DOCSLIB.ORG

Cogjm.Crsp 1956.Pdf (10.22Mb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cogjm.Crsp 1956.Pdf (10.22Mb) COLORADO RIVER Sl'ORAGE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION and INVESTIGAT I ON ACTIVITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Project Plan • • • . .. 1 Summary of Irrigation and Power Data • • . • • • 2 Appropriations Summary . • • . • • • • 3 Storage Units Under Construction . • . • • • • 4 Glen Canyon Unit. • • • • • • • • • 4 Flaming Gorge Unit 7 Navajo .Unit • • • . • . • . • . 10 Curecanti Unit . • 13 Transmission Division • • . • • • • • • • • • 17 Participating Projects Under Construction • . • • • • . • 21 Paonia . 21 Vernal Unit - Central Utah Project • • . • • • • • 24 Smith Fork . 28 Hammond . 32 Seedskadee •.•••.•••.••..• .•• 35 Florida • • • . • • • • • • • • • 40 Participating Projects Under Advance Planning . 44 Central Utah • • • • • • • • • • • • 44 Emery County • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • 48 La Barge • • 50 Lyman . • • . • • . • • 52 Silt . • . • • • • . • • • • . .• . • • 54 Participating Projects Under General Investigation • • 56 Animas - La Plata • • • • • . • • • • 56 Bostwick Park 58 Dallas Creek • . 60 Dolores • • • . 62 Fruitland Mesa • . • • • • • • • 64 Fryingpan - Arkansas • • • • . • • • • • • • • 66 Grand Mesa . • • . • • . • . • • . 68 Juniper • • • • • • • . • . • • 70 Navajo Indian Irrigation • • • • • • • 72 Opal • . • . • • • 74 San Juan - Chama. • . • • • 7 5 San Miguel . • • • • • • • • • • 77 Savery - Pot Hook . • • • 79 West Divide . • • , • . • , • • t • . 81 Ye llow Jacket • ·• • 83 UPPER COLORADO RJVER COMMISSION The information contained herein was compiled from the latest information available for the use of the P1:,ll1icipants in the special meeting held in Denver, Colorado on December 15, 1960. This booklet is for the purpose of having these data readily at hand and in a compact form. ' • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE I NTERIOR BUR EAU OF RECLAMATION COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT AND PARTICIPATING PROJE.Ct..S U O tt ~ " ~ ~ TT ___::::Z:£&£iE:.'3 5CAL! or M l·~[S NOVEMBER 1956 •,(140, .. NEW LEGEND '91 I STORAGE UNITS * PARTICIPATING PROJECTS I c. ••••• .. 1•q.... J L--· -------- - ·-·- !194 · 4 00· 18 PROJECT PLAN A plan for the Colorado River Storage project and an initial group of participating projects has been formulated by the Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with other Federal agencies and with the States of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The project report prepared in 1950 and a supplemental report prepared in 1953 were printed as House Document No. 364, 83d Congress, 2d Session. Reports on the participating projects in the initial group, supple­ mental to the 1950 report, were also completed in 1950 and 1951. Since its introduction in the 1950 report, the project plan has been subject to modifi­ cations as shown in the 1953 supplement, in the authorizing act, and in definite plan studies. Colorado River Storage Project / The various dams and reservoirs of the Colorado River Storage project will regulate the flow of the river, thus permitting an expansion of irrigation and other water use in the upper basin within the limits of the Colorado River Compact. In most instances powerplants and switchyards will be installed at the dams and transmission lines will be provided to transmit the power to load centers. Facilities will be provided as appropriate for repreation and to mitigate losses of, and improve conditions for, the pro.,. pagation of fish and wildlife. Minor flood control and other benefits, largely .6nevaluated at present, are anticipated from the storage project. The Colorado River Storage project as outlined in the 1950 report included ten storage units. Four of these were authorized for construction by the act of April 11, 1956. It is anticipated that additional units will be