DOCSLIB.ORG

Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2007 Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2007 Monitoring and Evaluation Report SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2007 MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FY 2008 2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................4 II. 2007 FOREST PLAN MONITORING and EVALUATION REPORT ORGANIZATION ..........................................................................................................6 III. SUMMARY OF MONITORING RESULTS ......................................................6 III-A: Five Annual Monitoring Elements Found in Table IV-1 of the Forest Plan....6 1. A quantitative estimate of performance comparing outputs to services with those predicted in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, p. IV-5) .......................6 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species Objectives .................. 7 Air Quality and Smoke Management Objectives .................................................... 9 Soil, Water, Riparian and Aquatic Resources Goals and Objectives ...................... 9 Wildlife Resources Objectives ................................................................................ 9 Vegetation Resources Objectives ............................................................................9 Botanical Resources Objectives ............................................................................ 10 Nonnative Plants Objectives.................................................................................. 10 Fire Management Objectives................................................................................. 11 Timberland Resources Objectives......................................................................... 12 Rangeland Resources Objectives........................................................................... 12 Minerals and Geology Resources Objectives........................................................ 12 Lands and Special Uses Objectives....................................................................... 13 Facilities and Roads Objectives............................................................................. 13 Recreation Resources Objectives .......................................................................... 14 Scenic Environment Objectives............................................................................. 14 Heritage Program Objectives................................................................................. 14 Tribal Rights and Interests Objectives................................................................... 14 Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness, and IRA Objectives............................... 15 Wild and Scenic River Objectives......................................................................... 15 Research Natural Areas Objectives ....................................................................... 15 Social and Economic Objectives ........................................................................... 15 Sawtooth National Recreation Area Objectives ..................................................... 15 2. Documentation of costs associated with carrying out planned management prescriptions as compared with costs (Forest Plan, p. IV-5) ........................15 3. Population trends of the management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined (Forest Plan, p. IV-6) ......17 4. Accomplishment of ACS priority subwatershed restoration objectives (Forest Plan, p. IV-6) .....................................................................................19 5. Terms and conditions or reasonable and prudent measures that result from consultation under Section (a) of the ESA (Forest Plan, p. IV-6) .........20 Terms and Conditions................................................................................20 Conservation Recommendations ..............................................................21 III-B: Monitoring Elements Found in Table IV-2 of the Forest Plan with Annual and Three-Year Reporting Requirements ..........................................23 III-C: Annual Project Level Monitoring that Contributes to Forest Plan Monitoring 2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 2 Requirements ....................................................................................................34 IV. FUTURE MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORTS AND SCHEDULE ..........................................................................................................35 V. ERRATA..................................................................................................................35 Tables Table 1 Noxious Weed Acres Infested and Treated: 2004-2007 by District ....................... 11 Table 2 Predicted Forest Plan Budget Level vs. FY 2007 Actual Allocation...................... 16 Table 3 Management Indicator Species for the Sawtooth National Forest.......................... 17 Table 4 Aquatic restoration accomplishments by WARS priority subwatersheds.... 20 Table 5 FY07 Aquatic Restoration Projects ........................................................................ 25 Figures Figure 1 Location Map – Sawtooth National Forest ............................................................... 