CHAPTER 3: 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Volume 1: Chapter 3 

Affected Environment 

Table of Contents 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Volume 1 3
 

Table of Contents 

: Chapter 

Volume 1: Chapter 3 

Affected Environment 

Table of Contents 

3.1. Tribal Rights and Interests .................................................................................................................. 3-1
 

3.2. Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 3-2
 

3.2.1. Air and Atmospheric Values ......................................................................................................... 3-2
 

3.2.1.1. Air Quality..............................................................................................................................3-2
 

3.2.1.2. Climate and Meteorology ...................................................................................................... 3-3
 

3.2.1.3. Climate Change .................................................................................................................... 3-4
 

3.2.2. Geologic Features ........................................................................................................................ 3-6
 

3.2.3. Soil Resources ............................................................................................................................. 3-7
 

3.2.4. Water Resources ......................................................................................................................... 3-8
 

3.2.5. Vegetation Communities ............................................................................................................ 3-12
 

3.2.5.1. Upland Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 3-12
 

3.2.5.2. Riparian Areas and Wetlands ............................................................................................. 3-17
 

3.2.6. Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 3-20
 

3.2.6.1. Fish ..................................................................................................................................... 3-20
 

3.2.6.2. Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 3-22
 

3.2.7. Special Status Species .............................................................................................................. 3-33
 

3.2.7.1. Special Status Plants .......................................................................................................... 3-34
 

3.2.7.2. Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates ...................................................................3-38
 

3.2.7.3. Special Status Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 3-43
 

3.2.8. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants .......................................................................................... 3-49
 

3.2.9. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management ...................................................................................3-52
 

3.2.10. Wild Horses .............................................................................................................................. 3-57
 

3.2.11. Paleontological Resources....................................................................................................... 3-58
 

3.2.12. Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................3-59
 

3.2.13. Visual Resources ..................................................................................................................... 3-61
 

3.2.14. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...................................................................3-62
 

3.3. Resource Uses.................................................................................................................................. 3-63
 

3.3.1. Livestock Grazing ....................................................................................................................... 3-63
 

3.3.2. Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 3-65
 

3.3.3. Transportation and Travel .......................................................................................................... 3-68
 

3.3.4. Land Use Authorizations ............................................................................................................ 3-69
 

3.3.5. Land Tenure ............................................................................................................................... 3-70
 

TOC-vii August 2010 
Volume 1: Chapter 3 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Table of Contents 

3.3.6. Minerals ...................................................................................................................................... 3-71
 

3.3.6.1. Leasable Minerals............................................................................................................... 3-71
 

3.3.6.2. Salable Minerals ................................................................................................................. 3-72
 

3.3.6.3. Locatable Minerals .............................................................................................................. 3-72
 

3.4. Special Designations .........................................................................................................................3-74
 

3.4.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) ....................................................................3-74
 

3.4.2. National Historic Trails (NHTs) ...................................................................................................3-85
 

3.4.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs)................................................................................................. 3-85
 

3.4.4. Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) ............................................................................................... 3-88
 

3.5. Social and Economic Features ......................................................................................................... 3-89
 

3.5.1. Social Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 3-89
 

3.5.2. Economic Conditions ................................................................................................................. 3-92
 

3.5.3. Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................ 3-98
 

3.6. Works Cited ..................................................................................................................................... 3-100
 

List of Tables 

Table 3- 1. Climate Data for Weather Stations in and Adjacent to the Planning Area ..............................3-4
 

Table 3- 2. Erosion Potential in the Planning Area .................................................................................... 3-8
 

Table 3- 3. Water Quality Standards for the State of Idaho ....................................................................... 3-9
 

Table 3- 4. DEQ Designated Water Quality Impaired Streams in the Planning Area ................................3-9
 

Table 3- 5. Vegetation Communities with Associated Class, Sub-Class, and VSG Classifications in the 

Planning Area .............................................................................................................................. 3-13
 

Table 3- 6. Post-Fire and Baseline Vegetation Composition in the Planning Area by VSG (Percent) ....3-16
 

Table 3- 7. Size of VMAs ......................................................................................................................... 3-16
 

Table 3- 8. Post-Fire Vegetation Composition by VSG by VMA (Percent) ..............................................3-16
 

Table 3- 9. Baseline Vegetation Composition by VSG by VMA (Percent) ...............................................3-16
 

Table 3- 10. Miles of Streams in the Planning Area by Stream Type ......................................................3-18
 

Table 3- 11. PFC Ratings for Riparian Areas .......................................................................................... 3-19
 

Table 3- 12. PFC Ratings for Wetlands ................................................................................................... 3-19
 

Table 3- 13. Aquatic Nuisance Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Planning Area ..........3-22
 

Table 3- 14. Number of Vertebrate Wildlife Species Found in the Planning Area by Wildlife Category..3-22
 

Table 3- 15. Idaho BLM “Watch” Wildlife Species Observed in the Planning Area .................................3-26
 

Table 3- 16. Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Non-Special Status) Observed in the Planning Area

 .................................................................................................................................................... 3-27
 

Table 3- 17. Acres of BLM-Managed Lands by Guild Habitat .................................................................3-27
 

Table 3- 18. Vegetation Communities Associated with Wildlife in the Sagebrush Steppe Guild by 

Vegetation Sub-Group ................................................................................................................ 3-29
 

Table 3- 19. Shrubland Patches by Size Category, 2008 ........................................................................3-29
 

August 2010 TOC-viii 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Volume 1: Chapter 3
 

Table of Contents 

Table 3- 20. Vegetation Communities Associated with Wildlife in the Grassland Guild ..........................3-32
 

Table 3- 21. Special Status Plants Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Planning Area ..................3-35
 

Table 3- 22. Status of Special Status Plants in the Planning Area ..........................................................3-36
 

Table 3- 23. Native and Current Habitat and Location of Special Status Plants in the Planning Area....3-37
 

Table 3- 24. Special Status Fish in the Planning Area ............................................................................ 3-39
 

Table 3- 25. Stream Habitat Data for Streams Containing Bull Trout ......................................................3-39
 

Table 3- 26. Special Status Aquatic Mollusks in the Planning Area ........................................................3-42
 

Table 3- 27. Special Status Wildlife in the Planning Area........................................................................3-45
 

Table 3- 28. Idaho Noxious Weeds Occurring in Elmore, Owyhee, or Twin Falls Counties ...................3-50
 

Table 3- 29. Nevada Noxious Weeds Occurring in Elko County .............................................................3-51
 

Table 3- 30. Invasive Plants Occurring in the Planning Area ..................................................................3-51
 

Table 3- 31. Fire Data by VMA ................................................................................................................ 3-53
 

Table 3- 32. Fire Data by Human Cause by VMA ................................................................................... 3-53
 

Table 3- 33. Historic Fire Regime Definitions .......................................................................................... 3-54
 

Table 3- 34. Historic Fire Regimes by LANDFIRE Models (PNVGs) Crosswalked to Potential Natural 

Communities and VSGs .............................................................................................................. 3-54
 

Table 3- 35. Acres, S-Class Similarity, and FRCC Rating for PNVGs by VMA .......................................3-55
 

Table 3- 36. Fire Rate of Spread Rating by VMA .................................................................................... 3-56
 

Table 3- 37. Relative Risk Ratings for WUI ............................................................................................. 3-56
 

Table 3- 38. Hazardous Acres in WUI by VMA........................................................................................ 3-56
 

Table 3- 39. Acres of BLM-Managed Lands by PFY Class .....................................................................3-59
 

Table 3- 40. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (Acres) ..................................................3-62
 

Table 3- 41. AUMs Authorized in the Planning Area for the 2007 Grazing Year.....................................3-64
 

Table 3- 42. Types and Approximate Amount of Existing Range Infrastructure......................................3-64
 

Table 3- 43. SRMAs Identified in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP ......................................................................3-65
 

Table 3- 44. ATV, UTV, and Off-Highway Motorbike Registrations by County .......................................3-67
 

Table 3- 45. Acres Available for Land Tenure Transactions....................................................................3-70
 

Table 3- 46. Acres with Values Meeting Relevance and Importance Criteria in Existing or Proposed
 

ACECs......................................................................................................................................... 3-84
 

Table 3- 47. River Segments Eligible and Suitable for Inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System..3-87
 

Table 3- 48. Wilderness Study Areas in the Planning Area .....................................................................3-88
 

Table 3- 49. Population for Jarbidge Analysis Areas, 1990, 2000, 2008, and 2013................................3-92
 

Table 3- 50. Median Age for the Jarbidge Planning Area and Jarbidge Impact Area, 2008 ...................3-92
 

Table 3- 51. Estimated Household Income for the Jarbidge Planning Area and Jarbidge Impact Area, 

2008 ............................................................................................................................................ 3-93
 

Table 3- 52. Personal Income History by Industry for the Four-county Region, 1970-2000 ...................3-93
 

Table 3- 53. Estimated Employment by Occupation for the Jarbidge Planning Area and Jarbidge Impact 

Area, 2008................................................................................................................................... 3-94
 

Table 3- 54. Families with Incomes Below the Poverty Level for the Jarbidge Planning Area and Jarbidge 

Impact Area, 2008 ....................................................................................................................... 3-95
 

Table 3- 55. Recreation Activities and Dollar Values, 2008.....................................................................3-96
 

TOC-ix August 2010 
Volume 1: Chapter 3 Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Table of Contents 

Table 3- 56. Economic Impacts of a Typical 20-MW Wind Projects ........................................................3-98
 

Table 3- 57. Minority Population, Hispanic Ethnicity, and Poverty Rate in Counties in the Planning Area, 

2008 ............................................................................................................................................ 3-99
 

List of Figures 

Figure 3- 1. Comparison of Observed Year-to-Year Variability and Projected Shifts in Average 

Temperature and Precipitation from 20 Climate Models ..............................................................3-6
 

 

August 2010 TOC-x 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Tribal Rights and Interests

3.1. TRIBAL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS 

The United States has a unique legal relationship with American Indian tribal governments as set forth in 

the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions. Since its 

formation, the United States has recognized Native American tribes as sovereign, domestic dependent 

nations under its protection. 

All Federally recognized tribes have off-reservation interests in public lands, and many retain pre-existing 

rights reserved through treaty or Executive Order language and other relevant mandates. The relationship 

between Federal agencies and sovereign tribes is defined by numerous laws and regulations addressing 

the requirement of Federal agencies to notify or consult with Native American tribes and to consider their 

rights and interests when planning and implementing Federal undertakings. 

The planning area is the homeland of four culturally and linguistically related tribes: the Northern 

Shoshone, Western Shoshone, Bannock, and Northern Paiute. In the latter half of the 19th century, 

reservations were established at Fort Hall near Blackfoot in eastern Idaho and at Duck Valley on the 

Nevada/Idaho border west of the Bruneau River. The composite tribes residing on these reservations 

today actively practice their culture and retain treaty and aboriginal rights and/or interests in the planning 

area. 

The United States government has a trust responsibility to Federally recognized Native American tribes 

that covers lands, resources, money, or other assets held by the Federal government in trust or restricted 

against alienation for Native American tribes and Native American individuals. Additionally, the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) must consider and protect off-reservation treaty-reserved fishing, hunting, 

gathering, and similar unrelinquished rights of access and resource use on the public lands it administers. 

This includes rights of access and use for ceremonial and other traditional cultural practices. The 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation have rights, reserved in the Fort Bridger Treaty of 

1868, to hunt, fish, and gather on the unoccupied lands of the United States. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 

of the Duck Valley Reservation assert aboriginal rights to their traditional homelands as their treaties with 

the United States were never ratified. Had they been ratified, the Boise Valley Treaty of 1864 and the 

Bruneau Valley Treaty of 1866 would have extinguished aboriginal title to the lands now Federally 

administered. 

Consultation with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation and the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation over the years indicates the presence of a wide range of 

resources related to tribal rights and/or interests and ongoing use in the planning area. These include 

resources associated with practices like hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering food, medicinal plants, 

and other natural products; the availability of clean water and healthy plant and animal populations; as 

well as aboriginal archaeological sites, sacred sites, and traditional cultural properties. The retention of 

public land is of particular interest to the tribes, since off-reservation rights and/or interests are linked to 

Federal ownership. 

3-1 August 2010 
                                                           

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards set NAAQS for six specific pollutants, called 

“criteria” pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone, 

and sulfur oxides (EPA, 2007b). Within the planning area, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) adopted the NAAQS to regulate these pollutants at these particular levels. 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Air Quality 

3.2. RESOURCES 

3.2.1. Air and Atmospheric Values 

3.2.1.1. Air Quality 

Air quality in a given location is described by the concentrations of various pollutants in the atmosphere, 

expressed in units of parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). Air quality is 

determined by the type and amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of 

the airshed, and meteorological conditions related to the prevailing winds, which are normally from the 

southwest for the planning area (WRCC, 2009). The significance of a pollutant concentration is 

determined by comparison with Federal and State air quality standards, which represent the maximum 

allowable concentrations of various pollutants necessary to protect public health and welfare with a 

reasonable margin of safety. Federal standards were established by the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and are referred to as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

According to EPA regulations, an area with air quality better than the NAAQS is designated as an 

attainment area, while an area with air quality worse than the NAAQS is classified as a non-attainment 

area. An unclassifiable area is one in which insufficient air quality monitoring data has been collected to 

justify formal classification. Many rural areas of Idaho, including the three Idaho counties of the planning 

area, are designated unclassifiable and generally accepted by the EPA as being in attainment of the 

NAAQS. 

The two main factors affecting air quality in the planning area are particulate matter, such as dust and 

pollen, and smoke. These are a result of wind effects on exposed soils, dirt roads, and small disturbed 

areas; vehicle emissions; wildfires; and BLM’s fire management activities. Visibility may be impacts for 

short periods of time from several hours to several days. Few outside influences on the air resources of 

the planning area exist except for adjacent private farming operations, which may contribute to a decline 

in air quality on a periodic basis as soils are tilled, plowed, and planted. The amount of particulate matter 

and smoke present depends on the time of year. Generally, the highest levels occur during the summer 

and early fall, when soils are dry and wildland fire activity is high. Other times of the year are typically 

wetter, helping to keep soils and particulate matter in place with weather conditions less suitable for 

wildland fire. Periodic air inversions make high levels of these pollutants worse, especially during the 

winter months. 

There are few, if any, other activities, such as major industrial, mining or commercial activities, that 

degrade the air quality of the area. The planning area’s lack of developments and relative remoteness 

makes it free from other recognized or “criteria” national ambient air quality pollutants such as carbon 

monoxide1

, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and sulfur oxides. None of these pollutants are known to occur 

in significant quantities or contribute to any air quality or atmospheric deposition problems in the planning 

area. According to DEQ, this region of the state and country is known to have relatively clean air 

(VanZandt, 2006). 

The only monitored pollutants in the area are PM2.5 and PM10. Monitoring data from DEQ’s Twin Falls 

monitoring stations showed PM2.5 to be below the national standard of 15 μg/m3 between 2000 and 2003 

with a weighted annual average of 7.3 μg/m3 over that time period (EPA, 2009). PM10 was below the 

national standard of 50 μg/m3 between 1998 and 2002 with a weighted annual average of 24.2 μg/m3 

(EPA, 2009). Limited PM2.5 monitoring has occurred within the actual planning area; some data were 

1

 Carbon monoxide may exist in very high quantities in localized areas for a short duration during wildfire. 

August 2010 3-2 
 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Climate and Meteorology 

collected by DEQ at the House Creek Ranch near Three Creek, Idaho, from 1999 to 2002. This particular 

sampling, done for baseline readings found PM2.5 concentrations averaged 2.98 μg/m3 each year (EPA, 

2009), well below the standard of 15 μg/m3. The House Creek Ranch numbers are very low, the lowest in 

the state, and therefore, the air quality is considered “very good to excellent” (VanZandt, 2006). 

Other monitoring data is available from sites located in Boise, Mountain Home, Craters of the Moon, and 

Pocatello. However, these sites do not represent the planning area due to location, distance, population, 

or a combination of these factors. The Boise site is located 145 miles to the northwest and upwind from 

the planning area in area with a high population and amount of commercial activity. The Mountain Home 

site is 50 miles northwest and upwind of the planning area in an area with a moderate population and 

amount of commercial activity. The site in Craters of the Moon National Monument is 110 miles northeast 

of planning area in a remote and unpopulated area. The Pocatello site is located 92 miles east of the 

planning area with a moderate population and amount of commercial activity. Air and atmospheric values 

within the planning area are not expected to affect of be affected by activities these areas. 

Air quality impacts from wildland fire are more significant than from other sources within the planning 

area. These air quality impacts include not only immediate impacts from smoke, but also impacts from the 

movement of soil particles from high winds after the fire and Emergency Stabilization & Burned Area 

Recovery (ES&BAR) treatments. 

The Clean Air Act assigned airshed “classes” to indicate the criteria for pollutants, with Class I areas 

given the highest protection to air quality by restricting the level of degradation allowed. All BLM-managed 

lands in the planning area were designated as Class II airsheds. Class II airsheds allow moderate 

deterioration associated with moderate, well-controlled industrial and population growth. Though no areas 

in the planning area are designated as Class I airsheds, air quality concerns and abatement measures 

are applicable to areas with special designations including Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). 

Other activities that may affect air quality within the planning area are small-scale sand and gravel 

extraction operations. The sand and gravel activities create dust and noise from road use and crushing 

and blasting operations, but are very short-lived and infrequent (once in 10 years per site). During these 

activities, operators are required to comply with the air quality stipulation of their current permits, stating 

the site and haul roads shall be sprayed as necessary with water or other suitable material to hold down 

the dust created by these activities. 

The planning area does not contain any areas sensitive to air quality. Areas most affected by the air 

quality of the planning area include the Jarbidge Wilderness in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest to 

the south of the planning area and the city of Twin Falls, Idaho (ID), to the east. 

3.2.1.2. Climate and Meteorology 

The planning area has an arid, four-season climate, influenced primarily by prevailing southwesterly 

winds from the Pacific Ocean. Temperatures and precipitation in the planning area varies widely, 

however, depending on latitude, elevation, and topography, among other factors. Temperatures in the 

planning area vary from a low between 11° Fahrenheit (F) and 23°F in the winter to a high of between 

84°F and 96°F in the summer (Table 3- 1). The daily temperature range can be extreme and varies 

throughout the year, with narrower temperature ranges (18°F) in the winter and wider ranges (38°F) in the 

summer. Humidity is usually below 25% during the day in the summer, often down to 15% or lower. Wind 

in the planning area is typically from the southwest at an average of 10 miles per hour (WRCC, 2009). 

The planning area receives an average of between 7 and 19 inches of precipitation a year, with an 

average of between 4 and 107 inches of snow a year (Table 3- 1). The source of most of this precipitation 

is the Pacific Ocean, while in the summer, particularly in the southern portion of the planning area, 

moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region is brought in from the south as part of 

thunderstorm activity (WRCC, 2009). The seasonal distribution of precipitation differs between the 

3-3 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Climate Change 

northern and southern portions of the planning area. In the north, only about a third of the annual 

precipitation occurs during the six-month period between May and October; further south, precipitation is 

more evenly spread out over the year, with more than half of the precipitation occurring between May and 

October in some locations. Flash floods occur a few times a year as a result of heavy rains associated 

with thunderstorms. Windstorms are common in the planning area, but tornadoes rarely, if ever, occur. 

Windstorms during most of the year are associated with cyclonic systems and their cold fronts, but 

windstorms in the summer months are associated with thunderstorms (WRCC, 2009). 

Table 3- 1. Climate Data for Weather Stations in and Adjacent to the Planning Area 

Location A Latitude Elevation 

(feet) 

Average January 

Temperatures (°F) 

Average July 

Temperatures (°F) 

Average 

Annual 

Precipitation 

(inches) 

Average 

Annual 

Snowfall 

(inches) High Low High Low 

Bliss 42’57” 3,280 36.5 18.9 92.9 54.8 9.36 20.5 

Glenns Ferry 42’56” 2,510 39.2 20.3 96.0 55.5 9.45 11.3 

Bruneau 42’53” 2,530 40.5 23.4 93.4 56.9 7.44 4.0 

Hagerman 42’48” 2,880 41.2 21.9 93.7 54.5 10.31 7.0 

Castleford 42’33” 3,820 37.1 20.2 88.3 53.7 10.00 14.6 

Three Creek 42’05” 5,460 39.2 11.5 86.2 42.1 12.93 73.1 

Murphy Hot 

Springs 42’02” 5,160 41.4 18.4 85.9 47.6 13.15 24.5 

Jackpot 41’59” 5,290 37.7 16.2 86.7 51.1 9.55 27.4 

Jarbidge 41’56” 6,170 37.9 16.3 84.1 46.0 19.28 107.1 

Source: (WRCC, 2009)

A Locations are listed from north to south. Weather stations at Three Creek and Murphy Hot Springs are located in the planning 

area; all other stations are located adjacent to the planning area. 

The amount of precipitation also varies widely from year to year, and periods of drought or excess 

moisture are not uncommon. Generally, drought is defined as a deficiency in precipitation over an 

extended period of time, but different types of drought can be measured. Drought can be defined 

meteorologically based on current precipitation’s departure from the average. Agricultural drought reflects 

soil moisture not being sufficient to meet a specific crop’s requirements at a particular time; agricultural 

drought appears after meteorological drought. Hydrological drought refers to deficiencies in surface and 

subsurface water supplies that occur when precipitation is reduced over an extended period of time; this 

would generally appear after agricultural and meteorological drought. Drought could also be defined 

socioeconomically based on when water supply shortages are negatively affecting humans. 

Since 1900, severe and extreme drought periods, as defined by the Palmer Drought Severity Index, 

which is an index of meteorological drought, occurred in southern Idaho during the 1920s and 30s, as 

well as in the early 1960s, 1966, 1977, and the late 1980s to early 1990s (Cook, et al., 2004; IDWR, 

2001) moderate droughts have also occurred in the early 2000s. In contrast, very moist and extremely 

moist periods occurred during the early 1940s, the early 1980s, and the mid 1990s (Cook, et al., 2004). 

3.2.1.3. Climate Change 

The temperature of the planet’s atmosphere is regulated by a balance of radiation received from the sun 

and the amount of that radiation absorbed by the earth and atmosphere. Greenhouse gases (GHG) such 

as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) as well as water vapor and particulate matter in the 

atmosphere keep the planet’s temperature warmer overall than it would be if these gases were absent, 

allowing the planet to sustain life. Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of manmade GHG emissions and changes in biological carbon sequestration due to land management activities 

on global climate. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these GHG emissions 

and net losses of biological carbon sinks cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by 

decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by the earth back into space. Although GHG levels have 

varied for millennia, recent industrialization and burning of fossil carbon fuels have caused GHG 

August 2010 3-4 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Climate Change

concentrations (represented as CO2 equivalents or CO2(e)) to increase dramatically and are likely to 

contribute to overall global climatic changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

recently concluded that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “most of the observed 

increase in globally average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed 

increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (IPCC, 2007). 

Global mean surface temperatures have increased nearly 1.8°F from 1890 to 2006. Models indicate that 

average temperature changes are likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere. Northern latitudes 

(above 24°N) have exhibited temperature increases of nearly 2.1°F since 1900, with nearly a 1.8°F 

increase since 1970 alone. Without additional meteorological monitoring systems, it is difficult to 

determine the spatial and temporal variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing 

concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. 

In 2001, the IPCC indicated that by the year 2100, global average surface temperatures would increase 

2.6°F to 10.4°F above 1990 levels (IPCC, 2001). The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed these 

findings, but also has indicated there are uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect different 

regions. Computer model predictions indicate that increases in temperature will not be equally distributed, 

but are likely to be accentuated at higher latitudes. Warming during the winter months is expected to be 

greater than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum temperatures are more likely than 

increases in daily maximum temperatures. Increases in temperatures would increase water vapor in the 

atmosphere and reduce soil moisture, increasing generalized drought conditions, while at the same time 

enhancing heavy storm events. Although large-scale spatial shifts in precipitation distribution may occur, 

these changes are more uncertain and difficult to predict. Other unevenly distributed effects of climate 

change include altered sea levels, wildland fire occurrences, desert distribution, and plant and animal 

distribution. 

As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. 

This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate change science. 

Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty, because they are based on well-known 

physical laws and documented trends (EPA, 2007a). 

Several activities contribute to the phenomenon of climate change, including emissions of GHGs 

(especially CO2 and CH4) from fossil fuel development, large wildland fires, and activities using 

combustion engines; changes to the natural carbon cycle; and changes to radiative forces and reflectivity 

(albedo). It is important to note that GHGs will have a sustained climatic impact over different temporal 

scales. For example, recent emissions of CO2 can influence climate for 100 years. 

It may be difficult to discern whether global climate change is already affecting resources, let alone the 

planning area addressed in this RMP. In most cases, there is more information about potential or 

projected effects of global climate change on resources. It is important to note that projected changes are 

likely to occur over several decades to a century. Therefore, many of the projected changes associated 

with climate change described below may not be measurably discernible within the reasonably 

foreseeable future. 

The University of Washington Climate Impacts Group has produced future climate scenarios for the 

Columbia River Basin in the Pacific Northwest; however, as of 2009, no climate change modeling studies 

specific to the State of Idaho or the Great Basin , much less the planning area, are available. General 

findings for the Columbia River Basin are described below, but it is not known how applicable these are to 

the planning area specifically. 

The rate of warming in the Columbia River Basin over the next 50 years is projected to be approximately 

0.5°F per decade, compared to 0.4°F per decade in the second half of the 20th Century (all from (Mote, et 

al., 2008)). The increase in temperature is expected to occur across all seasons, with greater increases in 

the summer. These increases in temperature are likely to exceed the range of variability observed during 

the 20th Century (Figure 3- 1). 

3-5 August 2010 
 

Figure 3- 1. Comparison of Observed Year-to-Year Variability and Projected Shifts in Average Temperature 

and Precipitation from 20 Climate Models 

Projections of changes in precipitation in the Columbia River Basin are less certain than estimates of 

changes in temperature. Climate models predict a wide range of change; as a result, annual precipitation 

will likely stay within the range of variability observed during the 20th Century (Figure 3- 1). The seasonal 

patterns of precipitation could change and a larger proportion of winter precipitation is expected to occur 

as rain rather than snow due to the warmer winter temperatures. An increase in winter precipitation 

seems more certain, but summer precipitation either may increase or decrease (Mote, et al., 2008). 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Geologic Features 

2080s 

2080s 

2040s 

2040s 

2020s 

2020s 

Source: (Climate Impacts Group, 2008) 

The uncertainty in the projections for future precipitation levels, particularly levels of summer precipitation, 

makes predicting changes in vegetation difficult. If summer precipitation levels remain the same or 

decrease, forested systems are expected to decline due to increased drought stress, increased 

probability of disturbance by insects or wildland fires, and reduced seedling survival (Mote, et al., 1999); 

vegetation would shift from forests, woodlands, and shrublands to grasslands and deserts (Chambers & 

Pellant, 2008). However, if summer precipitation increases, forested systems are expected to expand into 

areas currently dominated by grassland and shrub steppe communities (Chambers & Pellant, 2008; Mote, 

et al., 1999). 

Because of the uncertainty in future levels of precipitation at the Pacific Northwest scale, the applicability 

of these projections for the planning area itself, and the specific impacts of any changes on resources and 

uses in the planning area, estimating potential impacts of climate change on resources and resource uses 

in the planning area would be speculative. As a result, these impacts will not be addressed further in this 

document. 

3.2.2. Geologic Features

The topography of the planning area varies from deep river canyons of the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers, 

to the foothills of the Jarbidge Mountains, to the broad plateaus of the Snake River Plain. The Snake 

River Plain covers an area of more than 10,000 square miles, and the underlying aquifer is estimated to 

contain more than twice the volume of water in Lake Erie (McLeod & Welhan, 1991). 

August 2010 3-6 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Soil Resources 

The planning area contains numerous lava flows including the Dorsey Creek, Poison Creek, Long Draw, 

Bruneau Jasper, and Sheep Creek flows. Geologic features related to these lava flows include the deep 

river canyons, rhyolite hoodoos within the river canyons, and a natural arch known simply as “The Arch.” 

An important geologic formation, the Glenns Ferry Formation, lies in the northern part of the planning 

area (Malde, 1987). This formation consists of a Plio-Pleistocene body of lake and stream deposits 

several thousand feet thick. This formation is important from a paleontological standpoint and is 

discussed further in the Paleontological Resources section. 

Geologic features also include caves. A cave is defined in the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 

1988 as any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages occurring 

beneath the surface of the Earth or within a cliff or ledge large enough to permit an individual to enter, 

whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or man-made. Cave resources are fragile due to their 

association with other resources such as groundwater hydrologic systems and biological communities 

(Moore & Sullivan, 1997). They may also be considered non-renewable due to paleontological and 

archaeological deposits, speleothems (formations inside caves), and biological resources. 

In the planning area, caves are most commonly formed by the weathering of rock through water and wind 

erosion (erosional caves) or through the solidification of lava over and around a still flowing lava stream, 

which results in a long, hollow channel (lava tube). 

Cave resources in the planning area have been largely unrecognized except by local cave enthusiasts. A 

quantitative inventory of caves in the planning area compiled by the BLM Boise District in 1990 revealed 

the location of approximately 19 caves identified as lava or erosional caves and approximately 80 others 

in need of further documentation. Two of the known caves are lava tubes, but erosional caves make up 

the majority of cave resources within the planning area. These typically occur at the base of rock outcrops 

and canyon walls. Spotted bat sightings in the canyons suggest these BLM Sensitive bats utilize the 

caves for shelter. 

3.2.3. Soil Resources 

Soil information and classification for the planning area is obtained from the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) by means of four third-order soil surveys for southern Idaho and northern 

Nevada. These surveys consist of the following publications by the NRCS: 

 Soil Survey of Elmore County Area, Idaho (1991)
 

 Soil Survey of Owyhee County Area, Part 1 (2003) 

 Soil Survey of Jerome County and Part of Twin Falls County (2003) 

 Soil Survey of Elko County, Northeast Part (1999) 

These soil surveys were georeferenced and digitized as part of the NRCS Soil Survey Geographic 

Database (SSURGO).
 

The soils of the planning area are highly diverse, variable, and complex. As with all soils, their makeup 

and composition are dependent on parent material, climate, location, topography, aspect, elevation, and 

time and age in place. The soils of the planning area range from very sandy and deep in the northern 

portion of the planning area to heavy with silts and clays and very shallow and rocky in the southern 

foothills region. 

Most of the planning area contains soils with medium or greater potential for water erosion or moderate or 

greater potential for wind erosion. Some of these areas overlap (Table 3- 2, Map 5, and Map 6). 

Accelerated erosion exhibited by plant pedestals were documented during Idaho Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (S&G) assessments. The planning 

area has a long history of large and sometimes repeated wildland fires (Map 24), and some of this 

erosion is a result of vegetation removal by fire. Erosion resulting in rill and gully formation is estimated to 

be low over most of the planning area except on the sandy-alluvial soils of the Snake River Sediments 

and the clayey-rhyolitic soils of the Jarbidge Foothills. Some of the soils in these areas occur on steep 

slopes with naturally low vegetation cover and are inherently prone to erosion.
 

3-7 August 2010 
 

 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Water Resources 

Table 3- 2. Erosion Potential in the Planning Area 

Acres % of Planning Area 

Water Erosion Potential 

Medium 853,000 62 

High 437,000 32 

Total 1,290,000 94 

Wind Erosion Potential 

Moderate 904,000 66 

Severe 200,000 15 

Very Severe 19,000 1 

Total 1,123,000 82 

Increased soil bulk density occurs in areas with concentrated use, including roads, trails, and livestock 

water and mineral locations, and reflects increases in soil compaction. S&G assessments showed most 

assessed areas did not exhibit increased soil bulk density. 

Biological soil crusts occur throughout the planning area. Detailed information regarding the occurrence of 

biological soil crusts is presented in the Upland Vegetation section. 

3.2.4. Water Resources 

The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended in 1987, provides for the protection, restoration, or 

improvement of water quality; enables states to establish programs for regulating and managing nonpoint source pollution; and directs Federal agencies to comply with state water quality laws. Various 

Executive Orders and Department of the Interior (DOI) and BLM manuals also direct the BLM to maintain 

and improve water quality. DEQ has responsibility for protecting water quality within Idaho and enforcing 

specific water quality standards for each beneficial use (IDAPA 58.01.02). 

The planning area contains three primary drainage basins or watersheds: the Bruneau River Watershed, 

the Salmon Falls Creek Watershed, and the Snake River Watershed. Many of the water courses in the 

planning area flow through lands not managed by BLM. Land management practices on both BLM and 

non-BLM lands can affect water quality and quantity. In many cases, BLM can only address water quality 

issues that arise from activities on BLM-managed land or through cooperative efforts with other Federal, 

State, and private land owners. 

DEQ identifies streams that have impaired water quality in the State of Idaho. The standards used by 

DEQ to assess water quality are identified in Table 3- 3, and the streams within the planning area that do 

not meet these standards are provided in Table 3- 4. These same streams are also displayed in Map 7. 

Bruneau River Watershed 

The primary tributaries of the Bruneau River Watershed are the Jarbidge River and Clover Creek (East 

Fork of the Bruneau River). The tributaries of the Jarbidge River are Buck Creek, Columbet Creek, 

Cougar Creek, Dave Creek, Deer Creek, Dorsey Creek, Jack Creek, Poison Creek, and the East Fork of 

the Jarbidge River. The tributaries of Clover Creek are Big Flat Creek, Cherry Creek, Deadwood Creek, 

Deer Creek, Three Creek, and Pole Creek. 

In 2001, EPA approved a Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Plan for the Bruneau 

River and its tributaries (DEQ, 2000). This plan evaluated the following streams within the planning area: 

Poison Creek, Cougar Creek, Clover Creek, Three Creek, and the Bruneau River. Total Maximum Daily 

Loads (TMDLs) were not developed for Poison Creek and Cougar Creek since these streams have 

intermittent flows. TMDLs have been developed for Bruneau River (nutrients), Clover Creek (E. coli), and 

Three Creek (sediment). 

DEQ identified the Bruneau River and Three Creek as water quality limited due to sediment in 2000 

(DEQ, 2000). Data collected on total suspended solids (TSS) reflects the amount of very fine sediments 

suspended in the water column. The creeks surveyed by DEQ for TSS include Dave Creek, Jack Creek, 

August 2010 3-8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3- 3. Water Quality Standards for the State of Idaho 

Indicator Measurement DEQ Standards 

Sediment Amount of total suspended solids 

(TSS) 

50-52 mg/LA (monthly average) 

80 mg/L (weekly maximum) 

Temperature Maximum instantaneous temperature 72o

F 

Maximum daily average temperature 66o

F 

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Amount of DO >6.0 mg/L 

Escherichia coli (E. coli) Presence/absence >126 cfu B

/100ml C 

Streamflow Alteration/Diversions Presence/absence of dewatering No dewatering 

Nutrients 

Presence/absence of Ammonia 

The 30-day average of total ammonia 

nitrogen is not to exceed the Criterion 

Continuous Concentration D more than 

once every 3 years. 

Amount of total Phosphorus 

0.1 mg/L free-flowing streams, 0.050 

mg/L mouth of streams into 

lake/reservoir, 0.025 mg/L lake 

reservoir 

Mercury E Present/absence of Methyl Mercury 0.3 mg/kg F

 of fresh weight fish tissue A milligrams per liter 

B

 colony forming units 

C milliliters; The concentration of E. coli, based on a minimum of five samples during any 30-day period. D See IDAPA 58.01.02 for Criterion Continuous Concentration. 

E

 Water quality monitoring for mercury is conducted by the EPA and Idaho DEQ (DEQ, 2007). F

 milligrams per kilogram 

Table 3- 4. DEQ Designated Water Quality Impaired Streams in the Planning Area 

Watershed/River Factors Limiting Water Quality A 

Flow Alterations E. coli Sediment Temperature Nutrients Mercury 

Bruneau River Watershed 

Bruneau River X X X X 

Three Creek X 

Jarbidge River X 

Jarbidge River, East Fork X 

Clover Creek B X X 

Poison Creek B X 

Cougar Creek B X 

Salmon Falls Creek Watershed 

Salmon Falls Creek X X X X 

Cedar Creek X X X X 

Salmon Falls Reservoir X X 

Cedar Creek Reservoir X X 

House Creek C X X 

China Creek D X X X X 

Snake River Watershed 

Snake River X X X X 

Sailor Creek B X 

Browns Creek B X 

Deadman Creek B X A DO is not identified as a factor limiting water quality because it is captured under Flow Alterations or Nutrients. B

 These streams were recommended to be removed from the list of streams with impaired water quality (DEQ, 2009). 

C

 Impaired stream reaches are in the headwater tributaries to House Creek. 

D Impaired stream reaches are the lower reach of China Creek and the headwater tributaries to China Creek, including Browns 

Creek. 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Water Resources 

3-9 August 2010 
                                                           

Deer Creek, Buck Creek, Jarbidge River, Big Flat Creek, Cherry Creek, Three Creek, and Deadwood 

Creek2

. All of the streams sampled met the State water quality standard for TSS except Three Creek. 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Water Resources 

In 2006, BLM collected data on streambank stability, the percent of streambank covered with woody 

vegetation, and the number of pools dominated by fine sediments for the tributaries of Clover Creek 

occupied by Interior Columbia River redband trout (redband trout). This accounted for ten stream reaches 

(9 stream miles) surveyed within six streams. Streambank stability and covered streambanks are 

quantitative indicators that relate to sediment input within a stream. Five of the ten stream reaches 

surveyed had streambank stability and covered streambank ratings at or above the 80% considered good 

for fish-bearing streams. All ten reaches had fewer than 20% of their pools dominated by sediment, which 

indicates good pool quality. Lower Three Creek had the highest proportion of pools dominated by fine 

sediment (19%). This reach was dominated by dammed pools (beaver dams), which collect fine 

sediment. 

DEQ identified the Bruneau River and the Jarbidge River and its East Fork as water quality limited due to 

elevated water temperature in 2000 (DEQ, 2000). In 2006, the BLM began using continuous water 

temperature recorders to monitor the seasonal trends in water temperature. For the five streams with 

water temperature monitoring in 2006, only the lower Jarbidge River did not meet the DEQ standard for 

maximum daily average temperature. 

In 2007, water temperatures at all five monitoring sites in redband trout occupied streams met the Idaho 

standard for cold water biota (72oF) or less with a maximum weekly (7-day) mean temperature (MWMT) 

of no greater than 66oF occurring during a given year (June, July, August). 

In 2007, the Jarbidge Field Office (FO) monitored water temperature at 11 locations in Columbia River 

Basin bull trout (bull trout) occupied streams in the Jarbidge Watershed. Two tributaries to the Jarbidge 

River (Jack Creek and Deer Creek, Nevada [NV]) met the criteria for bull trout rearing (55oF) MWMT 

during June, July, and August. Bull trout spawning temperature (48oF daily average) was reached by late 

August in higher elevation streams, in mid- September in lower elevation tributaries, and by the end of 

October in the Jarbidge River above the confluence with the East Fork and in its East Fork. Water 

temperatures during the warmest months of the year in these sections of the Jarbidge River were 5oF to 

10oF warmer than required for successful bull trout rearing. This pattern in MWMTs during June, July, and 

August has been observed since 2002. Preliminary BLM water temperature data collected during the 

winter of 2006 to 2007 suggest that the lower Jarbidge River is suitable for bull trout over-wintering from 

late September to June. 

From 1997 to 2002, the DEQ and BLM collected data for dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in 16 streams in 

the Bruneau River Watershed. According to these data, all of the streams sampled are in compliance with 

the DEQ criteria for DO. 

From 1998 to 2002, the DEQ and BLM collected data for Escherichia coli (E. coli) levels in the Jarbidge 

River, Clover Creek, Dave Creek, Jack Creek, Deer Creek (NV), Buck Creek, Columbet Creek, Dorsey 

Creek, East Fork of the Jarbidge River, Big Flat Creek, Cherry Creek, Three Creek, and Deadwood 

Creek. Of all the streams sampled, Lower Buck Creek, Columbet Creek, Deadwood Creek, and the 

middle reach of Three Creek did not meet State water quality standards for E. coli. 

Known locations for diverting surface water in the Bruneau River Watershed include sites on Clover 

Creek, Buck Creek, Columbet Creek, Dorsey Creek, Cougar Creek, Big Flat Creek, Cherry Creek, Three 

Creek, Deadwood Creek, Deer Creek (ID), and Sanovia Creek. Surface waters are diverted from these 

streams for private land irrigation under water rights granted by Idaho Department of Water Resources 

(IDWR), which frequently results in the lower reaches of these streams being completely dewatered. 

2

 The Salmon Falls Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads was approved by the EPA in 2008. 

August 2010 3-10 
 

 

                                                           

Salmon Falls Creek Watershed 

The primary tributaries in the Salmon Falls Creek Watershed include Bear Creek, Shack Creek, China 

Creek, Corral Creek, Browns Creek, Cedar Creek, Devil Creek, and the North Fork Salmon Falls Creek 

(Timber Canyon Creek). Tributaries of Cedar Creek include House Creek and Little House Creek. Player 

Creek is a tributary to China Creek. Rocky Canyon Creek and Chimney Creek are tributaries to the North 

Fork of Salmon Falls Creek. The Salmon Falls Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads 

was approved by the EPA in 2008 (DEQ, 2007). 

Salmon Falls Creek and Cedar Creek were identified by DEQ as water quality limited due to sediment. 

The BLM has sampled total suspended solids (TSS) in China Creek, Cedar Creek, and House Creek and 

found those streams met the State water quality standard for TSS. 

In 2006, BLM measured the number of pools dominated by fine sediments in the tributaries of Salmon 

Falls Creek occupied by redband trout. Ten reaches (13 stream miles) were surveyed. Streambank 

stability and streambanks covered with woody vegetation was above 80% for five of the ten reaches 

surveyed. Lower China Creek and Rocky Canyon had high amounts of fine sediment in the pools 

habitats. These streams have numerous beaver complexes that capture and store fine sediment. 

DEQ identified Salmon Falls Creek to be water quality limited due to elevated water temperature. During 

the summer of 2007, the BLM used continuous water temperature recorders on seven streams at 13 

locations in the redband trout tributaries to Salmon Falls Creek. All stream sites, with the exception of 

Lower China Creek, met the state standard for cold water biota (72oF) or less with a maximum daily 

average of no greater than 66oF. Several of the streams had sampling sites in the upper, middle, and 

lower reaches of the stream. These streams all exhibited a gradual increase in water temperature 

between the upper and lower sampling sites. For most streams, the increase varied from 1oF to 5oF, but 

for Cedar Creek, the increase was 12oF over the 7-mile section of stream. The headwaters of Cedar 

Creek had the coolest MWMT (46oF) recorded of all the streams sampled in the planning area in 2007. 

From 1994 through 2002, DEQ and BLM measured E. coli levels for Salmon Falls Creek, China Creek, 

Cedar Creek, Timber Canyon Creek, House Creek, and Rocky Canyon Creek. Of these streams, lower 

Salmon Falls Creek, middle China Creek, Cedar Creek, Timber Canyon3

, upper House Creek, and Rocky 

Canyon Creek4

 did not meet the E. coli standard. 

