DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Contaminants Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Contaminants Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Contaminants Program ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS IN FISH AND WILDLIFE OF THE LOWER GILA RIVER, ARIZONA by 1 Kirke A. King, Brenda J. Andrews , 2 3 Cynthia T. Martinez , and William G. Kepner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 December 1997 ABSTRACT Levels and potential effects of pesticides and metals on fish and wildlife of the lower Gila River and associated agricultural drainage canals in Maricopa County, Arizona, were investigated in 1994-95. Residues of DDT, an insecticide that has been suspended from use in Arizona for 25 years, are still present in fish, turtles, and birds. DDT was detected in 86, 62, and 50% of the fish collected from Buckeye Canal, Gillespie Dam, and All enville, respectively. DDT was recovered in all turtles from Gillespie Dam, and in all black-crowned night-herons from Painted Rock. DDE residues in fish from the lower Gila River drainage were the highest in the United States associated with agriculturally applied pesticides. Although DDE residues declined over the past decade; current levels remain extremely high. DDE was present at concentrations known to impact biotic resources. Fish collected from agricultural drainage canals generally contained higher DDE residues than fish from the river. DDE residues were highest in common carp (Cyprinus carpio) from Buckeye Canal (11.17 p.g/g wet weight), an agricultural drain and tributary to the Gila River. The overall frequency of occurrence of organochlorine compounds is declining, however, as only 6 compounds were detected in samples collected in 1994-95 versus 16 recovered in samples collected from the same sites in 1985. Residues of all other pesticides and PCBs were below levels associated with adverse affects on fish and wildlife. Concentrations of 11 potentially toxic metals were detected in fish. Carp collected near Allenville had the second highest aluminum concentration ever recorded in Arizona. Copper exceeded the national 85th percentile in 31 of 48 samples. Because of its occurrence at relatively high levels and its propensity to interact with other compounds and elements, copper remains a contaminant of concern. Concentrations of most metals remained unchanged from 1985 to 1994-95. Spiny softshell turtles (Trionyx spiniferus) generally contained higher organochlorine and metal concentrations than fish. DDE and most metals were highest in turtles from the middle river sampling sites. Residues of DDE and chlordane declined by about one-half from 1985 to 1994-95. PCB, dieldrin, and DDT levels remained relatively constant over the past decade while copper, nickel, vanadium, and zinc concentrations declined. Levels of arsenic, mercury, and selenium in turtles collected in 1994-95 were statistically similar to concentrations in turtles collected in 1985. Whiptaillizards (Cnemodophorus spp.) collected from areas adjacent to the lower Gila River contained higher organochlorine residues than lizards collected from other Arizona locations. DDE and selenium exceeded toxic threshold levels that could be hazardous to avian predators that consume a large proportion of lizards in their diet. Mean mercury concentrations increased from 1985 to 1994-95 and were about 3- to 10-times higher in lizards collected in the Gila River basin than in lizards from other Arizona locations. DDE, mercury, and selenium pose a significant environmental challenge to black­ crowned night-herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) and possibly to other avian species nesting and wintering on the lower Gila River. All night-heron and two of four red-winged blackbird (Agelaifls phoeniceus) carcasses contained > 3.4 f.Lg/g wet weight DDE; the level associated with impaired reproduction. One-half of the blackbird carcasses contained sufficiently high DDE residues to represent a hazard to predatory birds that regularly feed on blackbirds. Mercury concentrations in five of six night-heron livers approached or exceeded the toxic threshold and the maximum concentration, 28.07 l'g/g dry weight, was 4.5-times higher than the toxic threshold. Selenium concentrations in night-heron livers (13 - 18 f.Lg/g dry weight) indicate that adults are not at risk of selenium intoxication, but selenium impacts on reproduction are possible. , Project No. 22410-l130-2F30 1 Present address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, Rt. 2, Box 138, Cibola, AZ 85328 2 Present address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1500 N. Decatur #1, Las Vegas, NV 89108 3 Present address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. LIST OF TABLES . v 2. UST OF FIGURES ..................................... vi 3. INTRODUCTION . 1 4. STUDY AREA ........................................ 3 5. METHODS . 3 Sample collections . 3 Chemical analysis . 5 Statistical an;Uysis . 5 6. RESULTS . 7 FISH ............................................ 7 Organochlorines in whole fish . 7 Organochlorines in fillets . 9 Metals in whole fish . 9 Metals in fish fillets . 16 TURTLES ......................................... 19 Organochlorines in turtles . 19 Metals in turtles . 21 LIZARDS ......................................... 23 Organochlorines in lizards . 23 Metals in lizards . 23 BIRDS ........................................... 24 Organochlorines in birds . 24 Metals in birds . 24 7. DISCUSSION ........................................ 26 FISH ..........................· .................. 26 Organochlorines in whole fish . 