DOCSLIB.ORG

Floods of April-June 1952 in Utah and Nevada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Floods of April-June 1952 in Utah and Nevada / Floods of April-June 1952 in Utah and Nevada GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1260-E Prepared in cooperation with the States of California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, and agencies of the Federal Government Floods of April-June 1952 in Utah and Nevada FLOODS OF 1952 Prepared under the direction of J. V. B. WELLS, Chief', Surf ace Water Branch GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1260-E Prepared in cooperation with the States of California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and ff^yoming, and agencies of the Federal Government UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1957 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. S EATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. PREFACE This report on the floods of April-June 1952 in the Great Basin and part of the Green River basin in Utah was prepared in the Water Resources Division, C. G. Paulsen, chief, under the general di­ rection of J. V. B. Wells, chief, Surface Water Branch. Basic records of stage and discharge were collected and com­ piled under the supervision of M. T. Wilson, district engineer, Sur­ face Water Branch, Salt Lake City district, as part of the cooper­ ating program with the following agencies: in California, State De­ partment of Public Works, C. H. Purcell, director, succeeded by F. B. Durkee, and A. D. Edmonston, State engineer; in Idaho, State Department of Reclamation, M. R. Kulp, State reclamation engi­ neer; in Nevada, Office of State Engineer, H. A. Shamberger; in Utah, Office of State Engineer, J. M. Tracy, and the Utah Water & Power Board, W. R. Wallace, chairman; in Wyoming, Office of the State Engineer, L. C. Bishop; the Bureau of Reclamation, Depart­ ment of the Interior; and the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army. Snow-survey data were obtained by many Federal and State a- gencies as indicated in statewide reports "Federal-State Coopera­ tive Snow Surveys and Irrigation Water Forecasts" prepared by the Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture, in cooper­ ation with the many participating agencies. The report was prepared by W. P. Somers, hydraulic engineer, Salt Lake City district. The Weather Bureau, the Corps of Engi­ neers, the Offices of the State Engineers of Nevada and Utah, the Utah Power & Light Co., water commissioners of several districts, a flood committee reporting to the Governor of Utah, and many other organizations and individuals supplied information or other­ wise assisted in the collection and compilation of data presented in this report. Ill CONTENTS Page Abstract....................................................... 577 Introduction.................................................... 577 General features of the floods .................................... 578 Hydrologic conditions......................................... 578 Description of the floods ...................................... 587 Great Salt Lake ........................................... 589 Bear River basin.......................................... 590 Weber River basin ........................................ 592 Tributaries between Weber and Jordan Rivers. .............. 598 Jordan River basia ........................................ 598 Sevier Lake basia ......................................... 604 Beaver River basin........................................ 604 Green River basin ......................................... 605 Walker Lake basin. ........................................ 606 Carson River basin........................................ 606 Humboldt River basin...................................... 607 Pyramid and Winnemucca Lakes basin ....................... 610 Summary of flood damages .................................... 611 Determination of flood discharge ................................. 615 Stages and discharges at stream-gaging stations ................... 615 Explanation of data........................................... 615 Colorado River basin: Green River basin: Duchesne River near Tabiona, Utah. ...................... 616 Duchesne River at Duchesne. ............................. 616 Strawberry River near Soldier Springs ................. 617 Strawberry River at Duchesne ......................... 618 Duchesne River at Myton ................................ 619 Price River above Scofield Reservoir, near Scofield ........ 620 Scofield Reservoir near Scofield. ......................... 622 Price River near Scofield................................ 623 Price River near Heiner. ................................ 624 Huntington Creek near Huntington. ........................ 625 Cottonwood Creek near Orangeville .................... 626 Ferron Creek (upper station) near Ferron .............. 627 The Great Basin: Great Salt Lake basin: Bear River near Evanston, Wyo. ......................... 628 VI CONTENTS Page Stages and discharges at stream-gaging stations--Continued The Great Basin--Continued Great Salt Lake basin--Continued Bear River at Border, Wyo. ............................. 628 Bear River at Harer, Idaho .............................. 629 Little Bear River: Logan River near Logan, Utah ...................... 629 Blacksmith Fork above Utah Power & Light Co. dam, near Hyrum. ............................ 630 Bear River near Collinston .............................. 630 Weber River near Oakley ................................ 631 Weber River near Wanship. .............................. 632 Weber River near Coalville.............................. 