DOCSLIB.ORG

Plan 6: New Waddell • Cliff+ Roosevelt+ Reconstructed Stewart

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

What is Plan 6? Chart 8 Plan 6: New Waddell ➔• Cliff+ Roosevelt+ Reconstructed Stewart Mtn. Dam ~ $£a/lf£f't.AC£11£NT . ~ COIU£1fVATIO#/lf.S. ■ l'l.000 CO#TlfOI. □ $U/fCHAlf•£ t:A~r,no l'l.000 CO#TlftH. PLAN 6: (1) New Waddell (2) New or Enlarged Roosevelt (3) Cliff (4) Reconstructed Stewart Mountain Plan 6, selected by Interior Secretary Watt as the CAWCS proposed action, calls for construction of New Waddell, CJiff, and Roosevelt Dams and reconstruction of Stewart Mountain Dam for safety reasons. New Waddell Dam would be constructed on the Agua Fria River, one-quarter mile down­ stream from the existing Waddell Dam, for regulatory storage purposes and would include a hydropower generation plant. The dam would be connected to the Granite Reef Aqueduct by a four-mile long canal and a pumping plant. Cliff Dam would be constructed on the Verde River between the existing Horseshoe and Bartlett Dams, and a New or En­ larged Roosevelt Dam would be constructed on the Salt River. Both dams would provide flood control, ad ditional water con­ servation, and hydropower, and would solve SOD problems. At Roosevelt, dual use of the sediment pool (241,000 acre-feet) could provide increased water supply for an interim period. This space plus the new conservation space at Cliff could be used for conservation to increase the CAP yield. A pumping plant would be required at or near the Granite Reef Diver­ sion Dam to deliver water to the Salt-Gila Aqueduct. New hydropower generation plants would be constructed at Cliff and Roosevelt. - 1 - Conceptual recreation plans have been developed for each of the structures in this plan. Under Plan 6, the CAP yield would be increased by 143,000 acre-feet per year through regulatory storage at New Wad­ dell, dual use of the sediment pool at Roosevelt, and new conservation space at Cliff. Dedicated flood control space at Cliff and Roosev~lt would reduce the 200-year flood (275,000 cfs) to 92,000 cfs at the airport and the 100-year event (215,000 cfs) to 55,000 cfs at the airport. Total construction cost of Plan 6 is $746 million and the benefit/cost ratio is 1.33. Costs and benefits of the plan may change with refined operating criteria. 2) Who selected Plan 6? In November 1981, the Secretary of the Interior (Watt) se­ lected Plan 6 as the agency proposed action. His selection was based on the Plan's strong local support, its functional ability to statutory obligations required by the authorizing legislation, and the fact that the severe impacts to the Fort McDowell Indian community associated with some plans were avoided. 3 ) Who prepared Plan 6? Plan 6 was recommended as the proposed action to the Secre­ tary of the Interior by the Central Arizona Water Control Study (CAWCS). CAWCS was established in 1978 by the Bureau of Reclamation in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a result of major flooding in central Arizona. 4) What planning process did CAWCS use in arriving at Plan 6? The Central Arizona Water Control Study c6nducted a three­ stage planning process. Stage 1 - Identified the problems, needs, and issues. ELEMENTS Stage 2 - Shifted from problem identification to SYSTEMS formulation and testing of alternative solutions. Elements from Stage 1 were screened to achieve the best elements. These were then combined into systems which provided flood control and regulatory storage. - 2 - Stage 3 - The Bureau widened the focus of the study to PLANS include safety of Dams (SOD) as a major ob ­ jective. The systems developed during Stage 2 were next analyzed at a greater level of detail and combined into plans. All plans included 1) flood control, 2) regulatory storage, 3) safety of dams. Seven plans were studied by CAWCS based on the following cat­ egories: performance (ability to meet study objectives), economics, environmental im ­ pacts, social impacts, and public acceptability. 5 ) What did the study determine to be the advantages and disad ­ vantages of Plan 6? ADVANTAGES Significant Increase in CAP Yield High Level of Flood Protection Solves Dam Safety Problems Highest Increase in Power Revenues and Other Economic Benefits · Provides Reliable Water Supply Provides Flexible CAP Operations Significant Increase in Lake Recreation No Impacts to Fort McDowell Indian Community Insignificant Impacts to Endangered Species Strong, Broad-Based Public Support DISADVANTAGES High Cost Adverse Impacts to Riparian Habitat and Cultural Resources 6) What are the estimated costs for Plan 6? ALLOCATION OF THE COSTS OF PLAN 6 IN 1985 DOLLARS $ MILLIONS 1. Cliff Dam $ 385 A. Safety of Dams $ ( 140) B. Flood Control $ (220) C. Conservation Storage $ ( 2 5 ) 2. Roosevelt Dam $ 255 A. Safety of Dams $ ( 9 5 ) B. Flood Control $ ( 143) C. Conservation Storage $ ( 1 7 ) - 3 3. New Waddell $ 460 A. Safety of Dams B. Flood Control c. Conservation Storage $ (460) Totals $ 1,100 A. Safety of Dams (235) B. Flood Control (363) C. Conservation Storage (502) An additional $70 million is necessary for Safety of Dams im­ provements at Stewart Mountain, Horse Mesa, Mormon Flat and Bartlett Dams. 7. CAWCS studied all plans based on three elements: 1) flood control, 2) regulatory storage, 3) safety of dams. 7.a. What does Plan 6 mean in terms of flood control? FLOOD CONTROL The authority to develop flood control plans and operation criteria by the Corps for CAWCS is provided by the Flood Control Act of 1944-Section 7. The Problem: When rain or snow falls on the land, four dif­ ferent things can happen: The water can evaporate, or it can soak into the ground, or it can stay on the surface as snow or ice, or it can run over the ground and into streams. Water that runs over the ground and into streams is called runoff. The area or region from which the rainfall or snow­ melt drains to a stream is called a watershed. Floods occur when water in a stream rises and overflows into normally dry land. The Phoenix area can be viewed as being situated at the narrow end of a large funnel fed by the Salt, Verde, and Agua Fria watersheds. The Salt-Verde watershed drains through Phoenix and includes almost 13,000 square miles above the confluence of the two rivers. Floods occur in the Phoenix area when there is a large volume of runoff in the watersheds of the Salt, Verde, and/ or Agua Fria Rivers. The runoff is caused by several kinds of conditions. For example, warm rains can cause rapid snowmelt in the high country, and this leads to excessive runoff. Rain which falls on soil already wet from an ear­ lier storm becomes runoff because the soil has reached its capacity to absorb water. The major cause of the 1978, 1979, and 1980 floods was the large amount of precipitation that fell on the watersheds during winter storms. - 4 - Historically, the highest flows in the area's rivers have been produced by winter storms. The "flood of record" on the Salt- Verde system occurred in February 1981 when a peak flow of 300,000 ft3/s was recorded at the Salt-Verde con­ fluence. Recent peak flows measured at the confluence were 122,000 ft3/s in March 1978, 140,000 ft3/s in December 1978, and 170,000 ft3/s in February 1980. The SRP dams and reservoirs upstream on the Salt and Verde Rivers have reduced peak flows through Phoenix. The SRP system of six dams and reservoirs was constructed primarily for water conservation, but it also provides hydropower and incidental flood control. During some years, the SRP reser­ voirs are filled to capacity toward the end of the annual runoff season and consequently there is little or no space ion the system for flood control. However, the two reser­ voirs on the Verde and four on the Salt can reduce peak flows if storage space is available. According to SRP, peak flows in the February storm were reduced by approximately one-third through use of storage space in the upstream reservoirs. The storage space in the SRP system is not evenly divided between the Salt and Verde Rivers. Approximately 85 percent of the 2,063,900 acre-feet of storage in the system is pro­ vided on the Salt River. As might be expected from this, a disproportionate share of the water from recent floods was emanated from .the Verde River. FLOOD CONTROL DAMS Dams constructed for flood control have space dedicated specifically for storing and controlling flood waters. Large outlets at the bottom of the dam allow controlled releases of incoming flow. Up to a design flow (maximum "acceptable" flow), everything coming into the reservoir goes out -- inflow equals outflow. Inflows over that ac­ ceptable amount can be stored in space dedicated (kept em­ pty) for that purpose and released later at a less damaging rate, until the flood storage space is again empty. To il­ lustrate, if the design flood flow is 80,000 ft3/s, then the outlets at the bottom of the dam would be sized to 80,000 ft3/s. During a flood, inflow would equal outflow up to that point, and from then on, flow would be released steadi­ ly at 80,000 ft3/s. Inflow greater than 80,000 ft3/s (the peak) would be stored. Water would be released until the water in the flood storage space is gone and the space is again available for the next flood. In the case of Plan 6, Cliff and Roosevelt are designed to control the Standard Project Flood of 295,000 ft3/s to 50,000 ft3/s through Phoenix.
Recommended publications
  • CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX

    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX

    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE PHOENIX AMA Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Brown and Caldwell Project No. 23481.001 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 9 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE ....................................................................
  • The Central Arizona Project

    The Central Arizona Project

    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short 1982 Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10) 6-9-1982 The Central Arizona Project Jon Kyl Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/new-sources-of-water-for-energy- development-and-growth-interbasin-transfers Part of the Agriculture Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Contracts Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Hydrology Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Transportation Law Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Kyl, Jon, "The Central Arizona Project" (1982). New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10). https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/new-sources-of-water-for-energy-development-and-growth-interbasin- transfers/21 Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. Jon Kyl, The Central Arizona Project, in NEW SOURCES OF WATER FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH: INTERBASIN TRANSFERS (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 1982). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School.
  • The Salt River – by Elly – Summer 2016

    The Salt River – by Elly – Summer 2016

    The Salt River – by Elly – Summer 2016 After living in Arizona for many years, I only recently discovered the pleasure of kayaking and tubing. So far, I have been on the river below Saguaro Lake, on Saguaro Lake, and on Canyon Lake; the other two lakes created in the Salt River, Apache and Roosevelt Lakes, (hopefully) remain to be explored. The Rio Salado, or Salt River, was dammed between the early 1900s and 1930s to provide water and electricity to the Phoenix area, and later served recreational needs. The first dam to be constructed was Roosevelt so my description goes from the `younger’ to the `older’ lakes. Some of my information on the river comes from here. The Four Lakes of the Salt River, from left to right: Saguaro, Canyon, Apache, and Roosevelt The Salt River flows into the Gila River to the West of Phoenix and the Gila contributes to the Colorado, near Yuma, in the Southwest of Arizona. This river is supposed to end in the Gulf of California but rarely has enough water (see here). The ecological impact of dams has been huge. Edward Abbey and others are famous for having suggested Monkey Wrenches to sabotage the plans for the dams in the West. There is always talk of restoring the natural flow in the river; see here. Apart from the ecological impact on bird populations, salinization, and silting, the politics behind dams is ugly. The 1972 Damming the West details the lobbying of the Bureau of Reclamation to keep new projects going even though there was no (agricultural) need for them.
  • Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects

    Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects

    REC-ERC-SO-1 January 1990 Denver Office U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of Reclamation TECHNICAL REEPORT STANDARD TITLE PAG 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG ~0. 5. REPORT DATE Compilation Report on the Effects January 1990 of Reservoir Releases on 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Downstream Ecosystems D-3742 7. AUTHOR(S) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION E. Cheslak REPORT NO. J. Carpenter REC-ERC-90-1 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Denver CO 80225 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DIBR 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado. Ed: RDM 16. ABSTRACT Most of the dams built by the Bureau of Reclamation were completed before environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act, or Toxic Substances Control Act existed. The management and operation of dams was instituted under conditions where the ecology of the downstream habitat was unknown and largely ignored. Changing or modifying structures, flow regimes, and land use patterns are some of the efforts being pursued by the Bureau to reconcile or mitigate the effects of impoundment to comply with these environmental policies and to maximize the potential for recreation, fisheries, and water quality in tailwater habitats for the water resource users. The purpose of this report is to provide a reference document intended to aid in the management, compliance, and problem solving processes necessary to accomplish these goals in Bureau tailwater habitats.
  • Geologic Report of the Stewart Mountain

