Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Havasu Creek Watershed Scoping Project Final Report
September 2009
Patty West, Ecological Monitoring & Assessment Program John Mead, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals Karan English, Ecological Monitoring & Assessment Program Matt Stuckey, Ecological Monitoring & Assessment Program
Funding provided by the Arizona Water Institute
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction to the Watershed ....................................................................................................... 4
Introduction to the Havasu Creek Watershed Scoping Project ...................................................... 7
Stakeholders in the Watershed ....................................................................................................... 8
Stakeholder Participation ................................................................................................................ 9
Action Plans ................................................................................................................................... 10
Updates on the Priorities............................................................................................................... 15
Updates on other Activities in the Watershed .............................................................................. 16
Challenges and Opportunities ....................................................................................................... 17
Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 18
NAU Continuation Following this Project ...................................................................................... 21
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 21
References ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix A: Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................ 24
Appendix B: Matrix of information for Havasu Creek Watershed ................................................ 26
3
Executive Summary On August 17, 2008 a flood in the Havasu Creek Watershed “forced the emergency evacuation of several hundred tribal members and tourists camping near the spectacular Havasu Falls” (Dougherty 2008).The Havasu Creek Watershed is a large complex watershed. All water in the watershed from rainfall, springs and seeps travels to the Colorado River through the Havasupai Tribal lands and the village of Supai. This has historically caused devastating floods to the village and surrounding areas, which displace people in the village and campgrounds, put villagers and tourists at risk, disrupt public utilities, cause death of livestock, and damage natural and cultural resources of the community. The destruction caused by flooding puts a strain on the people of the village of Supai in many ways, including financially. Stakeholders in the watershed, including the Havasupai tribe, private landowners, and resource management agencies, have been meeting to make plans for minimizing and mitigating negative effects of the flooding. The Ecological Monitoring & Assessment (EMA) Program at Northern Arizona University (NAU) was granted $20,000 from the Arizona Water Institute (AWI) to compile information on what the stakeholders have accomplished and hope to undertake within the watershed. Originally, the project budget and scope of work were more extensive, but due to the state budget deficit, funding was cut from the AWI program. This report documents recent actions in the watershed, provides a matrix of research in the area, and makes recommendations for future actions. The major outcomes of this project were to demonstrate the value of continued communications among stakeholders, and to provide information on previous research for use in subsequent projects and planning. Because all actions that take place in the watershed have potential consequences for the Havasupai Tribe, we recommend that the Tribal Council provide resolutions on items they would like to see actions on, and a list of priorities. This will ensure that work that is completed in the watershed is consistent with the needs and desires of the Tribe and will encourage other stakeholders to offer appropriate assistance. The included list of recommendations was compiled from meetings with stakeholders, and does not reflect any priority listing. These recommendations and all projects should be evaluated based on Tribal priorities, and the Tribe should be consulted regarding any project on or affecting Tribal lands, and the community at Supai, Arizona. For more information, please see the EMA website at http://www.emaprogram.com
4
Introduction to the Watershed The Havasu Creek Watershed (also known as the Havasu Canyon Watershed, the Cataract Creek Watershed, or the Havasu Cataract Watershed) is a large area that is geographically and socially diverse. The watershed is primarily rural with 40.12% private land, 28.18% State Trust land, and 20.67% Kaibab National Forest. The remaining land is managed by the Havasupai and Hualapai Tribes, the National Park Service, and small portion by Coconino National Forest. The Havasupai Tribe controls 8.18% of the land, but actions on the entire watershed affect their lands. The watershed is 2966 square miles (ADEQ 2005), and all of it drains into the creek that runs through the village of Supai where over 500 Havasupai people (“the people of the blue-green waters”) live and at least 10,000 tourists visit annually (Martin 1990, Melis et al. 1996). Havasu Creek is the second largest tributary of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. The watershed is rich in natural, cultural, and biological resources. History of Flooding Large floods were frequent during the summer and winter months in the late 19th and early 20th century, and have continued up to the present (Melis et al. 1996). The largest flood on record occurred in 1910. In 1990 there was a flood that peaked at 20,000cfs. Most recent was the flood of August 16 and 17 2008, which flooded several homes and destroyed trails, campgrounds and recreation areas for tourists. With heroic efforts by the Havasupai Tribe, the canyon was reopened for tourism on June 1, 2009. Flooding is expected to continue in the canyon and may increase in intensity. “…[T]he potential for a flood approximately three times larger than the 1990 flood in Havasu Canyon is a possibility; a flood this size may have occurred in 1910” (Melis et al. 1996). The large area of the watershed as well as diverse topographical relief bring storms that cause flooding, especially summer thunderstorms and frontal winter storms (Melis et al. 1996). During summer months, the moisture in storms that causes floods in the Havasu Creek drainage basin comes mostly from the eastern Pacific Ocean and Gulf of California (Melis et al. 1996). The Pacific Ocean temperature and atmospheric pressure anomaly known as El Nino, along with the Southern Oscillation, have the potential of significant effects in flooding in Havasu Canyon (Diaz and Markgraf 1992). In general, Southwestern United States have mixed populations of floods, creating “…an aggregation of floods that are caused by two or more distinct and generally independent hydrometeorological conditions such as snowmelt and rainfall.” (Thomas et al. 1994)
5
6
Recent climate changes may alter the likelihood and severity of floods. This is an unknown factor that could be of devastating consequence in the region (see Recommendations for Research). “… [T]he largest floods during the middle and late Holocene in Arizona and southern Utah cluster into distinct time periods that reflect regional and global climatic fluctuations. Episodes with high frequencies of extreme floods were found to be associated with periods of cool, wet climate in the western United States, whereas episodes with low frequencies of extreme floods were found to be associated with periods of warm climates” (Knox 2000).
Floods threaten the Havasupai Tribe, its “homes, community buildings, utilities, trails, animals, spiritual places, and livelihoods” (The Havasupai Tribe 2005). With increasing or unpredictable flooding come increased threats (The Havasupai Tribe 2005). The Havasupai Tribe identified flooding as one of the major hazards it faces. Actions identified as appropriate to minimize damage and mitigate destruction included the following (The Havasupai Tribe 2005):
1 “Better predict and provide advance “real time” warnings.
2 Establish “EMT” teams and develop evacuation/check-in procedures
3 Train children (and rangers) in life saving and provide throw lines
4 Strengthen water supply system
5 Stabilize streambanks
6 Upgrade/provide bridges that are flood resistant
7 Make vulnerable homes more flood resistant
Research in the Watershed Much research, some published, has been done in the watershed (see Appendix B) in many areas of study. The list in Appendix B is primarily published research, and ranges from studies that evaluate water quality (such as the Arizona Department of Water Quality study that evaluated the water quality in 17 Grand Canyon Tributaries including Havasu Creek [ADEQ 2005] )to the diversity of fossils in the area (Kaufman et al. 2002). One of the areas of study of interest to researchers in the watershed is riparian ecosystems.
The state of Arizona has limited areas of riparian ecosystems and habitats. Havasu Creek includes “[d]ense stands of willows, cottonwoods, and ash trees line the stream forming a riparian forest only 25 to 100 m wide along many reaches” (Melis et al. 1996). These
7
ecosystems therefore are valued highly. Havasu Canyon has a significant amount of riparian area which is disturbed by flood events and may be threatened by increasing tourism and populations in the canyon. Dendrochronological records provide valuable information on the response to flooding and recovery rate from flood damage of riparian trees (Melis et al. 1996). Most of the floods that cause fluvial erosion are caused by warm-season precipitation which occurs from June to November (Hereford et al. 1992).
