A Perspective on Land Features and Major Activity Centers

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

A Perspective on Land Features and Major Activity Centers TD1 00:AZ77-PE A Perspective on Land Features and Major Activity Centers ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION OCTOBER 1977 FOR STUDY PURPOSES ONLY ARIZONA -- A PERSPECTIVE ON LAND FEATURES AND MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS Report No. W-77-1 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE SECTION SYSTEMS MODELING AND RESEARCH SECTION Arizona Transportation Research Center Library ~06 South 17th Avenue, #075R OCTOBER 1971 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Second Printing: July 197a ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 BRUCE BABBITT Governor WILLIAM A . OROWAY Director JOHN A. BIVENS, JR. Assistant Director CORRECTION PAGE Report Title: Arizona: A Perspective on Land Features and Major Activity Centers Report Date: October, 1977 On page II-7 under the heading "Mineral Fuels", delete Gila County in sentence 3; also, delete sentence 5 completely. On page III-36 delete uranium in sentence 5. On page III-38 under the heading "Map Ref. No.", delete numbers 25 through 29. On page III-39 delete "URANIUM" from the legend, delete map reference numbers 25 through 29, and disregard the pro­ posed uranium mine shown in southwestern Yavapai County. February 1978 AA/cb H GHWAY • A.ERONAUTICS • MOTOR VEHIC E • PU BLIC TR A NSIT • ADMINISTRATI V E SERVICES • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page No. PREFACE . · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • iii I INTRODUCTION . I-1 Purpose and Scope of Report • • • • • • I-1 Study Assumptions and Considerations • • . • • • I-3 Study Criteria and Resources. • • • • I-6 Report Organization • • . • • • • • • . • • I-7 II LAND FEATURES • • • . • • . • • • • • • II-1 (Includes text, table (s) when applicable, and map(s) in that order.) I.D. No. 501: Climate . II-2 I .D.- No. 502: Recoverable Natural Resources II-6 I.D. No. 503: Public Lands . II-16 I.D. No. 504: Agriculture . II-23 I.D. No. 505: Urban Areas . II-30 I.D. No. 506: Historic and Archaeological Sites of Arizona . II-36 I.D. No. 507: Topographic Slope . II-40 I.D. No. 508: Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures . II-44 I.D. No. 509-: Floodplains . -• . II-47 III MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS . III-1 (Includes text, table (s) when applicable, and map(s) in that order.) I-. D. No. 10'1: Major Manufacturing Establish- ments . III-2 I.D. No. 102: Major Transportation Terminals and Distribution Centers . III-9 I .D. No. 103: Major Government Headquarters, . III-11 I.D. No. 104: Hospitals . III-15 I.D. No. 105: Major Education Centers . III-19 I.D. No.,106: Major Industrial Parks . III-24 I.D. No. 107: Major Mines . III-36 I.D. No. 108: Electrical Power Generation Facilities . III-40 I.D. No. 109: Arizona Public Use and Military Airports . III-46 I.D. No. 110: Arizona Military Airports . III-54 I.D. No. 111: Major Cultural and Spectator Facilities . • . III-55 I .D. No. 112: Major Parks and Recreation Areas . III-67 I.D. No. 113: Major Lakes, Reservoirs, Rivers, and Creeks . III-76 :f .D. No. 114: Major Special Events . .. III-85 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Chapter Page No. I.D. No. 115: Major Distribution Centers •••• III-90 I.D. No. 116: Major Lumber and Timber Opera- tions • • • • • • • • • • • • • III-91 I.D. No. 117: Major Retail Concentrations ••• III-94 IV CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • . IV-1 APPENDIX . 1 I • D • No • 5 0 6 • . 2 I • D. No • 5 0 7 • . 13 I.D. No. 508 . 15 I.D. No. 509 • . 31 I • D. No . 113 • . 35 Bibliography . 47 BACK POCKET Geographical Locator 'Transparency ii PREFACE During the month of June 1977, numerous aeetings were held between key staff •••hers of the State Plan Section and the Demography and Land Use section. The purpose of these meetings was to develop a 11ut uall y acceptable wort program in respect to the establishment of an existing and future land use data base. This data base would be designed specifically to meet statewide transportation planning needs on a continuing basis. As a startinq point, it vas mutually agreed that an initial report would be prepared containing a variety· of data ger11ane to land features such as floodplains and subsidence. Additionally, relevant data would be presented in respect to major activity centers such as 11ajo1. education centers and hospitals. It must be emphasized that the assignment involved more than mere fact finding. In actuality, the collection, analysis, and presentation of data occurred only after agreement was reached on basic criteria--for all items to be studied. This report was prepared as a result of the efforts of a number of staff members. Resource material was used from many agencies within both the public and private sectors. A Bibliography is included in the Appendix for information purposes. In particular, a,11 authors are especially grateful to Dr. Richard w. Reeves, Head of the Department of iii Geography, College of Business and Public Administration, The University of Arizona. Dr. Reeves authorized the loan and use of approximately 25 maps from the Arizona Atlas, which is soon to be publishe.d by the Division of Economic and Business Research at The University of Arizona. Obviously, countless hours of research, analysis, and drafting-related work were saved. Your comments and suggestions on any aspect of this study are welcomed. In this way, staff will be better informed in respect to your needs. iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the purpose and scope of the land features and major activity centers study. It contains definitions, research assumptions, and organization information which should prove helpful to the prospective user. fl!