    Geologic Report of the Stewart Mountain

    GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE STEWART MOUNTAIN QUADRANGLE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZO~A by Steven J. Skotnicki and Robert S. Leighty Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-12 July, 1997 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 Includes 19 page text and 1:24,000 scale geologic map Partially funded by the Arizona Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey STATEMAP Program Contract # 1434-HQ-96-AG-01474. This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards INTRODUCTION This map depicts both the bedrock geology and the general ages and distribution of Late Tertiary and Quaternary deposits and geomorphic surfaces in the Stewart Mountain quadrangle (see Figure 1). The Salt River, re-emerging from Saguaro Lake, slices through the middle of the study area where it separates granite pediment and felsic volcanic rocks of the Usery and Goldfield Mountains (respectively) to the south, from a vast expanse of Late Tertiary basin-fill sediments to the north. Mapping of the surficial deposits was based both on field observations and interpretation of color 1:30,000-scale aerial photographs (dated 6-12-88), obtained from the Tonto National Forest in Phoenix. All of the region is administered by the Tonto National Forest. Good access to the region is provided by State Route 87, the Bush Highway, and Usery Pass Road (see Figure 2). A primitive road provides access to Bulldog Canyon, but locked gates at both ends can only be opened by obtaining a pennit from the Tonto National Forest Service field office in Mesa.
  • Mormon Flat Dam Salt River Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona

    Mormon Flat Dam Salt River Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona

    Mormon Flat Dam Salt River HAER No. AZ- 14 Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Western Region Department of Interior San Francisco, California 94102 ( ( f ' HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Mormon Flat Dam HAER No. AZ-14 Location: Mormon Flat Dam is located on the Salt River in eastern Maricopa County, Arizona. It is approximately 50 miles east of Phoenix. UTM coordinates 25 feet northeast of the dam (in feet) are: Easting 1505701.5184; Northing 12180405.3728, Zone 12. USGS 7.5 quad Mormon Flat Dam. Date of Construction: 1923-1925. Engineer: Charles C. Cragin. Present Owner: The Salt River Project. Present Use: Mormon Flat Dam is operated by the Salt River Project for the purposes of generating hydroelectic power and for storing approximately 57,000 acre feet of water for agricultural and urban uses. Significance: Mormon Flat Dam was the first dam constructed under the Salt River Project's 1920's hydroelectic expansion program. Historian: David M. Introcaso, Corporate Information Management, Salt River Project. Mormon Flat Dam HAER No. AZ-14 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Introduction 3 Chapter II The Need to Expand the Association's Hydroelectric Capacity . • . • • . 20 Chapter III The Construction of Mormon Flat Dam . 37 Chapter IV The Construction of Horse Mesa Dam 60 Chapter V Post-Construction: Additions to the Association's Hydroelectric Program and Modifications to Mormon Flat and Horse Mesa Dams 79 Chapter VI Conclusion . 105 Chapter VII Epilogue: Expansion Backlash, "Water Users Oust Cragin" . 114 Appendixes . 130 Bibliography 145 Mormon Flat Darn HAER No.
  • Central Arizona Water Control Study

    Central Arizona Water Control Study

    SUMMARY OF ELEMENTS UNDER STUDY How will flood waters be controlled gestions made by citizens at public along the Salt and Gila Rivers? How meetings or through correspondence will Central Arizona Project (CAP) with the two agencies. waters be stored for distribution in central Arizona? Solutions to these To date, the Bureau and Corps have terns will be evaluated using techni­ two critical water problems are being identified a number of structural and cal and environmental criteria. The sought by the Central Arizona Water nonstructural actions that singly or in systems that are determined to be Control Study (formerly known as the combination could provide for flood most acceptable will be studied at an Study of Alternatives for Salt-Gila control and CAP storage. These "ele­ increased !eve! of detail until a pre­ Flood Control and Regulation of CAP ments" were studied in Phase I of the ferred plan or plans can be recom­ Waters) . The U.S. Bbrnau- of Recla­ study and will be studied further in mended. Plans are combinations of mation, with assistance from the U.S. Phase II, along with additional ele systems with the addition of neces­ Army Corps of Engineers, is con­ ments that were added as a result of sary financial, institutional and oper­ ducting the study, with considerable public comment. ational arrangements. At each deci­ involvement of the public in helping sion point the public will be actively develop solutions to the problems. During Phase II, the elements will be involved. The following diagram Many of the ideas discussed in this combined into sys1ems that achieve shows the sequence of the planning summary are a direct result of sug- the goals of the study, and the sys- process.
  • A Regional Groundwater Flow Model of the Salt River Valley - Phase I

