DOCSLIB.ORG

Receiving Waters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Receiving Waters ADOT RECEIVING WATERS Designated Receiving Water Within 1/4 Route ADOT District(s) Receiving Waters Description Pollutants TMDL? Pollutants Uses* Status Mile? Below Whitlow Dam to confluence SR‐24 (802) Central Queen Creek A&We, PBC Unimpaired N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ w/Gila River Below I‐10 Bridge to COP 23rd Ave SR‐51 Central Salt River A&Ww, PBC, FC Unimpaired N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ WWTP Suspended Suspended Below Lyman Reservoir to SR‐611 Northeast Little Colorado River A&Wc, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N Sediment Y Sediment confluence w/Puerco River Concentration Concentration Headwaters to confluence w/Little Zuni River A&Wc, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Colorado River SR‐641 Northcentral Little Colorado River Navajo Nation A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL** Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Colorado River Lake Powell to Lake Mead A&Wc, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ SR‐66 Northwest Truxton Wash Headwaters to Red Lake A&We, PBC Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ SR‐671 Northcentral Little Colorado River Lake Powell to Lake Mead A&Wc, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Headwaters to confluence Kanab Creek A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired N Selenium N ‐‐ W/Colorado River SR‐68 Northwest Colorado River Lake Mead to Topock Marsh A&Wc, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ SR‐691 Northwest Granite Creek Headwaters to Watson Lake A&Wc, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N E. Coli Y E. Coli Watson Lake 34°34'58"/112°25'26" ‐‐ Not Attaining N TN Y TN A&Ww Not Attaining N DO Y DO A&Ww, FBC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N pH Y pH ‐‐ Not Attaining N TP Y TP Headwaters to confluence Agua Fria River w/unnamed tributary at A&We, PBC, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 34°35'14''/112°16'18'' Below unnamed tributary to the SR‐71 Northwest Hassayampa River A&We, PBC, AgL Unimpaired N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Buckeye Irrigation Company Canal Alamo Lake 34°14'06"/113°35'00" A&Ww Impaired N Ammonia N ‐‐ FC Impaired N Mercury N ‐‐ FBC, AgL, A&Ww Impaired N pH N ‐‐ SR‐721 Southwest Colorado River Topock Marsh to Morelos Dam A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ SR‐731 Northeast Roosevelt Lake 33°52'17"/111°00'17" A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired N Mercury N ‐‐ Below Lake Pleasant to the City of SR‐741 Central Agua Fria River El Mirage WWTP at A&We, PBC, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 33°34'20"/112°18'32" Below I‐17 to confluence w/Agua New River A&We, PBC, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Fria River Below unnamed tributary to the Hassayampa River A&We, PBC, AgL Unimpaired N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Buckeye Irrigation Company Canal SR‐75 Southeast Gila River New Mexico border to the San A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining Y E. coli Y E. coli Carlos Indian Reservation Suspended Suspended Boundary A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining Y Sediment Y Sediment Concentration Concentration A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired N Lead N ‐‐ SR‐771 Southcentral, Northeast, Santa Cruz River Agua Nueva WRF outfall to A&Wedw Not Attaining N Ammonia N ‐‐ Southeast Baumgartner Road PBC Impaired N E. coli N ‐‐ From Redington to confluence with San Pedro River A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgL Not Attaining Y E. coli Y E. coli the Gila River Below downstream boundary of Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Area A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgL Impaired Y E. coli N ‐‐ to confluence w/San Pedro River San Carlos Indian Reservation Gila River boundary to the Ashurst‐Hayden A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired Y Sediment N ‐‐ Dam Roosevelt Lake 33°52'17"/111°00'17" A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired N Mercury N ‐‐ Suspended Suspended Below Lyman Reservoir to Little Colorado River A&Wc, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N Sediment Y Sediment confluence w/Puerco River Concentration Concentration A&Wc, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N E. Coli Y E. Coli SR‐78 Southeast Gila River New Mexico border to the San A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N E. coli Y E. coli Carlos Indian Reservation Suspended Suspended Boundary A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N Sediment Y Sediment Concentration Concentration A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired N Lead N ‐‐ SR‐791 Southcentral Santa Cruz River Agua Nueva WRF outfall to A&Wedw Not Attaining N Ammonia N ‐‐ Baumgartner Road PBC Impaired N E. coli N ‐‐ Ashurst‐Hayden Dam to the Town Gila River of Florence WWTP outfall at