DOCSLIB.ORG

Rock Climbing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rock Climbing COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION USE: Rock Climbing REFUGE NAME: Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge) ESTABLISHING and ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES: Executive Order 8039, 25 January 1939: established Kofa Game Range from public lands as co- managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Public Law 94-223, 1976: amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act (P.L. 94-223) awarded sole jurisdiction to the Service and changed the name to Kofa NWR. The Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1131, Public Law 101-628, 1990: designated 547,719 acres of Kofa NWR as wilderness. Overall acreage at Kofa has increased through multiple purchases bringing the total refuge acreage to its current 666,640.94 acres. REFUGE PURPOSE: Kofa NWR was established from public lands on January 25, 1939, by Executive Order 8039 and was “reserved and set apart for the conservation and development of natural wildlife resources.” A primary concern was desert bighorn sheep. The Service and BLM managed the Kofa Game Range (as it was originally known) jointly until February 27, 1976. At that time an amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act (P.L. 94-223) awarded sole jurisdiction to the Service and changed the name to Kofa NWR. The Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended, established the National Wilderness Preservation System and mandates that wilderness areas be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Congress designated 547,719 acres or over 80 percent of Kofa NWR, as wilderness through the 1990 Arizona Desert Wilderness Act. For refuges that encompass Congressionally-designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness Act are additional purposes of the wilderness portion of that refuge (603 FW 2 2.6). NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION: “The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57). DESCRIPTION OF USE: What is the use? Rock climbing activities for the purpose of this compatibility determination (CD) include technical rock climbing (including sport climbing, traditional climbing, and free climbing) rappelling, and any climbing activities that require specialized equipment such as ropes, harnesses, and anchors. Kofa NWR is not considered a climber’s destination due to the Compatibility Determination for Rock Climbing on Kofa National Wildlife Refuge 1 geological composition of the rocks, though rock climbing has occurred in some areas of the refuge. Rock climbing is not a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use within the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 6688dd-668ee) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). Where is the use conducted? The geology of the Kofa Mountains and Castle Dome Mountains include volcanic strata with basalt caps. Most of the rock formations on the refuge are loose, crumbly, include volcanic crags, and are not considered the preferred rock type for rock climbing. In the past, rock climbing has been permitted throughout the refuge, although most areas are not suitable. Rock climbing activities appear to have focused on Signal Peak via Palm Canyon and Squaw Peak, Castle Dome, and the entrance area to Kofa Queen Canyon. These areas are also prime desert bighorn sheep habitat. When is the use conducted? Access to the refuge is not restricted, and the use has been conducted at any time although rock climbing is typically conducted during daylight hours and in the cooler seasons (fall, winter, and spring). The winter and spring are peak lambing seasons for desert bighorn sheep, so there is the potential for conflict between climbers and sheep. How is the use conducted? Kofa NWR was established specifically for the recovery of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) populations due to concerns about declining populations in the early 1900s (USDOI 1996). Although populations have increased over the decades, there can be stochastic and cumulative events that can result in significant declines over a short time period, as discussed later in this document. Based on a thorough assessment of effects of rock climbing, along with increasing cumulative recreational uses on the refuge and that rock climbing is not a wildlife-dependent recreational activity, we are re-evaluating the compatibility of rock climbing on Kofa NWR and find it a non-compatible use. Why is the use being proposed? Rock climbing was formerly found compatible in 1996 during the development of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & New Water Mountains Wilderness Interagency Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (USDOI 1996), by restricting the use of permanent anchors and prohibiting the marking of travel routes. The 1996 document supported technical rock climbing as an existing use in the planning area as authorized by 43 CFR 8560.1-2 and 50 CFR 25.21. This use is being re-evaluated to determine if it continues to remain a compatible use that will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the Refuge System mission or the purpose of the refuge. AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES: No Kofa NWR employees are assigned specifically to manage compatible recreational refuge uses. The refuge shares its two federal wildlife officers with two other refuges in the Southwest Arizona NWR Complex and has limited personnel to monitor the impacts of recreational uses and enforce compliance with rules and regulations for those uses. Compatibility Determination for Rock Climbing on Kofa National Wildlife Refuge 2 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE: Short- and Long-term Impacts: Effects on Soils and Vegetation Impacts associated with rock climbing activity include soil erosion and removal of vegetation, primarily from climbers seeking foot access to a rock climbing route. Potential habitat damage from rock climbing includes reduction in abundance of vegetation, which is slow-growing and slow to regenerate in this arid desert habitat. Use of permanent climbing anchors (pitons, bolts) is also an environmental concern, particularly in wilderness, with possible impacts including aesthetic degradation as well as effects on the rock itself. Effects on Wildlife Most areas on Kofa NWR are not suitable for rock climbing due to crumbling or unstable rock formations. Rock climbing activities have been primarily focused on few areas including Signal Peak/Palm Canyon, Squaw Peak, Castle Dome, and the