DOCSLIB.ORG

Final ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for PARKER - PLANET TAP 69-KV TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, UPGRADE and RIGHT-OF-WAY ACTION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for PARKER - PLANET TAP 69-KV TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, UPGRADE and RIGHT-OF-WAY ACTION Final ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PARKER - PLANET TAP 69-KV TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, UPGRADE AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACTION Western No: DOE/EA-1685 DOI-BLM-AZ-C030-2009-0051-EA COOPERATING AGENCIES: US Bureau of Land Management US Fish and Wildlife Service Prepared For: US Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration 615 South 43rd Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85009 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOE/EA-1685 DOI-BLM-AZ-C030-2009-0051-EA Parker–Planet Tap 69-kV Transmission Line Rebuild, Upgrade, and Right-of-Way Action San Bernardino County, California and Mohave and La Paz Counties, Arizona LEAD AGENCY US Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration 615 South 43rd Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85009 COOPERATING AGENCIES Bureau of Land Management Lake Havasu Field Office 2610 Sweetwater Avenue Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86406 US Fish and Wildlife Service Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge 60911 Highway 95 Parker, Arizona 86344 June 2010 This page is intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Project Area .............................................................................................................. 6 1.2.2 Phase I: Parker to Buckskin Tap ............................................................................... 8 1.2.3 Phase II: Buckskin Tap to SWCT #1 ........................................................................ 8 1.2.4 ROW Decisions to be Made ..................................................................................... 9 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................. 10 1.3.1 Western’s Underlying Purpose ............................................................................... 11 1.3.2 BLM’s Underlying Purpose .................................................................................... 13 1.3.3 USFWS’s Underlying Purpose ............................................................................... 13 1.4 APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIRED COORDINATION ......................................................................................................... 14 1.5 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND ENTITLEMENTS ......................................................... 15 1.6 SCOPING ISSUES ........................................................................................................ 15 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................................ 18 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................... 18 2.1.1 Western’s Proposed Action..................................................................................... 18 2.1.2 BLM and USFWS’s Proposed Action .................................................................... 19 2.1.3 Construction Activities and Sequence .................................................................... 19 2.1.4 ROW Needs from BLM and USFWS ..................................................................... 20 2.1.5 Parking and Assembly Area.................................................................................... 20 2.1.6 Access Roads .......................................................................................................... 20 2.1.7 Design ..................................................................................................................... 22 2.1.8 Site Clearing............................................................................................................ 23 2.1.9 Electrical Outages ................................................................................................... 24 2.1.10 Structure Assembly and Erection............................................................................ 25 2.1.11 Excavation and Foundations ................................................................................... 25 2.1.12 Conductor Stringing ................................................................................................ 26 2.1.13 Right-of-Way and Access Road Restoration .......................................................... 27 2.1.14 Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................... 28 2.2 RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES ................................................................... 28 2.2.1 BLM Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 28 2.3 ADDITIONAL COORDINATION ............................................................................... 33 2.4 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................... 33 2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT FURTHER EVALUATED ................. 34 2.6 CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE PLANs ............................................................ 34 2.6.1 USFWS Lower Colorado River NWR Management Plan ...................................... 34 2.6.2 BLM Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan................................ 35 2.6.3 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans ............................................ 35 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSQUENCES................ 36 Parker Planet 69-kV Transmission Line DOE/EA-1685 DOI-BLM-AZ-C030-2009-0051-EA page i Final Environmental Assessment 3.1 RESOURCES CONSIDERED BUT NOT FURTHER EVALUATED ........................ 36 3.1.1 Law Enforcement .................................................................................................... 36 3.1.2 Travel Management ................................................................................................ 37 3.1.3 Farmlands, Grazing, and Rangelands ..................................................................... 37 3.1.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice/Title IV ............................................. 37 3.1.5 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................. 38 3.1.6 Geology ................................................................................................................... 38 3.1.7 Navigable Waterways ............................................................................................. 39 3.1.8 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 40 3.1.9 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern............................................................... 40 3.2 LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP .................................................................................. 41 3.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 41 3.2.1.1 Land Ownership and Jurisdiction .................................................................... 41 3.2.1.2 Existing Land Use ........................................................................................... 41 3.2.1.3 Planned Land Use and Zoning......................................................................... 44 3.2.1.4 Recreation ........................................................................................................ 44 3.2.1.5 Wilderness Areas ............................................................................................. 45 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 45 3.3 VISUAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 49 3.3.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 49 3.3.1.1 BLM Lake Havasu Field Office ...................................................................... 49 3.3.1.2 USFWS Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge .................................. 50 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 51 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 52 3.4.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 53 3.4.1.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 53 3.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences Native Plants ................................................... 54 3.4.1.3 Environmental Consequences Non-Native Plants ........................................... 56 3.4.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 57 3.4.2.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 57 3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 58 3.4.3 Threatened or Endangered Species ......................................................................... 61 3.4.3.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................