Introduction to the Havasu Creek Watershed Scoping Project Over the last 100 years, more than 16 major floods have disrupted the rural Havasupai community of Supai, the adjacent campground, and boaters in the Grand Canyon, most recently in August 2008. The Cataract/Havasu Creek watershed is one of the largest in Arizona with complex land ownership patterns and overlapping management jurisdictions. Increasing pressures from development, population growth, and climate change will likely increase future risk of and impacts from flooding. Although efforts have been made to decrease negative impacts of flooding, including a proposal for an early warning system, the watershed lacks a strategic plan of action. Following the August 2008 flood, on November 5, 2009, a group of watershed stakeholders met to see if they could develop a consensus on an action plan for high-priority prevention and mitigation measures. The Havasu Creek Watershed Scoping Project was initiated by the Ecological Monitoring & Assessment (EMA) Program with a grant from the Arizona Water Institute and assistance from the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) following the Hazard Mitigation Conference. Partial funding for the project limited the tasks to a general scoping project that included contacting participants in a Hazard Mitigation Conference organized by Coconino County Supervisor Carl Taylor on November 5th 2008. This project was designed to encourage continued stakeholder engagement and to document actions taken to date, as well as to provide a bibliography of available information on the watershed. This bibliographic matrix is included as Appendix B of this report. As part of this study individual and small group meetings were held with many of the stakeholders who attended the Hazard Mitigation Conference. We also organized a meeting to which all stakeholders were invited as a wrap-up for the project on June 15th, 2009. We additionally assisted with organizing a meeting with stakeholders subsequent to this project. This meeting is scheduled for August 7, 2009 and invitees include tribal representatives, stakeholders, and various state and federal agencies. The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is taking the lead on this meeting and has ideas for funding a number of projects that could include water treatment, cultural resources, economic development, or streambank protection.
8
The outcomes of this project include 1) assisting stakeholders in continuing collaborations and communication; 2) initiating a working relationship between NAU and the Havasupai Tribe; 3) compiled information and recommendations that can be used to develop and seek funds for projects in the watershed (currently being used for the NRCS Rapid Watershed Assessment and the US Army COE in a reconnaissance study); and 4) increased local capacity for watershed monitoring and flood response. Indirect outcomes include the following:
- Initiation of a Rapid Watershed Assessment by the Coconino NRCD with funding
from the National Resources Conservation Service.
- Attention and interest from USEPA Region 9 in expanding studies in the area.
- Increased stakeholder cooperation in the watershed with ongoing US Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) studies and projects.
Stakeholders in the Watershed Stakeholders include those who own land in the watershed and non-landowners impacted by flooding. This includes two tribes (Hualapai and Havasupai), the tourist public, county and state law enforcement, National Park Service, and any group interested in minimizing and mitigating negative impacts of flooding. Any project in the watershed that will be conducted on the Havasupai Tribal lands will need to be initiated or approved by the Havasupai Tribe, and Tribal representatives should be invited to all watershed meetings and documentation of any work on the wider watershed should be provided to the Tribe. In addition to the Havasupai Tribe, other stakeholders that have been involved in the region include the following: American Red Cross - Flagstaff Arizona Department of Emergency Management (ADEM) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Arizona Governor’s Office Babbitt Ranches Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) City of Williams Coconino County Coconino County Emergency Management (CCEM) The Coconino County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) Coconino Natural Resources Conservation District (NRCD) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
9
Grand Canyon Resort Corporation The Hualapai Tribe Mohave County Mohave County Emergency Management (MCEM) National Park Service- Grand Canyon National Park National Weather Service (NWS) Navajo Nation (The Big Boquillas Ranch) Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) Northern Arizona University- (NAU/EMA and ITEP) Perrin Ranch US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Visiting public Other land owners and managers
Stakeholder Participation On November 5, 2008, Coconino County Supervisor Carl Taylor organized the Havasupai Hazard Mitigation Conference that brought together stakeholders at Peach Springs, Arizona to determine priorities and create action plans. The Conference was attended by many stakeholder groups and facilitated by Mary Orton, a professionalfacilitator. Ms. Orton assisted the group to choose five priority focus areas and to develop an action plan for each of those five areas in work groups. Each of these work groups created an action plan. The five priority focus areas that were identified are:
1. Early warning system / stream and precipitation gauges 2. Improved communication infrastructure and communication system in Supai 3. Alert system 4. Hilltop Safe House 5. Emergency response
Each of the five focus areas chose a lead from the Havasupai Tribe as well as a non-tribal lead. Table 1 shows the leads who were chosen for each area. Table 1. Individuals Identified at the Havasupai Hazard Mitigation Conference for Priority Coordination
Group Havasupai Tribal Lead Non Tribal lead
Early Warning System Thomas Siyuja, Sr Cassandra Anderson ADWR
Improved Communications Thomas Siyuja, Sr Ryan Goosley ADEM
Hilltop Safe House The Havasupai Tribal Council
Karan English NAU/EMA
Emergency Alert System Thomas Siyuja, Sr. Sherrie Collins CCEM
Emergency Response Thomas Siyuja, Sr CCSO
10
Action Plans
The following action plans were developed at the Hazard Mitigation Conference and
compiled and distributed to the attendees.
Early Warning System
Action Planners
Arizona Department of Emergency Management (ADEM): Joe Urrea
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR): Brian Cosson, Cassandra Anderson
Coconino County: Ted Smith
Coconino Natural Resource Conservation District: Mike Macauley
Havasupai Tribe: Agnes Chamberlain
Mohave County: Fred Weyermiller
NWS, Flagstaff: Brian Klimowski
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): Greg Fisk
Details of Mitigation Measure
Before the winter rains, USGS will install two stream flow gauges in key locations
identified by the NWS.
Identify more precipitation/snow gauges within the watershed to be installed by
ADWR/USGS.
Who needs to do what?
ADWR: find maintenance partner for gauges funding over the years; send USGS point
of contact for Babbitt Ranches.
USGS: find existing agreement with Tribe to install gauges on tribal land and create new
agreement for new sites.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): funding (including long-term commitment), tie data
from installed gauges into BIA monitoring system in Montana.
NWS: identify potential key locations for more precipitation/stage gauges; communicate
with the Tribe for sensitive area where there is historically a lot of water flowing
into the county.
ADEM: actively participate in committees.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS): rapid watershed assessment.
NAU: rainfall amounts for watershed, moisture history – where, when, etc.; prioritize
drainages.
Resources Needed
Money for initial installation and first year operation and maintenance;
MORE IMPORTANTLY: commitment from partners to pay for long-term operation
and maintenance.
11
Data Needed
See NAU and NRCS action plans, above.
Non-Tribal Lead
Primary: ADWR, Cassandra Anderson
Secondary: NWS and USGS
Improved Communication
Action Planners
ADEM: Lou Trammell
ADWR: Michael Johnson
BIA: Jim Williams
Coconino County: Dale Wegner
Hualapai Tribe: Richard Walema, Sr.
NWS: George Howard
NAU: Patty West
Details of Mitigation Measure
Once a system is set up to detect a threat, this mitigation measure will communicate the
threat to leadership. The following entities will be involved: NWS, Coconino County,
BIA, and the Havasupai Tribe (Supai PD).
Who needs to do what?
First step: Develop a communication strategy.
How will you communicate? Look at capabilities and backup systems.
These should include telephone, satellite telephone, UHF, VHF, satellite radios,
and satellite telephones.
Reliable electrical power is needed (#5 on list of mitigation measures). An emergency
power generator needs to be installed. (Two towers currently provide communication
links. One runs from alternative sources – wind and solar. It would cost $1.2 million to
run seven miles of cable to the tower.)
Resources Needed
Resources needed will depend on the communication strategy that is developed.
NWS will provide a NOAA repeater (distr #)
Radios should be given to the police chief (home and office), Chairman of the Tribal
Council (home and office), school, etc. – 12 or more.
Radios should be UHF/VHF/800/SAT/MSAT – redundant systems are needed. Coverage
issues need to be addressed. ADEM will work with the Havasupai Tribe, Coconino
County, and BIA to find a site for a portable AIRS.
