DOCSLIB.ORG

ARIZONA LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY SYSTEM BRIDGE RECORD As of 4/12/2021 Sorted by Agency Excludes City of Phoenix

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ARIZONA LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY SYSTEM BRIDGE RECORD As of 4/12/2021 Sorted by Agency Excludes City of Phoenix Agency Str No Bridge Name Original Construction Project No Year Built Mat Type No of Spans Max Span Length Ft Structure Length Ft Skew Roadway Appr Width Ft Bridge Roadway Width Ft Allow Vert Clearance Ft Overlay In Bridge Rail Type Def SR Bridge Condition NHS On System Apache Co 07731 San Fran River CMPA 1988 3 19 3 6 21 0 24 38.8 0 2 000 98.5 Good Apache Co 08064 Little Colo River Br NON SYS 1934 1 1 1 27 30 0 18 14.2 0 6 600 58.9 Fair Apache Co 08066 Small Wash Bridge FAP 73 1929 1 4 1 28 32 45 24 28 0 400 79.5 Fair Apache Co 08071 Querino Canyon Br FAP 83-A 1931 3 9 5 77 269 0 18 20 0 600 S 19.3 Poor YES Apache Co 08480 Concho Creek Bridge 1900 1 1 1 30 34 0 15 17.5 0 2 400 80.1 Fair Apache Co 08775 RCB 1931 2 19 3 12 38 0 20 22.6 0 0 000 81.2 Good YES Apache Co 08776 SPPA's 1931 3 19 4 6 30 0 20 0 0 87.7 Fair YES Apache Co 08778 Ltl Colo Rvr SPPA's 1982 3 19 3 45 165 45 31 0 0 89.9 Good Apache Co 09048 Chambers Wash RCB S450 1 1966 2 19 5 10 53 0 27 0 0 99.9 Good YES Apache Co 09049 Navapache Wash RCB S450 1 1966 2 19 4 10 43 0 27 0 0 99.9 Good YES Apache Co 09052 Sepulveda Wash RCB S272 1 1958 2 19 2 12 25 0 26 0 0 99.5 Fair YES Apache Co 09621 Seep Draw SPPA 1980 3 19 1 32 32 0 24 0 0 98.0 Good YES Apache Co 09738 Mail Sta Draw SPPA 1982 3 19 1 24 24 0 20 0 0 99.3 Good YES Apache Co 09901 Bonito Wash Bridge 0 1985 4 2 2 17 35 0 24 24 0 2 600 66.3 Fair Apache Jct 07727 Weekes Wash Bridge F-028-1-513 1990 5 2 1 61 63 0 32 31.6 0 911 90.0 Good YES Apache Jct 07905 Weekes Wash Br EB FAP-93(B) 1929 2 1 4 22 88 0 36 41.7 0 3 911 76.4 Fair YES Apache Jct 07906 Weekes Wash Br WB F-022-3(18) 1964 2 1 4 25 93 0 38 38 0 3 411 87.5 Fair YES Apache Jct 07907 RCBC EB FA-93(B) 1930 2 19 3 10 32 0 35 0 0 0 -00 99.6 Good YES Apache Jct 07908 RCB WB F-022-3(1) 1964 2 19 2 12 31 45 40 0 0 -00 99.6 Fair YES Apache Jct 07910 RCB M-707-9(1)P 1987 2 19 5 6 35 20 50 0 0 -00 83.9 Good YES Apache Jct 07911 Weekes Wash RCB M-708-4(1)P 1991 2 19 8 10 87 0 44 44.1 0 1 611 99.6 Good YES Apache Jct 07912 CMPA 0 1991 3 19 13 5 79 20 34 0 0 -00 98.8 Good YES Apache Jct 08834 Baseline Rd-CAP RCB 344-D-77-55 1985 2 19 3 31 114 40 30 0 0 98.8 Good YES Apache Jct 10364 CAP Canal Bridge 124076 2008 5 2 3 140 296 38 84 84 0 911 85.0 Good YES ASU 09385 ASU Pedestrian UP ASU 1964 5 12 1 104 269 0 0 12.8 17.02 300 -2.0 Good YES Avondale 07559 Agua Fria River Br 68220 1988 6 2 10 116 1163 0 68 68 0 911 97.7 Fair YES Avondale 08048 RID Canal Bridge 19500 1972 5 5 1 30 31 0 74 74 0 5 911 98.3 Fair YES Avondale 09412 RID Canal Bridge 60-C-12 1961 5 5 1 40 43 7 96 96 0 2 911 94.0 Good YES Avondale 09435 RID Canal Bridge 40600 1975 5 4 1 32 33 0 68 68 0 400 82.4 Fair YES Avondale 09896 Agua Fria River Br MCHD 68105 1985 6 2 10 125 1252 20 52 52 0 911 77.8 Fair YES Avondale 10163 Gila River Bridge STP-MMA-0(18)P 1998 5 2 18 142 2553 19 57 57 0 911 89.8 Fair YES Avondale 10219 RID Canal Bridge 2000 5 5 1 40 43 7 52 52 0 411 86.6 Fair YES Bisbee 09283 Black