DOCSLIB.ORG

Arizona Localities of Interest to Botanists Author(S): T

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. H. KEARNEY Bureau of Plant Industry U. S. Department of Agriculture The following list is believed to be fairly compre- of herbarium specimens are are probably only ap- hensive as regardsthe names of localities mentioned proximate. The compiler is indebted to the U. S. by collectors of Arizona plants on labels of speci- Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, for mens, and in publications.The names of counties, much information in regard to the altitudes of Ari- and usually the section of the county, are given in zona localities, and to the U. S. Forest Service, De- parenthesis. Altitudes, when known, are stated in partment of Agriculture, for data on the location feet. Those given for mountain peaks or ranges are and altitude of ranger stations, including many that of the highest summit, unless otherwise indicated. have been discontinued.The latter are indicated by Altitudes as given on topographicmaps of the US. an asterisk.Arizona Place Names, by Will C. Barnes, Geological Survey were preferred whenever obtain- has been consulted freely in preparingthis list.1 able, but many of the data were taken from labels AcrossRanger Station (Gila, western); Antelope Valley (Mohave, northwest- Avondale (Maricopa, central); 1,000. 2,800. Tonto National Forest. ern). West of Phoenix. Adamana( Apache,western ) ; 5, 300 . Apache, Fort or Camp. See Fort Avra Valley (Pima). West and north- Agassiz, Mount or Peak. See Mount Apache. west of the Tucson Mountains. Agassiz. Apache Junction (Pinal, eastern). Aztec (Yuma, eastern); 490. Agathla (Navajo, northeastern); Apache Lake.See Horse Mesa. Aztec Lodge (Gila); about 7,000. In 6,820. In MonumentValley. Apache Maid Ranger Station (Coco- the Sierra Ancha. Agua Caliente (Maricopa, western); nino, southeastern); 6,500. Coco- Azucar Mountains (Cochise). nino 450. National Forest. Babocomari River or Creek (Santa Agua Caliente Ranch (Pima); 2,730. Apache National Forest (Apache, Cruz). Tributary of San Pedro Agua Duke Mountains (Pima, west- southern, and Greenlee, northern). River. ern); about 2,000. Near the Mexi- Comprising the White Mountains. BaboquivariCanyon (Pima). can border. Apache Pass (Cochise); 5,110. Be- Baboquivari Mountains and Peak Agua Fria River (Yavapai, southern tween the Dos Cabezas and the ChiricahuaMountains. (Pima); 7,740. and Maricopa, central). Tributary Bagdad (Yavapai, western); about of Gila River. Aoac'ie Peak (O>chi<e);7,680. Whet- stone Mountains. 3,000. Aguila (Maricopa,northwestern) ; Baker Butte (Coconino,southeastern); about 1,800. Apache Peak (Pinal); 6,460. Santa 8,180. CatalinaMountains, Ajo (Pima, western); 1,750. Baker Mountain (Gila). A peak of Mountains East of Apache Trail (Gila and Maricopa). the SierraAncha. Ajo (Pima). Ajo. Globe to Mesa. Alamo (Yuma, northern); about 500. Baldy, Old (Pima). See Mount On Williams River. Aquarius Cliffs and Mountains( Mo- and Wrightson. Alamo Station south- have, southeastern, Yavapai, Ranger (Gila, southwestern). Baldy Peak (Apache, southern); western). CrookNational Forest. 11,500. The highest peak of the Aravaipa (Graham, western); 4,600. *Allen Lake RangerStation (Coconino, White Mountains, often called central); 7,000. Kaibab National Aravaipa Creek (Graham, western, Mount Thomas. Forest. and Pinal, eastern). Tributary of Ranch See Del San Pedro River. Bangharts (Yavapai). Alpine (Apache, southeastern);8,000. Rio. *Arcadia Ranger Station (Graham, Altar Valley (Pima). East of the Bangs Mountain (Mohave); 7,500. In southern); 6,700. Pinaleno Moun- the Virgin Mountains. BaboquivariMountains. tains, Crook National Forest. American Peak about Barfoot Park (Cochise); 8,830. In (Santa Cruz); Arivaca (Pima, southern); 3,650. 