DOCSLIB.ORG

Hualapai - Peacock Linkage Design

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hualapai - Peacock Linkage Design ARIZONA MISSING LINKAGES Hualapai - Peacock Linkage Design Paul Beier, Daniel Majka submitted September 2006 last revised April 15, 2007 HUALAPAI - KINGMAN LINKAGE DESIGN Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We thank Dr. Phil Rosen, Matt Good, Chasa O’Brien, Dr. Jason Marshal, Ted McKinney, and Taylor Edwards for parameterizing models for focal species and suggesting focal species. Catherine Wightman, Fenner Yarborough, Janet Lynn, Mylea Bayless, Andi Rogers, Mikele Painter, Valerie Horncastle, Matthew Johnson, Jeff Gagnon, Erica Nowak, Lee Luedeker, Allen Haden, Shaula Hedwall, and Martin Lawrence helped identify focal species and species experts. Robert Shantz provided photos for many of the species accounts. Shawn Newell, Jeff Jenness, Megan Friggens, and Matt Clark provided helpful advice on analyses and reviewed portions of the results. Funding This project was funded by a grant from Arizona Game and Fish Department to Northern Arizona University. Recommended Citation Beier, P., and D. Majka. 2006. Arizona Missing Linkages: Hualapai-Kingman Linkage Design. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES............................................................................................................................. III TERMINOLOGY.......................................................................................................................................................V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... VI INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 NATURE NEEDS ROOM TO MOVE ...............................................................................................................................1 A STATEWIDE VISION.................................................................................................................................................1 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HUALAPAI-PEACOCK LINKAGE..........................................................................1 EXISTING CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS...................................................................................................................6 THREATS TO CONNECTIVITY ......................................................................................................................................6 LINKAGE DESIGN & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................9 FOUR ROUTES PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY ACROSS A DIVERSE LANDSCAPE .................................................................9 LAND OWNERSHIP, LAND COVER, AND TOPOGRAPHIC PATTERNS WITHIN THE LINKAGE DESIGN ...........................10 REMOVING AND MITIGATING BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT .........................................................................................15 IMPACTS OF ROADS ON WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................................15 Mitigation for Roads............................................................................................................................................15 Existing Roads in the Linkage Design Area ........................................................................................................19 Existing Crossing Structures on I-40...................................................................................................................20 Recommendations for Highway Crossing Structures ..........................................................................................25 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AS BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT..............................................................................................27 Urban Barriers in the Linkage Design Area........................................................................................................27 Mitigation for Urban Barriers.............................................................................................................................30 APPENDIX A: LINKAGE DESIGN METHODS..................................................................................................31 FOCAL SPECIES SELECTION ......................................................................................................................................31 HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELS ...............................................................................................................................32 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BREEDING PATCHES & POTENTIAL POPULATION CORES..................................................33 IDENTIFYING BIOLOGICALLY BEST CORRIDORS .......................................................................................................34 PATCH CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................35 MINIMUM LINKAGE WIDTH......................................................................................................................................36 