Endangered Species Biological Assessment for the Dirty Devil River

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Endangered Species Biological Assessment for the Dirty Devil River ENDANGERED SPECIES BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DIRTY DEVIL RIVER UNIT DECEMBER 1984 PROJECT SETTING Location The Dirty Devil River Unit is located in south central Utah. The unit includes the major tributaries of the Muddy Creek, Fremont River, Dirty Devil River and their tributaries. The unit area covers 4,300 square miles and includes portions of Sanpete, Sevier, Emery, Wayne, Piute, and Garfield Counties. The Bureau of Land Management (Bu) admin- isters approximately 75 percent of this land. The remaining area contains a large portion of Capitol Reef National Park, a small section of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, portions of Fish Lake, Dixie and Manti-LaSal National Forests, and sections of state and private land. Elevations range from about 3,600 feet at the mouth of the Dirty Devil River to 11,500 feet in the mountain ranges at the head of the drainage basins. Purpose The purpose of the Dirty Devil River Unit is to reduce salinity in the Colorado River. The Dirty Devil River drainage contributes an average of approximately 155,000 tons of salt annually to the Colorado River, increasing the salinity concentrations of the river at Imperial Dam by approximately 15.5 mg/L of salt. The objective of the unit is to remove as much of the salt loading from the Dirty Devil River as is eco- nomically justifiable. Plan Description Although a variety of plans were investigated, saline water collec- tion from both Emery South Salt Wash and Hanksville Salt Wash remained the only plan considered acceptable (Figure 1). This alternative would collect base surface and subsurface flows from both washes. A total of 20,600 tons of salt annually would be removed by collecting saline water at a continuous rate of 2.75 cfs. This removal would be from both washes and would require separate collection and disposal facilities. Collection would be accomplished by alluvial wells. The collected saline water would be disposed of by deep well injec- tion'. The Coconino sandstone geologic formation is considered the most favorable disposal reservoir. One well would handle the flow at each wash. This formation is between 3,000 and 4,000 feet deep in both washes. It is isolated from fresh water aquifers above and below by very low permeable formations. The Coconino formation has adequate Teservoir capacity to contain the saline water for over 50 years. Permeabilities projected are high enough to allow injection at accept- able pressures. Well drilling would be standard techniques used for the 1 petroleum industry. Before injection, the saline water would be fil- tered- to remove the minor amount of suspended sediment. Algacide and stabilizing chemicals would be added to reduce scaling and algae growth. This process plus the high pressure injection pumping would be housed in one location in each wash. The injection wells can be located in any convenient site adjacent to collection and treatment facilities. All facilities would be located on land presently owned by the Federal Government and administered by the ELM. Access to both washes would be maintained by upgrading existing roads. Facilities would be electrically powered. Existing private power transmission lines would be extended .along existing roads. Powerline locations would be established based on the Bureau of LanA Management visual resource mana- gement plan. Hanksville Salt Wash Collectable water is estimated to have a concentration of 5,900 mg/L of total dissolved solids (TDS) and a continuous flow of 2.5 cfs. This is a combination of surface and subsurface flows. This water would be collected by constructing a series of alluvial wells to obtain underground flows as well as surface flows. The alluvial pumping facilities were sized with a simple groundwater assumption: the maximum or projected drawdown from each well was limited to 30 feet. This criterion limits each well to approximately 100 gpm and approxi- mately 2.5 cfs to be collected, thereby requiring 12 wells and three additional wells to allow for operation and maintenance. Their total depth would be approximately 50 feet. Further optimizing of the number and spacing of wells would be left for future planning investigations. All facilities in the wash would be protected from floods or located outside of the flood zone. Late summer thunderstorms are common and flood flows in Hanksville Salt Wash were estimated to be; 100 year - 18,000 cfs, 50 year - 14,000, 25 year - 11,000. The collection location was selected considering natural constric- tions confining the collection area, ease of access, and minimizing disturbance to the wash. The site, shown on Figure 2, is a narrow point in the canyon cut by the wash. Access is by existing roads and minor additional road construction. Disturbance is minimized by using existing roads and dewatering only the lower section of the wash. • Monitoring wells would be installed down gradient of the collection site to monitor salinity reduction. Surface water sampling above and below the wash on Muddy Creek would also support this monitoring effort. 