DOCSLIB.ORG

FM5 GC Sediment WRIR.FINAL1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FM5 GC Sediment WRIR.FINAL1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Sediment Delivery by Ungaged Tributaries of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon Water-Resources Investigations Report 00 4055 Prepared in cooperation with the GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Sediment Delivery by Ungaged Tributaries of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona By Robert H. Webb, Peter G. Griffiths, Theodore S. Melis, and Daniel R. Hartley U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4055 Prepared in cooperation with the GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER Tucson, Arizona 2000 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: Regional Research Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey, MS-472 Information Services Water Resources Division Box 25286 345 Middlefield Road Federal Center Menlo Park, CA 94025 Denver, CO 80225-0046 CONTENTS Page Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and scope ................................................................................................................................. 2 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 2 Units and place names........................................................................................................................... 4 Previous Studies.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Definitions of flow types that occur in Grand Canyon tributaries ........................................................ 4 Magnitude and frequency of debris flows............................................................................................. 5 Tributaries and reaches of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon............................................................... 6 Definition of geomorphically significant tributaries............................................................................. 6 Designation of reaches of the Colorado River ...................................................................................... 6 Drainage areas of ungaged tributaries................................................................................................... 7 Climatic variability in the Grand Canyon ................................................................................................... 7 Streamflow sediment yield.......................................................................................................................... 9 Regional sediment-yield data ................................................................................................................ 10 Empirical sediment-yield relations........................................................................................................ 12 The flood frequency, rating-curve technique ........................................................................................ 15 Regional flood frequency ................................................................................................................ 15 Flood volumes and sediment-rating curves..................................................................................... 16 Calculations of sediment yield ........................................................................................................ 18 Particle-size distribution of streamflow sediment................................................................................. 19 Frequency of historical debris flows in Grand Canyon .............................................................................. 21 Evidence of historical debris flows ....................................................................................................... 21 Direct observations.......................................................................................................................... 21 Photography..................................................................................................................................... 22 Temporal and spatial distribution of debris flows................................................................................. 23 Climatic variability and debris-flow initiation ...................................................................................... 23 Debris-flow sediment yield ......................................................................................................................... 24 Debris-flow frequency........................................................................................................................... 24 Debris-flow volumes ............................................................................................................................. 28 Estimation techniques...................................................................................................................... 28 Volumes of debris flows................................................................................................................... 29 Particle-size distributions of debris flows.............................................................................................. 29 Point counts ..................................................................................................................................... 30 Pit excavations ................................................................................................................................. 30 Dry-sieve analysis............................................................................................................................ 30 Particle-size distributions of debris flows........................................................................................ 31 Bulk density of debris flows ............................................................................................................ 31 Reworking of debris fans by the Colorado River ..................................................................................32 Sediment-yield model............................................................................................................................ 33 Total sediment yield of ungaged tributaries ................................................................................................ 33 Climatic variability and streamflow sediment yield.................................................................................... 34 Discussion and conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 35 References Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 38 Contents III FIGURES Page 1. Map of the Colorado River between Lake Powell and Mead reservoirs......................................... 