DOCSLIB.ORG

Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015 Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. July 22, 2021 Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015 Effective March 17, 2021 The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states and federally recognized Indian tribes to adopt water quality standards in order to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's Waters" (CWA, 1988). The attached WQS document is in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with the exception of the following provisions. Navajo Nation’s previously approved criteria for these provisions remain the applicable for CWA purposes. The “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015” (NNSWQS 2015) made changes amendments to the “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2007” (NNSWQS 2007). For federal Clean Water Act permitting purposes, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) must approve these changes to the NNSWQS 2007 which are found in the NNSWQS 2015. The USEPA did not approve of three specific changes which were made to the NNSWQS 2007 and are in the NNSWQS 2015. (October 15, 2020 Letter from USEPA to Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency). The three specific changes which USEPA did not accept are: 1) Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat Designated Use - Suspended Solids Changes (NNSWQS 2015 Section 207.E) The suspended soils standard for aquatic and wildlife habitat designated use was changed to only apply to flowing (lotic) surface waters and not to non-flowing (lentic) surface waters. USEPA did not approve of this change, therefore for the federal CWA purposes, the suspended sediment criteria apply to both flowing (lotic) and non-flowing (lentic) surface waters. 2) Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat Designated Use - Cadmium Acute & Chronic Criteria Changes (NNSWQS 2015 Tables 207.1, 207.2, 207.3, 207.4 and 207.5) The acute and wildlife habitat acute and chronic cadmium standards were changed (NNSWQS 2007) from: Acute: [e (1.0166 [ln (hardness)] - 3.924) ][1.136672-[ln (hardness)](0.041838)] Chronic: [e (0.7409 [ln (hardness)] - 4.719) ][1.101672-[ln (hardness)](0.041838)] To (NNSWQS 2015): Acute Coldwater Standard = [e (1.0166 [ln (hardness)] - 3.924) ][1.136672-[ln (hardness)](0.041838) Chronic Coldwater Standard = [e (0.7409 [ln (hardness)] – 4.719) ][1.101672-[ln (hardness)](0.041838)] Acute Warm Water Standard = [e (1.0166 [ln (hardness)] – 2.561 ][1.136672-[ln (hardness)](0.041838)] Chronic Warm Water Standard = [e (0.7409 [ln (hardness)] – 3.894) ][1.101672-[ln (hardness)](0.041838)] USEPA did not approve of this change, therefore for the federal CWA purposes, the aquatic and wildlife habitat acute and chronic cadmium water quality standards remain as they were in the NNSWQS 2007. 3) Primary Human Contact - Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Criteria Changes (NNSWQS 2015 Tables 207.1) The primary human contact standard for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was change from 330 micrograms per Liter (μg/L) (NNSWQS 2007) to 1200 μg/L (NNSWQS 2015). USEPA did not approve of this change, therefore for the federal CWA purposes, the primary human contact standard for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate will remain as it was in the NNSWQS 2007 (330 μg/L). NAVAJO NATION SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 2015 (Photograph of the Colorado River near Lees Ferry on October 27, 2003) Prepared by: Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Program Post Office Box 339 Window Rock, Arizona 86515 (928) 871-7690 Passed by Navajo Nation Council Resources and Development Committee on May 23, 2017 Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015 Navajo Nation EPA Water Quality Program TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS - GENERAL PROVISIONS § 101 TITLE ................................................................................................................................ 1 § 102 AUTHORITY .................................................................................................................... 1 § 103 PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................... 1 § 104 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... 1 § 105 SEVERABILITY .................................................................................................................7 PART II SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS § 201 ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY ..................................................................................... 7 § 202 ANTIDEGRADATION IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES .......................................8 § 203 NARRATIVE SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ......................................13 § 204 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................14 § 205 NARRATIVE NUTRIENT STANDARD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ......................16 § 206 DESIGNATED USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR NAVAJO NATION SURFACE WATERS ........................................................................................18 § 207 NUMERIC SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ...........................................20 § 208 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ...................................................................22 § 209 EXCEPTIONAL WATERS OF THE NAVAJO NATION ..............................................23 § 210 VARIANCES .....................................................................................................................24 § 211 WASTEWATER MIXING ZONES ..................................................................................26 § 212 SITE SPECIFIC STANDARDS……………………………………………………….. 