Drought Conditions in Utah During 1999-2002: a Historical Perspective

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Drought Conditions in Utah During 1999-2002: a Historical Perspective Drought Conditions in Utah During 1999-2002: A Historical Perspective Soda Springs Introduction 2001, to September 30, 2002): Colorado River Smiths Fork near RiverBear near Cisco, San Juan River near Bluff, and 114° IDAHO Lake Border, Wyoming ° 42° 109 Bear Green Virgin River at Virgin. At two other gages in “When the well is dry, we learn River WYOMING River Logan eastern Utah, Whiterocks River near Whiterocks the worth of water” - Ben Franklin, Bear Green River Evanston Ogden Flaming and Green River near Green River, 2002 was from Poor Richard’s Almanac, 1733 Web Gorge er R Reservoir Great Fork the second driest year on record. Streamflow iv Blacks Salt e r Lake Weber River near Oakley Jordan Salt in the Upper Colorado River Basin has been so River Utah’s weather is prone to extremes—from Lake D City u c h low that the water surface of Lake Powell is severe flooding to multiyear droughts. Five es neR Provo iv Whiterockse River White COLORADO predicted to be 80 feet below the fill level by Utah r major floods occurred during 1952, 1965, 1966, near Whiterocks Lake River r e January 2003 (Bureau of Reclamation, 2002). v 1983, and 1984, and six multiyear droughts i R P n The water level of Lake Powell is currently e NEVADA r occurred during 1896-1905, 1930-36, 1953-65, i e ce r R G iv (2003) low enough near Hite Marina (at the 1974-78 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1991), and UTAH er M u Green River upstream end of the lake) that much of the d more recently during 1988-93 and 1999-2002. Sevier r d at Green River e r y v e Lake i v R i C R r riverbed of the Colorado and Dirty Devil Rivers (Dry) r r e Colorado River The areal extent of floods generally is limited e ie e v v k Se near Cisco a e D i is exposed, as are the deltaic sediments that have B r in size from one to several watersheds, whereas F r ty re ve D River mont Ri e Beaver River v i been deposited since the lake began filling in l droughts generally affect most or all of the state. near Beaver R i v e r 1963 (fig. 2). Southern Utah, in particular the Virgin River a Esc lante Ri Colorado ve The adjacent states of Colorado, Arizona, drainage basin, began experiencing drought Cedar City r Sa iver and New Mexico also have been experiencing conditions during the winter of 1998-99. By n Rive n n R rgi r Jua Vi Virgin River near Virgin extreme drought conditions and the negative 2000, drought conditions were evident St George 37° San Juan River ARIZONA Lake near Bluff impacts that result. Record-sized forest fires throughout all of Utah. The current drought Powell during the summer of 2002 in Arizona and (1999-2002) is comparable in length and 0 20 40 60 MILES EXPLANATION 0 20 40 60 KILOMETERS Colorado were directly related to the extremely magnitude to previous droughts; however, with Streamflow-gaging station population growth and increased demand for Observation well dry conditions. water in Utah, the general effect is more severe. Figure 1. Location map of selected Precipitation During 2002, the fourth straight year of streamflow-gaging stations in Utah and Precipitation directly affects streamflow. nearly statewide drought conditions, some areas Wyoming. Under normal precipitation conditions, Utah of Utah experienced record-low streamflows. receives less precipitation than every other state Several record-low streamflows occurred in streamflow-gaging stations for comparison of except Nevada. Average annual precipitation at streams with records dating back to the 1900s. hydrologic conditions in Utah (fig. 1). Three of Salt Lake City is about 16.5 inches, and The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) uses these gages registered new record-low annual precipitation statewide ranges from about 5 streamflow data from eight long-term streamflows for water year 2002 (October 1, Colorado State Route 95 bridge River Dirty Devil River Hite Exposed river delta Lake Powell Figure 2. Lake Powell near Hite, Utah, showing exposed channel of the Colorado and Dirty Devil Rivers, which are normally flooded by the lake, as well as the deltaic sediments that are deposited at the upper end of the lake; view to east in October 2002. U.S. Department of the Interior USGS Fact Sheet 037-03 U.S. Geological Survey April 2003 6 pressure ridges can dominate over the Western United States and push storm systems northward. These persistent high-pressure ridges result in 4 decreased snowfall in Utah mountain ranges (U.S. Geological Survey, 1991). Mountain 2 snowpacks have generally been below