5 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 South Fork Ponderosa Pine Thinning Project Field Review Summary Attachment 2 Lower Rock Creek Dispersed Recreation Project Field Review Summary Attachment 3 Lower Rock Creek Fuels Reduction Project Field Review Summary Attachment 4 Big Water Gulch Culvert Replacement Project Field Review Summary Attachment 5 2007 Sawtooth Aquatic Management Indicator Species Monitoring Report Summary Attachment 6 Errata #6 to the Forest Plan 2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 3 I. INTRODUCTION In September 2003, the Forest began implementing its revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) which will shape management of the Forest for the next 10 to 15 years. The revised Forest Plan defines a strategy that manages Forest resources to attain a set of desired resource and social and economic conditions by emphasizing the maintenance or restoration of watershed conditions, species viability, terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and healthy, functioning ecosystems. One of the lessons learned from experience implementing the original Forest Plans is that plans need to be dynamic to account for changed resource conditions such as large scale wildfire or listing of additional species under the Endangered Species Act, new information and science, and changed regulation and policies such as the roads analysis policy. To accomplish this, the 2003 Forest Plan has embraced the principles of adaptive management. Monitoring and evaluation are critical to these principles. The goal of our monitoring program is to help us determine what in the Plan is working well and what is not, and to help identify if we need to change management direction or monitoring methods. Monitoring and evaluation is intended to tell us how forest plan decisions have been implemented, how effective the implementation has proven to be in accomplishing desired outcomes, and how valid our assumptions were that led us to decide on the management strategy detailed in the Forest plan. Monitoring and evaluation of key results over time will help us determine if we are making satisfactory progress toward the desired conditions identified in the Plan or if a “need for change” in the existing strategy is required. As long as the monitoring and evaluation results determine that the management strategy outlined in the Forest plan is resulting in acceptable progress toward Forest Plan desired conditions, then the conclusion would be that there is no need for change in that strategy. However, if monitoring and evaluation concluded that the Forest Plan strategy is not effective in light of conditions and circumstances at the time of the assessment, then the Forest Supervisor would make the determination as to what the “needs for change” are and whether plan amendment or revision would be needed. This document reflects the final monitoring report for the fourth year of implementing the revised Sawtooth National Forest Plan. 2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 4 Figure I-1. Location Map – Sawtooth National Forest 2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 5 II. 2007 FOREST PLAN MONITORING and EVALUATION REPORT ORGANIZATION As previously stated, monitoring and evaluation provide knowledge and information to keep the Land and Resource Management Plan viable. Appropriate selection of indicators, and monitoring and evaluation of key results helps us determine if we are meeting or moving towards the desired conditions identified in the Plan. Chapter IV of the 2003 Forest Plan provides the list of activities, practices and/or effects to be monitored and the various indicators to be used as measures. While most of the monitoring elements require that some level of data be gathered each year, the majority of elements are designed to evaluate the effects of management over time. Therefore, results of monitoring efforts for most elements are reported after evaluation of data that has been gathered for multiple years. Chapter IV, Table IV-1 of the Forest Plan identifies elements related to National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and other pertinent laws and regulations that are reported on either an annual basis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Updated Site Characterization Data Inventory
    INL/MIS-16-38127-D DE-EE0007159 Rev. 1 Updated Site Characterization Data Inventory May 2016 DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. INL/MIS-16-38127-D Rev. 1 Updated Site Characterization Data Inventory May 2016 Snake River Geothermal Consortium Hosted by Idaho National Laboratory Idaho Falls, Idaho www.snakerivergeothermal.org Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517 CONTENTS ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................... ix 1. DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE GEOTHERMAL DATA REPOSITORY ARCHIVE .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Twin Falls 30 X 60 Minute Quadrangle, Idaho
    Geologic Map of the Twin Falls 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle, Idaho Compiled and Mapped by Kurt L. Othberg, John D. Kauffman, Virginia S. Gillerman, and Dean L. Garwood 2012 Idaho Geological Survey Third Floor, Morrill Hall University of Idaho Geologic Map 49 Moscow, Idaho 83843-3014 2012 Geologic Map of the Twin Falls 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle, Idaho Compiled and Mapped by Kurt L. Othberg, John D. Kauffman, Virginia S. Gillerman, and Dean L. Garwood INTRODUCTION 43˚ 115˚ The geology in the 1:100,000-scale Twin Falls 30 x 23 13 18 7 8 25 60 minute quadrangle is based on field work conduct- ed by the authors from 2002 through 2005, previous 24 17 14 16 19 20 26 1:24,000-scale maps published by the Idaho Geological Survey, mapping by other researchers, and compilation 11 10 from previous work. Mapping sources are identified 9 15 12 6 in Figures 1 and 2. The geologic mapping was funded in part by the STATEMAP and EDMAP components 5 1 2 22 21 of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Cooperative 4 3 42˚ 30' Geologic Mapping Program (Figure 1). We recognize 114˚ that small map units in the Snake River Canyon are dif- 1. Bonnichsen and Godchaux, 1995a 15. Kauffman and Othberg, 2005a ficult to identify at this map scale and we direct readers 2. Bonnichsen and Godchaux, 16. Kauffman and Othberg, 2005b to the 1:24,000-scale geologic maps shown in Figure 1. 