DOCSLIB.ORG

William Martin Little a Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
William Martin Little a Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the In An engineering and economic feasibility study for diversion of Central Arizona Project waters from alternate sites. Item Type Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); text Authors Little, William Martin,1944- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 26/09/2021 17:22:05 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/191503 AN ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DIVERSION OF CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATERS FROM ALTERNATE SITES by William Martin Little A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the COMMITTEE ON HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1968 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted In partial fulfillment of require- ments for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the Univeristy Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or In part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg- ment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: -c27ttt APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: D. D. LEWIS cturer in Civil Engineering TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vi ABSTRACT vii INTRODUCTION 1 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 4 AQUEDUCT ROUTE DESCRIPTION 6 Hualapai Aqueduct 7 Mohave Aqueduct 8 Navajo Aqueduct 9 Powell Aqueduct 9 Granite Reef Aqueduct 9 POWER GENERATION FACILITIES 14 Verde River Complex I 14 Verde River Complex II 15 West Clear Creek Complex 15 Internal Power Drops 16 GENERAL AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 22 COST ANALYSIS 27 JUSTIFICATION OF POWER FEATURES 33 RESULTS OF COST ANALYSIS 47 NON-QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS AND COSTS 49 Benefits 49 Costs 52 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued Page NON-TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 54 Other Colorado River Water Users 54 Preservationjst Opposition 55 Advantages to Arizona 56 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 58 APPENDICES 60 APPENDIX A: CAPITAL COSTS 61 APPENDIX B: ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 62 APPENDIX C: CONVEYANCE LOSSES 63 Criteria 63 Computation 64 APPENDIXD: POWER 65 Computation 65 REFERENCES 67 LIST OF TABLES Page AQUEDUCT DATA 11 VERDE RIVER COMPLEX I DESIGN 18 VERDE RIVER COMPLEX II DESIGN 19 WEST CLEAR CREEK COMPLEX DESIGN 20 GEOLOGIC SECTION--NAVAJO AND POWELL AQUEDUCTS GEOLOGIC SECTION--MOHAVE AND HUALAPAI AQUEDUCTS 25 GEOLOGIC SECTION--VERDE RIVER COMPLEX I GEOLOGIC SECTION--VERDE RIVER COMPLEX II GEOLOGIC SECTION--WEST CLEAR CREEK COMPLEX 26 CAPITAL COST CRITERIA 31 ANNUAL COST CRITERIA 32 BREAK EVEN POWER RATE 35 AQUEDUCT COSTS, INCLUDING PUMPING PLANTS 36 POWER GENERATION COMPLEX DATA. 37 INTERNALPOWERDROPDATA 38 DATA FORALTERNATE ROUTES 39 ANNUAL POWER CASH FLOW--COMPLETE ROUTES 41 ANNUAL POWER CASH FLOW--BARE BONES" ROUTES 42 LOW INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW--COMPLETE ROUTES . 43 LOW INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW--BARE BONES" ROUTES. 44 HIGHER INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW--COM PLETE ROUTES. 45 HIGHER INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW--BARE BONES" ROUTES 46 V LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page General Location Map 2 Profile--Mohave and Hualapai Aqueducts 12 Profile--Navajo and Powell Aqueducts 13 Profile--Verde River and West Clear Creek 21 Mohave and Hualapai Aqueducts Route Map In pocket Navajo and Powell Aqueducts Route Map West Clear Creek Power Complex In pocket Verde River Power Complexes I and II Chino Creek Canal In pocket vi ABSTRACT Alternate surface diversion routes for the Central Arizona Project aqueduct are presented, extending from 1) Lake Powell, 2) the proposed Marble Canyon Reservoir, 3) the proposed Hualapai (Bridge Canyon) Reservoir, and 4) Lake Mead to a common terminus at Granite Reef Dam on the Salt River.The routes are compared with each other and with the proposed Granite Reef Aqueduct. Estimated capital costs, oper- ation and maintenance charges, and power costs/revenues are analyzed in yearly cash flows. A most economical route Is chosen by the criterion of least annual cost.Non-quantifiable benefits and costs are examined when they tend to alter the choice of a most feasible route. Under all of the assumptions considered, the most economically attractive route appears to be the proposed Granite Reef Aqueduct, with the most economical alternative being the Hualapai route.Certain non- quantifiable benefits accrue to the latter which tend to close the cost gap. vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION One of the major features of the Central Arizona Project is an aqueduct system to bring the water from the diversion point on the main stem of the Colorado River to a delivery point in central Arizona.Before finalizing selection of any one system, it would be well to consider several possible ones. