Cabeza Prieta
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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______________________ . -
A Visitor's Guide to El Camino Del Diablo Leg 2B: El Camino Del Diablo from Tule Well to Tinajas Altas
Cabeza Prieta Natural History Association A Visitor's Guide to El Camino del Diablo Leg 2b: El Camino del Diablo from Tule Well to Tinajas Altas Mile 69.0. 32°13’35”N, 113°44’59”W. Key Junction, Tule Well. At the junction head west (left) to go to Tinajas Altas. Tule Well has a cabin, well, large water tank, and picnic tables. The current cabin was built in 1989 by the US Air Force’s 832nd Civil Engineering Squadron to help celebrate the refuge’s 50th anniversary, and it replaced an earlier cabin built in 1949 for refuge staff, livestock line-riders, and border agents. Traces of the old well are visible. The campground has several picnic tables. The flagpole and Boy Scout monument northwest of the cabin were built for the refuge’s dedication in March 1941 and enhanced in 1989. The original plan was to place a life- sized statue of a bighorn sheep on the monument’s base. The scouts were instrumental in a political campaign to establish the refuge. The original hand-dug well was not there at the time of the Gadsden Purchase and subsequent boundary survey of 1854, nor did Pumpelly mention a well when he passed this way in 1861. But the boundary surveyors of 1891-1896 reported, “During the ‘early sixties’ [1860s] there was a large influx in Mexicans from Sonora to the gold diggings on the Colorado River, and an enterprising Mexican dug two wells near the road, in the purpose of selling water to travelers. But the deaths from thirst along this route became so frequent that the road was soon abandoned and for over twenty years had remained unused.” By another account, perhaps apocryphal, the enterprising Mexican who dug the wells was killed by someone who refused to pay for water. -
D.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Devers–Palo Verde No. 2 Transmission Line Project D.7 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES D.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources D.7.1 Regional Setting and Approach to Data Collection This section discusses the cultural and paleontological resources located in the general area of the Pro- posed Project. Background information for the project area is provided (Section D.7.2 and D.7.3) along with a list of applicable regulations (Section D.7.4). Potential impacts and mitigation measures for the Proposed Project are outlined by segment in Sections D.7.6 and D.7.7. Project alternatives are addressed in Sections D.7.8 and D.7.9. A cultural resource is defined as any object or specific location of past human activity, occupation, or use, identifiable through historical documentation, inventory, or oral evidence. Cultural resources can be separated into three categories: archaeological, building and structural, and traditional resources (DSW EIR, 2005). Archaeological resources include both historic and prehistoric remains of human activity. Historic re- sources can consist of structures (cement foundations), historic objects (bottles and cans), and sites (trash deposits or scatters). Prehistoric resources can include lithic scatters, ceramic scatters, quarries, habitation sites, temporary camps/rock rings, ceremonial sites, and trails. Building and structural sites can vary from historic buildings to canals, historic roads and trails, bridges, ditches, and cemeteries. A traditional cultural resource or traditional cultural property (TCP) can include Native American sacred sites (rock art sites) and traditional resources or ethnic communities important for maintaining the cul- tural traditions of any group. Paleontology is the study of life in past geologic time based on fossil plants and animals and including phylogeny, their relationships to existing plants, animals, and environments, and the chronology of the Earth's history. -
United States Department of the Interior U.S
United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 2-21-96-F-094-R2 August 6, 2003 Colonel James Uken Director 56 Range Management Office Luke Air Force Base 7224 North 139th Drive Luke Air Force Base, Arizona 85309-1420 Dear Colonel Uken: This document constitutes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the proposed military training administered by the U.S. Air Force (USAF) on the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) located in Maricopa, Pima, and Yuma counties, Arizona, and its effects on the Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis)(SOPH) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). This revised biological opinion is provided in response to a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 7, 2003, from Judge Huvelle of the United States District Court (Court) for the District of Columbia in the case of Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. Bruce Babbitt, et al. (Civil Action No. 99-927 [ESH]). This biological opinion is based on information supplied in your letter of May 15, 2003, information provided in previous consultation on this action, updated information on the proposed action provided by your agency, new information on the status of the Sonoran pronghorn, telephone conversations, field investigations, and other sources of information as detailed herein. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in the Phoenix, Arizona, Ecological Services Field Office. -
