DOCSLIB.ORG

The Rio De Flag (RDF) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Is a 4 MGD Plant That Serves the City of Flagstaff Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Rio De Flag (RDF) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Is a 4 MGD Plant That Serves the City of Flagstaff Arizona An Exploration of Nutrient and Community Variables in Effluent Dependent Streams in Arizona David Walker, Ph.D University of Arizona Christine Goforth University of Arizona Samuel Rector Arizona Department of Environmental Quality EPA Grant Number X-828014-01-01 Acknowledgements Without the help of several persons, this work would not have been possible. Shelby Flint. UofA graduate student. Without Shelby’s organizational skills both in the field and lab, this project probably would have come to a screeching halt long ago. Shelby has moved on to bigger and better things but will always be sorely missed. Patti Spindler. Aquatic ecologist from ADEQ provided invaluable field and technical expertise. Emily Hirleman.. UofA graduate student. Field, laboratory, and comedic assistance. Nick Paretti. UofA graduate student. Field and laboratory assistance. Leah Bymers. UofA graduate student. Field and laboratory assistance. Elzbieta and Wit Wisniewski. UofA graduate students. Field assistance. Linda Taunt. Head of the Hydrological Support and Assessment Unit, ADEQ. Moral support (did I say I’d have it done on Wednesday?....I meant Thursday…or Friday…maybe next week) Susan Fitch. ADEQ. An endless supply of moral support. Steven Pawlowski. ADEQ. Technical expertise, reviewer, grant manager, and good guy. 2 Introduction 3 Relatively little information is known about waters within Arizona designated “aquatic and wildlife, effluent dependent” (EDW) and even less is known about biological communities living in waters designated as such. Nutrient levels are not routinely required in NPDES permits from these waters so that historical data is either lacking or non-existent. One aspect of EDW’s that is certain is that they will increase in number and importance as population centers increase. As EDW’s increase in number, they are also expected to become more hydrologically-linked with “natural” surface waters over time. Increasing water withdraws from natural systems means that EDW’s will become important ecosystems for aquatic organisms. This study identifies some of the organisms currently inhabiting EDW’s in the state and then examines what constraints to biological diversity of macroinvertebrates exist in each EDW individually and collectively. Since most of the EDW’s are fishless systems, we chose aquatic macroinvertebrates as our indicator trophic group. Aquatic macroinvertebrates are often used in aquatic studies and for good reason; they are ubiquitous and have species-specific life history requirements including pollution tolerances. While metrics have been devised using aquatic macroinvertebrates to determine the health of naturally-occurring freshwater streams in Arizona, we believe that EDW’s are too different from their “natural” counterparts for this metric to be of much significance. We chose instead to keep it simplistic and just measure species diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates and correlate this with other variables collected from five EDW’s throughout the state. We chose to use the Shannon-Weiner Diversity index which places emphasis on the relative abundance of each species. We believe this is important, especially in aquatic systems known to have some level of pollution because these areas are often typified by having a large biomass of only a few species. A high biomass of only pollution tolerant species does not mean that an area is fulfilling any standard of biological integrity. The formula for the Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index is: H’ = [∑ (pi)(ln pi)] -Where H’ represents the amount of diversity in an ecosystem and will be greatest if species are equally abundant. - pi represents the proportion, or “relative abundance”, of each individual species to the total. We chose 5 effluent dependent waters within Arizona. Rio de Flag serving the city of Flagstaff. Bitter Creek serving the city of Jerome Jack’s Canyon (Big Park WWTP) serving the Village of Oak Creek The Santa Cruz River (Roger Road WWTP) serving much of the city of Tucson The Santa Cruz River (Nogales IWWTP) serving the cities of Nogales Arizona and Nogales, Sonora Mexico. Response variables chosen are from 4 major categories; biological, physical, chemical, and physico-chemical. Physical variables consisted of measuring gradient, embeddedness, floodprone and bankfull width, substrate classification and fractionation by category sizes, and flow. 4 Chemical