A&We, PBC, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 33°02'20''/111°24'19'' Ashurst‐Hayden Dam to the Town SR‐79 Southcentral Gila River of Florence WWTP outfall at A&We, PBC, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Business 33°02'20''/111°24'19'' Headwaters to the Lavender Pit at SR‐80 Southeast, Southcentral Mule Gulch A&Ww, PBC, FC Impaired Y Copper N ‐‐ 31°26'11"/ 109°54'02" The Lavender Pit to the SR‐80 A&We, PBC Impaired Y Copper N ‐‐ bridge at 31°26'30''/109°49'28'' San Pedro River U.S./ Mexico Border to A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired Y E. coli N ‐‐ Redington A&Ww Impaired N Copper N ‐‐ A&Ww Impaired N DO N ‐‐ Page 1 of 6 ADOT RECEIVING WATERS Designated Receiving Water Within 1/4 Route ADOT District(s) Receiving Waters Description Pollutants TMDL? Pollutants Uses* Status Mile? SR‐821 Southcentral Nogales Wash Headwaters to confluence A&Ww, PBC, FC Impaired Y Ammonia N ‐‐ w/Potrero Creek A&Ww Impaired Y Chlorine N ‐‐ A&Ww Impaired Y Copper N ‐‐ PBC Impaired Y E. coli N ‐‐ U.S./Mexico border to the Nogales Santa Cruz River International WWTP outfall at A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 31°27'25"/110°58'04" Below groundwater upwelling Sonoita Creek A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired Y DO N ‐‐ point to confluence w/Santa Cruz River A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired Y Zinc N ‐‐ Upper Alum Gulch Below 31°29'17''/110°44'25'' to A&We, PBC, AgL Not Attaining Y Cadmium Y Cadmium confluence w/Sonoita Creek A&We, PBC, AgL Not Attaining Y Copper Y Copper A&We, PBC, AgL Not Attaining Y Zinc Y Zinc A&We, PBC, AgL Not Attaining Y pH Y pH 3R Canyon From 31°28'28"/110°47'15" to A&We, PBC, AgL Not Attaining Y Beryllium Y Beryllium confluence w/Sonoita Creek A&We, PBC, AgL Not Attaining Y Cadmium Y Cadmium A&We, PBC, AgL Not Attaining Y Copper Y Copper A&We, PBC, AgL Not Attaining Y Zinc Y Zinc A&We, PBC, AgL Not Attaining Y pH Y pH From confluence w/Gardner Cienega Creek Canyon to USGS gaging station A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgL OAW N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ (#09484600) San Pedro River U.S./ Mexico Border to A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired Y E. coli N ‐‐ Redington A&Ww Impaired N Copper N ‐‐ A&Ww Impaired N DO N ‐‐ SR‐831 Southcentral Parker Canyon Lake 31°25'35''/110°27'15'' A&Wc, FBC, FC Impaired Y Mercury N ‐‐ Headwaters to confluence w/San Babocomari River A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Pedro River From confluence w/Gardner Cienega Creek Canyon to USGS gaging station A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgL OAW N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ (#09484600) Headwaters to unnamed spring at Davidson Canyon A&We, PBC, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 31°59'00"/110°38'49" From unnamed Spring to confluence w/unnamed tributary A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgL OAW N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ at 31°59'09"/110°38'44" Below confluence w/unnamed tributary to unnamed spring at A&We, PBC, AgL OAW N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 32°00'40"/110°38'36" From unnamed spring to A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgL OAW N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ confluence w/Cienega Creek SR‐841 Southcentral Gila River GRIC A&We, PBC, AgL** Unimpaired N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ From the confluence w/Salt River SR‐85 Southcentral, Southwest Gila River A&Wedw, PBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining Y Selenium Y Selenium to Gillespie Dam Gillespie Dam to confluence A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ w/Painted Rock Dam SR‐86 Southcentral Santa Cruz River Agua Nueva WRF outfall to A&Wedw Not Attaining N Ammonia N ‐‐ Baumgartner Road PBC Impaired N E. coli N ‐‐ Painted Rock Dam to confluence Gila River A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ w/Colorado River SR‐87 Southcentral, Central, Gila River GRIC A&We, PBC, AgL** Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Northcentral, Northeast City of Mesa NW WRF outfall to Salt River A&Wedw, PBC, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Tempe Town Lake Below Bartlett Lake Dam to Salt Verde River A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ River Below confluence w/Ellison Creek East Verde River A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ to confluence w/Verde River Below confluence w/Puerco River Little Colorado River to the Navajo Nation Reservation A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ boundary Tonto Creek Below confluence w/unnamed A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired N Mercury N ‐‐ tributary to Roosevelt A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N Nitrogen N ‐‐ Lake A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N E.coli N ‐‐ Theodore Roosevelt Dam to 2 km SR‐88 Central, Southeast Salt River A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired Y ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ below Granite Reef Dam Canyon Lake 33°32'44"/111°26'19" A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired Y DO N ‐‐ Apache Lake 33°37'23"/111°12'26" A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired N DO N ‐‐ A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired N Mercury N ‐‐ Roosevelt Lake 33°52'17"/111°00'17" A&Ww, FBC, DWS, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired Y Mercury N ‐‐ SR‐89 Northwest Hassayampa River Headwaters to confluence A&Wc, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N Copper Y Copper w/unnamed tributary at A&Wc, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N Cadmium Y Cadmium 34°26'09''/112°30'32'' A&Wc, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N Zinc Y Zinc A&Wc, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining N pH N ‐‐ Below confluence w/unnamed tributary to confluence A&Ww, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Unimpaired N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ w/unnamed tributary at 33°51'52"/112°39'56" Page 2 of 6 ADOT RECEIVING WATERS Designated Receiving Water Within 1/4 Route ADOT District(s) Receiving Waters Description Pollutants TMDL? Pollutants Uses* Status Mile? SR‐89 Northwest Granite Creek Headwaters to Watson Lake A&Wc, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Not Attaining Y DO N ‐‐ (cont.) (cont.) A&Wc, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Impaired Y E.
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]
  • Zuni Bluehead Sucker BISON No.: 010496
    Scientific Name: Catostomus discobolus yarrowi Common Name: Zuni bluehead sucker BISON No.: 010496 Legal Status: ¾ Arizona, Species of ¾ ESA, Proposed ¾ New Mexico-WCA, Special Concern Threatened Threatened ¾ ESA, Endangered ¾ ESA, Threatened ¾ USFS-Region 3, ¾ ESA, Proposed ¾ New Mexico-WCA, Sensitive Endangered Endangered ¾ None Distribution: ¾ Endemic to Arizona ¾ Southern Limit of Range ¾ Endemic to Arizona and ¾ Western Limit of Range New Mexico ¾ Eastern Limit of Range ¾ Endemic to New Mexico ¾ Very Local ¾ Not Restricted to Arizona or New Mexico ¾ Northern Limit of Range Major River Drainages: ¾ Dry Cimmaron River ¾ Rio Yaqui Basin ¾ Canadian River ¾ Wilcox Playa ¾ Southern High Plains ¾ Rio Magdalena Basin ¾ Pecos River ¾ Rio Sonoita Basin ¾ Estancia Basin ¾ Little Colorado River ¾ Tularosa Basin ¾ Mainstream Colorado River ¾ Salt Basin ¾ Virgin River Basin ¾ Rio Grande ¾ Hualapai Lake ¾ Rio Mimbres ¾ Bill Williams Basin ¾ Zuni River ¾ Gila River Status/Trends/Threats (narrative): Federal: FWS Species of concern, USFS Sensitive: Region 3, State AZ: Species of concern, State NM: Endangered. Status The Zuni bluehead sucker was once common in the Little Colorado River and Zuni River drainages, but its historic range has been reduced by approximately 50% (Propst and Hobbs 1996) and its numbers by about 90% in the last 25 years (NMDGF 2000). The Zuni bluehead sucker currently inhabits less then 10% of its probable historic range, and within its current range, its distribution is fragmented, and its status in Arizona is uncertain (Propst 1999). Merkel (1979) reported that on July 21 1971, a sizable population of Zuni Mountain suckers was discovered deep in the Nutria Box where water was flowing. Biologist had assumed that the suckers had been extirpated as a result of fish eradication efforts in the 1960's.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonora Sucker
    scientific name common name Catostomus insignis Sonora sucker Bison code 010520 ______________________________________________________________ Official status Endemism ________________________ State AZ: threatened Colorado River Basin _______________________ Status/threats Dams, diversions, groundwater pumping and introduced species Distribution The species is widespread and abundant in the Gila and Bill Williams river drainages in Arizona and the Gila and San Francisco drainages in southwestern New Mexico. The species is widespread and abundant in the Verde and Gila headwaters. Habitat Streams and rivers from 300 to 3000 m in elevation, primarily in pool habitats. Pool habitats over sand gravel substrates. Life history and ecology Can attain a size of 0.8 m and a weight of greater than 2.0 kg. Used as food by early, primitive human populations. Food habits vary with availability. In one stream, Aravaipa Creek, it is principally a carnivore, whereas elsewhere in pool habitats diet consists of plant debris, mud, and algae. Observed to "suck" cottonwood seeds at surface as is common for the common carp. Young often feed in large schools at stream margins on micro-crustaceans, protozoans and other animal and plant groups. Breeding Similar to most slim-bodied suckers, the species spawns in smaller streams over gravel substrates. Males darken in color and often display extreme tuberculation. Males &(usually 2) flank a single, larger female. Gametes are emitted with considerable to extreme substrate agitation and fall into gravel interstices. Cleaning of gravels occurs much as reported for salmonid species. Key Habitat Components: pools with sand-gravel substrates for adults and shallow, low velocity riffles and backwaters for young Breeding season Protracted, from as early as January to February at low elevations to as late as July.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus)
    Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) August 2002 Prepared By Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup For Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Approved: Date: Disclaimer Recovery Plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be 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. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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. Some of the techniques outlined for recovery efforts in this plan are completely new regarding this subspecies. Therefore, the cost and time estimates are approximations. Citations This document should be cited as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Service 5430 Governor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 i This Recovery Plan was prepared by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team, Technical Subgroup: Deborah M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Church Rock Uranium Mill Tailings Spill a Health and Environmental Assessment
    THE CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SPILL A HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Jere Millard Bruce Gallaher David Baggett Steven Gary September 1983 New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division Health and Environment Department P.O. Box 968 Santa TQ, New Mexico 87504-0968 000791 Front and Rear Cover Photographs Provided Courtesy of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Las Vegas, Nevada. 000792 THE CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SPILL: A HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Executive Summary The largest single release of liquid radioactive waste in the Uruted States occurred at the United Nuclear Corporation^ uranium mill near Church Rock, New Mexico, in July 1979. This document reports the results of environmental monitoring conducted by the New Mexico Envi- ronmental Improvement Division (EID) subsequent to the mill tailings spill* Interpretation of data leads to the general conclusion that although the spill was potentially hazardous. Its short-term and long- term impacts on people and the environment were quite limited. How- ever/ the data suggest that dewatering effluents (water from under- ground uranium mines) continually pumped into the Puerco River may represent a greater long-term hazard than the spill. Recommendations are made regarding continued environmental monitoring and resumption of normal land and water use along the Puerco River. EID is also spillissuin ang dtwo its technicaimpacts.l reports to provide more detailed information on the The spill occurred early on the morning of July 16 when the retention dam for a tailings pond failed. Most of the 1100 tons of solid material released was caught by a small emergency catchment dam.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment After Uranium Mill Tailings Spill, Church Rock, New Mexico
    FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE LIMITED DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC HEALTH SERVlCE-CDC-Atlanta KOT TOR PUBLICATION EPI-79-94-2 December 24, 1980 TO Director, Centers for Disease Control FROM Chronic Diseases Division Bureau of Epidemiology : • i I'J' ! •t;?| SUBJECT: Biological Assessment After Uranium Mill Tailings Spill, Church Rock, New Mexico SUMMARY On July 16, 1979, a tailings pond dam broke near Church Rock, New Mexico, spilling liquid and solid wastes contami- nated with radioactive uranium, thorium, radium, lead, and polonium- Subsequent evaluation of 6 Navajos potentially exposed to the materials spilled in the Rio Puerco River showed them to have no detectable increase in radioactivity by whole-body counting and no increase in urinary radio- nuclides* Since food-chain analysis is a more sensitive indicator of possible radiation dose, 8 local and 3 control animals were aufcopsied to determine radionuclide concentrations in edible tissues. Calculations indicate that human doses which would result from consumption of such animals would be higher from local than from control animals; however, the data also suggest chat exposure from chronic ingest ion of uranium mine dewatering effluent may be responsible for the elevated radionuclide concentrations found in tissue of local animals. Even though no state or federal regulations were violated, radionuclide concentrations found in animals and calculated human ingestion doses fell in a range Chat justifies both further surveillance of radionuclides in animals and the natural environment and further efforts to reduce the amount of radiation Co which humans and animals are exposed, Navajos in the area have been advised that. theiT exposure Co radionuclides may be reduced by not eat^ - ing kidney and liver from local animals.
