^fllfENTOFAGWC^

August 9, 2018

88074

U.S. Department of Agriculture

FOREST SERVICE and

U.S. Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak

Wilderness Management Plan

Salmon-Challis National Forest and BLM Idaho Falls District, Challis Field Office
For more information, contact:

Charles A. Mark, Forest Supervisor

Salmon-Challis National Forest

1206 S. Challis Street

Salmon, ID 83467

Phone: 208-756-5100

Fax: 208-737-3236

Mary D’Aversa, District Manager

BLM Idaho Falls District

1405 Hollipark Drive

Idaho Falls, ID 83401

Phone: 208-524-7500

Fax: 208-737-3236

Cover Photo Description: A summer storm on the summit of Jerry Peak in the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness.

Photography © Matt Leidecker

USDA NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY STATEMENT DR 4300.003

USDA Equal Opportunity Public Notification Policy (June 2, 2015)

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA pro¬

grams are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (includ¬

ing gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from

a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or

activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines

vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally,

program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter

addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the

complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C.

20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
J$|otl5^'K>0

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSI

Decision Record

for the

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan

Bureau ofLand Management

Challis Field Office

Environmental Assessment: DOI-BLM-ID-I000-2016-0002-EA

INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Assessment (EA) discloses the environmental impacts of a wilderness management

plan for the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak (JMJP) Wilderness (116,898 acres). The JMJP Wilderness was

designated through the passage ofthe Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness

Additions Act (P.L. 114-46). All ofthe Wilderness is in Idaho and is managed by the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), Idaho Falls District, Challis Field Office (21,913 acres; 19%) and the Forest Service

(FS; 94,985 acres; 81%).

The Wilderness Management Plan (WMP) provides the primary management direction for the JMJP

Wilderness to preserve wilderness character as identified by the Wilderness Act of 1964. The WMP

identifies the conditions and opportunities for which the Wilderness would be managed and creating

specific standards and guidelines for managing resources and activities that would bring existing

conditions closer to meeting desired conditions.

The EA has been prepared pursuant to the requirements ofthe National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA, 40 CFR 1500-1508), the Challis Resource Plan (BLM 1999). Public involvement opportunities

occurred throughout the planning process.

PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose ofthis project is to provide specific and consistent management direction for the JMJP

Wilderness, situated on federal public land managed by the BLM. Per the Wilderness Act of 1964

(Section 4), “... each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible tor

preserving the wilderness character ofthe area.” Although wilderness character is a complex idea and is

not explicitly defined in the Wilderness Act, the qualities of wilderness character are commonly described

as:

• Untrammeled—Area is unhindered and free from intentional actions ofmodem human control or

manipulation.

• Natural—Area appears to have been primarily affected by the forces of nature and are

substantially free from the effects ofmodem civilization.

• Undeveloped—Area is essentially without permanent improvements or the sights and sounds of

modern human occupation, and it retains its primeval character.

• Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type ofrecreation—Area

provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primeval and unrestricted

recreation including the values associated with physical and mental inspiration, challenge, selfreliance, self-discovery, and freedom.

• Other Features of Value—Area may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of

scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. Though not required of any wilderness, these

characteristics, if present, must be protected as rigorously as any ofthe other four required

qualities.

This action is needed to preserve wilderness character as identified by the Wilderness Act by identifying

HJ>

243

201?

Page 1
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSI

the conditions and opportunities for which the Wilderness would be managed and creating specific

standards and guidelines for managing resources and activities that would bring existing conditions closer

to meeting desired conditions. These objectives and actions would be implemented upon adoption ofthe

WMP and the WMP identifies actions that may be implemented in the future if changes to resource

conditions occur. The need for action is defined by the gap between the existing and desired conditions.

The need for the proposed action, the management plan, also originates from the Sawtooth National

Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act (P.L. 114-46), which under Sec. 102

Administration, states “(a) IN GENERAL.- Subject to valid existing rights, each wilderness area shall be

administered by the Secretary in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.)...”

Additionally, P.L. 114-46 requires: “Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment ofthis Act, the

Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary ofInterior shall collaboratively develop wilderness

management plans for the wilderness areas.”

CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT WMP AND EA

In addition to minor edits and corrections, a number of changes were made to the EA following

distribution ofthe draft WMP. These changes are reflected throughout the EA and summarized in Section

4.6 of Chapter 4. The changes reflect consideration of public comments on the proposed plan and EA and

its effects upon wilderness character, and ensured that the analysis included the best scientific

information. I do not believe that the edits and corrections necessitate issuance of another WMP or other

form of document for comment. The updated information disclosed in the EA falls within the scope ofthe

analysis depicted in the draft WMP and in most cases simply provides additional clarity.

• Revision ofseveral desired conditions to better meet the definition of a desired condition.

• Revised the ‘minimum requirements’ standard (JMJP-001), added a new guideline (JMJP-005), and edited

the definition for MRA in the glossary.

• The three Wilderness monitoring indicators (JMJP-003, 027, and 031) were re-categorized from guidelines

to standards. Clarified timeline for collection of baseline data for these monitoring indicators.

• Revised the Desired Condition and Goal in the Wilderness section to use protect, perpetuate, or preserve, in

lieu ofthe term enhance.

• Clarified JMJP-006 regarding coordination between the FS and BLM in the regulation of visitor uses.

• Edited Goal in Soils, Water, Air, Riparian Resources regarding preserving soil resources to remove ...or

livestock grazing” because the potential impacts from livestock grazing are addressed elsewhere.

• Moved the standard regarding ESA Recovery Plans to the Background section under Wildlife.

• Added a guideline to work with IDFG to reduce the risk of disease transmission to bighorn sheep from

domestic animals (JMJP-020).

• The standard specific to management of dogs was removed and information is provided in Issues Not

Analyzed in Detail and the Wilderness Education and Interpretation section. Renumbered subsequent

direction. Revised EA to remove analysis of direction regarding dogs.

• Revision to Standard (JMJP-034) for stock handling when in camp to include tree-saver device.

• Added footnote in the Livestock Grazing section, noting that the Herd Creek, Upper East Fork, and

Allotments were closed under the donation process; and a permit was relinquished for the Wildhorse

Allotment, as outlined in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act.

• Categorized the Search and Rescue direction (JMJP-067 and 068) as guidelines, rather than standards.

• Revision to section title “Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances.” WMP was edited to

ensure the use ofthe term “developments” more consistently throughout the documents.

• Text was added to Commercial Services section to acknowledge MOU between the USFS, BLM and

IOGLB.

• Language was added to pack goat measures to allow for flexibility as new practices are identified.

• Deleted “.. .signs...” from standard JMJP-073 in the Wilderness Education and Interpretation, as this is

covered in the Signs section.

• Duplicative Goal removed from the Commercial Services section, as it is stated in the Lands and Special

Uses section.

Page 2
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSl

• Revision in EA (Wilderness Direct and Indirect Effects, under Monitoring Indicator and Measure: Natural)

to correct statements about disease transmission to bighorn sheep.

• Added visitor use assumptions from wilderness report to the EA for clarity, as these assumptions are

referenced in the EA text.

• Appendix 4 Trail Inventory -revised trail mileage for accuracy.

• Revisions to glossary entries to include manual citations, as appropriate, and revision to definition of

Developments.

DECISION

I have reviewed the analysis presented in the EA for the JMJP WMP, considered the comments received

on the draft WMP, and discussed the project’s anticipated effects with both the Interdisciplinary Team,

and Forest Staff. I have considered and incorporated the comments and input raised in staffto staff

coordination meetings with Tribes, and comments from stakeholders and the public received on the draft

WMP.

I have decided to select and implement Alternative A (Proposed Action -the WMP), with the

exception of the pack goat direction for which I am selecting Alternative B. My decision includes

direction for the preservation of wilderness character, while managing allowable uses ofthe JMJP

Wilderness. Specifically, I am making the following decisions:

Wilderness

Standard JMJP-002 - Remove existing developments unless they are determined to be the minimum

necessary for the administration ofthe area as wilderness, or are:

a) Associated with valid existing rights,

b) Authorized range developments, or

c) Of historical or cultural value (in conformance with the NHPA), or

d) Upper Lake Creek Campground, unless it becomes unsafe or unusable (see

Developments and other Human Effects or Disturbances section).

Guideline

!

JMJP-006 - Ensure, where possible, management between the Forest Service and BLM,

including regulation of visitor uses, appears seamless to the public. Where differences in agency

policy occur, and if allowable by law, regulation, or policy, the WMP will endeavor to apply the

stricter policv to the adiacent land ofthe other agency.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

Guideline JMJP-008 - Manage dispersed campsites and recreational activities to prevent them from

expanding beyond a point where impacts to riparian and aquatic resources cannot be effectively

addressed.

Guideline JMJP-009 - Allow natural soil erosion to continue unless an imminent and definite hazard to life

and property or a serious depreciation of important environmental qualities outside the

Wilderness will result. _

Guideline JMJP-010 - Evaluate potential effects of proposed pollution sources for violation of Class 11

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Standards.

Management

Action

Indirect methods (e.g. education) for reducing impacts to soil and water, such as from

recreational use, are preferred over regulatory methods. However, education may be insufficient

in some cases and direct methods may be needed to protect wilderness character.

Vegetation and Botanical Resources

Guideline JMJP-011 - Ensure impacts to whitebark pine, such as those from fire suppression tactics,

improper livestock grazing, recreational stock use, dispersed camping, or trail construction and

maintenance are minimized when considering these activities.

Guideline JMJP-012 - Minimize impacts on habitats for rare and sensitive plant species when conducting

trail maintenance and construction.

Page 3
Jim McCIure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSI

Noxious and Non-Native Invasive Species Management

Management

Action

Place emphasis on minimizing introduction of new species and controlling small infestations that

have potential to displace native species.

Management

Action

Provide educational information on areas that are susceptible to weed invasion and measures to

help prevent non-native, invasive plant establishment and spread.

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Standard JMJP-019 - Implement measures to minimize contact between bighorn sheep and domestic goats

used for packing (see list below table). Measures identified may be expanded or revised, based

on research.

Guideline JMJP-020 - Continue to work cooperatively with IDFG to reduce the risk of disease transmission

or other stressors between bighorn sheep and domestic animals. If necessary to preserve

wilderness character, consider actions up to and including the closure of all or part ofthe

wilderness to recreational pack goat and sheep.

Recreation

Standard JMJP-022 - Limit group size to a maximum of 12 people. (See exception for Native American

tribes in the Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments section.)

Standard JMJP-023 - Prohibit shortcutting trail switchbacks on foot or with pack and saddle stock.

Guideline JMJP-025 - Manage vehicle access points to prevent unauthorized vehicle use by posting

appropriate boundary signage, and blocking or rehabilitating unauthorized routes where

violations are an issue.

Trails

Standard JMJP-026 - Do not construct new trails in the JMJP Wilderness, unless trails are determined to

be the minimum necessary for administration ofthe area as wilderness.

Management

Action

BLM will add the existing trail from the Upper Lake Creek Campground to Sage Creek to its

trail system.

Management

Action

The trail leading to the Upper Lake Creek Campground will remain. Width will be allowed to

naturally narrow to a pedestrian/stock width (e.g. Class 3). Culverts will not be removed unless

they wash out or cannot be maintained. Replacement of culverts will not occur.

Camping

Standard JMJP-030 - Require human waste to be covered 6-8” deep at least 200 feet from water, and,

where the terrain allows, 200 feet from campsites and trails. Alternatively, waste may be packed

out.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

Standard JMJP-032 - Limit the combined number of pack and saddle stock in one group to 20 head of

stock.

Standard JMJP-033 - Require pack or saddle stock to be ridden, led, or under human control. Animals are

not permitted to run loose on trails or travel routes.

Standard JMJP-034 - In camp, require stock users to pad highlines, or use tree-saver devices to minimize

tree damage.

Guideline JMJP-036 - Require stock users to locate pack and saddle stock handling areas at least 200 feet

from lakes, springs, and streams, where terrain allows.

Guideline JMJP-037 - Require stock users traveling outside of camp to tie stock to live trees greater than 8”

in diameter for only short periods oftime, and require use oftree-saver devices or other

techniques (e.g. wrap lead around trunk twice before tying the knot) to minimize tree damage.

Signs

Standard JMJP-039 - Place wilderness boundary signs at known access points, such as along trails, in

drainages and at passes.

Fire Management

Guideline JMJP-058 - The BLM would have the full range of options to achieve resource management

objectives, ranging from full suppression to monitoring of naturally-ignited wildfires.

Management

Actions

Enhance public awareness and support through educational programs about the role offire in the

ecosystem and fire’s role in maintaining wilderness character.

Page 4
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSI

Commercial Services

Standard JMJP-063 - Approve only temporary structures and facilities for outfitter and guide operations

necessary to meet the public need in a manner compatible with the Wilderness environment.

Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue

Standard JMJP-067 - Use the flow chart in Appendix 10 [ofthe WMP] for approval of motorized and

mechanized emergency response.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Management

Action

BLM will retain Upper Lake Creek Campground. Maintenance ofthe campground will be in

accordance with an MRA. Ifthe facility is damaged, becomes unusable or a safety hazard, the

facility would not be replaced.

Management

Action

Small-scale surface disturbances (e.g. campsites, abandoned developments, or linear

disturbances created by vehicles) may be rehabilitated with non-motorized, non-mechanized

means. An MRA and NEPA analysis would be required for motorized or mechanized equipment.

The NHPA process will be followed for all projects (mechanized or non-mechanized) with the

potential to adversely affect heritage resources. Actions would generally be conducted in the

following order, as needed:

1. Physical Closure

2. Decompaction

3. Scarifying/Pitting

4. Re-contouring

5. Vertical mulching or “iceberging”

6. Erosion control

7. Vegetative restoration

Wilderness Education and Interpretation

Management

Actions

Education and outreach is one method that may be employed or increased in response to

campsite and solitude thresholds established above, but may also be employed to prevent or

respond to any recreational visitor impacts.

The following list of best management practices for reducing the risk of disease transmission between pack goats

and bighorn sheep is taken from the North American Packgoat Association’s list of measures. Measures identified

on this list may be expanded or revised, based on research.

• All pack goats will be on leads or have leads attached to their collar or halter at all times.

• All pack goats will be tethered at night within 30 feet of humans.

• Ifbighorn sheep are observed within 100 yards of a potential camping area, pack goat users will take all

reasonable measures to move their campsite to a different area. Hazing techniques may be used to deter

bighorn sheep from moving closer to campsites if necessary.

• Pack goat numbers will be limited to a maximum ofthree (3) pack goats per person, and a maximum of

nine (9) pack goats per group.

• Where bighorn sheep are using trails for travel pack goat users will move offthe trail 100 yards. Ifthat

distance is not attainable, the pack goat user will travel back along the trail away from the bighorn sheep

and exit the trail when the 100 yard distance can be reached. Pack goat users will stay off the trail until

bighorn sheep have passed. If visibility is limited to less than 100 yards up trail, a pack goat user will go to

the trail and observe for bighorn sheep before continuing with pack goats.

• When accessing browsing areas and water, a pack goat user will check for the presence of bighorn sheep

before allowing access for pack goats. Whenever possible, water access will be limited to areas of unlikely

bighorn sheep use.

• In event that direct contact of a pack goat and a bighorn sheep is observed, the location and as much of a

description as is possible ofthe sheep and incident will be written, photographed if possible and reported to

the appropriate agency as soon as reasonably possible.

• If any pack goat becomes lost, missing or separated from the owner and herd every effort will be exhausted

to locate and recover the lost pack goat. It the owner is unable to locate and recover the lost pack goat,

contact the Salmon-Challis National Forest or BLM, Challis Field Office by phone immediately. A full

disclosure of all available information will be provided including: the last known location (GPS

coordinates, legal description, geographic location, name or number of trail or trailhead), the circumstances

that resulted in it becoming lost, a description ofthe pack goat, and any equipment that it was carrying.

Page 5
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSI

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

I have selected Alternative A (Proposed Action -the WMP) with the pack goat standard as described

under Alternative B over the other alternatives because it most appropriately meets the purposed and need.

The proposed action has been analyzed and I have determined that there is no significant impact as

referenced in the attached FONSI. The WMP will guide management so that the preservation objectives

ofthe Wilderness Act can be met.

I have selected Alternative A (with modification) because it provides the greatest attainment ofthe

project’s purpose and need - preserving wilderness character - while still being sensitive to other uses and

resource concerns within the JMJP Wilderness. In making this decision, I evaluated the purpose and need

for the WMP, the effects disclosed in the EA, and comments received during early scoping, scoping, and

the 30-day notice and comment period. The following discussion summarizes the rationale for my

decision.

My decision to implement the proposed action for management of natural resources (Soil, Water, Air

Riparian; Vegetation and Botanical; and Wildlife and Fisheries Resources) aims to preserve the natural

quality ofthe JMJP Wilderness, and emphasize the untrammeled quality by minimizing active

management or manipulation ofthese resources. Invasive species management will further preserve the

natural quality.

I have decided that the implementation ofthe pack goat management measures (as described in

Alternative B) are the appropriate method for minimizing the risk of disease transmission from pack goat

to bighorn sheep in the context ofthe JMJP Wilderness. This approach will allow for pack goat users to

continue to enjoy the JMJP Wilderness, while requiring best management practices, with which many

pack goat users may already be familiar, to minimize disease transmission risk. Further, to ensure

protection ofwilderness character, I have added a new guideline to the Wildlife Resources section that

ensures continuing coordination with Idaho Department of Fish and Game in the protection of bighorn

sheep. Continuing to review the most current population surveys of bighorn sheep and review of best

available science on pathogen transmission will guide management actions to ensure preservation of

wilderness character.

My decision includes management of allowable uses, primarily recreational uses, within the JMJP

Wilderness to both protect the natural resources and untrammeled quality, while preserving opportunities

for solitude, and a primitive and unconfined type ofrecreation. Establishing limits on group sizes for both

people and recreational stock, and establishing requirements for recreational stock handling, signing

techniques, new trail construction and human waste will benefit wilderness character, with limited impact

to recreational activities.

My decision is to add the existing trail from the Upper Lake Creek Campground to Sage Creek to its trail

system. This will allow for future maintenance ofthe trail. Retaining the non-motorized trail leading to

the Upper Lake Creek Campground will continue to allow hiker and horse access to that portion ofthe

Wilderness while allowing the travel route to naturally narrow to pedestrian/stock width.

By retaining the Upper Lake Creek Campground, until the facilities are damaged, become unsafe or

unusable, will continue to provide camping opportunities. This backcountry site existed at the time ofthe

designation ofthe wilderness. When the facilities are damaged or unsafe, they would not be replaced and

the developments would be removed.

My decision to include direction regarding educational efforts for the JMJP Wilderness aims to facilitate

recreational activities, and preservation ofthe wilderness while minimizing impacts to wilderness

character.

Page 6
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSI

The remaining direction described in the WMP is related to established policy or law, and is not analyzed

in the EA, nor does it need a decision to implement (See EA Appendix A).

PUBLIC AND OTHER INVOLVEMENT

Public Involvement

Public involvement has been extensive throughout the planning and analysis process leading to this

document. The public, stakeholders, the Nez Perce Tribe and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes were offered an

opportunity to provide input during an early scoping period (July 25-August 25, 2016). During this early

scoping period 32 letters were received, including a letter from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort

Hall. Comments generally fell into eight categories:

• Most Valued Features ofthe Wilderness

• Wilderness Management

• Recreation Management

• Outfitters and Guides

Livestock Grazing

Fire Management

Wildlife Management

Weed Management

Miscellaneous topics included law enforcement, search and rescue, visual resources, and rehabilitation of

human disturbances. These comments were considered in development ofthe management guidance.

The scoping period for the draft WMP occurred February 15 to March 17, 2017. In February and early

March, three scoping meetings were offered to the public in Challis, Mackay, and Ketchum. The agencies

also outreached through their respective webpages and social media. During the scoping period 30

comment letters were received, including letters from the following organizations, State, and local

agencies:

• Backcountry Horsemen ofIdaho • Idaho Recreation Council

• Boulder-White Clouds Council • Ken Smith Hunting

• Custer County Commissioners • North American Packgoat Association

• Custer Co.AVilderness Society • Trout Unlimited

• Idaho Cattle Association • Wild Sheep Foundation

• Idaho Department of Agriculture • Wilderness Watch

• Idaho Department of Fish and Game • Western Watershed Project

• Idaho Conservation League/Wildemess • Wildlands Defense

Society • White Cloud Outfitters

• Idaho Outfitter & Guide Association

The 30-day opportunity to comment on the proposed plan (per 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B) occurred

October 27-November 27, 2017 and included public meetings in Mackay, Challis, Stanley, and Ketchum.

A legal notice was issued in the Challis Messenger, the paper or record on October 27, 2017. During this

time, 32 parties submitted comments.

Commenters voiced a variety of concerns including, but not limited to, potential beneficial and adverse

impacts on wilderness character, recreational users, wildlife, and outfitter and guide operations. The

planning record contains all written comments received relative to this project and Appendix B ofthe EA

discloses how the Interdisciplinary Team addressed those concerns.

The BLM, Challis Field Office and Salmon-Challis National Forest met early, regularly, and in an on¬

going process with the Custer County Commissioners, including each of the public involvement

opportunities: project kick-off meetings, early scoping period, scoping period, and the comment period.

Agency representatives from the BLM and the FS regularly provided updates at the monthly County

Commissioners meetings, and at the Natural Resource Advisory Committee (NRAC) meetings. The
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSI

agencies provided a monthly newsletter via email to stakeholders, including the county, to provide regular

planning updates. The County Commissioners requested several meetings during the planning process,

including briefings prior to the initiation ofthe scoping and comment periods. The agencies meet with the

commissioners February 10, 2017 prior to the start ofthe scoping period, August 8, 2017 to discuss the

wilderness plan process, and October 17, 2017 prior to the start ofthe comment period.

Regulatory and Government Consultation

Scoping letters were sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries representatives via

email on February 14, 2017, soliciting comments on the draft WMP. Biological Evaluations (BE)

consistent with requirements of Section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act were prepared. Determinations

disclosed in the wildlife biological evaluation (BE) have concluded that my decision would have no effect

to yellow-billed cuckoo, Canada lynx, and wolverine (EA, pp 60). The fish biological evaluation

concluded that my decision will have no effect to steelhead, bull trout, and Chinook salmon or their

designated critical habitat (EA, pp 73).

The BLM, Challis Field Office and Salmon-Challis National Forest met early, regularly, and in an on¬

going process with the Custer County Commissioners. From project kick-off meetings (May 19, 2016 in

Ketchum and Stanley, June 2, 2016 in Challis), the early scoping period (July 25-August 25, 2016), the

scoping Period, (February 15-March 17, 2017), and the comment period (October 27-November 27,

2017), the County Commissioners provided input throughout the process. Agency representatives from

the BLM and the FS regularly provided updates at the monthly County Commissioners meetings, and at

the Natural Resource Advisory Committee (NRAC) meetings. The agencies provided a monthly

newsletter via email to stakeholders, including the county, to provide regular planning updates. The

County Commissioners requested several meetings during the planning process, including briefings prior

to the initiation ofthe scoping and comment periods. The agencies meet with the commissioners February

10, 2017 prior to the start ofthe scoping period, August 8, 2017 to discuss the wilderness plan process,

and October 17, 2017 prior to the start ofthe comment period, and provided a briefing on April 3, 2018.

Government to Government Tribal Consultation

Tribal governments have a unique legal and political relationship with the United States government as

reflected in the United States Constitution, treaties, statutes, court decisions, executive orders, and

memoranda. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall and the Nez Perce Tribes were contacted

regarding the project (letters sent July 25, 2016, February 2, 2017, and October 23, 2017). The ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall provided a comment letter during the early scoping period. The BLM met

with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on February 22, 201, April 20, 2017 and October 24, 2017.

APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES

This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board ofLand Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals in

accordance with 43 CFR Part 4. If an appeal is taken, your notice of appeal must be filed in the Idaho

Falls District Office, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401, within 30 days ofthe signing ofthe

decision. The appellant has the burden ofshowing that the decision appealed from is in error.

If you wish to file a petition for stay pursuant to 43 CFR 4.21, the petition for stay must accompany your

notice of appeal. Copies ofthe notice of appeal and petition for stay (if any) must also be served on each

party named in this decision and to the Interior Board of Land Appeal and the Office ofthe Solicitor,

Field Solicitor - U. S. Department ofthe Interior, University Plaza, 960 Broadway Avenue, Suite 400,

Boise, Idaho, 83706, at the same time the original document are filed with the Idaho Falls District Office.

If a petition for stay is filed, it shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards:

(1) The relative harm to the parties ifthe stay is granted or denied.

(2) The likelihood ofthe appellant’s success on the merits.

Page 8
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSI

(3) The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm ifthe stay is not granted, and

(4) Whether the public interest favors granting the stay.

Idaho Falls District

Page 9
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSI

Finding ofNo Significant Impact

for the

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan

Bureau ofLand Management

Challis Field Office

Environmental Assessment: DOI-BLM-ID-I000-2016-0002-EA

Finding of No Significant Impact:

I have reviewed Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak (JMJP) Wilderness

Management Plan. After considering the environmental impacts described in the EA, incorporated herein,

we have determined that the proposed action will not significantly affect the quality ofthe human

environment and that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required. This finding and

conclusion is based on our consideration ofthe Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) criteria for

significance (40 CFR 1508.27), both with regard to the context and intensity ofimpacts described in the

EA.

Context:

The JMJP Wilderness is part ofthe National Wilderness Preservation System. These areas are of most

interest to the neighboring residents ofIdaho, Oregon, and Nevada.

Intensity:

The following 10 statements serve as a checklist that describe how the project’s proposed action or

associated Environmental Analysis relates to the criteria for significance defined by CEQ. Intensity has

been addressed by describing how project activities relate to each criteria and what was considered during

our analysis that was significant.

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and/or adverse.

The environmental assessment has considered both beneficial and adverse impacts ofthe wilderness

management plan. Overall, the plan will result in protection of wilderness character, which includes

untrammeled, naturalness, undeveloped, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and

unconfined type ofrecreation, and special features, including Herd Lake. Preserving the natural

ecosystem and opportunities for recreation would improve the quality ofthe human environment.

The analysis documented in Chapter 3 ofthe EA did not identify any individually or cumulatively

significant impacts resulting from implementation of the WMP (EA Chapter 3). The project record

contains additional technical reports. In considering the wilderness resource as a whole, I have determined

that the effects to wilderness character will not be significant.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

The proposed WMP would not result in significant effects on public health and safety.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical

areas.

The planning area encompasses designated wilderness. Congress designated the JMJP Wilderness to

ensure protection of wilderness character. The Wilderness Act (Section 2a) states that wilderness areas

“shall be administered for the use and enjoyment ofthe American people in such manner as will leave

them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection ot

these areas, the preservation oftheir wilderness character. The EA describes affects to the wilderness

resource, and concludes that the WMP would not result in significant effects (EA Chapter 3).

Page 10
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSI

There would be no effect to fish and wildlife species listed under the Endangered Species Act (pp. 57-58

and 73). There would be no impact to sensitive wildlife species apart from bighorn sheep (pp. 58-66).

Bighorn may be impacted, but implementation ofthe wilderness management plan would not contribute

towards Federal listing or a loss of viability ofthe population or the species (p. 67). I considered this

analysis and the determination that there is no expected loss of viability ofthe population when making

my conclusion that my decision would indeed preserve wilderness character.

The implementation ofthe pack goat BMP guidelines would minimize risk of contact between pack goats

and bighorn sheep. Based upon my review ofthe project record, the low risk of contact combined with the

lower risk of disease transmission between bighorn sheep and pack goats (p. 32, Pils and Wilder 2017), I

determined there was no need to conduct a risk of disease transmission analysis. Selection of Alternative

B for the implementation ofthe pack goat management measures, in combination with the low risk of

contact and lowered risk of disease oftransmission will fulfill my responsibility to preserve wilderness

character. This approach is also responsive to preserving opportunities for primitive and unconfined

recreation, while allowing recreational users opportunities to disperse and experience solitude.

As stated in the EA, no adverse effects to historic or cultural resources (EA, p 74), or wetlands (p. 73). No

wild and scenic rivers, park lands, prime farmlands, or ecologically critical areas were identified in the

project area.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality or the human environment are likely to be highly

controversial.

Controversy in this context refers to situations where there is substantial dispute as to the size, nature, or

effect ofthe federal action, rather than opposition to its implementation. The scientific basis for the

analysis is contained in the project record and summarized in the EA. Standard analysis techniques and

models were used. Literature supporting the use ofthese models and qualitative discussions, as used in

this analysis, is contained in the project’s planning record (EA Chapter 3).

The effects ofimplementing the WMP are well known and documented and not highly controversial in

that WMPs are essential to maintaining the natural condition of wilderness areas, as required by the

Wilderness Act.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or

involve unique or unknown risks.

The environmental analysis, including the EA, resource technical reports, and biological evaluations

(contained in the planning record), determined that the selected alternative will not involve any highly

uncertain or unknown risks (EA, Chapter 3). The management activities associated with my decision are

typical ofthose successfully implemented in the past, and both within and external to designated

wilderness.

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant

effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

My decision is consistent with direction found in the Challis RMP. Implementing my decision will not

establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor does it represent a decision in principle

about a future consideration.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively

significant impacts.

The EA identified no significant cumulative impacts for the proposed action.
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DR & FONSI

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or

objects listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause

loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

My decision will not result in the loss or destruction ofimportant or significant scientific, cultural, or

historic resources (EA, Chapter 3).

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its

habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The EA discloses the effects of my decision to threatened or endangered species (EA, pp 57-58 and 73).

This required disclosure involves wildlife and fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended (ESA). My decision will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or

its habitat.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed

for the protection of the environment.

The proposed action will not violate or threaten to violate any Federal, State, or local law, regulation, or

ordinance imposed for the protection ofthe environment. Consistency with laws or requirements imposed

for protection ofthe environment is also discussed in the Background section (p. 2) ofthe EA. The

project’s planning record provides supporting information.

Approved by:

’Aversa

District Manager

Falls District

References

Pils A., and J. Wilder. 2017. Risk analysis of disease transmission between domestic sheep and goats

and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. USDA Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming.

December 2017.

Page 12
USDA

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Intermountain

Region

August 2018

Final Decision Notice and

Finding of No Significant

Impact

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness

Management Plan

Salmon-Challis National Forest

Custer County, Idaho

\S

For Further Information Contact:

Emily Simpson

1206 S Challis St.

Salmon, Idaho 83467

(208) 630-3507

comments-intermtn-salmon-challismiddlefork(a)fs.fed.us

Responsible Official

Charles A. Mark

Salmon-Challis Forest

Supervisor

Salmon-Challis National

Forest

1206 S Challis St.

Salmon, Idaho 83467
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

Decision Notice and Finding ofNo Significant Impact

for the

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan

USDA Forest Service

Salmon-Challis National Forest

Custer County, Idaho

INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Assessment (EA) discloses the environmental impacts of a wilderness management plan for the

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak (JMJP) Wilderness. The JMJP Wilderness was designated through the passage ofthe

Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act (P.L. 114-46).

The Wilderness Management Plan (WMP) provides the primary management direction for the JMJP Wilderness to

preserve wilderness character as identified by the Wilderness Act of 1964. The WMP identifies the conditions and

opportunities for which the Wilderness would be managed and creating specific standards and guidelines for

managing resources and activities that would bring existing conditions closer to meeting desired conditions.

The EA has been prepared pursuant to the requirements ofthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 40 CFR

1500-1508), the National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations, the Challis National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (USDA 1987) (Forest Plan). Public involvement opportunities

occurred throughout the planning process.

PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose ofthis project is to provide specific, updated, and consistent management direction for the JMJP

Wilderness, situated on federal public land managed by the FS. Per the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Section 4), “...

each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness

character ofthe area.” Although wilderness character is a complex idea and is not explicitly defined in the

Wilderness Act, the qualities of wilderness character are commonly described as:

• Untrammeled—Area is unhindered and free from intentional actions ofmodem human control or

manipulation.

• Natural—Area appears to have been primarily affected by the forces of nature and are substantially free

from the effects ofmodem civilization.

• Undeveloped—Area is essentially without permanent improvements or the sights and sounds ofmodem

human occupation, and it retains its primeval character.

• Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type ofrecreation—Area provides

outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primeval and unrestricted recreation

including the values associated with physical and mental inspiration, challenge, self-reliance, selfdiscovery, and freedom.

• Other Features of Value—Area may also contain ecological, geological, or other features ofscientific,

educational, scenic, or historical value. Though not required of any wilderness, these characteristics, if

present, must be protected as rigorously as any ofthe other four required qualities.

This action is needed to preserve wilderness character as identified by the Wilderness Act by identifying the

conditions and opportunities for which the Wilderness would be managed and creating specific standards and

guidelines for managing resources and activities that would bring existing conditions closer to meeting desired

conditions. These objectives and actions would be implemented upon adoption ofthe WMP and the WMP identifies

actions that may be implemented in the future if changes to resource conditions occur. The need for action is defined

by the gap between the existing and desired conditions.

The need for the proposed action, the management plan, also originates from the Sawtooth National Recreation Area

and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act (P.L. 114-46), which under Sec. 102 Administration, states “(a) IN

GENERAL.- Subject to valid existing rights, each wilderness area shall be administered by the Secretary in

accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.)...” Additionally, P.L. 114-46 requires: “Not later than

Page 1
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

3 years after the date of enactment ofthis Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior shall

collaboratively develop wilderness management plans for the wilderness areas.”

CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT WMP AND EA

In addition to minor edits and corrections, a number of changes were made to the EA following distribution ofthe

draft WMP. These changes are reflected throughout the EA and summarized in Section 4.6 ofChapter 4. The

changes reflect consideration ofpublic comments on the proposed plan and EA and its effects upon wilderness

character, and ensured that the analysis included the best scientific information. I do not believe that the edits and

corrections necessitate issuance of another WMP or other form of document for comment. The updated information

disclosed in the EA falls within the scope ofthe analysis depicted in the draft WMP and in most cases simply

provides additional clarity.

• The sentence in the Plan and EA stating that the WMP will be “incorporated” into the forthcoming revised

forest plan has been deleted because this WMP cannot make a decision as to what will be in the

forthcoming revision without proper NEPA analysis.

• Revision ofseveral desired conditions to better meet the definition of a desired condition.

• The three Wilderness monitoring indicators (JMJP-003, 027, and 031) were re-categorized from guidelines

to standards. Clarified timeline for collection of baseline data for these monitoring indicators.

• Revised the Desired Condition and Goal in the Wilderness section to use protect, perpetuate, or preserve, in

lieu ofthe term enhance.

• Clarified JMJP-006 regarding coordination between the FS and BLM in the regulation of visitor uses.

• Edited Goal in Soils, Water, Air, Riparian Resources regarding preserving soil resources to remove .. .or

livestock grazing” because the potential impacts from livestock grazing are addressed elsewhere.

• The standard specific to management of dogs was removed and information is provided in Issues Not

Analyzed in Detail and the Wilderness Education and Interpretation section. Renumbered subsequent

direction. Revised EA to remove analysis of direction regarding dogs.

• The trails removed from inventory (Narrow Canyon-Bowery Creek (#4178), Narrow Canyon (#4179)) with

little to no trail tread apparent would not count against the monitoring indicator for user-developed routes.

• Revision to Standard (JMJP-034) for stock handling when in camp to include tree-saver device.

• Regarding the East Pass Creek Allotment, the WMP states that it would be neither closed nor reauthorized

under this Plan. The remainder ofthe sentence was deleted.

• Added footnote in the Livestock Grazing section, noting that the Herd Creek, Upper East Fork, and

Allotments were closed under the donation process; and a permit was relinquished for the Wildhorse

Allotment, as outlined in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act.

• Revision to section title “Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances.” WMP was edited to

ensure the use ofthe term “developments” more consistently throughout the documents.

• Text was added to Commercial Services section to acknowledge MOU between the USFS, BLM and

IOGLB.

• Language was added to pack goat measures to allow for flexibility as new practices are identified.

• Deleted “.. .signs...” from standard JMJP-073 in the Wilderness Education and Interpretation, as this is

covered in the Signs section.

• Duplicative Goal removed from the Commercial Services section, as it is stated in the Lands and Special

Uses section.

• Revision in EA (Wilderness Direct and Indirect Effects, under Monitoring Indicator and Measure: Natural)

to correct statements about disease transmission to bighorn sheep.

• Added visitor use assumptions from wilderness report to the EA for clarity, as these assumptions are

referenced in the EA text.

• Appendix 4 Trail Inventory - West Fork Herd Creek trail requires additional field inventory. Revised trail

mileage for accuracy.

• Revisions to glossary entries to include manual citations, as appropriate, and revision to definition of

Developments.

Page 2
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

DECISION

I have reviewed the analysis presented in the EA for the JMJP WMP, considered the comments received on the draft

WMP, and discussed the project’s anticipated effects with both the Interdisciplinary Team, Forest Staff, and Region

Staff. I have considered and incorporated the comments and input raised in staffto staff coordination meetings with

Tribes, and comments from stakeholders and the public received on the draft WMP.

We received four objections on the draft decision notice and FONSI. The following organizations objected: Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Conservation League and the Wilderness Society, and WildLands Defense,

and one individual, Mr. Reynolds. My decision has also been reviewed by a Standing Objection Review Team

(SORT). The Objection Reviewing Officer found that my decision rationale was clear and that objection issues were

analyzed and addressed consistently with applicable laws and regulations. I also addressed the Objection Reviewing

Officer’s instructions by adjusting the WMP:

• Clarifying the definition of Developments provided in the glossary,

• Shifting the two Search and Rescue standards (JMJP-065 and 066) to guidelines,

• Revising the MRA standard, adding a guideline (JMJP-005), and editing the definition for MRA in the

glossary,

• Moving the standard regarding ESA Recovery Plans to the Background section under Wildlife, and

• Adding a new guideline (JMJP-020) to work with IDFG to reduce the risk of disease transmission to

bighorn sheep from domestic animals.

As a result I have decided to implement Alternative A (Proposed Action), with the pack goat standard as described

under Alternative B.

Should the Forest Service manage the JMJP Wilderness solely according to legislative and regulatory

requirements (Alternative C), or should the Forest Service implement a plan that provides additional

direction to manage approved uses not otherwise regulated while ensuring adequate protection and

preservation of resources and values (the Alternative A or Alternative B)?

I have decided to select and implement Alternative A (Proposed Action -the WMP) with the modifications

described above, including the pack goat direction described under Alternative B. My decision includes direction for

the preservation of wilderness character, while managing allowable uses ofthe JMJP Wilderness. Specifically, I am

making the following decisions:

_ Wilderness

Standard JMJP-002 - Remove existing developments unless they are determined to be the minimum

necessary for the administration ofthe area as wilderness, or are:

a) Associated with valid existing rights,

b) Authorized range developments, or

c) Of historical or cultural value (in conformance with the NHPA).

Guideline JMJP-006 - Ensure, where possible, management between the Forest Service and BLM,

including regulation of visitor uses, appears seamless to the public. Where differences in agency

policy occur, and if allowable by law, regulation, or policy, the WMP will endeavor to apply the

stricter policy to the adjacent land ofthe other agency.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

Guideline JMJP-008 - Manage dispersed campsites and recreational activities to prevent them from

expanding beyond a point where impacts to riparian and aquatic resources cannot be effectively

addressed.

Guideline JMJP-009 - Allow natural soil erosion to continue unless an imminent and definite hazard to life

and property or a serious depreciation of important environmental qualities outside the

Wilderness will result.

Guideline JMJP-010 - Evaluate potential effects of proposed pollution sources for violation ofClass 11

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Standards.

Management

Action

Indirect methods (e.g. education) for reducing impacts to soil and water, such as from

recreational use, are preferred over regulatory methods. However, education may be insufficient

in some cases and direct methods may be needed to protect wilderness character.

Page 3
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

Vegetation and Botanical Resources

Guideline 1

JMJP-011 - Ensure impacts to whitebark pine, such as those from fire suppression tactics,

improper livestock grazing, recreational stock use, dispersed camping, or trail construction and

maintenance are minimized when considering these activities.

Guideline JMJP-012 - Minimize impacts on habitats for rare and sensitive plant species when conducting

trail maintenance and construction.

Noxious and Non-Native Invasive Species Management

Management Place emphasis on minimizing introduction of new species and controlling small infestations that

Action have potential to displace native species.

Management Provide educational information on areas that are susceptible to weed invasion and measures to

Action help prevent non-native, invasive plant establishment and spread.

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Standard JMJP-019 - Implement measures to minimize contact between bighorn sheep and domestic goats

used for packing (see list below table). Measures identified may be expanded or revised, based

on research.

Guideline

| |

!

JMJP-020 - Continue to work cooperatively with IDFG to reduce the risk of disease transmission

or other stressors between bighorn sheep and domestic animals. If necessary to preserve

wilderness character, consider actions up to and including the closure of all or part ofthe

wilderness to recreational pack goat and sheep.

Recreation

Standard JMJP-022 - Limit group size to a maximum of 12 people. (See exception for Native American

tribes in the Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments section.)

Standard JMJP-023 - Prohibit shortcutting trail switchbacks on foot or with pack and saddle stock.

Guideline JMJP-025 - Manage vehicle access points to prevent unauthorized vehicle use by posting

appropriate boundary signage, and blocking or rehabilitating unauthorized routes where

violations are an issue.

Trails

Standard JMJP-026 - Do not construct new trails in the JMJP Wilderness, unless trails are determined to

be the minimum necessary for administration ofthe area as wilderness.

Management

Actions

The FS will remove the Narrow Canyon-Bowery Creek (#4178), Narrow Canyon (#4179), and

Baker Creek (#4184.03) trails from its trail inventory and add the Middle East Pass Creek Trail

to the FS Trail Inventory.

Camping

Standard JMJP-030 - Require human waste to be covered 6-8” deep at least 200 feet from water, and,

where the terrain allows, 200 feet from campsites and trails. Alternatively, waste may be packed

out.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

Standard JMJP-032 - Limit the combined number of pack and saddle stock in one group to 20 head of

stock.

Standard JMJP-033 - Require pack or saddle stock to be ridden, led, or under human control. Animals are

not permitted to run loose on trails or travel routes.

Standard JMJP-034 - In camp, require stock users to pad highlines, or use tree-saver devices to minimize

tree damage.

Guideline JMJP-036 - Require stock users to locate pack and saddle stock handling areas at least 200 feet

from lakes, springs, and streams, where terrain allows.

Guideline JMJP-037 - Require stock users traveling outside of camp to tie stock to live trees greater than 8”

in diameter for only short periods oftime, and require use oftree-saver devices or other

techniques (e.g. wrap lead around trunk twice before tying the knot) to minimize tree damage.

Signs

Standard JMJP-039 - Place wilderness boundary signs at known access points, such as along trails, in

drainages and at passes.

Page 4
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONS1

Fire Management

Management

Actions

Enhance public awareness and support through educational programs about the role of fire in the

ecosystem and fire’s role in maintaining wilderness character.

Commercial Services

Standard JMJP-063 - Approve only temporary structures and facilities for outfitter and guide operations

necessary to meet the public need in a manner compatible with the Wilderness environment.

Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue

Guideline JMJP-067 - Use the flow chart in Appendix 10 [ofthe WMP] for approval ofmotorized and

mechanized emergency response.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Management

Action

An Operations and Maintenance Plan is under development for Sheep Mountain repeater site,

and an MRA will be completed simultaneously.

Management

Action

Small-scale surface disturbances (e.g. campsites, abandoned developments, or linear

disturbances created by vehicles) may be rehabilitated with non-motorized, non-mechanized

means. An MRA and NEPA analysis would be required for motorized or mechanized equipment.

The NHPA process will be followed for all projects (mechanized or non-mechanized) with the

potential to adversely affect heritage resources. Actions would generally be conducted in the

following order, as needed:

1. Physical Closure

2. Decompaction

3. Scarifying/Pitting

4. Re-contouring

5. Vertical mulching or “iceberging”

6. Erosion control

7. Vegetative restoration

Wilderness Education and Interpretation

Management

Actions

Education and outreach is one method that may be employed or increased in response to

campsite and solitude thresholds established above, but may also be employed to prevent or

respond to any recreational visitor impacts.

The following list ofbest management practices for reducing the risk of disease transmission between pack goats

and bighorn sheep is taken from the North American Packgoat Association’s list ofmeasures. Measures identified

on this list may be expanded or revised, based on research.

• All pack goats will be on leads or have leads attached to their collar or halter at all times.

• All pack goats will be tethered at night within 30 feet of humans.

• If bighorn sheep are observed within 100 yards of a potential camping area, pack goat users will take all

reasonable measures to move their campsite to a different area. Hazing techniques may be used to deter

bighorn sheep from moving closer to campsites if necessary.

• Pack goat numbers will be limited to a maximum ofthree (3) pack goats per person, and a maximum of

nine (9) pack goats per group.

• Where bighorn sheep are using trails for travel pack goat users will move offthe trail 100 yards. Ifthat

distance is not attainable, the pack goat user will travel back along the trail away from the bighorn sheep

and exit the trail when the 100 yard distance can be reached. Pack goat users will stay offthe trail until

bighorn sheep have passed. If visibility is limited to less than 100 yards up trail, a pack goat user will go to

the trail and observe for bighorn sheep before continuing with pack goats.

• When accessing browsing areas and water, a pack goat user will check for the presence of bighorn sheep

before allowing access for pack goats. Whenever possible, water access will be limited to areas of unlikely

bighorn sheep use.

• In event that direct contact of a pack goat and a bighorn sheep is observed, the location and as much of a

description as is possible ofthe sheep and incident will be written, photographed if possible and reported to

the appropriate agency as soon as reasonably possible.

• If any pack goat becomes lost, missing or separated from the owner and herd every effort will be exhausted

to locate and recover the lost pack goat. Ifthe owner is unable to locate and recover the lost pack goat,

contact the Salmon-Challis National Forest or BLM, Challis Field Office by phone immediately. A full

disclosure of all available information will be provided including: the last known location (GPS

Page 5
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

coordinates, legal description, geographic location, name or number oftrail or trailhead), the circumstances

that resulted in it becoming lost, a description ofthe pack goat, and any equipment that it was carrying.

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

I have selected Alternative A (Proposed Action -the WMP) with modifications as described over the other

alternatives because it most appropriately meets the purposed and need. The modifications are generally changes

that will not result in effects markedly different from those disclosed in the EA.

The alternative, with modifications as described, has been analyzed and I have determined that there is no significant

impact as referenced in the attached FONSI. The WMP will guide management so that the preservation objectives of

the Wilderness Act can be met.

I have selected Alternative A (as modified) because it provides the greatest attainment ofthe project’s purpose and

need - preserving wilderness character - while still being sensitive to other uses and resource concerns within the

JMJP Wilderness. In making this decision, I evaluated the purpose and need for the WMP, the effects disclosed in

the EA, and comments received during early scoping, scoping, and the 30-day notice and comment period (36 CFR

218). The following discussion summarizes the rationale for my decision.

As a result of discussions with Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and in coordination with the BFM, we made

the following modifications to the definition of Developments provided in the glossary:

Per the Wilderness Act (Section 2c) “An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of

undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or

human habitation...”

Permanent Improvement. A structural or nonstructural improvement that is to remain at a particular location for

more than one field season. Permanent improvements include such items as trails, toilet buildings, cabins,

fences, tent frames, fire grills, and instrumentation stations. (FSM 2320.5)

Temporary Structure. Any structure that is easy to dismantle, that could be removed completely from a site

between periods of actual use, and that must be removed at the end of each season of use ifthe non-use period

is greater than 30 days. (FSM 2320.5)

Reference BFM Manual 6340, or the most current BFM wilderness policy for definitions.

Also as a result of discussions with Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the following revisions have been made to

direction regarding minimum requirements analysis:

• Standard JMJP-001 was edited to read: “Implement proposed actions only when necessary to meet

minimum requirements for the administration ofthe area as wilderness and to have the least impact to

wilderness character.”

• An additional guideline was added that states: “For the purpose of determining the minimum requirement,

conduct a minimum requirements analysis for any non-emergency action, including those proposed by state

and federal agencies that includes a prohibited use as described in Section 4(c) ofthe Wilderness Act, or for

other actions that may impair wilderness character.”

• The definition in the glossary for “minimum requirements analysis” was revised to read: “The process by

which allowances for one ofthe eight prohibited uses described in Section 4(c) ofthe Wilderness Act are

analyzed to determine ifthey are ‘necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration ofthe

area for the purpose of [the Wilderness] Act.’ ” The Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG) is

typically used to perform the analysis. The BFM requires the use ofthe MRDG per policy (BFM Manual

6340). For more information and a copy ofthe current form, see http://www.wilderness.net/MRA.

vy

Additionally, I have decide to shift the several standards to guidelines (JMJP-004, 015, 016, 040, 067, 068, and

072), as they are better categorized there. A guideline (FSH 1909.22.13) “allows for departure from its terms, so

long as the purpose ofthe guideline is met.” Moving this direction to guidelines provides for flexibility, while still

ensuring that the core purpose (e.g. meeting legal requirements) is met. Since by definition any deviation must

achieve the same purpose, this adjustment will not change the analysis provided in the EA and the direction is still

included in the WMP.

Page 6
Jim McCIure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

I have decided to move the standard regarding ESA Recovery Plans to the Background section under Wildlife

Resources. I have considered the potential for any change to effects. This would clearly fall within the effects

disclosed in the EA because there is already in place a process for incorporating recovery plans. Recovery plans can

be broader in application than any one Forest or Agency and in the case ofthe Forest Service it is the Regional

Foresters responsibility to apportion objectives among the forests (FSM 2670). A forest’s apportion would be

incorporated into the forest plan. This process ensures that the same result anticipated through incorporation ofthis

standard would be met by processes already in place currently.

Further, I have added a new guideline to the Wildlife Resources section that ensures continuing coordination with

Idaho Department of Fish and Game in the protection of bighorn sheep. Continuing to review the most current

population surveys of bighorn sheep and review of best available science on pathogen transmission will guide

management actions to ensure preservation of wilderness character.

My decision to implement the proposed action for management of natural resources (Soil, Water, Air Riparian;

Vegetation and Botanical; and Wildlife and Fisheries Resources) aims to preserve the natural quality ofthe JMJP

Wilderness, and emphasize the untrammeled quality by minimizing active management or manipulation ofthese

resources. Invasive species management will further preserve the natural quality.

I have decided that the implementation ofthe pack goat management measures (as described in Alternative B) are

the appropriate method for minimizing the risk of disease transmission from pack goat to bighorn sheep in the

context ofthe JMJP Wilderness. This approach will allow for pack goat users to continue to enjoy the JMJP

Wilderness, while requiring best management practices, with which many pack goat users may already be familiar,

to minimize disease transmission risk.

My decision includes management of allowable uses, primarily recreational uses, within the JMJP Wilderness to

both protect the natural resources and untrammeled quality, while preserving opportunities for solitude, and a

primitive and unconfined type ofrecreation. Establishing limits on group sizes for both people and recreational

stock, and establishing requirements for recreational stock handling, signing techniques, new trail construction and

human waste will benefit wilderness character, with limited impact to recreational activities.

My decision is to remove the Narrow Canyon-Bowery Creek (#4178), Narrow Canyon (#4179), and Baker Creek

(#4184.03) trails from the FS trail inventory. Based on this revision to the trail inventory, no closures will be

implemented, or reclamation actions required. For the Narrow Canyon-Bowery Creek (#4178), Narrow Canyon

(#4179) trails, they would be removed from the inventory because the majority ofthe trail tread was not visible or

apparent at the time of designation ofthe Wilderness. Removal ofthe trails from the inventory means that no trail

maintenance (e.g. re-establishment oftread, or clearing ofbrush or downed trees) would occur in the future.

The monitoring indicator for user-developed routes, by definition, includes any non-system trails that are established

after baseline data is collected (2017-2020). These are anticipated to occur primarily around campsites, where

concentrated visitor use occurs. The few fragments oftrail tread associated with these two trails existing at the time

of wilderness designation are included as part ofthe baseline data. It is my decision that should visitor use re¬

establish trail tread along these historic trail corridors, they would not count against this monitoring indicator.

My decision to include direction regarding educational efforts for the JMJP Wilderness aims to facilitate recreational

activities, and preservation ofthe wilderness while minimizing impacts to wilderness character.

Commenters requested the closure ofthe vacant East Pass Creek Allotment under this decision. Ifthis allotment

were to be closed it would occur separate from this decision for the WMP.

The remaining direction described in the WMP is related to established policy or law, and is not analyzed in the EA,

nor does it need a decision to implement (See EA Appendix A).

Page 7
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

PUBLIC AND OTHER INVOLVEMENT

Public Involvement

Public involvement has been extensive throughout the planning and analysis process leading to this document. The

public, stakeholders, the Nez Perce Tribe and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes were offered an opportunity to provide

input during an early scoping period (July 25-August 25, 2016). During this early scoping period 32 letters were

received, including a letter from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. Comments generally fell into eight

categories:

• Most Valued Features ofthe Wilderness

• Wilderness Management

• Recreation Management

• Outfitters and Guides

• Livestock Grazing

• Fire Management

• Wildlife Management

• Weed Management

Miscellaneous topics included law enforcement, search and rescue, visual resources, and rehabilitation of human

disturbances. These comments were considered in development ofthe management guidance.

