DOCSLIB.ORG

Salt Lake City Watershed Mana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Salt Lake City Watershed Mana Il il ti iJ L] LI il ll Li i._l k I I Table of Contents I 1999 Salt Lake City Watershed Master plan I CHAPTER l lztroduction .........1 rNrRoDUCrroN ... i PLANNINGPROCESS.... ...,.....1 T DESTRED FUTURE coNDrrroN . t CIIAPTER 2 Watersheil Characteristics anil llses ............5 I CHARA.TERI'TI.S AND USE' 'ATERSHED CANYON-BY€ANYON CHARACTERISTICS AND USES .. , . 5 I A. City Creek Canyon . I' B. Red Butte Canyon . .......6 C. Emigration Canyon ..... t a D. Parleys Canyon . ... ..... T E. Millcreek Canyon .. C I F. Big Cottonwood Canyon ............. g G. Little Cottonwood Canyon . u WATERQUALTTY .. ..... 11 I BACKGROUND 4 DATA CONTAMINANT INDICATORS,SOURCEg AND FATE . ..,... .,. 11 COLIFORMBACTERIA I .... 11 SOURCES AND FATE OF TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA . ,.. L2 SOURCES AND FATE OF FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA . , , . 13 I NUTRIENTS A NITROGENSOURCESAND FATE .. ......., . !4 I PHOSPHOROUSSOURCESANDFATE.. 15 TURBIDITY .. -. 15 METAI.SSOURCESANDFATE T ... 16 WATER QUALITY DATA INVENTORY . 7.7 COLIFORMBACTERIA .... i t WATERTREATMENTPLANTINTAKECOLIFORMDATA. ..... 17 WATERSHEDCOLIFORMDATA E WATERCHEMISTRYDATA I ........ 19 CREEKFLOWDATA... 19 ANALYSIS ...... 20 I CoLIFORM ....... n I Page i I I TREATMENT PLANT RAW WATER INTAKE TOTAL COLIFORM DATA . 21 I WATERSHEDCOLIFORMDATA . i NUTRIENTSANDTURBIDITY ............23 DISSOLVED METAIS & PHYSICAL DATA 4 t SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS..... ..... 24 I CIIAPTER 3 Watersheil lurtsdiction anil Ozonerchip . ........ 29 WATERSHEDJURISDICTIONANDOWNERSHIP ..... P A.SALTLAKECITYWATERSHEDAUTHORITY .......29 I 1. Utah Constitution ,2 2. State l.egislation ...........30 I 3. Federal Legisl,ation . !1 4. SaIt Lake City Watershed Ordin.mces .. ....... 31 B.SALTLAIGCOUNryLAND-USECONTROTS .. ............ 32 I 1. Zoning A 2. Site Plan Approval .. .... .. 34 I C.SALTLAKECITY{OUNTYHEALTH DEPARTMENT, ....... 35 D. USDAFORESTSERVICE 35 1. Forest Management and Planning ... ......,,. 36 I 2. Coordination with Salt Lake City E E. METROIIOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE CIry . 39 t F.TOWNOFALTA P G.SANDYCITY ...,.......40 H. JORDANVALLEY WATERCONSERVANCY DISTRICT . .... .. .. & I I. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES . 4 J. MAJOR PLANS AND STUDIES INTHE CANYONWATERSHED AREA . 43 I 1. Wasatch4ache National Forest Land and Resource Managenrent Plan ... ...... 43 2. Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan, 1988 ... ............ 43 T 3. Salt Lake County Planning Division Plans and Studies ........... M K.LANDOWNERSHIPSTATUS ... 45 I 1. City Creek Canyon . ............45 2. Red ButteCanyon & 3. Emigration Canyon . t 4. ParleysCanyon .. A 5. Millcreek Canyon ..... .....48 I 6. Neffs Canyon 49 7. Big Cottonwood Canyon ............ r18 t Page ii I I I I 8. Little Cottonwood Canyon. ..........49 L. LAND EXCHANGE . .- . .. 50 M. PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RIGHTS AND WATERSHED PURCHASE I ........50 I CIIAPTER 4 Changes in the Watercheil ........,.,. 53 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES SINCE THE 1988 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN 53 A.LITTLEDELLRESERVOIR E I B. GROWTH ON THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE WATERSHED . ., . 53 I CIIAPTER 5 Recontmenilations ...., .....Ss TNTRODUCTION ..... 55 A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW POLICY . .. .. 55 I B. WATERSHED EDUCATION Y 1. Watershed Education . .,.,,52 I 2. Current watershed signage is not effective in linking hurrran activities to impacts on water quality ,......61 3, Maintenance of existing partrcfships ... ....... 63 I 4. Lack of parhrerships to aide in watershed education efforts. ...... 64 C. DISPERSEDRECREATION A I 1. Dispersed recreation may adversely impact water quality, . ....... 64 2. Facility (restrooms, parking lots, picnic and camping sites) avaitability, operatior! location, and maintenance may impact water I quality. ....... 67 3, Mountain biking off tra;ls or on trails that are not designed for I mountain biking contributes to watershed degradation. 62 4. Unexpected fufure recreation activities/trends must be addressed. 69 D. LAND USE/COMMERCIAL AND RESTDENTiAL DEVELOPMENT . 