APPENDIX D: 

AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
 


 


 


 


 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

APPENDIX D: AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT 

STRATEGY 

Introduction 

The Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy (ARMS) provides the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) Jarbidge Field Office (FO) guidance and programmatic direction for watershed and subwatershed 

riparian and aquatic conservation and restoration, as required by direction in the Interior Columbia Basin 

Strategy and Aquatic Framework (USFS, NOAA, BLM, FWS, & EPA, 2004). Conservation of fish, other 

aquatic wildlife and plants, and habitats at risk of degradation should be considered together with the full 

array of broad-scale ecosystem components addressed by the strategy, which includes landscape 

dynamics, terrestrial source habitats, aquatic species, and riparian and hydrologic processes. 

Management will balance short-term risks to aquatic and other resources with long-term benefits as 

actions are considered to move these resources toward a natural variability of conditions or desired 

conditions. The ARMS was prepared using Guidance for Developing Aquatic Conservation Strategies for 

BLM Resource Management Plans in the Interior Columbia Basin (BLM, 2008).
 

The ARMS contains the following key components:
 

 Establishment of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) where aquatic and riparian-dependent 

resources receive management emphasis; 

 Provisions for multi-scale analysis and how it will be used in project-level decisions; 

 Identification of population strongholds of special status fish and areas with priority for restoration of 

aquatic and riparian habitats; 

 Aquatic and riparian management direction including goals, objectives, and management; and 

 Monitoring and adaptive management direction for determining if the plan is being implemented and 

is achieving desired results. 

Riparian Conservation Areas1 

RCAs are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive management emphasis 

and that are likely to affect aquatic habitat condition or function. RCAs include riparian corridors, 

wetlands, intermittent headwater streams, and other areas where proper ecological function is crucial for 

maintaining water, sediment, woody debris, and nutrient delivery to the stream and either contain or are 

tributaries to streams that contain special status species or their habitat. Functionally, RCAs 1) influence 

the delivery of coarse sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to streams; 2) accommodate 

vegetation that provides root strength for channel stability; 3) provide streamside shade; and 4) protect 

water quality. RCAs are intended to maintain and restore riparian structure and function; benefit fish and 

riparian-dependent resources; enhance conservation of organisms dependent on the transition zone 

between upslope and instream habitats; and improve connectivity of travel and dispersal corridors for 

terrestrial animals and plants and aquatic organisms. 

The important values considered when identifying and managing RCAs may be specific to the riparian 

area or stream channel. The ARMS allows for adjusting management of RCAs to reflect site-specific 

conditions (e.g., conditions of specific stream channels, the life stage of specific fish), while also 

recognizing watershed (e.g., watershed characteristics and land uses) and riparian conditions and trends. 

RCAs are not intended to be “no management zones;” management activities may be necessary in RCAs 

since treatments may be essential to achieving or maintaining desired riparian and aquatic conditions. 

RCA Widths 

RCA widths are to be adequate to protect the stream from non-channelized sediment inputs, to deliver 

organic matter and woody debris, and to provide stream shade and streambank stability. In the absence 

1 This section addresses material for Component I, Riparian Conservation Areas, in Guidance for Developing Aquatic 

Conservation Strategies (BLM, 2008). 

A-41 August 2010 
 

Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

of a watershed or site-specific analysis, the default RCA widths for the stream categories described below 

will be applied. These default widths were recommended in the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) 

(USDA, 1995) and the Interior Columbia Basin Science Assessment and literature review (Quigley & 

Arbelbide, 1997), which concluded that these prescribed RCA widths are sufficient to provide for riparian 

function. 

Category 1—Fish-bearing streams: 

Category 1 RCAs contain the stream and the area from the edges of the active channel, on either edge of 

the stream, to the top of the inner gorge, the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, the outer edges of 

the riparian vegetation, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), 

whichever is greatest. 

Category 2—Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: 

Category 2 RCAs contain the stream and the area from the edges of the active channel, on either edge of 

the stream, to the top of the inner gorge, the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, the outer edges of 

the riparian vegetation, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), 

whichever is greatest. 

Category 3—Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: 

Category 3 RCAs contain the body of water or wetland and the area from the edges of the body of water 

or wetland to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or 150 

feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or 

from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake, whichever is greatest. 

Category 4—Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams and wetlands less than 1 acre, 

landslides, and landslide-prone areas: 

This category includes features with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics. Category 4 

RCAs for intermittent streams contain the intermittent stream channel and the area from the edges of the 

channel to the top of the inner gorge, the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or 50 feet slope distance, 

whichever is greatest. Category 4 RCAs for wetlands less than 1 acre contain the wetland and the area 

from the edges of the wetland to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation or 50 feet slope distance, 

whichever is greatest. Category 4 RCAs for landslides or landslide-prone areas contain the landslide or 

landslide-prone area and the area within 50 feet slope distance. 

Modification of RCA Widths 

Modification of RCA widths requires a watershed- or reach-specific analysis to provide the ecological 

basis for the change (see the Watershed Analysis section below). The RCAs may be modified in the 

absence of watershed analysis where stream reach or site-specific data support the change. Watershed 

or reach-specific analysis is not a decision process; it provides information for ecologically appropriate 

criteria that would support RCA width modification. The criteria for modifying RCA widths will be identified 

using scientific information in combination with local knowledge and information on riparian and aquatic 

processes and functions, resource values, and risks. Because stream channel characteristics can vary 

substantially between geographic areas, RCA modification needs to consider ecological and geomorphic 

factors of the specific reach. 

Application of criteria to modify RCA widths shall occur during project-level planning or implementation of 

management activities that could affect attainment of riparian and aquatic objectives. Changes to RCA 

widths, the analysis and rationale justifying the change, as well as the effects of the change would be 

documented through the appropriate process. Pertinent site-specific, stream reach, and watershed values 

(e.g., specific riparian or aquatic characteristics, slope, soils, etc.) need to be addressed in the rationale 

for modifying RCAs and land uses occurring in these areas. 

August 2010 A-42 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

Priorities for Conservation and Restoration of Special Status 

Species Habitat and Riparian Areas2 

Introduction 

Relationship between Measures of Instream and Riparian Habitat Condition 

Conditions within and near streams can be described from various perspectives. Assessments can focus 

on the condition of riparian areas, instream habitat for specific species, as well as water quality, and can 

be based on qualitative or quantitative data. Within the Jarbidge Field Office, data are available to 

describe riparian conditions in terms of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), special status fish habitat 

conditions in terms of Habitat Condition (HC), and water quality in terms of a streams 303(d) listing status. 

These measures are all interrelated; some measures are even based on similar types of data. The 

relationships between these condition measures are displayed in Figure D- 1. 

Figure D- 1. The Relationship between Riparian Functional Condition, Aquatic Habitat Condition, and State 

Water Quality Standards 

Nonfunctional Functional-at-Risk Proper Functioning Condition 

Time 

Bare Ground 

Decision Space 

Water Quality Standard 

PNC 

Vegetation 

(component of PFC Rating) 

Livestock Forage 

Aquatic Habitat 

(component of HC Rating) 

Channel Stability 

(component of HC and PFC Rating) 

As vegetation improves from non-functional (NF) to functional at risk (FAR), there is little improvement in 

the other resource values. There is an increased recovery rate of all the resource values within the FAR 

range. The channel begins to stabilize, and there is some increase in forage and habitat values. At PFC, 

the stream channel stabilizes at a point when the vegetation, water, and landform are in a relative 

balance. After a stream reach has reached PFC, vegetation continues toward the potential natural 

community (PNC), livestock forage increases, and aquatic habitat improves. Improvement in water quality 

to levels that would result in the delisting of 303(d)-listed streams would not occur until riparian condition 

improved beyond the initial rating of PFC. When the riparian area is functioning properly, there is an 

opportunity to make decisions as to the use or uses that will be emphasized. 

2 This section addresses material for Component II, Protection of Population Strongholds, and Component IV, 

Restoration Priorities and Guidance, in Guidance for Developing Aquatic Conservation Strategies (BLM, 2008). 

A-43 August 2010 
 

Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Indicators of Instream and Riparian Habitat Condition 

Indicators of instream and riparian habitat conditions form the basis for instream HC ratings and riparian 

PFC ratings. HC ratings were used to identify population strongholds for special status fish and determine 

priorities for special status fish habitat restoration (see Special Status Fish Habitat section), while PFC 

ratings were used to assess priority for riparian restoration (see Riparian Habitat section). 

The indicators used to develop these ratings include an integrated suite of aquatic (including a biological 

component), riparian (including riparian-associated terrestrial species), and hydrologic (including uplands) 

condition measures that are primarily intended to be used at the watershed and subwatershed scale and 

include both quantitative and qualitative measures. These watersheds and subwatersheds are typically 5th 

to 6th field Hydrologic Unit Codes; both will be referred to as “watersheds” in the ARMS. These indicators 

are intended to serve three main purposes: 

 To establish priorities and objectives for conservation or restoration of stream reaches; 

 To help land managers design projects and determine the appropriateness of management activities 

with respect to aquatic, riparian, and hydrologic goals and objectives; and 

 To serve as measures of the effectiveness of management in attaining broad-scale aquatic, riparian, 

and hydrologic goals and objectives. 

The values for an indicator to be rated as functioning appropriately or properly are not absolute criteria 

and are rated in comparison to the functional, ecological, or biological conditions of specific stream 

reaches. The indicators should be used as a suite of integrated indicators and should not be used 

individually as fixed targets to manage toward or as specific thresholds from which to make project 

implementation decisions. The indicators should be used to help design appropriate management actions 

or alter or mitigate proposed activities in order to move watersheds toward desired conditions. If certain 

indicators highlight a concern in a watershed, an analysis should disclose how proposed management 

actions could be designed to take into account the concerns or when an action is needed to achieve 

aquatic, riparian, or hydrologic goals and objectives. 

HC ratings, PFC ratings, and the values for the indicators on which these ratings are based can be 

updated based on monitoring, inventory, scientific literature, or watershed analysis by local experts (e.g., 

Fisheries Biologist, Ecologist, Botanist, Hydrologist). Updates may be necessary to more accurately 

depict the characteristics and range of natural variability of aquatic and riparian habitats in the planning 

area or to reflect changes in condition on the ground. Instream and riparian indicators and thresholds may 

be refined at the watershed scale to illustrate the variability of conditions among watersheds within a 

landscape context. 

The current status of instream and riparian habitat condition indicators is based on BLM stream survey 

data collected between 1999 and 2007; the majority of these data was collected between 2002 and 2006. 

BLM-managed lands in the planning area are continuous across watershed and subwatershed 

boundaries except in a few areas of private and State inholdings and military withdrawals. This land 

ownership pattern allows for inventory and monitoring efforts to be conducted across broad areas where 

public land comprises the majority of the land base. Additional details on the methods used to collect and 

analyze the baseline data can be found in the Analysis of the Management Situation of the BLM Twin 

Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office (BLM, 2007). How these indicators were used to develop priorities for 

special status fish habitat restoration and riparian restoration are described below. 

Special Status Fish Habitat

Identifying Conservation and Restoration Reaches provides a means for prioritizing management 

direction and for establishing goals, objectives, and management for stream reaches containing special 

status fish habitat. It also provides a process that considers the most effective and cost-efficient 

opportunities for conservation and restoration, with consideration for the availability of staff and budgetary 

resources. Some stream reaches will not be restored to physical or biological potential within the life of 

the plan because of effects of past land management actions or activities outside the authority of the 

BLM. These stream reaches would have reduced priority for treatment. 

August 2010 A-44 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

Conservation Reaches 

Conservation Reaches are managed to maintain the condition of habitats in these reaches. Conservation 

Reaches are often associated with aquatic species strongholds and contain populations or 

subpopulations of high genetic integrity, connectivity, or potential for expansion into nearby stream 

reaches. Conservation Reaches are located in watersheds that often have outstanding watershed 

processes or functions that are relatively undisturbed and natural in setting. Hydrologic function, such as 

sediment routing and flow regimes, are within the natural range of frequency, duration, and intensity. 

Water quality generally meets the designated or existing beneficial uses. Land uses and human activities 

do not influence aquatic and hydrologic function, as indicated by low road density and few stream 

crossings. Examples of areas containing Conservation Reaches include wilderness, roadless areas, and 

undeveloped subwatersheds; however, Conservation Reaches or portions thereof may be subject to 

management that allows limited land uses while maintaining natural processes. The goal is to maintain 

the existing condition of the habitats within these reaches. 

In Conservation Reaches, management strategies allow natural disturbance because vegetation 

composition and structure that trend outside the historic range of variability due to fire suppression may 

pose a risk to ecological processes. Management strategies in Conservation Reaches also rely on active 

management to conserve physical and biological processes and patterns. For example, active 

management to conserve hydrologic and biological processes maintains roads and trails in a condition 

that minimizes erosion and sedimentation to nearby streams and water bodies. Passive management 

strategies can also be effective for meeting habitat objectives. As a general rule, minimal investment in 

these watersheds over time is necessary to maintain function and critical elements on instream and 

upland habitat in these conservation-designated watersheds. 

The criteria for identifying Conservation Reaches, which have important value for protecting populations 

of special status aquatic species and narrow-range endemics, are described in the Habitat Dependency 

Network (Decision Support Model) and Habitat Condition Ratings below. There are currently several 

stream reaches in the planning area meeting the criteria for designation as Conservation Reaches for 

special status species. The intent of this designation and management direction for these watersheds is 

to provide high-quality habitat for species and support the expansion and recolonization of species into 

adjacent watersheds. These areas should conserve key processes likely to influence the persistence of 

populations or metapopulations of special status aquatic species. 

