DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Stoneman Lake TMDL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Stoneman Lake TMDL TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND & PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................... 1 1.1 Description of TMDL Process ........................................... 1 1.2 Water Quality Standards, 305(b), 303(d), and Impairment ...................... 2 1.3 Lake and Watershed Overview .......................................... 4 1.3.1 Lake Characteristics ............................................ 4 1.3.2 Watershed Characteristics ....................................... 10 1.3.3 Anthropogenic History .......................................... 11 1.3.4 Land Use Management ......................................... 12 2.0 DATA SUMMARY ....................................................... 15 2.1 Watershed ......................................................... 15 2.1.1 Topography .................................................. 15 2.1.2 Soils ....................................................... 20 2.1.3 Geology ..................................................... 21 2.1.4 Land and Land Use Cover ....................................... 21 2.1.5 Vegetation Cover .............................................. 23 2.1.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey ..................................... 23 2.1.7 Roads and Buildings ............................................ 26 2.2 Hydrography and Hydrology ........................................... 26 2.2.1 Watershed Boundaries .......................................... 26 2.2.2 Springs, Streams, and Ditches. .................................... 26 2.2.3 Lake Level, Depth, and Area ..................................... 29 2.2.4 Meteorological Data ............................................ 29 2.2.5 Runoff/Streamflow ............................................. 30 2.3 Water and Sediment Quality ............................................. 34 2.3.1 Precipitation. ................................................ .34 2.3.2 Streams and Springs. ........................................... 34 2.3.3 Stoneman Lake Water Quality. .................................... 34 2.3.4 Stoneman Lake Sediments. ...................................... 42 2.3.5 Stoneman Lake Macrophytes ..................................... 42 2.4 Conceptual Model. ................................................. .43 2.4.1 Data availability ............................................... 43 2.4.2 Patterns in Water Quality ........................................ 44 2.4.3 Primary Production ............................................ 44 2.4.4 Hydrologic and Nutrient Budget ................................... 45 2.5 Recommendations for Quantitative Modeling. ............................... 45 2.5.1 Hydrologic and Nutrient Budget Model ............................. 45 2.5.2 Lake Water Quality Model ....................................... 47 2.5.3 SAV Model. ................................................. 47 2.6 Model Linkages, Calibration & Numeric Targets ............................ 48 3.0 MODEL SETUP .......................................................... 49 3.1 Watershed Loading Model ............................................. 49 3.1.1 Hydrologic Model. ............................................. 49 3.1.2 Nutrient Loads ................................................ 58 3.2 Lake Model (BATHTUB) ............................................. 58 3.3 SAV Model ........................................................ 61 3.4 Dissoloved Oxygen Demand and Diurnal Range ............................. 64 3.5 Model Scenarios .................................................... 67 3.5.1 SAV Removal ................................................ 67 3.5.2 Variable Lake Depth ........................................... 68 3.5.3 Septic System Upgrades ........................................ 68 4.0 MODEL RESULTS ....................................................... 69 4.1 Existing Conditions ................................................... 69 4.2 SAV Removal ...................................................... 71 4.2.1 Effect on Nutrients and Chlorophyll. ................................ 71 4.2.2 Effect on D.O. ................................................ 71 4.3 Variable Lake Level .................................................. 74 4.3.1 Effect on Nutrients and Chlorophyll ................................ 74 4.3.2 Effect on SAV ................................................ 74 4.3.3 Effect on D.O. ................................................ 76 4.3.4 Effect of Alternatives on Lake Level ................................ 76 4.4 Septic System Upgrade ............................................... 79 5.0 FEASABILITY AND COST OF ALTERNATIVES .............................. 