DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 6/Thursday, January 9, 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 6/Thursday, January 9, 2014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1615 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR We will post all comments on http:// Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its www.regulations.gov. This generally implementing regulations at 50 CFR Fish and Wildlife Service means that we will post any personal 424.17(a) require that we take one of information you provide us (see the three actions within 1 year of a 50 CFR Part 17 Public Comments section below for proposed listing: (1) Finalize the [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0101; more information). proposed listing; (2) withdraw the 4500030113] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: proposed listing; or (3) extend the final determination by not more than 6 RIN 1018–AY25 Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New months, if there is substantial Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, disagreement regarding the sufficiency and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM or accuracy of the available data Determination for the Proposed Listing 87113; by telephone 505–346–2525; or relevant to the determination. Our of the Zuni Bluehead Sucker as an by facsimile 505–346–2542. Persons review of the information described Endangered Species who use a telecommunications device below suggests there is substantial for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal disagreement regarding the taxonomic AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Information Relay Service (FIRS) at status of some populations that we Interior. 800–877–8339. considered Zuni bluehead sucker in the ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: proposed rule. The following discussion comment period. describes these disagreements. Background In the proposed listing rule, we SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a The Zuni bluehead sucker is a small reported that the Zuni bluehead sucker 6-month extension of the deadline for a fish that is believed to be endemic to has been documented in three discrete final determination concerning the streams in east-central Arizona and watersheds—the Zuni River watershed listing of the Zuni bluehead sucker west-central New Mexico. On January in New Mexico, the Little Colorado (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi) as an 25, 2013, we published in the Federal River watershed in Arizona, and the San endangered species. We also reopen the Register a proposed rule (78 FR 5369) to Juan River watershed at the borders of comment period on the proposed rule to list the Zuni bluehead sucker New Mexico and Arizona. However, the list this species as an endangered (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi) as an taxonomy of the occurrences of the species. We are taking this action endangered species under the subspecies outside of the Zuni River because there is substantial Endangered Species Act of 1973, as watershed has been disputed and disagreement regarding the sufficiency amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), remains in question. In the Zuni River or accuracy of the available data because we found the subspecies in watershed of New Mexico, the relevant to our determination regarding danger of extinction. On the same date, subspecies is believed to be restricted to the proposed listing rule, making it we also published in the Federal three isolated populations in the upper necessary to solicit additional Register a proposed rule to designate Rio Nutria drainage (Carman 2008, pp. information by reopening the comment critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead 2–3). Streams in the upper Rio Nutria period for 30 days. sucker (78 FR 5351; January 25, 2013). drainage of the Zuni River watershed DATES: The comment period end date is Identified threats to the subspecies include the Rio Nutria, Cebolla Creek, February 10, 2014. If you comment included water withdrawals, and Rio Pescado, in addition to using the Federal eRulemaking Portal sedimentation, impoundments, housing Tampico Spring and Agua Remora (see ADDRESSES), you must submit your development, and predation by Springs, which are headwater springs to comment by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on nonnative green sunfish (Lepomis Rio Nutria. In eastern Arizona, there is the closing date. cyanellus). We believe the range of the evidence that the subspecies occurs in subspecies has already been reduced by low numbers in the Kinlichee Creek ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by one of the following approximately 90 percent in New area of the Little Colorado River methods: Mexico, but we do not know the extent watershed and Canyon de Chelly area of (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal of potential range reduction in Arizona. the San Juan River watershed (Hobbes eRulemaking Portal: http:// Low water levels from drought and 2000, pp. 9–16; Albert 2001, pp. 10–14; www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, water withdrawals in remaining David 2006, p. 35). Both the Kinlichee enter FWS–R2–ES–2012–0101, which is occupied streams have reduced the Creek and Canyon de Chelly areas occur the docket number for the proposed rule available habitat for the subspecies. The on the Navajo Nation. Streams in the to list the Zuni bluehead sucker as proposed listing rule had a 60-day Kinlichee Creek area include Red Clay endangered. Then, in the Search panel comment period, ending March 26, Wash, Black Soil Springs, Scattered on the left side of the screen, under the 2013. For a description of previous Willow Wash, and Kinlichee Creek Document Type heading, check on the Federal actions concerning the Zuni itself. Streams in the