<script>on mouseUphide cd btn 1hide cd btn 2hide cd btn 3hide cd btn 4hide cd btn 5print cardshow cd btn 1show cd btn 2show cd btn 3show cd btn 4show cd btn 5end mouseUp</script>
<text>You are about search for bibliographical information in the water resources database, brought to you by the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and the USDA Forest Service Partners in environmental education. To start browsing through the bibliography, just click on the mouse.</text>
<text>SUBJECTS 1. Stream conservation--Montana. 2. Stream ecology--Montana. 3. Water resources development--Montana. 4. Water rights--Montana. LOCATION Zimmerman Government Publications CALL NUMBER # I 49.89/2:86 (4) </text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>Bristow, Edgar T. "Opportunities to Protect Instream Flows in Montana." Washington, DC : Western Energy and Land Use Team, Division of Biological Services, Research and Development Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1986. </text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_8961.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>By Dennis Brownridgeand Steve HinchmanFew structures heat up environmental emotions as much as Arizona's Glen Canyon Dam, a wound in the flesh of conservationists since it was completed in 1963.Most of their ire has focused on the dam's upstream impactsΓÇöthe drowning of Glen Canyon's haunting redrock walls under Lake Powell. But over the years, the focus has shifted to the dam's ongoing downstream impactsΓÇöthe scouring of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park.For the last 15 years, river runners, environmentalists and lovers of the Grand Canyon have vainly sought an environmental impact study on the dam's operation.They charge that daily tides created by the dam are wreaking havoc on the park below: eroding beaches and banks, stranding boaters, cutting endangered fish off from spawning zones and forever altering the canyon's riparian ecosystem.For 15 years, the federal agencies that manage the damΓÇöthe Bureau of Reclamation (Department of Interior) and the Western Area Power Administration (Department of Energy)ΓÇöhave refused to deal with those impacts, arguing that their job is to produce kilowatt-hours, not save beaches.Supported by a consortium of utilities that use the dam's power, the federal agencies have blocked every move environmentalists and others made to gain a voice in Glen Canyon Dam's operation.But last summer the feds broke. Faced with evidence of severe environmental degradation, mounting public pressure both in the U.S. and worldwide, and concerted lobbying from Congress, Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan on July 17 ordered BuRec officials to begin an EIS on how dam operations affect the canyon.Two months later, on Sept. 29, the environmentalists scored an even biggervictory. Utah Federal District Judge J. Thomas Greene ruled against the Western Area Power Administration in a lawsuit filed by the National Wildlife Federation, Grand Canyon Trust and rafting groups.Greene found that WAPA's sales of Glen Canyon dam power had clearly caused "irreparable injury" to the Grand Canyon river corridor. He revoked several recent WAPA power contracts and told the agency to write a second EIS on how its power sales affect the canyon.Beginning of the battleThese first official recognitions that Glen Canyon Dam has and continues to harm the Grand Canyon environment add up to a major victory for environmentalists. But it is just the first round in what may turn out to be one of the biggest environmental battles of the next decade."The Glen Canyon EIS is the most important EIS the Bureau has ever prepared," says Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who oversees both BuRec and WAPA as chair of the House Interior Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.Miller calls the Grand Canyon one of the most treasured natural landmarks in the United States, if not the world. He says the studies are an important precedent."It is not the first hydroelectric darn to be challenged on environmental grounds," Miller says. "Action was taken to restore salmon on the Columbia River after it became clear that dams on that river were having a devastating effect on fish survival. But it sets a precedent for going back and re-thinking a dam project."It will be a high profile investigation. Putting the canyon environment on par or even above power production would mean a fundamental change in the way rivers are managed in the West.Every major environmental organization has targeted the Glen Canyon Dam as a key issue. The National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Academy of Sciences and four congressional subcommittees are also watching.It is not a simple issue. Glen Canyon is the key dam in the Colorado River Storage Project: a series of water storage and hydroelectric projects in the Colorado River Basin, which include Flaming Gorge Dam on the Green River in Utah and the three dams of the Curecanti unit on the Gunnison River in Colorado.The project's primary purpose as mandated by Congress in 1956 is to store Colorado River water for allocation among all the basin states. But Congress also told the Bureau of Reclamation to "produce the greatest amount of power and energy that can be sold at firm power and energy rates."BuRec has done that. Glen Canyon's eight turbines have a combined capacity of 1,300 megawatts, which make up more than 10 percent of WAPA's power supply.BuRec built and runs the Colorado River dams. WAPA serves as the power broker for the 50 federal hydroelectric projects in the West and tells BuRec when to turn the dams on and off, based on regional power needs.However, most of the revenue from Glen Canyon's turbines does not accrue to the federal treasury. Instead it is passed on to public utilities in the form of power rates that, at 1 cent per kilowatt hour, are among the cheapest in the nation.Those utilities, known as the Colorado River Electric Distributors Association, or CREDA, serve an estimated one million retail customers in six states: Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and parts of Nevada. David Conrad, a water specialist with the National Wildlife Federation, says cities and counties with CREDA power pay about one-fourth of market prices.CREDA depends heavily on that subsidy, and WAPA and the utilities have found ways to increase its dollar value. For the first decade or so of production WAPA marketed the power as baseload supplyΓÇöaround-the-clock electric generationΓÇöand the river flowed relatively smoothly.But over the last 15 years, WAPA has increasingly used the dam for peaking powerΓÇögeneration when electricity is at its highest demand and highest costΓÇöwhich sends the river downstream in pulses that chew up the environment but save the utilities tens of thousands of dollars.Despite environmental concerns, BuRec, WAPA and CREDA continue to increase the economic value of the 25-year-old darn's hydropower operations.In the early 1980s, BuRec rewrapped Glen Canyon's turbines, increasing its peaking power capacity by 16 percent; and over the last few years WAPA has begun to blend its power with other federal hydroelectric dams and non-federal power plants to increase the peaking power available to CREDA customers (see accompanying story).River pays the priceThe gradual integration of Glen Canyon Dam into the West's energy machine has sparked a growing movement to save the river corridor downstream. Balanced against the view of the dam as a power station and cash register is the overpowering experience of the Grand Canyon.The Grand Canyon is regarded as one of the world's premier whitewater runs. It winds 240 miles through the longest de facto wilderness in the contiguous states.Recreational river running was born there, half a century ago. But the Colorado in the canyon today is very different from the virgin stream. The dam replaced the great spring floods and low summer flows with daily tides that ebb and flood as the generators follow hourly demands for electricity.In narrow stretches, the river can rise and fall as much as 13 feet in a day."The river's being operated like a flush toilet," says Dan Dagget, conservation chair of the Sierra Club's northern Arizona group.Rafters say the unnatural fluctuations are damaging the canyon environment and degrading visitor's experience."At some rapids, when the flow is low, boatmen have to stop and wait until higher flows come along," says Rob Elliott, vice-president of Western River Guides Association, who has been running the river since 1965.The old Colorado was the nation's muddiest river: "Too thin to plow and too thick to drink," as the saying went. Let a cupful stand and you might get a third of a cup of mud. The reddish silt and clay gave the river its nameΓÇöEl Rio Colorado, the