DOCSLIB.ORG

Paseo De Las Iglesias Ecosystem Restoration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paseo De Las Iglesias Ecosystem Restoration US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District Paseo de las Iglesias Ecosystem Restoration Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) SANTA CRUZ RIVER PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA July 2004 Cover Sheet Responsible Agency and Lead Federal Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Title: Paseo de las Iglesias Ecosystem Restoration, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Contact: For information on the DEIS and the related public hearings and meetings: Michael J. Fink, Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Arizona/Nevada Area Office 3636 North Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-1936 Phone: 602.640.2001 extension 252 Via E-mail to: [email protected] For information on the overall Feasibility Study: Mr. Kim Gavigan, Study Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Arizona/Nevada Area Office 3636 North Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-1936 Phone: 602.640. 2001 extension 251 Via E-mail to: [email protected] Abstract: This Paseo de las Iglesias Ecosystem Restoration Draft EIS analyzes the potential environmental consequences of implementing alternatives for riparian habitat restoration on the Santa Cruz River. Mesquite bosque creation is the dominant feature of Alternative 3E, the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 3E provides a nearly uniform mesoriparian hydrologic regime (through various means of supplemental irrigation) to all geomorphic positions in the floodplain above the low flow channel. This alternative creates approximately 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed mesoriparian shrub-scrub acres, 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost 6 acres of emergent marsh. Alternative 4A is characterized by creating an intermittent flow environment and channel to support adjacent growth of emergent wetlands and cottonwood-willow gallery forest. Additional areas on terraces above the channels and in the historic floodplain would be irrigated to sustain mesquite bosques interspersed with riparian shrub. Alternative 2A uses basic dry-land restoration practices of water harvesting, soil patterning, mulch and fertilizer amendment, surface grading, a low flow diversion and construction of subsurface water harvesting basins. Implementation of these measures will allow creation of new habitat as well as enhancement of existing habitat with plantings in mesquite, scrub/shrub, and river bottom community types. The No Action alternative is also assessed and presented. Public Comments: In preparing the Draft EIS, the Corps of Engineers considered comments received by letter and formal statements made at public scoping meetings. A 45-day comment period on the Paseo de las Iglesias Ecosystem Restoration, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) begins with the publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. A public hearing to discuss and receive comments on the Draft EIS will be held at a time and location to be announced in the Notice of Availability. Individuals and agencies may present written comments relevant to the DEIS or request to be placed on the mailing list for announcements and for the Final EIS by sending the information to Mr. Michael J. Fink at the address above. The comments received during the comment period will be considered in the preparation of the Final EIS. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. Unless otherwise requested, copies of the Final EIS will be provided on CD-ROM. Summary The Arizona/Nevada Area Office of the Los Angeles District of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a feasibility study to assess opportunities for riverine ecosystem restoration for the seven-mile Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Tucson, Arizona. The study is being conducted in partnership with the Pima County Flood Control District, the non-Federal sponsor. The Study Area, as identified in the accompanying feasibility study, includes the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River channel its tributary channels; the New and Old West Branch tributaries, and lands between and adjacent to these channels between Los Reales Road on the south to West Congress Street on the north, encompassing approximately 5000 acres. The Study Area is located entirely within the City of Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. The primary process within the Study Area is systematic and severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat that has persisted since the early 20th century. Before 1900, the Santa Cruz channel maintained perennial water flow that supported dense growths of native riparian trees such as cottonwood, willow, and mesquite. Historical accounts of conditions on the Santa Cruz River (circa 