    [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]
  • Geologic Map of the Chino Valley North 7½' Quadrangle, Yavapai County, Arizona
    DIGITAL GEOLOGIC MAP DGM-80 Arizona Geological Survey www.azgs.az.gov GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE CHINO VALLEY NORTH 7½’ QUADRANGLE, YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, V. 1.0 Brian. F. Gootee, Charles A. Ferguson, Jon E. Spencer and Joseph P. Cook December 2010 ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geologic Map of the Chino Valley North 7½' Quadrangle, Yavapai County, Arizona by Brian F. Gootee, Charles A. Ferguson, Jon E. Spencer, and Joe P. Cook Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map DGM-80 version 1.0 December, 2010 Scale 1:24,000 (1 sheet, with text) Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress St., #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 This geologic map was funded in part by the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, award no. 08HQAG0093. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. Table of Contents Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Geologic Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3 Quaternary faulting ...........................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [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]
  • Etched Magazine, January 2015 Issue
    MAGAZINE ([SHULHQFH7KH6RXWKZHVWFRP OUTDOOR Finding Common Ground 2015 PRESERVATION &2//$%25$7,21RECREATION $3.95 U.S. #theevolutionofelan Finding Common Ground PRESERVATION&2//$%25$7,21 RECREATION contents options art lovers a conversation with greg istock 18 creating art, music, and life in abstracts the art of interior design 22 artisans who bring function and style to life the allure of watercolor 26 an historical perspective through the eyes (and brush) of roland lee soul searchers the dark night of the soul 30 a space in time where new life begins let’s try some civility 32 the longing for meaningful (and civil) conversation adventure in wellness 34 a “dream” vacation that truly benefits mind, body, and soul adventure seekers the day we set the colorado river free 41 a grand experiment in ecological restoration boots and burgers 50 a deliciously novel hiking and dining guide concrete to canyons 58 when inner city students step foot into zion desert dwellers building ice age park 62 a prehistoric venture takes shape in urban style story keepers 66 expectations historic structures: in every issue the mouthpiece of history the green that turned golden 70 etched in time 8 the 50th anniversary of leaving their mark 10 dixie red hills golf course #theevolutionofelan 12 experiencethesouthwest.com 13 saving an oasis 74 meditations 14 the collaboration of preservation snapshots 92 and recreation in southern utah culture creators the hills are alive 80 a journey through the years of making music on our cover community arts and Writer, Rowan Jacobsen events information 84 Photography By: Fred Phillips the people, the places, the dates, the vibe...the culture of southern utah leaving their mark FINDING COMMON GROUND EXPERIENCE volume 9 – issue 1 ENJOY THE OUTDOOR ISSUE AWARENESS EDUCATE 2015 PRESERVE Darci Hansen Founder Editor in Chief │ │ Laurie James Design Editor ROWAN JACOBSEN writes about place and how it shapes ecosystems, │ │ cultures, cuisines, and us.
    [Show full text]
  • Laughing Waters" 40
    Press, W. H., B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky, and W. T. Vetterling. 1986. Numerical recipes: C 1990 by S.E.L & Associates The art of scientific computing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Stalnaker, C. B. 1978. The IFG incremental methodology for physical instream habitat eval- uation. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS / OBS-78 /81). Stier, D. J., and J. H. Crance. 1985. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: American shad. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS/ OBS-82 /10). The Recreational Impact of Trihey, E. W. 1979. The IFG incremental methodology. Pages 24-44 in G. L. Smith, editor. Proceedings of the workshop in instream flow habitat criteria and modeling. Information Series Reducing the "Laughing Waters" 40. Fort Collins: Colorado State University, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute. Valdez, R. A., and B. C. Nilson. 1982. Radiotelemetry as a means of assessing movement and of Aravaipa Creek, Arizona habitat selection of humpback chub. Pages 29-39 in W. Geer, editor. Transactions of the Bonneville Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Salt Lake City, UT: Bonneville Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Steven D. Moore Valdez, R. A., P. B. Holden, T. B. Hardy, and R. J. Ryel. 1987. Habitat suitability index curves Mary E. Wilkosz* for endangered fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin. Final report to US. Fish and Wildlife Service (Contract No. 14-16-0006-86-055), Denver, CO. Stanley K. Brickler Received: May 3, 1989 School of Renewable Natural Resources Accepted: June 25, 1989 University of Arizona Discussion open until August 1, 1990 Tucson, Arizona 85721 ABSTRACT: The paper describes analyses that were conducted to de- termine the importance of water as an attribute of the recreational setting at Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness, Arizona, and the influence that reduced flows in Aravaipa Creek would have on visitors' perceptions of water quantity and quality.
    [Show full text]