DOCSLIB.ORG

(WTP2) Discharge Hydrologic Evaluation of Proposed Hermosa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(WTP2) Discharge Hydrologic Evaluation of Proposed Hermosa Cienega Cr Watershed Hydrologic Evaluation of Proposed Hermosa Mine Water Treatment Plant (WTP2) Discharge Presentation to PARA November 12, 2020 Sonoita Cr Watershed Laurel Lacher, PhD, RG, Lacher Hydrologic Consulting, Tucson, AZ Bob Prucha, PhD, PE, Integrated Hydro Systems, LLC, Boulder, CO Study Commissioned by PARA • Purpose of Study: − To evaluate potential hydrologic impacts of South32’s proposed discharge of treated water from the Hermosa Project to Harshaw Creek as described in August 2020 AZPDES and APP applications. South32’s Proposed Action • South32 (parent company to Arizona Minerals, Inc.) proposes dewatering of Hermosa Project area ~ 5 miles south of the Town of Patagonia to facilitate underground mining. 1) Taylor Deposit (zinc, lead, silver) 2) Clark Deposit (zinc, manganese, silver) Initial dewatering rate up to 4500 gpm Treated water discharged to Harshaw Cr. Hermosa Project Modified from Clear Creek Assoc., Aug 2020, APP Significant Amend. Applic P-512235, fig. 1. Motivating Factors for PARA Existing Flood Potential on Harshaw Creek and in Town of Patagonia South32’s conclusion of no surface water impact in Sonoita Cr. History of Flooding in Patagonia 2017 Watershed Management Plan Perennial flows along Sonoita and lower parts of tributaries shown Streamflow at Patagonia-Sonoita Cr. Preserve (m3/s) Recent Harshaw Elevated Baseflows – amplify flood potential Creek Flooding Data courtesy of The Nature Conservancy Sonoita Cr Watershed Precipitation (mm) Sonoita Cr Watershed Precipitation (mm) 8/7/16-8/12/16 7/15/17-7/24/17 Harshaw Creek Flows Harshaw Creek Flows July 22, 2017 August 9, 2016 Key Points • Monsoonal storms leading to Discharge on Harshaw Cr relatively typical annual monsoon storm events • Preceding storms increase surface saturation and runoff South32 Findings (presented July 21-22, 2020) Literature Review Documents Reviewed Proposed New Discharge from WTP2 to Harshaw Creek Study Objectives 1. Evaluate effects of 4500 gpm mine dewatering discharge from WTP2 on: • Streamflow − Harshaw Cr − Sonoita Cr • Conveyance of Mine Discharge − Natural regime PLUS mine dewatering − Along Harshaw Cr − Through town of Patagonia • Groundwater − Groundwater-dependent ecosystems − Aquifer storage changes 2. Assess baseline hydrologic conditions and controlling factors 3. Develop a robust numerical model of Sonoita Cr watershed applicable to other problems Integrated Modeling MIKESHE by DHI https://www.mikepoweredbydhi.com/products/mike-she MIKESHE / MIKEHydro flexible process descriptions • Choice of spatial and temporal scales (depends on processes): • Groundwater (days to years) • Surface water (seconds to hours) • Unsaturated flow (seconds to years) • Process time scales independent and automatically controlled • Choice of processes to include in model • Choice of simple to complex solutions • Groundwater flow virtually identical to MODFLOW. ● Green and Ampt • FEMA‐approved fully hydrodynamic, surface water hydraulic model MIKESHE Model Development Approach Distributed NLDAS Meterological Data USGS Data (3 hourly) ADWR Data (Geology and -Air temp Wells/Water levels) -Precip -PET Soil Vegetation Model Landuse Development Snow Depths Preliminary Stream Q (Phase 1) Heads Updated parameters, Time- varying distributed Recharge & AET Integrated Model ET Soil Moisture Calibration Water Quality (2000 to 2020) Preliminary Predictive Local Scale Uncertainty Scenarios Regional Model (Phase 2) (Phase 1) Analysis (Phase 2) Model Scenarios Hermosa Mine Refine Calibration (More accurate/improved resolution) (account for WTP Discharge uncertain inputs) (4500 gpm) Conceptual Model Springs – can occur at Generalized Conceptual Basin Flow Model faults when upgradient GW forced to surface. Alluvial ‘Valley’ Fill (along Sonoita 10 m Creek) - High permeability gravel/sand matrix interbedded with clay/silt lenses controls ‘bank’ storage. Clays/silts limit vertical flows and surface infiltration Relatively thin veneerUnweathered of Bedrockhigh 790 m permeability colluvium (3 to 6 m) supports vegetation. Unweathered Bedrock Weathered Bedrock zone – Most productive wells fractured, higher permeability than screened in alluvium; underlying unweathered bedrock. some enhanced by Perches GW in overlying