DOCSLIB.ORG

Sediment Transport in Two Desert Streams in Central Arizona, 1991-92 by JOHN T.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sediment Transport in Two Desert Streams in Central Arizona, 1991-92 by JOHN T.C Channel Change and Sediment Transport in Two Desert Streams in Central Arizona, 1991-92 By JOHN T.C. PARKER U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 95 4059 Prepared in cooperation with the FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Tucson, Arizona 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Section Water Resources Division Box 25286, MS 517 375 South Euclid Avenue Denver Federal Center Tucson, AZ 85719-6644 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Scope of study and purpose of report........................................................................................................ 2 Description of study sites.......................................................................................................................... 4 Salt River........................................................................................................................................... 4 Hassayampa River............................................................................................................................. 6 Flows of 1992............................................................................................................................................ 8 Methods of sediment and channel-change data collection........................................................................ 9 Channel change.................................................................................................................................................. 12 Salt River................................................................................................................................................... 12 Hassayampa River..................................................................................................................................... 13 Sediment transport............................................................................................................................................. 26 Salt River.................................................................................................................................................. 26 Hassayampa River..................................................................................................................................... 30 Discussion.......................................................................................................................................................... 33 Summary and conclusions................................................................................................................................. 35 References cited................................................................................................................................................. 36 Survey data......................................................................................................................................................... 39 FIGURES 1. Map showing location of streamflow-gaging stations and study sites, Salt and Hassayampa Rivers, central Arizona............................................................................................................... 3 2. Diagram showing cross-section and bed-material sampling locations on the Salt River below 16th Street, Phoenix, Arizona.......................................................................................... 4 3. Photographs showing Salt River before winter flows of 1992, Phoenix, Arizona: A. Looking upstream from the 24th Street bridge......................................................................... 5 B. Looking across the channel from the left bank downstream from the 16th Street bridge.................................................................................................................. 5 4. Diagram showing cross-section and bed-material sampling locations on the Hassayampa River below the Southern Pacific Railroad bridge, near ArUngton, Arizona.............................................................................................................. 6 5. Photographs showing Hassayampa River before winter flows of 1992 near ArUngton, Arizona: A. Looking downstream from the Southern Pacific Railroad bridge at the head of the study reach................................................................................................... 7 B. Looking upstream from the old U.S. Highway 80 bridge ....................................................... 7 6. Cross section showing channel topography characteristic of study reach in the Hassayampa River............................................................................................................ 8 7. Hydrographs of flows on the Salt River at 24th Street, Phoenix, Arizona: A. January through April 1992...................................................................................................... 