The group also discussed giving each visitor party a handheld device – a “beacon” – like
those that restaurants give their customers when they are waiting for a table. When
the campers pay their permit fee, they could receive a beacon that would activate in
an emergency. It could be combined with a personal locator beacon visitors could
activate if they were in trouble.
12
Non-Tribal Lead
ADEM: Ryan Goosley (works for Lou Trammell)
Alert System
Action Planners
ADEM: Darlene Trammell
Coconino County: Brenda Grey, Sherrie Collins
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Michael San Agustin
Mohave County: Byron Steward
NAU: Paul Gremillion
Details of Mitigation Measure
Develop a warning plan with warning stages, such as:
Stage 1: NWS watch – alert first responders
Stage 2: NWS or gauges indicate major flood event forming
Stage 3: Evacuation ordered
Human involvement is needed at the beginning; no reliance on strictly automated
systems.
Who needs to do what?
Public education/personal responsibility: brief residents on plan, provide guidance
(briefings) to campers with brochures and signs, and provide instruction when they get
their permits. Residents should have regular evacuation warning drills.
Emergency efforts are only as good as the public education effort.
Graduated warning levels – education on what they mean and timeframes.
Identify high ground safe locations for pick up.
Clearly identify exit routes.
Check-in stations and visitor lists for accountability. After hours hikers can
bypass these check-in points – how do we handle this?)
Identify priority evacuations (elderly, injured, disabled, etc.).
Identify those with special needs.
Let people know where the Hilltop shelter is and what services are available,
including transportation and safety briefings.
Signage using standardized warning symbols and language.
Add emergency information (in several languages) to special use permits.
Consistent information on all related websites and links (e.g., Hualapai, Grand
Canyon, Coconino County).
Regular practice emergency exercises for residents. Added benefit: residents
can assist visitors and campers.
Redundant alert systems – sirens, radios, hand-held warning devices, strobe
lights.
Human component (rangers, phone calls, runners).
Weather radios for residents.
13
Sirens could be a good warning but there should be a field test before purchasing to be
sure that sirens are audible over the entire area above river and wind sound. Sirens then
need to be regularly maintained and tested.
It might be good to have three redundant warning systems: sirens, NOAA weather radio
(if coverage reaches Supai), and runners – or campers could be given restaurant-type
pagers (see discussion above about beacons). Campers could be issued personal locater
beacons.
Identify safe areas and install phone box at each area.
Identify who will make the decision to alert residents and visitors. Not just one person –
need line of succession so that if one person is gone, the next person takes over.
Resources Needed
Translation for information packets for non-English-speaking tourists.
Non-Tribal Lead
Coconino County Emergency Management – Sherrie Collins
Hilltop “Safe House”
Action Planners
BIA: Barbara Fix, Clint Walker
Coconino County: Carl Taylor
Havasupai Tribe: Matthew Putesoy, Sr.
NPS: Mike Johnson
NRCS: Kresta Fauborg, Dino DeSimone
NAU: Karan English
Elements of a safe house at Hilltop could include:
Warehouse
Visitor hostel
Store
Registration/permits
Communications point
Climate monitoring
Safety/warning system
Visitor/educational center – day users
It could also create jobs and be an economic development effort. The first step would be
to rework and update the existing Bar 4 plan – water development, verify tribal interest.
To be done:
1. Confirm tribal interest.
14
2. Form a working group, appoint a project manager.
3. Identify grants and funding.
4. Develop a list of requirements and functional needs.
5. Develop a design concept for grant applications.
Possible Resources:
NAU
RC&D
Existing site information
County
NPS
EDA/NACOG (if there is an economic development component)
Rural economic development
Other sources if it can be a green building
Non-Tribal Lead
NAU: Karan English (if there is interest from the Tribe)
Emergency Response
The following people discussed the emergency response:
American Red Cross: Kay and Erv Perelman
Coconino County Emergency Services: Ruthanne Penn
Coconino County Search and Rescue: Aaron Dick
Havasupai Tribe: Tom Siyuja
Hualapai Tribe: Ron Quasula, Irene Walema
National Park Service (NPS): Ken Phillips, Mike Nash, Mary Killeen
Earlier in the meeting, attendees made the following suggestions about improving the
emergency response:
Identify who is responsible for what – roles and responsibilities.
Funding for emergency response.
Improve the public information dissemination effort.
Report:
Seven agencies were involved in the emergency response in August: American Red
Cross, Arizona Department of Public Safety, BIA, Coconino County, Havasupai
Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and NPS. [Note: At the request of Coconino County, Mohave
County Sheriff’s Office (Search and Rescue) and Mohave County Emergency
Management (interoperable communications van - TOAD 1) were also involved in
the emergency response.]
There was some confusion and lack of coordination.
Incidents on the reservation are under the jurisdiction of the Havasupai Tribe. They
can delegate if they wish. The Chair and Vice-Chair will coordinate with Coconino
County and other agencies. A major flooding event should have a unified command,
with each agency providing an incident commander.
15
Because flooding will recur, the agencies need to have agreements in place that
promote coordination and communication, both before and during an event. The
agreements would designate the roles of each agency.
Communication needs to be improved, including good contact lists and organization
charts.
A protocol needs to be developed, including a protocol for non-native tourists on
tribal lands and jurisdiction.
All agencies should work out of one physical location.
BIA dispatch in Peach Springs dispatches for Supai and Peach Springs.
National Guard works through ADEM.
NPS is a resource.
Whom should Coconino Search and Rescue call to verify if BIA calls for assistance?
Chair and Vice-Chair for Supai and/or Hualapai
Updates on the Priorities
1. EARLY WARNING SYSTEM:
Two stream gauges worth over $60,000 (Dougherty 2008) were installed with funding from Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) by the NWS. One was installed at Redlands and the other at Pasture Wash. The Early Warning System Action Group met in a conference call on February 12, 2009 to discuss protocols for warning delivery (how residents and visitors get information for the warning), monitoring and other issues. The issues of maintenance responsibility and cost of the new stream gauges are undecided and remain key issues. 2. IMPROVED COMMUNICATION:
ADEM has purchased an Arizona Interoperable Radio System (AIRS) repeater for the Long Mesa site (Coconino County) which would allow interagency communications. ADEM is waiting for approval from the Havasupai Tribe for installation. According to ADEM and CCEM, other improvements to communications can be explored and a variety of systems need to be evaluated for feasibility in the remote area. 3. EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM:
Interviewees suggested that a feasibility study is needed to identify more technically advanced delivery systems for reliable emergency notification to visitors and residents alike. A feasibility study is recommended for what technology can work in this area. Another aspect that could be part of an emergency alert system could be a weather radio system. With Tribal approval, a weather radio repeater from the National Oceanic
16
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may be installed in the same location as the AIRS repeater, and could be tested for feasibility if and when that repeater is installed. 4. HILLTOP SAFE HOUSE:
The Hilltop Safehouse was brought up at a meeting of the Havasupai Tribal Council, the EMA Program, ITEP, and Coconino County Supervisor Carl Taylor on May 15, 2009. The Council discussed the Safehouse as an economic development project which may give more funding options for the project. We recommend that the Tribal Council adopt a resolution to move this issue forward if it is of interest to the Tribe. 5. EMERGENCY RESPONSE:
A multi-agency table top exercise was developed by the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office for late April 2009 for First Responder agencies. This exercise was designed to mimic a flood emergency and serve as a drill to resolve issues that cause inefficient emergency procedures during an actual emergency. Tommy Siyuja, Sr. attended representing the Havasupai Tribe. In April 2009 a Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) class was held for Havasupai Tribal members and residents of Supai Village. A CERT training was held for the Hualapai Tribe in June of 2009.
Updates on other Activities in the Watershed
Many additional activities are taking place in the watershed. Some of these were initiated at the Havasupai Hazard Mitigation Conference.
