U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Draft Recovery Plan for the 

Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment of Bull Trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus) 
Cover illustration by Kendal Morris, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; used with permission. 
Draft Recovery Plan 

for the
 

Jarbidge River
 

Distinct Population Segment
 

of
 

Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
 

(May 2004) 

Region 1
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 

Portland, Oregon
 

Approved: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Date: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

DISCLAIMER 

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be 

required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and, in this case, with the assistance of recovery teams, 

State, Federal, and Tribal agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and 

any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints 

affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. 

Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or 

approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other 

than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official 

position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by 

the Director, Regional Director, or Manager, as approved. Approved recovery 

plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species 

status, and the completion of recovery actions. 

Literature citation of this document should read as follows: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge 

River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 132 + xiii pp. 

Electronic copies of this recovery plan are available at: 

<http://pacific.fws.gov/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/default.htm> and also at 

<http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html>. 

Note to readers: A glossary of technical terms is provided in Appendix C of this 

plan. Terms provided in the glossary are denoted with a superscript symbol (†) 

the first time they appear in the plan. 

i 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Members of the Jarbidge River Recovery Team who assisted in the 

preparation of this draft recovery plan include: 

Kelly Amy, U.S. Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 

Guy Dodson, Sr., Duck Valley Paiute-Shoshone Tribes - Habitat, Parks, Fish and 

Game 

Jim Harvey, U.S. Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 

Gary Johnson, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Region II 

Clare Josaitis, Bureau of Land Management, Jarbidge Resource Area 

Fred Partridge, Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Selena Werdon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 

Bruce Zoellick, Bureau of Land Management, Lower Snake River District 

Additional review and comments were provided by: 

Lori Blattel-Sam, U.S. Forest Service, (formerly) Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest 

Tim Burton, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office 

Jim Klott, Bureau of Land Management, Jarbidge Resource Area 

ii 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Current Species Status 

The Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment†

 of bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act on April 

8, 1999 (64 FR 17110). Bull trout are now listed throughout their range in the 

lower 48 states; however, as provided in the final listing rule, we are continuing to 

refer to the original distinct population segments for the purposes of recovery 

planning and consultation (64 FR 58910). The Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment includes the Jarbidge River and Bruneau River watersheds†, which are 

tributary to the Snake River. Bull trout occur in a single core area† within the 

Jarbidge River watershed. The Jarbidge River core area contains six local 

populations† of bull trout: East Fork Jarbidge River (including the East Fork 

headwaters† , Cougar Creek, and Fall Creek), West Fork Jarbidge River 

(including Sawmill Creek), Dave Creek, Jack Creek, Pine Creek, and Slide Creek. 

Bull trout in these local populations are primarily resident† fish, with relatively 

low numbers of migratory (fluvial† ) fish present. The Jarbidge River Recovery 

Team†

 estimates that less than 500 resident and migratory adult bull trout, 

representing approximately 50 to 125 spawners, occur within the core area. 

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors 

The limiting factors for bull trout discussed here are specific to the Jarbidge 

River Distinct Population Segment and include a combination of historical and 

current human-induced and natural factors. These limiting factors include dams 

and diversions, increasing water temperatures, forest management practices, 

livestock grazing, transportation networks (road construction and maintenance), 

mining, residential development, fisheries management, isolation and habitat 

fragmentation, recreation, and random naturally-occurring events (e.g., landslides 

and floods). 

iii 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

Recovery Strategy 

Presently bull trout are listed as threatened across their range within the 

lower 48 states (64 FR 58910). Prior to the coterminous listing, five distinct 

population segments of bull trout were identified. Although these bull trout 

population segments are disjunct and geographically isolated from one another, 

they include the entire distribution of bull trout within the United States, therefore 

a coterminous listing was found to be appropriate in accordance with our policy 

on the designation of distinct population segments (61 FR 4722). As provided in 

the final listing rule, we are continuing to use the term “distinct population 

segments” for the purposes of recovery planning and consultation (64 FR 58910). 

A delisting determination can only be made on a “listable entity” under the 

Endangered Species Act (Act). Listable entities include species, subspecies, or 

distinct population segments of vertebrate animals, as defined by the Act and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service policy (61 FR 4722). Because bull trout were listed at 

the coterminous level in 1999, currently delisting can only occur at the 

coterminous level (64 FR 58910). In the future, if warranted by additional 

information, and if the Jarbidge River population is reconfirmed as meeting the 

definition of a distinct population segment under a regulatory rulemaking process, 

delisting may be considered separately for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment of bull trout once it has achieved a recovered state (61 FR 4722). 

For the purposes of recovery planning, here we have defined recovery 

criteria for the delisting of the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment as 

currently delineated. The recovery of bull trout is based on the concept of 

functional “core areas.” A core area represents the combination of both a core 

population†

 and core habitat†, and constitutes the basic biological unit upon which 

to gauge recovery. 

The Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment will be considered 

recovered when the Jarbidge River core area is fully functional, as measured by 

parameters addressing the distribution, abundance, productivity (stable or 

increasing adult population trend), and connectivity between local populations of 

iv 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

bull trout (including the potential for expression of migratory life history forms†). 

The conditions for recovery are identified in the criteria below. 

Recovery Goal 

The goal of the bull trout recovery plan is to ensure the long-term 

persistence of self-sustaining, complex, interacting groups† of bull trout 

distributed throughout their native range, so that the species can be delisted. 

Recovery Criteria for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment 

1. The biological and ecological function of the Jarbidge River core area for 

bull trout within the distinct population segment has been restored. The 

components of a fully functioning core area include: 

a) Habitat is sufficiently maintained or restored to provide for the 

persistence of broadly distributed local populations within the core 

area. The term “broadly distributed” implies that local populations are 

able to access and are actively using habitat that fully provides for 

spawning, rearing,†

 foraging, migrating, and overwintering† needs at 

recovered abundance levels. An actual quantitative estimate of the 

amount of habitat that will be required to meet this criterion is unknown 

at this time; the adequacy of habitat restoration and management efforts 

must be measured indirectly by criteria 1b through 1d. The six currently 

identified local populations that will be used as a measure of broad 

distribution across the distinct population segment include: East Fork 

Jarbidge River (including the East Fork headwaters, Cougar Creek, and 

Fall Creek); West Fork Jarbidge River (including Sawmill Creek); Dave 

Creek; Jack Creek; Pine Creek; and Slide Creek. The current distribution 

of bull trout may be expanded within these local populations under 

recovered conditions. 

b) Adult bull trout are sufficiently abundant to provide for the 

persistence and viability of the core area and to support both 

v 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

resident and migratory adult bull trout. This level of abundance is 

estimated to be within a range of 270 to 1,000 spawning fish per year. 

This range was derived by the Jarbidge River Recovery Team using 

professional judgement to estimate the productive capacity of currently 

recognized local populations in a recovered condition and conservation 

biology theory. Productive capacity determinations incorporated analysis 

of existing bull trout population survey data and amounts of existing 

utilized habitat and underutilized or unutilized habitats perceived as 

recoverable within local populations. Resident and migratory life history 

forms are both included in this adult abundance range, but the relative 

proportion of each form required for recovery is considered a research 

need. As additional population data are collected, the recovered adult 

abundance range will be refined to be more precise and to reflect both the 

resident and migratory life history form components. 

c) Measures of bull trout abundance within all core areas show stable or 

increasing trends based on 10 to 15 years (representing at least 2 bull 

trout generations) of monitoring data. In the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment, long-term, statistically-reliable bull trout population 

abundance data are not currently available to identify a trend in 

abundance. The development of a standardized monitoring and evaluation 

program to accurately describe trends in bull trout abundance is identified 

as a priority research need by the Jarbidge River Recovery Team. 

Achievement of this recovery criterion will be based on a minimum of 10 

years of adequate population monitoring data. 

d) Habitat within the core area is connected so as to provide for the 

potential full expression of migratory behavior, allow for the 

refounding†

 of extirpated† populations, and provide for the potential 

of genetic exchange between populations. The Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment is a depleted, genetically-unique, physically-isolated 

population of bull trout on the margin of the species’ range. It is the 

southernmost extant occurrence of the species. Therefore, this distinct 

population segment is a high conservation priority for maintaining the 

vi 
 

Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

maximum genetic diversity and evolutionary potential of the species’ 

range wide (Epifanio et al. 2003; Rieman, B., U.S. Forest Service, in litt., 

2003). 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team evaluated the physical isolation of bull 

trout with respect to recovery both within and outside of the Jarbidge River 

Distinct Population Segment. Addressing fish passage barriers outside of 

the Jarbidge River core area, as well as outside of this population segment, 

could physically reconnect it with bull trout in the Columbia River Distinct 

Population Segment. However, the Recovery Team strongly advises against 

removing existing outside barriers due to a substantial threat of nonnative† 

fish species invasions, which could cause adverse effects and prevent bull 

trout recovery. 

Streams within the Jarbidge River core area need to be comprehensively 

surveyed for physical and thermal (e.g., seasonally-elevated water 

temperatures) barriers to bull trout passage. If present, such barriers would 

limit habitat connectivity and genetic exchange among local populations and 

migratory individuals. Any barriers identified as preventing connectivity 

within the Jarbidge River core area must be addressed for bull trout 

recovery purposes. 

2. A monitoring plan has been developed and is ready for 

implementation, to cover a minimum of 5 years post-delisting, to ensure 

the ongoing recovery of the species and the continuing effectiveness of 

management actions. 

To achieve recovery of bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment, all five recovery criteria (local populations, adult abundance, population 

trends, connectivity, and post-delisting monitoring plan) must be met. The 

Recovery Team expects that the recovery process will be dynamic. Recovery 

progress will be assessed as more information becomes available, and the 

Recovery Team will make changes in recovery planning, as necessary. 

vii 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

Recovery Actions 

Recovery for bull trout will involve reducing threats to the long-term 

persistence of populations and their habitats, ensuring the security of multiple 

interacting groups of bull trout, and providing habitat conditions and access to 

them that allow for the expression of various life history forms. General recovery 

actions needed specific to the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment are as 

follows: 

1.	 Protect, restore, and maintain suitable habitat conditions for bull trout. 

2.	 Prevent negative effects of nonnative fishes on bull trout. 

3.	 Establish fisheries management goals and objectives compatible with bull 

trout recovery, and implement practices to achieve goals. 

4.	 Characterize, conserve, and monitor genetic diversity and gene flow among 

local populations of bull trout. 

5.	 Conduct research and monitoring to implement and evaluate bull trout 

recovery activities, consistent with an adaptive management approach using 

feedback from implemented, site-specific recovery actions. 

6.	 Use all available conservation programs and regulations to protect and 

conserve bull trout and bull trout habitats. 

7.	 Assess the implementation of bull trout recovery, and revise the recovery 

plan based on evaluations, as necessary. 

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery 

The estimated cost of bull trout recovery in the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment is $6 million spread over a 25-year recovery period. If the 

time frame for recovery can be reduced, the estimated total cost would be lower. 

Total costs include estimates of expenditures by local, Tribal, State, and Federal 

governments and by private business and individuals. These costs are attributed 

to bull trout conservation, but other aquatic species will also benefit. Cost 

estimates are not provided for actions which are normal agency responsibilities. 

viii 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

Estimated Date of Recovery 

Time required to achieve recovery depends on bull trout status, factors 

affecting bull trout, implementation and effectiveness of recovery actions, and 

population responses to recovery actions. A tremendous amount of work will be 

required to restore impaired habitats and eliminate or reduce threats. Three to 5 

bull trout generations (15 to 25 years), or possibly longer, may be necessary 

before identified threats to the species can be significantly reduced or eliminated, 

population status improves, and recovery may be achieved. 

ix 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................... iii 
 

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. xiii 
 

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ................................. 1 
 

General Description and Life History ............................ 3 
 

Habitat Characteristics ........................................ 3 
 

Diet ....................................................... 5 
 

Reasons for Decline Across the Range ........................... 6 
 

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JARBIDGE RIVER
 

DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT .......................... 7 
 

RECOVERY PLAN TERMINOLOGY AND STRUCTURE ............... 8 
 

DESIGNATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE JARBIDGE RIVER DISTINCT 

POPULATION SEGMENT .................................... 9 
 

Geographic Description ...................................... 11 
 

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE ............................... 15 
 

Status of Bull Trout at the Time of Listing ....................... 15 
 

Current Distribution and Abundance ............................ 15 
 

Occupied Habitats in the Jarbidge River Core Area .......... 17 
 

Dave Creek - Local Population 1 ................... 17 
 

East Fork Jarbidge River - Local Population 2 ........ 18 
 

Jack Creek and Tributaries – Local Population 3 ...... 21 
 

Pine Creek and Tributaries – Local Population 4 ...... 23 
 

Slide Creek and Tributaries - Local Population 5 ...... 23 
 

West Fork of the Jarbidge River - Local Population 6 . . 24
 

Deer Creek .................................... 27 
 

Mainstem Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers ................... 28 
 

x 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

Jarbidge River - Mainstem ........................ 28 
 

Bruneau River - Mainstem ........................ 30 
 

Currently or Potentially Suitable but Presently Unoccupied
 

Habitats ...................................... 30 
 

Bear Creek .................................... 30 
 

Buck Creek and Tributaries ....................... 32 
 

Fox Creek ..................................... 32 
 

Jim Bob Creek ................................. 33 
 

Robinson Creek ................................ 34 
 

Other Streams in the Jarbidge River Watershed ............. 35 
 

REASONS FOR DECLINE ........................................ 35 
 

Dams and Diversions ........................................ 36 
 

Isolation and Habitat Fragmentation ............................ 38 
 

Inadequacy of Existing Water Quality Standards .................. 40 
 

Livestock Grazing .......................................... 43 
 

Transportation Networks .................................... 45 
 

Fisheries Management ....................................... 46 
 

Harvest ............................................. 46 
 

Nonnative Species .................................... 48 
 

Forest Management Practices ................................. 50 
 

Mining ................................................... 51 
 

Residential Development and Urbanization ...................... 53 
 

Recreation ................................................ 54 
 

ONGOING CONSERVATION MEASURES ........................... 55 
 

Bureau of Land Management .................................. 55 
 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game ............................ 56 
 

Jarbidge Bull Trout Task Force ................................ 56 
 

Nevada Department of Wildlife ................................ 57 
 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection .................... 57 
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................ 57 
 

U.S. Forest Service ......................................... 58 
 

xi 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER
 

CONSERVATION/PLANNING/RECOVERY EFFORTS .... 58 
 

State of Idaho ........................................ 58 
 

State of Nevada ...................................... 59 
 

STRATEGY FOR RECOVERY ..................................... 60 
 

Recovery Criteria for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment:
 

Standardized Bull Trout Population Monitoring and Assessment
 

Recovery Goals and Objectives ................................ 62 
 

................................................... 64 
 

Research Needs ............................................ 67 
 

............................................. 68 
 

Migratory Bull Trout .................................. 68 
 

Bull Trout Genetics ................................... 69 
 

RECOVERY ACTIONS ........................................... 69 
 

Recovery Actions Narrative ................................... 70 
 

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .................................. 86 
 

REFERENCES .................................................. 95 
 

Literature Cited ............................................ 95 
 

In Literature .............................................. 111 
 

Personal Communications ................................... 113 
 

APPENDIX A.
 

Jarbidge River Watershed Stream Thermograph Data Summary ..... 115 
 

APPENDIX B. 

Recovery Actions and corresponding Reasons for Decline (threats)
 

to bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment ...... 122 
 

APPENDIX C. 

Glossary of Technical Terms ................................. 125 
 

xii 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment and other bull trout
 

population units in the coterminous United States .................. 2 
 

Figure 2. Local populations of bull trout within the Jarbidge River core area of
 

the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment ................... 10 
 

Figure 3. Hydrograph for the West Fork of the Jarbidge River downstream of
 

Jarbidge, Nevada (October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999) .......... 13 
 

xiii 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Introduction 

JARBIDGE RIVER DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT 

OF BULL TROUT 

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), members of the family Salmonidae, 

are fish native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. Trout and salmon 

relatives in the genus Salvelinus, such as bull trout, are often generally referred to 

as “char† .” Bull trout occur in five identified distinct population segments† 

within the lower 48 states. In June 1998, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

determined threatened status under the Endangered Species Act (16 United States 

Code [USC] 1531 et seq.) for bull trout in two distinct population segments in the 

Klamath River (Oregon) and Columbia River (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and 

Washington) (63 FR 31647). In April 1999, the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment of bull trout (Idaho and Nevada) was also determined to be 

threatened (64 FR 17110). Two more distinct population segments of bull trout, 

the Coastal-Puget Sound (Washington) and St. Mary-Belly River (Montana), 

were also found to be threatened in November 1999 (64 FR 58910). This final 

listing resulted in all bull trout in the coterminous United States being listed as 

threatened. As provided in the final rule, however, we are continuing to refer to 

the original distinct population segments for the purposes of recovery planning 

and consultation (64 FR 58910). This recovery plan addresses the conservation 

actions deemed necessary for the recovery of the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment of bull trout in southwestern Idaho and northern Nevada. 

The location of the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment, and those of the 

other recovery areas delineated for bull trout throughout the coterminous United 

States, are provided in Figure 1. 

Details regarding the ecology of bull trout and the threats faced by bull 

trout populations throughout their range in the United States are provided in the 

listing documents for the five distinct population segments and are only 

summarized here (63 FR 31647; 64 FR 17110; 64 FR 58910). A brief overview of 

bull trout life history, habitat needs, and reasons for decline is provided below. 

1 
Figure 1. Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment (arrow) and other population units of bull trout in the coterminous Unit

2 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Introduction 

General Description and Life History 

Bull trout exhibit both resident†

 and migratory life history strategies†. 

Both resident and migratory forms may be found together, and either form may 

produce offspring exhibiting either resident or migratory behavior (Rieman and 

McIntyre 1993). Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the 

tributary (or nearby) streams in which they spawn and rear. The resident form 

tends to be smaller than the migratory form at maturity and also produces fewer 

eggs (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989). Migratory bull trout spawn in 

tributary streams where juvenile fish rear 1 to 4 years before migrating to either a 

lake (adfluvial form† ), river (fluvial form† ) (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 

1989), or in some cases to saltwater (anadromous† ) to live as adults (Cavender 

1978; McPhail and Baxter 1996). The resident and fluvial life history forms of 

bull trout are found in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. 

Bull trout normally reach sexual maturity in 4 to 7 years and may live 

longer than 12 years. They are iteroparous (they spawn more than once in a 

lifetime), and both repeat- and alternate-year spawning has been reported, 

although repeat-spawning frequency and post-spawning mortality are not well 

documented (Leathe and Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; 

Rieman and McIntyre 1996). Growth varies depending upon life-history strategy. 

Resident adults range from 150 to 300 millimeters (6 to 12 inches) total length, 

and migratory adults commonly reach 600 millimeters (24 inches) or more (Pratt 

1985; Goetz 1989). The largest verified bull trout is a 14.6-kilogram (32-pound) 

specimen caught in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, in 1949 (Simpson and Wallace 

1982). 

Habitat Characteristics 

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other 

salmonids†

 (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Habitat components that influence bull 

trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form 

and stability, valley form, spawning and rearing substrate, and migratory 

corridors†

 (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989; 

3 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Introduction 

Sedell and Everest 1991; Howell and Buchanan 1992; Pratt 1992; Rieman and 

McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996; Watson and Hillman 1997). Watson and 

Hillman (1997) concluded that watersheds†

 must have specific physical 

characteristics to provide the habitat requirements necessary for bull trout to 

successfully spawn and rear and that these specific characteristics are not 

necessarily present throughout these watersheds. Because bull trout exhibit a 

patchy distribution, even in pristine habitats (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), fish 

should not be expected to simultaneously occupy all available habitats (Rieman et 

al.1997). 

Cold water temperatures play an important role in determining bull trout 

habitat, as these fish are primarily found in colder streams (below 15 degrees 

Celsius [59 degrees Fahrenheit]), and spawning habitats are generally 

characterized by temperatures that drop below 9 degrees Celsius (48 degrees 

Fahrenheit) in the fall (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and 

McIntyre 1993). 

All life history stages of bull trout are associated with complex forms of 

cover, including large woody debris†, undercut banks, boulders, and pools (Fraley 

and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989; Sedell and Everest 

1991; Pratt 1992; Thomas 1992; Rich 1996; Sexauer and James 1997; Watson 

and Hillman 1997). Maintaining bull trout habitat requires stability of stream 

channels and of flow stability (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Juvenile and adult 

bull trout frequently inhabit side channels, stream margins, and pools with 

suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997). These areas are sensitive to activities 

that directly or indirectly affect stream channel stability† and alter natural flow 

patterns. For example, altered stream flow in the fall may disrupt bull trout 

during the spawning period, and channel instability may decrease survival of eggs 

and young juveniles in the gravel from winter through spring (Fraley and Shepard 

1989; Pratt 1992; Pratt and Huston 1993). Pratt (1992) indicated that increases in 

fine sediment†

 reduce egg survival and emergence. 

Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods of 

decreasing water temperatures. Preferred spawning habitat consists of low4 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Introduction 

gradient stream reaches with loose, clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989). 

Redds† are often constructed in stream reaches fed by springs or near other 

sources of cold groundwater (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 

1996). Depending on water temperature, incubation is normally 100 to 145 days 

(Pratt 1992), and after hatching, juveniles remain in the substrate. Time from egg 

deposition to emergence of fry† may surpass 200 days. Fry normally emerge from 

early April through May, depending on water temperatures and increasing stream 

flows (Pratt 1992; Ratliff and Howell 1992). 

The ability to migrate is important to the persistence of local bull trout 

populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Rieman et al. 1997). Migratory forms 

of bull trout appear to develop when habitat conditions allow movement between 

spawning and rearing†

 streams and larger rivers or lakes where foraging 

opportunities may be enhanced (Frissell 1993). For example, multiple life history 

forms (e.g., resident and fluvial) and multiple migration patterns have been noted 

in the Grande Ronde River (Baxter 2002). Parts of this river system have retained 

habitat conditions that allow free movement between spawning and rearing areas 

and the mainstem Snake River. Such multiple life history strategies help to 

maintain the stability and persistence of bull trout populations to environmental 

changes. Benefits to migratory bull trout include greater growth in the more 

productive waters of larger streams and lakes, greater fecundity resulting in 

increased reproductive potential, and dispersing the population across space and 

time so that spawning streams may be recolonized should local populations† 

suffer a catastrophic loss (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1998; Frissell 

1999). In the absence of the migratory bull trout life form, isolated populations 

cannot be replenished when disturbance makes local habitats temporarily 

unsuitable, the range of the species is diminished, and the potential for enhanced 

reproductive capabilities are lost (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 

Diet 

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, with food habits primarily a function 

of size and life history strategy. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey 

on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macrozooplankton, and small fish (Boag 1987; 

5 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Introduction 

Goetz 1989; Donald and Alger 1993). Adult migratory bull trout are primarily 

piscivorous (fish eating) and are known to feed on various trout and salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.), whitefish (Prosopium spp.), yellow perch (Perca 

flavescens), and sculpin (Cottus spp.) (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Donald and 

Alger 1993). 

Reasons for Decline Across the Range 

Throughout their range in the lower 48 states, bull trout have been 

negatively impacted by the combined effects of a variety of factors, including 

habitat degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor 

water quality, past fisheries management practices, entrainment (being pulled 

through a diversion or other device), and the introduction of nonnative species†. 

Habitat alteration, primarily through the construction of impoundments, dams, 

and water diversions, has fragmented habitats, eliminated migratory corridors, 

and isolated bull trout in the headwaters† of tributaries (Rieman et al. 1997; 

Dunham and Rieman 1999; Spruell et al. 1999; Rieman and Dunham 2000). For 

example, although many dams have fish ladders†

, most such passageways were 

designed specifically for anadromous salmonids migrating upstream to spawn, not 

for resident fish such as bull trout. These designs therefore address the migration 

needs of primarily semelparous fishes (those that spawn only once in a lifetime, 

and therefore only require one-way passage) as opposed to iteroparous fishes such 

as bull trout (which require two-way passage) or fish that may merely wander 

both upstream and downstream as adults to forage. Therefore even dams with 

fish passage facilities may be a factor in isolating bull trout populations if they do 

not provide a downstream passage route. The combination of such factors has 

resulted in rangewide declines in bull trout distribution, abundance, and habitat 

quality, as well as the reduction or elimination of migratory bull trout. 

Although isolation and habitat fragmentation contributed to the initial 

declines of bull trout in the Jarbidge River system, this population segment is now 

in a somewhat unusual position relative to the other population segments of bull 

trout, in that the current isolation of this population due to dams and diversions is 

not considered a significant threat to recovery. In fact, in this instance the 

6 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Significance 

isolation of this population from the Snake River may be beneficial, because this 

population is presently protected from the adverse impacts of nonnative fishes 

present in the Snake River system that would become predators, competitors, or 

possibly hybridize†

 with bull trout should connectivity† be restored. Their 

isolation from other populations of bull trout also serves to maintain the particular 

genetic characteristics of the Jarbidge River population segment. Other threats to 

this population include habitat degradation, interactions with nonnative fishes, 

and incidental angler harvest. Further details specific to the threats faced by bull 

trout within the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment are discussed in 

detail in the Reasons for Decline section beginning on page 35 of this plan. 

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JARBIDGE RIVER
 

DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT
 

The Jarbidge River in southwest Idaho and northern Nevada is a tributary 

in the Snake River basin and contains the southernmost habitat currently occupied 

by bull trout. This population segment is geographically segregated from other 

bull trout in the Snake River basin by more than 240 kilometers (150 miles) of 

unsuitable habitat and several impassable dams on the mainstem Snake River and 

the lower Bruneau River. The occurrence of a species at the periphery of its 

range is not necessarily sufficient evidence of significance to the species as a 

whole. However, since the Jarbidge River possesses bull trout habitat that is 

disjunct from other suitable patches of habitat, the population segment is 

considered significant because it occupies a unique or unusual ecological setting, 

and its loss would result in a substantial modification of the species’ range (64 FR 

17110). Furthermore, the genetic uniqueness of bull trout in the Jarbidge River, 

in association with their physical isolation, makes this distinct population segment 

a high conservation priority for maintaining the maximum genetic diversity and 

evolutionary potential of the species across its range (Epifanio et al. 2003; B. 

Rieman, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 2003). 

Since the original listing, mitochondrial DNA data has revealed genetic 

differences between coastal populations of bull trout, including the lower 

Columbia and Fraser Rivers, and inland populations in the upper Columbia and 

7 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Terminology 

Fraser River drainages east of the Cascade and Coast Mountains (Williams et al. 

1997; Taylor et al. 1999). This divergence is likely based on recolonization 

patterns associated with glacial refugia 10,000 to 15,000 years ago (Haas and 

McPhail 2001; Costello et al. 2003; Spruell et al. 2003), and suggests the 

existence of two or more genetically differentiated lineages of bull trout, each 

with a unique evolutionary legacy. Furthermore, analyses of nuclear DNA at 

microsatellite loci reveal an apparent differentiation between inland populations 

within the Columbia River basin, suggesting that bull trout populations in the 

Jarbidge River have a shared evolutionary history with populations in the upper 

Columbia River and upper Snake River (Spruell et al. 2003). However, despite 

the evidence that historically there was some level of gene flow between the 

Jarbidge River population segment and bull trout in the Columbia River basin, 

bull trout in the Jarbidge River population segment have now been artificially 

isolated from other populations for over 100 years (since the late 1800's; Gilbert 

and Evermann 1894). Furthermore, the recovery team for the Jarbidge River 

Distinct Population Segment has advised us that the isolation of this population 

due to dams and diversions is not currently a limiting factor, and that restoration 

of passage, allowing connectivity with other populations, may actually hinder 

recovery efforts by allowing nonnative fishes access to this core area† for bull 

trout. These considerations – genetic and physical isolation – in conjunction with 

the unique ecological setting of the Jarbidge River population segment at the 

southernmost extension of the species’ range, suggest that it is appropriate to 

continue to focus our recovery efforts on this population segment as we evaluate 

the potential implications of recent genetic analyses on the organization of bull 

trout recovery efforts. 