The scoping period for the draft WMP occurred February 15 to March 17, 2017. In February and early March, three

scoping meetings were offered to the public in Challis, Mackay, and Ketchum. The agencies also outreached

through their respective webpages and social media. During the scoping period 30 comment letters were received,

including letters from the following organizations, State, and local agencies:

Backcountry Horsemen ofIdaho • Idaho Recreation Council

Boulder-White Clouds Council

Custer County Commissioners

Custer Co./Wildemess Society

Idaho Cattle Association

Idaho Department of Agriculture

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Idaho Conservation League/Wildemess

Society

Idaho Outfitter & Guide Association

Ken Smith Hunting

North American Packgoat Association

Trout Unlimited

Wild Sheep Foundation

Wilderness Watch

Western Watershed Project

Wildlands Defense

White Cloud Outfitters

The 30-day opportunity to comment on the proposed plan (per 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B) occurred October 27-

November 27, 2017 and included public meetings in Mackay, Challis, Stanley, and Ketchum. A legal notice was

issued in the Challis Messenger, the paper or record on October 27, 2017. During this time, 32 parties submitted

comments.

Commenters voiced a variety of concerns including, but not limited to, potential beneficial and adverse impacts on

wilderness character, recreational users, wildlife, and outfitter and guide operations. The planning record contains all

written comments received relative to this project and Appendix B ofthe EA discloses how the Interdisciplinary

Team addressed those concerns.

The BLM, Challis Field Office and Salmon-Challis National Forest met early, regularly, and in an on-going process

with the Custer County Commissioners, including each ofthe public involvement opportunities: project kick-off

meetings, early scoping period, scoping period, and the comment period. Agency representatives from the BLM and

the FS regularly provided updates at the monthly County Commissioners meetings, and at the Natural Resource

Advisory Committee (NRAC) meetings. The agencies provided a monthly newsletter via email to stakeholders,

including the county, to provide regular planning updates. The County Commissioners requested several meetings

during the planning process, including briefings prior to the initiation ofthe scoping and comment periods. The

agencies meet with the commissioners February 10, 2017 prior to the start ofthe scoping period, August 8, 2017 to

discuss the wilderness plan process, and October 17, 2017 prior to the start ofthe comment period.

Regulatory and Government Consultation

Scoping letters were sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries representatives via email on

February 14, 2017, soliciting comments on the draft WMP. Biological Evaluations (BE) consistent with

Page 8
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

requirements of Section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act were prepared. Determinations disclosed in the wildlife

biological evaluation (BE) have concluded that my decision would have no effect to yellow-billed cuckoo, Canada

lynx, and wolverine (EA, pp 60). The fish biological evaluation concluded that my decision will have no effect to

steelhead, bull trout, and Chinook salmon or their designated critical habitat (EA, pp 73).

The BLM, Challis Field Office and Salmon-Challis National Forest met early, regularly, and in an on-going process

with the Custer County Commissioners. From project kick-off meetings (May 19, 2016 in Ketchum and Stanley,

June 2, 2016 in Challis), the early scoping period (July 25-August 25, 2016), the scoping Period, (February 15-

March 17, 2017), and the comment period (October 27-November 27, 2017), the County Commissioners provided

input throughout the process. Agency representatives from the BLM and the FS regularly provided updates at the

monthly County Commissioners meetings, and at the NRAC meetings. The agencies provided a monthly newsletter

via email to stakeholders, including the county, to provide regular planning updates. The County Commissioners

requested several meetings during the planning process, including briefings prior to the initiation ofthe scoping and

comment periods. The agencies meet with the commissioners February 10, 2017 prior to the start ofthe scoping

period, August 8, 2017 to discuss the wilderness plan process, and October 17, 2017 prior to the start ofthe

comment period, and provided a briefing on April 3, 2018.

Government to Government Tribal Consultation

Tribal governments have a unique legal and political relationship with the United States government as reflected in

the United States Constitution, treaties, statutes, court decisions, executive orders, and memoranda. The ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall and the Nez Perce Tribes were contacted regarding the project (letters sent July 25,

2016, February 2, 2017, and October 23, 2017). The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall provided a comment

letter during the early scoping period. The JMJP plan was also discussed during staff-to-staff coordination meetings

between the SCNF and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on October 4, 2016, April 4, 2017 and October 3, 2017.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

In addition to the selected Alternative A, two alternatives were developed and analyzed in detail in the EA:

Alternative B (Natural-Focus Alternative), and Alternative C (Minimum Management). The discussion below

summarizes my rationale for not selecting either ofthese alternatives.

Alternative B (Natural-Focus Alternative) - Alternative B emphasizes protection of wilderness character with

measures aimed at protecting wildlife, and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation by applying

restrictions on visitor use. This alternative included additional measures for pack goat management to minimize risk

of contact with bighorn sheep, and when compared with Alternative A, smaller group size limits for people and

recreational stock, and also analyzed a permit system.

While Alternative B includes additional direction for the protection of wilderness character, wildlife, and recreation,

it would be at the expense of additional regulation on recreational uses, including pack goat user restrictions, smaller

group sizes, and permits for all visitors. This alternative was not selected as it does not best meet the purpose and

need ofthe project.

Alternative C (Minimum Management) - Under Alternative C, the Wilderness would be managed solely

according to legislative and regulatory requirements, including the Wilderness Act, agency-specific policy (BLM

Manual 6340, FS Manual 2320, among others), BLM Challis Field Office Resource Management Plan (1999), and

the FS Challis Forest Plan, as revised (1989), without the proactive guidance of a detailed wilderness management

plan to manage uses and protect wilderness character.

In addition to the above alternatives, one other alternative was considered, but not analyzed, and that was the No

Action Alternative. A true No Action Alternative would not comply with law or policy, because the FS is required to

manage designated wilderness according to standards that were not in effect prior to the designation. Further, the

enabling legislation requires the agencies develop “wilderness management plans for the wilderness areas.”

Page 9
Jim McCIure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

CONSISTENCY WITH THE FOREST PLAN, NFMA, AND OTHER LAWS

FOREST PLAN

My decision is consistent with the Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended

(USDA 1987) (Forest Plan). I have evaluated my decision against the Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and

guidelines for consistency with the Forest Plan. As stated in the EA (Chapter 1), my decision is consistent with

direction in the Forest Plan.

NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT (NFMA)

My decision is based on detailed Forest Plan consistency documentation included in the project record. My decision

does not include the harvest, cutting, or manipulation of any vegetation subject to the seven requirements in 36 CFR

219.27(b).

OTHER LAWS

As summarized below, my decision is consistent with Federal, State, and local laws or requirements imposed for the

protection ofthe environment.

Endangered Species Act

The EA discloses the effects ofmy decision to threatened or endangered species (EA, pp 57-58 and 73). This

required disclosure involves wildlife and fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(ESA). Alternative A would have no effect to any threatened or endangered wildlife or fish species or designated

critical habitat.

The Wilderness Act and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness

Additions Act

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577; 16 U.S.C. 1131) was enacted by Congress to “secure for the

American people, an enduring resource of wilderness for the enjoyment of present and future generations”. This act

was passed “in order to ensure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing

mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands

designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition...’’(Section 2 [a]).

The Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act (P.L. 114-46), which under Sec.

102 Administration, states “(a) IN GENERAL.- Subject to valid existing rights, each wilderness area shall be

administered by the Secretary in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.)...” Additionally, P.L.

114-46 requires: “Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment ofthis Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the

Secretary ofInterior shall collaboratively develop wilderness management plans for the wilderness areas.”

As analyzed in the EA, my decision will preserve wilderness character overall. Alternative A would benefit or

maintain the qualities of untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and

unconfined recreation, and other features of value, while balancing the impacts to outstanding opportunities for

primitive and unconfined recreation resulting from additional visitor regulation (group sizes).

Clean Water Act, The Federal Water Pollution ControlAct of1972 (PL 92-500) as amended

in 1977 (PL 95-217) and 1987 (PL 100-4)

My decision is consistent with the Clean Water Act and its amendments and will provide excellent management

direction for water resources (EA, p. 73).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

My decision will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (EA, p 66). The proposed action will not result in

‘take’ of any migratory birds. In addition, this project complies with Executive Order 13186 because the

analysis meets agency obligations as defined under the January 16, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding

between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designed to complement Executive Order 13186.

Page 10
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONS1

National Historic Preservation Act

My decision will have no direct, indirect, cumulative effects on cultural resources and is consistent with the

National Historic Preservation Act (EA, p. 74).

The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

My decision is consistent with the Clean Air Act and its amendments and will provide excellent management

direction for water resources (EA, p. 73).

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Executive Order 12875, Executive Order 13007,

Executive Order 13175, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Public Law No. 95-341, 92 Stat. 469 (Aug. 11, 1978) (commonly

abbreviated to AIRFA), is a United States federal law and a joint resolution ofCongress that was passed in

1978. AIRFA was enacted to protect and preserve the traditional religious rights and cultural practices of

American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and native Hawaiians. Executive Order 13175 established a requirement

for regular and meaningful consultation between federal and tribal government officials on federal policies that

have tribal implications. Executive Order 12785 was enacted in order to reduce unfunded mandates upon State,

local, and tribal governments; to streamline the application process for and increase the availability ofwaivers

to State, local, and tribal governments; and to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration

with State, local, and tribal governments on Federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their

communities. Executive Order 13007 was enacted in order to protect and preserve Indian religious practices.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act provides a process for museums and Federal

agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred

objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native

Hawaiian organizations.

Two federally recognized Native American tribes have expressed interest in activities proposed in this area; Nez

Perce and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The Salmon-Challis National Forest has established both staffto staff

relationships with resource management departments with these Tribes and formal Government to Government

consultations to have early and often communication regarding proposed actions on the Forest and potential

effects to sensitive Tribal resources or traditional cultural properties. Mailings, meetings, and consultation are

summarized above in the Government to Government Tribe Consultation Section ofthis Decision.

Nez Perce Treaty of1855 and 1863, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fort Bridger Treaty of1868

The Nez Perce Tribe and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes interests go beyond that ofspiritual, cultural, and economic

to the unique legal relationship that the United States government has with American Indian tribal governments.

Federally recognized tribes are sovereign nations who work with the Federal government and its agencies

through the process ofgovemment-to-govemment consultation. The Federal trust relationship with each tribe

was recognized by, and has been addressed through, the Constitution ofthe United States, treaties, executive

orders, statutes, and court decisions. The ancestors ofthe modem day Nez Perce and Shoshone-Bannock were

present in the area long before the establishment ofthe Salmon-Challis National Forest and continue to use the

land to this day. Many ofthe treaties and executive orders signed by the United States government in the mid1800s reserved homeland for the tribes. Additionally, the treaties with the Nez Perce and Shoshone-Bannock

reserved certain rights outside of established reservations, including fishing, hunting, gathering, and grazing

rights.

My decision approves standards and guidelines developed for other resources which also protect tribal

resources.

EnvironmentalJustice (Executive Order 12898)

My decision will have no disproportionately high and adverse human health impact, including social and

economic impacts, on minority or low-income human populations (EA, pp. 74-75).

Page 11
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

Best Available Science

The conclusions disclosed in the EA and summarized in this document are based on a review ofthe project’s

record that reflects consideration ofrelevant scientific information and responsible opposing views where raised

by internal or external sources, and the acknowledgement ofincomplete or unavailable information, scientific

uncertainty, and/or risk where pertinent to the decision being made.

Idaho Roadless Rule

My decision is consistent with the Idaho Roadless Rule.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

I have reviewed the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for significance (40 CFR 1508.27) and have

determined that this decision is not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality ofthe human

environment, either individually or cumulatively. Preparation of an environmental impact statement pursuant to

Section 102 (2)(c) ofthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required. This determination is based on

the following factors as outlined in 40 CFR 1508.27.

1. The selected alternative will be limited in geographic application (40 CFR 1508.27(a)(.

Activities associated with my decision will be confined to the JMJP Wilderness. As defined in the purpose and need

and the proposed action, my decision is restricted to National Forest System Lands within the JMJP Wilderness.

2. My decision will not result in any significant beneficial or adverse effects (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(1)].

The environmental assessment has considered both beneficial and adverse impacts ofthe wilderness management

plan. Overall, the plan will result in protection of wilderness character, which includes untrammeled, naturalness,

undeveloped, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type ofrecreation, and special

features, including Herd Lake. Preserving the natural ecosystem and opportunities for recreation would improve the

quality ofthe human environment.

The analysis documented in Chapter 3 ofthe EA did not identify any individually or cumulatively significant

impacts resulting from implementation ofthe WMP (EA Chapter 3). The project record contains additional technical

reports. In considering the wilderness resource as a whole, 1 have determined that the effects to wilderness character

will not be significant.

3. The selected alternative will not result in substantive effects on public health or safety [40 CFR

1508.27(b)(2)].

The proposed WMP would not result in significant effects on public health and safety.

4. My decision will not result in any significant effects on any unique characteristics of the geographic area,

historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically

critical areas [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)].

The planning area encompasses designated wilderness. Congress designated the JMJP Wilderness to ensure

protection of wilderness character. The Wilderness Act (Section 2a) states that wilderness areas “shall be

administered for the use and enjoyment ofthe American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for

future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection ofthese areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character.” The EA describes affects to the wilderness resource, and concludes that the WMP would

not result in significant effects (EA Chapter 3).

There would be no effect to fish and wildlife species listed under the Endangered Species Act (pp. 57-58 and 73).

There would be no impact to sensitive wildlife species apart from bighorn sheep (pp. 58-66). Bighorn may be

impacted, but implementation ofthe wilderness management plan would not contribute towards Federal listing or a

loss of viability ofthe population or the species (p. 67). I considered this analysis and the determination that there is

Page 12
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

no expected loss of viability ofthe population when making my conclusion that my decision would indeed preserve

wilderness character.

The implementation ofthe pack goat BMP guidelines would minimize risk of contact between pack goats and

bighorn sheep. Based upon my review ofthe project record, the low risk of contact combined with the lower risk of

disease transmission between bighorn sheep and pack goats (p. 32, Pils and Wilder 2017), I determined there was no

need to conduct a risk of disease transmission analysis. Selection of Alternative B for the implementation ofthe

pack goat management measures, in combination with the low risk of contact and lowered risk of disease of

transmission will fulfill my responsibility to preserve wilderness character. This approach is also responsive to

preserving opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, while allowing recreational users opportunities to

disperse and experience solitude.

As stated in the EA, no adverse effects to historic or cultural resources (EA, p 74), or wetlands (p. 73). No wild and

scenic rivers, park lands, prime farmlands, or ecologically critical areas were identified in the project area.

5. The selected alternative will not result in any effects that are likely to be highly controversial [40 CFR

1508.27(b)(4)].

Controversy in this context refers to situations where there is substantial dispute as to the size, nature, or effect of

the federal action, rather than opposition to its implementation. The scientific basis for the analysis is contained in

the project record and summarized in the EA. Standard analysis techniques and models were used. Literature

supporting the use ofthese models and qualitative discussions, as used in this analysis, is contained in the project’s

planning record (EA Chapter 3).

6. The effects associated with the Selected Alternative will not result in any highly uncertain, unique, or

unknown risks [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(5)].

The environmental analysis, including the EA, resource technical reports, and biological evaluations (contained in

the planning record), determined that the selected alternative will not involve any highly uncertain or unknown risks

(EA, Chapter 3). The management activities associated with my decision are typical ofthose successfully

implemented in the past, and both within and external to designated wilderness.

7. My decision does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor does it represent a

decision in principle about a future consideration [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(6)].

My decision is consistent with direction found in the Forest Plan. Implementing my decision will not establish a

precedent for future actions with significant effects nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future

consideration.

8. The analysis documented in the EA discloses that my decision will not result in any significant short-term,

long-term, or cumulative effects [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7)].

Chapter 3 ofthe EA discloses that the Alternative A will not result in any known significant temporary, short term,

long term, or cumulative effects.

9. My decision will not adversely affect sites or objects listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of

Historic Places, nor will it cause the loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources

[40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)].

My decision will not result in the loss or destruction ofimportant or significant scientific, cultural, or historic

resources (EA, Chapter 3).

10. My decision will not adversely affect threatened or endangered species or their habitats [40 CFR

1508.27(b)(9)].

As described above under “Endangered Species Act”, my decision will not adversely affect any endangered or

threatened species or its habitat.

Page 13
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan DN & FONSI

11. My decision is consistent with Federal, State, and local laws and requirements imposed for the protection

of the environment [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(10)[.

Consistency with laws or requirements imposed for protection ofthe environment is discussed above under

“Consistency with Forest Plan and with Laws and Regulations,” and Background section (p. 2) ofthe EA. The

project’s planning record provides supporting information.

IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation may begin immediately following approval ofthe wilderness management plan.

Charles A. Mark Date

Forest Supervisor

Salmon-Challis National Forest

References

Pils A., and J. Wilder. 2017. Risk analysis of disease transmission between domestic sheep and goats and Rocky

Mountain bighorn sheep. USDA Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. December 2017.

v/

Page 14
Acronyms

AFWA

AIM

AML

APHIS

ARPA

BLM

CFR

cfs

CHMA

EA

EIS

ESA

FLRMA

FP

FRCC

FS

FSM

IOGLB

JMJP

MIM

MIST

MOU

MRA

NEPA

NFS

NHPA

NMFS

NRHP

RMP

ROD

SAR

SCNF

SHPO

USDA

USFWS

WFRH&B

WMP

WSA

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies

Assessment Inventory Monitoring

Appropriate Management Level

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services

Archaeological Resources Protection Act

Bureau of Land Management

Code of Federal Regulations

cubic feet per second

Challis Herd Management Area

Environmental Assessment

Environmental Impact Statement

Endangered Species Act

Forest Land Resource Management Act

Forest Plan

Fire Regime Condition Class

Forest Service

Forest Service Manual

Idaho Outfitter and Guide Licensing Board

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak (Wilderness)

Multiple Indicator Monitoring

Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics

Memorandum of Understanding

Minimum Requirements Analysis

National Environmental Policy Act

National Forest System

National Historic Preservation Act

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Register of Historic Places

Resource Management Plan

Record of Decision

Search and Rescue

Salmon-Challis National Forest

State Historic Preservation Officer

United States Department of Agriculture

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act

Wilderness Management Plan

Wilderness Study Area (BLM designation)
Table of Contents

Wilderness Management Plan

Introduction.

Background.1

1

WildernessOverview.1

Scope

Purpose

of

of

the

and

Wilderness

Need for

Management

the Wilderness

Plan.1

ManagementPlan.3

Consistency with FS and BLM Land UsePlans.3

Wilderness

Issues

Beyond

Resolved

the

Management

Scope

by

of

Policy.4

this

Direction.6

Plan.3

Introduction.6

General

Wilderness.6

Wilderness ManagementDirection.6

Soil, Water, Air, RiparianResources.9

Vegetation and BotanicalResources.11

Noxious and Non-Native Invasive SpeciesManagement.13

Wildlife

Recreation.17

and FisheriesResources.15

Trails.19

Camping.20

Signs.22

Recreational Horse and StockUse.21

Cultural Resources and TribalGovernments.23

Livestock GrazingManagement.26

Wild

Minerals.30

HorseManagement.29

FireManagement.32

Commercial

Lands and Special

Services.35

Uses..34

Research. 36

Law Enforcement and Search andRescue.37

Developments and Other Human Effects orDisturbances.38

Wilderness Education and Interpretation.39

Plan Implementation.41

Glossary.42

PlanEvaluation.41

References.48

Appendix

Appendix 2

1 -

-

Water

Common

Rights.55

and ScientificNames.65

Appendix 3 - Pack GoatMeasures.67

Appendix 4 - TrailInventory.68

Appendix 5 - CampsiteMonitoring.71

Appendix 6 - Maps of Forest Service and BLM Allotments in the JMJP.72

Appendix 7 - Congressional GrazingGuidelines.79

Appendix 8 - Wild HorseManagement.81

i
Appendix 9 - Fire History and FRCCMaps.83

Appendix 10 - Approval Guidelines for the Use of Motorized and Mechanized Equipment for Search and

RescueOperation.86

Environmental Assessment

Summary.88

Chapter

Document

1 - Purpose

Structure.89

andNeed.89

Background.89

Purpose and Need forAction.90

Proposed

DecisionFramework.90

Action.90

Public Involvement and TribalConsultation.91

Issues.92

Issues Not Analyzed inDetail.92

Chapter 2 -Alternatives.94

Alternative A, ProposedAction.94

Alternative B,Natural-focus.95

Alternative C, MinimumManagement.96

Management Direction Common to Alternative A and AlternativeB.96

Management Direction Common to Alternative A and AlternativeC:.98

Management Direction Common to Alternative B and AlternativeC:.99

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from DetailedAnalysis.99

Chapter

Wilderness.108

3 - EnvironmentalConsequences.108

AffectedEnvironment.108

Alternative A - ProposedAction.Ill

Cumulative

Direct and Indirect

Effects -

Effects

Alternative

- Alternative

A.122

A.112

Alternative B -Natural-Emphasis.124

Cumulative

Direct and Indirect

Effects -

Effects

Alternative

- Alternative

B.130

B.124

Alternative C - MinimumManagement. 131

Wildlife.141

Cumulative Effects - AlternativeC.139

AffectedEnvironment.141

Alternative A: ProposedAction.145

Alternative B:Natural-focus.155

Alternative C: MinimumManagement.156

CumulativeEffects.157

Noxious and Non-Native InvasiveSpecies.158

AffectedEnvironment.158

Alternative A: ProposedAction.158

Alternative B - NaturalFocus.159

Alternative C - Minimum ManagementRequirement.159

CumulativeEffects.160

Summary of Resources Not Analyzed inDetail.161

Soil, Water, Air, RiparianResources.161

n
Fisheries.161

WildHorses.161

ClimateChange.161

Vegetation

Fire andFuels.161

andBotany.161

Tribal.162

Heritage and CulturalResources.162

Range.162

Minerals.162

Environmental Justice andSocioeconomics.162

Chapter 4 - Consultation andCoordination.163

Chapter 5 -References.164

AppendixA.174

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Overview Map of the JMJPWilderness.2

WMP Appendices

Figure 1: Map ofTrails.70

Figure 2: FS East Pass Sheep and GoatAllotment.73

Figure 3: FS Herd Creek Cattle and HorseAllotment.74

Figure 4: BLM Herd Creek, Mountain Springs, Road Creek, and Sage Creek Cattle and Horse Allotments75

Figure 5: FS Pine Creek, BLM East Fork, and BLM Pine Creek Cattle and Horse Allotments.76

Figure 6: FS Upper East Fork Cattle and HorseAllotment.77

Figure 7: FS Wildhorse Cattle and HorseAllotment.78

Figure 8: Challis Herd Management Area and JMJPWilderness.82

Figure 9: Fire HistoryMap.84

Figure 10: FRCCMap.85

\y

iii
.
Introduction

Introduction

Background

The United States Congress established the National Wilderness Preservation System through the

Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577; 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) as a system of federal lands "where the

earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not

remain." This law was created to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding

settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States.

Wilderness designation is intended to preserve and protect certain lands in their natural state. Only

Congress, with Presidential approval, may designate lands as wilderness. The Wilderness Act defines

wilderness, the uses of wilderness, and the activities prohibited within its boundaries.

Wilderness areas provide a contrast to lands where human activities dominate the landscape. No buffer

zones are created around wilderness to protect them from the influence of activities on adjacent land.

Wilderness areas are managed for preservation of wilderness character, and for the use and enjoyment

of the American people.

Wilderness Overview

The United States Congress designated the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak (JMJP) Wilderness (116,898 acres) on

August 7, 2015. All of the Wilderness is in Idaho and is managed by the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM), Idaho Falls District, Challis Field Office (21,913 acres; 19%) and the Forest Service (FS; 94,985

acres; 81%), Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District and administered by the Middle Fork Ranger District.

See Figure 1. The JMJP Wilderness lies entirely within Custer County.

The JMJP Wilderness defies the stereotype of "rocks and ice" wilderness. The mountainous terrain varies

from gently rolling hills, flats, and benches of sagebrush and grasses around 6,000 feet to rugged slopes

blanketed with fir and pine trees and elevations rising to over 10,000 feet. A number of peaks exceed

10,000 feet, including Jerry Peak, Sheep Mountain, and Bowery Peak.

The JMJP Wilderness provides quality habitat for ungulate species such as elk, mule deer, moose,

mountain goat, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope. The area also provides habitat and travel

corridors for large carnivores such as wolverine and wolves. Greater sage-grouse are found on the

expansive sagebrush slopes.

The JMJP Wilderness encompasses headwaters of the East Fork Salmon River which supports

populations of bull trout, Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout. Various creeks provide important

spawning and rearing habitats for a variety of anadromous and native fish. The salmon and steelhead

migration from the Pacific Ocean represents one of the longest, highest-elevation salmon migration

routes in the world. The cool snow meltwater streams are the lifeblood of the area and also sustain

native cutthroat and rainbow trout.

The area offers world-class backcountry experiences including hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing,

backpacking, skiing, and horseback riding. Backcountry camping opportunities abound.

Scope of the Wilderness Management Plan

This Wilderness Management Plan (WMP) provides the primary management direction for the JMJP

Wilderness. Planning for wilderness is to apply the Wilderness Act, enabling legislation, agency policy

and regulations into direction for a specific area. All four serve as sideboards while developing a

wilderness plan. A WMP guides the preservation, management, and use of the wilderness to ensure that

wilderness "is unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness" (Wilderness Act).

WMP 1
Introduction

Figure 1: Overview Mop of the JMJP Wilderness

WMP 2
Introduction

The WMP contains current comprehensive description of the JMJP Wilderness and proposed

management direction organized by resource. It defines an acceptable range of desired resource and

social conditions.

Purpose of and Need for the Wilderness Management Plan

The purpose of a WMP is to create specific desired conditions, standards, and guidelines for managing

resources in order to preserve the plan area's wilderness character. The plan identifies actions that will

be implemented upon adoption of the WMP and those actions that may be implemented in the future if

changes in conditions occur.

Per the Wilderness Act (Section 4), "... each agency administering any area designated as wilderness

shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area." Although wilderness character

is a complex idea and is not explicitly defined in the Wilderness Act, the qualities of wilderness character

are commonly described as:

• Untrammeled—Area is unhindered and free from intentional actions of modern human control

or manipulation.

• Natural—Area appears to have been primarily affected by the forces of nature and are

substantially free from the effects of modern civilization.

• Undeveloped—Area is essentially without permanent improvements or the sights and sounds of

modern human occupation, and it retains its primeval character.

• Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation—Area

provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primeval and

unrestricted recreation including the values associated with physical and mental inspiration,

challenge, self-reliance, self-discovery, and freedom.

• Other Features of Value—Area may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of

scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. Though not required of any wilderness, these

characteristics, if present, must be protected as rigorously as any of the other four required

qualities.

The need for the proposed action, the management plan, originates from the Sawtooth National

Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act (P.L. 114-46), which under Sec. 102

Administration, states "(a) IN GENERAL.- Subject to valid existing rights, each wilderness area shall be

administered by the Secretary in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.)..."

Additionally, P.L. 114-46 requires: "Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the

Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior shall collaboratively develop wilderness

management plans for the wilderness areas."

Consistency with FS and BLM Land Use Plans

Challis Forest Plan

This WMP direction applies to the National Forest System lands of the JMJP Wilderness and is consistent

with the Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan; FS, 1987). The WMP

will be incorporated into current Challis Forest Plan as a management approach. The forthcoming,

revised forest plan, which is anticipated to be completed in 2020, will provide plan components

appropriate for the protection and management of the JMJP Wilderness.

Challis Resource Area Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan

This WMP direction applies to the BLM portion of the JMJP Wilderness and is consistent with the Challis

Resource Management Plan (RMP; BLM, 1999). The Challis RMP includes direction for wilderness study

WMP 3
Introduction

areas (WSAs) released from wilderness consideration, and limited guidance regarding management of

designated wilderness, including the following direction: withdrawal [of designated lands] from mineral

entry and general land laws (p. 89), incorporation of Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST)

Guidelines when managing wildland fire (p.104) and providing recreation opportunities for the

remainder of the Resource Area not included in a special recreation management area, including areas

specifically for unstructured outdoor experiences (p. 55). Further, the RMP directs closure of the Upper

Lake Creek Campground (p. 55): Close the Upper Lake Creek campground and maintain the existing road

above Herd Lake as a non-motorized trail only.

Issues Resolved by Policy

The following topics have been addressed by law or agency policy. They are not further discussed in this

Plan.

Wilderness Designation - The JMJP Wilderness was designated through the Sawtooth National

Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act. This Plan does not consider releasing the

wilderness designation. The boundaries of the Wilderness were set through passage of the Act and are

not open to review through this planning process.

Per the wilderness designation certain regulations apply, and are not discussed in detail in this

document. See 36 CFR Part 261.18 - National Forest Wilderness and 43 CFR Part 6300 - Management of

Designated Wilderness Areas.

Hunting and Fishing - Hunting, fishing and trapping regulations are written and enforced by the state as

stated in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act, Section 102

(g):

"Nothing in this title affects the jurisdiction of the state of Idaho with respect to the

management offish and wildlife on public land in the state, including the regulation of hunting,

fishing, and trapping within the wilderness areas."

Livestock Grazing and Allotment Management Plans - Grazing of livestock, where established prior to

August 7, 2015, shall be administered in accordance with Section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act, Section

102(e) of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act and the

grazing guidelines in House Report 96-617, and Appendix A of House Report 101-405 (See Appendix 7 of

this document). Waiver and donation of grazing permits and leases, as identified in the designating

legislation, is separate from this planning process.

Designation of wilderness does not affect grazing preference nor does it preclude the development of

Allotment Management Plans. These items are administered according to the regulations in 36 CFR Part

222, and 43 CFR 4100. In accordance with existing FS and BLM policy, periodic interdisciplinary

allotment evaluations assess ecological effects associated with livestock grazing to update grazing

management on those allotments.

The designation of wilderness may affect some of the methods used to maintain range improvements,

and this is discussed in this WMP.

Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3,1868 - The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have ancestral treaty rights to uses of

the Salmon-Challis National Forest (SCNF) that includes the Wilderness. The relationship of the United

States government with American Indian tribes is based on legal agreements between sovereign

nations. The Fort Bridger Treaty ofJuly 3,1868, reserved the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights of

tribal members on "all unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game is present thereon." This

right applies to all federal lands administered by the BLM and FS.

WMP 4
Introduction

Beyond the Scope of this Plan

The following topics are addressed entirely or in more detail in other agency documents or plans.

Travel Management - Transportation and travel management of routes and designations outside of

designated wilderness (e.g. routes that provide access to the Wilderness boundary, and/or occur within

released WSAs) are outside the scope of this plan and would be addressed through separate travel

management planning.

Trailhead Amenities - During scoping, it was suggested by the public that existing facilities at Little

Boulder trailhead may not be sufficient to support current levels of recreational use. Proposed

improvements outside the Wilderness boundary are outside the scope of this Plan and would be

required to undergo a separate NEPA analysis process prior to approval.

WMP 5
Wilderness Management Direction

Wilderness Management Direction

Introduction

This WMP does not repeat guidance that is already contained in existing laws and policies (for example,

the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act, and existing Federal

Regulations). It does not describe the methods, the "how to," or the schedule of implementing the

direction, nor does it describe the day-to-day or operational actions to be carried out in the

management of wilderness. The rate of implementation and management activities are dependent on

the annual budgeting process. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis will be conducted to

support management decisions made at the site-specific level. All actions are supplemental to and

consistent with wilderness laws, regulations and policies, which must be further consulted in the event

of unforeseen issues.

General Wilderness Management Direction

The Wilderness Act provides general direction for managing wilderness and protecting wilderness

character. The Act states that wilderness areas "...secure, for the American people of present and future

generations, the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness...unimpaired for future use and

enjoyment." It further states that Congress intended to manage these wildernesses so that "...the earth

and its community of life are untrammeled by man...." Wilderness is defined as "retaining its primeval

character and influence...," and it "...appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature,

with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable." Further, wilderness "has outstanding

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation..." and "may also contain

ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

The FS manages wilderness to meet five primary objectives, as outlined in the Recreation, Wilderness,

and Related Resource Management planning manual (FSM 2320—Wilderness Management). The BLM is

guided by four primary goals in management of wilderness, as defined in Appendix 1 of the BLM Manual

8561 for Wilderness Management Plans.

Wilderness

Background

The Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act designated the JMJP

Wilderness on August 7, 2015. Prior to designation as Wilderness, all of the BLM managed portion was

managed as the Jerry Peak and Jerry Peak West WSAs. The FS portion of the Wilderness was managed as

the Boulder-White Clouds Roadless Area with a Wild Land Recreation Area theme designation.

Untrammeled: Portions of the JMJP Wilderness have had some degree of human control or

manipulation of the biophysical environment. Past activities, which have affected the untrammeled

quality of the wilderness include prescribed burning, historic mining and grazing activities. More

recently, trammeling actions include management of wildland fire and weeds, fish stocking, and

livestock grazing.

Natural: The natural quality of these wilderness areas is largely intact. The varying elevations in the area

provide important habitat for a wide array of fish and wildlife species. Vegetation ranges from mountain

sagebrush to whitebark pine ecosystems. Some changes to the native vegetation composition have

occurred in portions of the Wilderness, including the introduction of non-native species and impacts

from grazing.

WMP 6
Wilderness Management Direction

Undeveloped: These areas show few signs of permanent improvements and human habitation; however,

at the time of designation, certain uses (e.g. motorized access for search and rescue or fire suppression)

and existing developments were present. Developments for permitted livestock grazing use includes

fences, developed springs, troughs and pipelines. Existing recreation-related developments include

trails, corrals, meat poles and campsite furniture. Other existing developments include: a radio repeater

site on Sheep Mountain, abandoned or unauthorized vehicle routes, mining debris, and historic cabins.

Generally, these developments are rare when considering the vastness of the landscape. Motorized

equipment or mechanized vehicle use also affects the undeveloped quality, and include emergency

administrative authorizations for fire suppression and search and rescue. Unauthorized motorized and

mechanized recreational uses occur into Wilderness along the boundary roads.

Outstanding opportunitiesforsolitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation: The JMJP Wilderness

provides outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. The varying

topography of the Wilderness and relatively few trails provide excellent opportunities for solitude. In

addition, there is a range of recreational experiences to be found, including short day hikes, plentiful

backpacking options, multi-day pack trips or off trail scrambles allowing for exploration and discovery.

Other Features of Value: Night sky visibility in the JMJP Wilderness is outstanding and contributes to

wilderness character.

Herd Lake is an excellent example of a relatively uncommon barrier lake. Barrier lakes form when a river

is naturally dammed by mass wasting such as landslides, debris flows, avalanches, and lava flows. Herd

Lake formed very recently (2,500 years ago) (Kile et al. 2016) in geologic time by one or more landslides

(rock slides) in which volcanic talus was deposited across the narrow Lake Creek drainage. The talus

contains sufficient fine material (deposited by landslide action and/or by Lake Creek moving through the

talus) to restrict the flow of Lake Creek such that Herd Lake formed and Lake Creek now flows from the

lake at an elevation of approximately 7,176 feet compared to a pre-landslide elevation of approximately

7,070 feet. Even more uncommon, the landslide-dammed lake has very high productivity and

sedimentation rates compared to other lakes in the Salmon River basin such that there is a seasonal

sediment record (varves) for nearly the entire history of the lake (Kile et al. 2016).

Desired Conditions

In the JMJP Wilderness, ecological processes prevail, with little or no evidence of human influence or

development. People visiting the JMJP Wilderness can find outstanding opportunities for solitude, and

primitive and unconfined recreation, including exploration, solitude, risk, and challenge.

Protect and preserve the existing wilderness character of this area (as described above).

Goals

Preserve the untrammeled quality of wilderness character by exercising restraint on actions that

manipulate any aspect of the Wilderness unless such actions are necessary to preserve wilderness

character as a whole or are necessary to accommodate compliance with other applicable laws.

Provide for the use and enjoyment of the Wilderness while maintaining outstanding opportunities for

primitive recreation and solitude, through minimal visitor use regulations or developments.

Protect and preserve the undeveloped and natural qualities of the Wilderness by removing unnecessary

facilities and minimizing or restoring human-caused surface disturbances (in conformance with the

NHPA).

Manage and coordinate all resources and uses within the Wilderness in a manner that recognizes the

interrelationships of these components and their effect on wilderness character.

WMP 7
Wilderness Management Direction

Implement proposed actions as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the

area as wilderness while preserving wilderness character long-term.

Manage the FS and BLM portions of the JMJP Wilderness through a single management plan to provide

a maximum amount of management consistency in wilderness protection across administrative

boundaries.

Minimize conflicting restrictions for visitors and emphasize stewardship of natural resources.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-001 - Implement proposed actions only when necessary to meet minimum requirements for the

administration of the areas as wilderness and to have the least impact to wilderness character.

JMJP-002 - Remove existing developments unless they are determined to be the minimum necessary for

the administration of the area as wilderness, or are:

a) Associated with valid existing rights,

b) Authorized range developments,

c) Of historical or cultural value (in conformance with the NHPA), or

d) Upper Lake Creek Campground, unless it becomes unsafe or unusable (see Developments and

other Human Effects or Disturbances section).

JMJP-003 - If total traveling and campsite encounters increase by 10%1 or more over two monitoring

periods management actions will be taken to maintain wilderness character, as described under the

Management Actions.

Guidelines

JMJP-004 - Allow natural processes to maintain ecosystem functions, whenever possible. Where human

activities have altered conditions in the Wilderness, active restoration may be considered if it is

determined through MRA to be the minimum necessary for the administration of the area for the

purpose of the Wilderness Act.

JMJP-005 - For the purpose of determining the minimum requirement, conduct a minimum

requirements analysis for any non-emergency action, including those proposed by State and federal

agencies that includes a prohibited use as described in Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, or for other

actions that may impair wilderness character.

JMJP-006 - Ensure, where possible, management between the Forest Service and BLM, including

regulation of visitor uses, appears seamless to the public. Where differences in agency policy occur, and

if allowable by law, regulation, or policy, the WMP will endeavor to apply the stricter policy to the

adjacent land of the other agency.

JMJP-007 - The BLM and FS will assist one another, when possible, in wilderness management activities,

such as education and public outreach, emergency management, law enforcement, fire suppression,

and monitoring.

1 Threshold is established in the FS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide (Landres et al., in press). If

this guidance is revised, the most current threshold for change would be used. Monitoring cycle for this measure is

at least every five years, as established in the Technical Guide.

WMP 8
Wilderness Management Direction

Monitoring

Information generated in monitoring wilderness conditions indicates: the current state of wilderness

character; how wilderness character is changing over time; how stewardship actions are affecting

wilderness character; and what stewardship priorities and decisions would best preserve and sustain

wilderness character.

The agencies will follow the wilderness character monitoring framework identified in "Keeping It Wild 2:

An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National

Wilderness Preservation System" (Landres et al, 2015; or most current).

The JMJP Wilderness is currently one of 36 wilderness areas co-managed by more than one agency. The

FS manages the majority of the JMJP Wilderness, and, therefore, the FS Wilderness Character

Monitoring Technical Guide (Landres et al., in press), or most current, will be applied across the JMJP

Wilderness. The FS will take the lead in reporting wilderness character trends and data.

Solitude monitoring occurred in 2017, and will continue through 2021 to establish the baseline value for

the total traveling and campsite encounters (JMJP-004).

Monitor recreation site and traveling encounters to detect changes to wilderness character, and address

impacts, as appropriate.

ManagementActions

Management actions for the preservation of wilderness character may include management actions

described in the following resources, predominately those which manage human uses of wilderness,

such as those described in the Recreation section (p. 18, Management Actions), in conformance with a

site-specific MRA, and NEPA analysis, as necessary.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

Background

The Wilderness comprises portions of the following five watersheds: Middle East Fork Salmon River,

Upper East Fork Salmon River, Herd Creek, North Fork Big Lost River, and Headwaters Big Lost.

Elevations range from about 6,160 feet along the Herd Creek drainage to several peaks over 10,000 feet

including: Sheep Mountain (10,909 feet), Bowery Peak (10,856 feet) and Jerry Peak (10,010 feet).

The landscape is comprised of Cenozoic volcanic rocks underlain by Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. This

landscape has been eroded, and deposition in the valleys has occurred with a cycle of climate changes

through the Cenozoic Era, ending with a series of ice ages. Today the landscape is responding to the

current climate, which is warmer and drier than that of the glacial period.

The Challis Volcanic Group is the dominant geologic formation in the JMJP Wilderness. The Challis

Volcanic Group covers a large portion of central Idaho, and these rocks are primarily intermediate to

mafic igneous rock, intrusive plutons, and felsic volcanic rocks. The Challis Volcanics give rise to the

expansive, wide-open hills with rocky peaks and green strips in the river valleys. The shape of the hills

and valleys are the result of tens of millions of years of erosion and deposition.

Surface water flows are typical of a snow-melt dominated system. Peak flows occur in May or early June,

with base flows during winter. Localized thunderstorms can produce increases in summer flows, but are

lower in magnitude and duration as compared to snow-melt flows.

WMP 9
Wilderness Management Direction

There are two types of groundwater in the JMJP Wilderness: groundwater contained in the floodplain

alluvium and terraces along main stream channels and groundwater emerging from the Challis

Volcanics. Aquifers are primarily recharged by precipitation, with smaller additions from streams, lakes,

and interaquifer flow. Generally, higher elevation stream reaches recharge groundwater and lower

reaches discharge groundwater.

There are 106 decreed stockwater rights within the FS portion of the Wilderness totaling 2.97 cubic feet

per second (cfs) (See Appendix 1 for water rights). All but one of these rights are held by the United

States of America through the United States Department of Agriculture to support livestock grazing on

National Forest lands. There is also a minimum stream flow water right held by the State of Idaho on

Herd Creek that varies by month from 9-91cfs, peaking in June with high flows.

The BLM portion of the Wilderness contains 228 decreed stockwater rights totaling 3.92 cfs. All rights

were developed to support livestock grazing and are held by the United States of America through the

United States Department of Interior. Downstream water uses include irrigation, stockwater, and

salmonid spawning and rearing.

The legal framework that ensures the protection of soil and water resources in the JMJP Wilderness

includes: the Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897, which outlines the original purpose of

national forests highlighting the need for watershed protection; the National Forest Management Act,

which directs the development of Forest Land and Resource Management Plans; the Multiple-Use

Sustained Yield Act, which ensures the activities are conducted without permanent impairment of the

productivity of the land; and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Water quality regulations under the Clean Water Act are administered by the Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality's division of Water Quality and approved by the Environmental Protection

agency. The Clean Water Act ensures that the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's

waters are maintained or restored. Specific to grazing on National Forest Lands, the Granger-Thye Act,

Public Rangelands Improvement Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act protect

watershed function, soil, water, and fish habitat. The Challis Forest Plan, BLM RMP and agency manuals

and handbooks provide specific goals, objectives, standards, and guides that provide direction for

management of air, soil, and water resources.

The Wilderness is located within a state designated Class II airshed, which is regulated by the

Environmental Protection Agency as required by the federal Clean Air Act. Air quality is generally

excellent with limited upwind large stationary local emission sources and periodic robust wind

dispersion. The JMJP Wilderness is subject to long distance transport emissions from sources to the west

in Oregon and Washington. Existing sources of emissions in the Wilderness include; dust from trails

during dry conditions and smoke emissions from wildfires, wildland fire use, and prescribed burns.

Adjacent area sources of emission are wildfires, prescribed burns, residential wood burning, vehicle

emissions, and road dust. Local emission levels are low due to the sparsely populated area and vast

areas for dispersion. The entire Wilderness is considered to be in attainment per the Clean Air Act by the

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.

Desired Condition

The conditions of soil and water resources within the Wilderness continue to be affected by natural

processes and are allowed to change the landscape without human intervention. Unnatural or humancaused effects on soil and water do not significantly degrade water quality or significantly impair the

ability of soils to support naturally occurring vegetation communities.

WMP 10
Wilderness Management Direction

Air quality remains generally excellent. Visitors to the Wilderness continue to have the opportunity to

experience clean air and spectacular vistas in a natural setting, while recognizing that those vistas may

be affected periodically by smoke from fire.

Goals

Allow for permitted and existing water developments to continue as natural forces continue to shape

soil and water resources. (Supported by JMJP-001, 002, 004 and 005.)Maintain soil quality and long¬

term soil productivity by maintaining soil porosity, organic matter, hydrologic function (infiltration,

water table, drainage, percolation, etc.), and buffering capacity (soil filtering and chemical regulation

properties). (Supported by JMJP-022, 032, 023, 024, 031, 040, and 046.)

Preserve soils around lakes, rivers, creeks, meadows, and bogs in a natural condition. Management

action is taken to reduce or eliminate degradation of soil resources, such as soil compaction and

detrimental disturbance from human-caused activities. (Supported by JMJP-030, 036, and 040.)

Minimize impacts to water quality from human-caused degradation in order to preserve the natural and

untrammeled qualities of the Wilderness.

Management Direction

Guidelines

JMJP-008 - Manage dispersed campsites and recreational activities to prevent them from expanding

beyond a point where impacts to riparian and aquatic resources cannot be effectively addressed.

JMJP-009 - Allow natural soil erosion to continue unless an imminent and definite hazard to life and

property or a serious depreciation of important environmental qualities outside the Wilderness will

result.

JMJP-010 - Evaluate potential effects of proposed pollution sources for violation of Class II Prevention of

Significant Deterioration Standards.

Monitoring

No Wilderness-specific monitoring beyond that established in policy or regulation is identified.

Management Actions

If human activities are contributing to a loss of soil integrity or degradation of water quality,

management actions would be implemented as appropriate to the cause.

Indirect methods (e.g. education) for reducing impacts to soil and water, such as from recreational use,

are preferred over regulatory methods. However, education may be insufficient in some cases, and

direct methods may be needed to protect wilderness character.

Vegetation and Botanical Resources

Background

Plant communities in the JMJP Wilderness vary greatly from high altitude alpine vegetation in areas like

Jerry Peak, Bowery Peak, Meridian Peak and Sheep Mountain to lower sagebrush steppe ecosystems in

the Herd Creek drainage. Conifers in the alpine environments include sub-alpine fir and ancient

whitebark pine and limber pine. Short statured grasses, sedges, forbs and shrubs are generally found in

harsh habitats above 9,000'. Mid-elevation upland habitats are dominated by Douglas fir, lodgepole

pine, mountain big sagebrush, aspen, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and numerous forb species.

WMP 11
Wilderness Management Direction

Riparian communities are dominated by sedges, rushes, willow, Engelmann spruce, aspen and currant,

as well as other mesic and hydric grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Aspen is present in pure stands and mixed

with Douglas fir. However, many stands are dying out or being replaced by conifers because of fire

exclusion. Many whitebark pine and lodgepole pine stands have been impacted by the 2000-2011

mountain pine beetle epidemic. Other insect agents are present on the landscape including Douglas fir

beetle and Western spruce budworm, which have damaged many mature stands of Douglas fir.

White Pine blister rust is caused by an exotic species of fungus (Cronartium ribicola) introduced from

China, and is present in the JMJP Wilderness. It attacks white pine species, and can lead to high

mortality. An MRA, and site-specific NEPA will be completed prior to any treatments of white pine

blister rust within wilderness.

The most dominant vegetation type on the 94,985 acres of NFS land is mountain sagebrush at 35% of

the total land area. All of the sage types equal 43% of the land area. Douglas fir is the second largest

category at 27% of the land area. All conifer categories together encompass 46% of the Wilderness. This

typifies the vegetation in the mid to upper elevations of JMJP Wilderness with large open expanses of

sagebrush typically on the south slopes with large pockets of conifers on the north slopes. There are ten

vegetation categories that are 1% or less of the land area. Some of these small categories include water,

aspen, mountain mahogany and Wyoming big sage. Barren, rocky sites or areas of sparse vegetation

comprise 5% of the area.

The BLM portion ofJMJP Wilderness comprises of 21,913 acres. The vegetation in the lower- to mid¬

elevation regions of the Wilderness is typically large expanses of sagebrush and grass interspersed with

pockets of trees, predominately on northern slopes. Specifically, the dominant vegetation type is

mountain big sage and Idaho fescue (48%). All the sagebrush and grass types comprise 67% of the

landscape. There are 157 acres with no vegetation (e.g. rock, rubble or water). The remaining acres are

divided into 12 vegetation types.

No federally listed plant species are known to occur in the area, but whitebark pine, an Endangered

Species Act (ESA) candidate species, occurs in high-elevation areas throughout the Wilderness. White

Cloud milkvetch, a current FS Region 4 Sensitive species, is found in this area. Other Forest-designated

sensitive species that are present or could be found include: Lost River milkvetch, seaside sedge,

Douglas' biscuitroot, Welsh buckwheat, Challis crazyweed, and wavy-leaf thelypody. BLM Special Status

Species known to occur within the Wilderness or in close proximity include: wavy-leaf thelypody, Challis

milkvetch, Challis crazyweed, Lemhi milkvetch, and marsh felwort. Several of these plant species are

endemic to the area, occurring nowhere else in the world. (See Appendix 2 for common and scientific

names.)

Desired Conditions

Intact, native plant communities are present to facilitate and support healthy watersheds, diverse

wildlife communities, and productive soils.

Sensitive plant species have populations for long-term viability.

Alpine habitats have a natural abundance and distribution of perennial vegetation communities (i.e.

cushion plants, grasses and sedges forming sod-like mats). The entire area continues to support a

diverse, intact native plant community with minimal non-native plant species.

Forested habitats support healthy stands of conifer, aspen, mountain mahogany, and montane shrubs

and forbs. Sagebrush habitats are heterogeneous systems across many ecological communities that

support native perennial shrubs, bunchgrasses and forbs.

WMP 12
Wilderness Management Direction

Goals

Preserve the natural quality of wilderness character by maintaining native plant communities,

particularly viable populations of rare and sensitive species. Provide a level of protection that allows

natural processes that shape native plant communities to occur over time within the Wilderness.

Allow natural processes to occur in the Wilderness, such as native plant pathogens, insects or disease.

Management Direction

Guidelines

JMJP-011 - Ensure impacts to whitebark pine, such as those from fire suppression tactics, improper

livestock grazing, recreational stock use, dispersed camping, or trail construction and maintenance are

minimized when considering these activities.

JMJP-012 - Minimize impacts on habitats for rare and sensitive plant species when conducting trail

maintenance and construction.

JMJP-013 - Control or eradicate noxious and nonnative invasive plant species to the extent possible

within occupied and potential sensitive plant species habitat while having the least impact on wilderness

character. (Also see section on Noxious and Non-Native Species below.)

Monitoring

No wilderness-specific vegetation monitoring is proposed. Standard monitoring procedures are applied

regardless of wilderness designation. Monitoring sites (marked with re-bar or T-Posts) have been

established prior to wilderness designation and will continue to be monitored. The BLM and FS have

standard approved protocols for monitoring, principally for livestock grazing management, such as the

Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) protocol for riparian habitat, and Assessment, Inventory and

Monitoring (AIM), vegetative utilization and nested frequencies for upland habitat. Monitoring for plant

populations will include special status plant species, such as the candidate species whitebark pine. While

individual protocols may change over time, monitoring will follow approved methods that have been

peer-reviewed and accepted as statistically and scientifically valid methods. The current approved

protocols are accepted as technical references.

ManagementActions

When monitoring shows that wilderness character or plant populations are being degraded, apply

management actions based on the causal factor as described under other resource sections within this

document. For example, impacts from recreational uses would be managed as described in the

Recreation section.

Noxious and Non-Native Invasive Species Management

Background

The JMJP Wilderness contains large, contiguous, intact, native plant communities. While the area is

generally pristine, there is potential for invasion and expansion of non-native invasive species. Currently,

most known infestations of terrestrial invasive plants within the Wilderness occur in areas of human

disturbance. These disturbances are related to a variety of land use practices including, but not limited

to: historic road construction, trail construction and maintenance, unauthorized motorized and nonmotorized trail construction, commercial livestock grazing, recreational livestock grazing (pack stock).

WMP 13
Wilderness Management Direction

dispersed camping, fire (prescribed and wildfire) and range improvements. There are currently no

known infestations of aquatic invasive species within or adjacent to the Wilderness.

Idaho-listed noxious weeds known to occur within one mile of the Wilderness boundary are: spotted

knapweed, Canada thistle, black henbane, whitetop, yellow toadflax, hounds-tongue and leafy spurge.

Other invasive species of concern, not currently on the noxious weed list that are capable of displacing

native vegetation and degrading wilderness character are: cheatgrass, annual mustards, Russian thistle,

halogeton, and kochia. (See Appendix 2 for common and scientific names.) A noxious weed is a subset of

the broader invasive plants category. Noxious weeds, as designated by the Idaho State Department of

Agriculture under Idaho Code Title 22 Chapter 24 are given priority for response and treatment.