entrance to Kofa Queen Canyon. Rock climbers on Kofa NWR are likely to encounter and disturb desert bighorn sheep as they use the same steep terrain and some of the most rugged areas on the refuge. Rock climbing allows access into steep terrain otherwise not accessible, resulting in disturbance of areas most likely to be lambing and escape habitat for desert bighorn sheep. Papouchis et al. (2001) found that people on foot caused the most severe responses in desert bighorn sheep (animals fled in 61 percent of encounters), followed by vehicles (17 percent fled) and mountain bikers (6 percent fled) apparently, because people walking were more likely to be in unpredictable locations and often directly approached sheep. The most likely impact from rock climbers is to desert bighorn sheep in lambing areas between December and March when most lambing occurs. A five-year study (Eustis 1962) found that 84 percent of the ewes and 93 percent of the lambs were seen in the upper third of the Kofa Mountains during lambing seasons. Human disturbance of ewes in lambing areas may cause ewes to abandon these areas for less optimal habitat, which could negatively affect lamb production and survival. A study conducted from 1977 to 1984 documented strong reactions (immediate running, leaving area and not returning) from Kofa sheep in response to one or two people (Smith et al. 1986). The effects of rock climbing, which primarily coincides with lambing season in lambing areas, has the potential to negatively impact sheep populations on the refuge. Another likely impact to refuge fauna is nest disturbance to breeding birds by rock climbers between the months of February and May when cliff dwelling birds such as peregrine falcons and golden eagles are caring for young. A particularly sensitive time is when birds are incubating eggs. If the parent birds are scared off the nest, the eggs will cool, and the embryo may die (Deeming and Ferguson 1991). Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) were reintroduced to Kofa NWR in 2011, and are part of a nonessential experimental population and are listed as threatened within Compatibility Determination for Rock Climbing on Kofa National Wildlife Refuge 3 the boundaries of the refuge. Sonoran pronghorn are now free-ranging on Kofa NWR and adjacent lands. Sonoran pronghorn use primarily flat open terrain, gentle slopes and hills, and washes (Hervert et al. 2005). One threat to Sonoran pronghorn is human disturbance (USFWS 2016). The presence of humans has the potential to affect the physiology, behavior, and ultimately, populations of Sonoran pronghorn. Behavioral responses to human disturbance can include running away and changes to activity budgets (such as increased vigilance). It has been documented that human presence can disturb animals, causing them to unnecessarily expend energy avoiding people or increase the likelihood of fatal encounters with humans (Kerley et al. 2002). There is a minimal potential to encounter Sonoran pronghorn while rock climbing; but because climbers use steep mountain habitat while Sonoran pronghorn prefer flat open terrain, there is potential for encounters while accessing rock climbing areas in vehicles or on foot.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Small Vessel General Permit
    ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC NOTICE The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois has requested a determination from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources if their Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) are consistent with the enforceable policies of the Illinois Coastal Management Program (ICMP). VGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 ft. in length. sVGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non- recreational vessels less than 79 ft. in length. VGP and sVGP can be viewed in their entirety at the ICMP web site http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/cmp/Pages/CMPFederalConsistencyRegister.aspx Inquiries concerning this request may be directed to Jim Casey of the Department’s Chicago Office at (312) 793-5947 or [email protected]. You are invited to send written comments regarding this consistency request to the Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Suite S-703, Chicago, Illinois 60601. All comments claiming the proposed actions would not meet federal consistency must cite the state law or laws and how they would be violated. All comments must be received by July 19, 2012. Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) SMALL VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS LESS THAN 79 FEET (sVGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 905 Xxii. Appendix
    APPENDIX 905 XXII. APPENDIX 1. Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 PUBLIC LAW 101–628—NOV. 28, 1990 104 STAT. 4469 Public Law 101–628 101st Congress An Act To provide for the designation of certain public lands as wilderness in the State of Nov. 28, 1990 Arizona. [H.R. 2570] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.—Titles I through III of this Act may be Arizona Desert cited as the “Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990”. Wilderness Act of 1990. TITLE I—DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS TO BE 16 USC 460ddd ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT note. National Wilderness SEC. 101. DESIGNATION AND MANAGEMENT. Preservation System. (a) DESIGNATION.—In furtherance of the purposes of the 16 USC 1132 Wilderness Act, the following public lands are hereby designated as note. wilderness and therefore, as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System: (1) certain lands in Mohave County, Arizona, which comprise approximately 23,600 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled “Mount Wilson Wilderness” and dated February 1990, and which shall be known as the Mount Wilson Wilderness; (2) certain lands in Mohave County, Arizona, which comprise approximately 31,070 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled “Mount Tipton Wilderness” and dated February 1990, and which shall be known as the Mount Tipton Wilderness; (3) certain lands in Mohave County, Arizona, which comprise approximately 27,530 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon Council Oa Where to Go Camping Guide
