DOCSLIB.ORG

ROD - ARMP: Bradshaw-Harquahala

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ROD - ARMP: Bradshaw-Harquahala ROD - ARMP: Bradshaw-Harquahala April 22, 2010 ROD - ARMP iii Table of Contents Dear Reader Letter ...................................................................................................................... xv 1. Record of Decision ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Overview of the Alternatives ............................................................................................ 1 1.2.1. Alternative A: (No Action Alternative) ................................................................. 1 1.2.2. Alternative B: Management for Increased Recreational Use ................................ 2 1.2.3. Alternative C: Management for Use and Landscape Protection ............................ 2 1.2.4. Alternative D: Management for Primitive Landscape Protection .......................... 2 1.2.5. Alternative E: Management for Resource Sustainability and Consistent Uses (Proposed Plan) .................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Results of Protest Review ................................................................................................. 3 1.4. The Decision ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.1. What the Decision/Approved RMP Provides ........................................................ 4 1.4.2. What the Decision/Approved RMP Does Not Provide .......................................... 6 1.4.3. Implementation Decisions ..................................................................................... 7 1.4.4. Modifications and Clarifications ............................................................................ 7 1.4.5. Modifications ......................................................................................................... 7 1.4.6. Clarifications .......................................................................................................... 8 1.5. Management Considerations for Selecting the Approved Plan ........................................ 9 1.6. Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 11 1.7. Plan Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 11 1.7.1. Implementation Monitoring ................................................................................. 11 1.7.2. Effectiveness Monitoring ..................................................................................... 12 1.8. Implementation of the Management Plan ....................................................................... 12 1.9. Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 12 1.10. Availability of the Plan ................................................................................................. 13 1.11. Field Manager Recommendation .................................................................................. 13 1.12. District Manager Concurrence ...................................................................................... 13 1.13. State Director Approval ................................................................................................ 14 2. Approved Resource Management Plan .................................................................................. 15 2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 17 2.1.1. Purpose and Need ................................................................................................ 17 2.1.2. Planning Area Description ................................................................................... 18 2.1.3. Scoping Issues ...................................................................................................... 19 2.1.4. Issues Addressed .................................................................................................. 19 2.1.5. Issues Considered but not Further Analyzed ....................................................... 20 2.1.6. Planning Criteria .................................................................................................. 20 2.1.7. Planning Process .................................................................................................. 21 2.1.7.1. Collaboration/Partnership Relationships .................................................. 21 2.1.7.2. Intergovernmental, Inter-Agency, and Tribal Relationships ..................... 21 2.1.7.3. Cooperating Agencies ............................................................................... 22 April 22, 2010 Table of Contents iv ROD - ARMP 2.1.7.3.1. Transportation Agencies ................................................................ 22 2.1.7.3.2. Arizona Game and Fish Department .............................................. 22 2.1.7.4. Compliance ............................................................................................... 23 2.1.7.4.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................... 23 2.1.7.4.2. Sikes Act ........................................................................................ 23 2.1.8. Related Plans ........................................................................................................ 23 2.1.9. Policy ................................................................................................................... 24 2.1.10. Mission and Goals .............................................................................................. 24 2.2. Management Decisions ................................................................................................... 25 2.3. Decisions Applicable to Entire Planning Area ............................................................... 26 2.3.1. Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 26 2.3.1.1. Special Status Species (TE) ...................................................................... 27 2.3.1.1.1. Desired Future Conditions ............................................................. 27 2.3.1.1.1.1. Desert Tortoise .................................................................... 27 2.3.1.1.1.2. Gila Topminnow, Gila Chub, and Desert Pupfish ............... 