OPENING HAVASU CANYON FOR VISITORS: From the time of the flooding in August 2008 to June 2009, the activities of the Havasupai Tribe were focused on re-opening the canyon for tourism. This was imperative to provide income to tribal members. This task included building gabions, fixing trails, rebuilding the campgrounds, building a helicopter pad, and other actions. The canyon was re-opened to the public on June 1, 2009. The San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians in California donated $1 million to the Tribe to rebuild the campground, foot bridges and hiking trails (Dougherty 2008).Now that the area is re-opened the tribe may have more resources to dedicate to long-term solutions for mitigating and minimizing negative effects of flooding with the help of many interested stakeholders. Additional work on trail stabilization may be required and the Coconino Rural Environmental Corps (CREC) has offered assistance if desired. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVISION: FEMA funded a revision of the Tribal Mitigation Plan. This revised Plan needs to be accepted by the Tribe, submitted to FEMA to make
17
sure it meets their standards, and then ratified by the Tribal Council. The location of the document and its status are unknown.
WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS: Watershed assessments were not identified as priorities at the Hazard Mitigation Workshop, but can lead to a more coordinated watershed efforts. The NRCS is supporting the Coconino NRCD to initiate a rapid watershed assessment which would document the water rights, storage capacity, soil conditions, and water needs in the watershed. This rapid assessment may also give information regarding how changes in the upper watershed can mitigate flooding in the lower watershed. The information from the rapid assessment can be the basis for a more comprehensive watershed assessment. The NRCS is also planning to work with the Navajo Nation on the Big Boquillas Ranch to do a ranch plan which will provide information for other assessments. Some information from these assessments and plans could help with predictions of how much and where rainfall occurs that will lead to flooding.
The US Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 (EPA) and the US Army COE have expressed interest in working with the Havasupai Tribe regarding aspects of this comprehensive assessment.
The US Army COE has received funding from Congress for a reconnaissance study with the Havasupai Tribe. The COE has stated that much of the information gathered in this scoping study can be used to further the study and assist the Tribe. If the Tribe wishes to move into a Watershed Feasibility Study, a cost share match of 50% is required. This can be cash or in kind services. Other stakeholders are encouraged to assist the Tribe as the watershed study is expected to benefit the entire watershed.
POLICY ASSESSMENT: There was an expressed interest by the Tribal Council to focus on Havasu Creek Watershed Policy. One Councilperson suggested that existing watershed policies should be evaluated and more stringent water control policies should be established specifically with an awareness of the Havasupai Tribe and the impact policies have on the safety and financial health of the Tribe. Council members also suggested that there may be some detrimental effects of developments being established south of Williams, and water quality issues related to the town of Williams wastewater treatment facility. Funding is currently not available for these studies, but NAU (the EMA Program and ITEP) will continue to seek funding in this area.
Challenges and Opportunities
18
This watershed faces many challenges. The large size of the watershed causes stakeholders to be geographically and jurisdictionally separated, and makes coordination in the area very challenging. As with other rural areas in the West, the watershed occupants struggle with economic viability and social issues. This is especially true for the village of Supai and the Havasupai community. The social and fiscal issues present further obstacles to the development and coordination of efforts in the watershed. The Havasupai Tribe relies heavily on tourism for the majority of its financial income. The potential for the Tribe to pursue other economic development opportunities fits into the plans being proposed, especially the Hilltop Safehouse that could serve multiple other purposes such as a warehouse and a visitor center. There are many training opportunities available to the Tribe at Northern Arizona University, such as the programs at the Arizona Hospitality Research and Resource Center, that can provide customized trainings in tourism provision. Information regarding these training and education programs was provided to the Tribal Council during the course of this project. Increased safety will make the public feel more secure and could increase economic viability. Stakeholders in the watershed are interested in identifying actions that would help minimize and mitigate the effects of flooding in the region, especially on the people in the Havasupai community. Stakeholders have the opportunity to work together to accomplish these goals. After effective and desired actions have been determined there will be opportunities for outreach and education to stakeholders (especially land owners and land managers in the area). For example, best management practices that are identified should be communicated to land owners. Stakeholders in the watershed have the opportunity to improve communications and relations among themselves. This can be done by sustained efforts on their part. In a region this vast and rural, this involves much patience, effort and persistence.
Recommendations Because all actions that take place in the watershed have potential consequences for the Havasupai Tribe, we recommend that the Tribal Council provide a list of priorities and resolutions for items on which they would like to see actions. This will encourage other stakeholders to offer appropriate assistance and ensure that work that is completed in the watershed is consistent with the needs and desires of the Tribe. The following list of recommendations was compiled from meetings with stakeholders (held by EMA and ITEP team members), and does not reflect any priority listing. These recommendations should be evaluated based on Tribal priorities.
19
Recommendations for Improved Emergency Procedures
1. Tabletop exercises- continue having Tabletop exercises that can prepare the
agencies and communities for emergencies, specifically preparing for future
flood events.
2. Alert System- Determine the amount of interest in having an Alert System in the
canyon.
3. Improved Early Warning System
a. Install additional gauges so that a broader area of the watershed can be
monitored for storms ( some suggested locations are Farm Dam Draw,
Monument Wash, and “the Islands” – any major tributary to the
watershed just before it meets the main stem of Havasu/Cataract Creek)
b. Train more “weather watchers” to provide NWS with information that
can help predict flood-causing storms.
c. Use the NCRS Snotel system to add to information on storms and rainfall
in the watershed. See examples of existing Snotel sites at:
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snotel/Arizona/arizona.html.
4. The Tribe needs an Emergency Response Plan (also known as an Emergency
Operations Plan).
5. A Disaster Recovery Plan needs to be in place.
6. Hilltop Safehouse- this facility could include a place to house people during
emergencies, an information center for visitors and a storage facility for the
Tribe.
7. Improved tracking of visitors- establish an “after-hours” checkout system so that
if evacuation needs to happen numbers of people can be monitored more easily.
Recommendations for Stakeholder Engagement
1. The Watershed is a large area and communications among stakeholders is
imperative to maintain and improve the watershed function (hydrological and
ecological) and to minimize and mitigate flood events.
a. Continue regularly scheduled meetings of watershed stakeholders.
b. Set up a structure to facilitate improved communication and collaboration
within the watershed.
2. Outreach and education will be a key component to disseminating information
regarding actions that watershed residents can take to help the entire watershed
and to minimize downstream impacts from flooding.
20
Recommendations for Improved Communications for Emergency Procedures
1. Develop a communications plan.
2. Establish relevant Intergovernmental agreements (IGAs), Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs) or Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) for these
relationships.
Recommendations for Future Research
1. Watershed Assessments
a. Rapid Watershed Assessment
b. Comprehensive Watershed Assessment
2. Flood effects
a. Examine how climate change will affect flood frequency and severity.
b. Determine how upper watershed land management affects the lower
watershed and flooding in that area.
c. Explore Riparian Restoration options.
3. Water Quality
a. Information regarding water quality throughout the watershed,
especially from the Williams area.
b. Examine residual effects of past mining in the area could be harmful in
drinking water.
c. Determine if current uranium mining will be detrimental to water quality
for the Havasupai Tribe.
Recommendations for Funding
1. Create a spreadsheet/database that lists all possible funding agencies and if
there is a known timeline for submitting grants etc. This spreadsheet should
include the topics of interest to the funders. Some areas of need that have been
identified are the following:
a. Community safety (Potential funding or development partner- Coconino
County)
b. Water Quality (Potential funding or development partners- EPA, ADEQ)
21
c. Riparian Restoration (Potential funding or development partners- Arizona
Water Protection Fund, Arizona Fish and Game, etc.)
2. Obtain funding for writing grants.
a. This funding could be used by the Tribe to help train Tribal employees to
write grants, or could be used by the Tribe to hire a grant-writer (either
internally or externally).
