DOCSLIB.ORG

Tucson Model Report No 24 V2.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tucson Model Report No 24 V2.Pdf ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL OF THE TUCSON ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA, ARIZONA MODEL UPDATE AND CALIBRATION MODELING REPORT NO. 24 BY DALE MASON AND WESLEY HIPKE HYDROLOGY DIVISION PHOENIX, ARIZONA April, 2013 Table of Contents ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ V 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROJECT SETTING ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS .......................................................................................... 3 1.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. 3 2.0 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FLOW SYSTEM .................................................. 4 2.1 HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK........................................................................................ 6 2.1.1 Revised Basin Statigraphy ......................................................................................... 6 2.2 REGIONAL AQUIFER SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 10 2.3 GROUNDWATER BUDGET ................................................................................................ 11 2.3.1 Pre-development Water Budget .............................................................................. 11 2.3.2 Post-development Water Budget ............................................................................. 13 2.4 ESTIMATES OF GROUNDWATER IN STORAGE .................................................................. 21 3.0 SIMULATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW ....................................................... 22 3.1 MODEL DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 22 3.1.1 MODFLOW Packages............................................................................................. 24 3.1.2 Model Boundaries ................................................................................................... 25 3.1.3 Model Layers ........................................................................................................... 27 3.1.4 Aquifer Parameters ................................................................................................. 28 3.2 SIMULATED INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS ........................................................................... 30 3.2.1 Stream Flow Recharge ............................................................................................ 30 3.2.2 Incidental Recharge ................................................................................................ 42 3.2.3 Mountain Front Recharge ....................................................................................... 46 3.2.4 Groundwater Underflow ......................................................................................... 47 3.2.5 Groundwater Withdrawals ...................................................................................... 51 3.2.6 Evapotranspiration.................................................................................................. 52 4.0 MODEL CALIBRATION .......................................................................................... 55 4.1 CALIBRATION CRITERIA AND MODEL ERROR ................................................................. 55 4.2 CALIBRATION TARGETS .................................................................................................. 57 4.3 STEADY-STATE CALIBRATION ........................................................................................ 58 4.3.1 Steady-State Results ................................................................................................ 58 4.4 TRANSIENT CALIBRATION .............................................................................................. 64 4.4.1 Transient Calibration Results ................................................................................. 67 5.0 MODEL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................ 85 SELECTED REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 88 i Regional Groundwater Flow Model of the Tucson AMA List of Figures Figure 1. Tucson AMA model study area. ............................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Geopolitical boundaries within the Tucson AMA. ................................................... 5 Figure 3. Pre-development groundwater flow system, boundary conditions, and total saturated thickness map of the regional aquifer, Tucson model area. ............................... 7 Figure 4. Depth to bedrock map, Tucson model area. ............................................................. 9 Figure 5. Water level elevation in the fall of 2010, Tucson model area. ............................... 15 Figure 6. Stream gage locations, stream recharge segments, wastewater treatment plants, and precipitation stations, Tucson model area. 6A, AMA area; 6B inset area. ..................... 16 Figure 7. Underground Storage Facilities and Groundwater Storage Facilities recharge locations, Tucson model area. ......................................................................................... 