DOCSLIB.ORG

Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement PUBLIC DRAFT Volume 1—Chapters 1-8 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 GLEN CANYON DAM LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3 4 5 Joint-Lead Agencies 6 Bureau of Reclamation 7 National Park Service 8 9 Cooperating Agencies Department of the Interior Havasupai Tribe Bureau of Indian Affairs Hopi Tribe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hualapai Tribe U.S. Department of Energy Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Western Area Power Administration Navajo Nation Arizona Game and Fish Department Pueblo of Zuni Colorado River Board of California Salt River Project Colorado River Commission of Nevada Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems Upper Colorado River Commission 10 11 12 ABSTRACT 13 14 15 The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), through the Bureau of Reclamation and 16 National Park Service (NPS), proposes to develop and implement a Long-Term Experimental 17 and Management Plan (LTEMP) for operations of Glen Canyon Dam. The LTEMP would 18 provide a framework for adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam operations over the next 19 20 years, consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (GCPA) and other provisions 20 of applicable federal law. The LTEMP would determine specific options for dam operations, 21 non-flow actions, and appropriate experimental and management actions that will meet the 22 GCPA’s requirements and minimize impacts on resources within the area impacted by dam 23 operations, including those of importance to American Indian Tribes. 24 25 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) draws on the scientific information 26 that has been collected under the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program over the 27 last 20 years to identify the potential environmental effects associated with taking no action, as 28 well as a reasonable range of alternatives to no action for implementing the proposed federal 29 action. The alternatives addressed in this DEIS include a broad range of operations and actions 30 that would meet the purpose, need, and objectives of the proposed federal action. The primary 31 resources that could be affected by the proposed action include sediment resources, aquatic and 32 terrestrial ecological resources, recreational resources, socioeconomic resources, hydropower 33 resources, resources of importance to American Indian Tribes, and historic and cultural resources 34 in the vicinity of the Glen and Grand Canyons. The DEIS has been developed in accordance with 35 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and follows the 36 implementing regulations developed by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality in 37 Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500 to 1508 and DOI regulations iii Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan December 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 implementing NEPA in 43 CFR Part 46. Based on the impact analyses conducted, DOI has 2 chosen Alternative D as the preferred alternative. 3 4 The review period for this DEIS will end 90 days after publication of the 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. During 6 the 90-day comment period, comments will be accepted electronically through the NPS 7 Planning, Environment, and Public Comment website (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/LTEMPEIS) 8 and in hard copy delivered by the U.S. Postal Service or other mail delivery service. Written 9 comments will also be accepted during public meetings on the DEIS. Comments will not be 10 accepted by fax, by e-mail, or in any format other than those specified above. Bulk comments in 11 any format (hard copy or electronic) submitted on behalf of others will also not be accepted. 12 13 For additional information, visit http://ltempeis.anl.gov or contact: 14 15 Glen Canyon Dam LTEMP Draft EIS 16 Argonne National Laboratory 17 9700 S. Cass Avenue—EVS/240 18 Argonne, IL 60439 19 Phone: 630-252-3169 20 22 iv Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan December 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 CONTENTS 2 3 4 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... iii 5 6 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................. lxiii 7 8 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 9 10 1.1 Description of the Proposed Action ...................................................................... 1-4 11 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................ 1-5 12 1.3 Lead and Cooperating Agencies and Consulting Tribes ....................................... 1-9 13 1.3.1 Lead Agencies .......................................................................................... 1-9 14 1.3.2 Cooperating Agencies and Consulting Tribes ......................................... 1-9 15 1.4 Objectives and Resource Goals of the LTEMP ..................................................... 1-10 16 1.5 Scope of the DEIS ................................................................................................. 1-12 17 1.5.1 Affected Region and Resources ............................................................... 1-13 18 1.5.2 Impact Topics Selected for Detailed Analysis ......................................... 1-14 19 1.5.3 Impact Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ................................... 1-15 20 1.6 Role of Adaptive Management.............................................................................. 1-16 21 1.6.1 History of the Existing Adaptive Management Program ......................... 1-16 22 1.6.2 Relationship of Adaptive Management to NEPA and Changes 23 to Operations ............................................................................................ 1-17 24 1.7 Role of Decision Analysis in the DEIS Process .................................................... 1-17 25 1.8 History, Location, and Setting ............................................................................... 1-18 26 1.8.1 History and Purpose of Glen Canyon Dam.............................................. 1-18 27 1.8.2 Location of Glen Canyon Dam and LTEMP Affected Area ................... 1-19 28 1.8.3 Operation of the Glen Canyon Dam ........................................................ 1-20 29 1.8.4 History, Purpose, and Significance of the National Park System 30 Units ......................................................................................................... 1-22 31 1.8.4.1 Grand Canyon National Park .................................................. 1-22 32 1.8.4.2 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area .................................. 1-24 33 1.8.4.3 Lake Mead National Recreation Area ..................................... 1-24 34 1.8.5 Tribal Lands ............................................................................................. 1-25 35 1.8.5.1 Navajo Nation .......................................................................... 1-26 36 1.8.5.2 Hualapai ................................................................................... 1-26 37 1.8.5.3 Havasupai ................................................................................ 1-26 38 1.8.5.4 Southern Paiute Tribes ............................................................ 1-27 39 1.8.5.5 Hopi ......................................................................................... 1-28 40 1.8.5.6 Pueblo of Zuni ......................................................................... 1-28 41 1.8.5.7 Fort Mojave ............................................................................. 1-29 42 1.9 Laws and Regulations Related to Operations of Glen Canyon Dam and 43 Park Management .................................................................................................. 1-29 44 1.9.1 Environmental Laws and Executive Orders ............................................ 1-29 45 1.9.2 Cultural/Historical Laws and Executive Orders ...................................... 1-30 46 v Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan December 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 2 3 4 1.9.3 American Indian and Tribal Consultation Laws and Executive 5 Orders ....................................................................................................... 1-30 6 1.9.4 Law of the River ...................................................................................... 1-31 7 1.10 Related Actions ..................................................................................................... 1-31 8 1.10.1 Biological Opinions ................................................................................. 1-31 9 1.10.2 Environmental Impact Statements and Related Documents .................... 1-31 10 1.10.3 Environmental Assessments and Related
Recommended publications
  • The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, Or the Vestige of a Failed Past?

