DOCSLIB.ORG

1Tuiurrmtj of Arizrnta &Xtlitin DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1Tuiurrmtj of Arizrnta &Xtlitin DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE The Chemical Composition of Representative Arizona Waters Item Type text; Book Authors Smith, H. V.; Caster, A. B.; Fuller, W. H.; Breazale, E. L.; Draper, George Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Download date 01/10/2021 06:34:32 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/212507 Bulletin 225 November 1949 1tuiurrMtj of Arizrnta &xtlitin DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF REPRESENTATIVE ARIZONA WATERS Agricultural Experiment Station University of Arizona, Tucson ORGANIZATION Board of Regents Dan E. Garvey (ex officio) Governor of Arizona Marion L. Brooks, B.S., M.A. (ex officio) State Superintendent of Public Instruction W. R. Ellsworth, President Term Expires Jan., 1951 Samuel H. Morris, A.B., J.D Term Expires Jan., 1951 Cleon T. Knapp, LL.B Term Expires Jan., 1953 John M. Scott Term Expires Jan., 1953 Walter R. Bimson, Treasurer Term Expires Jan., 1955 Lynn M. Laney, B.S., J.D., Secretary Term Expires Jan., 1955 John G. Babbitt, B.S Term Expires Jan., 1957 Michaèl B. Hodges Term Expires Jan., 1957 James Byron McCormick, S.J.D., LLD President of the University Robert L. Nugent, Ph.D Vice -President of the University Experiment Station Staff Paul S. Burgess, Ph.D Director Ralph S. Hawkins, Ph.D Vice- Director Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soils William T. McGeorge, M.S Agricultural Chemist Theophil F. Buehrer, Ph.D Physical Chemist Howard V. Smith, M.S Associate Agricultural Chemist Wallace H. Fuller, Ph.D Associate Biochemist George E. Draper, M.S Assistant Agricultural Chemist (Phoenix) Edward L. Breazeale, M.S Assistant Agricultural Chemist Logan Brimhall, B.S Assistant Agricultural Chemist (Phoenix) Bulletin 225 November 1949 litttvrrxstty of Arizona Vutir#tn DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF REPRESENTATIVE ARIZONA WATERS Agricultural Experiment Station University of Arizona, Tucson TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 PRINCIPAL DRAINAGE AREAS IN ARIZONA 15 GENERAL ANALYSES OF ARIZONA WATERS 16 THE FLUORINE CONTENT OF CERTAIN ARIZONA WATERS 52 BORON CONTENT OF SELECTED ARIZONA WATERS 72 THE NITRATE CONTENT OF SELECTED ARIZONA WATERS 74 THE CHEPdIICAL COMPOSITION OF REPRESENTATIVE ARIZONA WATERS H.V. Smith, A.B. Caster, W.H. Fuller, E.L. Breazeale, and George Draper INTRODUCTION The water analyses given in this bulletin have been se- lected from a list of many thousand samples analyzed in the Agri - 1 cultural Experiment Station during the past twenty years. The analyses are being made available in this form to supply the de- mand for information on the quality of irrigation, municipal and domestic water supplies in the state. The waters are listed alphabetically according to the com- munity or town from which they were sampled. This method of ar- rangement, coupled with a listing according to location within river drainages (Fig. 1), makes the analyses easily accessible either by individual communities or by river drainages. ANALYTICAL METHODS The waters were analyzed for calcium and Magnesium by titra- tion with a standard soap solution. Chlorides were titrated with a standard silver nitrate solution. Sulfates were determined turbidimetrically after precipitation with barium chloride. Carbonates and bicarbonates were titrated with standard acid. Fluorine was determined by the Scott modification of the Sanchis method.Nitrates were determined by the phenol -disulfonic acid method and boron titrated with NaOH in the presence of mannite. Sodium was calculated by difference. Hardness was calculated as grains per gallon of calcium carbonate from the calcium and mag- nesium content of the waters.The sodium:calcium ratio was calculated by dividing the concentration of sodium by the calcium present. 1. Most of the waters reported here were submitted by well owners, members of the staff of the Experiment Station, the Extension Service, or the Soil Conservation Service. 