DOCSLIB.ORG

2012/2014 Assessment for Streams and Lakes, Chapter II, Santa Cruz Watershed, Page 4 Appendix A. Surface Water Quality in Pima C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Pima County 2015 Stormwater Management Program. Appendix A AZPDES Permit No. AZS000002 Appendix A. Surface Water Quality in Pima County Page 1 of 13 2012/2014 Assessment for Streams and Lakes, Chapter II, Santa Cruz Watershed, Page 4 Pima County 2015 Stormwater Management Program. Appendix A AZPDES Permit No. AZS000002 Appendix A. Surface Water Quality in Pima County Page 2 of 13 second consists of EPA 303(d) listings. ADEQ’S 303(d) Impaired Waters This list contains assessment units that were assessed as impaired by ADEQ during current and previous assessment listing cycles. The year each parameter was listed is located in parentheses after each parameter. The most current listings are in bold. Size Cause(s) of Assessment Unit Category* Status of TMDL Development (acres/miles) Impairment Bill Williams Watershed Ammonia (2004), Alamo Lake High pH (1996) 14,150 a 5 Nutrient TMDL to be initiated in 2010. 15030204-0040A Low dissolved oxygen (2006) Bill Williams River Ammonia, low From Alamo Lake to Castaneda Wash 35.9 mi dissolved oxygen, and 5 Nutrient TMDL to be initiated in 2010. 15030204-003 high pH (2006) Santa Maria River Alamo Lake TMDL may address From Little Sycamore Creek to Little 6.8 mi Mercury(d) (2006) 5 mercury loadings affecting this reach. Shipp Wash TMDL to be initiated in 2010. 15030203-013 Colorado – Grand Canyon Watershed Colorado River From Lake Powell to Paria River 16.3 mi Selenium(t) (2006) 5 TMDL to be initiated in 2008. 14070006-001 Colorado River Selenium(t) and From Parashant Canyon to Diamond 27.6 mi suspended sediment 5 TMDL to be initiated in 2010. Creek (2004) 15010002-003 Paria River Suspended sediment From Utah border to Colorado River 29.4 mi 5 TMDL to be initiated in 2010. (2004), E. coli (2006) 14070007-123 Virgin River Selenium(t) and From Beaver Dam Wash to Big Bend 10.1 mi suspended sediment 5 TMDL to be initiated in 2011. Wash (2004) 15010010-003 Colorado – Lower Gila Watershed Colorado River From Hoover Dam to Lake Mohave 40.4 mi Selenium(t) 5 TMDL to be initiated in 2010. 15030101-015 Colorado River Low dissolved oxygen From Main Canal to Mexico border 32.2 mi 5 TMDL to be initiated in 2010. and selenium(t) (2006) 15030107-001 Gila River Selenium(t) and From Coyote Wash to Fortuna Wash 28.3 mi 5 TMDL to be initiated in 2009. boron(t) (2004) 15070201-003 The low dissolved oxygen TMDL will Painted Rock Borrow Pit Lake Low dissolved oxygen 185 a 5 be initiated when the lake refills and 15070201-1010 (1992) stabilizes. Little Colorado Watershed Little Colorado River From Silver Creek to Carr Wash 6.1 mi E. coli (2004) 5 To initiate in 2007. 15020002-004 Little Colorado River Copper(d) and silver(d) From Porter Tank Draw to McDonalds 17.4 mi (1992), suspended 5 To initiate in 2007. Wash sediment (2004) 15020008-017 Middle Gila Watershed Alvord Lake 27 a Ammonia (2004) 5 To initiate in 2007. 15060106B-0050 Chaparral Park Lake Low dissolved oxygen 12 a 5 To initiate in 2007. 15060106B-0300 and E. coli (2004) Cortez Park Lake Low dissolved oxygen 2 a 5 To initiate in 2007. 15060106B-0410 and high pH (2004) Pima County 2015 Stormwater Management Program. Appendix A AZPDES Permit No. AZS000002 Appendix A. Surface Water Quality in Pima County Page 3 of 13 second consists of EPA 303(d) listings. Size Cause(s) of Assessment Unit Category* Status of TMDL Development (acres/miles) Impairment Gila River Suspended sediment From San Pedro River to Mineral Cr. 19.8 mi 5 TMDL to be initiated in 2009. (2006) 15050100-008 Gila River From Centennial Wash to Gillespie Boron(t) (1992), 5.3 mi 5 To be initiated in 2012. Dam selenium(t) (2004) 15070101-008 Hassayampa River From headwaters to Copper Creek Mine remediation actions should also 11 mi Low pH (2006) 5 15070103-007A address low pH. *Also on Not Attaining List Mineral Creek Copper(d) (1992), From Devil's Canyon to Gila River selenium(t) (2004), and Terms of consent decree should negate 19.6 mi 5 15050100-012B low dissolved oxygen need for TMDL. (2006) Queen Creek Copper TMDL in progress. To be From headwaters to mining discharge 8.8 mi Copper (2002) 5 completed in 2009. 15050100-014A Queen Creek From mining WWTP discharge to Potts Copper TMDL in progress. To be 5.9 mi Copper (2004) 5 Canyon completed in 2009. 