DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE July 2002 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ROOSEVELT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior Additional information may be obtained from: Ms. Sherry Barrett Mr. Jim Rorabaugh Assistant Field Supervisor Arizona State Office Tucson Suboffice U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 110 S. Church Street, Ste. 3450 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Tucson, AZ 85701 (602) 242-0210 (520) 670-4617 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT AF Acre-feet AGFD Arizona Game and Fish AMA Active Management Area AWS Assured Water Supply BO Biological Opinion CAP Central Arizona Project CAWCS Central Arizona Water Control Study CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cities Cities with water rights in Modified Roosevelt: Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cuckoo Yellow-billed cuckoo ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act Flycatcher Southwestern Willow Flycatcher FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPO Forest Protection Officer FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GRUSP Granite Reef Underground Storage Project HCP Habitat Conservation Plan IA Implementing Agreement ITP Incidental Take Permit Listed species Species listed as federally threatened or endangered under the ESA Modified Roosevelt Roosevelt Dam as modified by construction in the 1990s NCS New Conservation Space NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation RHCP Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan ROD Record of Decision Roosevelt Roosevelt Dam and Reservoir RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative RPM Reasonable and Prudent Measure Section 10 Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA SOD Safety of Dams SROG Sub-regional Operating Group (operators of 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant) SRP Salt River Project TCRU Tonto Creek Riparian Unit Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation USFS U.S. Forest Service ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is considering issuance of an incidental take permit under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to the Salt River Project (SRP) for continued operation of Theodore Roosevelt Dam and Lake. The permit would address the take of federally listed species incidental to operation of Roosevelt Dam and Lake. If the permit is approved, SRP will implement the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan (RHCP) in fulfillment of requirements of the ESA. The RHCP provides measures to minimize and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, the effects of Roosevelt Dam operation on listed species and their habitat and to ensure that any take of listed species will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. A candidate species is also addressed in the event that it is listed in the future. The four species are: the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis), the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), a candidate species. FWS is issuing this draft Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate the potential impacts associated with implementation of the RHCP and issuance of an incidental take permit, and to evaluate alternatives. Three alternatives, including a no action alternative (No Permit), are considered. The preferred alternative is issuance of an incidental take permit to allow continued operation of Roosevelt Dam and Lake up to the maximum elevation of 2,151 feet (Full Operation alternative), in conjunction with implementation of the RHCP. The Re-Operation alternative would involve FWS issuance of a permit authorizing the modified operation of Roosevelt Dam in order to reduce the short-term impact of reservoir operations on listed and candidate species. This alternative would also include measures to minimize and mitigate the take of federally listed species. The consequences of these actions on natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources are discussed in this draft Environmental Impact Statement. Public Comment: If you wish to comment on this draft Environmental Impact Statement, you may send comments to the address below. Your comments must be received by close of business on September 17, 2002. Please note that the names and addresses of people who comment become part of the public record. If you wish to have your name and/or address withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. Anonymous comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety. Please submit your comments as follows: • By mail or hand delivery: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021 • By fax: (602) 242-2513 • In person: At a public hearing to be held on August 27, 2002, 6-9 p.m. at the offices of the Salt River Project, 1521 Project Drive, Tempe, AZ CONTENTS Chapter 1 Purpose and Need.........................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Relationship Between the EIS and the RHCP......................................3 1.1.2 Document Organization ......................................................................4 1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action......................................................................4 1.3 Need for the Proposed Action.........................................................................5 1.4 Scoping and Public Involvement ....................................................................7 1.4.1 Advisory Group, Scoping, and Meetings.............................................7 1.4.2 Issues Raised during Scoping..............................................................7 1.4.2.1 Water Supply Alternatives....................................................8 1.4.2.2 Impacts on the Flycatcher and Recovery Efforts...................8 1.4.2.3 Impacts on the Bald Eagle, Yuma Clapper Rail, and Cuckoo.................................................................................9 1.4.2.4 Mitigation of Impacts on Listed Species...............................9 1.4.2.5 Impacts on Recreation..........................................................9 1.4.2.6 Impacts on Flood Control.....................................................9 