authorized as they become needed. The four authorized units are the Glen Canypn, Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and Curecanti. Together they will provide a,bout 34,570,000 acre-feet of reservoir capacity and about 1, 108,000 kilowatts of installed generating capacity. More than three-fourths of both capacities will be provided by the Glen Canyon unit alone. Participating Projects Participating projects are those which will consume water of th~ Upper Colorado River system for irrigation and other purposes and which will require assistance from power revenues of the storage project in the repay­ ment of irrigation costs. An initial group of 11 participating projects was authorized by the act of April 11, 1956. These include the Paonia, Smith Fork, Florida, and Silt projects in Colorado; the Pine River project exten­ sion in Colorado and New Mexico; the Hammond project in New Mexico; the Central Utah project (initial phase) and Emery County project in Utah; and the Seedskadee, La Barge, and Lyman projects in Wyoming. The Pine River project extension has been excluded from the scheduled program of development. The remaining projects combined would provide water for a total of about 346, 460 acres, including about 115; 440 acres of full service land and about 231, 020 acres of supplemental service land. -1- ) Summary of irrigation and power data Colorado River Storage Project and participating projects Average annual water Irrigable area (acres} Total SUPElY (acre-feet) Supple- reservoir Installed Increase Increase Full mental storage powerplant in useable in service service capacity capacity irrigation stream Units and Erojects land land Total (acre-feet} {kilowatts) supply depletion Storage Units Glen Canyon 28,040,000 900,000 57!5,000 Flaming Gorge 3,789,000 108,000 62 t 000 Navajo 1,709,000 39,000 Curecanti l, 032 I 000 100,000 14,000 I Subtotal 34,570,000 l, 108 1 000 §9LOOO N I participating projects Paonia, Colo. 2,230 13,070 15,300 21,000 20,100 9,820 Smith Fork, Colo 1,423 8,056 9,479 13 t 650 10,300 5,700 Florida, Colo. 5,730 13,720 19,450 40,300 25,740 13,900 Silt, Colo. 1,900 5,400 7,300 10,000 10,100 5,800 Hammond, N • W. ex. 3,900 3,900 18,500 8,970 Central Utah (initial phase), Utah, (excl. Vernal unit) 28 I 600 117, 100 145,700 1,625,700 61,000 l/157,300 177,600 11, 800 Vernal unit 14,700 14,700 37,300 17,900 15,500 Emery County, Utah 3, 600 20,500 24,100 57,000 32,400 140,000 Seedskadee, Wyo. 58,775 58,775 285,000 264,000 32,500 Lyman, Wyo. 40 I 600 40 I 600 43,000 14.r200 La Barge, Wyoming 8,000 8,000 24,300 403,290 Subtotal 114, 158 233 , 146 347r304 2 ,). 32 ,_ _950 61,0QO 613, 140 l, 094[ 290 Total 114 , 158 233,146 347,304 36,702,950 1, 169, 000 613[140 1./ In addition, an average of 48 , 800 acre-feet annually will be made available for municipal, industrial, and miscellaneous uses under the initial phase of the Central Utah project. ) Colorado River Storage Project Appropriations -.Summary 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 Sum Glen Canyon $9,325,000 $27,300,000 $47,960 ,. 000 $46,182, 825 $23 !535,000 $154,302,825 Flaming Gorge 1,300,000 4,800,000 10,098,335 12 ,-675, 000 12,000,000 40,873:335 Navajo 800,000 1,800,000 7,000,000 9,696,375 11,776,000 31,072,375 -Curecanti 1,400,000 1,400,000 Transmission Division 100,000 205,000 702, 000:. 5,318,000 6,325,.000 Subtotal 11,425,000 34,000,000 65,263,335 69,256,200 54,029,000 233,973,535 Paonia 1,000,000 3,105,375 903,000 5,008,375 Vernal 1,000,000 1,950,000 2,189,000 5,139,000 I w Smith Fork 487 ; 500 1,500,000 1,987,500 I Hammond 487,500 1,300,000 1,787,500 Seedskadee 1,320,150 2,000,000 3,320,150 Florida 750,000 750,000 Subtotal 2,000,000 7,350,525 8,642,000 17,992,525 Advance Planning 1,575,000 1,142,000 770,000 797,550 938,000 5,222,550 Slippage & Under financing -2,944,500 -2,209,000 -5,153,500 TOTAL $13,000,000 $35,142,000 $68~033,335 $74,459,775 $61,400,000 $252,035,110 COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT GLEN CANYON UNIT LOCATION: Upper Colorado River Basin--Northern Arizona in Coconino County and southeastern Utah in Kane and San Juan Counties. The dam is on the Colorado River about 4 miles south of the Arizona-Utah boundary. The reservoir will extend into southeastern Utah. AUTHORIZATION: Public Law 485, 84th Congress, 2nd Session (70 Stat. 109), approved April 11, 1956, and Public Law 85-529 (Stat. 225), approved June 2 7 , 19 60 • The primary purpose is the storage of flood flows of the Upper Colorado River and the generation of hydroelectric power. The stored water will allow compliance with the terms of the Colorado River Compact and will, by exchange, furnish an irrigation supply for the participating projects in the Upper Basin states,. In addition, there will be benefits from fish and wildlife conservation, and improved recreational opportunities and minor benefits to flood control and silt retention • COSTS (Federal) Construction Section 5 (Basin Fund) costs_!/ Glen Canyon Dam and Reservoir $ 173,236,887 Glen Canyon powerplant & switchyard 119,536,000 Protection of Rainbow Bridge 25,000,000 General Property 7 ,931,000 Total $ 325,703,887 Section 8 costs National Park Service {recreation) 15,692,000 Bureau of Sports Fisheries & Wildlife 200,000 Total 15,892,000 Grand Total $ 341,595,887 Annual Operation, Maintenance, and Replacements Bureau facilities !:/ l, 514 National Park Service (recreation) 1,532 Total 3,046 .!/ Based on current value of awarded contracts and estimated value of completion contracts at January 1960 price level, including contingencies for possible increases in price levels. V Based on 19 60 prices with replacements computed using ~ 2 7 /8 percent sinking fund • -4- COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT GLEN CANYON UNIT (Continued) DISTRIBUTION OF ALLOCATED COSTS AND REPAYMENT (Unit--$l 1 000) Section 5 (Basin Fund) Section 8 Fish & Rec- Fish & wildlife reation wildlife Irri- enhance- enhance- gation Power ment ment Total Distribution Construction costs .!/ 42 ;'643 2.73, 632 6,.38 6 15, 692 200 338, 553 Reimbursable interest during construction at 2 7 /8 percent 24,903 24,~03 Annual OM&R costs - Sec.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blue Mesa Reservoir
    BLUE MESA RESERVOIR General Information Located in Western Colorado near the town of Gunnison, Blue Mesa Reservoir is Colorado's largest body of water. Blue Mesa Dam was built in 1966 and was the first and largest of the three Aspinall Unit dams intended to store and control spring flows on the Gunnison River. Blue Mesa Reservoir is 20 miles long and is the largest Lake Trout and Kokanee salmon fishery in the United States. It lies within the Curecanti National Recreation Area. Curecanti National Recreation Area 102 Elk Creek Gunnison, CO 81230 (970) 641-2337 www.nps.gov/cure Activities Boating, fishing, boat-in, developed, and primitive camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, and wildlife viewing. Facilities Visitor center at Elk Creek, campgrounds (8), marinas (2), boat ramps, day use / picnic areas, hiking trails, and Pappy’s Restaurant. Elk Creek Complex (970) 641-0707 The Elk Creek complex is the major facility of Blue Mesa Reservoir. It features a visitor center, the main marina, Pappy's Restaurant, campground and RV dump station. Campground consists of four loops with 160 campsites, water, electric hookups (Loop D), flush and vault restrooms, and showers also available. The marina offers in and out boat launching, a store, fish tackle, gasoline, boat rentals, kayaks, canoes, SUP's and boat slips. The marina and the restaurant are only open in the summer, while the visitor center and campground are open year- round. www.nps.gov/cure/planyourvisit/camp_elk_creek.htm www.thebluemesa.com Lake Fork Marina (970) 641-3048 The marina offers in and out boat launching, a store and tackle shop, gasoline, boat rentals, boat slips and guided fishing.
