DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Resources Master Plan Executive Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Resources Master Plan Executive Summary Presented by Bradley M. Hill, R.G. - Utilities Director City of Flagstaff, Arizona Plenary Session 1 27TH Symposium sponsored by the Arizona Hydrological Society 2nd partnership with AIPG which brings a national focus on Arizona 2 Honored, Humbled Preparation, Anxiety I know what I was feeling…. but what was I thinking? - Dierks Bentley 3 Goals - Overview Geology, Hydrology & Water Policy of N. Az - Past Local Water Supplies (water & rocks) - Present - What are the Issues? - Managing what we have - Land Use linked with Water Supply - Council adopted Water Policies guides Utilities - Voter approved Watershed Protection Project - Watershed health initiative - Future - Reclaimed water: City Manager’s Advisory Panel - Red Gap Ranch: groundwater 4 Founded 1882 Population – 67,500 Elevation – 7,000 feet Flagstaff Surrounded by: Coconino National Forest Kaibab National Forest Prescott Adjacent to: Grand Canyon N.P. Walnut Cyn N.M. Phoenix Wupatki N.M. Sunset Crater N.M. Northern AZ University Tucson 5 PAST Ca. 1890. Photo Credit: Northern Arizona University Cline Library [NAU.PH.676.8] 1900, photo Credit: Arizona Historical Society, Flagstaff Arizona Lumber & Timber Company Historically Flagstaff was founded by the Railroad & Timber industries 6 Outgrew 1st Water Supply Railroad needed more water and constructed Inner Basin pipeline 1890s 12 miles in length 1921, now Schultz Pass Road. Photo Credit: Arizona Historical Society, Flagstaff [AHS.0467.00075] Initial ~300 customers paid $2/month 2 – 50 Million gallon non-covered storage tanks for entire winter 8 San Francisco Peaks Inner Basin Well Waterline Road PIPELINE OF THE PAST 3 pipelines: 1890s, 1930s, 1990s Pre-Dates Coconino National Forest established in 1908 2.0 MGD Summer Peak Flow ~15% of demand Inner Basin Well Waterline Road Surface Water Lake Mary WTP Lower Lake Mary Dam I - 17 1905 Arizona Lumber & Timber Company Surface Water Upper Lake Mary constructed in 1941 and increased height in 1951 16,300 AF storage Lake Mary WTP 1905 I - 17 Lower Lake Mary Dam 1905 Lake Mary WTP original 1941 8 MGD 13 Groundwater Kaibab 2 primary aquifers Land surface 1,200 FT Coconino Water table Springs from C-Aquifer in deep Verde Valley (Sterling Spring, C - Aquifer upper Oak Creek) Supai J J j Springs from R-Aquifer in 2,500 FT Verde Valley deep (Page Springs, Sycamore Canyon, 2,500 feet deep Redwall R - Aquifer Fossil Creek, lower Oak Creek, etc) Generalized Geologic Cross-section – Coconino Plateau U.S. Geological Survey Paleographic Maps Mississippian – Redwall L.S. Shallow seas © Ron Blakey Professor Emeritus Northern Arizona University 15 Paleographic Maps Pennslyvanian – Supai Group Mountain building © Ron Blakey Professor Emeritus Northern Arizona University 16 Paleographic Maps Permian – Supai Group interplay continental & shallow marine interbedded deposits © Ron Blakey Professor Emeritus Northern Arizona University 17 Paleographic Maps Permian – Schnebly Hill Fm. Blakey & Ranney, 2008 Grand Canyon Association © Ron Blakey Professor Emeritus Northern Arizona University sand dunes & tidally reworked “desert swamps” Pedregosa Sea 18 Paleographic Maps Permian – Coconino Sandstone. Blakey & Ranney, 2008 Grand Canyon Association © Ron Blakey Professor Emeritus Northern Arizona University great eolian desert extensive sand dunes 19 Paleographic Maps Permian – Kaibab Limestone Blakey & Ranney, 2008 Grand Canyon Association © Ron Blakey Professor Emeritus Northern Arizona University Ocean transgression 20 Paleographic Maps Triassic – Moenkopi Fm. Extensive river systems, tidal flats Fluvial deposition © Ron Blakey Professor Emeritus Northern Arizona University 21 1979 – College Notes 22 Groundwater Started drilling wells in 1950s 21 of 28 wells are located outside City Limits Typical well > 2,500 feet deep Depth to groundwater > 1,200 feet Red Gap Well #6 Fort Tuthill Well 80% of Flagstaff’s water supply comes from the Coconino National Forest note the tree density Upper Lake Mary 24 Flagstaff’s Water Supply 1949 - 2013 % of Surface Water v. Groundwater 100.00 90.00 80.00 Drought? 