DOCSLIB.ORG

Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment February 2000 Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park Prepared For U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Final Environmental Assessment Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park Foreword The Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) was published in June 1999. Since the document was published, parts of the proposed rule have been altered in response to public and agency comments. The major changes between the Draft SEA and Final SEA are as follows: · The operations in support of the Hualapai Tribe’s economic development at Grand Canyon West are exempted from the proposed operations limitation rule. · A turnaround has been added in the Zuni Point Corridor in the vicinity of Gunthers Castle. · Operational counts have been modified based on more up to date information. · The Desert View FFZ has been modified to extend eastward only to the GCNP boundary. · The SFRA boundary has been modified on the southeast corner in response to comments from the general aviation community regarding the Sunny Military Operating Area, and latitude and longitude dimensions within the proposed final rule have been corrected. · The description of the future Bright Angel Incentive Corridor has been corrected. · The Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ has been modified to not include any Hualapai reservation lands. · The wording in the document has been clarified based on agency and public comments. Grand Canyon National Park Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER ONE – BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................... 1-5 1.3 CONSULTATION AND SCOPING...................................................... 1-5 1.4 PROPOSED ACTION............................................................................ 1-6 CHAPTER TWO - ALTERNATIVES 2.1 PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES.............................. 2-1 2.2 COMMERCIAL AIR TOUR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED.................................................................................................. 2-5 2.3 ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL ........................................... 2-9 2.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action .....................................................................................2-9 2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Central Route (Preferred Alternative)..........................................2-10 2.3.3 Alternative 3 – Northern Route...........................................................................2-12 2.3.4 Alternative 4 – Southern Route...........................................................................2-13 2.3.5 Summary Comparison Evaluation of Alternatives................................................2-13 CHAPTER THREE - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT ........................................................................ 3-1 3.2 GRAND CANYON ................................................................................. 3-2 3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ............................................. 3-2 i Grand Canyon National Park Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3.4 GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK ............................................... 3-5 3.4.1 South Rim.............................................................................................................3-6 3.4.2 North Rim.............................................................................................................3-7 3.4.3 Marble Canyon .....................................................................................................3-7 3.4.4 Tuweep.................................................................................................................3-7 3.4.5 Inner Canyon ........................................................................................................3-7 3.5 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ................................................................... 3-8 3.6 PHYSICAL RESOURCES..................................................................... 3-9 3.6.1 Popular Trails and Sights at GCNP .......................................................................3-9 3.6.2 Grand Canyon West Tourism and Recreation Areas in the Hualapai Reservation .........................................................................................3-10 3.6.3 Historic/Cultural/Archaeological Sites in the GCNP ............................................3-10 3.6.4 Historic/Cultural/Archaeological Sites in the Hualapai Reservation......................3-12 3.6.5 Wild and Scenic River Segments in GCNP ..........................................................3-15 3.7 NATURAL RESOURCES.................................................................... 3-15 3.7.1 Wilderness and Wildlife Resources in the GCNP .................................................3-15 3.7.2 Wilderness and Wildlife Resources in the Hualapai Reservation...........................3-16 3.7.3 Noise Environment .............................................................................................3-18 3.8 POPULATION AND GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS .................. 3-19 3.8.1 National Park Visitors.........................................................................................3-19 3.8.2 Hualapai Reservation Residents and Visitors .......................................................3-20 3.8.3 Local Communities .............................................................................................3-20 3.9 RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ACTION TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GOALS FOR GCNP............................................... 3-22 CHAPTER FOUR - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 NOISE ..................