DOCSLIB.ORG

Tucson Audubon Comments Regarding Proposed Western

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tucson Audubon Comments Regarding Proposed Western March 13, 2015 Via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Docket No. Attn: Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0011; 4500030114 Public Comments Processing Division of Policy and Directives Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Main Office 300 E. University Blvd., #120 Tucson AZ 85705 4401 N. Fairfax Drive TEL 520.629.0510 FAX 520.623.3476 MS 2042–PDM Tucson Audubon’s Mason Center 3835 W Hardy Road Arlington, VA 22203 Tucson AZ 85742 Karen Fogas Executive Director TEL 520.209.1801 Re: Proposed Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo Critical Habitat Designation [email protected] Dear Director Ashe: Established in 1949, the Tucson Audubon Society (Tucson Audubon) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit conservation organization. We are the third largest local Audubon chapter in the nation and write to you on behalf of our membership in excess of 5,000 citizens. Tucson Audubon promotes the protection and stewardship of southeast Arizona’s biological diversity through the study and enjoyment of birds and the places they live. Tucson Audubon advocates statewide for the sustainability, resilience, preservation, restoration and connectivity of habitats utilized by birds and other wildlife, with special emphasis on riparian habitats and their associated uplands. Tucson Audubon Society appreciates the opportunity to respond to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) request for comments on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the federally threatened Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis - WYBC). See: Fed. Reg. Vol 79 No. 158 50 CFR Part 17 (August 15, 2014). Due to recent staffing changes at Tucson Audubon, we submit our comments to you after the deadline stated in the Federal Register notice. However, we hope that our comments have arrived in time to be fully considered and to contribute to your deliberations. In addition to the comments provided herein, Tucson Audubon concurs with comments submitted on the proposed CHD by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), Audubon Arizona et al., the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance (LSPWA), Cascabel Conservation Association (CCA) and Friends of the San Pedro River (FSPR). Background The rapid population decreases and range reductions of the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo prompted petitions for the western distinct population segment to be listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as early as 1998 (e.g., Center for Biological Diversity, 1998). A settlement agreement with WildEarth Guardians, approved by the District Court in September 2011 and affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeals in 2013, requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to address 252 candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act before the end of FY 2016. The WYBC is one of these candidate species. In accordance with the settlement agreement, on October of 2014, the FWS issued a final determination that listed the Western DPS of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo as a threatened species under the ESA (79 FR 59991 60038). In western North America, large declines in distribution and abundance of WYBC have occurred as a result of loss, degradation, and fragmentation of riparian habitat by agriculture and residential development (Dobkin 1994), flood control (Laymon and Halterman 1987, 1989), invasion by less desirable salt cedar (Tamarix spp.; Hughes 1999), mining, dams, water withdrawals, pesticides, stochastic extinctions and low colonization rates. In Arizona, WYBCs were relatively widespread 50 years ago (Phillips et al., 1964). Today, WYBC are well documented breeding regularly in relatively isolated populations along the Gila, San Pedro, Bill Williams, Salt, Verde, and Colorado Rivers. Southwestern riparian habitats, the lush ribbons of vegetation running along our streams and rivers, contain the highest density and diversity of bird species outside of tropical rain forests. The vast majority of riparian bottomland forests in the southwestern United States have been modified or lost, and these alterations and losses are attributable to the synergistic impacts of woodcutting, urban and agricultural encroachment, water diversion and impoundment, channelization, groundwater pumping, livestock overgrazing, and hydrologic changes resulting from various land-use practices (Carothers 1977, pp. 2–3; Kusler 1985, p. 6; Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie 1988, pp. 17–36; USGAO 1988, p. 8; Szaro 1989, pp. 73–81; State of Arizona 1990, pp. 1–5; Bahre 1991, pp. 119–151). The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) stated that 90 percent of the Arizona’s riparian habitat had been lost in their November 1988 issue of Wildlife Views (AGFD 1988). Riparian areas are critical elements where biological diversity is at its highest and are valued for their higher water availability, vegetation density, and biological productivity. They are the main 2 arteries for hydro-geological and biological processes and facilitate landscape-level habitat connectivity for a wide variety of wildlife. Therefore, the final CHD should reflect the WYBC’s need for biological connectivity at landscape and regional scales. Law, Regulation and Procedural Guidance Governing Critical Habitat Designation The designation of critical habitat must be made