CHAPTER 3: 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Table of Contents

........................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................

........................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................

..............................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................

....................................................................

.........................................................................................................

...........................................................................................

....................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................

TOC-i 

Chapter 3 

Affected Environment

Table of Contents

3.1 Introduction 3-1

3.2 Tribal Rights and Interests 3-1

3.3 Resources 3-2

3.3.1 Air and Atmospheric Values 3-2

3.3.1.1 Air Quality 3-2

3.3.1.2 Climate and Meteorology 3-3

3.3.1.3 Climate Change 3-4

3.3.2 Geologic Features 3-6

3.3.3 Soil Resources 3-7

3.3.4 Water Resources 3-12

3.3.4.1 Water Quality 3-12

3.3.4.3 Groundwater Resources 3-16

3.3.4.4 Geothermal Resources 3-16

3.3.5 Vegetation Communities 3-16

3.3.5.1 Upland Vegetation 3-16

3.3.5.2 Riparian Areas and Wetlands 3-22

3.3.6 Fish and Wildlife 3-25

3.3.6.1 Fish 3-25

3.3.6.2 Wildlife 3-27

3.3.7 Special Status Species 3-44

3.3.7.1 Special Status Plants 3-46

3.3.7.2 Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates 3-51

3.3.7.3 Special Status Wildlife 3-57

3.3.8 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 3-68

3.3.9 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 3-72

3.3.10 Wild Horses 3-75

3.3.11 Paleontological Resources 3-78

3.3.12 Cultural Resources 3-79

3.3.13 Visual Resources 3-81

3.3.14 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 3-82

3.4 Resource Uses 3-84

3.4.1 Livestock Grazing 3-84

3.4.2 Recreation 3-87

3.4.3 Transportation and Travel 3-90
Chapter 3: Table of Contents Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

.............................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

....................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................

...............................

......................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................

............................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................

.......................................................

....................................................

.............................................................

TOC-ii

3.4.4 Land Use Authorizations 3-92

3.4.5 Land Tenure 3-93

3.4.6 Minerals 3-95

3.4.6.1 Leasable Minerals 3-95

3.4.6.2 Salable Minerals 3-96

3.4.6.3 Locatable Minerals 3-97

3.5 Special Designations 3-98

3.5.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 3-98

3.5.2 Wilderness 3-109

3.5.3 National Historic Trails 3-110

3.5.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers 3-111

3.5.5 Wilderness Study Areas 3-113

3.6 Social and Economic Features 3-115

3.6.1 Social Conditions 3-115

3.6.2 Economic Conditions 3-119

3.6.3 Non-market Values 3-127

3.6.4. Environmental Justice 3-127

List of Tables

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

Table 3-2. Common Soils of the Snake River Sediment Physiographic Unit Located in the Planning Area

 3-8

Table 3-3. Common Soils of the Basalt Plain/Plateau Physiographic Unit Located in the Planning Area 3-9

Table 3-4. Common Soils of the Jarbidge Upland/Foothills Physiographic Unit Located in the Planning 

Area 3-10

Table 3-5. Erosion Potential in the Planning Area 3-11

Table 3-6. Vegetation Communities with Associated Class, Sub-Class, and Vegetation Sub-Group 

Classifications in the Planning Area 3-17

Table 3-7. Post-Fire and Baseline Vegetation Composition in the Planning Area by Vegetation Sub-Group

 3-20

Table 3-8. Size of Vegetation Management Areas 3-20

Table 3-9. Post-Fire Vegetation Composition by Vegetation Sub-Group by Vegetation Management Area 

(%) 3-20

Table 3-10. Baseline Vegetation Composition by Vegetation Sub-Group by Vegetation Management Area 

(%) 3-20

Table 3-11. Miles of Streams in the Planning Area by Stream Type 3-22

Table 3-12. Proper Functioning Condition Ratings for Riparian Areas 3-23

Table 3-13. Proper Functioning Condition Ratings for Wetlands 3-23
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Table of Contents

...........

...

.................................

.......................................

.............................................................

......................

....................................

....................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................

....................................................

..........................................................................................................................................

.............................................................

...............................................

.............................

...................

...........................................................

....

.............................................................................

.......................................................

.........................................................

.........................................................................

................................

.............................................................................................................................................

.............

..............................................................

...................................................................

.........................................................................

...........................................................................................

....................................................................................................

................................

..............................................................

.............................................

...............................................

TOC-iii

Table 3-14. Aquatic Nuisance Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Planning Area 3-26

Table 3-15. Number of Vertebrate Wildlife Species Found in the Planning Area by Wildlife Category 3-27

Table 3-16. Idaho Mountain Lion Harvest in the Planning Area (Units 46 and 47) 3-29

Table 3-17. Idaho Mule Deer Harvest in the Planning Area (Units 46 and 47) 3-29

Table 3-18. Idaho Pronghorn Harvest for Hunt Units 46 and 47 3-30

Table 3-19. Estimated Upland Game Harvest for the Magic Valley Region (1985–2009) 3-34

Table 3-20. Idaho BLM Watch Wildlife Species Observed in the Planning Area 3-35

Table 3-21. Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Non-Special Status) Observed in the Planning Area

 3-36

Table 3-22. Crosswalk for Habitat Groups 3-37

Table 3-23. Acres of Wildlife Group Habitat within the Planning Area 3-37

Table 3-24. Vegetation Communities Associated with the Sagebrush Steppe Group by Vegetation SubGroup 3-38

Table 3-25. Attributes of Shrublands in the Planning Area 2011 3-39

Table 3-26. Vegetation Communities Associated with the Grassland Group by Vegetation Sub-Group 3-41

Table 3-27. Number and Acreage of Wildlife Tracts by Geographic Area 3-44

Table 3-28. Amount and Type of Infrastructure on BLM Lands in the Planning Area 3-44

Table 3-29. Special Status Plants Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Planning Area 3-46

Table 3-30. Status of Special Status Plants in the Planning Area 3-47

Table 3-31. Native and Current Habitat and Location of Special Status Plants in the Planning Area 3-48

Table 3-32. Special Status Fish in the Planning Area 3-51

Table 3-33. Stream Habitat Data for Streams Containing Bull Trout 3-52

Table 3-34. Special Status Aquatic Mollusks in the Planning Area 3-56

Table 3-35. Special Status Wildlife in the Planning Area 3-57

Table 3-36. Male Sage-Grouse Observed on Established Lek Routes in the Planning Area (1991-2012) 3-

61

Table 3-37. Ferruginous Hawk Nest Monitoring in the Planning Area (2002-2012) 3-62

Table 3-38. Average Number of Brewer’s Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, Sage Sparrow, and Sage 

Thrasher on the Hot Spring Breeding Bird Survey Route (Pre- [1988-2006] and Post- [2007-2009] 

Fire) 3-63

Table 3-39. Idaho Noxious Weeds Occurring in Elmore, Owyhee, and/or Twin Falls Counties 3-69

Table 3-40. Nevada Noxious Weeds Occurring in Elko County 3-70

Table 3-41. Invasive Plants Occurring in the Planning Area 3-70

Table 3-42. Fire Data by Vegetation Management Area 3-72

Table 3-43. Historic Fire Regime Definitions 3-73

Table 3-44. Acres and Fire Regime Condition Class Ratings for Potential Natural Vegetation Groups by 

Vegetation Management Area 3-73

Table 3-45. Fire Rate of Spread Rating by Vegetation Management Area (Acres) 3-74

Table 3-46. Relative Risk Ratings for Wildland Urban Interface 3-75

Table 3-47. Land Status within the Saylor Creek Herd Management Area 3-75

Table 3-48. Allotments within the Saylor Creek Herd Management Area 3-75
Chapter 3: Table of Contents Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

....................................................................

...........................................................

.................................

.......................................

....................

...

.........................................

.....

.......................................

............................................................................

........................................................

..........................................................................

.....................................................

..............................................................

..........................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................

...........................................

TOC-iv

Table 3-49. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (Acres) 3-83

Table 3-50. Animal Unit Months Authorized in the Planning Area 3-85

Table 3-51. Status of Allotments in Meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health 3-86

Table 3-52. Types and Approximate Amount of Existing Range Infrastructure 3-86

Table 3-53. Special Recreation Management Areas Identified in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP 3-88

Table 3-54. All-Terrain Vehicle, Utility Vehicle, and Off-Highway Motorbike Registrations by County 3-90

Table 3-55. Acres Available for Land Tenure Transactions in the 1987 RMP 3-94

Table 3-56. Existing and Nominated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in the Planning Area 3-99

Table 3-57. River Segments Eligible and Suitable for Inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System 3-112

Table 3-58. Population Change for Counties within the Four-County Region 3-117

Table 3-59. Median Age for the Four-County Region 3-118

Table 3-60. Racial and Hispanic Composition of 2010 Population 3-119

Table 3-61. Poverty in the Four-County Region, 2010 3-123

Table 3-62. Payments in Lieu of Taxes for the Four-County Region 3-125

List of Figures 

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

Temperature and Precipitation from 20 Climate Models 3-6

Figure 3-2. Population Trends in Four-County Region 3-118

Figure 3-3. Estimated Employment by Occupation for the Planning Area and the Four-County Region, 

2008 3-121

Figure 3-4. 2010 Personal Income by Sector for the Four-County Region 3-122
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Introduction

3-1 

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the existing resource conditions, resource uses, special designations, and

socioeconomic conditions of lands administered by the Jarbidge Field Office. Resources or resource uses 

not found in the planning area are not mentioned further. The affected environment serves as the 

baseline of existing conditions for analyzing the impacts of the alternatives. The purpose of the 

environmental baseline is to provide a point of reference to measure the effectiveness of management 

actions proposed within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

3.2 TRIBAL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS

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

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

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

nations under its protection.

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

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

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

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

their rights and interests when planning and implementing Federal undertakings.

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

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

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

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

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

the planning area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1868, to hunt, fish, and gather on the unoccupied (i.e., public) lands of the United States. The ShoshonePaiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation assert aboriginal rights to their traditional homelands as 

their treaties with the United States were never ratified. Had they been ratified, the Boise Valley Treaty of 

1864 and the Bruneau Valley Treaty of 1866 would have extinguished aboriginal title to the lands now 

Federally administered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ownership.
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Air Quality

1

1

3-2 

3.3 RESOURCES

3.3.1 Air and Atmospheric Values

3.3.1.1 Air Quality 

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

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

several factors, including the types and amounts of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and 

topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. The significance of a pollutant 

concentration is determined by comparison with Federal and State air quality standards, which represent 

the maximum allowable concentrations of various pollutants necessary to protect public health and 

welfare with a reasonable margin of safety (EPA, 2012c). Federal standards were established by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and are referred to as the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS).

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

pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate pollution (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone, and 

sulfur oxides (EPA, 2012c). Within the planning area, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

adopted the NAAQS to regulate these pollutants. 

According to EPA regulations (42 USC §7407), an area with air quality better than the NAAQS is 

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

non-attainment area. An unclassifiable area is one in which insufficient air quality monitoring data has 

been collected to justify formal classification. Many rural areas of Idaho and Nevada, including the four

counties of the planning area, are designated unclassifiable and are generally accepted by the EPA as 

being in attainment of the NAAQS due to an absence of recognized or criteria national ambient air quality 

pollutants that would cause significant pollution. 

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

dust and pollen. These are a result of wildland fires, BLM’s fire management activities, wind effects on 

exposed soils, dirt roads, and small disturbed areas, and vehicle emissions. Visibility may be impacted for 

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

of the planning area are adjacent private farming operations, which may contribute to a decline in air 

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

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

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

precipitation helps keep soils and particulate matter in place; additionally, cooler temperatures lessen the 

conditions suitable for wildland fires.

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

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

lead to an absence of other recognized or criteria national ambient air quality pollutants such as carbon 

monoxide , lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and sulfur oxides.

Carbon monoxide may exist in very high quantities in localized areas for relatively short durations during wildland 

fires. 

 None of these pollutants are known to occur 

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

area. This region of the State and country is known to have relatively clean air (DEQ, 2012a). 

Currently, the only monitored pollutant in the area is PM2.5. Monitoring data from Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Twin Falls monitoring station showed PM2.5 to be below the national 

standard of 15 μg/m3 between 2002 and 2012 with a weighted annual average of 7.03 μg/m3 over that 

time period (EPA, 2012a). Limited PM2.5 monitoring has occurred within the actual planning area; some 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Climate and Meteorology

3-3 

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

particular sampling, done for baseline readings, found PM2.5 concentrations averaged 3.04 μg/m3 for that 

period (EPA, 2012a), below the standard of 15 μg/m3. In past years, PM10 was also monitored by the 

DEQ in Twin Falls. From 1998 to 2003, PM10 was below the national standard of 150 μg/m3 with an 

average of 24.2 μg/m3 (EPA, 2012a). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

east of the planning area with a moderate population and amount of commercial activity. Air and 

atmospheric values within the planning area are not expected to be affected by activities in these areas.

Air quality impacts from wildland fire are more prevalent than from other sources within the planning area. 

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

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

Recovery treatments.

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

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

in the planning area were designated as Class II airsheds, which allow moderate deterioration associated 

with moderate, well-controlled industrial and population growth. Although no areas in the planning area 

are designated as Class I airsheds, Class I air quality concerns and abatement measures are applicable 

to areas with special designations, including Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern.

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

extraction operations. These operations are typically sporadic and short-lived in nature, operating at one 

site for days or weeks at a time and often sitting idle for months or years at a time. Operations include 

truck traffic on dirt and gravel roads, heavy equipment use, and occasionally crushing or blasting 

operations. Operators are required to comply with any air quality stipulations within their permit, which 

commonly include dust abatement methods for watering roads, and watering areas near equipment such 

as crushers and conveyors to reduce impacts to air quality caused by dust.

3.3.1.2 Climate and Meteorology

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

winds from the Pacific Ocean. Temperatures and precipitation vary widely depending on latitude, 

elevation, and topography. Average January low temperatures over the planning area range from 11 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 23°F. Average July high temperatures range from 84°F to 96°F over the 

planning area (Table 3-1). Daily temperatures can fluctuate by more than 40 degrees in the summer and 

20 degrees in the winter. Humidity is usually below 25% during the day in the summer, and often 15% or 

lower. Wind in the planning area is typically from the southwest at an average of 10 miles per hour 

(WRCC, 2012). 

The planning area receives between 7 and 19 inches of precipitation a year, with 4 to 107 inches of snow 

a year (Table 3-1). To a large extent, the source of precipitation is from the Pacific Ocean. In the summer, 

there are some exceptions to this when moisture-laden air is brought in from the south at high levels to 

produce thunderstorm activity (WRCC, 2012). The seasonal distribution of precipitation differs between 

the northern and southern portions of the planning area. In the north, approximately one-third of the 

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

thunderstorm activity results in precipitation amounts that are more evenly spread out over the year, with 

more than half of the precipitation occurring between May and October in some locations. Flash floods 

occur a few times a year as a result of heavy rains associated with thunderstorms. Windstorms are 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Climate Change

B

A

B

A

3-4 

common in the planning area and are typically associated with cyclonic systems and their cold fronts; 

tornadoes rarely, if ever, occur. Windstorms in the summer months are associated with thunderstorms 

(WRCC, 2012). 

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

Locations are listed from north to south. Weather stations at Horse Butte, Three Creek, and Murphy Hot Springs are

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

Location Latitude Elevation 

(feet)

Average 

January 

Temperatures 

(°F)

Average July 

Temperatures 

(°F)

Average 

Annual 

Precipitation

(inches)

Average 

Annual 

Snowfall 

(inches) High Low High Low

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

Glenns 

Ferry 42’56” 2,510 39.3 20.1 96.7 56.5 9.09 13.4

Bruneau 42’53” 2,530 40.9 23.4 93.4 56.9 7.69 4.2 

Hagerman 42’48” 2,880 40.8 21.7 94.0 54.9 10.24 10.3 

Castleford 42’33” 3,820 37.1 20.3 88.6 54.0 10.04 15.5 

Horse 

Butte 42’25” 4,620 37.5 22.3 86.1 56.3 8.21 NA

Data not available.

Three 

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

Murphy 

Hot 

Springs

42’02” 5,160 41.9 18.6 86.1 47.3 13.26 28.4 

Jackpot 41’59” 5,290 37.8 16.2 86.6 51.1 9.15 26.8 

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

Source: (WRCC, 2012). 

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

moisture are not uncommon. Some of the earliest, well-documented droughts in southwest Idaho 

occurred in the 1920s and 1930s during the Dust Bowl era. These historic records are still used today as 

a benchmark in evaluating potential problems (IDWR, 2001). Other severe and extreme drought periods, 

as defined by the Palmer Drought Severity Index (an index of meteorological drought), occurred in 

southwest Idaho during the following time periods: mid 1950s, 1960s, late 1970s, 1988, early 1990s, and 

early 2000s (NCDC, 2012). In contrast, moist non-drought periods occurred during the 1910s, mid 1940s, 

late 1950s, early 1980s, mid to late 1990s, and late 2000s (NCDC, 2012). 

3.3.1.3 Climate Change 

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

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

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

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

planet to sustain life. Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of man-made GHG 

emissions and changes in biological carbon sequestration due to land management activities on the 

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

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

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

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

concentrations (represented as CO2 equivalents or CO2[e]) to increase. The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “most 

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

the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (IPCC, 2007). 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Climate Change

3-5 

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

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

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

increase since 1970. Without additional meteorological monitoring systems, BLM cannot determine the 

spatial and temporal variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing concentrations of GHGs 

are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

physical laws and documented trends (EPA, 2007). 

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

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

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

GHGs will have a sustained climatic impact over different temporal scales. For example, recent emissions 

of CO2 can influence climate for 100 years.

BLM cannot discern whether global climate change is already affecting resources within the planning 

area. There is some information about potential or projected effects of global climate change on 

resources. Projected changes are likely to occur over several decades to a century. Therefore, many of 

the projected changes associated with climate change described below may not be measurably 

discernible within the reasonably foreseeable future.

Regional Impacts and Projections for the Planning Area

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

Columbia River Basin in the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, using global 

climate models (Mote et al., 2008). However, no climate change models specific to just the State of Idaho 

or the planning area are available. Because data is unavailable and the means to obtain it is unknown, 

BLM assumed that similar trends and findings for the Pacific Northwest will also occur in the planning 

area. 

Observed Climate Trends in the Pacific Northwest

Over the20th century, the Pacific Northwest has grown warmer and wetter. Annual average temperature 

rose 1°F to 3°F over most of the region, with nearly equal warming in summer and winter. Annual 

precipitation also increased over most of the region by an average of 11% (Parson et al., 2001).

Additionally, the Northwest’s climate also showed recurrent patterns of multi-year variability. Warm years 

tended to be relatively dry and cool years tended to be relatively wet with high streamflow and heavy 

snowpack (Parson et al., 2001).

Possible Future Climate in the Pacific Northwest

The rate of warming in the Pacific Northwest over the next 50 years is projected to be approximately 

0.5°F per decade, compared to 0.4°F per decade in the second half of the 20th Century (Mote et al., 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Geologic Features

3-6 

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

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

20th Century (Figure 3-1).

Projections of changes in precipitation in the Pacific Northwest are less certain than estimates of changes 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temperature and Precipitation from 20 Climate Models

Source: (Climate Impacts Group, 2008). 

Overall, year-to-year variability is expected to continue. Extreme events (i.e., floods, droughts, heat 

waves, cold snaps) will continue to play a pivotal role in the Pacific Northwest climate (Climate Impacts 

Group and University of Washington, 2000).

3.3.2 Geologic Features

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

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

Snake River Plain covers an area of more than 10,000 square miles, and the underlying aquifer supplies 

the needs of 200 Idaho cities and towns while providing more than one and a half billion gallons of 

irrigation water per day (McLeod and Welhan, 1991). 

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

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

river canyons, rhyolite hoodoos within the river canyons, and a natural arch known simply as The Arch.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Soil Resources

•

•

•

•

3-7 

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

area (Malde, 1987). This formation consists of a Plio-Pleistocene (5.3 million years ago to 11,700 years 

ago) body of lake and stream deposits several thousand feet thick. This formation is important from a 

paleontological standpoint and is discussed further in the Paleontological Resources section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

outcrops and canyon walls. BLM sensitive spotted bat sightings in the canyons suggest that these and 

other bat species likely utilize the caves for shelter. None of the known caves have been formally 

determined to be significant under the Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. 

3.3.3 Soil Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Database (NRCS, 2012a).

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

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

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

of the planning area to very shallow and rocky, heavy with silts and clays in the southern foothills region. 

In general terms, the soils in the planning area may be separated into three physiographic units: the 

Snake River Sediments, the Basalt Plain/Plateau, and the Jarbidge Upland/Foothills.

The Snake River Sediments are those soils formed in association with the Snake River drainage resulting 

from wind and water deposits. These soils are located in the northern portion of the planning area and are 

sandy to silty textured with high calcareous and/or saline contents, and can be shallow to very deep and 

well drained. These soils may have a restrictive cement layer in their profile (hardpan) which limits plant 

root penetration and water infiltration. These soils have been formed under an aridic or aridic-xeric (dry) 

moisture regime and a mesic soil temperature regime over time. The elevation range for these particular 

soils in the planning area is from 2,450 feet to 3,700 feet. The erosion potential of this physiographic soil 

unit ranges from moderate to high (Table 3-2), depending on current weather conditions and their location 

upon the landscape. Major limiting factors for management of these types of soils include low 

precipitation, depth to hardpan, available water capacity, risk of seepage, permeability, and wind erosion

(NRCS, 1991; 1998; 2003b; 2003c). 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Soil Resources

A

A

3-8 

Table 3-2. Common Soils of the Snake River Sediment Physiographic Unit Located in the Planning 

Area

Soil Name Soil 

Number

Soil 

Slope

(%)

Site Type Vegetation Type Water 

Erosion

Wind 

Erosion

ArbidgeBuko 5 1-8 Loamy 8-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Moderate Moderate

Bluegulch 19 2-12 Loamy 8-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Moderate NA 

Davey-Buko 46 1-12 Sandy Loam 8-12” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Indian Ricegrass Slight Severe

Elijah 54 0-4 Silt Loam 8-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s needlegrass Slight Moderate

JacquithQuincy 86 0-12 Sand 8-12” Basin Big Sagebrush – 

Indian Ricegrass Slight Severe

OwselPurdam 113 1-12 Loamy 8-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needelgrass Moderate Moderate

Purdam 121 4-8 Silt Loamy 8-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Slight Moderate

Quincy 124 0-12 Fine Sand 8-12” Basin Big Sagebrush – 

Indian Ricegrass Slight Severe

Royal 133 0-4 Fine Sandy Loam 

8-12”

Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Indian Ricegrass Slight Moderate

RoyalDavey 136 12-40 Sandy loam 8-12” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Indian Ricegrass Moderate Severe

ShanoTruesdale 145 0-12 Fine Sandy loam

8-12”

Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Indian Ricegrass Moderate Moderate

Truesdale 161 0-4 Fine Sandy loam

8-12”

Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Indian Ricegrass Slight Moderate

Xeric 

Torriorthents 

– Xerollic 

Camborthids

172 20-70 Fine Sandy loam

8-12”

Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Indian Ricegrass Moderate Moderate

BadlandsKudlac 9 30-90 Loamy 8-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass

Very 

Severe Moderate

Because each soil survey is numbered individually, soils with different soil names may be listed for the same 

number.

Source: (NRCS, 1991; 1998; 2003a; 2003b).

The Basalt Plain/Plateau soils were mainly formed under an aridic/xeric soil moisture regime and a mesic 

or frigid soil temperature regime as elevation increases from north to south. These soils are 

characteristically shallow to deep in nature and are well drained. Textures can range from silt loams to 

clay loams with varying amounts of rock fragments either on the surface or in the profile. These soils can

also have a restrictive cemented sub-layer (hardpan) in their profile at various depths. The elevation 

range for these soils in the planning area occurs between 3,700 feet to 5,600 feet. In the Basalt 

Plain/Plateau soils, water has a more erosive effect than the wind, and subsequently can have high sheet 

and/or rill erosion potential (Table 3-3). Major limiting factors for management of these types of soils 

include low precipitation, depth to hardpan, available water capacity, and both wind and water erosion

(NRCS, 1991; 1998; 2003a; 2003b). 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Soil Resources

A

A

3-9 

Table 3-3. Common Soils of the Basalt Plain/Plateau Physiographic Unit Located in the Planning 

Area

Soil Name Soil 

Number

Soil 

Slope

(%)

Site Type Vegetation Type Water 

Erosion

Wind 

Erosion

Arbidge –

Buncelvoir – 

Chilcott

4 2-6 Loamy 7-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Moderate Moderate

Arbidge – 

Heckison 6 2-15 Loamy 7-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass

Moderate 

to High Moderate

Bruncan – 

Snowmore 31 1-8 Loamy 10-13” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Bluebunch Wheatgrass Moderate Moderate

ColthropChilcott 32 0-8 Silt Loam 8-

10”

Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Moderate Moderate

Elijih – 

Purdam 56 0-8 Loamy 8-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Moderate Moderate

Hardtrigger

Snowmore -

Vickory

75 1-5 Loamy 7-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Slight Moderate

Heckison – 

Bigflat 81 1-10 Loamy 10-13” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Bluebunch Wheatgrass Moderate Moderate

Minveno – 

Roseworth 102 1-5 Loamy 7-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Moderate High

Purdam 120 0-4 Loamy 8-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Slight Moderate

Purdam – 

Sebree – 

Owsel

122 0-8 Loamy 8-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Moderate Moderate

Shano – 

Owsel 144 0-12 Loamy 8-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s needlegrass Moderate Moderate

Sidlake - 

Bruncan 148 1-8 Loamy 8-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Moderate Moderate

Snowmore – 

Troughs 159 1-10 Loamy 7-10” Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Slight Moderate

Because each soil survey is numbered individually, soils with different soil names may be listed for the same 

number.

Source: (NRCS, 1991; 1998; 2003a; 2003b). 

The Jarbidge Upland/Foothills are the highest elevation soils within the planning area, ranging from 5,600 

feet to about 7,300 feet. These soils are the oldest and most well developed in the area, as depicted by 

the thick dark surface horizon. Textures range from loams to clay loams with varying amounts of surface 

or profile rock fragments. The soils are classified as shallow claypans that contain very restrictive 

hardpans or bedrock at very shallow depths and are usually associated with low sagebrush vegetation 

communities that occupy these sites. These soils were formed under a xeric moisture regime and a frigid 

to cryic soil temperature regime. Wind is not so much an erosional factor here as is water, where it may 

have a high sheet and/or rill rating depending on soil aspect, location, topography, etc. (Table 3-4). Major 

limiting factors for management of these types of soils include low precipitation, depth to hardpan, rocky 

fragments, depth to clayey subsoil, slope, available water capacity, and water erosion (NRCS, 1991; 

1998; 2003a; 2003b).
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Soil Resources

3-10

Table 3-4. Common Soils of the Jarbidge Upland/Foothills Physiographic Unit Located in the 

Planning Area

Soil Name Soil 

NumberA

Soil 

Slope

(%)

Site Type Vegetation Type Water 

Erosion

Wind 

Erosion

Ackett 1 2-10 Shallow Stony 8-

12”

Black Sagebrush – 

Thurber’s Needlegrass Slight NA 

Arness 8 2-6 Loamy 11-13”

Basin Big Sagebrush

– Bluebunch

Wheatgrass

Slight Moderate

Booford - 

Blackleg 21 2-12 Loamy 13-16” Mt. Big Sagebrush – 

Idaho Fescue Slight Moderate

Budlewis 22 2-6 Shallow Claypan 

12-16”

Low Sagebrush – 

Idaho Fescue Moderate NA 

Chayson - 

Merlin 36 2-12 Loamy 12-16”

Basin Big Sagebrush - 

Bluebunch 

Wheatgrass/Idaho 

Fescue

Slight Moderate

Elhina 39 2-6 

Shallow

Calcareous Loam

10-16”

Black Sagebrush – 

Bluebunch

Wheatgrass

Slight NA 

Cleavage - 

Rubbleland 41 2-35 Shallow Claypan

12-16”

Low Sagebrush – 

Idaho Fescue Slight Slight

Isknat 54 3-15 Gravelly Loam

13-16”

Mt. Big Sagebrush – 

Idaho Fescue Moderate NA 

Iwica - 

Budlewis 55 2-6 Loamy 13-16” Mt. Big Sagebrush – 

Idaho Fescue Slight NA 

Keman 61 2-35 Gravelly Loam 

16+”

Mt. Big Sagebrush – 

Idaho Fescue Moderate NA 

Mug 72 2-10 Shallow Claypan

12-16”

Low Sagebrush – 

Idaho Fescue Moderate NA 

Player - 

Player 85 30-75 Shallow Claypan

12-16”

Low Sagebrush – 

Idaho Fescue

Very 

Severe NA 

Larioscamp 

– Dishpan 93 1-12 Loamy 10-13”

Wyoming Sagebrush – 

Bluebunch

Wheatgrass

Slight Moderate

Lostvalley - 

Budlewis 98 1-10 Shallow Claypan

12-16”

Low Sagebrush – 

Idaho Fescue Moderate Moderate

Merlin –

Lostvalley -

Chayson

101 1-12 Shallow Claypan 

12-16”

Low Sagebrush – 

Idaho Fescue Slight Moderate

Rutherford 113 2-20 Mountain Ridge 

14-18”

Low Sagebrush – 

Idaho Fescue Moderate NA 

Sharesnout 

– Budlewis 152 1-15 Shallow Claypan

12-16” Low Sage – Fescue Moderate Moderate

Tanner – 

Dishpan 172 1-8 Loamy 10-13” Wyom. Sage 

Bluebunch Moderate Moderate

Thacker – 

Cleavage – 

Bigflat

173 1-12 Shallow Claypan

12-16”

Low Sagebrush –

Idaho Fescue Slight Moderate

Threek – 

Blackleg – 

Hatpeak

177 2-20 Loamy 13-16”

Mt. Big Sagebrush - 

Idaho Fescue/

Bluebunch 

Wheatgrass

Slight Moderate
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Soil Resources

3-11

Soil Name Soil 

NumberA

Soil 

Slope

(%)

Site Type Vegetation Type Water 

Erosion

Wind 

Erosion

Vitale – 

Muleshoe – 

Itca

193 2-40 Stony Loam 13-

16”

Mt. Big Sagebrush – 

Bluebunch

Wheatgrass

Slight Slight

A Because each soil survey is numbered individually, soils with different soil names may be listed for the same 

number.

Source: (NRCS, 1991; 1998; 2003a; 2003b).

Approximately 94% of the planning area contains soils with medium or greater potential for water erosion

and another 82% contains soils with moderate or greater potential for wind erosion (Table 3-5; Maps 4 

and 5). 

Table 3-5. Erosion Potential in the Planning Area

Acres % of Planning Area

Water Erosion Potential

Medium 853,000 62

High 437,000 32

Total 1,290,000 94

Wind Erosion Potential

Moderate 904,000 66

Severe 200,000 15

Very Severe 19,000 1 

Total 1,123,000 82

Water erosion is a function of rainfall, snow melt, soil erodibility, length of slope, percent of slope, 

vegetation cover, soil conditions, and management practices. Bank erosion is accelerated in stream 

channels as a result of damming practices, improperly functioning riparian systems, and hydrologically 

unstable streams. Water erosion is also accelerated when it is diverted from its natural channel and 

captured by continuous flow paths formed by roads, railroads, paths, and trails; and by the change in flow 

character from sheet flow to channel flow concentrated by roads, railroads, paths, and trails.

Soils are subject to erosion when the vegetation or biologic crust on these soils is removed, such as by 

surface disturbance, fire, or heavy grazing pressure. Under good vegetation cover, soil loss is less than 

one ton per acre per year; with poor cover, soil loss can exceed five tons per acre per year. When soils 

are disturbed, 10 tons per acre per year could be lost (USDA, 1993).

Wind erosion is a function of soil erodibility, ground surface roughness, climate, length of slope, 

vegetation cover, presence of physical or biological crusts, and soil condition. Soil erodibility by wind is 

directly related to the percentage of dry, non-erodible soil aggregates greater than 0.84 millimeters in 

equivalent diameter. The soil erodibility is expressed in terms of soil loss in tons per acre per year (USDA, 

1993). Wind erosion can occur following the removal of protective vegetation and is most likely to occur in 

areas of arid climates, such as those at lower elevations of the planning area. When the vegetative cover 

or biological crust is removed, soils high in fine-textured material are easily transported by wind. This 

results in the displacement or loss of topsoil, increased sedimentation, and impacts to ambient air quality 

from elevated dust levels.

Accelerated erosion exhibited by plant pedestals were documented during assessments for the 2006

Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Management. The planning area has 

a long history of large and sometimes repeated wildland fires (Map 28) and some of this erosion is a 

result of the loss of vegetation from wildland fires. Soils that occur on steep slopes without rock and with 

naturally low vegetation cover are inherently prone to erosion. Erosion in the planning area resulting in rill 

and gully formation is estimated to be low except on the sandy-alluvial soils of the Snake River Sediments 

and the clayey-rhyolitic soils of the Jarbidge Upland/Foothills.
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Water Resources

3-12

Soil compaction results in increased soil bulk density and will occur in areas of concentrated use, 

including roads, trails, and livestock water and mineral locations. Compacted soils generally support less

vegetation, have lower water infiltration rates, and increased erosion potential. Soil compaction can be 

exacerbated by moist soil conditions. Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Management assessments showed most assessed areas did not exhibit increased soil bulk density.

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

biological soil crusts is presented in the Upland Vegetation section. 

3.3.4 Water Resources

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

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

Water Act states that water quality standards should provide, wherever attainable, water quality for the 

protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water (fishable and 

swimmable conditions); and consider the use and value of State waters for public water supplies, 

propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agriculture and industrial purposes, and navigation. Various 

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

improve water quality.

In Idaho, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has responsibility for protecting water quality 

and enforcing specific water quality standards. The DEQ is a State department created by the Idaho 

Environmental Protection and Health Act (Idaho Code Title 39) to ensure clean air, water, and land in the 

State and protect Idaho citizens from the adverse health impacts of pollution. The BLM cooperates with 

DEQ under the guidelines in the Memorandum of Understanding for Implementing the Nonpoint Source 

Water Quality Program in the State of Idaho (BLM MOU ID-08-02).

In Nevada, the Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) is responsible for protecting water quality 

and enforcing water quality standards. The NDEP was created as a division within the Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources in 1977. The Water Quality Standards Branch is responsible for 

developing and reviewing water quality standards; determining Total Maximum Daily Loads and 

wasteload allocations for point sources; and determining load allocations for nonpoint sources. Although 

the organizational structure and terminology varies slightly between Idaho and Nevada, the purpose of 

both State agencies is the same: to define water quality standards and beneficial uses, collect water 

quality data to document where water quality is not meeting the identified beneficial uses, develop water 

quality improvement plans for water bodies that are not meeting their beneficial uses, and prepare an 

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Integrated Report) for the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) every two years as one of the requirements of Section 303(d) of the Clean 

Water Act. 

3.3.4.1 Water Quality 

In Idaho and Nevada, the water quality standard programs are a joint effort between the States and the 

EPA. The DEQ and NDEP are responsible for developing and enforcing water quality standards that 

protect beneficial uses such as drinking water, cold water fisheries, and industrial, recreational, and 

agricultural water supplies. The EPA develops regulations, policies, and guidance to help Idaho and 

Nevada implement their water quality programs and ensures the adopted State standards are consistent 

with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and relevant regulations. The EPA has authority to review 

and approve or disapprove State water quality standards and promote Federal water quality rules.

Water quality standards are the benchmarks DEQ and NDEP uses to protect and restore surface water in 

streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs within Idaho and Nevada. Both states use the water quality 

standards to protect public health and welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of 

the Clean Water Act. The regulations and water quality standards the DEQ uses to maintain and improve 

water quality are defined in the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA 58.01.02) and can be found 

at: http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/2011/58/0102.pdf. The regulations NDEP uses to maintain and 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Water Resources

3-13

improve water quality in Nevada are defined in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 444a.420) and can be 

found at: http://ndep.nv.gov/admin/nrs.htm. The water quality standards are defined under NAC 

445A.118-2234; Standards for Water Quality (445A.118; 445A.1332-1352).

Designated Beneficial Uses

Federal water quality standards require states to develop policies to protect existing and designated uses 

of surface waters. Water quality standards define water quality goals for a water body by designating 

beneficial uses of the water and by setting criteria necessary to protect the beneficial uses. The 

assignment of beneficial uses, adoption of narrative and numeric water quality criteria, and development 

of antidegradation policies are the three required regulatory elements for meeting Federal water quality 

standards.

The DEQ uses Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) to geographically group all of the watersheds in Idaho into 

six major drainage basins. The planning area occurs within the Southwest and Upper Snake Basins 

(IDAPA 58.01.02, page 29). Each of the watersheds within these basins is assigned an individual HUC 

number and the designated beneficial uses are identified for each of these HUCs. The four HUC numbers 

within the planning area include: Bruneau (17050102), Salmon Falls (17040213), Upper Snake-Rock 

(17040212), and C.J. Strike Reservoir (17050101) (IDAPA 58.01.02, page 30-31). These watersheds are 

displayed on Map 6: Water Quality Impaired Streams. The designated beneficial uses for the HUCs within 

the planning area include: aquatic life (including sub-classifications for cold water, salmonid spawning, 

seasonal cold water, warm water, modified water quality), recreation (including sub-classifications for 

primary and secondary contact recreation), water supply (including sub-classifications for domestic, 

agricultural, and industrial), wildlife habitats, and aesthetics (IDAPA 58.01.02, page 27). In March 2012, 

the DEQ revised the designated beneficial uses by removing special resource waters as a designated 

beneficial use. Other than removing special resource waters as a designated beneficial use for the 

Bruneau and C.J. Strike Reservoir Basins, there were no other changes made to the designated 

beneficial uses within the planning area.

Designated beneficial uses in Nevada include: watering of livestock, irrigation, aquatic life, recreation 

involving contact with the water, recreation not involving contact with the water, municipal or domestic 

supply, industrial supply, propagation of wildlife, waters of extraordinary ecological or aesthetic value, and 

enhancement of water quality.

Numeric and Narrative Criteria

Idaho and Nevada present water quality criteria in numeric and narrative form. Although both states use 

similar indicators for water quality, the numeric values can differ between states. Idaho has numeric 

criteria for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, bacteria, ammonia, and a list of 121 toxic 

substances (both metals [including mercury] and human-made organic chemicals). Nevada has additional 

numeric criteria for chlorides, sulfates, color, and others. For both states, the numeric values and the 

applicability of the value depend upon the designated beneficial use specific to the water body. Examples 

of numeric water quality criteria include dissolved oxygen levels greater than 6.0 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L), E. coli concentrations greater than126 colony forming units/100 milliliters (ml), or mercury 

concentrations of 0.3 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of fresh weight fish tissue. The narrative water 

quality criteria are used to describe water quality as being free from pollutants that are difficult to specify 

with numeric criterion, such as color and odor, or where natural occurrence and variability makes general 

limits impractical, such as with sediment and nutrients. Idaho and Nevada use narrative criteria for the 

following pollutants: hazardous materials, toxic substances, deleterious materials, radioactive materials, 

floating, suspended, or submerged matter, excess nutrients, oxygen-demanding materials, and sediment. 

An example of a narrative criterion would be water quality that is free from nuisance aquatic growths, or 

free from toxic substances that impair designated beneficial uses.

Antidegradation Policy

The purpose of the Idaho and Nevada water quality antidegradation policy is to maintain and protect 

existing uses by reviewing water quality related permits and licenses for their effect on water quality. In 

general, the anti-degradation policy assigns water bodies one of three levels of protection (IDAPA 

58.01.02.051). Tier 1 requires that water quality be maintained such that the existing and designated uses 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Water Resources

3-14

of the water are supported. Tier 2 consists of making sure any permitted water quality degradation is 

“necessary to accommodate important economic or social development.” Tier 3 is the highest level of 

protection, reserved for waters of outstanding character, where no degradation of water quality may be 

permitted. In Nevada, antidegradation requirements are attached to numeric standards and are set when 

water quality for individual parameters are higher than the criteria necessary to protect the beneficial 

uses.

Total Maximum Daily Loads

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop water quality improvement plans, called 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), for water bodies that are not meeting their designated beneficial 

uses. The goal of a TMDL is to set limits on pollutant levels to correct water quality impairments and 

achieve beneficial uses of the identified water body. Once the EPA has approved a TMDL, the DEQ and 

NDEP prepare an implementation plan that provides details of the actions needed to achieve load 

reductions and specifies the monitoring needed to meet water quality standards.

Every two years, the DEQ and NDEP are required by the Clean Water Act (Sections 305[b] and 303[d]) to 

conduct a comprehensive analysis to determine if State water quality standards and beneficial uses are 

being met or if additional pollution controls are needed. This analysis is summarized in an Integrated 

Report. These reports serve as a guide for developing and implementing water quality improvement plans 

(i.e., TMDLs) to protect water quality and achieve Federal and State water quality standards. The EPA 

must approve an Integrated Report before it can be used by a State to guide its management decisions. 

The 2010 Integrated Report is Idaho's most recent EPA approved Integrated Report. A copy of the report 

can be found at: http://deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/monitoring-assessment/integratedreport.aspx. For Nevada, the 2008-2010 Water Quality Integrated Report is the most recent EPA 

approved summary of water quality impaired waters. A copy of this report can be found at: 

http://ndep.nv.gov/bwqp/303dlist.htm. These reports summarize the current status of all State waters, 

including those within the planning area, and will guide DEQ’s and NDEP’s water quality management 

decisions until subsequent Integrated Reports are approved by the EPA.

The streams identified as meeting or not meeting water quality standards and designated beneficial uses 

are likely to change with the EPA’s approval of future Integrated Reports for Idaho and Nevada. The 

process of identifying water quality impaired streams is dynamic; incorporating the current list of streams 

within the Final EIS would likely result in the Final EIS referencing outdated information with each 

subsequent Integrated Report. For this reason, the links to the most current water quality information 

available, as displayed on the DEQ and NDEP web sites, are provided. Although DEQ has proposed 

removing some of the streams from the 303(d) list of water quality impaired streams, no streams have 

been added to the list within Idaho or Nevada since the printing of the Draft Resource Management Plan 

(RMP)/EIS. Based on the current Integrated Reports, the planning area contains 172 miles of water 

quality impaired streams in Idaho and 10 miles of water quality impaired streams in Nevada, as was 

identified in the Draft RMP/EIS. These miles are discussed in the Chapter 4 analysis for Water 

Resources. The water quality impaired streams are displayed on Map 6 and are a priority for water quality 

management.3.3.4.2 Surface Water Resources. 

Streams and Rivers

The planning area occurs within three primary watersheds: the Bruneau River Watershed, the Salmon 

Falls Creek Watershed, and the Snake River Watershed (Map 6). All three watersheds contain stream 

reaches which are water quality impaired (see Idaho DEQ 2010 Integrated Report and the NDEP 2008-

2010 Integrated Report). There are 316 miles of perennial streams, 512 miles of intermittent streams, and 

3,192 miles of ephemeral streams within the planning area. Additional information on these streams can 

be found in the Riparian Areas and Wetlands section. A majority of the perennial streams are located 

within the southern portion of the planning area and drain in a northerly direction to the Bruneau River 

and Salmon Falls Creek. There are limited perennial water sources draining into the Snake River along 

the northern boundary of the planning area, with the exception of four prominent springs: Coyote Springs, 

Pilgrim Springs, Ring Springs, and Tuana Springs. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Water Resources

3-15

Many of the water courses in the planning area flow through lands not managed by BLM. Land 

management practices on both BLM and non-BLM lands can affect water quality and quantity. In many 

cases, BLM can only address water quality issues that arise from activities on BLM-managed land or 

through cooperative efforts with other Federal, State, and private land owners.

Impounded Waters and Reservoirs

The planning area contains a variety of impounded waters (body of water formed by the construction or 

excavation of a basin or the obstruction of stream flow in such a manner as to cause the collection of a 

body of water) which would not have formed under natural conditions. These waters range from small 

livestock watering systems that encompass less than one acre to large impounded reservoirs such as 

those used for hydroelectric generation along the Snake River. There are also numerous impoundments 

which are primarily used as storage basins for irrigation water. The larger impounded waters and 

reservoirs provide the added benefit of water-based recreational activities such as boating, kayaking, 

fishing, water-skiing wildlife viewing. Examples of the larger impounded waters commonly used for 

recreation along the Snake River include waters above Upper Salmon Dam, Lower Salmon Dam, Bliss 

Dam, and C.J. Strike Dam. There are also numerous reservoirs, such as Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir 

and Cedar Creek Reservoir, whose primary purpose is to store irrigation water but also provide an 

opportunity for water-based recreation. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game stocks these waters 

with a variety of fish species to enhance the local fishery resources. The quantity of water within the 

larger reservoirs varies annually with peak water levels occurring in the spring runoff periods. During the 

summer months, reduced water levels often result in reduced water quality as indicated by elevated water 

temperatures, nutrients, E. coli concentrations and other water quality impairments.

Cedar Creek Reservoir

Cedar Creek Reservoir is located south of the town of Castleford, Idaho and is a relatively shallow, open, 

bowl-shaped reservoir. Cedar Creek and House Creek are the major sources of water for the reservoir. 

The watershed that drains into the reservoir is an area of approximately129 square miles. The reservoir 

has a maximum width of 1.7 miles and a maximum depth of 46 feet. At full pool, the reservoir covers 

approximately 971 acres. The reservoir was constructed in 1910 to provide irrigation water for private 

farmland.

Water quality data for the reservoir is summarized in the Salmon Falls Creek Subbasin Assessment and 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) (DEQ, 2007). High water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen 

characterize the water quality within the reservoir. Sediment and nutrient loading from House Creek and 

Cedar Creek also influence water quality in the reservoir and contribute to the regular occurrence of 

aquatic vegetation growths within the reservoir (DEQ, 2007). Designated beneficial uses in Cedar Creek 

Reservoir for cold water aquatic life and primary contact recreation nutrients are outside the range 

determined to be supportive of the designated beneficial uses. Flow alteration also impacts the 

designated beneficial uses within the reservoir.

Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir

Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir is located west of the town of Rogerson, Idaho and is a deep, narrow, 

meandering reservoir. Salmon Falls Creek is the primary water source for the reservoir with minor 

contributions from a few small, perennial streams such as China Creek as well as intermittent streams like 

Brown’s Creek and Cottonwood Creek in Nevada. The watershed that drains into the reservoir is an area 

of approximately 1,626 square miles. The reservoir has a maximum width of one mile and a maximum 

depth of approximately 200 feet. The reservoir is approximately12.7 miles long. At full pool, the reservoir

covers approximately 2,532 acres. The reservoir was constructed in 1910 to provide irrigation water for 

private farmland.

Water quality data for the Salmon Falls Creek reservoir is summarized in Salmon Falls Creek Subbasin 

Assessment and TDMLs (DEQ, 2007). Similar to Cedar Creek Reservoir, sediment, nutrients, and 

seasonally low dissolved oxygen levels are factors affecting designated beneficial uses within the 

reservoir. Nuisance aquatic vegetation in the form of algae blooms impacts the upper and middle water 

column during the summer months. The designated beneficial uses of the Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir, 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Upland Vegetation

3-16

specifically for cold water aquatic life, is impaired from suspended sediment from in-channel storage and 

reduced streambank stability in the upper portions of Salmon Falls Creek, Shoshone Creek, and the 

smaller tributaries to China Creek.

Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir is one of the larger reservoirs in the planning area and is known to contain 

elevated levels of mercury. In 2005, DEQ began investigating mercury contamination in the reservoir in 

response to a fish consumption advisory issued by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare in 2001. 

In 2008, DEQ completed a risk assessment for the fish-eating public from mercury contamination in 

Idaho’s lakes and reservoirs (Essig and Kosterman, 2008). In Idaho, the highest mercury contamination 

levels for walleye and smallmouth bass came from Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir. There are large 

regional sources of air-born mercury emissions in northern Nevada and eastern Oregon that are 

suspected to be contributing to elevated fish tissue concentrations in southern Idaho (Essig and 

Kosterman, 2008). Based on fish tissue samples collected from Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir in 2012, 

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare continues to have a health advisory in effect for the consumption 

of fish from the reservoir.

Playas

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

collect water from small basins and have no external drainage. There are 54 playas totaling 1,411 acres 

within the planning area. They range in size from 1 acre to 54 acres and are generally located south and 

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

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

the playas scattered across the planning area.