1995b; Othberg and others, 2005 17. Kauffman and others, 2005a 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana Luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Great Basin Distinct Population Segment Photo by Jim Harvey Photo: Jim Harvey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8 Reno Fish and Wildlife Office Reno, Nevada Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Species status assessment report for the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment. Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. vii + 86 pp. ii Executive Summary In this Species Status Assessment (SSA), we evaluate the biological status of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the Great Basin both currently and into the future through the lens of the species’ resiliency, redundancy, and representation. This SSA Report provides a comprehensive assessment of biology and natural history of Columbia spotted frogs and assesses demographic risks, stressors, and limiting factors. Herein, we compile biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future stressors (causes and effects) facing Columbia spotted frogs in the Great Basin. Columbia spotted frogs are highly aquatic frogs endemic to the Great Basin, northern Rocky Mountains, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska. Columbia spotted frogs in southeastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and northeastern and central Nevada make up the Great Basin Distinct Population Segment (DPS; Service 2015, pp. 1–10). Columbia spotted frogs are closely associated with clear, slow-moving streams or ponded surface waters with permanent hydroperiods and relatively cool constant water temperatures (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp. 9–11). In addition to permanently wet habitat, streams with beaver ponds, deep maximum depth, abundant shoreline vegetation, and non-salmonid fish species have the greatest probability of being occupied by Columbia spotted frogs within the Great Basin (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Burley Field Office Business Plan Lud Drexler Park and Milner Historic Recreation Area
    U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management | Idaho Burley Field Office Business Plan Lud Drexler Park and Milner Historic Recreation Area June 2020 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls District Burley Field Office 15 East 200 South Burley, ID 83318 Burley Field Office Business Plan Milner Historic Recreation Area and Lud Drexler Park I. Executive Summary The following document introduces a proposed fee increase by the Burley Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management for the recreation fee areas it manages in southern Idaho. The need for this action as well as the history of the fee program, expenses generated by the recreation sites and plans for future expenditures are outlined and explained in the pages below. The BLM Twin Falls District has two recreation fee sites, Milner Historic Recreation Area and Lud Drexler Park, both located in the Burley Field Office. The sites are the most popular recreation sites within the District hosting 40,000 plus people annually per site, with visits steadily increasing every year. This visitor increase along with aging infrastructure is contributing to resource damage and decreasing visitor safety and experiences, while budgets are stretched to keep up with maintenance and growing needs for improvements. Milner Historic Recreation Area The Milner Historic Recreation Area (MHRA) is situated along the Snake River, 9 miles west of Burley, Idaho. Both primitive and developed camp sites and boating facilities dot the 4.5-mile shoreline. The area’s basalt cliffs, sagebrush, and grasslands provide habitat to a variety of songbirds and waterfowl.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 References
    4 References Agricultural Extension Office. 2000. Sedges. Available at: http://aquaplant.tamu.edu/Emergent%20Plants/Sedges/Sedges.htm Accessed April 2004 Allen, D.B., B.J. Flatter, J. Nelson and C. Medrow. 1998. Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri Population and Stream Habitat Surveys in Northern Owyhee County and the Owyhee River and Its Tributaries. 1997. Idaho BLM Technical Bulletin No. 98-14. American Fisheries Society, Idaho Chapter (AFS). 2000. Fishes of Idaho. Available at < http://www.fisheries.org/idaho/fishes_of_idaho.htm>. Accessed November 2003. American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1957. Check-list of North American Birds. 5th edition. American Ornithological Union, Washington, DC. Anderson, A. E., and O. C. Wallmo. 1984. Odocoileus hemionus. Mammalian Species 219:1– 9. Anderson, J. L., K. Bacon, and K. Denny. 2002. Salmon River Habitat Enhancement. Annual Report 2001. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, ID. 14 pp. Anderson, M., P. Bourgeron, M. T. Bryer, R. Crawford, L. Engelking, D. Faber-Langendoen, M. Gallyoun, K. Goodin, D. H. Grossman, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K. D. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, L. Sneddon, and A. S. Weakley. 1998. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States. Volume II. The National Vegetation Classification System: List of Types. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. Arno, S. F. 1979. Forest Regions of Montana. Research Paper INT-218. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Arno, S.F. 1980. Forest Fire History in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry 78:460–464. Aubry, K. B., Koehler, G. M., and J. R. Squires.