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................................................36 APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ANALYSES ..........................................................................................37 BADGER (TAXIDEA TAXUS) ........................................................................................................................................39 BLACK BEAR (URSUS AMERICANUS)..........................................................................................................................43 BLACK-TAILED JACKRABBIT (LEPUS CALIFORNICUS)................................................................................................47 ELK (CERVUS ELAPHUS)............................................................................................................................................51 JAVELINA (TAYASSU TAJACU) ....................................................................................................................................55 KIT FOX (VULPES MACROTIS)....................................................................................................................................59 MOUNTAIN LION (PUMA CONCOLOR)........................................................................................................................63 MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS).....................................................................................................................67 PRONGHORN (ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA)..................................................................................................................71 GILA MONSTER (HELODERMA SUSPECTUM) ..............................................................................................................75 APPENDIX C: SUGGESTED FOCAL SPECIES NOT MODELED...................................................................79 APPENDIX D: CREATION OF LINKAGE DESIGN ..........................................................................................81 APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTION OF LAND COVER CLASSES ..........................................................................83 Arizona Missing Linkages i Hualapai-Peacock Linkage Design APPENDIX F: LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................................86 APPENDIX G: DATABASE OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................90 Arizona Missing Linkages ii Hualapai-Peacock Linkage Design List of Tables & Figures List of Tables TABLE 1: FOCAL SPECIES SELECTED FOR HUALAPAI-PEACOCK LINKAGE ................................................................... VII TABLE 2: APPROXIMATE LAND COVER FOUND WITHIN LINKAGE DESIGN.....................................................................11 TABLE 3: MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROUTES IN THE LINKAGE DESIGN. .......................................................................19 TABLE 4: HABITAT SUITABILITY SCORES AND FACTOR WEIGHTS FOR EACH SPECIES. SCORES RANGE FROM 1 (BEST) TO 10 (WORST), WITH 1-3 INDICATING OPTIMAL HABITAT, 4-5 SUBOPTIMAL BUT USABLE HABITAT, 6-7 OCCASIONALLY USED BUT NOT BREEDING HABITAT, AND 8-10 AVOIDED. ............................................................37 List of Figures FIGURE 1: THE LINKAGE DESIGN BETWEEN THE PEACOCK-COTTONWOOD, HUALAPAI, AND AQUARIUS WILDLAND BLOCKS INCLUDES FOUR TERRESTRIAL STRANDS, EACH OF WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO DIFFERENT SPECIES.......... VIII FIGURE 2: ECOREGIONS WITHIN THE LINKAGE PLANNING AREA. THE LINKAGE PLANNING AREA IS THE ONLY LOCATION IN ARIZONA WHERE FOUR OF THE STATE’S FIVE ECOREGIONS CONVERGE. ............................................4 FIGURE 3: LAND OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE LINKAGE PLANNING AREA............................................................................5 FIGURE 4: LAND COVER WITHIN THE LINKAGE PLANNING AREA. ..................................................................................7
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Detrital Valley Basin: an ADEQ 2002 Baseline Study
    Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Detrital Valley Basin: An ADEQ 2002 Baseline Study normal pool elevation of Lake Mead. Dolan Springs is the largest community in the basin. In the DET, 27 percent of land is managed by the National Park Service as part of the Lake Mead National Recreational Area. The remainder is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (42 percent) and State Trust land (9 percent) or consists of private lands (22 percent). III. Hydrology Groundwater from the alluvial aquifer underneath Detrital Valley is the principle water source in the basin and has the ability to supply up to 150 gallons per minute (gpm).3 However, depths to groundwater, approaching 800 feet below land surface (bls) in the valley, make tapping this aquifer for 2 Figure 1. In a bit of hydrologic serendipity, during the course of ADEQ’s study of the Detrital domestic use an expensive proposition. Valley basin, Lake Mead receeded to levels low enough to expose Monkey Cove Spring for the first time since July 1969. The spring flowed at an amazing 1,200 gallons per minute in 1964. I. Introduction factsheet reports upon the results of groundwater quality investigations in The Detrital Valley Groundwater Basin the DET and is a summary of the more (DET), traversed by U.S. Highway 93, extensive report produced by the is roughly located between the city of Arizona Department of Environmental Kingman and Hoover Dam on the Quality (ADEQ).1 Colorado River in northwestern Arizona (Map 1). Although lightly populated II. Background with retirement and recreation-oriented communities, the recent decision to The DET is approximately 50 miles construct a Hoover Dam bypass route long (north to south) and 15 miles wide for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Scorpiones: Vaejovidae)
