DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Powers Great Salt Lake Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Powers Great Salt Lake Basin DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HUBERT WORK, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 517 WATER POWERS OF THE GREAT SALT LAKE BASIN BY RALF R, WOOLLEY WITH AN INTRODyCTION BY NATHAN C. GROVER TM,COWI«PUBLIC PROPERTY.,.. be removed from the dfficial files, PRIVATE P*4 >. Sup. Vol. 2, pp. 360, Sec 749.) WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1924 ADDITIONAL COPIES OP THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OP DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE "WASHINGTON, D. C. » AT 30 CENTS PER COPY CONTENTS. Page Synopsis of report_________-___-___-___--------____-------_----_-_- xi Introduction, by N. C. Grover____________________________________ 1 Acknowledgments.-._-________-_-___--______-_______---__-_------- 3 Geography, geology, and physiography of the Great Salt Lake basin, by W. T. Lee__________..__._.______.. ._.____._. _.____.__..._. 3 Location.____________________________________________________ 3 Problem outlines.-____________________________________________ 4 Geography.__________________________________________________ 4 Geology.____________________________________________________ 6 Character of the rocks_____-________-_.__-_-------__-j.-_--- 6 Structure and dynamics__________________________________ 7 Physiography__ _ ____________________________________________ 8 Climate _ ________________________________________________________ 9 General conditions.___________________________________________ 9 Temperature ___ ______________________________!._____________ 10 Precipitation.________--_-_____-________-_______--_-___----___ 12 Lake levels.._____.________________-_-__-_-_--__-____-_-___--_-_-. 16 General features__________________________________________________ 17 Bear River basin____________________________________________ 17 Weber River basin____________________________________________ 21 Principal features____________-_-_____--____--_-____----__- 21 Beaver Creek_________________________________________ 22 Silver Creek.______i_______________________________ 23 7 Chalk Creek______-___-___-_______--_-_-__-_-----_--____- 23 Echo Creek_________________________________ 23 Lost Creek______________"_--_-___---___________--__ 23 East Canyon Creek.______,_______________________________ 23 Ogden River_______________________________ 23 Jordan River and Utah Lake basins______-________---___------__ 24 Utah Lake____-_--_______---_-__-__._____________ 24 Principal features.__________________-__-----___-----__ 24 Dry Creek____________._______.______________________ 25 American Fork.______________________________________ 26 Battle Creek________.___________________ 26 Provo River and tributaries.___________________________ 26 Hobble Creek._____________________________________ 29 Spanish Fork and tributaries____-*----_-_--___,_________ 29 Payson or Peteetneet Creek.___________________________ 30 Santaquin Creek______________________________________ 31 Salt or Currant Creek_________________________________ 31 Jordan River.____________________________________________ 31 Principal features.___________________________________ 31 Little Cottonwood Creek_______-______----_-_------__ 32 Cottonwood Creek____________________________________ 32 Mill Creek__-________________________-_---_-_------__ 33 Parleys Creek______________-_--_______---__________ 33 City Creek_________-______________-___------_---__-._ 33 Willard, Farmington, and Box Elder creeks and streams in Tooele and Rush valleys-______-____________-_________-_--__----_-_ 34 in IV CONTENTS. Page. Stream flow._____________________________________________________ 36 Value of stream-flow records________________________ 36 Gaging stations_______________________________________________ 37 Publications__________________________________________ 39 Reservoirs and reservoir sites.._________________________________ 40 Bear|River basin ___________________________________________ 40 Woodruff Narrows site__________________________________ 40 Yellow Creek and Coyote Creek sites_______.___________ 41 Bear Lake reservoir...____________________________ 42 Conditions below Bear Lake_.__-._-_____-_-_______________ 43 Cottonwood Creek site________-_________-________________ 44 Reservoirs in Cache Valley______________________ 45 Strong Arm reservoirs._________________________ 45 Oneida reservoir._______________________________ 45 Newton reservoir_____________________________________ 45 Worm Creek site______________________________________ 46 Cub River site_______________________________________ 46 Logan River sites.____________________________________ 46 Blacksmith Fork site________---__-______--___--_________ 47 Little Bear River site____________________________________ 47 Malad River site________________________________________ 47 Weber River basin______________________________ _ 48 Larabee Flat site_______________________---_-____--____-_- 48 Beaver Creek site-----.--.-.---.