Knob Drain RCB 1917 2 19 3 7 26 30 26 94 0 3 0 S 67.9 Poor Bisbee 09629 Mule Gulch Bridge 1920 2 1 4 18 72 0 22 22.1 0 600 S 19.9 Poor Bisbee 09925 Arizona Street Br 1933 2 1 2 16 32 70 22 28 0 3 600 S 29.1 Poor Bisbee 10538 Moon Canyon Ave Bridge 1900 1 1 1 21 23 0 21 20 0 600 S 6.0 Poor Buckeye 07686 Drainage Ditch RCB 68471 1989 2 19 2 12 24 22 18 18 0 0 89.8 Good Buckeye 08029 RID Canal RCB 23-162 1971 2 19 2 10 39 58 42 42 0 3 000 95.0 Fair YES Buckeye 08032 RID Canal Bridge 68750 1978 5 5 1 38 39 6 34 68.4 0 8 911 95.0 Good YES Buckeye 08645 CAP Canal Bridge 1981 5 2 1 88 90 18 36 36 0 911 99.0 Good Buckeye 08866 Buckeye Canal Bridge BRZ-984(32)P 1988 5 5 1 39 40 20 48 48 0 3 411 98.1 Fair YES Buckeye 09424 RID Canal Bridge 68747 1961 5 5 1 36 37 0 34 68 0 4 911 95.7 Fair YES Buckeye 09593 Buckeye Canal Bridge 633000 1979 5 5 1 38 40 13 34 53 0 4 911 97.7 Good YES Buckeye 10517 Osborn Road RCB 2004 2 19 3 12 39 0 28 0 0 99.8 Fair Buckeye 10848 Roosevelt Street RCB RBF Consults 2008 2 19 5 12 64 0 80 0 0 94.9 Good Buckeye 11192 R.I.D. Canal Br 2010 5 5 1 39 40.33 2 32 32 0 411 97.7 Good YES Bullhead City 10171 RCB F-065-1-536 1999 2 19 4 12 49 0 38 38 0 2 000 92.6 Good Bullhead City 10173 Concrete Arch Culvert 1994 1 19 2 24 56 0 50 0 0 96.8 Good YES Bullhead City 10174 Concrete Arch Culvert 1994 1 19 1 24 25 15 56 0 0 99.7 Good YES Bullhead City 10175 Structural Plate Pipe Arch 1994 3 19 5 21 134 30 68 0 0 83.7 Good YES Bullhead City 10176 Structural Plate Pipe Arch 1994 3 19 7 20 146 0 68 0 0 83.7 Good YES Bullhead City 10177 Structural Plate Pipe Arch 1994 3 19 6 19 164 37 68 0 0 83.7 Good YES Bullhead City 10178 Structural Plate Pipe Arch 1994 3 19 2 14 39 35 30 0 0 99.9 Good Bullhead City 10498 SPPA 1994 3 19 4 8 36 0 68 0 0 83.7 Good YES Bullhead City 10696 Desert Shores Drn Chnl RCB 2001 2 19 5 12 64 0 59 0 0 65.0 Good YES Bullhead City 10697 N Fork Drn Chnl RCB 2007 2 19 6 12 77 0 68 0 0 85.7 Good Bullhead City 10698 Drain Channel RCB 2007 2 19 7 12 80 0 52 0 0 84.6 Good Bullhead City 10699 Drn Chnl Steel Culvert 2002 3 19 6 9 60 0 33 0 0 87.8 Good Bullhead City 10700 Sun Ridge 1 Drn Chnl RCB 2006 2 19 5 12 78 34 49 0 0 100.0 Good Bullhead City 10701 N Fork Covered Bridge 206121 2007 7 2 6 17 100 0 28 28 0 700 81.7 Good Bullhead City 10702 Laughlin Ranch Covered Br 201161 2005 7 2 7 20 120 0 29 28.5 0 700 81.5 Good Bullhead City 11178 Fox Wash CMP 1991 3 19 3 8 34 27 68 0 0 84.0 Good YES Camp Verde 08400 Copper Canyon RCB SOS982 53 1979 2 19 4 12 53 15 26 50.2 0 4 90.3 Good Camp Verde 09298 Black Bridge BRS-S-259(5) 1975 5 2 5 72 363 6 40 44 0 111 98.6 Fair YES Camp Verde 10451 Grandpa Wash RCB CDBG 060-95, ACT 2 1997 2 19 6 10 72 26 28 0 0 86.0 Good YES Camp Verde 10617 Faulkner Wash RCB S-326-509 1997 2 19 4 10 67 50 40 0 0 98.8 Good YES Casa Grande 07853 Wash RCB 0 1940 2 19 3 10 34 19 68 68.5 0 000 96.5 Good YES Casa Grande 09068 Wash RCB S375(3) 1958 2 19 3 10 32 0 24 31.3 0 5 600 83.5 Good YES 1 ARIZONA LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY SYSTEM BRIDGE RECORD As of 4/12/2021 Sorted by Agency Excludes City of Phoenix Agency Str No Bridge Name Original Construction Project No Year Built Mat Type No of Spans Max Span Length Ft Structure Length Ft Skew Roadway Appr Width Ft Bridge Roadway Width Ft Allow Vert Clearance Ft Overlay