DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ASPINALL UNIT OPERATIONS ASPINALL UNIT—COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT GUNNISON RIVER, COLORADO VOLUME I U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado Region Western Colorado Area Office Grand Junction, Colorado January 2009 Mission Statement: The Mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American Public. ASPINALL UNIT OPERATIONS: ASPINALL UNIT— COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT GUNNISON RIVER, COLORADO Draft Environmental Impact Statement Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (lead agency) Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service State of Colorado Colorado Department of Natural Resources Colorado Water Conservation Board Colorado Division of Water Resources Colorado Division of Wildlife U.S. Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration Colorado River Water Conservation District Southwestern Water Conservation District Platte River Power Authority Abstract: The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, proposes to implement a plan to avoid jeopardy to four endangered fish in the Gunnison and Colorado rivers downstream from the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit, a Colorado River Storage Project facility in western Colorado. The plan focuses on modifying the operation of the Aspinall Unit to provide sufficient releases of water at times, quantities, and duration necessary to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification to designated critical habitat, while maintaining authorized purposes of the Aspinall Unit. Four action alternatives are presented to address Flow Recommendations developed by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program for downstream endangered fish and are compared to the No Action Alternative. A preferred alternative is identified. This draft environmental impact statement has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. For Further Information Contact: Bureau of Reclamation, Western Colorado Area Office 2764 Compass Drive, Suite 106 Grand Junction, CO 81506 Telephone: 970-248-0600 Faxogram: 970-248-0601 Email: [email protected] File Number: ___DES_09-02_____ Comments Due: __April 24, 2009__ (Blank Page) (Blank Page) Acronyms 07-02 Update A ACOE Army Corps of Engineers af acre foot Aspinall Unit Wayne N. Aspinall Unit B BA biological assessment Black Canyon NP Black Canyon of the Gunnison Nation Park BLM Bureau of Land Management BO Biological Opinion C CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CDWR Colorado Division of Water Resource CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CRSP Colorado River Storage Project Curecanti NRA Curecanti National Recreation Area D dB decibel db(A) daily average decibel level DEIS draft environmental impact statement E EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act F FEIS final environmental impact statement Flow Flow Recommendations to Benefit the Endangered Fishes in Recommendations the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers i ft feet I IMPLAN an economic computer-based modeling program Indian American Indian ITAs Indian Trust Assets K kW kilowatt kWh kilowatthour M M&I municipal and industrial mg/l milligrams per liter MOA memorandum of agreement MOU memorandum of understanding MW megawatt MWh megawatt-hour N NCA National Conversation Area NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NEV Net Economic Value NIWQP National Irrigation Water Quality Program NOA notice of availability NOI notice of intent NP National Park NPS National Park Service NRA National Recreation Area O O&M operation and maintenance P P.L. Public Law PM particulate matter Ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million ii R Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Recovery Program Upper Colorado River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program RM river mile RV recreational vehicle RWCP Redlands Water and Power Company S Secretary Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SLCA/IP Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects T TCWCD Tri-County Water Conservancy District U UGRWCD Upper Gunnison River Conservancy District USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey UVWUA Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association W Western Western Area Power Administration Symbols μg/g micrograms per gram μg/l micrograms per liter iii Table of Contents CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION ... 1-1 1.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................1-1 1.1.1 General...................................................................................................1-1 1.1.2 Proposed Action .....................................................................................1-1 1.1.3 Scope of the Proposed Action ................................................................1-2 1.1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action........................................1-2 1.1.5 Authority..................................................................................................1-2 1.2 Background....................................................................................................1-4 1.2.1 Aspinall Unit............................................................................................1-4 1.2.2 Initial Operation.......................................................................................1-6 1.2.3 Previous ESA Consultations ...................................................................1-6 1.2.3.1 Dallas Creek Project........................................................................ 