DOCSLIB.ORG

Blue River & KP Creek

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Blue River & KP Creek DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts Greenlee County, Arizona DECISION NOTICE Action and Its Purpose The Forest Service has conducted an environmental analysis to evaluate the suitability of four eligible river segments of the Blue River and one eligible river segment of KP Creek (a tributary to the Blue River) on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The analysis was conducted pursuant to section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The analysis is described in the Environmental Assessment for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study. The suitability of these river segments is being considered at this time due to a proposal to construct a channel-spanning fish barrier in segment 4 of the Blue River on the Clifton Ranger District. KP Creek has been included in this analysis because it is a tributary to Blue River above the barrier site that supports a valuable native fishery. Both Blue River and KP Creek were identified as potential eligible rivers in the Resource Information Report, Potential Wild- Scenic-Recreation River Designation, National Forests in Arizona (USFS 1993) and confirmed as eligible in the Eligibility Report for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Apache-Sitgreaves NF 2009). In response to the USDI Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR) proposal to build a channel-spanning fish barrier in the Blue River, I conducted an analysis of the potential effects on Blue River’s free-flowing characteristics (Appendix C). The analysis determined that the proposed barrier would affect the free-flowing character of Blue River. BOR’s proposed barrier is a conservation measure to protect federally listed threatened and endangered fishes, as required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2008 Biological Opinion for the Central Arizona Project. Suitability provides the basis for determining whether to recommend a river as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It is designed to answer the following questions: 1 Should the rivers’ free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) be protected, or are one or more other uses important enough to warrant doing otherwise? Will the rivers’ free-flowing character, water quality, and ORVs be protected through designation? Is designation the best method for protecting the river corridors? Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any nonfederal entities that may be partially responsible for implementing protective management? This analysis is programmatic; that is, no specific on-the-ground actions are proposed or examined. The analysis of environmental effects addresses the potential changes in management which may occur if the eligible river segments are found suitable or unsuitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It includes a general discussion of the effects if any or all segments are subsequently designated by Congress. Decision and Rationale My decision is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive further review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on designation of rivers as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Based on the results of the analysis documented in the Environmental Assessment for the Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study, including public scoping and comments, it is my decision to select Alternative 3 which will also amend the Forest Plan (EA at page 45). The selected alternative (Alternative 3) was developed based on: comments that emphasized collaborative efforts with other agencies and local stakeholders; potential for water resource development (including the proposed fish barrier construction); consistency with other plans including the recovery plan for loach minnow (USFWS 1991), the Apache-Sitgreaves Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1987), and the Arizona State Wildlife Action Plan (AGFD 2006); and on the key issues described in the environmental assessment. In determining which river segments are suitable for recommendation in this decision, I placed the heaviest weight on the following key suitability criteria and factors: The consistency of designation with other agency plans and programs and, particularly, the biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Central Arizona Plan with its focus on recovery of loach minnow and Chiricahua leopard frog. 2 The potential for construction of the proposed fish barrier in the lowermost portion of Segment 4 of Blue River. The interest in designation or nondesignation by other federal agencies, state, local and tribal governments, and national and local publics. Ability to protect regionally and nationally significant values. As a result, I am recommending Blue River Segments 2, 3 and 4a and the eligible segment of KP Creek for designation. I am not recommending Blue River Segments 1 and 4b. My rationale follows. Blue River – Segment 1. This 25.1 mile segment begins at the confluence of Campbell Blue and Dry Blue Creeks and flows downstream through the Smith Place to Bear Creek. This segment contains ORVs of scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, historic resources, prehistoric resources, and vegetation. It is classified as recreational. Approximately 17% of the acreage of this segment is privately owned, creating a pattern of mixed private and federal ownership. Collaborative