633 Chalk Creek at Coalville .............................. 634 Echo Reservoir at Echo ................................. 636 Weber River at Echo .................................... 637 Lost Creek near Croydon ............................. 638 Weber River at Devils Slide.............................. 639 East Canyon Reservoir near Morgan ................... 640 East Canyon Creek near Morgan....................... 641 Hardscrabble Creek near Porterville ................ 642 East Canyon Creek below diversions, near Morgan . ..... 643 Weber River near Morgan ............................... 644 Weber River at Gateway ................................. 645 Weber River at Ogden................................... 646 Ogden River: South Fork Ogden River near Huntsville.............. 647 Pine View Reservoir near Ogden. ...................... 648 Ogden River below Pine View dam, near Ogden ......... 649 Weber River near Plain City.............................. 650 Jordan River: Currant Creek: West Creek: Salt Creek at Nephi. ............................. 651 Payson Creek above diversions, near Payson ........... 652 Spanish Fork at Thistle ............................... 653 Diamond Fork: Sixth Water Creek: Strawberry tunnel at west portal, near Thistle.. 654 Diamond Fork near Thistle .................... 654 Spanish Fork at Castilla .............................. 655 Spanish Fork near Lake Shore ......................... 656 Hobble Creek near Springville ......................... 656 Provo River near Kamas.............................. 657 Provo River near Hailstone ........................... 658 Deer Creek Reservoir near Charleston................. 660 Provo River at Vivian Park ........................... 661 South Fork Provo River at Vivian Park .............. 661 Provo River at Provo................................. 662 Dry Creek near Alpine................................ 663 Fort Creek at Alpine. .............................. 664 CONTENTS VII Page Stages and discharges at stream-gaging stations--Continued The Great Basin--Continued Great Salt Lake basin--Continued Jordan River--Continued Jordan River at Narrows. ................................ 665 Jordan River and Surplus Canal at Salt Lake City. .......... 665 Sevier Lake basin: Sevier River: San Pitch River near Gunnison. ........................ 666 Beaver River basin: Beaver River near Beaver.................................. 666 Beaver River at Adamsville ................................ 666 Walker Lake basin: Walker River: West Walker River: East Fork West Walker River near Bridgeport, Calif. 667 West Walker River below East Fork, near Coleville ..... 667 Humboldt-Carson Sink basin: Carson River: East Fork Carson River near Gardnerville, Nev. .......... 668 West Fork Carson River at Woodfords, Calif. .......... 668 Humboldt River: Marys River above Hot Springs Creek, near Deeth, Nev. 668 Lamoille Creek near Lamoille. ........................ 669 North Fork Humboldt River at Devils Gate, near Halleck. 669 Humboldt River near Elko ............................... 670 South Fork Humboldt River near Lee................... 670 Huntington Creek near Lee. ......................... 670 South Fork Humboldt River above Dixie Creek, near Elko. 671 South Fork Humboldt River near Elko. .................. 671 Humboldt River near Carlin. ............................. 671 Humboldt River at Palisade .............................. 672 Pine Creek near Palisade ............................. 672 Rock Creek near Battle Mountaia ...................... 673 Humboldt River at Comus. ............................... 673 Little Humboldt River near Paradise Valley. ............ 673 Martin Creek near Paradise Valley. ................. 674 Humboldt River near Imlay .............................. 674 Rye Patch Reservoir near Rye Patch ..................... 675 Humboldt River near Rye Patch .......................... 676 Humboldt River near Lovelock ........................... 676 Pyramid and Winnemucca Lakes basin: Truckee River near Truckee,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jordan River Utah Temple History
    Local History | The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Historical Background of the Jordan River Utah Temple In the middle of the Salt Lake Valley, there unbelievable, and this temple is an answer is a river that runs from south to north. After to prayer and a dream come true.” Mormon pioneers entered the valley in 1847, The Jordan River Temple became the 20th they named the river the Jordan River. The operating temple in the Church, the sev- land near this river in the southern part of enth built in Utah, and the second temple the valley passed through several pioneer in the Salt Lake Valley. It was the fourth- families throughout three decades. In 1880, largest temple in the Church following the a 19-year-old English immigrant named Salt Lake, Los Angeles and Washington William Holt bought 15 acres of land from D.C. Temples. More than 34 years after the his uncle Jesse Vincent for $2.00 an acre. It original dedication, the Jordan River Utah remained in the Holt family and was passed Temple was closed in February of 2016 for to Holt’s son, Alma, in 1948. extensive renovation. In the autumn of 1977, Alma Holt and his At the time of the Jordan River Temple’s ear- family felt inspired to donate the 15-acre ly construction in June 1979, the population parcel of land in South Jordan to the Church. of South Jordan had grown to approximately On February 3, 1978, President Spencer W. 7,492, and the temple served approximate- Kimball announced plans to construct a ly 267,000 people in 72 stakes (a stake is temple on that prominent site overlooking similar to a diocese) in South Jordan and its the valley below.