3 2. Graph showing the drainage areas of ungaged Grand Canyon tributaries ...................................... 8 3. Graph showing standardized annual precipitation for the Grand Canyon region ........................... 10 4. Graph showing standardized seasonal precipitation for the Grand Canyon region ........................ 11 5. Graph showing standardized average decadal precipitation for the Grand Canyon region ............ 12 6. Graph showing sediment-yield data from small reservoirs and gaging stations on the Colorado Plateau................................................................................................................... 12 7. Graph showing estimates of streamflow sediment yield from empirical equations and regional data............................................................................................................................. 13 8. Graph showing streamflow sediment-yield estimates for 768 Grand Canyon tributaries calculated using the regional flood-frequency estimates of Thomas and others (1997) ................. 18 8. Graph showing streamflow sediment-yield estimates for 768 Grand Canyon tributaries calculated using the regional flood-frequency estimates of Roeske (1978) ................................... 19 10. Graph showing particle-size distribution of sand delivered by streamflow from ungaged tributaries in Grand Canyon.............................................................................................. 21 11. Map of geographic distribution of historical debris flows (1872-1999) in Grand Canyon............. 26 12. Graph showing distribution of debris-flow frequency factors for 736 ungaged tributaries ............ 29 13. Graph showing the relation of tributary drainage area to debris-flow volume for 30 historical debris flows in Grand Canyon .................................................................................... 30 14. Graph showing particle-size distributions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Landscape Assessment for the Buckskin Mountain Area, Wildlife Habitat Improvement
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) Depository) 11-19-2004 Landscape Assessment for the Buckskin Mountain Area, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Bureau of Land Management Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Bureau of Land Management, "Landscape Assessment for the Buckskin Mountain Area, Wildlife Habitat Improvement" (2004). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 77. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/77 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bureau of Land Management Phone 435.644.4300 Grand Staircase-Escalante NM 190 E. Center Street Fax 435.644.4350 Kanab, UT 84741 Landscape Assessment for the Buckskin Mountain Area Wildlife Habitat Improvement Version: 19 November 2004 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 3 A. Background and Need for Management Activity ................................................................... 3 B. Purpose .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Intermountain Region Part 1
    United States Department of Agriculture Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Intermountain Region Part 1 Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Report Service Research Station RMRS-GTR-375 April 2018 Halofsky, Jessica E.; Peterson, David L.; Ho, Joanne J.; Little, Natalie, J.; Joyce, Linda A., eds. 2018. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Intermountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-375. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Part 1. pp. 1–197. Abstract The Intermountain Adaptation Partnership (IAP) identified climate change issues relevant to resource management on Federal lands in Nevada, Utah, southern Idaho, eastern California, and western Wyoming, and developed solutions intended to minimize negative effects of climate change and facilitate transition of diverse ecosystems to a warmer climate. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service scientists, Federal resource managers, and stakeholders collaborated over a 2-year period to conduct a state-of-science climate change vulnerability assessment and develop adaptation options for Federal lands. The vulnerability assessment emphasized key resource areas— water, fisheries, vegetation and disturbance, wildlife, recreation, infrastructure, cultural heritage, and ecosystem services—regarded as the most important for ecosystems and human communities. The earliest and most profound effects of climate change are expected for water resources, the result of declining snowpacks causing higher peak winter
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Managment Plan Annual Report Fiscal Year 2012
    U.S. Department of Interior GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK National Park Service COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 Project Number 140653 Contributions by: Vanya Pryputniewicz, Outdoor Recreation Planner Jennifer Dierker, Archeologist Linda Jalbert, Wilderness Coordinator Lisa Kearsley, Biological Technician Brett G Dickson, Principal Investigator, NAU Valerie Horncastle, Senior Research Specialist, NAU Luke Zachman, Senior Research Specialist, NAU For More Information contact: Vanya Pryputniewicz 928-638-7659 [email protected] Colorado River Management Plan Annual Report for FY2012 Page 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Mitigation Program ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Results and Observations .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Responses of Plant Communities to Grazing in the Southwestern United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service
