The Lower Gila Region, Arizona

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

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______________________ . 98 Late pre-Cambrian time____________________ 28 Paleozoic and Mesozoic time_:_______________ 28 Tertiary time_____________________________ 30 Quaternary time__________________._______ 31 Ground water _________________________________ 33 Ground water in rock__________________________ 33 Ground water in valley fill______________________ 33 Types of surface water supplies, by Kirk Bryan______________ 35 Streams as watering places________________________ 35 Intermittent and interrupted streams________________ 35 Ephemeral 'streams ____________^_____________ 38 Centennial Wash _______________________________ 3& Lakes and ponds.______________________________ 41 Charcos ___________________________________ 42; in IV CONTENTS. Types of surface water supplies Continued. Page. Rock tanks__________________________________ 42 Definition________________________________ 42 Rock tanks away from stream channels__________ ___ 42 Rock tanks in stream channels 43 Physiographic relations of rdck tanks _ 45 Falls due to differing erosive resistance of rock ______ ____ 45 Falls due to changes in stream grade______ ___1____ 45 Falls due to renewed uplift_____________________ 46 Sand tanks______________,___________________ 47 Direct utilization of rain water____________________ 47 Rain water shed from roofs________________ _ 47 Water catches_____________________________ ____ 48 Sanitary considerations_____.______ _ 49 Reservoirs_____________________________-.____ 50 Purposes __________________'.______________________ 50 Reservoirs in the mountains and foothills________ 52 Reservoirs in the plains and valleys_______ _ ______ 53 Construction of reservoirs______________________ 55 Protection of the embankment 56 Diversion dams and protection of spillway channels 57. DSbriSr-filled reservoirs and artificial springs _ 59 Advantages ________ _ 59 Methods of construction____ ___ _ 59 Gila River______________________ _ _ 61 General features. 62 Tributaries__________________________________ 63 Gila River in early days - . 64 Gila River valley below Salt River_ _ 67 Buckeye Valley__________ ___ 67 Arlington Valley _ _ 69 Vicinity of Arlington Mesa_______ 70 Gillespie dam site_______ 70 Old course of Gila River_____ 71 Vicinity of Enterprise ranch 72 Gila Bend____________________________ 73 Point of Rocks________________ _ _ 74 Palomas to Yuma_______ 75 Fossils ____________ _ 75 Summary ___________ 76 Interpretation of well logs____ _ 76 Wells of Southern Pacific Co_ ' 77 Wells in Arlington Valley___ . 84 Wells in Buckeye Valley_______ 85 Southwest Cotton Co.'s wells 85 Wells in Mesa______________'-___~___ ___ 88 Physiographic history of Gila Eiver. 88 Tertiary events__________ 88 Quaternary events.-^ _ ,___________ 89. First period of erosion 89 First period of alluviation 89 Gila River Continued. Physiographic history of Gila River Continued. Page. Quaternary events Continued. Clay___________________________ _____ 90 Secoad period of erosion - >~ 92 Second period of alleviation. 92 Basalt________________________________ 93 Third period of erosion. ___ __ _______ 93 Deposition of the flood plain-_ _ __ ___T 93 Channel in the flood plain.-._________________ 94 Present deposition_______,_________ ___ 94 History of irrigation along Gila River west of Gila River Reservation, by O. R. Olberg_____________________________ 95 Previous irrigation ___________________________ 97 Present irrigation ___________ ______________ 101 Buckeye canal____________________________ 101 Cerbett canal_______________________ _ 102 Arlington canal___________________ 102 Joshlin ditch_____________________________ 103 James Bent canal___________________________ 103 Enterprise canal_:__________________________ 103 Gillespie dam ______________ ___ 104 Papago canal___________ ___ .:__ 105 Antelope Valley canal__________ _ 105 Amount of water available for irrigation________ '. 106 Irrigation with ground water in Colorado River Indian Reservation, by A. L. Harris____________-__________________'. 108 General features of the area_____________ _ 108 Field work__________________________________ 109 Water-bearing deposits and source of water. 111 Construction of test wells___'-_____ 112 Water for the mesa ground___i________________i___ 112 Summary of conclusions______ _ ^ 113 Results of tests___ j_____________:_____ 115 Well logs and notes _______ 115 Drive-point tests______________.__L..I________:_ 117 Travel in the .region ______,. __ __ 118 Types of roads_____________*_________________ 118 Road difficulties and suggestions for surmounting them 119 Boiites of travel_________________________________ 123 General outline_______________-_________-______ 123 : Plan of logs and descriptions______L,__,.