utah dam

Most dearly beloved mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, sister and friend born May 19, 1926, in Alamosa, Colo., went to be with our Lord Monday, Oct. 8, 2007, in Coulee Dam.

Before moving to Coulee Dam, Erlinda was a resident of Post Falls, Idaho, and San Jose, Calif., where she was employed by the County of Santa Clara for many years.

Erlinda lived a life filled with travel, friendships, countless activities, strong Christian faith and the love of her family.

She was so proud of her 26 grandchildren and 21 great-grandchildren and her great-great-grandchildren. She loved life and strived to get the very most out of each and every day.

She is survived by 10 of her 12 children: Dollie (Derek) Brown, Snohomish; Linda (Steve) Calebotta, Saratoga, Calif; Diana Kreisher, Arlington, Wash.; Carla Carpenter, Spokane; Darlene (Jeff) Ovard, Pocatello; Judy Sawyer, Snohomish; Veronica (Bill) Arnold, North Bend, Wash.; Miguel (Gaye) Cabeza, Coeur d'Alene; Joseph Cabeza, Coulee Dam; Robert (Julie) Cabeza, Long Beach, Calif. She is also survived by four sisters: Irene (Isidro) Espinoza of Laverne, Calif.; Elsie Giron, Farmington, N.M., Neoma Moraga, Lancaster, Calif., and Lorraine Mascarenas, Kearns, Utah.

Erlinda is preceded in death by her two sons Ralph Ramon Cabeza and Alfred John Cabeza.

Viewing will be held Wednesday, Oct. 10, beginning at 6 p.m. at Strate Funeral Home, Grand Coulee. A memorial service to celebrate Erlinda's life will be held Friday, Oct. 12, at 11 a.m. at the First Baptist Church of Electric City.

Utah dam safety engineer Dave Marble said the earthen dam, 15 miles north of Escalante, would wash away some forest if it fails.

The risk to visitors is low, except "somebody in the wrong place at the wrong time," Marble said earlier this month.

The Dixie National Forest said Aug. 10 it is making plans to replace the 115-foot dam, which was built in 1895, starting next summer. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources will help raise money for the replacement.

9 questions to ask ...
The dam holds back McGath reservoir, 9,600 feet up on Boulder Mountain, a body of water used for irrigation and stocked with brook trout.

Forest engineer Joe Black inspected the dam in 2005 and found it rapidly deteriorating and a potential threat to public safety and the downstream forest, said Scott Clemans, a spokesman for Dixie National Forest.

It was unclear if Black filed a report on the dam's condition, and he didn't immediately return a message from The Associated Press.

Marble said he made his own inspection in May and classified the dam a "low hazard" -- a rating reflecting the dam's remote location and consequence of failure rather than its condition.

State records say McGath reservoir can hold 30 acre-feet of water, up to six feet deep. An acre-foot is the amount of water it takes to cover an acre of land at a depth of one foot.

Copyright C 2006 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved THE GREEN RIVER, Daggett County - From wide, chocolate-colored rivers flowing through redrock deserts to pristine bubbling creeks in high-elevation meadows, Utah's moving waters provide thrills, spills and an ability to quench all kinds of thirsts.
When it comes to wild and scenic settings, Utah rivers are second to none. Federal recognition and accompanying protection of those rivers is another story.
More than 11,400 miles of rivers in the United States have been designated as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) system since an act of Congress in 1968, but not 1 inch of Utah water is on the list.
That could change in the coming years.
As as Wild and Scenic Rivers by the numbers

