DOCSLIB.ORG

Phase II-B Final Report 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phase II-B Final Report 2008 United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Grand Canyon National Park P.O. Box 129 Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023-0129 F54 (GRCA 8213) Ms. Evelyn Erlandsen Arizona Water Protection Fund 3550 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012 Dear Ms. Erlandsen: Enclosed please find the revised and final October 31, 2008 deliverable for the project entitled “Management & Control of Tamarisk and Other Invasive Vegetation at Backcountry Seeps, Springs and Tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park (Second Year of Phase II of Comprehensive Project)”, Arizona Water Protection Fund (AWPF) Grant Number 06-138WPF. The deliverable falls under Task # 5 in the contract and is the final report for all of the work completed during this contract period. The funding that the Arizona Water Protection Fund has provided has allowed the park’s Backcountry Vegetation Program staff to accomplish critical preservation and restoration work in the park’s backcountry areas. With issues like invasive species, it is essential to disregard boundaries, and this project has provided the opportunity to work directly with the Hualapai Tribe and look at the greater Grand Canyon area as a whole, rather than segmented parts. I appreciate the support that you have provided as the project manager. Please consider this the final version of the report, one professionally bound, and one copy of just the report body itself to merge with the appendices you already have. I mailed two copies of the poster-size map separately. If you have any questions about the revised and final report, please contact me at (928)226-0165. Sincerely, Lori J. Makarick Vegetation Program Manager Enclosures (2) Grand Canyon National Park and Grand Canyon National Park Foundation Final 2008 Management and Monitoring Report Management & Control of Tamarisk and Other Invasive Vegetation at Backcountry Seeps, Springs and Tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park (Phase II-B, First Year of Phase II of Comprehensive Project) Arizona Water Protection Fund Contract Number 06-138WPF October 24. 2008 Revised and Re-Submitted December 9, 2008 Prepared by: Lori Makarick Vegetation Program Manager Grand Canyon National Park 823 North San Francisco, Suite B Flagstaff, AZ 86001-3265 Phone: (928) 226-0165 Email: [email protected] I. Abstract ................................................................................................................................................6 II. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................7 a. Overview of project status ..........................................................................................................................7 b. Justification for recent work .......................................................................................................................8 c. Management objectives ................................................................................................................................9 d. Monitoring objectives................................................................................................................................ 10 III. Management Methods...................................................................................................................11 a. General Vegetation Community Description........................................................................................ 11 b. Project Area Specifics and Descriptions................................................................................................. 13 Horn Creek ...................................................................................................................................................................13 Salt Creek - Upper .......................................................................................................................................................16 Cedar Spring ................................................................................................................................................................17 Topaz Creek..................................................................................................................................................................18 Slate Creek....................................................................................................................................................................20 Agate Canyon ...............................................................................................................................................................21 Sapphire Canyon..........................................................................................................................................................22 Turquoise Canyon .......................................................................................................................................................23 Ruby...............................................................................................................................................................................24 Above Serpentine .........................................................................................................................................................25 White Creek..................................................................................................................................................................25 Flint Creek ....................................................................................................................................................................28 122 Mile Canyon ..........................................................................................................................................................29 140 Mile .........................................................................................................................................................................30 148.5 Mile Spring .........................................................................................................................................................31 151 Mile Spring ............................................................................................................................................................31 National Canyon ..........................................................................................................................................................32 Mohawk Canyon..........................................................................................................................................................33 Honga Spring................................................................................................................................................................34 Prospect Canyon ..........................................................................................................................................................35 190 Mile Canyon ..........................................................................................................................................................35 Spring Canyon..............................................................................................................................................................36 