    [Show full text]
  • Jordan River Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Study - Phase 1
    Jordan River Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Study - Phase 1 Prepared for: Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality 195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Carl Adams- Project Supervisor Hilary Arens- Project Manager Prepared by: Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC 965 South 100 West, Suite 200 Logan, Utah 84321 Stantec Consulting Inc. 3995 South 700 East, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 EPA APPROVAL DATE JUNE 5, 2013 i Jordan River TMDL Jordan River – 1 (UT16020204-001) Waterbody ID Jordan River – 2 (UT16020204-002) Jordan River – 3 (UT16020204-003) Parameter of Concern Dissolved Oxygen Pollutant of Concern Total Organic Matter Class 3B Protected for warm water species of game fish and aquatic life, including the necessary Impaired Beneficial Use aquatic organisms in their food chain. Loading Assessment Current Load 2,225,523 kg/yr Total Organic Matter Loading Capacity 1,373,630 kg/yr or 3,763 kg/day Total Organic Matter (38% reduction) Load capacity based on OM concentrations that result in DO model endpoint of 5.5 mg/L, Margin of Safety including 1.0 mg/L implicit MOS added to the instantaneous DO water quality standard of 4.5 mg/L. Bulk Load Allocation 684,586 kg/yr Total Organic Matter (35% reduction) Bulk Waste Load 689,044 kg/yr Total Organic Matter (41% reduction) Allocation Defined Total OM load to lower Jordan River (kg/yr) <= 1,373,630 kg/yr Targets/Endpoints Dissolved Oxygen => 4.5 mg/L Nonpoint Pollutant Utah Lake, Tributaries, Diffuse Runoff, Irrigation Return Flow, Groundwater Sources
    [Show full text]
  • Meet the Jordan River: an Ecological Walk Along the Riparian Zone
    Meet the Jordan River: An Ecological Walk Along the Riparian Zone A riparian zone, like the one you're walking along today, is the interface between land and a river or stream. Plant habitats and communities along the river margins and banks are called riparian vegetation, and are characterized by hydrophilic (“water loving”) plants. Riparian zones are significant in ecology, environmental management, and civil engineering because of their role in soil conservation, habitat biodiversity, and the influence they have on fauna and aquatic ecosystems, including grassland, woodland, and wetlands. 1. “Education Tree” 2. Sandbar or Coyote Willow Old male Box Elder Salix exigua Acer negundo Z Sandbar Willow is an important Box Elders are one of the most plants in the riparian zone. It valuable trees native trees for grows in thickets up to 8 feet tall riparian wildlife habitat. on both sides of the river. They stabilize streambanks, provide cover and cooling, and Look for graceful arching their brittle branches create hollows for bird nests. branches and delicate yellow Caterpillars, aphids and Box Elder bugs feed on the tree and catkins in spring. are food source many bird species Beavers use branches for food and construction. Yellow warblers hunt for insects under the protection of the willow Box Elder wood was used for bowls, pipe stems, and drums. thicket. Box Elders are the only members of the maple family with Fremont Indians used willow for home construction, fishing compound leaves. weirs, and basket making. Easily propagated by plunging cut stems into the mud near the water. 3. Hemp Dogbane and Common 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Nutrient Dynamics in the Jordan River and Great
    NUTRIENT DYNAMICS IN THE JORDAN RIVER AND GREAT SALT LAKE WETLANDS by Shaikha Binte Abedin A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of Utah August 2016 Copyright © Shaikha Binte Abedin 2016 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF THESIS APPROVAL The thesis of Shaikha Binte Abedin has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Ramesh K. Goel , Chair 03/08/2016 Date Approved Michael E. Barber , Member 03/08/2016 Date Approved Steven J. Burian , Member 03/08/2016 Date Approved and by Michael E. Barber , Chair/Dean of the Department/College/School of Civil and Environmental Engineering and by David B. Kieda, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT In an era of growing urbanization, anthropological changes like hydraulic modification and industrial pollutant discharge have caused a variety of ailments