DOCSLIB.ORG

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

28094 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules * * * * * means that we will post any personal accept the petitioner’s sources and Dated: May 7, 2008. information you provide us (see the characterizations of the information, to Lyle Laverty, Public Comments Solicited section the extent that they appear to be based below for more information). on accepted scientific principles (such Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and as citing published and peer reviewed Parks. You may obtain copies of the petition, reports, and reviews of reports upon articles, or studies done in accordance [FR Doc. E8–10887 Filed 5–14–08; 8:45 am] which this 90-day finding is based by with valid methodologies), unless we BILLING CODE 4310–55–C visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal have specific information to the at http://www.regulations.gov or our contrary. Our finding considers whether the petition states a reasonable case on DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ southwest/es/arizona/, or by contacting its face that delisting may be warranted. Fish and Wildlife Service the Arizona Ecological Services Field Thus, our 90-day finding expresses no Office at the address or contact numbers view as to the ultimate issue of whether 50 CFR Part 17 under ADDRESSES. the species should no longer be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: classified as a threatened species. We [FWS–R2–ES–2008–0037; 92220–1113– make no determinations as to the value, 0000–C5] Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona accuracy, completeness, or veracity of the petition. The contents of this finding Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Ecological Services Field Office; by summarize that information that was and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Petition telephone at 602/242–0210; or by available to us at the time of the petition To Delist the Hualapai Mexican Vole facsimile at 602/242–2513. Persons who review. (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioner AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Information Relay Service (FIRS) at and information available in our files at Interior. 800–877–8339. the time we reviewed the petition, and ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: finding. we evaluated that information in Background accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our SUMMARY: process for making a 90-day finding We, the U.S. Fish and Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 Wildlife Service (Service), make a 90- under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we section 424.14(b) of our regulations is day finding on a petition to remove the make a finding on whether a petition to Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus limited to a determination of whether list, delist, or reclassify a species the information contained in the mexicanus hualpaiensis) from the presents substantial scientific or Federal List of Threatened and petition meets the ‘‘substantial commercial information indicating that information’’ threshold. Endangered Wildlife and Plants the petitioned action may be warranted. pursuant to the Endangered Species Act On August 23, 2004, we received a We are to base this finding on petition dated August 18, 2004, from the (Act). We find that the petition presents information provided in the petition. To substantial information indicating that Arizona Game and Fish Department the maximum extent practicable, we (AGFD 2004) to delist the Hualapai delisting this mammal may be must make this finding within 90 days warranted. We are initiating a status Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus of receipt of the petition, and publish hualpaiensis). The petition (AGFD 2004, review to determine if delisting this the finding promptly in the Federal subspecies is warranted. We are pp. 4–6) states that: (1) The subspecies Register. occurs over a much greater area and in requesting submission of any Our review of a 90-day finding under information on the Hualapai Mexican higher numbers than previously section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR thought; (2) it is likely that all vole relevant to its listing status under 424.14(b) is limited to a determination the Act. Following this review, we will populations referred to as M. m. of whether the information in the hualpaiensis, along with other issue a 12-month finding on the petition meets the ‘‘substantial petition. populations of the species in Arizona, information’’ threshold. ‘‘Substantial should be referred to as M. m. DATES: This finding was made on May information’’ is defined in section mogollonensis; and (3) the threats faced 15, 2008. To be considered in the 12- 424.14(b) of our regulations as ‘‘that by this more widespread taxon do not month finding on this petition, amount of information that would lead indicate that listing under the Act is comments and information should be a reasonable person to believe that the warranted. submitted to us by July 14, 2008. measure proposed in the petition may ADDRESSES: You may submit written be warranted.’’ Petitioners need not Species Information comments and materials to us by one of prove that the petitioned action is The Mexican vole is a cinnamon- the following methods: warranted to support a ‘‘substantial’’ brown, mouse-sized rodent • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// finding; instead, the key consideration approximately 5.5 inches (14 cm) long www.regulations.gov. Follow the in evaluating a petition for with a short tail and small ears that are instructions for submitting comments. substantiality involves demonstration of obscured by its fur (Hoffmeister 1986, p. • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public the reliability and adequacy of the 441; 52 FR 36776, October 1, 1987). Comments Processing, Attn: Docket information supporting the action Goldman (1938, pp. 493–494) FWS–R2–ES–2008–0037, Division of advocated by the petition. described and named the Hualapai Policy and Directives Management, U.S. We have to satisfy the Act’s Mexican vole (also known as the Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. requirement that we use the best Hualapai vole) as Microtus mexicanus Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA available science to make our decisions. hualapaiensis in 1938. This was based 22203. However, we do not conduct additional on only four specimens, but Cockrum We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We research at this point, nor do we subject (1960, p. 210), Hall (1981, p. 481), and will post all comments on http:// the petition to rigorous critical review. Hoffmeister (1986, pp. 444–445) all www.regulations.gov. This generally Rather, at the 90-day finding stage, we recognized the subspecies. M. m. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 May 14, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 28095 hualpaiensis has been considered one of below. Researchers did not collect or (Watson Woods and Navajo Mountain). three subspecies of M. mexicanus found analyze samples from the exact same The petition states that their results did in Arizona (Kime et al. 1995, p. 1). It locations, so site names across studies not support separation of M. mexicanus was distinguished from M. m. navaho to do not necessarily match. We have in Arizona into three distinct the northeast by a slightly longer body, presented site names and resulting subspecies. Populations assigned to M. longer tail, and longer and broader skull population assignments as described in m. navajo from Navajo Mountain, (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). It was the petition and studies cited in the Mingus Mountain, San Francisco Peaks, distinguished from M. m. mogollonensis petition. and the Grand Canyon South Rim, and by a longer body, shorter tail, and a As a point of clarification, Frey and populations assigned to M. m. longer and narrower skull (Hoffmeister LaRue (1993, p. 176) asserted that mogollonensis from the Mogollon Rim, 1986, p. 443). Mexican voles from Mexico are distinct Chuska Mountains, and White The final rule listing M. m. from populations in the United States Mountains were not differentiated from hualpaiensis (52 FR 36776) indicated based on genetic and morphologic data. those from the Hualapai Mountains, that this subspecies occupied the They assigned voles in Arizona, New Hualapai Indian Reservation, Aubrey Hualapai Mountains, but also Mexico, and Texas that were formerly Cliffs, Bradshaw Mountains, Watson acknowledged that Spicer et al. (1985, named M. mexicanus to M. Woods, and Sierra Prieta (AGFD 2004, p. 10) noted similar voles from the mogollonensis (Frey and LaRue 1993, p. 3; Busch et al. 2001, p. 2). The Music Mountains and that Hoffmeister pp. 176–177). Because the Service did petition states that the authors believed (1986, p. 445) had tentatively assigned not formally change the scientific name the specimens from the White specimens from Prospect Valley to M. of the Hualapai Mexican vole, we Mountains and Chuska Mountains m. hualpaiensis. The rule stated that if continue to use the name M. mexicanus could be considered a different future taxonomic evaluation of voles in this finding. subspecies, or they may simply show from the Music Mountains and Prospect The petition states that in 1993, Frey some genetic difference due to Valley should indicate that they are M. and Yates conducted a genetic analysis geographic separation (AGFD 2004, p. 3; m. hualpaiensis, the voles from the on tissue samples from 12 populations Busch et al. 2001, p. 11–12). According Music Mountains and Prospect Valley (AGFD 2004, p. 2); there was an to Busch et al.
Recommended publications
  • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PRELIMINARY DEPOSIT-TYPE MAP of NORTHWESTERN MEXICO by Kenneth R