planning efforts between local citizens, including the Upper Eagle Creek Watershed Association, the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (Arizona Ecological Services Office), Arizona Game and Fish Department, USDI Bureau of Reclamation, and USDA Forest Service (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests) have been ongoing to facilitate working together on watershed improvement, riparian improvement, and native fisheries restoration in the Eagle Creek and Blue River watersheds on non-Tribal lands within the watershed. I am not recommending this segment due, in part, to landowner concerns and because the important river values are protected on these lands through County zoning and landowner stewardship as evident in existing collaborative planning efforts. Significant portions of the National Forest System lands are located in the Blue Range Primitive Area, which is managed to emphasize wilderness recreation, while maintaining wilderness resource values. Blue River – Segments 2, 3 and 4a. Segment 2 is 16 miles, beginning at Bear Creek and flowing downstream to ¼ mile above the Blue River Trailhead. It is classified as wild. Segment 3 is 4.2 miles, beginning ¼ mile above the Blue River Trailhead and flowing to ½ mile below Forest Road 475. It is classified as scenic. Segment 4a is 7.34 miles, flowing from ½ mile below Forest Road 475 to 0.76 miles above the confluence of the Blue River with the San Francisco River. It is classified as wild. These segments contain ORVs of scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, historic resources, prehistoric resources, and vegetation. All three segments are entirely National Forest System lands. KP Creek: The KP Creek segment, which is 11.3 miles, begins near the Mogollon River and flows to the private land boundary in section 11, township 2 3 north, range 30 east. This segment contains ORVs of scenery, recreation, fish and wildlife. It is classified as wild, and is entirely National Forest System lands. I am recommending Blue River segments 2, 3, and 4a, and KP Creek to provide additional focus on protecting aquatic resources, consistent with recovery plans, and to protect their free-flowing condition and other important values for the long term. The potential benefits of designation include, but are not limited to, the development of a comprehensive river management plan to determine what additional direction is necessary to protect river values on these National Forest System lands. This planning process also provides the opportunity to promote public participation in developing goals for river protection and to identify technical assistance for river conservation for activities within the river corridors and elsewhere in the watershed. While most activities on Federal lands within the river corridors may continue, as they are generally protective of river values, designation affords certain legal protections from adverse development. The Act prohibits the construction of dams and other federally assisted water resources projects judged to have an adverse effect on river values. It also withdraws Federal lands within wild classified segments from locatable and leasable mineral entry. Portions of segment 2 and portions of KP Creek are in the Blue Range Primitive Area. This Area was designated by the Secretary of Agriculture in 1933 with direction to manage the included lands to emphasize wilderness recreation, while maintaining wilderness resource values. However the Administrative designation of the Blue Range Primitive Area allows for water resources projects that do not involve road construction and the Area is not withdrawn from either locatable or leasable mineral entry. If these segments are subsequently included in the National System, the Act will provide permanent additional
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]
  • Dolores River Restoration Partnership: a Private/Public Collaboration Dolores River Restoration Partnership
    DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP: A PRIVATE/PUBLIC COLLABORATION DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP • TIMELINE OF PARTNERSHIP • VISION AND GOALS OF PARTNERSHIP • WHY HAS THE DRRP BEEN SUCH A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP? • WHY THIS PARTNERSHIP HAS BEEN IMPORTANT TO THE BLM ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF DRRP • INITIAL RIPARIAN WORK ON SAN MIGUEL RIVER IN EARLY 2000’S – LED BY TNC, PRECURSOR TO THE DRRP. • 2009 – TNC AWARDED CONTRACT TO TAMARISK COALITION TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR THE DOLORES RIVER (DR-RAP) • 2010 - DR-RAP FINALIZED • 2010 - FIRST MOU SIGNED • 2010 – FIRST BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT • 2012 – AGO BLUE RIVERS DESIGNATION • 2015 – TRANSITION PLAN FINALIZED • 2015 – DOLORES RIVER HEALTHY LANDS FOCAL AREA • 2015 – SECOND MOU SIGNED • 2016 – SECOND BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION ACTION PLAN (DR-RAP) 1. IDENTIFIED A VISION: “A THRIVING DOLORES RIVER SYSTEM THAT IS ECOLOGICALLY, SOCIALLY, AND ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE IN A MULTIUSE CONTEXT.” “A DOLORES RIVER WATERSHED DOMINATED BY NATIVE VEGETATION, WHERE THE THREATS FROM TAMARISK AND OTHER ASSOCIATED INVASIVE SPECIES HAVE BEEN MITIGATED AND THE RIPARIAN AREAS OF THE WATERSHED CONTINUE TO BECOME MORE NATURALLY FUNCTIONING, SELF-SUSTAINING, DIVERSE, AND RESILIENT OVER TIME.” DRRP MANAGEMENT GOALS Significantly increase the number of sustainable, healthy riparian plant Ecologic communities while reducing those dominated by tamarisk and other invasive, non-native plant species. Develop a professional, competitive, and efficient work force; improve Social aesthetic enjoyment;