1900) describe a tree-lined, river, with dense vegetation, winding throughout a wide flood plain. The river channel formerly provided sufficient water to support rapidly increasing European settlement, increasing uses of the Santa Cruz waters for agricultural irrigation and sustained surface flow. Sustained surface flow has not existed in the Paseo de las Iglesias reach for more than half a century. The once verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor has been transformed into a deeply incised, ephemeral ditch with either artificially hardened or unstable and eroding banks, that supports flow only briefly in response to storm runoff. These changes came about as a result of the uncontrolled appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture and nascent industry, acceleration of head cutting resulting from human manipulation of the channel, and transformation of large areas of the landscape to increasingly urban land uses. As a result, native riparian habitat is nearly absent in the Study Area. Historically comprising about 1% of the landscape historically, over 95% of riparian habitat has been destroyed in Arizona. This type of river-connected riparian and fringe habitat is of an extremely high value; a large percentage of wildlife in the arid southwest is riparian-dependent during some part of its life cycle. As a consequence of the loss or degradation of riparian habitat, the area has suffered a concomitant reduction in species abundance and diversity with non-native (exotic) vegetation dominant in the Study Area. 3 Flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed for the Without-Project Conditions (No Action Alternative). Based on the results of environmental, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analyses, flood damage reduction, as a project purpose could not be justified. While the majority of lands in the Study Area are dedicated to residential land use, the majority of lands immediately adjacent to the Santa Cruz River channel are undeveloped. This condition offers an opportunity to accomplish important ecosystem restoration in the Study Area. The Federal planning objective for ecosystem restoration studies is to contribute to National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) through increasing the net quality and/or quantity of desired ecosystem resources. The specific objectives for environmental restoration within the Study Area have been identified as follows: • Increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the Study Area. • Increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe and historic floodplain. • Provide passive recreation opportunities. • Provide incidental benefits of flood damage reduction, reduced bank erosion and sedimentation, and improved surface water quality consistent with ecosystem restoration goal. • Integrate desires of local stakeholders consistent with Federal policy and local planning efforts. A number of ecosystem restoration measures have been developed based upon those originally identified in Reconnaissance Phase of the study, with additional restoration measures added based upon the results of public input and on other similar studies in the region. Once compiled, potential restoration approaches were evaluated for feasibility, with some screened out and others refined. The initial conceptual alternatives presented in the draft Feasibility Study document (USACE, 2002) were recombined with new restoration approaches and expanded into an array of 14 alternatives that were subjected to more detailed analyses. Through this process, a final array of alternatives was produced consisting of the two “best buy” alternatives (Alternative 2A and 4F), a mid-point water use alternative (Alternative 3E), and the no action alternative. Alternative 2A Alternative 2A uses the basic dry-land restoration practices of water harvesting, soil patterning, mulch and fertilizer amendment, surface grading, a low flow diversion and construction of subsurface water harvesting basins. Implementation of these measures will allow creation of new habitat as well as enhancement of existing habitat with plantings in mesquite, scrub/shrub, and river bottom community types. The alternative would require irrigation for establishment and periodic irrigation during periods of prolonged drought. 4 The channel features for this alternative consist of two measures; construction of water harvesting basins on the upstream side of five existing grade structures and construction of a low flow diversion to direct water from the New West Branch back into the Old West Branch. The water harvesting basin features would involve excavating upstream of each grade control structure to a depth of approximately four feet, placing a liner membrane, and filling the excavated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 1