RECOVERY PLAN TERMINOLOGY AND STRUCTURE 

The bull trout is a wide-ranging species with multiple life history forms 

and a complex population structure reflecting a high degree of local site fidelity 

(Kanda and Allendorf 2001) and substantial genetic divergence between breeding 

populations (Dunham and Rieman 1999; Spruell et al. 2003). Furthermore, it has 

been suggested that maintaining variablity in life history strategies and dispersal 

over many habitats may be as important to bull trout conservation as maintaining 

8 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Designation and Description 

genetic variability (Rieman and Allendorf 2001). In order to preserve the diverse 

array of life histories and genetic variability exhibited by bull trout across their 

range, we have utilized the concept of “core areas” in recovery planning for bull 

trout. A core area represents a combination of suitable habitat and one or more 

local populations (the smallest group of fish that are known to represent an 

interacting reproductive unit) that function as one demographic unit due to 

occasional gene flow between them; essentially, most core areas function as 

metapopulations† (Meffe and Carroll 1994; Hanski and Gilpin 1997; Dunham and 

Rieman 1999). A metapopulation can be defined as a collection of relatively 

isolated, spatially distributed local populations bound together by occasional 

dispersal between them. Metapopulations provide a mechanism for reducing risk 

because the simultaneous loss of all local populations is unlikely. Although local 

populations may become extinct, they can be reestablished by individuals from 

other local populations. In general, the characteristics of most bull trout 

populations appear to be consistent with the metapopulation concept, although the 

exact structure of metapopulation dynamics for bull trout is not well understood 

(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 

Recovery planning for bull trout across their range in the coterminous 

United States also utilized the concept of “potential local populations.” A 

potential local population is a population that does not currently exist, but that 

could exist, if spawning and rearing habitat or connectivity were restored in that 

area, and contribute to recovery in a known or suspected unoccupied area. 

DESIGNATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE JARBIDGE RIVER
 

DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT
 

The Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment encompasses the entire 

Bruneau River Subbasin†

 4th-field hydrologic unit of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(Hydrologic Unit Code 17050102), which covers 8,547 square kilometers (3,300 

square miles). This hydrologic unit includes both the Jarbidge River and Bruneau 

River watersheds in southwest Idaho and northern Nevada (see Figure 1). 

9 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Designation and Description 

Figure 2. Local populations of bull trout within the Jarbidge River core area of the Jarbidge River 

Distinct Population Segment. 

10 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Designation and Description 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team identified one core area with six local 

populations in the Jarbidge River watershed (Figure 2); no core areas or local 

populations were identified elsewhere in the Bruneau River watershed. The 

Jarbidge River core area consists of the entire mainstem Jarbidge River and the 

East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River and their tributaries (Hydrologic Unit 

Codes 1705010210 to 1705010215). Local populations present within the 

Jarbidge River core area are the East Fork Jarbidge River (including the East Fork 

headwaters, Cougar Creek, and Fall Creek), West Fork Jarbidge River (including 

Sawmill Creek), Dave Creek, Jack Creek, Pine Creek, and Slide Creek. 

Geographic Description 

The Jarbidge River originates in the Jarbidge Mountains of northeastern 

Nevada, which form a portion of the north rim of the Great Basin. The watershed 

is characterized by an elevated volcanic plateau that gradually slopes downward 

to the Snake River Plain (Schrader 1923), draining approximately 1,264 square 

kilometers (488 square miles) (Frederick and Klott 1999). The upper watershed 

is divided by a north-south crest with eight mountain peaks over 3,050 meters 

(10,000 feet) in elevation; Matterhorn Peak is the highest at 3,306 meters (10,839 

feet). The steep slopes in the upper watershed (22 to 46 percent gradient) 

regularly experience large-scale erosional processes which impact streams such as 

mass-wasting events (e.g., earth slumps, debris avalanches, and debris torrents 

from rain-on-snow events) (McNeill et al. 1997; Lay 2000). 

The Jarbidge River and several tributaries have carved narrow canyons up 

to 180 meters (600 feet) deep into the surrounding plateau. Many of the canyons 

have reaches with vertical volcanic rock (rhyolite) walls or steep lower slopes 

with rim rock above. The East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River flow 

northward for approximately 36 and 32 kilometers (22.4 and 19.9 miles), 

respectively, and merge approximately 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) downstream of 

the Idaho-Nevada border. The mainstem Jarbidge River extends another 45 

kilometers (28 miles) to the northwest, and at its confluence with the Bruneau 

River has dropped to 1,128 meters (3,701 feet) in elevation. The Bruneau River 

then flows northward for approximately 80 kilometers (50 miles) downstream 

11 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Designation and Description 

from the Jarbidge River confluence to enter C.J. Strike Reservoir on the Snake 

River. 

Vegetation cover types in the upper Jarbidge River watershed are 

primarily mountain sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), aspen (Populus tremuloides), 

mountain shrub (e.g., bitterbrush [Purshia spp.], serviceberry [Amelanchier spp.], 

etc.), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), and Great Basin subalpine pine (e.g., 

limber [Pinus flexilis] and whitebark [P. albicaulis]) pine) (McNeill et al. 1997). 

Riparian†

 vegetation in the watershed primarily consists of juniper (Juniperus 

spp.), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), subalpine fir, aspen, and various 

forbs, grasses, and sedges (McNeill et al. 1997). The upland plateau is dominated 

by shrub steppe community species. 

Although located in a semi-arid region, the Jarbidge Mountains have a 

subalpine climate and capture substantial amounts of precipitation, primarily in 

the form of snow. The higher elevations typically accumulate a snow pack of 2.1 

to 2.4 meters (7 to 8 feet) each year, which is the major water source for streams 

in the watershed. Additional precipitation falls as rain during thunderstorms. The 

upper East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River are subject to occasional rainon-snow events, which reduce the snow pack and cause localized flooding. 

Because there are no storage reservoirs or diversions on the East Fork, West Fork, 

or mainstem Jarbidge River, runoff follows the natural hydrograph with high 

spring and early summer flows and greatly reduced flows in late summer, fall, and 

winter (Figure 3). There are no gaging stations on the mainstem Jarbidge River, 

but peak flows†

 could reach as high as 42,475 liters per second (1,500 cubic feet 

per second) or more with flow contributions from lower tributaries. Most existing 

consumptive surface and groundwater use in the Jarbidge River watershed is for 

livestock watering and domestic purposes. 

The only operational stream gaging station in the Jarbidge River 

watershed is located on the West Fork of the Jarbidge River downstream of 

Jarbidge, Nevada (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] Station Number 13162225). 

12 
 

Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Designation and Description 

600
 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Oct Jan May Aug 

Figure 3. Hydrograph for the West Fork of the Jarbidge River downstream 

of Jarbidge, Nevada (October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999). Flow is 

shown in cubic feet per second (cfs). 

The West Fork of the Jarbidge River had an annual mean streamflow of 1,085 

liters per second (38.3 cubic feet per second) in water year 1999 (October 1998 to 

September 1999) (USGS 1999). The instantaneous peak flow over 4 water years 

of record (1998 to 2001) was 23,333 liters per second (824 cubic feet per second), 

but daily mean streamflow dropped as low as 70.8 liters per second (2.5 cubic feet 

per second) (USGS 1999, 2002). Annual discharge†

 for the West Fork during 

water year 1999 was 34.9 million cubic meters (28,320 acre feet) based on a 

drainage area of 79.2 square kilometers (30.6 square miles) (USGS 1999). 

Flows in the East Fork of the Jarbidge River were gaged downstream of 

Murphy Hot Springs, Idaho (USGS Station Number 13162500), from September 

13 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Designation and Description 

1, 1928 to October 31, 1933, and from August 1, 1953 to January 31, 1972. The 

peak daily mean stream flow during the entire period of record was 21,634 liters 

per second (764 cubic feet per second) in 1971 (USGS 2002). Annual mean 

streamflow for the East Fork ranged from 779 to 2,557 liters per second (27.5 to 

90.3 cubic feet per second) (USGS 2002). The drainage area for this gaging 

station (219 square kilometers, 84.6 square miles) was much larger than for the 

West Fork station, and there are no overlapping years of record, so flow data are 

not directly comparable. 

The Jarbidge River canyon has been seasonally occupied by humans since 

around 8000 B.C., with use by Shoshone tribal members dating from 1150 A.D. 

until the mid-1800's when the Ruby Valley Treaty was signed (18 Statutes at 

Large 689; Mathias and Berry 1997; McNeill et al. 1997). Use of the Jarbidge 

River watershed in the late 1800's was primarily for sheep, cattle, and horse 

grazing. Gold was discovered in 1909 with subsequent gold and silver mining 

and milling, timber harvest, and road construction (Mathias and Berry 1997; 

McNeill et al. 1997). 

The headwaters area of the Jarbidge River in Nevada was designated as a 

Forest Reserve in 1909 (McNeill et al. 1997). A portion of the Forest was 

designated as a Wild Area in 1958 and converted into the Jarbidge Wilderness in 

1964 (USFS 1999). The Jarbidge Wilderness was expanded in 1989 to a total of 

45,900 hectares (113,330 acres). The U.S. Forest Service currently manages 

approximately 25 percent (31,668 hectares, 78,192 acres) of the land in the 

Jarbidge River watershed as part of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 

including the portion of the Jarbidge Wilderness located in this watershed. The 

Bureau of Land Management administers approximately 64 percent (81,070 

hectares, 200,172 acres) of the watershed. With the exception of a portion of a 

16,200-hectare (40,000-acre) area closed to grazing within the Jarbidge 

Wilderness, these public lands are managed for multiple uses, primarily livestock 

grazing and various recreational activities. Water developments, commercial 

outfitting and guiding, and mineral development and production on existing valid 

claims are still allowed in the Jarbidge Wilderness. 

14 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

Additional public land representing State endowment lands (sections 16 and 

36) in Idaho make up 3 percent (3,800 hectares, 9,383 acres) of the Jarbidge River 

watershed. Approximately 8 percent (10,134 hectares, 25,022 acres) of the 

Jarbidge River watershed is private land. Private lands are generally located 

along streams and in canyon or valley bottoms, and include the communities of 

Jarbidge, Nevada, and Murphy Hot Springs, Idaho. Seasonal recreation use of the 

surrounding public lands is economically important to communities in the 

watershed. The primary uses of private land are for livestock grazing and 

seasonal residences. 

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE 

Status of Bull Trout at the Time of Listing 

At the time of listing, we identified a single subpopulation†

 of bull trout 

within the Jarbidge River watershed (64 FR 17110). This subpopulation included 

both resident and migratory fish. The status of this subpopulation was considered 

depressed based on low numbers and disjunct distribution. Bull trout were known 

to be present in the East Fork, West Fork, and mainstem Jarbidge River, and six 

headwater tributaries (Cougar, Dave, Fall, Pine, Sawmill, and Slide Creeks). 

Habitat degradation and fragmentation from past and ongoing land management 

activities such as road construction and maintenance, mining, and grazing; natural 

events; and past fisheries management practices were identified as the primary 

threats to this subpopulation (63 FR 31693; 63 FR 42757; 64 FR 17110). The 

single subpopulation identified in the original listing document is now referred to 

as the Jarbidge River core area which is composed of six identified local 

populations of bull trout. 

Current Distribution and Abundance 

All bull trout in the Jarbidge River watershed are native fish sustained by 

natural reproduction. Although bull trout were likely never as abundant as other 

native salmonids (e.g., interior redband trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) in 

15 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

the watershed, the Jarbidge River Recovery Team believes bull trout were more 

abundant and more widely distributed historically than they are today. Currently, 

the recovery team estimates that fewer than 500 resident and migratory (fluvial) 

bull trout occupy the Jarbidge River core area, representing approximately 50 to 

125 spawning adults. 

The recovery team used professional judgement to designate six local 

populations of bull trout in the Jarbidge River watershed based upon available 

survey data, including observations of juveniles, documentation of suitable 

habitat for bull trout spawning and rearing, redd observations, or the presence of 

adults during the spawning season, as well as geographical isolation and limited 

genetic data. These six local populations are: 1) Dave Creek; 2) East Fork 

Jarbidge River (including the East Fork headwaters, Cougar Creek, and Fall 

Creek); 3) Jack Creek1

; 4) Pine Creek; 5) Slide Creek; and 6) West Fork Jarbidge 

River (including Sawmill Creek) (see Figure 2). 

There is preliminary genetic information indicating that bull trout in at least 

two of the designated local populations (West Fork Jarbidge River and Dave 

Creek) are genetically differentiated from one another (P. Spruell, University of 

Montana, in litt., 1998; Spruell et al. 2003). Additional genetic samples of bull 

trout from each occupied stream are needed to complete the genetic analysis and 

ensure these six designations accurately represent local population structure. 

However, these findings are consistent with those for bull trout in other regions, 

which generally exhibit low levels genetic variation within a population, but high 

levels between populations (Williams et al. 1995; Spruell et al. 1999; Taylor et al. 

1999; Kanda and Allendorf 2001; Neraas and Spruell 2001; Costello et al. 2003; 

Whiteley et al. 2003). Such genetic differentiation has been found in cases where 

bull trout are connected by suitable habitat in adjacent drainages (Kanda and 

Allendorf 2001) and even within the same tributary (Spruell et al. 1999). This 

evidence suggests that all local populations within the core area may be important 

for the conservation of the full range of genetic variability present within the 

distinct population segment, even if those populations are relatively small. 

1

 Bull trout were rediscovered in Jack Creek during 1999 surveys (Johnson and Haskins 2000). 

16 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

Population data for bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment are primarily limited to data obtained during informal surveys by various 

State and Federal agencies and other anecdotal reports (e.g., creel surveys), as 

opposed to systematic surveys for bull trout. Summaries of available population 

data by stream are provided below; local populations are identified by number to 

correspond with Figure 2. These combined data represent the best information 

currently available on bull trout population distribution and relative abundance, 

but they are inadequate to determine statistically-defensible population trends. 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team has identified the development of 

standardized population monitoring protocols and the implementation of 

systematic bull trout surveys as research needs to resolve this issue. 

Occupied Habitats in the Jarbidge River Core Area 

Dave Creek - Local Population 1 

Dave Creek is a major western tributary to the East Fork of the Jarbidge 

River. The creek originates on public land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, 

but then flows through private property and finally through Bureau of Land 

Management-managed public land. Dave Creek contains a local population of 

resident bull trout and likely provides spawning and rearing habitat for fluvial bull 

trout. This creek supports the most extensive known and potentially suitable bull 

trout spawning and rearing habitat in the Jarbidge River watershed, primarily due 

to its lower gradient and the relative abundance of spawning gravels. The 

Jarbidge River Recovery Team believes that the Dave Creek local population of 

bull trout will be a significant factor in bull trout recovery, potentially throughout 

the entire watershed, because of its future reproductive contributions and 

subsequent fish dispersal. 

The first recorded documentation of bull trout anywhere in the Jarbidge 

River watershed was the collection of two fish (169 and 105 millimeters, 6.6 and 

4.1 inches standard length) from Dave Creek on August 27, 1934, approximately 

6.4 kilometers (4 miles) upstream of its confluence with the East Fork (Miller and 

Morton 1952). No bull trout were collected at two access sites on lower Dave 

17 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

Creek in August 1957 (Johnson 1995b; Johnson, in litt., 2003a). In August 1993, 

five bull trout (122 to 231 millimeters, 4.8 to 9.1 inches fork length) were 

captured from two sites within 4.4 kilometers (2.75 miles) upstream of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest boundary (NDOW 1993; Johnson and Weller 

1994; Johnson 1995b). Another site was also sampled in August 1993 on a small 

unnamed tributary, but no bull trout were collected (Johnson 1995b). No bull 

trout were observed in a July 1994 survey of approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 

miles) of lower Dave Creek (Zoellick 1994; Zoellick et al. 1996). 

In August 1998, 13 bull trout (140 to 213 millimeters, 5.5 to 8.4 inches fork 

length) were collected from three upstream sites and expanded sampling in the 

Forest (J. Frederick, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1998; Johnson 1999). On 

the private land reach of Dave Creek within approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 

miles) downstream of the National Forest boundary, three adult bull trout were 

observed in late June 1999, and one additional adult was observed in late August 

1999 (Werdon 2000a). Approximately six redds were observed with spawning 

bull trout (200 to 350 millimeters, 8 to 14 inches) in this same reach in midSeptember 2001 (Burton et al. 2001). 

East Fork Jarbidge River - Local Population 2 

The upper half of the East Fork of the Jarbidge River is located in the 

Jarbidge Wilderness. Lower reaches flow through public lands managed by the 

U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and limited (less than 2.4 

kilometers, 1.5 miles) private lands at Robinson Hole and Murphy Hot Springs, 

Idaho. The East Fork Jarbidge River local population of bull trout consists of 

both fluvial and resident fish. The Jarbidge River Recovery Team has also 

combined bull trout using Cougar and Fall Creeks into this headwaters local 

population. 

Bull trout were first documented in the East Fork in July 1951 when three 

male specimens (168 to 193 millimeters [6.6 to 7.6 inches] standard length) were 

collected (Miller and Morton 1952). In August 1957, one bull trout was collected 

2 kilometers (1.2 miles) downstream of the headwater forks and another was 

18 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

collected just downstream of Slide Creek (Johnson 1993a). The Nevada State 

record bull trout from the East Fork was a 406-millimeter (16-inch) fish weighing 

595 grams (1 pound, 5 ounces) caught on July 15, 1976 (NDOW 1998). In 

October 1984, a 266-millimeter (10.5-inch) bull trout was collected from the East 

Fork at Robinson Hole (Johnson 1995a; G. Johnson, NDOW, pers. comm. 

2001a). 

In the early summer of 1992, a single bull trout was observed moving 

upstream near Murphy Hot Springs, Idaho (M. Vinson, Bureau of Land 

Management, pers. comm., as cited in Zoellick et al. 1996). However, no bull 

trout were collected at five sites on the lower 6.6 kilometers (4.1 miles) of the 

East Fork in July and August 1992 (Warren and Partridge 1993). In September 

1993, four bull trout (103 to 203 millimeters, 4 to 8 inches) were collected and 

three others were observed in the East Fork at two sites with elevations of 2,220 

meters (7,280 feet) and above (Johnson 1993a; NDOW 1993; Johnson 1999). No 

bull trout were observed during March 1994 or August 1995 surveys on the lower 

East Fork in Idaho or upstream to the Forest boundary in July 1994 (Zoellick 

1994; BLM and USFWS 1995; Zoellick et al. 1996). 

No bull trout were collected at a fish weir on the lower East Fork in Idaho 

during trapping efforts from August 27 through October 17, 1997 (Partridge and 

Warren 1998). During early August 1998, two bull trout (142 and 262 

millimeters, 5.6 and 10.3 inches) were collected from the western headwater 

branch of the East Fork; six other bull trout (97 to 258 millimeters, 3.8 to 10.2 

inches) were collected just downstream of the confluence of the two headwater 

streams (Johnson 1999). Electrofishing of several pools on the lower East Fork 

upstream to the Idaho-Nevada border for 1 day in October 1998 also did not 

produce any bull trout (Partridge and Warren 1998). 

Two bull trout were reported as caught and released by anglers in early 

September 1999 (Partridge and Warren 2000), but it is unclear whether both of 

the fish were from either the East Fork or West Fork, or if one fish may have 

come from each of the forks. In late September 1999, a total of seven bull trout 

(55 to 195 millimeters, 2.2 to 7.7 inches total length) were collected or observed 

19 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

in the upper East Fork less than 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) downstream of the 

confluence of the two headwater branches (Johnson and Haskins 2000). The fish 

weir on the lower East Fork was operated again from September 7 to November 

30, 1999, resulting in the capture of two bull trout (280 and 315 millimeters, 11 

and 12.4 inches) in late October (Partridge and Warren 2000). On October 14, 

1999, two deer hunters reported observing a number of large “brook trout” 

holding in pools on the East Fork between Slide Creek and Robinson Hole; these 

fish were most likely bull trout based on their description (noticeable white on 

fins) and the absence of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the East Fork (S. 

Werdon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt., 1999). 

In early April 2001, an angler reportedly caught an adult bull trout from the 

East Fork at Murphy Hot Springs, Idaho (D. Parrish, Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game [IDFG], in litt., 2001). In mid-October 2001, snorkel surveys of the 

East Fork documented a total of 12 bull trout (51 to 250 millimeters, 2 to 10 

inches) at 7 of 26 survey sites distributed over 21 kilometers (13 miles) of stream 

(Parametrix 2002). These bull trout were all observed upstream of the confluence 

with Slide Creek, with most occurring upstream of the Cougar Creek confluence 

above an elevation of 2,100 meters (6,900 feet) (Parametrix 2002). 

Cougar Creek 

Cougar Creek is a western tributary to the East Fork of the Jarbidge River in 

the Jarbidge Wilderness. Five sites on the lower 6.3 kilometers (3.9 miles) of 

Cougar Creek were surveyed during late August 1993, but no bull trout were 

collected (NDOW 1993; Johnson and Weller 1994; Johnson 1996a; Johnson 

1999). No fish species were collected at the upper three sites, indicating perhaps 

that access is restricted to the lower 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) of the stream by 

either stream gradient or some other physical barrier. Bull trout were discovered 

in lower Cougar Creek in late August 1998 when two young-of-the-year (45 and 

49 millimeters, 1.8 and 1.9 inches total length) and one adult (180 millimeters, 7.1 

inches total length) were collected (Johnson 1999). The Jarbidge River Recovery 

Team has designated a single local population containing bull trout in Cougar 

Creek, the headwaters of the East Fork of the Jarbidge River, and Fall Creek. 

20 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

Bull trout in Cougar Creek appear to be resident fish, but population data are 

limited. 

Fall Creek and Tributaries 

Fall Creek is a western tributary to the East Fork of the Jarbidge River within 

the Jarbidge Wilderness. The Jarbidge River Recovery Team has designated a 

single local population for bull trout occurring in Fall Creek and its two unnamed 

tributaries, Cougar Creek, and the headwaters of the East Fork of the Jarbidge 

River. This local population likely contains both resident and migratory bull 

trout, with Fall Creek supporting resident fish. 

Fall Creek is estimated to have 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) of accessible 

habitat for bull trout, and its two tributaries together provide less than 1.6 

kilometers (1 mile) of habitat (Johnson 1999). In August 1993, two potential 

adult bull trout were observed in lower Fall Creek, but none were found in the 

tributaries (NDOW 1993; Johnson and Weller 1994; Johnson 1996b). In August 

1998, a total of five bull trout were captured in this drainage, one fish (134 

millimeters, 5.3 inches) from Fall Creek, three fish (135 to 155 millimeters, 5.3 to 

6.1 inches) from the upper tributary, and one fish (98 millimeters, 3.9 inches) 

from the lower tributary (Johnson 1999). 

Jack Creek and Tributaries – Local Population 3 

Jack Creek is a major eastern tributary to the West Fork of the Jarbidge River 

and is located on public lands managed primarily by the U.S. Forest Service. Jack 

Creek currently contains a local population of resident bull trout and likely 

provides spawning and rearing habitat for fluvial bull trout. The one major 

tributary to Jack Creek is Jenny Creek; other smaller tributaries include Little 

Jack Creek in the headwaters and an unnamed northern tributary entering 

upstream of Jenny Creek. None of the tributaries are known to support bull trout, 

although Jenny Creek and the unnamed tributary have redband trout (Johnson 

1995c; S. Werdon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt., 2001). 

21 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

No bull trout were collected in an August 1957 survey of one reach on Jack 

Creek (Johnson 1995d). A single bull trout was sampled in Jack Creek near the 

Jarbidge Canyon road crossing during August 1974 (Johnson 1993a, 1995d). In 

September 1992, one bull trout (135 millimeters, 5.3 inches) was observed within 

0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) of the 1974 collection site during a survey of four 30­

meter (100-foot) transects in lower Jack Creek (Johnson 1993a; Johnson 1995d; 

G. Johnson, NDOW, pers. comm. 1998; Johnson and Haskins 2000). In July 

1994, five or six bull trout (175 to 225 millimeters, 6.9 to 8.9 inches) were 

observed in a large plunge pool in lower Jack Creek (Zoellick 1994; Zoellick et 

al. 1996); the pool was created by an impassable road culvert near the confluence 

with the West Fork of the Jarbidge River. In addition, one bull trout (225 

millimeters, 8.9 inches) was observed in the same pool in August 1995 (BLM and 

USFWS 1995; Zoellick et al. 1996). A barrier to fish migration is believed to 

have existed at this road crossing at least periodically since July 1981 (Johnson 

and Haskins 2000). The culvert barrier was removed and replaced with a bridge 

in November 1997. 

Bull trout were considered as likely extirpated†

 in Jack Creek after 2 years of 

unsuccessful surveys in August and September 1997 and 1998 below 

approximately 2,135 meters (7,000 feet) elevation (Johnson 1997b, 1999; G. 

Johnson, NDOW, pers. comm. 1998; Johnson and Haskins 2000). More intensive 

fish surveys during August 16 to 29, 1999, collected a total of 14 bull trout (95 to 

229 millimeters, 3.7 to 9 inches) in Jack Creek upstream of the Jenny Creek 

confluence, and additional bull trout were also observed (Johnson and Haskins 

2000). Two bull trout (250 to 300 millimeters, 9.9 to 11.8 inches) were observed 

in the lower 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) of Jack Creek in late June 2000 (NDOW 

2001). An additional two adult bull trout (203 to 229 millimeters, 8 to 9 inch) 

were observed in July 2000 (NDOW 2001). In September 2001, two adult bull 

trout and a potential bull trout redd were observed upstream of the Jenny Creek 

confluence in lower Jack Creek (Werdon, in litt., 2001). 

22 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

Pine Creek and Tributaries – Local Population 4 

Pine Creek is a western tributary to the West Fork of the Jarbidge River. It is 

located within the Jarbidge Wilderness except for a short reach including the 

mouth. The Pine Creek drainage contains a local population of resident bull trout 

and potentially provides spawning and rearing habitat for fluvial bull trout. In 

August 1992, a single adult bull trout (167 millimeters, 6.6 inches) was captured 

in upper Pine Creek (Johnson 1993a, 1995e; Johnson and Weller 1994). On 

September 29, 1997, a juvenile bull trout was collected in upper Pine Creek 

(Johnson and Haskins 2000). One juvenile bull trout (110 millimeters, 4.3 inches 

total length) was captured in a small tributary to Pine Creek in August 1998 

(Johnson 1999; Johnson and Haskins 2000). During August 31 to September 2, 

1999, a total of 14 bull trout (total lengths of approximately 106 to 296 

millimeters, 4.2 to 11.7 inches) were collected or observed at six stations located 

in the upper half of Pine Creek (Johnson and Haskins 2000). On June 19, 2000, a 

juvenile bull trout (85 millimeters, 3.3 inches) was collected near the mouth of 

Pine Creek (Werdon 2000b). A survey of 7.6 kilometers (4.7 miles) of Pine 

Creek produced one bull trout (100 to 159 millimeters, 4 to 6 inches) observation 

at an elevation of approximately 2,225 meters (7,300 feet) (Parametrix 2002). 

Slide Creek and Tributaries - Local Population 5 

Slide Creek is one of two major eastern tributaries to the East Fork of the 

Jarbidge River. Tributaries to Slide Creek include two unnamed streams and 

God’s Pocket Creek. Except for the uppermost headwater reach of Slide Creek, 

the entire drainage is within the Jarbidge Wilderness. The Slide Creek drainage 

contains a local population of resident bull trout and may also be used by 

migratory individuals. 

A single adult bull trout (153 millimeters, 6 inches) was collected in Slide 

Creek in late July 1993 just upstream of the mouth of God’s Pocket Creek, while 

a total of nine juvenile bull trout (107 to 124 millimeters, 4.2 to 4.9 inches) were 

collected and three others were observed in the lower reaches (1.9 to 2.4 

kilometers, 1.2 to 1.5 miles) of the two unnamed tributaries to Slide Creek in 

23 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

August 1993 (Johnson 1993a; NDOW 1993; Johnson and Weller 1994; Johnson 

1996d; Johnson 1999). In August 1998, two juvenile bull trout (101 and 112 

millimeters, 4 and 4.4 inches) were collected in Slide Creek just upstream of the 

lower unnamed tributary (Johnson 1999). In late June 1999, a single juvenile (89 

millimeters, 3.5 inches) bull trout was also observed in this same area of Slide 

Creek; and two juvenile (102 millimeters, 4 inches) bull trout were observed in 

the lower unnamed tributary itself (Werdon 2000a). However, no fish were 

observed in the lower 150 meters (492 feet) of God’s Pocket Creek at that time. 