Known locations for diverting surface water in the Salmon Falls Creek Watershed include China Creek, 

Cedar Creek, Devil Creek, House Creek, Little House Creek, Player Creek, and Antelope Springs. 

Surface waters are diverted from these streams under water rights, which frequently results in the lower 

reaches of these streams being completely dewatered. 

Nutrients are identified by DEQ to be a water quality limiting factor in Salmon Falls Creek, Salmon Falls 

Reservoir, Cedar Creek, and Cedar Creek Reservoir. In addition, DEQ listed both Salmon Falls Reservoir 

and Cedar Creek Reservoir as being water quality limited due to elevated mercury levels. In 2005, DEQ 

added a test for methyl mercury levels in the fatty tissues of fish to their list of sampling criteria; however, 

this information has not yet been published. 

The Department of Environmental Quality Working principles and Polices for the 2008 Integrated 

(303[d]/305[b]) Report identified the following streams for delisting as impaired bodies of water: Cedar 

Creek Reservoir for E. coli, Cedar Creek from the reservoir to Salmon Falls Creek for flow alteration, 

House Creek from its source to Cedar Creek Reservoir for E. coli, and Salmon Falls Creek from the Devil 

Creek confluence to the Snake River for E. coli (DEQ, 2009). 

3

 While Timber Canyon did not meet standards for E. coli, it was not identified as water quality impaired for this factor. 4

 While Rocky Canyon Creek did not meet standards for E. coli, it was not identified as water quality impaired for this 

factor. 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Water Resources 

3-11 August 2010 
 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Upland Vegetation 

Snake River Watershed 

With the exception of four prominent springs, there are few live surface waters in the northern portion of 

the planning area. Coyote Springs is the primary source of water for Yahoo Creek. This major spring 

normally discharges water at a rate of about 1 to 2 cubic feet per second (cfs) and flows for approximately 

4 miles in a northeasterly direction to its confluence with the Snake River near Dolman Rapids. This 

spring and creek provide a water source for wildlife and domestic livestock. 

The other three important springs associated with the Snake River include Ring, Tuana, and Pilgrim 

Springs. Ring Springs discharges a limited amount of surface flow into Salmon Falls Creek approximately 

1 mile upstream of the confluence of Salmon Falls Creek and the Snake River. Tuana Springs is a low 

volume spring in Tuana Gulch. Pilgrim Spring lies in the lower portion of Pilgrim Gulch; the spring usually 

goes dry in mid to late summer. A fence keeps livestock from accessing the source of this spring. 

In 2006, DEQ completed a Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Plan for the Snake 

River section from King Hill to C.J. Strike Reservoir (DEQ, 2006). The TMDLs for the Snake River and C.J 

Strike Reservoir included standards for nutrients, sediment, and DO. Sediment was determined to be the 

most common listed pollutant in the watershed, though most loading comes primarily from upstream 

segments of the Snake River. Motorized recreation on BLM lands in Yahoo Creek and Rosevear Gulch in 

areas with highly erosive soils increases erosion rates and contributes fine sediments to the Snake River. 

Rills and gullies from these high use areas increases the amount of sediment delivered to the Snake 

River. 

The King Hill-C.J. Strike Reservoir Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load also included 

an assessment for Browns Creek, Deadman Creek, and Sailor Creek (DEQ, 2006). However, since all the 

creeks were classified as intermittent, no TMDLs were developed. Department of Environmental Quality 

Working principles and Polices for the 2008 Integrated (303[d]/305[b]) Report included Browns Creek, 

Deadman Creek and Sailor Creek because all three drainages are nearly always dry from their 

headwaters to the Snake River (DEQ, 2009). As a result, the DEQ will no longer be assessing these 

streams for water quality. 

DEQ identifies the Snake River as water quality limited due to elevated water temperature. Water 

temperature regimes in the Snake River are directly influenced by the operation of hydroelectric power 

plants managed by Idaho Power and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Playas

Playas are naturally occurring depressions in the land that seasonally contain pools of water. Playas 

collect water from small basins and have no external drainage. There are 54 playas totaling 1,380 acres 

within the planning area that range in size from 1 to 54 acres and are generally located south and west of 

Clover Creek. The playas provide a water source for livestock and wildlife when water is present. 

Typically, the playas lack water from late June into December. BLM has no water quality data for any of 

the playas scattered across the area. 

3.2.5. Vegetation Communities 

3.2.5.1. Upland Vegetation 

Vegetation in the planning area was mapped in 2006 using field observation, field cover data, and 2004 

National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery. Fifty-five vegetation communities were classified 

based on dominant plants and mapped. These vegetation communities were subsequently organized into 

five classes and six sub-classes (Table 3- 5) according to national standards (Grossman, et al., 1998) 

with the exception of evergreen shrublands dominated by sagebrush. In the planning area, these 

communities were defined as having 10% or more shrub cover rather than the national standard of more 

than 25% shrub cover. This was done to provide consistency with defined habitat needs (Wisdom, et al., 

2000) and proposed management objectives for greater sage-grouse (sage-grouse). Areas without 

vegetation data were classified “No Data”. 

August 2010 3-12 
 

 

 

   

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Upland Vegetation

Vegetation communities were mapped using a minimum mapping unit of 20 acres. Resource specialists 

determined this as being the finest scale that could be achieved based on imagery resolution and the time 

and staffing available to map the entire planning area. It was also determined that this scale would be 

appropriate for landscape-level planning through aggregation into broader vegetation groups, but would 

also be useful for future implementation-level planning that would benefit from finer-scale information, 

such as grazing permit renewals, transportation and travel planning, and land use authorizations. 

Vegetation Sub-Groups (VSGs)

Vegetation communities in the planning area are diverse and are primarily influenced by wildland fires, 

post-fire vegetation treatments, weather, livestock grazing, invasive plant introduction and spread, and 

cross-country motorized vehicle use. For management and analysis purposes, the 55 vegetation 

communities in the planning area were grouped into five vegetation sub-groups (VSGs; Table 3- 5). 

Vegetation communities were grouped into VSGs based on dominant vegetation and community 

structure, since communities with similar dominant vegetation and community structure were expected to 

have similar management objectives. All the Dwarf Shrubland Class and the Woodland Class were 

placed into the Native Shrubland VSG. The Shrubland Class was split into Native Shrubland, Non-Native 

Perennial, Non-Native Understory, and Annual VSGs. The Herbaceous Class was split into Annual, 

Native Grassland, and Non-Native Perennial VSGs. The Sparse Vegetation Class was put into the 

Unvegetated VSG. 

Table 3- 5. Vegetation Communities with Associated Class, Sub-Class, and VSG Classifications in the 

Planning Area 

Class Sub-Class Vegetation Community Vegetation SubGroups 

Dwarf 

Shrubland Evergreen 

Black sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 

Native Shrubland 

Black sagebrush/bluegrass 

Low sagebrush/bluebunch-Idaho fescue 

Low sagebrush/bluegrass 

Low sagebrush/Idaho fescue 

Low sagebrush/squirreltail 

Shadscale 

Winterfat/Indian ricegrass 

Black sagebrush/crested wheatgrass Non-Native 

Low sagebrush/crested wheatgrass Understory 

Herbaceous 

Annual-Graminoid 

or Forb Annual Annual 

Perennial 

Graminoid 

Basin wildrye 

Native Grassland 

Bluebunch wheatgrass 

Bluegrass 

Idaho fescue 

Needlegrass 

Semi-wet meadow 

Thurbers needlegrass 

Western wheatgrass 

Crested wheatgrass Non-Native Perennial Intermediate wheatgrass 

Shrubland 

Deciduous Deciduous mountain brush Native Shrubland Greasewood/basin wildrye 

Evergreen 

Rabbitbrush/annual Annual Wyoming big sagebrush/annual 

Basin big sagebrush 

Evergreen mountain brush Native Shrubland 

Fourwing saltbush/needlegrass 

3-13 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Upland Vegetation 

 

 

Class Sub-Class Vegetation Community Vegetation SubGroups 

Mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrassIdaho fescue 

Mountain big sagebrush/Idaho fescue 

Rabbitbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 

Rabbitbrush/bluegrass 

Rabbitbrush/Idaho fescue 

Rabbitbrush/Thurbers needlegrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/bluegrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue 

Wyoming big sagebrush/Indian ricegrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/thickspike wheatgrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/Thurbers needlegrass 

Basin big sagebrush/crested wheatgrass Non-Native 

Understory Wyoming big sagebrush/crested wheatgrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/intermediate wheatgrass 

Fourwing saltbush/crested wheatgrass 

Rabbitbrush/crested wheatgrass Non-Native Perennial 

Rabbitbrush/intermediate wheatgrass 

Sparse 

Vegetation 

Consolidated 

Rocks Breaks 

Unvegetated Unconsolidated 

Material 

Barren 

Recent Burn 

Sand Dune 

Woodland 

Deciduous Aspen 

Native Shrubland Evergreen Juniper 

Mountain mahogany 

The Annual VSG includes vegetation communities that are primarily dominated by cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum), Russian thistle (Salsola kali), tumblemustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), or a combination of the 

three non-native species (Table 3- 5). Shrubs, such as rabbitbrush and Wyoming big sagebrush, may be 

present, but occur at less than 10% canopy cover. The Annual VSG is common in burned and disturbed 

areas in the planning area, but is not a naturally occurring VSG. Though primarily found in elevations less 

than 3,000 feet in the northern portion of the planning area, this VSG can be found throughout in burned 

or otherwise disturbed areas. 

The Non-Native Perennial VSG includes five vegetation communities (Table 3- 5). These communities 

are dominated or co-dominated by seeded non-native perennial species including crested wheatgrass 

(Agropyron cristatum) and intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium). This VSG occurs 

throughout the planning area, where burned areas or other disturbed areas have been seeded with nonnative perennial species. Native or seeded shrubs (e.g. four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens)) might 

occur in these communities at less than 10% canopy cover. 

The Non-Native Understory VSG includes five vegetation communities (Table 3- 5). These communities 

are dominated by native shrubs in the overstory with non-native species dominating the understory. The 

overstory species include Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis), basin big 

sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. tridentata), black sagebrush (A. nova), and low sagebrush (A. arbuscula). 

Understory species are non-native perennial grasses including crested wheatgrass and intermediate 

wheatgrass. This VSG occurs throughout the planning area, where native shrubs have re-established in 

areas that were seeded with non-native perennial grasses following fire or another disturbance. 

The Native Grassland VSG includes eight vegetation communities (Table 3- 5). Communities in this VSG 

are dominated by native grasses such as basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), bluebunch wheatgrass 

August 2010 3-14 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Upland Vegetation

(Pseudoroegneria spicata), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), 

Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comata), Thurbers 

needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and, in the semiwet meadow community, herbaceous wetland species. This VSG occurs throughout the planning area, 

where fire or another disturbance has removed or greatly reduced the shrub canopy cover. The dominant 

vegetation communities in this VSG are the bluegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass communities. 

Bluegrass communities include those communities whose production is primarily from non-native 

perennial grasses, but whose cover is dominated by bluegrass; these are areas referred to as 

Sandberg/non-native perennial areas. 

The Native Shrubland VSG includes 28 vegetation communities (Table 3- 5). Native Shrubland 

communities include low and tall shrub-dominated communities, as well as woodland communities. Native 

Shrubland communities are typically evergreen and either dominated or co-dominated by basin big 

sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. vaseyana), Wyoming big sagebrush, subalpine 

sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. spiciformis), low sagebrush, black sagebrush, early sagebrush (A. 

longiloba), shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), ceanothus 

(Ceanothus velutinus), bud sage (Picrothamnus desertorum), bitterbush (Purshia tridentata), rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus nauseous ssp. consimmilis, C. nauseosus ssp. albicaulis, C. viscidiflorus), and four-wing 

saltbush. 

Basin big sagebrush communities occur in drainages throughout the planning area and in sandy areas in 

the north at lower elevations. Wyoming big sagebrush communities occur throughout the planning area. 

Shadscale communities are primarily near the canyon rims along the north and west edges of the 

planning area. Mountain big sagebrush and deciduous mountain brush communities are primarily found 

at higher elevations in the southern portion of the planning area, though some communities dominated by 

bitterbrush occur on sandy soils in the northern portion of the planning area. Deciduous shrub 

communities are often dominated or co-dominated by bitterbrush, snowberry (Symphoricarpus 

oreophilus), chokecherry (Prunus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), woods rose (Rosa woodsii), dogwood 

(Cornus sericea), aspen (Populus tremuloides), or greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus). Deciduous 

shrub communities include woody riparian communities and mountain shrub communities that occur 

primarily in the southern end of the resource area. Shrubland communities disturbed by wildland fire may 

become dominated by rabbitbrush, which will lose dominance to other shrubs, particularly sagebrush, 

after several decades if there is an available seed source (i.e., adjacent shrub patches or if there area 

was seeded with shrubs following fire) and in the absence of continued disturbance by fire. Aspen 

communities require a disturbance, such as fire, to be maintained. Aspen stands have been invaded by 

juniper (Juniperus spp.) in areas where natural disturbance regimes have been altered (e.g., by 

suppression of wildland fires). 

The Unvegetated VSG includes four vegetation communities that have less than 10% vegetation cover 

(Table 3- 5). This VSG includes Recent Burn areas, which may be present for up to two years following a 

fire. 

Large wildland fires occurred in 2007, following completion of a vegetation mapping effort in 2006, 

resulting in over 500,000 acres of burned vegetation that were re-mapped as Recent Burn (Appendix Q). 

In order to facilitate analysis of proposed management on upland vegetation communities, resource staff 

evaluated pre-burn vegetation conditions, impacts to vegetation resulting from fire, and vegetation 

treatments, and created a map projecting VSG composition in areas mapped as Recent Burn and 

depicted as Unvegetated VSG in 2012 (see Appendix R for protocol; Map 10). Vegetation composition 

following 2007 wildland fires (post-fire) and the 2012 projected vegetation composition (baseline) of the 

planning area by VSG are presented in Table 3- 6. The 2012 projected vegetation composition was used 

as the baseline composition throughout the RMP. Vegetation in the areas mapped as Recent Burn and 

depicted as Unvegetated VSG in Map 10 was re-mapped at the community level during the 2009 field 

season; updated information will be incorporated into the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

3-15 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Upland Vegetation 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3- 6. Post-Fire and Baseline Vegetation Composition in the Planning Area by VSG (Percent) 

VSG Post-Fire Vegetation Composition Baseline Vegetation Composition 

Annual 8 9 

Non-Native Perennial 20 25 

Non-Native Understory 5 5 

Native Grassland 7 31 

Native Shrubland 27 28 

Unvegetated Areas 34 2 

No Data <1 <1 

Data include vegetation as of Fall 2007 (Appendix Q) and projected vegetation in areas burned in 2007 (baseline; see 

Appendix R for protocol). 

Vegetation Management Areas (VMAs)

Due to differences in vegetation response to management and disturbance along a north-south gradient, 

the planning area was divided into Vegetation Management Areas (VMAs; Map 8) based on potential 

natural community (PNC), elevation, and mean annual precipitation (see Air and Atmospheric Values 

section). The VMA boundary lines were further refined using pasture lines to facilitate proposed 

management of these areas as described in Chapter 2. The number of acres in each VMA is identified in 

Table 3- 7. Post-fire vegetation communities present in each VMA are listed in Appendix Q. Table 3- 8 

identifies the percent of post-fire VSGs in each VMA, while Table 3- 9 identifies the percent of baseline 

VSGs by VMA. 

Table 3- 7. Size of VMAs 

VMA Acres 

A – Wyoming Sagebrush/Indian Ricegrass 222,000 

B – Wyoming Sagebrush/Thurber’s Needlegrass 630,000 

C – Wyoming Sagebrush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass 313,000 

D – Idaho Fescue (High Elevation) 209,000 

Table 3- 8. Post-Fire Vegetation Composition by VSG by VMA (Percent) 

VSG VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D 

Annual 33 4 <1 1 

Non-Native Perennial 43 22 11 2 

Non-Native Understory 2 4 7 6 

Native Grassland 11 10 2 3 

Native Shrubland 8 26 28 48 

Unvegetated Areas 1 34 51 41 

No Data 1 <1 <1 <1 

Data include vegetation mapped as of Fall 2007 (Appendix Q). 

Table 3- 9. Baseline Vegetation Composition by VSG by VMA (Percent) 

VSG VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D 

Annual 33 6 2 2 

Non-Native Perennial 43 29 18 3 

Non-Native Understory 2 4 7 6 

Native Grassland 11 31 42 35 

Native Shrubland 8 28 29 50 

Unvegetated Areas 1 2 1 5 

No Data 1 <1 <1 <1 

Data include projected vegetation in areas burned in 2007 (see Appendix R for protocol). 

August 2010 3-16 
 

                                                           

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands

Biological Soil Crusts

Biological soil crusts are a complex mosaic of mosses, liverworts, lichens, fungi, algae, and cyanobacteria 

that occur as a thin layer of living organisms on the soil surface. Biological soil crusts are common in arid 

and semiarid plant communities worldwide. In areas where they occur, they have the potential to cover 

soil surfaces not occupied by vascular plants, litter, or rock. In the planning area, biological soil crusts 

occupy interspaces between shrubs and perennial grasses in native shrubland, non-native understory, 

native grassland, and non-native perennial communities. In many cases, biological soil crusts create 

rough topography on the soil surface that contributes to the structural complexity of the plant community. 

Data collected in 2006 and 2007, prior to the 2007 wildland fires, recorded an average biological soil crust 5 cover of 16% throughout the planning area (BLM, 2006). This is on the low end of the moderate crust 

cover category. The Non-Native Understory and Native Shrubland VSGs had the highest average 

biological crust cover (24% and 20%, respectively), while in the Unvegetated and Annual VSGs average 

crust cover was very low and low (3% and 8%, respectively). The Non-Native Perennial and Native 

Grassland VSGs had a low average biological crust cover (13% and 11%, respectively). 

Shadscale and Wyoming big sagebrush/Thurbers needlegrass vegetation communities had the highest 

average cover of biological soil crusts with 51% and 47% cover, respectively. Other communities with 

high crust cover were needlegrass (35%) and Wyoming big sagebrush/bluegrass (28%). Several 

communities were in the moderate crust cover range including Wyoming big sagebrush/crested 

wheatgrass, rabbitbrush/bluegrass, Wyoming big sagebrush/bluebunch, western wheatgrass, basin big 

sagebrush, low sagebrush/Idaho fescue, and low sagebrush/bluegrass. Aspen, greasewood/basin 

wildrye, and mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass-Idaho fescue had no recorded cover of 

biological crust. All other communities had low crust cover. 

Soil textures with the highest average biological crust cover were very fine sandy loam and gravelly silt 

loam (27% and 25%, respectively). Soil textures with moderate average biological crust cover were very 

stony silt loam, loam, stony silt loam, silt loam, very stony loam, and gravelly loam. No biological crust 

cover was recorded on soils with clay loam, gravelly sandy loam, loamy sand, and sand textures. All other 

soil textures had low average crust cover. 

VMA A in the north, with generally coarse soil textures, had a low average biological crust cover (9%). 

VMA B and VMA C in the middle of the planning area have generally loamy soil texture and moderate 

vascular plant cover and had moderate average (24% and 19%, respectively) biological crust cover. In 

general, VMAs A, B, and C would be expected to have moderate to high biological crust cover in native 

shrubland communities due to low precipitation and naturally low to moderate vascular plant cover. VMA 

D at the southern end of the planning area also had low average biological crust cover (10%), which was 

likely due to dense vascular plant cover resulting from the VMA having the highest precipitation in the 

planning area. 

5

 For comparative purposes within the planning area, the following scale was used: high crust cover = greater than 

25%; moderate crust cover = 15-25%; low crust cover = 3-15%; very low crust cover = less than 3%. 

3.2.5.2. Riparian Areas and Wetlands 

Riparian areas are lands adjacent to or contiguous with permanent or intermittently flowing water bodies 

(Hansen & Hall, 2002). They are important from an ecological standpoint because they provide a 

transition zone between aquatic and upland areas as well as cover and food for wildlife and fish (Prichard, 

et al., 1998).They provide water quality benefits by filtering out nutrients from runoff, maintaining stream 

temperature by providing shade, and controlling erosion (Prichard, et al., 2003). Within the planning area, 

riparian areas and wetlands are generally associated with streams, rivers, and springs or seeps. There 

are approximately 316 miles of perennial streams and rivers on BLM-managed lands within the planning 

area (Table 3- 10). 

3-17 August 2010 
 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands 

Table 3- 10. Miles of Streams in the Planning Area by Stream Type 

Stream Type Miles Percent for Planning Area 

Perennial 316 8 

Intermittent 512 12 

Ephemeral 3,192 77 

Ditches and Canals 102 3 

Total 4,122 100 

Riparian area vegetation can be categorized into three classes of vegetation: woodland, shrubland, or 

herbaceous. Tree species in the woodland class include aspen (Populus tremuloides) and juniper 

(Juniperus spp.). Shrubby species in the riparian areas include willows (Salix spp.), wild rose (Rosa 

woodsii), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), chokecherry (Prunus spp.), and shrubby aspen. Many 

herbaceous wetland species occur in riparian areas. 

Wetlands are communities that are wet long enough during the growing season to support a prevalence 

of wetland vegetation and produce wetland soils. In the planning area, wetlands are generally wet 

meadows associated with seeps or springs. Wetlands in the planning area include approximately 885 

acres of playas and man-made ponds, 200 seeps or springs, and an unknown acreage of wet meadows. 

Proper functioning condition (PFC) is a qualitative method for assessing the resilience of riparian and 

wetland areas to disturbance. Riparian and wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate 

vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to: 

 Dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving 

water quality; 

 Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; 

 Improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; 

 Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; 

 Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, 

duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and 

 Support greater biodiversity. 

The PFC assessment is a broad-scale assessment that uses hydrology, vegetation, and 

erosion/deposition (soil) attributes and processes to qualitatively assess the condition of riparian and 

wetland areas. PFC determinations include ratings of PFC, functioning at risk with an upward trend (FARUP), functioning at risk with no apparent trend (FAR-NA), functioning at risk with a downward trend (FARDN), and non-functioning (NF). From 2001 to 2007, PFC assessments were conducted on 245 miles of 

riparian areas crossing BLM-managed lands within the planning area. Riparian areas on non-BLM lands 

in the planning area were not assessed. 

PFC determinations are validated using site-specific data collected on a variety of stream channel 

characteristics such as streambank stability, pool frequency and quality, and riparian vegetation (see the 

Special Status Aquatic Species section). Site-specific instream habitat condition data were collected in 

2006 using a condensed version of the R1/R4 (Northern Intermountain Regions) Fish and Fish Habitat 

Handbook (Overton, et al., 1997) on approximately 40 miles (13 streams) of the PFC-assessed riparian 

area to validate the PFC determinations. The process used to validate the PFC qualitative ratings using 

the quantitative fisheries data is described under Methods and Assumptions in the Riparian Areas and 

Wetlands section of Chapter 4. The miles of stream with each PFC rating are summarized in Table 3- 11. 

PFC data for wetlands is contained in Table 3- 12. 

Based on these assessments, 85 miles (35%) of riparian areas in the planning area are at PFC; 128 

miles (52%) are FAR, and 12 miles (5%) are NF. The FAR ratings includes FAR-UP (51 miles, 21%), 

FAR-DN (30 miles, 12%), and FAR-NA (47 miles, 19%). The condition of twenty miles (8%) of the 

August 2010 3-18 
 

 

                                                           

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands

6 reaches assessed was unknown . The characteristics of riparian areas within each rating category are 

discussed in the sections below. 

Table 3- 11. PFC Ratings for Riparian Areas 

PFC Rating A Miles 

PFC 85 

FAR 

FAR-NA 47 

FAR-DN 30 

FAR-UP 51 

NF 12 

Unknown 20 

Total 245 

Table 3- 12. PFC Ratings for Wetlands 

Functional Rating Number of Wetlands Acres of Wetlands 

PFC 9 61 

FAR 3 51 

Total 12 112 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC)

Based on the PFC assessment forms, riparian reaches at PFC in the planning area are typically densely 

vegetated with multiple age classes of riparian-wetland vegetation such as willow, aspen, chokecherry, 

rose, currant, rush, and sedge. Sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the 

landscape setting. Vegetation appears healthy and vigorous and is adequate to dissipate energy and 

protect streambanks during high-flow events. Streambanks are stable, and evidence of degradation is 

minimal. When beaver dams are present, the dams are actively maintained and stable. These reaches 

may have large woody material, such as aspen and juniper, and rocks and boulders present to dissipate 

energy. 

Functioning-At-Risk, Upward Trend (FAR-UP) 

FAR-UP riparian areas in the planning area generally have poor sinuosity and width/depth ratio (i.e., too 

wide for a given depth). Stabilizing species such as willow and sedge are found along the streambanks in 

these reaches but streambanks may show encroachment of upland species and are unstable in places. 

Erosion and deposition are often observed. Age-class distribution of riparian-wetland vegetation in these 

reaches is often diverse and willow regeneration is often visible. There is also a diverse composition of 

riparian-wetland vegetation. Noxious weeds such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (C. 

vulgare), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), or tamarisk 

(Tamarix spp.) are observed. When beaver dams are present, they are actively maintained and stable. 

Functioning-At-Risk, No Apparent Trend (FAR-NA)

In the planning area, FAR-NA riparian areas show one or more of the following characteristics making 

them susceptible to degradation in the occurrence of a high streamflow event: 

 The stream channel is too wide, off-setting the appropriate width/depth ratio;
 

 Poor sinuosity; 

 Skewed age-class distribution of riparian-wetland vegetation; 

 Encroachment of upland species such as sagebrush and cheatgrass;
 

 Reduced plant vigor; 

 Unstable banks; or
 

 Excessive erosion/deposition in the stream channel. 

6

 Data for areas where PFC data contained discrepancies were classified as “unknown.” 

3-19 August 2010 
                                                           

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Fish 

In some of these reaches, noxious weeds such as Canada thistle, bull thistle, Russian olive, purple 

loosestrife, or tamarisk may be present. When beaver dams are present, they are actively maintained and 

stable. 

Functioning-At-Risk, Downward Trend (FAR-DN) 

In the planning area, FAR-DN riparian areas do not typically have widening riparian zones or have zones 

achieving potential extent. The streambanks in these reaches are dominated by upland vegetation such 

as sagebrush and cheatgrass. Overflow channels as well as rocks or boulders and large woody material 

may be present in these reaches and adequate to dissipate energy in high flows. Riparian vegetation 

vigor is depressed, and the aspen and willows are in isolated stands, often near springs. Age-class 

distribution of riparian vegetation in these reaches is not diverse and vegetation present is primarily 

mature, indicating the riparian area may not be able to recover or maintain itself. Streambank vegetation 

is not dominated by stabilizing species such as willows and sedges. When beaver dams are present, they 

are unstable and not actively maintained. 

Non-Functioning (NF)

NF riparian reaches in the planning area show little to no evidence of recent flooding. Most are dry and 

appear to have been dry for some time, primarily due to diversions upstream. The stream channel and 

floodplain are difficult to discern from the surrounding landscape. Little to no riparian vegetation is present 

in these reaches, and upland vegetation such as sagebrush and cheatgrass is the dominant vegetation 

observed in and around the stream channel. Streambanks lack stabilizing species such as willows and 

sedges, making them vulnerable to erosion, and species present do not have root masses capable of 

withstanding high streamflow events. Large woody material is absent, and rocks capable of dissipating 

energy in and around the stream channel are rarely observed. When beaver dams are present, they are 

unstable and not actively maintained. 

3.2.6. Fish and Wildlife 

3.2.6.1. Fish 

Aquatic species in the planning area can be described in three broad categories: 

Aquatic species Federally listed under the Endangered Species Act 1973 (ESA) 

 Aquatic species identified on the BLM Sensitive species list for Idaho and Nevada 

 All other native and non-native aquatic species present in the planning area. 

Aquatic species included in the first two categories are discussed in the Special Status Fish and Aquatic 

Invertebrates section. Aquatic species included in the third category are discussed below under Game 

and Non-Game Fish Species and Aquatic Nuisance Species. 

Game and Non-Game Fish Species

A variety of game and non-game fish are broadly distributed throughout the rivers, streams, and 

reservoirs in the planning area. Game fish populations are managed by the Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game (IDFG) and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) through angler harvest regulations and 

fish stocking programs. Non-game fish are native fish not managed by angler harvest regulations due to 

their small size, but important as forage fish for other fish and wildlife species. 

Game fish commonly pursued by anglers include walleye, largemouth bass, small mouth bass, white 

crappie, black crappie, yellow perch, brook trout, rainbow trout, redband trout, white sturgeon, kokanee, 7 and mountain whitefish . Except for mountain whitefish, white sturgeon, and redband trout, these fish are 

not native to the planning area, but were stocked into reservoirs by IDFG to provide a recreational sport 

fishery. Historically, hatchery rainbow trout were also stocked by IDFG and NDOW in redband and bull 

trout streams. 

7

 Redband trout and white sturgeon are also BLM Sensitive species and are addressed in detail in the Special Status 

Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates section. 

August 2010 3-20 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Fish 

Game fish in the planning area primarily occur in larger rivers and reservoirs, which have warmer water 

temperatures than the smaller stream habitats. On occasion, game fish have migrated to tributary 

streams where they compete with native fish for food and cover (BLM, 2006). Salmon Falls Reservoir is 

managed as a multi-resource fishery for game fish species that tolerate both warm and cool water 

conditions, such as rainbow trout and walleye. Cedar Creek Reservoir is managed by IDFG as a fishery 

for rainbow trout. 

The Snake River and Salmon Falls Reservoir are the primary locations of other game fish in the planning 

area. Largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, white crappie, black crappie, yellow perch, and other species 

inhabit the Snake River. Smallmouth bass, yellow perch, walleye, and black crappie are present in 

Salmon Falls Reservoir. 

Sixteen non-game fish species in the planning area are members of the Cottidae (sculpin), Catostomidae 

(sucker), and Cyprinidae (minnow) families. These fish are native to the planning area and generally 

occur in the lower elevation, warmer water stream habitats. Four species of sculpin (Shoshone sculpin, 

mottled sculpin, Paiute sculpin, and shorthead sculpin) are present in 14 streams in the planning area 

(Appendix D). Members of the sculpin family are relatively short lived, requiring well-oxygenated water 

with good water quality. These fish require stream substrates with low amounts of fine sediment for 

successful spawning, egg survival, food and cover. 

Three species of sucker are found in 14 streams in the planning area (Appendix D). One species, the 

large-scale sucker, can tolerate the warmer water temperatures commonly found in larger river systems 

like the Snake River. The other two species of sucker, mountain sucker and bridgelip sucker, are found in 

cool, fast-moving streams. 

The minnow family is one of the most diverse groups in North America and represents the largest 

component of the native non-game fish resource in the planning area. These species include 

chiselmouth, redside shiner, speckled dace, longnose dace, peamouth chub, leopard dace, northern 

pikeminnow, and Utah chub. These species are found in 15 streams in the planning area (Appendix D). 

They can occupy a variety of habitats and stream conditions and adapt well to different environments and 

water temperature regimes. 

IDFG’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy identified 229 Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need (SGCNs) in Idaho and established an ecological, habitat-based framework to aid in the 

conservation and management of these species (IDFG, 2005). The strategy provides recommendations 

for actions to improve the population status and habitat conditions of SGCN, describes an approach for 

long-term monitoring, and complements other conservation strategies, funding sources, planning 

initiatives, and legally mandated activities. The SGCN includes all Federally listed and Candidate species, 

as well as the majority of the BLM Sensitive and Watch species. Species in the Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy are considered general wildlife unless designated by BLM as Sensitive or 

classified as Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, or Candidate under ESA by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS). IDFG’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (IDFG, 2005) identified leopard 

dace as a SGCN; this identifies the species as at risk for decline. The leopard dace is not currently on the 

BLM Sensitive species list and is not managed under special status species management. 

Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Aquatic nuisance species are those plants and animals that are not native to an area, have the potential 

to spread uncontrollably, and can cause significant ecological or economic harm. In 2007, the Idaho 

Invasive Species Council (IISC) prepared a supplement to its 2005 Strategic Action Plan for Invasive 

Species to include an Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan for the State of Idaho. The plan was prepared as a 

statewide effort to limit the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species. Controlling the spread of 

aquatic nuisance species is an important management consideration in the planning area. 

The IISC identified eight high-priority aquatic nuisance species as present in the planning area (Table 3- 

13). These species are considered by the IISC as likely to have an adverse impact to native aquatic 

resources, but are still in a potentially containable state with areas of local eradication possible. One 

3-21 August 2010 
 

additional aquatic nuisance plant species, Hydrilla, has been found in the planning area since the IISC 

report was published in 2007. 

Table 3- 13. Aquatic Nuisance Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Planning Area 

Common Name Scientific Name General Location by Watershed 

Asian clam Corbicula fluminea Snake River and perennial tributaries 

Curly-leaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus Snake River and perennial tributaries 

Eurasian watermilfoil A Myriophyllum spicatum Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, Snake River and 

perennial tributaries 

Hydrilla B Hydrilla verticallata Bruneau River below Hot Creek 

New Zealand mudsnail Potamopyrgus antipodarum Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, Snake River and 

perennial tributaries, Salmon Falls Creek 

Purple loosestrife C Lythrum salicaria Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, Snake River and 

tributaries, Salmon Falls Creek 

Salt cedar (Tamarisk) Tamarix ramosissima Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, Salmon Falls 

Creek 

Whirling Disease parasite Myxobolus cerebralis Upper Salmon Falls Creek, Salmon Falls 

Reservoir 

Yellow iris D Iris pseudacorus Snake River, Salmon Falls Creek 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildlife 

A Eurasian watermilfoil has not been confirmed present in the planning area. 

B Hydrilla was found in the lower Bruneau River in January 2008. 

C Purple loosestrife has not been confirmed present in the Jarbidge River. 

D Yellow iris is present in Twin Falls County but has not been identified in the planning area. 

Note: The IISC report identifies aquatic and invasive species occurrence by county; these species may not occur in all locations 

in the county. 

Source: 2005 Strategic Action Plan for Invasive Species 

The New Zealand mudsnail is a non-native aquatic snail first documented in the middle Snake River from 

C.J Strike reservoir upstream to American Falls Reservoir in 1987. The exact time of arrival and source of 

the snails are unknown, but it has been speculated that they arrived from the commercial movement of 

aquaculture products such as trout eggs or live fish. These snails select river habitats similar to those 

used by the Snake River special status snails and can rapidly develop high-density colonies that can 

grow to 500,000 snails per square mile in some locations (FWS, 2007). The continued expansion of New 

Zealand mudsnail in the Snake River is a management concern for the rivers, reservoirs, and streams in 

the planning area as they out-compete native snails for food and habitat. 

3.2.6.2. Wildlife 

Over 300 vertebrate species are present in the planning area. Vertebrates are typically divided into 

general categories: fish (see Fish section), amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The number of 

species in each of the categories found in the planning area is identified in Table 3- 14. 

Table 3- 14. Number of Vertebrate Wildlife Species Found in the Planning Area by Wildlife Category 

Category Number of Species Number of Non-Native Species 

Amphibians 8 1 

Reptiles 18 0 

Birds ~220 7 

Mammals ~60 4 

Wildlife are classified by IDFG and NDOW into several broad categories including big game, upland 

game, migratory game birds, furbearing animals, protected non-game, and unprotected wildlife. IDFG and 

NDOW set hunting and trapping seasons, issue tags and licenses, establish methods of harvest, and 

develop population management and harvest objectives for game animals, upland game, migratory game 

birds, and furbearing animals. BLM is responsible for habitat management for these species, not the 

management of their populations. 

August 2010 3-22 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Wildlife

Big Game

Big game in the planning area include mule deer, pronghorn, elk, California bighorn sheep (bighorn 

sheep), and mountain lion. Although a hunted big game species, bighorn sheep are BLM Sensitive 

species and are addressed in more detail in the Special Status Wildlife section. 

Big game are affected by a number of important seasonal periods when forage, vegetation cover, or 

environmental conditions can limit production, recruitment, and survival (Appendix H). These periods are 

commonly associated with winter and reproduction. 

Elk 

Elk numbers increased in the planning area after transplants on Forest Service land in Nevada by NDOW 

during the early 1990s. Forty-seven elk were released in the Jarbidge Mountains in 1990, 31 in 1991, and 

15 in 1995. Ninety-eight elk were introduced in the Bruneau River area between 1994 and 1996. NDOW 

is managing for a herd for 1,000 elk in the Jarbidge Mountains (NDOW, 2000) and another 1,250 head in 

the Bruneau River area. Current elk numbers are estimated to be about 1,500 to 1,800 in those Nevada 

hunt units (Martin, 2007). Elk numbers in the southern portion of the planning area generally increase in 

the late fall and winter. Elk numbers decline to some extent in the late spring as elk move back to Nevada 

to calve. IDFG does not have a specific population objective for elk in the planning area at this time. 

Elk are primarily grazers, but will consume forbs and browse (Peek, 2003). Browse is typically consumed 

in the winter if herbaceous vegetation is covered by snow. The conversion of sagebrush steppe to 

perennial grassland does not appear to hinder the expansion of elk in the planning area; however, most 

of the observations of elk in the central portions of the planning area have been in sagebrush steppe 

habitats regardless of the time of year. Elk have been observed in numerous canyons, aspen stands, and 

mountain mahogany woodlands in the southern part of the planning area. 

Mountain Lion 

Mountain lions are widespread at low densities in the planning area. Because individual mountain lions 

have large territories, mountain lion numbers in a given area are naturally low, approximately 1 lion per 

103 square miles (Pierce & Bleich, 2003). The distribution of mountain lions in the planning area is 

typically associated with canyons and the proximity and abundance of prey species. No important 

seasonal periods have been identified for mountain lion because they can breed year round; the timing of 

reproduction may be influenced by climate or prey abundance (Pierce & Bleich, 2003). 

Mule Deer 

Mule deer are one of the most abundant and widespread big game animals in the planning area. 

Historically, substantial numbers of mule deer from Nevada migrated to the planning area during the 

winter (IDFG, 2007). While IDFG has no population data for mule deer in the planning area, data from 

adjacent big game management units in southern Idaho indicate mule deer numbers and fawn 

recruitment have generally trended downward since the late 1980s (IDFG, 2008c). Similarly, data from 

adjacent management units in northern Nevada indicate a general declining trend in the number of 

wintering mule deer north of the Jarbidge Wilderness area (NDOW). 

The habitat requirements of mule deer in the planning area vary seasonally. Mule deer diets consist of 

some browse year round, particularly in the fall and winter. Greater amounts of grasses and forbs are 

consumed in the spring and summer. In the spring, mule deer fawning habitat is characterized by dense 

stands of deciduous or coniferous trees or shrubs with diverse herbaceous understory. Mule deer winter 

range is characterized by low elevation, sagebrush steppe with southern exposures and mixed shrubgrasslands. Aspen and mountain mahogany stands, mountain shrub communities, and riparian areas are 

important seasonal habitats for mule deer fawning, foraging, hiding, and migrating. 

Pronghorn 

Pronghorn are widely distributed in the planning area. Pronghorn numbers throughout most of the 

planning area have generally declined since the early 1990s (IDFG, 2008c). Suspected reasons for the 

3-23 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildlife 

decline include habitat alteration and fragmentation due to wildland fire, conversion of burned areas to 

non-native perennial grass, increases in invasive annuals, failure of seeded forbs (e.g., alfalfa) to persist 

in crested wheatgrass seedings, increased road and trail densities, and increased fence densities. 

Pronghorn are adapted to large open expanses and rarely jump fences (Sheldon, et al., 2006). 

Pronghorn are typically associated with sagebrush steppe habitats, but readily use grasslands if there are 

adequate amounts of forbs. In sagebrush steppe habitats, pronghorn diets consist of sagebrush and other 

shrubs during all seasons, but particularly in the fall and winter (O'Gara & Yoakum, 2004). Forbs are 

preferred by pronghorn when they are available from spring through fall (O'Gara & Yoakum, 2004). The 

availability of forbs in shrub steppe habitats may have important implications for pronghorn because they 

are rich in nutritional values required for reproduction (Pyrah, 1987). 

Big Game Winter Range 

IDFG and NDOW provided updated maps to depict the distribution of big game winter range in the 

planning area (Map 19). Big game can be susceptible to high mortality during periods of prolonged deep 

snow and low temperatures due to difficulty moving, maintaining body temperature, and finding food. 

Snow 15 to 18 inches deep can preclude use of an area by mule deer (Gilbert, et al., 1970; Poole & 

Mowat, 2005). Increases in energy use for movement (Parker, et al., 1984), thermoregulation, and basic 

metabolic function during the winter are factors in increased mortality for mule deer fawns when 

compared to adult females (Hobbs, 1989). Even under optimal conditions, big game body condition 

declines throughout winter. The main survival strategy of wintering big game is to minimize energy loss 

and consume enough forage to prolong stored energy (fat) reserves. As a result, winter range is a crucial 

component of big game habitat. Cover, aspect, and elevation are important elements of winter range, and 

during severe weather, can be more important elements than forage availability. Winter range size is 

important because it allows flexibility in site selection during differing snow conditions and fluctuations in 

big game populations. Human disturbance of big game on winter ranges can displace animals from 

favored sites and increase energy expenditures. 

Sagebrush, bitterbrush, serviceberry, chokecherry, and four-wing saltbush are important browse (shrub) 

species on big game winter ranges within the planning area. Dominant browse species vary among plant 

communities. Other species such as mountain snowberry, spiny hopsage, and shadscale may be 

important browse species when other forage is not present. Although rabbitbrush may be eaten by 

wintering big game, it generally has less nutritional value than other browse. Wildland fire has impacted 

big game winter range throughout the planning area. Sagebrush and other important browse species 

have been eliminated or reduced in on portions of the winter range due to wildland fires. Rabbitbrush, 

which responds by re-sprouting following burning (Tirmenstein, 1999a, 1999b), is prevalent on some 

winter ranges. 

BLM conducted big game winter range evaluations in the southern portion of the planning area in 2006 

and 2007. The evaluations indicated chokecherry, Utah serviceberry, and four-wing saltbush were most 

heavily utilized, although it is unknown what portion of this use is attributed to big game or fall and winter 

livestock grazing (Klott, et al., 2007). The evaluation also showed moderate hedging within most 

Wyoming big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush sites. Relatively high amounts (10% to 29%) of 

rabbitbrush in winter ranges classified as salt desert shrub, low sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, 

mountain big sagebrush, and mountain shrub indicate higher disturbance sites; these disturbances can 

include fire, livestock grazing management, or use by wildlife. The majority of shrubs observed in the 

winter range evaluations were classified as mature; however, more than 20% of Wyoming big sagebrush 

was categorized as decadent or dead in most habitats. This may indicate sagebrush in winter range is 

old. There was no evidence such as numerous galls on stems of an insect outbreak as a cause of 

decadence or mortality. 

