Recreational Use Patterns at Flaming Gorge Reservoir, 1963-65

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Recreational Use Patterns at Flaming Gorge Reservoir, 1963-65 RECREATIONAL USE PATTERNS AT FLAMING GORGE RESERVOIR, 1963-65 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Depart- ment of the Interior has basic responsibilities for water, fish, wildlife, mineral, land, park, and recreational re- sources. Indian and Territorial affairs are other major concerns of America's "Department of Natural Resources." The Department works to assure the wisest choice in managing all our resources so each will make its full contribution to a better United States -- now and in the future. Cover photo: Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir, Utah and Wyoming. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation photo. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402- Price 75 cents UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Division of Fishery Services RECREATIONAL USE PATTERNS AT FLAMING GORGE RESERVOIR, 1963-65 By John G. Hewston and the late Donald R. Franklin Utah Cooperative Fishery Unit Utah State University Logan, Utah [John G. Hewston's present address is Division of Natural Resources, Humboldt State College, Arcata, California 95521.1 Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Resource Publication 70 Washington, D.C. • January 1969 FIGURE 1.--Fisbing was the leading primary purpose of visting Flaming Gorge Reservoir during 1964 and 1965. Rainbow trout made up 99 percent of the catch. Photo: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. CONTENTS Page Abstract viii Introduction ... 1 The study area ... 2 Climate and vegetation ...5 Accessibility ...5 Previous use ...6 Administration .......................................... 6 Fishery management ... 7 Methods and materials ... 8 Interviews .............................................. 8 Mailed questionnaires ... 8 Creel census ...9 Postal cards ... 9 Traffic counts ...9 Agency records .......................................... 10 Facilities .................................................... 11 Recreational use .............................................. 15 Origin of visitors ...................................... 16 Purpose of visit and activities .......................... 16 Party size .............................................. 19 Length of stay .......................................... 19 Previous visits and party composition .................... 19 Camping .................................................. 19 Alternate choices ........................................ 21 Traffic patterns ........................................ 22 Use by local residents .................................. 22 The sport fishery ............................................ 24 Estimated number of angler trips ........................ 24 Regulations .............................................. 24 Creel census procedure .................................. 25 Angler success .......................................... 26 Percentage with fish ................................ 26 Catch rates ........................................ 26 Mean length of fish caught .............................. 27 Fish condition . ........................................ 28 Types of lures used ...................................... 28 1 11 CONTENTS (Continued) Page Seasonal fishing patterns .............................. 28 Factors influencing angler distribution ................ 28 Knowledge of area . ....................... 29 Regulations 29 Weather 30 Fishery resource . ....................... 30 Boat ramp location . ....................... 31 Camping and picnic facilitias ................ 31 Access 32 Location of marinas . ....................... 32 Characteristics of angling parties .................... 32 Origin 33 Purpose of visit . 34 Party size . 34 Age composition . ....................... 35 Parental influence . ....................... 35 Miscellaneous characteristics .................... 35 Percentage fishing elsewhere .......................... 35 Reasons why parties did not fish ...................... 36 Economic values . 37 Visitor expenditures . 37 Private businesses . 38 Visitor satisfaction . 39 Visitor attitudes . 39 Visitor opinions . ....................... 40 Best liked by visitors ............................ 41 Suggested improvements ............................ 41 Local resident opinions . ....................... 42 Discussion . 42 Conclusions . 43 Literature cited 45 Acknowledgements 46 Appendices 47 A. Interview schedule . ....................... 47 B. Interviewer's manual . ....................... 