    New Species of Vaejovis from the Whetstone Mountains, Southern Arizona (Scorpiones: Vaejovidae) Richard F. Ayrey & Michael E. Soleglad January 2015 — No. 194 Euscorpius Occasional Publications in Scorpiology EDITOR: Victor Fet, Marshall University, ‘[email protected]’ ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Michael E. Soleglad, ‘[email protected]’ Euscorpius is the first research publication completely devoted to scorpions (Arachnida: Scorpiones). Euscorpius takes advantage of the rapidly evolving medium of quick online publication, at the same time maintaining high research standards for the burgeoning field of scorpion science (scorpiology). Euscorpius is an expedient and viable medium for the publication of serious papers in scorpiology, including (but not limited to): systematics, evolution, ecology, biogeography, and general biology of scorpions. Review papers, descriptions of new taxa, faunistic surveys, lists of museum collections, and book reviews are welcome. Derivatio Nominis The name Euscorpius Thorell, 1876 refers to the most common genus of scorpions in the Mediterranean region and southern Europe (family Euscorpiidae). Euscorpius is located at: http://www.science.marshall.edu/fet/Euscorpius (Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia 25755-2510, USA) ICZN COMPLIANCE OF ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS: Electronic (“e-only”) publications are fully compliant with ICZN (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) (i.e. for the purposes of new names and new nomenclatural acts) when properly archived and registered. All Euscorpius issues starting from No. 156 (2013) are archived in two electronic archives: Biotaxa, http://biotaxa.org/Euscorpius (ICZN-approved and ZooBank-enabled) Marshall Digital Scholar, http://mds.marshall.edu/euscorpius/. (This website also archives all Euscorpius issues previously published on CD-ROMs.) Between 2000 and 2013, ICZN did not accept online texts as "published work" (Article 9.8).
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Geological Association Publication 30.Pub
    Utah Geological Association Publication 30 - Pacific Section American Association of Petroleum Geologists Publication GB78 239 CENOZOIC EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN COLORADO RIVER EXTEN- SIONAL CORRIDOR, SOUTHERN NEVADA AND NORTHWEST ARIZONA JAMES E. FAULDS1, DANIEL L. FEUERBACH2*, CALVIN F. MILLER3, 4 AND EUGENE I. SMITH 1Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Mail Stop 178, Reno, NV 89557 2Department of Geology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 *Now at Exxon Mobil Development Company, 16825 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060 3Department of Geology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235 4Department of Geoscience, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154 ABSTRACT The northern Colorado River extensional corridor is a 70- to 100-km-wide region of moderately to highly extended crust along the eastern margin of the Basin and Range province in southern Nevada and northwestern Arizona. It has occupied a criti- cal structural position in the western Cordillera since Mesozoic time. In the Cretaceous through early Tertiary, it stood just east and north of major fold and thrust belts and also marked the northern end of a broad, gently (~15o) north-plunging uplift (Kingman arch) that extended southeastward through much of central Arizona. Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata were stripped from the arch by northeast-flowing streams. Peraluminous 65 to 73 Ma granites were emplaced at depths of at least 10 km and exposed in the core of the arch by earliest Miocene time. Calc-alkaline magmatism swept northward through the northern Colorado River extensional corridor during early to middle Miocene time, beginning at ~22 Ma in the south and ~12 Ma in the north.
    [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]
  • Arizona Geology, Vol