11,408.9 Total miles in the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System as of June
204 Utah river segments under consideration for Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) designation: Forest Service (86) and Bureau of Land Management (118)
1,127 Miles of river segments identified by the BLM in its Utah jurisdiction as eligible for a WSR designation. Notable rivers with eligible sections include Colorado, Dirty Devil, Fremont, Green, San Juan, San Rafael, Virgin and White.
861.7 Miles of river segments in the Forest Service's Utah jurisdiction for possible WSR inclusion. Notable waters with eligible sections include Corn, Fish, Gooseberry, Huntington and Little Cottonwood creeks and American Fork, Green Logan, Ogden, Provo and Weber rivers.
8 Number of government agencies and entities nationally involved in the WSR system: Army Corps of Engineers, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, National Park Service and Tribal Lands and local and state governments.
Source: U.S. Forest Service, BLM and Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council
part of updating their management plans, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have identified more than 200 segments of Utah waterways for possible designation in the WSR system.
Water is important in Utah - the second driest state in the nation - and that may partially explain why no waterways in the state have made the list during the 39 years since the act became law. Everyone from anglers and recreationalists to farmers and ranchers and local, state and federal governments have a vested interest in water.
Response has been mixed and passionate. Comments range from support for complete protection for all of Utah's rivers to opposition over concerns the designations could
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
overly restrict water use rights and the ability to utilize the resource, and the resources around the rivers, in the future.
Amid the debate, the Utah Rivers Council (URC), a Salt Lake-based nonprofit conservation group, has stepped up its efforts to get the state its first Wild and Scenic Rivers System designations.
The Rivers Council recently asked for volunteers to "adopt" and promote an eligible waterway in Utah, and organized a float on a 7-mile Wild and Scenic River Designations

Designated river segments are classified and administered under one of the following, as defined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Number of miles of rivers with the specified designation, as of June, included in parenthesis.
Wild river areas (5,384.7 miles): Those rivers, or sections of rivers, that are free of impoundments, generally inaccessible except by trail (no roads), with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive, and having unpolluted waters.
Scenic river areas (2,505.3 miles): Those rivers, or sections of rivers, that are free of impoundments, having shorelines or watersheds largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads (i.e., roads may cross but generally not parallel the river). These rivers are usually more developed than wild and less developed than recreational.
Recreational river areas (3,518.9 miles): Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, may have some development along the shoreline, and may have had some impoundment or diversion in the past. This classification does not imply the segment must be managed or developed for recreational activities.
Source: Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council
stretch of the Green River below Flaming Gorge Dam the group believes is an ideal candidate for the WSR system.
"We aren't looking to change anything from the way it has been. We just want to keep everything status quo to protect the rivers we can with the designations they deserve," said Mark Danenhauer, river solutions coordinator for the URC, during the float. "All people have to do is experience the river to know why it should be designated."
Allies in support of the designation on the Green below the dam include fishing guides, at least one Daggett County Commissioner and the Flaming Gorge District of the U.S. Forest Service, among others.
"I too am suspicious of government programs that appear to regulate or over-regulate, but there is a need to protect these valuable resources," said Dennis Breer, who owns Trout Creek Flies, a fishing guide service on the Green River out of Dutch John. "Rivers are a precious commodity . . . they aren't making any more of them. I want my granddaughter's children and their grandchildren to have the same opportunity to experience the Green River like I have. A lot of people take rivers for granted and we just can't do that."
The Process: In December 1994, the BLM, U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service signed an agreement to work together to determine eligibility and suitability of Utah rivers for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers under review(.pdf) Rivers system. The BLM and Forest Service have done so as part of an update of their land management plans. The Park Service has not yet been involved to the same level as its sister federal agencies.
The WSR system includes three classifications: Wild, Scenic and Recreational. To be eligible, the river or segment must be free-flowing and demonstrate at least one Outstanding Remarkable Value, which includes scenic, recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar attributes. Restrictions, such as a ban on dam building, are most strict for Wild designations.
From a list of eligible waterways, agencies must then review the candidates for suitability. It will be up to Wild and Scenic Green River

one of the state's federal legislators to carry a bill to Congress supporting final designations.
The Forest Service recently released a list of 86 waterway segments, equaling more than 861 miles, as eligible for the various designations.
The BLM, using a different approach, has identified 118 waterway segments and 1,127 miles for possible designation. It has moved ahead to determine suitable waterways as part of its the Grand Staircase/Escalante National Monument, Dixie and Diamond Mountain resource management plans. Suitability consideration is underway as part of the BLM's Kanab, Moab, Monticello, Price, Richfield, San Juan, San Rafael and Vernal resource management plans.
The state has also been involved in the process.
"We want to make sure we go through a thorough process that will evaluate river segments that the agencies have found eligible and that we reach a reasonable determination regarding the suitability," said Val Payne, a spokesman from the Governors Office of Public Land Policy Coordination. "We want to determine the benefits or the detriments to local economies that might be associated with any designations. We hope to answer questions and alleviate fears on both sides."
The Forest Service is working on a draft Environmental Impact Statement for its suitability review and plans to release it for public comment in November or December. The agency plans on having a final plan by March 1. Visit www.fs.fed.us/r4/rivers/ for more information.
Public comments can be made on the Moab and Price management plans and others will be available for comment soon. Visit www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/wild_and_scenic_rivers.html for more information on the BLM plans.
Focus on the green: Other than a dam to control flows and release of colder water to allow for trout fisheries, the scenery has not changed much in the Red Canyon section of the Green River since John Wesley Powell explored it in 1869.
The Green River corridor below the dam is full of wildlife and provides world-class fishing for trout in its 30 or so miles to the Colorado state line.
Deer, moose, bighorn sheep, elk, bear, river otter and numerous waterfowl, raptors and song birds can all be seen in the corridor.
Those scenic conditions draw as many as 2,000 people floating the river on a busy summer weekend. Renewable-energy or green-power generating facilities have little effect on the atmosphere. That's a good thing.