3. Organize stakeholders in the watershed so that grant opportunities arise there is
a structure to support whatever agency or group is writing the grants.
Recommendations for Policy Evaluations
1. Water policies may be an issue in the region and may need to be evaluated and
revised to improve conditions in the watershed.
2. Policies may need to be revised based on information provided from research.
Recommendations for Conservation and Protection
1. Protect the water quality for human and wildlife use.
2. Establish recommended best practices throughout the watershed for land
management, water protection, and flood damage minimization and mitigation.
NAU Continuation Following this Project NAU staff at the EMA Program and ITEP are committed to continuing work that is determined necessary by stakeholders in the Havasu Creek Watershed and dependent on funding. Because of the activities of this project, the EMA Program has determined that there is a need for a Comprehensive Watershed Assessment that would be based on the Rapid Watershed Assessment. The Rapid Watershed Assessment will be conducted by the NRCS which has already been initiated as of the printing of this report. The EMA Program may be available for identifying grants for projects in the watershed and may be available for writing grants if funding is available.
Acknowledgments
22
We would like to thank the Arizona Water Institute, especially Paul Gremillion and Abe Springer, for making this work possible. We would also like to express our thanks to all the stakeholders who took the time to meet and talk with us regarding this project, especially the Havasupai Tribal Council and Chairman Don Watahomagie. Special thanks go to all the people working in the watershed for the benefit of the entire watershed for their persistence and constant efforts.
References ADEQ. 2005. A Water Quality Investigation of Seventeen Grand Canyon Tributaries July
2004-May 2005. ADEQ, Division of Water, Surface Water Section, Monitoring Unit, Phoenix, Arizona.
Diaz, H. F. , and V. Markgraff. 1992. El Nino: Historical and paleoclimatic aspects of the
southern oscillation . Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press 476 p. Dougherty, J. 2008. Arizona: Flood-Warning Gauges. New York Times. December 25,
2008. http://www.nytimes.com. The Havasupai Tribe. 2005. Plan to Reduce Harm from Hazards to the Havasu Baaja.
Supai, Arizona. April 22, 2005. Hereford, R., and Webb, R.H.1992. Historical variation of warm-season rainfall,
southern Colorado Plateau, southwestern U.S.A. Climatic Change, 22:239-256. Kaufman, D. S., G. O’Brien, J. I. Mead, J. Bright, and P. Umhoefer. 2002. Late Quaternary
Spring-Fed Deposits of the Grand Canyon and Their Implication for Deep Lava-Dammed Lakes. Quaternary Research 58:329-340.
Knox, J. C. 2000 Sensitivity of modern and Holocene floods to climate change .
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 439-457 Martin, J.F. 1990. The Havasupai. Museum of Northern Arizona Press, Flagstaff, AZ. Vol.
56 no. 4, 32 p.
Melis, T.S., Phillips, W.M., Webb, R.H., and Bills, D.J. 1996. When the blue-green waters turn red, historical flooding in Havasu Creek, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Water-resources Investigations Report 96-4059. Report 96-4059. U.S. Geological Survey. Tucson, Arizona.
Thomas, B.E., Hjalmarson, H.W., Waltmeyer, S.D. 1994. Methods for estimating the
magnitude and frequency of floods in southwestern United States. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-419, 211 p.
23
24
Appendix A: Lessons Learned
From the September 19th meeting sponsored by the Coconino County Sherrif’s Office. For more
information on this section please contact Sgt. Aaron Dick at [email protected]
2008 HAVASU CREEK FLOOD LESSONS LEARNED
On August 16
th, 2008 a flash flood event occurred in Havasu Creek/Cataract Canyon. This
incident caused damage to the Havasupai campgrounds and some infrastructure in Havasu Creek/Cataract Canyon requiring the evacuation of tourists and some residents from the canyon. No injuries or fatalities were reported as a result of this flash flood event.
Incident Objectives:
1. Provide for the safety of incident personnel. 2. Conduct evacuation of campgrounds and Supai Village as needed. 3. Manage and disseminate information to incident personnel, media, and the public. 4. Conduct a search between campground and the Colorado River for any missing parties.
_______________________________________________
COMMAND:
What worked well
o Establishment of Unified Command between CCSO and NPS at Grand Canyon. o Good coordination between the ICP and AZDPS, Arizona Division of Emergency
Management, and Coconino County Emergency Management.
What needs improvement
o Need to insert a member of the Incident Command Team (Liaison) into Supai Village to aid in coordination and communication with BIA and the Tribe.
o Need to have a roster of key Tribal and BIA personnel to communicate with to ensure coordination in an emergency response.
SAFETY:
What worked well
Air coordination with a Helicopter Coordinator (HLCO) and Air Attack (ATGS) to mitigate potential air to air conflict
Temporary Flight Restriction established early in the incident.
What needs improvement
o Consistent helitac training for personnel working in an all-hazard environment with combination of local, state, and federal resources.
o Consistent use of personal protective equipment.
PUBLIC INFORMATION:
What worked well
o Joint Information Center established on first day between NPS, CCSO, and Coconino County
o Call center established to answer public inquiries
o There is a strong Northern Arizona PIO group to support this operation
o Tribal public information representatives were identified and relationships were established
What needs improvement
o Full staffing of PIO/JIC needed earlier.
25
o A PIO representative needs to be established at the ICP to interact frequently with the IC/UC and be involved in Planning Meetings.
o Initially had a lack of coordination/communication with tribal entities
AIR OPERATIONS:
What worked well
o Airspace Deconfliction: DPS worked in the canyon/campgrounds above Beaver Falls; NPS worked in the canyon below Beaver Falls and around the Colorado River; Arizona National Guard worked from the village to the Bar 4 Helispot
o Defined helispot managers at the two main helispots (village and Bar 4) o Established dedicated Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground frequencies
o Good communication was occurring between aircraft and Air Attack
o Use of HLCO (helicopter coordinator) and ATGS (air attack) to coordinate air operations.
o No injuries or accidents occurred during complex air operations.
What needs improvement
o Near miss incident occurred between Air West and NPS prior to ATGS arrival. o Clear definition/communication of aircraft limitations. o A dedicated Air Operations repeated frequency could have aided coordination and
situational awareness for the air ops representative at the ICP.
GROUND OPERATIONS:
What worked well
o Good organization at the helispot in the village
o Good organization at the helispot at Mooney Falls
o Good accountability of evacuees at Bar 4 Helispot o Good shelter operations and cooperative effort by American Red Cross/Southern
Baptists/Salvation Army/Hualapai Tribe
What needs improvement
o Need better assessment/monitoring of flood waters coming into the canyon. o Need better transportation arrangements to transport evacuees from Bar 4 Helispot
to Hilltop Parking Lot. o Need better structured resource ordering through the ICP. o Need better method for communicating shelter needs (how many need shelter, etc) o Need better logistical support at the Bar 4 Helispot (needed better distribution of IAP,
needed more supplies to provide to evacuees while they waited for transportation, telephone communications were limited).
COMMUNICATIONS:
What worked well
o Human radio relays were effective however there were some gaps in communication coverage.
o Mohave County temporary AIRS repeater at Long Mesa was effective in providing communications between Bar 4 Helispot and the village.
What needs improvement
o Need a more permanent solution for interagency communications into and out of Supai Village, possibly an AIRS (Arizona Interoperable Radio System) Suite installed at Long Mesa.
o Need to develop and regularly review an emergency contact list for emergencies involving the Havasupai Nation so that information can be shared with key personnel.
o Telephone/Satellite telephone service between Hilltop area and Flagstaff and Grand Canyon.
26
Appendix B: Matrix of information for Havasu Creek Watershed
Topic Year Title Author(s) Reference Information/Website
Anthropology 1985 Havasupai habitat - A.F. Whiting's ethnography of traditional Indian culture
Whiting, A.F., Weber, S.A., Seaman, P.D.
Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 288 p.
Anthropology 1994 Havasupai legends Smithson, C.L., and Euler, R.C.
Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 123 p.
Anthropology 1954 People of the blue water - My adventures among the Walapai and Havasupai Indians
Iliff, F.G. New York, Harper and Brothers, 271 p.
Anthropology 1971 The Havasupai people Dobyns, H.F., and Euler, R.C.
Phoenix, Arizona, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Tribal Services, 71 p.
Botany 1964 Botanical Evidence of floods and flood-plain deposition
Sigafoos, R.S. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 485-A, 35 p.
Botany 1955 Ferns and flowering plants of Havasu Canyon
Deaver, C.H. and Haskell, H.S.
Plateau, 28 (1): 11-23
Boundaries 2009 Boundry and Annexation Survey (BAS): Havasupai Reservation
U.S. Census Bureau http://www2.census.gov/geo/www/bas/bas09/aia/r1440_havasupai/BAS09R49900961440_006.pdf
Climate 1964 Arizona Climate Green, C.R., Sellers, W.D. Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 503 p.
Climate 1985 Arizona Climate, the first hundred years
Sellers, W.D., Hill, R.H., and Sanderson-Rae, Margaret
Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 143 p.
27
Climate 1995 Trends in high-frequency climate variability in the twentieth century
Karl, T.R., Knight, R.W. and Plummer, Neil
Nature, 377: p. 217-220
Climate 1992 Historical variation of warm-season rainfall, southern Colorado Plateau, southwestern U.S.A
Hereford, R., and Webb, R.H.
Climatic Change, 22: p. 239-256
Climate Patterns 1992 El Nino: Historical and paleoclimatic aspects of the southern oscillation
Diaz, H.F., and V. Markgraf Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press 476 p.
Colorado River 1990 The Colorado River in Grand Canyon, a guide.
Stevens, L. Flagstaff, Arizona, Red Lake Books, 115 p.
Community Profile 2008 Havasupai Indian Reservation; Community Profile
Arizona Department of Commerce
http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/havasupai.
Debris Flow 2006 Debris flow deposition and reworking by the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona
Yanites, B.J., Webb, R.H., Griffiths, P.G, Magirl, C.S.
Water Resources Research, 42: W11411, 16 p.
Demographics 2000 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics, Geographic Area: Havasupai Reservation, AZ
U.S. Census Bureau
http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/uploadedPublications/141_280041440.pdf
Dendrochronology 1985 Collecting, preparing, crossdating, and measuring tree increment cores
Phipps, R.L. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4148, 48 p.
Dendrochronology 1971 Dendrochronological Interpretation of Geomorphic Processes
Alestalo, J. Fennia 105: 1-140
Ecological Ranching 2006 The Quivera Coalition The Quivera Coalition http://quiviracoalition.org/About_Us/index.html. 1413 Second Street, Suite 1 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 | (505) 820-2544 | [email protected]
28
Ecophysiology 2009 Ecophysiology of two Sonoran Desert evergreen shrubs during extreme drought
Hamerlynck, E.P., Huxman, T.E.
Journal of Arid Environments 73: Issue 4/5, p. 582-585
Erosion 2009 An Introduction to Erosion Control (third edition)
Zeedyk, B. , Jansens, Jan-Willem
Earth Works Institute, The Quivira Coalition and Zeedyk Ecological Consulting, 28 p.
Erosion 1982 Development of a procedure to estimate runoff and sediment transport in ephemeral streams
Lane, L.J. Proceedings of the Exeter Symposium. Recent Developments in the Explanation and Prediction of Ersoion and Sediment Yield, IAHS Publ. no. 137, 8 p.
Ethnobotany 1979 Southwestern Indian Sunflower Nabhan, G.P.
Desert Plants 1: no.1, p. 23-26
Evapotranspiration 2008 Multiyear riparian evapotranspiration and groundwater use for a semiarid watershed
Scott, R.L., Cable, W.L., Huxman, T.E., Nagler, P.L., Hernandez, M., Goodrich, D.C.
Southwest Watershed Research Center, Tucson, Arizona, Journal of Arid Environments, 72: 1232-1246
Fish Conservation 2008 Active adaptive management for native fish conservation in the Grand Canyon: Implementation and Evaluation
Coggins, L.G. University of Florida, dissertation, 173 p.
Flood Warning 2008 Arizona: Flood-Warning Gauges Dougherty, J New York Times. December 25, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com.
Flood Warning 2008 Yavapai County FCD ALERT System History
http://www.co.yavapai.az.us/Content.aspx?id=29248
29
Flooding 1994 A 4500-year record of large floods on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona
O'Connor, J.E., Ely, L.L., Wohl, E.E., Stevens, L.E., Melis, T.S., Kale, V.S., Baker, V.R.
Journal of Geology, 102: no. 1, p. 1-10.
Flooding 1994 Anomalous North Pacific atmospheric circulation and large winter floods in the Southwestern United States
Ely, L.L., Enzel, Yehouda, and Cayan D.R.
Journal of Climate, 7: no. 6, p. 977-987
Flooding 1994 Assessment of Water Resources on the Havasupai Reservation, Northwestern Arizona
Bills, D. Report
Flooding 1990 Augmenting flood frequency estimates using flood-scarred trees
McCord, V.A.S. Tucson, University of Arizona, unpublished Ph.D dissertation, p. 182
Flooding 1992 Climatic variability and flood frequency of the Santa Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona
Webb, R.H., and Betancourt, J.L.
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2379, 40 p.
Flooding 1983 Evidence of floods on the Potomac river from anatomical abnormalities in the wood of flood-plain trees
Yanosky, T.M. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1296, 42 p.
Flooding 1981 Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency
U.S. Water Resources Council
Hydrology Subcommittee Bulletin 17B, 183 p.
Flooding 1978 Methods for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in Arizona
Roeske, R.H. Phoenix, Arizona Department of Transportation Report ADOT-RS-15(121), 82 p.
Flooding 1994 Methods for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in southwestern United States
Thomas, B.E., Hjalmarson, H.W., Waltmeyer, S.D.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-419, 211 p.
30
Flooding 1946 Notable local floods of 1939 Gatewood, J.S., Schrader, F.F., and Stackpole, M.R.
U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 967, Part 1, p. 1-39
Flooding 1987 Occurrence and geomorphic effects of streamflow and debris flow floods in northern Arizona and southern Utah
Webb, R.H. Mayer, Larry, and Nash, David (editors), Catastrophic flooding: Boston, Allen and Unwin Publishing, p. 247-265
Flooding 2000 Sensitivity of modern and Holocene floods to climate change
Knox, J.C. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 439-457
Flooding 1996 When the blue-green waters turn red, historical flooding in Havasu Creek, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Water-resources Investigations Report 96-4059
Melis, T.S., Phillips, W.M., Webb, R.H., and Bills, D.J.
Report 96-4059. U.S. Geological Survey. Tucson, Arizona.
Flooding 1966 Magnitude and frequency of flood in the United States, Colorado River Basin
Patterson, J.L., Somers, W.P. Geological Survey Water-supply Paper 1683
Part 9., 475 p.
Flooding 1964 Factors affecting the occurrence of floods in the Southwest
Benson, M.A. Geological Survey Water-supply Paper 1580-D, 65 p.
Flooding 1993 Paleoflood evidence for a natural upper bound to flood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin
Enzel, Yehouda, Ely, L.L., House, P.K. Baker, V.R. and Webb, R.H.
Water Resources Research 29: no. 7, p. 2287-2297
Flooding Control 1925 Water power and flood control of the Colorado River below Green River, Utah
LaRue, E.C. U.S. Geological Survey Water-supply Paper 556, 165 p.