    The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, Or the Vestige of a Failed Past?

    COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, or the Vestige oF a Failed Past? Liam Patton* Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 42 I. THE EVOLUTION OF HYDROPOWER ON THE COLORADO PLATEAU ..... 45 A. Hydropower and the Development of Pumped Storage .......... 45 B. History of Dam ConstruCtion on the Plateau ........................... 48 C. Shipping ResourCes Off the Plateau: Phoenix as an Example 50 D. Modern PoliCies for Dam and Hydropower ConstruCtion ...... 52 E. The Result of Renewed Federal Support for Dams ................. 53 II. HYDROPOWER AS AN ALLY IN THE SHIFT TO CLEAN POWER ............ 54 A. Coal Generation and the Harms of the “Big Buildup” ............ 54 B. DeCommissioning Coal and the Shift to Renewable Energy ... 55 C. The LCR ProjeCt and “Clean” Pumped Hydropower .............. 56 * J.D. Candidate, 2021, University oF Colorado Law School. This Note is adapted From a final paper written for the Advanced Natural Resources Law Seminar. Thank you to the Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review staFF For all their advice and assistance in preparing this Note For publication. An additional thanks to ProFessor KrakoFF For her teachings on the economic, environmental, and Indigenous histories of the Colorado Plateau and For her invaluable guidance throughout the writing process. I am grateFul to share my Note with the community and owe it all to my professors and classmates at Colorado Law. COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW 42 Colo. Nat. Resources, Energy & Envtl. L. Rev. [Vol. 32:1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PLATEAU HYDROPOWER ...............
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started

    Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started

    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
  • Halls Crossing

    Halls Crossing

    National Park Service Glen Canyon National Recreation Area U.S. Department of the Interior Rainbow Bridge National Monument Vol. 10, No. 1, 2014 The official newspaper PHOTO: Bob Moffitt Discover Glen Canyon Welcome! only 13% of Glen Canyon National Recreation overlooks. For spectacular views of the canyon Area. The impounded waters offer unparalleled country, those with 4-wheel drive vehicles Glen Canyon National Recreation Area’s varied water-based recreational opportunities where can visit less accessible areas of the park like expanses of land and water offer more than you can boat, swim, fish, water ski, camp or Alstrom Point or the Burr Trail, which begins you may think. As a unit of the National Park take a boat tour to Rainbow Bridge or Antelope in Glen Canyon and continues into Capitol Reef Service, Glen Canyon preserves and protects Canyon. National Park. over 1.2 million acres for scenic, scientific, and recreational values. Glen Canyon’s vast acreage You may be surprised to know that almost half With such recreational diversity and so many can be divided into three prominent land and of the park is managed as a proposed wilderness places to discover, visitors are often inspired to water areas, each of which offers distinct types area, meaning there is minimal development and return for further exploration. Whether it’s by of experiences for visitors from around the visitors can enjoy a more remote experience. boat, car, or foot, we invite you to experience all globe. that Glen Canyon National Recreation Area has The remainder of the park offers areas that to offer.
  • SUPREME COURT of ARIZONA En Banc ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No

    SUPREME COURT of ARIZONA En Banc ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No

    SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. WC-11-0001-IR IN RE GENERAL ADJUDICATION ) OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER IN ) Maricopa County Superior THE GILA RIVER SYSTEM AND SOURCE ) Court Case Nos.: W-1, W-2, ) W-3 and W-4 ) (Consolidated) (Gila) IN RE GENERAL ADJUDICATION ) [Contested Case OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER IN ) No. W1-104] THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM ) AND SOURCE ) Apache County Superior ) Court Case No. 6417 (LCR) ) [Contested Case ) No. 6417-100] ) ) ) O P I N I O N __________________________________) Review from the Superior Court in Apache County and Maricopa County The Honorable Eddward P. Ballinger, Jr., Judge AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ THOMAS C. HORNE, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL Phoenix By Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Theresa M. Craig, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for the State of Arizona THE SPARKS LAW FIRM PC Scottsdale By Joe P. Sparks Laurel A. Herrmann Attorneys for the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Tonto Apache Tribe SALMON LEWIS & WELDON PLC Phoenix By M. Byron Lewis John B. Weldon, Jr. Mark A. McGinnis Attorneys for Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District and Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association SALMON LEWIS & WELDON PLC Phoenix By Paul R. Orme Attorney for Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District and Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District SNELL & WILMER LLP Phoenix By L. William Staudenmaier, III Andrew M. Jacobs Attorneys for Arizona Public Service Company, Freeport- McMoran Corporation, Roosevelt Water Conservation District POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC Phoenix By Lucas J. Narducci Margaret LaBianca Attorneys for BHP Copper Inc. ENGELMAN BERGER PC Phoenix By William H.
  • Quantifying the Base Flow of the Colorado River: Its Importance in Sustaining Perennial Flow in Northern Arizona And

    Quantifying the Base Flow of the Colorado River: Its Importance in Sustaining Perennial Flow in Northern Arizona And

    1 * This paper is under review for publication in Hydrogeology Journal as well as a chapter in my soon to be published 2 master’s thesis. 3 4 Quantifying the base flow of the Colorado River: its importance in sustaining perennial flow in northern Arizona and 5 southern Utah 6 7 Riley K. Swanson1* 8 Abraham E. Springer1 9 David K. Kreamer2 10 Benjamin W. Tobin3 11 Denielle M. Perry1 12 13 1. School of Earth and Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, US 14 email: [email protected] 15 2. Department of Geoscience, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, US 16 3. Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, US 17 *corresponding author 18 19 Abstract 20 Water in the Colorado River is known to be a highly over-allocated resource, yet decision makers fail to consider, in 21 their management efforts, one of the most important contributions to the existing water in the river, groundwater. This 22 failure may result from the contrasting results of base flow studies conducted on the amount of streamflow into the 23 Colorado River sourced from groundwater. Some studies rule out the significance of groundwater contribution, while 24 other studies show groundwater contributing the majority flow to the river. This study uses new and extant 1 25 instrumented data (not indirect methods) to quantify the base flow contribution to surface flow and highlight the 26 overlooked, substantial portion of groundwater. Ten remote sub-basins of the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah and 27 northern Arizona were examined in detail.
  • 1976 Link Is to a PDF File

