DOCSLIB.ORG

Xus L2 S15 944

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

XUS L2 S15 944 A77 flOG TJ4ESAtT RIVER PROJECT OF ARIZONA EEE IR1Z, C0.DOc I )CUSt2 AISO4I 42J1'-3 S /riqq k S .5 .. .. -S- -..-. IIDENTICAL WITH THE SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DI OPERATED BY THE SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USER'S ASSOCIATION ROOSEVELT DAM Built 1905-1 1, Addns. 1923-24 - Spiliways lowered 1937 ev. Coping 2,146 Max. Thickness, base, ft 184 Lake Cap'y, Jan. '39, ac-ft1,400,000 ormal High Water elev 2,136 Thickness at top, ft 16 Lake Area, acres 17,800 illway crest elev 2,120.25 Cu. Yard Masonry 343,750 Lake Length, miles 23 .'ngth, darn proper, ft 723 Drainage Area, sq. mi 5,830 Head on turbines, ft 112-222 it. bedrock to roadway, ft 280 Spiliway Cap y., sec-ft 150,000 Generating Cap'y., H.P 24,000 Cost, dam and power plant $5,560,000 PROJECT HISTORY A large part of the Salt River Valley wa cultivated in prehistoric times, but abandoned long before the coming of the white man. Many interesting remains of the ancient villages and canals still exist. "A larger rural population tilled the fields of this valley before the commencement of the Christian Era than farm its lands today.Through climatic change and channel erosion the Canal Builders were compelled to relinquish their domain . These were theOriginal Engineers,the true Pioneers, the feats performed with the Stone Axe and the Stone Hoe demanded as lofty purpose and high courage as those created with later day devices." (Dr. Turney 1924) Irrigation by whitesettlers began about 1867.The river flow is eratic, varying from a small stream to enormous floods.The supply at low river stage was inadequate for the land in cultivation, and the flows in excess of immediate needs or canal capacities were lost, due tolack ofstoragefacilities. In 1902 Congress passed the Reclamation Act and under it the Government financed and built Roosevelt Dam, which created storage and regulationfor the waters of Salt River.The Dam was placedin service in1910, and completed in1911, To efficiently divert the water from the River into the canals and todistributeitto the lands required a permanent diversion dam and a complete system of canals and laterals.These were included in the Government work, and a supplemental water supply was also made available from pumping plants tapping the underground water. A hydro-electric generating plant at Roosevelt Dam and four others at drops in the main canals, together with the necessary trans- mission lines, were constructed in order to supply power for pumping and other project operations. In November 1917, the Project was turned over as a going concern to the farmers, subject to payment of the unpaid balance on construction costs.The operation of the Project is handled by the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, a corporation comprised of the landowners holding one share for each acre of land owned.From 1922 to 1930 the Association built the Horse Mesa, Morman Flatand Stewart Mountain Dams, power plants on the Salt River below Roosevelt Dam, and the Cave Creek Flood Control Dam.In 1935-39 Bartlett Dam was constructed on the Verde River, and spiliway improvements to the four Salt River storage dams were made by the United States Bureau of Reclamation.In 1937-38 the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association built a 13,500 HP Diesel Power Plant to supplement itsgen- eratingfacilities. In1940 power from the Colcraco Rv-oL became available through construction by the United States Bureau of ReclamatioH f J4& iul'e. kiigJi tnscrj power line from Parker Dam to Phoenix.During 1941 a standby fthliint of 3?500 l-jP capacft constructed at a cost of over $2,000,000, to assure firm power'nd continued sev tó the Project ircase of failure of any ofthe hydro-electric units.The 8 hydro-e1&tjiç plants, together with, 'Diese1 and Steam Plants, have a combined generating capacity of 157 13 H Of the total $21,000,000 capital investment by the United States to June 1941, $12,000,000 has been repaid.The balance is payable under the Reclamation Act in small long-time installments. The remaining $22,000,000 ofcapital investment has be'n financed by the farmers through their Association without Government aid. The investment in irrigation, power and other works is around $43,000,000.Besides thefivelarge storage dams pictured and described here, there are three major diversion dams, 1,400 miles of canals and laterals with over 10,000 structures, 1,850 miles ofelectric power lineswith 27largesub-stations, 550 miles of telephone lines, 