28 § 213 NATURAL BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………. 29 Page ii Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015 Navajo Nation EPA Water Quality Program PART II SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (continued) § 214 BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS (RESERVED) ..................................................................29 TABLES 205.1 Numeric Targets for Lakes and Reservoirs ....................................................................17 206.1 Designated Uses for Navajo Nation Surface Waters .....................................................30 207.1 Numeric Surface Water Quality Standards .....................................................................44 207.2 Acute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Cadmium - Aquatic and Wildlife Cold Water ........................................................................................................50 207.3 Chronic Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Cadmium - Aquatic and Wildlife Cold Water ........................................................................................................51 207.4 Acute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Cadmium - Aquatic and Wildlife Warm Water .....................................................................................................52 207.5 Chronic Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Cadmium - Aquatic and Wildlife Warm Water .....................................................................................................53 207.6 Acute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Chromium III - Aquatic and Wildlife ....................................................................................................................54 207.7 Chronic Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Chromium III - Aquatic and Wildlife ....................................................................................................................55 207.8 Acute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Copper - Aquatic and Wildlife...............56 207.9 Chronic Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Copper - Aquatic and Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................57 207.10 Acute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Lead - Aquatic and Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................58 207.11 Chronic Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Lead - Aquatic and Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................59 207.12 Acute Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Nickel - Aquatic and Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................60 Page ii Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015 Navajo Nation EPA Water Quality Program TABLES (continued) 207.13 Chronic Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Nickel - Aquatic and Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................61 207.14 Acute Water Quality Standards for Pentachlorophenol - Aquatic and Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................62 207.15 Chronic Water Quality Standards for Pentachlorophenol - Aquatic and Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................62 207.16 Acute Water Quality Standards
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Lower Gila Region, Arizona
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HUBERT WORK, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 498 THE LOWER GILA REGION, ARIZONA A GEOGBAPHIC, GEOLOGIC, AND HTDBOLOGIC BECONNAISSANCE WITH A GUIDE TO DESEET WATEEING PIACES BY CLYDE P. ROSS WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1923 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 50 CENTS PEE COPY PURCHASER AGREES NOT TO RESELL OR DISTRIBUTE THIS COPT FOR PROFIT. PUB. RES. 57, APPROVED MAT 11, 1822 CONTENTS. I Page. Preface, by O. E. Melnzer_____________ __ xr Introduction_ _ ___ __ _ 1 Location and extent of the region_____._________ _ J. Scope of the report- 1 Plan _________________________________ 1 General chapters _ __ ___ _ '. , 1 ' Route'descriptions and logs ___ __ _ 2 Chapter on watering places _ , 3 Maps_____________,_______,_______._____ 3 Acknowledgments ______________'- __________,______ 4 General features of the region___ _ ______ _ ., _ _ 4 Climate__,_______________________________ 4 History _____'_____________________________,_ 7 Industrial development___ ____ _ _ _ __ _ 12 Mining __________________________________ 12 Agriculture__-_______'.____________________ 13 Stock raising __ 15 Flora _____________________________________ 15 Fauna _________________________ ,_________ 16 Topography . _ ___ _, 17 Geology_____________ _ _ '. ___ 19 Bock formations. _ _ '. __ '_ ----,----- 20 Basal complex___________, _____ 1 L __. 20 Tertiary lavas ___________________ _____ 21 Tertiary sedimentary formations___T_____1___,r 23 Quaternary sedimentary formations _'__ _ r- 24 > Quaternary basalt ______________._________ 27 Structure _______________________ ______ 27 Geologic history _____ _____________ _ _____ 28 Early pre-Cambrian time______________________ .