    1976 Link Is to a PDF File

    t • I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 125 SCALE OF MILES Annual Report Operation of the Colorado· River Basin 1976 Projected Operations 1977 u.s. Department of the Interior Thomas S. Kleppe, Secretary Bureau of Reclamation Gilbert G. Stamm, Commissioner January 1977 Table·of Contents Introduction ii Authority for ·Report ii Actual .Operations under Criteria-Water Year 1976 1 Upper Basin Reservoirs 2 Lo~er Bas1nReservoirs __ ------------------------------~------------ 14 River Regulations 20 Beneficial Consumptive Uses 21 Upper Basin Uses 21 Lo~er Basin Uses and· Losses 21 Water Quality Control 22 Water Quality Operations during Water Year 1976 22 Enhancement of Fish and Wildlife 23 Upper Basin 23 Lo~erBasin 23 Preservation· of Environment 24 Projected Plan of Operation under Criteria for Current Year ~------------------------------------------__ 26 Determination Storage" 26 Lower Basin Requirements 27 Plan of Operation-Water Year 1977 29 Upper Basin Reservoirs 30 Lo~er Basin Reservoirs 31 (Prepared pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Public Law 90-537) Intr cti The operation of the Colorado River Basin during the past year and the projected operation for the current year reflect domestic use, irrigation, hydro­ electric power generation, water quality control, fish and wi Idl ife propagation, recreation, flood control, and Colorado River Compact require­ ments. Storage and release of water from the Upper Basin reservoirs recognize all applicable laws and relevant factors governing the Colorado River, in­ cluding the impoundment of water in the Upper Basin required by section 602(a) of Public Law 90-537. The operation of the Lower Basin reser­ voirs reflects Mexican Treaty obligations and Lower Basin contractual commitments.
  • Fill Mead First: a Technical Assessment1 Executive Summary

    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.
  • Clear-Water Tributaries of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Stream Ecology and the Potential Impacts of Managed Flow by René E

    Clear-Water Tributaries of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Stream Ecology and the Potential Impacts of Managed Flow by René E

    Clear-water tributaries of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: stream ecology and the potential impacts of managed flow by René E. Henery ABSTRACT Heightened attention to the sediment budget for the Colorado River systerm in Grand Canyon Arizona, and the importance of the turbid tributaries for delivering sediment has resulted in the clear-water tributaries being overlooked by scientists and managers alike. Existing research suggests that clear-water tributaries are remnant ecosystems, offering unique biotic communities and natural flow patterns. These highly productive environments provide important spawning, rearing and foraging habitat for native fishes. Additionally, clear water tributaries provide both fish and birds with refuge from high flows and turbid conditions in the Colorado River. Current flow management in the Grand Canyon including beach building managed floods and daily flow oscillations targeting the trout population and invasive vegetation has created intense disturbance in the Colorado mainstem. This unprecedented level of disturbance in the mainstem has the potential to disrupt tributary ecology and increase pressures on native fishes. Among the most likely and potentially devastating of these pressures is the colonization of tributaries by predatory non-native species. Through focused conservation and management tributaries could play an important role in the protection of the Grand Canyon’s native fishes. INTRODUCTION More than 490 ephemeral and 40 perennial tributaries join the Colorado River in the 425 km stretch between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. Of the perennial tributaries in the Grand Canyon, only a small number including the Paria River, the Little Colorado River and Kanab Creek drain large watersheds and deliver large quantities of sediment to the Colorado River mainstem (Oberlin et al.
  • FISH of the COLORADO RIVER Colorado River and Tributaries Between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead

    FISH of the COLORADO RIVER Colorado River and Tributaries Between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead

    FISH OF THE COLORADO RIVER Colorado River and tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead ON-LINE TRAINING: DRAFT Outline: • Colorado River • Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) • Native Fishes • Common Non-Native Fishes • Rare Non-Native Fishes • Standardized Sampling Protocol Colorado River: • The Colorado River through Grand Canyon historically hosted one of the most distinct fish assemblages in North America (lowest diversity, highest endemism) • Aquatic habitat was variable ▫ Large spring floods ▫ Cold winter temperatures ▫ Warm summer temperatures ▫ Heavy silt load • Today ▫ Stable flow releases ▫ Cooler temperatures ▫ Predation Overview: • The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program was established in 1997 to address downstream ecosystem impacts from operation of Glen Canyon Dam and to provide research and monitoring of downstream resources. Area of Interest: from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (Fish) Goals: • Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish, eliminate risk of extinction from humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification to their critical habitat. • Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria River, to the extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native fish. Course Purpose: • The purpose of this training course “Fish of the Colorado River” is to provide a general overview of fish located within the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam downstream to Lake Mead and linked directly to the GCDAMP. • Also included are brief explanations of management concerns related to the native fish species, as well as species locations. Native Fishes: Colorado River and tributaries between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead Bluehead Sucker • Scientific name: Catostomus discobolus • Status: Species of Special Concern (conservation status may be at risk) • Description: Streamlined with small scales.
  • Colorado River Slideshow Title TK

