DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona Volume I of the FEIS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona Volume I of the FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona Volume I of the FEIS U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE December 2002 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ROOSEVELT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior December 2002 Additional information may be obtained from: Ms. Sherry Barrett Mr. Jim Rorabaugh Assistant Field Supervisor Arizona State Office Tucson Suboffice U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 110 S. Church Street, Ste. 3450 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Tucson, AZ 85701 (602) 242-0210 (520) 670-4617 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AF Acre-feet AGFD Arizona Game and Fish AMA Active Management Area AWS Assured Water Supply BA Biological Assessment BO Biological Opinion CAP Central Arizona Project CAWCS Central Arizona Water Control Study CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cities Cities with water rights in Modified Roosevelt: Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Covered species Southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, bald eagle, and yellow-billed cuckoo CRBPA Colorado River Basin Project Act Cuckoo Yellow-billed cuckoo DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement Flycatcher Southwestern Willow Flycatcher FMYN Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPO Forest Protection Officer FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GRUSP Granite Reef Underground Storage Project HCP Habitat Conservation Plan IA Implementing Agreement ITP Incidental Take Permit Listed species Species listed as federally threatened or endangered under the ESA Modified Roosevelt Roosevelt Dam as modified by construction in the 1990s NCS New Conservation Space NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation RHCP Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan ROD Record of Decision Roosevelt Roosevelt Dam and Reservoir RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative RPM Reasonable and Prudent Measure Section 7 Section 7 of the ESA Section 10 Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA i SOD Safety of Dams SROG Sub-regional Operating Group (operators of 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant) SRP Salt River Project SRPMIC Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community TCRU Tonto Creek Riparian Unit TNC The Nature Conservancy Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation USFS U.S. Forest Service VQO Visual Quality Objective WCM Modified Roosevelt Water Control Manual WSCA Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona ii ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is considering issuance of an incidental take permit under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to the Salt River Project (SRP) for continued operation of Theodore Roosevelt Dam and Lake. The permit would address the take of federally listed species incidental to operation of Roosevelt Dam and Lake. If the permit is approved, SRP will implement the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan (RHCP) in fulfillment of requirements of the ESA. The RHCP provides measures to minimize and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, the effects of Roosevelt Dam operation on listed species and their habitat and to ensure that any take of listed species will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. A candidate species is also addressed in the event that it is listed in the future. The four species are: the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis), the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), a candidate species. FWS is issuing this Final Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate the potential impacts associated with implementation of the RHCP and issuance of an incidental take permit, and to evaluate alternatives. Three alternatives, including a no action alternative (No Permit), are considered. The preferred alternative is issuance of an incidental take permit to allow continued operation of Roosevelt Dam and Lake up to the maximum elevation of 2,151 feet (Full Operation alternative), in conjunction with implementation of the RHCP. The Re-Operation alternative would involve FWS issuance of a permit authorizing the modified operation of Roosevelt Dam in order to reduce the short-term impact of reservoir operations on listed and candidate species. This alternative would also include measures to minimize and mitigate the take of federally listed species. The consequences of these actions on natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources are discussed in this Final Environmental Impact Statement. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released to the public in July 2002 and the formal comment period on the DEIS ended on September 17, 2002. The FWS has reviewed the written comments on the DEIS as well oral statements given at a pubic hearing on August 27, 2002. Comments and responses received on the DEIS and Draft RHCP are included in a separate document (Volume III). The Final RHCP is included in Volume II. A Record of Decision (ROD) for this project will be published no sooner than 30 days after release of this Final EIS. If you have any questions regarding this document, you may contact. Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Phone: (602) 242-0210 iii This page intentionally left blank. iv CONTENTS Chapter 1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Relationship Between the FEIS and the RHCP .....................................3 1.1.2 Document Organization.........................................................................4 1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action.........................................................................4 1.3 Need for the Proposed Action............................................................................6 1.4 Scoping and Public Involvement .......................................................................7 1.4.1 Advisory Group, Scoping, and Meetings...............................................7 1.4.2 Issues Raised during Scoping ................................................................8 1.4.2.1 Water Supply Alternatives......................................................9 1.4.2.2 Impacts on the Flycatcher and Recovery Efforts....................9 1.4.2.3 Impacts on the Bald Eagle, Yuma Clapper Rail, and Cuckoo....................................................................................9 1.4.2.4 