2 Saline water would be pumped directly from the collection wells through- 2,900 feet of buried PVC pipeline to the injection well facili- ties, .Inline valves and other controls were included for flow control and system operation, maintenance, and control. Diiposal would be accomplished by deep-well injecting the saline water into a hydraulically isolated geologic formation. The major fac- tor in deep-well injection is having adequate reservoir capacity. The Coconino Sandstone lies at approximately 3,700 feet in depth and is about 1,000 feet thick. The sandstone permeability appears consistently higher ranging from 200 to 650 and has a porosity range of 15 to 25 per- cent. They have low permeabilities and are composed of mudstone, silt- stone, sandstone, and some limestone. The lower confining zone is t -e Hermosa Group and Molas Formation, which is a competent bed of limestone with shale, siltstone, and sandstone. Based on these conservative assumptions, the entire 2.5 cfs can be injected into one well while main- taining acceptable injection pressures over a 50-year operation period. In summary, because of the shallower depth requiring less drilling and injection pressures plus the need for only 1 well, the Coconino Sand- stone was selected as the injection zone. Surface facilities required along with the injection well consist of holding tanks, a sand filtration system, chemical addition equipment, injection pumps, guard filters, and instrumentation. Backwash from the filters would contain sediment from the alluvial wells. This backwash would be contained in an on-site evaporation pond. No hazardous ele- ments were found in the saline water. To handle the corrosive fluids all flow lines and vessels would be constructed of non-metallic materials such as PVC and fiberglass. Linings such as rubber, teflon, and coal-tar epoxy would be used if non- metalic materials were unavailable. Existing roads would be maintained and 6 miles of existing roads would be reconstructed to provide all weather use. A maximum of 20 acres of land would be required for all plan facil- ities, not including existing roads. All proposed land is owned by the Federal Government and administered by the BLM. Emery South Salt Wash Collectable water is estimated to have a concentration ranging from 25,000 to 35,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids (TDS) and a continuous subsurface flow ranging from 0.15 to 0.25 cfs. The same collection techniques were considered here as in Hanksville .Salt Wash. Subsurface saline water is suspected to enter directly into Muddy Creek- at the washes mouth as well as in the wash itself. For this reason subsurface wells were selected as the most effective collection 3 method. This factor also established the collection location, along Muddy Creek above and below the mouth of Emery South Salt Wash. It was assumed that 10 wells would be required to collect the 0.18 cfs of esti- mated subsurface inflow. The 10 wells would be outfitted with submer- sible pumps and combined into a common pipeline. All facilities in the wash would be protected from floods or located outside the flood zone. Summer tropical storms are common and flows of the following magnitude were estimates; 100 year - 9000 cfs, 50 year - 7000 cfs, 25 year - 5000 cfs. Monitoring wells would be installed on the wash and within the col- lection well field to monitor the collection effectiveness. Surface water sampling above and below the wash on Muddy Creek is also recom- mended. Saline water would be pumped directly from the collection wells through 12,000 feet of buried PVC pipeline to conveniently located injection well facilities. Disposal of the saline water would be by deep-well injection. The major difference in the washes is the flow rates. The 0.18 cfs in Emery South Salt Wash could be injected into one well either into the Lead- ville Limestone or the Coconino Sandstone. Because the Coconino is shallower and has a more predictable higher permeability, it was chosen as the injection zone. The Coconino Sandstone at this wash lies at approximately 3,400 feet in depth and is about 800 feet thick. Other formation properties are identical to those described in Hanksville Salt Wash including the confining zones. Designs, using factors previously described, show one well would easily handle required flow rates over a 50 year period. Surface facil- ities and the injection well drilling and operation would be identical to those described in detail previously. They would be scaled back in size to reflect the lower flow rate. It was projected that 9 miles of existing secondary roads would be reconstructed to provide all-weather use. A maximum of 10 acres of land would be required for all plan facil- ities, not including existing roads or power1ine alignments.
