DOCSLIB.ORG

Teton View Regional Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. The four counties that comprised the Consortium were Fremont, Madison and Teton counties, Idaho, and Teton County, Wyoming. Additional Consortium members included the Idaho cities of Island Park, Ashton, St. Anthony, Rexburg, Driggs, and Victor, plus the Town of Jackson, Wyoming. State and federal agencies that signed onto the Consortium were the Caribou-Targhee and Bridger-Teton national forests, the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Upper Snake River District, the Idaho Department of Lands, and the Idaho Transportation Department. The Yellowstone Business Partnership (now dissolved) and the Ashton Community Foundation participated as nonprofit partners in the Consortium. As the original applicant for the HUD Grant, Fremont County served in a leadership role and handled project management and grant administration. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of some 20 research studies and data assessments were integrated into a draft document that received public scrutiny in February/March 2015. The final Teton View Regional Plan profiles high-priority community- scale projects and multi-sector initiatives to be led voluntarily by local cities, counties and organizations. Additional projects are summarized that may be implemented by localities over the long-term. Over the past three years Consortium members have focused on what the region shares in common while respecting the varied economic, political and cultural views of each community. The group has accepted the reality of differing perspectives across the two states and four counties, and presents this Plan as a voluntary, “livability roadmap” that will guide each jurisdiction in its future development. The Plan outlines parallel paths that each locality may travel independently or through coordinated, region-wide implementation. Table of Contents Section One. BECAUSE WE LEAD REGIONAL LIVES 1 The Plan’s Guiding Documents 4 Navigating the Regional Plan 5 About Sustainability Indicators 8 Public Participation Requirements and Philosophy 14 Section Two. THE TETON VIEW LANDSCAPE AND ITS PEOPLE 21 What Lies Beneath 23 Forests, Meadows and Wildlife 29 Population of the Teton View Region 32 Section Three. RESILIENT COMMUNITIES 41 Chapter 1 – Distinctive Major Cities 43 Chapter 2 – Our Small Cities 67 Chapter 3 – Vital Connections 97 Section Four. PRODUCTIVE LANDSCAPES 117 Chapter 4 – Our Agricultural Heritage 119 Chapter 5 – Wildlife, Public Lands and Special Sites 147 Chapter 6 – Four-Season Recreation 172 Section Five. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS 197 Summary of Implementation Priorities and Partnerships 199 Greater Yellowstone Framework/Regional Plan Crosswalk 205 Resource Library/Appendices 207 References 208 TABLES Table 1. Teton View Regional Population 33 Table 2. Percentage of Population by Age 36 Table 3. Population by Race 37 Table 4. Population of Hispanic/Latino Ethnicity by Area 38 Table 5. Tales of Two Cities (TTC) Implementation Priorities 54 Table 6. Staying the Course (SC) Implementation Priorities 83 Table 7. Better Together (BT) Implementation Priorities 106 Table 8. Land in farms, by type (acres) and county 121 Table 9. Public land in grazing (acres), by county 121 Table 10. Roots & Resilience (RR) Implementation Priorities 132-133 Table 11. Wonders & Wildlife (WW) Implementation Priorities 160 Table 12. Adventures for All (AA) Implementation Priorities 184 Table 13. Project Leadership for Fremont County, Idaho 202-203 Table 14. Project Leadership for Madison County, Idaho 203 Table 15. Project Leadership for Teton County, Idaho 204 Table 16. Project Leadership for Teton County, Wyoming 206 Table 17. Project Leadership for Federal Agencies 206 Table 18. Crosswalk to the Greater Yellowstone Framework 208 FIGURES Figure 1. Landscape Characters 6-7 Figure 2. IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum 14 Figure 3. Survey Results 19 Figure 4. Population Distribution in Teton View Region 32 Figure 5. Teton View Region Percentage of Population by Age 34 Figure 6. Distribution of Population by Hispanic/Latino Ethnicity 40 Figure 7. Distinctive Major Cities and their Micropolitan Areas Map 47 Figure 8. Small Cities Map 75 Figure 9. Regional Infrastructure Map 99 Figure 10. Land in Farms Chart 119 Figure 11. Agriculture Map 125 Figure 12. GYA Climate Action Plan “Definition of Success” 149 Figure 13. Wildlife and Public Lands Map 152 Figure 14. Annual Income to Counties & Participant Recreation Benefits 172 Figure 15. Summer Recreation Map 177 Figure 16. Winter Recreation Map 178 KEY INDICATORS Section One. Healthy Waters 10-11 Housing and Transportation Affordability 12 Regional Interconnectedness 13 Section Three. Employment Diversity 63 Development in City Centers 64 Roadway Connectivity Index 65 Commute Time 66 Housing Cost Burden 95 Educational Attainment 96 Regional Transit Connectivity 114 Broadband Connectivity 115 Wildland Urban Interface Development 116 Section Four. Value of Agricultural Products Sold 145 Land in Farms 146 Land Conservation 159 Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout 170 Elk Harvest 171 Hunting and Fishing License Value 193 Public Land Visitation 194-195 Trail Miles 196 Contributors. Logan Simpson Design Inc. – Fort Collins, Colorado Brendle Group – Fort Collins, Colorado P2 Solutions – Idaho Falls, Idaho Tight Line Media – Idaho Falls, Idaho RED, Inc. Communications – Idaho Falls, Idaho Fremont County Planning and Building – St. Anthony, Idaho Section One Because we lead regional lives An Introduction to the Results of the 4,000-person “Housing/Quality- Teton View Regional Plan of-Life” survey conducted for this Plan clearly show that people choose to live in Fremont, The Teton View Regional Plan for Sustainable Madison, or Teton counties, Idaho, or Teton Development (Plan) has been designed to County, Wyoming. When averaged across the help city and county officials, and public land entire Teton View region: managers better coordinate their land-use planning, resource management, and community • 79% of respondents choose to live here development efforts for the region’s long-term for the fresh air and clean water benefit. The studies and tools developed during • 79% cite the safe, small-town feel the planning process should help communities • 77% cite the natural environment, assess their current situation and effectively wildlife and scenery respond to changing socioeconomic and • 73% cite the many outdoor environmental conditions for years to come. recreation opportunities • 62% cite connections to their neighbors The Plan was written on a four-county, two-state and community scale because past studies have shown that our 83,000+ residents actually lead regional lives. Fifty percent or fewer of all survey respondents Many live in one county, but commute daily to in all counties cited job opportunities and good work in another. Rural residents tend to travel quality services as reasons for living in the area. great distances to shop or visit medical facilities Almost 50% of respondents in Fremont County that are found in the region’s larger cities. While cited the importance of family and farmland there may be outstanding recreation choices in connections to the quality of their lives, but each community, most will travel across state fewer than 20% of respondents in the other and county lines for the best fishing or thrilling counties cited those connections. While adventures far from home. affordable housing increases the quality of life for 51% of Fremont County respondents, affordable housing was cited by only 21% respondents in Teton County, Idaho, and only 4% in Teton County, Wyoming, where housing overall
Recommended publications
  • Teton - 17040204 Idaho 8 Digit Hydrologic Unit Profile February 2008