15050100-014B Salt Watershed Apache Lake Low dissolved oxygen Salt River Reservoir nutrient TMDL to 2,190 a 5 15060106A-0070 (2006) be initiated in 2010. Canyon Lake Low dissolved oxygen Salt River Reservoir nutrient TMDL to 450 a 5 15060106A-0250 (2004) be initiated in 2010. Christopher Creek From headwaters to Tonto Creek Nutrient reduction strategies should 8 mi Phosphorus (2006) 5 15060105-353 also address phosphorus. *Also on Not Attaining List Five Point Tributary Loadings from this tributary should be From headwaters to Pinto Creek 2.9 mi Copper(d) (2006) 5 addressed in the Pinto Creek Phase II 15060103-885 TMDL. Pinto Creek From West Fork Pinto Creek to Roosevelt Lake 17.8 mi Selenium(t) (2004) 5 To be initiated in 2009. 15060103-018C *Also on Not Attaining List Salt River Suspended sediment From Pinal Creek to Roosevelt Lake 7.5 mi 5 To be initiated in 2010. (2006) 15060106A-004 Salt River From Stewart Mountain Dam to Verde Low dissolved oxygen Salt River Reservoir nutrient TMDL to 10.1 mi 5 River (2004) be initiated in 2010. 15060106A-003 Tonto Creek Nutrient reduction strategies should From headwaters to 341810/1110414 8.1 mi Phosphorus (2006) 5 reduce phosphorus loadings. TMDL 15060105-013A will be initiated in 2010 if needed. *Also on Not Attaining List San Pedro Watershed Brewery Gulch Copper loadings from this tributary will From headwaters to Mule Gulch 1 mi Copper(d) (2004) 5 be addressed in the Mule Creek copper 15080301-337 TMDL. Mule Gulch Ongoing TMDLs to be completed in From headwaters to above Lavender Pit 3 mi Copper(d) (1990) 5 2009 to establish site-specific criteria 15080301-090A for copper. Pima County 2015 Stormwater Management Program. Appendix A AZPDES Permit No. AZS000002 Appendix A. Surface Water Quality in Pima County Page 4 of 13 second consists of EPA 303(d) listings. Size Cause(s) of Assessment Unit Category* Status of TMDL Development (acres/miles) Impairment Mule Gulch Ongoing TMDLs to be completed in From above Lavender Pit to Bisbee 0.8 miles Copper(d) (1990) 5 2009 to establish site-specific criteria WWTP discharge for copper. 15080301-090B Mule Gulch Cadmium(d), Ongoing TMDLs to be completed in From Bisbee WWTP discharge to 3.8 mi copper(d)(t), low pH, 5 2009 to establish site-specific criteria Highway 80 bridge zinc(d) (1990) for copper. 15080301-090C San Pedro River From Babocomari Creek to Dragoon Initiated TMDL in 2006. To complete 17 mi E. coli (2004) 5 Wash in 2009. 15050202-003 San Pedro River Ongoing Superfund remediation and From Dragoon Wash to Tres Alamos 15.5 mi Nitrate (1990) 5 monitoring. Will initiate TMDL if Wash WQARF cleanup is not effective. 15050202-002 San Pedro River E. coli and selenium(t) Initiated TMDL in 2006. To complete From Aravaipa Creek to Gila River 14.8 mi 5 (2004) in 2009. 15050203-001 Santa Cruz Watershed Ammonia (2004), Necessity of TMDL development will Nogales Wash chlorine (1996), be based on outcome of current From Mexico border to Potrero Creek 6.2 mi 5 copper(d) (2004), E. international remediation activities on 15050301-011 coli (1998) infrastructure in Mexico. Santa Cruz River From New Mexico border to Nogales Will initiate TMDL when stream flow 17 mi E. coli (2004) 5 Intl WWTP discharge returns. (Current drought.) 15050301-010 Sonoita Creek Zinc(d) (2004), low From 750 feet below Patagonia WWTP To initiate in 2006 and complete in 18.6 mi dissolved oxygen 5 discharge to Santa Cruz R. 2009. (2006) 15050301-013C Upper Gila Watershed Blue River From Strayhorse Creek to San 25.4 mi E. coli (2006) 5 To initiate in 2009. Francisco River 15040004-025B Cave Creek From headwaters to South Fork Cave Initiated TMDL in 2006. To complete 7.5 mi Selenium(t) (2004) 5 Creek in 2009. 15040006-852A Gila River E. coli and suspended Initiated TMDL in 2006. To complete From New Mexico border to Bitter Cr 16.3 mi 5 sediment (2006) in 2009. 15040002-004 Gila River Initiated TMDL in 2006. To complete From Bonita Creek to Yuma Wash 5.8 mi E. coli (2004) 5 in 2009. 15040005-022 Gila River From Skully Creek to San Francisco Initiated TMDL in 2006. To complete 15.2 mi Selenium(t) (2004) 5 River in 2009. 15040002-001 San Francisco River To initiate TMDL in 2009. To complete From Blue River to Limestone Gulch 18.7 mi E. coli (2006) 5 in 2011. 15040004-003 Verde Watershed East Verde River Arsenic(t) and boron(t) To initiate TMDL in 2009. To complete From American Gulch to Verde River 25.8 mi 5 (2006) in 2011. 15060203-022C East Verde River From Ellison Creek to American Gulch 20.3 mi Selenium(t) (2004) 5 To initiate TMDL in 2011. 15060203-022B Oak Creek Initiated Phase II bacteria TMDL in From headwaters to West Fork Oak 7.4 mi E. coli (2006) 5 2004. To complete in 2009. Creek Pima County 2015 Stormwater Management Program. Appendix A AZPDES Permit No. AZS000002 Appendix A. Surface Water Quality in Pima County Page 5 of 13 second consists of EPA 303(d) listings.
Recommended publications
  • Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR

    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.
  • Trip Report for Travel to Arizona the Week of January 23 , 2006

    Trip Report for Travel to Arizona the Week of January 23 , 2006

    Trip Report for Travel to Arizona the Week of January 23rd, 2006. William B. Reed, Senior Hydrologist, NOAA’s NWS Colorado Basin River Forecast Center Itinerary: Traveled to Tucson on Monday, January 23, 2006; and returned from Tucson to Salt Lake City on Friday January 27, 2006. During the week I was accompanied by Michael Schaffner, Service Hydrologist, Tucson. Mike prearranged field logistics (including the borrowing of survey equipment) that provided for a very productive and conducive trip. Monday night – Tucson Tuesday night – Tucson Wednesday night – Safford Thursday night – Safford Part of Tuesday, Mike and I were joined by Elise Moore, County Floodplain Manager, Pinal County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 727, Florence, AZ 85232. Noon Creek. Photo by Mike Schaffner (January 2006). Purpose: To visit river forecast points, meet with hydrologic customers, evaluate flood hazards at locations removed from stream gages, and collect hydrologic data related to recent burn-area peak flows. The later will be included in a peer-review journal article that Bill and Mike are completing related to post-burn runoff. (See picture previous page: Bill Reed measuring depth of peak flow water surface with survey rod. A tape measure has been stretched across the channel to correspond to the water surface at time of peak flow. Noon Creek is a 3 square mile watershed in the Pinaleno Mountains of Graham County. Water encompassed a cross sectional area 110 feet wide and a minimum of 10.5 feet deep at the time of peak flow to yield a peak flow in excess of 2,500 cfs.) Accomplishments: Monday: Madera Canyon.
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started

    Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started

    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
  • Water Resources of Bill Williams River Valley Near Alamo, Arizona

    Water Resources of Bill Williams River Valley Near Alamo, Arizona

    Water Resources of Bill Williams River Valley Near Alamo, Arizona GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1360-D DEC 10 1956 Water Resources of Bill Williams River Valley Near Alamo, Arizona By H. N. WOLCOTT, H. E. SKIBITZKE, and L. C. HALPENNY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1360-D An investigation of the availability of water in the area of the Artillery Mountains manganese deposits UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1956 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fred A. Seaton, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 45 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract....................................................................................................................................... 291 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 292 Purpose.................................................................................................................................... 292 Location................................................................................................................................... 292 Climatological data............................................................................................................... 292 History of development........................................................................................................
  • The Trail Inventory of U.S

