DOCSLIB.ORG

Gillespie SEZ Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 8.3 GILLESPIE 2 3 4 8.3.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 5 6 7 8.3.1.1 General Information 8 9 The proposed Gillespie SEZ is located in Maricopa County in west–central Arizona 10 (Figure 8.31.1-1). The SEZ has a total area of 2,618 acres (11 km2). In 2008, the county 11 population was 3,958,263. The nearest town is Arlington, about 7 mi (11 km) northeast of the 12 SEZ, with a population of less than 500, while the larger town of Buckeye is located about 17 mi 13 (27 km) northeast and has a population of more than 50,000. Phoenix, Arizona, is approximately 14 50 mi (48 km) northeast of the SEZ. 15 16 The nearest major road access to the SEZ is via Old U.S. 80, which runs north–south 17 3 mi (5 km) from the eastern tip of the Gillespie SEZ. The nearest railroad is a branch of the 18 UP Railroad that passes within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of the northwestern edge of the SEZ, and the 19 nearest stop is in Buckeye, 20 mi (30 km) northeast of the SEZ. The nearest airport is the 20 Buckeye Municipal Airport, 20 mi (32 km) from the SEZ, which does not have scheduled 21 commercial passenger service. Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport is located 59 mi 22 (95 km) away in Phoenix, Arizona. 23 24 A 500-kV transmission line runs within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of the proposed SEZ. It is 25 assumed that this existing transmission line would provide access from the SEZ to the 26 transmission grid (See Section 8.3.1.1.2). 27 28 As of February 2010, there were no ROW applications for solar projects within the SEZ; 29 however, there were four ROW applications for solar projects that would be located within 50 mi 30 (80 km) of the SEZ. These applications are discussed in Section 8.3.22.2.1. 31 32 The proposed Gillespie SEZ is undeveloped and rural, with few permanent residents in 33 the immediate area. The SEZ is located to the southeast of the Harquahala Basin, in a valley 34 between the Gila Bend Mountains to the southwest and Centennial Wash to the northeast. Land 35 within the SEZ is undeveloped scrubland characteristic of a semiarid desert valley. 36 37 The proposed Gillespie SEZ and other relevant information are shown in 38 Figure 8.3.1.1-1. The criteria used to identify the proposed Gillespie SEZ as an appropriate 39 location for solar energy development included proximity to existing transmission or designated 40 corridors, proximity to existing roads, a slope of generally less than 2%, and an area of more than 41 2,500 acres (10 km2). In addition, the area was identified as being relatively free of other types 42 of conflicts, such as USFWS-designated critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, 43 ACECs, SRMAs, and NLCS lands (see Section 2.2.2.2 for the complete list of exclusions). 44 Although these classes of restricted lands were excluded from the proposed Gillespie SEZ, other 45 restrictions might be appropriate. The analyses in the following sections evaluate the affected Draft Solar PEIS 8.3-1 December 2010 1 2 FIGURE 8.3.1.1-1 Proposed Gillespie SEZ Draft Solar PEIS 8.3-2 December 2010 1 environment and potential impacts associated with utility-scale solar energy development in the 2 proposed SEZ for important environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. 3 4 As initially announced in the Federal Register on June 30, 2009, the proposed Gillespie 5 SEZ encompassed 3,970 acres (16 km2). Subsequent to the study area scoping period, the 6 boundaries of the proposed Gillespie SEZ were altered somewhat to facilitate BLM 7 administration of the SEZ area. The revised SEZ is approximately 1,352 acres (5.5 km2) smaller 8 than the original SEZ as published in June 2009. 9 10 11 8.3.1.2 Development Assumptions for the Impact Analysis 12 13 Maximum solar development of the Gillespie SEZ is assumed to be 80% of the SEZ 14 area over a period of 20 years, a maximum of 2,094 acres (8.5 km2). These values are shown 15 in Table 8.3.1.2-1, along with other development assumptions. Full development of the 16 Gillespie SEZ would allow development of facilities with an estimated total of 233 MW of 17 electrical power capacity if power tower, dish engine, or PV technologies were used, assuming 18 9 acres/MW (0.04 km2/MW) of land required, and an estimated 419 MW of power if solar 19 trough technologies were used, assuming 5 acres/MW (0.02 km2/MW) of land required. 