DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Flows and Water Demands in Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. The natural flow regime con- 14% Agricultu ral Minimum tains five elements of water flow: magnitude SW Flows Agricultural (how much), duration (how long), frequency 45% 1.2 maf GW (how often), timing (how predictable) and 28% Median Flows rate of change (how variable). These species 12.2 maf are part of larger riparian (along the stream) Total Human or aquatic (within the stream) ecosystems sus- Demand in 2006 = 6.8 maf* SW= Surface Water tained by water in streams and aquifers that GW= Groundwater maf = Million acre-feet often vary widely depending on the year and season. Important biological events like reproduc- tion are cued within these ecosystems by seasonal flood events (e.g. timing) and constant flows (e.g. dura- *In 2006 an additional 0.016 maf of effluent was also used to meet demand tion). The natural flow regime is graphi- Data Sources: ADWR 2010 (streamflow as measured by gages), WRDC 2011 (human demand) cally displayed in Figure 1 through a sea- sonal hydrograph of the San Pedro River. Although significant amounts of water flow through and are used by the environment, it is not generally rep- resented as a piece of the total demand “pie”. Statewide water demand is shown in Figure 2 by comparing the relative scale of human water demands by sector to the minimum, median, and maximum stream flows avail- able in the environment. The total size of the pie chart of human demands (far left) reflects the 6.8 million acre- feet withdrawn or diverted by municipal, industrial, and agricultural water using sectors in 2006. Median annual stream flow on major perennial streams (right side of figure) is about double the amount used by all human demand sectors, while maximum flood flows are six times greater. 1 Figure 3: Water Demand and Use in Arizona (Arrows indicate relative size Streamow Riparian of demand and recharge) Evapotranspiration Industrial Use Agricultural Use Municipal Use = Demand = Recharge Groundwater Streamow Contribution Recharge to Flow Groundwater Data Source: WRDC 2011 Figure 4: Location of Streams Studied for Environmental Interactions between Arizona’s streamflow, Flow Needs or Flow Responses groundwater, and human demands are shown in Figure 3. Note that all human sectors return some water to the environment after use. Also, water traveling through a river to farming or domestic uses downstream can support aquatic and riparian ecosystems along the way. These connections between environmental and human demands create opportunities for mutually beneficial water management. To consider the environment alongside other water sectors, we must study the water demands of ecosystems. Figure 4 shows a geographic representation of where in Ari- zona streams have been studied, with Table 1 providing companion information for what element(s) were explored; both are color coded based on the number of elements studied. Although some Arizona streams have been studied for all five flow elements, most do not address the flow demands and responses for the whole ecosystem. The geography of where we know something about science of environmental flow needs and responses in Arizona is in part driven by the legal, social, economic, and political land- scape of the state, with some rivers receiving more studies then others because of available funding, community interest, or laws that apply to the river. Data Source: WRRC 2011 2 To determine the extent of information available on environmental flow needs and responses in Arizona the WRRC identified and reviewed ninety-two studies for the Arizona Environmental Water Needs Assessment. This review revealed that only 20% of all Arizona stream reaches have been studied: 35% of all perennial (those that flow year-round) and 8% of all intermittent (those that flow part of the year). Of the studies reviewed, 53 pro- vided quantified information on flow needs, flow responses, or both. Most looked at multiple species; studies on the flow needs and responses of riparian trees such as cottonwood, willow and tamarisk were most common. The remaining 39 studies reviewed provided either descriptions of flow needs and responses, e.g., increased flooding frequency caused greater abundance, or did not describe flow needs or responses at all, providing instead information on economic values or reports from monitoring efforts. Statewide, ecosystem-level flow requirements remain poorly understood. Only five studies in Arizona have defined flow volumes needed for a riparian or aquatic