On August 24, 1999, a single bull trout was observed at each of nine sample 

stations on Slide Creek; approximate total lengths of these fish were 127 to 190 

millimeters (5 to 7.5 inches) (Werdon 2000a). 

West Fork of the Jarbidge River - Local Population 6 

The West Fork of the Jarbidge River originates in the Jarbidge Wilderness, 

but remains in the Wilderness for only approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles). 

Outside the Wilderness, the West Fork flows primarily through public lands 

managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, but a total 

of approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) also flows through private land and 

Idaho State land. The West Fork Jarbidge River local population of bull trout 

consists of both fluvial and resident fish. Bull trout from this local population 

also occasionally use Sawmill Creek (see below), a headwater tributary. 

Preliminary genetic analysis of bull trout from the West Fork indicates these fish 

are distinct from bull trout in Dave Creek, a tributary to the East Fork (Spruell, in 

litt., 1998; Spruell et al. 2003). 

The upper 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the West Fork were first scientifically 

sampled between June 1 and August 30, 1934 (Durrant 1935). Starting 3.2 

kilometers (2 miles) upstream of Jarbidge, Nevada, the river downstream was 

considered too polluted from mining to support fish (Durrant 1935). Durrant 

(1935) did not report finding bull trout in the upper watershed, instead reporting 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) (stocked) as rare and rainbow (native 

redband) trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as common. 

24 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

Bull trout were first documented in the West Fork in August 1954 when two 

fish (102 to 203 millimeters, 4 to 8 inches) were caught between the confluences 

of Sawmill Creek and Dry Gulch (NDOW 1954; Johnson 1999). Seven bull trout 

(51 to 150 millimeters, 2 to 6 inches) were collected just upstream of Sawmill 

Creek again during surveys in early October 1961 (NDOW 1961; Johnson 1999). 

A total of nine bull trout (average length 196 millimeters, 7.7 inches) were 

reported caught from the West Fork in June and August 1962 (NDOW 1963). 

In August 1972, one bull trout (165 millimeters, 6.5 inches) was collected at 

the West Fork confluence with Jack Creek (NDOW 1972). No bull trout were 

captured in November 1974 or September 1975 surveys of six and seven sites, 

respectively, located between the Nevada-Idaho border and Snowslide Gulch 

(NDOW 1974, 1975). However, anglers reported catching several bull trout, 

including one measuring 432 millimeters (17 inches) in 1975 (NDOW 1975). 

Two bull trout (150 to 175 millimeters, 6 to 7 inches) were collected in October 

1979; one in the vicinity of the town of Jarbidge and one between Bonanza Gulch 

and Pine Creek (NDOW 1979). 

Three bull trout were captured at two sites on the West Fork between the 

U.S. Forest Service’s Mahoney Administrative Site and Pine Creek Campground 

in October 1980 (NDOW 1981; G. Johnson, NDOW, in litt., 2003a). The Nevada 

State record bull trout from the West Fork is a 559-millimeter (22-inch) fish 

weighing 1,984 grams (4 pounds, 6 ounces) caught by an angler near Sawmill 

Creek on July 9, 1985 (Johnson 1990; NDOW 1998). In late September 1985, a 

266-millimeter (10.5-inch) bull trout was captured between Bourne and Bonanza 

Gulches (NDOW 1985). During early October 1985, a total of 10 bull trout (73 to 

153 millimeters, 2 to 6 inches) were collected in the West Fork between 

Snowslide Gulch and Sawmill Creek; another larger bull trout (255 to 305 

millimeters, 10 to 12 inches) was also observed near Sawmill Creek (NDOW 

1985; Johnson 1999). 

No bull trout were sampled or observed at three sites on the lower 5.5 

kilometers (3.4 miles) of the West Fork in 1992 or March 1994 (Warren and 

Partridge 1993; Zoellick 1994; Zoellick et al. 1996). A single bull trout (175 

25 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

millimeters, 6.9 inches) was observed in the West Fork 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) 

downstream of the Idaho-Nevada border in July 1994 (Zoellick 1994; Zoellick et 

al. 1996). No bull trout were observed during an August 1995 snorkel survey on 

the West Fork downstream of the Jack Creek and Buck Creek confluences (BLM 

and USFWS 1995). Four bull trout (175 to 300 millimeters, 7 to 12 inches) were 

observed upstream of Dry Gulch in October 1996 (Ramsey 1997). 

A total of three potential resident bull trout redds were observed in the upper 

West Fork during surveys in 1995 (one redd) and 1997 (two redds) (Ramsey 

1997). A fish weir (operated August 27 to October 17, 1997) on the lower West 

Fork trapped one bull trout (141 millimeters, 5.6 inches) on August 28 (Partridge 

and Warren 1998). Electrofishing and snorkeling surveys conducted from the 

weir upstream to the Idaho-Nevada border in October 1997 did not record any 

bull trout (Johnson 1997a; Partridge and Warren 1998). However, three bull trout 

(175 to 225 millimeters, 7 to 9 inches) were observed upstream of Dry Gulch in 

early October 1997 (K. Ramsey, U.S. Forest Service, in litt., 1997). On August 5, 

1998, one bull trout (210 millimeters, 8.3 inches) was collected 3.2 kilometers (2 

miles) upstream of the State line; three bull trout (172 to 176 millimeters, 6.8 to 

6.9 inches) were located 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) upstream of the mouth of Jack 

Creek; and a total of 20 bull trout (95 to 225 millimeters, 3.7 to 8.9 inches) were 

caught at three sites upstream of Snowslide Gulch (Johnson 1999). 

A total of eight bull trout (127 to 305 millimeters, 5 to 12 inches) were 

observed in snorkel surveys of the West Fork upstream of Pine Creek in late June 

and August 1999 (Werdon 2000a). The West Fork fish weir was operated again 

from September 8 to November 30, 1999, resulting in the capture of two bull trout 

(250 and 260 millimeters; 9.9 and 10.2 inches) in late September and a larger bull 

trout (355 millimeters, 14 inches) in mid-November (Partridge and Warren 2000). 

Two other bull trout were reported as caught and released by anglers in early 

September 1999 (Partridge and Warren 2000), but it is unclear whether both fish 

were caught downstream of the East Fork or West Fork weir, or if one fish came 

from each of the forks. 

26 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

A total of seven bull trout were observed in the West Fork from the 

confluence with Gorge Gulch upstream in late June 2000 (Werdon 2000b). 

Additional surveys in late June 2000 located a total of 16 bull trout (175 to 350 

millimeters, 7 to 14 inches); with two adults near the Jack Creek confluence, two 

sub-adults near the Jarbidge Cemetery bridge, and 12 between Jarbidge and Pine 

Creek Campground (NDOW 2001). Another survey of the same sites in July 

2000 found one additional bull trout (305 to 330 millimeters, 12 to 13 inches) at 

the confluence of Jack Creek (NDOW 2001). Surveys of the West Fork in 

Nevada during late June 2001 documented bull trout primarily between the 

confluences of Pine Creek and Fox Creek (Johnson, pers. comm. 2001a). 

However, no bull trout were observed in mid-October 2001 during snorkel 

surveys of 11 sites on the West Fork, located over a total distance of 14.2 

kilometers (8.8 miles; excluding the Jarbidge vicinity) upstream of the Forest 

boundary near the Jack Creek confluence (Parametrix 2002). 

Sawmill Creek 

Sawmill Creek is a western tributary to the headwaters of the West Fork of 

the Jarbidge River within the Jarbidge Wilderness. Available habitat for bull 

trout in Sawmill Creek is limited by the steep channel gradient. The lower reach 

of this stream is likely utilized occasionally by resident bull trout in the West Fork 

Jarbidge River local population. No bull trout were collected in a 1954 survey of 

Sawmill Creek at one site near the mouth or at two sites in a 1992 survey (NDOW 

1954, 1992; Johnson 1995f). However, bull trout were collected by spot shocking 

in the West Fork of the Jarbidge River just upstream from the mouth of Sawmill 

Creek at the time of the 1992 survey (Johnson 1995f). In 1998, a single juvenile 

bull trout (120 millimeters, 4.7 inches) was collected in lower Sawmill Creek 

(Johnson 1999). 

Deer Creek 

Deer Creek is a western tributary to the West Fork of the Jarbidge River, 

located primarily on public land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management, with less than 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) on private land. 

27 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

There are no historical records of bull trout from Deer Creek, and no bull trout 

were observed at five sites on Deer Creek in 1992 (NDOW 1992; Johnson 

1993c). However, there was an anecdotal report of bull trout presence in 1993 (J. 

Klott, Bureau of Land Management, in litt., 1994). No bull trout were observed 

in an August 1995 survey from the mouth upstream to the National Forest 

boundary (BLM and USFWS 1995; Zoellick et al. 1996). A single adult bull 

trout (220 millimeters, 8.7 inches) was collected upstream of the Forest boundary 

(Township 46 North, Range 58 East, Section 17) in July 2000 (G. Johnson, 

NDOW, pers. comm. 2001b; NDOW 2001). However, an additional limited 

survey of Deer Creek in July 2001 failed to collect any bull trout (K. Amy, U.S. 

Forest Service, pers. comm. 2001). 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team believes that the existing six local 

populations in the Jarbidge River core area are sufficient for bull trout recovery 

purposes. Therefore, the recovery team has not targeted Deer Creek for 

establishing a potential local population of bull trout. Also, water temperatures in 

Deer Creek may limit spawning and rearing habitat for bull trout (NDOW 2001), 

except near cold spring flows. The recovery team does support performing 

comprehensive surveys of Deer Creek to determine the extent of current use by 

migratory bull trout, as well as surveys of existing habitat conditions. Habitat 

suitability may be improved through implementation of recovery actions, which 

may increase the likelihood of migratory bull trout using this stream for foraging 

or other purposes. 

Mainstem Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers 

Jarbidge River - Mainstem 

Fluvial bull trout are present in the mainstem Jarbidge River in low numbers, 

migrating between the mainstem and the East Fork and West Fork of the Jarbidge 

River, and possibly some of their tributaries (e.g., Dave, Jack, and Pine Creeks). 

Migrations are likely related to seasonally-elevated water temperatures in the 

mainstem and lower East and West Forks, and spawning, overwintering, and 

foraging activities. The downstream extent of movement by these fluvial fish is 

28 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

unknown, but there are no known physical barriers in the mainstem Jarbidge 

River preventing them from moving between the Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers. 

Any historical bull trout collections in the mainstem Jarbidge River are 

unrecorded, and contemporary collections are exceedingly rare. The general lack 

of bull trout observations and collections in the mainstem Jarbidge River has been 

attributed to sampling when water temperatures are too high, flows are too low, 

and/or after bull trout would have seasonally migrated upstream (Warren and 

Partridge 1993; Zoellick et al. 1996). Extensive reaches of the mainstem have no 

road access and are otherwise relatively inaccessible due to steep canyon walls; 

some mainstem areas have not been surveyed. 

In 1991, a single bull trout was caught during several days of angling effort 

on the mainstem Jarbidge River (Warren and Partridge 1993). No bull trout were 

observed at 11 snorkel survey sites on the Jarbidge River in August and early 

September 1992 (Warren and Partridge 1993). Also, no bull trout were observed 

in July 1994 or August 1995 at five snorkel survey sites within 2 kilometers (1.2 

miles) downstream of the confluence of the East and West Forks (Zoellick et al. 

1996). A single bull trout was observed at the confluence of the East and West 

Forks in October 1994 (Zoellick et al. 1996). The mainstem Jarbidge River was 

sampled just upstream from the mouth in October 1995, but no bull trout were 

collected even though the water temperature was 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees 

Fahrenheit), within their preferred temperature range (Allen et al. 1996). 

A research need identified by the Jarbidge River Recovery Team is to 

determine the abundance, downstream distribution, seasonal movement patterns, 

and habitat use of migratory bull trout in the mainstem Jarbidge River. This 

research would also determine whether or not these fluvial bull trout use foraging, 

migration, and overwintering habitat†

 outside of the Jarbidge River core area in 

the mainstem Bruneau River. 

29 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

Bruneau River - Mainstem 

The headwaters of the Bruneau River were reportedly used for spawning by 

fall run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Gilbert and Evermann 

1894). It is unclear what fish species besides salmon historically migrated from 

the Snake River into the Bruneau River because of few historical survey records. 

However, the Bruneau River is considered historical habitat for bull trout (Conley 

1993). It is likely that fluvial adult bull trout utilized this migratory corridor 

along with other fluvial and anadromous salmonids as occurs in other Snake 

River tributary systems. 

Fluvial bull trout using the mainstem Jarbidge River may also use the 

Bruneau River for foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat, although this 

has not been documented. There are no known physical barriers preventing fish 

movement between the Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers. Once in the Bruneau River, 

fish passage is physically unrestricted for approximately 64 kilometers (40 miles) 

downstream to Hot Springs, Idaho. However, thermal outflow from Indian Hot 

Springs, located less than 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) downstream of the mouth of the 

Jarbidge River, might influence bull trout movements. The thermal waters may 

be a deterrent to bull trout passage during warm seasons, but may also provide 

additional foraging opportunities for bull trout at other times of the year. The 

Jarbidge River Recovery Team has identified a research need to determine 

whether or not fluvial bull trout use foraging, migration, and overwintering 

habitat outside of the Jarbidge River core area in the mainstem Bruneau River. 

Currently or Potentially Suitable but Presently Unoccupied Habitats 

Bear Creek 

Bear Creek is a western tributary to the West Fork of the Jarbidge River. It is 

located almost entirely on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service just outside 

the Jarbidge Wilderness boundary, but enters the West Fork on private land in 

Jarbidge, Nevada. Bear Creek was historically identified as the only 

uncontaminated water source for the community. In July 1916, a 14.2 liter per 

30 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

second (0.5 cubic foot per second) water right† application was filed on Bear 

Creek for municipal use in Jarbidge (Mathias and Berry 1997). Construction of 

the water system began in 1917, and included a concrete diversion dam 

approximately 1.2 meters (4 feet) high across Bear Creek located 610 meters 

(2,000 feet) upstream from the mouth, which blocked upstream fish passage. 

Water pipelines provided fire protection and domestic water for a portion of the 

community, as well as supplying water to the Elkoro Mill and another mine camp. 

By 1922, Bear Creek water was also being stored in an 80,000-gallon tank using 

this diversion (Mathias and Berry 1997). 

There are no records of bull trout presence in Bear Creek historically or in a 

limited August 1963 survey (Johnson 1993b). Seven sites on 6.9 kilometers (4.3 

miles) of Bear Creek were surveyed in June 1992 and no bull trout were collected, 

although habitat in Bear Creek Meadows was considered potentially suitable for 

bull trout (NDOW 1992; Johnson 1993b). 

The concrete diversion structure for the Jarbidge water system was 

reconstructed 61 meters (200 feet) further upstream in 1994 to improve water 

quality. The new dam is also approximately 1.2 meters (4 feet) high and is a fish 

passage barrier. Other improvements to the water system included adding a 

567,750-liter (150,000-gallon) water storage tank in 1993. The lower reach of 

Bear Creek is occasionally completely dewatered by the diversion during low 

flow periods. Flows in Bear Creek are frequently as low as 1.9 liters per second 

(0.07 cubic feet per second) (Stantec Consulting 2002). Further modifications to 

the water system are underway to comply with State and Federal regulations for 

public drinking water quality and fire protection, including installing an 

additional 567,750-liter (150,000-gallon) storage tank. 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team has not targeted Bear Creek for 

establishing a potential local population†

 of bull trout. The recovery team 

believes that the existing six local populations in the Jarbidge River core area are 

sufficient for recovery purposes. Potentially suitable habitat conditions for bull 

trout may exist in Bear Creek, but there are no records of bull trout in this 

drainage and there is no access to allow for natural population expansion into this 

31 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

drainage. Also, a nonnative brook trout population in Bear Creek upstream of the 

barrier is considered a threat to bull trout recovery in the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment. 

Buck Creek and Tributaries 

Buck Creek is a western tributary to the lower West Fork of the Jarbidge 

River; Corral Creek is tributary to Buck Creek. Brook trout were present in lower 

Buck Creek as of 1969, and cutthroat trout were stocked back in 1936 (Johnson 

1993d). Neither of these nonnative species are believed to still exist in the Buck 

Creek drainage. No bull trout were collected in either Buck Creek or Corral 

Creek during a July 1992 survey at unusually low flows (Johnson 1993d, 1993e) 

or in a 2002 survey (G. Johnson, NDOW, pers. comm. 2003a). Habitat conditions 

in the headwaters of Buck Creek were relatively poor in the 1990's due to hot 

season livestock grazing (Johnson 1993d, 1993e). However, recent habitat data 

collected by the Bureau of Land Management indicate that the lower portion of 

Buck Creek could potentially support bull trout at least seasonally (Klott and 

Burton 2003a). 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team has not targeted the Buck Creek drainage 

for establishing a potential local population of bull trout. There are no records of 

bull trout in this drainage, and the recovery team believes that the existing six 

local populations in the Jarbidge River core area are sufficient for recovery 

purposes. However, the recovery team supports performing future surveys in the 

Buck Creek drainage to detect any possible seasonal use by bull trout given the 

potentially suitable habitat conditions identified. Habitat conditions may be 

further improved through implementation of recovery actions, which may 

increase the likelihood of bull trout using these streams for foraging or other 

purposes. 

Fox Creek 

Fox Creek is a western tributary to the West Fork of the Jarbidge River. 

There are no historical records of bull trout in Fox Creek. Surveys in 1992, 

32 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

September 1998, and July 2000 also did not collect any bull trout (NDOW 1992, 

2001; Johnson 1999). Habitat conditions in Fox Creek during 1992 were among 

the best of the streams within the West Fork Jarbidge River watershed (NDOW 

1992). Substrate embeddedness†

 is low (10.7 percent in 1992), and water 

temperatures suitable for spawning have been documented in September and 

October (NDOW 1992, 2001). However, low flows (14.2 liters per second, 0.5 

cubic feet per second) during the spawning season may restrict use of Fox Creek 

by bull trout for spawning and rearing (NDOW 1992, 2001). The Jarbidge River 

Recovery Team is not considering establishing a potential local population of bull 

trout in Fox Creek for recovery. However, the recovery team does recommend 

performing occasional surveys of Fox Creek to detect any use by bull trout for 

foraging or other purposes. 

Jim Bob Creek 

Jim Bob Creek is a 3.7-kilometer (2.3-mile) long tributary to Robinson Creek 

(see below), an eastern tributary to the East Fork of the Jarbidge River. Jim Bob 

Creek is located entirely on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest just outside of 

the Jarbidge Wilderness. There are no historical records of bull trout in Jim Bob 

Creek. The existing narrow wetted channel (1 meter, 3.3 feet) and shallow depth 

(16 centimeters, 6.3 inches) may preclude use by bull trout (Klott and Burton 

2003b). However, available data indicate that temperatures (average 7-day 

maximum temperatures of 9.6 to 11.5 degrees Celsius [49.2 to 52.7 degrees 

Fahrenheit] for 1999 to 2001) and flows (33.7 liters per second [1.19 cubic feet 

per second] near the mouth) are generally suitable for bull trout despite flow 

reductions from water diversions for the Jim Bob Pipeline (Frederick and Klott 

1999; Klott and Burton 2003b). 

Water has been diverted from Jim Bob Creek since 1954 when a concrete 

weir was constructed less than 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) downstream of the 

headwaters (Township 46 North, Range 59 East, Section 11, NW1⁄4, NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4). 

From the weir, water was historically diverted into a ditch and a 45.7 centimeter 

(18-inch) culvert (Klott and Burton 2003b). The diversion was reconstructed in 

the 1970's using rock gabions†

 and a concrete dam, and a pipeline replaced the 

33 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Distribution and Abundance 

ditch. The Jim Bob Pipeline system now consists of approximately 362 

kilometers (225 miles) of pipeline, 145 water troughs, seven reservoirs, and five 

water storage tanks (Klott and Burton 2003b). Currently, an estimated 4.4 to 5 

liters per second (0.16 to 0.18 cubic feet per second) are diverted into a 15.2­

centimeter (6-inch) pipeline (Klott and Burton 2003b). There are no known fish 

passage barrier structures in Jim Bob Creek downstream of the diversion to the 

Robinson Creek confluence (Frederick and Klott 1999). However, the stream 

gradient is 10 percent in a reach approximately 1.3 kilometers (0.8 mile) 

downstream of the diversion (Johnson, in litt., 2003a). 

Jim Bob Creek was surveyed in July 1993, and only redband trout were 

present (NDOW 1993; Johnson 1996c). One site on lower Jim Bob Creek was 

sampled in July 2000 and again no bull trout were collected (NDOW 2001). The 

Jarbidge River Recovery Team does not consider that establishing a potential 

local population of bull trout in Jim Bob and Robinson Creeks is necessary for 

recovery. However, the recovery team does support performing occasional 

surveys of Jim Bob Creek in the future to detect any use by bull trout for foraging 

or other purposes. Habitat suitability may be improved through implementation 

of recovery actionss, which may increase the likelihood of bull trout using this 

stream. 

Robinson Creek 

Robinson Creek is an eastern tributary to the East Fork of the Jarbidge River. 

It is located primarily on National Forest land just outside of the Jarbidge 

Wilderness, with private land at the mouth. No bull trout were collected at a 

single survey site on Robinson Creek on October 16, 1984, although a bull trout 

was collected that day in the East Fork of the Jarbidge River near the mouth of 

Robinson Creek at Robinson Hole (Johnson 1995a). In July and September 1993, 

eight sites in Robinson Creek were surveyed, but no bull trout were collected 

(NDOW 1993; Johnson 1995a). The entire length of Robinson Creek was 

intensively surveyed for bull trout in July 2000, but none were collected or 

observed (NDOW 2001). Temperatures (less than 1 degree Celsius change) and 

flows (5.6 percent reduction) in Robinson Creek are slightly affected by the 

34 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

ongoing diversion of water in its one tributary, Jim Bob Creek (see above) 

(Frederick and Klott 1999; Klott and Burton 2003b). 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team does not consider that establishing a 

potential local population of bull trout in Robinson and Jim Bob Creeks is 

necessary for recovery. However, the recovery team does support performing 

occasional surveys of Robinson Creek in the future to detect any bull trout use for 

foraging or other purposes. Habitat suitability may be improved through 

implementation of recovery actions, which may increase the likelihood of bull 

trout using this stream. 

Other Streams in the Jarbidge River Watershed 

Four major tributaries enter the mainstem Jarbidge River downstream of the 

confluence of the East and West Forks: Columbet, Dorsey, Cougar, and Poison 

Creeks. None of these streams are known to support bull trout either now or 

historically. The Jarbidge River Recovery Team has not identified any of these 

streams as habitat for potential local populations or increased abundance of 

migratory bull trout. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE 

Throughout their range in the lower 48 states bull trout have been negatively 

impacted by the combined effects of a variety of factors, including habitat 

degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water 

quality, past fisheries management practices, entrainment†

, and the introduction of 

nonnative species. Habitat alteration, primarily through the construction of 

impoundments, dams, and water diversions, has fragmented habitats, eliminated 

migratory corridors, and isolated bull trout in the headwaters of tributaries 

(Rieman et al. 1997; Dunham and Rieman 1999; Spruell et al. 1999; Rieman and 

Dunham 2000). The reasons for decline specific to the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment are detailed below, and are classified according to the five 

35 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

factors that may negatively impact a species, leading to its decline, as identified in 

section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. Those five factors are: 

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; 

(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) disease or predation; 

(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 

(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 

Dams and Diversions (Factor A) 

The middle Snake River once supported summer and fall runs of chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the 

vicinity of the Bruneau River (Gilbert and Evermann 1894; Bowler et al. 1992; 

Dauble 2000). The headwaters of the Bruneau River were reportedly used for 

spawning by fall run chinook salmon (Gilbert and Evermann 1894), but 

salmonids were likely rare historically in the entire Bruneau River (Lay 2000). It 

is unclear what fish species besides salmon historically migrated from the Snake 

River into the Bruneau River and on into the Jarbidge River because of few 

historical survey records for these relatively inaccessible waters. Bull trout had 

not been reported in the Snake River as of the 1890's (Gilbert and Evermann 

1894). However, the Bruneau River is considered historical habitat for bull trout 

(Conley 1993). It is likely that fluvial adult bull trout utilized this migratory 

corridor along with other fluvial and anadromous salmonids as occurs in other 

Snake River tributary systems. Therefore, the historical distribution and 

abundance of bull trout associated with the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment were both likely more expansive than currently observed and may have 

seasonally extended downstream well beyond the currently designated boundary 

of this population segment. 

Dams on the Snake River constructed without fish passage facilities 

permanently eliminated two-way connectivity between fish in the Jarbidge River 

Distinct Population Segment and other bull trout populations. Bliss Dam (River 

36 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

Mile 560.3) is located on the Snake River near Hagerman, Idaho, and became 

operational in 1950. C.J. Strike Dam (River Mile 494) is located near Grand 

View, Idaho, just downstream of the mouth of the Bruneau River; it became 

operational in 1952. Even prior to completion of these Snake River dams, earlier 

smaller-scale diversion structures on the lower Bruneau River affected fish 

passage and reduced flows in the reach between the Snake River and Hot Springs, 

Idaho. As early as the 1890's, Gilbert and Evermann (1894) noted that an 

irrigation dam across the lower Bruneau River had already completely blocked 

salmon access to the river. 

The first decreed surface water rights from the Bruneau River were issued in 

1875 for irrigation near Bruneau, Idaho (Lay 2000). Water diversions from the 

Bruneau River into the Buckaroo Ditch have occurred since at least April 1912. 

The existing diversion structures for the Buckaroo and Hot Springs ditches are 

fish passage barriers. Together, these two ditches and the South Side Canal divert 

approximately 1.95 cubic meters per second (69 cubic feet per second) of water 

from the lower Bruneau River (Lay 2000). This 23.2-kilometer (14.4-mile) reach 

of the lower Bruneau River is identified as water quality limited under section 

303(d) of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.) for flow alteration, 

nutrients, sediment, and temperature (Lay 2000; IDEQ 2002). 

Downstream dams and diversions were contributing factors in the past 

decline of bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. However, 

the Jarbidge River Recovery Team does not consider these migration barriers to 

be a current limiting factor for recovery of bull trout. This distinct population 

segment has adequate quantities of accessible foraging, migration, and 

overwintering habitats that will be further enhanced through implementation of 

recovery actions and will be sufficient to support expected increases in bull trout 

abundance and distribution under recovered conditions. In addition, dams and 

diversion structures are currently serving to shield bull trout and other native 

species in these watersheds from the adverse effects of nonnative fish present in 

the Snake River system. Maintaining this artificial isolation also conserves the 

unique genetic characteristics of bull trout in this distinct population segment, 

37 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

which are surviving under less than optimal environmental conditions on the 

fringe of the species’ historical range. 

Isolation and Habitat Fragmentation (Factor A) 

Bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment are 

geographically separate from other bull trout populations in the Snake River 

Basin, which are over 240 river kilometers (150 river miles) away. They are also 

isolated from these other bull trout populations by impassable dams and diversion 

structures (See Dams and Diversions above). This artificial physical isolation 

has been maintained since at least the late 1800's (Gilbert and Evermann 1894). 

A small, isolated group of bull trout such as that in the Jarbidge River 

Distinct Population Segment is susceptible to genetic drift without migration and 

exchange of individuals among populations (Spruell et al. 1999; Taylor et al. 

