DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Henry's Fork

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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................................................................................................................................... 25 Biological Characteristics of the Upper Henry’s Fork Subbasin.................................................. 33 Cultural Characteristics of the Upper Henry’s Fork Subbasin ..................................................... 36 Land Ownership and Land Use......................................................................................... 36 Population Distribution..................................................................................................... 36 Planning ............................................................................................................................ 41 Watershed Advisory Group .............................................................................................. 42 Water Quality Concerns and Status .............................................................................................. 47 Water Quality Standards................................................................................................... 47 Designated Uses ..................................................................................................... 47 Water Quality Criteria............................................................................................ 51 Antidegradation Policy........................................................................................... 51 Water Quality-Limited Segments ..................................................................................... 51 Summary and Analysis of Existing Water Quality Data .............................................................. 55 Henry’s Lake..................................................................................................................... 55 Henry’s Fork: Buffalo River to Riverside Reach ............................................................. 66 Sheridan Creek.................................................................................................................. 77 Assessment of Remaining Waterbodies............................................................................ 81 Henry’s Lake Watershed................................................................................................... 82 Lower Henry’s Fork Watershed........................................................................................ 87 Island Park Reservoir Watershed...................................................................................... 88 Sheridan Reservoir Watershed.......................................................................................... 90 Thirsty Creek, Buffalo River, Warm River, and Robinson Creek Watersheds ................ 91 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 95 i Citations ............................................................................................................................... 97 Appendix A. Section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq...................................................................... 105 Appendix B. Background information regarding development of the Idaho TMDL Schedule ............................................................................................................................. 107 Appendix C. Names of 7.5 minute quadrangle maps............................................................... 109 Appendix D. USDA soil survey information ........................................................................... 111 Appendix E. Water quality criteria .......................................................................................... 129 Appendix F. Additional sources of data and information for the upper Henry’s Fork s subbasin............................................................................................................... 131 Appendix G. Draft Upper Henry’s Fork Subbasin Assessment: Responses to public comments ............................................................................................................ 141 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of climate data collected from February 1, 1937 to June 30, 1997 at Island Park1 and from August 1, 1948 to June 30, 1997 at Ashton2 . 7 Table 2. Length of growing season: probabilities of the number of days at Island Park and Ashton that will exceed minimum temperatures of 24°F, 28°F, and 32°F.1 . .8 Table 3. Length of growing season: probabilities that the last freezing temperature in spring and first freezing temperature in fall will occur later or earlier than a particular date in Island Park and Ashton.1. 8 Table 4. Descriptions of generalized geologic units in the Upper Henry’s Fork subbasin and their water-bearing characteristics (after Whitehead (1978) and Christiansen and Embree (1987)) . 13 Table 5. Wetland sites in the Upper Henry’s Fork subbasin that have been categorized by the Idaho Conservation Data Center (after Jankovsky-Jones 1996) . .35 Table 6. Excerpt of “Designated Uses Within Upper Snake Hydrologic Basin” (IDAPA 16.01.02.150.01), showing designated uses of waterbodies in the Upper Henry’s Fork subbasin . 49 Table 7. Excerpt of the 1994 § 303(d) list showing water quality-impaired waterbodies in the Upper Henry’s Fork subbasin . 52 Table 8. Excerpt of the draft 1998 § 303(d) list showing water quality-impaired waterbodies in the Upper Henry’s Fork subbasin . 54 Table 9. Henry’s Lake total phosphorus budgets for 1992 through 19941. 59 Table 10. Recommendations for improving the water quality of Henry’s Lake and its tributaries, and expected reductions in phosphorus load due to implementation of each recommended action . 62 Table 11. Percentages of Henry’s Lake shoreline and tributary streambanks classified by the Henry’s Lake SA WQP Final Planning Report/Environmental Assessment (YSCD 1995) as slightly, moderatelt, or severely eroding . 64 Table 12. Examples of water quality and habitat enhancement projects implemented at Henry’s Lake since 1991 . 65 iii List of Tables, Continued Table 13. Change in the macroinvertebrate community at Riverside, as indicated by changes in biological metric scores from 1992 to 1997. 72 Table 14. Idaho River Index (IRI) scores for sites on the Henry’s Fork between Buffalo River and Riverside Reach. Scores greater than 16 are indicative of good to excellent water qualty . 