DOCSLIB.ORG

Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. Xeroriparian Systems Used by Desert Mule Deer in Texas And Arizona1 Paul R. Krausman2 , Kurt R. Rautenstrauch3 and Bruce D. Leopold4 Abstract.--We examined desert mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus crooki) occurrance in xeroriparian systems in Arizona and Texas. Most deer in Arizona were located in washes. Most deer in Texas were located between washes. Xeroriparian areas are important habitat components for desert mule deer when they provide forage, thermal cover and travel lanes. INTRODUCTION STUDY AREAS Desert mule deer inhabit the Sonoran and Desert mule deer use of xeroriparian systems Chihuahuan Deserts of North America. Their range was evaluated on the northeastern edge of their extends from southwest Texas to western Arizona range in Big Bend National Park (BBNP), southwest and south into central Mexico (Wallmo 1981). Texas; in the westcentral part of their range in the Belmont Mountains, central Arizona; and on the Desert mule deer are a popular and important northwestern edge of their range in King Valley, game animal, but have received limited attention southwest Arizona. by the scientific community. Clark (1953) examined desert mule deer behavior and movement BBNP, Brewster Co., is representative of the patterns, Truett (1972) studied their general rugged Chihuahuan Desert and is included in the ecology, Krausman (1978) and Leopold (1984) Chisos biotic district (Dice 1943). Elevations evaluated their forage preferences, and Krausman extend from 573 m along the Rio Grande to 2384 m (1984) and Rautenstrauch and Krausman (unpublished at Mt. Emory in the Chisos Mountains. data) have studied desert mule deer home range size and movements. Descriptions of desert mule BBNP is characterized by hot summers, mild deer habitat are general (Phillips 1974, Anthony winters and low rainfall. Temperatures exceed 38 and Smith 1977, Dickinson and Garner 1979, Koerth C in the desert regions in summer and rarely 1981, Leopold and Krausman (1983) and there is freeze in winter. Precipitation occurs from May little published information on desert mule deer through October, ranging from 28-41 cm. habitat use. Leopold and Krausman (1983) identified 10 We began studying desert mule deer in Texas vegetative associations in BBNP. The associations in 1972 (Krausman and Ables 1981, Leopold 1984), were differentiated into three categories based on and in Arizona in 1979 (Krausman 1984, dominant plant cover: creosotebush (Larrea Rautenstrauch and Krausman, unpublished data). tridentata) dominated, non-creosotebush dominated, During these studies it became apparent that and associations not dominated by shrubs. xeroriparian washes and their associated vegetation were an important component of desert The Belmont Mountains, Maricopa Co., are 80 mule deer habitat. Our objective in this study km west of Phoenix, cover 360 km2 , and are was to document desert mule deer use of representative of the upper Sonoran Desert. xeroriparian systems (Johnson et ale 1981) across Elevations range from 426 m to 914 m. the northern boundary of their range and to describe the vegetation of washes used by deer. The average annual precipitation is 20 cm. Most rain falls from January through March. Temperatures above 45 C in summer are common. 1Paper presented at the first North American Krausman (1984) identified 9 vegetative Riparian Conference. [University of Arizona, associations in the Belmont Mountains. Most Tucson. April 16-18, 1985]. associations are dominated by triangleleaf bursage 2Paul R. Krausman is Associate Professor of (Ambrosia deltoidea), brittlebush (Encelia Wildlife, University of Arizona, Tucson, Az. farinosa) and creosotebush. The areas between the 3Kurt R. Rautenstrauch is Graduate Research mountains and foothills having major washes are Assi~tant, University of Arizona, Tucson, Az. classified as the Triangleleaf Bursage-Transition Bruce D. Leopold is Wildlife Research Association. Vegetation in this association is Assistant, University of Arizona, Tucson, Az. dominated by the same three plants, but the washes 144 contain the larger trees, ironwood (~ tesota) Arizona and paloverde (Cercidium sPP.). Belmont Mountains.