DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Storage Projects Committee Meeting Materials | August 8, 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Storage Projects Committee Meeting Materials | August 8, 2013 Henrys Fork Basin Study Update Idaho Water Resource Board Water Storage Projects Committee \ uA H o ~ ~ " Cynthia Bridge Clark ; "~ O:Jo August 8, 2013 "' <l'tsou1<C Background • State Authorization: • House Joint Memorial No 8 • Senate Bill 1511 approved by 2008 Idaho Legislature • Comprehensive State Water Plan • Federal Authority: • Department of Interior’s WaterSmart Program – Basin Study Program • Undertake comprehensive studies in cooperation with local partners • Basin Study MOA executed in March 2011 (IWRB and USBOR) • Study objectives: Identify additional water supplies and improvements in water management through surface storage, managed recharge, water marketing, and conservation, while sustaining environmental quality. Study Area • Henrys Fork Watershed (3,300 sq mi) – Parts of Fremont, Madison and Teton counties. • Four major subbasins – Upper Henrys Fork, Lower Henrys Fork, Teton River, and Fall River • Land use – forestland, rangeland, irrigated cropland, dryland agriculture and other urban developments • Fish & Wildlife – populations of native Yellowstone cutthroat trout, nonnative rainbow trout, and brown trout Variety of large and small mammals and birds Water Supply • Surface water supply Henrys Fork River largest tributary of the Snake The total Henrys Fork watershed discharge is 2.5 million af/yr under natural, unregulated conditions - Falls River contributes 700,000af/yr - Teton River contributes over 600,000 af/yr 1.6 million af/yr is discharged after the Henrys Fork basin diversions, seepage and evapotranspiration under regulated system (most of seepage losses recaptured in aquifer) Existing storage on Henrys Fork River: Henry’s Lake (90,000 af), Grassy Lake (15,500 af), and Island Park Reservoir (135,500 af) Water Supply • Groundwater supply Henrys Fork River watershed exhibits a high degree of surface and groundwater interaction both spatially and temporally • Fremont Madison Irrigation District (FMID) Formed to unite many irrigation and canal companies across Fremont, Madison and Teton Counties Provides supplemental supply about 1,500 water users irrigating over 285,000 acres Primary supplies come from individual irrigation and canal companies as natural flow FMID estimates over 70 of acreage sprinkler irrigated; remainder is flood or sub-irrigated Water is in the basin is delivered by Water District 1. Water Needs Assessment Basin Study Program requires an assessment of projected water supply and demand, and risks to water supplies related to climate change: • ESPA CAMP long-term objective to achieve a 600,000 acre-feet water budget change to stabilize and recover the aquifer and springs • Agricultural needs within the Henrys Fork basin – Egin Bench, Lower Henrys Fork Watershed, North Fremont, Teton Valley • Environmental needs – primarily fisheries • DCMI - important to the Henrys Fork Basin economy, but represents less than 4% of overall basin water budget Upper Snake River Basin D Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer Boundary o---·2-=0===4:11o___ s0M iles Reclamation Basin Study Process 1) Formulation of Alternatives (complete): In coordination stakeholders and reviewing existing information and previous studies, over 40 ideas for augmenting water storage and optimizing and conserving water supply were identified. New and Enlarged Surface water storage Managed Aquifer Recharge storage Water Market alternatives Agricultural and DCMI Conservation, water management, and demand reduction 2) Reconnaissance Analysis (complete): Preliminary Screening – screening criteria was categorized by water supply, natural environment, and socioeconomic environment Final screening – focus on most productive options 3) Appraisal Analysis (in progress): Includes hydrologic analysis of the basin Additional technical analysis for specific alternatives 4) Basin Study Completion – documentation