DOCSLIB.ORG

Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan Comments on the DEIS for the Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan Submitted September 15, 2014 via Electronic Mail and Certified Mail #7014-0150-0001-2587-0812 On Behalf of: Archaeology Southwest Center for Biological Diversity Sierra Club The Wilderness Society WildEarth Guardians Table of Contents II. Federal Regulation of Travel Management .................................................................................. 4 III. Impacts from Year Round Motorized Use Must be Analyzed .................................................. 5 IV. The Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative .............................................................................. 6 V. Desired Conditions for Travel Management ................................................................................. 6 VI. Purpose and Need Statements ................................................................................................... 7 VII. Baseline Determination .............................................................................................................. 8 A. The Forest Service cannot arbitrarily reclassify roads as “open to motor vehicle use” in the baseline. ............................................................................................................................................ 10 B. Classification of all closed or decommissioned routes as “open to motor vehicle use” leads to mischaracterization of the impacts of the considered alternatives. ...................................................... 11 C. Failure to distinguish between official system routes and other routes is in violation of the Standard Consultation Protocol for Travel Management Route Designation Developed Pursuant to Stipulation IV.A. of the Region 3 First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities. .......................................................................................... 13 D. Failure to distinguish between official system routes and other routes present on the ground prevents environmental impacts from being fully disclosed or discussed within the DEIS. ................. 13 VIII. Discarding the Travel Analysis Process Report is Arbitrary and Capricious ....................... 15 IX. Route Evaluation Tree ............................................................................................................. 18 X. Alternative Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 19 A. “CBD” Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 19 B. Need for Additional Alternatives ................................................................................................ 20 XI. Permit Zones ............................................................................................................................ 21 XII. Cross-Country “OHV Areas” .................................................................................................. 23 XIII. Motorized Big Game Retrieval ................................................................................................ 25 XIV. Motorized Dispersed Camping ............................................................................................ 27 XV. Designation of Unauthorized Routes ....................................................................................... 27 XVI. Enforcement ......................................................................................................................... 28 XVII. Transportation Facilities - Maintenance ............................................................................. 30 XVIII. User Conflict and Recreation Opportunities ....................................................................... 31 XIX. Wildlife and Plant Impacts .................................................................................................. 33 A. Riparian Habitat ......................................................................................................................... 34 2 Comments on the DEIS for the Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan – 09/15/2014 B. Road Density ............................................................................................................................. 34 C. Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................... 35 XX. Wilderness Areas ..................................................................................................................... 41 XXI. Wild and Scenic Rivers ........................................................................................................ 44 A. Legal Requirements ................................................................................................................... 44 B. Verde Wild and Scenic River ..................................................................................................... 45 C. Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................................. 46 XXII. Inventoried Roadless Areas (“IRAs”).................................................................................. 47 XXIII. Special Management Areas .................................................................................................. 49 XXIV. Water/Hydrological Resources ............................................................................................ 50 XXV. Visual Resources .................................................................................................................. 50 XXVI. Heritage Resources ............................................................................................................... 51 XXVII. Noxious/Invasive Weeds ................................................................................................... 53 XXVIII. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 53 A. The Analysis Does Not Comply with NEPA .............................................................................. 53 B. Cumulative Effects are Not Adequately Analyzed ...................................................................... 54 C. The Air Quality Specialist Report appears to be rather outdated ................................................. 56 D. The Information Used in the Analysis is Inconsistent ................................................................. 56 E. Health and Wildlife Impacts Are Not Adequately Analyzed nor Addressed ................................ 57 F. None of the Alternatives Complies with the TNF LRMP ............................................................ 60 XXIX. Climate Change .................................................................................................................... 61 XXX. Specific Routes/Areas Recommendations ............................................................................ 61 XXXI. Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................... 67 A. Payson RD OHV Project ............................................................................................................ 67 B. Illegal Activities ........................................................................................................................ 68 XXXII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 68 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................... 70 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 72 3 Comments on the DEIS for the Tonto National Forest Travel Management Plan – 09/15/2014 I. Introduction Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) for the Tonto National Forest’s (“TNF”) ongoing travel management planning process. We appreciate the TNF’s commitment to ensuring public input throughout this process. The following comments are submitted on behalf of all members of our collective organizations who care deeply about our National Forests and are concerned about management of motorized vehicles on these forests. The following organizations endorse and support these comments: For the past thirty years, Archaeology Southwest, a non-profit organization based in Tucson, has been dedicated to exploring and protecting the places of the past. Archaeology Southwest has practiced a holistic, conservation-based approach that we call Preservation Archaeology. By exploring what makes a place special, sharing this knowledge in innovative ways, and enacting flexible site protection strategies, we foster meaningful connections to the past and respectfully safeguard irreplaceable cultural resources. The Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit public service organization with more than 775,000 members and online activists dedicated to conservation and recovery of at-risk fauna and flora, including those occurring on the Tonto National Forest. It has long-standing interests in travel management on forest lands throughout the Southwest, especially as that management affects
Load more

Recommended publications
  • News Release
    News Release March 28, 2019 PARTNERSHIP PRESERVES RECREATIONAL GATEWAY TO WILD ARIZONA LANDSCAPES PAYSON, Arizona—Access to some of Central Arizona’s most treasured wild trails, streams and outdoor recreation areas was preserved this week thanks to a partnership between Western Rivers Conservancy and the Tonto National Forest. On Wednesday, Western Rivers Conservancy conveyed the 149-acre Doll Baby Ranch to the agency, permanently securing a recreational gateway to more than 250 square miles of the Mazatzal Wilderness and surrounding Tonto National Forest. The ranch, which Western Rivers Conservancy purchased in 2017, traces a mile of the East Verde River, a haven for fish and wildlife on the edge of the Sonoran Desert. “The East Verde is the finest arm of the Verde River and an important freshwater lifeline for the diverse fish and wildlife of the Tonto National Forest,” said Zach Spector, Project Operations Director for Western Rivers Conservancy. “We are thrilled with the outcome of this effort, which will bolster one of the most important freshwater ecosystems in the state while also meeting the needs of a wide variety of recreational users.” The project ensures that the Tonto National Forest now controls the road to the Doll Baby trailhead, which is a primary access route into the adjacent Mazatzal Wilderness, the Verde Wild and Scenic River Corridor and the Arizona National Historic Trail. The transfer also secures the only access to the Crackerjack Mine Loop Road, a popular off-highway vehicle (OHV) destination near Payson—access that could have been restricted to private use had Western Rivers Conservancy not purchased the property.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2021 to 06/30/2021 Coronado National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2021 to 06/30/2021 Coronado 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 Projects Occurring Nationwide Gypsy Moth Management in the - Vegetation management Completed Actual: 11/28/2012 01/2013 Susan Ellsworth United States: A Cooperative (other than forest products) 775-355-5313 Approach [email protected]. EIS us *UPDATED* Description: The USDA Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are analyzing a range of strategies for controlling gypsy moth damage to forests and trees in the United States. Web Link: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/wv/eis/ Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Nationwide. Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2021 12/2021 Sarah Shoemaker 228, subpart A. Orders NOI in Federal Register 907-586-7886 EIS 09/13/2018 [email protected] d.us *UPDATED* Est. DEIS NOA in Federal Register 03/2021 Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations apply to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the US mining laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Socioeconomic Assessment for the Tonto National Forest
    4. Access and Travel Patterns This section examines historic and current factors affecting access patterns and transportation infrastructure within the four counties surrounding Tonto National Forest (TNF). The information gathered is intended to outline current and future trends in forest access as well as potential barriers to access encountered by various user groups. Primary sources of data on access and travel patterns for the state’s national forests include the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), and the circulation elements of individual county comprehensive plans. Indicators used to assess access and travel patterns include existing road networks and planned improvements, trends in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on major roadways, seasonal traffic flows, and county transportation planning priorities. Additional input on internal access issues has been sought directly from forest planning staff. Various sources of information for the area surrounding TNF cite the difficulty of transportation planning in the region given its vast geographic scale, population growth, pace of development, and constrained transportation funding. In an effort to respond effectively to such challenges, local and regional planning authorities stress the importance of linking transportation planning with preferred land uses. Data show that the area surrounding Tonto National Forest saw relatively large increases in VMT between 1990 and 2000, mirroring the region’s relatively strong population growth over the same period. Information gathered from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and county comprehensive plans suggest that considerable improvements are currently scheduled for the region’s transportation network, particularly when compared to areas surrounding Arizona’s other national forests.