On the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona
United States Department of the Interior Fish and ,Vildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: AESO/SE 22410-2006-F-0459 April 13, 2016 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico (ARD-ES) (Attn: Michelle Shaughnessy) Chief, Arizona Branch, Re.. gul 7/to . D'vision, Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix, Arizona From: Acting Field Supervisor~ Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion on the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona This biological and conference opinion (BCO) responds to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requirement for intra-Service consultation on the proposed issuance of a section lO(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit (TE-84356A-O) to Pima County and Pima County Regional Flood Control District (both herein referenced as Pima County), pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (ESA), authorizing the incidental take of 44 species (4 plants, 7 mammals, 8 birds, 5 fishes, 2 amphibians, 6 reptiles, and 12 invertebrates). Along with the permit application, Pima County submitted a draft Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). On June 10, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) requested programmatic section 7 consultation for actions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A), including two Regional General Permits and 16 Nationwide Permits, that are also covered activities in the MSCP. This is an action under section 7 of the ESA that is separate from the section 10 permit issuance to Pima Couny. -
Ajo Peak to Tinajas Altas: a Flora of Southwestern Arizona
Felger, R.S., S. Rutman, and J. Malusa. 2014. Ajo Peak to Tinajas Altas: A flora of southwestern Arizona. Part 6. Poaceae – grass family. Phytoneuron 2014-35: 1–139. Published 17 March 2014. ISSN 2153 733X AJO PEAK TO TINAJAS ALTAS: A FLORA OF SOUTHWESTERN ARIZONA Part 6. POACEAE – GRASS FAMILY RICHARD STEPHEN FELGER Herbarium, University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 & Sky Island Alliance P.O. Box 41165, Tucson, Arizona 85717 *Author for correspondence: [email protected] SUSAN RUTMAN 90 West 10th Street Ajo, Arizona 85321 JIM MALUSA School of Natural Resources and the Environment University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 [email protected] ABSTRACT A floristic account is provided for the grass family as part of the vascular plant flora of the contiguous protected areas of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and the Tinajas Altas Region in southwestern Arizona. This is the second largest family in the flora area after Asteraceae. A total of 97 taxa in 46 genera of grasses are included in this publication, which includes ones established and reproducing in the modern flora (86 taxa in 43 genera), some occurring at the margins of the flora area or no long known from the area, and ice age fossils. At least 28 taxa are known by fossils recovered from packrat middens, five of which have not been found in the modern flora: little barley ( Hordeum pusillum ), cliff muhly ( Muhlenbergia polycaulis ), Paspalum sp., mutton bluegrass ( Poa fendleriana ), and bulb panic grass ( Zuloagaea bulbosa ). Non-native grasses are represented by 27 species, or 28% of the modern grass flora. -
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 ....................................................................................................................... -
A Visitor's Guide to El Camino Del Diablo Leg 3A: Tinajas Altas to Goldwater Range Northern Boundary
Cabeza Prieta Natural History Association A Visitor's Guide to El Camino del Diablo Leg 3a: Tinajas Altas to Goldwater Range northern boundary "This is my last night here [Tinajas Altas]. Tomorrow, Win comes with the horses and I shall go home as quickly as possible. But I will not forget these mystical nights, sitting alone here in camp in the moonlit desert. The calm, the silence, the radiance of the mountains, the softness of the light and the mystery pervading the scene. My trip has been completely successful…. The sunsets have been wonderful, especially tonight, with the lighted clouds changing from golden to crimson to pink, all seen through the vistas of the craggy mountain masses. As I look out on the desert by moonlight, it seems so soft and hospitable. The sense of its death-dealing aridity is lost. I shall hunt for an hour at daylight and that will be my last. Then all my thoughts will be centered on home." Charles Sheldon, The Wilderness of Desert Bighorns and Seri Indians Mile 0.0. 32°19’31.1"N, 114°02’59"W. Key Junction at sign A-16. Go north (straight). Mile 0.3. 32°19’49.8"N, 114°03’00.3"W. Junction: go north. Faded BLM sign announcing Tinajas Altas. Also sign C-19. Other, wider road goes southeast and is a bypass for vehicles not wanting to visit Tinajas Altas. Mile 1.1. 32°20’30.3"N, 114°02’59.5"W. Sign C-18. Side road northwest to the mountain. -
