Usda Scs Moapavalleysubeval.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
.. , USDA SALINITY CONTROL AND ENVI RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . Moapa Valley Subevaluation Unit, Nevada Of The Virgin River Unit Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Prepared By Soil Conservation Service P. O. Box 4850 Reno, Nevada ·89505 Telephone Area Code (702) 784-5304 In cooperation with Science and Education Administration ~ Agricultural Research Riverside, California of the United States Department of Agriculture Prepared under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, Public Law 93-320 s Title II February 1981 \ , '\ CONTENTS Page FOREWORD. I I ............................................ , ..................... 1 SUMMARY I •••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • • .. • I .................................... 1i INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 1 Authority for Investigation ••••.•..•••••.••••••. .................... 1 Objective and Scope ..................... • ••••• I~' •••••••••••• ·.... 2 Public Involvement Process •.•...•.•••••. .......................... 3 SEITING .......................•............................ ,. ..•....••.... 6 Location ........................................... ............. ~ ..... 6 Natural Environmental Characteristics ........................... ·.... 8 Physiography and Geology ••••••. '.1 I ............... .......... 8 Climate ••...••.•.••••••••••••.•••.••••.•••• .................. 12 Wat'er Resource •• • ••••••••••••••••••••• ,. •••••••••••••••• 411 • 12 Surface Water .•.•••••...••••••.••••••••. • •••••••••••• I •••••• 12 Ground Water •• .. , ......... ~ ........... 12 Water Use •.••••.••.•..••••••• ·.......... ·............... , ... 12 Water Budget .. .. .. • ••••.1 •••••••••••• ·.... 13 Water Quality •••.• .. .. .................... ·.... 13 Salt Budget ••••.•••••••••.••..•••.• .............................. 13 Agricultural Systems and Practices .••••••.•• ·................... 18 Land Resource ...•••••..•••.••••..••.•••• · .................. , . , 19 Soi 1 Survey ....•••••••••••• .. .. ·.................. , . 19 Erosion and Sediment ••••• ·...... ·.- ...................... 21 Biotic Resources •••• ·... ·.......... ·................... 21 Fi sheri es ••••. ........... .. .. ........ 21 Wildlife •.•••••..••.• • •••• '* •••••• • • I •••••••• ....... 21 Vegetat10n •••••..••••.•.•... '4 •••••• ·..... .... " .. 22 Recreation Resources ...•••••••• .. ........... 22 Social and Economic Characteristics ......•. ·.................. 22 Popul at 1on ••.•.•••..•..••..•••..•.•.•...• ......... , 22 Factors~ Cultural, Social and Economic •... • • f .... ." ... 22 Emp 1oyment ..•••..•.•••••••.•... ·...... ·..... ...... 23 Historic and Archeologic •..••••. • ••• 4 •• 6: •••• ·.... 6: •••••••••• 23 PROBLEMS AND NEEDS Problems and Needs Associated With Salt Loading. 6: •••••••••• 24 Sources and Kinds of Salts •.•••.• .. • 6: •••••••••••••••••• 24 Amount'of Salts~ •.•••••••••.•.••• .. ......... " .. ........ 29 Control Potential ... .. .. .. ...................... 29 Onfarm ..•.•••••.••...•.•.••••...•••••.•••.•••••••.••.••••.••••••••••• 29 Off~Fann •••••••••••••••••• 6: •• ., ................. 6:, ••••••••••••••••••••• Z9 Problems and Needs Associated With Erosion and Sedimentation •••••.••••• 30 ·~~eatment Opportunities for Erosion Problems •.••••.••.••••••.•.•••.•• 32 Problems and Needs Associated with Water Resource ..•..••••••••••••.•••• 32 Page ALTERNATIVE PLANS............................................................. 34 Future Wi thout Sa 1; ni ty Program.................................... • • . 37 Alternative 1 ........................ ,.111 ••••••••••••••• , •••••••••••••••••• , 39 Alternative 2 ............................................................... 41 Comparative Analysis for Plans ...........•.................................. 41 RECOMMENDED PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM .................................. 47 Pub 1i c Recornrnenda t ions ..................................................•... 47 Basis for Selection of Recommended Plan ..•.................................. 47 Additional Research and Demonstration Needs ................................ 47 Effects of Recornrnended Plan ....................................... "" ....... 48 , Implementation Program ................................. : ................... 48 BI BL I OGRAPHY ........ , .............. , ...•...... I • I ........ , •••••••••••••••••••••• 51 APPENDIC'Es Appendix A ~ Environmental Evaluation - Inventory Worksheets ................ A-l Append i x B - Best Management Pract; ces.- . .. .. .. .... B-1 Appendix C - Biotic Cornrnunities and Major Wildlife Resources ................ C-l FIGURES Figure 1. Location Map ................................................... iii Figure 2. Land Ownership.t ................................. ,............. 