DOCSLIB.ORG

Mineral Investigation of the Sierra Ancha Wilderness and Salome Study Area, Gila County, Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mineral Investigation of the Sierra Ancha Wilderness and Salome Study Area, Gila County, Arizona UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF MINES MINERAL INVESTIGATION OF THE SIERRA ANCHA WILDERNESS AND SALOME STUDY AREA, GILA COUNTY, ARIZONA by Thomas D. Light I MIA 34-85 ! 1985 I I This open-file report summarizes the results of a Bureau of Mines wilderness study and will be incorporated in a joint report with the Geological Survey. The report is 7. i preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with the Bureau of Mines editorial standards. Work on this study was conducted by personnel from ! Intermountain Field Operations Center, Building 20, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. I I STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS I WILDERNESS AND STUDY AREAS In accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law I 88-577, September 3, 1964) certain areas within the national forests previous- I ly classified as "wilderness, ....wild," or "canoe," were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System. The act provides that areas under ! consideration for wilderness designation should be studied for suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The act stipulates that the I Bureau of Mines and the Geological Survey conduct surveys to determine the I mineral values, if any, that may be present. The results of such surveys are to be made available to the public and submitted to the President and Congress. ! This report presents the results of the mineral survey of the Sierra Ancha Wilderness and Salome Study Area conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. I A combined summary report of work done by the U.S. Geological Survey and I U.S. Bureau of Mines has been previously published. I I I CONTENTS I Summary ................................................................ 1 I Introduction ........................................................... 2 I Previous studies .................................................. 5 Present investigation ............................................. 5 I Acknowledgments ................................................... 7 Geologic Setting ....................................................... 8 I Mining history and production .......................................... i0 I Mines, prospects, and mineralized zones ................................ 14 Sierra Ancha Wilderness ........................................... 14 I Asbestos ..................................................... 15 American Ores Mine ...................................... 18 I Folks deposit ........................................... 19 I Pueblo and Lucky Strike Mines and Metate prospect workings ................................................ 22 Reynolds Falls Mine ..................................... 55 I Rosa Mine ............................................... 60 I Fluorspar: Mack Mine ........................................ 70 Iron ......................................................... 74 I Zimmerman Point deposit ................................. 76 Puebio--Lucky Strike deposit eooeooeooooaooeoooooooooooe$ 76 I Uranium ...................................................... 78 I Ancient (Cliff Springs) deposit ......................... 79 Andy Gump deposit ....................................... 83 I Big Buck Mine ........................................... 86 Betsy Ross and Mary Louise claims ....................... 89 I ii i I ~'r~. ¸ . ri! CONTENTS--Continued I ! Black Brush Mine ........................................ 90 Blue Rock deposit olooooloo6ooooQeooooooeoooeoooeoooouoot 95 I Bonnie deposit .......................................... 97 Brushy Basin Trap deposit ............................... 99 I Donna Lee Mine .......................................... 103 I Grindstone deposit ...................................... 107 Horseshoe Mine .......................................... 109 I Navajo deposit .......................................... 112 Sorrel Horse (Big Six) deposit .......................... 114 I Sue Mine ................................................ 118 Workman Creek Mines ..................................... 121 I Other Resources .............................................. 123 I Gold Creek deposit ...................................... 123 Sand and gravel ......................................... 124 I Salome Study Area ................................................. 124 Fluorspar: Oak Springs deposit .............................. 125 I Uranium ...................................................... 