US Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division

Water Resources Development in Utah 1987

TC 423 .A15 UTAH 1987 This publication is authorized by the Secretary of the Army as required by PL 99-662 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

State of Utah

1987

HECSATecImKal Library Foreword

Enactment of the Water Resource Development Act of 1986 provides our Nation with a framework for water resources development until well into the 21st century. The law has made numerous changes in the way potential new projects are studied, evaluated and funded. The major change is that nonfederal cost sharing is specified for most Corps water resources projects. A new partnership now exists between the federal government and nonfederal inter­ ests that affords the latter a key role in project planning and allows the federal government to spread its resources over more water projects than would have been possible before. With the passage of this law, the federal water resources program is in better shape than at any time in the past 16 years. The law authorizes over 260 new projects for inland naviga­ tion, harbor improvement, flood control, and shore protection—with additional benefits in water supply, hydropower and recreation. I hope this booklet gives you a glimpse of the extent, variety and importance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water resources development activities in your state.

JOHN S. DOYLE, JR. Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) To Our Readers Our Nation's water resources program, as well as our Constitution, may well have been born on the banks of the Potomac River in the 1780s out of a disagreement between Virginia and Maryland. Both states claimed jurisdiction over navigation on the Potomac and Pokemoke Rivers and the Chesapeake Bay. Under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress did not have the power to resolve the dispute and regulate commerce. Fortunately, the states decided to meet to settle the matter. A convention was held at Mount Vernon in 1785; and again in Annapolis in 1786. Out of those two meetings grew the belief that a strong central government was needed. At the very least, the Articles of Confederation needed to be amended. The convention attendees petitioned Congress in February 1787 and the Constitutional Convention was held in Phila­ delphia that May. Thus, in celebrating the bicentennial of the United States Constitution this year, we are, in a way, celebrating the birth of our water resources program. The program encompasses port and river nagivation improvements, flood damage reduction, beach erosion control, hydro- power generation, water storage, development regulation in navigable waters and wetlands, and recreation. In all, the Corps manages almost 2,000 water resource projects across the nation. It does this in cooperation with local interests and other federal agencies. This year, the Corps has the additional challenges of the projects authorized by Public Law 99-662, the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. This act lays the foundation for water resource development for generations to come. This booklet is one of a series detailing water resources programs in the 50 states and U.S. possessions. I hope you find it interesting and useful.

E.R. HEIBERG III Lieutenant General, USA Chief of Engineers

Further information on specific Corps activities, projects, and programs in Utah is available from the following offices:

U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Pacific 630 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-2206 (415) 556-5630

U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles 300 N. Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 (213) 894-5320

U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814-4794 (916) 551-2526

U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla Building 602, City-County Airport Walla Walla, WA 99362-9265 (509) 522-6660

II TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION Cooperation in Projects of Other Agencies 9 Civil Works Overview 1 Drainage Basins of Utah 9 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its Activities in Utah 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Authority for Corps of Engineers Great Salt Lake Basin 10 Little Dell Lake 10 Authorization and Planning Process for Water Jordan River at Salt Lake City 11 Resources Projects 2 Kays Creek at Layton 11 Principles and Guidelines 2 Section 7 Projects 11 Major Steps in the Planning, Design and Jordan River Basin 11 Implementation of Civil Works Projects 2 Wasatch Front and Central Utah 12 Two-Phase Study Process 4 Great Salt Lake 12 Reconnaissance Phase 4 Bear River and Tributaries 12 Feasibility Phase 4 Weber River and Tributaries 12 Continuing Authorities Program 4 Sevier Lake Basin 13 Planning Process for Continuing Redmond Channel Improvement 13 Authorities Program Projects 5 Big Wash Diversion Dam and Channel 13 Sevier River and Tributaries 14 Projects Approved by the Public Works Committees ... 5 Green River Basin 15 Project Deauthorization 5 Section 7 Projects 15 How Local Interests Share in Federal Projects 5 Colorado River and Tributaries Above Lee Ferry.. 15 Flood Control and Flood Plain Management 5 Colorado-San Juan Basin 17 Navigation 6 Colorado River and Tributaries Above Lee Ferry.. 17 Shore and Hurricane Protection 6 Navajo Indian Reservation 17 Hydropower 7 Virgin River Near St. George 18 Water Supply 7 Environmental Quality 7 FLOODS AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS Utah Floods 1982-1985 19 Regulatory Programs 7 Emergency Operations 1982-1985 19 Recreation 7 Dam Inspection Program 8 GLOSSARY 20 Emergency Work 8 Reevaluation of Completed Projects 8 INDEX 23

III Introduction

Through its civil works program, the Corps carries out a Civil Works Overview comprehensive nationwide effort in water resources plan­ From 1775 to the present, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi­ ning, construction, and operation. These activities are car­ neers has served the nation in peace and war. ried out in accordance with directives from Congress and Formed by General George Washington during the Revo­ are supervised by the Chief of Engineers under the direction lutionary War as the engineering and construction arm of of the Secretary of the Army. In close cooperation with the Continental Army, the Corps built fortifications and other federal agencies, and with interested state and local coastal batteries to strengthen the country's defenses and authorities and organizations, the Corps works to provide went on to found the Military Academy at West Point, to beneficial improvements desired by local citizens. help open the West, and to develop the Nation's water The civil works program is directed toward developing resources. Today it is the largest engineering organization in water resources in a way that will lead to the satisfaction of the world. all water related requirements—both immediate and long Although the primary mission of the Corps has always range. Among other needs, these include improvements for been to provide combat support to our fighting Army, the navigation, flood control, major drainage, water supply for nation over the years also needed roads, railroads, light­ irrigation and municipal-industrial uses, water quality con­ houses, bridges, and other works of engineering. Conse­ trol and waste water disposal, hydropower, water oriented quently, since the period immediately following the Revolu­ recreation, enhancement of fish and wildlife resources, and tionary War, the Corps has carried out numerous civil the preservation of aesthetic and ecological values. Special works responsibilities, and since 1824, it has been the prin­ emphasis is being placed on flood plain management in cipal developer of the Nation's water resources. support of a national effort to reduce flood losses through Ever responsive to the changing needs and demands of appropriate state and local regulation of the use of flood the American people, the Corps has planned and executed prone areas. national programs for navigation, flood control, water supply, hydroelectric power, recreation, conservation, and The first Corps of Engineers civil works activities in Utah preservation of the environment. In its military role, the were investigations of navigation on the Green River in the Corps plans, designs and supervises the construction of late 1880s. The basis of the now ongoing civil works pro­ modern facilities which are necessary to ensure the combat gram was the 1938 Flood Control Act, which contained readiness of our Army and Air Force. authority for the Corps of Engineers to make flood control investigations on streams draining into the Great Salt Lake and the Great Basin, and the Upper Colorado River and The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tributaries above Lee Ferry, Arizona. Preliminary studies and Its Activities in Utah resulted in recommendations for detailed investigations of streams in Davis County and the Bear, Weber, Jordan, and The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been the princi­ Sevier River Basins. Subsequently, authority for other stud­ pal water resources agency of the federal government since ies was provided and flood control projects were authorized 1824. The earliest activities in Utah attributable to the and constructed. Corps of Engineers trace back to the initial surveys for the transcontinental railroad during the 1850s. In 1869, the In the 1930s, Corps of Engineers activities in Utah were Corps of Engineers began work on a series of topographical under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles District. A subof- and geographical surveys and explorations of the area west fice of the District was established in Salt Lake City in of the 100th meridian, which includes the State of Utah. 1940, and from April 1942 to October 1943, a separate The objective of these surveys was Corps of Engineers district existed. In addition to most of ... that the physical structures of the waste and Utah, the Salt Lake District included parts of Nevada, unknown lands along the untenanted mountain fron­ Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado. In 1943, the Salt Lake tiers shall be brought to light and made known not District was abolished and the Great Basin portion of the only for the uses of Government, but for all of the State was assigned to the Sacramento District, and the people for all time. Upper Colorado River drainage portion was assigned to the Work on these surveys continued for 10 years and resulted Los Angeles District. In 1968, the entire state, except for in a wealth of previously unknown data about Utah and the northwest and southwest corners, became the responsi­ the remainder of the intermountain frontier. bility of the Sacramento District.