1.4.2.7 Impacts on Water Quality.....................................................9 1.4.2.8 Impacts on Wildlife Habitat..................................................9 1.4.2.9 Impacts on Socioeconomics ...............................................10 1.4.3 Issues Selected for Further Consideration..........................................10 1.5 Decisions, Permits, and Approvals ...............................................................10 1.5.1 Decisions and Actions by FWS.........................................................10 1.5.2 Decisions and Actions by SRP..........................................................11 Chapter 2 Background ................................................................................................13 2.1 Description of Applicant and Beneficiaries...................................................13 2.2 Description of SRP Reservoir System and Storage Operations......................15 2.2.1 Overview..........................................................................................15 2.2.2 History ...........................................................................................15 2.2.3 Salt River Reservoir System .............................................................18 2.2.4 Roosevelt Operations........................................................................20 2.2.5 Verde Reservoirs ..............................................................................24 2.2.6 Roosevelt Recreation ........................................................................25 2.3 History of NEPA Compliance at Roosevelt Lake..........................................25 2.4 History of ESA Compliance at Roosevelt Lake ............................................26 2.4.1 1983/1984.........................................................................................26 2.4.2 1989/1990.........................................................................................27 2.4.3 1992/1993.........................................................................................28 2.4.4 1995/1996.........................................................................................29 2.4.5 Summary of Reclamation’s ESA Compliance ...................................31 2.5 Forest Service Consultations ........................................................................31 i Chapter 3 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action..............................................33 3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................33 3.2 Formulation and Evaluation
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]
  • ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    Arizona Department of Water Resources September 2010 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Herbert Guenther Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Karen Smith Assistant Director, Hydrology Frank Corkhill Assistant Director, Water Management Sandra Fabritz-Whitney Atlas Team (Current and Former ADWR staff) Linda Stitzer, Rich Burtell – Project Managers Kelly Mott Lacroix - Asst. Project Manager Phyllis Andrews Carol Birks Joe Stuart Major Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Tom Carr John Fortune Leslie Graser William H. Remick Saeid Tadayon-USGS Other Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Matt Beversdorf Patrick Brand Roberto Chavez Jenna Gillis Laura Grignano (Volume 8) Sharon Morris Pam Nagel (Volume 8) Mark Preszler Kenneth Seasholes (Volume 8) Jeff Tannler (Volume 8) Larri Tearman Dianne Yunker Climate Gregg Garfin - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Ben Crawford - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Casey Thornbrugh - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Michael Crimmins – Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona The Atlas is wide in scope and it is not possible to mention all those who helped at some time in its production, both inside and outside the Department. Our sincere thanks to those who willingly provided data and information, editorial review, production support and other help during this multi-year project. Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Atlas Purpose and Scope 1 SECTION 1.1 Atlas
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters
    Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) L-1 Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters EPA’s MSGP has special requirements for discharges to waters designated by a state or tribe as Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 for antidegradation purposes under 40 CFR 131.12(a). See Parts 1.1.4.8 and 1.1.4.10 The list below is provided as a resource for operators who must determine whether they discharge to a Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 water. Only Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 waters specifically identified by a water quality standard authority (e.g., a state, territory, or tribe) are identified in the table below. Many authorities evaluate the existing and protected quality of the receiving water on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis and determine whether water quality is better than the applicable criteria that would be affected by a new discharger or a new source or an increase in an existing discharge of the pollutant. In instances where water quality is better, the authority may choose to allow lower water quality, where lower water quality is determined to be necessary to support important social and economic development. Permittees are not required to identify those waters which are evaluated on an individual basis. Permit Areas of Coverage/Where EPA Is Permitting Authority Number MAR050000 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, except Indian Country lands Tier 2, Tier 2.5, and 3 waters are identified and listed in the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards 314 CMR 4.00. Surface water qualifiers that correspond with Tier classifications are defined at 314 CMR 4.06(1)(d)m and listed in tables and figures at the end of 314 CMR 4.06.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta) Status Survey of the Lower Colorado River Basin