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Noise Criteria........................................................................................................4-2 4.1.2 Noise Modeling.....................................................................................................4-5 ii Grand Canyon National Park Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4.1.3 Aircraft and Operational Data for Modeling ..........................................................4-8 4.1.4 Model Output .....................................................................................................4-13 4.1.5 Noise Modeling Results ......................................................................................4-17 4.1.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................4-22 4.2 HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................ 4-22 4.3 DOT SECTION 4(f).............................................................................. 4-28 4.4 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS............................................................ 4-36 4.5 VISUAL IMPACTS.............................................................................. 4-37 4.6 SOCIAL/ SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS......................................... 4-37 4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE........................................................... 4-38 4.8 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ........................................... 4-40 4.9 ENDANGERED SPECIES................................................................... 4-41 4.10 AIR QUALITY.................................................................................. 4-43 4.11 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................. 4-44 4.12 OTHER IMPACT CATEGORIES .................................................. 4-45 4.13 MITIGATION ................................................................................... 4-45 CHAPTER FIVE – LIST OF PREPARERS................................................... 5-1 iii Grand Canyon National Park Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPENDICES APPENDIX A – NOISE RESULTS.................................................................A-1 APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY...........................................................................B-1 APPENDIX C – NOISE BASICS.....................................................................C-1 APPENDIX D – TECHNICAL MEMORANDA ............................................D-1 APPENDIX E – OPERATIONS DATA ..........................................................E-1 APPENDIX F – SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS ...........................................F-1 APPENDIX G – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ...................................... G-1 APPENDIX H – CONSULTATION............................................................... H-1 APPENDIX I – CONTACT LIST.....................................................................I-1 iv Grand Canyon National Park Environmental Assessment LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Summary Comparison of Alternatives .........................................................................2-14 3.1 Species of Special Concern In and Adjacent to Grand Canyon ....................................3-17 3.2 Visitors to GCNP Rating Natural Quiet as Extremely Important .................................3-20 3.3 GCNP Visitor Activity Level ......................................................................................3-21 4.1 Categories of Aircraft Flying in SFAR...........................................................................4-9
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ellen Tibbetts
    boatman’s quarterly review the journal of the Grand Canyon River Guide’s, Inc. • voulme 32 number 3 fall 2019 the journal of Grand Canyon River Guide’s, Prez Blurb • Farewells • Andy Hall • Guide Profile • The Journey • Stanton’s Cave Point Positive • Save the Dates • Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Book Reviews • Eye of Odin • Cooler Research • Whale News boatman’s quarterly review Prez Blurb …is published more or less quarterly by and for GRAND CANYON RIVER GUIDES. REETINGS FROM SALMON IDAHO where I’m GRAND CANYON RIVER GUIDES finishing up my Middle Fork tour. It’s the is a nonprofit organization dedicated to Gtime of the season where we all feel pretty well worked and probably need a vacation before the “dog Protecting Grand Canyon days of August.” I had a guest say recently, “You guides Setting the highest standards for the river profession just have a paid vacation.” I just pointed out, “Yeah, Celebrating the unique spirit of the river community fourteen hours a day, every day.” Anyway, onward… Providing the best possible river experience By now the incident at National Canyon has flowed around the community, of a guest thinking he was left General Meetings are held each Spring and Fall. Our behind and making his way down-river and eventually Board of Directors Meetings are generally held the first losing his life by drowning. This incident points to the Wednesday of each month. All innocent bystanders are fact it is impossible to protect guests totally from their urged to attend. Call for details. own misguided actions, however well-meaning they STAFF may seem to that individual.
    [Show full text]
  • William Martin Little a Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the In