    [Show full text]
  • UCRC Annual Report for Water Year 2019
    SEVENTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 2 UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION 355 South 400 East • Salt Lake City, UT 84111 • 801-531-1150 • www.ucrcommission.com June 1, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear President Biden: The Seventy-Second Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission, as required by Article VIII(d)(13) of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 (“Compact”), is enclosed. The report also has been transmitted to the Governors of each state signatory to the Compact, which include Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Arizona. The budget of the Commission for Fiscal Year 2021 (July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021) is included in this report as Appendix B. Respectfully yours, Amy I. Haas Executive Director and Secretary Enclosure 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................. 8 COMMISSIONERS .................................................................................... 9 ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS ........................................................... 10 OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION ....................................................... 10 COMMISSION STAFF ............................................................................. 10 COMMITTEES ......................................................................................... 11 LEGAL COMMITTEE ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Paper Is/Has Been Under Review for the Journal Biogeosciences (BG)
    Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Biogeosciences Discuss., 12, 6081–6114, 2015 www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/12/6081/2015/ doi:10.5194/bgd-12-6081-2015 BGD © Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License. 12, 6081–6114, 2015 This discussion paper is/has been under review for the journal Biogeosciences (BG). Dam tailwaters Please refer to the corresponding final paper in BG if available. compound the effects of reservoirs Dam tailwaters compound the effects of A. J. Ulseth and reservoirs on the longitudinal transport of R. O. Hall Jr. organic carbon in an arid river Title Page 1,2,* 2 A. J. Ulseth and R. O. Hall Jr. Abstract Introduction 1Program in Ecology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA Conclusions References 2Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA Tables Figures *now at: École Polytechniqe Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Received: 3 April 2015 – Accepted: 7 April 2015 – Published: 24 April 2015 J I Correspondence to: A. J. Ulseth ([email protected]) J I Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. Back Close Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion 6081 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Abstract BGD Reservoirs on rivers can disrupt organic carbon (OC) transport and transformation, but less is known how downstream river reaches directly below dams contribute to OC pro- 12, 6081–6114, 2015 cessing than reservoirs alone. We compared how reservoirs and their associated tail- 5 waters affected OC quantity and quality by calculating particulate (P) OC and dissolved Dam tailwaters (D) OC fluxes, and measuring composition and bioavailability of DOC.
    [Show full text]
  • TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members FROM: Alexander
    1313 Sherman Street Jared Polis, Governor Denver, CO 80203 Dan Gibbs, DNR Executive Director P (303) 866-3441 F (303) 866-4474 Rebecca Mitchell, CWCB Director TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members FROM: Alexander Funk, Agricultural Water Resources Specialist Interstate, Federal, and Water Information Section DATE: May 1, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: 9. Paonia Dam Outlet Works Modification MOA Reallocation Request Background: In 2011, the Upper Colorado River Division States (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico), the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the United States Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration, and the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) authorizing the use of the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund (Basin Fund) to further the purposes of the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Act (Public Law 485). The MOA created a mechanism for the Upper Division States to access excess hydropower revenues for operations, maintenance and replacement costs (OM&R) for congressionally authorized CRSP Participating Projects (herein “Participating Projects”) and to reduce the impact on the CRSP firm power rate by eliminating the collection of power revenues beyond that amount needed to repay the costs of the existing projects through Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) represents Colorado in the implementation of the MOA and is responsible for ongoing project evaluation and prioritization. At the March 2019 Board Meeting, the Board approved the CRSP MOA Project Budget Adjustment Guidance (attached). This document outlines the process for CWCB staff to apply when considering project budget adjustment requests moving forward. When a Participating Project has an approved project budget that requires additional CRSP MOA funds, Reclamation must obtain Colorado’s approval.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River District's Annual Water Seminar Set for Friday, September
    Board of Directors Meeting Summary Page 1 July 2017 Every July quarterly Board meeting, the Colorado River District honors Directors who have rotated off the Board. At left, General Manager Eric Kuhn and current Board President Tom Alvey of Delta County present citations to for- mer Board President Jon Stavney of Eagle County. At right, President Alvey honors John Justman of Mesa County for his service. The annual honors are accorded during an after-meeting picnic on the grounds of the Colorado River District offices along the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs. Colorado River District’s Annual Water Seminar set for Friday, September 15th The Colorado River District’s popular one-day Annual contingency planning to reduce Lower Basin water use. Water Seminar is scheduled for Friday, Sept. 15th from Bill Hasencamp, Manager of Colorado River Resources 9:00 am to 3:30 pm at Two Rivers Convention Center, 159 for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Main Street, Grand Junction, Colorado. will bring the California and Lower Basin perspective to The theme is: “Points of No Return.” The cost, which the knot of issues, such as the Salton Sea, that bedevil includes buffet lunch, is $30 if pre-registered by Friday, how the Lower Basin will address declining water levels at Sept. 8th; $40 at the door. Cost for students is $10. The Lake Mead. cost is kept low in order to encourage as much public Yet another “Point of No Return” to be examined is the participation as possible for the District’s signature water concept of filling Lake Mead first at the expense of Lake education event.