26 Metals in whole fish ................................. 28 TURTLES ......................................... 31 Organochlorines in turtles . 31 Metals in turtles . 32 LIZARDS ......................................... 32 Organochlorines in lizards . 32 Metals in lizards . 32 iii BIRDS ........................................... 33 Organochlorines in birds . 34 Metals in birds . 35 HUMAN HEALTH CONCERNS , .......................... 37 8. CONCLUSIONS .........................•............. 38 9. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 39 10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ 40 11. LITERATURE CITED . 41 12. TABLES ........................................... 49 13. APPENDIX .......................................... 67 ' iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Organochlorine residues in individual whole body fish collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1994-95 ...................... 49 2. Organochlorine compounds in common carp collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1994-95: a comparison among collection sites ......... 51 3. Organochlorine compounds in fish fillets collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1994-95 ................................ 52 4. Metals in individual whole body fish collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1994-95 . 53 5. Metals in common carp collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1994-95: a comparison among collection sites .................... 6. Metals in common carp and largemouth bass fillet samples collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1994-95 .................... 7. Organochlorine residues in individual softshell turtles collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1994-95 ...................... 58 8. Geometric mean concentrations of organochlorine compounds in softshell turtles collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona 1994-95 ....... 59 9. Trace element concentrations in individual whole body softshell turtles collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1994-95 . 60 10. Metals in softshell turtles collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1994-95: a comparison among collection sites ...................... 61 11. Organochlorine compounds in whiptail lizards collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1985 and 1994-95 ............................. 62 12. Metals in whiptaillizards collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1985 and 1994-95. ..................................... 63 13. Organochlorine residues in bird carcasses collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1994-95 ................................... 64 14. Metals in whole body red-winged blackbirds collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1985 and 1994-95 .......................... 65 15. Metals in black-crowned night-heron and red-winged blackbird whole boqy and liver samples collected from the lower Gila River, Arizona, 1994-95 . 66 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Lower Gila River, Arizona sample collection sites 1985 and 1994-95 ......... 4 2. Geometric mean DDE residues in carp, lower Gila River, Arizona, 1985 and 1994-95 . 8 3. Geometric mean arsenic concentrations in carp, lower Gila River, Arizona, 1985 and 1994-95 ................................. 11 4. Geometric mean copper concentrations in carp, lower Gila River, Arizona, 1985 and 1994-95 ................................. 13 5. Geometric mean mercury concentrations in carp, lower Gila River, Arizona, 1985 and 1994-95 ................................. 14 6. Geometric mean selenium concentrations in carp, lower Gila River, Arizona, 1985 and 1994-95 ................................. 15 7. Geometric mean vanadium concentrations in carp, lower Gila River, Arizona, 1985 and 1994-95 ................................. 17 8. Geometric mean zinc concentrations in carp, lower Gila River, Arizona, 1985 and 1994-95 ....................................... 18 9. Geometric mean DDE residues in softshell turtles, lower Gila River, Arizona, 1985 and 1994-95 . 20 vi INTRODUCTION
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central Arizona Salinity Study --- Phase I
    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix D HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE GILA BEND BASIN Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 D-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 8 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT ................................... 8 4.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Underseepage Control Measures at Painted Rock Dam
    Missouri University of Science and Technology Scholars' Mine International Conference on Case Histories in (1988) - Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering 02 Jun 1988, 10:30 am - 3:00 pm Underseepage Control Measures at Painted Rock Dam L. Knuppel USACE, Cincinnati, Ohio F. McLean USBR, Denver, Colorado A. Roodsari USACE, Los Angeles, California Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Knuppel, L.; McLean, F.; and Roodsari, A., "Underseepage Control Measures at Painted Rock Dam" (1988). International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 55. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/2icchge/2icchge-session3/55 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Proceedings: Second International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, June 1-5, 1988, St. Louis, Mo., Paper No. 3.10 Underseepage Control Measures at Painted Rock Dam
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Assessment