Upland Game 

Upland game include gray partridge (also called Hungarian partridge), ring-necked pheasant, chukar, 

California quail, mourning dove, dusky grouse (formerly blue grouse), mountain cottontail rabbits, greater 

sage-grouse (sage-grouse), Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (sharp-tailed grouse), and mountain quail. 

August 2010 3-24 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Wildlife

Sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and mountain quail are BLM Sensitive species and are addressed in 

more detail in the Special Status Wildlife section. 

Mountain Cottontail Rabbits 

Mountain cottontail rabbits are widely distributed throughout the planning area and are found in a variety 

of plant communities including sagebrush steppe, mountain mahogany/deciduous mountain shrub, 

riparian, and canyonlands. Although no monitoring data is available for the bulk of the planning area, it is 

expected that cottontail rabbit numbers have generally declined due to the alteration and fragmentation of 

sagebrush communities. 

Upland Game Birds 

Upland game birds are affected by a number of important seasonal periods when forage, vegetation 

cover, or environmental conditions can limit production, recruitment, and survival (Appendix H). These 

periods are commonly associated with winter and reproduction. 

Gray partridge, ring-necked pheasant, chukar, and California quail were introduced in Idaho in the early 

1900s. The distributions of gray partridge, pheasant, and California quail in the planning area are closely 

tied to farmland. Pheasant and, to a lesser extent, gray partridge nest and forage in agricultural fields. 

Chukar are most commonly associated with deeply incised canyons such as Salmon Falls Creek, the 

Jarbidge River, and the Bruneau River, but also are present in areas with steep topography associated 

with volcanic buttes such as Notch Butte and Twin Buttes. Gray partridge, quail, and chukar numbers 

commonly experience short-term fluctuations, but have been generally stable throughout the planning 

area since the mid 1980s (Hayden, et al., 2006). The timing and amount of spring and winter precipitation 

typically accounts for most of the short-term variation observed in upland game bird populations. Ringnecked pheasant numbers have been generally stable at lower numbers following a precipitous decline 

during the 1980s (Hayden, et al., 2006). A series of severe winters in the mid 1980s; changes in farming 

practices such as the proliferation of sprinkler irrigation; and subsequent loss of suitable habitat such as 

canal and ditch banks, seasonal wetlands, and residual grain stubble are major factors associated with 

the decline of pheasants in southern Idaho (IDFG, 2007). Late fall and winter livestock grazing (Leptich, 

1992) combined with increases in livestock water sources in allotments adjacent to farmland and wildlife 

tracts also may reduce available winter and nesting cover for pheasants (Leptich, 1992) and gray 

partridge. 

Mourning doves are widely distributed in a number of habitats including sagebrush steppe, riparian, 

grassland, and mountain mahogany/ mountain shrub. No significant population trend has been detected 

for mourning doves in the western United States, including the entire State of Idaho, over the last 10 

years; however, significant declines have occurred over the entire 42-year monitoring period (Dolton, et 

al., 2007). Although a few mourning doves are present in the planning area in the winter, the majority 

migrate. 

No specific information is available regarding the status of dusky grouse populations in the planning area; 

however, this species typically occupies coniferous forests at higher elevations, a habitat that is rare 

within the planning area. In the planning area, dusky grouse have occasionally been observed in the 

Wilkins Island area. Dusky grouse likely move seasonally from conifer forest associated with the Jarbidge 

Mountains to the south. 

Migratory Game Birds, Furbearing Animals, and Protected Non-Game 

Species

Migratory game birds in the planning area include ducks, geese, cranes, and other waterfowl. Furbearing 

animals include red fox, mink, river otter, badger, beaver, muskrat, raccoon, weasel, and bobcat. The 

majority of wildlife species in the planning area are classified as protected non-game including 

amphibians, reptiles, most birds, and several small mammals. These three categories of wildlife are 

addressed in the context of habitat guilds below and are not specifically addressed further as the 

alternatives are likely to affect these species primarily through impacts to their habitat. 

3-25 August 2010 
 

                                                           

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildlife 

Several of these species are of conservation concern due to broad changes in habitat, state or regional 

population declines, or a general lack of information. Wildlife appearing to have downward population 8 trends in other regions may be categorized by BLM as Watch species (Table 3- 15). Watch species do 

not receive any additional management emphasis by BLM and are considered general wildlife. 

Table 3- 15. Idaho BLM “Watch” Wildlife Species Observed in the Planning Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Guild 

Reptiles 

Night snake Hypsiglenia torquata Sagebrush steppe, 

Canyon/Cliff/Talus 

Birds 

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Grassland, Riparian/Wetland 

Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii Aspen 

Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis Riparian/Wetland, Aspen 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Grassland 

Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus Mountain mahogany/Mountain shrub 

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Grassland 

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Mountain mahogany/Mountain shrub 

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapius nuchalis Aspen 

Sage thrasher A Oreoscoptes montanus Sagebrush steppe 

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Sagebrush steppe, Grassland 

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Sagebrush steppe, Aspen 

Virginia’s warbler Vermivora virginiae Riparian/Wetland, Mountain 

mahogany/Mountain shrub 

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Sagebrush steppe, Grassland 

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Riparian/Wetland 

Mammals 

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans Canyon/Cliff/Talus 

Western pipestrelle Pipistrellus hesperus Canyon/Cliff/Talus 

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum Canyon/Cliff/Talus 

Yuma myotis Myotis ymanensis Canyon/Cliff/Talus A Sage thrasher is a Sensitive species in Nevada and is addressed in the Special Status Wildlife section. 

Table 3- 16 depicts SGCN wildlife found in the planning area that, for planning purposes, are considered 

general wildlife (IDFG, 2005). 

In order to analyze impacts to protected non-game, furbearing animals, and migratory game birds, these 

species were placed into groups or guilds by habitat type, which consist of one or more vegetation 

communities. Although a species may be listed in one guild, the species may occur in other habitats in 

lesser numbers or during brief periods. Grouping wildlife that occur in similar habitats is a useful 

technique to analyze impacts at larger scales without analyzing each species individually (Wisdom, et al., 

2000). Seven wildlife guilds were developed for analysis for the planning area. Five wildlife guilds are 

related to vegetation: sagebrush steppe, aspen, riparian, mountain mahogany/mountain shrub, and 

grassland. Two guilds are related to non-vegetative components. The duneland guild addresses a habitat 

specific to a soil type, and the canyonland guild addresses the geologic habitats of canyons, cliffs, and 

talus. The number of acres in each guild is identified in Table 3- 17. 

Currently there are approximately 463,000 acres of sagebrush steppe, nearly 3,000 acres of aspen, 

11,000 acres of mountain mahogany/mountain shrub, 847,000 acres of grassland, about 44,000 acres of 

canyonland, and 600 acres of duneland guild habitat in the planning area. There are approximately 316 

miles of perennial stream that provide riparian habitat. Some guild habitats, such as aspen, occur 

primarily on the non-windy side of ridges, draws, basins, and riparian zones at higher (more than 5,000 

feet) elevation in the planning area, whereas others are generally restricted to higher elevation rocky soil 

8

 Watch species are also referred to as BLM Type 5 Sensitive species. 

August 2010 3-26 
 

 

 

(mountain mahogany). These sites are naturally patchy due to topographic or soil factors. Sagebrush 

steppe habitats are often fairly continuous, occupying large expanses. The sagebrush steppe habitats in 

the planning area are interrupted by deep canyons. 

Table 3- 16. Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Non-Special Status) Observed in the Planning Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Guild 

Birds 

American avocet Recurvirostra americana Riparian/Wetland 

Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax Riparian/Wetland 

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Riparian/Wetland 

Cattle egret Bubulus ibis Riparian/Wetland 

Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii Riparian/Wetland 

Common loon Gavia immer Riparian/Wetland 

Great egret Ardea alba Riparian/Wetland 

Juniper titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi Mountain mahogany/Mountain shrub 

Merlin Falco columbarius Aspen 

Northern pintail Anas acuta Riparian/Wetland 

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis Riparian/Wetland 

Snowy egret Egretta thula Riparian/Wetland 

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Riparian/Wetland 

Mammals 

California myotis Myotis californicus Riparian/Wetland, Sagebrush steppe 

Invertebrates (terrestrial 

A tiger beetle Cicindela plutonica Unknown A 

A Habitat is only described as “rangeland,” so the species has not been assigned to a guild. 

Source: (IDFG, 2005) 

Table 3- 17. Acres of BLM-Managed Lands by Guild Habitat 

Guild Habitat Acres 

Aspen 3,000 

Canyonland 44,000 

Duneland 600 

Grassland 847,000 

Mountain Mahogany/Mountain Shrub 11,000 

Sagebrush Steppe 463,000 

Other 5,000 

Vegetation provides wildlife with food, cover, and structure for reproduction. A few wildlife species are 

found across multiple habitats and are considered habitat generalists, while the distribution of some 

wildlife species within the planning area is closely linked to a single habitat: aspen (e.g., yellow pine 

chipmunk, tree swallow), mountain mahogany/mountain shrub (e.g., Virginia warbler, spotted towhee), or 

canyonlands (e.g., white-throated swift, canyon wren, canyon mouse). A few birds (e.g., common 

nighthawk and killdeer) prefer open, sparsely vegetated areas for nesting, whereas others (e.g., shorteared owl, grasshopper sparrow, waterfowl) nest in tall dense cover. Herbaceous cover is less important 

for species that nest in shrubs or trees; however, it is important for small mammals and birds that forage, 

travel, or nest on the ground. Thick stands of cheatgrass can be too dense and hinder the movement of 

some species, such as lizards, making habitat less suitable and potentially increasing predation of lizards 

in cheatgrass-infested areas (Newbold, 2005). 

Sagebrush Steppe Guild 

The sagebrush steppe guild includes species such as: 

 Belding’s ground squirrel  Mourning dove 

 Black-tailed jackrabbit  Night snake 

 California myotis  Sagebrush lizard 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Wildlife

3-27 August 2010 
 

 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildlife 

 Chisel-tooth kangaroo rat  Sagebrush vole 

 Deer mouse  Short-eared owl 

 Gopher snake  Short-horned lizard 

 Gray flycatcher  Swainson’s hawk 

 Green-tailed towhee  Vagrant shrew 

 Least chipmunk  Vesper sparrow 

 Mountain cottontail rabbit  Western burrowing owl 

The sagebrush steppe guild is associated with vegetation communities that typically have a shrub 

overstory dominated by one or more sagebrush species including low sagebrush, black sagebrush, 

Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, and basin big sagebrush. Spiny hopsage, bitterbrush, 

rabbitbrush, and other shrub species may be present in varying amounts. Vegetation communities 

associated with wildlife in the sagebrush steppe guild are shown in Table 3- 18. 

These communities occur at elevations ranging from 3,000 feet to over 7,500 feet. Shrub cover in 

sagebrush steppe vegetation communities ranges from 10% to 30%. Overstory shrub composition may 

include a variety of shrubs depending on the range site. The amount and composition of grasses and 

forbs are variable depending on precipitation, soils, elevation, and the amount, type, and degree of past 

disturbances. 

Based on soil site descriptions, sagebrush steppe plant communities were historically the dominant 

overstory vegetation on 93% of the planning area. Throughout the planning area, wildland fire and historic 

vegetation manipulation projects have resulted in a substantial loss of sagebrush steppe habitat. Since 

1987, 723,000 acres of sagebrush steppe habitat in the planning area has burned. This has altered the 

amount and distribution of sagebrush steppe habitat, particularly in the northern portion of the planning 

area. The Murphy Complex Fire burned roughly 500,000 acres in 2007. Of this, roughly 200,000 acres 

was sagebrush steppe, which reduced the total amount of sagebrush habitat and increased the distance 

between large (greater than 640 acre) blocks of sagebrush habitat. This large fire also eliminated a 

number of remaining sagebrush islands from previous wildland fires. In 2008, 35 areas of sagebrush 

exceed 3,000 acres (Table 3- 19). Islands of sagebrush steppe less than 20 acres in size were not 

included because the vegetation mapping units were greater than 20 acres. Remaining sagebrush steppe 

communities are further fragmented by roads, trails, fences, water pipelines, and power lines. 

Sagebrush provides structure to support the nests of some species, overhead cover for a number of 

ground-nesting species, and hiding cover for birds and small mammals while foraging. Some species 

forage on sagebrush itself, while others forage on insects found on sagebrush stems and leaves. 

Sagebrush provides crucial seasonal browse for big game. Dead sagebrush stems and branches provide 

material for constructing nests for some raptors such as red-tailed and Swainson’s hawks. 

Aspen Guild 

The aspen guild includes species such as: 

 American robin  Red-breasted nuthatch 

 Cassin’s finch  Red-naped sapsucker 

 Common flicker  Sharp-shinned hawk 

 Cordilleran flycatcher  Swainson’s hawk 

 Downy woodpecker  Tree swallow 

 House wren  Yellow-rumped warbler 

 Merlin  Yellow-pine chipmunk 

 Mountain bluebird  Furbearing animals 

 Mountain chickadee 

August 2010 3-28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Wildlife

Table 3- 18. Vegetation Communities Associated with Wildlife in the Sagebrush Steppe Guild by Vegetation 

Sub-Group 

Vegetation Sub-Group Vegetation Community 

Native Shrub 

Black sagebrush/bluebunch 

Black sagebrush/bluegrass 

Low sage/bluebunch-Idaho fescue 

Low sage/bluegrass 

Low sage/Idaho fescue 

Low sage/squirreltail 

Shadscale 

Winterfat/Indian ricegrass 

Greasewood/basin wildrye 

Basin big sagebrush 

Fourwing saltbush/needlegrass 

Mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass-Idaho fescue 

Mountain big sagebrush/Idaho fescue 

Rabbitbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 

Rabbitbrush/bluegrass 

Rabbitbrush/Idaho fescue 

Rabbitbrush/Thurbers needlegrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/bluegrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue 

Wyoming big sagebrush/Indian ricegrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/thickspike wheatgrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/Thurbers needles grass 

Non-Native Perennial 

Fourwing saltbush/crested wheatgrass 

Rabbitbrush/crested wheatgrass 

Rabbitbrush/intermediate wheatgrass 

Non-Native Understory 

Black sagebrush/crested wheatgrass 

Low sage/crested wheatgrass 

Basin big sagebrush/crested wheatgrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/crested wheatgrass 

Wyoming big sagebrush/intermediate wheatgrass 

Annual Rabbitbrush/annual 

Wyoming big sagebrush/annual 

Table 3- 19. Shrubland Patches by Size Category, 2008 

Patch Size Category Number of Patches 

20 – 160 acres 645 

160 – 640 acres 207 

640 – 3,000 acres 102 

Greater than 3,000 acres 35 

Aspen plant communities comprise less than 1% of the planning area and are included in the Native 

Shrubland VSG due to their small size and scattered distribution. Aspen communities have an overstory 

dominated by quaking aspen. Quaking aspen are generally short- to moderately-lived (50 to 100 years) 

trees that usually grow as interconnected clones. Aspen patches in the planning area are typically small, 

ranging from less than 1 acre to 20 acres. Tree size varies from less than 1 inch to 12 inches in diameter. 

Old decadent stands of aspen can be burned to stimulate new sprouts from the roots. Low intensity fires 

result in stands containing trees of varying ages, whereas high-intensity fires result in new, even-aged 

stands (Duchesne & Hawkes, 2000). Cutting aspen stands can also stimulate the growth of aspen 

sprouts. Heavy browsing of aspen sprouts by ungulates including elk (Bartos, et al., 1994), mule deer 

(Kay & Bartos, 2000), or livestock (Kay & Bartos, 2000) after fire or cutting decreases the number of 

3-29 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildlife 

aspen sprouts and may result in elimination of aspen stands (Bartos, et al., 1994). Tree heights are 

variable but can reach 40 feet. Understory shrubs in these communities can include mountain big 

sagebrush, wood rose, mountain snowberry, chokecherry, and serviceberry. Herbaceous vegetation may 

include Columbia needlegrass, Idaho fescue, Kentucky bluegrass, geranium, horsemint, and a variety of 

other species. Junipers are encroaching in some aspen stands; however, the condition of the majority of 

aspen stands has not been evaluated. 

Aspen communities provide unique and important habitats for foraging and fawning big game, and 

nesting and foraging birds and small mammals. 

Riparian/Wetland Guild 

The riparian/wetland guild includes species such as: 

 American avocet  Mink 

 Beaver  Muskrat 

 Belted kingfisher  Northern pintail 

 Black-crowned night heron  Pacific chorus frog 

 Black-necked stilt  River otter 

 Brewer’s blackbird  Rubber boa 

 California myotis  Sandhill crane 

 Cattle egret  Snowy egret 

 Cinnamon teal  Spotted sandpiper 

 Clark’s grebe  Virginia’s warbler 

 Common loon  Water shrew 

 Cordilleran flycatcher  Western grebe 

 Fox sparrow  Western jumping mouse 

 Great egret  Western terrestrial gartersnake 

 Lazuli bunting  Wilson’s phalarope 

 Long-tailed vole  Yellow breasted chat 

 Mallard  Yellow warbler 

A variety of riparian plant communities occur in the planning area including semi-wet meadow, 

willow/graminoid, aspen, black cottonwood, and Rocky mountain juniper. These communities are 

associated with approximately 316 miles of perennial rivers and streams, 102 miles of ditches and canals, 

approximately 885 acres of playas and man-made ponds, 200 seeps or springs, and an unknown 

acreage of wet meadows. The majority of these communities were not mapped in the vegetation mapping 

process as they were too small to detect with the 20-acre minimum mapping unit. Based on the amount of 

streams and wetlands, these communities are estimated to occupy 1% of the planning area. Many of the 

semi-wet meadow communities (Native Grassland VSG) and juniper communities (Native Shrubland 

VSG) that were mapped are associated with riparian areas and wetlands. 

Semi-wet meadow sites are dominated by a variety of grasses, rushes, sedges, and some forbs. 

Willow/graminoid sites may have one to five willow species as well as a variety of grasses, rushes, and 

sedges. Willow heights can vary from 8 to 20 feet depending on species. Aspen and black cottonwood 

riparian zones contain taller trees with diverse understory vegetation. Junipers are replacing aspen and 

black cottonwood in the overstory at some sites, limiting growth of shrubs and herbaceous species in the 

understory. Rocky mountain juniper riparian zones typically possess a less diverse understory. Willows, 

currant, and dogwood are usually limited to the stream edge when present. If the juniper canopy is closed 

and the site is minimally disturbed, moss occupies the ground surface. Grasses and forbs are limited to 

openings in the tree canopy. 

Riparian vegetation provides high-value habitat for a majority of wildlife in the planning area. The majority 

of terrestrial wildlife species may be found in these communities on at least a seasonal basis. For 

example, riparian communities provide fawning and calving habitat for mule deer and elk. Other wildlife 

species are found exclusively in these areas (e.g., water shrew, Pacific chorus frog, yellow-breasted chat, 

Wilson’s phalarope, and cinnamon teal). 

August 2010 3-30 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Wildlife

Mountain Mahogany/Mountain Shrub Guild 

The mountain mahogany/ mountain shrub guild includes species such as: 

 Black-throated gray warbler  Pinyon jay 

 Blue-gray gnatcatcher  Spotted towhee 

 Green-tailed towhee  Virginia’s warbler 

 Juniper towhee  White-crowned sparrow 

Mountain mahogany/ mountain shrub communities (deciduous mountain brush, evergreen mountain 

brush, and mountain mahogany) comprise less than 1% of the planning area; these communities belong 

to the Native Shrubland VSG due to their naturally small size and scattered distribution. Mountain 

mahogany is a long-lived, short-statured tree (3 to 35 feet tall) occupying rocky sites (Gucker, 2006) at 

elevations above 5,000 feet. Associated shrub species may include mountain big sagebrush, mountain 

snowberry, wild rose, serviceberry, and chokecherry. Native herbaceous species may include bluebunch 

wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, buckwheat, and geranium. Mountain shrub communities usually occur 

in small patches (1 to 30 acres) and include chokecherry, serviceberry, rose, and bitterbrush. Scouler 

willow and bittercherry are present at some sites. Because of shrub density, the herbaceous understory 

may be diverse but limited. 

Although these plant communities cover small areas, they provide important seasonal habitats for certain 

wildlife species including big game winter range, fawning and calving habitat for mule deer and elk, and 

nesting and foraging habitat for birds and small mammals. 

Grassland Guild 

The grassland guild includes species such as: 

 Badger  Long-billed curlew 

 Brewer’s blackbird  Mountain vole 

 Grasshopper sparrow  Savannah sparrow 

 Harvest mouse  Short-eared owl 

 Horned lark  Western burrowing owl 

 Lark sparrow  Western meadowlark 

Thirty-three percent of the planning area is mapped as some form of grassland; however, based on soil 

site description, less than 1% of the planning area should be grassland. Seeding crested wheatgrass 

following wildland fires has greatly increased the amount of grassland habitat in the planning area. 

Grassland communities are dominated by grasses and typically have low amounts of shrub cover. Shrub 

cover is less than 2% in most grassland habitats throughout the planning area. Vegetation communities 

associated with wildlife in the grassland guild are shown in Table 3- 20. 

Savannah sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, western meadow lark, and short-eared owl prefer taller 

grassland habitats. Long-billed curlew nest in short grass areas; however, brooding occurs in areas with 

taller grass cover. Horned larks nest in both tall and short grass areas locally. Mosaics in residual 

herbaceous heights provide suitable habitat for all grassland species. 

3-31 August 2010 
 

 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildlife 

Table 3- 20. Vegetation Communities Associated with Wildlife in the Grassland Guild 

Vegetation Sub-Group Vegetation Community 

Native Grassland 

Basin wildrye 

Bluebunch wheatgrass 

Bluegrass 

Idaho fescue 

Needlegrass 

Thurbers needlegrass 

Western wheatgrass 

Non-Native Perennial Crested wheatgrass 

Intermediate wheatgrass 

Annual Annual 

Canyonland Guild 

The canyonland guild includes species such as: 

 Barn swallow  Say’s phoebe 

 Canyon mouse  Side-blotched lizard 

 Canyon wren  Spotted skunk 

 Cliff swallow  Western fence lizard 

 Golden eagle  Western pipestrelle 

 Little brown bat  Western rattlesnake 

 Long-legged myotis  Western small-footed myotis 

 Night snake  White-throated swift 

 Red-tailed hawk  Yellow-bellied marmot 

 Rock wren  Yuma myotis 

The canyonland habitat comprises about 4% of the planning area. This habitat is associated with steep 

rocky slopes, canyons, cliffs, in several larger drainages. The majority of the canyon habitats are 

associated with the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers as well as Salmon Falls and Clover Creeks. Other 

canyon areas include portions of Devil Creek, Sailor Creek, Poison Creek, and Cedar Creek. The steep 

slopes are frequently interrupted by cliffs, terraces, and benches. Cliff height varies substantially with the 

planning area; some cliffs can be less than 10 feet high, while others can be up to 900 feet. 

Many of the areas mapped as breaks and barren vegetation communities (Unvegetated VSG) include 

canyonland habitats. Vegetation is present in gaps between rocks, but these areas were not mapped in 

the vegetation mapping process if they were too small to detect with the 20-acre minimum mapping unit. 

The presence of native grasses, including bluebunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye, and Sandberg 

bluegrass, varies with elevation and past disturbance. The shrub component is typically dominated by big 

sagebrush, but may also include rose, currant, and limited amounts of rock oceanspray. Canyons contain 

the majority of juniper in the planning area. Juniper stands in some locations are dense enough to limit 

growth of understory vegetation. Cheatgrass is prevalent in some portions of the canyons (Salmon Falls 

Creek, Clover Creek, Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, and Cedar Creek) that have received past 

disturbance primarily from wildland fire and, to some extent, livestock. Steep topography and rocky soils 

in the canyons prevented restoration. 

Cliffs provide nesting habitat for a variety of raptor and other birds and roosting areas for numerous bat 

species. Some talus slopes are used by reptiles for over wintering. Canyon areas also provide important 

security and winter habitat for mule deer. 

Duneland Guild 

The dune lands guild includes species such as: 

 Leopard lizard 

 Ord’s kangaroo rat 

August 2010 3-32 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Special Status Species

 Western whiptail 

Duneland habitat is limited (less than 1%) within the planning area, found only in a few scattered areas at 

lower elevations (less than 4,000 feet) between Bruneau Dunes State Park and Hagerman. The dune 

landform consists of a series of alternating depressions and mounds formed by wind-deposited sand. A 

number of dunes and dune interspaces are sparsely vegetated. The majority of the dunes are low (3 to10 

feet). Duneland habitats include areas mapped as sand dune (Unvegetated VSG), as well as other 

vegetation communities that are too small to detect with the 20-acre minimum mapping unit. 

The native plant communities in this habitat have been substantially altered by wildland fire. The 

understory contains cheatgrass and, in some cases, crested wheatgrass. Historically, the duneland 

understory would have included Indian ricegrass, needle-and-thread grass, and a number of forbs 

including annual lupine, annual milkvetch, purple nama, sand lily, sand penstemon, pale evening 

primrose, and scurf-pea. The current shrub overstory is limited (less than 10% cover) or absent and 

includes basin big sagebrush, bitterbrush, or rabbitbrush. In several areas, the dunelands have been 

stabilized by plantings of crested wheatgrass. Wildland fires since the mid-1970s and invasion by 

cheatgrass have reduced native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Unprotected Wildlife 

Unprotected wildlife include the house mouse, Norway rat, feral cat, starling, English sparrow, rock doves, 

jack rabbits, coyotes, weasels, skunks, and a few rodents. House mouse, Norway rat, feral cats, starlings, 

English sparrow, and rock doves are introduced species. They are usually associated with private lands 

and may be considered pests. Unprotected wildlife species are not addressed further, as these animals 

are relatively abundant and widespread and are not likely to be affected by decisions in the alternatives. 

3.2.7. Special Status Species

Special status wildlife include species officially listed or proposed for listing as Endangered or Threatened 

under ESA, candidates for listing as Endangered or Threatened under ESA (Candidate), and species 

designated by the BLM State Director as Sensitive. The BLM manages special status species under the 

policy established in BLM Manual 6840 in addition to requirements set forth under ESA. State laws 

protecting species apply to all BLM programs and actions to the extent that they are consistent with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). 

Endangered or Threatened species are species officially listed by the Secretary of the Interior under ESA 

and for which a final rule has been published in the Federal Register. Proposed species are species that 

have been officially proposed for listing as Endangered or Threatened by the Secretary of the Interior and 

for which a proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register. Candidate species are species 

designated as candidates for listing as Endangered or Threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and are included on a list published in the 

Federal Register. Candidate status indicates existing information warrants listing of the species, but other 

species have higher priority for listing. 

Sensitive species are those species designated by the BLM State Director in cooperation with State 

wildlife agencies (e.g., IDFG) after reviewing current information within the state and adjoining states. 

Species are added to or removed from the BLM Sensitive List periodically, typically every five to seven 

years. Idaho BLM ranks Sensitive plant species into four types: 

	 Type 1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species – These species are listed 

by the FWS as Threatened or Endangered, or they are Proposed or Candidates for listing under ESA. 

	 Type 2. Range-wide/Globally Imperiled Species – High Endangerment – These species have a 

high likelihood of being listed in the foreseeable future due to their global rarity and significant 

endangerment factors. 

 Type 3. Range-wide/Globally Imperiled Species – Moderate Endangerment – These species are 

globally rare with moderate endangerment factors. Their global rarity and inherent risks associated 

with rarity make them imperiled species. 

3-33	 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Plants 

	 Type 4. Species of Concern – These species are generally rare in Idaho with small populations or 

localized distribution and currently have low threat levels. However, due to the small populations and 

habitat area, certain future land uses in close proximity could significantly jeopardize these species. 

Idaho BLM ranks Sensitive fish and wildlife species into four types. 

	 Type 1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species – These species are listed 

by FWS or NMFS as Threatened or Endangered, or they are Proposed or Candidates for listing under 

ESA. 

	 Type 2. Range-wide/Globally Imperiled Species – These species are experiencing significant 

declines throughout their range with a high likelihood of being listed in the foreseeable future due to 

their rarity and/or significant endangerment factors. 

	 Type 3. Regional/State Imperiled Species – These species are experiencing significant declines in 

population or habitat and are in danger of regional or local extinctions in Idaho in the foreseeable 

future if factors contributing to their decline continue. 

 Type 4. Peripheral Species – These are species that are generally rare in Idaho with the majority of 

the breeding range largely outside the state. 

Type NV species are considered Sensitive by Nevada BLM. 

Idaho BLM also added a Type 5 (Watch) category. Watch list species are not considered BLM Sensitive 

species, and associated Sensitive species policy guidance does not apply. Watch list species include 

species that may be added to the Sensitive species list depending on new information concerning threats, 

species biology, or statewide trends. Species presently classified as Watch species are considered 

general wildlife. 

3.2.7.1. Special Status Plants 

Table 3- 21 identifies the special status plants in the planning area. Because a portion of the planning 

area is in the State of Nevada, plants listed by the Nevada BLM in conjunction with the Nevada Natural 

Heritage Program as Sensitive that occur or may occur in the planning area are also included. These 

plants are noted as NV in Table 3- 21. 

Special status plants can be rare due to associations with specific substrates or plant communities or 

because human-related disturbance has reduced population numbers, available habitat, or degraded 

habitat condition. Disturbances include, but are not limited to, construction and maintenance of roads, 

trails, or other access-related infrastructure; livestock grazing and associated facilities including wells, 

pipelines, troughs, corrals, and fences; cross-country motorized vehicle use; modification of habitat by 

noxious weeds or invasive plants; altered fire regimes; and establishment of uncharacteristic vegetation. 

Sensitive plant populations are inventoried and monitored for population numbers, viability, and habitat 

quality following standard guidelines and protocols (IDFG, 2008b; USDI, 2001). Inventory and monitoring 

for special status plants are on-going and often associated with project planning and permit renewals. 

Intensive special status plant inventory and monitoring occurred in the planning area between 2003 and 

2006. This inventory and monitoring provided information on population status, habitat quality, and threats 

to special status plants in the planning area (Table 3- 22). Inventories were not complete or exhaustive, 

and some populations and habitat conditions are dynamic. Additional population monitoring of slickspot 

peppergrass is conducted and reported annually following the Habitat Integrity and Population (HIP) 

Monitoring Protocol (Colket, 2005). 

The association of special status plants with specific vegetation communities and VSGs, the VSGs in 

which each species is currently found in the planning area, and the location of each species in the 

planning area by VMA is summarized in Table 3- 23. 

August 2010	 3-34 
 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Special Status Plants

Table 3- 21. Special Status Plants Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Planning Area 

Common Name Scientific Name 2008 Status 

Annual/Biennial Forbs 

Alkali cleomella Cleomella plocasperma Type 3 

Desert pincushion Chaenactis stevioides Type 4 

Least phacelia Phacelia minutissima Type 3, NV 

Rigid threadbush Nemacladus rigidus Type 4 

Slickspot peppergrass Lepidium papilliferum Type 1 

Spreading gilia Ipomopsis polycladon [syn. Gilia polycladon] Type 3 

White eatonella Eatonella nivea Type 4 

White-margin waxplant Glyptopleura marginata Type 4 

Perennial Forbs 

American wood sage Teucrium canadense var. occidentale Type 3 

Broadleaf fleabane Erigeron latus Type NV 

Bruneau River phlox Linanthus glabrum [syn. Leptodactylon glabrum] Type 3, NV 

Calcareous buckwheat Eriogonum ochrocephalum var. calcareum Type 3 

Chatterbox orchid Epipactis gigantea Type 3 

Cusick’s primrose A Primula cusickiana var. cusickiana Type 5, NV 

Davis peppergrass Lepidium davisii Type 3, NV 

Four-wing milkvetch Astragalus tetrapterus Type 3 

Greeley’s wavewing Cymopterus acaulis var. greeleyorum Type 3 

Janish penstemon Penstemon janishiae Type 3 

Lewis buckwheat Eriogonum lewisii Type NV 

Matted cowpie buckwheat Eriogonum shockleyi [syn. Eriogonum shockleyi var. shockleyi] Type 3 

Newberry’s milkvetch Astragalus newberryi var. castoreus Type 4 

Owyhee milkvetch Astragalus yoder-williamsii Type 3, NV 

Packard’s cowpie buckwheat Eriogonum shockleyi [syn. Eriogonum shockleyi var. packardiae] Type 3 

Spine-node milkvetch Peteria thompsoniae Type 4 

Two-headed onion Allium anceps Type 3 

Non-Vascular Plants 

Earth lichen Catapyrenium congestum Type 4 

Woven-spore lichen Texosporium sancti-jacobi Type 2 A Plants with Type 5 status are Watch species for Idaho. This is not a protective designation under BLM policy; however, Idaho 

Type 5 plants that are Sensitive in Nevada are listed. 

3-35 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Plants 

Table 3- 22. Status of Special Status Plants in the Planning Area 

Name 

Status in Planning Area A 

Recent Inventory/ 

Monitoring 

Population 

Vigor 

Habitat 

Quality 

Common Threats in the 

Planning Area 

Annual/Biennial Forbs 

Alkali cleomella No No Data No Data No Data 

Desert pincushion Yes No Data No Data No Data 

Least phacelia No No Data No Data No Data 

Rigid threadbush Yes Poor Good Invasive plants 

Slickspot 

peppergrass 

Yes Fair Fair Livestock, noxious weeds and 

invasive plants, wildfire 

Spreading gilia Yes Poor Fair Livestock, invasive plants 

White eatonella Yes No Data No Data No Data 

White-margin 

waxplant Yes No Data Fair to Poor Livestock, invasive plants, wildfire 

Perennial Forbs 

American wood sage No No Data No Data no data 

Broadleaf fleabane Yes Good Good Cross-country motorized 

vehicle use, invasive plants 

Bruneau River phlox Yes Good Good Recreational activities 

Calcareous 

buckwheat Yes Good Fair to Good Livestock, noxious weeds and 

invasive plants, wildfire 

Chatterbox orchid Yes No Data No Data No Data 

Cusick’s primrose Yes Good Good Juniper encroachment, wildfire 

Davis peppergrass Yes Good Fair to Good livestock, invasive plants 

Four-wing 

milkvetch No No Data No Data No Data 

Greeley’s wavewing Yes Poor to Fair Poor to Fair Livestock, noxious weeds and 

invasive plants, wildfire 

Janish penstemon Yes Good Poor to Fair Livestock, invasive plants, 

wildfire 

Lewis buckwheat Yes No Data No Data No Data 

Matted cowpie 

buckwheat Yes Fair Fair 

Cross-country motorized 

vehicle use, livestock, noxious 

weeds and invasive plants, 

wildfire 

Newberry’s 

milkvetch No No Data No Data No Data 

Owyhee milkvetch Yes No Data No Data No Data 

Packard’s cowpie 

buckwheat Yes No Data No Data No Data 

Spine-node 

milkvetch Yes Good to Excellent Fair Livestock, noxious weeds and invasive plants, wildfire 

Two-headed onion No No Data No Data No Data 

Non-Vascular Plants 

Earth lichen No Good Fair Livestock trampling 

Woven-spore lichen No No Data No Data No Data A Status as of December 2006. Special status plants with the notation of “no data” have past documented occurrences and 

potential habitat within the planning area, but have not been recently located. 

August 2010 3-36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Special Status Plants

Table 3- 23. Native and Current Habitat and Location of Special Status Plants in the Planning Area 

Species Native Habitat Habitat Currently 

Occupied (VSGA) 

Location 

Vegetation Community VSG by VMA 

Annual/Biennial Forbs 

Alkali cleomella B Greasewood/Basin wildrye Native Shrubland Annual A 

Salt desert shrub Non-Native Perennial A 

Desert pincushion B 

Salt desert shrub Native Grassland 

Needlegrass with Indian ricegrass No Data No Data Native Shrubland Wyoming big sagebrush 

Least phacelia 

Aspen 

Semi-wet meadow with tall Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D

forbs, snow-drift areas 

Rigid threadbush B Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland Annual A 

Wyoming big sagebrush Native Shrubland A 

Slickspot 

peppergrass Wyoming big sagebrush Native Shrubland 

Annual AC

, B 

Native Grassland AC

, B, C 

Native Shrubland AC

, B, C 

Non-Native Perennial AC

, B, C 

Non-Native 

Understory 

AC

, B, C 

Spreading gilia B 

Salt desert shrub 

Native Shrubland 

Annual A 

Low sagebrush Native Shrubland A 

Wyoming big sagebrush Non-Native Perennial A 

White eatonella B Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland No Data No Data Wyoming big sagebrush 

White-margin 

waxplant4 

Greasewood/Basin wildrye Native Shrubland Annual A 

Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland A, D 

Perennial Forbs 

American wood 

sage 

Semi-wet meadows, 

riparian areas, wetlands, or 

hot springs 

Riparian/wetland Riparian/wetland No Data 

Broadleaf fleabane Low sagebrush Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D Wyoming big sagebrush 

Bruneau River 

phlox Rhyolitic canyon walls N/A N/A B 

Calcareous 

buckwheat Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland 

Annual A, B 

Native Grassland A, B 

Native Shrubland A, B 

Non-Native Perennial A 

Chatterbox orchid 

Semi-wet meadows, 

riparian areas, wetlands, or 

hot springs 

Riparian/wetland Riparian/wetland A 

Cusick’s primrose D Mountain big sagebrush Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D 

Davis peppergrass 

Large hard-bottomed playas 

within Wyoming big sagebrush 

and salt desert shrub 

Native Shrubland 

Native Grassland B 

Native Shrubland B 

Non-Native Perennial B 

Four-wing 

milkvetch Wyoming big sagebrush Native Shrubland Annual D 

Native Shrubland D 

Greeley’s 

wavewing 

Needlegrass with Indian ricegrass Native Grassland Annual A 

Salt desert shrub 

Native Shrubland 

Native Grassland A, B 

Native Shrubland A 

Wyoming big sagebrush Non-Native Perennial A 

3-37 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species Native Habitat Habitat Currently 

Occupied (VSGA) 

Location 

Vegetation Community VSG by VMA 

Janish penstemon Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland Annual A 

Low sagebrush Native Grassland A 

Lewis buckwheat Low sagebrush Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D 

Matted cowpie 

buckwheat 

Salt desert shrub 

Native Shrubland 

Annual A 

Wyoming big sagebrush 

Native Grassland A 

Native Shrubland A 

Non-Native Perennial A 

Non-Native 

Understory 

A 

Newberry’s 

milkvetch 

Salt desert shrub 

Native Shrubland 

Native Grassland D 

Wyoming big sagebrush 

Native Shrubland D 

Non-Native Perennial D 

Non-Native 

Understory 

D 

Owyhee milkvetch Low sagebrush Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D Mountain big sagebrush 

Packard’s cowpie 

buckwheat 

Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland Native Shrubland A 

Wyoming big sagebrush Native Shrubland A, B 

Spine-node 

milkvetch Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland 

Annual A 

Native Shrubland A 

Non-Native Perennial A 

Two-headed onion Low sagebrush Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D 

Non-Vascular Plants 

Earth lichen Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland Native Grassland B 

Native Shrubland C 

Woven-spore lichen Wyoming big sagebrush Native Shrubland No Data No Data A Based on the 2012 projected vegetation composition (baseline). 

B

 Desert Annual Guild. 

C Historic population, known only from collections. 

D Type 5 (Watch) species for the Jarbidge FO; Sensitive for the Elko FO. 

Note: Data are for known current and historical populations. Projected VSG is for the broad vegetation type where populations 

are documented. Habitat might be present as inclusions within VSGs. Species with no data for projected VSGs and/or VMAs are 

listed as special status species for the planning area by the Idaho and Nevada state directors, but there are no known occurrences 

within the planning area boundary. 

Data source: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Natural Heritage Program (INHP); and BLM field inventory. 

3.2.7.2. Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates 

The planning area contains three primary drainage basins, or watersheds: the Snake River Watershed, 

the Salmon Falls Creek Watershed, and the Bruneau River Watershed (see the Water Resources section 

and Map 17). These watersheds essentially define the north, east, and west boundaries of the planning 

area. The southeast portion of the planning area is defined by the headwater tributaries of the North Fork 

of Salmon Falls Creek and Wilson Creek, both of which drain into Salmon Falls Creek in Nevada. The 

southwest portion of the planning area is defined by portions of several upper tributary reaches to Clover 

Creek, the Jarbidge River and its East Fork, and four small tributaries to the Bruneau River, all of which 

are south of the Nevada state line. 

Fish 

The planning area contains four special status fish species (Table 3- 24). The general distribution of these 

special status fish species and the watersheds in which they occur is described below. 

August 2010 3-38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

Table 3- 24. Special Status Fish in the Planning Area 

Common Name Scientific Name 2008 Status Watershed 

Columbia River Basin bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Type 1; Threatened Bruneau River 

Interior Columbia River 

redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdeneri Type 2 Bruneau River, Salmon Falls Creek 

Snake River white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus Type 2 Snake River 

Shoshone sculpin Cottus greenei Type 2 Snake River 

Columbia River Basin Bull Trout 

The Jarbidge River watershed contains migratory, or fluvial, Columbia River Basin bull trout (bull trout) 

and six local populations of resident bull trout that occupy the Jarbidge River and its East Fork. Bull trout 

are present in the headwaters of the East Fork of the Jarbidge River, Cougar, Fall, Slide, and Dave 

Creeks. Bull trout are also present in Pine Creek and Jack Creek. Although Cougar, Fall, Pine, and Slide 

Creeks are managed by the Forest Service, all of these streams, as well as the streams managed by 

BLM, are essential to the long-term conservation of Jarbidge River bull trout. Dave Creek, a western 

tributary to the East Fork of the Jarbidge River, contains a local population of resident (non-migratory) bull 

trout and may provide spawning and rearing habitat for fluvial bull trout. This local population of bull trout 

could be a significant factor in future bull trout recovery efforts because of its suitability for spawning and 

connectivity to other bull trout streams in the Jarbidge River Watershed. 

In 2002, BLM completed stream habitat surveys on Dave Creek, the Jarbidge River and its East Fork, 

Buck Creek, and Deer Creek. These surveys were completed on sections of stream that had not been 

previously surveyed and were representative of larger stream reaches with similar habitat characteristics 

such as stream gradient, width, and depth. These data are summarized in Table 3- 25. The objectives for 

bull trout and redband trout habitat are summarized in the Aquatic and Riparian Management Strategy 

(ARMS; Appendix D). 