ecosystem. Truly dynamic recommendations for minimum flows for each season, ranges of flow needs, frequency, rate of change, and size of flood flows are available for one river in the state, the Bill Williams River. Small scale studies that prescribe flows for a single reach exist in some areas, but cannot be applied across basins or regions. Two areas of agreement have emerged from studies done across the state: (1) riparian areas need both access to sufficient groundwater and carefully-timed flood flows to maintain water levels for established plants and for new plant growth; and (2) change to any element of flow can impact Arizona’s aquatic and riparian ecosystems if flows are altered beyond the range of tolerance of native species. Table 1: Rivers Studied for Environmental Flow Needs and Flow Responses S = Reach (% of stream surveyed), S = Entire stream surveyed, NS = Not surveyed Timing of Rate of Magnitude Duration Frequency River Name Flow Change (% Studied) S S Agua Fria River NS NS NS (22%) (22%) Arivaca Creek S S NS NS S Aravaipa Creek S S NS NS S Babocomari River S NS NS S NS Bill Williams River S S S S S Bonita Creek S NS NS NS NS S S S Cienega Creek S S (88%) (88%) (88%) Cherry Creek S NS NS NS NS S Colorado River S S S S (67%) Eagle Creek S NS NS NS NS E. Verde River S NS NS S NS S S S Gila River NS NS (45%) (10%) (23%) Hassayampa River S S S S S Little Colorado River S S S S S Oak Creek S NS S S NS Pinto Creek S S S NS NS S S Rincon Creek S S S (61%) (61%) Sabino Creek S S NS NS S Salt River S NS NS NS NS San Francisco River S NS NS NS NS San Pedro River S S S S S Santa Cruz River S S NS NS S Sonoita Creek S NS S NS S Sycamore Creek S S S NS NS Tanque Verde Wash S NS S NS S Verde River S S S S S Data Source: WRRC 2011 3 Figure 5: Sample Process for Identifying and Addressing Vulnerability Information on the relation- Sample Process for Identifying(for demonstration and Addressing purposes Vulnerability only, not an actual vulnerability assessment) ships between components of flow and biological factors may be used for considering potential impacts of future + + = water decisions. Areas need- ing protection or restoration Areas of potential can be identified by compar- vulnerability Known Resources Protections Stressors Potential Vulnerability ing various environmental (e.g., springs, perennial streams,) (e.g., conservation land, (e.g., increasing population, (areas where there are flow demands, such as spe- Wild and Scenic River climate change impacts) resources and stressors but cies-specific water demands, Designation) no or few protections) with current conditions. A sample process for how this information may be used to assess vulnerability is shown in Figure 5. + These pages present a brief overview of the information available for Arizona; more Management Options to Species Flow Requirements Current Flow Levels and Depth to Water Mitigate Vulnerability detailed information orga- (to understand how much water species in (to understand how much water species (e.g., seasonal pumping restric- nized by region (see below) vulnerable areas need) currently have) tions in sensitive areas, water are available on the WRRC conservation requirements website and in hardcopy, by request. Additional resources to help inform planning efforts throughout the state are available by contacting the WRRC. How Can This Information be Applied? Regional Bulletins Available 1. Determine how environmental flows interact with other demand sectors 2. Identify factors putting environmental flows at risk 3. Identify studies needed to address Colorado River key information gaps about Colorado River at Imperial National Wildlife North/Northeastern Refuge, Arizona.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR
    Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR Colorado River at Mile 50. Cover: Salt River. Letter from the President ivers are the great treasury of noted scientists and other experts reviewed the survey design, and biological diversity in the western state-specific experts reviewed the results for each state. RUnited States. As evidence mounts The result is a state-by-state list of more than 250 of the West’s that climate is changing even faster than we outstanding streams, some protected, some still vulnerable. The feared, it becomes essential that we create Great Rivers of the West is a new type of inventory to serve the sanctuaries on our best, most natural rivers modern needs of river conservation—a list that Western Rivers that will harbor viable populations of at-risk Conservancy can use to strategically inform its work. species—not