    GRAND CANYON COUNCIL OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE GRAND CANYON COUNCIL, BSA OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE Table of Contents Introduction to The Order of the Arrow ....................................................................... 1 Wipala Wiki, The Man .................................................................................................. 1 General Information ...................................................................................................... 3 Desert Survival Safety Tips ........................................................................................... 4 Further Information ....................................................................................................... 4 Contact Agencies and Organizations ............................................................................. 5 National Forests ............................................................................................................. 5 U. S. Department Of The Interior - Bureau Of Land Management ................................ 7 Maricopa County Parks And Recreation System: .......................................................... 8 Arizona State Parks: .................................................................................................... 10 National Parks & National Monuments: ...................................................................... 11 Tribal Jurisdictions: ..................................................................................................... 13 On the Road: National
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn
    Draft Environmental Assessment for Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 1 October 2009 This page left blank intentionally 1 October 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION............................................ 1 1.1 Proposed Action.............................................................. 2 1.2 Project Need................................................................. 6 1.3 Background Information on Sonoran Pronghorn . 9 1.3.1 Taxonomy.............................................................. 9 1.3.2 Historic Distribution and Abundance......................................... 9 1.3.3 Current Distribution and Abundance........................................ 10 1.3.4 Life History............................................................ 12 1.3.5 Habitat................................................................ 13 1.3.6 Food and Water......................................................... 18 1.3.7 Home Range, Movement, and Habitat Area Requirements . 18 1.4 Project Purpose ............................................................. 19 1.5 Decision to be Made.......................................................... 19 1.6 Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Plans . 19 1.7 Permitting Requirements and Authorizations Needed . 21 1.8 Scoping Summary............................................................ 21 1.8.1 Internal Agency Scoping.................................................. 21 1.8.2 Public Scoping ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Water Developments and Desert Bighorn Sheep in the Southwestern United States
    Wildlife Water Developments and Desert Bighorn Sheep in the Southwestern United States A document prepared by the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society 2004 Wildlife Water Developments and Desert Bighorn Sheep in the Southwestern United States A document prepared by the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society 2004 Foreword ormed in 1967 by dedicated sportsmen, the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society promotes management of big- horn sheep (Ovis canadensis) to establish viable, self-sustaining bighorn sheep populations in Arizona. Although originally coined the Arizona Desert BighornBighorn SheepSheep Society,Society, a successful introduction of RockyRocky Mountain BighornBighorn FSheep in eastern Arizona expanded the scope of the organization to include interests in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. The organization established 8 goals to support its overall mission. The primary 2 objectives that have been the focus of the society since its creation include developing water resources and reintroducing bighorn sheep into suitable historic ranges. The remaining 6 supporting goals include preventing human encroachment into bighorn sheep habitat, assisting government agencies with bighorn sheep population surveys, supporting the reduction of feral burro populations in bighorn sheep habitat, informing the public about bighorn sheep and their survival needs, promoting research needed for better management of bighorn sheep, and supporting efforts to reduce competition with domestic livestock and predators, where necessary. The purpose of this publication
    [Show full text]
  • October 2, 2009
    Animal Defense League of Arizona ▪ Animal Welfare Institute ▪ The Humane Society of the United States ▪ Mountain Lion Foundation ▪ Sierra Club – Grand Canyon Chapter ▪ Yuma Audubon October 2, 2009 BY ELECTRONIC AND OVERNIGHT MAIL Mr. Mitch Ellis, Complex Manager Southwest Arizona National Wildlife Refuge Complex U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 9300 East 28th Street Yuma, AZ 85365 Dear Mr. Ellis: On behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute, Animal Defense League of Arizona, Sierra Club – Grand Canyon Chapter,1 and The Humane Society of the United States, Mountain Lion Foundation, and Yuma Audubon (hereafter referred to by their individual acronyms or as “Conservation NGOs”), I submit the following comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Limiting Mountain Lion Predation on Desert Bighorn Sheep on the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter the Draft EA). The Conservation NGOs collectively represent nearly fifteen million members nationwide including over 400,000 members who reside in Arizona. The Conservation NGOs are strongly opposed to the proposed action which, if implemented, would permit the killing of any “offending” mountain lion; defined as any mountain lion that kills two or more bighorn sheep on the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge within a six-month period. Simply put, the proposed action is inconsistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) statutory mandates and policies and is not required to satisfy Kofa Refuge purposes. In addition, the Draft EA is woefully inadequate failing to 1 The Sierra Club is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization with over 700,000 members, 12,000 of which reside in Arizona, whose mission is to explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth‟s ecosystems and resources; and to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment.