    [Show full text]
  • Coldwater Lake and Reservoir Research Projects
    Coldwater Lake and Reservoir Research Projects Adam G. Hansen, Ph.D. Aquatic Research Scientist Annual Report Colorado Parks & Wildlife Aquatic Research Section 317 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, Colorado May 2018 STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bob Randall, Executive Director COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE Bob Broscheid, Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION John V. Howard, Vice-Chair Marvin McDaniel Michelle Zimmerman, Secretary Robert “Dean” Wingfield Robert W. Bray James Vigil Marie Haskett Dale E. Pizel Carrie Hauser Jim Spehar Alexander Zipp Ex Officio/Non-Voting Members: Don Brown, Bob Randall and Bob Broscheid AQUATIC RESEARCH STAFF George J. Schisler, Aquatic Research Leader Kelly Carlson, Aquatic Research Program Assistant Peter Cadmus, Aquatic Research Scientist/Toxicologist, Water Pollution Studies Eric R. Fetherman, Aquatic Research Scientist, Salmonid Disease Studies Ryan Fitzpatrick, Aquatic Research Scientist, Eastern Plains Native Fishes Eric E. Richer, Aquatic Research Scientist/Hydrologist, Stream Habitat Restoration Matthew C. Kondratieff, Aquatic Research Scientist, Stream Habitat Restoration Dan Kowalski, Aquatic Research Scientist, Stream & River Ecology Adam G. Hansen, Aquatic Research Scientist, Coldwater Lakes and Reservoirs Kevin B. Rogers, Aquatic Research Scientist, Colorado Cutthroat Studies Kevin G. Thompson, Aquatic Research Scientist, 3-Species and Boreal Toad Studies Andrew J. Treble, Aquatic Research Scientist, Aquatic Data Management and Analysis Brad Neuschwanger, Hatchery Manager, Fish Research Hatchery Tracy Davis, Hatchery Technician, Fish Research Hatchery David Karr, Hatchery Technician, Fish Research Hatchery Jim Guthrie, Federal Aid Coordinator Alexandria Austermann, Librarian 2 Table of Contents I. Limnology, Zooplankton and Mysis Project A. Physical limnology, zooplankton and Mysis collections from Blue Mesa Reservoir, Lake Granby, and Taylor Park Reservoir (2016-2017)….…………..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Mead and Lake Powell
    Colorado River Water Supply Report Agenda Number 12. Total System Contents: 27.507 MAF 68% 8/26/13 Reservoir Capacities (MAF) Reservoir Current Change Maximum 76% Lake Mead 12.25 + 0.02 25.90 Lake Powell 10.84 - 0.55 24.30 Flaming Gorge Reservoir 2.84 - 0.05 3.75 Navajo Reservoir 0.86 - 0.05 1.70 Blue Mesa Reservoir 0.37 - 0.03 0.83 Fontenelle Reservoir 0.23 - 0.01 0.34 Morrow Point Reservoir 0.11 0.00 0.12 44% Lake Powell 3,700’ 97% 45%, 10.839 MAF 3,590’ 51% Lake Mead 1,220’ 47%, 12.248 MAF 1,106’ 1,075’ 3,680 1,130 Lake Powell Elevations (2013 August 24-Month Study) Lake Mead Elevations (2013 August 24-Month Study) 3,660 1,120 3,640 1,110 3,620 1,100 3,600 1,090 3,580 1,080 Historical 3,560 1,070 Historical Maximum Probable Forecast Maximum Probable Forecast Most Probable Forecast Most Probable Forecast 3,540 1,060 Minimum Probable Forecast Minimum Probable Forecast Shortage 3,520 1,050 The August 2013 24-Month study projected that with an annual release of 8.23 MAF (as was consistent in water year Based on a 2013), the January 1st elevation of Lake Powell would be potential shortage 3,574 ft, which is less than 3,575 ft and places Lake Powell in 2016, impacts to in the mid-elevation release tier. Since Lake Mead is not CAP projected below 1,025 ft, according to the 2007 Interim Guidelines, demand in 2016 under this operational tier annual releases from Lake would include a 320 Powell to Lake Mead will be reduced to 7.48 MAF (for water KAF reduction to year 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Green River Basin Water Planning Process
