DOCSLIB.ORG

Presentation Name

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Presentation Name 2014 LAKE HAVASU CITY BENCHMARK VISITOR STUDY Conducted for the Lake Havasu City Convention & Visitors Bureau prism. travel & hospitality consulting. The Bureau would like to thank the following individuals who contributed their time and energy to review successive drafts of the visitor survey and maximize its effectiveness as a survey instrument. Cindy Aldridge Jerry Aldridge Bonnie Butterworth Don Callahan Rebecca Carder Charlie Cassens Kathryn Felke Michelle Gardia Ida Jones Jan Kassies Bob Keller Mayor Mark Nexsen Ron Nickel Margaret Nyberg Cal Sheehy Kathy Silverthorn Doug Traub . The Bureau also acknowledges the important contribution of the Partnership for Economic Development, which allowed the number of surveys distributed in the sample to be increased and the statistical accuracy of the results to be improved. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS – 1of 3 Background and Methodology…………………………………...…… 6 Executive Summary………………………………………………..…. 11 Visitor Overview……………………………………………….……. 34 VISITOR SEGMENTS: Recent Overnight Visitors………………………………………... 42 Traveler Spend and Visitor Value…………………………………. 71 Past Overnight Visitors………………………………………........ 77 Day Visitors………………………………………………………. 89 Non-Visitors…………………………………………………........ 105 Passed Through, Didn’t Visit…………………………………......... 107 Heard of Lake Havasu, Never Visited……………………………. 115 Never Heard of Lake Havasu……………………………………. 127 SPECIAL ISSUES Participation in Boating on Lake Havasu…………………………. 134 Special Events………………………………..……………………. 150 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS – 2 of 3 SPECIAL ISSUES (continued) Havasu Landing Resort & Casino……..……...……………...…… 156 Peer to Peer Lodging Intentions……………………..…….…….. 162 Accommodations…………………………….…………………. 168 Impressions and Nicknames……………………………….….…. 181 Wayfinding…………………………………………………..…..... 203 CVB Usage and Impressions………………………………..…..... 212 Visitor Travel Planning and Social Networking………………..…. 227 Resident Reactions…………………………..………………..…. 238 VISITOR ORIGINS AND DEMOGRAPHICS Visitor Origins………………………………….……….…..……. 259 Top 100 Zip Codes of Origin…..……………….…..……………. 266 Heard of, Never Visited but Expressed Interest………………….. 268 Visitor Demographics…………………………………………….. 269 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS – 3 of 3 ATTRACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES Attractions and Activities: Ranked……………………………..…. 288 Attractions and Activities That Prompt a Return……...…………. 308 Comparison of Behavior to What Would Prompt Return……… 319 Attractions That Prompt Return – Ranked by Category………... 324 Activities That Prompt Return – Ranked by Category………….. 337 DASHBOARDS Dashboards by Month…………………………………………..... 347 Dashboards by Visitor Type……………………………………..... 372 Dashboards by Economic Impact….………………………….…. 382 Dashboards by Millennial Visitors and Gamblers..……………..... 388 Dashboards by Visitors Who Visit in June-July………………….... 406 APPENDIX Attractions Visited – Ranked by Category…………..…….……... 408 Activities Participation– Ranked by Category……..……………... 422 5 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY 6 Methodology • This survey was administered in October 2014 via a customized Internet survey tool and sent to a targeted group of 55,300 demographically balanced households identified as travelers. • This survey targeted respondents west of the Mississippi, plus Illinois, Michigan and western Canada. – This region was surveyed because data from the internal LHCCVB database indicates 82% of visitors reside in these areas. – It would be cost ineffective to survey or market to the 18% who reside east of the Mississippi. • 5,569 responded, and 92 responses were culled out as potentially unreliable, leaving a total response of 5,477, representing a response rate of 10.1%. • These statistics are valid +/- 0.8%, which was achieved by narrowing the field of respondents to travelers rather than surveying the general population. • Lake Havasu City residents were included in the study with a specialized set of questions and their data was analyzed separately from the external sample. 5,000 residents were invited to participate by email and the survey was also made available via hyperlink on the CVB website. A total of 338 completed the survey, 68 sourced from the website hyperlink and 270 from the email invitation. 