2 Experiment Station Bulletin No. 225 INTERPRETATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF ANALYSES Waters which may be considered to be good domestic waters may be very poor irrigation waters, so standards for each are 1 set up separately.According to McGeorge, the following values may be used in classifying domestic waters. DOMESTIC WATERS Desirable qualities in domestic waters are freedom from taste, freedom from excessive hardness, and freedom from an ex- cessive concentration of fluorine. Salt content: The presence of 700 to 1000 p.p.m. or more of salt in water makes the water unpalatable and therefore ob- jectionable to taste. For the normal individual there is no harm in drinking water containing 2000 p.p.m. of salts, al- though this is not to be recommended as a permanent practice. Hardness: Hardness is a quality imparted to waters by the presence of calcium and magnesium. Water which is hard due to calcium combined with bicarbonates can be softened by boiling. This is called "temporary hardness." When calcium is combined with sulfates, the resulting hardness is known as "permanent hardness." Such waters cannot be softened by boiling. Water which is temporarily or permanently hard may be softened by use of a zeolite softener or by other chemical means. The effi- ciency of some of the new detergents on the market is not affected by the hardness of the water. Degrees of hardness are expressed in the following table: 1. McGeorge, W;T.- Interpretation of Water Analyses. Univer- sity of Arizona, Extension Circular 107. 1940. Chemical Composition of Arizona Waters 3 TABLE 1.Relative Hardness of Waters Hardness Relative g.p.g. hardness 0.0 - 4.5 Soft 4.5 - 9.0 Fairly hard 9.0 + Hard Fluorine: The fluorine count of potable waters is very im- portant.Amounts up to 0.8 p.p.m. seem to harden the teeth and make them more resistant to decay. On the other hand, if chil- dren drink water containing möre than 0.8 p.p.m. during the time of formation of their permanent teeth, mottled enamel will result. The severity of mottling is dependent upon the amount present as shown in Table 2: LE 2. Severity of Mottled Enamel Produced by ..rying Amounts of Fluorine in Drinking Waterl Amount of fluorine Severity of p.p.m. mottling 0.0- 0.8 None 0.9- 1.3 Mild 1.4- 2.0 Moderate 2.1- 3.0 Moderately severe 3.1or over Severe Nitrates: In humid regions the presence of nitrates in water is indicative of pollution, but in arid regions their source may be nitrate mineral or from symbiotic or nonsymbiotic nitrogen fixation. It has been suggested that an excess of nitrates in water causes an incidence of "blue babies."This relationship has not been proved in Arizona where, in some in- stances, well waters are used which contain in excess of 300 p.p.m. of nitrates. 1. Smith, H.V. and Smith, M.C.Prevent Mottled Teeth. University of Arizona, Extension Folder W -43. 1945. 4 Experiment Station Bulletin No. 225 IRRIGATION WATERS A good irrigation water, from the standpoint of salt con- tent, is one which is low in salts.It is difficult to classify waters on the basis of salt content alone because the combina- tions of salt which occur are fully as important as the total amount present. Other factors, such as the kind of plant grown and the texture of the soil, must be considered when evaluating the quality of irrigation water. The United States Regional Salinity Laboratory, Riverside,California) has setup the fol- lowing criteria for quality based on salt content. TABLE 3. Quality of Irrigation Water Salt content p.p.m. Quality 0 - 600 Excellent to good 600 - 2000 Good to injurious over 2000 Injurious to unsatisfactory Calcium, magnesium and sodium: Hard waters are preferred over soft ones for irrigation. To be classed as suitable, waters should contain more calcium and magnesium than sodium. Such waters have a favorable effect upon the structure of the soil. If sodium predominates over calcium and magnesium, the water will have an adverse physical effect upon the soil. Structure, aeration, and water penetration will be poor and crop growth will be restricted. Table 4 relates the ratio of calcium and magnesium in water to the total bases present as a measure of their quality or suit- ability for use for irrigation. 1. Richards, L.A. The Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. U.S. Regional Salinity Laboratory. 