~~22-Ang_~Q~~-21_i~2rt The rec en tl y-released report entitled "Arizona Transportation Directions--Tovard a State Transportation Plan" notes that the first integrated Arizona Transportation systems Plan (based upon statewide transportation goals and objectives) will be completed by January 1, 1979. The formulation of realistic statewide goals and objectives will require analysis of a comprehensive transportation and land use data base. Therefore, an i ■ portant ia ■ediate objective of the Arizona Department of Transportation's (ADOT) Demography and Land Use Section has been to establish an existing and future land use data base designed to aeet statewide transportation planning needs. The information generated by this study may be used as part of the state planning process to reco■■ end the i ■ proveaent of existing facilities, to delineate new transportation corridors, or to determine potentially developable lands. I-1 After a series of meetings in June, 1977, vith the ADOT State Plan Section, the Demography and L~nd Use Section agreed to prepare a study focusing on principal land features and major activity centers within the State of Arizona. In contrast to the conventional, categorical atlas, this study presents resource material on land use activities, an approach which will provide a more useful basis for transportation planning decisions. In general, the primary purpose of this report is to furnish accurate data pertaining to land features and major activity centers that will be of immediate value for statewide transportation planning. The scope of the study is discussed in the next few paragraphs. Land features. are considered in this report because the physical qualities of any geographic are• will influence both the form and structure of development. These basic influences may constrain the location and construction of transportation facilities; however, they may also pr.esent unique opportunities for innovative/scenic transportation facilities. Additionally, transportation systems maJ have significant impacts upon physical land features as well as the "built environment". Good transportation planning practices, as well as federal regulations, require attention to both of these areas. Knowledge of the location and extent of these land features is essential to perform state transportation planning. I-2 This study contains nine items which have been classified broadlf. as land features (either physical qualities such as topographic slope and flood plains or "built environment" such as historic structures and agriculture). Chapter II describes the detailed characteristics of these features. Major activity centers are defined as significant concentrations of people, employees, goods, or services that are a focus for transportation service. Further, they a.re generally characterized by high densities of land use and are significant traffic generators. They may be readily classified by trip-type, including work, school, shopping, socia 1, and recreation trip purposes. This study contains seventeen items that may be classi£ied generally as aajor activity centers, according to the above definition. Examples of these activity centers are: industrial parks, education centers, .regional shopping centers, special events, and lumbering operations. Cb.apter III provides more detailed descriptions of these centers. ~!!gJ._!§!H!!!,EtiQ.!!.§_.9!!,g_£2!!2idi~sii2112 For information purposes, the following paragraphs summari~e significant study assumptions and considerations: Assumptions: • Major activity center data for smaller municipalities is more important from a Statewide Transportation standpoint than for Phoenix and I-3 Tucson where the urban complex itself is the overwhelming at traction. For this reason, emphasis was placed on obtaining activity center data outside the highly-urbanized areas. • With respect to the inclusion of a particular activity center, the following four criteria were used in most cases: a. The magnitude of the transportation system required to sustain the activity e.g., 3,000,000 visitors per year at Grand Canyon National Park. b. The nature of the activity in terms of importance to life-support e.g., the only hospital or educational center in an area. c. The areal importance of the activity. Activities that attract or cause long trips, whether person or goods, are generally more important statewide than local attractors. d. The direct impact on the operation of a statewide trans~ortation facility e.g., the Ensphere in Flagstaff.