1 Authorization and Planning Process for Principles and Guidelines Water Resources Projects The federal objective of water resources planning is to Water resources activities are initiated by local interests, contribute to national economic development while protect­ approved by the Administration, authorized by Congress, ing the nation's environment. funded by federal and nonfederal sources, and constructed The Principles and Guidelines, published in 1983 by the by the Corps under the Civil Works Program. U.S. Water Resources Council and used during the study The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 made process, have a single federal objective and provide flexibil­ numerous changes in the way potential new water resources ity to address other state, local, national and international projects are studied, evaluated and funded. The major concerns relevant to the planning setting. change is that the law now specifies nonfederal cost sharing for most of the Corps' water resources projects. The Principles and Guidelines prescribe the following six- step planning process to solve problems. When local interests feel that a need exists for improved navigation, flood protection, or other water resources • Identify water resources problems in the study area. development, they may petition their representatives in • Collect data on the problems identified. Congress. (Technical assistance and some small projects can be accomplished without Congressional authorization under • Develop alternatives to solve the problems. the Continuing Authorities Program.) Once Congress is • Evaluate the effects of the alternatives. petitioned, a Congressional committee resolution or an Act • Compare alternatives. of Congress may then authorize the Corps of Engineers to investigate the problem and submit a report. The report • Select a plan for recommendation or decide to take contains the necessary engineering, economic, and environ­ no action. The alternative plan with the greatest net eco­ mental investigations which include consideration of the full nomic benefits consistent with protecting the nation's envi­ range of alternative solutions to the problem. ronment is normally selected. An exception may be granted by the Secretary of the Army. Public meetings are held to determine the views of local interests on the extent and type of improvements desired, as Economic and environmental evaluation procedures have well as the need for the improvement. The desires of local been incorporated into the Principles and Guidelines to interests and the views of federal, state, and other agencies provide water resources agencies the best current analytical receive full consideration during the planning process. techniques available. Considerations which enter into recommendations for project authorization to Congress include determinations that benefits will exceed costs, and that the engineering Major Steps in the Planning, Design design of the project is sound, best serves the needs of the and Implementation of Civil Works people concerned, makes the wisest possible use of the nat­ ural resources involved, and adequately protects the Projects environment. Step Description A report, along with a final environmental statement, is Local community (i.e., people, busi­ then submitted to higher authority for review and recom­ i nesses) and/or local government per­ Problem mendations. After review and coordination with all inter­ ceive or experience water and related Perception ested federal agencies and governors of affected states, the land resource problems (i.e., flooding, Chief of Engineers forwards the report, with the environ­ shore erosion, navigation restrictions, mental statement, to the Secretary of the Army, who etc.). Problems are beyond local com­ obtains the views of the Office of Management and Budget munity's/government's capabilities (e.g., before transmitting the report and environmental statement jurisdictional boundaries, financial to Congress. resources, technical expertise, etc.) to Budget recommendations are based on evidence of sup­ alleviate or solve. port by the state and by the ability and willingness of non­ federal sponsors to provide their share of the project cost. Local officials talk to Corps about avail­ able federal programs. Technical assis­ If Congress includes the project in an authorization bill, Request for tance and some small projects can be enactment of the bill constitutes authorization of the proj­ Federal Action ect. Once a project is authorized, further studies may be accomplished without congressional required to reaffirm the basic plan presented to Congress. authorization (see Continuing Authori­ ties Program). Appropriation of money to build a particular project is usually included in the annual Energy and Water Devel­ Local officials contact congressional opment Appropriation bill, which must be approved by delegation if study authorization both Houses of the Congress and the President. required.

2 Step Description Board of Engineers for Rivers and Har­ bors (BERH) or Mississippi River Member of Congress requests study Commission (MRC) conducts review of authorization through Public Works Request for report and submits views and recom­ committees. Federal Action mendations to Chief of Engineers. (Continued) Committee resolution adopted if report Comments from public are fully consid­ was previously prepared on water prob­ ered in BERH or MRC action. lems in area. Proposed report of Chief of Engineers Legislation, which may be proposed by and final EIS are sent to heads of federal the President, is normally required if no agencies and governors of affected states Corps report exists. for comment. Study is assigned to Corps district office. Final EIS is filed with Environmental Study Problem Funds to complete 12-18 months recon­ Protection Agency (EPA) and made and Report naissance phase are included in Presi­ available to public. dent's budget (see Two-Phase Study Preparation Chief of Engineers considers comments Process). on proposed report and EIS, prepares Appropriations for reconnaissance pro­ final report, and submits it to Secretary vided in annual Energy and Water of the Army. Development Appropriations Act. Chief of Engineers' report is reviewed by District conducts reconnaissance phase, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil leading to a reconnaissance report. Works). Because most Corps projects involve cost Office of Management and Budget sharing and environmental issues, local (OMB) comments on report as it relates proponents should seek an early consen­ to President's programs. sus for or against a Corps project among the public and private sectors and Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil among diverse interest groups. Works) transmits Chief of Engineers' If study continues beyond reconnaissance report to Congress. phase, local sponsor must agree to share In some cases, Corps continues planning, cost of feasibility phase. engineering, and design pending Con­ Public involvement is an integral part of gressional authorization of proposal. This planning process, including review of process is called Preconstruction Engi­ draft report and draft environmental neering and Design (PED) and includes impact statement (EIS). the General Design Memorandum (GDM) and the plans and specifications Study is conducted under the U.S. for the first contract. Water Resources Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Division offices and, in some cases, Guidelines (see Principles and Guide­ Office of the Chief of Engineers, review lines) for Water and Related Land Congressional the GDM, the Feature Design Memo­ Resources Implementation Studies, dated Authorization randum (FDM), and plans and specifica­ March 10, 1983. tions. Funds are included annually in Presi­ Chief of Engineers' reports (see Step 4) dent's budget; annual appropriations and are referred to Committee on Public non-federal monies are needed to con­ Works and Transportation in House and tinue study. Committee on Environment and Public Works in Senate. Study results in a Feasibility Report and EIS which are submitted to Corps di­ Civil works projects are normally autho­ vision (regional) office. rized by Water Resources Development Act (Omnibus Bill) following committee Division office, which reviews district hearings. work during planning process, completes Report Review technical review of final district Definite and Approval New projects are included in President's Project Report and EIS. budget based on national priorities and Division engineer submits report to Project anticipated completion of design and review board or commission and issues Implementation plans and specifications so that construc­ public notice inviting comments. tion contract can be awarded.