Table 3- 25. Stream Habitat Data for Streams Containing Bull Trout 

Stream Streambank 

Stability (%) 

Sediment 

(%) 

Embedded 

Fines (%) 

Large Woody 

Debris 

(#/mile) 

Pools 

(#/Mile) 

Large Pools A , 

B 

(% of pools 

>1.6 feet) 

Bull Trout Criteria 

A 80 <12 <20 48 60 60 

Dave Creek 74 37 50-75 97 150 60 

East Fork of the 

Jarbidge River 77 N/A >31 31 51 45 

Jarbidge River 77 >20 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Buck Creek 100 25 50-75 15 170 73 

Deer Creek N/A N/A N/A N/A 142 N/A A Sources: (Overton, et al., 1995; USDA, 1995) B

 Number is percent of the total number of pools/mile 

N/A indicates data not available 

The BLM began monitoring water temperatures in the Jarbidge Watershed with continuous water 

temperature recorders in 2002. Water temperature data for Dave Creek, the Jarbidge River and its East 

Fork, and Buck Creek indicate water temperatures in July and August exceed the 59°F MWMT 

considered to be functioning properly for bull trout rearing and migration by 1°F to 12°F. The water 

temperature requirements for bull trout include temperatures ranging from approximately 39°F to 48°F for 

spawning and 39°F to 53°F for summertime rearing. Generally, bull trout spawning occurs from midSeptember through late October as water temperatures decline to 48°F and colder. Adult bull trout have 

not been found in the lower Jarbidge River when water temperatures exceed 57oF. 

In 2006 and 2008, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) used passive integrated transponder 

(PIT) tags to study bull trout movements in the Jarbidge Watershed. PIT tag detector stations installed at 

3-39 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates 

the mouth of selected streams were used to monitor tagged fish as they moved between streams. To 

date, USGS has PIT tagged approximately 1,200 bull trout in the Jarbidge Watershed. Preliminary data 

indicate that very few bull trout migrate between the Jarbidge River above the confluence with its East 

Fork and the East Fork of the Jarbidge River. This is supported by genetic sampling by the USGS during 

PIT tagging operations. 

In 2007, the Murphy Complex Fires burned riparian areas in the Jarbidge River below the confluence with 

its East Fork and in portions of Columbet, Dorsey, and Cougar Creeks. Approximately 50 miles of stream 

habitat were affected by wildland fire. Fire severity within the riparian areas was low along the Jarbidge 

River and moderate to high in Columbet, Dorsey, and Cougar Creeks. Fire severity in the upland areas 

adjacent to these streams was also moderate to high. The riparian woody vegetation for these burned 

stream reaches consisted of mature willow and aspen; some woody vegetation mortality is likely to occur. 

In areas with low fire severity, the willow and aspen have re-sprouted and are recovering from the fire. 

When the Murphy Complex Fires were actively burning, bull trout were in the East Fork of the Jarbidge 

River, the Jarbidge River above the confluence with its East Fork, and their suitable headwater tributaries. 

Therefore, the fire did not directly affect bull trout. It is likely there will be an increase in sediment inputs to 

the lower Jarbidge River until the burned upland and riparian vegetation has recovered. The impacts of 

this instream sediment on suitable bull trout overwintering habitat in the lower Jarbidge River are 

unknown. 

Interior Columbia River Redband Trout 

Interior Columbia River redband trout (redband trout), a subspecies of rainbow trout, are a BLM Sensitive 

species. Redband trout are found in the Bruneau River and its tributaries, including the Jarbidge River. 

Redband trout have been found in the headwater tributaries to Clover Creek; the lower portion of Clover 

Creek was not surveyed because the stream has been dewatered by private diversions upstream under 

legal water rights issued by IDWR and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Redband 

trout are also present in Salmon Falls Creek and several of its tributaries that drain to the Jarbidge 

Foothills in the southern portion of the planning area. Many of the streams containing redband trout run 

dry before reaching their confluence with other tributaries, resulting in populations that are locally isolated 

at certain times of the year. 

In 2006, the BLM completed 25 miles of stream habitat survey on 14 streams containing redband trout. 

These streams were divided into 49 reaches based on stream gradient, width, and depth. Based on these 

surveys, the stream habitat conditions consisted of 12 miles of streams (45%) that were properly 

functioning for redband trout, 11 miles of streams (44%) that were functioning at risk, and 3 miles of 

streams (11%) that were functioning at an unacceptable level for redband trout. The 2006 habitat data 

were also used to determine the condition of streambanks for the redband trout occupied streams. Half of 

the 49 stream reaches surveyed had streambank stability ratings of 80% or higher and are functioning 

properly. The remaining 25 stream reaches had streambank stability ratings of 50% to 80% (21 reaches) 

or less than 50% (4 reaches) and are in need of improvement in streambank condition. 

The stream habitat surveys assessed the number of pools per mile for each reach. Pool frequencies in 43 

stream reaches were rated as functioning properly for redband trout, two were rated as functioning at risk, 

and four were considered functioning at an unacceptable level for redband trout. The highest pool 

frequencies were found in the headwaters of Cedar Creek (122 to 127 pools per mile) and the lowest pool 

frequencies were found in Flat Creek (34 to 41 pools per mile). In general, pool frequencies were higher 

in the headwater reaches that had boulders and large woody debris to form pools and lower in reaches 

with low stream gradient and limited boulders and instream woody debris. The standard for large pools, 

such as those that are 3 feet deep or more, was met in 25 of the stream reaches. Twenty-three of the 

stream reaches were functioning at risk or functioning at an unacceptable level for redband trout due to 

their limited occurrence of large pools. Some of these reaches may have limited potential to form large 

pools due to low stream gradient. 

During the summer of 2007, 19 water temperature recorders were placed in the redband streams within 

the Salmon Falls Creek Watershed. All 19 of the streams monitored met the State standards for cold 

August 2010 3-40 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

water biota, and in some areas with groundwater influence, water temperatures were cold enough to 

meet the more stringent standards for bull trout rearing and spawning. 

The 2006 stream survey identified 33 stream reaches containing natural or human-caused migration 

barriers (e.g., culverts at road crossings, dewatered stream reaches, areas with unstable streambanks 

devoid of vegetation) that prevent redband trout from moving throughout a stream. The remaining 16 

stream reaches did not have barriers that would inhibit or prevent fish movement. 

In 2007, the Murphy Complex Fires burned riparian areas in five of the redband streams surveyed in 

2006; approximately 6 miles of stream habitat were affected. The streams that burned include: Rocky 

Canyon (1.2 mi), Bear Creek (0.6 mi), Deer Creek (2.0 mi), Lower Three Creek (0.7 mi), Middle Three 

Creek (0.3 mi), and Timber Canyon Creek (1.4 mi). Fire severity within the riparian areas was generally 

low to moderate, with few areas experiencing high fire severity. In the areas where the fire burned 

through the riparian area, the effects were localized and limited to short sections of streams. The riparian 

woody vegetation for these burned stream reaches consisted of mature willow and aspen; some 

vegetation mortality is likely to have occurred. In areas with low fire severity, the willow and aspen have 

re-sprouted and are recovering from the fire. The upland areas within many redband trout watersheds 

experienced moderate to high fire severity. Delayed effects from upslope erosion are expected to occur 

as these burned areas recover from the fire over time. 

Snake River White Sturgeon 

White sturgeon are the largest and longest lived of the freshwater and anadromous fish in North America 

and are highly adapted to the large river systems in which they evolved (Idaho Power Company, 2003). 

White sturgeon are found in the Snake River in fragmented sub-populations between the Upper Salmon 

Falls Dam, Lower Salmon Falls Dam, Bliss Dam, and the Bliss rapids. The current population of white 

sturgeon between Upper Salmon Falls Dam and Lower Salmon Falls Dam consists of potentially remnant 

native fish stocks and hatchery-reared fish. This population of fish is not self supporting and relies on the 

reproduction of hatchery-stocked white sturgeon. The Snake River reaches above the Bliss Dam 

Reservoir have small populations of white sturgeon with little or no detectable naturally spawned offspring 

reaching sexual maturity. The portions of the Snake River downstream from the Bliss Dam are freeflowing; this segment contains the best habitat in the upper Snake River. Because of the free-flowing 

nature of this reach, sturgeon are able to reproduce naturally and do not require hatchery 

supplementation to sustain the population; this is the upper-most reach of the Snake River with a selfsustaining population of sturgeon. 

Factors that have played a role in the decline of white sturgeon in the Snake River include habitat 

alteration, reduction in water quality, historic exploitation by humans, and population fragmentation by 

hydroelectric dams. The construction of hydroelectric dams has blocked the movements of and restricted 

white sturgeon to river fragments that may no longer provide the full spectrum of habitats necessary for 

them to complete their lifecycle. Hydroelectric system operations result in daily flow fluctuation for power 

production. This flow fluctuation affects recruitment of juveniles by reducing the availability of spawning, 

incubation, and larval habitats for white sturgeon, particularly during low water years when peak 

operations can result in the scouring of eggs and embryos from the riverbed. Sturgeon are also sensitive 

to a variety of water quality problems, including changes in water temperature, decreases in DO, 

additions of nutrients, and the presence of contaminants. All of these water quality concerns occur in the 

Snake River reaches within the planning area. 

Shoshone Sculpin 

Shoshone sculpin are found in 52 locations within 26 springs and streams in the Hagerman Valley (FWS, 

1995); however, they have only been documented in one location upstream of Bliss Bridge within the 

planning area. The number of Shoshone sculpin captured during fisheries surveys by Idaho Power from 

1986 to 1990 varied by reach in Upper Salmon Falls Reservoir (116), below Upper Salmon Falls 

Reservoir (7), Lower Salmon Reservoir (95), below Lower Salmon Falls Reservoir (20), and Bliss 

Reservoir (6) (Lepla & Chandler, 1995). 

3-41 August 2010 
 

 

 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates 

Shoshone sculpin are only found in association with groundwater outflows or upwelling from stream 

bottoms. The occurrence of this fish decreases when there is less influence of spring water on water 

quality (Wallace & Griffith, 1982). They are normally associated with cover, either in the form of rocks, 

cobble, gravel, and/or submerged vegetation. Young sculpin less than 1.2 to 1.6 centimeters in total 

length are often found on sand or mud substrate as long as vegetation is present. Shoshone sculpin use 

rocky substrates for spawning during a prolonged breeding season from May through July, possibly into 

August. There is evidence that female sculpin can spawn more than once a year. 

Aquatic Invertebrates 

The planning area contains eight special status mollusk species (Table 3- 26). The Bruneau hot 

springsnail occurs in the lower Bruneau River; the other special status mollusks all occur in the Snake 

River. 

In general, the habitat requirements for Snake River snails include cold, clean, well-oxygenated, flowing 

water of low turbidity, although each species has slightly different habitat preferences. With the arrival of 

the early European settlers in Idaho and the development of hydroelectric power, the Snake River 

ecosystem has undergone significant transformation from a primarily free-flowing, cold water system to a 

slower moving, warmer water system. The special status aquatic mollusks identified above occur mainly 

in the remaining free-flowing reaches or in spring alcove habitats of the Snake River. The fauna 

dependant on the free-flowing reaches of the middle Snake River have been declining since the early 

1900s due to fragmentation of remaining free-flowing habitats and deteriorating water quality. 

Table 3- 26. Special Status Aquatic Mollusks in the Planning Area 

Common Name Scientific Name 2008 Status 

Bliss Rapids snail Taylorconcha serpenticola Type 1; Threatened 

Bruneau hot springsnail Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis Type 1; Endangered 

California floater Anodonta californiensis Type 3 

Columbia pebblesnail Fluminicola columbianus Type 3 

Short-face lanx Fisherola nuttalli Type 2 

Snake River physa snail Physa natricina Type 1; Endangered 

Utah valvata snail Valvata utahensis Type 1; Endangered 

Bliss Rapids Snail 

Currently, the Bliss Rapids snail is found in free-flowing reaches of the Snake River between the Upper 

Salmon Falls Dam and King Hill and in a few spring habitats in the Hagerman Valley (Thousand Springs, 

Banbury Springs, Box Canyon Springs, and Niagara Springs). The Bliss Rapids snail prefers gravel to 

boulder-sized substrates. This species can be quite abundant, especially on smooth rock surfaces 

covered with red algae. 

Bruneau Hot Springsnail 

The Bruneau hot springsnail is only found in warm water springs and seeps along a 5.5 mile reach of the 

lower Bruneau River near Hot Creek. This snail is small (less than 0.25 inches) and reproduces best in 

water between 75°F to 95°F. The primary threat to this species is the declining thermal water table due to 

groundwater pumping on private land, which has reduced the number of geothermal springs on which this 

species depends. Invasive plant species (e.g., reed canary grass and reed) and non-native fish are also 

threats. 

California Floater 

The California floater, a freshwater mussel, is found in the Snake River in scattered locations between 

Bliss and Alkali Creek. The California floater prefers habitats immediately upstream or downstream of 

rapids in mud-sand substrates with good water quality. Although there is some information on the 

distribution of this species in Idaho, little is known about the life cycle of the California floater. 

August 2010 3-42 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Special Status Wildlife

Columbia Pebblesnail 

The Columbia pebblesnail is found in the Snake River below Lower Salmon Falls Dam and in the 

tailwaters of the Bliss Dam. The pebblesnail lives in flowing waters and uses gravel- to boulder-sized 

substrate at the edges or downstream of rapids and whitewater areas (FWS, 1995). Life cycle and habitat 

requirements for this species are not well understood. 

Short-Face Lanx 

The short-face lanx is a flat cone-like, freshwater mollusk that is found in the Snake River from the 

Rupert, Idaho area downstream to near King Hill. The short-face lanx lives in steady to strong currents on 

the underside of large rocks (Taylor, 1985). The numerous dams on the Snake River have fragmented 

the habitats used by this mollusk. In general, there is little information on the life cycle or habitat 

requirements for this species. 

Snake River Physa 

The current distribution for the Snake River physa includes a few scattered sites between King Hill and 

Hagerman in free-flowing reaches of the Snake River. It is believed that fewer than 50 specimens of this 

species have been collected in the Snake River (FWS, 1995). The Snake River physa snails are found on 

the underside of gravel- to boulder-sized rock in swift current at the margins of rapids. Other life cycle 

information (e.g., reproduction, food habits) are largely unknown for this species. 

Utah Valvata Snail 

The current distribution for the Utah valvata snail includes sites in the Hagerman Valley and scattered 

locations from American Falls Reservoir to King Hill Creek. These snails are found in mud, silt, and fine 

sand substrates in shallow shoreline water and in pools adjacent to rapids or perennial-flowing waters 

associated with large spring complexes. This species is currently under a five-year status review by the 

FWS to determine the need for continued protection under the ESA. 

3.2.7.3. Special Status Wildlife 

There are 37 wildlife species on the Idaho BLM Sensitive List in the planning area. The Sensitive species 

list includes a variety of terrestrial invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Table 3- 27). 

American white pelican, bald eagle, trumpeter swan, and white-faced ibis are not known to breed within 

the planning area. Because public land in the planning area lacks suitable nesting habitat for these 

species, and the numbers present in the planning area are low at other times, these species are not 

addressed further. 

Wildlife species are affected by a number of important seasonal periods when forage, vegetation cover, 

or environmental conditions can limit production, recruitment, and survival (Appendix H). These periods 

are commonly associated with winter and reproduction. 

Habitat Guilds 

In order to analyze impacts to the diverse number of special status wildlife, species were placed into 

guilds by habitat. Although a species may be listed in one guild, the species may occur in other habitats 

on a seasonal basis or in lesser numbers. For example, sharp-tailed grouse are found across multiple 

habitats during nesting including sagebrush steppe and grassland; however, they concentrate in 

deciduous mountain shrub, aspen, and riparian zones during winter. 

The Fish and Wildlife section contains descriptions of vegetation communities for each habitat guild (i.e., 

sagebrush steppe, aspen, riparian/wetland, mountain mahogany/ mountain shrub, canyonland, and 

duneland). Special status wildlife species within each guild are presented below. 

Sagebrush Steppe Guild 

Special status wildlife in the sagebrush steppe guild include: 

3-43 August 2010 
 

                                                           

 Black-throated sparrow  Longnose snake 

 Brewer’s sparrow  Piute ground squirrel 

 Ferruginous hawk  Pygmy rabbit 

 Greater sage-grouse  Sage sparrow 

 Kit fox  Western ground snake 

 Loggerhead shrike  Wyoming ground squirrel 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Wildlife 

Limited data are available for special status wildlife associated with the sagebrush steppe guild. Although 

the western ground snake and longnose snake are grouped in the sagebrush steppe guild, both species 

are primarily found at lower elevations, less than 3,800 feet, in areas with more sandy soils. They are not 

specific to dunelands and are therefore included in the sagebrush steppe guild. 

Approximately, 1,277,000 acres of the planning area historically contained sagebrush steppe habitat. 

Sagebrush habitat for black-throated sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, loggerhead shrike, and sage sparrow 

has been reduced by wildfire by about 310,000 acres between 1987 and 2006, compared to a reduction 

of approximately 135,000 acres between 1957 and 1987. Currently about 463,000 acres of sagebrush 

steppe remain in the planning area. Ferruginous hawks nest in the northern portion of the planning area; 

however, they infrequently nest and seldom successfully fledge young. Because nearly all the nests in the 

northern portion of the planning area are on the ground, mammalian predators may be a factor. Active 

ferruginous hawk nests in the planning area have declined from 63 to approximately 20 since 1983. 

Wildfires have also eliminated several nest trees and altered the habitat used by their prey, mainly 

jackrabbits, mountain cottontail rabbits, and ground squirrels (Bechard & Schmutz, 1995). 

Sagebrush steppe guild habitat includes the key sage-grouse habitat within the planning area. Key sagegrouse habitat is defined by the Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee as “areas of generally intact 

sagebrush that provide sage-grouse habitat during some portion of the year (Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory 

Committee, 2006). The majority of sage-grouse leks in the planning area are located within key sagegrouse habitat. Male sage-grouse gather in an area (lek) to display (strut) and mate during the breeding 

season in the spring (Connelly, et al., 2004). The same area is frequently used year after year. Female 

sage-grouse attend leks to breed, and most nest within 3 miles of the lek. The number of sage-grouse 

leks and numbers of sage-grouse on leks have declined throughout most of the planning area since the 

1960s. Between 1983 and 2006, active leks in the planning area declined from 152 to 39 due to habitat 

change. In 2007, the Murphy Complex Fires burned approximately 30% of the remaining occupied sagegrouse habitat in the planning area. There are nearly 200,000 acres of sagebrush steppe habitat within 1 

mile of a livestock water source and 3 miles of an active or status unknown sage-grouse lek9

, There are 

0.9 miles of fence and nearly 0.4 miles of water pipelines per square mile in sage-grouse habitat within 3 

miles of sage-grouse leks. Hundreds of miles of fences, water pipelines, routes and other infrastructure 

for management of livestock are present in the planning area, which contributes to habitat fragmentation 

(Freilich, et al., 2003). 

Habitat for kit fox and pygmy rabbit has been reduced to a similar extent as Brewer’s sparrow habitat. The 

majority of the known occupied pygmy rabbit habitat burned in the Murphy Complex and 2006 Sailor Cap 

fires. Following the fires, numerous site visits in the winter of 2007 were not able to locate pygmy rabbits 

or active rabbit burrows in the areas where they had been previously documented. 

Piute and Wyoming ground squirrels are found in both sagebrush and grassland habitats. During a 

drought period and prolonged winter in southern Idaho between the summer of 1992 and the 1992/1993 

winter, ground squirrel populations were more stable in sagebrush habitat than in grassland habitat (Van 

Horne, et al., 1997). 

9

 Unknown sage-grouse leks are those where activity has not been documented in the last five years; however, the 

leks have not been checked frequently enough to establish they are inactive. 

August 2010 3-44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Special Status Wildlife

Table 3- 27. Special Status Wildlife in the Planning Area 

Common Name Scientific Name 2008 Status 

Invertebrates (terrestrial) 

Bruneau Dunes tiger beetle Cicindela waynei waynei Type 2 

Amphibians 

Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris Type 1, NV; Candidate 

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Type 2 

Western toad Bufo boreas Type 3 

Woodhouse toad Bufo woodhousii Type 3 

Reptiles 

Great Basin black-collared lizard Crotaphytus bicinctores Type 3 

Longnose snake Rhinocheilus lecontei Type 3 

Western groundsnake Sonora semiannulata Type 3 

Birds 

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Type 2 

Bald eagle A Haliaeetus leucocephalus Type 2 

Black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Type 4 

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Type 3, NV 

Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope Type 3 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse B Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus Type 3 

Ferruginous hawk B Buteo regalis Type 3 

Greater sage-grouse B Centrocercus urophasianus Type 2 

Lewis woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Type 3 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Type 3, NV 

Mountain quail B Oreortyx pictus Type 3 

Northern goshawk Accipter gentilis Type 3, NV 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Type 3 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Type 4 

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli Type 3 

Sage thrasher B Oreoscoptes montanus Type 5, NV 

Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator Type 3 

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii Type 3 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Type 4 

Yellow-billed cuckoo B Coccyzus americanus Type 1, Candidate 

Mammals 

California bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis californiana Type 3 

Fringed myotis Myotis thysandodes Type 3 

Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Type 4 

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Type NV 

Piute [Great Basin] ground squirrel Spermophilus mollis Type 3 

Pygmy rabbit B Brachylagus idahoensis Type 2 

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Type 3 

Townsend big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Type 3, NV 

Wyoming ground squirrel Spermophilus elegans Type 4 A Bald eagle was delisted by the FWS in July 2007(Federal Register 72 (130):37346-37372); BLM and IDFG have not 

determined the type category, if any, to which the species would be assigned. B

 Species for which the FWS received a petition to list the species as Threatened or Endangered and conducted a status review 

Aspen Guild 

Special status wildlife in the aspen guild include: 

 Lewis woodpecker 

 Northern goshawk 

 Willow flycatcher 

3-45	 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Wildlife 

There are no data on local populations of Lewis woodpecker, northern goshawk, or willow flycatcher. 

Large diameter (greater than 10 inches) aspen provide suitable nesting habitat for both Lewis 

woodpecker and northern goshawk. Willow flycatchers may use younger (10 to 30 years) as well as older 

aspen. No goshawk nests have been confirmed in the planning area. Several Lewis woodpecker nests 

have been documented in the planning area. None of these species are monitored on an annual basis. 

Riparian/Wetland Guild 

Special status wildlife in the riparian guild include: 

 Calliope hummingbird  Western toad 

 Columbia spotted frog  Willow flycatcher 

 Mountain quail  Woodhouse toad 

 Northern leopard frog  Yellow-billed cuckoo 

BLM has limited population data for the majority of special status wildlife associated with the riparian 

guild. Historically, Columbia spotted frogs (spotted frogs) were reported in Bear, Shack, Rocky Canyon, 

and Timber Canyon drainages in relatively close proximity. Habitat is marginal for spotted frogs due to 

diminished water flows and limited slack water habitat (e.g., behind beaver ponds) as beaver no longer 

occupy these drainages. Beaver ponds that were present in Bear and Shack Creeks and Timber Canyon 

when spotted frogs were found have failed and no longer provide suitable spotted frog habitat. All three 

drainages have experienced down cutting, which lowered the water table and reduced water permanence 

during the summer. Although willows and aspen are present along substantial portions of the creeks, the 

reduced water permanence inhibits beaver re-colonizing the creeks. Spotted frogs have been most 

frequently observed in Rocky Canyon, which has numerous stable beaver dams. Currently, occupied 

spotted frog habitat is vegetated primarily by sedges and rushes and may not need much livestock use to 

maintain habitat. Since the late 1990s, grazing use has been reduced use along Rocky Canyon Creek 

through herding, contributing to an increase in sedges and rushes along the banks. Beaver have also 

increased the number of ponds. As a result of both improved management and increasing beaver activity, 

spotted frog numbers have increased in Rocky Canyon since 1998. 

Western toads have been found at two locations in the northern portion of the planning area since 2005. 

Woodhouse toad and northern leopard frogs were documented in the planning area in the 1970s and 

1980s, but they were not documented in the planning area during inventories conducted in 1993, 1994, 

2006, and 2007. 

On a few occasions, Calliope hummingbirds have been observed during the nesting period in early 

summer at the headwater springs of Cedar Creek. Willow flycatchers have been detected in willowdominated riparian zones in Deer Creek, Flat Creek, and Cedar Creek and a few aspen stands in the 

Monument Springs area. Yellow-billed cuckoo are observed rarely within the planning area. All 

observations are from islands along the Snake River near Hammett. Mountain quail are discussed in the 

mountain mahogany/mountain shrub guild. 

Mountain Mahogany/Mountain Shrub Guild 

Special status wildlife in the mountain mahogany/mountain shrub guild include: 

 Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 

 Mountain quail 

Sharp-tailed grouse use several habitats seasonally; they nest in grassland, sagebrush steppe, and 

mountain shrub areas if suitable herbaceous cover and desirable forbs are present. During the winter, 

they consume insect galls on sagebrush and eat aspen leaf buds as well as fruit and leaf buds from 

deciduous shrubs (e.g., chokecherry, serviceberry, currant, rose, willow) in aspen, riparian, and mountain 

mahogany/mountain shrub patches. From 1999 to 2005, sharp-tailed grouse were transplanted onto 

private lands in the planning area. Two leks were known to be active within the planning area (one on 

private, the other on public land); however, the Murphy Complex Fire burned one of the leks. The impact 

of this is not yet known. 

August 2010 3-46 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Special Status Wildlife

Historically, a few mountain quail were harvested in the planning area in the 1960s and 1970s, but IDFG 

check station data suggest mountain quail were not very abundant. The last report of mountain quail in 

the planning area was around 2001 (IDFG, 2008c). No mountain quail were detected during surveys 

conducted in 1994 in Cougar Creek, Dorsey Creek, Clover Creek, Deer Creek, and Columbet Creek 

(BLM & IDFG, 1994) and in 2003 and 2004 in Cougar Creek, Deep Creek, and Columbet Creek (IDFG, 

2008c). Riparian zones are also important summer habitats for mountain quail. 

Grassland Guild 

No special status wildlife in the planning area are linked primarily to grassland habitat types at this time. 

During the life of the plan, wildlife population changes may result in grassland guild species being added 

to the Idaho BLM Sensitive List. 

Canyonland Guild 

Special status wildlife in the canyonland guild include: 

 California bighorn sheep  Peregrine falcon 

 Fringed myotis  Prairie falcon 

 Great Basin black-collared lizard  Spotted bat 

 Pallid bat  Townsend big-eared bat 

Limited population data are available for special status wildlife in the canyonland guild. Great Basin blackcollared lizards are known to be present in the northern portion of the Bruneau Canyon. Peregrine falcons 

are rarely observed in the planning area, while prairie falcons have been observed in numerous locations. 

Prairie falcons are known to nest in the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons as well as canyons associated 

with Cedar, Clover, Devil, Flat, Sailor, and Salmon Falls Creeks. 

California bighorn sheep (bighorn sheep) are the only special status wildlife species in the canyon guild 

for which population data is available. Bighorn sheep numbers in the planning area appear to be 

increasing following a precipitous population decline in 1998 and 2000 (IDFG, 2007). The current 

population is estimated to be approximately 200 sheep. Bighorn sheep use canyon habitats and 

seasonally forage on adjacent plateaus and avoid areas with conifers (Krausman & Bowyer, 2003; Tilton 

& Willard, 1982). Continuing juniper expansion in bighorn sheep habitat may restrict the use of travel 

corridors and reduce the use of available habitat. Several thousand acres of bighorn sheep habitat 

burned in the 2007 Murphy Complex Fire. Monitoring of vegetation recovery from previous wildfires 

indicate that cheatgrass establishes within canyon habitat following fire. Cheatgrass out-competes most 

native grass, forb and shrub seedlings, reducing the recruitment of both native annual and perennial 

plants, which provide higher quality forage for bighorn sheep throughout the year. 

Fringed myotis, pallid bats, spotted bats, and Townsend big-eared bats have been documented in several 

major canyons (e.g., Jarbidge River and Salmon Falls Creek); however, little is known about their status 

in the planning area. 

Duneland Guild 

The only special status wildlife species within this guild is the Bruneau Dunes tiger beetle (tiger beetle). 

The entire global distribution for this narrow endemic tiger beetle has contracted by over 50% since the 

early 1990s and is found in the Bruneau Dunes State Park, adjacent to the planning area. The tiger beetle 

population in the planning area appears to have been extirpated by 2008. Monitoring conducted in the 

1990s indicated this species was declining since the early 1990s (Baker & Munger, 2000). The tiger 

beetle habitat within the nominated ACEC has been invaded by cheatgrass and Russian thistle (Baker & 

Munger, 2000) and planted with crested wheatgrass, reducing habitat for tiger beetle larvae. Increases in 

invasive plants in dune interspaces where the females deposit eggs has reduced habitat. Without 

treatment of invasive plants on adjoining BLM land, this tiger beetle species could go extinct. 

The planning area contains a small, isolated duneland habitat that was occupied by the tiger beetle in 

1993 approximately 8 miles east of Bruneau Dunes State Park (Baker, et al., 1994). A permanent water 

trough was installed about 0.3 miles from tiger beetle habitat in an area where water was previously 

3-47 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Special Status Wildlife 

hauled for seasonally grazing sheep and cattle. Trailing by cattle increased in larval habitat as a result of 

the more permanent water source. Bauer reported that livestock trampling collapsed burrows and 

increased larval tiger beetle mortality (Bauer, 1991). Cheatgrass and other invasive annual cover has 

increased (Baker & Munger, 2000), reducing habitat for tiger beetle larvae. Belnap and Phillips reported 

cheatgrass can invade ungrazed sites (Belnap & Phillips, 2001). Without fencing, livestock are expected 

to continue to trail through tiger beetle habitat while foraging adjacent uplands. 

Habitat Fragmentation 

Fragmentation occurs when a large contiguous tract of a vegetation type is converted to other vegetation 

types or land uses such that only scattered or isolated fragments of the original vegetation type remain or 

when human-created structures or occasionally barriers partition continuous habitats into smaller habitats 

(Faaborg, et al., 1995; Franklin, et al., 2002). An edge is the area where one habitat changes to another. 

Wildland fire can create abrupt edges changing forest or shrubland to grassland. Edges can also be 

made by dividing forest or shrublands by unvegetated areas such as roads. For some species the amount 

of edge for the size of patch (edge to interior habitat ratio) also influences the use of a habitat patch 

(Davis, 2004). 

The level of landscape transformation necessary to fragment a habitat varies by species. For many 

species, fragmentation by roads, powerlines, or fences is not expected to limit wildlife movements. In 

some instances, fences can form barriers to movements. For example, accumulations of weeds or snow 

along fences, net wire fence, or tall (greater than 7 feet) fences can limit or block pronghorn movements 

(Autenrieth, et al., 2006). The probability of successfully raising young may be reduced as the size of the 

habitat patch decreases or amount of edge or infrastructure increases (Davis, 2004; Humple & Holmes, 

2006; Vander Haegen, et al., 2002). In general, wildlife species that use specialized habitats (e.g., 

sagebrush vole) or are generally restricted to a type of habitat are more affected by fragmentation than 

habitat generalists (e.g., deer mouse), which are abundant in nearly all habitats. 

Species with large home ranges are more affected by fragmentation than species with small home ranges 

(Hanser & Huntly, 2006). Hanser & Huntly also stated that once a local population of sagebrush-obligate 

mammals were extirpated, the sagebrush islands closer to a large block of sagebrush habitat were likely 

to be repopulated, whereas islands of sagebrush steppe at greater distances were unlikely to be repopulated. In Florida, researchers found isolated reptile populations are vulnerable to extirpation by 

localized catastrophic events, whereas extirpation risk is less when populations are not isolated (Hokit & 

Branch, 2003). This could apply to the isolated population of black collared lizards in the lower Bruneau 

Canyon. 

Sage-grouse are dependent on large, contiguous areas of sagebrush habitat that support adequate 

sagebrush canopy cover and perennial grass and forb understories for breeding, brood-rearing, and 

wintering (Connelly, et al., 2004; Connelly, et al., 2000; Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee, 2006). 

Sage-grouse populations in areas where formerly extensive sagebrush habitat is broken into small 

patches are at risk from increased predation and loss of habitat. As patches of sage-grouse habitat are 

lost, the ability of the landscape to support sage-grouse is reduced. Sagebrush patches within large 

expanses of grass-forb dominated habitat may be effectively smaller than the patch size since these 

patches apparently receive much less use along their edge (Shepherd III, 2006). The loss of habitat 

patches and wildlife movement corridors reduces connectivity and genetic interchange between sagegrouse populations (Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee, 2006). 

The scientific literature for wildlife indicates roads, pipelines, and powerlines are forms of habitat 

fragmentation for some wildlife species (Connelly, et al., 2004; Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee, 

2006; Shaffer, et al., 2002). Although infrastructure developments (e.g., roads, fences, powerlines) 

usually do not create physical barriers to wildlife movements, disturbance associated with human use of 

infrastructure developments and behavioral avoidance of man-made structures can displace wildlife from 

otherwise suitable habitat (Andrews & Gibbons, 2005; Barton & Holmes, 2007; Connelly, et al., 2004; 

Lyon & Anderson, 2003; Pitman, et al., 2005; Rost & Bailey, 1979; Sheldon, et al., 2006). With regard to 

roads, fragmentation can result from traffic and habitat edge avoidance (Ingelfinger & Anderson, 2004). 

Infrastructure such as powerlines, fences, and corrals provide perch sites used by raptors and ravens 

August 2010 3-48 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

which can influence predation (Steenhof, et al., 1993) and cowbird nest parasitism (Shaffer, et al., 2002). 

Roads, pipelines, and fences may create pathways which facilitate movements for some predators (Frey 

& Conover, 2006; James & Stuart-Smith, 2000), increasing the potential for predation in close proximity to 

the road, pipeline, or fence. This type of infrastructure can also create a discrete edge. In sagebrush 

communities in Wyoming, Ingelfinger and Anderson wrote that some sagebrush obligates appear to avoid 

abrupt edges created by roads (Ingelfinger & Anderson, 2004). 

Disturbance areas (e.g. ditches, ruts, or other areas where vegetation has been reduced or removed) 

associated with infrastructure development can also serve as corridors and starting points for the 

expansion of non-native invasive plants (Trombulak & Frissell, 2000). Map 22 depicts some of the 

infrastructure development that currently exists in the planning area; water sources in the figure have a 1 

mile buffer to account for areas with greater concentration of livestock use. Within 0.5 miles of water 

sources herbaceous vegetation is often shorter due to utilization by livestock, whereas herbaceous 

vegetation is usually taller more than 1 mile from water. The differences in herbaceous utilization provide 

mosaics which meet the nesting requirements for a variety of grassland nesting species 

3.2.8. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

Noxious weeds are defined in Idaho statute as any plant having the potential to cause injury to public 

health, crops, livestock, land, or other property. Noxious weeds are designated by the Director of the 

Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA; Idaho Statute 22-2402). Invasive plants are non-native 

species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to 

human health (Executive Order 13112). 

The 2006 Idaho Noxious Weed List contains 57 weed species. According to the ISDA or the NRCS, 31 of 

these are known to occur within Elmore, Owyhee, or Twin Falls Counties, Idaho (Table 3- 28). Fifteen of 

these noxious weeds are known to occur in the planning area. In addition to the Idaho State Noxious 

Weed List, Twin Falls County has a noxious weed list consisting of two weeds: halogeton (Halogeton 

glomeratus) and St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), both of which are known to occur in the 

planning area. 

The 2005 Nevada Noxious Weed List contains 47 weed species. According to the NRCS, 16 of these are 

known to occur within Elko County, Nevada (Table 3- 29). Eight of these species are known to occur in 

the planning area. 

Comprehensive noxious weed and invasive plant inventories have not been completed by BLM in the 

planning area; however, some documentation exists of noxious weeds and invasive plants and their 

locations. BLM weed treatments documented from 1996 through 2006 provided locations of 13 noxious 

weeds and 1 invasive plant. The vegetation mapping effort (see the Upland Vegetation section) 

documented vegetation communities dominated by annual invasive plants; some locations for noxious 

weeds and invasive plants were also documented during the 2006 Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) data 

collection (Table 3- 30). 

Recent surveys of riparian areas in the planning area show increases in the presence of Canada thistle. 

Furthermore, reed and reed canary grass dominate the vegetation on some parts of Salmon Falls Creek, 

Clover Creek, and the Bruneau River. Russian olive dominates much of the tree component along the 

Snake River, and tamarisk has increased along Salmon Falls Creek and the Snake River. 

Noxious weeds and invasive plants can displace native plants, degrade wildlife habitats, reduce 

recreational opportunities, and impact water quality, runoff, and sedimentation (BLM, 2007). Noxious 

weeds and invasive plants can change the composition, structure, and productivity of vegetation 

communities as well as the state of ecological sites (West, 1999). The cost and complexity of managing 

noxious weeds and invasive plants and restoring native habitats increases with size and dominance of 

populations. Tribes, Federal and State agencies, counties, and private landowners are concerned with 

impacts associated with noxious weeds and invasive plants and are pursuing control or eradication on 

lands under their ownership or jurisdiction (BLM, 2007). 

3-49 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

Table 3- 28. Idaho Noxious Weeds Occurring in Elmore, Owyhee, or Twin Falls Counties 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Occurrence by County Known to 

Occur in the 

Planning Area Elmore Owyhee Twin 

Falls 

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger X X X X 

Buffalobur A Solanum rostratum X 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense X X X X 

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica X X X 

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa X X X X 

Dyer’s woad Isatis tinctoria X X 

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum X 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis X X X X 

Giant knotweed Polygonum sachalinense X 

Hoary alyssum Berteroa incana X 

Hoary cress (whitetop) Cardaria draba X X X X 

Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum X X 

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense X 

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica X X 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula X X X 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans X X X X 

Orange hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum X 

Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum X X X 

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium X X X X 

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis X X X 

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum X X X 

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris X X X X 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria X X X X 

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea X X X X 

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens X X X X 

Salt cedar (Tamarisk) Tamarix ssp. X X X X 

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius X 

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium X X X X 

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa X X X X 

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis X X X 

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris X X A Species is native. 

Sources: (BLM, 2006; IASCD, 2004; ISDA, 2006; NRCS, 2006) 

Noxious weeds and invasive plants can spread and invade from areas of high disturbance into adjacent 

native and non-native perennial plant communities. Mechanisms for introduction and spread include but 

are not limited to cross-country motorized travel, passenger vehicles, road maintenance, recreational use, 

wild horse and wildlife movements, livestock movements and management activities including facility 

construction and maintenance, wind, gravel pit and mining operations, and fire suppression activities. 

Noxious weeds and invasive plants can also spread to public land from adjacent private lands. Increased 

occurrence of wildland fire over the past 20 years (see the Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

section) has created opportunities for introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants, 

especially cheatgrass (Jessop & Anderson, 2007; Kinter, et al., 2007). Some invasive plants dry earlier 

during spring and summer compared to native vegetation. This, coupled with periodic high biomass 

production, can contribute to wildland fire risk by increasing availability of fine fuels (BLM, 2004). Annual 

grasslands dominated with cheatgrass and other annual invasive plants are of particular concern because 

of this increased wildland fire risk and their ability to expand rapidly into disturbed areas. Rehabilitation or 

restoration treatments, such as seeding burned or otherwise disturbed areas with native or non-native 

perennial vegetation, reduce potential for introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants 

(Evans & Young, 1978; Thompson, et al., 2006). 

August 2010 3-50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

Table 3- 29. Nevada Noxious Weeds Occurring in Elko County 

Common Name Scientific Name Known to Occur in the Planning Area 

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger X 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense X 

Dyer's woad Isatis tinctoria 

Hoary cress (whitetop) Cardaria draba X 

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula 

Mayweed chamomile Anthemis cotula 

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium X 

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum 

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris X 

Salt cedar (Tamarisk) Tamarix spp X 

Sow thistle Sonchus arvensis 

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa X 

Water hemlock A Cicuta maculata X 

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis 

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris A Species is native. 

Sources: BLM, (Nevada Department of Agriculture, 2008; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2003) 

Table 3- 30. Invasive Plants Occurring in the Planning Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Range A Dominance B 

Annual wheatgrass Eremopyrum triticeum Upland Numerous Locally abundant 

Barnyard grass Echinochloa crus-gall Riparian Rare Uncommon 

Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara Riparian Restricted Uncommon 

Bulbous bluegrass Poa bulbosa Upland Numerous Locally abundant 

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Riparian Numerous Uncommon 

Bur buttercup Ranunculus testiculatus Upland Widespread Locally abundant 

Burdock Arctium sp. Riparian Numerous Uncommon 

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Upland Widespread Dominant 

Clasping pepperweed Lepidium perfoliatum Upland Widespread Locally abundant 

Cocklebur Xanthium sp. Riparian Numerous Uncommon 

Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale Upland Widespread Common 

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus Upland Restricted Common 

Curly-leaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus Riparian Restricted Locally abundant 

Field pennycress Thlaspi arvense Upland Restricted Locally abundant 

Flixweed Descurainia sophia Upland Widespread Common 

Forage kochia C Kochia prostrata Upland Numerous Common 

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus Upland Widespread Common 

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticallata Riparian Restricted Locally abundant 

Japanese brome Bromus japonicus Upland Restricted Common 

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis Upland Widespread Locally abundant 

Kochia Kochia scoparia Upland Numerous Locally abundant 

Littlepod false flax Camelina microcarpa Upland Rare Uncommon 

Meadow fescue Festuca pratensis Upland Restricted Uncommon 

Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae Upland Restricted Locally abundant 

Missouri iris Iris missouriensis Riparian Restricted Uncommon 

Poverty weed Iva axillaris Upland Restricted Locally abundant 

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Upland Widespread Uncommon 

Prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare Upland Widespread Uncommon 

Purple mustard Chorispora tenella Upland Numerous Dominant 

3-51 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Range A Dominance B 

Rabbitfoot grass Polypogon monspeliensis Riparian Restricted Locally abundant 

Reed Phragmites australis Riparian Numerous Dominant 

Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea Riparian Widespread Dominant 

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Riparian Widespread Dominant 

Russian thistle Salsola sp. Upland Widespread Locally abundant 

Smooth brome C Bromus inermis Upland Restricted Locally abundant 

Soft brome Bromus mollis Upland Rare Uncommon 

Stork's bill Erodium cicutarium Upland Widespread Locally abundant 

Tall oatgrass Arrhenatherum elatius Riparian Rare Uncommon 

Teasel Dipsacus sylvestris Riparian Numerous Locally abundant 

Tumble mustard Sisymbrium altissimum Upland Widespread Locally abundant 

Western tansymustard Descurainia pinnata Upland Widespread Locally abundant 

Yellow iris Iris pseudacorus Riparian Restricted Locally abundant A Range: Rare = species found only in one or two locations; Restricted = species limited to few areas; Numerous = species found 

in numerous areas; Wide spread = species found over large areas

B Dominance: Dominant = readily dominates sites; Locally abundant = abundant in patches and may dominate small sites; 

Common = numerous but scattered; Uncommon = present in low amounts. C Forage kochia may be invasive in certain habitats. This species was seeded in the past by BLM in portions of the planning area. 

Sources: http://plants.usda.gov/, Idaho Invasive Species Council 2007, and BLM. The list shown above was compiled by BLM 

staff based on observations in the field. The list was then reviewed and approved by the JFO Interdisciplinary Team. 

