DOCSLIB.ORG

Native Fish Restoration in Redrock Canyon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Native Fish Restoration in Redrock Canyon U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Final Environmental Assessment Phoenix Area Office NATIVE FISH RESTORATION IN REDROCK CANYON U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region Coronado National Forest Santa Cruz County, Arizona June 2008 Bureau of Reclamation Finding of No Significant Impact U.S. Forest Service Finding of No Significant Impact Decision Notice INTRODUCTION In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190, as amended), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as the lead Federal agency, and the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), as cooperating agencies, have issued the attached final environmental assessment (EA) to disclose the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction of a fish barrier, removal of nonnative fishes with the piscicide antimycin A and/or rotenone, and restoration of native fishes and amphibians in Redrock Canyon on the Coronado National Forest (CNF). The Proposed Action is intended to improve the recovery status of federally listed fish and amphibians (Gila chub, Gila topminnow, Chiricahua leopard frog, and Sonora tiger salamander) and maintain a healthy native fishery in Redrock Canyon consistent with the CNF Plan and ongoing Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7(a)(2), consultation between Reclamation and the FWS. BACKGROUND The Proposed Action is part of a larger program being implemented by Reclamation to construct a series of fish barriers within the Gila River Basin to prevent the invasion of nonnative fishes into high-priority streams occupied by imperiled native fishes. This program is mandated by a FWS biological opinion on impacts of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water transfers to the Gila River Basin (FWS 2008a). The fish barrier construction program is one of several conservation measures intended to assist with recovery of federally listed fishes. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Reclamation and the cooperating agencies considered No Action and two action alternatives in the EA. The proposed action was developed by Reclamation in consultation with the FWS and to meet the objectives of the 2008 CAP biological opinion. The following alternatives were considered during planning. No Action. Under the No Action alternative, Reclamation and the cooperating agencies would not implement the proposed native fish restoration project. Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, Reclamation will construct a fish barrier in Redrock Canyon on CNF land, approximately 4.25 miles upstream from Sonoita Creek. Following construction, the AGFD, with assistance from Reclamation and the other cooperating agencies, will: (1) salvage native fish, amphibians, and aquatic reptiles from waters of Redrock Canyon; (2) apply the piscicides antimycin A and/or rotenone and use mechanical methods to eradicate all nonnative fish in the watershed above the constructed barrier and reduce or eliminate bullfrog; (3) restore populations of native fish, frogs, salamanders, and semi-aquatic reptiles to all appropriate waters in the watershed; and, 2 (4) monitor the aquatic fauna of the watershed following treatment and restoration actions. If conditions are favorable, Gila chub will also be restored to the stream. Alternative A. Under Alternative A, no artificial barrier would be constructed. Nonnative species removal and native species restoration actions would affect the watershed only upstream of the existing natural barrier at the Falls and upstream of a set of natural barriers in upper Oak Grove Spring Canyon. The project area under Alternative A would differ from the Proposed Action in that about 1.6 miles of lower Redrock Canyon proper below the Falls, 2.2 miles of lower Oak Grove Spring Canyon, 1.8 miles of Oak Grove Spring Canyon tributaries, 1.4 miles of an unnamed tributary to lower Redrock Canyon, and one stock tank (Dry Tank) would be omitted. Other than this difference in the project area, the parameters for nonnative species removal and native species restoration would be the same as those described under the Proposed Action in the EA. Alternatives Considered But Rejected. Several alternative actions were considered and eliminated from detailed analysis during planning. These alternatives consisted of the following: 1. Alternative fish barrier sites. 2. Constructed barrier without nonnative removal and native species restoration. 