3 Step Description and the nonfederal sponsor jointly decide whether a full feasibility study is warranted. (See Step 3). Initiation of the Budget recommendations are based on feasibility phase depends on execution of a cost-sharing ^ . evidence of support by state and ability agreement with the sponsor. The cost of feasibility studies is Froject ^ an(j wiHingness 0f nonfederal sponsors to shared equally by federal and nonfederal interests. Up to Implementation provide their share of project cost. one-half of the nonfederal contribution may be made in in- kind services. Congress appropriates federal share of funds for new starts; normally, this Cost sharing is not required for a study for a navigation improvement to the inland waterway system. occurs in annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Reconnaissance Phase Secretary of the Army and appropriate • Definition of problems and opportunities related to nonfederal sponsors sign formal water resources; identification and potential solutions. agreement once Congress has • Estimation of benefits and costs of solutions to appropriated funds for project determine prospects for an implementable project. Appraisal implementation to begin. of federal interest in potential solutions. Agreement obligates nonfederal sponsors • Estimation of feasibility phase costs. to participate in implementing, operating • Determination as to whether or not further studies are and maintaining project according to appropriate. requirements established by Congress • Corps and nonfederal sponsor must agree to share and administration. equally in the cost of the feasibility phase. District completes enough engineering Feasibility Phase and design for developing plans and • Further planning and evaluation of alternative specifications for initial project solutions to water resources problems. implementation. • Detailed estimation of benefits and costs of Engineering and design continue during alternatives to determine what plans merit federal implementation process; plans and participation. specifications are reviewed by division • Preparation of a Feasibility Report recommending offices and sometimes by Office of the solutions to water resources problems and Congressional Chief of Engineers. authorization. Funds are included in President's annual • Preparation of a letter of intent by state or local entity budget for the federal share of the proj­ to financially participate in recommended plan ect; appropriations are required to implementation. continue design and implementation. • Coordination of DPR with federal, state and local agencies. Construction is managed by Corps, but done by private contractors. Most projects are operated and Continuing Authorities Program maintained by nonfederal sponsors as Under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 part of agreement signed prior to Congress delegated its authority to approve certain projects, implementation. However, funds are up to specified dollar amounts (subject to availability of requested in President's annual budget funds) to the Chief of Engineers. Types of projects covered, for the federal share where there is a and cost limitations, are: need for continuing federal financing of Statutory Catalog of project operation and maintenance; Federal Cost Federal Domestic Types of Limitation Assistance congressional appropriations are required Projects Short Name Per Project Reference Number for such funds. Flood damage Section 205 $5,000,000 12.106 Corps periodically inspects projects, reduction Snagging and Section 208 500,000 12.108 including those for which nonfederal clearing for flood sponsors have assumed an operation and control maintenance responsibility. Navigation Section 107 4,000,000 12.107 Clearing and Section 3 None* 12.109 snagging for navigation Two-Phase Study Process Mitigation of Section 111, 2,000,000 Shore Damage 1978 River The federal government first conducts a reconnaissance to Attributable to and Harbor determine whether a federal project can solve local and Navigation Works Act, as amended regional water resources problems. (See Step 3 of Major Beach erosion Section 103 2,000,000 12,105 Emergency Section 14 500,000 12,105 Steps in the Planning, Design and Implementation of Civil streambank Works Projects). The reconnaissance phase is 100% federal and shoreline funded. protection Based upon the reconnaissance, the federal government * Annual program limit of $1,000,000. 4 projects on the list will not be authorized 30 months after Planning Process for Continuing the date of the list transmittal if funds are not obligated for Authorities Program Projects construction during this 30 month period. • Corps district office may undertake a reconnaissance upon written request of state or local government official, and the approval of the division office. Studies are initiated How Local Interests subject to the availability of funds and staff. Share in Federal Construction Projects • The objectives of the reconnaissance study are the The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public same as those for congressionally authorized studies, and Law 99-662, has significantly altered the role of local inter­ are conducted at 100% federal expense. If the results are ests in federal projects. Costs to the local sponsor during favorable, the district requests funds to initiate the feasibility construction vary according to the type of project, but as in study. the past, include lands, easements, rights-of-way, and reloca­ • The feasibility phase will result in a Feasibility tions for all projects. Report. Nonfederal interests must agree to share in the cost For navigation projects, the local sponsor is also respon­ of this phase (see Two-Phase Study Process). An exception sible for paying: to this study cost sharing is when the feasibility phase costs a. Ten percent of the cost of construction of the portion are less than $40,000, in which case the feasibility phase is of the project which has a depth not in excess of 20 feet. 100% federally funded. b. Twenty-five percent of the cost of construction of the • The Feasibility Report and a copy of the proposed portion of the project which has a depth in excess of 20 agreement on nonfederal financial participation (Local feet but not in excess of 45 feet. Cooperation Agreement) are submitted to the division engi­ neer for technical review and then to the Chief of c. Fifty percent of the cost of construction of the portion Engineers. of the project which has a depth in excess of 45 feet. The local sponsor is required to pay, over 30 years, an • Once the division engineer has reviewed the Feasibil­ ity Report, the district requests funds to prepare plans and additional 10 percent of the cost of general navigation fea­ specifications. tures. The value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, reloca­ tions, and dredge disposal areas may be credited toward • When the Secretary of the Army agrees to fund the this payment. The local sponsor is required to provide project, it is approved for implementation by the Chief of dredged material disposal areas necessary for the project. Engineers. Implementation may begin once nonfederal interests and the federal government sign the local coopera­ For flood control projects, the nonfederal interests are tion agreement. also responsible for: a. Paying five percent of the construction costs of the flood control part of the project. Projects Approved by b. Paying an additional amount as necessary to bring the Public Works Committees costs allocated to flood control to 25 percent, if the value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations are less Title X of the 1965 Flood Control Act, as amended by than 20 percent of the allocated costs of flood control. the 1976 Water Resources Development Act, authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engi­ c. Providing all lands, easements, rights-of-way and neers, to construct, operate, and maintain single- and dredged material disposal areas required for flood control multiple-purpose water resources development projects and perform all related relocations except relocations of involving, but not limited to, navigation and flood control if railroad bridges. the federal cost is less than $15 million. Such projects must d. Paying all costs of operation, maintenance, and be approved by resolutions adopted by the Public Works replacement of flood control facilities. Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, The nonfederal share of flood control costs will not and are subject to the same requirements of investigation, exceed 50 percent of the cost of the flood control part of a coordination, and local cooperation as projects that must be project. authorized by the full Congress. To meet the requirements of local cooperation in any project, local interests must be represented by a legally con­ Project Deauthorization stituted sponsoring agency. Such an agency must be a local governmental unit or special district with legal authority Section 10 of the 1986 Water Resources Development and financial ability under state statutes to meet local coop­ Act provides a procedure for deauthorizing projects that eration requirements. have not received appropriations. Projects authorized in the 1986 Act will not be authorized 5 years after enactment of the Act unless during this period funds have been obligated Flood Control and Flood for construction. Every two years the Secretary of the Army shall transmit to Congress a list of projects which have been Plain Management authorized but have received no obligations during the 10 Federal interest in flood control began in the alluvial val­ full years preceding the date of the list transmittal. The ley of the Mississippi River in the 19th century when the

5 interrelationship of flood control and navigation became Major floods in Utah are generally the result of rapidly apparent. Corps authority for flood control work was melting snow in late spring and early summer. Rain can extended in 1936 to embrace the entire country. After a se­ also intensify such floods, and summer thunder storms can ries of disastrous floods affecting wide areas, including cause heavy damage in localized areas. Unless flood damage transportation systems, it was recognized that the federal reduction programs, including multiple purpose storage, government should participate in the solution of problems other flood control structures, nonstructural flood plain affecting the public interest when they are too large or management measures, and watershed treatment are under­ complex to be handled by state or local organizations. taken, recurring floods and substantial flood damage can be The purpose of flood control works is to regulate flood- expected in the future. There is also a need to develop new flows and thus prevent flood damage. In addition, the dependable water supplies for agricultural, municipal, and Flood Control Act of 1944 provided that "flood control" industrial uses. shall include major drainage of land. These objectives are accomplished with reservoirs, local protection works, or combinations of the two. Navigation Reservoirs constructed for flood control storage often include additional storage capacity for multiple-purpose Federal interest in navigation improvements stems from uses, such as the storage of water for municipal and indus­ the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and from subse­ trial use, navigation, irrigation, development of hydroelec­ quent decisions of the Supreme Court to the effect that the tric power, conservation of fish and wildlife, and recreation. federal obligation to regulate navigation and commerce also Local flood protection works are turned over to nonfederal includes the right to make necessary improvements. The authorities for maintenance, as are small reservoirs with a local Corps of Engineers was first assigned responsibility for impact. improving rivers and harbors in 1824. Today, the Corps is responsible for construction, as well as the maintenance and The Corps fights the Nation's flood problems by not only operation, of federal river and harbor projects. constructing and maintaining flood control structures, but also by providing detailed technical information on flood The system of harbors and inland waterways remains one hazards. Under the Flood Plain Management Services pro­ of the most important parts of the nation's transportation gram, the Corps provides, on request, flood hazard informa­ system. Without constant supervision, rivers and other tion, technical assistance and planning guidance to other waterways collect soil, debris and other obstacles which federal agencies, states, local governments and private indi­ lead to groundings and wrecks. New channels and cutoffs viduals. This data and assistance are designed to aid them appear frequently; they and the main traffic lanes require in planning for floods and providing for the regulation of diligent patrolling. Where authorized to do so, the Corps flood plain areas, thus avoiding unwise development in maintains the nation's waterways in navigable condition for flood-prone areas. both business and recreational purposes, benefiting the As an example, if local officials know what areas flood economy and helping prevent loss of lives. in their community and how often floods occur, they then can take necessary action to prevent or minimize damages by adopting and enforcing zoning ordinances, building codes, and subdivision regulations. Shore and Hurricane Protection The Flood Plain Management Services program also pro­ The Corps' work in shore protection began in 1930, vides assistance to other federal agencies and to state agen­ when Congress directed it to study ways to reduce erosion cies in the same manner. Flood hazards data is developed along U.S. seacoasts and the Great Lakes. While each situa­ and provided on request to the extent and detail needed so tion the Corps studies requires different considerations, that those agencies can properly consider the flood hazards engineers look at each one with structural and nonstructural in the execution of their programs. solutions in mind. Engineering feasibility and economic effi­ ciency are considered along with environmental and social The primary purpose of Corps flood control programs in Utah is to meet the most urgent needs of urban and subur­ impacts. ban areas. Existing flood control works have functioned Recommendation for federal participation is based on effectively to protect the project areas. Flood damage pre­ shore ownership, use and type and incidence of benefits. If vented in Utah in the six year period 1981-1986 is esti­ there is no public use or benefit, federal participation is not mated to be $46 million. However, many streams remain recommended. Maintenance of the restored shore is a non­ uncontrolled or only partly controlled, and many areas are federal responsibility. entirely unprotected. The major flood which occurred in the Great Salt Lake Basin in 1983 and 1984 is evidence that The Corps' work in hurricane protection began with a Utah needs to continue comprehensive programs to avoid 1955 law when Congress directed it to conduct general flooding that may cause not only destruction of property investigations along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts to identify and potential loss of life, but also allows large volumes of problem areas and determine the feasibility of protection. water to pass through the system unregulated, and therefore These eastern and southern seaboards have been the sites of unavailable for future use. catastrophic loss of life and property due to hurricanes.