6,300. PatagoniaMountains. the ChiricahuaMountains. Ash Creek (Maricopa,eastern). Ancha, Sierra.See SierraAncha. Bates Well. See Growler Well. *Ash Creek Ranger Station (Coconino, AndradeRanch (Pima); 3,740. Beale Spring (Mohave); 3,500. Near western); 5,500. Kaibab National Kingman. Anita Ranger Station (Coconino, Forest. northern); 6,500. Kaibab National Bear Valley. See SycamoreCanyon. Ashdale Ranger Station (Maricopa, Bear Wallow north- Forest. northeastern); 3,700. Tonto Na- Camp (Pima, Peak southwest- eastern); 8,000. In the Santa Cata- Antelope (Yavapai, tional Forest. lina Mountains. ern); 5,790. Ash Fork (Yavapai, northern); 5,130. Antelope Spring (Mohave); 2,740. Beaver Creek (Yavapai, eastern); AtascosaMountain (Santa Cruz, 3,000 to 5,000. Tributaryof Verde Antelope Spring (Cochise); 4,900. southwestern) . River. Near Tombstone. Aubrey Cliffs (Coconino, western); Beaver Creek Ranger Station (Yava- 7,330. pai, eastern); 6,500. Coconino Na- "Will C. Barnes.Arizona Place Names. Aubrey Valley (Coconino, western); tional Forest. Universityof Arizona.General Bulletin 5,160. Beaver Dam (Mohave, northern); 2 (Vol. VI, No. 1). 1935. Aultman ( Yavapai, eastern) ; 3,100. about 1,500. 94 October1964 kearney - Arizona localities of interest to botanists 95 BeaverDam Creek (Mohave). Tribu- Blue River (Greenlee, northern). Camp Crittenden (Santa Cruz). On tary of Virgin River. Tributaryof San FranciscoRiver. Sonoita Creek, about 6 miles from Beaver Dam Mountains (Mohave, *Bobcat Ranger Station (Greenlee, the presentCrittenden Station. Orig- northern) . northeastern); 6,250. Apache Na- inally known as Fort Buchanan. BeaverheadLodge (Apache); 8,600. tional Forest. Camp Grant (Graham,southwestern); In the White Mountains. Bonita (Graham); 5,200. Near Fort 4,830. *Beaverhead Ranger Station (Yavapai, Grant. Camp Lawton Ranger Station (Pima, northeastern);3,800. CoconinoNa- Bonita Creek (Graham). Tributaryof northeastern); 7,900. Santa Cata- tional Forest. Gila River. lina Mountains,Coronado National Forest. Bellemont (Coconino); 7,130. Near Bonito Canyon (Apache, northern). the name sometimes Near Fort Defiance. Camp Lowell (Pima, northeastern); Flagstaff, Near spelled Belmont. Bonito Creek (Apache). Tributaryof 2,500. Tucson. Benson (Cochise, western); 3,570. Black River. Camp Thomas (Graham, central); 2,700. Also known as Fort Thomas. Bernardino Station (Cochise, south- BoulderDam (Mohave,western); 650, eastern); 4,490. Somtimes called at bottom of the canyon. On the CampeVerde. See Fort Verde. San Bernardino. ColoradoRiver. Canaan Ranch (Coconino, northern); Betatakin (Navajo, northern); about Bouse (Yuma, northern); 720. 5,000. 7,000. In the Navajo National Bowie (Cochise, northern); 3,760. Canelo Hills. See Canille Hills. Monument. Bo Canyon (Pima); 4,300 to 5,000. Cane Spring (Mohave, northern); Bidahochi (Navajo, northern). In the SantaRita Mountains. 3,750. Big Bug Creek (Yavapai, central); BradshawMountains (Yavapai, south- Canille Hills (Santa Cruz, eastern); 4,500. ern); 6,840. 5,900. The name is sometimes Saddle Camp (Coconino); 7,000. Creek Coconino spelled Canelo. Big Bright Angel ( ) ; Canille On the KaibabPlateau. 