DEVELOPMENT

W&M

TC423• A15 Utah 1977

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOU TH PACIFIC DIVI SI O N

1977

M■ -

z//>A

;^7 /WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENTec by

THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSin

UTAH

JANUARY 1977

ADDRESS INQUIRIES TO

DIVISION ENGINEERU.S. Army Engineer Division

South Pacific Corps of Engineers 630 Sansome Street

San Fransisco, California 94111

DISTRICT ENGINEERU.S. Army Engineer District

Los Angeles Corps of Engineers

Federal Building 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012

(P.O. Box 2711Los Angeles, California 90053)

DISTRICT ENGINEERU.S. Army Engineer District

Sacramento Corps of Engineers

Federal and Courts Building 650 Capitol Mall

Sacramento, California 95814

TO OUR READERS:

Throughout history, w ater has played a dominant role in shaping the destinies of nations and entire civilizations. The early settlem ent and development of our country occurred along our coasts and water courses. The management of our land and w ater resources was the catalyst which enabled us to progress from a basically ru ra l and agrarian economy to the urban and industrialized nation we are today.

Since the General Survey Act of 1824, the US Army Corps of Engineers has played a vital role in the development and management of our national water resources. At the direction of Presidents and with Congressional authorization and funding, the Corps of Engineers has planned and executed m ajor national program s for navigation, flood control, water supply, hydroelectric power, recreation and water conservation which have been responsive to the changing needs and demands of the American people for 152 years. These program s have contributed significantly to the economic growth of our country and to the well-being of the American people.

Today, the activities of the Corps of Engineers in w ater resources management, under the direction of the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal government, continue to support national goals and objectives. These include conservation of our w ater resources, protection of our wetlands, non-structural solutions to flood-damage control problems, total w ater management in metropolitan areas, flood plain management, and the preservation and enhancement of the quality of our environment for future generations.

This booklet describes the past, current, and proposed activities of the Corps of Engineers in your state. I tru s t that you will find it informative, interesting, and useful.

/Lieutenant General, / Chief of Engineers

USA

BUILDINGTOMORROW

TODAY

FOREWORD

The Corps of Engineers has been engaged in water resources development activities in Utah since well before the turn of the 20th Century. This booklet has been prepared to provide information on the scope and progress of current programs. It contains information on Corps of Engineers authorities for participating in water resources development; on the role of the Corps in planning, constructing, and operating water resources development projects; on active investigations; and on projects that are completed, under construc­tion, or in the planning stage. Data on investigations and projects are grouped by basins, which have been selected on the basis of major drainage patterns.

Additional information on Corps of Engineers projects, programs, and activities may be obtained from the offices named on the title sheet.

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

CHAPTER IWATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN UTAH

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1Basins of Utah .............................................................................................................................................. 7History of Corps of Engineers Activities in U ta h ............................................................................7Navigation P rogram ..................................................................................................................................... 8Flood Control Program .............................................................................................................................8Status of Projects ..........................................................................................................................................8Water Pollution and Water Quality C o n tro l.....................................................................................9Flood Plain Management Services P ro g ram .....................................................................................9Investigations and Reports Program...................................................................................................... 9Maintenance and Operation of Completed P ro jects .................................................................10Emergency Work ........................................................................................................................................10

CHAPTER IIGREAT SALT LAKE BASIN

Description..................................................................................................................................................... 13Multiple Purpose P ro je c ts ...................................................................................................................... 14

Little Dell L a k e ................................................................................................................................... 14Flood Control Projects...............................................................................................................................14

Jordan River at Salt Lake City .....................................................................................................14Small Flood-Control P ro jects..................................................................................................................17

Kays Creek at Lay to n ...................................................................................................................... 17Section 7 P ro jects ............................................................................................................................. 17Flood Control S tu d ie s ...............................................................................................................................17

Jordan River B a s in ...........................................................................................................................17Emergency Work ........................................................................................................................................18Flood Plain Management Services .................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER IIISEVIER LAKE BASIN

Description..................................................................................................................................................... 21Flood Control Projects............................................................................................................................... 22

Redmond Channel Improvement ................................................................................... 22Small Flood-Control P ro jects.................................................................. : .......................................23

Big Wash Diversion Dam and C hanne l...................................................................................23Emergency W o r k ................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER IVGREEN RIVER BASIN

Description..................................................................................................................................................... 25Section 7 P ro jects ........................................................................................................................................26Flood Control S tu d ie s ....................................................................................................................... 26

Colorado River and Tributaries above Lees F e r r y .............................................................26Emergency Work ........................................................................................................................................ 26

i

CONTENTS (Continued)

CHAPTER VCOLORADO-SAN JUAN BASIN

Description..............................................................................................................................................................27Flood Control Studies.......................................................................................................................................28

Colorado River and Tributaries above Lees Fe rry ..................................................................28Navajo Indian Reservation.................................................................................................................. 28

Emergency W ork.................................................................................................................................................. 29Flood Plain Management Services..............................................................................................................29

CHAPTER VICORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM (Authorities, Procedures, Funding)

General .....................................................................................................................................................................31Authority for Corps of Engineers Participation in Civil Works.................................................... 31Navigation Projects............................. 32Flood Control Projects.......................................................................................................................................32Projects Approved by the Public Works Committees.......................................................................33Recreation................................................................................................................................................................33Water Pollution and Water Quality Control.........................................................................................34Development of Water Supplies.................................................................................................................. 34Flood Plain Management Services Program........................... 34

Flood Plain Information Reports.......................................................................................................35Technical Assistance and Guidance................................................................................................35Guidance Materials and Research .................................................................................................. 35Flood Plain Management Planning..................................................................................................35

Special Authorities............................................................................................................................................. 35Small Projects............................................................................................................................................. 35Emergency Flood Control W ork ...................................................................................................... 36Emergency Navigation W o rk ............................................................................................................. 36Emergency Rehabilitation Work under Public Law 93-288..................................................36Réévaluation of Completed Projects............................................................................................. 37Cooperation in Projects of Other Agencies................................................................................37

Regulatory Functions.........................................................................................................................................37Wetlands............................................................................................................................................ 37How Corps of Engineers Projects are Initiated, Authorized, and Constructed................. 37How Local Interests Share in Federal Projects.................................................................................... 39

INDEX.....................................................................................................................................................................................40

MAPSBasins of U ta h ................................ nCorps of Engineers Projects in Utah At end of booklet

ii

CHAPTER IWATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BY THE

CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN UTAH

INTRODUCTIONUtah, the "Beehive State” , is a beautiful land

of contrast and color that reflects eons of erosion by wind and water, volcanic activity, and geologic faulting. The State includes an array of physiographic features and is divided into eastern and western sectors by a chain of mountains and high plateaus (principally the Wasatch Range and Wasatch Plateau), which extends generally south-southwesterly across the State.

The western sector is a vast area of desert lowlands interspersed by numerous mountain ranges that trend generally north to south and rise 3,000-5,000 feet above the surrounding desert lowlands. It contains the drainage system of prehistoric Lake Bonneville and has no outlet to the sea except for a small area in the northwest corner of the State that drains to the Pacific Ocean by way of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. With the foregoing exception, streams in the western sector flow into Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, Sevier Lake, or terminate in other separate closed basins. Great Salt Lake, the largest inland body of saline water in the western hemisphere, has reached a concentra­tion of mineral salts several times that of the ocean due to evaporation. Most of the western sector is extremely arid and inhospitable. However, there are extensive areas of fertile arable lands in a region of terraces or benches left by the recession of Lake Bonneville along the western toe of the mountain-plateau chain dividing Utah from east to west. This region, which is crossed by numerous rivers and smaller streams, is the center of life in Utah and includes all the major cities.

The eastern sector of Utah is drained by the Colorado River, which enters the State about midway along its eastern boundary and leaves

about midway along its southern boundary. This is a region of massive mountains and irregular plateaus deeply cut by the Colorado River and the streams of its tributary systems. The Uinta Mountains, the largest in North America having their longest axis latitudinal, are situated just inside the northern border of the State. They rise to a crest of about 13,500 feet at Kings Peak, the highest point in Utah, and include six other peaks rising to more than 13,000 feet. Rugged, uninhabitable plateaus stretch southward where rivers have entrenched themselves in winding canyons as deep as Va mile. In general, the eastern part of Utah is a province of spectacular color and variety of landform. Landscapes vary from bare, windblown red cliffs to forested vistas including placid mountain lakes, and fantastic arrays of phenomenal, wind- carved shapes and natural rock arches. A series of photographs showing the variety of land- forms in Utah begins on page 2.

Utah encompasses about 85,000 square miles including 2,000 square miles of saline lakes and 700 square miles of fresh water lakes. As noted earlier, the highest point in Utah is Kings Peak (13,528 feet) in the Uinta Mountains. The lowest elevations, about 2,500 feet, are in desert areas in the southwest corner of the State. Climate1 is dry and desertlike even though the average elevation of the State is above 6,000 feet. Most moisture comes into Utah from the Pacific Ocean although some storms that reach the State originate over the Gulf of Mexico. Seasonal influences include arctic air that occasionally extends into the State in winter. Low valley and closed basin floor areas receive from 4-10 inches of precipitation annually. Consistent with increases in elevations, moun­tainous regions receive more precipitation,

1 Climatological narrative adapted from "Outdoor Recreation for Utah — An Initial Plan — 1965-1975", Utah Department of Fish and Game and Park and Recreation Commission.

1

Arches National Park. Colorado-San luan Basin. (Photo courtesy o f the Utah Travel Council)

2

Goblin Valley. Colorado-San juan Basin. (Photo courtesy of the Utah Travel Council)

3

Bryce Canyon. Sevier Lake and Colorado-San )uan Basins. (Photo courtesy of the Utah Travel Council)

4

The Wasatch Escarpment. Great Salt Lake Basin.

Bonneville Salt Flats. Great Salt Lake Basin. (Photo courtesy of the Utah Travel Council)

5

The High Uintas. Green River Basin. (Photo courtesy of the Utah Travel Council)

6

usually at the rate of an additional inch for each 160-200 foot rise in elevation. However, average annual precipitation for the State is only 111/2 inches. This low volume is highly seasonal in distribution. In the south, there are two periods of deficiency — late spring-early summer and late fall — and two periods of maxima — late summer and late winter. There is a single seasonal cycle in the north, with the minimum in midsummer and the maximum in early spring. Temperature is also variable and there are wide ranges in daily highs and lows. Maximum summer temperatures may be as much as 100° higher than wintertime máxi­mums. Extremes of 116° and -50° have been recorded. The higher averages occur at low elevations in the southern part of the State.

Utah is rich in mineral resources and is a leading producer of copper, gold, silver, molybdenum, lead and vanadium. Also, there are vast reserves of oil shale and important deposits of coal. The extraction of minerals was important in the developmental period of the State and mining and smelting copper is still significant. Manufacturing is now the most important economic activity. Food processing based on production of lamb and beef, turkeys, a variety of fruits, and sugar beets is the most important manufacturing activity. Petroleum refining; steel production; and production of missiles, rocket engines and propellants, and other defense material are other major manu­facturing activities. Many aerospace firms have plants in Utah.