    [Show full text]
  • USDA Forest Service Youth Conservation Corps Projects 2021
    1 USDA Forest Service Youth Conservation Corps Projects 2021 Alabama Tuskegee, National Forests in Alabama, dates 6/6/2021--8/13/2021, Project Contact: Darrius Truss, [email protected] 404-550-5114 Double Springs, National Forests in Alabama, 6/6/2021--8/13/2021, Project Contact: Shane Hoskins, [email protected] 334-314- 4522 Alaska Juneau, Tongass National Forest / Admiralty Island National Monument, 6/14/2021--8/13/2021 Project Contact: Don MacDougall, [email protected] 907-789-6280 Arizona Douglas, Coronado National Forest, 6/13/2021--7/25/2021, Project Contacts: Doug Ruppel and Brian Stultz, [email protected] and [email protected] 520-388-8438 Prescott, Prescott National Forest, 6/13/2021--7/25/2021, Project Contact: Nina Hubbard, [email protected] 928- 232-0726 Phoenix, Tonto National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/25/2021, Project Contact: Brooke Wheelock, [email protected] 602-225-5257 Arkansas Glenwood, Ouachita National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/30/2021, Project Contact: Bill Jackson, [email protected] 501-701-3570 Mena, Ouachita National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/30/2021, Project Contact: Bill Jackson, [email protected] 501- 701-3570 California Mount Shasta, Shasta Trinity National Forest, 6/28/2021--8/6/2021, Project Contact: Marcus Nova, [email protected] 530-926-9606 Etna, Klamath National Forest, 6/7/2021--7/31/2021, Project Contact: Jeffrey Novak, [email protected] 530-841- 4467 USDA Forest Service Youth Conservation Corps Projects 2021 2 Colorado Grand Junction, Grand Mesa Uncomphagre and Gunnison National Forests, 6/7/2021--8/14/2021 Project Contact: Lacie Jurado, [email protected] 970-817-4053, 2 projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Chester T. Wruckel Sherman P. Marsh1, Clay M. Conway1, Clarence E. Ehis , Dolores M. Kulik F Calvin K. Moss , and Gary L. Raines
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP MF-1573-A UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF THE MAZATZAL WILDERNESS AND CONTIGUOUS ROADLESS AREA GELA, MARICOPA, AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES, ARIZONA SUMMARY REPORT By Chester T. WruckeL Sherman P. Marsh1, Clay M. Conway1, Clarence E. EHis , Dolores M. Kulik f Calvin K. Moss , and Gary L. Raines STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and the Joint Conference Report on Senate Bill 4, 88th Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines have been conducting mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and some of them are presently being studied. The act provided that areas under consideration for wilderness designation should be studied for suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. The act directs that the results of such surveys are to be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report discusses the results of a mineral survey of the Mazatzal Wilderness (NF3048) and Mazatzal Wilderness Contiguous Roadless Area (3-016) in the Tonto and Coconino National Forests, Gila, Maricopa, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. Mazatzal Wilderness was established by Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964. The contiguous roadless area was classified as a further planning area during the Second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Document the Analysis and Decisions Resulting from the Planning Process
    ' " United States (. Il). Department of \~~!J'~~':P Agriculture CoconinoNational Forest Service ForestPlan Southwestern Region -""""" IU!S. IIIII.IIIIII... I I i I--- I I II I /"r, Vicinity Map @ , " .. .' , ",', '. ',,' , ". ,.' , ' ' .. .' ':':: ~'::.»>::~: '::. Published August 1987 Coconino N.ational Forest Land and Resource Management Plan This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coconino Foresst Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Plan. 1 Organization of the Forest Plan Documentation. 2 Planning Area Description. 2 2. ISSUES Overview . 5 Issues . 5 Firewood . 6 Timber Harvest Levels. 7 The Availability of Recreation Options . 8 Off-Road Driving . 9 Wildlife Habitat . 9 Riparian Habitat . 11 Geothermal Development . .. 11 Management of the Transportation System . 12 Use of the Public Lands . 13 Law Enforcement . 13 Landownership Adjustment . 14 Opportunities . 14 Public Affairs . 14 Volunteers . 15 3. SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION Overview . 17 Prior Allocations . 18 4. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Overview . 21 Mission . 21 Goals . 21 Objectives . 26 Regional Guide/Forest Plan . 26 Outputs & Range of Implementation . 26 Management Prescriptions . 46 Management Area Description . 46 Management Emphasis . 46 Program Components . 46 Activities . .. 47 Standards and Guidelines . 47 How to Apply Prescriptions . .. 47 Coordinating Requirements . .. 47 Coconino National Forest Plan – Partial Cancellation of Amendment No. 15 -3/05 Replacement Page i Coconino Forest Plan Table of Contents continued Standards and Guidelines . 51 Forest-wide . 51 MA 1 Wildernesses . 98 MA 2 Verde Wild and Scenic River . .. 113 MA 3 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Less Than 40 Percent Slopes. .. 116 MA 4 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Greater Than 40 Percent Slopes. 138 MA 5 Aspen . 141 MA 6 Unproductive Timber Land .