of analyses, and identify potential steps for implementation and potential financing mechanisms Stakeholder Outreach and Technical Support • The State and Reclamation collaborated with the Henrys Fork Watershed Council to receive input and feedback from stakeholders • Leveraged existing IDWR ESPA Groundwater model and Snake River accounting model, and the Henrys Fork River Basin water budget model (Rob Van Kirk) • The Idaho Department of Water Resources has provided significant technical and project support • Other agency/entity participation: IDEQ, IDFG, USFS, IWRRI, Water District 1, FMID, Trout Unlimited, Friends of the Teton River, American Rivers, cities of Idaho Falls, Rexburg, Driggs and Victor Reconnaissance Analysis – Potential New and Enlarged Reservoirs Henrys Fork River basin Island Park Reservoir • Island Park Dam raise Enlargement • Ashton Dam raise • Moose Creek Dam site Ashton Reservoir Teton River basin Enlargement • Teton Dam site • Lane Lake Dam site • Moody Creek Dam site • Spring Creek Dam site • Upper Badger Dam site Lane Lake Reservoir Dat11 Sou,cos: USA_Topo _Alaps (AtcGIS Onlin•J Concept Design by CH2MHILL M;,rch • 2012 4 sub-alternatives Dlul•lm.,: Tlt11 map It lttttnd•d fo, fltHtal info1mational and planning purpou, only. h ;, not int.nd•d to ba uud fot dutriptiott 01 authotitttiv• d•f1nltlon of f.outton or l•gal bounduy. Th• 8111.au of R• clu1atlon Mahi Sources include Teton eo warranty, upr.sud or impliN, II to th• t'o1npJ • t•,uu, accuracy, or utility of thtu d1ta andwlff I n no •11.nt b• liabl• for thtlt 1u• btyond th• abov• u p,uud purpou. River, Conant Creek, Falls River, and Bitch Creek Moody Creek Reservoir • PumpStation Dtr•So,ucu: US A 1opo /,hp, fA 1cGIS Online} Concept Design by CH1/.IHIU March -1012 5 sub-alternatives D1•~1al,,1•r: Thi, triap J1 int•nd,d fo, g•n-,al l11to1m1tlonal and planr,(ag pu1p,o1t1 only. J1 Is not Inttt1dtd to bt und for duulptlon 01 a11rlto1itatln dtfi1tition of location 01 t,gal Sources include Moody boundary. Th• B,uuu of Rtct1m1tion n,ah1 no wa,1.nty, r,xp,es.ud 01 lmpll•d. 11 to lht compt•ttneu, ntur•t!J, 01 t1tlllty ofttiu, d11t1 tlfd will in m> tVHI h Ii,.,. lo, th•it UH Creek, Canyon Creek, t>•yond tt,, above t t p1eutd p111po1t. hd rewlud; 317/20 12 114=~~~~~~' and Teton River Spring Creek Reservoir Data S0u1u1: US/I Topt1 M~p, (A1'GIS Ontlnt ) 4 sub-alternatives Concept Design b~ CH2MH/Ll ,.,,,.ch . 20 /2 Sources include Spring Creek, Canyon creek ' Teton River, and Bitch Creek Upper Badger Creek Reservoir Concept Design by CH21t1Hlt.L AfBrch • 2012 Oi1daimt1: Tbi1 map i1 inttndtd fo, ~nt,al info,matlonal ~nd planning pwrposu only. It II not lnt,ndtd to bt 111td lo, dticrlptlon 3 sub-alternatives or alltho,lt•tive d t flnltlon ol lout lon or lt gal boundaf)'. Th• 8uru11 of R•ct.matlon ma.tu no w•rianty, up(uud o, Imp/ltd, u to th• tompltttneu, Kturny, or utlllty of theu data Sources include Badger arid wlll Jn no .vent b• liable for thei, tJU tJ.yond tht abovt Hptund p11rpou. Creek and Teton River Moose Creek Reservoir D•t• S•Hiu, • USA .. r.,o_lla.P., (ArtGIS Onli,itJ Concep/ Design by CHI /IIHILL lllor<h • 20ft Oi1d111in••r. 11ti1 •itP i1 ial•flihd fer QOttC'ta, ""'°'"'•tionaf and;,IMll'fflD ,..,oou..s only, It Ii- not lnt•n,,d to h ui-trl for •t1<:.riptioo 01 a.tflo.rit•tl.,,. d11linJtioe of to,c,.tl.. <ff ,.s,o, 4 sub-alternatives boC11td.. ry , Ht• &il'u11 oJ ltttd•.. •tiOlt m.d.:u no wat1•11tr~upru ..d o, ff!ltpti-'~ ., to rftt <:HIP,.f•Mn~ Hf'Pl1'Cf, 01 tlfllitJ' of tlr•n (Ufa ilttd will i• .., •~Ml '-• fi•ble fo r ttt•ir uu Sources include Moose 0.yo,x/ th, H>on Hl)IC'IUd PIIIPPH. Creek and Henrys Fork River Island Park Reservoir Enlargement RECLAMATION Henrys Fork Basin Study, Idaho and Wyoming Manag111gll&ler111wll~s1 Island Park Dam Raise Alternative: Service Spillway O.a Sot.SCfl: 20 ,, HAJP fhlllral Color lmlige,y tor kMho Di.ctlllmw : Thi~ map ~ .,;ended for oener.. tnfrofmadonll ,no J)lannlno pl,.l'poses onij tltnOf ll'lt~t4tot>tu•Ofo,d~IOn a 1uthcrUt.ve derr.Gon of locatlon or fegll boundNY The 8urnu d Redamehcn m•kn M W&fT'lnty expressed OI' 1mQl..ed IS to the Qqn'lple(.ntU ICCW'lcy Of UC1111fy Ol lheM dill and wfl II no even! be Ut.ble lcf llelf use ~d the •bofe uvrnsed purpcJH 0 30 60 90 120 150 ..m:: ::::::i.. m:: ::::::i.. • Feet LHl 1.