DOCSLIB.ORG

APPENDIX G ARIZONA's 2016 IMPAIRED WATERS Priority Ranking for TMDL Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
APPENDIX G ARIZONA's 2016 IMPAIRED WATERS Priority Ranking for TMDL Development APPENDIX G ARIZONA’S 2016 IMPAIRED WATERS Priority Ranking for TMDL Development This list contains assessment units that were assessed as impaired (Category 5) by ADEQ or EPA during the current and previous assessment listing cycles (2016 listings are in bold). CAUSE(S) OF IMPAIRMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT PRIORITY (YEAR FIRST LISTED) Bill Williams Watershed Alamo Lake Ammonia (2004), mercury in fish tis- Medium 15030204-0040 sue (2002- EPA), high pH (1996) Bill Williams River Alamo Lake to Castaneda Wash Ammonia (2006) Medium 15030204-003 Boulder Creek Tributary at 344114/1131800 to Wilder Creek Beryllium (dissolved)(2010) Low 15030202-006B Coors Lake Mercury in fish tissue (2004- EPA) Low 15030202-5000 Colorado-Grand Canyon Watershed Colorado River Lake Powell to Paria River Selenium (total) (2016) Low 14070006-001 Colorado River Selenium (total) and suspended sedi- Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek Low ment concentration (2004) 15010002-003 Kanab Creek Jump-up Canyon to Colorado River 15010003- Selenium (total) (2016) Low 001 Lake Powell Mercury in fish tissue (2010- EPA) Low 14070006-1130 Paria River Suspended sediment concentration Utah border to Colorado River (2004), E. coli (2006), selenium Medium 14070007-123 (total) (2016) Virgin River Sullivan’s Canyon to Beaver Dam Wash Selenium (total) (2012) Medium 15010010-004 Virgin River Selenium (total) and suspended Beaver Dam Wash to Big Bend Wash sediment concentration (2004), E. coli Medium 15010010-003 (2010) Colorado-Lower Gila Watershed Colorado River Hoover Dam to Lake Mohave Selenium (total) (2004) Low 15030101-015 Appendix C - 1 CAUSE(S) OF IMPAIRMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT PRIORITY (YEAR FIRST LISTED) Colorado River Main Canal to Mexico border Selenium (total) (2006) Low 15030107-001 Lake Mohave Selenium (total) (2010) Low 15030101-0960 Painted Rock Borrow Pit Lake Low dissolved oxygen (1992) Low 15070201-1010 Little Colorado Watershed Black Canyon Lake Ammonia (2010) Low 15020010-0180 Lyman Lake Mercury in fish tissue (2004- EPA) Low 15020001-0850 Pintail Lake Ammonia (2010) Low 15020005-5000 Puerco River Copper (dissolved) (2010), E. coli Dead Wash to Ninemile Wash Medium (2012/14) 15020007-007 Telephone Lake Ammonia (2010) Low 15020005-1500 Middle Gila Watershed Agua Fria River E. coli (2010), selenium (total) Sycamore Creek to Big Bug Creek Low (2016) 15070102-023 Alvord Lake Ammonia (2004) Low 15060106B-0050 Arnett Creek Headwaters to Queen Creek Copper (dissolved) (2010) High 15050100-1818 Chaparral Park Lake Low dissolved oxygen and E. coli Medium 15060106B-0300 (2004) Cortez Park Lake Low dissolved oxygen and high pH Medium 15060106B-0410 (2004) Gila River Suspended sediment concentration San Pedro River to Mineral Creek Low (2006) 15050100-008 Hassayampa River Buckeye Canal to Gila River E. coli (2016) Low 15070103-001B Lake Pleasant Mercury in fish tissue (2006- EPA) Low 15070102-1100 Mineral Creek Copper (dissolved) (1992), selenium Devil's Canyon to Gila River (total) (2004), low dissolved oxygen Low 15050100-012B (2006) Money Metals Trib Headwaters to Unnamed Tributary (UB1) Copper and zinc (2016) Low 15070102-123 Appendix C- 2 CAUSE(S) OF IMPAIRMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT PRIORITY (YEAR FIRST LISTED) Queen Creek Copper (dissolved) (2002), lead (total) Headwaters to Superior WWTP discharge High (2010), selenium (total) (2012) 15050100-014A Queen Creek Superior WWTP discharge to Potts Canyon Copper (dissolved) (2004) High 15050100-014B Queen Creek Potts Canyon to Whitlow Canyon Copper (dissolved) (2010) High 15050100-014C Unnamed Trib to Eugene Gulch Headwaters to Eugene Gulch Copper (dissolved) (2016) Low 15070102-1994 Unnamed Tributary to Queen Creek (UQ2) Headwaters to Queen Creek Copper (dissolved) (2010) High 15050100-1000 Unnamed Tributary to Queen Creek (UQ3) Headwaters to Queen Creek Copper (dissolved) (2010) High 15050100-1843 Unnamed Tributary to Queen Creek (UQE) Headwaters to Queen Creek Copper (dissolved) (2010) High 15050100-991 Salt Watershed Apache Lake Low dissolved oxygen(2006) Low 15060106A-0070 Canyon Lake Low dissolved oxygen(2004) Low 15060106A-0250 Christopher Creek Headwaters to Tonto Creek Low dissolved oxygen (2016) Low 15060105-353 *Also on Not Attaining (4A) List Crescent Lake High pH (2002- EPA) Low 15060101-0420 Five Point Tributary Headwaters to Pinto Creek Copper (dissolved) (2006) High 15060103-885 Pinto Creek West Fork Pinto Creek to Roosevelt Lake Selenium (total) (2004) Low 15060103-018C *Also on Not Attaining (4A) List Roosevelt Lake Mercury in fish tissue (2006- EPA) Low 15060103-1240 Salt River Canyon Creek to Cherry Creek Selenium (total) (2012/14) Low 15060103-007 Salt River Pinal Creek to Roosevelt Lake E. coli (2010) Medium 15060103-004 Tonto Creek Tributary @ 341810/1110414 to Haigler Creek Mercury in fish tissue (2010- EPA) Low 15060105-013B Appendix C - 3 CAUSE(S) OF IMPAIRMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT PRIORITY (YEAR FIRST LISTED) Tonto Creek Haigler Creek to Spring Creek Mercury in fish tissue (2010-EPA) Low 15060105-011 Tonto Creek Spring Creek to Rye Creek Mercury in fish tissue (2010-EPA) Low 15060105-009 Tonto Creek Rye Creek to Gun Creek Mercury in fish tissue (2010-EPA) Low 15060105-008 Tonto Creek Gun Creek to Greenback Creek Mercury in fish tissue (2010-EPA) Low 15060105-006 Tonto Creek (TON) Greenback Creek to Roosevelt Lake 15060105- Mercury in fish tissue (2010-EPA) Low 004 San Pedro Watershed Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Cyn Wilderness - San Pedro River E. coli (2016) Medium 15050203-004C Brewery Gulch Copper (dissolved) (2004-EPA and Headwaters to Mule Gulch Low ADEQ 2006/08) 15080301-337 Copper Creek Cadmium, copper, zinc and selenium Headwaters - Prospect Canyon Medium (2016) 15050203-022A Mule Gulch Headwaters to above Lavender Pit Copper (dissolved) (1990) Low 15080301-090A Mule Gulch Above Lavender Pit to Bisbee WWTP discharge Copper (dissolved) (1990) Low 15080301-090B Mule Gulch Bisbee WWTP discharge to Highway 80 bridge Copper (total and dissolved) (1990) Low 15080301-090C San Pedro River E. coli and copper (dissolved) (2010), Mexico border to Charleston High dissolved oxygen (2016) 15050202-008 San Pedro River Babocomari Creek to Dragoon Wash E. coli (2004) High 15050202-003 Santa Cruz Watershed Nogales Wash Ammonia and copper (dissolved) Mexico border to Potrero Creek (2004), total residual chlorine (1996), High 15050301-011 E. coli (1998) Parker Canyon Lake Mercury in fish tissue (2004- EPA) Low 15050301-1040 Potrero Creek E. coli, low dissolved oxygen and total Interstate 19 to Santa Cruz River High residual chlorine (2010) 15050301-500B Appendix C- 4 CAUSE(S) OF IMPAIRMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT PRIORITY (YEAR FIRST LISTED) Rose Canyon Lake Low pH (2004- EPA) Low 15050302-1260 Santa Cruz River Canada Del Oro to HUC 15050303 E. coli (2016) High 15050301-001 Santa Cruz River Josephine Canyon to Tubac Bridge Ammonia and E. coli (2010) High 15050301-008A Santa Cruz River Nogales WWTP - Josephine Can E. coli (2012/14) High 15050301-009 Sonoita Creek 1600 feet below Patagonia WWTP discharge to Zinc (total) (2004), low dissolved oxy- Low Patagonia Lake gen (1998) 15050301-013C Upper Gila River Blue River Strayhorse Creek to San Francisco River E. coli (2006) Medium 15040004-025B Cave Creek Headwaters to South Fork Cave Creek Selenium (total) (2004) Low 15040006-852A Gila River Bonita Creek to Yuma Wash Lead (total) (2010) Low 15040005-022 San Francisco River Blue River to Limestone Gulch E. coli (2006) Medium 15040004-003 San Francisco River Limestone Gulch to Gila River E. coli (2010) Medium 15040004-001 Verde Watershed Ackers East Headwaters - Ackers West E. coli (2016) High 15060202-3313 Ackers West Headwaters - Granite Creek E. coli (2016) High 15060202-3333 Aspen Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek E. coli (2016) High 15060202-769 Bannon Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek E. coli (2016) High 15060202-774 Butte Creek Headwaters - Miller Creek E. coli (2012/14) High 15060202-768 Appendix C - 5 CAUSE(S) OF IMPAIRMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT PRIORITY (YEAR FIRST LISTED) Government Canyon Headwaters - Granite Creek E. coli (2016) High 15060202-775 Granite Creek Headwaters to Willow Creek E. coli (2010) High 15060202-059A Granite Creek Yavapai Reservation to Watson Lake E. coli (2010) High 15060202-059B Manzanita Creek Headwaters to Granite Creek E. coli (2012/14) High 15060202-772 Miller Creek Headwaters to Granite Creek E. coli (2010) High 15060202-767 North Fork Miller Headwaters to Miller Creek E. coli (2016) High 15060202-013 North Granite Creek Headwaters to Granite Creek E. coli (2016) High 15060202-757 Oak Creek Spring Creek to Verde River E. coli (2016) High 15060202-016 Slaughterhouse Gulch Headwaters to Granite Creek E. coli (2016) High 15060202-777 Verde River Bartlett Dam to Camp Creek Arsenic (total) (2010) Low 15060203-004 Verde River Sycamore Creek to Oak Creek Dissolved oxygen and E. coli (2016) Medium 15060202-025 Watson Lake Nitrogen, low dissolved oxygen, high High 15060202-1590 pH (2004- EPA) Willow Creek Reservoir Ammonia (2012) Low 15060202-1660 Appendix C- 6.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR
    Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR Colorado River at Mile 50. Cover: Salt River. Letter from the President ivers are the great treasury of noted scientists and other experts reviewed the survey design, and biological diversity in the western state-specific experts reviewed the results for each state. RUnited States. As evidence mounts The result is a state-by-state list of more than 250 of the West’s that climate is changing even faster than we outstanding streams, some protected, some still vulnerable. The feared, it becomes essential that we create Great Rivers of the West is a new type of inventory to serve the sanctuaries on our best, most natural rivers modern needs of river conservation—a list that Western Rivers that will harbor viable populations of at-risk Conservancy can use to strategically inform its work. species—not only charismatic species like salmon, but a broad range of aquatic and This is one of 11 state chapters in the report. Also available are a terrestrial species. summary of the entire report, as well as the full report text. That is what we do at Western Rivers Conservancy. We buy land With the right tools in hand, Western Rivers Conservancy is to create sanctuaries along the most outstanding rivers in the West seizing once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to acquire and protect – places where fish, wildlife and people can flourish. precious streamside lands on some of America’s finest rivers. With a talented team in place, combining more than 150 years This is a time when investment in conservation can yield huge of land acquisition experience and offices in Oregon, Colorado, dividends for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX
    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE PHOENIX AMA Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Brown and Caldwell Project No. 23481.001 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 9 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Use by the Fishes of a Southwestern Desert Stream: Cherry Creek, Arizona
    ARIZONA COOPERATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNIT SEPTEMBER 2010 Habitat use by the fishes of a southwestern desert stream: Cherry Creek, Arizona By: Scott A. Bonar, Norman Mercado-Silva, and David Rogowski Fisheries Research Report 02-10 Support Provided by: 1 Habitat use by the fishes of a southwestern desert stream: Cherry Creek, Arizona By Scott A. Bonar, Norman Mercado-Silva, and David Rogowski USGS Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit School of Natural Resources and the Environment 325 Biological Sciences East University of Arizona Tucson AZ 85721 USGS Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit Fisheries Research Report 02-10 Funding provided by: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service With additional support from: School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona Arizona Department of Game and Fish United States Geological Survey 2 Executive Summary Fish communities in the Southwest U.S. face numerous threats of anthropogenic origin. Most importantly, declining instream flows have impacted southwestern stream fish assemblages. Maintenance of water flows that sustain viable fish communities is key in maintaining the ecological function of river ecosystems in arid regions. Efforts to calculate the optimal amount of water that will ensure long-term viability of species in a stream community require that the specific habitat requirements for all species in the community be known. Habitat suitability criteria (HSC) are used to translate structural and hydraulic characteristics of streams into indices of habitat quality for fishes. Habitat suitability criteria summarize the preference of fishes for numerous habitat variables. We estimated HSC for water depth, water velocity, substrate, and water temperature for the fishes of Cherry Creek, Arizona, a perennial desert stream.