only charismatic species like salmon, but a broad range of aquatic and This is one of 11 state chapters in the report. Also available are a terrestrial species. summary of the entire report, as well as the full report text. That is what we do at Western Rivers Conservancy. We buy land With the right tools in hand, Western Rivers Conservancy is to create sanctuaries along the most outstanding rivers in the West seizing once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to acquire and protect – places where fish, wildlife and people can flourish. precious streamside lands on some of America’s finest rivers. With a talented team in place, combining more than 150 years This is a time when investment in conservation can yield huge of land acquisition experience and offices in Oregon, Colorado, dividends for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trail Inventory of U.S
    The Trail Inventory of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Stations in Arizona Prepared By: Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division March 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. AZ STATE SUMMARY Table of Contents 1-1 List of Refuges 1-2 Mileage by Trail Class, Condition, and Surface 1-3 2-9. REFUGE SUMMARIES Mileage by Trail Class, Condition, and Surface X-1 Trail Location Map X-2 Trail Identification X-3 Condition and Deficiency Sheets X-4 Photographic Sheets X-5 10. APPENDIX Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 10-1 Trail Classification System 10-4 1-1 FWS Stations in Arizona with Trails Station Name Trail Miles Chapter Bill Williams River NWR 0.27 2 Buenos Aires NWR 6.62 3 Cabeza Prieta NWR 0.16 4 Cibola NWR 0.91 5 Havasu NWR 0.22 6 Imperial NWR 1.31 7 Leslie Canyon NWR 1.47 8 San Bernardino NWR 2.39 9 1-2 Arizona NWR Trail and Summaries Trail Miles and Percentages by Surface Type and Condition Mileage by Trail Condition Total Trail Surface Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Rated* Miles Type MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % Native 7.91 59% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0% 8.43 Gravel 0.96 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.96 Asphalt 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Concrete 0.27 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.27 Turnpike 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Boardwalk 0.26 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.26 Puncheon 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Woodchips 0.05 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.05 Admin Road 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.36 25% 3.36 Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Totals 9.45 71% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 3.36 25% 13.33 Trail Miles and Percentages by Trail Classification and Condition Mileage by Trail Condition Total Trail Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Rated* Miles Classification MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % TC1 2.60 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.60 TC2 1.88 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.88 TC3 1.04 8% 0% 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0.97 7% 2.33 TC4 3.61 27% 0.20 2% 0% 0% 0% 2.39 18% 6.20 TC5 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.32 Totals 9.45 71% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 3.36 25% 13.33 * Admin Roads are included in the inventory but are not rated for condition.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • PETRIFIED FOREST: a Playground for Wildlife Baseball’S Back!
    Spring PETRIFIED FOREST: A Playground for Wildlife Baseball’s Back! arizonahighways.com march 2003 MARCH 2003 page 50 COVER NATURE 55 GENE PERRET’S WIT STOP 6 14 If you’d like a good Surprise, drive northwest of Survival in the Grasslands A Bevy of Blooms Phoenix — and don’t ask Why. Preserving masked bobwhite quail and and Butterflies pronghorn antelope also rebuilds the habitat 44 HUMOR at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. Delicate-winged beauties and dazzling floral displays await at the Phoenix Desert Botanical 2 LETTERS AND E-MAIL Garden’s Butterfly Pavilion. 22 PORTFOLIO 46 DESTINATION Arizona’s in Love with INDIANS Lowell Observatory 18 Visitors get telescope time, too, at this noted Baseball Spring Training Butterfly Myths institution, home to 27 full-time astronomers doing pioneering research. The Cactus League’s 10 major league teams The gentle, fluttering insects take on varied have a devoted following, including visitors symbolic roles in many Indian cultures. 