-,,,..s,d. J/lV2012 HENRYS FORK BASIN STUDY - ISLAND PARK DAM EXISTING CONFIGURATION SCHEMATIC Elevation Structures (not to scale) (ft) Description Impacted 6312 6312 Crest of Dam 169 6311 110 Freeboard 5.4’ Emmmmmmmm Smmm 6310 92 mmmm 1 6309 6309 Emergency Spillway 37 6308 18 6307 2 6306.6 6306.6 Top Flood Surcharge Space 0 6305 0 Flood Surcharge 3.6’ (29,610 af) 6304 0 6303 6303 Service Spillway w/ 1’ Bladder 0 6302 Normal operating elevation 0 Smmmmmm Smmmmmmm 2 2 Service Spillway is an uncontrolled “bathtub” 1 Emergency spillway is spillway with ogee shaped inlet to 30’ long tunnel located along the dike. through the dam. A horseshoe shaped spillway It is trapezoidal-shaped crest includes a 62’ long concrete weir in the and has a 500’ invert center with two 99’ long 1’ diameter inflatable crest at elevation 6309. bladders on either side. Top of the weir and bladders elevation is 6303 ft. Island Park Dam & Reservoir Enlargement (8-ft Embankment Raise Sub-Alternative) RECLAMATION Henrys Fork Basin Study, Idaho and Wyoming Manag111glltueruiw111,.,1 Island Park Dam Raise Alternative: Plan View of Dam ~ Exiot.-,g Toe Prop01;ed Toe (Sul>-AletematNe IP-8) D•a Sotl'cn · ESRl_ lmoger,_World_20 (loo0 HIV/co) U$GS DEM Dlsclahn•; TN, ffmP ts in~•oded fer oene,11 r,fonndcn1Jand pt111ning purposes O't'V 1t 1tn01 W1 lendtd~ot,-1,1Md kit die-Saiouo,, OI a.ulMfltu.-e de!IU:Son d bcltlon or le.gel bcuntary The Bureau oi Atdl'""1an make, no wwranty, exarn~d er ime>hed. 11 to the ~elttSI tcan~ avblityoflMNdltl andvrtll WI no•wnl be Uble IOI' mwuse ~ the~ aprnsedputpOW 0••-===••• _ 500 1,000 1,500Feet le.al 1ev ...ut.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trumpeter Swan Survey of the Rocky Mountain Population Winter 2012
    Trumpeter Swan Survey of the Rocky Mountain Population Winter 2012 Acknowledgements Personnel who conducted the survey are listed in Appendix C. The survey is a collaborative effort among Red Rock Lakes NWR, Migratory Birds and State Programs -- Mountain-Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex, National Elk Refuge, Harriman State Park, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Grand Teton National Park, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Ruby Lake NWR, Malheur NWR, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Additionally, R. Cavallaro, M. Wackenhut, D. Christopherson, K. Cameron, and R. Lonsinger, assisted with counts in Idaho. S. Patla, N. Cadwell, D. Smith, M. St. Louis, and K. Cutting provided information and narratives used to develop this document; conclusions are attributable only to the author. TRUMPETER SWAN SURVEY of the ROCKY MOUNTAIN POPULATION WINTER 2012 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Birds and State Programs Mountain-Prairie Region Lakewood, Colorado May 1, 2012 4 Abstract.B Observers counted 6,331 swans (white birds and cygnets) in the Rocky Mountain Population of trumpeter swans during late January and early February 2012, which was an 11% increase from the 5,712 counted during winter 2011. The number of white birds (4,783) increased by 9% from the 2011 counts while the number of cygnets (1,028) experienced a 22% decrease. In the tri-state area, the number of total swans increased for Idaho (59%) and decreased for Montana (- 33%) and Wyoming (-19%) from counts in 2011. The number of birds wintering in areas near restoration flocks increased by 18% from 2011 and was the highest count since 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Resource Study