3. Stock tank breaching. CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The project was listed on the CNF web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado) in a Schedule of Proposed Actions on January 1, 2007. On January 18, 2007, Reclamation posted a scoping notice on its Phoenix Area Office web site (http://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix) and mailed scoping information on the proposal to 53 potentially interested individuals, organizations, and agencies. In addition, a scoping meeting was held in Sonoita on February 8, 2007, to discuss the project with potentially affected grazing permittees. Reclamation and CNF received 11 letters of comment (including e-mail) during the 30-day scoping period which ended on February 16, 2007. Key issues identified in those letters are addressed in the EA. The pre-decisional draft EA was mailed to 58 potentially affected or interested individuals and agencies for a 30-day public comment period on September 14, 2007. In addition, a public notice was published in the Arizona Daily Star and news releases were sent to several other major media outlets serving central and southern Arizona regarding the availability of the draft EA. The draft EA was also available on Reclamation’s Phoenix Area Office web site. Five respondents submitted written comments concerning the proposed project during the 30-day public comment period. These comments and the agencies’ responses are included in Appendix G of the final EA. 3 Concurrent with development of the draft EA, Reclamation and CNF consulted with FWS under ESA Section 7(a)(2). The possible effects to listed species resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action were addressed in a biological assessment prepared by Reclamation and the Forest Service and submitted to the FWS on August 3, 2007. The biological assessment concluded the project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, Gila topminnow, Gila chub, Sonora tiger salamander, and Chiricahua leopard frog because some may be harmed by chemical and mechanical treatments of aquatic habitat, despite salvage efforts prior to the treatments. The biological assessment also concluded that the proposed action may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, the lesser long-nosed bat. Despite possible adverse effects during implementation, the project is expected to have long-term, net benefits to native fish and amphibians by removing nonnative predatory fish and bullfrogs and preventing nonnative fish from reinvading stream habitat in Redrock Canyon. The FWS in its 2008 biological opinion on the Proposed Action, concurred with the effects determination of the biological assessment and required Reclamation and the Forest Service, to implement reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) and associated terms and conditions to minimize or avoid the impact of incidental take on listed fishes (FWS 2008b). MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS The following issues that were addressed in the EA have been taken into consideration in Reclamation’s deliberation whether a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate, or an environmental impact statement should be prepared. 1. The Proposed Action is consistent with the direction and objectives of the CNF Plan and the 2008 CAP biological opinion. In addition, the 2008 biological opinion on the proposed action concluded that the Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Gila topminnow, Gila chub, Chiricahua leopard frog, and Sonora tiger salamander and will provide long-term benefit to these species by protecting them from the adverse effects of invasive nonnative aquatic species. Reclamation and the Forest Service will comply with the terms and conditions of the RPMs. Forest Service-sensitive species and management-indicator species known to occur in the project area would not be negatively affected by the Proposed Action. 2. Implementation of the Proposed Action will not significantly affect water resources. Potential increases in stream turbidity attributable to fish barrier construction will be short term and minor. No significant effect on stream dynamics or sediment transport will result from operation of the barrier. Application of the piscicide (antimycin A and/or rotenone) will have short-term, minor effects on water quality. Water quality certification and permit coverage under Clean Water Act, Sections 401and 404, have already been obtained. The terms and conditions of the 404 permit and 401 certification will be complied with. 4 Final Environmental Assessment Native Fish Restoration in Redrock Canyon 3. Effects to native aquatic biota will be temporary and limited to the treatment area. Application of the piscicide has the potential to temporarily reduce the abundance of certain groups of aquatic macroinvertebrates in treatment area, but long-term effects are expected to be minimal in regard to number, biomass, and diversity. Possible minor effects to other nontarget aquatic species will be limited to the treatment area. Dilution combined with the oxidation caused by sediment and organic material in the stream will detoxify all piscicide residues within a few
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR
    Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR Colorado River at Mile 50. Cover: Salt River. Letter from the President ivers are the great treasury of noted scientists and other experts reviewed the survey design, and biological diversity in the western state-specific experts reviewed the results for each state. RUnited States. As evidence mounts The result is a state-by-state list of more than 250 of the West’s that climate is changing even faster than we outstanding streams, some protected, some still vulnerable. The feared, it becomes essential that we create Great Rivers of the West is a new type of inventory to serve the sanctuaries on our best, most natural rivers modern needs of river conservation—a list that Western Rivers that will harbor viable populations of at-risk Conservancy can use to strategically inform its work. species—not only charismatic species like salmon, but a broad range of aquatic and This is one of 11 state chapters in the report. Also available are a terrestrial species. summary of the entire report, as well as the full report text. That is what we do at Western Rivers Conservancy. We buy land With the right tools in hand, Western Rivers Conservancy is to create sanctuaries along the most outstanding rivers in the West seizing once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to acquire and protect – places where fish, wildlife and people can flourish. precious streamside lands on some of America’s finest rivers. With a talented team in place, combining more than 150 years This is a time when investment in conservation can yield huge of land acquisition experience and offices in Oregon, Colorado, dividends for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX
    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE PHOENIX AMA Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Brown and Caldwell Project No. 23481.001 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 9 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hassayampa Landscape Restoration EA Aquatics Resources Report
    Hassayampa Landscape Restoration Environmental Assessment Aquatics Resources Report Prepared by: Albert Sillas Fishery Biologist Prescott National Forest for: Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest August 25, 2017 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trail Inventory of U.S
    The Trail Inventory of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Stations in Arizona Prepared By: Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division March 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. AZ STATE SUMMARY Table of Contents 1-1 List of Refuges 1-2 Mileage by Trail Class, Condition, and Surface 1-3 2-9. REFUGE SUMMARIES Mileage by Trail Class, Condition, and Surface X-1 Trail Location Map X-2 Trail Identification X-3 Condition and Deficiency Sheets X-4 Photographic Sheets X-5 10. APPENDIX Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 10-1 Trail Classification System 10-4 1-1 FWS Stations in Arizona with Trails Station Name Trail Miles Chapter Bill Williams River NWR 0.27 2 Buenos Aires NWR 6.62 3 Cabeza Prieta NWR 0.16 4 Cibola NWR 0.91 5 Havasu NWR 0.22 6 Imperial NWR 1.31 7 Leslie Canyon NWR 1.47 8 San Bernardino NWR 2.39 9 1-2 Arizona NWR Trail and Summaries Trail Miles and Percentages by Surface Type and Condition Mileage by Trail Condition Total Trail Surface Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Rated* Miles Type MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % Native 7.91 59% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0% 8.43 Gravel 0.96 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.96 Asphalt 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Concrete 0.27 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.27 Turnpike 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Boardwalk 0.26 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.26 Puncheon 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Woodchips 0.05 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.05 Admin Road 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.36 25% 3.36 Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Totals 9.45 71% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 3.36 25% 13.33 Trail Miles and Percentages by Trail Classification and Condition Mileage by Trail Condition Total Trail Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Rated* Miles Classification MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % TC1 2.60 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.60 TC2 1.88 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.88 TC3 1.04 8% 0% 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0.97 7% 2.33 TC4 3.61 27% 0.20 2% 0% 0% 0% 2.39 18% 6.20 TC5 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.32 Totals 9.45 71% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 3.36 25% 13.33 * Admin Roads are included in the inventory but are not rated for condition.
    [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]
  • Environmental Flows and Water Demands in Arizona