    [Show full text]
  • National Landscape Conservation System: Wilderness Areas
    National Landscape Conservation System: Wilderness Areas State Field Office Wilderness Public Law Date Designated Units Acres AZ Gila District Aravaipa Canyon PL 101-628 8/28/1984 1 19,410 AZ Colorado River District Arrastra Mountain PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 129,800 AZ Colorado River District Aubrey Peak PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 15,400 AZ Gila District Baboquivari Peak PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 2,040 AZ Arizona Strip District Beaver Dam Mountains (3,667 in UT) PL 98-406 8/28/1984 1 15,000 AZ Phoenix District Big Horn Mountains PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 21,000 AZ Arizona Strip District Cottonwood Point PL 98-406 8/28/1984 1 6,860 AZ Gila District Coyote Mountains PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 5,100 AZ Gila District Dos Cabezas Mountains PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 11,700 AZ Colorado River District Eagletail Mountains PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 97,880 AZ Colorado River District East Cactus Plain PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 14,630 AZ Gila District Fishhooks PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 10,500 AZ Colorado River District Gibralter Mountain PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 18,790 AZ Arizona Strip District Grand Wash Cliffs PL 98-406 8/28/1984 1 37,030 AZ Colorado River District Harcuvar Mountains PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 25,050 AZ Phoenix District Harquahala Mountains PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 22,880 AZ Phoenix District Hassayampa River Canyon PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 12,300 AZ Phoenix District Hells Canyon PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 9,951 AZ Phoenix District Hummingbird Springs PL 101-628 11/28/1990 1 31,200 AZ Arizona Strip District Kanab Creek PL 98-406 8/28/1984 1 6,700 AZ Arizona
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Salome 30'X60~ Quadrangle, Westacentral Arizona
    Geologic Map of the Salome 30'x60~ Quadrangle, Westacentral Arizona by Stephen M. Richard, Jon E. Spencer, and Stephen J. Reynolds* Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-17 October, 1994 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 *Present address: Dept. of Geology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards MAP UNITS Late Tertiary and Quaternary deposits Q Undivided surficial deposits. (Quaternary) Alluvium and talus, undifferentiated. Qyc Active alluvium. (Holocene) Primarily sand and silt (hue 7.5 to 5 YR), confined to active and re- cently active deposits of major axial drainages. No soil development has occurred on any of the deposits. Qye Eolian deposits. (Holocene) Fine-grained, non-indurated sand. Mapped where sand dunes, generally stabilized by vegetation, make up more than 50% of the surficial deposits. Qy Young Alluvium. (Holocene and late Pleistocene) Surfaces primarily underlain by well-sorted sand and silt, with local occurrences offine gravel. Surfaces are very slightly but abundantly dissected by active gullies and washes, with ::;;0.5 m of relief. Remnant bar -and-swale topography is pre­ served locally. Surface material typically fine-grained, and surfaces appear smooth. Incipient to light desert varnish is developed on mafic clasts where a surface pavement is present. Surfaces exhibit minimal soil development; the most strongly developed profiles contain cambic horizons (hue 7.5 YR) over stage I to II calcic horizons [Machette, 1985]. Soils typically belong to Torri­ orthents, Calciorthids, or Camborthids great groups. Qt Talus.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River/Lower Gila Watershed