------------------ ______ 48 Rockport site_________________________________ _ 49 Echo site_____________ _ 49 Smith and Moorehouse site___________________ __. _____ 50 Chalk Creek site_____________--___-_-___--_----___-_ _ 50 Lost Creek site__________________________ 50 Yellow Creek and Coyote Creek sites_________________ _____ 50 Ogden River sites___-_-_--_-------- ___- 51 Righthand Fork site. ____________ _______ _____ 52 Cobble Creek site____________ 52 Magpie site______________-_----_--_-_-_-_- ___ -___ 52 East Canyon Creek reservoir..-------------- -- _____ 53 Jordan River and Utah Lake basins.' _ __ ___ 53 Utah Lake.______________ 53 American Fork site__________-_- __. ______ _____ 54 Hobble Creek site_______ ___ 54 Provo River sites__________ _____ 55 Bates site.___ ___-_ 55 Deer Creek site________ __' _ _ ____ ___ 55 Other sites and reservoirs.______ _ _ _________ 55 Strawberry reservoir __ ____ __ - --- ____- 56 Mount Nebo reservoir__ ______ _ 56 Jordan River____ ______ __________ _ __ __ __ _ 56 Little Cottonwood Creek sites__ __ 58 Cottonwood Creek sites_______ 58 Mill Creek site___ __________ 59 Parleys Creek reservoir.____ -__ 59 City Creek sites ______ - 59 Willard, Farmington, and Box Elder creeks and streams in Tooele and Rush valleys____ _____ - 60 Summary. ____________________ -- 61 CONTENTS. f Page . Developed water power_________________________ '. 64 General features._________________________________________ _ 64 Bear River basin____________________________________ _____ 66 McNeice plant______________________________ 66 Swan Creek plant_____________________ ____ 66 Paris plant___________________________ ___ 67 Old Grace plant_________ _ _________________ 67 New Grace plant___________________________________ 68 Cove plant---___-_______________________________ 69 Oneida plant_____________________________________-___-_~_ 71 Wheelon plant_____________________________ 72 Georgetown plant______________________ _ __ 74 Soda Springs plant_______________________________ 75 High Creek plant_________________________ 75 Logan city plant______-_____________________--__---_- _ 76 Logan or Hercules plant_______________________________-_-- 76 Agricultural College plant__________________________-__--_-_ 77 Hyrum plant_________________________________________ 78 Hyrum city plant.____________________________ __ 79 Summary _____________________________ ____ ___ 80 Weber River basin___________________________________'____ 81 Weber or Devils Gate plant___-_-_________-__-_---_-_------ 81 Riverdale plant-__-____-_____J___--_-_-_-_______________ 82 Butler plant_______________________________ 83 Pioneer plant_________________________________________ 83 Summary ______ ________________________________________ 85 Jordan River and Utah Lake basins____________________________ 86 Alpine plant_____________________________________ 86 Upper American Fork plant_-___________--___-_____-___-__- 86 Lower American Fork plant___--_-___-___________________ 87 Battle Creek plant.___________________________ 88 Springville plant_____________________________-__-_--_----_ 89 Strawberry Valley project plant___________________________ 90 Santaquin plant________________________________________ 91 Nephi plant________________________________-___-_-__-_--_ 91 Nephi Plaster & Manufacturing Co.'s plant.________________ 92 Murdock plant_________________________________________ 92 Heber Light & Power Co.'s plant._____________-____ 93 Olmstead plant_______________________________________ 93 Park City or Ontario plant_______-___________________ 94 Snake Creek plant______________________________________ 95 Jordan plant____________________________________________ 95 Bennion plant______________________________________ 96 Columbus Consolidated plant__________________ ____ _ 97 Murray city plant____________________________ _____ __ 98 Stairs plant____________________________________________ 98 Granite plant_____________________________________________ 99 Knudson plant_______________________________________ 100 Gordon plant_____________________________________ 100 Lower Mill Creek plant_______________________________ 101 Upper MiU Creek plant_____________________ ___ 102 Summary-- __ _______ _ _ 103 VI CONTENTS. Developed water power Continued. Page. Willard, Farmington, and Box Elder creeks and streams in Tooele and Rush valleys.__________________________________________ 104 Brigham city plant______________________________________ 104 Willard plant_____ _ __ _ _________ _ ___________ 104 Davis or Farmington plant_________________________________ 105 Tooele plant___---_--_-_________-___-_-_-_______________ 106 South Willow
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Provo River Watershed Plan Introduction Public Water Systems