1-7 1.2.3.2 Dolores Project................................................................................ 1-8 1.2.3.3 Upper Gunnison Subordination Agreement..................................... 1-9 1.2.3.4 Redlands Diversion Dam Fish Ladder and Contract Consultation. 1-10 1.2.3.5 Redlands Canal Fish Screen Consultation ........................................ 1-11 1.2.3.6 Other Reclamation Aspinall Unit Consultations ................................. 1-11 1.2.4 Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program ................1-12 1.2.5 Flow Recommendations .......................................................................1-12 1.3 Issues of Concern ........................................................................................1-17 1.4 Cooperating Agencies..................................................................................1-17 1.5 Connected and Related Actions...................................................................1-18 1.6 Responsibilities and Compliance .................................................................1-18 1.6.1 Environmental.......................................................................................1-19 1.6.2 Cultural Preservation ............................................................................1-19 1.6.3 American Indian....................................................................................1-19 1.6.4 Other.....................................................................................................1-20 1.7 Document Review........................................................................................1-20 1.8 Document Organization ...............................................................................1-20 CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .................................... 2-1 2.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Alternative Formulation ..................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Formulation and Evaluation Criteria........................................................2-1 2.3 Selected Alternatives .....................................................................................2-2 2.3.1 No Action Alternative ..............................................................................2-2 2.3.2 Risk of Spill Alternative-Alternative A......................................................2-4 2.3.2.1 May-June Time Frame ...................................................................... 2-4 2.3.2.2 Ramping Rates.................................................................................. 2-5 2.3.2.3 Base Flows........................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.3 Fish Peak w/ Duration Alternative-Alternative B .....................................2-6 2.3.3.1 January-March Time Frame .............................................................. 2-6 2.3.3.2 April-July Time Frame ....................................................................... 2-7 2.3.3.3 August-December Time Frame ......................................................... 2-8 2.3.3.4 Ramping Rates.................................................................................. 2-8 iv 2.3.3.5 Base Flows........................................................................................ 2-8 2.3.4 Fish Peak— w/ Increased Duration-Alternative C...................................2-8 2.3.5 Fish Peak –w/ Revised Target Alternative-Alternative D.........................2-9 2.3.6 Characteristics Common to all Selected Alternatives ...........................2-10 2.3.6.1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cogjm.Bure Reclam Dev Co.Pdf (160.6Kb)
    . -~ BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DEVELOPMENT IN COLORADO Colorado's Centennial Year finds 10 Bureau of Reclamation water and land resource development projects in the state completed or under construction. The developments are the Uncompahgre, Grand Valley, Fruitgrowers Dam, Colorado-Big Thompson, Pine River, Mancos, San Luis Valley, Paonia, and Collbran Projects, and the St. Francis Unit of the Missouri River Basin Project. Eight of the projects made available in 1957 full water supplies to 97, 694 acres and supplemental supplies to 781, 647 acres. (Data on the San Luis Valley Project are not available and the1 Collbran Project is under con­ struction.) The gross value of the crops produced on the eight projects in 1957 totaled $81, 495, 163. In the same year, more than 12, 000 farms and 282, 000 persons were served with water from the projects. Seven powerplants on the projects have a total in­ stalled capacity of 186, 9 50 kilowatts. The following are summary descriptions of the projects. Uncompahgre Project (Gunnison, Delta, and Montrose Counties)--This is the earliest project constructed by the Bureau in Colorado. Construction began in .July 1904, and first water for irrigation was made available during the season of 1908. Project lands, which obtain water dive rted from the Uncompahgre and Gunnison Rivers, surround the town of Montrose, and extend along both sides of the Uncompahgre River to Delta, a dis­ tance of 34 miles. Features include the Taylor Park Dam and Reservoir, the 5. 8-mile­ long Gunnison Tunnel, 7 diversion dams, 143 miles of main canals, 425 miles of later­ als, and 215 miles of drains.