normal statewide since the winter of 1998-99, and Utah has experienced significant reductions in spring 0 runoff since 2000. Many Federal and State government agencies use the Palmer Drought Severity Index -2 INDEX VALUE (PDSI) to classify and assess long-term meteorological droughts (Hayes, 2002). The PDSI drought index responds to abnormally wet -4 or dry weather conditions and classifies the conditions on a scale from -6 to 6. On this scale, -6 -4.0 or less signifies extreme drought conditions and 4.0 or more signifies extremely wet conditions. Summarized data from the Utah 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2002 State University Climate Center in Logan, Utah Figure 3. Palmer Drought Severity Index for Utah, 1895-2002. (Donald Jensen, written commun., 2002), illustrates the variable nature of precipitation in inches on the Great Salt Lake Desert to about thunderstorms with moisture originating from Utah (fig. 3). On the basis of the PDSI 60 inches in the highest mountains (Butler and the Gulf of Mexico. classification scale, the droughts of 1988-93 and Marsell, 1972). Three types of moisture- Pacific frontal storms generally produce 1999-2002 are severe to extreme, but conditions producing weather systems generally account winter mountain snowpack, and the subsequent are not as dry as those during 1896-1905 (fig. for most precipitation in Utah: Pacific frontal spring snowmelt increases river flows and 3). systems, dissipating tropical storms, and summer reservoir levels. During some winters, high- 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 12,000 350 Colorado River near Cisco, UT Virgin River near Virgin, UT Average annual 10,000 1914-2002 average annual Average 300 1910-2002 average annual streamflow streamflow 5,297,000 acre-feet annual streamflow 144,000 acre-feet streamflow 250 8,000 No data 200 for this 6,000 period 150 4,000 100 2,000 50 0 0 200 250 Smith's Fork near Border, WY 175 Whiterocks River near Whiterocks, UT Average 200 1943-2002 average annual 150 1930-2002 average annual annual streamflow 139,500 acre-feet streamflow 81,900 acre-feet streamflow 125 150 100 75 100 Average annual 50 50 streamflow 25 0 0 10,000 350 Average Weber River near Oakley, UT Average Green River near Green River, UT 300 8,000 1906-2002 average annual annual 1905-2002 average annual annual streamflow 4,463,000 acre-feet streamflow 250 streamflow 158,500 acre-feet streamflow , IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS OF , 6,000 200 4,000 150 100 2,000 50 0 0 5,000 100 STREAMFLOW San Juan River near Bluff, UT Beaver River near Beaver, UT Average 4,000 1916,1928,1930-2002 average annual 1915-2002 average annual annual Average streamflow 1,638,000 acre-feet 75 streamflow 37,680 acre-feet streamflow annual 3,000 streamflow 50 2,000 25 1,000 0 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Figure 4. Relation of annual streamflow to average annual streamflow for the period of record. Table 1. Chronology of major and other memorable floods and droughts in Utah, 1884-2002 Flood or Date Area affected Remarks drought Flood July 4, 1884 Colorado River Probably snowmelt combined with rainfall. Drought 1896-1907 Statewide Regional. Flood Aug. 13, 1923 Tributaries to Great Salt Lake between Ogden and Salt Locally intense thunderstorms. Deaths, 7; damage, Lake City $300,000. Drought 1930-36 Statewide Regional. Flood Apr. 28-June 11, 1952 Strawberry, upper Price, upper San Rafael, Ogden, Weber, Melting of snowpack having maximum-of-record water Provo, and Jordan Rivers; Blacksmith and Spanish Fork; content for Apr. 1. Disaster declared. Deaths, 2; damage, upper Muddy and Chalk Creeks $8.4 million. Drought 1953-65 Statewide Regional. Flood June 16, 1963 Duchesne River Dam failure. Flood June 10-11, 1965 Ashley Creek and other streams between Manila and Three days of intense rainfall on thick snowpack above Vernal, and west of Manila altitude of 9,200 feet. Deaths, 7; damage, $814,000. Flood Dec. 6-7, 1966 Virgin and Santa Clara Rivers Four days of light to intense rainfall of as much as 12 inches. Damage, $1.4 million. Flood Aug. 1-2, 1968 Cottonwood Wash and other nearby tributaries to San Locally intense thunderstorms following 11 days of rainfall. Juan River Damage, $34,000. Flood Sept. 5-7, 1970 San Juan River and tributaries from McElmo Creek to Record-breaking rainfall. Deaths, 2; damage, $700,000. Chinle Creek Flood Aug. 27, 1972 Vernon Creek Locally intense thunderstorms. Drought 1974-78 Statewide Regional. Flood Apr. 10-June 25, 1983 Lower Duchesne and Jordan Rivers and tributaries Rapid melting of snowpack having maximum-of-record (including Spanish Fork); upper Price, Bear, Sevier, and water content for June 1.