Canyon de Chelly Proposed Rules link to located the bluehead sucker, please refer to the area include Tsaile Creek, Sonsela proposed rule. You may submit a proposed listing rule (78 FR 5369; Creek, Crystal Creek, Coyote Wash, comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment January 25, 2013). Since the publication Whiskey Creek, and Wheatfields Creek. Now!’’ of the proposed rules, we have found These streams originate along the (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail substantial scientific disagreement western slope of the Chuska Mountains or hand-delivery to: Public Comments about the status of the Zuni bluehead in New Mexico, flow through Arizona, Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2012– sucker as explained below, and we are and eventually flow into the San Juan 0101; Division of Policy and Directives therefore reopening the comment period River. It is the taxonomic status of these Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife for the proposed listing rule and populations in the Kinlichee Creek area Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS extending the schedule for the final of the Little Colorado River watershed 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. determination for 6 months in order to and the Canyon de Chelly areas in the We request that you send comments solicit and analyze information that will San Juan River watershed that is in only by the methods described above. help to clarify these issues. question. A map for geographical VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:33 Jan 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM 09JAP1 PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 1616 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules reference is available for review on the subspecies. It is believed that the first occurred about 1.1 million years ago New Mexico Ecological Services Field specimen of the Zuni bluehead sucker based on aging fossils. Office Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ was collected from the Zuni River near In 1983, Smith et al. (entire) formally southwest/es/NewMexico/. Zuni Pueblo in McKinley County, New designated Zuni bluehead sucker as a During the public comment period on Mexico, in 1873 (Cope 1874, p. 138). subspecies. Based on a review of the proposed listing rule, we received The next collection was made in 1926, morphological (pertaining to the multiple comments regarding our from the Zuni River, near Zuni Pueblo physical form and structure of the fish), interpretation of scientific literature (Propst et al. 2001, p. 159). It was not meristic (quantitative features of fish, related to the genetics of the Zuni subsequently collected in New Mexico such as fins or scales), and biochemical bluehead sucker. Commenters were until W.J. Koster (University of New genetic data, Smith et al. (1983, pp. 1, particularly concerned with whether or Mexico, Museum of Southwestern 45–47) determined that that the Zuni not populations on the Navajo Nation, Biology) collected the species in the Rio bluehead sucker subspecies is an which include the Kinlichee Creek area Pescado in 1948, and in the Rio Nutria intermediate between Rio Grande sucker of the Little Colorado River watershed and bluehead sucker, with the Rio in 1960 (Propst 1999, p. 49; Propst et al. and the Canyon de Chelly area of the Nutria population (Zuni River 2001, p. 159). San Juan River watershed, that were watershed) characters (characters are recognized in the proposed rule as Zuni The Zuni bluehead sucker subspecies attributes or features that distinguish a bluehead suckers are appropriately is believed to have originated as a subspecies, such as coloration) more classified as such rather than a different hybrid of the Rio Grande sucker like Rio Grande sucker and Kinlichee subspecies of the bluehead sucker (see (Catostomus plebeius) and the bluehead Creek (Little Colorado River watershed) Taxonomy and Genetics section, below). sucker (C. discobolus) from the Little characters more like bluehead sucker. In addition, since the closing of the Colorado River. Historically, the Based on morphology, they assigned comment period, we have received bluehead sucker occurred in streams fish samples in Kinlichee Creek (Little additional information and genetic and rivers in Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado River watershed) as Zuni analyses of the bluehead sucker Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. July 22, 2021 Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015 Effective March 17, 2021 The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states and federally recognized Indian tribes to adopt water quality standards in order to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's Waters" (CWA, 1988). The attached WQS document is in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with the exception of the following provisions. Navajo Nation’s previously approved criteria for these provisions remain the applicable for CWA purposes. The “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015” (NNSWQS 2015) made changes amendments to the “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2007” (NNSWQS 2007). For federal Clean Water Act permitting purposes, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) must approve these changes to the NNSWQS 2007 which are found in the NNSWQS 2015. The USEPA did not approve of three specific changes which were made to the NNSWQS 2007 and are in the NNSWQS 2015. (October 15, 2020 Letter from USEPA to Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency). The three specific changes which USEPA did not accept are: 1) Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat Designated Use - Suspended Solids Changes (NNSWQS 2015 Section 207.E) The suspended soils standard for aquatic and wildlife habitat designated use was changed to only apply to flowing (lotic) surface waters and not to non-flowing (lentic) surface waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Basin Outlook Report February 1, 2014