69 I 1. Commercial development in the watershed may impact water quality. .. ....... 69 2. There is a lack of inspectors to monitor all development issues. 73 I E.LANDUSE/MINING. ...........74 1. Mining activities may impact water quality. ............74 I F.LANDUSE/GRAZING... ........76 1. Grazing in the watershed. re I G.LANDACQUISITION ............76 1. Increase funding of the Public Ut ities Watershed and Water Rights t PurchaseFund. ...,....76 I I I 2. Use of Innovative Land Use Control Strategies. ......... T7 I H. WATERRIGHTS .... ........., ,79 1. Protection of cu:rent water rights. ........79 2, Acquisition of water stock. ..........7g I 3. Irrigation Exchange Contracts. .,..... g0 4. Currently not ut:lizing Millcreek as a culinary source of water . - . 80 I 5. Water conservation. .......g0 I. PARTNERSHIPS .... 81 1. Maintain existing parbrerships. ...... ..,....., gL t 2. Form new partnerships, .. .........,. g2 3. Lack of parbrerships to further augment watershed management . gS I J. CANYON GARBAGE DISPOSAL AND OTHER SERVICES . 84 1. Current garbage disposal may affect water quality. g4 K.WATERQUALIry... ............85 I 1. Water quality monitoring. ...........8S 2. Water qua_lity in the watershed ........ C6 I 3. Zoning regulations. ...... gg 4.Watershedprotection/enforcement ............ g9 L.FIREMANAGEMENTPLAN ......90 I CANYONBYCANYONRECOMMENDATIONS .,... gI I A. CITYCREEKCANYON .......... 91 1. City Creek Master Plan ..... 97 2. Funding of City Creek Canyon ....... gz I 3. Construction of an amphitheater ...... 92 4. Altemate bike and car days ..........93 t B.REDBUTTECANYON . ..........93 1. Canyon Management . ......93 2. Increasein dogs and trespassers ...... ........94 I B.EMIGRATIONCANYON .........94 1. Relatively Poor Water euality ........94 I 2. Access to Red Butte Canyon . ...... 95 D.PARLEYSCANYON . ............95 1. Management of Little Dell Reservoir ..... .....95 I 2. Management of Mountain Dell Golf Course .. , . .. ,,.. 96 3. City picnic facilities in Affleck Park .. ......... 96 I 4. Fishing regulations . ....... gz E.MILLCREEKCANYON .,,......,.97 1. Current poliry goveming dogs and horses in the canyon . , , . 97 I I I I I F.BIGCOTTONWOODCANYON ............98 1. Dog permit system . .....98 2. Road management . ...........9E I 3, Back country permits . ......99 4. Skiing Interconnect . 99 I 5. Guardsman Pass .. ........p G.LITTLECOTTOI\WOODCANYON .......100 1. Town of Alta's dog permit system ... ........ 1@ I 2. Dog permit system . .....100 3. Road rnanagement ........101 I 4. Back Country Permits . ..... i.01 5. Skiing htercormect . ...........102 I ENDNOTES ....103 I APPENDD(A References . .. - - luJ I APPENDD(B Existing Docunrents Relating to the Plan Area . .....IO7 I APPENDD(C List of Preparers .........109 I BEARWESTCONSULTINGTEAM..... ,..,,1O' HANSENALLEN&LUCEINC. ....109 I PUBLICAGENCYWORKINGGROUP ...... .. 1q9 SALTLAKECITYDEPARTMENTOFPUBLICUTILITIES. ...... 110 SALT I/.KE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE . 110 t SALTLAKECITYPLANNINGCOMMISSION ....,...110 SALTLAKECITYCOUNCIL Ul I APPENDD(D I Summary of Public Comments and Responses ...... ......... 113 APPENDXE I 1991 Canyon Surplus Water Sales Ordinance ......... 139 APPENDD( F I Salt Lake City/US Forest Service Memorandum of Underst"oding . 747 I Page v I t APPENDIXG t Average Daily Traffic in the Watershed . 147 APPENDD(H I Housing Units in The Plan Area ..... L49 APPENDD(I I Glossary .... .. 1S3 I APPENDIXJ Water Quality Data .... ..........1.52 I Tables Table 1 I Fecal Coliform Contribution Per Capita From Hunan Beings And Some Admats ........13 I Table 2 Heavy Metals ............16 Table 3 I Treatment Plant Intake Coliform Period of Record . 1g Table 4 I Watershed Coliform Sampling Locations . ............ 1g Table 5 Total Coliforrn Statistics Summary ........... 20 I Table 6 Treatment Plant Raw Water Total Coliform I Years With Significantly Higher Means . .....27 Table 7 Watershed Data Total Coliforn Years Wilh T Significantly Higher Means ........22 Table 8 I Grab Sample Ammonia Data Above 4day Average 3a Use Standards .........23 Table 9 I Dissolved Metals And Physical Data Exceedences of State Water Quality Standards For 3a Cold Water Fishery Use Classification ..........24 I Table 10 Area-wide Ownership .....45 t Page vi I I I I Table 11 City Creek Canyon l,and Ownership ........46 t Table 12 Red Butte Canyon Land Ovvnership ......... 