DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 87/Thursday, May 5, 2011/Rules

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 87/Thursday, May 5, 2011/Rules Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 25593 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Service’s Arizona Ecological Services or result in the destruction or adverse Office at 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, modification of designated critical Fish and Wildlife Service Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. habitat. Section 7 of the Act does not FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: affect activities undertaken on private or 50 CFR Part 17 Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, other non-Federal land unless they are [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0077; Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 authorized, funded, or carried out by a 92220–1113–0000; ABC Code: C3] W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Federal agency. Phoenix, AZ 85021 (telephone 602– Under section 10(j) of the Act, the RIN 1018–AW63 242–0210, facsimile 602–242–2513). If Secretary of the Department of the Interior can reestablish populations Endangered and Threatened Wildlife you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal outside the species’ current range and and Plants; Establishment of a designate them as ‘‘experimental.’’ With Nonessential Experimental Population Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. the experimental population of Sonoran Pronghorn in designation, the relevant population is Southwestern Arizona SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: treated as threatened for purposes of AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Background section 9 of the Act, regardless of the species’ designation elsewhere in its Interior. It is our intent to discuss only those ACTION: Final rule. range. Threatened designation allows us topics directly relevant to this final rule discretion in devising management establishing a Sonoran pronghorn SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and programs and special regulations for nonessential experimental population Wildlife Service (Service), are such a population. Section 10(j) of the (NEP). For more information on the reestablishing the Sonoran pronghorn, a Act allows us to adopt whatever Sonoran pronghorn, refer to the federally listed endangered mammal, in regulations are necessary and advisable February 4, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR its historical habitat in King Valley, to provide for the conservation of a NEP. 5732) and the 1998 Revised Sonoran Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, in Yuma In these situations, the general Pronghorn Recovery Plan (Service 1998: County, and the Barry M. Goldwater regulations that extend most section 9 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/ Range—East, Maricopa County, in prohibitions to threatened species do 981203.pdf) and its amendments southwestern Arizona. We are not apply to that species, and the 10(j) (Service 2002: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ reestablishing the Sonoran pronghorn rule contains the prohibitions and recovery_plan/031126.pdf). under section 10(j) of the Endangered exemptions necessary and appropriate Species Act of 1973, as amended, and Regulatory Background to conserve that species. For the purposes of section 7 of the classify that reestablished population as We listed the Sonoran pronghorn a nonessential experimental population Act, we treat an NEP as a threatened subspecies (Antilocapra americana species when the NEP is located within (NEP). The NEP is located in sonoriensis) as endangered throughout southwestern Arizona in an area north a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the its range on March 11, 1967 (32 FR National Park Service, and section of Interstate 8 and south of Interstate 10, 4001), under the Endangered Species bounded by the Colorado River on the 7(a)(1) and the consultation Preservation Act of October 15, 1966, requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the west and Interstate 10 on the east; and without critical habitat. This subspecies an area south of Interstate 8, bounded by Act apply. Section 7(a)(1) requires all was included as an endangered species Federal agencies to use their authorities Highway 85 on the west, Interstates 10 when the Endangered Species Act was and 19 on the east, and the United to carry out programs for the signed into law in 1973 (Act; 16 U.S.C. conservation of listed species. Section States-Mexico border on the south. 1531 et seq.). The Act provides that This action is one of the recovery 7(a)(2) requires that Federal agencies, in species listed as endangered are actions that the Service, Federal and consultation with the Service, ensure afforded protection primarily through State agencies, and other partners are that any action authorized, funded, or the prohibitions of section 9 and the conducting throughout the historical carried out is not likely to jeopardize the requirements of section 7. Section 9 of range of the species. This final rule continued existence of a listed species. the Act, among other things, prohibits establishes the NEP and provides for When NEPs are located outside a the take of endangered wildlife. ‘‘Take’’ limited allowable legal taking of National Wildlife Refuge or National is defined by the Act as to harass, harm, Sonoran pronghorn within the defined Park Service unit, then for the purposes pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, NEP area. An Environmental of section 7, we treat the population as capture, or collect, or attempt to engage Assessment and Finding of No proposed for listing, and only two in any such conduct. Service regulations Significant Impact have been prepared provisions of section 7 apply—section (50 CFR 17.31) generally extend the for this action (see ADDRESSES section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4). prohibitions of take to threatened In these instances, NEPs provide below). wildlife. Section 7 of the Act outlines additional flexibility because Federal DATES: The effective date