With many national parks, monuments, and recreation areas, excellent hunting and fishing, and developed areas for varied all-year recrea­tional activities, Utah has an exceptional base for tourism. Consequently, service industries meeting the needs of recreationists and vaca­tionists throughout the year are becoming more and more significant in the economy of the State.

The 1970 population of Utah, slightly more than 1,000,000, is expected to increase to about 1,800,000 by the year 2000. The State has a well developed surface transportation system and is served by Interstate and U.S. Highways, net­works of state and secondary roads, and major railroads. Several major airlines maintain flights to Salt Lake City. A few other large communities are served by local airlines or by single daily flights maintained by major airlines.

Major floods in Utah are almost always the result of rapidly melting snow in late spring and early summer and such floods are often intensified by general rain. Intense summer thunderstorms that result in cloudburst rainfall have caused heavy damage in localized areas. Unless flood damage reduction programs, including multiple purpose storage, other flood control structures, non-structural flood plain management measures, and watershed treat­ment are undertaken, recurring floods and substantial flood damage can be expected in the future. There is also a need to conserve flood runoff for beneficial uses as well as a need to develop new dependable supplies for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses. To provide more people the opportunity to enjoy Utah, additional recreation facilities and sup­porting services should be made available. Because there is probably no other region in the conterminous 48 states where environmen­tal quality remains as uncontaminated as that in which Utah is located, every consideration should be given to the type and manner of development that will keep it that way.

BASINS OF UTAHTo facilitate the presentation of information

on Corps of Engineers projects and activities in a State with such wide variations in physio­graphy as Utah, the State has been divided into the following basins:

Great Salt LakeSevier RiverGreen RiverColorado-San Juan

A chapter is devoted to each basin, the boundaries of which coincide generally with major hydrographic (drainage) areas that have been used in other Statewide studies. Each basin represents relatively homogeneous char­acteristics of streamflow, existing and potential water resources development, and topographic and economic independence. A map showing the basins used in this booklet appears on page 11.

HISTORY OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS ACTIVITIES IN UTAH

The earliest activities in Utah attributable to the Corps of Engineers trace back to the 1804-06

7

explorations of Capt. Merriwether Lewis and Lt. William Clark, who were carrying out a directive from President Jefferson to the Corps of Engineers to conduct surveying and mapping in the west. The initial surveys for the transcon­tinental railroad during the 1850s were also conducted by Corps of Engineers officers. In 1869, the Corps of Engineers began work on a series of topographical and geographical sur­veys and explorations of the area west of the 100th meridian, which of course, included the State of Utah. The objective of these surveys was

— that the physical structures of the waste and unknown lands along the untenanted mountain frontiers shall be brought to light and made known not only for the uses of the Government, but for all of the people for all time.

Work on these surveys continued for 10 years and brought to use a wealth of previously unknown data about Utah and the remainder of the intermountain frontier. The series of maps prepared became the road maps that led to the west of today.

The first Corps of Engineers civil works activities in Utah comprised investigations of navigation on the Green River.1 These studies were accomplished in the late 1880s and resulted in negative recommendations. The basis of the now ongoing civil works program was the 1938 Flood Control Act, which con­tained authority for the Corps of Engineers to make flood control investigations on streams draining into Great Salt Lake and the Great Basin. Preliminary studies resulted in recom­mendations for detailed investigations of streams in Davis County and the Bear, Weber, Jordan, and Sevier River Basins. Subsequently, authority for other studies was provided and flood control projects were authorized and constructed.

In the 1930s, Corps of Engineers activities in Utah were under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles District. A suboffice of the district was established in Salt Lake City in 1940 and for a short time, April 1942 to October 1943, a separate Corps of Engineers District was in

existence. In addition to most of Utah, the Salt Lake District included parts of Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado. In 1943, the Salt Lake District was abolished and the State was divided about equally between the Sacramento and Los Angeles Districts. In 1968, the entire State except for the northwest and southwest corners became the repsponsibility of the Sacramento District.

NAVIGATION PROGRAMThe navigation program of the Corps of

Engineers in Utah has primarily been concerned with issuing permits for structures in the navigable waters of the State. Permits have been issued for structures on Bear Lake, Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Lake Powell, and along the navigable portions of Colorado River. Other permits are under consideration. No navigation projects have been built and no emergency work in the interest of navigation has been accomplished in Utah.

FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAMThe flood control program of the Corps of

Engineers in Utah has been directed primarily toward meeting the most urgent needs of urban and suburban areas. Flood control works that have been provided have functioned effectively to protect the project areas. It is estimated that the total flood damage prevented throughout Utah by Corps of Engineers projects presently completed and in operation is about $2,130,000. Many streams remain uncontrolled or only partly controlled and many areas are entirely unprotected. Comprehensive programs must be continued in order to check periodic floods, which not only cause destruction and danger to life, but also waste large amounts of water that could be conserved for the benefit of the people, agriculture, and industry of Utah.

STATUS OF PROJECTSFor convenience in designating the status of

Corps of Engineers projects in Utah, they are classified as completed, under construction, or authorized but not started. A summary of

7 The Corps of Engineers participates in water resources development at the direction of Congress. Over the years, a large body of legislation that forms the basic authorities for civil works has been developed. A detailed discussion of the principal authorities is contained in Chapter VI, which also covers the relationship of the Corps of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army; the method by which Corps projects are initiated, authorized, and completed; and how projects are funded.

8

projects according to these classifications is shown below, their locations are shown on the map bound at the end of the booklet, and brief descriptions of individual projects are pre-

Project StatusCompleted .......................Under construction . . Authorized but not startedTotal .....................................

WATER POLLUTION AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL

Congress has assigned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers such non-military missions as flood control, hydropower production, navigation, water supply storage, and recrea­tion. Under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Corps has been given the additional reponsibil-

sented in subsequent chapters. Detailed infor­mation on individual projects may be found in the Chief of Engineers7 annual report on civilworks activities.

Multiple-purposeSingle-purpose

flood controlstorage projects projects Total

0 4 40 0 01 0 11 4 5

ity of restoring and maintaining the waterquality of the nation's waterways by regulating the disposal of dredged and fill material into such waters. Further, under Section 402 of the Act, the Corps performs a review function for applications received by the Environmental Protection Agency.

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROGRAM

A statewide flood plain information study program is underway in Utah. To date, 15 studies have been completed. Additional information on flood plain information studies in Utah is given in subsequent chapters. As of 30 September 1976, the Corps of Engineers had

completed one flood insurance rate study, covering the unincorporated areas of Utah County, for the Federal Insurance Administra­tion, Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is nearing completion of another on Bountiful, Davis County.

INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS PROGRAMDetailed investigation of potential water

resources development projects is an essential part of their authorization for construction. Congress has directed that the Corps of Engineers make investigations and prepare reports on a number of proposed improve­ments in Utah. Some of these investigations

have been completed and* reports thereon submitted to Congress. Others are in progress and, as funds are made available, the remainder will be completed and submitted to Congress for its decision on authorization. A summary of preauthorization investigations and reports in Utah follows.

FloodStatus Navigation Control TotalIn progress .............................................. . . . . 0 2 2Active - not started ................................. . . . . 0 1 1TOTAL ........................................................ . . . . 0 3 3

9

Each investigation currently assigned is briefly described in succeeding chapters. Comprehen­sive framework studies for Utah were com­pleted in 1971.

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF COMPLETED PROJECTS

The operation and maintenance of com­pleted Corps of Engineers water resources development projects may be accomplished by the Corps of Engineers or the local interests directly concerned. Local interests generally assume responsibility for levees and channel improvement projects, and the Corps of Engineers is responsible for operating and maintaining storage projects and navigation projects. All projects completed to date in Utah are levee and channel improvement projects that are maintained and operated by local interests.

EMERGENCY WORKUtah has a long history of floods and its

inhabitants have been repeatedly exposed to the perils of snowmelt and cloudburst flooding. Individuals have suffered severe flood losses, and flood fighting and recovery from floods have imposed significant financial burdens at all levels of government. Existing flood control facilities are effective, but flooding and flood damage continue to occur because many areas do not have protective works, it is not economi­cally feasible to provide flood control works to protect against extremely rare floods, and non- structural measures to reduce flood damage have not been widely implemented. Conse­quently, the continuing authority for the Corps of Engineers to participate in emergency repair and restoration of facilities damaged during floods have been used whenever required. The principal types of work accomplished on emergency bases consist of snagging and clearing stream channels, bank protection, repair and restoration of levees, and flood fighting. Costs of emergency work in Utah are summarized by basin as follows:

Cumulative costthrough

Basin 30 June 1976Great Salt Lake ....................... $ 749,000Sevier R i v e r ................................ 240,000Green R iv e r ................................ 319,000Colorado-San J u a n ................... 159,000

TOTAL $1,467,000

A special application of emergency work authorities occurred during the snowmelt flood season of 1969. Early in that year, Utah was one of 26 states where near-record snowmelt flooding was expected. In a letter dated 1 March 1969, the Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness (now superseded by the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration) notified the Secretary of the Army that "the President has directed that all feasible steps within the authorities of the Federal agencies be taken to prepare for floods which threaten to occur in various parts of the country because of the unusual snowpack conditions which now exist/' Special reference was made to the continuing authorities of the Corps of Engineers under Public Law 84-99,1 which previously had been utilized primarily during and after flood emergencies. The President urged "aggressive use of these authorities under present condi­tions." Work under the program, which the Office of Emergency Preparedness named "Operation Foresight," was undertaken at seven locations in Utah. Work consisted mainly of channel rectification, and clearing and snagging. It is estimated that advance prepara­tion under Operation Foresight reduced poten­tial snowmelt flood damage by about $240,000. Cost of the work was slightly more than $100 ,000.

Emergency work in the interest of navigation has not been required in the navigable waters of Utah, and the Corps of Engineers has not been called upon by the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration to participate in emergency work under the authority of Public Law 93-288 and its antecedent authorities.