Recommended publications
  • West Colorado River Plan
    Section 9 - West Colorado River Basin Water Planning and Development 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Background 9-1 9.3 Water Resources Problems 9-7 9.4 Water Resources Demands and Needs 9-7 9.5 Water Development and Management Alternatives 9-13 9.6 Projected Water Depletions 9-18 9.7 Policy Issues and Recommendations 9-19 Figures 9-1 Price-San Rafael Salinity Control Project Map 9-6 9-2 Wilderness Lands 9-11 9-3 Potential Reservoir Sites 9-16 9-4 Gunnison Butte Mutual Irrigation Project 9-20 9-5 Bryce Valley 9-22 Tables 9-1 Board of Water Resources Development Projects 9-3 9-2 Salinity Control Project Approved Costs 9-7 9-3 Wilderness Lands 9-8 9-4 Current and Projected Culinary Water Use 9-12 9-5 Current and Projected Secondary Water Use 9-12 9-6 Current and Projected Agricultural Water Use 9-13 9-7 Summary of Current and Projected Water Demands 9-14 9-8 Historical Reservoir Site Investigations 9-17 Section 9 West Colorado River Basin - Utah State Water Plan Water Planning and Development 9.1 Introduction The coordination and cooperation of all This section describes the major existing water development projects and proposed water planning water-related government agencies, and development activities in the West Colorado local organizations and individual River Basin. The existing water supplies are vital to water users will be required as the the existence of the local communities while also basin tries to meet its future water providing aesthetic and environmental values.
    [Show full text]
  • Floating the Dirty Devil River
    The best water levels and time Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) of year to float the Dirty Devil The Dirty Devil River corridor travels through two The biggest dilemma one faces when planning BLM Wilderness Study Areas, the Dirty Devil KNOW a float trip down the Dirty Devil is timing a WSA and the Fiddler Butte WSA. These WSA’s trip when flows are sufficient for floating. On have been designated as such to preserve their wil- BEFORE average, March and April are the only months derness characteristics including naturalness, soli- YOU GO: that the river is potentially floatable. Most tude, and primitive recreation. Please recreate in a people do it in May or June because of warm- manner that retains these characteristics. Floating the ing temperatures. It is recommended to use a hard walled or inflatable kayak when flows Dirty Devil are 100 cfs or higher. It can be done with “Leave-no-Trace” River flows as low as 65 cfs if you are willing to Proper outdoor ethics are expected of all visitors. drag your boat for the first few days. Motor- These include using a portable toilet when camping ized crafts are not allowed on this stretch of near a vehicle, using designated campgrounds The name "Dirty Devil" tells it river. when available, removing or burying human waste all. John Wesley Powell passed in the back country, carrying out toilet paper, using by the mouth of this stream on Another essential consideration for all visitors camp stoves in the backcountry, never cutting or his historic exploration of the is flash flood potential.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Projecting Temperature in Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam Tailrace
    Projecting Temperature in Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam Tailrace By Nicholas T. Williams1 Abstract factors affecting the magnitude of warming in dam discharges (Bureau of Reclamation, 2007). During the period of warmest river temperatures, the Recent drought in the Colorado River Basin reduced dissolved oxygen content of discharges from the dam declined water levels in Lake Powell nearly 150 feet between 1999 to concentrations lower than any previously observed (fig. 1). and 2005. This resulted in warmer discharges from Glen Operations at Glen Canyon Dam were modified by running Canyon Dam than have been observed since initial filling of turbines at varying speeds, which artificially increased the dis- Lake Powell. Water quality of the discharge also varied from solved oxygen content of discharges; however, these changes historical observations as concentrations of dissolved oxygen also resulted in decreased power generation and possibly dropped to levels previously unobserved. These changes damaged the turbines (Bureau of Reclamation, 2005). The generated a need, from operational and biological resource processes in the reservoir creating the low dissolved oxygen standpoints, to provide projections of discharge temperature content in the reservoir had been observed in previous years, and water quality throughout the year for Lake Powell and but before 2005 the processes had never affected the river Glen Canyon Dam. Projections of temperature during the year below the dam to this magnitude (Vernieu and others, 2005). 2008 were done using a two-dimensional hydrodynamic and As with the warmer temperatures, the low dissolved oxygen water-quality model of Lake Powell. The projections were concentrations could not be explained solely by the reduced based on the hydrological forecast for the Colorado River reservoir elevations.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Secret Is Now Yours!