    Appendix 1. Summary of location, basin, and hydrological-regime characteristics for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona and parts of adjacent states that were used to calibrate hydrological-regime models [Hydrologic provinces: 1, Plateau Uplands; 2, Central Highlands; 3, Basin and Range Lowlands; e, value not present in database and was estimated for the purpose of model development] Average percent of Latitude, Longitude, Site Complete Number of Percent of year with Hydrologic decimal decimal Hydrologic altitude, Drainage area, years of perennial years no flow, Identifier Name unit code degrees degrees province feet square miles record years perennial 1950-2005 09379050 LUKACHUKAI CREEK NEAR 14080204 36.47750 109.35010 1 5,750 160e 5 1 20% 2% LUKACHUKAI, AZ 09379180 LAGUNA CREEK AT DENNEHOTSO, 14080204 36.85389 109.84595 1 4,985 414.0 9 0 0% 39% AZ 09379200 CHINLE CREEK NEAR MEXICAN 14080204 36.94389 109.71067 1 4,720 3,650.0 41 0 0% 15% WATER, AZ 09382000 PARIA RIVER AT LEES FERRY, AZ 14070007 36.87221 111.59461 1 3,124 1,410.0 56 56 100% 0% 09383200 LEE VALLEY CR AB LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.50204 1 9,440e 1.3 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383220 LEE VALLEY CREEK TRIBUTARY 15020001 33.93894 109.50204 1 9,440e 0.5 6 0 0% 49% NEAR GREER, ARIZ. 09383250 LEE VALLEY CR BL LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.49787 1 9,400e 1.9 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383400 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER AT GREER, 15020001 34.01671 109.45731 1 8,283 29.1 22 22 100% 0% ARIZ.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    Arizona Department of Water Resources September 2010 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Herbert Guenther Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Karen Smith Assistant Director, Hydrology Frank Corkhill Assistant Director, Water Management Sandra Fabritz-Whitney Atlas Team (Current and Former ADWR staff) Linda Stitzer, Rich Burtell – Project Managers Kelly Mott Lacroix - Asst. Project Manager Phyllis Andrews Carol Birks Joe Stuart Major Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Tom Carr John Fortune Leslie Graser William H. Remick Saeid Tadayon-USGS Other Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Matt Beversdorf Patrick Brand Roberto Chavez Jenna Gillis Laura Grignano (Volume 8) Sharon Morris Pam Nagel (Volume 8) Mark Preszler Kenneth Seasholes (Volume 8) Jeff Tannler (Volume 8) Larri Tearman Dianne Yunker Climate Gregg Garfin - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Ben Crawford - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Casey Thornbrugh - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Michael Crimmins – Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona The Atlas is wide in scope and it is not possible to mention all those who helped at some time in its production, both inside and outside the Department. Our sincere thanks to those who willingly provided data and information, editorial review, production support and other help during this multi-year project. Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Atlas Purpose and Scope 1 SECTION 1.1 Atlas
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters
    Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) L-1 Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters EPA’s MSGP has special requirements for discharges to waters designated by a state or tribe as Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 for antidegradation purposes under 40 CFR 131.12(a). See Parts 1.1.4.8 and 1.1.4.10 The list below is provided as a resource for operators who must determine whether they discharge to a Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 water. Only Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 waters specifically identified by a water quality standard authority (e.g., a state, territory, or tribe) are identified in the table below. Many authorities evaluate the existing and protected quality of the receiving water on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis and determine whether water quality is better than the applicable criteria that would be affected by a new discharger or a new source or an increase in an existing discharge of the pollutant. In instances where water quality is better, the authority may choose to allow lower water quality, where lower water quality is determined to be necessary to support important social and economic development. Permittees are not required to identify those waters which are evaluated on an individual basis. Permit Areas of Coverage/Where EPA Is Permitting Authority Number MAR050000 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, except Indian Country lands Tier 2, Tier 2.5, and 3 waters are identified and listed in the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards 314 CMR 4.00. Surface water qualifiers that correspond with Tier classifications are defined at 314 CMR 4.06(1)(d)m and listed in tables and figures at the end of 314 CMR 4.06.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta) Status Survey of the Lower Colorado River Basin