1 See “Emergency Flood Control Work," page 36.

BASINS

I^Wendov e r

C r e a t

GL

Salt

Tooe 1 e*

Bear Lak

fLogan

n g d e n

iOgdens. We b e r

.SALT LAKH CIT*

Rj 1

GL G R E A T S A L T - L A K E

S L S E V I E R L A K E

GR G R E E N R I V E R

CS C O L O R A D O - S A N J U A N

\ Flaming Gorge ----- -1 Rese rvo

\ \ >

VvVernal# V«

Utah Lake)i Provo

- ¿ Í Í & i g e r r y

k# Neph iGR

W*V

D e l t i>7

/Sevier Bridge \ \

Reservoi rN SÌ7

S e v i e r Lake)

Rich field*

SLi?i vci—

vy e r _ -fi / 'emojT/

LMoa b

/ Qi]\m

/ *y \o

\ f

\®f ^ r r j s

J /-

w / L

CS Mon t ice 1 lo#

> B 1 an d i n g

V i fjjn

f t . Geor ge /Lake Powell

11

CHAPTER IIGREAT SALT LAKE BASIN

|GL GREAT SALT LAKE SL SEVIER LAKE

The Great Salt Lake Basin consists of the drainage areas tributary to Great Salt Lake, a number of closed drainages along the Utah- Nevada boundary, and a small portion of the Snake River system in the nortwestern part of the State. With this latter exception, the basin is a closed area that has no outlet to the sea. Principal streams are the Jordan, Provo, Weber, and Bear Rivers. The Bear River rises on the northern slope of the Uinta Mountains in Utah. It flows in a 500-mile horseshoe-shaped course northward through Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho and then southward back through Utah to Great Salt Lake. It is the longest river in the western hemisphere that does not reach an ocean. Provo and Weber Rivers rise at high elevations in the Wasatch Range and flow generally westerly to empty into Utah Lake and Great Salt Lake, respectively. Jordan River flows from Utah Lake to Great Salt Lake. Other principal streams in the basin are Logan and Ogden Rivers.

The basin encompasses a land area of about 28,000 square miles including a water area of 1,800 square miles. It includes much of prehis­toric Lake Bonneville, of which Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, and the Great Salt Desert are

remnants. The Wasatch Mountains formed its easterly shore. Elevations range from about 4,200 feet in the Great Salt Lake and Great Salt Desert areas to more than 12,000 feet in the high headwater areas of the Bear River in the eastern portion of the basin.

Climate ranges from extremely arid in the western part to subalpine in the eastern part, with annual precipitation over the higher westerly exposures in the Wasatch Mountains nearly 10 times that in the desert areas west of Great Salt Lake. Most winter moisture occurs in the form of snow, which ranges up to several hundred inches per year in the Wasatch Mountains. Seasonal influences include summer thunderstorms that characteristically occur from June to September. Average annual temperatures vary from about 50° in the low elevations of the western portion of the basin to about 30° in the high mountain areas in the eastern portion. Characteristically, summers are hot and dry in the Great Salt Lake and Great Salt Desert areas and moderate to cool in the Wasatch Mountains. Winters are moderately severe throughout the basin.

Surface transportation in the basin is pro­vided by two interstate highways, several U.S.

13

Creai Salt Lake Basin

Highways, a network of State and county roads, and four major railroads. Several major airlines maintain scheduled flights to Salt Lake City. The basin is the most densely populated in Utah. Its 1977 population of 1,035,000 is projected to increase to about 1,630,000 by the year 2000. Principal metropolitan centers are Salt Lake City, Provo, Ogden, and Logan. Numerous other towns are located along the western base of the Wasatch Mountains.

The economy of the basin is based primarily on manufacturing and extraction of minerals. Agricultural activities consisting primarily of production of wheat, barley, table vegetables, beef, lamb, and poultry are highly important in the basin, but do not dominate the economy. The most important mineral being mined is copper with one open pit in the Bingham area producing about 1/5 of the nation's supply. Major manufacturing activities are petroleum refining and processing, steel production, electronic equipment fabrication, missile fabri­cation and other defense related activities, apparel making, and food processing. Service industries meeting the needs of year-round recreationists, especially winter sports enthusi­asts, are important in the Salt Lake City area, which is also the most important wholesaling center in the inter-mountain region. The U.S. Steel plant at Geneva is a major supplier of steel in the western United States.

Floods in the Great Salt Lake Basin result primarily from rapidly melting snow during late spring and early summer and from cloudburst storms during late summer and early fall. Flooding from general rain is possible but rarely occurs. The most critical flood problem area is metropolitan Salt Lake City. Other urban areas along the foothills of the Wasatch Mountains are expanding rapidly and intensifying flood problems. Substantial flood damage can be expected in the future unless structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction pro­grams are undertaken. Extensive areas require watershed treatment to protect the soil and vegetative cover, thus contributing to increas­ing water holding capacity and reducing peak floodflows. Additional water supply is needed for agricultural and industrial uses.

MULTIPLE PURPOSE PROJECTS LITTLE DELL LAKE (Sacramento District)

The Little Dell Lake Project was authorized in 1960 and in 1968 for flood control, municipal

water supply, general recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. The project, which will be located about 8 miles east of Salt Lake City on Dell Creek (a tributary to Parleys Creek), will consist of construction of a dam 253 feet high, creating a lake with a gross capacity of 30,000 acre-feet for flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The plan includes facilities for the diversion of water from Emigration Creek (concrete dam 7 feet high with a crest of 40 feet and 7'0" circular tunnel 1.03 miles long); and from Parleys Creek (concrete dam 8V2 feet high with a crest of 50 feet and 3.1 miles of 4-foot concrete pipe) to Little Dell Lake. The lake would be operated in conjunction with the existing Mountain Dell Reservoir (capacity 3,200 acre-feet) on Parleys Creek for flood control and water supply. Local interests will provide necessary associated water distribution facili­ties. Project costs, based on preliminary design, are estimated at $52,800,000, of which the local interests' ultimate share will be $8,400,000.

The project will prevent snowmelt flood damages along Parleys Creek and in the 13th South Street area of Salt Lake City, and will reduce flood damages along Emigration Creek below the diversion point and along Jordan River through Salt Lake City and downstream to Great Salt Lake. Operation of Little Dell Lake and the existing Mountain Dell Reservoir will increase the water supply available to the Salt Lake City metropolitan area. The lake will provide additional recreational and fish and wildlife benefits. The final Environmental Impact Statement was submitted in 1975. Preconstruction planning is scheduled for completion in 1977.

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS JORDAN RIVER AT SALT LAKE CITY (Sacramento District)

A project for flood control on the Jordan River in western Salt Lake City was authorized in 1946 and completed in 1960. The improvements consist of enlarging 8,000 feet of Jordan River from Mill Creek to the head of Surplus Canal by channel excavation and construction of levees; increasing the channel capacity of 35,000 feet of Surplus Canal from Jordan River to Goggin Drain by channel excavation and levee con­struction; modifying the existing structure at the head of Surplus Canal; and reconstructing

14

Great Salt Lake Basin

Point of departure where Jordan River flows enter Surplus Canal. Drop-structure entrance to canal is at center, and inlet to Jordan River is at right center. Gate structures limit flow down Jordan River to 500 cubic feet per second, permitting improved river channel to accommodate floodflows from downstream tributaries.

Closeup view of drop-structure entrance to Surplus Canal. Tbe canal diverts excess water (including floodwater) of Jordan River away from Salt Lake City.

15

Great Salt Lake Basin

View of Surplus Canal looking upstream at reach of canal just north of 21st South Street.

Surplus Canal carrying jordan River water downstream and away from Salt Lake City in reach just north of 21st South Street. The canal was built by local interests and improved by

the Corps of Engineers.

16

Great Salt Lake Basin

or modifying railroad bridges, street bridges, and irrigation facilities.

Federal cost of the project was $1,227,600 and non-Federal cost was $463,000. Local interests maintain the improvements. The project pro­vides protection to about 5,800 acres in the western Salt Lake City area and has prevented an estimated $1,700,000 in flood damages.

SMALL FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS KAYS CREEK AT LAYTON (Sacramento District)

A small flood-control project consisting of 4.5 miles of channel enlargement along Kays Creek at Layton, Davis County, was authorized in 1965 and completed in 1972. The project, which extends from Fort Lane Street in Layton downstream to Great Salt Lake, provides flood protection to the city of Layton and vicinity. Federal and non-Federal costs of the project were equally divided at about $420,000 each. The project is maintained by local interests.

SECTION 7 PROJECTSSix storage projects in the Great Salt Lake

Basin are operated by the Bureau of Reclama­tion and local sponsoring districts for flood control under interim rules and regulations prescribed by the Corps of Engineers. Five of the storage projects — Rockport, Lost Creek, East Canyon, Causey, and Pineview Reservoirs — comprise the Bureau of Reclamation's Weber Basin Project. Echo Reservoir is also a Bureau of Reclamation facility constructed in the 1930s as a feature of the Weber River Project. In total, these projects provide about 320,000 acre-feet of storage for flood control purposes. In addition, they provide water for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses; water to benefit stream fishery and waterfowl refuges; and water surface area for water-oriented recreational activities.

Flood control operation regulations are under study for Hayes Reservoir on the Diamond Fork tributary of Spanish Fork River and Jordanelle Reservoir on Provo River. These projects are elements of the Central Utah Project.

FLOOD CONTROL STUDIESJORDAN RIVER BASIN (Sacramento District)

A comprehensive investigation of Jordan River and tributaries was authorized in 1938. It

would cover flood control and conservation of water for irrigation, municipal, industrial, recreation, and fish and wildlife uses. Two interim studies completed within the frame­work of the comprehensive authority have resulted in the authorization and construction of the Jordan River at Salt Lake City Project, and in the authorization of Little Dell Lake. A fourth interim study is currently in progress after being substantially completed in 1970 but held in abeyance until 1972 pending changes in local plans for development of drainage plans. These changes include detention basins in lieu of additional storm drains and more extensive park and recreation facilities in conjunction with the detention basins.

The most critical need for flood control in the basin is along Jordan River through Salt Lake City. Rapid urbanization in the basin, particu­larly in Salt Lake County, has produced an urgent need for additional water supply and water-oriented recreation opportunities. Flood problems are intensifying because much devel­opment has and continues to take place on the bench lands which drain naturally to down­stream flood plain areas. The Central Utah Project, authorized for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation, and Little Dell Lake, authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers, will alleviate present municipal and industrial water supply needs, but additional water developments will be needed by the year 2000.

Local interests want to preserve the natural beauty of the streams and oppose channel improvement work on streams tributary to Jordan River. To minimize the need for channel improvement work, a flood retention basin has been constructed by local interests on Big Cottonwood Creek and another is planned for Little Cottonwood Creek.

An interim feasibility report and revised Environmental Impact Statement for Lower Jordan River, proposing a floodway-parkway plan, have been completed. The natural stream meander and low flow channel will be pre­served and adjacent lands will be cleared, reshaped, and reseeded to form a greenbelt strip paralleling the river. Plan includes a series of parks connected by a recreation trail system.

A study is being considered for initiation in Fiscal Year 1977 of Upper Jordan River area

17

Great Salt Lake Basin

consisting of flood problems in Salt Lake County, including the Surplus Canal below North Temple Street; City Creek; and Mill, Big and Little Cottonwood Creeks; as well as Upper Jordan River from 2100 South Street extending upstream to Utah Lake in Utah County.

EMERGENCY WORKEmergency flood control work (including

bank protection, snagging and clearing, flood fighting, and repair and restoration) performed under continuing authorities available to the Corps of Engineers has totaled about $750,000 in the Great Salt Lake Basin. These costs are summarized as follows:

Costs thruStream 30 June 1976Weber and Ogden River . . . $107,800American Fork R iv e r ................... 65,000Elobble C r e e k ................................. 83,400Provo R i v e r ..................................... 124,500Spanish Fork R iv e r ....................... 64,400Salt C r e e k .......................................... 43,600Tributaries to Jordan River . . 8,700Jordan R iv e r ..................................... 104,400Big and Little CottonwoodC re e k s .............................................. 17,200

Logan R i v e r ..................................... 52,000Peteetneet Creek ...................... 78,000Total $749,000

Floodwaters inundated homes and commercial buildings at 13th South Street between 1st West Street and West Temple Street in Salt Lake City — 30 April 7952.