    Historic Resource Study Minidoka Internment National Monument _____________________________________________________ Prepared for the National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Seattle, Washington Minidoka Internment National Monument Historic Resource Study Amy Lowe Meger History Department Colorado State University National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Seattle, Washington 2005 Table of Contents Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………… i Note on Terminology………………………………………….…………………..…. ii List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………. iii Part One - Before World War II Chapter One - Introduction - Minidoka Internment National Monument …………... 1 Chapter Two - Life on the Margins - History of Early Idaho………………………… 5 Chapter Three - Gardening in a Desert - Settlement and Development……………… 21 Chapter Four - Legalized Discrimination - Nikkei Before World War II……………. 37 Part Two - World War II Chapter Five- Outcry for Relocation - World War II in America ………….…..…… 65 Chapter Six - A Dust Covered Pseudo City - Camp Construction……………………. 87 Chapter Seven - Camp Minidoka - Evacuation, Relocation, and Incarceration ………105 Part Three - After World War II Chapter Eight - Farm in a Day- Settlement and Development Resume……………… 153 Chapter Nine - Conclusion- Commemoration and Memory………………………….. 163 Appendixes ………………………………………………………………………… 173 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………. 181 Cover: Nikkei working on canal drop at Minidoka, date and photographer unknown, circa 1943. (Minidoka Manuscript Collection, Hagerman Fossil
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Basin Climate Impact Assessment Final Report
    RECLAMATION Managing Water in the West West-Wide Climate Risk Assessment Columbia River Basin Climate Impact Assessment Final Report \ / --~-- U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Regional Office March 2016 Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Photographs on front cover: The shrub-steppe around Grand Coulee Dam, parched desert soil, a crop field with rain clouds, and snow covered mountain peaks. These images represent the varied ecosystems in the Columbia River Basin. West-Wide Climate Risk Assessment Columbia River Basin Climate Impact Assessment Final Report Prepared for United States Congress Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Policy and Administration Denver, Colorado March 2016 Notes Regarding this West-Wide Climate Risk Assessment – Impact Assessment The Columbia River Basin Impact Assessment is a reconnaissance-level assessment of the potential hydrologic impacts of climate change in the Columbia River Basin. For this study, it was necessary to isolate the impacts of climate change from other changes that may occur within the basin. Therefore, Reclamation has assumed that current water operations by all water management entities in the Columbia River Basin would continue unchanged in the future. This assessment does not consider any operational changes that may or may not be made by basin stakeholders in the future and does not reflect the position of any entity regarding future operational changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Minidoka Project Reservoirs Store Flow of the Snake Snake the of Flow Store Reservoirs Project Minidoka Many Benefits Benefits Many
    September 2010 2010 September 0461 0461 - 678 (208) Office Field Snake Upper www.usbr.gov/pn the American public. public. American the economically sound manner in the interest of of interest the in manner sound economically related resources in an environmentally and and environmentally an in resources related develop, and protect water and and water protect and develop, clamation is to manage, manage, to is clamation Re of The mission of the Bureau Bureau the of mission The Recreation: over 674,000 visits - $25 million million $25 - visits 674,000 over Recreation: Flood damage prevented: $8.8 million million $8.8 prevented: damage Flood Power generated: $5.6 million million $5.6 generated: Power Livestock industry: $342 million million $342 industry: Livestock IDAHO–WYOMING IDAHO–WYOMING Irrigated crops: $622 million million $622 crops: Irrigated What’s the Yearly Value? Value? Yearly the What’s Project Project the West. West. the Minidoka Minidoka some of the best outdoor recreation opportunities in in opportunities recreation outdoor best the of some also provides fish and wildlife enhancement and and enhancement wildlife and fish provides also The Story of the the of Story The production, and to reduce flood damage. The project project The damage. flood reduce to and production, River system for later irrigation use, electricity electricity use, irrigation later for system River Minidoka Project reservoirs store flow of the Snake Snake the of flow store reservoirs Project Minidoka Many Benefits Benefits Many Congress passed the Reclamation Act in 1902 to storing project water. The 1911 permanent dam was Railroad Draws Settlers bring water to the arid West.