    DOE/EA-1683 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE TO ABENGOA SOLAR INC. FOR THE SOLANA THERMAL ELECTRIC POWER PROJECT NEAR GILA BEND, ARIZONA U.S. Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program Office Washington, DC 20585 May 2010 DOE/EA-1683 CONTENTS Acronynms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. viii SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................x 1 Purpose and Need for Agency Action .......................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Public Participation .................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Document Organization ............................................................................................. 1-5 1.4 Availability of the Environmental Assessment .......................................................... 1-6 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................ 2-7 2.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 2-7 2.2 Solana CSP Project Construction............................................................................. 2-13 2.3 Solana CSP Project Operations ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Study for the Gila River Below Painted Rock Dam
    c/ ' » ; ' .-/ ¿¡feTT^/S'/'73 ;:i C^*i' 1 M ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ■ -4 FOR THE M GILA RIVER M BELOW PAINTED ROCK DAM M ■ :s •J By '4 ■4 University of Arizona ■ it School of Earth Sciences Office of Arid Lands Studies TD 194.56 .A6 P356 1970 |ii,t i,Bjp j i i | M I .....-rr/M m i1 r . w 1 1 IMI "" t I -"ai ion vtKv A d V \ ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE GILA RIVER BELOW PAINTED ROCK DAM Under Contract with Department of the Army Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers Contract Number DACW09-70-C-0079 by University of Arizona School of Earth Sciences Office of Arid Lands Studies Y ¡11 October 1970 Bureau 01 Ru:!s; nc it! on Derwui, Uolorao10 The Gila River at the Dome Gaging Station. Photograph taken December 23, 1930 by U.S.G.S. Matched photograph taken June 23, 1970 by Office of Arid Lands Studies. Significant changes include considerably more sur­ face water and heavy salt cedar growth, apparently a result of heavy irrigation runoff and perhaps the close proximity of bed­ rock to the surface. The line of young cottonwoods (center) has disappeared. CONTENTS «»•«»»••»»•••si« -«-wit* ilij ■_ j o*> ' r ■ .. \ t > . ' P FRONTISPIECE............... iSi FIGURES .... ... .................. • * i* TABLES ...................... ............ xi ABSTRACT ........................................... • • • xiii INTRODUCTION............................... 1 Location and Extent . .......... ............ 1 Authority ........ .................... 1 Object and Scope of Study ....•••••«••••»••» 1 General Organization and Procedures ............ ..... 2 SURVEY AND INVENTORY .......................... 2 Geology, Landforms, and Surficial Deposits ....... .... 2 Structure, Earthquakes, and Economic Geology ....... 4 Channel Characteristics of the Lower Gila River ....... 4 Characteristics of the Major Tributary Washes...........
    [Show full text]
  • Reconnaissance Investigation of Water Quality, Bottom Sediment, And
    RECONNAISSANCE INVESTIGATION OF WATER QUALITY, BOTTOM SEDIMENT, AND BIOTA ASSOCIATED WITH IRRIGATION DRAINAGE IN THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER VALLEY, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, AND NEVADA, 1986-87 By D.B. Radtke, U.S. Geological Survey, W.G. Kepner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and R.J. Effertz, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigation Report 88-4002 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, and U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Tucson, Arizona February 1988 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section Federal Building, Box FB-44 Federal Center, Building 810 300 West Congress Street Box 25425 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1393 Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract........................................................... 1 Introduction....................................................... 3 Purpose and scope............................................. 4 Acknowledgments............................................... 4 Description of the study area...................................... 5 Location...................................................... 5 History....................................................... 5 National wildlife refuges ..................................... 7 Irrigated agriculture........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Painted Rock Reservoir: 1993 Water Surface Area and Storage Capacity Estimate Derived from Landsat Data Classification 6
    US Army Corps of Engineers® Cold Regions Research & Fnginppring Laboratory LIBRARY SEP 2 T 1999 Painted Rock Reservoir ' is Bureau of Reclamation 1993 Water Surface Area and Storage CtipQCity - Estimate Derived from Landsat Data Classification Emily S. Bryant, Timothy Pangburn, Robert L, Bolus, Gregory A. Pedrick, Gregory Peacock, Brian G. Tracy, and Joseph B. Evelyn June 1999 Abstract: The Painted Rock Reservoir, southwest of each Landsat scene using computer classification of Phoenix, Arizona, had a storage capacity of about the digital imagery. These surface area values, together 2.5 million acre-ft in 1959, when dam closure was with reservoir elevation records for the time of the made. It was projected that the reservoir would lose Landsat data acquisitions and 1985 survey informa­ about 200,000 acre-ft of its capacity to sedimenta­ tion, were used to generate an updated elevation vs. tion over 50 years. When