    United States Department of Arizona Agriculture Natural Resources Basin Outlook Report Conservation Service February 1, 2014 Issued by Released by Jason Weller Keisha L. Tatem Chief State Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Phoenix, Arizona Basin Outlook Reports And Federal – State – Private Cooperative Snow Surveys How forecasts are made Most of the annual streamflow in Arizona originates as snowfall that has accumulated in the mountains during the winter and early spring. As the snowpack accumulates, hydrologists estimate the runoff that will occur when it melts. Measurements of snow water equivalent at selected manual snow courses and automated Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) sites, along with precipitation and streamflow values, are used in statistical and simulation models to prepare runoff forecasts. These forecasts are coordinated between hydrologists in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) the National Weather Service, and the Salt River Project. Forecasts of any kind are not perfect. Streamflow forecast uncertainty arises from three primary sources: (1) uncertainty of future weather conditions, (2) uncertainty in the forecasting procedure, and (3) errors in the data. The forecast, therefore, must be interpreted not as a single value but rather as a range of values with specific probabilities of occurrence. The middle of the range is expressed by the 50% exceedance probability forecast, for which there is a 50% chance that the actual flow will be above, and a 50% chance that the actual flow will be below, this value. To describe the expected range around this 50% value, four other forecasts are provided, two smaller values (90% and 70% exceedance probability) and two larger values (30%, and 10% exceedance probability).
    [Show full text]
  • 3 March 1999
    NAVAJO NATION SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 2007 (Photograph of the Little Colorado River near Grand Falls on January 4, 2005) Prepared by: Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Program Post Office Box 339 Window Rock, Arizona 86515 (928) 871-7690 Passed by Navajo Nation Resources Committee on May 13, 2008 Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2007 Navajo Nation EPA Water Quality Program TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS - GENERAL PROVISIONS § 101 TITLE ................................................................................................................................ 1 § 102 AUTHORITY .................................................................................................................... 1 § 103 PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................... 1 § 104 DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................... 1 § 105 SEVERABILITY............................................................................................................... 6 PART II SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS § 201 ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY ..................................................................................... 7 § 202 NARRATIVE SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ...................................... 7 § 203 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 9 § 204 NARRATIVE
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE ZUNI BLUEHEAD SUCKER Prepared by Harris Environmental group, Inc. For the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service CONTACT: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service DATE: March 2015 October 22, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figures............................................................................................................................................ iv Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………..iv Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ v CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ........................................................... 8 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8 Purpose and need for the action .................................................................................................. 8 Proposed action ........................................................................................................................... 9 Background ................................................................................................................................. 9 Critical habitat ............................................................................................................................. 9 Provisions of the ESA ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Suitability Criteria for Zuni Bluehead Sucker Catostomus
    Habitat Suitability Criteria for Zuni Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus yarrowi and Navajo Nation Genetic Subunit Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus and Comparing Efficiency of AFS Standard Snorkeling Techniques to eDNA Sampling Techniques Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Ulibarri, Roy M. 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 26/09/2021 14:57:51 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/604876 Habitat Suitability Criteria for Zuni Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus yarrowi and Navajo Nation Genetic Subunit Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus and Comparing Efficiency of AFS Standard Snorkeling Techniques to eDNA Sampling Techniques by Roy M. Ulibarri ____________________________ A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN NATURAL RESOURCES In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2016 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 an accurate acknowledgement of the 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 or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited for Proposed Endangered Status