    A Regional Groundwater Flow Model of the Salt River Valley - Phase I

    SDMS DOCID#1142207 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES A REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL OF THE SALT RIVER VALLEY - PHASE I PBOEN~ AC~ MANAGEMENT AREA HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK AND BASIC DATA REPORT BY EDWIN F. CORKHILL, STEVE CORELL, BRADLEY M. HILL. and DAVID A. CARR HYDROLOGY DIVISION MODELING REPORT NO. 6 Phoenix, Arizona April, 1993 ARIZO~A DEPARTMENT OF \'1ATER RESOURCES A REGIONAL GROUND\VATER FLOW MODEL OF THE SALT RIVER VALLEY ~ PHASE I PHOENIX ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK AND BASIC DATA REPORT Final Report by Edwin Corkhilt Steve CorelL Bradley M. HilL and David A. Modeling Report No. 6 Hydrology Division - Groundwater Modeling April 1, 1 Abstract The Phoenix Active :Management Area groundwater flow model focuses on the hydrologic system of the Salt River Valley, the most intensive water use area of the state. The goal of the hydrologic study and modeling effort was to develop a quantitative tool to test various groundwater management scenarios. The predevelopment hydrologic system (circa 1900) of the Salt River Valley is analyzed. Various components of groundwater inflow and outflov,/ are identified. A predevelopment groundviater budget is presented. The total inflows and outflows were in approximate balance and equaled approximately 139J~OO acre-feet per year. The modern hydrologic system (1978-198:-1) is analyzed. The vari.ous components of groundv,:rner inflow and outflov<' are identified. Detailed descriptions of the methodologies used to analyze the components of flow are provided. A groundwater budget for the period 19/X-1 Y88 is presented. The total inflows were approximately 13.5 million acre-feet and the total outflow-, were approximately 14.0 million acre-feet The estimated decrease in the volume of groundwater in storage \\'US 0.5 rnillion acre-feet Various recommendations are provided to improve future data collection and analysis efforts.
  • Historical Overview and Limnological Reconnaissance of Theodore Roosevelt Lake, Arizona by LISA K

    Historical Overview and Limnological Reconnaissance of Theodore Roosevelt Lake, Arizona by LISA K

    Historical Overview and Limnological Reconnaissance of Theodore Roosevelt Lake, Arizona By LISA K. HAM U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 95 4053 Prepared in cooperation with the ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Tucson, Arizona 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Section Water Resources Division Box 25286, MS 517 375 South Euclid Avenue Denver Federal Center Tucson, AZ 85719-6644 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Definition of terms........................................................................................................................................ VI Abstract........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and scope................................................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgments...............................................................................................................................
  • Highways of Arizona Arizona Highways 87, 88 and 188

    Highways of Arizona Arizona Highways 87, 88 and 188

    GEOLOGIC GUIDEBOOK 4-HIGHWAYS OF ARIZONA ARIZONA HIGHWAYS 87, 88 AND 188 by Chester F. Royse, Michael F. Sheridan, andH. Wesley Peirce GEOLOGIC GUIDEBOOK 4 - HIGHWAYS OF ARIZONA ARIZONA HIGHWAYS 87, 88 AND 188 by Chester F. Royse Jr., Asst. Professor of Geology Arizona State University, Tempe Michael F. Sheridan, Asst. Professor of Geology Arizona State University, Tempe H. Wesley Peirce, Associate Geologist Arizona Bureau of Mines, Tucson Authority: ARS 27-153 (Amended 1974) THE ARIZONA BUREAU OF MINES Bulletin 184 1971 Reprinted 1974 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA TUCSON TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . 1 Purpose and Scope . 1 Location and Extent . 1 Physiographic Setting . 3 . ··;;:r·_,,"iE0 Vegetation . 6 -=-" -= Water Supply . 6 .-:::- GEOLOGIC HISTORY . 8 The Tonto and Related Basins . 8 The Superstition Volcanic Field . 13 -==­ Acknowledgements . 21 DETAILED LOGS . 21 Material contained in this Bulletin may be quoted or reproduced '-:=:1 Arizona Highway 88 . 21 without special permissionprovided appropriate acknowledgment Arizona Highway 188 . 33 is given to the source. .II=!I Arizona Highway 87 . 47 APPENDIX . 61 11=::;1 Glossary of Selected Terms . 61 -=.' References . 65 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Climatic data for stations along the route 4 2. Stratigraphic sequence in Goldfield and Superstition mountains 19 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate Page 1. Superstition Mountains . 22 2. Dome at Apache Gap . 24 3. Rhyolitic breccias - Geronimo Head Formation . 28 4. Goat Mountain . 29 5. Apache Group below Roosevelt Dam . 31 6. Scanlon Conglomerate resting on Precambrian granite . 31 7. Barnes Conglomerate overlying Pioneer Shale . 32 8. Panoramic view of the southeast abutment of Roosevelt Dam . 34 INTRODUCTION 9.
  • Managing the Flow of Rivers