    [Show full text]
  • Blue Mesa Reservoir
    BLUE MESA RESERVOIR General Information Located in Western Colorado near the town of Gunnison, Blue Mesa Reservoir is Colorado's largest body of water. Blue Mesa Dam was built in 1966 and was the first and largest of the three Aspinall Unit dams intended to store and control spring flows on the Gunnison River. Blue Mesa Reservoir is 20 miles long and is the largest Lake Trout and Kokanee salmon fishery in the United States. It lies within the Curecanti National Recreation Area. Curecanti National Recreation Area 102 Elk Creek Gunnison, CO 81230 (970) 641-2337 www.nps.gov/cure Activities Boating, fishing, boat-in, developed, and primitive camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, and wildlife viewing. Facilities Visitor center at Elk Creek, campgrounds (8), marinas (2), boat ramps, day use / picnic areas, hiking trails, and Pappy’s Restaurant. Elk Creek Complex (970) 641-0707 The Elk Creek complex is the major facility of Blue Mesa Reservoir. It features a visitor center, the main marina, Pappy's Restaurant, campground and RV dump station. Campground consists of four loops with 160 campsites, water, electric hookups (Loop D), flush and vault restrooms, and showers also available. The marina offers in and out boat launching, a store, fish tackle, gasoline, boat rentals, kayaks, canoes, SUP's and boat slips. The marina and the restaurant are only open in the summer, while the visitor center and campground are open year- round. www.nps.gov/cure/planyourvisit/camp_elk_creek.htm www.thebluemesa.com Lake Fork Marina (970) 641-3048 The marina offers in and out boat launching, a store and tackle shop, gasoline, boat rentals, boat slips and guided fishing.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Dolores Project Drought Contingency Plan
    DOLORES PROJECT DOLORES DROUGHT WATER CONSERVANCY CONTINGENCY DISTRICT PLAN A plan to reduce the impacts of drought for users of the Dolores Project by implementing mitigation and response actions to decreases theses impacts 0 Table of Contents TABLES AND FIGURES .............................................................................................................. 3 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................ 4 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 6 DISTRICT BOARD RESOLUTION TO ADOPT PLAN ............................................................. 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 10 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Purpose of the Drought Contingency Plan ..................................................................... 11 1.2 Planning Area ................................................................................................................. 11 1.3 History of Dolores Project.............................................................................................. 18 1.4 Dolores Project Drought Background ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UCRC Annual Report for Water Year 2019
    SEVENTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 2 UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION 355 South 400 East • Salt Lake City, UT 84111 • 801-531-1150 • www.ucrcommission.com June 1, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear President Biden: The Seventy-Second Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission, as required by Article VIII(d)(13) of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 (“Compact”), is enclosed. The report also has been transmitted to the Governors of each state signatory to the Compact, which include Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Arizona. The budget of the Commission for Fiscal Year 2021 (July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021) is included in this report as Appendix B. Respectfully yours, Amy I. Haas Executive Director and Secretary Enclosure 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................. 8 COMMISSIONERS .................................................................................... 9 ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS ........................................................... 10 OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION ....................................................... 10 COMMISSION STAFF ............................................................................. 10 COMMITTEES ......................................................................................... 11 LEGAL COMMITTEE ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uncompahgre Project