20 21 Availability of transmission from SEZs to load centers will be an important consideration 22 for future development in SEZs. The nearest existing transmission line is a 500-kV line that runs 23 less than 1 mi (1.6 km) west of the SEZ. At full build-out capacity, it is possible that new 24 25 TABLE 8.3.1.2-1 Proposed Gillespie SEZ—Assumed Development Acreages, Solar MW Output, Access Roads, and Transmission Line ROWs Assumed Distance Assumed Total Acreage Maximum Distance to and Capacity Area of and Assumed SEZ Output Nearest State, of Nearest Transmission Distance to Developed for Various U.S. or Existing Line ROW Nearest Acreage Solar Interstate Transmission and Road Designated (80% of Total) Technologies Highway Line ROW Corridore 2,618 acres and 233 MWb and Old U.S. 80 <1 mi and 0 acres and Adjacent 2,094 acresa 419 MWc 3 mid 500 kV 22 acres a To convert acres to km2, multiply by 0.004047. b Maximum power output if the SEZ were fully developed using power tower, dish engine, or PV technologies, assuming 9 acres/MW (0.04 km2/MW) of land required. c Maximum power output if the SEZ were fully developed using solar trough technologies, assuming 5 acres/MW (0.02 km2/MW) of land required. d To convert mi to km, multiply by 1.609. e BLM-designated corridors are developed for federal land use planning purposes only and are not applicable to state-owned or privately owned land. Draft Solar PEIS 8.3-3 December 2010 1 transmission and/or upgrades of existing transmission lines would be required to bring electricity 2 from the proposed Gillespie SEZ to load centers; however, at this time the location and size of 3 such new transmission facilities are unknown. Generic impacts of transmission and associated 4 infrastructure construction and of line upgrades for various resources are discussed in Chapter 5. 5 Project-specific analyses would need to identify the specific impacts of new transmission 6 construction and line upgrades for any projects proposed within the SEZ. 7 8 For purposes of analysis in the PEIS, it was assumed that the existing 500-kV 9 transmission line, which runs very close to the proposed SEZ (within 0.5 mi [0.8 km]), could 10 provide access to the transmission grid, and thus no additional acreage disturbance for 11 transmission line access was assessed. Access to the existing transmission line was assumed, 12 without additional information on whether this line would be available for connection of future 13 solar facilities. If a connecting transmission line were constructed in the future to connect 14 facilities within the SEZ to a different off-site grid location from the one assumed here, site 15 developers would need to determine the impacts from construction and operation of that line. In 16 addition, developers would need to determine the impacts of line upgrades if they are needed. 17 18 An additional 22 acres (0.9 km2) would be needed for new road access to support solar 19 energy development in the Gillespie SEZ, as summarized in Table 8.3.1.2-1. This estimate was 20 based on the assumption that a new 3-mi (5-km) access road to the nearest major road, Old 21 U.S. 80, would support construction and operation of solar facilities. 22 23 24 8.3.1.3 Summary of Major Impacts and SEZ-Specific Design Features 25 26 In this section, the impacts and SEZ-specific design features assessed in Sections 8.3.2 27 through 8.3.21 for the proposed Gillespie SEZ are summarized in tabular form. Table 8.3.1.3-1 is 28 a comprehensive list of impacts discussed in these sections; the reader may reference the 29 applicable sections for detailed support of the impact assessment. Section 8.3.22 discusses 30 potential cumulative impacts from solar energy development in the proposed SEZ. 31 32 Only those design features specific to the proposed Gillespie SEZ are included in 33 Sections 8.3.2 through 8.3.21 and in the summary table. The detailed programmatic design 34 features for each resource area to be required under BLM’s Solar Energy Program are presented 35 in Appendix A, Section A.2.2. These programmatic design features would also be required for 36 development in this and other SEZs. 37 38 39 40 Draft Solar PEIS 8.3-4 December 2010 D raft Solar PEIS raft SolarPEIS TABLE 8.3.1.3-1 Summary of Impacts of Solar Energy Development within the Proposed Gillespie SEZ and SEZ-Specific Design Featuresa Resource Area Environmental Impacts—Proposed Gillespie SEZ SEZ-Specific Design Features Lands and Realty Full development of the SEZ could disturb up to 2,618 acres (11 km2).
Recommended publications
  • People of Snowy Mountain, People of the River: a Multi-Agency Ethnographic Overview and Compendium Relating to Tribes Associated with Clark County, Nevada