    [Show full text]
  • Trumpeter Swan Survey of the Rocky Mountain Population Winter 2011
    Trumpeter Swan Survey of the Rocky Mountain Population Winter 2011 Acknowledgements Personnel who conducted the survey are listed in Appendix C. The survey is a collaborative effort among Red Rock Lakes NWR, Migratory Birds and State Programs -- Mountain-Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex, National Elk Refuge, Harriman State Park, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Grand Teton National Park, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Ruby Lake NWR, Malheur NWR, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Additionally, R. Cavallaro, M. Wackenhut, B. Waterbury, D. Christopherson, K. Cameron, R. Holman, R. Lonsinger, T. Ferguson, and C. Mitchell assisted with counts in Idaho. M. Fisher, J. Mackay, S. Patla, N. Cadwell, D. Smith, M. St. Louis, and K. Cutting provided information and narratives used to develop this document; conclusions are attributable only to the author. TRUMPETER SWAN SURVEY of the ROCKY MOUNTAIN POPULATION WINTER 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Birds and State Programs Mountain-Prairie Region Lakewood, Colorado April 12, 2011 Abstract.B Observers counted 5,712 swans (white birds and cygnets) in the Rocky Mountain Population of trumpeter swans during February 2011, which was a 33% increase from the 4,290 counted during winter 2010. The number of white birds (4,384) and the number of cygnets (1,328) increased 22% and 92% respectively from last year. The cygnet count this year was the highest since 1972. In the tri-state area, the number of total swans increased for Montana (25%), Idaho (27%) and Wyoming (55%) from counts in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Chester Diversion FERC Environmental Assessment 2008
    20080410-3039 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/10/2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Symbiotics, LLC Project No. 11879 -001 – Idaho NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (April 10, 2008) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as a mended, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC ) regulations (18 CFR Part 380), Commission staff have reviewed the license application for the Chester Diversion Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 11879 ) and have prepared a final environme ntal assessment (EA) on the proposed action . The project is located on the Henry’s Fork of the Snake River in Fremont County, Idaho , downstream of some of the most well -known fly fishing areas in the country. Symbiotics, LLC (applicant) filed an applicati on for license with the Commission for an original license for the 3.3 -megawatt ( MW ) Chester Diversion Hydroelectric Project, using the existing Cross Cut Diversion dam ( Chester Diversion dam) .1 In th is final EA , Commission staff analyzes the probable env ironmental effects of construction and operation of the project and ha ve concluded that approval of the license , with appropriate staff -recommended environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of t he human environment. 1 The Chester Diversion dam was initially constructed as the “Cross Cut Diversion dam” because it served as the diversion dam for the Cross Cut irrigation canal. It now also serves as the diversion dam for the Last Chance irrigation canal, and because of its location near Chester, Idaho, is now referred to as the Chester Diversion dam.