--The density of perennial vegetation was measured in 50-100 0.004-ha Over 60% of the Belmont Mountain area is in randomly located Circular plots in each of nine the Creosote Flats Association. Dominant plants associations identified. In major washes that include creosotebush and triangleleaf bursage. bisected associations, line intercept transects The species composition of the major washes is (Canfield 1941) were established to estimate similar to the transition association. the vegetational composition in xeroriparian components of the association. King Valley, Yuma Co., is 45 to 60 km northeast of Yuma and 110 kID southwest of the King Valley.--Washes in King Valley were Belmont Mountains. Elevations range from 85 m at divided into 4 classes depending on the number of the Gila River to 450 m at the base of the drainages and the width of the associated surrounding mountains. The average annual vegetation. Simple washes have only one drainage precipitation at the lower end of the valley is 12 (a water fluve greater than 1 m wide). Complex cm. washes (washes with more than 1 fluve) were divjded into 3 classes based on the width of the The slopes of the mountain ranges surrounding vegetation: less than 50 m wide (C1), between 50 King Valley are sparsely vegetated and dominated and 150 m wide (C2) and greater than 150 m wide by creosotebush, brittlebush, white bursage (C3). (Ambrosia dumosa), and ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens). The canyon bottoms have xeroriparian The percent cover of perennial vegetation in washes dominated by ironwood and paloverde. washes was measured using the line-intercept method (Canfield 1941). Ten transects, spaced ten Most plant life in King Valley is restricted m apart and running perpendicular to the flow of to the xeroriparian drainages. The areas between water, were measured in each wash. drainages are usually covered with wind eroded desert pavement, and have no vegetation or very The density of perennial vegetation between sparse stands of creosotebush, brittlebush and washes was measured in six to 10 .0314 ha white bursage. circular plots next to each wash measured. The plots were either 100 m away from the edge of the The dominant overstory species in the washes wash vegetation or half-way between the measured are little-leaf paloverde (~ microphyllum), blue wash and the adjacent wash if the washes were less paloverde (~ floridum) and ironwood. The width than 200 m apart. of the vegetation in the largest washes in King Valley is over 300 m wide. Contrasting Washes and Adjacent Habitat Because deer were rarely located in the Shannon-Weaver Diversity indices were mountains and foothills surrounding King Valley, computed to contrast plant species diversity in this study deals only with the xeroriparian washes and adjacent habitats in Texas and between Paloverde-Ironwood Association found in the bottom areas in Arizona. Morisita coefficients of of King Valley. overlap (Morisita 1959) were computed to determine degree of similarity of perennial vegetation within washes and adjacent vegetatiave associations in Texas. The equivilence of percent METHODS forage species occurring in the washes and the adjacent vegetatiave associat!ons was determined Vegetation Sampling using the binomial test for proportions (Zar 1984:395-400). Texas Deer Occurrence in Washes Twenty five to 50 point-quarter plots (Dix 1961) were sampled in each of ten vegetative Texas associations identified in BBNP (Leopold and Krausman 1983) to determine the density of Deer use of washes was determined from 750 vegetation between washes. independent observations of deer in three classes: initially observed in wash, within 30 m of a wash, A transect line was established along the or greater than 30 m from a wash. All center of each sampled wash running parallel to observations were made from January 1980 through the flow of water. The initial plot was randomly 1981. Habitats were sampled for deer in determined and subsequent points were 15 m apart. proportion to their availability in the study At each point, width of wash, and all perennial area. plant species to the left and right of the point were recorded. We also noted which plants were Arizona deer forage. Desirable deer forage plant species was based on diets determined by fecal analysis Deer use of washes was determined from 1180 (Leopold 1984). independent locations of 12 radio-collared deer (4 145 Table 1.