    An engineering and economic feasibility study for diversion of Central Arizona Project waters from alternate sites. Item Type Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); text Authors Little, William Martin,1944- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 26/09/2021 17:22:05 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/191503 AN ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DIVERSION OF CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATERS FROM ALTERNATE SITES by William Martin Little A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the COMMITTEE ON HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1968 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted In partial fulfillment of require- ments for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the Univeristy Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or In part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg- ment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Richard F. Wilson 7326 Paseo Del Norte Tucson, Arizona 85704
    MANGUM, WALL AND STOOPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 222 EAST BIRCH AVENUE H. KARL MANGUM NEIL V.CHRISTENSEN DOUGLAS J. WALL FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA SSOOI 1923-196S RICHARD K. MANGUM DANIEL J. STOOPS MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. Box 10 JOVCE O. MANGUM January 29, 1973 TELEPHONE 774-6664 JOHN G.VERKAMP Dr. Richard F. Wilson 7326 Paseo del Norte Tucson, Arizona 85704 Re: Hart Prairie / Summit Properties Dear Dick: Enclosed herewith for your information and file is a copy of the Motion for Summary Judgment received today from Warren Ridge. If you have any questions, please let me know. Very truly yours, MANGUM, WALL AND STOOPS DJW/ch-1 Enc. 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARI2DNA 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCONINO 3 4 RICHARD F. WILSON and JEAN WILSON, husband and wife, 5 Plaintiffs, 6 7 v. 8 COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SIP ERVISORS et al.; COCONINO COUNTY PLANNING AND 9 ZONING COMMISSION, et al.; and 10 SUMMIT PROPERTIES, INC., a subsidiary of POST CO., INC. (real party in 11 interest), 12 Defendants. No. 26662 (Consolidated) 13 14 and MOTION FOR 15 FRANK GOLDTOOTH, SR. and TSINNIGINNIE SUMMARY JUDGMENT SINGER, as ind. and for and in behalf of 16 all NAVAJOS similarly situated; and (Oral Argument EARL NUMKENA, as an ind. and for and Requested) 17 in behalf of all HO PIS similarly situated, 18 Plaintiffs, 19 20 COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 21 et al.; COCONINO COUNTY PLANNING AND 22 ZONING COMMISSION, et al.; and SUMMIT PROPERTIES, INC., a subsidiary of 23 POST CO., INC.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. WEB SITE RESEARCH Topic Research: Grand Canyon Travel
    1. WEB SITE RESEARCH Topic research: Grand Canyon Travel Guide 1. What is the educational benefit of the information related to your topic? Viewers will learn about places to visit and things to do at Grand Canyon National Park. 2. What types of viewers will be interested in your topic? Visitors from U.S. and around the world who plan to visit Grand Canyon 3. What perceived value will your topic give to your viewers? The idea on how to get to the Grand Canyon and what kinds of activities that they can have at the Grand Canyon. 4. Primary person(s) of significance in the filed of your topic? The Grand Canyon National Park is the primary focus of my topic. 5. Primary person(s) that made your topic information available? The information was providing by the National Park Service, Wikitravel and Library of the Congress. 6. Important moments or accomplishments in the history of your topic? In 1919, The Grand Canyon became a national park in order to give the best protection and to preserve all of its features. 7. How did the media of times of your topic treat your topic? On February 26, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson signed into law a bill establishing the Grand Canyon as one of the nation's national parks. 8. Current events related to your topic? Italian Developers want to build big resort, shopping mall, and housing complex near Grand Canyon. They started buying land near South Rim of the Grand Canyon and building a project. 9. ListServ discussion and social media coverage of your topic? Grand Canyon Hikers group in Yahoo Group and Rafting Grand Canyon Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvey Butchart's Hiking Log DETAILED HIKING LOGS (January
    Harvey Butchart’s Hiking Log DETAILED HIKING LOGS (January 22, 1965 - September 25, 1965) Mile 24.6 and Hot Na Na Wash [January 22, 1965 to January 23, 1965] My guest for this trip, Norvel Johnson, thought we were going for just the day. When I told him it was a two day trip, he brought in his sleeping bag, but since he had no knapsack, we decided to sleep at the Jeep. The idea was to see Hot Na Na from the rim on Friday and then go down it as far as possible on Saturday. We thought we were following the Tanner Wash Quad map carefully when we left the highway a little to the north of the middle of the bay formed by Curve Wash in the Echo Cliffs. What we didn't realize is that there is another turnoff only a quarter of a mile north of the one we used. This is the way we came out of the hinterland on Saturday. Our exit is marked by a large pile of rocks and it gives a more direct access to all the country we were interested in seeing. The way we went in goes west, south, and north and we got thoroughly confused before we headed toward the rim of Marble Canyon. The track we followed goes considerably past the end of the road which we finally identified as the one that is one and a half miles north of Pine Reservoir. It ended near a dam. We entered the draw beyond the dam and after looking down at the Colorado River, decided that we were on the north side of the bay at Mile 24.6.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Geology and Hydrogeology of the Grandview Breccia Pipe, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona M