    Responses of Plant Communities to Grazing in the Southwestern United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Daniel G. Milchunas General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-169 April 2006 Milchunas, Daniel G. 2006. Responses of plant communities to grazing in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-169. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 126 p. Abstract Grazing by wild and domestic mammals can have small to large effects on plant communities, depend- ing on characteristics of the particular community and of the type and intensity of grazing. The broad objective of this report was to extensively review literature on the effects of grazing on 25 plant commu- nities of the southwestern U.S. in terms of plant species composition, aboveground primary productiv- ity, and root and soil attributes. Livestock grazing management and grazing systems are assessed, as are effects of small and large native mammals and feral species, when data are available. Emphasis is placed on the evolutionary history of grazing and productivity of the particular communities as deter- minants of response. After reviewing available studies for each community type, we compare changes in species composition with grazing among community types. Comparisons are also made between southwestern communities with a relatively short history of grazing and communities of the adjacent Great Plains with a long evolutionary history of grazing. Evidence for grazing as a factor in shifts from grasslands to shrublands is considered. An appendix outlines a new community classification system, which is followed in describing grazing impacts in prior sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]
  • Clear-Water Tributaries of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: Stream Ecology and the Potential Impacts of Managed Flow by René E
    Clear-water tributaries of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: stream ecology and the potential impacts of managed flow by René E. Henery ABSTRACT Heightened attention to the sediment budget for the Colorado River systerm in Grand Canyon Arizona, and the importance of the turbid tributaries for delivering sediment has resulted in the clear-water tributaries being overlooked by scientists and managers alike. Existing research suggests that clear-water tributaries are remnant ecosystems, offering unique biotic communities and natural flow patterns. These highly productive environments provide important spawning, rearing and foraging habitat for native fishes. Additionally, clear water tributaries provide both fish and birds with refuge from high flows and turbid conditions in the Colorado River. Current flow management in the Grand Canyon including beach building managed floods and daily flow oscillations targeting the trout population and invasive vegetation has created intense disturbance in the Colorado mainstem. This unprecedented level of disturbance in the mainstem has the potential to disrupt tributary ecology and increase pressures on native fishes. Among the most likely and potentially devastating of these pressures is the colonization of tributaries by predatory non-native species. Through focused conservation and management tributaries could play an important role in the protection of the Grand Canyon’s native fishes. INTRODUCTION More than 490 ephemeral and 40 perennial tributaries join the Colorado River in the 425 km stretch between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. Of the perennial tributaries in the Grand Canyon, only a small number including the Paria River, the Little Colorado River and Kanab Creek drain large watersheds and deliver large quantities of sediment to the Colorado River mainstem (Oberlin et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Assessment Units
    APPENDIX A ASSESSMENT UNITS SURFACE WATER REACH DESCRIPTION REACH/LAKE NUM WATERSHED Agua Fria River 341853.9 / 1120358.6 - 341804.8 / 15070102-023 Middle Gila 1120319.2 Agua Fria River State Route 169 - Yarber Wash 15070102-031B Middle Gila Alamo 15030204-0040A Bill Williams Alum Gulch Headwaters - 312820/1104351 15050301-561A Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312820 / 1104351 - 312917 / 1104425 15050301-561B Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312917 / 1104425 - Sonoita Creek 15050301-561C Santa Cruz Alvord Park Lake 15060106B-0050 Middle Gila American Gulch Headwaters - No. Gila Co. WWTP 15060203-448A Verde River American Gulch No. Gila County WWTP - East Verde River 15060203-448B Verde River Apache Lake 15060106A-0070 Salt River Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Cyn Wilderness - San Pedro River 15050203-004C San Pedro Aravaipa Creek Stowe Gulch - end Aravaipa C 15050203-004B San Pedro Arivaca Cienega 15050304-0001 Santa Cruz Arivaca Creek Headwaters - Puertocito/Alta Wash 15050304-008 Santa Cruz Arivaca Lake 15050304-0080 Santa Cruz Arnett Creek Headwaters - Queen Creek 15050100-1818 Middle Gila Arrastra Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-848 Middle Gila Ashurst Lake 15020015-0090 Little Colorado Aspen Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-769 Verde River Babbit Spring Wash Headwaters - Upper Lake Mary 15020015-210 Little Colorado Babocomari River Banning Creek - San Pedro River 15050202-004 San Pedro Bannon Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-774 Verde River Barbershop Canyon Creek Headwaters - East Clear Creek 15020008-537 Little Colorado Bartlett Lake 15060203-0110 Verde River Bear Canyon Lake 15020008-0130 Little Colorado Bear Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-046 Middle Gila Bear Wallow Creek N. and S. Forks Bear Wallow - Indian Res.
    [Show full text]
  • Bacteria in the Grand Canyon
    White-water Researchers Check Bacteria in the Grand Canyon Item Type Article Authors Tunnicliff, Brock; Brickler, Stan; Webster, Guy Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Progressive Agriculture in Arizona Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents. The University of Arizona. Download date 27/09/2021 20:42:41 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/296209 White -water Researchers Check Bacteria in the Grand Canyon Using river rafts equipped as mobile laboratories is the best way to By Dr. Brock Tunnicliff test water quality in the Colorado River of the Grand Canyon. The and Dr. Stan Brickler, School sharply increased number of boat trips through the canyon since the of Renewable Natural 1960s is the main reason that testing the water there has become impor- Resources, and Guy Webster, tant. Agricultural Communications Based on two years of testing, UA School of Renewable Natural Resources researchers have made recommendations for safer use of river water by boaters. Boaters should treat water from the river and its trib- utaries before drinking it. Drinking straight from the river has been common in past seasons. Boaters also should avoid stirring up bottom sediments. The sediments contain much more bacterial contamination than does the surface water. Stirring up sediments, especially in side- stream pools, can raise the fecal bacteria count in water above the stan- dard maximum for body- contact water use. Photograph: Recreational rafts The UA researchers have explained these recommendations to navigate a stretch of the Colorado River in the lower half of the boatmen from 22 licensed commercial outfitters during National Park Grand Canyon.