Restoration Reaches 

Restoration Reaches are identified where biological and physical processes and functions do not reflect 

natural conditions because of past and on-going land disturbances. Common effects of disturbances to 

Restoration Reaches may include long-term (e.g., decades) increases of sediment input to streams, loss 

of large woody debris recruitment potential, altered hydrologic (e.g., streamflow) patterns, and elevated 

water temperatures. Cumulative impacts and natural disturbances such as large fires, landslides, and 

floods exacerbate altered watershed and biological conditions. The goal for these stream reaches is to 

restore habitat condition to an identified desired condition. 

Active management may be necessary to restore the physical and biological function of systems to their 

natural range of frequency, duration, and intensity. Identifying and assessing the adverse impacts of 

management on habitat will allow managers to focus restoration efforts in the most cost-effective manner 

necessary to achieve hydrologic and biological recovery. This implies that there is a range of treatment 

intensity and desired landscape responses necessary to achieve land management objectives. Within 

some Restoration Reaches, opportunities for active restoration management may be limited. In those 

cases, management that reduces or avoids adverse effects and does not delay achieving desired 

conditions in the long term also supports the restoration goal. Individual discretion to balance short-term 

risks to aquatic and other resources with long-term benefits for multiple resources will move these 

reaches toward the natural range of variability. 

The criteria used to identify Restoration Reaches and priorities for restoration of those reaches are 

described in the Habitat Dependency Network (Decision Support Model) and Habitat Condition Ratings 

A-45 August 2010 
 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Appendix D	 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

section below. Priority ranking (high, moderate, and low) for each Restoration Reach was based on 

habitat condition indicators, Endangered Species Act (ESA) status, restoration feasibility, the extent of 

habitat, and relative fish abundance. Characteristics of Restoration Reaches within the three priority types 

are described below. 

High Priority 

	 High Priority Restoration Reaches have potential for highly productive or unique fish communities 

with restoration efforts. Loss of connected populations or competition or genetic introgression 

(hybridizing) with non-native species has caused the loss of diversity of some unique populations, 

such as key salmonid species. The assumption is that the aquatic community is largely intact but is 

not resilient to landscape disturbance events, nor does it provide a source of individuals to nearby 

recovering populations. 

	 Water quality may not support all designated and existing beneficial uses or municipal water supplies. 

Moderate Priority 

	 Moderate Priority Restoration Reaches have potential for moderately productive fish habitat with 

restoration efforts. Long-term loss of connected populations or competition or genetic introgression 

with non-native species has caused the loss of diversity of some unique populations, such as key 

salmonid species. The assumption is that the aquatic community is largely intact but is not resilient to 

landscape disturbance events, nor does it provide a source of individuals to nearby recovering 

populations. 

	 Water quality may not support all designated and existing beneficial uses or municipal water supplies. 

Low Priority 

	 Low Priority Restoration Reaches have a minor amount of fish habitat. Long-term loss of connected 

populations or competition or genetic introgression with non-native species has caused the loss of 

diversity of key salmonid species. The assumption is that the aquatic community is not intact, is not 

highly resilient to natural events, and does not provide a source of individuals to nearby recovering 

populations. 

	 Water quality may not support all designated and existing beneficial uses, and municipal water is not 

considered as a future use. 

Habitat Dependency Network (Decision Support Model) and Habitat Condition Ratings 

Habitat dependency networks are used in decision support models to prioritize stream reaches containing 

special status species habitat based on instream and riparian habitat indicators, which reflect overall 

watershed condition. NetWeaver3

 was used as the decision support model for identifying Conservation 

and Restoration Reaches in the planning area. Thresholds for habitat functionality for each riparian and 

stream indicator were developed based on scientific literature, information gathered in the 2006 Jarbidge 

fish survey, and other habitat data for bull trout. The habitat matrices for bull trout and redband trout 

(Table D- 1 and Table D- 2) document the indicators and thresholds used in the NetWeaver analysis; 

these matrices are based on the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed and Watershed and 

Aquatic Conditions developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (FWS, 1998). Indicator 

thresholds were validated using habitat and fish abundance data for stream reaches within the planning 

area. 

3

 NetWeaver was developed by The Heron Group LLC. 

August 2010	 A-46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

Table D- 1. Bull Trout Habitat Condition Indicators and Thresholds 

Indicator 

Category Indicator 

Thresholds 

Functioning Properly Functioning at Risk Functioning at an 

Unacceptable Risk 

Indicators for Species Characteristics 

Subpopulation 

Characteristics 

within 

Subpopulation 

Watersheds 

Subpopulation 

Size 

Mean total 

subpopulation size or 

local habitat capacity 

more than several 

thousand individuals. 

All life stages evenly 

represented in the 

subpopulation. A 

<500 but >50 adults in 

subpopulation. A 

<50 adults in 

subpopulation. A 

Growth and 

Survival 

Subpopulation has the 

resilience to recover 

from short-term 

disturbances (e.g., 

catastrophic events) or 

subpopulation declines 

within one to two 

generations (5 to 10 

years).A The 

subpopulation is 

characterized as 

increasing or stable. At 

least 10 years of data 

support this estimate. B 

When disturbed, the 

subpopulation will not 

recover to 

predisturbance 

conditions within one 

generation (5 years). 

Survival or growth rates 

have been reduced from 

those in the best 

habitats. The 

subpopulation is reduced 

in size, but the reduction 

does not represent a 

long-term trend. A At 

least 10 years of data 

support this 

characterization. B

 If less 

data are available and a 

trend cannot be 

confirmed, a 

subpopulation will be 

considered “at risk” 

until enough data are 

available to accurately 

determine trend. 

The subpopulation is 

characterized as in rapid 

decline or is maintaining 

at alarmingly low 

numbers. Under current 

management, the 

subpopulation condition 

will not improve within 

two generations (5 to 10 

years).A This is 

supported by a 

minimum of 5 years of 

data. 

Life History 

Diversity and 

Isolation 

The migratory form is 

present, and the 

subpopulation exists in 

close proximity to other 

spawning and rearing 

groups. Migratory 

corridors and rearing 

habitat (lakes or large 

rivers) are in good to 

excellent condition for 

the species. Neighboring 

subpopulations are large 

with high likelihood of 

producing surplus 

individuals or straying 

adults that will mix with A other subpopulations. 

The migratory form is 

present but the 

subpopulation is not 

close to other 

subpopulations or 

habitat disruption has 

produced a strong 

correlation among 

subpopulations that do 

exist in proximity to A each other. 

The migratory form is 

absent and the 

subpopulation is isolated 

to the local stream or 

small watershed not 

likely to support more A than 2,000 fish. 

A-47 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Indicator 

Category Indicator 

Thresholds 

Functioning Properly Functioning at Risk Functioning at an 

Unacceptable Risk 

Persistence 

and Genetic 

Integrity 

Connectivity is high 

among multiple (5 or 

more) subpopulations 

with at least several 

thousand fish each. Each 

of the relevant 

subpopulations has low 

risk of extinction. A The 

probability of 

hybridization or 

displacement by 

competitive species is 

low to nonexistent. 

Connectivity among 

multiple subpopulations 

does occur, but habitats 

are more fragmented. 

Only one or two of the 

subpopulations represent 

most of the fish 

production. A The 

probability of 

hybridization or 

displacement by 

competitive species is 

imminent, although few 

documented cases have 

occurred. 

Little or no connectivity 

remains for 

reestablishing 

subpopulations in low 

numbers, in decline, or 

nearing extirpation. 

Only a single 

subpopulation or several 

local populations that 

are very small or that 

otherwise are at high 

risk remain. A 

Competitive species 

readily displace bull 

trout. The probability of 

hybridization is high and 

documented cases have 

occurred. 

Indicators for Habitat Characteristics 

Water Quality Temperature Mean maximum weekly temperature in a reach during the following life history 

stages: A,C 

Incubation 

2-5oC <2oC or =6oC <1oC or >6oC 

Rearing 

4-12oC <4oC or 13-15oC >15oC 

Spawning 

4-9oC <4oC or =10oC <4oC or >10oC 

Also, temperatures in 

areas used by adults 

during migration do not 

exceed 15oC (no thermal 

barriers). 

Also, temperatures in 

areas used by adults 

during migration 

sometimes exceed 15oC. 

Also, temperatures in 

areas used by adults 

during migration 

regularly exceed 15oC 

(thermal barriers 

present). 

Sediment D Similar to chinook 

salmon A (e.g., <12% 

fines (<0.85 mm) in 

gravel E

); <12% surface 

fines F

 (≤6 mm G,H) 

Similar to chinook 

salmon A (e.g., 12-17% 

fines (<0.85 mm) in 

gravel E

); 12-20% 

surface fines F (≤6 mm 

G,H) 

Similar to chinook 

salmon A (e.g., >17% 

fines (<0.85 mm) in 

gravel E

); >20% fines at 

surface or depth in 

spawning habitat F (≤6 

mm G,H) 

Chemical 

Contamination 

/Nutrients 

Low levels of chemical 

contamination from 

agricultural, industrial, 

and other sources; no 

excess nutrients; and no 

303(d)-listed reaches. I 

Moderate levels of 

chemical contamination 

from agricultural, 

industrial, and other 

sources; some excess 

nutrients; and one 

303(d)-listed reach. I 

High levels of chemical 

contamination from 

agricultural, industrial, 

and other sources; high 

levels of excess 

nutrients; and more than 

one 303(d)-listed reach. I 

August 2010 A-48 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

 

 

 

 

Indicator 

Category Indicator 

Thresholds 

Functioning Properly Functioning at Risk Functioning at an 

Unacceptable Risk 

Habitat Access Physical 

Barriers J 

Man-made barriers 

present in watershed 

allow upstream and 

downstream fish passage 

at all flows. 

Man-made barriers 

present in watershed do 

not allow upstream 

and/or downstream fish 

passage at base/low 

flows. 

Man-made barriers 

present in watershed do 

not allow upstream 

and/or downstream fish 

passage at a range of 

flows. 

Habitat 

Elements 

Substrate 

Embeddedness 

K 

Reach embeddedness 

<20%.F,L 

Reach embeddedness 

20-30%.F,L 

Reach embeddedness 

>30%.F,L 

Large Woody 

Debris 

Current values are being 

maintained at >80 

pieces/mile that are >24 

inches diameter and >5 

ft long on the Coast, F

 or 

>20 pieces/mile that are 

>12 inches diameter >35 

ft long on the Eastside; 

M also, adequate sources 

of woody debris are 

available for both longand short-term 

recruitment. 

Current levels are being 

maintained at minimum 

levels desired for 

“functioning 

appropriately”, but 

potential sources for 

long-term woody debris 

recruitment are lacking 

to maintain these 

minimum values. 

Current levels are not at 

those desired values for 

“functioning 

appropriately”, and 

potential sources of 

woody debris for shortand/or long-term 

recruitment are lacking. 

Pool 

Frequency and 

Quality 

Pool frequency in a 

reach closely G approximated: 

Wetted 

width (ft) 

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-30

30-35

35-40

40-6

65-1

# pools/ 

mile 

 39 

 60 

 48 

 39 

 23 

 18 

 10 

5 9 

00 4 

Pools have good cover E and cool water ; only 

minor reduction of pool 

volume by fine 

sediment. 

Pool frequency is 

similar to values in 

“functioning 

appropriately,” but pools 

have inadequate E cover/temperature, 

and/or there has been a 

moderate reduction of 

pool volume by fine 

sediment. 

Pool frequency is 

considerably lower than 

values desired for 

“functioning 

appropriately;” also, 

cover/temperature is E inadequate, and there 

has been a major 

reduction of pool 

volume by fine 

sediment. 

Large Pools N Each reach has many 

large pools >1 meter 

deep. E 

Each reach has few large 

pools >1 meter deep. E 

Reaches have no large 

pools >1 meter deep. E 

Off-Channel 

Habitat 

Watershed has many 

ponds, oxbows, 

backwaters, and other 

off-channel areas with 

cover, and side-channels 

are low-energy areas. E 

Watershed has some 

ponds, oxbows, 

backwaters, and other 

off-channel areas with 

cover, but side-channels 

are generally highenergy areas. E 

Watershed has few or no 

ponds, oxbows, 

backwaters, or other offchannel areas. E 

A-49 August 2010 
Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 

 

Indicator 

Category Indicator 

Thresholds 

Functioning Properly Functioning at Risk Functioning at an 

Unacceptable Risk 

Refugia Habitats capable of 

supporting strong and 

significant populations 

are protected and are 

well distributed and 

connected for all life 

stages and forms of the 

species. O,P 

Habitats capable of 

supporting strong and 

significant populations 

are insufficient in size, 

number and connectivity 

to maintain all life 

stages and forms of the 

species. O,P 

Habitat refugia do not 

exist. O 

Channel 

Condition and 

Dynamics 

Average 

Wetted Width/ 

Maximum 

Depth Ratio in 

Scour Pools in 

a Reach 

≤10F,G 11-20G >20G 

Streambank 

Condition 

>80% of any stream 

reach has ≥90% 

stability. G 

50-80% of any stream 

reach has ≥90% 

stability. G 

<50% of any stream 

reach has ≥90% 

stability. G 

Floodplain 

Connectivity 

Off-channel areas are 

frequently hydrogically 

linked to main channel; 

overbank flows occur 

and maintain wetland 

functions and riparian 

vegetation/succession. 

Reduced linkage of 

wetland, floodplains, 

and riparian areas to 

main channel; overbank 

flows are reduced 

relative to historic 

frequency, as evidenced 

by moderate degradation 

of wetland function and 

riparian 

vegetation/succession. 

Severe reduction in 

hydrologic connectivity 

between off-channel, 

wetland, floodplain, and 

riparian areas; wetland 

extent drastically 

reduced and riparian 

vegetation/succession 

altered significantly. 

Flow/ 

Hydrology 

Change in 

Peak/Base 

Flows 

Watershed hydrograph 

indicates peak flow, 

base flow, and flow 

timing characteristics 

comparable to an 

undisturbed watershed 

of similar size, geology, 

and geography. 