    Structural Geology and Hydrogeology of the Grandview Breccia Pipe, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona M. Alter, R. Grant, P. Williams & D. Sherratt Grandview breccia pipe on Horseshoe Mesa, Grand Canyon, Arizona March 2016 CONTRIBUTED REPORT CR-16-B Arizona Geological Survey www.azgs.az.gov | repository.azgs.az.gov Arizona Geological Survey M. Lee Allison, State Geologist and Director Manuscript approved for publication in March 2016 Printed by the Arizona Geological Survey All rights reserved For an electronic copy of this publication: www.repository.azgs.az.gov Printed copies are on sale at the Arizona Experience Store 416 W. Congress, Tucson, AZ 85701 (520.770.3500) For information on the mission, objectives or geologic products of the Arizona Geological Survey visit www.azgs.az.gov. This publication was prepared by an agency of the State of Arizona. The State of Arizona, or any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes no warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report. Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the State of Arizona. Arizona Geological Survey Contributed Report series provides non-AZGS authors with a forum for publishing documents concerning Arizona geology. While review comments may have been incorpo- rated, this document does not necessarily conform to AZGS technical, editorial, or policy standards. The Arizona Geological Survey issues no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the suitability of this product for a particular use.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon National Park
    To Bryce Canyon National Park, KANAB To St. George, Utah To Hurricane, Cedar City, Cedar Breaks National Monument, To Page, Arizona To Kanab, Utah and St. George, Utah V and Zion National Park Gulch E 89 in r ucksk ive R B 3700 ft R M Lake Powell UTAH 1128 m HILDALE UTAH I L ARIZONA S F COLORADO I ARIZONA F O gin I CITY GLEN CANYON ir L N V C NATIONAL 89 E 4750 ft N C 1448 m RECREATION AREA A L Glen Canyon C FREDONIA I I KAIBAB INDIAN P Dam R F a R F ri U S a PAGE RESERVATION H 15 R i ve ALT r 89 S 98 N PIPE SPRING 3116 ft I NATIONAL Grand Canyon National Park 950 m 389 boundary extends to the A MONUMENT mouth of the Paria River Lees Ferry T N PARIA PLATEAU To Las Vegas, Nevada U O Navajo Bridge M MARBLE CANYON r e N v I UINKARET i S G R F R I PLATEAU F I 89 V E R o V M L I L d I C a O r S o N l F o 7921ft C F 2415 m K I ANTELOPE R L CH JACOB LAKE GUL A C VALLEY ALT P N 89 Camping is summer only E L O K A Y N A S N N A O C I O 89T T H A C HOUSE ROCK N E L E N B N VALLEY YO O R AN C A KAIBAB NATIONAL Y P M U N P M U A 89 J L O C FOREST O K K D O a S U N Grand Canyon National Park- n F T Navajo Nation Reservation boundary F a A I b C 67 follows the east rim of the canyon L A R N C C Y r O G e N e N E YO k AN N C A Road to North Rim and all TH C OU Poverty Knoll I services closed in winter.
    [Show full text]
  • South Kaibab Trail, Grand Canyon
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Arizona South Kaibab Trail Hikers seeking panoramic views unparalleled on any other trail at Grand Canyon will want to consider a hike down the South Kaibab Trail. It is the only trail at Grand Canyon National Park that so dramatically holds true to a ridgeline descent. But this exhilarating sense of exposure to the vastness of the canyon comes at a cost: there is little shade and no water for the length of this trail. During winter months, the constant sun exposure is likely to keep most of the trail relatively free of ice and snow. For those who insist on hiking during summer months, which is not recommended in general, this trail is the quickest way to the bottom (it has been described as "a trail in a hurry to get to the river"), but due to lack of any water sources, ascending the trail can be a dangerous proposition. The South Kaibab Trail is a modern route, having been constructed as a means by which park visitors could bypass Ralph Cameron's Bright Angel Trail. Cameron, who owned the Bright Angel Trail and charged a toll to those using it, fought dozens of legal battles over several decades to maintain his personal business rights. These legal battles inspired the Santa Fe Railroad to build its own alternative trail, the Hermit Trail, beginning in 1911 before the National Park Service went on to build the South Kaibab Trail beginning in 1924. In this way, Cameron inadvertently contributed much to the greater network of trails currently available for use by canyon visitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 – Affected Environment
    Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Chapter 3 describes the environmental resources (physical, biological, cultural, recreational, and socioeconomic) that could be affected by the range of alternatives for implementing the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP), as described in Chapters 1 and 2. The extent to which each specific resource may be affected by each alternative is discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.1 3.1 PROJECT AREA The project area includes the area potentially affected by implementation of the LTEMP (including normal management and experimental operations of Glen Canyon Dam and non-flow actions). This area includes Lake Powell, Glen Canyon Dam, and the river downstream to Lake Mead (Figure 3.1-1). More specifically, the scope primarily encompasses the Colorado River Ecosystem, which includes the Colorado River mainstream corridor and interacting resources in associated riparian and terrace zones, located primarily from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). It includes the area where dam operations impact physical, biological, recreational, cultural, and other resources. This section of the river runs through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons in Coconino and Mohave Counties in northwestern Arizona. Although this EIS focuses primarily on the Colorado River Ecosystem, the affected area varies by resources and extends outside of the immediate river corridor for some resources and cumulative impacts. Portions of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA), GCNP, and Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) outside the Colorado River Ecosystem are also included in the affected region for certain resources due to the potential effects of LTEMP operations.
