DOCSLIB.ORG

Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow; Final Rule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow; Final Rule Wednesday, February 19, 2003 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow; Final Rule VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Feb 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19FER2.SGM 19FER2 8088 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Environmental Policy Act Rio Grande (Pflieger 1980). The silvery (NEPA) and a new proposed rule minnow is extirpated from the Pecos Fish and Wildlife Service designating critical habitat for the River and also from the Rio Grande silvery minnow. downstream of Elephant Butte Reservoir 50 CFR Part 17 DATES: This final rule is effective March and upstream of Cochiti Reservoir RIN 1018–AH91 21, 2003. (Bestgen and Platania 1991). The current ADDRESSES: Comments and materials distribution of the silvery minnow is Endangered and Threatened Wildlife received, as well as supporting limited to the Rio Grande between and Plants; Designation of Critical documentation used in the preparation Cochiti Dam and Elephant Butte Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery of this final rule, are available for public Reservoir. Throughout much of its Minnow inspection, by appointment, during historic range, the decline of the silvery normal business hours at the New minnow has been attributed to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, modification of the flow regime Interior. Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE, Albuquerque, NM (hydrological pattern of flows that vary ACTION: Final rule; notice of availability. 87113. seasonally in magnitude and duration, depending on annual precipitation SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and You may obtain copies of the final patterns such as runoff from snowmelt) Wildlife Service (Service), designate rule, the economic analysis, or the final and channel drying resulting from critical habitat for the Rio Grande EIS from the field office address above impoundments, water diversion for silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) or by calling 505–346–2525. All agriculture, stream channelization, and (silvery minnow), an endangered documents are also available from our perhaps both interactions with non- species under the Endangered Species Web site at http://ifw2es.fws.gov/ native fish and decreasing water quality Act of 1973, as amended (Act). On June Library/. (Cook et al. 1992; Bestgen and Platania 6, 2002, we proposed that 212 miles If you would like copies of the regulations on listed wildlife or have 1991; Service 1999; Buhl 2001). (mi) (339 kilometers (km)) be designated Much of the species’ life history questions about prohibitions and as critical habitat for the silvery information detailed below comes from permits, contact the U.S. Fish and minnow. The silvery minnow critical studies conducted within the middle Wildlife Service, Division of habitat designation in the Rio Grande Rio Grande, the current range of the Endangered Species, P.O. Box 1306, extends from Cochiti Dam, Sandoval silvery minnow. Nevertheless, we Albuquerque, NM 87103. County, New Mexico (NM) downstream believe that our determinations for other to the utility line crossing the Rio FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: areas outside of the middle Rio Grande, Grande, a permanent identified Field Supervisor, New Mexico but within the historic range of the landmark in Socorro County, NM, a Ecological Services Field Office (see silvery minnow, are consistent with the total of approximately 157 mi (252 km), ADDRESSES section above); telephone: data collected to date on the species’ referred to as the ‘‘middle Rio Grande.’’ 505–346–2525. Division of Endangered ecological requirements (e.g., Service The designation also includes the Species (see ADDRESSES section above); 1999). tributary Jemez River from Jemez telephone 505–248–6920; facsimile The role of the plains minnow Canyon Dam in NM to the upstream 505–248–6788. (Hybognathus placitus) in the decline boundary of Santa Ana Pueblo, which is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and extirpation of the silvery minnow not included. The critical habitat from the Pecos River is uncertain; Background designation defines the lateral extent however, the establishment of the plains (width) as those areas bounded by The Rio Grande silvery minnow is minnow coincided with the existing levees or, in areas without one of seven species in the genus disappearance of the silvery minnow levees, 300 feet (ft) (91.4 meters (m)) of Hybognathus found in the United States from the Pecos River (Bestgen and riparian zone adjacent to each side of (Pflieger 1980). The species was first Platania 1991; Cook et al. 1992). Cook et the bankfull stage of the middle Rio described by Girard (1856) from al. (1992) believed that the non-native Grande. The Pueblo lands of Santo specimens taken from the Rio Grande plains minnow was introduced into the Domingo, Santa Ana, Sandia, and Isleta near Fort Brown, Cameron County, TX. Pecos drainage prior to 1964, and was within this area are not included in the It is a