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Arizona Shade Tree Planting Prioritization ATLAS
    2016 Shade Tree Planting Prioritization 1 Urban and Community Forestry 2016 Arizona Shade Tree Planting Prioritization ATLAS Planning Maps for the Department of Forestry and Fire Management 2016 Shade Tree Planting Prioritization Atlas About the 2016 Shade Tree Planting Prioritization Atlas This collection of maps summarizes the results of the 2016 Shade Tree Planting Prioritization analysis of the Urban and Community Forestry Program (UCF) at the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management (DFFM). The purpose of the analysis was to assess existing urban forests in Arizona’s communities and identify shade tree planting needs. The spatial analysis, based on U.S. Census Block Group polygons, generated seven sub-indices for criteria identified by an expert panel: population density, lack of canopy cover, low-income, traffic proximity, sustainability, air quality, and urban heat effect. The seven sub-indices were combined into one Shade Tree Planting Priority Index and further summarized into a Shade Tree Planting Priority Ranking. The resulting reports, maps, and GIS data provide compiled information that can be easily used for identifying areas for strategic shade tree planting within a community or across Arizona’s major cities and towns. These maps provide limited detail for conveying the scale and depth of the analysis results which – for more detailed use – are best explored through the analysis report, interactive maps, and the GIS data available through the UCF Program webpage at https://forestryandfire.az.gov/forestry-community-forestry/urban-community-forestry/projects. Note: At the time of publication, two known analysis area errors have been identified. A few of Safford’s incorporated easements were not captured correctly.
    [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]
  • MS4 Route Mapping PRIORITIZATION PARAMETERS
    MS4 Route Mapping PRIORITIZATION PARAMETERS Approx. ADOT Named or Average Annual Length Year Age OAW/Impaired/ Not‐ Within 1/4 Pollutants ADOT Designated Pollutants Route ADOT Districts Annual Traffic Receiving Waters TMDL? Given Precipitation (mi) Installed (yrs) Attaining Waters? Mile? (per EPA) Pollutant? Uses (per EPA) (Vehicles/yr) WLA? (inches) SR 24 (802) 1.0 2014 5 Central 11,513,195 Queen Creek N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 SR 51 16.7 1987 32 Central 61,081,655 Salt River N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 SR 61 76.51 1935 84 Northeast 775,260 Little Colorado River Y (Not attaining) N E. Coli N FBC Y E. Coli N 7 Sediment Y A&Wc Y Sediment N SR 64 108.31 1932 87 Northcentral 2,938,250 Colorado River Y (Impaired) N Sediment Y A&Wc N ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.5 Selenium Y A&Wc N ‐‐ ‐‐ SR 66 66.59 1984 35 Northwest 5,154,530 Truxton Wash N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7 SR 67 43.4 1941 78 Northcentral 39,055 House Rock Wash N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 17 Kanab Creek N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ SR 68 27.88 1941 78 Northwest 5,557,490 Colorado River Y (Impaired) Y Temperature N A&Ww N ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 SR 69 33.87 1938 81 Northwest 17,037,470 Granite Creek Y (Not attaining) Y E. Coli N A&Wc, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Y E. Coli Y 9.5 Watson Lake Y (Not attaining) Y TN Y ‐‐ Y TN Y DO N A&Ww Y DO Y pH N A&Ww, FBC, AgI, AgL Y pH Y TP Y ‐‐ Y TP Y SR 71 24.16 1936 83 Northwest 296,015 Sols Wash/Hassayampa River Y (Impaired, Not attaining) Y E.