Granite Park Canyon..................................................................................................................................................37 Three Springs Canyon ................................................................................................................................................39 217 Mile Canyon ..........................................................................................................................................................39 Granite Springs Canyon .............................................................................................................................................40 221 Mile Spring ............................................................................................................................................................41 221.5 Mile Creek ..........................................................................................................................................................42 222 Mile Canyon ..........................................................................................................................................................42 224 Mile Canyon ..........................................................................................................................................................43 c. Project Logistics.......................................................................................................................................... 43 Table 1. Phase II-B Project Areas List and Completion Status...........................................................................45 Backpacking Logistics.................................................................................................................................................45 Table 2. Phase II-B Backpacking Trips...................................................................................................................47 River Trip Logistics.....................................................................................................................................................47
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chemical Analysis of Mountain Sheep Forage in the Virgin Mountains, Arizona
    Chemical Analysis of Mountain Sheep Forage in the Virgin Mountains, Arizona Item Type text; Book Authors Morgart, John R.; Krausman, Paul R.; Brown, William H.; Whiting, Frank M. Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents. The University of Arizona. Download date 01/10/2021 12:00:30 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/310778 Chemical Analysis of Mountain Sheep Forage in the Virgin Mountains, Arizona John R. Morgart and Paul R. Krausman School of Renewable Natural Resources William H. Brown and Frank M. Whiting Department of Animal Sciences University of Arizona College of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 257 July 1986 Chemical Analysis of Mountain Sheep Forage in the Virgin Mountains, Arizona By John R. Morgart and Paul R. Krausman School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of of Arizona and William H. Brown and Frank M. Whiting Department of Animal Sciences, University of Arizona Abstract. Eighteen forage species used by mountain sheep (Ovis cana- densis) were collected monthly in 1981 and analyzed for dry matter, pro- tein, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber, lignin, ether extract, ash, calcium, phosphorus, carotene, and combustible energy. Baseline data on plant nutrition are presented in tabular form as a reference source for wildlife biologists, range managers, and scientists in related fields. Introduction Mountain sheep diets have been studied in Texas (Hailey 1968), New Mexico (Howard and DeLorenzo 1975), Arizona (Halloran and Crandell 1953, Seegmiller and Ohmart 1982), California (Dunaway 1970, Ginnett and Douglas 1982), Nevada (Barrett 1964, Deming 1964, Yoakum 1966, Brown et al. 1976, Brown et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Classification and Map Accuracy Assessment of the Proposed Tehachapi Pass High-Speed Rail Corridor Vegetation Map
    Vegetation Classification and Map Accuracy Assessment of the Proposed Tehachapi Pass High-Speed Rail Corridor Vegetation Map Kern County, California Prepared for the Strategic Growth Council by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program September 2015 ABSTRACT The Geographical Information Center (GIC) at California State University, Chico, completed a vegetation map of the Proposed Tehachapi Pass High-Speed Rail Corridor (HSRC), covering 199,493 acres. The project was funded by the Strategic Growth Council to support routing and mitigation planning for the high-speed rail system. The map was produced using heads-up digitizing based on 2012 National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery. The minimum mapping unit (MMU) is one acre for most vegetation types, with a smaller MMU for wetlands. Although the primary purpose of the map is to document vegetation communities, it provides additional structural data such as herbaceous, shrub, and tree cover, and information about the level of disturbance within the vegetation stand. This report describes the tasks performed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP), specifically, the creation of a vegetation classification for the project area and the accuracy assessment of the map. The overall accuracy of the map exceeded the state standard of 80%. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project was provided by the Strategic Growth Council, California Wildlife Conservation Board and
    [Show full text]
  • I2628 Pamphlet
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP I–2628 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Version 1.0 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE LITTLEFIELD 30' × 60' QUADRANGLE, MOHAVE COUNTY, NORTHWESTERN ARIZONA By George H. Billingsley and Jeremiah B. Workman INTRODUCTION 10 km north of the north-central part of the map and are the largest settlements near the map area. This map is one result of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Interstate Highway 15 and U.S. Highway 91 provide intent to provide geologic map coverage and a better under- access to the northwest corner of the map area, and Arizona standing of the transition in regional geology between the State Highway 389 provides access to the northeast corner. Basin and Range and Colorado Plateaus in southeastern Ne- Access to the rest of the map area is by dirt roads maintained vada, southwestern Utah, and northwestern Arizona. Infor- by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip Dis- mation gained from this regional study provides a better trict, St. George, Utah. The area is largely managed by the understanding of the tectonic and magmatic evolution of an U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the Arizona Strip Dis- area of extreme contrasts in late Mesozoic-early Tertiary trict, which includes sections of land controlled by the State compression, Cenozoic magmatism, and Cenozoic extension. of Arizona. There are several isolated sections of privately This map is a synthesis of 32 new geologic maps encom- owned lands, mainly near the communities of Littlefield, passing the Littlefield 30' x 60' quadrangle, Arizona. Geo- Beaver Dam, and Colorado City.