variables consisted of nutrients such as ammonia-N, nitrate+nitrite-N, TKN, orthophosphate, total phosphorous, total and dissolved organic carbon, general chemistry (hardness, alkalinity, etc.), and suites of total and dissolved metals. Physico-chemical variables consisted of dissolved oxygen (mg/L and percent saturation), pH, temperature, specific conductivity, oxidation-reduction potential, total suspended solids, turbidity, and mean diel dissolved oxygen. Biological variables included chlorophyll a (peri- and phytoplankton), peri- and phytoplankton identification and enumeration, and macroinvertebrate collection (using ADEQ protocol), identification, and enumeration (sub-sampled using a Caton tray). Aquatic Consulting and Testing performed all of the chemical analyses. Biological analyses were performed at the University of Arizona’s Environmental Research Laboratory. Physicochemical data was collected using a Hydrolab Surveyor 4 sonde and data collector. In order to examine correlations between response variables and diversity, we used principal components analysis (PCA). Principal components analysis is a classical statistical method also called a Karhounen-Louve transformation or a Hotteling transformation. PCA uses linear transformation and matrix algebra to choose a new coordinate system for the data cloud so that the centroid is set to zero and the first principal component axis goes through the maximum amount of variation with the second axis exactly orthogonal to the first. This sets the framework for the remaining principal component axis. In essence, PCA reduces dimensionality of a data set so that correlations among several variables can be examined simultaneously. We used a 3-dimensional representation of the data cloud (Gabriel bi-plot) so that the PCA axes could be visualized. The relative distances between each axis are eigenvectors and a vector report is published below each bi-plot. The method in which the bi-plot represents the 3-dimensional correlations is that axes that are closest to one another have some degree of positive correlation (the closer they are, the higher the positive correlation) while those in opposite quadrants are inversely correlated. We sampled once during the summer and once during the winter at each EDW and chose the upstream site as close as feasible to the outfall in every case. The second site was chosen based upon linear profiles of dissolved oxygen and we attempted to find a “recovery zone” where dissolved oxygen levels began to once again increase. We were able to find this recovery zone in some of the less polluted EDW’s while others were never found as dissolved oxygen actually decreased with distance from the outfall in a few circumstances. All field data as well as laboratory samples were collected and analyzed using ADEQ protocol and QA/QC. 5 Rio de Flag 6 Background The Rio de Flag (RDF) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is a 4 MGD plant that serves the city of Flagstaff Arizona. This plant produces class A+ water through a process involving screening, primary sedimentation, aeration, secondary sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection using ultraviolet sterilization. A two-stage anoxic/aerobic Bardenpho process is used and is designed to reduce nitrogen content in wastewater. The use of UV sterilization greatly reduces the need or use of chlorine. Wastewater that is not used for irrigation is released into the drainage of the same name, the Rio de Flag. Influent to the RDF WWTP and amount discharged into the Rio de Flag drainage from June 2003 to June 2004 is listed below. Month Influent (MG) Discharge (MG) June 61.190 15.346 July 69.432 18.783 August 70.522 51.971 September 66.862 49.085 October 62.739 31.255 November 55.987 49.515 December 56.916 50.233 January 57.107 50 February 54.16 43.737 March 62.739 7.4845 April 56.591 28.911 May 62.739 7.4845* June 67.447 7.7838* Total for Year 799.460 445.580 Average/month 61.497 34.275 * Much of the discharge that would have gone to the Rio de Flag drainage was diverted to irrigate a new golf course. The Rio de Flag drainage exists both above and below the WWTP and is a tributary of San Francisco Wash, which is a tributary of the Little Colorado River. The stream itself originates on the southwestern slopes of the San Francisco Peaks near Big Leroux and Little Leroux Springs (Figure 2a). Along its length, the Rio de Flag drainage has many tributaries. The total drainage area of the watershed is 302 km2. The elevation changes along the length of the drainage from approximately 12,000 feet at the height of the San Francisco Peaks to about 6800 feet in the wide, flat valleys southeast of Flagstaff. Besides discharge from the RDF WWTP, winter