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]
  • Water Resources of Bill Williams River Valley Near Alamo, Arizona
    Water Resources of Bill Williams River Valley Near Alamo, Arizona GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1360-D DEC 10 1956 Water Resources of Bill Williams River Valley Near Alamo, Arizona By H. N. WOLCOTT, H. E. SKIBITZKE, and L. C. HALPENNY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1360-D An investigation of the availability of water in the area of the Artillery Mountains manganese deposits UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1956 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fred A. Seaton, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 45 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract....................................................................................................................................... 291 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 292 Purpose.................................................................................................................................... 292 Location................................................................................................................................... 292 Climatological data............................................................................................................... 292 History of development........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Movements of Sonic Tagged Razorback Suckers Between Davis and Parker Dams (Lake Havasu) 2007–2010
    Movements of Sonic Tagged Razorback Suckers between Davis and Parker Dams (Lake Havasu) 2007–2010 May 2012 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Steering Committee Members Federal Participant Group California Participant Group Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service City of Needles National Park Service Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Board of California Bureau of Indian Affairs Bard Water District Western Area Power Administration Imperial Irrigation District Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Palo Verde Irrigation District Arizona Participant Group San Diego County Water Authority Southern California Edison Company Arizona Department of Water Resources Southern California Public Power Authority Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Arizona Game and Fish Department California Arizona Power Authority Central Arizona Water Conservation District Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Nevada Participant Group City of Bullhead City City of Lake Havasu City Colorado River Commission of Nevada City of Mesa Nevada Department of Wildlife City of Somerton Southern Nevada Water Authority City of Yuma Colorado River Commission Power Users Electrical District No. 3, Pinal County, Arizona Basic Water Company Golden Shores Water Conservation District Mohave County Water Authority Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Native American Participant Group Mohave Water Conservation District North Gila Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Hualapai Tribe Town of Fredonia Colorado River Indian Tribes Town of Thatcher Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Town of Wickenburg Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Unit “B” Irrigation and Drainage District Conservation Participant Group Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District Yuma County Water Users’ Association Ducks Unlimited Yuma Irrigation District Lower Colorado River RC&D Area, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Resources of the Swansea Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Mohave Counties, Arizona
    MINERAL RESOURCES OF THE SWANSEA WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, LA PAZ AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA By Richard M. Tosdall, Robert G. Eppinger2, H. Richard Blank, Jr.2, Daniel H. Knepper, Jr.2, Andrea J. Gallagher2, James A. Pitkin2, and Stephanie L. Jones1 U.S. Geological Survey and George S. Ryan2 U.S. Bureau of Mines U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-0521 Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey 'Menlo Park, CA 94025 2Denver, CO 80225 1990 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines to conduct mineral surveys on cenain areas to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present. Results must be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report presents the results of a mineral survey of the Swansea Wilderness Study Area (AZ-050415A), La Paz and Mohave Counties, Arizona. 2 CONTENTS Summary 5 Abstract 5 Character and setting 5 Identified resources 6 Mineral resource potential 7 Introduction 7 Location and physiography 7 Previous work 7 Methods of study 8 Acknowledgments 8 Appraisal
    [Show full text]
  • Razorback Suckers Are Making a Comeback in the Upper Colorado River Basin