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PRELIMINARY DEPOSIT-TYPE MAP of NORTHWESTERN MEXICO by Kenneth R

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PRELIMINARY DEPOSIT-TYPE MAP OF NORTHWESTERN MEXICO By Kenneth R. Leonard U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-158 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade, product, firm, or industry names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Menlo Park, CA 1989 Table of Contents Page Introduction..................................................................................................... i Explanation of Data Fields.......................................................................... i-vi Table 1 Size Categories for Deposits....................................................................... vii References.................................................................................................... viii-xx Site Descriptions........................................................................................... 1-330 Appendix I List of Deposits Sorted by Deposit Type.............................................. A-1 to A-22 Appendix n Site Name Index...................................................................................... B-1 to B-10 Plate 1 Distribution of Mineral Deposits in Northwestern Mexico Insets: Figure 1. Los Gavilanes Tungsten District Figure 2. El Antimonio District Figure 3. Magdalena District Figure 4. Cananea District Preliminary Deposit-Type Map of
  • Chapter 1: Introduction

    Chapter 1: Introduction

    Chapter 1. Introduction Community vision meetings during Forest Plan Revision Location The Prescott National Forest (Prescott NF) is one of six national forests in Arizona (figure 1). It covers approximately 1.2 million acres in west-central Arizona and is located in Yavapai and Coconino Counties. The Prescott NF consists of two geographically separate land areas (eastern and western) that are administered as three ranger districts: the Chino Valley Ranger District, which covers the areas east and west of Chino Valley; the Bradshaw Ranger District, which covers the area near Prescott and south into the Bradshaw Mountains; and the Verde Ranger District, which covers the area just north of Jerome and Clarkdale and along the southern side of the Verde Valley. The Prescott NF shares boundaries with: the Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto National Forests; the Agua Fria National Monument; Bureau of Land Management - Hassayampa Field Office; Arizona State Trust lands; and several communities including Prescott, Camp Verde, and Cottonwood. Role and Contributions of the Planning Area The Prescott NF is located in a comparatively mountainous section of central Arizona between the forested plateaus to the north and the arid desert region to the south. Roughly half of the Prescott NF lies west of the city of Prescott, Arizona, in the Juniper, Santa Maria, Sierra Prieta, and Bradshaw Mountains. The other half of the Prescott NF lies east of Prescott and takes in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Prescott NF 1 Chapter 1. Introduction terrain of Mingus Mountain, the Black Hills, and Black Mesa. Elevations range between 3,000 feet above sea level along the lower Verde Valley to 7,979 feet at the top of Mount Union, the highest natural feature on the national forest.
  • Viability Analyses for Vascular Plant Species Within Prescott National Forest, Arizona

    Viability Analyses for Vascular Plant Species Within Prescott National Forest, Arizona

    Viability analyses for vascular plant species within Prescott National Forest, Arizona Marc Baker Draft 4 January 2011 1 Part 1. Description of Ecological Context (Adapted from: Ecological Sustainability Report, Prescott National Forest, Prescott, Arizona, April 2009) Description of the Planning Unit Prescott National Forest (PNF) includes mostly mountains and associated grassy valleys of central Arizona that lie between the forested plateaus to the north and the arid desert region to the south. Elevations range between 3,000 feet above sea level along the lower Verde Valley to 7,979 feet at the top of Mount Union, the highest natural feature on the Forest. Roughly half of the PNF occurs west of the city of Prescott, Arizona, in the Juniper, Santa Maria, Sierra Prieta, and Bradshaw Mountains. The other half of the PNF lies east of Prescott and takes in the terrain of Mingus Mountain, the Black Hills, and Black Mesa. The rugged topography of the PNF provides important watersheds for both the Verde and Colorado Rivers. Within these watersheds are many important continuously or seasonally flowing stream courses and drainages. A portion of the Verde River has been designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Vegetation within PNF is complex and diverse: Sonoran Desert, dominated by saguaro cacti and paloverde trees, occurs to the south of Bradshaw Mountains; and cool mountain forests with conifer and aspen trees occur within as few as 10 miles upslope from the desert . In between, there are a variety of plant and animal habitats including grasslands, hot steppe shrub, chaparral, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and ponderosa pine forests.
  • Biological Evaluation of the Aquarius Cliffs Weather Station Project in Mohave County, Arizona