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the diversion point may be selected from any of five existing or proposed reservoirs on the main stem of the Colorado River:Lake Powell, Marble Canyon, Hualapal (Bridge Canyon), Lake Mead or Lake Havasu; and that the delivery point be Granite Reef Dam on the Salt River.(See general location map Figure 1.) The Navajo and Powell aqueducts would begin on the proposed Marble Canyon Reservoir or Lake Powell, respectively, and deliver water to the head of drainage on West Clear Creek, a tributary of the Verde River.The Hualapai and Mohave aqueducts would pump from the proposed Hualapai Reservoir or Lake Mead, respectively, and deliver water to the Verde River at a site near Paulden, Arizona. The Granite Reef Aqueduct (as proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Pacific 1 Lake Mead MarbleNavajo Canyon Aqueduct 'Lake Powell Dam Site - PointedPower Drops Desert MohaveAquedt DarnHu:atapaiHuaIapai Site.iño Creek Aqueduct Powell Aqueduct ColOrado RiverChffioCanal Creek Power D:ropComplexVerde River Iest Clear Lake HavasuGrarute Reef VerdeComplexCreek River Complex 11 Aqueduct PhOenix -' Gronite Reef DamSalt River FIGURE I GENERAL LOCATION MAP N 3 Southwest Water Plan (Bureau of Reclamation, 1964) would pump from Lake Havasu and deliver water directly into Granite Reef Dam. In order to compare the several routes, the major design features for the Powell, Navajo, Hualapai and Mohave routes are pre- sented, including their accompanying power generation facilities.These designs will then be compared among themselves and with the Granite Reef Aqueduct.In whatever degree possible, these comparisons will be made in terms of dollar values of capital cost and operating costs/reve- nue s. It is not within the scope of the thesis to perform a complete feasibility study of a non-federally financed project, which Is a complex problem dealing with sources of revenue, credit and a host of other diffi- culties.However, wherever it seems appropriate, some mention is made of possible advantages or disadvantages accruing to an Arizona-financed Central Arizona Project. CHAPTER 2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS The major document dealing with importation of Colorado River water into central Arizona is the 1947 U. S. Bureau of Reclamation project planning report on the Central Arizona Project.However, the proposal to divert Colorado River water into this water-short area was first made as early as 1920.The assumption that this impertation would one day be feasible and desirable underlies much of the State's resource planning (Bureau of Reclamation, 1947). Most early proposals considered a diversion point somewhere in the northern part of the state.The Arizona Highline Reclamation Associ- ation proposed diversion from a point near Bridge Canyon damsite and conveyance by "a gravity system several hundred miles in length, termi- nating at Granite Reef Dam on the Salt River" (Bureau of Reclamation, 1947). Many such organizations were formed to promote various diversion schemes: tunnel, or a combination of tunnel and gravity canal routes from Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon or Bridge Canyon sites (Bureau of Reclamation, 1947). In the early 1940's, the Bureau of Reclamation undertook studies to select a diversion route and rapidly narrowed their studies to three possibilities:1) the Marble Canyon route, which includes a tunnel from the proposed Marble Canyon Reservoir to a point on the Verde River just 4 5 below Camp Verde, thence by the natural channel of theVerde River to Granite Reef Dam, 2) the Bridge Canyon route, comprising atunnel from the proposed Bridge Canyon Reservoir to a point on BigSandy Wash, thence by gravity canal to Granite Reef Dam, and3) the Parker route, consisting of a series of pump lifts and a gravitycanal from Lake Havasu to Granite Reef Dam. The details of thesedesigns are presented in "Comparison of Diversion Routes - Central ArizonaProject' (Bureau of Reclamation, 1945).By the time of publication of the CentralArizona Project report (Bureau of Reclamation,1947), the Parker route had been selected as the most desirable. The Parker route (Granite ReefAqueduct) has been retained in all subsequent Bureau of Reclamation studies,the most recent of which is the Pacific Southwest Water Plan(Bureau of Reclamation, 1964). At the present time the Ralph M. ParsonsCompany, of Los Angeles, California, has been retained by theState of Arizona to review the feasibility of various diversion routes aspart of a state-wide water plan.This report is not, however, available tothe public at this time. CHAPTER 3 AQUEDUCT ROUTE DESCRIPTION The basic design parameters for the major aqueducts are taken from Bureau of Reclamation designs (Bureau of Reclamation, 1947), and assume a diversion of 1800 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ellen Tibbetts