2001; Spruell et al. 2002; Spruell et al. 2003). Currently, bull trout in two 

Jarbidge River local populations are believed to be most closely related 

genetically to bull trout in the Boise and Malheur River Basins of Idaho and 

Oregon (Spruell, in litt., 1998; Spruell et al. 2003), which are tributaries to the 

Snake River downstream of the Bruneau River and located in the Columbia River 

Distinct Population Segment. Genetic analyses indicate that bull trout in the 

Dave Creek (13 samples) and West Fork Jarbidge River (24 samples) local 

populations exhibit some genetic divergence themselves (Spruell, in litt., 1998; 

Spruell et al. 2003), which could be related to strong spawning stream fidelity. It 

may also indicate some measure of physical isolation among bull trout local 

populations within the Jarbidge River core area. 

 Recent research indicates that water temperature is more important in 

determining bull trout distribution than instream cover, channel form, substrate, 

and abundance of other native and nonnative salmonids (Dunham et al. in press). 

On a seasonal basis, elevated water temperatures can act as a thermal barrier 

limiting or halting salmonid migrations and are particularly stressful for species 

such as bull trout with summer and fall spawning migrations (Sauter et al. 2001). 

38 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

Elevated temperatures may isolate fish in cooler streams or stream reaches where 

cold water refugia are found. 

In the Jarbidge River core area, warm water temperatures may seasonally 

inhibit movement of bull trout between the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge 

River and between local populations in their tributaries (Appendix A). Loss of 

riparian habitat, instream flow reductions, and other channel-disturbing activities 

affecting stream shading, pools, woody debris, streambanks, and groundwater 

movement, have likely contributed to altering water temperature regimes and bull 

trout distribution within the Jarbidge River core area. Long-term regional climate 

change has also likely been a cumulative factor relating to increased stream 

temperatures, although there are insufficient local climatological and stream 

records to detect long-term air and water temperature trends. Temperatures of 

three streams in the Jarbidge River watershed (Dave Creek, Slide Creek, West 

Fork of the Jarbidge River) monitored during 1999 closely followed daily and 

seasonal air temperature fluctuations (Werdon 2000a). 

The mainstem Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers are currently unsuitable for bull 

trout during several months of the year due to warm water temperatures. Natural 

geothermal springs in the vicinity of Robinson Hole, Murphy Hot Springs, Indian 

Hot Springs, Hot Springs, and Bruneau, Idaho, also likely affect water 

temperatures in the lower East Fork of the Jarbidge River, mainstem Jarbidge 

River, and Bruneau River to some extent. Flows in the Bruneau River 

downstream of Hot Springs, Idaho, may primarily be from natural geothermal 

sources (springs and thermal groundwater) during late spring through early fall 

(Lay 2000), which corresponds with natural seasonal declines in cooler runoff 

water as well as increased irrigation diversions. 

Isolation and habitat fragmentation were contributing factors in the decline of 

bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. However, under 

present circumstances the Jarbidge River Recovery Team does not consider the 

isolation from other bull trout populations to be a significant threat to recovery 

(See Dams and Diversions above). In fact, currently this isolation may play a 

beneficial role in protecting bull trout from the negative impacts of nonnative 

39 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

fishes present in the Snake River system. The recovery team does consider the 

isolation of local populations and habitat fragmentation within the Jarbidge River 

core area, especially from elevated water temperatures, to be a long-term limiting 

factor in bull trout recovery. The recovery team has identified recovery actions to 

address water temperature concerns, wherever possible, and to complete genetic 

analyses of all six local populations and migratory bull trout within the core area. 

Inadequacy of Existing Water Quality Standards (Factor D) 

State water quality standards for temperature are inadequate for bull trout in 

the Jarbidge River core area. In Nevada, eight water quality standards have been 

set for the beneficial use of aquatic life in the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge 

River (Nevada Administrative Code 445A.218-220). The water temperature 

standards in Nevada are 21 degrees Celsius (67 degrees Fahrenheit) for May 

through October, and 7 degrees Celsius (45 degrees Fahrenheit) for November 

through April, with a less than 1 degree Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) change for 

beneficial uses. The May through October standard exceeds temperatures 

conducive to bull trout spawning, incubation, and rearing (Rieman and McIntyre 

1993; Buchanan and Gregory 1997). 

The lower reaches of the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River in Idaho 

are in a State-designated Bull Trout Key Watershed (Batt 1996). Water 

temperature criteria for key watersheds are set at a maximum weekly maximum 

temperature of 13 degrees Celsius (55.4 degrees Fahrenheit) or less between June 

and August for juvenile bull trout rearing and a daily average temperature of 9 

degrees Celsius (48.2 degrees Fahrenheit) or less during September and October 

for spawning (Idaho Administrative Code 58.01.02.250.02.g). The Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality will propose water quality standards (Total 

Maximum Daily Loads for pollutants) in the mainstem Jarbidge River by 2007 

under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as part of a legal settlement 

agreement (Idaho Conservation League and The Lands Council v. Environmental 

Protection Agency and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; Civ. No. 

C00-972 Z, W.D. Wash.). At this time, the potential designated beneficial uses 

and water quality standards for the Jarbidge River are unknown. 

40 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

The majority of available water quality data for streams within the Jarbidge 

River Distinct Population Segment are for water temperatures. Thermographs 

have been used to record temperatures over time in a number of headwater 

streams, as well as the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River, mainstem 

Jarbidge River, and Bruneau River (Appendix A). A recent study relating bull 

trout distribution and abundance with water temperature concluded that the 

overall mean water temperature at a site was most closely associated with bull 

trout abundance (Gamett 2002). At sites where the mean water temperature was 

below 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit), bull trout were present; no bull 

trout were present at sites with mean temperatures above 12 degrees Celsius (53.6 

degrees Fahrenheit) (Gamett 2002). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

is recommending a 13 degree Celsius (55.4 degree Fahrenheit) 7-day average 

daily maximum temperature for bull trout rearing waters, equivalent to a summer 

mean temperature of 8.5 to 11 degrees Celsius (47.3 to 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit) 

(EPA 2002). 

In 1999, overall mean water temperatures for 31 sites on three streams (Dave 

Creek, Slide Creek, West Fork of the Jarbidge River) in the Jarbidge River 

watershed were all less than 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit); bull trout 

were present at some, but not all, sites on each stream (Werdon 2000a). Daily 

average water temperatures were recorded in 1994 at three sites further 

downstream in the Jarbidge River core area: 1) 15.2 degrees Celsius (59.4 degrees 

Fahrenheit) downstream of the confluence of the East and West Forks of the 

Jarbidge River (June 29 to October 16); 2) 19.2 degrees Celsius (66.6 degrees 

Fahrenheit) in the Jarbidge River upstream of the Bruneau River confluence (June 

28 to September 23); and 3) 24.6 degrees Celsius (76.3 degrees Fahrenheit) in the 

Bruneau River near Hot Springs, Idaho (June 28 to August 7) (Robertson 1995). 

In 1995, water temperatures near the mouth of the Jarbidge River were 3 to 7 

degrees Celsius (5.4 to 12.6 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than in the Bruneau River 

near the confluence (Robertson 1996). 

Other water quality characteristics, in addition to temperature, have been 

periodically monitored since 1966 at stations established upstream and 

downstream of Jarbidge on the West Fork and upstream of Murphy Hot Springs 

41 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

on the East Fork by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Also, sitespecific water quality measurements have been recorded throughout the Jarbidge 

River watershed. It is unknown whether the current Nevada standards established 

for water quality characteristics other than temperature (e.g., turbidity, suspended 

solids, fecal coliform, etc.) are adequate to protect bull trout. 

Potentially toxic materials that have been detected in Nevada bull trout 

waters include arsenic and iron. Arsenic (50 micrograms per liter, 0.05 parts per 

million) was detected in effluent (pH 6.27) from the Gray Rock shaft at the 

Elkoro Mine in 1977 and at another site downstream of Jarbidge (McNeill et al. 

1997). However, the levels of arsenic detected were well below the aquatic life 

standards (acute 1-hour exposure of 342 micrograms per liter [0.342 parts per 

million]; chronic 96-hour exposure of 180 micrograms per liter [0.18 parts per 

million]) set by the State of Nevada (Nevada Administrative Code 445A.144) and 

would be further diluted upon entering the West Fork of the Jarbidge River. 

Soluble iron levels downstream of the community of Jarbidge typically exceed 

300 micrograms per liter (McNeill et al. 1997), but are lower than the State 

standard for aquatic life of 1,000 micrograms per liter (1 part per million) 

(Nevada Administrative Code 445A.144). 

Water samples from the 4M Mine and Pavlak adits† were collected by the 

U.S. Forest Service in August 2002. Laboratory analyses of the samples indicate 

that the 4M Mine sample did not meet beneficial use standards designated for the 

West Fork of the Jarbidge River for some elements (e.g., copper, silver, iron, lead, 

and zinc), however, further dilution would occur upon entering the West Fork (P. 

Gabby, U.S. Forest Service, in litt., 2003; S. Wiemeyer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, pers. comm. 2003). Detection limits for analysis of some sample 

parameters were not low enough to determine if beneficial use standards were 

exceeded, so additional sampling may be warranted (S. Wiemeyer, pers. comm. 

2003). 

Water quality was a contributing factor in the past decline of bull trout in the 

Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment, particularly water quality problems 

associated with historical mining, livestock grazing, and forest management 

42 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

practices. The Jarbidge River Recovery Team considers water temperature to be 

a limiting factor in bull trout recovery. The recovery team will provide input to 

States and the Environmental Protection Agency to assist in revising water quality 

standards for temperature to better protect all bull trout life stages and life history 

strategies. More importantly, the recovery team has identified recovery actions to 

directly address water temperature concerns at the ground level, wherever 

possible. 

Livestock Grazing (Factors A and E) 

Livestock grazing has occurred in upland and riparian areas throughout most 

of the Jarbidge River watershed on both public and private lands. Grazing dates 

back to at least 1885, and during the period from 1885 to 1909 severe overgrazing 

by sheep was common practice in the watershed (Wilson 1906). By current 

standards, managed heavy sheep grazing continued until the 1930's, gradually 

diminishing until all grazing was eliminated in the upper watershed in 1960 

(McNeill et al. 1997). 

Cattle grazing (39,973 Animal Unit Months†

) and limited sheep grazing (150 

Animal Unit Months) still occur in the middle and lower portions of the Jarbidge 

River watershed (Frederick and Klott 1999; Blattel-Sam 2003; Klott and Burton 

2003b). Three bull trout local populations (Dave Creek, Jack Creek, and Slide 

Creek) are directly or indirectly affected by livestock grazing to varying degrees. 

Bull trout foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat on the East Fork of the 

Jarbidge River is directly affected by livestock trailing at one crossing site near 

Murphy Hot Springs, Idaho. Livestock also periodically have access to the 

mainstem Jarbidge River from a few grazing allotments. However, there was no 

evidence of recent livestock use or impacts to bull trout habitat at one of these 

access locations at the mouth of the Jarbidge River during a recent inspection 

(Burton 2003). 

Extensive livestock grazing occurs within many of the tributary drainages to 

the mainstem Jarbidge River with some localized problem areas. Although these 

intermittent and perennial mainstem tributaries are not known to support bull 

43 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

trout, grazing in these drainages can have indirect effects on bull trout because 

they flow into foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat. These same 

intermittent and perennial drainages and others higher in the watershed also have 

numerous small water diversions, water retention structures, and spring 

developments, which are used to supply an extensive network of stock watering 

pipelines, troughs, tanks, ponds, and reservoirs in Idaho and Nevada (Frederick 

and Klott 1999; Klott and Burton 2003b; Blattel-Sam 2003). Cumulatively, 

livestock water developments directly or indirectly affect flows and temperatures 

in some stream reaches, but effects may be nearly undetectable in most occupied 

bull trout habitats. 

Overutilization of riparian vegetation by livestock can lead to a decline in 

plant health and loss of plant species that cover and stabilize streambanks with 

their root systems. The compacting and cutting action of livestock hooves on 

moist soils causes sloughing of banks where localized use for feeding, watering, 

and crossing occurs. The indirect effects of intensive livestock use are to increase 

stream bank erosion and widen the stream channel, increase embeddedness of the 

streambed substrate, and increase water temperatures (habitat degradation, Factor 

A). Livestock may also cause direct mortality of eggs or fry if redds (spawning 

beds) are trampled during watering or crossing (Factor E). This is a significant 

concern for the Dave Creek local population where livestock have direct access to 

the bull trout spawning and rearing habitat. 

Livestock grazing was a contributing factor in the past decline of bull trout in 

the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. The Jarbidge River Recovery 

Team considers livestock grazing to be a current limiting factor for bull trout 

recovery. This is primarily due to its effects on the Dave Creek local population, 

which has the most extensive known bull trout spawning and rearing habitat in 

the Jarbidge River core area. Dave Creek also contains bull trout that are 

genetically differentiated from those in the West Fork Jarbidge River local 

population (Spruell, in litt., 1998; Spruell et al. 2003) and perhaps other local 

populations as well. Addressing grazing concerns in two other local populations 

(Jack Creek, Slide Creek) and foraging, migration, and overwintering habitats 

(lower East Fork and mainstem Jarbidge River) will also contribute to achieving 

44 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

recovery through increased bull trout abundance, but to a lesser extent than from 

expansion of the Dave Creek local population. 

Transportation Networks (Factor A) 

Overall road density is relatively low in the Jarbidge River watershed (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior 1998). However, 

high road densities (1.9 kilometers per square kilometer, 3.1 miles per square 

mile) occur in some portions of the watershed and impact watershed hydrology 

(Bockelman et al. 2002). Several unsurfaced, well-traveled roads are located 

parallel to or cross streams that are important bull trout habitats. Federal and 

local agency road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance have had and 

continue to have adverse effects on water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat 

in the Jarbidge River watershed. Poorly located and designed roads are constant 

sources of soil movement into adjacent stream systems through road maintenance, 

erosion, and vehicle use (Furniss et al. 1991; Lee et al. 1997). Roads are also 

conduits for related impacts such as noxious weed introductions, illegal 

transplants†

 of predatory or competing nonnative fishes, increased fishing harvest 

pressure and potential for poaching, dispersed recreation impacts, and 

introductions of toxic materials from vehicle spills. 

Riparian roads have eliminated or reduced riparian vegetation through direct 

removal during construction activities and hazard tree removal, or indirectly 

through physiological stress from soil disturbance and compaction, root exposure, 

mechanical damage from passing vehicles and maintenance equipment, roadside 

application of herbicides, and potentially even applications of dust abatement 

compounds to road surfaces. Some remaining trees and shrubs along roads in the 

canyon of the West Fork of the Jarbidge River also exhibit insect galls, fungal 

infections, and mistletoe (Bockelman et al. 2002). Riparian vegetation functions 

that can be compromised by roads include streambank stability, stream shading, 

detritus and instream wood contributions, and sediment filtration. 

Roads located in the canyon bottoms along the East and West Forks of the 

Jarbidge River restrict channel migration. Bank erosion has occurred in 

45 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

numerous stream reaches alongside roads in the Jarbidge River watershed with 

little or no intervening riparian vegetation, particularly where valley bottom 

widths are constricted (Bockelman et al. 2002). In addition, the width and/or 

density of riparian vegetation between roads and streams is often too narrow to 

hold back soil moving from the roads into the streams. Soil movement from road 

systems where the riparian vegetation zone is insufficiently wide to intercept this 

material can increase the water turbidity levels, increase embeddedness of the 

streambed substrate, fill pool habitats, create bank erosion, and gradually widen 

stream channels. 

The existing road transportation network in the Jarbidge River watershed was 

a contributing factor in the decline of bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment. The Jarbidge River Recovery Team considers roads to be a 

current limiting factor in the recovery of bull trout due to impacts on water 

quality, stream channels, and riparian habitats in foraging, migratory, and 

overwintering habitats. Addressing the impacts from road maintenance along the 

East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River will contribute to achieving recovery 

by improving habitat for migratory bull trout, maintaining connectivity among 

bull trout local populations for genetic exchange, and providing for increased bull 

trout abundance. 

Fisheries Management 

Harvest (Factor B) 

Bull trout tend to forage aggressively and are easily caught by anglers using 

bait and lures, and therefore can be subject to overfishing (Boag 1987; Rode 

1990). The West Fork of the Jarbidge River was considered heavily fished as 

early as 1934 (Durrant 1935). In 1961, estimated angler days per year for the 

West Fork in Nevada were 500 to 1,000, but by 1975 had increased to 3,830 

angler days (NDOW 1961, 1975). Fishing pressure in both the East and West 

Forks within Nevada in the mid-1980's averaged 1,645 and 1,181 angler days per 

year, respectively (Johnson 1990). By the 1990's, fishing pressure in Nevada was 

estimated at between 1,500 to 3,500 angler days per year on the West Fork and 

46 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

500 to 1,500 angler days on the East Fork (P. Coffin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, pers. comm. 1996). Estimated fishing pressure for the Jarbidge River in 

Idaho is 500 angler days per year, primarily concentrated in the summer and fall 

seasons (Frederick and Klott 1999). 

Potential overharvest of bull trout in the Jarbidge River watershed was first 

identified as a threat to the species by the State of Nevada (Johnson 1990). An 

estimated 100 to 400 bull trout were being harvested annually in Nevada before 

the species was proposed for listing and harvest regulations were modified (P. 

Coffin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1994; P. Coffin, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in litt., 1995). Sizes of angler-harvested bull trout ranged 

from 150 to 305 millimeters (6 to 12 inches) in the West Fork and 150 to 180 

millimeters (6 to 7 inches) in the East Fork (Johnson 1990). The Dave Creek 

local population has also experienced some fishing pressure, albeit much lighter. 

Anglers fishing there reported good success in catching bull trout during the 

1970's; an average 23 angler days per year were spent fishing Dave Creek during 

the 1980's (Johnson 1995b). The Fall Creek local population has also received 

light fishing pressure with average angler days per year of 16 during the 1970's 

and 2.4 in the 1980's (Johnson 1996b). 

Fishing regulations in Nevada allowed harvest of up to 10 trout (any species 

combination) per day in the Jarbidge River watershed until 1998, when fishing 

regulations were amended to prohibit harvest of bull trout. Harvest limits for 

native redband trout and stocked rainbow trout were also reduced to five fish in 

1998. The fishing season in Nevada is currently open year-round, although high 

spring flows and weather-related access typically restrict fishing activity during a 

significant portion of the year in the Jarbidge River watershed. 

Trout fishing regulations for the Jarbidge River system in Idaho have varied 

greatly since 1945. Generally, regulations went from a 15- to 20-trout (any 

species) limit with restrictions on fish less than 152 millimeters (6 inches) in the 

1940's and 1950's to a 6- to 10-trout limit with restrictions on larger fish (305 to 

406 millimeters,12 to 16 inches) in the 1970's and 1980's (F. Partridge, IDFG, in 

litt., 1998). A two-trout limit was established for all species in 1992, and Idaho 

47 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

prohibited the harvest of bull trout beginning in 1995. No historical data are 

available on angler harvest rates for bull trout in the Idaho portions of the 

watershed. The Jarbidge River and its tributaries in Idaho are currently 

designated as Wild Trout streams and have a two-trout limit, with no gear or bait 

restrictions, and the fishing season is open from Memorial Day weekend through 

November each year (IDFG 2002). 

Intentional illegal harvest (poaching) of bull trout occurs at least occasionally 

in the Jarbidge River watershed (Parrish, in litt., 2001). However, incidental 

illegal harvest of bull trout is probably more common, and misidentification of 

bull trout by anglers is likely the most frequent cause (Schmetterling and Long 

1999; Schmetterling et al. 1999). One key to bull trout recovery will be to 

increase recognition of bull trout among anglers and the non-angling public. 

Angler harvest of bull trout was a contributing factor in the decline of bull 

trout in the Jarbidge River watershed. The Jarbidge River Recovery Team 

considers harvest and incidental mortality of released bull trout from recreational 

angling, especially loss of migratory individuals, to be a current limiting factor for 

bull trout recovery. Migratory bull trout are at greater risk from harvest than the 

resident form because of their lower numbers, road-accessible stream habitats, 

high fish visibility due to water clarity and low flows, biannual migration through 

or residence in human-populated areas, and more desirable larger size. These 

migratory fish are essential for recovery by providing opportunities for natural 

genetic exchange among local populations of bull trout in the Jarbidge River core 

area. The recovery team has identified recovery actions to evaluate current 

angling regulations and other means of minimizing loss of bull trout through 

angling. 

Nonnative Species (Factor E) 

Nonnative salmonids have been introduced in the Jarbidge River and its 

tributaries dating back to the earliest fisheries surveys. Stocking of cutthroat trout 

in the West Fork of the Jarbidge River was recommended in 1935 due to heavy 

fishing pressure and the relatively small size of the native rainbow (redband) trout 

48 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

in this cold, relatively unproductive stream (Durrant 1935). Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri) were stocked in the West Fork of 

the Jarbidge River sometime prior to 1960 (Frederick and Klott 1999). However, 

no cutthroat trout were collected in later fisheries surveys of the West Fork from 

1961 to the present. Cutthroat trout were also stocked in Buck Creek, a lower 

tributary to the West Fork in 1936 (Johnson 1993d). The impact to bull trout 

from the temporal presence of cutthroat trout in the Jarbidge River watershed is 

unknown, but was likely minimal. 

Brook trout were introduced into the Jarbidge River watershed in Nevada as 

early as 1954, and over 2,270 kilograms (5,000 pounds) were stocked in the West 

Fork prior to 1961 (NDOW 1961; Johnson 1993b). Approximately one percent of 

the angler harvest on the West Fork from the 1960's through the 1980's consisted 

of brook trout (Johnson 1990). Brook trout were also reported from lower Buck 

Creek in 1969 (Johnson 1993d). However, brook trout failed to establish selfsustaining populations in these two streams. One introduced population has 

persisted in Emerald Lake at the headwaters of the East Fork of the Jarbidge 

River. Emerald Lake lacks a defined outlet to the East Fork, so natural movement 

into nearby bull trout habitat appears unlikely. 

Brook trout were also present in Bear Creek, a tributary to the West Fork, 

during 1962 and 1963, although there are no stocking records for this stream 

(Johnson 1993b). At least one private stocking transplanted unknown trout 

species from Deep Creek in the Bruneau River watershed into Bear Creek in 1987 

(Johnson 1993b). Brook trout were rediscovered in Bear Creek in 2002, and 39 

brook trout of various sizes were removed that year (J. Harvey, U.S. Forest 

Service, pers. comm. 2002; G. Johnson, NDOW, pers. comm. 2003a). Additional 

brook trout from this same population were removed in 2003 (G. Johnson, 

NDOW, pers. comm. 2003b). It is unknown if this population has persisted 

undetected for decades or represents a more recent unauthorized introduction. 

Brook trout adversely impact bull trout populations through both competition and 

hybridization (Dambacher et al. 1992; Rich, Jr. 1996; Gunckel et al. 2001, 2002; 

Kanda et al. 2002). 

49 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

Although native redband trout were and are abundant in the Jarbidge River 

watershed, hatchery rainbow trout have been stocked since at least the 1960's 

(NDOW 1961). Approximate numbers of catchable-size rainbow trout stocked 

annually in the West Fork of the Jarbidge River in Nevada from the 1970's 

through 1998 (except 1991) ranged from 2,000 to 4,242 fish (Johnson and Weller 

1994; Johnson, in litt., 2003a). The Idaho Department of Fish and Game also 

stocked a total of approximately 52,783 hatchery rainbow trout in the lower East 

(75 percent) and West (25 percent) Forks of the Jarbidge River from 1970 through 

1989 (Partridge, in litt., 1998). After 5 years without any stocking, hatchery 

rainbow trout in the West Fork are likely gone from the river (Johnson, in litt., 

2003a), through both size-selective angler harvest and natural mortality. Bull 

trout using the lower East and West Forks and mainstem Jarbidge River for 

foraging, migration, and overwintering have undoubtedly already benefitted from 

reduced interactions with these nonnatives. 

Nonnative species were likely a contributing factor in the past decline of bull 

trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment, but apparently only 

through competition and predation since hybridization has not been evident to 

date. The Jarbidge River Recovery Team considers the continued presence of 

brook trout in the immediate vicinity of one bull trout local population (East Fork 

Jarbidge River) and another source of brook trout (Bear Creek) intermittently 

connected to an important bull trout migratory corridor (West Fork of the 

Jarbidge River) to be a current limiting factor for bull trout recovery because of 

future hybridization and transplant concerns. 

Forest Management Practices (Factor A) 

The U.S. Forest Service authorized timber harvest in parts of the Jarbidge 

River watershed starting in 1910, and numerous private and commercial logging 

and lumber milling operations were established (Mathias and Berry 1997). This 

timber was used locally by miners and settlers for houses, mine buildings, and 

underground mine timbers. Forested slopes at the headwaters of the West Fork of 

the Jarbidge River were the most heavily harvested, along with the Deer Creek 

drainage (Schrader 1923). The riparian vegetation functions that are generally 

50 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

compromised by timber harvest activities include streambank stability, overhead 

shade, detritus and instream wood contributions, and sediment filtration. 

No large-scale timber harvest is currently authorized on public lands in the 

Jarbidge River watershed. Dead wood may be gathered and used as firewood by 

recreationists in the Jarbidge Wilderness. Fuelwood cutting is prohibited in the 

Jarbidge Wilderness, West Fork Jarbidge River canyon, Bear Creek watershed, 

INFISH Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, and U.S. Forest Service 

administrative and recreation sites (Blattel-Sam 2003). A limited Christmas tree 

harvest is allowed in certain areas via individual permit. However, unauthorized 

harvest and removal of instream and riparian large wood from public lands is still 

occurring, especially in areas along the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River 

with road access (McNeill et al. 1997). The abundance of instream large wood is 

significantly lower in the West Fork of the Jarbidge River downstream of the 

Jarbidge Wilderness boundary (McNeill et al. 1997). This wood is removed for 

use as firewood and fuelwood and wherever it is perceived as a potential threat to 

private property and public roads and bridges in future flood events. Land 

management agencies have a limited presence due to the size and remote location 

of the Jarbidge River watershed, and therefore, harvest regulations on public 

lands are not enforced. 

Forest management practices were one of the contributing factors in the past 

decline of bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. The 

Jarbidge River Recovery Team considers the ongoing loss of large woody debris 

to be a limiting factor for bull trout recovery due to detrimental impacts on natural 

stream processes such as pool formation in bull trout foraging, migration, and 

overwintering habitats. 

Mining (Factor A) 

The Jarbidge River watershed has a legacy of mining activity, primarily in 

the upper watershed in Nevada. The discovery of gold in the canyon of the West 

Fork of the Jarbidge River in 1909 was immediately followed by additional 

exploration and mine and mill development. Active mining in the area continued 

51 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

until the 1930's. The last major mine and mill shut down in 1936 (Mathias and 

Berry 1997). However, there are still several small, inactive mining operations in 

the watershed. Only limited new mineral exploration and mine reclamation 

activities are still occurring. 

The earliest report of water quality problems in the Jarbidge River watershed 

was linked to mining activities. In a 1934 survey of the West Fork, impacts to 

water quality and fish populations were noted starting 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) 

upstream of the community of Jarbidge, with the river downstream too badly 

polluted by mine tailings for fish to survive (Durrant 1935). In November 1908, 

fish had been reported to be “plentiful” in this same reach of river (Mathias and 

Berry 1997). Mills located on the West Fork used cyanide for processing ore; 

some dumped their tailings directly into the river, while others were located 

upslope and runoff from tailings piles likely drained into the river (Schrader 1923; 

Mathias and Berry 1997). Most trout species native to cold, relatively 

unproductive waters are suited to a pH range of 6.5 to 9, and higher water 

temperatures reduce tolerance of pH extremes (Piper et al. 1982). Durrant (1935) 

reported a pH of 5 for a water sample from the West Fork, documenting acidic 

conditions in association with a maximum water temperature of 15.6 degrees 

Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit). 

Dewatering was required at some historic mines on the West Fork, including 

the Gray Rock shaft at the Elkoro Mill, the Pavlak adit, and the Norman Mine 

(Schrader 1923; Camozzi 1942; McNeill et al. 1997). This groundwater effluent 

was thermally elevated and was discharged or drained into the West Fork, likely 

seasonally increasing stream temperatures to levels unsuitable for bull trout. 