127 I Easy deposit ............................................ 127 Fairview deposit ........................................ 128 I Quartzite property ...................................... 129 Other Resources .............................................. 130 I Journigan Mine .......................................... 130 I Mack No. 8 claim ........................................ 133 Saguaro Mine ............................................ 134 Salome deposit .......................................... 135 I iii I CONTENTS--Contine d I Page 39. Sample locations of the Horseshoe Mine ............................ 110 I 40. Sample locations and assay data for the Navajo Adit ............... 113 I 41. Sample locations of the Sorrel Horse Adit No. 1 ................... 115 42. Sample locations of the Sorrel Horse Adits Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 .... 116 I 43. Sample locations of the Sue Mine .................................. 120 44. Sample locations of the Oak Springs deposit ....................... 126 I 45. Sample locations of the Journigan Mine area ....................... 132 I TABLES i. Uranium production, Sierra Ancha Wilderness and vicinity .......... 12 I 2. Arizona standards for classification of crude and fiberized asbestos fiber .................................................... 18 I 3. Descriptions of samples from the Folks deposit .................... 22 4. Descriptions of samples from the Pueblo Adits A, B, C, D, D', I and F ............................................................. 27 5. Descriptions of samples from the Pueblo Adit E .................... 31 I 6. Descriptions of samples from the Lucky Strike Adit No. 1 .......... 37 I 7. Descriptions of samples from the Lucky Strike Adits Nos. 2 and 3.. 41 8. Descriptions of samples from the Lucky Strike Adit No. 4 .......... 45 I 9. Descriptions of samples from prospect adits at the Lucky Strike Mine .............................................................. 48 I 10. Descriptions of samples from the Metate deposit ................... 51 11. Descriptions of samples from the north adit of the Reynolds Falls I Mine .............................................................. 60 12. Descriptions of samples from the Rosa Mine ........................ 64 I 13. Assay data for samples from the western portion of the McFadden fault ............................................................. 74 I vi I I !I I CONTENTS--Contlnued Pa_ e 15. Sample locations of the Metate Adits Nos. 1 through 6 ............. 50 I 16. Sample locations of the Metate Adits Nos. 7 through i0 ............ 54 i 17. South workings of the Reynolds Falls Mine ......................... 57 18. Sample locations of the north adit of the Reynolds Falls Mine ..... 59 ! 19. Locations of workings in the Rosa Mine area ....................... 61 20. sample locations of the Rosa Adits Nos. I through 5 ............... 63 i 21. Sample locations of the Rosa Adits Nos. 6 through 9 ............... 68 ! 22. Sample locations of the Rosa Adits Nos. I0 and II ................. 71 23. Sample locations of the Rosa Adits Nos. 12 and 13 ................. 72 24. Sample locations for the western portion of the McFadden fault .... 75 25. Zimmerman Point iron deposit ...................................... 77 I 26. Location of uranium deposits in and around the Sierra Ancha Wilderness ........................................................ 80 I 27. Sample locations of the Ancient (Cliff Springs) Adit .............. 82 28. Sample locations of the Andy Gump Adit ............................ 84 I 29. Sample locations of the Big Buck Mine ............................. 87 30. Sample locations of the Black Brush Adits Nos. I and 3 ............ 92 31. Sample locations of the Black Brush Adit No. 2 .................... 94 I! 32. Sample locations of the Blue Rock deposit ......................... 96 33. Sample locations of the Bonnie Adit ............................... 98 34. Sample locations of the Brushy Basin Trap Adit No. 1 and prospect cutomooeoeooooolooeooooooeoooo°°°°°°°°°°°e°°eI°°°'°°°e°°°°°JQ°°°°8 I01 I 35. Sample locations of the Brushy Basin Trap Adit No. 2 .............. 102 36. Sample locations of the Donna Lee North Adit ...................... 104 37. Sample locations of the Donna Lee South Adit ...................... 105 ! 38. Sample locations of the Grindstone deposit ........................ 108 v I CONTENTS--Continued I I Sand and gravel ......................................... 136 Conclusions ............................................................ 137 I References............................................................. 139 I ILLUSTRATIONS Plate (In pocket) ! i. Mines, prospects, mining claims, and sample localities of the Sierra Ancha Wilderness and Salome Study Area, Gila County, Arizona I Figures Page I i. Location of the Sierra Ancha Wilderness and Salome Study Area, Gila County, Arizona .............................................. 3 I 2. Generalized stratigraphic section of the Sierra Ancha Wilderness and vicinity, Gila County, Arizona ................................ 9 I 3. Location of asbestos