snowmelt from the San Francisco Peaks in winter and spring and rainfall during the summer monsoons of July and August contribute to flow in the Rio de Flag. Average annual precipitation for the drainage area is approximately 20 inches in Flagstaff to 35 inches on the San Francisco Peaks with 25 inches of this precipitation occurring as snowfall. The Rio de Flag floodplain is intensively developed upstream of the sampling sites as it crosses through the center of Flagstaff. Nearly half of the land use within the 100-year floodplain is 7 considered residential with other land uses consisting of recreation, schools, light industry, railroad, utility easements, and retail businesses (U.S. Army COE). Besides the effluent released from the WWTP, the Rio de Flag had no contribution of flow from upstream areas during the course of this study. Lack of attenuation of flood peaks due to urbanization along the middle reach of the Rio de Flag may mean that flows are more flashy and sporadic than what they have been historically.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arroyo 2015 States and Mexico Through a Treaty, Apportioned 1.5 MAF Elevation 1075 Feet
    2015 Closing the Water Demand-Supply Gap in Arizona There is an acknowledged gap between future water of water. As a result, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to demand and supply available in Arizona. In some parts of closing the water demand-supply gap. Arizona, the gap exists today, where water users have been living on groundwater for a while, often depleting what Introduction can be thought of as their water savings account. In other places, active water storage programs are adding to water Many information sources were used to develop this savings accounts. The picture is complicated by variability issue of the Arroyo, which summarizes Arizona’s current in the major factors affecting sources and uses of water water situation, future challenges, and options for closing resources. Water supply depends on the volume that nature the looming water demand-supply gap. Three major provides, the location and condition of these sources, and documents, however, provide its foundation. All three the amount of reservoir storage available. Demand for water conclude that there is likely to be a widening gap between reflects population growth, the type of use, efficiency of supply and demand by mid-century unless mitigating use, and the location of that use. In a relatively short time actions are taken. frame, from 1980 to 2009, Arizona’s population grew from The first document is the Colorado River Basin Water 2.7 million people with a $30-billion economy to nearly 6.6 Supply and Demand Study (http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/ million people with a $260-billion economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Assessment Units
    APPENDIX A ASSESSMENT UNITS SURFACE WATER REACH DESCRIPTION REACH/LAKE NUM WATERSHED Agua Fria River 341853.9 / 1120358.6 - 341804.8 / 15070102-023 Middle Gila 1120319.2 Agua Fria River State Route 169 - Yarber Wash 15070102-031B Middle Gila Alamo 15030204-0040A Bill Williams Alum Gulch Headwaters - 312820/1104351 15050301-561A Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312820 / 1104351 - 312917 / 1104425 15050301-561B Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312917 / 1104425 - Sonoita Creek 15050301-561C Santa Cruz Alvord Park Lake 15060106B-0050 Middle Gila American Gulch Headwaters - No. Gila Co. WWTP 15060203-448A Verde River American Gulch No. Gila County WWTP - East Verde River 15060203-448B Verde River Apache Lake 15060106A-0070 Salt River Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Cyn Wilderness - San Pedro River 15050203-004C San Pedro Aravaipa Creek Stowe Gulch - end Aravaipa C 15050203-004B San Pedro Arivaca Cienega 15050304-0001 Santa Cruz Arivaca Creek Headwaters - Puertocito/Alta Wash 15050304-008 Santa Cruz Arivaca Lake 15050304-0080 Santa Cruz Arnett Creek Headwaters - Queen Creek 15050100-1818 Middle Gila Arrastra Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-848 Middle Gila Ashurst Lake 15020015-0090 Little Colorado Aspen Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-769 Verde River Babbit Spring Wash Headwaters - Upper Lake Mary 15020015-210 Little Colorado Babocomari River Banning Creek - San Pedro River 15050202-004 San Pedro Bannon Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-774 Verde River Barbershop Canyon Creek Headwaters - East Clear Creek 15020008-537 Little Colorado Bartlett Lake 15060203-0110 Verde River Bear Canyon Lake 15020008-0130 Little Colorado Bear Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-046 Middle Gila Bear Wallow Creek N. and S. Forks Bear Wallow - Indian Res.