The BLM and FS have used an integrated approach to invasive species management in this area prior to

wilderness designation, and includes chemical, manual, mechanical, and biological control methods.

Biological control agents (insects) have been released in the past within the JMJP Wilderness to control

larger infestations in areas where chemical control isn't feasible. An MRA will be used to determine the

most appropriate methods and level of control within the Wilderness, including proposals for reseeding

or revegetation.

Desired Condition

The Wilderness is as free from non-native invasive species, as possible.

Intact natural ecosystems facilitate and support healthy native plant communities, watersheds, diverse

wildlife communities, and productive soils with minimal invasive species presence.

Goals

Minimize the impacts of invasive species on the JMJP Wilderness, its natural systems, and its visitors.

Maintain native plant distribution and abundance through the reduction of noxious and non-native

invasive species in an effort to retain the areas' natural quality.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-014 - Require the use of certified noxious weed free hay and straw entering the Wilderness as well

as public lands adjacent to the Wilderness.

Guidelines

JMJP-015 - On NFS land, use pesticides and herbicides in accordance with the design criteria identified in

the SCNF Invasive Plant Treatment Record of Decision (ROD) (2016), or most current direction, as well as

associated consultation documents from the regulatory agencies, and require, as appropriate, a

pesticide use proposal approved by the Regional Forester. The primary methods of control shall use

non-motorized, non-mechanized means, such as hand pulling and herbicide application using backpack

or horse-mounted sprayers. The use of different treatment methods will be analyzed further through an

MRA.

JMJP-016 - On BLM-managed land, follow the direction for invasive plant treatments contained in BLM

Manual 6340—Management of Designated Wilderness Areas, as well as the BLM Challis-Salmon

Integrated Weed Control Program EA (March, 2009; or most current). These applications will undergo

the MRA process as described in BLM Manual 6340. A Pesticide Use Proposal, signed by the Field

Manager, state weeds coordinator, and the Associate State Director.

WMP 14
Wilderness Management Direction

JMJP-017 - Treat areas for noxious and non-native species focusing on early detection and rapid

response, as monitoring and visitor use mandates.

JMJP-018 - Work in close coordination with cooperating agencies within the Custer Cooperative Weed

Management Area.

Monitoring

Monitoring is an integral part of any adaptive, integrated pest management program. Monitoring

addresses prevention, early detection rapid response, treatment, and restoration efforts, and informs

future decision-making and strategy. Post-treatment reviews of monitoring data would occur on a

sample basis to determine: whether treatments are effective; the type and extent of damage that may

have occurred to non-target species; whether design criteria were applied correctly; and if recovery

occurred as expected. Retreatment and active rehabilitation or restoration prescriptions would be

developed, as needed, based on post-treatment results. Changes in treatment methods would occur

based on effectiveness of treating the invasive species infestations.

Inventory and treatment of invasive species would be emphasized at vectors of seed dispersal, such as

at all portals into the Wilderness (roads, trails, trailheads, corrals, etc.). Additional monitoring and

management actions are detailed in agency-specific invasive plant documents.

Management Actions

Develop measures to mitigate the potential for the spread or introduction of invasive species for any

ground disturbing activities.

Place emphasis on minimizing introduction of new species and controlling small infestations that have

potential to displace native species.

Provide educational information on areas that are susceptible to weed invasion and measures to help

prevent non-native, invasive plant establishment and spread.

. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Background

The JMJP Wilderness provides abundant big game hunting opportunities and quality habitat for ungulate

species, such as elk, mule deer, moose, mountain goat, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope. The

area provides habitat and travel corridors for large carnivores, such as wolverine and wolves. The

Greater Sage-grouse ROD identified important habitat for sage-grouse within the Wilderness boundaries

(USFS 2015 and BLM 2015) (see Appendix 2 for common and scientific names).

Herd Creek watershed supports one part of the longest and highest-migrating assemblage of

anadromous fish in the world. All the forks of Herd Creek, East Pass Creek, and Meridian Creek originate

in the Jerry Peak Wilderness. Steelhead, Chinook salmon, and bull trout have designated habitat and

presence within the area. Bowery, Long Tom, East Pass, Herd, West Fork Herd, East Fork Herd, Meridian,

and Taylor creeks are designated as critical habitat for one or more of these ESA-listed fish species. Herd

Lake is the only stocked lake in the Wilderness, and it has been stocked with rainbow trout and tiger

muskellunge as recently as 2013.

Wildlife management activities for the FS are guided by the Wilderness Act, the Challis Forest Plan

(current), the Salmon-Challis Forest Plan (revised), state and federal laws, and Memoranda of

Understanding (MOUs) with other agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Services (APHIS), and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Activities carried out by

WMP 15
Wilderness Management Direction

APHIS on NFS lands would in conformance with all applicable laws and policies, including the Wilderness

Act, the Challis Forest Plan, and applicable MOUs (MOU No. 17-SU-11132422-231). For the BLM, wildlife

management is conducted in accordance with state and federal laws, annual work plans developed

between APHIS and Idaho Falls District, and the Challis RMP. Angling, hunting, and trapping in

wilderness is subject to applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

The MOU between the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the USDA Forest Service (2010-MU11062754-027) identifies that the creation of a separate MOU for management of fish and wildlife in

Wilderness areas in Idaho is needed. The document, "Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife

Management in National Forest and BLM Wilderness" (USFS, BLM, and Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies [AFWA] 2006), serves as a framework for enhanced cooperation between state fish and

wildlife agencies, the FS, and BLM. Until such time that an Idaho-specific wilderness MOU is developed,

guidelines identified in this document would be applied for the purposes of managing the JMJP

Wilderness for activities including (but not limited to): use of motorized equipment, application of

pesticides, fish and wildlife research and management surveys, facility development and habitat

alteration, threatened and endangered species, population sampling, fish stocking, wildlife damage

control, and visitor management to conserve wilderness wildlife resources.

Any activity conducted in wilderness for wildlife or fish management activities, such as population

sampling, wildlife relocation, research, fish stocking, or retrieval of tracking devices that would involve

uses generally prohibited under Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act shall only be authorized by the

Federal administering agency with an MRA. Review and approval must be made in accordance with

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2326 and BLM Manual 6340 (1.6.B).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

require consultation, as needed, and as appropriate, to comply with the Endangered Species Act and the

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Recovery plans for federally listed species govern management activities that

may affect those species. The agencies will follow resource objectives, management standards, use

indicators, and other management criteria developed during ESA consultation with regulatory agencies

(USFWS, NMFS) for ongoing activities in the JMJP Wilderness.

Desired Condition

High-quality habitat supports healthy, viable, and naturally-distributed fish and wildlife populations

while preserving wilderness character.

Goals

Allow natural processes to be the primary factor determining the diversity of wildlife and fish species

and their habitats.

Implement wildlife management activities to prevent degradation of wilderness character by promoting

healthy, viable, and more naturally-distributed wildlife populations and habitats.

Protect indigenous wildlife from human-caused impacts that could lead to Federal Endangered Species

Act listing as a threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species or as Regional Forester sensitive

species, BLM special status species, or Forest-level species of conservation concern.

Protect and assist in the recovery of ESA-listed species and their habitats.

Management Direction

JMJP-019 - Implement measures to minimize contact between bighorn sheep and domestic goats used

for packing (See Appendix 3). Measures identified may be expanded or revised, based on research.

WMP 16
Wilderness Management Direction

Guidelines

JMJP-020 - Continue to work cooperatively with IDFG to reduce the risk of disease transmission or

other stressors between bighorn sheep and domestic animals. If necessary to preserve wilderness

character, consider actions up to and including the closure of all or part of the wilderness to recreational

pack goat and sheep.

JMJP-021 - Work cooperatively with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game regarding their fish and

wildlife management programs to assure the guidelines of the AFWA, BLM, and FS document are

applied and that polices outlined in BLM Manual 6340 and FSM 2320 are followed.

Monitoring

Wildlife and fish monitoring efforts such as redd surveys, big game population estimates, and carnivore

surveys in and adjacent to the JMJP Wilderness are on-going and will continue. The MRA process will be

applied as necessary.

ManagementActions

Specific written approval or permits from the federal administering agency will be obtained before

undertaking any action prohibited by the Wilderness Act (Section 4c), such as erecting any structure or

installation, or using motorized vehicles.

Recreation

This Recreation section includes several sub-sections: Trails, Camping, Recreational Horse and Stock Use,

and Signs.

Background

The JMJP Wilderness provides outstanding solitude and primitive recreation opportunities. Dispersed

recreational activities occur throughout the area, and include backpacking, stock packing, hunting,

fishing, hiking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, photography, skiing and mountaineering. The

Wilderness is in Idaho Fish and Game Management Units 36A and 50. The peak season for visitation in

the JMJP Wilderness is hunting season (September - November).

Desired Condition

The JMJP Wilderness provides exceptional opportunities for solitude, and an environment

predominately free from the evidence of human activities. Encounters with other visitors while traveling

or camping are infrequent. The Wilderness setting offers the highest degree of challenge, self-reliance,

and risk. High quality, primitive recreational opportunities are provided while protecting the natural

quality, including soil, water, vegetation, riparian, wildlife and aquatic resources.

Goals

Provide for the use and enjoyment of the Wilderness while maintaining outstanding opportunities for

primitive and unconfined recreation and solitude through minimal visitor use regulations and minimal

developments.

Use adaptive management when planning for and managing visitor use, including the physical and social

setting, by using a variety of strategies and tools while preserving wilderness character. Use commonly

accepted practices such as those laid out in the Interagency Visitor Use Management Framework (or

more current strategy) to guide and inform the decision-making process.

WMP 17
Wilderness Management Direction

Provide for a range of primitive recreational and solitude opportunities across the Wilderness landscape.

In areas of concentrated use, minimize spatial expansion of impacts.

Manage the majority of the Wilderness at a low density of recreational use ensuring the highest quality

of wilderness character.

Prevent unauthorized motorized and mechanized vehicle travel in the Wilderness.

Evaluate and incorporate methods to help prevent weed establishment and spread from recreation and

trail use.

Encourage general recreation opportunities to the extent they are consistent with preservation of

wilderness character.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-022 - Limit group size to a maximum of 12 people. (See exception for Native American tribes in the

Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments section.)

JMJP-023 - Prohibit shortcutting trail switchbacks on foot or with pack and saddle stock.

JMJP-024 - Require removal of refuse and inorganic waste from the Wilderness.

Guidelines

JMJP-025 - Manage vehicle access points to prevent unauthorized vehicle use by posting appropriate

boundary signage, and blocking or rehabilitating unauthorized routes where violations are an issue.

Monitoring

Continue to monitor recreational use to further understand the correlation between use levels, resource

impacts and effects on wilderness character, including opportunities for solitude, and the undeveloped

quality. See Monitoring sections under Wilderness, Trails, and Camping.

Management Actions

Actions for managing recreational use fall into one of three categories: education, engineering and

enforcement. Information and education are most commonly employed to modify visitor behavior,

adjust visitor attitudes and expectations, and alter the spatial and temporal distribution of use. Common

examples include the "Leave No Trace" program, signs, and visitor contacts. Engineering actions include

site design, construction and maintenance; for example, providing, removing or relocating facilities

(campsites, trails), or using vegetation or other physical barriers to direct visitor use. Regulations with

enforcement can be used to implement all management strategies. Examples include restricting or

prohibiting access to specific locations, access at particular times, certain types of behavior, particular

activities, equipment or modes of travel, length of stay, and group size. For more information, see the

Visitor Use Management Framework (Interagency Visitor Use Management Council 2016).

Indirect methods (e.g. education) for managing recreational use are preferred. Management actions

would include direct, on-site actions and site-specific regulations for unusual cases where indirect

methods are unsuccessful.

Currently, visitor use patterns and impacts do not indicate that there is a need to implement a visitor

use permit system to protect wilderness character. Managers will continue to monitor visitor impacts to

wilderness character and the physical resource to determine if additional management actions, such as

a wilderness permit system, may be required in the future.

WMP 18
Wilderness Management Direction

Trails

Background

There are approximately 79 miles of trail within the JMJP Wilderness ranging from minimally developed

Class 1 trails to more developed Class 3 trails, providing a variety of wilderness trail opportunities (for

trail standards see USFS 2008). The Wilderness provides extensive opportunities for off-trail exploration,

challenge, risk and solitude. Use trail classifications for FS and BLM and maintain trails to the established

standard, as practicable. Ensure trails comply with wilderness-appropriate standards. For additional

information on trails, please refer to Appendix 4 for trail condition classes, mileages and a map.

Desired Condition

Trails and routes provide sufficient access to minimize proliferation of user-developed routes and are

situated and designed to prevent resource damage.

Goals

Maintain system trails, including proposed additions to the system, to standard to protect wilderness

character.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-026 - Do not construct new trails in the JMJP Wilderness, unless trails are determined to be the

minimum necessary for administration of the area as wilderness.

JMJP-027 - If total miles of user-developed routes increases by more than 3%2 or more over two

monitoring period, management actions will be taken to preserve wilderness character, as described

under the Management Actions. (See exceptions for Narrow Canyon-Bowery Creek (#4178), Narrow

Canyon (#4179) in Management Actions below.)

Monitoring

Monitoring for the user-developed routes indicator occurred in 2017 and will continue through 2020 to

establish baseline data.

Monitoring user-developed routes to detect changes to wilderness character, and address impacts, as

needed. Monitoring for new social trails would specifically occur in high use areas, such as near

trailheads, campsites, and at popular destinations.

ManagementActions

The FS will remove the Narrow Canyon-Bowery Creek (#4178), Narrow Canyon (#4179), and Baker Creek

(#4184.03) trails from its trail inventory and add the Middle East Pass Creek Trail to the FS Trail

Inventory. BLM will add the existing trail from the Upper Lake Creek Campground to Sage Creek to its

trail system. (See Appendix 4 for more information on trails.)

Visible trail segments of the Narrow Canyon-Bowery Creek (#4187) and Narrow Canyon (#4179) trails

will be inventoried. This inventory will take place until 2020. Where visible trail tread is absent, these

2 Threshold is established in the FS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide (Landres et al., in press). If

this guidance is revised, the most current threshold for change would be used. Monitoring cycle for this measure is

every five years, as established in the Technical Guide.

WMP 19
Wilderness Management Direction

gaps will be reconciled using historic trail system locations (USFS, Salmon-Challis National Forests,

Challis National Forest Visitor use Map, 2017). These two hiking/stock foot worn paths will not count

against the total miles of user-developed routes (JMJP-026 Standard).

The trail leading to the Upper Lake Creek Campground will remain to provide access to the campground

and Jerry Peak, and across this portion of the JMJP Wilderness. Width will be allowed to naturally

narrow to a pedestrian/stock width (e.g. Class 3). Culverts will not be removed unless they wash out or

cannot be maintained. Replacement of culverts will not occur.

If monitoring threshold for user-developed routes is met, or exceeded, management actions that may

be applied are described under the Recreation section (p. 18, Management Action), or in the

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances section (p. 38).

Camping

Background

Campsites existed in the JMJP Wilderness prior to designation. The JMJP Wilderness has been a popular

hunting area for decades. Some of the campsites are well established. Campsite developments have

included camp furniture, corrals, meat poles, and metal fire rings. Campsite conditions vary from

significantly impacted to minimally impacted, but with impacts that persist year to year.

Desired Condition

Campsite density is low, and quantity is sufficient to accommodate use. Campsites show minimal impact

to natural resources from recreational use.

Impacts from camping are minimized or absent from sensitive areas, such as riparian areas or near

cultural resources.

Sanitation and trash issues associated with recreational use are minimized.

Goals

Manage camping to minimize impacts to natural resources and other visitors.

Encourage visitors to use durable sites for camping in areas of concentrated use through education.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-028 - Limit campsite occupancy to 14 days in accordance with BLM Regulation: ID-913-02-4740-04.

JMJP-029 - Restrict cutting of live trees, including whitebark pine, for fuel wood (36 CFR 261.6; 43 CFR

Part 6302.20). Collection of dead and downed wood is acceptable.

JMJP-030 - Require human waste to be covered 6-8" deep at least 200 feet from water, and, where the

terrain allows, 200 feet from campsites and trails. Alternatively, waste may be packed out.

WMP 20
Wilderness Management Direction

JMJP-031 - If average campsite condition impact score increases by 5%3 or more over two monitoring

periods management actions will be taken to maintain wilderness character, described below.

Monitoring

Monitoring for user-created installations or structures associated with campsites will occur during

routine wilderness patrols. These will be removed or deconstructed when found.

The FS campsite monitoring protocols (2016, or current) will be applied across the JMJP Wilderness to

determine campsite conditions (see Appendix 5 for more information on campsite monitoring

protocols). Monitoring will occurred in 2017 and will continue through 2020 to assess campsite

conditions and any associated human-caused impacts.

Management Actions

No permits are currently required for overnight camping; however, a permit system may be

implemented if monitoring indicates impacts to resources or wilderness character are occurring.

When the campsite condition threshold is met or exceeded, additional management actions would be

considered and may include, but are not limited to:

a) Make campsites less appealing or accessible. Remove fire rings and other evidence of human

impact. Rehabilitate campsites. (See the section on Developments and Other Human Effects or

Disturbances for more information.)

b) Increase education at trailheads or portals with techniques such as: posting restoration

information, encouraging visitors to avoid campsites undergoing restoration, or suggesting

alternative camping locations (also see Wilderness Education and Interpretation section).

c) Implement site closures, and inform the public by posting notices on portals and at

administrative sites.

d) Establish overnight stay limits at sites.

e) Require human waste to be packed out.

f) Designate specific campsites for stock use.

g) Further limit the number of stock allowed when camping overnight.

h) Prohibit overnight grazing of pack and saddle stock.

i) Prohibit use of stock where warranted.

j) Establish voluntary registration at trailheads.

k) Mandatory, self-issue permits.

l) Designated campsites.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

Background

Stock use is a traditional activity on this land and has long history of use throughout the JMJP

Wilderness. This traditional use of wilderness is a symbol of the landscape and is associated with hunting

and grazing activities. Recreational stock use, mainly horses and mules, occurs throughout the

Wilderness but tends to take place more on developed trails.

3 Threshold is established in the FS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide (Landres et al., in press). If

this guidance is revised, the most current threshold for change would be used. Monitoring cycle for this measure is

every five years, as established in the Technical Guide.

WMP21
Wilderness Management Direction

Desired Future Condition

Recreational stock use occurs with minimal impacts to wilderness character.

Goals

Recreational stock use continues in a manner that leaves the Wilderness unimpaired for future use and

enjoyment as wilderness.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-032 - Limit the combined number of pack and saddle stock in one group to 20 head of stock.

JMJP-033 - Require pack or saddle stock to be ridden, led, or under human control. Animals are not

permitted to run loose on trails or travel routes.

JMJP-034 - In camp, require stock users to pad highlines, or use tree-saver devices to minimize tree

damage.

JMJP-035 - Stock animal feed (hay, straw, and/or pellets) is required to be certified weed-free (FS Order

Number 04-00-097; BLM Supplementary Rule ID-913-02-4740-04).

Guidelines

JMJP-036 - Require stock users to locate pack and saddle stock handling areas at least 200 feet from

lakes, springs and streams, where terrain allows.

JMJP-037 - Require stock users traveling outside of camp to tie stock to live trees greater than 8" in

diameter for only short periods of time, and require use of tree-saver devices or other techniques (e.g.

wrap lead around trunk twice before tying the knot) to minimize tree damage.

Monitoring

Implement monitoring as described in the Wilderness, Trails and Camping sections.

ManagementActions

The Recreation and the Camping sections detail management actions that may be implemented if

overuse occurs.

Signs

Background

Few signs exist currently within the Wilderness. Since designation, wilderness boundary signs have been

limitedly installed. The trail system within the JMJP Wilderness is not complex, and only contains 79

miles of trail; therefore, few trail signs are needed.

Desired Condition

Signage will remain minimal to preserve wilderness character. Signs may be provided within Wilderness

in rare cases, such as for resource protection.

Goals

Provide few signs in wilderness to preserve the opportunity for self-reliance.

WMP22
Wilderness Management Direction

Maintain signs installed at trailheads to provide wilderness education, regulation and restriction

information.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-038 - Do not provide destination or interpretive signs.

JMJP-039 - Place Wilderness boundary signs at known access points, such as along trails, in drainages

and at passes.

Guidelines

JMJP-040 - Install resource protection signage for sensitive or damaged areas only if approved through

an MRA.

JMJP-041 - Place information signs or kiosks containing wilderness and natural resource interpretive

information and interagency information at trailhead parking areas outside of the Wilderness, as

necessary.

JMJP-042 - At designated trail junctions, provide the minimum amount of signs necessary for either the

routing or location of the traveler or for the protection of the wilderness resource (2324.33f, BLM 6340

1.6.C.13.c.iii.).

Monitoring

Agencies will monitor for missing, damaged, or vandalized signs in conjunction with regular wilderness

patrols.

ManagementActions

Within the Wilderness, signs will be made of native material (e.g. wood, rock), and will be constructed in

accordance with sign policy (FS, 2013; BLM 2016). Agencies will remove or replace all existing signs not

in conformance with these standards to protect resource values and wilderness character.

t SSS8S8 SSS iSs

Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments

Background

The cultural resources of the JMJP Wilderness are not well known. Only a few cultural resource surveys

have been conducted in the area, and 52 archaeological sites and isolates have been documented in the

Wilderness. However, for thousands of years Native American people occupied the south central

portions of Idaho, including the present day JMJP Wilderness. Archaeological evidence in this region

suggests that people have hunted and gathered in the area for more than 12,000 years. In historic times,

the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have been the primary Native American group to use the area.

Rossillon (1982) and Matz (1995) identify a number of themes important to the history and prehistory of

the SCNF. These themes can be psed to understand and, ultimately, to manage cultural resources within

the JMJP Wilderness. Identified themes include: Native American Utilization and Occupation, Early EuroAmerican Exploration, Mining, Transportation, Agriculture and Ranching, Forest Service Administration,

the Civilian Conservation Corps, and Recreation. Native American Tribes are known to use the tributaries

of the Salmon River for habitation, for resource procurement, and as travel corridors.

Prehistoric cultural resources may include abandoned Indian villages, camps, rock shelters, caves,

pictographs, vision quest sites, hunting blinds, traps, lithic procurement sources and workshops, human

WMP23
Wilderness Management Direction

burials and cambium peeled trees. Historic cultural resources may include standing buildings and ruins

depicting the ranching and homesteading period, burials, and mining-related structures, features and

ruins. Historic FS and BLM administrative sites, roads, trails and installations, if present, are part of the

cultural history of the Wilderness.

Treaty rights provide American Indian tribes access to areas with cultural or religious importance, and

access to public lands to procure traditional resources.

The National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to coordinate and consult on cultural

resource management activities with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), tribes, and other

interested parties.

Any undertaking, with the potential to effect cultural resources, will be conducted in compliance with

the NHPA. Specifically, trail maintenance activities will avoid impact to cultural resources by confining

maintenance to existing trail treads, and not using construction materials from cultural resource sites

during trail maintenance activities.

Permits for any archaeological study are required, as prescribed by the Archaeological Resources

Protection Act (ARPA).

Desired Condition

Cultural resources are protected and preserved. Unique and non-renewable historic properties that are

listed on or eligible for National Register of Historic Places listing retain the characteristics that make

them eligible.

Sacred sites and traditional cultural properties are recognized, respected, and maintain the

characteristics for which they have traditional and cultural significance for the appropriate Native

American tribes.

Goals

Protect and manage cultural resource values within the JMJP Wilderness to meet the requirements of

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the ARPA, and the Forest Management Act.

Conduct archaeological scientific research that contributes to wilderness management objectives

consistent with the NHPA, Archaeological Resource Protection Act, FSM 2323.8, Forest Plan direction,

Challis RMP, and BLM Manual 8100.

Conduct cultural resource inventories in areas that have not previously been surveyed for cultural

resources.

Recognize that the archaeological resources within the JMJP are an important component of the

Wilderness.

Coordinate cultural resource programs among managing agencies.

Protect and preserve the archaeological and historic resources of these areas.

Evaluate recorded but unevaluated sites to determine significance to the NRHP and interpretive

potential.

Develop appropriate management practices to eliminate or reduce adverse effects on cultural

resources.

WMP24
Wilderness Management Direction

Recognize that the Wilderness is within the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes' traditional lands and it may

contain traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, and other areas that hold traditional and cultural

significance to the Tribes.

Maintain and enhance tribal relations through meaningful consultation and joint projects as

appropriate.

When appropriate, facilitate use by Native American tribes, communities and traditional practitioners.

Work with affected federally recognized tribes to change derogatory place names within the JMJP

Wilderness.

Management Direction

Cultural resource standards are established below to help achieve the desired conditions of heritage

resources. Cultural resource guidelines address overall compliance requirements under NHPA, ARPA and

other statutes, as well as national and regional cultural resource policy and direction (FSH 2309.12.22.1;

BLM 8130.1.11).

Standards

JMJP-043 - Group size and length of stay limitations do not apply to the Tribes when exercising offreservation treaty rights.

Guidelines

JMJP-044 - Use interpretive monographs, brochures, portal contacts, wilderness ranger contacts and

other appropriate methods to educate and enhance public appreciation and protection of heritage

resources and the wilderness experience.

Monitoring

Monitoring plans are required under National Forest Management Act planning regulations (FSH

2309.12.22.1 and BLM 8130.2.21.F; see also FSM 2362.5). Cultural resource monitoring within the JMJP

Wilderness will be used to determine how well the agencies are meeting desired conditions and how

closely standards and guidelines are being followed. NRHP eligible sites will be monitored at least once

every five years.

Archaeological sites that are NRHP eligible and are identified as being adversely impacted or at risk of

damage may be subject to further monitoring at the agency archaeologist's direction.

Management Actions

Within the Wilderness boundary, archaeological survey that meets modern professional standards has

been minimal. Further surface pedestrian survey would be conducted in accordance Sections 106 and

110 of the NHPA. These studies will allow for a better understanding of past cultural use within the

Wilderness boundary and the surrounding geographic region. The information gained through these

investigations will be used to refine and improve the management of cultural resources within the

Wilderness and the region.

v/

Conduct archaeological inventory, site evaluation, site monitoring, protection, interpretation, and

additional research to locate, preserve, and/or enhance cultural resources.

Prepare a Cultural Resource Overview of the JMJP Wilderness. Prepare a Historic Preservation Plan for

the JMJP Wilderness based on the results of the Cultural Resource Overview.

WMP25
Wilderness Management Direction

Livestock Grazing Management

Background

Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act and Section 102(e) of the enabling legislation provide for

continued livestock grazing where it existed prior to wilderness designation. Livestock grazing will be

subject to reasonable regulations deemed necessary by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, as

appropriate. Per the Wilderness Act and the clarifying language in the Congressional Grazing Guidelines

(House Report 96-617 of the 96th Congress and guidelines described in Appendix A of House Report 101-

405 of the 101st Congress), livestock grazing shall not be curtailed or "phased out" simply because an

area has been designated as wilderness. The aforementioned House reports further clarify that

associated activities that are necessary to support livestock grazing, such as maintenance of supporting

facilities, including use of motorized equipment when necessary, will continue to be allowed in

wilderness. Further, wilderness designation should not prevent the construction and maintenance of

new fences or improvements which are consistent with allotment management plans or which are

necessary for protection of the range. See Guidelines section and Appendix 7 of this document for the

Congressional Grazing Guidelines (House Report No. 101-405).

Current Livestock Grazing - Ten Forest Service and BLM cattle and horse allotments are located partially

within the JMJP Wilderness (see Tables 4 and 5). The Forest Service's vacant East Pass Creek Sheep and

Goat Allotment is located entirely within the Wilderness. Ten permittees have permits for livestock

grazing on FS allotments within the JMJP Wilderness (one of these is pending). Fourteen permittees

have permits for livestock grazing on BLM allotments within the JMJP Wilderness. Seven of these

permittees have permits for both FS and BLM allotments within the JMJP Wilderness. See Table 3 for an

overview of range improvements that exist within the JMJP Wilderness on these allotments. See

Appendix 6 for maps of locations of range improvements on these allotments. Range improvements

generally are assigned to permittees for maintenance responsibility, although the FS or BLM may choose

to keep maintenance responsibility for some improvements.

Current management of the active allotments generally involves rest/rotation or deferred rotation

grazing systems in which no unit of an allotment receives livestock use that persists throughout the

plant growing season. Timing of livestock grazing within each unit can vary from year to year, depending

on variations in unit rotations, available forage, and livestock management (such as distribution and

numbers turned out). Consequently, exact numbers and dates of livestock in the JMJP Wilderness also

vary from year to year. Routine livestock management and improvement maintenance is accomplished

by non-motorized methods.

Table 1. Forest Service allotments within or partially within the JMJP Wilderness.

Allotment3

Approximate

total acres

Approximate

acres in JMJP

Wilderness

Permitted use

’ Livestock13 Jurisdiction

numbers

Season

East Pass

Creek

18,333 18,333 Vacant Challis-Yankee

Fork Ranger

District—SCNF

Herd Creek 37,862 29,550 666c 6/16 -10/31 Challis-Yankee

Fork Ranger

District—SCNF

Pine Creek 9,317 8,741 122 7/1 - 9/30

Wildhorse 87,938 17,842 1892 6/9 - 9/30 Lost River

Ranger

District—SCNF

WMP26
Wilderness Management Direction

Allotment3

Approximate

total acres

Approximate

acres in JMJP

Wilderness

Permitted use

Livestock11 Jurisdiction

numbers

Season

Upper East

Forkd

46,064 12,459 255(or

maximum

of 553

head

months)

6/10-8/15 Sawtooth

National

Recreation

AreaSawtooth

National Forest

aThe following allotments have been closed under the donation process as outlined in the

Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act: Herd Creek, Upper

East Fork, and Wildhorse (Herb Whitworth permit relinquishment) Allotments.

b Livestock numbers are cow/calf pairs except for where otherwise specified.

cVariable numbers and season of use: Livestock numbers may vary within the maximum

permitted season across all permits for this allotment but shall not exceed 1813 head months.

dThe Upper East Fork Allotment has about 26,598 acres in the Hemingway-Boulder Wilderness.

Table 2. BLM allotments within or partially within the JMJP Wilderness.

Allotment Approximate

total acres

• ; ' ..

Approximate

acres in JMJP

wilderness

Permitted use* Jurisdiction

Livestock

numbers

Season

East Fork** 19,525 1,976 285

AUMs,

including

1 horse

AUM

5/21-6/10 and

10/15 - 10/31

Challis BLM

Field Office

Herd Creek 21,502 8,369 1006

AUMs

6/15 -11/15

Mountain

Springs

81,600 8,830 6771

AUMs

5/18-9/15 and

10/1 -11/15

Pine Creek 4,523 1,121 333 AUMs 5/23 -10/15

Road Creek 7,730 534 207 AUMs 5/16-8/31

Sage Creek 5,996 2,967 1028 5/1 - 9/30

Wildhorse 24,642 107 2038

AUMs,

includes

29 horse

AUMs

5/16 -10/10

^Livestock numbers may vary; the season shown is the maximum permitted season across all

permits on a given allotment.

**The East Fork Allotment has 459 acres in the White Cloud Wilderness.

WMP27
Wilderness Management Direction

Table 3. Overview of range improvements within the JMJP Wilderness.

Improvement Type

Forest

Service

BLM

Barbed wire or wood fence (apprx. miles) 10.7 8.8

Electric fence (appx. miles) none 3.4

Pipeline (appx. miles) 1.17 0.35

Water systems (headbox) 7 1

Troughs (part of water system) 16 4

Ponds 46 2

Other 1 well none

Desired Condition

Wilderness character is preserved while continuing to allow sustainable use of quality forage and

maintenance of existing improvements, including water developments, to support commercial livestock

grazing.

Goals

Provide for continued grazing within the JMJP Wilderness that is consistent with the Wilderness Act and

Congressional Grazing Guidelines.

Management Direction

Administration of grazing and livestock use on federal lands, is conducted in accordance with 36 CFR

222, Subpart A (National Forest System), 43 CFR 4100, (BLM lands), 36 CFR 293.7, other applicable laws

(such as the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960; the National

Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1970; the National Forest Management Act of October 22,1976;

the Clean Water Act of 1972; the Endangered Species Act of 1973; the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, the Rescission Act of 1995)

and other management guidelines (such as the Forest Service Handbook 2209, Forest Service Manual

2200, and BLM Manual 6340).

Standards

JMJP-045 - Identify the terms and conditions of livestock grazing on NFS and BLM-managed lands in

grazing permits, as directed by the Forest Plan and applicable amendments and the BLM Challis RMP.

JMJP-046 - Prohibit use of motor vehicles for routine livestock monitoring, herding, and gathering.

Guidelines

JMJP-047 - Grazing operations within wilderness, where livestock grazing was present at the time of

wilderness designation, are guided by the Congressional Grazing Guidelines (House Report 96-617,

1979; and House Report 101-405 Appendix A, 1990), the Forest Service Manual Chapter 2320

(Wilderness Management), the Forest Plan and applicable amendments, and BLM Manual 6340 and 43

CFR 4100. See Appendix 7 for the full text of the Congressional Grazing Guidelines.

WMP 28
Wilderness Management Direction

Monitoring

No wilderness-specific monitoring is identified. See Vegetation and Botanical Resources section for

description of on-going vegetation monitoring.

Management Action

Existing range improvements within the JMJP Wilderness that are agreed to be obsolete by both the

permittees and the agencies, consistent with the NHPA, may be removed.

The vacant East Pass Creek sheep and goat Allotment would be neither closed nor reauthorized for

grazing under this Plan.

Actions for the management of livestock grazing would be considered and analyzed according to the

regulations in 36 CFR Part 222, and 43 CFR 4100.

Wild Horse Management

Background

The 1971 Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRH&B) protects wild horses and burros. The

Challis Herd Management Area (CHMA) was designated based on census flights. The CHMA is bordered

on the north by the Salmon River, on the west by the East Fork of the Salmon River, on the south by the

divide between Herd Creek and Road Creek, and on the east by U.S. Highway 93 and the watershed

boundary between the Salmon River drainage and the Lost River drainage. The CHMA overlaps 9,821

acres of the JMJP Wilderness. See Appendix 8 for a map of the CHMA. The portion of the CHMA within

the JMJP Wilderness typically maintains zero to few wild horses. In population inventory flights since

2008, no horses have been counted within the Wilderness boundary. It is highly unlikely that any on the

ground activities will occur within Wilderness boundaries. Additionally, the JMJP Wilderness portion of

the CHMA is not conducive to ground activities such as gather sites. While highly unlikely that ground

activities would occur, BLM policy reserves the flexibility to manage wild horses within Wilderness

boundaries. Management may include activities on the ground.

The Challis RMP establishes the Appropriate Management Level (AML), or target population, for wild

horses within the CHMA at 185; however, between gathers, the population may range up to 253. Two

hundred and fifty-three (253) is the maximum number of wild horses that can graze in a thriving natural

ecological balance and multiple use relationship on the public lands in the area.

Desired Condition

Wild horse populations within the CHMA do not exceed the AML, in order to maintain a thriving natural

ecological balance and prevent degradation of wilderness character, watershed function, and ecological

processes.

Goals v

Maintain the wild horse population at the AML, within the carrying capacity of the environment, to

preserve the area's wilderness character.

WMP29
Wilderness Management Direction

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-048 - When managing wild horses within the Wilderness, employ uses prohibited by Section 4(c) of

the Wilderness Act only when necessary to meet the minimum requirements for administering the area

for the purpose of the Wilderness Act or when the uses are required under the WFRH&B (BLM Manual

6340).

Guidelines

JMJP-049 - In cases where impacts to springs and riparian systems result from wild horses, consider

mitigation measures to prevent further degradation or to restore wilderness character.

JMJP-050 - When revising the Challis Herd Management Plan, identify management actions required to

preserve wilderness character in addition to maintaining healthy populations of wild horses.

JMJP-051 - Hold periodic gathers, as necessary, to achieve AML within the CHMA. If gathers are

necessary, on-the-ground activities within Wilderness will be accomplished on foot or by horseback. If

MRA results in motorized means for horse gathers, aircraft (including helicopters) may be used to

survey, herd, capture, and monitor wild horses. Landings are not permitted except in an emergency.

Monitoring

As guided by the Challis RMP and the Challis Herd Management Plan, BLM will maintain a current

population inventory in order to determine if the wild horse population are within the AML. BLM will

continue to conduct vegetation monitoring to determine if any impacts are being caused by wild horse

populations.

Management Action

The Challis RMP and the Challis Herd Management Plan describe management of wild horses.

When horses are determined to be above the carrying capacity, a gather would be conducted, when

feasible, in coordination with BLM Idaho and the BLM national wild horse program.

Minerals

Background

The Wilderness Act, Section 4(d)(2) allows mineral surveying, including prospecting and other scientific

activities, as long as these activities are carried out in a way that preserves wilderness character.

In general, mineral activities are prohibited in the Wilderness apart from those for scientific purposes

per BLM Manual 6340 and FS Manual 2300 and rockhounding, which includes the collection of common

invertebrate fossils and petrified wood per the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 USC

1701), 36 CFR Subpart C, and 43 CFR 8365.1-5.

Per FSM 2320 (section 2323.7) and BLM Manual 6340, information gathering activities may be

authorized by geologic exploration permit or interagency agreement only if the activities involve very

minor surface disturbance and are compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment.

Geology - The geology of the JMJP Wilderness area consists primarily of Tertiary igneous and volcanic

rocks and Eocene volcanic rocks such as andesite, latite, rhyolite and basalt as well as volcanic

sandstones and mudstones, conglomerates and breccias. Quaternary glaciation, fluvial activity and

landslides have modified surface geology.

WMP30
Wilderness Management Direction

Mining History - There are no major areas of historic mining development or interest within the JMJP

wilderness boundary. The Wilderness is south of the Bayhorse Mining District as well as the Thompson

Creek mining area and the Stanley Uranium area. The Bayhorse Mining District was mined from 1877 to

approximately 1964, with over 1,000 mining claims located in that area during that time. The Stanley

Uranium area was in production from 1957 until approximately 1960.

Active Claims - In the Wilderness Act, Section 4(d)(3), wildernesses were withdrawn from mineral

activity, subject to valid existing rights, after December 31,1983. All legislation passed since withdraws

wilderness areas from mineral activity, subject to valid existing rights, as of the date of enactment,

which is August 7, 2015 for the JMJP Wilderness. As of November 2016, there are zero (0) active or

pending claims on BLM and NFS lands within the Wilderness boundary.

Mineral Resources - There are no identified abandoned mine land sites on BLM and NFS lands within

the Wilderness boundary. There are no Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act sites and no developed mineral material/rock source sites.

On BLM and NFS lands within the Wilderness boundary, mineral potential is non-existent to low for

fluorspar, uranium, tungsten, molybdenum, gold, silver, mercury, cobalt, copper, zinc, antimony, tin and

vanadium (Fisher and Johnson, 1995) with the exception of moderate potential in the Pine Creek

drainage north of Sheep Mountain.

There is no geothermal resource potential and no salable mineral resource potential (Worl et al. 1989).

Desired Condition

The Wilderness will have negligible effects from mineral activities.

Goals

Preserve the wilderness environment while allowing activities for the purpose of gathering information

about mineral resources.

Management Direction

Guidelines

JMJP-052 - Mineral activities for scientific or recreational purposes will be conducted in a manner

compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment. Rockhounding will be allowed only in a

manner causing negligible surface disturbance.

JMJP-053 - Information about minerals or other resources within Wilderness may be gathered if such

activity is compatible with the preservation of the Wilderness and casual use. Casual use may involve

minor activity, such as sampling with hand tools, but does not involve explosives or mechanized earthmoving equipment.

Monitoring

Section 4(d)(2) of the Wilderness Act requires that wilderness areas be surveyed for minerals and other

resources by the USGS on a recurring basis. BLM and FS would monitor for unauthorized, new mining

claims or activity beyond casual use that is not compatible with the preservation of the wilderness

environment.

Management Actions

Designate the Wilderness as a free-use area per 36 CFR 228.62 and develop rockhounding rules, such as

a collection limit of 25 pounds per person per year using only hand tools in a recreational manner and

leaving no trace of rockhounding activities.

WMP 31
Wilderness Management Direction

Restrict collection of minerals to scientific research and by special use permit only.

Deny applications for permits for the removal of common variety mineral materials under the Mineral

Material Act ofJuly 31,1947, as amended and supplemented.

If valid rights for locatable minerals pre-date Wilderness establishment and withdrawal from mineral

entry, a Notice of Intent or Plan of Operations will be processed according to 36 CFR 228.4.

Fire Management

Background

Fire is an important ecological process on the landscape and an integral component of wilderness

character. Whether started by lightning or humans, fire has helped determine vegetation communities

across the landscape since the beginning of time.

Fire Occurrence - There is evidence of past fire occurrence throughout the JMJP Wilderness in the form

of fire scars and ash layers within the soil profile. Fire has been effectively excluded from the landscape,

including the JMJP Wilderness, since the late 1800's through suppression, livestock grazing which

reduced fine fuels, and other land-use practices. Suppression can limit the benefits of natural fire that is

on the landscape.

The BLM, FS, and state fire occurrence records for the JMJP Wilderness indicate that between 1910 and

2015 fires burned approximately 8,997 acres. The records show a total of 34 fires. The largest fire on

record occurred in 1961 and was approximately 2,150 acres. A fire history map for the JMJP Wilderness

is available in Appendix 9.

Fire Ecology - Periodic wildland fire has been the key habitat disturbance element affecting plant

compositions, communities, and structure throughout the JMJP Wilderness. The role of fire has been

altered by human actions for over a century, and these actions have affected plant communities, serai

status, and condition class.

Fire Regime Condition Class-The natural role of wildland fire can be understood and communicated

through the concept of fire regimes (Brown and Smith 2000). Fire regimes describe conditions that

existed before Euro-American settlement. Fire regimes can provide reference conditions that represent

conditions before fire was excluded from the landscape and can be used to assess wildland fire risk to

plant communities, as well as other resources.

Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC; Hann and Bunnell 2001) are qualitative measures that describe

departure from historical fire regimes, which could describe differences in important habitat

characteristics including fuel loads, structure, age, complexity and species composition. Many reasons

may have led to this departure, including harvesting of timber, fire exclusion, non-native species, grazing

of livestock, insects and disease, and past management activities. There are three condition classes that

indicate rankings of wildland fire risk. The risk of loss of key ecosystem components from wildland fire

increases from Condition Class 1 (lowest risk) to Condition Class 3 (highest risk). The majority of acreage

within the JMJP Wilderness lies within Condition Class 3 (73%). See map in Appendix 9.

Emergency Stabilization - Emergency stabilization is guided by each agency's current Watershed

Protection and Management Emergency Stabilization - Burned Area Emergency Response policies (FSM

2323.43b and 2523; BLM 8560 and H-1742-1) and other FS and BLM policies. In general, emergency

stabilization may be considered only if necessary to prevent an unnatural loss of the wilderness resource

WMP32
Wilderness Management Direction

or to protect life, property, and other resource values outside of wilderness following site-specific

assessments and planning.

Desired Future Conditions

Natural ignitions are permitted to play, as nearly as possible, a natural role in ecosystem function, with

consideration of the impact to firefighter and public safety, private property, developed facilities in

surrounding areas, and wilderness character.

Goals

Consider the natural role of fire within the ecosystem in fire management decisions. Response to a

wildland fire in or near wilderness would consider the full range of fire management strategies and

tactics, ranging from monitoring to full suppression while protecting wilderness character. Also

incorporate ecosystem factors, safety, and returning vegetation conditions to a more representative

state in the decision-making process.

Fire management objectives in the Wilderness will be structured in accordance with the BLM Fire

Management Plan (2005 or current) and the identified standards and guidelines in this document.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-054 - For FS, prior approval from the Forest Supervisor must be obtained to use motorized

equipment or mechanized transport in wilderness for fire management activities (FSM 2326.04c and

2326.1). This includes, but is not limited to, retardant drops, water drops, and other ground-based

intrusions.

JMJP-055 - For BLM, prior approval from the Field Office Manager must be obtained for helicopter

bucket work, dip sites, water delivery, motorized water pumps, aerial retardant application, air

transport, personnel shuttle, supply drops, and chainsaw use. Prior approval from the District Manager

must be obtained for motor vehicle use including engines, transports, crew trucks, UTV/ATV, as well as

helispot construction, and heavy equipment use (BLM Manual 6340 1.6 C. 7, ID-IM-2016-025).

JMJP-056 - Initial action on human-caused wildfire will be to suppress the fire at the lowest cost with the

fewest negative consequences with respect to firefighter and public safety. (Interagency Standards for

Fire and Fire Aviation Operations, 2017)

Guidelines

JMJP-057 - Determine actions for each wildland fire consistent with the protection of wilderness

character (FSM 2324.23 and BLM 6340 1.6 C.7) and will ensure the safety of firefighters, the public, and

consider the impacts to private property and developed facilities in surrounding areas.

JMJP-058 - The BLM would have the full range of options to achieve resource management objectives,

ranging from full suppression to monitoring of naturally-ignited wildfires.

JMJP-059 - Coordinate with wilderness specialists and adjacent landowners, as appropriate, to develop

compatible wildland fire management strategies.

JMJP-060 - Prescribed fire may be considered in the JMJP Wilderness and will be evaluated consistent

with FS and BLM policy (FSM 2320, BLM 6340).

JMJP-061 - Allow campfires, except when existing and expected fire danger justifies implementation of

fire closure orders. Coordinate proposed fire closures and restrictions Wilderness-wide.

WMP 33
Wilderness Management Direction

Monitoring

Within the Wilderness boundary, agencies will annually monitor the number of intrusions due to wildfire

activities, as well as acres burned.

Agencies will monitor the number of human-caused ignitions that occur within the Wilderness boundary

annually.

ManagementActions

Enhance public awareness and support through educational programs about the role of fire in the

ecosystem and fire's role in maintaining wilderness character.

Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) and assign Resource Advisors with knowledge and

training or experience in wilderness management to fires in the plan area to minimize suppression

impacts to wilderness character. Disturbance caused by suppression actions would be returned to as

natural a condition as possible (FSM 2324.23, BLM Manual 6340 1.6 C.7).

Lands and Special Uses

Also see the Research section below.

Background

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act prohibits commercial enterprises, such as mining or logging

operations, to be located in wilderness. Further, the collection of any resource for the purpose of

commercial sale, including shed antlers or furs, is prohibited.

The Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act includes a prohibition

on new water resource facilities or permits for new water resource facilities (Section 103 (B)); however,

existing water rights are not affected by this Act.

There are three inholdings, entirely within the JMJP Wilderness boundary, and five parcels on the edge

of the Wilderness (edgeholding) that are owned by the state of Idaho. Per Section 107 of the Sawtooth

National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act, the Secretary shall seek to complete

an exchange for state land located within the boundaries of the Wilderness. This process is occurring

separately from this WMP process.

On the FS portion of the Wilderness, there is one privately owned water right and associated diversion

on Bowery Creek. The point of diversion and part of the ditch is within the JMJP Wilderness and part of

the ditch is within the Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness before it continues onto private land.

Competitive events, training events, and contests are prohibited in wilderness per FSM 2323.13h; BLM

Manual 6340 1.6 C.13.d.

Proposals for commercial filming in Wilderness would be evaluated consistent with FS policy (FSH

2709.11 45.51 and 45.52), or most current policy, or BLM Manual 6340 (Section 1.6 C. 4), as applicable.

Desired Condition

Existing, authorized special uses continue in the Wilderness and are consistent with the Wilderness Act

and are in the public interest.

WMP 34
Wilderness Management Direction

Goals

Allow for special provision land uses as determined by laws, regulations, and the agencies' policies and

management plans while minimizing developments, degradation to naturalness, and other impacts to

wilderness character.

Monitoring

Monitoring of special provision land uses would occur in accordance with wilderness policy, as described

in the Wilderness section.

Management Actions

No additional management actions are proposed for lands and special uses.

Commercial Services

' ' ' : .m.' -

Background

Section 4(d)(6) of the Wilderness Act states that commercial services, such as outfitter and guides and

pack stock rentals, are allowed "to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the

recreational or other purposes of the areas." This is reiterated in the enabling legislation, Section 102(f).

Traveling by horseback in these lands, now designated as the JMJP Wilderness, is a traditional use with a

long history. Outfitters and guides provide services to support visitors' recreational activities, such as

hunting, hiking, riding, fishing, and pack trip operations. Within JMJP Wilderness, there are currently two

permitted outfitters and only one with authorized assigned sites within the Wilderness.

Commercial services are further guided by agency-specific policy and guidance (e.g. FSM 2709.14) in

addition to direction specific to wilderness.

The agencies acknowledge the MOU between Regions 1, 4, and 6 of the USFS, the BLM Idaho State

office and the Idaho Outfitter and Guide Licensing Board (IOGLB). Agencies will work with the IOGLB to

manage commercial services within the JMJP Wilderness, such as when undertaking the needs

assessment through the land use plans.

Desired Condition

Recreational commercial services in the wilderness are still provided where consistent with the

Wilderness Act and in the public interest.

Goals

Grant commercial use permits within the Wilderness only to meet an identified public need, to meet the

agencies' objectives, or to provide benefits to the Wilderness.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-062 - Prohibit commercial services that are not wilderness-dependent.

JMJP-063 - Approve only temporary structures and facilities for outfitter and guide operations necessary

to meet the public need in a manner compatible with the Wilderness environment.

Monitoring

Compliance of outfitter and guide operations is detailed in each outfitter's permit and operating plan.

WMP 35
Wilderness Management Direction

Management Actions

If monitoring of commercial outfitting shows that negative impacts to wilderness character are

occurring, management actions may include, but are not limited to: limiting the number of days that

outfitter and guides are authorized, limiting areas in which certain guides are authorized, or establishing

additional limitations on group sizes.

Research

Background

Research within Wilderness is guided by the Wilderness Act, FSM 2320, and BLM Manual 6340. For

information on wildlife management actions, see the Wildlife section.

Desired Condition

The Wilderness is available for conducting inventory, monitoring, and research that is deemed to be

wilderness dependent and that follows the intent of the Wilderness Act.

The Wilderness will continue to be shaped by natural forces and processes, while providing an

opportunity to further knowledge of natural, cultural, and social aspects of wilderness management.

Goals

Encourage research that will benefit wilderness management or that is wilderness dependent, and is

compatible with preservation of wilderness character.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-064 - Require all authorized researchers to provide a copy of findings to the FS and the BLM.

Guidelines

JMJP-065 - Evaluate proposals for research in accordance with the Framework to Evaluate Proposals for

Scientific Activities in Wilderness (or most current; also see JMJP-001). All parties interested in

conducting research activities in Wilderness must have prior authorization.

JMJP-066 - Prohibit proposals that do not contribute to stewardship of the area as wilderness when they

can be accomplished outside of Wilderness or if they cannot be conducted in a manner compatible with

the preservation of wilderness character.

Monitoring

Monitoring of research activities within Wilderness would conform to FS wilderness character

monitoring protocols.

Management Actions

No management actions are identified.

WMP36
Wilderness Management Direction

Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue

Background

Search and rescue activities on NFS and BLM-managed lands come under the jurisdiction of the county

sheriff in the county where an incident has occurred. The role of the agencies is to provide guidance,

and assistance, when requested.

Desired Condition

Law enforcement activities are conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts to wilderness character.

Search and rescue (SAR) operations are conducted in a manner that emphasizes the safety of victims

and rescuers as well as minimizing impact on wilderness character.

Goals

Support and cooperate with county sheriffs in SAR operations.

Provide information and education on wilderness law, policy and mandate.

Coordinate SAR procedures in the JMJP Wilderness with local sheriffs departments, ensuring

procedures are well-defined, allow for response to life-threatening situations in a timely manner, and

protect wilderness character.

Conduct law enforcement activities in a manner that minimizes impacts to wilderness character.

Increase visitor awareness of the inherent risks in Wilderness and the preventive measures they can

take to reduce the need for SAR response.

Encourage and support strong local and county leadership in search and rescue operations.

Management Direction

Guidelines

JMJP-067 - Use the flow chart in Appendix 10 for approval of motorized and mechanized emergency

response.

JMJP-068 - For the purpose of ensuring SAR operations comply with wilderness regulations, except as

otherwise necessary to provide for human life or recovery, the use of motorized and mechanized

equipment for emergencies involving the life and safety of people must be approved by the Forest

Supervisor/BLM Field Manager (or designated authority).

JMJP-069 - Use visitor education to achieve management objectives, where feasible.

JMJP-070 - Helicopter landing areas would use natural terrain features. Care should be taken that when

approved vehicles used in SAR operations do not transport noxious weeds or cause unacceptable

resource or social impacts. Immediately address any resource damage resulting from search and rescue

operations.

Monitoring v

Monitoring of law enforcement activities within Wilderness will include the number of incidents within

the Wilderness, the number and type of prohibited uses involved, and the dates and locations of

activities.

Following SAR operations, the lead agency will provide the appropriate federal agency with the date or

dates of the emergency, the location, a description of the nature of the emergency, the number of

responding personnel, and the number and type of prohibited uses involved.