Recommended publications
  • A Preliminary Assessment of Archaeological Resources Within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah
    A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, UTAH by David B. Madsen Common rock art elements of the Fremont and Anasazi on the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. ,I!! CIRCULAR 95 . 1997 I~\' UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ." if;~~ 6EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ISBN 1-55791-605-5 STATE OF UTAH Michael O. Leavitt, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Ted Stewart, Executive Director UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY M. Lee Allison~ Director UGS Board Member Representing Russell C. Babcock, Jr. (chairman) .................................................................................................. Mineral Industry D. Cary Smith ................................................................................................................................... Mineral Industry Richard R. Kennedy ....................................................................................................................... Civil Engineering E.H. Deedee O'Brien ......................................................................................................................... Public-at-Large C. William Berge .............................................................................................................................. Mineral Industry Jerry Golden ..................................................................................................................................... Mineral Industry Milton E. Wadsworth ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Relation of Sediment Load and Flood-Plain Formation to Climatic Variability, Paria River Drainage Basin, Utah and Arizona
    Relation of sediment load and flood-plain formation to climatic variability, Paria River drainage basin, Utah and Arizona JULIA B. GRAF U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 375 S. Euclid, Tucson, Arizona 85719 ROBERT H. WEBB U.S. Geological Survey, 1675 W. Anklam Road, Tucson, Arizona 85745 RICHARD HEREFORD U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Division, 2255 North Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 ABSTRACT sediment load for a given discharge declined fill that rises 1-5 m above the modern channel abruptly in the early 1940s in the Colorado bed. Flood-plain deposits are present in all Suspended-sediment load, flow volume, River at Grand Canyon (Daines, 1949; Howard, major tributaries of the Paria River. The area of and flood characteristics of the Paria River 1960; Thomas and others, 1960; Hereford, flood plains is slightly greater than 20 km2, and were analyzed to determine their relation to 1987a). The decline in suspended-sediment sediment volume is estimated to be about 40 climate and flood-plain alluviation between loads has been attributed to improved land use million m3 (Hereford, 1987c). Typically, flood 1923 and 1986. Flood-plain alluviation began and conservation measures initiated in the 1930s plains are not present in first-order drainage ba- about 1940 at a time of decreasing magnitude (Hadley, 1977). A change in sediment-sampler sins but are present in basins of second and and frequency of floods in winter, summer, type and in methods of analysis have been higher order where the stream channel is uncon- and fall. No floods with stages high enough to discounted as causes for the observed decrease fined and crosses nonresistant bedrock forma- inundate the flood plain have occurred since (Daines, 1949; Thomas and others, 1960).
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 1
    Appendix 1. Summary of location, basin, and hydrological-regime characteristics for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona and parts of adjacent states that were used to calibrate hydrological-regime models [Hydrologic provinces: 1, Plateau Uplands; 2, Central Highlands; 3, Basin and Range Lowlands; e, value not present in database and was estimated for the purpose of model development] Average percent of Latitude, Longitude, Site Complete Number of Percent of year with Hydrologic decimal decimal Hydrologic altitude, Drainage area, years of perennial years no flow, Identifier Name unit code degrees degrees province feet square miles record years perennial 1950-2005 09379050 LUKACHUKAI CREEK NEAR 14080204 36.47750 109.35010 1 5,750 160e 5 1 20% 2% LUKACHUKAI, AZ 09379180 LAGUNA CREEK AT DENNEHOTSO, 14080204 36.85389 109.84595 1 4,985 414.0 9 0 0% 39% AZ 09379200 CHINLE CREEK NEAR MEXICAN 14080204 36.94389 109.71067 1 4,720 3,650.0 41 0 0% 15% WATER, AZ 09382000 PARIA RIVER AT LEES FERRY, AZ 14070007 36.87221 111.59461 1 3,124 1,410.0 56 56 100% 0% 09383200 LEE VALLEY CR AB LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.50204 1 9,440e 1.3 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383220 LEE VALLEY CREEK TRIBUTARY 15020001 33.93894 109.50204 1 9,440e 0.5 6 0 0% 49% NEAR GREER, ARIZ. 09383250 LEE VALLEY CR BL LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.49787 1 9,400e 1.9 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383400 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER AT GREER, 15020001 34.01671 109.45731 1 8,283 29.1 22 22 100% 0% ARIZ.