3.3.4.3 Groundwater Resources 

Groundwater resources within the planning area consist of a few government wells and include the 

following: AEC, Blue Butte, Browns Gulch, Buck Flat, Cheatgrass, Grindstone, Hammett, Notch Butte, 

Signal Butte, Three Creek, and Twin Butte wells. All of these wells have or currently provide water 

throughout much of the planning area by means of various storage, pipeline and watering distribution 

systems. Although a few of these sources are rarely used because they have been replaced with

perennial stream water, they are still viable water sources. The other wells are used on a daily basis. The 

monitoring of groundwater quality is conducted by DEQ, Idaho Department of Water Resources and 

Idaho State Department of Agriculture, as well as NDEP. Additional information on groundwater 

resources and groundwater quality for Idaho can be found at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waterquality/ground-water.aspx. Additional information on groundwater resources and groundwater quality for 

Nevada can be found at: http://ndep.nv.gov/admin/nrs.htm.

3.3.4.4 Geothermal Resources

In the northern portion of the planning area, from roughly the Balanced Rock area (i.e., Blue Gulch area) 

to the Bruneau Hot Springs area, there are several areas containing geothermal springs (Appendix L). 

Within this general area, there are numerous water wells drilled on private lands with temperatures 

between 68°F and 122°F (Smith et al., 1980). Most of these are concentrated in the Bruneau area; 

however, there are 15 to 20 wells on private lands in the Blue Gulch area, located northwest of Balanced 

Rock, with temperatures between 77°F and 95°F. There is also a cluster of warm wells (approximately 

77°F) in the Glenns Ferry area. Most of the wells in the planning area are used for agricultural (irrigation) 

purposes; however, a few utilize the heat source for direct uses such as heating a greenhouse and in 

aquaculture. Most of the wells are less than 1,000 feet deep.

3.3.5 Vegetation Communities

3.3.5.1 Upland Vegetation 

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

2004 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery. The vegetation map was updated in 2012 

using 2011 field observations and 2011 NAIP imagery. Fifty-three vegetation communities were classified 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Upland Vegetation

3-17

and mapped based on dominant plant cover. These vegetation communities were subsequently 

organized into five classes and six sub-classes (Table 3-6) according to national standards (Grossman et 

al., 1998), with the exception of evergreen shrublands dominated by sagebrush. In the planning area, 

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

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

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

vegetation data were classified as “No Data”.

Vegetation communities were mapped using a minimum mapping unit of 20 acres. The 20-acre map units 

are appropriate for landscape-level planning through aggregation into broader vegetation groups. They 

can also be useful for finer-scale analysis, such as grazing permit renewals, transportation and travel 

planning, and land use authorizations. 

Vegetation Sub-Groups

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

precipitation, wildland fires, post-fire vegetation treatments, weather, livestock grazing, invasive plant 

introduction and spread, and cross-country motorized vehicle use. For management and analysis 

purposes, the 53 vegetation communities in the planning area were grouped into seven vegetation subgroups (VSGs; Table 3-6). Vegetation communities were grouped into VSGs based on dominant 

vegetation and community structure, since communities with similar dominant vegetation and community 

structure were expected to have similar management objectives. All the Dwarf Shrubland Class and the 

Woodland Class were placed into the Native Shrubland VSG. The Shrubland Class was split into Native 

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

split into Annual, Native Grassland, and Non-Native Perennial VSGs. The Sparse Vegetation Class was

put into the Unvegetated VSG.

Table 3-6. Vegetation Communities with Associated Class, Sub-Class, and Vegetation Sub-Group

Classifications in the Planning Area

Class Sub-Class Vegetation Community VSGs

Dwarf 

Shrubland Evergreen

Black sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass

Native Shrubland

Black sagebrush/bluegrass

Low sagebrush/bluebunch-Idaho fescue

Low sagebrush/bluegrass

Low sagebrush/Idaho fescue

Low sagebrush/squirreltail

Shadscale

Winterfat/Indian ricegrass

Black sagebrush/crested wheatgrass Non-Native 

Low sagebrush/crested wheatgrass Understory

Herbaceous

AnnualGraminoid or 

Forb

Annual Annual

Perennial 

Graminoid

Basin wildrye

Native Grassland

Bluebunch wheatgrass

Bluegrass

Idaho fescue

Needlegrass

Semi-wet meadow

Thurber’s needlegrass

Western wheatgrass

Crested wheatgrass Non-Native 

Intermediate wheatgrass Perennial

Shrubland Deciduous Deciduous mountain brush Native Shrubland Greasewood/basin wildrye

Evergreen Rabbitbrush/annual Annual
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Upland Vegetation

3-18

Class Sub-Class Vegetation Community VSGs

Shrubland Evergreen

Wyoming big sagebrush/annual Annual

Basin big sagebrush

Native Shrubland

Evergreen mountain brush

Fourwing saltbush/needlegrass

Mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch 

wheatgrass-Idaho fescue

Mountain big sagebrush/Idaho fescue

Rabbitbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass

Rabbitbrush/bluegrass

Rabbitbrush/Idaho fescue

Rabbitbrush/Thurber’s needlegrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/bluebunch 

wheatgrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/bluegrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue

Wyoming big sagebrush/Indian ricegrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/thickspike 

wheatgrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/Thurber’s 

needlegrass

Basin big sagebrush/crested wheatgrass

Non-Native 

Understory

Wyoming big sagebrush/crested wheatgrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/intermediate 

wheatgrass

Fourwing saltbush/crested wheatgrass Non-Native 

Perennial Rabbitbrush/crested wheatgrass

Rabbitbrush/intermediate wheatgrass

Sparse 

Vegetation

Consolidated 

Rocks Breaks

Unvegetated

Unconsolidated 

Material

Barren

Sand Dune 

Recent Burn Recent Burn

Woodland

Deciduous Aspen

Native Shrubland Evergreen Juniper

Mountain mahogany

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

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

three non-native species (Table 3-6). Shrubs, such as rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseous ssp.

consimmilis, C. nauseosus ssp. albicaulis, C. viscidiflorus) and Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemesia

tridentata ssp. wyomingensis), may be present, but occur at less than 10% canopy cover. The Annual 

VSG is common in burned and disturbed areas in the planning area but is not a naturally occurring VSG. 

Though primarily found at elevations less than 3,000 feet in the northern portion of the planning area, the 

Annual VSG can be found throughout the planning area in burned or otherwise disturbed areas.

The Non-Native Perennial VSG includes five vegetation communities (Table 3-6). These communities are 

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

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

throughout the planning area, where areas with depleted herbaceous understories and burned or other 

disturbed areas have been seeded with non-native perennial species. Native or seeded shrubs (e.g., fourwing saltbush [Atriplex canescens]) might occur in these communities at less than 10% canopy cover.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Upland Vegetation

3-19

The Non-Native Understory VSG includes five vegetation communities (Table 3-6). These communities 

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

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

black sagebrush (A. nova), and low sagebrush (A. arbuscula). Understory species are non-native 

perennial grasses, including crested wheatgrass and intermediate wheatgrass. This VSG occurs 

throughout the planning area, where native shrubs have re-established in areas that were seeded with 

non-native perennial grasses following fire or another disturbance.

The Native Grassland VSG includes eight vegetation communities (Table 3-6). Communities in this VSG 

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

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

Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comata), Thurber’s 

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

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

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

Bluegrass communities are areas where Sandberg bluegrass comprises 50% or greater cover. These 

may include communities where annual production is dominated by other native or non-native perennial 

grasses, but their cover is less than 50%. Communities where bluegrass is the dominant cover but nonnative perennials dominate the production are referred to as Sandberg/non-native perennial areas, to 

address livestock forage allocation for the non-native grasses. Communities where bluegrass is the 

dominant cover but other native perennials dominate the production are managed as native grasslands. 

The Native Shrubland VSG includes 28 vegetation communities (Table 3-6). Native Shrubland

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

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

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

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

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

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

and four-wing saltbush.

Basin big sagebrush communities occur in drainages throughout the planning area and at lower elevation

sandy areas in the northern portion of the planning area. Wyoming big sagebrush communities occur 

throughout the planning area. Shadscale communities are primarily near the canyon rims along the north 

and west edges of the planning area. Mountain big sagebrush and deciduous mountain brush 

communities are primarily found at higher elevations in the southern portion of the planning area, though 

some communities dominated by bitterbrush occur on sandy soils in the northern portion of the planning 

area. Deciduous shrub communities are often dominated or co-dominated by bitterbrush, snowberry 

(Symphoricarpus oreophilus), chokecherry (Prunus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), Woods’ rose (Rosa 

woodsii), dogwood (Cornus sericea), aspen (Populus tremuloides), or greasewood (Sarcobatus 

vermiculatus). Deciduous shrub communities include woody riparian communities and mountain shrub 

communities that occur primarily in the southern end of the resource area. Shrubland communities 

disturbed by wildland fire may become dominated by rabbitbrush, which will lose dominance to other 

shrubs, particularly sagebrush, after several decades if there is an available seed source (i.e., adjacent 

shrub patches or if there area was seeded with shrubs following fire) and in the absence of continued 

disturbance by fire. Aspen communities require a disturbance, such as fire, to be maintained. Aspen 

stands have been invaded by juniper (Juniperus spp.) in areas where natural disturbance regimes have 

been altered (e.g., by suppression of wildland fires). 

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

(Table 3-6). Recent Burn areas are areas which may be present for up to two years following a fire.

Large wildland fires occurred in 2007 and 2010 following completion of a vegetation mapping effort in 

2006, resulting in over 500,000 acres of burned vegetation that were re-mapped as the Recent Burn 

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

staff evaluated pre-burn vegetation conditions, impacts to vegetation resulting from fire and vegetation 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Upland Vegetation

3-20

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

2016 (Map 10). Vegetation composition following wildland fires through 2011 (post-fire) and the 2016 

projected vegetation composition (baseline) of the planning area by VSG are presented in Table 3-7. 

Table 3-7. Post-Fire and Baseline Vegetation Composition in the Planning Area by Vegetation SubGroup

VSG Post-Fire Vegetation

% Composition

Baseline Vegetation

% Composition

Annual 9 9 

Non-Native Perennial 25 26

Non-Native Understory 5 4 

Native Grassland 33 35

Native Shrubland 23 22

Unvegetated Areas 5 4 

No Data < 1 < 1 

Data include vegetation as of Fall 2011 and projected vegetation in areas burned through 2011 (baseline).

Vegetation Management Areas

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

the planning area was divided into vegetation management areas (VMAs; Map 8) based on potential 

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

The VMA boundary lines were further refined using pasture lines to facilitate proposed management of 

these areas as described in Chapter 2. The number of acres in each VMA is identified in Table 3-8. Table 

3-9 identifies the percent of post-fire VSGs in each VMA, while Table 3-10 identifies the percent of 

baseline VSGs by VMA.

Table 3-8. Size of Vegetation Management Areas

VMA Acres

A - Wyoming Sagebrush/Indian Ricegrass 222,000

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

C - Wyoming Sagebrush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass 313,000

D - Idaho Fescue (High Elevation) 207,000

Table 3-9. Post-Fire Vegetation Composition by Vegetation Sub-Group by Vegetation Management 

Area (%)

VSG VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D

Annual 37 6 < 1 < 1 

Non-Native Perennial 36 33 14 2 

Non-Native Understory 2 3 9 6 

Native Grassland 13 32 48 38

Native Shrubland 3 22 25 47

Unvegetated Areas 9 4 4 6 

No Data < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 

Data include vegetation mapped as of fall 2011.

Table 3-10. Baseline Vegetation Composition by Vegetation Sub-Group by Vegetation 

Management Area (%)

VSG VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D

Annual 38 6 1 1 

Non-Native Perennial 42 33 14 2 

Non-Native Understory 1 3 9 6 

Native Grassland 16 34 48 39

Native Shrubland 2 20 25 47
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Upland Vegetation

3-21

2

2

VSG VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D

Unvegetated Areas 1 4 3 5 

No Data < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 

Data include projected vegetation in areas burned through 2011.

Biological Soil Crusts

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

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

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

soil surfaces not occupied by vascular plants, litter, or rock. Biological crusts contribute many functions in 

semiarid and arid environments. Since they are located within the top 0.2 inches of the soil, they mainly 

affect processes that occur at the soil-air interface. These include stabilizing the soil and reducing 

erosion, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, increasing nutrient contribution to plants, holding onto moisture, and 

aiding in seedling germination and plant growth (NRCS, 1997). In the planning area, biological soil crusts 

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

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

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

The potential for biological soil crust cover throughout the majority of the planning area ranges from 

moderate (15%-25%) in the central and southern portion of the planning area to high (greater than 25%) 

in the northern portion.

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

25%; moderate crust cover = 15-25%; low crust cover = 3-15%; very low crust cover = less than 3% (Rosentreter and

Pellant, 2006). 

 Data collected in 2006 and 2007, prior to the 2007 wildland fires, recorded an 

average biological soil crust cover of 16% throughout the planning area (BLM, 2006c). This is on the low 

end of the moderate crust cover category and is generally lower than the potential in each plant 

community sampled. The Non-Native Understory and Native Shrubland VSGs had the highest average 

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

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

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

Shadscale and Wyoming big sagebrush/Thurber’s needlegrass vegetation communities had the highest 

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

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

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

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

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

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

biological soil crusts. All other communities had low crust cover.

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

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

were very stony silt loam, loam, stony silt loam, silt loam, very stony loam, and gravelly loam. No 

biological soil crust cover was recorded on soils with clay loam, gravelly sandy loam, loamy sand, and 

sand textures. All other soil textures had low average crust cover.

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

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

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

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

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

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

which was likely due to dense vascular plant cover resulting from the VMA having the highest

precipitation in the planning area.
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands

•

•

•

3-22

3.3.5.2 Riparian Areas and Wetlands

Riparian areas form a transition between permanently saturated wetlands and uplands. These areas 

exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect permanent surface or subsurface water influence. 

Typical riparian areas include lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently 

flowing rivers, streams, glacial potholes, and shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels 

(Hansen and Hall, 2002). Riparian areas are important from an ecological standpoint because they 

provide a transition zone between aquatic and upland areas, as well as cover and food for wildlife and 

fish (Hansen and Hall, 2002; Prichard et al., 1998a). Riparian areas and wetlands provide water quality 

benefits by filtering out nutrients from runoff, maintaining stream temperature by providing shade, and 

controlling erosion (Hansen and Hall, 2002;Prichard et al.,2003). They provide water quality benefits by 

filtering out nutrients from runoff, maintaining stream temperature by providing shade, and controlling 

erosion (Prichard et al., 1998; 2003). Within the planning area, riparian areas and wetlands are generally 

associated with streams, rivers, and springs or seeps. The miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral 

streams and rivers on BLM-managed lands within the planning area are summarized in Table 3-11. There 

also are approximately 102 miles of ditches and canals used to convey private water across the planning 

area.

Table 3-11. Miles of Streams in the Planning Area by Stream Type

Stream Type Miles Percent within Planning Area

Perennial 316 8 

Intermittent 512 13

Ephemeral 3,192 79

Total 4,020 100

Riparian areas are classified as being perennial, intermittent/seasonal, or ephemeral and are defined as 

follows (Meinzer, 1923 in Prichard et al., 1998a). These definitions are also included in the Glossary: 

Perennial - A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated with a 

water table in the localities through which they flow.

Intermittent or Seasonal - A stream that only flows at certain times of the year when it receives 

water from springs or from some surface source such as melting snow in mountainous areas. In 

general, these streams flow continuously for at least 30 days and usually have visible vegetation or 

physical characteristics reflective of permanent water influence such as the presence of cottonwood.

Ephemeral - A stream that only flows in direct response to precipitation, and whose channel is above 

the water table at all times. In general, these streams do not flow continuously for 30 days.

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

herbaceous. In the planning area, tree species in the woodland class include aspen (Populus 

tremuloides), cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and juniper (Juniperus spp.). Shrubby species in riparian 

areas include willows (Salix spp.), Woods’ rose (Rosa woodsii), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), 

currant (Ribes spp.), chokecherry (Prunus spp.), and shrubby aspen. There are numerous herbaceous 

wetland species that occur in riparian areas, including sedges (Carex spp.), rushes, (Juncus spp.), 

bulrush (Scirpus spp.), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) and a wide variety of forbs such as mint (Lamiaceae 

spp.), cowparsnip (Heracleum sphondylium), and hemlock (Apiaceae spp.). 

The term wetland is used to describe areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at 

a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and which under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (Hansen and Hall, 2002). 

Typical wetlands include marshes, shallow swamps, sloughs, lake shores, bogs, wet meadows, and 

riparian areas (Prichard et al., 1993; 1998b). Wetlands are communities that are wet long enough during 

the growing season to support a prevalence of wetland vegetation and produce wetland soils. In the 

planning area, wetlands generally consist of wet meadows associated with seeps or springs. These 

wetlands include approximately 885 acres of playas and man-made ponds, 200 seeps or springs, and an 

unknown acreage of wet meadows.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Riparian Areas and Wetlands

•

•

•

•

•

3-23

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

wetland areas to disturbance. The PFC assessment is a broad-scale assessment that uses hydrology, 

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

riparian and wetland areas. PFC determinations include ratings of PFC, functioning at risk with an upward 

trend (FAR-UP), functioning at risk with no apparent trend (FAR-NA), functioning at risk with a downward 

trend (FAR-DN), and non-functioning (NF). From 2001 to 2007, PFC assessments were conducted on 

225 miles of riparian areas crossing BLM-managed lands within the planning area. Riparian areas on 

non-BLM lands in the planning area were not assessed.

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

characteristics such as streambank stability, pool frequency and quality, and riparian vegetation. Sitespecific instream habitat condition data were collected in 2006 using a condensed version of the R1/R4 

(Northern Intermountain Regions) Fish and Fish Habitat Handbook (Overton et al., 1997) on 

approximately 40 miles (13 streams) of the PFC-assessed riparian areas to validate the PFC 

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

data is described under Methods and Assumptions in the Riparian Areas and Wetlands section of 

Chapter 4. The miles of stream with each PFC rating are summarized in Table 3-12. Table 3-13 contains 

the PFC data for wetlands evaluated as of fall of 2011. 

Based on these assessments, 85 miles (38%) of riparian areas in the planning area are at PFC; 128 

miles (57%) are functioning at risk (FAR), and 12 miles (5%) are NF. The FAR ratings include 51 miles in 

FAR-UP (23%), 30 miles in FAR-DN (13%), and 47 miles in FAR-NA (21%). The characteristics of 

riparian areas within each rating category are discussed in the sections below.

Table 3-12. Proper Functioning Condition Ratings for Riparian Areas

PFC Rating Miles

PFC 85

FAR-NA 47

FAR-DN 30

FAR-UP 51

NF 12

Total 225

Table 3-13. Proper Functioning Condition Ratings for Wetlands

Functional Rating Number of Wetlands Acres of Wetlands

PFC 9 65

FAR 3 57

Total 12 122

The following summary of definitions used for PFC assessments were compiled from the descriptions 

provided in BLM TR 1737-15 (Prichard et al., 1998a). These descriptions are intended to generally 

describe each of the rating categories.

Proper Functioning Condition

Riparian and wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody 

debris is present to:

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

water quality;

Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development;

Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge;

Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action;

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

duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands

•

3-24

Support greater biodiversity.

Based on the PFC assessment forms, riparian reaches at PFC have a floodplain above bankfull that is 

inundated in relatively frequent events. The stream channel sinuosity (the degree to which a stream 

channel curves or meanders laterally across the land surface), width/depth ratio, and gradient are in 

balance with the landscape setting (i.e., landform, geology, and bioclimatic region). The riparian area is 

widening or has achieved its potential extent and the upland watershed is not contributing to riparianwetland degradation. The riparian vegetation has a diverse age class distribution and diversity of riparianwetland vegetation (recruitment for maintenance/recovery). Streambank vegetation is comprised of those 

plant communities that have root masses capable of withstanding high streamflow events. There is 

adequate riparian-wetland vegetative cover present to protect streambanks and dissipate energy during 

high flow events. Where beaver dams are present, the dams are actively maintained and stable. The 

stream is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied by the watershed (i.e., no excessive 

erosion or deposition) and the stream is vertically stable. The floodplain and channel characteristics, such 

as rocks, overflow channels, coarse and/or large woody material, are adequate to dissipate energy.

Functioning-At-Risk, Upward Trend

Riparian-wetland areas that are functioning-at-risk are in a functional condition, but an existing soil, water, 

or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation. Riparian-wetland areas given a FAR rating 

possess some or even most of the elements in the PFC definition, but at least one of its attributes and/or 

processes gives it a high probability of degradation with a relatively high flow event. Streams that are 

vertically unstable would be rated as FAR regardless of other factors. The FAR-UP rating indicates the 

riparian-wetland area is recovering or moving toward a rating of PFC. This can occur after management 

changes have been implemented that are improving the riparian-wetland condition. Vegetation 

characteristics, such as recruitment and establishment of hydric vegetation species, may also indicate an 

upward trend in riparian-wetland condition. 

Functioning-At-Risk, No Apparent Trend

Riparian-wetland areas that are functioning-at-risk with no apparent trend are in a functional condition, 

may be susceptible to degradation, and there is insufficient evidence to make a determination that there 

is a trend toward PFC (upward) or away from PFC (downward). Additional assessment would be required 

to determine trend for these sites.

Functioning-At-Risk, Downward Trend

Riparian-wetland areas that are functioning-at-risk with a downward trend have an existing soil, water, or 

vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to degradation. Riparian-wetland areas given a FAR-DN 

rating may possess some of the elements in the PFC definition, but several of its attributes and/or 

processes give it a high probability of degradation with a relatively high flow event. Riparian-wetland 

areas rated as FAR-DN are in a declining condition and should be further assessed to determine if the 

factors contributing to the unacceptable conditions are within BLM management control.

Non-Functioning

Non-functional riparian-wetland areas clearly lack the elements listed in the PFC definition. These areas 

are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy 

associate with high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, or providing habitat 

for fish and wildlife values. The conditions that result in a NF rating are often related to lateral or vertical 

channel instability, a lack of vegetation capable of protecting streambanks, or bedload movement being 

so far out of balance that channel characteristics are essentially non-functioning.

Riparian areas and wetlands rated for PFC using the definitions provided above also considered the 

potential and capability of the riparian-wetland area within the assessment reach. The capability and 

potential of natural riparian-wetland areas are characterized by the interactions of three components: 

hydrology, vegetation, and erosion/deposition (soils). The following definitions, as described in BLM TR 

1737-11 (Prichard et al., 1998b) and TR 1737-15 (Prichard et al., 1998a), were used during PFC 

assessments when considering the capability and potential of a riparian-wetland area: 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Fish

3-25

3

3

•

•

•

•

• Potential - The highest ecological status a riparian-wetland area can attain given no political, social, 

or economic constraints, and is often referred to as the potential natural community. In general, the 

higher the ecological status, the closer the site is to potential.

Capability - The highest ecological status a riparian-wetland area can attain given political, social, or 

economic constraints, which are often referred to as limiting factors. The capability applies to 

constraints that are not natural limiting factors. Capability only applies to constraints that cannot be 

eliminated or changed through a management action (e.g., a stream reach with reduced flows or 

dewatered due to an irrigation dam or hydroelectric dam that diverts water).

3.3.6 Fish and Wildlife

3.3.6.1 Fish

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

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

Aquatic species identified on the BLM Sensitive Species Lists for Idaho and Nevada, and

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

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

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

and Non-Game Fish Species and Aquatic Nuisance Species.

Game and Non-Game Fish Species

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

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

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

fish stocking programs. Non-game fish are native fish not managed by angler harvest regulations, but are 

important as forage fish for other fish and wildlife species.

Game fish commonly pursued by anglers include walleye (Sander vitreus), largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), black crappie

(Pomoxis nigromaculatus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdnerii), white sturgeon (Acipenser 

transmontanus), kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) . 

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

Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates section.

Except for mountain whitefish, white sturgeon, and redband trout, these fish are not native to the planning 

area, but were stocked into reservoirs by IDFG to provide a recreational sport fishery. Historically, 

hatchery rainbow trout were also stocked by IDFG and NDOW in redband trout and bull trout streams.

Non-native game fish in the planning area primarily occur in larger rivers and reservoirs, which have 

warmer water temperatures than the smaller stream habitats. On occasion, these fish have migrated to 

tributary streams where they compete with non-game fish for food and cover (BLM, 2006b). Salmon Falls 

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

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

fishery for rainbow trout.

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

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

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

Salmon Falls Reservoir.
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Fish

3-26

The planning area contains sixteen native non-game fish species which are members of the Cottidae 

(sculpin), Catostomidae (sucker), and Cyprinidae (minnow) families. These fish generally occur in the 

lower elevation, warmer water stream habitats. Four species of sculpin (Shoshone sculpin [Cottus 

greenei], mottled sculpin [Cottus bairdii], Paiute sculpin [Cottus beldingii], and shorthead sculpin [Cottus

confusus]) are confirmed present in 14 streams in the planning area and assumed to be present in 

additional streams. Members of the sculpin family are relatively short-lived, requiring well-oxygenated 

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

successful spawning, egg survival, food, and cover.

Three species of sucker are found in 14 streams in the planning area. One species, the large-scale 

sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus); can tolerate the warmer water temperatures commonly found in 

larger river systems like the Snake River. The other two species of sucker (mountain sucker [Catostomus 

platyrhynchus] and bridgelip sucker [Catostomus columbianus]) are found in cool, fast-moving streams.

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

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

(Acrocheilus alutaceus), redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), 

longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), peamouth chub (Mylocheilus caurinus), leopard dace

(Rhinichthys falcatus), northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), and Utah chub (Gila atraria). 

These species are confirmed to be present in 15 streams in the planning area and assumed to be present 

in additional streams. They can occupy a variety of habitats and stream conditions and adapt well to 

different environments and water temperature regimes.

IDFG’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005) identified 229 Species of Greatest 

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

conservation and management of these species The strategy provides recommendations for actions to 

improve the population status and habitat conditions of SGCN, describes an approach for long-term 

monitoring, and complements other conservation strategies, funding sources, planning initiatives, and 

legally mandated activities. The SGCN includes all Federally listed and Candidate species, as well as the 

majority of the BLM sensitive and watch species (species appearing to have downward population 

trends). Species in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy are considered general wildlife 

unless designated by BLM as sensitive or classified as Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, or Candidate 

under the ESA by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. IDFG’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy (2005) identified leopard dace as a SGCN because of changes in taxonomy, resulting in a lack 

of essential information (i.e., abundance and population trend) pertaining to its status. The leopard dace 

is not currently on the BLM Sensitive Species List and is not managed as a special status species. 

Aquatic Nuisance Species

Aquatic nuisance species are those plants and animals that are not native to an area, have the potential 

to spread uncontrollably, and can cause significant ecological or economic harm. The Idaho Invasive 

Species Council (2007) prepared a supplement to its 2005 Strategic Action Plan for Invasive Species to 

include an Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan for the State of Idaho. The plan was prepared as a statewide 

effort to limit the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species

The 2007 Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan identified eight high-priority aquatic nuisance species as 

present in the planning area (Table 3-14). These species are considered by the Idaho Invasive Species 

Council as likely to have an adverse impact to native aquatic resources, but are still in a potentially 

containable state with areas of local eradication possible. One additional aquatic nuisance plant species, 

hydrilla, has been found in the planning area since the Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan was published in 

2007.

Table 3-14. Aquatic Nuisance Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name General Location by Watershed

Asian clam Corbicula fluminea Snake River and perennial tributaries

Curly-leaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus Snake River and perennial tributaries
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wildlife

A

B

C

D

A

B 

C 

D 

3-27

Common Name Scientific Name General Location by Watershed

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, Snake River 

and perennial tributaries

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticallata Bruneau River below Hot Creek

New Zealand mudsnail Potamopyrgus antipodarum Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, Snake River 

and perennial tributaries, Salmon Falls Creek

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, Snake River 

and tributaries, Salmon Falls Creek

Salt cedar (Tamarisk) Tamarix ramosissima Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, Salmon Falls 

Creek

Whirling Disease parasite Myxobolus cerebralis Upper Salmon Falls Creek, Salmon Falls 

Reservoir

Yellow iris Iris pseudacorus Snake River, Salmon Falls Creek

Eurasian watermilfoil has not been confirmed present in the planning area.

Hydrilla was found in the lower Bruneau River in January 2008. 

Purple loosestrife has not been confirmed present in the Jarbidge River.

Yellow iris is present in Twin Falls County but has not been identified in the planning area.

Note: The Idaho Invasive Species Council report identifies aquatic and invasive species occurrence by county; these 

species may not occur in all locations in the county.

Source: (IISC, 2007). 

The New Zealand mudsnail is a non-native aquatic snail first documented in the Middle Snake River from 

the C.J. Strike Reservoir upstream to the American Falls Reservoir in 1987. The exact time of arrival and 

source of the snails are unknown. These snails select river habitats similar to those used by the Snake 

River special status snails and can rapidly develop high-density colonies that can grow to 500,000 snails 

per square mile in some locations (FWS, 2007). The continued expansion of the New Zealand mudsnail 

in the Snake River poses an increased risk for a decline in special status aquatic snails as they can outcompete native snails for food and habitat.

3.3.6.2 Wildlife

Over 300 vertebrate species are present in the planning area. Vertebrates are typically divided into the 

following general categories: fish (see Fish section), amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The 

number of species in each of the categories found in the planning area is identified in Table 3-15. 

Table 3-15. Number of Vertebrate Wildlife Species Found in the Planning Area by Wildlife Category

Category Number of Species Number of Non-Native Species

Amphibians 8 1 

Reptiles 18 0 

Birds ~ 220 ~ 8 

Mammals ~ 60 5 

Wildlife are classified by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) and the Nevada Department of 

Wildlife (NDOW) into several broad categories, including big game, upland game, migratory game birds, 

furbearing animals, protected non-game, and unprotected wildlife. IDFG and NDOW set hunting and 

trapping seasons, issue tags and licenses, establish methods of harvest, and develop population 

management and harvest objectives for game animals, upland game, and furbearing animals. States 

coordinate with the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the management of migratory game birds. The BLM is 

primarily responsible for habitat management for wildlife species. 

Big Game

Big game in the planning area include elk (Cervus canadensis), mountain lion (Felis concolor), mule deer

(Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), and California bighorn sheep (bighorn 

sheep[Ovis canadensis californiana]). Although a hunted big game species, bighorn sheep are a BLM 

sensitive species and are discussed in the Special Status Wildlife section. 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wildlife

3-28

Elk

Elk numbers increased in the planning area after transplants were released on Forest Service land in 

northern Nevada by NDOW during the 1990s. Forty-seven elk were released in the Jarbidge Mountains in 

1990, thirty one in 1991, and fifteen in 1995 (NDOW, 2012a). NDOW is currently managing for a postharvest herd of 1,200 elk in the Jarbidge Mountains. One hundred sixty-eight elk were introduced in the 

Bruneau River area between 1994 and 1997 (NDOW, 2012a). Within the Bruneau River drainage, NDOW 

is managing the herd within the confines of seasonal carrying capacities. As populations expanded, some 

of these transplanted elk from northern Nevada moved into the planning area. Based on aerial surveys, 

Martin (2007) estimated 15% to 20% of the Nevada elk spent a portion of the winter in Idaho. Future 

alterations to habitat quality and quantity may increase or decrease overall carrying capacity of the 

Bruneau River elk herd. NDOW is currently utilizing harvest to curb herd growth; the agency estimates 

that current elk numbers are 1,800 for the Jarbidge Mountains and 2,700 for the Bruneau River (NDOW, 

2012a).

Habitats used by elk within the planning area include aspen stands, mountain mahogany and mountain 

shrubland areas, sagebrush steppe, grasslands, riparian areas and canyonlands. Elk diets are diverse, 

varying with habitat, vegetative abundance and diversity, area, season, and other factors. In an overview 

of elk ecology, Peek (2003) noted elk diets include a variety of grasses, forbs (herbaceous broadleaf 

plants), and browse (woody plants). In a review of elk nutritional requirements and food habits, Nelson 

and Leege (1982) list more than 300 species of forbs, grasses, and woody plants that are eaten by elk. In 

the aspen and sagebrush habitats of the Jarbidge Mountains, Beck and Peek (2005a) reported elk 

consumed grasses (18% to 60%), forbs (30% to 55%), and browse (10% to 35%) in spring, but by 

summer forbs dominated elk diets (59% to 78%). Elk consumed less browse from summer into early fall

(0% to 4%) (Beck and Peek, 2005a). Nutritional quality (crude protein and digestible energy) of grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs declined from early summer through early fall (Beck and Peek, 2005b). In an analysis 

of 72 studies on elk winter diets in 10 western states including Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, 

Christianson and Creel (2007) reported that elk preferentially consumed grasses until constrained by 

other factors. Winter severity (primarily snow depth and hardness) is one factor which constrained 

foraging conditions shifting elk diets (Christianson and Creel, 2007). The conversion of portions of the 

planning area from sagebrush steppe to grassland has not hindered the expansion of elk into the northern 

half of the planning area. The winter period for elk usually runs from November 15 through April 30, 

whereas calving season occurs from May 1 through June 30.

Mountain Lion

Mountain lions are the largest predator in the planning area. Mountain lions primarily prey on mule deer 

(Holmes and Laundré, 2006), but may also prey on elk, bighorn sheep, and a variety of smaller 

mammalian prey (Currier, 1983; Pierce and Bleich, 2003). The majority of mountain lion observations 

have been associated with canyons. Mountain lions are widespread but occur at low densities in the 

planning area. Resident mountain lions establish comparatively large territories, with males usually 

maintaining larger home ranges than females (Pierce and Bleich, 2003). In a radio telemetry mountain 

lion study in eastern Cassia County, Idaho over a 14-year period, the average summer home range of 20 

female mountain lions was 24.7 square miles (Laundré and Loxterman, 2007). Home range size varies 

seasonally and yearly (Currier, 1983), and may be different in the planning area than in eastern Cassia 

County. Mountain lions breed year-round. No important seasonal periods are identified for mountain lions.

In Wyoming, Logan and Irwin (1985) found that mountain lions generally avoided sagebrush-grasslands 

with gentle (less than 20% slope) topography, but preferred areas with steep and rugged topography 

(greater than 50% slope). In southeastern Idaho, Holmes and Laundré (2006) similarly reported mountain 

lions avoiding open (sagebrush) habitat. Unlike the study areas in Wyoming and southeastern Idaho, 

coniferous forests are limited to primarily juniper which is generally limited to a few draws and canyons 

within the planning area.

IDFG authorizes mountain lion hunting based on a quota system. If the quota is reached for an area 

before the season ends, the hunt is closed for that area. IDFG manages hunt units 46 and 47, which lie 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wildlife

A

A

A

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

B B

A

B

3-29

primarily within the planning area, as areas for the quota. Mountain lion harvest is generally low in these

hunt units (Table 3-16). 

Table 3-16. Idaho Mountain Lion Harvest in the Planning Area (Units 46 and 47)

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Total Harvest 2 8 6 4 4 2 4 1 1 0 3 

Note: Quota harvest information should not be used to imply a population trend.

Source: (IDFG, 2012c). 

Mule Deer

Mule deer are the most abundant and widespread big game animal species in the planning area. 

Substantial numbers of mule deer from Nevada migrate into the eastern part of Owyhee County (IDFG, 

2010b), which includes much of the western part of the planning area. The Owyhee population 

management area contains Idaho hunt units 40, 41, 42, 46, and 47, or all of Owyhee County and the 

western part of Twin Falls County. Hunt units 46 and 47 lie primarily within the planning area. Mule deer 

numbers have been increasing since the winter of 1992 (IDFG, 2008a). Mule deer harvest reports for the 

Owyhee population management unit indicate a total harvest of approximately 2,710 in 1988, which 

declined to 1,110 in 1993 (IDFG, 2010c). The 2011 total harvest for the Owyhee population management 

unit was approximately 1,790 (IDFG, 2012d). Some harvest data for hunt units 46 and 47 since 2000 are 

available, but the harvest data are confusing. Small portions of hunt units 46 and 47 are east of the 

planning area and most years controlled hunt data included combined harvest for multiple hunt units 

which lie outside the planning area. The planning area includes only a small portion of Nevada hunt units 

71 and 72. Table 3-17 presents the harvest data for hunt units 46 and 47.

Table 3-17. Idaho Mule Deer Harvest in the Planning Area (Units 46 and 47)

Year

Mule Deer Harvest

General Hunt Controlled Hunt Total Harvest

Unit 46 Unit 47 Unit 46 Unit 47

2000 217 9 0 52 278

2001 220 1 0 47 268

2002 208 2 0 35 245

2003 188 0 0 47 235

2004 239 29 0 46 314

2005 239 4 0 55 298

2006 306 4 0 60 370

2007 386 0 0 61 447

2008 271 2 0 55 328

2009 417 2 0 52 471

2010 358 2 0 58 418

2011 374 5 0 58 437

Harvest data for controlled hunts were combined for hunt units 46 and 47 by IDFG.

Harvest data for controlled hunts were combined for hunt units 47, 54, 55, and 57 by IDFG.

Note: Harvest data were used because population data were not available. 

Source: (IDFG, 2012d). 

The habitat requirements of mule deer in the planning area vary seasonally. Aspen and mountain 

mahogany stands, mountain shrub communities, and riparian areas are important seasonal habitats for 

mule deer during fawning, foraging, hiding, and migrating. In the spring, mule deer fawning habitat is 

characterized by dense stands of deciduous or coniferous trees or shrubs with diverse herbaceous 

understory. Mule deer winter range is characterized by low elevation, sagebrush steppe with southern 

exposures and mixed shrub-grasslands. The winter period for mule deer usually runs from November 15 

through April 30, whereas fawning season occurs from May 1 through June 30.

Mule deer diets are varied and contain a wide variety of browse, forbs, grasses, sedges, and rushes 

(Mackie et al., 2003). Mule deer diets shift between seasons, plant communities, and individuals (Mackie 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wildlife

3-30

et al., 2003). In the Jarbidge Mountains of northern Nevada, summer mule deer diets were composed of 

about 30% browse, 64% to 72% forbs, and 2% to 5% grasses (Beck and Peek, 2005a). Mule deer diets 

consist of some browse year-round, particularly in the fall and winter. Greater amounts of grasses and 

forbs are consumed in the spring and summer.

Pronghorn

Pronghorn are widely distributed in the planning area. Based on harvest information, pronghorn numbers 

have had a strong upward trend since 1988 (IDFG, 2010c; 2012f). During this time, harvest fluctuated 

widely between 1992 and 2011 but has not dropped below 75 since 1991. In 2009, IDFG made all 

pronghorn hunt opportunities controlled hunts. Pronghorn harvest has more than doubled from 1988 to 

2011. Table 3-18 presents the harvest data for hunt units 46 and 47, which are primarily in the planning 

area.

Pronghorn are adapted for living in open habitats (Byers, 2003) including grassland and sagebrush 

steppe. Pronghorn prefer open country with unrestricted directions of travel and lines of sight (Byers, 

2003). Females breed from mid-September into October and the fawns are born about 250 days later 

(Byers, 2003), during mid-May to June.

Pronghorn consume a variety of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. When available, forbs are preferred by 

pronghorn (Yoakum, 2004a), whereas grasses are used less often, even though they are available, 

indicating that pronghorn are selecting against grasses in their diet (Yoakum, 2004b). Pronghorn are 

selective feeders; the percent plant species composition of the plant community does not reflect the 

percent species composition of the diet (Byers, 2003; Yoakum, 2004b). Diets change in response to 

location, season, weather, and habitat used. When forage is succulent, pronghorn may go without 

drinking for days even though water is available (Beale and Smith, 1970).

In Idaho, Smyser and others (2005) reported that fecal nitrogen scores (an indirect measure of pronghorn 

nutrition) were significantly lower in lactating pronghorn populations in Eastern Owyhee and Pahsimeroi 

areas compared to three other populations in the State. They also found the Eastern Owyhee population 

was significantly lower in diaminopimelic acid than the other populations. Smyser and others (2005) noted 

this data supported the hypothesis that nutrition on summer range could limit pronghorn populations, but 

could not refute other mortality factors or the interaction between nutrition and other factors.

Pronghorn are more likely to crawl under or through fences, but they also occasionally leap fences

(Byers, 2003; Kindschy et al., 1982; Yoakum, 1978). One study in a portion of Utah and Colorado 

reported that 81% of the pronghorn in that area jumped fences (Harrington and Conover, 2006). 

Harrington and Conover (2006) hypothesized the percentage of antelope observed jumping fences may 

be attributed to rugged terrain broken by gullies and ravines and a higher density of fences. In Wyoming, 

pronghorn cross wildlife-friendly fences; however, they cross at half the level expected (Sheldon et al., 

2006). Sheldon and others (2006) note that, “Finally, wildlife-friendly fence is not immediately permeable 

to pronghorn. Wildlife-friendly fence may be a barrier to some pronghorn during unfavorable weather and 

may require time for others to become familiar with the fence.” Twelve of the 96 observed ungulate 

mortalities in barbed wire fences were pronghorn in the Utah and Colorado study (Harrington and

Conover, 2006). Harrington and Conover (2006) stated, “Regardless of their cause, the high density of 

carcasses near fences indicate that fences can kill ungulates by methods other than ensnaring them.” 

Fencing can result in hazards or even barriers to pronghorn movements despite being built to wildlifefriendly specifications. In some instances pronghorn may not be able to negotiate fences due to injury or 

malnutrition during harsh winters, resulting in death near fences.

Table 3-18. Idaho Pronghorn Harvest for Hunt Units 46 and 47

Year Total Pronghorn Harvest

Unit 46 Unit 47 Total

1988 44 5 49

1989 65 5 70

1990 53 9 62
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wildlife

A

A

A

3-31

Year Total Pronghorn Harvest

Unit 46 Unit 47 Total

1991 78 17 95

1992 122 12 134

1993 106 17 123

1994 86 11 97

1995 76 13 89

1996 88 10 98

1997 92 10 102

1998 102 11 113

1999 90 16 106

2000 63 12 75

2001 99 17 116

2002 93 18 111

2003 113 16 129

2004 126 27 153

2005 93 18 111

2006 108 36 144

2007 124 34 158

2008 96 23 119

2009 105 7 112

2010 92 16 108

2011 91 18 109

Harvest data obtained from IDFG (2012f). 

Big Game Winter Range

Big game species may be affected by some activities and disturbance during periods when forage, 

vegetative cover, or environmental conditions can limit production, recruitment, and survival. These 

periods are commonly associated with winter and reproduction. Mule deer (Anderson and Wallmo, 1984), 

bighorn sheep (Shackleton, 1985), and elk (Green and Bear, 1990) reduce energy expenditures by 

resting more and eating less during the winter. For mule deer and elk in the north-temperate region, this 

usually coincides with natural declines in food availability (Parker et al., 2009). Reducing activity in winter 

may conserve fat and lean body reserves (Green and Bear, 1990). Unsworth and others (1999) reported 

that predation and malnutrition were primary sources of winter mortality in southwestern Idaho, Montana 

and Colorado. Causes of mule deer fawn mortality are difficult to interpret because of the complicated 

interactions between environmental variation, fawn body mass and condition, population density, 

predation, and other variables that ultimately determine mortality patterns across locations and years 

(Unsworth et al., 1999). Survival strategies used by wintering big game include altering behavior (e.g., 

migrating over either distance or elevation), digging/rooting for food below the snow surface, developing 

trail systems, selecting locations more conducive for locomotion and foraging, (Telfer and Kelsall, 1984) 

or minimizing energy loss by laying with legs tucked underneath, the back exposed to sun, and reclining 

while facing away from the wind (Byers, 2003).

Cover, aspect, and elevation are important elements of winter range, and, during severe weather, can be 

more important than forage availability. Winter range size is important because it allows flexibility in site 

selection during differing snow conditions and fluctuations in big game populations between years. 

Human disturbance of big game on winter ranges can displace animals from favored sites and increase 

energy expenditures. In mule deer, over-winter survival increased with heavier body weights (Unsworth et 

al., 1999). Nutrition in summer and fall influences body condition. Parker and others (2009) summarized 

the influence of diet and timing of nutrition play a role in population dynamics that interact with weather 

and predation. Snow depth influences the behavior of elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. In mule deer, snow 

depths of 6 to 12 inches can result in changes in habitat use (Mackie et al., 2003), 10 to 12 inches can 

impede movements (Mackie et al., 2003), and snow depths greater than 20 inches essentially preclude 

the use of an area by mule deer (Loveless, 1967 in Mackie et al., 2003). Pronghorn are less adapted to 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wildlife

3-32

cope with snow compared to bighorn sheep or elk (Telfer and Kelsall, 1984). When snow depths exceed 

12 inches, pronghorn experience difficulty in obtaining forage (Yoakum, 2004a). Snow depth and density 

increase the energy requirements for mule deer and elk movement (Parker et al., 1984). In south-central 

Oregon, Yoakum (1978) noted, “The extent of pronghorn travel is related to the amount of snow. The 

deeper the snow, the further the herd travels to lower elevations with less snow. These travels are not 

true migrations since pronghorn movements differ each year, but are related to annual snow depth.” He

also commented that pronghorn remained in the same general area which routinely had little snow.

IDFG and NDOW updated maps to depict the distribution of big game during the winter in the planning 

area (Map 17). NDOW used more than 10 years of winter flight information with the locations of elk and 

mule deer observations. IDFG used locations collected during winter flights that describe elk, mule deer, 

and pronghorn distributions, as well as field information from their respective staffs. Elk and mule deer are 

distributed from the Jarbidge Foothills northward. Elk have been seen near the Crows Nest Road in the 

northern third of the planning area and could be present further north. Mule deer are generally associated 

with the foothills and uplands near and in canyons. Pronghorn are usually found on plateaus between 

canyons. In general, elk and mule deer move northward from the Jarbidge Foothills in response to winter 

snow. Deer and elk have been observed on winter range in close proximity to pronghorn. Generally the 

northern part of the planning area (lower elevation) receives little snow, whereas snow is deeper and 

remains longer in the southern portion of the planning area. Because of variation between years and 

species at times being in relatively close proximity, big game winter range, rather than species-specific 

winter ranges, was delineated.

Several studies have shown that availability and nutritional quality of forage declines from spring to winter 

(Short et al., 1966; Hobbs et al., 1983; Torbit et al., 1985; Wagner and Peek, 2006). In Idaho, protein 

content of grasses (Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and bluegrass) and forbs is highest in the 

spring and declines into the winter (Wagner and Peek, 2006). Nutrition in forbs maintained higher crude 

protein levels than grasses (Wagner and Peek, 2006). Crude protein declined in bitterbrush from August 

through February (Wambolt et al., 1996). In the planning area crude protein in bitterbrush would also be 

expected to decrease from late summer through mid-winter. 

Sagebrush, bitterbrush, serviceberry, chokecherry, and four-wing saltbush are important shrub (browse) 

species on big game winter ranges within the planning area. Dominant browse species vary among plant 

communities. Other shrub species such as mountain snowberry, rubber rabbitbrush, green rabbitbrush, 

spiny hopsage, and shadscale may be important browse species. Rabbitbrush may be eaten by wintering 

big game. Sagebrush and other important browse species have been reduced or eliminated on portions 

of the winter range due to wildland fires. Rabbitbrush, which responds by sprouting following burning, is 

prevalent on some winter ranges (Tirmenstein, 1999a; 1999b). The nutritional value of big sagebrush 

(Welch and McArthur, 1979) and rubber rabbitbrush (Bhat et al., 1990) varies by subspecies and 

ascension.

BLM conducted big game winter range evaluations in the southern portion of the planning area in late 

2006 and early 2007. The evaluations indicated chokecherry, Utah serviceberry, and four-wing saltbush 

exhibited the strongest evidence of browsing (Klott et al., 2007). Where present, chokecherry and 

serviceberry showed higher levels of historic repeated browsing than the other shrubs (Klott et al., 2007). 

At the time of the winter range evaluation, Wyoming big sagebrush, low sage, and rabbitbrush had 

minimal current nipping (less than 5% at the time sampled; Klott et al., 2007). Nipping is a term used to 

indicate the percent of the number of twigs on shrubs which have been partially consumed (Stickney, 

1966). However, four-wing saltbush had 52% nipping. The apparently high degree of nipping was noted in 

areas where four-wing saltbush was seeded with crested wheatgrass as part of wildland fire rehabilitation. 

It is unknown what portion of this use was attributed to big game or fall and winter livestock grazing (Klott, 

et al., 2007). Occasionally wildlife nipping of browse can be high in localized areas. Areas of higher 

localized nipping may shift between years depending on factors such as snow depth and winter severity.