Some evidence of 

altered peak flow, base 

flow, and/or flow timing 

relative to an 

undisturbed watershed 

of similar size, geology, 

and geography. 

Pronounced changes in 

peak flow, base flow, 

and/or flow timing 

relative to an 

undisturbed watershed 

of similar size, geology, 

and geography. 

Increase in 

Drainage 

Network 

Zero or minimum 

increases in active 

channel length 

correlated with human 

caused disturbance. 

Low to moderate 

increase in active 

channel length 

correlated with human 

caused disturbance. 

Greater than moderate 

increase in active 

channel length 

correlated with human 

caused disturbance. 

Watershed 

Condition 

Road Density 

and Location 

<1mi/mi2

; P no valley 

bottom roads. 

1-2.4 mi/mi2; P some 

valley bottom roads. 

>2.4 mi/mi2; P many 

valley bottom roads. 

August 2010 A-50 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

 

 

 

 

Indicator 

Category Indicator 

Thresholds 

Functioning Properly Functioning at Risk Functioning at an 

Unacceptable Risk 

Disturbance 

History 

<15% Equivalent 

Clearcut Area of entire 

watershed with no 

concentration of 

disturbance in unstable 

or potentially unstable 

areas, refugia, and/or 

riparian areas; for 

Northwest Forest Plan 

area, there is an 

additional criteria of 

15% Late Successional 

Old Growth in 

watersheds. Q 

<15% Equivalent 

Clearcut Area of entire 

watershed but 

disturbance concentrated 

in unstable or potentially 

unstable areas, refugia, 

and/or riparian areas; for 

Northwest Forest Plan 

area, there is an 

additional criteria of 

15% Late Successional 

Old Growth in 

watersheds. Q 

>15% Equivalent 

Clearcut Area of entire 

watershed and 

disturbance concentrated 

in unstable or potentially 

unstable areas, refugia, 

and/or riparian areas; 

does not meet Northwest 

Forest Plan standard for 

Late Successional Old 

Growth. 

RCAs RCAs provide adequate 

shade, large woody 

debris recruitment, and 

habitat protection and 

connectivity in 

subwatersheds; buffer or 

include known refugia 

for Sensitive aquatic 

species (>80% intact); 

and adequately buffer 

impacts on rangelands. 

Percent similarity of 

riparian vegetation to 

the potential natural 

community/composition 

is >50%.R 

RCAs have moderate 

loss of connectivity or 

function (shade, LWD 

recruitment, etc.); 

provide incomplete 

protection of habitats 

and refugia for Sensitive 

aquatic species (70-80% 

intact); and adequately 

buffer impacts on 

rangeland. Percent 

similarity of riparian 

vegetation to the 

potential natural 

community/composition 

is 25-50% or better. R 

RCAs are fragmented or 

poorly connected; 

provide inadequate 

protection of habitats for 

Sensitive aquatic species 

(<70% intact, refugia do 

not occur); and 

adequately buffer 

impacts on rangelands. 

Percent similarity of 

riparian vegetation to 

the potential natural 

community/composition 

is <25%.R 

Disturbance 

Regime 

Environmental 

disturbance is short 

lived; predictable 

hydrograph, high-quality 

habitat and watershed 

complexity providing 

refuge and rearing space 

for all life stages or 

multiple life-history 

forms. A Natural 

processes are stable. 

Scour events, debris 

torrents, or catastrophic 

fire are localized events 

that occur in several 

minor parts of the 

watershed. Resiliency of 

habitat to recover from 

environmental 

disturbances is 

moderate. 

Frequent flood or 

drought, producing 

highly variable and 

unpredictable flows, 

scour events, debris 

torrents, or high 

probability of 

catastrophic fire exists 

throughout a major part 

of the watershed. The 

channel is simplified, 

providing little hydraulic 

complexity in the form 

of pools or side 

channels. A Natural 

processes are unstable. 

A-51 August 2010 
Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 

 

 

 

Indicator 

Category Indicator 

Thresholds 

Functioning Properly Functioning at Risk Functioning at an 

Unacceptable Risk 

Summary of 

Species and 

Habitat 

Conditions 

N/A Habitat quality and 

connectivity among 

subpopulations is high. 

The migratory form is 

present. Disturbance has 

not altered channel 

equilibrium. Fine 

sediments and other 

habitat characteristics 

influencing survival or 

growth are consistent 

with pristine habitat. 

The subpopulation has 

the resilience to recover 

from short-term 

disturbance within one 

to two generations (5 to 

10 years). The 

subpopulation is 

fluctuating around an 

equilibrium or is A growing. 

Fine sediments, stream 

temperatures, or the 

availability of suitable 

habitats have been 

altered and will not 

recover to 

predisturbance 

conditions within one 

generation (5 years). 

Survival or growth rates 

have been reduced from 

those in the best 

habitats. The 

subpopulation is reduced 

in size, but the reduction 

does not represent a 

long-term trend. The 

subpopulation is stable 

or fluctuating in a 

downward trend. 

Connectivity among 

subpopulations occurs, 

but habitats are more A fragmented. 

Cumulative disruption 

of habitat has resulted in 

a clear declining trend in 

the subpopulation size. 

Under current 

management, habitat 

conditions will not 

improve within two 

generations (5 to 10 

years). Little or no 

connectivity remains 

among subpopulations. 

The subpopulation 

survival and recruitment 

responds sharply to 

normal environmental A events. 

A (Rieman & McIntyre, 1993) 

B

 (Rieman & Myers, 1997) 

C (Buchanan & Gregory, 1997) 

D Applies to areas of spawning and incubation. Rearing areas are addressed under Substrate Embeddedness indicator. E

 (WTFWCMERC, 1993) 

F

 (USDA, 1995)

G (Overton, McIntyre, Armstrong, Whitwell, & Duncan, 1995) 

H (Overton, Wollrab, Roberts, & Radko, 1997) 

I

 (Regional Interagency Executive Committee & Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, 1995) 

J

 Subsurface flows impeding fish passage are addressed under the Flow/Hydrology indicator category. K Spawning and incubation areas are addressed under the Sediment indicator. L

 (Shepard, Pratt, & Graham, 1984) 

M (Quigley & Arbelbide, 1997) 

N Applies to adult holding, juvenile rearing, and overwintering reaches where streams are >3m in wetted width at base flow. O (Frissell, Liss, & Bales, 1993) 

P

 (Lee, Sedell, Rieman, Thurow, & Williams, 1997) 

Q (USDI and USDA, 1994)

R

 (Winward, 1989) 

August 2010 A-52 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

Table D- 2. Redband Trout Habitat Condition Indicators and Thresholds 

A-53 August 2010

­

Table D- 2. Redband Trout Habitat Condition Indicators and Thresholds 

Indicator 

Category Indicator 

Thresholds

Functioning Properly Functioning at Risk Functioning at an 

Unacceptable Risk 

Habitat 

Elements 

Pools/Pool 

Frequency 

Pool frequency falls 

within described natural 

conditions: All streams: 

Geology-Volcanic 

Average # pools/ 

width (ft) mile 

Channel Type A 

0-15 33 

15-20 3 

Channel Type B 

0-10 28 

10-15 59 

15-20 24 

20-25 21 

Channel Type C 

0-10 6 

10-15 19 

15-20 24 

20-25 22 

75-99% of natural 

condition for given 

stream width, geology, 

and channel type 

<75% of natural 

condition for given 

stream width, geology, 

and channel type 

Large Pools >75% of pools have a 

minimum max. depth of 

the stream’s natural 

conditions based on 

geomorphology and 

stream width: GeologyVolcanic 

Average Max 

width depth 

(ft) (ft) 

0-10 1.0 

>10 1.3 

50-75% of pools have a 

minimum max depth of 

the stream’s natural 

conditions based on 

geomorphology and 

stream width. 

<50% of pools have a 

minimum max depth of 

the stream’s natural 

conditions based on 

geomorphology and 

stream width. 

Streambank 

Stability 

>80% of the stream 

bank is stable 

50-80% of stream bank 

is stable 

<50% of stream bank 

stable 

Water Quality Temperature Mean maximum weekly 

temperature is always 

<68oF during summer 

months 

Mean maximum weekly 

temperature within 68 

75oF during summer 

months 

Mean maximum weekly 

temperature >75oF 

during summer months 

Life History 

Diversity and 

Isolation 

Connectivity/ 

Barriers 

Subpopulation is 

connected (barrier-free) 

to other sub-populations 

in the watershed 

throughout the entire 

year. 

Subpopulation has 

seasonal barriers due to 

low water levels or 

drying of the stream bed. 

Subpopulation is 

completely isolated 

throughout the entire 

year. 

Watershed 

Condition 

Functional 

Condition 

Riparian/wetland areas 

are functioning properly. 

Adequate vegetation and 

land form is present to 

dissipate energy 

associated with high 

water. 

Riparian/wetland area is 

in functional condition 

but an existing soil, 

water, or vegetation 

attribute makes the area 

susceptible to 

degradation. 

Riparian/wetland areas 

are non-functional and 

are not providing 

adequate vegetation and 

land form to dissipate 

stream energy associated 

with high stream flows. 
 

Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

For each stream reach, values for each indicator were compared to the thresholds for that indicator and 

given a score that ranged between +1.0 and –1.0, where +1.0 reflects conditions functioning properly for 

fish and –1.0 reflects conditions functioning at an unacceptable risk for fish. Scores between -1.0 and 

+1.0 reflect conditions at intermediate levels of functionality for fish. 

Where indicators described different components of the same stream characteristic (e.g., bank cover and 

bank stability both describe streambanks), the NetWeaver model calculated the mean of the scores for 

those indicators to yield an overall score for that stream characteristic. Finally, the NetWeaver model 

calculated the mean of the stream characteristic scores to yield an overall NetWeaver ranking for each 

stream reach. The stream characteristic scores were weighted equally in calculating the mean as 

scientific literature and field data suggest the characteristics used in the model are all important in 

determining habitat functionality for special status fish. 

The results of the analysis allow the identification of stream reaches not meeting desired conditions and 

needing restoration (Restoration Reaches) and those mostly meeting desired conditions and needing 

protection (Conservation Reaches). Although indicator data are aggregated for the overall NetWeaver 

ranking, the model output also shows the relative condition of each individual indicator. 

HC ratings for special status fish were based on the NetWeaver analysis combined with an evaluation of 

restoration feasibility, the extent of the habitat, and relative fish abundance. Stream reaches were 

classified as either Conservation Reaches or Restoration Reaches; restoration priorities for Restoration 

Reaches, as well as any indicators in a degraded condition (i.e., NetWeaver score <0.0), were identified 

as well. The process for determining the HC rating for a stream reach is outlined below: 

 Step 1: Assign an initial HC rating based on NetWeaver rankings 

- Conservation Reaches: +0.5 to +1.0 

- Restoration Reaches: -1.0 to +0.5 

o High Priority Restoration Reaches: 0.0 to +0.5 

o Moderate Priority Restoration Reaches: -0.5 to 0.0 

o Low Priority Restoration Reaches: -1.0 to -0.5 

 Step 2: For Restoration Reaches, increase or decrease restoration priority according to the following 

guidelines: 

- Restoration feasibility: Increase restoration priority where BLM can address the limiting indicator 

(e.g., replacing a culvert, modifying livestock grazing season of use) or decrease restoration 

priority where BLM cannot address the limiting indicator (e.g., removing diversions). 

- Extent of habitat: Increase restoration priority if stream reach is longer than 0.6 miles and is 

primarily comprised of public lands. 

- Relative fish abundance: Increase restoration priority if the reach has high abundance of bull trout 

or redband trout. 

Conservation and Restoration Reaches for All Action Alternatives 

As described above, HC ratings were used to describe priorities for restoration of special status fish 

habitat. Table D- 3 displays the conservation and restoration priorities for streams occupied by special 

status fish; for Restoration Reaches, the indicators in a degraded condition (i.e., NetWeaver score <0.0) 

are identified. These indicators can help focus restoration efforts toward those factors most in need of 

improvement with respect to habitat for special status fish. 