3 TAKING THE OFF-RAMP from out of state. Explore Arizona oddities, attractions and pleasures. HISTORY TRAVEL 32 54 EXPERIENCE ARIZONA 38 Hike a Historic Trail Go on a hike or pan for gold in Apache Junction to Life in a Stony Landscape Retrace the southern Arizona route of Spain’s commemorate treasure hunting in the Superstition Come spring, the Petrified Forest National Juan Bautista de Anza, who led the 18th-century Mountains; help the Tohono O’odham Indians celebrate Park is abuzz with critters and new plants. colonization of San Francisco. their heritage and see their arts and crafts in Ajo; and enjoy the re-enactment of mountain man skills in Oatman.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2021 Arizona Office of Tourism Monthly State Parks Visitation Report
    June 2021 Arizona Office of Tourism Monthly State Parks Visitation Report Arizona State Park Visitation June June 2021 2020 YTD State Park % Chg 2021 2020 YTD YTD % Chg Alamo Lake SP 1,237 1,924 -35.7% 48,720 46,871 3.9% Buckskin Mountain SP 11,092 9,292 19.4% 49,439 45,627 8.4% Catalina SP 6,598 2,420 172.6% 154,763 156,234 -0.9% Cattail Cove SP 10,138 14,908 -32.0% 52,221 67,256 -22.4% Colorado River SHP 167 57 193.0% 2,589 6,220 -58.4% Dead Horse Ranch SP 17,142 18,748 -8.6% 126,799 120,044 5.6% Fool Hollow Lake RA 16,380 25,104 -34.8% 55,360 63,341 -12.6% Fort Verde SHP 706 521 35.5% 4,672 2,654 76.0% Granite Mountain Hotshots MSP 1,076 1,380 -22.0% 11,778 14,874 -20.8% Homolovi SP 4,032 1,982 103.4% 22,007 11,470 91.9% Jerome SHP 4,099 1,991 105.9% 21,789 14,109 54.4% Kartchner Caverns SP 7,776 2,045 280.2% 44,020 57,663 -23.7% Lake Havasu SP 66,040 74,493 -11.3% 241,845 337,920 -28.4% Lost Dutchman SP 4,198 3,651 15.0% 122,844 132,399 -7.2% Lyman Lake SP 11,169 10,625 5.1% 30,755 38,074 -19.2% McFarland SHP 166 0 1,213 2,942 -58.8% Oracle SP 270 486 -44.4% 6,994 9,191 -23.9% Patagonia Lake SP 25,058 30,706 -18.4% 118,311 126,873 -6.7% Picacho Peak SP 1,893 1,953 -3.1% 64,084 68,800 -6.9% Red Rock SP 12,963 6,118 111.9% 56,356 33,228 69.6% Riordan Mansion SHP 777 0 2,188 2,478 -11.7% River Island SP 2,623 3,004 -12.7% 18,089 19,411 -6.8% Roper Lake SP 8,049 12,394 -35.1% 52,924 49,738 6.4% Slide Rock SP 54,922 33,491 64.0% 231,551 110,781 109.0% Tombstone Courthouse SHP 2,875 1,465 96.2% 18,261 16,394 11.4% Tonto Natural Bridge SP 8,146 7,161 13.8% 54,950 36,557 50.3% Tubac Presidio SHP 261 117 123.1% 4,240 2,923 45.1% Yuma Territorial Prison SHP 2,206 1,061 107.9% 28,672 26,505 8.2% Total All Parks 282,059 267,097 5.6% 1,647,434 1,620,577 1.7% Note: Dankworth Pond SP data is included in Roper Lake SP, Sonoita Creek SNA is included in Patagonia Lake SP and Verde River Greenway SNA is included in Dead Horse Ranch SP.
    [Show full text]
  • The Arizona Nature Conservancy Conservancy 300 East University Boulevard, Suite 230, Tucson, Arizona 85705 (602) 622-3861
    The Nature The Arizona Nature Conservancy conservancy 300 East University Boulevard, Suite 230, Tucson, Arizona 85705 (602) 622-3861 Memorandum To: Dan Campbell From: Peter Warren Re: Arizona native fishes Date: 26 August 1987 Here is some general information about the status oi native fish in Arizona and the Arizona Nature Conservancy's role in protecting threatened native fish. The pre-settlement fish fauna of Arizona consisted of 31 species of freshwater fish. Through introduction of exotic species, the number of resident fish in Arizona is now over 100 species. Many of the exotic species are either predatory upon or in competition with native species. A combination of introduced exotic species and loss of perennial stream habitat has sharply reduced the number and size of native fish populations. Of the 31 original native fish, one is extinct and four are extirpated in Arizona. Approximately half of the remaining native fish are currently listed or proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered. Although recovery measures are being undertaken, the future of several of the endangered fish is by no means secure. For example, Woundfin survives only in a small part of the Virgin River and its small population could be easily destroyed. Major losses of native fish populations continue to occur. We have Just learned that all of the Mexican populations of Desert Pupfish in the Colorado River delta were apparently destroyed during the last three years due to introduction of Tilapia into the populations by floodwaters of 1983. The single most important factor in protecting the remaining native fish populations is preservation of habitat and insuring stable stream flows.