    Environmental Flows and Water A University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center Project Demands in Arizona ater is an increasingly scarce resource and is essential for Arizona’s future. Figure 1. Elements of Environmental Flow WWith Arizona’s population growth and Occurring in Seasonal Hydrographs continued drought, citizens and water managers have been taking a closer look at water supplies in the state. Municipal, industrial, and agricul- tural water users are well-represented demand sectors, but water supplies and management to benefit the environment are not often consid- ered. This bulletin explains environmental water demands in Arizona and introduces information essential for considering environmental water demands in water management discussions. Considering water for the environment is impor- tant because humans have an interconnected and interdependent relationship with the envi- ronment. Nature provides us recreation oppor- tunities, economic benefits, and water supplies Data Source: to sustain our communities. USGS stream gage data Figure 2: Human Demand and Current Flow in Arizona Environmental water demands (or environmental flow) (circle size indicates relative amount of water) refers to how much water is needed in a watercourse to sustain a healthy ecosystem. Defining environmental water demand goes beyond the ecology and hydrol- Maximum ogy of a system and should include consideration for Flows how much water is required to achieve an agreed Industrial 40.8 maf Industrial SW Municipal upon level of river health, as determined by the GW 1% GW 8% water-using community. Arizona’s native ani- 4% mals and plants depend upon dynamic flows commonly described according to the natural Municipal SW flow regime.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Survey Ik Salt River Valley, Arizona
    Soil Survey in Salt River Valley Item Type text; Book Authors Means, Thos. H. Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Rights Public Domain: This material has been identified as being free of known restrictions under U.S. copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. Download date 28/09/2021 11:06:51 Item License http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/192405 U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DIVISION OF SOILS MILTON "WHITNEY, Chief SOIL SURVEY IK SALT RIVER VALLEY, ARIZONA. THOMAS H MEANS [REPRINTED *ROM THE EFFORT o\ FIIID OPLK\.HO\S os mt I)IM^ION ot i OK 1900 ] CONTENTS. Page. Introduction _ to 287 Geology and topography _ 288 Climate 291 Soils 293 Pecos sand 294 River wash 293 Salt Eiver gravel 293 G-ilafine sandy loam 296 Salt River adobe 296 G-lendale loess „__ 299 Colluvial soils, or mountain waste - 302 Maricopa gravelly loam 303 Maricopa sandy loam _ 304 Maricopaloam 306 Maricopa clay lo?-m „ 307 Hardpan _ 308 Solrnaps - - 308 Tempesheet , 308 Phoenix sheet 309 Buckeye sheet 309 Irrigation waters 310 Underground waters 31S Tempesheet „ , 314 Phoenix sheet 315 Buckeye sheet , 317 Alkali of the soils 319 Templesheet 319 Origin of alkali salts of Tempe sheet 321 Reclamation of alkali lands 323 Phoenix &heet - - 325 Buckeye sheet-, S38 Agriculture in Salt River Valley 331 Fruit farming 331 Cattle raising - 33S Dairying * — - %8& in ILLUSTRATIONS. PLATES. PLATE XXIV. Character of native vegetation on desert land near the moun- tains 290 XXY. Irrigated lands in Tempe area 302 XXVI.
    [Show full text]
  • PETRIFIED FOREST: a Playground for Wildlife Baseball’S Back!
    Spring PETRIFIED FOREST: A Playground for Wildlife Baseball’s Back! arizonahighways.com march 2003 MARCH 2003 page 50 COVER NATURE 55 GENE PERRET’S WIT STOP 6 14 If you’d like a good Surprise, drive northwest of Survival in the Grasslands A Bevy of Blooms Phoenix — and don’t ask Why. Preserving masked bobwhite quail and and Butterflies pronghorn antelope also rebuilds the habitat 44 HUMOR at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. Delicate-winged beauties and dazzling floral displays await at the Phoenix Desert Botanical 2 LETTERS AND E-MAIL Garden’s Butterfly Pavilion. 22 PORTFOLIO 46 DESTINATION Arizona’s in Love with INDIANS Lowell Observatory 18 Visitors get telescope time, too, at this noted Baseball Spring Training Butterfly Myths institution, home to 27 full-time astronomers doing pioneering research. The Cactus League’s 10 major league teams The gentle, fluttering insects take on varied have a devoted following, including visitors symbolic roles in many Indian cultures. 3 TAKING THE OFF-RAMP from out of state. Explore Arizona oddities, attractions and pleasures. HISTORY TRAVEL 32 54 EXPERIENCE ARIZONA 38 Hike a Historic Trail Go on a hike or pan for gold in Apache Junction to Life in a Stony Landscape Retrace the southern Arizona route of Spain’s commemorate treasure hunting in the Superstition Come spring, the Petrified Forest National Juan Bautista de Anza, who led the 18th-century Mountains; help the Tohono O’odham Indians celebrate Park is abuzz with critters and new plants. colonization of San Francisco. their heritage and see their arts and crafts in Ajo; and enjoy the re-enactment of mountain man skills in Oatman.