Mitigation of Impacts on Listed Species ................................9 1.4.2.5 Impacts on Recreation ............................................................9 1.4.2.6 Impacts on Flood Control .....................................................10 1.4.2.7 Impacts on Water Quality.....................................................10 1.4.2.8 Impacts on Wildlife Habitat..................................................10 1.4.2.9 Impacts on Socioeconomics..................................................10 1.4.3 Issues Selected for Further Consideration ...........................................10 1.4.4 Public Hearing on Draft EIS and RHCP..............................................11 1.5 Decisions, Permits, and Approvals ..................................................................11 1.5.1 Decisions and Actions by FWS ...........................................................11 1.5.2 Decisions and Actions by SRP ............................................................12 Chapter 2 Background ....................................................................................................13 2.1 Description of Applicant and Beneficiaries.....................................................13 2.2 Description of SRP Reservoir System and Storage Operations.......................15 2.2.1 Overview..............................................................................................15 2.2.2 History ..............................................................................................15 2.2.3 Salt River Reservoir System ................................................................18 2.2.4 Roosevelt Operations...........................................................................20 2.2.5 Verde Reservoirs..................................................................................24 2.2.6 Roosevelt Recreation ...........................................................................25 2.3 History of NEPA Compliance at Roosevelt Lake............................................25 2.4 History of ESA Compliance at Roosevelt Lake ..............................................26 2.4.1 1983/1984 ............................................................................................26 2.4.2 1989/1990 ............................................................................................27 2.4.3 1992/1993 ............................................................................................28 2.4.4 1995/1996 ............................................................................................29
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR
    Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR Colorado River at Mile 50. Cover: Salt River. Letter from the President ivers are the great treasury of noted scientists and other experts reviewed the survey design, and biological diversity in the western state-specific experts reviewed the results for each state. RUnited States. As evidence mounts The result is a state-by-state list of more than 250 of the West’s that climate is changing even faster than we outstanding streams, some protected, some still vulnerable. The feared, it becomes essential that we create Great Rivers of the West is a new type of inventory to serve the sanctuaries on our best, most natural rivers modern needs of river conservation—a list that Western Rivers that will harbor viable populations of at-risk Conservancy can use to strategically inform its work. species—not only charismatic species like salmon, but a broad range of aquatic and This is one of 11 state chapters in the report. Also available are a terrestrial species. summary of the entire report, as well as the full report text. That is what we do at Western Rivers Conservancy. We buy land With the right tools in hand, Western Rivers Conservancy is to create sanctuaries along the most outstanding rivers in the West seizing once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to acquire and protect – places where fish, wildlife and people can flourish. precious streamside lands on some of America’s finest rivers. With a talented team in place, combining more than 150 years This is a time when investment in conservation can yield huge of land acquisition experience and offices in Oregon, Colorado, dividends for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gila and Little Colorado General Stream Adjudications
    THE GILA AND LITTLE COLORADO GENERAL STREAM ADJUDICATIONS Cynthia M. Chandley 1 ©© 2014 2014 Snell Snell & & Wilmer Wilmer Arizona’s Watersheds 2 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Scope of Adjudications Gila Adjudication Little Colorado River Adjudication 30,000 5,000 SOCs SOCs Claimants 85,000 14,000 Claimants 3 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Initiation of Arizona’s Adjudications SRP initiates U.S. Supreme Court Phelps Dodge Verde River Buckeye Irrigation decides jurisdiction in on- initiates Little Adjudication District intervenes going state adjudications. Colorado River Ariz. v. San Carlos Adjudication Apache Tribe (U.S. 1983) 1974 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1983 1985 Arizona Supreme SRP initiates Phelps Dodge initiates Court consolidates Salt River Gila River Adjudication Arizona Arizona Supreme Court Gila River cases Adjudication Adjudication statues decides state jurisdiction ASARCO initiates San revised over federal and Indian Pedro River Adjudication water rights. U.S. v. Superior Court (Ariz. 1985) 4 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Maricopa County Court Proceedings • 1986 – Judge Goodfarb issues Pretrial Order No. 1 • 1990 – Arizona Supreme Court grants interlocutory review of six key issues 5 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Arizona Supreme Court Rulings • Issue 1: Service of process – Gila I (1992) • Issue 2: Subflow – Gila II (1993) & Gila IV (2000) • Issue 3: Indian reserved water rights – Gila V (2001) • Issues 4 & 5: Federal reserved groundwater rights – Gila III (1999) • Issue 6: To be decided. 6 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Major Adjudication Issues Subflow Trial No. 1; Adjudication Gila III and San Subflow Order Carlos Apache Court defines ADWR Subflow defines saturated Tribe, et al. v. ADWR Subflow 50%/90-day test Technical Report floodplain Holocene Superior Court Delineation ADWR Revised alluvium and evidentiary Report Subflow Report hearing 1986 1988 1993 1994 1995 1999 2000 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2014 2012 20142014 Pretrial Order Gila IV – affirms Gila II: rejects Subflow Subflow trial No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, Or the Vestige of a Failed Past?
    COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, or the Vestige oF a Failed Past? Liam Patton* Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 42 I. THE EVOLUTION OF HYDROPOWER ON THE COLORADO PLATEAU ..... 45 A. Hydropower and the Development of Pumped Storage .......... 45 B. History of Dam ConstruCtion on the Plateau ........................... 48 C. Shipping ResourCes Off the Plateau: Phoenix as an Example 50 D. Modern PoliCies for Dam and Hydropower ConstruCtion ...... 52 E. The Result of Renewed Federal Support for Dams ................. 53 II. HYDROPOWER AS AN ALLY IN THE SHIFT TO CLEAN POWER ............ 54 A. Coal Generation and the Harms of the “Big Buildup” ............ 54 B. DeCommissioning Coal and the Shift to Renewable Energy ... 55 C. The LCR ProjeCt and “Clean” Pumped Hydropower .............. 56 * J.D. Candidate, 2021, University oF Colorado Law School. This Note is adapted From a final paper written for the Advanced Natural Resources Law Seminar. Thank you to the Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review staFF For all their advice and assistance in preparing this Note For publication. An additional thanks to ProFessor KrakoFF For her teachings on the economic, environmental, and Indigenous histories of the Colorado Plateau and For her invaluable guidance throughout the writing process. I am grateFul to share my Note with the community and owe it all to my professors and classmates at Colorado Law. COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW 42 Colo. Nat. Resources, Energy & Envtl. L. Rev. [Vol. 32:1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PLATEAU HYDROPOWER ...............
    [Show full text]
  • Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir 1995 Sedimentation Survey
    THEODORE ROOSEVELT RESERVOIR 1995 SEDIMENTATION SURVEY 1.FOkTF1Ep02. RESOiJ U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation ERRATA Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir 1995 Sedimentation Survey Page 10, Table 1, item 9: This should read 2,100 feet rather than 2214. Page 12, Table 1, item 47,footnote 1: Modifications to Roosevelt Dam completed in 1995 raised the dam elevation and lowered the spillway sill elevation. The original dam elevation was 2142 and the spiliway elevation (top of radial gates) was 2136. Page 13. Table 2, ,foolnole 7: Computed sediment expressed as a percentage of total computed sediment (182,185 acre-feet). REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FormApproved J 0MB No. 0704-0188 Pubhc reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the cotlection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suit 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paper-work Reduction Report (0704-0188), Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED May 1996 Final 4. TITLE AND SUBTiTLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir 1995 Sedimentation Survey PR 6. AUTHOR(S) Joe Lyons and Lori Lest 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Bureau of Reclamation REPORT NUMBER Technical Service Center Denver CO 80225 9.