    [Show full text]
  • THE WATER QUALITY of the LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED Fiscal Year 2007
    THE WATER QUALITY OF THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED Fiscal Year 2007 Prepared by the Surface Water Section March 2009 Publication Number OFR 09-11 LCR REPORT FY 2007 THE WATER QUALITY OF THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED Fiscal Year 2007 By The Monitoring and Assessments Units Edited by Jason Jones and Meghan Smart Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADEQ Water Quality Division Surface Water Section Monitoring Unit, Standards & Assessment Unit 1110 West Washington St. Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2935 ii LCR REPORT FY 2007 THANKS: Field Assistance: Anel Avila, Justin Bern, Aiko Condon, Kurt Ehrenburg, Karyn Hanson, Lee Johnson, Jason Jones, Lin Lawson, Sam Rector, Patti Spindler, Meghan Smart, and John Woods. Report Review: Kurt Ehrenburg, Lin Lawson, and Patti Spindler. Report Cover: From left to right: EMAP team including ADEQ, AZGF, and USGS; Rainbow over the Round Valley in the White Mountains; Measuring Tape, and Clear Creek located east of Payson. iii LCR REPORT FY 2007 ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Name Abbreviation Name ALKCACO3 Total Alkalinity SO4-T Sulfate Total ALKPHEN Phenolphthalein Alkalinity SPCOND Specific Conductivity Arizona Department of Suspended Sediment AQEQ Environmental Quality SSC Concentration AS-D Arsenic Dissolved su Standard pH Units AS-T Arsenic Total TDS Total Dissolved Solids Arizona Game and Fish AZGF Department TEMP-AIR Air Temperature Arizona Pollutant Discharge TEMP- AZPDES Elimination System WATER Water Temperature BA-D Barium Dissolved TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen B-T Boron Total TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load CA-T Calcium Total USGS U.S. Geological Survey CFS Cubic Feet per Second ZN-D Zinc Dissolved CO3 Carbonate ZN-T Zinc Total CU-TRACE Copper Trace Metal CWA Clean Water Act DO-MGL Dissolved Oxygen in mg/l DO- PERCENT Dissolved Oxygen in Percent E.
    [Show full text]
  • Oak Creek Canyon
    ' " United States (. Il). Department of \~~!J'~~':P Agriculture CoconinoNational Forest Service ForestPlan Southwestern Region -""""" IU!S. IIIII.IIIIII... I I i I--- I I II I /"r, Vicinity Map @ , " .. .' , ",', '. ',,' , ". ,.' , ' ' .. .' ':':: ~'::.»>::~: '::. Published August 1987 Coconino N.ational Forest Land and Resource Management Plan This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coconino Foresst Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Plan. 1 Organization of the Forest Plan Documentation. 2 Planning Area Description. 2 2. ISSUES Overview . 5 Issues . 5 Firewood . 6 Timber Harvest Levels. 7 The Availability of Recreation Options . 8 Off-Road Driving . 9 Wildlife Habitat . 9 Riparian Habitat . 11 Geothermal Development . .. 11 Management of the Transportation System . 12 Use of the Public Lands . 13 Law Enforcement . 13 Landownership Adjustment . 14 Opportunities . 14 Public Affairs . 14 Volunteers . 15 3. SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION Overview . 17 Prior Allocations . 18 4. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Overview . 21 Mission . 21 Goals . 21 Objectives . 26 Regional Guide/Forest Plan . 26 Outputs & Range of Implementation . 26 Management Prescriptions . 46 Management Area Description . 46 Management Emphasis . 46 Program Components . 46 Activities . .. 47 Standards and Guidelines . 47 How to Apply Prescriptions . .. 47 Coordinating Requirements . .. 47 Coconino National Forest Plan – Partial Cancellation of Amendment No. 15 -3/05 Replacement Page i Coconino Forest Plan Table of Contents continued Standards and Guidelines . 51 Forest-wide . 51 MA 1 Wildernesses . 98 MA 2 Verde Wild and Scenic River . .. 113 MA 3 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Less Than 40 Percent Slopes. .. 116 MA 4 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Greater Than 40 Percent Slopes. 138 MA 5 Aspen . 141 MA 6 Unproductive Timber Land .