53 iv CONTENTS (Continued) Page C. Summary of responses to interviews . 58 D. Questionnaire sent to local residents 65 E. Summary of responses to questionnaire 70 F. Creel census form ................ 77 G. Summary of creel census ........... 78 H. Postal card survey form ........... 80 FIGURE 2.--The "Flying Fisherman", Gadabout Gaddis, with veteran boatman, Don Harris, fishing in the Green River below Flaming Gorge Dam. Photo: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. FIGURES AND TABLES Page Figures 1. Rainbow trout ... ii 2. Trout fishing ........................................ 3. Ice fishing .......................................... vii 4. Fishing scene ........................................ vii 5. Map of Flaming Gorge Reservoir .... 2 6. View of desert portion of the reservoir .... 3 7. Flaming Gorge ....4 8. View of lower canyon portion of the reservoir ....4 9. Campground facilities ... 10 10. Location of recreation sites and study units ... 11 11. Typical concrete block toilet ... 12 12. Modern restroom facility ...12 13. Boat ramp ... 14 14. Number of visits, 1963-1965 ...15 15. Incidental activities of visitors ...18 16. Camping near the water ...57 17. Water skiing .................................... 64 18. Preimpoundment treatment with rotenone ... 69 19. Green River below Flaming Gorge Reservoir ............ 76 Tables 1. Status of recreational facilities ... 13 2. Number of visits ................................ 15 3. Origin of visitors, by States ...16 4. Origin of visitors, large cities ... 16 5. Primary purpose of visits. 17 6. Activities of visiting parties ... 18 7. Size of parties and length of stay ... 19 8. Types of accomodations used ... 20 9. Amount of money visitors were willing to spend . 21 10. Percent of visitors from traffic of major highways. 22 11. Average number of vehicles on Route 44 ...22 12. Use of recreational sites by local parties ... 23 13. Estimates of fisherman-days ... 24 14. Angler success ................................ 26 15. Reasons for fishing in certain areas ... 29 16. Origin of angling parties. ... 33 17. Primary purpose of visit and fishing ... 34 18. Reasons for not fishing. 36 19. Local fishing license sales ... 37 20. Visitor expenditures . 37 21. Mean daily expenditures . ...38 22. Visitor satisfaction ....40 vi FIGURES 3 and 4.--Trout fishing provides year around recreation at Flaming Gorge Reservoir. Photos: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. vii ABSTRACT Activities, characteristics, and satisfactions of recreationists at Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Utah-Wyoming, were studied in 1963-1965. Data were collected from interviews, questionnaires, creel censuses, and administrative agency records. Number of visits increased from an estimated 231,065 in 1963, the year the reservoir began to fill, to 521,843 in 1964 and 786,103 in 1965. Utah residents were present in 68 percent of the parties in 1963 and in 82 percent in 1964 and 1965. Wyoming, Colorado and California were the only other States contributing large numbers of visitors. In 1963, 56 percent of the parties came primarily to sight-see, but fishing for rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) became the most important primary purpose of visit during the following two years, when 42 and 37 percent came to fish. Sight-seeing was second in 1964 and 1965, with 37 and 36 percent coming primarily for that reason. Sight-seeing was the major general activity of visiting parties each year, with 74, 76, and 91 percent containing members who participated. Fishing activity, expressed as percentage of visiting parties containing someone who fished in the area (tributaries, lakes, or reservoir) rose from 16 percent in 1963 to 71 and 75 percent during the following two years, when the reservoir was open to angling. Catch rates were 1.24 fish per hour in 1964 and 1.33 in 1965, but varied with type of angling and in different parts of the reservoir. Mean length of creeled trout was 11.2 inches each year and varied on different parts of the reservoir, but fish condition declined by 1965. Distribution of anglers was influenced primarily by location of access points. Other important visitor activities included camping, photography, picnicking, hiking, boating, sunbathing, swimming, nature study, water skiing and hunting. Visitors were most satisfied with scenery and weather and least satisfied with swimming areas and fish-cleaning stations. Many boat ramps were out of the water until late each summer. Camp- grounds were designed primarily for tent campers and were not adequate to accommodate the average parties with more than one vehicle and other heavy, wheeled equipment. viii - RECREATIONAL USE PATTERNS AT FLAMING GORGE RESERVOIR, 1963 1965 INTRODUCTION Reservoirs make up approximately one-third of all inland fishing waters in the United States, exclusive of the Great Lakes, and support 20 percent of all sport fishing trips (Jenkins, 1961). Additional waters, however, will be needed to meet the projected demands of recreationists