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR
    Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR Colorado River at Mile 50. Cover: Salt River. Letter from the President ivers are the great treasury of noted scientists and other experts reviewed the survey design, and biological diversity in the western state-specific experts reviewed the results for each state. RUnited States. As evidence mounts The result is a state-by-state list of more than 250 of the West’s that climate is changing even faster than we outstanding streams, some protected, some still vulnerable. The feared, it becomes essential that we create Great Rivers of the West is a new type of inventory to serve the sanctuaries on our best, most natural rivers modern needs of river conservation—a list that Western Rivers that will harbor viable populations of at-risk Conservancy can use to strategically inform its work. species—not only charismatic species like salmon, but a broad range of aquatic and This is one of 11 state chapters in the report. Also available are a terrestrial species. summary of the entire report, as well as the full report text. That is what we do at Western Rivers Conservancy. We buy land With the right tools in hand, Western Rivers Conservancy is to create sanctuaries along the most outstanding rivers in the West seizing once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to acquire and protect – places where fish, wildlife and people can flourish. precious streamside lands on some of America’s finest rivers. With a talented team in place, combining more than 150 years This is a time when investment in conservation can yield huge of land acquisition experience and offices in Oregon, Colorado, dividends for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Use by the Fishes of a Southwestern Desert Stream: Cherry Creek, Arizona
    ARIZONA COOPERATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNIT SEPTEMBER 2010 Habitat use by the fishes of a southwestern desert stream: Cherry Creek, Arizona By: Scott A. Bonar, Norman Mercado-Silva, and David Rogowski Fisheries Research Report 02-10 Support Provided by: 1 Habitat use by the fishes of a southwestern desert stream: Cherry Creek, Arizona By Scott A. Bonar, Norman Mercado-Silva, and David Rogowski USGS Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit School of Natural Resources and the Environment 325 Biological Sciences East University of Arizona Tucson AZ 85721 USGS Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit Fisheries Research Report 02-10 Funding provided by: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service With additional support from: School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona Arizona Department of Game and Fish United States Geological Survey 2 Executive Summary Fish communities in the Southwest U.S. face numerous threats of anthropogenic origin. Most importantly, declining instream flows have impacted southwestern stream fish assemblages. Maintenance of water flows that sustain viable fish communities is key in maintaining the ecological function of river ecosystems in arid regions. Efforts to calculate the optimal amount of water that will ensure long-term viability of species in a stream community require that the specific habitat requirements for all species in the community be known. Habitat suitability criteria (HSC) are used to translate structural and hydraulic characteristics of streams into indices of habitat quality for fishes. Habitat suitability criteria summarize the preference of fishes for numerous habitat variables. We estimated HSC for water depth, water velocity, substrate, and water temperature for the fishes of Cherry Creek, Arizona, a perennial desert stream.
    [Show full text]
  • Area Land Use Plan