red-colored river. Sixty million tons of it were carried down the river each year, replenishing the beaches scoured away by annual floods.Now that sediment settles behind the dam. Veteran river runners say beaches have shrunk noticeably, especially in narrow stretches like Marble Gorge and Granite Gorge, where they were always scarce."Our primary concern is the erosion of the beaches, because it's irreversible," says Elliott. "It's getting so there aren't enough quality campsites to go around."Despite several years of study, sediment transport through the canyon remains poorly understood. But some hydrologists think the beaches would eventually stabilize if it weren't for the large daily fluctuations. They are particularly concerned about the rapid ramping rate, the speed at which the river is raised and lowered.The dam's effects on the river's sediment load and water quality are so thoroughΓÇöfiltering out sediments, suspended solids and nutrientsΓÇöthat 300 miles downstream Nevada has had to begin fertilizing Lake Mead to keep its trophy sport fishery alive.The dam has also had enormous impacts on vegetation and wildlife. Spared the annual floods, new vegetation has taken hold on the river banks. Some species, like the introduced tamarisk, now dominate, and are pushing out the native plants.While some regard the "tammies" as buggy pests, they have also attracted five times more birds than used to live in the canyon.The dam's clear, cold waters have spawned a fabulous rainbow trout fishery, but simultaneously extirpated half of the eight fish species native to the canyon and reduced the rest to endangered or threatened status. The rapid fluctuations have also been known to cut off the remaining native fish from spawning areas in warm side canyons."The river is so artificial now, I don't think we can ever really restore the native fish," laments Daggett.The impacts to recreation, however, are a mixed bag. In summer, the natural river was warm enough to swim or paddle across on an air mattress. Now the water comes out of the depths of the reservoir at a frigid 45 degrees. Boaters who fall in are as likely to die of hypothermia as from drowning, and several do each year.Cross-canyon foot travel has been effectively banned (except at Phantom Ranch, where there is a bridge). Nevertheless, most summer rafters say they like the cold water, which "air conditions" the hot canyon floor and lets them chill their drinks."We've improved the recreationist's opportunity," contends Lloyd Greiner, WAPA's area manager. "Prior to 1963, only a thousand people had gone down than canyon. Now 15,000 to 20,000 go down every year. They would not be going down there without that dam."He says the clear, cold water has made the river more attractive, and the dam has lengthened the rafting season by eliminating dangerous spring floods and providing higher summer flows."That's baloney," responds Elliott. "In the late 1960s river running was exploding all over the West. We could have run trips [on the virgin river] all year. We'd just use different equipment, a different style in different seasons. We'd use big motor boats in the spring and small oar-powered boats in the late season."Living with the damEnvironmentalists concede that many of the dam's impacts can't be changed and that some may be perceived as desirable. But they want to minimize the negative effects."Nobody's talking about removing the dam," says Liz Birnbaum, a lawyer with the National Wildlife Federation. "The issue is, should we operate it solely for a relatively small group of people who use the power, or for the international resource which is the Grand Canyon?"Ed Norton, president of the Grand Canyon Trust, a regional conservation organization, adds, "The 1968 Colorado River Basin Act makes it very clear that other prioritiesΓÇörecreation, fish and wildlifeΓÇöare at least equal to hydropower."The groups want to see higher minimum flows, with the flow regimen smoothed out to let the river regain its balance. While the environmental impact studies are being prepared, the National Park Service has called for interim minimum flows of at least 5,000 cubic feet of water per second.Environmentalists would prefer an 8,000 cfs minimum and rafting concessionaires say they would like to see steady daily flows, which in mostmonths would be even higher. Current minimum flows are 3,000 cfs in the summer and 1,000 cfs in the winter.Recently, Bureau of Reclamation officials have kept quiet on the minimum flow and fluctuation issue, instead letting WAPA fight the battle. WAPA contends, categorically, that power production comes first and resists changing operations.Lloyd Greiner says, "We don't think it has been substantiated that daily fluctuations an having an adverse effect on the canyon."WAPA estimates that power revenues from the dam total about $80 million and officials say increasing minimum flows to 5,000 cfs would cost their customers $5 million a year. The park's 20 commercial river companies gross about $15 million.Environmentalists contest WAPA's figures and say the impact on individual customers would be small in any case."Nobody really knows the value of the dam's power, since it's usually mixed with other sources," says Birnbaum. "But there are other valuesΓÇöintangiblesΓÇöyou've got to consider in the equation. After all, this is the Grand Canyon."A destructive, outdated missionThe dam's critics note that the Bureau of Reclamation, WAPA and the Colorado River dams were authorized by Congress to attract settlers to the West by supplying plentiful irrigation water and, later, cheap electricity.Now, they say, that mission is outdated and continued federal subsidies are fueling the destruction of the region's scarce resources."Reclamation encourages the profligate waste of both water and power," says Bob Witzeman, conservation chair of the Maricopa Audubon Society in Phoenix.In addition to consuming some 85 percent of the West's water, farmers useprodigious quantities of electricity to pump that water onto their fields (although agriculture accounts for only a small fraction of total electricity use in the region).Witzeman adds that 68 percent of western farmlands are used to grow surplus crops heavily subsidized by taxpayers. He cites the case of Arizona, where the dominant crop is cotton."The 2,000 farmers in Arizona have an average net income of $205,000 ayear," he says. "It's welfare for the rich."Cotton farmers respond that without access to cheap water and power they might be forced out of business.The next stage in the battle over Glen Canyon Dam is the two environmental impact statements. The two documents will be coordinated but written separately, and most likely will be highly complex and hundreds of pages thick. Most observers expect the process to take at least five years.BuRec, however, is only allotting two years for its EIS. Steve Robinson, who is BuRec's project director, says Interior Secretary Lujan asked the agency to complete the EIS as quickly as legally possible. Robinson says he will hold scoping meetings next January and hopes to have a draft statement ready by 1991."That's an ambitious schedule," says Robinson, but he notes BuRec already has seven years of data accumulated from the Glen Canyon Environmental StudiesΓÇöthe $7 million study project that led to Lujan's decision to write an EIS.The WAPA EIS win be directed by Ken Maxey, deputy area manager in the agency's Salt Lake City office, and will be wider in scope, looking at allColorado River Storage Project dams and the effect power sales from those dams have on endangered fish and the environment.Scoping sessions are planned to start next February, but Maxey says he doubts he will be able to keep pace with BuRec.Brownridge, Dennis and Hinchman, Steve. "The Grand Canyon is Just Another Turbine." High Country News. 4 December 1989.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>Brownridge, Dennis and Hinchman, Steve. "The Grand Canyon is Just Another Turbine." High Country News. 4 December 1989.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_5821.