    The Trail Inventory of U.S

    The Trail Inventory of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Stations in Arizona Prepared By: Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division March 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. AZ STATE SUMMARY Table of Contents 1-1 List of Refuges 1-2 Mileage by Trail Class, Condition, and Surface 1-3 2-9. REFUGE SUMMARIES Mileage by Trail Class, Condition, and Surface X-1 Trail Location Map X-2 Trail Identification X-3 Condition and Deficiency Sheets X-4 Photographic Sheets X-5 10. APPENDIX Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 10-1 Trail Classification System 10-4 1-1 FWS Stations in Arizona with Trails Station Name Trail Miles Chapter Bill Williams River NWR 0.27 2 Buenos Aires NWR 6.62 3 Cabeza Prieta NWR 0.16 4 Cibola NWR 0.91 5 Havasu NWR 0.22 6 Imperial NWR 1.31 7 Leslie Canyon NWR 1.47 8 San Bernardino NWR 2.39 9 1-2 Arizona NWR Trail and Summaries Trail Miles and Percentages by Surface Type and Condition Mileage by Trail Condition Total Trail Surface Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Rated* Miles Type MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % Native 7.91 59% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0% 8.43 Gravel 0.96 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.96 Asphalt 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Concrete 0.27 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.27 Turnpike 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Boardwalk 0.26 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.26 Puncheon 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Woodchips 0.05 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.05 Admin Road 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.36 25% 3.36 Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Totals 9.45 71% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 3.36 25% 13.33 Trail Miles and Percentages by Trail Classification and Condition Mileage by Trail Condition Total Trail Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Rated* Miles Classification MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % TC1 2.60 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.60 TC2 1.88 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.88 TC3 1.04 8% 0% 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0.97 7% 2.33 TC4 3.61 27% 0.20 2% 0% 0% 0% 2.39 18% 6.20 TC5 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.32 Totals 9.45 71% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 3.36 25% 13.33 * Admin Roads are included in the inventory but are not rated for condition.
  • USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 1

    USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 1

    Appendix 1. Summary of location, basin, and hydrological-regime characteristics for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona and parts of adjacent states that were used to calibrate hydrological-regime models [Hydrologic provinces: 1, Plateau Uplands; 2, Central Highlands; 3, Basin and Range Lowlands; e, value not present in database and was estimated for the purpose of model development] Average percent of Latitude, Longitude, Site Complete Number of Percent of year with Hydrologic decimal decimal Hydrologic altitude, Drainage area, years of perennial years no flow, Identifier Name unit code degrees degrees province feet square miles record years perennial 1950-2005 09379050 LUKACHUKAI CREEK NEAR 14080204 36.47750 109.35010 1 5,750 160e 5 1 20% 2% LUKACHUKAI, AZ 09379180 LAGUNA CREEK AT DENNEHOTSO, 14080204 36.85389 109.84595 1 4,985 414.0 9 0 0% 39% AZ 09379200 CHINLE CREEK NEAR MEXICAN 14080204 36.94389 109.71067 1 4,720 3,650.0 41 0 0% 15% WATER, AZ 09382000 PARIA RIVER AT LEES FERRY, AZ 14070007 36.87221 111.59461 1 3,124 1,410.0 56 56 100% 0% 09383200 LEE VALLEY CR AB LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.50204 1 9,440e 1.3 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383220 LEE VALLEY CREEK TRIBUTARY 15020001 33.93894 109.50204 1 9,440e 0.5 6 0 0% 49% NEAR GREER, ARIZ. 09383250 LEE VALLEY CR BL LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.49787 1 9,400e 1.9 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383400 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER AT GREER, 15020001 34.01671 109.45731 1 8,283 29.1 22 22 100% 0% ARIZ.
  • Environmental Flows and Water Demands in Arizona

    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.
  • Yanawant: Paiute Places and Landscapes in the Arizona Strip