In Bridge Rail Type Def SR Bridge Condition NHS On System Casa Grande 09069 Wash RCB S375(3) 1958 2 19 3 10 32 0 24 31.3 0 4 600 83.5 Good YES Casa Grande 11334 RCB F-014-1(2) 1960 2 19 3 10 25 0 56 0 0 84.2 Good YES CAWCD 08972 CAP RC Culv 1987 2 19 3 16 59 39 34 0 0 100.0 Good CAWCD 11560 CAP Canal RCB 1987 2 19 3 20 54 0 32 0 0 100.0 Good CAWCD 11561 CAP Canal RCB 1987 2 19 3 20 54 0 60 0 0 100.0 Good CAWCD 11562 CAP Canal RCB 1987 2 19 3 20 54 0 32 0 0 100.0 Good Chandler 08027 Consolidated Canal Bridge 41200 1975 1 7 1 21 30 37 78 76 0 1 411 93.5 Good YES Chandler 08042 Consolidated Cnl Br MCHD50800 1976 1 7 1 25 27 21 108 108.5 0 411 93.3 Fair YES Chandler 08046 Consolidated Cnl Br 50500 1975 1 7 1 29 31 24 84 92 0 2 411 97.9 Fair YES Chandler 08868 Consolidated Cnl Br BRM-702-7(1) 1986 1 7 1 55 56 58 94 94 0 3 411 97.6 Fair YES Chandler 08944 Bridge No 1A WB 85028 1986 5 5 1 45 47 0 24 24 0 2 311 97.9 Good YES Chandler 08945 Bridge No 1B EB 85028 1986 5 5 1 45 47 0 24 24 0 2 311 97.9 Good YES Chandler 08946 Bridge No 2 85028 1986 5 5 1 30 32 0 48 48 0 2 311 99.8 Good Chandler 09408 Consolidated Cnl Br 01800 1975 1 7 1 27 30 15 80 99 0 1 311 99.3 Good YES Chandler 09796 Consolidated Canl Br MCHD 68230 1985 3 2 1 32 36 18 83 83 0 911 96.7 Good YES Chandler 10800 Galveston Street Ped OP ST0801-202 2013 4 5 6 129 1006 0 0 10 18.38 -2.0 Good -1 Chandler 11143 Consolidated Canal Bridge 2010 1 7 1 34 36 67 96 96 0 911 95.8 Good YES Chino Valley 08236 Verde River Bridge NONSYS 1930 1 11 1 100 127 0 18 20.1 0 4 400 72.2 Fair Clarkdale 08488 Bitter Creek Bridge 1917 2 1 5 27 130 30 20 18 0 4 400 52.7 Fair Clarkdale 09622 Deception Gulch RCB NF 96K 1942 2 19 3 10 33 15 26 0 0 - 99.7 Good YES Clarkdale 09623 Mescal Gulch RCB FAP 96I1 1941 2 19 3 10 32 0 26 0 0 - 99.5 Good YES Clifton 08536 Chase Creek Br #1 1901 1 4 1 29.75 33 30 20 20.8 0 6 600 S 7.0 Poor Clifton 08973 Chase Creek Br 1915 2 1 2 22 26 0 22 22 0 29.3 Fair Clifton 08974 Rosenbaum Bridge 85231 1987 5 5 3 78 234 22 20 24.2 0 1 611 76.4 Good Clifton 09633 San Francisco Riv Br 1917 3 10 1 210 216 0 30 18 0 2 611 S 15.7 Poor Clifton 09634 Chase Creek Br # 2 1900 3 2 2 10 27 10 21 21 0 411 33.6 Fair Clifton 09636 Chase Creek Br #3 1920 2 4 2 30 62 20 20 18.1 0 1 411 32.7 Fair Clifton 09637 SPRR UP 1900 7 2 3 27 81 0 16.02 -2.0 Fair Cochise Co 07576 Ramsey Cyn Wash RCB 1988 2 19 4 10 61 25 26 26.4 0 2 611 93.0 Good Cochise Co 07577 RCB S-279(1) 1968 2 19 3 10 32 0 34 49.5 0 99.7 Fair Cochise Co 07578 Tres Alamos Wash Br S-358(504) 1971 6 2 3 95 286 0 40 44 0 100 90.0 Fair Cochise Co 07592 Charleston Bridge BRZ-984(39) 1990 6 2 3 103 316 22 32 32 0 911 94.5 Fair YES Cochise Co 08087 Middle March Cr Br 1900 7 2 1 27 30 0 17.8 17.8 0 700 47.4 Fair Cochise Co 08089 Cave Creek Bridge 1936 2 1 2 29 61 0 18 18 0 1 610 55.0 Fair Cochise Co 08091 San Simon River Br S-378 (1) 1957 2 1 6 35 200 45 26 26 0 3 610 57.6 Fair Cochise Co 08092 W Turkey Cr Br # 1 USDA FOREST SVC 1936 2 1 3 26 80 45 14 14.2 0 611 67.1 Fair Cochise Co 08093 W Turkey Cr Br # 2 USDA FOREST SVC 1936 2 1 2 25 51 0 14 14.2 0 611 49.9 Fair Cochise Co 08094 W Turkey Cr Br # 3 USDA FOREST SVC 1936 2 1 2 20 41 0 14.3 14.3 0 611 66.5 Fair Cochise Co 08096 RCB 1938 2 19 4
Recommended publications
  • Cienegas Vanishing Climax Communities of the American