20 Figure 8. Hydrograph of northern Avra Valley boundary well, Tucson Model area. ........... 21 Figure 9. Water storage calculation areas, Tucson model area. ............................................. 23 Figure 10. Extent of model layers, Tucson model area ......................................................... 29 Figure 11. Active extent and thickness of model layer 1, Tucson model area. ..................... 31 Figure 12. Active extent and thickness of model layer 2, Tucson model area. ..................... 32 Figure 13. Active extent and thickness of model layer 3, Tucson model area. ..................... 33 Figure 14. Hydraulic conductivity distribution of model layer 1, Tucson model area. ......... 35 Figure 15. Hydraulic conductivity distribution of model layer 2, Tucson model area. ......... 36 Figure 16. Hydraulic conductivity distribution of model layer 3, Tucson model area. ......... 37 Figure 17. Incidental recharge locations, Tucson model area. .............................................. 43 Figure 18. Annual effluent releases into the Santa Cruz River: 1950-2010. ......................... 45 Figure 19. CAP surface water deliveries to the Tucson AMA: 1990-2010. .......................... 46 Figure 20. Effluent recharge at USFs in the Tucson Model Area. ........................................ 47 Figure 21. Underflow, ET, and Natural Recharge Locations in the Tucson Model Area. .... 50 Figure 22. Estimated withdrawals in the Upper Santa Cruz and Avra Valley sub-basins. .... 52 Figure 23. Steady-State Pumping Distribution - Tucson Model Area ................................... 53 Figure 24. Pumping Distribution - 2010 in the Tucson Model area. ..................................... 54 Figure 25. 1940 Measured vs. Simulated Water Level Contours. ......................................... 60 Figure 26. Distribution of Simulated 1940 Head Residuals - Tucson Model. ....................... 61 Figure 27. 1940 Weighted Observed Heads vs. 1940 Weighted Simulated heads. ............... 63 Figure 28. 1940 Weighted Residuals vs. 1940 Unweighted Observed Heads ....................... 63 Figure 29. Simulated Groundwater withdrawals by Sector, Tucson AMA Model ............... 65 Figure 30. Simulated annual groundwater withdrawals - Tucson AMA Model.................... 66 Figure 31. 2010 Measured vs. Simulated Water Level Contours .......................................... 68 Figure 32. Distribution of simulated 2010 head residuals - Tucson Model. ......................... 70 Figure 33. 2010 Weighted Observed Heads vs. 2010 Weighted Simulated Heads ............... 71 Figure 34. 2010 weighted Residuals vs. 2010 Unweighted Observed Heads. ...................... 72 Figure 35. Maps showing well hydrograph locations, Tucson AMA model ......................... 76 ii Regional Groundwater Flow Model of the Tucson AMA List of Figures (cont.) Figure 36 Comparison of ADWR and USGS model simulated pumpage. ............................ 78 Figure 37. Simulated change in storage: Tucson AMA: 1940-2010. .................................... 82 Figure 38. Simulated change in storage: Avra Valley sub-basin: 1940-2010. ...................... 83 Figure 39. Simulated change in storage: Upper Santa Cruz sub-basin: 1940-2010 .............. 84 List of Tables Table 1. Conceptual steady-state groundwater budget, Tucson model area. ......................... 14 Table 2. USGS Stream Gages in the Tucson Model Area. .................................................... 18 Table 3. Estimated groundwater in storage, Tucson model area. .......................................... 22 Table 4. General Tucson model design components. ............................................................ 26 Table 5. Underground Storage Facilities in (USFs) the Tucson Model Study Area. ............ 48 Table 6. Groundwater Saving Facilities (GFSs) in the Tucson Model Study Area. .............. 48 Table 7. Mountain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Altar Valley, Arizona, USA How Ranchers Have Shaped the West—And Continue to Do So
    A History of Working Landscapes: The Altar Valley, Arizona, USA How ranchers have shaped the West—and continue to do so. By Nathan F. Sayre pproaching rangelands as working landscapes be- Although relatively overlooked by scientists, agencies, and gins from the premise that people and the envi- environmentalists during the 20th century, the Altar Valley ronment shape each other over time. Sustainable has recently emerged as a focal point in the politics of conser- management is therefore not only an ecological but vation in Pima County, Arizona. Despite dramatic changes in Aalso a social process, strongly infl uenced by local histories of the structure and composition of vegetation and in watershed resource use, management, change, and learning. The case of function (see below), the area provides habitat to numerous the Altar Valley, Arizona, offers insights into how economics, listed threatened or endangered species. Compared to the range science, mental models, and the scale of decision mak- rest of eastern Pima County, the Altar Valley is also remark- ing have shaped ranchers and the landscape over time. In par- ably unfragmented by residential development, although the ticular, it provides empirical answers to important questions fringes of metropolitan Tucson (population approximately 1 facing range science today: How do scientifi c knowledge and million) reach right up to its northeastern edge. In conse- recommendations affect on-the-ground management? How quence, advocates of wildlife and open space conservation do ranchers weigh economic, ecological, and cultural goals are increasingly interested in the activities of the families against one another? What kinds of information do ranchers who own the valley’s major ranches.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Mineralization of the Oro Blanco Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona
    Structure and mineralization of the Oro Blanco Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Knight, Louis Harold, 1943- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 27/09/2021 20:13:55 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/565224 STRUCTURE AND MINERALIZATION OF THE ORO BLANCO MINING DISTRICT, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, ARIZONA by * Louis Harold Knight, Jr. A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 0 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction by Louis Harold Knight, Jr._______________________ entitled Structure and Mineralization of the Pro Blanco______ Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona_________ be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy________________________________ a/akt/Z). m date ' After inspection of the final copy of the dissertation, the following members of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:* SUtzo. /16? QJr zd /rtf C e f i, r --------- 7-------- /?S? This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate1s adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Sonoran Desert GEORGE GENTRY/FWSGEORGE the Sonoran Desert Has 2,000 Endemic Plant Species—More Than Anywhere Else in North America
    in the shadow of the wall: borderlands conservation hotspots on the line Borderlands Conservation Hotspot 2. Sonoran Desert GEORGE GENTRY/FWSGEORGE The Sonoran Desert has 2,000 endemic plant species—more than anywhere else in North America. hink deserts are wastelands? A visit to one of the national monuments or national wildlife refuges in the Sonoran Desert could change your mind. These borderlands are teeming with plants and animals impressively adapted to extreme conditions. T During your visit you might encounter a biologist, a volunteer or a local activist in awe of the place and dedicated to protecting it. The Sonoran Desert is so important to the natural heritage of the United States and Mexico that both countries are vested in conservation lands and programs and on a joint mission to preserve it. “A border wall,” says one conservation coalition leader, “harms our mission” (Campbell 2017). The Sonoran Desert is one of the largest intact wild areas mountains, where they find nesting cavities and swoop in the country, 100,387 square miles stretching across the between cactuses and trees to hunt lizards and other prey. southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. This Rare desert bighorn sheep stick to the steep, rocky slopes of desert is renowned for columnar cactuses like saguaro, organ isolated desert mountain ranges where they keep a watchful pipe and cardón. Lesser known is the fact that the Sonoran eye for predators. One of the most endangered mammals in Desert has more endemic plant species—2,000—than North America, Sonoran pronghorn still occasionally cross anywhere else in North America (Nabhan 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Will Dryland Farming Be Feasible in the Avra Valley?
    Will Dryland Farming Be Feasible in the Avra Valley? Item Type text; Article Authors Thacker, Gary Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Forage and Grain: A College of Agriculture Report Download date 27/09/2021 01:37:37 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/200575 Will Dryland Farming Be Feasible In The Avra Valley? Gary Thacker The increasing cost of water and legal restrictionson its use have caused farmland to be taken out of production in Pima County. In the early 1970's, approximately 50,000acres of farmland were being irrigated in Pima County. This is projected to dropto less than 20,000 acres by 2000 and to virtually zero by 2020 (9). The City of Tucson is the largest owner of retired farmland in thecounty. The city purchased Avra Valley farmland, retired itfrom production, and is now exporting the water for municipaluse.Little natural revegetation has occured in the 10 to 11years since most of the city's land was retired from farm production. The land remains as a huge management problem. Weed controlproblems have resulted in a large expenditure of the city's funds. The land must be mowed periodicallyto keep tumbleweeds from growing and being blown to adjacent agricultural fields, homesites, and roads. The retired farmland has no permanent tenants, thus problems persistwith vandalism, theft, trash dumping, and overgrazing.As of 1981, the City of Tucson was spending about $75,000per year to manage and maintain its Avra Valley holdings with no offsetting returns (4). Jojoba, guayule, buffalo gourd, and tumbleweed biomass productionhave been studied for their feasibility on retired farmland.