6 Figure 3. Program Area Ma p ....................... ~ . .. 7 Figure 4-A. Geologic Cross Section ................................. " ....... ". 9 Figure 4-B. Geologic Section. ............ .................................. 10 Figure 5. Geo 109; c Map II1II • II1II • II1II •••• , ................... , ••••••••• Ie- •• 4 •• I • • • • • • 11 Figure 6-A. Salinity Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids - Surface Wa ter .................. ,. ................... "......... I •••••• ,. • • • • 15 Figure 6-B. Component Sa 1t Loads - Muddy Ri ver. .. 17 Figure 6-C. Cumulative Salt Load - Muddy River.'............................ 17 Figure 7. Soil Map ........... , ............................................ 20 Figure 8. Sa 1i ne So; 1s ..... , ................ < •••••••••••• , ••••••••• , • • • • • • • • 25 Figure 9-A. Agricultural Lands with Saline Soils - Upper Moapa Valley •..... 26 Figure 9-B. Agricultur.a1 Lands with Saline Soils - Lower t,1oapa Valley.. .... 27 Figure 9-C. Agricultural Lands with Saline So11s - Lower Moapa Valley .. ,.... 28 Figure 10. Erosion Areas ...... ,. t" ................................. III........ 31 'iABLES Table 1. Annual Level of Funding for 10 Year Installation Period, Alternative 2, ........................ " ..... II II •••• '" ••••••••• iv Table 2. Summary of Significant Effects of Alternative Plans. ............. vi Table 3. Summary Ratings, Environmental Evaluation ...... , ................. vii Table 4. Water and Salt Budgets Present Conditions (1978)..... .... ........ 14 Table 5. Chemical Composition, Muddy River Surface Waters..... ............ 16 Table 6. Chemical Composition Drain Water'" Lower Moapa Valley............. 16 Table 7. Chemical Composition, Ground Water .............. I................ 16 Table 8. Onfarm Irrigation \vater Management Analysis (IRMA)............... 35 Table 9. Water and Salt Budget Alternative Plans.. ........................ 36 Table 10. Economic Development Account, Alternative 2.. .................... 43 Table 11. Environmental Quality Account, Alternative 2..................... 44 Table 12. Environmental Quality Account, Alternative 2·........ ...... ....... 46 Table 13. Implementation Program and Cost, Recommended Plan ..•.•..•....... 50 FOREWORD Moapa Valley Subeva1uation Unit~ a portion of .Virgin River Unit, is a drainage to Colorado River. See the inside of the report cover. Moapa Valley SubeValuation Unit was identified as a problem area where irrigation, and erosion are diffuse sources of salinity. During the study, alternative solutions were identified and estimates were made of effects of the plans to reduce salt loading to Colorado River. An interdisciplinary team prepared the report. rhe IIUSOA Study Plan for the Virgin River Unitll, revised August 1978, and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) publication "Guide for Environmental Assessment", March 1977 along, with SCS environmental policy and 7 CFR-650 were references. Information pertaining to assessments for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is in the appendices. Assistance from other Federal and State of Nevada agencies is acknow ledged. Nevada Department of Wildlife information was used for biological assessment; the United States Department of Interior (US01), Bureau of land Management (BlM) color aerial photography facilitated ident1fication of wetr land areas; published reports, stream gage data and other information of the United States Department of Interior, Water and Power Resources Service (WPRS) and the USDI Geological Survey were used. Oth~r input included Clark County Conservation District onfarm irrigation inventories; and reports pre pared for Clark County, Nevada, for areawide water management planning which were used extensively. ' The USD~ Science and Education Administrqtion-A~ricu1tural Research (SEA-AR) Salinity laboratory, Riverside~ California outlined study needs, provided consultative assistance and analyzed water quality samples. Their assistance in interpreting laboratory test results and reviewing results of the study was very helpful. i SUMMARY Moapa Valley Subevaluation Unitt Nevada, is the,first part of a study of Virgin River Unit in Arizona. Nevada a~d Utah. See Figure 1, The study identifies alternative solutions for reducing salt loading of Colorado River from irrigation and, other diffuse salt sources. Muddy River flows through Moapa Valley into Lake Mead. Moapa-Valley is divided by the II Narrows II downstream of Glendale. Upstream of the Narrows the area is commonly known as "Upper Moapa Val1 eyll, and downstream the valley is known as "Lower Moapa Va11ey.1I The amount of land irrigated varies from year to year. The irrigated acreage is 4,982 with 2,060 acres in Upper Valley and 2,922 acres in Lower Valley.