    ROUNDTAIL CHUB (GILA ROBUSTA) STATUS SURVEY OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN Jeremy B. Voeltz, Wildlife Technician Nongame Branch, Wildlife Management Division Final Report to The Central Arizona Project Native Fish Conservation and Nonnative Aquatic Species Management and Control Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Field Office Phoenix, Arizona and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office Phoenix, Arizona Technical Report 186 Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Program Manager: Terry B. Johnson Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 January 2002 CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information please write to: Arizona Game and Fish Department Office of the Deputy Director, DOHQ 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 and The Office for Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Room 300 Arlington, Virginia 22203 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    [Show full text]
  • The Western Apache Homeland and Archaeology of the Mogollon Rim
    Shí Kéyaa: The Western Apache Homeland and Archaeology of the Mogollon Rim Angie Krall Vincent E. Randall Technical Report No. 2007-03 Desert Archaeology, Inc. Shí Kéyaa: The Western Apache Homeland and Archaeology of the Mogollon Rim Angie Krall Vincent E. Randall Technical Report No. 2007-03 Desert Archaeology, Inc. 3975 N. Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85716 • July 2009 PREFACE The realignment of State Route 260 (SR 260) be- Cores and frontiers depend on vantage point, tween Payson and Heber follows a long tradition however. In this report, KenCairn and Randall ad- of trail blazing through the lands below the Mogol- dress the presumption of the interpretation that lon Rim region. For over 3,000 years, people have described the region as frontier. They examine the passed through the region, perhaps following the region as a homeland and an essential and central route of the modern highway through spring-fed part of the history and identity of Apache, even as meadows and perennial streams. For at least 350 private and public entities have claimed the lands years, the stewards of this land have often been of the Mogollon Rim and native peoples have been Apache and Yavapai. moved to reservations. For modern Apache, the area is a “bridge” be- An extensive view of the Apache use of the tween the modern Yavapai-Apache Nation, Tonto, sub-Mogollon Rim was drawn from published and White Mountain, and San Carlos Reservations. unpublished ethnographic work on Apache places, Tribal members recall trails traveled by foot, don- cultural resource management reports, and the key, horse, or car, as well as camps made under the records of the public agencies who protect and trees, ramadas, or wickiups.
    [Show full text]
  • 371 Tonto National Forest Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area Fact Sheet
    371 TONTO NATIONAL FOREST SALT RIVER CANYON WILDERNESS AREA FACT SHEET The following list of required equipment is designed to promote the personal safety of all visitors and to minimize the impacts of use on the unique and valuable natural resource that we all share in the Upper Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area. Each permitted boating party must be in possession of these required items. Forest Service River Rangers will check for compliance with these requirements. A Firepan - An open metal container or tray, enclosed with rigid sides at least 3 inches high. Fire pans must be large enough to prevent a campfire and its ashes from spilling onto the ground. A Container suitable for storage and removal of all charcoal and ash generated on your trip from the river corridor. A Portable Toilet System to collect all solid human waste for proper disposal at an appropriate waste facility. All solid human waste must be carried out of the river corridor (including toilet paper and personal hygiene items). ' REMINDERS V' Group size is limited to 15 people. V' Attach a boat tag to every watercraft used. V' Possession or transportation of any part of native plants is prohibited. V' Dead and down material may be collected for use as firewood for campfires only. V' Pack out all litter: garbage, food remains, and trash (Orange peels, seed shells and cigarette butts are considered litter). V' The U.S. Coast Guard recommends use of Type III or Type V Personal Flotation Device by each person, on all watercraft. Information regarding current stream flows and snow pack relevant to the Salt River may be accessed by calling the Salt River Project at (602) 236-5929 or logging on to the websites listed below.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 MSGP Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters
    2021 MSGP Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters EPA’s MSGP has special requirements for discharges to waters designated by a state or tribe as Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 for antidegradation purposes under 40 CFR 131.12(a). See Parts 1.1.6.2 and 1.1.7. The list below is provided as a resource for operators who must determine whether they discharge to a Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 water. Only Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 waters specifically identified by a water quality standard authority (e.g., a state, territory, or tribe) are identified in the table below. Many authorities evaluate the existing and protected quality of the receiving water on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis and determine whether water quality is better than the applicable criteria that would be affected by a new discharger or a new source or an increase in an existing discharge of the pollutant. In instances where water quality is better, the authority may choose to allow lower water quality, where lower water quality is determined to be necessary to support important social and economic development. Permittees are not required to identify those waters which are evaluated on an individual basis. Permit Areas of Coverage/Where EPA Is Permitting Authority Number MAR050000 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, except Indian Country lands Tier 2, Tier 2.5, and 3 waters are identified and listed in the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards 314 CMR 4.00.