    Provo River Watershed Plan Introduction Public water systems (PWSs) in the State of Utah who treat surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water are required by the Drinking Water Source Protection (DWSP) Rule, to develop, submit and implement a DWSP Plan for all sources of public drinking water. All PWSs are required to delineate watershed protection zones, develop a listing of potential contamination sources within the protection zones, and subsequently prepare and implement management plans to provide protection for surface water sources within the watershed protection zones. The following PWSs along the Wasatch Front have formed the Watershed Protection Coalition (Coalition) and have initiated a cooperative project to develop their DWSP Plans for the Provo River Basin Watershed: Central Utah Water Conservancy District Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy The mission of the Watershed Protection Coalition is to: Work cooperatively to understand the watershed, identify priorities, and develop and implement long-term strategies to protect the drinking water source(s) from contamination, as a primary safeguard to protect the public health. Support federal, state and local agencies that are empowered with the authority and jurisdiction necessary to protect the watershed(s) and drinking water source(s) through regulations, rules and ordinances. The members of the Coalition, all of whom are active signing and funding members of the Provo River Watershed Council (PRWC), are working together to protect regional surface water resources. By working together in cooperation with other agencies and programs, the Coalition is able to maximize efficiency, and jointly manage potential contamination sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Irrigation Papers
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WATER-SUPPLY AND IRRIGATION PAPERS OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY No·. 7 SEEPAGE WATER OF -NORTHERN UTAH.-FORTIER WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1897 IRRIGATION REPORTS. The following list contains the titles and brief descriptions of the principal reports relating to water supply and irrigation prepared by the United States Geological Survey since 1890: 1890. First Annual Report of the United States Irrigation Survey, 1890, octavo, 123 pp. Printed as Part II, Irrigation, of the Tenth Annual Report of the United States Geolog­ icall:lurvey, 18.'38--89. Contains a statement of the origin of the Irrigation Survey, a nre­ liminary report on the organization and prosecution of the survey of tht> arid lands for purposes of irrigation, and report of work done during 1890. 1891. Second Annual Report of the United States Irrigation Survey, 1891, octavo, 395 pp. Published as Part II. Irrigation, of tho Eleventh Annual Report of the United Stntes Geological Survey, 1889-90. Contains a description of the hydrography of the arid region and of the engineering operations carried on by the Irrigation Survey during 1800; nlso the statement of the Director of tho Survey to the House Committee on Irrigation, a.nd other papers, including a bibliography of irrigation literature. lllustrated by 2\Jplates and 4 figures. Third Annual Report of the United States Irrigation Survey, 1891, octavo, 576 pp. Printed as Part II of the Twelfth Annual Report of the United States Geological Sur­ vey, 1890--91. Contains a report upon the location and survey of reservoir sites during the fiscal year ending ,June 30,1891, by A.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Name of Krishna: the Cultural Landscape of a North Indian Pilgrimage Town
    In the Name of Krishna: The Cultural Landscape of a North Indian Pilgrimage Town A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Sugata Ray IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Frederick M. Asher, Advisor April 2012 © Sugata Ray 2012 Acknowledgements They say writing a dissertation is a lonely and arduous task. But, I am fortunate to have found friends, colleagues, and mentors who have inspired me to make this laborious task far from arduous. It was Frederick M. Asher, my advisor, who inspired me to turn to places where art historians do not usually venture. The temple city of Khajuraho is not just the exquisite 11th-century temples at the site. Rather, the 11th-century temples are part of a larger visuality that extends to contemporary civic monuments in the city center, Rick suggested in the first class that I took with him. I learnt to move across time and space. To understand modern Vrindavan, one would have to look at its Mughal past; to understand temple architecture, one would have to look for rebellions in the colonial archive. Catherine B. Asher gave me the gift of the Mughal world – a world that I only barely knew before I met her. Today, I speak of the Islamicate world of colonial Vrindavan. Cathy walked me through Mughal mosques, tombs, and gardens on many cold wintry days in Minneapolis and on a hot summer day in Sasaram, Bihar. The Islamicate Krishna in my dissertation thus came into being.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Importance of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Utah Lake