1947. Chemical Composition of Arizona Waters 5 TABLE 4. Quality of Irrigation Water Based on the Ratio of Calcium and Magnesium to Total Bases Ca + Mg % Na Quality More than 50% Less than 50% Satisfactory 35 - 50% 50 - 65% Doubtful Less than 35% More than 65% Poor With these values as a guide and knowing the texture of the soil as well as the crop to be grown, a fair appraisal of the quality of water may be made. Another method of calculating the quality of water from the standpoint of sodium and calcium content is to calculate the sodium:calcium ratio. In this bulletin the ratio is obtained by dividing the amount of sodium in parts per million by the parts per million of calcium present. A ratio greater than 1.0 indi- cates a preponderance of sodium and therefore an undesirable water. If the soil is well supplied with calcium which slowly becomes available, the sodium:calcium ratio might conceivably be greater than 1.0 without injury to the soil. Chlorides and sulfates: An unfavorable salt effect upon the plant is noted when water containing excessive amounts of chlorides and sulfates is used for irrigation. Sulfates are only about half as toxic as chlorides1 on the basis of equiva- lent concentrations expressed in p.p.m., but equally toxic in equal osmotic concentrations. Table 5 gives the range in concen- tration for these two ions permissible in each of the three grades of irrigation water.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 1
    Appendix 1. Summary of location, basin, and hydrological-regime characteristics for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona and parts of adjacent states that were used to calibrate hydrological-regime models [Hydrologic provinces: 1, Plateau Uplands; 2, Central Highlands; 3, Basin and Range Lowlands; e, value not present in database and was estimated for the purpose of model development] Average percent of Latitude, Longitude, Site Complete Number of Percent of year with Hydrologic decimal decimal Hydrologic altitude, Drainage area, years of perennial years no flow, Identifier Name unit code degrees degrees province feet square miles record years perennial 1950-2005 09379050 LUKACHUKAI CREEK NEAR 14080204 36.47750 109.35010 1 5,750 160e 5 1 20% 2% LUKACHUKAI, AZ 09379180 LAGUNA CREEK AT DENNEHOTSO, 14080204 36.85389 109.84595 1 4,985 414.0 9 0 0% 39% AZ 09379200 CHINLE CREEK NEAR MEXICAN 14080204 36.94389 109.71067 1 4,720 3,650.0 41 0 0% 15% WATER, AZ 09382000 PARIA RIVER AT LEES FERRY, AZ 14070007 36.87221 111.59461 1 3,124 1,410.0 56 56 100% 0% 09383200 LEE VALLEY CR AB LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.50204 1 9,440e 1.3 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383220 LEE VALLEY CREEK TRIBUTARY 15020001 33.93894 109.50204 1 9,440e 0.5 6 0 0% 49% NEAR GREER, ARIZ. 09383250 LEE VALLEY CR BL LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.49787 1 9,400e 1.9 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383400 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER AT GREER, 15020001 34.01671 109.45731 1 8,283 29.1 22 22 100% 0% ARIZ.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Geomorphology .. and Hydrology of the Santa Cruz River
    Historical Geomorphology .. and Hydrology of the Santa Cruz River Michelle Lee Wood, P. Kyle House, and Philip A. Pearthree Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-13 July 1999 Text 98 p., 1 sheet, scale 1: 100,000 Investigations supported by the Arizona State Land Department as part of their efforts to gather technical information for a stream navigability assessment This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards. EXTENDED ABSTRACT This report provides baseline information on the physical characteristics of the Santa Cruz River to be used by the Arizona Stream Navigability Commission in its determination of the potential navigability of the Santa Cruz River at the time of Statehood. The primary goals of this report are: (1) to give a descriptive overview of the geography, geology, climatology, vegetation and hydrology that define the character of the Santa Cruz River; and, (2) to describe how the character of the Santa Cruz River has changed since the time of Statehood with special focus on the streamflow conditions and geomorphic changes such as channel change and movement. This report is based on a review of the available literature and analyses of historical survey maps, aerial photographs, and U.S. Geological Survey streamgage records. The Santa Cruz River has its source at the southern base of the Canelo Hills in the Mexican Highlands portion of the Basin and Range province. The river flows south through the San Rafael Valley before crossing the international border into Mexico. It describes a loop of about 30 miles before it re-enters the United States six miles east of Nogales, and continues northward past Tucson to its confluence with the Gila River a few miles above the mouth of the Salt River.