    ROUNDTAIL CHUB (GILA ROBUSTA) STATUS SURVEY OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN Jeremy B. Voeltz, Wildlife Technician Nongame Branch, Wildlife Management Division Final Report to The Central Arizona Project Native Fish Conservation and Nonnative Aquatic Species Management and Control Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Field Office Phoenix, Arizona and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office Phoenix, Arizona Technical Report 186 Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Program Manager: Terry B. Johnson Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 January 2002 CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information please write to: Arizona Game and Fish Department Office of the Deputy Director, DOHQ 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 and The Office for Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Room 300 Arlington, Virginia 22203 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    [Show full text]
  • The Western Apache Homeland and Archaeology of the Mogollon Rim
    Shí Kéyaa: The Western Apache Homeland and Archaeology of the Mogollon Rim Angie Krall Vincent E. Randall Technical Report No. 2007-03 Desert Archaeology, Inc. Shí Kéyaa: The Western Apache Homeland and Archaeology of the Mogollon Rim Angie Krall Vincent E. Randall Technical Report No. 2007-03 Desert Archaeology, Inc. 3975 N. Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85716 • July 2009 PREFACE The realignment of State Route 260 (SR 260) be- Cores and frontiers depend on vantage point, tween Payson and Heber follows a long tradition however. In this report, KenCairn and Randall ad- of trail blazing through the lands below the Mogol- dress the presumption of the interpretation that lon Rim region. For over 3,000 years, people have described the region as frontier. They examine the passed through the region, perhaps following the region as a homeland and an essential and central route of the modern highway through spring-fed part of the history and identity of Apache, even as meadows and perennial streams. For at least 350 private and public entities have claimed the lands years, the stewards of this land have often been of the Mogollon Rim and native peoples have been Apache and Yavapai. moved to reservations. For modern Apache, the area is a “bridge” be- An extensive view of the Apache use of the tween the modern Yavapai-Apache Nation, Tonto, sub-Mogollon Rim was drawn from published and White Mountain, and San Carlos Reservations. unpublished ethnographic work on Apache places, Tribal members recall trails traveled by foot, don- cultural resource management reports, and the key, horse, or car, as well as camps made under the records of the public agencies who protect and trees, ramadas, or wickiups.
    [Show full text]
  • 371 Tonto National Forest Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area Fact Sheet
    371 TONTO NATIONAL FOREST SALT RIVER CANYON WILDERNESS AREA FACT SHEET The following list of required equipment is designed to promote the personal safety of all visitors and to minimize the impacts of use on the unique and valuable natural resource that we all share in the Upper Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area. Each permitted boating party must be in possession of these required items. Forest Service River Rangers will check for compliance with these requirements. A Firepan - An open metal container or tray, enclosed with rigid sides at least 3 inches high. Fire pans must be large enough to prevent a campfire and its ashes from spilling onto the ground. A Container suitable for storage and removal of all charcoal and ash generated on your trip from the river corridor. A Portable Toilet System to collect all solid human waste for proper disposal at an appropriate waste facility. All solid human waste must be carried out of the river corridor (including toilet paper and personal hygiene items). ' REMINDERS V' Group size is limited to 15 people. V' Attach a boat tag to every watercraft used. V' Possession or transportation of any part of native plants is prohibited. V' Dead and down material may be collected for use as firewood for campfires only. V' Pack out all litter: garbage, food remains, and trash (Orange peels, seed shells and cigarette butts are considered litter). V' The U.S. Coast Guard recommends use of Type III or Type V Personal Flotation Device by each person, on all watercraft. Information regarding current stream flows and snow pack relevant to the Salt River may be accessed by calling the Salt River Project at (602) 236-5929 or logging on to the websites listed below.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 MSGP Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters
    2021 MSGP Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters Appendix L - List of Tier 3, Tier 2, and Tier 2.5 Waters EPA’s MSGP has special requirements for discharges to waters designated by a state or tribe as Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 for antidegradation purposes under 40 CFR 131.12(a). See Parts 1.1.6.2 and 1.1.7. The list below is provided as a resource for operators who must determine whether they discharge to a Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 water. Only Tier 2/2.5 or Tier 3 waters specifically identified by a water quality standard authority (e.g., a state, territory, or tribe) are identified in the table below. Many authorities evaluate the existing and protected quality of the receiving water on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis and determine whether water quality is better than the applicable criteria that would be affected by a new discharger or a new source or an increase in an existing discharge of the pollutant. In instances where water quality is better, the authority may choose to allow lower water quality, where lower water quality is determined to be necessary to support important social and economic development. Permittees are not required to identify those waters which are evaluated on an individual basis. Permit Areas of Coverage/Where EPA Is Permitting Authority Number MAR050000 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, except Indian Country lands Tier 2, Tier 2.5, and 3 waters are identified and listed in the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards 314 CMR 4.00.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin
    Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin By H. P. Eisenhuth GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 579 Washington J 968 United States Department of the Interior STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary Geological Survey William T. Pecora, Director Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin By H. P. Eisenhuth INTRODUCTION This report lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the Colorado River basin for which records have been or are to bepublishedinreportsoftheGeological Survey for periods through September 30, 1967. It supersedes Geobgical Survey Circular 509. Basic data on surface-water supply have been published in an annual series of water-supply papers consisting of several volumes, including one each for the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The area of the other 48 States is divided into 14 parts whose boundaries coincide with certain natural drainage lines. Prior to 1951, the records for the 48 States were published in 14 volumes, one for each of the parts. From 1951 to 1960, the records for the 48 States were pub~.ished annually in 18 volumes, there being 2 volumes each for Parts 1, 2, 3, and 6. The boundaries of the various parts are shown on the map in figure 1. Beginning in 1961, the annual series ofwater-supplypapers on surface-water supply was changed to a 5-year S<~ries. Records for the period 1961-65 will bepublishedin a series of water-supply papers using the same 14-part division for the 48 States, but most parts will be further subdivided into two or more volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • ADEQ Flow Regime Updates | May 2021
    ADEQ Flow Regime Updates | May 2021 Name WBID Watershed Flow Regime Assignment Colorado River AZ14070006-001 CG Perennial (P) Paria River AZ14070007-123 CG P Chinle Creek AZ14080204-002-I LC Intermittent (I) Laguna Creek AZ14080204-003-I LC I Chinle Wash AZ14080204-017 LC I Lukachukai Wash AZ14080204-024-I LC I Colorado River AZ15010001-001 CG P Colorado River AZ15010001-002 CG P Bright Angel Creek AZ15010001-019 CG P Colorado River AZ15010001-022 CG P Colorado River AZ15010002-001 CG P Diamond Creek AZ15010002-002-I CG P Colorado River AZ15010002-003 CG P Colorado River AZ15010002-009 CG P Garden Creek AZ15010002-841 CG P Kanab Creek AZ15010003-001 CG P Kanab Creek AZ15010003-013-I CG I Truxton Wash AZ15010007-002 CG I Virgin River AZ15010010-003 CG P Beaver Dam Wash AZ15010010-009 CG P Little Colorado River AZ15020001-011A LC P Nutrioso Creek AZ15020001-017 LC P Nutrioso Creek AZ15020001-017A LC I Lee Valley Creek AZ15020001-232A LC P Lee Valley Creek AZ15020001-232B LC I Little Colorado River AZ15020002-016 LC I Little Colorado River AZ15020002-024 LC P Carrizo Wash AZ15020003-001 LC I Silver Creek AZ15020005-001 LC I Show Low Creek AZ15020005-012 LC I Silver Creek AZ15020005-013 LC P Unnamed Trib to Walnut Creek AZ15020005-239 LC I Puerco River AZ15020007-005 LC I Jacks Canyon AZ15020008-004 LC I Clear Creek AZ15020008-006 LC P Clear Creek AZ15020008-007 LC I Chevelon Canyon AZ15020010-001 LC P Chevelon Canyon AZ15020010-003 LC I Oraibi Wash AZ15020012-003-I LC I Polacca Wash AZ15020013-001-I LC I Jadito Wash AZ15020014-005-I LC Ephemeral
    [Show full text]
  • FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Publication Number: FS 16 -15