    [Show full text]
  • Holocene Faulting in the Western Grand Canyon, Arizona
    Holocene faulting in the western Grand Canyon, Arizona PETER W. HUNTOON Department of Geology and Water Resources Research Institute, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071 ABSTRACT pre-1964 literature on events associated with the entire Hurricane fault zone of Utah and Arizona appears in Averitt (1964). The The Toroweap and Hurricane faults and a subsidiary fault in the findings of these workers and others substantiate that the southern western Grand Canyon exhibit evidence of Holocene movement. Colorado Plateau was experiencing compressional stress through- This evidence includes scarps in alluvium and sediments ponded out the Laramide orogeny, during which folds, usually east-dipping against a fault on the downthrown block. These displacements are monoclines, were formed (Huntoon, 1974). By Miocene time the the latest in a well-exposed record of recurrent movements along region was under tension, and a system of high-angle normal faults the major faults in the region. developed, many along the trends of the earlier Laramide folds. The tensional environment has persisted to the present. Reverse drag, INTRODUCTION defined as downfolding along the downthrown side of a fault an- tithetic to the displacement, developed along many of the faults in In this paper I document newly discovered examples of Holocene the region contemporaneously with Cenozoic movements faulting in the western Grand Canyon and place this faulting in (Hamblin, 1965). perspective as part of the record of recurrent movements along the major faults in the area. RECENT FAULTING The arid climate, topographic relief, and presence of successive lava flows and young alluvial sediments in the western Grand Can- A detailed examination of the literature and field work convinces yon combine to offer classic exposures in which recurrent move- me that our ability to distinguish additional Cenozoic movements ments along several of the major faults can be readily documented along faults such as the Hurricane or Toroweap is limited only by (see Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Demise of the Dams: the Construction, Destruction, and Legacy of Late Cenozoic Volcanism in the Western Grand Canyon
    CHAPTER 7: DEMISE OF THE DAMS: THE CONSTRUCTION, DESTRUCTION, AND LEGACY OF LATE CENOZOIC VOLCANISM IN THE WESTERN GRAND CANYON "We have no difficulty as we float along, and I am able to observe the wonderful phenomena connected with this flood of lava. The canyon was doubtless filled to a height of 1,200 to 1,500 feet, perhaps by more than one flood. This would dam the water back, and in cutting through this great lava bed, a new channel has been formed, sometimes on one side, sometimes on the other . What a conflict of water and fire there must have been here! Just imagine a river of molten rock running down a river of melted snow. What a seething and boiling of waters, what clouds of steam rolled into the heavens!" John Wesley Powell, August 25, 1869 ALISHA N. CLARK INTRODUCTION Volcanic episodes have occurred periodically throughout the history of the Grand Canyon (e.g. Garber, this volume; Bennett, this volume). During certain phases of the tectonic evolution of the Grand Canyon, uplift of the Colorado Plateau lead to an extensional tectonic environment that thinned the Earth’s crust facilitating transport of magmatic material to the Earth’s surface, often along fault zones that acted as conduits for the basaltic magma generated in the mantle below (see Bennett, this volume for discussion of regional tectonics). There are three volcanic fields on the western Grand Canyon: the Grand Wash, Shivwits Plateau, and UinKaret Plateau, from west to east, respectively. The youngest of these, the UinKaret Plateau, was active during the Pleistocene (Crow et al., 2008; Dalrymple and Hamblin, 1998; Hamblin, 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Biogenic Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Desert Vegetation of the Southwestern US
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Atmospheric Environment 40 (2006) 1645–1660 www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv Biogenic volatile organic compound emissions from desert vegetation of the southwestern US Chris Gerona,Ã, Alex Guentherb, Jim Greenbergb, Thomas Karlb, Rei Rasmussenc aUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA bNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80303, USA cOregon Graduate Institute, Portland, OR 97291, USA Received 27 July 2005; received in revised form 25 October 2005; accepted 25 October 2005 Abstract Thirteen common plant species in the Mojave and Sonoran Desert regions of the western US were tested for emissions of biogenic non-methane volatile organic compounds (BVOCs). Only two of the species examined emitted isoprene at rates of 10 mgCgÀ1 hÀ1or greater. These species accounted for o10% of the estimated vegetative biomass in these arid regions of low biomass density, indicating that these ecosystems are not likely a strong source of isoprene. However, isoprene emissions from these species continued to increase at much higher leaf temperatures than is observed from species in other ecosystems. Five species, including members of the Ambrosia genus, emitted monoterpenes at rates exceeding 2 mgCgÀ1 hÀ1. Emissions of oxygenated compounds, such as methanol, ethanol, acetone/propanal, and hexanol, from cut branches of several species exceeded 10 mgCgÀ1 hÀ1, warranting further investigation in these ecosystems. Model extrapolation of isoprene emission measurements verifies recently published observations that desert vegetation is a small source of isoprene relative to forests. Annual and daily total model isoprene emission estimates from an eastern US mixed forest landscape were 10–30 times greater than isoprene emissions estimated from the Mojave site.