3.2.9. Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Wildland Fire Suppression Activities 

The Twin Falls District of the BLM manages wildland fires on BLM, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and 

State lands by cooperative agreements. A contractual agreement also exists with Department of Defense 

(DOD), United States Air Force (USAF), which requires suppression of fires on DOD lands by BLM. BLM 

will suppress wildland fires on private lands when those fires pose a threat to BLM lands. The fire 

management organization performs management tasks that include: preparing firefighting personnel and 

equipment for wildland fire activities; suppressing wildland fires; preventing and educating the public 

about wildland fire; planning and implementing fuel activities including prescribed fire, vegetation 

inventory, and mechanical and chemical treatments; providing funding to communities for education, 

fuels, and prevention activities through the community assistance program; and implementing ES&BAR 

measures such as seeding and restoring vegetation on a wildland fire to minimize soil loss. 

Every wildland fire is managed to protect firefighters and the public, protect values as defined in a land 

use plan, and minimize cost, in priority order. While human life is the single overriding priority, other 

values could include communities, property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources. 

Suppression strategy on wildland fires is in accordance with management objectives and based on fire 

location and current and expected conditions for weather, fuels, and fire behavior. The strategy, 

Appropriate Management Response (AMR), can vary from monitoring when fire spread and values are 

predicted to be very low to responding with all available suppression resources when spread and values 

are predicted to be high. Allowing a wildland fire that has been caused by lightning to fulfill its role in the 

ecosystem and accomplish resource objectives, Wildland Fire Use, is not allowed under 1987 Jarbidge 

RMP. 

Wildland Fire History

Between 1987 and 2007, an average of 66,000 acres burned in the planning area each year, with a total 

of 1,394,000 acres burning during that 21-year period. The number of acres burned each year varied from 

a low of 700 acres in 1993 to high of 505,000 acres in 2007. The majority of the total acres (713,000) only 

burned once during this 21-year period. A total of 304,000 acres burned more than once; 750 acres 

August 2010 3-52 
 

 

                                                           

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

burned five times between 1987 and 2007. These figures are based on fires greater than 10 acres and 

include all areas burned regardless of ownerships. 

During this time there were 486 fires for an average of 23 fires per year. The majority of wildland fire 

ignitions in the planning area (61%) were caused by lightning, while human-caused fires comprised 39%. 

This includes all wildland fire ignitions and not just those that resulted in wildland fires greater than 10 

acres. 

Table 3- 31 displays historical fire data for each VMA including the percentage of the total fires in each 

VMA, average number of fires per year, and average number of fires caused by humans per year. 

Table 3- 31. Fire Data by VMA 

Fire Data VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D 

Percent of Fires 25 46 15 14 

Average Number of Fires per Year 6 11 3 3 

Average Number of Human-Caused Fires per Year 2 5 1 1 

Table 3- 32 identifies the specific causes of human-caused fires by VMA. 

Table 3- 32. Fire Data by Human Cause by VMA 

Cause Class for Human-Caused Fires VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D 

Campfire 0 15 19 

Equipment 5 7 2 1 

Fire Use 0 1 1 0 

Juveniles 0 1 0 0 

Miscellaneous 3 10 0 1 

Unknown 8 16 7 2 

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)

National and State BLM fire policy requires current and desired resource conditions related to fire 

management to be described in terms of three condition classes. These condition classes are collectively 

referred to as Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) and are delineated as FRCC 1, FRCC 2, and 

FRCC 3. FRCC is a classification of the amount of departure from the Historic Fire Regime (HFR) (Hann 

& Bunnell, 2001). The HFR can be defined by one of five regimes as displayed in Table 3- 33 and is 

based on the number of years between fires (fire return interval) and the amount of vegetation altered by 

fire (severity). Departure from HFR is based on the comparison of current fire return interval and fire 

severity to the historical fire return interval and fire severity. Fire return interval and severity are based on 

vegetation, fuel composition, fire frequency, fire severity, fire pattern, and disturbance. 

FRCC 1 (low departure) is considered to be within the historic range of variability of a given HFR, while 

FRCC 2 (moderate departure) and FRCC 3 (high departure) are outside the historic range of variability. 

HFR in the planning area was determined based on potential vegetation. HFR is further defined in the 

LANDFIRE models used to describe the planning area’s HFR. Table 3- 34 assigns the potential natural 

vegetation groups (PNVGs) in the planning area from the LANDFIRE10 model to an HFR, a PNC (based 

on information from SSURGO), and a VSG. HFR definitions are defined in the Cohesive Strategy (USDI 

and USDA, 2006). 

10 Current LANDFIRE nomenclature for PNVG is Biophysical Setting (BpS). 

3-53 August 2010 
 

 

 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Table 3- 33. Historic Fire Regime Definitions 

Historic 

Fire Regime 

Fire Return 

Interval Fire Severity 

I 0-35 years Low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity with less than 75% of the 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced. 

II 0-35 years High (stand replacement) severity with greater than 75% of the dominant 

overstory vegetation replaced. 

III 35-100+ years Mixed severity with less than 75% of the overstory vegetation replaced. 

IV 35-100+ years High (stand replacement) severity with greater than 75% of the dominant 

overstory vegetation replaced. 

V 200+ years High (stand replacement) severity. 

Successional classes (S-Classes) within each PNVG correspond to the VSGs outlined in the Upland 

Vegetation section. In general, the early successional S-Class (S-Class A) corresponds to the Native 

Grassland VSG. Later successional classes (S-Classes B, C, D, and E) correspond to the Native 

Shrubland VSG. Annual, Non-Native Perennial, and Non-Native Understory VSGs belong to the 

uncharacteristic S-Class (S-Class U). The reference condition for each S-Class indicates the proportion of 

each S-Class that would comprise the historical vegetation mosaic. This is compared to the existing 

proportions of each S-Class to determine S-Class Similarity and FRCC for each PNVG. 

Table 3- 34. Historic Fire Regimes by LANDFIRE Models (PNVGs) Crosswalked to Potential Natural 

Communities and VSGs 

LANDFIRE Model (PNVG) HFR Potential Natural Community VSG 

Basin Big Sagebrush 

(R2SBBB) IV Basin big sagebrush 

Native Shrubland 

Black and Low Sagebrush 

(R2BDW) III 

Black sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 

Black sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass/Idaho fescue 

Black sagebrush/Idaho fescue 

Low sagebrush/Idaho fescue 

Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany 

(R2MTMA) III Mountain mahogany 

Mountain Big Sagebrush 

(R2SBMT) 

IV 

Evergreen mountain brush 

Mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass/Idaho 

fescue 

V Mountain big sagebrush/Idaho fescue 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree 

(R2MSHBwt) I Deciduous mountain brush 

Salt Desert Shrub (R2SDSH) V 

Greasewood/basin wildrye 

Salt desert shrub 

Winterfat/Indian ricegrass 

Stable Aspen (R2ASPN) I Aspen 

Wyoming Sagebrush Steppe 

(R2SBWYse) IV 

Wyoming sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 

Wyoming sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass/annual 

Wyoming sagebrush/Indian ricegrass 

Wyoming sagebrush/Thurbers needlegrass 

Not Classified Not 

Rated 

Semi-wet meadow Native Grassland 

Agricultural land 

Unvegetated 

Barren 

Breaks 

Sand dunes 

Water 

No data 

August 2010 3-54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

In the FRCC analysis for the planning area, alteration to the vegetation S-Classes had more influence 

than the changes in fire frequency and severity in determining FRCC ratings for each PNVG. Because 

FRCC is a landscape-scale analysis, the results should not be interpreted to indicate the condition of 

each acre within a PNVG as the FRCC rating applies to an entire PNVG. 

Table 3- 35. Acres, S-Class Similarity, and FRCC Rating for PNVGs by VMA 

PNVG Acres of PNVGA S-Class Similarity FRCC Rating 

VMA A 

Basin Big Sagebrush (R2SBBB) 600 2% FRCC 3 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree (R2MSHBwt) <100 34% FRCC 2 

Salt Desert Shrub (R2DSH) 2,000 0% FRCC 3 

Wyoming Sagebrush Steppe (R2BWYse) 213,000 19% FRCC 3 

VMA B 

Basin Big Sagebrush (R2SBBB) 200 39% FRCC 2 

Black and Low Sagebrush (R2SBDW) 300 47% FRCC 2 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree (R2MSHBwt) 400 32% FRCC 3 

Salt Desert Shrub (R2DSH) 4,000 65% FRCC 2 

Wyoming Sagebrush Steppe (R2BWYse) 603,000 47% FRCC 2 

VMA C 

Basin Big Sagebrush (R2SBBB) 9,000 16% FRCC 3 

Black and Low Sagebrush (R2SBDW) 10,000 32% FRCC 3 

Mountain Big Sagebrush (R2SBMT) 800 33% FRCC 2 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree (R2MSHBwt) <100 5% FRCC 3 

Stable Aspen (R2ASPN) <100 20% FRCC 2 

Wyoming Sagebrush Steppe (R2BWYse) 285,000 48% FRCC 2 

VMA D 

Basin Big Sagebrush (R2SBBB) 18,000 16% FRCC 3 

Black and Low Sagebrush (R2SBDW) 101,000 34% FRCC 2 

Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany (R2SBMT) 3,000 18% FRCC 3 

Mountain Big Sagebrush (R2SBMT) 35,000 64% FRCC 2 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree (R2MSHBwt) 6,000 29% FRCC 3 

Stable Aspen (R2ASPN) 3,000 38% FRCC 2 

Wyoming Sagebrush Steppe (R2BWYse) 28,000 64% FRCC 2 A Analysis was based on 2012 projected vegetation, used as the baseline vegetation composition for the RMP. 

Fuel Models 

Fuels models are used to describe fuel characteristics based on quantity, type, and spatial arrangement 

of fuel. Fuel models are used as input in fire behavior modeling to estimate or predict potential fire 

behavior and effects such as flame length and rate of spread under various environmental parameters. 

Flame length corresponds to fireline intensity, while rate of spread relates to fire size. Fuel models do not 

account for fire return interval, changes in landscape patterns, or length of fire season. Fuel models were 

assigned to each PNVG S-Class using Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models (Scott & Burgan, 2005). 

Because the size of wildland fire is a concern in the planning area, changes to rate of spread are an 

important characteristic in evaluating fire size. Table 3- 36 shows the acres of vegetation with each rate of 

spread rating by VMA. 

3-55 August 2010 
 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Table 3- 36. Fire Rate of Spread Rating by VMA 

Rate of Spread Rating VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D 

Extreme 0 0 0 0 

Very High 73,000 36,000 6,000 9,000 

High 134,000 449,000 248,000 52,000 

Moderate 0 <100 4,000 50,000 

Low 9,000 119,000 41,000 34,000 

Very Low 0 3,000 6,000 50,000 

Non-Burnable 6,000 22,000 8,000 15,000 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 

Communities at Risk (CAR) are Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) communities near Federal lands that are 

at high risk from wildland fire. An initial list of all CARs was identified in the Federal Register, Volume 66 

(2001), pages 751-777. One CAR, Three Creek, is located within the boundary of the planning area and 

is listed in the Fire Management Plan. CARs located outside the boundary, but that may still be impacted 

by fire management activities in the planning area, include Bliss, Glenns Ferry, Hammett, Castleford, and 

Hagerman. The community of Murphy Hot Springs was not initially listed in the Federal Register as a 

CAR, but has since been identified as a Community of Interest. Communities of Interest are WUI areas 

identified after the 2001 Federal Register Notice. 

FRCC is not an appropriate measure of wildland fire risk for WUI areas, because these areas may be 

maintained in an altered vegetative state to protect life and property. Instead, Relative Risk Ratings are 

used. Relative risk to WUI areas relates to vegetation condition and helps determine treatment areas for 

fuels reduction projects. The 2007 Idaho Interagency Assessment of Wildland Fire Risk to Communities 

maps communities most at risk from wildland fire in Idaho by assigning Relative Risk Ratings by 

Hydrologic Unit Codes. Approximately 167,302 acres are rated “moderate” or above in the WUI located 

within the planning area (Table 3- 37, Map 25). 

Table 3- 37. Relative Risk Ratings for WUI 

Relative Risk Rating Number of Acres 

High 6,000 

Moderate-High 84,000 

Moderate 77,000 

Low-Moderate 116,000 

Low 30,000 

No Known CAR <100 

Nevada/No Data 19,000 

Total 332,000 

A primary concern are hazardous acres, or those areas in the planning area that have Relative Risk 

Ratings of “moderate” or above and have fuels with rates of spread of “high” or above. Table 3- 38 shows 

the number of hazardous acres in WUI by VMA. 

Table 3- 38. Hazardous Acres in WUI by VMA 

VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D 

Hazardous Acres 31,000 27,000 5,000 9,000 

A County Wildfire Protection Plan identifies WUI and WUI priorities for fuels treatments and hazard 

mitigation in each county. Three County Wildfire Protection Plans were completed for the following 

counties in the planning area: Twin Falls, Owyhee, and Elmore. These plans are completed annually on 

an interagency basis with participation by BLM. 

August 2010 3-56 
 

 

 

                                                           

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Wild Horses

3.2.10. Wild Horses 

The Saylor Creek Herd Management Area (HMA) is located in the northern portion of the planning area 

approximately 5 miles south of Glenns Ferry and consists of 94,987 acres. The HMA contains portions of 

eight livestock grazing allotments, which are divided into 10 pastures. Vegetation within the HMA is 

dominated by the Non-Native Perennial and Non-Native Understory VSGs (54%), followed by the Annual 

Grassland VSG (27%), and the Native Grassland and Native Shrubland VSG (19%). Wild horses 

consume the same amount of forage as cattle, approximately 1 AUMs per month.11 Because the wild 

horse herd is present in the HMA year round, adequate forage must be available year round as well. 

Rangeland health of the HMA is important to long-term sustainability of forage available to the wild horse 

herd. Providing adequate forage for wild horses may mean modifying livestock grazing specific use 

periods (seasons and lengths of stay), utilization levels, and periods of rest or deferment, as there is 

limited to no opportunity to control the timing, seasons of use, or levels of utilization by wild horses 

grazing. These types of control of grazing impacts are important to maintaining rangeland health 

standards and the sustainability of forage available to the wild horse herd. 

There are no naturally occurring perennial water sources (e.g., streams, springs) in the HMA. One 

ephemeral stream, Saylor Creek, carries water a few days each year during spring runoff, but the flow is 

inconsistent between years because it is dependent on winter and spring precipitation. Wild horses rely 

solely on water sources installed to facilitate livestock management and support the horse herd. 

Currently, the HMA has approximately 93 miles of pipelines and 69 troughs providing water to livestock 

and the wild horse herd. All pipelines are supplied by drilled wells. 

In 2005, there were an estimated 360 horses in the HMA. The majority of the horses were collected in an 

emergency gather following the 2005 Clover Fire; ten to fifteen horses eluded safe capture and remained 

in the HMA. In February 2006, 98 horses including 32 studs, 33 mares, and 33 yearlings were returned to 

the HMA. A group of approximately 20 studs was released into the Grindstone Allotment. Half of the 

remaining 78 animals were released in the Twin Buttes Allotment and the other half into the Thompson 

and Black Mesa allotments. Within approximately one year, the studs had breached the allotment division 

fence between the Grindstone and Thompson allotments and joined the herd in the Thompson and Black 

Mesa allotments. Early in 2007, the majority of the wild horses in the Thompson and Black Mesa 

Allotments (all but five horses) breached the allotment division fence and merged with the horse herd in 

the West Pasture of the Twin Buttes Allotment, where they remain to date. The 2008 census flight 

estimated the population between 140 and 150 head. 

Horses can move freely throughout the West Pasture of the Twin Buttes Allotment (approximately 36,000 

acres) but allotment boundary fences normally prevent access to the remainder of the HMA. Within the 

West Pasture of the Twin Buttes Allotment, the horses spend the majority of their time in one of two 

favored areas. The horses will venture into other areas of the pasture but will retreat back to favored 

areas to avoid human contact. 

BLM regulations direct that wild horses be managed as self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in 

balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat (43 CFR 4700.0-6(a)). Self-sustaining 

refers to the process whereby established populations are able to persist and successfully produce viable 

offspring. The absolute size a population must attain to achieve a self-sustaining condition varies based 

on the demographic and sociological features of the herd and adjoining herds and should be evaluated on 

a case-by-case basis. In many cases, it is not necessary that populations be isolated genetic units, but 

both naturally-occurring and management-induced mixing (introduction or removal of individuals) can be 

considered in order to maintain sufficient genetic diversity within these populations (Coates-Markle, 

2000). The Saylor Creek HMA does not have any adjoining HMAs to allow for natural mixing of genetic 

material. As a result, genetic diversity must be aided through herd management. Coates-Markle 

discusses multiple options for consideration to ensure genetic diversity is maintained in a population, 

such as: 

 altering population age structure through removals to promote higher numbers of reproductively 

successful animals, 

11 Based on the average weight of wild horses; domestic horses consume 1.25 AUMs per month. 

3-57 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Paleontological Resources 

 altering breeding sex ratios through removals to encourage a more even participation of breeding 

males and females, 

 increasing generation intervals and reducing the rate of loss of genetic material by removing or using 

contraception on younger mares, and 

 periodically introducing breeding females from other genetically similar herds to help in conservation 

efforts. 

In this last scenario, only one or two breeding animals per generation (approximately 10 years) would 

need to be introduced in order to maintain the genetic resources in small populations of less than 200 

animals (Coates-Markle, 2000). Prior to their release from the 2005 gather, 31 of the 33 released mares 

were treated with the chemical birth control Porcine Zona Pellucida. Longevity of the drug is 

approximately two years; normal reproduction rates of approximately one foal per year are expected to 

return in 2009. 

3.2.11. Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources, or fossils, constitute a fragile and non-renewable scientific record of the history 

of life on earth and represent an important and critical component of America’s natural heritage. BLM 

manages paleontological resources for their scientific, educational, and recreational values, to mitigate 

adverse effects as necessary, and to vigorously pursue the protection of fossil resources from theft, 

destruction, and other illegal or unauthorized uses (BLM Manual 8270). 

The term “fossil” refers to the remains or traces of an organism preserved by natural forces in the earth’s 

crust. It does not include what are commonly known as “fossil fuels” such as coal, oil and gas, bitumen, 

lignite, or tar sands. Fossils are integrally associated with specific geologic formations and may occur 

throughout those formations. For this reason, the condition of paleontological resources is directly linked 

to soil and landform stability. 

Paleontological resources within the planning area are overwhelmingly associated with the Glenns Ferry 

Formation, a geologic unit composed of poorly consolidated lake and stream deposits, inter-bedded by 

occasional basalt flows and volcanic ash. The Glenns Ferry Formation was deposited between the 

Pliocene and early Pleistocene Epochs and dates from approximately 5 million to 1.5 million years ago. 

The primary fossil-bearing deposits date to the Blancan land mammal age and range between 3 and 4 

million years old, although some materials may be assigned to the earlier Chalk Hills Formation and the 

Hemphillian land mammal age of the Late Miocene Epoch. Hemphillian fauna lived between 9 and 5 

million years ago. 

A variety of vertebrate and invertebrate species have been identified within the planning area. These 

include mastodon, camel, horse, llama, giant ground sloth, rhinoceros, sabre-tooth cat, many smaller 

mammals, suckers, minnows and other fish, as well as snails and other freshwater mollusks. Plant fossils, 

represented primarily by petrified wood fragments, are less common but have been found at a few 

locations. Fossil localities have been recorded across the northern portion of the planning area, from the 

Bruneau River to Hagerman and from the Snake River as far south as Notch Butte in northeast Owyhee 

County. 

The 1987 Jarbidge RMP identified several areas where paleontological resources were concentrated and 

deserving of special protection. Two of these areas, the Hagerman Fossil Beds and the Sand Point area 

near Hammett, have been recognized since the early 20th century as nationally important paleontological 

sites and were designated as ACECs in the 1987 Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP) with the 

primary objective of protecting the fossil deposits. The Hagerman Fossil Beds were originally designated 

a National Natural Landmark in 1975. In 1988, the Hagerman Fossil Beds ACEC was designated a 

National Monument and was transferred to the National Park Service. BLM-managed lands are located 

along the northern and southern borders of the Monument. The Sand Point ACEC, at the time it was 

established, was adversely affected by grazing, private collecting, motorized recreational use, illegal 

digging, mining, and other activities (BLM, 1988). Vehicular access restrictions and construction of a 

fence across the southern boundary have greatly reduced the level of surface disturbance attributable to 

livestock and human activities in the ACEC since the mid 1990s. 

August 2010 3-58 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Cultural Resources 

No large-scale, systematic paleontological inventories have been conducted within the planning area. 

Still, approximately 200 fossil localities are recorded on lands in the planning area. Because 

paleontological resources are closely tied to particular sedimentary geologic units, the probability of 

finding fossils can be broadly predicted from the geologic units present at or near the ground surface. 

Therefore, in the absence of large-scale paleontological inventories, geologic mapping can be used to 

assess the potential occurrence of fossils. For planning purposes, BLM employs the Potential Fossil Yield 

Classification system, which classifies geologic units based on their relative abundance of vertebrate 

fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils as well as their sensitivity to adverse impacts 

(BLM IM 2008-009). For the planning area, fossil-bearing geologic units were classified according to the 

guidance provided in Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009 and the recommendations of professional 

paleontologists who possess extensive experience with the paleontology and geology of Idaho 

(Winterfeld & Rapp, 2009). In this five-tier classification system, Potential Fossil Yield (PFY) Class 1 

areas have very low potential for paleontological resources and PFY Class 5 areas have very high 

potential. 

 PFY Class 1 units are igneous or metamorphic in origin and have a very low potential for 

paleontological resources. These units include the vast rhyolite and basalt lava flows that account for 

almost 83% of the planning area. 

	 PFY Class 2 units are composed of sedimentary deposits that are not likely to bear fossils. Locally, 

they consist of ancient metamorphosed limestone outcrops in the extreme southwestern portion of 

the planning area (Bushnell, 1967) where they comprise less than 1% of the ground surface of the 

planning area. 

	 PFY Class 3 units consist of fossiliferous sedimentary formations where fossil content varies in 

importance, abundance, and occurrence. In the planning area, PFY Class 3 units are composed of 

Late Pliocene and Pleistocene gravels covering approximately 8% of the ground surface. While these 

units are known to contain widely scattered vertebrate and invertebrate fossils, the number of known 

localities is very low and the potential for project impacts to the integrity of an important fossil locality, 

though greater than in PFY Class 1 and 2 units, is also relatively low. 

	 PFY Class 4 units are sedimentary deposits with a high occurrence of important fossils. PFY Class 4 

units for south-central Idaho are restricted to stratified cave deposits containing the remains of extinct 

Pleistocene fauna (Winterfeld & Rapp, 2009). No Class 4 units are currently recorded within the 

planning area. 

	 PFY Class 5 units are highly fossiliferous geologic formations that consistently and predictably 

produce vertebrate or scientifically important invertebrate or plant fossils. In the planning area, both 

the Glenns Ferry and Chalk Hills formations are assigned to Class 5. These Miocene and Pliocene 

lake bed sediments comprise approximately 9% of the ground surface in the northern portion of the 

planning area and account for the vast majority of known fossil localities in the planning area. 

Table 3- 39 identifies the number of acres in each PFY Class in the planning area. 

Table 3- 39. Acres of BLM-Managed Lands by PFY Class 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 

Acres 1,137,000 2,000 113,000 0 121,000 

3.2.12. Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources consist of locations of human activity, occupation, or use identified through field 

inventory, historic documentation, or oral evidence. The term includes archaeological, historic, and 

architectural properties and sites or places of traditional cultural or religious importance to Native 

American tribes or other social or cultural groups. BLM manages cultural resources under its jurisdiction 

or control according to their relative importance. Management objectives include protecting against 

impairment, destruction, inadvertent loss, and accommodating uses determined appropriate through 

consultation and planning. 

Since the late 1950s, hundreds of cultural resource inventories have been conducted in the area, ranging 

from large-scale inventories for ES&BAR activities following wildland fires to small-scale surveys for such 

3-59	 August 2010 
                                                           

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Cultural Resources 

things as livestock water systems, fences, right of ways (ROWs), and land use permits. Not all inventories 

were associated with surface-disturbing projects; a few studies have also been conducted for planning 

purposes and for scientific research, including the Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the Boise 

District, BLM (Young, 1984) which formed the basis for some of the cultural resource management 

actions in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP. As of January 2008, approximately 22% of the planning area has been 

inventoried at the Cultural Resource Class III level, the most intensive survey level. As a result, 

approximately 4,650 cultural resources have been recorded. These represent a wide variety of site types 

and chronological periods. Approximately 73% of the recorded resources are prehistoric sites (i.e., Native 

American sites that predate European contact), 23% are historic sites (i.e., post-contact Native American, 

Euro-American, Chinese, or Basque sites up through World War II),and 4% contain both prehistoric and 

historic components. Together, these resources document an almost continuous record of human 

occupation in the planning area for the past 12,000 years. An additional 16,500 unrecorded cultural 

resources are estimated to be present within the planning area. 

Lithic scatters are the most common type of prehistoric site found in the planning area. These sites 

contain stone tools and/or stone flakes produced during the manufacture or maintenance of stone tools 

and may represent short-term hunting camps, tool manufacturing or repair locations, or butchering sites. 

Other prehistoric site types include streamside camps, cave and rock shelter camps, hunting blinds, rock 

alignments and cairns, vision quest sites, tool-stone quarries, battle sites, fishing locations, ceremonial 

sites, burials, and rock art sites. 

Most of the historic sites in the planning area are related to the early livestock industry (ca. 1880 to World 

War II) and are represented by cow and sheep camps, herder’s monuments, rock fences and corrals, and 

a few abandoned line shacks. Other historic sites include failed homesteads, trash dumps, irrigation 

ditches, miners’ cabins, and transportation systems. The latter category includes the nationally significant 

Oregon Trail (see the National Historic Trails section) and regionally significant portions of the Kelton and 

Toana12 Freight Roads. Intact segments of these three wagon roads have been determined eligible for or 

are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 

One category of cultural resources that may or may not contain artifacts or other physical remains is the 

traditional cultural property (TCP). These places may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places because of their association with a living community’s cultural practices or beliefs rooted 

in the community’s history. TCPs play an important role in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of 

the community and are identified through scoping and consultation rather than field inventory. Examples 

of TCPs include locations where Native Americans have historically gone to perform ceremonial activities 

in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice or a location where a community has traditionally 

carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historical identity 

(Parker & King, 1998). In the planning area, contemporary members of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and 

the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes maintain cultural ties to the land and resources, although places of 

importance to traditional ranching and farming communities may also be considered TCPs. 

Based on an analysis of the site documentation that occurred during initial site recording, approximately 

55% of sites in the planning area were in good or excellent condition when discovered, 31% were in fair 

condition, and 14% were in poor condition.13 The condition of cultural resources in the planning area 

varies with terrain, access, and visibility, as well as past and current land use patterns. Because cultural 

resources are often exposed on the earth’s surface, they are subject to natural and human forces that can 

damage their integrity. Natural forces such as erosion, animal burrowing, wildfire and post-fire exposure, 

deterioration, and decay have affected and will continue to affect cultural resources to varying degrees. 

12 There are several spellings for this word within the region, including “Tuana” and “Tuanna.” Place names 

established on USGS quad maps have not been changed in this document, with the exception of the Toana Road, 

which is the spelling used in the National Register listing.

13 These are qualitative assessments made by a variety of researchers over a number of years. Data collection during 

site recording includes a summary assessment of site condition, an estimate of the percentage of the site area that is 

disturbed, and identification of the impacting agents. The following criteria, taken from the Intermountain Antiquities 

Computer System User’s Guide (University of Utah, et al., 1990) define the condition classes: excellent = virtually 

undisturbed, good = 75% undisturbed, fair = 50-75% undisturbed, and poor = more than 50% disturbed. 

August 2010 3-60 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources 

Visual Resources 

Human actions and decisions, past and present, including public land disposals, concentrated livestock 

use in riparian settings, construction projects, cross-country motorized vehicle use, unauthorized artifact 

collecting, looting, and other inadvertent and purposeful human damage, are also known to have 

impacted sites in the planning area. BLM, through the planning process, has much more control over the 

quantity and degree of future human-related, versus natural, impacts to cultural resources 

To aid in the evaluation of alternatives, BLM developed a model to characterize the relative density and 

distribution of cultural resources in the planning area. The model combines the results of two previous 

archaeological studies, a large-scale sample survey of the southern half of the planning area (Young, 

1984) and a synthesis of 11 burned-area rehabilitation inventories conducted between 1994 and 1996 

(Fawcett, 1997), and augments those findings with data from more recent inventories. These studies 

indicate that elevation and proximity to water are reliable indicators of archaeological site density. Site 

density is highest at elevations above 5,000 feet and lowest below 3,500 feet. Density is characterized as 

moderate between 3,500 and 5,000 feet. Within these elevation zones, sites cluster near water and 

prominent topographic features. 

3.2.13. Visual Resources 

The Jarbidge planning area is known for its unique geology of broad, gently rolling plateau lands with 

deeply incised rivers, which provide a variety of scenic values. Water availability influences the 

distribution of plant communities and is based on the rain shadow effect, distribution of soil types, slope, 

and aspect. Dry lowland areas in the north support salt desert shrub communities, which change to 

sagebrush steppe with increasing elevation and moisture in the south. At higher elevations in the south, 

juniper, aspen, and mountain mahogany are present. A few areas contain limber pine and subalpine fir. 

Surface water is generally limited to scattered perennial springs and creeks. Creeks are typically located 

in the deeper draws and canyons. 

BLM has a responsibility to ensure scenic values of the public lands are considered before allowing uses 

that may have negative visual impacts. To address the importance of scenic values, BLM designed the 

visual resource management (VRM) system to help identify visual values and minimize visual impacts to 

the landscape character of public lands. In order to fulfill these requirements, an interdisciplinary team 

conducted a visual resource inventory (VRI) of the planning area between October 2007 and March 2008 

(BLM, 2008a). 

The visual resource inventory process has three steps: a scenic quality rating, a sensitivity rating, and a 

distance zone analysis. Scenic quality is a measure of the visual appeal of a tract of land. In the visual 

resource inventory process, public lands are given an A, B, or C rating based on the apparent scenic 

quality, which is determined using seven key factors: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, 

scarcity, and cultural modification. Areas with the most visual appeal are rated A, while areas with the 

least visual appeal are rated C; areas with intermediate appeal are rated B. In the planning area, areas 

rated as A typically contained changes in topography, deeply incised canyons, unique geologic features 

such as hoodoos, and native vegetation communities that provided a variety of vegetation species. Areas 

rated as B typically contained slight changes of topography and some variation in vegetation species. 

Areas rated as C typically contained no change in topography and very few vegetation species. During 

the visual resource inventory, scenic quality rating A was given to 183,000 acres, scenic quality rating B 

was given to 242,000 acres, and scenic quality rating C was given to 1,389,000 acres. 

Sensitivity levels are a measure of the public concern for scenic quality. During the sensitivity rating, 

public lands are assigned high, medium, or low sensitivity by analyzing six indicators of public concern: 

type of user, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, special areas, and other factors. During 

the VRI, a high sensitivity rating was given to 136,000 acres, a medium sensitivity rating was given to 

235,000 acres, and a low sensitivity rating was given to 1,443,000 acres in the planning area. 

A distance zone analysis was conducted by selecting the base routes and rivers with recreational use as 

travel routes and performing a viewshed analysis, which identifies areas that can be seen from one or 

more observation points or lines. 

3-61 August 2010 
 

Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

The result of the inventory process is the assignment of VRI Classes. VRI Class I is assigned to areas 

where a management decision has been made previously to maintain a natural landscape. This includes 

areas such as Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) with a scenic Outstandingly 

Remarkable Value (ORV), and other Congressionally and administratively designated areas where 

decisions have been made to preserve a natural landscape. Classes II, III, and IV are assigned based on 

a combination of scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones by combining overlays for these 

factors generated through the inventory process. 

After overlaying the scenic quality, sensitivity, and distance zone maps and applying the criteria for 

assigning VRI Classes, 103,000 BLM-managed acres were identified as VRI Class I, 60,000 acres as VRI 

Class II, 51,000 acres as VRI Class III, and 1,160,000 acres as VRI Class IV. Map 34 displays the results 

of the VRI. 

3.2.14. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Consistent with Section 201 of FLPMA, which requires the Secretary of the Interior to “prepare and 

maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resource and other values,” and 

BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning, the Jarbidge RMP Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) 

evaluated and identified BLM-managed lands with wilderness characteristics outside existing WSAs. 

Wilderness characteristics are features of the land associated with the concept of wilderness, including 

naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined types of recreation. 

Areas have a high degree of naturalness when affected primarily by the forces of nature and where the 

imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable. Assessing an area for naturalness includes 

examining the area for attributes such as the presence or absence of roads and trails, fences, and other 

infrastructure; the nature and extent of landscape modifications; the presence of native vegetation 

communities; and the connectivity of habitats. 

Areas have outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation when 

the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or infrequent; where visitors can be isolated, 

alone, or secluded from others; where the use of the area is through non-motorized, non-mechanical 

means; and where no or minimal developed recreation facilities are encountered. 

Areas evaluated for wilderness characteristics consisted of roadless areas greater than 5,000 acres or 

roadless areas greater than 1,000 acres adjacent to a WSA. These areas were evaluated for the 

presence of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined types of 

recreation (BLM, 2008b). Seven areas outside WSAs were identified as having wilderness characteristics 

(Table 3- 40; Map 42). 

Table 3- 40. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (Acres) 

Area Name Size 

Black Canyon 8,000 

Columbet Table 4,000 

Corral Creek 6,000 

East Fork Jarbidge 6,000 

Hole in the Ground 7,000 

Long Draw 17,000 

Salmon Falls Creek 5,000 

Total 53,000 

August 2010 3-62 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses 

Livestock Grazing 

3.3. RESOURCE USES 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs that in addition to managing the 

public lands “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 

environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, where appropriate, 

will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; [and] that will provide food and 

habitat for fish and wildlife” (Sec. 102 (8)), the public lands will be managed in a manner that will “provide 

food and habitat for...domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human 

occupancy and use” (Sec. 102 (8)) and “in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic 

sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands” (Sec. 102 (12)). In addition, FLPMA 

identifies the “principal or major uses” of public lands as “domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife 

development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and 

timber production” (Sec. 103(l)). 

As such, the BLM manages public lands for a variety of resource uses. Resource uses occurring in the 

planning area are discussed in this section. 

3.3.1. Livestock Grazing

The planning area is divided into 93 grazing allotments on 1,323,000 acres of BLM-managed lands with 

about 70 permit holders (permittees). Additionally, livestock grazing on 92,000 acres of military withdrawal 

lands is managed by BLM in accordance with Public Land Order (PLO) 1027 as amended by PLO 4902. 

Salmon Falls Creek Canyon was identified in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP as unavailable to livestock grazing. 

The Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons are not contained within grazing allotments; therefore, these 

canyons and other areas not within grazing allotments are not grazed, even though the 1987 Jarbidge 

RMP does not specifically make these areas unavailable for livestock grazing. 

Permits or leases are issued to authorize use on BLM-administered lands available for livestock grazing. 

Grazing permits describe terms and conditions for annual grazing use to achieve management and 

resource objectives. Mandatory terms and conditions include the allotment(s) to be used, the period-ofuse (dates), number and kind of livestock, and the level of allowed grazing use in animal unit months 

(AUMs). Allowable use includes both active and suspended AUMs. Active-use AUMs are those available 

for grazing use. Suspended-use AUMs are generally on permits as a result of past reductions in grazing 

use and are not available for use until a grazing decision and supporting National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1964 (NEPA) documentation is issued by the authorized officer. Other terms and conditions may 

include, but are not limited to, locations of supplements, provisions for temporary delay in grazing use, 

and management methods to use to achieve objectives (43 CFR 4130.3). Permits generally cover a 10­

year period and are renewable if the BLM determines the terms and conditions of the expiring permit are 

being met. 

Permit holders must submit grazing applications annually prior to livestock turnout. Annual applications 

allow permittees to apply for adjustments in annual grazing use within the terms and conditions of the 

grazing permit. The amount of grazing that occurs each year can be affected by such factors as drought, 

wildfire, and market conditions. A bill is issued to the permittee specific to the amount of grazing use 

authorized for that season. 

Currently, 188,802 AUMs of active use are authorized on the allotments within the planning area, 

including 12,154 AUMs in Saylor Creek Air Force Range (Appendix T); 96% of the AUMs are allocated to 

livestock, 4% to domestic sheep, and less than 1% to domestic horses. Interim grazing measures 

pursuant to stipulated settlement agreements (SSAs) govern 112,620 of these AUMs. In addition to 

permitted AUMs, a maximum of 17,071 AUMs of non-renewable use can be issued annually in 18 

3-63 August 2010 
 

                                                           

Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

allotments in accordance with 43 CFR 4130.6-2 and the authority of DOI appropriations acts.14 The 28 

allotments under the 2005 SSA (CV-04-181-S-BLW; Appendix A) and the 2 allotments under the 2003 

SSA (CV-02-521-S-MHW) are only allowed active use as described in the interim measures. Authorized 

active use AUMs are summarized in Table 3- 41. 

Table 3- 41. AUMs Authorized in the Planning Area for the 2007 Grazing Year 

Legal Obligation Number of 

Allotments 

Current Permits 

(AUMs) 

Nonrenewable 

Authorizations 

(AUMs) 

2003 SSA for CV-02-521-S-MHW (Judge Williams) 2 27,888 0 

2005 SSA for CV-04-181-S-BLW (Judge Winmill) 28 84,732 0 

Non-Renewable Grazing Permits under DOI 

Appropriations Acts 18 27,320 17,071 

Other Allotments 45 48,862 0 

Total 93 188,802 17,071 

Actual use (grazing use that actually occurred) has varied annually based on factors such as forage 

production, resource conditions, wildfire, court decisions, and individual livestock grazing operations. 

Actual grazing use since the 1987 Jarbidge RMP has been as high as approximately 217,000 AUMs in 

1997 (a high precipitation year) and as low as approximately 109,000 AUMs in 1988 (a low precipitation 

year). Between 2002 and 2006, the average actual use was approximately 173,000 AUMs. 

Livestock grazing use occurs within the planning area year long. Generally, the lower elevation rangeland 

of the northern third of the planning area is grazed in the fall, winter, and spring. The higher elevation in 

the middle third is grazed in the spring, summer, and fall, and the high elevations in the southern third is 

grazed primarily in the summer and fall. 

Range Infrastructure 

Effective management of livestock grazing is dependent on the use of infrastructure to meet resource 

objectives. Range improvements include specialized treatments and infrastructure used to improve range 

resources or their use by grazing animals (Vallentine, 1989). Infrastructure such as water developments 

and fences provide a more effective means to control livestock movement and the timing and duration of 

grazing periods. The planning area contains complex systems of pipelines supplied by creeks, springs, 

and wells that provide water throughout much of the planning area. In addition to providing water for 

livestock, some pipeline systems distribute water used for wildfire suppression and serve as a source of 

water for wild horses and wildlife. Reservoirs were developed by constructing low earthen dams and 

excavating pits in playas. Vegetation treatments that improve forage availability, such as non-native 

perennial seedings, are addressed in the Upland Vegetation section. Table 3- 42 shows the range 

infrastructure currently in the planning area. 

Table 3- 42. Types and Approximate Amount of Existing Range Infrastructure 

Type of Range Infrastructure Amount 

Cattleguards 130 

Fences 2,000 miles 

Reservoirs and Stock Ponds 100 

Spring Developments 25 

Pipelines 900 miles 

Wells 15 

Corrals 25 

Cow Camps 5 

14 This rider appears in the following: section 142 of PL 108-108 (FY 2004); section 132 of PL 108-447 (FY 2005); 

section 123 of PL 109-54 (FY 2006); and section 116 of PL 110-161 (FY 2008). In FY 2005 and 2008, the section 

was contained in a consolidated appropriations act. In FY 2007, DOI operated under a year-long continuing 

resolution. 

August 2010 3-64 
 

 

 

 

                                                           

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses 

Recreation 

3.3.2. Recreation 

BLM accounts for different types of recreation use through the Recreation Management Information 

System (RMIS). RMIS measures participation in 65 types of recreation activities. RMIS calculates 

increases or decreases in use for: 

 recreation sites 

 dispersed use areas 

 Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) 

 road, trail, river, or special designation area segments 

RMIS data sources can include information from fee envelopes, traffic or trail counter data, selfregistration forms, use reports from recreation permittees, or, as largely the case in the planning area, 

observations and professional judgment. During Fiscal Years 1999-2007, the planning area averaged 

47,000 visits a year or 48,000 visitor days a year15. 

Recreation Management Areas 

Recreation Management Areas are BLM’s primary means of managing recreational use of the public 

lands. Public lands are designated as either a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) or 

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). SRMAs require a recreation investment where more 

intensive recreation management is needed and where recreation is a principal management objective. 

These areas often have high levels of recreation activity, contain valuable natural resources, or require 

recreational settings that need special management (e.g., an area with high scenic value). ERMAs 

constitute all public lands outside SRMAs and are areas where structured recreational opportunities are 

not provided. Recreation may not be the primary management objective in these areas, and recreational 

activities are subject to few restrictions. Five SRMAs are identified in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP (Table 3- 

43); however, specific boundaries were not delineated in that document. 

Table 3- 43. SRMAs Identified in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP 

SRMA Acres Type of Opportunity Setting 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

River 57,000 

Whitewater boating, fishing, hunting, 

viewing wildlife and natural scenery, 

primitive camping 

0-6 encounters per day 

Noise or litter nonexistent to infrequent 

Vegetation intact or with slight trampling 

Jarbidge Forks 4,320 

Rafting, fishing, camping, 

picnicking, viewing wildlife and 

natural scenery 

3-14 encounters per day 

Noise or litter infrequent to occasional 

Vegetation with slight trampling or 

becoming worn 

Oregon National 

Historic Trail 16,384 Hiking, viewing wildlife and natural 

scenery, educational activities 

2-6 encounters per day 

Noise or litter infrequent 

Slight vegetation trampling 

Hagerman-Owsley 

Bridge 2,680 OHV riding 

15-29 encounters per day 

Noise or litter apparent 

Vegetation worn at staging areas and 

along routes 

Salmon Falls Creek 5,600 

Fishing, camping, water sports, 

hunting, boating, equestrian, hiking, 

OHV riding 

2-6 encounters per day 

Noise or litter infrequent 

Slight vegetation trampling 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs)

Five types of uses requiring SRPs are authorized by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 

2004 (FLREA): commercial (e.g., whitewater outfitters), competitive (e.g., OHV races), vending (e.g., food 

service), individual or group use in special areas (e.g., weddings), and organized group activity and event 

15 One visitor day is equivalent to 12 hours spent in the planning area. 

3-65 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Recreation 

use (e.g., club trail ride). SRPs are issued to manage visitor use, protect natural and cultural resources, 

and accommodate commercial recreational uses and may be issued for ten years or less with annual 

renewal. Commercial SRPs are issued to outfitters, guides, vendors, recreation clubs, and commercial 

competitive event organizers providing recreational opportunities or service without employing permanent 

facilities. SRPs for competitive and organized group events are also included in this category. The 

maximum number of commercial SRPs in place at one time during the last 20 years was six. In 2009, four 

commercial SRPs for commercial river use were in place for the planning area. 