    [Show full text]
  • West Colorado River Plan
    Section 9 - West Colorado River Basin Water Planning and Development 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Background 9-1 9.3 Water Resources Problems 9-7 9.4 Water Resources Demands and Needs 9-7 9.5 Water Development and Management Alternatives 9-13 9.6 Projected Water Depletions 9-18 9.7 Policy Issues and Recommendations 9-19 Figures 9-1 Price-San Rafael Salinity Control Project Map 9-6 9-2 Wilderness Lands 9-11 9-3 Potential Reservoir Sites 9-16 9-4 Gunnison Butte Mutual Irrigation Project 9-20 9-5 Bryce Valley 9-22 Tables 9-1 Board of Water Resources Development Projects 9-3 9-2 Salinity Control Project Approved Costs 9-7 9-3 Wilderness Lands 9-8 9-4 Current and Projected Culinary Water Use 9-12 9-5 Current and Projected Secondary Water Use 9-12 9-6 Current and Projected Agricultural Water Use 9-13 9-7 Summary of Current and Projected Water Demands 9-14 9-8 Historical Reservoir Site Investigations 9-17 Section 9 West Colorado River Basin - Utah State Water Plan Water Planning and Development 9.1 Introduction The coordination and cooperation of all This section describes the major existing water development projects and proposed water planning water-related government agencies, and development activities in the West Colorado local organizations and individual River Basin. The existing water supplies are vital to water users will be required as the the existence of the local communities while also basin tries to meet its future water providing aesthetic and environmental values.
    [Show full text]
  • MS4 Route Mapping PRIORITIZATION PARAMETERS
    MS4 Route Mapping PRIORITIZATION PARAMETERS Approx. ADOT Named or Average Annual Length Year Age OAW/Impaired/ Not‐ Within 1/4 Pollutants ADOT Designated Pollutants Route ADOT Districts Annual Traffic Receiving Waters TMDL? Given Precipitation (mi) Installed (yrs) Attaining Waters? Mile? (per EPA) Pollutant? Uses (per EPA) (Vehicles/yr) WLA? (inches) SR 24 (802) 1.0 2014 5 Central 11,513,195 Queen Creek N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 SR 51 16.7 1987 32 Central 61,081,655 Salt River N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 SR 61 76.51 1935 84 Northeast 775,260 Little Colorado River Y (Not attaining) N E. Coli N FBC Y E. Coli N 7 Sediment Y A&Wc Y Sediment N SR 64 108.31 1932 87 Northcentral 2,938,250 Colorado River Y (Impaired) N Sediment Y A&Wc N ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.5 Selenium Y A&Wc N ‐‐ ‐‐ SR 66 66.59 1984 35 Northwest 5,154,530 Truxton Wash N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7 SR 67 43.4 1941 78 Northcentral 39,055 House Rock Wash N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 17 Kanab Creek N ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ SR 68 27.88 1941 78 Northwest 5,557,490 Colorado River Y (Impaired) Y Temperature N A&Ww N ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 SR 69 33.87 1938 81 Northwest 17,037,470 Granite Creek Y (Not attaining) Y E. Coli N A&Wc, FBC, FC, AgI, AgL Y E. Coli Y 9.5 Watson Lake Y (Not attaining) Y TN Y ‐‐ Y TN Y DO N A&Ww Y DO Y pH N A&Ww, FBC, AgI, AgL Y pH Y TP Y ‐‐ Y TP Y SR 71 24.16 1936 83 Northwest 296,015 Sols Wash/Hassayampa River Y (Impaired, Not attaining) Y E.