    [Show full text]
  • Hohokam Reservoirs, Tucson Presidio
    ARCHAEOLOGY IN TUCSON Vol. 6, No. 4 Newsletter of the Center for Desert Archaeology October 1992 HOHOKAM RESERVOIRS AND THEIR ROLE IN AN ANCIENT DESERT ECONOMY By James M. Bayman Desert Archaeology, Inc. Papaguería—the vicinity of the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation), Arizona's most famous archaeologist, Emil W. Haury, even referred to the people of these drier areas as the ''Desert Branch Hohokam." Until fairly recently, Hohokam populations in these nonriverine areas were perceived to be of secondary importance in greater Hohokam society, and the Phoenix Basin was long viewed as an economic center for prehistoric central and southern Arizona (much as it is today). A common explanation for the apparent contrast between the Phoenix Hohokam and "everybody else" was that canal irrigation systems required an advanced organizational system, in other words, "people in control," for their design, construction, and maintenance. Moreover, because large- scale canal irrigation was simply not feasible in Hohokam Figure 1. A modern "charco," or reservoir, in the settlements outside the greater Phoenix area, it was thought Baboquivari Valley, at the modern village of Ali Chukson on that the ''Desert Branch" Hohokam never developed and the Tohono O’odham Reservation. This charco may be quite flourished to the extent of their neighbors. similar to prehistoric reservoirs utilized by the Hohokam in the nonriverine areas of southern Arizona. Photo by Jonathan A tremendous amount of recent archaeological survey and B. Mabry. excavation, however, has produced evidence that the Hohokam "regional system" was more diverse than previously thought. In the vast deserts between Tucson and Phoenix studies by institutions like Arizona State University, The remarkable development and desert adaptation of the the Arizona State Museum (University of Arizona), and the prehistoric Hohokam has long impressed explorers, settlers, Museum of Northern Arizona have resulted in the discovery and later, archaeologists who came to live and work in arid of a number of extremely large Hohokam sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin
    Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin By H. P. Eisenhuth GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 579 Washington J 968 United States Department of the Interior STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary Geological Survey William T. Pecora, Director Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin By H. P. Eisenhuth INTRODUCTION This report lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the Colorado River basin for which records have been or are to bepublishedinreportsoftheGeological Survey for periods through September 30, 1967. It supersedes Geobgical Survey Circular 509. Basic data on surface-water supply have been published in an annual series of water-supply papers consisting of several volumes, including one each for the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The area of the other 48 States is divided into 14 parts whose boundaries coincide with certain natural drainage lines. Prior to 1951, the records for the 48 States were published in 14 volumes, one for each of the parts. From 1951 to 1960, the records for the 48 States were pub~.ished annually in 18 volumes, there being 2 volumes each for Parts 1, 2, 3, and 6. The boundaries of the various parts are shown on the map in figure 1. Beginning in 1961, the annual series ofwater-supplypapers on surface-water supply was changed to a 5-year S<~ries. Records for the period 1961-65 will bepublishedin a series of water-supply papers using the same 14-part division for the 48 States, but most parts will be further subdivided into two or more volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • ADEQ Flow Regime Updates | May 2021