the flood of record occurred surface area curve for the reservoir, which in turn was in 1993, however, it was feared that as much as used to compute an updated elevation vs. storage 500,000 acre-ft of capacity had been lost, and an capacity curve. Investigation results indicate that the updated capacity estimate was needed. Because a Painted Rock Reservoir lost approximately 157,000 proposed conventional reservoir survey turned out to acre-ft of storage capacity to sedimentation between be prohibitively expensive, it was decided to investi­ 1953 and 1993, significantly less than the 500,000 gate the use of Landsat Thematic Mapper remotely acre-ft previously feared lost. sensed data, acquired at multiple reservoir levels, to This technique of using remotely sensed data to obtain an updated capacity estimate at a more rea­ update area and capacity curves could be applied to sonable cost.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Bend of the Gila (25-1)
    ARCHAEOLOGY SOUTHWEST CONTINUE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE FOR YOUR magazineFREE PDF (formerly the Center for Desert Archaeology) is a private 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization that explores and protects the places of our past across the American Southwest and Mexican Northwest. We have developed an integrated, conservation- based approach known as Preservation Archaeology. Although Preservation Archaeology begins with the active protection of archaeological sites, it doesn’t end there. We utilize holistic, low-impact investigation methods in order to pursue big-picture questions about what life was like long ago. As a part of our mission to help foster advocacy and appreciation for the special places of our past, we share our discoveries with the public. This free back issue of Archaeology Southwest Magazine is one of many ways we connect people with the Southwest’s rich past. Enjoy! Not yet a member? Join today! Membership to Archaeology Southwest includes: » A Subscription to our esteemed, quarterly Archaeology Southwest Magazine » Updates from This Month at Archaeology Southwest, our monthly e-newsletter » 25% off purchases of in-print, in-stock publications through our bookstore » Discounted registration fees for Hands-On Archaeology classes and workshops » Free pdf downloads of Archaeology Southwest Magazine, including our current and most recent issues » Access to our on-site research library » Invitations to our annual members’ meeting, as well as other special events and lectures Join us at archaeologysouthwest.org/how-to-help In the meantime, stay informed at our regularly updated Facebook page! 300 N Ash Alley, Tucson AZ, 85701 • (520) 882-6946 • [email protected] • www.archaeologysouthwest.org TM Archaeology Southwest Volume 25, Number 1 Center for Desert Archaeology Winter 2011 The Great Bend of the Gila William H.
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Storage at Painted Rock Reservoir Technical Memorandum
    TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF OPTIONS FOR LONG-TERM AUGMENTATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM STORMWATER STORAGE AT PAINTED ROCK RESERVOIR TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM BY: DON BAKER, P.E. BLACK & VEATCH SHARON JEAN-BAPTISTE, P.E. BLACK & VEATCH Q/C: LES LAMPE, P.E. BLACK & VEATCH Final: June 2007 Released: March 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview.................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Project Rationale (Objectives) ................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Other Ongoing Water Management Efforts............................................. 1-1 1.4 Methodology............................................................................................ 1-1 1.5 Technical Memorandum Organization.................................................... 1-2 1.6 Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................. 1-3 1.7 References................................................................................................ 1-3 2.0 TECHNICAL DISCUSSION.............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Overview.................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Summary of Findings..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Bend of the Gila: a Nationally Significant Cultural Landscape
    THE GREAT BEND OFA Nationally THE Significant CulturalGILA Landscape Aaron M. Wright Pat H. Stein Barnaby V. Lewis William H. Doelle The Great Bend of the Gila: A Nationally Significant Cultural Landscape Released December 2015, Archaeology Southwest Cover design by Kathleen Bader Cover image: Photograph by Elias Butler ABOUT THE AUTHORS Aaron M. Wright has more than 15 years of professional archaeological experience in private, academic and nonprofit settings, most of which has focused on the American Southwest. He earned a Ph.D. in anthropology from Washington State University in 2011. Pat H. Stein is a historical archaeologist with 40 years of experience in the American Southwest. Since 1995, she has owned and managed a historic preservation consulting company based in Flagstaff, Arizona. Barnaby V. Lewis is the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Gila River Indian Community. William H. Doelle earned his doctorate from the University of Arizona in 1980. He has more than 40 years of professional experience, and his research focus is southern Arizona. He is the President and CEO of the Tucson-based nonprofit, Archaeology Southwest. The Great Bend of the Gila A Nationally Significant Cultural Landscape Aaron M. Wright Pat H. Stein Barnaby V. Lewis William H. Doelle Prepared by Archaeology Southwest, a private nonprofit organization, promotes stewardship of cultural resources in the Greater Southwest through active research, preservation, and public education. 300 North Ash Alley, Tucson, AZ 85701 520.882.6946 www.archaeologysouthwest.org Prepared for The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a privately funded nonprofit organization, works to save America's historic places.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of November 1965 to January 1966 in the Gila River Basin, Arizona and New Mexico, and Adjacent Basins in Arizona