70.00 Surface Water Surface 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 Groundwater 2013 ~ 19% surface water 10.00 ~ 81% groundwater 0.00 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2013 3rd Source of Water Reclaimed Water Goals - Focus on Northern Arizona - Past Local Water Supplies (water & rocks) - Present - What are the Issues? - Managing what we have - Land Use linked with Water Supply - Council adopted Water Policies guides Utilities - Voter approved Watershed Protection Project - Watershed health initiative - Future - Red Gap Ranch: groundwater - Reclaimed water: City Manager’s Advisory Panel * Conference session on Groundwater Management & Policy 27 Water Conservation & Reuse Program Recognition Colorado River Basin Study M&I Conservation & Reuse Group December 2003 November 17, 2009 June 13 2013 Total GPCD Community Commitment Peaked at 186 in 1989 200 180 Decline of 160 140 41% 120 100 80 60 40 20 Low of 111 in 2013 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2013 Residential only (2008): Flagstaff 61 Scottsdale 249 Peoria 125 Payson 66 Chandler 142 Phoenix 123 Clarkdale 73 Mesa 130 Tucson 102 Average Water Use per Account Community Commitment Residential and Non-Residential gallons per day 600 20,000 18,000 500 16,000 14,000 400 12,000 Number of Number Meters 10,000 8,000 300 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 City Council adopted Water Policies Provide principles & guidelines for how Utilities can achieve the goals & objectives outlined by City Council & upper City Management Build upon policies contained within Water Element of the General (Regional) Plan adopted by voters in May 2014 Blue Springs Goals of Flagstaff Water Policies Preserve public’s trust in water, wastewater & stormwater systems Strategic long-term water management planning Sound financial management Demonstrate leadership in the stewardship of our limited natural resources emphasizing conservation & the protection of our natural environment… Finished water pumps Lake Mary WTP Process of developing Policies Reviewed other municipal policies in Arizona City of Peoria & Town of Oro Valley Very transparent process Started discussions in 2008 with citizens advisory Water Commission they approved in November 2012 City Council discussions & review of each policy after 10 meetings they approved in April 2014 33 Chapters Finance Water Resource Management Reclaimed Water Water Conservation Stormwater Infrastructure Master Planning Regional Cooperation & Leadership Water Security Hydrologic studies: groundwater flow model to evaluate long-term sustainability of city’s water supplies Establish tracking of water use: annual average & peak day for each Subdivision Final Plat approved by City Council; existing zoning designation; Commitment of water resources to future growth: links Council approved subdivision Plats with a 100-year water supply ADWR’s Adequate Water Supply Program ~2038 new additional water supply 35 WATER POLICIES Infrastructure Water System Capacity Allocation: for new development Purpose: avoid exceeding flow capacity of pipeline & water production Establishes a tracking & commitment of Peak Day / allocated on a 1st come: 1st served principle Create Benchmarks when City reaches: 80% of committed Peak Day demands identify new infrastructure needs 85% of committed Peak Day demands begin construction of infrastructure 95% of committed Peak Day demands construction completed 36 Goals - Focus on Northern Arizona - Past Local Water Supplies (water & rocks) - Present - What are the Issues? - Managing what we have - Land Use linked with Water Supply - Council adopted Water Policies guides Utilities - Watershed Protection Project – Protect what we have - Watershed health initiative - Future - Reclaimed water: City Manager’s Advisory Panel - Red Gap Ranch: groundwater * Session on Wildfire Impacts on Water Supplies 37 Northern Arizona’s “LANDSCAPE SCALE” FOREST FIRES - setting records for size of 2002 – Rodeo-Chediski 2 fires - 732 mi Flagstaff $43M to suppress 2011 – Wallow 841 mi2 $79M to suppress Forest research has estimated Arizona can withstand another 4 to 5 “landscape scale” fires then all Ponderosa Pine forest will be gone Phoenix 38 San Francisco Peaks Schultz Fire – June 2010 ~ 24 miles2 burned Governor Brewer declaredUpper StateLake ofMary Emergency - July 2010 President Obama declared Disaster Area - October 2010 Inner Basin Pipeline - 2010 40 1990s Purpose & Objective Brief history of city water resources Proactive water resource planning