    boatman’s quarterly review the journal of the Grand Canyon River Guide’s, Inc. • voulme 32 number 3 fall 2019 the journal of Grand Canyon River Guide’s, Prez Blurb • Farewells • Andy Hall • Guide Profile • The Journey • Stanton’s Cave Point Positive • Save the Dates • Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Book Reviews • Eye of Odin • Cooler Research • Whale News boatman’s quarterly review Prez Blurb …is published more or less quarterly by and for GRAND CANYON RIVER GUIDES. REETINGS FROM SALMON IDAHO where I’m GRAND CANYON RIVER GUIDES finishing up my Middle Fork tour. It’s the is a nonprofit organization dedicated to Gtime of the season where we all feel pretty well worked and probably need a vacation before the “dog Protecting Grand Canyon days of August.” I had a guest say recently, “You guides Setting the highest standards for the river profession just have a paid vacation.” I just pointed out, “Yeah, Celebrating the unique spirit of the river community fourteen hours a day, every day.” Anyway, onward… Providing the best possible river experience By now the incident at National Canyon has flowed around the community, of a guest thinking he was left General Meetings are held each Spring and Fall. Our behind and making his way down-river and eventually Board of Directors Meetings are generally held the first losing his life by drowning. This incident points to the Wednesday of each month. All innocent bystanders are fact it is impossible to protect guests totally from their urged to attend. Call for details. own misguided actions, however well-meaning they STAFF may seem to that individual.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 – Affected Environment
    Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Chapter 3 describes the environmental resources (physical, biological, cultural, recreational, and socioeconomic) that could be affected by the range of alternatives for implementing the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP), as described in Chapters 1 and 2. The extent to which each specific resource may be affected by each alternative is discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.1 3.1 PROJECT AREA The project area includes the area potentially affected by implementation of the LTEMP (including normal management and experimental operations of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions). This area includes Lake Powell, Glen Canyon Dam, and the river downstream to Lake Mead (Figure 3.1-1). More specifically, the scope primarily encompasses the Colorado River Ecosystem, which includes the Colorado River mainstream corridor and interacting resources in associated riparian and terrace zones, located primarily from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). It includes the area where dam operations impact physical, biological, recreational, cultural, and other resources. This section of the river runs through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons in Coconino and Mohave Counties in northwestern Arizona. Although this EIS focuses primarily on the Colorado River Ecosystem, the affected area varies by resources and extends outside of the immediate river corridor for some resources and cumulative impacts. Portions of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA), GCNP, and Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) outside the Colorado River Ecosystem are also included in the affected region for certain resources due to the potential effects of LTEMP operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Southwest Water Plan
    United States Department of the Interior Stewart L. Udall, Secretary Pacific Southwest b WATER PLAN = REPOR January 1964 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Floyd E. Dominy, Commissioner UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON 25, D. C. January 21, 1964 8URE#U OF RECLAMATlON The Secretary LOWER COLORAOO REGION LIBRARY of the Int,erior Sir: On November 6, 1963, you directed me to supervise the preparation of a revised report to the President and the Congress proposing, on a regional basis, a plan of action designed to deal constructively with the acute water problems of the Pacific Southwest. The attached report of the Commissioner of Reclamation, in which I concur, was prepared under my direction. As you directed, we have been responsive to the views of the affected States, wherever possible. We have maintained coordination with other divisions of the Department, and considered the views of other Federal agencies. The report outlines a plan of action designed to meet the immediate and long-range water needs of the Pacific Southwest, defined in this report as the water service area of the Lower Colorado River Basin including southern California. It presents an initial plan for approval. We recommend prompt authorization of those features of the initial plan for which adequate engineering and economic investi- gations have been completed. Approval of the basic plan and authorization pf the recommended features will start the Pacific Southwest on the road back to water sufficiency. In 1930 the population of the Pacific Southwest was 3-1/2 million. In 1960 it had grown to 10-1/2 million.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Colorado River Commission November 8