5 responses were culled out as potentially unreliable, leaving a total of 333 completed resident surveys. • The margin of error for responses from Lake Havasu City residents is +/- 5.3%. Methodology • The survey instrument was crafted as a benchmarking tool, repeating questions and sampling methods from the 2010 Visitors Study to allow comparisons to prior results. • In addition, new questions were added to reflect new issues and trends. • The survey development was a collaborative effort of The Prism Partnership, Lake Havasu City Convention & Visitors Bureau, and the input and review of Lake Havasu City business people and civic leaders. • This is an extensive, detailed umbrella survey, with a customized survey embedded for each of 8 different respondent types. – Most destinations only customize for 2 or 3 respondent types. – The extra level of detail provides data for potential visitors and past visitors as well as current visitors. • The results of carefully-designed and executed Internet surveys such as this one are projectable to the population at large since 80% of the US population has Internet access. (Source: US Census Bureau 2010 Census). IllustrationsLAKE of countryHAVASU and CITY administry BENCHMARK districts VISITORS STUDY SURVEY COVERAGE AREA SHOWN BELOW A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING OF TRAVELERS FROM THE HIGHLIGHTED STATES, PLUS BRITISH COLUMBIA AND ALBERTA RESPONSE PROFILE The 2014 Lake Havasu City Benchmark Visitors Study was sent to a demographically balanced sample of 55,300 travelers west of the Mississippi, plus Illinois, Michigan and Western Canada. A total of 5,569 responded, from which 92 were culled out as potentially unreliable. This leaves 5,477 total respondents and a response rate of 10.1%. See below for breakouts by respondent type. The overall study has a margin of error of +/- .08%, and the data for nearly all segments is reliable, with the exception of the vacation home segment (denoted with a **) which has a sample size too small to drill down for further detail. (The long-term visitors segment was too small to drill down for further detail in 2010.) RESPONDENT TYPE 2014 PERCENT OF SAMPLE (2010 comp) RESPONDENTS (2010 comp) OVERNIGHT PAST 12 MOS 6.1% (5.3%) 334 (228) OVERNIGHT 2-3 YRS AGO 4.9% (3.7%) 268 (155) PAST OVERNIGHT, 3+ YEARS AGO 5.1% (4.9%) 279 (206) SUB-TOTAL: OVERNIGHT VISITORS 16.1 (13.9%) 881 (589) LONG-TERM VISITORS** 2.3% (1.3%) 126 (54) VACATION HOME / CONDO / 1.0% (1.2%) 55 (51) TIMESHARE** SUB-TOTAL: LONG-TERM VISITORS 3.3 (2.5%) 181 (105) DAY VISITORS 5.6% (5.9%) 307 (248) THROUGH OR NEAR, DIDN’T VISIT 8.0% (8.4%) 438 (353) HEARD OF, NEVER VISITED 33.7% (36.3%) 1,851 (1525) NEVER HEARD OF 32.1% (32.9%) 1,759 (1,382) LIVE FULL TIME LAKE HAVASU CTY 1.1% (na) 60 (na) TOTAL 100.0% 5,477 (4,202) 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND • This study was conducted to gain reliable and projectable data about travelers’ awareness, visitation, experiences and impressions of Lake Havasu City, and to measure changes since the baseline study conducted in 2010. • This data provides the source for visitor profiles based on their tourism revenue potential to Lake Havasu City, allowing the most targeted and effective use of the tourism marketing budget. METHODOLOGY • The 2014 Lake Havasu City Benchmark Visitors Study was sent by email invitation to a demographically balanced sample of 55,300 travelers west of the Mississippi, plus Illinois, Michigan and Western Canada. • This geography was targeted because analysis of LHCCVB’s internal database revealed 82% of visitors live in this area. • A total of 5,569 responded, from which 92 were culled out as potentially unreliable. This resulted in 5,477 total respondents and a response rate of 10.1%. • The overall study has a margin of error of +/- .08%. 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS • There was a significant increase in overnight and long-term visitors to Lake Havasu City, 16.6% overall in 2014, up from 13.9% in 2010 for overnight visitors and 3.3% in long-term visitors, up from 2.5% in 2010. • Analysis of the data reveal these increases in overnight visitors are the result of conversion of travelers who had heard of but never visited Lake Havasu City. • It is important to understand that this is a very positive change to the fundamental composition of visitors to Lake Havasu City, and is separate from any natural increases in overall tourism to Arizona. • The charts on the next two pages illustrate these changes in detail. 13 TRENDS - Experience With Lake Havasu City 2014 results show two important changes since 2010; more travelers west of the Mississippi are aware of Lake Havasu City, and there were significant gains in overnight and long-term visitors. The new overnight and long-term visitors were converted from those who previously heard of, but had never visited Lake Havasu City. As shown below, overnight visitors have increased while day visitors have remained essentially flat. This results in a very positive economic impact for the city, since each overnight travel party has a value of $662 in total average spend compared to day visitor parties who average $269. Experience With Lake Havasu City 2014 2010 16.6% OVERNIGHT VISITORS-NET 13.9% Visited overnight in the past 12 months 5.3%6.3% Visited overnight 2-3 years ago 3.7%5.1% Visited 3+ years ago 5.2% 4.9% LONG TERM VISITORS NET 2.5%3.3% Non-visitors