    Biological Evaluation of the Aquarius Cliffs Weather Station Project in Mohave County, Arizona

    Biological Evaluation of the Aquarius Cliffs Weather Station Project in Mohave County, Arizona Prepared for Mohave County Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants January 2011 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE AQUARIUS CLIFFS WEATHER STATION PROJECT IN MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA For submittal to Bureau of Land Management Kingman Field Office 2755 Mission Boulevard Kingman, Arizona 86401 Attn: Andy Whitefield (928) 718-3700 On behalf of Mohave County Flood Control District P.O. Box 7000 3250 East Kino Avenue Kingman, Arizona 86402 Attn: David West Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants 114 N San Francisco Street, Suite 100 Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 928-774-5500 www.swca.com SWCA Project No. 17067 January 2011 1.0 INTRODUCTION SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) was selected by Mohave County to complete a biological evaluation (BE) for the Aquarius Cliffs Weather Station Project, which is located southeast of Kingman in Mohave County, Arizona (Figure 1). The project area is located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the boundaries of the Kingman Field Office (KFO) in the northwest quarter of Section 21, Township 16½ North, Range 11 West. The purpose of this BE is to address the regulations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and management regulations of the BLM. The scope of work for this BE included: review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species list for Mohave County; review of the BLM sensitive species list for the KFO; review of the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) online occurrence records for special-status species near the project area; survey for noxious weeds; field reconnaissance of the property; and evaluation of the potential for the species listed in this report to occur in the project area.
  • The 2013 Granite Mountain Hotshots (LLC) Team to Our Knees

    The 2013 Granite Mountain Hotshots (LLC) Team to Our Knees

    Summer 2013 ▲ Vol. 3 Issue 2 ▲ Produced and distributed quarterly by the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center I bet you remember exactly where you were and what you were doing when you heard about the tragedy at Yarnell Hill. I sure do, and I will never forget it. We are dedicating our Summer Issue of Two More Chains to our 19 fallen Granite Mountain Hotshot Crew brothers who lost their lives on June 30, 2013, on the Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona. This tragic loss has shaken the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center The 2013 Granite Mountain Hotshots (LLC) team to our knees. We are struggling—just like you—with what we can do to assist the families and our fellow firefighters during such a “Our deepest sympathies to the families, friends, and coworkers of the difficult time. Granite Mountain IHC. We are the safety net of the wildland community Three LLC team members and we will continue to be there during these dark hours.” were able to attend the th The Wildland Firefighter Foundation July 9 memorial service www.wffoundation.org in Prescott Valley to Phone: 208-336-2996 show our support and How You Can Help pay our respects. May our fallen brothers The Wildland Firefighter Foundation’s main focus is to help families of firefighters killed in the line of duty rest in eternal peace. and to assist injured firefighters and their families. The link below provides info on how you can help this effort. Brit Rosso Lessons Learned bitly.com/wffdonate Center Manager 1 Granite Mountain Hot Shots “Esse Quam Videri” Darrell Willis, Division Chief of the Prescott Fire Department, informs us that the following is a letter written earlier this year by Eric Marsh, Superintendent of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, who perished with 18 of his fellow crewmembers on the Yarnell Hill Fire.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 120/Friday, June 23, 2017/Rules

    Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 120/Friday, June 23, 2017/Rules

    28582 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations * * * * * 0210. Persons who use a Hualapai Mexican vole populations Dated: June 13, 2017. telecommunications device for the deaf (Service 1991, pp. iv-6). The recovery Virginia H. Johnson, (TDD) may call the Federal Relay plan outlined recovery objectives and Service at 800–877–8339. dictated management and research Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and priorities, but did not contain recovery Wildlife and Parks. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. criteria for changing the subspecies’ [FR Doc. 2017–13163 Filed 6–22–17; 8:45 am] status from endangered to threatened BILLING CODE 4333–15–P Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see (i.e., downlisting) or for removing the ADDRESSES), telephone 602–242–0210. subspecies from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i.e., delisting) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal because of lack of biological information Fish and Wildlife Service Relay Service at 800–877–8339 for TTY in order to develop objective, assistance. measurable criteria (Service 1991, p. iv). 50 CFR Part 17 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petition History [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2015–0028; Background On August 23, 2004, we received a FXES11130900000–178–FF09E42000] petition dated August 18, 2004, from the Under the Endangered Species Act of Arizona Game and Fish Department RIN 1018–AX99 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 (AGFD) requesting that the Hualapai et seq.), we administer the Federal Lists Mexican vole be removed from the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Hualapai Federal List of Endangered and and Plants, which are set forth in title Threatened Wildlife (List) under the Mexican Vole From the Federal List of 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Act.
  • Minerals of Arizona Report