(Deseret News Photo)

18

Great Salt Lake Basin

Scenes along the Ogden River during the 1952 spring flood.

19

Great Salt Lake Basin

Floodwaters from the South Fork Provo River 3 February 1963. (Provo Daily Herald Photo)

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICESThe following flood plain information studies

have been completed in the Great Salt Lake Basin:

American Fork River and Dry Creek American Fork and LehiBarton, M ill, and Stone Creeks — Bountiful, West Bountiful, and Woods CrossBox Elder Creek — Brigham City Burch Creek — OgdenFarmington Bay Tributaries — Farmington- Centerville

FHobble Creek — SpringvilleJordan River Com plex — Salt Lake CityJordan River Com plex II — M idvale-DraperLogan River — LoganOgden River — OgdenProvo River and Rock Canyon Creek —ProvoProvo River and Slate Canyon Creek — Provo Spring Creek and Blacksmith Fork — M illv ille W eber River — Ogden

20

CHAPTER III SEVIER LAKE BASIN

rGL GREAT SALT LAKE

[SL SEVIER LAKE IGRCS

GREEN RIVER COLORADO-SAN JUAN

The Sevier Lake Basin comprises the drainage areas of Sevier River, Beaver River, numerous independent streams, and small closed drain­ages; and the Escalante Desert. Sevier River rises in a complex of high plateaus in southwestern Utah. The stream meanders northerly about 240 miles, thence southwesterly about 85 miles to terminate in Sevier Lake, a saline body of water that is the drainage center of the basin. The principal tributaries to Sevier River are the San Pitch and East Fork Sevier Rivers, and Salina and Otter Creeks. Beaver River rises on the west slopes of the Tushar Mountains, flows westerly to the north end of Escalante Valley, thence northerly to join the drainage of Sevier River northeast of Sevier Lake. The basin is a closed area with no outlet to the sea. It encompasses an area of about 16,000 square miles, including about 60 square miles of water area. Elevations range from about 4,200 feet in the western desert areas to 10,000-11,000 feet in the head­water regions of Sevier River and 12,000 feet in the Tushar Mountains.

Climate varies from extremely arid in the western portion of the basin to subalpine in headwater areas to the east. Average annual precipitation varies from 3-5 inches in desert areas to about 30 inches in the mountains and high plateaus. Most wintertime moisture occurs

as snow, which may accumulate into a pack several feet deep in the mountains. Low intensity rainfall occurs in spring and fall, and violent thunderstorms producing high intensity but short duration rainfall occur in the summer. Normal temperature varies with altitude and latitude. At any particular location, however, temperature depends on local exposure charac­teristics. At the 5,000 foot level, the normal range is from about 100° above to 20° below zero. Characteristically, winters are moderately severe throughout the basin and summers are hot and dry in the western portion and moderate in the higher eastern portion.

Surface transportation in the basin is pro­vided by U.S. Highways 6-50, 89, and 91 and the completed portions of Interstate 15. Interstate 70 will traverse the basin when completed. A network of State highways and secondary roads provide access to points in the basin and surrounding areas. The Union Pacific Railroad crosses the western part of the basin and a branch line of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad passes through the Sevier River and San Pitch River Valleys. The basin is not densely populated and its 1976 population, about 58,000, is projected to increase only to about 100,000 by the year 2000. The principal urban centers are Cedar City (8,000 people) and Richfield (5,000 people).

21

Sevier Lake Basin

Range livestock production is the dominant element of the economy of the basin. Livestock are w intered in the lower valleys; moved to foothill areas in spring; and, as the season advances, to successively higher elevations. By m idsummer, the herds are occupying summit regions. Ranches not producing livestock directly are devoted to producing feed for w inter maintenance or fattening.

The basin includes Cedar Breaks National M onum ent, part of Bryce Canyon National Park, large parts of four national forests, many high mountain and foothill lakes, and some of the most spectacular scenery in the interm oun­tain region. Consequently, it offers many and varied opportunities for recreational activities. Big game hunting is also important and there is an influx of thousands of in-state and out-of- state hunters each fall. Service industries meeting the needs of transient visitors are growing in significance in the economy of the basin.

Floods in the Sevier Lake Basin result primarily from rapidly melting snow during late spring and early summer, or from cloudburst storms during the summer and early fall. Flooding from general rain is possible, but would rarely occur. FHundreds of summer floods have occurred in the basin. Those confined to small side canyons caused minor damage. Others have been raging torrents of water carrying heavy loads of mud and rock that damaged urban and well developed agricultural areas. Deterioration of headwater areas by grazing has increased the number of flood

events. Flood damage will become more serious with continued deterioration of the uplands, and with increasing development in flood plains. Flood damage reduction programs principally comprising nonstructural flood plain management measures and watershed treat­ment should be undertaken. Additional water supply would be required to bring new lands under irrigation.

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS REDMOND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT(Sacramento District)

The Redmond Channel Improvement Project on Sevier River near Redmond was authorized in 1944 and completed in 1951.

Project work consisted of 14 miles of channel improvement work along Sevier River dow n­stream from the mouth of Salma C reek , construction of levees from W estview diversion dam to Redmond Lake Dam, and installation of gated structures in place of two obstructive diversion dams to improve the carrying capacity of the river. The project affords protection to the community of Redmond and about 3,000 acres of adjacent farm land, improves subsurface drainage in the same area, and provides additional water for irrigation by reducing losses. Project design capacity is 2,600 cubic feet per second.

Federal cost of the project was $919,000 and non-Federal cost $118,000. The project has prevented an estimated $400,000 in flood damages.

View o f Sevier River above the W estview diversion structure.

22

Sevier Lake Basin

View showing radial gates at the W estview diversion dam on Sevier R iver near Redm ond. The dam is at the upstream end o f 14 miles o f channel im provem ents that protect Redm ond

and adjacent agricultural areas from floods.

SMALL FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTSBIG WASH DIVERSION DAM AND CHANNEL(Sacramento District)

A small flood-control project for Big Wash near Milford, in Beaver County, was authorized in 1959 and completed in 1961. The project consists of a diversion dam 34 feet, high and 2,400 feet long and a 325 acre-foot detention basin on Big Wash, and a 4,500 foot long channel (leveed only on its east side) to divert floodflows up to 15,500 cubic feet per second from Big Wash to Hickory Wash. The project protects Milford and adjacent agricultural areas.

Federal cost of the project was $218,000, and it is operated and maintained by local interests. The project has prevented an estimated $125,000 in flood damages.

EMERGENCY WORKSummer cloudburst-type floods occur almost

every year someplace in the Sevier Lake Basin, but flood damage has been minimal due to sparse population and lack of development.

One of the largest floods known occurred in 1921 and caused about $218,000 damage. One of the most costly floods occurred in 1973 when snowmelt floodwater inundated more than 5,000 acres and caused about $593,000 damage. A variety of emergency work, including snag­ging, clearing, flood fighting, bank protection, and repair and restoration has been performed in the basin. The work is summarized as follows:

StreamCosts thru

30 June 1976Sevier River and

Chicken Creek . . . . . . . $ 51,000Shoal C r e e k ....................... . . . 40,400Pinto C r e e k ....................... . . . 40,900Coal Creek ....................... . . . 39,800Corn C r e e k ....................... . . . 67,100Red Creek ............................ . . . 8,300Salina C r e e k ....................... . . . 30,000Total $277,500

23

CHAPTER IV GREEN RIVER BASIN

GL GREAT SALT LAKE SL SEVIER LAKE

The Green River Basin comprises the area drained by the Green River and tributaries in Utah. It encompasses an area of about 17,000 square miles. Green River, which also drains portions of Wyoming and Colorado, is the largest single tributary to Colorado River, joining that stream from the north in southeast­ern Utah. The principal tributaries to Green River in Utah are the Price, Duchesne, and San Rafael Rivers. White River, another major tributary, joins Green River in Utah, but most of its drainage area is in northwestern Colorado. Elevations range from about 4,000 feet in the lowest river valley areas to more than 13,000 feet in the highest headwater areas.

The climate of the basin is arid to semiarid except in the higher elevations where precipita­tion is moderately heavy. Wide ranges in precipitation, temperature, and wind move­ment are caused by differences in elevation, latitude, and topography. The basin is isolated from major sources of moisture, and, in general, climate of the basin is associated with Pacific Ocean air masses that must cross high mountain ranges and travel great distances. Thus, precipi­tation is sparse except in the mountains. Seasonal influences include arctic air that

occasionally extends into the basin during the winter. Most precipitation occurs as snow during the winter and early spring. Average annual temperatures vary from less than 30° above 10,000 feet to about 50° in the river valleys below 5,000 feet. In general, the basin is characterized by short, warm summers and long, cold winters.

Surface transportation in the basin is pro­vided by U.S. Highways 6-50 and 40, completed portions of Interstate 70, and the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad. A network of State highways and secondary roads provides access to points within the basin and surround­ing areas. The basin is not densely populated and its 1977 population, about 44,000, is projected to increase to about 90,000 by the year 2000. The principal urban centers are Price and Vernal.

The economy of the Green River Basin rests primarily on production of range cattle. Irri­gated and dry-farmed cropland is devoted mostly to production of hay and grain for winter maintenance or fattening. Mineral production is not of particular importance in the basin. However, vast resources of oil shale are present and offer potentiality for future exploitation.

25

Creen River Basin

The basin includes parts of the Flaming Gorge and Canyonlands National Parks, part of the Dinosaur National Monument, the High Uintas Primitive Area, large areas of national forest, and much varied and spectacular scenery. Consequently, it offers many and diverse opportunities for recreational activities, and service type enterprises meeting the needs of vacationists and recreationists are growing in importance in the economic base of the basin.

Flooding in the basin is almost always the result of rapidly melting snow in late spring and early summer, often intensified by rain. Intense summer thunderstorms frequently occur and may cause heavy damage in localized areas. Because the basin is sparsely populated and development is limited, flood damage in the past has not been extensive and has most frequently affected agricultural improvements only. However, flood damage reduction pro­grams should be undertaken. Storage for flood control, flood plain management measures, and watershed treatment to protect soil and vegeta­tive cover are needed. Future development in the basin will require additional water supply primarily for irrigation and municipal uses.

SECTION 7 PROJECTSIn the Green River Basin, flood control

operation regulations for three Bureau of Reclamation storage projects are currently under study by the Corps of Engineers. These projects are Starvation Reservoir on Strawberry River, Taskeech Reservoir on Lake Fork River, and Tyzack Reservoir on Brush Creek.

FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES COLORADO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ABOVE LEES FERRY (Sacramento District)

Comprehensive study of Colorado River and Tributary area upstream from Lees Ferry (Ari­zona) was authorized in 1938 to investigate overall flood control and related water re­sources development problems, and to develop a plan to solve these problems on local and comprehensive bases. Water resources devel­opment problems involve flood control, water conservation, water importation, recreation, and salinity control. Snagging and clearing, channel rectification, levees, and multiple purpose storage will be considered. The Green River Basin comprises a portion of the area under study, which also includes other parts of Utah and parts of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona.

Flood control and associated water resources development problems in the study area have not been evaluated on a comprehensive basis for many years. Considerable economic devel­opment has taken place in recent years and a number of multiple purpose reservoirs have been built by the Bureau of Reclamation. During the feasibility studies for these projects, flood control evaluations were made by the Corps of Engineers usually on a single stream or single project basis. The operational interrela­tionships of these projects should be deter­mined, giving consideration to existing condi­tions of development. Framework study reports completed jointly in 1971 by the Federal agencies, states, and local agencies concerned provide a broad guide to the best use or combination of uses of water and related land resources to meet foreseeable short and long term needs in the basin. The Colorado River and Tributaries study will allow fomulation of specific projects to meet needs identified under the framework studies. Hydrologic, economic, and environmental impact studies, and studies of critical flood areas are continuing. It is expected that the comprehensive study will be completed by 1981.EMERGENCY WORK

Flooding in the sparsely populated Green River Basin has caused only minor damage. The most severe flood of record occurred in the basin in 1917 when floods on Price River caused about $380,000 damage to croplands. In 1966, floods on White River caused about $88,000 in damage.

Federal expenditures under Public Law 99 for flood emergency work have been minimal. In early 1969, $88,400 was spent under the author­ity of Operation Foresight along the White- rocks, Uinta, and Duchesne Rivers and Ashley Creek to prevent expected damage from snowmelt floods. The cost of emergency work, including flood fighting, snagging and clearing, bank protection, and repair and restoration in the Green River Basin under continuing Con­gressional authorities including Operation Foresight are summarized in the followingtable:

Costs thruStream 30 June 1976Duchesne R i v e r ............................ $ 72,000White R i v e r ..................................... 48,000Ashley Creek ................................ 186,000Uinta and Whiterocks Rivers 13,000Total $319,000

26

CHAPTER VCOLORADO-SAN JUAN BASIN

GL GREAT SALT LAKE SL SEVIER LAKE

The Colorado-San Juan Basin comprises the area drained by the main stem Colorado River in Utah, excluding the Green River Basin. It encompasses an area of about 24,000 square miles. Numerous tributaries join Colorado River in Utah. The largest of these are San Juan River (the second largest tributary in the Colorado River system) and Dolores River, both of which enter from the east, and the Dirty Devil, Escalante, and Paria Rivers, which drain the east side of the Wasatch and Aquarius Plateaus and join Colorado River from the west. Elevations in the basin range from about 2,500 feet in the far western sector to more than 11,000 feet in the high headwater areas of the Dirty Devil and Escalante Rivers.

Climate of the basin is arid to semiarid except in the higher elevations where precipitation is moderately heavy. Wide ranges in precipitation, temperature, and wind movement are caused by differences in elevation, latitude, and topography. The area is isolated from major sources of moisture, and, in general, climate of the basin is associated with Pacific Ocean air masses that eventually reach the basin after crossing high mountain ranges and traveling great distances. Thus, precipitation is sparse except in the mountains. Seasonal influences

include arctic air that occasionally extends into the basin in winter, and thunderstorms that sweep in from the Gulf of Mexico in the summer. Most precipitation occurs as snow during the winter and early spring. Average annual temperatures vary from less than 30° above 10,000 feet to about 50° in valley areas below 5,000 feet. Characteristically, summers are hot and dry, and winters are moderately severe.

Surface transportation routes are well deve­loped in the basin. Interstate 70 and the main line of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad cross its northern sector and Interstate 15 crosses the western sector. U.S. EHighways 89, 91, and 163 and a network of State highways and secondary roads provide access to points in the basin and surrounding areas. The basin is sparsely populated. Its 1977 population, 43,000, is projected to increase to 91,000 by the year 2000. Principal urban centers are St. George, Monticello, and Blanding.

Livestock production (mainly sheep), extrac­tion of coal and metallic minerals, and tourism form the economic base of the basin. Cropland is devoted mainly to production of livestock feed to complement large areas of rangeland.

27

Colorado-San Juan Basin

The basin is rich in recreational opportunities and providing for the needs of recreationists and vacationists is by far the most important economic activity. The basin includes Canyon- lands and Zion National Parks; part of Bryce Canyon National Park; Capitol Reef, Natural Bridges, Arches, and Hovenweep National Monuments; a portion of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; and parts of or all of several national forests.

Flooding along the major streams is almost always the result of rapid snowmelt in late spring and early summer. These floods are often intensified by rain on the snowpack. Intense summer thunderstorms that result in cloudburst rainfall are a frequent occurrence and often cause severe damage in localized areas.

At present, there are no existing, under construction, or authorized Corps of Engineers projects in the Colorado-San Juan Basin and activity therein has comprised study of water resources development and related problems and engaging in emergency flood control work. Facilities are needed for flood control, water supply, and watershed protection.

FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES COLORADO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ABOVE LEES FERRY (Sacramento District)

Comprehensive study of Colorado River and tributary area upstream from Lees Ferry (Ari­zona) was authorized in 1938 to investigate the overall flood control and related water re­sources development problems in the study area and to develop a plan to solve these problems on local and comprehensive bases. Water resources development problems involve flood control, water conservation, water importation, recreation, and salinity control. Snagging and clearing, channel rectification, levees, and multiple-purpose storage will be considered. The Colorado-San Juan Basin comprises a portion of the study area, which also includes other parts of Utah and parts of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Ari­zona.

Flood control and associated water resources development problems have not been evalu­ated in comprehensive bases for many years. Considerable economic development has taken place in recent years and a number of multiple

purpose reservoirs have been built by the Bureau of Reclamation. During the feasibility studies for these projects, flood control evalua­tions were made by the Corps of Engineers usually on a single stream or single project basis. The operational interrelationships of these projects should be determined, giving consid­eration to existing conditions of development. Framework study reports completed jointly in 1971 by the Federal agencies, states and local agencies concerned provide a broad guide to the best use or combination of uses of water and related land resources to meet foreseeable short and long term needs in the basin. The Colorado River and Tributaries study will allow formulation of specific projects to meet needs identified under the framework studies.

An interim report on a partnership project on Mill Creek near Moab was initiated in Fiscal Year 1975. Adoption of a plan of improvement by local interests is being held in abeyance pending more detailed study of a floodway­parkway plan in lieu of a reservoir plan.

Flydrologic, economic, and environmental impact studies, and studies of critical flood areas are continuing under the comprehensive study. It is expected that the comprehensive study will be completed in about 1981.

NAVAJO INDIAN RESERVATION,Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah (Los Angeles District)

A survey investigation at the Navajo Indian Reservation was authorized for flood control and allied purposes by section 176 of the 1976 Water Resources Development Act (Public Law 94-587).

The Navajo Indian Reservation, with a 1976 population of 149,000, encompasses 26,000 miles in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The northern part of the reservation drains into the San Juan River, which is major tributary of the Colorado River above Lees Ferry. The southern part drains into the Little Colorado River.

The investigation will assist the Navajo Indians in developing a comprehensive plan for water resources development in an extremely arid region. The Corps will provide information on flood control and related problems, and will recommend construction of specific projects where justified. During the flood of October

28

Colorado-San Juan Basin

1972, several small dams constructed jointly by the Soil Conservation Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs failed. Also, severe damage occurred in Chinle, Kayenta, Red Lake, Tuba City, Leupp, Tolani Lake, Greasewood, and Ganado — all in Arizona.

The investigation will begin when funds are made available.

EMERGENCY WORKThe largest known flood in the Colorado-San

Juan Basin occurred in September 1970 when heavy rains caused severe flooding on the lower reaches of McElmo Creek, on Montezuma Creek, and on the San Juan River. Industrial

areas, utilities, and croplands suffered moderate flood damage. Two persons lost their lives, and damages exceeded $717,000. Emergency flood fighting and repair work under continuing authorities available to the Corps of Engineers totaled about $46,000.

Costs for emergency work during other flood emergencies have totaled about $113,000.

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICESA flood plain information study for Virgin

River and Fort Pierce Wash in the vicinity of St. George has been completed. No additional studies are in progress or scheduled for the near future.

Utah 262 Bridge over M cElm o Creek at Aneth follow ing the Septem ber 1970 floods.

(Deseret News Photo — Reed M adsen)

29

CHAPTER VICORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM

(Authorities, Procedures, Funding)

GENERALThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been

the principal water resources development agency of the Federal Government since 1824. Through its Civil Works Program, the Corps carries out a comprehensive nationwide effort in water resources planning, construction, and operation. These activities are carried out in accordance with directives from Congress, and are supervised by the Chief of Engineers under the direction of the Secretary of the Army. Work is accomplished in close cooperation with other Federal agencies concerned, and with interested state and local authorities and organizations, to provide beneficial improve­ments desired by the citizens of the communi­ties and areas most affected.

The Civil Works Program is directed toward the development of water resources in a way that will lead to the satisfaction of all water related requirements — both immediate and long-range. Among other needs, these include improvements for navigation, flood control, major drainage, water supply for irrigation and municipal-industrial uses, water quality control and waste water disposal, hydropower, water oriented recreation, enhancement of fish and wildlife resources, and the preservation of esthetic and ecological values. Special emphasis is being placed on flood plain management in support of a national effort to reduce flood losses through appropriate state and local regulation of the use of flood prone areas.

Under continuing Congressional authorities, the Corps of Engineers engages in a variety of emergency activities in the interest of naviga­tion and flood control, in the repair and restoration of flood damaged facilities, and in supplementing the resources of local interests in coping with floods. It also provides engineer­ing assistance to localities affected by major natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and wildfires, and serves at the request of Federal Disaster Assistance Adminis­

tration as an engineering and construction agency in the restoration of essential public facilities that have been damaged or destroyed.

AUTHORITY FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS PARTICIPATION IN CIVIL WORKS

The basic authority of Corps of Engineers' participation in the development of water resources lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which gave Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Under this authority, during the 1820s, Congress assigned the Corps of Engineers the responsibility for projects dealing with navigation on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. This basic authority, which pertained solely to navigation, was subsequently expanded by Congress to include the many related aspects of comprehensive water resources development.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 established a policy that will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environ­ment, stimulate the health and welfare of man, and enrich the understanding of ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation. Under Section 102 of that act, all Federal agencies must, among other requirements, include in every recommendation a detailed statement on:

• The environmental impact of the pro­posed action.

• Adverse environmental effects that can­not be avoided should the proposal be implemented.

• Alternatives to the proposed action.• The relationship between local, short­

term use of the environment and the

31

maintenance and enhancement of long­term productivity.

• Any irreversible and irretrievable com­mitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

• The coordination of the proposal with interested Federal, state, and local agen­cies.