    Vol 21,No.4 Investigations . Service . Information Winter1991 Geologic Insights into Flood Hazards in Piedmont Areas of Arizona by Philip A. Pearthree Arizona Geological Survey Proper managementof flood hazards inpiedmontareas ofArizona isbecoming increasinglyimportantasthe State's pop­ ulation grows and urban areas expand. In the Basin and Range Province of the western United States, piedmonts (liter­ ally, "thefoot ofthe mountains") are the low-relief, gentlyslopingplainsbetween the mountain ranges and the streams or playasthat occupy thelowestportions of \~ the valleys. ~uch o.f southern, cen:ral, ..' andwesternAnzona iscomposedofpied­ monts, and they comprise most of the developable land near the rapidly ex­ panding population centers of the State. Viewedfrom above,piedmontsofAr­ izona are complex mosaics composed of alluvial fans and stream terraces of dif­ ferent ages that record therecent geolog­ ic history of an area. Alluvial fans are generallycone-shapeddepositionalland­ forms that emanate from a discrete source and increase in width downslope; adja­ centfan surfaces may merge downslope to form a continuousalluvialapron. Allu­ Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the western piedmont of the White Tank Mountains, which shows vial fans represent periods of net aggra­ alluvial surfaces of different ages. The approximate ages of the deposits in thousands of years (ka) dation, whenlarge amounts of sediment are as follows: Y, younger than 10 ka; M2, 10 to 150 ka; MI, 150 to 800 ka; 0, older than 800 were removed from mountain areas and ka (br = bedrock). The arrows point to relatively large drainages that head in the mountains and deposited on adjacent piedmonts. The flow from right to left across the piedmont. The areas of recent alluvialjan activity (labeled AF) Quaternary Period (roughly the past 2 along these drainages are identified by extensive young deposits (Y) and distributary channel million years) has been characterizedby patterns, which consist ofstreams that branch and flow out ofa larger stream.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Statewide Elk Management Plan
    Arizona Statewide Elk Management Plan Arizona Game and Fish Department 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85086 Revision Date: December 3, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 Plan Goal 5 Plan Objectives 6 Future Management Needs 6 STATEWIDE SUMMARY 7 Survey Efforts 7 Population Status 7 Disease Surveillance 8 Management Issues and Opportunities 8 REGIONAL HERD PLANS 11 Region 1 11 Region 2 21 Regions 3 and 4 26 Region 5 41 Region 6 43 2 Arizona Elk Management Plan December 2011 INTRODUCTION The native Merriam's elk were historically distributed in Arizona from the White Mountains westward along the Mogollon Rim to near the San Francisco Peaks. These native elk were extirpated just prior to 1900. In February 1913, private conservationists released 83 elk from Yellowstone National Park into Cabin Draw near Chevelon Creek. Two other transplants of Yellowstone elk followed in the 1920s—one south of Alpine and another north of Williams. As a result of these original transplants, Arizona’s elk population has grown to levels that support annual harvests of 8,000 or more elk. Regulated hunting of the transplanted Yellowstone elk began in 1935 and continues today, with only a brief hiatus during 1944 and 1945 due to World War II. During the late 1940s and early 1950s, concerns over growing elk herds lead managers to increase permits, culminating in 1953 when 6,288 permits were issued and 1,558 elk were taken, more than 1,000 of which were cows. Elk permits leveled off and remained below 5,000 through the mid-1960s, when they were again increased in response to expanding populations.
    [Show full text]
  • People of the Desert, Canyons, and Pines :Prehistory of the Patayan Country in West Central Arizona
    88013856 bUKLAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ARIZONA People of the Desert, Canyons and Pines: Prehistory of the Patayan Country in West Central Arizona Connie L. Stone CULTURAL RESOURCE SERIES No. 5 1987 53^' / t IT? n nbt> People of the Desert, Canyons and Pines: Prehistory of the Patayan Country in West Central Arizona by Connie L. Stone Cultural Resource Series O Q,\ks$j Monograph No. 5 r>-> <yi, Published by the Arizona State Office of the Bureau of Land Management 3707 N. 7th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85014 September 1987 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LIBRARY Denver, Colorado 88613856 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For land managers, anthropologists, and the public, this volume provides an introduction to the prehistory, native peoples, and natural history of a vast area of west central and northwestern Arizona. Many Bureau of Land Management personnel contributed to its production. Among them are Henri Bisson, Phoenix District Manager; Mary Barger, Phoenix District Archaeologist; Don Simonis, Kingman Resource Area Archaeologist; Gary Stumpf, State Office Archaeologist and Editor of the Cultural Resource Series; Jane Closson, State Office Writer/Editor; Amos Sloan, Cartographic Aid; and Dan Martin of the Denver Service Center. Two illustrations were superbly crafted by Lauren Kepner: the split-twig figurine on the cover and the view of a pueblo structure perched high above the floor of Meriwhitica Canyon. Both were reproduced from photographs. W& :.;:;«.«J!S "'' ''*.-*" ' : j". : ' • !• . • . Wi ' '•»••'• J:-': : ; •;>V'-£t<v.'. ,v 'v V&- 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Page No. No. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 7: THE EXISTING DATA BASE: The Kingman Region: A Class I Inventory 1 THE TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 2: THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Site Types 71 Summary of Known Geographic Distributions ...