    DETAIL VIEW #1 RIM TRAIL ESTATES DETAIL VIEW #2 GIRL SCOUT CAMP 260 KOHL'S RANCH VERDE GLEN FR 199 TONTO CREEK 5 THOMPSON THOMPSON DRAW I E. VERDE RIVER DRAW II BOY SCOUT CAMP FR 64 FR 64 WHISPERING PINES PINE MEADOWS BEAR FLATS FR 199 DETAIL VIEW #3 FLOWING SPRINGS DETAIL VIEW #4 DETAIL VIEW #5 DIAMOND POINT FOREST HOMES & 87 FR 29 COLLINS RANCH E. VERDE RIVER COCONINO COUNTY EAST VERDE PARK FR 64 260 FR 64 TONTO VILLAGE GILA COUNTYLION SPRINGS DETAIL VIEW #6 DETAIL VIEW #7 DETAIL VIEW #8 FR 200 FR FR 291 PONDEROSA SPRINGS CHRISTOPHER CREEK 260 HAIGLER CREEK HAIGLER CREEK (HIGHWAY 260 REALIGNMENT) COLCORD MOUNTAIN HOMESITES HUNTER CREEK FR 200 DETAIL VIEW #9 DETAIL VIEW #10 DETAIL VIEW #11 ROOSEVELT LAKE ESTATES 87 FR 184 188 OXBOW ESTATES SPRING CREEK 188 JAKES CORNER KEY MAP: LEGEND Residential - 3.5 to 5 du/ac Residential - 5 to 10 du/ac Regional Highways and Significant Roadways NORTHWEST NORTHEAST Major Rivers or Streams Residential - 10+ du/ac Gila County Boundary Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial WEST EAST Federal/Incorporated Area Lands CENTRAL CENTRAL Light Industrial LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS Heavy Industrial SOUTH Residential - 0 to 0.1 du/ac Public Facilities AREA LAND USE PLAN Residential - 0.1 to 0.4 du/ac DETAILED VIEWS Multi-Functional Corridor FIGURE 2.F Residential - 0.4 to 1.0 du/ac Mixed Use Residential - 1 to 2 du/ac Resource Conservation 0' NOVEMBER, 2003 3 Mi Residential - 2 to 3.5 du/ac GILA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2012 Potential Resort/Lodging Use 1 1/2 Mi GILA COUNTY, ARIZONA DETAIL VIEW #1 RIM TRAIL ESTATES DETAIL VIEW #2 GIRL SCOUT CAMP 260 KOHL'S RANCH VERDE GLEN FR 199 TONTO CREEK 5 THOMPSON THOMPSON DRAW I E.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [Show full text]
  • Name of Group Website Animas River Stakeholder Group Http
    Name of Group Website Colorado CBCCs Animas River Stakeholder Group http://animasriverstakeholdersgroup.org/ 2-3-2 Cohesive Strategy Partnership http://232partnership.org/ Animas River Community Forum https://www.animasrivercommunity.org/ Animas Watershed Partnership http://animaswatershedpartnership.org/ Arkansas Basin Roundtable http://www.arkansasbasin.com Arkansas River Watershed Collaborative http://arkcollaborative.org/ Arkansas River Watershed Invasive Plants https://riversedgewest.org/events/arkansas-river-watershed-invasive-plants- Partnership partnership-river-watershed-invasive-plants-partnership Barr Lake and Milton Reservoir Watershed http://www.barr-milton.org/ Association Bear Creek Watershed Association http://www.bearcreekwatershed.org/ Big Dry Creek Watershed Association http://www.bigdrycreek.org/partners.php Big Thompson Watershed Coalition http://www.bigthompson.co/ Big Thompson Watershed Forum www.btwatershed.org/ Blue River Watershed Group http://blueriverwatershed.org/ Chama Peak Land Alliance http://chamapeak.org/ Chatfield Watershed Authority https://chatfieldwatershedauthority.org/ Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority http://www.cherrycreekbasin.org/ Cherry Creek Stewardship Partners http://www.cherry-creek.org/ Clear Creek Watershed Forum/ Foundation http://clearcreekwater.org/ Coal Creek Canyon Watershed Partnership http://www.cccwp.org/watershed/ Coal Creek Watershed Coalition http://www.coalcreek.org/ Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed http://www.poudrewatershed.org/ Coalition for the Upper South
    [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]
  • Native Fish Restoration in Redrock Canyon
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Final Environmental Assessment Phoenix Area Office NATIVE FISH RESTORATION IN REDROCK CANYON U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region Coronado National Forest Santa Cruz County, Arizona June 2008 Bureau of Reclamation Finding of No Significant Impact U.S. Forest Service Finding of No Significant Impact Decision Notice INTRODUCTION In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190, as amended), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as the lead Federal agency, and the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), as cooperating agencies, have issued the attached final environmental assessment (EA) to disclose the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction of a fish barrier, removal of nonnative fishes with the piscicide antimycin A and/or rotenone, and restoration of native fishes and amphibians in Redrock Canyon on the Coronado National Forest (CNF). The Proposed Action is intended to improve the recovery status of federally listed fish and amphibians (Gila chub, Gila topminnow, Chiricahua leopard frog, and Sonora tiger salamander) and maintain a healthy native fishery in Redrock Canyon consistent with the CNF Plan and ongoing Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7(a)(2), consultation between Reclamation and the FWS. BACKGROUND The Proposed Action is part of a larger program being implemented by Reclamation to construct a series of fish barriers within the Gila River Basin to prevent the invasion of nonnative fishes into high-priority streams occupied by imperiled native fishes. This program is mandated by a FWS biological opinion on impacts of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water transfers to the Gila River Basin (FWS 2008a).