    Cienegas Vanishing Climax Communities of the American

    Hendrickson and Minckley Cienegas of the American Southwest 131 Abstract Cienegas The term cienega is here applied to mid-elevation (1,000-2,000 m) wetlands characterized by permanently saturated, highly organic, reducing soils. A depauperate Vanishing Climax flora dominated by low sedges highly adapted to such soils characterizes these habitats. Progression to cienega is Communities of the dependent on a complex association of factors most likely found in headwater areas. Once achieved, the community American Southwest appears stable and persistent since paleoecological data indicate long periods of cienega conditions, with infre- quent cycles of incision. We hypothesize the cienega to be an aquatic climax community. Cienegas and other marsh- land habitats have decreased greatly in Arizona in the Dean A. Hendrickson past century. Cultural impacts have been diverse and not Department of Zoology, well documented. While factors such as grazing and Arizona State University streambed modifications contributed to their destruction, the role of climate must also be considered. Cienega con- and ditions could be restored at historic sites by provision of ' constant water supply and amelioration of catastrophic W. L. Minckley flooding events. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dexter Fish Hatchery Introduction and Department of Zoology Written accounts and photographs of early explorers Arizona State University and settlers (e.g., Hastings and Turner, 1965) indicate that most pre-1890 aquatic habitats in southeastern Arizona were different from what they are today. Sandy, barren streambeds (Interior Strands of Minckley and Brown, 1982) now lie entrenched between vertical walls many meters below dry valley surfaces. These same streams prior to 1880 coursed unincised across alluvial fills in shallow, braided channels, often through lush marshes.
  • Notices of Public Information 3489