46 Table 13 I Enrigration Canyon Land O*'nership . ...,.47 Table 14 Parleys Canyon Land Ownership . 4T I Table 15 Millcreek Canyon Land Ownership ..........118 I Table 16 Neffs Canyon Land Ownership .....48 Table 17 I Big Cottonwood Canyon Land Or+'nership ............ 49 Table 18 I Little Cottonwood Canyon Land Ownership ..........4g I I I I I I I I I I Page I I I I CHAPTER 1 I lntroduction I INTRODUCTION The seven major canyons of the Wasatch Mountains, on the east side of the SaIt Lake I Valley, provide a high quality water source for approximately 400,000 people. The Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan (L988 Watershed Management Plan) was formulated in 1988 to protect this valuable watershed. The Salt l,ake City Department of I Public Ut ities (Public Utilities), and other affected jurisdictional parties, are seeking to proactively manage this watershed by addressing issues that have arisen since the 1988 T Watershed Management Plan. To accomplish this, a planning process was initiated to develop the Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan'99 (99 Wabrshed Plan). I The area encompassed by the'99Watershed Plan includes the seven major canyons of the Wasatch Mountain Range (the Wasatch Canyons),
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dot 9596 DS1.Pdf
    Transportation Observations, Considerations and Recommendations For the Tri-Canyons Area of the Salt Lake Ranger District Wasatch-Cache National Forest (December 2006) Field investigations of the current transportation infrastructure and operating systems were conducted for the Tri-Canyons by the inter-agency Transportation Assistance Group (TAG), on behalf of the U.S. Forest Service and local stakeholders. This “TAG” report was prepared subsequent to the site visit, held November 6-9, 2006. The TAG report documents a planning charrette intended to assess not only the present status of transportation facilities, but to identify challenges and opportunities to improve system safety, capacity and performance. The TAG endeavor was facilitated and funded via the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (ATPPL) Program, as promulgated in SAFETEA – LU. “Red Snake” Traffic Congestion, Little Cottonwood Canyon Tri-Canyons: Background and Conditions The increasingly popular Tri-Canyons area in the Salt Lake Ranger District of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF) encompasses from north to south - Mill Creek Canyon (MCC), Big Cottonwood Canyon (BCC) and Little Cottonwood Canyon (LCC); and, is located to the east and immediately adjacent to the Salt Lake metropolitan region. Known as the Wasatch Front, this general region has a population of over two million and growing. The Tri-Canyons area contains three designated wilderness units and four major ski venues (Solitude and Brighton in BCC; Snowbird and Alta in LCC), all located within 30 miles of Salt Lake City. Although the four skiing/boarding facilities are private ventures, they are operated by permit within the WCNF. Further development of “recreational terrain” is severely limited and approaching build-out within the ranger district.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconnaissance of Toxic Substances in the Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah
    RECONNAISSANCE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN THE JORDAN RIVER, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH by KendalI R. Thompson U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4155 Prepared In cooperation with the SALT LAKE COUNTY DIVISION OF FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY Salt Lake City, Utah 1984 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional nformation Copies of the report can write to: be purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch 1016 Administration Building U.S. Geological Survey 1745 West 1700 South Box 25425, Federal Center Salt Lake City, Utah 84014 Lakewood, Colorado 80225 Telephone [(303) 234-5888] CONTENTS Page Abstract ................................................................ 1 Introduction ............................................................ 2 Hydrologic setting ................................................. 2 Previous studies ................................................... 4 Sampling sites ..................................................... 5 Methods ............................................................ 5 State stream-use classes and associated standards for toxic substances ................................................. 6 Toxic substances ........................................................ 6 General discussion of toxic substances that exceeded State standards in the Jordan River study area ................... 6 Distribution of toxic substances in
