DOCSLIB.ORG

Colorado River Basin Tamarisk and Russian Olive Assessment December 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Colorado River Basin Tamarisk and Russian Olive Assessment December 2009 Colorado River Basin Tamarisk and Russian Olive Assessment December 2009 Prepared by the Tamarisk Coalition for The Parties to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to coordinate activities for tamarisk management in the Colorado River Basin. The Parties to the MOU are the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Colorado Water Conservation Board, New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Six Agency Committee, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Utah Division of Water Resources, and Wyoming State Engineer’s Office. Notice This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the Parties to the MOU. Neither the Parties to the MOU nor any employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Parties to the MOU. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Parties to the MOU. Acknowledgements The Tamarisk Coalition wishes to thank the following people and organizations for their input and contributions to this document: Richard Allen, University of Idaho; Dan Bean, Colorado Department of Agriculture; Dan Cooper, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Ed Glenn, University of Arizona; David Groeneveld, Hydrobio Inc.; Ken Lair, H.T. Harvey and Associates; Christopher Neale, Utah State University; Richard Niswonger, U.S. Geological Survey; Anna Sher, University of Denver and Denver Botanic Gardens; Erika Zavaleta, University of California Santa Cruz; Levi Jamison, Colorado Department of Agriculture; Bureau of Land Management; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Region Noxious Weed Program; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Bio-West, Inc.; Colorado Water Conservation Board; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center; Grand Canyon Trust; National Institute of Invasive Species Science; National Park Service; San Juan River Restoration Database; Sonoran Institute; Southeastern Utah Tamarisk Partnership; Southwest Exotic Plant Mapping Program; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and Utah State University. The staff of the Tamarisk Coalition: Nate Ament, John Heideman, Stacy Kolegas, Jamie Nielsen, Meredith Swett Walker, Clark Tate, and Tim Carlson. A special thanks is given to Tom Ryan, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, for his assistance in the coordination with representatives of the Colorado River Basin: Chuck Cullom, Central Arizona Water Conservation District; Steve Miller, Colorado Water Conservation Board; Holly Cheong, Southern Nevada Water Authority; Jay Groseclose, New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission; Todd Adams, Utah Division of Water Resources; and John Shields, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office. Cover art by Annie Chappell Photo credits: All photos are by the Tamarisk Coalition, unless noted otherwise. i Table of Contents Colorado River Basin Tamarisk and Russian Olive Assessment December 2009 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Task 1: Evapotranspiration by Riparian Vegetation ............................................................... 5 Task 2: TRO Management – state-of-the-science ................................................................... 12 Mechanisms of Spread .............................................................................................................. 12 Mapping and Inventory Results ................................................................................................ 19 Wildlife and Sensitive Species .................................................................................................. 23 Salinity and Soil Chemistry ...................................................................................................... 32 Sedimentation ........................................................................................................................... 36 Wildfire Threat .......................................................................................................................... 40 Biological Control ..................................................................................................................... 44 Cultural Resources Impacts ...................................................................................................... 56 Recreational Impacts ................................................................................................................. 60 Biomass Utilization ................................................................................................................... 63 Best Management Practices ...................................................................................................... 67 Task 3: Programmatic Issues and Economics of TRO Management ................................... 68 Costs of TRO management compared to potential water savings ............................................ 68 TRO Control Techniques .......................................................................................................... 69 Biomass Reduction ................................................................................................................... 71 Revegetation ............................................................................................................................. 72 Long-term Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 74 Long-term Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 75 Cost Analysis of TRO Management ......................................................................................... 75 Future Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 81 Other Programmatic Issues ....................................................................................................... 