73 Table 15. Macroinvertebrate biotic index (MBI) scores for sites sampled in the Henry’s Lake watershed by the Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Henry’s Fork Foundation (HFF) . 84 Table 16. Macroinvertebrate biotic index (MBI) scores for sites sampled in the Lower Henry’s Fork watershed by the Henry’s Fork Foundation (HFF) . 88 Table 17. Macroinvertebrate biotic index (MBI) scores for sites sampled in the Island Park Reservoir watershed by the Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Henry’s Fork Foundation (HFF) . 89 Table 18. Macroinvertebrate biotic index (MBI) scores for sites sampled in the Sheridan Reservoir watershed by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Henry’s Fork Foundation (HFF) . 90 Table 19. Macroinvertebrate biotic index (MBI) scores for sites sampled in the Thirsty Creek watershed by the Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Henry’s Fork Foundation (HFF) . 92 Table 20. Macroinvertebrate biotic index (MBI) scores for sites sampled in the Buffalo River1 watershed by the Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Henry’s Fork Foundation (HFF) . 92 Table 21. Macro invertebrate biotic index (MBI) scores for sites sampled in the Warm River watershed by the Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Henry’s Fork Foundation (HFF) . 93 Table 22. Macroinvertebrate biotic index (MBI) scores for sites sampled in the Robinson Creek watershed by the Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Henry’s Fork Foundation (1-IFF) . 94 iv List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Upper Henry’s Fork subbasin,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historic Survey of Roads in Idaho's State Highway System Volume 1
    IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT RESEARCH REPORT Historic Survey of Roads in Idaho’s State Highway System Volume 1: Historic Context RP 267 By Mead & Hunt www.meadhunt.com Prepared for Idaho Transportation Department ITD Research Program, Contracting Services Highways Construction and Operations December, 2019 Disclaimer This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Idaho Transportation Department and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Idaho and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the view of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Idaho Transportation Department or the United States Department of Transportation. The State of Idaho and the United States Government do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. Historic Context of Idaho’s Highways 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-ID-19-267A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Historic Survey of Roads in Idaho’s State Highw ay System Volume 1: December 2019 Historic Context 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Angela Hronek, Sebastien Renfield, Chad Moffett 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2440 Deming Way 11. Contract or Grant No.
    [Show 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
    [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]
  • Off-Road Guide
    EASTERN IDAHO OFF-ROAD GUIDE • ATV & GEAR RENTALS • TRAIL TIPS & TRICKS • LOCAL RESTAURANTSWWW.YELLOWSTONETETON.ORG & MORE! | 1 19-VI-01 5M 2 | EASTERN IDAHO OFF-ROAD GUIDE Eastern Idaho’s off-road areas are world-famous and for good reason. With hundreds upon hundreds of miles of maintained trails at your disposal, there is something for every skill level, family and horsepower junkie. WWW.YELLOWSTONETETON.ORG | 3 CUSTOM PUBLISHING Harris Publishing 360 B St., Idaho Falls, ID 83402 208-542-2289 www.harrispublishing.com EDITORIAL Steve Smede Steve Janes DESIGN Dallas McCary PHOTOGRAPHY Dirt Toys Magazine Steve Smede 4 | EASTERN IDAHO OFF-ROAD GUIDE PLAYING IN THE DIRT As the sun rises over the majestic Teton Mountains bringing first light to Eastern Idaho and casting its rays across the Snake River Valley, one can’t help but feel blessed to live in such a beautiful area. It’s also no wonder why so many eastern Idaho residents enjoy getting out in nature and Aexperiencing God’s country. Although there are numerous ways to recreate, one of the more popular summer activities is off-road travel on ATVs and side-by-sides. Eastern Idaho epitomizes the flavor of its western heritage. Pioneers, miners and loggers blazed their trails across our landscape. Many of the more rugged and out-of-the-way trails are still accessible on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Partnerships between state and federal governments and motorized recreation groups have created an extensive trail system that opens the backcountry and offers exciting off-road riding for both residents and visitors to eastern Idaho.
    [Show full text]
  • National Forest Imagery Catalog Collection at the USDA
    National Forest Imagery Catalog collection at the USDA - Farm Service Agency Aerial Photography Field Office (APFO) 2222 West 2300 South Salt Lake City, UT 84119-2020 (801) 844-2922 - Customer Service Section (801) 956-3653 - Fax (801) 956-3654 - TDD [email protected] http://www.apfo.usda.gov This catalog listing shows the various photographic coverages used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and archived at the Aerial Photography Field Office. This catalog references U.S. Forest Service (FS) and other agencies imagery. For imagery prior to 1955, please contact the National Archives & Records Administration: Cartographic & Architectural Reference (NWCS-Cartographic) Aerial Photographs Team http://www.archives.gov/research/order/maps.html#contact Coverage of U.S. Forest Service photography is listed alphabetically for each forest within a region. Numeric and alpha codes used to identify FS projects are determined by the Forest Service. The original film type for most of this imagery is a natural color negative. Line indexes are available for most projects. The number of index sheets required to cover a project area is shown on the listing. Please reference the remarks column, which may identify a larger or smaller project area than the National Forest area defined in the header. Offered in the catalog listing at each National Forest heading is a link to locate the Regional and National Forest office address and phone number at: http://www.fs.fed.us/intro/directory You may wish to visit the National Forest office to view the current imagery and have them assist you in identifying aerial imagery from the APFO.