    EXPLORE... THREE ADVENTUROUS ZONES Travel Guide Travel The Highlands Capitol Reef East Desert Our secret is now yours! Wayne County, - Utah - USA TABLE OF CONTENTS WELCOME Wayne County, Utah - Capitol Reef Country 1- Cover Calendar of Events 2- Table of Contents April to October - Daily Walks / Capitol Reef Welcome to the scenically diverse region encompassing Wayne County YOUR NEXT GREAT 3- Welcome May Utah’s Capitol Reef Country. - Entrada Institute’s Cowboy Poetry and Music DESTINATION 4- Zones Festival This vacation destination includes mountains, forests, pinnacles, arches, 5- Zones July plateaus, and astounding desert - Torrey Apple Days landscapes. The contrast in elevation 6- Attractions - Capitol Reef Classic – Annual High Desert Bike and terrain makes this area a haven Race. for those seeking solitude or - Bicknell International Film Festival (BIFF) 7- Attractions outdoor adventure. August This region is an excellent multi-day 8- Activities - Women’s Redrock Music Festival vacation destination, central to Utah’s - Wayne County Fair scenic attractions, and easily acces- 9- Guides & Outfitters sible from major cities such as Salt September/October Lake City, Denver, and Las Vegas. 10- Maps - Heritage Star Festival - Wayne Wonderland Air show Unpack once and discover a realm 11- Maps that is conveniently situated be- On Going Events: May - September tween Bryce Canyon, the Grand 12- Hotels / Motels Staircase, Goblin Valley State Park, Capitol Reef National Park: Daily walks and nightly Canyonlands National Park, and amphitheatre programs mid May - September. Lake Powell. 13- Cabins / B&B Check at Visitor Center for Ripple Rock Nature Center schedule. Capitol Reef National Park. You’ll want to reserve several days to 14- Campgrounds (435) 425-3791, ext.