WMP37
Wilderness Management Direction

Management Actions

As appropriate, seek to develop an MOU or other formal agreement with Custer County for SAR

operations that covers the appropriate use of motorized equipment and mechanized transportation

inside Wilderness, including any necessary information for Forest Service or BLM to authorize the use.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Background

At the time of designation, the JMJP Wilderness contained a number of human disturbances and

developments. A radio site on Sheep Mountain predates the wilderness designation. The Upper Lake

Creek Campground is located within the BLM portion of the JMJP Wilderness and includes three

developed campsites and a vault toilet. The engineered road leading to the campground includes several

culverts. See Trails and Camping sections for additional information on recreational developments.

Desired Condition

Minimal developments occur within the JMJP Wilderness. Present are only developments that are

deemed necessary for the administration of the area for the purpose of the Wilderness Act.

Goals

Limit developments for administrative purposes or under special use permit to those necessary for

management, protection, and use for the purposes for which the Wilderness was established (FSM

2324.31; BLM Manual 6340 I.6.B. 2.).

Naturalize human-caused disturbances to the extent possible.

Consider the need for reseeding or revegetation when installing or removing developments.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-071 - Stay limits for all persons and personal property will not exceed 14 days. Traditional

geocaching is prohibited.

Guideline

JMJP-072 - Maintain installations and structures if they are associated with a valid existing right, special

provisions, or if they are the minimum necessary for the administration of the Wilderness where

temporary or other management actions are not providing adequate protection in accordance with an

MRA (FSM 2323.13; BLM Manual 6340 I.6.B. 2.).

Monitoring

Monitoring for unauthorized developments would occur during routine wilderness patrols, and would

be removed or deconstructed when found.

ManagementActions

An Operations and Maintenance Plan is under development for the Sheep Mountain repeater site, and

an MRA will be completed simultaneously.

BLM will retain Upper Lake Creek Campground. Maintenance of the campground will be in accordance

with an MRA. If the facility is damaged, becomes unusable or a safety hazard, the facility would not be

replaced.

WMP38
Wilderness Management Direction

Unattended personal property not associated with an active camp will be removed by agency personnel

and held for 30 days at the appropriate FS or BLM office. If possible, the owner of the personal property

would be contacted.

Small-scale disturbances (e.g. campsites, abandoned developments, or linear disturbances created by

vehicles) may be rehabilitated with non-motorized, non-mechanized means. An MRA and NEPA analysis

would be required for motorized or mechanized equipment. The NHPA process will be followed for all

projects (mechanized or non-mechanized) with the potential to adversely affect heritage resources.

Actions would generally be conducted in the following order, as needed:

1. Physical Closure 4. Re-contouring 6. Erosion control

2. Decompaction 5. Vertical mulching or 7. Vegetative

3. Scarifying/Pitting "iceberging" restoration

Wilderness Education and Interpretation

Background

BLM and FS wilderness policies (BLM 6340 and FS 2320) encourage education and outreach to inform

visitors of the inherent risks found in wilderness, and to improve understanding of wilderness, including

opportunities for public use and enjoyment, and the relationship between the wilderness resource and

other resources and activities present in the wilderness.

Desired Condition

Trailhead information signs provide interpretive and educational information, as well as use restrictions.

Visitor encounters with wilderness rangers, staff, or volunteers for on-the-spot education will be

positive and will emphasize "Leave No Trace" principles and wilderness regulations.

Goals

Use education, information and interpretation as a proactive approach in managing activities that may

impact the preservation of wilderness character.

Emphasize the value of wilderness, not only as a non-motorized recreation area, but also as an

undeveloped place of natural processes and personal risks.

Management Direction

Standards

JMJP-073 - Prohibit interpretive trails in the JMJP Wilderness.

Guideline

JMJP-074 - Emphasize a proactive approach to wilderness education. Build partnerships and

relationships with organization camps, group organizations, businesses, school and university programs,

permittees, permanent and seasonal staff, and other users to integrate Leave No Trace and wilderness

ethics into their operations.

Monitoring

Monitoring recreational uses within the Wilderness are detailed under the Recreation section, and

education may be used to manage those uses.

WMP 39
Wilderness Management Direction

Management Actions

Education and outreach is one method that may be employed or increased in response to campsite and

solitude thresholds established, but may also be employed to prevent or respond to any recreational

visitor impacts.

Incorporate wilderness education principles (e.g., wilderness character, safety, "Leave No Trace,"

sensitive resources, noxious weeds, or other area information) in brochures, on the BLM and FS

websites, on agency maps, at visitor centers, or on other educational materials that describe the

Wilderness.

Education may include, but is not limited to, the following topics:

• Wilderness character and wilderness stewardship,

• Leave No Trace ethics, including proper camping techniques and food storage and containment,

• Proper management of dogs to minimize social conflicts or effects to wildlife (e.g., under voice

or physical control, horse or hiker encounter etiquette),

• Preventing wildlife encounters/proper food storage techniques,

• Night sky importance and protection,

• Prevention of invasive species establishment,

• Cultural resource interpretation, appreciation and protection measures,

• Natural role of fire in the ecosystem, and

• The inherent risks of recreating in remote areas.

WMP40
Plan Implementation

Plan Implementation

The following lists reflect a summary of the actions identified in this WMP. Actual implementation would

be subject to staff and funding availability outside the control of this plan.

Ongoing Activities

Actions that are ongoing or would be implemented upon adoption of the WMP include:

• Install and maintain wilderness boundary signs

• Provide visitor information and education

• Monitor wilderness character

• Monitoring wildlife and fish

• Implement and monitor recreation management actions (e.g. group size limit, padded high lines,

remove non-historic camp structures)

Future Activities

Some actions may require further planning and public involvement not covered by this plan, such as

those prompted by changing resource conditions. This may include an MRA or site-specific NEPA

analysis. Actions that may require further analysis include:

• New proposals:

o Wildlife management activities

o Restoration activities

o Requests for research or filming

o Livestock grazing facilities

• Rehabilitation

o Undesirable or highly impacted campsites, social trails, or stock areas

o Unauthorized vehicle impacts

• Removal of abandoned, non-historic developments

• Control infestations of noxious weeds and invasive plant species

• Recreation management actions in response to exceeding thresholds identified in this plan

Plan Evaluation

This management plan will be revised when the management direction no longer meet wilderness

management objectives or when a change in the existing situation warrants revised management. The

need for revision would be reviewed, as conditions warrant. If the decision is made to revise the plan, it

will be accomplished with public participation. Minor revisions such as typographical or cartographical

errors, or terminology changes may be made by inserting an errata sheet.

\S

WMP 41
Glossary

Glossary

Assigned Outfitter Camp

A location that is authorized for use and occupancy by an outfitting and guiding permit and for which a

fee is paid.

Camping Stay Limit

Persons may camp within designated campgrounds or on undeveloped public lands not closed to

camping on the public lands within the state of Idaho for a period of not more than 14 consecutive days.

Exceptions, which will be posted include areas closed to camping and areas with specifically designated

camping stay limits. The 14-day limit may be reached either through a number of separate visits or

through 14 days of continuous occupation during the 28 day period. After the 14th day of occupation

campers must move outside of a 25-mile radius of the previous location. (Per BLM Regulation: ID-913-

02-4740-04)

Campsite Condition Index

The impact index/condition class is the sum of nine weighted parameters including vegetation loss,

mineral soil increase, tree damage, root exposure, stock evidence, development, cleanliness, social trails

and camp area. The range of the impact index is divided into four condition classes (light impact through

extreme impact). Also see Appendix 5 of this document.

Clean Air Act

An Act of Congress established to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air through air

pollution prevention and control.

Clean Water Act

An Act of Congress which establishes policy to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological

integrity of the Nation's waters.

Commercial Enterprise

Any use or activity undertaken for the purpose of sale of products or services, for the generation of

funds or revenue, or for the promotion of a product, individual or business, regardless of whether the

use or activity is intended to produce a profit, including any use or activity where an entry or

participation fee is charged. (BLM Manual 6340)

Day

Defined for visitor use monitoring, a "day" is an eight-hour period.

Desired Condition

In Forest Plan regulations (36 CFR 219.7), a desired condition is a description of specific social,

economic, and/or ecological characteristics of the plan area, or a portion of the plan area, toward which

management of the land and resources should be directed. Desired conditions must be described in

terms that are specific enough to allow progress toward their achievement to be determined, but do not

include completion dates.

WMP42
Glossary

Within wilderness, the desired condition is a statement that describe specific conditions sought in a

particular wilderness. It is a description of specific social and biophysical elements described in the

context of wilderness character.

Developments

Per the Wilderness Act (Section 2c) "An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area

of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent

improvements or human habitation..."

Permanent Improvement. A structural or nonstructural improvement that is to remain at a

particular location for more than one field season. Permanent improvements include such items

as trails, toilet buildings, cabins, fences, tent frames, fire grills, and instrumentation stations.

(FSM 2320.5)

Temporary Structure. Any structure that is easy to dismantle, that could be removed completely

from a site between periods of actual use, and that must be removed at the end of each season

of use if the non-use period is greater than 30 days. (FSM 2320.5)

Reference BLM Manual 6340, or the most current BLM wilderness policy for definitions.

Dispersed Campsite

Camping anywhere on National Forest or BLM lands outside of a designated campground. Dispersed

camping means there are no toilets, no picnic tables, no trash cans, no treated water, and no fire grates.

Designated campsites are different, and campers are generally directed or permitted to camp only in

those sites.

Drop Camp

Undesignated campsites used by parties whose camp equipment and supplies are packed in and/or out

by an outfitter.

Edgeholding

Land owned or managed by an entity other than a wilderness-managing agency that is contiguous with,

but not completely surrounded by, the designated wilderness boundary. Parcels touching a wilderness

only at a corner are not edgeholdings. (BLM Manual 6340)

Endangered Species Act

An Act of Congress intended to protect species and subspecies of plants and animals that are of

"aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value." Candidate species are

plant and animal species being considered for listing as endangered or threatened, in the opinion of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Framework to Evaluate Proposals for Scientific Activities in Wilderness

The evaluation framework provides an approach for thinking through and documenting how proposals

for scientific activities in wilderness may be evaluated. Also see http://www.wilderness.net/science for a

copy of the most current Framework.

Goal

In Forest Plan regulations (36 CFR 219.7), goals are broad statements of intent, other than desired

conditions, usually related to process or interaction with the public. Goals are expressed in broad,

general terms, but do not include completion dates.

WMP43
Glossary

Guideline

In Forest Plan regulations (36 CFR 219.7), a guideline is a constraint on project and activity decision¬

making that allows for departure from its terms, so long as the purpose of the guideline is met.

Guidelines are established to help achieve or maintain a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or

mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

Guiding

Providing services or assistance (such as supervision, protection, education, training, packing, touring,

subsistence, transporting people, or interpretation) for pecuniary remuneration or other gain to

individuals or groups on National Forest System lands. The term "guide" includes the holder's employees

and agents. (FSH 2709.11)

Highline

A rope stretched between two trees to which horses are tied.

Iceberging

A technique to make a rehabilitated campsite less desirable to camp in, typically using partially buried

rocks.

Inholding

Land owned or managed by an entity other than a wilderness-managing agency that is completely

surrounded by the designated wilderness boundary. (BLM Manual 6340)

Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA)

The process by which allowances for one of the eight prohibited uses described in Section 4(c) of the

Wilderness Act are analyzed to determine if they are "necessary to meet minimum requirements for the

administration of the area for the purpose of [the Wilderness] Act." The Minimum Requirements

Decision Guide (MRDG) is typically used to perform the analysis. The BLM requires the use of the MRDG

per policy (BLM Manual 6340). Also see http://www.wilderness.net/MRA for more information, and a

copy of the current form.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires environmental analysis and public disclosure of

federal actions.

National Wilderness Preservation System

All lands managed under the Wilderness Act and subsequent wilderness designations, irrespective of the

department or agency having jurisdiction.

Natural

Area appears to have been primarily affected by the forces of nature and are substantially free from the

effects of modern civilization.

Other Features of Value

Area may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or

historical value. Though not required of any wilderness, where they are present they are part of that

area's wilderness character, and must be protected as rigorously as any of the other four required

qualities.

WMP44
Glossary

Outfitting

Renting on or delivering to National Forest System lands for pecuniary remuneration or other gain any

saddle or pack animal, vehicle, boat, camping gear, or similar supplies or equipment. The term

"outfitter" includes the holder's employees and agents. (FSH 2709.11)

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation

Area provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primeval and unrestricted

recreation including the values associated with physical and mental inspiration, challenge, self-reliance,

self-discovery, and freedom.

Personal property

Includes, but is not limited to: hunting blinds, campsite equipment, toilet facilities, game cameras,

geocaches, tent poles, and camp furniture (tables, chairs).

Progressive Camps

A series of camps used during trips through an area. Duration of use is usually 1-2 nights per location.

These camps are not set up in advance of arrival and are removed as the party moves on.

Recreation Management Actions

Actions for managing recreational use fall into one of three categories: engineering, education and

enforcement. Engineering includes site design, construction and maintenance; for example, providing,

removing or relocating facilities (campsites, trails), or using vegetation or other physical barriers to

direct visitor use. Information and education is most commonly employed to modify visitor behavior,

adjust visitor attitudes and expectations, and alter the spatial and temporal distribution of use. Common

examples include the Leave No Trace program, signs, and visitor contacts. Regulations with enforcement

can be used to implement all management strategies. Examples include restricting or prohibiting access

to specific locations, access at particular times, certain types of behavior, particular activities, equipment

or modes of travel, length of stay, and group size. For more information see the Visitor Use

Management Framework (Interagency Visitor Use Management Council, 2016).

Restore or Restoration

Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded,

damaged, or destroyed.

Service Day

An allocation of use constituting a day or any part of a day on National Forest System lands for which an

outfitter or guide provides services to a client. The total number of service days is calculated by

multiplying each service day by the number of clients on the trip. (FSH 2709.11, Chapter 41.53d)

Social Trail

See "User-Developed Routes" below.

\y

Spike Camp

A temporary camp generally located in a more remote location, with bare necessities and fewer

occupants than other types of camps. Spike camps are generally supplied from a base camp.

Special Provisions

WMP45
Glossary

Legislated exceptions to the 1964 Wilderness Act Section 4(c) prohibitions against commercial

enterprise, permanent roads, motor vehicles, motorized equipment, aircraft landing, mechanical

transport, structures and installations. Also referred to as "non-conforming uses."

Special-Use Permit

A special-use authorization that provides permission, without conveying an interest in land, to occupy

and use National Forest System lands or facilities for specific purposes, and which is both revocable and

terminable. For example, research, or outfitting and guiding.

Standard

In Forest Plan regulations (36 CFR 219.7), a standard is defined as a mandatory constraint on project and

activity decision-making, established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to

avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

Stock Handling Areas

Where temporary stock containment (e.g. highline) is used.

Tree-Saver Device

A strap or webbing used to protect trees from damage. When using a tree as an anchor point for a stock

containment system, wrapping cable, rope or chain around it causes damage to the tree. Using webbing

can help eliminate the risk of damaging or 'ringing' the bark.

Undeveloped

Area is essentially without permanent improvements or the sights and sounds of modern human

occupation, and it retains its primeval character.

Untrammeled

Area is unhindered and free from intentional actions of modern human control or manipulation.

User-Developed Routes

These routes are unplanned, unauthorized trails or roads that have not been designated and managed

as a trail by the federal agency. In wilderness, trails are generally created by the repeated passage of

people heading to the same destination; sometimes called social trails.

Varve

A varve is a pair of laminations of contrasting color and texture deposited in a water body. A varve

represents the sediment deposit of a single year. The coarser sediment (typically light colored

compared to the dark colored fine sediment) is deposited under relatively high energy conditions when

meltwater introduces relatively large amounts of sediment into the water body.

Vertical Mulching

A technique used to help revegetate disturbances by 'planting' dead plant material to help stabilize soils,

provide shade structures to assist plant recruitment, protect seeds, and reduce the visual impact of the

disturbance.

Wilderness

Wilderness is a legal designation designed to provide long-term protection and conservation of Federal

public lands designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness

is defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964 as "an area where the earth and its community of life are

WMP46
Glossary

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain...Federal land retaining its

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is

protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have

been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially

unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of

recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or

other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

Note on capitalization: in this document, lowercase wilderness is used when referring to wilderness, in

general. Capitalized Wilderness is used in reference to the JMJP Wilderness, specifically, or to the

Wilderness Act, as both are proper names.

Wilderness Character

The central mandate of the Wilderness Act is to preserve wilderness character, a concept that

distinguishes wilderness from all other lands. The four managing agencies have defined it as "A holistic

concept based on the interaction of 1) biophysical environments relatively free from modern human

manipulation and impact, 2) personal experiences in natural environments relatively free from the

encumbrances and signs of modern society, and 3) symbolic meanings of humility, restraint, and

interdependence that inspire human connection with nature." Statutory language of the Wilderness Act,

Section 2(c), is used to identify five qualities of wilderness character: Untrammeled, Natural,

Undeveloped, Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation,

and Other Features of Value.

The following graphical

representation of the primary

goal of wilderness managementto preserve wilderness characteris shown here. Wilderness

managers must fulfill the

congressional mandate to

"preserve wilderness character,"

and not to allow the black square

to slide down the diagonal line.

For more information see FSM

2320 or BLM Manual 6340.

less more

Modem Human Influence

WMP47
References

References

36 CFR Part 219.7 - National Forest System Land Management Planning, New Plan Development

36 CFR Part 261.18 - National Forest Wilderness

36 CFR Part 261.58 - Occupancy and Use

36 CFR Part 261.6 - Timber and other forest products

36 CFR Part 222 - Range Management

36 CFR Part 228 - Minerals

36 CFR Part 292 - National Recreation Areas

36 CFR Part 293 - Wilderness

43 CFR Part 4100 - Grazing Administration

43 CFR Part 6300 - Management of Designated Wilderness Areas

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa-470mm as amended.

Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center. Minimum Requirements Decision Guide Workbook.

http://www.wilderness.net/MRA. Accessed on January 5, 2017.

Brown and Smith. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

257 p.

Clean Water Act of 1972. 33 U.S.C §§ 1251-1387, as amended.

Endangered Species Act of 1973.16 U.S.C. 35 § 1531 et seq.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 43 U.S.C. 35 § 1701 et seq.

Fisher, F. S. and K.M. Johnson. 1995. USGS Professional Paper 1525: Geology and Mineral Resource

Assessment of the Challis 1 degree by 2 degrees Quadrangle, Idaho.

Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897.16 U.S.C. §§473 et seq.

Granger-Thye Act of 1950.16 U.S.C 3 § 580 et seq.

Hann and Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple

scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire, Volume 10.

House Report 96-617 - Congressional Grazing Guidelines

House Report 101-405, Appendix A - Congressional Grazing Guidelines

WMP48
References

Idaho Geological Survey Mines and Prospects Map Series for the Challis l°x2° Quadrangle. Paper

version: USGS 1-1819. Compiled by F.S. Fisher, D.H. McIntyre, and K.M. Johnson. 1992.

Idaho State Department of Agriculture. 1981. Idaho Code Title 22 - Agriculture and Horticulture,

Chapter 24 - Noxious Weeds.

Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations. 2017. National Fire Equipment System NFES

#2724.

Interagency Visitor Use Management Council. 2016. Visitor Use Management Framework: A Guide to

Providing Sustainable Outdoor Recreation, Edition One. http://visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/

Accessed on January 5, 2017.

Kile, Bethany L.; Stone, Jeffrey R.; Latimer, Jennifer C.; Shapley, Mark D.; Finney, Bruce P. and Barnes,

Sira E. 2016. Herd Lake: the recent sediment history of a varved, landslide-dammed lake. Geological

Society of America, North-Central Section, 50th Annual Meeting, Session No. 20, Booth No. 44, Paper

No. 20-18, Abstracts with Programs, 48(5), 18 April 2016,1 p. Available at

https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2016NC/webprogram/Paper275626.html [Accessed 31 July 2017],

Landres, Peter, ed. 2010. A framework to evaluate proposals for scientific activities in wilderness. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-234WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 74 p. http://www.wiiderness.net/science. Accessed on January 5, 2017.

Landres et al. 2015. Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness

Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Landres, P.; Boutcher, S.; Mejicano, E., technical editors and compilers. In press. Wilderness character

monitoring technical guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-XXX. Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. XXX p.

Matz, Stephen. 1995. Salmon National Forest Research Design Methodology. Manuscript on file at

Salmon-Challis National Forest, Salmon, Idaho.

Mineral Materials Act of 1947, 30 U.S.C. § 601, et. seq.

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960.16 U.S.C 3 IV § 583 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act ofJanuary 1,1970. 42 U.S.C § 4321.

National Forest Management Act of October 22,1976.16 U.S.C. 36 § 1604 et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.16 U.S.C 1A II, § 470 et seq.

North American Packgoat Association 2017. Best Management Practices, Pack goat Specific Regulations.

Accessed from http://www.napga.org/best-management-practices-psr/ on February 16, 2018.

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. 43 U.S.C. 37 §1901 et seq.

Rescissions Act of 1995. 38 U.S.C. §107.

WMP49
References

Rossillon, Mary. 1982. Cultural Resource Overview for the Salmon National Forest. Manuscript on file at

Salmon-Challis National Forest, Salmon, Idaho.

Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act of August 7, 2015.16 U.S.C.

§§1131, 1133,1134, 460aa-4 and 460aa-8; 43 U.S.C. §1712,1782 and 869.

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. 43 U.S.C. 8a § 315 et seq.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2016. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, Washington,

D.C.; U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Census Bureau, Systems Support Division, Washington, D.C.,

as reported in Headwaters Economics' Economic Profile System (headwaterseconomics.org/eps).

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

2006. Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and BLM Wilderness,

as amended. 17 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Challis National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. FSM 2500 Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2523 - Burned-Area

Emergency Rehabilitation.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Weed Free Hay Order, FS Order Number 04-00-097.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual 2200. Range Management.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Forest Service Manual 2300 Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource

Management, Chapter 2320 Wilderness Management.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Forest Service Manual 2800 Minerals and Geology, Chapter 2810 Mining

Claims.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service Manual 2300 Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource

Management, Chapter 2360 Heritage Program Management Handbook.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service Handbook 2309.18 Trails Management Handbook, Chapter 10,

Trail Planning.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Trail Class Matrix, http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/trailmanagement/documents/trailfundamentais/National Trail Class Matrix 10 16 2008.pdf. Accessed on

January 5, 2017.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Handbook, Intermountain Region (Region 4), Ogden, Utah.

2209.13. Grazing Permit Administration Handbook, Chapter 10—Permits with Term Status. Interim

Directive No: 2209.12-2011-1.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Handbook 2709.14 Recreation Special Uses Handbook,

Chapter 50 Outfitting and Guiding and Other Concession Services.

WMP50
References

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Engineering Management (EM) 7100-15 - Sign and Poster Guidelines for the

Forest Service. Chapter 5 - Trail Signing.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Forest Service Manual 2100, Environmental Management, Chapter 2150 -

Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination. WO Amendment 2100-2013-1, Effective 03/19/2013.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Forest Service Manual 2309.12 Heritage Program Management Handbook,

Chapter 20 Planning.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision for Idaho and Southwest Montana,

Nevada and Utah.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Salmon-Challis National Forest Invasive Plant Treatment Final Environmental

Impact Statement.

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Salmon-Challis National Forest Invasive Plant Treatment Record of Decision.

USDA Forest Service. 2017. Memorandum of Understanding between USDA Forest Service and the USDA

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for Wildlife Damage Management Activities on National

Forest System Lands (FS Agreement No. MOU 17-SU-11132422-231).USDI Bureau of Land Management.

1984. Manual 8561 - Wilderness Management Plans.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Recreation Management Restrictions, etc.: Idaho; Camping

Stay Limits. Federal Register Volume 57, Number 115, June 15,1992. ID-913-02-4740-04

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Handbook 3101-1, Issuance of Leases.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Challis Resource Area Record of Decision and Resource

Management Plan. (p. 88-89,104).

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Central Idaho Fire Planning Unit, Fire Management Plan.

Idaho Falls District, August 2005. NWI-ID-2005-080.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2007. H-1742-1 Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and

Rehabilitation Handbook.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in the

17 Western States, Final Programmatic EIS Record of Decision.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2009. Challis-Salmon Integrated Weed Control Program

Environmental Assessment.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Final Supplementary Rules To Require the Use of Certified

Noxious-Weed-Free Forage and Straw on Bureau of Land Management Lands in the State of Idaho.

(LLID-931-000-L1020-0000-JP-0000252R.) Federal Register Volume 76, Number 140 Pages 43706-43709.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2011-07-21/html/2011-18336.htm. Accessed on January 5, 2017.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Handbook 3809-1, Surface Management.

WMP51
References

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Manual 6340 - Management of Designated Wilderness.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan

Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and

Southwestern Montana, Nevada, and Northeastern California, Oregon and Utah.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office, 2016. Instruction Memorandum: Interim

Guidance for Fire Management in Jim McClure-Jerry Peak and White Clouds Wilderness Areas. IDIM2016-025.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2016. H-9130-1 National Sign Handbook.

Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.16 U.S.C. 30 §1331 et seq., as amended.

Wilderness Act of September 3,1964.16 U.S.C. § 1131 et seq.

Worl, Ronald G., Anna Burack Wilson, Cole L. Smith, and M. Dean Kleinkopf, 1989. USGS Bulletin 1873:

Mineral Resource Potential and Geology of the Challis National Forest, Idaho.

WMP 52
Appendices

Appendices to the

Wilderness Management Plan

\y

WMP53
Appendices

Table of Contents

Appendix 1 - WaterRights.55

Appendix 2 - Common and ScientificNames.65

Appendix 3 - Pack GoatMeasures.67

Appendix 4 - TrailInventory.68

Appendix 5 - CampsiteMonitoring.71

Appendix 6 - Maps of Forest Service and BLM Allotments in the JMJP.72

Appendix 7 - Congressional GrazingGuidelines.79

Appendix 8 - Wild HorseManagement.81

Appendix 9 - Fire History and FRCCMaps...83

Appendix 10 - Approval Guidelines for the Use of Motorized and Mechanized Equipment for Search and

RescueOperations.86

WMP 54
AA(J(JCI lUILCb

Appendix 1 - Water Rights

The following decreed water rights were held in the wilderness at the time of designation.

WMP 55
Appendices

Basin

Sequence

No.

Use Source Tributary

Rate

(CFS)

Volume

(AFA)

Location POD Owner

34 10608 Stockwater Spring Sinks 0.02 NESE Sec. 28T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 10639 Stockwater Pedrini Spring Pine Creek 0.02 SESW Sec. 17T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 10640 Stockwater Spring Pine Creek 0.02 SESW Sec. 17T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 10642 Stockwater Pine Creek

East Fork Salmon

River

0.02

NWNWSec. 25T09N R18E

NWSW Sec. 34T09N R18E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 10643 Stockwater Sheep Creek

East Fork Salmon

River

0.02

SESW Sec. 25T09N R17E

NENW Sec. 34T09N R17E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 10644 Stockwater Spring Sinks 0.02 SWSW Sec. 21T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 10648 Stockwater East Pass Creek Herd Creek 0.02

NENE Sec. 05 T09N R19E

NENW Sec. 29 T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 10649 Stockwater Herd Creek

East Fork Salmon

River

0.02

NESW Sec. 07T09N R19E

SESW Sec. 29T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 10656 Stockwater Spring Sinks 0.02 NWSE Sec. 27T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 10658 Stockwater Spring MC Donald Creek 0.02 NESE Sec. 27T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 10671 Stockwater Spring Sinks 0.02 NESE Sec. 27T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 10867 Stockwater

Narrow Canyon

Springs

Sinks 0.02 SWSW Sec. 22T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11454 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 SWSE Sec. 10T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11481 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 SESW Sec. 10T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11483 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 SWSE Sec. 10T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11484 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 NWSW Sec. 11T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11488 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 SENE Sec. 10T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11489 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 SWSE Sec. 03 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11490 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 NWSE Sec. 03T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11491 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 SWNWSec. 02 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11492 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 NWNW Sec. 03 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11493 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 NENW Sec. 02 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11494 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 NESE Sec. 03 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11495 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 NESE Sec. 03 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11496 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 SWSW Sec. 02 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11497 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 SWNW Sec. 11 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11500 Stockwater Spring Burnt Creek 0.02 SWSW Sec. 15 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11506 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSE Sec. 29 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11507 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NENW Sec. 29 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11508 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NWSE Sec. 20 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11509 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NWNWSec. 29T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11510 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NESW Sec. 20T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11511 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NESW Sec. 20T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11512 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 SENWSec. 20T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11513 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NENE Sec. 25T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11514 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NENE Sec. 25T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

WMP 56
V\/ IVI _> t)

7 rp^TUTTCrTvTCj"

Basin

Sequence

No.

Use Source Tributary

Rate

(CFS)

Volume

(AFA)

Location POD Owner

34 11515 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 SESE Sec. 24T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11516 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NESE Sec. 24T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11517 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 SENE Sec. 24T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11518 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NWNW Sec. 19 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11519 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 SWNW Sec. 19T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11547 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 SWNE Sec. 20 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11551 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 NWNW Sec. 11 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11552 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.02 SWSW Sec. 03 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11553 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NENE Sec. 13T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11554 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NWSW Sec. 18 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11555 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NESW Sec. 13T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11556 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NESW Sec. 13T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11557 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 SESW Sec. 13T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11558 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NENW Sec. 24T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11559 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 SWSE Sec. 13T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11560 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NENE Sec. 24T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11561 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NENE Sec. 24 T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11562 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NWSW Sec. 20 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11564 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 SENE Sec. 34T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11565 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 NENE Sec. 34 T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11566 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 SWSW Sec. 24T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

34 11787 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWNENW Sec. 22 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11789 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSENW Sec. 22 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11791 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SESWNE Sec. 22T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11795 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NWNWSE Sec. 22 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11813 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSWSE Sec. 23 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11817 Stockwater Spring Herd Lake 0.02 NWNWSW Sec. 24 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11819 Stockwater Spring Herd Lake 0.02 NWSESW Sec. 24 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11825 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSWNE Sec. 24 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11833 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NWNWSE Sec. 11 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11835 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NWNESE Sec. 11T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11837 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NWNWSW Sec. 11 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11839 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NENESE Sec. 10T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11841 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 SWNWSW Sec. 27 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11843 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 SENWSW Sec. 27 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11847 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 NESWSE Sec. 27 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11849 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 SWSESE Sec. 27T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11855 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 NESESE Sec. 27T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11857 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 SWSWSW Sec. 26 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11859 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NWSESE Sec. 26T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11861 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NWSESE Sec. 26 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

WMP 57
Appendices

Basin

Sequence

No.

Use Source Tributary

Rate

(CFS)

Volume

(AFA)

Location POD Owner

34 11863 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SENESE Sec. 26T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11865 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NESENE Sec. 26T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11867 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 NENWNW Sec. 35 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11877 Stockwater Spring

East Fork Herd

Creek

0.02 SESWSE Sec. 35T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11881 Stockwater Spring

East Fork Herd

Creek

0.02 SESESE Sec. 35T09NR19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11883 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SESWSW Sec. 25 T09NR19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11897 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SESWNW Sec. 25 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11911 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NENWSE Sec. 19 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11917 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SENWSW Sec. 20 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11919 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SENWSW Sec. 20 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11927 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NESESE Sec. 07 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11937 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 SWNESW Sec. 08 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11941 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NWSESE Sec. 25T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11943 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSWSW Sec. 30T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11955 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SENWNW Sec. 31 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11957 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWNWSW Sec. 31 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11961 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NESESW Sec. 31T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11969 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSWNE Sec. 31 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USD! BLM

34 11971 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SESWNE Sec. 31T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

34 11973 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SESESW Sec. 30T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 11975 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NWSWSE Sec. 30 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 11979 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NESESW Sec. 30T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 11981 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWNWSE Sec. 30 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 11983 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSESE Sec. 30T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12001 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 NESESW Sec. 27T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12005 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWNENW Sec. 26 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12007 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWNWNW Sec. 25 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12009 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NWNWSW Sec. 25 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12023 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 SENESW Sec. 12T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12027 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 SENWSE Sec. 12T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12029 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 SENWSE Sec. 12T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12033 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 SWSENW Sec. 34 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12035 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 NESWNW Sec. 34 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12043 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 SWSESE Sec. 27T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12047 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NWNENESec. 27T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12053 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NESENW Sec. 26 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12057 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSWNE Sec. 26 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12059 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NESWSE Sec. 26T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12061 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NENWNE Sec. 35 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

WMP 58
i=Tpp^TTciTCejr

Basin

Sequence

No.

Use Source Tributary

Rate

(CFS)

Volume

(AFA)

Location POD Owner

72 12067 Stockwater Spring Herd Creek 0.02 SWSWNW Sec. 25 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12075 Stockwater Spring Herd Creek 0.02 SWSWSE Sec. 24T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12077 Stockwater Spring Herd Lake 0.02 NESWSE Sec. 24T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12079 Stockwater Spring Herd Lake 0.02 SESENE Sec. 24T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12081 Stockwater Spring Herd Lake 0.02 NWSWNW Sec. 24 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12085 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 SESESE Sec. 07T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12089 Stockwater Herd Lake Lake Creek 0 2

SWSESE Sec. 23T09N R19E

NWNWSec. 25 T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12091 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NESESE Sec. 11 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12093 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSESW Sec. 15 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12095 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWNENE Sec. 35 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12111 Stockwater Spring Pine Creek 0.02 SWSWNW Sec. 08 T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12545 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NENESW Sec. 17T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12555 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SESENE Sec. 29 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12557 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SESESE Sec. 29T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12559 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWNESE Sec. 29T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12561 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NWSWNE Sec. 29 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12563 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NENWSE Sec. 29 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12565 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NWNWSW Sec. 09 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12573 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NENWSE Sec. 08 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12575 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NWNWSE Sec. 08 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12579 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 SENENW Sec. 17T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12581 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NESWNE Sec. 17T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12587 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NESWSE Sec. 17T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12589 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 SWNWSE Sec. 17 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12591 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NWSWSE Sec. 17 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12599 Stockwater Spring Sage Creek 0.02 SESENW Sec. 20T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12607 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NESESW Sec. 09 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12615 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 SWSENW Sec. 09 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12619 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSENW Sec. 29 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12621 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NWSWSE Sec. 17 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12627 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NESWNE Sec. 29 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12629 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSWNE Sec. 29 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12631 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 SWSENE Sec. 29 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12633 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NENESE Sec. 29 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12641 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NENWNE Sec. 29 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12643 Stockwater Spring Lake Creek 0.02 NWSENE Sec. 29T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12645 Stockwater Spring Twin Bridges Creek 0.02 SWNWNE Sec. 06 T08N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 12645 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NESWSE Sec. 17T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12647 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NWSESW Sec. 17 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 12649 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 SENESW Sec. 17T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

WMP 59
Appendices

Basin

Sequence

No.

Use Source Tributary

Rate

(CFS)

Volume

(AFA)

Location POD Owner

72 13093 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NESENW Sec. 08 T09N R30E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13095 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NESENW Sec. 08 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13097 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 SENWNE Sec. 08 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13171 Stockwater Spring Sage Creek 0.01 NWNWSW Sec. 21 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13172 Stockwater Spring Sage Creek 0.01 SENWSW Sec. 21 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13178 Stockwater Spring Sage Creek 0.01 NWSENE Sec. T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13179 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NESENE Sec. 28T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13180 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SESWNE Sec. 28T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13181 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NENWSE Sec. 28 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13182 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NWNESE Sec. 28 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13183 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NENWSE Sec. 28T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13184 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NWNWSE Sec. 28T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13186 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NESESW Sec. 28T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13187 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NWSWSE Sec. 21 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13188 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SWSESE Sec. 28T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13189 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NESESE Sec. 28T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13190 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NESESE Sec. 28T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13191 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SENESE Sec. 28T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13192 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SENESESec. 28T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13195 Stockwater Spring Sage Creek 0.01 NWSWNW Sec. 27 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13196 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NWSWSW Sec. 27 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13197 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NWSWSW Sec. 27 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13200 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SWSWSW Sec. 27 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13201 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SWSESW Sec. 27 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13202 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SESWSE Sec. 27T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13203 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SESWSW Sec. 27 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13204 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SESWSE Sec. 27T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13205 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SWSESE Sec. 27T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13206 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SESESESec. 27T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13235 Stockwater Spring Sage Creek 0.01 NESWNW Sec. 27 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13244 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SWSENE Sec. 26T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13246 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SESESE Sec. 27T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13253 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SWSWSW Sec. 26 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13258 Stockwater Spring Sage Creek 0.01 SENWSE Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13259 Stockwater Spring Sage Creek 0.01 SWNWSW Sec. 35 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13260 Stockwater Spring Pinto Creek 0.01 SWSWSE Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13261 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SWSWSW Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13262 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SENWSW Sec. 35 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13264 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NWNWSE Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13266 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SESWNE Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13267 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NESWNE Sec. 34T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

WMP 60
vv w»r ovj

Basin

Sequence

No.

Use Source Tributary

Rate

(CFS)

Volume

(AFA)

Location POD Owner

72 13269 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NWSWNE Sec.34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13271 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NWSWNE Sec. 34T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13272 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NWSWNE Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13273 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NWSWNE Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13274 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NESENW Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13275 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SWSENW Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13280 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NENWNW Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13281 Stockwater Spring Coral Creek 0.01 SESW Sec. 27T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13282 Stockwater Spring Coral Creek 0.01 SWSE Sec. 27T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13283 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NWNENE Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13285 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NENENE Sec. 34T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13286 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SENENE Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13287 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SWNENE Sec. 34T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13288 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 SWNWNW Sec. 34 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13289 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NENENE Sec. 33 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13290 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NENENE Sec. 33T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13291 Stockwater Spring Corral Creek 0.01 NENENE Sec. 33T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13341 Stockwater Corral Creek Sage Creek 0.01

SWSW Sec. 26T09N R20E

NENWSE Sec. 28 T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13341 Stockwater Corral Creek Sage Creek 0.01

SWSW Sec 26 T09N R20E

NENWSE Sec. 28 T09 R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13343 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Corral Creek 0.01

NESESW Sec. 28 T09N R20E

SENESE Sec. 28T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13343 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Corral Creek 0.01

NESESW Sec. 28 T09N R20E

SENESE Sec. 28T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13344 Stockwater Corral Creek Sage Creek 0.01

SENESE Sec. 26T09N R20E

SWNWSE Sec. 33 T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 13395 Stockwater

Twin Bridges

Creek

Big Lost River 0.01

SWSW Sec. 05 T08N R19E

NESWNE Sec. 09 T08N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 13395 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NWNENE Sec. 08 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14067 Stockwater Spring Salmon River 0.02 SESWSE Sec. 01T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14079 Stockwater Spring Salmon River 0.02 NESESW Sec. 06 T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14081 Stockwater Spring Salmon River 0.02 NENENW Sec. 07 T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14197 Stockwater Spring Salmon River 0.02 NWSENW Sec. 07 T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14229 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 SENWNW Sec. 11 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14231 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NWSESW Sec. 02 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14233 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NENELt 1 Sec. 02T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14235 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NENELt 1 Sec. 02 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14239 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NWNESE Sec. 35 T10N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14265 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NESWNE Sec. 07 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14267 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NESWNE Sec. 07 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

WMP 61
Appendices

Basin

Sequence

No.

Use Source Tributary

Rate

(CFS)

Volume

(AFA)

Location POD Owner

72 14319 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NWSWNW Sec. 02 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14323 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NESENW Sec. 02 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14329 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 SWNWSE Sec. 02 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14437 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NESESE Sec. 01T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14439 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NENWNW Sec.07 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14449 Stockwater Spring Mosquito Creek 0.02 NESWNW Sec. 02 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14489 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 SESENE Sec. 07T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14513 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 NESESE Sec. 01T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14515 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 SWNWSE Sec. 01 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 14519 Stockwater Spring Bear Creek 0.02 SENENW Sec. 07 T09N R20E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15625 Stockwater Spring Sinks 0.02 SESESE Sec. 14T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15633 Stockwater Spring Salmon River 0.02 SENWNW Sec. 23 T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15637 Stockwater Spring Sinks 0.02 SESWNE Sec. 23T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15655 Stockwater Spring Baker Creek 0.02 SWSWSE Sec. 13 T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15665 Stockwater Spring Baker Creek 0.02 SESENE Sec. 13T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15667 Stockwater Spring Baker Creek 0.02 SWSENE Sec. 13T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15671 Stockwater Spring Baker Creek 0.02 SESWNE Sec. 13T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15675 Stockwater Spring Baker Creek 0.02 SWSWNE Sec. 13 T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15679 Stockwater Spring Baker Creek 0.02 NWNWSE Sec. 13 T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15687 Stockwater Spring Baker Creek 0.02

NWNWNW Sec. 13T09N

R17E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15689 Stockwater Spring Baker Creek 0.02

NWNWNW Sec. 13T09N

R17E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15691 Stockwater Spring Baker Creek 0.02

NWNWNW Sec. 13T09N

R17E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15709 Stockwater Spring Pine Creek 0.02 NWNWSE Sec. 07 T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15711 Stockwater Spring Pine Creek 0.02 SWSWSE Sec. 07 T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15713 Stockwater Spring Salmon River 0.02 NESWSE Sec. 07T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15761 Stockwater Baker Creek Salmon River 0.02

NENENW Sec. 13 T09N R17E

SWSWSE Sec. 13T09N R17E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15912 Stockwater Sheep Creek

East Fork Salmon

River

0.02

SESWSW Sec. 27 T09N R17E

SWNESE Sec. 28 T09N R17E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15914 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Pine Creek 0.02

SESESW Sec. 07T09N R18E

SWNESE Sec. 07T09N R18E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15915 Stockwater Pine Creek

East Fork Salmon

River

0.02

NESWNW Sec. 05 T09N R18E

SESWSW Sec. 08 T09N R18E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15937 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Bear Creek 0.02

NENWSE Sec. 01T09N R19E

SENWSE Sec.01 T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15944 Stockwater Mosquito Creek Road Creek 0.02

SESENE Sec. 19 R20E SWNENE

Sec. 35T10N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15945 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Mosquito Creek 0.02

NENWSE Sec. 02 T09N R19E

SESENW Sec. 12T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

WMP62 ... .. . - ..
rtp^TCTTvrrcsTj

Basin

Sequence

No.

Use Source Tributary

Rate

(CFS)

Volume

(AFA)

Location POD Owner

72 15946 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Mosquito Creek 0.02

SENESW Sec. 02 T09N R19E

SENWNW Sec. 11 T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15947 Stockwater Bear Creek Road Creek 0.02

NENWLt 3 Sec. 01 T09N R19E

NESWSW Sec. 04 T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15948 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Bear Creek 0.02

NWSENE Sec 07T09N R20E

SESENE Sec. 18 T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15948 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Bear Creek 0.02

NWSENE Sec. 07T09N R20E

SESENE Sec. 18T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15949 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Bear Creek 0.02

NWSWSE Sec. 07 T09N R20E

NENWNE Sec. 18 T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15950 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Bear Creek 0.01

SENE Sec. 07 T09 R20E

SESENE Sec. 18T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15950 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Bear Creek 0.01

SENE Sec. 07T09N R20E

SESENE Sec. 18 T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15951 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Bear Creek 0.02

SWSWNW Sec. 08 T09N R20E

NWNWNW Sec. 21T09N

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15956 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Bear Creek 0.02

SWSENESec. 08T09N R20E

NESESE Sec. 08T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15980 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Lake Creek 0.02

SWNWSE Sec.23 T09N R19E

NENWSE Sec. 19T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15983 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Lake Creek 0.02

NESWSE Sec. 25 T09N R19E

SWSWSE Sec. 25 T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15984 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Lake Creek 0.02

SENESW Sec. 25T09N R19E

SWSESW Sec. 25T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15985 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Lake Creek 0.02

SWNESW Sec. 25 T09N R19E

SESWSW Sec. 25 T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15986 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Lake Creek 0.02

NWSWNW Sec. 25 T09N R19E

NWSESE Sec. 26T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15988 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Herd Creek 0.02

NWNENE Sec. 26 T09N R19E

SWNWNE Sec. 26 T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15989 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Lake Creek 0.02

NENWSW Sec. 23 T09N R19E

NWNENW Sec. 26 T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15990 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Lake Creek 0.02

NWSWNW Sec. 24 T09N R19E

SWSWNW Sec. 24 T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15993 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Lake Creek 0.02

SWSESE Sec. 15 T09N R19E

NWSESE Sec. 22T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 15995 Stockwater Hell Canyon Creek

East Fork Herd

Creek

0.02

SWSWSE Sec. 35 T09N R19E

SESESE Sec. 35T09N R19E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 16001 Stockwater Lake Creek Herd Creek 0.02

Lt3 Sec. 17T09N R19E

NESESSE Sec. 29 T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 16002 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Lake Creek 0.02

SESWSW Sec. 30T09N R20E

SWSENE Sec. 31T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

WMP 63
Appendices

Basin

Sequence

No.

Use Source Tributary

Rate

(CFS)

Volume

(AFA)

Location POD Owner

72 16003 Stockwater Unnamed Stream Lake Creek 0.02

NWSENW Sec. 31 T09N R20E

NESESW Sec. 31T09N R20E

U.S.A. Acting Through USDI BLM

72 16505 Stockwater Spring Bull Gulch Creek 0.02 NENWSec. 33 T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16506 Stockwater Spring Sagebrush Creek 0.02 NENWSec. 25 T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16507 Stockwater Spring Sagebrush Creek 0.02 NENE Sec. 25 T09N R18E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16510 Stockwater Spring Sagebrush Creek 0.02 SWNWSec. 30T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16511 Stockwater Spring Sagebrush Creek 0.02 NWSW Sec. 30T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16512 Stockwater Spring

East Fork Herd

Creek

0.02 NENE Sec. 04 T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16513 Stockwater Spring

East Fork Herd

Creek

0.02 NWSE Sec. 09 T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16514 Stockwater Spring

East Fork Herd

Creek

0.02 SWSW Sec. 22 T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16515 Stockwater

Upper Pine Gulch

Spring

Sinks 0.02 SESW Sec. 21T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16516 Stockwater

Lower Pine Gulch

Springs

Sinks 0.02 SWSW Sec. 21T09N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16517 Stockwater Spring Sinks 0.02 SWSW Sec. 21 T08N R19E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16529 Stockwater Spring Sheep Creek 0.02 SENWSec. 34T09N R17E U.S.A. Acting Through USDA Forest Service

72 16672

Minimum Stream

Flow

East Pass Creek Herd Creek

Jan. 9 cfs

Feb. 8

cfs

Mar. 8

cfs

Apr. 11

cfs

May 40

cfs

June 91

cfs

July 39

cfs

Aug. 20

cfs

Sept. 13

cfs

Oct. 11

cfs

Nov. 10

cfs

Dec. 9

cfs

NWSESW Sec. 29 T09N R19E State of Idaho

WMP 64
Appendices

Appendix 2 - Common and Scientific Names

Plant Species - Common and Scientific Names

Common Name Scientific Name

Sub-alpine fir Abies lasiocarpa

Whitebark pine Pinus a1bicaulis

Limber pine Pinusflexilis

Douglas fir Pseudotsuga

menziesii

Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta

Mountain big Artemesia tridentada

sagebrush vaseyena

Aspen Populus tremuloides

Bluebunch Pseudoroegneria

wheatgrasss spicata

Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis

Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii

White Cloud Astragalus

milkvetch Vexililifexus var.

Nubilus

Lost River milkvetch Astragalus amnisamissi

Seaside sedge Carex incurviformis

iDouglas' biscuitroot

var. incurviformis

Cymopterus

douglassii

Welsh buckwheat Eriogonum

capistratum var.

Welshii

Challis crazyweed Oxytopis besseyi var.

salmonensis

Wavy-leaf thelypody Thelypodium

repandum

Challis milkvetch Astragalus

amblytropis

Lemhi milkvetch Astragalus

aguilonius

Marsh felwort Lomatium rotatum

Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger

Whitetop Lepidium draba

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris

Houndstongue Cynoglossum

officinale

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum

Russian thistle Salsola kali

Halogeton Halogeton

glormeratus

Kochia Kochia scoparia

Insect Species - Common & Scientific

Names

i.;

Common Name

:.

Scientific Name

Mountain pine Dendroctonus

beetle ponderosae

Douglas fir beetle Dendroctonus

pseudotsugae

Western spruce Choristoneura

budworm occidentalis

WMP65
Appendices

Animal Species - Common & Scientific Names

Common Name Scientific Name

Mountain goat Oreomnos americanus

Pronghorn

antelope

Antilocapra americana

Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis

Wolverine Gulo gulo

Grey wolf Canis lupus

Greater sagegrouse

Centrocercus

urophasianus

Elk Cervus elaphus

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

Moose Alces alces

Fish Species - Common & Scientific Names

Common Name Scientific Name

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha

Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss

[Snake River Basin]

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus

i

WMP66
Appendices

Appendix 3 - Pack Goat Measures

The following list of best management practices for reducing the risk of disease transmission between

pack goats and bighorn sheep is taken from the North American Packgoat Association's list of measures.

Measures identified on this list may be expanded or revised, based on research.

• All pack goats will be on leads or have leads attached to their collar or halter at all times.

• All pack goats will be tethered at night within 30 feet of humans.

• If bighorn sheep are observed within 100 yards of a potential camping area, pack goat users will take

all reasonable measures to move their campsite to a different area. Hazing techniques may be used

to deter bighorn sheep from moving closer to campsites if necessary.

• Pack goat numbers will be limited to a maximum of three (3) pack goats per person, and a maximum

of nine (9) pack goats per group.

• When bighorn sheep are using trails for travel pack goat users will move off the trail 100 yards. If

that distance is not attainable, the pack goat user will travel back along the trail away from the

bighorn sheep and exit the trail when the 100 yard distance can be reached. Pack goat users will

stay off the trail until bighorn sheep have passed. If visibility is limited to less than 100 yards up trail,

a pack goat user will go to the trail and observe for bighorn sheep before continuing with pack

goats.

• When accessing browsing areas and water, a pack goat user will check for the presence of bighorn

sheep before allowing access for pack goats. Whenever possible, water access will be limited to

areas of unlikely bighorn sheep use.

• In event that direct contact of a pack goat and a bighorn sheep is observed, the location and as

much of a description as is possible of the sheep and incident will be written, photographed if

possible and reported to the appropriate agency as soon as reasonably possible.

• If any pack goat becomes lost, missing or separated from the owner and herd every effort will be

exhausted to locate and recover the lost pack goat. If the owner is unable to locate and recover the

lost pack goat, contact the Salmon-Challis National Forest or BLM, Challis Field Office by phone

immediately. A full disclosure of all available information will be provided including: the last known

location (GPS coordinates, legal description, geographic location, name or number of trail or

trailhead), the circumstances that resulted in it becoming lost, a description of the pack goat, and

any equipment that it was carrying.

Accessed from http://www.napRa.org/best-management-practices-psr/ on February 16, 2018.

vy

WMP67
Appendic

Appendix 4 - Trail Inventory

Trail

Number

Trail Name Class Miles within

Wilderness4

Proposal Rationale

4178 Narrow CanyonBowery Creek1 (2.8) Remove

from

inventory

This trail is not able to be located on the

ground and the mapped trail dead ends at a

high ridge.

4182 West Fork Herd Creek 2 7.3 TBD Additional field inventory needed.

4187 McDonald Taylor 3 4.9 - FS5

1.0 - State

No Change

4253

CU19937_07

Sheep Creek 3 3.3 - FS

0.4-BLM

0.2 - State

TBD Additional field inventory needed.

4190 Taylor Creek 3 4.2 TBD Also known as the Lower Cedar Trail.

Additional field inventory needed.

4179 Narrow Canyon 1 (2.9) Remove

from

inventory

This trail is not locatable on the ground and

the mapped trail parallels the Bowery Creek

Trail.

4184.03 Baker Creek 1 (1.0) Remove

from

inventory

This trail dead ends and access is blocked at

one end by private lands.

4183.03 Sheep Creek-Pine

Creek

1

.

4.5 No Change

4051 Toolbox-Herd Creek 3 13.4-FS6 No Change

4188 East Pass Creek 1 1.9 No Change

4188.1 Middle East Pass Creek 1 3.6 Add to

system

This is a historic trail that will improve access

to the area if brought into the system as a

primitive Trail (Class 1). Allows for a north to

south route across the JMJP Wilderness.

4180 Fox Creek 1 <0.1 No Change

4185 Lake Basin-Hells

Canyon

1 3.2-FS

2.0- BLM

0.4 - State

No Change

4189 Sage Brush7 2 3.5 No Change

4244 Bowery Creek 3 10.2 No Change

4181 Lake Basin Cutoff 1 0.7 No Change

4095 Upper Pine Creek 3 3.6 No Change

4 Trails are on NFS lands unless otherwise indicated.

5 A portion of this trail (0.7 mile) is a motorized trail and is coincident with the wilderness boundary, per GIS. Congressional intent is

clear that this is intended to be outside the wilderness boundary. This amount is not included in the total miles sum at the bottom ol

this table.