What is sustainable? aging infrastructure water resources 1890s 1930s 1930s 1990s 1890s 1914 42 INNER BASIN PIPELINE RECONSTRUCTION 15% of Flagstaff’s Summertime water supply Photo Credit: City Utilities Division Photo Credit: Tom Alexander Photography Reconstruction cost: ~$4M 43 Completed in 2013 Waterline Road today Each Crossing 50-year storm event Rock gabbion baskets (each 3 feet tall) Pipeline encased in concrete 44 Photo Credits: Tom Alexander Slide Fire – Oak Creek Canyon Slide Fire – May 2014 Initially heading towards Woody Mountain Well field Slide Fire – Oak Creek Canyon 45 A Change in western landscape 1926, photo Credit: Arizona Historical Society, Flagstaff Cady Lumber Company 1860s • Settlers cattle & sheep grazed on the lush grasses and old growth timbers were logged…both leading to a change in plant diversity Early 1900s • Forest conditions changed to more small diameter trees • Trees density/acre increased 40-60/acre to ~2,000/acre
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Greater Flagstaff Area Community Wildfire
    GREATER FLAGSTAFF AREA COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN REVIEW & REVISION May 2012 1 PURPOSE In the summer of 2011, the Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership (GFFP) and Ponderosa Fire Advisory Council (PFAC) initiated a project to “review” the “Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Flagstaff and Surrounding Communities in tHe Coconino and Kaibab National Forests of Coconino County, Arizona” (CWPP). First approved in 2005, the CWPP review is designed to assess the status of implementation activities and evaluate progress towards desired goals. Although not required per the authorizing legislation (Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 - HFRA), nor by the CWPP itself, this was intended to analyze activity within the CWPP area that addressed goals or was influenced by the plan, and to develop a report for local government and land management agencies on findings - it was not designed to revise the text or intent of the CWPP. Primary emphasis was placed on summarizing treatment activity to date and reviewing the “Improved Protection Capabilities” section included on pages 40-43 of the Plan. INTRODUCTION The Greater Flagstaff Area Community Wildfire Protection Plan was approved by the Arizona State Forester, Coconino County, City of Flagstaff, and Ponderosa Fire Advisory Council (representing local fire departments and fire districts) in January of 2005. Jointly developed by the GFFP and PFAC, the plan covered a 939,736-acre area centered on Flagstaff. Working closely with US Forest Service staff and the NAU Forest Ecosystem Restoration Analysis (Forest ERA) program, the CWPP was designed to address the following Goal, Objectives and Principles (quoted form the CWPP): GOAL To protect Flagstaff and surrounding communities, and associated values and infrastructure, from catastrophic wildfire by means of: a) An educated and involved public, b) Implementation of forest treatment projects designed to reduce wildfire threat and improve long term forest health, in a progressive and prioritized manner, and c) Utilization of FireWise building techniques and principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Trip Guide to the 2010 Schultz Fire Burn Area
    Field Trip Guide to the 2010 Schultz Fire Burn Area Arizona Hydrological Society Annual Symposium Flagstaff, Arizona September 18, 2011 Schultz Fire June 20th –June 30th, 2010 The Schultz Fire on June 20th, 2010, as seen from Humphrey’s Peak (Photo: Dan Greenspan, http:/spleen-me.com/blog/) Trip Leaders: Karen Koestner (RMRS), Ann Youberg (AZGS), Daniel G. Neary (RMRS) 1 The symposium planning committee extends a special THANK YOU to the following organizations: - Northern Arizona University, Bilby Research Center, for media type- setting, printing and field trip planning - Northern Arizona University, School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability for field trip logistical support - U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Water Science Center for electronic and printed media production - City of Flagstaff for field trip planning and SWAG bags AHS Annual Symposium September 18th, 2011 INTRODUCTION This field trip guide was created for a September 18th, 2011, field trip to the 2010 Schultz Fire burn area northeast of Flagstaff, Arizona, as