From 1937 to 1941, pumped discharge from the Gray Rock shaft alone increased 

from approximately 76 liters per second (2.7 cubic feet per second) to over 800 

liters per second (29 cubic feet per second) as the shaft became deeper (Camozzi 

1942). This volume of discharged water greatly exceeded the base flow in the 

West Fork, which typically drops below 113 liters per second (4 cubic feet per 

second) each year. Estimated total discharge from the Gray Rock shaft during 

1937 to 1941 was 26,500,000 cubic meters (21,500 acre-feet) of water (Camozzi 

1942). Small volumes of water (2.65 liters per second, 0.09 cubic feet per 

52 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

second) still issue from the Gray Rock and Pavlak sites; the Norman Mine site has 

not been inspected recently (McNeill et al. 1997). 

Mining was a significant contributing factor in the decline of bull trout in the 

Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. The cumulative effects of several 

other factors are also directly or indirectly linked to the mining era (e.g., Forest 

Management Practices, Transportation Networks, Residential Development and 

Urbanization, Fisheries Management). The Jarbidge River Recovery Team does 

not consider the residual impacts from historical mining to be a limiting factor for 

bull trout recovery. However, the recovery team has identified recovery actions 

to address water quality and temperature concerns, if necessary, and to restore 

aquatic and riparian habitats associated with tailings sites as a conservation 

measure. 

Residential Development and Urbanization (Factor A) 

The communities of Jarbidge, Nevada, and Murphy Hot Springs, Idaho, were 

established during the gold mining boom and are located on the West and East 

Forks of the Jarbidge River, respectively. The peak population of Jarbidge was 

estimated at 1,500 in 1910 (Mathias and Berry 1997). However, the populations 

of both communities are now small and relatively stable with perhaps 175 

seasonal and 25 year-round residents combined. Both communities are 

surrounded by public lands and are located in narrow river canyons, which limits 

opportunities for increased residential development. Most existing structures are 

in floodplain†

 areas, and flood protection and property restoration measures are 

undertaken periodically, as needed. However, these measures (e.g., bulldozing in 

stream channels, large woody debris removal, and rock gabion construction) have 

not always been implemented with consideration of environmental effects. 

Residential developments and associated human disturbance impact riparian 

vegetation, streambanks, water quality, and stream flows through stream 

channelization† , bank stabilization, water diversions, instream wood removal, 

nutrient loading from septic systems and lawn fertilization, and road construction, 

maintenance, and dust abatement. The developed stream reaches associated with 

53 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Reasons for Decline 

Jarbidge and Murphy Hot Springs are within foraging, migration, and 

overwintering habitat for bull trout. 

Residential development was a contributing factor in the decline of bull trout 

in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. However, the Jarbidge River 

Recovery Team does not consider residential development to be a limiting factor 

in bull trout recovery. New development is relatively confined, and ongoing 

impacts to bull trout from the two small communities themselves are localized 

and relatively minor. However, maintaining adequate conditions for fish passage 

through these developed stream reaches is essential for maintaining the 

connectivity among local populations of bull trout in the Jarbidge River core area 

required for recovery. The recovery team has identified actions to improve 

aquatic and riparian habitat conditions for bull trout throughout the Jarbidge River 

core area, which could have conservation benefits for bull trout if implemented in 

stream reaches adjacent to these residential developments in cooperation with 

willing landowners. 

Recreation (Factor A) 

Recreationists in the Jarbidge River watershed participate in a variety of 

activities on public lands such as camping at developed and dispersed recreation 

sites, hunting, fishing, picnicking, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, on- and 

off-road vehicle use, and white-water trips. Three commercial outfitter guides 

operate in the Jarbidge Wilderness and use established base camps in the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, while other commercial operations provide 

whitewater trips on the mainstem Jarbidge River and downstream in the Bruneau 

River. Three of seven Jarbidge Wilderness access portals are located in the 

Jarbidge River watershed. 

Heavy use of some recreation sites on public land has impacted riparian 

vegetation and streambanks, particularly along the East and West Forks of the 

Jarbidge River. Both the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service 

have implemented projects to reduce physical impacts to streams and riparian 

areas from public recreational use in the Jarbidge River watershed. Recreation 

54 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Ongoing Conservation Measures 

was a contributing factor in the decline of bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment, primarily from fishing (See Fisheries Management above). 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team does not consider ongoing recreational 

activities to be a limiting factor for bull trout recovery in the Jarbidge River 

Distinct Population Segment, with the possible exception of off-road vehicle use 

which is increasing in streams and riparian areas. 

ONGOING CONSERVATION MEASURES 

Activities beneficial to recovering bull trout are ongoing in the Jarbidge 

River Distinct Population Segment, through both individual and cooperative 

efforts by the Bureau of Land Management, Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nevada Department of Wildlife, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, conservation groups, and other entities. 

The section below represents some of the completed and ongoing efforts within 

the distinct population segment. These proactive efforts are encouraging for longterm bull trout conservation and recovery. 

Bureau of Land Management 

The Bureau of Land Management has implemented several actions to reduce 

impacts of recreational activities (e.g., camping, boating) on riparian habitats and 

water quality at dispersed and developed recreation sites. Projects have included 

armoring exposed soils in heavy use areas, physically delimiting use areas, and 

providing sanitary facilities. The Bureau is also establishing forage utilization 

standards in livestock grazing allotments containing bull trout habitat. Livestock 

exclusion fences have been constructed and additional riparian fencing is 

proposed to protect streams and springs. 

The Bureau of Land Management has recently been monitoring stream and 

riparian habitat conditions in some bull trout habitats and also performed an initial 

bull trout spawning survey on one stream in 2001. The Bureau has also provided 

55 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Ongoing Conservation Measures 

cost-share funding for several bull trout surveys by the Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game within the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has implemented numerous 

changes to reduce impacts of fisheries management activities on bull trout. 

Specifically, the Department ceased stocking rainbow trout in 1990, and has 

modified fishing regulations in the Jarbidge River watershed to protect bull trout. 

In 1995 it became illegal to harvest bull trout in the Idaho portion of the 

watershed. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has also reduced daily 

harvest and possession limits on other trout species (from six to two), shortened 

the fishing season, developed and distributed bull trout identification posters in 

cooperation with Federal agencies, and posted a bull trout sign along a major 

watershed access route to inform anglers of their presence in the basin. In 

addition, the Department has completed several bull trout surveys and monitored 

water temperatures in bull trout streams. Research specifically targeting fluvial 

bull trout was performed in 1998 and 1999. 

Jarbidge Bull Trout Task Force 

In 1994, a local watershed group was formed to gather and share information 

on bull trout in the Jarbidge River. Although currently inactive, the Jarbidge Bull 

Trout Task Force is open to representatives from Elko and Owyhee counties, 

residents of Jarbidge and Murphy Hot Springs, County road districts, private 

landowners, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The task force obtained nearly $150,000 in 1997 to replace the 

Jack Creek culvert with a bridge to restore bull trout access into Jack Creek. Bull 

trout were rediscovered in Jack Creek in 1999. 

56 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Ongoing Conservation Measures 

Nevada Department of Wildlife 

The Nevada Department of Wildlife has implemented several changes to 

reduce impacts of fisheries management activities on bull trout in the Jarbidge 

River watershed. In 1998 it became illegal to harvest bull trout in the Nevada 

portion of the basin. The Nevada Department of Wildlife has also reduced limits 

on other trout species (from 10 to 5), eliminated rainbow trout stocking, and 

developed and posted bull trout identification signs to provide information to 

anglers. In addition, the Department has completed numerous fish surveys and 

monitored water temperatures in many bull trout streams. 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, in cooperation with the 

U.S. Forest Service, installed observation wells and initiated monitoring of 

groundwater to detect any leachate movement associated with a recently-closed 

landfill in 1999. The landfill perimeter is located within 14 meters (45 feet) of the 

West Fork of the Jarbidge River. This landfill served the town of Jarbidge since 

at least the 1940's, and any leachate could contain hazardous substances. The 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection also routinely monitors surface 

water quality in the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

We have and will continue to provide input to Federal land management 

agencies on ways to minimize and mitigate impacts of numerous proposed 

projects on bull trout through the section 7 process of the Endangered Species 

Act. We have collected stream temperature data and conducted fish and habitat 

surveys in the Jarbidge River watershed. In addition, we have provided funding 

for bull trout surveys and research conducted by the Nevada Department of 

Wildlife and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. We have also funded and 

produced a videotape on bull trout recovery with a rangewide perspective, which 

is available for use locally. 

57 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Ongoing Conservation Measures 

U.S. Forest Service 

The U.S. Forest Service has implemented several actions to reduce impacts 

of various land management activities on bull trout. The agency has installed 

livestock exclosure and drift fences to protect springs and riparian areas and 

improve water quality, relocated livestock water pipelines, and modified grazing 

strategies in nine allotments. Related to recreation, the U.S. Forest Service 

relocated an outfitter guide camp away from a bull trout stream, increased 

enforcement of the existing firewood/fuelwood cutting and gathering closures, 

and hardened several intermittent stream road crossings that access recreation 

sites to reduce sedimentation into bull trout habitat downstream. Mining-related 

projects have included reclamation of old mine sites involving recontouring and 

seeding access roads and mine pads, closing adits, and testing water quality from 

mine shaft drainage. 

The U.S. Forest Service reconstructed a reach of the West Fork of the 

Jarbidge River in the South Canyon area damaged in 1998 by unauthorized road 

construction. This project included channel reconstruction, hillside slope 

stabilization, and riparian vegetation plantings. Although the hillside slope 

stabilization site has since been damaged through additional road construction by 

private individuals, the restored river channel is still functioning as designed and 

provides a migratory corridor for bull trout. 

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER
 

CONSERVATION/PLANNING/RECOVERY EFFORTS
 

State of Idaho 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game developed a draft management plan 

for bull trout in 1993 (Conley 1993). A separate State of Idaho Bull Trout 

Conservation Plan was subsequently approved in July 1996 (Batt 1996). The 

conservation plan identifies an overall mission of maintaining or restoring 

interacting groups of bull trout throughout the species' native range in Idaho and 

four goals to accomplish the mission: 1) maintenance of habitat conditions in 

58 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Ongoing Conservation Measures 

areas supporting bull trout; 2) instituting cost-effective strategies to improve bull 

trout abundance and habitats; 3) establishing stable or increasing bull trout 

populations in a set of well-distributed subwatersheds†

; and 4) providing for the 

economic viability of industries in Idaho (Batt 1996). 

The overall approach of the State’s conservation plan was to use existing, 

locally-developed groups of people established by Idaho legislation (i.e., 

watershed advisory groups and basin advisory groups), which were formed to 

strengthen water quality protection and improve compliance with the Clean Water 

Act. With the assistance of technical advisory teams, watershed advisory groups 

were to develop problem assessments in 59 key watersheds in the state containing 

bull trout and submit the problem assessments to the basin advisory groups by 

January 1999. The problem assessments were then to be used in developing a 

conservation plan for each key watershed in Idaho, with at least six conservation 

plans developed per year. 

The Technical Group of the Southwest Basin Native Fish Watershed 

Advisory Group in Idaho has prepared a Jarbidge River Watershed problem 

assessment report for bull trout (Parrish 1998). This document identifies shortterm action items for implementation in the watershed including reducing road 

impacts, increasing angler education and angling regulation enforcement, and 

reducing livestock impacts through riparian fencing and alternative watering 

methods. This draft recovery plan for bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment relies, in part, on information contained in this problem 

assessment, although the associated conservation plan has not yet been 

completed. 

State of Nevada 

In 1990, the Nevada Division of Wildlife prepared a management plan for 

bull trout that recommends management alternatives to ensure that human 

activities do not jeopardize the future of bull trout in Nevada (Johnson 1990). 

The recommended actions include bull trout population and habitat inventories, 

life history research, and potential population reestablishment; State involvement 

59 
 

 

Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Strategy, Goals, Objectives 

in watershed land use planning; angler harvest assessment; official State sensitive 

species designation for regulatory protection; nonnative fish stocking evaluation 

and prohibition; and potential nonnative fish eradications. Activities were 

scheduled for implementation from 1991 to 2000. This draft recovery plan for 

bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment relies, in part, on 

information contained in this 1990 management plan. The Nevada Department of 

Wildlife is currently in the process of preparing an updated management plan for 

bull trout. 

STRATEGY FOR RECOVERY 

The recovery of bull trout is based on the concept of functional “core areas.” 

A core area represents the combination of both a core population (i.e., one or 

more local populations of bull trout inhabiting a core habitat) and core habitat 

(i.e., habitat that could supply all the necessary elements for the long-term 

security of bull trout, including both spawning and rearing habitat, as well as 

foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat) and constitutes the basic 

biological unit upon which to gauge recovery. 

One core area was defined for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment by the recovery team. The Jarbidge River core area includes headwaters 

and tributaries containing six local populations and the mainstem Jarbidge River 

downstream to the Bruneau River (Figure 2). The six currently identified local 

populations are: East Fork Jarbidge River (including the East Fork headwaters, 

Cougar Creek, and Fall Creek), West Fork Jarbidge River (including Sawmill 

Creek), Dave Creek, Jack Creek, Pine Creek, and Slide Creek. The Bruneau 

River is not currently included in the core area, although determining if bull trout 

use the Bruneau River is identified as a research need by the recovery team. 

Research needs apply where the recovery team needs more information in order 

to accurately plan and implement recovery actions. If research documents bull 

trout in the Bruneau River then the Jarbidge River core area boundary would be 

revised accordingly. 

60 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Strategy, Goals, Objectives 

Ensuring the long-term persistence of local populations, especially those 

exhibiting migratory (fluvial) life history forms, is key to supporting a selfsustaining core area of bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment. Migratory life history forms provide an opportunity for local 

populations to exchange genetic material, increase the diversity and stability of 

the core area, and reduce the risk of extinction of the distinct population segment. 

All migratory life history forms require intact spawning and rearing habitat 

connected to adequate foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat. Bull trout 

have specific ecological requirements and depend upon an interconnected 

network of complex habitats to support both resident and migratory life history 

forms and facilitate the potential for occasional dispersal between local 

populations to maintain gene flow and genetic variability, and to ensure the longterm viability of the core population as a whole. 

The Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment will be considered 

recovered when the Jarbidge River core area is fully functional, as measured by 

parameters addressing the distribution, abundance, productivity (stable or 

increasing adult population trend), and connectivity between local populations of 

bull trout (including the potential for expression of migratory life history forms). 

The conditions for recovery are identified in the goals, objectives, and recovery 

criteria below. The recovery actions identified in this plan are designed to 

sufficiently control or eliminate the threats to bull trout such that the recovery 

criteria may be attained for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of 

bull trout. Appendix B provides a table demonstrating which of the identified 

threats to bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment will be 

addressed by the recovery actions proposed. 

Presently bull trout are listed as threatened across their range within the 

lower 48 states (64 FR 58910). Prior to the coterminous listing, five distinct 

population segments of bull trout were identified. Although these bull trout 

population segments are disjunct and geographically isolated from one another, 

they include the entire distribution of bull trout within the United States, therefore 

a coterminous listing was found to be appropriate in accordance with our policy 

61 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Strategy, Goals, Objectives 

on the designation of distinct population segments (61 FR 4722). As provided in 

the final listing rule, we are continuing to use the term “distinct population 

segments” for the purposes of recovery planning and consultation (64 FR 58910). 

A delisting determination can only be made on a “listable entity” under the 

Endangered Species Act (Act). Listable entities include species, subspecies, or 

distinct population segments of vertebrate animals, as defined by the Act and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service policy (61 FR 4722). Because bull trout were listed at 

the coterminous level in 1999, currently delisting can only occur at the 

coterminous level (64 FR 58910). In the future, if warranted by additional 

information, and if the Jarbidge River population is reconfirmed as meeting the 

definition of a distinct population segment under a regulatory rulemaking process, 

delisting may be considered separately for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment of bull trout once it has achieved a recovered state (61 FR 4722). For 

the purposes of recovery planning, here we have defined recovery criteria for the 

delisting of the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment as currently 

delineated. 

Recovery Goals and Objectives 

The goal of the bull trout recovery plan is to ensure the long-term 

persistence of self-sustaining, complex, interacting groups† of bull trout 

distributed throughout their native range, so that the species can be delisted. 

To accomplish the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment’s contribution 

toward this goal, recovery objectives addressing distribution, abundance, habitat 

and genetics were identified. These objectives are as follows: 

•	 Maintain the current distribution of bull trout within the Jarbidge River core 

area and expand distribution where possible. 

•	 Maintain stable or increasing trends in abundance of both resident and 

migratory bull trout in the Jarbidge River core area, with a focus on the 

migratory life history form. 

•	 Restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history 

stages and strategies. 

62 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Strategy, Goals, Objectives 

•	 Conserve genetic diversity and increase natural opportunities for genetic 

exchange among bull trout populations and migratory fish within the 

Jarbidge River core area. 

Rieman and McIntyre (1993) and Rieman and Allendorf (2001) evaluated 

bull trout population numbers and habitat thresholds necessary for long-term 

species viability. Four elements and associated characteristics were identified to 

consider when evaluating bull trout population viability: 1) Number of local 

populations in a core area; 2) adult abundance (number of spawning fish present 

in a core area in a given year); 3) productivity (reproductive rate of the 

population, as measured by population trend and variability); and 4) connectivity 

(presence of migratory life history form and functional habitat). 

Recovery criteria for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment reflect: 

1) the stated objectives for the distinct population segment; 2) evaluation of each 

population element under both current and recovered conditions; and 3) 

consideration of current and recovered habitat characteristics within the distinct 

population segment. This approach to developing recovery criteria acknowledges 

that the status of local populations in the core area may remain short of ideals 

based on conservation biology theory. This core area may be limited by natural 

attributes (e.g., climate) or other factors and may always remain at a relatively 

high risk of extinction. Recovery criteria will be revised and refined in the future 

as more detailed information on bull trout population dynamics becomes 

available. Given the limited information on bull trout in this population segment, 

the identified range of adult abundance should be viewed as a best estimate. 

Again, the Jarbidge River Recovery Team relied heavily on the professional 

judgement of its members in setting recovery criteria. The recovery team 

members have a wide range of field experience with bull trout, fish population 

monitoring, and habitat conditions in the Jarbidge River watershed. 

63 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Strategy, Goals, Objectives 

Recovery Criteria for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment: 

1. The biological and ecological function of the Jarbidge River core area for 

bull trout within the distinct population segment has been restored. The 

components of a fully functioning core area include: 

a) Habitat is sufficiently maintained or restored to provide for the 

persistence of broadly distributed local populations within the 

core area. The term “broadly distributed” implies that local 

populations are able to access and are actively using habitat that fully 

provides for spawning, rearing, foraging, migrating, and overwintering 

needs at recovered abundance levels. An actual quantitative estimate 

of the amount of habitat that will be required to meet this criterion is 

unknown at this time; the adequacy of habitat restoration and 

management efforts must be measured indirectly by criteria 1b through 

1d. The six currently identified local populations that will be used as a 

measure of broad distribution across the distinct population segment 

include: East Fork Jarbidge River (including the East Fork 

headwaters, Cougar Creek, and Fall Creek); West Fork Jarbidge River 

(including Sawmill Creek); Dave Creek; Jack Creek; Pine Creek; and 

Slide Creek. The current distribution of bull trout may be expanded 

within these local populations under recovered conditions. 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team used professional judgement to 

designate local populations of bull trout based upon available survey 

data, including juvenile observations, documentation of suitable 

habitat for bull trout spawning and rearing, redd observations, or the 

presence of adults during the spawning season, as well as geographical 

isolation and limited genetic data. However, further genetic research 

is needed to ensure these designations accurately represent local 

population structure. 

b) Adult bull trout are sufficiently abundant to provide for the 

persistence and viability of the core area and to support both 

64 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Strategy, Goals, Objectives 

resident and migratory adult bull trout. This level of abundance is 

estimated to be within a range of 270 to 1,000 spawning fish per 

year. This range was derived by the Jarbidge River Recovery Team 

using professional judgement to estimate the productive capacity of 

currently recognized local populations in a recovered condition and 

conservation biology theory. Productive capacity determinations 

incorporated analysis of existing bull trout population survey data and 

amounts of existing utilized habitat and underutilized or unutilized 

habitats perceived as recoverable within local populations. Resident 

and migratory life history forms are both included in this adult 

abundance range, but the relative proportion of each form required for 

recovery is considered a research need. As additional population data 

are collected, the recovered adult abundance range will be refined to 

be more precise and to reflect both the resident and migratory life 

history form components. 

Local populations considered by the Jarbidge River Recovery Team to 

have potential for increased bull trout productive capacity (spawning 

and rearing) include Dave Creek, Jack Creek, Pine Creek, and Slide 

Creek. Other streams capable of supporting increased bull trout 

abundance within foraging, migration, and overwintering habitats 

include the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River, and mainstem 

Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers. These increases will be accomplished 

through implementation of recovery actions to reduce stream 

temperatures (e.g., Dave Creek, East and West Forks of the Jarbidge 

River) and sedimentation (e.g., Dave Creek, Slide Creek, East and 

West Forks of the Jarbidge River) and increase large woody debris and 

pools (Dave Creek, East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River), as 

well as natural habitat recovery from flood damages (e.g., Jack Creek 

and Pine Creek). Increased production of migratory bull trout from 

the upper Jarbidge River watershed under recovered conditions may 

expand foraging, migration, and overwintering use of the lower 

mainstem Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers. 

65 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Strategy, Goals, Objectives 

c)	 Measures of bull trout abundance within the core area shows a 

stable or increasing trend based on 10 to 15 years (representing at 

least 2 bull trout generations) of monitoring data. In the Jarbidge 

River Distinct Population Segment, long-term, statistically-reliable 

bull trout population abundance data are not currently available to 

identify a trend in abundance. The development of a standardized 

monitoring and evaluation program to accurately describe trends in 

bull trout abundance is identified as a priority research need by the 

Jarbidge River Recovery Team. Achievement of this recovery 

criterion will be based on a minimum of 10 years of adequate 

population monitoring data. 

d) Habitat within the core area is connected so as to provide for the 

potential full expression of migratory behavior, allow for the 

refounding of extirpated populations, and provide for the potential 

of genetic exchange between populations. The Jarbidge River 

Distinct Population Segment is a depleted, genetically-unique, 

physically-isolated population of bull trout on the margin of the 

species’ range. It is the southernmost extant occurrence of the species. 

Therefore, this distinct population segment is a high conservation 

priority for maintaining the maximum genetic diversity and 

evolutionary potential of the species’ range wide (Epifanio et al. 2003; 

B. Rieman, U.S. Forest Service, in litt., 2003). 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team evaluated the physical isolation of 

bull trout with respect to recovery both within and outside of the 

Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. Addressing fish passage 

barriers outside of the Jarbidge River core area, as well as outside of 

this population segment, could physically reconnect it with bull trout 

in the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment. However, the 

Recovery Team strongly advises against removing existing outside 

barriers due to a substantial threat of nonnative fish species invasions, 

which could cause adverse effects and prevent bull trout recovery. 

66 
 

 

Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Strategy, Goals, Objectives 

Streams within the Jarbidge River core area need to be 

comprehensively surveyed for physical and thermal (e.g., seasonallyelevated water temperatures) barriers to bull trout passage. If present, 

such barriers would limit habitat connectivity and genetic exchange 

among local populations and migratory individuals. Any barriers 

identified as preventing connectivity within the Jarbidge River core 

area must be addressed for bull trout recovery purposes. 

2. A monitoring plan has been developed and is ready for implementation, to 

cover a minimum of 5 years post-delisting, to ensure the ongoing recovery of 

the species and the continuing effectiveness of management actions. 

To achieve recovery of bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment, all five recovery criteria (local populations, adult 

abundance, population trends, connectivity, and post-delisting monitoring) must 

be met. The Recovery Team expects that the recovery process will be dynamic. 

Recovery progress will be assessed as more information becomes available, and 

the Recovery Team will make changes in recovery planning, as necessary. 

Research Needs 

Based on the best scientific information available, the Jarbidge River 

Recovery Team has identified specific recovery criteria and actions necessary for 

recovery of bull trout within the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. 

However, the recovery team recognizes that some uncertainties exist regarding 

local populations, bull trout abundance and distribution, and migratory bull trout, 

which may affect the recovery criteria and recovery actions. Thus, the recovery 

team has identified essential research needs for the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment, which are discussed below. The recovery plan for the 

Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment will be revised, updated, or amended 

as new information becomes available from actions addressing these research 

needs, as well as other sources. These plan modifications can be viewed as 

adaptive management, which is a continuing process of planning, research, 

monitoring, and evaluating management actions. 

67 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Strategy, Goals, Objectives 

Standardized Bull Trout Population Monitoring and Assessment 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team recognizes an urgent need for 

developing and implementing a standardized bull trout population monitoring and 

assessment program. The Bull Trout Committee of the Western Division of the 

American Fisheries Society recently developed protocols for determining 

presence/absence and potential habitat suitability for juvenile and resident bull 

trout for use throughout the species’ range (Peterson et al. 2001). The Jarbidge 

River Recovery Team will recommend use of these peer-reviewed protocols for 

bull trout surveys with the intended purposes in the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment. 

In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is establishing a multiagency bull trout Recovery Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Group. The 

Technical Group is tasked with: 1) increasing the utility of current data collection 

for recovery planning; 2) guiding and prioritizing future studies; 3) summarizing 

monitoring and evaluation needs of cooperators; 4) fostering coordination among 

monitoring programs; 5) developing and standardizing design elements; and 6) 

reviewing analytical methods of characterizing population and habitat status. 

Products of the technical group will be subject to independent scientific review, 

as appropriate. The Jarbidge River Recovery Team will adopt technical group 

products for bull trout monitoring within the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment. 

Migratory Bull Trout 

The migratory (fluvial) life history form of bull trout is important for 

long term persistence of the species in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment. Given the isolation of the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment 

from other bull trout populations and the geographic separation among its local 

populations, migratory fish represent a valuable means of genetic exchange. 

Historically, migratory bull trout could move freely among the Jarbidge, Bruneau, 

and Snake Rivers. Movement between the Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers is still 

possible, however, little is known regarding fluvial fish abundance, distribution, 

68 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

or habitat use. Research is needed to evaluate the remaining migratory population 

and determine the current and future roles of the mainstem Jarbidge and Bruneau 

Rivers in bull trout recovery. Research is also needed to locate spawning habitats 

for these migratory fish. The recovery criterion for bull trout adult abundance 

will be adjusted, as necessary, based on these assessments. If the Jarbidge River 

Recovery Team determines that increased numbers of migratory fish are required 

for recovery, additional recovery actions likely will be identified for 

implementation in migratory corridors within the Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment. 

Bull Trout Genetics 

Genetic sampling of bull trout in the Jarbidge River watershed has been 

limited (Spruell, in litt., 1998; Spruell et al. 2003). Bull trout from only two of 

the six local populations have been genetically analyzed, and migratory fish also 

need to be analyzed. The Dave Creek (n = 13) and West Fork Jarbidge River (n = 

24) samples exhibit some genetic divergence between local populations within the 

Jarbidge River core area (Spruell, in litt., 1998; Spruell et al. 2003). The Jarbidge 

River Recovery Team identified the six local populations of bull trout in the core 

area based primarily on existing population sampling data (e.g., juvenile fish 

locations, suitable spawning habitat, and spawning season bull trout distribution) 

and the limited genetic information available. A research need for this distinct 

population segment is to genetically evaluate local population structure and 

document genetic contributions of migratory bull trout, so that recovery criteria 

and management actions are appropriate and as effective as possible. 

RECOVERY ACTIONS 

Recovery for bull trout will entail reducing threats to the long-term 

persistence of populations and their habitats, ensuring the security of multiple 

interacting groups of bull trout, and providing access to habitat with conditions 

that allow for the expression of various life history forms. 

69 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

Recovery Actions Narrative 

The recovery actions narrative consists of a hierarchical listing of specific 

recovery actions identified by the Jarbidge River Recovery Team for 

implementation in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. These actions 

are listed and prioritized in the implementation schedule table that follows this 

section. Appendix B identifies the reason(s) for decline of bull trout that are 

addressed by each recovery action. The Jarbidge River Recovery Team should 

meet quarterly to develop annual work plans, coordinate research and sampling 

efforts, review work reports, and identify any needed recovery plan updates as 

recovery actions are completed, environmental conditions change, and monitoring 

results or other additional information become available. 