    [Show full text]
  • Salt Lake County Integrated Watershed Plan (2015)
    2015 Salt Lake County Integrated Watershed Plan Update to the 2009 Salt Lake Countywide Water Quality Stewardship Plan This page is intentionally blank. 2015 Salt Lake County Integrated Watershed Plan 2015 Salt Lake County Integrated Watershed Plan Update to the 2009 Salt Lake Countywide Water Quality Stewardship Plan Published September 2016 Prepared By: Salt Lake County Watershed Planning & Restoration 2001 South State Street, Suite N3-120 Salt Lake City, UT 84190 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2825 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84121 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Water quality and watershed issues are complex, multi-faceted, and at times contradictory. Establishing and maintaining effective stewardship requires cooperation between local municipal governments, stakeholder groups, and various management and regulatory agencies. It is only with continued cooperation that we will collectively improve water quality and watershed health in Salt Lake County. Our thanks go to the numerous individuals and organizations that supported and contributed to the development of this plan as critical thinkers, technical experts, and reviewers. In particular, we thank Mayor Ben McAdams and Salt Lake County Council for their continued support of environmental stewardship and integrated watershed planning. Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams Administration, Flood Control Engineering, Township Services, Parks and Recreation, Salt Lake County Health Department Salt Lake County Council Jim Bradley, Arlyn Bradshaw, Max Burdick, Steve DeBry, Sam Granato, Michael
    [Show full text]
  • Ski Resorts in the Usa Permiting Skibikes by State but Always Call Ahead and Check
    SKI RESORTS IN THE USA PERMITING SKIBIKES BY STATE BUT ALWAYS CALL AHEAD AND CHECK ALASKA 2 RESORT NAME RENT SKIBIKES WEBSITE NUMBER EMAIL ARCTIC VALLEY NO http://arcticvalley.org/ 907-428-1208 [email protected] RESTRICTIONS: Open Access - Foot Traffic Open Access - Requirements - leash, metal edges, Skibike inspection, Sundays only EAGLECREST SKI AREA NO http://www.skijuneau.com/ 907-790-2000 [email protected] RESTRICTIONS: The Skibike be outfitted with a brake or retention device and that the user demonstrates they can load and unload the lift safely and without requiring the lift be stopped ARIZONA 3 RESORT NAME RENT SKIBIKES WEBSITE NUMBER EMAIL ARIZONA SNOWBOWL YES http://www.arizonasnowbowl.com/ 928-779-1951 [email protected] RESTRICTIONS: Skibike insp-check in at ski school to check your Skibike-Can't ride the park-Skibike riders are considered skiers & shall understand & comply with the same rules as skiers & snowboarders-A Skibike is considered a person & lifts will be loaded accordingly NOTES: They rent Sledgehammer's and Tngnt's MT. LEMMON SKI VALLEY YES http://www.skithelemmon.com/ 520-576-1321 [email protected] SUNRISE PARK RESORT YES http://sunriseskiparkaz.com/ 855-735-7669 [email protected] RESTRICTIONS: Licence required - Equipment inspection - Restricted access - Chairlift leash required NOTES: Rent SkiByk & Sledgehammer CALIFORNIA 10 RESORT NAME RENT SKIBIKES WEBSITE NUMBER EMAIL BADGER PASS NO https://www.travelyosemite.com 209-372-1000 [email protected] BEAR VALLEY MOUNTAIN YES http://www.bearvalley.com/ 209-753-2301 [email protected] RESTRICTIONS: Open Access. Must have a leash/tether from the Skibike to the rider Page 1 of 13 PRINTED: 11/12/2020 DONNER SKI RANCH YES http://www.donnerskiranch.com/home 530-426-3635 [email protected] RESTRICTIONS: Possibly leash and signed waiver required - Open Access - Foot Traffic Open Access HEAVENLY VALLEY SKI RESORT YES http://www.skiheavenly.com/ 775-586-7000 [email protected] RESTRICTIONS: Leash required at all times.