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>By Pat FordJohn Osborn, Idaho's hardest working conservation volunteer, had just returned from the Little North Fork of the Clearwater River."It's grim," he told me on the phone. "There's a lot of new road in just the last month, and sediment is pouring off the Burlington Northern land."The Little North Fork of the Clearwater lies where Idaho's narrow Panhandle begins its long bulge south. This is steep, remote, forested country, with north Idaho's best backcountry elk hunting and, until recently, fine west slope cutthroat trout fishing. Until recently it had few roadsΓÇöa measure, here in Idaho's historic timber country, of how remote it is.Today it's changing fast, as the two landowners build roads and cut timber. The Clearwater National Forest does most of the roading and Burlington Northern most of the cutting. As part of its Northwest-wide forestland liquidation, BN is clearcutting its checkerboard sections in the Little North Fork, making the map pattern real on the Found.Each time Osborn has visited over the last two years, there are new roads, newly shorn slopes, and more mud in the streams. "The upper watershed is gone," he says. Sediment levels in streambottom gravels of the logged creeks are up to 90 percent."The bigger tributaries in the middle reach, the ones we're proposing forwilderness, are what's left. And BN and the forest both are going in there as soon as they can."About 350 miles southeast as the crow fliesΓÇötwice that as the car drivesΓÇölies the upper Blackfoot River."My dad ran sheep there when I was a kid," says Jim Gabettas, who runs atackle shop in nearby Idaho Falls. "It was an outstanding cutthroat stream in the '40s and '50s." Then came overgrazing and riparian alteration."Today it's just fair," he says. "There aren't many around who knowwhat it used to be like."The Blackfoot's headwaters are on public land near the Wyoming border, but most of it winds through pasture and meadow on ranches in the high, dry valley above Blackfoot Reservoir."The meadows were tall grass and willows, with grass over the riverbanks," Gabettas remembers. "Then over time the owners killed the willows to get more open ground. Grazing beat down the banks. Now the shade and cover are gone, and sagebrush is taking over the meadows. You've got a lot fewer and a lot smaller fish."River defenders speak upTwo Idaho rivers with different times, paces and agents of change. But both still have fish, thus users, thus lovers and defenders.And, perhaps, a new hope for defense. This July, Osborn and Gabettas joined some 800 other Idahoans at eight crowded public meetings around the state, held to "solicit public input on water quality." Osborn went to meetings in Coeur d'Alene; Gabettas traveled 500 miles southeast to Idaho Falls.At those meetings and by mail, 4,300 one-page forms nominating streams for special water quality protections were submitted to the Idaho Water Quality Bureau.Gabettas handed in six, for the upper Blackfoot River and its major tributaries. Osborn nominated the upper reaches and tributaries of the Little North Fork of the Clearwater River.What they were doing depends on your perspective. They were helping launch one of the nation's first coherent efforts to implement the Clean Water Act's most difficult and oft-ignored sectionsΓÇönonpoint pollution control and anti-degradation.They were also starting the action phase of a landmark negotiated settlement among Idaho water users and polluters.But to their own thinking, they were just continuing, intently and without illusions, personal efforts to stop or slow the decline of waters they care about.This latest stage started on Sept. 7, 1988, when a crowd filled the office of Idaho Gov. Cecil Andrus."This is a great day for our state," he told the battery of cameras, tape recorders and reporters. "We've proven that Idahoans can sit down and reason together without constant resort to adversarial approaches. It's a model for future cooperation."Seven men and one woman stood, not altogether comfortably, behind him ΓÇö leaders of the Idaho Mining Association, Idaho Farm Bureau, Idaho Forest Industry Council, Wilderness Society, Idaho Conservation League, Idaho Sportsmen's Coalition, and Nezperce Tribe.Under Andrus' insistent aegis, they had pieced together over five months a 13-page agreement framing how nonpoint pollution from logging, mining and agriculture would be regulated in Idaho.Those five months followed a six-year treadmill, featuring several previous negotiations ending in bitter collapse, two gubernatorial vetoes of industry-written legislation, typical start-stop-switch-stall ballots by the Reagan-eraEnvironmental Protection Agency and Idaho's Water Quality Bureau, and,finally, an October 1987 federal lawsuit by Idaho conservation groups to force action.Recounting it in detail would only stir bad memories for those involved and be utter Greek to all the others. It's a standard tale of Rocky Mountain politics and muddle in the 1980s.Andrus' achievement, once the lawsuit forced him to move, was to get something done. He put the regulators on the sidelines and hired a professional mediator. He told both sides that the first group to walk out or sabotage the talks would find Cecil Andrus on the other side from then on. And he wrote himself into the agreement as referee of future disputes.The agreement itself reflects both the political landscape of Idaho and the nature of nonpoint source pollution. It is complicated, ambiguous, uneven, and defers most tough decisions. When announcing it, neither Andrus nor the negotiators explained its substance, and both seemed relieved when no reporter asked.Now, a year later and with a million doIlars from the 1989 Legislature tokick-start it, implementation has begun.Water quality was the issueTurnout at the July public meetingsΓÇöstep one of the pactΓÇösurprised nearly everyone. Some 175 people attended in Boise, about the same in Coeur d'Alene, and even in tiny Challis 30 people showed up.Will Whelan, lobbyist and water specialist for the Idaho Conservation league, says the turnout mirrors the public mood."People care about water quality," he says. "And having a voice in decidingwhat waters matter most is important to them."How much of a voice varies. The most protection the agreement affords is for "outstanding resource waters." Once a stream or lake is designated an outstanding resource, essentially no water quality degradation can occur.The citizen role is traditional: people or groups can petition to nominate a stream, and must then lobby the Idaho legislature to grant the designation.Industry negotiators insisted on leaving it to the Legislature to create outstanding resource waters. It means few will be created for at least the near future.Most action will occur at the next levelΓÇö"stream segments of concern"ΓÇöwhere nonpoint polluting activities threaten instream values, like fishing orrecreation. Nomination forms were passed out at the public meetings, and4,300 were returned by the deadline a month later.Some played by the rules: Jim Gabettas submitted six detailed forms, one for each specified segment of the upper Blackfoot and its tributaries. Others simply nominated, for instance, the whole Snake River Basin on one form."Now the seven negotiators, four federal and four state agencies, are sitting down with those forms," says Whelan. "We have to decide, by consensus, which nominations to accept and which not. Where we can't agree, we turn the stream over to Gov. Andrus, and he decides."The industries and their agency allies will seek to minimize segments of concern, conservationists and their allies to maximize. No one is predicting how many are chosen or bucked to Andrus. The goal is to finish by December 1989.For streams not made outstanding resources or segments of concern, the formal process and public role are put on hold for two years, when the public meetings recur, and people can promote their streams again.On paper, the waters of unchosen streams must still be protected for existing uses. But realistically, the monitoring required to make such judgments will barely cover chosen streams."Any non-point control scheme, much more than point source control rides on choices," says an EPA staffer. "Idaho is choosing where to focus very limited time and money." And people may not yet realize where not to focus.Attention will be paidThe Little North Fork Clearwater will probably get some of that attention. Its roadless portion drains the proposed Mallard-Larkins Wilderness, Idaho's biggest flashpoint between loggers and conservationists. Its classic west slope cutthroat trout fishery is suffering from sedimentation. Its checkerboard private land is being almost completely clearcut as part of Burlington Northern's controversial liquidation.John Osborn, among others, made sure it got a lot of nominations.If it is chosen as a stream segment of concern, sometime early next year, a Little North Fork local working committeeΓÇönamed by the state working group, representing all the stream's users and landownersΓÇöwill begin meeting.As Whelan explains, "The Little North Fork committee will establish a water quality goal for the streamΓÇöno degradation, degradation to a specified level, or some mixΓÇöand for any designated tributaries. It will then develop site-specific best management practices for the stream, and decide where they apply. It will monitor their application as roads are built or timber cut, and change them if instream monitoring shows they aren't meeting the goal."In other words, the Little North Fork committee, and its fellows on other streams in Idaho's