    [Show full text]
  • Fault Segmentation, Fault Linkage, and Hazards Along the Sevier Fault, Southwestern Utah
    UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-2002 Fault segmentation, fault linkage, and hazards along the Sevier fault, southwestern Utah Ilsa M Schiefelbein University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Schiefelbein, Ilsa M, "Fault segmentation, fault linkage, and hazards along the Sevier fault, southwestern Utah" (2002). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 1393. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/pu4m-oa41 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMi films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some tfiesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter foce, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy sulMnitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Le of Contents
    A COMPILATION OF PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE 23rd ANNUAL MEETING, APRIL 46,1979 AT BOULDER CITY, NEVADA LE OF CONTENTS Page STATUS OF THE ZION DESERT BIGHORN REINTRODUCTION PROJECT-1978 Henry E.McCutchon ............................................................................. 81 TEXAS REINTRODUCTION EFFORTS STATUS REPORT-1979 Jack Kilpatric ................................................................................... 82 BlQHORM SWEEP STATUS REPORT FROM NEW MEXICO AndrewV.Sandoval .............................................................................. 82 LAVA BEDS BIGHORN SHEEP PROGRAM--UPDATE RobertA.Dalton ................................................................................. 88 UTAH BIGHORN SHEEP STATUS REPORT Grant K. Jense, James W. Bates and Jay A. Robertson. ............................................... .89 STATUS OF THE BIG HATCHET DESERT SHEEP POPULATION, NEW MEXICO Tom J. Watts ................................................................................... 92 ARIZONA BIGHORN SHEEP STATUS REPORT-1979 Paul M. Webb ................................................................................... 94 BIGHORN SHEEP POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR THE SOUTH TONTQ PLATEAU-GRAND CANYON Jim Walters .................................................................................... 96 BIGHORN SHEEP STATUS REPORT-NEVADA George K.Tsukamoto ........................................................................... 107 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1970-1980 ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference
    Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants : UnitedUnited States States DepartmentDepartment ofof Agriculture Agriculture ForestForest Service Service Proceedings of the Fourth RockyRocky Mountain Mountain ResearchResearch Station Station Conference ProceedingsProceedings RMRS-P-48CD RMRS-P-48CD JulyJuly 2007 2007 March 22-26, 2004 Las Cruces, New Mexico Barlow-Irick, P., J.J. AndersonAnderson andand C.C. McDonald,McDonald, techtech eds.eds. 2007.2006. SouthwesternSouthwestern rarerare andand endangered plants: Proceedings of the fourth conference; March 22-26, 2004; Las Cruces, New Mexico. Proceedings RMRS-P-XX.RMRS-P-48CD. Fort Fort Collins, Collins, CO: CO: U.S. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Service, Rocky Mountain ResearchResearch Station.Station. 135 pp.p. Abstract These contributed papers review the current status of plant conservation in the southwestern U.S. Key Words: plant conservation, conservation partnerships, endangered plants, plant taxonomy, genetics, demography, reproductive biology, biogeography, plant surveys, plant monitoring These manuscripts received technical and statistical review. Views expressed in each paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the sponsoring organizations or the USDA Forest Service. Cover illustration: Have Plant Press, Will Travel by Patricia Barlow-Irick You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify the publication title and series number. Fort Collins Service Center Telephone (970) 498-1392 FAX (970) 498-1122 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs Mailing address Publications Distribution Rocky Mountain Research Station 240 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-XXRMRS-P-48CD Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference March 22-26, 2004 Las Cruces, New Mexico Technical Coordinators: Patricia Barlow-Irick Largo Canyon School Counselor, NM John Anderson U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinal AMA Low Water Use/Drought Tolerant Plant List