of this rule is the procedures for Federal interagency agencies are not required to consult June 6, 2011. cooperation to conserve federally listed with us under section 7(a)(2). Section ADDRESSES: This final rule, along with species and protect designated critical 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to the public comments, Environmental habitat. It mandates that all Federal confer (rather than consult) with the Assessment (EA) and Finding of No agencies use their existing authorities to Service on actions that are likely to Significant Impact (FONSI), is available further the purposes of the Act by jeopardize the continued existence of a on the Internet at http:// carrying out programs for the species proposed to be listed. The www.regulations.gov and http:// conservation of listed species. It also results of a conference are in the form www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/. states that Federal agencies will, in of conservation recommendations that Supporting documentation is also consultation with the Service, ensure are optional as the agencies carry out, available for public inspection, by that any action they authorize, fund, or fund, or authorize activities. Because appointment, during normal business carry out is not likely to jeopardize the the NEP is, by definition, not essential hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife continued existence of a listed species to the continued existence of the species VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:41 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM 05MYR1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES 25594 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations (see below) then the effects of proposed of Interstate 8, with the intent of planting of buffelgrass (Pennisetum actions on the NEP will generally not establishing another herd. ciliare), particularly in Sonora; gold rise to the level of jeopardizing the mining southeast of Sonoyta, Sonora; Biological Information continued existence of the species. As a dewatering and development along the result, a formal conference will likely The Sonoran pronghorn was first Gila River and Rı´o Sonoyta; and high never be required for Sonoran described by Goldman (1945, pp. 3–4) levels of undocumented immigration pronghorn established within the NEP and is small in terms of cranial and drug trafficking across the area. Nonetheless, some agencies (e.g., measurements compared to the international border, and associated law Bureau of Land Management (BLM)) measurements of other subspecies of enforcement response in the United voluntarily confer with the Service on pronghorn (Nowak and Paradiso 1971, States; actions that may affect a proposed p. 857). Historically, the Sonoran (3) wildfire, fueled by nonnative species. Section 10(j)(2)(c)(ii) precludes pronghorn ranged in the United States perennial and ephemeral plants that the designation of critical habitat for from approximately the Santa Cruz have increased fine fuels and allowed nonessential populations. Activities that River, Arizona, in the east, to the Gila fire to become a much more frequent are not carried out, funded, or Bend and Kofa Mountains, Arizona, to event in the Sonoran Desert; authorized by Federal agencies are not the north, and to Imperial Valley, (4) drought and associated limited subject to provisions or requirements in California, to the west (Service 1998, pp. food and water; and section 7. 4–6). In northwestern Sonora, Mexico, (5) small population size and random Based on the best scientific and the subspecies is thought to have changes in demographics. commercial data available, we must occurred historically as far south as Populations at low levels may determine whether the experimental Bahia Kino and east to Santa Ana and experience random variations in sex population is essential or nonessential Nogales. In Baja California, Mexico, the ratios, age distributions, and birth and to the continued existence of the subspecies occurred in the northeast death rates among individuals, which species. The regulations (50 CFR from the United States border south to can cause fluctuations in population 17.80(b)) state that an experimental the vicinity of Punta Estrella (Phelps size and possibly extinction (Service population is considered essential if its and Webb 1981, pp. 20–21; Service 2002, pp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Lower Gila Region, Arizona
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HUBERT WORK, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 498 THE LOWER GILA REGION, ARIZONA A GEOGBAPHIC, GEOLOGIC, AND HTDBOLOGIC BECONNAISSANCE WITH A GUIDE TO DESEET WATEEING PIACES BY CLYDE P. ROSS WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1923 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 50 CENTS PEE COPY PURCHASER AGREES NOT TO RESELL OR DISTRIBUTE THIS COPT FOR PROFIT. PUB. RES. 57, APPROVED MAT 11, 1822 CONTENTS. I Page. Preface, by O. E. Melnzer_____________ __ xr Introduction_ _ ___ __ _ 1 Location and extent of the region_____._________ _ J. Scope of the report- 1 Plan _________________________________ 1 General chapters _ __ ___ _ '. , 1 ' Route'descriptions and logs ___ __ _ 2 Chapter on watering places _ , 3 Maps_____________,_______,_______._____ 3 Acknowledgments ______________'- __________,______ 4 General features of the region___ _ ______ _ ., _ _ 4 Climate__,_______________________________ 4 History _____'_____________________________,_ 7 Industrial development___ ____ _ _ _ __ _ 12 Mining __________________________________ 12 Agriculture__-_______'.____________________ 13 Stock raising __ 15 Flora _____________________________________ 15 Fauna _________________________ ,_________ 16 Topography . _ ___ _, 17 Geology_____________ _ _ '. ___ 19 Bock formations. _ _ '. __ '_ ----,----- 20 Basal complex___________, _____ 1 L __. 20 Tertiary lavas ___________________ _____ 21 Tertiary sedimentary formations___T_____1___,r 23 Quaternary sedimentary formations _'__ _ r- 24 > Quaternary basalt ______________._________ 27 Structure _______________________ ______ 27 Geologic history _____ _____________ _ _____ 28 Early pre-Cambrian time______________________ .