    Ecological Importance of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Utah Lake File name: Ecological Role of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Utah Lake Focus on the Keystone Taxon Chironomidae and HABs Version 1.2 Ecological Importance of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Utah Lake With a Focus on the Role of the Keystone Taxon Chironomidae on HABs Progress Report January 28, 2017 By: David C. Richards, Ph. D. OreoHelix Consulting Phone: 406.580.7816 Email: [email protected] and Theron Miller, Ph.D. Jordan River Farmington Bay Water Quality Council OreoHelix Consulting 1 Ecological Importance of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Utah Lake Introduction Benthic macroinvertebrates are a critical component of the ecology and ecosystem functioning of Utah Lake. They are a major link between sediment chemistry, water column chemistry, nutrient cycling, benthic algae, phytoplankton, and Utah Lake’s food web including carp, game fish, June suckers, waterfowl, shorebirds, etc. Benthic invertebrates provide underappreciated but invaluable ecosystem services and are keystone taxa instrumental for the functioning of Utah Lake’ ecosystem. It has become clear that several dominant benthic taxa, primarily chironomids, play a key role in the timing and intensity of harmful algal blooms (HABs) in the lake. Very few studies have been conducted on the benthic invertebrate assemblages in Utah Lake (Barnes and Toole 1981, Spencer and Denton 2003, Shiozawa and Barnes 1977) and none were conducted at the level and intensity that is presently being accomplished by this group. No study has ever examined the role of benthic invertebrates on HABs in Utah Lake, this is the first. Our research is also an important element of sediment chemistry, nutrients, and food web models that are presently being conducted by us and others on Utah Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 20Th National Cave & Karst Management Symposium
    Proceedings of the 20th National Cave & Karst Management Symposium OCTOBER 3-7, 2011 MIDWAY, UTAH Proceedings of the 20th National Cave & Karst Management Symposium Proceedings of the 20th National Cave & Karst Management Symposium Midway, Utah October 3-7, 2011 Symposium Sponsor National Park Service Timpanogos Cave National Monument Proceedings Editor Valerie Stratford Proceedings Coordinators Bonny Armstrong Cami McKinney Cover Art and 2011 NCKMS Logo Brandon Kowallis Layout and Design Cami McKinney Published by The National Cave & Karst Management Symposium Printed in the United States of America Host Organization National Park Service, Timpanogos Cave National Monument NCKMS Steering Committee American Cave Conservation Association Bat Conservation International U.S. Bureau of Land Management Cave Research Foundation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USDA Forest Service Karst Waters Institute The Nature Conservancy National Caves Association National Cave & Karst Research Institute National Park Service National Speleological Society www.nckms.org 2011 NCKMS Sponsors Partner Edwards Aquifer Authority ESRI National Park Service Utah Department of Oil, Gas & Mining Contributing Cave Conservancy Foundation Cave Conservancy of the Virginias Cave Research Foundation MayaCon- 2012 NSS Convention National Cave & Karst Research Institute National Speleological Society Northeastern Cave Conservancy Petzl Speleobooks Supporting Bat Conservation International H & K Perforated Metals Mid-Atlantic Cave Conservancy National Caves Association PMI- Pigeon Mountain Industries Project Underground USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service- Lincoln National Forest Utah Bat Conservation Cooperative Utah State Parks- Wasatch Mountain State Park Wasatch Mountain State Park West Virginia Cave Conservancy The 2011 National Cave & Karst Symposium in Midway, Utah is now behind us. What an exciting week! I am so glad that you made the trip to the mountains to get Karst Elevated.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources Development by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Utah
    DEVELOPMENT W&M U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TC SOU TH PACIFIC DIVI SI O N 423 • A15 1977 Utah 1977 M ■ - z//>A ;^7 /WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ec by THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS in UTAH JANUARY 1977 ADDRESS INQUIRIES TO DIVISION ENGINEER U.S. Army Engineer Division South Pacific Corps of Engineers 630 Sansome Street San Fransisco, California 94111 DISTRICT ENGINEER DISTRICT ENGINEER U.S. Army Engineer District U.S. Army Engineer District Los Angeles Corps of Engineers Sacramento Federal Building Corps of Engineers 300 North Los Angeles Street Federal and Courts Building Los Angeles, California 90012 (P.O. Box 2711 650 Capitol Mall Los Angeles, California 90053) Sacramento, California 95814 TO OUR READERS: Throughout history, water has played a dominant role in shaping the destinies of nations and entire civilizations. The early settlement and development of our country occurred along our coasts and water courses. The management of our land and water resources was the catalyst which enabled us to progress from a basically rural and agrarian economy to the urban and industrialized nation we are today. Since the General Survey Act of 1824, the US Army Corps of Engineers has played a vital role in the development and management of our national water resources. At the direction of Presidents and with Congressional authorization and funding, the Corps of Engineers has planned and executed major national programs for navigation, flood control, water supply, hydroelectric power, recreation and water conservation which have been responsive to the changing needs and demands of the American people for 152 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Elam Luddington: First Latter-Day Saint Missionary to Thailand