6 In some cases, abnormal storm-induced tidal flooding can and numerous regulations relating to the environment. Con­ be prevented or reduced by protective structures, including sideration of the environmental impact of a Corps project dams and barriers in estuaries, with openings for navigation. begins in the early planning stages, and continues through Other measures include raising dunes and constructing design, construction and operation of the project. The Corps dikes, walls, and breakwaters. There are also places where must also comply with many of these environmental regula­ increasing the height of natural beaches affords effective tions in conducting its regulatory programs (See next sec­ protection. tion). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of1969 is the national charter for the protection of the envi­ ronment, and its procedures ensure that public officials and Hydropower private citizens may obtain and provide environmental The Corps has played a significant role in meeting the information before federal agencies make decisions concern­ Nation's electric power generation needs by building and ing the environment. Corps of Engineers project planning operating hydropower plants in connection with its large procedure under NEPA often point out the need for more multiple-purpose dams. In a series of laws and resolutions extensive environmental studies; namely, the preparation of dating back to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1909, Con­ environmental impact statements. In selecting alternative gress has directed the Corps of Engineers to give considera­ project designs, the Corps strives to choose options with tion in its reports to various water uses, including hydro­ minimum environmental impact. electric power. The Corps continues to consider the potential for hydro­ electric power development during the planning process for Regulatory Programs all water resources projects involving dams and reservoirs. Within its regulatory program, the Corps of Engineers In most instances, however, hydropower facilities at Corps has a mandate to protect navigation by regulating construc­ projects are now developed by nonfederal interests without tion by others in navigable waterways under Section 10 of federal assistance. The Corps becomes involved with plan­ the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Section 404 of the ning, constructing and operating hydropower projects only Clean Water Act, which further refined the 1972 Federal when it is impractical for nonfederal interests to do so. Water Pollution Control Act, and related court decisions The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 requires greatly broadened the Corps' regulatory authority to include nonfederal interests to bare 100 percent of the project costs the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the allocated to hydropower in accordance with the marketing United States," a term which includes most wetlands and provisions of the Department of Energy Organization Act. other valuable aquatic areas. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires notification of the public and opportu­ nity for public hearings before the issuance of a permit. Water Supply The Corps' regulatory program now focuses primarily on The Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended by the weighing the economic and environmental benefits of Water Resources Development Act of 1986, authorized the development versus ecosystem preservation in deciding Corps to provide additional storage in its reservoirs for whether a permit for a proposed activity would be "con­ municipal and industrial water supply at the request of local trary to the public interest." When reviewing permit appli­ interests, provided those interests agree to pay 100 percent cations, the Corps looks at all the relevant factors including of the costs. In granting this authority, however, Congress conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental stipulated that no more than 30% of the construction costs concerns, historic values, wetland values, fish and wildlife of a project may be for water storage. values, flood damage prevention, land use classifications, The Flood Control Act of 1944 provided that the Corps' navigation, recreation, water supply, water quality, energy reservoirs may, without cost to the local community, be needs, food production and the general welfare of the used for irrigation upon recommendation of the Secretary public. of the Interior and in conformance with the Reclamation To reduce the burden of paperwork involved in process­ Act of 1902, which applies in 17 western states. In other ing individual Department of the Army permits, the Corps states, nonfederal entities must assume half the cost of of Engineers has introduced a number of nationwide per­ reservoir capacity allocated to irrigation. mits which require little or no processing; and taken other The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 modi­ measures to streamline the permit application process while fied cost sharing requirements for irrigation water supply maintaining environmental safeguards. The separate Corps for future projjects. It requires nonfederal interests to pay of Engineers districts have also issued regional general per­ 35 percent of the costs allocated for irrigation. mits for certain types of minor works in specific areas Reservoir capacity can also be used for water quality which require only minimal processing. control and streamflow regulation, as authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961. Recreation The Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended, provides Environmental Quality authority to construct, maintain, and operate public park In conducting its Civil Works Program, the Corps must and recreational facilities at water resources development comply with many environmental laws or executive orders projects under the control of the Secretary of the Army,

7 and to permit the construction, maintenance, and operation Advance Measures Prior to Predicted Flooding: of such facilities. It also provides that the water areas of Advance measures consist of those activities performed projects shall be open to public use—generally for boating, prior to flooding or flood fighting to protect against loss of fishing, and other recreational purposes. life and damage to improved property from flooding. There The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 modi­ must be an immediate threat of flooding present before fied cost sharing requirements for recreation developement advance measures can be considered. The threat must be of at flood control and navigation projects. a nature that if action is not taken immediately, damages will occur. Emergency Operations: In time of flood or coastal storm, emergency operations will be undertaken by the Dam Inspection Program Corps of Engineers to supplement local efforts in the fol­ In 1975, in response to the 1972 National Dam Inspec­ lowing general categories: disaster assistance, disaster fight­ tion Act, an inventory of dams revealed that approximately ing, and disaster recovery. Emergency measures are of a 9,000 dams in the United States had high hazard potential. temporary nature designed to meet the imminent threat of These dams are upstream from populated areas that would flooding and to preserve existing protective works. No be seriously affected by a dam failure. authority exists, however, to reimburse locals for costs of The purpose of this program was to fund and administer their own emergency activities. the inspection of nonfederal dams in hazardous locations; Section 917 of the Water Resources Development Act of dams with intermediate hazard potential on federal prop­ 1986 expands the authority under PL 84-99 by authorizing erty; and a limited number of nonfederal dams determined, flood and coastal storm emergency relief work for a period through consultation with state officials, to present an not to exceed 10 days from the governor's request for a immediate threat to public safety. declaration under PL 93-288. This was a cooperative program in which states were Repair of Flood Control Projects Damaged by Floods. expected to assure implementation of an effective dam The Corps of Engineers is authorized to investigate and per­ safety program, assist in the program by participating in form emergency repairs to restore all flood control works, training, make actual dam inspections, and assure that and federally authorized and constructed hurricane and remedial actions were taken with unsafe dams. The inspec­ shore protection projects, when these projects are damaged tion program was completed in September 1981. In Utah, by floods or unusual coastal storm. For nonfederal flood 400 dams were involved in the inventory update, 134 dams control works, public sponsorship and cost sharing are were inspected, and 74 were declared unsafe. required. Clean Water Assistance: The Corps is authorized to provide clean drinking water to communities with contami­ Emergency Work nated water supplies which are causing or likely to cause a The Corps of Engineers undertakes emergency flood con­ substantial threat to the public health and welfare. Contam­ trol work under the following continuing Congressional ination may have resulted from deliberate, accidertal or authorities with funds appropriated annually. Emergency natural events including flooding. flood control work projects need not be specifically autho­ Drought Assistance: Within areas determined to be rized, but they must be as economically and environmen­ drought distressed, the Corps has the authority to construct tally feasible as specifically authorized projects. wells and to transport water to farms, ranches, and political Public Law 84-99: Under this law, the Chief of Engi­ subdivisions. Assistance may be provided when the Secre­ neers is authorized activities to include disaster prepared­ tary of the Army determines that there is a substantial ness, advance measures, flood fighting and rescue work, threat to the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the rehabilitation of flood control works damaged or destroyed area including threat of damage or loss of property. by flood, protection or repair of federally authorized shore Hazard Mitigation: The Corps' involvement in a Disas­ protective works threatened or damaged by coastal storm, ter Declared area, with the Interagency Hazard Mitigation provision of emergency water, and drought assistance. Team headed by FEMA, can extend beyond response dur­ Within the scope of the continuing authorities, the Corps ing a flood and repair after a flood. Activity of hazard mit­ is involved in the following: igation covers a more long-term response effort to mitigate against future flooding damages. It can also serve as an Disaster Preparedness: State and local governments are alternative action, i.e., instead of repairing a structure to responsible for flood emergency preparedness, including preflood conditions, the HM Team may recommend reloca­ training and stockpiling of flood fighting supplies. The role tion to an adjacent development. of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is to supplement the maximum efforts of the state during a flood emergency. The Corps participates in disaster preparedness through planning, training, stockpiling flood fighting supplies, main­ Reevaluation of Completed Projects taining an organization capable of responding quickly to all Section 216 of the 1970 Flood Control Act authorized disasters, and by inspection of completed flood control the Corps of Engineers to review completed navigation and projects. flood control projects when significant changes in physical

8 and economic conditions would warrant such a review. The cooperatively with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The findings of these review investigations are reported to Con­ Corps of Engineers also cooperates in the Watershed Stud­ gress with recommendations for modifying the structures or ies Program of the Soil Conservation Service and the Small their operation, and for improving the quality of the envi­ Reclamation Project Program of the Bureau of ronment in the overall public interest. Reclamation. Public Law 93-288: Under this authority, also known as When authorized by Congress, in recognition of flood the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, the Federal Emergency control accomplishments, the federal government may con­ Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates the relief and tribute that part of the construction cost allocated to flood recovery activities of all federal agencies during major dis­ control, as determined by detailed cost allocation studies. asters (disasters beyond the capability of local and state Dams and reservoirs built under this arrangement are resources). During such disasters declared by the President, known as "Section 7" projects, and must be operated for FEMA may request the Corps of Engineers to act as an flood control according to regulations established by the engineering and construction agency to rehabilitate or re­ Corps of Engineers. store damaged or destroyed facilities, prepare evaluation reports on requests to FEMA for repayment of local costs for repair and restoration work, inspect such work on its Drainage Basins of Utah completion, or perform other disaster recovery and relief Utah can be divided into four geographic areas known as activities. hydrographic or drainage basins as follows: — Great Salt Lake — Sevier Lake Cooperation in Projects — Green River of Other Agencies — Colorado-San Juan Section 7 of the 1944 Flood Control Act assigned the A chapter is devoted to each basin which represents rela­ Secretary of the Army the responsibility for prescribing reg­ tively homogeneous characteristics of streamflow, existing ulations for the use of storage space reserved for flood con­ and potential water resources development, and topographic trol or navigation in all reservoirs constructed wholly or in and economic independence. part with federal funds. In carrying out that responsibility, Basin boundaries are shown on the map at the back of operating regulations for flood control space are developed the book.