2,400, at mouth in the Grand Can- Ranger Station (Santa Cruz, Wash eastern); 5,000. CoronadoNational Big Sandy River and (Mohave, yon. Forest. southeastern). Unites with Santa BrightAngel Point (Coconino); 8,150. MariaRiver to form Williams River. On the north rim of the Grand Canoa (Pima, southern); about 3,000. Big Springs Ranger Station (Coco- Canyon. Canyonde Chelly (Apache,northern); nino, northern); 6,700. KaibabNa- *Brush Corral Ranger Station (Pima, 5,400 to 6,200. tional Forest. northeastern);3,700. CoronadoNa- Canyon Diablo Station (Coconino, Billings (Apache, central); 5,400. tional Forest. eastern); 5,430. Bill Williams Fork. See Williams Buckeye (Maricopa,western); 890. Canyon Lake (Maricopa, eastern); River. *Buckohrn Station 1,550. On Salt River, formerly Ranger (Coconino, known as Mormon Bill Williams Mountain (Coconino): southern); 6,350. CoconinoNation- Flat. al Forest. Cape Royal (Coconino); 8,000. North 9,260. rim of the Grand Bisbee (Cochise, southern); 5,300. Buckskin Mountains (Coconino). An Canyon. Capitan,El about Black Canyon
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]
  • Big Bug Watershed: Money Metals and Providence Mines Bradshaw Mountains Prescott National Forest, Arizona
    Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Big Bug Watershed: Money Metals and Providence Mines Bradshaw Mountains Prescott National Forest, Arizona Prepared for: USDA Forest Service 333 Broadway SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 Prepared by: Weston Solutions, Inc. 960 West Elliot Road, Suite 201 Tempe, Arizona 85284 Contract No. AG-8371-D-09-0191 December 2010 Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Big Bug Watershed: Money Metals and Providence Mines Bradshaw Mountains, Prescott National Forest, Arizona December 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................E1 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 AREA POPULATION ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Geologic and Hydrologic Setting .......................................................................... 2 1.3.1.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................. 3 1.3.2 Regional Climate ................................................................................................... 4 1.4 SITE OPERATION
    [Show full text]
  • Sonora Sucker
    scientific name common name Catostomus insignis Sonora sucker Bison code 010520 ______________________________________________________________ Official status Endemism ________________________ State AZ: threatened Colorado River Basin _______________________ Status/threats Dams, diversions, groundwater pumping and introduced species Distribution The species is widespread and abundant in the Gila and Bill Williams river drainages in Arizona and the Gila and San Francisco drainages in southwestern New Mexico. The species is widespread and abundant in the Verde and Gila headwaters. Habitat Streams and rivers from 300 to 3000 m in elevation, primarily in pool habitats. Pool habitats over sand gravel substrates. Life history and ecology Can attain a size of 0.8 m and a weight of greater than 2.0 kg. Used as food by early, primitive human populations. Food habits vary with availability. In one stream, Aravaipa Creek, it is principally a carnivore, whereas elsewhere in pool habitats diet consists of plant debris, mud, and algae. Observed to "suck" cottonwood seeds at surface as is common for the common carp. Young often feed in large schools at stream margins on micro-crustaceans, protozoans and other animal and plant groups. Breeding Similar to most slim-bodied suckers, the species spawns in smaller streams over gravel substrates. Males darken in color and often display extreme tuberculation. Males &(usually 2) flank a single, larger female. Gametes are emitted with considerable to extreme substrate agitation and fall into gravel interstices. Cleaning of gravels occurs much as reported for salmonid species. Key Habitat Components: pools with sand-gravel substrates for adults and shallow, low velocity riffles and backwaters for young Breeding season Protracted, from as early as January to February at low elevations to as late as July.