27 2.3.1.1.1.3. Spikedace ............................................................................ 27 2.3.1.1.1.4. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ........................................ 27 2.3.1.1.1.5. Bald Eagle ........................................................................... 27 2.3.1.1.1.6. Yellow-billed Cuckoo ......................................................... 28 2.3.1.1.2. Land Use Allocations ..................................................................... 28 2.3.1.1.3. Management Actions ..................................................................... 28 2.3.1.1.3.1. Desert Tortoise .................................................................... 28 2.3.1.2. Threatened or Endangered Species ........................................................... 29 2.3.1.2.1. Gila Topminnow, Gila Chub, and Desert Pupfish .......................... 30 2.3.1.2.2. Spikedace ....................................................................................... 30 2.3.1.2.3. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ................................................... 30 2.3.1.3. Wildlife and Fisheries (WF) ..................................................................... 31 2.3.1.3.1. Desired Future Conditions ............................................................. 31 2.3.1.3.2. Management Actions ..................................................................... 31 2.3.1.4. Vegetation (VM) and Riparian (RP) Management ................................... 33 2.3.1.4.1. Desired Future Conditions ............................................................. 33 2.3.1.4.2. Management Actions ..................................................................... 34 2.3.2. Cultural Resources (CL) ...................................................................................... 34 2.3.2.1. Desired Future Conditions ........................................................................ 34 2.3.2.2. Land Use Allocations ................................................................................ 35 2.3.2.3. Management Actions ................................................................................ 36 2.3.3. Fire Management ................................................................................................. 37 2.3.3.1. Desired Future Conditions ........................................................................ 37 2.3.3.2. Land Use Allocations ................................................................................ 38 2.3.3.3. Management Actions ................................................................................ 38 2.3.4. Land Health Standards ......................................................................................... 41 2.3.4.1. Desired Future Conditions ........................................................................ 41
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX
    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE PHOENIX AMA Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Brown and Caldwell Project No. 23481.001 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 9 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Big Bug Watershed: Money Metals and Providence Mines Bradshaw Mountains Prescott National Forest, Arizona
    Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Big Bug Watershed: Money Metals and Providence Mines Bradshaw Mountains Prescott National Forest, Arizona Prepared for: USDA Forest Service 333 Broadway SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 Prepared by: Weston Solutions, Inc. 960 West Elliot Road, Suite 201 Tempe, Arizona 85284 Contract No. AG-8371-D-09-0191 December 2010 Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Big Bug Watershed: Money Metals and Providence Mines Bradshaw Mountains, Prescott National Forest, Arizona December 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................E1 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 AREA POPULATION ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Geologic and Hydrologic Setting .......................................................................... 2 1.3.1.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................. 3 1.3.2 Regional Climate ................................................................................................... 4 1.4 SITE OPERATION
    [Show full text]
  • The Lower Gila Region, Arizona
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HUBERT WORK, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 498 THE LOWER GILA REGION, ARIZONA A GEOGBAPHIC, GEOLOGIC, AND HTDBOLOGIC BECONNAISSANCE WITH A GUIDE TO DESEET WATEEING PIACES BY CLYDE P. ROSS WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1923 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 50 CENTS PEE COPY PURCHASER AGREES NOT TO RESELL OR DISTRIBUTE THIS COPT FOR PROFIT. PUB. RES. 57, APPROVED MAT 11, 1822 CONTENTS. I Page. Preface, by O. E. Melnzer_____________ __ xr Introduction_ _ ___ __ _ 1 Location and extent of the region_____._________ _ J. Scope of the report- 1 Plan _________________________________ 1 General chapters _ __ ___ _ '. , 1 ' Route'descriptions and logs ___ __ _ 2 Chapter on watering places _ , 3 Maps_____________,_______,_______._____ 3 Acknowledgments ______________'- __________,______ 4 General features of the region___ _ ______ _ ., _ _ 4 Climate__,_______________________________ 4 History _____'_____________________________,_ 7 Industrial development___ ____ _ _ _ __ _ 12 Mining __________________________________ 12 Agriculture__-_______'.____________________ 13 Stock raising __ 15 Flora _____________________________________ 15 Fauna _________________________ ,_________ 16 Topography . _ ___ _, 17 Geology_____________ _ _ '. ___ 19 Bock formations. _ _ '. __ '_ ----,----- 20 Basal complex___________, _____ 1 L __. 20 Tertiary lavas ___________________ _____ 21 Tertiary sedimentary formations___T_____1___,r 23 Quaternary sedimentary formations _'__ _ r- 24 > Quaternary basalt ______________._________ 27 Structure _______________________ ______ 27 Geologic history _____ _____________ _ _____ 28 Early pre-Cambrian time______________________ .