timber country, will do the real, tough, long work. It will operate by consensus, with unresolved disputes kicked up to the governor.Will there be disputes? Joe Hinson of the Idaho Forest Industry Council says, "I think things will go pretty smoothly out on the ground. Plum Creek (BN's timber arm) wants to protect water quality. We'll have to deal with some public confusion that the segment of concern designation is a preservation device."That's not true, he says, Designation carries a presumption that timber activities will occur."John Osborn says, "If I'm on that committee, my mind will be on halting logging on those damaged checkerboard ownerships. The feeder streams are loaded with sediment. Our only hope is logging and road reductions. The committee must be prepared to protect what's leftΓÇöif any is by the time they start meeting."The Little North Fork does have one thing many segments of concern will not: established instream monitoring. BN's clearcutting led Idaho's Water Quality Bureau to begin measuring both logged and pristine feeder streams two years ago. That data will give the river's working committee a big jump on the many others responsible for unmonitored streams.Upper Blackfoot needs helpJim Gabettas has a different creature on the Upper Blackfoot River. The river needs restoration, not just protection. It flows largely through private land. There is no dramatic controversy, just slow decline. Its friends are few. If the Blackfoot makes it as a stream segment of concern, it will do so just barely.Gabettas has a modest goal: "My hope, if we get the designation, is to set up good monitoring, and nail down the status and problems. Moving from there to do something about itΓÇöwell, that will be hard."It will be hard because, for streams affected by agriculture, the agreement resembles the Cheshire Cat. The only requirement for an ag-impacted segment of concern is that the local Soil Conservation District assess its water quality.Projects to do something can be developed, but landowner participation is voluntary. The agency and industry presumption is that local working committees will not form on streams affected by agriculture.Agriculture's soft duty reflects Idaho's politicsΓÇöfarming and ranching is industry number oneΓÇöas well as the conservation community's deliberate decision in the negotiations to use their chits on timber.Agriculture is Idaho's major nonpoint polluter by far, but that very scale, and the thousands of operators involved, discourage any reform efforts at all.Another problem is that few people recall when the streams and rivers of the Snake River Plain were anything but degraded. The agreement treats mining about the same as agriculture, due in part to the relatively better shape of Idaho's dredge and surface mining laws after a grassroots campaign in the mid-1980s.On the Blackfoot and similar streams, fishermen are considering forming their own, unofficial working committees, as a way to foster publicity and public awareness."I don't have a lot of hope this process can turn ag degradation around," Gabettas concludes. "But if it can increase people's attention to the river, that's a step."Idaho takes the leadIt seems odd that this halting, imperfect agreement puts Idaho on the leading edge of nonpoint pollution regulation in the West. But that is what an EPA staffer says has happened."Apple pie policy but not much on the ground is the tradition in nonpoint," says one. "Idaho is leading not so much in what it's doing, but the fact that it's doing something."For this federal regulator, Idaho's imperfect progress seems a big step. After decades of no nonpoint regulation, Western states moved first to best management practicesΓÇöusually general, weak, ill-enforced prescriptive guidelines applied to each industry.Only lately have conservationists and fishermen, armed with the Clean Water Act, begun insisting that specific instream criteria, such as sediment, and comprehensive monitoring, drive non-point regulation.They are also insisting that high-quality waters remain undegraded, and that degraded waters get cleaned up.How is the practical question, and Idaho will be among the first states to tryto define numerical yardsticks for health and harm on not just one stream, but for an entire state. Nor can choices be evaded. All streams can't be monitored, all pristine waters preserved, all degraded waters cleaned up or all polluting uses treated the same.A relative handful of Idaho conservationists made a big choice right out of the boxΓÇöthat timber streams would get the real attention and most of the money from this agreement. Now a larger but still modest number will make the next tier of choices. At each tier, losersΓÇöstreams and usersΓÇöwill outnumber winners.No wonder Gabettas and Osborn are wary about results.Ford, Pat. "Idaho Points The Way to Stream Quality." High Country News. 4 December 1989.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>Ford, Pat. "Idaho Points The Way to Stream Quality." High Country News. 4 December 1989.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_10443.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Water quality is an environmental issue of national concern. Agricultural activities, because they involve large land areas, often are cited as a major contributor of water contaminants. It appears that some degree of water resource contamination from agricultural land use is inevitable. This is especially true in the humid eastern United States, where precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration.A comprehensive management strategy that addresses all users of water can help minimize or prevent most surface and ground water quality problems.In general, however, there are many more questions than answers regarding the scientific basis for water management. Where agriculture is involved, any successful management scheme must include at least strong research and education components and implementation of necessary control practices. An effective management strategy also must include a variety of public policy instruments because there is incomplete scientific understanding of how various land uses affect water quality.Public policy decisions can be based on common sense, scientific knowledge, and elementary economic principles. Regardless of the specific techniques used, the publicΓÇöor decision makers acting on their behalfΓÇömust address the question "what is the worth (and cost) of environmental quality?" When developing environmental policies relating to agricultural land use, a corollary question also must be answeredΓÇö"what is the worth of a reliable agricultural production system to American society?"Where surface and groundwater quality protection is concerned, farm operation changes may involve inducing farmers to adopt best management practices (BMPs) for nutrient and agrichemical use and erosion protection. This may involve reduction in the quantity of use of nutrients and agrichemicals and changes in tillage operations and cropping practices. Unlike other industries, farmers must work in an uncontrolled environment, which can thwart even their best managerial efforts.In addition to this uncertainty, several other factors may explain a reluctance to adopt new techniques.1. Lack of understanding about impacts of agricultural practices or the environment.2. Lack of understanding about the mechanisms by which nutrients, agrichemicals and sediment act in the environment and affect surface and ground water quality.3. General perception that "If a little is good, more must be better."4. A realization due to the relationship between production inputs and output that it is better to err by using too much rather than too little nutrient or agrichemicals.5. Large investments in equipment, and other associated costs that may not be adaptable to new production techniques.This list is certainly not all-inclusive, but it indicates the complex nature of issues that must be targeted by any water quality protection program.The Monocacy River Watershed Water Quality Demonstration Project's central objective is to encourage accelerated adoption by producers of appropriate technology to create a clean and safe environment that is in harmony with a productive agriculture. The technology to be promoted and applied will be practical yet innovative, achieving voluntary, cost-effective and substantial reduction in nonpoint source pollutants from agricultural sources where impaired water quality exists. The technology to be used will demonstrate for the various soils, cropping systems, and farm operations in the Watershed the kinds of modifications producers can make that economically and effectively reduce the movement of agrichemicals and farm-related wastes through soils and potentially to ground water and surface water.Ground water resources in the Monocacy River