    [Show full text]
  • EMERGING CONTAMINANTS in ARIZONA WATER a Status Report September 2016
    EMERGING CONTAMINANTS IN ARIZONA WATER A Status Report September 2016 CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT • MONITORING • RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES • IMPACTS • RESOURCES • COMMUNICATION & OUTREACH Acknowledgements Misael Cabrera APEC Sponsor, ADEQ Director Henry Darwin APEC Sponsor, ADEQ Director (former) Trevor Baggiore APEC Chair, ADEQ Water Quality Division Director Mike Fulton APEC Chair, ADEQ Water Quality Division Director (former) Randy Gottler APEC Co-Chair, City of Phoenix Committee Chairs/Co-chairs* Dan Quintanar Chair, Outreach and Education Committee Tucson Water John Kmiec Chair, Chemical EC Committee Town of Marana Dr. Jeff Prevatt Chair, Microbial EC Committee Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Dept. Cindy Garcia (M) Co-chair, Outreach and Education Committee City of Peoria Jamie McCullough Co-chair, Outreach and Education Committee City of El Mirage Dr. Channah Rock Co-chair, Outreach and Education Committee University of Arizona, Maricopa Agricultural Center Laura McCasland (O) Co-chair, Chemical EC Committee City of Scottsdale Steve Baker Co-chair, Microbial EC Committee Arizona Dept. of Health Services, Division of Public Health Services Additional APEC Members* Dr. Morteza Abbaszadegan (M) Arizona State University, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering Dr. Leif Abrell (C,M) University of Arizona, Arizona Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants Jennifer Botsford (C,O) Arizona Dept. of Health Services, Office of Environmental Health Dr. Kelly Bright (M) University of Arizona, Soil, Water & Environmental Science Al Brown (O) Arizona State University, The Polytechnic School Dr. Mark Brusseau (C,O) University of Arizona, School of Earth & Environmental Sciences Alissa Coes (C) U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Water Science Center Nick Paretti U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Water Science Center Patrick Cunningham (O) The Law Office of Patrick J.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Overview Little Colorado Area, Arizona
    Cultural Resources Overview Little Colorado Area, Arizona Fred Plog CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW: LITTLE COLORADO AREA, ARIZONA by Fred Plog For Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Arizona Bureau of Land Management 1981 USDA Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Southwestern Region Arizona State Office Albuquerque, New Mexico Phoenix, Arizona CONTENTS Page Maps iv Figures iv Tables v Preface vii Acknowledgements vii The Little Colorado Overview Unit 1 Introduction 1 Geology 1 Zone I: The Basalt Highlands 1 Zone II: Coconino-Kaibab, Moenkopi Uplands 7 Zone III: Chinle Plains 7 Zone IV: Sediment Zone 7 Other Considerations 7 Topography 7 Precipitation 10 Temperature 10 Hydrology 12 Soils 16 Vegetation and Fauna 16 Reconstructing Past Environments 17 Geology 17 Topography 23 Precipitation and Temperature 23 Hydrology 25 Soils 25 Vegetation 25 Future Research 28 Resource Acquisition 30 Introduction 30 Geological Resources 30 Landforms 31 Temperature and Precipitation 31 Soil 32 Flora 32 Fauna 33 Strategies of Resource Utilization: Food 33 Strategies of Resource Utilization: Fuel 38 Future Research 41 History of Research 42 Prehistory of the Overview Unit 49 Introduction 49 Paleolndian 49 Desert Culture 52 The Pithouse and Pueblo Periods 53 Chronometric Data 61 Chronologies Again 66 i Page Evolutionary Patterns 68 Demography 68 Productive Processes 70 Organizational Patterns 72 Future Research 74 Ceramic Technology 76 Introduction 76 Style 77 Function 81 Technology 81 Future Research 86 Chipped and Ground Stone 91 Introduction 91 Typology
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 2
    Appendix 2. Summary of location and basin characteristics for sites at which discharge measurements are available from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality [Hydrologic provinces: 1, Plateau Uplands; 2, Central Highlands; 3, Basin and Range Lowlands. Basin codes in Identifiers: BW, Bill Williams; CG, Colorado-Grand Canyon; Cl, Colorado- Lower Gila; LC, Little Colorado; MG, Middle Gila; SR, Salt; SP, San Pedro; SC, Santa Cruz; UG, Upper Gila; VR, Verde. <, less than; >, greater than; e, value not present in database and was estimated for the purpose of model predictions] Drainage Latitude, in Longitude, Site area, Hydrologic Hydrologic decimal in decimal altitude, square Identifier Name unit code Reach province degrees degrees feet miles CGBRA000.44 BRIGHT ANGEL CREEK - BELOW 15010001 019 1 36.10236 112.09514 2,520 100 PHANTOM RANCH CGBRA000.50 BRIGHT ANGEL CREEK - NEAR 15010001 019 1 36.10306 112.09556 2,452 101 GRAND CANYON, AZ CGCAT056.68 CATARACT CREEK NEAR GRAND 15010004 005 1 35.72333 112.44194 5,470e 1,200 CANYON, AZ USGS 09404100 CGCLE000.19 CLEAR CREEK - ABOVE COLORADO 15010001 025 1 36.08414 112.03344 2,520e 36 RIVER CGCRY000.05 CRYSTAL CREEK - ABOVE 15010002 018B 1 36.13542 112.24319 2,360 43 COLORADO RIVER CGDEE000.07 DEER CREEK - ABOVE COLORADO 15010002 019B 1 36.38931 112.50764 1,960 17 RIVER CGDIA000.06 (No name in database) 15010002 002 1 35.76556 113.37222 1,340 <946e CGGDN001.09 GARGEN CREEK - BELOW INDIAN 15010002 841 1 36.08347 112.12319 3,600 4 GARDEN CGHRM000.08 HERMIT CREEK - ABOVE COLORADO 15010002 020B