part of the Arizona Hydrological Society’s Annual Symposium. The guide provides background information on the 2010 Schultz Fire and aftermath (Section 1), site-specific information for each stop on the field trip (Section 2), and a discussion of issues of wildfires in municipal watersheds (Section 3). Section 1 is a re-print of an Arizona Geology newsletter (volume 40, number 10) that provides background on the Schultz Fire, the implementation and efficacy of Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) mitigation treatments, and an overview of the post-fire flooding and erosion that occurred during the 2010 monsoon (http://azgs.az.gov/arizona_geology/winter10/arizonageology.html).
    [Show full text]
  • Arroyo 2015 States and Mexico Through a Treaty, Apportioned 1.5 MAF Elevation 1075 Feet
    2015 Closing the Water Demand-Supply Gap in Arizona There is an acknowledged gap between future water of water. As a result, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to demand and supply available in Arizona. In some parts of closing the water demand-supply gap. Arizona, the gap exists today, where water users have been living on groundwater for a while, often depleting what Introduction can be thought of as their water savings account. In other places, active water storage programs are adding to water Many information sources were used to develop this savings accounts. The picture is complicated by variability issue of the Arroyo, which summarizes Arizona’s current in the major factors affecting sources and uses of water water situation, future challenges, and options for closing resources. Water supply depends on the volume that nature the looming water demand-supply gap. Three major provides, the location and condition of these sources, and documents, however, provide its foundation. All three the amount of reservoir storage available. Demand for water conclude that there is likely to be a widening gap between reflects population growth, the type of use, efficiency of supply and demand by mid-century unless mitigating use, and the location of that use. In a relatively short time actions are taken. frame, from 1980 to 2009, Arizona’s population grew from The first document is the Colorado River Basin Water 2.7 million people with a $30-billion economy to nearly 6.6 Supply and Demand Study (http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/ million people with a $260-billion economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Assessment Units
    APPENDIX A ASSESSMENT UNITS SURFACE WATER REACH DESCRIPTION REACH/LAKE NUM WATERSHED Agua Fria River 341853.9 / 1120358.6 - 341804.8 / 15070102-023 Middle Gila 1120319.2 Agua Fria River State Route 169 - Yarber Wash 15070102-031B Middle Gila Alamo 15030204-0040A Bill Williams Alum Gulch Headwaters - 312820/1104351 15050301-561A Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312820 / 1104351 - 312917 / 1104425 15050301-561B Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312917 / 1104425 - Sonoita Creek 15050301-561C Santa Cruz Alvord Park Lake 15060106B-0050 Middle Gila American Gulch Headwaters - No. Gila Co. WWTP 15060203-448A Verde River American Gulch No. Gila County WWTP - East Verde River 15060203-448B Verde River Apache Lake 15060106A-0070 Salt River Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Cyn Wilderness - San Pedro River 15050203-004C San Pedro Aravaipa Creek Stowe Gulch - end Aravaipa C 15050203-004B San Pedro Arivaca Cienega 15050304-0001 Santa Cruz Arivaca Creek Headwaters - Puertocito/Alta Wash 15050304-008 Santa Cruz Arivaca Lake 15050304-0080 Santa Cruz Arnett Creek Headwaters - Queen Creek 15050100-1818 Middle Gila Arrastra Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-848 Middle Gila Ashurst Lake 15020015-0090 Little Colorado Aspen Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-769 Verde River Babbit Spring Wash Headwaters - Upper Lake Mary 15020015-210 Little Colorado Babocomari River Banning Creek - San Pedro River 15050202-004 San Pedro Bannon Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-774 Verde River Barbershop Canyon Creek Headwaters - East Clear Creek 15020008-537 Little Colorado Bartlett Lake 15060203-0110 Verde River Bear Canyon Lake 15020008-0130 Little Colorado Bear Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-046 Middle Gila Bear Wallow Creek N. and S. Forks Bear Wallow - Indian Res.