2 large warehouses, 3 office buildings, over 100 residences and 200 pumping plants.The normal force varies from 700 to 1,000 employees. kr!2.oYar / :... .. L_. PREHISTORIC IRRIGATION CANALS DL OMAR A.TURNEY FRO.R PBOE)IIX ARIZONA f 'L7 / PRESENT DAY CANAL SYSTEM p.i 155966 LETTUCE CROP CITRUS ORCHARD LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Salt River Project, covering the major portion of the Sail River Valley, is situated in the south central portion of Arizona.This fertile valley is approximately 20 miles wide and 50 miles long, with mountains rising abruptly from the plains on all sides, furnishing a colorful background.With a gradual rise to the mountains at the east, this level valley is an alluvial fill of several hundred feet in depth. The'annual rainfall varies from 3 to 20 inches, with an average of 7 inches.The,high percentage of sunshine (84%) gives the valley its well known sobriquet, "The Valley of The Sun."Every variety of climate, from sub-tropical in the Valley to cool temperate in the pine clad mountains, may be found vithin two hours drive of Phoenix.Summer days are hot, but nights are pleasant and the dry air adds greatly to ones comfort during the day.Practically all residences and business buildings are air-cooled. The mild winters favor thecultivation of citrus, winter vegetables, etc.Due to exceptional flying conditions, four large Military Air Fields have been located in the Valley for the training of Army Pilots. Phoenix owns its own municipal airport,"Sky Harbor," and has daily air mail and passenger service. The Project is served by the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe Railroads as well as numerous fast freight and bus lines. The 10,000 farms of the Salt River Project are all served with electric power, eitherdirectly from the project system or indirectly through municipalities and utility companies.There are 900 miles of surfaced highways within the Project boundaries (not counting towns and cities), half of which are con- crete or other hard paving.Farming is carried on throughout the entire 12 months, and supports a popula- tion in and adjacent to the Project of nearly 200,000.Pioneer days here are long past, and the communities are highly developed. The outstanding advantages offered to visitors and others are the resort features of climate and surroundings, pleasant living conditions (particularly for winter tourists and home seekers) and adaptability to citrus and other high-clashorticulture.Land values range from as low as $200 per acre up to $1,500 per acre, depending on location, crop and improvements.The land isall in private ownership and intensively cultivated. z S GRAN( CANYON ASH roRlc AGTA F F ci NGMAN0 WINS4.OW 0 4. ON LAPI 0 NEEOLE HOLeR00Ic 0 , . 7 JCROME 500 RINGS S. 13.000 SQ MILES OF 0 PR TTYØ WATERSHED IRV WHICH SUPPLIES THE PROJECT WITH WRTER FOR IRRIGATION 0 INC ILD$ 47/7 0PAY N Q PARIc(R SPR ING(RYILLCQ (001100 0 WCP(C NBURG WOR1AN C. RCNO o LI 9JE1T PARR5R C 4 7 BLYTHb CR N THE ROQ5VLLT SALT RIVER PROJ V,41 /2.1.14.JP. '' 0 Sc V//A PINAL RA POINT 0' PN( v1 S . R(LWIM FLoRENcE ) SAFFOROS .YLIMA 3 4 0 TUCSON SENSON 0 moc oC THE SALT RIVERPROJECT & WATERSHED ARI ZONA HORSE MESA DAM - ON SALT RIVER Built 1924-27. Addns to Spiliways 1936-37 Elev. Coping 1,920 Normal High Water elev 1,914 Spillway crest elev 1869.5-1891 Length, dam proper, ft 660 Ht. bedrock to deck, ft 300 Arch thickness, base, ft 57 Arch thickness, top, ft 8 Cu. Yds. Concrete , 159.000 Drainage Area, sq. mi 5,940 Spillway Cap'y, sec.-ft 150,000 Lake Cap'y. ac-ft 245,000 Lake Area, acres 2,600 Lake Length, miles 17 Head on turbines, ft 253.5 Generating Cap'y. H.P 43,000 Cost, dam and power plant $5,248,000 MORMON FLAT DAM - ON SALT RIVER Built 1923-25. Spiliway Altered 1936-38 Elev. Coping, 1,671 Normal High Water elev. 1,660.5 Spiliway crest, elev 1,610.5 Length, dam proper, ft 380 Ht., bedrock to deck, ft 224 Arch thickness, base, ft 20 Arch thickness, top, ft 8 Cu. Yds. Concrete 59,200 Drainage Area, sq. mi 6,100 Spillway Capy. sec.-ft 150,000 Lake Cap'y., ac-ft 57,800 Lake Area, acres 945 Lake Length, miles 10 Head on turbine 131.5 Generating Cap'y. H.P 10,000 Cost, dam and power plant $2,497,000 STEWART MOUNTAIN DAM - ON SALT RIVER Built 1928-30. Add'n. to Spillw'y Channel 1936-37 Elev. coping, 1,535 Normal High Water elev 1,529 Spillway crest elev 1,506 Length, dam proper, ft 1,260 Ht., bedrock to deck, ft 207 Arch thickness, base, ft 33 Arch thickness, top, ft 8 Cu. Yds. Concrete 131,730 Drainage Area, sq. mi 6,200 Spillway Cap'y.
Recommended publications
  • The Salt River – by Elly – Summer 2016