watershed are and have the potential to be impacted by nitrogen and agrichemicals due to the nature of agricultural activities and the geology of the area. Surface water quality in the Watershed is also being and has the potential to be highly degraded by increased inputs of nitrogen, phosphorus, agrichemicals and sediment from agricultural sources.This demonstration project has been developed and will be administered under the authorities of the Director of the Maryland Cooperative Extension Service and the State Conservationist of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. To assist the Director and State Conservationist, they have assigned responsibilities to a demonstration project coordinator for each agency. Additionally, two groups have been formed to work on the project: a Technical Committee and a Steering Committee.Nonpoint sources of pollution tend to be the major contributors of nutrients, bacteria, and suspended sediments to the Watershed's waterways. This is particularly significant since the dominant land use in the watershed is agricultural. Without accelerated conservation and treatment efforts, both surface and groundwater quality will continue to be degraded due to sediment, nutrient, and agrichemical inputs.There are several programs in use in the Watershed that are addressing nonpoint pollution problems. These programs are funded and administered by several agencies, including local, state, and federal organizations.ObjectivesThe overall objective of this proposal is to demonstrate to agricultural producers the actions farmers in the Piedmont region of the Mid-Atlantic area of the U.S. can take that will cost-effectively reduce the movement of agrichemicals and waste products through soils and potentially to ground and surface water resources of the area.Since the early 1980s, Maryland has initiated several programs to minimize and control point and nonpoint source pollution to water resources of the State. These programs have been mainly in response to the Chesapeake Bay Clean-up Initiatives. However, these efforts have been expanded to cover other surface water resources as well as groundwater resources. These programs are directed towards erosion and sediment control, nutrient management and animal waste management. The Monocacy River demonstration effort will build upon prior programs. The objectives to be met will fulfill needs identified from these prior programs.The primary objectives of the 5-year demonstration project include the following:1. To develop and implement effective nutrient management plans that supply adequate plant nutrients for a realistic crop yield, minimize entry of nutrients to ground and surface waters, and to maintain or improve chemical and biological conditions of the soil.2. To develop and implement cost effective conservation cropping systems and management techniques which maximize nutrient utilization, reduce pesticide use or utilize pesticides with less potential to cause environmental pollution, and control soil erosion through reduced inputs.3. To demonstrate the use of cover crops for nutrient management purposes as a fall/winter nitrogen sink to decrease or prevent the leaching of nitrates from the root zone. This should provide environmental protection and allow carry-over of nitrogen for the subsequent cropping season.4. To plan and apply erosion and sediment control systems on eroding cropland and pastures that are consistent with systems that will address nutrient and pest management problems.5. To implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program to preventcontamination of ground and surface water and to improve water quality as a result of reduced pesticide load.6. To provide growers environmentally safe and effective agrichemical choices which will meet their needs but will at the same time provide for the potential to reduce environmental impact. The program will also demonstrate safe handling of agrichemicals which will lead to the adoption of proper storage, mixing, application, clean-up and disposal of chemicals to ensure that ground or surface waters are not contaminated by improper procedures.7. To establish innovative cost-share and incentive payment programs for nutrient and pest management that will overcome the economic barriers that cannot be addressed with current cost-share mechanisms.8. To implement an interagency approach for providing service to farmers that includes informational, educational, technical and financial assistance on water quality programs.9. To demonstrate the need for well-head protection on farms and rural households by testing drinking water for various contaminants associated with agricultural production and on-site wastewater disposal systems. Wellhead protection includes information on the maintenance of wells and on-site wastewater disposal systems and the health effects of contaminated water. Land and Water Magazine. "Monocacy River Watershed." Land and Water. January 1991. 8-10.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>Land and Water Magazine. "Monocacy River Watershed." Land and Water. January 1991. 8-10.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_6164.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>Morisawa, Marie. "Streams: Their Dynamics and Morphology." New York: McGraw Hill. 1968.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>2</id>
<text> "This book was written in an attempt to explain away some of the mystery of rivers, and to explain in terms which are understandable with little or no previous knowledge of the subject."</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_9795.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>New Mexico Water Pollution Control Bureau. Point source waste load allocation for the Twining Water and Sanitation District : ( milestone 6.2.a.). [Santa Fe, N.M. : The Dept., 1981].</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_6755.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text> NOTES: WRRI report ; no. 228 "Technical completion report, project nos. 1423655, 1423658, in cooperation with New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute." "January 1988." Includes bibliographical references. SUBJECTS : 1. Ephemeral streams--New Mexico. 2. Groundwater flow--New Mexico. 3. Water, Underground--New Mexico--Artificial recharge. 4. Stream measurements--New Mexico. 5. Seepage. 6. Rio Salado (N.M.) LOCATION Science and Engineering Library CALL NUMBER GB705 N6 N64 no.228 </text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>Stephens, Daniel B. "Field Study of Ephemeral Stream Infiltration and Recharge." New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute, New Mexico State University. 1988.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_3772.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>WATER-THE UNIQUE CHEMICAL (from The Global Water Cycle)THE OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER ON THE EARTHThe available water is distributed over the face of the earth in a very uneven manner. Thus, less than 0.027% of the total water is fresh and immediatly available. In fact, most of the fresh water is locked up in the Artcic and Antarctic ice caps and, with the world demand for fresh water .constantly increasing, it has been suggested that the towing of icebergs to the temperate zones is quite feasible and, in terms of economics, compares with all presently known desalination processes. Thus, it has been calculated(20) that of an iceberg measuring 2700 x 2700 x 250 m, towed at speed of half a knot from the Amery ice shelf to Australia, 30% would arrive intact. The water would be worth $ 5.5 million, i.e., about 10% of the cost of a similar quantity of desalinated water, compared witll a towing cost of $1 million.Ninety seven percent of the water available on the earth is found in the large oceans. Thus, the oceans cover an area of 3.6 x 108 km2 and contain 13 x 108 km3 of water. Compared to this, the lower seven miles of the earth's atmosphere only contain 13 x lO3 km3, i.e., 0.000053% of the total water. The main process of the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation from the oceans and subsequent precipitation and runoff back into tl~c oceans. The anllual turnovcr of water amounts to 3.5x 105 km3 (3.5 x 1014 tons). The Antarctic ice cap, which covers 1.5 x 107 km2, makes up the largest volume of fresh water (2.5-2.9 x 107 km3). If melted, it could supply all the earth's rivers for 830 years. By comparison, the Greenland ice cap is quite insignificant; it contains 2.6 x 106 km3 of water. However, in terms of the available fresh water this is still a very large volume since, if it were melted, it could supply river systems such as the Amazon or Mississippi for 4000-5000 years. The total water locked up in glaciers amounts to only 2.1 x l05 km3. Just as glaciers can be compared