BLM issues SRPs for noncommercial use in certain special areas, including wilderness, rivers, and 

backcountry hiking or camping areas. 

Developed Recreation 

Developed recreation sites incorporate visitor use infrastructure such as roads, parking areas, and 

facilities to protect the resource and support recreational users in their pursuit of activities, experiences, 

and benefits. Visitor use infrastructure is a management tool that can minimize resource impacts, 

concentrate use, and reduce visitor conflicts. 

There are six developed recreation sites within the planning area. Currently, these six sites do not meet 

the FLREA criteria for charging fees. None of the sites have potable water or trash service in the form of 

trashcans or dumpsters. The following list outlines these sites and their amenities: 

 Bruneau Canyon Overlook – Parking area, interpretive kiosks, and protective fence structures 

 Bruneau River Launch Site, East – Parking and information kiosk 

 Bruneau River Take-out – Information kiosk 

 Cedar Creek Reservoir (Roseworth Reservoir) – Parking area, vault restrooms, and docks 

 East Fork Jarbidge River Recreation Sites (4 sites) – Vault restrooms, picnic tables, and fire rings 

with grills 

 Jarbidge River Recreation Site – Parking area, launch facilities for whitewater boating, vault 

restrooms, and information kiosk 

Dispersed Recreation

Hunting is the major dispersed recreation use across the entire planning area. The average number of 

visitor days in pursuit of mule deer and pronghorn in the planning area was 5,554 between 2002 and 

2006 (IDFG, 2008a). In 2006, hunters spent more than 6,728 visitor days in pursuit of mule deer and 

pronghorn in the planning area (IDFG, 2008a). 

Sport fishing in the Snake River along the northern boundary of the planning area and on the Salmon 

Falls Creek and Cedar Creek Reservoirs are also popular dispersed recreation activities. Salmon Falls 

Reservoir is one of the most heavily used fisheries in the Magic Valley region. The average of annual 

angler effort between 1995 and 2006 was more than 72,000 hours. Peak months of fishing activity 

typically are April through October. 

Only two recognized trails exist within the planning area. The Idaho Centennial Trail is used for both 

hiking and motorized vehicles; use of the segment within the planning area is generally low because 

much of the trail is in remote terrain with difficult access. The Roberson Trail is located in the Bruneau 

Canyon, and the general landscape dictates a non-motorized use. This trail is used in the spring and 

early summer by whitewater boaters accessing the Five Mile Rapids, a series of Class IV rapids on the 

Bruneau River. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use

For many years, the term “off-highway vehicle” (OHV) has been used by the public, industry, and the BLM 

interchangeably with the term “off-road vehicle.” The term “off-road vehicle” has a legally established 

definition in the Presidential Executive Order 11644 (1972) and BLM regulations. BLM has chosen to use 

the term OHV, partly because it is a more popular term, but also because the regulations address 

vehicles that use roads and trails on BLM-managed land, and are, therefore, not just “off- road.” 

August 2010 3-66 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses 

Recreation 

The national BLM objectives for OHV management are to protect the resources of public lands, promote 

the safety of all users of those lands, and minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands (BLM, 

2001). OHVs are defined as “any motorized vehicle capable of or designated for, travel on or immediately 

over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding (1) any nonamphibious registered motorboat; (2) any 

military, fire, emergency or law enforcement vehicle when being used for emergency purposes; (3) any 

vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) 

vehicle in official use; and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national 

defense emergencies” (43 CFR 8340.0-5). OHVs are used within the planning area for recreational and 

nonrecreational purposes. Much of the nonrecreational OHV use involves BLM administrative activities 

and grazing administration by ranchers. 

OHV use has become a popular method of recreation as well as a means of transportation while pursuing 

other forms of recreation such as hunting, fishing, or camping. Antler gathering is an example of an 

increasing OHV use. Antlers shed by big game in their winter and spring ranges across most of the 

southern portion of the planning area are sought by collectors, as a recreational hobby and for art. Many 

people participating in this activity use OHVs to cover more ground than can be done on foot or 

horseback. The Jarbidge FO has received reports of people who “grid” areas to increase their success in 

finding antlers. 

In 2003, IDFG implemented restrictions for motorized vehicles used while hunting big game and upland 

game in the Jarbidge Foothills area (Unit 47). This rule applies to designated areas within Idaho and 

states, “hunters may only use motorized vehicles on established roadways which are open to motorized 

traffic and capable of being traveled by full-sized automobiles. Any other use by hunters is prohibited. All 

off-road use by hunters is prohibited” (IDFG, 2007). This rule does not apply to valid Handicapped 

Persons Motor Vehicle Hunting Permits, game retrieval, packing camping equipment, or use on private 

property. 

All-terrain vehicle (ATV), utility vehicle (UTV), and off-highway motorbike use, types of OHV use, are 

some of the fastest growing recreation opportunities in the planning area. Table 3- 44 displays the 

increase in ATV, UTV, and off-highway motorbike registrations since 2004 in the counties with people 

most likely to participate in motorized recreation in the planning area. 

Table 3- 44. ATV, UTV, and Off-Highway Motorbike Registrations by County 

Year Elmore Owyhee Twin Falls 

2004 1,552 677 4,118 

2005 1,689 735 4,746 

2006 1,880 853 5,289 

2007 2,128 988 5,971 

2008 2,354 1,072 9,799 

Note: These registration numbers reflect registrations processed for the sticker year. This table includes registered off-highway 

motorbikes, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), & utility terrain vehicles (UTVs). UTVs were not identified as a separate registration 

until 2007. 

Source: (IDPR, 2008) 

Between 2005 and 2007, 7,411 visitor days were spent participating in OHV activities in the planning 

area. Because of its relationship to transportation and access issues, further discussion of this use can be 

found in the Transportation and Travel section. 

Whitewater Boating 

Whitewater recreation activities on the Jarbidge and Bruneau River systems continue to be popular 

locally, regionally, and nationally. These rivers have a growing national reputation for those attracted to 

remote, wild, and spectacular canyons and a challenging whitewater boating experience. The float 

season lasts approximately one month, with the peak use occurring during the latter part of May. Water 

runoff from snowpack in the Jarbidge Mountains usually dictates the optimum flows for this activity. In 

1983, the Jarbidge FO implemented a mandatory registration system for private boaters on the Jarbidge 

and Bruneau Rivers, which provides some use data. While the Jarbidge FO administers outfitting on the 

3-67 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Transportation and Travel 

Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers, maintenance of facilities and accountability for visitor use are currently 

shared with the Bruneau FO of the Boise District. 

Between 2005 and 2008, 1,750 visitor days were spent participating in whitewater recreation activities in 

the planning area. The recorded use number for 2005 was 170 individuals, with kayaks as the primary 

mode of transportation. In 2006, the recorded use number was 320 individuals; the increase in boater 

registrations was due to an above-average water year.

 3.3.3. Transportation and Travel

Transportation involves access to public lands and infrastructure management. Within the planning area, 

local dependence on public land to meet transportation needs occurs mostly in terms of access to public 

and private lands, in contrast to town-to-town or city-to-city destination-type travel. Development of the 

existing transportation system in the planning area has been associated with providing access for 

resource uses such as livestock grazing and recreation. Increased demand for access to public lands, 

combined with research on impacts of roads and trails to resources and resource uses, requires a welldesigned and managed transportation system. 

There are approximately 4,300 miles of mapped transportation routes (i.e., roads, primitive roads, and 

trails) in the planning area. Based on field observations and recent aerial photography, the actual amount 

of transportation routes could be twice as high as the amount mapped. The transportation system 

includes BLM and county system roads and primitive roads. Some BLM and county system roads receive 

regular maintenance. County roads are usually constructed and maintained to higher standards than BLM 

roads and provide the local road systems for access to and through BLM lands, supporting a higher 

volume of traffic than other roads in the planning area. These roads are maintained by the six local 

highway districts and, in some areas, by the USAF if higher standards are required for operations 

connected with training ranges. 

Various government entities and individuals acquire ROWs from BLM for portions of the transportation 

system roads that cross BLM-managed land. Issuance of ROWs is based on access needs and resource 

considerations. 

In addition to main and local routes, numerous primitive roads are laced throughout the planning area 

connecting more remote locations to main roads. These primitive roads are used for administrative 

access (i.e. range monitoring), recreational purposes, access to private land inholdings, and access to 

livestock management infrastructure. Some of these routes are maintained as needed and are of native 

surface: dirt, gravel, or sand. 

One backcountry airstrip in the planning area, near Murphy Hot Springs, was leased to the Idaho 

Transportation Department’s (ITD’s) Division of Aeronautics in 1993 and is managed by that agency. 

Growth of OHV use has become an issue because of the number of users who participate in this 

recreation opportunity, as well as concerns related to the potential resource degradation resulting from 

high levels of unmanaged use in and near sensitive areas. During public scoping, more than 31% of 

comments received on resource uses related to transportation and access or OHV use. 

Areas are designated during the planning process in accordance with BLM regulations and include the 

following three management categories: 

 Open to Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Use – An area where all types of vehicle use are 

permitted at all times, anywhere within the designated “open” area. This refers to cross-country travel 

both on and off roads. 

 Limited to Designated Routes or Ways – Areas where vehicle use is restricted at certain times, in 

certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular use in order to meet specific resource management 

objectives. These limitations may include: limiting the number or types of vehicles; limiting the time or 

season of use; permitted, administrative, or licensed use only; use on existing roads and trails; and 

limiting use to designated roads and trails. 

August 2010 3-68 
 

                                                           

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resources Uses 

Land Use Authorizations

	 Closed to Motorized Vehicle Use – Motorized vehicles are permanently or temporarily prohibited. 

The use of motorized vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons such as search 

and rescue; such use shall be made only with the approval of the BLM authorized officer (43 CFR 

8340.0-5). 

Back Country Byways 

The Thousand Springs Scenic Byway begins at Interstate 84 near Bliss, Idaho, and follows US 30 

southeast through Twin Falls, Idaho. Contact with small parcels of land managed by the Jarbidge FO 

occurs near the Thousand Springs area. ITD administers this highway. This byway is a State byway and 

not a component of the BLM Back Country Byway program. 

3.3.4. Land Use Authorizations 

The Jarbidge FO administers approximately 400 right of ways (ROWs), land use permits, and leases, 

collectively referred to as land use authorizations. These existing authorizations are for a variety of 

different uses and are held by private individuals and groups, as well as by various business and 

government entities. 

Section 501 of FLPMA authorizes BLM to grant, issue, or renew ROWs on public lands; within the 

planning area, roads, power transmission lines, and telephone lines are the most common uses for 

ROWs and account for well over half of the total number of grants. Examples of additional types of ROW 

facilities authorized within the planning area include natural gas pipelines, communication sites, ditches, 

water facilities, and fiber optic lines. The Jarbidge FO processes approximately 20 to 30 ROW actions 

annually, including new authorizations, amendments, assignments, renewals, and relinquishments. Since 

the 1987 Jarbidge RMP was completed, there has been an increase in the number of utility services, 

powerline upgrades, roads to private residences, communication sites, and upgrades to existing land use 

authorizations. Unauthorized uses such as farming, road grading, and road building on BLM-managed 

lands have increased as well. 

Twelve communication site ROWs, occupying seven different communication site locations, are 

authorized within the planning area. Potential users are encouraged to locate within existing 

communication facilities, but the existing facilities can only accommodate a certain number of users. The 

two largest communication sites within the planning area are the Yahoo Creek Communication Site and 

the Lower Salmon Communication Site, both of which have completed communication site plans. There 

are no site plans for any of the other communication site facilities because of their single-occupant status. 

The 1987 Jarbidge RMP did not formally designate ROW corridors within the planning area. In general, 

attempts are made to group compatible facilities where possible. Special designation areas, such as 

ACECs and WSAs, may restrict such development. If approved, portions of an interstate transmission line 

project, the proposed Gateway West Transmission Line, may cross the planning area and would entail 

the construction, operation, and maintenance of 1,150 miles of 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV transmission 

lines across southern Wyoming and Idaho. In addition, the BLM Twin Falls District is analyzing several 

energy transmission line proposals, including Mountain Sates Intertie Project and Southwest Intertie 

Project. 

Renewable energy includes geothermal,16 wind, hydroelectric, and solar power. There are no renewable 

energy developments on public lands within the planning area; however, the Jarbidge FO has had several 

inquiries for wind energy-related interests on public land within the past several years. The only 

authorized use granted to date is the 2007 Renewable Energy Systems (RES) ROW for wind velocity test 

towers on China Mountain. The authorization allowed RES to construct four anemometer sites within the 

13,000-acre ROW area. In May 2007, RES submitted an application to construct a wind farm in portions 

of the Jarbidge and Wells FOs. The proposed wind development is being analyzed in a separate EIS and 

would produce 425 megawatts on approximately 30,000 acres; the proposed development would occur 

16 Geothermal resources are considered leasable minerals and are addressed in the Minerals section. 

3-69	 August 2010 
                                                           

Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Land Tenure 

on approximately 30,000 acres; the proposed development would occur on approximately 13,000 acres 

managed by the Jarbidge FO. 

Additional ROW applications are being submitted for ancillary uses to energy-related facilities on private 

and public land. The Jarbidge FO received an application for an upgrade on a road that will support 

another wind farm on private land in the Bell Rapids area. Additional ROW applications are being 

submitted for ancillary uses to energy-related facilities on private and public land. Under current 

conditions and technology, Idaho is not understood to have potential for commercial solar energy 

development. Solar resources in the planning area do not exceed 6 kWh/m2

/day (NREL, 2009b); 

therefore, the planning area is not currently identified as a high-priority state for solar energy development 

(NREL, 2009c).17 

Section 302 of FLPMA authorizes the use, occupancy, and development of public lands through leases, 

permits, and easements for uses not authorized through other authorities. Applicants can be State or 

local governments or private individuals or entities. Permits are usually short-term authorizations not to 

exceed three years; there are ten Section 302 FLPMA temporary land use permits within the planning 

area. Leases are usually longer-term authorizations. One backcountry airstrip in the planning area, the 

Murphy Hot Springs airstrip, was leased to ITD’s Division of Aeronautics in 1993 and is managed by that 

agency. There are also several access easements within the planning area. 

There are two Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) withdrawals on portions of the Snake 

River within the planning area. Six emitter sites are included as part of the Juniper Butte Range 

withdrawal by the USAF in addition to uses ancillary to these withdrawals, such as power lines, telephone 

lines, and roads. Other withdrawals in the planning area include public water reserves, water power 

reserves, power site reserves and classifications, and stock driveways. 

3.3.5. Land Tenure 

Land tenure, or land ownership, adjustment refers to actions that result in the disposal of BLM lands or 

the acquisition of nonfederal lands or interests by BLM. Land tenure transactions, such as sales, 

exchanges, Desert Land Entry Act of 1877 (DLE) and Carey Act of 1894 (CA) transactions, Recreation 

and Public Purposes Act of 1954 (R&PP) leases, and acquisitions through fee or easements, are used to 

conduct land tenure adjustments. The 1987 Jarbidge RMP identified the number of acres available for 

land tenure transactions (Table 3- 45). FLPMA directs BLM to retain public lands in Federal ownership 

unless it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest. 

Table 3- 45. Acres Available for Land Tenure Transactions 

Type of Land Tenure Transaction Number of Acres Available 

Sale 10,000 

Exchange 15,000 

DLE/CA 67,000 

R&PP Lease 1,368,000 

Land tenure transactions in the planning area are analyzed in project-specific reviews. Since the 1987 

Jarbidge RMP, the Jarbidge FO disposed of 61.59 acres through exchange and 62.5 acres through sale; 

the Jarbidge FO also acquired 40 acres through exchange and 376 acres through the Land & Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF). These acquisitions allowed BLM to acquire important cultural and 

paleontological sites, including a large natural spring at the Dean Site, the Morgan Property (adjacent to 

the Sand Point ACEC), and Three Island Crossing. 

DLE was passed to encourage and promote the economic development of the arid and semi-arid public 

lands of the western United States. Through the Act, individuals may apply for a DLE to reclaim, irrigate, 

and cultivate arid and semi-arid lands. Just over 4,000 acres have left BLM-management in the planning 

area through DLE since 1987. Over 200 DLEs have been relinquished or rejected in the planning area 

since 1987, either by default or inability to support a profitable plan of development due to water rights 

17 See also BLM IM 2007-097. 

August 2010 3-70 
 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses 

Leasable Minerals

reviews by the State of Idaho’s Snake River Basin Adjudication. The resolution of those entries placed the 

land back into retention status. There are currently four active DLE applications for 960 acres in the 

planning area. 

One lease under R&PP within the planning area was transferred by patent to the Idaho Department of 

Parks and Recreation (IDPR) in 1993 for the Three Island State Park southwest of Glenns Ferry. Three 

Island State Park contains the Oregon Trail crossing of the Snake River by settlers in the early 1840s 

through the late 1860s. The park is visited by travelers and tourists from all over the world. 

3.3.6. Minerals 

The BLM manages the Federal mineral estate for the United States. The land surface overlying this 

estate can be owned by a non-Federal entity such as the State of Idaho or private interests; these lands 

are referred to as “split-estate” lands. The Jarbidge FO manages the surface of 1,373,502 acres of public 

lands within the planning area boundary and 1,612,570 acres of mineral estate. Of these, 124,160 acres 

are split-estate lands; over 99% of these split-estate lands are under private surface ownership. In these 

situations, mineral rights are considered the dominant estate, meaning they take precedence over other 

rights associated with the property, including those associated with owning the surface. However, the 

mineral owner must show due regard for the interests of the surface estate owner and occupy only those 

portions of the surface that are reasonably necessary to develop the mineral estate. 

Minerals managed by BLM are categorized as leasable, salable, or locatable depending on the laws 

under which they are managed. Although similar in many ways, each classification is administered 

differently and has different requirements for acquisition, exploration, and development. 

3.3.6.1. Leasable Minerals 

Leasable minerals can be explored for and developed under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 

amended; other leasing acts; and regulations 43 CFR 3100, 3200, 3400, and 3500. Leasable minerals 

include energy minerals such as oil, gas, coal, geothermal steam, and associated geothermal resources. 

Leasable minerals also include some non-energy minerals such as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and 

sulfur. All minerals on acquired lands are leasable. BLM has discretionary authority to lease mineral 

resources for exploration and development. Where the Federal government owns the mineral estate and 

an agency other than BLM manages the surface, BLM will consult with that agency prior to leasing or 

approving an operations plan. In some situations, BLM must obtain concurrence as required by law. 

BLM-managed mineral estate underlying the Saylor Creek Range, Juniper Butte Range, and Hagerman 

Fossil Beds National Monument (118,000 acres total) is closed to mineral leasing by statute or PLO (PLO 

1027, PLO 4902, Public Law [PL] 105-261, and PL 100-696, respectively). 

There is currently no leasable mineral activity within the planning area. As described in the Oil and Gas 

Potential Report (BLM, 2009b), three wells were drilled in 1950 for the purpose of exploring for oil and 

gas in the planning area, all in the extreme northwest corner; no showings of gas or oil were encountered 

at any interval in any of the three wells, the deepest of which was drilled to 3,808 feet. Another well 

approximately 8 miles north of the planning area was drilled to a depth of 9,678 feet, but did not 

encounter oil or gas. Based on the geology of the planning area and where interest in leasing has 

recently been expressed, the areas with potential for oil and gas leasing in the planning area include the 

Cedar Creek/China Mountain areas and the northwest corner of the planning area (Map 90); these areas 

are referred to as the potential oil and gas areas. However, even though the potential for leasing in these 

areas is slightly higher than the potential in the rest of the planning area, the potential is still considered to 

be low. Appendix U contains the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) for oil and gas 

resources in the planning area. 

There are no wells in the planning area for geothermal power, only wells on private land for direct use for 

aquaculture, recreation, and heating. Other wells within the planning area that encountered geothermal 

water were drilled for other purposes, such as irrigation. As described in the Geothermal Potential Report 

(BLM, 2009a), the area near Bruneau Hot Springs, determined to have high potential for geothermal 

3-71 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Salable Minerals 

Locatable Minerals 

resources, has high potential for leasing. There is also potential for leasing in the northern third of the 

planning area, determined to have medium potential for geothermal resources (Map 91); these areas with 

high and medium potential are referred to as potential geothermal areas. The probability of full 

geothermal resource development and production occurring in the planning area during the next 20 years 

is higher than for oil and gas development but still considered low. Appendix V contains the RFDS for 

geothermal resources in the planning area. 

No deposits of coal or oil shale are known to exist in the planning area, and no commercially valuable 

deposits of other leasable minerals such as sodium and phosphate have been identified. 

3.3.6.2. Salable Minerals 

BLM manages salable minerals under the Materials Act of July 31, 1947 as amended (30 USC 601 et 

seq.), and as amended by the Acts of July 23, 1955 (69 Stat. 367), and September 28, 1962 (PL 87-713) 

and under regulations 43 CFR 3600. Salable minerals, or mineral materials, are common varieties of 

minerals and building materials such as sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders, and clay. 

Generally, salable minerals are widespread, of low unit value, and often used for construction or 

landscaping materials. Their value depends largely on market factors, quality of the material, availability 

of transportation, and transportation costs. BLM has the discretionary authority to dispose of salable 

mineral materials either through a contract of sale or a free use permit. 

BLM-managed mineral estate underlying the Saylor Creek Range, Juniper Butte Range, and Hagerman 

Fossil Beds National Monument (118,000 acres total) is closed to salable mineral development by statute 

or PLO (PLO 1027, PLO 4902, PL 105-261, and PL 100-696, respectively). 

There is ongoing use of salable minerals at several locations in the planning area. Two community pits for 

rhyolite are located in the Browns Bench and China Creek areas. Community gravel pits include the 

Balanced Rock North, Big Flat Creek, Magic Waters, and Pasadena Valley #1 Pits. Highway districts use 

gravel from the Big Flat Creek, Magic Waters, Devil Creek, and Three Island Pits. BLM and highway 

districts continue to develop sources of sand and gravel for road maintenance projects. 

The 1987 RMP identified 700 acres for salable mineral development, with a provision that allowed 

additional new sites to be developed as well. There are currently 1,300 acres within the planning area 

being used for salable mineral operations of all types. It is expected that demand for salable minerals will 

continue through the life of the plan and that once salable minerals in the existing pits are exhausted, 

additional pits would be developed. However, based on the anticipated demand in the No Action 

Alternative and Alternatives I, IV, and V, new pits are not expected to exceed a total of 1,000 acres; even 

with the higher anticipated demand in Alternatives II and III, new pits are not expected to exceed a total of 

2,000 acres under those scenarios. 

3.3.6.3. Locatable Minerals 

Locatable minerals, those not classified as leasable or salable, are managed under the General Mining 

Law of 1872 (17 Stat. 91, as amended) and regulations at 43 CFR 3700 and 3800. They include gold, 

silver, copper, gem stones, lead, zinc, barite, gypsum, certain varieties of high-calcium limestone, and 

other uncommon variety minerals. The General Mining Law of 1872 provides United States citizens the 

right to prospect, explore, and develop these minerals on public domain lands not withdrawn from mineral 

entry by Congress or the Secretary of the Interior. 

BLM-managed mineral estate underlying the Saylor Creek Range, Juniper Butte Range, and Hagerman 

Fossil Beds National Monument (118,000 acres total) is withdrawn from mineral entry by statute or PLO 

(PLO 1027, PLO 4902, PL 105-261, and PL 100-696, respectively). 

Exploration for and development of locatable mineral resources under the General Mining Law of 1872 

are nondiscretionary activities, meaning the BLM cannot prohibit reasonably necessary activities required 

for the prospecting, exploration, and development of valuable locatable mineral deposits. Since the 

January 1, 1981, issuance of 43 CFR 3809 regulations, the BLM has had the authority to regulate these 

August 2010 3-72 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses 

Locatable Minerals

activities and require mitigation or changes in operational practices to ensure activities do not result in 

“unnecessary or undue” degradation of the environment (43 CFR 3809.4). The 43 CFR 3809 regulations 

ensure a proposed mineral exploration or development activity conforms to reasonable industry standards 

for that type of activity, based on the appropriate stage of operation development. If the BLM concludes 

the proposed activity is not reasonable, it would not be approved under 43 CFR 3809. 

A variety of locatable minerals are found within the planning area due to its geologic diversity; however, 

the area generally lacks any known large, economically viable metallic deposits. There 19 active mining 

claims in and adjacent to the planning area; fewer than 100 acres are affected by these claims. Seven of 

these active mining claims are for lode claims for Bruneau jasper, a semi-precious decorative stone; all 

seven are in the Bruneau Canyon at Indian Hot Springs. 

Precious metal deposits, which consist of gold and silver, are rare in the planning area; there are no 

active precious metal mines in the planning area and no known commercially viable deposits. The Snake 

River contains placer deposits from American Falls Reservoir downstream to the Idaho/Oregon border. 

There are 12 active claims (four lode claims and eight placer claims) for gold in or adjacent to the 

planning area, along the lower Bruneau River, the Snake River, and Salmon Falls Creek. Recreational 

panning and placer mining for gold also occur in the planning area; the State of Idaho administers permits 

for mechanized gold collection, or dredging, in rivers. There are numerous historic, non-active, mining 

claims, the majority of which are placer claims concentrated in the river drainages throughout the 

planning area. 

Base metal deposits, which consist of copper, lead, zinc, manganese, and minor molybdenite, are rare in 

the planning area. There are no active base metal mines in operation and no known commercially viable 

deposits located within the planning area. 

Industrial minerals are those utilized in industrial processes, such as limestone, zeolites, silica, sulfur, 

perlite, and peat. There is no current activity related to industrial minerals in the planning area. 

3-73 August 2010 
                                                           

Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

3.4. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

3.4.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

An ACEC is defined as an area “within the public lands where special management attention is required 

(when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent 

irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other 

natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards” (FLPMA). The ACEC 

designation indicates that an area has values that meet criteria for relevance and importance and that 

special management has been established to protect those values. 

An area meets relevance criteria if it contains one or more of the following: 

 A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value, including, but not limited to, rare or sensitive 

archaeological resources and religious or cultural resources important to Native American tribes; 

 A fish or wildlife resource, including, but not limited to, habitat for Endangered, Threatened, or BLM 

Sensitive species, or habitat essential for maintaining species diversity, 

	 A natural system or process, including, but not limited to, Endangered, Threatened, or BLM Sensitive 

plant species; rare, endemic, or relic plants or terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian plant communities; or 

rare geologic features, or 

 Natural hazards,18 including, but not limited to, areas of avalanche, dangerous flooding, landslides, 

unstable soils, or seismic activity. 

The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must have substantial importance and 

value in order to satisfy the importance criteria. This generally means that the value, resource, system, 

process, or hazard is characterized by one or more of the following factors:
 

 More than locally significant qualities that give it special worth, consequence, meaning, 

distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource; 

 Qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change; 

 Recognition as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out the 

mandates of FLPMA; 

 Qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or management concerns about safety or 

public welfare; or 

 A significant threat to human life and safety or to property exists. 

The ACEC designation does not automatically or necessarily result in exclusion of uses. Special 

management within an ACEC is specific to the relevant and important values of that ACEC and the 

threats to the quality and integrity of those values. In other words, the level of special management 

required varies by ACEC depending on its relevant and important values and the need for management 

to maintain or enhance those values. As a result, a specific use may need to be excluded in one ACEC if 

it presents a threat to its relevant and important values, while that same use may be allowed in another 

ACEC if it does not present a threat. 

Full descriptions of each existing and proposed ACEC, including maps, the relevant and important values 

that may be affected by management proposed in Chapter 2, and existing and potential threats to those 

values, can be found in Appendix W. A summary of the relevant and important values for existing and 

proposed ACECs are described below. 

Existing ACECs 

Three ACECs were designated in the planning area under the 1987 Jarbidge RMP. 

18 No existing or proposed ACECs contain natural hazards that meet criteria for relevance and importance; therefore, 

this value is not discussed further. 

August 2010	 3-74 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations 

ACECs

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC 

The Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC contains 85,000 acres of BLM-managed land in the Bruneau and Jarbidge 

Canyons and the surrounding uplands. The ACEC is located along the Bruneau River from near Crowbar 

Gulch upstream to the Jarbidge FO boundary, along the Jarbidge River from the Bruneau River 

confluence to the Buck Creek confluence, and along the East Fork of the Jarbidge River from the 

Jarbidge River confluence to the FO boundary. Portions of Clover, Deep, Cougar, Dorsey, Columbet, and 

Dave Creeks are within the ACEC. 

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include cultural values, scenic values, fish and wildlife 

resources (bighorn sheep, bull trout, and redband trout), and natural systems or processes (Bruneau 

River phlox and the riparian system). 

Regionally significant cultural resources are present within the ACEC. Native American use of the area 

extends back thousands of years. While the canyonlands provided food, shelter, and water, the adjacent 

uplands also served as travel corridors between winter villages along the Snake and lower Bruneau 

Rivers and summer camps in the Jarbidge and Owyhee Uplands. The area retains traditional cultural 

importance for the tribes. Many sites are also important for their archaeological value. 

Scenic values in the Jarbidge and Bruneau Canyons are outstanding and have been recommended 

suitable for WSR designation. The canyon complex has exceptional rugged-desert scenery and natural 

qualities, including both basalt and rhyolite forms of volcanic material. The canyons plunge from 300 to 

over 900 feet from the adjacent upland plateaus to the rivers below. Arch Canyon contains a unique, 

large, natural arch composed of rhyolite spanning Cougar Creek. 

The ACEC contains over 100 miles of canyonland habitat for bighorn sheep, a Type 3 BLM Sensitive 

species. This is nearly all the bighorn sheep habitat within the planning area. The bighorn sheep 

population within the ACEC is estimated to be approximately 200 sheep. The canyonlands provide secure 

lambing habitat. The rivers in the canyon bottoms, as well as occasional seeps from canyon walls, 

provide water. Bighorn sheep forage is available in both the canyons and adjacent uplands. 

The 1987 Jarbidge RMP did not address bull trout; likely, the species was not known to be present within 

the ACEC boundary. However, the ACEC contains about 2 miles of spawning and rearing habitat and 

over 9 miles of migratory habitat for resident and migratory (fluvial) bull trout, which are listed as 

Threatened under ESA and are a Type 1 BLM Sensitive species. The Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment is the southern-most surviving population of bull trout in North America (FWS, 2004), occurring 

in a portion of southern Idaho and northern Nevada, and is isolated from other bull trout populations by 

numerous dams. Bull trout in this area are unique in their arid environmental setting. 

The ACEC contains habitat for redband trout, a Type 2 BLM Sensitive species, in four stream reaches, 

the Bruneau River, the Jarbidge River and its East Fork, and Dave Creek. These redband trout are 

adapted to both the colder streams that are critical for bull trout and the warmer, low elevation streams 

such as the lower Jarbidge River and Bruneau River. These populations of redband trout are also unique 

in that the occupied streams within the ACEC lack migration barriers that prevent redband from moving 

between streams, unlike most of the other redband trout streams within the planning area. 

Five of the six Idaho populations of Bruneau River phlox, a Type 3 BLM Sensitive species, occur within 

the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons within the ACEC; two additional populations can be found in Nevada. 

Bruneau River phlox has a total estimated population of 500 plants. 

The Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers are two of the longest free-flowing streams in southern Idaho; over 90 

miles of these rivers occur within the ACEC. The majority of other desert rivers in southern Idaho, 

including the Snake and Owyhee Rivers and Salmon Falls Creek, contain dams. The riparian systems in 

the ACEC are also unique in that they are typically dominated by Rocky Mountain juniper with 

interspersed quaking aspen and a few pockets of cottonwood. In addition, riparian zones on BLM portions 

of lower Dave Creek, as well as the Jarbidge River and its East Fork, and portions of the Bruneau River 

3-75 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

(from about 0.5 miles downstream of Indian Hot Springs almost to the Bruneau Valley) are ungrazed, as 

the topography limits access. 

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC 

The Salmon Falls Creek ACEC encompasses 2,700 acres of BLM-managed land. The ACEC is located 

along Salmon Falls Creek from the Jarbidge FO boundary to the west canyon rim, extending from 

Balanced Rock Crossing Park south to the private land near Salmon Falls Creek Dam. 

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include scenic values, fish resources (redband trout), 

and natural systems or processes (upland vegetation). 

The scenic values of Salmon Falls Creek ACEC are strongly influenced by the geology of the area and 

the high quality of the native vegetation communities. The ACEC contains the easternmost deep canyon 

in Idaho. In some areas, basalt lava flows are separated by layers of sediment. Other areas of the canyon 

are dominated by rhyolite columns and spires. A few springs on the lower portion of canyon walls provide 

a contrast with the dominant upland vegetation. 

Salmon Falls Creek supports a population of redband trout. The redband trout population within the 

ACEC is especially fragile, given that it is an isolated population in poor habitat. The flow alteration within 

the canyon has generally eliminated flushing flows, enhancing the collection of sediment in portions of the 

canyon. The lack of flushing flows has reduced the quality of the aquatic habitat for redband trout. 

The upland vegetation communities within the ACEC are unique because they are relatively undisturbed 

and have been relatively unaffected by humans. The canyon has upland plant communities at or near the 

PNC, including Wyoming big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass sites and some late seral riparian areas. 

There are few areas within southern Idaho, especially that are close to human population centers, where 

human uses are not the primary forces influencing the vegetation community. The lands have not been 

grazed by livestock, and over 95% of the ACEC has not burned in the last 20 years. There are no travel 

routes within the canyon, and recreational use of the area is low. 

Sand Point ACEC 

The Sand Point ACEC encompasses 810 acres of BLM-managed lands. The ACEC is located south of 

the Snake River near Hammett, Idaho. The ACEC extends from the high water mark along the Snake 

River about 0.5 to 0.75 miles south into the upland plateau. 

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include historic and cultural values and natural systems 

or processes (paleontological and geological resources). 

The Sand Point area, within the Glenns Ferry Formation region, lies between the Hagerman locality to the 

east and the Chalk Flat and Grandview localities to the west in elevation and time. This geologic 

formation is important for understanding the paleogeography of this part of western North America during 

the late Cenozoic Era. 

The ACEC contains 1.3 miles of Oregon Trail ruts and the south bank landing for the Medbury Ferry. This 

site represents a unique opportunity to protect a type of culturally and historically significant site that has 

been damaged or destroyed in other areas through development and agricultural use. 

Several large prehistoric archaeological sites are located within the ACEC. The ACEC contains 

archaeological sites in a riverside setting that meet National Register eligibility criteria. Their importance is 

enhanced because most similar sites in the region are in private ownership and have been altered by 

agricultural development. 

The Sand Point area contains one of the largest concentrations of Blancan Age (3 million years old) 

freshwater snail and clam fossils in the United States. Fish and mammal fossils are also present. The 

scientific importance of the Sand Point fossils and their geologic context has been recognized since their 

original discovery in 1902. 

August 2010 3-76 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations 

ACECs

Proposed ACECs

Several ACECs were nominated for the revised Jarbidge RMP and were found to meet criteria for 

relevance and importance; these proposed ACECs are described below. 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC – Expanded Boundary 

In additional to the existing boundary, two new boundary configurations of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACECs 

were nominated, an ACEC with an expanded boundary and an ACEC with a reduced boundary. 

The proposed extensions to the existing Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC would encompass about 38,000 acres 

of BLM-managed land; if added to the existing ACEC, the new ACEC would total 123,000 acres of BLMmanaged land. The proposed extensions include the remainder of the Jarbidge River and Bruneau RiverSheep Creek WSAs not already within the existing ACEC, as well as bull trout habitat along the Jarbidge 

River south of the Jarbidge Forks, Dave Creek, Jack Creek, and Buck Creek. The eastern boundary of 

the existing ACEC south of Three Creek Highway would be modified to follow a road. 

The same values meet relevance and importance criteria in the proposed extensions as in the existing 

ACEC, with the addition of Davis peppergrass as a component of natural systems or processes. The 

differences between the relevant and important values in the proposed extensions and those present in 

the existing Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC are discussed below. 

Numerous regionally significant archaeological sites are located within the proposed extensions to the 

existing ACEC. Many sites associated with playas suggest a unique adaptation to the arid uplands, which 

involved transplanting stream-adapted shellfish to seasonal lakes to augment food supplies. 

In addition to the scenic values for the existing Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC, the Jarbidge River south of the 

Jarbidge Forks contains numerous rhyolite columns, spires, and a few window rocks that are visible from 

the Jarbidge Road. Aspen are present on some of the hillsides and draws. The majority of the Jarbidge 

River riparian zone contains a mix of juniper, willows, dogwood, with some cottonwood and limber pine. 

The proposed extensions to the existing ACEC would add the remaining bighorn sheep habitat in the 

planning area, about 7 additional miles of canyons, to the ACEC. 

The proposed extensions would cover the remaining BLM-managed portion of Dave Creek, which is 

crucial spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, and overwintering habitat for bull trout within the Jarbidge 

River system (FWS, 2004). The proposed extensions to the existing ACEC would also include migratory 

bull trout habitat on the Jarbidge River south of the Jarbidge Forks and all of the BLM-managed portions 

of Jack Creek, one of the spawning streams in the Jarbidge River watershed. These areas total 

approximately 8 miles of streams with bull trout habitat. 

The proposed extensions to the existing ACEC would add occupied redband trout habitat to the existing 

ACEC, including habitat in the Jarbidge River above the confluence with the East Fork, Dave Creek, and 

Deer Creek (NV). 

Davis peppergrass, a Type 3 and NV BLM Sensitive species, is present in playas within the proposed 

extensions. Although the population of Davis peppergrass is declining range wide, the Bruneau-Jarbidge 

populations are a population stronghold. Davis peppergrass is limited in its distribution to portions of 

southeastern Oregon, south-central Idaho, and north-central Nevada, with the majority of known 

populations occurring in Idaho. The species is restricted to a narrow suite of environmental conditions, 

occurring in playas on volcanic plains where the regional vegetation is dominated by big sagebrush and, 

to a lesser extent, shadscale. 

The proposed extensions to the existing ACEC do not contain any additional populations of Bruneau 

River phlox; thus, the expanded boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC would still contain five of six 

Idaho populations of this species. 

3-77 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

The Jarbidge River above the confluence with its East Fork, as well as Dave, Jack, and Deer Creeks, 

which are unrestricted and free-flowing on BLM-managed lands, would be included in the proposed 

extensions. Approximately 10 additional miles of riparian zone are included in the proposed extensions. 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC – Reduced Boundary 

The proposed reduced boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC would encompass 57,000 acres of BLMmanaged land. The majority of the proposed ACEC lies within the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons; some 

of the adjacent uplands are included within the boundary as well. Portions of the existing ACEC that 

would not be included within this boundary include areas south of the Jarbidge River WSA on the 

Bruneau River, Jarbidge River and its East Fork, as well as areas north of Sheepshead Draw. 

The same values meet relevance and importance criteria in the reduced boundary as in the existing 

ACEC, except bull trout habitat would no longer occur within the ACEC boundary. The differences 

between the relevant and important values in the reduced and the existing ACEC are discussed below. 

The cultural and scenic values within the proposed reduced boundary of the ACEC are the same as those 

documented for the existing boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC. 

The proposed ACEC contains approximately 45 miles of canyonland habitat for a population of bighorn 

sheep. The bighorn sheep values within the proposed reduced boundary of the ACEC are the same as 

those documented for the existing boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC; however, the proposed 

ACEC would contain roughly two-thirds of the occupied bighorn sheep habitat, the majority of the area 

where bighorn sheep are commonly observed. Roughly 16 miles of canyons and adjacent plateaus with 

occupied bighorn sheep habitat from Blackrock Pocket in the Bruneau Canyon northward would no longer 

be within the ACEC. 

The known occupied bull trout habitat would no longer be within the boundary of the ACEC. The ACEC 

would contain occupied redband trout habitat in the Bruneau River and the Jarbidge River below the 

confluence with the East Fork; however, occupied redband trout habitat within the East Fork of the 

Jarbidge River and Dave Creek would no longer be within the ACEC. 

The Bruneau River phlox values within the proposed reduced boundary of the ACEC are the same as 

those documented for the existing boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC; however, one population 

would no longer be in the ACEC if the boundary were reduced. 

The proposed ACEC would contain fewer than 45 miles of free-flowing reaches of the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Rivers and would no longer contain riparian systems dominated by Rocky Mountain juniper. 

Inside Desert ACEC – Large Boundary 

Two boundary configurations of the Inside Desert ACECs were nominated, an ACEC with a large 

boundary and an ACEC with a small boundary. 

The proposed large boundary of the Inside Desert ACEC would encompass 73,000 acres of BLMmanaged land. The proposed ACEC would be located between Clover Creek and the Jarbidge River and 

from Clover Butte south to approximately Poison Butte and would be adjacent to the Juniper Butte 

Range. The proposed large ACEC boundary was drawn along existing pasture fences to make the 

proposed ACEC manageable. 

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include natural systems or processes (slickspot 

peppergrass). 

Slickspot peppergrass is a rare, annual or biennial forb endemic to sagebrush steppe in southwestern 

Idaho (Moseley, 1994). Slickspot peppergrass is a Type 1 BLM Sensitive species that is Proposed for 

listing as Endangered under ESA. The proposed large boundary of the Inside Desert ACEC contains high 

quality habitat for slickspot peppergrass, which is characterized by intact sagebrush steppe, low 

abundance of non-native species, and low levels of human-caused disturbances (Colket, 2006; FWS, 

August 2010 3-78 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations 

ACECs

2003; Moseley, 1994). The population of slickspot peppergrass in the proposed ACEC is the most 

genetically diverse of the known slickspot peppergrass populations. The proposed ACEC contains over 

90% of the occupied slickspot peppergrass habitat in the planning area and the largest contiguous habitat 

within the range of the species. 

Inside Desert ACEC – Small Boundary 

The proposed small boundary of the Inside Desert ACEC would encompass 41,000 acres of BLMmanaged land. The proposed ACEC would be located from Clover Butte south to approximately Middle 

Butte in several pastures near the Juniper Butte Range. 

The slickspot peppergrass values within the small boundary of the proposed ACEC are the same as 

those documented for the large boundary of the proposed Inside Desert ACEC; however, the small 

boundary would encompass only 50% of occupied slickspots in the planning area. 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC – Large Boundary 

Two boundary configurations of the Jarbidge Foothills ACECs were nominated, an ACEC with a large 

boundary and an ACEC with a small boundary. 

The proposed large boundary of the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC would encompass 136,000 acres of BLMmanaged land in the southern third of the planning area. The boundary would run from the canyon of the 

East Fork of the Jarbidge River to Salmon Falls Creek and from Three Creek Highway to the southern 

boundary of the Jarbidge FO. 

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include cultural values, fish or wildlife resources 

(redband trout, spotted frog, sage-grouse), and natural systems or processes (upland vegetation). 