Considering the complexities associated with water as a natural resource and its essentiality to all living things, the Corps of Engineers has recognized the necessity of instituting environ­mental analysis and planning as an integral factor in water resources studies and project formulation. The Corps of Engineers worked as a representative member of the Special Task Force of the President's Water Resources Council in developing the role of environmen­tal considerations in solutions to water prob­lems. On the individual District level, the Corps has established environmental elements staffed with biologists, ecologists, oceanographers, foresters, sanitary and civil engineers, recrea­tion specialists, and others who contributed the expertise of their educational disciplines to environmental considerations.

Section 122 of the 1970 Flood Control Act provides that the Corps of Engineers assure that possible adverse economic, social, and environ­mental effects relating to any proposed project have been fully considered, and that final decisions on the project are made in the best overall public interest, taking into account the need for flood control, navigation, and asso­ciated facilities, the cost of eliminating or minimizing such adverse effects, and:

• Air, noise, and water pollution.• Destruction or disruption of man-made

and natural resources, esthetic values, community cohesion and the availability of public facilities and services.

• Adverse employment effects and tax and property value losses.

• Injurious displacement of people, busi­nesses, and farms.

• Disruption of desirable community and regional growth.

Further information on basic authorities of the Corps of Engineers is contained in the following paragraphs.

NAVIGATION PROJECTSNavigation improvements are directed by

Congress primarily to assist in the development and conduct of waterborne commerce. In general, improvements for navigation may be divided into two types, coastal harbors and inland waterways. The former comprise chan­nels and anchorages to accommodate both deep-draft and shallow-draft shipping, harbors to provide refuge for small craft, and breakwat­ers and jetties to provide protection against wave action. Shallow-draft navigation includes commercial fishing, recreation boating, and barge traffic. Improvements of inland water­ways consist essentially of deepening and widening the waterways to facilitate the eco­nomical transportation of bulk commodities by boat or barge. Integrated with railroads and highways, improved waterways help to meet increasing transportation needs.

Beginning with an act approved 24 May 1824, investigations and improvements for navigation and related purposes have been authorized by a series of River and Harbor Acts, and basic policies and procedures have been established by these laws. The 1920 River and Harbor Act expanded the Federal policy regarding naviga­tional improvements and established general requirements for local cooperation where the benefits from such improvements are mainly local in nature. Subsequent acts have further clarified and expanded the Federal policy, and have authorized many specific navigation projects. Any special conditions and require­ments pertaining to a specific project are included in the authorizing act. Section 117 of the 1968 River and Harbor Act permits the Corps of Engineers to maintain navigation channels in excess of authorized project depths when such depths were provided for defense purposes and also serve essential needs of general commerce. Section 6 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 provides that the cost of operation and maintenance of the general navigation features of certain small boat harbors (recreational boating) shall be borne by the Federal Government.

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTSThe purpose of flood control projects is to

regulate floodflows and thus prevent flood damages. This is accomplished with flood control storage or levee and channel improve-

32

ment works, separately or in combination. In a flood control storage project, floodwaters are stored and later released at non-damaging rates. The majority of storage projects are authorized for multiple purposes, i.e., flood control and other purposes such as hydroelec­tric power, irrigation, navigation, municipal and industrial water supplies, water quality control, recreation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. Some storage projects au­thorized primarily for flood control may also be used incidentally for other purposes such as recreation or fish and wildlife enhancement. In levee and channel improvement projects, sufficient channel capacity to carry peak flows is provided by dredging, clearing, and straighten­ing the waterway; by constructing levees; by building a channel with smooth surfaces to improve flow characteristics; by providing bypasses; or by some combination of these methods. Recreation facilities may be included in levee and channel improvement projects.

In 1917, the Corps of Engineers was assigned the responsibility for flood control work on the Sacramento and Mississippi Rivers and since 1936 has been responsible for the general flood control program throughout the United States. Section 1 of the 1936 Flood Control Act, which established Federal policy on flood control works, reads in pertinent part:

". . . that it is the sense of Congress that flood control on navigable waters or their tributaries is a proper activity of the Federal Government in cooperation with States, their political subdivisions, and localities thereof . . .”

Each Federal flood control project, except certain small improvements and emergency work, must be specifically authorized by Congress. The procedures for obtaining author­ization and construction of a project are covered in subsequent paragraphs. Since au­thorizing acts generally do not carry appropria­tions for undertaking projects, funds for design and construction must be provided by subse­quent appropriation acts.

Upon completion, levee and channel improvement projects usually are transferred to local authorities for operation and mainte­nance. Flood control storage projects are operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers unless the protection provided is essentially local in nature.

PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEES

Section 201 of the 1965 Flood Control Act, as amended by the 1976 Water Resources Devel­opment Act, authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to construct, operate, and maintain single- and multiple-purpose water resources development projects involving, but not limited to, naviga­tion and flood control if the Federal cost is less than $15,000,000. Such projects must be approved by resolutions adopted by the Public Works Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, and are subject to the same requirements of local cooperation as projects costing $15,000,000 or more.

RECREATIONOutdoor recreation is recognized by the

Corps of Engineers as a tangible and important function of water resources development, and it is given the same consideration as other needs and potentialities in the planning of water resources development projects. Authority to participate in recreational developments was provided by Section 4 of the 1944 Flood Control Act as amended by the 1946, 1954, 1960, and 1962 Flood Control Acts. Under these continu­ing authorities, the Corps of Engineers con­structs, operates, and maintains public park and recreational facilities at water resources devel­opment projects under its control, and may permit construction, operation, and mainte­nance of such facilities by local interests.

Recreation facilities for public use are generally provided through cooperative efforts of the Corps of Engineers and a non-Federal agency, and, when appropriate, by private interests on a concessionaire basis. The 1965 Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as amended by the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, authorized the Corps of Engineers to participate and cooperate with States and local interests in developing the recreational potential of any Federal water project. Under these authorities the Federal Government assumes responsibility for major recreational development provided that non-Federal public bodies agree in advance to administer project land and water areas for recreation or fish and wildlife enhancement, and to bear not less than one-half the separable project costs allocated to

33

recreation and one-quarter of the costs allo­cated to fish and wildlife enhancement.

Public use of land and water areas at Corps of Engineers storage projects in the past decade has more than tripled. Facilities provided for public use include access roads, boat launching ramps, parking areas, observation points, picnic areas, campgrounds, and water supply and sanitation systems. Provisions are also made for the preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. Facilities and services such as motels, boatels, restaurants, marina installations, and sporting goods stores are generally provided on adjacent private lands, although such facilities are sometimes located on Federal lands on a concessionaire basis. Some flood detention basins, which generally do not have permanent recreation pools, have recreational facilities comprising bridle paths, hiking trails, golf courses, archery ranges, playgrounds, day-camping and picnick­ing facilities, water supply and sanitation systems, and parking areas and access roads. Similar facilities, as appropriate, may be pro­vided in conjunction with levee and channel improvement projects. Information folders on recreational facilities at most Corps projects are available on request from the Public Affairs Office of the District having jurisdiction.

WATER POLLUTION AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL

Under the 1948 Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; other related legislation; and certain Executive Orders, water quality and pollution control are given full consideration in the planning and construction of Federal water resources development projects. In water storage projects, adequate capacity may be included for regulation of streamflow to maintain high water quality, but not as a substitute for treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the source.

Under longstanding procedures evolving from the River and Harbor Act of 1899, the Corps of Engineers has administered a permit program for structures and operations in

navigable waters.1 Decisions of the Supreme Court now construe that Act as being directed at pollution as well as obstructions to naviga­tion. To make the most effective use of existing legislation to achieve compliance with water quality standards and abate pollution, a permit program under the 1899 Act was initiated pursuant to Executive Order 11574, which was issued on 23 December 1970. Under this program, permits will be required for all present and future discharges into navigable waters or their tributaries. From 23 December 1970 to 18 October 1972, the program was administered by the Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the various States and the Environmental Protection Agency. On 18 October 1972, passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 lodged the entire responsibility for the program with the Environmental Protection Agency. As provided in the 1972 amendment, the program in Utah will eventually become the responsibil­ity of the State with review of applications by the Corps of Engineers and veto power by the Environmental Protection Agency.

DEVELOPMENT OF WATER SUPPLIESThe 1958 Water Supply Act, as amended,

permits the Corps of Engineers to participate and cooperate with States and local interests in developing domestic, municipal, and industrial water supplies in connection with the construc­tion, maintenance, and operation of Federal navigation, flood control, irrigation, and multiple-purpose projects. Space for storage of municipal and industrial water supplies may be included in the Corps of Engineers storage projects if local interests agree to pay the percentage of project cost allocated to that function.

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROGRAM

In recognition of the increasing use and development of flood plain areas and the need for flood hazard information to guide such development in a way that would minimize future flood damage, but permit optimum use

7 In Utah, Great Salt Lake, Bear Lake, Lake Powell, Flaming Gorge Reservoir, and segments of the Colorado and Green Rivers are navigable waters under Federal criteria.

34

and development of flood-prone lands, Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act (as amended by the 1966 Flood Control Act) and Executive Order 11296, 10 August 1966, authorized the Corps of Engineers to establish and carry out a flood plain management services program. Its objective is comprehensive flood damage prevention planning that, at all levels of government, encourages and guides wise use of flood plains. Under the program, the Corps of Engineers prepares flood plain information reports, provides technical assistance and guidance, conducts related research on various phases of flood plain management, and plans long-range flood plain management activities. In compliance with Executive Order 11296, the Corps of Engineers prepares specific flood hazard reports wherever buildings, roads, and other facilities are either federally owned, federally financed, or involved in federally administered programs, and wherever disposal of Federal land and property is involved.

Flood Plain Information Reports. Flood plain information reports are prepared at the request of local interests to delineate flood problems in specific communities or along specific stream reaches in suburban and rural areas.

Technical Assistance and Guidance. TheCorps of Engineers stands ready to provide technical assistance and guidance to Federal, state, and local agencies in the interpretation and application of data in flood plain informa­tion reports. This includes providing additional data pertinent to but not published in the report, assisting in the preparation of flood plain regulations, and suggesting floodway areas and evaluating the effects of such floodways. Technical assistance and guidance also includes furnishing generalized informa­tion on flood damage reduction by corrective or preventive measures.

Guidance Materials and Research. The Flood Plain Management Services Program includes studies to improve methods and procedures for flood damage prevention and abatement, and the preparation of guides and pamphlets on various approaches to flood damage preven­tion. The research effort under the program is conducted under the direction of the Chief of Engineers and is closely coordinated with related research programs of other Federal agencies and the various states.

Flood Plain Management Planning. Toachieve the basic objective of the Flood Plain Management Services Program, the Corps of Engineers works with and through the proper state agency, and provides the guidance, engineering services, and other technical assistance necessary for sound management of flood plain areas. State and local officials are brought fully into planning actions and consid­eration is given to alternative or supplementary measures. Thus, planning considers flood control works, flood proofing of buildings, flood forecasting, zoning subdivision regula­tions, building codes, city policies, and other elements to find the combination that gives the best solution. A recent addition to flood plain management is the Corps of Engineers' contrac­tual role in the National Flood Insurance Program. This includes making hydrologic studies for the Federal Insurance Administra­tion, Department of Flousing and Urban Development.