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona
    2.SOB nH in ntoiOGIGM. JAN 3 1 1989 Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1701-C Chapter C Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona By ED DE WITT, S.M. RICHARD, J.R. HASSEMER, and W.F. HANNA U.S. Geological Survey J.R. THOMPSON U.S. Bureau of Mines U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1701 MINERAL RESOURCES OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS- WEST-CENTRAL ARIZONA AND PART OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publlcatlon Data Mineral resources of the Harquahala Mountains wilderness study area, La Paz and Maricopa counties, Arizona. (Mineral resources of wilderness study areas west-central Arizona and part of San Bernardino County, California ; ch. C) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1701-C) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1701-C 1. Mines and mineral resources Arizona Harquahala Mountains Wilderness. 2. Harquahala Mountains (Ariz.) I. DeWitt, Ed. II. Series. III. Series: U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1701. QE75.B9 no. 1701-C 557.3 s [553'.09791'72] 88-600012 [TN24.A6] STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology an Interactive Guide Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology PK Gupta
    PK Gupta Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology An Interactive Guide Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology PK Gupta Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology An Interactive Guide PK Gupta Toxicology Consulting Group Academy of Sciences for Animal Welfare Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India ISBN 978-3-030-22249-9 ISBN 978-3-030-22250-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22250-5 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Preface The book entitled Concepts and Applications in Veterinary Toxicology: An Interactive Guide covers a broad spectrum of topics for the students specializing in veterinary toxicology and veterinary medical practitioners.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona 'Highways
    Sc:~r1ic: VOL. XXXIII NO. 3 MARCH 1957 RAYMOND CARLSON, Editor U. S. Highway 89, Arizona's main artery of north­ GFORGE M. AV EY, Art Editor south trayel, is one of the most scenic of all 0~1r roads. Its JAJ\LCS E. STEVENS, Business Manager some 600 miles through the state offer a Yarietv of eleva­ LEGEND tion, terrain and scenic interest. Each mile unfoldi1we:, be- "89" ENT ERl'-'G HousEROCK VALLEY FRONT COVER fore the traveler is an interesting mile and different from ~ . R .,, y MANLEY'S PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS the one preceding. "89" brings :--·ou into the state at GLORIOUS NORTHERN ARIZONA VISTA. Fredonia. It leaves the state at Nogales. As eYen the most ARIZONA S CRAPBOOK . 2 S:-.:11PSHOTS OF SCEN IC INTEREST casual glance at a map ·will reveal, "89'' cuts right through ALO ~G "89," BORDER TO BORD ER . the heart of Arizona and covers a lot of interesting· coun­ PIPE SPRI NG NATIONAL MoNUJVIENT 4 try between Utah and J\1e.\'ico. The Strip, the cool J(aibab, \VF. PAY A VISIT TO HISTORIC the s,1 ·eeping panorama of Houserock Valley, Vermilion SHR INE GLORIFYING OUR PIONEERS. and Echo Cliffs, the lofty forested reg·ion ~f San Fran­ IO \VE TAKE A TRIP ON A HIGHWAY cisco Peaks, the high pla~eau countr:v ~bet\\·een vVillia1m OF INTE RNAT IONAL GRANDEUR. and Prescott, or by Alternate "89" Oak Creek and the OLD BrLL WrLLTAJVrs' FAVORITE MouNTAIN 34 Verde Va llev, the desert and then the historic Santa Cruz D ESC RIPTIO N OF A MOUNTAIN THAT Vallev- all of these and more, too, make up the travel JS LA NDM ARK IN NORTHERN ARIZONA.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Decision (ROD)
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA REGION 1 – NEW ENGLAND RECORD OF DECISION NYANZA CHEMICAL WASTE DUMP SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 02 ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS JULY 2020 PART 1: THE DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION A. SITE NAME AND LOCATION B. STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE C. ASSESSMENT OF SITE D. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY E. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS F. SPECIAL FINDINGS G. DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST H. AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY A. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION B. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1. History of Site Activities 2. History of Federal and State Investigations and Removal and Remedial Actions 3. History of CERCLA Enforcement Activities C. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION D. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION E. SITE CHARACTERISTICS F. CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE USES G. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 1. Human Health Risk Assessment 2. Supplemental Human Health Risk Assessment 3. Supplemental Evaluation Following Risk Assessment 4. Ecological Risk Assessment 5. Basis for Remedial Action H. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES I. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES J. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES K. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES L. THE SELECTED REMEDY M. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS N. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES O. STATE ROLE Record of Decision Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump Superfund Site: OU2 July 2020 Ashland, Massachusetts Page 2 of 73 PART 3: THE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY APPENDICES Appendix A: MassDEP Letter of Concurrence Appendix B: Tables Appendix C: Figures Appendix D: ARARs Tables Appendix E: References Appendix F: Acronyms and Abbreviations Appendix G: Administrative Record Index and Guidance Documents Record of Decision Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump Superfund Site: OU2 July 2020 Ashland, Massachusetts Page 3 of 73 PART 1: THE DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION A.