    NEMO Watershed-Based Plan Photo: http://www.herpindiego.com/YumaTripReport.html Colorado-Lower Gila Watershed Photo: http://www.pbase.com/merriwolf Photo: open.salon.com Acknowledgments Arizona NEMO acknowledges the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Water Quality Division, the Water Resources Research Center, and the University of Arizona Advanced Resource Technology Lab (ART) for their technical support in producing the Watershed-Based Plans. Funding is provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Water Protection Division. Additional financial support is provided by the University of Arizona, Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF), Water Sustainability Program through the Water Resources Research Center. The NEMO website is www.ArizonaNEMO.org Written and prepared by: Steven S. Amesbury, Jonathan Burnett, Hui Chen, D. Phillip Guertin, Renee Johns, Tasha Krecek, Terry Spouse, James C. Summerset, Kristine Uhlman, and Erin Westfall University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona February 2010 Water Resources Research Center University of Arizona 350 N. Campbell Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85721 www.cals.arizona.edu/azwater NEMO and Nonpoint Source Pollution the United States and is the water quality issue that NEMO, the Nonpoint Education The Southwestern United States, including for Municipal Officials program, and this the state of Arizona, is the fastest growing watershed-based plan will address. region in the country. Because the region is undergoing rapid development, there is The National NEMO Network, which now a need to address health and quality of life includes 32 educational programs in 31 issues that result from degradation of its states, was created in 2000 to educate water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • K-Ar Geochronology and Geologic History of Southwestern Arizona and Adjacent Areas
    Arizona Geological Society Digest, Volume XII, 1980 201 K-Ar Geochronology and Geologic History of Southwestern Arizona and Adjacent Areas by 2 3 M. Shafiqullah , P.E. Damonl , D.J. Lynch l, S.J. Reynolds , WA. Rehrig , 4 and R.N. Raymond A bstract This paper presents K-Ar ages of 174 samples from 154 localities in southwestern Ari- zona and adjacent areas with a summary of the geologic history. Ages are given for many rock units that had been "dated" previously only by lithologic correlations. These ages establish the timing of the magmatic and tectonic events that created and deformed the rocks. We interpret the older Precambrian history of Arizona as the result of a long-enduring and evolving convergent continental margin with accretion to the southeast at the rate of 2 km/m.y. This process was terminated 1.4 b.y. ago by the intrusion of vast batholiths ex- tending in a northeasterly direction far beyond Arizona. Younger Precambrian rocks ac- cumulated in an epicontinental sea along the trend of the Cordilleran geosyncline. These rocks were intruded by extensive diabase sills that are best preserved in the central moun- tain region. There is no further record of Precambrian magmatism or sedimentation after intrusion of the diabase sills. Some Precambrian K-Ar dates have been reset by the thermal disturbance that accompanied these intrusions. K-Ar ages that fall within the Paleozoic are reset ages and there is no evidence for any Paleozoic magmatism in the region. K-Ar ages of most of the pre-Laramide Mesozoic igneous rocks in the region have been reset by Laramide magmatism but evidence has been found for Early to Late Jurassic magmatism.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Land Statistics 2020 U.S
    Public Land Statistics 2020 U.S. Department of the Interior • Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management The Bureau of Land Management’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Production services were provided by the Bureau of Land Management’s National Operations Center in Denver, Colorado. PUBLIC LAND STATISTICS 2020 Volume 205 June 2021 BLM/OC/ST-21/001+1165 P-108-10 WELCOME TO PUBLIC LAND STATISTICS 2020 Welcome to the 2020 edition of Public Land Statistics (PLS), published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The 80-plus tables provide numerical data and detailed footnotes related to the BLM’s mission, programs, and accomplishments. Many of the minor acreage changes from one year to the next occur because: 1. Inholdings have been acquired, or some other land exchange has taken place during the year. 2. Improved geographic information system (GIS) mapping of land boundaries has enabled the BLM to recalculate the total acres within the units. Note that data presented in the 2020 PLS tables may not exactly match data in other BLM publications covering fiscal year (FY) 2020 operations and accomplishments. Such discrepancies occur because the databases that provide table data are not static; they are constantly being updated to provide the latest information, sometimes many months after the end of the fiscal year. The BLM remains committed to publishing a PLS report each year that is timely, complete, and as helpful as possible to readers.
    [Show full text]