with rivers, so the ice caps can be compared with lakes, in that they cover the landscape and flow radially outward.The world's great lakes contribute a minor but important amount of the available surface fresh water, totaling 1.2 x l05 km3. More than half of this volume comes from the four largest lakes: Baikal (26,000), Tanganyika (20,000), Nyasa (13,000), and Superior (12,000). A volume of water equal to that in the fresh-water lakes also exists in saline lakes, of which the Caspian Sea is by far the most important (78,000 km3). On the continents ol Asia, America, and Africa, 75% of the fresh surface water is accounted for by lakes. The corresponding figure for Europe is only 2%. This is one of the reasons why, in spite of the high density of population, thc problems connected with pollution and the adequate supply of fresh water are not as pressing in Europe as they are in America.Although the amount of fresh water present in all the rivers of the world is only 1200 km3, the annual runoff into the oceans amounts to 34,400 km3. Of this, the three Iargest river systems, the Amazon, Congo, and Mississippi, respectively, contribute 5100 km3. The fact that the rivers of the United States discharge fresh water into the sea at the rate of 4.9 x 104 m3 sec-1 dramatically illustrates the large turnover of water.The underground reservoirs provide further supplies of fresh water. The topmost layer is a saturated zone in which the liquid is held by capillary forces. The upper boundary is referred to as the water table and this may lie at the land surface, e.g., in swamps, or several hundred meters below, as in deserts. Further down is an unsaturated zone from which water percolates to the water table. This zone contains about 41,000 km3 of water, which is nOt extractablc but wI-icl- recharges the ground-water reservoirs from which the water can be extracted. Altogether, 4.1 x lOG km3 of fresh ground water extcllds down to a depth of I km. Further down, large reservoirs of highly mineralized water exist, but the extraction of thcse is not economically feasible.-he period for which water remains underground varies from a few to several hundred years, and at very great depths the water may n for up to ten thousand years. The amount of water in the top layer earth's crust is equivalent to 4000 times the water in all the earth's Underground watcr is, however, not wholly selr-renewing, and it is is reason that water conservation is now of great importance. It has calculated that for irrigation schemes in arid regions the level of the rground water supply may be reduced through pUlllpillg by ~0 cm per whereas it is only replenished at the rate of 0.5 cm per year.-inally, probably the most important source of fresh water is rain, istribution of which over the earth is quite nonuniform. As a result infall and percolation from the water table to the topsoil, the total .ure content of the soil in the world is 25,000 km3. Plants normally on what is considered to be "dry" land, and it is not generally realized even "dry" dust contains up to 15% of water. It appears that plant th requires extractable water. Thus, all ordinary tree withdraws and pires about 190 liters per day.rhe average annual rainfall in the United States is 75 cm, 53 cm of is returned to the atmosphere and only 7.5 cm is used by man. The nder goes to replenish the underground water reservoirs. Many pts have been made to increase man's control over the rate of precipita~nd to retard losses by evaporation, since the problems associated with upply of fresh water are becoming more urgent all the time. Urbanizaalways leads to increases in water usage which far outstrip the rate at 1 the population increases. In some countries, the use and supply of r are already subjcct to government legislation, and as problems :iated with water pollution become more urgent and receive wider city, so more economical methods of cleaning waste water and of , second-rate water in industrial processes will be developed.'ATER AND LIFEEven a superficial study of liquid water, and to some extent of ice, suggest that lire on this planet has been conditioned by its abnormal erties, since water was present on this planet long berore the evolution e. It is well known that water forms a necessary constituellt Or the cells I animal and plant tissues and that lire cannot exist, even ror a limited )d, in the absence Or water, so that we have the somewhat strange iion that the only naturally occurring inorganic liquid is essential forthe maintenancc of organic lire. Bearing in mind also that natural processes are characterizcd by the economy with which energy (matter) is utilized, it seems permissible to conclude that in organisms which consist of up to 95/', wa~er, this liquid fulr~llS a function other than that of an inert substrate. It is, Or course, very IllUCh harder to elucidate the exact role of watcr in lire processes,~lul3) although biochemical and medical studies have yielded some useful data. Apart from acting as a proton-cxchange medium, water moves through living organisnls and functions as a lubricant in the form of surface films and viscous juices, e.g., dilute solutions of mucopolysaccharides. Nothing is yet known about the manner in which water acts in the formation Or organized biological structures at the subcellular, cellular, and multicellular levels, and, at the molecular level, the role of water in the stabilization Or native conformations of biopolymers has only recently been receiving some attention.~248'4Rl~43' Thc almost complete disregard of the role of the solvent in tertiary and quatenlary structure phenomena is an interesting example of how established experimental findings are sometimes ignored because they cannot be reconciled with existing concepts. Thus, some time before X-ray techlliques were successfully applied to establish the structure of DNA, it was well known that the polymer required some 30% of water to maintain its native conformation in the crystalline state, and that partial dehydration led to denaturation. Available X-ray techniques cannot "see" the water in biopolymers because of its relatively high mobility and therefore when the doublc helix structure was confirmed it was claimed that it owed its stability to intramolecular hydrogen bonds, van der Waalstype interactions between purine and pyrimidine bases, and electrostatic interactions between sugar phosphate groups. Clearly this cannot be the whole story, and furthcr studies will reveal thc function of water in the stabilization of thc double helix. At present the most useful method for observing small displacemcnts of molecules or segments of molecules in solution is undoubtedly NMR spectroscopy, and the application of this technique to the study of water in biopolymer systems shows some promise.(l84372334)Although the contribution of watcr to life processes at a molecular level is almost completely unexplored, a considerable amount of data exists on the distribution, synthesis, and turnover of water at a more complex level.~64 343 582~ Thus, the water content Or living organisms varies between the extrcmes of 96-97% in somc marine invertebrates to less than 50% in bacterial spores. Thc adult human has a water content of 65-70%, but the water is unevenly distributed; nervous tissue contains 84%, liver 73%, muscle 77%, skin 71%, connective tissue 60%, and adipose tissue 30%. The water content of biological fluids such as plasma, saliva, and gastricuices is between 90-99.5%. Approximately 45-50% of the organislll is nade up of intracellular water, 5% of plasma watcr, 30-35% of nonlqueous matter, and the remainder can be termed interstitial or extracellular vater. The hydration of an organism changes during its development. A luman embryo during its first month has a water content of 93% and, as a .hild develops to maturity, so thc intracellular water content increases at he cost of the extracellular liquid. These levels are maintained constant mtil old age, when the process is reversed.Water is the solvent which promotes biological hydrolysis (digcstion) n which proteins and carbohydrates are broken down; lipids, althougll not ~tually modirled chemically, are solubilized in the aqueous medium. On he other hand, biosynthesis of water results from condensatioll polymerizaion, examples being the production of glycogen from glucose and the ormation of proteins from amino acids. Thus, the energy required for iosynthesis derives partially from the energy of formation of water.The study of the properties and functions of water ilt biological systems s complicated by the nature of the medium, which contains polymers and :olloidally dispersed particles or may be in a gel state. Important rlelds of tudy include the origin of resistance toward freezing and dehydration shown ~y most animal and plant tissues. This raiseS the question of the nature of 'bound" water which is currently receiving some attention'22~l48 23l !