___________ 125 Road logs________________________________ 126 Phoenix-Yuma route __I________j_____,_______ 126 Phoenix to Yuma by main road __ 126 Phoenix to Yuma by old road across Gila Bend Mountains 129 Yuma to Phoenix by main road^ __ 130 Yuma to Phoenix by old road across Gila Bend Mountains.. 132 Route between Phoenix and Parker by way of Buckeye and Salome or Wenden .,____,_*_ ______._____ 133 Phoenix to Salome by way of Buckeye and Palp Verde 133 Tolladays Well to Wenden___________________ 134 VI OQBFTKlSfTS. Routes of travel Continued. , Road logs Continued, Route between Phoenix and Parker by, way of Buckeye and Salome or Wenden Continued, . Page. Salome to Parker_______,_____,__, *.«,_«.______ 134 Wenden to Parker by way of Butler Well _ _ 335 Parker to Salome____________'._____________ 136 Parker to Wenden_____,__-___ _ ___ 137 Wenden to Tolladays Well .:_,__--__._ _______ 138 Salome to Phoenix by way of Palo Verde and Buckeye___ 138 Route between Phoenix and Wenden or Salome by way of Wick- enburg ; _____ ____ 139 Phoenix to Wickenburg_______________a-*_____ 139 Wickenburg to Wenden and.Salome_____.,*.,: ___:__ 140 Salome and Wenden to Wickenburg_____ _ _____ , 141 Wickenburg to Phoenix_____________-_______ 141 Bouse-Swansea route___________________________ 142 Vicksburg-Quartzsite route ___________->- _______ 142 Vicksburg to Quartzsite_______-______________ 142 Quartzsite to Vicksburg____________________ 143 Bouse-Quartzsite route________________.________ 143 Bouse to Quartzsite_________ _ ______ 143 Quartzsite to Bouse__________ ___ _ _____ 144 Quartzsite-Ehrenberg route_________________,._____ 144 Quartzsite to Ehrenberg_____________________ 144 Ehrenberg to Quartzsite . 145 Ehrenberg-Parker route _____________________..._ 145 Quartzsite-Dome route____________-_______.___ . 146 Quartzsite to Dome by main road- i 146 Quartzsite to Dome by old road across La Posa Plain__-_ 147 Dome to Quartzsite by main road- 148 Dome to Quartzsite by old road across La Posa Plain 150 Harquahala route_________ 150 Salome to Palomas by way of Harquahala. 150 Palomas to Salome by way of Harquahala _ ; 151 Routes to Alamo Spring_________^_ __ __ 151 Detailed descriptions______________ _ __ _-, 152 Phoenix to Yuma ___ . 152 Phoenix____;__________________________ 152 Salt River project _________ 152 Phoenix to Coldwater____________ ___ 153 Coldwater to Buckeye______ _ - 154 Buckeye to Gila Bend______________ ________ 155 Buckeye to the Gila Bend Mountains-- t : ~~ 155 New road across the Gila Bend Mountains ______ 156 Old road across the Gila iBend Mountains 157 Industries in the valley of Gila River along old road- __ 159 Agua Caliente to Palomas___- I , _ 160 Palomas to Norton_____ ______________..__ 160 Norton to Antelope Bridge_ '. 162 Antelope Bridge to Wellton___ 163 Welltori to Dome_______ _ ' : 163 Dome to Yuma __________ 163 Routes of travel Continued. Detailed descriptions Continued. - -' Paga. Phoenix to Parker_____________.___:_.__..__..____,«».«, 165 Hassayampa River
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]
  • 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]
  • 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 22410-2007-F-0196 January 29, 2009 Memorandum To: Field Manager, Yuma Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma, Arizona From: Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion for the Yuma Field Office Resource Management Plan Thank you for your request for formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your request for formal consultation regarding effects of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Yuma Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) was dated November 26, 2007, and received by us on November 27, 2007. At issue are impacts that may result from the RMP on the following federally-listed species: • razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and its critical habitat; • desert tortoise – Mohave Desert population (Gopherus agassizii); • Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis); and, • southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). We concur with your effects determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americanus sonoriensis). Our rationale is presented in Appendix A. The November 26, 2007, memorandum also requested concurrence regarding your determination that implementation of the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to contribute to the need to list the candidate western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Other than the applicable conservation measures included in the proposed action (Appendix B), this species is not addressed in this biological opinion (BO).