The Bench Pasture in 2007 had wildlife nipping as high as 26% at browse monitoring sites prior to 

livestock entering this pasture. The evaluation also showed moderate hedging within most Wyoming big 

sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush sites. Moderate hedging is typically expected on big game winter 

range. The majority of shrubs observed in the winter range evaluations were classified as mature; 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wildlife

3-33

however, more than 20% of Wyoming big sagebrush was categorized as decadent or dead in most 

habitats. Young browse were noted at most sites and should replace the decadent shrubs over time (Klott 

et al., 2007). This would help maintain a diversity of browse age classes.

For identified big game winter range in 2006 and 2007, 80 random points were sampled to evaluate 

winter range. Rabbitbrush was the dominant shrub at 6 of the 80 sites, providing 55% to 77% of the shrub 

cover (Klott et al., 2007). In the remaining 74 sites, rabbitbrush cover averaged 5% to 29% (Klott et al., 

2007). Rabbitbrushes are native shrubs that are typically uncommon or are found in small amounts (less 

than 5% cover). Both green rabbitbrush and rubber rabbitbrush usually increase from buds and seed 

following wildland fire (Tirmenstein, 1999a; 1999b) or other disturbances. The majority of sites with 

elevated rabbitbrush cover were within areas burned by wildland fires since the 1970s.

Upland Game

Upland game include mountain cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus nuttallii), gray partridge (also called 

Hungarian partridge [Perdix perdix]), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), chukar (Alectoris 

chukar), California quail (Callipepla californica), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), dusky grouse 

(formerly blue grouse [Dendragapus obscurus]), greater sage-grouse (sage-grouse [Centrocercus 

urophasianus]), Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (sharp-tailed grouse [Tympanuchus phasianellus]), and 

mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus). Sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and mountain quail are BLM 

sensitive species and are discussed in the Special Status Wildlife section.

Mountain Cottontail Rabbits

Mountain cottontail rabbits are habitat generalists widely distributed throughout the planning area. In 

2006, mountain cottontails were captured in mountain mahogany and mountain shrub habitats (Klott et 

al., 2007). Mountain cottontails were also observed in sagebrush habitats and riparian zones in the 

planning area. Mountain cottontails have occasionally been found near irrigated private land in the 

northern part of the planning area. Because mountain cottontail harvest was lumped with pygmy rabbit 

harvest prior to 2004, there are only short-term data for this species (Table 3-19). 

Upland Game Birds

Upland game birds are affected by a number of important seasonal periods when forage, vegetation 

cover, or environmental conditions can limit production, recruitment, and survival. These periods are 

commonly associated with winter and reproduction. The following estimated upland game harvest data is 

for the entire Magic Valley area, of which the planning area is only a small portion. Because a number of 

factors influence harvest numbers, caution must be used when drawing inferences about population 

trends.

Gray partridge, ring-necked pheasant, chukar, and California quail were introduced in Idaho in the early 

1900s. The distributions of gray partridge, pheasant, and California quail in the planning area are 

generally tied to farmland. Pheasant and, to a lesser extent gray partridge, are found in or near 

agricultural fields. Chukar are most commonly associated with incised canyons with riparian zones such 

as Salmon Falls Creek, the Jarbidge River, and the Bruneau River, but also are present in areas with 

steep topography associated with volcanic buttes such as Notch Butte and Twin Buttes. Gray partridge, 

quail, and chukar numbers commonly experience population fluctuations between years. Based on 

estimated harvest data for the Magic Valley obtained through telephone surveys of hunters, the 

populations of California quail and chukar have increased substantially (577% and 450%, respectively) 

since 1985. Gray partridge numbers have been generally stable since the mid-1980s despite large annual 

fluctuations (Table 3-19) (IDFG, 2010d). 

Since 2001, ring-necked pheasant numbers have been generally stable, but at lower numbers than the 

1980s. During the 1960s, the average number of pheasants per mile was 3.36; in the 1970s the average 

number of pheasants per mile dropped to 2.10, and from 2000 to 2009 the average number of pheasants 

per mile was less than 0.25 (IDFG, 2010d). Changes in farming practices (such as the proliferation of 

sprinkler irrigation and subsequent loss of suitable habitat such as canal and ditch banks and seasonal 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wildlife

A

B

A

B

3-34

wetlands), a reduction in residual grain stubble, and a shift to more alfalfa fields are major factors 

believed to be associated with the decline of pheasants in southern Idaho (Table 3-19; IDFG, 2010d).

Table 3-19. Estimated Upland Game Harvest for the Magic Valley Region (1985–2009) 

Year Pheasant California 

Quail Chukar Gray Partridge Mountain 

Cottontail

1985 51,330 1,375 2,092 3,644 NA

1986 33,810 4,170 3,125 4,012 NA

1987 25,854 1,599 3,394 4,427 NA

1988 25,278 2,685 1,805 2,578 NA

1989 20,521 2,362 1,546 1,921 NA

1990 36,602 6,446 4,312 9,361 NA

1991 24,411 5,624 3,871 2,805 NA

1992 27,347 3,199 1,487 3,932 NA

1993 24,769 5,195 4,360 6,741 NA

1994 24,629 5,300 3,371 5,188 NA

1995 20,289 14,215 5,788 8,834 NA

1996 17,551 19,003 7,273 22,053 NA

Gap in estimated harvest data. 

2001 19,368 13,345 7,250 10,133 NA

2002 11,677 4,001 6,966 2,753 NA

2003 13,622 4,706 11,110 7,277 NA

2004 15,317 12,949 11,450 9,272 9,675

2005 20,595 16,647 21,017 11,576 7,550

2006 39,964 38,522 26,076 19,827 9,164

2007 16,247 15,797 7,910 5,904 1,445

2008 16,094 11,049 4,708 6,699 1,091

2009 12,787 7,939 9,420 3,980 3,291

Prior to 2004, pygmy rabbit harvest numbers were combined with mountain cottontail rabbit harvest numbers, 

making data collected incomparable to mountain cottontail rabbit numbers alone in 2004 and later.

Mourning doves are found in a variety of habitats, including sagebrush steppe, riparian, grassland, and 

mountain mahogany/ mountain shrub. In Idaho, over the past 10 years, the mourning dove population 

was found to be stable; however, the 46-year trend shows a declining population (Seamans et al., 2011).

Although a few mourning doves are present in the planning area in the winter, the majority migrate.

Mourning dove data specific to the planning area are lacking.

No specific information is available regarding the status of dusky grouse populations in the planning area; 

however, this species typically occupies coniferous forests at higher elevations, a habitat that is not 

present within the planning area. While dusky grouse are rare in the planning area, dusky grouse have 

been observed in the Wilkins Island area. Dusky grouse likely move seasonally to the area from conifer 

forest associated with the Jarbidge Mountains to the south. Ruffed grouse are not found in the planning 

area.

Migratory Game Birds, Furbearing Animals, and Protected Non-Game Species

The planning area provides a variety of habitats for migratory gamebirds, furbearers, and non-game 

wildlife. Migratory game birds in the planning area include mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), ducks, 

geese, cranes, and other waterfowl. Furbearing animals include red fox (Vulpes vulpes), mink (Neovison 

vison), river otter (Lontra canadensis), badger (Taxidea taxus), beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat

(Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), weasel (Mustela spp.), and bobcat (Lynx rufus). The 

majority of wildlife species in the planning area are classified as protected non-game, including 

amphibians, reptiles, most birds, and several small mammals. These three categories of wildlife are 

addressed in the context of habitat groups below.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wildlife

A

A 

•

•

•

•

•

•

3-35

4

4

Several of these species are of conservation concern due to broad changes in habitat, State or regional 

population declines, or a general lack of information. Wildlife appearing to have downward population 

trends in other regions may be categorized by Idaho BLM as Watch species (Table 3-20).

Watch species are also referred to as BLM Type 5 Sensitive species.

 Watch species 

do not receive any additional management emphasis by BLM and are considered general wildlife.

Nevada does not have a watch wildlife species category.

Table 3-20. Idaho BLM Watch Wildlife Species Observed in the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Group

Reptiles

Night snake Hypsiglenia torquata Sagebrush steppe, 

Canyon/Cliff/Talus

Birds

Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii Aspen

Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis Riparian/Wetland, Aspen

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Grassland

Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus Mountain mahogany/Mountain 

shrub

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Grassland

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Mountain mahogany/Mountain 

shrub

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis Aspen

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Sagebrush steppe

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Sagebrush steppe, Grassland

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Sagebrush steppe, Aspen

Virginia’s warbler Vermivora virginiae Riparian/Wetland, Mountain 

mahogany/Mountain shrub

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Sagebrush steppe, Grassland

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Riparian/Wetland

Mammals

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans Canyon/Cliff/Talus

Western pipestrelle Pipistrellus hesperus Canyon/Cliff/Talus

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum Canyon/Cliff/Talus

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis Canyon/Cliff/Talus

Sage thrasher is also a sensitive species in Nevada and is addressed in the Special Status Wildlife section.

Both NDOW and IDFG prepared comprehensive wildlife conservation plans primarily for non-game 

wildlife categorized as sensitive/Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). Table 3-21 depicts 

SGCN wildlife found in the planning area that, for planning purposes, are considered general wildlife 

(IDFG, 2005). The criteria used by IDFG and NDOW for determining which species were included as

SGCN can be found in the methods section of the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

(IDFG, 2005). A partial list of the criteria follows:

 All full species with ranks indicating the species is imperiled throughout their range;

 Taxa Federally listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate species under the Endangered 

Species Act;

 Taxa listed by the State as endangered or threatened;

 Endemic species;

 Disjunct species; and

 Species with fragmented or isolated populations.
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wildlife

3-36

Table 3-21. Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Non-Special Status) Observed in the Planning 

Area

Common Name Scientific Name State Habitat Group

Birds

American avocet Recurvirostra americana ID, NV Riparian/Wetland

Bank swallow Riparia riparia NV Various

Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax ID Riparian/Wetland

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus ID Riparian/Wetland

Canvasback Aythya valisineria NV Riparian/Wetland

Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii NV Aspen

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis ID Riparian/Wetland 

Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii ID Riparian/Wetland

Common loon Gavia immer ID, NV Riparian/Wetland

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor NV Sagebrush Steppe

Dusky grouse Dendragapus obscurus NV Aspen

Great egret Ardea alba ID Riparian/Wetland

Merlin Falco columbarius ID Aspen

Northern pintail Anas acuta ID, NV Riparian/Wetland

Redhead Aythya americana NV Riparian/Wetland

Sandhill crane Grus Canadensis ID, NV Riparian/Wetland

Snowy egret Egretta thula ID Riparian/Wetland

Virginia’s warbler Verimvora virginiae ID, NV Mountain Mahogany/Mountain 

Shrub, Riparian/Wetland

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis ID Riparian/Wetland

Wilson phalarope Phalaropus tricolor ID, NV Riparian/Wetland

Mammals

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami ID, NV Sagebrush Steppe

Sagebrush vole Lemmiscus curtatus NV Sagebrush Steppe

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans NV Aspen

Water shrew Sorex palustris NV Riparian/Wetland

Western jumping mouse Zapus princepts NV Riparian/Wetland

Habitat Groups

Habitat Groups Used in Analysis

In order to analyze impacts to protected non-game species, furbearing animals, and migratory game 

birds, species occurring in similar habitats were grouped and placed into habitat groups. Habitat groups 

consist of one or more vegetation communities. Although a species may be listed in one group, the 

species may occur in other habitat groups perhaps in lesser numbers or during brief periods. Grouping 

wildlife that occur in similar habitats is a useful technique to analyze impacts at larger scales without 

analyzing each species individually (Wisdom et al., 2000). For example large-scale loss of sagebrush due 

to wildland fire would have a similar impact to members in the sagebrush group (least chipmunk, 

sagebrush vole, sage thrasher, etc.).

After reviewing State comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies in Nevada and Idaho and in 

cooperation with IDFG, seven wildlife groups were identified for analysis of wildlife in the planning area.

Table 3-22 provides a crosswalk for habitat groups created for the Final EIS and those in both State

wildlife conservation strategies.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wildlife

3-37

Table 3-22. Crosswalk for Habitat Groups

Habitat Groups in 

Jarbidge RMP/Final 

EIS

Habitat Groups Listed 

in the IDFG Plan

Habitats Groups Listed 

in the NDOW Plan

Aspen Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen 

Woodland

Intermountain West Aspen Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland 

Complex

Canyonland Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and 

Canyon Cliffs and Canyons

Duneland Intermountain Basins Active and 

Stabilized Dune Sand Dunes and Badlands 

Grassland Disturbed and Invasive Grass and 

Forb

Grasslands and Exotic Grasslands 

and Forblands

Mountain Mahogany/ 

Mountain Shrub

Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain 

Mahogany Woodland and 

Shrublands

Intermountain Basins Mountain 

Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland

Sagebrush Steppe Inter-Mountain Basins Big 

Sagebrush Steppe

Intermountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Riparian/Wetland

Great Basin Foothill and Lower 

Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland

Intermountain Rivers and Streams

Sources: (IDFG, 2005; NDOW, 2012b). 

Wildlife assigned to habitat groups and the habitat groups used are specific to this planning effort. A plan 

in a different area such as Idaho Falls would likely identify different groups or assign the same species to 

a different group. Five wildlife groups are related to vegetation: sagebrush steppe, aspen, 

riparian/wetland, mountain mahogany/mountain shrub, and grassland. The other two groups are related 

to non-vegetative components. The duneland group is defined by soil type, and the canyonland group is 

defined by geologic and topographic features of canyons, cliffs, and talus. The number of acres in each 

habitat group is identified in Table 3-23. 

Table 3-23. Acres of Wildlife Group Habitat within the Planning Area

Habitat Group Acres

Aspen 3,000

Canyonland 46,000

Duneland 700

Grassland 982,000

Mountain Mahogany/Mountain Shrub 16,000

Sagebrush Steppe 319,000

Riparian/Wetland No acreage calculated

Some habitat groups, such as aspen, occur primarily on the non-windy side of ridges, draws, basins, and 

riparian zones at higher (greater than 5,000 feet) elevation in the planning area, whereas other habitat 

groups, such as mountain mahogany, are generally restricted to higher elevation rocky soils. These sites 

are naturally patchy due to topographic or soil factors. Grassland habitats are often relatively continuous, 

occupying large expanses. The sagebrush steppe habitats in the planning area generally occur as islands 

within grasslands. Deep canyons interrupt grasslands and some sagebrush steppe habitats. 

Vegetation provides wildlife with food, cover, and structure. A number of wildlife species are found across 

multiple habitats and are considered habitat generalists. Habitat generalists include gopher snakes, 

rattlesnake, deer mouse, pack rat, coyote, badger, red-tailed hawk, and others. However the distribution 

of other wildlife species within the planning area is closely linked to a single habitat. Woodpeckers, 

sapsuckers, and nuthatches require trees to excavate cavities for nesting. Compared to shrubs, trees with 

larger branches provide support for some raptor nests. Tree trunks, branches and foliage provide areas 

for foraging. Shrubs also provide structure for some nesting birds; however, a number of birds nest on the 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wildlife

• •

• •

• •

3-38

ground. A few birds (e.g., common nighthawk and killdeer) prefer open, sparsely vegetated areas for 

nesting, whereas other species (e.g., short-eared owl, grasshopper sparrow, and waterfowl) nest in tall 

dense cover. Herbaceous cover is less important for species that nest in shrubs or trees; however, it is 

important for small mammals and birds that forage and travel on the ground. Thick stands of cheatgrass 

can be too dense and hinder the movement of some species, such as lizards, making habitat less 

suitable and potentially increasing predation of lizards in dense cheatgrass-infested areas (Newbold, 

2005). 

Sagebrush Steppe Group

The sagebrush steppe group includes species such as: 

Black-tailed jackrabbit Sagebrush lizard 

Least chipmunk Sagebrush vole

Chisel-tooth kangaroo rat Gray flycatcher

The sagebrush steppe group is associated with vegetation communities that typically have a shrub 

overstory, usually dominated by one or more sagebrush species, including low sagebrush, black 

sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, and basin big sagebrush. Spiny hopsage, 

bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, and other shrub species may be present in varying amounts. Vegetation 

communities associated with the sagebrush steppe group are shown in Table 3-24. 

Table 3-24. Vegetation Communities Associated with the Sagebrush Steppe Group by Vegetation 

Sub-Group

VSG Vegetation Community

Native Shrubland

Black sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass

Black sagebrush/bluegrass

Low sagebrush/bluebunch-Idaho fescue

Low sagebrush/bluegrass

Low sagebrush/Idaho fescue

Low sagebrush/squirreltail

Shadscale

Winterfat/Indian ricegrass

Greasewood/basin wildrye

Basin big sagebrush

Fourwing saltbush/needlegrass

Mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass-Idaho fescue

Mountain big sagebrush/Idaho fescue

Rabbitbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass

Rabbitbrush/bluegrass

Rabbitbrush/Idaho fescue

Rabbitbrush/Thurber’s needlegrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/bluegrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue

Wyoming big sagebrush/Indian ricegrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/thickspike wheatgrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/Thurber’s needles grass

Non-Native Perennial

Fourwing saltbush/crested wheatgrass

Rabbitbrush/crested wheatgrass

Rabbitbrush/intermediate wheatgrass

Non-Native Understory

Black sagebrush/crested wheatgrass

Low sage/crested wheatgrass

Basin big sagebrush/crested wheatgrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/crested wheatgrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/intermediate wheatgrass
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wildlife

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

3-39

VSG Vegetation Community

Annual Rabbitbrush/annual

Wyoming big sagebrush/annual

These communities occur at elevations ranging from 3,000 feet to over 7,500 feet. Shrub cover in 

sagebrush steppe vegetation communities ranges from 10% to 30%. Overstory shrub composition may 

include a variety of shrubs. The amount and composition of grasses and forbs are variable depending on 

precipitation, soils, elevation, and the amount, type, and degree of past disturbances. Historically, natural 

fires or fires set by the indigenous people (Native Americans) altered vegetation, creating a mosaic of 

intermixed shrubland and native grasslands in varying stages of succession. In addition, periodic cycles in 

jackrabbit numbers or eruptions in vole and insect populations likely contributed to areas of high 

vegetation utilization or defoliation/girdling of shrubs and the creation of different successional mosaics. 

Outbreaks of disease likely killed shrubs in patches.

Since 1987, 723,000 acres of sagebrush steppe habitat in the planning area have burned. This has 

altered the amount and distribution of sagebrush steppe habitat, particularly in the northern and central 

portions of the planning area. The Murphy Complex Fire burned roughly 500,000 acres in the planning 

area in 2007. Of this, roughly 200,000 acres were sagebrush steppe, which reduced the total amount of 

sagebrush habitat and increased the distance between large (greater than 640 acres) blocks of 

sagebrush habitat. This large fire also eliminated a number of remaining sagebrush islands from previous 

wildland fires. In 2011, nine areas of sagebrush exceeded 2,500 acres (Table 3-25). The largest 

sagebrush area is nearly 73,000 acres. Islands of sagebrush steppe less than 20 acres in size were not 

included because the vegetation mapping units were greater than 20 acres. Sagebrush steppe habitats 

are further fragmented by roads, trails, fences, water pipelines, and power lines.

Table 3-25. Attributes of Shrublands in the Planning Area 2011

Sagebrush Patch Size Category Quantity

20 – 160 acres 257 patches

160 – 640 acres 46 patches

640 – 2,500 acres 31 patches

2,500 – 10,000 acres 5 patches

10,000 – 30,000 acres 2 patches

30,000 – 50,000 acres 1 patch

> 50,000 acres 1 patch

Sagebrush provides structure to support the nests of some bird species, overhead cover for a number of 

ground-dwelling species, and hiding cover for birds and small mammals while foraging. Some wildlife 

species forage on sagebrush itself, while others forage on insects found on sagebrush stems and leaves.

Other wildlife consume grasses and forbs. Sagebrush and other shrubs provide important seasonal 

browse for big game. Dead brush stems and branches provide material for constructing nests for some

raptors such as red-tailed and Swainson’s hawks.

Aspen Group

The aspen group includes species such as:

American robin Red-breasted nuthatch

Cassin’s finch Mountain bluebird

Common flicker Sharp-shinned hawk

Cordilleran flycatcher Mountain chickadee

Downy woodpecker Tree swallow

House wren Yellow-rumped warbler

White-crowned sparrow
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wildlife

3-40

Aspen plant communities comprise less than 1% of the planning area and are included in the Native 

Shrubland VSG due to their small size and scattered distribution. Aspen communities have an overstory 

dominated by quaking aspen. Quaking aspen are generally short- to moderately-lived (50 to 100 years) 

trees that usually grow as interconnected clones. Aspen patches in the planning area are typically small, 

ranging from less than 1 acre to 20 acres. Tree size varies from less than 1 inch to 12 inches in diameter. 

In portions of the planning area, aspen stands are old and have few young trees. Understory shrubs in 

these communities can include mountain big sagebrush, wood rose, mountain snowberry, chokecherry, 

and serviceberry. Herbaceous vegetation may include Columbia needlegrass, Idaho fescue, Kentucky 

bluegrass, geranium, horsemint, and a variety of other species. Junipers are encroaching in some aspen 

stands; however, the condition of the majority of aspen stands has not been evaluated.

Aspen communities provide important habitats for foraging and fawning big game, and nesting and 

foraging birds and small mammals.

Riparian/Wetland Group

The riparian/wetland group includes species such as:

• American avocet • Mink

• Beaver • Muskrat

• Water shrew • Western jumping mouse 

• Great blue heron • Pacific chorus frog

• Black-necked stilt • River otter

• Red-winged blackbird • Lazuli bunting 

• Northern pintail • Belted kingfisher 

• Cinnamon teal • Spotted sandpiper

• Cordilleran flycatcher • Fox sparrow 

A variety of riparian/wetland plant communities occur in the planning area including semi-wet meadow, 

willow/graminoid, aspen, black cottonwood, and Rocky mountain juniper. These communities are 

associated with approximately 320 miles of perennial rivers and streams, 102 miles of ditches and canals, 

and an unknown acreage of wet meadows, seeps, and springs. The majority of these communities were 

not mapped in the vegetation mapping process as they were less than the 20-acre minimum mapping 

unit. Based on the amount of streams, these communities are estimated to occupy 1% of the planning 

area. Many of the semi-wet meadow communities (Native Grassland VSG) and juniper communities 

(Native Shrubland VSG) that were mapped are associated with riparian areas and wetlands.

Semi-wet meadow sites are usually dominated by a variety of grasses, rushes, sedges, and some forbs. 

Willow/graminoid sites may have one to five willow species as well as a variety of forbs, grasses, rushes, 

and sedges present. Willow heights can vary from 8 to 20 feet depending on species and age. Aspen and 

black cottonwood riparian zones contain taller trees with diverse understory vegetation. Junipers are 

replacing aspen and black cottonwood in the overstory at some sites, limiting growth of shrubs and 

herbaceous species in the understory. Rocky mountain/western juniper riparian areas such as those 

found along Buck Creek and portions of the East Fork of the Jarbidge River typically possess a less 

diverse understory. Willows, currant, and dogwood are usually limited to the stream edge when present. If 

the juniper canopy is closed and the site is minimally disturbed, moss occupies much of the ground 

surface. Grasses and forbs are limited to openings in the tree canopy in juniper dominated riparian areas. 

Riparian/wetland vegetation provides high-value habitat for a majority of wildlife in the planning area. The 

majority of terrestrial wildlife species may be found in these communities on at least a seasonal basis. For 

example, riparian communities provide fawning and calving habitat for mule deer and elk. Other wildlife 

species are found exclusively in these areas (e.g., water shrew, Pacific chorus frog, yellow-breasted chat, 

Wilson’s phalarope, and cinnamon teal).
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wildlife

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

3-41

Mountain Mahogany/Mountain Shrub Group

The mountain mahogany/ mountain shrub group includes species such as:

Black-throated gray warbler White-crowned sparrow 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Spotted towhee

Green-tailed towhee Virginia’s warbler

Mountain mahogany/ mountain shrub communities (deciduous mountain brush, evergreen mountain 

brush, and mountain mahogany) comprise less than 1% of the planning area; these communities belong 

to the Native Shrubland VSG due to their naturally small size and scattered distribution. Mountain 

mahogany is a long-lived, short-statured tree (3 to 35 feet tall) occupying rocky sites (Gucker, 2006) at 

elevations above 5,000 feet. Associated shrub species may include mountain big sagebrush, mountain 

snowberry, wild rose, serviceberry, and chokecherry. Native herbaceous species may include bluebunch 

wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, buckwheat, and geranium. Mountain shrub communities usually occur 

in small patches (1 to 30 acres) and include chokecherry, serviceberry, rose, and bitterbrush. Scouler 

willow and bittercherry are present at some sites. Because of shrub density, the herbaceous understory 

may be diverse but limited.

Although these plant communities cover small areas, they provide important seasonal habitats for certain 

wildlife species including big game winter range, fawning and calving habitat for mule deer and elk, and 

nesting and foraging habitat for birds and small mammals. 

Grassland Group

The grassland group includes species such as:

Brewer’s blackbird Montane vole

Grasshopper sparrow Savannah sparrow

Harvest mouse Long-billed curlew 

Horned lark Western burrowing owl

Lark sparrow Western meadowlark

Approximately 70% of the planning area is mapped as some form of grassland. Where present, native 

grassland represents an earlier seral stage of succession in which the shrub overstory was removed. 

Whether burned areas return to shrublands depends on a variety of factors. If cheatgrass subsequently 

dominates the site, the area may remain annual grassland. From the 1960s to the 1980s, areas were 

treated (burned, sprayed, chained, etc.) to remove sagebrush and planted with non-native perennial 

grasses. Through the 1990s, many areas burned by wildland fires were often seeded with primarily 

crested wheatgrass, but some seed mixes in the late 1990s included or were entirely native cultivars. 

Seeding non-native perennial grasses following wildland fires or as range improvement may alter the 

successional pathway. Wildland fires and intentional conversion of sagebrush steppe have increased the 

amount of grassland habitat in the planning area.

Grassland communities are dominated by grasses and typically have low amounts of shrub cover. Shrub 

cover is less than 2% in most grassland habitats throughout the planning area. Vegetation communities 

associated with the grassland group are shown in Table 3-26. 

Table 3-26. Vegetation Communities Associated with the Grassland Group by Vegetation SubGroup

VSG Vegetation Community

Native Grassland

Basin wildrye

Bluebunch wheatgrass

Bluegrass

Idaho fescue

Needlegrass

Thurber’s needlegrass

Western wheatgrass
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wildlife

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

•

•

3-42

VSG Vegetation Community

Non-Native Perennial Crested wheatgrass

Intermediate wheatgrass

Annual Annual

Savannah sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, western meadow lark, and short-eared owl prefer taller 

grassland habitats. Long-billed curlew nest in short grass areas; however, brood rearing occurs in areas 

with taller grass cover. Horned larks nest in both tall and short grass areas locally. Mosaics in residual 

herbaceous heights provide suitable habitat for all grassland species.

Canyonland Group

The canyonland group includes species such as:

Barn swallow Say’s phoebe

Canyon mouse Side-blotched lizard

Canyon wren Spotted skunk

Cliff swallow Western fence lizard

Golden eagle Western pipestrelle

Little brown bat Western rattlesnake

Long-legged myotis Western small-footed myotis

Night snake White-throated swift

Red-tailed hawk Yellow-bellied marmot

Rock wren Yuma myotis

The canyonland habitat comprises about 4% of the planning area. This habitat is associated with steep 

rocky slopes, canyons and cliffs in several larger drainages. The majority of the canyon habitats are 

associated with the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers as well as Salmon Falls and Clover Creeks. Other 

canyon areas include portions of Devil Creek, Sailor Creek, Poison Creek, and Cedar Creek. The steep 

slopes are frequently interrupted by cliffs, terraces, and benches. Cliff height varies substantially with the 

planning area; some cliffs can be less than 10 feet high, while others can be up to 900 feet.

Many of the areas mapped as breaks and barren vegetation communities (Unvegetated VSG) include 

canyonland habitats. Vegetation is present in gaps between rocks, but these areas were not mapped in 

the vegetation mapping process if they were too small to detect with the 20-acre minimum mapping unit. 

The presence of native grasses, including bluebunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye, and Sandberg 

bluegrass, varies with elevation and past disturbance. The shrub component is typically dominated by big 

sagebrush but may also include wood rose, currant, and limited amounts of rock oceanspray (Holodiscus 

dumosus). Canyons contain the majority of juniper in the planning area. Juniper stands in some locations 

are dense enough to limit growth of understory vegetation. Cheatgrass is prevalent in some portions of 

the canyons (Salmon Falls Creek, Clover Creek, Bruneau River, Jarbidge River, and Cedar Creek) that 

have received past disturbance primarily from wildland fire and, to some extent, livestock.

Cliffs provide nesting habitat for a variety of raptor and other birds and roosting areas for numerous bat 

species. Some talus slopes are used by reptiles for over wintering. Canyon areas also provide important 

security and winter habitat for mule deer. 

Duneland Group

The dunelands group includes species such as:

Leopard lizard

Ord’s kangaroo rat

Western whiptail

Duneland habitat is limited (less than 1%) within the planning area, found only in a few scattered areas at 

lower elevations (less than 4,000 feet) between the Bruneau Dunes State Park and Hagerman, Idaho. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wildlife

3-43

The dune landform consists of a series of alternating depressions and mounds formed by wind-deposited 

sand. A number of dunes and dune interspaces are sparsely vegetated. The majority of the dunes are low 

(3 to 10 feet). Duneland habitats include areas mapped as sand dune (Unvegetated VSG), as well as 

other vegetation communities that are too small to detect with the 20-acre minimum mapping unit.

The native plant communities in this habitat have been substantially altered by wildland fire. The 

understory contains varying amounts of cheatgrass and, in some cases, crested wheatgrass. Historically, 

the duneland understory would have included Indian ricegrass, needle-and-thread grass, and a number of 

forbs including annual lupine (Lupinus pusillus), annual milkvetch (Astragalus geyeri), purple nama

(Nama aretioides), sand lily (Leucocrinum montanum), sand penstemon (Penstemon acuminatus), pale 

evening primrose (Oenothera pallida), and scurf-pea (Psoralea lanceolata). The current shrub overstory is 

limited (less than 10% cover) or absent and includes basin big sagebrush, bitterbrush, or rabbitbrush. In 

several areas, the dunelands have been stabilized by plantings of crested wheatgrass. Wildland fires 

since the mid-1970s and invasion by cheatgrass have reduced native grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

Habitat Groups Considered But Not Analyzed

Open Water

This habitat was not included in the analyses because river flows and reservoir water levels are not 

managed by the BLM. Flows on some streams are diverted for use on private land. Flows on the Snake 

River are used for irrigation and to generate hydroelectric power. Reservoir levels are managed according 

to valid water rights, primarily irrigation and hydroelectric power generation. For information on fish or 

aquatic habitat and riparian condition see the Fish section.

Intermountain Basins Playas

Intermountain Basins Playas are listed in the NDOW (2005b) strategy. Playas in Nevada occur between 

several mountain ranges and are large in size. IDFG (2005) includes playas with wetlands. Playas within 

the planning area are generally small (less than 20 acres) and located in the plateaus above the Bruneau 

and Jarbidge River Canyons.

Wet Meadows, Marshland, Playas, Springs and Spring Brooks

There are numerous small seasonally wet meadows, marshes, seeps, springs and associated wetlands in 

the planning area. The majority of wetlands in the planning area occur in the Jarbidge Foothills. While the 

majority of the wetlands are not mapped, national wetlands inventory maps are available for the Snake 

River corridor. Wet meadows, marshland, springs, and spring brooks all have wetland vegetation similar 

to riparian areas and were therefore included in the riparian/wetland group. 

Unprotected Wildlife

Unprotected wildlife includes the house mouse, Norway rat, feral cat, starling, English sparrow, rock 

doves, jack rabbits, coyotes, weasels, skunks, and a few rodents. House mouse, Norway rat, feral cats, 

starlings, English sparrow, and rock doves are introduced species. They are usually associated with 

private lands and may be considered pests. Unprotected wildlife species are not addressed in detail 

because these animals are relatively abundant and widespread and are not likely to be affected by 

management actions in the alternatives.

Wildlife Tracts

From the 1960s into the 1980s, public land was conveyed to private ownership through the Desert Land 

Entry Act of 1877 and the Carey Act of 1894. To mitigate for the loss of habitat, BLM retained scattered 

parcels of land to be managed for wildlife. The lands were designated wildlife tracts under the provisions 

of the Sikes Act of 1960, as amended. In the planning area, 123 tracts were designated in three general 

areas: Grindstone Farms, Bell Rapids, and Blue Gulch (Table 3-27). Individual tracts ranged from 40 to 

about 900 acres. The management focus for the tracts was to provide habitat for upland game 

cooperatively with IDFG.
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Species

3-44

A

A

Table 3-27. Number and Acreage of Wildlife Tracts by Geographic Area

Geographic Area Number of Tracts Acreage

Bell Rapids 21 3,000

Blue Gulch 78 7,000

Grindstone 24 3,000

Total 123 13,000

A habitat management plan outlined management for the tracts and identified various projects for 

completion (BLM, 1976). Eight guzzlers were installed on the tracts to provide an upland water source. 

Water for the original guzzlers had to be trucked in to fill the storage tanks. These guzzlers were 

subsequently modified to collect precipitation to fill the tanks. Approximately 40% of the tracts were 

fenced. In the early 1980s, grasses and forbs were seeded and shrubs were planted on several of the 

tracts. Wildland fires in 2006 through 2011 removed most of the shrubs, resulting in new shrub restoration 

efforts.

Habitat Fragmentation and Infrastructure

Habitat fragmentation occurs when a large, fairly continuous tract of vegetation is converted to other 

vegetation types such that only scattered fragments of the original type remain (Faaborg et al., 1995).

Fragmentation impacts involve the interaction of a number of factors including: pattern (patch size, 

amount of edge per patch, distance between patches, and distribution of patches across an area); scale 

(local, regional); kind of habitats or plant communities; and wildlife species.

Routes (paved roads, gravel roads, jeep trails); power lines, telephone lines, pipelines, canals and fences 

are forms of infrastructure (Knick et al., 2011). Current infrastructure is presented in Table 3-28. Most 

infrastructure does not create a physical barrier to wildlife movements; however, infrastructure can be a 

source of mortality. In southern Idaho, mortality was incurred by several snake species struck by vehicle 

tires while crossing paved roads (Jochimsen, 2006). Locally, dead rattlesnakes, gopher snakes, garter 

snakes, and whipsnakes have been seen on gravel roads and jeep trails. Wildlife mortalities associated 

with vehicle collisions include the following: badgers, coyotes, skunks, mule deer, sage-grouse, passerine 

birds, hawks and owls, rabbits and a number of rodent species. In the planning area some barbed wire 

fences are a source of mortality to sage-grouse (Stevens et al., 2012) and sharp-tailed grouse (Smith, 

2012). Electrical distribution lines (Harness and Wilson, 2001) and transmission lines are known sources

of mortality to several raptors and other bird species.

Table 3-28. Amount and Type of Infrastructure on BLM Lands in the Planning Area

Infrastructure Type Quantity Density

Interstate 1 mile < 0.01 miles/mile2

Paved Roads 55 miles 0.03 miles/mile2

Other routes

Includes gravel/dirt roads, jeep trails, and trails. 

3155 miles 1.47 miles/mile2

Fences 1879 miles 0.88 miles/mile2

Electric distribution lines 129 miles 0.06 miles/mile2

Electric transmission lines 81 miles 0.04 miles/mile2

Communications sites 14 sites < 0.01 sites/mile2

In addition to dividing habitat patches, roads have been implicated as conduits for the establishment and 

spread of invasive non-native plants, such as cheatgrass, and noxious weeds, such as black henbane

(Gelbard and Belnap, 2003). Map 51 displays range infrastructure, including fences. Map 71 displays 

travel routes. 

3.3.7 Special Status Species

Special status species include species listed or proposed for listing as Endangered or Threatened under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), candidates for listing as Endangered or Threatened under 

the ESA (Candidate), and species designated by the BLM State Director as Sensitive. The BLM manages 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Species

3-45

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

special status species under the policy established in the BLM Manual 6840, in addition to requirements 

set forth under the ESA. State laws protecting species apply to BLM programs and actions to the extent 

that they are consistent with Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

Endangered or Threatened species are species listed by the Secretary of the Interior under the ESA after 

a final rule has been published in the Federal Register. Proposed species are species that have been 

proposed for listing as Endangered or Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and for which a proposed rule has been published in the Federal 

Register. Candidate species are species designated as candidates for listing as Endangered or 

Threatened by the FWS or NMFS and are included on a list published in the Federal Register. Candidate 

status indicates existing information warrants listing of the species, but other species have higher priority 

for listing.

Other special status species are those species designated as “sensitive” by the Idaho and Nevada BLM 

State Directors in cooperation with their respective State wildlife agencies (e.g., Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game and Nevada Department of Wildlife). Species are added to or removed from the BLM Sensitive 

Lists periodically, typically every five to seven years.

Idaho BLM ranks sensitive plant species into four types:

Type 1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species - These species are listed 

by the FWS as Threatened or Endangered, or they are Proposed or Candidates for listing under the 

ESA.

Type 2. Range-wide/Globally Imperiled Species - High Endangerment - These species have a 

high likelihood of being listed in the foreseeable future due to their global rarity and significant 

endangerment factors.

Type 3. Range-wide/Globally Imperiled Species - Moderate Endangerment - These species are 

globally rare with moderate endangerment factors. Their global rarity and inherent risks associated 

with rarity make them imperiled species.

Type 4. Species of Concern - These species are generally rare in Idaho with small populations or 

localized distribution and currently have low threat levels. However, due to the small populations and 

habitat area, certain future land uses in close proximity could significantly jeopardize these species.

Idaho BLM ranks sensitive fish and wildlife species into four types: 

Type 1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species - These species are listed 

by FWS or NMFS as Threatened or Endangered, or they are Proposed or Candidates for listing under 

the ESA.

Type 2. Range-wide/Globally Imperiled Species - These species are experiencing significant 

declines throughout their range with a high likelihood of being listed in the foreseeable future due to 

their rarity and/or significant endangerment factors.

Type 3. Regional/State Imperiled Species - These species are experiencing significant declines in 

population or habitat and are in danger of regional or local extinctions in Idaho in the foreseeable 

future if factors contributing to their decline continue.

Type 4. Peripheral Species - These are species that are generally rare in Idaho with the majority of 

the breeding range largely outside the State. 

Idaho BLM also added a Type 5 (Watch) category. Watch list species are not considered BLM sensitive 

species, and associated sensitive species policy guidance does not apply. Watch list species include 

species that may be added to the Sensitive Species List depending on new information concerning 

threats, species biology, or statewide trends. Wildlife species presently classified as Watch species are 

considered general wildlife.
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Plants

3-46

3.3.7.1 Special Status Plants 

Table 3-29 identifies the special status plants in the planning area. Because a portion of the planning area 

is in the State of Nevada, plants listed by the Nevada BLM, in conjunction with the Nevada Natural 

Heritage Program, as sensitive that occur or may occur in the planning area are also included. These 

plants are noted as NV in Table 3-29.

Table 3-29. Special Status Plants Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name 2012 Status

Annual/Biennial Forbs

Alkali cleomella Cleomella plocasperma Type 3

Desert pincushion Chaenactis stevioides Type 4

Least phacelia Phacelia minutissima Type 3, NV

Rigid threadbush Nemacladus rigidus Type 4

Slickspot peppergrass Lepidium papilliferum Type 1

Spreading gilia Ipomopsis polycladon (syn. Gilia polycladon) Type 3

White eatonella Eatonella nivea Type 4

White-margin waxplant Glyptopleura marginata Type 4

Perennial Forbs

American wood sage Teucrium canadense var. occidentale Type 3

Broadleaf fleabane Erigeron latus Type NV

Bruneau River phlox Linanthus glabrum (syn. Leptodactylon glabrum) Type 3, NV

Calcareous buckwheat Eriogonum ochrocephalum var. calcareum Type 3

California damasonium Damasonium californicum Type 4

Chatterbox orchid Epipactis gigantean Type 3

Cusick’s primrose Primula cusickiana var. cusickiana Type 5, NV

Davis peppergrass Lepidium davisii Type 3, NV

Four-wing milkvetch Astragalus tetrapterus Type 3

Greeley’s wavewing Cymopterus acaulis var. greeleyorum Type 3

Janish penstemon Penstemon janishiae Type 3

Lewis buckwheat Eriogonum lewisii Type NV

Matted cowpie buckwheat Eriogonum shockleyi (syn. Eriogonum shockleyi var.

shockleyi) Type 3

Newberry’s milkvetch Astragalus newberryi var. castoreus Type 4

Owyhee milkvetch Astragalus yoder-williamsii Type 3, NV

Packard’s cowpie 

buckwheat

Eriogonum shockleyi (syn. Eriogonum shockleyi var.

packardiae) Type 3

Simpson’s hedgehog 

cactus Pediocactus simpsonii Type 4

Snake River milkvetch Astragalus purshii var. ophiogenes Type 4

Spine-node milkvetch Peteria thompsoniae Type 4

Two-headed onion Allium anceps Type 3

Non-Vascular Plants

Earth lichen Catapyrenium congestum Type 4

Woven-spore lichen Texosporium sancti-jacobi Type 2

Special status plants can be rare due to associations with specific substrates or plant communities or 

because human-related disturbance has reduced population numbers, available habitat, or degraded 

habitat condition. Disturbances include, but are not limited to: construction and maintenance of roads, 

trails, or other access-related infrastructure; livestock grazing and associated facilities including wells, 

pipelines, troughs, corrals, and fences; cross-country motorized vehicle use; modification of habitat by 

noxious weeds or invasive plants; altered fire regimes; and establishment of uncharacteristic vegetation.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Plants

3-47

Sensitive plant populations are inventoried and monitored for population numbers, viability, and habitat 

quality following standard guidelines and protocols (IDFG, 2008b; FWS, 2001). Inventory and monitoring 

for special status plants are on-going and often associated with project planning and grazing permit 

renewals. Intensive special status plant inventory and monitoring occurred in the planning area between 

2003 and 2006. This inventory and monitoring provided information on population status, habitat quality, 

and threats to special status plants in the planning area (Table 3-30). Inventories were not complete or 

exhaustive, and some populations and habitat conditions are dynamic. Additional population monitoring of 

slickspot peppergrass is conducted and reported annually following the Habitat Integrity and Population 

Monitoring Protocol (Colket, 2005). 

Table 3-30. Status of Special Status Plants in the Planning Area

Name

Recent 

Inventory/ 

Monitoring

Population 

Vigor

Habitat 

Quality

Common Threats in the 

Planning Area

Annual/Biennial Forbs

Alkali cleomella No No Data No Data No Data

Desert pincushion Yes No Data No Data No Data

Least phacelia No No Data No Data No Data

Rigid threadbush Yes Poor Good Invasive plants

Slickspot 

peppergrass

Yes Fair Fair

Livestock, noxious weeds 

and invasive plants, wildland 

fire

Spreading gilia Yes Poor Fair Livestock, invasive plants

White eatonella Yes No Data No Data No Data

White-margin 

waxplant Yes No Data Fair to Poor Livestock, invasive plants, 

wildland fire

Perennial Forbs

American wood 

sage

No No Data No Data No Data

Broadleaf fleabane Yes Good Good Cross-country motorized 

vehicle use, invasive plants

Bruneau River 

phlox Yes Good Good Recreational activities

Calcareous 

buckwheat Yes Good Fair to Good

Livestock, noxious weeds 

and invasive plants, wildland 

fire

California 

damasonium No No Data No Data No Data

Chatterbox orchid Yes No Data No Data No Data

Cusick’s primrose Yes Good Good Juniper encroachment, 

wildland fire

Davis peppergrass Yes Good Fair to Good Livestock, invasive plants

Four-wing 

milkvetch No No Data No Data No Data

Greeley’s 

wavewing Yes Poor to Fair Poor to Fair

Livestock, noxious weeds 

and invasive plants, wildland 

fire

Janish penstemon Yes Good Poor to Fair Livestock, invasive plants, 

wildland fire

Lewis buckwheat Yes No Data No Data No Data

Matted cowpie 

buckwheat Yes Fair Fair

Cross-country motorized 

vehicle use, livestock, 

noxious weeds and invasive 

plants, wildland fire
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Plants

3-48

Name

Recent 

Inventory/ 

Monitoring

Population 

Vigor

Habitat 

Quality

Common Threats in the 

Planning Area

Perennial Forbs

Newberry’s 

milkvetch No No Data No Data No Data

Owyhee milkvetch Yes No Data No Data No Data

Packard’s cowpie 

buckwheat Yes No Data No Data No Data

Simpson’s 

hedgehog cactus Yes Good Good Energy development, 

livestock

Snake River 

milkvetch No No Data No Data No Data

Spine-node 

milkvetch Yes Good to 

Excellent Fair

Livestock, noxious weeds 

and invasive plants, wildland 

fire

Two-headed onion No No Data No Data No Data

Non-Vascular Plants

Earth lichen No Good Fair Livestock trampling

Woven-spore 

lichen No No Data No Data No Data

Note: This table reflects status as of August 2012. Special status plants with the notation of “no data” have past 

documented occurrences and potential habitat within the planning area, but have not been recently located.

The association of special status plants with specific vegetation communities and vegetation sub-groups 

(VSGs), the VSGs in which each species is currently found in the planning area, and the location of each 

species in the planning area by vegetation management area (VMA) are summarized in Table 3-31. 

Table 3-31. Native and Current Habitat and Location of Special Status Plants in the Planning Area

Species Native Habitat Habitat Currently 

Occupied (VSGA

) 

Location 

Vegetation Community VSG by VMA

Annual/Biennial Forbs

Alkali 

cleomellaB 

Greasewood/Basin wildrye

Native Shrubland

Annual A 

Salt desert shrub Non-Native 

Perennial A 

Desert 

pincushionB 

Salt desert shrub Native Grassland

Needlegrass with Indian ricegrass No Data No Data Native Shrubland Wyoming big sagebrush

Least 

phacelia

Aspen

Semi-wet meadow with tall forbs, Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D 

snow-drift areas

Rigid 

threadbushB 

Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland Annual A 

Wyoming big sagebrush Native Shrubland A 

Slickspot 

peppergrass Wyoming big sagebrush Native Shrubland

Annual AC

, B

Native Grassland AC

, B, C

Native Shrubland AC

, B, C

Non-Native 

Perennial AC

, B, C

Non-Native 

Understory AC

, B, C

Spreading 

giliaB 

Salt desert shrub

Native Shrubland

Annual A 

Low sagebrush Native Shrubland A 

Wyoming big sagebrush Non-Native 

Perennial A 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Plants

3-49

Species Native Habitat Habitat Currently 

Occupied (VSGA

) 

Location 

Vegetation Community VSG by VMA

Annual/Biennial Forbs

White 

eatonellaB 

Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland No Data No Data Wyoming big sagebrush

Whitemargin 

waxplantB 

Greasewood/Basin wildrye

Native Shrubland

Annual A 

Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland A, D

American 

wood sage

Semi-wet meadows, riparian 

areas, wetlands, or hot springs Riparian/Wetland Riparian/Wetland No Data

Perennial Forbs

Broadleaf 

fleabane

Low sagebrush Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D Wyoming big sagebrush

Bruneau 

River phlox Rhyolitic canyon walls NA NA B 

Calcareous 

buckwheat Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland

Annual A, B

Native Grassland A, B

Native Shrubland A, B

Non-Native 

Perennial A 

California 

damasonium

Semi-wet meadows, riparian 

areas, wetlands, or hot springs Riparian/Wetland Riparian/Wetland No Data

Chatterbox 

orchid

Semi-wet meadows, riparian 

areas, wetlands, or hot springs Riparian/Wetland Riparian/Wetland A 

Cusick’s 

primrose Mountain big sagebrush Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D 

Davis 

peppergrass

Large hard-bottomed playas 

within Wyoming big sagebrush 

and salt desert shrub

Native Shrubland

Native Grassland B 

Native Shrubland B 

Non-Native 

Perennial B 

Four-wing 

milkvetch Wyoming big sagebrush Native Shrubland Annual D 

Native Shrubland D 

Greeley’s 

wavewing

Needlegrass with Indian ricegrass Native Grassland Annual A 

Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland Native Grassland A, B

Native Shrubland A 

Janish 

penstemon

Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland Annual A 

Low sagebrush Native Grassland A 

Lewis 

buckwheat Low sagebrush Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D 

Matted 

cowpie 

buckwheat

Salt desert shrub

Native Shrubland

Annual A 

Wyoming big sagebrush

Native Grassland A 

Native Shrubland A 

Non-Native 

Perennial A 

Non-Native 

Understory A 

Newberry’s 

milkvetch

Salt desert shrub

Native Shrubland

Native Grassland D 

Wyoming big sagebrush

Native Shrubland D 

Non-Native 

Perennial D 

Non-Native 

Understory D 

Owyhee 

milkvetch

Low sagebrush Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D Mountain big sagebrush
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Plants

3-50

Species Native Habitat Habitat Currently 

Occupied (VSGA

) 

Location 

Vegetation Community VSG by VMA

Perennial Forbs

Packard’s 

cowpie 

buckwheat

Salt desert shrub

Native Shrubland

Native Shrubland A 

Wyoming big sagebrush Native Shrubland A, B

Simpson’s 

hedgehog 

cactus

Low sagebrush, Mountain big 

sagebrush Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D 

Snake River 

milkvetch Wyoming big sagebrush Native Shrubland No Data No Data

Spine-node 

milkvetch Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland

Annual A 

Native Shrubland A 

Non-Native 

Perennial A 

Two-headed 

onion Low sagebrush Native Shrubland Native Shrubland D 

Non-Vascular Plants

Earth lichen Salt desert shrub Native Shrubland Native Grassland B 

Native Shrubland C 

Wovenspore lichen Wyoming big sagebrush Native Shrubland No Data No Data

A Based on the 2016 projected vegetation composition (baseline). B Desert Annual Group. C Historic population, known only from collections.