9 B. August 22-31,1992.................................................................................................................. 9 8. Graph showing peak discharges from floods on the Salt River, 1966-92....................................... 10 9. Hydrographs of flows on the Hassayampa River near ArUngton, Arizona: A. January 6,1992 ...................................................................................................................... 10 B. February 7,1992 ...................................................................................................................... 10 C. February 14,1992..................................................................................................................... 10 D. August 22-23,1992.................................................................................................................. 10 E. Decembers, 1992..................................................................................................................... 10 Con'onts III FIGURES Continued Page 10-11. Graphs showing: 10. Annual flood series on the Hassayampa River near Arlington, Arizona, 1961-92................. 11 11. Results of repeat surveys on the Salt River below 16th Street, Phoenix, Arizona.................. 14 12. Photographs showing effects of flows on the Salt River, Phoenix, Arizona, 1992: A, Incised channel below 16th Street near cross section 1........................................................... 16 B. Erosion of boulder revetment and loss of structure at storm-drain outlet below 16th Street near cross section 2........................................................................................... 16 C. Gravel berms between cross sections 4 and 5 about 800 m below 16th Street bridge............ 16 13-15. Graphs showing: 13. Longitudinal profiles of elevation on the Salt River through the study reach before and after winter flows of 1992: A. Thalweg elevation............................................................................................................. 17 B. Mean channel-bed elevation............................................................................................. 17 14. Discharge and gage-height relations at streamflow-gaguig stations on lower Salt River on the basis of discharge measurements made during flows in 1992: A. Salt River at 24th Street, Phoenix, Arizona...................................................................... 18 B. Salt River at Alma School Road near Mesa, Arizona....................................................... 18 15. Results of repeat surveys of 11 cross sections on the Hassayampa River below the Southern Pacific Railroad bridge, near Arlington, Arizona.......................................... 19 16. Photographs showing effects of flows on the Hassayampa River near Arlington, Arizona, 1992: A. Looking downstream at streambank just below cross section 2 after the flow of January 6,1992.......................................................................................... 23 B. Bank erosion after the flow of February 7,1992...................................................................... 23 C. Looking upstream at low terrace near cross section 10 before flow on February 7,1992...................................................................................................... 24 D. Low terrace along right side of channel after the flow on February 7,1992................................................................................................................... 24 17-21. Graphs showing: 17. Longitudinal profiles of elevation on the Hassayampa River through the study reach before and after winter flows of 1992: A. Thalweg elevation............................................................................................................. 25 B. Mean channel-bed elevation............................................................................................. 25 18. Relation of suspended-sediment concentration to time and discharge on the Salt River, Phoenix, Arizona, winter 1992.........................................................................
Load more

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]
  • Hassayampa Landscape Restoration EA Aquatics Resources Report
    Hassayampa Landscape Restoration Environmental Assessment Aquatics Resources Report Prepared by: Albert Sillas Fishery Biologist Prescott National Forest for: Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest August 25, 2017 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Pantano Wash - Rillito River Watershed Arizona Rapid Watershed Assessment June 2007