--Summary and comparison of vegetative characteristics of plant associations and adjacent wash systems in Big Bend National Park, Texas. Plant association vlash systems Diversity Vegetative Total Pltnt Deer Deer vlash Adjacent Coefficient association density forage2 forage2 width3 habitat wash of overlap I. Creosote bush dominated Creo-Iech-grass 3.01 43.4*6 29.3 18.6 2.25 2.81 0.09 Creo-Iech-candel 0.74 28.3 41.3**7 23.5 2.31 2.38 0.40 Creo-Iech-Opuntia 0.65 27.8 31 .1 19.6 1.59 2.58 0.27 Creo-tarbush 2.30 40.1* 26.4 5.4 2.69 2.25 0.50 Creo Flats (Loc 1)4 0.64 5.9 8.2 13.3 1.55 1.80 0.66 Creo Flats (Loc 2)5 0.04 0.0 55.8** 25.0 1.09 2.37 0.30 Creo-Iech 0.24 33.6 55.3** NA 1.95 1.59 0.32 II. Non-creosotebush dominated Vig-Iech-grass 2.46 44.3 62.4** 5.5 2.58 2.40 0.76 Yucca-Sotol 4.34 46.8* 23.7 9.7 2.74 2.70 0.37 Sotol-Iech-grass 4.05 53.0 60.2 6.3 1.87 2.87 0.25 III. Non-shrub dominated Lech-grass (Loc 1) 1.72 68.6* 53.1 3.8 2.73 3.01 0.35 Lech-grass (Loc 2) 1.04 59.1 57.7 5.2 2.35 2.69 0.60 'expressed as stems/m2 2expressed as percentage 3expressed as average of all points sampled 4Creosotebush Flats of upper elevations ~Creosotebush Flats of lower elevations *=deer forage in vegetation association significantly greater (alpha = 0.05) than in washes within association 7**=deer forage in washes significantly greater (alpha = 0.05) than adjacent association.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX
    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE PHOENIX AMA Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Brown and Caldwell Project No. 23481.001 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 9 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona
    2.SOB nH in ntoiOGIGM. JAN 3 1 1989 Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1701-C Chapter C Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona By ED DE WITT, S.M. RICHARD, J.R. HASSEMER, and W.F. HANNA U.S. Geological Survey J.R. THOMPSON U.S. Bureau of Mines U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1701 MINERAL RESOURCES OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS- WEST-CENTRAL ARIZONA AND PART OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publlcatlon Data Mineral resources of the Harquahala Mountains wilderness study area, La Paz and Maricopa counties, Arizona. (Mineral resources of wilderness study areas west-central Arizona and part of San Bernardino County, California ; ch. C) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1701-C) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1701-C 1. Mines and mineral resources Arizona Harquahala Mountains Wilderness. 2. Harquahala Mountains (Ariz.) I. DeWitt, Ed. II. Series. III. Series: U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1701. QE75.B9 no. 1701-C 557.3 s [553'.09791'72] 88-600012 [TN24.A6] STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S.
    [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]
  • Geochronology, Geology, and Listric Normal Faulting of the Vulture Mountains, Maricopa County, Arizona
    Arizona Geological Society Digest, Volume XII, 1980 89 Geochronology, Geology, and Listric Normal Faulting of the Vulture Mountains, Maricopa County, Arizona by WA. Rehrigi, M. Shafiqullah2, and P.E. Damon2 Abstract Geologic mapping and geochronologic studies in the Vulture Mountains near Wickenburg, Arizona, have led to the recognition of a large, northeast-trending batholith of 68.4-m.y. age that intrudes complex gneissic and granitic rocks of probably Precambrian age. Over- lying the denuded crystalline terrane is a sequence of late Oligocene to Miocene ( .'26 to 16 m.y.) volcanic rocks (vitrophyres, ash-flow tuffs, welded tuffs, breccias, agglomerates, and lava flows) that vary locally. Nearby source areas are suggested. A swarm of north- to north-northwest-trending porphyritic dikes intrudes the volcanics and crystalline basement. Overlying this volcanic sequence in angular unconformity is a thin section of basal conglom- erate and basalt lava flows dated at 13.5 m.y. B.P. The older, tuffaceous sequence is generally calc-alkalic but with a high proportion of rhyolites that are exceptionally rich in potassium and silica. These silicic units are peral- kaline or nearly so, and those with K20/Na2O >3 are ultrapotassic. Initial strontium ratios average 0.7081, whereas an initial ratio for the younger basalt sequence is significantly lower at 0.7054. The silicic volcanics have been severely tilted on multiple, low-angle listric normal faults. The youngest basalt flows are relatively flat lying and postdate this deformation. By geo- logic and radiometric criteria, the transition from tilted silicic volcanics to untilted basalts occurred between about 16 and 14 m.y.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Geologic Map and Cross Sections of the Big Horn And