    [Show full text]
  • Owyhee County, Qg Homedale Idaho Tps Qg 78 Qg 0 5 10 Miles Marsing
    117o0133 43o4100 Owyhee County, Qg Homedale Idaho Tps Qg 78 Qg 0 5 10 miles Marsing S 0 8 16 kilometers Tmb n a k Tps e Tmf R iv e Tps r TmfTps 95 Tmf Tms Tmb Tfm Kgd Tpf Tmf Qa Tmb Kgd Tpb Murphy Qb Qs Kgd Tps S n a k Qs Qw e Kgd Tps Ri Tms Tpb v er Tmf Qb Tmf QTs QTs Qb Qs Tmb Kgd 78 Silver Tpb C.J. Stri City Tpf Grand View ke Re Tmb Tpb serv War Eagle o i Mountain Tpb r 115o2700 QTs Qb Tmb 42o5600 Tpb Tpf Qg QTs Qa Tmf Tpb Tmb Qg Qs Qg Tmf QTs Qw Qg QTs Qg Digital Atlas of Idaho, Nov. 2002 Qa Bruneau Qa QTs http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas Qs Compiled by Paul K. Link, Qs Idaho State University, Geosciences Dept. Qs http://www.isu.edu/departments/geology/ Kgd Tps Tps QTs Qa Ki Qw Qw o Tps 115 0200 Tmb Qs 42o4600 B Pzu r Tpb Tpb u Qs Tcv Qw n Kgd e QTs a u Qg Pzu Tpb R Tpb i Tpf v Tpb e Tmf Tpb r Tpf Tps Tpb Qa Qs Tmf Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb Qg 51 Tpb Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb Qs Grasmere Tps Tpf Tpb Qs Tpf Tpf Tpb Tpb J a Tpb r Juniper Butte Owyhee River b Tpf i d Tpb ge Tpf R iv Tpb e r Tpf Riddle Qs Tpf Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb Tpb B Tpb r u n Tpb e Tpb a Murphy Tpb Tps Qa u Tpf R Hot Srings Qa i Tpb v Tpb Tpf e Duck Valley Indian Reservation r 41o5945 41o5956 Tpb Tpb Tpb 115o0200 117o0144 Owyhee County Owyhee County covers a huge area in southwest Idaho, south of the Snake River.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle Mountain RMP Scoping Report
    US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Battle Mountain District Office, Nevada Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT JULY 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. S-1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of and Need for the Resource Management Plan ................................................ 1-1 1.2 Description of the RMP Planning Area .................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Overview of Public Involvement Process ............................................................................... 1-4 1.4 Description of the Scoping Process ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.1 Newsletter and Mailing List ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.2 Press Release .................................................................................................................. 1-5 1.4.3 Project Website ............................................................................................................. 1-6 1.4.4 Scoping Open Houses .................................................................................................. 1-6 1.4.5 Notice of Intent ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of The
    - ..... ,. ~ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT JARBIDGE RESOURCE AREA 2620 KIMBERLY ROAD TWIN FALLS, 10AHO 83301 In Reply Refer To: 6840 February 25, 1994 MfllTlOrandUll To: Bull Trout Task Force Participant Fran: Jarbidge Wildlife Biologist Subject: Bull Trout Task Force Meeting. The following is a brief syncpsis of the bull trout task force,meeting held in Jackpot, Nevada (February 2, 1994). Generally, the meeting went as outlined. This synopsis in not intended to reflect all of the topics or comments made during the meeting. Chuck Warren (Idaho Department of Fish &Game) gave a brief overview of historic and present distribution of bull trout in southern Idaho. Generally, there are reports of bull trout being present in the main stenl of the Snake River, up Salmon Falls Creek, and in the Jarbidge River. They think there may have been bull trout in the Bruneau and Owyhee River systems but there isn't any documentation to support that. IDF&G thought that the biggest limiting factor for bull trout in these river systems is water temperature and secondarily water quality. Information regarding bull trout habitat requirements suggest that, they need water colder than 65°F. Information on bull trout in the Jarbidge River is very limited as far as seasonal use by bull trout and factors other than temperature that may be limiting bull trout distribution. Bull trout have been caught below the junction of the east and west forks of the Jarbidge River. chuck commented that bull trout may use the main Jarbidge River in the winter through spring when water temperatures are cooler.