    [Show full text]
  • Index 1 INDEX
    Index 1 INDEX A Blue Spring 76, 106, 110, 115 Bluff Spring Trail 184 Adeii Eechii Cliffs 124 Blythe 198 Agate House 140 Blythe Intaglios 199 Agathla Peak 256 Bonita Canyon Drive 221 Agua Fria Nat'l Monument 175 Booger Canyon 194 Ajo 203 Boundary Butte 299 Ajo Mountain Loop 204 Box Canyon 132 Alamo Canyon 205 Box (The) 51 Alamo Lake SP 201 Boyce-Thompson Arboretum 190 Alstrom Point 266, 302 Boynton Canyon 149, 161 Anasazi Bridge 73 Boy Scout Canyon 197 Anasazi Canyon 302 Bright Angel Canyon 25, 51 Anderson Dam 216 Bright Angel Point 15, 25 Angels Window 27 Bright Angel Trail 42, 46, 49, 61, 80, 90 Antelope Canyon 280, 297 Brins Mesa 160 Antelope House 231 Brins Mesa Trail 161 Antelope Point Marina 294, 297 Broken Arrow Trail 155 Apache Junction 184 Buck Farm Canyon 73 Apache Lake 187 Buck Farm Overlook 34, 73, 103 Apache-Sitgreaves Nat'l Forest 167 Buckskin Gulch Confluence 275 Apache Trail 187, 188 Buenos Aires Nat'l Wildlife Refuge 226 Aravaipa Canyon 192 Bulldog Cliffs 186 Aravaipa East trailhead 193 Bullfrog Marina 302 Arch Rock 366 Bull Pen 170 Arizona Canyon Hot Springs 197 Bush Head Canyon 278 Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 216 Arizona Trail 167 C Artist's Point 250 Aspen Forest Overlook 257 Cabeza Prieta 206 Atlatl Rock 366 Cactus Forest Drive 218 Call of the Canyon 158 B Calloway Trail 171, 203 Cameron Visitor Center 114 Baboquivari Peak 226 Camp Verde 170 Baby Bell Rock 157 Canada Goose Drive 198 Baby Rocks 256 Canyon del Muerto 231 Badger Creek 72 Canyon X 290 Bajada Loop Drive 216 Cape Final 28 Bar-10-Ranch 19 Cape Royal 27 Barrio
    [Show full text]
  • ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    Arizona Department of Water Resources September 2010 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Herbert Guenther Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Karen Smith Assistant Director, Hydrology Frank Corkhill Assistant Director, Water Management Sandra Fabritz-Whitney Atlas Team (Current and Former ADWR staff) Linda Stitzer, Rich Burtell – Project Managers Kelly Mott Lacroix - Asst. Project Manager Phyllis Andrews Carol Birks Joe Stuart Major Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Tom Carr John Fortune Leslie Graser William H. Remick Saeid Tadayon-USGS Other Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Matt Beversdorf Patrick Brand Roberto Chavez Jenna Gillis Laura Grignano (Volume 8) Sharon Morris Pam Nagel (Volume 8) Mark Preszler Kenneth Seasholes (Volume 8) Jeff Tannler (Volume 8) Larri Tearman Dianne Yunker Climate Gregg Garfin - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Ben Crawford - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Casey Thornbrugh - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Michael Crimmins – Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona The Atlas is wide in scope and it is not possible to mention all those who helped at some time in its production, both inside and outside the Department. Our sincere thanks to those who willingly provided data and information, editorial review, production support and other help during this multi-year project. Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Atlas Purpose and Scope 1 SECTION 1.1 Atlas
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Landscape and Aesthetics Corridor Plan
    - 15 landscape and aesthetics corridor plan I-15 FROM PRIMM TO MESQUITE CORRIDOR PLAN DESIGN WORKSHOP MacKay & Somps JW Zunino & Assoc. CH2MHill Jones & Jones August 3, 2005 1-15 corridor plan Endorsement MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR OF NEVADA MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR KENNY C. GUINN NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JEFFREY FONTAINE, P.E. On June 30, 2002, the Nevada Department of Transportation adopted It is NDOT's responsibility to ensure that landscaping and aesthetics as policy, "Pattern and Palette of Place: A Landscape and Aesthetics are an important consideration in building and retrofitting our high- Master Plan for the Nevada State Highway System". Now, the second way system. This Landscape and Aesthetics Corridor Plan for I-15 in phase of planning is complete. This I-15 Landscape and Aesthetics Northern Nevada helps realize our vision for the future appearance of Corridor Plan represents a major step forward for the Landscape and our highways. The plan will provide the guidance for our own design Aesthetics program created by the Master Plan. It is significant teams as well as help Nevada's citizens play an important role in the because it involves local public agencies and citizens in the planning context-sensitive solutions for today's transportation needs. process so that Nevada's highways truly represent the State and its Together, we will ensure our highways reflect Nevada's distinctive people. The Corridor Plan will be the primary management tool used heritage, landscape, and culture. to guide funding allocations, promotes appropriate aesthetic design, and provides for the incorporation of highway elements that unique- ly express Nevada's landscape, communities, and cities, as well as its people.