    GEOLOGIC MAP AND CROSS SECTIONS OF THE BIG HORN AND BELMONT MOUNTAINS, WEST-CENTRAL ARIZONA James A. Stin1ac, Stephen M. Richard, Stephen J. Reynolds, Richard C. Capps, Curtis P. Kortel11eier, Michael J. Grubensky, George B. Allen, Floyd Gray, and Robert J. Miller Open-File Report 94-15 ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY TUCSON, ARIZONA NOVEIVIBER, 1994 This report is preliminary and lias not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards INTRODUCTION The principal geologic feature of the Big Hom and Belmont Mountains is a complexly faulted and tilted series of mostly Miocene volcanic rock that record a period of Middle Tertiary magmatism and extension. These volcanic rocks vary widely in composition, but basaltic and rhyolitic rocks are most abundant (Figure 1). Intrusive equivalents of these volcanics exposed in the Belmont Mountains are dominantly granitic. Despite the large volume of rhyolite erupted, small, coalescing flow and dome complexes were formed in preference to large- MIocene and Oligocene sandstone and conglomerate Hot Rock basalt Burnt Mountain volcanics Big Horn volcanics Intrusive rocks pre-Tertiary rocks I~ ,:- ; ~ _I Big Horn granodiorite (Cretaceous) ~ Igneous and metamorpchic rocks ~ (Proterozoic through Mesozoic) Figure 1. Generalized lithologic map of the Big Hom and Belmont Mountains volume ash-flow tuffs, and no collapse calderas were formed. These rocks lie in the upper plate ofthe regional Whipple-Buckskin-Bullard detachment fault [Rehrig and Reynolds, 1980], at its southeastern tip [Richard et aI, 1990a]. A regional boundary between major tilts domains in Tertiary strata follows an irregular course from northwest to southeast through the range [Rehrig et aI., 1980].
    [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: arizonalinkages@azdot.gov 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]
  • Geologic Map of the Wickenburg, Southern Buckhorn, and Northwestern Hieroglyphic Mountains, Central Arizona
    Geologic Map of the Wickenburg, southern Buckhorn, and northwestern Hieroglyphic Mountains, central Arizona _ by James A. Stimac, Joan E. Fryxell. Stephen J. Reynolds, Stephen M. Richard, Michael J. GrubenskY, and Elizabeth A. Scott Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-9 October, 1987 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 This report is preliminalY and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards INTRODUCTION This report describes the geology of the Red Picacho quadrangle and parts of the Wickenburg, Garfias Mountain, and Wittmann quadrangles (Fig. 1). Geologic mapping was completed between January and April of 1987, and was jointly funded by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology as part of the cost-sharing COGEOMAP program. Mapping was done on 1:24,000-scale topographic maps and on 1:24,000-scale color aerial photographs provided by Raymond A. Brady of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. GEOLOGIC OVERVIEW The map area includes the Wickenburg Mountains and contiguous parts of the Buckhorn and Hieroglyphic Mountains (Fig. 1). Adjacent parts of the Vulture Mountains were mapped by Grubensky and oth_ers (1987) and adjacent parts of the Hieroglyphic Mountains were mapped by Capps and others (1986). The overall geologic history of the area is complex, but the regional stratigraphy developed in these reports carries well from range to range. The map area is composed of a metamorphic-plutonic basement unconformably overlain by Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The oldest rocks, assigned to the Proterozoic (1.8-1.7 b.y.) Yavapai Supergroup, consist of amphibolite, schist, and gneiss, intruded by granite, leucogranite, and pegmatite.