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2021 to 03/31/2021 Tonto National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2021 to 03/31/2021 Tonto 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 Projects Occurring Nationwide Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2021 12/2021 Nancy Rusho 228, subpart A. Orders DEIS NOA in Federal Register 202-731-9196 09/13/2018 [email protected] EIS Est. FEIS NOA in Federal Register 11/2021 Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations apply to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the US mining laws. More Information is available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/geology/minerals/locatable-minerals/current-revisions. R3 - Southwestern Region, Occurring in more than one Forest (excluding Regionwide) 01/01/2021 04:04 am MT Page 1 of 19 Tonto National Forest Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact R3 - Southwestern Region, Occurring in more than one Forest (excluding Regionwide) 4FRI Rim Country Project - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants In Progress: Expected:07/2021 08/2021 Mike Dechter EIS - Forest products DEIS NOA in Federal Register 928-527-3416 - Vegetation management 10/18/2019 [email protected] (other than forest products) Est.
    [Show full text]
  • East Verde TMDL Arsenic De-List Report
    FINAL DE-LIST REPORT FOR TOTAL ARSENIC Reach 15060203-022C East Verde River –American Gulch to the Verde River June 9, 2015 Executive Summary In the 2006-08 305(b) report, reach 15060203-22C of the East Verde River (confluence of American Gulch to the Verde River confluence) was placed by ADEQ on the state of Arizona’s 303(d) Impaired Waters List for total arsenic. Based on the best available data collected within the assessment time frame, it continued to be assessed as impaired for arsenic in the 2010 and 2012-14 reports. This listing was based on exceedances that occurred at monitoring point VREVR002.62 (East Verde River near Childs, AZ). Personnel from the TMDL Unit of ADEQ collected additional water samples at multiple monitoring points along the impaired reach outside of the Mazatzal Wilderness Area at various hydrologic conditions, ranging from base flow to flood stage conditions. Personnel from the USGS Tempe office collected monthly samples for a little over a year from monitoring point VREVR002.62 which is located within the Mazatzal Wilderness Area. Analysis of the total arsenic was performed by laboratories that had the ability to analyze to a detection level that was below the strictest applicable total arsenic standard for the drinking water source designated use of 10 µg/L. Data collected at the various sample points since 2009 show further exceedances of the total arsenic standard are still occurring. All of the arsenic detections are once again from samples collected at the VREVR002.62 monitoring site. A review of the available ground and surface water data indicates that surface water in the lower reaches of the East Verde River is being impacted by the mixing of groundwater through upwelling of the local aquifer.
    [Show full text]
  • Analytical Results and Sample Locality Map of Rock Samples from the Mazatzal Wilderness and Contiguous Roadless Areas, Gil A, Maricopa, and Yavapal Counties, Arizona
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Analytical results and sample locality map of rock samples from the Mazatzal Wilderness and contiguous roadless areas, Gil a, Maricopa, and Yavapal Counties, Arizona By M. S. Erickson, B. F. Arbogast, S. P. Marsh, and C. M. McDougal Open-File Report 84-410 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. 1984 CONTENTS Page Studies related to Wilderness............................................. 1 Introduction.............................................................. 1 Geologic setting..................................................... 1 Physiography.............................................................. 1 Method of study........................................................... 2 Sample collection.................................................... 2 Sample preparation................................................... 2 Sample analysis...................................................... 2 Spectrographic method........................................... 2 Chemical methods................................................ 5 RASS...................................................................... 6 Description of data table................................................. 6 References Cited.......................................................... 6 TABLES TABLE 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Paths More Traveled: Predicting Future Recreation Pressures on America’S National Forests and Grasslands Donald B.K