Flooding Control 1954 The flood control controversy: Big dams, little dams, and land management
Leopold, L.B., Maddock, Thomas
Conservation Foundation 278 p.
Flooding Effects 1977 Effects of the catastrophic flood of December, 1966, North Rim area, eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona
Cooley, M.E., Aldridge, B.N., and Eeuler, R.C.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 980, 43 p.
31
Geology 2000 Geologic map of the Grand Canyon 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Coconino and Mohave Counties, Northwestern Arizona
Billingsley, G.H. USGS, Geological Investigations Series I-2688, 16 p.
Geology 1979 Havasu Canyon - A natural geochemical laboratory
Giengengack, R., Ralph, E.K., and Gaines, A.M.
Linn, R.M. (editor), Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, Vol 2: New Orleans, Louisiana, National Park Service, p. 719-726
Geology 2002 Late Quaternary Spring-Fed Deposits of the Grand Canyon and Their Implication for Deep Lava-Dammed Lakes
Kaufman, D. S., G. O’Brien, J. I. Mead, J. Bright, and P. Umhoefer
Quaternary Research 58:329-340
Geology 1991 Relation of sediment load and flood plain formation to climatic variability, Paria River drainage basin, Utah and Arizona
Graf, J.B., Webb, R.H., and Hereford, R.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 103: p. 1405-1415
Geology, Flooding 2006 Oxygen isotope composition of annually banded modern and mid-Holocene travertine and evidence of paleomonsoon floods, Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA
O'Brien, G. R., D.S. Kaufmann, W. D. Sharp, V. Atudorei,R. A. Parnell, L. J. Crossey
Quaternary Research 65: 366–379
Geomorphology 2006 Bedrock-controlled fluvial geomorphology and the hydraulics of rapids on the Colorado River
Magirl, C.S. The University of Arizona, dissertation, 257 p.
Geomorphology 1984 Climate and ephemeral stream processes: Twentieth-century geomorphology and alluvial stratigraphy of the Little Colorado
Hereford, Richard Geological Society of America Bulletin, 95: p. 293-311
32
River, Arizona
Geomorphology 1989 Debris flows from the tributaries of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona
Webb, R.H., Pringle, P.T., and Rink, G.R.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper1492, 39 p.
Geomorphology 1995 Geomorphic history of the Virgin River in the Zion National Park area, southwest Utah
Hereford, Richard, Jacoby, G.C., and McCord, V.A.S.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-515, 75 p.
Geomorphology 1988 Ground water, geomorphic processes, and riparian values: San Pedro River, Arizona
McGlothlin, D., Jackson, W.L., Summers, P.
Proceedings of the symposium on water-use data for resources management, Tucson, Arizona, American Water Resources Association p. 537-544
Geomorphology 1991 Historical channel change of Kanab Creek, southern utah and northern Arizona
Webb, R.H., Smith, S.S., and McCord, V.A.S.
Grand Canyon Natural History Association Monograph Number 9, 91 p.
Geomorphology 1988 Monument Creek debris flow, 1984 - Implications for formation of rapids on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park
Webb, R.H., Pringle, P.T., Reneau, S.L., and Rink, G.R.
Geology, 16: p. 50-54
Geomorphology 1988 Plant ecological aspects of flood geomorphology and paleoflood history
Hupp, C.R. New York, John Wiley and Sons, p. 335-356
33
Geomorphology 1985 The 1983 hydraulic jump in Crystal Rapid: Implications for river-running and geomorphic evolution in the Grand Canyon
Kieffer, S.W. Journal of Geology, 93: p. 385-406
Government 1899 Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
Ewing, H.P. Annual Reports of the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1905, Indian Affairs Part 1; August 18, 1899: Washington D.C., National Archives Files, 156 p.
Government 1905 Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
Floren, A.W. Annual Reports of the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1905, Indian Affairs Part 1; September 25, 1905: Washington, D.C., National Archive Files, 163 p.
Grand Canyon History
1996 Grand Canyon, a century of change Webb, R.H. Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 320 p.
Groundwater 1975 A preliminary survey of the ground water of the Havasupai Reservation, Grand Canyon, Arizona
Breed, W.J.
Museum of Northern Arizona Department of Geology, 24 p.
Havasupai Tribe 2009 Havasupai Unknown http://www.havasupaitribe.com/
Havasupai Tribe 1948 Land of the Havasupai Breed, J. The National Geographic Magazine 43(5): 665-674
Herpetology 2006 A Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles in Arizona
Brennan, T.C., and Holycross, A.T.
Arizona Game and Fish Department, 150 p.
History 1987 In the footsteps of John Wesley Powell
Stephens, H.G. and Shoemaker, E.M.
Boulder, Colorado, Johnson Books, 286 p.
34
Hydraulic Engineering
1993 Debris flows in the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona - Magnitude, frequency and effects on the Colorado River
Melis, T.S., and Webb, R.H.
Shen, Hsieh Wen, Su, S.T., and Wen, Feng, (editors), Hydraulic Engineering 93, 2: Proceedings of the 1993 Conference, July 25-30, San Francisco, California: New York, American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 1290-1295.
Hydraulic Engineering
1994 Frequency and magnitude of recent debris flows in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona and vicinity
Melis, T.S., Webb, R.H., Griffiths, P.G., and Wise, T.J.
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 94-4214, 285 p.
Hydroclimatology 1985 Hydroclimatology of flow events in the Gila River Basin, central and southern Arizona
Hirschboeck, K.K. Tucson, University of Arizona, unpublished Ph.D dissertation, 335 p.
Hydrology 1991 Basin characteristics and streamflow statistics in Arizona as of 1989
Garrett, J.M., and Gellenbeck, D.J.
U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4041, 612 p.
Hydrology 2006 Ground-water surface-water interactions and long-term change in riverine riparian vegetation in the Southwestern United States
Webb, R.H., Leake, Stanley A.
U.S. Geological Survey, Journal of Hydrology 320, 302-323
Hydrology 2002 Hydrogeologic Data for the Coconino Plateau and Adjacent Areas, Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona
Bills, D. J. and M. E. Flynn U.S. Geological Survey and the City of Williams. Tucson, Arizona. 2192 pp. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5222/sir2005-5222_text.pdf
Hydrology 1963 Hydrology of the plateau uplands province
Cooley, M.E. In White, N.D., Stulik, R.S., Morse, E.K. and others, Annual report on ground water in Arizona, spring 1962 to spring 1963: Phoenix, Arizona State Land Department, Water Resources Report, 15: p. 27-38
35
Hydrology 1967 Measurement of peak discharge by the slope-area method
Dalrymple, Tate, and Benson, M.A.
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 3, Chapter A2, 12 p.
Hydrology 1968 Spring flow into the Colorado River, Lees Ferry to Lake Mead, Arizona
Johnson P.W., and Sanderson, R.B.
Phoenix, Arizona State Land Department, Water-Resources Report Number Thirty-Four, 26 p.
Hydrology 1993 U.S. Streamflow Patterns in Relation to the El Nino/Southern Oscillation
Kahyah, E., and Dracup, J.A.
Water Resources Research 29: no. 8, p. 2491-2503
Hydrology, Geology 2006 Dissected hydrologic system at the Grand Canyon: Interaction between deeply derived fluids and plateau aquifer waters in modern springs and travertine
Crossey, L. J., T. P. Fischer, P. J. Patchett, K. E. Karlstrom, D. R. Hilton, D. L. Newell, P. Huntoon, A. C. Reynolds, and G. A.M. de Leeuw
Geology 34(1): 25-28
Hydrometeorology 1981 Meteorology of important rainstorms in the Colorado River and Great Basin drainages
Hansen, E.M. Schwarz, F.K.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hydrometeorological Report 50, 167 p.