    People of Snowy Mountain, People of the River: a Multi-Agency Ethnographic Overview and Compendium Relating to Tribes Associated with Clark County, Nevada

    Portland State University PDXScholar Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations Anthropology 2012 People of Snowy Mountain, People of the River: A Multi-Agency Ethnographic Overview and Compendium Relating to Tribes Associated with Clark County, Nevada Douglas Deur Portland State University, [email protected] Deborah Confer University of Washington Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/anth_fac Part of the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Deur, Douglas and Confer, Deborah, "People of Snowy Mountain, People of the River: A Multi-Agency Ethnographic Overview and Compendium Relating to Tribes Associated with Clark County, Nevada" (2012). Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations. 98. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/anth_fac/98 This Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Pacific West Region: Social Science Series National Park Service Publication Number 2012-01 U.S. Department of the Interior PEOPLE OF SNOWY MOUNTAIN, PEOPLE OF THE RIVER: A MULTI-AGENCY ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW AND COMPENDIUM RELATING TO TRIBES ASSOCIATED WITH CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA 2012 Douglas Deur, Ph.D. and Deborah Confer LAKE MEAD AND BLACK CANYON Doc Searls Photo, Courtesy Wikimedia Commons
  • The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012

    The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012

    The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012 (Photographs: Arizona Game and Fish Department) Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ i RECOMMENDED CITATION ........................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ iii DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ iv BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1 THE MARICOPA COUNTY WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................... 8 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT AND ASSOCIATED GIS DATA ................................................... 10 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 MASTER LIST OF WILDLIFE LINKAGES AND HABITAT BLOCKSAND BARRIERS ................ 16 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................................................................
  • Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan

    Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan

    Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan Adopted August 16, 2004 Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Trail Commission Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Maricopa County Planning and Development Flood Control District of Maricopa County We have an obligation to protect open spaces for future generations. Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan VISION Our vision is to connect the majestic open spaces of the Maricopa County Regional Parks with a nonmotorized trail system. The Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan - page 1 Credits Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Andrew Kunasek, District 3, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Maricopa County Trail Commission Supervisor Max Wilson, District 4 Chairman Supervisor Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Parks Commission Members: Citizen Members: Laurel Arndt, Chair Art Wirtz, District 2 Randy Virden, Vice-Chair Jim Burke, District 3 Felipe Zubia, District 5 Stakeholders: Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Fred Pfeifer, Arizona Public Service (APS) James Duncan, Salt River Project (SRP) Teri Raml, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ex-officio Members: William Scalzo, Chief Community Services Officer Pictured from left to right Laurel Arndt, Supervisor Andy Kunasek, Fred Pfeifer, Carol Erwin, Arizona’s Official State Historian, Marshall Trimble, and Art Wirtz pose with the commemorative branded trail marker Mike Ellegood, Director, Public Works at the Maricopa Trail
  • UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Prescribed fire and tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus) associated cultural plant resources of the Karuk and Yurok Peoples of California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/02r7x8r6 Author Halpern, Arielle Publication Date 2016 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Prescribed fire and tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus) associated cultural plant resources of the Karuk and Yurok Peoples of California by Arielle Anita Halpern A dissertation in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Integrative Biology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Wayne P. Sousa, Co-Chair Professor Thomas J. Carlson, Co-Chair Professor Scott L. Stephens Frank K. Lake, Ph.D. Spring 2016 Abstract Prescribed fire and tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus) associated cultural plant resources of the Karuk and Yurok Peoples of California by Arielle Anita Halpern Doctor of Philosophy in Integrative Biology University of California, Berkeley Professor Wayne P. Sousa and Professor Thomas J. Carlson, Co-Chairs The targeted application of prescribed fire has long been used by Native Californian peoples to manage plant resources of cultural value. Their ability to employ this management tool has been increasingly restricted by local, state and federal agencies in response to recent drought conditions and the highly flammable state of most western U.S. forests, where, for decades, fires of any magnitude have been suppressed as a matter of policy. This diminished access to cultural prescribed fire has impacted tribal access to many of the plant resources and cultural activities upon which Karuk and Yurok cultures are based.
  • The Creation and Flute Lure Myths: Regional Patterns in Southern California Traditions