6 Per GIS, 0.3 miles of the BLM portion of the Herd Creek trail (CU191086) is coincident with the wilderness boundary. However,

congressional intent is clear that the trail is outside the wilderness boundary. This trail portion is not listed in the table.

7 This is a motorized trail and is coincident with the wilderness boundary. Congressional intent is clear that this is outside the

wilderness boundary. This amount is not included in the total miles sum at the bottom of this table.

WMP68

t'
Appendices

4186 Pine-McDonald8 2 2.8- FS9

0.4 - State

No Change

1901.03 Upper Lake Creek 3 4.7-BLM No Change This constructed road will be maintained as a

pedestrian/stock trail.

I CU191507 Sawmill Canyon/Sage

Creek

2 2.8- BLM No Change

TBD Upper Lake Creek

Campground/Sage

Creek

2 6.4-BLM Add to

system

This trail was present at the time of

designation, and provides access in the

northeastern corner of the wilderness.

1901.02 Herd Lake 2 0.6- BLM No Change

Total

1901.1 Herd Lake Campsite 2 0.8-

79.4

BLM

10

No Change

!-

8 This is a motorized trail and is coincident with the wilderness boundary, per GIS. Congressional intent is clear that this is to be

outside the wilderness boundary. This amount is not included in the total miles sum at the bottom of this table.

9 Per GIS, 0.4 miles of the BLM portion of the Pine Creek trail (CU19958) is coincident with the wilderness boundary. However, the

congressional intent is clear to ensure the trail is outside the wilderness boundary. This trail portion is not listed in the table.

10 Total Mileage does not include the mileage of the trails proposed for removal from the National Forest System Trail inventory.

WMP 69
Clayton

JtirrMcClure- Jeri

Peak Wilderness

*jLD*orw

Legend

Jim MeCJure-Jerry Peak Wilderness

Figure 2: Map of Trails

WMP 70
Appendices

Appendix 5 - Campsite Monitoring

Record disturbance to the groundcover (Frissel Campsite Condition Classes).

1 - Ground vegetation flattened but not permanently injured. Minimal physical change except

for possibly a simple rock fire ring.

2 - Ground vegetation worn away around the fire ring or center of activity.

3 - Ground vegetation lost on most of the site but humus and litter still present in all but a few

areas.

4 - Bare mineral soil widespread. Tree roots exposed on the surface.

5 - Soil erosion obvious. Trees reduced in vigor or dead.

Record tree damage.

0 - No more than 3 severely damaged trees.

1 - 4 to 10 severely damaged trees.

2 - More than 10 severely damaged trees.

Record disturbed area.

0 - No more than 25 m2 (0-250 ft2).

1 - 26 to 100 m2 (251 - 1000 ft2).

2 - More than 100 m2 (more than 1000 ft2).

Record the presence/absence of various administrative structures.

Additional local measures may include:

• Record the presence of user-created structures or installations.

• Record the presence/abundance of firewood.

For more information:

http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/recsitemonitor/National%20Minimum%20Recre

ation%20Site%20Monitoring%20Protocol.pdf

\S

WMP71
Appendices

Appendix 6 - Maps of Forest Service and BLM Allotments in the JMJP

Figure 3 - FS East Pass Sheep and Goat Allotment

Figure 4 - FS Herd Creek Cattle and Horse Allotment

Figure 5 - BLM: Herd Creek, Mountain Springs, Road Creek, and Sage Creek Cattle and Horse Allotments

Figure 6 - FS Pine Creek, BLM East Fork, and BLM Pine Creek Cattle and Horse Allotments

Figure 7 - FS Upper East Fork Cattle and Horse Allotment

Figure 8 - FS Wildhorse Cattle and Horse Allotment

WMP72
Appendices

^cdonald

Here

Creek

HERD

:reek

Jim McClure- Jerry

Peak Wilderness

A'UMlNISTKKED

NATIOSAI

WIllDHORSE Huntor Creek

Summit!

NORTH"

FORK UNIX'

(ft

^NE CREEK T

UNIT V

HERD flREE*

SHEE=

CREEK *- v PINE

LA* E

BASIN

E< ON

WEST

FORK

S3lmon-Challis

Nc -

3colder Creek

UPPER EAST

FORK C&H

NOR Hi

FORK

NORTH'v

FORK ' . - -

tv/

I

0 0.250.5 1 1.5

R'/TfCRKlAKE Miles

Legend

Jim McClure^Jeny Peak '.Vildemess

allotments

| Pastures

Range Improvement Point

^ Pond

°>i Spring

N—/ Trough

• BLM Range Improvement Site

Range Improvement Line

C H ^

Exclosure 1RTH

Fence < LAKE

Pipeline

'Road yan

Figure 3: FS East Pass Sheep and Goat Allotment.

WMP73
Appendice

HERD

LAKE HERD

CREEK

BLM

^Herd

Greek

HERD

LAKE

non-Cl

N^0

jld#C HEf^D

CREEK

LAKE

BASIN «

>

i Rasm r

’WEST

FORK

WILDHORSE

NORTH

FORK

NORTH

FOB^ # Wiidhon

LAKE ?«

>1NE f FOX

REEK \ CREEK

JNIT A

A TAYLOR /

MCDOWL

OR /

.

HERD CREEK

- BLM UNIT

PINE i

REEK

wildhoi

PINTO/BURNT/GAR

CREEK

Jim McClure- Jei c TWIN

BWDGES/LAKE Peak Wilderness CREEK

KATIO^^FORKS'1

EAST PASS

CREEK

Legend

Jim McClure^Jerry Peak Wilderness

£2^1lotments

I Pastures

Range Improvement Point

^ Pond

°* Spring

v—/ Trough

• BLM Range improvement Site

Range Improvement Line

+!-Exclosure

-X— Fence

0 0.37S.7P 2.25 3

/ "i ^ --** - «* i

-Pipeline

ttt~p Road

Figure 4: FS Herd Creek Cattle and Horse Allotment.

WMP 74

o c/>
Appendices

Mountain

Springs

\HERD

GREEK LAKE

BASIN

WILDHORSE

NORTH

FORK

TAYLOR/

MCDONALD

BLM LNT

HERD

LAKE HERD

CREEK C(CCR

BLM

raw

BRIDGES/LAKE

CRSK

Legend

,v«nK

WldHorse

Range improvement Point

^ Pona

c» Seme

w T&JCfi

• Blm Ronje i-ercv^nert S*

Range Improvement Une

EKCIXt

— P©e<ne 0 0 3753.7

(Vise WJdhorse

'ILDHGRSE GRANTCREEK

Figure 5: BLM Herd Creek, Mountain Springs, Road Creek, and Sage Creek Cattle and Horse Allotments

WMP 75
Appendice

Figure 6: FS Pine Creek, BLM East Fork, and BLM Pine Creek Cattle and Florse Allotments.

WMP76
Appendices

I

iI

Hunter Creek

Summit,

/.a

j r

'Landing fu

Strip1. ;«

- uf

Herd

Creek HERD

TAYLOR/ CRE£t

MCDONALD

‘,0910

f '/' , »

/' • jit

f <1

I ALLIS T|

AL>M BY.'$ r-i.

8 Y

; UYTOOTH N’lv Ajj

/

7 /

u > i?

SalmorvCrti.'IjsNP

- Bouicer Creek

/ I

244

"Sheep

Bodge

SAWTo/rH / NATIONAI

I I 19 : /

Xl )M j N1STK11F- D BV

29 ‘

FtOOTII NRA

17^

IWERY

gend

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness

BAIIotments

J Pastures

ige Improvement Point

Pond

i Spring

' Trough

BLM Range Improvement Site

ige Improvement Line

— Exclosure

— Fence

— Pipeline

=» Road

UPPERIEAST

FORKC&H

1 -

t EAST

\ PASS

ADM I kMKTERKl.) U'

I

1 ’ ' OQ

30 ; \

EAST PASS

CREEK S « G

i i - - -

sJlmon-challis

V

NATIONAL

33

Cou?AT

/

-- — t

NORTH 1

FORK

UNIT /

NORTH -

FORK

Figure 7: FS Upper East Fork Cattle and Horse Allotment.

WMP 77
Appendice*

IA rLOW i-'PLIVl

MCDONAL

HERD

CREEK

, BASIN

W'LDHORSE

LUOKOU"fr

* WILDHORSE.

wilohqrse

'A.NE’SLlClMlT

cany6n

HERD

LAH£ ELM HERD

CREEK Creek

BLM

N~OBU^t'.%ARD£N

>,f^r

WiWhorse

AtST

FORK

PAIN

E*0» BRiDGESLAKE

CR£EKt

G^ANT

' -' 'nowr^-

RORK

NORTH §

FORKtlNIT 1 AlT

Legend

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness BAllotments

Pastures

Range Improvement Point

^ Pond

°?i Spring

V—/ Trough

• BLM Range Improvement Site

Range Improvement Line

-i-Exclosure

—K— Fence

-Pipeline

r * Road

i

Figure 8: FS Wildhorse Cattle and Horse Allotment.

I

WMP 78
Appendices

Appendix 7 - Congressional Grazing Guidelines

(House Report NO. 101-405 (1990))

APPENDIX A. - GRAZING GUIDELINES

Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act states: "the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the

effective date of this Act, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are

deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture".

The legislative history of this language is very clear in its intent that livestock grazing, and activities and

the necessary facilities to support a livestock grazing program, will be permitted to continue in National

Forest wilderness areas, when such grazing was established prior to classification of an area as

wilderness.

Including those areas designated in 1964 by the Wilderness Act, Congress has designated a large

number of wilderness areas, including areas which are managed by the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife

Service, and Bureau of Land Management. A number of these areas contain active grazing programs,

which are conducted pursuant to existing authorities. In all such cases, when enacting legislation

classifying an area as wilderness, it has been the intent of the Congress that the cited language of the

Wilderness Act would apply to grazing within wilderness areas administered by all Federal agencies.

To avoid any possible confusion, however, the Committee believes it would appropriate to reiterate the

guidelines and policies (which have been set out previously in the Committee's Report on H.R. 5487 of

the 96th Congress, House Report NO. 96-617) that are to be utilized by BLM in implementing the

relevant provisions of the Wilderness Act with respect to livestock grazing in the wilderness areas

designated by this bill. It is the intention of the Committee that these guidelines and policies be

considered in the overall context of the purposes and direction of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and this

bill, and that they be promptly, fully, and diligently implemented and made available to Bureau of Land

Management personnel at all levels and to all holders of permits for grazing in the wilderness areas

designated by this bill.

The guidelines and policies are as follows:

1. There shall be no curtailments of grazing in wilderness areas simply because an area is, or has

been designated as wilderness, nor should wilderness designations be used as an excuse by

administrators to slowly "phase out" grazing. Any adjustments in the numbers of livestock

permitted to graze in wilderness areas should be made as a result of revisions in the normal

grazing and land management planning and policy setting process, giving consideration to legal

mandates, range condition, and the protection of the range resource from deterioration.

It is anticipated that the numbers of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness would remain at

the approximate levels at the time an area enters the wilderness system. If land management

plans reveal conclusively that increased livestock numbers or animal unit months (AUMs) could

be made available with no adverse impact on wilderness values such as plant communities,

primitive recreation, and wildlife populations or habitat, some increases in AUMs may be

permissible. This is not to imply, however, that wilderness lends itself to AUM or livestock

increases and construction of substantial new facilities that might be appropriate for intensive

grazing management in non-wilderness areas.

WMP79
Appendices

2. The maintenance of supporting facilities, existing in an area prior to its classification as

wilderness (including fences, line cabins, water wells and lines, stock tanks, etc.), is permissible

in wilderness. Where practical alternatives do not exist, maintenance or other activities may be

accomplished through the occasional use of motorized equipment. This may include, for

example, the use of backhoes to maintain stock ponds, pickup trucks for major fence repairs, or

specialized equipment to repair stock watering facilities. Such occasional use of motorized

equipment should be expressly authorized in the grazing permits for the area involved. The use

of motorized equipment should be based on a rule of practical necessity and reasonableness.

For example, motorized equipment need not be allowed for the placement of small quantities of

salt or other activities where such activities can reasonably and practically be accomplished on

horseback or foot. On the other hand, it may be appropriate to permit the occasional use of

motorized equipment to haul large quantities of salt to distribution points. Moreover, under the

rule of reasonableness, occasional use of motorized equipment should be permitted where

practical alternatives are not available and such use would not have a significant adverse impact

on the natural environment. Such motorized equipment uses will normally only be permitted in

those portions of a wilderness area where they had occurred prior to the area's designation as

wilderness or are established by prior agreement.

3. The replacement or reconstruction of deteriorated facilities or improvements should not be

required to be accomplished using "natural materials", unless the material and labor costs of

using natural materials are such that their use would not impose unreasonable additional costs

on grazing permittees.

4. The construction of new improvements or replacement of deteriorated facilities in wilderness is

permissible if in accordance with these guidelines and management plans governing the area

involved. However, the construction of new improvements should be primarily for the purpose

of resource protection and the more effective management of these resources rather than to

accommodate increased numbers of livestock.

5. The use of motorized equipment for emergency purposes such as rescuing sick animals or the

placement of feed in emergency situations is also permissible. This privilege is to be exercised

only in true emergencies, and should not be abused by permittees.

In summary, subject to the conditions and policies outlined in this report, the general rule of thumb on

grazing management in wilderness should be that activities or facilities established prior to the date of

an area's designation as wilderness should be allowed to remain in place and may be replaced when

necessary for the permittee to properly administer the grazing program. Thus, if livestock grazing

activities and facilities were established in an area at the time Congress determined that the area was

suitable for wilderness and placed the specific area in the wilderness system, they should be allowed to

continue. With respect to areas designated as wilderness prior to the date of this Act, these guidelines

shall not be considered as a direction to reestablish uses where such uses have been discontinued.

WMP80
Appendices

Appendix 8 - Wild Horse Management

Figure 9. Map of the Challis Herd Management Area and JMJP Wilderness

v/

WMP81
FOREST

Clayton

\vnovu. ;AWV001H

national

iOCKRATION

ARKA

rAii^M t.L

Jim McClure- Jerry

Peak Wilderness

SAWl t'M V) H N \T1U\'.M , POltUST

-A'Cf'II. 'TS ' l

(TI-.l Us

'eowwv'

Legend

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness

BLM herd Management Area

Appendices

1

I

!

Figure 9: Challis Herd Management Area and JMJP Wilderness

WMP82
Appendices

Appendix 9 - Fire History and FRCC Maps

Figure 10: Fire History Map within the JMJP Wilderness

Figure 11: Fire Regime Condition Class Map for the JMJP Wilderness

\y

WMP83
Appendice

Figure 10: Fire Flistory Mop

WMP 84
I Appendices

Legend

Jm McClure Jerry Peak Widerness

--Road

Fire Regime Condition Class

Unknown

Fire Regime Condition Class I

Fire Regime Condition Class II

Fire Regime Condition Class III

0 0.5 1

Miles

SUES

Figure 11: FRCC Map

WMP85
Appendices

Appendix 10 - Approval Guidelines for the Use of Motorized and Mechanized Equipment for Search and Rescue Operation

Start

Has appropriate Sheriffs

Department been

notified?

No Notify appropriate Sheriff's

Department

Yes

Is the incident a recovery

or search?

V

Yes Is it in wilderness?

>

Cl

No

No Yes

For a rescue, are injuries

or conditions life

threatening?

No Could the injury become

life threatening?

No

Yes/Unsure Yes

Would a foot/stock

search/rescue result in

serious complications to

the victim or the S&R

team (weather,

topography, distance,

etc.)?

Are there other means of

evacuation in a safe and

timely manner?

Yes

No Yes

Always Approve!1 Usually Approve!1

Exit Flowchart

No

The incident is NOT life

threatening and the victim

can safely be moved outside

wilderness by foot/stock.

Never Approve! Dve

._s

1 Permission can only be granted by the Forest Supervisor/BLM Field Manager (or his/her acting) on a case-by-case basis.

WMP86
USDA

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Jim McClure-Jerry Peak

Wilderness Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

Salmon-Challis National Forest

BLM, Idaho Falls District, Challis Field Office

August 9, 2018

EA-87
Summary

Summary

The U.S. Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), Idaho Falls District, Challis Field Office, propose to assess the environmental

consequences of a Wilderness Management Plan for the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness. The Forest

Service manages a total of 94,985 acres and the Bureau of Land Management manages a total of 21,913

acres of the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness. The plan and this environmental document were

developed by both agencies. The action is needed to preserve the area's characteristics as identified by

the Wilderness Act of 1964 by identifying the conditions and opportunities for which the Wilderness

would be managed and creating specific standards and guidelines for managing resources and activities

that would bring existing conditions closer to meeting desired conditions.

The Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Management Plan would provide specific, updated, and

consistent direction for management of the Jim-McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness. The plan would provide

direction to maintain wilderness character mandated by the Wilderness Act of 1964 as areas that

remain untrammeled (i.e., unrestrained, unhindered) by man, natural, undeveloped, and having

outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation, and other

features of value.

The Interdisciplinary Team identified effects to wilderness character, including effects to wildlife within

the natural quality, as a key issue from scoping comments. Identification of issues led to the

development of additional alternatives; therefore, in addition to the Proposed Action, a Natural-focus

Alternative, and a Minimum Action Alternative is analyzed in this EA to provide a benchmark for

comparative purposes.

Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the agencies' responsible officials will decide whether to

implement, the Proposed Action (Alternative A, which is the Preliminary Jim McClure-Jerry Peak

Wilderness Management Plan), the Natural-focus Alternative (Alternative B), the Minimum

Management Alternative (Alternative C), a modified version of the Proposed Action, or make selection

of components from each Alternative to guide future management of the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak

Wilderness over the life of the plan.

This project is subject to the objection process pursuant 36 CFR 218 Subpart A and B.

EA - 88
Purpose and Need

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Document Structure

The Forest Service (FS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have prepared this Environmental

Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant

Federal and State laws and regulations, to assess the environmental consequences of a Wilderness

Management Plan (WMP) for the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak (JMJP) Wilderness. The document is organized

into four parts:

• Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the

purpose of and need for the project, and the agencies' proposal for achieving that purpose and

need. This section also details how the public was informed of the proposal and how the public

responded.

• Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of

the agencies' three alternatives. The environmental consequences associated with the Proposed

Action, the Minimum Management Alternative and the Natural-focus alternative are outlined

within the Environmental Consequences section of this document.

• Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing

the Proposed Action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within

each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of each

alternative: the Proposed Action, the Natural-focus Alternative, and the Minimum Action

Alternative.

• Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted

during the development of the environmental assessment.

• Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses

presented in the environmental assessment.

Background

The United States Congress designated the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak (JMJP) Wilderness (116,898 acres) on

August 7, 2015. All of the Wilderness is within Custer County, Idaho and is managed by the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM), Idaho Falls District, Challis Field Office (21,913 acres; 19%) and the Forest

Service (FS; 94,985 acres; 81%), Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District and administered by the Middle Fork

Ranger District. See Figure 1.

This WMP direction applies to the National Forest System lands of the JMJP Wilderness and is consistent

with the Challis National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan; FS, 1987). The WMP

will be incorporated into current Challis Forest Plan as a management approach. The forthcoming,

revised forest plan, which is anticipated to be completed in 2020, will provide plan components

appropriate for the protection and management of the JMJP Wilderness.

v/

This WMP direction applies to the BLM portion of the JMJP Wilderness and is consistent with the Challis

Resource Management Plan (RMP; BLM, 1999). The Challis RMP includes direction for wilderness study

areas (WSAs) released from wilderness consideration, and limited guidance regarding management of

designated wilderness, including the following direction: withdrawal [of designated lands] from mineral

entry and general land laws, incorporation of Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) Guidelines

when managing wildland fire, and providing recreation opportunities for the remainder of the Resource

EA - 89
Purpose and Need

Area not included in a special recreation management area, including areas specifically for unstructured

outdoor experiences. Further, the RMP directs closure of the Upper Lake Creek Campground: Close the

Upper Lake Creek campground and maintain the existing road above Herd Lake as a non-motorized trail

only.

The Challis RMP also includes the following fire management direction: "Develop activity plans ... to

direct fire suppression on a site-specific basis within the conditional suppression areas .... In the absence

of an activity plan, provide initial attack and full suppression of natural and human-caused wildfires

occurring within conditional suppression areas." (p. 21)

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this project is to provide specific, updated, and consistent management direction for the

JMJP Wilderness, situated on federal public land managed by the FS and the BLM. The WMP would

provide specific direction for agency management of the JMJP Wilderness, and the need for revision

would be reviewed, as conditions warrant.

This action is needed to preserve wilderness character as identified by the Wilderness Act of 1964 by

identifying the conditions and opportunities for which the Wilderness would be managed and creating

specific standards and guidelines for managing resources and activities that would bring existing

conditions closer to meeting desired conditions. Management direction would also address areas

immediately adjacent to the Wilderness area to facilitate signage, staging areas, and access points. The

primary objective of the WMP is to maintain wilderness character cumulatively identified by the

Wilderness Act of 1964 as areas that remain untrammeled (i.e. unrestrained, unhindered) by man,

natural, undeveloped, having outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types

of recreation, and other features of value. These objectives and actions would be implemented upon

adoption of the WMP and the WMP identifies actions that may be implemented in the future if changes

to resource conditions occur. The need for action is defined by the gap between the existing and

desired conditions. The purpose, or primary objective, of the Proposed Action is to eliminate or reduce

that gap. The purpose defines the standards that the Proposed Action and any alternatives must satisfy.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is the JMJP Wilderness Management Plan. Chapter 2 of this document outlines the

management activities in greater detail and the Wilderness Management Plan contains the full text. The

WMP provides the framework and guidance for management of the Wilderness, including goals,

objectives, standards, and guidelines from which future projects may be tiered.

Decision Framework

The Purpose and Need for Action and the environmental analysis in this EA will direct the Responsible

Officials' selection whether to manage the wilderness solely according to legislative and regulatory

requirements (Minimum Management Alternative), or whether to implement a plan that provides

additional direction to manage approved uses not otherwise regulated while ensuring adequate

protection and preservation of resources and values, as well as providing mitigation for potential

impacts to those resources and values (the Proposed Action or the Natural-focus Alternative).

This EA will provide the Forest Supervisor of the Salmon-Challis National Forest and the BLM District

Manager with a basis on which to make an informed decision. Following review of the WMP and EA, the

FS Forest Supervisor and BLM District Manager, as appropriate, will decide to do one of the following:

EA - 90
Purpose and Need

1. Approve management proposals as presented in one of the alternatives or a combination of

alternatives analyzed in this document.

2. Determine if significant impacts (as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27) exist that would require the

preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation

Wilderness management for the JMJP Wilderness is based on national and local wilderness goals,

objectives and associated standards and guidelines, and wilderness-specific issues that were identified

through internal and external scoping.

Project kick-off meetings were held May 19, 2016 in Ketchum and Stanley, June 2, 2016 in Challis. The

public, stakeholders, the Nez Perce Tribe and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes were offered an opportunity to

provide input during an early scoping period (July 25-August 25, 2016). During this early scoping period

32 letters were received, including a letter from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. Comments

generally fell into eight categories:

• Most Valued Features of the Wilderness

• Wilderness Management

• Recreation Management

• Outfitters and Guides

Livestock Grazing

Fire Management

Wildlife Management

Weed Management

Miscellaneous topics included law enforcement, search and rescue, visual resources, and rehabilitation

of human disturbances. These comments were considered in development of the management

guidance.

The scoping period for the draft WMP occurred February 15 to March 17, 2017. In February and early

March, four scoping meetings were offered to the public in Challis, Mackay, Ketchum and an online

webinar. The agencies also outreached through their respective webpages and social media. During the

scoping period 30 comment letters were received, including letters from the following organizations.

State, and local agencies:

Backcountry Horsemen of Idaho

Boulder-White Clouds Council

Custer County Commissioners

Custer Co./Wilderness Society

Idaho Cattle Association

Idaho Department of Agriculture

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Idaho Cattle Association

Idaho Conservation League/Wilderness

Society

Idaho Outfitter & Guide Association

Idaho Recreation Council

Ken Smith Hunting

North American Packgoat Association

Trout Unlimited

Wild Sheep Foundation

Wilderness Watch

Western Watershed Project

Wildlands Defense

White Cloud Outfitters

The 30-day opportunity to comment on the proposed plan occurred October 27-November 27, 2017 and

v/

included public meetings in Mackay, Challis, Stanley, and Ketchum. A legal notice was issued in the

Challis Messenger, the paper of record on October 27, 2017.

Tribal governments have a unique legal and political relationship with the United States government as

reflected in the United States Constitution, treaties, statutes, court decisions, executive orders, and

memoranda. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall and the Nez Perce Tribes were contacted

regarding the project. As noted above the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall provided a comment

EA-91
Purpose and Need

letter during the early scoping period. The JMJP plan was also discussed during staff-to-staff

coordination meetings between the SCNF and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on October 4, 2016, on

February 22, 2017, April 4, 2017 and October 3, 2017; and between the BLM and the Tribes on February

22, 2017, April 20, 2017 and October 24, 2017.

The BLM, Challis Field Office and Salmon-Challis National Forest met early, regularly, and in an on-going

process with the Custer County Commissioners, including each of the public involvement opportunities:

project kick-off meetings, early scoping period, scoping period, and the comment period. Agency

representatives from the BLM and the FS regularly provided updates at the monthly County

Commissioners meetings, and at the Natural Resource Advisory Committee (NRAC) meetings. The

agencies provided a monthly newsletter via email to stakeholders, including the county, to provide

regular planning updates. The County Commissioners requested several meetings during the planning

process, including briefings prior to the initiation of the scoping and comment periods. The agencies

meet with the commissioners February 10, 2017 prior to the start of the scoping period, August 8, 2017

to discuss the wilderness plan process, and October 17, 2017 prior to the start of the comment period.

Issues

The Forest Service and BLM staff separated the issues identified during scoping into two groups: key

issues and issues not analyzed in detail. Key issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by

implementing the proposed action. Issues are used to develop and analyze the alternatives. They involve

potential effects to resources that might not be addressed by existing laws. The Forest Service and BLM

identified one primary issue raised during scoping: Wilderness management plan strategies may affect

wilderness character, which encompasses several resources under the qualities of wilderness character

including wildlife, non-native, invasive species, and recreation.

Issues Not Analyzed in Detail were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2)

already decided by law, regulation, land use plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the

decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council

for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, "...identify and

eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior

environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)..."

Issues Not Analyzed in Detail

These concerns are not analyzed in detailed because they are outside the scope of this project, are

already decided by law, regulation, policy. Forest Plan/RMP, or other higher level decision, are irrelevant

to the decision to be made or are conjectural and not supported by factual evidence or scientific

evidence.

• Wilderness Designation - The JMJP Wilderness was designated through the Sawtooth National

Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act (P.L. 114-46). Designation of wilderness

is not under review within this plan and EA. The boundaries of the wilderness were set through

passage of the Act and are not open to review through this planning process.

• Prescribed Fire - consideration of prescribed fire would be guided by BLM and FS wilderness

policy. There are no current proposals to implement prescribed fire in the wilderness.

• Predator Control - BLM and FS wilderness policy allow for predator control programs on case-by¬

case basis for certain reasons. Control methods are to focus on individual animals.

• Fish Stocking - In cooperation with the state of Idaho, fish stocking is guided by BLM and FS

wilderness policy, and the guidance of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA),

EA - 92
Purpose and Need

BLM, and FS Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in Wilderness (AFWA et

al. 2006).

• Opening routes to motorized travel or changing the wilderness boundaries -the boundaries are

established by Congress. Additional legislation would be necessary to modify the wilderness

boundary.

• Trapping - trapping is an acceptable use of wilderness, subject to federal and state laws and

regulations.

• Access for the Physically Challenged - Special facilities to accommodate wilderness use by those

with disabilities are not required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Wheelchairs are

allowed in wilderness for use by individuals whose disability requires the use of a wheelchair.

Wheelchairs suitable for use in wilderness are those that would be suitable for use in an indoor

pedestrian area.

• Livestock Grazing and Allotment Management Plans - Grazing of livestock, where established

prior to August 7, 2015, shall be administered in accordance with Section 4(d)(4) of the

Wilderness Act, Section 102(e) of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak

Wilderness Additions Act and the grazing guidelines in House Report 96-617, and Appendix A of

House Report 101-405.

• Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3,1868 - The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have ancestral treaty rights to

uses of the Salmon-Challis National Forest and Idaho Falls District BLM that includes the

wilderness area. The relationship of the United States government with American Indian tribes

is based on legal agreements between sovereign nations. The Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3,1868,

reserved the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights of tribal members on "all unoccupied lands of

the United States so long as game is present thereon." This right applies to all federal lands

administered by the BLM and FS.

• Travel Management - Transportation and travel management of routes and designations outside

of designated wilderness are outside the scope of this plan and would be addressed through

separate travel management planning.

• Trailhead Amenities - During scoping, it was suggested by the public that existing facilities at

Little Boulder trailhead may not be sufficient to support current levels of recreational use.

Proposed improvements outside the wilderness boundary are outside the scope of this Plan and

will be required to undergo a separate NEPA analysis process prior to approval.

• Socioeconomics of wilderness designation - Various parties have expressed concerns regarding

the economic impact of the wilderness designation; however, the JMJP Wilderness has already

been designated by Congress with the P.L. 114-46, and analysis of the wilderness designation is

not within the scope of this EA. Analysis of the impacts of the actions presented in the

alternatives is provided below.

• Dogs - Idaho Statute (Section 36 1101) protects big game from harassment by dogs. Further,

Idaho Department of Fish and Game regulations apply to dogs used for hunting, pursuit, or

trailing of game animals.

\y

EA - 93
Alternatives

Chapter 2 - Alternatives

This section describes and compares the alternatives in comparative form, considered for the

JMJP Wilderness Management Plan project. The list below and the table that follows include all

direction proposed in the plan, with the exception of direction established by law or policy

(Appendix A of this EA).

Alternative A, Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is described in detail in the Wilderness Management Plan for the JMJP

Wilderness. The Proposed Action discusses discretionary management actions to address issues

identified during internal and external scoping. The following direction is specific to Alternative

A:

Wilderness

• Remove existing developments unless they are determined to be the minimum

necessary for the administration of the area as wilderness, or are:

a. Associated with valid existing rights,

b. Authorized range developments,

c. Of historical or cultural value (in conformance with the NHPA), or

d. Upper Lake Creek Campground, unless it becomes unsafe or unusable (see

Developments and other Human Effects or Disturbances section). Standard (S)

Wildlife

• Adopt pack goat guidelines as recommended by the North American Packgoat

Association through education and information. Guideline (G)

Recreation

• Limit group size to a maximum of 12 people. (See exception for Native American tribes

in the Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments section.) (S)

• The trail leading to the Upper Lake Creek Campground will remain. Width will be

allowed to naturally narrow to a pedestrian/stock width (e.g. Class 3). Culverts will not

be removed unless they wash out or cannot be maintained. Replacement of culverts will

not occur. Management Action (MA)

• Require stock users traveling outside of camp to tie stock to live trees greater than 8" in

diameter for only short periods of time, and require use of tree-saver devices or other

techniques (e.g. wrap lead around trunk twice before tying the knot) to minimize tree

damage. (G)

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

• BLM will retain Upper Lake Creek Campground. Maintenance of the campground will be

in accordance with an MRA. If the facility is damaged, becomes unusable or a safety

hazard, the facility would not be replaced. (MA)

EA - 94
Alternatives

Alternative B, Natural-focus

Alternative B includes the following distinct actions, otherwise it is the same as Alternative A.

Wildlife

• Implement the following measures to minimize contact between bighorn sheep and

domestic goats used for packing:

o All pack goats will be on leads or have leads attached to their collar or halter at

all times.

o All pack goats will be tethered at night within 30 feet of humans,

o If bighorn sheep are observed within 100 yards of a potential camping area,

pack goat users will take all reasonable measures to move their campsite to a

different area. Hazing techniques may be used to deter bighorn sheep from

moving closer to campsites if necessary,

o Pack goat numbers will be limited to a maximum of three (3) pack goats per

person, and a maximum of nine (9) pack goats per group,

o When bighorn sheep are using trails for travel pack goat users will move off the

trail 100 yards. If that distance is not attainable, the pack goat user will travel

back along the trail away from the bighorn sheep and exit the trail when the 100

yard distance can be reached. Pack goat users will stay off the trail until bighorn

sheep have passed. If visibility is limited to less than 100 yards up trail, a pack

goat user will go to the trail and observe for bighorn sheep before continuing

with pack goats.

o When accessing browsing areas and water, a pack goat user will check for the

presence of bighorn sheep before allowing access for pack goats. Whenever

possible, water access will be limited to areas of unlikely bighorn sheep use.

o In event that direct contact of a pack goat and a bighorn sheep is observed, the

location and as much of a description as is possible of the sheep and incident

will be written, photographed if possible and reported to the appropriate

agency as soon as reasonably possible.

o If any pack goat becomes lost, missing or separated from the owner and herd

every effort will be exhausted to locate and recover the lost pack goat. If the

owner is unable to locate and recover the lost pack goat, contact the SalmonChallis National Forest or BLM, Challis Field Office by phone immediately. A full

disclosure of all available information will be provided including: the last known

location (GPS coordinates, legal description, geographic location, name or

number of trail or trailhead), the circumstances that resulted in it becoming lost,

a description of the pack goat, and any equipment that it was carrying. (S)

\y

Recreation

• Limit the number of pack and saddle stock in one group to 14 head of stock, with the

exception of pack goats, which are limited to a maximum of three per person, and 9 per

group. (S)

• Establish a free, self-issue permit system. (MA)

EA-95
Alternatives

• Rehabilitate the pre-existing road leading to Upper Lake Creek Campground to a

wilderness appropriate trail (e.g. Class 3). This will include, but is not be limited to: the

removal of existing culverts within the roadbed, reducing foot print of existing road,

retreading road to wilderness appropriate trail subsurface material, and reducing the

visual impact of the road bed. (MA)

• Discourage tying of stock to trees for more than two hours. (G)

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

• Remove Upper Lake Creek Campground facilities. (MA)

Alternative C, Minimum Management

The Minimal Management Alternative represents the baseline direction for managing the

wilderness. Under Alternative C, management of the wilderness would be guided by law, policy

and regulations without the proactive, wilderness-specific direction for managing wilderness

resources and uses proposed in Alternatives A and B.

Management Direction Common to Alternative A and Alternative B

Wilderness

• Ensure, where possible, management between the Forest Service and BLM, including

regulation of visitor uses, appears seamless to the public. Where differences in agency

policy occur, and if allowable by law, regulation, or policy, the WMP will endeavor to

apply the stricter policy to the adjacent land of the other agency. (G)

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

• Manage dispersed campsites and recreational activities to prevent them from

expanding beyond a point where impacts to riparian and aquatic resources cannot be

effectively addressed. (G)

• Allow natural soil erosion to continue unless an imminent and definite hazard to life and

property or a serious depreciation of important environmental qualities outside the

Wilderness will result. (G)

• Evaluate potential effects of proposed pollution sources for violation of Class II

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Standards. (G)

• Indirect methods (e.g. education) for reducing impacts to soil and water, such as from

recreational use, are preferred over regulatory methods. However, education may be

insufficient in some cases and direct methods may be needed to protect wilderness

character. (MA)

Vegetation and Botanical Resources

EA-96

Ensure impacts to whitebark pine, such as those from fire suppression tactics, improper

livestock grazing, recreational stock use, dispersed camping, or trail construction and

maintenance are minimized when considering these activities. (G)
Alternatives

• Minimize impacts on habitats for rare and sensitive plant species when conducting trail

maintenance and construction. (G)

Noxious and Non-native Invasive Species Management

• Place emphasis on minimizing introduction of new species and controlling small

infestations that have potential to displace native species. (MA)

• Provide educational information on areas that are susceptible to weed invasion and

measures to help prevent non-native, invasive plant establishment and spread. (MA)

Recreation

• Limit group size to a maximum of 12 people. (See exception for Native American tribes

in the Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments section.) (S)

• Prohibit shortcutting trail switchbacks on foot or with pack and saddle stock. (S)

• Manage vehicle access points to prevent unauthorized vehicle use by posting

appropriate boundary signage, and blocking or rehabilitating unauthorized routes where

violations are an issue. (G)

• Do not construct new trails in the JMJP Wilderness, unless trails are determined to be

the minimum necessary for administration of the area as wilderness. (S)

• The FS will remove the Narrow Canyon-Bowery Creek (#4178), Narrow Canyon (#4179),

and Baker Creek (#4184.03) trails from its trail inventory and add the Middle East Pass

Creek Trail to the FS Trail Inventory. BLM will add the existing trail from the Upper Lake

Creek Campground to Sage Creek to its trail system. (MA)

• Require human waste to be buried 6-8" deep and covered at least 200 feet from water,

and, where the terrain allows, 200 feet from campsites and trails. Alternatively, waste

may be packed out. (S)

• Require pack or saddle stock to be ridden, led, or under human control. Animals are not

permitted to run loose on trails or travel routes. (S)

• In camp, require stock users to pad highlines, or use tree-saver devices to minimize tree

damage. (S)

• Require stock users to locate pack and saddle stock handling areas at least 200 feet from

lakes, springs and streams, where terrain allows. (G)

• Place wilderness boundary signs at known access points, such as along trails, in

drainages and at passes. (S)

Fire Management

• The BLM would have the full range of options to achieve resource management

objectives, ranging from full suppression to monitoring of naturally-ignited wildfires. (G)

• Enhance public awareness and support through educational programs about the role of

fire in the ecosystem and fire's role in maintaining wilderness character. (MA)

EA-97
Alternatives

Commercial Services

• Approve only temporary structures and facilities for outfitter and guide operations

necessary to meet the public need in a manner compatible with the Wilderness

environment. (S)

Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue

• Use the flow chart in Appendix 10 [of the WMP] for approval of motorized and

mechanized emergency response. (S)

Developments, and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

• An Operations and Maintenance Plan is under development for Sheep Mountain

repeater site, and an MRA will be completed simultaneously. (MA)

• Small-scale surface disturbances (e.g. campsites, abandoned developments, or linear

disturbances created by vehicles) may be rehabilitated with non-motorized, nonmechanized means. An MRA and NEPA analysis would be required for motorized or

mechanized equipment. The NHPA process will be followed for all projects (mechanized

or non-mechanized) with the potential to adversely affect heritage resources. Actions

would generally be conducted in the following order, as needed:

a. Physical Closure

b. Decompaction

c. Scarifying/Pitting

d. Re-contouring

e. Vertical mulching or "iceberging"

f. Erosion control

g. Vegetative restoration (MA)

Wilderness Education and Interpretation

• Education and outreach is one method that may be employed or increased in response

to campsite and solitude thresholds established above, but may also be employed to

prevent or respond to any recreational visitor impacts. (MA)

• Incorporate wilderness education principles (e.g., wilderness character, safety, "Leave

No Trace," sensitive resources, noxious weeds, or other area information) in brochures,

on the BLM and FS websites, on agency maps, at visitor centers, or on other educational

materials that describe the Wilderness. (MA)

Management Direction Common to Alternative A and Alternative C:

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

• BLM will retain Upper Lake Creek Campground. Maintenance of the campground will be

in accordance with an MRA. If the facility is damaged, becomes unusable or a safety

hazard, the facility would not be replaced. (MA)

EA-98
Alternatives

Management Direction Common to Alternative B and Alternative C:

Wilderness

• Remove existing developments unless they are determined to be the minimum

necessary for the administration of the area as wilderness, or are:

a. Associated with valid existing rights,

b. Authorized range developments, or

c. Of historical or cultural value (in conformance with the NHPA). (S)

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Only one other alternative was considered and that was the No Action Alternative. An

alternative that does not protect wilderness character as required by the Wilderness Act, and

the enabling legislation, may not be fully considered.

Rationale for Dismissal: A true No Action Alternative would not comply with law or

policy, because the FS and BLM are required to manage designated wilderness

according to standards that were not in effect prior to the designation. Further, the

enabling legislation requires the agencies develop "wilderness management plans for

the wilderness areas."

EA-99
Table 1: Alternatives

Direction Alternative A: Proposed Action

Wilderness

Standard JMJP-002 - Remove existing developments unless

they are determined to be the minimum

necessary for the administration of the area as

wilderness, or are:

Guideline

a) Associated with valid existing rights,

b) Authorized range developments,

c) Of historical or cultural value (in

conformance with the NHPA), or

d) Upper Lake Creek Campground, unless it

becomes unsafe or unusable (see

Developments and other Human Effects

or Disturbances section).

JMJP-006 - Ensure, where possible, management

between the Forest Service and BLM, including

regulation of visitor uses, appears seamless to the

public. Where differences in agency policy occur,

and if allowable by law, regulation, or policy, the

WMP will endeavor to apply the stricter policy to

the adjacent land of the other agency.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

Guideline JMJP-008 - Manage dispersed campsites and

recreational activities to prevent them from

expanding beyond a point where impacts to

riparian and aquatic resources cannot be

effectively addressed.

EA - 100

Alternatives

Alternative B: Natural-focus

Remove existing developments unless

they are determined to be the minimum

necessary for the administration of the

area as wilderness, or are:

Alternative C: Minimum Management

Same as Alternative B.

a) Associated with valid existing

rights,

b) Authorized range developments,

or

c) Of historical or cultural value (in

conformance with the NHPA).

Same as Alternative A. FS - No direction.

BLM - Same as Alternative A. (Policy)

Same as Alternative A. No direction.
Alternatives

Direction

Guideline

Guideline

Management

Action

Vegetation and

Guideline

Guideline

Noxious

SSSSSBS

Management

Action

Alternative A: Proposed Action

JMJP-009 - Allow natural soil erosion to continue

unless an imminent and definite hazard to life

and property or a serious depreciation of

important environmental qualities outside the

Wilderness will result.

JMJP-010 - Evaluate potential effects of proposed

pollution sources for violation of Class II

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Standards.

Place emphasis on minimizing introduction of

new species and controlling small infestations

that have potential to displace native species.

Alternative B: Natural-focus

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Indirect methods (e.g. education) for reducing

impacts to soil and water, such as from

recreational use, are preferred over regulatory

methods. However, education may be insufficient

in some cases and direct methods may be needed

to protect wilderness character.

Botanical Resources

JMJP-011 - Ensure impacts to whitebark pine,

such as those from fire suppression tactics,

improper livestock grazing, recreational stock use,

dispersed camping, or trail construction and

maintenance are minimized when considering

these activities.

JMJP-012 - Minimize impacts on habitats for rare

and sensitive plant species when conducting trail

maintenance and construction.

Invasive Species

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Same as Alternative A.

Alternative C: Minim

\i > \*: tj ;,^-i\t'^ *

No direction.

No direction.

No direction.

No direction.

No direction.

Same as Alternative A. No direction.

EA- 101
Alternatives

Direction Alternative A: Proposed Action Alternative 8: Natural-focus Alternative C: Minimum Management

Management Provide educational information on areas that are Same as Alternative A. No direction.

Action

Guideline

susceptible to weed invasion and measures to

help prevent non-native, invasive plant

establishment and spread.

Fisheries Resources

JMJP-019 - Adopt pack goat guidelines as

recommended by the North American Packgoat

Association through education and information

(see list below table).

Recreation

Standard JMJP-022 - Limit group size to a maximum of 12

people. (See exception for Native American tribes

in the Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments

section.)

Standard JMJP-023 - Prohibit shortcutting trail switchbacks

on foot or with pack and saddle stock.

Implement the following measures to

minimize contact between bighorn sheep

and domestic goats used for packing: (see

list below table)

Same as Alternative A.

No direction.

No direction.

Same as Alternative A. No direction.

Guideline

Management

Actions

JMJP-025 - Manage vehicle access points to

prevent unauthorized vehicle use by posting

appropriate boundary signage, and blocking or

rehabilitating unauthorized routes where

violations are an issue.

No direction.

Same as Alternative A. No direction.

Establish a free, self-issue permit system. Same as Alternative A.

Trails

Standard JMJP-026 - Do not construct new trails in the

JMJP Wilderness, unless trails are determined to

be the minimum necessary for administration of

the area as wilderness.

Same as Alternative A. No direction.

EA- 102
Alternatives

Direction Alternative A: Proposed Action Alternative B: Natural-focus Alternative C: Minimum Management

. :|g iSh. . ; i " • ’ . : : ' |||| g|

Management

Actions

The FS will remove the Narrow Canyon-Bowery

Creek (#4178), Narrow Canyon (#4179), and

Baker Creek (#4184.03) trails from its trail

inventory and add the Middle East Pass Creek

Trail to the FS Trail Inventory. BLM will add the

existing trail from the Upper Lake Creek

Campground to Sage Creek to its trail system.

Same as Alternative A. No direction. (No changes to the FS trail

inventory.)

Management

Actions

The trail leading to the Upper Lake Creek

Campground will remain. Width will be allowed to

naturally narrow to a pedestrian/stock width (e.g.

Class 3). Culverts will not be removed unless they

wash out or cannot be maintained. Replacement

of culverts will not occur.

Rehabilitate the pre-existing road leading

to Upper Lake Creek Campground to a

wilderness appropriate trail (e.g. Class 3).

This will include, but is not limited to: the

removal of existing culverts within the

roadbed, reducing foot print of existing

road, retreading road to wilderness

appropriate trail subsurface material, and

reducing the visual impact of the road bed.

Maintain trail at time of designation

standards (non-motorized).

Camping

Standard JMJP-030 - Require human waste to be covered 6-

8" deep at least 200 feet from water, and, where

the terrain allows, 200 feet from campsites and

trails. Alternatively, waste may be packed out.

Same as Alternative A. No direction.

Standard No direction No campfires without pan or blanket.

Eliminate all campfire rings.

No direction.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

Standard JMJP-032 - Limit the combined number of pack

and saddle stock in one group to 20 head of

stock.

.-.-.....-.

Limit the number of pack and saddle stock

in one group to 14 head of stock, with the

exception of pack goats, which are limited

to a maximum of three per person, and 9

per group.

No direction.

EA -103
Alternatives

Direction Alternative A: Proposed Action Alternative B: Natural-focus Alternative C: Minimum Management

Standard JMJP-033 - Require pack or saddle stock to be

ridden, led, or under human control. Animals are

not permitted to run loose on trails or travel

routes.

Same as Alternative A.

.

No direction.

Standard JMJP-034 - In camp, require stock users to pad

highlines, or use tree-saver devices to minimize

tree damage.

Same as Alternative A. No direction.

Guideline JMJP-036 - Require stock users to locate pack and

saddle stock handling areas at least 200 feet from

lakes, springs, and streams, where terrain allows.

Same as Alternative A. Challis FP: Control recreational stock use

in identified problem areas.

Guideline JMJP-037 - Require stock users traveling outside

of camp to tie stock to live trees greater than 8"

in diameter for only short periods of time, and

require use of tree-saver devices or other

techniques (e.g. wrap lead around trunk twice

before tying the knot) to minimize tree damage.

Discourage tying of stock to trees for more

than two hours.

No direction.

Signs

Standard JMJP-039 - Place wilderness boundary signs at

known access points, such as along trails, in

drainages and at passes.

Same as Alternative A. No direction.

;

Fire Management

Guideline JMJP-058 - The BLM would have the full range of

options to achieve resource management

objectives, ranging from full suppression to

monitoring of naturally-ignited wildfires.

Same as Alternative A. BLM RMP (p. 21): Develop activity plans

... to direct fire suppression on a sitespecific basis within the condi¬

tional suppression areas .... In the

absence of an activity plan, provide initial

attack and full suppression of natural and

human-caused wildfires occurring

within conditional suppression areas.

EA -104
Alternatives

Alternative A: Proposed Action

Management

Actions

Enhance public awareness and support through

educational programs about the role of fire in the

ecosystem and fire's role in maintaining

wilderness character.

Alternative B: Natural-focus

Same as Alternative A.

Alternative C: Minimu

No direction.

Commercial Services

Standard

—— I.i

JMJP-063 - Approve only temporary structures

i , Bi ;

Same as Alternative A.

and facilities for outfitter and guide operations

necessary to meet the public need in a manner

compatible with the Wilderness environment.

toHBMMMMHNMNBNMBBMMMMMMMMBNBNMNMMMNMNM!

FS - Same as A.

BLM - no direction

lllililill gal

Standard JMJP-067 - Use the flow chart in Appendix 10 [of

the WMP] for approval of motorized and

mechanized emergency response.

Same as Alternative A. No direction. Approval of

motorized/mechanized emergency

response would not be guided by a

flowchart.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Management

Action

An Operations and Maintenance Plan is under

development for Sheep Mountain repeater site,

and an MRA will be completed simultaneously.

Same as Alternative A.

.

No direction.

Management

Action

BLM will retain Upper Lake Creek Campground.

Maintenance of the campground will be in

Remove Upper Lake Creek campground

facilities.

Same as Alternative A.

accordance with an MRA. If the facility is

damaged, becomes unusable or a safety hazard,

the facility would not be replaced.

EA - 105
Alternatives

Direction Alternative A: Proposed Action Alternative B: Natural-focus Alternative C: Minimum Management

Management

Action

Small-scale surface disturbances (e.g. campsites,

abandoned developments, or linear disturbances

created by vehicles) may be rehabilitated with

non-motorized, non-mechanized means. An MRA

and NEPA analysis would be required for

motorized or mechanized equipment. The NHPA

process will be followed for all projects

(mechanized or non-mechanized) with the

potential to adversely affect heritage resources.

Actions would generally be conducted in the

following order, as needed:

Same as Alternative A. No direction.

1. Physical Closure

2. Decompaction

3. Scarifying/Pitting

4. Re-contouring

5. Vertical mulching or "iceberging"

6. Erosion control

7. Vegetative restoration

Wilderness Education and interpretation

Management

Actions

Education and outreach is one method that may

be employed or increased in response to

campsite and solitude thresholds established

above, but may also be employed to prevent or

respond to any recreational visitor impacts.

Same as Alternative A. No direction.

Pack goat Management in JMJP Wilderness for Alternatives A and B:

The following list of best management practices for reducing the risk of disease transmission between pack goats and bighorn sheep is taken

from the North American Packgoat Association's list of measures. Measures identified on this list may be expanded or revised, based on

research.

• All pack goats will be on leads or have leads attached to their collar or halter at all times.

• All pack goats will be tethered at night within 30 feet of humans.

EA -106
Alternatives

• If bighorn sheep are observed within 100 yards of a potential camping area, pack goat users will take all reasonable measures to move

their campsite to a different area. Hazing techniques may be used to deter bighorn sheep from moving closer to campsites if necessary.

• Pack goat numbers will be limited to a maximum of three (3) pack goats per person, and a maximum of nine (9) pack goats per group.

• Where bighorn sheep are using trails for travel pack goat users will move off the trail 100 yards. If that distance is not attainable, the

pack goat user will travel back along the trail away from the bighorn sheep and exit the trail when the 100 yard distance can be reached.

Pack goat users will stay off the trail until bighorn sheep have passed. If visibility is limited to less than 100 yards up trail, a pack goat

user will go to the trail and observe for bighorn sheep before continuing with pack goats.

• When accessing browsing areas and water, a pack goat user will check for the presence of bighorn sheep before allowing access for pack

goats. Whenever possible, water access will be limited to areas of unlikely bighorn sheep use.

• In event that direct contact of a pack goat and a bighorn sheep is observed, the location and as much of a description as is possible of

the sheep and incident will be written, photographed if possible and reported to the appropriate agency as soon as reasonably possible.

• If any pack goat becomes lost, missing or separated from the owner and herd every effort will be exhausted to locate and recover the

lost pack goat. If the owner is unable to locate and recover the lost pack goat, contact the Salmon-Challis National Forest or BLM, Challis

Field Office by phone immediately. A full disclosure of all available information will be provided including: the last known location (GPS

coordinates, legal description, geographic location, name or number of trail or trailhead), the circumstances that resulted in it becoming

lost, a description of the pack goat, and any equipment that it was carrying.

EA -107
Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected

project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the

alternatives. Pursuant to direction found at 40 CFR 1500.1(b) and 1500.4, the discussion presented here

are summaries of the completed analyses and form the scientific and analytical basis for the

alternatives' comparison. The alternatives are displayed in Table 2-1. Unless specifically stated

otherwise, the project record is incorporated by reference and contains the detailed data,

methodologies, analysis, references, and other technical documentation used in the assessment.

Wilderness

Affected Environment : mmMmmmk

Wilderness is an area designated by Congress and defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964 as a place that

(1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's

work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and

unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to

make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain

ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. The WMP

addresses management of the JMJP Wilderness. Wilderness characteristics are described as:

untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, having outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and

unconfined recreation, and other features of value.

Untrammeled

Portions of the JMJP Wilderness have had some degree of human manipulation of the biophysical

environment. Some authorized actions which affect the untrammeled quality of the wilderness include,

but are not limited to: livestock grazing, prescribed burning, mining, wildlife collaring, wildland fire and

noxious weed control. Removal of invasive non-native plants is a form of trammeling, but its goal is to

restore the natural ecosystem in the wilderness.