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior U.S
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGION 2 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS CONTAMINANTS IN BIGHORN SHEEP ON THE KOFA NATIONAL WIL DLIFE REFUGE, 2000-2001 By Carrie H. Marr, Anthony L. Velasco1, and Ron Kearns2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 August 2004 2 ABSTRACT Soils of abandoned mines on the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) are contaminated with arsenic, barium, mercury, manganese, lead, and zinc. Previous studies have shown that trace element and metal concentrations in bats were elevated above threshold concentrations. High trace element and metal concentrations in bats suggested that bighorn sheep also may be exposed to these contaminants when using abandoned mines as resting areas. We found evidence of bighorn sheep use, bighorn sheep carcasses, and scat in several abandoned mines. To determine whether bighorn sheep are exposed to, and are accumulating hazardous levels of metals while using abandoned mines, we collected soil samples, as well as scat and bone samples when available. We compared mine soil concentrations to Arizona non-residential clean up levels. Hazard quotients were elevated in several mines and elevated for manganese in one Sheep Tank Mine sample. We analyzed bighorn sheep tissues for trace elements. We obtained blood, liver, and bone samples from hunter-harvested bighorn in 2000 and 2001. Arizona Game and Fish Department also collected blood from bighorn during a translocation operation in 2001. Iron and magnesium were elevated in tissues compared to reference literature concentrations in other species. Most often, domestic sheep baseline levels were used for comparison because of limited available data for bighorn sheep.
    [Show full text]
  • MS4 Route Mapping PRIORITIZATION PARAMETERS
    MS4 Route Mapping PRIORITIZATION PARAMETERS Approx. ADOT Named or Average Annual Length Year Age OAW/Impaired/ Not‐ Within 1/4 Pollutants ADOT Designated Pollutants Route ADOT Districts Annual Traffic Receiving Waters TMDL? Given Precipitation (mi) Installed (yrs) Attaining Waters? Mile? (per EPA) Pollutant? Uses (per EPA) (Vehicles/yr) WLA? (inches) SR 24 (802) 1.0 2014 5 Central 11,513,195 Queen Creek N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 SR 51 16.7 1987 32 Central 61,081,655 Salt River N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 SR 61 76.51 1935 84 Northeast 775,260 Little Colorado River Y (Not attaining) N E. Coli N FBC Y E. Coli N 7 Sediment Y A&Wc Y Sediment N SR 64 108.31 1932 87 Northcentral 2,938,250 Colorado River Y (Impaired) N Sediment Y A&Wc N ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.5 Selenium Y A&Wc N ‐‐ ‐‐ SR 66 66.59 1984 35 Northwest 5,154,530 Truxton Wash N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7 SR 67 43.4 1941 78 Northcentral 39,055 House Rock Wash N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 17 Kanab Creek N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ SR 68 27.88 1941 78 Northwest 5,557,490 Colorado River Y (Impaired) Y Temperature N A&Ww N ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 SR 69 33.87 1938 81 Northwest 17,037,470 Granite Creek Y (Not attaining) Y E. Coli N A&Wc, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Y E. Coli Y 9.5 Watson Lake Y (Not attaining) Y TN Y ‐‐ Y TN Y DO N A&Ww Y DO Y pH N A&Ww, FBC, AgI, AgL Y pH Y TP Y ‐‐ Y TP Y SR 71 24.16 1936 83 Northwest 296,015 Sols Wash/Hassayampa River Y (Impaired, Not attaining) Y E.