Hydrometeorology 1977 Probable maximum precipitation estimates, Colorado River and Great Basin drainages
Hansen, E.M. Schwarz, F.K., and Reidel, J.T.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hydrometeorological Report 49, 161 p.
Ichthyology 2000 Late Season Reproduction by Big-River Catostomidae in Grand Canyon (Arizona)
Douglas, M. R. and Michael E. Douglas
Copeia 2000(1): 238-244. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1448256
36
Journals 1914 Through the Grand Canyon from Wyoming to Mexico
Kolb, E.L. Tucson, University of Arizona Press, p. 344
Macroinvertebrates 1999 Watershed influence on the macroinvertebrate fauna of ten major tributaries of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon, Arizona
Oberlin, G.E., Shannon, J.P., and Blinn, D.W.
The Southwestern Naturalist 44: No. 1 p. 17-30
Mammal Distribution
1978 Distribution and natural history of some mammals from the Inner Gorge of the Grand Canyon, Arizona
Ruffner, George A., Czaplewski, Nicholas J., and Carothers, Syeven W.
Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, 13: 85-91
Molluscua 1993 Molluscua of the Grand Canyon and Vicinity, Arizona: New and Revised Data on Diversity and Distributions, with Notes on Pleistocene-Holocene Mollusks of the Grand Canyon
Spamer, Earle E., Bogan, Arthur E.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 144: 21-68
Natural Dams 1955 Natural Dams of Havasu Canyon, Supai, Arizona
Black, D. M. Science 121: 611-612
Natural Resources Coconino County NRCD Coconino County NRCD http://www.nrcd.org/coconino/index.html
Natural Resources 2006 DRAFT
Rural Arizona Water Atlas Arizona Department of Water Resources
http://www.adwr.state.az.us/dwr/Content/Find_by_Program/Rural_Programs/content/water_atlas/ArizonaWaterAtlas_Vol1_Introduction_Draft_June2006.pdf
Ornithology 1979 Avifauna of Habitat Islands in the Grand Canyon
Wilson M. F. and S. W. Carothers
The Southwestern Naturalist 24 (4): 563-575. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3670516
37
Ornithology 1987 Grand Canyon Birds Brown, B.T., Carothers, S.W., Johnson, R.R.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 302 p.
Phytoplankton 2004 Composition and abundance of phytoplankton in tributaries of the Lower Colorado river, Grand Canyon region
Crayton, W.M., Sommerfeld, M.R.
Arizona State University, Tempe, Hydrobiologia 66: Number 1 p. 81-93
Place Names 1960 Grand Canyon place names Granger, B.H. Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 26 p.
Precipitation 1988 El Niño and its effect on precipitation in Arizona and western New Mexico
Andrade, E. R., Jr. and W. D. Sellers
The Journal of Climatology 8: 403-410
Rainfall 1990 Mechanisms of Interannual Variability of the Southwest United States Summer Rainfall Maximum
Carlton, A. M., D. A. Carpenter, and P.J. Weser
American Meteorological Society 3: 999-1015
Rehabilitation 1995 Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems Cairns, John CRC Press 425 p.
Restoration 2001 Comparing ecological restoration alternatives: Grand Canyon, Arizona
Fule, P.Z., Covington, W.W., Smith, H.B., Springer, J.D., Heinlein, T.A., Huisinga, K.D., Moore, M.M.
Ecological Restoration Institute, School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Forest Ecology and Management 170, p. 19-41
Restoration 2001 Restoration of riparian vegetation in the south-western United States: importance of flow regimes and fluvial dynamism
Stromberg, J.C. Department of Biology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Journal of Arid Environment 49: 17-34
Restoration Ecology 2008 Rethinking avian response to Tamarix on the Lower Colorado River: A threshold hypothesis
van Riper, C., Paxton, K.L., O'Brien, C., Shafroth, P.B., McGrath, L.J.
Restoration Ecology 16: Issue1, p. 155-167
38
Riparian plants 1994 Phenology and Stand Composition of Woody Riparian Plants in the Southwestern United States
Brock, J. H. Desert Plants 11(1): 23-31
Riparian Restoration
1997 Riparian restoration in the western United States: Overview and perspective
Goodwin, C.N., Hawkins, C.P., Kershner, J.L.
Restoration Ecology 5: Issue 4S, p. 4-14
Snowpack Water Content
SNOTEL and Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting; The Chalander Site, with Hydro Unit Area of Havasu Canyon
National Water and Climate Center
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snotel/snotel.pl?sitenum=1139&state=az
Spring Flow 2005 Determining ephemeral spring flow timing with laboratory and filed techniques: Applications to Grand Canyon, Arizona
Adams, Eric A. Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, unpublished thesis, 80 p.
Springs 2002 Grand Canyon springs and the Redwall-Muav aquifer: comparison of geologic framework and groundwater flow models
Kessler, J.A. Northern Arizona University, thesis, 122 p.
Stream Ecology 2005 Clear-water tributaries of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona: stream ecology and the potential impacts of managed flow
Henery, Rene E. The Department of Geology, University of Califronia Davis, 18 p. https://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~shlemoncourse/html/trips/Grand%20Canyon%20web/html/reports/PDFs/Henery.pdf
39
Streamflow 1992 El Niño/ Southern Oscillation and streamflow in the Western United States
Cayan, D. R, and R. H. Webb
pp 29-68 in Diaz, H. F. and V. Markgraf (editors), El Niño, Historical and paleoclimatic aspects of the Southern Oscillation: Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press.
Tourism 1963 Adventure in Havasu Griffith, Elizabeth Arizona Highways Magazine, 39: no. 7, p. 35-37
Tourism 2004 Community Economic Considerations of Tourism Development
Magnan, Nick, and Seidl, Andy
Economic Devlopmet Report, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Fort Collins, Colorado, 28 p.
Tourism 1994 The burden of beauty; Grand Canyon is overwhelmed with visitors
Clark, R. Colorado Plateau Advocate, A publication of the Grand Canyon Trust, Spring/Summer 1994, p. 6-7.
General 1990 The Havasupai Martin, J. F. Museum of Northern Arizona Press, Flagstaff, AZ. Vol. 56 no. 4, 32 p.
Trail Guide 1989 Grand Canyon trail guide, Havasu Thybony, Scott Grand Canyon Natural History Association, no page numbers.
Vegetation Change 1980 Recent vegetation changes along the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona
Turner, R.M., and Karpiscak, M.M.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1132, 125 p.
Water Atlas 2006 Arizona Water Atlas Arizona Department of Water Resources Team
Arizona Department of Water Resources 1: 83 p.
Water Quality A Water Quality Investigation of Seventeen Grand Canyon Tributaries July 2004-May 2005
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADEQ, Division of Water, Surface Water Section, Monitoring Unit, Phoenix, Arizona
40
Water Quality 1984 Recreational Water Quality Analyses of the Colorado River Corridor in Grand Canyon
Tunnicliff, B. and S. K. Brickler
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 48 (5): 909-917
Water Uptake 1992 Water uptake in woody riparian phreatophytes of the southwestern united states: A stable isotope study
Ingraham, N.L., Smith S.D., and Busch D.E.
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Nevada - Las Vegas, Nevada, Ecological Applications, 2(4) p. 450-459
Watershed 2008 A brief background on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed
Renard, K.G., Nichols, N.H., Woolhiser, D.A., Osborn H.B.
Water Resources Research 44: W05S02 11 p.
Watershed 1989 Improving southwestern riparian areas through watershed management
DeBano, L.F., Schmidt, L.J. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado no. 182, 33p.
Weather 1993 Heavy winter precipitation in southwest Arizona
Guttman, N.B., Lee, J.J., and Wallis, J.R.
EOS, 74: p. 482, 485
Weather 1986 The effects of eastern North Pacific tropical cyclones on the southwestern United States
Smith, Walter Salt Lake City, Utah, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical Memorandum NWS-Wr-197, 229 p.