81 5.1 SAV Harvest (Removal) or Cutting ...................................... 81 5.1.1 Feasibility and Environmental Issues ................................ 81 5.1.2 Costs ....................................................... 82 5.2 Herbicide Application ................................................. 83 5.2.1 Feasibility and Environmental Issues ................................ 83 5.2.2 Costs ....................................................... 84 5.3 Biological Controls ................................................... 84 5.3.1 Feasibility and Environmental Issues ................................ 85 5.3.2 Costs ....................................................... 85 5.4 CCC Ditch Regulation ................................................ 85 5.4.1 Feasibility and Environmental Issues ................................ 86 5.4.2 Cost ....................................................... 89 5.5 Dredging .......................................................... 89 5.6 Septic Systems Upgrades .............................................. 90 5.6.1 Tier Determination ............................................. 90 5.6.2 “Bright-line” Determination ....................................... 91 5.7 Aeration and Ciculation. ............................................... 91 5.8 Regulatory Redesignation .............................................. 92 6.0 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION ...................... 93 6.1 Water Quality Benefits. ............................................... 93 6.2 Technical Feasibility .................................................. 93 6.3 Regulatory Feasibility ................................................. 93 6.4 Costs. ........................................................... .93 6.5 Overall Comparison .................................................. 95 6.6 Tmdl Allocation ..................................................... 96 7.0 REFERENCES. ......................................................... .97 LIST OF TABLES Table No. Page No. Table 1-1 Statistical Summay of Water Quality Data ................................... 8 Table 2-1 Clean Lakes Data. ................................................ 36-40 Table 3-1 Estimated Dimensions of Stoneman Lake .................................. 50 Table 3-2 Average Monthly Watershed Yield Coefficients ............................. 53 Table 3-3 Watershed Loading Model Parameters .................................... 55 Table 3-4 BATHTUB Parameters ............................................... 60 Table 3-5 SAV Model Parameters ............................................... 63 Table 3-6 Parameters Used in the Calculation of BOD. ................................ 66 Table 4-1 Summary of Model Results ............................................. 72 Table 6-1 Summary of Alternatives ............................................... 94 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page No. Figure 1-1 Location Map ....................................................... 5 Figure 1-2 Map of Stoneman Lake Area ............................................ 6 Figure 1-3 Aerial Photograph of Lake Showing Dike. .................................. 7 Figure 1-4 Graph Showing D.O. Stratification. ........................................ 9 Figure 2-1 Topographic Map ................................................... 17 Figure 2-2 Topographic Contours from DEM ....................................... 18 Figure 2-3 Slope from DEM .................................................... 19 Figure 2-4 Land Use .......................................................... 22 Figure 2-5 Vegetative Cover .................................................... 24 Figure 2-6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Map Units ........................................ 25 Figure 2-7 Watershed Boundaries ................................................ 27 Figure 2-8 Springs and Major ADEQ Sampling Stations ............................... 28 Figure 2-9 Bathymetry of Stoneman Lake in October 1999. ............................ 31 Figure 2-10 Beaver Creek Watershed Meteorological Stations. ........................... 32 Figure 2-11 Beaver Creek Stream Gaging Stations. .................................... 33 Figure 3-1 Map Showing Watershed 8 and Happy Jack. ............................... 51 Figure 3-2 Graph Showing Hydrologic Model Calibration Results ........................ 56 Figure 3-3 Graph Showing Linear Regression (Lake Volumes) ........................... 57 Figure 3-4 Graph Showing BATHTUB Calibration Results ............................. 62 Figure 4-1 Chart Showing Nutrient Sources ......................................... 70 Figure 4-2 Graph Showing BOD Production in an SAV-Dominated Lake. .................. 73 Figure 4-3 Graph Showing Effect of Lake Level on Nutrients and Chlorophyll. ............... 75 Figure 4-4 Graph Showing Effect of Lake Level and SAV Height on BOD. ................. 77 Figure 4-5 Graph