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing Adeq's Nonpoint Source 5-Year Plan
    IMPLEMENTING ADEQ’S NONPOINT SOURCE 5-YEAR PLAN State Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report DEVELOPED BY THE ADEQ WATER QUALITY DIVISION // SURFACE WATER SECTION // WATERSHED PROTECTION UNIT Arizona’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan FY17 Annual Report Table of Contents Introduction 1 Executive Summary 2 Strategic Plan Update Table 5 Appendix A: Master Target List 33 Appendix B: Grant Projects Awarded in FY17 37 Figures Figure 1: NPS goal progress 2 Figure 2: Hillside Mine Lower Tailing Pile post-remediation photo 3 Arizona’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan FY17 Annual Report Arizona’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan FY17 Annual Report STRATEGIC PLANNING F OR MEETING WATER QUA LITY PROTECTION AND RESTORATION GOALS RELATED TO NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION. I. Introduction The Arizona Nonpoint Source (NPS) Annual Report for state fiscal year 2017 (FY17) summarizes Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) NPS Program activities that occurred between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017. The state’s FY17 Work Plan Output Report, submitted to EPA in August 2017, also documents FY17 NPS-funded activities and is a companion document to this report. The majority of work performed by ADEQ’s NPS Program is funded by Clean Water Act Section 319(h) grant monies, awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Section 319(h) (11) requires states to report annually on progress in meeting the schedule of milestones contained in their Nonpoint Source Management Plans. It also requires, to the extent possible, nonpoint source pollutant loading reductions and improvements in water quality resulting from program implementation. For more information about Arizona’s NPS Program’s goals and structure for the FY15-19 reporting period, refer to the FY15-FY19 5-Year Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Presented Below Are Water Quality Standards That Are in Effect for Clean Water Act Purposes
    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. Arizona Administrative Register Notices of Final Rulemaking (See Part 1 of this issue of the Register for the Preamble of this Notice of Final Rulemaking.) TITLE 18. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHAPTER 11. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ARTICLE 1. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS Section R18-11-101. Definitions R18-11-102. Applicability R18-11-104. Designated Uses R18-11-105. Tributaries; Designated Uses R18-11-106. Net Ecological Benefit R18-11-107. Antidegradation R18-11-108. Narrative Water Quality Standards R18-11-109. Numeric Water Quality Standards R18-11-110. Salinity of Standards for the Colorado River R18-11-111. Analytical Methods R18-11-112. Unique Waters R18-11-113. Effluent-dependent Effluent-dependent Waters R18-11-114. Mixing Zones R18-11-115. Nutrient Waivers Repealed R18-11-118. Dams and Flood Control Structures R18-11-120. Enforcement R18-11-121. Schedules of Compliance R18-11-122. Variances R18-11-123. Prohibition Against Discharge; Sabino Creek Appendix A.Numeric Water Quality Criteria Appendix B.List of Surface Waters and Designated Uses ARTICLE 1. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS R18-11-101. Definitions The terms of this Article shall have the following meanings: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing Watershed Planning for the Rio De Flag