9 Great Salt Lake Basin

Description Multipurpose Project The Great Salt Lake Basin consists of the drainage areas Little Dell Lake tributary to the Great Salt Lake, a number of closed drain­ (Sacramento District) ages along the Utah-Nevada boundary, and a small portion of the Snake River system in the northwestern part of the The Little Dell Lake Project was authorized by the 1968 state. With this latter exception, the basin is a closed area Flood Control Act and the 1976 Water Resources Devel­ that has no outlet to the sea. Principal streams are the Jor­ opment Act for flood control, municipal and industrial dan, Provo, Weber, and Bear Rivers. The Bear River rises water supply, general recreation, and fish and wildlife on the northern slope of the Uinta Mountains in Utah. It enhancement. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of flows in a 500-mile horseshoe-shaped course northward 1985 (PL 99-88) placed the project in a new construction through Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho and then southward start status. In order to proceed with construction, a Local back through Utah to the Great Salt Lake. It is the longest Cooperation Agreement addressing the cost-sharing provi­ river in the western hemisphere that does not reach an sions contained in PL 99-88 had to be executed with the ocean. Provo and Weber Rivers rise at high elevations in nonfederal project sponsors. The nonfederal sponsors indi­ the Wasatch Range and flow generally westerly to empty cated that the authorized project would exceed their cost- into Utah Lake and the Great Salt Lake, respectively. The sharing capability. Thus, the Corps evaluated the feasibility Jordan River flows from Utah Lake to the Great Salt Lake. of constructing a smaller project. This evaluation resulted in Other principal streams in the basin are the Logan and a downsized project which retained the basic authorized Ogden Rivers. project purposes of flood control and municipal and indus­ trial water supply and deferred recreational development. The basin encompasses a land area of about 28,000 This concept was mutually acceptable to the Corps and the square miles including a water area of 1,800 square miles. It includes much of prehistoric Lake Bonneville, of which nonfederal sponsors. Consequently, a Local Cooperation the Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, and the Great Salt Desert Agreement based on this downsized project was signed on are remnants. The Wasatch Mountains formed its easterly June 10, 1986. The downsized project will be located about shore. Elevations range from about 4,200 feet in the Great 8 miles east of Salt Lake City on Dell Creek (a tributary to Salt Lake and Great Salt Desert areas to more than 12,000 Parleys Creek) and will feature a dam 224 feet high and a feet in the high headwater areas in the eastern portion of lake with a gross capacity 25,000 acre-feet. About 1,500 the basin. acres of residential, commercial, and industrial

10 property in Salt Lake City will be protected. The project tion's Weber Basin Project. The fifth storage project, Echo will be operated and maintained by the nonfederal sponsors Reservoir, is also a Bureau of Reclamation facility con­ in conjunction with the existing downstream Mountain Dell structed in the 1930s as a feature of the Weber River Proj­ Reservoir (3,200 acre-feet) on Parleys Creek. Project costs ect. In total, these projects provide up to 313,000 acre-feet are estimated at $49.2 million, of which the non-federal of storage for flood control purposes. In addition, they pro­ sponsors' share will be $20.9 million. vide water for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses; Project construction was started in December 1986 with water to benefit stream fishery and waterfowl refuges; and award of a contract to relocate Utah State Highway 65. This water-oriented recreational opportunities. contract is scheduled for completion during the fall of 1987. Flood control operation and flood control benefits are Two utility relocations will be accomplished during 1987. A being analyzed for major storage facilities of the Bonneville core trench and test fill contract will be awarded in the Unit of the Central Utah Project. summer of 1988, and the main dam and appurtenances con­ tract is scheduled for award in the spring of 1989. Project construction is scheduled for completion in 1991. Flood Control Study Jordan River Basin Flood Control Project (Sacramento District) Jordan River At Salt Lake City Comprehensive investigation of the Jordan River and tributaries was authorized by the 1938 Flood Control Act. (Sacramento District) It covers flood damage prevention and conservation of A project for flood control on the Jordan River in west­ water for irrigation, municipal, industrial, recreational, and ern Salt Lake City was authorized in 1946 and completed fish and wildlife uses. Two interim studies completed within in 1961. The improvements were accomplished by enlarg­ the framework of the comprehensive authority have resulted ing 8,000 feet of the Jordan River from Mill Creek to the in the authorization and construction of the Jordan River at head of the Surplus Canal by channel excavation and levee Salt Lake City Project, and in the authorization of Little construction; increasing the channel capacity of the 35,000- Dell Lake. A third interim study, proposing a floodway- foot reach of the Surplus Canal from the Jordan River to parkway plan along the lower portion of the Jordan River Goggin Drain by channel excavation and levee construc­ from near 2100 South Street and extending downstream 8.5 tion; modifying the existing structure at the head of the miles, was completed in May 1976. The Board of Engineers Surplus Canal; and reconstructing or modifying railroad for Rivers and Harbors concluded that the proposed project bridges, street bridges, and irrigation facilities. was not economically feasible and a negative report was The federal cost of the project was $1.2 million and the prepared. A fourth interim study, which deals with flood nonfederal cost was $463,000. Local interests maintain the problems in Salt Lake County, was initiated in 1979. The improvements. The project provides protections to about study includes the downstream portions of Mill, Big Cot­ 5,800 acres in the western Salt Lake City area. tonwood, and Little Cottonwood Creeks; and the Jordan River from 2100 South Street and extending upstream to Salt Lake County's southern boundary. Local interests have Sitiall Flood Control Project built flood control measures on Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood Creeks, the Jordan River, and a portion of Kays Creek at Layton Mill Creek. (Sacramento District) Federal participation was focused on the Mill Creek plan A small flood control project consisting of 4.5 miles of of improvement which includes a combination of diversion channel enlargement along Kays Creek at Layton, Davis facilities and channel improvements. An interim report for County, was authorized in 1965 and completed in 1972. Upper Jordan was completed in 1987. First construction The project extends from Fort Lane Street in Layton down­ costs for diversion facilities and channel improvement are stream to Great Salt Lake, and provides flood protection to estimated at $7.25 million. the city of Layton and vicinity. Rapid urbanization in the basin, particularly in Salt Lake Federal and nonfederal costs of the project were equally County, has produced an urgent need for additional water divided at about $420,000 each. supply and water-oriented recreation opportunities. The The project is maintained by local interests. Central Utah Project (Bureau of Reclamation) and Little Dell Lake (Corps of Engineers) will alleviate present munic­ ipal and industrial water supply needs, but additional water Section 7 Projects developments will be needed by the year 2000. Five storage projects in the Great Salt Lake Basin are The 1983 and 1984 floods amplified the need for flood operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and local sponsor­ reduction measures in the area. Snowmelt runoff in 1983 ing districts for flood control under rules and regulations caused damage throughout the state totaling $655 million prescribed by the Corps of Engineers. Four of the storage (October 1985 dollars) of which $425 million (October projects—Rockport, Lost Creek, East Canyon, and Pine- 1985 dollars) occurred in the Jordan River Basin. view Reservoirs—are features of the Bureau of Reclama­ Local interests are working to prevent the recurrence of