    Minerals of Arizona Report

    MINERALS OF ARIZONA by Frederic W. Galbraith and Daniel J. Brennan THE ARIZONA BUREAU OF MINES Price One Dollar Free to Residents of Arizona Bulletin 181 1970 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA TUCSON TABLE OF CONT'ENTS EIements .___ 1 FOREWORD Sulfides ._______________________ 9 As a service about mineral matters in Arizona, the Arizona Bureau Sulfosalts ._. .___ __ 22 of Mines, University of Arizona, is pleased to reprint the long-standing booklet on MINERALS OF ARIZONA. This basic journal was issued originally in 1941, under the authorship of Dr. Frederic W. Galbraith, as Simple Oxides .. 26 a bulletin of the Arizona Bureau of Mines. It has moved through several editions and, in some later printings, it was authored jointly by Dr. Gal­ Oxides Containing Uranium, Thorium, Zirconium .. .... 34 braith and Dr. Daniel J. Brennan. It now is being released in its Fourth Edition as Bulletin 181, Arizona Bureau of Mines. Hydroxides .. .. 35 The comprehensive coverage of mineral information contained in the bulletin should serve to give notable and continuing benefits to laymen as well as to professional scientists of Arizona. Multiple Oxides 37 J. D. Forrester, Director Arizona Bureau of Mines Multiple Oxides Containing Columbium, February 2, 1970 Tantaum, Titanium .. .. .. 40 Halides .. .. __ ____ _________ __ __ 41 Carbonates, Nitrates, Borates .. .... .. 45 Sulfates, Chromates, Tellurites .. .. .. __ .._.. __ 57 Phosphates, Arsenates, Vanadates, Antimonates .._ 68 First Edition (Bulletin 149) July 1, 1941 Vanadium Oxysalts ...... .......... 76 Second Edition, Revised (Bulletin 153) April, 1947 Third Edition, Revised 1959; Second Printing 1966 Fourth Edition (Bulletin 181) February, 1970 Tungstates, Molybdates.. _. .. .. .. 79 Silicates ...
  • Hualapai Mexican Vole Conservation Status Review

    Hualapai Mexican Vole Conservation Status Review

    August 02, 2015 Hualapai Mexican Vole Conservation Status Review PREPARED BY Amanda Aurora, C.W.B . Eleanor Gladding Regional Scientist / Project Manager Senior Biologist/Project Manager SWCA Environmental Consultants - Austin SWCA Environmental Consultants - Tucson 4407 Monterey Oaks Boulevard, Building 1, Suite 110 343 West Franklin Street Austin, Texas 78749 Tucson, Arizona 85701 [email protected] [email protected] Introduction The Hualapai Mexican vole or Hualapai vole ( Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis ) is a cinnamon-brown, small mammal in the Cricetidae Family. In January of 1987, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed to list the Hualapai Mexican vole as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and published the final listing rule in October 1987 (USFWS 1987a; USFWS 1987b). At that time, the species was considered “extremely rare and has among the most restricted habitats of any North American mammal” (USFWS 1987b). The USFWS in the final listing rule identified up to 14 locations in the Hualapai Mountains of west-central Arizona where the Hualapai Mexican vole (or its sign) had been observed (USFWS 1987b) (Figure 1). The USFWS also noted that “from 1923 to the present, only 15 specimens are known to have been captured in the Hualapai Mountains” (USFWS 1987b). This subspecies was differentiated by morphological characteristics from the other subspecies of Microtus mexicanus that occur in Arizona, including M. mexicanus mogollonensis and M. mexicanus navaho . The primary morphological differences differentiating the Hualapai Mexican vole from the other subspecies include: slightly longer body, longer tail, and longer and broader skull (compared to M. mexicanus navaho ) and a longer body, shorter tail, and a longer and narrower skull (compared to M.
  • Trans-Pecos Magmatism Part 1