    [Show full text]
  • NPS History Elibrary
    STATE: fnT 1977?6 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ^uct. iv//; NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Arizona COUNTY: NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTC )RIC PLACES Coconino INVENTORY - NOMINATIO N FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY FOR FEDERAL PROPER TIES ENTRY DATE (Type all entries • complete applic able sections) JUL a 1974 COMMON: Grandview Mine (H.S.-ll AND/OR HISTORIC: -' ' Last Chance Mine; Canyon Copper Company Mine STREET AND NUMBER: Grand Canyon National Park, T30N, Rl$ G & SR EM CITY OR TOWN: CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: Grand Canyon Third STATE: CODE COUNTY: CODE Arizona OU Coconino 005 IPBIiiM^S^iPM^^PIiiPMP ii:|ii:j:;:|i|:|:;^ lllllllillllllillllllllililllllilllllllllillll STATUS ACCESSIBLE (Check£AJ*?2 One)R\ OWNERSHIP J>IAIU=> T0 THE p UBUC [jg District CD Building £] Public Public Acquisition: I | Occupied Yes: CD Site CD Structure | | Private | | In Process Fjjjl Unoccupied [ | Restricted CD Object CD Both CD Being Considered CD Preservation work [^Unrestricted in progress [~1 No PRESENT USE (Check One or More as Appropriate) CD Agricultural CD Government g£] Park ' CD Transportation CD Comments | | Commercial [~] Industrial CI] Private Residence CD Other (Specifv) CD Educational CDMiltary CI CD Entertainment Q~] Museum Q "3 jSTATE: California3 National Park Service (the land) REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS: (If applicable) ^ STREET AND NUMBER: n BOX Western Regional Office ^•50 Golden Gate Ave., 36063 CITY OR TOWN: STATE: CODE San Francisco California 06 COURTHOUSE, REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC: Coconino County Courthouse SanFrancisc COUNTY: STREET AND NUMBER: CITY
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Southwest Water Plan
    United States Department of the Interior Stewart L. Udall, Secretary Pacific Southwest b WATER PLAN = REPOR January 1964 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Floyd E. Dominy, Commissioner UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON 25, D. C. January 21, 1964 8URE#U OF RECLAMATlON The Secretary LOWER COLORAOO REGION LIBRARY of the Int,erior Sir: On November 6, 1963, you directed me to supervise the preparation of a revised report to the President and the Congress proposing, on a regional basis, a plan of action designed to deal constructively with the acute water problems of the Pacific Southwest. The attached report of the Commissioner of Reclamation, in which I concur, was prepared under my direction. As you directed, we have been responsive to the views of the affected States, wherever possible. We have maintained coordination with other divisions of the Department, and considered the views of other Federal agencies. The report outlines a plan of action designed to meet the immediate and long-range water needs of the Pacific Southwest, defined in this report as the water service area of the Lower Colorado River Basin including southern California. It presents an initial plan for approval. We recommend prompt authorization of those features of the initial plan for which adequate engineering and economic investi- gations have been completed. Approval of the basic plan and authorization pf the recommended features will start the Pacific Southwest on the road back to water sufficiency. In 1930 the population of the Pacific Southwest was 3-1/2 million. In 1960 it had grown to 10-1/2 million.
    [Show full text]
  • Bright Angel Trail
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Arizona Bright Angel Trail The Bright Angel Trail is considered the park’s premier hiking trail. Well maintained, graded for stock, with regular drinking water and covered rest-houses, it is without question the safest trail in Grand Canyon National Park. There is a ranger station located at the trail’s halfway point (Indian Garden) and one at the bottom of the canyon (Bright Angel Campground). Visitors hiking for the first time at Grand Canyon often use this trail in conjunction with the South Kaibab Trail. Particularly during hot weather, it makes sense to ascend via the Bright Angel Trail because of potable water, regular shade and emergency phones. Following a natural break in the cliffs formed by the massive Bright Angel Fault, today’s Bright Angel Trail approximates a route used for millennia by the many Native American groups that have called the Grand Canyon home. Early western pioneers at the canyon first built a trail in 1891 to reach mining claims established below the rim at Indian Garden. Recognizing that the true worth of the claims would be measured in visitation by tourists, these pioneers immediately registered their trail as a toll road and extended the trail to the river. The mining claims and use of the trail as a toll road would be the source of much controversy, first in legal battles with railroad companies that wanted to control tourism and later with the federal government. The trail was turned over to the National Park Service in 1928.
    [Show full text]