    [Show full text]
  • Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998
    GILA TOPMINNOW, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, REVISED RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approval: March 15, 1984) Prepared by David A. Weedman Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona for Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico December 1998 Approved: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions required to recover and protect the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepares the plans, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State and Federal Agencies, and others. Objectives are attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Time and costs provided for individual tasks are estimates only, and not to be taken as actual or budgeted expenditures. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor official positions or approval of any persons or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. ii Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Original preparation of the revised Gila topminnow Recovery Plan (1994) was done by Francisco J. Abarca 1, Brian E. Bagley, Dean A. Hendrickson 1 and Jeffrey R. Simms 1. That document was modified to this current version and the work conducted by those individuals is greatly appreciated and now acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2019 to 09/30/2019 Prescott National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2019 to 09/30/2019 Prescott National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact R3 - Southwestern Region, Occurring in more than one Forest (excluding Regionwide) AZ Public Service (APS) ROW - Vegetation management Completed Actual: 04/09/2019 04/2019 Heather Snow Vegetation Management with (other than forest products) 505-842-3445 Herbicides - Special use management [email protected] EA Description: FS must decide whether to allow APS to include using herbicides as a method to manage vegetation on existing *UPDATED* APS transmission ROW within five National Forests in Arizona. Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45771 Location: UNIT - Kaibab National Forest All Units, Prescott National Forest All Units, Coconino National Forest All Units, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests All Units, Tonto National Forest All Units. STATE - Arizona. COUNTY - Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Navajo, Yavapai. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Arizona Public Service Company Rights of Way across the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests. See map on website. Prescott College Academic - Recreation management In Progress: Expected:04/2018 05/2018 Julie Rowe Outfitter and Guide Priority Use - Special use management Scoping Start 02/02/2015 928-203-7516 (2015-2025) [email protected] CE Description: The Forest Service proposes to authorize Prescott College to conduct academic courses including new student orientation, adventure education, biology, human ecology, natural history, physical geography, field ecology, environmental conservation Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47407 Location: UNIT - Coronado National Forest All Units, Kaibab National Forest All Units, Prescott National Forest All Units, Tonto Basin Ranger District, Coconino National Forest All Units, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests All Units.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2021 Arizona Office of Tourism Monthly State Parks Visitation Report
    June 2021 Arizona Office of Tourism Monthly State Parks Visitation Report Arizona State Park Visitation June June 2021 2020 YTD State Park % Chg 2021 2020 YTD YTD % Chg Alamo Lake SP 1,237 1,924 -35.7% 48,720 46,871 3.9% Buckskin Mountain SP 11,092 9,292 19.4% 49,439 45,627 8.4% Catalina SP 6,598 2,420 172.6% 154,763 156,234 -0.9% Cattail Cove SP 10,138 14,908 -32.0% 52,221 67,256 -22.4% Colorado River SHP 167 57 193.0% 2,589 6,220 -58.4% Dead Horse Ranch SP 17,142 18,748 -8.6% 126,799 120,044 5.6% Fool Hollow Lake RA 16,380 25,104 -34.8% 55,360 63,341 -12.6% Fort Verde SHP 706 521 35.5% 4,672 2,654 76.0% Granite Mountain Hotshots MSP 1,076 1,380 -22.0% 11,778 14,874 -20.8% Homolovi SP 4,032 1,982 103.4% 22,007 11,470 91.9% Jerome SHP 4,099 1,991 105.9% 21,789 14,109 54.4% Kartchner Caverns SP 7,776 2,045 280.2% 44,020 57,663 -23.7% Lake Havasu SP 66,040 74,493 -11.3% 241,845 337,920 -28.4% Lost Dutchman SP 4,198 3,651 15.0% 122,844 132,399 -7.2% Lyman Lake SP 11,169 10,625 5.1% 30,755 38,074 -19.2% McFarland SHP 166 0 1,213 2,942 -58.8% Oracle SP 270 486 -44.4% 6,994 9,191 -23.9% Patagonia Lake SP 25,058 30,706 -18.4% 118,311 126,873 -6.7% Picacho Peak SP 1,893 1,953 -3.1% 64,084 68,800 -6.9% Red Rock SP 12,963 6,118 111.9% 56,356 33,228 69.6% Riordan Mansion SHP 777 0 2,188 2,478 -11.7% River Island SP 2,623 3,004 -12.7% 18,089 19,411 -6.8% Roper Lake SP 8,049 12,394 -35.1% 52,924 49,738 6.4% Slide Rock SP 54,922 33,491 64.0% 231,551 110,781 109.0% Tombstone Courthouse SHP 2,875 1,465 96.2% 18,261 16,394 11.4% Tonto Natural Bridge SP 8,146 7,161 13.8% 54,950 36,557 50.3% Tubac Presidio SHP 261 117 123.1% 4,240 2,923 45.1% Yuma Territorial Prison SHP 2,206 1,061 107.9% 28,672 26,505 8.2% Total All Parks 282,059 267,097 5.6% 1,647,434 1,620,577 1.7% Note: Dankworth Pond SP data is included in Roper Lake SP, Sonoita Creek SNA is included in Patagonia Lake SP and Verde River Greenway SNA is included in Dead Horse Ranch SP.
    [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]