    Winter 13 Razorback suckers are making a comeback in the upper Colorado River basin iologists are thrilled that the recovery programs’ stocking Hatchery programs have been very successful. In the upper efforts are bearing fruit and razorback suckers are becom- basin, razorback suckers are being raised by the Ouray National Bing more numerous throughout the upper Colorado River Fish Hatchery, Randlett and Grand Valley units near Vernal, Utah basin. “We catch so many razorbacks these days; it takes us lon- and Grand Junction, Colorado. Following analysis of razorback ger to complete our Colorado pikeminnow sampling trips,” says sucker stocking and survival by Colorado State University’s Larval U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) researcher Travis Francis. Fish Lab, the Recovery Program increased the size of razorback Historically, the razorback sucker occurred throughout warm- sucker for stocking from an average of about 11 inches to about 14 water reaches of the Colorado River Basin from Mexico to Wyoming. PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY UDWR-MOAB inches and is stocking the fish in the fall when fish survive better. When this species was listed in 1991, its numbers were much reduced To increase growth, the Program raises the fish in a combination and biologists were worried it might become extinct. Thanks to of outdoor ponds during warmer months and indoor tanks in the the efforts of the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation winter. Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery This past summer, many wild-spawned razorback larvae drift- Program, these fish are making a real comeback today. Hatchery- ed from a middle Green River spawning bar into the Stewart Lake produced fish are being stocked to re-establish the species in the JUVENILE RAZORBACK SUCKER, MAY, 2013 wetland about 11 miles downstream.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Assessment Units
    APPENDIX A ASSESSMENT UNITS SURFACE WATER REACH DESCRIPTION REACH/LAKE NUM WATERSHED Agua Fria River 341853.9 / 1120358.6 - 341804.8 / 15070102-023 Middle Gila 1120319.2 Agua Fria River State Route 169 - Yarber Wash 15070102-031B Middle Gila Alamo 15030204-0040A Bill Williams Alum Gulch Headwaters - 312820/1104351 15050301-561A Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312820 / 1104351 - 312917 / 1104425 15050301-561B Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312917 / 1104425 - Sonoita Creek 15050301-561C Santa Cruz Alvord Park Lake 15060106B-0050 Middle Gila American Gulch Headwaters - No. Gila Co. WWTP 15060203-448A Verde River American Gulch No. Gila County WWTP - East Verde River 15060203-448B Verde River Apache Lake 15060106A-0070 Salt River Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Cyn Wilderness - San Pedro River 15050203-004C San Pedro Aravaipa Creek Stowe Gulch - end Aravaipa C 15050203-004B San Pedro Arivaca Cienega 15050304-0001 Santa Cruz Arivaca Creek Headwaters - Puertocito/Alta Wash 15050304-008 Santa Cruz Arivaca Lake 15050304-0080 Santa Cruz Arnett Creek Headwaters - Queen Creek 15050100-1818 Middle Gila Arrastra Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-848 Middle Gila Ashurst Lake 15020015-0090 Little Colorado Aspen Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-769 Verde River Babbit Spring Wash Headwaters - Upper Lake Mary 15020015-210 Little Colorado Babocomari River Banning Creek - San Pedro River 15050202-004 San Pedro Bannon Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-774 Verde River Barbershop Canyon Creek Headwaters - East Clear Creek 15020008-537 Little Colorado Bartlett Lake 15060203-0110 Verde River Bear Canyon Lake 15020008-0130 Little Colorado Bear Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-046 Middle Gila Bear Wallow Creek N. and S. Forks Bear Wallow - Indian Res.
    [Show full text]
  • 905 Xxii. Appendix
    APPENDIX 905 XXII. APPENDIX 1. Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 PUBLIC LAW 101–628—NOV. 28, 1990 104 STAT. 4469 Public Law 101–628 101st Congress An Act To provide for the designation of certain public lands as wilderness in the State of Nov. 28, 1990 Arizona. [H.R. 2570] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.—Titles I through III of this Act may be Arizona Desert cited as the “Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990”. Wilderness Act of 1990. TITLE I—DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS TO BE 16 USC 460ddd ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT note. National Wilderness SEC. 101. DESIGNATION AND MANAGEMENT. Preservation System. (a) DESIGNATION.—In furtherance of the purposes of the 16 USC 1132 Wilderness Act, the following public lands are hereby designated as note. wilderness and therefore, as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System: (1) certain lands in Mohave County, Arizona, which comprise approximately 23,600 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled “Mount Wilson Wilderness” and dated February 1990, and which shall be known as the Mount Wilson Wilderness; (2) certain lands in Mohave County, Arizona, which comprise approximately 31,070 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled “Mount Tipton Wilderness” and dated February 1990, and which shall be known as the Mount Tipton Wilderness; (3) certain lands in Mohave County, Arizona, which comprise approximately 27,530 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes As a Template for Reticulate Evolution
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 12-2016 Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America Max Russell Bangs University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Evolution Commons, Molecular Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Bangs, Max Russell, "Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1847. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1847 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biology by Max Russell Bangs University of South Carolina Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences, 2009 University of South Carolina Master of Science in Integrative Biology, 2011 December 2016 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. _____________________________________ Dr. Michael E. Douglas Dissertation Director _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Marlis R. Douglas Dr. Andrew J. Alverson Dissertation Co-Director Committee Member _____________________________________ Dr. Thomas F. Turner Ex-Officio Member Abstract Hybridization is neither simplistic nor phylogenetically constrained, and post hoc introgression can have profound evolutionary effects.