August 2010 A-54 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

 

 

 

Table D- 3. HC Ratings and Indicators in a Degraded Condition for Stream Reaches Containing Special 

Status Fish 

Stream Reach Miles Indicators in a Degraded Condition A 

Streams Containing Bull Trout and Redband Trout 

Conservation Reaches 

Jack Creek Reach 1 1.0 None 

Jarbidge River, East Fork Reach 3 1.5 None 

Reach 4 0.6 None 

Jarbidge River, West Fork Reach 1 0.7 None 

Reach 2 2.4 None 

Reach 3 3.6 None 

Total 9.8 

Restoration Reaches – High Priority 

Buck Creek Reach 1 2.5 None 

Dave Creek Reach 2 2.6 Habitat connectivity 

Deer Creek (NV) Reach 1 0.6 Spawning substrate 

Jarbidge River, East Fork Reach 1 1.9 None 

Total 7.6 

Restoration Reaches – Moderate Priority 

Dave Creek Reach 1 1.7 Spawning substrate 

Total 1.7 

Restoration Reaches – Low Priority 

Jarbidge River Reach 1 0.7 Juvenile rearing temps 

Reach 2 0.5 Juvenile rearing temps 

Reach 3 1.2 Juvenile rearing temps 

Reach 4 0.9 None 

Jarbidge River, East Fork Reach 2 1.2 Medium-large streams 

Total 4.5 

Streams Containing Redband Trout but not Bull Trout 

Conservation Reaches 

Cedar Creek Reach 1 0.2 None 

Reach 3 1.0 None 

Reach 4 1.2 None 

Reach 5 1.0 None 

Reach 6 2.1 None 

Total 5.5 

Restoration Reaches – High Priority 

Deer Creek (ID) Reach 3 0.6 Bank stability 

Reach 4 1.1 None 

Flat Creek Reach 2 1.1 None 

House Creek, Lower Reach 1 0.5 None 

Three Creek, Lower Reach 1 0.4 None 

Total 3.7 

Restoration Reaches – Moderate Priority 

Bear Creek Reach 1 0.3 Pool volume 

Reach 2 0.4 Pool volume 

China Creek, Upper Reach 1 0.1 Pool volume, quality 

Deer Creek (ID) Reach 1 0.7 Bank cover, stability 

Reach 2 0.2 Bank cover, stability 

Reach 5 0.8 Bank cover 

Deadwood Creek Reach 1 0.5 Pool volume 

Reach 2 0.6 Pool volume 

A-55 August 2010 
Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 

 

Stream Reach Miles Indicators in a Degraded Condition A 

House Creek, Lower Reach 2 0.5 Pool volume 

Reach 3 0.5 Pool volume 

House Creek, Upper Reach 1 0.2 Pool volume 

Reach 2 0.2 Pool volume, quality 

Reach 3 0.4 Pool volume 

Reach 4 0.3 Bank stability, substrate 

Rocky Canyon Creek Reach 1 0.8 Substrate 

Reach 2 0.3 Substrate, pool quality 

Reach 3 0.5 Pool volume 

Total 7.3 

Restoration Reaches – Low Priority 

Cedar Creek Reach 2 0.3 Bank stability 

Reach 7 1.2 Pool volume 

Chimney Creek Reach 1 0.1 Pool volume, quality 

China Creek, Lower Reach 1 0.3 Substrate 

Reach 2 0.9 Bank stability, substrate 

Reach 3 1.0 Bank stability, substrate 

Reach 4 0.4 Substrate, pool quality 

Deadwood Creek, East Fork Reach 1 0.1 Pool volume, quality 

Deadwood Creek, West Fork Reach 1 0.2 Pool volume, quality 

Flat Creek Reach 1 0.5 Substrate 

Reach 3 0.6 Pool quality 

Pole Creek Reach 1 0.7 Pool volume 

Reach 2 0.9 Bank cover, stability 

Shack Creek Reach 1 0.2 Pool volume 

Reach 2 0.6 Pool quality 

Three Creek, Lower Reach 2 0.3 Substrate 

Reach 3 0.2 Bank cover, stability 

Three Creek, Middle Reach 1 0.3 Bank stability 

Three Creek, Upper Reach 1 0.1 Bank cover, stability 

Timber Canyon Creek Reach 1 0.8 Bank stability 

Reach 2 1.1 Bank stability 

Total 10.8 A An indicator was considered to be in a degraded state if its NetWeaver score was <0.0. These help identify focus areas for 

restoration activities. 

Riparian Habitat

PFC ratings were used to assess priority for riparian restoration. Riparian restoration priorities 

concentrate on reaches functioning-at-risk with no apparent trend (FAR-NA) or functioning-at-risk with a 

downward trend (FAR-DN). Once an area is rated as NF, the effort, cost, and time required for recovery is 

dramatically increased (Prichard, et al., 1998). Areas that are at PFC are usually not the highest priority 

for restoration because they are more resilient than the at-risk areas. Consequently, stream reaches rated 

as FAR-NA and FAR-DN were prioritized as Priority 1 for restoration, streams rated as functioning-at-risk 

with an upward trend (FAR-UP) and NF were prioritized as Priority 2, and streams rated as PFC were 

prioritized as Priority 3. 

For the stream reaches with 2006 PFC and HC data, the PFC data were validated using the quantitative 

HC data for individual stream reaches for the RMP analysis. The PFC evaluation was used to assess 

riparian function at a watershed scale (general qualitative assessment), and the HC data were used to 

assess stream channel condition (i.e., hydrology, riparian vegetation, erosion, and deposition) at a sitespecific scale (detailed quantitative assessment). The validation process used the HC data to answer 

August 2010 A-56 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PFC questions (Prichard, et al., 1998) (PFC checklist questions 3, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15) to ensure 

consistency between the HC and PFC determination of functional condition. 

Management of stream reaches is prioritized based on instream and riparian habitat condition ratings, 

which are based on instream and riparian indicators; the relationship between special status fish habitat 

and riparian priorities are displayed in Table D- 4. Streams that have both HC and PFC ratings have two 

restoration priorities identified as well; where this occurs, the priority based on the HC rating takes 

precedence. 

Table D- 4. Crosswalk between Priority Rankings for Special Status Fish Habitat Management and Riparian 

Area Management 

HC Rating PFC Rating 

Conservation Reach 

High Priority Restoration Reach Priority 1 (FAR-NA, FAR-DN) 

Moderate Priority Restoration Reach Priority 2 (FAR-UP, NF) 

Low Priority Restoration Reach Priority 3 (PFC) 

The validated PFC ratings were used to prioritize riparian reaches for restoration or to be maintained in 

their current condition. The priorities for riparian restoration and maintenance are summarized in Table D5. 

Table D- 5. Riparian PFC Data and Ratings and the Conservation and Restoration Priorities 

Stream Reach Miles 

Restoration Priority 1 

Antelope Springs 0.0 - 0.3 0.4 

1.4 - 2.7 1.3 

Bear Creek 4.2 - 4.3 0.1 

4.3 - 4.6 0.3 

4.6 - 5.4 0.9 

Bear Creek, East Fork 0.6 - 1.5 1.0 

Bear Creek, Middle Fork 0.2 - 0.4 0.3 

Browns Creek 1.4 - 3.1 1.7 

Cedar Creek 15.2 - 15.7 0.5 

30.0 - 30.7 0.8 

Cherry Creek 1.5 - 1.8 0.3 

5.1 - 5.2 0.1 

12.3 - 13.4 1.1 

China Creek 1.4 - 1.8 0.6 

2.0 - 2.8 0.8 

China Creek, East Fork 0.0 - 3.5 3.4 

Clover Creek 0.7 - 3.4 2.7 

0.0 - 0.7 0.6 

3.4 - 7.8 4.4 

7.8 - 9.3 1.6 

11.0 - 12.3 1.3 

18.5 - 21.9 3.5 

21.9 - 22.5 0.6 

30.9 - 31.1 0.2 

33.0 - 33.6 0.6 

40.2 - 41.8 1.6 

Columbet Creek 0.0 - 1.2 1.2 

1.2 - 1.4 0.2 

9.8 - 9.9 0.1 

Cougar Creek 0.0 - 3.0 3.6 

A-57 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Stream Reach Miles 

Deadwood Creek 1.8 - 2.7 0.9 

2.7 - 3.0 0.3 

16.8 - 17.8 1.1 

Deep Creek 2.3 - 2.8 0.4 

2.8 - 3.2 0.4 

Deer Creek (ID) 4.3 - 5.1 0.8 

5.7 - 6.3 0.7 

6.3 - 6.5 0.2 

6.5 - 7.7 1.2 

Devil Creek 35.5 - 36.2 0.6 

34.7 - 35.5 0.8 

32.8 - 34.7 1.9 

28.7 - 32.8 0.4 

33.2 - 33.4 0.2 

33.4 - 34.0 0.6 

34.0 - 34.7 0.8 

Hayes Canyon 1.0 - 2.4 1.4 

2.4 - 3.7 1.4 

House Creek 0.0 - 0.3 0.3 

Jarbidge River 29.4 - 30.1 0.7 

30.1 - 30.7 0.6 

31.1 - 32.1 1.0 

32.1 - 32.5 0.4 

32.5 - 33.2 0.7 

33.2 - 33.4 0.2 

33.4 - 37.5 4.1 

37.6 - 38.7 1.1 

38.7 - 39.8 1.1 

Jarbidge River, East Fork 0.0 - 1.2 1.1 

1.2 - 2.2 1.2 

2.9 - 4.7 1.9 

Little House Creek 4.2 - 5.6 1.5 

Pole Creek 0.4 - 0.7 0.3 

Ross Pasture Creek 0.0 - 2.1 2.1 

Shack Creek 3.6 - 3.8 0.2 

3.8 - 4.2 0.4 

Sheep Creek 0.1 - 0.3 0.2 

Spring Creek 5.6 - 7.0 1.5 

Three Creek 0.3 - 1.5 1.2 

4.7 - 5.8 1.1 

11.8 - 12.1 0.3 

12.1 - 12.3 0.3 

Timber Canyon 2.0 - 2.3 0.4 

0.7 - 2.0 1.5 

Tuana Gulch 5.9 - 6.9 1.0 

Whiskey Slough 0.0 - 1.3 1.3 

Yahoo Creek 3.3 - 3.4 0.1 

Total 77.7 

Restoration Priority 2 

Big Flat Creek 0.3 - 1.2 1.0 

12.6 - 12.8 0.2 

August 2010 A-58 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

 

 

 

 

 

Stream Reach Miles 

Camas Slough 2.6 - 3.0 0.4 

3.0 - 4.8 1.6 

4.8 - 5.1 0.2 

5.1 - 5.4 0.5 

Cedar Creek 16.7 - 17.3 0.6 

24.9 - 25.6 0.7 

25.6 - 26.1 0.5 

26.1 - 26.7 0.5 

28.2 - 28.4 0.2 

28.4 - 29.0 0.6 

29.0 - 30.0 0.6 

Cherry Creek 9.3 - 10.1 0.9 

13.4 - 14.1 0.8 

China Creek 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 

0.2 - 0.7 0.6 

0.7 - 1.4 0.7 

2.8 - 3.2 0.3 

Clover Creek 12.3 - 13.5 1.0 

13.5 - 15.7 2.5 

17.4 - 18.3 1.1 

18.3 - 18.5 0.1 

23.0 - 23.8 0.9 

26.8 - 27.6 0.8 

27.6 - 29.2 1.5 

29.2 - 29.9 0.7 

29.9 - 30.2 0.3 

30.2 - 30.9 0.7 

31.1 - 32.8 1.7 

32.8 - 33.0 0.2 

35.5 - 36.4 0.9 

36.4 - 38.0 1.6 

38.0 - 40.2 2.2 

41.8 - 46.0 4.2 

46.3 - 47.5 1.4 

52.0 - 52.2 0.3 

52.2 - 52.7 0.6 

52.7 - 53.5 0.7 

Columbet Creek 2.3 - 3.4 1.2 

3.4 - 3.7 0.3 

3.7 - 5.0 1.4 

9.0 - 9.3 0.3 

Dave Creek, East Fork 0.4 - 1.9 1.5 

Deadman Creek (NV) 0.0 - 0.8 0.8 

Deadwood Creek 3.0 - 4.2 1.2 

Deer Creek (ID) 3.2 - 4.3 1.0 

House Creek 3.6 - 4.4 0.8 

Little Spring Creek 2.5 - 2.8 0.3 

2.8 - 3.0 0.2 

3.4 - 4.0 0.7 

Mud Flat Creek 2.5 - 2.8 0.3 

2.8 - 3.4 0.5 

3.4 - 3.5 0.2 

A-59 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Stream Reach Miles 

Mud Flat Creek, East Fork 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 

Pole Creek 0.7 - 1.3 0.7 

3.4 - 4.9 1.5 

Ring Springs 0.9 - 1.5 0.9 

0.0 - 0.6 0.6 

0.6 - 0.9 0.2 

Rocky Canyon 0.7 - 1.7 1.1 

1.7 - 2.0 0.6 

Shack Creek, East Fork 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 

Snake River 539.7 - 540.7 0.6 

563.4 - 567.7 1.7 

556.6 - 557.1 0.5 

563.4 - 567.7 0.3 

563.4 - 567.7 0.3 

563.4 - 567.7 0.9 

Spring Creek 1.0 - 2.7 1.5 

2.7 - 3.8 1.2 

3.8 - 5.6 1.8 

Three Creek 6.3 - 6.8 0.5 

Tuana Gulch 2.5 - 3.5 1.0 

3.5 - 5.2 1.7 

Total 63.4 

Restoration Priority 3 

Big Flat Creek 7.7 - 8.6 0.9 

8.6 - 8.9 0.3 

12.0 - 12.6 0.7 

12.8 - 13.2 0.4 

Browns Creek 3.1 - 4.2 1.1 

Buck Creek 0.0 - 2.5 2.5 

Cedar Creek 15.7 - 16.7 1.0 

17.3 - 18.8 2.0 

26.7 - 27.4 0.7 

27.4 - 27.9 0.6 

30.7 - 31.1 0.4 

Cherry Creek 10.1 - 10.9 0.6 

10.9 - 12.3 1.3 

14.1 - 14.6 0.5 

China Creek 4.5 - 4.7 0.2 

4.7 - 5.0 0.3 

5.0 - 5.2 0.4 

China Creek, Middle Fork 1.8 - 2.0 0.7 

Clover Creek 49.5 - 52.0 2.5 

Columbet Creek 5.0 - 6.0 1.0 

8.3 - 9.0 0.7 

Corral Creek 0.4 - 1.1 0.6 

Crawfish Springs Creek 0.5 - 0.9 0.3 

Dave Creek 0.0 - 2.2 2.3 

2.4 - 2.7 0.3 

Deep Creek 0.0 - 2.3 2.4 

3.2 - 4.5 1.4 

Deer Creek (NV) 0.7 - 1.6 0.8 

Deer Creek (ID) 5.1 - 5.7 0.6 

August 2010 A-60 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

A-61 August 2010 

 

 

 