    [Show full text]
  • THE WATER QUALITY of the LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED Fiscal Year 2007
    THE WATER QUALITY OF THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED Fiscal Year 2007 Prepared by the Surface Water Section March 2009 Publication Number OFR 09-11 LCR REPORT FY 2007 THE WATER QUALITY OF THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED Fiscal Year 2007 By The Monitoring and Assessments Units Edited by Jason Jones and Meghan Smart Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADEQ Water Quality Division Surface Water Section Monitoring Unit, Standards & Assessment Unit 1110 West Washington St. Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2935 ii LCR REPORT FY 2007 THANKS: Field Assistance: Anel Avila, Justin Bern, Aiko Condon, Kurt Ehrenburg, Karyn Hanson, Lee Johnson, Jason Jones, Lin Lawson, Sam Rector, Patti Spindler, Meghan Smart, and John Woods. Report Review: Kurt Ehrenburg, Lin Lawson, and Patti Spindler. Report Cover: From left to right: EMAP team including ADEQ, AZGF, and USGS; Rainbow over the Round Valley in the White Mountains; Measuring Tape, and Clear Creek located east of Payson. iii LCR REPORT FY 2007 ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Name Abbreviation Name ALKCACO3 Total Alkalinity SO4-T Sulfate Total ALKPHEN Phenolphthalein Alkalinity SPCOND Specific Conductivity Arizona Department of Suspended Sediment AQEQ Environmental Quality SSC Concentration AS-D Arsenic Dissolved su Standard pH Units AS-T Arsenic Total TDS Total Dissolved Solids Arizona Game and Fish AZGF Department TEMP-AIR Air Temperature Arizona Pollutant Discharge TEMP- AZPDES Elimination System WATER Water Temperature BA-D Barium Dissolved TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen B-T Boron Total TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load CA-T Calcium Total USGS U.S. Geological Survey CFS Cubic Feet per Second ZN-D Zinc Dissolved CO3 Carbonate ZN-T Zinc Total CU-TRACE Copper Trace Metal CWA Clean Water Act DO-MGL Dissolved Oxygen in mg/l DO- PERCENT Dissolved Oxygen in Percent E.