Note: Data are for known current and historical populations. Projected VSG is for the broad vegetation type where 

populations are documented. Habitat might be present as inclusions within VSGs. Species with no data for projected 

VSGs and/or VMAs are listed as special status species for the planning area by the Idaho and Nevada State

Directors, but there are no known occurrences within the planning area boundary.

Data source: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Natural Heritage Program; and BLM field inventory.

Slickspot Peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum)

Slickspot peppergrass was listed in 2009 as an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Threatened species (74 

FR 52014, October 8, 2009). Following the listing, the State of Idaho and others filed a suit in Federal 

court challenging the listing. On August 8, 2012 the court issued a decision vacating the listing of 

slickspot peppergrass and remanded the matter back to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for 

further consideration. Until the matter is resolved by the FWS, Idaho BLM will continue to manage 

slickspot peppergrass as a species proposed for listing under the ESA, BLM Type 1.

Slickspot peppergrass is a branched, tap-rooted plant, averaging 2 to 8 inches tall but occasionally 

reaching up to 16 inches in height. The species flowers once, then dies, but can have either an annual or 

biennial life history. The annual form reproduces by flowering and setting seed, and dying in the first year; 

the biennial form occurs as a vegetative rosette the first year, then flowers, sets seed, and dies the 

second year. Biennial rosettes must persist through dry summer and cold winter conditions before the 

reproductive phase; consequently many die before they flower and produce seed. The proportion of 

annual versus biennial plants can vary widely in populations. However, annuals appear to be more 

common (Moseley, 1994).

Like many short-lived plants that grow in arid environments, the number of individual slickspot 

peppergrass plants can vary widely from year to year, depending on seasonal precipitation patterns. 

Because of this, the majority of a population likely occurs in the seed bank (Meyer et al., 2005). This

allows the population to survive periods when conditions are not favorable to its survival.

Slickspot peppergrass is native to the semiarid sagebrush-steppe of southwestern Idaho in areas that are 

currently or were formerly dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush in association with Thurber’s 

needlegrass or bluebunch wheatgrass. Under undisturbed conditions the understories of these plant 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

3-51

communities have a diversity of native perennial bunchgrasses and forbs with a well-developed biological 

soil crust. The slickspots where the plants occur are openings in the sagebrush matrix that are 

characterized by soils with high sodium content and distinct clay layers. The combination of physical and 

chemical characteristics of the slickspots provide for a unique habitat where few native species occur, 

with the exception of slickspot peppergrass. However, these conditions can be tolerated by some nonnative species that occur in the planning area, including cheatgrass, clasping pepperweed, and desert 

alyssum, as well as seeded non-native perennials such as crested wheatgrass. Under disturbance 

conditions, slickspots can become occupied or dominated by non-native plants. Loss of habitat due to 

wildland fire and invasion by non-native species are the primary causes of slickspot peppergrass 

population declines throughout the range (74 FR 52014 - 52064, October 8, 2009). These disturbances 

are evident in the planning area.

Within the planning area, slickspot peppergrass is associated with slickspots that cover a relatively small 

cumulative area within the larger sagebrush-steppe ecosystem. It is estimated that only 1% to 4% of 

slickspots are occupied by above-ground slickspot peppergrass plants in the Inside Desert portion of the 

planning area (Popovich, 2009). Additionally, a thorough field inventory within the Juniper Butte Training 

Range in 2002 found that of the 11,070 acres surveyed, approximately 1% (109 acres) consisted of 

slickspot peppergrass habitat, with only 4% of this habitat occupied by slickspot peppergrass (U. S. Air 

Force, 2002). This makes the total amount of occupied slickspot habitat within this large occurrence 

approximately four acres at the time it was surveyed.

Slickspot peppergrass habitat types within the planning area consist of occupied habitat and potential 

habitat. Occupied habitat is habitat known to contain slickspot peppergrass plants plus a half-mile habitat 

integrity buffer. Potential habitat is an unsurveyed area with soil, elevation, and vegetation parameters 

that would likely support slickspot microsites, but where the presence of slickspot peppergrass plants is 

unknown. There are 55,000 BLM-managed acres of occupied habitat and 577,000 BLM-managed acres

of potential habitat within the planning area (Map 21). As of August 2012, there have been 70,000 acres

of slickspot peppergrass surveys completed within potential habitat in the planning area. No new 

occurrences of slickspot peppergrass were found during these surveys.

3.3.7.2 Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates 

The planning area contains three primary rivers: the Snake River, Salmon Falls Creek, and the Bruneau 

River (see the Water Resources section and Map 6). These rivers essentially define the north, east, and 

west boundaries of the planning area, respectively. The southeast portion of the planning area is defined 

by the headwater tributaries of the North Fork of Salmon Falls Creek and Wilson Creek, both of which 

drain into Salmon Falls Creek in Nevada. The southwest portion of the planning area is defined by 

portions of several upper tributary reaches to Clover Creek, the Jarbidge River and its East Fork, and four 

small tributaries to the Bruneau River, all of which are south of the Nevada State line.

Fish

The planning area contains four special status fish species (Table 3-32). The distribution of these special 

status fish species and the watersheds in which they occur is described below.

Table 3-32. Special Status Fish in the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name 2012 Status Watershed

Jarbidge River bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Type 1,

Threatened

Bruneau River, 

Jarbidge River

Interior Columbia River 

redband trout 

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

gairdeneri Type 2

Bruneau River, 

Jarbidge River; 

Salmon Falls Creek

Snake River white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus Type 2 Snake River

Shoshone sculpin Cottus greenei Type 2 Snake River
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

B

A

A 

A, B

3-52

Jarbidge River Bull Trout

The Jarbidge River watershed contains migratory, or fluvial, bull trout and six local populations of resident 

bull trout that occupy the Jarbidge River and its East Fork and West Fork. The Jarbidge River Distinct 

Population Segment of bull trout is the southern-most population of bull trout across the species range. 

Bull trout are present in the East Fork of the Jarbidge River, as well as its headwater tributaries of Cougar

Creek, Fall Creek, Slide Creek, and Dave Creek. Bull trout are also present in the West Fork of the 

Jarbidge River, as well as its headwater tributaries of Pine Creek and Jack Creek. Cougar Creek, Fall

Creek, Slide Creek, Pine Creek, Jack Creek, and portions of the West Fork and East Fork of the Jarbidge 

River are managed by the Humbolt-Toyiabe National Forest. All of these streams, as well as the streams 

managed by BLM, provide spawning, rearing, or overwintering habitat for resident or fluvial bull trout and 

are essential to the long-term conservation of bull trout in the Jarbidge River and its tributaries. Dave 

Creek, a western tributary to the East Fork of the Jarbidge River, contains a local population of resident 

(non-migratory) bull trout and provides spawning and rearing habitat for fluvial bull trout. This local 

population of bull trout could be a factor in future bull trout recovery efforts because of its suitability for 

spawning and connectivity to other bull trout streams in the Jarbidge River Watershed.

On October 18, 2010, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) designated critical habitat for bull trout (75 

FR 63898). Designated critical habitat for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment included the 

Bruneau River from the confluence with the Jarbidge River downstream to the slackwater area for C.J. 

Strike Reservoir and several of the streams in the upper Jarbidge River Watershed. The tributaries on 

BLM-managed lands that are designated critical habitat include the Bruneau River, Jarbidge River 

(canyon), portions of the East Fork Jarbidge River and its tributary Dave Creek, and the West Fork 

Jarbidge River and its tributary Deer Creek. Designated critical habitat for bull trout also includes several 

streams on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest such as the East Fork Jarbidge River and its tributaries 

Dave Creek, Slide Creek (including God’s Pocket and two unnamed tributaries), Cougar Creek, Fall 

Creek (and two unnamed tributaries) and the West Fork Jarbidge River and its tributaries Deer Creek, 

Pine Creek (and two unnamed tributaries), Fox Creek, Sawmill Creek, Jack Creek, and Jenny Creek. 

Although these streams are not managed by the BLM, they were considered in the cumulative impacts 

assessment for bull trout (and redband trout) for the BLM-managed land. In total, there are 152.4 miles of 

designated bull trout critical habitat within the Bruneau River and Jarbidge River watersheds.

In 2005, BLM completed stream habitat surveys on Dave Creek, the Jarbidge River and its East Fork, 

Buck Creek, and Deer Creek. These surveys were completed on sections of stream that had not been 

previously surveyed and were representative of larger stream reaches with similar habitat characteristics 

such as stream gradient, width, and depth. These data are summarized in Table 3-33. The priorities for 

maintaining or improving critical habitat for Jarbidge River bull trout are summarized in the Aquatic and 

Riparian Management Strategy (Appendix D).

Table 3-33. Stream Habitat Data for Streams Containing Bull Trout

Stream Streambank 

Stability (%)

Sediment 

(%)

Embedded 

Fines (%)

Large 

Woody 

Debris 

(#/mile)

Pools 

(#/mile)

Large Pools

(% of pools >

1.6 feet)

Number is percent of the total number of pools/mile. 

Sources: (Overton et al., 1995; USDA, 1995). 

Bull Trout 

Criteria 80 < 12 < 20 48 60 60

Dave Creek 74 37 50-75 97 150 60

East Fork of the 

Jarbidge River 77 NA > 31 31 51 45

Jarbidge River 77 > 20 NA NA NA NA 

Buck Creek 100 25 50-75 15 170 73

Deer Creek NA NA NA NA 142 NA 

NA indicates data not available. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

3-53

The BLM began monitoring water temperatures in the Jarbidge Watershed with continuous water 

temperature recorders in 2002. Water temperature data for Dave Creek, the Jarbidge River and its East 

Fork, and Buck Creek indicate water temperatures in July and August exceed the 55°F mean weekly 

maximum temperature considered to be functioning properly for bull trout rearing and migration by 1°F to 

12°F. The water temperature requirements for bull trout include temperatures ranging from 39°F to 48°F 

for spawning and 39°F to 53°F for summertime rearing. Generally, bull trout spawning occurs from midSeptember through late October as water temperatures decline to 48°F and colder. Adult bull trout have 

not been found in the lower Jarbidge River when water temperatures exceed 57°F. Streams within the 

Jarbidge watershed that do not meet bull trout water temperature standards in July and August typically 

begin meeting the standards by early to mid-September.

In 2006, the US Geological Survey’s (USGS’s) Columbia River Research Laboratory formed a 

cooperative agreement with the FWS to collect information on the life history, movements, abundance, 

and distribution of bull trout in the upper Jarbidge River basin (Allen et al., 2010). The USGS used 

passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags and strategically placed tag detectors to monitor the 

connectivity between bull trout streams. Robust bull trout populations were found in the upper portions of 

the East Fork Jarbidge River, the West Fork Jarbidge River, and in Pine, Jack, Dave, and Fall Creeks. 

The study found bull trout to be dominant in the upper portions of the East Fork Jarbidge River, and in 

Fall, Dave, Jack, and Pine Creeks. The relative abundance of bull trout was notably higher at elevations 

above 6,890 feet. During two years of sampling in the upper Jarbidge River watershed, USGS captured 

1,702 bull trout (80% of which were captured in 2007). Eighty-seven percent of the bull trout sampled 

were found above 6,890 feet. 

The USGS used PIT tag detections and electrofishing to predict that four times more bull trout inhabit the 

Jarbidge River core area than was estimated by the FWS in 2004. PIT tag detections also documented 

substantial bull trout movements between headwater tributaries within the upper East Fork and West Fork 

Jarbidge River watersheds. The PIT tag detectors at the confluence of the West Fork Jarbidge River and 

Pine Creek had more fish detections than the other PIT tag detector locations. Fish tagged in the upper 

West Fork Jarbidge River had the highest number of detections, with 20 fish detected at the West Fork 

Jarbidge River/Pine Creek site. Ninety percent of these fish were moving down the West Fork Jarbidge 

River from September through November. Ten of the fish tagged in the West Fork Jarbidge River were 

detected or recaptured in Pine Creek, indicating a relatively high degree of connectivity between these 

watersheds.

The PIT tag detectors were also effective at detecting upstream and downstream bull trout movements 

and documenting connectivity between headwater and lower mainstream areas. PIT tag detections 

documented bull trout moving from the upper limit of fish distribution in the West Fork Jarbidge River, 

Pine Creek, and Jack Creek to the lower West Fork Jarbidge River below the confluence with Jack Creek. 

Fish from Jack Creek and Dave Creek were detected at the confluence of the East Fork and West Fork 

Jarbidge River. When the fish detection data were combined through December 2007, they indicated 

some degree of connectivity between headwater populations and the East Fork Jarbidge River and West 

Fork Jarbidge River. Some bull trout, particularly from Jack Creek, migrate downstream of the Forks and 

inhabit the Jarbidge River, but the extent or duration of bull trout use of this habitat remains unclear. 

Although bull trout showed some downstream movement during the spring and summer, most of their 

emigration occurred in autumn (September through November). Most of the fish that moved downstream 

were age two or older, which is typical of bull trout populations in other areas.

The USGS used PIT tag detections to determine the overall mean annual growth rate of bull trout in the 

East Fork and West Fork Jarbidge River was 1.4 inches. The annual growth rates of bull trout across the 

upper Jarbidge River watershed ranged from 0.8 inches to 2.4 inches. These growth rates are indicative 

of good habitat conditions. Bull trout sampling in Deer Creek and Buck Creek found both streams to be 

very shallow (2.0 inches and 2.8 inches, respectively) and to have limited pool habitats. There are no 

historical records of bull trout being present in either of these streams.

In 2007, the Murphy Complex Fire burned riparian areas in the Jarbidge River below the confluence with 

its East Fork and in portions of Columbet, Dorsey, and Cougar Creeks. Approximately 50 miles of stream 

habitat were affected by wildland fire. Fire severity within the riparian areas was low along the Jarbidge 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

3-54

River and moderate to high in Columbet, Dorsey, and Cougar Creeks. Fire severity in the upland areas 

adjacent to these streams was moderate to high. The riparian woody vegetation for these burned stream 

reaches consisted of mature willow and aspen, and some woody vegetation mortality occurred due to the

fire. In areas with low fire severity, the willow and aspen re-sprouted and have recovered from the fire.

When the Murphy Complex Fire was actively burning, bull trout were in the East Fork of the Jarbidge 

River, the Jarbidge River above the confluence with its East Fork, and their suitable headwater tributaries. 

Therefore, the fire did not directly affect individual bull trout. The impacts to bull trout designated critical 

habitat in the Jarbidge River canyon were primarily related to short-term increases in sediment inputs, 

which decreased once the upland and riparian vegetation recovered from the fire. The impacts of this 

instream sediment on suitable bull trout overwintering habitat in the lower Jarbidge River canyon or 

Bruneau River are unknown.

Interior Columbia River Redband Trout

Interior Columbia River redband trout, a subspecies of rainbow trout, are a BLM sensitive species. 

Redband trout are found in the Bruneau River and its tributaries, including the Jarbidge River. Redband 

trout have been found in the headwater tributaries to Clover Creek; the lower portion of Clover Creek was 

not surveyed because the stream has been dewatered by private diversions upstream under legal water 

rights issued by the Idaho Department of Water Resources and the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection. Redband trout are also present in Salmon Falls Creek and several of its tributaries that drain 

to the Jarbidge Foothills in the southern portion of the planning area. Many of the streams containing 

redband trout run dry before reaching their confluence with other tributaries, resulting in populations that 

are locally isolated at certain times of the year.

In 2005 and 2006, the BLM completed 53 miles of stream habitat surveys that encompassed 22 streams 

containing redband trout. These streams were divided into 64 reaches based on stream gradient, width, 

and depth. Based on these surveys, the stream habitat conditions consisted of 27 miles of streams (51%) 

that were properly functioning for redband trout, 23 miles of streams (43%) that were functioning at risk, 

and 3 miles of streams (6%) that were functioning at an unacceptable risk for redband trout. The habitat 

data were also used to determine the condition of streambanks for the redband trout occupied streams. 

Thirty-nine of the 64 stream reaches surveyed had streambank stability ratings of 80%or higher and are 

functioning properly. The remaining 25 stream reaches had streambank stability ratings of 50% to 80% 

(21 reaches) or less than 50% (4 reaches). 

The stream habitat surveys assessed the number of pools per mile for each reach. Pool frequencies in 58

stream reaches were rated as functioning properly for redband trout, 2 were rated as functioning at risk, 

and 4 were considered functioning at an unacceptable level for redband trout. The highest pool 

frequencies were found in the headwaters of Cedar Creek (122 to 127 pools per mile) and the lowest pool 

frequencies were found in Flat Creek (34 to 41 pools per mile). In general, pool frequencies were higher 

in the headwater reaches that had boulders and large woody debris to form pools and lower in reaches 

with low stream gradient and limited boulders and instream woody debris. The standard for large pools, 

such as those that are three feet deep or more, was met in 36 of the stream reaches. Twenty of the 

stream reaches were functioning at risk and eight were functioning at an unacceptable risk for redband 

trout due to their limited occurrence of large pools. Some of these reaches may have limited potential to 

form large pools due to low stream gradient.

The BLM began monitoring water temperatures in redband trout streams in the Salmon Falls Creek and 

Clover Creek watersheds with continuous water temperature recorders in 2007. From 2007 to 2012, all 

19 of the sites monitored met the State maximum daily average temperature standard for cold water biota

in all years, and in some areas with groundwater influence, water temperatures were cold enough to meet 

the more stringent standards for bull trout rearing and spawning. In 2008, two sites (lower Deer Creek 

and lower House Creek) exceeded the State maximum daily maximum temperature standard. The lower 

Deer Creek site exceeded the maximum daily maximum temperature standard for four days, and the 

lower House Creek site exceeded the standard for nine days. In 2011, the upper House Creek site 

exceeded the maximum daily maximum temperature standard for 15 days. The other 16 sites met the 

maximum daily maximum temperature standard in all years.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

3-55

The 2006 stream survey identified 33 stream reaches containing natural or human-caused migration 

barriers (e.g., culverts at road crossings, dewatered stream reaches, areas with unstable streambanks 

devoid of vegetation) that prevent redband trout from moving throughout a stream. The remaining 16 

stream reaches did not have barriers that would inhibit or prevent fish movement.

In 2007, the Murphy Complex Fire burned riparian areas in five of the redband trout streams surveyed in 

2006; approximately six miles of stream habitat were affected. The streams that burned include: Rocky 

Canyon (1.2 mi), Bear Creek (0.6 mi), Deer Creek (2.0 mi), Lower Three Creek (0.7 mi), Middle Three 

Creek (0.3 mi), and Timber Canyon Creek (1.4 mi). Fire severity within the riparian areas was generally 

low to moderate, with few areas experiencing high fire severity. In the areas where the fire burned 

through the riparian area, the effects were localized and limited to short sections of streams. The riparian 

woody vegetation for these burned stream reaches consisted of mature willow and aspen; some 

vegetation mortality occurred. In areas with low fire severity, the willow and aspen have re-sprouted and 

are recovering from the fire. The upland areas within many redband trout watersheds experienced 

moderate to high fire severity. Post-fire emergency stabilization and rehabilitation treatments were overall 

successful in stabilizing soils and reducing sediment contributions to redband trout streams across the 

burned area. Stream channel stabilization treatments in Bear Creek were successful in restoring willow 

along the unstable streambanks and have stabilized the stream channel within the burn area.

Snake River White Sturgeon

White sturgeon are the largest and longest lived of the freshwater and anadromous fish in North America 

and are highly adapted to the large river systems in which they evolved. White sturgeon are found in the 

Snake River in fragmented sub-populations between the Upper Salmon Falls Dam, Lower Salmon Falls 

Dam, Bliss Dam, and the Bliss rapids (Idaho Power Company, 2005). The current population of white 

sturgeon between Upper Salmon Falls Dam and Lower Salmon Falls Dam consists of potentially remnant 

non-game fish stocks and hatchery-reared fish. This population of fish is not self-supporting and relies on 

the reproduction of hatchery-stocked white sturgeon. The Snake River reaches above the Bliss Dam 

Reservoir have small populations of white sturgeon with few or no detectable naturally spawned offspring 

reaching sexual maturity. The portions of the Snake River downstream from the Bliss Dam are freeflowing; this segment contains the best habitat in the upper Snake River. Because of the free-flowing 

nature of this reach, white sturgeon are able to reproduce naturally and do not require hatchery 

supplementation to sustain the population; this is the upper-most reach of the Snake River with a selfsustaining population of white sturgeon.

Factors that have played a role in the decline of white sturgeon in the Snake River include habitat 

alteration, reduction in water quality, historic exploitation by humans, and population fragmentation by 

hydroelectric dams. The construction of hydroelectric dams has blocked the movements of and restricted 

white sturgeon to river fragments that may no longer provide the full spectrum of habitats necessary for 

them to complete their lifecycle. Hydroelectric system operations result in daily flow fluctuation for power 

production. This flow fluctuation affects recruitment of juveniles by reducing the availability of spawning, 

incubation, and larval habitats for white sturgeon, particularly during low water years when peak 

operations can result in the scouring of eggs and embryos from the riverbed. White sturgeon are also 

sensitive to a variety of water quality concerns, including changes in water temperature, decreases in 

dissolved oxygen, additions of nutrients, and the presence of contaminants. All of these water quality 

concerns occur in the Snake River reaches within the planning area.

Shoshone Sculpin

Shoshone sculpin are found in 52 locations within 26 springs and streams in the Hagerman Valley (FWS, 

1995); however, they have only been documented in one location upstream of the Bliss Bridge within the 

planning area. The number of Shoshone sculpin captured during fisheries surveys by Idaho Power from 

1986 to 1990 varied by reach in the Upper Salmon Falls Reservoir, below the Upper Salmon Falls 

Reservoir, the Lower Salmon Reservoir, below the Lower Salmon Falls Reservoir, and the Bliss Reservoir 

(Lepla and Chandler, 1995). 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

3-56

Shoshone sculpin are only found in association with groundwater outflows or upwelling from stream 

bottoms. The occurrence of this fish decreases when there is less influence of spring water on water 

quality (Wallace and Griffith, 1982). They are normally associated with cover, either in the form of rocks, 

cobble, gravel, and/or submerged vegetation. Young Shoshone sculpin less than 0.5 to 0.6 inches in total 

length are often found on sand or mud substrate as long as vegetation is present. Shoshone sculpin use 

rocky substrates for spawning during a prolonged breeding season from May through July, possibly into 

August. There is evidence that female Shoshone sculpin can spawn more than once a year.

Aquatic Invertebrates

The planning area contains seven special status mollusk species (Table 3-34). The Bruneau hot 

springsnail occurs in the lower Bruneau River; the other special status mollusks all occur in the Snake 

River.

Table 3-34. Special Status Aquatic Mollusks in the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name 2012 Status

Bliss Rapids snail Taylorconcha serpenticola Type 1, Threatened

Bruneau hot springsnail Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis Type 1, Endangered

California floater Anodonta californiensis Type 3

Columbia pebblesnail Fluminicola columbianus Type 3

Short-face lanx Fisherola nuttalli Type 2

Snake River physa snail Physa natricina Type 1, Endangered

Utah valvata snail Valvata utahensis Type 2

In general, the habitat requirements for Snake River snails include cold, clean, well-oxygenated, flowing 

water of low turbidity, although each species has slightly different habitat preferences. With the arrival of 

the early European settlers in Idaho and the development of hydroelectric power, the Snake River 

ecosystem has undergone significant transformation from a primarily free-flowing, cold water system to a 

slower moving, warmer water system. The special status aquatic mollusks identified above occur mainly 

in the remaining free-flowing reaches or in spring alcove habitats of the Snake River. The fauna 

dependent on the free-flowing reaches of the middle Snake River have been declining since the early 

1900s due to fragmentation of the remaining free-flowing habitats and deteriorating water quality. 

Bliss Rapids Snail

Currently, the Bliss Rapids snail is found in a few discontinuous areas in the tailwaters of the Bliss Dam 

and the Lower Salmon Falls Dam and in a few spring habitats in the Hagerman Valley (Thousand 

Springs, Banbury Springs, Box Canyon Springs, and Niagara Springs). The Bliss Rapids snail is 

discontinuously distributed in the Snake River and is associated with spring tributaries between Clover 

Creek and Twin Falls. The Bliss Rapids snail prefers gravel to boulder-sized substrates. This species can 

be abundant, especially on smooth rock surfaces covered with red algae. In 2009, the FWS completed a 

12-month finding on a petition to remove the Bliss Rapids snail from the list of Endangered and 

Threatened wildlife (74 FR 47536). The FWS found removing the Bliss Rapids snail from the list was not 

warranted because the species continues to be restricted to a small geographic area in the middle Snake 

River and groundwater depletion and impaired water quality still threaten the Bliss Rapids snail. 

Bruneau Hot Springsnail

The Bruneau hot springsnail is only found in warm water springs and seeps along a five-mile reach of the 

lower Bruneau River near Hot Creek. This snail is small (less than 0.25 inches) and reproduces best in 

water between 75°F to 95°F. The primary threat to this species is the declining thermal water table due to 

groundwater pumping on private land, which has reduced the number of geothermal springs on which this 

species depends. Invasive plant species (e.g., reed canary grass and reed) and non-native fish are also 

threats.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

3-57

California Floater

The California floater, a freshwater mussel, is found in the Snake River in scattered locations between the 

town of Bliss, Idaho and Alkali Creek. The California floater prefers habitats immediately upstream or 

downstream of rapids in mud-sand substrates with good water quality. Although there is some information 

on the distribution of this species in Idaho, little is known about the life cycle of the California floater.

Columbia Pebblesnail

The Columbia pebblesnail is found in the Snake River below Lower Salmon Falls Dam and in the 

tailwaters of the Bliss Dam. The pebblesnail lives in flowing waters and uses gravel- to boulder-sized 

substrate at the edges or downstream of rapids and whitewater areas (FWS, 1995). Life cycle and habitat 

requirements for this species are not well understood. 

Short-Face Lanx

The short-face lanx is a flat, cone-like, freshwater mollusk that is found in the Snake River from the 

Rupert, Idaho area downstream to near King Hill. The short-face lanx lives in steady to strong currents on 

the underside of large rocks (Taylor, 1985). The numerous dams on the Snake River have altered the 

natural flow regime of the Snake River, fragmenting the fast-water habitats used by this mollusk. In 

general, there is little information on the life cycle or habitat requirements for this species.

Snake River Physa Snail

In 1995, the FWS reported that the Snake River physa snail’s modern range extended from Grandview to 

the Hagerman Reach of the Snake River. Recently identified specimens collected by the Bureau of 

Reclamation (Gates and Kerans, 2008) and Idaho Power Company from 1995 to 2003 (Keebaugh, 2009) 

confirm its distribution to as far upstream as Minidoka Dam and as far downstream as Ontario, Oregon, 

some 128 miles downstream of its previously recognized downstream range (Grandview). Two 

specimens were recovered from the Bruneau River arm (RM 4, Rkm 6.4) of C.J. Strike Reservoir 

(Keebaugh, 2009) representing the only tributary of the Snake River from which the species has been 

recorded. The Snake River physa snails are found on the underside of gravel- to boulder-sized rocks in 

swift current at the margins of rapids. Live specimens have been found on boulders in the deepest part of 

the river, accessible to divers, at the margins of rapids. Other life cycle information (e.g., reproduction, 

food habits) are largely unknown for this species.

Utah Valvata Snail

The current distribution for the Utah valvata snail includes sites in the Hagerman Valley and scattered 

locations from American Falls Reservoir to King Hill Creek. These snails are found in mud, silt, and fine 

sand substrates in shallow shoreline water and in pools adjacent to rapids or perennial-flowing waters 

associated with large spring complexes. The FWS recently completed a 12-month finding on a petition to 

remove the Utah valvata snail from the list of Endangered and Threatened wildlife. They found this 

species is more widespread and occurs in a greater number of habitats than was known at the time of 

listing in 1992. As a result, the FWS removed Utah valvata snail from the list of Endangered and 

Threatened species on August 25, 2010 (75 FR 52272).

3.3.7.3 Special Status Wildlife 

Amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals designated as sensitive species that occur in the planning area 

are listed in Table 3-35. American white pelican, bald eagle, trumpeter swan, and white-faced ibis are not 

known to breed within the planning area. Because public land in the planning area lacks suitable nesting 

habitat for these species, and the numbers present in the planning area are low at other times, these 

species are not addressed further.

Table 3-35. Special Status Wildlife in the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Current Status

Invertebrates (Terrestrial)

Bruneau Dunes tiger beetle Cicindela waynei Type 2
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Wildlife

3-58

Common Name Scientific Name Current Status

Amphibians

Columbia spotted frogA

 Rana luteiventris Type 1, NV; Candidate

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Type 2, NV

Western toad Bufo boreas Type 3

Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhousii Type 3

Reptiles

Great Basin collared lizard Crotaphytus bicinctores Type 3

Longnose snake Rhinocheilus lecontei Type 3

Western groundsnake Sonora semiannulata Type 3

Short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglassii NV

Birds

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Type 2

Bald eagleB Haliaeetus leucocephalus Type 2, NV

Black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Type 4

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus NV

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Type 3, NV

Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope Type 3

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus Type 3, NV

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Type 3

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos NV

Greater sage-grouseB Centrocercus urophasianus Type 1, Candidate

Juniper titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi NV

Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Type 3, NV

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Type 3, NV

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus NV

Long-eared owl Asio otis NV

Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus Type 3, NV

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Type 3, NV

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis Type 3

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Type 3, NV

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Type 3, NV

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis NV

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli Type 3

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus NV

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis NV

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus NV

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni NV

Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator Type 3

Vesper sparrow Pooecetus gramineus NV

Western burrowing owl Speotyto cunicularia NV

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii Type 3

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Type 4

Yellow-billed cuckooB Coccyzus americanus Type 1, Candidate

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens NV

Mammals

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus NV

Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadaridia braziliensis NV

California bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis californiana Type 3

California myotis Myotis californicus Type 4, NV

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Type 3, NV

Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Type 4

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus NV
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Wildlife

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

3-59

Common Name Scientific Name Current Status

Mammals

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis NV

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans NV

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus NV

Piute (Great Basin) ground squirrel Spermophilus mollis Type 3

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis Type 2, NV

River otter Lontra canadensis NV

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum NV

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Type 3, NV

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Type 3, NV

Western pipistrelle Pipistrellus hesperus NV

Wyoming ground squirrel Spermophilus elegans Type 4

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis NV A Species for which the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) received a petition to list the species as Threatened or 

Endangered, conducted a status review, but determined listing was warranted but precluded. B The bald eagle was delisted by the FWS in July 2007 (Federal Register 72 [130]: 37346-37372) and will be treated 

as a type 2 species until further notice.

Habitat Groups 

In order to analyze impacts to the diverse number of special status wildlife, species were placed into 

groups by habitat. Although a species may be listed in one group, the species may occur in other habitats 

on a seasonal basis or in lesser numbers. For example, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (sharp-tailed 

grouse) are found across multiple habitats during nesting including sagebrush steppe and grassland; 

however, they concentrate in deciduous mountain shrub, aspen, and riparian areas during the winter.

The Wildlife section in this chapter contains descriptions of vegetation communities for each habitat group 

(i.e., sagebrush steppe, aspen, grassland, riparian/wetland, mountain mahogany/ mountain shrub, 

canyonland, and duneland). Special status wildlife species within each group are presented below.

Sagebrush Steppe Group

Special status wildlife in the sagebrush steppe group includes: 

Greater sage-grouse Black-throated sparrow 

Ferruginous hawk Brewer’s sparrow 

Swainson’s hawk Sage sparrow

Kit fox Loggerhead shrike

Pygmy rabbit Sage thrasher

Piute ground squirrel Longnose snake

Wyoming ground squirrel Western ground snake 

Short-horned lizard

There are some longer-term monitoring data on greater sage-grouse (sage-grouse) and to some extent 

ferruginous hawk. For other sensitive species wildlife in the sagebrush steppe limited local data are

available. A breeding bird survey route (Hot Spring 33224) has been periodically surveyed from the 

southern portion of the Bruneau Valley south to near Winter Camp in the northwestern portion of the 

planning area. Existing data for the remaining special status wildlife in the sagebrush steppe group 

consist primarily of anecdotal presence observations. 

Sagebrush habitat for black-throated sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, loggerhead shrike, and sage sparrow 

has been reduced by wildland fire by about 460,000 acres between 1987 and 2011, compared to a 

reduction of approximately 135,000 acres between 1957 and 1987. Currently about 319,000 acres of 

sagebrush steppe remain in the planning area.
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Wildlife

3-60

Sage-grouse

Sage-grouse in the planning area are part of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA) Management Zone IV Snake River Plain (Knick and Connelly, 2011b). The Snake River Plain 

Management Zone extends from southwestern Montana to northwestern Utah, northern Nevada, eastern 

Oregon and southern Idaho (Knick and Connelly, 2011b). This area was categorized as Great Basin 

sagebrush (Miller et al., 2011).

The Diamond A, Inside Desert, Devil Creek, and Browns Bench sub-units from the Jarbidge Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan (Jarbidge Local Sage-Grouse Working Group, 2007) define the sage-grouse 

management area. These sub-units contain the majority of the key sage-grouse habitat (key habitat) in 

the planning area. Key habitat are areas of generally intact sagebrush that provide sage-grouse habitat 

during some portion of the year. The sage-grouse management area is approximately 990,000 acres; key 

habitat is approximately 311,000 acres. Map 25 displays both the sage-grouse management area and 

key habitat.

In the Warranted but Precluded finding for Greater Sage-grouse, the FWS says “...two strongholds of 

contiguous sagebrush habitat (the southwest Wyoming Basin and the Great Basin area straddling the 

States of Oregon, Nevada and Idaho) contain the highest densities of males in the range of the species

(Federal Register Vol. 75 No. 55 page 12962, citing Wisdom et al., [2011]; and Knick and Hanser, 

[2011]).” Also in the Federal Register Notice, the FWS concludes that the Northern Great Basin sagegrouse population (of which the planning area is a part) is projected to decrease in carrying capacity for 

sage-grouse by 73% between 2007 and 2037 “if current trends and habitat activities continue” (page 

13960, Table 10, and page 13961, citing Garton et al., [2011]). 

The majority of sage-grouse leks in the planning area are located within key sage-grouse habitat. Male 

sage-grouse gather in an area (lek) to display (strut) and mate during the spring breeding season

(Connelly et al., 2004). Leks usually have sparse cover and are located near nesting habitat (Connelly et 

al., 2000). The same area is frequently used year after year, although leks may shift for a variety of 

reasons (Connelly et al., 2011a). Female sage-grouse attend leks to breed. Following breeding, the 

females move from the lek to nesting areas. Nesting habitat generally contains 15% to 25% shrub cover 

with adequate grass and forb cover for nest concealment (Connelly et al., 2011a). Sage-grouse with 

broods usually select sagebrush habitat that contains a greater diversity and abundance of forbs 

(Connelly et al., 2011b), which support a variety of insects needed by recently hatched sage-grouse 

chicks. The hen and chicks also consume forbs from the late spring through summer. Sagebrush at less 

than 15% cover may be chosen by hens for brood rearing habitat (Connelly et al., 2011b). Locally, many 

sage-grouse move to higher elevations or to wetland and meadow areas where forbs remain succulent in 

the summer. Sage-grouse winter in areas where the sagebrush vegetation remains above the snow level

(Connelly et al., 2011b).

Sage-grouse were once relatively wide spread over the planning area. In the early 1990s, one occupied 

lek was southeast of Twin Buttes and other occupied leks were along the road to the Bruneau Scenic 

Overlook. During a study in the Browns Bench area in the early 1990s, 75% of the hens nested within 

three miles of the lek of capture, and 25% nested further than five miles from the lek of capture (Klott et 

al., 1993). In the northwestern portion of the planning area in 2010, female sage-grouse averaged 4.4

miles from the lek of capture to nest and 25% nested more than 10 miles from the lek of capture. 

Garton and others (2011) found counting breeding male sage-grouse at leks provides a useful index to 

the minimum number of breeding males within a local area because males usually concentrate at open to 

sparsely vegetated leks. Data for the Antelope Pocket, Browns Bench, Clover/Crows Nest, Roseworth, 

and Winter Camp routes seem to indicate no population trends (Table 3-36) but high variance may mask 

changes. Numbers of active leks on Kinyon Road, Roseworth, and Clover/Crows Nest routes have 

declined in recent years. The only lek routes not burned by large wildland fires in the last 10 years are 

Antelope Pocket and Browns Bench. Numbers of male sage-grouse have declined on the 

Jarbidge/Dishpan route and numbers of leks and male sage-grouse have declined on the Kinyon Road 

route.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Wildlife

3-61

Table 3-36. Male Sage-Grouse Observed on Established Lek Routes in the Planning Area (1991-

2012) 

Year

Lek Route Name

Antelope 

Pocket

Browns 

Bench

Clover/ 

Crows 

Nest

Grassy 

Hills

Jarbidge/ 

Dishpan

Kinyon 

Road

Rose 

worth

Winter 

Camp

Yellow 

Sign 

Road

1991 111

1992 110 71

1993 126 57

1994 86 24

1995 82 26

1996 87 13

1997 55 26

1998 61 55

1999 99 63

2000 60 121 45

2001 39 71 21

2002 32 68 14 37

2003 33 87 34 33

2004 32 104 29 47 22

2005 57 156 25 49 24 18 30 48

2006 91 146 10 52 84 27 37 54

2007 63 106 38 72 46 38 20 41 43

2008 65 93 27 18 39 39 18 31 20

2009 48 70 10 28 20 15 13 24 14

2010 14 60 22 24 10 20 10 22 13

2011 51 85 0 32 13 13 13 23 8 

2012 47 72 24 44 11 10 16 24 7 

Note: Blank cells denote years of data from an obsolete counting protocol and those data are not consistent with 

current count protocol numbers.

Source: (IDFG, 2012e). 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) lek database (2011) includes about 230 records of 

sage-grouse leks in the Idaho portion of the planning area. No male sage-grouse have been observed on 

62 of the historic lek locations since 1987. The database contains records of 51 sage-grouse leks that 

had males present only once. Of the 51 sage-grouse leks, 21 leks were not subsequently checked. The 

other 30 leks had no male sage-grouse present when checked in later years. Seventy-three sage-grouse 

leks have data for multiple counts spread over a period of 10 or more years. Of these leks, 31 are 

considered stable or increasing, whereas 42 leks are declining. Of the 42 declining leks, 29 were no 

longer active as of 2011. At some point, no male sage-grouse were observed on 55 of the 73 leks. 

However, male sage-grouse attended 26 of the leks in subsequent years.

Between 2005 and 2007, 33 previously unknown sage-grouse leks were documented within the planning

area. Twenty-six of the leks were visited in subsequent years. Of these leks, 14 leks were still being used 

by sage-grouse when last checked, but numbers of sage grouse had declined on 10 of the 14 leks. A 

downward trend was considered when sage-grouse numbers were less than 50% of the initial count.

The Murphy Complex Fire burned roughly 30% of the remaining key habitat in the summer of 2007. Since 

the spring of 2008, surveys have detected male sage-grouse strutting in 15 previously unknown sites. 

Ten of the sage-grouse leks have been checked two or more years. Numbers of male sage-grouse 

declined by more than 50% on three leks, increased more than 50% on two leks, and varied less than 

50% on the remaining five leks. It is not known if any of the new leks were being used by sage-grouse 

prior to the year they were found.
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Wildlife

A

A

3-62

Ferruginous Hawk

All but one of the known ferruginous hawk nest sites within the planning area are north of the Three 

Creek Highway. There are records of approximately 20 ferruginous hawk nests on the ground primarily in 

the northern part of planning area. Nearly all the ground nests are on the upper slope near the rim of 

breaks: three nest sites on cliffs and one nest on a rock point. A number of ferruginous hawk nests are 

monitored annually from mid-June into early July. Adults are not likely to abandon nests at this time and 

the young are generally large enough to be observed in the nest. In most years approximately half of the 

nests are checked to determine if they are active and how many young reached fledging age. Although 

some ground nesting ferruginous hawk eggs hatch, they seldom successfully fledge young (of 32 known 

attempts based on local observations). Nearly all of the successful ferruginous hawk nests (about 45 nest 

territories) are in isolated junipers or narrow bands of juniper in draws in the central part of the planning 

area. When a nest site is in a juniper stringer, there are usually alternate nests in one or more junipers.

Over the years, seven nest trees were destroyed by wildland fires and no ferruginous hawks have been 

observed in those areas, unless other junipers were present. Wildland fires also decrease the structure 

provided by the shrub component of the habitat which is important as cover and food for some 

ferruginous hawk prey species (Olendorff, 1993). The number of young produced per active nest varies 

between years from 1.0 to 2.1 (BLM unpublished nest data; Table 3-37). If the nest tree is not destroyed 

by fire, its skeleton may be used for nesting in subsequent years. Not all the nests are used annually, and 

some nests are used by other species (red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, great horned owl, barn owl, 

long-eared owl, and raven) when unoccupied. Wildland fires have also altered the habitat used by some 

of the common mammalian prey, including jackrabbits, rabbits, and ground squirrels.

Table 3-37. Ferruginous Hawk Nest Monitoring in the Planning Area (2002-2012) 

Year 2002 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Number of nests checked 18 16 35 23 25 35 33 29

Number of young 16 12 11 8 15 31 32 26 

Average number young per active nest 1.3 1.7 1.0 2.0 1.7 2.1 1.6 2.0

No data collected from 2003 - 2005.

Locally, ferruginous hawks arrive in late February and early March. Nests are maintained and eggs are 

usually laid from late April to early May. Young ferruginous hawks are generally visible in the nests in mid 

to late June and the young fledge in July. Ferruginous hawks primarily consume small mammals, 

jackrabbits, and ground squirrels, but they occasionally take reptiles and small fledgling birds (Bechard 

and Schmutz, 1995).

Swainson’s Hawk

Swainson’s hawks readily nest in trees at the edge of agricultural fields, grasslands, and sagebrush 

steppe (Bechard et al., 2010). Locally, Swainson’s hawks primarily nest in juniper stringers or isolated 

juniper in sagebrush steppe habitat. They may also nest in grassland habitat with juniper skeletons or 

scattered juniper, but are not known to nest on the ground. Swainson’s hawks use nests that have 

previously been used by ferruginous hawks or ravens. Like other raptors, Swainson’s hawks produce one 

brood per year and migrate to Argentina for the winter (Bechard et al., 2010).

Kit Fox

In 1992, a kit fox was seen during an Idaho Power survey west of Bliss Dam. In 2004, a kit fox was 

observed in the general vicinity of the Juniper Butte Training Range by an Air Force contractor. The same 

year one set of tracks and an audible call were reported to the IDFG from west of the training range in the 

Inside Desert area. No systematic surveys have been conducted by BLM for kit fox in the planning area. 

Pygmy Rabbit

In the planning area pygmy rabbits have been observed in both mountain big sagebrush and Wyoming 

big sagebrush habitats. Typical pygmy rabbit habitat consists of areas with taller more dense (greater 

than or equal to 30% cover) big sagebrush in areas with soils deeper than 20 inches (Ulmschneider et al., 

2004) This description of pygmy rabbit habitat is relatively consistent for southeastern Oregon and 

northern Nevada (Crawford, 2008), southwestern Idaho (Burak, 2006), and the planning area. In some 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Wildlife

3-63

areas, small mounds (mima mounds) (Ulmschneider et al., 2004) of soil 20 to 30 feet in diameter provide 

pygmy rabbit habitat in areas with generally shallow soil. Pygmy rabbits dig burrow systems with multiple 

openings (Green and Flinders, 1980). Breeding occurs between February and May (Keinath and McGee, 

2004). Female pygmy rabbits dig a separate burrow for giving birth (Rachlow et al., 2005). Pygmy rabbit 

diets include greater than 50% sagebrush in the spring through summer and increases to nearly 100% 

sagebrush in the winter (Green and Flinders, 1980). During the spring and summer, grasses and forbs 

can make up 30% to 40% of the pygmy rabbits’ diet (Green and Flinders, 1980).

There is no estimate of overall pygmy rabbit distribution or population size prior to 2005. The majority of 

the known occupied pygmy rabbit habitat burned in the Sailor Cap (2006), Murphy Complex (2007), and 

Kinyon Road (2012) fires. Following the Murphy Complex fires, numerous site visits in the winters of 2007 

and 2009 did not reveal pygmy rabbits or active rabbit burrows in the areas where they had previously 

(2005 and 2006) been documented.

Piute and Wyoming Ground Squirrels

Piute and Wyoming ground squirrels are found in both sagebrush and grassland habitats in the planning 

area. Piute ground squirrels appear to be more widely distributed compared to Wyoming ground squirrels, 

which appear to be limited to the Jarbidge Foothills and have been observed in areas with mountain big 

sagebrush. Piute ground squirrels are present from the Snake River to south of the Three Creek 

Highway. Locally Piute ground squirrels are generally active from March through May. By June and into 

July, only ground squirrels at higher elevations remain active. There is no population trend for either Piute 

or Wyoming ground squirrels.

Piute ground squirrel diets consist of perennial grasses and forbs, annual grasses and forbs, and shrubs 

(Van Horne et al., 1998). Shrubs increase in their diet as herbaceous vegetation dries out (Van Horne et 

al., 1998). New leaves on shrubs may provide nutrition not found in bluegrass (Van Horne et al., 1998). 

Ground squirrels are dependent on perennial vegetation (Van Horne et al., 1998). Steenhof and others 

(2006) reported Piute ground squirrel numbers were higher in sagebrush habitats compared to grassland 

habitats. Van Horne and others (1998) stated, “As a consequence we believe that any habitats dominated 

by annual plants that lack substantial coverage of perennial plants cannot support stable, increasing, or 

source populations of ground squirrels for any substantial time period.” 

Black-throated Sparrow, Brewer’s Sparrow, Sage Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, and Sage Thrasher

There are few local population trend data for black-throated sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, 

loggerhead shrike, or sage thrasher. The only long-term data is the Hot Spring breeding bird survey route 

which is located in the northwestern part of the planning area. The route consists of 50 points 0.5 miles 

apart where birds are observed and recorded by species. Breeding bird survey routes are surveyed in the 

late spring and have specific protocols regarding time of day, weather conditions, and other factors. 

In the summer of 2006, the Sailor Cap Fire reduced sagebrush along portions of the route. Following the 

fire, the average counts for Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher along the Hot Spring 

route declined 54%, 10%, and 76%, respectively (Table 3-38). The 10% decline in sage sparrow is 

probably within the range of natural variability and may not reflect a declining population. For the same 

period loggerhead shrike numbers increased 37%, but the observed change may not reflect an increasing

population because of the few observations in any year. Black-throated sparrows are rarely detected in 

this area so they do not exhibit a trend. Other large wildland fires, including fires within the planning area

in 2010 and 2012, further reduced the amount of available habitat used by these special status birds.

Table 3-38. Average Number of Brewer’s Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, Sage Sparrow, and Sage 

Thrasher on the Hot Spring Breeding Bird Survey Route (Pre- [1988-2006] and Post- [2007-2009] 

Fire) 

Species Name 1988 - 2006 Average 2007 - 2009 Average Percent Change

Brewer’s sparrow 29.9 13.7 - 54%

Loggerhead shrike 2.9 4.0 37% 

Sage sparrow 13.3 12.0 - 10%

Sage thrasher 23.3 5.7 - 76%
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Wildlife

• •

• •

•

3-64

Source: (USGS, 2012). 