Stream Reach Miles 

Dorsey Creek 14.2 - 14.7 0.4 

Flat Creek 13.2 - 14.4 1.2 

15.7 - 16.6 0.9 

House Creek 3.4 - 3.6 0.2 

16.8 - 17.5 0.7 

17.6 - 17.8 0.2 

17.8 - 18.1 0.3 

18.4 - 19.6 1.2 

Jarbidge River 0.0 - 2.6 2.6 

2.6 - 9.6 5.0 

2.6 - 9.6 1.3 

9.6 - 13.0 3.3 

13.0 - 15.6 1.8 

15.6 - 21.7 6.2 

21.7 - 28.6 7.0 

28.6 - 29.1 0.5 

29.1 - 29.4 0.3 

Jarbidge River, East Fork 4.9 - 8.7 3.7 

Little House Creek 5.6 - 6.2 0.7 

Meadow Springs Creek 0.6 - 1.0 0.4 

Player Creek 1.9 - 3.4 1.5 

trib. 1 (0.3 miles) 0.3 

trib. 2 (0.2 miles) 0.2 

Pole Creek 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 

1.3 - 1.8 0.5 

1.8 - 3.4 1.5 

Snake River 551.7 - 554.5 1.5 

541.4 - 545.6 0.3 

533.6 - 535.5 1.8 

530.2 - 532.5 2.3 

558.8 - 561.6 0.3 

558.8 - 561.6 1.8 

571.1 - 577.9 0.1 

571.1 - 577.9 0.2 

571.1 - 577.9 0.4 

571.1 - 577.9 0.2 

571.1 - 577.9 0.2 

571.1 - 577.9 0.4 

Taylor Canyon Creek 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 

Three Creek 12.3 - 14.4 2.1 

14.4 - 15.3 1.0 

Tuana Gulch 5.2 - 5.6 0.4 

5.6 - 5.9 0.3 

Yahoo Creek 0.6 - 0.9 0.3 

0.9 - 1.1 0.2 

1.1 - 2.1 1.0 

Total 85.6 

No Restoration Priority A 

Bear Creek 5.6 - 5.9 0.1 

5.9 - 6.0 0.1 

Cedar Creek 6.3 - 10.6 4.2 

Cougar Creek 11.0 - 20.0 9.0 
Appendix D	 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Stream Reach Miles 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Cougar Creek, East Fork 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 

0.4 - 0.7 0.3 

Crawfish Springs Creek 1.1 - 1.5 0.4 

Dave Creek, East Fork 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 

Mud Flat Creek 3.5 - 6.0 2.3 

Mud Flat Creek, East Fork 0.4 - 2.2 1.9 

Shack Creek 5.2 - 5.7 0.5 

4.2 - 4.9 0.7 

Total 20.3 A PFC assessments were completed on 20 miles of riparian area where their classification as riparian areas is unknown; 

therefore, a restoration priority could not be assigned for these reaches. 

Management Direction4 

4 This section addresses material for Component V, Management Direction – Adaptive Management, related to 

management direction in Guidance for Developing Aquatic Conservation Strategies (BLM, 2008). 

Aquatic and Riparian Goals 

The goals establish an expectation of the characteristics of healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian 

areas, and associated fish habitats. Because the quality of water and fish habitat is inseparably related to 

the integrity of upland and riparian areas within the watersheds, the goals are to strive towards or 

accomplish the following: 

 Achieving physical integrity of aquatic ecosystems that may include stream channel integrity, 

channel processes, and the sediment regime (including timing, volume, and character of sediment 

input and transport) under which the riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed. 

	 Providing an appropriate amount and distribution of source habitats for riparian- or wetlanddependent species that may include a) riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique 

genetic fish stocks that evolved within the specific geo-climatic region and b) habitat to support 

populations of well-distributed native and desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate 

populations that contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities. 

	 Restoring or maintaining water quality and hydrologic processes that may include a) water 

quality sufficient to provide for stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems and b) instream 

flows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats and to promote stable and effective stream 

channel function, including their ability to effectively route flood discharges. 

	 Restoring or maintaining naturally functioning riparian vegetation communities that may 

include a) natural timing and variability of groundwater in meadows and wetlands, b) diversity and 

productivity of native and desired non-native plant communities in riparian areas, and c) riparian 

vegetation of diversity and vigor adequate to: 

- Provide the amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of conditions under 

which aquatic systems developed; 

- Provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation in the riparian and aquatic zones; and 

- Help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristic of those 

under which the communities developed. 

Aquatic and Riparian Objectives 

Management direction in the ARMS is intended to guide management toward some desired future 

condition comprised of goals and objectives. Objectives are based on indicators that are measurable and 

relate to the species of interest. Bull trout and redband trout population and habitat objectives that are 

appropriate for the watershed scale can be described in terms of the habitat condition indicators 

displayed in Table D- 1 and Table D- 2. The objective for streams containing bull trout or redband trout 

habitat is a rating of “Functioning Properly” for the indicators listed in the matrices, which reflect desired 

August 2010	 A-62 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

aquatic, riparian, and watershed conditions that are adapted locally. It is recognized that optimum 

conditions may not always be achievable for every indicator in every watershed because of historic land 

uses, land ownership patterns (e.g., private and other non-BLM managed lands), and specific watershed 

characteristics. Table D- 6 describes habitat management objectives for stream reaches containing 

special status fish habitat relative to the NetWeaver Rankings that formed the basis for the HC ratings. 

Table D- 6. Habitat Management Objectives for Stream Reaches with Special Status Fish Habitat 

Stream Reach Total Miles % Habitat Condition Objectives Relative 

to NetWeaver Rankings 

Conservation Reaches 15.3 31% Already >+0.5, maintain and not decline 

High Priority Restoration Reaches 11.3 23% Will achieve +0.5 

Moderate Priority Restoration Reaches 6.9 14% Moving toward +0.5 

Low Priority Restoration Reaches 15.2 31% Static and not declining 

Total 48.6 100% 

In general, objectives for riparian areas are as follows: 1) for Priority 1 and 2 reaches, achieve or move 

toward achieving a rating of PFC in the life of the plan, and 2) for Priority 3 reaches, maintain existing 

PFC rating. The relative amount of Priority 1 and 2 stream reaches that would achieve PFC in the life of 

the plan varies by alternative (see the Riparian Areas and Wetlands section in Chapter 2). 

Management Strategies 

Four general types of management strategies that may be considered for achieving the aquatic and 

riparian objectives are described below. 

Protection 

This management strategy would conserve aquatic and riparian areas that are ecologically intact and fully 

functional. Human activities that significantly influence instream and riparian ecological functions are 

restricted. The management strategy strives to protect aquatic and riparian ecosystems currently in good 

condition so that naturally regenerative processes can continue to operate. Conservation designations 

that typically include wilderness and minimally developed watersheds would fall within this management 

strategy. High priority restoration projects do exist within portions of some Conservation Reaches. Also, 

some Restoration Reaches may have a stream segment or watershed area that is ecologically intact and 

functional, which would also warrant protection of aquatic and riparian ecosystems. 

Passive Restoration 

This management strategy emphasizes preventing further loss of aquatic and riparian ecosystem 

integrity. To the extent possible, human disturbances to altered aquatic and riparian ecosystems would be 

removed or minimized in order to allow natural processes to be the primary agents of recovery. This 

management strategy would allow the natural disturbance regime to dictate the speed of recovery in 

areas that have a high probability of returning to a fully functional state without human intervention. This 

management strategy applies to many of the low and moderate priority Restoration Reaches and Priority 

2 and 3 riparian reaches. The rate of recovery may be several decades or more once human 

disturbances are removed or mitigated. 

Active Restoration 

This management strategy would focus on returning functionally impaired aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems to a state that would occur naturally at the site by actively managing certain aspects of 

habitat recovery. It uses a combination of elements of natural recovery along with management activities 

directed at accelerating development of self-sustaining, ecologically healthy riparian ecosystems. This 

management strategy applies to the high and some moderate priority Restoration Reaches and Priority 1 

and 2 riparian reaches. Many watershed, riparian, and stream restoration projects fall into this category, 

including vegetation treatments, stream channel restoration, stream crossings removal or improvement, 

reducing road densities, and improving road condition. The rate of recovery may be one to two decades 

once human caused disturbances are removed or mitigated. 

A-63 August 2010 
Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

August 2010 A-64 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rehabilitation 

This management strategy would re-establish naturally self-sustaining riparian ecosystems to the extent 

possible, while acknowledging that irreversible changes, such as dams, permanent channel changes due 

to urbanization and streamside roads, stream channel incision, and floodplain development, permit only 

partial restoration of ecological functions. It would use a combination of passive and active management 

approaches where ecological self-sufficiency cannot occur. 

Management for RCAs

Used in conjunction with adaptive management, the following management is designed to achieve 

aquatic and riparian management objectives (Table D- 7). This management is derived from the 

management direction contained in INFISH (USDA, 1995) and is consistent with existing conservation 

and recovery plans. This management applies to all RCAs and to project and activities in areas outside of 

RCAs that are identified through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis process as 

having the potential to degrade RCAs. Management to be applied to a specific project will be identified 

during project planning on a site- and project-specific basis. 

Table D- 7. Management for Activities in or Affecting RCAs 

Number Management 

Riparian Conservation Areas 

RCA-1 New activities in RCAs or activities outside RCAs that affect RCAs must be designed to enhance, 

restore, or maintain the physical and biological characteristics of the RCA by implementing the 

following: 

 Activities in or near RCAs that are intact and functioning in a desired condition, as measured 

by instream and riparian habitat condition indicators, must be designed to at least maintain 

that desired condition. 

 Activities in or near RCAs that are not at desired condition, as measured by instream and 

riparian habitat condition indicators, should include a restoration component as part of the 

project when such may be practical and appropriate for the scope of the project. 

 Activities in or near RCAs must not result in long-term degradation to aquatic conditions. 

Limited short-term adverse effects from activities in the RCA may be acceptable when 

outweighed by the long-term benefits to the RCA and aquatic resources. 

 New road construction, landings, timber harvest, or construction of recreation sites, range 

infrastructure, and other construction activities within RCAs will require a watershed analysis 

and/or site-specific analysis prior to implementation. The level of analysis will be 

commensurate with the scope, magnitude, and issues of the project and related aquatic 

resources and values. 

RCA-2 Management activities and land uses in RCAs shall be implemented to attain proper functioning 

condition as an initial step to move habitat conditions of streams, riparian areas, and wetlands 

toward achieving aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

RCA-3 New management activities within or affecting RCAs shall be conducted only if they are consistent 

with the management objectives of maintaining fully functional aquatic and riparian conditions and 

processes and improving conditions and processes that are not fully functional through either active 

or passive measures. Riparian management actions will avoid or minimize adverse effects on 

inland native fish, their habitats, and RCAs. Management actions will balance short-term risks to 

aquatic and other resources with long-term benefits as actions are considered to move toward a 

natural variability of conditions. 

RCA-4 Identify and coordinate with tribes and Federal, State, and local governments to secure instream 

flows needed to maintain riparian resources, channel conditions, and aquatic habitat. 

RCA-5 Trees may be felled in RCAs when they pose a safety risk. Keep felled trees on-site when needed to 

meet woody debris objectives. 

RCA-6 Apply herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, and other toxicants and chemicals in a manner that does 

not impair water quality or prevent attainment of aquatic and riparian management objectives and 

avoids adverse effects on inland native fish and their habitat. When applying herbicides etc. in a 

RCA, a spill kit will be onsite as appropriate. Prohibit storing and mixing herbicides, pesticides, 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number Management 

insecticides, etc. within RCAs unless there are no other practicable alternatives. 

RCA-7 Prohibit storing fuels and other toxicants and refueling within RCAs unless there are no other 

practicable alternatives. Refueling sites and storage areas within an RCA will have an approved 

refueling and spill containment plan. 

RCA-8 Locate water drafting sites to avoid adverse effects on inland native fish and instream flows and in 

a manner that does not retard or prevent attainment of aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

Watershed and Habitat Restoration 

WR-1 Management activities and land uses in RCAs shall be implemented to promote achievement of 

aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

WR-2 New management activities within or affecting RCAs shall be conducted only if they are consistent 

with the management objectives of maintaining fully functional aquatic and riparian conditions and 

processes and improving conditions and processes that are not fully functional through either active 

or passive measures. New watershed and habitat restoration projects will avoid or minimize 

adverse effects on inland native fish, their habitats, and RCAs. Management actions will balance 

short-term risks to aquatic and other resources with long-term benefits as actions are considered to 

move toward a natural variability of conditions. 

WR-3 Design and implement watershed restoration projects in a manner that promotes the long-term 

ecological integrity of ecosystems, conserves the genetic integrity of inland native fish species, and 

contributes to attainment of aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

WR-4 Cooperate with tribes; Federal, State, and local agencies; and private landowners to develop 

watershed-based coordinated resource management plans or other cooperative agreements to meet 

aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

WR-5 Do not use planned restoration as a substitute for preventing habitat degradation. Use planned 

restoration only to mitigate existing problems, not to mitigate the effects of proposed activities. It is 

acknowledged that some proposed activities may have short-term adverse affects, but these 

activities shall not degrade or preclude trends to achieve aquatic and riparian management 

objectives in the long-term. 

Fish and Wildlife Restoration 

FW-1 Management activities and land uses in RCAs shall be implemented to attain proper functioning 

condition as an initial step to move habitat conditions of streams, riparian areas, and wetlands 

toward achieving aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

FW-2 New management activities within or affecting RCAs shall be conducted only if they are consistent 

with the management objectives of maintaining fully functional aquatic and riparian conditions and 

processes and improving conditions and processes that are not fully functional through either active 

or passive measures. New fisheries and restoration projects will avoid or minimize adverse effects 

on inland native fish, their habitats, and RCAs. Management actions will balance short-term risks 

to aquatic and other resources with long-term benefits as actions are considered to move toward a 

natural variability of conditions. 

FW-3 Design, construct, and operate fish and wildlife interpretive and other user-enhancement facilities 

in a manner that does not prevent attainment of aquatic and riparian management objectives or 

adversely affect inland native fish. For existing fish and wildlife interpretive and other userenhancement facilities inside RCAs, ensure the aquatic and riparian management objectives are met 

and adverse effects on inland native fish are avoided. Where aquatic and riparian management 

objectives cannot be met or adverse effects on inland native fish cannot be avoided, relocate or 

close these facilities. 