    [Show full text]
  • Area Land Use Plan
    DETAIL VIEW #1 RIM TRAIL ESTATES DETAIL VIEW #2 GIRL SCOUT CAMP 260 KOHL'S RANCH VERDE GLEN FR 199 TONTO CREEK 5 THOMPSON THOMPSON DRAW I E. VERDE RIVER DRAW II BOY SCOUT CAMP FR 64 FR 64 WHISPERING PINES PINE MEADOWS BEAR FLATS FR 199 DETAIL VIEW #3 FLOWING SPRINGS DETAIL VIEW #4 DETAIL VIEW #5 DIAMOND POINT FOREST HOMES & 87 FR 29 COLLINS RANCH E. VERDE RIVER COCONINO COUNTY EAST VERDE PARK FR 64 260 FR 64 TONTO VILLAGE GILA COUNTYLION SPRINGS DETAIL VIEW #6 DETAIL VIEW #7 DETAIL VIEW #8 FR 200 FR FR 291 PONDEROSA SPRINGS CHRISTOPHER CREEK 260 HAIGLER CREEK HAIGLER CREEK (HIGHWAY 260 REALIGNMENT) COLCORD MOUNTAIN HOMESITES HUNTER CREEK FR 200 DETAIL VIEW #9 DETAIL VIEW #10 DETAIL VIEW #11 ROOSEVELT LAKE ESTATES 87 FR 184 188 OXBOW ESTATES SPRING CREEK 188 JAKES CORNER KEY MAP: LEGEND Residential - 3.5 to 5 du/ac Residential - 5 to 10 du/ac Regional Highways and Significant Roadways NORTHWEST NORTHEAST Major Rivers or Streams Residential - 10+ du/ac Gila County Boundary Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial WEST EAST Federal/Incorporated Area Lands CENTRAL CENTRAL Light Industrial LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS Heavy Industrial SOUTH Residential - 0 to 0.1 du/ac Public Facilities AREA LAND USE PLAN Residential - 0.1 to 0.4 du/ac DETAILED VIEWS Multi-Functional Corridor FIGURE 2.F Residential - 0.4 to 1.0 du/ac Mixed Use Residential - 1 to 2 du/ac Resource Conservation 0' NOVEMBER, 2003 3 Mi Residential - 2 to 3.5 du/ac GILA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2012 Potential Resort/Lodging Use 1 1/2 Mi GILA COUNTY, ARIZONA DETAIL VIEW #1 RIM TRAIL ESTATES DETAIL VIEW #2 GIRL SCOUT CAMP 260 KOHL'S RANCH VERDE GLEN FR 199 TONTO CREEK 5 THOMPSON THOMPSON DRAW I E.