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [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 22410-2003-F-0430 April 1, 2008 To: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Attn: L. Roberts) From: Field Supervisor Subject: Intra-Service Biological and Conference Opinion - Issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit to Salt River Project for Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered Species Associated With Operation of Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs This biological and conference opinion responds to the request for consultation with the Arizona Ecological Services Office pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (Act). At issue are impacts that may result from issuance of a permit in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(B) (permit) of the Act for incidental take of threatened and endangered species associated with operation of Horseshoe and Bartlett dams and reservoirs by Salt River Project (SRP) in Maricopa and Yavapai counties, Arizona. Issuance of the permit may affect the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) (flycatcher) and its critical habitat, the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the threatened spikedace (Meda fulgida), the threatened loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), the endangered razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and its critical habitat, the endangered Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis),
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona, Pre 1930, White Border Post Card Collection Section 3
    Arizona, Pre 1930, White Border Post Card Collection Section 3 — D to F By Al Ring Early and Pre 1930, White Border: (Around 1898 to 1930) Pioneer Era (Pre 1898) — Most pre-1898 postcards share a few common traits: The postcard of this era is characterized by an undivided back (no line going down the center of the back of the postcard), and many con- tain printed lines on the back for the name of the addressee and his address only. Private Mailing Card Era (1898 to December 24, 1901) — On May 19, 1898, by an act of Congress, private printers were granted permission to print and sell cards that bore the inscription “Private Mailing card.” Cost of postage reduced from 2 cents to 1 cent. Undivided Back “Postcard” Era (December 24, 1901 to March 1, 1907) — The use of the word “POST CARD/POSTCARD” (as one or two words) was granted by the government to private printers. Writing was still not permitted on the address side. Divided Back Era (March 1, 1907 to 1915) (Golden Age) —Postcards with a divided back were finally permit- ted on March 1, 1907. The address had to be written on the right side of the back of the postcard while the left side was reserved for writing messages. White Border Era (1915-1930) —After WWI printers of view postcards, to save ink, a white border was left around the view, thus we call them “White Border” postcards. The higher cost of post-war publishing com- bined with inexperienced labor caused the production of poorer quality cards.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Game and Fish Commission Rules
    NATURAL RESOURCES 54 Arizona Game and Fish Commission Rules The rules contained in this publication are printed as supplied to LexisNexis by the Arizona Office of Secretary of State. TITLE 12 Section R12-4-210. Repealed NATURAL RESOURCES R12-4-211. Repealed R12-4-212. Repealed R12-4-213. Repealed CHAPTER 4 R12-4-214. Repealed R12-4-215. Tournament Fishing Permit Regulations GAME AND FISH COMMISSION R12-4-216. Crossbow Permit (Authority: A.R.S. § 17-201 et seq.) R12-4-217. Challenged Hunters Access/Mobility Permit R12-4-218. Repealed ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL R12-4-219. Renumbered PROVISIONS R12-4-220. Repealed Section ARTICLE 3. TAKING AND HANDLING OF R12-4-101. Definitions WILDLIFE R12-4-102. Fees for Licenses, Tags, Stamps, and Permits R12-4-103. Duplicate Tags and Licenses R12-4-301. Restrictions for Taking Wildlife in Maricopa R12-4-104. Application Procedures for Issuance of Hunt Per- County Parks mit-tags by Drawing R12-4-302. Use of Tags R12-4-105. License Dealer’s License R12-4-303. Unlawful Devices and Ammunition R12-4-106. Licensing Time-frames R12-4-304. Lawful Methods for Taking Wild Mammals, Birds, R12-4-107. Bonus Point System and Reptiles R12-4-108. Management Unit Boundaries R12-4-305. Possessing, Transporting, Importing, Exporting, R12-4-109. Repealed and Selling Carcasses or Parts of Wildlife R12-4-110. Posting and access to state land R12-4-306. Buffalo Hunt Requirements R12-4-111. Identification Number R12-4-307. Trapping Regulations: Licensing; Methods; Tag- R12-4-112. Diseased or injured wildlife ging of Bobcat Pelts R12-4-113.