FW-4 Cooperate with Federal and State wildlife management agencies to identify and reduce wild 

ungulate impacts that prevent attainment of aquatic and riparian management objectives or 

adversely affect inland native fish or their habitat. 

FW-5 Cooperate with Federal and State fish management agencies to identify and reduce adverse effects 

on inland native fish associated with habitat manipulation, fish stocking, fish harvest, and illegal 

harvest. 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

FM-1 Fuels treatments and fire suppression strategies, practices, and actions in RCAs shall be designed to 

maintain desired aquatic and riparian conditions and minimize disturbances of riparian ground 

A-65 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Number Management 

cover and vegetation. Minimum impact suppression tactics shall be used within RCAs unless safety 

to human life or property is an issue. 

FM-2 Incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots, and other centers for incident activities 

shall be located outside of RCAs. If the only suitable location for these activities is within the 

RCA, an exemption may be granted following a review and recommendation by a resource advisor. 

The advisor should prescribe the location, use conditions, and rehabilitation requirements, with 

avoidance of adverse effects to aquatic and riparian resources as a primary goal. To the extent 

practical, an interdisciplinary team, including a fisheries biologist, shall be used to predetermine 

incident base, dipping, and helibase locations in RCAs during pre-suppression planning. 

FM-3 Avoid delivery of chemical retardant, foam, or additives to or discharge of gray water into surface 

waters. An exception is warranted where overriding immediate safety imperatives exist or, 

following a review and recommendation by a resource advisor, when the action agency determines 

a fire would cause more long-term damage to fish habitats than chemical delivery to surface waters. 

FM-4 Management activities (e.g., fuels treatments) and land uses in RCAs shall be implemented to 

attain proper functioning condition for riparian areas as an initial step to move habitat conditions of 

streams, riparian areas, and wetlands toward achieving aquatic and riparian management 

objectives. 

FM-5 New management activities (e.g., fuels treatments) within or affecting RCAs shall be conducted 

only if they are consistent with the management objectives of maintaining fully functional aquatic 

and riparian conditions and processes and improving conditions and processes that are not fully 

functional through either active or passive measures. Management actions will balance short-term 

risks to aquatic and other resources with long-term benefits as actions are considered to move 

toward a natural variability of conditions. 

FM-6 Establish an interdisciplinary team to develop a rehabilitation plan to support achievement of 

aquatic and riparian management objectives and avoid adverse effects on inland native fish species 

whenever RCAs or uplands have experienced severe damage to soils and vegetation from fire. 

Timber 

TM-1 Apply vegetation management practices, such as timber harvest, salvage logging, fuel wood cutting 

and fuels treatments, within RCAs where needed to acquire desired vegetation characteristics 

essential to achieving aquatic and riparian objectives. Vegetation treatments will be allowed only to 

maintain, restore, or enhance physical and biological characteristics of the RCA. Implemented 

treatments will, at a minimum, maintain instream and riparian conditions. Management actions will 

balance short-term risks to aquatic and other resources with long-term benefits as actions are 

considered to move toward a natural variability of conditions. Complete watershed analysis and/or 

site-specific analysis prior to conducting timber harvest or salvage logging in RCAs. 

TM-2 New management activities within or affecting RCAs shall be conducted only if they are consistent 

with the management objectives of not precluding attainment of or maintaining functional aquatic 

and riparian conditions and processes and improving conditions and processes that are not fully 

functional through either active or passive measures. 

TM-3 When management activities are conducted within the RCA or the sediment delivery influence area 

(if greater in extent than the RCA), surface disturbance shall be minimized, and sufficient ground 

cover shall be retained (e.g., through existing vegetation and/or by seeding, plantings, and erosion 

control measures) to limit soil movement into or within the RCA to allow attainment of aquatic and 

riparian management objectives. Buffer widths, vegetation cover, and/or natural topographic 

features should be sufficient to minimize risks for erosion/sediment reaching stream channels and 

other surface waters. 

TM-4 Management activities and land uses in RCAs shall be implemented to maintain or support 

attainment of aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

Livestock Grazing 

GM-1 Range project plans, allotment management plans, and annual plans of operation shall be 

developed, revised, and maintained where needed to achieve aquatic and riparian management 

objectives. These plans establish objectives and identify actions for managing vegetation resources 

to achieve aquatic and riparian management objectives. This may include grazing schedule, grazing 

system, season of use, class of livestock, stocking levels, forage products and utilization rates, and 

August 2010 A-66 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number Management 

improvements needed to achieve aquatic and riparian management objectives. The results of 

monitoring riparian and streamside condition will be used to determine the need for adaptive 

management actions. 

GM-2 New grazing management activities within or affecting RCAs shall be conducted only if they are 

consistent with the management objectives of maintaining fully functional aquatic and riparian 

conditions and processes and improving conditions and processes that are not fully functional 

through either active or passive measures. 

GM-3 Existing land uses (e.g., trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, other handling efforts), 

facilities (e.g., livestock handling and management facilities), and actions within or affecting RCAs 

shall be modified, discontinued, or relocated if they are not maintaining fully functional aquatic and 

riparian conditions and processes or improving conditions and processes that are not fully 

functional through either active or passive measures. 

GM-4 Develop and implement grazing practices in areas of known or suspected inland native fish 

spawning to avoid or restrict trampling of redds (may require fencing) and other direct and indirect 

effects that may result in adverse impacts on the species. 

GM-5 The following is a summary of the grazing management monitoring protocol for the riparian and 

aquatic strategy for the Jarbidge Field Office: 

1. All grazing allotments with inland native fish habitat will have an established designated 

monitoring area, with some allotments having more than one designated monitoring area as 

needed. A designated monitoring area is the location in riparian areas and along the 

streambanks of a livestock grazing unit where monitoring takes place. The designated 

monitoring area would be permanently marked (e.g., reference tags, rebar) and identified 

(e.g., mapped, GPS). The designated monitoring area should reflect typical livestock use 

where they enter and use vegetation in riparian areas immediately adjacent to the stream. 

2. Within an allotment, emphasis for selection of designated monitoring areas would be on 

stream reaches with ESA-listed species, where spawning and/or early rearing occur, or nonfish bearing streams that may affect streams with ESA-listed species or mainstem rivers if 

riparian or streambank impacts are occurring from livestock use. 

3. Monitoring requirements may include various levels or combinations of effectiveness and 

implementation monitoring. Examples of indicators that could be monitored include greenline 

vegetation composition, woody species regeneration, streambank stability, stream channel 

morphology (greenline-to-greenline width), residual vegetation measurement (e.g., stubble 

height), streambank alteration, compliance with season of use, and stocking rates. 

Effectiveness and implementation indicators to be monitored would be dependent on aquatic 

and riparian conditions and resource concerns. 

4. The results of monitoring and grazing effects to inland native species and habitats attributed 

to BLM-managed lands would be evaluated for needed changes. If warranted, needed changes 

to grazing would be implemented to support achievement of aquatic and riparian management 

objectives. 

5. Coordination would take place with BLM grazing permittees on actions that may affect 

existing grazing authorizations. As needed, coordination would also occur with other Federal 

and State agencies. 

6. Monitoring will be conducted following methods in the most recent BLM Idaho State Office 

Technical Bulletin(s) or directive(s) (e.g., the Multiple Indicator Method (MIM)). 

Recreation 

RM-1 Existing land uses, facilities (e.g., dispersed and developed recreation facilities and practices), and 

actions within or affecting RCAs shall be modified, discontinued, or relocated if they are not 

maintaining fully functional aquatic and riparian conditions and processes or improving conditions 

and processes that are not fully functional through either active or passive measures. Avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on inland native fish, their habitats, and RCAs. 

RM-2 Developed recreation sites will have a plan for each site that addresses site vegetation management, 

riparian/streambank management, implementation and effectiveness monitoring, and operating 

plans. The plan will identify actions needed to avoid or minimize adverse effects on inland native 

fish, their habitats, and RCAs. 

A-67 August 2010 
Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

August 2010 A-68 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number Management 

RM-3 Complete watershed analysis and/or site-specific analysis prior to construction of a new developed 

recreation site in an RCA. 

RM-4 New management activities within or affecting RCAs should be conducted only if they are 

consistent with the management objectives of maintaining fully functional aquatic and riparian 

conditions and processes and improving conditions and processes that are not fully functional 

through either active or passive measures. New recreation site development and operation will 

avoid or minimize adverse effects on inland native fish, their habitats, and RCAs. 

RM-5 When recreation management activities are conducted within the sediment delivery influence area, 

surface disturbance shall be minimized, and sufficient ground cover shall be retained to limit soil 

movement into the RCA to allow attainment of aquatic and riparian habitat objectives. Buffer 

widths, vegetation cover, and/or natural topographic features should be sufficient to minimize risks 

for erosion/sediment reaching stream channels and other surface waters. 

RM-6 Management activities and land uses in RCAs shall be implemented to attain proper functioning 

condition as an initial step to move habitat conditions of streams and riparian areas toward 

achieving aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

Transportation and Travel 

TT-1 Cooperate with tribes; Federal, State, and county agencies; and cost-share partners to achieve 

consistency in road design, operation, and maintenance necessary to reduce adverse effects and 

support achievement of aquatic and riparian management objectives in the long-term. 

TT-2 For new or existing roads (e.g., roads authorized across BLM lands or BLM easements across other 

lands), support achieving aquatic and riparian management objectives and avoid adverse effects to 

inland native fish. 

TT-2a Complete a watershed or site-specific analysis before building new roads in RCAs. Site-specific 

analysis will reference to existing watershed analysis when available. The level of analysis should 

be commensurate with the scope and issues of the project and related aquatic resources. 

TT-2b Minimize new road locations in RCAs. Permanent new roads are not allowed unless long-term 

resource management and public resource needs can be identified through the development of a 

Comprehensive Transportation and Travel Management Plan (CTTMP), as in RF-2c below. 

Analysis should be specific to why alternate routes outside of RCAs are not practical and how road 

design features would minimize or avoid adverse effects to aquatic and riparian resources at sitespecific, reach, and watershed scales. 

TT-2c Initiate development and implementation of a CTTMP for newly constructed, BLM-controlled 

roads. At a minimum, address the following items in the plan: 

 Road design criteria, elements, and standards that govern construction, reconstruction, and 

maintenance; 

 The long-term management needs for each road; 

 Road management objectives for each road; 

 Criteria that govern road operation, maintenance, and management; 

 Guidance for inspections and maintenance before, during, and after storms; 

 Traffic regulation during wet periods to minimize erosion and sediment delivery; 

 Monitoring plans for road stability, drainage, and erosion control; and 

 Mitigation plans for road failures. 

TT-2d Temporary roads within RCAs will be decommissioned a maximum of three years after their 

construction. 

TT-2e Avoid or minimize sediment delivery to streams from the road surface to allow attainment of 

aquatic and riparian management objectives as follows: 

 Outsloping the roadway surface is preferred, except in cases where outsloping would increase 

sediment delivery to streams or where outsloping is not feasible or unsafe; 

 Where practical or feasible, route road drainage away from potentially unstable fills and 

hillslopes; 

 Where practical or feasible, route road drainage away from delivery channels so it cannot 

reach streams. This may be accomplished with road drainage directed off roads prior to 

reaching streams and being filtered through adequate vegetation buffers; and 
Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number Management 

 When management activities are conducted within the sediment delivery influence area, 

surface disturbance shall be minimized, and sufficient ground cover shall be retained (e.g., 

through existing vegetation and/or by seeding, plantings, and erosion control measures) to 

limit soil movement into and within the RCA. 

TT-2f Avoid sidecasting road surface material that may reach streams and fish-bearing water bodies. 

TT-3 Avoid adverse effects on ESA-listed fish by implementing the following: 

 Relocating or reconstructing roads and drainage features that are not effective at controlling 

sediment delivery; 

 Prioritizing reconstruction based on the current and potential habitat damage and the 

ecological value of the riparian resources affected; and 

 Stabilizing, closing, or obliterating roads not needed for future management activities. 

Prioritize these actions based on the current and potential damage to inland native fish and the 

ecological value of riparian resources affected. 

TT-4 New, replacement, and reconstructed stream crossings (culverts, bridges, and other stream 

crossings) must be designed to: 

 Accommodate a 100-year flood, including associated bedload and debris; 

 Maintain fish passage; 

 Maintain channel integrity; and 

 Accommodate mean bankfull channel widths. 

Minerals 

MM-1 For those management activities conducted pursuant to valid existing rights that may pose risks to 

achievement of management objectives, existing authorities shall be used to mitigate and/or 

require, to the extent authorized, design features that would contribute to the maintenance of banks, 

shorelines, streambed configuration, water quality, amount and distribution of woody debris, 

thermal regulation, characteristic erosion rates, and amount and distribution of source habitats. 

MM-2 Management activities and land uses in RCAs shall be implemented to attain proper functioning 

condition as an initial step to move habitat conditions of streams, riparian areas and wetlands 

toward achieving aquatic and riparian management objectives. 

MM-3 When management activities are conducted within the sediment delivery influence area, surface 

disturbance shall be minimized, and sufficient ground cover shall be retained (e.g., through existing 

vegetation and/or by seeding, plantings, and erosion control measures) to limit soil movement into 

the RCA to allow attainment of aquatic and riparian management objectives. Buffer widths, 

vegetation cover, and/or natural topographic features should be sufficient to minimize risks for 

erosion/sediment reaching stream channels and other water bodies. 

MM-4 New management activities (subject to existing mineral laws) within or affecting RCAs shall be 

designed to be consistent with the management objectives of maintaining fully functional 

aquatic/riparian conditions and processes and improving conditions and processes that are not fully 

functional through either active or passive measures. New mineral management projects and 

operation will avoid or minimize adverse effects on inland native fish, their habitats, and RCAs. 

MM-5 Locate structures, support facilities, solid and sanitary waste facilities, and roads outside RCAs. 