stout silvery minnow with probably the result of the release of final critical habitat designation. Except moderately small eyes and a small, ‘‘bait minnows’’ collected from the for these areas, the final remaining slightly oblique mouth. Adults may Arkansas River drainage. It is unclear, portion of the silvery minnow’s reach 3.5 inches (in) (90 millimeters however, if populations of the native occupied range in the middle Rio (mm)) in total length (Sublette et al. silvery minnow were depleted prior to Grande in NM is being designated as 1990). Its dorsal fin is distinctly pointed the introduction of the plains minnow, critical habitat. This publication also with the front of it located slightly or if the reduction and extirpation of the provides notice of the availability of the closer to the tip of the snout than to the silvery minnow was a consequence of final economic analysis and the final base of the tail. The fish is silver with the interactions between the two species Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) emerald reflections. Its belly is silvery (C. Hoagstrom, U.S. Fish and Wildlife for this final rule. white, its fins are plain, and barbels are Service, pers. comm. 2001). One theory This final rule and EIS are being absent (Sublette et al. 1990). is that the plains minnow may be more issued pursuant to a court order. On This species was historically one of tolerant of modified habitats and, November 21, 2000, the United States the most abundant and widespread therefore, was able to replace the silvery District Court for the District of New fishes in the Rio Grande Basin, minnow in the degraded reaches of the Mexico, in Middle Rio Grande occurring from Espan˜ ola, NM, to the Pecos River. Nevertheless, the plains Conservancy District v. Babbitt, 206 F. Gulf of Mexico (Bestgen and Platania minnow has experienced population Supp. 2d 1156 (D.N.M. 2000), set aside 1991). It was also found in the Pecos declines within its native range from the July 6, 1999, critical habitat River, a major tributary of the Rio highly variable water levels, unstable designation for the minnow and ordered Grande, from Santa Rosa, NM, streambeds, and fluctuating water us to issue both an EIS pursuant to the downstream to its confluence with the temperatures (Cross et al. 1985, cited in VerDate Jan<31>2003 18:34 Feb 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER2.SGM 19FER2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 8089 Taylor and Miller 1990). Although the Robinson 1959; Hubbs et al. 1977; salmoides), smallmouth bass (M. interactions (e.g., hybridization or Edwards and Contreras-Balderas 1991). dolomieu)) as these species were competition) between the silvery Prior to measurable human influence stocked into the reservoirs created by minnow and the introduced plains on the middle Rio Grande, starting in the dams (e.g., Cochiti Reservoir) minnow are believed by some to be one the 1300’s, (Biella and Chapman 1977), (Sublette et al. 1990). Once established, of the primary causes for the extirpation the Rio Grande was a perennially these species often completely replaced of the silvery minnow in the Pecos flowing, aggrading river with a shifting the native fish fauna (Propst et al. 1987; River, this hypothesis is unsubstantiated sand substrate. In general, the river was Propst 1999). (Hatch et al. 1985; Bestgen et al. 1989; slightly sinuous and braided, and freely Development of agriculture and the Cook et al. 1992). Currently, New migrated across the floodplain. Strong growth of cities within the historic Mexico State University is conducting evidence now suggests that the middle range of the silvery minnow resulted in research on the plains minnow and Rio Grande started drying up on a fairly a decrease in the quality of river water silvery minnow to determine if the two regular basis only after the development caused by municipal and agricultural species hybridize. These studies are of Colorado’s San Luis Valley in the runoff (i.e., sewage and pesticides) that ongoing and results should be available 1870’s. Prior to this, there are only two may have also adversely affected the in 2003 (C. Caldwell, U.S. Geological examples of its flow ceasing, during range and distribution of the silvery Survey, Biological Resources Division prolonged, severe droughts in 1752 and minnow. Historically there were four pers. comm. 2002). 1861. Over the past century, and other small native fish species (speckled Within its native range, the plains particularly in the last few decades, the chub (Macrohybopsis aestivalis); Rio minnow is sympatric (occurs at the middle Rio Grande has been frequently Grande shiner (Notropis jemezanus); same localities) with other species of dewatered, particularly in the river phantom shiner (Notropis orca); and Rio Hybognathus, but is separated reach from Isleta Diversion Dam to the Grande bluntnose shiner (Notropis ecologically from them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Acacia Reach San Acacia Dam to Escondida Bridge Hydraulic Modeling Analysis 1918-2006