    [Show full text]
  • Scoping Report: Grand Staircase-Escalante National
    CONTENTS 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Scoping Process ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Purpose of Scoping ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Scoping Outreach .............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.1 Publication of the Notice of Intent ....................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Other Outreach Methods ....................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Opportunities for Public Comment ................................................................................................ 3 2.4 Public Scoping Meetings .................................................................................................................. 4 2.5 Cooperating Agency Involvement ................................................................................................... 4 2.6 National Historic Preservation Act and Tribal Consultation ....................................................... 5 3 Submission Processing and Comment Coding .................................................................................... 5
    [Show full text]
  • • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife
    •UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Division of Fishery Services Phoenix, Arizona Progress Report • FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Black and Salt Rivers Ft. Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian ,Reservations Arizona January 21, 1966 February 3, 1966 Initial Report Black and Salt Rivers Ft. Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations Arizona Introduction During the past several years, the Bureau of Sport'Fisheries'and Wildlife, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has-intensified its fishery managementi assistance to the Ft. Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations. During this period many reports summarizing fishery management activities have been submitted. None, however, has dealt with the important Black and Salt Rivers or their fishery potential. This report summarizes the- results of preliminary fishery investigations on the Salt and Black Rivers, including fishery potentials, and Is directed to the Tribal organization and•agencies of the San Carlos and Ft.-Apache Indian Reservations. The Black and Salt Rivers of Arizona flow through some of the most- spectacular canyons of the Southwest. The Salt River Canyon crossing at Highway 60 is often referred to as.the second-Grand Canyon of Arizona, with vividly colored canyon walls rising vertically more than 3,000. feet. The Black River follows a major - - - rift through basalt rock that is often narrow and exceeds 26000 feet in depth in many places. Canyons, alternately widening and boxing, extending from alpine to upper sonorian life zones, are characteristic of the study area Stands of virgin . spruce and ponderosa pine lend beauty to the.
    [Show full text]
  • Hassayampa Landscape Restoration EA Aquatics Resources Report
    Hassayampa Landscape Restoration Environmental Assessment Aquatics Resources Report Prepared by: Albert Sillas Fishery Biologist Prescott National Forest for: Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest August 25, 2017 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Relation of Sediment Load and Flood-Plain Formation to Climatic Variability, Paria River Drainage Basin, Utah and Arizona
    Relation of sediment load and flood-plain formation to climatic variability, Paria River drainage basin, Utah and Arizona JULIA B. GRAF U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 375 S. Euclid, Tucson, Arizona 85719 ROBERT H. WEBB U.S. Geological Survey, 1675 W. Anklam Road, Tucson, Arizona 85745 RICHARD HEREFORD U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Division, 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 ABSTRACT sediment load for a given discharge declined fill that rises 1-5 m above the modern channel abruptly in the early 1940s in the Colorado bed. Flood-plain deposits are present in all Suspended-sediment load, flow volume, River at Grand Canyon (Daines, 1949; Howard, major tributaries of the Paria River. The area of and flood characteristics of the Paria River 1960; Thomas and others, 1960; Hereford, flood plains is slightly greater than 20 km2, and were analyzed to determine their relation to 1987a). The decline in suspended-sediment sediment volume is estimated to be about 40 climate and flood-plain alluviation between loads has been attributed to improved land use million m3 (Hereford, 1987c). Typically, flood 1923 and 1986. Flood-plain alluviation began and conservation measures initiated in the 1930s plains are not present in first-order drainage ba- about 1940 at a time of decreasing magnitude (Hadley, 1977). A change in sediment-sampler sins but are present in basins of second and and frequency of floods in winter, summer, type and in methods of analysis have been higher order where the stream channel is uncon- and fall. No floods with stages high enough to discounted as causes for the observed decrease fined and crosses nonresistant bedrock forma- inundate the flood plain have occurred since (Daines, 1949; Thomas and others, 1960).