to urban rivers, which include organic matter and nutrient enrichment, loss of biodiversity, and chronically low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Utah’s Jordan River is no exception, with nitrogen contamination, persistently low oxygen concentration and high organic matter being among the major current issues. The purpose of this research was to look into the nitrogen and oxygen dynamics at selected sites along the Jordan River and wetlands associated with Great Salt Lake (GSL). To demonstrate these dynamics, sediment oxygen demand (SOD) and nutrient flux experiments were conducted twice through the summer, 2015. The SOD ranged from 2.4 to 2.9 g-DO m-2 day-1 in Jordan River sediments, whereas at wetland sites, the SOD was as high as 11.8 g-DO m-2 day-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Unionoida Surveys, Distribution, and Metapopulation Dynamics in the Jordan River-Utah Lake Drainage, UT
    Version 1.5 Native Unionoida Surveys, Distribution, and Metapopulation Dynamics in the Jordan River-Utah Lake Drainage, UT Report To: Wasatch Front Water Quality Council Salt Lake City, UT By: David C. Richards, Ph.D. OreoHelix Consulting Vineyard, UT 84058 email: [email protected] phone: 406.580.7816 May 26, 2017 Native Unionoida Surveys and Metapopulation Dynamics Jordan River-Utah Lake Drainage 1 One of the few remaining live adult Anodonta found lying on the surface of what was mostly comprised of thousands of invasive Asian clams, Corbicula, in Currant Creek, a former tributary to Utah Lake, August 2016. Summary North America supports the richest diversity of freshwater mollusks on the planet. Although the western USA is relatively mollusk depauperate, the one exception is the historically rich molluskan fauna of the Bonneville Basin area, including waters that enter terminal Great Salt Lake and in particular those waters in the Jordan River-Utah Lake drainage. These mollusk taxa serve vital ecosystem functions and are truly a Utah natural heritage. Unfortunately, freshwater mollusks are also the most imperiled animal groups in the world, including those found in UT. The distribution, status, and ecologies of Utah’s freshwater mussels are poorly known, despite this unique and irreplaceable natural heritage and their protection under the Clean Water Act. Very few mussel specific surveys have been conducted in UT which requires specialized training, survey methods, and identification. We conducted the most extensive and intensive survey of native mussels in the Jordan River-Utah Lake drainage to date from 2014 to 2016 using a combination of reconnaissance and qualitative mussel survey methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Surveys on the Uinta & Wasatch-Cache National
    FISH SURVEYS ON THE UINTA & WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FORESTS 1995 By Paul K Cowley Forest Fish Biologist Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forest January 22, 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................... i LIST OF FIGURES ....................... iii LIST OF TABLES ....................... v INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 METHODS ........................... 1 RESULTS ........................... 4 Weber River Drainage ................. 5 Ogden River ................... 5 Slate Creek ................... 8 Yellow Pine Creek ................ 10 Coop Creek .................... 10 Shingle Creek .................. 13 Great Salt Lake Drainage ............... 16 Indian Hickman Creek ............... 16 American Fork River .................. 16 American Fork River ............... 16 Provo River Drainage ................. 20 Provo Deer Creek ................. 20 Right Fork Little Hobble Creek .......... 20 Rileys Canyon .................. 22 Shingle Creek .................. 22 North Fork Provo River .............. 22 Boulder Creek .................. 22 Rock Creek .................... 24 Soapstone Creek ................. 24 Spring Canyon .................. 27 Cobble Creek ................... 27 Hobble Creek Drainage ................. 29 Right Fork Hobble Creek ............. 29 Spanish Fork River Drainage .............. 29 Bennie Creek ................... 29 Nebo Creek ................... 29 Tie Fork ..................... 32 Salt Creek Drainage .................. 32 Salt Creek .................... 32 Price River Drainage ................