    [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]
  • FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Publication Number: FS 16 -15
    Arizona Department FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Publication Number: FS 16 -15 Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Salt River Basin: A 2001-2015 Baseline Study – June 2016 Introduction The Arizona Department of Environmen- tal Quality (ADEQ) Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Program conducted a baseline study to characterize the groundwater quality of the Salt River basin from 2001 to 2015. ADEQ carried out this task under Arizona Revised Statutes §49-225 that mandates monitoring of waters of the state including its aquifers. The fact sheet is a synopsis of the ADEQ Open-File Re- port 16-01.1 Groundwater in the Salt River basin is generally suitable for drinking water uses based on the sampling results from this study. The Salt River basin comprises 5,232 square miles within east-central Arizona and includes portions of Apache, Gila, Greenlee, Maricopa, and Navajo coun- ties. The basin extends from the White Figure 1 - Map of the Salt River Basin Mountains located near the New Mexico *This map is for general reference only and may not be all inclusive. More detailed information and specific locations can be obtained by contact- border to the northeast of Phoenix where ing the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Stewart Mountain Dam forms Saguaro Lake (Figure 1). The basin’s population was 29,057 in 2000, most of who lived in the communities of Globe, Miami, Young, and in Fort Apache and Whiteriver on the White Mountain Apache Nation.² Most land is used for recreation and live- stock grazing, with major copper mines located in the Globe-Miami area.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Department of Health Services Designation of Medically Underserved Areas October 2002
    ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DESIGNATION OF MEDICALLY UNDERSERVED AREAS OCTOBER 2002 Arizona Department Of Health Services Catherine R. Eden, Ph.D., Director Published By Arizona Department Of Health Services Office of Health Systems Development 1740 W. Adams Street, Room 302 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: (602) 542-1219 This Report Is Provided As required By Arizona Revised Statute § 36-2352(B) Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Public HealthServices Officeof HealthSystems Development Designation of Medically-Underserved Areas October 2002 Jane Dee Hull, Governor CatherineR. Eden, Director HPSA - Health Professional Shortage Area PCA - Primary Care Area Introduction The Arizona Medically Underserved Area (AzMUA) report is prepared by the Arizona Department of Health Services, as mandated by A.RS. § 36-2352. Within the Arizona Department of Health Services, Division ofPublic Health, the Officeof HealthSystems Development (HSD) is responsible foractivities associated withthe implementation of A.RS. § 36-2352. The Officeof Health Systems Development is responsible forassisting communities in obtainingboth state and federal shortage designations. Additionally, the HSD manages programs thatprovide incentives in theform ofloan repayment forprimary health care providers to work in medically underserved areas. The HSD is also responsible for the implementation of A.RS. § 36-2907.06, QualifyingCommunity Health Centers Primary Care Program, now more familiarlyknown as the Tobacco Tax Primary Care "Part B" programand A.RS. §36-2174,
    [Show full text]
  • The Arizona Bureau of Mines
    Mineral Deposits of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona Authors Moore, R.T. Publisher Arizona Geological Survey (Tucson, AZ) Rights Arizona Geological Survey. All rights reserved. Download date 01/10/2021 02:18:43 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/630607 MINERAL DEPOSITS of the FORT APACHE INDIAN RESERVATION, ARIZONA by Richard T. Moore, Geologist Price $1.25 (Free to Residents of Arizona) THE ARIZONA BUREAU OF MINES Bulletin 177 1968 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA TUCSON TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD Page INTRODUCTION 1 General Statement 1 This report by Dr. Richard T. Moore, Geologist, Arizona Bureau Scope of Report . ........................................... 1 of Mines, presents the finding of a survey made by the Arizona Bureau Previous Studies 1 of Mines, University of Arizona, for the United States Department of Acknowledgments . .................... .. .......... ........ 2 the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Physical Features 2 Location and Extent ........................................ 2 The basic pnrpose and essential scope of the work were those of History of Establishment .................................... 2 conducting a geological survey of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation Topography and Physiography. ............................... 4 of Arizona to ascertain what potentially valuable metallic and non­ Climate and Vegetation. .... ... .. ..... .. .. ............... .. 8 metallic (industrial) mineral and rock deposits occur within the boun­ Markets, Transportation, and Power Facilities 9 General Geology 11 daries of the Reservation. Rock Units :........................................... 11 Permission to publish the findings as a technical bulletin of the Structure 11 Arizona Bnreau of Mines kindly has been granted by the United States Development ..................... 11 Folds 14 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Faults. .... .. ....................... .. ........ .. ...... 14 Mineral Commodities 14 J. D. Forrester, Director General Statement '.
    [Show full text]