    Notices of Public Information 3489

    Arizona Administrative Register Notices of Public Information NOTICES OF PUBLIC INFORMATION Notices of Public Information contain corrections that agencies wish to make to their notices of rulemaking; miscella- neous rulemaking information that does not fit into any other category of notice; and other types of information required by statute to be published in the Register. Because of the variety of material that is contained in a Notice of Public Information, the Office of the Secretary of State has not established a specific format for these notices. NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1. A.R.S. Title and its heading: 49, The Environment A.R.S. Chapter and its heading: 2, Water Quality Control A.R.S. Article and its heading: 2.1, Total Maximum Daily Loads A.R.S. Sections: A.R.S. § 49-232, Lists of Impaired Waters; Data Requirements; Rules 2. The public information relating to the listed statute: A.R.S. § 49-232(A) requires the Department to at least once every five years, prepare a list of impaired waters for the pur- pose of complying with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)). The Department shall provide public notice and allow for comment on a draft list of impaired waters prior to its submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Department shall prepare written responses to comments received on the draft list. The Department shall publish the list of impaired waters that it plans to submit initially to the regional administrator and a summary of the responses to comments on the draft list in the Arizona Administrative Register at least forty-five days before submission of the list to the regional administrator.
  • Cole and Cole (2015)

    Cole and Cole (2015)

    the new mexico botanist Special Issue Number 4 September 2015 proceedings of the fourth Natural History of the Gila Symposium October 25–27, 2012 Western New Mexico University Silver City, New Mexico edited by Kathy Whiteman Department of Natural Sciences, Western New Mexico University William Norris Department of Natural Sciences, Western New Mexico University 2015 The New Mexico Botanist, Special Issue No. 4, September 2015 An Overview of Aridland Ciénagas, with Proposals for Their Classification, Restoration, and Preservation A.T. Cole and Cinda Cole 15.15 Separ Rd., Silver City, NM 88061 [email protected] Abstract important to the Southwest? Will a ciénaga classification sys- Ciénagas are the American Southwest’s most unusual tem and the creation of Ciénaga Coordinators help to restore wetlands, yet they are dwindling. This paper addresses what and preserve them? they are, their uniqueness and importance, how they devel- oped, and the causes for the loss of most ciénaga habitat. Ciénagas Defined We also propose a classification system for ciénagas that will contribute to a more meaningful and better-focused discus- Undamaged ciénagas are freshwater or alkaline wet mead- sion about ciénagas, provide an inventory of known ciénagas, ows with shallow-gradient, permanently saturated soils in and suggest a system of Ciénaga Coordinators with the goal otherwise arid landscapes that in earlier time supported of identifying, restoring, and preserving the few remaining lush meadow grasses and often occupied the entire widths ciénagas. Finally, the inventory from this paper is made avail- of valley bottoms. Ciénagas occur because the geomorphol- able online in an interactive, open, moderated format that ogy forces water to the surface, and historically they covered will allow anyone to contribute to the correction, evolution, large areas rather than occurring as single pools or channels and general improvement and growth of this database, and (Hendrickson and Minckley 1985; Sivinski and Tonne 2011).
  • Eyec Sail Dzan

    Eyec Sail Dzan

    Desert Plants, Volume 6, Number 3 (1984) Item Type Article Authors Hendrickson, Dean A.; Minckley, W. L. Publisher University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Desert Plants Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents. The University of Arizona. Download date 27/09/2021 19:02:02 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/552226 Desert Volume 6. Number 3. 1984. (Issued early 1985) Published by The University of Arizona at the Plants Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum eyec sail Dzan Ciénegas Vanishing Climax Communities of the American Southwest Dean A. Hendrickson and W. L. Minckley O'Donnell Ciénega in Arizona's upper San Pedro basin, now in the Canelo Hills Ciénega Preserve of the Nature Conservancy. Ciénegas of the American Southwest have all but vanished due to environmental changes brought about by man. Being well- watered sites surrounded by dry lands variously classified as "desert," "arid," or "semi- arid," they were of extreme importance to pre- historic and modern Homo sapiens, animals and plants of the Desert Southwest. Photograph by Fritz jandrey. 130 Desert Plants 6(3) 1984 (issued early 1985) Desert Plants Volume 6. Number 3. (Issued early 1985) Published by The University of Arizona A quarterly journal devoted to broadening knowledge of plants indigenous or adaptable to arid and sub -arid regions, P.O. Box AB, Superior, Arizona 85273 to studying the growth thereof and to encouraging an appre- ciation of these as valued components of the landscape. The Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum at Superior, Arizona, is sponsored by The Arizona State Parks Board, The Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum, Inc., and The University of Arizona Frank S.
  • Arroyo 2015 States and Mexico Through a Treaty, Apportioned 1.5 MAF Elevation 1075 Feet