Recommended publications
  • Grand Canyon Helicopter Tours
    GRAND CANYON HELICOPTER TOURS * * $289 Adult • $269 Child (Ages 2 - 11) + $35 Fees $364 Adult • $344 Child (Ages 2 - 11) + $80 Fees GRAND CANYON SOAR LIKE AN EAGLE THROUGH THE GRAND CANYON • Descend 4,000 feet into the Grand Canyon MOST AND SEE THE BEAUTIFUL BOWL OF FIRE. • Touch down by the banks of the Colorado River POPULAR • Champagne picnic under an authentic Hualapai Indian shelter TOUR! & Las Vegas Tours • Air only excursion through the Grand Canyon • Views of Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, Fortication Hill and the Grand Wash Clis • Views of Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, Fortification Hill and the Grand Wash Clis • Tour Duration: Approximately 4 hours (hotel to hotel) World’s Largest Grand Canyon Air Tour Company, since 1965! • Tour Duration: Approximately 3 hours (hotel to hotel) • $40 SUNSET UPGRADE (PBW-4S) • ADD LIMO TRANSFERS & STRIP FLIGHT (PLW-1) $404 Adult • $384 Child (ages 2-11) + $80 Fees $349 Adult • $329 Child (Ages 2-11) + $40 Fees • ADD LIMO TRANSFERS & STRIP FLIGHT (PLW-4) $414 Adult • $394 Child (ages 2-11) + $80 Fees • ADD LIMO TRANSFERS, SUNSET & STRIP FLIGHT (PLW-4S) $454 Adult • $434 Child (ages 2-11) + $80 Fees $94 Adult • $74 Child (Ages 2 - 11) + $10 Fees TAKE TO THE SKIES OVER THE DAZZLING AND WORLD FAMOUS LAS VEGAS "STRIP"! • Views of the MGM, New York New York, Caesar’s Palace, Bellagio, Mirage and more • Fly by the Stratosphere Tower and downtown Glitter Gulch where Las Vegas began • Complimentary champagne toast L’excursion aérienne Die vielseitigste Papillon- Veleggiate al di sotto del キャニオン上空を低 La visita aérea más • Tour Duration: Approx.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary U.S
    Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement PUBLIC DRAFT Executive Summary U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region National Park Service, Intermountain Region December 2015 Cover photo credits: Title bar: Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon National Park Glen Canyon Dam: T.R. Reeve High-flow experimental release: T.R. Reeve Fisherman: T. Gunn Humpback chub: Arizona Game and Fish Department Rafters: Grand Canyon National Park Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan December 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 CONTENTS 2 3 4 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. vii 5 6 ES.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 7 ES.2 Proposed Federal Action ........................................................................................ 2 8 ES.2.1 Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................. 2 9 ES.2.2 Objectives and Resource Goals of the LTEMP ....................................... 3 10 ES.3 Scope of the DEIS .................................................................................................. 6 11 ES.3.1 Affected Region and Resources .............................................................. 6 12 ES.3.2 Impact Topics Selected for Detailed Analysis ........................................ 6 13 ES.4
    [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]
  • Fill Mead First: a Technical Assessment1 Executive Summary
    Fill Mead First: a technical assessment1 John C. Schmidt2 with contributions from Maggi Kraft3, Daphnee Tuzlak4, and Alex Walker3 White Paper No. 1 Center for Colorado River Studies Quinney College of Natural Resources Utah State University November 10, 2016 Executive Summary The Fill Mead First (FMF) plan would establish Lake Mead reservoir as the primary water storage facility of the main-stem Colorado River and would relegate Lake Powell reservoir to a secondary water storage facility to be used only when Lake Mead is full. The objectives of the FMF plan are to re-expose some of Glen Canyon’s sandstone walls that are now inundated, begin the process of re-creating a riverine ecosystem in Glen Canyon, restore a more natural stream-flow, temperature, and sediment-supply regime of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon ecosystem, and reduce system-wide water losses caused by evaporation and movement of reservoir water into ground-water storage. The FMF plan would be implemented in three phases. Phase I would involve lowering Lake Powell to the minimum elevation at which hydroelectricity can still be produced (called minimum power pool elevation): 3490 ft asl (feet above sea level). At this elevation, the water surface area of Lake 1 suggested citation: Schmidt, J. C., Kraft, M., Tuzlak, D., and Walker, A. 2016. Fill Mead First: a technical assessment. Logan, Utah State University Quinney College of Natural Resources, Center for Colorado River Studies, white paper no. 1, 80 p., available at <https://qcnr.usu.edu/wats/colorado_river_studies/>. 