~54 ll54) ~nd can be characterized by such diverse techniques as osmometry, specroscopy, and adsorption measurements. Anotller important function of vater is the thermal regulation of living organisms; its large heat capacity oupled with the high water content (45 kg in an adult human) are responsi~le for maintaining isothermal conditions and the high thermal conductivity ~f water prevents serious local temperature nuctuatiolls~ The high latent leat of evaporation permits large losses of heat: the average adult eliminates vater at a daily rate of 300 400 g by respiration and 600-800 g by cutaneous vaporation, with an associated loss of heat amoullting to 20% of the tolal eat produced in a day.It is well known that living organisms cannot survive without a mhlinum supply of water, although the tolerance toward dehydration varies idely throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. The average daily take of water by an adult is 2.5 Iiters in the form of drink and solid food. Iable I shows that of an average daily intake of 1.5 kg of "solid" food, ;7% is actually watcr. In addition, the average adult produccs watcr CllDgenously by the combustion of food at a daily rate of 350 g, accompanied y a heat liberation of 1.31 kcal. This endogenous production of water is urprisingly constant under different physiological conditions and alwaysmorphologically and functionally, life and water are inseparable. It is therefore hardly surprising that living organisms are sensitively attuned to the properties of water. This can be demonstrated by changing thcse properties "slightly," e.g., by raising the temperature. It appears that for each spccies there is a definite temperature above which it can exist for only very limited periods; for mammals this temperature is 40~C. Another method for altering the properties of water is by changing its isotopic composition. Although from a chemical standpoint H20 and D20 closely resemble each other, the rates of many chemical, and especially of biochemical processes are extremcly sensitive to the nature of the aqueous substrate, and life processes can be retarded by replacing H20 in the body ~luids by D20. Until recently it was believed that D20 could not support life, but Katz'5'fi' has shown that algae, bacteria, yeasts, fungi, and protozoa can be induced to grow in 99.8% D20, and higher organisms in lower concentrations. In fact, completely deuterated biopolymers have thus been biosynthesized. How such adaptation is brought about and what are the e~ects of deuteration on the functional properties of biopolymers is not yet fully understood, but investigations in this field clearly indicate that much can be learned by tracing the path of hydrogcn, rather than carbon, in biological processes.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>The Global Water Cycle</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_8727.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>By Benjamin L. JonesOur Nation is involved in one of the most extensive water pollution control studies ever attempted. It is expected that by 1985, most easily identifiable sources of stream pollution will have been eliminated or controlled. Improvement in water quality is already apparent in many streams.Some major problems, however, still remain. In many river basins, the less easily controlled sources of pollution, such as runoff from city streets and erosion from farm lands, will still be great enough to seriously affect waterquality. Eliminating all such pollution sources would cost more than the total funds available; so studies must be designed to accomplish the most good for the money spent.In addition to the need to assess the effectiveness of pollution-control efforts, there is a need to predict the effects of proposed management alternatives so that the best development plans can be selected. In its capacity as the appraiser of the Nation's mineral resources, the U.S. Geological Survey is developing and demonstrating techniques for making such predictions.In this River-Quality Assessment research, teams of Survey scientists study all aspects of river quality in a drainage basin and determine the relative importance of river-quality problems, their causes, and the relative effectiveness of proposed solutions. The most efficient management actions can be determined from these studies to provide the best water quality at least cost. A series of these studies will be conducted by the Survey to demonstrate their usefulness and the techniques for making them.In a pilot assessment completed on the Willamette River in Oregon, the scientists analyzed several river-quality problems:ΓÇó Maintenance of high levels of dissolved oxygen in the river;ΓÇó Growth of algae as a potential nuisance;ΓÇó Occurrence and distribution of toxic trace metals; and,ΓÇó Potential for excessive soil erosion with increasing basin development. The team found that waste-treatment plans already in effect had greatly reduced the input of oxygen-using wastes to the river and that dissolved-oxygen levels had improved greatly during recent years. Summer releases of fresh-water from upstream reservoirs to aid river navigation had resulted in further improvements, which is an example of one management action serving two beneficial purposes.Nevertheless, some additional improvement in the dissolved oxygen content was desirable to provide a greater margin of safety for the future. A very costly plan for advanced treatment of municipal wastes had been proposed as a possible solution. The results of the river-quality assessment showed, however, that elimination of a very few industrial discharges of ammonia wastes would result in greater improvement in the river at much less cost.The releases of fresh reservoir water during low flows also have helped control the growth of undesirable algae in several ways:ΓÇó The freshwater provides a continuous low-level source of nutrients favorable to the growth of desirable algae.ΓÇó The increased flow quickly moves algae out of the river system.ΓÇó The released water is lower in temperature and in certain trace elements, which results in slower algal growth.A study of trace metals in bottom sediments indicated no areas with concentrations high enough to cause immediate concern.Population and industry are expected to increase greatly over the next 50 years in the Willamette Valley. To help evaluate the probable effects of such growth on land and water quality, a photomosaic map and an erosion-potential index are used to estimate the way various land uses can affect soil erosion and sediment deposition in different types of terrain. These maps can be used by planners to make decisions on future land and water management within the river basin.The major benefit of the Willamette River assessment is that it indicates that some proposed high-cost pollution-control measures may be unnecessary; as a result the potential savings over the next 10 to 20 years could amount to tens of millions of dollars.Additional assessments are now being carried out in other river basins. Because the combination of problems addressed in each basin is different, a variety of examples will be available to demonstrate the benefits of the river-quality assessment approach to those who must make river-quality management decisions.U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S. Geological Survey. "River Quality Assessment." U.S. Government Printing Office. 1977-240-966:8.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S. Geological Survey. "River Quality Assessment." U.S. Government Printing Office. 1977-240-966:8.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_3935.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<text>WATER FACT SHEETU.