    The Salt River – by Elly – Summer 2016

    The Salt River – by Elly – Summer 2016 After living in Arizona for many years, I only recently discovered the pleasure of kayaking and tubing. So far, I have been on the river below Saguaro Lake, on Saguaro Lake, and on Canyon Lake; the other two lakes created in the Salt River, Apache and Roosevelt Lakes, (hopefully) remain to be explored. The Rio Salado, or Salt River, was dammed between the early 1900s and 1930s to provide water and electricity to the Phoenix area, and later served recreational needs. The first dam to be constructed was Roosevelt so my description goes from the `younger’ to the `older’ lakes. Some of my information on the river comes from here. The Four Lakes of the Salt River, from left to right: Saguaro, Canyon, Apache, and Roosevelt The Salt River flows into the Gila River to the West of Phoenix and the Gila contributes to the Colorado, near Yuma, in the Southwest of Arizona. This river is supposed to end in the Gulf of California but rarely has enough water (see here). The ecological impact of dams has been huge. Edward Abbey and others are famous for having suggested Monkey Wrenches to sabotage the plans for the dams in the West. There is always talk of restoring the natural flow in the river; see here. Apart from the ecological impact on bird populations, salinization, and silting, the politics behind dams is ugly. The 1972 Damming the West details the lobbying of the Bureau of Reclamation to keep new projects going even though there was no (agricultural) need for them.
  • Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects

    Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects

    REC-ERC-SO-1 January 1990 Denver Office U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of Reclamation TECHNICAL REEPORT STANDARD TITLE PAG 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG ~0. 5. REPORT DATE Compilation Report on the Effects January 1990 of Reservoir Releases on 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Downstream Ecosystems D-3742 7. AUTHOR(S) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION E. Cheslak REPORT NO. J. Carpenter REC-ERC-90-1 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Denver CO 80225 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DIBR 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado. Ed: RDM 16. ABSTRACT Most of the dams built by the Bureau of Reclamation were completed before environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act, or Toxic Substances Control Act existed. The management and operation of dams was instituted under conditions where the ecology of the downstream habitat was unknown and largely ignored. Changing or modifying structures, flow regimes, and land use patterns are some of the efforts being pursued by the Bureau to reconcile or mitigate the effects of impoundment to comply with these environmental policies and to maximize the potential for recreation, fisheries, and water quality in tailwater habitats for the water resource users. The purpose of this report is to provide a reference document intended to aid in the management, compliance, and problem solving processes necessary to accomplish these goals in Bureau tailwater habitats.
  • Geologic Report of the Stewart Mountain

    Geologic Report of the Stewart Mountain

    GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE STEWART MOUNTAIN QUADRANGLE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZO~A by Steven J. Skotnicki and Robert S. Leighty Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-12 July, 1997 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 Includes 19 page text and 1:24,000 scale geologic map Partially funded by the Arizona Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey STATEMAP Program Contract # 1434-HQ-96-AG-01474. This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards INTRODUCTION This map depicts both the bedrock geology and the general ages and distribution of Late Tertiary and Quaternary deposits and geomorphic surfaces in the Stewart Mountain quadrangle (see Figure 1). The Salt River, re-emerging from Saguaro Lake, slices through the middle of the study area where it separates granite pediment and felsic volcanic rocks of the Usery and Goldfield Mountains (respectively) to the south, from a vast expanse of Late Tertiary basin-fill sediments to the north. Mapping of the surficial deposits was based both on field observations and interpretation of color 1:30,000-scale aerial photographs (dated 6-12-88), obtained from the Tonto National Forest in Phoenix. All of the region is administered by the Tonto National Forest. Good access to the region is provided by State Route 87, the Bush Highway, and Usery Pass Road (see Figure 2). A primitive road provides access to Bulldog Canyon, but locked gates at both ends can only be opened by obtaining a pennit from the Tonto National Forest Service field office in Mesa.
  • Mormon Flat Dam Salt River Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona

    Mormon Flat Dam Salt River Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona

    Mormon Flat Dam Salt River HAER No. AZ- 14 Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Western Region Department of Interior San Francisco, California 94102 ( ( f ' HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Mormon Flat Dam HAER No. AZ-14 Location: Mormon Flat Dam is located on the Salt River in eastern Maricopa County, Arizona. It is approximately 50 miles east of Phoenix. UTM coordinates 25 feet northeast of the dam (in feet) are: Easting 1505701.5184; Northing 12180405.3728, Zone 12. USGS 7.5 quad Mormon Flat Dam. Date of Construction: 1923-1925. Engineer: Charles C. Cragin. Present Owner: The Salt River Project. Present Use: Mormon Flat Dam is operated by the Salt River Project for the purposes of generating hydroelectic power and for storing approximately 57,000 acre feet of water for agricultural and urban uses. Significance: Mormon Flat Dam was the first dam constructed under the Salt River Project's 1920's hydroelectic expansion program. Historian: David M. Introcaso, Corporate Information Management, Salt River Project. Mormon Flat Dam HAER No. AZ-14 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Introduction 3 Chapter II The Need to Expand the Association's Hydroelectric Capacity . • . • • . 20 Chapter III The Construction of Mormon Flat Dam . 37 Chapter IV The Construction of Horse Mesa Dam 60 Chapter V Post-Construction: Additions to the Association's Hydroelectric Program and Modifications to Mormon Flat and Horse Mesa Dams 79 Chapter VI Conclusion . 105 Chapter VII Epilogue: Expansion Backlash, "Water Users Oust Cragin" . 114 Appendixes . 130 Bibliography 145 Mormon Flat Darn HAER No.
  • Historical Overview and Limnological Reconnaissance of Theodore Roosevelt Lake, Arizona by LISA K

    Historical Overview and Limnological Reconnaissance of Theodore Roosevelt Lake, Arizona by LISA K

    Historical Overview and Limnological Reconnaissance of Theodore Roosevelt Lake, Arizona By LISA K. HAM U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 95 4053 Prepared in cooperation with the ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Tucson, Arizona 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Section Water Resources Division Box 25286, MS 517 375 South Euclid Avenue Denver Federal Center Tucson, AZ 85719-6644 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Definition of terms........................................................................................................................................ VI Abstract........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and scope................................................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgments...............................................................................................................................
  • Highways of Arizona Arizona Highways 87, 88 and 188

    Highways of Arizona Arizona Highways 87, 88 and 188

    GEOLOGIC GUIDEBOOK 4-HIGHWAYS OF ARIZONA ARIZONA HIGHWAYS 87, 88 AND 188 by Chester F. Royse, Michael F. Sheridan, andH. Wesley Peirce GEOLOGIC GUIDEBOOK 4 - HIGHWAYS OF ARIZONA ARIZONA HIGHWAYS 87, 88 AND 188 by Chester F. Royse Jr., Asst. Professor of Geology Arizona State University, Tempe Michael F. Sheridan, Asst. Professor of Geology Arizona State University, Tempe H. Wesley Peirce, Associate Geologist Arizona Bureau of Mines, Tucson Authority: ARS 27-153 (Amended 1974) THE ARIZONA BUREAU OF MINES Bulletin 184 1971 Reprinted 1974 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA TUCSON TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . 1 Purpose and Scope . 1 Location and Extent . 1 Physiographic Setting . 3 . ··;;:r·_,,"iE0 Vegetation . 6 -=-" -= Water Supply . 6 .-:::- GEOLOGIC HISTORY . 8 The Tonto and Related Basins . 8 The Superstition Volcanic Field . 13 -==­ Acknowledgements . 21 DETAILED LOGS . 21 Material contained in this Bulletin may be quoted or reproduced '-:=:1 Arizona Highway 88 . 21 without special permissionprovided appropriate acknowledgment Arizona Highway 188 . 33 is given to the source. .II=!I Arizona Highway 87 . 47 APPENDIX . 61 11=::;1 Glossary of Selected Terms . 61 -=.' References . 65 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Climatic data for stations along the route 4 2. Stratigraphic sequence in Goldfield and Superstition mountains 19 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate Page 1. Superstition Mountains . 22 2. Dome at Apache Gap . 24 3. Rhyolitic breccias - Geronimo Head Formation . 28 4. Goat Mountain . 29 5. Apache Group below Roosevelt Dam . 31 6. Scanlon Conglomerate resting on Precambrian granite . 31 7. Barnes Conglomerate overlying Pioneer Shale . 32 8. Panoramic view of the southeast abutment of Roosevelt Dam . 34 INTRODUCTION 9.
  • Managing the Flow of Rivers