    FINAL REPORT Green River Basin Water Planning Process February, 2001 Prepared for: Wyoming Water Development Commission Basin Planning Program States West Water Resources Corporation Acknowledgements The States West team would like to acknowledge the assistance of the many individuals, groups, and agencies that contributed to the compilation of this document. At the risk of possible omission, these include: The Green River Basin Advisory Group (facilitated by Mr. Joe Lord) The Wyoming Water Development Office River Basin Planning Staff The Wyoming Water Resources Data System The Wyoming State Engineer’s Office The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality The Wyoming State Geological Survey The University of Wyoming Spatial Data and Visualization Center The Wyoming Game and Fish Department Dr. Larry Pochop, University of Wyoming The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Bridger-Teton, Wasatch-Cache, Ashley, and Medicine Bow National Forests) The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management The U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources Cover: Millich Ditch, East Fork Smiths Fork Prepared in association with: Boyle Engineering Corporation Purcell Consulting, P.C. Water Right Services, L.L.C. Watts and Associates, Inc. CHAPTER CONTENTS (Individual Chapters have page number listings) ACRONYM LIST I. INTRODUCTION A. Introduction B. Description C. Water-Related History of the Basin D. Wyoming Water Law E. Interstate Compacts II. BASIN WATER USE AND WATER QUALITY PROFILE A. Overview B. Agricultural Water Use C.
    [Show full text]
  • River Flow Advisory Bureau of ·Reclamation Upper Colorado Region Salt Lake City, Utah Vol 17 No
    - River Flow Advisory Bureau of ·Reclamation Upper Colorado Region Salt Lake City, Utah Vol 17 No. 5 July 1987 The snowmelt runoff has been greater than previously forecasted. Inflow into Lake Powell for April-July period will be 98 percent of average, rather than 88 percent as forecasted in June. Colorado River at Westwater Canyon The flow of the Colorado is 4.700 cubic feet per second (cfs). It will continue to recede slowly. Cataract Canyon including the Green River The flow of the Colorado River through the canyon is 9,000 cfs, and receding slowly. lake Powell Lake Powell is at elevation 3,698 feet. The peak elevation of 3,698.47 feet, 1.53 feet below full. was reached on June 25 this year. Colorado River through Grand Canyon The July rP.lease fran Glen Canyon is expected to average 18,000 cfs. Releases are expected to rise to 21,000 cfs in August, and drop to 18,000 cfs in September. Flows wi 11 fluctuate from 3 ,000 cfs at night to 31,000 cfs during the day. Upper Green River - Fontenelle Reservoir Fontenelle Reservoir is at elevation 6,442. Present releases of 1.200 cfs will decreasP. as inflow into the reservoir decreases. The flow will be bypassed through the dam, and the reservoir's water level will remain low while work on the diaphragm wall continues. Green River Flows below Flaming Gorge Dam Flaming Gorge is at elevation 6,034 feet. 6 feet below full. It is not expected to rise beyond this point this year.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Water Science Center
    U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Utah Water Science Center Upper Colorado River Streamflow and Reservoir Contents Provisional Data for: WATER YEAR 2019 All data contained in this report is provisional and subject to revision. Available online at usgs.gov/centers/ut-water PROVISIONAL DATA U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SUBJECT TO REVISION UTAH WATER SCIENCE CENTER STREAMFLOW AND RESERVOIR CONTENTS IN UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN DAYS IN contact 435-259-4430 or [email protected] MONTH October 2018 31 MONTHLY DISCHARGE (a) MAXIMUM DAILY MINIMUM DAILY (A)MEDIAN PERCENT TOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 STREAM ft /s MEAN ft /s 30 YEAR ft /s ACRE