    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.
  • Appendix a Assessment Units

    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.
  • Geothermal Resource Potential for a Portion of the San Pedro River Valley, Arizona

    Geothermal Resource Potential for a Portion of the San Pedro River Valley, Arizona

    GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL FOR A PORTION OF THE SAN PEDRO RIVER VALLEY, ARIZONA by W. Richard Rahman, Sr. Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-6 Apri11981 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 Funded by the u.s. Department ofEnergy Contract Number DE-FC07-79ID12009 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards RECONNAISSANCE STUDY GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF A PORTION OF THE SAN PEDRO RIVER VALLEY INTRODUCTION A preliminary investigation of the geothermal resource potential of the San Pedro River valley was undertaken the latter part of 1980. The area of investigation is situated in Pinal, Pima and Cochise counties, Arizona. It extends from the town of Mammoth, Pinal County, south-southeast along the river valley to just north of the Johnny Lyon 2 2 Hills, an area comprising 2331 km (900 mi ). With the exception of mining and smelting activities in the Mammoth-San Manuel area, the primary business in the valley is agriculture, cattle ranching and forage crops. The majority of the irrigation, livestock, and domestic wells are along the bed of the San Pedro River, an ephemeral stream that flows northward from its headwaters in Mexico. The wells generally vary in depth from 24 m (80 ft) to 36 m (120 ft) and essentially produce from the subsurface river flow. In the Mammoth-San Manuel area there are some warm artesian wells that vary in depth from approximately 244 m (800 ft) to 457 m (1500 ft). The warmest temperature 0 o measured in these wells was 40 C (104 F).
  • THE WATER QUALITY of the LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED Fiscal Year 2007

    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.
  • Oak Creek Canyon

    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 .
  • EMERGING CONTAMINANTS in ARIZONA WATER a Status Report September 2016

    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.
  • The Arizona Department of Water Resources Cochise, Graham and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona—Dec. 2001- Jan. 2002 by R.L. Barnes

    The Arizona Department of Water Resources Cochise, Graham and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona—Dec. 2001- Jan. 2002 by R.L. Barnes

    D.W.R HYDROLOGIC MAP SERIES REPORT NO. 34 PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DEPTH TO WATER AND ALTITUDE OF THE WATER LEVEL SHEET 1 OF 2 114 113 112 111 110 109 Based on 1968 data, a small elliptical cone of depression was first described by Roeske and Werrell, (1973, p.16). The 37 37 With the exception of the Pantano (?) Formation, all of the previously mentioned basin-fill units are also present in Allen Flat, depression was enclosed within the 4,150 foot contour. It encompassed about 5 square miles and was centered in section 33, however, the units are not as thick (Putman and others, 1988, p. 65). Depth to bedrock in the Allen Flat sub-basin has been Township 21 South, Range 20 East. The major axis of the elliptical cone was northeast-southwest in orientation. Data col- estimated to be from 1,600 to 3,200 feet (Oppenheimer and Sumner, 1980, map). lected by the U. S. Geological Survey in the winter of 1977-78 supports Konieczki’s (1980, sheet 1) reference to the small depression centered within the 4,150 foot contour near Sierra Vista-Fort Huachuca. Putman and others (1988, p.98), using GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE data collected in the winter of 1985-86, stated that the cone of depression within the 4,150 foot contour still extended in a northeast-southwest direction, and had increased areally to the east and southeast of Sierra Vista, to about 7.5 square miles. A T R 21 E The predominant aquifers in the Upper San Pedro Basin are the basin-fill deposits and the floodplain alluvium (Roeske and maximum decline of 9.2 feet was observed between 1985 and 1990 at well (D-21-21) 31CAC, while the minimum observed 36 36 decline was 2.2 feet at well (D-21-20) 35CBC for this period.
  • The Rio De Flag (RDF) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Is a 4 MGD Plant That Serves the City of Flagstaff Arizona

    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.