In Idaho, the sage sparrow (Rich, 1980; Peterson and Best, 1985a), Brewer’s sparrow (Rich, 1980; 

Peterson and Best, 1985b), sage thrasher (Reynolds et al., 1999) and loggerhead shrike (Woods and

Cade, 1996) nest primarily in shrubs. Sagebrush used to support nests was taller than other sagebrush in 

the area (Peterson and Best, 1985a; 1985b). Loggerhead shrike nest in shrubs substantially taller 

(greater than 4 feet) (Woods and Cade, 1996) than Brewer’s sparrow or sage sparrow (less than 2.5 

feet). Locally, some shrike nests have been found in junipers.

Longnose Snake, Western Ground Snake, and Short-horned Lizard

The western ground snake and longnose snake have a limited distribution and are primarily found at 

lower elevations (less than 4,000 feet), in the northwestern part of the planning area. They are usually 

found in sites with sandy soils near rocky areas. They are not specific to dunelands and are therefore 

included in the sagebrush steppe group. Short horned lizards are relatively common and generally found 

in the southern third of the planning area including some of the higher (more than 7,000 feet) elevation 

sites. No population trend data are available for any of these reptile species.

Aspen Group

Special status wildlife in the aspen group includes: 

Lewis’s woodpecker Willow flycatcher

Long-eared owl Red-naped sapsucker

Northern goshawk

There are no population trend data on local populations of Lewis’s woodpecker, long-eared owl, northern 

goshawk, red-naped sapsucker, or willow flycatcher within the planning area. Locally, large diameter 

aspen, cottonwood and potentially juniper provide suitable nesting habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker. 

Lewis’s woodpeckers can nest in aspen with a diameter of 10 inches or greater (Vande Voort, 2011).

Newlon and Saab (2011) reported Lewis’s woodpecker selected larger diameter (average 16 inches) 

aspen for nesting in southcentral Idaho. Lewis’s woodpeckers use the same nest cavity in subsequent 

years, but it is not known if the use was by the same pair (Saab et al., 2004, Newlon and Saab, 2011). 

Unlike other woodpeckers, Lewis’s woodpeckers primarily catch insects while flying (Abele et al., 2004). 

Several Lewis’s woodpecker nests have been documented in the southern portion of the planning area. 

Long-eared owls nest in aspen stands and juniper stringers in the planning area. Often long-eared owls 

use old raven or magpie nests (Thurow and White, 1984). Nest site fidelity for long-eared owls appears 

limited (Marks et al., 1994).

No northern goshawk nests have been documented in the planning area, although larger aspen have the 

structure to support goshawk nests. Goshawks prey opportunistically on a variety of songbirds, 

woodpeckers, ground squirrels, cottontails, and jackrabbits depending on the habitat (Squires and

Reynolds, 1997). Goshawk nests are often in the largest trees in the stand (Squires and Reynolds, 1997). 

The nest is generally located close to the tree trunk.

Willow flycatchers have been noted in some of the short aspen stands where snow accumulates on the 

lee side of ridges in the Monument Springs area. Shrubs with these aspen stands include shiny-leaf 

ceanothus, Wood’s rose, Scouler’s willow, chokecherry, and serviceberry.

Red-naped sapsuckers may nest in aspen if the diameter exceeds nine inches and exhibit fairly strong 

nest territory fidelity (Walters et al., 2002). In the planning area many aspen stands are used by rednaped sapsuckers. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Wildlife

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

3-65

Riparian/Wetland Group

Special status wildlife in the riparian group includes: 

Columbia spotted frog Yellow breasted chat 

Western toad Sandhill crane

Woodhouse toad Yellow-billed cuckoo

Northern leopard frog Mountain quail

Calliope hummingbird River otter

Willow flycatcher 

The BLM has limited population data for the majority of special status wildlife associated with the 

Riparian/Wetland group. Since the early 1990s, Columbia spotted frogs (spotted frogs) were reported in 

Bear, Shack, Rocky Canyon, and Timber Canyon drainages. These creeks are in relatively close 

proximity and all are headwater tributaries to Salmon Falls Creek. Habitat is marginal for spotted frogs in 

all but Rocky Canyon Creek due to diminished water flows and limited slack water habitat (e.g., beaver 

ponds). Beaver ponds that were present in Bear, Shack, and Timber Canyon creeks when spotted frogs 

were found have failed and the creeks no longer provide suitable habitat; and all three drainages have 

experienced down-cutting (e.g., excessive downward erosion of the stream channel), which lowered the 

water table and reduced water permanence during the summer. Although willows and aspen are present 

along substantial portions of the creeks, the reduced water permanence inhibits beaver recolonizing the 

creeks. Spotted frogs have been most frequently observed in Rocky Canyon, which has numerous active 

stable beaver dams. Currently, occupied spotted frog habitat is vegetated primarily by sedges, rushes, 

grasses, and wetland forbs with a willow overstory. Since the late 1990s, cattle use has been reduced 

along Rocky Canyon Creek through herding, contributing to an increase in sedges and rushes along the 

banks and beaver have increased the number of ponds. Spotted frog numbers have increased in Rocky 

Canyon since 1998.

Western toads have only been found at three locations (Pilgrim Springs and King Hill Canal at Deer and 

Little Pilgrim Gulches) in the northern portion of the planning area since 2005. They were detected in 

Yahoo Creek in the early 1990s and the lower segment of Tuana Gulch in the early 2000s. In 2007 and 

2008 tadpoles, metamorphic young, and adults have been seen in King Hill Canal downstream of Bliss 

Dam. Woodhouse’s toads and northern leopard frogs were documented in the planning area in the 1970s 

and 1980s, but have not been documented in the planning area during inventories conducted since 1993. 

On a few occasions, Calliope hummingbirds have been observed during the nesting period in early 

summer at the headwater springs of Cedar Creek.

Willow flycatchers have been detected in willow-dominated riparian areas in Deer Creek, Flat Creek, and 

Cedar Creek. Nests are usually placed in the crotch of a shrub or small tree. Willows are frequently 

selected for nesting (Sedgwick, 2000). The few aspen stands where willow flycatchers have been 

observed have shorter trees. Short aspen is usually located on the lee side of ridges where snow 

accumulates. Other shrubs with the aspen may include shiny-leaf ceanothus, wood rose, Scouler’s 

willow, chokecherry, and serviceberry.

Yellow-breasted chats are migratory songbirds found in riparian areas with willows. This species has 

been observed along portions of Cedar Creek, Clover Creek, Rocky Canyon, and Salmon Falls Creek in 

the planning area. Chats usually produce one brood per year but occasionally produce two (Eckerle and

Thompson, 2001). If the first nest fails only a portion of the chats attempt to renest (Eckerle and

Thompson, 2001). In Indiana, eastern yellow-breasted chats exhibited little nest site fidelity between 

years (Eckerle and Thompson, 2001). However, male western yellow-breasted chats had 44% site fidelity 

between years in southern British Columbia (McKibbin and Bishop, 2012). Site fidelity of chats in Idaho is 

unknown. Yellow-breasted chats place their nest cup in dense shrubs relatively low to the ground 

(Eckerele and Thompson, 2001).
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Special Status Wildlife

• •

• •

•

• •

• •

3-66

Sandhill cranes are present during the spring in the southern portion of the planning area, particularly in 

marshy private meadows. Sandhill cranes have been seen at Camas Slough on BLM land in this area. To 

date no nesting cranes have been documented nor fledgling cranes observed.

Yellow-billed cuckoo are observed rarely within the planning area. All observations are from islands along 

the Snake River near Hammett.

Riparian areas provide important winter habitat for mountain quail. More information about mountain quail 

is provided in the Mountain Mahogany/Mountain Shrub Group.

River otters have been noted in the Bruneau, Jarbidge, and Snake Rivers as well as Salmon Falls Creek

in the planning area. The diet of the otter includes a variety of fish species as well as amphibians, small 

mammals and crayfish (Lariviere and Walton, 1998).

Mountain Mahogany/Mountain Shrub Group

Special status wildlife in the mountain mahogany/mountain shrub group includes: 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse Pinyon jay

Mountain quail Vesper sparrow

Juniper titmouse 

From 2003 to 2010, about 250 sharp-tailed grouse were transplanted into the planning area in the House 

Creek area (Smith, 2012). There are records of three sharp-tailed grouse leks, one of which is inactive. 

Sharp-tailed grouse use several habitats seasonally; they nest in grassland, sagebrush steppe, and 

mountain shrub areas if suitable herbaceous cover and desirable forbs are present. During the winter, 

they consume insect galls on sagebrush and eat aspen leaf buds, as well as fruit and leaf buds from 

deciduous shrubs such as chokecherry, serviceberry (Marks and Marks, 1988), Woods’ rose, snowberry, 

willow, and aspen (Giesen and Connelly, 1993) in aspen, riparian, and mountain mahogany/mountain 

habitats. The IDFG does not authorize sharp-tailed grouse hunting in the planning area at this time.

Historically, a few mountain quail were harvested in the planning area in the 1960s and 1970s, but IDFG 

check station data suggest mountain quail were never abundant. The last report of mountain quail in the 

planning area was around 2001 (IDFG, 2012b). No mountain quail were detected during surveys 

conducted in 1994 in Cougar Creek, Dorsey Creek, Clover Creek, Deer Creek, and Columbet Creek 

(BLM and IDFG, 1994) and in 2003 and 2004 in Cougar Creek, Deep Creek, and Columbet Creek (IDFG, 

2012b). 

Both juniper titmouse and pinyon jay are rare in the planning area which lies at the edge of their normal 

range (Balda, 2002; Cicero, 2000). Juniper titmouse nests in natural cavities or old woodpecker holes 

(Cicero, 2000).Vesper sparrows are routinely present in or at the edge of mountain mahogany/mountain 

shrub habitats. They are also present in sparser sagebrush steppe and grassland with some brush. 

Grassland Group

Special status wildlife in the grassland group includes: 

Short-eared owl Western burrowing owl

Long-billed curlew Bobolink

These special status wildlife occurring in the planning area are linked primarily to grassland habitat types 

at this time. Short-eared owls are a widespread ground nesting owl species found in North America, 

Europe, and Asia (Wiggins et al., 2006). Within the planning area, short-eared owls have been seen in 

grassland and to a lesser extent sagebrush steppe habitat. They have been noted in the southern portion 

of Browns Bench near the Idaho/Nevada State line. Short-eared owl nests are usually in taller denser 

grass.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Special Status Wildlife

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

3-67

Long-billed curlew is a grassland species (Dugger and Dugger, 2002) which occasionally uses shrubland 

as nesting habitat (Hartman and Oring, 2009). Long-billed curlews lay one clutch of eggs each year 

(Redmond and Jenni, 1986) and do not usually renest if the nest fails. However, Hartman and Oring 

(2009) reported long-billed curlew usually renested in northern Nevada grass hay fields if nest failure 

occurred before mid-May (e.g. early in the nesting period). Long-billed curlew nest in areas with short 

sparse vegetation, but once the eggs hatch the young are moved to areas with taller cover (Dugger and

Dugger, 2002). Due to wildland fires which removed sagebrush, long-billed curlew extended their 

distribution into the southern third of the planning area.

Burrowing owls are found both in sagebrush steppe and grassland habitats in the planning area. Nest site 

fidelity has been reported weak in the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (Lehman et 

al., 1998) and within the planning area. In Oregon, Holmes and others (2003) reported re-use of nest 

sites varied between years from 87% down to 57%. Burrowing owls frequently use old badger holes for 

nesting. At burrowing owl nests in southwestern Idaho vegetation height average a little over 15 inches in 

a little over 6 feet from the burrow. Burrows in areas with sandier soils are more likely to collapse than 

areas with little sand in the soil (Holmes et al., 2003).

Bobolinks are rarely observed in the planning area. The few observations have been in the southern 

portion of the planning area associated with irrigated grass hay fields/pastures on private land. Bobolinks 

nest on the ground in areas with moderate to tall grass and exhibit strong breeding site fidelity (Martin and

Gavin, 1995).

Canyonland Group

Special status wildlife in the canyonland group includes: 

Great Basin collared lizard Fringed myotis

Peregrine falcon Little brown bat

Prairie falcon Long-eared bat

California bighorn sheep Long-legged myotis

Spotted bat Pallid bat 

Townsend’s big-eared bat Western pipistrelle

Big brown bat Western small footed bat

Brazilian free-tailed bat Yuma myotis

California myotis

Limited population data are available for most of the special status wildlife in the canyonland group. Great 

Basin collared lizards are known to be present in the northern portion of the Bruneau Canyon, as well as 

a little north of Indian Hot Spring. 

Peregrine falcons are rarely observed in the planning area, whereas prairie falcons have been observed 

in numerous locations. Prairie falcons are known to nest in the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons and

canyons associated with Cedar, Clover, Devil, Flat, Sailor, and Salmon Falls Creeks. Both peregrine 

(White et al., 2002) and prairie falcons (Steenhof, 1998) primarily nest on cliff ledges, cavities and 

crevices. Only one brood is raised per year. Multiple nest sites may be present in a prairie falcon’s 

nesting territory (Steenhof, 1998). 

California bighorn sheep (bighorn sheep) are the only special status wildlife species in the canyonland

group for which population data is available. Bighorn sheep numbers in the planning area appear to be 

increasing following a precipitous population decline in 1998 and 2000 (IDFG, 2010a). The substantial 

and rapid decline of this sheep population suggested a disease die-off, although no conclusive evidence 

was available (IDFG, 2010a). The current population is estimated to be approximately 210 bighorn sheep. 

Map 27 depicts bighorn sheep habitat and domestic sheep allotments in the planning area. Bighorn 

sheep in the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons do not exhibit seasonal migratory movements (IDFG, 

2010a). Bighorn sheep tend to avoid areas dominated by juniper (Kornet, 1978). In a southeastern 

Oregon study conducted in habitat similar to the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons, Kornet (1978) reported 

bighorn sheep used cliff/shrub, rock outcrop, talus shrub, big sagebrush/bunchgrass, and bunchgrass 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

3-68

habitats. Kornet (1978) also reported that bighorn sheep used areas up to a mile from the rim and more 

than 30% of the ram groups were found more than 1.25 miles from escape cover. Payer and Coblentz 

(1997) noted bighorn rams commonly more than 1.8 miles from escape cover in southeastern Oregon.

Within the planning area, spotted bats occur in low numbers that are widely scattered. Luce and Keinath 

(2007) reported that in some instances spotted bats may be locally common, but such areas are 

separated by large areas lacking suitable habitat. Townsend’s big-eared bats are primarily associated 

with caves or cave analogs (lava tubes, mines, old buildings) where they typically roost (Gruver and

Keinath, 2006). The planning area generally lacks caves or lava tubes; rock crevices and cracks are 

numerous in rhyolite cliffs and provide roosting habitat. Locally, Townsend’s big-eared bats have been 

found in the Bruneau and Salmon Falls Creek Canyons.

Big brown bat, Brazilian free-tailed bat, California myotis, fringed myotis, little brown bat, long-eared 

myotis, long-legged myotis, pallid bat, western pipestrelle, western small-footed bat, and Yuma myotis 

have been detected within the planning area (Doering and Keller, 1998; Vullo et al., 1999; Tetra Tech, 

2011). Numerous bat species temporarily roost in rock crevices and cracks between foraging bouts. 

Perennial streams provide water in canyons, whereas reservoirs and water storage ponds provide water 

in the uplands. Bats prey on a variety of invertebrate prey (insects, moths, beetles) and can forage in 

uplands away from riparian areas. Population trends of bat species in the planning area are unknown.

Duneland Group

The only special status wildlife species within this group is the Bruneau Dunes tiger beetle. The global 

distribution for this narrow endemic tiger beetle has reduced by more than 50% since the early 1990s. 

The Bruneau Dunes tiger beetle is currently only found in the Bruneau Dunes State Park, adjacent to the 

northwest portion the planning area. Bruneau Dunes tiger beetle was described as a species distinct from 

the Idaho Dunes tiger beetle (Leffler, 2001). Mitochondrial DNA analyses have subsequently supported 

the species designation for Bruneau Dunes tiger beetle (Goldberg et al., 2012).

The planning area contains a small, isolated duneland habitat that was occupied by the tiger beetle in 

1993 and was named the Windmill site. It is located approximately 8 miles east of Bruneau Dunes State 

Park (Baker et al., 1994). The tiger beetle population in the planning area appears to have been 

extirpated by 2007 (Bosworth et al., 2010). Monitoring indicated this species was declining at the Windmill 

site since the mid-1990s (Baker and Munger, 2000). Bosworth and others (2010) did not find any Bruneau 

Dunes tiger beetles or larval burrows between 2007 and 2009 at the Windmill site. The tiger beetle habitat 

has been invaded by cheatgrass and Russian thistle reducing habitat for tiger beetle larvae (Baker and

Munger, 2000; Bosworth et al., 2010). Increases in invasive plants in dune interspaces where the females 

deposit eggs has reduced habitat. 

In 2007 a pump and generator were installed for a trough about 0.3 miles from tiger beetle habitat. Water 

was previously hauled to this site when the pasture was grazed by sheep and cattle. Trailing by cattle 

increased in larval habitat as a result of the more permanent water source. Bauer (1991) reported that 

livestock trampling collapsed burrows and increased larval tiger beetle mortality. Without fencing, 

livestock are expected to continue to trail through tiger beetle habitat while foraging in uplands to the east.

3.3.8 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

Noxious weeds are defined in Idaho statute as any plant having the potential to cause injury to public 

health, crops, livestock, land, or other property. Noxious weeds are designated by the Director of the 

Idaho State Department of Agriculture (Idaho Statute 22-2402). Invasive plants are non-native species 

whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health 

(Executive Order 13112).

The 2012 Idaho Noxious Weed List contains 64 weed species. According to data from the Idaho State 

Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 36 of these are 

known to occur within Elmore, Owyhee, or Twin Falls Counties, Idaho (Table 3-39). Twenty of these 

noxious weeds are known to occur in the planning area (Table 3-41). In addition to the Idaho State 

Noxious Weed List, Twin Falls County has a noxious weed list consisting of two weeds: halogeton 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

A

A

3-69

(Halogeton glomeratus) and Saint John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), both of which are known to occur 

in the planning area.

Table 3-39. Idaho Noxious Weeds Occurring in Elmore, Owyhee, and/or Twin Falls Counties

Common Name Scientific Name Elmore Owyhee Twin 

Falls

Known to 

Occur in the 

Planning Area

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger Yes Yes Yes Yes

Buffalobur

Species is native. 

Solanum rostratum No Yes No No

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Yes Yes Yes Yes

Common reed 

(Phragmites) Phragmites australis No Yes No Yes

Curlyleaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus Yes Yes Yes No

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica Yes Yes Yes No

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Yes Yes Yes Yes

Dyer’s woad Isatis tinctoria No Yes Yes No

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum No Yes No Yes

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Yes Yes Yes Yes

Giant knotweed Polygonum sachalinense No No Yes No

Hoary alyssum Berteroa incana No No Yes No

Hoary cress (whitetop) Cardaria draba Yes Yes Yes Yes

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale Yes No Yes Yes

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata No Yes No No

Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum No Yes Yes No

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Yes No No No

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrical Yes No Yes Yes

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Yes Yes Yes No

Musk thistle Carduus nutans Yes Yes Yes Yes

Orange hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum Yes No No No

Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum 

leucanthemum No Yes Yes Yes

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium Yes Yes Yes Yes

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis Yes Yes Yes No

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Yes Yes Yes No

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris Yes Yes Yes Yes

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Yes Yes Yes Yes

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea Yes Yes Yes Yes

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Yes Yes Yes Yes

Salt cedar (Tamarisk) Tamarix spp. Yes Yes Yes Yes

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius No Yes No Yes

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium Yes Yes Yes Yes

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yellow Flag Iris Iris psudocorus Yes No Yes Yes

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis Yes Yes Yes No

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris Yes No Yes No

Sources: (BLM, 2006c; IASCD, 2004; ISDA, 2012; NRCS, 2012b).

The 2012 Nevada Noxious Weed List contains 47 weed species. According to the NRCS, 16 of these are 

known to occur within Elko County, Nevada (Table 3-40). Eight of these species are known to occur in the 

planning area.
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

A

A 

3-70

Table 3-40. Nevada Noxious Weeds Occurring in Elko County

Common Name Scientific Name Known to Occur in the Planning Area

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger Yes

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Yes

Dyer's woad Isatis tinctoria No

Hoary cress (whitetop) Cardaria draba Yes

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale No

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula No

Mayweed chamomile Anthemis cotula No

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium Yes

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum No

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris Yes

Salt cedar (Tamarisk) Tamarix spp. Yes

Sow thistle Sonchus arvensis No

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Yes

Water hemlock

Species is native.

Cicuta maculata Yes

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis No

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris No

Sources: (Nevada Department of Agriculture, 2008; NRCS, 2003a). 

Comprehensive noxious weed and invasive plant inventories have not been completed by BLM in the 

planning area; however, some documentation exists of noxious weeds and invasive plants and their 

locations. BLM weed treatments documented from 1996 through 2012 provided locations of 21 noxious 

weed species and 2 invasive plant species. The vegetation mapping effort (see the Upland Vegetation

section) documented vegetation communities dominated by annual invasive plants; some locations for 

noxious weeds and invasive plants were also documented during the 2006 Ecological Site Inventory data 

collection.

Table 3-41. Invasive Plants Occurring in the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat RangeA DominanceB

Annual wheatgrass Eremopyrum triticeum Upland Numerous Locally abundant

Barnyard grass Echinochloa crus-gall Riparian Rare Uncommon

Bittersweet 

nightshade Solanum dulcamara Riparian Restricted Uncommon

Bulbous bluegrass Poa bulbosa Upland Numerous Locally abundant

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Riparian Numerous Uncommon

Bur buttercup Ranunculus testiculatus Upland Widespread Locally abundant

Burdock Arctium spp. Riparian Numerous Uncommon

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Upland Widespread Dominant

Clasping pepperweed Lepidium perfoliatum Upland Widespread Locally abundant

Cocklebur Xanthium spp. Riparian Numerous Uncommon

Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale Upland Widespread Common

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus Upland Restricted Common

Curly-leaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus Riparian Restricted Locally abundant

Field pennycress Thlaspi arvense Upland Restricted Locally abundant

Flixweed Descurainia sophia Upland Widespread Common

Forage kochiaC Kochia prostrate Upland Numerous Common

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus Upland Widespread Common

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticallata Riparian Restricted Locally abundant

Japanese brome Bromus japonicas Upland Restricted Common

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis Upland Widespread Locally abundant

Kochia Kochia scoparia Upland Numerous Locally abundant
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

3-71

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat RangeA DominanceB

Littlepod false flax Camelina microcarpa Upland Rare Uncommon

Meadow fescue Festuca pratensis Upland Restricted Uncommon

Medusahead Taeniatherum caputmedusae Upland Restricted Locally abundant

Missouri iris Iris missouriensis Riparian Restricted Uncommon

Poverty weed Iva axillaris Upland Restricted Locally abundant

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Upland Widespread Uncommon

Prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare Upland Widespread Uncommon

Purple mustard Chorispora tenella Upland Numerous Dominant

Rabbitfoot grass Polypogon monspeliensis Riparian Restricted Locally abundant

Reed Phragmites australis Riparian Numerous Dominant

Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea Riparian Widespread Dominant

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Riparian Widespread Dominant

Russian thistle Salsola spp. Upland Widespread Locally abundant

Smooth brome Bromus inermis Upland Restricted Locally abundant

Soft brome Bromus mollis Upland Rare Uncommon

Stork's bill Erodium cicutarium Upland Widespread Locally abundant

Tall oatgrass Arrhenatherum elatius Riparian Rare Uncommon

Teasel Dipsacus sylvestris Riparian Numerous Locally abundant

Tumble mustard Sisymbrium altissimum Upland Widespread Locally abundant

Western 

tansymustard Descurainia pinnata Upland Widespread Locally abundant

Yellow iris Iris pseudacorus Riparian Restricted Locally abundant A Rare: species found only in one or two locations; Restricted: species limited to few areas; Numerous: species found 

in numerous areas; Wide spread: species found over large areas. B Dominant: readily dominates sites; Locally abundant: abundant in patches and may dominate small sites; Common: 

numerous but scattered; Uncommon: present in low amounts. C Forage kochia may be invasive in certain habitats. This species was seeded in the past by BLM in portions of the 

planning area.

Note: The list shown above was compiled by BLM staff based on observations in the field. 

Source: (NRCS, 2012b). 

Recent surveys of riparian areas in the planning area show increases in the presence of Canada thistle. 

Common reed and reed canary grass dominate the vegetation on some parts of Salmon Falls Creek, 

Clover Creek, and the Bruneau River. Russian olive dominates much of the tree component along the 

Snake River, and tamarisk has increased along Salmon Falls Creek and the Snake River.

Noxious weeds and invasive plants can displace native plants, degrade wildlife habitats, reduce

recreational opportunities, and impact water quality, runoff, and sedimentation (Westbrooks, 1998). 

Noxious weeds and invasive plants can change the composition, structure, and productivity of vegetation 

communities, as well as the state of ecological sites (West, 1999). Tribes, Federal and State agencies, 

counties, and private landowners are pursuing control or eradication on lands under their ownership or 

jurisdiction (BLM, 2007c).

Noxious weeds and invasive plants can spread and invade from areas of high disturbance into adjacent 

native and non-native perennial plant communities. Disturbance areas (e.g., ditches, ruts, or other areas 

where vegetation has been reduced or removed) associated with infrastructure development can serve as 

corridors and starting points for the expansion of non-native invasive plants (Trombulak and Frissell, 

2000). Other mechanisms for introduction and spread include but are not limited to cross-country 

motorized travel; passenger vehicles; road maintenance; recreational use; wild horse and wildlife 

movements; livestock movements and management activities including facility construction and 

maintenance; wind, gravel pit, and mining operations; and fire suppression activities. Noxious weeds and 

invasive plants can also spread to public land from adjacent private lands. Increased occurrence of 

wildland fire over the past 20 years (see the Wildland Fire Ecology and Management section) has created 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

3-72

opportunities for introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants, especially cheatgrass 

(Jessop and Anderson, 2007; Kinter et al., 2007). Some invasive plants dry earlier during spring and 

summer compared to native vegetation. This, coupled with periodic high biomass production, can 

contribute to wildland fire risk by increasing availability of fine fuels (Westbrooks, 1998). Rehabilitation or 

restoration treatments, such as seeding burned or otherwise disturbed areas with native or non-native 

perennial (Evans and Young, 1978) vegetation, reduce the potential for introduction and spread of 

noxious weeds and invasive plants.

3.3.9 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Wildland Fire Suppression Activities

The Twin Falls District of the BLM manages wildland fires on BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, and State 

lands by cooperative agreements. A contractual agreement also exists with the Department of Defense 

(DOD) US Air Force, which requires suppression of fires on DOD lands by the BLM. The BLM will 

suppress wildland fires on private lands when those fires pose a threat to BLM lands. The fire 

management organization performs management tasks that include preparing firefighting personnel and 

equipment for wildland fire activities; suppressing wildland fires; preventing and educating the public 

about wildland fire; planning and implementing fuel activities including prescribed fire, vegetation 

inventory, and mechanical and chemical treatments; providing funding to communities for education, 

fuels, and prevention activities through the community assistance program; and implementing Emergency 

Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation measures such as seeding and restoring vegetation on a 

wildland fire to minimize soil loss. Wildland Fire Use is a management action which accomplishes 

resource objectives through the use of fire; however, fire must occur naturally (lightning) and the area 

analyzed to allow the action. Currently, the 1987 Jarbidge RMP does not identify areas which allow this 

action.

Wildland Fire History Between 1987 and 2011, an average of 72,000 acres burned in the planning area each year, with a total 

of 1,806,000 acres burned during that 25-year period. The number of acres burned each year varied from 

a low of 600 acres in 2009 to a high of 505,000 acres in 2007. Approximately one-third of the planning 

area (688,000 acres) has burned at least once during this 25-year period. These figures are based on 

fires greater than 10 acres and include all areas burned regardless of ownership.

During this time there were 532 fires for an average of 21 fires per year. The majority of wildland fire 

ignitions in the planning area (62%) were caused by lightning, while human-caused fires comprised 38%.

This includes all wildland fire ignitions and not just those that resulted in wildland fires greater than 10 

acres.

Table 3-42 displays historical fire data for each vegetation management area (VMA) including the 

percentage of the total fires in each VMA, average number of fires per year, and average number of fires 

caused by humans per year. While the number of fires is not considered to be numerous, the burned 

acres have impacted the planning area. 

Table 3-42. Fire Data by Vegetation Management Area

Fire Data VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D

Percentage (%) of Fires 27 45 14 14

Average Number of Fires per Year 6 10 3 3 

Average Number of Human-Caused Fires per Year 2 4 1 1 

Fire Regime Condition Class

National and State BLM fire policy requires current and desired resource conditions related to fire 

management to be described in terms of three condition classes. These condition classes are collectively 

referred to as Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) and are delineated as FRCC 1, FRCC 2, and 

FRCC 3 (Barrett et al., 2010). FRCC is a classification of the amount of departure from the historic fire 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

3-73

regime and the associated historical vegetation. The historic fire regime is defined by one of five regimes 

as displayed in Table 3-43 and is based on the number of years between fires (fire return interval) and the 

amount of vegetation altered by fire (severity) (Barrett et al., 2010). FRCC 1 indicates a low departure 

from the historic fire regime and the historic vegetation, while FRCC 2 indicates a moderate departure 

and FRCC 3 indicates a high departure. 

Table 3-43. Historic Fire Regime Definitions

Historic 

Fire 

Regime

Fire Return 

Interval

Fire

Severity Severity Description

I 0-35 years Low/Mixed

Generally low-severity fires replacing less than 25% of 

the dominant overstory vegetation; can include mixedseverity fires that replace up to 75% of the overstory.

II 0-35 years Replacement High-severity fires replacing greater than 75% of the 

dominant overstory vegetation.

III 35-200 years Mixed/Low Generally mixed-severity; can also include low-severity 

fires.

IV 35-200 years Replacement High-severity fires.

V 200 + years Replacement/any 

severity

Generally replacement-severity; can include any 

severity type in this frequency range.

Potential natural vegetation group (PNVG) models are used to represent the historical vegetation for 

FRCC analysis. Each PNVG selected is based on ecological site potential as determined from soils, 

climate, and historical information. The following PNVGs were determined to represent the historical 

vegetation: Basin Big Sagebrush, Black and Low Sagebrush, Mountain Big Sagebrush, Wyoming Big 

Sagebrush Steppe, Salt Desert Shrub, Mountain Shrubland with Tree, Curleaf Mountain Mahogany, and 

Stable Aspen. Current FRCC for the planning area is displayed in Table 3-44 which shows that almost all

of the planning area is in FRCC 2 and FRCC 3. 

Table 3-44. Acres and Fire Regime Condition Class Ratings for Potential Natural Vegetation 

Groups by Vegetation Management Area

PNVG Acres of PNVGA Historic Fire 

Regime

FRCC 

Rating

VMA A

Basin Big Sagebrush 600 IV 3 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree < 100 I 3 

Salt Desert Shrub 2,000 V 3 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush Steppe 213,000 IV 3 

VMA B

Basin Big Sagebrush 200 IV 3 

Black and Low Sagebrush 300 III 2 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree 400 I 3 

Salt Desert Shrub 4,000 V 2 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush Steppe 603,000 IV 2 

VMA C

Basin Big Sagebrush 9,000 IV 3 

Black and Low Sagebrush 10,000 III 3 

Mountain Big Sagebrush 800 IV 2 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree < 100 I 3 

Stable Aspen < 100 I 3 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush Steppe 285,000 IV 2 

VMA D

Basin Big Sagebrush 18,000 IV 3 

Black and Low Sagebrush 101,000 III 2 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

3-74

PNVG Acres of PNVGA Historic Fire 

Regime

FRCC 

Rating

VMA D

Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany 3,000 III 3 

Mountain Big Sagebrush 35,000 IV 1 

Mountain Shrubland with Tree 6,000 I 3 

Stable Aspen 3,000 I 2 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush Steppe 28,000 IV 2 A Analysis was based on 2016 projected vegetation, used as the baseline vegetation composition for the RMP.

Fuel Models

Fuel models are used to describe fuel characteristics based on quantity, type, and spatial arrangement of 

vegetation. Fuel models are used to estimate or predict potential fire behavior and effects, such as flame 

length and rate of spread under various environmental parameters. Flame length corresponds to fireline 

intensity, while rate of spread relates to fire size. Fuel models designed for this purpose do not account 

for fire return interval, changes in landscape patterns, or length of fire season. Fuel models were 

assigned to each PNVG successional class using Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models (Scott and

Burgan, 2005). 

Because the size of wildland fire is a concern in the planning area, changes to rate of spread are an 

important characteristic in evaluating fire size. Each fuel model has an associated adjective rating to 

represent the rate of spread. Table 3-45 shows the acres of vegetation within each rating. Approximately 

76% of the planning area has fuels with a rate of spread rating of high or very high. 

Table 3-45. Fire Rate of Spread Rating by Vegetation Management Area (Acres)

Rate of Spread Rating VMA A VMA B VMA C VMA D

Extreme 0 0 0 0 

Very High 80,000 39,000 2,000 6,000

High 132,000 473,000 255,000 52,000

Moderate 0 < 100 5,000 57,000

Low 3,000 89,000 34,000 34,000

Very Low 0 3,000 5,000 45,000

Non-Burnable 5,000 26,000 12,000 14,000

Wildland Urban Interface

Communities at risk are Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) communities near Federal lands that are at high 

risk from wildland fire. An initial list of all communities at risk was identified in the Federal Register 

(Volume 66 [2001], pages 751-777). One community at risk, Three Creek, is located within the boundary 

of the planning area and is listed in the Fire Management Plan. Communities at risk that are located 

outside the boundary but may still be impacted by fire management activities in the planning area include 

Bliss, Glenns Ferry, Hammett, Castleford, and Hagerman. The community of Murphy Hot Springs was not 

initially listed in the Federal Register as a community at risk but has since been identified as a community 

of interest. Communities of interest are WUI areas identified after the 2001 Federal Register Notice.

FRCC is not an appropriate measure of wildland fire risk for WUI areas because these areas may be 

maintained in an altered vegetative state to protect life and property. Instead, relative risk ratings are 

used. Relative risk to WUI areas relates to vegetation condition and helps determine treatment areas for 

fuels reduction projects. The 2007 Idaho Interagency Assessment of Wildland Fire Risk to Communities

maps communities most at risk from wildland fire in Idaho by assigning relative risk ratings by Hydrologic 

Unit Codes. Approximately 167,302 acres are rated moderate or above in the WUI areas located within 

the planning area (Table 3-46, Map 29).
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wild Horses

A

A

3-75

Table 3-46. Relative Risk Ratings for Wildland Urban Interface

Relative Risk Rating Number of Acres

High 6,000

Moderate-High 84,000

Moderate 77,000

Low-Moderate 116,000

Low 30,000

No Known Communities at Risk < 100

Nevada/No Data 19,000

Total 332,000

Hazardous acres are those areas within WUI areas that have relative risk ratings of moderate or above 

and have fuels with rates of spread of high or above. Approximately 72,000 acres or 21% of WUI areas 

within the planning area are considered hazardous acres.

A County Wildfire Protection Plan identifies WUI areas and WUI priorities for fuels treatments and hazard 

mitigation in each county. Three County Wildfire Protection Plans were completed for the following 

counties in the planning area: Twin Falls, Owyhee, and Elmore. These plans are updated annually on an 

interagency basis with participation by BLM.

Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics

The concept of Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) is to minimize the long-term effects while 

effectively meeting the goals of the suppression efforts. It is not a separate or distinct class of tactics but a 

strategy of selecting a suppression tactic, personnel, equipment, and actions which would minimize the 

effects but accomplish the task. Safety would still be the primary consideration when implementing the 

MIST concept. The MIST concept applies to all phases of the fire suppression effort, including fireline 

construction, mop-up, logistics (campsites), aviation, and fireline rehabilitation.

Examples of the use of the MIST concept could include: selecting the use of engines over dozers; using 

hose-lays instead of constructing handline; and the use of natural barriers for control lines. The National 

Wildfire Coordinating Group has published MIST guidelines for agency use and consideration.

3.3.10 Wild Horses

The Saylor Creek Herd Management Area (HMA) is located in the northern portion of the planning area, 

approximately 15 miles south of Glenns Ferry. Landownership consists of approximately 95,000 acres of 

BLM-managed lands (102,000 including all ownership types, Table 3-47). The HMA contains portions of 

eight livestock grazing allotments, which are divided into 10 pastures (Table 3-48). 

Table 3-47. Land Status within the Saylor Creek Herd Management Area

Land Status Acres

Bureau of Land Management 95,000

Includes Bureau of Reclamation

Private 1,000

State Endowment Land 6,000

Total 102,000

Table 3-48. Allotments within the Saylor Creek Herd Management Area

Allotment Name Total Acres Acres within HMA Acres not in HMA

Black Mesa 12,000 10,000 2,000

Blue Butte 11,000 11,000 0

Dove Springs 9,000 9,000 0

Grindstone 7,000 7,000 0

Halejujah 8,000 1,000 7,000

Saylor Creek/ North Three Island 22,000 12,000 10,000
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wild Horses

3-76

Allotment Name Total Acres Acres within HMA Acres not in HMA

Thompson 23,000 13,000 10,000

Twin Buttes 51,000 37,000 12,000

Total 143,000 102,000 41,000

The Saylor Creek HMA was established pursuant to the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Prior to 

passage of the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act, small bands of horses were present in the 

vicinity of Dove Springs and the Sailor Creek seep, as well as the upland benches along the Snake River. 

The foundation for the herd is believed to have come from mares captured near Challis, Idaho (the 

present Challis HMA), and transported into the Saylor Creek area in the early 1960s. A registered stud 

was then purchased and turned out with the mares. Until the passage of the Wild Free Roaming Horse 

and Burro Act, private individuals would capture as many colts as possible in annual roundups.

BLM-sanctioned horse gathers and removals occurred in the fall of 1982 and again in the fall of 1989 to 

bring herd numbers to Appropriate Management Levels. 

Over the past two decades, increased human activities associated with private lands and motorized 

recreation in the northeastern portion of the HMA has resulted in avoidance of portions of the HMA by 

wild horses. The horses have developed a strong affinity to preferred areas, or home ranges, within the 

Twin Butte and Dove Springs Allotments. Within the West Pasture of the Twin Butte Allotment, the horses 

spend the majority of their time in one of two favored areas that make up their home range. The horses 

will venture into other areas of the pasture but will retreat back to favored areas to avoid human contact.

Constant human presence associated with the development of private agricultural lands and some 

conversion of public lands to private land beginning in the 1960s slowly eliminated access to natural 

water at the Snake River, resulting in the herd’s total dependence on developed livestock water systems.

There are no naturally occurring perennial water sources (e.g., streams, springs) in the HMA. One 

ephemeral stream, Sailor Creek, carries water a few days each year during spring runoff, but the flow is 

inconsistent between years because it is dependent on winter and spring precipitation. Wild horses rely 

solely on pipeline systems installed to facilitate livestock management and support the horse herd. 

Currently, the HMA has four water pipeline systems consisting of 93 miles of pipeline and 69 troughs 

providing water to livestock and the wild horse herd. All pipelines are supplied by drilled wells. Because of 

the lack of naturally occurring water in the HMA, maintenance of the artificial water systems is critical. 

These maintenance duties are shared by permittees and the BLM, and a successful working relationship 

exists to ensure wild horses always have sufficient water available. When domestic livestock are present 

on allotments within the HMA, permittees assume the primary responsibility of daily operations and 

maintenance. During these periods, BLM continues inspections of pipelines and troughs but at a lower 

frequency. When livestock are not present on allotments, the BLM assumes responsibility for the daily 

operations and maintenance.

Currently there are approximately 126 miles of permanent fence within the HMA. The majority of these

are HMA perimeter, allotment, or pasture division fences. Fences are also used for livestock holding 

areas and to exclude both livestock and wild horses from study areas, or wells and pump houses. 

Temporary fences have been constructed at various times to exclude both livestock and wild horses from 

burned areas while they recover. Because the wild horses tend to use favored areas within two 

allotments, the use of temporary fences in the remainder of the HMA have been used exclusively to 

exclude livestock from recovering burned areas. Temporary fences have been used in home ranges to 

exclude wild horses from burned areas. The fences have stayed in place for two to four years while 

burned areas recovered and then have been removed.

The climate within the HMA is hot and dry in the summer, and relatively mild during the winter months, 

with a few days of persistent snow accumulation that limit access to forage. Over the life of the 1987 

RMP, changes to vegetation due to range improvement projects designed to increase forage production 

for livestock grazing, wildland fire creating more grasslands, and rehabilitation projects in burned areas, 

forage production has increased. Vegetation within the HMA is predominately grasslands consisting of 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Wild Horses

5

5

3-77

the following vegetation sub-groups: Non-Native Perennial (51%), Native Grassland (32%), and Native 

Shrubland (15%). 

Wild horses consume the same amount of forage as cattle, approximately one animal unit month (AUM) 

per month.

Based on the average weight of wild horses in accordance with BLM Handbook H-4700-1; domestic horses 

consume 1.25 AUMs per month.

Because the wild horse herd is present in the HMA year-round, adequate forage must be 

available year-round as well. Rangeland health of the HMA is important to long-term sustainability of 

forage available to the wild horse herd. Providing for rangeland health within the HMA may mean 

modifying livestock grazing-specific use periods (seasons and lengths of stay), utilization levels, and 

periods of rest or deferment, or reduction in horse numbers, as there is limited to no opportunity to control 

the timing, seasons of use, or levels of utilization by wild horses. 

In July 2005, five wildland fires occurred within the HMA, burning approximately 41,000 acres, or 40%, of 

the HMA. The largest, the Clover Fire, burned approximately 192,000 acres across the planning area, 

including a large portion of the horses’ home range within the HMA. An emergency gather resulted in 334 

horses captured, with 12 remaining in unburned portions of the HMA. In February 2006, 93 horses, 

including 30 studs, 33 mares, and 30 yearlings, were returned to the HMA. Approximately 20 studs were

released into the Grindstone Allotment. Half of the remaining 73 animals were released in the Twin Butte

Allotment and the other half into the Thompson and Black Mesa Allotments. Prior to their release in 2006, 

31 of the 33 released mares were treated with a single application of the two-year contraceptive vaccine 

Porcine zona pellucida (PZP). Within approximately one year, the studs had breached the allotment 

division fence between the Grindstone and Thompson Allotments and joined the herd in the Thompson 

and Black Mesa Allotments. Early in 2007, the majority of the wild horses in the Thompson and Black 

Mesa Allotments (all but five horses) breached the allotment division fence and joined the horse herd in 

the home range of the West Pasture of the Twin Butte Allotment. 

A 2009 census estimated that the population of wild horses grew from the 105 horses (93 returned and 

12 remaining on the HMA) in 2006 to 168. Between 2006 and 2010 the wild horse herd had an average 

annual growth rate of 18%.

From June through August 2010, four wildland fires burned approximately 57,000 acres, or 56%, of the 

Saylor Creek HMA and almost 100% of the horses’ home range. The Long Butte Fire was the largest, 

burning approximately 307,000 acres within the planning area. A total of 194 wild horses were removed 

from the HMA through a post-fire emergency gather, with five uncaptured horses remaining in unburned 

portions of the HMA.

In September 2011, 30 horses were released back to the western half of the West Pasture within the 

HMA. The released horses included 13 mares and 17 studs (matching the pre-gather ratio of 43% 

females and 57% males), which ranged in age from 1 to 13 years old. In June 2012, the horses passed 

through an open gate in the temporary protection fence and entered the eastern half of the West Pasture. 

In July 2012, the Kinyon Road Fire burned approximately 211,000 acres; 34,000 of which were in the 

HMA, including portions of the West Pasture where horses were released in September 2011. However, 

because the horses had moved to the eastern portion of the West Pasture prior to the wildland fire they 

were not threatened.

BLM regulations direct that wild horses be managed as self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in 

balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat (43 CFR 4700.0-6[a]). Self-sustaining 

refers to the process whereby established populations are able to persist and successfully produce viable 

offspring. The absolute size a population must attain to achieve a self-sustaining condition varies based 

on the demographic and sociological features of the herd and adjoining herds and should be evaluated on 

a case-by-case basis. In many cases, it is not necessary that populations be isolated genetic units, but 

both naturally-occurring and management-induced mixing (introduction or removal of individuals) can be 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Paleontological Resources

•

•

•

•

3-78

considered in order to maintain sufficient genetic diversity within these populations (Coates-Markle, 

2000). The Saylor Creek HMA does not have any adjoining HMAs to allow for natural mixing of genetic 

material. As a result, genetic diversity must be aided through herd management. Coates-Markle 

discusses multiple options for consideration to ensure genetic diversity is maintained in a population, 

such as:

 Altering population age structure through removals to promote higher numbers of reproductively 

successful animals,

 Altering breeding sex ratios through removals to encourage a more even participation of breeding 

males and females,

 Increasing generation intervals and reducing the rate of loss of genetic material by removing or using 

contraception on younger mares, and

 Periodically introducing breeding females from other genetically similar herds to help in conservation 

efforts.

In this last scenario, only one or two breeding animals per generation (approximately 10 years) would 

need to be introduced in order to maintain the genetic resources in small populations of less than 200

animals (Coates-Markle, 2000).

Genetic testing of the Saylor Creek herd was completed following the 2010 emergency gather. Test 

results show strong genetic viability and no evidence to indicate the Saylor Creek horses suffer from 

reduced genetic fitness.

3.3.11 Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources, or fossils, constitute a fragile and non-renewable scientific record of the history 

of life on earth and represent an important and critical component of America’s natural heritage. BLM 

manages paleontological resources for their scientific, educational, and recreational values, to mitigate 

adverse effects as necessary, and to vigorously pursue the protection of fossil resources from theft, 

destruction, and other illegal or unauthorized uses (BLM Manual 8270). Permits for the collection and 

study of fossil resources from public lands are issued to qualified applicants under the Paleontological 

Resources Preservation Act (Public Law 111-11, Subtitle D).

The term fossil refers to the remains or traces of an organism preserved by natural forces in the earth’s 

crust. It does not include what are commonly known as fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, bitumen, 

lignite, or tar sands. Fossils are integrally associated with specific geologic formations and may occur 

throughout those formations. For this reason, the condition of paleontological resources is directly linked 

to soil and landform stability.

Paleontological resources within the planning area are overwhelmingly associated with the Glenns Ferry 

Formation, a geologic unit composed of poorly consolidated lake and stream deposits, inter-bedded by 

occasional basalt flows and volcanic ash. The Glenns Ferry Formation was deposited between the 

Pliocene and early Pleistocene Epochs and dates from approximately 5 million to 1.5 million years ago. 

The primary fossil-bearing deposits date to the Blancan land mammal age and range between three and 

four million years old, although some materials may be assigned to the earlier Chalk Hills Formation and 

the Hemphillian land mammal age of the Late Miocene Epoch. Hemphillian fauna lived between nine and 

five million years ago.

A variety of fossilized vertebrate and invertebrate species have been identified within the planning area. 

These include mastodon, camel, horse, llama, giant ground sloth, rhinoceros, sabre-tooth cat, many 

smaller mammals, suckers, minnows and other fish, as well as snails and other freshwater mollusks. 

Plant fossils, represented primarily by petrified wood fragments, are less common but have been found at 

a few locations. Fossil localities have been recorded across the northern portion of the planning area, 

from the Bruneau River to Hagerman and from the Snake River as far south as Notch Butte in northeast 

Owyhee County. 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Cultural Resources

•

•

•

•

•

3-79

The 1987 Jarbidge RMP identified several areas where paleontological resources were concentrated and 

deserving of special protection. Two of these areas, the Hagerman Fossil Beds and the Sand Point area

near Hammett, have been recognized since the early 20th century as nationally important paleontological 

sites and were designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in the 1987 Jarbidge 

RMP with the primary objective of protecting the fossil deposits. The Hagerman Fossil Beds were 

originally designated a National Natural Landmark in 1975. In 1988, the Hagerman Fossil Beds ACEC 

was designated a National Monument and was transferred to the National Park Service. BLM-managed

lands are located along the northern and southern borders of the Monument. The Sand Point ACEC, at 

the time it was established, was adversely affected by grazing, private collecting, motorized recreational

use, illegal digging, mining, and other activities (BLM, 1988). Vehicular access restrictions and 

construction of a fence across the southern boundary have reduced the level of surface disturbance 

attributable to livestock and human activities in the ACEC since the mid-1990s.