    Teton - 17040204 Idaho 8 Digit Hydrologic Unit Profile February 2008

    Dec Teton - 17040204 Idaho 8 Digit Hydrologic Unit Profile February 2008 Introduction The Teton 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) subbasin contains 700,960 acres. Forty percent of the subbasin is in Teton County, twenty-seven percent is in Madison County and seven percent is in Fremont County, Idaho. Twenty-seven percent is in Teton County, Wyoming. Fifty-four percent of the basin is privately owned and forty-six percent is publicly owned. Forty-one percent of the basin is in shrub, rangeland, grass, pasture or hayland, thirty-five percent of the basin is in forest, water, wetlands, developed or barren, and twenty-four percent is cropland. Elevations range from 11,005 feet in the eastern part of the HUC to 4,814 feet at the basin outlet on the west. Conservation assistance is provided by one Conservation District in Wyoming, two Soil Conservation Districts and one Soil and Water Conservation District in Idaho, and one Resource Conservation and Development office. Profile Contents Introduction Progress/Status Physical Description Resource Concerns Landuse Map & Precipitation Map Census and Social Data Common Resource Area Footnotes/Bibliography Resource Settings Future Conservation Needs The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202- 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
  • Water Storage Projects Committee Meeting Materials | August 8, 2013

    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
  • Geologic Map of the Newdale Quadrangle, Fremont and Madison Counties, Idaho