YUMA COUNTY MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN March 2019
YUMA COUNTY MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN March 2019 YUMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: JURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION AND FEMA APPROVAL...................................................... 6 1.1 DMA 2000 Requirements ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.1.1 General Requirements............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1.2 Tribal Government Assurances ............................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Official Record of Adoption........................................................................................................................ 6 SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Plan History..................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Plan Purpose and Authority ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 General Plan Description............................................................................................................................. 8 SECTION 3: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS ......................................................................................... -
United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife
United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 2-21-94-F-192R2 September 30, 2002 Memorandum To: Field Manager, Phoenix Field Office, Bureau of Land Management From: Acting Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion for Five Livestock Grazing Allotments in the Vicinity of Ajo, Arizona This biological opinion responds to your request for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531- 1544), as amended (Act). Your request for formal consultation was dated April 19, 2002, and received by us on April 23, 2002. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed reauthorization of livestock grazing on the Sentinel, Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments located in Maricopa and Pima counties, Arizona. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has determined that the proposed action for the five allotments may adversely affect the endangered Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), and the proposed action for the Cameron and Childs allotments may adversely affect the endangered cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum). In your letter, you also requested our concurrence that the proposed action on the Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments may affect, but will not likely adversely affect, the endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuena). We concur with that determination, which is based on sound analysis and guidance criteria for the species mutually agreed upon by our agencies. -
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 -
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Abstracts of the Symposium of the Geology and Mineral Deposits Of
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Abstracts of the Symposium of the geology and mineral deposits of the Ajo and Lukeville 1° by 2° quadrangle, Arizona Presented at Tucson, Arizona February 26, 1988 Compiled by Floyd Grayl Open-File Report 88-217 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standard and stratigraphic nomenclature ^Menlo Park, California 1988 CONTENTS Page 1. The Cusmap Program in the Ajo and Lukeville 1° by 2° quadrangles, by Floyd Gray .................................................................... 1 2. Mineral occurrences in the Ajo and Lukeville 1° by 2° quadrangles, Arizona, by R.M. Tosdal and J.A. Peterson............. 3 3. Thermo-tectonic terranes of the Ajo and Lukeville ro by 2° quadrangle K-Ar geochronology of early Tertiary and older rocks, by R. M. Tosdal and RJ. Miller ............................. 5 4. Trace-element systematic of peraluminous leuco-granites, Baboquivari Mountains Range, south-central Arizona, by G.B. Haxel ........................................................................................................ 9 5. Geological, geochemical, and geophysical studies in the central portion of the Mohawk Mountains, southwestern Arizona, USA, by R.G. Eppinger, P.K. Theobald, D.P. Klein, and G.L. Raines ............................................................................................. 1 0 6. Stratigraphy, geochronology, and geochemistry of a calc- alkaline volcanic field near Ajo, southwestern Arizona, by Floyd Gray and RJ. Miller...................................!.................................... 1 4 7. K-Ar ages of volcanic rocks near Ajo, Pima, and Maricopa Counties southwestern Arizona, by RJ. Miller, Floyd Gray, R.M. Tosdal, and E.H. McKee .................................................................... 1 5 8. Structural reinterpretation of the Ajo Mining District, Pima County, Arizona, by D.P. Cox, J.T.