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona
    Scholars' Mine Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations 1965 Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona Elias Zambrano Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses Part of the Geology Commons Department: Recommended Citation Zambrano, Elias, "Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona" (1965). Masters Theses. 7104. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/7104 This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GEOLOGY OF CIENEGA MINING DISTRICT, NORTHWESTERN YUM.1\, COUNTY, ARIZONA BY ELIAS ZAMBRANO I J'i~& A THESIS submitted to the faculty of the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT ROLLA in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN GEOLOGY Rolla, Missouri 1965 ~!'Approved by ~2/~advisor) ~ ~·-~~ ii ABSTRACT In the mapped area three metamorphic units crop out: calc-silicates and marble, gneiss, and a conglomerate- schist section. The first one consists of a series of intercalations of calc-silicate rocks, local marbles, and greenschist. Quartzite appears in the upper part of the section. This section passes transitionally to the gneiss, which is believed to be of sedimentary origin. Features indicative of sedimentary origin include inter­ calation with marble, relic bedding which can be observed locally, intercalation of greenschist clearly of sedimentary origin, lack of homogeneity in composition with both lateral and vertical variation occurring, roundness of zircon grains, and lack of zoning in the feldspars.
    [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]
  • GNUSLETTER Volume 37 Number 1
    GNUSLETTER Volume 37 Number 1 ANTELOPE SPECIALIST GROUP July 2020 ISSN 2304-0718 IUCN Species Survival Commission Antelope Specialist Group GNUSLETTER is the biannual newsletter of the IUCN Species Survival Commission Antelope Specialist Group (ASG). First published in 1982 by first ASG Chair Richard D. Estes, the intent of GNUSLETTER, then and today, is the dissemination of reports and information regarding antelopes and their conservation. ASG Members are an important network of individuals and experts working across disciplines throughout Africa and Asia. Contributions (original articles, field notes, other material relevant to antelope biology, ecology, and conservation) are welcomed and should be sent to the editor. Today GNUSLETTER is published in English in electronic form and distributed widely to members and non-members, and to the IUCN SSC global conservation network. To be added to the distribution list please contact [email protected]. GNUSLETTER Review Board Editor, Steve Shurter, [email protected] Co-Chair, David Mallon Co-Chair, Philippe Chardonnet ASG Program Office, Tania Gilbert, Phil Riordan GNUSLETTER Editorial Assistant, Stephanie Rutan GNUSLETTER is published and supported by White Oak Conservation The Antelope Specialist Group Program Office is hosted and supported by Marwell Zoo http://www.whiteoakwildlife.org/ https://www.marwell.org.uk The designation of geographical entities in this report does not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of IUCN, the Species Survival Commission, or the Antelope Specialist Group concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or concerning the delimitation of any frontiers or boundaries. Views expressed in Gnusletter are those of the individual authors, Cover photo: Peninsular pronghorn male, El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve (© J.