    Yanawant: Paiute Places and Landscapes in the Arizona Strip

    Yanawant Paiute Places and Landscapes in the Arizona Strip Volume Two OfOfOf The Arizona Strip Landscapes and Place Name Study Prepared by Diane Austin Erin Dean Justin Gaines December 12, 2005 Yanawant Paiute Places and Landscapes in the Arizona Strip Volume Two Of The Arizona Strip Landscapes and Place Name Study Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip Field Office St. George, Utah Prepared by: Diane Austin Erin Dean Justin Gaines Report of work carried out under contract number #AAA000011TOAAF030023 2 Table of Contents Preface……………………………………………………………………………………………ii i Chapter One: Southern Paiute History on the Arizona Strip………………………………...1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Early Southern Paiute Contact with Europeans and Euroamericans ........................... 5 1.2 Southern Paiutes and Mormons ........................................................................................ 8 1.3 The Second Powell Expedition......................................................................................... 13 1.4 An Onslaught of Cattle and Further Mormon Expansion............................................ 16 1.5 Interactions in the First Half of the 20 th Century ......................................................... 26 Chapter Two: Southern Paiute Place Names On and Near the Arizona Strip 37 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................
  • Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998

    Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998

    GILA TOPMINNOW, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, REVISED RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approval: March 15, 1984) Prepared by David A. Weedman Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona for Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico December 1998 Approved: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions required to recover and protect the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepares the plans, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State and Federal Agencies, and others. Objectives are attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Time and costs provided for individual tasks are estimates only, and not to be taken as actual or budgeted expenditures. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor official positions or approval of any persons or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. ii Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Original preparation of the revised Gila topminnow Recovery Plan (1994) was done by Francisco J. Abarca 1, Brian E. Bagley, Dean A. Hendrickson 1 and Jeffrey R. Simms 1. That document was modified to this current version and the work conducted by those individuals is greatly appreciated and now acknowledged.
  • Friends of the San Pedro River Roundup

    Friends of the San Pedro River Roundup

    Friends of the San Pedro River Roundup Winter 2014 In This Issue: Bioblitz... Lectures... Film Festival... Executive Director’s Report... Festival of Arts... BLM Acting Director’s Visit... Archeology & Heritage Month... Dark Skies Position... Ron Beck’s Big Year... Christmas Bird Count Results... Trees along the 19th-Century River... Brunckow’s Cabin Rehab... EOP Leaders Sought... Walkway Bricks... Operations Committee... Members ... Calendar ... Contacts Save the Date! The morning of April 26, FSPR will hold a Bioblitz (an inventory of the flora and fauna) at various locations in SPRNCA. Stay tuned for details in the coming weeks. FSPR Lectures February & March 20 JoinPawlowski, us on Thursday, Water Sentinels February Program 20 at 7 Coordinatorpm at the Sierra for the Vista Grand Ranger Canyon District Chapter Office, of 4070the Sierra East AvenidaClub, will Saracino, Hereford, for a lecture by Becky Orozco on the Chiracahua Apache. Then, on March 20, Steve discuss ecology and conservation of the San Pedro River; current threats; and the conservation work of the Sentinels within SPRNCA. Learn how to use citizen science, “hands-on” conservation, and advocacy to shape a more-sustainable future for one of the Southwest’s most ecologically significant rivers. Second Annual Wild & Scenic Film Festival March 13 & 14 The Friends have been invited to host our second Wild & Scenic Film Festival as part of the 12th annual event that showcases North America’s premier collection of short films on the environment. We have selected 13 films for the evening program for adults that are relevant to many of the issues facing the Southwest. Some will make you smile, some may get you angry, others will have you amazed, but hopefully, all will motivate you to get involved.
  • TMDL Water Quality Study of the Virgin River Watershed

    TMDL Water Quality Study of the Virgin River Watershed

    TMDL Water Quality Study of the Virgin River Watershed DRAFT January 28, 2004 Submitted to: Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality 288 North 1460 West Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Kent Montague Project Manager Harry Lewis Judd Project Supervisor Submitted by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Water Resources and TMDL Center Utah Division of Water Quality TMDL Water Quality Study of the Virgin River CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Water Quality Standards ...................................................................................................................5 2.1 303(d) List Status ........................................................................................................................5 2.2 Parameters of Concern.................................................................................................................7 2.2.1 Salinity and Total Dissolved Solids ........................................................................................7 2.2.2 Temperature ............................................................................................................................8 2.2.3 Total Phosphorus and Dissolved Oxygen ...............................................................................8 2.2.4 Selenium..................................................................................................................................8 2.3 Applicable
  • 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.