    [Show full text]
  • Henrys Fork Basin Study Final Report 1 1.0 Introduction
    Henrys Fork Basin Study Final Report Produced in partnership with the State of Idaho Water Resource Board U.S. Department of the Interior Idaho Water Resource Board Bureau of Reclamation State of Idaho Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho Snake River Area Office Boise, Idaho January 2015 MISSION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PROTECTING AMERICA'S GREAT OUTDOORS AND POWERING OUR FUTURE The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America's natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. MISSION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Photograph on front cover: Fly fishing, irrigated agriculture, and wildlife habitat are important activities in the Henrys Fork River basin Disclaimer The Henrys Fork Basin Study was funded jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Idaho Water Resource Board (IWRB), and is a collaborative product of the study participants as identified in Section 1.3, page 5 of this report. The purpose of the study is to assess current and future water supply and demand in the Henrys Fork Basin and adjacent areas that receive water from the basin, and to identify a range of potential strategies to address any projected imbalances. The study is a technical assessment and does not provide recommendations or represent a statement of policy or position of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of the Interior, or the funding partners.
    [Show full text]
  • Teton View Regional Plan
    for sustainable development MAY 2015 The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under an award with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government. Preface Sustainable communities partnership On June 16, 2009, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined together to help communities nationwide improve access to affordable housing, increase transportation options, and lower transportation costs, all while protecting the environment. This “Sustainable Communities Partnership” identified six livability principles that would form a framework for the variety of funding programs that each agency intended to design over a multi-year period. These principles are: • Provide more transportation choices • Provide equitable, affordable housing • Enhance economic competitiveness • Support existing communities • Coordinate policies and leverage investment • Value communities and neighborhoods The Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program was launched by HUD in 2010 to encourage cities and counties to collaborate on studies related to regional land use, affordable housing, economic development, community vitality, food equity, public transportation and environmental quality. The grants also provided for training and technical assistance for local communities as means to build their resilience for the future. In November 2011, the Western Greater Yellowstone Consortium (Consortium) was awarded a $1.5 million HUD grant and launched its three-year planning process in February 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Resource Study: Minidoka Interment Internment National
    Historic Resource Study Minidoka Internment National Monument _____________________________________________________ Prepared for the National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Seattle, Washington Minidoka Internment National Monument Historic Resource Study Amy Lowe Meger History Department Colorado State University National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Seattle, Washington 2005 Table of Contents Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………… i Note on Terminology………………………………………….…………………..…. ii List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………. iii Part One - Before World War II Chapter One - Introduction - Minidoka Internment National Monument …………... 1 Chapter Two - Life on the Margins - History of Early Idaho………………………… 5 Chapter Three - Gardening in a Desert - Settlement and Development……………… 21 Chapter Four - Legalized Discrimination - Nikkei Before World War II……………. 37 Part Two - World War II Chapter Five- Outcry for Relocation - World War II in America ………….…..…… 65 Chapter Six - A Dust Covered Pseudo City - Camp Construction……………………. 87 Chapter Seven - Camp Minidoka - Evacuation, Relocation, and Incarceration ………105 Part Three - After World War II Chapter Eight - Farm in a Day- Settlement and Development Resume……………… 153 Chapter Nine - Conclusion- Commemoration and Memory………………………….. 163 Appendixes ………………………………………………………………………… 173 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………. 181 Cover: Nikkei working on canal drop at Minidoka, date and photographer unknown, circa 1943. (Minidoka Manuscript Collection, Hagerman Fossil