    [Show full text]
  • Thunder River Trail and Deer Creek
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Arizona Thunder River Trail and Deer Creek The huge outpourings of water at Thunder River, Tapeats Spring, and Deer Spring have attracted people since prehistoric times and today this little corner of Grand Canyon is exceedingly popular among seekers of the remarkable. Like a gift, booming streams of crystalline water emerge from mysterious caves to transform the harsh desert of the inner canyon into absurdly beautiful green oasis replete with the music of falling water and cool pools. Trailhead access can be difficult, sometimes impossible, and the approach march is long, hot and dry, but for those making the journey these destinations represent something close to canyon perfection. Locations/Elevations Mileages Indian Hollow (6250 ft / 1906 m) to Bill Hall Trail Junction (5400 ft / 1647 m): 5.0 mi (8.0 km) Monument Point (7200 ft / 2196 m) to Bill Hall Junction: 2.6 mi (4.2 km) Bill Hall Junction, AY9 (5400 ft / 1647 m) to Surprise Valley Junction, AM9 (3600 ft / 1098 m): 4.5 mi ( 7.2 km) Upper Tapeats Camp, AW7 (2400 ft / 732 m): 6.6 mi ( 10.6 km) Lower Tapeats, AW8 at Colorado River (1950 ft / 595 m): 8.8 mi ( 14.2 km) Deer Creek Campsite, AX7 (2200 ft / 671 m): 6.9 mi ( 11.1 km) Deer Creek Falls and Colorado River (1950 ft / 595 m): 7.6 mi ( 12.2 km) Maps 7.5 Minute Tapeats Amphitheater and Fishtail Mesa Quads (USGS) Trails Illustrated Map, Grand Canyon National Park (National Geographic) North Kaibab Map, Kaibab National Forest (good for roads) Water Sources Thunder River, Tapeats Creek, Deer Creek, and the Colorado River are permanent water sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographic Names
    GEOGRAPHIC NAMES CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES ? REVISED TO JANUARY, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911 PREPARED FOR USE IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BY THE UNITED STATES GEOGRAPHIC BOARD WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY, 1911 ) CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. The following list of geographic names includes all decisions on spelling rendered by the United States Geographic Board to and including December 7, 1910. Adopted forms are shown by bold-face type, rejected forms by italic, and revisions of previous decisions by an asterisk (*). Aalplaus ; see Alplaus. Acoma; township, McLeod County, Minn. Abagadasset; point, Kennebec River, Saga- (Not Aconia.) dahoc County, Me. (Not Abagadusset. AQores ; see Azores. Abatan; river, southwest part of Bohol, Acquasco; see Aquaseo. discharging into Maribojoc Bay. (Not Acquia; see Aquia. Abalan nor Abalon.) Acworth; railroad station and town, Cobb Aberjona; river, IVIiddlesex County, Mass. County, Ga. (Not Ackworth.) (Not Abbajona.) Adam; island, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester Abino; point, in Canada, near east end of County, Md. (Not Adam's nor Adams.) Lake Erie. (Not Abineau nor Albino.) Adams; creek, Chatham County, Ga. (Not Aboite; railroad station, Allen County, Adams's.) Ind. (Not Aboit.) Adams; township. Warren County, Ind. AJjoo-shehr ; see Bushire. (Not J. Q. Adams.) Abookeer; AhouJcir; see Abukir. Adam's Creek; see Cunningham. Ahou Hamad; see Abu Hamed. Adams Fall; ledge in New Haven Harbor, Fall.) Abram ; creek in Grant and Mineral Coun- Conn. (Not Adam's ties, W. Va. (Not Abraham.) Adel; see Somali. Abram; see Shimmo. Adelina; town, Calvert County, Md. (Not Abruad ; see Riad. Adalina.) Absaroka; range of mountains in and near Aderhold; ferry over Chattahoochee River, Yellowstone National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon
    U.S. Department of the Interior Geologic Investigations Series I–2688 14 Version 1.0 4 U.S. Geological Survey 167.5 1 BIG SPRINGS CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS LIST OF MAP UNITS 4 Pt Ph Pamphlet accompanies map .5 Ph SURFICIAL DEPOSITS Pk SURFICIAL DEPOSITS SUPAI MONOCLINE Pk Qr Holocene Qr Colorado River gravel deposits (Holocene) Qsb FAULT CRAZY JUG Pt Qtg Qa Qt Ql Pk Pt Ph MONOCLINE MONOCLINE 18 QUATERNARY Geologic Map of the Pleistocene Qtg Terrace gravel deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) Pc Pk Pe 103.5 14 Qa Alluvial deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) Pt Pc VOLCANIC ROCKS 45.5 SINYALA Qti Qi TAPEATS FAULT 7 Qhp Qsp Qt Travertine deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) Grand Canyon ၧ DE MOTTE FAULT Pc Qtp M u Pt Pleistocene QUATERNARY Pc Qp Pe Qtb Qhb Qsb Ql Landslide deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) Qsb 1 Qhp Ph 7 BIG SPRINGS FAULT ′ × ′ 2 VOLCANIC DEPOSITS Dtb Pk PALEOZOIC SEDIMENTARY ROCKS 30 60 Quadrangle, Mr Pc 61 Quaternary basalts (Pleistocene) Unconformity Qsp 49 Pk 6 MUAV FAULT Qhb Pt Lower Tuckup Canyon Basalt (Pleistocene) ၣm TRIASSIC 12 Triassic Qsb Ph Pk Mr Qti Intrusive dikes Coconino and Mohave Counties, Pe 4.5 7 Unconformity 2 3 Pc Qtp Pyroclastic deposits Mr 0.5 1.5 Mၧu EAST KAIBAB MONOCLINE Pk 24.5 Ph 1 222 Qtb Basalt flow Northwestern Arizona FISHTAIL FAULT 1.5 Pt Unconformity Dtb Pc Basalt of Hancock Knolls (Pleistocene) Pe Pe Mၧu Mr Pc Pk Pk Pk NOBLE Pt Qhp Qhb 1 Mၧu Pyroclastic deposits Qhp 5 Pe Pt FAULT Pc Ms 12 Pc 12 10.5 Lower Qhb Basalt flows 1 9 1 0.5 PERMIAN By George H.
    [Show full text]
  • Havasu Canyon Flood Updates
    preserving public access to the Colorado River Number Seven Fall, 2008 CRMPUpdate By Jonathan Simon Parties File Opening Briefs in Lawsuit Challenging Grand Canyon National Park’s Colorado River Management Plan Grand Canyon River Runners Association Joins With Grand Canyon River Guides and Colorado Whitewater Association in Filing Amicus Brief Supporting the Plan In January 2008, after the Arizona concessions services that are contrary Federal District Court wholly rejected to applicable law. More specifically, the their challenge to the new Colorado appellants allege that the new plan River Management Plan (CRMP) issued violates the NPS’ obligation to preserve by the National Park Service (NPS) in the “wilderness character” of the river February 2006, the plaintiffs in that corridor because it—like the previous lawsuit—River Runners for Wilderness plan issued in 1989—continues to (RRFW), Rock the Earth, Wilderness allow the use of motorized watercraft, Watch, and Living Rivers—appealed that helicopter passenger exchanges “HAVASU VIEW” court’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court and generators. They also allege PAINTING BY KANDEE MCCLAIN of Appeals. Under the appeals court’s that the new plan illegally authorizes In this Issue original scheduling order in the case, concessions services—with respect CRMP UPDATE ............................................................................... 1 briefing was to have been completed to both motorized use and the overall “LEAVE NO TRACE” .......................................................................
    [Show full text]