    San Acacia Reach San Acacia Dam to Escondida Bridge Hydraulic Modeling Analysis 1918-2006 Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico September 2011 Prepared For: US Bureau of Reclamation Albuquerque, New Mexico Prepared By: Seema C. Shah-Fairbank, PE Jaehoon Kim Dr. Pierre Julien Colorado State University Engineering Research Center Department of Civil Engineering Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Abstract Human influence on the Middle Rio Grande has resulted in major changes throughout the Middle Rio Grande region in central New Mexico. Many of these changes are associated with erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, hydraulic modeling analyses have been performed on the San Acacia reach to determine the changes in morphology and other important parameters. This study is an extension of the previous reach report developed by Reclamation on the San Acacia reach. The 11.6 mile long reach extends from the San Acacia Diversion dam (River Mile 116.2) to the Escondida Bridge (104.6). Spatial and temporal trends in channel geometry, discharge and sediment have been analyzed. In addition, historical bedform data were analyzed and potential equilibrium conditions were predicted. Aerial photographs, GIS active channel planforms, cross section surveys, hydraulic model analysis and channel classification methods were used to analyze spatial and temporal trends in channel geometry and morphology. Narrowing of the channel was observed from the GIS active channel planforms from 1918 to 2006. There is fluctuation in the channel properties (geometry) associated with complex channel response. There has been significant degradation in this reach due to channelization and the construction of the diversion dam. Due to the degradation, the particle diameter has coarsened from about 0.1 mm in 1972 to 0.36 mm in 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface-Water Records to December 31, 1963 Part 8.-Western Gulf of Mexico Basins
    Index of Surface-Water Records to December 31, 1963 Part 8.-Western Gulf of Mexico Basins GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 508 ,. Index of Surface-Water Records to December 31, 1 963 Part B.-Western Gulf of Mexico Basins By H. P. Eisenhuth Geological Survey Circular 508 Washington 1965 United States Department of the Interior STEW ART L. UDALL, SBCRETARY Geological Survey THOMAS B. NOLAN, DIRECTOR Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. 20242 Index of Surface-Water Records to December 31, 1963 Part 8.-Western Gulf of Mexico Basins By H. P. Eisenhuth INTRODUCTION This report lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the Western Gulf of Mexico basins for which records have'been or are to be published in reports of the Geological Survey for periods through December 31, 1963. It supersedes Geological Survey Circular 388. Basic data on surface-water_ supply have been published in an annual series of water-supply papers consisting of several volumes, including one each for the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The area of the other 48 States is divided into 14 parts whose boundaries coincide with certain natural drainage lines. Prior to 1951, the records for the 48 States were published in 14 volumes, one for each of the parts. From 1951 to 1960, the records for the 48 States were published annually in 18 volumes, there being 2 volumes each for Parts 1, 2, 3, and 6. The boundaries of the various parts are shown on the map in figure 1. Beginning in 1961, the annual series of water-supply papers on surface-water supply was changed to a 5-year series.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: the Hydrologic System of the Middle Rio Grande Basin
    Chapter 4: The hydrologic system of the Middle Rio Grande Basin In discussions of the water resources of an area, the hydrologic system is commonly split into two components for convenience: surface water and ground water. However, in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, as in most other locales, the surface- and ground-water systems are intimately linked through a series of complex interactions. These interactions often make it difficult to recognize the boundary between the two systems. In The Rio Grande is the only river I ever this report, the surface- and ground-water systems are described separately, saw that needed irrigation. –attributed to though one of the goals of the report is to show that they are both parts of Will Rogers the hydrologic system of the Middle Rio Grande Basin and that changes in one often affect the other. As defined earlier, in this report “Middle Rio Grande Basin” refers to the geologic basin defined by the extent of deposits of Cenozoic age along the Rio Grande from about Cochiti Dam to about San Acacia. This definition includes nearly the entire ground-water basin; however, the extent of the surface-water basin is delimited topographically by drainage divides and is consequently somewhat larger than the ground-water basin. Surface-water system The most prominent hydrologic feature in the Middle Rio Grande Basin is the Rio Grande, which flows through the entire length of the basin, generally from north to south. The fifth longest river in the United States, its headwaters are in the mountains of southern Colorado. The Rio Grande is the largest river in New Mexico, with a drainage area of 14,900 square miles where it enters the Middle Rio Grande Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Contaminants and Their Effects on Fish in the Rio Grande Basin
    Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program: Environmental Contaminants and their Effects on Fish in the Rio Grande Basin S# S# S# S# S#S#S# S#S#S#S# S# S# # S S# S# # S S# S# S# S# # S# S# S S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# S# # S# S# # S S#S# S S# S# S# S# #S# S# S# S# S#S S# # S# SS# S# S# S#S# Scientific Investigations Report 2004—5108 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover. The U.S. map shows the Rio Grande Basin (green) and stations sampled in this study (orange). Shown in gray are major river basins and stations in the conterminous U.S. sampled during other Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends Program (BEST) investigations. Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program: Environmental Contaminants and their Effects on Fish in the Rio Grande Basin By Christopher J. Schmitt, Gail M. Dethloff, Jo Ellen Hinck, Timothy M. Bartish, Vicki S. Blazer, James J. Coyle, Nancy D. Denslow, and Donald E. Tillitt Scientific Investigations Report 2004—5108 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing the Colorado River and the Rio Grande: Cooperation and Conflict with Mexico
    Sharing the Colorado River and the Rio Grande: Cooperation and Conflict with Mexico December 12, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45430 {222A0E69-13A2-4985-84AE-73CC3DFF4D02}-R-065134085251065165027250227152136081055238021128244192097047169070027044111226189083158176100054014174027138098149076081229242065001223143228213208120077243222253018219014073197030033204036098221153115024066109133181160249027233236220178084 SUMMARY R45430 Sharing the Colorado River and the December 12, 2018 Rio Grande: Cooperation and Conflict with Nicole T. Carter Specialist in Natural Mexico Resources Policy The United States and Mexico share the waters of the Colorado River and the Rio Grande. A bilateral water treaty from 1944 (the 1944 Water Treaty) and other binational agreements guide Stephen P. Mulligan how the two governments share the flows of these rivers. The binational International Boundary Legislative Attorney and Water Commission (IBWC) administers these agreements. Since 1944, the IBWC has been the principal venue for addressing river-related disputes between the United States and Mexico. The 1944 Water Treaty authorizes the IBWC to develop rules and to issue proposed decisions, Charles V. Stern called minutes, regarding matters related to the treaty’s execution and interpretation. Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Water Delivery Requirements Established in Binational Agreements. The United States’ and Mexico’s water-delivery obligations derive from multiple treaty sources and vary depending on the body of water. Under the 1944 Water Treaty, the United States is required to provide Mexico with 1.5 million acre-feet (AF) of Colorado River water annually. The 1944 Water Treaty also addresses the nations’ respective rights to waters of the Rio Grande downstream of Fort Quitman, TX. It requires Mexico to deliver to the United States an annual minimum of 350,000 AF of water, measured in five-year cycles (i.e., 1.75 million AF over five years).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Written Testimony Submitted to the United States Senate Committee On
    Written Testimony Submitted to the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on S. 1012 New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act of 2017 Respectfully Submitted By Mike A. Hamman, PE Chief Executive Officer Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District Rio Grande Water Development in New Mexico The Upper Rio Grande originates in the San Juan and Sangre de Cristo mountain ranges in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico. It bisects the San Luis Valley in Colorado and the entire state of New Mexico with this reach culminating at Fort Quitman, Texas. This portion of the Rio Grande is administered under the Rio Grande Compact by a federal appointee and three Commissioners from Colorado, New Mexico and Texas with support from the United States Geological Survey, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The annual mean flow as measured at the Otowi gage in New Mexico is 1 million acre-feet with wide variation, ranging from 250,000 to 2.5 million acre-feet. Irrigated agriculture consists of approximately 600,000 acres in Colorado, 200,000 acres in New Mexico, 100,000 acres in Texas. Additionally, up to 60,000 acre-feet is delivered to lands within the Republic of Mexico via the Rio Grande Project under the 1906 Convention between the United States and Mexico. The predominate crop due to climate, water supplies and labor considerations is alfalfa. Other crops include potatoes, chilé, corn, fruit, onions and pecans. There is an improving ‘farm to table’ market serving a demand for locally produced agricultural products ranging from lettuces to melons as well as organically grown products particularly near and in municipalities.