    Uncompahgre Project David Clark Wm. Joe Simonds, ed. Bureau of Reclamation 1994 Table of Contents Uncompahgre Project...........................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................2 Project Authorization.....................................................5 Construction History .....................................................5 Post-Construction History................................................10 Settlement of the Project .................................................13 Uses of Project Water ...................................................14 Conclusion............................................................15 Bibliography ................................................................16 Government Documents .................................................16 Books ................................................................16 Articles...............................................................16 Index ......................................................................18 1 Uncompahgre Project Uncompahgre is a Ute word meaning as follows; Unca-=hot; pah=water, gre=spring. One of the oldest Reclamation projects, the Uncompahgre Project contains one storage dam, several diversion dams, 128 miles of canals, 438 miles of laterals and 216 miles of drains. The project includes mesa and valley land on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado at an elevation
    [Show full text]
  • Curecanti Unit Colorado River Storage Project
    CURECANTI UNIT COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary Bureau of Reclamation, Floyd E. Dominy, Commissioner CURECANTI UNIT Colorado River Storage Project BLUE MESA DAM GUNNISON 0 <:- PLANT If{' -""~BLUE MESA DAM! ~1 ~~~~~~~!1li~"""~ Go POWERPLANT ill d, rF:_=~~~~:°w POINT DAMI "<-::.-:.CRYSTAL'----_..,. _____ DAMI ..., CURECANTI UNIT The Curecanti Storage Unit is an will stand 340 feet above the original important part of a vast program to streambed elevation. A 60,000-kilowatt store, regulate, and put to widespread powerplant will be located at Blue Mesa beneficial use the waters of the Upper Dam. Colorado River and its tributaries-large and small. The purpose of the Curecanti Construction on the Curecanti Unit Unit is to control the flows of the Gunni­ began in 1961 with the relocation of son River, a major tributary of the Upper about 6 1 /2 miles of U.S. Highway 50 Colorado River. Three other such stor­ through the lower part of the Blue Mesa age units are now under construction­ Reservoir area. Portions of the highway the Flaming Gorge Unit on the Green will be flooded during high water per­ River in the northeast corner of Utah iods when the Gunnison River is divert­ the Navajo Unit on the San Juan River ed through tunnels around the Blue Me­ in northwest New Mexico; and the Glen sa damsite. During 1961, surveys and Canyon Unit on the Colorado River in other preconstruction work will be com­ northern Arizona. pleted for Blue Mesa Dam. Early in 1962, the contract for construction of The Curecanti Unit will involve the Blue Mesa Dam is scheduled for award.
    [Show full text]
  • Gunnison River
    final environmental statement wild and scenic river study september 1979 GUNNISON RIVER COLORADO SPECIAL NOTE This environmental statement was initiated by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources in January, 1976. On January 30, 1978, a reorganization within the U.S. Department of the Interior resulted in BOR being restructured and renamed the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS). On March 27, 1978, study responsibility was transferred from HCRS to the National Park Service. The draft environmental statement was prepared by HCRS and cleared by the U.S. Department of the Interior prior to March 27, 1978. Final revisions and publication of both the draft environmental statement, as well as this document have been the responstbility of the National Park Service. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT GUNNISON WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY Prepared by United States Department of the Interior I National Park Service in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources represented by the Water Conservation Board staff Director National Par!< Service SUMMARY ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1. Type of action: ( ) Administrative (X) Legislative 2. Brief description of action: The Gunnison Wild and Scenic River Study recommends inclusion of a 26-mile (41.8-km) segment of the Gunnison River, Colorado, and 12,900 acres (S,200 ha) of adjacent land to be classified as wild in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the administration of the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. D. I. This river segment extends from the upstream boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument to approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) below the confluence with the Smith Fork.