    Michael A. Goodman 10 Elam Luddington: First Latter-day Saint Missionary to Thailand I will keep digging till you all say enough, and then if you see fit to call me home, I shall be truly in heaven and happy in the extreme; or if you say “Spend your days in [this part of the world], it shall be even so; not my will but my Heavenly Fathers be done.” Elam Luddington1 lam Luddington, the first Latter-day Saint missionary to Siam (mod- Eern Thailand), faced tremendous hardships in his pioneering proselyt- ing work. Almost killed at sea numerous times, stoned twice, poisoned once, and finally mobbed, he left the Thai people after little more than four months. No further formal missionary work was attempted for over one hundred years in the ancient land of Siam. His sacrifice, however, laid the foundation for the future work of bringing the fullness of the gospel to Thailand. His efforts were not in vain. His legacy of faithfulness would be Michael A. Goodman is an associate professor of Church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University. Go Ye into All the World followed by other modern-day pioneers who would also show tremendous bravery and faithfulness in the face of forbidding odds. PREPARATION TO SERVE Elam Luddington was born November 23, 1806, in Harwinton, Litch field County, Connecticut, a little town incorporated in 1737.2 His par- ents were Elam Luddington Sr. and Aseneth Munger. Elam Luddington Sr., who was also named after his father, was a farmer, carpenter, and mariner. Elam described his father as “honest, virtuous, industrious, a good husband and a kind father.”3 Aseneth Luddington died of consumption when Elam was only ten years old.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and Friends of Great Salt Lake, Petitioners/Appellants, Vs. Executive Director Of
    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Supreme Court Briefs (2000– ) 2015 Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and Friends of Great Salt Lake, Petitioners/Appellants, vs. Executive Director of the Department of Environmental Quality Et Al., Respondents/ Appellees Utah Supreme Court Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Recommended Citation Supplemental Submission, Utah Physicians v Department Environment, No. 20150344 (Utah Supreme Court, 2015). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2/3312 This Supplemental Submission is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Supreme Court Briefs (2000– ) by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/ utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH UTAH PHYSICIANS FOR A HEALTHY Appeal No. 20150344-SC ENVIRONMENT and FRIENDS OF GREAT SALT LAKE, Agency Decision Nos. Petitioners/Appellants, N10123-0041 v. DAQE-AN101230041-13 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, et al., Respondents/Appellees. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF HOLLY REFINING AND MARKETING CO. Appeal from the Final Order of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Executive Director Amanda Smith Joro Walker Steven J. Christiansen (5265) Charles R. Dubuc David C.
    [Show full text]
  • County Commission Update: Protecting a Vital Natural Resource
    County Commission Update: Protecting a Vital Natural Resource By Wade Mathews, Public Information Officer It’s a remnant of an ancient body of water that once covered most of our county and much of the western states region. Now the Great Salt Lake is all that remains of Lake Bonneville. Because of its unique mineral qualities, the Great Salt Lake, specifically its south arm, provides a valuable resource to our county. The lake’s minerals are utilized by several large businesses in Tooele County, it provides recreation opportunities, and the lake is a great tourist attraction to this area. But that resource that is the Great Salt Lake is being threatened. The Tooele County Commission has learned of a proposal by Great Salt Lake Minerals Corporation (GSL), located on the north side of the lake that has the potential of decreasing the level of the southern arm by six to 30 inches a year. GSL originally proposed withdrawing 360,000 acre feet of water per year from the north arm of the lake. Due to some criticism, GSL may reduce that request. The lake is already at historic low levels due to the past draught experienced in the region. Commissioner Jerry Hurst says, “GSL’s proposal could have a drastic effect on the operations of our businesses located along the southern shore. Five major companies and several small businesses rely on the lake being at a certain level and on having high salinity content.” Those major companies include Morton Salt, Cargill Salt, Broken Arrow, US Magnesium and Allegheny Technologies. They make up the Tooele County Great Salt Lake South Arm Industry Consortium.