    Geologic Map of the Newdale Quadrangle, Fremont and Madison Counties, Idaho

    IDAHO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DIGITAL WEB MAP 122 MOSCOW-BOISE-POCATELLO WWW.IDAHOGEOLOGY.ORG EMBREE, PHILLIPS, AND WELHAN CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS EOLOGIC AP OF THE EWDALE UADRANGLE, REMONT AND ADISON OUNTIES, DAHO INTRODUCTION G M N Q F M C I Artificial Unit Alluvial Units Eolian Units Mass Wasting Volcanic The Newdale quadrangle lies on a dissected plateau locally known as the Units Units 1 2 3 Rexburg Bench. Geologic features of the Rexburg Bench are closely associ- Glenn F. Embree , William M. Phillips , and John A. Welhan Basalt Flows Rhyolitic Rock ated with water and agricultural resources. Near-surface geology of the m Qtfb Qtfg Qtfs Qtff Qls bench consists of the Huckleberry Ridge Tuff and three basalt units. The HOLOCENE 2011 Huckleberry Ridge is a highly permeable and jointed ash flow tuff. Most Qa Qc Qes high production irrigation water wells in the region draw from the Huckle- 10.0 ka berry Ridge aquifer. A dam constructed by the US Bureau of Reclamation in Qgh late the Teton River canyon failed catastrophically in 1976, largely due to Qel PLEISTOCENE Qbc Qbm Qgh uncontrolled seepage of reservoir water through joints and shear zones in Qbsp Qa the Huckleberry Ridge Tuff. Bedrock outcrops are rare in the Newdale ? Qa 1 Qgh quadrangle outside of the Teton River canyon because of widespread loess ~15 - 140 ka 126 ka Qa cover. The loess is the parent material for the rich soils of the region. QUATERNARY Qgh Qgh Qgh Qgh middle Qes Qbc PLEISTOCENE Qyh GEOLOGIC HISTORY Qel/Qbc Qyh 256 +/- 14 ka3 Qgh Qbsp Qel/Qbsp 780 ka The Huckleberry Ridge Tuff was erupted from the Henrys Fork caldera of the early Qyh Qyh Yellowstone Plateau at 2.059 Ma (Lanpere and others, 2002; Christiansen, Qbsp Qbm ? PLEISTOCENE Qel/Qyh 2001).
  • Trumpeter Swan Survey of the Rocky Mountain Population Winter 2012

    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.
  • Yellowstone National Park, Submerged Resources Survey

    Yellowstone National Park, Submerged Resources Survey

    te t/:p--J038 .. } ,' ,, .. ' . ·� . I ; ,· . ' . '/ YEL.LOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK " � ! I '!'' • SUBMERGED RESOURCES SURVEY I ·' I i I \. ,· i .\ I: ··r· 'I I CC®ll®IT' §��IID� YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK a product of the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SYSTEMWIDE ARCHEOLOGICALINVENTORY PROGRAM YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK Submerged Resources Survey James E. Bradford Archeologist Matthew A. Russell Archeologist Larry E. Murphy Archeologist Timothy G. Smith Geodesist Submerged Resources Center Intermountain Region National Park Service Santa Fe, New Mexico 1999 11 Submerged Resources Center Cultural Resources Management Intermountain Region National Park Service US Department of the Interior 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... vii FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................. X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... xi PART 1: REMOTE SENSING SURVEY ..................................... ............................................ 1 Matthew A. Russell, Larry E. Murphy and Timothy G. Smith INTRODUCTION .... ............................ ................ ........................................... ............. 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT................... ........................................................................ 3 SURVEY DESIGN AND RATIONALE ..............
  • IDAHO ACTION PLAN (V3.0) for Implementing the Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3362

    IDAHO ACTION PLAN (V3.0) for Implementing the Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3362

    IDAHO ACTION PLAN (V3.0) For Implementing the Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3362: “Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors” 10 September 2020 PREFACE Secretarial Order No. 3362 (SO3362) (09 February 2018; Appendix B) directs the Department of Interior (DOI) to assist western tribes, private landowners, state fish and wildlife agencies, and state transportation departments with conserving and managing priority big game winter ranges and migration corridors. Per SO3362, the DOI invited state wildlife agencies in 2018 to develop action plans identifying big game priority areas and corresponding management efforts across jurisdictional boundaries. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) and DOI jointly developed Idaho’s first version (V1.0) of the SO3362 Action Plan in 2018, which identified 5 Priority Areas for managing pronghorn, mule deer, and elk winter range and migration habitat (Appendix A and D). V2.0 was prepared in 2019 with support from the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). This V3.0 was also prepared in coordination with ITD in response to DOI’s 14 April 2020 letter to IDFG (Appendix E) requesting updated Priority Area information. Correspondingly, IDFG views this Action Plan as a living document to be reviewed and updated as needed, for example when new priorities emerge, revised information becomes available, and management efforts are completed. Each version of Idaho’s Action Plan applies best available information to identify current and future needs for managing big game winter range and migration habitat, highlight ongoing and new priority management needs, leverage collaborative resources, and narrow focus to 5 Priority Areas.
  • Upper Snake Region Idaho Fishing & Boating Access Guide