    [Show full text]
  • Stopping the Border Wall: Criteria and Priority Areas for Conservation and Restoration
    Stopping the Border Wall: Criteria and Priority Areas for Conservation and Restoration February 23, 2021 This document is endorsed by the following organizations: #NotAnotherFoot Coalition, 350 Central Mass, Animal Welfare Institute, Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Arizona Trail Association, Azul, Born Free USA, Center for Biological Diversity, Christian Council of Delmarva, Clean Water Action, Conservation Council For Hawaii, Covenant Tribal Solar Initiative, Defenders of Wildlife, Eagle Pass Border Coalition, Earth Island Institute, Earthjustice, Endangered Habitats League, Endangered Species Coalition, Environmental Protection Information Center, Friends of Mohawk Trail State Forest, Inc., Friends of Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks, Friends of the Earth U.S., Friends of the Sonoran Desert, Friends of the Wildlife Corridor, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, GreenLatinos, Greenvironment, LLC, Hands Across the River, Harambee House, inc/ Citizens For Environmental Justice, Heartwood, Hilltown Anti-Herbicide Coalition (HA-HC), Howling For Wolves, Indivisible Tohono, International Marine Mammal Project of Earth Island Institute, Madrean Archipelago Wildlife Center, National Parks Conservation Association, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, NM café, No Border Wall Coalition | Laredo, TX, Northern Jaguar Project, Ocean Conservation Research, Oceanic Preservation Society, OneNature, Partnership for the National Trails System, Predator Defense, Progress Arizona, ProgressNow New Mexico, Project Coyote, Rachel Carson Council, Raptors Are The Solution,
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona's Wildlife Linkages Assessment
    ARIZONAARIZONA’’SS WILDLIFEWILDLIFE LINKAGESLINKAGES ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT Workgroup Prepared by: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment Prepared by: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Siobhan E. Nordhaugen, Arizona Department of Transportation, Natural Resources Management Group Evelyn Erlandsen, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Habitat Branch Paul Beier, Northern Arizona University, School of Forestry Bruce D. Eilerts, Arizona Department of Transportation, Natural Resources Management Group Ray Schweinsburg, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Terry Brennan, USDA Forest Service, Tonto National Forest Ted Cordery, Bureau of Land Management Norris Dodd, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Melissa Maiefski, Arizona Department of Transportation, Environmental Planning Group Janice Przybyl, The Sky Island Alliance Steve Thomas, Federal Highway Administration Kim Vacariu, The Wildlands Project Stuart Wells, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT First Printing Date: December, 2006 Copyright © 2006 The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written consent from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written consent of the copyright holder. Additional copies may be obtained by submitting a request to: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup E-mail: [email protected] 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Mission Statement “To identify and promote wildlife habitat connectivity using a collaborative, science based effort to provide safe passage for people and wildlife” 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT Primary Contacts: Bruce D.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowning the Queen of the Sonoran Desert: Tucson and Saguaro National Park
    Crowning the Queen of the Sonoran Desert: Tucson and Saguaro National Park An Administrative History Marcus Burtner University of Arizona 2011 Figure 1. Copper Pamphlet produced by Tucson Chamber of Commerce, SAGU257, Box 1, Folder 11, WACC. “In a canon near the deserted mission of Cocospera, Cereus giganteus was first met with. The first specimen brought the whole party to a halt. Standing alone upon a rocky projection, it rose in a single unbranched column to the height of some thirty feet, and formed a sight which seemed almost worth the journey to behold. Advancing into the canon, specimens became more numerous, until at length the whole vegetation was, in places, made up of this and other Cacaceae. Description can convey no adequate idea of this singular vegetation, at once so grand and dreary. The Opuntia arborescens and Cereus Thurberi, which had before been regarded with wonder, now seemed insignificant in comparison with the giant Cactus which towered far above.” George Thurber, 1855, Boundary Commission Report.1 Table of Contents 1 Asa Gray, ―Plantae Novae Thurberianae: The Characters of Some New Genera and Species of Plants in a Collection Made by George Thurber, Esq., of the Late Mexican Boundary ii List of Illustrations v List of Maps ix Introduction Crowning the Queen of the Desert 1 The Question of Social Value and Intrinsically Valuable Landscapes Two Districts with a Shared History Chapter 1 Uncertain Pathways to a Saguaro National Monument, 1912-1933 9 Saguaros and the Sonoran Desert A Forest of Saguaros Discovering