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]
  • Colorado River Managment Plan Annual Report Fiscal Year 2012
    U.S. Department of Interior GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK National Park Service COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 Project Number 140653 Contributions by: Vanya Pryputniewicz, Outdoor Recreation Planner Jennifer Dierker, Archeologist Linda Jalbert, Wilderness Coordinator Lisa Kearsley, Biological Technician Brett G Dickson, Principal Investigator, NAU Valerie Horncastle, Senior Research Specialist, NAU Luke Zachman, Senior Research Specialist, NAU For More Information contact: Vanya Pryputniewicz 928-638-7659 [email protected] Colorado River Management Plan Annual Report for FY2012 Page 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Mitigation Program ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Results and Observations .........................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Clear-Water Tributaries of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Stream Ecology and the Potential Impacts of Managed Flow by René E
    Clear-water tributaries of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: stream ecology and the potential impacts of managed flow by René E. Henery ABSTRACT Heightened attention to the sediment budget for the Colorado River systerm in Grand Canyon Arizona, and the importance of the turbid tributaries for delivering sediment has resulted in the clear-water tributaries being overlooked by scientists and managers alike. Existing research suggests that clear-water tributaries are remnant ecosystems, offering unique biotic communities and natural flow patterns. These highly productive environments provide important spawning, rearing and foraging habitat for native fishes. Additionally, clear water tributaries provide both fish and birds with refuge from high flows and turbid conditions in the Colorado River. Current flow management in the Grand Canyon including beach building managed floods and daily flow oscillations targeting the trout population and invasive vegetation has created intense disturbance in the Colorado mainstem. This unprecedented level of disturbance in the mainstem has the potential to disrupt tributary ecology and increase pressures on native fishes. Among the most likely and potentially devastating of these pressures is the colonization of tributaries by predatory non-native species. Through focused conservation and management tributaries could play an important role in the protection of the Grand Canyon’s native fishes. INTRODUCTION More than 490 ephemeral and 40 perennial tributaries join the Colorado River in the 425 km stretch between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. Of the perennial tributaries in the Grand Canyon, only a small number including the Paria River, the Little Colorado River and Kanab Creek drain large watersheds and deliver large quantities of sediment to the Colorado River mainstem (Oberlin et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Assessment Units
    APPENDIX A ASSESSMENT UNITS SURFACE WATER REACH DESCRIPTION REACH/LAKE NUM WATERSHED Agua Fria River 341853.9 / 1120358.6 - 341804.8 / 15070102-023 Middle Gila 1120319.2 Agua Fria River State Route 169 - Yarber Wash 15070102-031B Middle Gila Alamo 15030204-0040A Bill Williams Alum Gulch Headwaters - 312820/1104351 15050301-561A Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312820 / 1104351 - 312917 / 1104425 15050301-561B Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312917 / 1104425 - Sonoita Creek 15050301-561C Santa Cruz Alvord Park Lake 15060106B-0050 Middle Gila American Gulch Headwaters - No. Gila Co. WWTP 15060203-448A Verde River American Gulch No. Gila County WWTP - East Verde River 15060203-448B Verde River Apache Lake 15060106A-0070 Salt River Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Cyn Wilderness - San Pedro River 15050203-004C San Pedro Aravaipa Creek Stowe Gulch - end Aravaipa C 15050203-004B San Pedro Arivaca Cienega 15050304-0001 Santa Cruz Arivaca Creek Headwaters - Puertocito/Alta Wash 15050304-008 Santa Cruz Arivaca Lake 15050304-0080 Santa Cruz Arnett Creek Headwaters - Queen Creek 15050100-1818 Middle Gila Arrastra Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-848 Middle Gila Ashurst Lake 15020015-0090 Little Colorado Aspen Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-769 Verde River Babbit Spring Wash Headwaters - Upper Lake Mary 15020015-210 Little Colorado Babocomari River Banning Creek - San Pedro River 15050202-004 San Pedro Bannon Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-774 Verde River Barbershop Canyon Creek Headwaters - East Clear Creek 15020008-537 Little Colorado Bartlett Lake 15060203-0110 Verde River Bear Canyon Lake 15020008-0130 Little Colorado Bear Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-046 Middle Gila Bear Wallow Creek N. and S. Forks Bear Wallow - Indian Res.