    [Show full text]
  • Caribou-Targhee National Forest Is Easily Reached from Highways, Byways, and Back Doors
    aribou-Targhee National Forest VISITOR GUIDE Accessible Adventures — Fall Creek Falls Trail to Table Mountain Spectatular Teton Mt Range in background. he spectacular scenery of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest is easily reached from highways, byways, and back doors. The bond between T forest and community spans generations through family activities such as camping, hiking, hunting, What’s Inside fishing, and riding off-highway vehicles. During the winter, the forest offers vast expanses of History & Special Places .... 2 Scenic Byways ..................... 4 untracked powder—ideal for snowmobiling, Wilderness ........................... 5 cross-country skiing, and downhill skiing (Grand Campgrounds ...................... 6 Targhee, Kelly Canyon, and Pebble Creek ski Maps .................................... 8 areas). Activities ............................. 12 Winter Recreation............... 18 Know Before You Go............19 Contact Information ............20 Fast Forest Facts ith its northern boundary Acres: Over 3 million W Highest peak: Diamond Peak at on the Continental Divide, the Caribou-Targhee 12,107’ (4th highest in Idaho) National Forest stretches across southeast Home to: Upper and Lower Mesa Idaho, western Wyoming and northern Utah. Falls, the last major undisturbed falls on the Columbia River System Bordering Grand Teton and Yellowstone Historic Places: Caribou City (one National Parks, the forest serves as a gateway of Idaho’s largest gold rush cities); to the Greater Yellowstone Area. Lander and Oregon Trails (used by From high mountain peaks to pioneers to reach the California gold fields) rolling hills of sage and grasslands, there is great diversity in the 95 90 landscapes of this special place. 12 Come see for yourself! Salmon 95 McCall Great Horned Owl © Chris Hill Chris © Owl Horned Great 93 St.
    [Show full text]
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for Bureau of Reclamation Operations and Maintenance in the Snake River Basin Above Brownlee Reservoir U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office Boise, Idaho March 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................................1 I. Introduction..............................................................................................................1 II. Background..............................................................................................................2 A. Project Authorizations....................................................................................2 B. Hydrologic Seasons and Operations ...............................................................5 C. Snake River Basin Adjudication.....................................................................5 D. Flow Augmentation for Salmon......................................................................6 III. Consultation History................................................................................................9 IV. Concurrence ...........................................................................................................12 V. Climate...................................................................................................................13 VI. Reinitiation Notice.................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Henry's Fork
    UPPER HENRY’S FORK SUBBASIN ASSESSMENT Final December 1998 Prepared by Sheryl Hill Christopher Mebane Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality Idaho Falls Regional Office 900 N. Skyline, Suite B Idaho Falls, ID 83402 (208) 528-2650 Table Of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Nomenclature: Henrys or Henry’s? .................................................................................... 2 Authorization and Purpose.................................................................................................. 2 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 5 Physical Characteristics of the Upper Henry’s Fork Subbasin....................................................... 6 Climate................................................................................................................................ 6 Geology............................................................................................................................... 9 Topography....................................................................................................................... 18 Hydrography and Hydrology ............................................................................................ 22 Soils..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]