    [Show full text]
  • Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. July 22, 2021 Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015 Effective March 17, 2021 The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states and federally recognized Indian tribes to adopt water quality standards in order to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's Waters" (CWA, 1988). The attached WQS document is in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with the exception of the following provisions. Navajo Nation’s previously approved criteria for these provisions remain the applicable for CWA purposes. The “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015” (NNSWQS 2015) made changes amendments to the “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2007” (NNSWQS 2007). For federal Clean Water Act permitting purposes, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) must approve these changes to the NNSWQS 2007 which are found in the NNSWQS 2015. The USEPA did not approve of three specific changes which were made to the NNSWQS 2007 and are in the NNSWQS 2015. (October 15, 2020 Letter from USEPA to Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency). The three specific changes which USEPA did not accept are: 1) Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat Designated Use - Suspended Solids Changes (NNSWQS 2015 Section 207.E) The suspended soils standard for aquatic and wildlife habitat designated use was changed to only apply to flowing (lotic) surface waters and not to non-flowing (lentic) surface waters.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of UTAH DEPARTMENT of NATURAL RESOURCES Technical
    STATE OF UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Technical Publication No. 70 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN THE UPPER VIRGIN RIVER AND KANAB CREEK BASINS AREA, UTAH, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE NAVAJO SANDSTONE by R. M. Cordova Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Prepared by the United States Geological Survey in cooperation with The Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights 1981 CONTENTS Page Conversion factors VI Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Purpose and scope of the study.................................... 2 Previous studies and acknowledgments 2 Data-site-numbering system........................................ 3 Location and general features of the study area 3 Physiography and drainage 3 Climate 6 CuI ture and economy 9 Geologic setting 9 General characteristics of the rocks 9 General geologic structure 11 Water resources 11 Precipitation 11 Surface water 13 Runoff 13 Chemical quality 13 Ground water 16 General conditions of occurrence 16 Unconsolidated-rock aquifers 17 Consolidated-rock aquifers 19 Hydrologic properties of aquifers 20 Recharge 27 Movement 28 Discharge 30 Seepage to streams 31 Evapotranspiration 31 Springs 33 Wells 35 Subsurface outflow 36 Storage 37 Chemical quality 41 General characteristics 41 Relation to use 47 Public supply 47 Irrigation supply 47 Temperature 49 Possible hydrologic effects of increased ground-water development 50 Interference with existing wells .......................•.......... 50 Shift of the ground-water divide 55 Reduction of streamflow 56 Effects on chemical quality of water 56 Summary and conclusions 57 References cited 59 Publications of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights 78 III ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates are in pocket] Plate 1. Map showing selected geohydrologic information in the upper Virgin River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    Arizona Department of Water Resources September 2010 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Herbert Guenther Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Karen Smith Assistant Director, Hydrology Frank Corkhill Assistant Director, Water Management Sandra Fabritz-Whitney Atlas Team (Current and Former ADWR staff) Linda Stitzer, Rich Burtell – Project Managers Kelly Mott Lacroix - Asst. Project Manager Phyllis Andrews Carol Birks Joe Stuart Major Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Tom Carr John Fortune Leslie Graser William H. Remick Saeid Tadayon-USGS Other Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Matt Beversdorf Patrick Brand Roberto Chavez Jenna Gillis Laura Grignano (Volume 8) Sharon Morris Pam Nagel (Volume 8) Mark Preszler Kenneth Seasholes (Volume 8) Jeff Tannler (Volume 8) Larri Tearman Dianne Yunker Climate Gregg Garfin - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Ben Crawford - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Casey Thornbrugh - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Michael Crimmins – Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona The Atlas is wide in scope and it is not possible to mention all those who helped at some time in its production, both inside and outside the Department. Our sincere thanks to those who willingly provided data and information, editorial review, production support and other help during this multi-year project. Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Atlas Purpose and Scope 1 SECTION 1.1 Atlas