2 corresponding author; Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan UT 84322-5210; [email protected] 3 graduate student, Department of Watershed Sciences 4 graduate student, Department of Geology 1 Powell is approximately 77 mi2, which is 31% of the surface area when the reservoir is full.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Mead National Recreation Area Draft Quagga Mussel Initial Response Plan
    Lake Mead National Recreation Area Draft Quagga Mussel Initial Response Plan Executive Summary Quagga mussels, closely related to zebra mussels, were first discovered at Lake Mead National Recreation Area (Lake Mead NRA) on January 6, 2007, the first detection of this species in the western United States. These invasive freshwater mussels are expected to cause major impacts to biological resources, submerged cultural resources, marinas, water intakes, boats and recreational use in the Lower Colorado River System and, if spread, pose similar threats to other western waters. The National Park Service led a three month interagency initial response effort focused on assessment, containment, treatment, and long-term management of the quagga mussel infestation in Lakes Mead and Mohave. This effort culminated in an Initial Response Plan. When no treatment or eradication methods were found to be feasible at this time, the efforts focused on containment of spread to other watersheds. The highlights of the initial response effort include: • Interagency planning at the local level with close coordination with concurrent upstream and downstream planning efforts as well as significant input from the scientific community • Increased emphasis on the pre-existing invasive aquatic species prevention and early detection program • Assessment and monitoring of adult and juvenile quagga mussel populations in Lakes Mead and Mohave • Containment strategy focused on mandatory cleaning upon entry and exit for all slipped and moored boats • New special use permit
    [Show full text]
  • Hidden Passage
    Hidden Passage the journal of glen canyon institute Issue XIX, Fall 2013 Glen Canyon Institute An Answer for the Colorado River: Fill Mead First President Richard Ingebretsen by Wade Graham Board of Trustees Barbara Brower In this issue of Hidden Passage, we present Glen Canyon Institute’s Fill Mead First Scott Christensen plan to begin the transition to a more sustainable management system on the Ed Dobson Colorado River, by saving significant amounts of water lost to seepage and taking David Wegner large steps towards the restoration of Glen and Grand Canyons. The plan is Wade Graham buttressed by an important new hydrological study demonstrating that Tyler Coles consolidating water storage in Lake Mead and keeping Lake Powell at its Lea Rudee minimum active power pool elevation can save between 300,000 and 600,000 acre-feet of water per year. Executive Director Christi Wedig Change is coming to the Colorado River, for better or worse, both due to climate Program Director change and to ever-increasing demands on an over-committed resource. It is past Michael Kellett time for those who care about the river basin’s human and natural communities to Office and Projects Manager begin making common sense but determined changes to the way the river is Mike Sargetakis managed. Programs Coordinator Eric Balken A study of water supply and demand in the Colorado River Basin released last December by the Bureau of Reclamation confirms what everyone already Advisory Committee Dan Beard knew: we are sucking more water out of the river than nature is putting in.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Mead High/Low Elevations
