DOCSLIB.ORG

Benefits of Improved Long Range Weather Outlooks to the Salt River Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Benefits of Improved Long Range Weather Outlooks to the Salt River Project Roosevelt Lake and Dam, AZ Benefits of Improved Long Range Weather Outlooks to the Salt River Project Improving Sub-Seasonal and Seasonal Precipitation Forecasting for Drought Preparedness San Diego, CA May 27-29, 2015 Charlie Ester Manager, Water Resource Operations Hohokam Civilization, c.1000 A.D. Bridge over Grand Canal, 1909 Early Canals: Pre-1880s @10,000 @ 700 0 0 President Theodore Roosevelt Board of Survey Map, 1914 Reclamation Act and the Association: 1902/03 @90,000 20,457 0 0 Roosevelt Dam construction, stiff legged derrick, 1910 Theodore Roosevelt Dam: 1906−1911 131,364 34,488 1,284,205 4 Las Vegas SRP manages six reservoirs on the Salt (4) and Verde (2) rivers and one on East Clear Creek in Arizona, and operates approximately 267 groundwater wells, which provide a renewable water supply to the 250,000 acre service area. Salt River CAP SRP Watershed Williams KEY MAP Flagstaff E. Clear Creek Watershed Verde River Sedona Watershed SRVWUA Salt River EAST CLEAR CREEK Watershed WATERSHED SALT RIVER Prescott Camp WATERSHED Verde VERDE RIVER Show Low WATERSHED Payson Alpine Agua Fria Agua SRV Phoenix Globe WUA Roosevelt Dam Construction from 1903-1911 Modified from 1989-1996 Lower Salt Reservoirs Horse Mesa Dam Mormon Flat Dam Construction from Construction from 1924-1927 Stewart Mountain Dam 1923-1926 Construction from 1928-1930 Verde Reservoirs Bartlett Dam Horseshoe Dam Construction from 1936-1939 Construction from 1944-1946 Salt River Project Reservoir System Roosevelt Dam C.C. Cragin East Clear Creek Storage: 2218’ Top of Safety of Dams Dam 15,000 AF 2151’ Top of Conservation 6720’ 6720’ - Horseshoe C.C. Cragin 2100’ - 15,000 AF Roosevelt Lake Dam Horse Mesa 1,631,532 AF 2026’ Dam Horseshoe - 2000’ 1914’ 109,217 AF Bartlett 1891’ - Apache Lake Dam 245,138 AF 1798’ Mormon Flat Dam Bartlett - 1748’ Stewart 178,186 AF Mountain 1660.5’ Dam 1610.5’ - Verde River Storage: 1529’ 287,403 AF Canyon Lake 1506’ - 57,852 AF VERDE CONSERVATION Saguaro Lake SALT CONSERVATION 69,765 AF STORAGE: STORAGE: 302,403 AF 2,004,287 AF Total Conservation Storage: 2,306,690 AF 01/09/07 REF/SVRSCIAF-10 SRP Water Service Area 13,000 Sq. Mile Project Watershed Flagstaff Payson Prescott Phoenix River Peoria Glendale Tolleson Scottsdale Phoenix Mesa Avondale Tucson Tempe Gilbert Chandler Water Wells & Recharge Facilities ~267 Active Wells Age Range 1909-2013 GRUSP NAUSP 30 miles or 50 kilometers Salt River, Tonto Creek and Verde River Streamflow (Average Runoff 1913–2014 = 1,169,526 AF) Salt River Project Historic Drought Periods (Average Runoff 1996–2014 = 783,262 AF) 100 Longer Period Of 90 Sustained Drought 80 7 Years 1942 - 1948 70 62% 4 Years 1974 - 1977 + Years 20 60 5 Years 52% 1995 – 2015? 1953 - 1957 ??% 47% 50 7 Years 1898 - 1904 % Average 40 35% 30 20 10 0 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year Winter Outlook 14-15 Dec 2013 - Mar 2014 Cold Warm & Dry Weather Forecast “Tools” Winter Outlook 2014-2015 NATURE – Wet Winter - Lots of acorns - Pine cones gathered on the top of the tree - Frequent rings around the sun - Large spider webs - Woolly worms with thin brown stripe - Bees become secluded - Woodpeckers sharing trees - Raccoons with thick tails - Mice overeating - Wildlife putting on early and thick winter coats - Squirrels gathering nuts - Spleen of big game animals WINTER OUTLOOK – (Early and Thick Winter