    [Show full text]
  • Glen Canyon Unit, CRSP, Arizona and Utah
    Contents Glen Canyon Unit ............................................................................................................................2 Project Location...................................................................................................................3 Historic Setting ....................................................................................................................4 Project Authorization .........................................................................................................8 Pre-Construction ................................................................................................................14 Construction.......................................................................................................................21 Project Benefits and Uses of Project Water.......................................................................31 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................36 Notes ..................................................................................................................................39 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................46 Index ..................................................................................................................................52 Glen Canyon Unit The Glen Canyon Unit, located along the Colorado River in north central
    [Show full text]
  • Episodic Sediment Delivery and Landscape Connectivity in the Mancos Shale Badlands and Fremont River System, Utah, USA
    Geomorphology 102 (2008) 242–251 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Geomorphology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Episodic sediment delivery and landscape connectivity in the Mancos Shale badlands and Fremont River system, Utah, USA Andrew E. Godfrey 1, Benjamin L. Everitt a, José F. Martín Duque b,⁎ a 170 W. 300 North, Ivins, Utah 84738, USA b Department of Geodynamics, Complutense University, 28040 Madrid, Spain ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: The Fremont River drains about 1000 km2 of Mancos Shale badlands, which provide a large percentage of the Accepted 23 May 2007 total sediment load of its middle and lower reaches. Factors controlling sediment movement include: Available online 18 May 2008 weathering that produces thin paralithic soils, mass movement events that move the soil onto locations susceptible to fluvial transport, intense precipitation events that move the sediment along rills and across Keywords: local pediments, and finally Fremont River floods that move the sediment to the main-stem Colorado River. Mancos Shale badlands A forty-year erosion-pin study has shown that down-slope creep moves the weathered shale crust an Erosion Mass movement average of 5.9 cm/yr. Weather records and our monitoring show that wet winters add large slab failures and Connectivity mudflows. Recent sediment-trap studies show that about 95% of sediment movement across pediments is Coupling accomplished by high-intensity summer convective storms. Between 1890 and 1910, a series of large autumn Arroyo cutting floods swept down the Fremont River, eroding its floodplain and transforming it from a narrow and meandering channel to a broad, braided one.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconnaissance of the Quality of Surface Water in the San Rafael River Basin, Utah
    STATE OF UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Technical Publication No. 72 RECONNAISSANCE OF THE QUALITY OF SURFACE WATER IN THE SAN RAFAEL RIVER BASIN, UTAH by J.C. Mundorff and Kendall R. Thompson U.S. Geological Survey Prepared by the United States Geological Survey in cooperation with The Utah Department of Natural Resources and Energy Division of Water Rights 1982 CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Purpose and scope 2 Methods of investigation 2 Previous studies and acknowledgments ........•..........•.•....... 3 Numbering system for selected sites .....................•........ 3 Hydrologic setting ....................•..............••......•.......• 3 General features and climatic conditions ..•...................... 3 Geology .............................•....•..........••......•...• 5 Water development and irrigation ...........................•..... 5 Classification of water for public supply and irrigation 8 Chemical quality of the surface water................................. 10 General statement 10 Variations in the general chemistry of the water 11 Huntington, Cottonwood, and Ferron Creek basins upstream from major diversions 11 Huntington, Cottonwood, and Ferron Creek basins downstream from major diversions 12 San Rafael River basin downstream from Ferron Creek ........• 13 Trace e lements .........•.......................................•• 14 Other characteristics of the water .............•................• 14 Fluvial sediment...................................................... 16 Summary 18 References cited .................................................••..
    [Show full text]
  • Fremont River Watershed Water Quality Management Plan