    [Show full text]
  • The Western Apache Homeland and Archaeology of the Mogollon Rim
    Shí Kéyaa: The Western Apache Homeland and Archaeology of the Mogollon Rim Angie Krall Vincent E. Randall Technical Report No. 2007-03 Desert Archaeology, Inc. Shí Kéyaa: The Western Apache Homeland and Archaeology of the Mogollon Rim Angie Krall Vincent E. Randall Technical Report No. 2007-03 Desert Archaeology, Inc. 3975 N. Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85716 • July 2009 PREFACE The realignment of State Route 260 (SR 260) be- Cores and frontiers depend on vantage point, tween Payson and Heber follows a long tradition however. In this report, KenCairn and Randall ad- of trail blazing through the lands below the Mogol- dress the presumption of the interpretation that lon Rim region. For over 3,000 years, people have described the region as frontier. They examine the passed through the region, perhaps following the region as a homeland and an essential and central route of the modern highway through spring-fed part of the history and identity of Apache, even as meadows and perennial streams. For at least 350 private and public entities have claimed the lands years, the stewards of this land have often been of the Mogollon Rim and native peoples have been Apache and Yavapai. moved to reservations. For modern Apache, the area is a “bridge” be- An extensive view of the Apache use of the tween the modern Yavapai-Apache Nation, Tonto, sub-Mogollon Rim was drawn from published and White Mountain, and San Carlos Reservations. unpublished ethnographic work on Apache places, Tribal members recall trails traveled by foot, don- cultural resource management reports, and the key, horse, or car, as well as camps made under the records of the public agencies who protect and trees, ramadas, or wickiups.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021Welcome Letter
    CELEBRATING 12 YEARS SERVING MUNDS PARK & NORTHERN ARIZONA COMMUNITIES! A FREE COMMUNITY EVENT EVERY SATURDAY! WELCOME BACK! The Pinewood Farmers’ Market (PFM), also known as the “Munds Park Farmers Market,” is held every Saturday, beginning, May 29, 2021 (Memorial Day) through Saturday, September 04, 2021 (Labor Day) from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The PFM is adjacent to the Munds Park Community Church, which is on the west side of I-17, directly off Munds Ranch Road. The PFM is a free public community market so we ALWAYS invite local Munds Park restaurants, bars, and businesses to participate in the market first prior to bringing outside Flagstaff and/or Valley small businesses into the market. We believe in supporting local businesses and teamwork. The PFM is a unique, outdoor, free market located in the small, quaint resort community called Munds Park, Arizona, which is directly off I-17, Exit 322. At 6,500 feet elevation, Munds Park is generally 20 to 25 degrees cooler than the Valley and a quick jaunt for summer visitors looking to escape the oppressive valley heat. Only 21 miles south of Flagstaff and just under two hours north from the Carefree highway the Munds Park community is nestled alongside the beautiful Coconino National Forest and framed by gorgeous, tall Ponderosa pine trees. Munds Park is widely regarded for its variety of outdoor recreation opportunities in all seasons. One of those recreation opportunities consists of walking or biking down to the local community market and perusing a wide variety of market vendors and artisans each Saturday, which is free to the public and a great opportunity to meet new friends while enjoying local food vendors, artisans, and musicians.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Coconino National Forest Friends, Visitors and Neighbors~
    COCONINO 2009 STAKEHOLDERS REPORT Dear Coconino National Forest ecosystems in Arizona. Together with a broad array of stakeholders, including members of local, Friends, Visitors and Neighbors~ county and state governments, environmental groups, and indus- try representatives, the Forests are working to determine how to collec- 2009 was a year that brought with it many challenges and opportuni- tively accelerate landscape-scale restoration of ponderosa pine forests in ties for the Coconino National Forest. We looked beyond our borders northern Arizona which will involve millions of acres. and worked with diverse partners that helped us manage the forest. We We will also be engaging the public in our continuing efforts to revise welcomed millions of campers, visitors, tourists and recreationists who our Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), and shape the enjoy their National Forest. future of the forest. Although our Forest Plan has been amended many In our Red Rock Ranger District alone, campground visitation was times since its approval in 1987, we need to take a more comprehensive up 30 percent over last year, and their Visitor Office had a whopping approach to revise our Forest Plan to better address the current and 262,448 visitors, up from 79,229 in 2008 and 61,051 in 2007. Volunteers future needs of the forest and surrounding communities. and partners helped us meet these increased demands. Many more collaborative improvement projects will begin this year Our partnerships have allowed us improve the stewardship of the as a result of federal funds that were awarded to Coconino County in forest, and we are grateful for the synergy that is created from these 2009 under the Secure Rural Schools Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Mormon Lake Quadrangle, Coconino County, Arizona
    GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE MORMON LAKE QUADRANGLE COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA by Richard F, Holm Department Of Geology, Northern Arizona University Arizona Geological Survey Contributed Map CM-94-C February 1994 Available from Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 24 p., 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE MORMON LAKE QUADRANGLE, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA Richard F. Holm Department of Geology Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona Introduction The Mormon Lake quadrangle is in the northern part of the Mormon volcanic field, a late Cenozoic volcanic province on the southern margin of the Colorado Plateau (Holm and others, 1989). Except for Pleistocene and Holocene surficial deposits, all of the rocks mapped on the quadrangle are Miocene and Pliocene volcanic rocks. All geologic contacts and faults were traced in the field. Map units were defined on the bases of lithology and morphology, and stratigraphic relationships were determined in the field on the basis of traditional geologic principles such as superposition and cross-cutting relationships. The mapping strategy was to map all lava flows and vent structures that could be distinguished in the field as discrete units, and to trace each flow to its source vent. Each vent structure was given an identification number (see "Vent and flow identification numbers"), and related lava flows were identified with the same number. Small vent deposits and related flows (Tys and Tyb) that lack morphologic distinction on the map were not, however, given separate identification numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Brolliar Park Cabin and Homestead
    THE BROLLIAR PARK CABIN AND HOMESTEAD The Flagstaff Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest is developing plans to preserve a log cabin in a meadow known as Brolliar Park. The cabin is located in the NW¼ of Section 20, Township 17 North, Range 9 East, approximately five miles south of Mormon Lake Village in Coconino County, Arizona (Figure 1). Preliminary research by the District Archaeologist indicated that the cabin plus associated improvements and acreage comprised a Forest Homestead patented by Dave Brolliar in 1920 (Haines 2018). The homestead remained in private ownership until 1975 when the USDA Forest Service acquired the property. Prior to starting its preservation work, the District sponsored this study to learn about Brolliar, the homestead, and its subsequent history.1 Primary data sources included: Coconino County deeds, homestead indices, records of livestock marks and brands, bills of sale, mortgages, and promiscuous records; Coconino National Forest cultural resource files, land records, and grazing records; General Land Office patent records; a National Archives & Records Administration/NARA land entry case file; contemporary newspapers (available at Chroniclingamerica.loc.gov and Newspaperarchive.com); vital statistics (usually accessed through Ancestry.com); unpublished manuscripts (archived at Northern Arizona University, the Camp Verde Historical Society, the Sharlot Hall Museum, and the Chanute Public Library); and historical maps and aerial photos (accessed through usgs.gov). Thanks are extended to the individuals who helped access these sources, namely Cindy Dent (Chanute Public Library), Jeremy Haines and Gary Hase (Coconino National Forest), Jan Klann (Camp Verde Historical Society), Octavia Ranger (NARA), and Tom Schmidt (Sharlot Hall Museum).