    [Show full text]
  • Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. July 22, 2021 Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015 Effective March 17, 2021 The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states and federally recognized Indian tribes to adopt water quality standards in order to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's Waters" (CWA, 1988). The attached WQS document is in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with the exception of the following provisions. Navajo Nation’s previously approved criteria for these provisions remain the applicable for CWA purposes. The “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015” (NNSWQS 2015) made changes amendments to the “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2007” (NNSWQS 2007). For federal Clean Water Act permitting purposes, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) must approve these changes to the NNSWQS 2007 which are found in the NNSWQS 2015. The USEPA did not approve of three specific changes which were made to the NNSWQS 2007 and are in the NNSWQS 2015. (October 15, 2020 Letter from USEPA to Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency). The three specific changes which USEPA did not accept are: 1) Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat Designated Use - Suspended Solids Changes (NNSWQS 2015 Section 207.E) The suspended soils standard for aquatic and wildlife habitat designated use was changed to only apply to flowing (lotic) surface waters and not to non-flowing (lentic) surface waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona
    Scholars' Mine Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations 1965 Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona Elias Zambrano Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses Part of the Geology Commons Department: Recommended Citation Zambrano, Elias, "Geology of Cienega Mining District, Northwestern Yuma County, Arizona" (1965). Masters Theses. 7104. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/7104 This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GEOLOGY OF CIENEGA MINING DISTRICT, NORTHWESTERN YUM.1\, COUNTY, ARIZONA BY ELIAS ZAMBRANO I J'i~& A THESIS submitted to the faculty of the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT ROLLA in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN GEOLOGY Rolla, Missouri 1965 ~!'Approved by ~2/~advisor) ~ ~·-~~ ii ABSTRACT In the mapped area three metamorphic units crop out: calc-silicates and marble, gneiss, and a conglomerate- schist section. The first one consists of a series of intercalations of calc-silicate rocks, local marbles, and greenschist. Quartzite appears in the upper part of the section. This section passes transitionally to the gneiss, which is believed to be of sedimentary origin. Features indicative of sedimentary origin include inter­ calation with marble, relic bedding which can be observed locally, intercalation of greenschist clearly of sedimentary origin, lack of homogeneity in composition with both lateral and vertical variation occurring, roundness of zircon grains, and lack of zoning in the feldspars.
    [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]
  • 15 Landscape and Aesthetics Corridor Plan
    - 15 landscape and aesthetics corridor plan I-15 FROM PRIMM TO MESQUITE CORRIDOR PLAN DESIGN WORKSHOP MacKay & Somps JW Zunino & Assoc. CH2MHill Jones & Jones August 3, 2005 1-15 corridor plan Endorsement MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR OF NEVADA MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR KENNY C. GUINN NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JEFFREY FONTAINE, P.E. On June 30, 2002, the Nevada Department of Transportation adopted It is NDOT's responsibility to ensure that landscaping and aesthetics as policy, "Pattern and Palette of Place: A Landscape and Aesthetics are an important consideration in building and retrofitting our high- Master Plan for the Nevada State Highway System". Now, the second way system. This Landscape and Aesthetics Corridor Plan for I-15 in phase of planning is complete. This I-15 Landscape and Aesthetics Northern Nevada helps realize our vision for the future appearance of Corridor Plan represents a major step forward for the Landscape and our highways. The plan will provide the guidance for our own design Aesthetics program created by the Master Plan. It is significant teams as well as help Nevada's citizens play an important role in the because it involves local public agencies and citizens in the planning context-sensitive solutions for today's transportation needs. process so that Nevada's highways truly represent the State and its Together, we will ensure our highways reflect Nevada's distinctive people. The Corridor Plan will be the primary management tool used heritage, landscape, and culture. to guide funding allocations, promotes appropriate aesthetic design, and provides for the incorporation of highway elements that unique- ly express Nevada's landscape, communities, and cities, as well as its people.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona, from Territory to Statehood