    Floods of November 1965 to January 1966 in the Gila River Basin, Arizona and New Mexico, and Adjacent Basins in Arizona GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1850-C Floods of November 1965 tc January 1966 in the Gila River Basin, Arizona and New Merico, and Adjacent Basins in Arizona By B. N. ALDRIDGE FLOODS OF 1965 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1850-C UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1970 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WALTER J. HIGKEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing O<"ice Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.50 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract._-_______--_______-____-_-_-__----__--___--_-_----___-_ Cl Introduction. __-__________________-___-_--------_---_-_-_--_--____ 2 Acknowledgments. ____________________________________________ 2 Geographic setting.___________________-_--__-_-___---_--_---____-__ 3 Storms and weather conditions.___________-_---_______-_-_____--____ 3 Storms of November 22-25, 1965________._..___.-___---_-______ 6 Storms of December 9-11 and December 14-15, 1965.______ _______ 7 Storm of December 22-23, 1965_____.______-__-_-______-_.____ 10 Storm of December 29-30, 1965.______._.______________ 10 Floods and runoff_---_____-___-_-_-_----_----_-_---__-------_-_--__ 11 Gila River basin above Coolidge Dam______----____-_-----_---_- 12 Gila River basin between Coolidge Dam and Salt River_____ ________ 14 Salt River basin and Gila River below Salt River.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D. Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment D.1
    Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1027 Appendix D. Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment D.1. Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment Reason for Consideration Public comments submitted on Scoping Process for the Lower Sonoran Field Office and the Sonoran Desert National Monument Resource Management Plan. Segment Description Table D.1. Observations on Gila River Segments Assessed for WSR Eligibility Within BLM Jurisdiction Segment Description Segment Segment Comments Length Acreage Segment A: 19.3 miles from 0.31 miles 50 Urban area, trash, salt cedar, effluent from sewage Hayden Dam to the Gila plants, roads, bridges, transient camps, occupation, River Indian Community stone and gravel extraction. Reservation (east boundary) Segment B: 67.7 miles 0 miles 0 Gila River Community Reservation and Interstate 10. within the Gila River Indian Community Reservation Segment C: 37.6 miles 13 miles 2,080 Phoenix, Goodyear, and Buckeye metro area with from the Gila River Indian farming, residential development, trash, salt cedar Community Reservation trees, effluent from sewage plants, transient camps, (north boundary) to Gillespie OHV use areas, farm runoff and DDT contamination, Dam. non-native fishes, roads, bridges, golf courses, and race tracks. Dirt roads cross bed of river when dry. Fred J. Weiler Green Belt and AGFD and USFWS wildlife conservation areas. Segment D: 40.8 miles from 23.6 miles 3,776 Contaminated fish, DDT contamination, salt cedar Gillespie Dam to Painted Rock infestations, trash, dump debris, roads, and farming Dam run-off. Dirt roads cross bed of river when dry. Fred J. Weiler Green Belt. AGFD has relinquished wildlife management area in flood reservoir of Painted Rocks Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Policies of the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation
    2021 Policies of the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation Adopted by Delegates of the 99th Annual Arizona Farm Bureau Convention Arizona Farm Bureau 2021 Board of Directors Stefanie Smallhouse, Redington President John Boelts, Yuma First Vice President Richie Kennedy, Casa Grande Second Vice President Benny Aja, Williams Ty Kelly, Alpine Art Allen, Yuma Sarah King, Tucson Hayley Andrus, Concho Stephen Klump, Willcox Paul Brierley, Yuma Catherine Mann, Mammoth Rick Evans, Gilbert Sharla Mortimer, Dewey Bob Flake, Snowflake Kristen Nelson, Parker Mark Freeman, Mesa Angie Newbold, Globe Sonia Gasho, Pearce Mike Norris, Casa Grande Jim Goldman, Coolidge Clayton Overson, Valentine Matthew Herrington, Safford Vickie Parks, Flagstaff Ashley Jeffers-Sample, Duncan Tim Petersen, Camp Verde DeWayne Justice, Waddell Ex Officio Dr. Shane Burgess, University of Arizona Sherry Saylor, Buckeye Table of Contents Purpose of Farm Bureau ................................................................................................................. 2 Farm Bureau Beliefs ....................................................................................................................... 2 Land Use/Planning and Zoning ...................................................................................................... 3 Public and Federal Land Natural Resources ................................................................................... 9 State Land Natural Resources ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]