The Lower Gila Region, Arizona

275

Copy Link

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 ....................................................................
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .......................................................................................................................
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.
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, ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
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.
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.