    Journey through Time: Arizona, From Territory to Statehood What’s Your Role? You will be given the name of a person or group who were important to Arizona’s early history. Through their eyes, you will experience what life was like. Student Name: Role Play Person/Group: Timeline Using the years from the Role Play card given to you, create a timeline of important years in your person’s/group’s lifetime. Then, list the events that happened in each year below. IZONA 1912 1863 AR ARIZONA ARIZONA STATEHOOD TERRITORY Events (list in chronological order) Year Event _____ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _____ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _____ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _____ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ Role Play- Day in the Life Journal ___________________ (Historic Date) Dear Journal, ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Reintroduction of the Tarahumara Frog (Rana Tarahumarae) in Arizona: Lessons Learned
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 15(2):372–389. Submitted: 12 December 2019; Accepted: 11 June 2020; Published: 31 August 2020. REINTRODUCTION OF THE TARAHUMARA FROG (RANA TARAHUMARAE) IN ARIZONA: LESSONS LEARNED JAMES C. RORABAUGH1,8, AUDREY K. OWENS2, ABIGAIL KING3, STEPHEN F. HALE4, STEPHANE POULIN5, MICHAEL J. SREDL6, AND JULIO A. LEMOS-ESPINAL7 1Post Office Box 31, Saint David, Arizona 85630, USA 2Arizona Game and Fish Department, 5000 West Carefree Highway, Phoenix, Arizona 85086, USA 3Jack Creek Preserve Foundation, Post Office Box 3, Ennis, Montana 59716, USA 4EcoPlan Associates, Inc., 3610 North Prince Village Place, Suite 140, Tucson, Arizona 85719, USA 5Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, 2021 North Kinney Road, Tucson, Arizona 85743, USA 6Arizona Game and Fish Department (retired), 5000 West Carefree Highway, Phoenix, Arizona 85086, USA 7Laboratorio de Ecología, Unidad de Biotecnología y Prototipos, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Avenida De Los Barrios No. 1, Colonia Los Reyes Iztacala, Tlalnepantla, Estado de México 54090, México 8Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract.—The Tarahumara Frog (Rana tarahumarae) disappeared from the northern edge of its range in south- central Arizona, USA, after observed declines and die-offs from 1974 to 1983. Similar declines were noted in Sonora, Mexico; however, the species still persists at many sites in Mexico. Chytridiomycosis was detected during some declines and implicated in others; however, airborne pollutants from copper smelters, predation, competition, and extreme weather may have also been contributing factors. We collected Tarahumara Frogs in Sonora for captive rearing and propagation beginning in 1999, and released frogs to two historical localities in Arizona, including Big Casa Blanca Canyon and vicinity, Santa Rita Mountains, and Sycamore Canyon, Atascosa Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Colorado River Indian
    2014 Strategic Long Range Transportation Plan for the Colorado River Indian Tribes Final Report Prepared by: Prepared for: COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES APRIL 2014 Project Management Team Arizona Department of Transportation Colorado River Indian Tribes 206 S. 17th Ave. 26600 Mohave Road Mail Drop: 310B Parker, Arizona 85344 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Don Sneed, ADOT Project Manager Greg Fisher, Tribal Project Manager Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: 602-712-6736 Telephone: (928) 669-1358 Mobile: (928) 515-9241 Tony Staffaroni, ADOT Community Relations Project Manager Email: [email protected] Phone: (602) 245-4051 Project Consultant Team Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 333 East Wetmore Road, Suite 280 Tucson, AZ 85705 Mary Rodin, AICP Email: [email protected] Telephone: 520-352-8626 Mobile: 520-256-9832 Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc. 21636 N. Dietz Drive Maricopa, Arizona 85138 Sharon Morris, President Email: [email protected] Telephone: 520-316-6745 This report has been funded in part through financial assistance from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material, presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report.
    [Show full text]