    [Show full text]
  • Tonopah Arlington Area Plan
    AREA PLAN TO N O PAH /ARLIN GTO N 2020 Eye To Th e Fut u re Executive Summary OVERVIEW The Area Plan process is structured to emphasize public involvement and incorporate citizen comments, ideas, and direction into the plan. The Maricopa County Planning and Development Department began the Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan update in the winter of 1997. The update process involved many individuals and organizations from the Tonopah/ Arlington planning area. Central to the planning process a citizen steering committee was formed, two open houses were held in the summer and fall of 1998 and another in the fall of 1999, and focus group sessions addressed specific community issues. WHAT’S NEW IN THE PLAN? 1. Land use categories that follow the regional standard and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Additional land use categories for residential, resort, and industrial. 3. Discussion and analysis of current issues. 4. Redesigned and rewritten Area Plan with updated digital maps. 5. Tonopah and Arlington are discussed as individual areas. HOW TO USE THE PLAN The Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan provides a specific guide for decisions by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors concerning growth and development in the Tonopah/Arlington planning area. It is to be used by policy makers to guide their decisions and serve as a reference for private sector decision making. AREA PLAN ELEMENTS The Area Plan elements contain a series of goals, objectives and policies used to define development standards, guide public investment, and public and private decision making. LAND USE The land use designations in this Area Plan embody generalized land use, development or preservation concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Dismembered Porphyry Systems Near Wickenburg, Arizona: District-Scale Reconstruction with an Arc-Scale Context
    ©2016 Society of Economic Geologists, Inc. Economic Geology, v. 111, pp. 447–466 Dismembered Porphyry Systems near Wickenburg, Arizona: District-Scale Reconstruction with an Arc-Scale Context Phillip A. Nickerson†,* and Eric Seedorff Lowell Institute for Mineral Resources, Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, 1040 East Fourth Street, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0077 Abstract This study combines results from reconnaissance-scale mapping of hydrothermal alteration, rock types, and structures to provide a district-scale cross section and associated palinspastic reconstruction of an area with two previously undescribed Laramide (~70 Ma) porphyry systems at Sheep Mountain and Copper Basin (Crown King). Extension at the district scale is placed in an arc-scale context using an original compilation of strike and dip measurements on Tertiary rocks to reconstruct the Laramide porphyry belt prior to extension. The study area contains five sequential, partially superimposed sets of normal faults that are nearly planar where exposed. Dips of all normal faults initiated at 60° to 70° and rotated during slip to angles as gentle as 20°. A palinspastic reconstruction reveals that two, spatially distinct hydrothermal systems overlie different cupolas of a Late Cretaceous pluton. Hydrothermal alteration is zoned from greisen to potassic to transitional greisen- potassic assemblages from deep to shallow structural levels. The reconstruction is used to identify two covered exploration targets. The prospects may be porphyry molybdenum systems of the quartz monzonitic-granitic porphyry Mo-Cu subclass, joining others in an arc that is best known for porphyry copper deposits. The Laramide porphyry belt prior to extension displays a variably well-defined axis, ~100 km wide, with gaps and clusters of deposits along its 700-km strike length.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoran Desert Heritage
    Aguila «¬71 ¤£60 MAZATZAL Wilderness HELLS CANYON Wilderness Gladden Eagle Eye Mountain # Vulture Peak # Salome Peak # Morristown Sonoran Desert HerTionttoa Ng.F e Black Butte # «¬72 HARQUAHALA MTNS. Wilderness Vulture «¬74 Belmont - Harquahala NCA Hummingbird Springs Wilderness HUMMINGBIRD SPRINGS Wilderness Tonopah-Belmont Mine ¨¦§10 Belmont Mountains Wilderness BIG HORN MTNS. Wilderness NEW WATER MTNS. Wilderness «¬101 Hummingbird Springs Wilderness «¬303 Peoria Burnt Mountain 60 # ¤£ «¬51 Luke A.F.B Glendale ¨¦§17 87 Courthouse Rock «¬ # 143 Phoenix «¬ # Wintersburg Gila Bend NCA ¨¦§10 EAGLETAIL MTNS Wilderness # Saddle Mountain Centennial Wilderness Liberty £60 Buckeye ¤ Estrella Mountain Ranch Arlington «¬202 Clanton Hills # Yellow Medicine Hills Columbus Peak # # 101 Cortez Peak # «¬ # Dixie Peak Gila Bend Wilderness # Black Mountain Kofa N.W.R # Webb Mountain # Sonoran Desert National Monument Wilderness SIERRA ESTRELLA Wilderness Gila Bend NCA SIGNAL MTN. Wilderness Saddle Enterprise Ranch «¬587 Gila Bend NCA Rainbow Valley SMA # WOOLSEY PEAK Wilderness KOFA REFUGE Wilderness NORTH MARICOPA MTNS. Wilderness «¬85 Painted Rock Dam Oatman Mountain # Sonoran Desert N.M. Woolsey Peak Wilderness Addition Proposed Designatio«¬87 ns Hyder ENSCO Site and Land Tenure Oatman Flat Sonoran Desert National Monument Wilderness Agua Caliente Proposed NCA «¬387 Proposed Wilderness Gila Bend Proposed SMA «¬187 Paloma Ranch SOUTH MARICOPA MTNS. Wilderness BLM Sentinel Plain SMA Yuma Test Range ¨¦§8 Forest Service Sentinel «¬287 «¬84 Tribal Land Local or State Parks Sonoran Desert National Monument Wilderness Military Natl. Monument (BLM land) TABLE TOP Wilderness Other State Trust Barry Goldwater Air Force Rng. WToilhdolifneo L aInnddian Res. Existing Wilderness Area Copyright:© 2009 ESRI.