    [Show full text]
  • • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife
    •UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Division of Fishery Services Phoenix, Arizona Progress Report • FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Black and Salt Rivers Ft. Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian ,Reservations Arizona January 21, 1966 February 3, 1966 Initial Report Black and Salt Rivers Ft. Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations Arizona Introduction During the past several years, the Bureau of Sport'Fisheries'and Wildlife, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has-intensified its fishery managementi assistance to the Ft. Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations. During this period many reports summarizing fishery management activities have been submitted. None, however, has dealt with the important Black and Salt Rivers or their fishery potential. This report summarizes the- results of preliminary fishery investigations on the Salt and Black Rivers, including fishery potentials, and Is directed to the Tribal organization and•agencies of the San Carlos and Ft.-Apache Indian Reservations. The Black and Salt Rivers of Arizona flow through some of the most- spectacular canyons of the Southwest. The Salt River Canyon crossing at Highway 60 is often referred to as.the second-Grand Canyon of Arizona, with vividly colored canyon walls rising vertically more than 3,000. feet. The Black River follows a major - - - rift through basalt rock that is often narrow and exceeds 26000 feet in depth in many places. Canyons, alternately widening and boxing, extending from alpine to upper sonorian life zones, are characteristic of the study area Stands of virgin . spruce and ponderosa pine lend beauty to the.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory
    STATE OF ARIZONA HISTORIC PROF€RlY INVENTORY FORM Salt River Bridge PROPERTY IENTlRCAllON county Gila Inventory nmbu W037 milepost 262.44 inventory route SR 288 locadon 04.3 M N Jct SR 88 featwe lhsoctad Salt River citylvimnity Rooaevelt USOS quadrangle Salt River Peak disk id 83 UTM rmferma 12.507250.3719952 STRUCTURAL INFORMATION main span number 1 main rpan type 310 appr. rpan number 0 appr. type degreeof rkw 0 guardrail type 6 main span length 215.0 swstructure steel rigid-conneded Parker through truaa struave length 220.0 subatrwhre concrete abutments and wingwah on spread footlngs roadway width 18.2 fioor/docking concrwte deck over steel atringen, structuo width 19.3 othu features lower chord: 2 channels w/ double ladna; umer chord: 2 channels w/ cover plate and do-&&dng; vertlcd 2 channela wlth king: diagonal: 2 channels or 2 angles w/ Menplates; floor beam: I-beam: steel pipe gwdds' HISTORICPL INORMATION eonstruaion date 1920 deslgnsr/enginssr US Bureau of Public Rwds project number FHP 12-E builder/mntraaor information sour- ADOT brldge records structve owm Arlzona DepmZrnent of Transportation alteradon datda) alteradom NATlONA REGISTER EVAUATION For add'hnal infwrnation, sw "Vehicular Bridges in Pvirona 1880-1964" Nadonal Reglstw Multiple Propwly Documentation Form NRHP digibility bted MIHPaHwla A x 6- C~ signif. statement longest and oldest riveted through twsin Arizona FORM COMRmD BY Clayton B. Fraesr, Prhdpal FRASERdeslgn 420 South County Road 23E Loveland, Colodo 80537 31 Oaober 2004 SALT RIVER BRIDGE PHOTO INFORMPTlON dw of phom.: November 2002 vkw && south east ~na:02.11.287 02.11.288 32 1 FRASERDESIQN SALT RIVER BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION HISTORY In 1918 the newly formed U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 12B-01. Mountainous Volcanic Region
    108°W 106°W F Ancestral ron t Rang LARIMER Uinta Sand Upl e ift Little Snake River Wash Ba North Platte River MOFFAT s Yampa River in JACKSON Park-Gore Range Axial ROUTT Ba s in Up li h ft rc as A ek e Dougl Cr White River GRAND 40°N Whi EXPLANATION RIO BLANCO 40°N te Ri Neogene Volcanics ver Upli Neogene Sediments ft Paleogene Volcanics Eagle River Blue River Paleocene-Cretaceous Intrusives Piceance Basin Roaring ForkCentral River Colorado TroughEAGLE Cretaceous Seaway Sediment GARFIELD Eagle River Sawatch Range Aquifers SUMMIT Mesozoic Sediment Aquifers Ancestral Rockies Basins Colorado River Precambrian Basement PITKIN Arkansas River East Muddy Creek Mountainous Region MESA LAKE PARK Unc Mountainous Valleys ompa ghre Up Colorado Plateaus Region lif DELTA t Laramide Basin Outlines Laramide Uplift Axis Uncompaghre Uplift G un Taylor River CHAFFEE nison Laramide Basin Axis GUNNISON Upl Ancestral Rockies Uplift Axis Uncompahgre River South Arkansas River ift Ancestral Rockies Basin Axis Paradox Basin FREMONT MONTROSE San Lui CUSTER s OURAY Up San Miguel River li ft 38°N SAN MIGUEL SAGUACHE 38°N Animas River HINSDALE DOLORES SAN JUAN Rio Grande MINERAL ag Dolores River n S West Dolores River ua J RIO GRANDE ALAMOSA e San MONTEZUMA n Dom Jua Archuleta Anticlinorium San Los Pinos River LA PLATA COSTILLA San Juan Piedra River Basin CONEJOS Tusas Uplift COSTILLA ARCHULETA COSTILLA 108°W 106°W 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Geology modified from Tweto (1979); structural features from Hemborg (1996). 0 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers Figure 12b-01.