    Advancing Watershed Planning for the Rio de Flag Interim Report #8: January 1 - March 31, 2021 for the US Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Grant Agreement #R18AP00102 Prepared by Friends of the Rio de Flag Apr. 29, 2021, Flagstaff, Arizona BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Americans face an increasing set of water resource challenges. Aging infrastructure, rapid population growth, depletion of groundwater resources, impaired water quality associated with particular land uses and land covers, water needed for human and en- vironmental uses, and drought all play a role in determining the freshwater conditions at any given place and time. The US Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART: Coopera- tive Watershed Management Program provides a framework for Federal leadership and assistance to stretch and secure water supplies for future generations in support of the priorities of the Department of the Interior: to create a legacy of conservation steward- ship and restore trust with local communities by providing funding to grassroots, local watershed groups, and encouraging diverse stakeholders to develop collaborative so- lutions that address their water management needs. "My children and their friends grew up spending time along the Rio de Flag where they could learn about a riparian ecosystem -- watching birds, insects, and plants regenerate each spring..." —Lea J. Parker, AZ Daily Sun, Letters 2010 This interim report presents the objectives, activities, and outcomes of a WaterSMART grant focusing on the Rio de Flag in northern Arizona. The Rio de Flag is an ephemeral river and ri- parian corridor that interconnects the Flagstaff community and enhances public well-being, by providing a multitude of environmental, social, cultural, and economic benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Tuesday, February 5, 2019
    17th Annual RiversEdge West RIPARIAN RESTORATION CONFERENCE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2019 DORRANCE CENTER 7:00-8:00 am REGISTRATION AND LIGHT BREAKFAST 8:00-8:40 am Welcome, RiversEdge West Staff ADAPTING TO CHANGE Moderated by Rusty Lloyd, RiversEdge West 8:40-9:00 am Creating Restoration Planting Palettes to Support Pollinators in a Changing Climate Carianne Campbell, Sky Island Alliance 9:00-9:20 am Restoration in Response to Invasive Species, Climate Change, & Altered Stream Flows that can Support Threatened and Endangered Species & Higher Biodiversity in a New Environment Thomas Whitham, Northern Arizona University 9:20-9:40 am Riparian Cottonwoods: Hydrology, Hydraulics & Health Click on Stewart Rood, University of Lethbridge presentation titles to view 9:40-10:00 am Restoring Watersheds Using Ancient Techniques presentation Anna Valer Clark, Cuenca los Ojos abstracts 10:00-10:30 am BREAK DORRANCE CENTER CONCURRENT SESSIONS WEBSTER AUDITORIUM IMPACTS OF HEAT WAVES, DROUGHT & OTHER GLOBAL CHANGE PROCESSES ON RIPARIAN COTTONWOODS & RESTORATION ON TRIBAL LANDS THEIR COMMUNITIES IN THE WESTERN US Moderated by Melissa McMaster, RiversEdge West Moderated by Kevin Hultine, Desert Botanical Garden 10:30-10:50 am Effects of Summer & Winter Drought on 10:30-10:50 am Riparian Restoration: Outcomes, Cottonwood Growth, Wind River Wyoming Challenges, & Partnerships on the San Jonathan Friedman, U.S. Geological Survey Carlos Apache Reservation Paul Buck, San Carlos Apache Tribe 10:50-11:10 am Mechanistic Strategies of Fremont Cottonwood to Thermo-Regulate
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona State Trust Lands Conservation Profile: State Trust Lands and Archeology
    Arizona State Trust Lands Conservation Profile: State Trust Lands and Archeology ARIZONA’s HeritAGE It should come as no surprise that significant archeological sites exist on state trust lands in Arizona. Sonoran Institute, An estimated 10,000 archaeological sites and historic in collaboration with structures have been documented, including well known examples such as the platform mound and ballcourt at conservation groups Adamsville and the extensive petroglyph assemblages across Arizona and with around the Picacho Mountains. Countless others funding from the Nina are little known except to archaeologists, outdoor Mason Pulliam Charitable enthusiasts, and unfortunately looters and vandals. With 9.2 million acres of land to manage, the Arizona Trust, has assembled State Land Department (ASLD) lacks the resources to state trust lands suitable protect these windows into Arizona’s past. for conservation into a The importance of the archaeological records on state single database. The trust lands cannot be overstated. Evidence of human resulting profiles focus habitation from 12,000 years ago to the modern day, can be found throughout the state. Because much of on conservation values. the land is remote and has remained as open space, Political values are left many areas provide a complete record of Native for another day. American settlements, including pre-European contact. Villages, hamlets, field houses, agricultural terraces, prehistoric trails, and rock art assemblages are often be found in one setting, which suggests a relatively intact archaeological record of a cultural landscape. Shaping the Future of the West www.sonoraninstitute.org “Our natural and cultural heritage remains one of Arizona’s most valued assets.
    [Show full text]