    Literature Cited Proposed Endangered Status for the Zuni bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi) Docket No. Albert, S. Email from Steven Albert Director of Zuni Fish and Wildlife Department in Zuni, New Mexico on September 14, 2001, on a draft Zuni bluehead sucker report for data in 2000. 16 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 1996. Wildlife of special concern in Arizona Non-game and Endangered Species Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 41 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2006. Arizona’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy: 2005-2015. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, Arizona. Available online at: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/cwcs_downloads.shtml. Accessed on June 25, 2010. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2007. 2007 & 2008 Arizona fishing regulations, section on protected native fish. 1 p. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2011. 2011 & 2012 Arizona fishing regulations. Available online at http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/h_f/regulations/FishingRegulations.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2012. Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 16(1): 7-11. Atencio, E. 1994. After a heavy harvest and a death, Navajo forestry realigns with culture. High Country News (Internet). October 31, 1994. (Cited August 29, 2012). Available from: http://www.hcn.org/issues/22/648/print_view. Beatty Davis, R.C. 1997. Conservation and Culture: The soil conservation service, social science, and conservation on tribal lands in the southwest. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Services. Historical Notes Number 6. 67 pp. Belsky, A.J.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIZONA Water Supply Outlook Report As of April 1, 1995
    United States Department of Arizona Agriculture Natural Resources Basin Outlook Report Conservation Service March 15, 2009 Issued by Released by David White David L. McKay Acting Chief State Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Phoenix, Arizona Basin Outlook Reports And Federal – State – Private Cooperative Snow Surveys How forecasts are made Most of the annual streamflow in Arizona originates as snowfall that has accumulated in the mountains during the winter and early spring. As the snowpack accumulates, hydrologists estimate the runoff that will occur when it melts. Measurements of snow water equivalent at selected manual snow courses and automated Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) sites, along with precipitation and streamflow values, are used in statistical and simulation models to prepare runoff forecasts. These forecasts are coordinated between hydrologists in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) the National Weather Service, and the Salt River Project. Forecasts of any kind are not perfect. Streamflow forecast uncertainty arises from three primary sources: (1) uncertainty of future weather conditions, (2) uncertainty in the forecasting procedure, and (3) errors in the data. The forecast, therefore, must be interpreted not as a single value but rather as a range of values with specific probabilities of occurrence. The middle of the range is expressed by the 50% exceedance probability forecast, for which there is a 50% chance that the actual flow will be above, and a 50% chance that the actual flow will be below, this value. To describe the expected range around this 50% value, four other forecasts are provided, two smaller values (90% and 70% exceedance probability) and two larger values (30%, and 10% exceedance probability).
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 In Reply Refer To: December 20, 2011 AESO/SE 22410-2011-F-0290 Memorandum To: Chief, Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Attn: Nicole Jimenez) From: Field Supervisor Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion for Federal Funding of Aquatic Inventory, Survey, and Monitoring Activities, and Conservation Activities for Aquatic Species by Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2011-2020 Thank you for your request for formal consultation and conference with the Arizona Ecological Services Office (AESO) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your request was dated June 26, 2011, and received by us on June 27, 2011. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed Federal funding by Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration (WSFR) of a suite of activities related to aquatic species management by Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) under the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) and Sport Fish Restoration (SFR) Grant for a period of 10-years beginning on July 1, 2011. The project area covers all aquatic habitats in Arizona where the activities included in the proposed action would be undertaken by AGFD in the 10-year period covered by this consultation. The proposed action may directly or indirectly affect listed, proposed, and candidate species and designated or proposed critical habitats in Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 80 Tuesday, No. 71 April 14, 2015 Pages 19869–20148
    Vol. 80 Tuesday, No. 71 April 14, 2015 Pages 19869–20148 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:46 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\14APWS.LOC 14APWS asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER II Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Email [email protected] Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Phone 202–741–6000 issuing agency requests earlier filing.