    [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]
  • Arizona – May/June 2017 Sjef Öllers
    Arizona – May/June 2017 Sjef Öllers Our first holiday in the USA was a relaxed trip with about equal time spent on mammalwatching, birding and hiking, but often all three could be combined. Mammal highlights included White-nosed Coati, Hooded Skunk, Striped Skunk, American Badger and unfortunately brief views of Black-footed Ferret. There were many birding highlights but I was particularly pleased with sightings of Montezuma Quail, Scaled Quail, Red-faced Warbler, Elegant Trogon, Greater Roadrunner, Elf Owl, Spotted Owl, Dusky Grouse and Californian Condor. American Badger Introduction Arizona seemed to offer a good introduction to both the avian and mammalian delights of North America. Our initial plan was to do a comprehensive two-week visit of southeast Arizona, but after some back and forth we decided to include a visit to the Grand Canyon, also because this allowed a visit to Seligman for Badger and Black-footed Ferret and Vermillion Cliffs for Californian Condor. Overall, the schedule worked out pretty well, even if the second part included a lot more driving, although most of the driving was through pleasant or even superb scenery. I was already a little skeptical of including Sedona before the trip, and while I don’t regret having visited the Sedona area, from a mammal and birding perspective it is a destination that could be excluded. Another night in Seligman and more hiking/birding around Flagstaff would probably have been more productive. 1 Timing and Weather By late May/early June the northbound migratory species have largely left southeast Arizona so you mainly get to see the resident birds and summer visitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Eyec Sail Dzan
    Desert Plants, Volume 6, Number 3 (1984) Item Type Article Authors Hendrickson, Dean A.; Minckley, W. L. Publisher University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Desert Plants Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents. The University of Arizona. Download date 27/09/2021 19:02:02 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/552226 Desert Volume 6. Number 3. 1984. (Issued early 1985) Published by The University of Arizona at the Plants Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum eyec sail Dzan Ciénegas Vanishing Climax Communities of the American Southwest Dean A. Hendrickson and W. L. Minckley O'Donnell Ciénega in Arizona's upper San Pedro basin, now in the Canelo Hills Ciénega Preserve of the Nature Conservancy. Ciénegas of the American Southwest have all but vanished due to environmental changes brought about by man. Being well- watered sites surrounded by dry lands variously classified as "desert," "arid," or "semi- arid," they were of extreme importance to pre- historic and modern Homo sapiens, animals and plants of the Desert Southwest. Photograph by Fritz jandrey. 130 Desert Plants 6(3) 1984 (issued early 1985) Desert Plants Volume 6. Number 3. (Issued early 1985) Published by The University of Arizona A quarterly journal devoted to broadening knowledge of plants indigenous or adaptable to arid and sub -arid regions, P.O. Box AB, Superior, Arizona 85273 to studying the growth thereof and to encouraging an appre- ciation of these as valued components of the landscape. The Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum at Superior, Arizona, is sponsored by The Arizona State Parks Board, The Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum, Inc., and The University of Arizona Frank S.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Fish Restoration in Redrock Canyon
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Final Environmental Assessment Phoenix Area Office NATIVE FISH RESTORATION IN REDROCK CANYON U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region Coronado National Forest Santa Cruz County, Arizona June 2008 Bureau of Reclamation Finding of No Significant Impact U.S. Forest Service Finding of No Significant Impact Decision Notice INTRODUCTION In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190, as amended), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as the lead Federal agency, and the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), as cooperating agencies, have issued the attached final environmental assessment (EA) to disclose the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction of a fish barrier, removal of nonnative fishes with the piscicide antimycin A and/or rotenone, and restoration of native fishes and amphibians in Redrock Canyon on the Coronado National Forest (CNF). The Proposed Action is intended to improve the recovery status of federally listed fish and amphibians (Gila chub, Gila topminnow, Chiricahua leopard frog, and Sonora tiger salamander) and maintain a healthy native fishery in Redrock Canyon consistent with the CNF Plan and ongoing Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7(a)(2), consultation between Reclamation and the FWS. BACKGROUND The Proposed Action is part of a larger program being implemented by Reclamation to construct a series of fish barriers within the Gila River Basin to prevent the invasion of nonnative fishes into high-priority streams occupied by imperiled native fishes. This program is mandated by a FWS biological opinion on impacts of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water transfers to the Gila River Basin (FWS 2008a).
    [Show full text]