    [Show full text]
  • Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003
    Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003 Weber River Project, Summit County, Utah Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah September 2009 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003 Weber River Project, Summit County, Utah Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office Contact Person W. Russ Findlay Provo Area Office 302 East 1860 South Provo, Utah 84606 801-379-1084 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah September 2009 Contents Page Chapter 1 – Need for Proposed Action and Background.................................. 1 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Dam Safety Program Overview............................................................ 1 1.2.1 Safety of Dams NEPA Compliance Requirements..................... 2 1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action...................................... 2 1.4 Description of Echo Dam and Reservior .............................................. 2 1.4.1 Echo Dam.................................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Echo Reservoir............................................................................ 5 1.4.3 Normal Operations.....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Lake Comprehensive Management Plan Introduction Document on Sovereign Land Management
    Utah Lake Comprehensive Management Plan Introduction Document on Sovereign Land Management Introduction The bed of Utah Lake became state (sovereign) land on the date of Utah’s statehood, January 4,1896. The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands manages the sovereign land in accordance with the Public Trust Doctrine, state law and administrative rule. The purpose of this document is to summarize the management framework for the bed of Utah Lake. The Origin of Sovereign Lands Under English common law, the Crown held title to all lands underlying navigable waterways, subject to the Public Trust Doctrine. Following the American Revolution, title to such lands in the U.S. vested in the 13 original colonies. Under the Equal Footing Doctrine, fee title to those lands also vested in each state subsequently admitted to the Union, upon admission. Utah’s public trust lands, known as “sovereign lands,” lie below the ordinary high water mark of navigable bodies of water. Utah’s sovereign land includes Utah Lake, Great Salt Lake, Bear Lake (Utah’s half), Jordan River and portions of the Green, Colorado and Bear rivers. Constitution, Statute and Rule The framework for sovereign land management is found in the Utah Constitution (Article XX), state statute (primarily Chapter 65A-10), and administrative rule (R652). Article XX of the Utah Constitution accepts sovereign lands to be held in trust for the people and managed for the purposes for which the lands were acquired. Section 65A-2-1 of the Utah Code provides: “The division [of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, FFSL] shall administer state lands under comprehensive land management programs using multiple-use, sustained-yield principles.” Briefly stated, the overarching management objectives of FFSL are to protect and sustain the trust resources of, and to provide for reasonable beneficial uses of those resources, consistent with their long-term protection and conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Plan Monitoringmonitoring Wasatch-Cache National Forest First Year Report: March 2003 - March 2004
    Forest Plan MonitoringMonitoring Wasatch-Cache National Forest First Year Report: March 2003 - March 2004 1 Education and Information 2 Recreation Opportunity 3 Vegetation Management 4 Fuels Reduction 5 Rangeland Management 6 Recreation Concentrated Use Areas 7 Major Trail Development 8 Management Indicators 9 Endangered Species Act 10 Resource Protection 11 User Density Thresholds 12 NFMA Compliance United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Region 13 National Historic Preservation Act Wasatch-Cache National Forest A Note from the Forest Supervisor ANote from the Forest Supervisor The Revised Forest Plan for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest was approved March 19, 2003. An important part of keeping the Plan current and adapting it as conditions change or as we learn from experience is monitoring. The Revised Plan Monitoring and Evalu- ation section (Chapter 4, pg. 4-105) outlines the program for follow- ing up on important decisions made in the Plan. Last September we shared with you further steps or “protocols” for moving forward with this program. We have now been implementing this new Plan for more than a year and would like to share some of the results of the first year. In some cases it is too early to actually report on what we have accomplished in each area because the monitoring protocol requires more than a year. In other areas information has been collected as a baseline to track future trends. In the coming years, a collective review of several years of information will be evaluated to determine if our management is actually moving the forest toward desired conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Morgan County, Utah Centennial County History Series