Where there is no alternative to locating facilities or mine waste (e.g., waste rock, spent ore, 

tailings) in RCAs, locate and construct the facilities or manage mine waste in ways that avoid 

impacts on RCAs and streams and adverse effects on inland native fish, their habitats, and RCAs. 

Where there is no alternative to road construction, keep the number of roads to the minimum 

necessary for the approved mineral activity. Close, obliterate, and revegetate roads no longer 

required for mineral or land management activities. 

MM-6 Permit sand and gravel mining and extraction within RCAs only if no alternatives exist, the action 

would not prevent the protection and recovery of aquatic and riparian habitats, and adverse effects 

on inland native fish would be avoided. 

MM-7 Develop inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements for mineral activities. Evaluate and 

apply the results of inspection and monitoring to modify mineral plans, leases, or permits as needed 

to eliminate impacts that prevent attainment of aquatic and riparian management objectives and 

avoid adverse effects on inland native fish, their habitats, and RCAs. 

A-69 August 2010 
Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

August 2010 A-70 

 

 

 

 

Number Management 

Land Tenure and Land Use Authorizations 

LR-1 New management activities (subject to existing laws) within or affecting RCAs shall be designed 

and implemented to be consistent with the management objectives of maintaining fully functional 

aquatic and riparian conditions and processes and improving conditions and processes that are not 

fully functional through either active or passive measures. New lands and realty projects will avoid 

or minimize adverse effects on inland native fish, their habitats, and RCAs. 

LR-2 For those management activities conducted pursuant to valid existing rights that may pose risks to 

achievement of management objectives, existing authorities shall be used to mitigate and/or 

require, to the extent authorized, design features that would contribute to the maintenance of banks, 

shorelines, bottom configuration, water quality, amount and distribution of woody debris, thermal 

regulation, characteristic erosion rates, and amount and distribution of source habitats. 

LR-3 When management activities are conducted within the sediment delivery influence area, surface 

disturbance shall be minimized, and sufficient ground cover shall be retained (e.g., through existing 

vegetation and/or by seeding, plantings, and erosion control measures) to limit soil movement into 

the RCA to allow attainment of aquatic and riparian management objectives. Buffer widths, 

vegetation cover, and/or natural topographic features should be sufficient to minimize risks for 

erosion/sediment reaching stream channels and other water bodies. 

LR-4 During licensing or relicensing of hydroelectric projects, terms and conditions that achieve aquatic 

and riparian management objectives over the new license term shall be submitted to the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, where appropriate. 

LR-5 Use land acquisition, land exchanges, and conservation easements to support achievement of 

aquatic and riparian management objectives and facilitate restoration of inland native species and 

their habitat. 

Note: These conservation measures are derived from those contained in the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) (USDA, 1995). 

Management for Aquatic Species 

Management for Non-Special Status Aquatic Species 

The following management applies to aquatic species other than those listed under ESA or designated as 

Sensitive species under BLM’s policy for special status species. In the planning area, these include 

sculpins (Cottidae), suckers (Catostomidae), and minnows (Cyprinidae). These fish occur independent of 

special status fish in five streams in the planning area, including portions of Barbour Creek, Tuana Gulch, 

Big Flat Creek, Clover Creek, and Salmon Falls Creek. Clover Creek, which is identified as a stream 

containing only native non-game fish, is designated as a 303(d)-listed stream by the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality. Sediment and bacteria were identified as the factors limiting water quality. This 

aquatic strategy includes priorities for improving water quality in Clover Creek and other streams 

containing native non-game fish. 

Indicators for riparian habitat condition and PFC ratings are used to determine if the desired riparian 

goals, objectives, and desired conditions are being met for native non-game fish. PFC addresses a 

variety of factors that are directly linked to water quality. Any improvement in riparian function (i.e., the 

PFC rating) would improve water quality and instream habitat condition for native non-game fish. 

In order to protect water quality resources in streams containing native non-game fish, the Idaho Stream 

Channel Alteration Rules (Idaho Administrative Code, 37.03.07) would be applied to actions involving 

construction activities within the high water lines of streams in the planning area. These standards are 

intended to cover the ordinary type of stream channel alteration and to prescribe minimum conditions for 

approval of such construction. 

For grazing management, these streams should be managed according to the management processes 

and strategies as described in Grazing Management Processes and Strategies for Riparian-Wetland 

Areas (Wyman, et al., 2006). 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

Management for Special Status Aquatic Species 

BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management, provides policy and guidance, consistent with 

appropriate laws, for the conservation of special status plants, fish, and wildlife and the ecosystems on 

which they depend. The special status aquatic species in the planning area are currently managed 

according to four special status aquatic species conservation or recovery plans as well as conservation 

requirements derived through ESA consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

Recovery plans are developed by FWS or NMFS and establish recovery objectives for a species, provide 

a list of tasks necessary to achieve those objectives, and recommend assignments to involve agencies to 

carry out these tasks. A primary function of recovery plans is to combine programs of all agencies 

involved in managing a species into a coordinated management effort. The BLM may adopt recovery 

plans. Even if a recovery plan is not officially adopted, BLM Manual 6840 directs the BLM to incorporate 

the objectives of the recovery plan into appropriate land use activity plans (BLM Manual 6840.04.E.5). 

These plans provide guidance for protecting special status aquatic species and their habitat to ensure 

their long-term survival and recovery. The conservation and recovery plans for special status aquatic 

species in the planning area are identified in Table D- 8; these plans will guide the protection and 

conservation of stronghold populations. For species for which there is an existing recovery plan, such as 

Snake River snails and Bruneau hot springsnail, or for which there is a draft recovery plan, such as 

Columbia River Basin bull trout, the conservation measures identified in those plans will also be 

incorporated in restoration and recovery planning efforts at the watershed or site-specific scale. 

Table D- 8. Conservation and Recovery Plans for Special Status Aquatic Species in the Planning Area 

Conservation/Recovery Plan Date Species Addressed 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Snake River Aquatic Species 

Recovery Plan 1995 

Idaho springsnail A Pyrgulopsis idahoensis 

Utah valvata Valvata utahensis 

Snake River physa snail Physa natricina 

Bliss Rapids snail Taylorconcha serpenticola 

California floater Anodonta californiensis 

Columbia pebblesnail Fluminicola columbianus 

Shoshone sculpin Cottus greenei 

Redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdeneri 

Snake River white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus 

Snake River White Sturgeon 

Conservation Plan 2003 Snake River white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus 

Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge 

River Distinct Population of Bull 

Trout (Draft)B 

2004 Columbia River Basin bull trout Salvelinus confluentus 

Recovery Plan for the Bruneau Hot 

Springsnail 2006 Bruneau hot springsnail Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis 

A Idaho springsnail was removed from the Endangered Species list in September 2007. B The bull trout recovery plan has not been finalized by FWS. 

Additional management for ESA-listed aquatic species include conservation requirements derived 

through ESA consultation with FWS; these requirements are intended to allow for activities to occur at 

levels that would not result in a decline in the ESA-listed species or their habitat. These conservation 

requirements are contained in Biological Opinions (BOs) as well as Biological Assessments (BAs) with 

letters of concurrence. Table D- 9 displays those consultation documents currently in effect; these may be 

superseded through future consultation with the FWS. 

A-71 August 2010 
 

 

 

Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Table D- 9. FWS Biological Opinions and Letters of Concurrence for ESA-Listed Aquatic Species in the 

Planning Area 

Document Name Date Species Addressed Action(s) Addressed 

Biological Opinion – Existing 

BLM Land Use Plans 

March 10, 2008 Bliss Rapids snail 

Utah valvata snail 

Snake River physa snail 

Bruneau hot springsnail 

1987 Jarbidge Resource 

Management Plan 

Biological Opinion and 

Concurrence – Stream Crossing 

Structure Replacement and 

Removal Program 

August 14, 2006 Bull trout Stream crossing structure 

replacement and removal 

activities 

Letter of Concurrence – Noxious 

and Invasive Weed Treatment 

Program for the Boise District and 

the Jarbidge Field Office of the 

Twin Falls District 

September 21, 2005 Bull trout 

Bliss Rapids snail 

Utah valvata snail 

Snake River physa snail 

Bruneau hot springsnail 

Noxious and invasive 

weed treatments 

Biological Opinion – Biological 

Assessment of the BLM Boise 

District and the Jarbidge Field 

Office of the Twin Falls District, 

Ongoing Permitted Grazing 

Activities in 36 Allotments 

August 15, 2005 Bliss Rapids snail 

Utah valvata snail 

Snake River physa snail 

Livestock grazing on 

allotments in the Snake 

River Watershed 

Biological Opinion – Ongoing 

Grazing Activities in the Bruneau 

Arm Allotment, the Hagerman 

Allotment, and Flat Iron 

Allotment, Owyhee County, Idaho 

March 23, 2005 Bliss Rapids snail 

Utah valvata snail 

Snake River physa snail 

Livestock grazing in the 

named allotments 

Letter of Concurrence – Normal 

Fire Rehabilitation Plan for the 

Boise District and the Jarbidge 

Field Office of the Twin Falls 

District 

February 9, 2005 Bull trout 

Bliss Rapids snail 

Utah valvata snail 

Snake River physa snail 

Bruneau hot springsnail 

Normal Fire Rehabilitation 

Plan 

Biological Opinion on BLM’s 

Ongoing Activities in the Jarbidge 

River Watershed in Owyhee 

County, Idaho, and Elko County, 

Nevada 

November 17, 2004 Bull trout Livestock grazing, 

pipelines, and fire 

suppression in the Jarbidge 

River Watershed 

Letter of Concurrence – 

Allocation of Forage in the 71 

Desert, Blackrock Pocket, 

Bruneau Hill, Crawfish, North 

Fork, and Winter Camp 

Allotments for the Jarbidge Field 

Office 

November 12, 2004 Bull trout Forage allocation in 

named allotments 

Letter of Concurrence – Excess 

Forage Allocation and Grazing 

Permit Renewal for the Yahoo 

Allotment, Twin Falls County, 

Idaho 

April 13, 2004 Bull trout 

Bliss Rapids snail 

Utah valvata snail 

Snake River physa snail 

Bruneau hot springsnail 

Forage allocation and 

permit renewal in the 

Yahoo allotment 

August 2010 A-72 
 


 


 

	 

	 

	 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

Multi-Scale Assessments and Ecosystem Analysis at the 

Watershed Scale5 

Multi-Scale Assessments 

Generally, no single assessment will adequately address the complex issues facing resource managers 

today. Fine-scale assessments provide necessary context for management and project planning, but they 

cannot adequately address broad patterns and processes, such as habitat conditions for wide-ranging
 

species. Broad-scale assessments provide necessary context for policy formulation and for mid- and finescale assessment, but they cannot by themselves provide detailed information, such as site-specific 

habitat conditions. Together, multi-scale assessments provide a comprehensive basis for sustainable 

land management. 

Multiple scales of review and assessment provide the context to implement broad-scale decisions within 

individual BLM District and Field Offices. As needed, multi-scale analysis may be used for future plan
 

amendments or revisions and for subsequent project-level decisions. Analysis at the appropriate scale is 

generally recognized to provide the needed context for decision making. The four levels of review or 

assessment that may be used for multi-scale analysis are: 

 Broad-scale (e.g., analysis at the basin scale, such as the Interior Columbia River Basin) 

 Mid-scale (e.g., analysis at the subbasin scale, such as the Snake River subbasin) 

 Fine-scale (e.g., analysis at the watershed scale, such as the Salmon Falls Creek Watershed) 

 Site-scale (e.g., analysis at the stream reach or project scale, such as China Creek) 

Management considerations for multi-scale analysis include the following: 

 Plans are generally developed and analyzed at the scale of the land management unit, normally 

analogous to a subbasin (or group of subbasins) scale. 

 Subsequent finer-scale analysis, such as to support restoration prioritization and monitoring strategy 

development, should include interagency coordination. 

 Assessments should include evaluation of existing conditions, factors limiting aquatic species 

populations, resource risks, management needs, and restoration opportunities. 

	 Information developed at the finer scale should be considered in implementing aquatic conservation 

or restoration measures and used to make adjustments or modifications to appropriate management 

actions, as warranted. 

	 Multi-scale analysis provides a basis for integrating and prioritizing conservation measures for wideranging species. 

Watershed Analysis

The purpose of an ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale is to develop and document an 

understanding of the ecological structures, functions, processes, and interactions occurring at the 

watershed scale by systematically characterizing the watershed’s human, aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial 

features, conditions, processes, and interactions. This process is designed to describe past and current 

conditions and develop restoration and management recommendations. The ultimate goal is to provide 

guidance for management actions that would sustain or improve the health and productivity of natural 

resources. 

Objectives of Watershed Analysis 

The following are the objectives and benefits of a watershed analysis: 

	 Provide sufficient watershed context for understanding and carrying out land use activities in 

a geomorphic context – Watershed analysis is an important tool used to meet ecosystem 

management objectives at larger scales. 

5 This section addresses material for Component III, Multi-Scale Analysis, in Guidance for Developing Aquatic 

Conservation Strategies (BLM, 2008). 

A-73 August 2010 
Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

 Evaluate cumulative watershed effects – Watershed analysis enhances the ability to estimate 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of management activities. 

 Define watershed restoration needs, goals, and objectives – Watershed analysis provides 

guidance on the general type, location, and sequence of appropriate activities within a watershed. 

 Monitor the effectiveness of watershed protection measures – Watershed analysis provides an 

iterative process for the adaptive management feedback loop. 