colluvium faulting – critical control on streamflow. Fault – impedes flow across Unweathered Bedrock –low it. Heads higher on permeability, isotropic unfractured. upgradient side. Many wells screened in bedrock Conceptualization of Unsaturated Zone Flow Variable soil types Strongly control ET dynamics, infiltration & recharge to aquifer Saturation increases above clay layers Influences infiltration and recharge to groundwater Unsaturated Zone Moisture Deficit draws water Groundwater Recharge UPWARD from water table Response to stream stage (capillary draw). Macropores rapid recharge Shallow, low Perched Flow – above shallow Surface Water Runoff permeability bedrock bedrock Mechanisms Shallow bedrock • Causes rapid surface saturation, increasing runoff • True in many areas Low permeability soils with deeper GW table & bedrock Shallow groundwater table • Runoff occurs as ‘Hortonian Flow’ • Limits aquifer storage (i.e., rainfall rate exceeds infiltration capacity). capacity • Unlikely in most storms • “Rejects” infiltrating water, low permeability increasing runoff bedrock Evidence for Runoff Mechanism Surface water discharge appears strongly controlled by shallow GW table (locally-perched or connected to regional aquifer) for several reasons: • Reported range of soil permeability doesn’t produce peaky discharge (i.e., Hortonian runoff) • Aquifer storage effects apparent in surface discharge at Preserve gage • Relatively shallow GW beneath town/Sonoita Cr • Perennial flow along lower reaches of most tributaries and downstream of Town where shallow bedrock forces GW to surface. (eg, TNC preserve) Shallow groundwater Shallow bedrock low permeability bedrock Streamflow at Precipitation at Patagonia-Sonoita Cr Preserve* Delayed stream flow response * Data courtesy of The Nature Conservancy REGIONAL Model Setup/Assumptions Model Domain, Discretization, and Hydraulic Network • 500 m grid cells Mt Wrightson • Entire Sonoita Cr watershed Cienega Cr Watershed • Sonoita Creek and main tributaries • Patagonia Lake Patagonia Town of Lake Patagonia Proposed WTP2 Discharge Location Sonoita Cr Watershed Climate Data NLDAS Zones (11.4 km x 13.8 km spacing) • NASA’s National Land Data Acquisition System (NLDAS) data • Hourly Rainfall, Potential Evapotranspiration (PET), and Air Temperature (2000 through 2020) Can supplement with • Benefits of NLDAS dataset: local weather station data • spatially distributed (~11.4 x 13.8 km grid) • no data gaps • hourly consistency between rain, PET and air temperature. These data ‘drive’ the hydrologic and snowmelt response. Precipitation (mm/day) • Elevation lapse rates adjust rain and air temp account for orographic effects. SNOWMELT PARAMETERS • Melting Temperature – 0º C (uniform) Hourly Air Temp (C) Potential ET • Degree Day Coeff – 4 mm/C/day (mm/day) • Maximum Wet Snow Fraction – 0.1 • Thermal melting (from rain heat on snow) included – Melt Coeff – 0.131/C B HermosaMine ran c h 17 MIKEHYDRO_HermosaMine_CrossSections Bran MIKEHYDRO_HermosaMine_Branches Unsaturated ch 5 MSHEmodel_Sonoita B r an ch Faults_MSHEcombinedREVISED 19 Zone Places (Outline) Bran Cnty Bnds (detailed, named) ch 2 Bran ch 18 SSURGO (0 to 100 cm) • USDA - SSURGO Soil Ksat values x1e-6 m/s 0 - 4.2 Survey data 4.3 - 9 B ranch 20 9.1 - 16.3 • Similar to AZGS 16.4 - 26.9 27 - 66.1 UV83 B Branch ra 24 66.2 - 189.1 Surficial Geology and 4 n c 1 B h h c ra 2 189.2 - 425 n n 2 a r c h supported by well logs B 6 UV82 3 • Saturated hydraulic h 2 Santa Cruz Branc Branch ch 12 2 an 1 conductivity values Br 13 ch 6 n 1 H a h a shown for top 100 cm. r rs c ha B n w ra C Branch B r 4 eek • These data converted into AlumGulch B ra n c h 8 MIKESHE soil types. 9 h c n S a on r o B itaCr eek • Assumed uniform to B ran ch higher elevation of 10 11 h c an either groundwater table Br or bedrock surface. UV289 §¨¦19 ± 02461 Miles Clays present in Harshaw Creek MUD CRACKS and Valley Alluvium Middle Harshaw Cr. (Nassereddin, 1967) 55‐536795 !< ") Hermosa Project Borehole Logs 8 h nc a ") Br Alu mG !< u ") lc!<h BH-14 #* ") Harshaw Creek BH-01 #* BH-12 #* #* ") TP-02 Newfield_Mine_boreholes_pits ") ") #* #* ME TP-25 BH-11 BH-10#* ") -520.7 - -480.1 #* TP-07 #* #* #* ") -480.0 - -100.0 #* BH-09 -99.9 - -50.0 TP-53 #* BH-16 ") #* #* ") -49.9 - -10.0 TP-06 ") ") BH-15 ") -9.9 - -5.0 #* ") -4.9 - -3.0 TP-08 #* -2.9 - 3.0 #* ") 3.1 - 5.0 ") 5.1 - 10.0 ") ") 10.1 - 50.0 ") 50.1 - 100.0 ") 100.1 - 390.4 MIKEHYDRO_HermosaMine_CrossSections MIKEHYDRO_HermosaMine_Branches ") GWmodelboundary Streams_all 00.