    Upper Snake Region Idaho Fishing & Boating Access Guide

    UPPER SNAKE REGION IDAHO FISHING & BOATING ACCESS GUIDE 30 X r e v i Sand Creek Ponds X R P m Panhandle Small r a W k FREMONT Horseshoe P! e In-State Dubois re Lake RQ22 C s Jump Off Canyon Clearwater a Location m a Ashton Reservoir kC e P!X re C XX X Warm River Warm River ADA as Ora Bridge Salmon m RQ47 a C er CLARK S Ashton Riv a Lemon P! P Falls Stone Bridge Upper Snake Fall River n X d Lake Marysville C r X e e Magic Southwest South ¨¦§15 k Chester Wetland R Vernon Bridge Valley d XX -east P! Drummond Mud Lake WMA P P Camas Red Road Bridge Chester Dam Chester - North Ramp X PLamont RQ32 Egin P! Parker P! Fun Farm Bridge Lakes Saint Anthony Warm Slough Quayles Hamer X er P! Lake iv ton Riv R Te er n MONTANA Beaver Dick Teto ! Teton X P P! RQ33 P Felt X P Sugar City Newdale X Cartier Slough WMA 6000 W ¤£20 Terreton Rexburg Nature Park P! P 33 X Harrops Bridge X P! Tetonia RQ P !P X 33 Mud Lake Sage Junction Gem State WHA X RQ Rexburg Moody Creek W 400 N Erickson Dugway Rd MADISON Cache Bridge X Mud Lake WMA Market X TETON Lake X E 3500 Rd S X X - South Ramp P Thornton Horseshoe Bridge X X XW Buxton Rd P! Driggs P Menan Buttes Rd Menan Lorenzo tes Market Lake WMA P! Ba P! Dry Bed Rainey Bridge Roberts Dry X Bed P! Lewisville Twin Bridges RQ33 J EFFERSON X Bates Bridge P! X X RQ48 XX Rigby W 600 S P Byington Jim Moore Pond S Ririe Heise n P! Teton Creek ak X P! e Victor R ek S i e F v P! Cr S Fox Creek West e Ucon w llow n r ill o Wi Cr ake X X W eek R iv e West River Road RQ43 ¤£26 r Fox Creek East ¤£ 20 Ririe ¤£26 P! Iona Reservoir Trail Creek Pond P Lincoln RQ31 ¤£20 Conant Valley Idaho X Upper P !P P! ! Ammon th R Falls 49 d S Swan Valley Palisades ¨¦§15 49th Rd S d BONNEVILLE Lake R X E e Su n n o nys i B de P! R Irwin X d X Clowards Crossing Gem State ¤£26 Palisades Creek Grays Lake Outl P! Shelley Kepps Crossing X X k k BINGHAM e e ¤£ e e 91 r r C C Palisades Res.
  • Caribou - Targhee National Forest 1405 Hollipark Drive Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 Caribou - Targhee National Forest Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report

    Caribou - Targhee National Forest 1405 Hollipark Drive Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 Caribou - Targhee National Forest Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report

    Targhee Monitoring Report: 1997-2004 May 2006 USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region Caribou - Targhee National Forest 1405 Hollipark Drive Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 Caribou - Targhee National Forest Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report Section 2--Accomplishment of Goals and Objectives i Targhee Monitoring Report: 1997-2004 May 2006 Accomplishment of Objectives—Summary Table Table 1: Summary of the percent of each objective that the Targhee has accomplished. Details of how each objective has been met follow in the section “Accomplishment of Goals and Objectives”. % Accomplished as of January 2005 Resource Area Objective 25 50 75 100 PFC By 2000, complete a PFC assessment within a selected subsection. 100% By 2007, develop at least one fire management plan for a priority area within each of the seven 100% subsections. Fire By 2005, initiate a program to burn a minimum 2,000 acres annually for habitat improvement, fuels 100% management, and forest health, consistent with approved fire management plans. 0% Lands Remove utility facilities located in avoidance or exclusion areas as it becomes practical to do so. This will be amended to be a guideline By 2007, complete watershed improvement needs backlog in the Lemhi/Medicine Lodge, Big Hole 25% Mountains, and Caribou Range Mountains Subsections. By 2007, verify watershed improvement needs identified in the Teton Basin Study. 50% Fish, Water, and By 2007, inventory watershed improvement needs on the Centennial Mountains, Madison-Pitchstone 50% Riparian Plateaus, and Teton Range Subsections. By 1999, coordinate with ID & WY to reassess the health of native cutthroat trout populations within the Lemhi/Medicine Lodge, Centennial Mountains, Island Park, Madison-Pitchstone Plateaus, and Teton 100% Range Subsections.
  • Case Study #2