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocapra Americana Sonoriensis) on an Active Air Force Tactical Range
    DISTRIBUTION OF SONORAN PRONGHORN (ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA SONORIENSIS) ON AN ACTIVE AIR FORCE TACTICAL RANGE by Samuel C. Price A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE (GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY) May 2015 Copyright 2015 Samuel C. Price ii DEDICATION I dedicate this document to my parents for their continuous encouragement throughout my education, and to my fiancé for her sacrifice of time, and her dealing with a grouchy and tired me. ii iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my supervisor Nicole Tautfest for helping and recommending ideas while planning the early stages of this project. I also thank those up at Luke AFB who agreed to let me use these data for my thesis, specifically Aaron Alvidrez, whom I was in contact with. Much thanks as well to my advisor, Dr. Travis Longcore, for being patient with my ever-changing schedule. iii iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS x ABSTRACT xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2: RELATED WORK 4 2.1 Sonoran Pronghorn 4 2.2 Areas of Intensive use by Sonoran Pronghorn 7 2.2.1 Kernel Density Estimation 7 2.2.2 Hotspots 9 2.3 Maximum Entropy Modelling 10 CHAPTER 3: METHODS 13 3.1 Study Area 13 3.2 Data Collection 14 3.3 Data Analysis 16 3.3.1 Hotspots 17 3.3.2 Maximum Entropy Modelling 18 3.3.2.1 Layer Preparation 18 3.3.2.2 Maxent Settings 21 iv v CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 27 4.1 Hotspots 28
    [Show full text]
  • Kofa National Wildlife Refuge
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Kofa National Wildlife Refuge Welcome to Kofa National Wildlife Refuge As rain is infrequent, most animals have adapted to survive with Camping and Historic Cabins The Kofa Mountains rise abruptly from the plains of the Sonoran little water. Many species, such as the desert tortoise, obtain Visitors are welcome to camp on the refuge for a maximum of Desert, reaching a height of 4,877 feet atop Signal Peak. Desert needed moisture from plants and like many desert animals, have 14 days in any 12-month period. Campfires are permitted, though bighorn sheep skillfully navigate the rugged mountains while adaptations that help them to conserve water. Some animals, only dead, down and detached wood from non-wilderness areas may turkey vultures search for carrion as they soar overhead. Below in including kit foxes and kangaroo rats, remain in cool burrows be used. As wood is scarce, it is suggested that visitors bring their King Valley, endangered Sonoran pronghorn forage and venomous during the day to prevent water loss. own supply. rattlesnakes bask in the sun. Things to Do at the Refuge Spend the night in Kofa Cabin or Hoodoo Cabin, historic cabins built The 666,641 acre refuge was established in 1939 for the Visitors are welcome to explore Kofa National Wildlife Refuge. by the CCC and a cattle company. They are available on a first come, conservation of desert bighorn sheep and other native wildlife. Drive across McPherson Pass in the Castle Dome Mountains and first serve basis and no fee is required. More than 80 percent of Kofa National Wildlife Refuge is protected enjoy expansive views of the desert landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Trees
    I SOUTHWESTERN TREES A Guide to the Native Species of New Mexico and Arizona Agriculture Handbook No. 9 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service SOUTHWESTERN TREES A Guide to the Native Species of New Mexico and Arizona By ELBERT L. LITTLE, JR., Forester (Dendrology) FOREST SERVICE Agriculture Handbook No. 9 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DECEMBER 1950 Reviewed and approved for reprinting August 1968 For sale by the Superintendent oí Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - CONTENTS Page Page Introduction . 1 Spurge family (Euphorbiaceae) . 76 Vegetation of New Mexico and Cashew family (Anacardiaceae) . 78 Arizona 4 Bittersweet family (Celastraceae) 79 Forests of New Mexico and Arizona 9 Maple family (Aceraceae) .... 80 How to use this handbook 10 Soapberry family (Sapindaceae) . 