    [Show full text]
  • Coldwater Lake and Reservoir Research Projects
    Coldwater Lake and Reservoir Research Projects Adam G. Hansen, Ph.D. Aquatic Research Scientist Annual Report Colorado Parks & Wildlife Aquatic Research Section 317 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, Colorado May 2018 STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bob Randall, Executive Director COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE Bob Broscheid, Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION John V. Howard, Vice-Chair Marvin McDaniel Michelle Zimmerman, Secretary Robert “Dean” Wingfield Robert W. Bray James Vigil Marie Haskett Dale E. Pizel Carrie Hauser Jim Spehar Alexander Zipp Ex Officio/Non-Voting Members: Don Brown, Bob Randall and Bob Broscheid AQUATIC RESEARCH STAFF George J. Schisler, Aquatic Research Leader Kelly Carlson, Aquatic Research Program Assistant Peter Cadmus, Aquatic Research Scientist/Toxicologist, Water Pollution Studies Eric R. Fetherman, Aquatic Research Scientist, Salmonid Disease Studies Ryan Fitzpatrick, Aquatic Research Scientist, Eastern Plains Native Fishes Eric E. Richer, Aquatic Research Scientist/Hydrologist, Stream Habitat Restoration Matthew C. Kondratieff, Aquatic Research Scientist, Stream Habitat Restoration Dan Kowalski, Aquatic Research Scientist, Stream & River Ecology Adam G. Hansen, Aquatic Research Scientist, Coldwater Lakes and Reservoirs Kevin B. Rogers, Aquatic Research Scientist, Colorado Cutthroat Studies Kevin G. Thompson, Aquatic Research Scientist, 3-Species and Boreal Toad Studies Andrew J. Treble, Aquatic Research Scientist, Aquatic Data Management and Analysis Brad Neuschwanger, Hatchery Manager, Fish Research Hatchery Tracy Davis, Hatchery Technician, Fish Research Hatchery David Karr, Hatchery Technician, Fish Research Hatchery Jim Guthrie, Federal Aid Coordinator Alexandria Austermann, Librarian 2 Table of Contents I. Limnology, Zooplankton and Mysis Project A. Physical limnology, zooplankton and Mysis collections from Blue Mesa Reservoir, Lake Granby, and Taylor Park Reservoir (2016-2017)….…………..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Work Starts on Blue Mesa Dam
    ... Work starts on Blue Mesa Dam On the Gunnison River in western Colorado, the Tecon Corp. has started work on the first dam of the Curecanti Unit of the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Stor­ age Project. The 342-ft. earthfill dam will contain 3,000,- 000 cu. yd. Reservoir storage will be 940,800 ac. ft. and the powerplant will have a 60,000-kw. capacity. CONSTRUCTION of the Bureau of By GRANT BLOODGOOD The darn embankment will consist Reclamation's Blue Mesa Darn and Assistant Commissioner and Chief Engineer of three zones of selected material, Powerplant on the Gunnison River in Bure1u of Recl11m11tion each distinguished by its particular western Colorado began in late Ap­ Denver, Colorado structural and permeable properties ril. The darn and powerplant are the and by the method of placement. De­ major features to be undertaken on Blue Mesa Dam is to be construct­ tails are provided in the caption of the Curecanti Unit of the Colorado ed about 25 mi. downstream from the cross-section drawing. River Storage Project. The $13,706,- Gunnison and about 1 Y.2 mi. down­ 230 contract for construction of the stream from the town of Sapinero. Powerplant 342-ft. earthfill darn and 60,000-kw. Principal dimensions and characteris­ powerplant is held by the Tecon Cor­ tics of the darn and powerplant ap­ The Blue Mesa Powerplant, to be poration, Dallas, Texas. Work under pear in the accompanying table. constructed at the downstream toe of the contract is required to be com­ Geologically, the darnsite is favor­ the darn, is to house two 30,000-kv.