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • La Paz Transportation Planning Study
    LaLa PazPaz TTransportationransportation PlanningPlanning StudyStudy ExecutiveExecutive SummarySummary June 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PURPOSE .................................................................................................... 1 STUDY PROCESS.......................................................................................... 1 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................... 3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (TITLE VI) POPULATIONS...................................... 5 FUTURE GROWTH AREAS ............................................................................. 5 FUTURE ROAD AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS .................................................... 8 FUTURE MULTIMODAL CONDITIONS............................................................12 FUTURE FREIGHT CONDITIONS....................................................................12 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN .......................................................12 TRANSPORTATION VISION...........................................................................13 ALTERNATIVE ROAD NETWORK ANALYSIS...................................................13 RECOMMENDED ROAD PLAN ......................................................................21 RECOMMENDED MULTIMODAL ELEMENT....................................................27 RECOMMENDED FREIGHT ELEMENT............................................................30 IMPLEMENTATION .....................................................................................33 FUNDING SOURCES
    [Show full text]
  • Brenda SEZ Analysis: Draft PEIS
    1 8 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR 2 PROPOSED SOLAR ENERGY ZONES IN ARIZONA 3 4 5 8.1 BRENDA 6 7 8 8.1.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 9 10 11 8.1.1.1 General Information 12 13 The proposed Brenda Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) is located in La Paz County in west- 14 central Arizona (Figure 8.1.1.1-1), 32 mi (52 km) east of the California border. The SEZ has a 15 total area of 3,878 acres (16 km2). In 2008, the county population was 20,005, while adjacent 16 Riverside County to the west in California had a population of 2,087,917. The towns of 17 Quartzsite and Salome in La Paz County are about 18 mi (29 km) west of, and 18 mi (29 km) 18 east of, the SEZ respectively. The Phoenix metropolitan area is approximately 100 mi (161 km) 19 to the east of the SEZ, and Los Angeles is approximately 230 mi (370 km) to the west. 20 21 The nearest major road access to the SEZ is via U.S. 60, which runs southwest to 22 northeast, along the southeast border of the Brenda SEZ. The nearest railroad stop is 11 mi 23 (18 km) away. The nearest airports serving the area are the Blythe and Parker (Avi Suquilla) 24 Airports, both approximately 50 mi (80 km) from the SEZ, and neither of which have scheduled 25 commercial passenger service. The Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix is 125 mi (201 km) to the 26 east, and Yuma International Airport in Yuma is 104 mi (167 km) to the south, of the SEZ.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Water Conservation Plan
    WATER CONSERVATION PLAN LAKE HAVASU CITY, ARIZONA 2020 UPDATE Approved by Lake Havasu City Council on December 10, 2019 LAKE HAVASU CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 LOCATION ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 HISTORY .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 SIZE OF POPULATION ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.3.1 Population Projections ................................................................................. 1-3 1.4 NATURAL SETTING................................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.1 Climate/Weather ........................................................................................ 1-5 1.4.2 Topography/Soils ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 1-6 1.6 ZONING ................................................................................................................... 1-7 1.6.1 Classifications .............................................................................................. 1-7 1.6.2 Existing Land Uses .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ATTACHMENT B Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower
    ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT B Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower Colorado River This attachment to the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria DEIS describes the dams and reservoirs on the main stream of the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona to Morelos Dam along the international boundary with Mexico. The role that each plays in the operation of the Colorado River system is also explained. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COLORADO RIVER DAMS AND RESERVOIRS Lake Powell to Morelos Dam The following discussion summarizes the dams and reservoirs along the Colorado River from Lake Powell to the Southerly International Boundary (SIB) with Mexico and their specific roles in the operation of the Colorado River. Individual dams serve one or more specific purposes as designated in their federal construction authorizations. Such purposes are, water storage, flood control, river regulation, power generation, and water diversion to Arizona, Nevada, California, and Mexico. The All-American Canal is included in this summary because it conveys some of the water delivered to Mexico and thereby contributes to the river system operation. The dams and reservoirs are listed in the order of their location along the river proceeding downstream from Lake Powell. Their locations are shown on the map attached to the inside of the rear cover of this report. Glen Canyon Dam – Glen Canyon Dam, which formed Lake Powell, is a principal part of the Colorado River Storage Project. It is a concrete arch dam 710 feet high and 1,560 feet wide. The maximum generating discharge capacity is 33,200 cfs which may be augmented by an additional 15,000 cfs through the river outlet works.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Havasu City Recommended Landscaping Plant List
    Lake Havasu City Recommended Landscaping Plant List Lake Havasu City Recommended Landscaping Plant List Disclaimer Lake Havasu City has revised the recommended landscaping plant list. This new list consists of plants that can be adapted to desert environments in the Southwestern United States. This list only contains water conscious species classified as having very low, low, and low-medium water use requirements. Species that are classified as having medium or higher water use requirements were not permitted on this list. Such water use classification is determined by the type of plant, its average size, and its water requirements compared to other plants. For example, a large tree may be classified as having low water use requirements if it requires a low amount of water compared to most other large trees. This list is not intended to restrict what plants residents choose to plant in their yards, and this list may include plant species that may not survive or prosper in certain desert microclimates such as those with lower elevations or higher temperatures. In addition, this list is not intended to be a list of the only plants allowed in the region, nor is it intended to be an exhaustive list of all desert-appropriate plants capable of surviving in the region. This list was created with the intention to help residents, businesses, and landscapers make informed decisions on which plants to landscape that are water conscious and appropriate for specific environmental conditions. Lake Havasu City does not require the use of any or all plants found on this list. List Characteristics This list is divided between trees, shrubs, groundcovers, vines, succulents and perennials.
    [Show full text]
  • DINING GUIDE 76 O L 37 71 S 7 Rebel BBQ, Map #114
    LOCATIONS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER DISCOVER ARIZONA’S WEST COAST Lo N C a PAGE # n L 81 p do P a r i LAKE HAVASU CITY s k 82 B o e e 14 Pennington’s Pub, map #112............... .928.680.5555 n v lvd d A H e 83 B e t 79 a i 25 Pizza Hut, map #12 ......... 928.854.7817 or 928.680.7777 Downtown r l Channel i S v qu d d o a 86 80 78 lv map #59 g l s 25 Pizza Hut, ......... 928.854.7815 or 928.680.7777 LAKE HAVASU CITY B Walk District u Mes e h c A lo map #55 R 6 Place To Be, .................... .928.453.8339 38 v ul 74 d e 85 77 84 cC 25 PZA Pizzeria, map #78 .................... .928.733.6315 Island Medical P 39 90 M 73 District 35 88 N 72 14 R Bar and Grill, map #132 ................. .928.453.3876 (800) 242-8278 • GoLakeHavasu.com District 40 89 87 ve 15 R.O. Bar at The Red Onion, map #94......... .928.505.0302 36 70 A N 41 75 n DINING GUIDE 76 o L 37 71 s 7 Rebel BBQ, map #114.................... .928.764.5550 • American P an UTAH ak w 69 S 11 Red Elephant Express, map #118............ .928.733.6272 95 NEVADA EAT, DRINK • Asian e 42 15 Grand Canyon National Park Ha 95 7 Red Onion, The, map #95 ................. .928.505.0302 & ENJOY AT • Bars & Lounge 43 P S v 44 68 L 7 Red Robin, map #66 ....................