No large-scale, systematic paleontological inventories have been conducted within the planning area. 

Still, approximately 200 fossil localities are recorded on BLM-managed lands within the planning area. 

Because paleontological resources are closely tied to particular sedimentary geologic units, the 

probability of finding fossils can be broadly predicted from the geologic units present at or near the ground 

surface. Therefore, in the absence of large-scale paleontological inventories, geologic mapping can be 

used to assess the potential occurrence of fossils. For planning purposes, the BLM employs the Potential 

Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system, which classifies geologic units based on their relative 

abundance of vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils as well as their 

sensitivity to adverse impacts (BLM IM 2008-009). For the planning area, fossil-bearing geologic units 

were classified according to the guidance provided in Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2008-009 and 

the recommendations of professional paleontologists who possess extensive experience with the 

paleontology and geology of Idaho (Winterfeld and Rapp, 2009). In this five-tier classification system, 

PFYC Class 1 areas have very low potential for paleontological resources and PFYC Class 5 areas have 

very high potential.

PFYC Class 1 units are igneous or metamorphic in origin and have a very low potential for 

paleontological resources. These units include the vast rhyolite and basalt lava flows that account for 

almost 83% (1,137,000 acres) of the planning area.

PFYC Class 2 units are composed of sedimentary deposits that are not likely to bear fossils. Locally, 

they consist of ancient metamorphosed limestone outcrops in the extreme southwestern portion of 

the planning area (Bushnell, 1967) where they comprise less than 1% (2,000 acres) of the ground 

surface of the planning area.

PFYC Class 3 units consist of fossiliferous sedimentary formations where fossil content varies in 

importance, abundance, and occurrence. In the planning area, Class 3 units are composed of Late 

Pliocene and Pleistocene gravels covering approximately 8% (113,000 acres) of the ground surface. 

While these units are known to contain widely scattered vertebrate and invertebrate fossils, the 

number of known localities is low and the potential for project impacts to the integrity of an important 

fossil locality, though greater than in PFYC Class 1 and 2 units, is also relatively low.

PFYC Class 4 units are sedimentary deposits with a high occurrence of important fossils. Class 4 

units for south-central Idaho are restricted to stratified cave deposits containing the remains of extinct 

Pleistocene fauna (Winterfeld and Rapp, 2009). No Class 4 units are currently recorded within the 

planning area.

PFYC Class 5 units are highly fossiliferous geologic formations that consistently and predictably 

produce vertebrate or scientifically important invertebrate or plant fossils. In the planning area, both 

the Glenns Ferry and Chalk Hills formations are assigned to Class 5. These Miocene and Pliocene 

lake bed sediments comprise approximately 9% (121,000 acres) of the ground surface in the northern 

portion of the planning area and account for the majority of known fossil localities.

3.3.12 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources consist of locations of human activity, occupation, or use identified through field 

inventory, historic documentation, or oral evidence. The term includes archaeological, historic, and 

architectural properties and sites or places of traditional cultural or religious importance to Native 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Cultural Resources

6

6

3-80

American tribes or other social or cultural groups. The BLM manages cultural resources under its 

jurisdiction or control according to their relative importance. Management objectives include protecting 

against impairment, destruction, and inadvertent loss, while accommodating uses determined appropriate 

through consultation and planning. Primary direction for management of cultural resources on public 

lands is derived from the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 

the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 

Executive Order 13007-Indian Sacred Sites, and BLM’s 8100 Manual Series.

Since the late 1950s, hundreds of cultural resource inventories have been conducted in the planning 

area, ranging from large-scale inventories for Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation 

activities following wildland fires to small-scale surveys for such things as livestock water systems, 

fences, rights-of-way, and land use permits. Not all inventories were associated with surface-disturbing 

projects; a few studies have also been conducted for planning purposes and for scientific research, 

including the Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the Boise District, BLM (Young, 1984) which formed 

the basis for some of the cultural resource management actions in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP. As of January 

2012, approximately 29% of the planning area has been inventoried at the Cultural Resource Class III 

level, the most intensive survey level. As a result, approximately 5,800 cultural resources have been 

recorded. These represent a wide variety of site types and chronological periods. Approximately 73% of 

the recorded resources are prehistoric sites (i.e., Native American sites that predate European contact), 

23% are historic sites (i.e., post-contact Native American, Euro-American, Chinese, or Basque sites up 

through World War II), and 4% contain both prehistoric and historic components. Together, these 

resources document an almost continuous record of human occupation in the planning area for the past 

12,000 years. An additional 13,900 unrecorded cultural resources are estimated to be present within the 

planning area.

Lithic scatters are the most common type of prehistoric site found in the planning area. These sites 

contain stone tools and/or stone flakes produced during the manufacture or maintenance of stone tools 

and may represent short-term hunting camps, tool manufacturing or repair locations, or butchering sites. 

Other prehistoric site types include streamside camps, cave and rock shelter camps, hunting blinds, rock 

alignments and cairns, vision quest sites, tool-stone quarries, fishing locations, ceremonial sites, burials, 

and rock art sites.

Most of the historic sites in the planning area are related to the early livestock industry (ca. 1880 to World 

War II) and are represented by cow and sheep camps, herders’ monuments, rock fences and corrals, and 

a few abandoned line shacks. Other historic sites include failed homesteads, trash dumps, irrigation 

ditches, miners’ cabins, and transportation systems. The latter category includes the nationally significant 

Oregon Trail (see the National Historic Trails section) and regionally significant portions of the Kelton and 

Toana Freight Roads.

There are several spellings for this word within the region, including “Tuana” and “Tuanna.” Place names 

established on US Geological Survey quad maps have not been changed in this document, with the exception of the 

Toana Freight Road, which is the spelling used in the National Register listing.

Intact segments of these three wagon roads have been determined eligible for 

listing or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

One category of cultural resources that may or may not contain artifacts or other physical remains is the 

traditional cultural property. These places may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places because of their association with a living community’s cultural practices or beliefs rooted in the 

community’s history. Traditional cultural properties play an important role in maintaining the continuing 

cultural identity of the community and are identified through scoping and consultation rather than field 

inventory. Examples of traditional cultural properties include locations where Native Americans have 

historically gone to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice or 

a location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices 

important in maintaining its historical identity (Parker and King, 1998). In the planning area, contemporary 

members of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes maintain cultural ties to the 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Visual Resources

7

7

3-81

land and resources, although places of importance to traditional ranching and farming communities may 

also be considered traditional cultural properties. 

Based on an analysis of the site documentation that occurred during initial site recording, approximately 

55% of sites in the planning area were in good or excellent condition when discovered, 31% were in fair 

condition, and 14% were in poor condition.

These are qualitative assessments made by a variety of researchers over a number of years. Data collection during 

site recording includes a summary assessment of site condition, an estimate of the percentage of the site area that is 

disturbed, and identification of the impacting agents. The following criteria, taken from the Intermountain Antiquities 

Computer System User’s Guide (University of Utah et al., 1990), define the condition classes: excellent = virtually 

undisturbed, good = 75% undisturbed, fair = 50-75% undisturbed, and poor = more than 50% disturbed.

The condition of cultural resources in the planning area 

varies with terrain, access, and visibility, as well as past and current land use patterns. Because cultural 

resources are often exposed on the earth’s surface, they are subject to natural and human forces that can 

damage their integrity. Natural forces such as erosion, animal burrowing, wildland fire and post-fire 

exposure, deterioration, and decay have affected and will continue to affect cultural resources to varying 

degrees. Human actions and decisions, past and present, including public land disposals, concentrated 

livestock use in riparian settings, construction projects, cross-country motorized vehicle use, unauthorized 

artifact collecting, looting, and other inadvertent and purposeful human damage, are also known to have 

impacted sites in the planning area. The BLM, through the planning process, has much more control over 

the quantity and degree of future human-related, versus natural, impacts to cultural resources. 

To aid in the evaluation of alternatives, BLM developed a model to characterize the relative density and 

distribution of cultural resources in the planning area. The model combines the results of two previous 

archaeological studies, a large-scale sample survey of the southern half of the planning area (Young, 

1984) and a synthesis of 11 burned-area rehabilitation inventories conducted between 1994 and 1996 

(Fawcett, 1997), and augments those findings with data from more recent inventories. These studies 

indicate that elevation and proximity to water are reliable indicators of archaeological site density. Site 

density is highest at elevations above 5,000 feet and lowest below 3,500 feet. Density is characterized as 

moderate between 3,500 and 5,000 feet. Within these elevation areas, sites cluster near water and 

prominent topographic features.

3.3.13 Visual Resources

The planning area is known for its unique geology of broad, gently rolling plateau lands with deeply 

incised rivers, which provide a variety of scenic values. Water availability influences the distribution of 

plant communities and is based on the rain shadow effect, distribution of soil types, slope, and aspect. 

Dry lowland areas in the north support salt desert shrub communities, which change to sagebrush steppe 

with increasing elevation and moisture in the south. At higher elevations in the south, juniper, aspen, and 

mountain mahogany are present. A few areas contain limber pine and subalpine fir. Surface water is 

generally limited to scattered perennial springs and creeks. Creeks are typically located in the deeper 

draws and canyons.

The BLM designed the visual resource management system to help identify visual values and minimize 

visual impacts to the landscape character of public lands. In order to fulfill these requirements, an 

interdisciplinary team conducted a visual resource inventory (VRI) of the planning area between October 

2007 and March 2008 (BLM, 2008d). 

The VRI process has three steps: a scenic quality rating, a sensitivity rating, and a distance zone 

analysis. Scenic quality is a measure of the visual appeal of a tract of land. In the VRI process, public 

lands are given an A, B, or C rating based on the apparent scenic quality, which is determined using 

seven key factors: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modification. 

Areas with the most visual appeal are rated A, while areas with the least visual appeal are rated C. In the 

planning area, areas rated as A typically contained changes in topography, deeply incised canyons, 

unique geologic features such as hoodoos, and native vegetation communities that provided a variety of 

vegetation species. Areas rated as B typically contained slight changes of topography and some variation 
Chapter 3: Resources Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

3-82

in vegetation species. Areas rated as C typically contained no change in topography and very few 

vegetation species. During the VRI, scenic quality rating A was given to 155,000 acres, scenic quality 

rating B was given to 158,000 acres, and scenic quality rating C was given to 1,058,000 acres. Map 148 

displays the Scenic Quality Rating Results.

Sensitivity levels are a measure of the public concern for scenic quality. During the sensitivity rating, 

public lands are assigned high, medium, or low sensitivity by analyzing six indicators of public concern: 

type of user, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, special areas, and other factors. During 

the VRI, a high sensitivity rating was given to 120,000 acres, a medium sensitivity rating was given to 

150,000 acres, and a low sensitivity rating was given to 1,101,000 acres in the planning area. Map 149 

displays the Sensitivity Rating Results.

A distance zone analysis was conducted by selecting the base routes and rivers with recreational use as 

travel routes and performing a viewshed analysis, which identifies areas that can be seen from one or 

more observation points or lines. According to the distance zone analysis, 626,000 acres were assigned 

to the for Foreground-Middleground Zone, 261,000 acres were assigned to the Background Zone, and 

484,000 acres were assigned to the Seldom Seen Zone. Map 150 displays the Distance Zone Analysis.

The result of the inventory process is the assignment of VRI Classes. VRI Class I is assigned to areas 

where a management decision has been made previously to maintain a natural landscape. This includes 

areas such as Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers with a scenic outstandingly remarkable value, 

and other Congressionally and administratively designated areas where decisions have been made to 

preserve a natural landscape. Classes II, III, and IV are assigned based on a combination of scenic 

quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones by combining overlays for these factors generated through 

the inventory process.

After overlaying the scenic quality, sensitivity, and distance zone maps and applying the criteria for 

assigning VRI Classes, 71,000 BLM-managed acres were identified as VRI Class I, 90,000 acres as VRI 

Class II, 51,000 acres as VRI Class III, and 1,159,000 acres as VRI Class IV. Map 40 displays the results 

of the VRI.

3.3.14 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Consistent with Section 201 of Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which requires the 

Secretary of the Interior to “prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands 

and their resource and other values,” and policy and guidance contained in BLM Manual 6310 

Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands, BLM Manual 6320 Considering Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process, and BLM Handbook H-1601-1 

Land Use Planning, the BLM evaluated and identified BLM-managed Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics. This inventory did not address Wilderness Areas designated by Congress or Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs) pending before Congress.

Wilderness characteristics are features of the land associated with the concept of wilderness, including 

naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation. 

Areas have a high degree of naturalness when affected primarily by the forces of nature and where the 

imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable. Assessing an area for naturalness includes 

examining the area for attributes such as the presence or absence of roads and trails, fences, and other 

infrastructure; the nature and extent of landscape modifications; the presence of native vegetation 

communities; and the connectivity of habitats.

Areas have outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation when 

the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or infrequent; where visitors can be isolated, 

alone, or secluded from others; where the use of the area is through non-motorized, non-mechanical 

means; and where no or minimal developed recreation facilities are encountered.

Areas evaluated for wilderness characteristics satisfy the required size criteria by meeting one of the 

following situations and circumstances: 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resources

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

•

•

o

o

o

3-83

Roadless areas with over 5,000 acres of contiguous BLM lands. State or private lands are not 

included in making acreage determinations. 

Roadless areas of less than 5,000 acres of contiguous BLM lands where any one of the following 

apply: 

They are contiguous with lands which have been formally determined to have wilderness or 

potential wilderness values (e.g., designated wilderness or WSAs).

 The area is of sufficient size to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition.

Any roadless island of the public lands.

These areas were evaluated for the presence of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined types of recreation (BLM, 2012c). Eighteen areas outside wilderness and the 

existing WSA were identified as having wilderness characteristics (Table 3-49; Map 49).

Table 3-49. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (Acres)

Area Name Size

Antelope CanyonA 20

Antelope Pocket 1A 4,000

Antelope Pocket 2A 2,000

Black Canyon 2011 17,000

Browns Bench 9,000

China Creek 5,000

Columbet TableA 200

Crater HoleA 2,000

East Fork Jarbidge 6,000

Hole in the Ground 16,000

Indian Hot SpringsA 1,000

Inside Lakes 5,000

Larios CampA 400

Long Draw 27,000

Roberson TrailA 4,000

SheepsheadA 2,000

Twin LakesA 3,000

Winter CampA 900

Total 104,000 A Contiguous with Wilderness
Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Livestock Grazing

3-84

3.4 RESOURCE USES

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs that in addition to managing the 

public lands “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 

environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, where appropriate, 

will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; (and) that will provide food and 

habitat for fish and wildlife” (Sec. 102[8]), the public lands will be managed in a manner that will “provide 

food and habitat for...domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human 

occupancy and use” (Sec. 102[8]) and “in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic 

sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands” (Sec. 102[12]). In addition, FLPMA 

identifies the “principal or major uses” of public lands as “domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife 

development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and 

timber production” (Sec. 103[l]).

As such, the BLM manages public lands for a variety of resource uses. Resource uses occurring in the 

planning area are discussed in this section.

3.4.1 Livestock Grazing

The planning area is divided into 93 grazing allotments on 1,371,000 acres of BLM-managed lands with 

64 permit holders (permittees). Additionally, livestock grazing on 92,000 acres of military withdrawal lands 

is managed by the BLM in accordance with Public Land Order (PLO) 1027 as amended by PLO 4902. 

Salmon Falls Creek Canyon was identified in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP as unavailable to livestock grazing.

The Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons are not contained within grazing allotments administered by the 

Jarbidge Field Office. However, portions of the planning area within the Bruneau River Canyon are 

currently being grazed within the Bruneau Canyon Allotment administered by the Bruneau Field Office, 

Boise District. Future management of lands administered by the Jarbidge Field Office will be resolved 

following appropriate administrative processes (43 CFR 4130) and will comply with direction of the 

Jarbidge RMP.

Permits or leases are issued to authorize use on BLM-managed lands available for livestock grazing.

Grazing permits describe terms and conditions for annual grazing use to achieve management and 

resource objectives. Mandatory terms and conditions include the allotment(s) to be used, the period-ofuse (dates), number and kind of livestock, and the level of allowed grazing use in animal unit months 

(AUMs). Allowable use includes both active and suspended AUMs. Active-use AUMs are those available 

for grazing use. Suspended-use AUMs are generally on permits as a result of past reductions in grazing 

use and are not available for use until a grazing decision and supporting National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) documentation is issued by the BLM authorized officer. Other terms and conditions 

may include, but are not limited to, locations of supplements, provisions for temporary delay in grazing 

use, and management methods to use to achieve objectives (43 CFR 4130.3). Permits generally cover a 

10-year period and are renewable if the BLM determines the terms and conditions of the expiring permit 

are being met.

Permit holders may submit grazing applications to make annual adjustments in grazing use within the 

terms and conditions of the grazing permit. Annual applications allow permittees to apply for adjustments 

in annual grazing use within the terms and conditions of the grazing permit. The amount of grazing that 

occurs each year can be affected by such factors as drought, wildland fire, and market conditions. A bill is 

issued to the permittee specific to the amount of grazing use authorized for that season.

Currently, approximately 189,000 AUMs of active use are authorized on the allotments within the planning 

area (Appendix J), including 12,154 AUMs in the US Air Force Saylor Creek Training Range; 96% of the 

AUMs are allocated to cattle, 4% to domestic sheep, and less than 1% to domestic horses. Interim 

grazing measures pursuant to stipulated settlement agreements (SSAs) govern 112,620 of these AUMs. 

Interim measures vary by agreement but generally affect seasons-of-use, utilization limits, and stocking 

rates to address special status species habitat requirements. The interim measures are to be in effect

until the grazing permits could be reissued under updated environmental analysis.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses

Livestock Grazing

8

8

3-85

In addition to permitted AUMs, approximately 17,000 AUMs of non-renewable use can be issued annually 

in 18 allotments in accordance with 43 CFR 4130.6-2 and the authority of Department of the Interior (DOI)

appropriations acts.

Table 3-50 (see Appendix J for additional detail). 

This rider appears in the following: section 142 of Public Law (PL) 108-108 (Fiscal Year [FY] 2004); section 132 of 

PL 108-447 (FY 2005); section 123 of PL 109-54 (FY 2006); and section 116 of PL 110-161 (FY 2008). In FY 2005 

and 2008, the section was contained in a consolidated appropriations act. 

The 11 allotments under SSAs signed in 2010 and 2011 (CV-04-181-S-BLW

[Docket 400 and 420]), the 17 allotments under the 2011 Federal District Court Order (CV-04-181-S-BLW 

[Docket 505]), and the two allotments under the 2003 SSA (CV-02-521-S-MHW) are only allowed active 

use as described in the interim measures. Authorized active use AUMs for these allotments are

summarized in

Table 3-50. Animal Unit Months Authorized in the Planning Area

Legal Obligation Number of 

Allotments

Current 

Permits 

(AUMs)

Nonrenewable 

Authorizations 

(AUMs)

2003 SSA for CV-02-521-S-MHW (Judge 

Williams) 2 27,888 0 

2010/2011 SSA for CV-04-181-S-BLW (Judge 

Winmill) 11 20,231 0 

2011 Order CV-04-181-S-BLW (Judge Winmill) 17 64,501 0 

Non-Renewable Grazing Permits under DOI 

Appropriations Acts 18 27,320 17,071

Other Allotments 45 48,862 0 

Total 93 188,802 17,071

Over the life of the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, changes to vegetation due to range improvement projects 

designed to increase forage production for livestock grazing, wildland fire creating more grasslands, and 

rehabilitation projects in burned areas, forage production has increased (see Upland Vegetation section 

for changes to vegetation). To take advantage of the increased availability of forage in the planning area, 

permittees requested temporary non-renewable (TNR) permits that would authorize additional AUMs 

when forage was available and resource objectives could be maintained or achieved (CFR 4130.6-1). 

Between the periods of 1998 to 2002, as much as 47,459 AUMs were authorized in 22 allotments under 

TNR permits. Following the 2004 Federal District Court Order (CV-04-181-S-BLW) the Jarbidge Field 

Office was enjoined from issuing TNR permits until an updated environmental analysis could be 

completed. A subsequent Congressional rider compelled BLM to authorize TNR permits consistent with 

the most recently expired TNR permit between March 1, 1997 and February 28, 2003. The rider was 

updated annually until 2008 when the language was modified to remain in effect until the grazing permits 

were renewed. The new rider language also changed the effective dates to include all TNR permits 

issued since March 1, 1997, to present, rather than limiting the period to 2003. The parameters of the 

rider could allow approximately 17,700 AUMs to be authorized in TNR permits. Between the years 2002

and 2011, TNR permits averaged 10,200 AUMs (Appendix J). 

Actual use (grazing use that actually occurred) has varied annually based on factors such as forage 

production, resource conditions, wildland fire, court decisions, and individual livestock grazing operations. 

Actual grazing use since the 1987 Jarbidge RMP has been as high as approximately 217,000 AUMs in 

1997 and as low as approximately 109,000 AUMs in 1988. Between 2002 and 2011, the average actual 

use was approximately 173,000 AUMs.

Livestock grazing occurs within the planning area yearlong. Generally, the lower elevation rangeland of 

the northern third of the planning area is grazed in the fall, winter, and spring. The higher elevation 
Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Livestock Grazing

3-86

rangeland in the middle third is grazed in the spring, summer, and fall, and the high elevation rangeland in 

the southern third are grazed primarily in the summer and fall.

Rangeland Health

The 1995 Grazing Regulations provided for the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and development of 

standards and guidelines for livestock grazing. The regulations authorized the BLM to establish Resource 

Advisory Councils and to consult with them to develop standards for rangeland health in local areas. 

Regulation requires the authorized officer to take action upon determining that current livestock grazing is 

a significant causal factor for failing to achieve land health standards. Bureau policy is to assess and 

evaluate a defined area (usually watersheds or allotments) to ascertain if current conditions meet 

standards, and if not, to determine the causal factor(s). In 1996, Idaho BLM developed standards in 

consultation with its Resource Advisory Council. The Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Management for rangeland health, as applied in the State of Idaho, are to be used as BLM 

management goals for the betterment of the environment, protection of cultural resources, and sustained 

productivity of the range. They were developed with the specific intent of allowing for multiple uses of the 

public lands.

Assessments of rangeland health have been completed on 43 of the 93 allotments, approximately 61% of 

the acreage in the planning area, between 1998 and 2003. Table 3-51 summarizes the determinations as 

to whether the allotments are meeting or making progress toward meeting the Standards for Rangeland 

Health. These determinations apply only to the allotments assessed.

Table 3-51. Status of Allotments in Meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health

Description Number of 

Allotments

Number of 

Acres

Allotments meeting all standards or making significant progress toward 

meeting the standard. 1 36,800

Allotments not meeting all standards or making significant progress 

toward meeting the standards, and current livestock use is a significant 

causal factor. 

28 608,351

Allotments not meeting all standards or making significant progress 

toward meeting the standards due to causes other than livestock 

grazing. 

14 194,272

Total 43 839,423

Range Infrastructure

Effective management of livestock grazing is dependent on the use of infrastructure to meet resource 

objectives. Range improvements include specialized treatments and infrastructure used to improve range 

resources or their use by grazing animals (Vallentine, 1989). Infrastructure such as water developments 

and fences provide a means to control livestock movement and the timing and duration of grazing 

periods. The planning area contains pipelines supplied by creeks, springs, and wells that provide water 

for livestock. In addition to providing water for livestock, some pipeline systems distribute water used for 

wildland fire suppression and serve as a source of water for wildlife and the only source of water for wild 

horses. Reservoirs for water storage on pipeline systems and stock ponds for livestock watering were 

developed by constructing low earthen dams and excavating pits in playas. Vegetation treatments that 

improve forage availability, such as non-native perennial seedings, are addressed in the Upland 

Vegetation section. Table 3-52 shows the range infrastructure currently in the planning area.

Table 3-52. Types and Approximate Amount of Existing Range Infrastructure

Type of Range Infrastructure Amount

Cattleguards 130

Fences (miles) 2,000

Reservoirs and Stock Ponds 100
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses

Recreation

•

•

•

•

3-87

Type of Range Infrastructure Amount

Spring Developments 25

Pipelines (miles) 900

Wells 15

Corrals 25

Cow Camps 5 

3.4.2 Recreation

Public lands in the planning area provide opportunities for a variety of outdoor recreation and related 

benefits with most users participating in dispersed recreation, either individually or in small groups. Many 

of these visitors view public lands as respite from their day-to-day routines and as places for individual 

challenge and exploration, along with social development and an appreciation for the natural world.

The BLM accounts for different types of recreation use through the Recreation Management Information 

System. It measures participation in 65 types of recreation activities and calculates increases or 

decreases in use for:

 Recreation sites, 

 Dispersed use areas, 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs), and

 Road, trail, river, or special designation area segments. 

Recreation Management Information System data sources can include information from fee envelopes, 

traffic or trail counter data, self-registration forms, use reports from recreation permittees, or, as is largely 

the case in the planning area, observations and professional judgment. During Fiscal Years 1999 to 2011, 

the planning area averaged 48,000 visits a year (BLM, 2012b). 

Recreation Management Areas

BLM-managed public lands are allocated to recreation management areas based on: recreation demand 

and issues, recreation setting characteristics, resolving use/user conflicts, compatibility with other 

resource uses, and resource protection needs. Areas are allocated to two types of administrative units, 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

(ERMAs).

The SRMA is an administrative unit where unique and distinctive recreation values are identified and are 

managed to enhance an existing or proposed targeted set of activities, experiences, benefits, and 

recreation setting characteristics. Within a SMRA, recreation resources and use management is 

recognized as the predominant planning focus, where specific recreation opportunities and recreation 

setting characteristics are managed and protected on a long-term basis.

The ERMA is an administrative unit that recognizes existing recreation use, demand, or program 

investments and is managed to sustain principal recreation activities and associated qualities and 

conditions of the ERMA. Management of ERMAs is commensurate with the management of other

resources and resource uses.

The policy to specifically identify areas not managed for recreation results from direction contained in 

BLM Manual 8320, Recreation and Visitor Services Land Use Planning Guidance. These areas 

essentially replace the custodial level of management assigned previously to the ERMA designation. 

Custodial management is reactive to problems and issues that arise, as opposed to proactively providing 

opportunities and directly managing the recreation resource. As these areas are not specifically managed 

for recreation, desired objectives for settings and targeted activities, benefits and outcomes are not 

identified or managed for.
Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Recreation

3-88

Five SRMAs are identified in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP (Table 3-53). 

Table 3-53. Special Recreation Management Areas Identified in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP

SRMA Acres Type of Opportunity Setting

Bruneau-Jarbidge 57,000

Whitewater boating, fishing, 

hunting, viewing wildlife and 

natural scenery, primitive 

camping

Opportunities for isolation from manmade sights and sounds in a natural 

environment. Visitors use outdoor 

skills and have minimal contact with 

other users or groups.

Jarbidge Forks 4,320

Rafting, fishing, camping, 

picnicking, viewing wildlife and 

natural scenery

The landscape is generally natural 

with modifications moderately evident. 

Concentration of users is low to 

moderate and there are opportunities 

for both motorized and non-motorized

activities.

Oregon Trail 16,384

Hiking, viewing wildlife and 

natural scenery, educational 

activities

Some opportunities for isolation from 

man-made sights and sounds in a 

predominantly unmodified 

environment. Concentration of visitors 

is low, but evidence of other area 

users is present.

Hagerman-Owsley 

Bridge 2,680 OHV riding

The landscape is generally natural 

with modifications moderately evident. 

The concentration of users is often 

moderate to high. Predominately 

motorized activities with moderate 

challenge and risk.

Salmon Falls 

Creek 5,600

Fishing, camping, water sports, 

hunting, boating, equestrian, 

hiking, OHV riding

The landscape is generally natural 

with modifications moderately evident. 

Concentration of users is low to 

moderate, but facilities for group 

activities may be present. 

Opportunities for both motorized and 

non-motorized activities are present.

Special Recreation Permits

Five types of uses requiring Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) are authorized by the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004: commercial (e.g., whitewater outfitters), competitive (e.g., offhighway vehicle [OHV] races), vending (e.g., food service), individual or group use in special areas (e.g., 

weddings), and organized group activity and event use (e.g., club trail ride). SRPs are issued to manage 

visitor use, protect natural and cultural resources, and accommodate commercial recreational uses and 

may be issued for 10 years or less with annual renewal. Commercial SRPs are issued to outfitters, 

guides, vendors, recreation clubs, and commercial competitive event organizers providing recreational 

opportunities or service without employing permanent facilities. SRPs for competitive and organized 

group events are also included in this category. The maximum number of commercial SRPs in place at 

one time during the last 20 years was six. In 2012, five commercial SRPs were in place for the planning 

area.

The BLM issues SRPs for noncommercial use in certain special areas, including wilderness, rivers, and 

backcountry hiking or camping areas. 

Developed Recreation

Developed recreation sites incorporate visitor use infrastructure (i.e., roads, parking areas, and facilities) 

to protect the resource and support recreational users in their pursuit of activities and experiences that 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses

Recreation

•

•

•

•

•

•

3-89

result in satisfying recreation benefits that are both short- and long-term and are realized on- and off-site.

Visitor use infrastructure is a management tool that can minimize resource impacts, concentrate use, and 

reduce visitor conflicts.

There are six developed recreation sites within the planning area. Currently, these six sites do not meet 

the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 criteria for charging fees. None of the sites have 

potable water or trash service in the form of trashcans or dumpsters. The following list outlines these sites 

and their amenities:

Bruneau Canyon Overlook - Parking area, interpretive kiosks, and protective fence structures; 

Bruneau River Launch Site, East - Parking and information kiosk; 

Bruneau River Take-out - Information kiosk; 

Cedar Creek Reservoir (Roseworth Reservoir) - Parking area, vault restrooms, and docks; 

East Fork Jarbidge River Recreation Sites (four sites) - Vault restrooms, picnic tables, and fire 

rings with grills; and

Jarbidge River Recreation Site - Parking area, launch facilities for whitewater boating, vault 

restrooms, and information kiosk. 

Dispersed Recreation

Hunting is the major dispersed recreation use across the entire planning area. The average number of 

hunter-days in pursuit of mule deer and pronghorn in the planning area was 7,220 between 2007 and 

2011 (IDFG, 2012e). In 2011, elk hunting units 46 and 47 were separated from a larger geographic 

hunting unit, and the total for the season was 598 hunter-days, with anticipation of increased participation 

in the future (IDFG, 2012e). 

Sport fishing in the Snake River along the northern boundary of the planning area and on the Salmon 

Falls Creek and Cedar Creek Reservoirs are also popular dispersed recreation activities. Salmon Falls 

Reservoir is one of the most heavily used fisheries in south-central Idaho. In 2010, a Salmon Falls Creek 

Reservoir angler effort survey was conducted by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG, 2012a). 

Out of a total of 215 days in the survey period, the angler survey was completed on the reservoir on 75 of 

those days, or 35% of the time. Estimated angler effort in the surveyed sections and time period was 

89,046, + 1,617 hours. Average angler catch rates on trout during the surveyed period in all intervals 

were 1.02 fish, + 0.03 fish per hour. Peak months of fishing activity typically are April through October.

Only two recognized trails exist within the planning area. The Idaho Centennial Trail is used for both 

hiking and motorized vehicles; use of the segment within the planning area is generally low because 

much of the trail is in remote terrain with difficult access. The Roberson Trail is located in the BruneauJarbidge Rivers Wilderness which dictates a no mechanized or motorized use. This trail is used in the 

spring and early summer by whitewater boaters accessing the Five Mile Rapids, a series of Class IV 

rapids on the Bruneau Wild and Scenic River. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

The term off-highway vehicle (OHV) is used by the public, industry, and the BLM interchangeably with offroad vehicle. The term off-road vehicle has a legally established definition in the Presidential Executive 

Order 11644 (1972) and BLM regulations. OHVs are defined as “any motorized vehicle capable of or 

designated for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding (1) any nonamphibious registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency or law enforcement vehicle when being 

used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized 

officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicle in official use; and (5) any combat or combat support 

vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies” (43 CFR 8340.0-5). OHVs are used within 

the planning area for recreational and nonrecreational purposes. Much of the nonrecreational OHV use 

involves BLM administrative activities and grazing administration by ranchers. The BLM has chosen to 

use the term OHV, partly because it is a more popular term, but also because the regulations address 

vehicles that use roads and trails on BLM-managed land, and are therefore not solely off-road. 
Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Transportation and Travel

3-90

The national BLM objectives for OHV management are to protect the resources of public lands, promote 

the safety of all users of those lands, and minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands (BLM, 

2001b). OHV use has become a popular method of recreation as well as a means of transportation while 

pursuing other forms of recreation such as hunting, fishing, or camping. Antler gathering is an example of 

an increasing OHV use. Antlers shed by big game in their winter and spring ranges across most of the 

southern portion of the planning area are sought by collectors, as a recreational hobby, and for art. Many 

people participating in this activity use OHVs to cover more ground than can be done on foot or 

horseback. The Jarbidge Field Office has received reports of people who grid areas to increase their 

success in finding antlers.

In 2003, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game implemented restrictions for motorized vehicles used 

while hunting big game and upland game in the Jarbidge Foothills area (hunt unit 47). This rule applies to 

designated areas within Idaho and states, “hunters may only use motorized vehicles on established 

roadways which are open to motorized traffic and capable of being traveled by full-sized automobiles. Any 

other use by hunters is prohibited. All off-road use by hunters is prohibited” (IDFG, 2012e). This rule does 

not apply to valid Handicapped Persons Motor Vehicle Hunting Permits, game retrieval, packing camping 

equipment, or use on private property.

All-terrain vehicle (ATV), utility vehicle (UTV), and off-highway motorbike use are some of the fastest 

growing recreation activities in the planning area. Table 3-54 displays the increase in ATV, UTV, and offhighway motorbike registrations since 2006 in the counties with people most likely to participate in 

motorized recreation within the planning area.

Table 3-54. All-Terrain Vehicle, Utility Vehicle, and Off-Highway Motorbike Registrations by County

Year Elmore Owyhee Twin Falls Gooding Jerome

2006 1,880 853 5,289 1,194 1,529

2007 2,128 988 5,971 1,389 1,759

2008 2,354 1,072 6,373 1,532 1,836

2009 2,332 1,028 6,528 1,569 1,898

2010 2,281 1,003 6,408 1,531 1,887

Note: These registration numbers reflect registrations processed for the sticker year. This table includes registered 

off-highway motorbikes, ATVs, and UTVs. UTVs were not identified as a separate registration until 2007.

Source: (IDPR, 2011).

Between 2006 and 2011, 10,258 visitor days were spent participating in OHV activities in the planning 

area (BLM, 2012b). Because of its relationship to transportation and access issues, further discussion of 

this use can be found in the Transportation and Travel section.

Whitewater Boating

Whitewater recreation continues to be a popular activity locally, regionally, and nationally. The Jarbidge 

and Bruneau rivers have a growing national reputation for those attracted to remote, wild, and spectacular 

canyons and a challenging whitewater boating experience. The float season lasts approximately one 

month, with the peak use occurring during the latter part of May. Water runoff from snowpack in the 

Jarbidge Mountains usually dictates the optimum flows for this activity. In 1983, the Jarbidge Field Office

implemented a mandatory registration system for private boaters on the Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers, 

which provides some use data. While the Jarbidge Field Office administers outfitting on the Jarbidge and 

Bruneau Rivers, maintenance of facilities and accountability for visitor use are currently shared with the 

Bruneau Field Office, Boise District.

Between 2006 and 2011, 3,347 visitor days were spent participating in whitewater recreation activities in 

the planning area (BLM, 2012b). 

3.4.3 Transportation and Travel

Transportation involves access to public lands and infrastructure management. Within the planning area, 

local dependence on public land to meet transportation needs occurs mostly in terms of access to public 

and private lands, in contrast to town-to-town or city-to-city destination-type travel. Development of the 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses

Transportation and Travel 

3-91

•

•

•

existing transportation system in the planning area has been associated with providing access for 

resource uses such as livestock grazing and recreation. Increased demand for access to public lands, 

combined with research on impacts of roads and trails to resources and resource uses, requires a welldesigned and managed transportation system.

There are approximately 4,300 miles of mapped transportation routes (i.e., roads, primitive roads, and 

trails) in the planning area (Map 71). Based on field observations and recent aerial photography, the 

actual amount of transportation routes could be twice as high as the amount mapped. The transportation 

system includes BLM and county system roads and primitive roads. Some BLM and county system roads 

receive regular maintenance. County roads are usually constructed and maintained to higher standards 

than BLM roads and provide access to and through BLM lands, supporting a higher volume of traffic than 

other roads in the planning area. These county roads are maintained by the six local highway districts 

and, in some areas, by the US Air Force if higher standards are required for operations connected with 

training ranges. 

Various government entities and individuals acquire rights-of-way from the BLM for portions of the 

transportation system roads that cross BLM-managed land. Issuance of rights-of-way is based on access 

needs and resource considerations.

In addition to main and local routes, numerous primitive roads are laced throughout the planning area 

connecting more remote locations to main roads. These primitive roads are used for administrative 

access (i.e., range monitoring), recreational purposes, access to private land inholdings, and access to

livestock management infrastructure. Some of these routes are maintained as needed and are of native 

surface: dirt, gravel, or sand.

One backcountry airstrip in the planning area, near Murphy Hot Springs, was leased to the Idaho 

Transportation Department’s Division of Aeronautics in 1993 and is managed by that agency.

The growth of off-highway vehicle (OHV) use has become an issue because of the number of users who 

participate in this recreation opportunity with limited designated OHV areas and routes, as well as 

concerns related to the potential resource degradation resulting from high levels of unmanaged motorized 

use in and near sensitive areas. During public scoping, more than 31% of comments received on 

resource uses related to transportation and access and OHV use.

Areas are designated during the planning process in accordance with BLM regulations and include the 

following three management categories:

Open to Cross-Country Motorized Vehicle Use - An area where all types of vehicle use are

permitted at all times, anywhere within the designated “open” area. This refers to cross-country travel 

both on and off roads.

Limited to Designated Routes - Areas where vehicle use is restricted at certain times, in certain 

areas, and/or to certain vehicular uses in order to meet specific resource management objectives. 

These limitations may include: limiting the number or types of vehicles; limiting the time or season of 

use; permitted, administrative, or licensed use only; use on existing roads and trails; and limiting use 

to designated roads and trails. 

Closed to Motorized Vehicle Use - Motorized vehicles are permanently or temporarily prohibited. 

The use of motorized vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons (e.g., emergency 

services); such use shall be made only with the approval of the BLM authorized officer (43 CFR 

8340.0-5). 

The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (OPLMA; Public Law 111-11) was signed by the President 

on March 30, 2009. OPLMA directed the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a travel management plan for 

motorized and mechanized OHV recreation on BLM-managed lands in Owyhee County. In general, the 

plan would limit recreational motorized and mechanized OHV use to a system of designated roads and 

trails; this limitation would not apply to snowmobiles. Until the plan is completed, all recreational 

motorized and mechanized OHV use (excluding snowmobiles) shall be limited to roads and trails lawfully 

in existence on the day before the enactment of the act. 
Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Land Use Authorizations

3-92

OPLMA changed all open areas in Owyhee County to “limited to designated routes”, with a “limited to 

existing routes” in effect until a transportation plan is completed. Inventoried ways, within the released 

Wilderness Study Area (32,080 acres) are also “limited to designated routes”, with a “limited to existing 

routes” in effect until a transportation plan is completed. All acres within the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers 

Wilderness are closed to motorized and mechanized vehicle use under OPLMA.

Back Country Byways

The Thousand Springs Scenic Byway begins at Interstate 84 near Bliss, Idaho, and follows US Highway

30 southeast through Twin Falls, Idaho. Contact with small parcels of land managed by the Jarbidge Field 

Office occurs near the Thousand Springs area. The Idaho Transportation Department administers this 

highway. This byway is a Scenic Byway and not a component of the BLM Back Country Byway program. 

3.4.4 Land Use Authorizations

The Jarbidge Field Office administers rights-of-way (ROWs), land use permits, and leases, collectively 

referred to as land use authorizations. These existing authorizations are for a variety of different uses and 

are held by private individuals and groups, as well as by various business and government entities.

Section 501 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) authorizes BLM to grant, 

issue, or renew ROWs on public lands; within the planning area, roads, power transmission lines, and 

telephone lines are the most common uses for ROWs and account for well over half of the total number of 

grants. Examples of additional types of ROW facilities authorized within the planning area include natural 

gas pipelines, communication sites, ditches, water pipelines, water facilities, and fiber optic lines. To date 

there are approximately 440 authorized ROWs. The Jarbidge Field Office processes approximately 10 to 

20 ROW applications annually, including new authorizations, amendments, assignments, renewals, and 

relinquishments. Since the 1987 Jarbidge RMP was completed, there has been an increase in the 

number of utility services, power line upgrades, roads to private residences, communication sites, and 

upgrades to existing land use authorizations. Unauthorized uses such as farming, road grading, and road 

building on BLM-managed lands have increased as well.

Section 302 of FLPMA authorizes the BLM to issue or renew land use permits and leases for the use, 

occupancy, and development of public lands. Leases and permits are issued for purposes such as 

commercial filming, apiaries, and uses that cannot be authorized under ROWs. Permits are usually shortterm authorizations not to exceed three years. The Jarbidge Field Office currently has approximately 250 

land use permits. 

Twelve communication site ROWs, occupying seven different communication site locations, are 

authorized within the planning area. Potential users are encouraged to locate within existing 

communication facilities or in the immediate vicinity, because the existing facilities can only accommodate 

a certain number of users. The two largest communication sites within the planning area are the Yahoo 

Creek Communication Site and the Lower Salmon Communication Site, both of which have completed 

communication site plans. There are no site plans for any of the other communication site facilities 

because of their single-occupant status. If future development were to occur at these sites, a site 

management plan would be completed at that time.

The 1987 Jarbidge RMP was amended in 2009 by the Record of Decision for the Westwide Energy 

Corridor Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The amendment designated four utility ROW 

corridors: Pilgrim Gulch, Shoestring, Balanced Rock, and Saylor Creek (Map 97). Other proposed utility 

ROW corridors include the Jarbidge, Roseworth, and the Oil/Gas Pipelines (Map 97). Compatible facilities 

are grouped together where possible. Special designation areas, such as Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern and the Wilderness Study Area, may restrict such development.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses

Land Tenure

9

9

10

10

3-93

Renewable energy includes geothermal , wind, hydroelectric, and solar power.

Geothermal resources are considered leasable minerals and are addressed in the Minerals section.

 There are no renewable 

energy developments on public lands within the planning area; however, the Jarbidge Field Office has 

had several inquiries for wind energy-related interests on public land within the past several years. The 

only authorized use granted to date is the 2007 Renewable Energy Systems (RES) ROW for wind 

velocity test towers on China Mountain. The authorization allowed RES to construct four meteorological 

(MET) towers within a 13,000-acre ROW area. The ROW was amended in 2009 to authorize the 

installation of two additional MET towers and was renewed for a three year period in 2010. In 2011 and 

2012, RES removed the MET towers and provided a decommissioning plan. RES has requested a 

relinquishment for the MET tower ROW.

In May 2007, RES submitted an application to construct a commercial wind energy project in portions of 

the Jarbidge and Wells Field Offices. The proposed wind development was to produce 425 megawatts on 

approximately 30,700 acres; 4,700 acres would be managed by the Wells Field Office, 2,000 acres would 

be managed by the State of Idaho, 15,300 acres would be managed by the Jarbidge Field Office, and 

approximately 8,700 acres on private land. The processing of RES’s project level EIS has been deferred 

pending the decision of the Greater Sage-Grouse Western Regional Land-Use Plan Revision and 

Jarbidge RMP Record of Decision. The Jarbidge Field Office has also received one more renewable 

energy application for wind development in the Bell Rapids area; however, the processing for this 

application was also placed on hold pending the Jarbidge RMP Record of Decision. 

Additional ROW applications are being submitted for ancillary uses to energy-related facilities on private 

and public land. The Jarbidge Field Office received an application for an upgrade on a road that would 

support a wind farm on private land in the Bell Rapids area.

Under current conditions and technology, Idaho does not have significant potential for commercial solar 

energy development. Solar resources in the planning area do not exceed 6 kWh/m2

/day (NREL, 2009a); 

therefore, the planning area is not currently identified as a high-priority State for solar energy 

development (NREL, 2009b) . 

See also BLM IM 2011-003.

Withdrawals are formal actions that set aside, withhold, or reserve Federal land by statue or 

administrative order for public purposes. A withdrawal may remove areas from the public lands to be 

managed under the authority of another Federal agency or department, but the land does not leave 

Federal ownership.

There are two Federal Energy Regulatory Commission withdrawals on portions of the Snake River within 

the planning area. Six emitter sites are included as part of the Juniper Butte Training Range withdrawal 

by the US Air Force in addition to uses ancillary to these withdrawals, such as power lines, telephone 

lines, and roads. Other withdrawals in the planning area include public water reserves, water power 

reserves, power site reserves, and classifications.

3.4.5 Land Tenure

Land tenure, or land ownership adjustment, refers to actions that result in the disposal of BLM lands or 

the acquisition of nonfederal lands or interests by the BLM. Lands can be disposed of through sales, 

exchanges, color of title, State in Lieu selections, Desert Land Act entries, Carey Act of 1894 entries, 

patents under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1954 (R&PP), or through Federal legislation. 

The 1987 Jarbidge RMP identified the number of acres available for land tenure transactions (Table 3-

55). As mandated by Section 102(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA),

public lands are retained in Federal ownership, the exception being those public lands that have future 

potential for disposal (i.e., sale and exchange), as described in Section 203(a) and 206 of FLPMA. Public 

lands have the potential for disposal when they are isolated, difficult to manage, or are needed to fulfill 

State selections. Lands identified for disposal must meet public objectives, such as community expansion 
Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Land Tenure

3-94

and economic development. The preferred method of disposal is land exchange. Disposal actions are 

usually in response to public request or application that results in a title transfer, wherein the lands leave 

the public domain. Criteria for land tenure adjustments and lands identified for disposal are outlined in 

Appendix I. 

Table 3-55. Acres Available for Land Tenure Transactions in the 1987 RMP

Type of Land Tenure Transaction Number of Acres Available

Sale 2,000

Exchange 243,000

Desert Land Entries/Carey Act 67,000

R&PP Patent 1,371,000

Land tenure for the planning area was divided into three zones (Map 106). Zone 1 is a retention area

where acres placed in Zone 1 cannot leave Federal ownership. Zone 2 are acres that can be exchanged, 

but only for acres within the planning area, or offered as R&PP patents, resulting in little to no net loss of 

BLM-managed acres within the planning area. Acres in Zone 3 can be sold, exchanged for acres outside 

the planning area, or offered as R&PP patents resulting in a net loss of BLM-managed acres within the 

planning area. 

Public sales of BLM-managed lands are managed under the disposal criteria set forth in Section 203 of 

FLPMA. Public lands determined suitable for sale shall be offered on the initiative of the BLM and sold at 

not less than fair market value. Public lands classified, withdrawn, reserved, or otherwise designated as 

not available or subject to sale are unavailable. Zone 3 lands, are lands that were identified that met the 

criteria of Section 203 of FLPMA. As such they may be considered for disposal by sale and can be found 

in Appendix I. 

Exchanges can be used to improve land management, consolidate ownership, and protect 

environmentally sensitive areas. By exchanging public land that is isolated and difficult to manage, the 

BLM is able to acquire other lands with importance for recreation, wildlife, fisheries, wetlands, habitat for 

threatened and endangered species, wilderness, open space, scenic, cultural, and other resource 

conservation purposes. Land exchange allows the BLM to reposition lands into more manageable units

and to meet community expansion needs. Exchanges are initiated in direct response to customer 

proposals or by the BLM, to improve management of the public lands. Lands considered for exchange 

must be determined suitable for disposal and acquisition; the exchange package must be of equal 

monetary value, approved by the Washington Office, and located within the same State. Exchange 

benefits the public by: placing public land in private ownership to serve local needs and consolidating 

ownership of scattered tracts of land for more efficient and less costly management of resources. Zone 2 

lands can be considered for exchange within the planning area, or offered as a R&PP lease or patent, 

resulting in little to no net loss of BLM-managed acres within the planning area.

Land tenure transactions in the planning area are analyzed in project-specific reviews in accordance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and comply with the guidelines of FLPMA. Since 

the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, the Jarbidge Field Office disposed of 61.59 acres through exchange and 62.5 

acres through sale; the Jarbidge Field Office also acquired 40 acres through exchange and 376 acres 

through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. These acquisitions allowed the BLM to acquire 

important cultural and paleontological sites, including a spring at the Dean Site, the Morgan Property 

(adjacent to the Sand Point Area of Critical Environmental Concern), and Three Island Crossing.

