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