Coat) Water Demand Reservoir Storage Synoptic Scale Patterns Total SRP Storage Current Storage = 2,096,000 AF = 181% of Plan and 151% of Median 2,500 2,250 2,000 1,750 1,500 1,250 1,000 750 500 Actual Volume vs. Plan = + 924 kaf Volume (AF x 1000) 250 0 Jul Jul May Jun Aug Sep Oct Nov Feb Mar Apr May Jun Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec'04 Jan'05 Dec'05 Jan'06 Month May'04 Plan Actual Median Teleconnections Groundwater Project Reservoir Operation Plan Drought Monitor Other Sources Allocation Drought Outlook HistoricalSalt River Project Annual Runoff Inflow, Storage, & Pumping NWS Outlook 4800000 4500000 4200000 3900000 3600000 3300000 3000000 2700000 2400000 2100000 Water Mix (Acre-Feet) 1800000 1500000 1200000 900000 600000 300000 0 1889 1891 1893 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1931 1933 1935 1937 1939 1941 1943 1945 1947 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Pumping Inflow Project Reservoir Operation Plan (Seasonal) Objective: Provide an adequate and reliable water supply to our shareholders. Water Demand: The quantity of water needed to satisfy shareholder demand and contract obligations for Agricultural, Municipal, Industrial, Domestic, Recreational, and Wildlife uses. Management Philosophy: • Ensure carry-over storage to manage the worst drought on record. • Reduce the probability of having to cut the allocation of water to 2.0 AF/AC to less than one percent. Methodology: • The end of every wet runoff season is the start of the next severe sustained drought period. SRP Storage, Pumping & Water Allotment Planning Ground Water 2200 Production (KAF) 2000 Median Inflow 1800 1600 - 75 1400 - 150 1200 11-year Tree Ring Drought - 200 1000 - 250 800 - 325 3.0 AF/AC Reservoir Storage Reservoir (KAF) Storage 600 2.0 AF/AC 400 200 0 May-01 Sep-01 Jan-02 May-02 Sep-02 Jan-03 May-03 Sep-03 Jan-04 May-04 Sep-04 Jan-05 May-05 Sep-05 Jan-06 May-06 Sep-06 Jan-07 May-07 Sep-07 Jan-08 May-08 Sep-08 Jan-09 May-09 Sep-09 Jan-10 May-10 Sep-10 Jan-11 May-11 Sep-11 Year Methodology Process No, Maintain Current Operating Plan Identify Sustainable Storage Target, Demand, and Total Is Risk 1% or Greater? Reservoir Storage Yes, Determine Volume and Source of Supplemental Supply Needed to Achieve Desired Reliability Winter Season Runoff ! Planning Process • Planning Goals – Minimize Risk of Reducing Allocation – Minimize Risk of Spill • Planning Horizons – Seasonal (3 months to Years) – Sub-seasonal (2 weeks to 3 Months) – Event Driven (0-15 Days) Possible Beneficial Scenarios Alter Surface/Ground water mix of Allocation • reliable “wet” forecast could prompt a decrease in groundwater usage that is offset by increased surface water usage • reliable “dry” forecast could prompt an increase in groundwater usage that is offset by decreased surface water usage • Preserve carry-over storage • Use of current delivery capacity • Reduces the use of augmentation sources • Initiate drought management plans Alter Groundwater Recharge Goals • reliable “wet” forecast could prompt greater recharge efforts Make Decisions of Least Regrets: Avoid Unrecoverable Actions Save Money—Everyone’s Favorite Weather Forecast Tools (Event Driven) 0-15 Days Dynamic Weather Forecast Models (GFS, NAM, WRF, ECMWF & etc.,) Model Output Statistics (MOS) Expert Guidance (CPC 6-10 day/8-14 day & WPC QPFs) Weather Forecast Tools (Seasonal) 0-15 Days 3 Month – Years Dynamic Weather Forecast Models Expert Guidance (GFS, NAM, WRF, ECMWF & etc.,) (CPC Monthly and Seasonal Outlooks) Expert Guidance Statistical Tools (CPC 6-10 day/8-14 