    Colorado River Slideshow Title TK

    The Colorado River: Lifeline of the Southwest { The Headwaters The Colorado River begins in the Rocky Mountains at elevation 10,000 feet, about 60 miles northwest of Denver in Colorado. The Path Snow melts into water, flows into the river and moves downstream. In Utah, the river meets primary tributaries, the Green River and the San Juan River, before flowing into Lake Powell and beyond. Source: Bureau of Reclamation The Path In total, the Colorado River cuts through 1,450 miles of mountains, plains and deserts to Mexico and the Gulf of California. Source: George Eastman House It was almost 1,500 years ago when humans first tapped the river. Since then, the water has been claimed, reclaimed, divided and subdivided many times. The river is the life source for seven states – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming – as well as the Republic of Mexico. River Water Uses There are many demands for Colorado River water: • Agriculture and Livestock • Municipal and Industrial • Recreation • Fish/Wildlife and Habitat • Hydroelectricity • Tribes • Mexico Source: USGS Agriculture The Colorado River provides irrigation water to about 3.5 million acres of farmland – about 80 percent of its flows. Municipal Phoenix Denver About 15 percent of Colorado River flows provide drinking and household water to more than 30 million people. These cities include: Las Vegas and Phoenix, and cities outside the Basin – Denver, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. Recreation Source: Utah Office of Tourism Source: Emma Williams Recreation includes fishing, boating, waterskiing, camping and whitewater rafting in 22 National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks and National Recreation Areas along river.
  • LAKE POWELL ★ Lake Powell Is an Artificial Lake Formed by the Construction of Glen Canyon Dam in 1964

    LAKE POWELL ★ Lake Powell Is an Artificial Lake Formed by the Construction of Glen Canyon Dam in 1964

    DESTINATIONS LAKE POWELL ★ Lake Powell is an artificial lake formed by the construction of Glen Canyon Dam in 1964. It is the 2nd largest man-made reservoir in North America. The lake is 299 kilometers long and is part of the Glen Canyon Recreation Area, a conservation area covering 1.25 million acres created to preserve the area’s scientific, historic, and scenic features. Lake Powell covers only 13% of the area and is a true playground for pleasure boaters of all kinds. It boasts 3,150 km of coastline, dozens of protected bays and gorges, as well as a few beaches that are a delight on warm days. LAKE POWELL, UTAH © Authentik USA, Marylène Fauvelle WHAT TO DO — GLEN CANYON DAM ★ Glen Canyon Dam is a concrete arch-gravity dam located on the Colorado River near the town of Page. Your visit begins at the Carl Hayden Visitor Center, where you will have a panoramic view of Lake Powell and the 216-meter-high dam. Guided tours to discover the inner workings of this concrete giant are available. Open daily from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. from mid-May to mid-September, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. from November to February, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. the rest of the year. Closed on Thanksgiving Day (4th Thursday in November), Christmas Day and January 1. CARL HAYDEN VISITOR CENTER 928-608-6200 WWW.NPS.GOV/GLCA/PLANYOURVISIT/ AERIAL VIEW OF GLEN CANYON DAM VISITORCENTERS.HTM © iStock-926424750, Bim GLEN CANYON DAM © iStock-590150770, 4kodiak ★ Noteworthy ★★ Worth the detour ★★★ Must see DESTINATIONS ANTELOPE through a tour operator like CANYON ★★★ Antelope Canyon Tours, This is a truly unique and with reservations made well magnificent place, a marvel of in advance.
  • Rethinking Water Storage on the Southern Colorado Plateau

    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