    [Show full text]
  • Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Final Recovery Plan April 2007 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Rana chiricahuensis) RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, or Director, as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-M. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Southwest Region 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 500 Gold Avenue, S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • LIGHTNING FIRES in SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS T
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. LIGHTNING FIRES IN SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS t . I I LIGHT~ING FIRES IN SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS (l) by Jack S. Barrows Department of Forest and Wood Sciences College of Forestry and Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 (1) Research performed for Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station under cooperative agreement 16-568 CA with Rocky Mountain For­ est and Range Experiment Station. Final Report May 1978 n LIB RARY COPY. ROCKY MT. FO i-< t:S'f :.. R.l.N~ EX?f.lt!M SN T ST.A.1101'1 . - ... Acknowledgementd r This research of lightning fires in Sop thwestern forests has been ? erformed with the assistan~e and cooperation of many individuals and agencies. The idea for the research was suggested by Dr. Donald M. Fuquay and Robert G. Baughman of the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory. The Fire Management Staff of U. S. Forest Service Region Three provided fire data, maps, rep~rts and briefings on fire p~enomena. Special thanks are expressed to James F. Mann for his continuing assistance in these a ctivities. Several members of national forest staffs assisted in correcting fire report errors. At CSU Joel Hart was the principal graduate 'research assistant in organizing the data, writing computer programs and handling the extensive computer operations. The initial checking of fire data tapes and com­ puter programming was performed by research technician Russell Lewis. Graduate Research Assistant Rick Yancik and Research Associate Lee Bal- ::.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Forest Action Plan 2015 Status Report and Addendum
    Arizona Forest Action Plan 2015 Status Report and Addendum A report on the strategic plan to address forest-related conditions, trends, threats, and opportunities as identified in the 2010 Arizona Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy. November 20, 2015 Arizona State Forestry Acknowledgements: Arizona State Forestry would like to thank the USDA Forest Service for their ongoing support of cooperative forestry and fire programs in the State of Arizona, and for specific funding to support creation of this report. We would also like to thank the many individuals and organizations who contributed to drafting the original 2010 Forest Resource Assessment and Resource Strategy (Arizona Forest Action Plan) and to the numerous organizations and individuals who provided input for this 2015 status report and addendum. Special thanks go to Arizona State Forestry staff who graciously contributed many hours to collect information and data from partner organizations – and to writing, editing, and proofreading this document. Jeff Whitney Arizona State Forester Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial On the second anniversary of the Yarnell Hill Fire, the State of Arizona purchased 320 acres of land near the site where the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshots sacrificed their lives while battling one of the most devastating fires in Arizona’s history. This site is now the Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial State Park. “This site will serve as a lasting memorial to the brave hotshots who gave their lives to protect their community,” said Governor Ducey. “While we can never truly repay our debt to these heroes, we can – and should – honor them every day. Arizona is proud to offer the public a space where we can pay tribute to them, their families and all of our firefighters and first responders for generations to come.” Arizona Forest Action Plan – 2015 Status Report and Addendum Background Contents The 2010 Forest Action Plan The development of Arizona’s Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy (now known as Arizona’s “Forest Action Plan”) was prompted by federal legislative requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Altar Valley, Arizona, USA How Ranchers Have Shaped the West—And Continue to Do So
    A History of Working Landscapes: The Altar Valley, Arizona, USA How ranchers have shaped the West—and continue to do so. By Nathan F. Sayre pproaching rangelands as working landscapes be- Although relatively overlooked by scientists, agencies, and gins from the premise that people and the envi- environmentalists during the 20th century, the Altar Valley ronment shape each other over time. Sustainable has recently emerged as a focal point in the politics of conser- management is therefore not only an ecological but vation in Pima County, Arizona. Despite dramatic changes in Aalso a social process, strongly infl uenced by local histories of the structure and composition of vegetation and in watershed resource use, management, change, and learning. The case of function (see below), the area provides habitat to numerous the Altar Valley, Arizona, offers insights into how economics, listed threatened or endangered species. Compared to the range science, mental models, and the scale of decision mak- rest of eastern Pima County, the Altar Valley is also remark- ing have shaped ranchers and the landscape over time. In par- ably unfragmented by residential development, although the ticular, it provides empirical answers to important questions fringes of metropolitan Tucson (population approximately 1 facing range science today: How do scientifi c knowledge and million) reach right up to its northeastern edge. In conse- recommendations affect on-the-ground management? How quence, advocates of wildlife and open space conservation do ranchers weigh economic, ecological, and cultural goals are increasingly interested in the activities of the families against one another? What kinds of information do ranchers who own the valley’s major ranches.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Mineralization of the Oro Blanco Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona
    Structure and mineralization of the Oro Blanco Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Knight, Louis Harold, 1943- 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 27/09/2021 20:13:55 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/565224 STRUCTURE AND MINERALIZATION OF THE ORO BLANCO MINING DISTRICT, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, ARIZONA by * Louis Harold Knight, Jr. A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 0 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction by Louis Harold Knight, Jr._______________________ entitled Structure and Mineralization of the Pro Blanco______ Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona_________ be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy________________________________ a/akt/Z). m date ' After inspection of the final copy of the dissertation, the following members of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:* SUtzo. /16? QJr zd /rtf C e f i, r --------- 7-------- /?S? This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate1s adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 1
    Appendix 1. Summary of location, basin, and hydrological-regime characteristics for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona and parts of adjacent states that were used to calibrate hydrological-regime models [Hydrologic provinces: 1, Plateau Uplands; 2, Central Highlands; 3, Basin and Range Lowlands; e, value not present in database and was estimated for the purpose of model development] Average percent of Latitude, Longitude, Site Complete Number of Percent of year with Hydrologic decimal decimal Hydrologic altitude, Drainage area, years of perennial years no flow, Identifier Name unit code degrees degrees province feet square miles record years perennial 1950-2005 09379050 LUKACHUKAI CREEK NEAR 14080204 36.47750 109.35010 1 5,750 160e 5 1 20% 2% LUKACHUKAI, AZ 09379180 LAGUNA CREEK AT DENNEHOTSO, 14080204 36.85389 109.84595 1 4,985 414.0 9 0 0% 39% AZ 09379200 CHINLE CREEK NEAR MEXICAN 14080204 36.94389 109.71067 1 4,720 3,650.0 41 0 0% 15% WATER, AZ 09382000 PARIA RIVER AT LEES FERRY, AZ 14070007 36.87221 111.59461 1 3,124 1,410.0 56 56 100% 0% 09383200 LEE VALLEY CR AB LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.50204 1 9,440e 1.3 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383220 LEE VALLEY CREEK TRIBUTARY 15020001 33.93894 109.50204 1 9,440e 0.5 6 0 0% 49% NEAR GREER, ARIZ. 09383250 LEE VALLEY CR BL LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.49787 1 9,400e 1.9 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383400 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER AT GREER, 15020001 34.01671 109.45731 1 8,283 29.1 22 22 100% 0% ARIZ.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Foundation Document Overview, Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Arizona
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. Foundation Document Overview. Fort Bowie National Historic Site. Arizona. Contact Information. For more information about the Fort Bowie National Historic Site Foundation Document, contact: [email protected] or (520) 847-2500 or write to: Superintendent, Fort Bowie National Historic Site, 3327 Old Fort Bowie Road, Bowie, AZ 85605 Purpose. Significance. Significance statements express why Fort Bowie National Historic Site resources and values are important enough to merit national park unit designation. Statements of significance describe why an area is important within a global, national, regional, and systemwide context. These statements are linked to the purpose of the park unit, and are supported by data, research, and consensus. Significance statements describe the distinctive nature of the park and inform management decisions, focusing efforts on preserving and protecting the most important resources and values of the park unit. • For over 25 years Fort Bowie was central to late 19th-century US military campaign against the Chiricahua Apaches. The final surrender by Geronimo in 1886 to troops stationed at Fort Bowie brought an end to two centuries of Apache warfare with the Spanish, Mexicans, and Americans in southeast Arizona. • Designated a national historic landmark in 1960, Fort Bowie National Historic Site preserves the remnants of the fort structures that are key to understanding the history FORT BOWIE NATIONAL HISTORIC of Apache Pass and the US military presence there, which SITE preserves and interprets the ultimately opened the region to unrestricted settlement. history, landscape, and remaining • Apache Pass offers the most direct, accessible route between structures of Fort Bowie, a US Army the Chiricahua and Dos Cabezas ranges, with a reliable outpost which guarded the strategic water supply available from Apache Spring.
    [Show full text]