    [Show full text]
  • Bacteria in the Grand Canyon
    White-water Researchers Check Bacteria in the Grand Canyon Item Type Article Authors Tunnicliff, Brock; Brickler, Stan; Webster, Guy Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Progressive Agriculture in Arizona Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents. The University of Arizona. Download date 27/09/2021 20:42:41 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/296209 White -water Researchers Check Bacteria in the Grand Canyon Using river rafts equipped as mobile laboratories is the best way to By Dr. Brock Tunnicliff test water quality in the Colorado River of the Grand Canyon. The and Dr. Stan Brickler, School sharply increased number of boat trips through the canyon since the of Renewable Natural 1960s is the main reason that testing the water there has become impor- Resources, and Guy Webster, tant. Agricultural Communications Based on two years of testing, UA School of Renewable Natural Resources researchers have made recommendations for safer use of river water by boaters. Boaters should treat water from the river and its trib- utaries before drinking it. Drinking straight from the river has been common in past seasons. Boaters also should avoid stirring up bottom sediments. The sediments contain much more bacterial contamination than does the surface water. Stirring up sediments, especially in side- stream pools, can raise the fecal bacteria count in water above the stan- dard maximum for body- contact water use. Photograph: Recreational rafts The UA researchers have explained these recommendations to navigate a stretch of the Colorado River in the lower half of the boatmen from 22 licensed commercial outfitters during National Park Grand Canyon.
    [Show full text]
  • Thunder River Trail and Deer Creek
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Arizona Thunder River Trail and Deer Creek The huge outpourings of water at Thunder River, Tapeats Spring, and Deer Spring have attracted people since prehistoric times and today this little corner of Grand Canyon is exceedingly popular among seekers of the remarkable. Like a gift, booming streams of crystalline water emerge from mysterious caves to transform the harsh desert of the inner canyon into absurdly beautiful green oasis replete with the music of falling water and cool pools. Trailhead access can be difficult, sometimes impossible, and the approach march is long, hot and dry, but for those making the journey these destinations represent something close to canyon perfection. Locations/Elevations Mileages Indian Hollow (6250 ft / 1906 m) to Bill Hall Trail Junction (5400 ft / 1647 m): 5.0 mi (8.0 km) Monument Point (7200 ft / 2196 m) to Bill Hall Junction: 2.6 mi (4.2 km) Bill Hall Junction, AY9 (5400 ft / 1647 m) to Surprise Valley Junction, AM9 (3600 ft / 1098 m): 4.5 mi ( 7.2 km) Upper Tapeats Camp, AW7 (2400 ft / 732 m): 6.6 mi ( 10.6 km) Lower Tapeats, AW8 at Colorado River (1950 ft / 595 m): 8.8 mi ( 14.2 km) Deer Creek Campsite, AX7 (2200 ft / 671 m): 6.9 mi ( 11.1 km) Deer Creek Falls and Colorado River (1950 ft / 595 m): 7.6 mi ( 12.2 km) Maps 7.5 Minute Tapeats Amphitheater and Fishtail Mesa Quads (USGS) Trails Illustrated Map, Grand Canyon National Park (National Geographic) North Kaibab Map, Kaibab National Forest (good for roads) Water Sources Thunder River, Tapeats Creek, Deer Creek, and the Colorado River are permanent water sources.
    [Show full text]
  • FISH of the COLORADO RIVER Colorado River and Tributaries Between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead
    FISH OF THE COLORADO RIVER Colorado River and tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead ON-LINE TRAINING: DRAFT Outline: • Colorado River • Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) • Native Fishes • Common Non-Native Fishes • Rare Non-Native Fishes • Standardized Sampling Protocol Colorado River: • The Colorado River through Grand Canyon historically hosted one of the most distinct fish assemblages in North America (lowest diversity, highest endemism) • Aquatic habitat was variable ▫ Large spring floods ▫ Cold winter temperatures ▫ Warm summer temperatures ▫ Heavy silt load • Today ▫ Stable flow releases ▫ Cooler temperatures ▫ Predation Overview: • The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program was established in 1997 to address downstream ecosystem impacts from operation of Glen Canyon Dam and to provide research and monitoring of downstream resources. Area of Interest: from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (Fish) Goals: • Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, eliminate risk of extinction from humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical habitat. • Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria River, to the extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native fish. Course Purpose: • The purpose of this training course “Fish of the Colorado River” is to provide a general overview of fish located within the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam downstream to Lake Mead and linked directly to the GCDAMP. • Also included are brief explanations of management concerns related to the native fish species, as well as species locations. Native Fishes: Colorado River and tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead Bluehead Sucker • Scientific name: Catostomus discobolus • Status: Species of Special Concern (conservation status may be at risk) • Description: Streamlined with small scales.
    [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]