    [Show full text]
  • Salinity of Surface Water in the Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area
    Salinity of Surface Water in The Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 486-E Salinity of Surface Water in The Lower Colorado River- Salton Sea Area By BURDGE IRELAN WATER RESOURCES OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER SALTON SEA AREA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 486-E UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 72 610761 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Price 50 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Page Abstract . _.._.-_. ._...._ ..._ _-...._ ...._. ._.._... El Ionic budget of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to Introduction .._____. ..... .._..__-. - ._...-._..__..._ _.-_ ._... 2 Imperial Dam, 1961-65 Continued General chemical characteristics of Colorado River Tapeats Creek .._________________.____.___-._____. _ E26 water from Lees Ferry to Imperial Dam ____________ 2 Havasu Creek __._____________-...- _ __ -26 Lees Ferry .._._..__.___.______.__________ 4 Virgin River ..__ .-.._..-_ --....-. ._. 26 Grand Canyon ................._____________________..............._... 6 Unmeasured inflow between Grand Canyon and Hoover Dam ..........._._..- -_-._-._................-._._._._... 8 Hoover Dam .__-.....-_ .... .-_ . _. 26 Lake Havasu - -_......_....-..-........ .........._............._.... 11 Chemical changes in Lake Mead ............-... .-.....-..... 26 Imperial Dam .--. ........_. ...___.-_.___ _.__.__.._-_._.___ _ 12 Bill Williams River ......._.._......__.._....._ _......_._- 27 Mineral burden of the lower Colorado River, 1926-65 .
    [Show full text]
  • Golakehavasu.Com
    golakehavasu.com 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LONDON BRIDGE IN LAKE HAVASU CITY, ARIZONA FALL 2021 FACT SHEET Lake Havasu City sits on the eastern shore of Lake Havasu along the Colorado River border of California and Arizona. The city was established in 1963 by Robert P. McCulloch, Sr. as a self-sufficient, planned community. Lake Havasu City is located on what is known as "Arizona’s West Coast," just 3 hours west of Phoenix, 2½ hours south of Las Vegas and 4-5 hours east of the Los Angeles area. As part of the northern and western limits of the Sonoran Desert, Lake Havasu City and the surrounding area feature outstanding biodiversity absolutely loaded with beautiful experiences. The area regularly attracts nearly a million visitors annually with its historic London Bridge, pristine lake, friendly community, abundant sunshine and annual events, ideal weather and wide range of restaurants and lodging. More than 400 miles of stunning coastline offer London Bridge 50th Anniversary Fact Sheet 2 exceptional watersports, including fishing, skiing, kayaking and house boating. Visitors can also explore the lake from the beautiful beaches, campsites and hiking trails. Rated as one of the top 100 best bass fishing lakes in America, Lake Havasu is ideal for catching large and small-mouth bass and renowned as a striped bass fishery. The Lake Havasu region is also host to extensive off-road trails and undeveloped stretches of river. The London Bridge, purchased in 1968 to draw attention to McCulloch’s new community along the shores of the Colorado River, will celebrate the 50th anniversary of its rededication in October 2021, with a kick-off event planned Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 – Affected Environment
    Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Chapter 3 describes the environmental resources (physical, biological, cultural, recreational, and socioeconomic) that could be affected by the range of alternatives for implementing the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP), as described in Chapters 1 and 2. The extent to which each specific resource may be affected by each alternative is discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.1 3.1 PROJECT AREA The project area includes the area potentially affected by implementation of the LTEMP (including normal management and experimental operations of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions). This area includes Lake Powell, Glen Canyon Dam, and the river downstream to Lake Mead (Figure 3.1-1). More specifically, the scope primarily encompasses the Colorado River Ecosystem, which includes the Colorado River mainstream corridor and interacting resources in associated riparian and terrace zones, located primarily from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). It includes the area