    Arizona Department of Water Resources Pinal Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List Official Regulatory List for the Pinal Active Management Area Fourth Management Plan Arizona Department of Water Resources 1110 West Washington St. Ste. 310 Phoenix, AZ 85007 www.azwater.gov 602-771-8585 Pinal Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List Acknowledgements The Pinal Active Management Area (AMA) Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plants List is an adoption of the Phoenix AMA Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plants List (Phoenix List). The Phoenix List was prepared in 2004 by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) in cooperation with the Landscape Technical Advisory Committee of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, comprised of experts from the Desert Botanical Garden, the Arizona Department of Transporation and various municipal, nursery and landscape specialists. ADWR extends its gratitude to the following members of the Plant List Advisory Committee for their generous contribution of time and expertise: Rita Jo Anthony, Wild Seed Judy Mielke, Logan Simpson Design John Augustine, Desert Tree Farm Terry Mikel, U of A Cooperative Extension Robyn Baker, City of Scottsdale Jo Miller, City of Glendale Louisa Ballard, ASU Arboritum Ron Moody, Dixileta Gardens Mike Barry, City of Chandler Ed Mulrean, Arid Zone Trees Richard Bond, City of Tempe Kent Newland, City of Phoenix Donna Difrancesco, City of Mesa Steve Priebe, City of Phornix Joe Ewan, Arizona State University Janet Rademacher, Mountain States Nursery Judy Gausman, AZ Landscape Contractors Assn. Rick Templeton, City of Phoenix Glenn Fahringer, Earth Care Cathy Rymer, Town of Gilbert Cheryl Goar, Arizona Nurssery Assn.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Fractures Around the Sevier Fault Zone in Red Hollow Canyon Near Orderville, Utah
    ShortShort ContributionsContributions KeckKeck GeologyGeology ConsortiumConsortium VolumeVolume 3232 MayMay 20192019 Published by the Keck Geology Consortium AN ANALYSIS OF FRACTURES AROUND THE SEVIER FAULT ZONE IN RED HOLLOW CANYON NEAR ORDERVILLE, UTAH CHARLEY H. HANKLA, The College of Wooster Research Advisor: Dr. Shelley Judge an area of weakness formed in Red Hollow Canyon, ABSTRACT allowing the fault to propagate easily at 030. These Structural discontinuities - such as opening mode results compare favorably to previous brittle fracture joints, shear fractures, and faults - tend to occur in studies within propagating fault zones. Outliers in the data could be associated with NW rotation of σ , close geographic proximity to one another; however, 3 timing relationships between these structures are not similar to nearby joints in Zion National Park. always easy to discern in the field. In southwestern Utah, the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone is cut by large- INTRODUCTION scale normal faults associated with the Sevier Fault Zone, making it perfect for observing several fracture In the western US, there are multiple physiographic types. The aim of this study is to complete a dynamic provinces. In southern Utah, the Colorado Plateau and and kinematic analysis of the fractures near a major the Basin and Range provinces dominate, with the fault and to determine the chronologic relationships Transition Zone between them. Marked by changes between the fractures. Specifically, we observed an in deformation, volcanism, topography, and crustal unnamed segment of the Sevier Fault Zone - herein structure, the Colorado Plateau gradually gives way referred to as the Mountain Lion Den Fault (MLD) - to the Basin and Range province in the west (Jackson, previously interpreted as a west dipping normal fault 1990b, 1990a; Porter et al., 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Desert Bighorn Sheep Overpass Effectiveness: U.S
    SPR-710 MAY 2017 Evaluation of Desert Bighorn Sheep Overpass Effectiveness: U.S. Route 93 Long-Term Monitoring Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center Evaluation of Desert Bighorn Sheep Overpass Effectiveness: U.S. Route 93 Long-Term Monitoring SPR-710 May 2017 Prepared by: Jeffrey W. Gagnon, Chad D. Loberger, Kari S. Ogren, Scott C. Sprague, Susan R. Boe, and Raymond E. Schweinsburg Arizona Game and Fish Department Wildlife Contracts Branch 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix, AZ 85068 Published by: Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 in cooperation with Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Disclaimer This report was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material, presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. This report is subject to the provisions of 23 USC § 409.
    [Show full text]