    [Show full text]
  • Oak Creek Canyon
    ' " United States (. Il). Department of \~~!J'~~':P Agriculture CoconinoNational Forest Service ForestPlan Southwestern Region -""""" IU!S. IIIII.IIIIII... I I i I--- I I II I /"r, Vicinity Map @ , " .. .' , ",', '. ',,' , ". ,.' , ' ' .. .' ':':: ~'::.»>::~: '::. Published August 1987 Coconino N.ational Forest Land and Resource Management Plan This Page Intentionally Left Blank Coconino Foresst Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Plan. 1 Organization of the Forest Plan Documentation. 2 Planning Area Description. 2 2. ISSUES Overview . 5 Issues . 5 Firewood . 6 Timber Harvest Levels. 7 The Availability of Recreation Options . 8 Off-Road Driving . 9 Wildlife Habitat . 9 Riparian Habitat . 11 Geothermal Development . .. 11 Management of the Transportation System . 12 Use of the Public Lands . 13 Law Enforcement . 13 Landownership Adjustment . 14 Opportunities . 14 Public Affairs . 14 Volunteers . 15 3. SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION Overview . 17 Prior Allocations . 18 4. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Overview . 21 Mission . 21 Goals . 21 Objectives . 26 Regional Guide/Forest Plan . 26 Outputs & Range of Implementation . 26 Management Prescriptions . 46 Management Area Description . 46 Management Emphasis . 46 Program Components . 46 Activities . .. 47 Standards and Guidelines . 47 How to Apply Prescriptions . .. 47 Coordinating Requirements . .. 47 Coconino National Forest Plan – Partial Cancellation of Amendment No. 15 -3/05 Replacement Page i Coconino Forest Plan Table of Contents continued Standards and Guidelines . 51 Forest-wide . 51 MA 1 Wildernesses . 98 MA 2 Verde Wild and Scenic River . .. 113 MA 3 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Less Than 40 Percent Slopes. .. 116 MA 4 Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Greater Than 40 Percent Slopes. 138 MA 5 Aspen . 141 MA 6 Unproductive Timber Land .
    [Show full text]
  • EMERGING CONTAMINANTS in ARIZONA WATER a Status Report September 2016
    EMERGING CONTAMINANTS IN ARIZONA WATER A Status Report September 2016 CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT • MONITORING • RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES • IMPACTS • RESOURCES • COMMUNICATION & OUTREACH Acknowledgements Misael Cabrera APEC Sponsor, ADEQ Director Henry Darwin APEC Sponsor, ADEQ Director (former) Trevor Baggiore APEC Chair, ADEQ Water Quality Division Director Mike Fulton APEC Chair, ADEQ Water Quality Division Director (former) Randy Gottler APEC Co-Chair, City of Phoenix Committee Chairs/Co-chairs* Dan Quintanar Chair, Outreach and Education Committee Tucson Water John Kmiec Chair, Chemical EC Committee Town of Marana Dr. Jeff Prevatt Chair, Microbial EC Committee Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Dept. Cindy Garcia (M) Co-chair, Outreach and Education Committee City of Peoria Jamie McCullough Co-chair, Outreach and Education Committee City of El Mirage Dr. Channah Rock Co-chair, Outreach and Education Committee University of Arizona, Maricopa Agricultural Center Laura McCasland (O) Co-chair, Chemical EC Committee City of Scottsdale Steve Baker Co-chair, Microbial EC Committee Arizona Dept. of Health Services, Division of Public Health Services Additional APEC Members* Dr. Morteza Abbaszadegan (M) Arizona State University, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering Dr. Leif Abrell (C,M) University of Arizona, Arizona Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants Jennifer Botsford (C,O) Arizona Dept. of Health Services, Office of Environmental Health Dr. Kelly Bright (M) University of Arizona, Soil, Water & Environmental Science Al Brown (O) Arizona State University, The Polytechnic School Dr. Mark Brusseau (C,O) University of Arizona, School of Earth & Environmental Sciences Alissa Coes (C) U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Water Science Center Nick Paretti U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Water Science Center Patrick Cunningham (O) The Law Office of Patrick J.