1. Protect, restore, and maintain suitable habitat conditions for bull trout. 

1.1 Maintain or improve stream water quality in the Jarbidge River core 

area. 

1.1.1 Assess and reduce sources of thermal loading in streams. Assess 

and mitigate increases in stream temperatures that negatively 

impact bull trout spawning and rearing habitat and migratory 

corridors. Non-point sources of stream thermal elevation include 

modified riparian vegetation structure, reduced instream flows, 

altered groundwater dynamics, and altered channel morphology† . 

Point sources of thermal elevation include natural thermal springs, 

which would not be addressed, as well as thermal groundwater 

effluent from historical mine sites (See Recovery Action 1.1.3). 

Priority watersheds for thermal loading assessment and mitigation 

include the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River (migratory 

corridors) and Dave Creek (spawning and rearing habitat). 

Also, inventory streams in the Jarbidge River core area to identify 

reaches with cold surface or groundwater inflows that should be 

protected from physical disturbance. Stream inventories would 

70 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

preliminarily involve locating areas of cold spring inflows and 

bedrock channel constrictions where groundwater upwelling is 

likely, as well as by examining existing stream water temperature 

data logger recordings and bull trout occurrence locations. 

Additional water temperature data loggers would be deployed to 

identify and better define the specific stream reaches. 

1.1.2 Identify sediment sources and reduce sediment delivery to 

streams. Unsurfaced roads and livestock grazing are the main 

sources of fine sediment delivery to streams in the Jarbidge River 

core area besides natural watershed events (e.g., floods). Reduce 

sediment delivery to streams by maintaining and repairing roads 

(including culverts and stream crossings) using recognized Best 

Management Practices. On a case-by-case basis, consider 

repairing, relocating, or removing roads that are identified as 

susceptible to mass wasting†

 and bank failure, intercept surface or 

groundwater, negatively impact riparian areas, or inhibit 

floodplain connectivity and natural stream functions. 

Priorities for road repair and maintenance projects include the 

Jarbidge Road extending between Pine Creek Campground and 

Murphy Hot Springs, Idaho. Implement actions to reduce 

sediment input to the West Fork of the Jarbidge River from the 

Jarbidge Road, as identified in the U.S. Forest Service’s Road 

Management Plan (USFS 2003). A dirt road crossing on Dave 

Creek (Township 47 North, Range 58 East, Sections 24 and 25) is 

also a priority site for repair and sedimentation reduction. Other 

possible sites for implementation include road crossings on Jack 

and Deer Creeks. 

Reduce stream sedimentation from grazed lands through optimal 

livestock management. Include adequate utilization standards and 

targets to protect and enhance riparian habitat and water quality 

conditions in Federal permits for grazing allotments. Use 

71 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

management alternatives such as riparian fencing, seasons of use, 

and off-stream watering to reduce impacts of grazing on bull trout 

streams, where appropriate. Priority watersheds for 

implementation include Dave (including Morgan Draw), Jack, 

and Slide Creeks; watersheds of secondary importance likely 

include Buck Creek and livestock-accessible reaches of the East 

Fork of the Jarbidge River. 

1.1.3 Assess and clean up non-operational mine sites. Assess nonoperational mine sites and improve stream water quality by 

reclaiming sites identified as negatively impacting bull trout 

habitat. Reclamation may consist of removing debris and 

potentially hazardous materials (e.g., 4M Mine on West Fork of 

the Jarbidge River) and stabilizing, removing, recontouring, 

and/or revegetating mine tailings formerly deposited in stream 

channels and floodplains (e.g., Elkoro site on West Fork of the 

Jarbidge River). This action would also assess water quality of 

surface runoff and groundwater discharge from mine sites (e.g., 

Gray Rock, Norman, Pavlak, and 4M Mine sites on West Fork of 

the Jarbidge River). Treatment or containment plans would be 

developed and implemented with willing landowners for problem 

sites. 

1.1.4 Assess and reduce nutrient delivery to streams. Assess and 

reduce nutrient (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus) enrichment in streams 

where necessary to improve water quality for bull trout by: 1) 

modifying grazing practices in livestock allotments; 2) working 

with willing landowners to identify and repair any leaking 

domestic sewage disposal systems; and 3) assisting willing 

landowners in managing confined animal feed lot runoff. Priority 

watersheds for assessment include the East and West Forks of the 

Jarbidge River, and Buck, Dave, Jack, and Slide Creeks. 

72 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

1.1.5 Determine effects of water withdrawals on stream temperatures 

and flows. Information on existing water withdrawals in the 

Jarbidge River core area is needed to determine if these factor into 

elevated stream temperatures in bull trout habitats (See Recovery 

Action 1.1.1). Locate and document water developments (e.g., 

stream diversions, water pipelines, spring developments, water 

troughs, etc.) within or upstream of occupied bull trout habitats. 

Analyze effects on instream temperatures and flows in occupied 

habitats using information on the volume, timing, duration, and 

temperature of water withdrawals. Investigate options with water 

users to modify water deliveries and withdrawals to minimize any 

documented adverse effects to bull trout habitats. 

1.2 Identify barriers for bull trout in streams within the Jarbidge River core 

area and implement actions to provide passage where necessary for 

recovery. 

1.2.1 Identify and evaluate physical barriers to bull trout passage. 

Connectivity among bull trout habitats within the Jarbidge River 

core area is essential for maintaining opportunities for genetic 

exchange. This action is to identify all potential natural (e.g., log 

jams, boulder piles, waterfalls) and constructed (e.g., rock dams 

and diversions) physical barriers to fish passage, including 

seasonal and year-round barriers. Potential seasonal natural 

barriers have already been identified in Jack and Robinson 

Creeks, as well as the West Fork of the Jarbidge River. The West 

Fork also contains constructed potential barriers to evaluate near 

residential and recreational areas. 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team will evaluate the merits of 

providing fish passage at each identified barrier, and where 

necessary for recovery, will develop and implement actions to 

facilitate passage. Providing access around natural barriers would 

only be considered where it would clearly benefit species 

73 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

recovery. At this time, the Jarbidge River Recovery Team is not 

considering removal of any natural barriers upstream of occupied 

habitats that would result in upstream expansion of bull trout 

distribution. Potential barriers to bull trout passage associated 

with elevated stream temperatures are addressed under Recovery 

Action 1.1.1. 

1.3 Identify impaired stream channel and riparian areas within the Jarbidge 

River core area and implement actions to restore natural functions. 

1.3.1 Restore and maintain riparian habitat. Identify impacted riparian 

habitats for restoration activities and maintain riparian habitats 

within local population watersheds, bull trout migratory corridors, 

and contributing watersheds elsewhere in the Jarbidge River core 

area. Plant native vegetation and use bioengineering techniques 

to restore riparian communities, increase stream shading and 

canopy cover† , and reduce erosion. Priority watersheds for 

restoration include the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River 

and Dave Creek. Manage all riparian habitats to maintain riparian 

vegetation growth and function and to provide future sources of 

instream large woody debris. 

1.3.2 Assess and restore stream channels. Preliminary stream channel 

assessments will be made using standard habitat assessment 

methodologies (e.g., U.S. Forest Service’s R1/R4 fish habitat 

inventories, etc.). Additional more detailed analyses of channel 

conditions will be made by a fluvial geomorphologist, as needed, 

prior to implementing restoration activities. Stream channel 

restoration activities will be conducted to restore proper stream 

function where necessary to improve bull trout habitat and habitat 

connectivity. Restoration activities would include recreating 

natural channel morphology (e.g., channel cross section, stream 

sinuosity) and increasing the complexity of instream habitat by 

incorporating large woody debris and boulders and aiding pool 

74 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

development. Some channel restoration has already been 

completed on National Forest lands in bull trout habitat (e.g., 

West Fork of the Jarbidge River upstream of Pine Creek). 

Priority watersheds for assessment and future channel restoration 

include Dave Creek and the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge 

River downstream of the Jarbidge Wilderness boundary. 

1.3.3 Assess and minimize livestock grazing impacts. Assess grazing 

impacts through annual allotment monitoring efforts (e.g., 

utilization monitoring, grazing implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring). Fish habitat assessment methodologies may also be 

used to document grazing impacts (e.g., U.S. Forest Service’s 

R1/R4 fish habitat inventories, etc.). 

Minimize the effects of grazing on stream channels and riparian 

habitats through adaptive livestock management. Include 

performance standards (e.g., utilization standards) and targets for 

habitat and water quality conditions in allotment management 

plans. Expand monitoring efforts by agencies and allotment 

permittees and document monitoring results to track progress. 

Use management alternatives such as installing riparian fencing, 

changing seasons of use, and possibly creating off-stream 

watering sites to reduce impacts. Priority watersheds for 

implementation include Dave (including Morgan Draw), Jack, 

and Slide Creeks. Other watersheds of secondary priority include 

livestock-accessible reaches of the East Fork of the Jarbidge River 

and mainstem Jarbidge River, as well as Buck and Deer Creeks. 

1.3.4 Minimize stream channel degradation. Ensure that negative 

effects to bull trout habitat from ongoing and periodic flood 

control and streambank stabilization activities are avoided or 

minimized (e.g., channel clearing, dredging, large woody debris 

removal, gabion construction). Replace undersized road bridges 

across the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River with wider 

75 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

spans to accommodate flood flows and thereby minimize debris 

collection. Bridge replacement will also eliminate any residual 

leaching of carcinogenic compounds from treated wood bridge 

structures, such as creosote-treated abutment timbers. 

Prioritization for bridge replacement would examine bridge 

structure channel impacts, location, structure age and public 

safety concerns, and available funding opportunities and 

partnerships. Also, enforce State and Federal laws regulating 

activities in aquatic and riparian habitats (See Recovery Actions 

6.2.3 and 6.3.1). 

1.3.5 Reduce instream and riparian wood harvest. Implement public 

awareness campaign and enforce existing regulations prohibiting 

firewood and fuelwood cutting and other wood removal in 

riparian corridors. Priority areas for implementation include 

riparian zones along the East and West Forks of the Jarbidge 

River where collection of wood for local domestic and 

recreational uses and removal for flood control is most common. 

1.3.6 Minimize recreation impacts. Identify and reduce impacts of 

recreational activities (e.g., dispersed and developed campsites, 

trails and trailheads, outfitter camps, off-road vehicles) on bull 

trout streams and riparian habitats. Minimize recreation impacts 

by implementing measures to reduce sedimentation (e.g., 

hardening recreation site surfaces), prevent damage and loss of 

riparian vegetation, and limit woody debris removal; this will 

include increasing public awareness of recreational activity 

impacts. Relocate recreational sites and activities outside of 

riparian areas where necessary to avoid impacts to bull trout 

habitat, especially spawning and rearing areas. 

2.	 Prevent and reduce negative effects of nonnative fishes and other 

nonnative taxa on bull trout. 

76 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

2.1 Implement control of nonnative fishes in the Jarbidge River core area, 

where found to be feasible and appropriate. 

2.1.1 Implement brook trout removal. Brook trout occur in Emerald 

Lake near the headwaters of the East Fork of the Jarbidge River 

and in Bear Creek, a tributary to the West Fork of the Jarbidge 

River. Due to the potential for future illegal transplants elsewhere 

in the watershed, these local sources of nonnative fish should be 

eliminated. Both brook trout populations likely originated from 

historical stockings. Removal of brook trout from Bear Creek 

should be accomplished by physical means (e.g., electrofishing, 

netting, angling) rather than chemical treatment (e.g., rotenone) 

methods to avoid water quality impacts to domestic users 

downstream. Physical removal efforts on Bear Creek were 

initiated in 2002 and continued in 2003. 

Emerald Lake is in the Jarbidge Wilderness so treatment options 

will be limited by its remote location and Wilderness restrictions 

on motorized equipment and mechanical transport. Emerald Lake 

is a destination point for guided pack trips and other 

recreationists. When brook trout are removed, the associated 

fishing pressure (39 angler days/year) may be displaced to nearby 

waters including bull trout spawning and rearing habitat (Johnson, 

in litt., 2003a). It may be appropriate under these circumstances 

to consider options for providing a different fishery in Emerald 

Lake that does not threaten bull trout through potential 

hybridization. 

3.	 Establish fisheries management goals and objectives compatible with 

bull trout recovery, and implement practices to achieve goals. 

3.1 Develop and implement State fisheries management plans specifically 

for the Jarbidge River watershed that integrate adaptive management 

concepts. 

77 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

3.1.1 Facilitate development and implementation of coordinated 

fisheries management plans for bull trout in the Jarbidge River 

core area by the States of Idaho and Nevada. State management 

plans should incorporate bull trout recovery goals and objectives, 

as well as recovery actions that are related to fisheries 

management. Plans should be based on science-directed adaptive 

management concepts, emphasizing ongoing integration of bull 

trout research and monitoring results. Evaluate the effectiveness 

of coordinated State fisheries management in meeting bull trout 

recovery goals and objectives and make adaptive changes to 

management plans, as necessary. 

3.2 Evaluate and minimize illegal harvest and incidental angling mortality 

of bull trout in the Jarbidge River core area. 

3.2.1 Implement angler surveys. Survey active anglers, outfitter guides, 

and appropriate license holders (e.g., trout stamp purchase) to 

obtain updated local information on fishing pressure, species 

identification, bull trout capture rates and sizes, effective gear 

types, and fish health upon release. Surveys could include 

interviews with anglers and voluntary submissions of survey 

cards mailed to license holders and outfitters or available at local 

recreation sites. 

3.2.2 Promote public awareness of angling regulations and low-impact 

angling techniques to ensure compliance with regulations. 

Continue to inform anglers about bull trout identification, special 

regulations, agency management of listed fish species, and 

techniques to reduce hooking mortality†

 of bull trout caught 

incidentally in recreational fisheries. Information sources include 

items such as signs, fliers, State fishing regulation brochures, and 

agency web sites. Also, ensure angler compliance with State and 

Federal regulations for bull trout through increased enforcement 

presence in high use areas. 

78 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

3.2.3 Coordinate and evaluate scientific research. The Jarbidge River 

Recovery Team should coordinate scientific research involving 

bull trout in the Jarbidge River core area to ensure that recovery 

needs will be met. The recovery team should evaluate research 

objectives, survey protocols, impacts of concurrent or consecutive 

research projects, and identify overlapping research. Use of 

standardized sampling protocols and marking for bull trout in the 

Jarbidge River core area will be required (See Recovery Actions 

5.1.1 and 5.2.1). A Federal permit under section 10 of the 

Endangered Species Act is currently required for intentional take† 

of bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment for 

scientific purposes, such as during fish surveys and genetic 

sampling. 

3.3 Evaluate effects of existing and proposed angling regulations on bull 

trout in the Jarbidge River core area. 

3.3.1 Evaluate the impact of current angling regulations on bull trout 

and recommend any appropriate modifications to regulations. 

Incidental take of bull trout by angling in the Jarbidge River 

watershed is not currently authorized under the Endangered 

Species Act. The States of Idaho and Nevada have also 

prohibited bull trout harvest. However, bull trout occupied waters 

are not closed to recreational fishing, and angling under existing 

State regulations may result in unintentional mortality of bull 

trout through catch and release or species misidentification. 

Existing regulations should be examined to determine if 

incidental capture and potential mortality of bull trout associated 

with other fisheries can be further reduced. For example, 

evaluate: 1) open seasons and open areas relative to bull trout 

seasonal distribution and life history, as well as angler 

accessibility; 2) bull trout susceptibility to the authorized gear 

types (e.g., bait, lures, flies) and associated hooking mortality; 3) 

79 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

fishing pressure levels; and 4) harvest limits for other fish species. 

Based on these evaluations, the Jarbidge River Recovery Team 

should recommend State agencies adopt any modifications of 

angling regulations that will minimize incidental capture and 

mortality of bull trout. 

4.	 Characterize, conserve, and monitor genetic diversity and gene flow 

among local populations of bull trout. 

4.1 Incorporate conservation of genetic and phenotypic attributes of bull 

trout into recovery actions and fisheries management plans for the 

Jarbidge River core area. 

4.1.1 Conduct genetic inventory of resident and migratory bull trout. 

Collate information on genetic samples already collected, 

standardize sample preservation and analysis techniques, and 

complete a coordinated genetic inventory of all bull trout local 

populations and the migratory life history form in the Jarbidge 

River watershed. Use this inventory to verify identified local 

populations and to verify whether or not there appears to be any 

metapopulation structure within the Jarbidge River core area. 

4.2 Maintain and improve opportunities for gene flow among bull trout local 

populations in the Jarbidge River core area. 

4.2.1 Manage local populations (numbers and life forms) to maintain 

long-term viability. Once local populations are verified (See 

Recovery Action 4.1.1), they should be managed accordingly to 

conserve genetic diversity. Long-term viability of bull trout in the 

Jarbidge River core area will be ensured by maintaining suitable 

habitat conditions for connectivity (See Recovery Actions 1.1.1, 

1.2.1, and 1.3.2) and maintaining adequate numbers of migratory 

individuals. 

80 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

5.	 Conduct research and monitoring to implement and evaluate bull trout 

recovery activities, consistent with an adaptive management approach 

using feedback from implemented, site-specific recovery actions. 

5.1 Design and implement a standardized monitoring program to assess the 

effectiveness of recovery actions affecting bull trout and their habitats 

within the Jarbidge River core area. 

5.1.1 Develop and implement a standardized, statistically sound bull 

trout population monitoring program. Analyze existing bull trout 

survey data to identify information gaps and monitoring needs in 

the Jarbidge River core area. The Jarbidge River Recovery Team 

recommends using available peer-reviewed protocols for bull 

trout surveys in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment, 

specifically those developed by Peterson et al. (2001) for 

determining presence/absence and potential habitat suitability for 

juvenile and resident bull trout. The Jarbidge River Recovery 

Team will also adopt monitoring program products developed by 

the multi-agency bull trout Recovery Monitoring and Evaluation 

Technical Group for bull trout monitoring within the Jarbidge 

River Distinct Population Segment. Monitoring programs must 

be able to detect statistical differences in abundance (population 

trends) and result in statistically-based determinations of presence 

and absence (population distribution). 

5.1.2 Assess habitat restoration techniques. The Jarbidge River 

Recovery Team will evaluate the effectiveness of different active 

and passive habitat restoration techniques in restoring watershed 

function and enhancing local populations of bull trout. 

5.2 Conduct research that evaluates relationships among bull trout 

distribution and abundance, bull trout habitat, and recovery actions. 

81 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

5.2.1 Determine seasonal movement patterns and habitat use of 

migratory bull trout. This research will provide important 

information on the downstream extent of distribution and 

upstream spawning location(s) of migratory bull trout, as well as 

document any overlapping habitat use with resident fish. As part 

of this action, develop a coordinated bull trout marking and 

tracking strategy (e.g., standardized fin clips, PIT tags, and radio 

tag implant frequencies) throughout the Jarbidge River watershed 

so that marked fish are recognized and reported whenever 

captured. Weirs should continue to be operated periodically (e.g., 

every 3 to 5 years) to index migratory bull trout abundance. The 

Jarbidge River Recovery Team has identified this action as a 

priority research need. 

5.2.2 Locate and assess bull trout spawning habitats. Develop a 

comprehensive map of existing and potential bull trout spawning 

reaches for all local populations in the Jarbidge River core area 

based primarily on redd surveys, in combination with water 

temperature, substrate, flow, and stream gradient data. This map 

would be used to delineate areas for focusing habitat protection 

and restoration efforts. The highest priority stream for assessment 

is Dave Creek, but documentation and mapping of all local 

populations is needed for recovery. 

5.2.3 Assess suitability of degraded and unoccupied habitat for 

expanding distribution and abundance of bull trout. Evaluate 

habitat for potential expansion of bull trout distribution and 

abundance within the Jarbidge River core area. Existing local 

populations and occupied streams considered to have potential for 

increased productive capacity and bull trout abundance include 

Dave Creek, Jack Creek, Slide Creek, and the East and West 

Forks of the Jarbidge River. These increases will be 

accomplished through implementation of recovery actions to 

reduce stream temperatures (e.g., Dave Creek, East and West 

82 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

Forks of the Jarbidge River) and sedimentation (e.g., Dave Creek, 

Slide Creek, East and West Forks of the Jarbidge River) and 

increase large woody debris and pools (Dave Creek, East and 

West Forks of the Jarbidge River), as well as natural habitat 

recovery from flood damages (e.g., Jack Creek). 

Identify any other potentially suitable, unoccupied habitat for bull 

trout in the Jarbidge River watershed. Specifically evaluate the 

suitability of Deer Creek, where bull trout have been observed 

occasionally, followed by Buck Creek and the Robinson and Jim 

Bob Creeks complex that have no bull trout records to date. If 

any potentially suitable habitat is identified, develop a 

comprehensive list of factors preventing or limiting use by bull 

trout (e.g., barriers, diversions, water temperature, sediment, etc.) 

for consideration by the Jarbidge River Recovery Team. The 

recovery team will determine if expansion of bull trout in these 

areas will contribute to recovery, and if necessary, identify 

recovery actions to improve habitat suitability. 

5.2.4 Determine range of temperature tolerances for bull trout life 

stages and life history forms. Using ongoing bull trout 

temperature tolerance studies in other bull trout Distinct 

Population Segments and local population habitat use data, 

evaluate water temperature as a potential limiting factor for 

recovery of bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment. Incorporate results of this action into recommended 

revisions of State water quality standards for occupied streams in 

the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment (See Recovery 

Action 6.3.1). 

5.3 Develop and conduct research and monitoring studies to improve 

information concerning the distribution and status of bull trout in the 

Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. 

83 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

5.3.1 Increase bull trout surveys. Increase the frequency and extent of 

population monitoring using a standardized monitoring program 

(See Recovery Action 5.1.1) to determine seasonal movement and 

habitat use by resident adult and juvenile bull trout in local 

populations. Coordinate with surveys for migratory bull trout 

(See Recovery Action 5.2.1). Also, periodically monitor for 

presence/absence of bull trout in any identified potentially 

suitable habitat (See Recovery Action 5.2.3). 

5.4 Identify evaluations needed to improve understanding of relationships 

among genetic characteristics, phenotypic traits, and local populations of 

bull trout. 

5.4.1 Determine basic life history characteristics. For both fluvial and 

resident bull trout, determine age- and size-specific fecundity, age 

and size at first spawning, longevity, repeat- or alternate-year 

spawning frequency, survival rates, and other basic life history 

characteristics. Due to low population numbers for both life 

history forms in the Jarbidge River core area, research should 

primarily be non-lethal (e.g., blood samples, tagging) or 

opportunistic as specimens become available through incidental 

mortality rather than intentional sacrifice. This research will also 

incorporate data from bull trout populations in other Distinct 

Population Segments. 

6.	 Use all available conservation programs and regulations to protect and 

conserve bull trout and bull trout habitats. 

6.1 Use partnerships and collaborative processes to protect, maintain, and 

restore bull trout and their habitat in the Jarbidge River core area. 

6.1.1 Support collaborative efforts by local watershed groups to 

implement bull trout recovery actions. Local watershed groups 

can accomplish site-specific habitat protection and restoration 

84 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Recovery Actions 

activities consistent with bull trout recovery. Local watershed 

groups are already established for the Jarbidge River core area, 

such as the Southwest Basin Native Fish Technical Group and the 

Jarbidge Bull Trout Task Force. The Jarbidge River Recovery 

Team should recruit the assistance of group members whenever 

possible and keep them informed of recovery progress. 

6.1.2 Provide long-term habitat protection. Long-term protection can 

be accomplished through habitat conservation plans, land 

exchanges, land purchase from willing sellers, conservation 

easements, watershed restoration, and management plans. 

Initially, emphasis for protection measures should be directed 

toward identified bull trout spawning and rearing habitats where 

impacts are occurring (e.g., Dave Creek local population). 

6.1.3 Inform the public about bull trout habitat needs and recovery. 

Develop and distribute educational materials on bull trout 

ecology, life history, and habitat needs (e.g., watershed form and 

function, riparian habitat and channel restoration, and large wood 

placement). Also provide more specific information on locallyimportant recovery issues such as roads and angling. 

6.2 Enforce existing Federal and State habitat protection standards and 

regulations and evaluate their effectiveness for bull trout conservation. 

6.2.1 Enforce water quality standards and regulations for streams. 

Enforce State standards of water quality for beneficial uses in the 

East and West Forks and mainstem Jarbidge River, especially 

standards for water temperature, turbidity, and suspended solids. 

The Jarbidge River Recovery Team supports voluntary 

compliance with the more stringent levels in the State of Nevada 

requirements to maintain existing higher water quality. Increase 

water quality monitoring in identified impaired drainages or 

stream reaches. The recovery team will also evaluate the 

85 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Implementation Schedule 

effectiveness of existing standards in conserving bull trout and 

recommend changes, if necessary. 

7.	 Assess the implementation of bull trout recovery, and revise the recovery 

plan based on evaluations, as necessary. 

7.1 Assess effectiveness of bull trout recovery efforts in the Jarbidge River 

core area. Convene annual meetings of the Jarbidge River Jarbidge 

River Recovery Team to review progress on recovery plan 

implementation. Use a standardized monitoring program to evaluate the 

effectiveness of recovery efforts provided by the interagency bull trout 

Recovery Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Group (See Recovery 

Action 5.1.1). Assessments would be completed annually and 

documented in a progress report prepared by the Jarbidge River 

Recovery Team. Changes to the recovery plan would be made on an as 

needed basis. 

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Implementation schedules describe recovery action priorities, action 

numbers, action descriptions, duration of actions, potential or participating 

responsible parties, total estimated costs for the duration of the action, cost 

estimates for the next 5 years, and comments. Those actions, when accomplished, 

will lead to recovery of bull trout in the Jarbidge River Distinct Population 

Segment, and ultimately to recovery of bull trout in the coterminous United 

States. 

Parties with authority, responsibility, or expressed interest to implement a 

specific recovery action are identified in the implementation schedule. Listing a 

responsible party does not imply that prior approval has been given, nor does it 

require that party to participate or expend funds. However, willing participants 

will benefit by demonstrating that their budget submission or funding request is 

for a recovery action identified in an approved recovery plan, and is therefore part 

86 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Implementation Schedule 

of a coordinated effort to recover bull trout. In addition, section 7(a)(1) of the 

Endangered Species Act directs all Federal agencies to use their authorities to 

further the purposes of the Endangered Species Act by implementing programs 

for the conservation of threatened or endangered species. 

In compliance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and 

Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines, Recovery Plan 

Preparation and Implementation Priorities (48 FR 43103), we have considered 

and adopted priorities and subpriorities that represent recovery goals for bull trout 

across their native range in the coterminous United States. We also considered 

established conservation plans and the ongoing local, State, and Federal planning 

processes to maintain consistency and integration with those efforts. Assigning 

priorities does not imply some recovery actions are of low importance as all 

recovery actions are important to achieve the recovery objectives. We further 

recognize lower priority actions may be implemented ahead of higher priority 

actions because of the integration of bull trout recovery efforts with these existing 

plans and processes, and/or the availability of funding opportunities. All recovery 

actions will have assigned priorities based on the following: 

•	 Priority 1: All actions that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent 

the species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. 

•	 Priority 2: All actions that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in 

species population or habitat quality or to prevent some other significant 

negative effect short of extinction. 

•	 Priority 3: All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the 

species. 

Within each priority level, the Jarbidge River Recovery Team identified a 

need to designate recovery actions for bull trout that may require an elevated 

status for immediate attention, and therefore, adopted two subpriorities to 

consider in ranking actions (A ranks higher than B): 

87 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Implementation Schedule 

A.	 Protection of relatively healthy local populations. 

B.	 Expansion, restoration, and reconnection of existing local populations within 

the core area. This includes local populations at high risk of extirpation and 

where connectivity may be important to allow for continual movement of 

fish into populations at risk of extirpation. Connectivity between existing 

bull trout populations is essential for continued survival and recovery by 

allowing for the potential of genetic exchange, migratory behavior, and the 

survival of individuals and recolonization of areas vacated following random 

naturally occurring events. 