    [Show full text]
  • GOVERNANCE & OVERSIGHT NARRATIVE Local Authority
    GOVERNANCE & OVERSIGHT NARRATIVE Local Authority: Wasatch County Instructions: In the cells below, please provide an answer/description for each question. PLEASE CHANGE THE COLOR OF SUBSTANTIVE NEW LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN YOUR PLAN THIS YEAR! 1) Access & Eligibility for Mental Health and/or Substance Abuse Clients Who is eligible to receive mental health services within your catchment area? What services (are there different services available depending on funding)? Wasatch County Family Clinic-Wasatch Behavioral Health Special Service District (WCFC-WMH) is a comprehensive community mental health center providing mental health and substance use disorder services to the residents of Wasatch County. WCFC-WBH provides a mental health and Substance Use screening to any Wasatch County resident requesting services. Based on available resources, (funding or otherwise), prospective clients will be referred to or linked with available resources. Medicaid eligible clients will be provided access to the full array of services available. Individuals who carry commercial insurance will be seen as their benefits allow. Clients with no funding may be seen on a sliding fee scale. Who is eligible to receive substance abuse services within your catchment area? What services (are there different services available depending on funding)? Identify how you manage wait lists. How do you ensure priority populations get served? WCFC-WBH provides substance abuse services to residents of Wasatch County. Medicaid and commercial insurances are also accepted and services are provided as benefits allow. WCFC-WBH provides substance abuse services as funding allows those without insurance or ability to pay. A sliding fee scale is available for these clients. Clients accepted into the drug court also have all services available and fees are also set based on the sliding scale.
    [Show full text]
  • 1-1-19 Transcript Bulletin
    The Meads’ love of Model A cars keeps them rolling See B1 TOOELETRANSCRIPT BULLETIN TUESDAY January 1, 2019 www.TooeleOnline.com Vol. 125 No. 61 $1.00 OF PERSONS THE YEAR DANIEL PACHECO • ROBIN DOUGLAS • ROB CLAUSING • MARIA SWEETEN RICHARD MITCHELL • ERIK GUMBRECHT • BRENDA FADDIS 2018 FRANCIE AUFDEMORTE/TTB PHOTO Daniel Pacheco, Robin Douglas, Rob Clausing, Maria Sweeten, Richard Mitchell, Erik Gumbrecht and Brenda Faddis served on the Tooele County Government Study Committee. The group’s members have been awarded the Tooele Transcript Bulletin’s Person of the Year. Government study committee Study committee of different backgrounds, experiences wins Person of the Year Award comes together for change Committee’s 2,500 hours of volunteer labor gave voters the chance to STEVE HOWE shape the future of Tooele County’s form of government STAFF WRITER A year of weekly meetings working toward a com- mon goal has a way of bringing people together. TIM GILLIE Commission will become history and the county will be When seven members of the Tooele County STAFF WRITER led by a five-member part-time legislative council and an Government Study Committee gathered this past week The Tooele County Form of Government Study appointed county manager. for a photo, you could hardly tell some of them had Committee logged over 2,500 hours of volunteer labor The study committee started weekly meetings in only met in 2017. There were plenty of smiles, laughs with the estimated value of $312,500 while reviewing the February 2017 with 11 members appointed by a special — and goofing off for the camera — during the shoot.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Surveys on the Uinta & Wasatch-Cache National
    FISH SURVEYS ON THE UINTA & WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FORESTS 1995 By Paul K Cowley Forest Fish Biologist Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forest January 22, 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................... i LIST OF FIGURES ....................... iii LIST OF TABLES ....................... v INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 METHODS ........................... 1 RESULTS ........................... 4 Weber River Drainage ................. 5 Ogden River ................... 5 Slate Creek ................... 8 Yellow Pine Creek ................ 10 Coop Creek .................... 10 Shingle Creek .................. 13 Great Salt Lake Drainage ............... 16 Indian Hickman Creek ............... 16 American Fork River .................. 16 American Fork River ............... 16 Provo River Drainage ................. 20 Provo Deer Creek ................. 20 Right Fork Little Hobble Creek .......... 20 Rileys Canyon .................. 22 Shingle Creek .................. 22 North Fork Provo River .............. 22 Boulder Creek .................. 22 Rock Creek .................... 24 Soapstone Creek ................. 24 Spring Canyon .................. 27 Cobble Creek ................... 27 Hobble Creek Drainage ................. 29 Right Fork Hobble Creek ............. 29 Spanish Fork River Drainage .............. 29 Bennie Creek ................... 29 Nebo Creek ................... 29 Tie Fork ..................... 32 Salt Creek Drainage .................. 32 Salt Creek .................... 32 Price River Drainage ................
    [Show full text]