11 critical floods, but are continuing to seek federal assistance acre-feet. The lake collects runoff from a 26,875 square- for flood control improvements. mile drainage area. Critical flood problems and related water resources prob­ lems adjacent to the lake need to be resolved. As a result of Flood Control Study above normal precipitation over the drainage basin since Wasatch Front and Central Utah 1981, the Great Salt Lake in June 1986 peaked at 4,211.85 feet, the highest stage on record. If above normal precipita­ (Sacramento District) tion persists, the lake could continue to rise, causing The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act increased flood damages. From 1982 to 1986, flood dam­ of 1984 directed the Corps of Engineers to conduct special ages adjacent to the lake were about $240 million. Potential flood control studies in Central Utah to determine specific damages have been estimated at $850 million for a lake ways and means to alleviate future flooding. Study efforts elevation of 4,212 and $2.3 billion for an elevation of 4,217. concentrated on canyon debris basins, rivers, and lake tribu­ In May 1986, the Utah State Legislature approved and taries and outlets along the Wasatch front. This area funded the construction of the West Desert pumping proj­ included cities and developments along the western slope of ect. This $55 million project involves pumping water into the Wasatch Mountains, extending from Logan on the the West Desert to be evaporated. The pumping project is north to Gunnison on the south. designed to reduce the lake level about 13 inches the first Public notice of the study's completion was issued in year and about 7 inches per year in subsequent years. The January of 1985. The report was transmitted to higher objective of the project is to maintain a lake level of 4,208 authority and distributed to local governments. feet. This reconnaissance study identified 13 sites within the study area for possible assistance by the Corps of Engineers under the continuing authorities program. Measures in these Flood Control Study areas would cost an estimated $12.1 million. Bear River and Tributaries Several small projects are currently being studied as a (Sacramento District) result of this investigation. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, PL 99- 662, authorized the Corps of Engineers to undertake recon­ naissance studies on the Bear River and its tributaries and Flood Control Study outlets. The study is to determine if improvements for the Great Salt Lake purpose of flood control and related purposes are economi­ (Sacramento District) cally justified. The study is scheduled to begin in October 1987 and the reconnaissance phase will be complete in Sep­ The FY 1985 Supplemental Appropriations Act directed tember 1988. the Corps of Engineers to investigate flooding and related water resources problems adjacent to the Great Salt Lake and develop a plan for alleviating such problems. The study was initiated in October 1985 and completed Flood Control Study in December 1986. The reconnaissance study was con­ Weber River and Tributaries ducted around the Great Salt Lake, with emphasis on Bear (Sacramento District) River, Rose Park, Jordan River, the lakeshore west of The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, PL 99- Corinne and Bountiful, and the areas to be affected by west 662, authorized the Corps of Engineers to undertake recon­ desert pumping. The Report did not find a viable alterna­ naissance studies on the Weber River and its tributaries and tive that could be addressed using existing authorities. outlets. The study is to determine if projects are needed and The Great Salt Lake, the largest lake west of the Missis­ viable for flood control and other purposes. This study has sippi River, is a landlocked lake with no outlet, covering not been funded and will begin when funds are made about 2,000 square miles and containing about 20 million available.

12 Sevier Lake Basin

Road near Richmond was authorized in 1944 and com­ Description pleted in 1951. The Sevier Lake Basin comprises the drainage areas of the The project consists of 14 miles of improved channel Sevier River; numerous independent streams, and small along the Sevier River downstream from the mouth of closed drainages; and the Escalante Desert. The Sevier River Salina Creek, levees from Westview diversion dam to rises in a complex of high plateaus in southwestern Utah. The Redmond Lake Dam, and gated structures in place of two stream meanders northerly about 240 miles, thence southwest­ obstructive diversion dams to improve the carrying capacity erly about 85 miles to terminate in Sevier Lake, a saline of the river. The project protects the community of Red­ body of water that is the drainage center of the basin. The mond and about 3,000 acres of adjacent farmland, im­ principal tributaries to the Sevier River are the San Pitch and proves subsurface drainage in the same area, and provides East Fork Sevier Rivers, and Salina and Otter Creeks. Beaver additional water for irrigation by reducing losses. The proj­ River rises on the west slopes of the Tushar Mountains, flows ect design capacity is 2,600 cubic feet per second. The fed­ westerly to the north end of Escalante Valley, thence north­ eral cost of the project was $919,000 and the nonfederal erly to join the drainage of Sevier River northeast of Sevier cost was $118,000. Lake. The basin is a closed area with no outlet to the sea. It encompasses an area of about 16,000 square miles, including about 60 square miles of water area. Elevations range from Small Flood Control Project about 4,200 feet in the western desert areas to 10,000-11,000 feet in the headwater regions of Sevier River and 12,000 feet Big Wash Diversion Dam and Channel in the Tushar Mountains. (Sacramento District) A small flood control project for Big Wash near Milford, in Beaver County, was authorized in 1959 and completed Flood Control Project in 1961. The project consists of a diversion dam 34 feet Redmond Channel Improvement high and 2,400 feet long, a 325 acre-foot detention basin on Big Wash, and a 4,500 foot-long channel (with a levee only (Sacramento District) on its east side) to divert floodflows up to 15,500 cubic feet The Redmond Channel Improvement Project on Sevier per second from Big Wash to Hickory Wash. The project

13 protects Milford and adjacent agricultural areas. The federal cost of the project, which is operated and maintained by local interests, was $218,000.

Flood Control Study Sevier River and Tributaries (Sacramento District) The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, PL 99- outlets. The studies are to determine if improvements for 662, authorized the Corps of Engineers to undertake recon­ flood control and related purposes are economically and naissance studies on the Sevier River, its tributaries and environmentally justified. The studies have not been funded.

14 Green River Basin

Description Flood Control Study The Green River Basin comprises the area drained by the Colorado River and Tributaries Green River and tributaries in Utah. It encompasses about Above Lee Ferry (Sacramento District) 17,000 square miles. The Green River, which also drains A comprehensive study, Colorado River and Tributaries portions of Wyoming and Colorado, is the largest single above Lee Ferry, Arizona, was authorized by the Flood tributary to the Colorado River, joining that stream from Control Act of 1938 to investigate flood damage reduction, the north in southeastern Utah. The principal tributaries to water conservation, recreation, and salinity control. The the Green River in Utah are the Price, Duchesne, and San overall study area includes the 109,600 square mile drain­ Rafael Rivers. The White River, another major tributary, age area of the Colorado River above Lee Ferry, Arizona, joins the Green River in Utah, but most of its drainage area and covers parts of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, is in northwestern Colorado. Elevations range from about and Wyoming. The Green River Basin is the northern Utah 4,000 feet in the lowest river valley areas to more than portion of the study area. Considerable economic develop­ 13,000 feet in the highest headwater areas. ment has occurred in the area and a number of multipur­ pose reservoirs have been built by the Bureau of Reclama­ tion. Historically, flood damages have been both urban and Section 7 Projects rural. In the Green River Basin, flood control operation regula­ A preliminary examination report was completed in tions are currently under study by the Corps of Engineers 1939, but study was suspended in the 1940s when the for Starvation Reservoir on Strawberry River, a Bureau of Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado Storage Project and Par­ Reclamation storage project. ticipating Projects program was initiated. Limited study was

15 resumed in 1968. In 1971, six public meetings were held in The Green River Basin interim study was resumed in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah to determine the needs of October 1984 to evaluate the potential for flood control affected and interested parties. Framework study reports, improvements and water resources developments, concen­ which were completed in 1971 by federal, state, and local trating initially on the most urgent flood problems at urban agencies, provide a broad guide to the best use, or combina­ centers such as Duchesne, Price, and Vernal in Utah, as tion of uses, of water and related land resources to meet well as locations in Colorado and Wyoming. The study foreseeable short- and long-term needs in the basin. area for this portion of the study encompasses 44,700 Four interim areas have been or are being investigated square miles in northeastern Utah, southwestern Wyoming, under the Colorado River comprehensive study. Two, the and northwestern Colorado. San Juan River and Tributaries and Mill Creek at Moab, A summary study was completed in 1987 concentrated Utah, are in the Colorado-San Juan Basin and are de­ on flood problems at population centers, including Price, scribed in that chapter. The others are in the Green River Duchesne, and Vernal. Existing and possible future flood Basin and are described below. problems were identified and alternative flood control mea­ The Colorado River Basin above Green River interim sures investigated to determine the federal interest in further study is not funded at this time. Primary needs to be inves­ investigation and possible implementation of flood control tigated include urban and rural flood damage prevention at measures. selected locations in Colorado, including Grand Junction, Delta, Paonia, Montrose, and Dolores. The benefits from a As a result of the study, there are possible Section 205 potential project would be for flood protection of urban projects at Price and Vernal. There is also the possibility of and agricultural lands. a Section 14 project at Duchesne.

16 Colorado-San Juan Basin

Mill Creek at Moab, are in the Colorado-San Juan Basin. Description The San Juan River and Tributaries interim study was The Colorado-San Juan Basin comprises the area drained initiated in 1980 to evaluate the potential for flood control by the main stem of the Colorado River in Utah, excluding improvements and water resources development in the San the Green River drainage basin. It encompasses an area of Juan River Basin, concentrating on the Durango, Colorado, about 24,000 square miles. Numerous tributaries join the and Farmington, New Mexico, areas. No feasible alternative Colorado River in Utah. The largest of these are the San was found and a negative report was completed in July Juan River (the second largest tributary in the Colorado 1984. River system) and Dolores River, both of which enter from The Mill Creek at Moab, Utah, interim study was the east, and the Dirty Devil, Escalante, and Paria Rivers, initiated in 1975 in partnership with the State of Utah and which drain the east side of the Wasatch and Aquarius Pla­ local interests to consider flood and other water related teaus and join the Colorado River from the west. Elevations problems. A small channel improvement project or clearing in the basin range from about 2,500 feet in the far western and snagging were found economically feasible. However, sector to more than 11,000 feet in the high headwater areas local interests were unable to support either alternative. of the Dirty Devil and Escalante Rivers. Consequently, a final (negative) feasibility report was com­ pleted in June 1982. Flood Control Study Colorado River and Tributaries Flood Control Study Above Lee Ferry Navajo Indian Reservation (Sacramento District) Arizona, New Mexico and Utah The comprehensive study of the Colorado River and (Los Angeles District) tributaries is described in the preceding chapter (Green A survey investigation at the Navajo Indian Reservation River Basin). was authorized for flood damage prevention and allied pur­ Two interim studies, San Juan River and Tributaries, and poses by Section 176 of the 1976 Water Resources Devel-