day & WPC QPFs) Dynamic Models Model Output Statistics (MOS) (CFS) Water Necessary to Recover Historical Recovery Water Drought (KAF) Reduction Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Total 1212-1218 20% 132 114 298 544 1576-1586 15% 169 143 285 316 913 1665-1671 20% 29 190 40 256 515 1817-1824 20% 337 140 261 19 112 869 1895-2005 20% 298 180 38 516 1998-2004 20% 19 242 283 544 “The Gap” Weather Forecast Tools (Sub-seasonal) 0-15 Days 3 Months – Years Dynamic Weather Forecast Models Expert Guidance (GFS, NAM, WRF, ECMWF & etc.,) (CPC Monthly and Seasonal Outlooks) Expert Guidance Statistical Tools (CPC 6-10 day/8-14 day & WPC QPFs) Dynamic Models Model Output Statistics (MOS) (CFS) 2 Weeks to 3 Months Dynamic Models? Statistical Tools? Possibilities to fill “The Gap” QPF/Precipitation Guidance Categorical Probability Based Extended QPFs Probability of Threshold Exceedence Ranges Above/Near/Below Median Ranges Multi-Day & Multi-Week 2 or 4 Week Time Frames Time Frames Weekly/Multi-weekly e.g., CPC Seasonal Outlooks Time Frames e.g., WPC QPFs e.g., NCEP Ensemble PQPF Summary of Gap Filling Needs Figure provided by the International Research Institute As a water supply (IRI) for Climate and Society (updated 14 April 2015). manager, what should you do? Winter Outlook Analog Years—Huh? Winter Precipitation with ENSO Greater than 0.0 20 17.5 15 12.5 10 7.5 Inches of Inches Precipitation 5 2.5 0 1980 1983 1987 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998 2003 2004 2005 2007 2010 Strong El Niño Moderate El Niño Weak El Niño Neutral (greater than 0.0) Precipitation Uncertainties For the Watershed La Niña Weak Moderate Strong n 21 9 8 4 Max 12.67” 11.41” 12.67” 5.21” Median 4.98” 6.02” 5.22” 4.89” Min 1.49” 2.05” 1.49” 3.53” Filling “The Gap” Weather Forecast Tools (Sub-seasonal) Mid-season updates with more specifics that: • Identify trends that narrow the range of forecast possibilities • Identify thresholds offering greater confidence in a forecast outcome • Identify and incorporate “season changing” events • Need more communication and collaboration between the forecaster and the water resource manager. • ? Questions? .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir 1995 Sedimentation Survey
    THEODORE ROOSEVELT RESERVOIR 1995 SEDIMENTATION SURVEY 1.FOkTF1Ep02. RESOiJ U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation ERRATA Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir 1995 Sedimentation Survey Page 10, Table 1, item 9: This should read 2,100 feet rather than 2214. Page 12, Table 1, item 47,footnote 1: Modifications to Roosevelt Dam completed in 1995 raised the dam elevation and lowered the spillway sill elevation. The original dam elevation was 2142 and the spiliway elevation (top of radial gates) was 2136. Page 13. Table 2, ,foolnole 7: Computed sediment expressed as a percentage of total computed sediment (182,185 acre-feet). REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FormApproved J 0MB No. 0704-0188 Pubhc reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the cotlection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suit 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paper-work Reduction Report (0704-0188), Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED May 1996 Final 4. TITLE AND SUBTiTLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir 1995 Sedimentation Survey PR 6. AUTHOR(S) Joe Lyons and Lori Lest 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Bureau of Reclamation REPORT NUMBER Technical Service Center Denver CO 80225 9.