    [Show full text]
  • 2002 Federal Register, 67 FR 39205; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish
    Thursday, June 6, 2002 Part IV Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow; Proposed Rule VerDate May<23>2002 18:22 Jun 05, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\06JNP3.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 06JNP3 39206 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2002 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ADDRESSES: 1. Send your comments on fishes in the Rio Grande Basin, this proposed rule, the draft economic occurring from Espan˜ ola, NM, to the Fish and Wildlife Service analysis, and draft EIS to the New Gulf of Mexico (Bestgen and Platania Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 1991). It was also found in the Pecos 50 CFR Part 17 2105 Osuna Road NE, Albuquerque, River, a major tributary of the Rio RIN 1018–AH91 NM, 87113. Written comments may also Grande, from Santa Rosa, NM, be sent by facsimile to (505) 346–2542 downstream to its confluence with the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or through the Internet to Rio Grande (Pflieger 1980). The silvery and Plants; Designation of Critical [email protected]. You may also minnow is completely extirpated from Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery hand-deliver written comments to our the Pecos River and from the Rio Grande Minnow New Mexico Ecological Services Field downstream of Elephant Butte Reservoir Office, at the above address. You may and upstream of Cochiti Reservoir AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, obtain copies of the proposed rule, the (Bestgen and Platania 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Water, Natural Resources, and the Urban Landscape 42 Chapter Two
    CHAPTER TWO WATER: A LIMITING FACTOR D E C I S I O N - M A K E R S FIELD CONFERENCE 2009 The Albuquerque Region 40 CHAPTER TWO The diversion dam on the Rio Grande just south of the Alameda bridge. EISEY H DRIEL © A DECISION-MAKERS FIELD GUIDE 2009 WATER: A LIMITING FACTOR 41 Water Supply Limitations in the Albuquerque Area Deborah L. Hathaway, S. S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. ater: the limiting factor. Albuquerque residents This water supply is highly variable from year to year Wand their political leaders are familiar with but in part can be stored by the Middle Rio Grande this concept, as are urban planners and developers. Conservancy District (MRGCD) at El Vado Reservoir. Water is a high-profile hurdle that confronts urban Native surface water represented by upstream inflow at development and attracts uncountable legal and the Otowi gage (with adjustment for upstream storage engineering efforts. Legions of attorneys and engineers and imported water) is subject to apportionment under make careers of developing “innovative” schemes the Rio Grande Compact, which caps native surface to surmount the water supply hurdle, and although water inflow available for depletion in New Mexico. these may be time-consuming and expensive, seldom Native surface water comprises the bulk of water used does lack of water impede a strongly motivated and for agriculture in the Albuquerque area and is diverted well-financed development plan. “Finding water” often into MRGCD canals at Angostura. Further north and results in a water transfer, for example, a shift of water south within the Albuquerque Basin, water for irriga- from agricultural to urban uses.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Action Area: Overview of Project Components and Water Operations 2.1 Action Area
    Joint Biological Assessment Part I – Water Management 2. Action Area: Overview of Project Components and Water Operations 2.1 Action Area The project area is the area where Reclamation’s and the non-Federal entities’ proposed actions occur, while the action area is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 402.02). For this BA, the project area and action area are considered to be the same. The action area for this consultation includes Heron Reservoir and Willow Creek downstream from Heron Dam, the Rio Chama downstream from the confluence with Willow Creek, and in the Rio Grande from the Velarde downstream to San Marcial above the full reservoir pool of Elephant Butte Reservoir (figure 1). The lateral extent of the action area generally is defined by the riverside drains and associated levees located to the east and west of the main stem of the river. In situations where levees do not exist on either or both sides, the lateral extents are confined by the historical flood plain (geological constraints, such as terraces and rock outcroppings or anthropogenic constraints, such as irrigation facilities). The river mile (RM) designations used in this document are those included in the 2002 controlled aerial photography. Caballo Dam is considered RM 0, and mile designations increase in an upstream direction. 2.2 Overview of Project Components This section provides background on the SJC Project and the MRG Project, which is necessary to identify the nature and limitations of both Reclamation’s discretionary actions and non-Federal actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Modeling of Isleta Diversion Dam Gate Operation Hydraulics to Minimize Sediment Effects