Regionally significant cultural resources are located throughout the proposed ACEC area. The Jarbidge 

Foothills area was used extensively by Native Americans for thousands of years. For the tribes, many of 

the sites created by this use serve as important links to ancestral lifeways and play a critical role in 

maintaining traditional tribal culture. In addition, many of the sites contain important archaeological 

information concerning human adaptation to the semi-arid environment of southern Idaho over time. 

The area contains 13 of the 24 streams occupied by redband trout within the planning area. Redband 

trout in the Jarbidge Foothills exist in isolated populations, or strongholds, that are unable to migrate to 

adjacent suitable habitats when threatened by low streamflow conditions or other environmental 

disturbance such as wildland fire. Several of the streams within the proposed ACEC (Deadwood, Deer 

[ID], Cedar, Flat, Deadman) lack or have limited connectivity with other streams. Due to the lack of 

connectivity between the redband trout occupied streams, these fish are vulnerable to population 

declines. 

The proposed large boundary of the ACEC would contain all known occupied habitat for spotted frog (a 

Candidate and Type 1 and NV BLM Sensitive species) within the planning area. The species was 

originally categorized as a Candidate-9 but has been elevated to Candidate-3 by FWS. Spotted frog 

populations are part of a larger, but fragmented, population of spotted frogs in northern Nevada. Spotted 

frogs are presently found only on less than 1,000 acres of the planning area in two areas of Shack and 

Rocky Canyon Creeks. Potentially suitable habitat occurs in several other drainages (House, China, 

Cedar, and Flat Creeks) within the proposed ACEC. 

The Browns Bench/Monument Springs area within the proposed ACEC is a regionally important 

stronghold area for sage-grouse, a Type 2 BLM Sensitive species. The proposed ACEC maintains the 

connectivity between sage-grouse populations in Nevada and the Shoshone Basin. Sage-grouse habitat 

in this area has remained relatively intact and has generally not been fragmented by wildland fire. The 

changes in elevation and plant communities provide quality late-brood habitat for sage-grouse. Both 

resident and migratory sage-grouse are present in the area. The large boundary of the proposed ACEC 

would contain 90,000 acres of key sage-grouse habitat, including important wintering and breeding 

3-79 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

habitat. At least 14 active sage-grouse leks, associated satellite leks, and sage-grouse nesting habitat are 

present within the large boundary of the proposed ACEC. 

The proposed ACEC contains one of the last large, contiguous blocks of high-quality sagebrush steppe 

habitat in the planning area. Although there are other blocks of similar size and quality within the region, 

the habitat within the proposed ACEC is important for maintaining connectivity between other regional 

blocks of habitat. Some of the late-seral range sites in the planning area occur within the proposed 

ACEC. Plant communities in the proposed ACEC include aspen woodlands, mountain mahogany 

woodlands, high elevation low sagebrush, black sagebrush, mountain shrub, mountain big sagebrush, 

riparian zones, and salt desert shrub. 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC – Small Boundary 

The proposed small boundary of the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC would encompass 66,000 acres of BLMmanaged land and would be located in the southeast corner of the planning area. The boundary would 

run from Salmon Falls Creek west to the House Creek Allotment, and from Three Creek Highway south to 

the southern boundary of Jarbidge FO. This boundary for the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC would focus 

management on a block of primarily BLM-managed lands and would reduce the amount of private land 

that would be in the ACEC boundary. 

The same values meet relevance and importance criteria in the small boundary of the Jarbidge Foothills 

ACEC as in the large boundary, except spotted frog would no longer occur within the ACEC boundary. 

The differences between the relevant and important values in the small and large boundary of the 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC are discussed below. 

The cultural values within the small boundary of the proposed ACEC are the same as those documented 

for the large boundary of the proposed Jarbidge Foothills ACEC. 

Redband trout only occur in three creeks within the small boundary of the proposed ACEC: Cedar Creek, 

Salmon Falls Creek, and portions of China Creek; 10 additional streams with redband trout that occur in 

the large boundary would not be included in the small boundary of the ACEC. 

The sage-grouse values within the small boundary of the proposed ACEC are the same as those 

documented for the large boundary of the proposed Jarbidge Foothills ACEC. However, the small 

boundary of the proposed ACEC would only contain 47,000 acres of key sage-grouse habitat. At least 10 

active sage-grouse leks, associated satellite leks, and sage-grouse nesting habitat are present within the 

small boundary of the proposed ACEC. 

The upland vegetation values within the small boundary of the proposed ACEC are the same as those 

documented for the large boundary of the proposed Jarbidge Foothills ACEC. However, some of the 

other large blocks of high-quality sagebrush steppe habitat outside small boundary of the proposed ACEC 

contain substantially greater amounts of private land. 

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC 

The proposed Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC would encompass 1,100 acres of BLM-managed land. The 

proposed ACEC would be located along the lower Bruneau River within the northernmost portion of the 

Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSA. 

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include fish or wildlife resources (Bruneau Hot 

springsnail) and natural systems or processes (special status plants and thermal seeps and springs). 

The Bruneau Hot springsnail was listed as an Endangered species in 1998 (FWS, 1998) and is a Type 1 

BLM Sensitive species. Geothermally influenced seeps and springs in the Bruneau River and one of its 

tributaries (Hot Creek, outside of the planning area) are the only locations where this species occurs in 

the world. The proposed ACEC would protect the geothermal springs on the east side of the Bruneau 

River, which is the entire suitable hot springsnail habitat in the Jarbidge FO. Approximately one-third of 

the global population of these snails exists within the proposed ACEC. 

August 2010 3-80 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations 

ACECs

Numerous BLM Sensitive plant species occur in the area including Packard’s cowpie buckwheat (Type 3) 

and spine-node milkvetch (Type 4) – both perennials, and rigid threadbush (Type 4), spreading gilia 

(Type 3), and white-margin waxplant (Type 4) – all annuals. One of six Idaho populations of Bruneau 

River phlox (Type 3 and NV) occurs in the canyon itself. This high concentration of special status plants is 

unique; this assemblage of species does not occur elsewhere in Idaho. 

Thermal springs and seeps are present within the proposed ACEC, supporting the Bruneau Hot 

springsnail. Since the early 1990s, the water flows at the thermal springs and seeps have declined, 

reducing habitat for this Endangered species. The Bruneau Hot springsnail has evolved to occupy these 

unique spring habitats and is sensitive to actions that affect the surface flows from the springs, the 

temperature of the spring, or the substrates within the springs. 

Middle Snake ACEC 

The proposed Middle Snake ACEC would encompass 7,500 acres of BLM-managed lands; these lands 

are separated in several areas by blocks of private land. The proposed ACEC would be located from an 

area southeast of King Hill to the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument. The proposed ACEC would 

extend from the Jarbidge FO boundary in the Snake River to the canyon rim or to existing fences on the 

adjacent uplands. 

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include fish or wildlife resources (Snake River snails, 

Shoshone sculpin, and white sturgeon) and natural systems or processes (special status plants). 

A portion of the global population of the Snake River physa (Endangered, Type 1 BLM Sensitive) and the 

majority of the global population of the Bliss Rapids snail (Threatened, Type 1) reside in the Snake River 

within the proposed ACEC. Both snails are primarily in the eastern portion of the proposed ACEC. Other 

special status mollusks found in the Snake River within the proposed ACEC include the California floater 

(Type 3), Columbia pebblesnail (Type 3), and short-face lanx (Type 2). This reach of the Snake River also 

contains a portion of the occupied habitat of the Utah valvata snail (Type 1), which is currently listed as 

Endangered but is being reviewed by FWS for possible delisting. This reach of the Snake River was 

identified in the Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan as the recovery area for these species 

(FWS, 1995). 

Shoshone sculpin are a Type 2 BLM Sensitive species found in approximately two dozen springs or 

streams in the Hagerman Valley area of southern Idaho and are found nowhere else in the world (Griffith 

& Daley, 1984). Most of the known locations of Shoshone sculpin are outside of the proposed ACEC and 

the planning area, but there is one spring on the south side of the Snake River within the proposed 

ACEC, just upstream of Bliss Bridge, where a moderate-sized population was discovered (Griffith & 

Daley, 1984). The spring source where Shoshone sculpin have been found is the only habitat that is 

suitable to support this native fish in the planning area. 

White sturgeon, a Type 2 BLM Sensitive species, are present in the free-flowing reach of the Snake River 

downstream from the Bliss Dam. The proposed ACEC covers the majority of spawning habitat for white 

sturgeon in the planning area including the upper-most reach of the Snake River with a self-sustaining 

population of sturgeon. Because of the free-flowing nature of this reach, sturgeon are able to reproduce 

naturally and do not require hatchery supplementation to sustain the population. While the habitat is not 

the best within range for white sturgeon, this segment contains the best habitat in the upper Snake River. 

The Snake River breaks in this area contain a mixture of soils. The mix of old lake bed sediments and 

volcanic soils provides habitat to a number of uncommon plants including the following presently 

categorized as special status species: calcareous buckwheat (Type 3), Greeley’s wave-wing (Type 3), 

Janish penstemon (Type 3), matted cowpie buckwheat (Type 3), and Snake River milkvetch (Type 4). A 

few other plant species (e.g., desert dandelion and Torrey’s blazingstar) formerly on the Idaho BLM 

Sensitive List are also present in the proposed ACEC. 

3-81 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

Sagebrush Sea ACEC 

The Sagebrush Sea ACEC would encompass 958,000 acres of BLM-managed land, roughly the southern 

two-thirds of the planning area. It would extend from the Bruneau River on the west to Salmon Falls 

Creek on the east. Its southern boundary would follow the southern boundary of the Jarbidge FO. The 

northern boundary would follow the road that runs from Balanced Rock to Crows Nest to Clover Crossing, 

then follow Clover Creek along its east and north canyon rims to Clover Creek’s confluence with the 

Bruneau River. 

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include cultural values, fish or wildlife resources (bull 

trout, redband trout, spotted frog, sage-grouse, and bighorn sheep), and natural systems or processes 

(slickspot peppergrass, Davis peppergrass, and Bruneau River phlox). 

Due to its size, the proposed ACEC contains numerous archaeological sites. The distribution of the 

numerous regionally significant archaeological sites present is not uniform; site density varies by terrain 

and proximity to critical resources. In general, the canyonland and foothill areas of the Sagebrush Sea are 

most sensitive. Many sites have traditional cultural relevance to the tribes and are also important for their 

scientific value. 

The proposed ACEC contains all known occupied habitat for Jarbidge River bull trout within the planning 

area for both resident and migratory (fluvial) bull trout. In addition, the area contains all 24 streams 

occupied by redband trout within the planning area, including the perennial streams in the Jarbidge 

Foothills and most of the perennial streams in the Jarbidge River and Salmon Falls Creek watersheds. 

The area contains all known occupied habitat for spotted frog within the planning area. However, habitat 

for all three of these species occurs in only a portion of the proposed ACEC. 

The proposed ACEC would contain the vast majority of the active sage-grouse leks and their winter and 

nesting habitat. The proposed ACEC would contain 252,000 acres of key sage-grouse habitat, nearly 

90% of the key sage-grouse habitat within the planning area. There are currently 39 active sage-grouse 

leks, associated satellite leks, and sage-grouse nesting habitat present within the proposed ACEC. 

The proposed ACEC would encompass all habitat used by bighorn sheep. Bighorn sheep habitat in the 

Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons accounts for less than 10% of the proposed ACEC, as the majority of the 

proposed ACEC is not generally suitable for bighorn sheep. 

The proposed ACEC would cover all known occupied habitat for slickspot peppergrass and Davis 

peppergrass in the planning area and five of the six Idaho populations of Bruneau River phlox. However, 

these species are each found in only a small portion (less than 10%) of the proposed ACEC. 

Sand Point ACEC – Expanded Boundary 

One additional boundary configuration of the Sand Point ACEC was nominated. The proposed expanded 

boundary of the Sand Point ACEC would include the 810 acres of the existing Sand Point ACEC as well 

as the Morgan property, an additional 140 acres between the existing ACEC and the Snake River. The 

Morgan property was acquired by BLM in 2002 because the relevant and important values in the existing 

ACEC extended onto this property and the previous landowner wanted these values preserved. 

The same values meet relevance and importance criteria in the proposed expanded boundary of the 

Sand Point ACEC as in the existing ACEC. The differences between the relevant and important values in 

the expanded boundary and the existing Sand Point ACEC are discussed below. 

The Morgan property extension would add 1 mile of Oregon Trail and the historic Morgan cabin to the 

ACEC. Several large prehistoric archaeological sites are also located within the Morgan property 

extension. The Morgan property extension contains archaeological sites in a riverside setting that meet 

National Register eligibility criteria. 

August 2010 3-82 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations 

ACECs

The Morgan property extension also contains paleontological resources for which the Sand Point area is 

known. The extension would add two known paleontological sites to the existing ACEC as well as 

additional acreage of the Glenns Ferry Formation. 

Summary of Relevant and Important Values 

ACEC designation is a management decision that impacts relevant and important values in areas 

nominated for ACEC designation. Thus, the affected components of ACECs are the values that meet 

criteria for relevance and importance under any existing or proposed ACEC, rather than the ACEC 

designation itself. 

Table 3- 46 displays the total acreage of each relevant and important value that occurs within an existing 

or proposed ACEC. These acreages represent the maximum area in which each value could be managed 

for through designation of an existing or proposed ACEC. 

Unless otherwise noted, the acres of each value consist of the footprint acres of the existing and 

proposed ACECs in which that value meets relevance and importance criteria. However, the Sagebrush 

Sea ACEC does not contain any additional habitat for bull trout, redband trout, spotted frog, bighorn 

sheep, slickspot peppergrass, Davis peppergrass, or Bruneau River phlox beyond what is contained in 

the other ACECs with these relevant and important values; therefore, the Sagebrush Sea ACEC acres 

were not used to calculate acres for those values. Other adjustments to the footprint acres of each 

relevant and important value were made as follows: 

 Because the entire acreage of the Sagebrush Sea ACEC is not likely to contain cultural values, acres 

of the ACEC within the high density zone for cultural resources were used rather than the total 

acreage of the ACEC. 

 Because the reduced Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC does not contain bull trout habitat, acres of the 

reduced Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC were subtracted from the acreage of the expanded ACEC. 

 Because the small Jarbidge Foothills ACEC does not contain spotted frog habitat, acres of the small 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC were subtracted from the acreage of the large ACEC. 

	 Because only a portion of the Sagebrush Sea ACEC and the large and small Jarbidge Foothills 

ACECs contains key sage-grouse habitat, acres of key sage-grouse habitat within those ACECs were 

used rather than the total footprint acres of those ACECs. 

	 Because the existing and reduced Bruneau-Jarbidge ACECs do not contain Davis peppergrass, only 

the acres of the expanded ACEC outside the other Bruneau-Jarbidge boundaries were used. 

	 Because the expanded Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC does not contain any additional Bruneau River phlox 

habitat beyond what is contained in the existing Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC, the expanded BruneauJarbidge ACEC acres were not used to calculate acres for this value. 

3-83	 August 2010 
 

 

 

Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

ACECs 

Table 3- 46. Acres with Values Meeting Relevance and Importance Criteria in Existing or Proposed ACECs 

Value 

Existing and proposed ACEC(s) in which 

Value Meets Relevance and Importance 

Criteria 

Acres in Existing or 

Proposed ACECs 

Historic Values Sand Point (existing, expanded) 950 

Cultural Values 

Bruneau-Jarbidge (existing, expanded, reduced) 

Sand Point (existing, expanded) 

Jarbidge Foothills (large, small) 

Sagebrush Sea 

635,000 

Scenic Values Bruneau-Jarbidge (existing, expanded, reduced) 

Salmon Falls Creek 135,000 

Fish or 

Wildlife 

Resources 

Bruneau hot springsnail Lower Bruneau Canyon 1,100 

Snake River snails Middle Snake 7,500 

Shoshone sculpin Middle Snake 7,500 

White sturgeon Middle Snake 7,500 

Bull trout Bruneau-Jarbidge (existing, expanded) 

Sagebrush Sea 71,000 

Redband trout 

Bruneau-Jarbidge (existing, expanded, reduced) 

Salmon Falls Creek 

Jarbidge Foothills (large, small) 

Sagebrush Sea 

271,000 

Columbia spotted frog Jarbidge Foothills (large) 

Sagebrush Sea 70,000 

Sage-grouse Jarbidge Foothills (large, small) 

Sagebrush Sea 252,000 

California bighorn 

sheep 

Bruneau-Jarbidge (existing, expanded, reduced) 

Sagebrush Sea 123,000 

Natural 

Systems or 

Processes 

Slickspot peppergrass Inside Desert (large, small) 

Sagebrush Sea 73,000 

Davis peppergrass Bruneau-Jarbidge (expanded) 

Sagebrush Sea 38,000 

Bruneau River phlox 

Bruneau-Jarbidge (existing, expanded, reduced) 

Lower Bruneau Canyon 

Sagebrush Sea 

86,000 

Special status plant 

assemblages 

Lower Bruneau Canyon 

Middle Snake 8,500 

Upland vegetation Salmon Falls Creek 

Jarbidge Foothills (large, small) 139,000 

Riparian systems Bruneau-Jarbidge (existing, expanded, reduced) 132,000 

Paleontologic and 

geologic resources Sand Point (existing, expanded) 950 

Thermal springs and 

seeps Lower Bruneau Canyon 1,100 

August 2010 3-84 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations 

NHTs 

WSRs 

3.4.2. National Historic Trails (NHTs)

The Oregon Trail was designated an NHT under the National Trails System Act (NTSA) on November 10, 

1978 (PL 95-625). The purpose of the NTSA is to promote preservation, public access, travel, enjoyment, 

and appreciation of designated trails. The Oregon NHT follows the primary route of the Oregon Trail 

based upon emigrant travel that occurred between 1841 and 1848. Those portions of the Oregon NHT on 

public land meeting the NTSA criteria for historical importance, national significance, and high potential 

for recreation or historic interpretation are called Federal protection components. 

In the planning area, the trail closely follows the Snake River. The trail split at Three Island Crossing near 

Glenns Ferry; the main trail crossed over to the north side of the Snake River, while the South Alternate 

continued along the south bank of the Snake. In all, there are approximately 47 miles of the Oregon NHT 

managed by the Jarbidge FO. The Comprehensive Management and Use Plan for the Oregon NHT 

developed by the National Park Service identifies one high potential route segment and two high potential 

historic sites on BLM-managed land in the planning area. These include approximately 29 miles of the 

North Trail high potential segment, from the Elmore County line to Glenns Ferry, and the Thousand 

Springs Complex and Three Island Crossing high potential sites. 

During the 20th century, portions of the Oregon Trail in the planning area were destroyed by agricultural 

development and highway construction projects. Prior to the passage of the NTSA, FLPMA, and NEPA, 

portions of the remaining trail’s visual corridor were altered by the construction of major overhead 

transmission lines between Hagerman and Glenns Ferry. Since the mid-1980s, dedicated management 

and extensive trail marking have stemmed the loss and greatly reduced damage to trail resources. Trail 

conditions are generally good in remote, undeveloped settings. However, trail and visual corridor 

conditions have deteriorated in areas where cross-country motorized vehicle use overlaps with the 

historic route. The presence of livestock fences and water troughs and the alteration of native vegetation 

communities after wildland fires, especially conversion from native to annual communities, adjacent to the 

trail have affected the physical and visual setting of the Oregon NHT in isolated areas. 

3.4.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs)

Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA; 16 USC 1271-1287) on October 2, 1968, to 

address the need for a national system of river protection. As an outgrowth of a national conservation 

agenda in the 1950s and 1960s, the WSRA was a response to the dams, diversions, and water resource 

development projects that occurred on America’s rivers between the 1930s and 1960s. The WSRA 

stipulates selected rivers should be preserved in a free-flowing condition and be protected for the benefit 

and enjoyment of present and future generations. Since 1968, the WSRA has been amended many 

times, primarily to designate additional rivers and to authorize the study of other rivers for possible 

inclusion. 

Section 5 (d) (1) of the WSRA directs Federal land management agencies to consider potential WSRs in 

their land and water planning processes, stating, “In all planning for the use and development of water 

and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential 

national wild, scenic and recreational river areas.” To fulfill this requirement, the BLM evaluates river and 

stream segments to determine whether might be eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System (NWSRS) whenever it undertakes a land use planning effort such as an RMP. 

The WSRA seeks to protect and enhance a river’s natural and cultural values and to provide for public 

use consistent with its free-flowing character, water quality, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

(ORVs). Designation affords certain legal protection from development. For instance, new dams cannot 

be constructed, and Federally assisted water resource development projects that might negatively affect 

the designated river values are not permitted. Where non-Federal lands are involved, the managing 

Federal agency works with local governments and private landowners to develop protective measures. 

Consideration of whether a river should be designated as a wild, scenic, or recreational river can be 

broken into two phases: 

3-85 August 2010 
                                                           

Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

WSRs 

 Determination of Eligibility – Federal agencies conduct an evaluation of river features to determine 

which rivers qualify to be added to the NWSRS, and 

 Determination of Suitability – Most commonly, Federal agencies conduct a review and then 

recommend to Congress which rivers should be protected. Only Congress can designate a river as 

wild, scenic, or recreational. 

River segments determined to be eligible are assigned a tentative classification as wild, scenic, or 

recreational. These classifications are defined as follows: 

 Wild – Wild river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

 Scenic – Scenic river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, with 

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive or shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads. “Scenic” does not necessarily mean the river corridor has to have scenery as an 

ORV. 

 Recreational – Recreational river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily 

accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may 

have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. “Recreational” does not imply that the 

river will be managed or prioritized for recreational use or development or that the river corridor has to 

have recreation as an ORV. 

There are no designated WSRs in the planning area. Several studies evaluated rivers within and forming 

the boundary of the planning area at varying levels of eligibility, classification, and suitability according to 

the requirements of the WSRA. 

Section 5(a) of the WSRA listed the Bruneau River as one of 27 rivers to be considered for addition to the 

NWSRS. In 1973, 100 miles of the Bruneau River and tributaries in the planning area were found to be 

suitable for inclusion: 71 miles of the Bruneau River from Blackrock Crossing downstream to Hot Creek, 

and 29 miles of the Jarbidge River from the East Fork confluence downstream to the Bruneau River 

confluence. These segments were tentatively classified as wild, except for the upper 11 miles of the 

Bruneau River, which was tentatively classified as scenic. 

WSR eligibility determinations and tentative classifications for Snake River segments were made in 1991 

by the Shoshone District Office19 for consideration within the Draft Bennett Hills RMP. Two of eligible 

segments of the Snake River are shared with the Jarbidge FO. Eight miles of the Snake River from Lower 

Salmon Falls Dam downstream to Bliss Dam Reservoir (the Hagerman Reach) and 13 miles of the river 

from Bliss Dam downstream to the King Hill Bridge (the King Hill Reach) were both found to be eligible 

and were tentatively classified as Recreational (Table 3- 47). 

WSR eligibility and tentative classifications for Idaho segments of Salmon Falls Creek were initiated in 

1992 by the Burley District Office20; eligibility determinations were finalized in 2009. These segments form 

the majority of the eastern boundary of the Jarbidge FO. Nine miles of Salmon Falls Creek from the 

Nevada border downstream to Salmon Falls Reservoir and 44 miles of Salmon Falls Creek from Salmon 

Falls Dam downstream to Balanced Rock Park were identified as eligible (Table 3- 47). The upper 

segment was tentatively classified as recreational and the lower segment as scenic. 

An eligibility evaluation was conducted in 2007 on all river segments within and bordering the planning 

area not already determined eligible or suitable as part of the planning process for the Jarbidge RMP 

(Appendix X). River segments determined to be eligible as part of that evaluation, as well as their 

tentative classification, are contained in Table 3- 47. Eligible rivers and their corridors on Federal lands 

are provided interim protection until the suitability phase is complete. Rivers recommended as suitable 

are protected as potential additions to the NWSRS until Congress or the Secretary of the Interior 

determines whether the suitable river will be included. Rivers deemed nonsuitable by Congress revert to 

land management as described in the most recent RMP. 

19 The Shoshone District Office is now known as the Shoshone Field Office within the Twin Falls District. 20 The Burley District Office is now known as the Burley Field Office within the Twin Falls District. 

August 2010 3-86 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3- 47. River Segments Eligible and Suitable for Inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System 

River Segment Description Length 

(miles) 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values 

Tentative 

Classification 

Current 

Status 

Bruneau River, 

Upper A 

Blackrock Crossing to 

11 miles downstream 11 

Cultural, Fish, 

Geological, 

Recreational, Scenic, 

Vegetation, Wildlife 

Scenic Suitable 

Bruneau River A 

11 miles downstream 

from Blackrock 

Crossing to Hot Creek 

60 

Cultural, Fish, 

Geological, 

Recreational, Scenic, 

Vegetation, Wildlife 

Wild Suitable 

Cougar Point 

Creek B 

Jarbidge FO boundary 

to East Fork, Jarbidge 

River confluence 

1 Scenic Wild Eligible 

Dave Creek B 

Private boundary to East 

Fork, Jarbidge River 

confluence 

3 Fish Wild Eligible 

Jarbidge River A 

East Fork, Jarbidge 

River confluence to 

Bruneau River 

confluence 

29 

Cultural, Fish, 

Geological, 

Recreational, Scenic, 

Vegetation, Wildlife 

Wild Suitable 

Jarbidge River B 

Jarbidge FO boundary 

to East Fork, Jarbidge 

River confluence 

10 Fish, Scenic Recreational Eligible 

East Fork 

Jarbidge River, 

South B 

Jarbidge FO boundary 

to Murphy Hot Springs 7 Fish Wild Eligible 

East Fork 

Jarbidge River, 

North B 

Murphy Hot Springs to 

Jarbidge River 

confluence 

2 Fish Recreational Eligible 

Rocky Canyon 

Creek B 

Headwaters to North 

Fork, Salmon Falls 

Creek confluence 

2 Wildlife Wild Eligible 

Salmon Falls 

Creek, Upper C 

Nevada border to 

Salmon Falls Reservoir 9 Recreational Recreational Eligible 

Salmon Falls 

Creek, Lower C 

Salmon Falls Dam to 

Balanced Rock 30 Geological, Recreational, Scenic Scenic Eligible 

Snake River, 

Hagerman 

Reach D 

Lower Salmon Falls 

Dam to Bliss Dam 

Reservoir 

8 

Fish, Geological, 

Historical, 

Recreational, 

Wildlife 

Recreational Eligible 

Snake River, 

King Hill Reach 

D 

Bliss Dam to King Hill 

Bridge 13 

Fish, Geological, 

Recreational, 

Wildlife 

Recreational Eligible 

Snake River, 

Three Island 

Reach B 

King Hill Bridge to 

Highway 51 Bridge 25 

Cultural, Fish, 

Historical, 

Recreational 

Recreational Eligible 

A Evaluation and study conducted in the Bruneau WSR Study (1976); outstandingly remarkable values for Bruneau and Jarbidge 

River segments were inferred from the narrative in the Bruneau WSR Study Report. B

 Evaluation conducted as part of the current planning process (BLM, 2009d). C Evaluation conducted by the Burley District Office in 1992 and finalized in 2009. D Evaluation conducted by the Shoshone District Office as part of the Draft Bennett Hills RMP in 1991. 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations 

WSRs

3-87 August 2010 
 

Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

WSAs 

3.4.4. Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs)

WSAs are lands with wilderness characteristics identified through the wilderness review required by 

Section 603 of FLPMA, Congressional legislation, or the land use planning process in Section 202 of 

FLPMA. WSAs are managed under the Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review 

(IMP; BLM Handbook H-8550-1) pending Congressional action. Wilderness characteristics are features of 

the land associated with the concept of wilderness, including naturalness and opportunities for solitude 

and primitive and unconfined types of recreation, that are reasonably present, of sufficient value, and 

practical to manage. An area with naturalness generally appears to have been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the imprint of human activity substantially unnoticeable. Solitude is the state of 

being alone, remote from habitation, or in a secluded place. A primitive and unconfined recreation 

experience is an activity that provides dispersed, undeveloped recreation that does not require facilities or 

motorized equipment. 

Only Congress can designate WSAs as Wilderness or release them from interim management. Until such 

time as Congress acts, BLM must manage these lands in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of 

such areas for preservation as wilderness. Any WSA lands released from interim management are 

subject to specific release direction as stated in the release legislation. If the release legislation does not 

contain specific direction, released lands would be managed according to direction in the current RMP. 

There are currently three WSAs in the planning area (Table 3- 48). The Jarbidge River WSA is located in 

Owyhee County, Idaho, and includes the Jarbidge River and lower West Fork of the Bruneau River. The 

Jarbidge River WSA contains lands managed by the Jarbidge and Bruneau FOs, including 64,000 acres 

of BLM-managed land in the planning area. 

The Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSA is located in Owyhee County, Idaho. The main stem of the 

Bruneau River and Sheep Creek are contained within this WSA. The Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSA 

contains lands managed by the Jarbidge and Bruneau FOs, including 28,000 acres of BLM-managed 

land in the planning area. 

The Lower Salmon Falls Creek WSA is located in Twin Falls County, Idaho. This WSA includes Salmon 

Falls Creek from Salmon Dam downstream to the Lily Grade crossing. Lands of the Lower Salmon Falls 

Creek WSA are located in the Jarbidge and Burley FOs, including 2,000 acres of BLM-managed land in 

the planning area. 

Table 3- 48. Wilderness Study Areas in the Planning Area 

Wilderness Study Area BLM-Managed Acres Acres in the Planning Area 

Jarbidge River WSA 71,000 64,000 

Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSA 101,000 28,000 

Lower Salmon Falls Creek WSA 3,000 2,000 

August 2010 3-88 
 

 

  

                                                           

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features 

Social Conditions

3.5. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FEATURES 

The Jarbidge FO is a difficult area to describe with demographic data due to its sparse population. Few 

people live within the boundaries of the planning area. Census block groups, the statistically relevant unit 

of demographic analysis, cover large rural areas that extend well beyond the boundaries of the planning 

area. A number of small cities are just outside the planning area. Social and economic conditions are 

described using several levels of analysis and baseline comparisons. Where possible, characteristics are 

compared across the following areas: 

 Jarbidge Planning Area – This area is the subject of the RMP. It encompasses parts of four 

counties and covers 3,784 square miles and 2,172 census blocks. 

	 Jarbidge Impact Area – This is an aggregation that attempts to include those people most directly 

connected to the planning area, including those within the planning area. It includes four very rural 

census block groups21 in four counties and five incorporated cities. It covers 10,746 square miles, 

4,452 census blocks, and includes these sub-areas: 

	 Rural Component – This area consists of the aggregate of four rural census block groups within four 

counties. 

 Twin Falls County Rural Area – This census block group covers the western portion of this county 

and includes the unincorporated communities of Cedar, Peavey, Clover, Hollister, Amsterdam, 

Rogerson, and Meteor. 

	 Elmore County Rural Area – This census block group covers the southeast corner of Elmore 

County. It includes the communities of Hammett and King Hill, but does not include Glenns Ferry, 

which it surrounds. 

	 Owyhee County Rural Area – This very large census block group covers the eastern side of 

Owyhee County and includes the unincorporated communities of Bruneau, Grasmere, Three 

Creek, Indian Cove, Hot Springs, and Murphy Hot Springs. 

	 Elko County Rural Area – This very large census block group includes a large portion of Elko 

County that lies west of Highway 93 and north of Interstate 80. It includes a portion of Jackpot 

and the unincorporated communities of Contact, Henry, Jarbidge, Rowland, Point of Rocks, 

Pattsville, and Mountain City. It does not include the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. 

	 City Component – This component includes the five cities of Glenns Ferry, Bliss, Hagerman, Buhl, 

and Castleford, Idaho. These cities surround the planning area. Separate demographic data are 

available for each of these incorporated places. 

	 Four-County Region – This is the aggregation of Twin Falls, Elmore, and Owyhee Counties, Idaho, 

and Elko County, Nevada. This larger region is especially relevant for data that are only available at 

the county level. Separate demographic and economic data are available for each county. 

 State of Idaho and State of Nevada – The two state averages offer another comparison. 

 United States – This level lends understanding of how this region differs from national averages. 

Map 115 displays the Jarbidge Planning Area, Jarbidge Impact Area, Rural Component, City Component, 

and Four-County Region. 

3.5.1. Social Conditions 

Stakeholder Groups

Several stakeholder groups with varying levels of interest in the planning area can be identified. Each of 

these groups can be described as “connected” or “disconnected.” Connected stakeholders are either 

physically engaged with the planning area or socially engaged with those people and see themselves as 

acting on behalf of themselves, their families, their future descendents, their neighbors, and the public 

good. Connected stakeholders include ranchers, local residents, recreators, and hunters and fishermen. 

While tribal members of the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes could be classified as 

connected stakeholders, their relationship to the planning area is discussed in the Tribal Rights and 

21 A census block group is a geographical unit used by the United States Census Bureau which is larger than a 

census block, but smaller than a census tract. 

3-89	 August 2010 
 

Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Social Conditions 

Interests section. Disconnected stakeholders have a cultural or emotional investment in the planning area 

and tend to see themselves as acting on behalf of the public good. 

Connected Stakeholders 

Ranchers 

Approximately 60 family ranches have permits to graze livestock in the planning area. Many ranchers 

love the way of life ranching provides. An estimate of three ranchers per family yields a population size of 

180 ranchers working in the planning area. This is a conservative estimate as local observers generally 

used higher estimates for the number of ranchers per ranch, but they agreed it could possibly be this low. 

Families with grazing permits in the planning area also use public land for purposes other than grazing, 

including scientific, educational, spiritual, aesthetic, and recreational purposes (Black & Black, 2006; 

Brackett, et al., 2006; Lehmann, et al., 2006). 

Livestock grazing has been an important social and economic activity in the planning area since the 

1870s (see the Livestock Grazing section). Some families have been raising cattle in the planning area 

for six generations. Scoping comments expressed the opinion that the practice of ranching in the planning 

area will preserve open space from development, an important social value in the area. 

Local Residents (Non-Ranchers) 

The local non-ranching residents, year-round and part-year, and businesses have a strongly rural 

character and are closely integrated with their ranching neighbors (Wulfhorst, et al., 2003). Survey data 

from Owyhee County suggests that non-ranchers view their ranching neighbors in a positive light (Harp, 

et al., 2001), and in many instances, their lives are intertwined as they take part in round ups, branding, 

and many of the same recreation activities. 

Public land issues are very important to these stakeholders. Over 70% of Jarbidge, NV, homeowners 

have attended two or more community meetings or hearings or have worked with other community 

members to bring public action on public land issues. More than half of Jarbidge, NV, homeowners have 

written a letter or editorial or provided testimony on public land issues at least twice (Rollins, Castledine, 

et al., 2007). Jarbidge, NV, residents are concerned with the threat of fire to their community. Most feel 

that livestock grazing has a valuable role to play in reducing fire risk; only 12% say they do not approve of 

using grazing to reduce wildland fire threats (Rollins, Evans, et al., 2007). 

Participants in the Jarbidge Community Economic Workshop identified the Malad Gorge, Billingsley Creek 

State Park, Miracle and Sligar’s Hot Springs, and the Thousand Springs Scenic Byway as culturally and 

socially significant places and areas (Gardner, 2006). Participants also identified what they appreciated 

about the planning area. Responses included solitude, livestock, wildlife, scenery, recreation 

opportunities, hunting, and cultural aspects. Areas important to the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes exist within the planning area boundaries; these are addressed in the Tribal 

Rights and Interests section. 

Dispersed Recreators 

The dispersed recreator stakeholder group represents people who view wildlife, camp, and hike in the 

planning area. Dispersed recreators may also engage with the planning area contemplatively when they 

are not there (e.g., thinking about the area, telling stories, and sharing photos). 

River Recreators 

Based on user data, the river recreator stakeholder group is estimated to be comprised of approximately 

3,000 people. River recreators participate in whitewater and flatwater kayaking, rafting, and canoeing 

primarily on the Bruneau, Jarbidge, and Snake Rivers and Salmon Falls Creek. 

Motorized Recreators 

Motorized recreators comprise a large portion of recreators in the planning area. There were 8,087 ATVs, 

UTVs, and off-highway motorcycles registered to residents of Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties 

August 2010 3-90 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features 

Social Conditions

in 2007 (IDPR, 2008). ATV and motorcycle use is likely high in Elko County as well, as 74% of Jarbidge, 

NV, residents reported ATV and motorcycle use in a recent survey (Rollins, Castledine, et al., 2007). It 

can be assumed that two-thirds of the 8,087 ATV, UTV, and off-highway motorcycle owners residing in 

adjacent counties recreate in the planning area, that many of these vehicles are used by more than one 

person, and that some individuals own more than one of these vehicles. 

Hunters and Fishermen 

The hunters and fishermen stakeholder group is assumed to have a population of 34,042 people based 

on research by Wulfhorst et al. that found 43% of Owyhee County residents participated in hunting or 

fishing (Wulfhorst, et al., 2003). The rate in Elmore County is likely to be similar. Twin Falls County is 

more urban and more likely to have a participation rate similar to the statewide rate for Idaho of 24% 

(FWS, 2006). Among Jarbidge, NV, residents, 52% have fished, 43% have bird hunted, 35% have hunted 

other small game, and 30% have hunted big game (calculations from Rollins et al., 2007). 

Disconnected Stakeholders 

Disconnected stakeholder groups include individuals, interest groups, or advocacy groups that may 

express more passionate or adamant views concerning specific public land uses or BLM management 

practices. BLM does not track nor maintain specific data with regard to all of the various interests or 

advocacy groups that may have concerns regarding BLM management of the planning area. Chapter 5 

contains a list of organizations who requested briefings or presentations on the Jarbidge RMP. It is 

assumed these groups hold a vested interest in the management of the planning area and, thus, are 

considered disconnected stakeholders. In addition, Appendix C contains a list of organizations on the 

Jarbidge RMP Mailing List. These organizations are considered disconnected stakeholders as well. 

Demographics 

The planning area had an estimated population of 1,342 in 2008 (Table 3- 49). This population has been 

stable for some time, and actually declined slightly in the current decade. The Jarbidge Impact Area had a 

2008 population of 9,450, and again showed an annual decline (-0.4%) from 2000 through 2008. There is 

some variation in the population growth pattern within the Jarbidge Impact Area, with the City of Bliss at 

1.9% annual growth from 2000 through 2008 and the Owyhee County rural portion growing 0.7% at one 

extreme, and the City of Glenns Ferry (-1.9%) and Elko County rural portion (-1.2%) at the other. Both the 

planning area and Jarbidge Impact Area have experienced stagnant populations and contrast sharply 

with the growth in population of Idaho (2.1%) and Nevada (3.9%). The Four-County Region has modest 

positive growth because the central cities of Twin Falls, Elko, and Mountain Home have more vibrant 

economies than the more rural Jarbidge Impact Area. This pattern of strong growth in state populations 

and decline in Jarbidge populations is predicted to continue to 2013. The severity of the recent recession 

and the sharp reduction in migration patterns nationwide may mean growth will slow even more than 

these projections. 

Median age is a good proxy for age structure. In general, the higher the median age, the larger the 

proportion of the population age 65 or older and the fewer children under age 18. The planning area has 

a median age of 38.9 (Table 3- 50), which is older than Idaho’s median age of 34.4 and Nevada’s 35.9. 

The impact area is more than two years younger than the planning area at 36.8 years. The oldest areas 

are rural Elko County at 45.9 and the City of Hagerman at 45.6. 

3-91 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Economic Conditions 

Table 3- 49. Population for Jarbidge Analysis Areas, 1990, 2000, 2008, and 2013 

Analysis Areas 

Resident Population Annualized Population Change 

1990 

Census 

2000 

Census 

2008 

Estimate 

2013 

Projection 

1990-2000 

(Actual) 

2000-2008 

(Actual) 

2008-2013 

(Estimate) 

Planning Area 1,238 1,369 1,342 1,306 1.1% -0.2% -0.5% 

Impact Area 

Rural Component 

Elmore County 

Portion 1,058 1,194 1,115 1,008 1.3% -0.8% -1.9% 

Owyhee County 

Portion 609 728 770 772 2.0% 0.7% 0.1% 

Twin Falls 

County Portion 411 413 424 439 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 

Elko County 

Portion 613 617 559 530 0.1% -1.2% -1.0% 

Total 2,691 2,952 2,868 2,749 1.0% -0.4% -0.8% 

City Component 

Bliss 228 274 316 331 2.0% 1.9% 0.9% 

Buhl 3,574 3,982 4,039 4,154 1.1% 0.2% 0.6% 

Castleford 239 278 282 289 1.6% 0.2% 0.5% 

Glenns Ferry 1,339 1,638 1,383 1,295 2.2% -1.9% -1.3% 

Hagerman 570 662 562 574 1.6% -1.9% 0.4% 

Total 5,951 6,834 6,582 6,643 1.5% -0.5% 0.2% 

Grand Total 8,642 9,786 9,450 9,392 1.3% -0.4% -0.1% 

States 

Idaho 1,006,749 1,293,953 1,513,754 1,657,732 2.9% 2.1% 1.9% 

Nevada 1,201,833 1,998,257 2,616,430 3,010,973 6.6% 3.9% 3.0% 

Table 3- 50. Median Age for the Jarbidge Planning Area and Jarbidge Impact Area, 2008 

Age Planning Area Impact Area 

Rural Component City Component Total 

Estimated Median Age 38.9 40.4 35.1 36.8 

Percent Under Age 18 19.7% 18.2% 25.6% 25.6% 

Percent Age 65 and Over 13.2% 14.2% 16.8% 16.0% 

3.5.2. Economic Conditions 

Income Levels 

Two measures are most commonly used to measure the relative prosperity of a population. The first, per 

capita income, is calculated by taking total personal income for the region and dividing it by the total 

number of people living there. It is best used in comparing a large number of diverse areas. The per 

capita income of the United States in 2008 is estimated at $25,933 while the State of Idaho is below that 

level at $21,598. The per capita income of the planning area at $25,089 (Table 3- 51) is above the Idaho 

average and approaching the United States average. Per capita incomes for rural Idaho typically run well 

below the Idaho average, such as 89% of the Idaho average in 2002 (Profile of Rural Idaho, 2005). The 

Jarbidge Impact Area fits this rural pattern and is below the Idaho average at $19,005. 

The second measure of income is median household income. This is the income level that half of the 

households in a community make more than and half make less than. It tends to be a more accurate 

reflection of the community than average household income, which can be skewed by a few very rich or 

poor individuals. The difference between average and median income levels is an indicator of the 

disparity between the low and high income households in the area. The median household income in the 

planning area of $45,186 (Table 3- 51) nearly matches that of the State of Idaho, yet the higher spread 

August 2010 3-92 
 

 

 

 

 

 

between average and median incomes means there is a larger difference between the high and low 

income households in the planning area than for the State of Idaho. Lower average and median 

household income levels for the impact area are consistent with the findings for per capita income. There 

are more households with median incomes under $35,000 and fewer households making over $100,000 

in the impact area than the planning area. 