83 Sources of Funding ................................................................................................................... 85 Planned and Ongoing Projects and Research ............................................................................ 86 Research Needs ......................................................................................................................... 93 Task 4: Demonstration Sites ................................................................................................... 100 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 108 References .................................................................................................................................. 111 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................ 126 Memorandum of Understanding ...................................................................................................... 126 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................ 127 Public Law 109‐320 Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act ................................ 127 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................ 128 Independent Peer Review of Tamarisk & Russian olive Evapotranspiration Colorado River Basin . 128 ii Appendix D ................................................................................................................................ 129 TRO Mapping Data Package and Instructions for Use ...................................................................... 129 Appendix E ................................................................................................................................ 130 Plant Materials List for Revegetation Appropriate for the Colorado River Basin ............................. 130 Appendix F ................................................................................................................................ 131 Tamarisk Control Best Management Practices in Colorado Watersheds ......................................... 131 Appendix G ................................................................................................................................ 132 Best Management Practices for Revegetation after Tamarisk Removal in the Upper Colorado River Basin Handbook ................................................................................................................................ 132 Appendix H ................................................................................................................................ 133 Riparian Restoration Assessment of Alternative Technologies for Tamarisk Control, Biomass Reduction,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Saline Soils and Water Quality in the Colorado River Basin: Natural and Anthropogenic Causes Gabriel Lahue River Ecogeomorphology Winter 2017
    Saline soils and water quality in the Colorado River Basin: Natural and anthropogenic causes Gabriel LaHue River Ecogeomorphology Winter 2017 Outline I. Introduction II. Natural sources of salinity and the geology of the Colorado River Basin IIIA. Anthropogenic contributions to salinity – Agriculture IIIB. Anthropogenic contributions to salinity – Other anthropogenic sources IV. Moving forward – Efforts to decrease salinity V. Summary and conclusions Abstract Salinity is arguably the biggest water quality challenge facing the Colorado River, with estimated damages up to $750 million. The salinity of the river has doubled from pre-dam levels, mostly due to irrigation and reservoir evaporation. Natural salinity sources – saline springs, eroding salt-laden geologic formations, and runoff – still account for about half of the salt loading to the river. Consumptive water use for agricultural irrigation concentrates the naturally- occurring salts in the Colorado River water, these salts are leached from the root zone to maintain crop productivity, and the salts reenter the river as agricultural drainage water. Reservoir evaporation represents a much smaller cause of river salinity and most programs to reduce the salinity of the Colorado River have focused on agriculture; these include the lining of irrigation canals, irrigation efficiency improvements, and removing areas with poor drainage from production. Salt loading to the Colorado River has been reduced because of these efforts, but more work will be required to meet salinity reduction targets. Introduction The Colorado River is one of the most important rivers in the Western United States: it provides water for approximately 40 million people and irrigation water for 5.5 million acres of land, both inside and outside the Colorado River Basin (CRBSCF, 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Preliminary Report on Some Uranium Deposits Along the West Side of the San Rafael Swell, Emery County, Utah
    UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION RMO-673 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON SOME URANIUM DEPOSITS ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL, EMERY COUNTY, UTAH By Millard L. Reyner October 1950 SI-7c1 Division of Raw Materials Exploration Branch Technical Information Service, Oak Ridge, T•nn•ss•• ; "N_ ' \ - —rrs1 • „ 6 NOV 1952 METALLURGY AND CERAMICS Reproduced direct from copy a3 submitted to this office. AEC,Oak Ridge,Tenn.,8-13-51--515-W5593 CONTMITS Page Introduction 1 Geography 3 History 4 Regional geology 4 Economic geology 5 General 5 Mineralogy 7 Deposits examined 8 Lone Tree group. 8 Hard Pan group 11 Dalton group 12 Dexter group 12 Clifford Smith claim 16 Wickiup group 17 Gardell Snow's claim 20 Dolly group 20 South Fork group 20 Hertz No. 1 claim 21 Pay Day claim. Green Vein group. and Brown Throne group 21 Dirty Devil group 26 Summary and conclusions 30 iii ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Index Map of Utah showing location of area examined. • •••••••• OOOOO ••. 