    [Show full text]
  • Tse' Nikani Draft Corridor Management
    Tse'nikani Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan DRAFT August 2013 Introduction Purpose Tse’nikani Scenic Byway was established The purpose of a byway corridor as an Arizona Byway in 2005 and given the management plan is not to create more name Tse’nikani ‘Flat Mesa Rock’ Scenic regulations or taxes. Rather, a corridor Byway. management plan documents the goals, strategies, and responsibilities for preserving and enhancing the byway’s most Byway Description valuable qualities. Promoting tourism can Tse’nikani Scenic Byway, U.S. Highway be one target, but so are issues of safety or (US) 191 is located in northeast Arizona preserving historic or cultural structures. in Apache County and entirely within the 160 The Corridor Management Plan can: Navajo Nation. The portion of US 191 that 1 160 Tse’nikani is a designated Arizona Scenic Byway is Scenic Road ◊ document community interest from Milepost (MP) 467.0, south of Many ◊ document existing conditions and Farms, to MP 510.4, at the junction with history US 160, near Mexican Water. The highway ◊ guide enhancement and safety is the primary route to access Canyon de improvement projects ARIZONA Chelly National Monument, about 13 miles mexico new south of the south end of the byway. ◊ promote partnerships for conservation Chinle and enhancement activities US 191 is a two-lane asphalt paved road for ◊ suggest resources for project development almost its entire length with no median and programs and few left-turn lanes. The roadway is ◊ promote coordination between residents, managed by the Arizona Department communities, and agencies of Transportation (ADOT) through the 264 Ganado ◊ support application for National Scenic Navajo Nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Hydroclimatology and Extreme Events in the Southwest: a Streamflow Perspective
    Flood Hydroclimatology and Extreme Events in the Southwest: A Streamflow Perspective Katherine Hirschboeck* Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research SW Extreme Precipitation Symposium Hydrology & Atmospheric Sciences 27 March 2019 The University of Arizona * With Diana Zamora-Reyes & Saeahm Kim Overview • Prologue • “Flood Hydroclimatology” Revisited • Flood Heterogeneity & the Complexities of Predictability • “Catastrophic Flooding” Revisited • Postscripts: On Tree-Rings, Floods • & the Future PROLOGUE UPPER MIDWEST FLOODING “The persistence of March 2019 climatic departures implies that the assumption of randomness-over-time, which is basic to most Source: New York Times 3/21/2019 techniques currently employed by federal and state agencies . 1975 is frequently not valid.” Knox et al. 1975 Newspaper advertisement . THE FLOOD PROCESSOR Expanded feed tube – Combines floods of different types together Chopping, slicing & grating blades – Chops up climatic cause information and slices off extreme high outliers Plastic mixing blade – Mixes up unique statistical properties of individual floods FLOOD HYDROCLIMATOLOGY . is the analysis of flood events within the context of their history of variation . - in magnitude, frequency, seasonality - over a relatively long period of time - analyzed within the spatial framework of changing combinations of meteorological causative mechanisms Hirschboeck, 1988 Generalized Seasonality of Peak Flooding in the Southwest Hirschboeck, 1991 after figure in USGS Ground Water manual FLOOD HYDROCLIMATOLOGY FLOOD-CAUSING
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Basin Outlook Report February 1, 2014
    United States Department of Arizona Agriculture Natural Resources Basin Outlook Report Conservation Service February 1, 2014 Issued by Released by Jason Weller Keisha L. Tatem Chief State Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Phoenix, Arizona Basin Outlook Reports And Federal – State – Private Cooperative Snow Surveys How forecasts are made Most of the annual streamflow in Arizona originates as snowfall that has accumulated in the mountains during the winter and early spring. As the snowpack accumulates, hydrologists estimate the runoff that will occur when it melts. Measurements of snow water equivalent at selected manual snow courses and automated Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) sites, along with precipitation and streamflow values, are used in statistical and simulation models to prepare runoff forecasts. These forecasts are coordinated between hydrologists in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) the National Weather Service, and the Salt River Project. Forecasts of any kind are not perfect. Streamflow forecast uncertainty arises from three primary sources: (1) uncertainty of future weather conditions, (2) uncertainty in the forecasting procedure, and (3) errors in the data. The forecast, therefore, must be interpreted not as a single value but rather as a range of values with specific probabilities of occurrence. The middle of the range is expressed by the 50% exceedance probability forecast, for which there is a 50% chance that the actual flow will be above, and a 50% chance that the actual flow will be below, this value. To describe the expected range around this 50% value, four other forecasts are provided, two smaller values (90% and 70% exceedance probability) and two larger values (30%, and 10% exceedance probability).