    ADEQ Flow Regime Updates | May 2021 Name WBID Watershed Flow Regime Assignment Colorado River AZ14070006-001 CG Perennial (P) Paria River AZ14070007-123 CG P Chinle Creek AZ14080204-002-I LC Intermittent (I) Laguna Creek AZ14080204-003-I LC I Chinle Wash AZ14080204-017 LC I Lukachukai Wash AZ14080204-024-I LC I Colorado River AZ15010001-001 CG P Colorado River AZ15010001-002 CG P Bright Angel Creek AZ15010001-019 CG P Colorado River AZ15010001-022 CG P Colorado River AZ15010002-001 CG P Diamond Creek AZ15010002-002-I CG P Colorado River AZ15010002-003 CG P Colorado River AZ15010002-009 CG P Garden Creek AZ15010002-841 CG P Kanab Creek AZ15010003-001 CG P Kanab Creek AZ15010003-013-I CG I Truxton Wash AZ15010007-002 CG I Virgin River AZ15010010-003 CG P Beaver Dam Wash AZ15010010-009 CG P Little Colorado River AZ15020001-011A LC P Nutrioso Creek AZ15020001-017 LC P Nutrioso Creek AZ15020001-017A LC I Lee Valley Creek AZ15020001-232A LC P Lee Valley Creek AZ15020001-232B LC I Little Colorado River AZ15020002-016 LC I Little Colorado River AZ15020002-024 LC P Carrizo Wash AZ15020003-001 LC I Silver Creek AZ15020005-001 LC I Show Low Creek AZ15020005-012 LC I Silver Creek AZ15020005-013 LC P Unnamed Trib to Walnut Creek AZ15020005-239 LC I Puerco River AZ15020007-005 LC I Jacks Canyon AZ15020008-004 LC I Clear Creek AZ15020008-006 LC P Clear Creek AZ15020008-007 LC I Chevelon Canyon AZ15020010-001 LC P Chevelon Canyon AZ15020010-003 LC I Oraibi Wash AZ15020012-003-I LC I Polacca Wash AZ15020013-001-I LC I Jadito Wash AZ15020014-005-I LC Ephemeral
    [Show full text]
  • Brawley Wash - Los Robles Wash Watershed - Arizona (Altar Wash - Brawley Wash Watershed) Released By
    NEMO Watershed-Based Plan Santa Cruz Watershed Item Type text; Report Authors Uhlman, Kristine; Guertin, D. Phillip; Levick, Lainie R.; Sprouse, Terry; Westfall, Erin; Holmgren, Cassie; Fisher, Ariel Download date 27/09/2021 06:23:08 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/188192 Brawley Wash - Los Robles Wash Watershed - Arizona (Altar Wash - Brawley Wash Watershed) 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. BrawleyLittle Colorado Wash - RiverLos Robles Headwaters, Wash Watershed, Arizona, Rapid (Altar Watershed Wash - Brawley Assessment. Wash Watershed), Arizona, Rapid Watershed 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]
  • Floods of September 1970 in Arizona, Utah and Colorado
    WATER-RESOURCES REPORT NUMBER FORTY - FOUR ARIZONA STATE LAND DEPARTMENT ANDREW L. BETTWY. COMMISSIONER FLOODS OF SEPTE1VIBER 1970 IN ARIZONA, UTAH, AND COLORADO BY R. H. ROESKE PREPARED BY THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PHOENIX. ARIZONA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR APRIL 1971 'Water Rights Adjudication Team Civil Division Attorney Generars Office: CONTENTS Page Introduction - - ----------------------------------------------- 1 Acknowledgments -------------------------------------------- 1 The storm ---------------------------- - - --------------------- 3 Descri¢ionof floods ----------------------------------------- 4 Southern Arizona----------------------------------------- 4 Centrru Arizona------------------------------------------ 4 Northeastern Arizona------------------------------------- 13 Southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado --------------- 14 ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE 1-5. Maps showing: 1. Area of report ----------------------------- 2 2. Rainfrul, September 4- 6, 1970, in southern and central Arizona -------------------------- 5 3. Rainfall, September 5- 6, 1970, in northeastern Arizona, southeastern Utah, and southwestern Colorado -------------------------------- 7 4. Location of sites where flood data were collected for floods of September 4-7, 1970, in Ariz ona ------------------------ - - - - - - - - - 9 5. Location of sites where flood data were collected for floods of September 5- 6, 12-14, 1970, in northeastern Arizona, southeastern Utah, and southwestern Colorado-------------------- 15 ITI IV TABLES Page TABLE 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility of Diverting and Detaining Flood Water and Urban Storm Runoff, and the Enhancement of Natural Recharge
    Feasibility of Diverting and Detaining Flood and Urban Storm Runoff and the Enhancement of Ground Water Recharge in the Tucson Area, Pima County, Arizona (Phase I Draft) Authors Water Resources Research Center Publisher Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Download date 09/10/2021 23:23:52 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/314310 Phase I Draft FEASIBILITY OF DIVERTING AND DETAINING FLOOD WATER AND URBAN STORM RUNOFF, AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF NATURAL RECHARGE. Water Resources Research Center College of Earth Sciences University of Arizona FEASIBILITY OF DIVERTING AND DETAINING FLOOD AND URBAN STORM RUNOFF AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF GROUND WATER RECHARGE IN THE TUCSON AREA PIMA COUNTY ARIZONA DRAFT THE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER COLLEGE OF EARTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA TUCSON, ARIZONA 85721 MAY 1980 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Prepared for United States Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District Tucson Urban Study Regional Flood Control Element by The University of Arizona College of Earth Sciences Water Resources Research Center in cooperation with College of Agriculture Investigators: Professor Sol D. Resnick, Director, WRRC Dr. K. James DeCook, Hydrologist, WRRC Dr. L. G. Wilson, Hydrologist, WRRC in cooperation with: Mr. J. E. Posedly, Department of Soils, Water and Engineering, College of Agriculture Project Coordinator: Jonathon C. Goldman Contributors: Editors: John E. Stufflebean K. James DeCook Dale A. Altshul Sol D. Resnick John B. Price Jonathon C. Goldman Jonathon C. Goldman Sol D. Resnick Staff:
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Groups Or Locally Active Partners
    Watershed Groups or Locally Active Partners Category (Partnership, Watershed Groups or Locally Active Partners Primary Partners Watershed Contact Person Position Email/Phone Website Tribe, Forest, etc.) Altar Valley, Brawley Wash (w/in Santa Altar Valley Conservation Alliance Watershed partnership Cruz Watershed) Mary Miller Executive Director [email protected] http://www.altarvalleyconservation.org Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests/ Watershed Forest Nancy Walls A-S Natural Resources Staff Officer [email protected] Aravaipa Watershed Conservation Alliance Watershed partnership Lower San Pedro Sandy Warner President [email protected] http://www.aravaipawatershed.org Arizona Water Sentinels Sandy Bahr Water Sentinels program contact [email protected] https://www.sierraclub.org/arizona/water-sentinels Conservation Education and Science Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Organization Debbie Colodner Director [email protected] https://www.desertmuseum.org Black Canyon Trail Association/ Black Canyon Heritage Park Organization Bob Cothern [email protected] https://blackcanyonheritagepark.org Borderlands Restoration Partnership Local partnership [watershed] Kurt Vaughn Executive Director [email protected] https://www.borderlandsrestoration.org/ Cienega Watershed Partnership Watershed partnership Cienega (w/in Santa Cruz Watershed) Tom Meixner UA faculty (water) and CWP Chair [email protected] http://www.cienega.org/ Cienega Watershed Partnership Watershed partnership Cienega (w/in
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a – Data for Sample Sites, Avra Valley Sub-Basin, 1998-2001
    Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Avra Valley Sub-Basin of the Tucson Active Management Area A 1998-2001 Baseline Study By Douglas Towne Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division Surface Water Section, Monitoring Unit 1110 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007-2935 Publication Number: OFR-14-06 Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Avra Valley Sub-Basin of the Tucson Active Management Area: A 1998-2001 Baseline Study By Douglas C. Towne Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Open File Report 14-06 ADEQ Water Quality Division Surface Water Section Monitoring Unit 1110 West Washington St. Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2935 Thanks: Field Assistance: Elizabeth Boettcher, Royce Flora, Maureen Freark, Joe Harmon, Angela Lucci, and Wang Yu. Special recognition is extended to the many well owners who were kind enough to give permission to collect groundwater data on their property. Report Cover: An irrigated field of corn is almost ready for harvest in the late spring near the Town of Marana. Most irrigated agriculture in the Avra Valley sub-basin is located in this area, which is becoming a bedroom community of Tucson. Saguaro National Monument West and the Tucson Mountains are in the distance. iii ADEQ Ambient Groundwater Quality Open-File Reports (OFR) and Factsheets (FS): Harquahala Basin OFR 14-04, 62 p. FS 14-09, 5 p. Tonto Creek Basin OFR 13-04, 50 p. FS 13-04, 4 p. Upper Hassayampa Basin OFR 13-03, 52 p. FS 13-11, 3 p. Aravaipa Canyon Basin OFR 13-01, 46 p. FS 13-04, 4 p. Butler Valley Basin OFR 12-06, 44 p.