2 Figure 2. Map showing locations of uranium prospects and samples on a mesa 4 miles southwest of the San Rafael River bridge. OOOOO . 9 Figure 3. Sketch showing plan, sections, and samples of the Lone Tree adit .••••• OOOOO 10 Figure 4. Plan and sections of Dalton Group showing sample locations and assays . 13 Figure 5. Plan of adit on Dexter Group showing sample looations and assays. 15 Figure 6. Sketch of Block Mountain showing locations of samples in Wickiup Group•• OOOOOO 18 Figure 7. Sketch showing sample locations and assays in main workings of Wickiup Group on the west side of Block Mountain.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing the Geomorphic Context for Wetland and Riverine Restoration of the San Rafael River
    Final Report Establishing the geomorphic context for wetland and riverine restoration of the San Rafael River NRCS Cooperative Agreement #68-3A75-4-155 Stephen T. Fortney, John C. Schmidt, and David J. Dean Intermountain Center for River Rehabilitation and Restoration Department of Watershed Sciences Utah State University Logan, UT In collaboration with Michael E. Scott Julian Scott Fort Collins Science Center U. S. Geological Survey Fort Collins, CO March 22, 2011 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction 5 II. Purpose 5 III. Study Area 9 IV. Hydrology 11 V. Methods 18 A. Floodplain Stratigraphy 18 B. Repeat Photography: Aerial Imagery and Oblique Ground Photographs 19 C. USGS gage data 21 Reconstructed Cross Sections 21 Rating Relations 22 Time Series of Thalweg Elevation 22 Time Series of Width and Width-to-Depth Ratio 22 Hydraulic Geometry 22 D. Longitudinal Profile 24 E. Additional Activities 24 VI. Results: Channel Transformation on Hatt Ranch 26 Turn of the 20th century 26 1930s and 1940s 29 1950s 33 1960s and 1970s 41 1980s 46 1990s to present 49 Longitudinal Profile 50 VII. Summary 54 A. Channel Transformation on Hatt Ranch 54 B. Restoration and Management Implications 55 VIII. Expenditures 56 IX. Timeline 56 X. References 56 XI. Appendix 59 Table of Figures Figure 1. Oblique ground photos taken near the old Highway 24 bridge 6 Figure 2. Conceptual model of how watershed attributes control channel and floodplain form. 7 Figure 3. Conceptual model of restoration versus rehabilitation 8 Figure 4. Map of the San Rafael River watershed. 10 Figure 5. Map of the study area 11 Figure 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Ide to I-70 Through Southeastern Utah – Discovermoab.Com - 6/22/07 Page 1
    A Guide to I-70 Through Southeastern Utah – discovermoab.com - 6/22/07 Page 1 and increase to Milepost 227 near the Colorado border. Mileage marker posts 2W - Thompson Springs A Guide to I-70 Through (or Mileposts) and Exit numbers Welcome Center Southeastern Utah correspond, and both are used in the Milepost 189 descriptive text which follows. This rest area welcomes westbound Although the scenery is spectacular as visitors with free brochures and maps. viewed from the highway, you are The center, operated by the State of Utah, encouraged to stop at the sites described is open all year. From Memorial Day Moab Area Travel Council below to see even more. Other nearby through Labor Day, personnel are on duty Internet Brochure Series points of interest accessible from 1-70 are from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. to answer your Available from: briefly noted and located on the map. questions. The rest of the year the center More detailed information on these sights is operated from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Indoor discovermoab.com can be obtained by contacting the rest rooms, water, picnic shelters, and a appropriate agencies listed in this public phone are available at all times. brochure. INTRODUCTION Food and fuel are available at Thompson 1W - Harley Dome View Area Springs (Exit 187), which provides access Interstate 70 (1-70) through southeastern Milepost 228 to a panel of Native American rock art in Utah is a journey through fascinating Sego Canyon. To visit this site, follow the landscapes. The route reveals vast deserts, The Harley Dome View Area is located signs from the north side of town.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Conifers of the San Francisco Mountains, San Rafael Swell, and Roan Plateau Ronald M
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 31 | Number 3 Article 11 9-30-1971 Conifers of the San Francisco Mountains, San Rafael Swell, and Roan Plateau Ronald M. Lanner Utah State University Ronald Warnick Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Lanner, Ronald M. and Warnick, Ronald (1971) "Conifers of the San Francisco Mountains, San Rafael Swell, and Roan Plateau," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 31 : No. 3 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol31/iss3/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. CONIFERS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO MOUNTAINS, SAN RAFAEL SWELL, AND ROAN PLATEAU 1 Ronald M. Lanner2 and Ronald Warnick 2 This is the second in a series of notes on conifer distribution in The Great Basin and adjacent mountain areas. An earlier paper (Lanner, 1971) presented results of field surveys in selected parts of northern Utah. This article will cover three Utah areas further to the south, which represent diverse geological and environmental conditions. The occurrence of previously unrecorded species localities is supported by specimens deposited in the Intermountain Herbarium at Utah State University, Logan, Utah (UTC). San Francisco Mountains The San Francisco Mountains, a typical Great Basin fault-block range, are located in Beaver and Millard counties. The range is ori- ented roughly on a north-south axis and is about 18 miles in length.