SPECIAL AUTHORITIESIn addition to water resources development

projects that must be authorized by Congress, the Corps of Engineers may undertake certain small projects and varied emergency work under continuing authorities. Also, the Corps of Engineers reevaluates completed projects on operational and environmental considerations, when changed conditions so warrant; and cooperates in the projects of other agencies. Certain laws enacted to preserve and protect navigable waters are adminstered by the Corps of Engineers.

Small Projects Under continuing authorities and when approved by the Chief of Engineers, small navigation and small flood control proj­ects may be undertaken by the Corps of Engineers without the specific authorization of Congress. Works constructed under small project authorities must be complete in them­selves, constitute a complete solution to the problem, and not commit the Federal Govern­ment to additional improvements to insure effective operation. Small projects are subject to the same requirements of feasibility, eco­nomic justification, and cost sharing as projects that require the specific authorization of Congress and must be coordinated with the State or other local interest concerned. They are

35

based upon favorable reconnaissance-type investigations and subsequent detailed project reports, which serve as bases for authorization of projects and preparation of plans and specifications. The allotments for small projects, which are made annually by Congress on a lump-sum, country-wide basis, cannot exceed $30,000,000 for small flood-control projects or $25,000,000 for small navigation projects for any one year, and usually not more than $2,000,000 (Federal cost) can be allowed for construction of any single project.

Small navigation projects are undertaken under the provisions of section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor Act (Public Law 86-645), as amended by section 310 of the 1965 River and Harbor Act (Public Law 89-298), sections 103 and 112 of the 1970 River and Harbor Act (Public Law 91-611), section 6 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act (Public Law 93- 251), and section 133 of the 1976 Water Resources Development Act (Public Law 94- 587).

Authority to investigate and construct small flood-control projects is contained in Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act (as amended by the 1950, 1952, and 1970 Flood Control Acts and the Water Resources Development Act of 1974). The 1974 amendment increases the project allowance to $3,000,000 if a project will protect an area that has been declared a major disaster area in the 5-year period preceding the date of project approval.

Emergency Flood Control Work. Emergency work in the interest of flood control is ordinarily undertaken under three general Congressional authorizations with funds appropriated annu­ally. Although emergency projects to which these general authorizations apply need not be specifically authorized by Congress, they are subject to the same principles of economic feasibility that pertain to authorized projects. Emergency flood control work falls into three general categories:

a. Emergency bank protection (Section 14, 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended). Within the limit of available funds, the Corps of Engineers is authorized to spend up to $250,000 annually in a single locality for the construction of emergency bank protection works to prevent flood damages along shorelines or to highways, bridge approaches, and other public works

endangered by bank erosion. Public works within the meaning of the authorization are Federal, state and local facilities, or those of non-profit organizations serving the general public.

b. Snagging and clearing (Section 208, 1954 Flood Control Act, as amended). Within the limit of available funds, the Corps of Engineers is authorized to spend up to $250,000 annually on any one single tributary for removal of accumulated snags and other debris, and for the clearing and straightening of channels in navigable streams and tributaries thereof when, in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers, such work is advisable in the interest of flood control.

c. Flood fighting, rescue, and repair work (Public Law 84-99 and antecedent legislation). Within the limit of available funds, the Corps of Engineers is authorized to engage in flood­fighting and rescue operations, and to repair or restore flood control works threatened or destroyed by floods. Repairs or restoration of flood control works includes strengthening or otherwise modifying damaged or threatened flood control structures to insure adequate functioning.

Emergency Navigation Work. Emergency navigation work under general Congressional authorization falls into two general categories:

a. Removal of wrecks and obstructions (1899 River and Harbor Act). Under this authority, the Corps of Engineers is authorized (within the limit of available funds) to investigate wrecked vessels and other obstructions to navigation, and to insure removal at the expense of the owner or, under certain specific conditions, at the expense of the Federal Government.

b. Snagging and clearing (Section 3, 1945 River and Harbor Act). Within the limit of available funds, the Corps of Engineers is authorized to remove accumulated snags and other debris, and to protect, clear, and straighten channels in navigable harbors and navigable streams and tributaries thereof when, in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers, such work is advisable in the interest of navigation or flood control.

Emergency Rehabilitation Work Under Pub­lic Law 93-288. Under authority provided by Public Law 93-288 (Disaster Relief Act of 1974) and antecedent authorities — Public Laws 81-

36

875, 89-769, 91-79 and 91-606, and Executive Order 10427 — the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA) coordinates the relief and recovery activities of all Federal agencies during major disasters. During such periods, the FDAA may request the Corps of Engineers to act as an engineering and construction agency to rehabilitate or restore damaged or destroyed facilities, prepare evaluation reports on requests to the FDAA for repayment of local costs for repair and restoration work, inspect such work on its completion, or perform other disaster recovery and relief activities.

Réévaluation of Completed Projects. Section 216 of the 1970 Flood Control Act authorized the Corps of Engineers to review completed navigation and flood control projects when found advisable due to significantly changed physical and economic conditions. The findings of such review investigations would be reported to Congress with recommendations for modify­ing the structures or their operation, and for improving the quality of the environment in the overall public interest.

Cooperation in Projects of Other Agencies.Section 7 of the 1944 Flood Control Act assigned the Secretary of the Army the responsibility for prescribing regulations for the use of storage space reserved for flood control or navigation in all reservoirs constructed wholly or in part with Federal funds. In carrying out that respon­sibility, operating regulations for flood control space have been developed cooperatively with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The Corps of Engineers also cooperates in the Watershed Studies Program of the Soil Conservation Service and the Small Reclamation Project Program of the Bureau of Reclamation.

When authorized by Congress in recognition of a potential flood control accomplishment, the Federal Government may contribute part of the construction cost of water resources development projects built by local interests. Such contribution, the amount of which is determined by detailed cost allocation studies to reflect the specific flood control accomplish­ment to be realized, relates to actual construc­tion costs, exclusive of costs for other functions of the project such as recreation, irrigation, or hydroelectric power, and exclusive of an additional Federal expenditure for studies and administration of funds. Dams and reservoirs

built under the foregoing arrangement are known as "Partnership Projects'" and must be operated for flood control according to regula­tions established by the Corps of Engineers.REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

In addition to other civil works activities, the Corps of Engineers is responsible for adminis­tering certain laws enacted for the preservation and protection of navigable waters. Among other things, these laws pertain to:

• Approval of sites and plans for dams and dikes.

• Permits for structures or operations in navigable waters.

• Removal of sunken vessels or other obstructions endangering navigation.

• Establishment of danger zones, dumping grounds, restricted areas, fishing areas, and harbor lines.

• Discharge of any kind of refuse matter into navigable waters.

WETLANDSSection 150 of the 1976 Water Resources

Development Act (Public Law 94-587) author­izes the Corps to plan and establish wetland areas as part of an authorized water resources development project under its jurisdiction. Establishment of any wetland area in connec­tion with the dredging required for such a water resources development project may be under­taken in any case where (1) the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the wetland area justify the increased cost above the cost required for alternative methods of disposing of dredged material for such a project; (2) the increased cost of such wetland area will not exceed $400,000; and (3) reasonable evidence exists that the wetland area to be established will not be substantially altered or destroyed by natural or man-made causes. All reports submit­ted to Congress will include, where appropri­ate, consideration of the establishment of wetland areas.

HOW CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECTS ARE INITIATED, AUTHORIZED,AND CONSTRUCTED

The Corps of Engineers never initiates an investigation or a project. Actually, local

37

interests initiate; Congress authorizes; and the Corps of Engineers studies, plans, and con­structs Federal water resources development projects. The major steps in initiating and processing such projects are briefly outlined as follows:

a. Local interests inform their Senator or Representative of a navigation, flood control, or related water resource improvement they desire, and request that Federal provision of the desired improvement be investigated. Local interests may also consult with representatives of the Corps of Engineers on appropriate procedures, particularly on whether a study and project may be accomplished under one of the continuing authorities for small projects. (See "SMALL PROJECTS/' page 35.)

Two courses of action are open to the Member of Congress. He may request the Senate or House Committee on Public Works to authorize a review of any previous reports on investigations of the area to determine whether modification of such reports would be advis­able. If a review report is appropriate, the Committee will adopt a resolution authorizing the Corps of Engineers to make the review. If no previous report has been made, the Member of Congress may request the Committee to include authorization of a study in either an omnibus river and harbor and flood control bill or in a separate bill. When passed, the bill becomes authorization for the study.

b. When the investigation is authorized, the Chief of Engineers assigns it to the appropriate Division Engineer, who usually refers it to a District Engineer for accomplishment. Follow­ing the receipt of the directive and funds for the study (which must be appropriated by Con­gress), the District Engineer, in close coopera­tion with local authorities and other Federal agencies, begins the necessary engineering, economic, and environmental investigations.

An initial public meeting is held to advise local people on the nature and scope of the investigation and to ascertain their views on problems, needs, and the type of improvement desired. After careful consideration of this information, and study of data obtained through field and office investigations, the District Engineer develops alternative plans of improvement believed suitable to the problem under consideration. Before a plan is tentatively

selected, a second public meeting is held to assure that all interested parties understand how their interests are affected by the problems and proposals under consideration; to present expected environmental impacts of alternative plans; to reveal situations of dissent, contro­versy, or support; and delineate areas of conflict or misunderstanding that need to be resolved. As the study nears completion, an environmental impact statement draft is pre­pared and coordinated. When a plan is selected, local interests must indicate their support of the proposal and their intent to meet the requirements of local cooperation. These data and the recommendations of the District Engineer are included in the report. A favorable recommendation by the District Engineer is largely dependent upon local acceptance of the proposed project and its economic justification. A third public meeting is held prior to completion of the report and its submittal to the Division Engineer.

c. The Division Engineer reviews the report, adds his recommendations, and transmits it to the Chief of Engineers for consideration and subsequent referral to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors for review. All interested parties receive a public notice that summarizes the findings and recommendations of the District and Division Engineers, and informs them that they may present their views on the matter to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. At this time, the field report is considered complete, and it may be purchased at the cost of reproduction. Another public meeting may be held if requested by non- Federal interests and deemed advisable by the Board.

d. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors reviews the reports of the District and Division Engineers, and carefully considers any additional information received from interested parties. The Board prepares its report, including recommendations, and transmits it to the Chief of Engineers, who prepares the report for submittal to Congress. Interested Federal agencies and Governors of affected states are given opportunity to comment on the recom­mended improvements. The environmental impact statement is also circulated for comment at this time. After full consideration of all comments, the Chief of Engineers submits the report to the Secretary of the Army, who

38

obtains the views of the Office of Management and Budget before transmitting the report to the Congress. These steps complete the action required by the Chief of Engineers and Secre­tary of the Army in complying with the resolution or act authorizing the study. The final environmental impact statement is filed with the Council on Environmental Quality at this time and becomes available to the public.

e. The House and Senate Committees on Public Works may hold hearings on the report with a view toward formulating a bill including authorization of the recommended project. If the project is included in an authorization bill, its enactment constitutes authorization of the project.