    [Show full text]
  • Section VII Potential Linkage Zones SECTION VII POTENTIAL LINKAGE ZONES
    2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT 41 Section VII Potential Linkage Zones SECTION VII POTENTIAL LINKAGE ZONES Linkage 1 Linkage 2 Beaver Dam Slope – Virgin Slope Beaver Dam – Virgin Mountains Mohave Desert Ecoregion Mohave Desert Ecoregion County: Mohave (Linkage 1: Identified Species continued) County: Mohave Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis ADOT Engineering District: Flagstaff and Kingman Mohave Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii ADOT Engineering District: Flagstaff ADOT Maintenance: Fredonia and Kingman Mountain Lion Felis concolor ADOT Maintenance: Fredonia ADOT Natural Resources Management Section: Flagstaff Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus ADOT Natural Resources Management Section: Flagstaff Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum AGFD: Region II AGFD: Region II Virgin Chub Gila seminuda Virgin Spinedace Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis BLM: Arizona Strip District Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus BLM: Arizona Strip District Congressional District: 2 Threats: Congressional District: 2 Highway (I 15) Council of Government: Western Arizona Council of Governments Urbanization Council of Government: Western Arizona Council of Governments FHWA Engineering: A2 and A4 Hydrology: FHWA Engineering: A2 Big Bend Wash Legislative District: 3 Coon Creek Legislative District: 3 Virgin River Biotic Communities (Vegetation Types): Biotic Communities (Vegetation Types): Mohave Desertscrub 100% Mohave Desertscrub 100% Land Ownership: Land Ownership: Bureau of Land Management 59% Bureau of Land Management 93% Private 27% Private
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Flow, Sediment Transport and Water Quality Connections in the Lower Santa Cruz River, Arizona
    Surface Flow, Sediment Transport and Water Quality Connections in the Lower Santa Cruz River, Arizona Thomas Meixner, Associate Professor of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona Eylon Shamir, Research Hydrologist, Hydrologic Research Center, San Diego Jennifer Duan, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Arizona Report Prepared for U.S. EPA Region IX October 2009 1 Executive Summary The nature of hydrologic connections and their impact on water quality conditions in rivers is of ecological, hydrologic and biogeochemical importance. In this report, the nature of hydrologic connections and water quality impacts between the Upper Santa Cruz River basin, the Lower Santa Cruz River, and the Gila River are investigated. First a discussion of the important processes active in arid and semi-arid rivers is provided, emphasizing the nature of sediment and particulate transport and the opportunity for the channel network to provide an ecosystem service in the way of contaminant and nutrient removal. Following this, an analysis is conducted of the historical nature of hydrologic connections within the Lower Santa Cruz River system. The result of this analysis shows that existing infrastructure and actions of decision-making organizations recognize that the Upper and Lower Santa Cruz rivers are hydrologically connected. Next the nature of this hydrologic connection between the USGS gages at Cortaro and Laveen is analyzed through specific events, hydrologic response, and statistically. This analysis shows that large flows at Cortaro take approximately two days to propagate through the Santa Cruz River channel to Laveen. The statistical analysis shows that large flows at Cortaro lead to the largest flows observed during the period of record at Laveen and that these hydrologic connections of import occur approximately on an annual to bi-annual basis.
    [Show full text]