    [Show full text]
  • Rockport Utah a Brief History and Photographs of Homes
    ROCKPORT UTAH A BRIEF HISTORY AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF HOMES Edited and Compiled by Thomas E. Brown FORWARD Several years ago I was asked to speak at sacrament meeting program in the Peoa Ward. The Peoa members of the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers had planned the program and I was asked to speak about the pioneers in the valley. Since no one specifically asked me to speak about Peoa, I focused my remarks on my hometown of Rockport. Days were spent researching the subject. Books and documents in my possession provided a base, but additional information was needed. Much time was spent at the Church Historical Department reviewing documents and soon enough information had been collected to fill the assignment. After the meeting, several friends asked for copies of the talk. The information was not typed and it needed to be put together better. All this time I had a set of wonderful photographs showing the homes in Rockport taken by Florence Siddoway Walsh Hunter years before. The photos had been shown to friends who said they would like copies. Because of the interest in both the talk and the photos, I decided to get the history typed and the photos enlarged and labeled so they could be put together in some printed form. There may be misspelled names, wrong dates, incorrect information, omissions and a host of other problems with this document. Some problems may have existed in the materials I used and some may be of my own making. This is not a complete history in any sense of the word, but I hope you find some enjoyment and satisfaction in reviewing the history and the photos just as I have.
    [Show full text]
  • Jordan River Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Study - Phase 1
    Jordan River Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Study - Phase 1 Prepared for: Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality 195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Carl Adams- Project Supervisor Hilary Arens- Project Manager Prepared by: Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC 965 South 100 West, Suite 200 Logan, Utah 84321 Stantec Consulting Inc. 3995 South 700 East, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 EPA APPROVAL DATE JUNE 5, 2013 i Jordan River TMDL Jordan River – 1 (UT16020204-001) Waterbody ID Jordan River – 2 (UT16020204-002) Jordan River – 3 (UT16020204-003) Parameter of Concern Dissolved Oxygen Pollutant of Concern Total Organic Matter Class 3B Protected for warm water species of game fish and aquatic life, including the necessary Impaired Beneficial Use aquatic organisms in their food chain. Loading Assessment Current Load 2,225,523 kg/yr Total Organic Matter Loading Capacity 1,373,630 kg/yr or 3,763 kg/day Total Organic Matter (38% reduction) Load capacity based on OM concentrations that result in DO model endpoint of 5.5 mg/L, Margin of Safety including 1.0 mg/L implicit MOS added to the instantaneous DO water quality standard of 4.5 mg/L. Bulk Load Allocation 684,586 kg/yr Total Organic Matter (35% reduction) Bulk Waste Load 689,044 kg/yr Total Organic Matter (41% reduction) Allocation Defined Total OM load to lower Jordan River (kg/yr) <= 1,373,630 kg/yr Targets/Endpoints Dissolved Oxygen => 4.5 mg/L Nonpoint Pollutant Utah Lake, Tributaries, Diffuse Runoff, Irrigation Return Flow, Groundwater Sources
    [Show full text]
  • Park City, Utah 8.37 Acre Commercial Development Parcel Entitled for Five Multi-Use Buildings Totalling 209,990 Sf Gross 122,432 Sf Leasable/ Salable
    PARK CITY, UTAH 8.37 ACRE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PARCEL ENTITLED FOR FIVE MULTI-USE BUILDINGS TOTALLING 209,990 SF GROSS 122,432 SF LEASABLE/ SALABLE Offered by: RONALD J. SHARP & ASSOCIATES Robert Holmes Associate Broker [email protected] • 435.640.6367 Kahrin Holmes [email protected] • 435.640.5370 Sales Price $8,100,000 LAND 8.37 Acre Development Parcel $22.22 / SF Gross Land Area $48.09 / SF Developable Land Area IMPROVEMENTS Recently approved entitlements for residential and commercial development of 5 buildings totaling 209,991 square feet gross/122,432 square feet leasable. $38.57/SF Gross Building Area $66.16/SF Net Leasable Area WATER 38.38 Shares (ERC’s) of Mountain Regional Water available for $403,489.00 ($10,513.00/ERC) I-80 (APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE) HWY 40 TO I-80 BLDG. D PARK CITY STORAGE BLDG. B HWY 40 UNDERGROUND PARKING DRIVE-THRU BLDG. A SILVER CREEK BUSINESS PARK UNDERGROUND PARKING BLDG. E