    610 square miles, more than 90 percent of which is privately owned. Situated within the Wasatch Mountains, its boundaries defined by mountain ridges, Morgan Countyhas been celebrated for its alpine setting. Weber Can- yon and the Weber River traverse the fertile Morgan Valley; and it was the lush vegetation of the pristine valley that prompted the first white settlers in 1855 to carve a road to it through Devils Gate in lower Weber Canyon. Morgan has a rich historical legacy. It has served as a corridor in the West, used by both Native Americans and early trappers. Indian tribes often camped in the valley, even long after it was settled by Mormon pioneers. The southern part of the county was part of the famed Hastings Cutoff, made notorious by the Donner party but also used by Mormon pioneers, Johnston's Army, California gold seekers, and other early travelers. Morgan is still part of main routes of traffic, including the railroad and utility lines that provide service throughout the West. Long known as an agricultural county, the area now also serves residents who commute to employment in Wasatch Front cities. Two state parks-Lost Creek Reservoir and East A HISTORY OF Morgan COUY~Y Linda M. Smith 1999 Utah State Historical Society Morgan County Commission Copyright O 1999 by Morgan County Commission All rights reserved ISBN 0-913738-36-0 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 98-61320 Map by Automated Geographic Reference Center-State of Utah Printed in the United States of America Utah State Historical Society 300 Rio Grande Salt Lake City, Utah 84 101 - 1182 Dedicated to Joseph H.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Weber Marion Kamas Francis Woodland Uinta Mountains Peoa
    Kamas Driving Guide 2008 3/17/08 9:34 AM Page 1 10 19. Duchesne Tunnel. Built 1940 - 1952. 32 Upper Weber This 6 mile tunnel brings water from the 7. Smith and Morehouse Reservoir. Campground, Duchesne River to the Provo River. Milepost 18, Hwy 150. Closed in winter. 300 North boat ramp, picnic area, mountain access. 12 miles from Oakley. Hwy 213. 20. Uinta Falls. Milepost 12.6, Hwy 150. Closed in winter. 200 North Kamas 8. Holiday Park. The Headwaters of the 21. Trial Lake High Mountain Dams, & John est 100 North Weber River. Grix Cabin. Lakes built with pack animals W and 2-wheeled carts between 1910 & 1940. 200 Center St. Cabin built 1922 - 1925 during 11 The valley’s elevation made 32 100 South expansion of Trial Lake. Closed in winter. 12 Marion farming difficult, but the 31 22. Bald Mountain Pass. High point (10,678 ft). 200 South 150 248 To Uintas 9. Original LDS Church. towns soon found a cash crop Blazzard Lumber in Kamas 30 Views into the Uinta Wilderness and of Bald est 300 South Built 1910-1914. Now Mt. (11,947) Hayden Peak (12,473), Mt in timber. Great forest of pine covered the mountains Cover photo: Janet Thimmes “Traffic on Main Street in Kamas” W 24 Kamas Valley Co-op. Agassiz (12,429). Milepost 29•B, Hwy 150. and canyons above the towns. Timber camps were 100 400 South Note the arched windows. Closed in winter. erected near the headwaters of Beaver Creek, the Provo Milepost 15.9, Hwy 32.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 32: Response to Comments
    Chapter 32: Response to Comments 32.1 Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action ...................................................... 32-7 32.1.1 Section 1.2 – Description of the Needs Assessment Study Area ............ 32-7 32.1.2 Section 1.4 – Summary of Purpose and Need ....................................... 32-12 32.2 Chapter 2 – Alternatives ..................................................................................... 32-29 32.2.1 Section 2.1 – Alternatives Development Process (Screening) .............. 32-29 32.2.2 Section 2.2 – Description of Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study ....................................................................................... 32-46 32.2.3 Section 2.2.1 – No-Action Alternative .................................................. 32-51 32.2.4 Section 2.2.2 – Alternative A1 .............................................................. 32-51 32.2.5 Section 2.2.3 – Alternative A2 .............................................................. 32-53 32.2.6 Section 2.2.4 – Alternative A3 .............................................................. 32-53 32.2.7 Section 2.2.5 – Alternative A4 .............................................................. 32-55 32.2.8 Section 2.2.6 – Alternative B1 .............................................................. 32-55 32.2.9 Section 2.2.7 – Alternative B2 .............................................................. 32-59 32.2.10 Section 2.2.8 – Alternative B3 .............................................................. 32-59
    [Show full text]