    [Show full text]
  • March 1988 Vol
    March 1988 Vol. XIII No. 3 Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Technical Bulletin Service, Washington, D.C. 20204 Help Is On the Way for Rare Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin Sharon Rose and John Hamill Denver Regional Office On January 21-22, 1988, the Governors of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah joined Secretary of the Interior Model and the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration in signing a cooperative agreement to implement a recovery pro- gram for rare and endangered species of fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The recovery program is a milestone effort that coordinates Federal, State, and private actions to conserve the fish in a manner compatible with States' water rights allocation systems and the various interstate compacts that guide water al- location, development, and management in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River is over 1,400 miles long, passes through two countries, and has a drainage basin of 242,000 square miles in the United States, yet it provides less water per square mile in its basin than any other major river system in the United States. Demands on this limited resource are high. The Colorado River serves 15 million people by supplying water for irrigation, hydroelectric power generation, industrial and municipal pur- poses, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. The headwater streams of the Upper Colorado River originate in the Rocky and Uinta Mountains. Downstream, the main- stem river historically was characterized by silty, turbulent flows with large varia- tions in annual discharge. The native warmwater fishes adapted to this de- manding environment; however, to meet 'J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorado River: Lifeline Of
    4 The Colorado River: lifeline of the American Southwest Clarence A. Carlson Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 80523 Robert T. Muth Larval Fish Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 80523 1 Carlson, C. A., and R. T. Muth. 1986. The Colorado River: lifeline of the American Southwest. Can. J. Fish. Aguat. Sci. In less than a century, the wild Colorado River has been drastically and irreversibly transformed into a tamed, man-made system of regulated segments dominated by non-native organisms. The pristine Colorado was characterized by widely fluctuating flows and physico-chemical extremes and harbored unique assemblages of indigenous flora and fauna. Closure of Hoover Dam in 1935 marked the end of the free-flowing river. The Colorado River System has since become one of the most altered and intensively controlled in the United States. Many main-stem and tributary dams, water diversions, and channelized river sections now exist in the basin. Despite having one of - the most arid drainages in the world, the present-day Colorado River supplies more water for consumptive use than any river in the United States. Physical modification of streams and introduction of non-native species have adversely impacted the Colorado's native biota. This paper treats the Colorado River holistically as an ecosystem and summarizes current knowledge on its ecology and management. "In a little over two generations, the wild Colorado has been harnessed by a series of dams strung like beads on a thread from the Gulf of California to the mountains of Wyoming.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Sediment Dynamics in the Bill Williams River, Arizona
    Analysis of sediment dynamics in the Bill Williams River, Arizona Andrew C. Wilcox and Franklin Dekker Department of Geosciences Center for Riverine Science and Stream Renaturalization University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812-1296 Paul Gremillion (Northern Arizona University) and David Walker (University of Arizona) Collaborators: Patrick Shafroth (USGS), Cliff Riebe (University of Wyoming), Kyle House (USGS), John Stella (State University of New York) Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, via Rocky Mountains Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (RM-CESU) February 6, 2013 DRAFT FINAL REPORT Table of Contents Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 Catchment Erosion Rates and Sediment Mixing in a Dammed Dryland River ............................. 11 Dryland River Grain-Size Variation due to Damming, Tributary Confluences, and Valley Confinement ................................................................................................................................. 28 Analysis of Sediment Dynamics in the Bill Williams River, Arizona: Hydroacoustic Surveys and Sediment Coring ............................................................................................................................ 46 Coupled Hydrogeomorphic and Woody-Seedling Responses to Controlled Flood
    [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]