    [Show full text]
  • FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality
    SEPTEMBER 2013 Arizona Department FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Janice K. Brewer, Governor • Henry R. Darwin, Director Publication Number: FS 13-11 Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Upper Hassayampa Basin: A 2003-2009 Baseline Study – June 2013 Introduction A baseline groundwater quality study of the Upper Hassayampa basin was con- ducted from 2003 to 2009 by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Ambient Groundwater Monitor- ing Program. ADEQ carried out this task pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §49-225 that mandates ongoing moni- toring of waters of the state including its aquifers. This fact sheet is a synopsis of the ADEQ Open File Report 13-03.1 The Upper Hassayampa groundwater basin covers approximately 787 square miles within Maricopa and Yavapai counties and is located about 60 miles Map 1 – Sample sites in the northwest of Phoenix (Map 1). The basin Upper Hassayampa basin is characterized by mid-elevation moun- are color-coded according to their water quality status: No tains and had an estimated population Water Quality Exceedences, 2 of 10,479 in 2000. The largest popula- Secondary MCLs Exceedences, Primary MCL Exceedances, and Primary and Secondary MCL Exceedances. (Map by Jean Ann Rodine) tion center is the Town of Wickenburg. tions range from approximately 7,000 Other communities include Congress feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the and Groom Creek. Low-intensity livestock Bradshaw Mountains to 1,900 feet amsl grazing is the predominant land use and along the Hassayampa River about five most ranches have limited acreages of ir- miles south of Wickenburg. The basin is rigated pasture to raise additional animal comprised of federal land managed by feed.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Wulfenite 2009 3 12
    Geologic Settings of Wulfenite in Arizona by Jan C. Rasmussen Curator, Arizona Mining and Mineral Museum and Stanley B. Keith, MagmaChem Exploration March 21, 2009 Arizona is famous for its spectacular wulfenite specimens. The butterscotch-colored, bladed crystals from the Glove Mine in the Santa Rita Mountains south of Tucson and the bright red, chunky blades from the Red Cloud Mine in the Silver district north of Yuma are prized highlights of many mineral collections. Most of these famous mineral localities are no longer available to collectors, making the historic specimens even more valuable. Outline Figure 1. Wulfenite from the Glove mine, Santa Rita Alkali-calcic Pb-Zn-Ag Mountains Laramide (75-65 Ma) Glove, Tyndall, Turquoise, Empire dist. Wulfenite is lead molybdate, PbMoO4. It forms Mid-Tertiary (30-20 Ma) in the oxidized zones of lead deposits where the Hilltop, Tonopah, Hull, Red Cloud white needle-like crystals of cerussite (PbCO3) (Silver dist.), Ripsey, Grand Reef, Purple have developed. Surprisingly, the presence of Passion mines molybdenite is not required. Wulfenite rarely Quartz Alkalic Au-base metal occurs in the same mineral deposits as Jurassic (180-160 Ma) molybdenite, and then only in the later stages of Bisbee the deposits. Even there, wulfenite does not Laramide (75-70 Ma) occur unless cerussite or mimetite is present. Old Yuma There had to be enough lead in the system in a Mid-Tertiary (28-22 Ma) relatively soluble mineral to allow the Tiger, Rowley molybdenum in the ground water to combine Calc-alkalic porphyry copper stage 4 with lead and oxygen as wulfenite.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012
    The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012 (Photographs: Arizona Game and Fish Department) Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ i RECOMMENDED CITATION ........................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ iii DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ iv BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1 THE MARICOPA COUNTY WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................... 8 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT AND ASSOCIATED GIS DATA ................................................... 10 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 MASTER LIST OF WILDLIFE LINKAGES AND HABITAT BLOCKSAND BARRIERS ................ 16 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan
    Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan Adopted August 16, 2004 Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Trail Commission Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Maricopa County Planning and Development Flood Control District of Maricopa County We have an obligation to protect open spaces for future generations. Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan VISION Our vision is to connect the majestic open spaces of the Maricopa County Regional Parks with a nonmotorized trail system. The Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan - page 1 Credits Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Andrew Kunasek, District 3, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Maricopa County Trail Commission Supervisor Max Wilson, District 4 Chairman Supervisor Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Parks Commission Members: Citizen Members: Laurel Arndt, Chair Art Wirtz, District 2 Randy Virden, Vice-Chair Jim Burke, District 3 Felipe Zubia, District 5 Stakeholders: Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Fred Pfeifer, Arizona Public Service (APS) James Duncan, Salt River Project (SRP) Teri Raml, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ex-officio Members: William Scalzo, Chief Community Services Officer Pictured from left to right Laurel Arndt, Supervisor Andy Kunasek, Fred Pfeifer, Carol Erwin, Arizona’s Official State Historian, Marshall Trimble, and Art Wirtz pose with the commemorative branded trail marker Mike Ellegood, Director, Public Works at the Maricopa Trail
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards
    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. Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ( 1) Purpose. The establishment of water quality standards. (2) W ate r Quality Enhancement: (a) The purposes and intent of the State in establishing Water Quality Standards are to provide enhancement of water quality and prevention of pollution; to protect the public health or welfare in accordance with the public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation of fish, wildlife and other beneficial aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other reasonable and necessary uses and to maintain and improve the biological integrity of the waters of the State. ( b) The following paragraphs describe the three tiers of the State's waters. (i) Tier 1 - Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. (ii) Tier 2 - Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the division finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the division's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.
    [Show full text]