But they do have an enormous impact on the land. And that's something that must be considered and regulated before the county opens the door to that kind of development.

It won't be long before green-energy companies will want to make use of White Pine County's abundant wind and moderate sunlight. Sen. Reid says there's even geothermal potential near Cherry Creek.

There are a couple of stumbling blocks for green-energy development in Nevada right now.

The military is balking at tall wind turbines out of fear they'll interfere with radar signals. Sen. Reid is working on that issue, and we expect the Defense Department to rapidly see his point of view.

But transmission lines are the primary limitation.

Tranmission lines are part of the White Pine Energy Station and the Ely Energy Center projects.

Reid wants to control what kind of power can be transmitted over those lines: three-quarters must come from green sources (but not nuclear, no indeed).

The senator also is offering federal help to build a transmission line to any locale where 1,000MW of green power will be generated.

However the WPES and EEC projects shake out, it seems a sure bet that there will be transmission lines available for green-power companies to use.

We've already met representatives of one solar-power firm -- Ausra. The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company is surveying anywhere transmission corridors and lines are being contemplated. Other California-based, solar-power firms also are looking to Nevada to set up their ground-covering facilities to feed the Golden State's requirement for more green power.

All too soon, solar-power companies will be staking out areas here to build their power-generation facilities. The same can be said for wind-power providers, and possibly geothermal advocates.

The White Pine County Commissioners must decide where they would like to see these facilities built -- and where they would NOT like them built.

Wind-farms on the Georgetown Ranch, or in Steptoe Valley's irrigated fields may be compatible, but one around Comins Lake may not.

The differing technologies for solar power take up different amounts of land space -- but all take up large amounts. The commission should identify as many areas suitable for development as possible and start to attract the businesses. But just as quickly, the commission must determine what areas we want off limits.

There are other problems that if dealt with early on can be handled. There are new and emerging technologies and governmental subsidies to help them come on line. But a decade or two down the road, subsidies will fade and green-power generating facilities will be required to compete. Some technologies will succeed, while others will become obsolete.

Any massive facilities planned for our county must have performance bonds to guarantee, if they fail, that it won't be up to the county to clean up their mess.

But there are other considerations.

We get much of our power from Deseret Power in Utah. Mt. Wheeler Power gets hydropower from the Glen Canyon Dam and coal-fired power from Deseret's Bonanza plant in Utah.

The Utah Legislature is deliberating CO2 emission levels, and whatever limit the Bee Hive State adopts, the Bonanza plant will have to conform.

That could mean the cost of our power in Eastern Nevada could skyrocket if Deseret must pay to include more green power in its mix.

We could easily face a situation, where we are surrounded by green-power generation, while having to pay a carbon surcharge because our power includes too much fossil fuels and not enough green power.

Any green-power companies setting up in White Pine County should be required to share a reasonable portion of their generation with us to make the Mt. Wheeler/Deseret mix green enough for Utah's rules and to pass over transmission lines on public lands.

And where will this future network of smaller transmission lines leading to larger transmission lines go?

This area has worked long and hard to bring in a single power plant to provide a better tax base.

Sierra Pacific Resources invited itself late to the party, changing the number of proposed plants to two. From one possible wind farm, associated with WPES, we now face the potential of multiple green-power facilities dotting our valleys and along our ridges.

Additional green-power plants can be a good thing, but only if their placement is compatible with our vision and future plans. White Pine certainly shouldn't become the clogged green-power, energy park for Nevada (or neighboring states).