    United States Department of Agriculture Paths More Traveled: Predicting Future Recreation Pressures on America’s National Forests and Grasslands Donald B.K. English Pam Froemke A Forests on the Edge Report Kathleen Hawkos Forest Service FS-1034 June 2015 All photos © Thinkstock.com All photos Authors Key Words Learn More Donald B.K. English is a program Recreation, NVUM, national For further information manager for national visitor forests, population growth on this or other Forests on the Edge use monitoring; Forest Service, publications, please contact: Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Suggested Citation Resources Staff; Washington, DC. Anne Buckelew Pam Froemke is an information English, D.B.K.; Froemke, P.; U.S. Department of Agriculture technology specialist Hawkos, K.; 2014. Forest Service (spatial data analyst); Paths more traveled: Predicting Cooperative Forestry Staff Forest Service, Rocky Mountain future recreation pressures on 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Research Station; Fort Collins, CO. America’s national forests and Mailstop 1123 Kathleen Hawkos is a grasslands—a Forests on the Edge Washington, DC 20250–1123 cartographer/GIS specialist; report. FS-1034. Washington, DC: 202–401–4073 Forest Service, Southwestern U.S. Department of Agriculture [email protected] Regional Office, Albuquerque, NM. (USDA), Forest Service. 36 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/ Photos from front cover (top to bottom, left to right): © Thinkstock.com, © iStock.com, © Thinkstock.com, © iStock.com Paths More Traveled: Predicting Future Recreation Pressures on America’s National Forests and Grasslands A Forests on the Edge Report Learn More Abstract Populations near many national forests be expected to increase by 12 million new and grasslands are rising and are outpac- visits per year, from 83 million in 2010 to ing growth elsewhere in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Tonto National Forest 2019 LRMP Biological Opinion
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 9828 North 31st Avenue #C3 Phoenix, Arizona 85051-2517 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply, refer to: AESO/SE 02E00000-2012-F-0011-R001/02EAAZ00-2020-F-0206 December 17, 2019 Mr. Neil Bosworth, Forest Supervisor Tonto National Forest Supervisor’s Office 2324 East McDowell Road Phoenix, Arizona 85006 RE: Continued Implementation of the Tonto National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Mexican Spotted Owl and its Designated Critical Habitat Dear Mr. Bosworth: This document transmits our biological opinion (BO) for the reinitiation of formal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544), as amended (ESA or Act), for the Tonto National Forest’s (NF) Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and Forest Service are conducting this reinitiation in response to a September 12, 2019, court order in WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4:13-CV-00151-RCC. In response to this court order, as well as updated information regarding subjects in the BO, and current regulation and policy, we are updating the Status of the Species, Environmental Baseline, Effects of the Action, Cumulative Effects, and Incidental Take Statement sections of the April 30, 2012, Tonto NF LRMP BO (02E00000-2012-F-0011). We received your updated Biological Assessment (BA) on November 23, 2019. We are consulting on effects to the threatened Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) (spotted owl or owl) and its critical habitat from the Forest Services’ continued implementation of the Tonto NF’s LRMP.
    [Show full text]
  • Sedimentology, Stratigraphy, and Geochronology of the Proterozoic Mazatzal Group, Central Arizona
    Sedimentology, stratigraphy, and geochronology of the Proterozoic Mazatzal Group, central Arizona RoÂnadh Cox² Department of Geosciences, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts 01267, USA Mark W. Martin³ Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA Jana C. Comstock Department of Geosciences, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts 01267, USA Laura S. Dickerson Geology Department, Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903, USA Ingrid L. Ekstrom Department of Geology, Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts 01002, USA James H. Sammons Department of Geology, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia 24450, USA ABSTRACT Group. When tectonic activity ceased, how- the Proterozoic tectonic block known as the ever, the surrounding highlands were planed Mazatzal block (Karlstrom and Bowring, Quartzite, conglomerate, and shale of the down by erosion, and detritus from a wider 1993) (Fig. 2) and represents the transition Mazatzal Group record the ®lling of a Prot- variety of source rocks was funneled into the from tectonically active arc and marginal- erozoic intra-arc basin in central Arizona. U- basin. This included contributions from arc- basin environments to a stable continental re- Pb ages of zircons from rhyolite ash-¯ow tuff related supracrustal rocks of the Payson gime (Bowring and Karlstrom, 1990; Karls- indicate that deposition began at 1701 6 2 Ophiolite and East Verde River Formation, trom and Bowring, 1988; Karlstrom et al., Ma. Basal deposits of the newly de®ned Pine and ®nally a granitic basement input. Detri- 1987). Information about the age and stratig- Creek Conglomerate formed in an alluvial- tal quartz in the lower part of the Mazatzal raphy of these sedimentary deposits is there- fan setting, synchronous with the ®nal Group is largely monocrystalline, and vol- fore fundamental to understanding the later phase of extrusive rhyolite volcanism and canic in origin.
    [Show full text]