    NUMERICAL MODELING OF ISLETA DIVERSION DAM GATE OPERATION HYDRAULICS TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT EFFECTS Drew C. Baird, Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, [email protected]; Michael Sixta, Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, [email protected]. INTRODUCTION Isleta Diversion Dam was constructed in 1934 by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) as part of their irrigation system, and is located on the Rio Grande about 10 miles south of Albuquerque, New Mexico, immediately downstream from the Highway 147 Bridge (Figure 1). The diversion dam was rehabilitated by Reclamation in 1955 as part of the Middle Rio Grande Project, authorized by Congress in the 1948 and 1950 Flood Control Acts. The Middle Rio Grande (MRG) has long been recognized for its characteristics of high sediment loads and dynamic channel conditions (Happ, 1948; Lagasse, 1980; Makar, 2010). The Isleta Diversion Dam consists of 30 river gates, three headworks gates on the Peralta Main canal (east side), and four headworks gates on the Belen Highline canal (west side) of the dam (Figure 2). The headworks gates are located in a sluiceway with a downstream gate used to maintain a maximum diversion head. Gate operations are used to provide water to downstream irrigators, meet downstream flow requirements of the 2003 Endangered Species Biological Opinion (USFWS, 2003), and manage sediment. Within the context of these multiple water use needs, a one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) fixed bed hydraulic models, sluiceway hydraulics, and sediment incipient motion analysis has been completed to provide recommendations on gate operations that would help reduce sediment impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources of the Middle Rio Grande 38 Chapter Two
    THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE TODAY 37 Infrastructure and Management of the Middle Rio Grande Leann Towne, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation any entities are involved in water management lands within the Middle Rio Grande valley from M in the Middle Rio Grande valley from Cochiti to Cochiti Dam to the Bosque del Apache National Elephant Butte Reservoir. These entities own and Wildlife Refuge. The four divisions are served by operate various infrastructure in the Middle Rio Middle Rio Grande Project facilities, which consist of Grande valley that are highly interconnected and ulti- the floodway and three diversion dams, more than mately affect water management of the Rio Grande. 780 miles of canals and laterals, and almost 400 miles This paper describes major hydrologic aspects of the of drains. Users are served by direct diversions from Middle Rio Grande valley, including water manage- the Rio Grande and from internal project flows such ment activities of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, as drain returns. These irrigation facilities are operated major infrastructure of the Middle Rio Grande Project and maintained by MRGCD. (including the Low Flow Conveyance Channel), and focusing on issues downstream of San Acacia COCHITI DIVISION Diversion Dam. Although other entities such as municipalities have significant water management Project diversions from the Rio Grande begin at responsibilities in the Middle Rio Grande valley, they Cochiti Dam, through two canal headings that serve will not be addressed in this paper. the Cochiti Division. The Cochiti East Side Main and The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, a Sile Main canals deliver water to irrigators on both political subdivision of the state of New Mexico, was sides of the Rio Grande.
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Grande/Bravo Basin
    World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2011: 1924 Bearing Knowledge for Sustainability © ASCE 2011 Risk Analysis of the 1944 Treaty between the United States and Mexico for the Rio Grande/Bravo Basin S. Sandoval-Solis1 and Daene C. McKinney2 1Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712; PH (512) 471-0071; FAX (512) 471-0072; email: [email protected] 2Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712; PH (512) 471-5644; FAX (512) 471-0072; email: [email protected] ABSTRACT The treaty of 1944 between United States (U.S.) and Mexico defines the water allocation of both countries for the Colorado, Tijuana and Rio Grande/Bravo rivers. This paper focuses its attention in the treaty obligations of water delivery from Mexico to the US in the Rio Grande/Bravo basin. For this basin, the treaty specifies a primary division of six tributaries originating in Mexico as one-third to the U.S. and two-thirds to Mexico. The third shall not be less than 431.721 million m3/year as an average over cycles of 5 consecutive years. Two international dams, Amistad and Falcon, are used to store and manage the water for both countries and each country has its own storage account in each reservoir. The treaty cycles can expire in less than five years if the account of U.S. storage in both dams is filled with water. Before the signature of the treaty, an analysis of the six tributaries outflow was done in order to evaluate the treaty obligations.
    [Show full text]