    [Show full text]
  • WS Syllabus Template
    THE SKY ISLANDS PROGRAM: WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN ACTION SPRING 2021: APRIL 8 – MAY 22 ACADEMIC SYLLABUS Faculty: Aletris Neils, PhD Contact Hours: We will all be in close contact, meeting every day throughout the course. There will be a number of “check-in days” where we will schedule student-faculty meetings. Students are encouraged to engage with faculty to discuss assignments or any other issues or concerns as needed. Class Meetings: The Wildlands Studies Sky Islands Program involves seven days per week of instruction and field research with little time off. Faculty and staff work directly with students 6-10+ hours a day and are available for tutorials and coursework discussion before and after scheduled activities. Typically, scheduled activities each day begin at 7am, with breaks for meals. Scheduled activities will include a variety of things including but not limited to lectures, discussions, hikes, and field research. Most evenings include scheduled activities such as guest lectures, structured study time, and workshops. When in the backcountry or at a field site, our activities may start as early as 4am or end as late as 11pm (e.g., for wildlife observation). Students should also expect to spend a few hours a day studying, writing in their journals, and completing readings. It is necessary for students to have a flexible mindset and to be able to accommodate a variety of class, activity, and independent study times. Course Credit: Students enrolled in a Wildlands Studies Program receive credit for three undergraduate courses. These three courses have distinct objectives and descriptions, and we integrate teaching and learning through formal learning situations (lectures and seminars), field work, field surveys and hands-on activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Parks & Facilities Swimming Pools
    Marana & Oro Valley GUIDE TO PARKS & FACILITIES SWIMMING POOLS HIKING & TRAILS 1 San Lucas Community Park 16 Honey Bee Canyon Park Marana’s community pool is located at Ora Mae Harn District Park, 13251 OUTDOOR 14040 N. Adonis Rd. 13880 N. Rancho Vistoso Blvd. N. Lon Adams Road. It has long been a favorite way for area residents and Ramadas, ball fields, dog park, volleyball court, Hiking trails, ramadas, restrooms visitors to cool down during the hot summer months. In operation May playground, basketball court, restrooms, shared through September, the pool is open for any and all seeking a great way use path, fitness stations 17 Big Wash Linear Park to relax near the water in a beautiful park setting. A splash pad at Marana Accessible from Oro Valley Marketplace (Tangerine Recreation Heritage River Park, 12205 N. Tangerine Farms Road, features an agrarian WILD BURRO TRAIL Ora Mae Harn District Park 2 Rd. & Oracle Rd.) and from Steam Pump Village theme water features. There is also a splash pad at Crossroads at Silverbell 13250 N. Lon Adams Rd. (Oracle Rd., north of First Ave.) MARANA HERITAGE RIVER PARK brochure & map District Park, 7548 N. Silverbell Road. Hit the trails in Marana with year-round hiking. For stunning views of mountains, plants and wildlife, visit the Ball fields, ramadas, grills, tennis courts, Shared use path, great for walking, running and cycling vast trail network in the Tortolita Mountains, home to the Dove Mountain community and its Ritz-Carlton resort. pickleball courts, basketball courts, swimming The Oro Valley Aquatic Center is located within James D.
    [Show full text]
  • Marana Regional Sports Complex
    Draft Environmental Assessment Marana Regional Sports Complex Town of Marana Pima County, Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office August 2008 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARANA REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX Prepared for Bureau of Reclamation 6150 West Thunderbird Road Glendale, Arizona 85306 Attn: John McGlothlen (623) 773-6256 on behalf of Town of Marana 11555 West Civic Center Drive, Building A2 Marana, Arizona 85653 Attn: Corby Lust Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants 2120 North Central Avenue, Suite 130 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 www.swca.com (602) 274-3831 SWCA Project No. 12313 i CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Project .............................................................................................1 1.3 Location........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Public Involvement/Scoping Process ........................................................................................... 1 1.5 Conformance with Comprehensive Plans and Zoning ................................................................. 2 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sky Island Grassland Assessment: Identifying and Evaluating Priority Grassland Landscapes for Conservation and Restoration in the Borderlands