Table 3- 51. Estimated Household Income for the Jarbidge Planning Area and Jarbidge Impact Area, 2008 

Income Planning Area Impact Area 

Rural Component City Component Total 

Per Capita Income $25,089 $23,287 $18,421 $19,898 

Average Household 

Income $65,649 $61,608 $47,397 $51,563 

Median Household 

Income $45,186 $43,574 $39,312 $40,644 

Personal Income by Sector

The region’s economy can be examined by levels of personal income, as in Table 3- 52, or by 

employment. The services sector of the economy grew faster than agriculture, mining, construction, or 

manufacturing between 1970 and 2000 to account for 32.2% of the four-county economy in 2000. 

However, this is a decline from the 36.8% services share of income in 1970, which runs against the 

national trend of increasing the proportion of income derived from services. One reason for the declining 

share of services is the continued growth in the government sector, which is unusually high due to the 

presence of the Mountain Home Air Force Base. The other sector that has grown rapidly in the region is 

non-labor income, which grew from 26% of the regional economy in 1970 to 29.9% in 2000. This income 

type is composed of payments from owned assets that come as dividends, interest, and rent, and transfer 

payments. The majority of transfer payments go to senior citizens and veterans as Social Security, 

Medicare, and pensions. In 2006, the non-labor share of income was 29.6% of the Four-County Region’s 

$4.5 billion economy. This is lower than the national rate (37.4%) due to the younger age structure of the 

region. 

Table 3- 52. Personal Income History by Industry for the Four-county Region, 1970-2000 

Sector 

Year Services & 

Professional 

Government 

and 

Government 

Enterprises 

Farm & 

Agricultural 

Services 

Manufacturing Construction Mining 

1970 $17,604 $9,867 NA $2,647 $1,707 NA 

1975 $21,489 $11,065 NA $3,036 $2,462 NA 

1980 $25,434 $12,232 $7,430 $4,114 $3,056 $709 

1985 $28,079 $12,124 $6,587 $3,734 $2,555 $7,078 

1990 $35,585 $13,026 $6,870 $4,729 $3,424 $1,577 

1995 $42,758 $14,765 $7,286 $4,845 $4,297 $1,643 

2000 $47,559 $16,581 $8,083 $4,846 $4,522 $1,820 

Employment

Table 3- 53 shows 2008 data estimates for the prevalent occupations in the planning area and Jarbidge 

Impact Area. Twenty-three percent of employment in the planning area is in the natural resource 

industries of farming, fishing, and forestry (Table 3- 53). This is lower than in the city component of the 

Jarbidge Impact Area; however, all analysis areas are far higher than the natural resource industry 

employment in Idaho (2.5%). Both the planning area and the Jarbidge Impact Area lag Idaho markedly in 

professional occupations, yet both are higher in management and business occupations. The planning 

area is also notably lower in service jobs, which serves to demonstrate its reliance for services on the ring 

of communities surrounding it. Construction in the Jarbidge Impact Area has kept pace with the State of 

Idaho, though there are fewer construction jobs in the rural areas or in the planning area. 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features 

Economic Conditions

3-93 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Economic Conditions 

Table 3- 53. Estimated Employment by Occupation for the Jarbidge Planning Area and Jarbidge Impact 

Area, 2008 

Occupation Planning Area Rural Component 

Impact Area 

City Component Total 

Employed Population 

Age 16 and Over 672 1,442 2,777 4,219 

Management, Business, 

and Financial Operations 18.7% 24.0% 9.9% 14.7% 

Professional and Related 

Occupations 11.1% 9.2% 13.9% 12.3% 

Service 7.7% 8.0% 14.1% 12.0% 

Sales and Office 13.8% 13.9% 17.4% 16.2% 

Farming, Fishing, and 

Forestry 23.2% 23.1% 9.1% 13.9% 

Construction, Extraction, 

and Maintenance 7.6% 8.1% 11.0% 10.0% 

Production, 

Transportation, and 

Material Moving 

17.9% 13.7% 24.6% 20.9% 

Self-Employment 

Self-employment is an important contributor to employment. It includes sole proprietorships, partnerships, 

and tax-exempt cooperatives, and many of the businesses provide only part-time employment. 

Proprietors comprise 20.8% of businesses in the Four-County Region, and the self-employed created 

20.3% of the new jobs added between 1970 and 2006. For comparison, the Idaho self-employment rate 

was 23.3% in 2006, and the United States’ average was 19.1%. The number of farm proprietors declined 

by 188, to 2,935 between 1970 and 2006, and farm proprietors now account for 3.2% of the employment 

in the Four-County Region (Headwaters Economics, 2010). 

Unemployment 

Unemployment rates for the Four-County Region have historically been below the averages for the United 

States, Idaho, and Nevada. Employment has remained more stable in the current recession within the 

Four-County Region than in either State or the nation. In September 2009, unemployment rates were 

4.1% in Owyhee County, 6.8% in Elko County, 6.8% in Twin Falls County, and 7.8% in Elmore County 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009), while unemployment was 13.3% in Nevada, 8.8% in Idaho, and 9.8% 

for the United States. 

Poverty

The best measure of poverty at the household level is the Federal definition for poverty level. The Census 

Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who 

is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every 

individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty levels do not vary geographically, but they are 

updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. The official poverty level definition uses money 

income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, 

Medicaid, and food stamps). 

Within the planning area, an estimated 10.8% of families were estimated to be in poverty in 2008 (Table 

3- 54). For the Jarbidge Impact Area, poverty is higher at 11.4% of families. These rates were higher than 

the Idaho rate (8.3%) and the United States rate (9.2%). The cities of Glenns Ferry (18.9%) and 

Castleford (17.6%) and the rural Owyhee County area (16.4%) have poverty levels twice the Idaho 

average. Consistent with national patterns, the poverty rates of families with children was considerably 

higher than those without children (15.3% versus 5.5% for the planning area). Family poverty rates were 

highest among female householder families, where 30% of female householder families in the planning 

area were below the poverty line in 2008. 

August 2010 3-94 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features 

Economic Conditions

Table 3- 54. Families with Incomes Below the Poverty Level for the Jarbidge Planning Area and Jarbidge 

Impact Area, 2008 

Family Unit Planning Area Rural Component 

Impact Area 

City Component Total 

Married- Couple Families 9.9% 9.6% 7.9% 8.4% 

Male Householder Families 4.5% 4.3% 20.0% 15.8% 

Female Householder 

Families 30.0% 23.1% 32.8% 31.4% 

Families with own 

Children 15.3% 14.0% 17.8% 16.6% 

Families without own 

Children 5.5% 5.3% 5.9% 5.7% 

All Families 10.8% 10.0% 12.0% 11.4% 

Economic Sectors Affected by the Jarbidge RMP 

Agriculture and Ranching 

Agriculture is big business in Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties, compared to most areas of 

Idaho. Net farm income was $108 million in 2006 on cash receipts of $965 million. Two-thirds of these 

receipts were from livestock. That share has grown dramatically over time, led by the growth in the 

number of dairies and dairy cows in the region surrounding the planning area. The crop share of receipts 

dropped from 41% in 1970 to 29% in 2006. Government payments have dropped over time both in 

amount and share of farm receipts (Gardner & Martin, 2006). The Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector in 

Elko County, NV, comprised 2.5% of Elko County employment in 2005. Net income was $8.6 million on 

average, and average annual cash receipts and other income for this sector was $58.5 million between 

1994 and 2004 (Vusovic & Harris, 2006). 

Government 

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) identified communities within the 

Interior Columbia Basin that may be economically and socially vulnerable to shifts in the management of 

Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands. Glenns Ferry, Mountain Home, Bliss, Gooding, Hagerman, 

and Wendell, Idaho, were chosen as communities of interest based on their geographical isolation, the 

industries in which the community specialized, and the relationship of the community to Forest Serviceand BLM-administered lands (ICBEMP, 1998). These communities lie to the north and east of the 

planning area. 

BLM disbursements coming out of the planning area in Fiscal Year 2006 include approximately $500 in 

SRPs, $223,500 in grazing receipts, $3,500 in mineral material sales, and $46,500 in land use 

authorizations and ROW collections. Total collections from grazing on BLM-managed land in Idaho were 

approximately $1.6 million in fiscal year 2006. The planning area represented nearly 15% of that total. 

Revenues from livestock grazing fees collected within the planning area are substantial in relation to other 

areas of the State. 

BLM disburses Payments-In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to counties for all Federal lands. Congress appropriates 

PILT payments each year for tax-exempt Federal lands administered by the BLM, National Park Service, 

FWS, Forest Service, Federal water projects, and some military installations. PILT payments are in 

addition to other Federal revenues transferred to the States such as oil and gas leasing, livestock grazing, 

and timber harvesting. These payments help local governments carry out vital services such as 

firefighting and police protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search-and-rescue 

operations. The formula used to compute the payments is contained in the PILT Act and is based on 

population, receipts-sharing payments, and the amount of Federal land within an affected county. BLM 

PILT payments amounted to $1,373,305 for Elmore County, $729,305 for Owyhee County and $928,459 

for Twin Falls County from all BLM FOs in those counties for 2006 (Gardner & Martin, 2006). Elko County 

3-95 August 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Economic Conditions 

received $1,817,553 in PILT payments from all BLM FOs in that county for 2006 ("PILT Payments (in 

Dollars) for Counties in Nevada," 2007). 

Recreation 

The majority of recreation activity in planning area is classified as dispersed or motorized, with the 

majority of users traveling fewer than 100 miles to enjoy the activities available to them. Recreation use 

levels generally follow a pattern of growth commensurate to population growth. Population growth in 

south-central Idaho has contributed to greater recreation activity within the planning area. 

Table 3- 55 displays the distribution by recreation activity within the planning area and the amount spent 

by recreators in 2008. Actual expenditure data is difficult to obtain for many of the recreation categories; 

therefore, these values are a proxy for estimating economic spending attributed to the planning area. 

Total spending is estimated at nearly $675,000 for 2008. Hunting and whitewater rafting (Boating – Non 

Motorized) attract the largest contingent of non-local users. Camping and hunting make up nearly twothirds of the current spending and nearly 50% of the visitor days (see the Recreation section for more 

information on recreation in the planning area). 

Table 3- 55. Recreation Activities and Dollar Values, 2008 

Recreation Activity Visitor Days (Annual Average 

from 2006 to 2008)A Total Spending (2008 Dollars)B 

Boating-Non Motorized 583 $19,904 

Camping 4,928 $219,804 

Picnicking 142 $2,720 

Driving for Pleasure 1,404 $17,132 

Fishing 1,935 $38,745 

Hunting 

Big Game 3,172 $184,401 

Small Game 229 $13,295 

Upland Bird 903 $52,500 

Waterfowl 23 $1,357 

Trapping 20 $471 

Interpretation 

Nature Study 283 $3,979 

Wildlife Viewing 491 $6,899 

Other Viewing 557 $7,837 

Non Motorized Travel 

Backpacking 288 $13,572 

Mountain Biking 214 $2,631 

Hiking, Walking, Running 535 $5,535 

Horseback Riding 221 $7,384 

Pack Trips 110 $3,670 

Off-Highway Travel 

OHV-ATV 419 $8,067 

OHV-Cars/Trucks/Sport Utility Vehicles 872 $16,796 

OHV-Dunebuggy 30 $584 

OHV-Motorcycle 1,149 $22,116 

Snowmobiling 93 $3,180 

Specialized Non-Motor Sports 

Archery 10 $237 

Climbing-Mountain/Rock 30 $711 

Antler Gathering 17 $395 

Photography 362 $8,568 

Rockhounding 171 $4,059 

Social Gatherings 155 $3,680 

August 2010 3-96 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features 

Economic Conditions

Target Practice 102 $2,424 

Swimming/Water Play 17 $395 

Winter/Non-Motorized 

Skiing-Cross Country 43 $849 

Snowshoeing 30 $460 

Total 19,540 $674,355 A Values from (BLM, 2009c) B Values based on a study by (Stynes & White, 2005) 

Wind Energy 

Wind energy potential is estimated at 18,000 MW for Idaho. At the beginning of 2006, 75 MW of wind 

power capacity were operational in Idaho and nearly 1,900 MW of wind generation were in development. 

Of this, 190 MW were expected to be completed by the end of 2006 and an additional 200 to 300 MW by 

the end of 2007 (Idaho Legislative Council Interim Committee on Energy, 2007). 

There has been considerable interest in developing the wind energy resources within the planning area. 

Several projects have been built or approved on private land in the northeast corner of the planning area, 

including nearly 30 turbines with a capacity of over 40 MW. These are small projects built under the 

Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) that requires local utilities to purchase the 

electricity these projects generate at a rate calculated by the state public utilities commission. This gives 

these small projects the advantages of a guaranteed market for their electricity. Additionally, there is 

potential for another 700 MW of wind power generation through multiple projects in and around the 

Jarbidge Impact Area (Fleischman, 2010). One large commercial project, the China Mountain Wind 

Project, has been proposed in the southeast corner of the planning area. 

Table 3- 56 describes the potential economic impacts of hypothetical 20-MW wind projects; these figures 

were generated by the Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) Model, developed and 

maintained by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL, 2009a). The JEDI model uses cost and 

local purchase relationships from existing wind projects across the nation and reviewed by wind 

developers. These project expenditures were then expanded into economic impacts using 2006 Impact 

Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) multipliers for Idaho. A 20-MW project would be typical of the projects 

developed on private land in the northeast corner of the planning area. 

3-97 August 2010 
 

 

Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Environmental Justice 

Table 3- 56. Economic Impacts of a Typical 20-MW Wind Projects 

20 MW 

Number of Turbines 14 

Size of Turbine (MW) 1.5 

Total Project Size (MW) 20 

Installed Project Cost $39,620,000 

Direct Operating & Maintenance Costs $478,000 

Wind Energy Taxes A $124,173 

Present Value Wind Energy Taxes B

 $2,099,000 

Land Leases $63,000 

Present Value Land Leases B

 $1,065,000 

Construction 

Direct Project Output $2,050,000 

Total Output $12,940,000 

Direct Employment 40 

Total Employment (Temporary) 141 

Direct Labor Income $1,910,000 

Total Labor Income $4,860,000 

Annual Operations 

Direct Project Output $60,000 

Total Output $490,000 

Present Value Total Output B

 $8,283,926 

Direct Employment C

 1 

Total Employment C

 (Permanent) 5 

Direct Labor Income $60,000 

Total Labor Income $160,000 

Present Value Total Labor Income B

 $2,704,955 

Source: (NREL, 2009a), except Idaho Wind Energy Tax calculated at 3% gross earning with 30% capacity factor and 

$75/megawatt hours (MWH) electricity price. A Idaho taxes wind energy projects at 3% of gross earnings in lieu of property tax. This analysis assumes 30% capacity factor and 

$75/MWH electricity price including the sale of green tags. B

 Operations impacts need to be converted to a present value to assess BLM management policies. A 25 year project life and 3% 

social discount rate are used for this analysis. 

3.5.3. Environmental Justice 

Communities where the percent of minorities or the percent of the population below the poverty level is 

greater than the state average are defined as minority and low-income communities, respectively, by 

EPA. As part of the NEPA process, Federal agencies are required to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income 

communities as specified by Executive Order 12898, dated February 11, 1994. Minority and low-income 

populations are to be identified in the NEPA process. The following indicators were used to identify 

minority and low-income populations in the planning area: 

 Percentage of non-white minorities and percentage of Hispanic ethnicity – Individual(s) who are 

members of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific 

Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic. 

 Poverty rates – Low-income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual 

statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau (CEQ, 1997) 

Minority populations should be identified where either (a) the minority population of the affected area 

exceeds 50% or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than 

the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic 

analysis (CEQ, 1997). For this analysis, a difference of 10% from the State rates was determined to be 

meaningfully greater. The same criteria were applied when considering poverty rates. 

August 2010 3-98 
 

 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features 

Environmental Justice 

Relevant Census data for the counties within the planning area were collected to determine whether 

these populations constitute an environmental justice population (Table 3- 57). 

Table 3- 57. Minority Population, Hispanic Ethnicity, and Poverty Rate in Counties in the Planning Area, 

2008 

Location Total Population Non-White 

Minority Hispanic Ethnicity Individuals Below Poverty Level 

Elmore County 28,997 10.4% 13.6% 12.0% 

Owyhee County 10,887 6.1% 25.6% 17.5% 

Twin Falls County 74,284 3.6% 12.3% 12.8% 

State of Idaho 1,523,816 5.4% 10.2% 12.1% 

Elko County 47,071 9.2% 22.4% 8.7% 

State of Nevada 2,600,167 19.1% 25.7% 10.6% 

Source: (US Census Bureau, 2009) 

The percentage of non-white minorities in the population identifies the vulnerable population based on 

race. The percentage of the population that is non-white minority for each of the counties in the planning 

area is not 10% larger than the State percentages (Table 3- 57). Hispanic ethnicity is another measure of 

vulnerable populations. The primary minority population in these counties is of Hispanic origin (Gardner & 

Martin, 2006). The percentage of the population with Hispanic ethnicity in Owyhee County is more than 

10% larger than that of the State of Idaho (Table 3- 57). 

The overall poverty rate and median household income indicate the portion of low-income population for 

the affected communities. Since the cost of living is generally lower in rural areas of Idaho as compared 

to urban areas, lower household income does not directly translate into higher poverty rates (Salant & 

Porter, 2005). The percentage of the population below the poverty level for each of the counties in the 

planning area is not 10% larger than the State percentages (Table 3- 57). 

Executive Order 12898 also requires Federal agencies to consider relevant public health data and 

industry data on exposures to human health or environmental hazards. The 1987 Jarbidge RMP and the 

Jarbidge Draft RMP do not contain actions that would lead to exposures to human health or 

environmental hazards. 

3-99 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Works Cited Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

3.6. WORKS CITED 

Andrews, K. M., & Gibbons, J. W. (2005). How Do Highways Influence Snake Movement? Copeia, 4, 772­

782. 

Autenrieth, R. E., Brown, D. E., Cancino, J., Lee, R. M., Ockenfels, R. A., O'Gara, B. W., et al. (2006). 

Pronghorn Management Guide (4th ed., pp. 158). Bismarck, ND: Pronghorn Workshop and North 

Dakota Game and Fish Department. 

Baker, C. W., & Munger, J. C. (2000). Bruneau Dunes Tiger Beetle Study - IV (BLM Challenge Cost 

Share Project). Boise, ID: Boise State University. 

Baker, C. W., Munger, J. C., McCauley, L., Olson, M., & Stevens, G. (1994). Bruneau Dunes Tiger Beetle 

Inventory (Technical Bulletin No. 94-1). Boise, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho 

State Office. 

Barton, D. C., & Holmes, A. L. (2007). Off-Highway Vehicle Trail Impacts Breeding Songbirds in 

Northeastern California. [Research Note]. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(5), 1617-1620. 

Bartos, D. L., Brown, J. K., & Booth, G. D. (1994). Twelve Years Biomass Response in Aspen 

Communities Following Fire. Journal of Range Management, 47(1), 79-83. 

Bauer, K. L. (1991). Observations on the Developmental Biology of Rumpp (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). 

Great Basin Naturalist, 51(3), 226-235. 

Bechard, M. J., & Schmutz, J. K. (1995). Ferruginous Hawk. Birds of North America(172), 1-20. 

Belnap, J., & Phillips, S. L. (2001). Soil Biota in an Ungrazed Grassland: Response to Annual Grass 

(Bromus tectorum) Invasion. Ecological Applications, 11(5), 1261-1275. 

Black, J., & Black, P. (2006). Personal Communication with BLM Twin Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office 

on March 13, 2006. 

BLM. (1988). Sand Point Paleontologic, Geologic and Cultural Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

Natural History Resource Management Plan (pp. 48). Boise, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land 

Management, Boise District, Jarbidge Resource Area. 

BLM. (2001). National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands (pp. 

48). Washington, DC: USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 

BLM. (2004). Permit Renewal and Vegetation Allocation (Environmental Assessment No. ID-097-2004­

011). Twin Falls, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Jarbidge Field Office. 

BLM. (2006). Unpublished Fisheries Survey Data. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Jarbidge Field 

Office. 

BLM. (2007). Noxious and Invasive Weed Treatment: Boise District and Jarbidge Field Office 

(Environmental Assessment No. ID100-2005-EA-265): Bureau of Land Management. 

BLM. (2008a). Visual Resource Inventory Technical Report (Technical Report). Twin Falls, ID: USDI, 

Bureau of Land Management, Jarbidge Field Office. 

BLM. (2008b). Wilderness Characteristics Technical Report (Technical Report). Twin Falls, ID: USDI, 

Bureau of Land Management, Jarbidge Field Office. 

BLM. (2009a). Geothermal Potential of the Jarbidge Field Office. Boise, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land 

Management, Idaho State Office. 

BLM. (2009b). Oil and Gas Potential of the Jarbidge Field Office. Boise, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land 

Management, Idaho State Office. 

BLM. (2009c). Recreation Management Information System (RMIS): Recreation User Data for the 

Jarbidge Field Office. Twin Falls, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 

BLM. (2009d). Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Determination (Report). Twin Falls, ID: USDI, Bureau of 

Land Management, Jarbidge Field Office. 

BLM, & IDFG. (1994). Survey of Mountain Quail in the Jarbidge Resource Area, Boise District, Bureau of 

Land Management (pp. 8): USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Boise District and Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Magic Valley Region. 

Brackett, B., Brackett, P., Brackett, I., Brackett, K., Brackett, G., Brackett, K., et al. (2006). Personal 

Communication with BLM Twin Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office on March 8, 2006. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Labor Force Data by County, November 2008 - December 2009. 

Retrieved February 10, 2010, from http://www.bls.gov/lau/laucntycur14.txt 

Bushnell, K. (1967). Geology of the Rowland Quadrangle, Elko County, Nevada (Bulletin No. 67). Reno, 

NV: Nevada Bureau of Mines and University of Nevada, Mackay School of Mines. 

August 2010 3-100 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Works Cited

CEQ. (1997). Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, 

D. C.: Council on Environmental Quality. 

Chambers, J. C., & Pellant, M. (2008). Climate Change Impacts on Northwestern and Intermountain 

United States Rangelands. Rangelands, 30(3), 29-33. 

Climate Impacts Group. (2008). Climate Change Scenarios. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Joint 

Institute for the Study of the Atmoshpere and Ocean. 

Coates-Markle, L. (2000). Summary Recommendation - BLM Wild Horse and Burro Population Viability 

Forum, April 1, 1999 (Wild Horse and Burro Program Resource Notes No. 35). 

Colket, B. (2005). 2004 Habitat Integrity and Population Monitoring of Slickspot Peppergrass (Lepidium 

papilliferum). Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Conservation Data Center. 

Colket, B. (2006). 2005 Rangewide Habitat Integrity and Population Monitoring of Slickspot Peppergrass 

(Lepidium papilliferum). Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Conservation Data 

Center. 

Connelly, J. W., Knick, S. T., Schroeder, M. A., & Stiver, S. J. (2004). Conservation Assessment of 

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Unpublished Report. Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies. 

Connelly, J. W., Schroeder, M. A., Sands, A. R., & Braun, C. E. (2000). Guidelines to Manage Sage 

Grouse Populations and Their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), 967-985. 

Cook, E. R., Woodhouse, C. A., Eakin, C. M., Meko, D. M., & Stahle, D. W. (2004). North American 

Summer PDSI Reconstructions. Boulder, CO: NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program. 

Davis, S. K. (2004). Area Sensitivity in Grassland Passerines: Effects of Patch Size, Patch Shape, and 

Vegetation Structure on Bird Abundance and Occurence in Southern Saskatchewan. The Auk, 

121(4), 1130-1145. 

DEQ. (2000). Bruneau Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads of the 303(d) Water 

Bodies. Twin Falls, ID: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 

DEQ. (2006). King Hill - C.J. Strike Reservoir Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load. 

Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 

DEQ. (2007). Salmon Falls Creek Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads. Boise, ID: 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 

DEQ. (2009). Department of Environmental Quality Working Principles and Policies for the 2008 

Integrated (303[d]/305[b]) Report. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 

Dolton, D. D., Rau, R. D., & Parker, K. (2007). Mourning Dove Population Status, 2007. Laurel, MD: 

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Duchesne, L. C., & Hawkes, B. C. (2000). Chapter 3: Fire in Northern Ecosystems. In J. K. Brown & J. K. 

Smith (Eds.), Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora (Vol. 2, pp. 35-52). Ogden, 

UT: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

EPA. (2007a, December 20, 2007). Climate Change - Science: State of Knowledge. Retrieved June 26, 

2009, from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html 

EPA. (2007b, March 2, 2007). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Retrieved May 23, 

2007, 2007, from http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html 

EPA. (2009, July 1, 2009). Air Data. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from 

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html 

Evans, R. A., & Young, J. A. (1978). Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Practices Following Wildfire in a 

Degraded Big Sagebrush-Downy Brome Communities. Journal of Range Management, 31(3), 

185-188. 

Faaborg, J., Brittingham, M., Donovan, T., & Blake, J. (1995). Habitat Fragmentation in the Temperate 

Zone. In T. E. Martin & D. M. Finch (Eds.), Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory 

Birds: A Synthesis and Review of Critical Issues (pp. 357-380). New York, NY: Oxford University 

Press. 

Fawcett, J., William B. (1997). Final Report: Intensive Cultural Resource Inventories and Archaeological 

Investigations of Fire Rehabilitations in Southern Idaho: 1994 -1996. Logan, UT: Utah State 

University. 

Fleischman, G. (2010). Idaho Influence Area Renewable Energy Projects. Boise, ID: Idaho Office of 

Energy Resources. 

Franklin, A. B., Noon, B. R., & George, T. L. (2002). What is Habitat Fragmentation? Studies in Avian 

Biology(25), 20-29. 

 3-101	 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Works Cited Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Freilich, J. E., Emlen, J. M., Duda, J. T., Freeman, D. C., & Cafaro, P. J. (2003). Ecological Effects of 

Ranching: A Six-Point Critique. BioScience, 53(8), 759-765. 

Frey, S. N., & Conover, M. R. (2006). Habitat Use by Meso-Predators in a Corridor Environment. 

[Research ]. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70(4), 1111-1118. 

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. (2003). A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for 

Slickspot Peppergrass, Lepidium papilliferum. Boise, ID: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake 

River Fish and Wildlife Office 

FWS. (2004). Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus). Reno, NV: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

FWS. (2006). National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation: Table 50 

"Participation in Wildlife Association Recreation by State". Retrieved June 9, 2008, from 

http://library.fws.gov/pubs/nat_survey2006_final.pdf 

FWS. (2007). Best Management Practices for Streamside Management Zones. Tulsa, OK: USDI, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office. 

Gardner, R. (2006). Community Economic Profile Workshop Report. 

Gardner, R., & Martin, J. V. (2006). Community Economic Profile: Jarbidge Field Office (pp. 30). Boise, 

ID: Bootstrap Solutions. 

Gilbert, P. F., Wallmo, O. C., & Gill, R. B. (1970). Effect of Snow Depth on Mule Deer in Middle Park, 

Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management, 34(1), 15-23. 

Griffith, J., & Daley, D. M. (1984). Re-Establishment of Shoshone Sculpin (Cottus greenei) in the 

Hagerman Valley, Idaho. Pocatello, ID: Idaho State University. 

Grossman, D. H., Faber-Langendoen, D., Weakly, A. S., Anderson, M., Bourgeron, P., Crawford, R., et al. 

(1998). The National Vegetation Classification System: Development, Status, and Applications 

(Vol. 1). Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. 

Gucker, C. L. (2006). Cerocarpus ledifolius: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fire Sciences Laboratory 

Hann, W. J., & Bunnell, D. L. (2001). Fire and Land Management Planning and Implementation Across 

Multiple Scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 10(3 & 4), 389-403. 

Hansen, P. L., & Hall, J. B. (2002). Classification and Management of USDI Bureau of Land 

Management's Riparian and Wetland Sites in Eastern and Southern Idaho. Corvallis, MT: 

Bitterroot Restoration, Inc. 

Hanser, S. E., & Huntly, N. J. (2006). The Biogeography of Small Mammals of Fragmented SagebrushSteppe Landscapes. Journal of Mammology, 87(6), 1165-1174. 

Harp, A. J., Rimbey, N. R., & Darden, T. D. (2001). Cohesion, Integration, and Attachment in Owyhee 

County Communities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Range 

Management. 

Hayden, J., Spicer, D., Crenshaw, J., Rachael, J., Powell, J., Warner, K., et al. (2006). Progress Report: 

Upland Game (Project No. W-170-R-30). Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

Headwaters Economics. (2010). A SocioEconomic Profile: 4 County Aggregation: Economic Profile 

System. 

Hobbs, N. T. (1989). Linking Energy Balance to Survival in Mule Deer: Development and Test of a 

Simulation Model. Wildlife Monographs, 101, 3-39. 

Hokit, D. G., & Branch, L. C. (2003). Habitat Patch Size Affects Demographics of the Florida Scrub Lizard 

(Sceloporus woodi). Journal of Herpetology, 37(2), 257-265. 

Humple, D. L., & Holmes, A. L. (2006). Effects of a Fire on a Breeding Population of Loggerhead Shrikes 

in Sagebrush Steppe Habitat. Journal of Field Ornithology, 77(1), 21-28. 

IASCD. (2004). Idaho's Noxious Weeds. 2006, from http://www.oneplan.org/Crop/noxWeeds/index.shtml 

ICBEMP. (1998). Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics 

of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and as Estimation of Effects on Communities from the 

Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact 

Statements: USDA Forest Service; USDOI Bureau of Land Management. 

August 2010 3-102 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Works Cited

Idaho Legislative Council Interim Committee on Energy, Environment, and Technology. (2007). 2007 

Idaho Energy Plan. Boise, ID. 

Idaho Power Company. (2003). Snake River White Sturgeon Conservation Plan: Idaho Power Company. 

Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee. (2006). Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-grouse in 

Idaho: Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee. 

IDFG. (2005). Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Boise, ID: Idaho Conservation Data 

Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

IDFG. (2007). 2007 Big Game Seasons: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

IDFG. (2008a). Big Game Species Information. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from 

http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/misc/species.cfm#biggame 

IDFG. (2008b). Idaho Rare Plant Observation Report: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Conservation 

Services. 

IDFG. (2008c). Pronghorn: Project W-170-R-32 (Progress Report). Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game. 

IDPR. (2008). Idaho OHV Residence Statistics: Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. 

IDWR. (2001). Idaho Drought Plan (pp. 103). Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Water Resources, Planning 

and Technical Services Division. 

Ingelfinger, F., & Anderson, S. H. (2004). Passerine Response to Roads Associated with Natural Gas 

Extraction in a Sagebrush Steppe Habitat. Western North American Naturalist, 64(3), 385-395. 

IPCC. (2001). Climate Change 2001 (Synthethis Report ). Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change. 

IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007 (Synthesis Report). Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change. 

ISDA. (2006). Idaho's Weed List. 2006, from 

http://www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/PlantsInsects/NoxiousWeeds/watchlist.php 

James, A. R. C., & Stuart-Smith, A. K. (2000). Distribution of Caribou and Wolves in Relation to Linear 

Corridors. Journal of Wildlife Management, 64(1), 154-159. 

Jessop, B. D., & Anderson, V. J. (2007). Cheatgrass Invasion in Salt Desert Shrublands: Benefits of 

Postfire Reclamation. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 60(3), 235-242. 

Kay, C. E., & Bartos, D. L. (2000). Ungulate Herbivory on Utah Aspen: Assessment of Long-Term 

Exclosures. Journal of Range Management, 53(2), 145-153. 

Kinter, C. L., Mealor, B. A., Shaw, N. L., & Hild, A. L. (2007). Postfire Invasion Potential of Rush 

Skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea). Rangeland Ecology and Management, 60(4), 386-394. 

Klott, J., Whitfield, S., Cota, M., & McTavish, E. (2007). 2006-2007 Wildlife Inventory in the Jarbidge Field 

Office (Technical Bulletin No. 2007-03). Twin Falls, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 

Jarbidge Field Office. 

Krausman, P. R., & Bowyer, R. T. (2003). Mountain Sheep (Ovis canadensis and O. dalli). In G. A. 

Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson & J. A. Chapman (Eds.), Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, 

Management, and Conservation (2nd ed., pp. 1095-1115). Baltimore and London: The John 

Hopkins University Press. 

Lehmann, S., Elison, T., & Elison, V. (2006). Personal Communication with BLM Twin Falls District, 

Jarbidge Field Office on March 9, 2006. 

Lepla, K. B., & Chandler, J. A. (1995). A Survey of White Sturgeon in the Bliss Reach of the Snake River, 

Idaho (Technical Report). Boise, ID: Idaho Power Company. 

Leptich, D. (1992). Winter Habitat Use by Hen Pheasants in Southern Idaho Journal of Wildlife 

Management, 56(2), 376-380. 

Lyon, A. G., & Anderson, D. C. (2003). Potential Gas Development Impacts on Sage Grouse Nest 

Initiation and Movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 31(2), 486-491. 

Malde, H. E. (1987). The Montini Volcano: A Lava Dam on the Ancestral Snake River, Southwest Idaho. 

In S. S. Beus (Ed.), Centennial Field Guide: Rocky Mountain Section (Vol. 2, pp. 127-130): 

Geological Society of America. 

Martin, K. (2007). Personal Communication with J. Klott on February 8, 2007. 

McLeod, J. D., & Welhan, J. A. (1991). Snake River Plain Aquifer: Idaho's Hidden Gem. GeoNote(15). 

Moore, G. W., & Sullivan, N. (1997). Speleology - Caves and the Cave Environment. St. Louis, MO: Cave 

Books. 

 3-103 August 2010 
 

Chapter 3: Works Cited Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

Moseley, R. K. (1994). Report on the Conservation Status of Lepidium papilliferum. Boise, ID: Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game. 

Mote, P., Salathe, E., Duliere, V., & Jump, E. (2008). Scenarios of Future Climate for the Pacific 

Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and 

Oceans. 

Mote, P. W., Canning, D. J., Fluharty, D. L., Francis, R. C., Franklin, J. K., Hamlet, A. F., et al. (1999). 

Impacts of Climate Variability and Change: Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: National Atmospheric 

and Oceanic Administration, Office of Global Programs and JISAO/SMA Climate Impacts Group. 

NDOW. Unpublished Data. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

NDOW. (2000). Sub-Plan for Elk Management in the Jarbidge Mountains, Nevada. Elko, NV: Nevada 

Department of Wildlife. 

Nevada Department of Agriculture. (2008, November 6, 2008). Noxious Weed List. Retrieved March 19, 

2010, from http://agri.nv.gov/nwac/PLANT_NoxWeedList.htm 

Newbold, T. A. S. (2005). Desert Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos) Locomotor Performance: The 

Influence of Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). The Southwestern Naturalist, 50(1), 17-23. 

NRCS. (2006). Idaho State-Listed Noxious Weeds. 2006, from 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=16 

NREL. (2009a). Job and Economic Development Impact Models. Retrieved November 2009, from 

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/ 

NREL. (2009b). Solar Resource Classes. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from http://mercator.nrel.gov/csp/ 

NREL. (2009c, July 25, 2008). Southwest Concentrating Solar Power 1000-MW Initiative Retrieved June 

29, 2009, from http://nrel.gov/csp/1000mw_initiative.html 

O'Gara, B. W., & Yoakum, J. D. (2004). Pronghorn Ecology and Management. Boulder, CO: University 

Press of Colorado. 

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. 

Parker, K. L., Robbins, C. T., & Hanley, T. A. (1984). Energy Expenditures for Locomotion by Mule Deer 

and Elk. Journal of Wildlife Management, 48(2), 474-488. 

Parker, P. L., & King, T. F. (1998). Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 

Properties (National Register Bulletin): USDI, National Park Service. 

Peek, J. M. (2003). Wapiti (Cervus elaphus). In G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson & J. A. Chapman 

(Eds.), Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation (2nd ed., pp. 

877-888). Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press. 

Pierce, B. M., & Bleich, V. C. (2003). Mountain Lion (Puma concolor). In G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. 

Thompson & J. A. Chapman (Eds.), Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and 

Conservation (2nd ed., pp. 744-757). Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press. 

PILT Payments (in Dollars) for Counties in Nevada. (2007). Retrieved February 1, 2007, 2007, from 

http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Find_a_County&Template=/cffiles/counties/pilt_res.c 

fm&state=NV 

Pitman, J. C., Hagen, C. A., Robel, R. J., Loughlin, T. M., & Applegate, R. D. (2005). Location and 

Success of Lesser Prairie-Chicken Nests in Relation to Vegetation and Human Disturbance. 

Journal of Wildlife Management, 69(3), 1259-1269. 

Poole, K. G., & Mowat, G. (2005). Winter Habitat Relationships of Deer and Elk in the Temperate Interior 

Mountains of British Columbia. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(4), 1288-1302. 

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. 

Prichard, D., Berg, F., Hagenbuck, W., Krapf, R., Leinard, R., Leonard, S., et al. (2003). Riparian Area 

Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting 

August 2010 3-104 
 

Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3: Works Cited

Science for Lentic Areas (Technical Reference No. 1737-16). Denver, CO: USDI, Bureau of Land 

Management; USDA, Forest Service; and USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Pyrah, D. B. (1987). American Pronghorn Antelope in the Yellow Water Triangle, Montana: A Study of 

Social Distribution, Population Dynamics, and Habitat Use: Montanta Department of Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks. 

Rollins, K., Castledine, A., Swanson, S., Evans, M. D. R., McAdoo, K., Schultz, B., et al. (2007). The 2005 

Nevada Rangeland Vegetation Survey: General Public Questionnaire and Survey of Responses 

(Special Publication No. SP07-11). Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. 

Rollins, K., Evans, M. D. R., Christman, L., & Landis, M. (2007). Wildfire! Reno, Nevada: NAES 

Rost, G. R., & Bailey, J. A. (1979). Distribution of Mule Deer and Elk in Relation to Roads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management, 43(3), 634-641. 

Salant, P., & Porter, A. (2005). Profile of Rural Idaho (pp. 40). Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Commerce 

and Labor, Division of Commerce. 

Scott, J. H., & Burgan, R. E. (2005). Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use 

with Rothermel's Surface Spread Model (General Technical Report No. RMRS-GTR-153). Fort 

Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Shaffer, J. A., Goldade, C. M., Dinkins, M. F., Johnson, D. H., Igl, L. D., & Euliss, B. R. (2002). BrownHeaded Cowbirds in Grasslands: Their Habitats, Hosts and Response to Management 

(Geological Survey). Jamestown, ND: USDI, US Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center. 

Sheldon, D., Lindzey, F., & Rudd, B. (2006). Movement and Distribution Patterns of Pronghorn Antelope 

in Relation to Roads in Southwestern Wyoming (Final Report No. FHWA-WY-06/02F). Laramie, 

WY: USDOT, Federal Highway Administration and State of Wyoming Department of 

Transportation. 

Shepherd III, J. F. (2006). Landscape-Scale Habitat Use by Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

Urophasianus) in Souterhn Idaho. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 

Steenhof, K., Kochert, M. N., & Roppe, J. A. (1993). Nesting by Raptors and Common Ravens on 

Electrical Transmission Line Towers. Journal of Wildlife Management, 57(2), 271-281. 

Stynes, D. J., & White, E. M. (2005). Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, NVUM Four Year 

Report; Report to USDA Forest Service. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. 

Taylor, D. W. (1985). Candidate Threatened or Endangered Molluscs in Box Canyon ACEC, Gooding 

County, Idaho (Order No. ID-050-PH5-0093). Shoshone, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 

Thompson, K. M., Holloran, M. J., Slater, S. J., Kuipers, J. L., & Anderson, S. H. (2006). Early BroodRearing Habitat Use and Productivity of Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming. Western North 

American Naturalist, 66(3), 332-342. 

Tilton, M. E., & Willard, E. E. (1982). Winter Habitat Selection by Mountain Sheep. Journal of Wildlife 

Management, 46(2), 359-366. 

Tirmenstein, D. (1999a). Chrysothamnus nauseosus Fire Effects Information System: USDA, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

Tirmenstein, D. (1999b). Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Fire Effects Information System: USDA, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

Trombulak, S. C., & Frissell, C. A. (2000). Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology, 14(1), 18-30. 

University of Utah, BLM, & USFS. (1990). Intermountain Antiquites Computer System (IMACS) User's 

Guide: Instructions and Computer Codes for Use with the IMACS Site Form. Logan, UT: 

University of Utah. 

US Census Bureau. (2009). State & County QuickFacts. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html 

USDA. (1995). Inland Native Fish Strategy: Environmental Assessment: USDA, Forest Service, 

Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2003). Invasive and Noxious Weeds: Nevada StateListed Noxious Weeds. PLANTS Database Retrieved March 19, 2010, from 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=32 

USDI. (2001). Rare Plant Inventory Guidelines. Unpublished Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office. 

 3-105 August 2010 
Chapter 3: Works Cited Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS 

USDI and USDA. (2006). Protecting People and Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels Treatment 

Strategy: USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, 

Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA, Forest Service. 

Vallentine, J. F. (1989). Range Development and Improvements (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press. 

Van Horne, B., Olson, G. S., Schooley, R. L., Corn, J. G., & Burnham, K. P. (1997). Effects of Drought 

and Prolonged Winter on Townsend's Ground Squirrel Demography in Shrubsteppe Habitats. 

Ecological Monographs, 67(3), 295-315. 

Vander Haegen, W. M., Schroeder, M. A., & DeGraaf, R. M. (2002). Predation on Real and Artificial Nests 

in Shrubsteppe Landscapes Fragmented by Agriculture. The Condor, 104(3), 496-506. 

VanZandt, S. (2006). Personal Communication with J. Ash on October 17, 2006. 

Vusovic, S., & Harris, T. R. (2006). Analysis of Impacts of Public Land Grazing on the Elko County 

Economy and Mountain City Management Area: Socio-Economic Data and Trends for Elko 

County (Technical Report No. UCED 2006/07-01). Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Reno, 

Unversity Center for Economic Development, Department of Resource Economics. 

Wallace, R. L., & Griffith, J. S. (1982). Distribution, Relative Abundance, Life History, and Habitat 

Preferences of Shoshone Sculpin. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

West, N. E. (1999). Synecology and Disturbance Regimes of Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems. Paper 

presented at the Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems Symposium. 

Winterfeld, G. F., & Rapp, R. A. (Eds.). (2009). Survey of Idaho Fossil Resources. Pocatello, ID: ErathemVanir Geological Consultants. 

Wisdom, M. J., Holthausen, R. S., Wales, B. C., Hargis, C. D., Saab, V. A., Lee, D. C., et al. (2000). 

Source Habitat for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale 

Trends and Management Implications. Volume 2: Group Level Results (General Technical Report 

No. PNW-GTR-485): USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

WRCC. (2009). Western US Climate Historical Summaries Retrieved June 29, 2009, from 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/climsum.html 

Wulfhorst, J. D., Rimbey, N. R., & Darden, T. D. (2003). Social and Community Impacts of Public Land 

Grazing Policy Alternatives in the Bruneau Resource Area of Owyhee County, Idaho. Moscow, 

ID: University of Idaho, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Department of Agricultural 

Economics and Rural Sociology. 

Young, J. M. (1984). Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the Owyhee, Bruneau, and Jarbidge 

Resource Areas, Boise District BLM. Boise, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Boise 

District. 

August 2010 3-106