where dam operations impact physical, biological, recreational, cultural, and other resources. This section of the river runs through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons in Coconino and Mohave Counties in northwestern Arizona. Although this EIS focuses primarily on the Colorado River Ecosystem, the affected area varies by resources and extends outside of the immediate river corridor for some resources and cumulative impacts. Portions of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA), GCNP, and Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) outside the Colorado River Ecosystem are also included in the affected region for certain resources due to the potential effects of LTEMP operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Lakes to Visit in Arizona
    Top Lakes to Visit in Arizona Written by Leslie K. Hughes Any water seen in Phoenix for the next few months can either be attributed to monsoons or mirages. In order to quench your thirst for more consistent and tangible enjoyment of water, escape the Valley and head to one of Arizona’s refreshing lakes. The Grand Canyon state has a number of notable lakes hidden within its deserts; here are the most notable ones: MORMON LAKE Holding the title of Arizona’s biggest natural lake, Mormon Lake is a must-see. Southeast of Flagstaff, this lake provides a multitude of activities; from racing speedboats, to surfing, to fishing, Mormon Lake does not leave its visitors disappointed. Be aware, however, that during droughts the lake can dry up entirely, so be sure to check the notices on the website below before heading up North. You may even be lucky enough to catch sight of some buffalo while up there! Mormon Lake Lodge offers log cabin stays, or campgrounds for those more adventurous travelers. Make sure to grab a drink at the lodge’s 1880s-style saloon where you can give your two-step skills a whirl Friday and Saturday nights with live music performances. http://www.fs.usda.gov/coconino/ and http://www.mormonlakelodge.com/ LAKE PLEASANT On the border of Maricopa and Yavapai counties, Lake Pleasant is the go-to spot for a quick escape from the Valley heat. The lake was created by the Waddell Dam’s diversion of water from the Colorado River, and its clear blue water attracts outdoor enthusiasts from all over.
    [Show full text]
  • 1972 Operation of the Colorado Riyer Basin 1973 Projected 0Llcrations
    1972 Operation of the Colorado Riyer Basin 1973 Projected 0llcrations ANNUAL REPORT 1972 Operation of the Colorado River Basin 19i') Projected Ope tions (prepared pursuant to the Colorado River .Basin Project Act of 1968, Public Law 90-537) U. S. Department'of the Interior Rogers C.>B. Morton, Secretary Bureau of Reclamation Ellis L.Armstrong, Commissioner January 1973 Table of Contents Page Map - Upper Colorado and Lower Colorado River Basins ..... Inside Cover Authority for Report .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ......ii Introduction' ....... ~ ........ ... ........ .. .... .. .. .ii ActualOperations under Criteria -Water Year·1972 .....•.... 1 Upper Basin Reservoirs ..•.... ... ... ... .................2 Lower Basin Reservoirs ........... .. .............. 14 River Regulation ' 20 Beneficial Consumptive Uses 21 Upper Basin Uses >••••.••••••••••••• 21 LowerBasin Uses and Losses 21 Water Quality Control.. .. ...... .. ................ .' . .. 22 Water Quality Operationsduring Water Year 1972 .. 22 Future Water Quality Control.. .......... .. ... .. ..... .. 22 Enhancement of Fish and Wildlife ........ .. .... .. .. .. 23 Upper Basin 23 Lower Basin 23 Preservation of Environni"ent 2S Projected Plan of Operation under Criteria for Current Year 26 Determination of "602(a) Storage" .. .. ...... .. ..... .'. ..26 Lower Basin Requirements .................. .>. ........ 27 Plan of Operation Water Year 1973 ... .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .... 29 Upper Basin Reservoirs .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ..... .. .. .• .. .. 29 Lower Basin Reservoirs .... .. ...................... 33 At the end of September 1971, Blue Mesa Curee Bti Unit Reservoir had 532,300 acre-feet of active storage and a water surface elevation of 7,484 feet. During April-July 1972, inflow to Blue Mesa was 469,000 acre-feet, or about 59 percent of the long-time average. This amount of water caused the reservoir to reach a seasonal high of 7,485 feet and an active storage of 543,300 acre-feet early mJuly. During water year 1972, fishing was enhanced below Gunnison Tunnel by the flow of not less than 300 c.f.s.
    [Show full text]