    [Show full text]
  • White Tank Mountain Regional Park
    White Tank Mountain Regional Park Master Plan Update 2014-2034 {This page intentionally left blank.} {This page intentionally left blank.} {This page intentionally left blank.} Acknowledgements This master plan update was a collaborative process that involved the guidance and expertise of many. The Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department would like to thank the Planning Team who committed their time to monthly meetings and document review; likewise to the Stakeholder Advisory Group who took time out of their personal lives to provide their invaluable input. Planning Team Stakeholder Advisory Group R.J. Cardin, Director Jamil Coury Jennifer Waller, Operations Manager Linda Gilgosch Jennifer Johnston, West Side Superintendent John Pesock Raymond Schell, Park Supervisor Frank Salowitz Michele Kogl, Planning and Development Manager Allen Ockenfels, Trails Development Manager Fareed Abou-Haidar, GIS Technician Leigh Johnson, Park Planner This Master Plan update was also made possible by the contributions and guidance of the following: • Maricopa County Board of Supervisors o Denny Barney, District 1 o Steve Chucri, District 2 o Andy Kunasek, District 3 o Clint L. Hickman, District 4 o Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 • Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Commission o Jack Stapley, District 2 o Anne Lynch, District 3 o Dr. Robert Branch, District 4 o Carlton Yoshioka , Member-at-Large o Rod Jarvis, Member-at-Large • Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department staff • Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Mountain Patrol Division • Bill “Doc” Talboys, Interpretive Ranger, MCPRD (retired) • Shelly Rasmussen, Interpretive Ranger, MCPRD (retired) • Public meeting participants The Department would also like to thank its agency partners at the City of Surprise, City of Buckeye, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the Bureau of Land Management - Phoenix District Office for their input and guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • Compilation Geologic Map of the Daisy Mountain 7.5' Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona
    Compilation Geologic Map of the Daisy Mountain 7.5' Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona by Robert S. Leighty Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-22 August, 1998 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite 100, Tucson, AZ 85701 Includes 30 page text and 1 :24,000 scale geologic map. This report was supported by the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, with funds provided by the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency through the State Indoor Radon Grant Program, the U.S. Geological Survey via the STATEMAP program, and the Arizona Geological Survey. This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards INTRODUCTION The Daisy Mountain Quadrangle, located along the northernmost fringe of the Phoenix metropolitan area, straddles the physiographic boundary between the Basin and Range and Transition Zone (Figure 1). The quadrangle lies between 1-17 and Cave Creek and is bordered on the south by the northwestern end of Paradise Valley and rugged, high-relief terrain of the New River Mountains to the north. The Daisy Mountain Quadrangle includes the community of New River, which is undergoing rapid population growth and is becoming increasingly urbanized. Thus, the knowledge of the distribution and character of bedrock and surficial deposits is important to make informed decisions concerning management of the land and its resources. This project was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency through the State Indoor Radon Grant Program, and the Arizona Geological Survey. PREVIOUS STUDIES Over the last two decades various workers have conducted geologic mapping investigations in the Daisy Mountain Quadrangle.
    [Show full text]