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis and Dissertation Index of Arizona Geology to December 1979
    Arizona Geological Society Digest, Volume XII, 1980 261 Thesis and Dissertation Index of Arizona Geology to December 1979 From The University of Arizona, Arizona State University, and Northern Arizona University compiled by 1 Gregory R. Wessel Introduction This list is a compilation of all graduate theses and dissertations completed at The University of Arizona, Arizona State University, and Northern Arizona University concerning the geology of Arizona. The list is complete through December 1979. To facilitate the use of this list as a reference, papers are arranged alphabetically into five sec­ tions on the basis of study area. Four sections cover the four quadrants of the state of Arizona us­ ing the Gila and Salt River Meridian and Base Line (Fig. 1), and the fifth section contains theses that pertain to the entire state. A thesis or dissertation that includes work in two quadrants is listed under both sections. Those covering subjects or areas outside of the geology of Arizona are omitted. This list was compiled from tabulations of geology theses graciously supplied by each university. Although care was taken to include all theses, some may have been inadvertently overlooked. It is hoped that readers will report any omissions so they may be included in Digest XIII. Digest XIII will contain an update of work 114 113 112 III 110 I 9 completed at Arizona universities, as well as a 37 list of theses and dissertations on Arizona geol­ ogy completed at universities outside of the state. Grateful acknowledgment is made of the assist­ 36 ance of Tom L. Heidrick, who inspired the pro- N£ ject and who, with Joe Wilkins, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 In Reply Refer To: AESO/SE 2-21-01-F-241 December 14, 2001 Memorandum To: Field Manager, Kingman Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Kingman, Arizona From: Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion for the proposed prescribed burn program within the Kingman Field Office boundaries - Pine Lake Wildland/Urban Interface This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the proposed implementation of a prescribed fire program within land administered by the Kingman Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), located in Mohave and east Yavapai counties, Arizona, and its effects on the Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your March 14, 2001, request for formal consultation was received on March 16, 2001. This biological opinion is based on information provided in the biological evaluation attached to the March 14, 2001, request for consultation; additional information provided by the BLM via electronic mail; the April 18, 2001, field investigation; telephone conversations; and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at this office. Consultation History The Service received BLM’s March 14, 2001, request for formal consultation on March 16, 2001. The request included the “Biological Evaluation: Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Prescribed Fire” (BE).
    [Show full text]
  • Morphological Variation in the Fringed Myotis, Myotis Thysanodes Miller (Vespertilionidae)
    Morphological variation in the Fringed myotis, Myotis thysanodes Miller (Vespertilionidae) Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Wright, David Terry, 1937- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 04/10/2021 20:23:48 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/318553 MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATION IN THE FRINGED MYOTIS, MYOTIS THYSANODES MILLER, (VESPERTILIONIDAE) by David Terry Wright A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of ' MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE.UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 6 6 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: E.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Missing Linkages: Hualapai-Cerbat Linkage Design
    ARIZONA MISSING LINKAGES Hualapai - Cerbat Linkage Design Paul Beier, Emily Garding, Dan Majka 2008 HUALAPAI - CERBAT LINKAGE DESIGN Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We thank Dr. Phil Rosen, Matt Good, Chasa O’Brien, Dr. Jason Marshal, Ted McKinney, and Taylor Edwards for parameterizing models for focal species and suggesting focal species. Catherine Wightman, Fenner Yarborough, Janet Lynn, Mylea Bayless, Andi Rogers, Mikele Painter, Valerie Horncastle, Matthew Johnson, Jeff Gagnon, Erica Nowak, Lee Luedeker, Allen Haden, Shaula Hedwall, and Martin Lawrence helped identify focal species and species experts. Robert Shantz provided photos for many of the species accounts. Shawn Newell, Jeff Jenness, Megan Friggens, and Matt Clark provided helpful advice on analyses and reviewed portions of the results. Funding This project was funded by a grant from Arizona Game and Fish Department to Northern Arizona University. Recommended Citation Beier, P, E. Garding, and D. Majka. 2008. Arizona Missing Linkages: Hualapai-Cerbat Linkage Design. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. III TERMINOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]