    The Creation and Flute Lure Myths: Regional Patterns in Southern California Traditions

    Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 155-178 (2001) The Creation and Flute Lure Myths: Regional Patterns in Southern California Traditions DON LAYLANDER ASM Affiliates, Inc. 543 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 114, Encinitas, GA 92024 Among the 'ways in 'which traditional narratives shed light on prehistory, regional variations in shared myths provide insights concerning cultural conservatism or fluidity and the patterns of social interaction among groups. A comparative analysis offwo myths recorded in numerous versions from southern California, 'western Arizona, and northern Baja California suggests that the region's traditional cultures 'were shaped by ongoing borro'wing and innovation to a greater extent than has sometimes been supposed, and that individual narrative motifs typically had relatively short lifespans ofafe'w centuries at most. Cultural interaction among the region's different peoples 'was evidently little constrained by disparate linguistic heritages, competing military alliances, or social and economic dissimilarities. "KTative Californian traditional narratives shed light on regional prehistory and ethnohistory in -/.\ several different ways. In some cases, they directly preserved information about past events (e.g., Laylander). More generally, they reflect past lifeways, including material culture and social organization, but in particular they mirror ideas about human nature, morality, and aesthetics which were otherwise often not well documented (e.g., Blackburn 1975). The present study considers two additional ways in which traditional narratives are revealing, based on interethnic sharing of common narrative themes and story elements. Diachronically considered, the extent to which patterns of narrative sharing crosscut the primary lines of cultural descent, as those were marked by linguistic affiliations, is a measure of the extent to which the groups' traditions were open to borrowing and innovation, rather than static and conservative.
  • Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land

    Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land

    DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS CHAPTER III.8. CULTURAL RESOURCES III.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES This chapter presents the Affected Environment for the Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) Decision Area and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) area for cultural resources. These areas overlap, and in the following programmatic discussion are referred to broadly as the “California Desert Region.” More than 32,000 cultural resources are known in the DRECP area in every existing environmental context ⎼ from mountain crests to dry lake beds ⎼ and include both surface and subsurface deposits. Cultural resources are categorized as buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts (including cultural landscapes and Traditional Cultural Properties) under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Historic properties are cultural resources included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), maintained by the Secretary of the Interior (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 60.4). See Section III.8.1.1 for more information on federal regulations and historic properties. This chapter discusses three types of cultural resources classified by their origins: prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic. Prehistoric cultural resources are associated with the human occupation of California prior to prolonged European contact. These resources may include sites and deposits, structures, artifacts, rock art, trails, and other traces of Native American human behavior. In California, the prehistoric period began over 12,000 years ago and extended through the eighteenth century until 1769, when the first Europeans settled in California. Ethnographic resources represent the heritage of a particular ethnic or cultural group, such as Native Americans or African, European, Latino, or Asian immigrants.
  • California-Nevada Region

    California-Nevada Region

    Research Guides for both historic and modern Native Communities relating to records held at the National Archives California Nevada Introduction Page Introduction Page Historic Native Communities Historic Native Communities Modern Native Communities Modern Native Communities Sample Document Beginning of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the U.S. Government and the Kahwea, San Luis Rey, and Cocomcahra Indians. Signed at the Village of Temecula, California, 1/5/1852. National Archives. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55030733 National Archives Native Communities Research Guides. https://www.archives.gov/education/native-communities California Native Communities To perform a search of more general records of California’s Native People in the National Archives Online Catalog, use Advanced Search. Enter California in the search box and 75 in the Record Group box (Bureau of Indian Affairs). There are several great resources available for general information and material for kids about the Native People of California, such as the Native Languages and National Museum of the American Indian websites. Type California into the main search box for both. Related state agencies and universities may also hold records or information about these communities. Examples might include the California State Archives, the Online Archive of California, and the University of California Santa Barbara Native American Collections. Historic California Native Communities Federally Recognized Native Communities in California (2018) Sample Document Map of Selected Site for Indian Reservation in Mendocino County, California, 7/30/1856. National Archives: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/50926106 National Archives Native Communities Research Guides. https://www.archives.gov/education/native-communities Historic California Native Communities For a map of historic language areas in California, see Native Languages.
  • Grand Canyon Council Oa Where to Go Camping Guide