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORLargest Rivers in the United StatesThis fact sheet shows the location and ranking of the 20 largest rivers in the United States. It is common knowledge that the Mississippi is the largest U.S. river, but what is the rank of other major U.S. rivers? Rivers are considered large on the basis of one or more of three characteristics: total length from source to mouth, area of basin (watershed) drained by the stream, and average rate of flow (discharge) at the mouth. The alphabetical list on the back of this sheet shows these characteristics of 32 rivers so as to include the 20 largest rivers in each of the three categories. Among the 32 rivers, 16 are tributary to other rivers on the list; the remaining rivers discharge directly into oceans, seas. gulfs, or bays.As dynamic parts of our environment, rivers and their characteristics vary in space and time in response to climatic changes and to man's activities. The causes include seasonal and annual changes in precipitation and temperature, cycles of erosion and deposition (especially during floods), diversions of water (for irrigation, power, and other purposes), and the construction of public worksΓÇödams, levees, locks, and canals. For example, combinations of these effects, but principally diversions, have reduced the average flow of the Colorado River near its mouth from about 22,000 cubic feet per second (f3/s) for the period 1903-34 to less than 4,000 ft3/s during the period 1951-80. However, the annual flow in 1984 averaged 17,500 ft3/s, a consequence of record-breaking precipitation on the river basin. A flow of 1,000 ft3/s is equal to 646 million gallons per day, 724,000 acre-feet per year, or 28.3 cubic meters per second. (One acre-foot is the volume of water that would cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot.)River lengths or river-length data are affected not only by some of the natural and artificial causes noted in the preceding paragraph, but also by the precision of various techniques of measurement, by the scale of available maps or aerial photographs, and by somewhat arbitrary decisions. For example, the length may be considered to be the distance from the mouth to the most distant headwater source (irrespective of stream name) or from the mouth to the headwaters of the stream commonly identified as the source stream. The names of some rivers, such as the Mississippi River and the Rio Grande, are unchanged from source to mouth. In contrast, the name of the source of the Mobile RiverΓÇöTickanetley CreekΓÇöchanges five times before becoming Mobile River 45 miles north of Mobile Bay. The lengths of meandering rivers, such as the Mississippi River south of Cairo, 111., undergo significant changes in length from time to time because of a natural or excavated cutoff (a channel severing a narrow strip of land, thus bypassing a large bend in a river) that reduces river length and therefore navigation time. For example, between 1766 and 1885, the length of the Mississippi River from Cairo, 111., to New Orleans, La., was reduced by 218 miles because of 18 cutoffs (Elliott, 1932, page 59). Reference citedΓÇöElliott, D.O. (U.S. Mississippi River Commission), 1932, The improvement of the lower Mississippi River for flood control and navigation: Vicksburg, Miss., U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 345 pages.For additional information write to:U.S Geological SurveyWater Resources DivisionMS 419, National CenterReston, Virginia 22092U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior. "Largest Rivers in the United States." Open-File Report 87-242.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior. "Largest Rivers in the United States." Open-File Report 87-242.</text>
</content>
<name></name>
<script></script>
</card>
card_8509.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE card PUBLIC "-//Apple, Inc.//DTD card V 2.0//EN" "" >
<script>on mouseUpset textfont of me to helveticaset textstyle of me to boldset textsize of me to 14DispPICT "crbasin"end mouseUp</script>
</part>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>2</id>
<text>Early Exploration and SettlementFrancisco de Ulloa, a Spanish soldier and explorer, was probably the first European to see the Colorado River. In 1776, Father Garces, a Spanish missionary, named it the "Rio Colorado." Congress applied the name "Colorado" to the entire river in 1921. A prehistoric race called the Hohokam lived and vanished in the Salt River Valley before the Hopi and the Pueblo Indians inhabited the area. Father Eusebio Kino established the Jesuit missions in 1700 at San Xavier Del Bac and in 1732 at Guevavi, both in Arizona. The first European settlement was established near present-day Tucson, in 1776.HeadwatersThe river rises in the Rocky Mountain National Park in northcentral Colorado; it becomes a perennial stream near Poudre Pass in Colorado.MouthThe Colorado flows into the Gulf of California. The approximate latitude at the mouth is 32 degrees N. and the approximate longitude is 115 degrees W.Major TributariesThe Gunnison, White, Yampa, San Juan, Delores, Green, Little Colorado, Gila, and Virgin Rivers are major tributaries of the Colorado.LengthThe Colorado River is approximately 1,440 miles long from its headwaters to its mouth in the Gulf of California. It ranks 6th among 135 U.S. rivers that are more than 100 miles long.WidthThe river is about 50 feet wide for the first 50 miles; at Grand Junction, Colo., it is 200 feet wide.DepthThe river is about 30 feet deep in lower reaches of the Grand Canyon; it is not more than 10 feet in the upper reaches above the Grand Junction, Colo.Rate of FlowNear Lees Ferry, Ariz., the river's rate of flow is about 8 million gallons per minute (gpm); at the mouth it is about 2 million gpm.Highest and Lowest FlowThe highest recorded flow occurred at Yuma, Ariz., in 1916; the lowest natural (unregulated) flow occurred at Lees Ferry in 1924.Dams, Reservoirs, and CanalsThe Flaming Gorge Dam, Utah; the Navajo Dam, N. Mex.; the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell, Ariz., and Utah; the Blue Mesa Dam, Colo.; the Hoover Dam and Lake Mead and Davis Dam and Lake Mohave, Nev.; and the Parker Dam and Havasu Lake and Imperial Dam, Ariz., are all a part of the Colorado River.Geologic SettingThe Colorado River Basin lies in three physiographic provinces: Southern and Rocky Mountain, Basin and Range, and Colorado Plateau. About 240,000 square miles are arid to semiarid. The Colorado Plateau is composed of horizontal, sedimentary rock strata (sandstone, limestone, shale, conglomerate) which were uplifted thousands of feet, faulted, and carved by erosion into broad plateaus, mesas, buttes, natural bridges, and deep canyons. The Colorado Desert in the southwestern part of the basin is extremely arid and hot. Most of it is below sea level.Drainage AreaThe basin area is 243,000 square miles and includes parts of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and California.Average RainfallAn average of about 15 inches of rain falls annually over most of the basin, with a range of 5 inches in the Arizona deserts to more than 50 inches in the Colorado mountains.QualityThe river once was one of the most siltladen streams in the United States; now reservoirs trap most of the sediment. The average salinity is less than 50 parts per million (ppm) in headwater areas but often exceeds 1,000 ppm at the international boundary. Pollution from municipal and industrial wastes is slight except in the vicinity of cities and towns. Most ground water used for irrigation is not treated; that used for municipal supply is chlorinated.Major CitiesPhoenix, Ariz., is the largest city in the basin. Cities of lesser size are Duchesne and Moab, Utah; Grand Junction, Colo.; Boulder City and Las Vegas, Nev.; Tucson and Yuma, Ariz.; and Needles, Calif.Municipal and Industrial WaterUseWater use is limited because the basin is sparsely populated; it is one of theleast populated areas of its size in the Western Hemisphere. The principal uses are hydroelectric power generation and irrigation which consumes nearly the entire flow. Large quantities of water are also diverted to adjacent areas for municipal, industrial, and irrigation uses. About 2 million people in the basin use approximately 400 million gallons of publicly supplied water each day and about 1/4 of a million people in rural areas use approximately 25 million gallons of ground water daily.Commercial Water UseThe river and its system of dams provide facilities for flood control, irrigation, hydroelectric power; and boating, fishing, skiing, and swimming.AgricultureAgricultural products which come from the basin are: fruits, some cotton, general farming, and grazing Irrigated agriculture is practiced in every State in the basin.IndustryLittle industrial development exists in the basin except light industry in the Phoenix, Ariz., area.MineralsMinerals found in the basin are: uranium, zinc, silver, molybdenum, copper, gold, lead, coal, petroleum, and oil shale.Water DataThe Hydrologic Data Network, maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the individual States, is the chief source of basic data on water in this country. In cooperation with other agencies, the U.S. Geological Survey maintains 16,500 gaging stations that measure high and low flow of rivers, lakes, and streams; 27,500 observation wells that collect data on levels and pumpage of ground water; and 8,200 stations that measure water quality.U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S.G.S. "River Basins of the United States: The Colorado." U.S. Government Printing Office. 1981-341 618:54.</text>
</content>
<content>
<layer>background</layer>
<id>1</id>
<text>U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S.G.S. "River Basins of the United States: The Colorado." U.S. Government Printing Office. 1981- 341 618:54.</text>
