereto were the starting point for the attached data. Each of the Mining District Sheets was examined for the names of Mining Districts. Whenever the name matched the one on the map then the name and number was used for the new listing. Whenever a new name was discovered then a new number was assigned continuing from the Coe and Van Loo system of numbering. The user of this information should understand that Mining District Sheets are updated whenever new Mineral Surveys are approved or when a Mineral Survey is cancelled due to abandonment or other reason. This listing is provided as an informational assistance to the user, but no warranty is implied for this listing.
    [Show full text]