    [Show full text]
  • Hidden Passage
    Hidden Passage the journal of glen canyon institute Issue XIX, Fall 2013 Glen Canyon Institute An Answer for the Colorado River: Fill Mead First President Richard Ingebretsen by Wade Graham Board of Trustees Barbara Brower In this issue of Hidden Passage, we present Glen Canyon Institute’s Fill Mead First Scott Christensen plan to begin the transition to a more sustainable management system on the Ed Dobson Colorado River, by saving significant amounts of water lost to seepage and taking David Wegner large steps towards the restoration of Glen and Grand Canyons. The plan is Wade Graham buttressed by an important new hydrological study demonstrating that Tyler Coles consolidating water storage in Lake Mead and keeping Lake Powell at its Lea Rudee minimum active power pool elevation can save between 300,000 and 600,000 acre-feet of water per year. Executive Director Christi Wedig Change is coming to the Colorado River, for better or worse, both due to climate Program Director change and to ever-increasing demands on an over-committed resource. It is past Michael Kellett time for those who care about the river basin’s human and natural communities to Office and Projects Manager begin making common sense but determined changes to the way the river is Mike Sargetakis managed. Programs Coordinator Eric Balken A study of water supply and demand in the Colorado River Basin released last December by the Bureau of Reclamation confirms what everyone already Advisory Committee Dan Beard knew: we are sucking more water out of the river than nature is putting in.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Glen Canyon Dam Management and Implications for the Grand Canyon
    Chapter 15: The Future of Glen Canyon Dam Management and Implications for the Grand Canyon Robyn Suddeth UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences INTRODUCTION – CHALLENGES FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE GRAND CANYON AND GLEN CANYON DAM Introduction The Grand Canyon occurs along a 277 mile stretch of the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. It is a national treasure, exposing over 2 billion years of geologic history (see Garber, this volume; Kercher, this volume) and several thousand years of human history (see Zagofsky, this volume), providing varied recreational opportunities to millions of visitors annually. It is home to many species of birds, plants and animals. These recreational, historical, and wilderness values were recognized by the federal government in 1919 with the establishment of Grand Canyon National Park, but aquatic and riparian ecosystems in this reach have nonetheless suffered major changes in the past several decades, mostly due to the building of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963 (See Lusardi and Steele, this volume; Kelso, this volume). Glen Canyon Dam impedes transport of sediment and nutrients, and alters the temperature and flow regime of downstream reaches. Recent attempts to mitigate for these impacts have taken the form of an Adaptive Management Program, and High Flow Experiments (see Burley, this volume; Gibson, this volume), but have not yet been successful. The program is currently challenged by a lack of adequate understanding of how (if at all possible) to maintain sandbars post flood, and how and if flood events benefit target species within the canyon. Climate change and changing upstream dam operations will add to these challenges in the future, and may even threaten the existence of the Adaptive Management Program.