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Restoration & Construction Workshop Mormon Lake Ranger
    Wetland Restoration & Construction Workshop Mormon Lake Ranger Station, 4373 South Lake Mary Road, Flagstaff, AZ. June 11 and 12, 2013 Hosted by: Bat Conservation International, USDA-Forest Service, Arizona Game & Fish Department, and the Center for Wetland and Stream Restoration. Many thanks to our program funders: New-Land Foundation, Brown Family Foundation National Forest Foundation. Workshop details: wetlands provide critical habitat to dozens of wildlife species. Unfortunately, a majority of these ecosystems have been lost to draining and filling throughout North America, affecting recovery efforts for endangered species, reducing water quality, increasing flooding, and reducing ground water supplies. Fortunately, it’s now possible to restore wetlands and to construct wetlands that look and function similar to natural wetlands using techniques developed and tested by the Center for Wetlands and Stream Restoration. This hands-on workshop is designed for individuals interested in learning how to use practical, low cost techniques for building and restoring and creating wetlands. You’ll learn how to select the best locations for building wetlands, test soils, lay out proposed wetlands, choose construction techniques, work with heavy equipment operators, and establish native plants. We will complete a wetland restoration and creation project for bats, northern leopard frogs, and other wildlife on the Mogollon Rim Ranger District and visit multiple wetland sites. Location: The classroom portion of the workshop will be held at the Mormon Lake Ranger Station, 4373 South Lake Mary Road, Flagstaff, Arizona. The wetland restoration and construction project will be at Bill Dick Spring on the Mogollon Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest, approximately 3 miles from Stoneman Lake and 30 miles southwest of Flagstaff.
    [Show full text]
  • NEMO Watershed Based Plan Little Colorado Watershed
    NEMO Watershed Based Plan Little Colorado Watershed Item Type text; Report Authors Parra, Ivan; Reed, Mickey; vanderLeeuw, Elisabeth; Guertin, D. Phillip; Levick, Lainie R.; Uhlman, Kristine Download date 30/09/2021 23:21:56 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/187320 NEMO Watershed Based Plan Little Colorado Watershed Acknowledgements 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 provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s Water Quality 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: Ivan Parra, Mickey Reed, Elisabeth vanderLeeuw, D. Phillip Guertin, Lainie R. Levick and Kristine Uhlman University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona October 2006 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction Background: Nonpoint Source Pollution and NEMO Watershed Based Plans Purpose and Scope Methods GIS and Hydrologic Modeling Fuzzy Logic Structure of this Plan References Section 2: Physical Features Watershed Size Topography Water Resources Stream Types
    [Show full text]
  • Mormon History and Archaeology in Northern Arizona (19-2)
    ARCHAEOLOGY SOUTHWEST CONTINUE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE FOR YOUR magazineFREE PDF (formerly the Center for Desert Archaeology) is a private 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization that explores and protects the places of our past across the American Southwest and Mexican Northwest. We have developed an integrated, conservation- based approach known as Preservation Archaeology. Although Preservation Archaeology begins with the active protection of archaeological sites, it doesn’t end there. We utilize holistic, low-impact investigation methods in order to pursue big-picture questions about what life was like long ago. As a part of our mission to help foster advocacy and appreciation for the special places of our past, we share our discoveries with the public. This free back issue of Archaeology Southwest Magazine is one of many ways we connect people with the Southwest’s rich past. Enjoy! Not yet a member? Join today! Membership to Archaeology Southwest includes: » A Subscription to our esteemed, quarterly Archaeology Southwest Magazine » Updates from This Month at Archaeology Southwest, our monthly e-newsletter » 25% off purchases of in-print, in-stock publications through our bookstore » Discounted registration fees for Hands-On Archaeology classes and workshops » Free pdf downloads of Archaeology Southwest Magazine, including our current and most recent issues » Access to our on-site research library » Invitations to our annual members’ meeting, as well as other special events and lectures Join us at archaeologysouthwest.org/how-to-help In the meantime, stay informed at our regularly updated Facebook page! 300 N Ash Alley, Tucson AZ, 85701 • (520) 882-6946 • [email protected] • www.archaeologysouthwest.org Archaeology Southwest Volume 19, Number 2 Center for Desert Archaeology Spring 2005 Mormon History and Archaeology in Northern Arizona Alan Ferg, Arizona State Museum Richard W.
    [Show full text]