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 Cnty Bnds (detailed, named) Miles Most logs show soils overlying bedrock have significant clays & silts – even within Harshaw Creek. Looking down Sonoita Creek toward 3D Lithologic Model – Deposits Overlying Bedrock Patagonia Patagonia Borehole Lithology from ADWR’s Well55 Registry Driller’s Logs Patagonia Lake Lithologic Color Legend Increasing Permeability Bedrock Patagonia Sonoita Cr Clays Silts Sands Gravels WTP2 Saturated Zone 4 model layers 10 m Layers 1 & 2 (alluvium & weathered bedrock) Unweathered Bedrock 790 m Layer 3 – Weathered Bedrock Unweathered Bedrock Layer 4 – Competent Bedrock Depths to bedrock increase rapidly into Unconsolidated Material Thickness - Isopach Cienega Creek watershed to north B ranc h 17 Thickness data shows
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 1
    Appendix 1. Summary of location, basin, and hydrological-regime characteristics for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona and parts of adjacent states that were used to calibrate hydrological-regime models [Hydrologic provinces: 1, Plateau Uplands; 2, Central Highlands; 3, Basin and Range Lowlands; e, value not present in database and was estimated for the purpose of model development] Average percent of Latitude, Longitude, Site Complete Number of Percent of year with Hydrologic decimal decimal Hydrologic altitude, Drainage area, years of perennial years no flow, Identifier Name unit code degrees degrees province feet square miles record years perennial 1950-2005 09379050 LUKACHUKAI CREEK NEAR 14080204 36.47750 109.35010 1 5,750 160e 5 1 20% 2% LUKACHUKAI, AZ 09379180 LAGUNA CREEK AT DENNEHOTSO, 14080204 36.85389 109.84595 1 4,985 414.0 9 0 0% 39% AZ 09379200 CHINLE CREEK NEAR MEXICAN 14080204 36.94389 109.71067 1 4,720 3,650.0 41 0 0% 15% WATER, AZ 09382000 PARIA RIVER AT LEES FERRY, AZ 14070007 36.87221 111.59461 1 3,124 1,410.0 56 56 100% 0% 09383200 LEE VALLEY CR AB LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.50204 1 9,440e 1.3 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383220 LEE VALLEY CREEK TRIBUTARY 15020001 33.93894 109.50204 1 9,440e 0.5 6 0 0% 49% NEAR GREER, ARIZ. 09383250 LEE VALLEY CR BL LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.49787 1 9,400e 1.9 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383400 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER AT GREER, 15020001 34.01671 109.45731 1 8,283 29.1 22 22 100% 0% ARIZ.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Flows and Water Demands in Arizona
    Environmental Flows and Water A University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center Project Demands in Arizona ater is an increasingly scarce resource and is essential for Arizona’s future. Figure 1. Elements of Environmental Flow WWith Arizona’s population growth and Occurring in Seasonal Hydrographs continued drought, citizens and water managers have been taking a closer look at water supplies in the state. Municipal, industrial, and agricul- tural water users are well-represented demand sectors, but water supplies and management to benefit the environment are not often consid- ered. This bulletin explains environmental water demands in Arizona and introduces information essential for considering environmental water demands in water management discussions. Considering water for the environment is impor- tant because humans have an interconnected and interdependent relationship with the envi- ronment. Nature provides us recreation oppor- tunities, economic benefits, and water supplies Data Source: to sustain our communities. USGS stream gage data Figure 2: Human Demand and Current Flow in Arizona Environmental water demands (or environmental flow) (circle size indicates relative amount of water) refers to how much water is needed in a watercourse to sustain a healthy ecosystem. Defining environmental water demand goes beyond the ecology and hydrol- Maximum ogy of a system and should include consideration for Flows how much water is required to achieve an agreed Industrial 40.8 maf Industrial SW Municipal upon level of river health, as determined by the GW 1% GW 8% water-using community. Arizona’s native ani- 4% mals and plants depend upon dynamic flows commonly described according to the natural Municipal SW flow regime.