Natural

The JMJP Wilderness presents the visitor with a general appearance of naturalness. From the visitor's

perspective, the overall influence of the modern world on the natural quality of wilderness is minor due

to the intermittently scattered developments. This natural quality of the JMJP Wilderness is magnified

by its proximity to other wilderness areas, including the White Clouds and Hemingway-Boulders

Wildernesses to the west, and the Frank Church - River of No Return Wilderness to the north for a

combined wilderness complex of over 2.6 million acres.

The natural quality of these wilderness areas is largely intact. The varying elevations in the area provide

important habitat for a wide array of fish and wildlife species. Vegetation ranges from mountain

sagebrush to whitebark pine ecosystems. Some changes to the native vegetation composition have

occurred in portions of the wilderness, including the introduction of non-native species and impacts

from grazing.

Although the natural quality of the JMJP Wilderness appears pristine, it has been impaired by intended

or unintended consequences of human actions or activities, including but not limited to: roads, trails, re¬

seeded areas, invasive non-native species, livestock grazing and associated range developments, and

EA -108
Environmental Consequences

departures from the natural fire regime. Nine livestock allotments extend into the JMJP wilderness,

covering approximately 110,829 acres or 95% of the wilderness with a permitted use of almost 10,000

livestock. More detailed current livestock use is covered under the WMP on pages 26-28.

Other resource descriptions of current conditions and analysis for the wilderness plan environmental

assessment will cover this quality in more depth. Specifically, see the wildlife, vegetation, noxious

weeds, and fire reports for an additional description of the current conditions for this quality.

Undeveloped

The JMJP Wilderness has permanent improvements and built structures that give the sense of human

habitation. These "improvements" include range developments such as fences (approximately 19 miles),

electric fence (3.4 miles), water systems including headboxes and troughs (28), pipelines (1.5 miles), 48

ponds used for watering sources, and one well.

Some historic structures from the mining era exist within the JMJP, but an extensive cultural resource

survey has not been conducted to determine their number or significance. There are no ranger patrol

cabins or guest chalets in the JMJP Wilderness. Other developments include: old road grades, the Sheep

Mountain radio repeater, maintenance of which will be managed under Minimum Requirements

Analysis (MRA) procedures, and hunting related structures such as corrals, meat poles, and campsite

furniture.

Emergency administrative authorizations for motorized/mechanized use occur for fire suppression and

search and rescue. Unauthorized motorized and mechanized recreational uses occur into wilderness

along the motorized routes adjacent to the wilderness boundary.

Outstanding Opportunitiesfor Solitude or Primitive and Unconfmed Recreation

The JMJP Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined

recreation. In addition, there is a range of recreational experiences to be found, including short day

hikes, plentiful backpacking options, multi-day pack trips or off-trail scrambles, all of which allow for

exploration and discovery. Recreation-related developments such as trails, corrals, meat poles and

campsite furniture are scattered across the Wilderness. Only the 14-day (BLM) and 16-day (FS) stay

limits restrict visitor behavior currently.

Roads and trails that ease access to otherwise extremely difficult-to-access areas also reduce self-reliant

recreation. The Herd Lake road section that leads from the Herd Lake Overlook to the Upper Lake Creek

Campground (ULCC) was constructed between 1966 and 1973. The campground and its current

associated facilities, plus the final section of the road accessing the campsite was constructed in 1973.

The 1980 Intensive Wilderness Study and subsequent Jerry Peak Wilderness Study Area cherry-stemmed

the road. Cherry-stem routes may be defined as dead-end routes where the boundary of the wilderness

extends up one side of the route, around its terminus, and down the other side. In 1983, the Mt. Borah

earthquake precipitated closing the road for safety purposes, and the 1999 Resource Management Plan

Record of Decision closed the road beyond the Herd Lake Overlook. Three former 4-wheel drive or two

track routes identified as intrusions into the WSA have since naturally revegetated. There may be

historic routes from the mining era that cross the wilderness.

Approximately 80 miles of trails within the JMJP were not formally designed or constructed, but, rather,

exist by virtue of visitor use, including historic backcountry horse use. Periodic trail maintenance using

non-motorized or non-mechanized equipment is conducted by land managers or partners, as needed, to

protect natural and cultural resources. Because of the low visitation, there are few trails-related

developed structures, relying rather on the naturalness of the area to provide a primitive and

unconfined recreational experience. Very infrequent emergency administrative authorizations occur

EA -109
Environmental Consequences

yearly for motorized or mechanized use for fire suppression and search and rescue operations. Aerial

imagery shows that, over the years, unauthorized motorized and mechanized recreational uses occur

into the wilderness from motorized travel routes along the wilderness boundaries.

Existing trails allow visitors to connect with adjacent wilderness and large roadless areas to provide an

expansive and remote setting from which to experience a wide range of primitive recreational

opportunities. These opportunities include: day hikes, multi-day backpack or pack stock trips, fishing and

hunting, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, photography, bird/wildlife-watching and experiencing the

natural quiet and dark night sky, among others. The JMJP also provides a high value of unconfined

wilderness recreational opportunities because there is no user permit system other than for commercial

use, and there is minimal directional signage.

Traveling by horseback in these lands, now designated as the JMJP Wilderness, is a traditional use with a

long history. Outfitters and guides provide services to support visitors' recreational activities, such as

hunting, hiking, riding, fishing, and pack trip operations. Within JMJP Wilderness, there are currently

three permitted outfitters and only one with authorized assigned sites within the Wilderness.

Visitor Use Assumptions

• Visitor use is generally low within the JMJP Wilderness. Encounters with other visitors

occasionally occur on-trail. Off-trail, it is unlikely to encounter other visitors.

• Average group size: 4

• Average stock group size: 6

• Seasonality: 60% in the fall, 35% of use in the spring and summer, 5% winter.

• Groups with stock:

• Trip length: 3-5 days on average

Additional information regarding visitor use may be found in the wilderness specialists' report.

Other Features of Value

Herd Lake is an excellent example of a relatively uncommon barrier lake. Barrier lakes form when a river

is naturally dammed by mass wasting such as landslides, debris flows, avalanches, and lava flows. Herd

Lake formed very recently in geologic time, about 2,500 years ago, by one or more landslides or rock

slides in which volcanic talus was deposited across the narrow Lake Creek drainage. The talus contains

sufficient fine material, deposited by landslide action and by Lake Creek moving through the talus, to

restrict the flow of Lake Creek such that Herd Lake formed. Lake Creek now flows from the lake at an

elevation of approximately 7,176 feet, compared to a pre-landslide elevation of approximately 7,070

feet. Even more uncommon, the landslide-dammed lake has very high productivity and sedimentation

rates compared to other lakes in the Salmon River basin, such that there is a seasonal sediment record

(varves) for nearly the entire history of the lake (Kile et al. 2016).

Required Monitoring

Wilderness Monitoring

Information generated in monitoring wilderness conditions indicates: the current state of wilderness

character; how wilderness character is changing overtime; how stewardship actions are affecting

wilderness character; and what stewardship priorities and decisions would best preserve and sustain

wilderness character. The agencies will follow the wilderness character monitoring framework identified

in Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across

the National Wilderness Preservation System (Landres et al. 2015; or most current).

EA-110
Environmental Consequences

The JMJP Wilderness is currently one of 36 wilderness areas co-managed by more than one agency. The

FS manages the majority of the JMJP Wilderness, and, therefore, the protocols in the FS Wilderness

Character Monitoring Technical Guide will be applied across the JMJP Wilderness. The FS will take the

lead in reporting wilderness character trends and data.

Solitude monitoring began in 2017 and will continue through 2021 to establish the baseline value for the

following indicator. Five years from establishing baseline, the following thresholds will be reviewed and

if changes are considered appropriate, a Plan amendment with public involvement will be necessary.

If recreation site and travel encounters increase by 10% or more, the agencies will assess impacts and

make a determination if management actions are needed to maintain wilderness character.

Recreation Monitoring

Monitoring for the user-developed routes indicator occurred in 2017 and will continue through 2020 to

establish baseline data.

If total miles of user-developed routes increases by 3% or more, agencies will assess impacts and make

determinations if management actions are needed to maintain wilderness character.

Monitoring for new social trails would specifically occur in high use areas, such as near trailheads,

campsites and at popular destinations.

Monitoring for user-created installations or structures associated with campsites would occur during

routine wilderness patrols and would be removed or deconstructed when found unless allowed under

special use permit.

The FS campsite monitoring protocols (2016 or current) would be applied across the JMJP Wilderness to

determine campsite conditions. Monitoring occurred in 2017 and will continue through 2020 to assess

campsite conditions and any associated human-caused impacts to establish baseline data.

gttgMggSmM&ggggggH ''IttSMMttmttSttBHjIMMMMM68M896 ' gwg / ,w„, '' £/%*%(,' 88S^ A W1&Li ** &&£&$&&& ' " > s-/-, „ M K* tTTTT' WWI is-tyAS' -rtau.'. -A

Alternative A - Proposed Action

Much of the direction is the same between Alternatives A and B. The following are the key differences

under Alternative A:

• Pack goat - Adopt pack goat guidelines as recommended by the North American Packgoat

Association through education and information.

• Stock group size limit - Limit the combined number of pack and saddle stock in one group to 20

head of stock.

• Permit system - No registration/permit system established.

• Upper Lake Creek Campground - BLM will retain Upper Lake Creek Campground. Maintenance

of the campground will be in accordance with an MRA. If the facility is damaged, becomes

unusable or a safety hazard, the facility would not be replaced.

• Upper Lake Creek Campground Trail - The trail leading to the Upper Lake Creek Campground will

remain. Width will be allowed to naturally narrow to a pedestrian/stock width (e.g. Class 3).

Culverts will not be removed unless they wash out or cannot be maintained. Replacement of

culverts will not occur.

EA- 111
Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative A

Each aspect of the proposed wilderness plan direction was considered for each indicator. For those

resources or topics with no effects, they are not listed in this EA. Additional detail may be found in the

project record.

Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Untrammeled

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

The proposed direction to allow natural soil erosion (JMJP-009) would minimize adverse impacts on the

untrammeled quality by minimizing agency actions to alter naturally occurring soil erosion, while

allowing for protection of life and property outside the wilderness.

Vegetation and Botanical Resources

By implementing the direction for the protection of whitebark pine (JMJP-011) and trail work in rare and

sensitive species habitat (JMJP-012), there is a lower risk of impacts to the untrammeled quality. Efforts

to minimize impacts to whitebark pine may result in fewer trammeling actions, or may result in a smaller

magnitude of the trammeling action (e.g. controlling only a portion of a fire).

Noxious and Non-Native Invasive Species Management

While noxious and invasive weed control activities are trammeling actions, this plan does not analyze

weed control activities, as those are addressed under agency-specific invasive species analyses: SCNF

Invasive Plant Treatment Record of Decision (2016), BLM Challis-Salmon Integrated Weed Control

Program EA (March, 2009; or most current).

Two management actions are proposed under Alternative A: placing emphasis on minimizing

introduction and controlling small infestations, and providing education on areas that are susceptible to

weed invasion, and measures to help prevent establishment and spread. Both of these actions have the

potential to reduce impacts to the untrammeled quality of wilderness character. Both management

actions would reduce the need for actions to manipulate "the earth and its community of life" by

reducing the need for weed treatments through efforts to reduce the introduction and spread of

invasive species.

Fire Management

This alternative would result in benefits to the untrammeled quality, as naturally-occurring fire would be

allowed to play its natural role in the ecosystem on the BLM-managed portions of the wilderness.

There would be little difference between this alternative and the minimum management alternative for

the FS-managed portion of the Wilderness, since the current LRMP direction allows for appropriate

response to wildfire.

Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Natural

Soil, Water, Air, and Riparian Resources

The natural quality will benefit from the direction proposed in this alternative for Soil, Water, Air, and

Riparian Resources by further protecting these natural components of the wilderness. While the effects

are difficult to measure, qualitatively the additional guidance related to these natural resources would

provide for more protection of these natural components of wilderness.

EA -112
Environmental Consequences

Vegetation and Botanical Resources

The proposed guidelines for minimizing impacts to whitebark pine (JMJP-011) and trail work in rare and

sensitive species habitat (JMJP-012) would benefit the natural quality of wilderness character. As a

candidate species for listing under the ESA, there is sufficient information to illustrate threats to the

ecological status of whitebark pine. Several activities have the potential to impact or are currently

impacting whitebark pine stands. This guideline would help protect these natural features (i.e. stands of

whitebark pine) within the JMJP Wilderness by ensuring this resource is considered when approving the

activities with potential to impact the stands.

The guideline regarding trail constructions and maintenance (JMJP-012) would aid to ensure impacts to

habitat for rare or sensitive plant species are avoided or minimized during trail maintenance or

construction. Protection of native plant species, particularly those for which population viability is of

concern, would benefit the natural quality.

Noxious and Non-Native Invasive Species Management

Presence of noxious and non-native, invasive species degrades the natural quality of wilderness

character. The Proposed Action incorporates guidelines to minimize or prevent the introduction and

spread of noxious weeds and invasive species in wilderness areas. The management actions proposed

would benefit the natural quality by reducing the spread of invasive species through education that

encourages weed prevention practices and identification of new infestations, and emphasizing

treatment of small infestations before they become established. Also see Noxious and Non-Native

Invasive Species environmental consequences section.

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

The proposed action (Alternative A) includes educating pack goat users on measures for reducing the

risk of contact, as developed by the North American Packgoat Association (NAPGA, 2017;). As pack goat

users voluntarily adopt these measures, there would be benefits to the natural quality as risk of disease

transmission to bighorn sheep is reduced. See also the Wildlife environmental consequences section.

Recreation

Minor beneficial effects could occur to natural resources (streamside habitat, lake shores, vegetation,

wildlife, soils, water quality) with restriction on recreation. Benefits include having limits on group sizes

and stock numbers to minimize future impact on the land, prohibiting shortcutting of switchbacks that

would reduce soil erosion, and taking proper measures to ensure proper food storage so that animals

are not habituated to human food.

Monz et al. (2000) review various studies on group size and resource impact, and suggest "In relatively

undisturbed places, intense, concentrated use by a large group can cause substantial impact, while a

small group exhibiting the same behavior over a similar square area might cause little significant impact

to the soil and plant communities." Large groups can mitigate the effects of their size on soils and

vegetation by breaking into small groups when traveling and camping (Monz et al. 2000). The JMJP

Wilderness is largely undisturbed with campsites clustered along trails, as would be expected. The

terrain and available space for campsites limits the size of groups that may be accommodated in some

campsites. Many trails occur in drainages where broad, flat locations for campsites that would

accommodate large groups are rare.

Encouraging proper food storage helps protect wildlife from habituation to humans, their food and

areas of human activity.

EA-113
Environmental Consequences

Trails

Administrative changes to the trail inventory to align the inventory with on the ground conditions would

not affect the natural quality of the wilderness.

The proposed action also limits new trail construction to instances where truly necessary to protect

wilderness values and resources. If new trail construction were to occur, site-specific MRA and NEPA

analysis would be necessary. In general, however, trail systems concentrate use, limiting the extent of

potential impacts to vegetation and soils. Properly constructed and maintained trails limit erosion and

trampling of vegetation, thereby minimizing the impacts from social trails, or trail braiding on soils and

plant communities.

Camping

The natural quality would benefit under this Alternative. Waste mitigation has a positive impact on

water quality, as well as wildlife encounters. Concentrating campsites on durable surfaces would

minimize occurrences of compaction and impacted to vegetation.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

The natural quality would benefit under this Alternative. Directions for managing stock use (JMJP-033

through 037) described under Alternative A are considered the minimum necessary for the protection of

natural resources. Efforts to incorporate low impact stock techniques, such as padding trees,

containment away from water sources, and having a maximum number of stock per group, will lessen

the impact on the surrounding ecosystem and preserve natural conditions.

Monz et al. (2000) summarized visitor use impacts as related to group size and stated, "Numerous

studies have also found that horses have more potential than hikers to cause both accelerated erosion

(DeLuca et al. 1998) and vegetation damage (Cole and Spildie 1998). This suggests that size limits are

particularly important for groups with horses and mules, particularly in less-disturbed portions of

wilderness."

The various other standards and guidelines would all benefit the natural components, including water

quality, soils and vegetation. One study on restoring impacts from stock use emphasizes the need for

preventing problems in the first place, rather than attempting to correct them after they occur (Spildie

et al. 2000); the study proposed rethinking restrictive actions to prevent impacts, rather than reacting

after an area is impacted.

Fire Management

Lightning-ignited wildfire is a natural disturbance process that has shaped the vegetation across the

landscape for centuries. Much of what scientists understand about fire ecology (the study of fire effects,

natural vegetation dynamics, and succession) comes from observations of natural fires in several

wilderness areas that have been allowed to burn under a wide range of physical and biological

conditions since the 1970s (Miller, 2014). Lightning-ignited, or naturally-occurring fire, when allowed to

play its natural role in wilderness, would protect and benefit the fire-dependent ecosystem.

In some settings across the West, weed infestation after fire can be particularly detrimental to the

naturalness of the Wilderness. However, given the predominately weed-free setting of the JMJP

Wilderness, this risk is very low.

Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue

The 'approval' flowchart (JMJP-067) gives managers an opportunity to make decisive and reasoned

decisions that take both visitor safety and wilderness character into consideration. In essence, the

EA -114
Environmental Consequences

flowchart provides an easy visual process for approving motorized or mechanized equipment or vehicles

that complies with policy. The direction presented in the flowchart is policy.

The flowchart focuses on streamlining the decision-making process to ensure the undeveloped quality is

preserved to the extent possible during emergencies (see the undeveloped section for more discussion).

Preserving the undeveloped quality would also benefit the natural quality. For example, a helicopter

landing may be authorized for an operation, and with it, authorization for cutting a helispot, which

would impair the natural quality.

The natural quality would also benefit with use of the flowchart by establishing a defined path during

large scale operations within the wilderness that, in turn, positively impact the surrounding wilderness

ecosystem by using only what measures are necessary. There are possibilities during life-saving

operations that the responder's primary focus is on preservation of life, this forces the manager to

consider wilderness qualities along with life-saving measures providing opportunities to not use heavy

handed tactics unless it is truly warranted. Large scale SAR operations, however, are not a frequent

occurrence. The wilderness experiences a low visitation rate and, thus, may have a corresponding low

call volume, decreasing the chances of such impacts occurring. The flowchart incorporates basic

wilderness law and policy and lays out the decision making process to allow for rapid response during

times when life-saving measures are critical.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Rehabilitation of small-scale surface disturbances would benefit the natural quality by minimizing the

appearance of human-caused disturbances, such as abandoned developments or old vehicle routes.

While there is a risk for weed invasion with any ground-disturbing activities, the plan includes direction

for minimizing this risk: For any ground disturbing activities, develop measures to mitigate the potential

for the spread or introduction of invasive species.

Wilderness Education and Interpretation

The Wilderness Act identifies education as a public purpose of wilderness. However, this does not

require agencies to provide interpretive and educational information within wilderness areas or to

advertise all recreational opportunities available if such advertising could impair preservation of

wilderness character.

Interpretation can best be defined as "An educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and

relationships through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media,

rather than simply to communicate factual information" (Tilden 2008). Wilderness education is one of

the most important tools for ensuring the protection of wilderness resources and character.

The USFS and BLM will use education and interpretation as a visitor use management tool in order to:

• preserve the wilderness experience and enhance enjoyment of the wilderness resource

• protect the wilderness resource and characteristics, including natural processes

• improve understanding of wilderness, including appropriate legal uses

• manage visitor activities that may impact wilderness character

• inform visitors of the inherent risks in a wilderness experience

• encourage a connection to and appreciation of wilderness

EA-115
Resource Indicator and Measure 3: Undeveloped

Wilderness

Environmental Consequences

Specific direction presented in the plan for removal of structures within wilderness (JMJP-002) is tied to

law: Wilderness Act, Congressional Grazing Guidelines and Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act. The exception is the Upper Lake Creek Campground - see discussion under

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.

Recreation

Signs

Signing the wilderness boundary (JMJP-039) may better preserve the undeveloped quality by reducing

unintentional violations of motorized vehicles into the wilderness. The signs themselves would not

impact the undeveloped quality as they would be just exterior to the wilderness.

Fire Management

The undeveloped quality would be better preserved under this alternative, since naturally-ignited fire

would be allowed to play its natural role, thus reducing the need for motorized equipment or vehicle

use, which impairs this quality.

Should fire suppression activities be necessary, such as for human safety, or protection of private

property outside the wilderness, MIST and follow-up rehabilitation of impacts would be required,

thereby minimizing impacts on-the-ground.

Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue

The undeveloped quality would benefit from implementation of the 'approval' flowchart (JMJP-067).

During operations within wilderness, motorized and mechanized transport such as helicopters, ATV's,

motorcycles, aerial delivery, wheeled litters, motorcycles, etc. would degrade this quality; however, the

flowchart would assist the decision-maker in promptly determining the necessity of such tactics and

allowing responders quick decisions on means of access. The flowchart would mitigate as much

mechanized and motorized usage as possible and provides a mechanism to comply with policy and

remove subjectivity from the decision-making process.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Several structures, both recreational and non-recreational (e.g. Sheep Mountain repeater), were present

in the wilderness at the time of designation. Allowing these structures to remain would not further

degrade the undeveloped quality, but it would not improve it either. Rehabilitation of small-scale,

surface disturbances, such as old vehicle routes or abandoned installations, would improve the

undeveloped quality.

Maintenance of the Sheep Mountain Repeater would be further analyzed through an MRA and NEPA

analysis, as appropriate. The existence of these facilities, however, would not additionally degrade the

undeveloped quality beyond that which existed at the time of the designation of the wilderness.

See discussion of the Upper Lake Creek campground under the Opportunities for Primitive and

Unconfined Recreation indicator.

Under the proposed action, other existing small scale disturbances, such as illegal ATV use or campsites

in locations that are impacting resources, will be rehabilitated using MRA protocols. These unauthorized

scars on the land reduce the undeveloped nature of the wilderness, but restoration efforts will improve

the undeveloped wilderness character.

EA-116
Environmental Consequences

Resource Indicator and Measure 4: Opportunitiesfor Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

Wilderness

See Upper Lake Creek Campground section, which is the only portion of the structures direction (JMJP002) that is established by law.

The direction for applying, where possible, seamless regulations across the interagency wilderness

(JMJP-006) may indirectly improve opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation because there

would be one set of regulations across the wilderness, rather than varying direction by agency-specific

portion of the wilderness.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

In general, the direction proposed under this alternative for Soil, Water, Air, and Riparian Resources

would not affect opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. The management action

encouraging the use of indirect methods, such as education, could preserve this quality by implementing

educational efforts before regulatory restrictions. The need for additional restrictions would impair the

opportunities for unconfined recreation.

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

The proposed standard for educating pack goat users on measures to minimize the risk of disease

transmission (JMJP-019) would not affect opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.

However, opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation would be better preserved under this

alternative when compared with Alternative B, which proposes restrictions on visitor use.

Recreation

Opportunity for a primitive and unconfined type of recreation will be adversely affected by managerial

controls placed on visitors to the wilderness. Some of these will include the limits to visitor and stock

group sizes, not being able to cut switchbacks, and food storage recommendations.

The proposed action under Alternative A includes group size limits for both people (12 person

maximum; JMJP-022) and recreational stock (20 head maximum; JMJP-032). Based on the assumptions

established for visitor use (see Visitor Use Assumptions in the Wilderness Affected Environment above),

these group size numbers are well within what is generally encountered and anticipated within the JMJP

Wilderness, thereby accommodating the vast majority of use. In general, group sizes within the JMJP

Wilderness are estimated to be about 4 people and 6 head of stock.

The impact from these group size limits on outfitter and guiding operations within the wilderness are

considered to be extremely low. The data reported by the one outfitter with assigned camps, Ken Smith

Hunting, did not exceed the proposed limitations over eleven years of use in the JMJP. Data from other

outfitters in the area (see Table 2: Outfitter Data) is also within the proposed limits.

Overall, eight new regulations on recreational visitation would be implemented under Alternative A.

Several of these regulations are very low impact upon visitors, as they are commonly accepted and

practiced by recreationists (e.g. prohibiting shortcutting trail switchbacks; requiring human waste to be

buried, and requiring pack and saddle stock to be under control). Standards and guidelines proposed

are:

• Limit group size to a maximum of 12 people. (See exception for Native American tribes in the

Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments section.) (JMJP-022; S)

• Limit the combined number of pack and saddle stock in one group to 20 head of stock. (JMJP032; S)

EA-117
Environmental Consequences

• Prohibit shortcutting trail switchbacks on foot or with pack and saddle stock. (JMJP-023; S)

• Require human waste to be buried 6-8" deep and covered at least 200 feet from water, and,

where the terrain allows, 200 feet from campsites and trails. Alternatively, waste may be

packed out. (JMJP-030; S)

• Require pack or saddle stock to be ridden, led, or under human control. Animals are not

permitted to run loose on trails or travel routes. (JMJP-033; S)

• In camp, require stock users to pad highlines, or use tree-saver devices to minimize tree

damage. (JMJP-034; S)

• Require stock users to locate pack and saddle stock handling areas at least 200 feet from lakes,

springs and streams, where terrain allows. (JMJP-036; G)

Trails

In general, a trail system decreases the level of self-reliance and primitive skills required by a visitor by

creating a defined and established route through the wilderness that otherwise would not occur

naturally. Opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, however, would not be further

impacted over current conditions, as no new trails are currently proposed.

The changes to the trail inventory that are proposed would be administrative changes to the trail

inventory, to bring existing trails into the inventory or remove trails that do not exist on the ground. The

one exception to this is the Baker Creek trail, which is present on the ground. The proposal for this trail

would remove it from the inventory but would not rehabilitate the trail (i.e. it would remain on the

ground but would not receive maintenance and would not be shown on maps). In short, these trail

changes are administrative and would have no effects on the ground other than ensuring future

maintenance of trails in the trail inventory.

Camping

The requirement to bury human waste (JMJP-030) under this alternative is a generally accepted

regulation. While it is a management restriction on visitor behavior, it is a common recreation practice

and of little impact on the visitor.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

This alternative acknowledges the historic role of horses in wilderness exploration, and the associated

value of preserving traditional pack and saddle stock skills in light of the overall decline of these skills

(Watson et al. 1993).

One of the goals of wilderness recreation management is to avoid ecological impacts and provide

opportunities for high-quality wilderness experiences. Another goal-which often conflicts with the

former-is to provide access for these experiences and to avoid restriction and regulation, which can

make experiences seem "confined." Conflict between these two goals usually results in some

compromise of both (Spildie, et al. 2000). These proposed standards and guidelines are considered the

minimum necessary stock handling techniques for preservation of the natural environment. Continued

stock use preserves the primitive quality of wilderness character. Horseback riding or using pack animals

preserves this traditional use, which allows users to travel with heavy loads to remote places, with an

emphasis on self-reliance.

Under this alternative, impacts to opportunities for a primitive and unconfined type of recreation would

be mostly neutral or positive. Based on our understanding and assumptions for visitor use within the

JMJP Wilderness, the proposed group size limit (20 head of stock per group) considerably exceeds the

typical group size (about 6 head of stock per group). Few groups would be impacted by this limit. The

EA-118
Environmental Consequences

group size limit is practical because there are limited campsites that could accommodate larger groups.

Many areas are limited due to the terrain.

It is generally estimated that it takes at least 1.5 head of stock (e.g. horses, mules) to accommodate one

person. A group of 12 people, the maximum under this alternative, would need at least 18 head of stock

and this alternative would allow for those additional 2 head of stock to fully support this upper limit of

people. Outfitter and guides may occasionally support groups of people at the upper end of the group

size limit and would need this number of stock to support their operations.

Managerial controls on visitor behavior regarding stock use would benefit not only the protection of the

natural environment but also the stock and stock users themselves. For example, ensuring stock

handling areas are at least 200 feet from water sources, such as lakes and streams, not only helps

protect sensitive riparian areas but also may reduce conflict with other groups.

Conversely, opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation may also be negatively impacted by

these restrictions on recreational stock use, including the group size limit and measures for protection of

the natural environment. Groups exceeding the group size limit of 20 head of stock would either be

required to recreate elsewhere or would have to split into smaller groups to visit the JMJP Wilderness.

The required techniques for minimizing environmental damage (padding highlines, setting back from

water sources, etc.) are also regulations that would impact a recreational stock user's opportunity for

unconfined recreation, however slightly. By preventing resource damage before it occurs, these

regulations may be preventing more restrictive regulation in the future.

Signs

This direction would not affect opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation as there are no

management restrictions on visitor behavior proposed, nor facilities that reduce self-reliant recreation.

Commercial Services

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, prohibits structures and installations in wilderness. The direction

specific to structures (JMJP-063) would apply to the FS portion of the wilderness regardless of the

wilderness plan, as it is established in policy. In the JMJP Wilderness, outfitting and guiding is most

commonly related to hunting activities. Currently, the only assigned outfitter and guide camps are

within the FS portion of the wilderness. The proposed action would require permanent structures

associated with commercial services to be removed.

Temporary structures and facilities for outfitters may be approved, so long as they do not remain on the

landscape for more than one season. Reducing the number of commercial outfitter installations and

structures would improve the opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation by decreasing

facilities that reduce self-reliant recreation. For example, the use of temporary blinds and other

structures by outfitters would reduce the hunters' development of and reliance on primitive hunting

skills. This direction would continue to allow for realization of recreational experiences through guided

activities, while minimizing the impacts from structures or installation on wilderness character.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

\y

The Sheep Mountain repeater and rehabilitation of small-scale surface disturbances would not affect

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.

The Upper Lake Creek Campground includes three campsites (picnic table, metal fire ring) and a vault

toilet. Inherently, the presence of the campground facilities reduce the need for self-reliance, a

component of primitive and unconfined recreation. These recreational facilities existed at the time of

designation. Opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation would not be further degraded from

EA-119
Environmental Consequences

allowing these structures to remain, as they were present when the wilderness was established. If the

campground facility became unusable or a safety hazard, the decision to maintain or replace the

facilities would be evaluated at that time.

During the scoping process for this plan, it was suggested to retain the campground facilities to allow for

certain user groups, such as visitors with disabilities, the opportunity to recreate in a wilderness setting.

As noted, these facilities would not further degrade wilderness character from that which was present

at the time of designation. Visitors with disabilities may be able to use the campground with the use of

wheelchairs or other mobility devices, which may be packed in on stock. This would allow for a unique

wilderness experience for this user group or any other visitors to the JMJP Wilderness.

For this campground to be fully accessible under ADA requirements improvements to the facilities

would be necessary. A full evaluation for what upgrades would be necessary has not occurred, but it is

likely the site would require new picnic tables, improvement to the trail leading to the restroom, and,

possibly, other ground surface improvements. These upgrades would degrade the opportunities for

primitive recreation.

Resource Indicator and Measure 5: Opportunitiesfor Solitude

Recreation

Opportunities for solitude would be positively impacted under this alternative. Opportunities for

solitude may be benefited by limiting group sizes for stock and people. Generally, visitors feel that

encountering very large groups (e.g. over 20 people) negatively affects the feeling of wilderness;

however, it is uncertain if seeing people in one large group has a more negative experience than seeing

the same number of people in several small parties (Monz, et al., 2000).

Trails

Trails concentrate use, increasing visitor encounters, which impair feelings of solitude. However, since

there are no new trails proposed encounter rates would not change over the present level. Therefore,

there would be no changes to the opportunities for solitude due to trails management under this

alternative.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

While in the minority, there are some hikers who dislike encountering horses (Watson et al. 1993). For

some hikers, their enjoyment of a wilderness visit may be impacted simply by encountering evidence of

horse use (e.g. horse manure). In one study, however, about 70% of hikers enjoyed or didn't mind

meeting horses in the wilderness (Watson et al. 1993). Therefore, depending on the user, there may

continue to be impacts to solitude from encountering up to 20 head of stock in a group in the

wilderness. The benefits to these user groups may be marginal under this alternative given that larger

groups (e.g. 30 or more head of stock) are an unlikely occurrence in this wilderness.

For visitors without negative perceptions of horse and stock use, this alternative would have no effect

on opportunities for solitude.

Signs

Generally, boundary signage is in the form of small, brown fiberglass markers or small metal signs, which

blend with the environment. This minimizes the impact on visitors of these sights of human-presence or

disturbance on the landscape. The impact to opportunities for solitude from the boundary markers is

insignificant. As the visitors leave the wilderness boundary behind, they distance themselves from not

only these boundary signs but also more significant human development (cars, roads, buildings, etc.) as

they travel further into the wilderness.

EA -120
Environmental Consequences

Commercial Services

Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity inside the Wilderness is a component of

opportunities for solitude. It is affected by encountering structures or impacts from other visitors within

wilderness, which may include campsite structures, such as tables, chairs or corrals. Standards specific

to structures for commercial services (JMJP-063) would apply on the FS portion of the wilderness

regardless of the wilderness plan, as it is established in policy (2323.13g). This direction would minimize

any future structures related to outfitter and guide operations on the BLM-portion of the Wilderness as

well.

Fire Management

By allowing naturally ignited fire to play its role in the wilderness, whenever possible, this alternative

would protect opportunities for solitude by reducing the likelihood of impacts to solitude that would be

caused by aircraft, or fire personnel on-the-ground for fire suppression activities.

Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue

Opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation can be positively affected by missions within

wilderness. Similar to undeveloped and natural qualities this flow chart provides a clear path to more

appropriate search and rescue or law enforcement actions within the Wilderness. Certainly the presence

of more operations personnel will prove to degrade the quality of solitude; however, this same quality

may be better protected with the flowchart eliminating large components of missions that were

deemed unnecessary or inappropriate.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

The existence of the repeater structure and site may hinder the feeling ofsolitude and an unconfined

recreational experience and will degrade the visual resource of the area that is within view of the

repeater. Maintenance activities of the Sheep Mountain repeater may slightly increase the likelihood of

encounters; however, most annual maintenance in the past has been on one weekday, with 1-2 people.

The operations and maintenance plan will examine maintenance needs in more detail, including NEPA

analysis for any prohibited uses.

The presence of Upper Lake Creek Campground, as addressed in JMJP-002 and management actions in

the Developments..., section of this analysis, may serve to concentrate overnight camping use, thus

detracting from feelings for solitude. However, it is a very small campground with only three sites and

receives low visitation. The sight of the campground detracts from the feelings of remoteness from

human activity and occupation. As noted, this would not further degrade the opportunities for solitude

over that which existed at the time of designation.

Rehabilitating small-scale surface disturbances, would improve the opportunities for solitude, by

removing those sights of human occupation, or disturbance from the Wilderness. Conversely, during

activities by staff or volunteers to rehabilitate disturbances, there may be increased encounters with the

public. Potential encounters may be mitigated by undertaking rehabilitation activities during the week,

when visits tend to be lower. These impacts would likely be of short-term duration, occur only during

the rehabilitation work, and concentrate at the location of the rehabilitation project.

Wilderness Education and Interpretation

This direction would not affect opportunities for solitude, as it would not result in increases or decreases

of visitors, or sights and sounds of human activity within the wilderness.

EA-121
Environmental Consequences

Resource Indicator and Measure 6; Other Features of Value

Under Alternative A, the trail leading to the Upper Lake Creek Campground would remain. Width would

be allowed to naturally narrow to a pedestrian/stock width (e.g. Class 3). Culverts would not be

removed unless they become obsolete (e.g. wash out or cannot be maintained). Replacement of culverts

would not occur. This poses no effect to this value.

Resource Indicator and Measure 7: Recreation -Trails

The primary purpose of the proposed action regarding trails is to bring the trail inventory into

conformance with the on-the-ground reality within the wilderness. Trail inventory efforts over the 2015-

2017 summer seasons illustrate that several trails recorded in the trail inventory are no longer present.

There are no obvious trail corridors or paths. Conversely, there are several trails that are present and

were established at the time of designation that were not recorded in the trail inventory.

The federal agencies are mandated to preserve wilderness character in Section 2(a) of the Wilderness

Act. Every wilderness is unique in terms of the resources and has conditions that prevail at the time of

designation. The combination of the qualities of wilderness character that exist at the time of

designation are also unique to each wilderness; however it is this benchmark -the status at the time of

designation - against which the mandate to preserve wilderness character is typically measured.

Updating the trail inventory to be consistent with the on-the-ground conditions that were present at the

time of designation is a component of ensuring preservation moving forward.

The changes to the trail inventory are largely an administrative action only. There would be no closures

to people or stock users navigating cross-country in areas where the trails were once recorded as

occurring. The primary change that would occur on-the-ground for trails brought into the inventory is

that they would receive maintenance, as practicable, moving forward.

Revisions to the trail inventory would allow for increased accuracy of trail maps within the wilderness.

This would enhance the visitor experience by presenting the network of trails as they exist on the

ground. Improved accuracy of maps would also improve route navigation and trip planning for visitors.

Further, by removing trails that do not exist from maps, the safety of visitors would also be improved.

The current trail system allows for access across the wilderness while continuing to provide extensive

off-trail opportunities.

Under the proposed action, updates to the inventory would bring 10 miles of trail into the inventory.

These miles of trail would then receive maintenance: 3.6 miles on the NFS lands and 6.4 miles on BLMmanaged lands. At this time it is unknown exactly how many miles of trail would be removed from the

inventory.

Conversely, the 1-mile Baker Creek trail, which is currently in the FS trail inventory and was present at

the time of designation, is a spur trail that dead-ends at private property. This trail does not enhance the

network of trails available to the visitor. The proposed action is to remove this trail from the inventory,

but no actions to decommission the trail would occur. Visitors to wilderness may continue to use the

trail, but it would not receive maintenance by the agency in the future.

Cumulative Effects - Alternative A

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative

Effects Analysis

Cumulative effects are "the incremental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives when added to

effects of other actions both on National Forest System or BLM-managed lands and other adjacent

FA -122
Environmental Consequences

federal, state, or private lands" (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.7). The Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all

past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. In regard to past actions, the agency must

determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of

cumulative effects during the scoping process and the preparation of the analysis. Dependent upon the

proposed action, the accounting for past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect

effects of their design and implementation could, in some contexts, be useful to predict the cumulative

effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to comprehensively list

and analyze all individual past actions. Just because information about past actions may be available or

obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision

making (40 CFR 1508.7).

Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Untrammeled

The primary activities that have impacted the untrammeled quality within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: trail and road construction, livestock grazing installations, weed treatments, water

diversion and fire suppression. The proposed action, combined with past present and reasonably

foreseeable actions would not cumulatively effect the untrammeled quality except by potentially

improving it.

Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Natural

The primary activities that have impacted the natural quality within the wilderness cumulative effects

area include: varying degrees of degraded vegetation and wildlife composition due to invasive species

establishment, fire suppression, recreation, fish stocking, and livestock grazing. Conversely, treatments

to remove invasive species have improved the naturalness of the area. Alternatives A is anticipated to

slightly improve naturalness, thereby contributing positively toward cumulative effects.

Resource Indicator and Measure 3: Undeveloped

The primary activities that have impacted the undeveloped quality within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: construction and maintenance of range developments, the water diversion, Sheep

Mountain repeater and various user-created or constructed routes. The proposed action would not

contribute to cumulative impacts to the undeveloped quality.

Resource Indicator and Measure 4: Opportunitiesfor Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

The primary activities that have affected opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation within

the wilderness cumulative effects area include: recreation (including the Upper Lake Creek

Campground), outfitter and guide activities, and trail construction. The proposed action would result in

cumulative minor adverse impacts.

Resource Indicator and Measure 5: Opportunitiesfor Solitude

The primary activities that have affected opportunities for solitude within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: recreational visitation; federal projects with personnel on the ground, such as trail

maintenance, monitoring, invasive species treatments; and livestock management. The proposed action

would benefit opportunities for solitude by reducing encounters with large groups and other sights of

human presence. The proposed action would result in cumulative minor beneficial impacts.

Resource Indicator and Measure 6: Other Features ofValue

The primary activities that have affected other features of value within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: construction of the road leading to the Upper Lake Creek Campground. The

proposed action would not contribute to cumulative effects to other features of value.

EA -123
Environmental Consequences

Resource Indicator and Measure 7: Trails

The primary activities that have affected other features of value within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: trail construction and maintenance, road construction and maintenance, and travel

management planning. The proposed action is not expected to have cumulative effects on recreation

because the changes are largely administrative with little to no on-the-ground changes to recreational

opportunities compared with baseline conditions.

Alternative B - Natural-Emphasis

mm

Much of the direction is the same between Alternatives A and B. The following are the key differences

under Alternative B:

• Pack goat - measures are required, and will be enforced.

• Stock group size limit - maximum of 14 animals, with the exception of pack goats, which are

limited to 3 per person and 9 per group.

• Permit system - establish a free, self-issue permit system.

• Campfires - no campfires without fire pan or fire blanket.

• Upper Lake Creek Campground - Close campground and remove campground facilities.

• Upper Lake Creek Campground Trail - Rehabilitate the pre-existing road leading to Upper Lake

Creek Campground to a wilderness appropriate trail (e.g. Class 3). This will include, but is not

limited to: the removal of existing culverts within the roadbed, reducing foot print of existing

road, retreading road to wilderness appropriate trail subsurface material, and reducing the

visual impact of the road bed.

Required Monitoring

Required monitoring is the same as described under Alternative A.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative B

Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Untrammeled

Wilderness

Direction and effects specific to structures (JMJP-002) are the same as described under Alternative C.

Direction and effects specific to seamless regulations across the interagency wilderness (JMJP-006) are

the same as described under Alternative A.

Recreation

Trails

The difference between Alternative B and the proposed Alternative (A) is to allow the trail to the Upper

Lake Creek Campground to be made into a wilderness trail. This would involve removing culverts,

reducing the footprint and reducing the visual impact of the road bed. Changes to the route would have

a mixed result on the untrammeled quality. Minimizing the prism of disturbance associated with the

route would benefit the untrammeled quality; however, the route would still have berms and would

cause changes to the hydrologic flow.

Camping

The untrammeled quality may be improved in this alternative by reducing campfire impacts within

wilderness by requiring fire pans or blankets. This requirement may minimize the risk of escaped fire

and therefore human manipulation on natural processes within the wilderness.

EA -124
Environmental Consequences

Campfires cause direct impacts to naturalness by altering organic matter and sterilizing soils in the area

of the fire ring. Campfires can decrease organic matter content in soils to depths greater than 10 cm.

The severity of the impacts is related to the intensity of the fire (Fenn et al. 1976). In general, firewood

consumption exceeds productivity in high-elevation whitebark pine forests in the western United States

that are popular destinations for visitors (Cole 1989b). Additional impacts may occur at these campsites

when available dead and downed wood is limited and visitors resort to removing lower limbs from

standing trees or snags for firewood (Cole 1989b).

These impacts would be dramatically reduced under this alternative as fire pans or fire blankets would

be required. These low-impact campfire techniques protect the soil and organic materials in the vicinity

of the campfire.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources, Vegetation and Botanical Resources, Noxious and Non-Native

Invasive Species Management, Recreation - Signs, Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments, Fire

Management, Commercial Services, Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue, and Wilderness

Education and Interpretation

The effects of Alternative B on the untrammeled quality for soil, water, air, and riparian resources,

vegetation and botanical resources, noxious and non-native invasive species management, recreation -

signs, cultural resources and tribal governments, fire management, commercial services, law

enforcement and search and rescue, and wilderness education and interpretation would be the same as

described for Alternative A.

Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Natural

Wilderness

Direction specific to structures (JMJP-002) is the same as Alternative C. Direction specific to seamless

regulations across the interagency wilderness (JMJP-006) is same as Alternative A.

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

This alternative requires pack goat users to follow measures for reducing the risk of contact, as

developed by the North American Packgoat Association (NAPGA, 2017). Requiring adoption of these

measures would increase protection of the natural quality by further reducing the likelihood of

interaction between domestic goats and bighorn sheep. Requiring the adoption of the pack goat

measures benefits the bighorn sheep population inhabiting the wilderness by reducing the potential for

disease transmission. See Wildlife section for more information.

Recreation

"Recreation impacts are significant because they reflect success in meeting two primary legal mandates:

resource protection and recreation provision." (Leung and Marion, 2000). In an effort to maximize the

protection of resource, this Alternative includes a stock group size limit of 14 head maximum and 9 goat

maximum per group.

The natural quality will be positively affected by this alternative. Reduction of stock group size would

reduce impacts on natural components of the ecosystem (e.g. vegetation, soils) that would be caused by

larger stock groups trampling and grazing.

The removal of Upper Lake Creek Campground would allow the revegetation of the disturbed areas.

EA -125
Environmental Consequences

Camping

The natural quality would be improved in this alternative by eliminating campfires rings and minimizing

campfire impacts. Less soil sterilization would occur through the low-impact techniques of using fire

pans or blankets.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

Stock use has more potential than hikers to cause both accelerated erosion and vegetation damage

(Monz et al., 2000). Trampling by visitors and their stock can affect vegetation plant height, vigor, and

reproductive capacity, as well as soil characteristics, such as changes to soil horizons. Some of these

impacts cause increased effects even when the original source of disturbance has been removed

(Therrell, et al., 2006). The impacts from camping occur most dramatically over the first year or first

several uses.

Based on the relatively light use this wilderness receives and the reduction in group sizes proposed in

this alternative, the natural quality would be better protected when compared with Alternatives A and

C. The group size limit on stock and limiting the duration of tying stock to live trees would preserve the

natural quality by reducing damage to plants and trees from heavy stock use.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Effects analysis is the same as described for Alternative A for the Sheep Mountain Repeater and small

scale-surface disturbances. Effects are the same as described for Alternative C for the Upper Lake Creek

Campground.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources, Vegetation and Botanical Resources, Noxious and Non-Native

Invasive Species Management, Recreation - Trails and Signs, Cultural Resources and Tribal

Governments, Fire Management, Commercial Services, Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue,

and Wilderness Education and Interpretation

The effects of Alternative B on the natural quality for Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources, Vegetation

and Botanical Resources, Noxious and Non-Native Invasive Species Management, Recreation - Trails and

Signs, Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments, Fire Management, Commercial Services, Law

Enforcement and Search and Rescue, and Wilderness Education and Interpretation would be the same

as described for Alternative A.

Resource Indicator and Measure 3: Undeveloped

Wilderness

Direction specific to structures (JMJP-002) is the same as Alternative C. Direction specific to seamless

regulations across the interagency wilderness (JMJP-006) is same as Alternative A.

Recreation

Trails

Removing culverts along the Upper Lake Creek Campground trail would reduce the number of nonrecreational structures within the wilderness, improving the undeveloped quality.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Effects analysis is the same as Alternative A for the Sheep Mountain Repeater, and small scale-surface

disturbances. Analysis is the same as Alternative C for the Upper Lake Creek Campground.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources, Vegetation and Botanical Resources, Noxious and Non-Native

Invasive Species Management, Recreation-Signs, Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments, Fire

EA-126
Environmental Consequences

Management, Commercial Services, Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue, and Wilderness

Education and Interpretation

The effects of Alternative B on the undeveloped quality for soil, water, air, and riparian resources,

vegetation and botanical resources, noxious and non-native invasive species management, recreationsigns, cultural resources and tribal governments, fire management, commercial services, law

enforcement and search and rescue, and wilderness education and interpretation would be the same as

described for Alternative A.

Resource Indicator and Measure 4: Opportunitiesfor Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

Wilderness

Direction specific to structures (JMJP-002) is the same as Alternative C. Direction specific to seamless

regulations across the interagency wilderness (JMJP-006) is same as Alternative A.

Recreation

Opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation would be adversely impacted by visitor use

restrictions reducing group sizes and requiring permits.

The group size limit for people under this alternative is the same as proposed under Alternative A and

effects analysis is the same as describe for Alternative A.

The group size limit for head to stock is proposed to be less than that proposed under Alternative A. For

this Alternative, the maximum head of stock would 14 head per group, with the exception of pack goats

which would be limited to 9 head per group.

Based on the assumptions established above for visitor use (see Wilderness Affected Environment

section above), these group size numbers are well within what is generally encountered and anticipated

within the JMJP Wilderness, thereby accommodating the vast majority of use. In general, group sizes

within the JMJP Wilderness are estimated to be about 6 head of stock.

The impact from these group size limits on outfitter and guiding operations within the wilderness are

considered to be low. Over the course of eleven years (2003-2010, and 2014-2016), Ken Smith Hunting

took 29 trips into the JMJP Wilderness. Of these, 4 trips, or 14%, included more than 14 head of stock, 1

trip included 15 head of stock, and 3 trips included 16 head of stock. These four trips occurred once per

year 2003-2006. Data from other outfitters in the area (see Table 2: Outfitter Data) is also within the

proposed limits.

No data is available regarding use of pack goats within the JMJP Wilderness. The overall visitation to the

JMJP Wilderness is low, and pack goat use is only a fraction of that, so it is believed to be quite low. The

pack goat measures for reducing risk of contact with bighorn sheep would impact this specific user

group under this Alternative, as the measures would be required rather than voluntary under

Alternative B). These measures are behavioral restrictions, which impact opportunities for primitive and

unconfined recreation for this user group.

Self-issue permits are one of the more accurate ways to gather visitor use data (Lucas and Kovalicky

1981), and provides an avenue of communication between managers and visitors. Visitors may learn

where, how or when to travel in the wilderness to reduce crowding or resource impacts (Watson 1993).

This communication only works if the permit card itself or permit kiosks at trailheads are maintained

with appropriate and current information. Conversely, if compliance checks are made by wilderness

rangers, this opens an opportunity on-site for communication with visitors.

EA -127
Environmental Consequences

Permit systems reduce the spontaneity of the visit, even if only slightly, at the trailhead. Compliance

checks by wilderness rangers may further impact a visitor's opportunity for unconfined recreation. The

proposed permit system would not limit where, when or how many visitors enter the wilderness.

This alternative would include seven of the same regulations proposed under Alternative A, which

impacts opportunities for unconfined recreation to varying degrees. Also, as described under Alternative

A, several of these regulations are commonly practiced and, therefore, would be of low impact upon the

recreationist (e.g. shortcutting trails, human waste, and stock must be under control). Standards

include:

• Limit group size to a maximum of 12 people.

• Shortcutting trail switchbacks on foot or with pack and saddle stock is prohibited.

• Human waste must be buried 6-8" deep and covered at least 200 feet from water, and, where

the terrain allows, 200 feet from campsites and trails. Alternatively, waste may be packed out.

• Pack or saddle stock must be ridden, led, or under control and are not permitted to run loose

on trails or travel routes.

• Locate pack and saddle stock handling areas at least 200 feet from lakes and streams, where

terrain allows.

• Pad highlines to minimize tree damage.

This Alternative would also implement several additional restrictions:

• Being in the wilderness with a combined number of pack and saddle stock in excess of 14

animals is prohibited, with the exception of pack goats, which are limited to a maximum of three

per person, and 9 per group.

• Establish a free, self-issue permit system.

• No campfires without pan or blanket. Eliminate all campfire rings.

Trails

Under alternative B, the direction for the Upper Lake Creek Campground trail would have a beneficial

effect on opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. Visitors will experience a less developed

route that will now be managed as a wilderness trail. Removing culverts and narrowing the visual impact

and breadth of the road will "reduce signs of modern civilization inside wilderness (Landres, et al.,

2012)."

Camping

Campfires would be allowed under this alternative, however they would be required to be in fire pans or

on fire blankets. The requirement for the use of a fire pan or blanket increases the management

restriction on visitor behavior. This requirement reduces the freedom experienced by the visitor within

the wilderness by increasing managerial controls. Camping in a traditional way will be negatively

impacted by not allowing visitors to use a preexisting fire rings in the wilderness.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

Opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation would be adversely affected by further

managerial controls and visitor restrictions on stock and group size limits.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Effects analysis is the same as described in Alternative A for the Sheep Mountain Repeater, and small

scale-surface disturbances. Effects are the same as described for Alternative C for the Upper Lake Creek

Campground.

EA-128
Environmental Consequences

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources, Vegetation and Botanical Resources, Noxious and Non-Native

Invasive Species Management, Recreation-Signs, Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments, Fire

Management, Commercial Services, Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue, and Wilderness

Education and Interpretation

The effects of Alternative B on opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation from soil, water,

air, and riparian resources, vegetation and botanical resources, noxious and non-native invasive species

management, recreation-signs, cultural resources and tribal governments, fire management,

commercial services, law enforcement and search and rescue, and wilderness education and

interpretation would be the same as describe for Alternative A.

Resource Indicator and Measure 5: Opportunitiesfor Solitude

Wilderness

Direction and effects specific to structures (JMJP-002) is the same as described for Alternative C.

Direction and effects specific to seamless regulations across the interagency wilderness (JMJP-006) is

same as described for Alternative A.

Recreation

Opportunities for solitude would be improved under this alternative by reducing the number of people

and stock observed in one group while inside the wilderness under the group size limits.