    [Show full text]
  • AWI-07-21 Assessment of the Navajo Nation Hydroclimate Network Final Report – 12/28/2007
    AWI-07-21 Assessment of the Navajo Nation Hydroclimate Network Final Report – 12/28/2007 Investigators: Gregg Garfin (University of Arizona) Andrew Ellis (Arizona State University) Nancy Selover (Arizona State University) Diana Anderson (Northern Arizona University) Aregai Tecle (Northern Arizona University) Paul Heinrich (Northern Arizona University) Mike Crimmins (University of Arizona) Research Assistants: Juanita Francis-Begay (University of Arizona) Beth Alden (Northern Arizona University) Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources Partners: John Leeper Jolene Tallsalt-Robertson Jerome Bekis Irving Brady Caroline Harvey Assessment of the Navajo Nation Hydroclimate Network: Executive Summary During 2007, investigators from Arizona’s three state universities undertook an investigation of Navajo Nation’s hydroclimate network. The project, funded by the newly-formed Arizona Water Institute (AWI), was requested by the Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources (NNDWR) to follow up on a 2003 Technical Memorandum, which, among its many conclusions, stated that NNDWR needed to reduce its network in order to facilitate data collection, reduction, and quality control commensurate with its human resources. The overarching goal of the project is to provide science-based advice to improve data collection and processing in support of climate, drought, and hydrologic analyses, while reducing the manpower required to manage the network. In consultation with NNDWR, the AWI project team visited data collection stations, interviewed staff, analyzed NNDWR hydroclimate data, evaluated instrumentation and data communication needs, identified potential improvements, and determined options for reducing overall network size – while filling in key data gaps. At NNDWR’s request, the AWI project team convened a workshop to explore possibilities for NNDWR to achieve its goals through collaboration and exchange of data with outside agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4026
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Generalized Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Budget for the C Aquifer, Little Colorado River Basin and Parts of the Verde and Salt River Basins, Arizona and New Mexico By Robert J. Hart, John J. Ward, Donald J. Bills, and Marilyn E. Flynn Water-Resources Investigations Report 02—4026 Prepared in cooperation with the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Tucson, Arizona February 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Water Resources Division Box 25286 520 N. Park Aveune, Suite 221 Federal Center Tucson, AZ 85719–5035 Denver, CO 80225–0046 Information regarding research and data-collection programs of the U.S. Geological Survey is available on the Internet via the World Wide Web. You may connect to the home page for the Arizona District Office using the URL http://az.water.usgs.gov. CONTENTS Page Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Borrowings and Loan-Translations of Navajo Toponyms Into New Mexican Spanish: Examples and Explanations
    Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 17 Language and Toponymy in Alaska and Beyond: Papers in Honor of James Kari ed. by Gary Holton & Thomas F. Thornton, pp. 147–182 http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/ 9 http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24846 “The human species…is composed of two distinct races, the men who borrow, and the men who lend.” Charles Lamb, 1823 Direct borrowings and loan-translations of Navajo toponyms into New Mexican Spanish: Examples and explanations Stephen C. Jett University of California, Davis Although Navajo culture reflects fusion with pre-existing Native cultures in the U.S. Southwest, the Navajo retained the language of the Athabaskan- speaking component that migrated southward from western Canada well over half a millennium ago. Like other Athabaskan languages, Navajo resists linguistic borrowing and contains a minimum of placenames originating by either direct loan or loan-translation. New Mexican Traditional Spanish, on the other hand, incorporated a fair number of toponyms from Navajo, occasionally by direct borrowing (of which seven probable examples are provided here) but much more often in the form of calques and quasi- calques (of which nearly three dozen likely instances are given). This asymmetry reflects not only the intrinsic borrowing propensities of the two languages but also 1) the priority of Navajo in the region; 2) Hispanos’ making more, larger, and better-organized trading, slaving, and punitive intrusions into Navajo Country than did Navajos into Hispano territory; 3) post-1846 Anglo-Americans’ undertaking official exploratory and military expeditions into Navajo Country; and 4) Euroamericans’ use not only of Puebloan and Hispano guides and support personnel but also of guides and warriors from the functionally bilingual Cebolleta Navajo band, which cooperated against Navajos elsewhere.
    [Show full text]