17 opment Act (Public Law 94-587). The Navajo Indian Reservation has a population of 150 Bank Protection Study thousand1, and encompasses 26 thousand square miles of Virgin River Near St. George high desert in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The north­ (Los Angeles District) ern part of the reservation drains into the San Juan River, which is a major tributary to the Colorado River above Lee Investigation of erosion and bank protection problems Ferry. The southern part drains into the Little Colorado around bridge abutments, specifically in the vicinity of St. River. George, Washington County, was initiated in March 1980. The investigation will assist the Navajo Indians in devel­ The study was requested by county and state officials fol­ oping a comprehensive plan for water resources develop­ lowing flooding on the Virgin River in February 1980 that ment in an extremely arid region. The Corps of Engineers will provide information on flood damage prevention and resulted in about $895,000 in damages ($401,000 to roads related water resources development problems and will and bridges). recommend, where justified, construction of specific One phase of the study, which was authorized under Sec­ projects. tion 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended, During the flood of October 1972, several small earthfill included investigating possible emergency flood control dams constructed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Ari­ repairs to the Washington Fields, River Road, and Man-of- zona failed. Also, severe damage occurred in several north­ War Bridges. The February 1980 flood caused about $73 eastern Arizona communities. thousand in damages to the abutments of these three The investigation will begin when funds are made bridges, which span the Virgin River near St. George and available. provide access to nearby farmland and communities. All three studies of the bridges determined that federal involve­ 1 This population figure is from the 1980 census and ment was not economically justified. includes all Indians living on reservations in Arizona. The populations in New Mexico and Utah are negligible. The studies were completed in August 1981.

18 Floods and Emergency Operations

During May and June of 1984, near record snowmelt Utah Floods (1982-1985) runoff occurred, and 12 of Utah's 29 counties qualified for From 1982 to 1985, the State of Utah experienced a disaster aid. In December, the State of Utah requested number of devastating floods. Record rainfall on September assistance to avert flooding from the rising waters of the 26, 1982, began major flooding in the Jordan River Basin. Great Salt Lake and in 1985 Utah Lake and Great Salt The Jordan River, Big and Little Cottonwood Creeks, Mill Lake reached levels unsurpassed in over 100 years. Creek, and many city and county streets within Salt Lake County were flooded. Numerous residential and commercial areas suffered damage due to the widespread and unex­ pected nature of the flood. The unusual weather continued throughout the 1983 Emergency Operations In Utah water year. The most severe and extensive snowmelt in the history of Utah occurred during the spring of 1983. Wide­ (1982-1985) spread flood and debris flow damage along the Wasatch Major emergency work in Utah was undertaken in 1982 Front totaled nearly $627 million (1983 dollars), and and 1983, and included Advance Measures projects con­ affected the state's metropolitan areas. Roads, railroads, pri­ sisting of constructing levees at Utah Lake near Provo and vate homes and businesses, agricultural land, and public pumping water over the slide at Thistle, on the Spanish facilities were damaged. Water lines were broken, water supplies were contaminated, utility systems were damaged Fork River. The Sacramento District also performed flood and destroyed, and several areas were evacuated. fighting at three other areas and provided 1.2 million Major flood sites were the Thistle slide and flood in sandbags to the state to supplement its supply. Total Public Spanish Fork Canyon, Utah County, and the DMAD dam Law 84-99 costs were approximately $4.0 million. failure in Millard County in the Sevier River Basin. In During this time, the Federal Emergency Management April 1983, state and presidential disasters were declared. Agency (FEMA) requested that the Corps prepare damage Both public and private organizations responded to the survey reports which estimated damage to public facilities emergencies. Local, state, and federal government entities worked closely with private citizens, local industries, com­ in Utah at $22 million. munity groups, and church organizations. During 1984, the Sacramento District performed two By July 1983, 22 of 29 counties in Utah were included Advance Measures projects to reduce the effects of antici­ in the presidential disaster declaration, including 122 politi­ pated flooding. These projects included extending and rais­ cal subdivisions (cities, towns, counties, and water districts) ing levees near Provo Airport again ($1.5 million), and and the Spanish Fork landslide and Thistle flood. building a new levee at the south end of Utah Lake ($1.3 Summary of Flood Damages* million). Also, the Surplus Canal was rehabilitated by Great Salt Lake Basin dredging ($1.25 million). The Sacramento District also Bear River Basin $ 4.5 opened a flood operations office in Salt Lake City in the Davis County Streams 19.1 Spring of 1984. This office provided valuable liaison with Jordan River Basin 41.0 state emergency operations personnel and helped prevent Great Salt Lake 77.9 further flood damage. The Sacramento District also pro­ Utah Lake Basin 364.0 vided personnel to FEMA for predeclaration damage Weber River Basin 10.0 Desert Areas Streams 1.5 assessment survey and postdeclaration damage survey Sevier Lake Basin reports. Sevier River Basin 31.0 By the spring of 1985, the Sacramento District had San Pitch River Basin 19.0 completed two more Advance Measures projects: Perry Green River Basin City Sewage Lagoons in Box Elder County and North Duchesne River Basin 0.6 Sewage Plant in South Davis County. These projects were Price River Basin 1.1 Green River Basin 2.9 built primarily to protect public facilities and to safeguard public health and safety. The cost of these two projects Colorado River Basin Colorado River Basin 0.4 was approximately at $1.2 million. Flood Fights In 1986, in response to a request from the governor, the All areas 54.0 Corps raised and strengthened the two 1985 Advance TOTAL $627.0 Measures Projects at Perry City and North Plant. The * Includes agricultural, industrial/utility, public facilities, work was done under flood fight measures at a cost of and commercial and residential damages (when available). about $297,600.

19 Glossary

Control dam: A dam or structure with gates to control the Accretion: Natural or artificial buildup of land. Natural discharge from the upstream reservoir or lake. accretion results solely from natural activities, such as Crest length: The length of a dam along its crest. the deposition of waterborne or airborne material on a Dam: A barrier constructed across a valley for impounding beach. Artificial accretion results from acts of man, such water or creating a reservoir. as groin or breakwater construction or mechanical beach filling. Damages prevented: The difference between damages Acre-foot: A volume of water equivalent to 1 acre of land without the project and the damages with the project in place. covered to a depth of 1 foot. One acre-foot equals 43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons. Deep-draft harbor: A harbor designed to accommodate commercial cargo vessels having drafts greater than 15 Advance engineering and design work: Work done by feet. the Corps of Engineers in preparation of a project for construction. Degree of protection: The amount of protection that a flood control measure is designed for, as determined by Agricultural levee: A levee that protects agricultural areas engineering feasibility, economic criteria, and social, envi­ where the degree of protection is usually less than that of ronmental, and other considerations. a flood control levee. Alluvial: Of, pertaining to, or composed of sediment depos­ Dike: An embankment to confine, control, or deflect water. ited by flowing water, as in a riverbed, flood plain, or Distributaries: (1) In irrigation, the smaller conduits, delta. ditches or pipelines taking water out of laterals for deliv­ ery to farms. (2) Any system of secondary conduits in an Anabranch: An effluent of a stream that rejoins the main irrigation or domestic water supply system. (3) Elements stream, forming an island between the two watercourses. of a network of connecting stream channels on an allu­ Appropriation: The setting aside of money by Congress, vial fan, plain or delta. Also called braided stream. (4) through legislation, for a specific use. Diverging streams which do not return to the main Arch-gravity structure: A structure which derives its stream, but discharge into another stream or the ocean. resistance to the pressure of water from both an arching Diversion channel: (1) An artificial channel constructed effect and its own weight. around a town or other point of high potential flood Authorization: House and Senate Public Works Committee damages to divert floodwater from the main channel to resolutions or specific legislation which provides the legal minimize flood damages. (2) A channel carrying water basis for conducting studies or constructing projects. The from a diversion dam. money necessary for accomplishing the work is not a Draft: The vertical distance from the waterline to the bot­ part of the authorization, but must come from an appro­ tom of a floating vessel. priation by Congress. Dredged material: The material removed in excavation or Bank and channel stabilization: The process of preventing dredging in access canals, boat or navigation channels, bank erosion and channel degradation. drainage ditches, and lakes. Basin: (1) Drainage area of a lake or stream, such as a Earthfill dam: A dam the main section of which is com­ river basin. (2) A naturally or artificially enclosed harbor posed principally of earth, gravel, sand, silt, and clay. for small craft, such as a yacht basin. Bifurcate: To divide into two branches. Environmental Assessment (EA): A report that presents the first thorough examination of alternative plans to Bifurcation gate: A gate located at a point were a conduit positively demonstrate that the environmental and social is divided into two branches to divert the flow into consequences of a federal action were considered. If the either branch or allow flow into both branches. EA concludes that the proposal is a major federal action Channel: (1) A perceptible natural or artificial waterway significantly impacting on the quality of the human envi­ which periodically or continuously contains moving ronment, or if it determines that the project will be envi­ water or which forms a connecting link between two ronmentally controversial, an environmental impact bodies of water. It has a definite bed and banks which statement will be required. confine the water. (2) The deep portion of a river or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A report required waterway where the main current flows. (3) The part of by Section 102(2)(c) of Public Law 91-190 for all fed­ a body of water deep enough to be used for navigation eral actions which significantly impact on the quality of through an area otherwise too shallow for navigation. the human environment or are environmentally contro­ Concrete-gravity structure: A type of concrete structure in versial. The EIS is a detailed and formal evaluation of which resistance to overturning is provided only by its the favorable and adverse environmental and social own weight. impact of a proposed project and its alternatives. Confluence: The place were streams meet. FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