    Case Study #2

    Case Study #2 Teton Regional Land Trust: Protecting and Restoring Priority Habitats Project Summary: Protect and restore key habitats, including 27,000 acres of diverse and productive wetlands for water birds and other wildlife in the rapidly developing Teton River Basin. The land trust has protected nearly 9,000 acres of land through cooperative efforts with private landowners and has begun restoration efforts on over 4,000 acres in the upper Teton River watershed. Regional Setting: The Teton River, flanked by the Teton Range to the east and the Big Hole Mountains to the west, is a tributary of the Henrys Fork of the Snake River in eastern Idaho. Part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the Teton River Basin encompasses an irreplaceable landscape that provides migratory corridors, breeding habitat and over-wintering lands for upon this wetland/upland complex, including a number of thousands of waterbirds. Development pressure driven by waterfowl and shorebirds identified as priorities in national demand for second homes in this spectacularly scenic area bird conservation plans. The wetlands and nearby grain fields threatens traditional land uses that have sustained high quality provide essential staging habitat for the migratory Rocky wetlands along with local ranching and agricultural communities. Mountain population of greater sandhill cranes. The river corridor provides regionally significant wintering habitat for hundreds of Land Trust Mission: The Teton Regional Land Trust conserves trumpeter swans. Nesting long-billed curlews are found here in agricultural and natural lands and encourages land stewardship greater density than anywhere else in their range. The river itself in the Upper Snake River valley for the benefit of today's is home to a self-sustaining population of the sensitive communities and as a legacy for future generations.
  • Historic Resource Study

    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
  • The Settlement of Teton Valley, Idaho-Wyoming

    The Settlement of Teton Valley, Idaho-Wyoming

    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1974 The Settlement of Teton Valley, Idaho-Wyoming David Brooks Green Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons, Mormon Studies Commons, and the Sociology Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Green, David Brooks, "The Settlement of Teton Valley, Idaho-Wyoming" (1974). Theses and Dissertations. 4727. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4727 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. THE sfttiinhsettlementT OF TETtemonTETONON VALLEY IDAHO WYOMING A thesis presented to the department of geography brighamB r ighambigham young university in partial fulfillmentfulfillynent of the requirements for the degree master of science by D brooks green this thesis by D brooks green is accepted in its present form by the department of geography of brigham young university as satisfying the thesis requirement for the degree of master of science 1 1 L waw& eiaelaLIA X 1 1 X y richardurfaH jackson cammicommiconmiiuteewae3e chairman 1 L AAAy L 1 1 i yuj alan H grey committecommittee meermepioer te aa7aaa roberi 1 lilILL a on depai6twnt rronaron 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS page PREFACE 0 0 0 0 0 0 viii LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF illustrations vi chapter I1 introduction
  • Old West Meets New West BOARD of DIRECTORS from Our President Kim Keeley, President Chuck Iossi, Vice President I Learned to Fish from My Grandmother

    Old West Meets New West BOARD of DIRECTORS from Our President Kim Keeley, President Chuck Iossi, Vice President I Learned to Fish from My Grandmother

    water linesSPRING/SUMMER 2012 Old West Meets New West BOARD OF DIRECTORS From Our President Kim Keeley, President Chuck Iossi, Vice President I learned to fish from my grandmother. She taught me to cast and tie Geordie Gillett, Treasurer knots, but the real learning came from tagging along with her when she Richard Berg, Secretary fished. The only rule was no talking. So I learned to observe. I watched my Jon Fenn grandmother, watched the creek, watched fish, found snakes, made little Kristie Grigg boats out of rosehips, and sometimes I just watched the inside of my Derek Hutton eyelids. It wasn’t until years later that I realized all the skills I had learned David Jennings on those too few fishing outings: observation, Tim Mason respect, creativity, and appreciation. Mitch Prissel Crucial to our River stewardship is very similar. Over the past KEY PARTNERS success has been twelve years FTR has methodically assessed the Bonneville Environmental Foundation health of our watershed using cutting edge technol- willing participation Idaho Department of Fish and Game ogy as well as anecdotal evidence imparted to us by from landowners, Idaho Department of Environmental longtime residents. We gather information and Quality donors, and Wyoming Game and Fish create solutions to the issues we encounter, guided volunteers, and the U.S. Forest Service, Caribou-Targhee by both scientific reason and social evidence. Crucial National Forest to our success has been willing participation from gift of perspective landowners, donors, and volunteers, and the gift of from the old timers. STAFF perspective from the old timers. Quincy Liby, Outreach Coordinator Mike Lien, Restoration Director We have a myriad of challenges ahead of us.