    Managing the Flow of Rivers

    Managing the Flow to Better Use, Preserve Arizona's Rivers by Joe Gelt Tecumseh, Shawnee Chief, expressed bewilderment that intruding whites expected Indians to sell land. "Sell a country!" he exclaimed, "Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?" Puzzled by land ownership, Tecumseh might be doubly perplexed by efforts to manage rivers. He rightly might ask, "Are not rivers naturally animated like clouds and wind? Do not rivers respond to the same natural forces as mountains? Rivers flow; they don't follow management plans." As events turned out, the West was won; land is owned; and rivers are indeed managed to control their use. Much can be learned about a society's values from its strategies to manage and care for its rivers. An especially limited natural resource in Arizona, rivers are valued for many reasons, from practical to spiritual, from irrigation to meditation. What we choose for our rivers and for what reasons expresses as much about our culture as Tecumseh's remark tells of the Shawnee. The Need to Protect Rivers A river is managed to control its use. More specifically, river management is a strategy to promote cooperative river use among various, even competing interests, while at same time protecting a river's natural or environmental values. Pollution, dams, development, diversion, timber, grazing, mineral extraction and recreation are important river management issues. In Arizona and throughout the United States rivers increasingly are perceived as a resource in need of protection.
  • Central Arizona Project Fish Monitoring Final Annual Report

    Central Arizona Project Fish Monitoring Final Annual Report

    CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT FISH MONITORING FINAL ANNUAL REPORT SUMMARY OF SAMPLE YEAR 2010 FISH SURVEYS IN BEHALF OF A LONG‐TERM MONITORING PLAN FOR FISH POPULATIONS IN SELECTED WATERS OF THE GILA RIVER BASIN, ARIZONA Paul C. Marsh and Brian R. Kesner Submitted in partial fulfillment of Bureau of Reclamation Contract Number R09PD32013 Submitted to Robert W. Clarkson Bureau of Reclamation 6150 West Thunderbird Road Glendale, Arizona 85306‐4001 Submitted by Marsh & Associates, LLC 5016 South Ash Avenue, Suite 108 Tempe, Arizona 85282 July 12, 2011 This report summarizes fish sampling in behalf of a long‐term monitoring plan for fish populations in selected waters of the Gila River basin, Arizona, during sample year (SY) 2010 (period July 12, 2010 to January 24, 2011). Reclamation’s monitoring program is a result of several biological opinions on impacts of transportation and delivery of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water from the Colorado River at Lake Havasu to the Gila River basin. Its primary intention is to establish baseline data on the presence and distribution of non‐native fishes and to detect changes in species composition or distribution in the CAP aqueduct and selected river, stream, and canal reaches in Arizona. Protocols implemented during this monitoring are detailed by Clarkson (1996 a‐c) and Clarkson et al. (2011), and will not be reiterated in detail here. In general, streams were stratified according to geomorphology or flow characteristics, and replicate 200‐m "quantitative," fixed sampling stations were established as the source for distribution and assemblage structure data. The plan calls for electrofishing as the primary gear for this purpose, but use of other methods is encouraged if electrofishing is deemed inadequate.
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona Volume I of the FEIS

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

    Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona Volume I of the FEIS U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE December 2002 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ROOSEVELT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior December 2002 Additional information may be obtained from: Ms. Sherry Barrett Mr. Jim Rorabaugh Assistant Field Supervisor Arizona State Office Tucson Suboffice U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 110 S. Church Street, Ste. 3450 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Tucson, AZ 85701 (602) 242-0210 (520) 670-4617 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AF Acre-feet AGFD Arizona Game and Fish AMA Active Management Area AWS Assured Water Supply BA Biological Assessment BO Biological Opinion CAP Central Arizona Project CAWCS Central Arizona Water Control Study CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cities Cities with water rights in Modified Roosevelt: Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Covered species Southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, bald eagle, and yellow-billed cuckoo CRBPA Colorado River Basin Project Act Cuckoo Yellow-billed cuckoo DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement Flycatcher Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
  • Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs

    Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs

    Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs Submitted to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: Salt River Project July 2007 Attachment 1 Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(A)(1)(B) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT JULY 2007 Additional information may be obtained from: Craig Sommers Chuck Paradzick ERO Resources Corporation Salt River Project 1842 Clarkson Street P.O. Box 52025 Denver, Colorado 80218 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2025 (303) 830-1188 (602) 236-2724 DRAFT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR HORSESHOE AND BARTLETT RESERVOIRS Contents Executive Summary.......................................................................................................ES-1 I. Background.................................................................................................................1 A. Description of the Action, Purpose and Need for the HCP .....................................3 B. Scope of the Habitat Conservation Plan for Horseshoe and Bartlett.......................5 1. Species Covered.................................................................................................5 2. Geographical Area Covered...............................................................................7 3. Environmental Baseline.....................................................................................8 4. Time Period Covered .........................................................................................8 5. Impacts Covered................................................................................................8
  • FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Publication Number: FS 16 -15

    FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Publication Number: FS 16 -15

    Arizona Department FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Publication Number: FS 16 -15 Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Salt River Basin: A 2001-2015 Baseline Study – June 2016 Introduction The Arizona Department of Environmen- tal Quality (ADEQ) Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Program conducted a baseline study to characterize the groundwater quality of the Salt River basin from 2001 to 2015. ADEQ carried out this task under Arizona Revised Statutes §49-225 that mandates monitoring of waters of the state including its aquifers. The fact sheet is a synopsis of the ADEQ Open-File Re- port 16-01.1 Groundwater in the Salt River basin is generally suitable for drinking water uses based on the sampling results from this study. The Salt River basin comprises 5,232 square miles within east-central Arizona and includes portions of Apache, Gila, Greenlee, Maricopa, and Navajo coun- ties. The basin extends from the White Figure 1 - Map of the Salt River Basin Mountains located near the New Mexico *This map is for general reference only and may not be all inclusive. More detailed information and specific locations can be obtained by contact- border to the northeast of Phoenix where ing the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Stewart Mountain Dam forms Saguaro Lake (Figure 1). The basin’s population was 29,057 in 2000, most of who lived in the communities of Globe, Miami, Young, and in Fort Apache and Whiteriver on the White Mountain Apache Nation.² Most land is used for recreation and live- stock grazing, with major copper mines located in the Globe-Miami area.
  • The Salt River Project, Arizona Operated by The' Salt River Valley Water Users' Association ROOSEVELT DAM and POWER PLANT (Latter Nearly Bidden by Cliff)

    The Salt River Project, Arizona Operated by The' Salt River Valley Water Users' Association ROOSEVELT DAM and POWER PLANT (Latter Nearly Bidden by Cliff)

    The Salt River Project, Arizona Operated by the' Salt River Valley Water Users' Association ROOSEVELT DAM AND POWER PLANT (latter nearly bidden by cliff). Begunin1906completed1911.Additionstodam and power plant begun 1923 and completed 1924. Spillways lowered 6 ft., 1936. Type, gravity, arched form, rubble. Length over all,ft 1,125 Elevation top (coping) above sea, ft. 2,146 Height from bed rock, ft. 284 Thickness at base, ft. 184 Thickness at top, ft 16 RESERVOIR:(Spiliway Lowered 6 ft. fn 1937)Capacity, ac. ft 1,522,000 Area,acres 17,800 Length, miles 23 Drainage area, square miles 5,760 Spiliway capacity, sec.ft 150,000 POWER PLANT: Capacity H. P 24,000 Head ft 112 to 228.5 MASONRY: hi dam (1923)CLI.yds . COST: Dam and plant, 1927 $5,442,000 HORSE MESA DAM AND POWER PLANT Begun 1924Completed 1927 Additional spillway provided 1936-37. Type, variable-radius arch, concrete. Length over all, ft 784 Elevation top (coping) above sea, ft 1,920 Height from bed rock, ft. 305 Thickness at base, ft 57 Thickness at top, ft 8 RESERVOiR: Capacity, ac. ft 245,000 Area,acres 2,600 Length,miles 17 Drainage are:i, square miles 110 Spiliway capacity, sec.ft 150,000 POWER PLANT: Capacity, H. P. 43,000 Head ft 266 CONCRETE: In (lanl (1927) cu. yds. 147,357 COST: Dam and plant, 1927 $4,237,000 MORMON FLAT DAM AND POWER PLANT Dani begun1923andcompleted1925. Power plaiit begun 1925 and completed 1926. Spillway reconstruoted 1937. Type, variable-radius arch, concrete. Length, over all,ft 623 Elevation, top (coping) above sea, ft.