    Trans-Pecos Magmatism Part 1

    10 Feb 2014 Magmatism in Trans-Pecos Texas, part 1 ! Daniel S. Barker, Department of Geological Sciences, !The Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin ! ! ! This document has not been peer-reviewed ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! To facilitate downloading, this document has been divided into nine parts, each less than !20.6 MB. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !1 ! ! ! ! ! Contents Pagination failed repeatedly for some parts, but in this list all items are in their correct order Part 1 Abstract Foreword Data base Precambrian Franklin Mountains Castner Marble Mundy Breccia Thunderbird Series Upper porphyritic granite sill Lower granite sill Red Bluff granite complex “Ferrobasalt” dike Van Horn area Carrizo Mountain group Allamore Formation Tumbledown Formation Pump Station Hills Subsurface Precambrian Cretaceous Maar complex at Pena Mountain East of Pena Mountain Rosillos Ranch Cenozoic Red Hill El Paso area Campus “andesite” Cristo el Rey Coronado Hills (Three Sisters) Thunderbird intrusion Hueco Tanks State Park Cerro Alto Part 2 Finlay Mountains Alamo Creek lavas Hen Egg and Christmas Mountain quadrangles Devil‘s Graveyard lava Hen Egg Mountain North Adobe Mountain Wildhorse Mountain intrusion Lake Ament intrusion Payne’s Waterhole area Luna Vista sill Christmas Mountains Packsaddle Mountain Indian Head Mountain Adobe Walls Mountain Agua Fria Mountain !2 Paisano Peak West Corazones Peak East Corazones Peak Yellow Hill quadrangle Terlingua area California Mountain Willow Mountain Maverick Mountain Whitehouse Mountain
  • Southern Bradshaw Mountains (Yavapai County) June 14-16, 2019

    Southern Bradshaw Mountains (Yavapai County) June 14-16, 2019

    Southern Bradshaw Mountains (Yavapai County) June 14-16, 2019 By Eric Hough The rugged terrain and mix of chaparral and pine-oak forest typical of the southern Bradshaw Mountains (photo © Eric Hough). Introduction The Bradshaw Mountains in central Arizona include a wide area of chaparral, pinyon-juniper and oak woodlands, ponderosa pine-Gambel oak forest, mixed conifer forest, and deciduous riparian woodland drainages, which include the headwaters of the Agua Fria and Hassayampa Rivers. While the northern part of the range nearest Prescott is regularly covered by local birders, the southern half is seldom-visited and there is a significant lack of eBird data for that area. As examples of this, doing an eBird search for two of the most common species expected (Woodhouse’s Scrub-Jay and Spotted Towhee) produced fewer than 10 checklists reporting each of these species! The Breeding Bird Atlas surveys in the early 1990s (Corman & Wise-Gervais 2005; hereafter referred to as the “Atlas”) did at least partially cover this area and found mostly expected species, but did not detect some possible higher elevation breeders such as Northern Pygmy- and Northern Saw-whet owls, Dusky Flycatcher, Warbling Vireo, Purple Martin, Red- breasted Nuthatch, Red Crossbill, and Pine Siskin. Recent range expansions northwestward of species such as Dusky-capped Flycatcher and Rivoli’s Hummingbird into the northern Bradshaws and other nearby ranges had not yet been found here either. For this early summer expedition, we focused on the mid to high elevations of the southern Bradshaws to see which breeding species were present. The timing of this expedition was also chosen due to the near full moon, which promised better conditions for detecting owls and nightjars.
  • ARIZONA ~ ' ) K' Mountain ' ' Mgman Pass