    Pantano Wash - Rillito River Watershed Arizona Rapid Watershed Assessment June 2007 Prepared by: USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service – Arizona University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center In cooperation with: Arizona Association of Conservation Districts Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Game & Fish Department Arizona State Land Department USDA Forest Service USDI Bureau of Land Management Released by: Sharon Megdal David McKay Director State Conservationist University of Arizona U.S. Department of Agriculture Water Resources Research Center Natural Resources Conservation Service Additional Principal Investigators: Dino DeSimone – Natural Resources Conservation Service, Phoenix, Arizona Keith Larson – Natural Resources Conservation Service, Phoenix, Arizona Kristine Uhlman – Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona D. Phil Guertin – School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona Deborah Young – Associate Director, Cooperative Extension, University of Arizona The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Framework of the Catalina Foothills, Outskirts of Tucson (Pima County, Arizona)
    GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK OF THE CATALINA FOOTHILLS, OUTSKIRTS OF TUCSON (PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA) W.R. DICKINSON Emeritus, Dept. of Geosciences University of Arizona ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CONTRIBUTED MAP CM-99-B MAY 1999 31 p., scale 1 :24,000 TIus report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for confonnity with Arizona Geological Survey standards. ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CONTRIBUTED MAP CM-99-B (31 pp., 1 Plate) Geologic Framework of the Catalina Foothills, Outskirts of Tucson (Pima County, Arizona) [Text and Legend to Accompany 1:24,000 Map] William R. Dickinson, Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona May 1999 Introduction and Purpose Past geologic maps and accounts of the sedimentary, geomorphic, and structural geology of the piedmont of the Santa Catalina Mountains in the outskirts of Tucson by Voelger (1953), Pashley (1966), Davidson (1973), Creasey and Theodore (1975), Banks (1976), Anderson (1987), Pearthree et al. (1988), McKittrick (1988), and Jackson (1989) raised questions about the sedimentary evolution of the foothills belt that were left open or unresolved. Multiple dissected alluvial fans and pediments overlie much older faulted and tilted strata to form Cenozoic sedimentary assemblages of considerable stratigraphic and structural complexity. As a contribution to improved understanding of urban geology in the Tucson metropolitan area, systematic geologic mapping of the piedmont belt was undertaken to establish the overall geologic framework of the Catalina foothills (~ 175 2 km ) at a common scale (1 :24,000). The area studied extends from Oracle Road on the west to the vicinity of Rinconado Road on the east, and from the Rillito River and Tanque Verde Wash northward to the limit of bedrock exposures at the base of the Santa Catalina Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Survey Ik Salt River Valley, Arizona
    Soil Survey in Salt River Valley Item Type text; Book Authors Means, Thos. H. Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Rights Public Domain: This material has been identified as being free of known restrictions under U.S. copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. Download date 28/09/2021 11:06:51 Item License http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/192405 U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DIVISION OF SOILS MILTON "WHITNEY, Chief SOIL SURVEY IK SALT RIVER VALLEY, ARIZONA. THOMAS H MEANS [REPRINTED *ROM THE EFFORT o\ FIIID OPLK\.HO\S os mt I)IM^ION ot i OK 1900 ] CONTENTS. Page. Introduction _ to 287 Geology and topography _ 288 Climate 291 Soils 293 Pecos sand 294 River wash 293 Salt Eiver gravel 293 G-ilafine sandy loam 296 Salt River adobe 296 G-lendale loess „__ 299 Colluvial soils, or mountain waste - 302 Maricopa gravelly loam 303 Maricopa sandy loam _ 304 Maricopaloam 306 Maricopa clay lo?-m „ 307 Hardpan _ 308 Solrnaps - - 308 Tempesheet , 308 Phoenix sheet 309 Buckeye sheet 309 Irrigation waters 310 Underground waters 31S Tempesheet „ , 314 Phoenix sheet 315 Buckeye sheet , 317 Alkali of the soils 319 Templesheet 319 Origin of alkali salts of Tempe sheet 321 Reclamation of alkali lands 323 Phoenix &heet - - 325 Buckeye sheet-, S38 Agriculture in Salt River Valley 331 Fruit farming 331 Cattle raising - 33S Dairying * — - %8& in ILLUSTRATIONS. PLATES. PLATE XXIV. Character of native vegetation on desert land near the moun- tains 290 XXY. Irrigated lands in Tempe area 302 XXVI.
    [Show full text]
  • Pantano Wash
    Released by: Sharon Medgal David McKay Director State Conservationist University of Arizona U.S. Department of Agriculture Water Resources Research Center Natural Resources Conservation Service Principle Investigators: Dino DeSimone - Natural Resources Conservation Service, Phoenix, Arizona Keith Larson - Natural Resources Conservation Service, Phoenix, Arizona Kristine Uhlman - Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona D. Phil Guertin - School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona Cite as: USDA Natural Resource ConservationConservations Service, Serivce, Arizona Arizona and and University University of of Arizona Arisona Water Water Resources Resources Research Center. 2008. Little Colorado River HeadwatersHeadwaters, Watershed, Arizona, Rapid Arizona, Watershed Rapid WatershedAssessment. Assessment. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C., 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD).