    [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]
  • Central Arizona Water Conservation District
    Central Arizona Water Conservation District District collects and spends revenues in accordance with legal requirements and/or policies, has established various financial reserves, and operates the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District Special Audit December 2017 Report 17-112 A Report to the Arizona Legislature Debra K. Davenport Auditor General The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the State and political subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits and special reviews of school districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee Senator Bob Worsley, Chair Representative Anthony Kern, Vice Chair Senator Sean Bowie Representative John Allen Senator Judy Burges Representative Rusty Bowers Senator Lupe Contreras Representative Rebecca Rios Senator John Kavanagh Representative Athena Salman Senator Steve Yarbrough (ex officio) Representative J.D. Mesnard (ex officio) Audit Staff Dale Chapman, Director Laura Long, Team Leader Jeremy Weber, Manager and Contact Person Katherine Boligitz Adam Tillard, Financial Manager Monette Kiepke Contact Information Arizona Office of the Auditor General 2910 N. 44th St. Ste. 410 Phoenix, AZ 85018 (602) 553-0333 www.azauditor.gov December 20, 2017 Members of the Arizona Legislature The Honorable Doug Ducey, Governor Mr. Theodore Cooke, General Manager Central Arizona Water Conservation District Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Special Audit of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District.
    [Show full text]
  • GR-03-13 Revised Title 5, Criminal Code
    GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY SACATON, AZ 85147 ORDINANCE GR-03-13 THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL HEREBY AMENDS THE 2009 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY CODE BY RESCINDING TITLE 5, CRIMINAL CODE, AND ENACTING THE REVISED CRIMINAL CODE WHEREAS, the Gila River Indian Community Council (the "Community Council") is the governing body of the Gila River Indian Community (the "Community), a federally recognized and sovereign Indian tribe; and WHEREAS, the Community Council is authorized by Article XV, Section l(a)(9) of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Community (March 17, 1960) (the "Constitution") to promote and protect the health, peace, morals, education, and general welfare of the Community and its members; and WHEREAS, the Community Council is authorized by Article XV, Section 1(a)(17) of the Constitution to provide for the maintenance of law and order and the administration of justice by establishing a Community Court and police force and defining the powers and duties thereof; and WHEREAS, the Community Council is authorized by Article XV, Section 1(a)(19) of the Constitution to pass ordinances necessary or incidental to the exercise of any of their powers authorized by Article XV, Section 1(a) of the Constitution; and WHEREAS, the power to enact laws and ordinances is an inherent function of self-government which the Community has exercised over the years; and WHEREAS, the safety of the Community, the ability to prosecute criminal behavior, and the ability to order longer or enhanced sentences as appropriate to the offense and
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon Helicopter Tours
    GRAND CANYON HELICOPTER TOURS * * $289 Adult • $269 Child (Ages 2 - 11) + $35 Fees $364 Adult • $344 Child (Ages 2 - 11) + $80 Fees GRAND CANYON SOAR LIKE AN EAGLE THROUGH THE GRAND CANYON • Descend 4,000 feet into the Grand Canyon MOST AND SEE THE BEAUTIFUL BOWL OF FIRE. • Touch down by the banks of the Colorado River POPULAR • Champagne picnic under an authentic Hualapai Indian shelter TOUR! & Las Vegas Tours • Air only excursion through the Grand Canyon • Views of Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, Fortication Hill and the Grand Wash Clis • Views of Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, Fortification Hill and the Grand Wash Clis • Tour Duration: Approximately 4 hours (hotel to hotel) World’s Largest Grand Canyon Air Tour Company, since 1965! • Tour Duration: Approximately 3 hours (hotel to hotel) • $40 SUNSET UPGRADE (PBW-4S) • ADD LIMO TRANSFERS & STRIP FLIGHT (PLW-1) $404 Adult • $384 Child (ages 2-11) + $80 Fees $349 Adult • $329 Child (Ages 2-11) + $40 Fees • ADD LIMO TRANSFERS & STRIP FLIGHT (PLW-4) $414 Adult • $394 Child (ages 2-11) + $80 Fees • ADD LIMO TRANSFERS, SUNSET & STRIP FLIGHT (PLW-4S) $454 Adult • $434 Child (ages 2-11) + $80 Fees $94 Adult • $74 Child (Ages 2 - 11) + $10 Fees TAKE TO THE SKIES OVER THE DAZZLING AND WORLD FAMOUS LAS VEGAS "STRIP"! • Views of the MGM, New York New York, Caesar’s Palace, Bellagio, Mirage and more • Fly by the Stratosphere Tower and downtown Glitter Gulch where Las Vegas began • Complimentary champagne toast L’excursion aérienne Die vielseitigste Papillon- Veleggiate al di sotto del キャニオン上空を低 La visita aérea más • Tour Duration: Approx.