on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may only exclude an area from critical habitat if he or she determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation and that the failure to designate the area as critical habitat will not result in the extinction of the species. Critical habitat shall include “the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species… on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A). It also must include areas outside the area occupied by the species at the time of listing if such areas are “essential for the conservation of the species.” Id. “Conservation” is in turn defined as “the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.” Id. § 1532(3). Courts have construed this definition of conservation, and thus the requirements for critical habitat, to require steps to promote the recovery of the species and not merely avoid jeopardy. See, e.g., Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2007). Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the ESA and its implementing regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 424.12, require FWS, when determining areas to propose as critical habitat, to consider areas containing the physical and biological features (PBFs) that are essential to the conservation of the species and may require special management considerations or protection. 78 Fed. Reg. at 18006. These features are the specific primary constituent elements (PCEs)—laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species—and they include, but are not limited to: 3 (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) Cover or shelter; (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species. 50 C.F.R. § 424.12(b). Any one or more of the identified PCEs sufficient to support the life history processes of the species may qualify an area for designation as critical habitat. The FWS Listing Handbook further instructs the agency to, among other things: 1. Carefully evaluate the biology, status, and needs of the species, then determine what areas will best serve the species as critical habitat. These areas can include the entire known range, portions thereof, and/or additional suitable habitat or areas in need of restoration. 2. Critical habitat boundaries and size should be determined using great care and attention to detail. Keep them as simple as possible, yet accurate. 3. Carefully consider population or range variations over time. Be sure all included areas are thoroughly justified by one or more of the criteria in 424.12(b). Few species have static distributions. Allow for species dynamics in the critical habitat. If the species requires ephemeral habitats, consider where the future habitats might be relative to the present ones. Endangered Species Listing Handbook: Procedural Guidance for the Preparation and Processing of Rules and Notices Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, Fourth Edition (March 1994), at 103 (emphasis added)1 Tucson Audubon takes the position that the proposed WYBC critical habitat designation is a solid starting point, but should be expanded to more comprehensively reflect WYBC occupancy 1 Available online at: http://training.fws.gov/EC/Resources/ES_Listing_and_Candidate_Assessment/ESA%20Folder/FWS%20Listing%20Handbook.pdf 4 at the time of listing, as well as additional suitable habitats. In addition to documented
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX
    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE PHOENIX AMA Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Brown and Caldwell Project No. 23481.001 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 9 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hassayampa Landscape Restoration EA Aquatics Resources Report
    Hassayampa Landscape Restoration Environmental Assessment Aquatics Resources Report Prepared by: Albert Sillas Fishery Biologist Prescott National Forest for: Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest August 25, 2017 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Survey Ik Salt River Valley, Arizona
    Soil Survey in Salt River Valley Item Type text; Book Authors Means, Thos. H. Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Rights Public Domain: This material has been identified as being free of known restrictions under U.S. copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. Download date 28/09/2021 11:06:51 Item License http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/192405 U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DIVISION OF SOILS MILTON "WHITNEY, Chief SOIL SURVEY IK SALT RIVER VALLEY, ARIZONA. THOMAS H MEANS [REPRINTED *ROM THE EFFORT o\ FIIID OPLK\.HO\S os mt I)IM^ION ot i OK 1900 ] CONTENTS. Page. Introduction _ to 287 Geology and topography _ 288 Climate 291 Soils 293 Pecos sand 294 River wash 293 Salt Eiver gravel 293 G-ilafine sandy loam 296 Salt River adobe 296 G-lendale loess „__ 299 Colluvial soils, or mountain waste - 302 Maricopa gravelly loam 303 Maricopa sandy loam _ 304 Maricopaloam 306 Maricopa clay lo?-m „ 307 Hardpan _ 308 Solrnaps - - 308 Tempesheet , 308 Phoenix sheet 309 Buckeye sheet 309 Irrigation waters 310 Underground waters 31S Tempesheet „ , 314 Phoenix sheet 315 Buckeye sheet , 317 Alkali of the soils 319 Templesheet 319 Origin of alkali salts of Tempe sheet 321 Reclamation of alkali lands 323 Phoenix &heet - - 325 Buckeye sheet-, S38 Agriculture in Salt River Valley 331 Fruit farming 331 Cattle raising - 33S Dairying * — - %8& in ILLUSTRATIONS. PLATES. PLATE XXIV. Character of native vegetation on desert land near the moun- tains 290 XXY. Irrigated lands in Tempe area 302 XXVI.