Camping

With the direction to not have fire rings inside the wilderness, the opportunities for solitude would be

positively impacted by this alternative by reducing the sights of human occupation.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

Opportunities for solitude would be improved under this alternative by reducing the number of stock

observed in one group while inside the wilderness per the maximum stock group size limit of 14 or pack

goat limit of 9 head per group.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Effects analysis is the same as Alternative A for the Sheep Mountain Repeater and small scale-surface

disturbances. Analysis is the same as Alternative C for the Upper Lake Creek Campground.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources, Vegetation and Botanical Resources, Noxious and Non-Native

Invasive Species Management, Recreation-Signs, Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments, Fire

Management, Commercial Services, Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue, and Wilderness

Education and Interpretation

The effects of Alternative B on opportunities for solitude from soil, water, air, and riparian resources,

vegetation and botanical resources, noxious and non-native invasive species management, recreationsigns, cultural resources and tribal governments, fire management, commercial services, law

enforcement and search and rescue, and wilderness education and interpretation would be the same as

describe for Alternative A.

Resource Indicator and Measure 6: Other Features ofValue

Under Alternative B, the pre-existing road leading to Upper Lake Creek Campground would be

rehabilitated to a wilderness appropriate trail (e.g. Class 3). This will include, but is not be limited to: the

removal of existing culverts within the roadbed, reducing foot print of existing road, retreading road to

EA-129
Environmental Consequences

wilderness appropriate trail subsurface material, and reducing the visual impact of the road bed. This

will not affect Herd Lake or the geology of the features that created it.

Resource Indicator and Measure 7: Trails

The effects of Alternative B on opportunities for solitude would be the same as describe for Alternative

A.

Cumulative Effects - Alternative B

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Untrammeled

The primary activities that have impacted the untrammeled quality within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: trail and road construction, livestock grazing installations, weed treatments, water

diversion and fire suppression. Alternative B, combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable

actions, would not cumulatively effect the untrammeled quality.

Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Natural

The primary activities that have impacted the natural quality within the wilderness cumulative effects

area include varying degrees of degraded vegetation and wildlife composition due to invasive species

establishment, fire suppression, recreation, fish stocking, and livestock grazing. Conversely, treatment to

remove invasive species have improved the naturalness of the area. Alternatives B is anticipated to

improve naturalness, thereby contributing positively toward cumulative effects.

Resource Indicator and Measure 3: Undeveloped

The primary activities that have impacted the undeveloped quality within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: construction and maintenance of range developments, the water diversion. Sheep

Mountain repeater and various user-created or constructed routes. Alternative B would not contribute

to cumulative impacts to the undeveloped quality.

Resource Indicator and Measure 4: Opportunitiesfor Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

The primary activities that have affected opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation within

the wilderness cumulative effects area include: recreation (including the Upper Lake Creek

Campground), outfitter and guide activities, and trail construction. Alternative B would result in

cumulative minor adverse impacts.

Resource Indicator and Measure 5: Opportunitiesfor Solitude

The primary activities that have affected opportunities for solitude within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: recreational visitation, federal projects with personnel on the ground (e.g. trail

maintenance, monitoring, invasive species treatments), and livestock management. Alternative B would

benefit opportunities for solitude by reducing encounters with large groups, and other sights of human

presence, which would result in cumulative minor, beneficial effects.

Resource Indicator and Measure 6: Other Features ofValue

The primary activities that have affected other features of value within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: construction of the road leading to the Upper Lake Creek Campground. Alternative

B would not contribute to cumulative effects to other features of value.

EA -130
Environmental Consequences

Resource Indicator and Measure 7: Trails

The primary activities that have affected other features of value within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: trail construction and maintenance, road construction and maintenance and travel

management planning. Alternative B is not expected to have cumulative effects on recreation because

the changes are largely administrative with little to no on-the-ground changes to recreational

opportunities compared with baseline conditions.

Alternative C - Minimum Management

Under this alternative, wilderness would continue to be managed under the guidance provided by the

Wilderness Act, agency-specific policy (BLM Manual 6340, FS Manual 2320, among others), BLM Challis

Field Office Resource Management Plan (1999), and the FS Challis Forest Plan, as revised (1989). In

general, this alternative would lack the proactive management established under Alternatives A and B to

manage uses and protect wilderness character.

The key differences between this alternative and alternatives A and B are:

• Lack of additional protections of natural resources, including vegetation and wildlife and

• Lack of visitor use management, including group size restrictions, management of camping, and

recreational stock use

Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Untrammeled

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

Not implementing the guideline related to soil erosion (JMJP-009) may result in unnecessary or cosmetic

reasons for controlling naturally-occurring soil erosion, which would impair the untrammeled quality.

Vegetation and Botanical Resources

By not implementing the direction proposed under Alternatives A and B for the protection of whitebark

pine (JMJP-011) and trail work in rare and sensitive species habitat (JMJP-012), there is a higher risk of

impacts to the untrammeled quality. Without the proposed guideline, when the agency undertakes or

considers trammeling actions, less attention may be given to effects on whitebark pine. However, as a

candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), impacts to the species should still

be considered without this guidance.

Recreation

Trails

No revisions to the trail inventory would occur under this alternative. This would not affect the

untrammeled quality.

Lacking the direction to only construct trails to preserve wilderness values and resources may lead to

trails being constructed for other purposes, such as convenience of the visitor. New trails, depending on

the scale and scope of the new construction, may impact the untrammeled quality. For example, if a

considerable length of trail construction requires substantial cutting of trees or the movement of earth,

it would be considered a trammeling action. Any new trail construction would be analyzed under sitespecific NEPA and MRA.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Management actions described under Alternative C include the RMP direction to close the Upper Lake

Creek Campground. This alternative is silent on direction for the Sheep Mountain repeater and smallscale surface disturbances. There would be no effect to the untrammeled quality under Alternative C.

EA-131
Environmental Consequences

Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Natural

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

Under this alternative, the proactive direction for protection of soil, water, air, and riparian resources

proposed by Alternatives A and B would not be implemented. Law and policy would continue to guide

protection of these resources. Lacking this direction could have negative effects on the natural quality of

these resources, but could be difficult to quantify. See also Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Report (Deschaine

2017).

Vegetation and Botanical Resources

Without the proposed guidelines to minimize impacts to whitebark pine, and minimizing effects to rare

and sensitive plant species during trail maintenance, presented in Alternatives A and B, (JMJP-011 and

012), there may be additional impacts to the natural quality under this alternative. The first guideline

(JMJP-011) addresses whitebark pine, a candidate species for listing under the ESA, which would merit

consideration regardless of this wilderness plan. However, this guideline is a reminder to consider the

resource in relation to various activities (fire suppression, dispersed camping, etc.). The following

guideline (JMJP-012) would protect the natural quality by ensuring rare and sensitive plant species are

surveyed for, and monitoring before trail maintenance or construction activities occur.

Noxious and Non-Native Invasive Species Management

Alternative C would still be guided by law and policy for invasive species management, but would not

include the two management actions recommended in the other alternatives, which emphasize

controlling small infestations, and encourage education on invasive species prevention. See also Invasive

Species section.

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

With no specific direction for reduction of disease transmission between pack goats and bighorn sheep,

there would be no additional education or adoption of measures for reducing the risk of contact The low

number of mapped observations of radio-collared bighorn sheep with in the JMJP Wilderness would

likely result in few, if any, direct encounters between pack goats and bighorn sheep. Due to the

transitory nature of human activities, it is expected that risk to bighorn sheep would be minimal. See

Wildlife section for more information.

Recreation

Group size

Currently, visitor use in the JMJP Wilderness is low and neither agency regulates group size. Large

groups tend to have a disproportionately greater impact on the biophysical and social environments

than smaller groups, therefore group size limits can be effective at reducing unacceptable resource and

visitor experience impacts (Anderson, et al. 1998). Relatively small increases in use can cause substantial

impact in low-use places (Cole, et al. 1987). At a wilderness scale, the impacts to the natural

environment from unregulated visitor use would be expected to be minor. However, in areas of

concentrated use, such as in campsites, naturalness would be impacted over time. Limiting the number

and type of use allowed in certain areas could prevent or slow these impacts.

Monz, et al. summarize group size research, and state the most important implication for group size is

the relationship between use and amount of impact.

EA -132
Environmental Consequences

In relatively undisturbed places, intense, concentrated use by a large group can cause substantial

impact, while a small group exhibiting the same behavior over a similar square area might cause

little significant impact to the soil and plant communities.

There are, however, many factors, such as minimum impact camping behavior and durability of the

vegetation and soils that can alter the above scenario (Monz et al. 2000).

Trampling is caused by human foot or stock hoof, stock rolling and pawing, and camp activities. The

greatest total impacts on vegetation occur at low trampling intensities; additional trampling can

continue to impact vegetation but at a lower rate (Cole 1987; Kuss and Hall 1991; Cole, et al, 1995;

Marion and Cole 1996; Cole and Spildie 1998). Enlargement of established recreation sites from large

groups is the most common, detrimental change" to these sites (Cole 1989). Expansion of these

established sites may occur under this alternative, as large groups would continue to be allowed.

Newly used recreation sites in forested vegetation can lose more than half their vegetation cover and

more than 60% plant height after one night of camping. In contrast recovery rates are very low, so the

restoration of impacted recreation sites to natural conditions can require ten to thirty years (Marion

1998; Cole and Monz 2003). Impacts on vegetation from trampling can persist for decades in mountain

environments (e.g. Hartley 1999; Willard et al. 2007).

Camping

Under this alternative, there would be no direction for disposing of human waste properly (JMJP-030).

This may have impacts on the natural quality, such as detrimental impacts to water quality or wildlife

habituation (Temple et al. 1982 and Lachapelle 2000). Providing guidance for proper disposal of human

waste will also reduce potential negative implications to human health and aesthetic considerations.

Alternative C would include direction regarding campfire ring management. Proliferation of campfire

rings includes associated impacts such as scorched soils and smoke-blackened rocks, loss of vegetation,

and aesthetic impacts. Lacking the direction to keep fire rings small and ensure rings are constructed of

natural materials (rock), as opposed to metal fire rings, would detract from the natural appearance of

campsites and may cause lasting changes to the naturally-occurring flora.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

Under this Alternative, there would be no group size limits or the other standards and guidelines for the

protection of natural resources as proposed under the other two alternatives. Lacking direction

proposed under Alternative A and B, such as group size limits and using and padding highlines, may lead

to more impacts to the natural quality of soils and vegetation, particularly in campsites or riparian areas.

Direction provided by the Challis Forest Plan to "control stock use in problem areas" (USDA FS 1987)

would still apply.

Fire Management

Alternative C includes the current BLM RMP (1999) direction, which requires full suppression of all fires

in the BLM-portion of the planning area. Suppressing lightning-ignited wildfires removes one of the most

important natural processes from fire- dependent ecosystems (Miller 2012). Managing (suppressing,

controlling, confining) naturally-ignited wildfire impacts the natural quality. While there may be valid

reasons to manage a naturally-ignited fire within wilderness, there would be impacts to this naturally

occurring disturbance, such as unnatural buildup of fuels, and effects from the suppression actions,

including constructing fire line or visual impacts from retardant drops. This alternative would lead to

impacts on the natural quality.

EA -133
Environmental Consequences

Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue

Lacking the 'approval' flow chart (JMJP-067) may not substantially affect the natural quality, as the

direction provided therein is policy. The flow chart may, however, provide a tool for objective, rapid

response to search and rescue or law enforcement operation needs within wilderness. Using the flow

chart (recommended under the other Alternatives) could help minimize possible effects on the natural

quality that may result from inconsistent approval responses.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Alternative C is silent on actions related to rehabilitation for small-scale disturbances, which may affect

naturalness. For example, old routes or impacted campsites may not be as promptly addressed when

lacking the management direction proposed under Alternatives A and B. For example, it is not

uncommon for old vehicle routes to cause erosion. These impacts may be better attended to and

addressed under Alternatives A and B.

Wilderness Education and Interpretation

Under Alternative C, there would be no direction on utilizing these methods to help prevent impacts

from recreational activities. Interpretation and Education can be used as a tool to prevent detrimental

effects to natural quality, so lacking direction to pursue these avenues may indirectly be detrimental to

the natural environment of the area.

Resource Indicator and Measure 3: Undeveloped

Wilderness

Overall, the undeveloped quality of the wilderness is good due to its vastness and limited amount of

development. Under alternative A, the level of administratively managed developments in wilderness

would not change. The number of trails and signs would remain the same and be maintained at their

current condition. Authorized and/or unauthorized recreational installations would remain the same,

thus constructed features in the wilderness would not be removed. There are no direct effects to the

undeveloped quality under Alternative C - it would remain in the same condition found at the time of

designation. Specific direction related to removing structures under Alternative C would be solely in

accordance with law: the Wilderness Act, Congressional Grazing Guidelines, and Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act.

Recreation

Lacking the proactive direction to manage vehicle access points (JMJP-025), particularly those with

known or likely occurrence for trespass, may lead to more motor vehicle violations, which impairs the

undeveloped quality.

Trails

Under Alternative C, the trail leading to Upper Lake Creek Campground, a graveled, former vehicle

route, would be maintained to pre-designation standards, and the culverts (developments) would

remain. This would not further degrade the undeveloped quality; however the undeveloped quality

would not be improved either. (See additional discussion of this trail under opportunities for primitive

and unconfined recreation.)

Fire Management

Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) would be required in designated wilderness. Standards for

rehabilitation of fire line are also higher than in non-wilderness and would be guided by the agency

EA -134
Environmental Consequences

administrator. Both of these requirements would protect the undeveloped quality following

suppression or active management of fire.

For the BLM-managed portion of the JMJP Wilderness, there would be more impact to the undeveloped

quality under this alternative as all fire would be suppressed (per direction established in the Challis

RMP), as the area would lack site-specific NEPA analysis to allow for wildland fire use in the Wilderness.

The undeveloped quality is impacted by any motorized or mechanized use in wilderness, and for fire

suppression this may include chainsaws, dropping items or people from aircraft (water, retardant,

smoke jumpers, supplies), or motorized vehicle use, such as ATVs or dozers. The requirement for initial

attack and full suppression dramatically increases the likelihood of the use of equipment that would

impair the undeveloped quality.

Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue

Alternative C is silent on the 'approval' flowchart (JMJP-067), which may lead to additional impacts to

the undeveloped quality. The direction and content of the flowchart is taken directly from the

Wilderness Act and policy. The flowchart simply takes the policy and condenses it into an easy tool for

the authorized officer to quickly make a legal, objective decision regarding motorized or mechanized

equipment or vehicles for a given operation.

Lacking the flowchart may lead to inconsistent determinations for motorized or mechanized use in the

wilderness. The motorized use may be more evident or the decision less prompt, for example, when the

decision-maker acting without the flow chart is less familiar or adept with applying wilderness policy.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

Leaving existing developed features and structures in the wilderness that are not associated with a

historic property, would continue to adversely affect the undeveloped character within the JMJP.

The Sheep Mountain repeater was in place at the time of designation of the wilderness. It is used

primarily by the Sawtooth National Forest for communications and is needed for safety and Forest

operations. This alternative would lack the direction to develop an operations and maintenance plan for

this development. Any proposals for motorized or mechanized use would be considered and analyzed in

a site-specific MRA and NEPA analysis, separate from the wilderness plan. See the discussion on

opportunity for primitive and unconfined recreation for the discussion of the Upper Lake Creek

Campground.

Resource Indicator and Measure 4: Opportunitiesfor Primitive and Unconfmed Recreation

Wilderness

The BLM Manual 6340 includes the direction to apply, where possible, any regulations seamlessly across

an interagency wilderness. This direction would apply to the BLM regardless of the wilderness plan,

whereas the FS would not have this direction. This direction would not be explicitly stated for the FS,

and may or may not occur. This is largely procedural direction and would not have a direct effect on

opportunities for unconfined recreation, although there may be more inconsistencies in visitor

regulation across the agency boundaries under this alternative.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

Under this Alternative, the direction proposed under the other two alternatives for protection of soil,

water, air and riparian resources would not be implemented. The management action for using indirect

methods, such as education, would better protect the opportunities for unconfined recreation, by

encouraging the use of education over regulation for protection of wilderness character.

EA -135
Environmental Consequences

Vegetation and Botanical Resources

By not implementing the guidelines for protection of whitebark pine (JMJP-011) or rare and sensitive

plant species (JMJP-012), there would be no beneficial or adverse impacts to opportunities for primitive

and unconfined recreation.

Recreation

Trails

Under Alternative C, there would be no changes to the trail inventory, and trails that are no longer

visible on the ground would still be presented on maps, which may lead to a safety risk for visitors

planning to use those trails. Also, maintenance of existing trails would not occur on the trails that are

proposed for addition to the trail inventory under other Alternatives.

Under this Alternative, the trail leading to the Upper Lake Creek Campground would be maintained at

pre-designation level and would continue to be managed as a non-motorized trail. This would not affect

the opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation when compared with the time of designation.

Commercial Services

Presence of structures or installations in campsites reduce self-reliant recreation, which is the hallmark

of primitive recreation. The standards presented in the Wilderness Management Plan regarding

structures (JMJP-063) would apply to the FS portion of the wilderness, regardless of the wilderness plan,

because it is direction established in policy (FSM 2323.13g). Under this Alternative, this direction would

not apply to the BLM portion of the wilderness. Currently, there are no assigned outfitter and guide

camps within the BLM-managed portion of the wilderness.

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

The Upper Lake Creek Campground existed at the time of designation of wilderness. The Challis RMP

(BLM 1999) includes the following direction: Close the Upper Lake Creek Campground and maintain the

existing road above Herd Lake as a non-motorized trail only. The trail was managed as non-motorized at

the time of designation. The campground, however, was never closed. Visitation to the campground is

quite low, likely in large part because the six mile trail leading to the campground is non-motorized. As

noted above, the continued presence and use of this campground would neither improve nor degrade

wilderness character, when compared to the time of designation.

Wilderness Education and Interpretation

Effective education could prevent problem behaviors which may lead to a need for more restrictive

management of the area. This Alternative is silent on providing this to the recreating public.

Resource Indicator and Measure 5: OpportunitiesforSolitude

Recreation

Under Alternative C, there would be no group size limits (JMJP-022, 032). Opportunities for solitude

may, therefore, be impacted by large groups. Seeing very large groups, for example, more than 20

people in a group, does bother many wilderness visitors; however, it is uncertain if seeing people in one

large group causes a more negative experience than seeing the same number of people in several small

parties (Monz et al. 2000).

EA-136
Environmental Consequences

Trails

Under Alternative C, the direction to update the trail inventory, and maintain the Upper Lake Creek

Campground access route as a non-motorized route would not affect solitude, beneficially or adversely.

Opportunities for solitude, both on and off trail, would be the same as currently experienced.

Camping

The lack of direction for human waste management (JMJP-030), when compared with the other

alternatives, may lead to additional sights of human presence.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

There would be no stock group size limit under this alternative and, as noted above, opportunities for

solitude would be impacted under this alternative when large groups are encountered in the wilderness.

Fire Management

Under Alternative C, on the BLM-managed portion of the JMJP Wilderness, there may be additional

impacts to solitude when fire suppression activities occur. Sights and sounds of aircraft or personnel on

the ground would affect opportunities for solitude, and this is likelihood is much higher given the

current BLM requirement to suppress fire.

Commercial Services

Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity inside the wilderness is a component of having

opportunities for solitude. It is affected by encountering structures or impacts from other visitors within

wilderness, which may include campsite structures, such as tables, chairs or corrals. The standard

specific to structures for commercial services (JMJP-063) would apply on the FS portion of the

wilderness regardless of the wilderness plan, as it is established in policy (2323.13g).

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

The presence of Upper Lake Creek Campground may serve to concentrate overnight camping use, thus

detracting from feelings for solitude. However, it is a very small campground with only three sites, and

receives low visitation.

Resource Indicator and Measure 6: Other Features ofValue

Under Alternative C, the trail leading to Upper Lake Creek Campground would be maintained at the

current (time of designation) levels. No changes would occur to the travel route.

Resource Indicator and Measure 7: Recreation-TraiIs

Under Alternative C, there would be no changes to the FS or BLM trail inventory or systems within the

JMJP Wilderness. Trails would continue to receive maintenance at the level that occurred at the time of

designation. Certain trails, like Narrow-Canyon-Bowery Creek and Narrow Canyon, would continue to be

represented on maps even when they are no longer present or discernable on the ground. Conversely,

other trails that are established on the ground, like Middle East Pass Creek, Upper Lake Creek

Campground, and Sage Creek, would not receive maintenance and would not be presented on maps.

The direction regarding new trail construction is BLM policy (Manual 6340), and would apply to the BLM

portion of the wilderness regardless of the wilderness plan or alternative selected.

EA -137
Environmental Consequences

Summary ofAlterative C

In general, Alternative C would lack the site-specific, proactive guidance proposed under alternatives A

and B. This may lead to notable effects to wilderness character, with the most pronounced effects

resulting from:

1) Less visitor use management, including unrestricted group sizes

2) Less JMJP Wilderness specific resource protection measures

EA-138
Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects - Alternative C

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects

Analysis

Cumulative effects are "the incremental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives when added to

effects of other actions both on National Forest System or BLM-managed lands and other adjacent

federal, state, or private lands" (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.7). The Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all

past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. In regard to past actions, the agency must

determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of

cumulative effects during the scoping process and the preparation of the analysis. Dependent upon the

proposed action, the accounting for past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect

effects of their design and implementation could, in some contexts, be useful to predict the cumulative

effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to comprehensively list

and analyze all individual past actions. Just because information about past actions may be available or

obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision

making (40 CFR 1508.7).

Resource Indicator and Measure 1: Untrammeled

The primary activities that have impacted the untrammeled quality within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: trail and road construction, livestock grazing developments, weed treatments,

water diversion and fire suppression. Alternative C, combined with past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable actions, is not expected to cumulatively effect the untrammeled quality beyond existing

conditions.

Resource Indicator and Measure 2: Natural

The primary activities that have impacted the natural quality within the wilderness cumulative effects

area include: varying degrees of degraded vegetation and wildlife composition due to invasive species

establishment, fire suppression, recreation, fish stocking, and livestock grazing. Conversely, treatment to

remove invasive species has improved the naturalness of the area. Alternative C would continue the

cumulative, minor, adverse impacts that already exist due to the use of wilderness by human visitors

with little direction on preventing future disturbances.

Resource Indicator and Measure 3: Undeveloped

The primary activities that have impacted the undeveloped quality within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: construction and maintenance of range developments, the water diversion, Sheep

Mountain repeater, and various user-created or constructed routes. Alternative C would not contribute

to cumulative impacts to the undeveloped quality.

Resource Indicator and Measure 4: Opportunitiesfor Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

The primary activities that have affected opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation within

the wilderness cumulative effects area include: recreation (including the Upper Lake Creek

Campground), outfitter and guide activities, and trail construction. Alternative C would not result in

cumulative impacts.

Resource Indicator and Measure 5: Opportunitiesfor Solitude

The primary activities that have affected opportunities for solitude within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: recreational visitation, federal projects with personnel on the ground (e.g. trail

EA -139
Environmental Consequences

maintenance, monitoring, invasive species treatments), and livestock management. Alternative C is

likely to result in minor adverse cumulative effects.

Resource Indicator and Measure 6: Other Features ofValue

The primary activities that have affected other features of value within the wilderness cumulative

effects area include: construction of the road leading to the Upper Lake Creek Campground. Alternative

C would not contribute to cumulative effects to other features of value.

Resource Indicator and Measure 7: Trails

The primary activities related to trails within the wilderness cumulative effects area include: trail

construction and maintenance, road construction and maintenance and travel management planning.

Alternative C would not contribute to cumulative effects on recreational trails.

EA -140
Environmental Consequences

Wildlife

Affected Environment

The Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness contains a variety of habitat types. Almost half of the

Wilderness is sage-steppe, the majority of which is mountain big sagebrush. The second most abundant

habitat type is Douglas-fir, followed by whitebark pine. In addition, there are aspen stands, pockets of

spruce-fir, riparian areas, and alpine areas.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game recently completed a Statewide Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP)

(IDFG 2017). The JMJP Wilderness is located within the Challis Volcanics ecological section. Nine

conservation habitat targets that represent the major ecosystems were selected and target viabilities

were assigned: dry lower montane-foothill forest (fair); subalpine-high montane conifer forest (fair);

aspen forest and woodland (poor); lower montane-foothill grassland and shrubland (fair); sagebrush

steppe (good); alpine and high montane scrub, grassland, and barrens (good); riverine-riparian forest

and shrubland (fair to good); springs and groundwater dependent wetlands (poor); and lakes, ponds,

and reservoirs (good). Two species - wolverine (fair) and bighorn sheep (good) - and two species

assemblages - bats, presumed good, and pollinators, good - are identified as explicit species targets

because they face special conservation needs. The prioritized threats include altered fire regimes, forest

insect pests and disease, noxious weeds and invasive annual grasses, improper livestock grazing

management, changing temperature and precipitation patterns.

The SWAP designated Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) using criteria such as distribution,

abundance, trends, and viability threats. The species were prioritized into three tiers: Tier 1- highest

priority and represent species with the most critical conservation needs; Tier 2- secondary priority and

represents species with longer-term vulnerabilities or patterns suggesting that management

intervention is needed, but not necessarily facing imminent extinction; and Tier 3 are species that a

relatively more common but have declining trends or are lacking in information. Several of these

species overlap with the Forest Service and BLM sensitive species.

Federally Listed or Proposed Species

The species identified as candidate or threatened under the Endangered Species are identified in Table 1

(USFWS 2017).

Table 2. ESA-listed, Proposed, or Candidate Wildlife Species Occurring on the SCNF and Challis FO BLM

Species Scientific Name Status

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened

Wolverine Gulo gulo Proposed

Sensitive Wildlife Species

Plants and animals designated as sensitive are identified as species for which population viability is a

concern as evidenced by current or predicted downward trends in population numbers, density, or

habitat (FSM 2670.5) or the species has a downward trend in viability of a species making it at risk across

all or significant portion of range or the species depends on habitat on BLM-administered lands and the

EA -141
Environmental Consequences

habitat is threatened with alteration that could put the viability of the species at risk (BLM Manual

6840.2.A.l).

Table 3. Salmon-Challis NF Region 4 Wildlife Sensitive Species

Species Scientific Name

Gray Wolf Canis lupus

Fisher Martes pennanti

Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum

Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum

Boreal owl Aegoliusfunereus

Flammulated owl Otusflammeolus

Great gray owl Strix nebulosa

Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus

Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus

Greater sage-grouse (also MIS) Centrocercus urophasianus

Columbia spotted frog (also MIS) Rana luteiventris

Table 4. Challis Field Office BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species

Species Scientific Name

Gray Wolf Canis lupus

Fisher Martes pennanti

Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis

Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

Big brown bat Eptesicusfuscus

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis

EA - 142
Environmental Consequences

Species Scientific Name

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum

Pallid bat Antrozous paIIidus

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanesis

Piute ground squirrel Urocitellus mollis

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Golden eagle Aguila chrysaetos

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus

Flammulated owl Otusflammeolus

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus

Lewis' woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri

Sagebrush sparrow Artemisiospiza nevadensis

Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus

Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Western or Boreal Toad Anaxyrus boreas

Table 5. Regional Population Trend for High Priority Breeding Birds on the SCNF

Habitat Type Species1 BMC/BCC SGCN

Global

Ranking

State

Ranking

BBS

Regional

Trend

Alpine Black Rosy-Finch Yes/Yes Yes-3 G4 S3 ND

Sagebrush Shrub Swainson's Hawk Yes/Yes No G5 S3B 2.79(2)

EA -143
Environmental Consequences

Habitat Type Species1 BMC/BCC SGCN

Global

Ranking

State

Ranking

BBS

Regional

Trend

Sage Grouse Yes/No Yes-1 G3G4 S2 -8.35 (1)

Short-eared Owl Yes/No Yes-3 G5 S4 -3.97 (2)

Loggerhead Shrike Yes/Yes No G4 S3 0.37 (2)

Sage Thrasher Yes/Yes Yes-2 G5 S3B -1.34(3)

Rock Wren No/No No G5 S5B 0.14 (3)

Brewer's Sparrow Yes/No No G5 S3B -2.60 (3)

Lark Sparrow No/No No G5 S5B -2.39 (3)

Sage Sparrow Yes/Yes No G5 S3B -6.30 (2)

Grassland Long-billed Curlew Yes/Yes Yes-2 G5 S2B 5.28 (3)

Grasshopper Sparrow No/No No G5 S2B -7.78 (3)

Western Meadowlark No/No No G5 S5B/S3N -3.45 (3)

High-elevation

Mixed Conifer

Olive-Sided Flycatcher Yes/Yes Yes-3 G4 S4B -3.69 (3)

Hammond's Flycatcher No/No No G5 S5B -1.17 (3)

Low-elevation

Mixed Conifer

Sharp-shinned Hawk No/No No G5 S5 0.83 (1)

Lewis' Woodpecker Yes/Yes Yes-2 G4 S3B 2.34 (2)

Williamson's Sapsucker Yes/Yes No G5 S4B -3.09 (1)

Black-backed Woodpecker No/No No G5 S3 -0.00(1)

Brown Creeper No/No No G5 S5 -1.18 (2)

Varied Thrush No/No No G5 S5B -4.58 (3)

Townsend's Warbler No/No No G5 S4B -0.39 (3)

Western Tanager No/No No G5 S5B 2.06 (3)

Juniper/Pinyon/

Mt. Mahogany

Ferruginous Hawk

Yes/No Yes-2 G4 S3B 1.87 (2)

Plumbeous Vireo No/No No G5 S4 -7.66 (2)

Riparian Barrow's Goldeneye No/No No G5 S4B/S3N ND

EA -144
Environmental Consequences

Habitat Type Species1 BMC/BCC SGCN

Global

Ranking

State

Ranking

BBS

Regional

Trend

Hooded Merganser No/No No G5 S2B/S3N ND

Blue (Dusky) Grouse N/A No G5 S5 1.84 (1)

Black-chinned Hummingbird No/No No G5 S5B 5.99(1)

Calliope Hummingbird Yes/Yes No G5 S5B -1.00(2)

Rufous Hummingbird Yes/No No G5 S5B 2.18 (2)

Willow Flycatcher Yes/Yes No G5 S5B -0.54(3)

Dusky Flycatcher No/No No G5 S5B -3.29 (3)

American Dipper No/No No G5 S5 1.14 (2)

Yellow Warbler No/No No G5 S5B -1.79(3)

MacGillivray's Warbler No/No No G5 S5B -0.96 (3)

Non-Riverine

Wetlands

Cinnamon Teal Yes/No No G5 S5B -3.20 (3)

Redhead Yes/Yes No G5 S5B/S3N 3.01 (1)

Sandhill Crane No/No Yes-3 G5 S3B 1.56(3)

Killdeer No/No No G5 S5B/S3N -5.12(3)

Aspen Ruffed Grouse N/A No G5 S5 0.82 (2)

Cliffs/Rock

Outcrops/Talus

Golden Eagle Yes/No Yes-2 G5 S4B/S4N -1.09 (2)

Prairie Falcon No/No No G5 S4B/S3N 2.08 (1)

1 All above birds, except game birds, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Alternative A: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federally Listed or Candidate Species

Yellow-billed Cuckoo ^

There is no suitable habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo In the JMJP Wilderness.

Effects Determination

The proposed action would result in no direct or indirect effects to the species and the determination is

No Effect to the yellow-billed cuckoo.

EA -145
Environmental Consequences

Canada Lynx

While the JMJP Wilderness is unlikely to contain highly suitable habitat for lynx, the species may use the

area as a travel corridor. Human activity in the JMJP Wilderness would not be of such intensity,

continuity, or duration that it would preclude incidental lynx use of the action areas. No habitat for lynx

would be removed or altered. No location would be affected to such an extent that it would be

unsuitable for use by lynx.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no effect to Canada lynx.

Wolverine

Human activity in the JMJP WA would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it would

preclude wolverine use of the action areas. No habitat for wolverines would be removed or altered.

Camp locations are already disturbed and likely provide poor quality habitat due to past disturbance.

Wolverines would likely temporarily avoid an area where people are camped or are otherwise using due

to human presence, but it is unlikely that that would cause any impacts to individuals. No location

would be affected to such an extent that it would be unsuitable for use by wolverines.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would not impact individual wolverines or habitat.

Region 4 Sensitive Species

Gray Wolf

Human activity in the JMJP Wilderness would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it

would preclude gray wolf use of the action areas. No habitat for wolves would be removed or altered.

Wolves may temporarily avoid an area due to human presence, but it is unlikely that would cause any

impacts to individuals. No location would be affected to such an extent that it would be unsuitable for

use by wolves.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would not impact individual wolves or habitat.

Fisher

It is not likely that suitable habitat for fisher occurs within the JMJP WA. Human activity in the JMJP

Wilderness would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it would preclude potential fisher

use of the action areas. No potential habitat would be removed or altered. No location would be

affected to such an extent that it would be unsuitable for transitory use by fisher.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would not impact individual fisher or potential habitat.

Bighorn Sheep

Recreational pack goat use has the potential to impact bighorn sheep. Studies have shown some

potential of disease transmission, especially if there is a situation where direct contact between species

EA -146
Environmental Consequences

occurs. The proposed action alternative has a standard that requires providing education for users of

pack goats with guidelines as recommended by the North American Packgoat Association. These

guidelines are:

• All pack goats will be on leads or have leads attached to their collar or halter at all times.

• All pack goats will be tethered at night within 30 feet of humans.

• If bighorn sheep are observed within 100 yards of a potential camping area, pack goat users will

take all reasonable measures to move their campsite to a different area. Hazing techniques may

be used to deter bighorn sheep from moving closer to campsites if necessary.

• Pack goat numbers will be limited to a maximum of three (3) pack goats per person, and a

maximum of nine (9) pack goats per group.

• When bighorn sheep are using trails for travel pack goat users will move off the trail 100 yards. If

that distance is not attainable, the pack goat user will travel back along the trail away from the

bighorn sheep and exit the trail when the 100 yard distance can be reached. Pack goat users will

stay off the trail until bighorn sheep have passed. If visibility is limited to less than 100 yards up

trail, a pack goat user will go to the trail and observe for bighorn sheep before continuing with

pack goats.

• When accessing browsing areas and water, a pack goat user will check for the presence of

bighorn sheep before allowing access for pack goats. Whenever possible, water access will be

limited to areas of unlikely bighorn sheep use.

• In event that direct contact of a pack goat and a bighorn sheep is observed, the location and as

much of a description as is possible of the sheep and incident will be written, photographed if

possible and reported to the appropriate agency as soon as reasonably possible.

• If any pack goat becomes lost, missing or separated from the owner and herd every effort will

be exhausted to locate and recover the lost pack goat. If the owner is unable to locate and

recover the lost pack goat, contact the Salmon-Challis National Forest or BLM, Challis Field

Office by phone immediately. A full disclosure of all available information will be provided

including: the last known location (GPS coordinates, legal description, geographic location, name

or number of trail or trailhead), the circumstances that resulted in it becoming lost, a

description of the pack goat, and any equipment that it was carrying.

Providing education to people who use pack goats would minimize risk of contact between pack goats

and bighorn sheep. Pack goat users will likely voluntarily adopt these guidelines to protect their stock

and wildlife. The low number of mapped observations of radio-collared bighorn sheep with in the JMJP

Wilderness will also likely result in few, if any, direct encounters between pack goats and bighorn sheep.

Due to the transitory nature of other human activities, it is expected that impacts to bighorn sheep and

their habitat would be minimal. The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or

duration that it precludes bighorn sheep use of any portion of the JMJP Wilderness. No habitat would

be removed or altered.

Effects Determination

The proposed action alternative may impact individual bighorn sheep but would not likely contribute to

a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability or the population or species.

Spotted Bat

It is not likely that suitable habitat for spotted bats occurs within the JMJP Wilderness.

Effects Determination

EA -147
Environmental Consequences

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The action alternative would have no impact to spotted bats.

Townsend's Big-eared Bat

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes Townsend's

big-eared bat use of the action areas. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No

human activities would be to such an extent that Townsend's big-eared bats would alter behavior or

activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to Townsend's big-eared bats.

Pygmy Rabbit

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes pygmy

rabbit use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities

would be to such an extent that pygmy rabbits would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to pygmy rabbits.

Bald Eagle

There is no known nesting habitat for this species within the JMJP Wilderness. The proposed action

would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes bald eagle use of the area. No

habitat would be removed or altered. No human activities would be to such an extent that bald eagles

would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to bald eagles.

Northern Goshawk

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes goshawk

use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities would be

to such an extent that goshawks would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to northern goshawks.

American Peregrine Falcon

There is no nesting habitat for this species within areas where people would camp or otherwise spend a

length of time.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to peregrine falcons.

EA -148
Environmental Consequences

Boreal Owl

There is no known habitat for this species within the JMJP Wilderness. In the event that they are

present, the Proposed Action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes

boreal owl use of the area. No habitat would be removed or altered. No human activities would be to

such an extent that boreal owls would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to boreal owls.

Flammulated Owl

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes

flammulated owl use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human

activities would be to such an extent that flammulated owls would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to flammulated owls.

Great Gray Owl

There is no known habitat for this species within the JMJP Wilderness. In the event that they are

present, the proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes

great gray owl use of the area. No habitat would be removed or altered. No human activities would be

to such an extent that great gray owls would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to great gray owls.

Three-toed Woodpecker

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes three-toed

woodpecker use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human

activities would be to such an extent that three-toed woodpeckers would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to three-toed woodpeckers.

Harlequin Duck

There is no known nesting habitat for this species within the JMJP Wilderness.

Effects Determination

\y

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to harlequin ducks.

EA -149
Environmental Consequences

BLM Sensitive Species

Piute Ground Squirrel

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes Piute

ground squirrel use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human

activities would be to such an extent that Piute ground squirrels would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to Piute ground squirrels.

Big Brown Bat

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes big brown

bat use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities would

be to such an extent that big brown bats would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to big brown bats.

Hoary Bat

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes hoary bat

use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities would be

to such an extent that hoary bats would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to hoary bats.

Pallid Bat

There is no known habitat for this species within the JMJP Wilderness.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to pallid bats.

Silver-haired Bat

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes silverhaired bat use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities

would be to such an extent that silver-haired bats would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to silver-haired bats.

Little Brown Bat

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes little brown

bat use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities would

be to such an extent that little brown bats would alter behavior or activities.

EA -150
Environmental Consequences

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to little brown bats.

Long-legged Myotis

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes long-legged

myotis use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities

would be to such an extent that long-legged myotis would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to long-legged myotis.

Long-eared Myotis

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes long-eared

myotis use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities

would be to such an extent that long-eared myotis would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to long-eared myotis.

Western Small-footed Myotis

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes western

small-footed myotis use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No

human activities would be to such an extent that western small-footed myotis would alter behavior or

activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to western small-footed myotis.

Yuma Myotis

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes Yuma

myotis use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities

would be to such an extent that Yuma myotis would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to Yuma myotis.

Golden Eagle

\S

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes golden

eagle use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities

would be to such an extent that golden eagles would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to golden eagles.

EA-151
Environmental Consequences

Ferruginous Hawk

There is no known nesting habitat for this species within the JMJP Wilderness.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to ferruginous hawks.

Loggerhead Shrike

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes loggerhead

shrike use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities

would be to such an extent that loggerhead shrikes would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to loggerhead shrikes.

Sage Thrasher

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes sage

thrasher use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities

would be to such an extent that sage thrashers would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to sage thrashers.

Burrowing Owl

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes burrowing

owl use, if present, of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human

activities would be to such an extent that burrowing owls would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to burrowing owls.

Lewis’ Woodpecker

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes Lewis'

woodpecker use, if present, of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No

human activities would be to such an extent that Lewis' woodpeckers would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to Lewis' woodpeckers.

Brewer’s Sparrow

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes Brewer's

sparrow use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities

would be to such an extent that Brewer's sparrows would alter behavior or activities.

EA-152
Environmental Consequences

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to Brewer's sparrows.

Green-tailed Towhee

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes green¬

tailed towhee use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human

activities would be to such an extent that green-tailed towhees would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to green-tailed towhees.

Olive-sided Flycatcher

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes olive-sided

flycatcher use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities

would be to such an extent that olive-sided flycatchers would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to olive-sided flycatchers.

Willow Flycatcher

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes willow

flycatcher, if present, use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No

human activities would be to such an extent that willow flycatchers would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to willow flycatchers.

Long-hilled Curlew

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes long-billed

curlew, if present, use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human

activities would be to such an extent that long-billed curlews would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to long-billed curlews.

Trumpeter Swan

There is no known nesting or foraging habitat for this species within the JMJP Wilderness.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to trumpeter swans.

EA-153
Environmental Consequences

Western or Boreal Toad

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes boreal toad

use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities would be

to such an extent that boreal toads would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to boreal toads.

Management Indicator Species

Pileated Woodpecker

The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes pileated

woodpecker use of the area. No habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human

activities would be to such an extent that pileated woodpeckers would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

The action alternative would not have direct or indirect effects on pileated woodpeckers. There would

be no effect on nesting habitat or forage abundance.

Greater Sage-grouse

Sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat are present within the JMJP Wilderness. The proposed action

would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes sage-grouse use of the area. No

habitat for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities would be to such an extent

that sage-grouse would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to greater sage-grouse.

Columbia Spotted Frog

Columbia spotted frogs and habitat are present within the JMJP Wilderness. The proposed action would

not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it precludes spotted frog use of the area. No habitat

for this species would be removed or altered. No human activities would be to such an extent that

spotted frogs would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

There would be no direct or indirect effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no impact to Columbia spotted frogs.

Migratory Breeding Birds

Due to the very transitory nature of human activities, it is expected that effects to birds and their habitat

would be minimal. The Proposed Action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it

precludes migratory bird use of any portion of the JMJP Wilderness. No habitat for these species would

be removed or altered. No human activities would be to such an extent that migratory birds would alter

behavior or activities.

EA -154
Environmental Consequences

Effects Determination

The Action alternative would not have direct or indirect effects on migratory birds. There would be no

effect on nesting or foraging habitat.

Elk

Due to the very transitory nature of human activities, it is expected that effects to elk and their habitat

would be minimal. The Proposed Action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that it

precludes elk use of any portion of the JMJP Wilderness. No habitat would be removed or altered. No

human activities that are covered by the JMJP Wilderness Plan would be to such an extent that elk

would alter behavior or activities.

Effects Determination

The action alternative would not have direct or indirect effects on elk. There would be no effect on

habitat.

Alternative B: Natural-focus

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federally Listed or Candidate Species

Direct and indirect effects of Alternative B on yellow-billed cuckoos and Canada lynx would be the same

as described in Alternative A.

Region 4 Forest Service and BLM Sensitive Species

Direct and indirect effects of Alternative B on all other R4 Forest Service and BLM sensitive species

would be the same as described in Alternative A, except as described below to bighorn sheep.

Bighorn Sheep

Recreational pack goat use has the potential to impact bighorn sheep. Studies have shown some

potential of disease transmission, especially if there is a situation where direct contact between species

occurs. The maximum management alternative has a standard that requires users of pack goats

implementing guidelines recommended by the North American Packgoat Association. These guidelines

are:

• All pack goats will be on leads or have leads attached to their collar or halter at all times.

• All pack goats will be tethered at night within 30 feet of humans.

• If bighorn sheep are observed within 100 yards of a potential camping area, pack goat users will

take all reasonable measures to move their campsite to a different area. Hazing techniques may

be used to deter bighorn sheep from moving closer to campsites if necessary.

• Pack goat numbers will be limited to a maximum of three (3) pack goats per person, and a

maximum of nine (9) pack goats per group.

• Where bighorn sheep are using trails for travel pack goat users will move off the trail 100 yards.

If that distance is not attainable, the pack goat user will travel back along the trail away from the

bighorn sheep and exit the trail when the 100 yard distance can be reached. Pack goat users will

stay off the trail until bighorn sheep have passed. If visibility is limited to less than 100 yards up

trail, a pack goat user will go to the trail and observe for bighorn sheep before continuing with

pack goats.

• When accessing browsing areas and water, a pack goat user will check for the presence of

bighorn sheep before allowing access for pack goats. Whenever possible, water access will be

limited to areas of unlikely bighorn sheep use.

EA -155
Environmental Consequences

• In event that direct contact of a pack goat and a bighorn sheep is observed, the location and as

much of a description as is possible of the sheep and incident will be written, photographed if

possible and reported to the appropriate agency as soon as reasonably possible.

• If any pack goat becomes lost, missing or separated from the owner and herd every effort will

be exhausted to locate and recover the lost pack goat. If the owner is unable to locate and

recover the lost pack goat, contact the Salmon-Challis National Forest or BLM, Challis Field

Office by phone immediately. A full disclosure of all available information will be provided

including: the last known location (GPS coordinates, legal description, geographic location, name

or number of trail or trailhead), the circumstances that resulted in it becoming lost, a

description of the pack goat, and any equipment that it was carrying.

Implementing the above guidelines would minimize risk of contact between pack goats and bighorn

sheep. The low number of mapped observations of radio-collared bighorn sheep with in the JMJP

Wilderness will also likely result in few, if any, direct encounters between pack goats and bighorn sheep.

Due to the transitory nature of other human activities, it is expected that impacts to bighorn sheep and

their habitat would be minimal. The proposed action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or

duration that it precludes bighorn sheep use of any portion of the JMJP Wilderness. No habitat would

be removed or altered.

Effects Determination

The proposed action alternative may impact individual bighorn sheep, but would not likely contribute to

a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability or the population or species.

Management Indicator Species

Direct and indirect effects of Alternative B on pileated woodpeckers, greater sage-grouse, and Columbia

spotted frogs would be the same as described in Alternative A.

Migratory Birds and Elk

Direct and indirect effects of Alternative B on migratory birds and elk would be the same as described in

Alternative A.

Alternative C: Minimum Management

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federally Listed or Candidate Species

Direct and indirect effects of Alternative C on yellow-billed cuckoos and Canada lynx would be the same

as described in Alternative A.

Region 4 Forest Service and BLM Sensitive Species

Direct and indirect effects of Alternative C on all other R4 Forest Service and BLM sensitive species

would be the same as described in Alternative A.

Bighorn Sheep

Recreational pack goat use has the potential to impact bighorn sheep. Studies have shown some

potential of disease transmission, especially if there is a situation where direct contact between species

occurs. The minimum management alternative has no direction regarding contact between pack goats

and bighorn sheep.

EA -156
Environmental Consequences

The low number of mapped observations of radio-collared bighorn sheep with in the JMJP Wilderness

would likely result in few, if any, direct encounters between pack goats and bighorn sheep.

Due to the transitory nature of other human activities, it is expected that impacts to bighorn sheep and

their habitat would be minimal. The Proposed Action would not be of such intensity, continuity, or

duration that it precludes bighorn sheep use of any portion of the JMJP Wilderness. No habitat would

be removed or altered.

Effects Determination

The proposed action alternative may impact individual bighorn sheep, but would not likely contribute to

a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability or the population or species.

Management Indicator Species

Direct and indirect effects of Alternative C on pileated woodpeckers, greater sage-grouse, and Columbia

spotted frogs would be the same as described in Alternative A.

Migratory Birds and Elk

Direct and indirect effects of Alternative C on migratory birds and elk would be the same as described in

Alternative A.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are "the incremental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives when added to

effects of other actions both on National Forest System lands and other adjacentfederal, state, or

private lands" (40 CFR 1508.7).

CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to

determine the present effects of past actions. In regard to past actions, the agency must determine

what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative

effects during the scoping process and the preparation of the analysis. Dependent upon the proposed

action, the accounting for past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of

their design and implementation could, in some contexts, be useful to predict the cumulative effects of

the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to comprehensively list and

analyze all individual past actions. Just because information about past actions may be available or

obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision

making (40 CFR 1508.7).

The management plan for the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness is not anticipated to result in

cumulative effects to wildlife.

\y

EA -157
Noxious and Non-Native Invasive Species

Affected Environment

Environmental Consequences

The Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness contains large, contiguous, intact, native plant communities.

While the area is generally pristine, there is potential for invasion and expansion of non-native invasive

species. Currently, most known infestations of terrestrial invasive plants within the Wilderness occur in

areas of human disturbance. These disturbances are related to a variety of land use practices, including,

but not limited to: historic road construction, trail construction and maintenance, unauthorized

motorized and non-motorized trail construction, commercial livestock grazing, recreational livestock

grazing (pack stock), dispersed camping, fire (prescribed and wildfire) and range improvements.

An integrated weed management approach, where multiple treatment methods are applied in

conjunction with prevention and education, has been utilized within the wilderness in the past. These

methods include herbicide, biological control (insects), and manual control (hand-pulling or digging with

hand tools).

The largest known infestation of an Idaho State listed noxious weed is located on BLM lands at the south

end of Herd Lake near the wilderness boundary. There is a 2.5 acre infestation of Canada thistle (Cirsium

arvense) in the sub-irrigated wetlands adjacent to the lake. Due to the close proximity to water, this site

has been treated with biological control agents (insects) since 2004. Approximately 12,570 Canada

thistle gall flies (Urophora carduii) and Canada thistle stem mining weevils (Ceutorhynchus litura) have

been released. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) occurs in several sites within the wilderness. These

infestations are generally isolated and are primarily attributed to past disturbances such as salting sites,

stock tie areas, campsites and trails. No cheatgrass infestations larger than 2 acres have been found.

Herbicide treatment of cheatgrass has been limited in the past due to a lack of infestation inventories

and logistical constraints. It is expected that cheatgrass treatments will increase in the near future.

Other non-native plant species of lesser concern have been surveyed in the wilderness. These tend to be

invasive annuals that pose less of a threat to native species and therefore less of an impact on

naturalness or wilderness character. These species are also found in areas of frequent disturbance,

primarily stock tie areas in camps.

Alternative A: Proposed Action mmmmmm

mm

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed management of the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness would have very little measurable

impact on the introduction or expansion of invasive species. The wilderness would be managed in a

manner that limits ground disturbing activities and human disturbance, thereby reducing the potential

for weed invasion. Increased monitoring and presence by land managers would also aid in the early

detection of invasive species. An increase in prevention measures within the wilderness and at portals

entering the wilderness will reduce the potential for expansion. The use of certified weed-free forage

will be enforced and education measures will be applied to inform the public about weed identification

and the impact they cause on the environment and wilderness character.

The treatment methods proposed will have minimal temporary impacts on wilderness users. Recently,

treated areas indicated by blue dye or dead and dying vegetation may be encountered along trails or in

campsites. The reduction in non-native invasive species, along with the restoration of desirable native

vegetation, will improve the naturalness and wilderness character in the long term.

Natural processes should always be favored to restore disturbed vegetation in order to maintain the

Untrammeled, Natural, and Undeveloped qualities of wilderness character, as well as outstanding

EA -158
Environmental Consequences

opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. However, in some cases, restoration

management activities may be needed to restore vegetation and to preserve or enhance the area's

wilderness character despite the impacts of such activities on the untrammeled quality of wilderness

character. The need for active restoration and the alternatives available for conducting restoration

activities must be analyzed using the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG). An analysis using

the MRDG must be made in non-urgent situations to determine whether or not any restoration action

within a wilderness is warranted. The MRDG must also be used to determine the most appropriate

method to use in order to minimize impacts to wilderness qualities.

Group size limits under this alternative would prohibit groups over 12 people and the number of stock

would be limited to 20 head. These limitations would maintain the current disturbance footprint of most

established campsites and, therefore, not remove native vegetation or increase the potential for the

expansion of invasive species within these sites.

Under this alternative the Upper Lake Creek Campground and associated road would remain. The

facilities at the campground will not be removed, the road prism would not be narrowed and existing

culverts would remain in place.

Alternative B - Natural Focus

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would maintain the same group size as Alternative A (12 people) but would limit the

head of stock per group to 14. Effects to invasive species would be similar to Alternative A. The minor

reduction in the number of stock is not expected to have a measurable impact on ground disturbance or

invasive species.

Under this alternative, the facilities at the Upper Lake Creek Campground would be removed and the

existing road would be converted to a wilderness appropriate trail. Rehabilitation of this road would

include the removal of multiple culverts, reducing the footprint of the existing road and retreading the

road to a wilderness appropriate trail sub-surface material. The ground disturbance and creation of bare

ground associated with these actions would increase the probability of invasive species infestations in

those newly disturbed sites. Aggressive monitoring and treatment of these areas may not entirely

prevent the establishment of invasive species along the rehabilitated road.

Alternative C - Minimum Management Requirement

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects to non-native invasive species under this alternative would be consistent with effects discussed

in Alternative A regarding treatment of weeds and the use of an MRDG.

Under Alternative C, however, there would be no direction that emphasizes minimizing introductions

and control of small infestations, no emphasis on education for weed prevention, and no group size

limits.

Under this alternative there would be no limit on the number of people or stock per group that could

enter the wilderness. Based on historic and current visitor use observations, the JMJP Wilderness does

not receive the visitation by larger group sizes that adjacent wilderness areas experience. While groups

larger than 12 people (Alternative A and B), 20 head of stock (Alternative A) or 14 head (Alternative B)

are not anticipated, there is still potential for a large group of people or stock under this alternative.

Groups larger than 12 people and/or 20 head of stock will have an impact on vegetation within

established campsites and stock tie areas that normally support smaller groups. It is expected that soil

compaction, as well as the footprint of disturbance, will expand in these sites. The overall increase in use

EA -159
Environmental Consequences

would result in a higher potential for the introduction and expansion of invasive species, which, in turn,

would have impacts on wilderness character and naturalness.