    [Show full text]
  • Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998
    GILA TOPMINNOW, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, REVISED RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approval: March 15, 1984) Prepared by David A. Weedman Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona for Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico December 1998 Approved: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions required to recover and protect the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepares the plans, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State and Federal Agencies, and others. Objectives are attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Time and costs provided for individual tasks are estimates only, and not to be taken as actual or budgeted expenditures. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor official positions or approval of any persons or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. ii Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Original preparation of the revised Gila topminnow Recovery Plan (1994) was done by Francisco J. Abarca 1, Brian E. Bagley, Dean A. Hendrickson 1 and Jeffrey R. Simms 1. That document was modified to this current version and the work conducted by those individuals is greatly appreciated and now acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2019 to 09/30/2019 Prescott National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2019 to 09/30/2019 Prescott National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact R3 - Southwestern Region, Occurring in more than one Forest (excluding Regionwide) AZ Public Service (APS) ROW - Vegetation management Completed Actual: 04/09/2019 04/2019 Heather Snow Vegetation Management with (other than forest products) 505-842-3445 Herbicides - Special use management [email protected] EA Description: FS must decide whether to allow APS to include using herbicides as a method to manage vegetation on existing *UPDATED* APS transmission ROW within five National Forests in Arizona. Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45771 Location: UNIT - Kaibab National Forest All Units, Prescott National Forest All Units, Coconino National Forest All Units, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests All Units, Tonto National Forest All Units. STATE - Arizona. COUNTY - Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Navajo, Yavapai. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Arizona Public Service Company Rights of Way across the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests. See map on website. Prescott College Academic - Recreation management In Progress: Expected:04/2018 05/2018 Julie Rowe Outfitter and Guide Priority Use - Special use management Scoping Start 02/02/2015 928-203-7516 (2015-2025) [email protected] CE Description: The Forest Service proposes to authorize Prescott College to conduct academic courses including new student orientation, adventure education, biology, human ecology, natural history, physical geography, field ecology, environmental conservation Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47407 Location: UNIT - Coronado National Forest All Units, Kaibab National Forest All Units, Prescott National Forest All Units, Tonto Basin Ranger District, Coconino National Forest All Units, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests All Units.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Supplemental Forest Service Southwestern Environmental Region April 2020 Assessment Proposed Riverbend Placer Mine and Lost Nugget Reclamation Project Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.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]
  • Water Resource Planning Sustainable Cities Network November 7, 2019 Organizational Structure Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt
    Water Resource Planning Sustainable Cities Network November 7, 2019 Organizational Structure Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt Asst. Secretary Asst. Secretary of Water & of Asst. Secretary Science Fish, Wildlife & of Indian Affairs Asst. Secretary Parks of Land & Bureau of Minerals National Park Service Indian Affairs Bureau of Bureau of Reclamation Land Management Commissioner Brenda Burman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Surfacing Mining U.S. Geological Reclamation & Enforcement Survey 2 Lower Colorado Region Utah New Mexico Arizona 3 Phoenix Area Office Boundaries COLORADO RIVER VERDE RIVER SALT RIVER GILA RIVER SAN PEDRO RIVER Mission The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Overview • Largest water provider in the 17 western States (479 dams and 348 reservoirs) • Nation’s second largest producer of hydroelectric power • Develops authorized facilities to store and convey new water supplies Recharge Xeriscape Water Treatment Wetlands Irrigation Efficiencies 7 Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) • Consensus-based drought contingency plans were developed • each basin state • American Indian tribes • Mexico • DCP includes • Basin state voluntary reductions and other actions • Mexico agreed to implement a Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan after the United States adopted the DCP Colorado River Basin Overview • 16.5 million acre-feet (maf) allocated annually - 7.5 maf
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission Listings Arizona
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES MULTIPLE PROPERTY SUBMISSION LISTINGS ARIZONA Grace Lutheran Church, Maricopa, Arizona, 93000835 FINDING AID Prepared by National Park Service - Intermountain Region Museum Services Program Tucson, Arizona August 2017 National Register of Historic Places – Multiple Property Submission Listings –Arizona 2 National Register of Historic Places – Multiple Property Submission Listings – Arizona Scope and Content Note: The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources. - From the National Register of Historic Places site: http://www.nps.gov/nr/about.htm The Multiple Property Submission (MPS) listings records are unique in that they capture historic properties that are related by theme, general geographic area, and/or period of time. The MPS is the current terminology for submissions of this kind; past iterations include Thematic Resource (TR) and Multiple Resource Area (MRA). Historic properties nominated under the MPS rubric will contain individualized nomination forms and will be linked by a Cover Sheet for the overall group. Historic properties nominated under the TR and MRA rubric are nominated
    [Show full text]