    [Show full text]
  • Cienegas Vanishing Climax Communities of the American
    Hendrickson and Minckley Cienegas of the American Southwest 131 Abstract Cienegas The term cienega is here applied to mid-elevation (1,000-2,000 m) wetlands characterized by permanently saturated, highly organic, reducing soils. A depauperate Vanishing Climax flora dominated by low sedges highly adapted to such soils characterizes these habitats. Progression to cienega is Communities of the dependent on a complex association of factors most likely found in headwater areas. Once achieved, the community American Southwest appears stable and persistent since paleoecological data indicate long periods of cienega conditions, with infre- quent cycles of incision. We hypothesize the cienega to be an aquatic climax community. Cienegas and other marsh- land habitats have decreased greatly in Arizona in the Dean A. Hendrickson past century. Cultural impacts have been diverse and not Department of Zoology, well documented. While factors such as grazing and Arizona State University streambed modifications contributed to their destruction, the role of climate must also be considered. Cienega con- and ditions could be restored at historic sites by provision of ' constant water supply and amelioration of catastrophic W. L. Minckley flooding events. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dexter Fish Hatchery Introduction and Department of Zoology Written accounts and photographs of early explorers Arizona State University and settlers (e.g., Hastings and Turner, 1965) indicate that most pre-1890 aquatic habitats in southeastern Arizona were different from what they are today. Sandy, barren streambeds (Interior Strands of Minckley and Brown, 1982) now lie entrenched between vertical walls many meters below dry valley surfaces. These same streams prior to 1880 coursed unincised across alluvial fills in shallow, braided channels, often through lush marshes.
    [Show full text]
  • Water, Summer 2008
    Restoring Connections Vol. 11 Issue 2 Summer 2008 Newsletter of the Sky Island Alliance In this issue: A River Runs Beneath It by Randy Serraglio 4 Time and the Aquifer: Models and Long-term Thinking Water… by Julia Fonseca 5 Street and Public Rights-of-Way: Community Corridors of Heat & Dehydration OR Green Belts of Coolness & Rehydration by Brad Lancaster 6 A New Path for Water Use by Melissa Lamberton 7 The Power of Water by Janice Przybyl 8 Our special pull-out section on Ciénegas Monitoring Water with Remote Cameras by Sergio Avila 9 Waste Water / Holy Water by Ken Lamberton 10 Coyote Wells by Julia Fonseca 12 Finding Water in the Desert by Gary Williams 12 H2Oly Stories by Doug Bland 13 Restaurant Review: The Adobe Café & Bakery by Mary Rakestraw 14 Volunteers Make It Happen Rio Saracachi at Rancho Agua Fria in Sonora. by Sarah Williams 16 From the Director’s Desk: Swimming Holes and Groundwater by Matt Skroch, Executive Director Rivers and springs have been used to our several decades, or centuries, the water table will agricultural advantage for 12,000 years here, once again seep upwards to ground level, and though unsustainable groundwater mining is a those low points on the landscape we call rivers relatively new phenomena. We’ve discovered will flow once again. other temporary ways around the problem of increasing water scarcity — billions of dollars Either choice will eventually lead nature back to spent to pump water uphill for 330 miles being better days. The difference being that one choice Few experiences compare to the exhilaration of one spectacular example.