20 Flood capacity: The flow carried by a stream or floodway Mouth of river: The exit or point of discharge of a stream at bankful water level. Also, the storage capacity of the into another stream, a lake, or the sea. flood pool at a reservoir. Oxbow lake: A lake formed in the meander of a stream, Flood crest: The highest, or peak, elevation of the water resulting from the abandonment of the meandering level during a flood in a stream. course due to the formation of a new channel course. Paleontology: The study of fossils and ancient life forms. Flood plain: Valley land along the course of stream which is subject to inundation during periods of high water that Pier: A structure which extends from the shore out into the exceed normal bankful elevation. lake and serves primarily for mooring and landing boats. Also, the term is sometimes used synonymously with Flood proofing: Techniques for preventing flood damage to jetty. the structure and contents of buildings in a flood hazard Potamology: That branch of hydrology which pertains to area. streams, the science of rivers. Floodwall: A wall, usually built of reinforced concrete, to Preconstruction planning: Planning before construction, confine a stream to prevent flooding. usually done during a project's post-authorization stage. Geomorphology: A science that deals with the land and Reach: A length, distance, or leg of a channel or other submarine relief features of the earth's surface or the watercourse. comparable features of a celestial body, and seeks a Rehabilitation: A major repair job. Usually involves con­ genetic interpretation of them. siderable reconstruction of existing structures. Groin: A wall-like structure built perpendicular to the bank Reservoir: A pond, lake, tank, basin, or other space, either to prevent erosion. natural or created in whole or in part by the building of Habitat: The total of the environmental conditions which a structure such as a dam, which is used for storage, reg­ affect the life of plants and animals. ulation, and control of water. Headwaters: (1) The upper reaches of a stream near its Revetment: (1) A facing of stone, concrete, or sandbags, or source. (2) The region where ground waters emerge to other materials, used to protect a bank of earth from form a surface stream. (3) The water upstream from a erosion. (2) A retaining wall. structure. Revetted levee: An embankment faced with an erosion protection layer, built to prevent a river from Hydraulic earthfill dam: An embankment built up from waterborne clay, sand, and gravel carried through a pipe overflowing. or flume. Riparian: Of, pertaining to, or situated, or dwelling on, the bank of a river or other body of water. (2) One who Ice jam: Accumulation of ice packed together and piled up, owns land on the bank of a natural watercourse or body choking the stream channel, and causing a rise in water of water. level above the jam. Riparian vegetation: Vegetation growing on the banks of a Impoundment: The collection or confinement of water, as stream or other body of water. if in a lake. Riprap: A layer, facing, or protective mound of randomly Jetty: A structure similar to a groin built on a seashore or placed stones to prevent erosion, scour, or sloughing of a riverbank to prevent erosion due to currents and/or structure or embankment. Also, the stone used for this tides. purpose. Joint-use storage: Reservoir storage space which is used Rock dike: An embankment built principally of rock. for more than one purpose. The operation may follow a Saddle: (1) A steel or concrete structure used for support­ fixed predetermined schedule or may be flexible and sub­ ing a pipe or penstock laid above the surface of the ject to adjustment, depending upon particular hydrologic ground. (2) A depression in a ridge. (3) An assembly of conditions. circumferential metal straps on a pipe where a connec­ Left or right bank of river: The left-hand or right-hand tion is to be installed. bank of a stream when the observer faces downstream. Shoal area: Patches of sand, gravel, or other hard bottom lying at shallow depths. Levee: An embankment, generally constructed close to the Sill: (1) A horizontal beam forming the bottom of the banks of the stream, lake, or other body of water, entrance to a lock. (2) Also, a low, submerged damlike intended to protect the landside from inundation or to structure built to control riverbed scour and current confine the streamflow to its regular channel. speeds. Littoral: Of, or pertaining to, a shore, especially a seashore. Slough: (1) a small muddy marshland or tidal waterway More specifically, the zone of the sea floor lying between which usually connects other tidal areas. (2) A tideland the tide levels. or bottomland creek. (3) A side channel or inlet, such as Maneuvering channel: A channel intended to facilitate from a river or bayou, that may be connected at both maneuvering of vessels into and out of slips. ends to a parent body of water.

21 Glossary Spillway: A waterway, or a dam, or other hydraulic struc­ Toe: (1) The downstream edge at the base of a dam. (2) ture used to discharge excess water to prevent a dam The line of a natural or fill slope where it intersects the from overtopping. natural ground. (3) The lowest edge of a backslope of a cut where it intersects the roadbed or bench. Spoil material: (See "Dredged Material"). Tributary: A stream or other body of water that contrib­ Stage: The elevation of the water surface above or below utes its water to another stream or body of water. an arbitrary point. Turning basin: A widened area in a navigation channel or harbor area intended to allow vessels to turn around. Standard project flood: A flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of meteorological and Watershed: The whole surface drainage area that contrib­ utes water to a collecting river or lake. hydrological conditions that are reasonably characteristic of the geographical region involved, excluding extremely Wingdam: A wall, crib, row of pilings, stone jetty, or other barrier projecting from the bank into a stream for pro­ rare combinations. tecting the bank from erosion, arresting sand movement, Streambed: A channel occupied or formerly occupied by a or for concentrating the low flow of a stream into a stream. smaller channel.

22 INDEX

Advance Measures Prior to Predicted Flooding 8 Hydropower 7 Authorization and Planning Process for Jordan River at Salt Lake City 11 Water Resources Projects 2 Jordan River Basin 11 Bear River and Tributaries 12 Kays Creek at Layton 11 Big Wash Diversion Dam and Channel 13 Little Dell Lake 10 Civil Works Authorities (Authorization and Major Steps in the Planning, Design Planning Process for Water and Implementation of Resources Projects) 2 Civil Works Projects 2 Civil Works Overview 1 Navajo Indian Reservation 17 Clean Water Assistance 8 Navigation 6 Colorado River and Tributaries Above Planning Process for Continuing Authorities Lee Ferry (Colorado-San Juan Basin) 17 Program Projects 5 Colorado River and Tributaries Above Principles and Guidelines 2 Lee Ferry (Green River Basin) 15 Project Deauthorization 5 Colorado-San Juan Basin 17 Projects Approved by the Continuing Authorities Program 4 Public Works Committees 5 Cooperation in Projects of Other Agencies 9 Recreation 7 Cost Sharing (How Local Interests Share in Reconnaissance Phase 4 Federal Projects) 5 Redmond Channel Improvement 13 Dam Inspection Program 8 Redmond Lake Dam 13 Disaster Preparedness 8 Reevaluation of Completed Projects 8 Drainage Basins 9 Regulatory Programs 7 Drought Assistance 8 Repair of Flood Control Projects Damaged by Floods.. 8 Emergency Operations 8 Emergency Operations in Utah 19 Section 7 Projects (Cooperation in Emergency Work 8 Projects of Other Agencies) Environmental Quality 7 Great Salt Lake Basin 11 Feasibility Phase 4 Green River Basin 15 Flood Control and Flood Plain Management 5 Sevier Lake Basin 13 Floods and Emergency Operations Sevier River and Tributaries 14 (Emergency Work) 19 Shoreline and Hurricane Protection 6 Glossary 20 Two-Phase Study Process 4 Great Salt Lake 12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Activities in Utah 1 Great Salt Lake Basin 10 Utah Floods 19 Green River Basin 15 Virgin River Near St. George 18 Hazard Mitigation 8 Wasatch Front and Central Utah 12 History of Corps Activities in Utah 1 Water Supply 7 How Local Interests Share in Federal Projects 5 Weber River and Tributaries 12

GPQ 585-063/89620 23 Legend H H H Completed Under Construction Lake -f | Channel

Hydrographic Basin Boundary

Corps of Engineers Districts

Walla Walla Great Salt Lake KAYS CREEK AT LAY JON Sacramento

Los Angeles

Flaming Gorge Reservoi

Tooe le JORDAN RIVER CHANNEL IHPROVEHENT

LITTLE DELL LAKE Lit ah L»ke

Great Salt Lake

Neph 1 Green Hi

REDMOND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT Redmond

cnf le Id

Moab

Sevier La

BIG UASH DIVERSION DAM AND CHANNEL Coloradof- Sah Juan

Mont ice11

Bland ins Cedar City Lake Powell

J*• Gaort*