82 Pine family (Pinaceae) .-..,.. 10 Buckthorn family (Rhamnaceae) . 83 Palm family (Palmae) 24 Sterculla family (Sterculiaceae) . 86 Lily family (Liliaceae) 26 Tamarisk family (Tamaricaceae) . 86 Willow family (Salicaceae) .... 31 Allthorn family (Koeberliniaceae) 88 Walnut family (Juglandaceae) . 42 Cactus family (Cactaceae) .... 88 Birch family (Betulaceae) .... 44 Dogwood family (Cornaceae) . , 95 Beech family (Fagaceae) .... 46 Heath family (Ericaceae) .... 96 Elm family (Ulmaceae) 53 Sapote family (Sapotaceae) ... 97 Mulberry family (Moraceae) ... 54 Olive family (Oleaceae) 98 Sycamore family (Platanaceae) . 54 Nightshade family (Solanaceae) . 101 Rose family (Rosaceae) 55 Bignonia family (Bignoniaceae) . 102 Legume family (Leguminosae) . 63 Honeysuckle family (Caprifo- liaceae) 103 Rue family (Rutaceae) 73 Selected references 104 Ailanthus family (Simaroubaceae) 74 Index of common and scientific Bur sera family (Burseraceae) . 75 names 106 11 SOUTHWESTERN TREES A Guide to the Native Species of New Mexico and Arizona INTRODUCTION The Southwest, where the low, hot, barren Mexican deserts meet the lofty, cool, forested Rocky Mountains in New Mexico and Ari- zona, has an unsuspected richness of native trees.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 23/Thursday, February 4, 2010
    5732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 36. In § 40.329, the section heading Appendix B to Part 40—DOT Drug (b) Uncorrected Flaw (number) and paragraph (b) are revised, to read as Testing Semi-Annual Laboratory or 4. Number of specimens forwarded to an follows: IITF Report to Employers HHS-certified laboratory for additional drug testing and/or specimen validity § 40.329 What information must Laboratory Report to Employer testing. laboratories, MROs, and other service The following items are required on each 39. Appendix C is revised, to read as agents release to employees? laboratory report: follows: * * * * * Reporting Period: (inclusive dates) (b) As a laboratory or IITF, you must Laboratory Identification: (name and address) Appendix C to Part 40—DOT Drug provide, within 10 business days of Employer Identification: (name; may include Testing Semi-Annual Laboratory or receiving a written request from an Billing Code or ID code) IITF Report to DOT employee, and made through the MRO, C/TPA Identification: (where applicable; name and address) Mail, fax, or e-mail to: U.S. Department of the records relating to the results of the 1. Specimen Results Reported (total number) Transportation, Office of Drug and Alcohol employee’s drug test (i.e., laboratory or By Test Reason: Policy and Compliance, W62–300, 1200 New IITF) report and data package). You may (a) Pre-employment (number) Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, charge no more than the cost of (b) Post-Accident (number) Fax: (202) 366–3897, E-mail: preparation and reproduction for copies (c) Random (number) [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Grasshoppers and Other Orthoptera of Arizona
    The Grasshoppers and Other Orthoptera of Arizona Item Type text; Book Authors Ball, E. D.; Tinkham, E. R.; Flock, Robert; Vorhies, C. T. Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents. The University of Arizona. Download date 04/10/2021 13:31:26 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/190516 Technical Bulletin No. §3 June 15, 1942 Utttomttg fff Arfemta COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE AND OF ARIZONA BY E. D. BALL, K R. XIHKHAM, ROBERT FtocK, AND C. T. VQKBIES BY Itttaerattg ORGANIZATION BOABD OF BEGENTS Sidney P. Osborn (ex-of&cio).. Governor of Arizona E. D. Ring, B.A, (ex-officio). State Superintendent of Public Instruction APPOINTED MEMBERS Albert M. Crawford, B.S., President Prescott William H. Westover, LL.B Yuma Martin Gentry, LL,B Willcox Cleon T. Kmapp, LL.B.» Treasurer Tucson Jack B. Martin, Secretary,.,. Tucson M. O. Best Phoenix Clarence E. Houston, LL.B., B.A..... , ..Tucson Mrs. Joseph Madison Greet, B.A. Phoenix Alfred Atkinson, D.Sc .President of the University EXPJSBIMEHT STATION STAFF Paul S. Burgess, PhJX Dean and Director Ralph S. Hawkins, Ph,D ..Vice-Dean and Vice-Director ENTOMOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ZOOLOGY Charles T. Vorhies, Ph,D .Economic Zoologist •Elmer D. Ball, PhD ...™._ Entomologist Lawrence P, Wehrle, Ph.D...., , .„„. Associate Entomologist H, G* Johnston, Ph.D Associate Entomologist (Phoenix) *On leave. EBRWR Make following changes in numbers caa right hand margins only; Page 299, change "2^" to "26" Page 300, change "26" to "2k" Page 533, change "2V to "25" Pass 333, change "22" to "23" Page 33U, change "23" to "22" Page 33^, change "25" to "24" TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION.,.
    [Show full text]