The R&PP was established by Congress as a means for State and local governments as well as nonprofit organizations to acquire or lease (without patent) public lands at no cost or reduced cost for public 

or recreational purposes. Many governmental entities use this act to provide the public with much needed 

local services and locations for recreational activities. 

One lease under R&PP within the planning area was transferred by patent to the Idaho Department of 

Parks and Recreation in 1993 for the Three Island State Park southwest of Glenns Ferry. Three Island 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses

Leasable Minerals

3-95

State Park contains the Oregon Trail crossing of the Snake River by emigrants in the early 1840s through 

the late 1860s. The park is visited by travelers and tourists from all over the world.

The Desert Land Entry Act was passed in 1877 to encourage and promote the economic development of 

the arid and semi-arid public lands of the western United States. Through the act, individuals may apply 

for a desert land entry to reclaim, irrigate, and cultivate arid and semi-arid lands. Most of the suitable 

lands for agricultural development have already been placed into private ownership. Due to the Snake 

River Basin Adjudication and limited water available for irrigation, the high cost of development, and the 

lack of land available for agricultural purposes in the BLM-managed planning area, the field office would 

not be accepting new desert land entry applications. However, the four pending applications would be 

processed. 

More than 4,000 acres have left BLM-management in the planning area through desert land entries since 

1987. More than 200 entries have been relinquished or rejected in the planning area since 1987, either by 

default or inability to support a profitable plan of development due to water right reviews by the State of 

Idaho’s Snake River Basin Adjudication. The resolution of those entries placed the land back into Federal 

ownership. 

The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) became law on July 25, 2000. It provides for the 

use of revenues from the sale or exchange of public lands identified for disposal under the land use plans 

in effect as of the date of enactment for future land acquisitions. Therefore all lands identified for disposal 

in the 1987 RMP are FLTFA eligible. The FLTFA expired on July 24, 2010, but, on July 29, 2010, 

Congress passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to extend FLTFA for one year. 

Congress may reinstate the act in the future.

3.4.6 Minerals

The BLM manages the Federal mineral estate for the United States. The land surface overlying this 

estate can be owned by a non-Federal entity such as the State of Idaho or private interests; these lands 

are referred to as split-estate lands. The Jarbidge Field Office manages the surface of 1,371,000 acres of 

public lands within the planning area boundary and 1,612,570 acres of mineral estate. Of these, 126,000 

acres are split-estate lands; more than 99% of these split-estate lands have private surface ownership

where the United States retains the mineral estate and a private individual or other entity owns the 

surface. In these situations, mineral rights are considered the dominant estate, meaning they take 

precedence over other rights associated with the property, including those associated with owning the 

surface. However, the mineral owner must show due regard for the interests of the surface estate owner 

and occupy only those portions of the surface that are reasonably necessary to develop the mineral 

estate.

Specific minerals are categorized as leasable, salable, or locatable, depending upon regulations 

contained in 43 CFR. Although similar in many ways, each classification is administered differently and 

has different requirements for acquisition, exploration, and development.

3.4.6.1 Leasable Minerals

Leasable minerals can be explored for and developed under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 

amended; other leasing acts; and regulations 43 CFR 3100, 3200, 3400, and 3500. Leasable minerals 

include energy minerals such as oil, gas, coal, geothermal steam, and associated geothermal resources. 

Leasable minerals also include some non-energy minerals such as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and 

sulfur. All minerals on acquired lands are leasable. The BLM has discretionary authority to lease mineral 

resources for exploration and development. Where the Federal government owns the mineral estate and 

an agency other than the BLM manages the surface, the BLM will consult with that agency prior to leasing 

or approving an operations plan. In some situations, the BLM must obtain concurrence as required by 

law. 

The BLM-managed mineral estates in the Saylor Creek Training Range, Juniper Butte Training Range, 

Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument, and the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness are closed to 
Chapter 3: Resource Uses Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Salable Minerals

3-96

mineral leasing by statute or Public Land Order (PLO 1027, PLO 4902, Public Law [PL] 105-261, PL 100-

696, and PL 111-11, respectively).

There is currently no leasable mineral activity within the planning area. As described in the Oil and Gas 

Potential Report (BLM, 2009c), three wells were drilled in 1950 for the purpose of exploring for oil and gas 

in the planning area, all in the extreme northwest corner; no showings of oil or gas were encountered at 

any interval in any of the three wells, the deepest of which was drilled to 3,808 feet. Another well 

approximately eight miles north of the planning area was drilled to a depth of 9,678 feet, but did not 

encounter oil or gas. Based on the geology of the planning area and where interest in leasing has 

recently been expressed, the areas with potential for oil and gas leasing include the Cedar Creek/China 

Mountain areas and the northwest corner of the planning area (Map 114); these areas are referred to as 

the potential oil and gas areas. However, even though the potential for leasing in these areas is slightly 

higher than the potential in the rest of the planning area, the potential for discovery and development is 

considered to be low. Appendix K contains the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) 

for oil and gas resources in the planning area.

There are no wells in the planning area for geothermal power, only wells on private land for direct use for 

aquaculture, recreation, and heating. Other wells within the planning area that encountered geothermal 

water were drilled for other purposes, such as irrigation. As described in the Geothermal Potential Report 

(BLM, 2009b), the area near Bruneau Hot Springs, determined to have high potential for geothermal 

resources, has high potential for leasing. There is also potential for leasing in the northern third of the 

planning area, determined to have medium potential for geothermal resources (Map 115); these areas 

with high and medium potential are referred to as potential geothermal areas. The probability of full 

geothermal resource development and production occurring in the planning area during the next 20 years 

is higher than for oil and gas development but still considered low. Appendix L contains the RFDS for 

geothermal resources in the planning area.

No deposits of coal or oil shale are known to exist in the planning area, and no commercially valuable 

deposits of other leasable minerals such as sodium and phosphate have been identified.

3.4.6.2 Salable Minerals 

The BLM manages salable minerals under the Materials Act of July 31, 1947 as amended (30 USC 601 

et seq.); and as amended by the Acts of July 23, 1955 (69 Stat. 367), and September 28, 1962 (Public 

Law [PL] 87-713); and under regulations 43 CFR 3600. Salable minerals, or mineral materials, are 

common varieties of minerals and building materials such as sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, 

cinders, and clay. Generally, salable minerals are widespread, of low unit value, and often used for 

construction or landscaping materials. Their value depends largely on market factors, quality of the 

material, availability of transportation, and transportation costs. The BLM has the discretionary authority 

to dispose of salable mineral materials either through a contract of sale or a free use permit.

The BLM-managed mineral estates in the Saylor Creek Training Range, Juniper Butte Training Range, 

Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument, and the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness are closed to 

salable mineral development by statute or Public Land Order (PLO 1027, PLO 4902, PL 105-261, PL 

100-696, and PL 111-11, respectively). 

There is ongoing use of salable minerals at several locations in the planning area. Two community pits for 

rhyolite flagstone are located in the Browns Bench and China Creek areas. There are currently 7 

community gravel pits for sand and gravel and 25 free use permits issued to the surrounding local 

highway districts. The BLM and the highway districts continue to develop sources of sand and gravel for 

road maintenance projects. 

The 1987 Jarbidge RMP identified 700 acres for salable mineral development, with a provision that 

allowed additional new sites to be developed. There are currently 1,300 acres within the planning area 

being used for salable mineral operations of all types.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Resource Uses

Locatable Minerals

3-97

3.4.6.3 Locatable Minerals 

Locatable minerals, those not classified as leasable or salable, are managed under the General Mining 

Law of 1872 (17 Stat. 91, as amended) and regulations at 43 CFR 3700 and 3800. They include gold, 

silver, copper, gem stones, lead, zinc, barite, gypsum, certain varieties of high-calcium limestone, and 

other uncommon variety minerals. The General Mining Law of 1872 provides United States citizens the 

right to prospect, explore, and develop these minerals on public domain lands not withdrawn from mineral 

entry by Congress or the Secretary of the Interior.

The BLM-managed mineral estates in the Saylor Creek Training Range, Juniper Butte Training Range, 

Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument, and the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness are withdrawn 

from mineral entry by statute or (PLO 1027, PLO 4902, Public Law [PL] 105-261, PL 100-696, and PL 

111-11, respectively). 

Exploration for and development of locatable mineral resources under the General Mining Law of 1872 

are nondiscretionary activities on public lands open to mineral entry, where the BLM cannot prohibit the 

public from locating mining claims or from conducting reasonably necessary activities required for the 

prospecting, exploration, and development of valuable locatable mineral deposits. Since the January 1, 

1981, issuance of 43 CFR 3809 regulations, the BLM has had the authority to regulate these activities 

and require mitigation or changes in operational practices to ensure activities do not result in unnecessary 

or undue degradation of the environment (43 CFR 3809.4). The 43 CFR 3809 regulations ensure a 

proposed mineral exploration or development activity conforms to reasonable industry standards for that 

type of activity, based on the appropriate stage of development. If the BLM concludes the proposed 

activity is not reasonable, it would not be approved under 43 CFR 3809.

A variety of locatable minerals are found within the planning area due to its geologic diversity; however, 

the area generally lacks any known large, economically viable metallic deposits. There are 13 active 

mining claims in the planning area; fewer than 100 acres are affected by these claims. One of these 

active mining claims is a lode claim for Bruneau Jasper, a semi-precious decorative stone; which is 

located in the Bruneau Canyon at Indian Hot Springs.

Precious metal deposits, which consist of gold and silver, are rare in the planning area; there are no 

active precious metal mines in the planning area and no known commercially viable deposits. The Snake 

River contains placer deposits from the American Falls Reservoir downstream to the Idaho/Oregon 

border. There are 12 active claims (four lode claims and eight placer claims) for gold in the planning area, 

along the lower Bruneau River, the Snake River, and Salmon Falls Creek. Recreational panning and 

placer mining for gold also occur in the planning area; the State of Idaho administers permits for 

mechanized gold collection, or dredging, in rivers. There are numerous historic, non-active, mining claims, 

the majority of which are placer claims concentrated in the river drainages throughout the planning area.

Base metal deposits, which include those containing copper, lead, zinc, manganese, and molybdenum, 

are rare in the planning area. There are no active base metal mines in operation and no known 

commercially viable deposits located within the planning area.

Industrial minerals are those utilized in industrial processes, such as limestone, zeolites, silica, sulfur, 

perlite, and peat. There is no current activity related to industrial minerals in the planning area.
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

•

•

•

• 11

11

•

•

•

•

•

3-98

3.5 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

3.5.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

An Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is defined as an area “within the public lands where 

special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no 

development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or 

scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and 

safety from natural hazards” (FLPMA). The ACEC designation indicates that an area has values that 

meet criteria for relevance and importance and that special management has been established to protect 

those values.

An area meets relevance criteria if it contains one or more of the following:

A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value, such as rare or sensitive archaeological resources and 

religious or cultural resources important to Native American tribes;

A fish or wildlife resource, such as habitat for Endangered, Threatened, or BLM sensitive species, or 

habitat essential for maintaining species diversity; 

A natural system or process, such as Endangered, Threatened, or BLM Sensitive plant species; rare, 

endemic, or relic plants or terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian plant communities; or rare geologic features; 

or

Natural hazards , such as areas of avalanche, dangerous flooding, landslides, unstable soils, or 

seismic activity.

No existing or nominated ACECs contain natural hazards that meet criteria for relevance and importance; 

therefore, this value is not discussed further.

The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must have substantial importance and 

value in order to satisfy the importance criteria. This generally means that the value, resource, system,

process, or hazard is characterized by one or more of the following factors:

More than locally significant qualities that give it special worth, consequence, meaning, 

distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource;

Qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change;

Recognition as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out the

mandates of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; 

Qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or management concerns about safety or 

public welfare; or 

A significant threat to human life and safety or to property exists.

The ACEC designation does not automatically or necessarily result in exclusion of uses. Special 

management within an ACEC is specific to the relevant and important values of that ACEC and the 

threats to the quality and integrity of those values. In other words, the level of special management 

required varies by ACEC depending on its relevant and important values and the need for management 

to maintain or enhance those values. As a result, a specific use may need to be excluded in one ACEC if 

it presents a threat to its relevant and important values, while that same use may be allowed in another 

ACEC if it does not present a threat.

Descriptions of each existing and nominated ACEC, including maps, the relevant and important values 

that may be affected by management proposed in Chapter 2, and existing and potential threats to those 

values, can be found in Appendix M. Table 3-56 lists the existing and nominated ACECs, their acreage, 

and the relevant and important value(s) for their consideration as ACECs.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

A 

A

3-99

Table 3-56. Existing and Nominated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in the Planning Area

Area Acreage (BLMmanaged surface) Relevant and Important Value(s)

Existing ACECs 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 85,000

California bighorn sheep (bighorn 

sheep), Bruneau River phlox, bull 

trout, cultural values, Davis 

peppergrass, redband trout, riparian 

systems, and scenic values

Salmon Falls Creek 3,000 redband trout, scenic values, and 

upland vegetation

Sand Point 800 cultural values, historic values,

paleontologic and geologic resources

Nominated ACECs 

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

(expanded boundary) 123,000

bighorn sheep, Bruneau River phlox, 

bull trout, cultural values, Davis 

peppergrass, redband trout, riparian 

systems, and scenic values

Bruneau-Jarbidge 

(reduced boundary) 57,000

bighorn sheep, Bruneau River phlox, 

bull trout, cultural values, Davis 

peppergrass, redband trout, riparian 

systems, and scenic values

Inside Desert (large boundary) 73,000 slickspot peppergrass 

Inside Desert (small boundary) 41,000 slickspot peppergrass

Jarbidge Foothills 

(large boundary) 134,000

cultural values, redband trout, greater 

sage-grouse (sage-grouse), spotted 

frog, and upland vegetation

Jarbidge Foothills 

(small boundary) 64,000 cultural values, sage-grouse, and 

upland vegetation

Lower Bruneau Canyon 

(large boundary) 1,000

Bruneau hot springsnail, Bruneau 

River phlox, paleontological 

resources, special status plant 

assemblages, and thermal springs 

and seeps 

Lower Bruneau Canyon 

(small boundary) 900 paleontological resources, special 

status plant assemblages

Middle Snake 7,000

Snake River snails, special status 

plant assemblages, and white 

sturgeon

Sagebrush Sea 956,000

bighorn sheep, Bruneau River phlox, 

bull trout, cultural values, Davis 

peppergrass, redband trout, sagegrouse, slickspot peppergrass, and 

spotted frog

Sand Point 

(expanded boundary) 1,000 cultural values, historic values, 

paleontologic and geologic resources

Upper Bruneau Canyon 18,000

bighorn sheep, cultural values, Davis 

peppergrass, redband trout, riparian 

system, and scenic values

The Salmon Falls Creek ACEC is located in both the Jarbidge and Burley Field Offices; however the acreage 

depicted is for the planning area only.
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3-100

Existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The Bruneau-Jarbidge and Sand Point ACECs were designated in the planning area under the 1987 

Jarbidge RMP. The Salmon Falls Creek ACEC was designated following a land use plan amendment in 

1989.

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC

The Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC contains 85,000 acres of BLM-managed land in the Bruneau and Jarbidge 

Canyons and the surrounding uplands. The ACEC is located along the Bruneau River from near Crowbar 

Gulch upstream to the planning area boundary, along the Jarbidge River from the Bruneau River 

confluence to the Buck Creek confluence, and along the East Fork of the Jarbidge River from the 

Jarbidge River confluence to the planning area boundary. Portions of Clover, Deep, Cougar, Dorsey, 

Columbet, and Dave Creeks are within the ACEC.

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include cultural values, scenic values, fish and wildlife 

resources (bighorn sheep, bull trout, and redband trout), and natural systems or processes (Bruneau 

River phlox, Davis peppergrass, and riparian systems).

Regionally significant cultural resources are present within the ACEC. Native American use of the area 

extends back thousands of years. While the canyonlands provided food, shelter, and water, the adjacent 

uplands also served as travel corridors between winter villages along the Snake and lower Bruneau 

Rivers and summer camps in the Jarbidge and Owyhee Uplands. The area retains traditional cultural 

importance for the tribes. Many sites are also important for their archaeological value.

Scenic values in the Jarbidge and Bruneau Canyons are outstanding. The majority of the ACEC is within 

the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness and is a designated Wild and Scenic River corridor. The canyon 

complex has exceptional rugged desert scenery and natural qualities, including both basalt and rhyolite 

forms of volcanic material. The canyons plunge from 300 to more than 900 feet from the adjacent upland 

plateaus to the rivers below. Arch Canyon contains a unique, large, natural arch composed of rhyolite that 

spans Cougar Creek.

The ACEC contains 41,000 acres of habitat for bighorn sheep, a Type 3 BLM sensitive species, which 

represents 84% of the bighorn sheep habitat within the planning area. The bighorn sheep population 

within the ACEC is estimated to be approximately 210 sheep (IDFG, 2010a). The canyonlands provide 

secure lambing habitat. The rivers in the canyon bottoms, as well as occasional seeps from canyon walls, 

provide water. Bighorn sheep forage is available in both the canyons and adjacent uplands.

The ACEC contain 77 miles of critical habitat for bull trout, which represents 87% of the critical habitat 

within the planning area. Bull trout are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(ESA) and are a Type 1 BLM sensitive species. The Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment is the 

southern-most surviving population of bull trout in North America (FWS, 2004). 

The ACEC contains 96 miles of occupied streams for redband trout, a Type 2 BLM sensitive species. 

Redband trout occur in four stream reaches: the Bruneau River, the Jarbidge River, the East Fork of the 

Jarbidge River, and Dave Creek. These redband trout are adapted to both colder streams and warmer, 

low elevation streams such as the lower Jarbidge River and Bruneau River. The occupied streams within 

the ACEC lack migration barriers that prevent redband trout from moving between streams, unlike most of 

the other redband trout streams within the planning area.

Bruneau River phlox, a Type 3 and Nevada BLM sensitive species, occurs within the Bruneau and 

Jarbidge Canyons within the ACEC. The ACEC contains 240 acres of Bruneau River phlox habitat, which 

represents 65% of the habitat within the planning area. Bruneau River phlox has a total estimated 

population of 500 plants.

Davis peppergrass, a Type 3 and Nevada BLM sensitive species, is present in playas within the ACEC. 

The ACEC contains 30 acres of Davis peppergrass habitat, which represents 20% of the habitat within 

the planning area. Although the population of Davis peppergrass is declining range wide, the Bruneau-
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3-101

Jarbidge populations are a population stronghold. Davis peppergrass is limited in its distribution to 

portions of southeastern Oregon, southcentral Idaho, and northcentral Nevada, with the majority of known 

populations occurring in Idaho. The species is restricted to a narrow suite of environmental conditions, 

occurring in playas on volcanic plains where the regional vegetation is dominated by big sagebrush and, 

to a lesser extent, shadscale.

The Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers are two of the longest free-flowing streams in southern Idaho; 96 miles 

of these rivers occur within the ACEC. The majority of other desert rivers in southern Idaho, including the 

Snake and Owyhee Rivers and Salmon Falls Creek, contain dams. The riparian systems in the ACEC are 

typically dominated by Rocky Mountain juniper with interspersed quaking aspen and a few pockets of 

cottonwood. In addition, riparian areas on BLM portions of lower Dave Creek, as well as the Jarbidge 

River and its East Fork, and portions of the Bruneau River (from about 0.5 miles downstream of Indian 

Hot Springs almost to the Bruneau Valley) are ungrazed, as the topography limits access.

Salmon Falls Creek ACEC

The Salmon Falls Creek ACEC encompasses 6,000 acres of BLM-managed land. The ACEC is located 

within the Salmon Falls Creek Canyon (rim to rim), extending from Balanced Rock Crossing Park south to 

the private land near Salmon Falls Creek Dam. The Salmon Falls Creek ACEC is located in both the 

Jarbidge and Burley Field Offices. The west side of the ACEC is managed by the Jarbidge Field Office 

while the east-side of the ACEC is managed by the Burley Field Office; Salmon Falls Creek is the dividing 

line. While the ACEC encompasses 6,000 acres, only 3,000 acres are within the Jarbidge Field Office.

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include scenic values, fish resources (redband trout), 

and natural systems or processes (upland vegetation).

The scenic values of Salmon Falls Creek ACEC are strongly influenced by the geology of the area and 

the quality of the native vegetation communities. In some areas, basalt lava flows are separated by layers 

of sediment. Other areas of the canyon are dominated by rhyolite columns and spires. A few springs on 

the lower portion of canyon walls provide a contrast with the dominant upland vegetation. 

Salmon Falls Creek supports a population of redband trout. The redband trout population within the 

ACEC is fragile, given that it is an isolated population in poor habitat. The flow alteration within the 

canyon has largely eliminated flushing flows, heightening the deposition of sediment in portions of the 

canyon. The lack of flushing flows has reduced the quality of the aquatic habitat for redband trout.

The upland vegetation communities within the ACEC are unique because they are relatively undisturbed 

and have been relatively unaffected by humans. The canyon has upland plant communities at or near 

potential natural condition, including Wyoming big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass sites and some late 

seral riparian areas. There are few areas within southern Idaho, especially those close to human 

population centers, where human uses are not the primary forces influencing the vegetation community. 

The lands have not been grazed by livestock, and more than 95% of the ACEC has not burned in the last 

20 years. There are no travel routes within the canyon, and recreational use of the area is low.

Sand Point ACEC

The Sand Point ACEC encompasses 800 acres of BLM-managed lands south of the Snake River near 

Hammett, Idaho. The ACEC extends from the high water mark along the Snake River about 0.5 to 0.75 

miles south into the upland plateau.

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include historic and cultural values and natural systems 

or processes (paleontological and geological resources).

The Sand Point area, within the Glenns Ferry Formation region, lies between the Hagerman locality to the 

east and the Chalk Flat and Grandview localities to the west in elevation and time. This geologic 

formation is important for understanding the paleogeography of this part of western North America during 

the late Cenozoic Era.
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3-102

The ACEC contains 1.3 miles of Oregon Trail ruts and the south bank landing for the Medbury Ferry. This 

site represents a unique opportunity to protect a type of culturally and historically significant site that has 

been damaged or destroyed in other areas through development and agricultural use.

Several large prehistoric archaeological sites are located within the ACEC. The ACEC contains 

archaeological sites in a riverside setting that meets the National Register of Historic Places eligibility 

criteria. Their importance is enhanced because most similar sites in the region are in private ownership 

and have been altered by agricultural development.

The Sand Point area contains one of the largest concentrations of Blancan Age (three million years old) 

freshwater snail and clam fossils in the United States. Fish and mammal fossils are also present. The 

scientific importance of the Sand Point fossils and their geologic context has been recognized since their 

original discovery in 1902.

Nominated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Several ACECs were nominated and were found to meet criteria for relevance and importance; these 

ACECs are described below. 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC – Expanded Boundary

Two new boundary configurations of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC were nominated: an expanded 

boundary and a reduced boundary.

The extensions to the existing Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC would encompass about 38,000 acres of BLMmanaged land; if added to the existing ACEC, the new ACEC would total 123,000 acres of BLM-managed 

land. The extensions include the remainder of the Jarbidge River and additional upland areas in the 

Diamond A and Inside Desert areas not already within the existing ACEC, as well as bull trout habitat 

along the Jarbidge River south of the Jarbidge Forks, Dave Creek, Jack Creek, and Buck Creek. The 

eastern boundary of the existing ACEC south of Three Creek Highway would be modified to follow a road.

The same values meet relevance and importance criteria in the extensions as in the existing ACEC.

Numerous regionally significant archaeological sites are located within the extensions to the existing 

ACEC. Many sites associated with playas suggest a unique adaptation to the arid uplands, which 

involved transplanting stream-adapted shellfish to seasonal lakes to augment food supplies.

In addition to the scenic values for the existing Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC, the Jarbidge River south of the 

Jarbidge Forks contains numerous rhyolite columns, spires, and a few window rocks that are visible from 

the Jarbidge Road. Aspen are present on some of the hillsides and draws. The majority of the Jarbidge 

River riparian area contains a mix of juniper, willows, and dogwood, with some cottonwood and limber 

pine.

The extensions to the existing ACEC would add 55,000 acres of the bighorn sheep habitat to the ACEC

and would include 92% of the habitat in the planning area.

The extensions would include the remaining BLM-managed portion of Dave Creek, which is crucial 

spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, and overwintering habitat for bull trout within the Jarbidge River 

system (FWS, 2004). The extensions to the existing ACEC would also include migratory bull trout habitat 

on the Jarbidge River south of the Jarbidge Forks and all of the BLM-managed portions of Jack Creek, 

one of the spawning streams in the Jarbidge River watershed. These areas total approximately eight

miles of streams with bull trout habitat.

The extensions to the existing ACEC would add 11 miles of occupied redband trout streams to the ACEC, 

including habitat in the Jarbidge River above the confluence with the East Fork, Dave Creek, and Deer 

Creek (NV).

The extensions to the existing ACEC would add 90 acres of Davis peppergrass habitat to the ACEC and 

would include 80% of the habitat within the planning area.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3-103

The extensions to the existing ACEC would add 10 acres of Bruneau River phlox habitat to the ACEC and 

would include 68% of the habitat within the planning area.

The Jarbidge River above the confluence with its East Fork, as well as Dave, Jack, and Deer Creeks, 

which are unrestricted and free-flowing on BLM-managed lands, would be included in the extensions. 

Approximately 10 additional miles of riparian area are included in the extensions.

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC – Reduced Boundary

The reduced boundary of the nominated Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC would encompass 57,000 acres of 

BLM-managed land. The majority of the ACEC lies within the Bruneau and Jarbidge Canyons; some of 

the adjacent uplands are included within the boundary as well. Portions of the existing ACEC that would 

not be included within this boundary include areas south of the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness 

boundary on the Bruneau River, Jarbidge River and its East Fork, as well as areas north of Sheepshead 

Draw.

The same values meet relevance and importance criteria in the reduced boundary as in the existing 

ACEC.

The cultural and scenic values within the reduced boundary of the ACEC are the same as those 

documented for the existing boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC.

The reduced boundary of the ACEC contains 29,000 acres of bighorn sheep habitat. The bighorn sheep 

values within the reduced boundary are the same as those documented for the existing boundary of the 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC; however, the ACEC would include 59% of the bighorn sheep habitat (the 

majority of the area where bighorn sheep are commonly observed). Roughly 20,000 acres of occupied 

bighorn sheep habitat from Blackrock Pocket in the Bruneau Canyon northward would not be included

within the ACEC.

The reduced boundary of the ACEC contains 43 miles of critical habitat for bull trout, which represents 

48% of the bull trout habitat in the planning area. The ACEC contains 49 miles of occupied redband trout 

habitat in the Bruneau River and the Jarbidge River below the confluence with the East Fork; however, 

occupied redband trout habitat within the East Fork of the Jarbidge River and Dave Creek would not be

included within the ACEC.

The Bruneau River phlox values within the reduced boundary of the ACEC are the same as those 

documented for the existing boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC; however, the reduced boundary 

contains 10 additional acres of Bruneau River phlox habitat. The nominated reduced boundary includes 

68% of the Bruneau River phlox habitat within the planning area.

The Davis peppergrass habitat values within the reduced boundary of the ACEC are the same as those 

documented for the existing boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC; however, only 20 acres of habitat 

would be included in the ACEC. This represents 13% of the habitat within the planning area.

The reduced boundary of the ACEC would contain fewer than 45 miles of free-flowing reaches of the 

Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers and would not contain riparian systems dominated by Rocky Mountain 

juniper.

Inside Desert ACEC – Large Boundary

Two boundary configurations of the Inside Desert ACECs were nominated: an ACEC with a large 

boundary and an ACEC with a small boundary.

The large boundary of the Inside Desert ACEC would encompass 73,000 acres of BLM-managed land. 

The large ACEC boundary would be located between Clover Creek and the Jarbidge River and from 

Clover Butte south to approximately Poison Butte and would be adjacent to the Juniper Butte Training 

Range. The ACEC boundary was drawn along existing pasture fences to make the nominated ACEC 

manageable.
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3-104

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include natural systems or processes (slickspot 

peppergrass).

Slickspot peppergrass is a rare, annual or biennial forb endemic to the sagebrush steppe in southwestern 

Idaho (Moseley, 1994). Slickspot peppergrass is a Type 1 BLM sensitive species that is proposed for 

listing under the ESA. The large boundary of the Inside Desert ACEC contains high-quality habitat for 

slickspot peppergrass, which is characterized by intact sagebrush steppe, low abundance of non-native 

species, and low levels of human-caused disturbances (Colket, 2006; FWS, 2003; Moseley, 1994). The 

population of slickspot peppergrass in the ACEC is the most genetically diverse of the known slickspot 

peppergrass populations. The nominated ACEC contains 100% of the acres supporting slickspot 

peppergrass populations on BLM-managed lands in the planning area. 

Inside Desert ACEC – Small Boundary

The small boundary of the nominated Inside Desert ACEC would encompass 41,000 acres of BLMmanaged land. The small ACEC boundary would be located from Clover Butte south to approximately 

Middle Butte in several pastures near the Juniper Butte Training Range. 

The slickspot peppergrass values within the small boundary of the ACEC are the same as those 

documented for the large boundary of the Inside Desert ACEC; however, the small boundary would 

contain 83% of the acres supporting slickspot peppergrass on BLM-managed lands in the planning area. 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC – Large Boundary

Two boundary configurations of the Jarbidge Foothills ACECs were nominated: an ACEC with a large 

boundary and an ACEC with a small boundary.

The large boundary of the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC would encompass 134,000 acres of BLM-managed 

land in the southern third of the planning area. The boundary would run from the canyon of the East Fork 

of the Jarbidge River to Salmon Falls Creek and from Three Creek Highway to the southern boundary of 

the planning area. 

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include cultural values, fish or wildlife resources 

(redband trout, spotted frog, sage-grouse), and natural systems or processes (upland vegetation).

Regionally significant cultural resources are located throughout the ACEC area. The Jarbidge Foothills 

area was used extensively by Native Americans for thousands of years. For the tribes, many of the sites 

created by this use serve as important links to ancestral lifeways and play a critical role in maintaining 

traditional tribal culture. In addition, many of the sites contain important archaeological information 

concerning human adaptation to the semi-arid environment of southern Idaho.

The large boundary of the ACEC contains 41 miles of streams occupied by redband trout, which 

represents 16% of the occupied streams in the planning area. Redband trout in the Jarbidge Foothills 

exist in isolated populations, or strongholds, that are unable to migrate to adjacent suitable habitats 

during low streamflow conditions or other environmental disturbance such as wildland fire. Several of the 

streams within the ACEC (Deadwood, Deer [ID], Cedar, Flat, and Deadman) lack or have limited 

connectivity with other streams. Due to the lack of connectivity between redband trout-occupied streams, 

these fish are vulnerable to population declines.

The large boundary of the ACEC would contain all known occupied habitat for Columbia spotted frogs 

(spotted frogs; a Candidate, Type 1, and Nevada BLM sensitive species) within the planning area. 

Spotted frog populations are part of a larger but fragmented population of spotted frogs in northern 

Nevada. Spotted frogs are presently found on fewer than 1,000 acres of the planning area in the areas of 

Bear, Rocky Canyon, Shack, and Timber Creeks. Potentially suitable habitat occurs in several other 

drainages (China, Cedar, Flat, and House Creeks) within the ACEC.

The Browns Bench/Monument Springs area within the ACEC is a regionally important stronghold area for 

sage-grouse, a Candidate and Type 1 BLM sensitive species. The ACEC includes land that provides
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3-105

connectivity between sage-grouse populations in Nevada and the Shoshone Basin. Sage-grouse habitat 

in this area has remained relatively intact and has generally not been fragmented by wildland fire. The 

changes in elevation and plant communities provide quality late-brood rearing habitat for sage-grouse. 

Both resident and migratory sage-grouse are present in the area. The large boundary of the ACEC would 

contain 94,000 acres of key sage-grouse habitat, including important wintering and breeding habitat. 

There are currently 19 occupied sage-grouse leks, associated satellite leks, and sage-grouse nesting 

habitat present within the large boundary of the ACEC.

The ACEC contains one of the last large, contiguous blocks of high-quality sagebrush steppe habitat in 

the planning area. Although there are other blocks of similar size and quality within the region, the habitat 

within the ACEC is important for maintaining connectivity between other regional blocks of habitat. Some 

of the late-seral range sites in the planning area occur within the ACEC. Plant communities in the ACEC 

include aspen woodlands, mountain mahogany woodlands, high elevation low sagebrush, black 

sagebrush, mountain shrub, mountain big sagebrush, riparian areas, and salt desert shrub.

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC – Small Boundary

The small boundary of the nominated Jarbidge Foothills ACEC would encompass 64,000 acres of BLMmanaged land and would be located in the southeast corner of the planning area. The boundary would 

run from Salmon Falls Creek west to the House Creek Allotment, and from Three Creek Highway south to 

the southern boundary of the planning area. This boundary for the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC would focus 

management on a block of primarily BLM-managed lands and would reduce the amount of private land 

that would be in the ACEC boundary.

The same values meet relevance and importance criteria in the small boundary of the Jarbidge Foothills 

ACEC as in the large boundary; however redband trout did not meet importance criteria and spotted frogs 

would no longer occur within the ACEC boundary.

The cultural values within the small boundary of the ACEC are the same as those documented for the 

large boundary of the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC.

The sage-grouse values within the small boundary of the ACEC are the same as those documented for 

the large boundary of the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC. However, the small boundary of the ACEC would 

contain 49,000 acres of key sage-grouse habitat. There are currently 16 occupied sage-grouse leks, 

associated satellite leks, and sage-grouse nesting habitat present within the small boundary of the ACEC.

The upland vegetation values within the small boundary of the ACEC are the same as those documented 

for the large boundary of the Jarbidge Foothills ACEC. However, some of the other large blocks of highquality sagebrush steppe habitat outside the small boundary of the ACEC contain substantially greater 

amounts of private land.

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC – Large Boundary

Two boundary configurations of the Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC were nominated: an ACEC with a 

large boundary and an ACEC with a small boundary.

The large boundary of the nominated Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC would encompass 1,000 acres of 

BLM-managed land. The ACEC would be located along the east side of the lower Bruneau River, 

southeast of Indian Bathtub. 

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include fish or wildlife resources (Bruneau hot 

springsnail) and natural systems or processes (paleontological resources, special status plant

assemblages, thermal seeps and springs).

The Bruneau hot springsnail was listed as an Endangered species in 1998 (FWS, 1998). Geothermally 

influenced seeps and springs in the Bruneau River and one of its tributaries (Hot Creek, outside of the 

planning area) are the only locations where this species occurs in the world. The ACEC would protect 

22.1 miles of geothermal springs on the east side of the Bruneau River, which is 81% of the suitable hot 
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3-106

springsnail habitat on BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Approximately one-third of the global 

population of these snails exists within the ACEC. Since the early 1990s, the water flows at the thermal 

springs and seeps have declined, reducing habitat for this Endangered species. The hot springsnail has 

evolved to occupy these unique spring habitats and is sensitive to actions that affect the surface flows 

from the springs, the temperature of the spring, or the substrates within the springs.

The Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC includes extensive outcrops of Hot Springs Limestone – a carbonate 

layer composed of fossilized lacustrine algal reefs which formed along the shoreline of ancient Lake 

Idaho (Straccia et al., 1990). These Miocene-aged deposits are associated with the geologic Chalk Hills 

Formation and contain a variety of vertebrate, invertebrate, and micro-fossils ranging in age from eight

million to six million years. The nominated ACEC contains the only concentrated exposures of the fossil 

bearing Chalk Hills Formation in the planning area.

Numerous BLM sensitive plant species occur in the area including Packard’s cowpie buckwheat (Type 4) 

and spine-node milkvetch (Type 4) (both perennials) and rigid threadbush (Type 4), spreading gilia (Type 

3), and white-margin waxplant (Type 4) (all annuals). The nominated ACEC contains 60 acres of Bruneau 

River phlox (Type 3) habitat, which represents 16% of the Bruneau River phlox habitat within the planning 

area. This high concentration of special status plants is unique; this assemblage of species does not 

occur elsewhere in Idaho.

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC – Small Boundary

The small boundary of the nominated Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC would encompass 900 acres of 

BLM-managed land. The small ACEC boundary, southeast of Indian Bathtub does not include areas 

contained within the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness and the designated Wild and Scenic River

corridor. 

The same values meet relevance and importance criteria in the small boundary of the Lower Bruneau 

Canyon ACEC as in the large boundary, except thermal seeps and springs which support the Bruneau 

hot springsnail would not be included within the ACEC boundary. However, they are within the BruneauJarbidge Rivers Wilderness boundary and the designated Wild and Scenic River corridor. 

The paleontological resources within the small boundary of the ACEC are the same as those documented 

for the large boundary of the Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC.

Special status plant species within the small boundary of the ACEC are the same as those documented 

for the large boundary of the Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC; however, Bruneau River phlox would not 

occur within the small ACEC boundary. 

Middle Snake ACEC

The nominated Middle Snake ACEC would encompass 7,000 acres of BLM-managed lands; these lands 

are separated in several areas by blocks of private land. The ACEC would be located in an area 

southeast of King Hill to the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument. The ACEC would extend from 

the planning area boundary in the Snake River to the canyon rim or to existing fences on the adjacent 

uplands.

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include fish or wildlife resources (Snake River snails

and white sturgeon) and natural systems or processes (special status plant assemblages).

A portion of the global population of the Snake River physa (Endangered, Type 1 BLM sensitive) and the 

majority of the global population of the Bliss Rapids snail (Threatened, Type 1) reside in the Snake River 

within the ACEC. Both snails are primarily in the eastern portion of the ACEC. Other special status 

mollusks found in the Snake River within the ACEC include the California floater (Type 3), Columbia 

pebblesnail (Type 3), and short-face lanx (Type 2). This reach of the Snake River also contains a portion 

of the occupied habitat of the Utah valvata snail (Type 2). This reach of the Snake River was identified in 

the Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan as the recovery area for these species (FWS, 1995). 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

12

12

3-107

White sturgeon, a Type 2 BLM sensitive species, is present in the free-flowing reach of the Snake River 

downstream from the Bliss Dam; this segment contains the best habitat in the upper Snake River. The 

ACEC covers the majority of spawning habitat for white sturgeon in the planning area including the uppermost reach of the Snake River with a self-sustaining population of white sturgeon. Because of the freeflowing nature of this reach, white sturgeon are able to reproduce naturally and do not require hatchery 

supplementation to sustain the population. 

The Snake River breaks in this area contain a mixture of soils. The mix of old lake bed sediments and 

volcanic soils provides habitat to a number of uncommon plants including the following special status 

species: calcareous buckwheat (Type 3), Greeley’s wave-wing (Type 3), Janish penstemon (Type 3), 

matted cowpie buckwheat (Type 4), and Snake River milkvetch (Type 4). A few other plant species (e.g., 

desert dandelion and Torrey’s blazingstar) formerly on the Idaho BLM Sensitive Species List are also 

present in the ACEC. 

Sagebrush Sea ACEC

The nominated Sagebrush Sea ACEC would encompass 956,000 acres of BLM-managed land, roughly 

the southern two-thirds of the planning area. It would extend from the Bruneau River on the west to 

Salmon Falls Creek on the east. Its southern boundary would follow the southern boundary of the 

planning area. The northern boundary would follow the road that runs from Balanced Rock to Crows Nest 

to Clover Crossing, then follow Clover Creek along its east and north canyon rims to Clover Creek’s 

confluence with the Bruneau River.

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include cultural values, fish or wildlife resources (bull 

trout, redband trout, spotted frog, sage-grouse, and bighorn sheep), and natural systems or processes 

(slickspot peppergrass, Davis’ peppergrass, and Bruneau River phlox).

Due to its size, the ACEC contains numerous archaeological sites. The distribution of the numerous 

regionally significant archaeological sites present is not uniform; site density varies by terrain and 

proximity to critical resources. Many sites have traditional cultural relevance to the tribes and are also 

important for their scientific value.

The ACEC contains 70 miles of critical habitat for bull trout, which represents 79% of the critical habitat in 

the planning area. In addition, the area contains 201 miles of occupied redband trout streams, which 

represents 80% of the redband trout streams within the planning area, including the perennial streams in 

the Jarbidge Foothills and most of the perennial streams in the Jarbidge River and Salmon Falls Creek 

watersheds. The area contains all known occupied habitat for spotted frog within the planning area. 

However, habitat for all three of these species occurs in only a portion of the ACEC.

The ACEC would contain the vast majority of the active sage-grouse leks and their winter and nesting 

habitat. The ACEC would contain 302,000 acres of key sage-grouse habitat , which is 97% of the key 

sage-grouse habitat within the planning area.

The Draft RMP/EIS reported 252,000 acres of key sage-grouse habitat for the Sagebrush Sea ACEC. The number 

of acres of key sage-grouse habitat has been updated in the Final EIS to include key habitat in Nevada that was 

unavailable at the time of the Draft RMP/EIS.

 There are currently 87 occupied sage-grouse leks, 

associated satellite leks, and sage-grouse nesting habitat present within the ACEC.

The ACEC would encompass all habitat used by bighorn sheep. Bighorn sheep habitat in the Bruneau 

and Jarbidge Canyons accounts for less than 10% of the ACEC, as the majority of the ACEC is not 

generally suitable for bighorn sheep.

The ACEC would include all known occupied habitat for slickspot peppergrass and Davis peppergrass in 

the planning area. The ACEC would include 250 acres of Bruneau River phlox habitat, which represents 

68% of the habitat within the planning area. However, these species are each found in only a small 

portion (less than 10%) of the ACEC.
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3-108

Sand Point ACEC – Expanded Boundary

One additional boundary configuration of the Sand Point ACEC was nominated. The expanded boundary 

of the Sand Point ACEC would include the 800 acres of the existing Sand Point ACEC as well as the

Morgan property, an additional 200 acres between the existing ACEC and the Snake River; totaling 1,000 

acres. The Morgan property was acquired by BLM in 2002 to protect the relevant and important values of

the existing ACEC that extended onto this property. 

The same values meet relevance and importance criteria in the expanded boundary of the Sand Point 

ACEC as in the existing ACEC.

The Morgan property extension would add 1.1 miles of Oregon Trail and the historic Morgan cabin to the 

ACEC. Several large prehistoric archaeological sites are also located within the Morgan property 

extension. The Morgan property extension contains archaeological sites in a riverside setting that meet 

National Register of Historic Places eligibility criteria.

The Morgan property extension also contains paleontological resources for which the Sand Point area is 

known. The extension would add two known paleontological sites to the existing ACEC as well as 

additional acreage of the Glenns Ferry Formation.

Upper Bruneau Canyon ACEC

The nominated Upper Bruneau Canyon ACEC would encompass 18,000 acres of BLM-managed land. 

The ACEC would be located along the upper Bruneau River and the surrounding uplands within the 

southern-most portion of the planning area. The ACEC includes the Bruneau Canyon and adjacent 

uplands from the planning area boundary to the south extending to the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers 

Wilderness boundary to the north.

Values meeting relevance and importance criteria include cultural values, scenic values, fish or wildlife 

resources (bighorn sheep, redband trout), and natural systems or processes (Davis peppergrass and 

riparian system).

Regionally significant cultural resources are present within the ACEC. Native American use of the area 

extends back thousands of years. The canyonlands provided food, shelter, and water for Native 

Americans along the Bruneau River. The area retains traditional cultural importance for the tribes. Many 

sites are also important for their archaeological value.

Scenic values in the Bruneau Canyon are outstanding and the portions of the ACEC downstream of the 

Black Rock Crossing are suitable for wild and scenic river designation. The canyon complex has 

exceptional rugged desert scenery and natural qualities, including both basalt and rhyolite forms of 

volcanic material.

The ACEC contains 99,000 acres of habitat for bighorn sheep, a Type 3 BLM sensitive species, which 

represents 18% of the habitat within the planning area. The bighorn sheep population within the Bruneau 

Jarbidge River Canyons is estimated to be approximately 210 sheep (IDFG, 2010a). The canyonlands 

provide secure lambing habitat. The rivers in the canyon bottoms, as well as occasional seeps from 

canyon walls, provide water. Bighorn sheep forage is available in both the canyons and adjacent uplands.

The ACEC contains 14 miles of occupied habitat for redband trout, a Type 2 BLM sensitive species. The 

Bruneau River within the ACEC lacks migration barriers that prevent redband trout from moving up or 

down stream, unlike most of the other redband trout streams within the planning area.

Davis peppergrass, a Type 3 and Nevada BLM sensitive species, is present in playas within the 

nominated ACEC. The nominated ACEC contains 10 acres of Davis peppergrass habitat, which 

represents 7% of the habitat within the planning area. 

Fourteen miles of the Bruneau River system is within the ACEC. The Bruneau River system is freeflowing. Free-flowing streams are unique in southern Idaho since the majority of other desert rivers, 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations

Wilderness

•

•

o

o

o

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

3-109

including the Snake and Owhyee Rivers and Salmon Falls Creek, contain dams. The riparian system is 

dominated by Rocky Mountain juniper and willows. 

3.5.2 Wilderness

A wilderness area is designated by Congress and is 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 Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (OPLMA) designated 89,780 acres as the Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness (Map 145), of this 60,320 acres are in the planning area. The remainder is managed 

by the Bruneau Field Office. Of the portion located within the planning area, 46,170 acres were formerly 

in the Jarbidge River Wilderness Study Area (WSA), 13,980 acres were formerly in the Bruneau RiverSheep Creek WSA, and 170 acres outside of WSAs altogether.

OPLMA also contains management provisions for the new Wilderness designations:

Subject to valid existing rights, the Wilderness shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in

accordance with the Wilderness Act.

Subject to valid existing rights, the Wilderness is withdrawn from all forms of:

Entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws;

Location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and

Disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws.

Livestock grazing established as of the passage of the Act shall be allowed to continue, subject to

such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices as the Secretary of the Interior considers

necessary, consistent with section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act and the guidelines described in

Appendix A of House Report 101-405.

Fences may be constructed and maintained around the Wilderness as determined to be appropriate

to enhance Wilderness values.

The Secretary of the Interior shall accept the donation of any valid existing grazing permits or leases,

all or a portion of which is within the Wilderness; for each permit or lease donated, the permit or lease

shall be terminated and grazing on the land covered by the permit or lease shall be ended

permanently. If the land is also covered by another valid existing permit or lease that is not donated,

the authorized grazing level on that land shall be reduced to reflect the donated permit or lease. If

less than the full amount of grazing use under a permit or lease is donated, the authorized grazing

level shall be reduced to reflect the donation and the permit or lease shall be modified to reflect the

revised use levels.

Land or interests in land may be acquired within the boundaries of the Wilderness through purchase,

donation, or exchange. Any land or interest in land acquired in, or adjoining the boundary of, the

Wilderness shall be added to and administered as part of the Wilderness.

A trail plan addressing hiking and equestrian trails will be developed.

Commercial services, including authorized outfitting and guide activities, are authorized in the

Wilderness to the extent necessary for activities that fulfill recreational or other Wilderness purposes.

Adequate access shall be provided to any owner of private property within the Wilderness boundary.

Management activities necessary to maintain or restore fish and wildlife populations and habitats in

Wilderness may be conducted if the activities are consistent with relevant Wilderness management

plans and conducted in accordance with appropriate policies, such as those established in Appendix

B of House Report 101-405. These management activities may include the occasional and temporary

use of motorized vehicles, if the use would promote healthy, viable, and more naturally distributed

wildlife populations that would enhance Wilderness values while causing the minimum impact

necessary to accomplish those tasks.

Any measures that the Secretary determines to be necessary may be taken to control wildland fire, 

insects, and diseases.
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

National Historic Trails

•

•

3-110

No protective perimeter or buffer zone shall be created around the Wilderness.

Non-Wilderness activities or uses outside the Wilderness that can be seen or heard from within the

Wilderness shall not be precluded.

OPLMA released the remaining portions of the Jarbidge River and Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSAs

from consideration as Wilderness. Within the planning area, 17,940 acres of the Jarbidge River WSA and

14,140 acres of the Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSA were released. The released lands are to be 

managed in accordance with the applicable land use plan adopted under section 202 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976.