    [Show full text]
  • The Track of the Yellowstone Hot Spot: Volcanism, Faulting, and Uplift
    Geological Society of America Memoir 179 1992 Chapter 1 The track of the Yellowstone hot spot: Volcanism, faulting, and uplift Kenneth L. Pierce and Lisa A. Morgan US. Geological Survey, MS 913, Box 25046, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 ABSTRACT The track of the Yellowstone hot spot is represented by a systematic northeast-trending linear belt of silicic, caldera-forming volcanism that arrived at Yel- lowstone 2 Ma, was near American Falls, Idaho about 10 Ma, and started about 16 Ma near the Nevada-Oregon-Idaho border. From 16 to 10 Ma, particularly 16 to 14 Ma, volcanism was widely dispersed around the inferred hot-spot track in a region that now forms a moderately high volcanic plateau. From 10 to 2 Ma, silicic volcanism migrated N54OE toward Yellowstone at about 3 cm/year, leaving in its wake the topographic and structural depression of the eastern Snake River Plain (SRP). This <lo-Ma hot-spot track has the same rate and direction as that predicted by motion of the North American plate over a thermal plume fixed in the mantle. The eastern SRP is a linear, mountain- bounded, 90-km-wide trench almost entirely(?) floored by calderas that are thinly cov- ered by basalt flows. The current hot-spot position at Yellowstone is spatially related to active faulting and uplift. Basin-and-range faults in the Yellowstone-SRP region are classified into six types based on both recency of offset and height of the associated bedrock escarpment. The distribution of these fault types permits definition of three adjoining belts of faults and a pattern of waxing, culminating, and waning fault activity.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ..............
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Boise Caldwell Nampa Idaho Falls Pocatello Twin Falls
    d R t y S e s h t m 4 a N R N ver Rd Old Spiral awai Riv n Ri 95 W Hanley Av Waw er Dow '( Hwy d R d Rd -.128 12 r R e Coeur d’Alene Lewiston y Snake River '(95 t se et 0 0.5 1.0 mi d u 0 1 2 mi R 95 m '( H a y s y R a a Wawaw l N l ai River l Nez Perce County Lewiston Rd t n e N A e B Levee t Historical Society Museum Clearwater River N o D St Park 12 3A o '( Rd E Margaret Av t ill S K l Bridge St S Pioneer D d M o ik ll R 6 e i y c 12 h 12 t B 52 t M a t Park yp a '(+,2 S Kiwanis S 5 ass ,+ n P l 5 +, W t Coeur d'Alene a r h o t t t Bridge S n Park M S t BRITISH COLUMBIA o 9 a Lapwai Rd S s n i n n Memorial i Golf Club g h v S p a t t Ramsey e t a i M h A e S Elm t St 6 D City m t r c Park 5 h t Magrath n e a t 1 7th Av r t A v Hall t Pakowki o 8 i P.O. Locomotive e 4 S v S N 1 St. Mary v R +, G 3 3 Clarkson +, h 36 41 o Lake Lewis-Clark h t Park +, +, e t 879 G ALBERTA 3 d Reservoir k -.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Flow Augmentation Impact Analysis Appendix
    SNAKE RIVER FLOW AUGMENTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District’s Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho February 1999 Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) 1427i A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with large drawdown of Reclamation reservoirs. 1427r A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with reservoir elevations maintained near current levels. BA Biological assessment BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce) BETTER Box Exchange Transport Temperature Ecology Reservoir (a water quality model) BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BID Burley Irrigation District BIOP Biological opinion BLM Bureau of Land Management B.P. Before present BPA Bonneville Power Administration CES Conservation Extension Service cfs Cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRFMP Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program CRP Conservation Reserve Program CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act CWA Clean Water Act DO Dissolved Oxygen Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) DREW Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane EIS Environmental Impact Statement EP Effective Precipitation EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ETAW Evapotranspiration of Applied Water FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRE Finance, investment, and real estate HCNRA Hells Canyon National Recreation Area HUC Hydrologic unit code I.C.
    [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]