    [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]
  • Morenci Final Restoration Plan with FONSI
    Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for Natural Resource Damages Settlement, Freeport-McMoRan Morenci Mine September 1, 2017 Prepared by: Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on behalf of the State of Arizona and The United States Fish and Wildlife Service on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Trustee Responsibilities under CERCLA and the National Environmental Policy Act ........1 1.2 Summary of Settlement ..........................................................................................................2 1.3 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................2 1.4 Responsible Party Involvement ..............................................................................................3 1.5 Administrative Record ..........................................................................................................3 1.6 Document Organization ........................................................................................................3 2.0 Purpose and Need for Restoration .........................................................................................3 2.1 Site Description ..................................................................................................................3 2.2 Summary of
    [Show full text]
  • WATER USE Flow Regimes for In-Basin Water Users Are Reviewed
    Water Users and Recreation Appendix D WATER USE Flow regimes for in-basin water users are reviewed in this appendix. Water users include irrigators, municipalities and industry, and recreationalists. Flows include a wide range of parameters, affected by a wide range of uses and in some cases, such as recreation, may be somewhat subjective. The following sections include parameters, and approaches or methods to estimate these flow requirements. Much of the information presented herein was developed and presented in the Upper Colorado River Basin Study, Phase II, Final Report, May 29, (HRC 2003), herein referred to as the ‘UPCO Report’. WATER USE BY MUNICIPALITIES, INDUSTRY AND IRRIGATORS Water use as a parameter for this analysis and in terms of stream flow management focuses on two issues. The first is the physical limitations associated with stream flow that may affect the ability of a local water user to retrieve or use water. The second issue is the water user’s impact on flows in the stream relative to maintaining recommended flows. These issues are discussed in the following sections. Physical Limitations Irrigators: In general, most users are experiencing some difficulty in retrieving or using water, especially during the recent drought years. Many irrigators are constructing make-shift cobble dams to divert flows. In 2002 it was reported that the KB ditch was shut down voluntarily because the diversion was taking the majority of flows out of the Colorado River, leaving it in a dewatered condition. Pumping for irrigation is also limited by the available supply as well as by nuisance clogging from algae growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Assessment Units
    APPENDIX A ASSESSMENT UNITS SURFACE WATER REACH DESCRIPTION REACH/LAKE NUM WATERSHED Agua Fria River 341853.9 / 1120358.6 - 341804.8 / 15070102-023 Middle Gila 1120319.2 Agua Fria River State Route 169 - Yarber Wash 15070102-031B Middle Gila Alamo 15030204-0040A Bill Williams Alum Gulch Headwaters - 312820/1104351 15050301-561A Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312820 / 1104351 - 312917 / 1104425 15050301-561B Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312917 / 1104425 - Sonoita Creek 15050301-561C Santa Cruz Alvord Park Lake 15060106B-0050 Middle Gila American Gulch Headwaters - No. Gila Co. WWTP 15060203-448A Verde River American Gulch No. Gila County WWTP - East Verde River 15060203-448B Verde River Apache Lake 15060106A-0070 Salt River Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Cyn Wilderness - San Pedro River 15050203-004C San Pedro Aravaipa Creek Stowe Gulch - end Aravaipa C 15050203-004B San Pedro Arivaca Cienega 15050304-0001 Santa Cruz Arivaca Creek Headwaters - Puertocito/Alta Wash 15050304-008 Santa Cruz Arivaca Lake 15050304-0080 Santa Cruz Arnett Creek Headwaters - Queen Creek 15050100-1818 Middle Gila Arrastra Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-848 Middle Gila Ashurst Lake 15020015-0090 Little Colorado Aspen Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-769 Verde River Babbit Spring Wash Headwaters - Upper Lake Mary 15020015-210 Little Colorado Babocomari River Banning Creek - San Pedro River 15050202-004 San Pedro Bannon Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-774 Verde River Barbershop Canyon Creek Headwaters - East Clear Creek 15020008-537 Little Colorado Bartlett Lake 15060203-0110 Verde River Bear Canyon Lake 15020008-0130 Little Colorado Bear Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-046 Middle Gila Bear Wallow Creek N. and S. Forks Bear Wallow - Indian Res.