3.5.3 National Historic Trails

The Oregon Trail was designated a National Historic Trail (NHT) under the National Trails System Act on 

November 10, 1978 (Public Law 95-625). The purpose of the National Trails System Act is to promote 

preservation, public access, travel, enjoyment, and appreciation of designated trails. The Oregon NHT

follows the primary route of the Oregon Trail based upon emigrant travel that occurred between 1841 and 

1848. In all, there are approximately 47 miles of the Oregon NHT managed by the Jarbidge Field Office. 

The nature and purposes of the Oregon NHT are to identify, preserve, and interpret the sites, route, and 

history of the Oregon Trail for all people to experience and understand and to commemorate the 

westward movement of emigrants to the Oregon country as an important chapter of our national heritage 

(NPS, 1999). Included are the resources, qualities, and values comprised of the physical remnants of the 

trail, associated artifacts, campsites, and landmarks, their associated settings, and the recreational, 

scenic, natural, and historical values attached to them. The primary uses of the trail include cultural 

resource sight-seeing, hiking, horseback riding, historical interpretation, and historic resource protection.

In the planning area, the Oregon NHT closely follows the Snake River. The trail splits at Three Island 

Crossing near Glenns Ferry; the main trail crosses over to the north side of the Snake River, while the 

South Alternate continues along the south bank of the Snake River (Hutchison and Jones, 1993). Those 

portions of the Oregon NHT on public land meeting the National Trails System Act criteria for historical 

importance, national significance, and high potential for recreation or historic interpretation are called 

Federal Protection Components.

The Comprehensive Management and Use Plan Update for the Oregon NHT developed by the National 

Park Service identifies one high-potential route segment and two high-potential historic sites on BLMmanaged land in the planning area (NPS, 1999). These Federal Protection Components include 

approximately 29 miles of the North Trail high-potential segment, from the Elmore County line to Glenns 

Ferry, and the Thousand Springs Complex and Three Island Crossing high-potential sites.

During the 20th century, portions of the Oregon Trail in the planning area were destroyed by agricultural 

development and highway construction projects. Prior to the passage of the National Trails System Act, 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), portions of the remaining trail’s visual corridor were altered by the construction of major 

overhead transmission lines between Hagerman and Glenns Ferry. Since the mid-1980s, dedicated 

management under the Boise District’s Oregon Trail Management Plan (BLM, 1984) and extensive trail 

marking have stemmed the loss and reduced damage to trail resources. Trail conditions are generally 

good in remote, undeveloped settings. However, trail and visual corridor conditions have deteriorated in 

the vicinity of wind energy developments and where cross-country motorized vehicle use overlaps with 

the historic route. The presence of livestock fences and water troughs and the alteration of native 

vegetation communities adjacent to the trail after wildland fires, especially conversion from native to 

annual communities, have affected the physical and visual setting of the Oregon NHT in isolated areas.

In addition to NHT status, the Oregon Trail is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

under the National Historic Preservation Act. The BLM is currently completing a detailed assessment of 

the physical condition and setting of the Oregon and California Trails in the Twin Falls District. Information 

from this study will help identify those stretches of trail that qualify as contributing segments (i.e., 

segments that meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places) as well as 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations

Wild and Scenic Rivers

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

3-111

noncontributing segments (i.e., segments that lack integrity due to substantial alteration or complete 

destruction). 

3.5.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA; 16 USC 1271-1287) on October 2, 1968. The 

WSRA stipulates selected rivers should be preserved in a free-flowing condition and be protected for the 

benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Since 1968, the WSRA has been amended 

many times, primarily to designate additional rivers and to authorize the study of other rivers for possible 

inclusion.

Section 5(d)(1) of the WSRA directs Federal land management agencies to consider potential Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (WSRs) in their land and water planning processes, stating, “In all planning for the use and 

development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies 

involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas.” To fulfill this requirement, the BLM 

evaluates river and stream segments to determine whether they might be eligible for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System whenever it undertakes a land use planning effort such as a 

RMP.

The WSRA seeks to protect and enhance a river’s natural and cultural values and to provide for public 

use consistent with its free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). 

Designation affords certain legal protection from development. For instance, new dams cannot be 

constructed, and Federally assisted water resource development projects that might negatively affect the 

designated river values are not permitted. Where non-Federal lands are involved, the managing Federal 

agency works with local governments and private landowners to develop protective measures.

Consideration of whether a river should be designated as a wild, scenic, or recreational river can be 

broken into two phases:

Determination of Eligibility - Federal agencies conduct an evaluation of river features to determine 

which rivers qualify to be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and

Determination of Suitability - Most commonly, Federal agencies conduct a review and then 

recommend to Congress which rivers should be protected. Only Congress can designate a river as 

wild, scenic, or recreational.

River segments determined to be eligible are assigned a tentative classification as wild, scenic, or 

recreational. These classifications are defined as follows:

Wild - Wild river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted.

Scenic - Scenic river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, with 

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive or shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads. Scenic does not necessarily mean the river corridor has to have scenery as an ORV. 

Recreational - Recreational river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily 

accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may 

have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. Recreational does not imply that the 

river will be managed or prioritized for recreational use or development or that the river corridor has to 

have recreation as an ORV. 

The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (2009) designated four WSR segments in the planning area:

A 38.1-mile segment of the Bruneau River from the downstream boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge 

Rivers Wilderness to the confluence with the West Fork of the Bruneau River, except for a 0.5-mile 

segment at the Indian Hot Springs public road access, to be administered as a wild river.

A 0.5-mile segment of the Bruneau River at the Indian Hot Springs public road access to be 

administered as a recreational river.
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

•

•

13

13

3-112

A 0.3-mile segment of the West Fork of the Bruneau River from the confluence with the Jarbidge 

River to the downstream boundary of the Bruneau Canyon grazing allotment to be administered as a 

wild river.

A 27.9-mile segment of the Jarbidge River from the confluence with the West Fork of the Bruneau 

River to the upstream boundary of the Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness to be administered as a 

wild river.

ORVs attributed to all these river segments are scenic, recreational, geological, fish, wildlife, cultural, and 

vegetation.

WSR eligibility determinations and tentative classifications for the Snake River segments were made in 

1991 by the Shoshone District Office

Table 3-57).

.

The Shoshone District Office is now known as the Shoshone Field Office within the Twin Falls District.

 Two of the eligible segments of the Snake River are shared with 

the Jarbidge Field Office. Eight miles of the Snake River from Lower Salmon Falls Dam downstream to 

Bliss Dam Reservoir (the Hagerman Reach) and 13 miles of the river from Bliss Dam downstream to the 

King Hill Bridge (the King Hill Reach) were both found to be eligible and were tentatively classified as 

recreational (

Table 3-57. River Segments Eligible and Suitable for Inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River 

System

River Segment 

Description

Length 

(miles)

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Values (ORVs)

Tentative 

Classification

Current 

Status

Bruneau River, 

UpperA

Blackrock Crossing 

to 11 miles 

downstream

11

Cultural, Fish, 

Geological, 

Recreational, 

Scenic, Vegetation, 

Wildlife

Scenic Suitable

Bruneau RiverA

11 miles 

downstream from 

Blackrock Crossing 

to 0.3 miles above 

the confluence of the 

Jarbidge River

12

Cultural, Fish, 

Geological, 

Recreational, 

Scenic, Vegetation, 

Wildlife

Wild Suitable

Cougar Point 

CreekB

Jarbidge Field Office

boundary to East 

Fork, Jarbidge River 

confluence

1 Scenic Wild Eligible

Dave CreekB

Private boundary to 

East Fork, Jarbidge 

River confluence

3 Fish Wild Eligible

Jarbidge RiverB

Jarbidge Field Office

boundary to East 

Fork, Jarbidge River 

confluence

10 Fish, Scenic Recreational Eligible

East Fork 

Jarbidge River, 

SouthB

Jarbidge Field Office

boundary to Murphy 

Hot Springs

7 Fish Wild Eligible

East Fork 

Jarbidge River, 

NorthB

Murphy Hot Springs 

to Jarbidge River 

confluence

2 Fish Recreational Eligible
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Special Designations

Wilderness Study Areas

14

14

3-113

River Segment 

Description

Length 

(miles)

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Values (ORVs)

Tentative 

Classification

Current 

Status

Rocky Canyon 

CreekB

Headwaters to North 

Fork, Salmon Falls 

Creek confluence

2 Wildlife Wild Eligible

Salmon Falls 

Creek, UpperC

Nevada border to 

Salmon Falls 

Reservoir

9 Recreational Recreational Eligible

Salmon Falls 

Creek, Lower

C

Salmon Falls Dam to 

Balanced Rock 30

Geological, 

Recreational, 

Scenic

Scenic Eligible

Snake River, 

Hagerman 

ReachD

Lower Salmon Falls 

Dam to Bliss Dam 

Reservoir

8 

Fish, Geological, 

Historical, 

Recreational, 

Wildlife

Recreational Eligible

Snake River, 

King Hill 

ReachD

Bliss Dam to King 

Hill Bridge 13

Fish, Geological, 

Recreational, 

Wildlife

Recreational Eligible

Snake River, 

Three Island 

ReachB

King Hill Bridge to 

Highway 51 Bridge 25

Cultural, Fish, 

Historical, 

Recreational

Recreational Eligible

A Evaluation and study conducted in the Bruneau WSR Study (1976); ORVs for Bruneau and Jarbidge River 

segments were inferred from the narrative in the Bruneau WSR Study Report.

B Evaluation conducted as part of the current planning process (BLM, 2009d). C Evaluation conducted by the Burley District Office in 1992 and finalized in 2009. D Evaluation conducted by the Shoshone District Office as part of the Draft Bennett Hills RMP in 1991.

WSR eligibility and tentative classifications for the Idaho segments of Salmon Falls Creek were initiated in 

1992 by the Burley District Office

Table 3-57). The upper 

segment was tentatively classified as recreational and the lower segment as scenic.

; eligibility determinations were finalized in 2009.

The Burley District Office is now known as the Burley Field Office within the Twin Falls District.

 These segments form 

the majority of the eastern boundary of the planning area. Nine miles of Salmon Falls Creek from the 

Nevada border downstream to Salmon Falls Reservoir and 30 miles of Salmon Falls Creek from Salmon 

Falls Dam downstream to Balanced Rock Park were identified as eligible (

An eligibility evaluation was first conducted in 2007 and updated in 2012 on all river segments within and 

bordering the planning area not already determined eligible or suitable as part of the planning process for 

the Jarbidge RMP (Appendix N). River segments determined to be eligible as part of that evaluation, as 

well as their tentative classification, are contained in Table 3-57. Eligible rivers and their corridors on 

Federal lands are provided interim protection until the suitability phase is complete. Rivers recommended 

as suitable are protected as potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System until 

Congress or the Secretary of the Interior determines whether the suitable river will be included. Rivers 

deemed nonsuitable by Congress revert to land management as described in the most recent RMP. 

3.5.5 Wilderness Study Areas

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) are Lands with Wilderness Characteristics identified through the 

wilderness review required by Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

(FLPMA), Congressional legislation, or the land use planning process in Section 202 of FLPMA. WSAs 

are administrated and managed under BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas 

pending Congressional action. Wilderness characteristics are features of the land associated with the 

concept of wilderness, including naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined 

types of recreation, that are reasonably present, of sufficient value, and practical to manage. An area with 
Chapter 3: Special Designations Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Wilderness Study Areas

3-114

naturalness generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

human activity substantially unnoticeable. Solitude is the state of being alone, remote from habitation, or 

in a secluded place. A primitive and unconfined recreation experience is an activity that provides 

dispersed, undeveloped recreation that does not require facilities or motorized equipment.

Only Congress can designate WSAs as Wilderness or release them from management. Until such time as 

Congress acts, the BLM must manage these lands in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such 

areas for preservation as wilderness. Any WSA lands released from management are subject to specific 

release direction as stated in the release legislation. If the release legislation does not contain specific 

direction, released lands would be managed according to direction in the current RMP. 

There is currently one WSA in the planning area (Map 145). The Lower Salmon Falls Creek WSA is 

located in Twin Falls County, Idaho. This WSA includes Salmon Falls Creek from Salmon Dam 

downstream to the Lilly Grade crossing. Lands of the Lower Salmon Falls Creek WSA are located in the 

Jarbidge and Burley Field Offices, including 2,000 acres of BLM-managed land in the planning area. Two 

additional WSAs, the Bruneau River-Sheep Creek WSA and the Jarbidge River WSA, were designated 

wilderness by the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (2009). 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features

Social Conditions

3-115

3.6 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FEATURES

Every area has defining features which influence the shape and nature of local economic and social 

activity. Among these are the demographics of local populations, the presence of or proximity to large 

cities or regional population centers, types of longstanding industries (i.e., agriculture and oil and gas), 

and natural amenities. The Jarbidge Field Office operates as a steward of many of these area resources 

and opportunities and thus plays a role in the community. The social and economic features section 

provides insight into the character and the extent to which local communities are connected to BLMmanaged lands within the planning area. 

The economic analysis focuses on goods and services provided by BLM-managed lands within the 

planning area. These lands contribute a wide range of economic values to people. Market goods, such as 

livestock and recreation, generate employment and income as well as payments to local communities and 

some revenue for the Federal treasury. Non-market goods such as ecosystems and habitats generate 

value everyone reaps but do not necessarily pay for. Other goods such as outdoor recreation and 

scenery are valued by the people who use them but only a portion of this value is represented in market 

purchases.

The planning area straddles the Idaho/Nevada border and is located within four counties (Twin Falls, 

Elmore, and Owyhee Counties, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada). While few people live within the 

boundaries of the planning area, there are a number of adjacent small cities whose residents rely on the 

natural and cultural resources provided by these BLM-managed lands. Since the social and economic 

effects from changes on BLM-managed lands extend to neighboring communities, the geographic scope 

of the analysis has been expanded beyond the planning area boundary to encompass all of Elmore, 

Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties in Idaho and Elko County, Nevada. To examine both the role of these 

lands on individual counties and on the larger region, a multidimensional approach was taken to provide 

information at the county and larger analysis area scale. By doing so, regional relationships are 

addressed without masking relationships with smaller counties and communities in the analysis 

Map 147 displays lands managed by the Jarbidge Field Office and their relationship with the four-county 

region. 

3.6.1 Social Conditions

Stakeholder Groups

Several stakeholder groups with varying levels of interest in the planning area can be identified. These 

stakeholders are either physically engaged with the planning area or socially engaged with those who 

are, and see themselves as acting on behalf of themselves, their families, their future descendants, 

neighbors, and the public good. Jarbidge stakeholders include ranchers, local residents, recreationists, 

hunters, and anglers, as well as individuals with cultural or emotional ties who see themselves as acting 

on behalf of the public good. While tribal members of the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute 

Tribes are also classified as stakeholders, their relationship to the planning area is discussed in the Tribal 

Rights and Interests section.

Ranchers

Approximately 60 family ranches have permits to graze livestock in the planning area. Many ranchers 

love the way of life ranching provides and pride themselves on being stewards of the land. An estimate of 

three ranchers per family yields a population size of 180 ranchers working in the planning area. This is a 

conservative estimate, as local observers generally used higher estimates for the number of ranchers per 

ranch, but they agreed it could possibly be this low.

Families with grazing permits in the planning area also use public land for purposes other than grazing, 

including scientific, educational, spiritual, aesthetic, and recreational purposes (Black, 2006; Brackett et 

al., 2006; Lehmann et al., 2006). 
Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Social Conditions

3-116

Livestock grazing has been an important social and economic activity in the planning area since the 

1870s. Ranching within the planning area relies on multi-generational family farms, with several families 

reporting that they have been raising cattle in the planning area for six generations. These ranchers have 

a vested interest in maintaining healthy and productive rangelands and take pleasure in the stewardship 

of the land they utilize. Public comments indicated that range stewardship improved the quality of life of 

local ranchers, and that ranching practices in the planning area will preserve open space from 

development, improving the quality of life of non-ranching households and future generations living in the 

four-county region. 

Local Residents (Non-Ranchers)

Local businesses and non-ranching residents (part-time and year-round) have a strongly rural character 

and are closely integrated with their ranching neighbors (Wulfhorst et al., 2003). Survey data from 

Owyhee County suggests that non-ranchers view their ranching neighbors in a positive light (Harp et al., 

2001), and in many instances, their lives are intertwined as they take part in round ups, branding, and 

many of the same recreation activities. 

Public land issues are important to these stakeholders. In nearby Jarbidge, NV, more than 70% of 

homeowners have attended two or more community meetings or hearings or have worked with other 

community members to bring public action on public land issues. More than half of Jarbidge, NV, 

homeowners have written a letter or editorial or provided testimony on public land issues at least twice 

(Rollins et al., 2007a). Residents in this region were identified as being concerned by the threat of 

wildland fire to their community. The majority of these residents believed that livestock grazing has a 

valuable role to play in reducing fire risk; only 12% say they do not approve of using grazing to reduce 

wildland fire threats (Rollins et al., 2007b). 

Participants in the Jarbidge Community Economic Workshop identified the Malad Gorge and Billingsley 

Creek State Parks, Miracle and Sligar’s Hot Springs, and the Thousand Springs Scenic Byway as 

culturally and socially significant places and areas (Gardner, 2006). Participants also identified what they 

appreciated about the planning area. Responses included solitude, livestock, wildlife, scenery, recreation 

opportunities, hunting, and cultural aspects. Areas important to the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes exist within the planning area boundaries; these are addressed in the Tribal 

Rights and Interests section.

Dispersed Recreators

The dispersed recreator stakeholder group represents people who view wildlife, camp, and hike in the 

planning area. Dispersed recreators may also engage with the planning area contemplatively when they 

are not there (e.g., thinking about the area, telling stories, and sharing photos).

River Recreators

Based on user data, the river recreator stakeholder group is estimated to be comprised of approximately 

3,000 people. River recreators participate in whitewater and flat-water kayaking, rafting, and canoeing 

primarily on the Bruneau, Jarbidge, and Snake Rivers and Salmon Falls Creek. 

Motorized Recreators

Motorized recreators comprise a large portion of recreators in the planning area. There were 9,454 allterrain vehicles (ATVs), utility vehicles, and off-highway motorbikes registered to residents of Elmore, 

Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties in 2011 (IDPR, 2011). ATV and motorcycle use is likely high in Elko 

County as well, as 74% of Jarbidge, NV, residents reported ATV and motorcycle use in a recent survey 

(Rollins et al., 2007a). It can be assumed that two-thirds of the 9,454 ATV, utility vehicles, and offhighway motorcycle owners residing in adjacent counties recreate in the planning area, that many of 

these vehicles are used by more than one person, and that some individuals own more than one of these 

vehicles.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features

Social Conditions

3-117

Hunters and Fishermen

The hunter and angler stakeholder group is assumed to have a population of 34,042 people based on 

research by Wulfhorst and others (2003) that found 43% of Owyhee County residents participated in 

hunting or fishing. The rate in neighboring Elmore County is likely to be similar. Twin Falls County is more 

urban and more likely to have a participation rate similar to the statewide rate for Idaho of 24% (FWS, 

2006b). Among Jarbidge, NV, residents, 52% have fished, 43% have hunted birds, 35% have hunted 

other small game, and 30% have hunted big game (calculations from Rollins et al., 2007a).

Demographics Over the past two decades, the four-county region grew by more than 37% and was estimated to have a 

population of 164,612 in 2010 (Table 3-58). While the four-county region witnessed steady growth 

between 1990 and 2010, population growth in Elmore, Owyhee, Twin Falls, and Elko Counties tapered off 

over the last decade. Between 1990 and 2000, populations in Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties 

grew by 33%, 21.6%, and 17.4% respectively, while Elko County, Nevada grew by 31%. Like many 

nonmetropolitan regions within the United States, population growth grew sluggish during the first decade 

of the 21st century as growth rates fell to less than half of those experienced in the 1990s. Between 2000 

and 2010, growth within the four-county region slowed to just 10% as growth within Elmore County 

plummeted from 33% to 7%. While populations in Elmore County dwindled, the remaining three counties 

continued to experience positive growth. Owyhee and Elko Counties grew by 8.3% and 7.8% respectively 

in the early 2000s, as growth became more rapid in Twin Falls County with the rate of population change 

increasing from 17.4% to 20.1%.

Table 3-58. Population Change for Counties within the Four-County Region

Analysis Areas

Resident Population

(thousands of people) Population Change

1990 

Census

2000 

Census

2010 

Census 1990-2000 2000-2010 1990-2010

Nevada 1,230.7 1,998.3 2,700.6 62.4% 35.1% 119.4%

Idaho 1,029.3 1,294.0 1,567.6 25.7% 21.1% 52.3%

Four-County 

Region 120.0 149.3 164.6 24.4% 10.2% 37.2%

Elko, NV 34.6 45.3 48.8 31.0% 7.8% 41.2%

Elmore, ID 21.9 29.1 27.0 33.0% -7.2% 23.4%

Owyhee, ID 8.8 10.6 11.5 21.6% 8.3% 31.7%

Twin Falls, ID 54.8 64.3 77.2 17.4% 20.1 41.0%

Source: (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990; 2000; 2010a). 

Although more than half of all residents in the four-county region were under the age of 35 in 2010 

(Figure 3-2), trends over the last decade indicate that the region’s population is aging at an increasing 

rate. While the median age across Elko, Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties has remained in the 

early thirties, the age group 45 and older showed steady increases in their share of the total population. 

Between 2000 and 2010, the four-county region experienced growth in populations 45 years and older as 

the number of residents 45 to 64 years increased by 9,147 people and residents 65 years and older 

increased by 2,904 people. Changes in the shares of these age groups caused the median age across 

the region to rise. The number of residents 18 to 35 increased by 1,526 people, and the number of 

residents under the age of 18 increased by 1,171 people. During this time period, residents 35 to 44 

declined by 3,403 people (Figure 3-2). In Owyhee and Elko Counties, the median age increased by more 

than two years, while the median age in Elmore and Twin Falls Counties remained relatively unchanged 

during this time period (Table 3-59).
Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Social Conditions

23,248

19,668

10,274

19,716

8,421

22,082

18,364

9,738

19,480

9,703

0 10,000 20,000 30,000

Under 18

18-34

35-44

45-64

65 and over

2010 Breakout

Female Male

1,171

1,526

-3,403

9,147

2,904

-5,000 0 5,000 10,000

Change 2000-2010

3-118

Figure 3-2. Population Trends in Four-County Region

Source: (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011). 

Table 3-59. Median Age for the Four-County Region

Age Impact Area

Elmore Owyhee Twin Falls Elko

Median Age (2000) 29.1 32.9 34.9 31.2

Median Age (2010) 29.5 35.3 34.5 33.6

Median Age (% Change) 1.4 7.3 -1.1 7.7

Source: (U. S. Department of Commerce, 2011). 

The 2010 census indicated that the racial composition of the four-county region was much less diverse 

than the overall national population, with more than 89% of residents identifying themselves as White 

alone. Although national population data indicated several racial and ethnic groups are underrepresented 

in the planning area, the four-county region reported having higher concentrations of individuals 

identifying themselves as White alone, American Indian and Alaska Native, Two or more races, and of 

Hispanic origin than at the national level. When demographics of the four-county region are compared to 

those of the modified State-level population (which aggregates Elko, NV with the State of Idaho), it 

becomes evident that the population of the four-county region has greater concentrations of Black or 

African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, and some other racial groups; as well as a higher 

concentration of residents with a Hispanic origin. Further disaggregating the population of the four-county 

region reveals that the racial and Hispanic composition of individual counties may be more diverse than 

the total population of the four-county region. When county shares of these minority groups are compared 

to the population shares within the modified State-level population it becomes evident that Elko County 

has a greater percentage of individuals identifying themselves as American Indian and Alaska Native, or 

having a Hispanic origin; Elmore County was home to a greater percentage of residents who identified

themselves as Black or African American, Asian, Two or more races, or some other race alone; Owyhee 

County has greater concentrations of residents identifying themselves as having a Hispanic origin or 

belonging to American Indian and Alaska Native or Two or more racial groups; and the population of Twin 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features

Economic Conditions

15

15

3-119

Falls County has a higher concentration of residents identifying themselves as some other race alone 

(Table 3-60 ).

Race and ethnicity are separated since Hispanics can be of any race. 

Table 3-60. Racial and Hispanic Composition of 2010 Population 

Location White 

Alone

Black or 

African 

American 

Alone

American 

Indian 

and

Alaska

Native 

Alone

Asian 

Alone

Native 

Hawaiian

and Other 

Pacific 

Islander 

Alone

Some 

other 

race 

alone

Two or 

more 

races

Hispanic 

Origin

United States 74.0% 12.5% 0.8% 4.7% 0.2% 5.5% 2.4% 15.7%

Idaho + Elko 

County, NV 92.1% 0.6% 1.4% 1.2% 0.2% 2.2% 2.4% 10.9%

Four-County 

Region 89.7% 0.9% 2.3% 1.0% 0.2% 3.2% 2.7% 16.7%

Elko County 88.0% 0.8% 5.3% 1.1% 0.2% 2.3% 2.4% 22.3%

Elmore 

County 85.5% 2.6% 1.5% 1.5% 0.2% 3.3% 5.3% 14.8%

Owyhee 

County 90.5% 0.1% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 3.7% 24.4%

Twin Falls 

County 92.1% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 0.2% 3.9% 1.8% 12.6%

Source: (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011). 

3.6.2 Economic Conditions

Economic Specialization and Employment

Unemployment rates for the four-county region have historically been below the averages for the United 

States, Idaho, and Nevada. Average annual unemployment rates for this region were 4.8% in Owyhee 

County, 7.4% in Elko County, 8.1% in Twin Falls County, and 8.5% in Elmore County (Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, 2011), while unemployment was 13.7% in Nevada, 8.8% in Idaho, and 9.6% for the United 

States. Employment within the four-county region is distributed among economic sectors and displayed 

below (Figure 3-3) relative to employment at the modified State level (the State of Idaho plus Elko 

County, NV). Of particular interest is the bottom six sectors, which contain jobs related to BLM land 

management. The Government sector includes all Federal, State, and local employment, while the 

Grazing sector includes both cattle and sheep ranching. The last four sectors have been specifically 

identified as being at least partially attributable to tourism and recreation (Marcouiller and Xia, 2008). The 

contributions from BLM lands managed by the Jarbidge Field Office represent only a portion of the 

economic activity reflected in industry sectors (Figure 3-3), and the exact portion supported by activities 

on BLM-managed lands is discussed further in the Economic Sectors Affected by the Jarbidge RMP

section below.

Using the ratio of the percent employment in each industry in the region of interest (four-county region) to 

the percent of employment in that industry for a larger reference region (the State of Idaho plus Elko 

County, NV) enables the identification of labor specialization within the region. For a given industry, when 

the percent employment in the analysis region is greater than in the reference region, local employment 

specialization exists in that industry (USDA, 1998). Identification of employment specialization within the 

planning area provides a frame of reference for contributions from BLM management of Jarbidge Field 

Office lands. Applying this criterion to 2010 data reveals that the planning area can be characterized as 

most specialized in the Government and Accommodation and Food Service sectors.
Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Economic Conditions

3-120

Over the last decade, total employment in the four-county region increased by nearly 7,000 jobs, from 

81,058 jobs in 2001 to 87,975 jobs in 2010. A large portion of this growth stemmed from services-related 

sectors. Over this time period, non-service sectors grew by 1.4% while services-related sectors grew by 

16.8%. Services-related sectors consist of the following sectors: Utilities; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; 

Transportation and Warehousing; Information; Finance and Insurance; Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing; 

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; Management of Companies and Enterprises; 

Administrative and Support Services; Educational Services; Health Care and Social Assistance; Arts, 

Entertainment, and Recreation; Accommodation and Food Services; and Other Services. Non-services 

related sectors consist of the following sectors: Mining, Construction, Manufacturing, Agriculture, Grazing, 

Fishing, and Hunting (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012a).

Decreased employment in non-services related sectors and increased employment in services-related 

sectors can indicate that economic well-being in the region could be declining. In general, jobs in 

services-related sectors tend to pay lower annual wages than jobs in non-services related sectors. 

Although increased employment in these sectors relative to non-services related sectors implies that a 

greater share of the labor force in the four-county region could be working lower-paying jobs, increases in 

these jobs may signal higher labor participation by women and minority groups.

In addition, people moving to the area for its amenities may opt for employment in the lower paying 

services-related sectors as a means to enjoy the natural amenities of the region supported in part by

BLM-managed lands. In this manner, some may benefit from a secondary income because of the 

enjoyment they gain from living in the area. Changes in population and employment have been shown to 

be related to natural amenities (Knapp and Graves, 1989; Clark and Hunter, 1992; Treyz et al., 1993; 

Mueser and Graves, 1995; McGranahan, 1999; Lewis et al., 2002), and are often provided by 

surrounding public lands. Thus the Jarbidge Field Office operates as a steward of many of these natural 

amenities, consequently supporting a portion of the regional population and employment growth.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features

Economic Conditions

6.6%

2.7%

0.5%

5.5%

4.8%

2.7%

11.3%

3.0%

1.2%

3.9%

3.8%

3.6%

0.5%

4.7%

1.0%

9.0%

2.3%

5.2%

18.3%

1.4%

9.5%

2.5%

0.4%

1.9%

5.1%

0.7%

0.4%

6.5%

6.3%

3.2%

11.1%

2.8%

1.5%

5.1%

4.8%

6.1%

0.7%

5.5%

1.5%

10.1%

2.0%

5.2%

14.9%

1.1%

6.6%

2.3%

0.4%

1.5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Agriculture

Mining

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale Trade

Retail Trade

Transportation & Warehousing

Information

Finance & Insurance

Real Estate & Rental & Leasing

Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services

Management of Companies and Enterprises

Admin, Waste Mngt & Rem Serv

Educational Services

Health Care & Social Assistance

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation

Other Services

Sectors Related to Jarbidge MGMT

Government

Grazing

Accommodation & Food Services

Portion of retail trade

Portion of passenger transport

Portion of arts entertainment & recreation

Four-County Region Idaho+Elko

3-121

Figure 3-3. Estimated Employment by Occupation for the Planning Area and the Four-County 

Region, 2008

Self-Employment

Self-employment in farm and non-farm sectors is an important contributor to employment within the fourcounty region, and includes sole proprietorships, partnerships, and tax-exempt cooperatives. Proprietors 

accounted for 20.9% of 2010 total employment in the four-county region, growing by nearly 16% between 

2000 and 2010. The planning area was estimated to have 2,400 farm proprietors in 2010, which 

accounted for 2.7% of total farm employment within the four-county region (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 2012a). 
Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Economic Conditions

Finance & Insurance

4%

Wholesale Trade

4%

Real Estate & Rental 

& Leasing

1%

Accommodation & 

Food Services

5%

Admin, Waste Mngt 

& Rem Serv

2%

Manufacturing

6%

Professional, 

Scientific, & 

Technical Services

3%

Management of 

Companies and 

Enterprises

2%

Transportation & 

Warehousing

3%

Government

32%

Mining

7%

Educational Services

1%

Agriculture

3%

Retail Trade

7%

Arts, Entertainment, 

and Recreation

1%

Construction

6%

Information

1%

Health Care & Social 

Assistance

9%

Other Services

3% Utilities

1%

3-122

Income Levels

Two measures commonly used to measure the relative prosperity of a population are total personal 

income and per capita personal income. Personal income can be broken into three major sources: labor 

earnings or income from the workplace, investment income (income received by individuals in the form of 

rent, dividends, or interest earnings), and transfer payment income from government social programs like 

social security, retirement and disability, or Medicare and Medicaid payments.

Between 1970 and 2010, total personal income in the four-county region increased from $1.75 million to 

$5.67 million in inflation adjusted 2010 dollars. This reflected a 224% increase in total personal income. 

Labor earnings earned within Elko, Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties are attributable to a diverse 

range of industry sectors and accounted for 67% of the four-county region’s total personal income in 2010 

(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012a). Figure 3-4 breaks down the region’s labor income by industry 

and highlights the importance of the Government sector’s income contributions.

Figure 3-4. 2010 Personal Income by Sector for the Four-County Region

Dividing total personal income by the number of individuals living within the region yields per capita 

personal income, which was estimated to be $34,486 for the four-county region in 2010 (US Department 

of Commerce, 2012a). While per capita personal income is a useful measure of economic well-being it 

should be examined alongside changes in real earnings per job. Since per capita personal income 

includes labor and non-labor income, it is possible for per capita income to rise, even if the average wage 

per job declines over time. Between 1970 and 2010 per capita personal income rose by 57%, as average 

earnings per job increased by 50% (from $24,785 to $37,216; values adjusted for inflation to 2010 dollars) 

indicating a rise in area economic well-being (US Department of Commerce, 2012a). Further examination 

of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis also indicated that non-labor income’s share of personal 

income within the region steadily grew during this time period as transfer payments increased from 22% 

of total personal income in 1970 to nearly 33% by 2010. Although the data showed that investment 

income rose from 13.7% to 14.7%, a majority of the non-labor income increase was attributed to transfer 

payment income (welfare, social security, retirement and disability, or Medicare and Medicaid payments).
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features

Economic Conditions

3-123

Poverty

The measure of poverty at the household level is the Federal definition for poverty level. The Census 

Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who 

is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every 

individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty levels do not vary geographically, but they are 

updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. The official poverty level definition uses money 

income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, 

Medicaid, and food stamps).

Within the four-county region, there were an estimated 3,966 families and more than 18,000 individuals 

living below the Federal poverty level in 2010. The Federal poverty level for a three-person family (the 

rounded average family size in Idaho) in 2010 was $18,310 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b) and for an 

individual it was $10,830 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010a; 2010b).This was 

equivalent to 12% of individuals and 9.5% of families living within the four-county region. Although poverty 

rates for Idaho and Nevada were below the national rate of 13.8% of individuals and 10.1% of families, 

rates were shown to vary across the four counties (Table 3-61). Elko and Elmore Counties maintained 

poverty rates below those for the States of Nevada and Idaho at 7.1% and 12.0% of people and 5.8% and 

9.2% of families, respectively. While Twin Falls County maintained rates consistent with rates at the State 

level, Owyhee County suffered from the highest poverty rates within the four-county region. In 2010, 

poverty in rural Owyhee County was higher than Idaho’s average rate for individuals and nearly twice the 

average for families. The Census Bureau reported more than 22% of individuals and 18% of the county’s 

families lived in poverty in 2010 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012b).

Table 3-61. Poverty in the Four-County Region, 2010

Below Poverty Line

Individuals Percent of 

Individuals Families Percent of 

Families

United States 40,917,513 13.8 7,685,345 10.1

Idaho 203,942 13.6 38,942 9.7

Nevada 308,426 11.9 55,599 8.6

Elko County 3,341 7.1 709 5.8

Elmore County 3,127 12.0 666 9.2

Owyhee County 2,510 22.2 544 18.0

Twin Falls County 9,576 13.0 2,047 10.6

Economic Sectors Affected by the Jarbidge RMP

Agriculture and Ranching

Agriculture is big business in Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties, compared to most areas of 

Idaho. Net farm income exceeded $337 million in 2010 as cash receipts surpassed $1.2 billion. Twothirds of these receipts were from livestock. That share has grown over time, led by the growth in the 

number of dairies and dairy cows in the region. The crop share of receipts dropped from 41% in 1970 to 

32% in 2010. Although government payments have dropped over time, both in amount and share of farm 

receipts, 2010 government payments within Elko, Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties were 

reported to be more than $6.5 million (Gardner and Martin, 2006; U.S Deparment of Commerce, 2012a). 

The Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector in Elko County, NV is a major contributor of economic activity in 

the area, and was attributed with providing 1.4% of the employment in Elko County in 2010 (IMPLAN, 

2010). In 2010, net farm income was $10.9 million, and average annual cash receipts and other income 

for this sector was $65.5 million (Vusovic and Harris, 2006; Gardner and Martin, 2006; U.S Deparment of 

Commerce, 2012a). 
Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Economic Conditions

16

16

3-124

The Cattle Ranching and Farming sector and the sector containing sheep grazing (animal production, 

except cattle, poultry, and eggs) are the IMPLAN

Figure 3-4. 

sectors most affected by cattle grazing in the planning 

area and are used to evaluate effects in Chapter 4.

IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) is an input-output analysis software program produced by MIG, Inc.

(formerly Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.). In combination with regional-specific Social Accounting Matrices and 

Multiplier Models, IMPLAN provides a highly accurate and adaptable model for its users. The IMPLAN database 

contains county, state, zip code, and federal economic statistics which are specialized by region, are not estimated 

from national averages, and can be used to measure the effect on a regional or local economy of a given change or 

event in the economy's activity.

 The Cattle Ranching and Farming sector and the 

sector containing sheep grazing was responsible for 22% of employment (1,254 jobs) and 15% of labor 

income ($34.6 million) within the larger Agriculture sector depicted in 

While large, the value and ranking of industry sector employment and income do not by themselves

reveal the importance of an economic sector or its subsectors. Another way to view the importance of an 

economic sector to an area’s economy is by the sector’s contribution to the local economic base. 

Economic base or basic sectors are those that export to economies outside the area’s boundaries. These 

sectors bring dollars into the local economy for expanded economic development. The Cattle Ranching 

and Farming Sector ranked second among the 440 IMPLAN sectors in the four-county region in value of 

exports. This export value is an indication of the importance of the Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector to 

economic development in the four-county region. 

The connection between the BLM Jarbidge Field Office and the Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector is 

based on management of livestock grazing and rangeland resources. Cattle ranchers can be authorized 

to use BLM allotments for livestock grazing through grazing permits. The amount of livestock grazing on 

BLM-managed lands is measured in animal unit months (AUMs). Cattle ranches use BLM grazing as part 

of a forage resource rotation that includes base property (i.e., private grazing land owned by the rancher) 

and other resources. Assuming that Federal AUMs are part of an overall grazing system, a change in 

BLM livestock grazing management can affect the use of the forage resources throughout the planning 

area. Furthermore, based on discussions with other rangeland-managing agencies, such as the Forest 

Service, there is not any additional rangeland currently available in the planning area. Therefore, forage 

provided by the BLM Jarbidge Field Office can be considered a crucial part of operators’ overall grazing 

systems.

Consequently, estimating the contribution of livestock grazing on the four-county region using only BLM 

AUMs may underestimate the actual importance of BLM-managed lands as a forage resource if BLM 

AUMs are part of an overall grazing system, where a change in BLM grazing management affects the use 

of the rest of the forage resources. A study by Alevy and others (2007) in Elko County, NV, estimated that 

one public land AUM supports 2.21 AUMs at the ranch level. Therefore, current forage use on BLMmanaged lands in the planning area (an average of 151,000 AUMs were billed between 2008 and 2011) 

may support up to 334,000 AUMs at the ranch level.

Using an IMPLAN input-output model, contributions to the four-county region from this range of AUM 

contributions is examined. This includes direct employment and labor income to permittees and their 

families, which directly affect the local economy. Additional indirect and induced multiplier contributions 

(ripple effects) are generated by the direct activities. Indirect contributions occur when permittees make 

purchases in the local economy that further support employment and income. Indirect contributions occur 

when income is spent by employees of support industries. Together the direct, indirect, and induced 

contributions comprise the total economic contribution to the local economy from the planning area.
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features

Economic Conditions

17

17

3-125

Using this IMPLAN model, total contributions range from 281 to 621 jobs and $4.7 to $10.5 million in 

labor income on an average annual basis.

Jobs reported from IMPLAN are an annual average and are not full-time equivalents. These estimates measure the 

number of jobs per year supported by the Jarbidge Field Office management and include all full-time, part-time, and 

temporary positions. Thus a job can be interpreted as 1 job lasting 12 months = 2 jobs lasting 6 months each = 3 jobs 

lasting 4 months each, etc. While IMPLAN provides a means by which changes in employment stemming from 

Jarbidge Field Office management can be measured, its data cannot determine the number of hours worked, the 

relative percentage of full-time to part-time employment, or identify the number of local employees associated with 

these job-years. 

Direct contributions to the Cattle Ranching and Farming sector 

and the sector containing sheep grazing would range from 183 to 405 jobs, which constitutes 15% to 32% 

of the total employment in these sectors within the four-county region. 

Government 

BLM disbursements coming out of the planning area in Fiscal Year 2011 include approximately $800 in 

Special Recreation Permits, $195,000 in grazing receipts, $6,000 in mineral material sales, and $594,000 

in land use authorizations and rights-of-way collections. Total collections from grazing on BLM-managed 

land in Idaho were approximately $1,352,000 in FY 2011. The planning area represented nearly 15% of 

that total.

BLM disburses Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to counties (Table 3-62). Congress appropriates PILT 

payments each year for tax-exempt Federal lands administered by the BLM, National Park Service, US 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Federal water projects, and some military installations. PILT 

payments are in addition to other Federal revenues transferred to the States such as oil and gas leasing, 

livestock grazing, and timber harvesting. These payments help local governments carry out vital services 

such as firefighting and police protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search-andrescue operations. The formula used to compute the payments is contained in the PILT Act and is based 

on population, receipts-sharing payments, and the amount of Federal land within an affected county 

(entitlement acreage). PILT payments within the four-county region totaled more than $13.5 million in 

2012; however, BLM was responsible for only a portion of the entitlement acreage the payment was 

based on. The PILT payment attributable to BLM entitlement acreage within the planning area is 

estimated to be $1.2 million.

Table 3-62. Payments in Lieu of Taxes for the Four-County Region

Elmore Owyhee Twin Falls Elko

FourCounty 

Area

Total Federal 

Entitlement Acreage 1,355,467 3,634,223 638,166 7,906,516 13,534,372

Jarbidge Entitlement 

Acreage 113,720 924,780 289,116 45,879 1,373,495

2012 Total Payment $2,197,381 $1,245,549 $1,574,196 $2,904,627 $7,921,753

BLM Share of 

Payment $184,354 $316,948 $713,177 $16,855 $1,231,334

Based on the IMPLAN methodology, payments to counties from minerals disbursements, grazing 

revenues, and the share of PILT attributable to entitlement acreage within the planning area contributes 

19 jobs and $795,000 in labor income (direct, indirect, and induced contributions) to the four-county 

region on an average annual basis.

Recreation

BLM-managed land within the planning area provides a variety of recreation opportunities to local 

recreationists and visitors. The majority of recreation activity in the planning area is classified as 
Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Economic Conditions

•

o

o

o

•

o

o

o

3-126

dispersed or motorized, with the majority of users traveling fewer than 100 miles to enjoy the activities 

available to them. Recreation use levels generally follow a pattern of growth commensurate to population 

growth. Population growth in southcentral Idaho has contributed to greater recreation activity within the 

planning area.

Data collected by the Jarbidge Field Office staff indicate that that there were 48,300 recreational visits to 

the planning area over the 11-year period between October 2000 and September 2011. On their way to 

recreate, and once they arrive, these visitors spend money on goods and services they would spend 

elsewhere if these opportunities did not exist. In this manner, the opportunities on BLM-managed lands

contribute to the four-county region economy by attracting these visitors.

Analyses of expenditures reported by national forest visitors show the primary factor determining the 

amount spent by a visitor was the type of trip taken and not the specific activity or area visited (Stynes 

and White, 2005). Since visitor expenditure information for the type of trip taken on BLM is not yet 

available, National Visitor Use Monitoring data from US National Forests serves as a proxy. There are six 

trip type segments with detailed expenditure information for visitors:

Visitors who reside greater than 30 miles from the visited planning area: 

Non-local residents on day trips, 

Non-local residents staying overnight on the planning area, and

Non-local residents staying overnight off the planning area. 

Visitors who live within 30 miles of the visited planning area: 

Local residents on day trips, 

Local residents staying overnight on the planning area, and

Local residents staying overnight off the planning area. 

Data collected for the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Caribou-Targhee National Forests and Jarbidge Field Office

information were used to allocate total visitation into the six trip type segments. This process indicated 

approximately 15% of all visits to the planning area were non-local visitors and 85% were local visitors.

Local visitors on day trips were the largest trip type segment of about 25,000 visits. Non-local 

recreationists contribute seven total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) and $173,000 total labor income 

(direct, indirect, and induced) to the four-county region on an average annual basis.

While providing recreation opportunities to local residents is an important contribution, the recreation 

expenditures of locals do not represent new money introduced into the economy. Regardless, area 

residents and recreationists feel the opportunities within the planning area are unique enough to keep 

them in the area and thus maintain a portion of local visitor spending in the area. In other words, if the 

opportunities did not exist within the planning area, the local resident-recreationists would travel outside 

the four-county region for substitute recreation opportunities. In addition to non-local contributions, local 

recreationists visiting the planning area contribute seven total jobs and $195,000 in total labor income to 

the four-county region on an average annual basis. As noted above the primary factor determining the 

amount spent by a visitor was the type of trip taken and not the specific activity; consequently, these 

visitation estimates include all motorized and non-motorized activities occurring on the planning area. 

Wind Energy

Wind energy potential is estimated at 25,000 megawatts (MW) for Idaho. Idaho has experienced a wind 

construction boom, growing from 75 MW at the end of 2008 to an expected 500 MW at the end of 2011

(Idaho Legislative Council Interim Committee on Energy, Environment, and Technology, 2012). 

There has been considerable interest in developing the wind energy resources within the planning area. 

Several projects have been built or approved on private land in the northeast corner of the planning area, 

including nearly 30 turbines with a capacity of over 40 MW. These are small projects built under the 

Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 which requires local utilities to purchase the electricity 

these projects generate at a rate calculated by the State public utilities commission. This gives these 

small projects the advantages of a guaranteed market for their electricity. Additionally, there is potential 
Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features

Non-market Values

3-127

for another 700 MW of wind power generation through multiple projects in and around the four-county 

region (Fleischman, 2010). If actual wind energy development were to occur on BLM-managed lands in 

the planning area, employment and labor contributions would result. For every 1.5 MW turbine, 10 fulltime equivalent jobs and $373,000 in labor income would result during construction, and about a third of a

full-time equivalent job and $12,000 labor income would be provided annually during normal operation 

and maintenance (DOE, 2012).

3.6.3 Non-market Values

Generally goods and services can be traded in markets where interactions between buyers and sellers 

dictate the price, or value, of a good through the unit prices and quantities sold. Rangelands within the 

planning area produce a wide range of environmental goods and services which society benefits from. 

Some goods, like forage for cattle, can easily be valued because livestock feed can be bought and sold in 

markets. Other resources provided by the planning area, like recreational opportunities, ecological 

processes, and scenic views, cannot be bought and sold in traditional markets, which is why they are 

often characterized as non-market goods. Measuring the value of these non-market goods can enable 

management to make more informed decisions regarding their use and value to society.

Non-market values can be separated into two categories, use and non-use values. The use-value of a 

non-market good is the value to society from the direct use of the asset; within the planning area this 

occurs through recreational activities such as hiking, bird watching, and off-highway vehicle use. The use 

of non-market goods often requires consumption of associated market goods, such as lodging and gas.

Non-use, or passive use, values of a non-market good reflect the value of an asset beyond its current 

use. These can be described as existence, option, and bequest values. Existence values are the amounts 

society is willing to pay to guarantee that an asset simply exists. An existence value for the planning area

might be the value of knowing that undisturbed native plant habitat exists or the value associated with 

undeveloped scenic landscapes. In addition to implicit existence values, society's willingness to pay to 

preserve resources for future use attaches additional passive use values. The potential benefits people 

would receive from future use are referred to as option values (when future use is expected to occur 

within the same generation) and bequest values (when preservation allows future generations to benefit 

from the resource use). Within the planning area, bequest and option values might exist for numerous 

plant species, wild and scenic rivers and landscapes, heritage sites, and recreational trails. While use and 

non-use values exist for the planning area, the methodologies for measuring these values are 

controversial and difficult to apply, making evaluation at the planning process infeasible. However, this 

does not preclude their consideration in land use allocations in the RMP. 

3.6.4. Environmental Justice

Communities where the percent of minorities or the percent of the population below the poverty level is 

greater than the State average are defined as minority and low-income communities, respectively, by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

process, Federal agencies are required to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income communities as specified by

Executive Order 12898, dated February 11, 1994. Minority and low-income populations are to be 

identified in the NEPA process. The following indicators were used to identify minority and low-income 

populations in the planning area:
Chapter 3: Social and Economic Features Jarbidge Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Environmental Justice

3-128

•

•

Percentage of non-white minorities and percentage of Hispanic ethnicity - Individual(s) who are 

members of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific 

Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.

Poverty rates - Low-income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual 

statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau (CEQ, 1997). 

Minority populations should be identified where either the minority population of the affected area 

exceeds 50% or the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the 

minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis 

(CEQ, 1997). For this analysis, a difference of 10% from the State rates was determined to be 

meaningfully greater. The same criteria were applied when considering poverty rates.

Relevant census data for the counties within the planning area were collected to determine whether these 

populations constitute an environmental justice population. Based on the region’s racial and ethnic 

composition discussed in the demographics section above, the four-county region does not contain 

environmental justice populations.