Action Number and Action Description: Recovery actions as numbered in the 

recovery actions narrative. Refer to the action narrative for action descriptions. 

Action Duration: Expected number of years to complete the corresponding 

action. Study designs can incorporate more than one action, which when 

combined can reduce the time needed for action completion. 

Responsible or Participating Party: The following parties are those with the 

responsibility or capability to fund, authorize or carry out the corresponding 

recovery action. Lead parties are indicated in bold type. Additional identified 

parties are considered cooperators in restoration efforts. Identified parties 

include: 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

DV Duck Valley Paiute-Shoshone Tribes 

EC Elko County, Nevada 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

IDEQ Idaho Division of Environmental Quality 

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife 

OC Owyhee County, Idaho 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

88 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Implementation Schedule 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

Cost Estimates: Cost estimates are rough estimates and are only provided for 

general guidance. Total costs are estimated for both the duration of the action and 

also itemized annually for the next 5 years. 

89 
90 

JARBIDGE RIVER DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT of BULL TROUT - IMPLEMENTATIO

Priority number 

Action number 

Action description 

Action duration (years) 

Responsible 

parties 

(alphabetical) 

Cost estimates ($1,000) 

Total cost 

FY 

2005 

FY 

2006 

FY 2007 

FY 2008 

1B 2.1.1 Implement brook trout removal 5 NDOW, USFS, 

USFWS 

125 10 40 15 15 

1B 5.1.1 Develop and implement a standardized, 

statistically sound bull trout population monitoring program 

25 BLM, DV, 

IDFG, NDOW, USFS, USFWS 

1,095 0 75 60 60 

1B 5.2.1 Determine seasonal movement patterns and 

habitat use of migratory bull trout 

5 BLM, IDFG, 

NDOW, USFWS 

150 0 30 30 30 

2A 1.1.1 Assess and reduce sources of thermal loading in 

streams 

25 BLM, EC, OC 

USFS, USFWS 

375 15 15 15 15 

2A 1.1.2 Identify sediment sources and reduce sediment 

delivery to streams 

20 BLM, EC, OC 

USFS, USFWS 

500 25 25 25 25 
91 

JARBIDGE RIVER DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT of BULL TROUT - IMPLEMENTATIO

Priority number 

Action number 

Action description 

Action duration (years) 

Responsible 

parties 

(alphabetical) 

Cost estimates ($1,000) 

Total cost 

FY 

2005 

FY 

2006 

FY 2007 

FY 2008 

2A 1.3.1 Restore and maintain riparian habitat 25 BLM, DV, 

USFS, USFWS 

250 10 10 10 10 

2A 1.3.2 Assess and restore stream channels 15 BLM, EC, 

USFS, USFWS 

300 20 20 20 20 

2A 1.3.3 Assess and minimize livestock grazing impacts 10 BLM, USFS, 

USFWS 

180 20 20 35 15 

2A 3.1.1 Facilitate development and implementation of 

coordinated fisheries management plans for bull trout in the Jarbidge River core area by the States of Idaho and Nevada 

3 IDFG, NDOW, 

USFWS 

30 10 10 10 0 

2A 3.2.3 Coordinate and evaluate scientific research 25 BLM, IDFG, 

NDOW, USFWS, USFS 

50 2 2 2 2 

2A 3.3.1 Evaluate the impact of current angling 

regulations on bull trout and recommend any appropriate modifications to regulations 

1 IDFG, NDOW, 

USFWS 

15 0 15 0 0 

2A 4.1.1 Conduct genetic inventory of resident and 

migratory bull trout 

3 BLM, IDFG, 

NDOW, USFWS 

60 0 20 20 20 
92 

JARBIDGE RIVER DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT of BULL TROUT - IMPLEMENTATIO

Priority number 

Action number 

Action description 

Action duration (years) 

Responsible 

parties 

(alphabetical) 

Cost estimates ($1,000) 

Total cost 

FY 

2005 

FY 

2006 

FY 2007 

FY 2008 

2A 5.2.2 Locate and assess bull trout spawning habitats 3 BLM, IDFG, 

NDOW, USFS USFWS 

210 70 70 70 0 

2A 5.3.1 Increase bull trout surveys 25 BLM, IDFG, 

NDOW, USFS, USFWS 

620 20 60 60 60 

2B 1.2.1 Identify and evaluate physical barriers to bull 

trout passage 

2 BLM, IDFG, 

NDOW, USFS, USFWS 

30 0 15 15 0 

2B 1.3.4 Minimize stream channel degradation 20 BLM, EC, OC, 

USACE, USFS, 

USFWS 

1,350 0 150 0 150 

2B 1.3.5 Reduce instream and riparian wood harvest 3 BLM, USFS 12 0 5 5 2 2B 5.2.3 Assess suitability of degraded and unoccupied 

habitats for expanding distribution and abundance of bull trout 

3 BLM, IDFG, 

NDOW, USFS, USFWS 

45 0 15 15 15 

2B 4.2.1 Manage local populations (numbers and life 

forms) to maintain long-term viability 

25 IDFG, NDOW, 

USFWS 

0 0 0 0 0 

2B 5.2.4 Determine range of temperature tolerances for 

bull trout life stages and life history forms 

5 BLM, IDFG, 

NDOW, USFS, USFWS 

75 15 15 15 15 
93 

JARBIDGE RIVER DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT of BULL TROUT - IMPLEMENTATIO

Priority number 

Action number 

Action description 

Action duration (years) 

Responsible 

parties 

(alphabetical) 

Cost estimates ($1,000) 

Total cost 

FY 

2005 

FY 

2006 

FY 2007 

FY 2008 

3A 5.1.2 Assess habitat restoration techniques 24 BLM, DV, 

IDFG, NDOW, USFS, USFWS 

120 0 5 5 5 

3B 1.1.3 Assess and clean up non-operational mine sites 2 EC, USFS, 

USFWS 

35 0 10 25 0 

3B 1.1.4 Assess and reduce nutrient delivery to streams 1 BLM, IDEQ, 

NDEP, USFS, 

USFWS 

5 0 5 0 0 

3B 1.1.5 Determine effects of water withdrawals on 

stream temperatures and flows 

2 BLM, IDFG, 

NDOW, USFS, 

USFWS 

40 0 20 20 0 

3B 1.3.6 Minimize recreation impacts 5 BLM, USFS 50 0 10 10 10 3B 3.2.1 Implement angler surveys 5 IDFG, NDOW, 

USFWS 

25 5 5 5 5 

3B 3.2.2 Promote public awareness of angling regulations 

and low-impact angling techniques to ensure compliance with regulations 

5 IDFG, NDOW, 

USFWS, USFS 

20 4 4 4 4 
94 

JARBIDGE RIVER DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT of BULL TROUT - IMPLEMENTATIO

Priority number 

Action number 

Action description 

Action duration (years) 

Responsible 

parties 

(alphabetical) 

Cost estimates ($1,000) 

Total cost 

FY 

2005 

FY 

2006 

FY 2007 

FY 2008 

3B 5.4.1 Determine basic life history characteristics 10 BLM, IDFG, 

NDOW, USFWS 

150 15 15 15 15 

3B 6.1.1 Support collaborative efforts by local watershed 

groups to implement bull trout recovery actions 

25 BLM, DV, 

IDFG, NDOW, USFS, USFWS 

50 2 2 2 2 

3B 6.1.2 Provide long-term habitat protection 25 BLM, DV, 

NDOW, USFS, 

USFWS 

10 0 10 0 0 

3B 6.1.3 Inform the public about bull trout habitat needs 

and recovery 

25 IDFG, NDOW, 

USFWS, USFS 

56 5 5 2 2 

3B 6.2.1 Enforce water quality standards and regulations 

for streams 

25 BLM, IDEQ, 

NDEP, USFS 

0 0 0 0 0 

3B 7.1 Assess effectiveness of bull trout recovery efforts 

in the Jarbidge River core area 

25 BLM, DV, 

IDFG, NDOW, USFS, USFWS 

0 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL ESTIMATED 

COSTS 

6,033 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

REFERENCES 

Literature Cited 

Allen, D. B., B. J. Flatter, and K. Fite. 1996. Redband trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss gairdneri) population and habitat surveys in southern Owyhee 

County, Idaho. Final report for the 1995 Cooperative Study Agreement by 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Submitted to Bureau of 

Land Management, Boise District Office, Boise, Idaho. 46 pp. 

BLM and USFWS (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service). 1995. Unpublished field notes and summary by Jim Klott from 

bull trout surveys in the Jarbidge Resource Area. Bureau of Land 

Management, Twin Falls, Idaho and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, 

Idaho. August 9, 1995. 10 pp. 

Batt, P. E. 1996. Governor Philip E. Batt’s State of Idaho Bull Trout 

Conservation Plan. Office of the Governor, Boise, Idaho. 30 pp. + 

appendices. 

Baxter, C.V. 2002. Fish movement and assemblage dynamics in a Pacific 

Northwest riverscape. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 

Oregon. 

Blattel-Sam, L. 2003. Draft Biological Assessment for bull trout on the ongoing 

activities in the Jarbidge River watershed. U.S. Forest Service, HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada. 73 pp. 

Boag, T. D. 1987. Food habits of bull char, Salvelinus confluentus, and rainbow 

trout, Salmo gairdneri, coexisting in a foothills stream in northern Alberta. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 101:56-62. 

Bockelman, R., S. Tomassi, T. Bennett, S. Swarts, and K. Kinsella. 2002. 

Jarbidge Watershed Roads Analysis Report, Elko County, Nevada. Prepared 

for Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest by David Evans and Associates, Inc. 

and JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. 62 pp. 

95 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Bowler, P. A., C. M. Watson, J. R. Yearsley, and P. A. Cirone. 1992. 

Assessment of ecosystem quality and its impact on resource allocation in the 

Middle Snake River Sub-Basin. Pages 42-51 in Proceedings of the Desert 

Fishes Council. Volume XXIV. November 18-21, 1992. Mesa, Arizona. 

Buchanan, D. V., and S. V. Gregory. 1997. Development of water temperature 

standards to protect and restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water 

species in Oregon. Pages 119-126 in Mackay, W.C. et al., editors. Friends 

of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), 

c/o Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary. 

Burton, T., J. Klott, and B. Zoellick. 2001. Field investigation of Dave Creek, 

tributary of East Fork Jarbidge River (September 11-13, 2001): Draft report. 

Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho. 

Burton, T. 2003. Addendum to the biological assessment of ongoing actions 

effects on bull trout in the Jarbidge Basin: Riparian-livestock grazing 

investigation of lower Jarbidge River in the vicinity of its confluence with 

Bruneau River. Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho. 15 pp. 

Camozzi, R. O. 1942. How a tough water problem was handled at Jarbidge. 

Engineering and Mining Journal 143:45-48. 

Cavender, T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, (Salvelinus 

confluentus) (Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and 

Game 64:139-174. 

Conley, J. M. 1993. Bull trout management plan. Draft. Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 11 pp. 

Costello, A. B., T. E. Down, S. M. Pollard, C. J. Pacas, and E .B. Taylor. 2003. 

The influence of history and contemporary stream hydrology on the 

evolution of genetic diversity within species: an examination of 

microsatellite DNA variation in bull tyrout, Salvelinus confluentus (Pisces: 

Salmonidae). Evolution 57:328-344. 

96 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Dambacher, J. M., M. W. Buktenica, and G. L. Larson. 1992. Distribution, 

abundance, and habitat utilization of bull trout and brook trout in Sun Creek, 

Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Pages 30-36 in Howell, P.J., and D.V. 

Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout 

Workshop. August 1989. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries 

Society, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Dauble, D. 2000. Assessment of the impacts of development and operation of 

the Columbia River hydroelectric system on mainstem riverine processes and 

salmon habitats. Final Report 2000 to Bonneville Power Administration. 

Battelle Pacific Northwest Division, Contract No. 1998AC08104, Project 

No. 199800402. 148 pp. 

Donald, D. B., and D. J. Alger. 1993. Geographic distribution, species 

displacement, and niche overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain 

lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:238-247. 

Dunham, J. B., and B. E. Rieman. 1999. Metapopulation structure of bull trout: 

Influences of physical, biotic, and geometrical landscape characteristics. 

Ecological Applications 9:642-655. 

Dunham, J., B. Rieman, and G. Chandler. In press. Influences of temperature 

and environmental variables on the distribution of bull trout within streams at 

the southern margin of its range. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management Pre-publication draft for November 2003 issue. 37 pp. 

Durrant, S. D. 1935. A survey of the waters of the Humboldt National Forest. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, D.C. 48 pp. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Draft EPA Region 10 Guidance 

for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards. 

2nd Public Review Draft, October 10, 2002. Region 10. 36 pp. 

97 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Epifanio, J., G. Haas, K. Pratt, B. Rieman, P. Spruell, C. Stockwell, F. Utter, and 

W. Young. 2003. Integrating conservation genetic considerations into 

conservation planning: a case study of bull trout in the Lake Pend Oreillelower Clark Fork River system. Fisheries 28:10-24. 

Fraley, J .J., and B. B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population 

status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake 

and River system, Montana. Northwest Science 63(4): 133-143. 

Frederick, J. A., and J. Klott. 1999. Biological assessment of ongoing activities 

and proposed actions in the Jarbidge River watershed. Version 5. U.S. 

Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada and 

Bureau of Land Management, Jarbidge Resource Area, Twin Falls, Idaho. 

June 24, 1999. 142 pp. + appendices. 

Frissell, C. A. 1993. Topology of extinction and endangerment of native fishes 

in the Pacific Northwest and California. Conservation Biology 7:342-354. 

Frissell, C. A. 1999. An ecosystem approach to habitat conservation for bull 

trout: groundwater and surface water protection. Open File Report 15699. 

Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson. 

Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and 

maintenance. Pages 297-323 in Influences of Forest and Rangeland 

Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Special Publication 19. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Gamett, B. L. 2002. The relationship between water temperature and bull trout 

distribution and abundance. Dissertation. Utah State University, Logan. 83 

pp. 

Gilbert, H. G., and B. W. Evermann. 1894. A report upon investigations in the 

Columbia River Basin, with descriptions of four new species of fishes. Pages 

169-204 in Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, Washington, D.C. 

98 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, a literature 

review. Willamette National Forest. Eugene, Oregon. 

Gunckel, S., J. Li, and A. Hemmingsen. 2001. Effects of non-native brook trout 

Salvelinus fontinalis on the feeding behavior of bull trout S. confluentus. 

Pages 57-58 in Ecology and Management of Northwest Salmonids: Bull 

Trout II Conference Proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Canmore, 

Alberta, Canada. 

Gunckel, S., A. Hemmingsen, and J. Li. 2002. Effect of bull trout and brook 

trout interactions on foraging habitat, feeding behavior, and growth. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:1119-1130. 

Haas, G. R., and J. D. McPhail. 2001. Errors in and problems with the 

identification of bull trout and Dolly Varden. Pages 75-76 in Brewin, M.K., 

A.J. Paul, and M. Monita, editors. Bull Trout II Conference Proceedings. 

Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta. 

Hanski, I. A., and M. E. Gilpin (editors). 1997. Metapopulation biology. 

Academic Press, San Diego, California. 

Hoelscher, B., and T. C. Bjornn. 1989. Habitat, density, and potential production 

of trout and char in Pend Oreille Lake tributaries. Project F-710R-10, 

Subproject III, Job No. 8. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, 

Idaho. 

Howell, P. J., and D. V. Buchanan. 1992. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain 

Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, 

Corvallis, Oregon. 

IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2002. Idaho’s 1998 303(d) 

List. Http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/1998_303d/303dlist.pdf. 12 pp. 

99 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2002. Southwest Region 

exceptions. Pages 26-33 in Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2002 and 

2003 general fishing seasons and rules - including steelhead. 2nd printing 

September 2002. Boise, Idaho. 

Johnson, G. L. 1990. Bull trout species management plan. Nevada Division of 

Wildlife, Reno, Nevada. Federal Aid Project No. F-20-26, Job No. 207.4. 

17 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1993a. Nevada bull trout historical account. Nevada Division of 

Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 2 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1993b. Bear Creek survey - June 9-17, 1992. Nevada Division of 

Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 4 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1993c. Deer Creek survey - June 22-July 1, 1992. Nevada 

Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 4 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1993d. Buck Creek, East Fork and West Fork surveys - July 15­

28, 1992. Nevada Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 8 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1993e. Corral Creek survey - July 13-14, 1992. Nevada Division 

of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 4 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1995a. Robinson Creek survey - July 20-September 8, 1993. 

Nevada Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 4 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1995b. Dave Creek survey - July 12-August 19, 1992. Nevada 

Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 6 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1995c. Jenny Creek survey - August 26-September 1, 1992. 

Nevada Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 4 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1995d. Jack Creek survey - September 1-10, 1992. Nevada 

Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 7 pp. 

100 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Johnson, G. L. 1995e. Pine Creek survey - August 11-19, 1992. Nevada 

Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 6 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1995f. Sawmill Creek survey - August 18, 1992. Nevada 

Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 4 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1996a. Cougar Creek survey - August 24-25, 1993. Nevada 

Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 5 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1996b. Fall Creek survey - August 10-17, 1993. Nevada 

Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 6 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1996c. Jim Bob Creek survey - July 19-21, 1993. Nevada 

Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 3 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1996d. Slide Creek Drainage survey - July 27-August 10, 1993. 

Nevada Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 7 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1997a. Underwater fish surveys in lower West Fork Jarbidge 

River Field trip report - October 15-16, 1997. Nevada Division of Wildlife, 

Elko, Nevada. 2 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1997b. Jack Creek and Jenny Creek fish population assessment. 

Field trip report - August 27 and September 29-30, 1997. Nevada Division 

of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 2 pp. 

Johnson, G. L. 1999. The status of the bull trout in Nevada. Nevada Division of 

Wildlife, Reno, Nevada. March 30, 1999. 19 pp. 

Johnson, G. L., and R. Haskins. 2000. Section 6 annual project report to U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery action for bull trout in Jarbidge River 

drainage, Nevada. Nevada Division of Wildlife, Eastern Region, Fisheries 

Bureau, Elko, Nevada. 22 pp. 

101 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Johnson, G. L., and D. E. Weller. 1994. The status of the bull trout in Nevada. 

Nevada Division of Wildlife, Reno, Nevada. September 1994. 14 pp. 

Kanda, N., and F. Allendorf. 2001. Genetic population structure of bull trout 

from the Flathead River basin as shown by microsatellites and mitochondrial 

DNA markers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:92-106. 

Kanda, N., R. F. Leary, and F. W. Allendorf. 2002. Evidence of introgressive 

hybridization between bull trout and brook trout. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 131:772-782. 

Klott, J., and T. Burton. 2003a. Biological assessment for bull trout on the 

ongoing activities in the Jarbidge River watershed. July 15, 2003. Bureau of 

Land Management, Twin Falls, Idaho. 86 pp. + appendices. 

Klott, J., and T. Burton. 2003b. Biological assessment for bull trout on the 

ongoing activities in the Jarbidge River watershed. February 27, 2003. 

Bureau of Land Management, Twin Falls, Idaho. 86 pp. 

Lay, C. H. 2000. Bruneau subbasin assessment and total maximum daily loads of 

the §303(d) water bodies. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Twin 

Falls, Idaho. 130 pp. 

Leathe, S. A., and P. Graham. 1982. Flathead Lake fish food habits study. 

Environmental Protection Agency, through Steering Committee for the 

Flathead River Basin Environmental Impact Study. Contract R008224-01-4 

to Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 

102 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Lee, D. C., J. R. Sedell, B. E. Rieman, R. F. Thurow, and J. E. Williams. 1997. 

Chapter 4: Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. Pages 

1,057-1,713 in Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide, technical editors. An 

assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and 

portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume III. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-405. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, 

Oregon. 

MBTSG (The Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1998. The relationship 

between land management activities and habitat requirements of bull trout. 

Prepared for the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Montana Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, Montana. May 1998. 

Mathias, D. E., and V. S. Berry. 1997. A place called Jarbidge. Glendora, 

California. 207 pp. 

McNeill, M. E., J. Frederick, and B. Whalen. 1997. Jarbidge River watershed 

analysis. U.S. Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, 

Nevada. 48 pp. 

McPhail, J. D., and J. S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) life-history and habitat use in relation to compensation and 

improvement opportunities. Fisheries Management Report No. 104. Dept. 

of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Meffe, G. K. and C. R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of conservation biology. 

Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts. 600 pp. 

Miller, R. R., and W. M. Morton. 1952. First record of the Dolly Varden, 

Salvelinus malma, from Nevada. Copeia 1952:207-208. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1954. Jarbidge River (West Fork) -

Jarbidge Mountains - Elko County. 15 June and 14 August 1954. District II, 

Elko, Nevada. 11 pp. 

103 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1961. Jarbidge River population study 

and monthly fisheries report. Owyhee District. 10 pp. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1963. Jarbidge River, West Fork, Elko 

County, Nevada. Job Completion Report, Research Project Segment, Project 

No. F-11-R-5. Fisherman use and creel census, 1962. 5 pp. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1972. Unpublished fish population 

sampling and stream gamefish habitat inventory reports - West Fork Jarbidge 

River, August 1972. 9 pp. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1974. Unpublished fish population 

sampling and angler use and harvest summary reports - West Fork Jarbidge 

River, November 1974. 7 pp. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1975. Unpublished field data and 

summary report - West Fork Jarbidge River, September 1975. Region II, 

Elko, Nevada. 20 pp. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1979. Unpublished field data and 

summary report - West Fork Jarbidge River, October 1979. Region II, Elko, 

Nevada. 61 pp. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1981. West Fork Jarbidge River 

channelization evaluation. 3 pp. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1985. Unpublished field data - West Fork 

Jarbidge River, September-October 1985. 18 pp. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1992. USFS-NDOW cooperative stream 

survey and inventory. Elko, Nevada. 5 pp. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1993. USFS-NDOW cooperative stream 

survey and inventory. Elko, Nevada. 3 pp. 

104 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1997. Unpublished report on three 

thermographs placed on the Forest portion of the West Fork Jarbidge River. 

3 pp. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 1998. Summary of Nevada’s lakes and 

streams record fish, 1968-1998. 62 pp. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 2001. Annual project report (January 1, 

2000 to December 31, 2000) for Eastern Region native fisheries 

management: Bull trout. Elko, Nevada. 24 pp. 

Neraas, L. P., and P. Spruell. 2001. Fragmentation of riverine systems: the 

genetic effects of dams on bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Clark 

Fork River System. Molecular Ecology 10:1153-1164. 

Parametrix. 2002. Jarbidge River Fisheries Inventory. Prepared for the U.S. 

Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Kirkland, Washington. 

45 pp. 

Parrish, D. 1998. Jarbidge key watershed bull trout problem assessment. 

Southwest Basin Native Fish Watershed Advisory Group. December 1998. 

24 pp. + appendices. 

Partridge, F. E., and C. D. Warren. 1998. Monitoring of migrating bull trout in 

the Jarbidge River. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 

Technical Bulletin No. 98-9. June 1998. 15 pp. 

Partridge, F. E., and C. D. Warren. 2000. Monitoring of migrating bull trout in 

the Jarbidge River, 1999. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 

Technical Bulletin No. 00-1. November 2000. 20 pp. 

Peterson, J., J. Dunham, P. Howell, R. Thurow, and S. Bonar. 2001. Protocol for 

determining bull trout presence. Draft March 2001. Bull Trout Committee, 

Western Division of the American Fisheries Society, Lacey, Washington. 51 

pp. 

105 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Piper, R. G., I. B. McElwain, L. E. Orme, J. P. McCraren, L. G. Fowler, and J. R. 

Leonard. 1982. Fish hatchery management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. 517 pp. 

Pratt, K. L. 1985. Habitat use and species interactions of juvenile cutthroat, Salmo 

clarki, and bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, in the upper Flathead River 

basin. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 

Pratt, K .L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages 5-9 in Howell, P. J. 

and D. V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull 

Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, 

Corvallis, Oregon. 

Pratt, K. L., and J. E. Huston. 1993. Status of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 

in lake Pend Oreille and the lower Clark Fork River. Draft report. Prepared 

for the Washington Water Power Company, Spokane, Washington. 

Ramsey, K. J. 1997. Biological evaluation for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus); 

Jarbidge Canyon Road Reconstruction Proposal and Alternatives. U.S. 

Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada. 81 pp. 

Ratliff, D. E., and P. J. Howell. 1992. The status of bull trout populations in 

Oregon. Pages 10 -17 in P. J. Howell and D. V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings 

of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the 

American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Rich Jr., C. F. 1996. Influence of abiotic and biotic factors on occurrence of 

resident bull trout in fragmented habitats, western Montana. M.S. Thesis. 

Montana State University, Bozeman. 53 pp. 

Rieman, B. E., and F. W. Allendorf. 2001. Effective population size and genetic 

conservation criteria for bull trout. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 21:756-764. 

106 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Rieman, B. E., and J. B. Dunham. 2000. Metapopulations and salmonids: a 

synthesis of life history patterns and empirical observations. Ecology of 

Freshwater Fish 9:51-64. 

Rieman, B. E., and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements 

for conservation of bull trout. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report 

INT-302, Ogden, Utah. 38 pp. 

Rieman, B. E., and J. D. McIntyre. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally 

fragmented habitat patches of varied size. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 124:285-296. 

Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1996. Spatial and temporal variability in bull 

trout redd counts. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:132­

146. 

Rieman, B. E., D. C. Lee, and R. F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, status and likely 

future trends of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River 

basins. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:1111-1125. 

Robertson, C. 1995. Water quantity investigations. Pages 11-28 in Statewide 

Technical Assistance Project No. FW-7-R-1. Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, Boise, Idaho. 

Robertson, C. 1996. Water quantity investigations. Pages 11-22 in Statewide 

Technical Assistance Project No. FW-7-T-2. Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, Boise, Idaho. 

Rode, M. 1990. Bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus Suckley, in the McCloud 

River: Status and recovery recommendations. Inland Fisheries 

Administrative Report No. 90-15. California Department of Fish and Game, 

Redding, California. 43 pp. 

107 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Sauter, S. T., J. McMillan, and J. Dunham. 2001. Issue Paper 1. Salmonid 

behavior and water temperature. Prepared as part of EPA Region 10 

temperature water quality criteria guidance development project. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-910-D-01-001. 36 pp. 

Schrader, F.C. 1923. The Jarbidge Mining District, Nevada, with a note on the 

Charleston District. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 741. Washington, D.C. 

86 pp. 

Schmetterling, D. A., and M. H. Long. 1999. Montana anglers' inability to 

identify bull trout and other salmonids. Fisheries 24:24-27. 

Schmetterling, D. A., M. H. Long, and B. J. Cummings. 1999. Educational 

strategies to improve Montana anglers' ability to identify salmonids. Pages 

67-69 in Ecology and Management of Northwest Salmonids: Bull Trout II 

Conference Proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Canmore, Alberta, 

Canada. 

Sedell, J. R., and F. H. Everest. 1991. Historic changes in pool habitat for 

Columbia River Basin salmon under study for TES listing. Draft U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Report, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Corvallis, Oregon. 

Sexauer, H. M., and P. W. James. 1997. Microhabitat use by juvenile trout in 

four streams located in the eastern Cascades, Washington. Pages 361-170 in 

W. C. MacKay, M. K. Brewin, and M. Monita, editors. Friends of the Bull 

Trout Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout 

Unlimited Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 

Simpson, J. C., and R. L. Wallace. 1982. Fishes of Idaho. University of Idaho 

Press, Moscow, Idaho. 

Spruell, P., B. E. Rieman, K. L. Knudsen, F. M. Utter, and F. W. Allendorf. 

1999. Genetic population structure within streams: microsatellite analysis of 

bull trout populations. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 8:114-121. 

108 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Spruell, P., J. J. Huie, M. Spade, and F. W. Allendorf. 2002. Genetic analysis of 

bull trout in Glacier National Park. Report 02/102. Wild Trout and Salmon 

Genetics Lab, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 13 pp. 

Spruell, P., A. R. Hemmingsen, P. J. Howell, N. Kanda, and F. W. Allendorf. 

2003. Conservation genetics of bull trout: Geographic distribution of 

variation at microsatellite loci. Conservation Genetics 4:17-29. 