The Upper Lake Creek Campground would not be removed (same as Alternative A).

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are "the incremental impacts ofthe proposed action and alternatives when added to

effects of other actions both on National Forest System lands and other adjacentfederal, state, or

private lands" (40 CFR 1508.7).

CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to

determine the present effects of past actions. In regard to past actions, the agency must determine

what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative

effects during the scoping process and the preparation of the analysis. Dependent upon the proposed

action, the accounting for past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of

their design and implementation could, in some contexts, be useful to predict the cumulative effects of

the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to comprehensively list and

analyze all individual past actions. Just because information about past actions may be available or

obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision

making (40 CFR 1508.7).

The management plan for the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness is not anticipated to result in

cumulative effects to noxious or non-native invasive species.

EA -160
Environmental Consequences

Summary of Resources Not Analyzed in Detail

The following is a discussion of the concerns not analyzed in detail and the reasons regarding their

categorization. Additional information on each of these concerns is found in specialist reports in the

project record.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

The desired conditions, goals, standards and guidelines for soil, water, air and riparian resources

developed in the Wilderness Management Plan are supported by standards and guidelines developed

for other resources and are similar with a few exceptions in alternatives A and B. Both alternatives A and

B provide excellent management direction for soil, water, air and riparian resources with the best

protection provided by alternative B which includes greater limits on pack stock and fire rings and

eliminates the Upper Lake Creek Campground and road. Alternative C although not measurably different

from the other alternatives does little to preserve and protect the wilderness character of this landscape

above that of surrounding Forest and BLM land. In summary, these resources were eliminated from

detailed analysis due to the limited effects and inability to effectively distinguish trade-offs between

alternatives.

Fisheries

The desired conditions, goals, standards and guidelines for fisheries resources developed in the

Wilderness Management Plan are supported by standards and guidelines developed for other resources

and are carried through all action alternatives. These standards and guidelines protect fisheries

resources equally between all action alternatives. There would be no direct or indirect effects to ESAlisted fish or designated critical habitat resulting from the implementation of the alternatives.

Wild Horses

Alternatives A, B and C present the same direction for the management of wild horses. The proposed

direction ties directly to BLM policy for management of wild horses within wilderness (BLM Manual

6340). Consequently, there are no distinct differences between the three alternatives for wild horse

management.

Climate Change

The same desired conditions, goals, standards and guidelines as in Alternative A (Proposed Action)

would be included in Alternative B (Natural-Focus Alternative) and Alternative C (Minimum

Management) and would not result in any measureable difference between alternatives.

Fire and Fuels

The desired conditions, goals, standards and guidelines for fire and fuels resources developed in the

Wilderness Management Plan are supported by standards and guidelines developed for other resources.

These standards and guidelines lay out the framework for fire and fuels management. Alternatives A and

B would provide for the full suite of fire and fuels management actions to be used if needed. Alternative

C would limit the scope of management activities on the BLM-managed portion of the Wilderness to

only allowing initial attack and full suppression, which could negatively affect fire and fuels

management. Although Alt C could have negative effects they are limited.

Vegetation and Botany

The variability in the three alternatives will not impact vegetation management in the JMJP Wilderness

in a measurable way. Due to the scale of impacts to vegetation being small and unmeasurable, there

EA-161
Environmental Consequences

would be no way in which to express differences between the alternatives. Standards and guidelines

proposed in Recreation section would help maintain and protect vegetation.

Heritage and Cultural Resources

The desired conditions, goals, standards and guidelines for heritage resources developed in the

Wilderness Management Plan are supported by standards and guidelines developed for other resources

and are carried through all action alternatives. These standards and guidelines protect heritage

resources equally between all action alternatives.

Tribal

The desired conditions, goals, standards and guidelines for tribal resources developed in the Wilderness

Management Plan are supported by standards and guidelines developed for other resources and are

carried through all action alternatives. These standards and guidelines protect tribal resources equally

between all action alternatives.

, . . . . ' : , ... .. ...... : :, >- . . . .

Range

The three alternatives would generally not impact activities which are part of the grazing management

authorized to take place in the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness. Wilderness law and policy direct two

exceptions: method of access and, in some locations, the use of natural materials for maintaining the

range improvements as required in the term grazing permits. Due to this limited effect on grazing

management activities, the scale of impacts between alternatives is small and relatively unmeasurable.

Given Congressional livestock grazing direction for designated Wilderness, no further analysis of grazing

management activities is warranted.

Minerals

There are no mining claims, mineral material sites or hazardous abandoned mine land features within

the JMJP Wilderness. There is no potential for direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.

Environmental Justice and Socioeconomics

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, all action alternatives were assessed to determine whether

they would have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including

social and economic effects, on minority or low-income human populations. The percent of the Custer

County population categorized as minority (American Indian (0.6%), Black (0.0%), Asian (0.0%), Native

Hawaiian/Pacific Island (0.4%), multi-racial (1.1%), other (0.4%)) was 2.5% in 2015, and was less than the

8.3% for the State of Idaho (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016). The percent American Indian was

lower for Custer County (0.6%) than for the State (1.3%) in 2015. The percent of families living in poverty

was higher for Custer County (14.5%) compared to the State (8.2%). Given the nature of the proposed

action and demographics of the area, disproportionate human health and environmental effects on

minority or low income communities are not projected.

EA -162
Consultation and Coordination

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals. Federal, state and local agencies, tribes

and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Primary Team Members, Position

Emily Simpson Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Jay Sammer Wilderness Manager Salmon-Challis National Forest

Gina Pearson Outdoor Recreation Planner BLM Challis Field Office

Faith Ryan Range Specialist Salmon-Challis National Forest

Kevin Lloyd Vegetation and Wild Horse and

Burro Specialist

BLM Challis Field Office

Jess Condon Botanist BLM Challis Field Office

Ace Hess Ecologist/lnvasives BLM Challis Field Office

John Rose Archeologist Salmon-Challis National Forest

Jennifer Purvine Planning Biologist and

Environmental Coordinator

Salmon-Challis National Forest

Amanda Kriwox Geologist Salmon-Challis National Forest

David Deschaine Hydrology Salmon-Challis National Forest

Kasey Hill Fire/Fuels BLM Challis Field Office

Gloria Jakovac Lands/Realty Specialist BLM Challis Field Office

Michael Helm GIS Specialist Salmon-Challis National Forest

Support Team Members, Position

Nick Schade Recreation Program Manager Salmon-Challis National Forest

Tom Ford Ecosystem Staff Officer Salmon-Challis National Forest

Jeff Hunteman NEPA Planner Salmon-Challis National Forest

Patti Schwind Recreation Special Uses Salmon-Challis National Forest

Gail Baer Non-Recreation Special Uses Salmon-Challis National Forest

Michael Carroll Engineer Salmon-Challis National Forest

Karryl Krieger Fisheries and Wildlife Biologist Salmon-Challis National Forest

Chris Waverek South Zone Fire Management

Specialist (Fuels)

Salmon-Challis National Forest

Antonia Hedrick Graphic Artist BLM Challis Field Office

Sarah Wheeler Public Affairs BLM Challis Field Office

David Morris Botanist BLM Challis Field Office

Kyra Povrik Assistant Field Manager BLM Challis Field Office

Dennis Kuhnel Middle Fork District Ranger Salmon-Challis National Forest

EA - 163
References

Chapter 5 - References

Anderson, Dorothy H., David W. Lime, Theresa L. Wang, 1998. Maintaining the Quality of Park

Resources and Visitor Experiences: A Handbook for Managers. University of Minnesota,

West Virginia University Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Department of Forest Resources,

September 1998.

Anderson, S. 2002. "Lasiurus cinereus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed July 25, 2017

at http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lasiurus cinereus/

Banci, V. 1994. Lynx. Pages 99-127 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J

Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten,

fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA, Forest Service. General

Technical Report RM-254.

Besser, T. E., E. F. Cassirer, K. A. Potter, W. J. Foreyt. 2017. Exposure of bighorn sheep to

domestic goats colonized with Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae induces sub-lethal

pneumonia. PLoS ONE 12(6):e0178707. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178707

Boudreau, T., ed. 2013. Elk 2013 Statewide Report. July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. Elk Study I

Job 1 Progress Report. Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Boise ID. 154 pp.

Buehler, David A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), The Birds of North America

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of

North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506

Bull, E.L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage.

51(2):472-481.

Bull, E. L. and J. E. Jackson. 1995. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In the Birds of

North America, No. 148 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences,

Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

Cassirer, E.F. and C.R. Groves. 1991. Harlequin duck ecology in Idaho: 1987-1990. Idaho Dept,

of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 93 pp.

Coggins, V. L. 2002. Rocky mountain bighorn sheep/domestic sheep and domestic goat

interactions: a management prospective. Biennial Symposium Northern Wild Sheep and

Goat Council. 13:165-174.

Cole, David N. 1987. Effects of three seasons of experimental trampling on five montane forest

communities and a grassland in western Montana, USA. Biological Conservation 40: 219-

244.

Cole, David, N., Margaret E. Peterson, Robert C. Lucas, 1987. USDA, Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT-230. August, 1987.

Cole, David N. 1989. Low-impact recreational practices for wilderness and backcountry. USDA

Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-265.

EA -164
References

Cole, David N. 1989b Recreation in whitebark pine ecosystems: demand, problems, and

management strategies. Presented at the Symposium on Whitebark Pine Ecosystems:

Ecology and Management of a High-Mountain Resource, March 29-31, in Bozeman, MT.

Cole, David N.; Watson, Alan E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1995. Trends in wilderness visitors and

Visits: Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Shining Rock, and Desolation Wildernesses. Res.

Pap. INT-RP-483.

Cole, D.N. and D.R. Spildie, 1998. Hiker, horse and llama trampling effects on native vegetation

in Montana, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 53: 61-71.

Cole, D. and C. Monz. 2003. Impacts of camping on vegetation: Response and recovery

following acute and chronic disturbance. Environmental Management

32(6):693-705.

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of

greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 610 pp.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage

grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 28(4):967-985.

Copeland, J. P., J. M. Peek, C. R. Groves, W. E. Melquist, K. S. McKelvey, G. W. McDaniel, C. D.

Long, and C. E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central

Idaho. J. Wild. Mngmt 71(7): 2201-2212.

Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Idaho,

Moscow. 138pp.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2017. Bird Guide: Loggerhead Shrike. Online reference available:

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Loggerhead Shrike/lifehistory (referenced 20 July

2017).

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2017. Bird Guide: Brewer's Sparrow. Online reference available:

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Brewers Sparrow/lifehistory (referenced 20 July

2017).

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2017. Bird Guide: Green-tailed Towhee. Online reference available:

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Green-tailed Towhee/lifehistory (referenced 20

July 2017).

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2017. Bird Guide: Willow Flycatcher. Online reference available:

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Willow Flycatcher/lifehistory (Accessed 21 July

2017).

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds

of the United States natural history and habitat use. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture

Handbook 688. Pp 58.

DeLuca, T. H., W. A. Patterson IV, W.A. Freimund, D.N. Cole, 1998. Influence of llamas, horses

and hikers on soil erosion from established recreation trails in western Montana, USA.

Environmental Management. 22(2): 255-262.Drew, M.L. and G.C. Weiser. 2017.

Potential disease agents in domestic goats and relevance to bighorn sheep (Ov/s

EA -165
References

canadensis) management. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0173396. doi:10.1371/journal,

pone.0173396

Deschaine, David, 2017. Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resource Report for the Jim McClure-Jerry

Peak Wilderness Management Plan. In project file.

Duncan, J.R. and P. H. Hayward. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: great gray owls. Pages

159-175. In: Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, tech, editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal,

and great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. GTR RM253. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Research

Station. 214 pp.

Estes-Zumph, W. Post-doctorate student. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Personal

communication.

Executive Order 13186. 2001. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.

Federal Register 66:3853-3856.

Executive Order 13443. 2007. Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation.

Federal Register 72: 46537-46538.te

Fenn, D.B., G.J. Gogue, and R.E. Burge 1976 Effects of campfires on soil properties. U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service Ecol. Serv. Bull. 5,16 p. Washington

DC. Cited by Cole, D.N. and J. Dalle-Molle. 1982. Managing campfire impacts in the

backcountry. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-135. Ogden, UT:USDA For. Serv., Intermountain Forest

and Range Exper. Stn. 16 p

Foreyt, W. J., E. J. Jenkins, and G. D. Appleyard. 2009. Transmission of lungworms (Muellerius

capillaris) from domestic goats to bighorn sheep on common pasture. Journal of

Wildlife Diseases. 45(2):272-278.

Gomez, D. 1994. Conservation assessment for the spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in the

intermountain region USFS. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 30 pp.

Graham, R.T., R.L. Rodriguez, K.M. Paulin, R. L. Player, A. P. Heap, and R. Williams. 1999. The

northern goshawk in Utah: Habitat assessment and management recommendations.

Gen. Tech. Report RMRS-GTR-22. Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 48 pp.

Gregg, M.A. 2006. Greater sage-grouse reproductive ecology: Linkages among habitat

resources, maternal nutrition, and chick survival. Dissertation submitted to Oregon

State University for partial fulfillment of requirements for PhD. 216 pp.

Groves, C.R., B. Butterfield, A. Lippincott, B. Csuti, J.M. Scott. 1997. Atlas of Idaho's wildlife.

Idaho Dept, of Fish and Game, Boise. 372pp.

Hartley, Ernest 1999 Visitor impacts at Logan Pass, Glacier National Park: A thirty-year vegetation

study. Pages 297-305 in Harmon, David (ed.) On the Frontiers of Conservation:

Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Research and Management in National Parks and

on Public Lands. Asheville, NC. Hancock, Ml: The George Wright Society.

Hayward, G.D. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: boreal owls. Pages 92-121. In:

Hayward,G.D. and J. Verner, tech, editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray

owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. GTR RM-253. Fort

EA -166
References

Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Research Station.

214 pp.

Heady, L. T., K. I. Gabler and J. W. Laundre. 2001. Habitat selection by pygmy rabbits in

southeast Idaho. BLM Technical Bulletin. No. 01-7.

Heinemeyer, K.S. 1993. Temporal dynamics in the movements, habitat use, activity and spacing

of reintroduced fishers in northwestern Montana. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Montana,

Missoula. 154pp.

Hoyt, J. S. and S. J. Hannon. 2002. Habitat associations of black-backed and three-toed

woodpeckers in the boreal forest of Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 32:1881-1888.

Hutchinson, M. 2002. "Myotis volans" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed July 25, 2017 at

http://animaldiversitv.org/accounts/Myotis volans/

Idaho Conservation Data Center. 2017. TES species GIS data. Idaho Department of Fish and

Game, Boise. Updated February 2008. Available on the S-CNF corporate GIS database.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2017. Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan. IDFG, Boise ID.

1458 pp. Available online: https://idfg.idaho.gov/swap

-. 2017. Idaho species observation database. Available online:

https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2015. Idaho wolf monitoring progress report. Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, 600 South Walnut, Boise, Idaho. 71 pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation

Strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise,

ID. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/cwcs.cfm

Idaho Partners in Flight. 2000. Idaho bird conservation plan, version 1.0. Idaho PIF, Boise ID.

156 pp.

Idaho State Conservation Effort. 1995. Habitat conservation assessment and conservation

strategy for the Townsend's big-eared bat. Draft unpubl. rep. no. 1. Boise, ID. 63 pp.

IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. 2015. Anaxyrus boreos. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2015: e.T3179A53947725. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2Q15-

4.RLTS.T3179A53947725.en. Downloaded on 28 February 2017.

Jansen, B. D., J. R. Heffelfinger, T. H. Noon, P. R. Krausman, and J. C. deVos, Jr. 2006. Infectious

Keratoconjunctivitis in Bighorn Sheep, Silver Bell Mountains, Arizona, USA. Journal of

Wildlife Diseases. 42(2):407-411.

Janson, R.G. 2002. The pygmy rabbit from Utah to Montana. Montana Cooperative Wildlife

Research Unit, University of Montana. Missoula, MT. 46 pp.

Jones, J.L. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in northcentral Idaho. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Idaho,

Moscow. 147 pp.

Kaminiski, T. and J. Hansen. 1984. Wolves of central Idaho. Montana Cooperative Research

Unit, University of Montana, Missoula. Unpubl. Rept. 197 pp.

EA -167
References

Kile, Bethany L.; Stone, Jeffrey R.; Latimer, Jennifer C.; Shapley, Mark D.; Finney, Bruce P. and

Barnes, Sira E. 2016. Herd Lake: the recent sediment history of a varved, landslidedammed lake. Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 50th Annual

Meeting, Session No. 20, Booth No. 44, Paper No. 20-18, Abstracts with Programs, 48(5),

18 April 2016, 1 p. Available at

https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2016NC/webprogram/Paper275626.html [Accessed 31 July

2017],

Koehler, G.M. and K.B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. Pages 74-98 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk,

L.J. Lyon, and W.J Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores:

American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA, Forest

Service. General Technical Report RM-254.

Koehler, G.M. and J.D. Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares.

J. Forestry 88:10-14.

Kufeld, R.C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Range Management, Vol.

26(2):106-113.

Kuss, F.R. and C.N. Hall 1991. Ground flora trampling studies: Five years after closure.

Environmental Management 15(5): 715-727.

Lachapelle, Paul. Sanitation in Wilderness: Balancing minimum tool policies and wilderness

values. In: Cole, D and others (eds.), Proceedings: Wilderness Science in a Time of

Change, 1999; Vol. 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management, pgs 141-147;

Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol-5. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. Ogden, UT.

Landres et al. 2015. Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in

Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Landres, Peter, Wade M. Vagias, and Suzy Stutzman, 2012. Using Wilderness Character to

Improve Wilderness Stewardship. Park Science, Volume 28, Number 3, Winter 2011-

2012.

Leung, Yu-Fai and Jeffrey L. Marion, 2000. Recreation Impacts and Management in Wilderness: A

State-of-Knowledge Review. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. 2000.

Lewis, L. and C. R. Wenger. 1998. Idaho's Canada lynx: pieces of the puzzle. U.S.D.I. Bureau of

Land Management, Boise, Idaho. Technical Bulletin No. 98-11. 21pp.

Lewis, L., M. Terra-Burns, P. Call, C. Harris, J. Klott, C. Vullo, and G. Wright. 1998(?). Canada lynx

in Idaho: Past, present and future. Idaho Conservation Effort. Draft Report. 79 pp.

Lucas and Kovalicky, 1981. Self-Issued Wilderness Permits as a Use Measurement System. United

States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station Research Paper INT-270 April 1981.

Marion, J.L. and D.N. Cole 1996. Spatial and temporal variation in soil and vegetation impacts on

campsites. Ecological Applications 6(2): 1996, pp. 520-530.

Marion, J. 1998 Recreation ecology research findings: Implications for wilderness and park

managers.

EA -168
References

McAllister, K.R. 1995. Washington state recovery plan for the pygmy rabbit. Washington Dept,

of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 74 pp. Available online:

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diverstv/soc/recoverv/pygrabit/pvgrabit.pdf.

McCallum, D.A. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: flammulated owls. Pages 14-46. In:

Hayward,G.D. and J. Verner, tech, editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray

owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. GTR RM-253. Fort

Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Research Station.

214 pp.

Miller G. D. and and W. S. Gaud. 1989. Composition and variability of desert bighorn sheep

diets. J.Wildlife Management. (53)3: 597-606

Miller, Carol, 2012. The hidden consequences of fire suppression. Park Science, Volume 28,

Number 3, Winter 2011-2012. P. 75-80.

Miller, Carol, 2014. The Contribution of Natural Fire Management to Wilderness Fire Science.

International Journal of Wilderness, August 2014. Volume 20, Number 2. Miyasaki, H.,

ed. 2013. Bighorn sheep. Study 1, Job 4. July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013. ID Dept, of Fish

and Game. Boise, ID. 107 pp.

Monz, Christopher, Joseph Roggenbuck, David Cole, Richard Brame, Andrew Yoder., 2000.

Wilderness Party Size Regulations: Implications for Management and a Decisionmaking

Framework. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. 2000.

Moulton, C. 2012. Idaho peregrine falcon survey and nest monitoring 2012 report. Idaho Dept,

of Fish and Game, Boise ID. 22 pp.

Mulheisen, M. and K. Berry 2000. "Eptesicus fuscus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed

July 25, 2017 at: http://animaldiversitv.org/accounts/Eptesicus fuscus/

North American Packgoat Association 2017. Best Management Practices, Pack goat Specific

Regulations. Accessed from http://www.napga.org/best-management-practices-psr/ on

February 16, 2018.

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available:

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: Feb 2009).

\y

Paige, C. and S.A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird

communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group, Boise ID. 47 pp.

Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W.

Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest

carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States.

U.S. Dept. Agric., Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-254.

EA -169
References

Ralphs, R.M. (editor). 1981. Elk habitat relationships for central Idaho. USFS Challis, Salmon,

and Sawtooth national forests; USDI BLM Idaho Falls, Salmon, and Shoshone districts;

and IDFG Regions 4 and 6.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T.Rinaldi, J.

Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx

conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife

Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. USDA Forest

Service Publication #Rl-00-53. Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

Reynolds, R.T.; Graham, R.T.; Reiser, M.H.; and others. 1992. Management recommendations for

the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217, Ft.

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 90 pp.

Roberts H.B. 2001. Survey of pygmy rabbit distribution, numbers, and habitat use in Lemhi and

Custer Counties, Idaho. Unpublished report prepared for the Salmon and Challis Bureau

of Land Management Field Offices. 15 pp.

Rudolph, K. M., D. L. Hunter, W. J. Foreyt, E. F. Cassirer, R. B. Rimler, and A. C. S. Ward. 2003.

Sharing of Posteurello spp. Between Free-ranging Bighorn Sheep and Feral Goats.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 39(4):897-903.

Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Koehler, Gary M.; Krebs, Charles J.;

McKelvey, Kevin S.; Squires, John R. 1999. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the

United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Available

online: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs gtr30.html

Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, J. E. Hine, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr., K. L. Pardieck, J. E. Fallon. And W. A. Link.

2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2015.

Version 2.07.2017 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel MD. Available online:

http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html

Schommer, T. J. and M. M. Woolever. 2008. A review of disease related conflicts between

domestic sheep and goats and bighorn sheep. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-209 Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. 16 p.

Sims, K. 2000. "Myotis yumanensis" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed July 25, 2017 at

http://animaldiversitv.org/accounts/Mvotis vumanensis/

Spildie, David R., David N. Cole, and Sarah C. Walker, 2000. Effectiveness of a Confinement

Strategy in Reducing Pack Stock Impacts at Campsites in the Selway-Bitterroot

Wilderness, Idaho. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5.Tallamy. D. W.

and K. J. Shropshire. Ranking lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants.

Conservation Biology. Volume 23(4): 941-947. DOI: 10.1111/j.l523-1739.2009.01202.x

Temple, Kenneth, Anne Camper, and Robert Lucas. 1982. Potential health hazard from human

wastes in wilderness. Journal of Soil & Water Conservation 37(6):357-359.

Therrell, Lisa; Cole, David; Claassen, Victor; Ryan, Chris; Davies, Mary Ann. 2006. Wilderness and

backcountry site restoration guide. Tech. Rep. 0623-2815-MTDC. Missoula, MT: U.S.

EA -170
References

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development

Center. 394 p.

Tilden, Freeman, 2008. Interpreting Our Fleritage. The University of North Carolina Press; 4th

edition.

TREC, Inc. 2004. 2004 Summary report: A survey for Yellow-billed Cuckoo in recorded historic

and other likely locations in Idaho. Unpubl. report. Rigby, ID. 28 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Greater Sage-Grouse Record of Decision Idaho and Southwest

Montana, Nevada, and Utah. USFS Region 4. Decision document. 272 pp.

-. 2007. Northern Rockies lynx management direction record of decision. National Forests

in Montana, and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. 67 pp.

-2005. FSM 2600 Wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant habitat management. Chapter 2670-

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animals. 2600-2005-1. 22 pp.

-. 2004. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Amendment to the Management

Indicator Species List for the Salmon and Challis Land and Resource Management Plans.

Salmon-Challis National Forest, Salmon, ID. 127 pp.

-. 1987. Land and resource management plan for the Challis National Forest. USDA Forest

Service, Challis National Forest, Challis, Idaho. 313pp.

-. 2016. Salmon-Challis National Forest Invasive Plant Treatment Record of Decision. USDA

Forest Service, Challis National Forest, Challis, Idaho. 46pp.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies. 2006. Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National

Forest and BLM Wilderness, as amended. 17 pp.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Record of Decision and Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater SageGrouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana. USDI Bureau of Land

Management, Washington D.C. 90 pp.

-. 2009. Challis-Salmon Integrated Weed Control Program Environmental Assessment.

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Challis and Salmon Field Offices. 90 pp.

- 1999. challis Resource Area Record of Decision (ROD) and Resource Management Plan

(RMP). Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office. 192 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Jim McClure-Jerry Peak WA: List of threatened and

endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be

affected by your proposed project. Consultation Code: 01EIFW00-2017-SLI-1018 (07

June 2017). 7 pp.

-. 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to

List Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasionus) as an Endangered or Threatened

Species. Federal Register 80 (02 October 2015): 59858-59942.

-. 2014a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened

Status for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus). Federal Register 79 (3 October 2014): 59992-60038.

EA-171
References

-. 2014b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for

the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo. Federal Register

79 (15 August 2014): 48548-48652.

-. 2014c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the

Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the

Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of

the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Federal

Register 79 (13 August 2014): 47522-47545.

-. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reissuance of Final Rule To

Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population

Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register

76 (25 July 2001): 25590-25592.

-. 2011. Birds of Management Concern and Focal Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Migratory Bird Program. USDI USFWS. 15 pp.

-. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp.

[Online version available at <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>]

-. 2007. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the

Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife". Federal Register

72 (9 July 2007): 37345-37372.

-. 2004. A blueprint for the future of migratory birds. Migratory Bird Program Strategic

Plan 2004-2014. [Accessed 4 May 2006]. Available online:

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mbstratplan/MBStratPlanTOC.htm

-. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened

Status for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and

Related Rule. Federal Register 65 (24 March 2000):16052-16086.

-. 1994. The reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho:

Final environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept, of the Int., Fish and Wildlife Service,

Helena, Montana. 181 pp.

-. 1984. American peregrine falcon recovery plan (Rocky Mountain/ Southwest population).

Prepared in cooperation with the American peregrine falcon recovery team. USFWS,

Denver, CO. 105pp.

Warren, N. M. 1980. Bald eagle wintering habitat on selected portions of the Boise, Challis, and

Sawtooth National Forests. Boise National Forest. Boise, ID. 20 pp.

Waterbury, B. 2013. 2013 Mid-winter bald eagle survey results. Email/spreadsheets. 4 pp.

Waterbury, B. 2012a. North Zone Salmon-Challis National Forest Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Project.

Challenge Cost Share Agreement No. 07-CS-l 1041304-047 U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.

Forest Service Salmon-Challis National Forest and Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

29 pp.

EA -172
References

Waterbury, B. 2012b. Flammulated Owl (Otusflommeolus) Surveys Salmon-Challis National

Forest 2012. Challenge Cost Share Agreement No. 07-CS-11041304-047 U.S.

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service Salmon-Challis National Forest and Idaho

Department of Fish and Game. 26 pp.

Waterbury, B. 2010. Salmon Region Bald Eagle Nesting Report 2009. Idaho Dept. Fish and

Game. 21 pp.

Waterbury, B. 2008. Spreadsheet showing results of 2007 owl surveys. Idaho Dept, of Fish and

Game. 1 pp.

Watson, Alan E., 1993. Characteristics of Visitors Without Permits Compared to Those With

Permits at the Desolation Wilderness, California. United States Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station, Research Note INT-414,

June 1993.

Weber, C. 2004. "Myotis evotis" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed July 25, 2017 at

http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Mvotis evotis/

Weber, K. 2009. "Antrozous pallidus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed July 25, 2017 at

http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Antrozous pallidus/

Willard, B.E., D.J. Cooper, and B.C. Forbes 2007 Natural regeneration of alpine tundra vegetation

after human trampling: a 42-year data set from Rocky Mountain National Park,

Colorado, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 39(1), 177-183.

Yensen, E. and P. W. Sherman. 2002. Ground-dwelling Squirrels of the Pacific Northwest. Field

guide. Funded and produced by USDI USFWS, Snake River Office; BLM Spokane District

Office; and BLM Oregon State Office. 28 pp and fold-out.

\S

EA - 173
Appendix A

Appendix A

Direction Established by Law or Policy

Direction Common to All Alternatives Law/Policy/Direction

Wilderness

Standard JMJP-001- Implement proposed actions only when

necessary to meet minimum requirements for the

administration of the areas as wilderness and to have

the least impact to wilderness character.

Wilderness Act - Section 4:

Except as otherwise provided

in this Act, each agency

administering any area

designated as wilderness shall

be responsible for preserving

the wilderness character of the

area and shall so administer

such area for such other

purposes for which it may have

been established as also to

preserve its wilderness

character.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6.B

Standard JMJP-003 - If total traveling and campsite encounters

increase by 10%n or more over two monitoring periods

management actions will be taken to maintain

wilderness character, as described under the

Management Actions.

FS Wilderness Character

Monitoring Technical Guide

(Landres et al., in press).

Guideline JMJP-004 - Allow natural processes to maintain

ecosystem functions, whenever possible. Where human

activities have altered conditions in the Wilderness,

active restoration may be considered if it is determined

through MRA to be the minimum necessary for the

administration of the area for the purpose of the

Wilderness Act.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6 C. 7,15,

18 and 21.

FSM 2323.54 - Reforestation

FSM 2323.43a - Watershed

Condition Improvement

FSM 2323.33aReintroductions

Guideline JMJP-05 - For the purpose of determining the minimum

requirement, conduct a minimum requirements analysis

for any non-emergency action, including those proposed

by State and federal agencies that includes a prohibited

use as described in Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, or

for other actions that may impair wilderness character.

Directs toward future actions

and analysis.

11 Threshold is established in the FS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide (Landres et al., in press). If

this guidance is revised, the most current threshold for change would be used. Monitoring cycle for this measure is

at least every five years, as established in the Technical Guide.

EA -174
Appendix A

Direction Common to All Alternatives Law/Policy/Direction

Guideline JMJP-006 - Ensure, where possible, management

between the Forest Service and BLM, including

regulation of visitor uses, appears seamless to the

public. Where differences in agency policy occur, and if

allowable by law, regulation, or policy, the WMP will

endeavor to apply the stricter policy to the adjacent

land of the other agency.

Procedural

Management

Actions

Management actions for the preservation of wilderness

character may include management actions described in

the following resources, predominately those which

manage human uses of wilderness, such as those

described in the Recreation section (p. 19, Management

Actions), in conformance with a site-specific MRA, and

NEPA analysis, as necessary.

Directs to elsewhere in the

Plan.

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Resources

Management

Actions

If human activities are contributing to a loss of soil

integrity or degradation of water quality, management

actions would be implemented as appropriate to the

cause.

Directs toward future actions

and analysis.

Vegetation and Botanical Resources

Standard JMJP-013 - Control or eradicate noxious and nonnative

invasive plant species to the extent possible within

occupied and potential sensitive plant species habitat

while having the least impact on wilderness character.

Directs to other plans/NEPA.

Management

Actions

When monitoring shows that wilderness character or

plant populations are being degraded, apply

management actions based on the causal factor as

described under other resource sections within this

document. For example, impacts from recreational uses

would be managed as described in the Recreation

section.

Directs toward future actions

and analysis.

--

Noxious and Non-Native Invasive Species Management

Standard JMJP-014 - Require the use of certified noxious weed

free hay and straw entering the Wilderness as well as

public lands adjacent to the Wilderness.

Existing rule

v/

EA - 175
Appendix A

Direction 1 Common to All Alternatives Law/Policy/Direction

Guideline JMJP-015 - On NFS land, use pesticides and herbicides in

accordance with the design criteria identified in the

SCNF Invasive Plant Treatment Record of Decision (ROD)

(2016), or most current direction, as well as associated

consultation documents from the regulatory agencies,

and require, as appropriate, a pesticide use proposal

approved by the Regional Forester. The primary

methods of control shall use non-motorized, nonmechanized means, such as hand pulling and herbicide

application using backpack sprayers. The use of different

treatment methods will be analyzed further through an

MRA.

Directs to other plans/NEPA

Guideline JMJP-016 - On BLM-managed land, follow the direction

for invasive plant treatments contained in BLM Manual

6340—Management of Designated Wilderness Areas, as

well as the BLM Challis-Salmon Integrated Weed Control

Program EA (March, 2009; or most current). These

applications will undergo the MRA process as described

in BLM Manual 6340. A Pesticide Use Proposal, signed

by the Field Manager, state weeds coordinator, and the

Associate State Director.

Directs to other plans/NEPA

Guideline JMJP-017 - Treat areas for noxious and non-native

species focusing on early detection and rapid response,

as monitoring and visitor use mandates.

Directs to other plans/NEPA

Guideline JMJP-018 - Work in close coordination with cooperating

agencies within the Custer Cooperative Weed

Management Area.

Procedural

Management

Actions

Develop measures to mitigate the potential for the

spread or introduction of invasive species for any

ground disturbing activities.

Procedural

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Standard JMJP-019 - Implement measures to minimize contact

between bighorn sheep and domestic goats used for

packing (See Appendix 3). Measures identified may be

expanded or revised, based on research.

FSM 2323.3

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C 21.c.

Guideline JMJP-020 - Continue to work cooperatively with IDFG to

reduce the risk of disease transmission or other

stressors between bighorn sheep and domestic animals.

If necessary to preserve wilderness character, consider

actions up to and including the closure of all or part of

the wilderness to recreational pack goat and sheep.

EA -176
Appendix A

[ n. .._ Direction Common to All Alternatives Law/Policv/Direction

Guideline JMJP-021 - Work cooperatively with the Idaho

Department of Fish and Game regarding their fish and

wildlife management programs to assure the guidelines

of the AFWA, BLM, and FS document are applied and

that polices outlined in BLM Manual 6340 and FSM 2320

are followed.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6 C. 21

FSM 2323.32

Management

Actions

Specific written approval or permits from the federal

administering agency will be obtained before erecting

any structure or installation, or using motorized

vehicles.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C 21.b.ii

FSM 2326 and 2323.3

US District Court for the District

of Idaho, Case No. 4:16-cv-12-

BLW Memorandum Decision

Recreation I

Standard JMJP-024 - Require removal of refuse and inorganic

waste from wilderness.

Challis FP: Recreation -

dispersed sites (l.b.l) - All

dispersed areas will be

managed for pack-in, pack-out

policy, (p. IV-11)

Challis RMP: People would be

required to pack out and

dispose of their litter properly.

(Attachment 19; p 132)

FSM 2323.13a: "Solid Waste

Management. Utilize a "packin, pack-out" policy. Do not

permit burying of garbage.

Dispose of past accumulations

of debris".

Management

Actions

Actions for managing recreational use fall into one of

three categories: education, engineering and

enforcement. Information and education are most

commonly employed to modify visitor behavior, adjust

visitor attitudes and expectations, and alter the spatial

and temporal distribution of use. Common examples

include the "Leave No Trace" program, signs, and visitor

contacts. Engineering includes site design, construction

and maintenance; for example, providing, removing or

relocating facilities (campsites, trails), or using

vegetation or other physical barriers to direct visitor

use. Regulations with enforcement can be used to

implement all management strategies. Examples include

restricting or prohibiting access to specific locations,

access at particular times, certain types of behavior,

particular activities, equipment or modes of travel,

length of stay, and group size. For more information see

the Visitor Use Management Framework (Interagency

Visitor Use Management Council 2016).

Directs toward future actions

and analysis.

EA -177
Appendix A

Direction Common to All Alternatives Law/Policy/Direction

Management

Actions

Indirect methods (e.g. education) for managing

recreational use are preferred. Management actions

would include direct, on-site actions and site-specific

regulations for unusual cases where indirect methods

are unsuccessful.

FSM 2323.12

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 13

Management

Actions

Currently, visitor use patterns and impacts do not

indicate that there is a need to implement a visitor use

permit system to protect wilderness character.

Managers will continue to monitor visitor impacts to

wilderness character and the physical resource to

determine if additional management actions, such as a

wilderness permit system, may be required in the

future.

Directs toward future actions

and analysis.

Trails

Standard JMJP-027 - If total miles of user-developed routes

increases by more than 3%12 or more over two

monitoring period, management actions will be taken to

preserve wilderness character, as described under the

Management Actions.

FS Wilderness Character

Monitoring Technical Guide

(Landres et al., in press).

Campinp

Standard JMJP-028 - Limit campsite occupancy to 14 days in

accordance with BLM Regulation: ID-913-02-4740-04.

Existing BLM regulations.

Would be established in FS

special order.

Standard JMJP-029 - Restrict cutting of live trees, including

whitebark pine, for fuel wood (36 CFR 261.6; 43 CFR

Part 6302.20). Collection of dead and downed wood is

acceptable.

36 CFR 261.6;

43 CFR Part 6302.20

Standard JMJP-031 - If average campsite condition impact score

increases by 5%13 or more over two monitoring periods

management actions will be taken to maintain

wilderness character, described below.

FS Wilderness Character

Monitoring Technical Guide

(Landres et al., in press).

Management

Actions

No permits are currently required for overnight

camping; however, a permit system may be

implemented if monitoring indicates impacts to

resources or wilderness character are occurring.

Directs toward future actions

and analysis.

12 Threshold is established in the FS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide (Landres et al., in press). If

this guidance is revised, the most current threshold for change would be used. Monitoring cycle for this measure is

every five years, as established in the Technical Guide.

13 Threshold is established in the FS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide (Landres et al., in press). If

this guidance is revised, the most current threshold for change would be used. Monitoring cycle for this measure is

every five years, as established in the Technical Guide.

EA - 178
Appendix A

Direction Common to All Alternatives Law/Policy/Direction

Management

Actions

When the campsite condition threshold is met or

exceeded, additional management actions would be

considered and may include, but are not limited to:

a) Make campsites less appealing or accessible.

Remove fire rings and other evidence of human

use. Rehabilitate campsites. (See the section on

Developments and Other Human Effects or

Disturbances for more information.)

b) Increase education at trailheads or portals with

techniques such as: posting restoration

information, encouraging visitors to avoid

campsites undergoing restoration, or

suggesting alternative camping locations (also

see Wilderness Education and Interpretation

section).

c) Implement site closures, and inform the public

by posting notices on portals and at

administrative sites.

d) Establish overnight stay limits at sites.

e) Require human waste to be packed out.

f) Designate specific campsites for stock use.

g) Further limit the number of stock allowed when

camping overnight.

h) Prohibit overnight grazing of pack and saddle

stock.

i) Prohibit use of stock where warranted.

j) Establish voluntary registration at trailheads.

k) Mandatory, self-issue permits.

l) Designated campsites.

Directs toward future actions

and analysis.

Recreational Horse and Stock Use

Standards JMJP-035 - Stock animal feed (hay, straw, and/or pellets)

is required to be certified weed-free (FS Order Number

04-00-097; BLM Supplementary Rule ID-913-02-4740-

04).

Existing regulations

Management

Actions

The Recreation and the Camping sections detail

management actions that may be implemented if

overuse occurs.

Directs to other sections in the

Plan.

Sians

Standard JMJP-038 - Do not provide destination or interpretive

signs.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 13. c.

iii.

FSM 2324.33f

EA -179
Appendix A

Direction Common to All Alternatives Law/Policy/Direction

Standard JMJP-039 - Place Wilderness boundary signs at known

access points, such as along trails, in drainages and at

passes.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 13. c.

iii and 1.6 A and B. FSM 2320.2

- Objectives

Guideline JMJP-041 - Place information signs or kiosks containing

wilderness and natural resource interpretive

information and interagency information at trailhead

parking areas outside of the Wilderness, as necessary.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 13. c.

iii.

FSM 2324.33f

Guideline JMJP-042 - At designated trail junctions, provide the

minimum amount of signs necessary for either the

routing or location of the traveler or for the protection

of the wilderness resource (2324.33f, BLM 6340

1.6.C.13.c.iii.).

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 13. c.

iii.

FSM 2324.33f

Management Within the Wilderness, signs will be made of native BLM Manual 1.6. C. 13. c. iii.

Actions material (e.g. wood, rock), and will be constructed in

accordance with sign policy (FS, 2013; BLM 2016).

Agencies will remove or replace all existing signs not in

conformance with these standards to protect resource

values and wilderness character.

FSM 2324.33f: 1.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Governments

Standard JMJP-043 - Group size and length of stay limitations do

not apply to the Tribes when exercising off-reservation

treaty rights.

Fort Bridger Treaty

Guideline JMJP-044 - Use interpretive monographs, brochures,

portal contacts, wilderness ranger contacts and other

appropriate methods to educate and enhance public

appreciation and protection of heritage resources and

the wilderness experience.

FSM 2323.8

Management

Actions

Within the Wilderness boundary, archaeological survey

that meets modern professional standards has been

minimal. Further surface pedestrian survey would be

conducted in accordance the NFIPA. These studies will

allow for a better understanding of past cultural use

within the Wilderness boundary and the surrounding

geographic region. The information gained through

these investigations will be used to refine and improve

the management of cultural resources within the

Wilderness and the region.

FSM 2323.8

Management

Actions

Conduct archaeological inventory, site evaluation, site

monitoring, protection, interpretation, and additional

research to locate, preserve, and/or enhance cultural

resources.

Procedural

EA -180
Appendix A

Direction Common to All Alternatives Law/Policy/Direction

Management

Actions

Prepare a Cultural Resource Overview of the JMJP

Wilderness. Prepare a Historic Preservation Plan for the

JMJP Wilderness based on the results of the Cultural

Resource Overview.

Direction to prepare additional

documents.

Livestock Grazing Management

Standard JMJP-045 - Identify the terms and conditions of livestock

grazing on NFS and BLM-managed lands in grazing

permits, as directed by the Forest Plan and applicable

amendments and the BLM Challis RMP.

Procedural

Standard JMJP-046 - Prohibit use of motor vehicles for routine

livestock monitoring, herding, and gathering.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 8.

FSM 2323.2

Guideline JMJP-047 - Grazing operations within wilderness, where

livestock grazing was present at the time of wilderness

designation, are guided by the Congressional Grazing

Guidelines (House Report 96-617, 1979; and House

Report 101-405 Appendix A, 1990), the Forest Service

Manual Chapter 2320 (Wilderness Management), the

Forest Plan and applicable amendments, and BLM

Manual 6340 and 43 CFR 4100.

House Report 96-617, 1979;

and House Report 101-405

Appendix A, 1990.

Management

Actions

Existing range improvements within the JMJP

Wilderness that are agreed to be obsolete by both the

permittees and the agencies, consistent with the NHPA,

may be removed.

Procedural

Management

Actions

The vacant East Pass Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment

would be neither closed nor reauthorized for grazing

under this Plan.

Directs toward future actions

and analysis.

Management

Actions

Actions for the management of livestock grazing would

be considered and analyzed according to the regulations

in 36 CFR Part 222, and 43 CFR 4100.

Existing regulation.

Wild Horse Management

Standard JMJP-048 - When managing wild horses within the

Wilderness, employ uses prohibited by Section 4(c) of

the Wilderness Act only when necessary to meet the

minimum requirements for administering the area for

the purpose of the Wilderness Act or when the uses are

required under the WFRH&B (BLM Manual 6340).

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 20

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and

Burro Act

Guideline JMJP-049 - In cases where impacts to springs and

riparian systems result from wild horses, consider

mitigation measures to prevent further degradation or

to restore wilderness character.

Directs toward future actions

and analysis.

Guideline JMJP-050 - When revising the Challis Herd Management

Plan, identify management actions required to preserve

wilderness character in addition to maintaining healthy

populations of wild horses.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 20

EA -181
Appendix A

Direction Common to All Alternatives Law/Policy/Direction

Guideline JMJP-051 - Hold periodic gathers, as necessary, to

achieve AML within the CHMA. If gathers are necessary,

on-the-ground activities within Wilderness will be

accomplished on foot or by horseback. If MRA results in

motorized means for horse gathers, aircraft (including

helicopters) may be used to survey, herd, capture, and

monitor wild horses. Landings are not permitted except

in an emergency.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 20

Management

Action

The Challis RMP and the Challis Herd Management Plan

describe management of wild horses.

Statement/reference to other

plans.

Management

Action

When horses are determined to be above the carrying

capacity a gather would be conducted when feasible in

coordination with BLM Idaho and the BLM National wild

horse program.

Directs toward future actions

and analysis.

Minerals

Guideline JMJP-052 - Mineral activities for scientific or

recreational purposes will be conducted in a manner

compatible with the preservation of the wilderness

environment. Rockhounding will be allowed only in a

manner causing negligible surface disturbance.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 11

FSM 2323.7

Guideline JMJP-053 - Information about minerals or other

resources within Wilderness may be gathered if such

activity is compatible with the preservation of the

Wilderness and casual use. Casual use may involve

minor activity, such as sampling with hand tools, but

does not involve explosives or mechanized earth-moving

equipment.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 11

FSM 2323.7

Management

Actions

Designate the wilderness area as a free-use area per

36 CFR 228.62 and develop rockhounding rules such as a

collection limit of 25 pounds per person per year using

only hand tools in a recreational manner and leaving no

trace of rockhounding activities.

Regulation referenced.

Management

Actions

Restrict collection of minerals to scientific research and

by special use permit only.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 11

FSM 2323.7

Management

Actions

Deny applications for permits for the removal of

common variety mineral materials under the Mineral

Material Act of July 31, 1947, as amended and

supplemented.

Wilderness Act

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 11

FSM 2323.7

Management

Actions

If valid rights for locatable minerals pre-date Wilderness

establishment and withdrawal from mineral entry, a

Notice of Intent or Plan of Operations will be processed

according to 36 CFR 228.4.

Wilderness Act

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 11.

FSM 2323.7

EA -182
Appendix A

Direction Common to All Alternatives Law/Policy/Direction

Fire Management

Standard JMJP-054 - For FS, prior approval from the Forest

Supervisor must be obtained to use motorized

equipment or mechanized transport in wilderness for

fire management activities (FSM 2326.04c and 2326.1).

This includes, but is not limited to, retardant drops,

water drops, and other ground-based intrusions.

FSM 2326.04c and 2326.1

Standard JMJP-055 - For BLM, prior approval from the Field Office

Manager must be obtained for helicopter bucket work,

dip sites, water delivery, motorized water pumps, aerial

retardant application, airtransport, personnel shuttle,

supply drops, and chainsaw use. Prior approval from

the District Manager must be obtained for motor vehicle

use including engines, transports, crew trucks, UTV/ATV,

as well as helispot construction, and heavy equipment

use (BLM Manual 6340 1.6 C. 7, ID-IM-2016-025).

BLM Manual 6340 1.6 C. 7.

BLM Idaho Instruction

Memorandum.

Standard JMJP-056 - Initial action on human-caused wildfire will

be to suppress the fire at the lowest cost with the

fewest negative consequences with respect to

firefighter and public safety. (Interagency Standards for

Fire and Fire Aviation Operations, 2017)

Interagency Standards for Fire

and Fire Aviation Operations

Guideline JMJP-057 - Determine actions for each wildland fire

consistent with the protection of wilderness character

(FSM 2324.23 and BLM 6340 1.6 C.7) and will ensure the

safety of firefighters, the public, and consider the

impacts to private property and developed facilities in

surrounding areas.

FSM 2324.23

BLM 6340 1.6C.7

Guideline JMJP-059 - Coordinate with wilderness specialists and

adjacent landowners, as appropriate, to develop

compatible wildland fire management strategies.

Procedural

Guideline JMJP-060 - Prescribed fire may be considered in the

JMJP Wilderness and will be evaluated consistent with

FS and BLM policy (FSM 2320, BLM 6340).

FSM 2324.2

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 7

Guideline JMJP-061 - Allow campfires, except when existing and

expected fire danger justifies implementation of fire

closure orders. Coordinate proposed fire closures and

restrictions Wilderness-wide.

Would be established in special

order.

Management

Actions

Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) and

assign Resource Advisors with knowledge and training

or experience in wilderness management to fires in the

plan area to minimize suppression impacts to wilderness

character. Disturbance caused by suppression actions

would be returned to as natural a condition as possible

(FSM 2324.23, BLM Manual 6340 1.6 C. 7).

FSM 2324.23

BLM Manual 6340 1.6 C. 7

.....—-

Commercial Services

EA -183
Appendix A

Direction

.

Common to All Alternatives Law/Policy/Direction

Standards JMJP-062 - Prohibit commercial services that are not

wilderness-dependent.

BLM 6340 1.6.C.4

FSM 2323.13g

Management If monitoring of commercial outfitting shows that Directs toward future actions

Actions negative impacts are occurring, management actions

may include, but are not limited to: limiting the number

of days that outfitter and guides are authorized, limiting

areas in which certain guides are authorized, or

establishing additional limitations on group sizes.

and analysis.

Research

Standard JMJP-064 - Require all authorized researchers to provide

a copy of findings to the FS and the BLM.

Procedural

Standard JMJP-065 - Evaluate proposals for research in

accordance with the Framework to Evaluate Proposals

for Scientific Activities in Wilderness. An MRA would be

completed, as appropriate, to ensure activities are the

minimum necessary for administering area for the

purpose of the Wilderness Act. All parties interested in

conducting research activities in Wilderness must have

prior authorization.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 14

FSM 2324.4

Guideline JMJP-066 - Prohibit proposals that do not contribute to

stewardship of the area as wilderness when they can be

accomplished outside of Wilderness or if they cannot be

conducted in a manner compatible with the

preservation of wilderness character.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C. 14

FSM 2324.42

Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue

Standard JMJP-068 - For the purpose of ensuring SAR operations

comply with wilderness regulations, except as otherwise

necessary to provide for human life or recovery, the use

of motorized and mechanized equipment for

emergencies involving the life and safety of people must

be approved by the Forest Supervisor/BLM Field

Manager (or designated authority).

Wilderness Act, Section 4c

BLM Manual 6340 1.6.C.17.

FSM 2326.1

Guideline JMJP-069 - Use visitor education to achieve

management objectives, where feasible.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6. C.6

FSM 2323.12

Guideline JMJP-070 - Helicopter landing areas would use natural

terrain features. Care should be taken that vehicles used

in SAR operations do not transport noxious weeds or

cause unacceptable resource or social impacts.

Immediately address any resource damage resulting

from search and rescue operations.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6.C.17.

FSM 2324.3

EA -184
Appendix A

Direction Common to All Alternatives Law/Policy/Direction

Management

Actions

As appropriate, seek to develop an MOU or other formal

agreement with Custer County for SAR operations that

covers the appropriate use of motorized equipment and

mechanized transportation inside Wilderness, including

any necessary information for Forest Service or BLM to

authorize the use.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6 A. 3.

FSH 1509.11

Developments and Other Human Effects or Disturbances

' < ' .

Standard JMJP-071 - Stay limits for all persons and personal

property, including game cameras, will not exceed 14

days. Traditional geocaching is prohibited.

BLM Supplementary rule

LLIDI01000-10-

L12200000.AL0000

Standard JMJP-072 - Maintain installations and structures if they

are associated with a valid existing right or if they are

the minimum necessary for the administration of the

Wilderness where temporary or other management

actions are not providing adequate protection in

accordance with an MRA (FSM 2323.13; BLM Manual

6340 1.6.B. 2.).

FSM 2323.13

BLM Manual 6340 1.6.B. 2.

Management

Actions

Unattended personal property not associated with an

active camp will be removed by FS and/or BLM

personnel, and held for 30 days at the appropriate FS or

BLM office. If possible, the owner of the personal

property would be contacted.

Procedural

Wilderness Education and Interpretation

Standard JMJP-073 - Prohibit interpretive trails in the JMJP

Wilderness.

BLM Manual 6340 1.6.C.6

FSM 2324.33f

Management

Actions

Incorporate wilderness education principles (e.g.,

wilderness character, safety, "Leave No Trace," sensitive

resources, noxious weeds, or other area information) in

brochures, on the BLM and FS websites, on agency

maps, at visitor centers, or on other educational

materials that describe the Wilderness.

No analysis necessary.

v/

EA - 185
Appendix A

Direction Common to All Alternatives

—.---—- —— -——--

_

Management

Actions

Education may include, but is not limited to the

following topics:

• Wilderness character and wilderness

stewardship,

• Leave No Trace ethics,

• Proper management of dogs to minimize social

conflicts or effects to wildlife (e.g., under voice

or physical control, horse or hiker encounter

etiquette),

• Preventing wildlife encounters/proper food

storage techniques,

• Night sky importance and protection,

• Prevention of invasive species establishment,

• Cultural resource interpretation, appreciation

and protection measures,

• Natural role of fire in the ecosystem, and

• The inherent risks of recreating in remote

areas.

No analysis necessary.

EA -186
BLM Library

Denver Federal Center

Bldg. 50, OC-521

P.O. Box 25047

Denver, CO 80225
The view from the summit ofJerry Peak in the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness, Photography © Matt Leidecker

m

wm ' am