    [Show full text]
  • Map Showing Location of Selected Surface-Water Sites and Springs, Escalante River Drainage Basin, Garfield and Kane Counties, Utah By
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 2004–5223 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT Location of selected surface-water sites and springs, Escalante River drainage basin—Plate 1 Wilberg, D.E., and Stolp, B.J., 2004, Seepage Investigation and Selected Hydrologic Data for the Escalante River Drainage Basin, Garfield and Kane Counties, Utah, 1909-2002 111°45' 111°05' 114 ° 113 ° 112 ° 111° 42 ° T. 30 S. T. 31 S. Great 15 Salt 110 ° 109 ° B 41 ° Lake ou Salt Lake City lde r M Provo ou 40 ° nt ain 39 ° Utah Study 38 ° area Garfield County Kane County 37 ° E a s t F o T. 31 S. r k T. 32 S. 21 East Fork Boulder Creek near Boulder EXPLANATION B o u Boundary of study area l d u e s Platea r Aquariu C r Boundary of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument e e k Road k e e r C C ir Stream c r e le e C D l 16 38°00' if Surface-water site and number k fs or 22 East Fork Deer Creek near Boulder t F 38°00' as Spring E +35 Mile marker—Labeled every 5 miles T. 32 S. T. 33 S. 12 Dixie National Forest s il n a i Tr a t n p u o Boulder rr o T u B M n i f f i D r e e T. 33 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Hydroclimatology and Extreme Events in the Southwest: a Streamflow Perspective
    Flood Hydroclimatology and Extreme Events in the Southwest: A Streamflow Perspective Katherine Hirschboeck* Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research SW Extreme Precipitation Symposium Hydrology & Atmospheric Sciences 27 March 2019 The University of Arizona * With Diana Zamora-Reyes & Saeahm Kim Overview • Prologue • “Flood Hydroclimatology” Revisited • Flood Heterogeneity & the Complexities of Predictability • “Catastrophic Flooding” Revisited • Postscripts: On Tree-Rings, Floods • & the Future PROLOGUE UPPER MIDWEST FLOODING “The persistence of March 2019 climatic departures implies that the assumption of randomness-over-time, which is basic to most Source: New York Times 3/21/2019 techniques currently employed by federal and state agencies . 1975 is frequently not valid.” Knox et al. 1975 Newspaper advertisement . THE FLOOD PROCESSOR Expanded feed tube – Combines floods of different types together Chopping, slicing & grating blades – Chops up climatic cause information and slices off extreme high outliers Plastic mixing blade – Mixes up unique statistical properties of individual floods FLOOD HYDROCLIMATOLOGY . is the analysis of flood events within the context of their history of variation . - in magnitude, frequency, seasonality - over a relatively long period of time - analyzed within the spatial framework of changing combinations of meteorological causative mechanisms Hirschboeck, 1988 Generalized Seasonality of Peak Flooding in the Southwest Hirschboeck, 1991 after figure in USGS Ground Water manual FLOOD HYDROCLIMATOLOGY FLOOD-CAUSING
    [Show full text]
  • Tour Options~
    14848 Seven Oaks Lane Draper, UT 84020 1-888-517-EPIC [email protected] APMA Annual Scientific Meeting (The National) ~Tour Options~ Zion National Park 1 Day Tour 6-10am Depart Salt Lake City and travel to Zion 10am-5pm Zion National Park We will leave Springdale and head in to the park and enjoy our first hike together up to Emerald Pools. This mild warm up is a beautiful loop trail that will take us along a single track trail, past waterfalls and pools of cool blue water all nesting beneath the massive monolith cliffs of Zion. Afterward we will drive up canyon and walk two trails known as the Riverwalk and Big Bend. The Virgin River, descending from the upper plateau, has worked its way over time through the sandstone carving out the main Zion corridor. You’ll be amazed by the stunning views as we walk along the river. Following these hikes, we will stop for lunch at the Zion Lodge which sits in the park. After lunch, we will drive to the eastern side of the park and through the Carmel Tunnel which was carved out of the solid cliff face in the 1920’s. We will start first at Checkerboard Mesa where you can explore the massive sandstone monoliths. Lastly, we walk along the Overlook Trail until we reach the stunning viewpoint overlooking the entire canyon. 5-6pm Dinner 6-10pm Travel to Salt Lake City Arches National Park 1 Day Tour 6-10am Travel from Salt Lake City to Arches National 10am-5pm Arches National Park In Arches National Park, we begin at the Wall Street trail head.
    [Show full text]