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorado River Delta and California's Central Valley Are
    AmericanOrnithology.org Volume 123, 2021, pp. 1–14 DOI: 10.1093/ornithapp/duaa064 RESEARCH ARTICLE The Colorado River Delta and California’s Central Valley are critical regions for many migrating North American landbirds Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/condor/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ornithapp/duaa064/6119082 by guest on 26 January 2021 William V. DeLuca,1,*, Tim Meehan,2 Nat Seavy,3, Andrea Jones,4 Jennifer Pitt,2 Jill L. Deppe,5 and Chad B. Wilsey6, 1 National Audubon Society, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA 2 National Audubon Society, Boulder, Colorado, USA 3 National Audubon Society, Forestville, California, USA 4 National Audubon Society, Sacramento, California, USA 5 National Audubon Society, Washington, District of Columbia, USA 6 National Audubon Society, San Francisco, California, USA * Corresponding author: [email protected] Submission Date: June 3, 2020; Editorial Acceptance Date: September 24, 2020; Published January 26, 2021 ABSTRACT Migration is an important component of some species full annual cycle. California’s Central Valley and the Colorado River Delta provide important riparian and wetland habitats for migrating waterbirds in the arid west of North America, but little is known about whether these locations are important at the population level to migrating landbirds. We used eBird Status and Trends abundance data to quantify the importance of the Central Valley and Colorado River Delta to landbirds by estimating the proportion of the breeding population of 112 species that use each site during migration. We found that ~17 million landbirds use the Colorado River Delta in the spring and ~14 million in the fall. Across 4 study regions in the Central Valley, up to ~65 million landbirds migrate through in the spring and up to ~48 million in the fall.
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorado River an Ecological Case Study in Coupled Human and Natural Systems
    The Colorado River An Ecological Case Study in Coupled Human and Natural Systems edited by David L. Alles Western Washington University e-mail: [email protected] Last Updated 2013-6-2 Note: In PDF format most of the images in this web paper can be enlarged for greater detail. 1 “Ten years or a hundred years or a hundred thousand years from now, the world's supply of freshwater will remain much the same. Such an assertion cannot be made about the world's population or about mankind's capacity for devising technologies to use-and abuse-the limited water supply. Put another way, the fate of all natural bodies of water is inseparably tied to human values about the quality of life and the number of people any part of the world can properly support. Seen from this perspective, the Colorado River is a microcosm of the world's water supply. Lessons learned from its past and policies adopted for its future are of fundamental importance not only for those dependent on the river, but also for people everywhere.” Norris C. Hundley from The West Against Itself: The Colorado River-An Institutional History http://www.movingwaters.org/hundleychapter.html 2 Introduction In studying humanity’s impact on the world’s ecosystems there are few better examples than the use and misuse of the Colorado River in the American southwest. This web paper introduces the Colorado as a case study in how humans have changed their world and the lessons that can be learned from those changes. The story of the Colorado River is a study in complex environmental systems where human and natural systems are coupled in complex loops of cause and effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Kayaking from Source to Sea on the Colorado River: the Basin Up-Close and Personal by Zak Podmore with Photos from Will Stauffer-Norris
    Kayaking from Source to Sea on the Colorado River: The Basin Up-Close and Personal By Zak Podmore with photos from Will Stauffer-Norris The 2012 Colorado College State of the Rockies Report Card The Colorado River Basin: Agenda for Use, Restoration, and Sustainability for the Next Generation About the Authors: Zak Podmore (Colorado College class of ‘11) is a 2011-12 Field Researcher for the State of the Rockies Project. Will Stauffer-Norris (Colorado College class of ‘11) is a 2011-12 Field Researcher for the State of the Rockies Project. Will Stauffer-Norris The 2012 State of the Rockies Report Card Source to Sea 13 First day of kayaking! So much faster... ? Dam portage was easy ? in the sheri's car Will and Zak near the “source” of the Green River in Wyoming’s Wind River Range Upper Basin Bighorn sheep in Desolation Canyon Finished Powell, THE CONFLUENCE surrounded by houseboats ? e End of the Grand ? ? ? ? Survived Vegas, back to the river North rim attempt thwarted Lower Basin by snow & dark Dry river bed; about ? to try the canals Will water go to LA, Zak paddles through an irrigation canal Phoenix, or Mexico? Floating in the ? remnants of the Delta ? USA MEXICO ? El Golfo, el n. - The gulf of California The messages on this map were transmitted from Will and Zak via GPS while they were on the river. Between Mountains and Mexico By mid-January, the Colorado River had become a High in the Wind River Mountains of Wyoming, joke. Will Stauffer-Norris and I climbed out of a concrete Mexico was a joke.
    [Show full text]