    [Show full text]
  • 3 March 1999
    NAVAJO NATION SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 2007 (Photograph of the Little Colorado River near Grand Falls on January 4, 2005) Prepared by: Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Program Post Office Box 339 Window Rock, Arizona 86515 (928) 871-7690 Passed by Navajo Nation Resources Committee on May 13, 2008 Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2007 Navajo Nation EPA Water Quality Program TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS - GENERAL PROVISIONS § 101 TITLE ................................................................................................................................ 1 § 102 AUTHORITY .................................................................................................................... 1 § 103 PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................... 1 § 104 DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................... 1 § 105 SEVERABILITY............................................................................................................... 6 PART II SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS § 201 ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY ..................................................................................... 7 § 202 NARRATIVE SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ...................................... 7 § 203 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 9 § 204 NARRATIVE
    [Show full text]
  • UCSC Special Collections and Archives MS 6 Morley Baer
    UCSC Special Collections and Archives MS 6 Morley Baer Photographs - Job Number Index Description Job Number Date Thompson Lawn 1350 1946 August Peter Thatcher 1467 undated Villa Moderne, Taylor and Vial - Carmel 1645-1951 1948 Telephone Building 1843 1949 Abrego House 1866 undated Abrasive Tools - Bob Gilmore 2014, 2015 1950 Inn at Del Monte, J.C. Warnecke. Mark Thomas 2579 1955 Adachi Florists 2834 1957 Becks - interiors 2874 1961 Nicholas Ten Broek 2878 1961 Portraits 1573 circa 1945-1960 Portraits 1517 circa 1945-1960 Portraits 1573 circa 1945-1960 Portraits 1581 circa 1945-1960 Portraits 1873 circa 1945-1960 Portraits unnumbered circa 1945-1960 [Naval Radio Training School, Monterey] unnumbered circa 1945-1950 [Men in Hardhats - Sign reads, "Hitler Asked for It! Free Labor is Building the Reply"] unnumbered circa 1945-1950 CZ [Crown Zellerbach] Building - Sonoma 81510 1959 May C.Z. - SOM 81552 1959 September C.Z. - SOM 81561 1959 September Crown Zellerbach Bldg. 81680 1960 California and Chicago: landscapes and urban scenes unnumbered circa 1945-1960 Spain 85343 1957-1958 Fleurville, France 85344 1957 Berardi fountain & water clock, Rome 85347 1980 Conciliazione fountain, Rome 84154 1980 Ferraioli fountain, Rome 84158 1980 La Galea fountain, in Vatican, Rome 84160 1980 Leone de Vaticano fountain (RR station), Rome 84163 1980 Mascherone in Vaticano fountain, Rome 84167 1980 Pantheon fountain, Rome 84179 1980 1 UCSC Special Collections and Archives MS 6 Morley Baer Photographs - Job Number Index Quatre Fountain, Rome 84186 1980 Torlonai
    [Show full text]