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon National Park U.S
    National Park Service Grand Canyon National Park U.S. Department of the Interior The official newspaper North Rim 2015 Season The Guide North Rim Information and Maps Roosevelt Point, named for President Theodore Roosevelt who in 1908, declared Grand Canyon a national monument. Grand Canyon was later established as a national park in 1919 by President Woodrow Wilson. Welcome to Grand Canyon S ITTING ATOP THE K AIBAB a meadow, a mother turkey leading her thunderstorms, comes and goes all too flies from the South Rim, the North Plateau, 8,000 to 9,000 feet (2,400– young across the road, or a mountain quickly, only to give way to the colors Rim offers a very different visitor 2,750 m) above sea level with lush lion slinking off into the cover of the of fall. With the yellows and oranges of experience. Solitude, awe-inspiring green meadows surrounded by a mixed forest. Visitors in the spring may see quaking aspen and the reds of Rocky views, a slower pace, and the feeling of conifer forest sprinkled with white- remnants of winter in disappearing Mountain maple, the forest seems to going back in time are only a few of the barked aspen, the North Rim is an oasis snowdrifts or temporary mountain glow. Crispness in the air warns of winter many attributes the North Rim has in the desert. Here you may observe lakes of melted snow. The summer, snowstorms soon to come. Although to offer. Discover the uniqueness of deer feeding, a coyote chasing mice in with colorful wildflowers and intense only 10 miles (16 km) as the raven Grand Canyon’s North Rim.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Chino Valley North 7½' Quadrangle, Yavapai County, Arizona
    DIGITAL GEOLOGIC MAP DGM-80 Arizona Geological Survey www.azgs.az.gov GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE CHINO VALLEY NORTH 7½’ QUADRANGLE, YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, V. 1.0 Brian. F. Gootee, Charles A. Ferguson, Jon E. Spencer and Joseph P. Cook December 2010 ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geologic Map of the Chino Valley North 7½' Quadrangle, Yavapai County, Arizona by Brian F. Gootee, Charles A. Ferguson, Jon E. Spencer, and Joe P. Cook Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map DGM-80 version 1.0 December, 2010 Scale 1:24,000 (1 sheet, with text) Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress St., #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 This geologic map was funded in part by the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, award no. 08HQAG0093. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. Table of Contents Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Geologic Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3 Quaternary faulting ...........................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Flows and Water Demands in Arizona
    Environmental Flows and Water A University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center Project Demands in Arizona ater is an increasingly scarce resource and is essential for Arizona’s future. Figure 1. Elements of Environmental Flow WWith Arizona’s population growth and Occurring in Seasonal Hydrographs continued drought, citizens and water managers have been taking a closer look at water supplies in the state. Municipal, industrial, and agricul- tural water users are well-represented demand sectors, but water supplies and management to benefit the environment are not often consid- ered. This bulletin explains environmental water demands in Arizona and introduces information essential for considering environmental water demands in water management discussions. Considering water for the environment is impor- tant because humans have an interconnected and interdependent relationship with the envi- ronment. Nature provides us recreation oppor- tunities, economic benefits, and water supplies Data Source: to sustain our communities. USGS stream gage data Figure 2: Human Demand and Current Flow in Arizona Environmental water demands (or environmental flow) (circle size indicates relative amount of water) refers to how much water is needed in a watercourse to sustain a healthy ecosystem. Defining environmental water demand goes beyond the ecology and hydrol- Maximum ogy of a system and should include consideration for Flows how much water is required to achieve an agreed Industrial 40.8 maf Industrial SW Municipal upon level of river health, as determined by the GW 1% GW 8% water-using community. Arizona’s native ani- 4% mals and plants depend upon dynamic flows commonly described according to the natural Municipal SW flow regime.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Survey Ik Salt River Valley, Arizona
    Soil Survey in Salt River Valley Item Type text; Book Authors Means, Thos. H. Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Rights Public Domain: This material has been identified as being free of known restrictions under U.S. copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. Download date 28/09/2021 11:06:51 Item License http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/192405 U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DIVISION OF SOILS MILTON "WHITNEY, Chief SOIL SURVEY IK SALT RIVER VALLEY, ARIZONA. THOMAS H MEANS [REPRINTED *ROM THE EFFORT o\ FIIID OPLK\.HO\S os mt I)IM^ION ot i OK 1900 ] CONTENTS. Page. Introduction _ to 287 Geology and topography _ 288 Climate 291 Soils 293 Pecos sand 294 River wash 293 Salt Eiver gravel 293 G-ilafine sandy loam 296 Salt River adobe 296 G-lendale loess „__ 299 Colluvial soils, or mountain waste - 302 Maricopa gravelly loam 303 Maricopa sandy loam _ 304 Maricopaloam 306 Maricopa clay lo?-m „ 307 Hardpan _ 308 Solrnaps - - 308 Tempesheet , 308 Phoenix sheet 309 Buckeye sheet 309 Irrigation waters 310 Underground waters 31S Tempesheet „ , 314 Phoenix sheet 315 Buckeye sheet , 317 Alkali of the soils 319 Templesheet 319 Origin of alkali salts of Tempe sheet 321 Reclamation of alkali lands 323 Phoenix &heet - - 325 Buckeye sheet-, S38 Agriculture in Salt River Valley 331 Fruit farming 331 Cattle raising - 33S Dairying * — - %8& in ILLUSTRATIONS. PLATES. PLATE XXIV. Character of native vegetation on desert land near the moun- tains 290 XXY. Irrigated lands in Tempe area 302 XXVI.
    [Show full text]