    [Show full text]
  • The Central Arizona Project
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short 1982 Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10) 6-9-1982 The Central Arizona Project Jon Kyl Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/new-sources-of-water-for-energy- development-and-growth-interbasin-transfers Part of the Agriculture Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Contracts Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Hydrology Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Transportation Law Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Kyl, Jon, "The Central Arizona Project" (1982). New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10). https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/new-sources-of-water-for-energy-development-and-growth-interbasin- transfers/21 Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. Jon Kyl, The Central Arizona Project, in NEW SOURCES OF WATER FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH: INTERBASIN TRANSFERS (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 1982). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydroelectric Power -- What Is It? It=S a Form of Energy … a Renewable Resource
    INTRODUCTION Hydroelectric Power -- what is it? It=s a form of energy … a renewable resource. Hydropower provides about 96 percent of the renewable energy in the United States. Other renewable resources include geothermal, wave power, tidal power, wind power, and solar power. Hydroelectric powerplants do not use up resources to create electricity nor do they pollute the air, land, or water, as other powerplants may. Hydroelectric power has played an important part in the development of this Nation's electric power industry. Both small and large hydroelectric power developments were instrumental in the early expansion of the electric power industry. Hydroelectric power comes from flowing water … winter and spring runoff from mountain streams and clear lakes. Water, when it is falling by the force of gravity, can be used to turn turbines and generators that produce electricity. Hydroelectric power is important to our Nation. Growing populations and modern technologies require vast amounts of electricity for creating, building, and expanding. In the 1920's, hydroelectric plants supplied as much as 40 percent of the electric energy produced. Although the amount of energy produced by this means has steadily increased, the amount produced by other types of powerplants has increased at a faster rate and hydroelectric power presently supplies about 10 percent of the electrical generating capacity of the United States. Hydropower is an essential contributor in the national power grid because of its ability to respond quickly to rapidly varying loads or system disturbances, which base load plants with steam systems powered by combustion or nuclear processes cannot accommodate. Reclamation=s 58 powerplants throughout the Western United States produce an average of 42 billion kWh (kilowatt-hours) per year, enough to meet the residential needs of more than 14 million people.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role
    Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role Updated March 21, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45546 SUMMARY R45546 Management of the Colorado River: Water March 21, 2019 Allocation, Drought, and the Federal Role Charles V. Stern The Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles in seven U.S. states Specialist in Natural (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Resources Policy Mexico. Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (part of the Department of the Interior) manages much of the basin’s water supplies. Colorado River water is used Pervaze A. Sheikh primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, but it also Specialist in Natural is important for power production, fish and wildlife, and recreational uses. Resources Policy In recent years, consumptive uses of Colorado River water have exceeded natural flows. This causes an imbalance in the basin’s available supplies and competing demands. A drought in the basin dating to 2000 has raised the prospect of water delivery curtailments and decreased hydropower production, among other things. In the future, observers expect that increasing demand for supplies, coupled with the effects of climate change, will further increase the strain on the basin’s limited water supplies. River Management The Law of the River is the commonly used shorthand for the multiple laws, court decisions, and other documents governing Colorado River operations. The foundational document of the Law of the River is the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Pursuant to the compact, the basin states established a framework to apportion the water supplies between the Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River, with the dividing line between the two basins at Lee Ferry, AZ (near the Utah border).