But allowing enough to augment our economy and tax base, while providing us with additional green power, may be possible.

The issue will arise quickly. The commission must consider its options how to address this new green challenge -- and very soon.
Daggett County Commissioner Hank Gutz says he frequently enjoys a summer float on the river with family and friends and he supports a Scenic designation on the Green.
"This is a tremendous river for recreation. Rent a boat or bring a boat. You can't beat it. You feel like you are in the wild down here," Gutz said. "People have a place to come and realize the beauty of this piece of country. We don't want to see development along the banks."
Rivers like the Green, where regulations have long been in effect, probably stand the best chance of earning a Wild and Scenic Rivers designation in Utah.
Connie Blaine, a Salt Lake City resident, "adopted" the Green River below the Flaming Gorge dam as part of a URC program and plans on being a vocal supporter of a WSR designation.
"I want to do whatever I can to make sure this river is protected and never spoiled," she said, sitting in her inflatable kayak on the Green. "I know a designation won't do any more than just keep it the way it is, but that's good enough for me. The river restores me and helps me remember what is important
.S. Department of Interior and agencies seek to reconstruct the Fort Field dam to give June suckers a way upstream
Shaded by trees and separated from the hum-drum of the busy city, for Brent Johnson the Fort Field diversion dam on Provo River was a great place to fish and think on Friday.

"It kind of gathers fish due to the depth" of water behind the dam, he said Friday afternoon as he sat on the riverbank at a secluded bend of the Provo River Parkway Trail, with a line in the water. Having fished here four times this year, he has caught white bass, rainbow trout, bluegill and carp, he said.

Problem is, the dam keeps June sucker, a fish native only to Utah Lake, from 1.1 miles of their critical spawning habitat, said Richard Mingo of the Utah Reclamation and Conservation Commission. During June, the aptly named June sucker makes its annual spawning run up the lower Provo River and lays its eggs in the gravel riverbed. In four to 10 days, the June sucker larvae emerge and begin to drift downstream, according to lake recovery plan managers.

The existing dam, called a kick-leg dam, is only 2 1/2 feet tall but crosses the entire river, acting as a levy to raise the level of the river higher, forcing water down a canal so farmers can irrigate with it. The dam is located just feet from where the river crossed Interstate 15, and as Johnson fished on Friday, the sound of crickets and traffic mingled with the sound of rushing water.

To give the June sucker a path over the dam, several state and national agencies are working to reconstruct the structure. A rock and gravel ramp leading up and over the dam will help fish get to their ancestral habitat, while still funneling water to the canal for farmers.

The public is invited to submit their comments to the plan before Oct. 15. The agencies hope reconstruction will start soon after and be completed before winter, said Mingo. The mitigation commission, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, U.S. Department of Interior and local irrigation companies have been working on the reconstruction plan for several years.

"They go up the Provo River to spawn every year," Mingo said of the fish. "The first obstacle they hit is the Fort Field diversion. It is basically a dam across the river and they cannot swim upstream. They are blocked from a good portion of their spawning habitat."

The reconstruction will not rip out any of the existing dam, but will build the rock ramp on both sides of the dam to allow the fish to pass over. A water measuring device will also be installed at the mouth of the canal to allow irrigation water users to ensure they don't take more water out of the river than they are legally entitled to, Mingo said. There is no measuring device on the canal now.

During June sucker spawning time, the river flows between 250 and 400 cubic feet per second, Mingo said. The diversion canal typically siphons off no more than 15 cubic feet per second, and typically just 8 cubic feet per second, he said. Fisheries biologists believe few if any spawning June sucker will travel down the canal instead of returning to Utah Lake. Some June sucker fry, once hatched out, may be lost to the canal, but those losses are expected to be minimal. Tens of thousands of hatchery-raised June sucker have been released into the lake over the past several years, and experts hope they will begin spawning to build the June sucker population.

In the 1800s, Utah Lake was home to at least six native fish species. Today, the June sucker and the Utah sucker are the only two remaining. After a decade of study, experts believe there are as few as 300 adult wild June suckers left.

In 1986, the federal government named the June sucker an endangered species, allowing its habitat to be protected by law. Soon thereafter, nine water-user and wildlife groups with interest in Deer Creek Reservoir formed a 40-year, $40 million plan to save the fish, called the June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program.

The public may e-mail comments about the proposal to reconstruct the Fort Field diversi