Methodology for Watershed Analysis 

The Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis-Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, Version 2.2 

(Regional Interagency Executive Committee & Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, 1995) was used 

as a guide; the process outlined in this guide provides resource managers with the flexibility to focus 

watershed analysis as necessary to meet management objectives. This six-step process is issue-driven; it 

focuses on analysis topics, along with specific watershed problems and concerns. Management 

discretion applies to defining the number and scope of topics and concerns analyzed, illustrating that “...It 

should be emphasized that watershed analyses can be a very simple and straightforward process taking 

a few days or weeks to develop or a complicated process. The complexity is intertwined with the issues 

and questions being addressed” (BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2007-071). This analysis is not a 

decision-making process but helps identify opportunities for future management actions, including 

planning, project development, and regulatory compliance. The six-step process may also be used to 

guide analysis at the reach scale, including modification of RCA widths. Below is a summary of each of 

the six steps taken to develop an ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale. 

Step 1—Characterize the Watershed 

The purpose of Step 1 is to identify the dominant physical, biological, and human processes or features of 

the watershed that affect ecosystem functions or conditions, including the relationship between these 

ecosystem elements and those occurring in the river basin and/or watersheds. When characterizing the 

watershed, team members identify the most important land allocations, plan objectives, and regulatory 

constraints that influence resource management in the watershed. At the reach scale, the RCA and 

stream are characterized, including aquatic and riparian habitats, channel type, valley type, and stream 

gradient. 

Step 2—Identify Issues and Key Questions 

The purpose of Step 2 is to focus the analysis on the key elements of the ecosystem that are most 

relevant to the management questions and objectives, human values, or resource conditions within the 

watershed. Key analysis questions are formulated from instream and riparian indicators used to measure 

or interpret key ecosystem elements. At the reach scale, the issue(s) are described, including which 

instream and riparian indicators are affected by the proposed or past management action(s). 

Step 3—Describe Current Conditions 

The purpose of Step 3 is to develop more detailed information relevant to the issues and key questions 

identified in Step 2. Step 3 is where the current range, distribution, and condition of the relevant 

ecosystem elements are documented. At the reach scale, this section describes the current condition of 

the RCA and may include a discussion of riparian function using PFC and quantitative stream and 

riparian condition assessments such as MIM (Burton, Smith, & Cowley, 2008). 

Step 4—Describe Reference Conditions 

Step 4 explains how ecological conditions have changed over time with respect to historic or reference 

conditions as a result of human influence and natural disturbances. At the reach scale, if an undisturbed 

reference reach similar in channel, valley, and vegetation type is available, current conditions are 

measured to establish reference conditions for future comparison. This section establishes objectives for 

the desired future condition. 

August 2010 A-74 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

Step 5—Synthesize and Interpret Information 

The purpose of Step 5 is to compare existing and reference conditions of specific ecosystem elements 

and to explain significant differences, similarities, or trends and their causes. The capability of the system 

to achieve key management plan objectives is also evaluated. 

Step 6—Identify Recommendations 

The purpose of Step 6 is to bring the results of the previous steps to conclusion by addressing each of the 

issues and answering the key questions, focusing on management recommendations that are responsive 

to watershed or reach-scale processes identified in the analysis. Step 6 identifies management 

recommendations that address resource problems noted in this analysis in order to change the current 

watershed or reach conditions toward the desired future condition. Monitoring needs and data gaps are 

also identified and described. 

Watershed Analysis for the Jarbidge Planning Area 

BLM-managed lands in the planning area include large, contiguous blocks of public land interspersed with 

State lands, private lands, and two military withdrawal areas. Portions of the planning area are located in 

northern Nevada and are adjacent to land managed by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and other 

BLM FOs; these lands include the upper reaches of the Jarbidge River and its East Fork, the Bruneau 

River, and several headwater reaches of perennial streams in the Jarbidge Foothills. For analyses of 

these watersheds, the BLM Jarbidge FO will collaborate with the Forest Service and other BLM FOs to 

complete watershed analyses and subbasin assessments or updates, as appropriate. The level of sitespecific or focused analysis will be commensurate with the scope, magnitude, and issues related to BLM 

activities or projects and related aquatic resources and values. 

The BLM and Forest Service have completed one watershed analysis within the planning area; the 

Jarbidge Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest was the lead agency for the Jarbidge 

Canyon Watershed Analysis (McNeill, Frederick, & Whalen, 1997). This document provides guidance for 

cumulative effects analysis, prioritization for restoration and management actions, and direction and 

information for landscape and ecosystem management in the Jarbidge River Watershed. 

Although no other watershed analyses have been completed in the planning area using the six-step 

process in the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis, there are have been several other multi-scale 

reviews that assessed aquatic resources in the planning area (Table D- 8). Through these broad-scale 

(FWS, 1995) and mid-scale (FWS, 1998, 2002; Idaho Power Company, 2003) analyses, habitat was 

characterized, issues affecting the species were identified, current and reference conditions were 

described, and data were used to identify management changes necessary to reduce threats to the ESAlisted and BLM Sensitive aquatic species in the planning area. The ARMS, which uses site-specific data 

to identify conservation and restoration priorities, provides the framework for a fine-scale assessment for 

the planning area. Future watershed analysis in the planning area will be completed as required by the 

intensity, scope, or scale of issues that drive the need for additional fine-scale assessments. 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management6 

Monitoring 

Monitoring provides a mechanism for observation and measurement to ensure that project design criteria 

and mitigation are being implemented and to determine if project and program goals and objectives are 

being achieved. The basics of plan-level monitoring should 1) determine if the plan, project, or activity is 

being implemented correctly and is achieving desired results; 2) provide a mechanism for accountability 

and oversight; 3) evaluate the effectiveness of recovery and restoration efforts; and 4) provide a feedback 

loop so that management direction may be evaluated and modified (i.e., adaptive management). 

Implementation monitoring is used to determine if management practices are implemented as identified in 

6 This section addresses material for Component V, Management Direction – Adaptive Management, related to 

adaptive management and Component VI, Monitoring, Adaptive Management, and Oversight, in Guidance for 

Developing Aquatic Conservation Strategies (BLM, 2008). 

A-75 August 2010 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Appendix D	 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

an activity plan, Environmental Assessment (EA), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), BA with a letter 

of concurrence, or BO. Effectiveness monitoring is used to determine if management practices, as 

designed and executed, are effective in meeting project goals and objectives as defined in an activity 

plan, EA, EIS, BA with a letter of concurrence, or BO. 

The results of monitoring will be summarized and shared, as requested, with the tribes and Federal and 

State agencies. Management considerations for monitoring include the following: 

 Monitoring should be focused on key questions that inform decision making and allow timely 

adjustments to management. 

	 Monitoring emphasis and intensity should be commensurate with the importance of the question 

being asked. For example, if adaptive management is being used, it is important to monitor the key 

parameters to the degree necessary to support the current course of action or to trigger an alternate 

approach. 

	 Plan-level monitoring should make use of and not duplicate broad-scale monitoring programs. To the 

extent practicable, monitoring done at the plan scale should be compatible with and complementary 

to broader- and finer-scale monitoring. 

 Monitoring should be coordinated with and, where possible, consolidated with similar efforts of other 

agencies. 

 Outcome-based management approaches rely on monitoring for their success. These approaches 

typically require a different level and type of monitoring than prescriptive approaches. 

 Monitoring commitments in plans should be feasible and achievable. 

The implementation and effectiveness monitoring plan for the planning area will include the use of 

databases and reporting mechanisms. Monitoring protocols will be in accordance with appropriate BLM 

Technical Bulletins or other acceptable monitoring methods that would address the bull trout and redband 

trout habitat condition indicators in Table D- 1 and Table D- 2. 

Adaptive Management

The ARMS allows for adaptive management, a continuing process of planning, implementation, 

monitoring, and evaluation to adjust management strategies to meet goals and objectives of ecosystembased management. It is a decision process that promotes decision making in the face of uncertainty as 

outcomes from management actions become better understood. The approach improves resource 

management by learning from prior management outcomes. The process of adaptive management uses 

the latest scientific information, site-specific information and monitoring data, and professional judgment 

to select the management strategy most likely to meet goals and objectives. By continually adjusting 

management strategies as needed, supported by monitoring or additional information, adaptive 

management will result in attainment of short- and long-term trends toward meeting objectives. Adaptive 

management provides the capability to respond quickly to monitoring data with consideration given to 

past season monitoring or preseason conditions. It also allows changes needed to meet long-term 

objectives of the RMP including direction from ESA, the Clean Water Act, and Standards and Guidelines. 

The US Department of Interior guidance on using adaptive management can be found in Williams et al. 

(2007). 

Adaptive management requires knowledge of the current conditions, potential or capability of riparian 

sites and streams, current management and effects of the management on the resources, and 

management changes that may be made to move the current condition toward the desired condition. 

Single indicators of conditions or trend are usually not adequate to make good decisions. Information on 

the condition and trend of the vegetation, streambanks, and aquatic resources and knowledge of current 

management practices can help establish cause-and-effect relationships that are important for making 

appropriate decisions. Such information allows refinement and development of more realistic, locallyderived project or activity design standards or criteria. 

August 2010	 A-76 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D 

Works Cited 

BLM. (2007). Analysis of the Management Situation for the Jarbidge Resource Management Plan. Twin 

Falls, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Jarbidge Field Office. 

BLM. (2008). Guidance for Developing Aquatic Conservation Strategies for BLM Resource Management 

Plans in the Interior Columbia Basin (Idaho, Eastern Oregon, Eastern Washington, Western 

Montana, and Northern Nevada): USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 

Buchanan, D. V., & Gregory, S. V. (1997). Development of Water Temperature Standards to Protect and 

Restore Habitat for Bull Trout and Other Cold Water Species in Oregon. Paper presented at the 

Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. 

Burton, T. A., Smith, S. J., & Cowley, E. R. (2008). Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation 

- Multiple Indicators (Interagency Technical Bulletin No. Version 5.0): USDI, Bureau of Land 

Management, Idaho State Office and USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 

Frissell, C. A., Liss, W. J., & Bales, D. (1993, June 27-30, 1993). An Integrated Biophysical Strategy for 

Ecological Restoration of Large Watersheds. Paper presented at the Symposium on Changing 

Roles in Water Resources Management and Policy, Herndon, VA. 

FWS. (1995). Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan (pp. 92). Boise, ID: USDI, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Snake River Basin Office, Ecological Services. 

FWS. (1998). A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for 

Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale: USDI, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

FWS. (2002). Recovery Plan for the Bruneau Hot Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis). Portland, OR: 

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. 

Idaho Administrative Code. (37.03.07). Idaho Stream Channel Alteration Rules (pp. 37): Idaho 

Department of Water Resources. 

Idaho Power Company. (2003). Snake River White Sturgeon Conservation Plan: Idaho Power Company. 

Lee, D. C., Sedell, J. R., Rieman, B. E., Thurow, R. F., & Williams, J. E. (1997). Broadscale Assessment 

of Aquatic Species and Habitats In T. M. Quigley & S. J. Arbelbide (Eds.), An Assessment of 

Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great 

Basins (Vol. III, pp. 1058-1496): USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management 

McNeill, M. E., Frederick, J., & Whalen, B. (1997). Jarbidge River Watershed Analysis: USDA and USDI. 

Overton, C. K., McIntyre, J. D., Armstrong, R., Whitwell, S. L., & Duncan, K. A. (1995). User's Guide to 

Fish Habitat: Descriptions that Represent Natural Conditions in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho 

(General Technical Report No. INT-GTR-322): USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 

Overton, C. K., Wollrab, S. P., Roberts, B. C., & Radko, M. A. (1997). R1/R4 (Northern/Intermountain 

Regions) Fish and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory Procedures Handbook (General Technical 

Report No. INT-GTR-346): USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

Prichard, D., Anderson, J., Correll, C., Fogg, J., Gebhardt, K., Krapf, R., et al. (1998). Riparian Area 

Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting 

Science for Lotic Areas (Technical Reference No. 1737-15). Denver, CO: USDI, Bureau of Land 

Management; USDA, Forest Service; and USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Quigley, T. M., & Arbelbide, S. J. (Eds.). (1997). An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior 

Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Vol. III. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-405). Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station and 

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 

Regional Interagency Executive Committee, & Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. (1995). 

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis, Version 2.2. 

Portland, OR: Regional Ecosystem Office. 

Rieman, B. E., & McIntyre, J. D. (1993). Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull 

Trout (General Technical Report No. INT-GTR-302). Boise, ID: USDA, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 

Rieman, B. E., & Myers, D. L. (1997). Use of Redd Counts to Detect Trends in Bull Trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) Populations. Conservation Biology, 11(4), 1015-1018. 

Shepard, B. B., Pratt, K. L., & Graham, P. J. (1984). Life Histories of Westslope Cutthroat and Bull Trout 

in the Upper Flathead River Basin, MT: US Environmental Protection Agency 

A-77 August 2010 
Appendix D Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

USDA. (1995). Inland Native Fish Strategy: Environmental Assessment: USDA, Forest Service, 

Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. 

USDI and USDA. (1994). Northwest Forest Plan: Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat 

for Late-Succesional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl: USDI and USDA 

USFS, NOAA, BLM, FWS, & EPA. (2004). A Framework for Incorporating the Aquatic and Riparian 

Component of the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy into BLM and Forest Service Plan Revisions 

(pp. 9): USDI, USDC, USDOI, EPA. 

Williams, B. K., Szaro, R. C., & Shapiro, C. D. (2007). Adaptive Management: The US Department of the 

Interior Technical Guide. Washington, DC: USDI, Adaptive Management Working Group. 

Winward, A. H. (1989). Ecological Status of Vegetation as a Base for Multiple Product Management. 

Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Range Management, Billings, MT. 

WTFWCMERC. (1993). Watershed Analysis Manual: Washington Department of Natural Resources, 

Washington Timber/Fish Wildlife Cooperative Monitoring Evaluation and Research Committee. 

Wyman, S., Bailey, D., Borman, M., Cote, S., Eisner, J., Elmore, W., et al. (2006). Grazing Management 

Processes and Strategies for Riparian-Wetland Areas (Technical Reference No. 1737-20). 

Denver, CO: USDI, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center. 

August 2010 A-78