DOCSLIB.ORG

Chester Diversion FERC Environmental Assessment 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. While both names are appropriate, we use the “Chester Diversion” moniker for consistency and clarity in this EA. 20080410-3039 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/10/2008 Copies of the final EA are available for review in Public Reference Room 2 -A of the Commission’s offices at 888 First Street, NE, Washington , D C. The final EA also may be viewed on the Commission’s Internet website ( www.ferc.gov ) using the “eLibrary ” link. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission’s Office of External Affairs, at (202) 502 -6088, or on the Commission’s website using the eLibrary link. For assistance with eLibrary , contact [email protected] or call toll -free at (866) 208 -3676, or for TTY contact (202) 502 -8659. Kimberly D. Bose , Secretary . 20080410-3039 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/10/2008 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHESTER DI VERSION HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (Project No. 11879 -001 ) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 APRIL 200 8 20080410-3039 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/10/2008 This page i ntentionally left blank. 20080410-3039 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/10/2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ iii LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............ v SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... viii I. APPLICATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1 II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................ ................................ .. 1 A. PURPOSE OF ACTION ................................ ................................ .................. 1 B. NEED FOR POWER ................................ ................................ ....................... 2 III. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................ ..................... 4 A. APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL ................................ ................................ ........... 4 1. Project Description ................................ ................................ .................... 4 2. Proposed Project Operation ................................ ................................ ....... 5 3. Proposed Environmental Measures ................................ ........................... 7 B. STAFF’S MODIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL ............. 9 C. NO -ACTION ALTERNATIV E................................ ................................ ..... 10 IV . CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE ................................ ............................ 10 A. SCOPING ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 10 B. INTERVENTIONS AND CO MMENTS ................................ ....................... 11 C. SEPTEMBER 2007 ENVIR ONMENTAL ASESSMENT ........................... 14 D. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ................................ ................................ .... 15 E. STATUTORY REQUIREMEN TS ................................ ................................ 16 1. Water Quality Certification ................................ ................................ ..... 16 2. Section 10(j) Recommendations ................................ ............................. 16 3. Se ction 18 Prescription ................................ ................................ ........... 17 4. Endangered Species Act ................................ ................................ .......... 17 6. Section 106 Consultation ................................ ................................ ........ 18 V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ......... 18 A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALE ................................ .......... 19 B. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS A NALYSIS ................................ ....................... 19 1. Geographic Scope ................................ ................................ ................... 20 2. Temporal Scope ................................ ................................ ...................... 20 C. PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES .......................... 20 1. Geology and Soils ................................ ................................ ................... 20 2. Water Resources ................................ ................................ ...................... 28 3. Aquatic Resources ................................ ................................ ................... 37 i 20080410-3039 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/10/2008 4. Terrestrial Resources ................................ ................................ ............... 50 5. Threatened and Endangered Species ................................ ....................... 65 6. Recreational Resources ................................ ................................ ........... 66 7. Land Use and Aesthetic Resources ................................ ......................... 69 8. Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ .................. 72 D. NO -ACTION ALTERNATIV E................................ ................................ ..... 79 VI. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ........ 79 A. POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFIT S OF THE PROPOSED PR OJECT 81 B. POWER AND ECONOMIC B ENEFITS OF THE STAFF - RECOMMENDED ALTERNAT IVE ................................ ............................ 81 C. COMPA RISON OF ALTERNATIVE S ................................ ........................ 82 VII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 100 1. Symbiotics’ Proposed Measures ................................ ........................... 100 2. Staff’s Recommended Measures ................................ ........................... 103 3. Rationale for Staff Recommendations ................................ .................. 104 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES ................... 116 IX. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ................................ ....... 117 X. FINDING OF N O SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................ ...................... 119 IX. LITERATURE CITED ................................ ................................ ......................... 119 X. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ........................ 122 APPENDIX A ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. A-1 ii 20080410-3039 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/10/2008 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Chester Diversion Project location map ................................ ........................ 3 Figure 2. Proposed project facilities ................................ ................................ ............. 6 Figure 3. Bed elevations and areas of fine sediment deposition within the lower Chester Div ersion dam impoundment in the vicinity of the proposed project ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 23 Figure 4. Rating curve for Chester Diversion dam ................................ ..................... 29 Figure 5. Daily and average flow at USGS gage no. 13050500 Henry’s Fork at St Anthony for water years 1962 to 2005 ................................ ........................ 33 iii 20080410-3039
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]