    Grand Canyon Council Oa Where to Go Camping Guide

    GRAND CANYON COUNCIL OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE GRAND CANYON COUNCIL, BSA OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE Table of Contents Introduction to The Order of the Arrow ....................................................................... 1 Wipala Wiki, The Man .................................................................................................. 1 General Information ...................................................................................................... 3 Desert Survival Safety Tips ........................................................................................... 4 Further Information ....................................................................................................... 4 Contact Agencies and Organizations ............................................................................. 5 National Forests ............................................................................................................. 5 U. S. Department Of The Interior - Bureau Of Land Management ................................ 7 Maricopa County Parks And Recreation System: .......................................................... 8 Arizona State Parks: .................................................................................................... 10 National Parks & National Monuments: ...................................................................... 11 Tribal Jurisdictions: ..................................................................................................... 13 On the Road: National
  • Supplemental Resources

    Supplemental Resources

    Supplemental Resources By Beverly R. Ortiz, Ph.D. © 2015 East Bay Regional Park District • www.ebparks.org Supported in part by a grant from The Vinapa Foundation for Cross-Cultural Studies Ohlone Curriculum with Bay Miwok Content and Introduction to Delta Yokuts Supplemental Resources Table of Contents Teacher Resources Native American Versus American Indian ..................................................................... 1 Ohlone Curriculum American Indian Stereotypes .......................................................................................... 3 Miner’s Lettuce and Red Ants: The Evolution of a Story .............................................. 7 A Land of Many Villages and Tribes ............................................................................. 10 Other North American Indian Groups ............................................................................ 11 A Land of Many Languages ........................................................................................... 15 Sacred Places and Narratives .......................................................................................... 18 Generations of Knowledge: Sources ............................................................................... 22 Euro-American Interactions with Plants and Animals (1800s) .......................................... 23 Staple Foods: Acorns ........................................................................................................... 28 Other Plant Foods: Cultural Context ..............................................................................
  • Forwards Draft Responses to NRC Questions 231.1 to 231.5 Per

    Forwards Draft Responses to NRC Questions 231.1 to 231.5 Per

    REBULAiTY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIOIYSTEM (RIBS) ACCESSIONi NBR ~ 8 1 090 SO 1 1 8 DOC ~ DATE~! 8 1 /09/0 1 NOTARIZED!'= YES DOC~ ¹ FACILi STN»50 528 Pal o Ve'r de Nuclear" Statl onr Uni t 1 r Ar ) zona Publ i 0005 STN 50 529 Palo Ve'rde Nuc1 cari Stati one Und t 2P Ar ) zona Publ i 050. 29 STN 50 530 Palo Ye'rde Nuclear" Stati onr Uni t 3r Ar Rona Publ i 05000530 AUTH'AME! AUTHOR AFFILIAT'ION VAN SRUNTE KI.Et. Ar i zona Public- Service Co. REC I P ~ NAMEl REClIPZKNT'F F IL'IATION TEDESCOr R ~ Li, Assistantl Director f or i Licensing SUBJECT:: Forwards" Dr af t" r esponses to NRC'ue'sti ons 231, 1 to 251;5 peri 810803 request" for addi info. Thr e'e over size drawings ehcl Apertur e) cards wi 1 1 bet avai 1 abl e in PDR, DISTRIBUTION CODEX'! 800 1S COPIES RECEIVED! L>TR ENCLi SIZEl:: TtITLEL PSAR/FSAR AMDT8 and Related Correspondence NOTES! Standardize'd Pl ant. 1 cyi Ci Gr imes 05000528 Standardized Pl ant ~ 1 cyt Ci 05000529 Plant", 1 cy: Ci Grimes'tandardizedGrimes 05000530 KNT" REC IPZ COPIES REC IPl ENT'D COPIE8 IDI CODE/NAMKI ENCLi LTTR< ENCL< LTTR CODE/NAME'iIC ACTI ON s'/Di LIICENSNG 1 0 BR ¹3 BC 1 0 LIICi BR ¹3» L'A 1 0 KKRRIGANEJ ~ 04 1 AGCY' 1 1 AUX SYS BR 27 1 1 INTERNALr EiVAL'RR6'HEN E»VG BR 1 i 1 1 CONT SYS BR 09 1 1 CORE» PER F 'R 1 0.
  • Tonopah Arlington Area Plan