    FFrreemmoonntt RRiivveerr WWaatteerrsshheedd Water Quality Management Plan September 27, 2002 Includes TMDLs for: Johnson Valley Reservoir Forsyth Reservoir Mill Meadow Reservoir UM Creek Upper Fremont River Lower Fremont River i FREMONT RIVER WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The TMDL Process ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Utah’s Watershed Approach .......................................................................... 3 2.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 5 2.1 Historic Perspective ....................................................................................... 5 2.2 Climate........................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Geology / Soils............................................................................................... 8 2.4 Land Use / Land Cover ................................................................................ 11 2.5 Hydrology..................................................................................................... 12 2.5.1 Reservoirs ....................................................................................... 12 2.5.2 Subbasins ....................................................................................... 18 2.5.3 Irrigation
    [Show full text]
  • Sedimentation of Lake Powell Tributary Canyons, 1959-2017 Preliminary Results and Ongoing/Future Work
    Center for Colorado River Studies Quinney College of Natural Resources, Utah State University Research Briefing 12/20/2019 Sedimentation of Lake Powell Tributary Canyons, 1959-2017 Preliminary Results and Ongoing/Future Work Alan Kasprak and John C. Schmidt 1 Executive Summary • Understanding the volume of accumulated sediment present in the inundated mouths of tributary canyons of Lake Powell is an essential first step for estimation of whether, and over what time period, sediment deposits may be evacuated. • We analyzed topographic and bathymetric data from 1959 (prior to the construction of Glen Canyon Dam), 1986, and 2017 to estimate the total thickness and annual accumulation rate of sediment in 27 selected tributary canyons of Lake Powell. • Sedimentation rates in these tributary canyons varied widely, from no measurable sediment accumulation, to more than 2 feet per year of sediment deposition over the 58 year analysis period. • We additionally computed unit stream power, a proxy for sediment transport potential, for 23 selected tributary canyons to estimate relative sediment remobilization timescales. We hypothesize that Aztec Canyon, and other canyons with little accumulated sediment and high unit stream power, have the potential to quickly evacuate sediment in the event of sustained reservoir drawdown. • Future work will focus on developing a physical framework for understanding why sedimentation rates vary notably between individual tributary canyons, along with integrating soon-to-be-published airborne lidar data to extend sediment accumulation rate estimates to areas currently above the water surface of Lake Powell. Background Glen Canyon Dam, completed in 1963, impounds the Col- Canyon has been deposited as deltas near where each in- orado River and creates Lake Powell, the second largest flowing river or stream enters Lake Powell, including the reservoir in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Secrets of the Past in a Rugged Land: the Archaeological Case For
    Secrets of the Past in a Rugged Land The archaeological case for protecting Greater Canyonlands Text by Jerry D. Spangler © Bruce Hucko © Grant Collier 10,000 5000 2000 500 0 800 1300 1600 1900 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Paleoindian hunters Archaic hunter-gatherers Basketmakers Ancestral Puebloans/Fremont farmer-foragers Changing Lifeways Explorers & Outlaws t is hard to imagine a more likely candidate for national monument protection than Greater I Canyonlands – the magnificent 1.8 million acres of public land surrounding Canyonlands National Park in southern Utah. It remains one of the last great untouched frontiers of the American West and one of the largest roadless areas in the lower 48 states. It also forms the heart of one of the West’s most critical watersheds, upon which 40 million Americans and 15% of our nation’s agriculture rely. And its unparalleled recreational oppor- tunities – hiking, rafting, rock climbing, biking – are world-renowned. But there is another reason why Greater Canyonlands is so deserving of protection under the Antiquities Act: the area holds some of the most scientifically important cul- tural resources to be found anywhere in North America.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Utah Fishing Guidebook
    Utah Fishing • Utah Fishing CONTACT US CONTENTS HOW TO USE THIS GUIDEBOOK 2019 1. Review the general rules, starting on page 8. These rules explain the licenses you Turn in a poacher 3 How to use this guidebook need, the fishing methods you may use, and when you can transport and possess fish. Phone: 1-800-662-3337 4 Know the laws 2. Check general season dates, daily limits and possession limits, starting on page 19. Email: [email protected] 5 Keep your license on your Online: wildlife.utah.gov/utip phone or tablet 3. Look up a specific water in the section that starts on page 25. (If the water you’re look- ing for is not listed there, it is subject to the general rules.) Division offices 7 License and permit fees 2019 8 General rules: Licenses and Offices are open 8 a.m.–5 p.m., permits Monday • Utah Fishing through Friday. 8 Free Fishing Day WHAT’S NEW? 8 License exemptions for youth Salt Lake City Free Fishing Day: Free Fishing Day will be quagga mussels on and in boats that have 1594 W North Temple groups and organizations held on June 8, 2019. This annual event is a only been in Lake Powell for a day or two. For Box 146301 9 Discounted licenses for great opportunity to share fishing fun with a details on what’s changed at Lake Powell and Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301 disabled veterans friend or family member. For more informa- how you can help protect your boat, please see 801-538-4700 10 Help conserve native tion, see page 8.
    [Show full text]