    [Show full text]
  • Geodatabase of Post-Wildfire Study
    Geodatabase of Post-Wildfire Study Basins Assessing the predictive strengths of post-wildfire debris-flow models in Arizona and defining rainfall intensity-duration thresholds for initiation of post-fire debris flow Ann Youberg DIGITAL INFORMATION DI-44 July 2015 Arizona Geological Survey www.azgs.az.gov | repository.azgs.az.gov Arizona Geological Survey M. Lee Allison, State Geologist and Director Manuscript approved for publication in July 2015 Printed by the Arizona Geological Survey All rights reserved For an electronic copy of this publication: www.repository.azgs.az.gov Printed copies are on sale at the Arizona Experience Store 416 W. Congress, Tucson, AZ 85701 (520.770.3500) For information on the mission, objectives or geologic products of the Arizona Geological Survey visit www.azgs.az.gov. This publication was prepared by an agency of the State of Arizona. The State of Arizona, or any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes no warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report. Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the State of Arizona. ___________________________ Suggested Citation: Youberg A., 2015, Geodatabase of Post-Wildfire Study Basins: Assessing the predictive strengths of post-wildfire debris-flow models inArizona, and defining rainfall intensity-duration thresholds for
    [Show full text]
  • The Rio De Flag (RDF) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Is a 4 MGD Plant That Serves the City of Flagstaff Arizona
    An Exploration of Nutrient and Community Variables in Effluent Dependent Streams in Arizona David Walker, Ph.D University of Arizona Christine Goforth University of Arizona Samuel Rector Arizona Department of Environmental Quality EPA Grant Number X-828014-01-01 Acknowledgements Without the help of several persons, this work would not have been possible. Shelby Flint. UofA graduate student. Without Shelby’s organizational skills both in the field and lab, this project probably would have come to a screeching halt long ago. Shelby has moved on to bigger and better things but will always be sorely missed. Patti Spindler. Aquatic ecologist from ADEQ provided invaluable field and technical expertise. Emily Hirleman.. UofA graduate student. Field, laboratory, and comedic assistance. Nick Paretti. UofA graduate student. Field and laboratory assistance. Leah Bymers. UofA graduate student. Field and laboratory assistance. Elzbieta and Wit Wisniewski. UofA graduate students. Field assistance. Linda Taunt. Head of the Hydrological Support and Assessment Unit, ADEQ. Moral support (did I say I’d have it done on Wednesday?....I meant Thursday…or Friday…maybe next week) Susan Fitch. ADEQ. An endless supply of moral support. Steven Pawlowski. ADEQ. Technical expertise, reviewer, grant manager, and good guy. 2 Introduction 3 Relatively little information is known about waters within Arizona designated “aquatic and wildlife, effluent dependent” (EDW) and even less is known about biological communities living in waters designated as such. Nutrient levels are not routinely required in NPDES permits from these waters so that historical data is either lacking or non-existent. One aspect of EDW’s that is certain is that they will increase in number and importance as population centers increase.
    [Show full text]
  • Mt. Elden Dry Lake Hills Recreation Planning
    United States Department of Agriculture Mt. Elden / Dry Lakes Hills Recreation Planning Project Scoping Proposed Action Forest Service Coconino National Forest August 2020 Mt. Elden / Dry Lake Hills Recreation Planning Project Scoping Proposed Action For More Information Contact: Christine Handler Team Leader Phone: 559-920-2188 Email: [email protected] 1 Mt. Elden / Dry Lake Hills Recreation Planning Project Scoping Proposed Action Project Background The Mt. Elden/Dry Lake Hills (MEDL) area is located directly north of Flagstaff, Arizona (figure 1). Largely because of its proximity to Flagstaff and the appealing diversity of forest topography and vegetation, it is the most popular and heavily used recreation area on the Flagstaff Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest. The area provides thousands of forest visitors