    ARIZONA ~ ' ) K' Mountain ' ' Mgman Pass

    GUIDEBOOK SERIES Volume 1 PROTEROZOIC ORE DEPOSITS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN U.S. Ed .DeWitt ~ r----------------, ' I ~'~:s Veg~J I ARIZONA ~ ' ) K' Mountain ' ' mgman Pass I ( Phoenix l_ ,.J '--...._ ----- ---------- ----- --- - ______ ___J Guidebook Prepared for Society of Economic Geologists Field Conference - 22-24 October 1987 Series Editor: Tommy B. Thompson SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGISTS CONTENTS FIRST DAY PAGE Introduction . • . • . 1 Road Log from las Vegas, Nevada, to Mountain Pass, California . • . • . • . 2 Surface Excursions, Mountain Pass Area .......•...... 12 Road Log from Mountain Pass, California, to Oatman, Arizona ........................................ 21 Road Log from Oatman, Arizona, to Kingman, Arizona .... 39 Rare-Earth Mineral Deposits of the Mountain Pass District, San Bernardino County, California (excerpts reprinted from U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 261) .......................... 46 Geochemistry of Shonkinites, Syenites, and Granites Associated with the Sulfide Queen Carboname Body, Mountain Pass, California (excerpts from Crow, 1984) ......•.....•.......... 53 U-Th-Pb and 40 Arp9 Ar Dating of the Mountain Pass Carbonatlte and Alkalic Igneous Rocks, South­ eastern California (reprinted from Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 19, no. 7 .•...........•. 55 SECOND DAY Introduction ...................•...........•...... 56 Road Log from Kingman, Arizona, to Bagdad, Arizona ... 57 Road Log from Bagdad, Arizona, to the Black Pearl Mine .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 73 Road Log from Bagdad, Arizona, to the Bruce Mine ...... 77 Road Log from Bagdad, Arizona, to Prescott, Arizona ..... 83 CONTENTS (cont.) SECOND DAY (cont.) PAGE Field Guide to the Black Pearl Tungsten Mine Area, Yavapai County, Arizona, by Christopher Schmitz and Donald M. Burt .............................•. 97 Geochemistry of the Alteration Pipe at the Bruce Cu-Zn Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposit, Arizona (excerpts reprinted from Economic Geology, v.
  • Arizona Water Meter Table of Contents

    Arizona Water Meter Table of Contents

    Clarkdale Prescott Lake Havasu City Payson Peoria Scottsdale Phoenix Mesa Buckeye Chandler Casa Grande Safford Yuma Tucson Sierra Vista 2010 Arizona 10 x1000 GAL Water Meter A Comparison of Water Conservation Programs in 15 Arizona Communities October 2010 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 Tel: (303) 444-1188 www.westernresourceadvocates.org Western Resource Advocates’ mission is to protect the West’s land, air, and water. Our lawyers, scientists and economists: 1) advance clean energy to reduce pollution and global climate change; 2) promote urban water conservation and river restoration; and 3) defend special public lands from energy development. We collaborate with other conservation groups, hunters and fishermen, ranchers, American Indians, and others to ensure a sustainable future for the West. This report was prepared by Drew Beckwith, WRA’s Water Policy Analyst; and Jorge Figueroa, Water Program Researcher; with assistance from Bart Miller, Nicole Theerasatiankul, and Anita Schwartz (Western Resource Advocates). It was funded through a grant from the Walton Family Foundation. Special thanks are in order for Ruth Greenhouse in the Water Management Division of the Arizona Department of Water Resources; and to several Arizona water professionals for their peer review and comments. We would also like to extend a true thank you to the water resource departments and conservation staff from each of the utilities highlighted in this report. Without their assistance, this report would not have been possible. Design by Jeremy Carlson © October 2010 photo: iStock Aerial view of Phoenix Arizona Water Meter Table of Contents Executive Summary i Introduction 1 Comparative Analysis by Conservation Criteria 4 Per Capita Water Use .