    [Show full text]
  • Hydroturbines Its All Downhill from Here…
    Hydroturbines Its all downhill from here… Maureen Hymel City of Phoenix Water Services Department Historical use of water as energy • 31 BC to 14 AD Water wheels used in Roman engineering (vertical) • 31 AD Ancient China used water wheels (horizontal) • 1500s Water wheels used for mining • 1909 USBR built its first hydroelectric plant to help build Roosevelt Dam • 1920 only 2% of energy was used to make electricity • 1937 formation of SRP Agricultural Improvement & Power District SRP Hydro Generation Watts in a name? A new frontier for old technology • Water wheel usually used for mechanical work • Hydropower • Hydrogeneration • Hydroturbine • Microturbine • Hydroelectric Power Courtesy of Doug Filer, Army Corp of Engineers Open channel vs closed pipe Vertical • Elevation change (available head) • Volume • Velocity • Load on generator Elevation change or feet of Head • 510’ Head Glen Canyon Dam (Lake Powell) 27,000,000 AF • 249’ Head Theodore Roosevelt Dam 2,910,200 AF • 72’ Head Parker Dam (Lake Havasu) 648,000 AK • 29’ Head/1400 kw South Canal (SRP Canal) • 14’ Head/ 750 kw Arizona Falls (SRP Canal) • Note: Some offshore installations work off tide water SRP Arizona Falls • 14 ft elevation change/16” pipe • 750 kilowatts • 150 homes powered City of Phoenix Water System • Service area varies 940’ to 2020’ • Pressure Zones generally 100’ elevation intervals • Water mains 2” to 108” • Storage tanks and reservoirs provide 2’ to 43’ of operating head COP Hydro-generation Studies • 1987 Energy audit at four WT plants and considered hydro-generation on gravity mains • 1991 In-line Hydro-generation Feasibility Study multiple pressure zones at 24 St WTP • 2003 COP participated with SRP to re-construct Arizona Falls • 2004 Hydro-generation potential for a new PRV station and a modified PRV at 24 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Background Report Prepared by Arizona State University NINETY-NINTH ARIZONA TOWN HALL
    Arizona’s Energy Future 99th Arizona Town Hall November 6 - 9, 2011 Background Report Prepared by Arizona State University NINETY-NINTH ARIZONA TOWN HALL PREMIER PARTNER CONTRIBUTING PARTNER COLLABORATING PARTNERS SUPPORTING PARTNERS CIVIC PARTNERS CORE Construction Kennedy Partners Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite Sundt Construction One East Camelback, Suite 530, Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Phone: 602.252.9600 Fax: 602.252.6189 Website: www.aztownhall.org Email: [email protected] ARIZONA’S ENERGY FUTURE September 2011 We thank you for making the commitment to participate in the 99th Arizona Town Hall to be held at the Grand Canyon on November 6-9, 2011. You will be discussing and developing consensus with fellow Arizonans on the future of energy in Arizona. An essential element to the success of these consensus-driven discussions is this background report that is provided to all participants before the Town Hall convenes. As they have so often done for past Arizona Town Halls, Arizona State University has prepared a detailed and informative report that will provide a unique and unparalleled resource for your Town Hall panel sessions. Special thanks go to editors Clark Miller and Sharlissa Moore of the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes at ASU for spearheading this effort and marshaling many talented professionals to write individual chapters. For sharing their wealth of knowledge and professional talents, our thanks go to the many authors who contributed to the report. Our deepest gratitude also goes to University Vice President and Dean of the College of Public Programs for ASU, Debra Friedman, and Director of the School of Public Affairs for ASU, Jonathan Koppell, who made great efforts to ensure that ASU could provide this type of resource to Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • 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...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Roosevelt Dam Modification Collection
    Guide to MS 194 Roosevelt Dam – Modifications 1990 Two Boxes 2003.469 Processed by Unknown Reviewed and Updated by Diane Ledger Donated by Library and Archives Arizona Historical Society Central Arizona Division Arizona Historical Society at Papago Park, 1300 N. College Avenue, Tempe, AZ 85281 Phone: 480-387-5355, Email: [email protected] HISTORICAL NOTE Theodore Roosevelt Dam is on the Salt River located northeast of Phoenix, Arizona. The dam is 357 feet (109 m) high and was built between 1905 and 1911, and renovated 1989 - 1996. The dam has a hydroelectric generating capacity of 36,000 kW. The dam forms the Theodore Roosevelt Lake as it impounds the Salt River. Construction on Roosevelt Dam began in 1903 at the confluence of Tonto Creek and the Salt River. The primary purpose of the project was to provide water storage for the Salt River Project and flood control through the Salt River Valley. The dam was finished in 1911 after several devastating floods had interrupted the construction progress in 1905. At the time of completion in 1911, it was the largest masonry dam in the world with a height of 280 feet (84 m) and a length of 723 feet (216 m) while Roosevelt Lake was for a time the world's largest artificial reservoir. In 1989, an ambitious expansion and renovation project was begun at Roosevelt Dam. The dam was resurfaced with concrete, by J.A. Jones Construction Company, and its height was raised 77 feet (23 m) to 357 feet (107 m) which had the effect of increasing the storage capacity of Roosevelt Lake by roughly 20%.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonorensis 2014