    [Show full text]
  • PD Safford Land Swap Appealed
    SEPTEMBER 6, 2004 PD Safford land swap appealed By Dorothy Kosich Mining Action Project is Western Land Exchange Project representing the Center for specializes in tracking federal public RENO (Mineweb.com) — No Biological Diversity, the Grand land exchange projects in the West. thanks to environmental groups, Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Previously, the Western Land water impact issues, and, maybe the Western Land Exchange Exchange Project, the Center for even the Mexican spotted owl, a Project, and Earthworks. The Biological Diversity, and the decade-long land exchange Center for Biological Diversity is a Western Mining Action Project between Phelps Dodge and the Tucson-based NGO aimed at jointly sued in Arizona’s federal Bureau of Land Management protecting endangered species district court to halt the Ray land involving the Dos Pobres/San Juan including the Mexican Spotted Owl. exchange between the Bureau of Project may not soon be The San Carlos Apache Tribe Land Management (BLM) and concluded. recently received nearly $100,000 Asarco, a subsidiary of Grupo Environmental and Native from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Mexico. The NGOs argued that the American groups have filed protests Service to study Mexican Spotted mining operation pollutes Mineral of the proposed land exchange Owls on the reservation. Tribal Creek, which is a tributary of the which would bring desperately lands include Gila, Graham and Gila River. The San Carlos Apache needed jobs to the small community Pinal counties in southeastern also appealed the Morenci Land of Safford, Arizona. The Safford Arizona. The tribe’s largest Swap, arguing mining impacts tribal Land Exchange offers 16,297 acres enterprises include the fishery of the water supplies.
    [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]
  • The Central Arizona Project
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short 1982 Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10) 6-9-1982 The Central Arizona Project Jon Kyl Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/new-sources-of-water-for-energy- development-and-growth-interbasin-transfers Part of the Agriculture Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Contracts Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Hydrology Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Transportation Law Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Kyl, Jon, "The Central Arizona Project" (1982). New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10). https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/new-sources-of-water-for-energy-development-and-growth-interbasin- transfers/21 Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. Jon Kyl, The Central Arizona Project, in NEW SOURCES OF WATER FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH: INTERBASIN TRANSFERS (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 1982). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • The Salt River – by Elly – Summer 2016
    The Salt River – by Elly – Summer 2016 After living in Arizona for many years, I only recently discovered the pleasure of kayaking and tubing. So far, I have been on the river below Saguaro Lake, on Saguaro Lake, and on Canyon Lake; the other two lakes created in the Salt River, Apache and Roosevelt Lakes, (hopefully) remain to be explored. The Rio Salado, or Salt River, was dammed between the early 1900s and 1930s to provide water and electricity to the Phoenix area, and later served recreational needs. The first dam to be constructed was Roosevelt so my description goes from the `younger’ to the `older’ lakes. Some of my information on the river comes from here. The Four Lakes of the Salt River, from left to right: Saguaro, Canyon, Apache, and Roosevelt The Salt River flows into the Gila River to the West of Phoenix and the Gila contributes to the Colorado, near Yuma, in the Southwest of Arizona. This river is supposed to end in the Gulf of California but rarely has enough water (see here). The ecological impact of dams has been huge. Edward Abbey and others are famous for having suggested Monkey Wrenches to sabotage the plans for the dams in the West. There is always talk of restoring the natural flow in the river; see here. Apart from the ecological impact on bird populations, salinization, and silting, the politics behind dams is ugly. The 1972 Damming the West details the lobbying of the Bureau of Reclamation to keep new projects going even though there was no (agricultural) need for them.
    [Show full text]