    [Show full text]
  • A Partici Municipal
    COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD 102 Columbine Building 1845 Sherman Street Denver Colorado 80203 March 1975 DOLORES PROJECT The Dolores project is located in Dolores and Montezuma counties in southwestern Colorado Most of the project area lies outside of the present Dolores River basin Geologists believe that the Dolores River once flowed across the Montezuma Valley towards the southwest but was subsequently blocked and turned to the northwest by slowly rising mountains The project was authorized by the Congress in 1968 as a partici pating project of the Colorado River Storage Project The Dolores Water Conservancy District was organized in 1961 as the sponsoring and con tractual agency for the project The district includes portions of Dolores and Montezuma counties The Ute Mountain Ute Indian tribe is also a project sponsor Plan of Development The Dolores project would develop and manage water from the Dolores River for irrigation municipal and industrial use recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement It would also provide flood control improve summer and fall river flows downstream and aid in the economic redevelop ment of the area Supplemental irrigation supplies would be delivered to the Montezuma Valley area located in the central portion of the proj ect area Full irrigation water supplies would be provided to the Dove Creek area in the northwest and the Towaoc area in the south Municipal and industrial water would be furnished to Cortez Dove Creek and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian tribe at Towaoc Primary regulation of the Dolores
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Mead and Lake Powell
    Colorado River Water Supply Report Agenda Number 12. Total System Contents: 27.507 MAF 68% 8/26/13 Reservoir Capacities (MAF) Reservoir Current Change Maximum 76% Lake Mead 12.25 + 0.02 25.90 Lake Powell 10.84 - 0.55 24.30 Flaming Gorge Reservoir 2.84 - 0.05 3.75 Navajo Reservoir 0.86 - 0.05 1.70 Blue Mesa Reservoir 0.37 - 0.03 0.83 Fontenelle Reservoir 0.23 - 0.01 0.34 Morrow Point Reservoir 0.11 0.00 0.12 44% Lake Powell 3,700’ 97% 45%, 10.839 MAF 3,590’ 51% Lake Mead 1,220’ 47%, 12.248 MAF 1,106’ 1,075’ 3,680 1,130 Lake Powell Elevations (2013 August 24-Month Study) Lake Mead Elevations (2013 August 24-Month Study) 3,660 1,120 3,640 1,110 3,620 1,100 3,600 1,090 3,580 1,080 Historical 3,560 1,070 Historical Maximum Probable Forecast Maximum Probable Forecast Most Probable Forecast Most Probable Forecast 3,540 1,060 Minimum Probable Forecast Minimum Probable Forecast Shortage 3,520 1,050 The August 2013 24-Month study projected that with an annual release of 8.23 MAF (as was consistent in water year Based on a 2013), the January 1st elevation of Lake Powell would be potential shortage 3,574 ft, which is less than 3,575 ft and places Lake Powell in 2016, impacts to in the mid-elevation release tier. Since Lake Mead is not CAP projected below 1,025 ft, according to the 2007 Interim Guidelines, demand in 2016 under this operational tier annual releases from Lake would include a 320 Powell to Lake Mead will be reduced to 7.48 MAF (for water KAF reduction to year 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorado River a NATURAL MENACE BECOMES a NATIONAL RESOURCE ' '
    The Colorado River A NATURAL MENACE BECOMES A NATIONAL RESOURCE ' ' I Comprehensive Report on the Development of ze Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin for rrigation, Power Production, and Other Beneficial Ises in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming By THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR J . A . Krug, Secretary SPONSORED BY AND PREPARED UNDER THE GENERAL SUPERVISION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Michael W. Straus, Commissioner E. A. Morit-, Director, Region 3 ; E. O. Larson, Director, Region 4 MARCH 1 946 1P 'A m 4„ M 1i'leming Library Grand Canyon Colleg P . )x 11097 Contents Page PROPOSED REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE Explorations 46 INTERIOR Settlement 48 Page Population 49 Letter of June 6,1946, from the Acting Commissioner, Chapter III . DIVIDING THE WATER 53 3 Bureau of Reclamation Virgin Conditions 55 REGIONAL DIRECTORS' REPORT Early Development of the River 56 Summary of Conditions in the Early 1920's . 59 Map of Colorado River Basin Facing 9 Between the Upper and Lower Basins 59 Scope and Purpose 9 Between United States and Mexico . 66 Authority for the Report 9 DEVELOPING THE BASIN Cooperation and Acknowledgments 9 Chapter IV. 69 Description of Area 10 Upper Basin 72 Problems of the Basin 11 Labor Force 72 Water Supply 12 Land Ownership and Use 73 Division of Water 13 Soils 73 Future Development of Water Resources 13 Agriculture 73 Table I, Present and Potential Stream Depletions in Minerals and Mining 80 the Colorado River Basin 14 Lumbering 85 Potential Projects 14 Manufacturing 86 Table II, Potential Projects in the Colorado River Transportation and Markets .
    [Show full text]