    Managing the Flow of Rivers

    Managing the Flow to Better Use, Preserve Arizona's Rivers by Joe Gelt Tecumseh, Shawnee Chief, expressed bewilderment that intruding whites expected Indians to sell land. "Sell a country!" he exclaimed, "Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?" Puzzled by land ownership, Tecumseh might be doubly perplexed by efforts to manage rivers. He rightly might ask, "Are not rivers naturally animated like clouds and wind? Do not rivers respond to the same natural forces as mountains? Rivers flow; they don't follow management plans." As events turned out, the West was won; land is owned; and rivers are indeed managed to control their use. Much can be learned about a society's values from its strategies to manage and care for its rivers. An especially limited natural resource in Arizona, rivers are valued for many reasons, from practical to spiritual, from irrigation to meditation. What we choose for our rivers and for what reasons expresses as much about our culture as Tecumseh's remark tells of the Shawnee. The Need to Protect Rivers A river is managed to control its use. More specifically, river management is a strategy to promote cooperative river use among various, even competing interests, while at same time protecting a river's natural or environmental values. Pollution, dams, development, diversion, timber, grazing, mineral extraction and recreation are important river management issues. In Arizona and throughout the United States rivers increasingly are perceived as a resource in need of protection.
  • Central Arizona Project Fish Monitoring Final Annual Report

    Central Arizona Project Fish Monitoring Final Annual Report

    CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT FISH MONITORING FINAL ANNUAL REPORT SUMMARY OF SAMPLE YEAR 2010 FISH SURVEYS IN BEHALF OF A LONG‐TERM MONITORING PLAN FOR FISH POPULATIONS IN SELECTED WATERS OF THE GILA RIVER BASIN, ARIZONA Paul C. Marsh and Brian R. Kesner Submitted in partial fulfillment of Bureau of Reclamation Contract Number R09PD32013 Submitted to Robert W. Clarkson Bureau of Reclamation 6150 West Thunderbird Road Glendale, Arizona 85306‐4001 Submitted by Marsh & Associates, LLC 5016 South Ash Avenue, Suite 108 Tempe, Arizona 85282 July 12, 2011 This report summarizes fish sampling in behalf of a long‐term monitoring plan for fish populations in selected waters of the Gila River basin, Arizona, during sample year (SY) 2010 (period July 12, 2010 to January 24, 2011). Reclamation’s monitoring program is a result of several biological opinions on impacts of transportation and delivery of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water from the Colorado River at Lake Havasu to the Gila River basin. Its primary intention is to establish baseline data on the presence and distribution of non‐native fishes and to detect changes in species composition or distribution in the CAP aqueduct and selected river, stream, and canal reaches in Arizona. Protocols implemented during this monitoring are detailed by Clarkson (1996 a‐c) and Clarkson et al. (2011), and will not be reiterated in detail here. In general, streams were stratified according to geomorphology or flow characteristics, and replicate 200‐m "quantitative," fixed sampling stations were established as the source for distribution and assemblage structure data. The plan calls for electrofishing as the primary gear for this purpose, but use of other methods is encouraged if electrofishing is deemed inadequate.