    [Show full text]
  • Draft SEIR Chapter 2 Program Description
    1 Chapter 2 2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3 2.1 Introduction 4 2.1.1 Program Purpose 5 The purpose of the Proposed Program is to establish and implement a permitting program 6 for suction dredging activities consistent with the requirements of Fish and Game Code 7 section 5653 et seq. and the December 2006 Court Order. 8 2.1.2 Program Objectives 9 The objectives of the Proposed Program are as follows: 10 Comply with the December 2006 Court Order; 11 Promulgate amendments to CDFG’s previous regulations as necessary to 12 effectively implement Fish and Game Code sections 5653 and 5653.9 and other 13 applicable legal authorities to ensure that suction dredge mining will not be 14 deleterious to fish; 15 Develop a program that is implementable within the existing fee structure 16 established by statute for the CDFG’s suction dredge permitting program, as well 17 as the existing fee structure established by the CDFG pursuant to Fish and Game 18 Code section 1600 et seq.; 19 Fulfill CDFG’s mission to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant 20 resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values 21 and for their use and enjoyment by the public; 22 Ensure that the development of the regulations considers economic costs, 23 practical considerations for implementation, and technological capabilities 24 existing at the time of implementation; and 25 Fulfill the CDFG’s obligation to conserve, protect, and manage fish, wildlife, 26 native plants, and habitats necessary for biologically sustainable populations of 27 those species and as a trustee agency for fish and wildlife resources pursuant to 28 Fish and Game Code section 1802.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State
    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
    [Show full text]
  • Notices of Proposed Rulemaking NOTICES of PROPOSED RULEMAKING
    Arizona Administrative Register / Secretary of State Notices of Proposed Rulemaking NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Unless exempted by A.R.S. § 41-1005, each agency shall begin the rulemaking process by first submitting to the Secretary of State’s Office a Notice of Rulemaking Docket Opening followed by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that contains the preamble and the full text of the rules. The Secretary of State’s Office publishes each Notice in the next available issue of the Register according to the schedule of deadlines for Register publication. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (A.R.S. § 41-1001 et seq.), an agency must allow at least 30 days to elapse after the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Register before beginning any proceedings for making, amending, or repealing any rule. (A.R.S. §§ 41-1013 and 41-1022) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING TITLE 17. TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 6. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION – OVERDIMENSIONAL PERMITS Editor’s Note: The following Notice of Final Rulemaking was reviewed per Executive Order 2012-03 as issued by Governor Brewer. (See the text of the executive order on page 526.) The Governor’s Office authorized the notice to proceed through the rulemaking process on August 11, 2010. [R13-32] PREAMBLE 1. Article, Part, or Section Affected (as applicable) Rulemaking Action R17-6-101 Amend R17-6-102 Amend Table 1 Amend R17-6-103 Amend R17-6-104 Amend R17-6-105 Amend R17-6-106 Amend R17-6-107 Amend R17-6-108 Amend R17-6-109 Amend R17-6-110 Amend R17-6-111 Amend R17-6-112 Amend R17-6-113
    [Show full text]
  • Delisting of Agave Arizonica
    Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 117 / Monday, June 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 35195 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Weber described this species in the eastern Pinal County, and northeastern ‘‘Cactus and Succulent Journal’’ in 1970 Pima County. Agave toumeyana ssp. Fish and Wildlife Service (Gentry and Weber 1970). This bella is restricted to the eastern slope of perennial succulent has leaves growing the Bradshaw Mountains in eastern 50 CFR Part 17 from the base in a small basal rosette Yavapai to northwestern and central to RIN 1018–AI79 (i.e., an arrangement of leaves radiating southern Gila County, and northeastern from a crown or center), and is Maricopa to northern Pinal County. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife approximately 20–35 centimeters (cm) A comparison of plant characters and Plants; Delisting of Agave (8–14 inches (in)) high and 30–40 cm showed Agave arizonica to be arizonica (Arizona agave) From the (12–16 in) wide. The leaves are dark intermediate to the other two agave Federal List of Endangered and green with a reddish-brown to light gray species with which it is always found in Threatened Wildlife and Plants border extending nearly to the base, association (DeLamater and Hodgson approximately 13–31 cm (5–12 in) long 1986). Pinkava and Baker (1985) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and 2–3 cm (1 in) wide. The slender, suggested that plants recognized as Interior. branched flowering stalk is 2.5–4 meters Agave arizonica may be the result of ACTION: Final rule. (m) (8.2–13 feet (ft)) tall with urn- continuing production of hybrid shaped flowers 25–32 millimeters (mm) individuals rather than a distinct SUMMARY: We, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Kaibab National Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Kaibab National Forest Forest Service Southwestern Potential Wilderness Area Region September 2013 Evaluation Report The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover photo: Kanab Creek Wilderness Kaibab National Forest Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas .................................................................................................. 2 Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]