    .~· . PACIFIC SOUTHWEST -vv ATER PLAN A DIGEST with COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Staff: Upper Colorado Rive r Commission November 8, 1963 ( \ COLORADO RIVER N E A 0 A 0 ""' (' ""' IAMtfkY~/ ~ < "' "'-· / .... " 0 -i> z ... E w 1- / E X c 0 ..... - .~:.--- ,_j' '-... E X c 0 SfAl [ (7' C Al,.I F()fi'HtA THE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PLAN Upper Colorado River Commission Staff November 8, 1963 I. INTRODUCTION The following statement is based upon an examination of the report on the Pacific Southwest Water Plan that was released by the Secretary of the Interior on August 26, 1963. Comments, opinions or suggestions have been prepared for the purpose of raising questions and aiding in evaluating the proposed Pacific Southwest Water Plan from the standpoint of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The four Upper Division States, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, should be interested in the Pacific Southwest Water Plan (PSWP) because anything that.affects the development of the water resources in one of the Compact-created Basins of the Colorado River could have effects of some nature on the other Basin. Although we are primarily interested in the development of the water and land resources of the Upper Basin and its future destiny we must carefully analyze any resources development plans of the Lower Basin in order to ascertain their possible effects on the future of our Upper Basin. In making our analyses we should strive to be objective and fair, and constructive and cooperative, in spite of the questionable tactics that have been used against us in the past by certain Lower Basin entities in their attempts to forestall the authorization of the Colorado River Storage Project and participating projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Polishing the Jewel
    Polishing the Jewel An Administra ti ve History of Grand Canyon Na tional Pa rk by Michael F.Anderson GRA N D CA N YO N A S S OC I ATI O N Grand Canyon Association P.O. Box 399 Grand Canyon, AZ 86023 www.grandcanyon.org Grand Canyon Association is a non-profit organization. All proceeds from the sale of this book will be used to support the educational goals of Grand Canyon National Park. Copyright © 2000 by Grand Canyon Association. All rights reserved. Monograph Number 11 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Anderson, Michael F. Polishing the jewel : an adminstrative history of Grand Canyon National Park/by Michael F.Anderson p. cm. -- (Monograph / Grand Canyon Association ; no. 11) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-938216-72-4 1. Grand Canyon National Park (Ariz.)--Management—History. 2.Grand Canyon National Park (Ariz.)--History. 3. United States. National Park Service—History. I. Title. II. Monograph (Grand Canyon Association) ; no. 11. F788 .A524 2000 333.78’3’0979132--dc21 00-009110 Edited by L. Greer Price and Faith Marcovecchio Designed by Kim Buchheit, Dena Dierker and Ron Short Cover designed by Ron Short Printed in the United States of America on recycled paper. Front cover: Tour cars bumper-to-bumper from the Fred Harvey Garage to the El Tovar Hotel, ca.1923. Traffic congestion has steadily worsened at Grand Canyon Village since the automobile became park visitors’ vehicle of choice in the mid-1920s.GRCA 3552; Fred Harvey Company photo. Inset front cover photo: Ranger Perry Brown collects a one dollar “automobile permit” fee at the South Rim,1931.GRCA 30.
    [Show full text]
  • Lbbs-John Wesley Powed-Lsss ·Unaupg Hero of Che West
    MARCH 1969 SIXTY CENTS JN THIS ISSUE: , lBBS-John Wesley PoweD-lSSS ·unaupg Hero of Che West . GRAND CANYON I am the Grand Canyon. My other names are Beethoven and Wagner, Immortal as Sorrow, deathless as Love. My solitudes are limned in muted symphonies, My Silences are organ-toned, And the Stars above my head are jeweled fingers of the Night That touch octaves of the winds that sing my threnodies. I am a dissonance of aeons crashing their epochs In countless Iliads of eternity. I am the wild music of the Valkyries, Halted in the Heavens and hushed into stone. I am the symphony Egmont played on flutes of granite. I am an untold tragedy of the ages : I am a deep wound in the heart of the Rockies Like the wound in the breast of Lincoln, seen through the mist of years. My twilight is the morning of the Gods: I was Before and shall be After. I am the sequestered haunts of Zarathustra, And the flaming words of his high priest Nietzsche Chilled to stone in the frozen horror of his pitiless benedictions. I spanned the arc of the fallen angels, And the outstretched wings of Lucifer in their flight from Paradise. I hold no ending of life and no beginning of death, My joys and sorrows are immutable and eternal: Within my marble halls Belshazzar still revels in his fleshly feasts, While through my moonlit passes The battered hosts of Ghengis Khan are forever retreating. I am a voice that keeps repeating "There is a God." I am the cradle of all superstitions; Atheism never reared her unbelieving head Amidst my whisper-haunted sanctuaries.