BLDG. C FRONTAGE RD. SEATTLE SALT LAKE NEW YORK CITY CITY 80 PARK CITY • Forbes Magazine released its CHICAGO annual BEST STATES FOR BUSINESS AND CAREERS ranking Utah #1 for the 3rd SAN HEBER consecutive year. Rankings FRANCISCO CITY are based on six primary categories: business costs, PROVO PHOENIX economic climate, growth SAN prospects, labor, quality of life DIEGO ATLANTA and regulatory environment. DALLAS • Utah was named the TOP STATE FOR ECONOMIC 70 OUTLOOK for the 5th ORLANDO consecutive year by ALEC- Laffer State Economic Index; FLIGHT TIMES “Rich States, Poor States.” for SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT: Business Facilities Magazine ATLANTA ...............................3:40 HRS ORLANDO ............................4:20 HRS SAN DIEGO ..........................1:54 HRS 15 • ranked Utah #1 overall for its CHICAGO ..............................3:01 HRS PHOENIX ..............................1:31 HRS SAN FRANCISCO ..............1:42 HRS DALLAS ..................................2:30 HRS NEW YORK ..........................4:27 HRS SEATTLE ...............................1:54 HRS PRO-BUSINESS CLIMATE.
    [Show full text]
  • Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003
    Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003 Weber River Project, Summit County, Utah Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah September 2009 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003 Weber River Project, Summit County, Utah Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office Contact Person W. Russ Findlay Provo Area Office 302 East 1860 South Provo, Utah 84606 801-379-1084 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah September 2009 Contents Page Chapter 1 – Need for Proposed Action and Background.................................. 1 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Dam Safety Program Overview............................................................ 1 1.2.1 Safety of Dams NEPA Compliance Requirements..................... 2 1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action...................................... 2 1.4 Description of Echo Dam and Reservior .............................................. 2 1.4.1 Echo Dam.................................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Echo Reservoir............................................................................ 5 1.4.3 Normal Operations.....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Big Cottonwood Canyon
    Chapter 11: Big Cottonwood Canyon Big Cottonwood Canyon was formed by glaciers. According to the Cottonwoods Canyon Foundation, two large glaciers broke loose from the top of the canyon. Both carved large swaths creating the canyon, until they ran into one another. From this point, the rest of the canyon was carved from the stream created by the melting of these two glaciers. You can see where the two glaciers collided­­ the canyon becomes more narrow and winding from that point down. Big Cottonwood Canyon is 15 miles long, holds two ski resorts: Brighton and Solitude. Primarily publicly owned, the canyon is managed by the Forest Service. Big Cottonwood Creek runs down canyon, and during winter, partially freezes and takes on the gorgeous cloak of snow pillows, hoar frost, ice crystals, and sheets of ice. HOW TO GET THERE: From Salt Lake City take I­15 South to I­80 East to Belt Loop­215 South and then follow the signs to the Brighton and Solitude Ski Resorts, Exit 6. Drive east on 6200 south and the road will become Wasatch Boulevard. Follow Wasatch Boulevard south to an intersection with Fort Union Boulevard (7200 South). The intersection is located 1.7 miles after exiting I­215.There is a park­and­ ride lot at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon for carpooling or catching the bus if you don’t wish to hassle with driving and parking. All mileage is taken from the intersection of Wasatch Boulevard and Fort Union Boulevard—locally known as the “Mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon”.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Water in Utah's Densely Populated Wasatch Front Area the Challenge and the Choices