    Lake Mead Annual High and Low Elevations (1935-2020) Storage Capacity Max allowable storage on Aug 1 1250 1225 1200 1175 1150 1125 1100 High Elevation 1075 Low Elevation 1050 1025 1000 975 950 925 Dead Storage 900 875 Elevation (feet above mean sea level) seamean above (feet Elevation 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Note: Low Elevation for 1935 is 673.50 feet Year Date Time Low Elev Date Time High Elev Year Date Time Low Elev Date Time High Elev Year Date Time Low Elev Date Time High Elev Year Date Time Low Elev Date Time High Elev 1935 3-Feb 2400 673.50 31-Jul 2400 928.45 1960 11-Mar 2400 1162.97 5-Jul 0600 1184.19 1985 31-Dec 2400 1205.49 8-Jul 0600 1214.36 2010 27-Nov 2100 1081.85 26-Feb 0200 1103.35 1936 14-Apr 2400 905.20 10-Sep 2400 1025.87 1961 18-May 1800 1152.78 2-Jan 0600 1165.21 1986 24-Jan 2400 1201.42 2-Oct 2400 1213.20 2011 2-Jan 2100 1086.24 31-Dec 1800 1132.83 1937 5-Feb 2400 1021.90 28-Jul 2400 1102.88 1962 9-Feb 2400 1153.16 23-Jul 1200 1204.21 1987 17-Jun 2400 1205.60 12-Feb 2400 1210.83 2012 21-Nov 0000 1114.98 22-Jan 1700 1134.56 1938 17-Feb 0001 1094.61 29-Jul 0001 1173.56 1963 31-Dec 2400 1136.93 1-Jan 2400 1193.19 1988 29-Sep 2400 1199.14 28-Feb 2400 1211.82 2013 12-Nov 2200 1103.79 5-Feb 0400 1122.72 1939 18-Mar 0001 1156.10 2-Jul 0001 1183.50 1964 30-Dec 2400 1088.09 1-Jan 2400 1136.93 1989 30-Nov 2400 1189.02 26-Feb 0600 1202.57 2014 13-Aug 2000 1080.19 2-Feb 0001 1108.96 1940 5-Apr 0001 1164.21 3-Jul 0700 1182.21 1965 3-Apr 2400 1088.07 31-Dec 2400
    [Show full text]
  • Hidden Passage
    Hidden Passage the journal of glen canyon institute Issue XX, Fall 2014 At What Price Cheap Hydro Power? Remembering Hite by David Wegner Glen Canyon Institute In 1956, when the Colorado River Storage Project Act was enacted by the Eisen- hower Administration, the primary purpose of the dams was to provide for protec- by Leslie Nielsen tion of the Upper Basin’s Colorado River water supply. Power was a secondary pur- President pose for the dams and was not to interfere with the meeting of the water delivery Richard Ingebretsen requirements of the Colorado River Compact. Fast forward to 2014, with the Southwest firmly in the grip of a historic drought, Board of Trustees both the reservoirs Powell and Mead are declining in volume and as a result, the Barbara Brower amount of water available to generate electricity. Emerging and historical data sug- Scott Christensen gest the Southwest drought could get worse before it gets better. Adding the voices Tyler Coles to those demanding more water be taken from an already-devastated ecosystem to Ed Dobson protect water users from disruption to their business models, electric power inter- Wade Graham ests are demanding—and getting—special treatment. Claims have been made that Lea Rudee once water levels at Lake Powell dip below the “minimum power pool” level of 3,490 Mike Sargetakis feet energy bills across the upper basin will skyrocket. One article from Channel Five David Wegner News in Colorado even claimed the price of electricity would go up 400-500%. Ad- ditionally, comments have been made that reduced power generation at Glen Can- Program Director yon dam would cut funding to manage endangered fish species on the Colorado Eric Balken like the Razorback Sucker, Colorado Pikeminnow and the Humpback Chub.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Water Storage on the Southern Colorado Plateau
    Rethinking water storage on the southern Colorado Plateau Jack Schmidt https://qcnr.usu.edu/wats/colorado_river_studies/https://qcnr.usu.edu/wats/colorado_river_studies/ Fill Mead First -- establish Lake Mead as the primary reservoir storage facility; 2015 store water in Lake Powell only when Lake Mead is full. 2016 • Objectives • Expose Glen Canyon’s sandstone walls • Recreate natural flow, sediment transport, and temperature regime in Grand Canyon • Save water (300,000 – 600,000 af/yr) • Eliminate need for Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Fill Mead First Proposal • Phase I – reduce storage in Lake Powell to minimum power pool elevation (3490 ft asl) • Phase II – reduce storage in Lake Powell to dead pool (3370 ft asl) • Phase III – drill new diversion tunnels and fully drain Lake Powell New York Times, May 20, 2016 ~0.49 M af/yr evaporated from Powell ~0.37 M af/yr seepage losses ~0.55 M af/yr saved Myers, 2010, Planning the Colorado River in a changing climate: reservoir loss New York Times, May 20, 2016 rates in Lakes Powell and Mead and their use in CRSS. Consulting report to GCI. Myers, 2013, Loss rates from Lake Powell and their impact on management of the Colorado River. Journal of the American Water Resources Association GRGr ?SRRGr CRC P ??E ?DDRH ?ER E ??tribsungaged ??Gstorage:long + ??Gstorge:short SJRB ??Gseepage CR LF = + ± ∆ − − Calculation of Water Savings by Myers (2010, 2013) = ± LossesPowell = E + G 770,000 af/yr (+60,000) = 500,000 af/yr + 270,000 af/yr (+60,000) LossesMead = E + G 880,000 af/yr
    [Show full text]
  • Lakemead National Recreation Area Lake Mead
    LAKEMEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LAKE MEAD AND LAKE MOHAVE ARIZONA NEVADA Indian Background THE REGION now included within Lake Mead National Rec­ National reation Area has been almost continuously inhabited by man for at least 2,000 years. In such arid regions the activities LAKE MEAD of the prehistoric Indian inhabitants naturally centered Recreation Area around the dependable water supply afforded by rivers. Because many of the sites along the Colorado and Virgin ities in the midst of a desert region. Within the recreation OPEN ALL YEAR Rivers were in the path of the rising waters of the reservoir, area, the river which forms this lake makes a great bend and a careful survey of this region was conducted in order that as flows almost due south toward the Gulf of California. much as possible of this irreplaceable prehistoric material AKE MEAD, the main feature of Lake Mead National The lake winds 115 miles to the east from Hoover Dam might be salvaged before being lost forever beneath the Recreation Area, is the reservoir created by the con- and varies from wide open waters to narrow connecting waters of this largest of manmade lakes. I• struction of Hoover Dam. This beautiful blue lake, links through the lesser canyons. At its highest level, Lake Many campsites were found, but in only cne section of with its 550-mile shoreline at high watermark, nestles in Mead has a depth of 589 feet and contains over 32 million the area have extensive, permanent aboriginal dwellings been discovered. These are the ruins popularly known as magnificent canyons along the Colorado River.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona Volume I of the FEIS
    Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Roosevelt Habitat Conservation Plan Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona Volume I of the FEIS U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE December 2002 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ROOSEVELT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior December 2002 Additional information may be obtained from: Ms. Sherry Barrett Mr. Jim Rorabaugh Assistant Field Supervisor Arizona State Office Tucson Suboffice U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 110 S. Church Street, Ste. 3450 Phoenix, AZ 85021 Tucson, AZ 85701 (602) 242-0210 (520) 670-4617 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AF Acre-feet AGFD Arizona Game and Fish AMA Active Management Area AWS Assured Water Supply BA Biological Assessment BO Biological Opinion CAP Central Arizona Project CAWCS Central Arizona Water Control Study CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cities Cities with water rights in Modified Roosevelt: Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Covered species Southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, bald eagle, and yellow-billed cuckoo CRBPA Colorado River Basin Project Act Cuckoo Yellow-billed cuckoo DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement Flycatcher Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
    [Show full text]
  • Water Supply of Arizona
    Colorado River Basin Water Supply Outlook Lake Powell Lake Mead La Nina Years ? ! ? Good ? Bad ? Good - Water Year 2011 Bad – Water Year 2012 Upper Colorado River Basin Lake Powell Lake Mead Lower Colorado River Basin Upper Colorado River Basin Lake Powell Lake Mead Lower Colorado River Basin Colorado River Basin Water Supply Outlook 2012 Final Forecast State of the System (1999-2012) 1 Colorado River Basin Water Supply Outlook ● April to June 2012 Inflow Into Lake Powell – 2.36 MAF (33% of Normal – 3rd lowest on record [1909 to 2011]). (April to June Observed 2011 Inflow Into Lake Powell – 12.89 MAF (162% of Normal). ● Water Year 2012 Inflow Into Lake Powell – y6 MAF (51% of Normal) (Water Year 2011 Inflow into Lake Powell – 15.97 MAF [139% of Normal]). ● Water Year 2012 Release from Lake Powell – 9.46 MAF Release to the Lower Basin (1.23 MAF “Equalization” Carryover from Water Year 2011 plus 8.23 MAF minimum objective release per 2007 Interim Guidelines). ● Lake Powell and Lake Mead Storage will generally decline through 2013. Colorado River Basin Water Supply Outlook Colorado River Basin Water Supply Outlook First Shortage Elevation Colorado River Basin Water Supply Outlook Total Reservoir System Contents: 37.1 MAF or 62% (As of May 7, 2012) Total Reservoir System Contents Lake Powell Last Year: Lake Mead 31.6 MAF or 53% Colorado River Basin Water Supply Outlook LAKE POWELL Capacity – 24.5 MAF 05/07/2012 - 64% full Contents 15.5 MAF Elevation – 3,636’ Glen Canyon Dam Page Colorado River Basin Water Supply Outlook LAKE MEAD Capacity
    [Show full text]