    [Show full text]
  • East Verde TMDL Arsenic De-List Report
    FINAL DE-LIST REPORT FOR TOTAL ARSENIC Reach 15060203-022C East Verde River –American Gulch to the Verde River June 9, 2015 Executive Summary In the 2006-08 305(b) report, reach 15060203-22C of the East Verde River (confluence of American Gulch to the Verde River confluence) was placed by ADEQ on the state of Arizona’s 303(d) Impaired Waters List for total arsenic. Based on the best available data collected within the assessment time frame, it continued to be assessed as impaired for arsenic in the 2010 and 2012-14 reports. This listing was based on exceedances that occurred at monitoring point VREVR002.62 (East Verde River near Childs, AZ). Personnel from the TMDL Unit of ADEQ collected additional water samples at multiple monitoring points along the impaired reach outside of the Mazatzal Wilderness Area at various hydrologic conditions, ranging from base flow to flood stage conditions. Personnel from the USGS Tempe office collected monthly samples for a little over a year from monitoring point VREVR002.62 which is located within the Mazatzal Wilderness Area. Analysis of the total arsenic was performed by laboratories that had the ability to analyze to a detection level that was below the strictest applicable total arsenic standard for the drinking water source designated use of 10 µg/L. Data collected at the various sample points since 2009 show further exceedances of the total arsenic standard are still occurring. All of the arsenic detections are once again from samples collected at the VREVR002.62 monitoring site. A review of the available ground and surface water data indicates that surface water in the lower reaches of the East Verde River is being impacted by the mixing of groundwater through upwelling of the local aquifer.
    [Show full text]
  • Eagle Creek, Arizona
    Trip Report: Eagle Creek, Arizona 15-17 June 2009 Participants: Abraham Karam, Brian Kesner, and Mike Childs Native Fish Lab Marsh & Associates, LLC 5016 South Ash Avenue Suite 108 Tempe, Arizona 85282 Summary Fish surveys were conducted on portions of Eagle Creek, Greenlee County, Arizona, during 15-17 June 2009 to determine species composition, distribution, and relative abundance. Survey methods included backpack electroshocking, seining, dip netting, gill netting, and hook and line. A total of 1,315 individuals were contacted, representing five native and eight non-native species. With the exception of one desert sucker which was captured downstream of the Freeport-McMoRan water diversion dam, non-native fishes were contacted exclusively at all downstream sites, while native species predominated sites upstream of the dam. Methods Surveys were conducted at eight localities on Eagle Creek between Honeymoon (HM; elev. = 1,650 m) in the upper portion of the watershed, and Bat Cave (elev. = 1,036 m), approximately 12 km upstream from Eagle Creek’s confluence with the Gila River (Fig. 1). Survey locations included HM (12S 641111, 3704989), 1st Crossing below HM (12S 640444, 3701320), 2nd Crossing below HM (12S 640636, 3697789), Sheep Wash (12S 640707, 3686663), Above Freeport McMoRan (FM) Dam (12S 643380, 3661181), Below FM Dam (12S 645252, 3659588), Graves (12S 646449, 3656592), and Bat Cave (12S 647611, 3655046). Surveys were conducted using a Smith-Root backpack shocker (SR 12-B), seines (1.2 x 1.2 and 3.7 x 1.2 m; 3 mm mesh), dip nets, experimental gill nets (38.1 x 1.8 m; square mesh size ranged from 13 to 51 mm), and hook and line.
    [Show full text]