    [Show full text]
  • Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998
    GILA TOPMINNOW, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, REVISED RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approval: March 15, 1984) Prepared by David A. Weedman Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona for Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico December 1998 Approved: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions required to recover and protect the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepares the plans, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State and Federal Agencies, and others. Objectives are 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. Time and costs provided for individual tasks are estimates only, and not to be taken as actual or budgeted expenditures. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor official positions or approval of any persons or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the 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. ii Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Original preparation of the revised Gila topminnow Recovery Plan (1994) was done by Francisco J. Abarca 1, Brian E. Bagley, Dean A. Hendrickson 1 and Jeffrey R. Simms 1. That document was modified to this current version and the work conducted by those individuals is greatly appreciated and now acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2019 to 09/30/2019 Prescott National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2019 to 09/30/2019 Prescott National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact R3 - Southwestern Region, Occurring in more than one Forest (excluding Regionwide) AZ Public Service (APS) ROW - Vegetation management Completed Actual: 04/09/2019 04/2019 Heather Snow Vegetation Management with (other than forest products) 505-842-3445 Herbicides - Special use management [email protected] EA Description: FS must decide whether to allow APS to include using herbicides as a method to manage vegetation on existing *UPDATED* APS transmission ROW within five National Forests in Arizona. Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45771 Location: UNIT - Kaibab National Forest All Units, Prescott National Forest All Units, Coconino National Forest All Units, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests All Units, Tonto National Forest All Units. STATE - Arizona. COUNTY - Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Navajo, Yavapai. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Arizona Public Service Company Rights of Way across the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests. See map on website. Prescott College Academic - Recreation management In Progress: Expected:04/2018 05/2018 Julie Rowe Outfitter and Guide Priority Use - Special use management Scoping Start 02/02/2015 928-203-7516 (2015-2025) [email protected] CE Description: The Forest Service proposes to authorize Prescott College to conduct academic courses including new student orientation, adventure education, biology, human ecology, natural history, physical geography, field ecology, environmental conservation Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47407 Location: UNIT - Coronado National Forest All Units, Kaibab National Forest All Units, Prescott National Forest All Units, Tonto Basin Ranger District, Coconino National Forest All Units, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests All Units.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Supplemental Forest Service Southwestern Environmental Region April 2020 Assessment Proposed Riverbend Placer Mine and Lost Nugget Reclamation Project Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Fish Restoration in Redrock Canyon
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Final Environmental Assessment Phoenix Area Office NATIVE FISH RESTORATION IN REDROCK CANYON U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region Coronado National Forest Santa Cruz County, Arizona June 2008 Bureau of Reclamation Finding of No Significant Impact U.S. Forest Service Finding of No Significant Impact Decision Notice INTRODUCTION In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190, as amended), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as the lead Federal agency, and the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), as cooperating agencies, have issued the attached final environmental assessment (EA) to disclose the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction of a fish barrier, removal of nonnative fishes with the piscicide antimycin A and/or rotenone, and restoration of native fishes and amphibians in Redrock Canyon on the Coronado National Forest (CNF). The Proposed Action is intended to improve the recovery status of federally listed fish and amphibians (Gila chub, Gila topminnow, Chiricahua leopard frog, and Sonora tiger salamander) and maintain a healthy native fishery in Redrock Canyon consistent with the CNF Plan and ongoing Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7(a)(2), consultation between Reclamation and the FWS. BACKGROUND The Proposed Action is part of a larger program being implemented by Reclamation to construct a series of fish barriers within the Gila River Basin to prevent the invasion of nonnative fishes into high-priority streams occupied by imperiled native fishes. This program is mandated by a FWS biological opinion on impacts of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water transfers to the Gila River Basin (FWS 2008a).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Assessment Units