    [Show full text]
  • 1944 State of Arizona Report of How to Bring Water to Phoenix Area
    1/22/19 1944 state of Arizona report of how to bring water to Phoenix area Published in 1946 Proposes a high Bridge Canyon Dam that would impound water into Grand Canyon National Park Proposes Marble Canyon – Kanab Creek Project NPS Director opposes high Bridge Canyon Dam and MCKC projects; does not oppose low Bridge Canyon Dam 1 1/22/19 2 1/22/19 COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP) ACT (1956) • Preceded by decision to drop proposed dam site at Echo Park in Dinosaur National Monument • it is the intention of Congress that no dam or reservoir constructed under the authorization of this chapter shall be within any national park or monument. • Authorization to build • Curecanti (Aspinal) Unit on Gunnison River • Flaming Gorge on Green River • Navajo on San Juan River • Glen Canyon on Colorado River • Create Upper Colorado River Basin Fund • Revenue generated by dams • Pay for participating projects • powerplants to be operated so as to produce the greatest practicable amount of power and energy that can be sold at firm power and energy rates • impounding of water nor production of electricity shall not preclude nor impair the appropriation of water for consumptive uses 3 1/22/19 Brower tried to argue that Glen Canyon Dam should not be closed and should only be utilized after Lake Mead had filled with fine sediment Glen Canyon Dam closed in March 1963 4 1/22/19 Pacific Southwest Water Plan proposed in January 1963 Importation of water from outside the basin Desalinization plants for the lower basin Immense new power needs to be met by nuclear
    [Show full text]
  • Otis R. Marston Papers: Finding Aid
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf438n99sg No online items Otis R. Marston Papers: Finding Aid Processed by The Huntington Library staff. The Huntington Library 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org © 2015 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. Otis R. Marston Papers: Finding mssMarston papers 1 Aid Overview of the Collection Title: Otis R. Marston Papers Dates (inclusive): 1870-1978 Collection Number: mssMarston papers Creator: Marston, Otis R. Extent: 432 boxes54 microfilm251 volumes162 motion picture reels61 photo boxes Repository: The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org Abstract: Professional and personal papers of river-runner and historian and river historian Otis R. Marston (1894-1979) and his collection of the materials on the history of Colorado River and Green River regions. Included are log books from river expeditions, journals, diaries, extensive original correspondence as well as copies of material in other repositories, manuscripts, motion pictures, still images, research notes, and printed material. Language: English. Access Collection is open to researchers with a serious interest in the subject matter of the collection by prior application through the Reader Services Department. Unlike other collections in the Huntington, an advanced degree is not a prerequisite for access The collection is open to qualified researchers. For more information, please visit the Huntington's website: www.huntington.org. Publication Rights The Huntington Library does not require that researchers request permission to quote from or publish images of this material, nor does it charge fees for such activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Boatman's Quarterly Review
    boatman’s quarterly review the journal of Grand Canyon River Guides Inc. volume 10 number 1 winter 1996 - 1997 Future of Glen Canyon Dam Katie Lee Future of Science ctober 1, 1955, Glen Canyon… Bridge Canyon Dam Each new discovery surpasses the last—it seems the tougher these canyons are to Openetrate the more beauty they hide. I leave a part of me in the arms of Navajo Selective Withdrawl Canyon; leave blood and tears in exchange for what I’ve seen and will remember all my life. Over, under and around Wingate boulders, thru water in tunnels of tumbled rock, past New Organizations rabbitbush, datura and stunted cottonwood, we make our way to the base of the Kayenta… Ah-hhh, bedrock at last! Whale Foundation As we round a bend and come over a small rise, I feel like I’ve been hit in the middle of my Adopt-A-Beach everything. I grab for Frank’s arm and say, Wait a minute, Bigfeets, I don’t think I can New Fees take much more of this ... it’s too beautiful! Suddenly I’m crying. He nods, takes my hand Farewells and squeezes hard. When I look at him there are tears in his eyes as well. Air Tour Rules I stop to ask myself, what’s here that triggers an emotion so overwhelming it brings tears? It’s Mary Gibbs not like theatre where our emotions are aroused by what we hear, and we cry over words and Condors Fly evolving situations. This is rock… inert… water, air, aromas, silence, light and shadow- Pork Chops play.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park
    Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment February 2000 Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park Prepared For U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Final Environmental Assessment Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park Foreword The Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) was published in June 1999. Since the document was published, parts of the proposed rule have been altered in response to public and agency comments. The major changes between the Draft SEA and Final SEA are as follows: · The operations in support of the Hualapai Tribe’s economic development at Grand Canyon West are exempted from the proposed operations limitation rule. · A turnaround has been added in the Zuni Point Corridor in the vicinity of Gunthers Castle. · Operational counts have been modified based on more up to date information. · The Desert View FFZ has been modified to extend eastward only to the GCNP boundary. · The SFRA boundary has been modified on the southeast corner in response to comments from the general aviation community regarding the Sunny Military Operating Area, and latitude and longitude dimensions within the proposed final rule have been corrected. · The description of the future Bright Angel Incentive Corridor has been corrected. · The Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ has been modified to not include any Hualapai reservation lands. · The wording in the document has been clarified based on agency and public comments. Grand Canyon National Park Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER ONE – BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................... 1-5 1.3 CONSULTATION AND SCOPING.....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • P Rick Con Y
    boatman’s quarterly review ick Con tr le a y P the journal of the Grand Canyon River Guide’s, Inc. • voulme 31 number 1 spring 2018 the journal of Grand Canyon River Guide’s, Prez Blurb • Farewells • Dear Eddy • Guide Profile • From the Archives Book Review • Zinke Comments • Radio Waves • Kibble Bits Back of the Boat • Bats • High Flow • Ecstacy of Life • Tolio • Capstans boatman’s quarterly review Prez Blurb …is published more or less quarterly by and for GRAND CANYON RIVER GUIDES. HE CYCLICAL NATURE OF OUR LIVES as river guides GRAND CANYON RIVER GUIDES is comforting and sometimes unreal. Almost is a nonprofit organization dedicated to Teverything we do is cyclical. We start at Lees Ferry, run rapids for 226 to 279 miles, end on the Protecting Grand Canyon lake and start all over again at Lees Ferry. Every lap is Setting the highest standards for the river profession filled with adventure, new people and beautiful places Celebrating the unique spirit of the river community along the river. Each time around, I can’t help but Providing the best possible river experience think about how very lucky we are to work in such an amazing place. The cycles continue as we end our General Meetings are held each Spring and Fall. Our season on the river and for some of us begin our off Board of Directors Meetings are generally held the first time. Time off in the winter is usually filled with snow Wednesday of each month. All innocent bystanders are and short cold days. In stark contrast this winter has urged to attend.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 – Affected Environment
    Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan December 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2 3 4 Chapter 3 describes the environmental resources (physical, biological, cultural, 5 recreational, and socioeconomic) that could be affected by the range of alternatives for 6 implementing the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP), 7 as described in Chapters 1 and 2. The extent to which each specific resource may be affected by 8 each alternative is discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. 9 10 11 3.1 PROJECT AREA 12 13 The geographic scope of the LTEMP Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), as 14 noted in Chapter 1, includes the area potentially directly affected by implementation of the 15 LTEMP (normal and experimental operations of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions). This 16 area includes Lake Powell, Glen Canyon Dam, and the river downstream to Lake Mead. More 17 specifically, the scope primarily includes the Colorado River mainstream corridor and interacting 18 resources in associated riparian and terrace zones, located primarily from the forebay of Glen 19 Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP; defined as the 20 Colorado River Ecosystem). It includes the area where dam operations impact physical, 21 biological, recreational, cultural, and other resources. Portions of Glen Canyon National 22 Recreation Area (GCNRA), GCNP, and Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) are 23 included within this area. For certain resources, such as socioeconomics, air quality, and 24 hydropower, the affected region is larger, and includes areas potentially affected by indirect 25 impacts of the LTEMP.
    [Show full text]