    Tonopah Arlington Area Plan

    AREA PLAN TO N O PAH /ARLIN GTO N 2020 Eye To Th e Fut u re Executive Summary OVERVIEW The Area Plan process is structured to emphasize public involvement and incorporate citizen comments, ideas, and direction into the plan. The Maricopa County Planning and Development Department began the Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan update in the winter of 1997. The update process involved many individuals and organizations from the Tonopah/ Arlington planning area. Central to the planning process a citizen steering committee was formed, two open houses were held in the summer and fall of 1998 and another in the fall of 1999, and focus group sessions addressed specific community issues. WHAT’S NEW IN THE PLAN? 1. Land use categories that follow the regional standard and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Additional land use categories for residential, resort, and industrial. 3. Discussion and analysis of current issues. 4. Redesigned and rewritten Area Plan with updated digital maps. 5. Tonopah and Arlington are discussed as individual areas. HOW TO USE THE PLAN The Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan provides a specific guide for decisions by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors concerning growth and development in the Tonopah/Arlington planning area. It is to be used by policy makers to guide their decisions and serve as a reference for private sector decision making. AREA PLAN ELEMENTS The Area Plan elements contain a series of goals, objectives and policies used to define development standards, guide public investment, and public and private decision making. LAND USE The land use designations in this Area Plan embody generalized land use, development or preservation concepts.
  • Arizona Department of Water Resources Depth to Water and Water - Level Altitude, Sheet 1 of 3

    Arizona Department of Water Resources Depth to Water and Water - Level Altitude, Sheet 1 of 3

    A.D.W.R HYDROLOGIC MAP SERIES REPORT NO. 35 PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DEPTH TO WATER AND WATER - LEVEL ALTITUDE, SHEET 1 OF 3 R. 4 E. T. 9 N. CAREFREE EXPLANATION FOUNTAIN HILLS LAKE PLEASANT R. 5 E. UPPER NUMBER, 95, IS DEPTH TO 95 WELL IN WHICH DEPTH TO WATER WAS MEASURED IN 1997-1998 AND 2002-2003. HASSAYAMPA WATER IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE. LOWER NUMBER,1084, IS THE ALTITUDE OF THE WATER LEVEL IN FEET R. 3 E. 112 00 1084 ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL. DATUM IS REFERENCED TO THE NATIONAL VERTICAL GEODETIC DATUM OF 1929. R. 3 W. WEST SALT RIVER VALLEY T. BASIN-FILL DEPOSITS, (SILT, SAND, CLAY, GRAVEL, CONGLOMERATE, SANDSTONE, MUDSTONE, EVAPORITES, AND 112 30 VOLCANICS). 8 EAST SALT RIVER VALLEY N. 34 00 34 00 R. 2 E. HARDROCK (GRANITIC, METAMORPHIC, VOLCANIC OR CONSOLIDATED SEDIMENTARY ROCK - WATER MAY OCCUR IN RAINBOW VALLEY R. 2 W. WEATHERED OR FRACTURED ZONES, JOINT SYSTEMS, OR FLUVIAL DEPOSITS OVERLYING BEDROCK). R. 4 W. T. 7 INDIAN RESERVATIONS Sub-Basins in the Phoenix AMA N. NEW RIVER MOUNTAINS R. 5 W. R. 6 W. MAJOR HIGHWAY 112 45 R. 6 E. R. 1 W. R. 7 W. R. 1 E. MAJOR WATERWAY R. 8 W. 111 45 T. HIEROGLYPHIC MOUNTAINS 1650 GENERAL DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW IN THE PRIMARY PART OF THE MAIN AQUIFER 113 00 VULTURE MOUNTAINS 6 N. 2150 112 15 BOUNDARY BETWEEN HARDROCK AND BASIN FILL 1600 2200 1500 1550 Cave Creek 1300 1450 WATER LEVEL CONTOURS - SHOWS THE APPROXIMATE ALTITUDE OF THE WATER-LEVEL.