    Ground Water in Utah's Densely Populated Wasatch Front Area the Challenge and the Choices United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2232 Ground Water in Utah's Densely Populated Wasatch Front Area the Challenge and the Choices By DON PRICE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2232 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1985 For sale by the Branch of Distribution U.S. Geological Survey 604 South Pickett Street Alexandria, VA 22304 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Price, Don, 1929- Ground water in Utah's densely populated Wasatch Front area. (U.S. Geological Survey water-supply paper ; 2232) viii, 71 p. Bibliography: p. 70-71 Supt. of Docs. No.: I 19.13:2232 1. Water, Underground Utah. 2. Water, Underground Wasatch Range (Utah and Idaho) I. Title. II. Series. GB1025.U8P74 1985 553.7'9'097922 83-600281 PREFACE TIME WAS Time was when just the Red Man roamed this lonely land, Hunted its snowcapped mountains, its sun-baked desert sand; Time was when the White Man entered upon the scene, Tilled the fertile soil, turned the valleys green. Yes, he settled this lonely region, with the precious water he found In the sparkling mountain streams and hidden in the ground; He built his homes and cities; and temples toward the sun; But without the precious water, his work might not be done. .**- ste'iA CONTENTS Page Preface ..................................................... Ill Abstract ................................................... 1 Significance Ground water in perspective ................................ 1 The Wasatch Front area Utah's urban corridor ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Short-Term?" Short-Term Projects for the Committee to Explore and Plan For
    What constitutes "short-term?" Short-term projects for the committee to explore and plan for: Achievable projects within 2 years Cottonwood Canyon rental car snow-tire policy change, Trails improvement projects, Trailhead bathrooms, Mass transit improvements and incentives, Trailhead parking Achievable projects within 1 year, Achievable Cottonwood Canyon rental car snow-tire projects within 2 years, Achievable projects policy change, Increased police enforcement within 3 years for snow-tires in the Cottonwood Canyons, Trails improvement projects, Trailhead bathrooms, Mass transit improvements and incentives, Trailhead parking, Communication Program Achievable projects within 2 years Trails improvement projects, Trailhead bathrooms Achievable projects within 2 years, I'm not Cottonwood Canyon rental car snow-tire sure if it's a time frame that defines "short policy change, Increased police enforcement term" as it is the principle that a project is for snow-tires in the Cottonwood Canyons, well-defined. So: no planning projects, Additional snow removal vehicles to improve hopefully nothing terribly controversial for roads, Increased traffic control vehicles, stakeholders, hopefully providing some PR Trails improvement projects, Trailhead value. bathrooms, Mass transit improvements and incentives, Trailhead parking Achievable projects within 2 years Cottonwood Canyon rental car snow-tire policy change, Increased police enforcement for snow-tires in the Cottonwood Canyons, Additional snow removal vehicles to improve roads, Increased traffic
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Morgan County, Utah Centennial County History Series
    610 square miles, more than 90 percent of which is privately owned. Situated within the Wasatch Mountains, its boundaries defined by mountain ridges, Morgan Countyhas been celebrated for its alpine setting. Weber Can- yon and the Weber River traverse the fertile Morgan Valley; and it was the lush vegetation of the pristine valley that prompted the first white settlers in 1855 to carve a road to it through Devils Gate in lower Weber Canyon. Morgan has a rich historical legacy. It has served as a corridor in the West, used by both Native Americans and early trappers. Indian tribes often camped in the valley, even long after it was settled by Mormon pioneers. The southern part of the county was part of the famed Hastings Cutoff, made notorious by the Donner party but also used by Mormon pioneers, Johnston's Army, California gold seekers, and other early travelers. Morgan is still part of main routes of traffic, including the railroad and utility lines that provide service throughout the West. Long known as an agricultural county, the area now also serves residents who commute to employment in Wasatch Front cities. Two state parks-Lost Creek Reservoir and East A HISTORY OF Morgan COUY~Y Linda M. Smith 1999 Utah State Historical Society Morgan County Commission Copyright O 1999 by Morgan County Commission All rights reserved ISBN 0-913738-36-0 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 98-61320 Map by Automated Geographic Reference Center-State of Utah Printed in the United States of America Utah State Historical Society 300 Rio Grande Salt Lake City, Utah 84 101 - 1182 Dedicated to Joseph H.
    [Show full text]