    Arizona Department FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Publication Number: FS 16 -15 Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Salt River Basin: A 2001-2015 Baseline Study – June 2016 Introduction The Arizona Department of Environmen- tal Quality (ADEQ) Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Program conducted a baseline study to characterize the groundwater quality of the Salt River basin from 2001 to 2015. ADEQ carried out this task under Arizona Revised Statutes §49-225 that mandates monitoring of waters of the state including its aquifers. The fact sheet is a synopsis of the ADEQ Open-File Re- port 16-01.1 Groundwater in the Salt River basin is generally suitable for drinking water uses based on the sampling results from this study. The Salt River basin comprises 5,232 square miles within east-central Arizona and includes portions of Apache, Gila, Greenlee, Maricopa, and Navajo coun- ties. The basin extends from the White Figure 1 - Map of the Salt River Basin Mountains located near the New Mexico *This map is for general reference only and may not be all inclusive. More detailed information and specific locations can be obtained by contact- border to the northeast of Phoenix where ing the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Stewart Mountain Dam forms Saguaro Lake (Figure 1). The basin’s population was 29,057 in 2000, most of who lived in the communities of Globe, Miami, Young, and in Fort Apache and Whiteriver on the White Mountain Apache Nation.² Most land is used for recreation and live- stock grazing, with major copper mines located in the Globe-Miami area.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE July 2002 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ROOSEVELT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior Additional information may be obtained from: Ms. Sherry Barrett Mr. Jim Rorabaugh Assistant Field Supervisor Arizona State Office Tucson Suboffice U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 110 S. Church Street, Ste. 3450 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Tucson, AZ 85701 (602) 242-0210 (520) 670-4617 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT AF Acre-feet AGFD Arizona Game and Fish AMA Active Management Area AWS Assured Water Supply BO Biological Opinion CAP Central Arizona Project CAWCS Central Arizona Water Control Study CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cities Cities with water rights in Modified Roosevelt: Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cuckoo Yellow-billed cuckoo ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act Flycatcher Southwestern Willow Flycatcher FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPO Forest Protection Officer FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GRUSP Granite Reef Underground Storage Project HCP Habitat Conservation Plan IA Implementing Agreement ITP Incidental Take Permit Listed species Species listed as federally threatened or endangered under the ESA Modified Roosevelt Roosevelt Dam as modified by construction in the 1990s NCS New Conservation Space NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places Reclamation U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Roundtable Fact Sheet Vision
    Arizona Roundtable Fact Sheet Vision: Arizona Extension • This new corridor links the rapidly growing Phoenix and Tucson areas with daily multi-frequency service between downtown Tucson through Phoenix to the western suburb of Buckeye. • Frequency: 3 daily roundtrips connecting Tucson-Phoenix-Buckeye • Trip time: o Phoenix-Tucson: 2:25 o Buckeye-Tucson: 3:05 o 2:30 peak driving time • Host Railroad: Union Pacific Proposed Stations • Tucson • Marana (NEW) • Coolidge (NEW) • Queen Creek (NEW) • Tempe (NEW) • Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport (NEW) • Phoenix Downtown (NEW) • Goodyear-Avondale (NEW) • Buckeye (NEW) Opportunities • The Phoenix metro area has added nearly 900,000 jobs since 2000 and has grown by 16% since 2010, ranking as the fastest growing city in the United States in 2019 and the fifth largest city in the United States. • Attractions such as the Musical Instruments Museum, Taliesin West, Desert Botanical Garden, Heard Museum, and a variety of popular hiking trails such as Camelback Mountain and Papago Park entice visitors looking to shop, dine, or spend time outdoors in Arizona’s desert climate. Fortune 500 companies Avnet and PetSmart are headquartered in Phoenix. • At the south end of the corridor, Tucson has added 90,000 jobs since 2000 and has grown by 4% since 2010, with a population of approximately one million residents. Outdoor sites are plentiful and popular in the region: Saguaro National Park, Tucson Mountain Park, and Mount Lemmon Scenic Byway, along with the El Presidio Historic District, Mission San Xavier del Barc, and the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. • The Arizona extension would connect passengers to Amtrak’s Sunset Limited.
    [Show full text]