    [Show full text]
  • San Pedro River Study Area Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report
    Prepared by the USDI Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Tucson Field Office May 2016 The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land, the most of any Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM's mission is to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield. Cover photo – San Pedro River near Charleston courtesy of BLM/Bob Wick 2 San Pedro River Wild and Scenic River Study Area Eligibility Report This document consolidates resource information about the San Pedro River and one of its key tributaries, the Babocomari River. The purpose of this document is to provide a basis for reassessing the eligibility and suitability for inclusion of the San Pedro River and related free- flowing conditions and outstandingly remarkable river values into the National Wild and Scenic River System. I. BACKGROUND: The San Pedro River Wild and Scenic River Study Area Eligibility Report describes the information considered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the eligibility, and tentative re-classification of the San Pedro River for suitability analysis in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) Resource Management Plan (RMP). The SPRNCA was established by Public Law (P.L.) 100-696 on Nov. 18, 1988 to preserve, protect, and enhance the aquatic, wildlife, archaeological, paleontological, scientific, cultural, educational, and recreational resources in the conservation area.
    [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]
  • Flood Insurance Study Vol. 1
    SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, ARIZONA AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 OF 3 Community Community Name Number SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 040090 NOGALES, CITY OF 040091 PATAGONIA, TOWN OF 040092 Santa Cruz County EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 2, 2011 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 04023CV001A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS report may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 through A30 AE B X C X Initial Countywide FIS Report Effective Date: December 2, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS – VOLUME 1 Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Cruz County Before the Arizona Navigable
    SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ... BEFORE THE ARIZONA NAVIGABLE STREAM ADJUDICATION COMMISSION IN THE MA ITER OF THE NAVIGABILITY OF SMALL AND MINOR WATERCOURSES IN SANTA No.: 03-001-NA V CRUZ COUNTY, ARIZONA, EXCLUDING THE SANTA CRUZ RIVER REPORT, FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION REGARDING THE NAVIGABILITY OF SMALL AND MINOR WATERCOURSES IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, ARIZONA Spanish travelers or settlers in Santa Cruz County until 1691 when a Jesuit missionary, Father Eusebio Francisco Kino carne to the valley to establish missions and convert indigenous populations to Christianity. The impact Father Kino had on Santa Cruz County, either directly or indirectly, cannot be underestimated. The first large settlement of the area was the Jesuit mission of Santa Maria Soarnca, later known as Santa Cruz. which was located south of the border in Mexico. Father Kino used the Santa Cruz valley extensively as a travel route into the northern portion of Pirneria Alta. His missionary efforts in the twenty years between 1691 and his death in 1711 led to the establishment of three missions along the Santa Cruz River, including Tumacacori just north of Nogales. Other smaller mission posts and visitas were established at Tubac and north of Santa Cruz County at San Xavier del Bac and San Augustine de Tucson. The greatest impact Kino and subsequent missionaries had in Santa Cruz County, and especially the Santa Cruz valley, was the introduction of new technologies in crops and domestic animals. This led to an expansion of farming by the Pima Indians and Spanish settlers. The missions' crops relied on irrigation primarily from the Santa Cruz River, although Sonoita Creek was also used where surface waters flowed through canals, some of which may have been originally dug by the Hohokarn.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping of Holocene River Alluvium Along the San Pedro River, Aravaipa Creek, and Babocomari River, Southeastern Arizona
    Mapping of Holocene River Alluvium along the San Pedro River, Aravaipa Creek, and Babocomari River, Southeastern Arizona by Joseph P. Cook, Ann Youberg, Philip A. Pearthree, Jill A. Onken, Bryan J. MacFarlane, David E. Haddad, Erica R. Bigio, Andrew L. Kowler A Report to the Adjudication and Technical Support Section Statewide Planning Division Arizona Department of Water Resources Report accompanies Arizona Geological Survey Digital Map DM-RM-1 Map Scale 1:24,000 (6 sheets), 76 p. Originally issued, July 2009 Version 1.1 released, October 2009 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W Congress St., #100, Tucson, AZ 85701 Table of Contents Introduction 3 • Geologic Mapping Methods 3 • Mapping Criteria 3 • Ages of Deposits 5 Mapping the extent of Holocene alluvium 7 • Field data collection and access 8 • Surficial geologic contacts 8 • Soil Survey mapping 8 • Extent of Holocene River Floodplain Alluvium 16 • Geologic Map versions 17 Soil parameters and age estimates for soils in the southern San Pedro Valley 18 San Pedro River Geology and Geomorphology 22 • Geologic History 22 • Historical Change 23 • Geomorphology 24 • Modern channel conditions 24 Babocomari River Geology and Geomorphology 26 • Geologic History 26 • Historical Change 27 • Geomorphology 27 • Modern channel conditions 28 Aravaipa Creek Geology and Geomorphology 30 • Geologic History 30 1 • Historical Change 30 • Geomorphology 32 • Modern channel conditions 33 Geoarchaeological Evaluation 34 • Methods 34 • Results 35 List of map units 42 • Surficial units 42 • Other units 42 • Holocene river alluvium 42 • Pleistocene river alluvium 44 • Piedmont alluvium and surficial deposits 45 • Tertiary basin fill alluvium 51 • Bedrock units 54 References 71 2 Introduction The purpose of these investigations is to document and map the extent of Holocene channel and floodplain alluvium associated with the San Pedro River and its major tributaries in southeastern Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes and Aquatic Habitats of the Upper San Pedro River System, Arizona and Sonora
    FISHES AND AQUATIC HABITATS OF THE UPPER SAN PEDRO RIVER SYSTEM, ARIZONA AND SONORA by W. L. Minckley, Ph.D. Professor of Zoology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287 Final Report for Purchase Order YA-558-CT7-001 U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver Federal Center, Building 50, P.O. Box 25047, Denver, Colorado 80225 March 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Objectives 1 ...................................... DESCRI ON OF THE STUDY AREA 3 ...................................... HISTORIC AQUATIC CONDITIONS 6 .......................................... Man in the Upper San Pedro Valle:- 7 Aquatic Habitats of th,-, Past 10 ......................................... Permanence 13 ..................................... FISHES OF THE SAN PEDRO BASIN 14 ......................................... History of Study 14 Patterns of Ichthyofaunal Chanqe 16 Past Habitats and Fish Communities 19 Habitat Size ..... 20 Measures of Stability 22 Heterogeneity ..... 22 Species' Ecologies Relevant to Available Habitats ..... 23 Category I ..... 23 Category II ..... 27 Category III ..... 29 Category IV ..... 33 FACTORS AFFECTING LIFE HISTORIES OF NATIVE FISHES ... 37 ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF UPSTREAM M -:1.3 OPERATIONS 41 ENHANCEMENT OF SAN PEDRO RIVER FISH HABITATS ... 46 Semi-natural Habitats 47 Rehabilitation of the Natural Channel ...51 REINTRODUCTIONS AND MANAGEMENT OF NATIVE FISHES ...53 Philosophies,, 'roblems, and Realism= 53 Recommendations for Reintroduction and Management ...57 BIBLIOGRAPHY 62 INTRODUCTION Acquisition of much of the upper San Pedro River in the United States by the Bureau of Land Management (USBLM; Rosenkrance 1986) and its proposed designation as a "San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area" (hereafter Conservation Area; USBLM 1986) presents a possibility for protection and management of a Southwestern stream and its plant and animal resources. Part of those resources are fishes, which due to their absolute dependence on surface water are sorely endangered.
    [Show full text]
  • FACT SHEET Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Cienega Creek Basin: a 2000-2001 Baseline Study – November 2012
    FACT SHEET Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Cienega Creek Basin: A 2000-2001 Baseline Study – November 2012 INTRODUCTION A baseline groundwater quality study of the Cienega Creek basin was conducted in 2000-2001 by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Program. ADEQ conducted this monitoring pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §49-225 that mandates ongoing monitoring of waters of the state including its aquifers. The fact sheet is a synopsis of the ADEQ Open File Report 12-02.1 The Cienega Creek groundwater basin includes approximately 606 square miles in southeastern Arizona within Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz counties (Map 1).2 The Cienega Creek basin is a narrow, northwest-trending alluvial valley surrounded by fault-block mountains with- in the basin and range physiographic province. The basin is bounded on the west by the Santa Rita and Empire Mountains, on the north by the Rincon Mountains, on the east by the Whetstone and Mustang Mountains, and on the south by the Canelo Hills and Patagonia Mountains. In 2000, the basin had a population of 4,355 which includes the town of Patagonia and the community of Sonoita.2 The basin predominantly consists of federal land (53 percent) including the Coronado National Forest managed by the Forest Service (41 percent) and the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area administered by the Bureau of Land Management (12 percent). State Trust Figure 1 - Windmills are a popular method of pumping ground- lands (24 percent) and private holdings (23 percent) water in the Cienega Creek basin. This well is located near the constitute the remainder of the basin.2 town of Sonoita in grasslands made verdant by monsoon precipitation.
    [Show full text]