ft /s DATE ft /s DATE (1981-2010) THIS MONTH MEDIAN DAYS FEET COLORADO RIVER NR CISCO, UTAH 4,355 3,202 74% 99,433 196,878 5,090 8-Oct 1,990 1-Oct ADJUSTED (B) 2,638 61% 81,764 162,178 GREEN RIVER AT GREEN RIVER , UT 2,945 2,743 93% 85,031 168,362 3,430 6-Oct 2,030 1-Oct ADJUSTED (C) 1,889 64% 58,564 116,162 SAN JUAN RIVER NEAR BLUFF, UT 1,232 649 53% 20,164 39,924 1,010 7-Oct 429 6-Oct ADJUSTED (D) 391 32% 12,112 24,024 DOLORES RIVER NR CISCO, UTAH 237 123 52% 3,565 7,058 493 8-Oct 22 1-Oct ADJUSTED (E) 141 60% 4,373 8,673 (A) MEDIAN OF MEAN DISCHARGES FOR THE MONTH FOR 30-YR PERIOD 1981-2010 (B) ADJUSTED FOR CHANGE IN STORAGE IN BLUE MESA RESERVOIR.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes to the Seedskadee Ecosystem
    CHANGES TO THE SEEDSKADEE ECOSYSTEM This study obtained information on contem- warmer than in earlier times and large prey (horse, porary: 1) physical features, 2) land use and man- camel, mammoth, bison) became extinct or smaller agement, 3) hydrology, 4) vegetation communities, and native people shifted to hunt smaller animals and 5) fish and wildlife populations of Seedskadee (Thompson and Pastor 1995). They also probably NWR. These data chronicle the history of land and made greater use of vegetable foods that apparently ecosystem changes at and near the refuge from the occurred during this period; summers may have Presettlement period and provide perspective on been spent in mountains and winters were spent when, how, and why alterations have occurred to eco- in foothills and valleys. Early Archaic subsistence logical processes in the NWR and surrounding lands. centered around pronghorn, rabbits, and other small Data on chronological changes in physical features animals including fish and birds obtained in the and land use/management of the region are most Green River Valley. available and complete (e.g., from NWR annual nar- By about 2,000 BP, human populations in ratives, USDA data and records, sequential aerial southwest Wyoming increased and apparently many photographs, hydrology data from the Green River, small villages were established; evidence of early agri- etc.) while data documenting changes in fish and culture is found along some waterways. The Shoshone wildlife populations generally are limited. people spread into the Seedskadee region around 700 BP. They were a nomadic tribe that traveled widely and created multiple trails between the Green SETTLEMENT AND EARLY LAND USE River floodplain and nearby mountains (USFWS CHANGES 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge
    Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2002 Prepared by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge P.O. Box 700 Green River, Wyoming 82935 and Division of Refuge Planning Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region P.O. Box 25486, DFC Denver, Colorado 80225 Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 s,.i1'-;",iJ-sf=- u." f\efu-ge Progn S~ &_"./C1. ~ Dats: R;;w;j A Vlli!JTl,J(l. ftl 0 1IegI(J1II1 O'ltel Nato:reI 'M1d"-1 Refuge Sy.;!edI TTTable of Contents SummarySummarySummary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Photo Display .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 I.I.I. Introduction / Background Refuge Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition and Management .......................................... 7 Seedskadee NWR Overview .................................................................................................................................. 7 History of Seedskadee NWR Establishment, Acquisition, and Management ................................................ 7 Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan .................................................................................. 11 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
    [Show full text]