    Sonorensis ARIZONA-SONORA DESERT MUSEUM 2014 REFLECTIONS Sonorensis ON OUR Desert Rivers ARIZONA-SONORA DESERT MUSEUM 2014 INTRODUCTION Linda M. Brewer ASDM Press Editor Volume 34, Number 1 Winter 2014 The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum In the arid West, water wars and water negotiations are Co-founded in 1952 by both notorious and vitally consequential to people and Arthur N. Pack and William H. Carr wildlife. Water is tied to almost every resource we use or Craig Ivanyi reap—plumbing systems, crops, mineral extraction, electri- Executive Director cal generation, digital communications, etc.—as well as to Debra Colodner Director, Conservation Education trees and other vegetation that cleanse the air, organisms and Science Department that recycle dead organic matter into substrates for new Nancy Serensky Pierstorff Jay Brennan Tom life, and a full ecosystem that provides natural resources Production Manager for us and other living beings. Especially in arid lands, riv- Kim Franklin ers are veins of ecological gold, with an impact far beyond Managing Editor Contents the ground they cover. About half of all breeding birds in Linda Brewer the southwestern United States depend on the narrow Contributing Editor 1-2 Introduction ribbons that are riparian corridors, which represent just 1 Martina Clary Linda M. Brewer percent of the land. In the Sonoran Desert, 85 percent of Design and Production wildlife species depend on surface water or an associated Sonorensis is published as a benefit to the 3-8 The Colorado riparian habitat in some phase of their life cycle. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum membership as Kerry Schwartz In this issue of Sonorensis, we tell the story of our a resource for furthering understanding of the rivers, because the story of rivers in the Sonoran Desert Sonoran Desert Region.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydraulic Model Studies of Theodore Roosevelt Dam- South Spillway
    GR-8 1-10 HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT DAM- SOUTH SPILLWAY May 1981 Engineering and Research Center U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Division of Research Hydraulics Branch 7-2090 (4-81 ) W:llel' ;111('1 Power TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. REPORT NO. [2. GOVERNMENT hCCIE~lO~l. NO, 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO, I GR-81o10 ! 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Hydraulic Model Studies of Theodore Roosevelt May 1981 I Dam - South Spillway 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE I 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Marlene F. Young GR-81-10 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. I Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Center 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Denver CO 80225 I 13. TYPE OF REPOR T AND PERIOD COVERED 12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same I 14. SPON*SORItJG AGENCY CODE 1S SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES I Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colo. Editor RDM I 16. ABSTRACT During a spillway discharge, to Theodore Roosevelt Dam near Phoenix, Ariz., in February 1980, water overtopped the right wall of the south spillway causing extensive I. damage to the powerhouse and destroying a downstream protective wall. A 1:36 scale model was used to develop protective measures for this powerplant, the highly jointed downstream canyon wall, and other structures. Also determined from the model study I were spillway and radial gate discharge capacity curves. The model showed that a 15-ft (4.57-m) high extension to the right training wall would provide full protection for the powerhouse.
    [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]
  • Insert Executive Summary
    SUMMARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER May 2005 Background In October 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposed critical habitat designation (CHD) for the southwestern willow flycatcher (flycatcher) (Empidonax traillii extimus). The essential habitat identified for the flycatcher includes approximately 1,555 river miles and 376,000 acres in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Utah. Approximately 40 percent of the habitat is under Federal ownership, with another 40 percent under private ownership and the remaining 20 percent under State and other ownership.1 The economic analysis considers and attempts to quantify the potential economic effects of efforts to protect the flycatcher and its habitat (flycatcher conservation activities) in the proposed CHD as well as the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of the listing or other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation in the areas proposed for designation. KEY FINDINGS2 • Future Economic Impacts associated with flycatcher conservation are forecast to range from $29.2 to $39.5 million annually (under Scenario 1, the most likely scenario). • Activities Most Impacted: Water management activities account for $25.7 million annually, or 75 percent of total costs (under Scenario 1). Sixteen percent of costs are related to administrative efforts, five percent to grazing activities, two percent to transportation activities, one percent to development activities, one percent to Tribal activities, and one percent to all other activities. Impacts under Scenario 2 are even more heavily weighted to water management and use. Within Management Units (MUs), impacts are concentrated at water management facilities.
    [Show full text]