Funds for constructing authorized projects are not provided by the authorizing act, but are supplied under subsequent appropriation acts. After authorization, projects are designed and built in accordance with the authorizing acts and such other general laws as may be applicable at a rate determined by appropria­tion of funds. After funds are made available, construction will require 3 to 4 more years depending on the size and complexity of the project. Section 12 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 provides that water resources development improvements author­ized for construction, but for which appropria­tions have not been provided for a period of 8 years, may be deauthorized. Project deauthori­zations would be coordinated with interested Federal agencies and the Governor of the state in which the project is located.

HOW LOCAL INTERESTS SHARE IN FEDERAL PROJECTS

The cost of a Federal water resources project is usually divided between the Federal Govern­ment and the local interests directly benefited. The local interests' share of the cost is deter­mined by the requirements included in the authorizing act. These requirements are not

necessarily the same for every project because each project is separately and specifically authorized. Such requirements may include several of the following items:

a. Providing lands, easements, rights-of-way, utility relocations, disposal areas, royalty free rock, miscellaneous harbor and related improvements, supplemental dredging and jettywork, and cash contributions toward new work.

b. Operating and maintaining the com­pleted improvements, maintaining and preserv­ing certain channel capacities, and preventing any future encroachments on project channels.

c. Adjusting all water rights claims resulting from operation of the improvements.

d. Holding and saving the United States free from damages resulting from construction and operation of the improvements.

e. Contracting to repay all or a portion of the costs allocated to irrigation, municipal and industrial water supplies, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, and any other project facilities especially beneficial to local interests.

The best method for meeting the require­ments of local cooperation in any water resources project is for local interests to be represented by a legal sponsoring agency. Such an agency should be a local governmental unit or some type of special district with the necessary legal authority and financial ability to meet the local cooperation requirements specified in the authorizing act.

Whenever a project requiring local coopera­tion is authorized by Congress, and preferably before the project is authorized, local interests should examine State, county, and local laws to determine whether such a sponsoring agency exists or can be legally formed. If the necessary legal authority does not exist, local interests should take action to obtain the necessary enabling legislation, and to organize the sponsoring agency in accordance with the enabling legislation.

39

INDEX

American Fork River and Dry Creek . . . 20Ashley Creek . . . 26Authorities:

Civil Works . . . 31Development of Water Supplies . . . 34 Environmental Protection . . . 31 Flood Control Projects . . . 32 Flood Plain Management Services . . . 34 Navigation Projects . . . 32Projects Approved by the Public Works Committees . . . 33 Recreation . . . 33 Regulatory Functions . . . 37 Special . . . 35

Cooperation in Projects of Other Agencies . . . 37 Emergency Flood Control Work . . . 36 Emergency Navigation Work . . . 36 Emergency Rehabilitation Work under

Public Law 93-288 . . . 36 Réévaluation of Completed Projects . . . 37 Small Projects . . . 35

Bank Protection, Emergency . . . 36 Barton, Mill, and Stone Creeks . . . 20 Basins:

Colorado-San Juan . . . 27 Great Salt Lake . . . 13 Green River . . . 25 Sevier Lake . . . 21

Big Wash Diversion Dam and Channel . . . 23Blacksmith Fork . . . 20Burch Creek . . . 20Chicken Creek . . . 23Coal Creek . . . 23Colorado River and Tributaries above Lees Ferry . . . 26, 28 Colorado-San Juan Basin:

Description . . . 27 Emergency Work . . . 29 Flood Control Studies . . . 28 Flood Plain Management Services . . . 29

Cooperation in Projects of Other Agencies . . . 37 Coordination with Other Agencies . . . 37 Corn Creek . . . 23 Corps of Engineers:

Authority for Participation in Civil Works . . . 31 Cooperation in Projects of Other Agencies . . . 37 Emergency Flood Control Work . . . 36 Emergency Navigation Work . . . 36 Flood Control Projects . . . 32Flood Plain Management Services Program . . . 9, 34 General Information . . . 31 History of Activities in Utah . . . 7Initiation, Authorization, and Construction of Projects . . . 37 Local Participation in Projects . . . 39 Navigation Projects . . . 32Projects Approved by Public Works Committees . . . 33 Recreation . . . 33Réévaluation of Completed Projects . . . 37 Regulatory Functions . . . 37 Small Projects . . . 35 Special Authorities . . . 35

Dry Creek . . . 20

Development of Water Supplies . . . 34 Duchesne River . . . 26 Emergency Work:

(Also see specific basins)Authority for . . . 35 Costs of . . . 10 Flood Control . . . 36 General Information . . . 10 Navigation . . . 10, 36 Under Public Law 93-288 . . . 10, 36

Farmington Bay Tributaries . . . 20 Federal Disaster Assistance Administration . . . 10 Federal Participation in Flood Control

Projects, Authority for . . . 32 Financing Federal Navigation and Flood

Control Projects . . . 39 Flood Control:

Emergency . . . 36 Program in Utah . . . 8

Flood Control Projects:Authority for . . . 32Big Wash Diversion Dam and Channel . . . 23 Jordan River at Salt Lake . . . 14 Kays Creek at Layton . . . 17 Little Dell Lake . . . 14 Redmond Channel Improvement . . . 22 Small Flood-Control Projects . . . 17, 23

Flood Control Studies:Colorado River and Tributaries above Lees Ferry . . . 26,28 Jordan River Basin . . . 17

Flood Fighting, Rescue, and Repair, Emergency . . . 36

Flood Plain Information Reports:Completed . . . 9 Future . . . 9 In Progress . . . 9

Flood Plain Management Planning . . . 35 Flood Plain Management Services Program:

Flood Plain Information Reports . . . 35 Flood Plain Management Planning . . . 35 General . . . 9, 35Guidance Materials and Research . . . 35 Technical Assistance and Guidance . . . 35

Great Salt Lake Basin:Description . . . 13 Emergency Work . . . 18 Flood Control Projects . . . 14 Flood Control Studies . . . 17 Flood Plain Management Services . . . 20 Multiple Purpose Projects . . . 14 Section 7 Projects . . . 17 Small Flood-Control Projects . . . 17

Green River Basin:Description . . . 25 Emergency Work . . . 26 Flood Control Studies . . . 26 Flood Plain Management Services . . . 26 Section 7 Projects . . . 26

Guidance Materials and Research(Flood Plain Management Program) . . . 35

40

INDEX (Continued)

History of Corps of Engineers Activities in Utah . . . 7 Hobble Creek . . . 20 Industrial Water Supplies . . . 34 Initiation, Authorization, and Construction of Corps

Projects . . . 37 Investigations and Reports:

Flood Control (See Flood Control Studies)Navigation (See Navigation Studies)Program . . . 9

jordan River:Flood Control Projects . . . 14 Flood Control Studies . . . 17 Flood Plain Information Report . . . 20 Interim Flood Control Study . . . 17

jordan River at Salt Lake City . . . 14 jordan River Basin . . . 17 jordan River Complex . . . 20 Kays Creek at Layton . . . 17 Little Dell Lake . . . 14 Local Cooperation . . . 39 Logan River . . . 20Maintenance and Operation of Completed Projects . . . 10 Mill Creek . . . 20 Multiple Purpose Projects:

Little Dell Lake . . . 14 Municipal Water Supply . . . 34 National Environmental Policy Act . . . 31 Navajo Indian Reservation . . . 28 Navigation Program in Utah . . . 8 Navigation Projects:

Authority for . . . 32 Ogden River . . . 20 Operation Foresight . . . 10, 26 Operation of Completed Projects . . . 10 Partnership Projects (See Cooperation)

in Projects of other Agencies) . . . 37 Peteetneet Creek . . . 20 Pinto Creek . . . 23 Pollution Control . . . 34 Price River . . . 26Processing Corps of Engineers Projects . . . 37Projects Approved by Public Works Committees . . . 33Provo River and Rock Canyon Creek . . . 20Provo River and Slate Canyon Creek . . . 20Public Law 84-99 . . . 10, 36Public Law 93-288 . . . 10, 36Redmond Channel Improvement . . . 22Réévaluation of Completed Projects . . . 37Regulatory Functions of the Corps of Engineers . . . 37Removal of Wrecks and Obstructions . . . 36Section 7 Projects . . . 17, 37

Sevier Lake Basin:Description . . . 21 Emergency Work . . . 23 Flood Control Projects . . . 22 Small Flood-Control Projects . . . 23

Sevier River . . . 23Sharing in Federal Projects by Local Interests . . . 39Shoal Creek . . . 23Small Flood-Control Projects:

Authority . . . 35Big Wash Diversion Dam and Channel . . . 23 Kays Creek at Layton . . . 17

Small Navigation Projects . . . 35 Small Projects, General . . . 35 Snagging and Clearing, Emergency:

Flood Control . . . 36 Navigation . . . 36

Spanish Fork River . . . 20 Special Authorities (See Authorities)Status of Investigations and Reports . . . 9Status of Projects . . . 8Stone Creek . . . 20Summit Creek . . . 20Surplus Canal . . . 14Technical Assistance and Guidance (Flood

Plain Management Program) . . . 35 Uinta River . . . 26 Utah:

Basins . . . 7Climate . . . 1Economy . . . 7Emergency Work . . . 10Flood Control Program . . . 8Flood Plain Management Services Program . . . 9Floods and Water Resources Development Problems . . . 7General Description . . . 1History of Corps of Engineers Activities . . . 7Investigations and Reports Program . . . 9Maintenance and Operation of Completed Projects . . . 10Navigation Program . . . 8Status, of Projects . . . 8Water Pollution and Water Quality Control . . . 9

Virgin River:Flood Plain Information Report . . . 29

Water Pollution and Water Quality Control . . . 34 Water Pollution Control Act . . . 34 Water Resources Development Program in Utah . . . 1 Water Supply . . . 34 Wetlands . . . 38 White River . . . 26 Whiterocks River . . . 26

41 ^ U . S'. G P O : 1 9 7 7 - 7 9 2- 1 6 1

ENLARGED AREA

¡0SCALE IN MILES 0____________10 2 0

W ALLA W ALLA

LEGENDC o m p l e t e d N o t S t a r t e d

L a k e H z'

C o n g r e s s i o n a l D i s t r i c t 1

B a s i n B o u n d a r y

G L G r e a t S a l t L a k e

SL S e v i e r L a k e

G R G r e e n R i v e r

C S C o l o r a d o - S a n

W A T E R R E S O U R C E S D E V E L O P M E N T b y t h e

U . S . A R M Y C O R P S OE E N G I N E E R Sm

UTAHL O C A T I O N A N D S T A T U S OF P R O J E C T S

J A N U A R Y 1 9 »

o 0033958 4U S- ARMY C0RpS OF ENGINEERS ^

3023300339584