opportunities to enjoy the great outdoors, including hiking, mountain biking, riding horse, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing or rock climbing. Adjacent property owners walk this area daily and the project area borders the City of Flagstaff’s ‘Buffalo Park,’ which serves as one of the primary gateways into the Coconino National Forest from Flagstaff. The original MEDL trail system was dedicated in 1987. There are eight trailheads providing access to 14 designated National Forest System trails, including portions of the Arizona National Scenic Trail, Flagstaff Loop Trail, and the historic Beale Wagon Trail. The Little Elden Springs Horse Camp is adjacent to Forest Service Road 556 providing access to the trail system for equestrians staying at the campground. There are numerous organized recreation events which utilize trails and trailheads, some of which have been issued annual special-use permits for over a decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Overview Little Colorado Area, Arizona
    Cultural Resources Overview Little Colorado Area, Arizona Fred Plog CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW: LITTLE COLORADO AREA, ARIZONA by Fred Plog For Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Arizona Bureau of Land Management 1981 USDA Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Southwestern Region Arizona State Office Albuquerque, New Mexico Phoenix, Arizona CONTENTS Page Maps iv Figures iv Tables v Preface vii Acknowledgements vii The Little Colorado Overview Unit 1 Introduction 1 Geology 1 Zone I: The Basalt Highlands 1 Zone II: Coconino-Kaibab, Moenkopi Uplands 7 Zone III: Chinle Plains 7 Zone IV: Sediment Zone 7 Other Considerations 7 Topography 7 Precipitation 10 Temperature 10 Hydrology 12 Soils 16 Vegetation and Fauna 16 Reconstructing Past Environments 17 Geology 17 Topography 23 Precipitation and Temperature 23 Hydrology 25 Soils 25 Vegetation 25 Future Research 28 Resource Acquisition 30 Introduction 30 Geological Resources 30 Landforms 31 Temperature and Precipitation 31 Soil 32 Flora 32 Fauna 33 Strategies of Resource Utilization: Food 33 Strategies of Resource Utilization: Fuel 38 Future Research 41 History of Research 42 Prehistory of the Overview Unit 49 Introduction 49 Paleolndian 49 Desert Culture 52 The Pithouse and Pueblo Periods 53 Chronometric Data 61 Chronologies Again 66 i Page Evolutionary Patterns 68 Demography 68 Productive Processes 70 Organizational Patterns 72 Future Research 74 Ceramic Technology 76 Introduction 76 Style 77 Function 81 Technology 81 Future Research 86 Chipped and Ground Stone 91 Introduction 91 Typology
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 2
    Appendix 2. Summary of location and basin characteristics for sites at which discharge measurements are available from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality [Hydrologic provinces: 1, Plateau Uplands; 2, Central Highlands; 3, Basin and Range Lowlands. Basin codes in Identifiers: BW, Bill Williams; CG, Colorado-Grand Canyon; Cl, Colorado- Lower Gila; LC, Little Colorado; MG, Middle Gila; SR, Salt; SP, San Pedro; SC, Santa Cruz; UG, Upper Gila; VR, Verde. <, less than; >, greater than; e, value not present in database and was estimated for the purpose of model predictions] Drainage Latitude, in Longitude, Site area, Hydrologic Hydrologic decimal in decimal altitude, square Identifier Name unit code Reach province degrees degrees feet miles CGBRA000.44 BRIGHT ANGEL CREEK - BELOW 15010001 019 1 36.10236 112.09514 2,520 100 PHANTOM RANCH CGBRA000.50 BRIGHT ANGEL CREEK - NEAR 15010001 019 1 36.10306 112.09556 2,452 101 GRAND CANYON, AZ CGCAT056.68 CATARACT CREEK NEAR GRAND 15010004 005 1 35.72333 112.44194 5,470e 1,200 CANYON, AZ USGS 09404100 CGCLE000.19 CLEAR CREEK - ABOVE COLORADO 15010001 025 1 36.08414 112.03344 2,520e 36 RIVER CGCRY000.05 CRYSTAL CREEK - ABOVE 15010002 018B 1 36.13542 112.24319 2,360 43 COLORADO RIVER CGDEE000.07 DEER CREEK - ABOVE COLORADO 15010002 019B 1 36.38931 112.50764 1,960 17 RIVER CGDIA000.06 (No name in database) 15010002 002 1 35.76556 113.37222 1,340 <946e CGGDN001.09 GARGEN CREEK - BELOW INDIAN 15010002 841 1 36.08347 112.12319 3,600 4 GARDEN CGHRM000.08 HERMIT CREEK - ABOVE COLORADO 15010002 020B
    [Show full text]