    Sky Island Grassland Assessment: Identifying and Evaluating Priority Grassland Landscapes for Conservation and Restoration in the Borderlands David Gori, Gitanjali S. Bodner, Karla Sartor, Peter Warren and Steven Bassett September 2012 Animas Valley, New Mexico Photo: TNC Preferred Citation: Gori, D., G. S. Bodner, K. Sartor, P. Warren, and S. Bassett. 2012. Sky Island Grassland Assessment: Identifying and Evaluating Priority Grassland Landscapes for Conservation and Restoration in the Borderlands. Report prepared by The Nature Conservancy in New Mexico and Arizona. 85 p. i Executive Summary Sky Island grasslands of central and southern Arizona, southern New Mexico and northern Mexico form the “grassland seas” that surround small forested mountain ranges in the borderlands. Their unique biogeographical setting and the ecological gradients associated with “Sky Island mountains” add tremendous floral and faunal diversity to these grasslands and the region as a whole. Sky Island grasslands have undergone dramatic vegetation changes over the last 130 years including encroachment by shrubs, loss of perennial grass cover and spread of non-native species. Changes in grassland composition and structure have not occurred uniformly across the region and they are dynamic and ongoing. In 2009, The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) launched its Sky Island Grassland Initiative, a 10-year plan to protect and restore grasslands and embedded wetland and riparian habitats in the Sky Island region. The objective of this assessment is to identify a network of priority grassland landscapes where investment by the Foundation and others will yield the greatest returns in terms of restoring grassland health and recovering target wildlife species across the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Geomorphology .. and Hydrology of the Santa Cruz River
    Historical Geomorphology .. and Hydrology of the Santa Cruz River Michelle Lee Wood, P. Kyle House, and Philip A. Pearthree Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-13 July 1999 Text 98 p., 1 sheet, scale 1: 100,000 Investigations supported by the Arizona State Land Department as part of their efforts to gather technical information for a stream navigability assessment This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards. EXTENDED ABSTRACT This report provides baseline information on the physical characteristics of the Santa Cruz River to be used by the Arizona Stream Navigability Commission in its determination of the potential navigability of the Santa Cruz River at the time of Statehood. The primary goals of this report are: (1) to give a descriptive overview of the geography, geology, climatology, vegetation and hydrology that define the character of the Santa Cruz River; and, (2) to describe how the character of the Santa Cruz River has changed since the time of Statehood with special focus on the streamflow conditions and geomorphic changes such as channel change and movement. This report is based on a review of the available literature and analyses of historical survey maps, aerial photographs, and U.S. Geological Survey streamgage records. The Santa Cruz River has its source at the southern base of the Canelo Hills in the Mexican Highlands portion of the Basin and Range province. The river flows south through the San Rafael Valley before crossing the international border into Mexico. It describes a loop of about 30 miles before it re-enters the United States six miles east of Nogales, and continues northward past Tucson to its confluence with the Gila River a few miles above the mouth of the Salt River.
    [Show full text]
  • Ironwood Forest National Monument Resources Summary
    Natural Resources Summary (5/2017) Ironwood Forest National Monument Geology & Cultural History of Ironwood Forest National Monument-IFNM, Southern Arizona ____________________________________ INFM Parameters • Established 9 June 2000 - Exe. Order President W.J. Clinton • Land Mangement: Bureau of Land Management • Footprint: 188,619 acres (includes 59,922 acres non-federal lands, chiefly State Trust lands, and minor private holdings) • Cultural features: 200+ Hohokam sites; historical mine-related sites • Current Uses: Recreation, cattle grazing, mining on pre-existing mine sites • Threatened Species: Ferruginous pygmy owl, desert bighorn sheep, lesser long-nosed bat, turk’s head cactus Physiographic Features Basin & Range Province, Roskruge Mtns., Samaniego Hills, Sawtooth Mtns., Silver Bell Mtns., Sonoran Desert, Western Silver Bell Mtns. Mining History • Predominantly in the Silver Bell Mtns. • Major Ore Deposit(s) type: porphyry copper • Ore: copper, lead, zinc, molybdenum, gold Map of the Ironwood Forest National Monument (BLM). The IFNM surrounds and partially encompasses the Silver Bell metallic mineral district and either covers parts of or encompasses the Waterman, Magonigal and the Roskruge mineral districts. The most productive area has been the Silver Bell Mining District, where active mining continues to this day, immediately southwest of the monument, and by grandfather clause, on the the monument proper. The Silver Bell Mmining District evolved from a collection of intermittent, poorly financed and managed underground mining operations in the late 1800s to mid-1900s struggling to make a profit from high grade ores; to a small but profitable producer, deploying innovative mining practices and advancements in technology to Mineral Districts of eastern Pima County. Yellow highlighted successfully develop the district’s large, low-grade copper resource districts are incorporated in part or entirely in IFNM (AZGS (D.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]