    APPENDIX A ASSESSMENT UNITS SURFACE WATER REACH DESCRIPTION REACH/LAKE NUM WATERSHED Agua Fria River 341853.9 / 1120358.6 - 341804.8 / 15070102-023 Middle Gila 1120319.2 Agua Fria River State Route 169 - Yarber Wash 15070102-031B Middle Gila Alamo 15030204-0040A Bill Williams Alum Gulch Headwaters - 312820/1104351 15050301-561A Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312820 / 1104351 - 312917 / 1104425 15050301-561B Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312917 / 1104425 - Sonoita Creek 15050301-561C Santa Cruz Alvord Park Lake 15060106B-0050 Middle Gila American Gulch Headwaters - No. Gila Co. WWTP 15060203-448A Verde River American Gulch No. Gila County WWTP - East Verde River 15060203-448B Verde River Apache Lake 15060106A-0070 Salt River Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Cyn Wilderness - San Pedro River 15050203-004C San Pedro Aravaipa Creek Stowe Gulch - end Aravaipa C 15050203-004B San Pedro Arivaca Cienega 15050304-0001 Santa Cruz Arivaca Creek Headwaters - Puertocito/Alta Wash 15050304-008 Santa Cruz Arivaca Lake 15050304-0080 Santa Cruz Arnett Creek Headwaters - Queen Creek 15050100-1818 Middle Gila Arrastra Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-848 Middle Gila Ashurst Lake 15020015-0090 Little Colorado Aspen Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-769 Verde River Babbit Spring Wash Headwaters - Upper Lake Mary 15020015-210 Little Colorado Babocomari River Banning Creek - San Pedro River 15050202-004 San Pedro Bannon Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-774 Verde River Barbershop Canyon Creek Headwaters - East Clear Creek 15020008-537 Little Colorado Bartlett Lake 15060203-0110 Verde River Bear Canyon Lake 15020008-0130 Little Colorado Bear Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-046 Middle Gila Bear Wallow Creek N. and S. Forks Bear Wallow - Indian Res.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resource Planning Sustainable Cities Network November 7, 2019 Organizational Structure Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt
    Water Resource Planning Sustainable Cities Network November 7, 2019 Organizational Structure Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt Asst. Secretary Asst. Secretary of Water & of Asst. Secretary Science Fish, Wildlife & of Indian Affairs Asst. Secretary Parks of Land & Bureau of Minerals National Park Service Indian Affairs Bureau of Bureau of Reclamation Land Management Commissioner Brenda Burman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Surfacing Mining U.S. Geological Reclamation & Enforcement Survey 2 Lower Colorado Region Utah New Mexico Arizona 3 Phoenix Area Office Boundaries COLORADO RIVER VERDE RIVER SALT RIVER GILA RIVER SAN PEDRO RIVER Mission The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Overview • Largest water provider in the 17 western States (479 dams and 348 reservoirs) • Nation’s second largest producer of hydroelectric power • Develops authorized facilities to store and convey new water supplies Recharge Xeriscape Water Treatment Wetlands Irrigation Efficiencies 7 Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) • Consensus-based drought contingency plans were developed • each basin state • American Indian tribes • Mexico • DCP includes • Basin state voluntary reductions and other actions • Mexico agreed to implement a Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan after the United States adopted the DCP Colorado River Basin Overview • 16.5 million acre-feet (maf) allocated annually - 7.5 maf
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Insurance Study Vol. 1
    SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, ARIZONA AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 OF 3 Community Community Name Number SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 040090 NOGALES, CITY OF 040091 PATAGONIA, TOWN OF 040092 Santa Cruz County EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 2, 2011 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 04023CV001A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS report may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 through A30 AE B X C X Initial Countywide FIS Report Effective Date: December 2, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS – VOLUME 1 Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Proquest Dissertations
    An ethnographic perspective on prehistoric platform mounds of the Tonto Basin, Central Arizona Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Elson, Mark David, 1955- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 10/10/2021 00:20:59 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/290644 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfihn master. UMI fihns the text directly from the orighud or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter fiice, \^e others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, b^inning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study for the SANTA CRUZ VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA
    Feasibility Study for the SANTA CRUZ VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA FINAL Prepared by the Center for Desert Archaeology April 2005 CREDITS Assembled and edited by: Jonathan Mabry, Center for Desert Archaeology Contributions by (in alphabetical order): Linnea Caproni, Preservation Studies Program, University of Arizona William Doelle, Center for Desert Archaeology Anne Goldberg, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona Andrew Gorski, Preservation Studies Program, University of Arizona Kendall Kroesen, Tucson Audubon Society Larry Marshall, Environmental Education Exchange Linda Mayro, Pima County Cultural Resources Office Bill Robinson, Center for Desert Archaeology Carl Russell, CBV Group J. Homer Thiel, Desert Archaeology, Inc. Photographs contributed by: Adriel Heisey Bob Sharp Gordon Simmons Tucson Citizen Newspaper Tumacácori National Historical Park Maps created by: Catherine Gilman, Desert Archaeology, Inc. Brett Hill, Center for Desert Archaeology James Holmlund, Western Mapping Company Resource information provided by: Arizona Game and Fish Department Center for Desert Archaeology Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau Pima County Staff Pimería Alta Historical Society Preservation Studies Program, University of Arizona Sky Island Alliance Sonoran Desert Network The Arizona Nature Conservancy Tucson Audubon Society Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona PREFACE The proposed Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area is a big land filled with small details. One’s first impression may be of size and distance—broad valleys rimmed by mountain ranges, with a huge sky arching over all. However, a closer look reveals that, beneath the broad brush strokes, this is a land of astonishing variety. For example, it is comprised of several kinds of desert, year-round flowing streams, and sky island mountain ranges.
    [Show full text]