Stantec Consulting. 2002. Unincorporated Town of Jarbidge Bear Creek Canyon 

water treatment facility, revised project description. July 8, 2002. Prepared 

for Elko County Public Works. Salt Lake City, Utah. 20 pp. + appendices. 

Taylor, E. B., S. Pollard, and D. Louie. 1999. Mitochondrial DNA variation in 

bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) from northwestern North America: 

implications for zoogeography and conservation. Molecular Ecology 

8:1155-1170. 

Taylor, E. B., Z. A. Redenback, A. B. Costello, S. J. Pollard, and C. J. Pacas. 

2001. Nested analysis of genetic diversity in northwestern North American 

char, Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:406­

420. 

Thomas, G. 1992. Status of bull trout in Montana. Report prepared for Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, Montana. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 1998. 

Biological assessment: effects to bull trout, shortnose sucker, Lost River 

sucker, and Warner sucker of Land and Resource Management Plans, and 

associated federal actions on National Forest and Bureau of Land 

Management Resource Areas in the Columbia River, Klamath River, and 

Jarbidge River basins. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. 56 

pp. + appendices. 

109 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1999. Humboldt National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. 1999 Reprint with amendments #1 - #6. Elko, 

Nevada. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2003. Road management plan - Jarbidge Road. 

Jarbidge Canyon Environmental Impact Statement. Draft March 2003. 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada. 13 pp. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1999. Water Resources data - Nevada - Water 

Year 1999. Jarbidge River below Jarbidge, Nevada (Station number 

13162225). Water-Data Report NV-99-1. Prepared in cooperation with the 

State of Nevada and with other agencies. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2002. East Fork Jarbidge River near Three 

Creek, Idaho (Station number 13162500). Surface water for USA: Daily 

streamflow website http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis-w/ID. 

Warren, C. D., and F. E. Partridge. 1993. Evaluation of the status of bull trout in 

the Jarbidge River drainage, Idaho. Bureau of Land Management, Boise 

District. Technical Bulletin No. 93-1. February 1993. 20 pp. 

Watson, G., and T. W. Hillman. 1997. Factors affecting the distribution and 

abundance of bull trout: an investigation at hierarchical scales. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:237-252. 

Werdon, S. J. 2000a. Jarbidge River watershed stream temperature monitoring 

1999. Preliminary draft December 1, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. 12 pp. + appendices. 

Werdon, S. J. 2000b. Summary field trip report. South Canyon Road - Shovel 

Brigade Impacts. July 14, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada 

Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. 5 pp. 

110 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Whiteley, A., P. Spruell, and F. W. Allendorf. 2003. Population genetics of 

Boise Basin bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Final Report to Bruce 

Rieman, Rocky Mountain Research Station. University of Montana Wild 

Trout and Salmon Genetics Lab, Missoula, Montana. 

Williams, R.N., R. P. Evans, and D. K. Shiozawa. 1995. Mitochondrial DNA 

diversity patterns of bull trout in the upper Columbia River basin. Idaho 

Bureau of Land Management Technical Bulletin No. 95-1. 

Wilson, R. B. 1906. A favorable report on the proposed Bruneau addition to the 

Independence National Forest, Nevada. Forest Service. 

Zoellick, B. W. 1994. 1994 surveys for bull trout in the Jarbidge River. Bureau 

of Land Management. Boise, Idaho. 5 pp. 

Zoellick, B. W., R. Armstrong, and J. Klott. 1996. Status of the migratory bull 

trout population in the Jarbidge River drainage. Bureau of Land 

Management. Technical Bulletin No. 96-5. 21 pp. 

In Literature 

Brackett, C., and B. Brackett, Bracket Ranches, Ltd., in litt. 2003. Letter dated 

April 7, 2003, to Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service regarding comments on BLM’s biological assessment for bull trout 

on the ongoing activities in the Jarbidge River watershed. 

Coffin, P., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1995. Memo dated June 19, 

1995, to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding bull trout angler harvest in 

Jarbidge River system. 

Gabby, P., U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 2003. Facsimile dated March 12, 2003, to 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding water quality sampling at the 4M 

and Pavlak Adits. U.S. Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 

Elko, Nevada. 

111 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Johnson, G., Nevada Division of Wildlife, in litt. 2003a. Letter dated April 28, 

2003 commenting on preliminary draft Jarbidge River Recovery Plan 

chapter. 

Johnson, G., Nevada Division of Wildlife, in litt. 2003b. Electronic 

correspondence dated May 6, 2003, on thermograph data. 

Klott, J., Bureau of Land Management, in litt. 1994. Letter dated February 25, 

1994, regarding a Bull Trout Task Force Meeting. 

Klott, J., Bureau of Land Management, in litt. 1999. Letter dated September 30, 

1999, regarding water temperature monitoring on Jim Bob Creek, Nevada. 

Klott, J., Bureau of Land Management, in litt. 2000. Letter dated April 3, 2000, 

regarding 1999 water temperature data for Jack Creek, Nevada. 

Parrish, D., Idaho Department of Fish and Game, in litt. 2001. Electronic 

correspondence dated April 16, 2001, on illegal bull trout fishing activity. 

Partridge, F., Idaho Department of Fish and Game, in litt. 1998. Letter dated 

October 7, 1998, with attachments, regarding the fishery management history 

for the Jarbidge River in Idaho. 

Ramsey, K., U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 1997. Memorandum dated October 15, 

1997 on West and East Fork Jarbidge River field survey on October 6-8, 

1997. U.S. Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, 

Nevada. 

Rieman, B., U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 2003. Letter dated February 26, 2003, 

regarding the Draft Recovery Plan for Bull Trout. 

Spruell, P., University of Montana, in litt. 1998. Electronic correspondence dated 

October 20, 1998, regarding bull trout genetics. 

112 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Werdon, S., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1999. Field notes from Slide 

Creek trip on October 14, 1999. 

Werdon, S., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 2001. Note to files regarding 

Jack Creek field trip on September 11, 2001. 

Personal Communications 

Amy, K., U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 2001. Telephone conversation with S. 

Werdon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on July 20, 2001. 

Coffin, P., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1994. Telephone 

conversation with Bob Halleck, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on February 

16, 1994. 

Coffin, P., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1996. 

Frederick, J., U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1998. Meeting on October 1-2, 

1998. Elko, Nevada. 

Harvey, J., U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 2002. Telephone conversation with 

S. Werdon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on October 17, 2002. 

Johnson, G., Nevada Division of Wildlife, pers. comm. 1998. Meeting on 

October 1-2, 1998. Elko, Nevada. 

Johnson, G., Nevada Division of Wildlife, pers. comm. 2001a. Telephone 

conversation with S. Werdon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on September 

10, 2001. 

Johnson, G., Nevada Division of Wildlife, pers. comm. 2001b. Telephone 

conversation with S. Werdon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on March 21, 

2001. 

113 
Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout References 

Johnson, G., Nevada Division of Wildlife, pers. comm. 2003a. Jarbidge River 

Recovery Team meeting on May 1, 2003. Elko, Nevada. 

Johnson, G., Nevada Division of Wildlife, pers. comm. 2003b. Conversation with 

S. Werdon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on August 20, 2003. Salvelinus 

confluentus Curiosity Society Workshop, Atlanta, Idaho. 

Wiemeyer, S., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2003. Review of U.S. 

Forest Service’s water quality sampling data from the 4M Mine and Pavlak 

adits in March 2003. 

114 
115 

APPENDIX A. Jarbidge River Watershed Stream Thermograph Data Summary 

Water Temperature Metrics (oC) 

Stream 

Elevation feet/meters Date Mean 

Summera 

7/1-9/30 

Mean Summer 7/30-9/22 

Other Mean (See Date) 

Maximum Daily Maximum (See Date) 

B

Bruneau 793/2,599 6/28-8/7/94 24.6 31.4 A 

mainstem ~1,130/3,708 9/6-10/24/95 ~22 S

Jarbidge 6/28-9/23/94 19.2 28.4 S

mainstem ~1,135/3,723 9/6-10/22/95 ~21.5 S

~1,550/5,085 6/29-10/16/94 15.2 24.0 S 

8/17-10/16/94 22.3 S 

East Fork Jarbidge 

~1,580/5,184 8/17-10/16/95 20.7 S 1,800/5,906 8/28-11/5/02 9.10 21.96 S 

1,805/5,922 8/28-11/5/02 9.05 23.07 S 

2,245/7,360 2003 8.10 Y 

Bull Trout (BT): Y = year-round; S = seasonal; A = absent; * = possible fish barrier on lower Robinson Creek; ? = uncertain. 
116 

APPENDIX A. Jarbidge River Watershed Stream Thermograph Data Summary 

Water Temperature Metrics (oC) 

Stream 

Elevation feet/meters Date Mean 

Summera 

7/1-9/30 

Mean Summer 7/30-9/22 

Other Mean (See Date) 

Maximum Daily Maximum (See Date) 

B

West Fork Jarbidge 

1,696/5,560 2003 14.91 S 

1,795/5,885 2001 14.93 S 1,848/6,060 2002 13.95 S 1,903/6,240 

2001 13.88 S 

2002 12.59 S 

1,966/6,445 2002 11.73 S 

2,004/6,570 2002 11.13 S 

2,054/6,733 1999 10.14 10.54 15.2 S 

2,072/6,793 8/24-9/30/99 10.04 10.47 8.925 15.6 S 

2,079/6,815 1999 9.70 10.1 14.9 S 

2,105/6,901 1999 9.44 9.84 14.9 S 

2,117/6,940 1997 10.78 14.4 S 

2,134/6,997 1999 8.84 9.20 14.5 Y 

Bull Trout (BT): Y = year-round; S = seasonal; A = absent; * = possible fish barrier on lower Robinson Creek; ? = uncertain. 
117 

APPENDIX A. Jarbidge River Watershed Stream Thermograph Data Summary 

Water Temperature Metrics (oC) 

Stream 

Elevation feet/meters Date Mean 

Summera 

7/1-9/30 

Mean Summer 7/30-9/22 

Other Mean (See Date) 

Maximum Daily Maximum (See Date) 

B

West Fork Jarbidge (con’t) 

2,141/7,019 1999 8.86 9.23 14.4 Y 

2,153/7,058 1999 8.83 9.18 14.1 Y 

2,176/7,134 1999 8.7 9.05 14.1 Y 

2,248/7,370 1999 8.46 8.79 14.1 Y 

2,257/7,400 1998 8.9 Y 

Bear 1,952/6,400 2000 11.6 A

Cougar 2,074/6,800 1999 10.73 S 

Bull Trout (BT): Y = year-round; S = seasonal; A = absent; * = possible fish barrier on lower Robinson Creek; ? = uncertain. 
118 

APPENDIX A. Jarbidge River Watershed Stream Thermograph Data Summary 

Water Temperature Metrics (oC) 

Stream 

Elevation feet/meters Date Mean 

Summera 

7/1-9/30 

Mean Summer 7/30-9/22 

Other Mean (See Date) 

Maximum Daily Maximum (See Date) 

B

Dave 

1,905/6,245 8/24-9/30/99 9.30 16.8 S 1,920/6,296 8/24-9/30/99 9.24 16.8 S 1,938/6,355 8/24-9/30/99 9.32 17.5 S 2,004/6,572 7/1-7/22/99 10.10 17.1 S 2,020/6,623 8/25-9/30/99 8.73 17.9 Y 2,052/6,728 8/25-9/30/99 8.54 17.9 Y 2,083/6,831 8/25-9/30/99 8.3 17.5 Y 2,089/6,849 1999 9.14 9.53 17.1 Y 

2,106/6,906 1999 8.62 8.98 16.4 Y 

2,150/7,054 1999 14.5 Y 

2,225/7,300 1999 13.1 Y 2,381/7,600 1999 5.11 Y 

Deer 2,159/7,080 2000 10.78 A 

Bull Trout (BT): Y = year-round; S = seasonal; A = absent; * = possible fish barrier on lower Robinson Creek; ? = uncertain. 
119 

APPENDIX A. Jarbidge River Watershed Stream Thermograph Data Summary 

Water Temperature Metrics (oC) 

Stream 

Elevation feet/meters Date Mean 

Summera 

7/1-9/30 

Mean Summer 7/30-9/22 

Other Mean (See Date) 

Maximum Daily Maximum (See Date) 

B

Fall 2,001/6,560 1999 9.15 Y 

Fox 2,147/7,040 2000 10.34 A 

Gods Pocket 2,074/6,800 2002 9.11 A 

Jack 

1,800/5,906 1999 10.07 10.94 S 1,928/6,320 1998 11.35 S 2,050/6,720 1999 9.55 Y 

Jim Bob 

2,190/7,185 8/28-11/5/02 4.88 14.14 A

2,400/7,874 

7/1-9/26/99 7.22 12.61 A

8/28-11/5/02 6.03 11.62 A

2,420/7,940 

7/1-9/26/99 7.36 14.18 A

8/28-11/5/02 3.68 14.73 A

Pine 2,020/6,628 1999 10.47 16.6 Y 

Bull Trout (BT): Y = year-round; S = seasonal; A = absent; * = possible fish barrier on lower Robinson Creek; ? = uncertain. 
120 

APPENDIX A. Jarbidge River Watershed Stream Thermograph Data Summary 

Water Temperature Metrics (oC) 

Stream 

Elevation feet/meters Date Mean 

Summera 

7/1-9/30 

Mean Summer 7/30-9/22 

Other Mean (See Date) 

Maximum Daily Maximum (See Date) 

B

Robinson 

~1,790/5,873 8/28-11/5/02 6.79 15.88 A 

2,144/7,030 1999 9.23 A

~2,185/7,169 8/28-11/5/02 4.76 14.76 A~2,195/7,202 8/28-11/5/02 5.02 15.32 A

Slide 2,053/6,736 1999 8.8 9.07 14.1 Y 

2,077/6,815 1999 8.19 8.6 14.1 Y 2,106/6,910 1999 8.74 8.9 14.1 Y 2,136/7,008 1999 8.46 8.62 12.9 Y 

2,168/7,113 8/25-9/30/99 6.58 11.8 Y 

2,172/7,120 1998 9.48 Y 2,203/7,228 8/25-9/30/99 6.51 11.8 Y 2,222/7,290 1999 8.08 8.12 12.9 Y 

Slide (con’t) 2,263/7,425 1999 8.49 8.56 13.3 Y 

Bull Trout (BT): Y = year-round; S = seasonal; A = absent; * = possible fish barrier on lower Robinson Creek; ? = uncertain. 
121 

APPENDIX A. Jarbidge River Watershed Stream Thermograph Data Summary 

Water Temperature Metrics (oC) 

Stream 

Elevation feet/meters Date Mean 

Summera 

7/1-9/30 

Mean Summer 7/30-9/22 

Other Mean (See Date) 

Maximum Daily Maximum (See Date) 

B

2,308/7,572 1999 8.31 8.39 13.3 Y 

2,373/7,786 1999 8.14 8.21 13.3 Y 

Slide Trib. A 2,257/7,400 1998 8.59 Y 

a Gamett (2002).
 

Data Sources: 1 = Robertson (1995); 2 = Robertson (1996); 3 = Brackett, C., and B. Brackett, in litt. 2003; 4 = JohNevada Division of Wildlife, in litt. 2003b; 5 = Werdon (2000a); 6 = NDOW (1997); 7 = Klott, J., Bureau of Land 

in litt. 2000; 8 = Klott, J., Bureau of Land Management, in litt. 1999.
 

Bull Trout (BT): Y = year-round; S = seasonal; A = absent; * = possible fish barrier on lower Robinson Creek; ? = uncertain. 
122 

APPENDIX B. Recovery Actions and corresponding Reasons for Decline (threats) tJarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. 

Reason for Decline (Threat) - Solid circles indicate limiting factor for rec

Recovery Action Number Dams and 

Diversions 

Forest Mgmt. Practices 

Livestock Grazing 

Transportation Networks Mining 

Residential Development and Urbanization 

Fisheries Management 

Isolation and Habitat Fragmentation 

1.1.1 M M M F F M 1.1.2 M M F 1.1.3 F1.1.4 F F1.1.5 F F1.2.1 F M 1.3.1 F M M F F 1.3.2 F M F F1.3.3 M 1.3.4 F F1.3.5 M F 1.3.6 
123 

APPENDIX B. Recovery Actions and corresponding Reasons for Decline (threats) tJarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. 

Reason for Decline (Threat) - Solid circles indicate limiting factor for rec

Recovery Action Number Dams and 

Diversions 

Forest Mgmt. Practices 

Livestock Grazing 

Transportation Networks Mining 

Residential Development and Urbanization 

Fisheries Management 

Isolation and Habitat Fragmentation 

2.1.1 M 3.1.1 M 3.2.1 F 3.2.2 F 3.2.3 F 3.3.1 M 4.1.1 F F4.2.1 F 5.1.1 M 5.1.2 F F F F F5.2.1 F F F F F F M 5.2.2 M F 
124 

APPENDIX B. Recovery Actions and corresponding Reasons for Decline (threats) tJarbidge River Distinct Population Segment. 

Reason for Decline (Threat) - Solid circles indicate limiting factor for rec

Recovery Action Number Dams and 

Diversions 

Forest Mgmt. Practices 

Livestock Grazing 

Transportation Networks Mining 

Residential Development and Urbanization 

Fisheries Management 

Isolation and Habitat Fragmentation 

5.2.3 F F F 5.2.4 F 5.3.1 M 5.4.1 F6.1.1 F F F F 6.1.2 F F F6.1.3 F F F F F 6.2.1 F F F F F 7.1 F F F F F F F 
APPENDIX C. Glossary of Technical Terms 

Adit 

A horizontal mine opening, open to the surface at one end. 

Animal Unit Month (AUM) 

The quantity of forage required by one mature cow and her calf (or the equivalent, 

for example, in sheep) for one month. 

Adfluvial bull trout 

Bull trout that migrate from tributary streams to a lake or reservoir to mature (one 

of three migratory bull trout life history forms, the others being anadromous and 

fluvial forms). Adfluvial bull trout return to a tributary to spawn. 

Anadromous (fish) 

A fish that is born in fresh water, migrates to the ocean to grow and live as an 

adult, and then returns to freshwater to spawn (reproduce). Anadramous bull 

trout are one of three migratory bull trout life history forms, the others being 

adfluvial and fluvial forms. 

Artificial propagation 

The use of artificial procedures to spawn adult fish and raise the resulting progeny 

in fresh water for release into the natural environment, either directly from the 

hatchery or by transfer into another area. 

Canopy cover (of a stream) 

Vegetation projecting over a stream, including crown cover (generally more that 1 

meter [3.3 feet] above the water surface) and overhang cover (less than 1 meter 

[3.3 feet] above the water). 

Channel morphology 

The physical dimension, shape, form, pattern, profile, and structure of a stream 

channel. 

125 
Channel stability 

The ability of a stream, over time and in the present climate, to transport the 

sediment and flows produced by its watershed in such a manner that the stream 

maintains its dimension, pattern, and profile without either aggrading or 

degrading. 

Channelization 

The straightening and deepening of a stream channel to permit the water to move
 

faster, to reduce flooding, or to drain wetlands. 

Char (also charr)
 

A fish belonging to the genus Salvelinus and related to both the trout and salmon. 

The bull trout, Dolly Varden trout, and the Mackinaw trout (or lake trout) are all
 

members of the char family. Char live in the icy waters (both fresh and marine)
 

of North America and Europe. 

Connectivity (stream) 

Suitable stream conditions that allow fish and other aquatic organisms to move 

freely upstream and downstream. Habitat linkages that connect to other habitat 

areas. 

Core area 

The combination of core habitat (i.e., habitat that could supply all elements for the 

long-term security of bull trout) and a core population (a group of one or more 

local bull trout populations that exist within core habitat) constitutes the basic unit 

on which to gauge recovery. Core areas require both habitat and bull trout to 

function, and the number (replication) and characteristics of local populations 

inhabiting a core area provide a relative indication of the core area’s likelihood to 

persist. In most cases, core areas are presumed to reflect the metapopulation 

structure of bull trout (see “metapopulation,” below). 

Core habitat 

Habitat that encompasses spawning and rearing habitat (resident populations), 

with the addition of foraging, migrating, and overwintering habitat if the 

population includes migratory fish. Core habitat is defined as habitat that 

contains, or if restored would contain, all of the essential physical elements to 

provide for the security of and allow for the full expression of life history forms 

126 
of one or more local populations of bull trout. Core habitat may include currently 

unoccupied habitat if that habitat contains essential elements for bull trout to 

persist or is deemed critical to recovery. 

Core population 

A group of one or more bull trout local populations that exist within core habitat. 

Discharge (stream) 

With reference to stream flow, the quantity of water that passes a given point in a 

measured unit of time, such as cubic meters per second or, often, cubic feet per 

second. 

Distinct population segment 

A distinct population segment is a population subset of a vertebrate species or 

subspecies that meets the tests of discreteness and significance under the joint 

policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries 

Service (61 FR 4722). A distinct population segment designated as such under a 

regulatory rulemaking is a “listable entity” under the Endangered Species Act. 

Entrainment 

Process by which aquatic organisms are pulled through a diversion, turbine, 

spillway, or other device. 

Extirpation 

The elimination of a species from a particular local area.
 

Fine sediment (fines)
 

Sediment with particle sizes of 2.0 millimeters (0.08 inch) or less, including sand,
 

silt, and clay. 

Fish ladder 

A device to help fish swim around a dam. 

Floodplain 

Adjacent to stream channels, areas that are typified by flat ground and are 

periodically submerged by floodwater. 

127 
Fluvial bull trout 

Bull trout that migrate from tributary streams to larger rivers to mature (one of 

three migratory bull trout life history forms, the others being adfluvial and 

anadromous forms). Fluvial bull trout migrate to tributaries to spawn. 

Foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat (bull trout) 

Relatively large streams and mainstem rivers, lakes or reservoirs, estuaries, and 

nearshore environments, where subadult and adult migratory bull trout forage, 

migrate, mature, or overwinter. This habitat is typically downstream from 

spawning and rearing habitat and contains all the physical elements to meet 

critical overwintering, spawning migration, and subadult and adult rearing needs. 

Although use of foraging, migrating, and overwintering habitat by bull trout may 

be seasonal or very brief (as in some migratory corridors), it is a critical habitat 

component. 

Fry 

Young, recently hatched fish. 

Gabion 

A steel wire-mesh basket filled with stones or crushed rock to protect a bank or 

bottom from erosion. 

Headwaters 

The source of a stream. Headwater streams are the small swales, creeks, and 

streams that are the origin of most rivers. These small streams join together to 

form larger streams and rivers or run directly into larger streams and lakes. 

Hooking mortality 

Death of a fish from stress or injury after it is hooked and reeled in, then released 

back to the water. 

Hybridization 

Any crossing of individuals of different genetic composition, typically different 

species, that result in hybrid offspring. 

128 
Interacting groups (also “complex interacting groups”) 

Multiple local populations within a geographic area having connectivity that 

allows for individuals from each of these populations the opportunity to interact 

with one another. 

Local population 

A group of bull trout that spawn within a particular stream or portion of a stream 

system. Multiple local populations may exist within a core area. A local 

population is considered to be the smallest group of fish that is known to 

represent an interacting reproductive unit. For most waters where specific 

information is lacking, a local population may be represented by a single 

headwater tributary or complex of headwater tributaries. Gene flow may occur 

between local populations (e.g., those within a core population), but is assumed to 

be infrequent compared with that among individuals within a local population. 

Mass wasting 

Loss of large amounts of material in a short period of time, i.e., downward 

movement of land mass material or landslide. 

Metapopulation 

There are several different models of metapopulation dynamics, but in general a
 

metapopulation refers to a population structure in which subpopulations may be
 

distributed across the landscape in a patchy or semi-isolated pattern, but
 

connectivity between these subpopulations is critical for maintaining the
 

metapopulation as a whole. In the case of bull trout, we assumed that core areas
 

represent the functional equivalent of a metapopulation structure for bull trout,
 

and that the local populations within these core areas are interconnected by
 

occasional dispersal between them and therefore share some genetic
 

characteristics.
 

Migratory corridor (bull trout)
 

Stream reaches used by bull trout to move between habitats. A section of river or
 

stream used by fish to access upstream spawning areas or downstream lake
 

environments. See also “foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat.”
 

129 
Migratory life history form (bull trout)
 

Bull trout that migrate from spawning and rearing habitat to lakes or reservoirs
 

(adfluvial), larger rivers (fluvial), or the ocean (anadromous) to grow and mature. 

Only the fluvial migratory form is known in the Jarbidge River Distinct
 

Population Segment.
 

Nonnative species 

Species not indigenous to an area, such as brook trout in the western United
 

States. 

Peak flow (stream)
 

Greatest stream discharge recorded over a specified period of time, usually a year,
 

but often a season.
 

Potential local population 

A local population that does not currently exist, but that could exist, if spawning
 

and rearing habitat or connectivity were restored in that area, and contribute to
 

recovery in a known or suspected unoccupied area. Alternatively, a potential
 

local population may be a population that is suspected to exist, but that has not yet
 

been adequately documented.
 

Recovery team (bull trout)
 

A team of people with technical expertise in various aspects of bull trout biology
 

from Federal and State agencies, Tribes, private industry, and interest groups
 

responsible for assisting in the development of the bull trout recovery plan.
 

Redd 

A nest constructed by female fish of salmonid species in streambed gravels where 

eggs are deposited and fertilization occurs. Redds can usually be distinguished in 

the streambed gravel by a cleared depression, and an associated mound of gravel 

directly downstream. 

Refounding 

Reestablishment of a species into previously occupied habitat. 

130 
Resident life history form (bull trout)
 

Bull trout that do not migrate, but that reside in tributary streams their entire lives
 

(one of four bull trout life history forms; the other three forms are all migratory
 

[adfluvial, fluvial, or anadromous]). 

Riparian 

Area with distinctive soils and vegetation between a stream or other body of 

water and the adjacent upland. It includes wetlands and those portions of 

floodplains and valley bottoms that support riparian vegetation. 

Salmonid 

Fish of the family Salmonidae, including trout, salmon, chars, grayling, and
 

whitefish. In general usage, the term most often refers to salmon, trout, and chars.
 

Spawning and rearing habitat/streams/areas (bull trout)
 

Stream reaches and the associated watershed areas that provide all habitat
 

components necessary for spawning and juvenile rearing for a local bull trout
 

population. Spawning and rearing habitat generally supports multiple year
 

classes of juveniles of resident or migratory fish and may also support subadults
 

and adults from local populations of resident bull trout.
 

Subpopulation (bull trout)
 

A reproductively isolated group of bull trout spawning within a particular area of
 

a river system; the basic unit of analysis used in the initial listing of bull trout, but
 

not used extensively in the recovery plan.
 

Substrate embeddedness 

The filling of the interstitial spaces in rocky or gravel stream bottoms with silt or 

sediments, thereby eliminating the preferred physical characteristics of such 

substrates for spawning by bull trout (and other fish species). 

Subwatershed 

Topographic perimeter of the catchment area of a stream tributary. 

131 
Take 

Activities that harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect; or attempt to engage in any such conduct to a listed (Endangered Species 

Act) species. 

Transplants 

Moving fish from one stream system to another without the use of artificial 

propagation. 

Water right 

Any vested or appropriation right under which a person may lawfully divert and 

use water. It is a real property right appurtenant to and severable from the land on 

or in connection with which the water is used; such water right passes as an 

appurtenance with a conveyance of the land by deed, lease, mortgage, will, or 

inheritance. 

Watershed 

The area of land from which rainfall (and/or snow melt) drains into a stream or 

other water body. Watersheds are also sometimes referred to as drainage basins or 

drainage areas. Ridges of higher ground generally form the boundaries between 

watersheds. At these boundaries, rain falling on one side flows toward the low 

point of one watershed, while rain falling on the other side of the boundary flows 

toward the low point of a different watershed. 

Woody debris 

Woody material such as trees and shrubs; includes all parts of a tree such as root 

system, bowl, and limbs. Large woody debris refers to the woody material whose 

smallest diameter is greater than 10 centimeters (4 inches) and whose length is 

greater than 1 meter (3.3 feet). 

132