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARY of the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the BOISE NATIONAL FOREST, PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST, and SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST FOREST PLAN REVISION
    Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement SUMMARY Of The FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT For The BOISE NATIONAL FOREST, PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST, And SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST FOREST PLAN REVISION Ada, Adams, Blaine, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Cassia, Custer, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Idaho, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Owyhee, Payette, Twin Falls, Valley, and Washington Counties, Idaho; Malheur County, Oregon; and Box Elder County, Utah Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service: Boise National Forest Payette National Forest Sawtooth National Forest 1249 South Vinnell Way, 800 W. Lakeside Avenue 2647 Kimberly Road East Suite 200 P.O. Box 1026 Twin Falls, ID 83301 Boise, ID 83709 McCall, ID 83638 208-737-3200 208-373-4100 208-634-0700 Responsible Official: Jack Troyer, Regional Forester Intermountain Region USDA Forest Service 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 801-625-5605 For Further Information Contact: Richard Smith, Forest Supervisor Mark Madrid, Forest Supervisor Ruth Monahan, Boise National Forest Payette National Forest Forest Supervisor 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200 800 W. Lakeside Avenue Sawtooth National Forest Boise, ID 83709 P.O. Box 1026 2647 Kimberly Road East 208-373-4100 McCall, ID 83638 Twin Falls, ID 83301 208-634-0700 208-737-3200 S - 1 Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement ABSTRACT: This Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary documents the analysis of seven alternatives, which were developed for possible management of the 2.2 million acres administered by the Boise National Forest in Idaho; 2.3 million acres administered by the Payette National Forest in Idaho; and 2.1 million acres administered by the Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho and Utah. Alternatives developed in detail are identified as 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Returning Salmon to Elko County Streams
    Returning Salmon to Elko County Streams The Owyhee Dam in Oregon first cut off passage of salmon into Elko County Various groups and politicians are working to re-establish salmon spawning runs in local streams. Both chinook salmon and steelhead trout historically swam over a thousand miles from the Pacific Ocean to spawn in the Owyhee, Bruneau, and Jarbidge Rivers along with Salmon Falls Creek. Numerous accounts and newspaper articles record Elkoans feasting on huge salmon caught in our northern streams. Each year, about 120,000 chinook salmon completed three runs up the Snake River and 150,000 sockeye salmon made yearly runs. The Snake River drainage and its tributaries was one of the most important spawning areas for these salmon. Salmon that could grow to 30 pounds provided an important food source to Shoshone people across the Snake River drainage and Shoshone Falls near today’s Twin Falls was an important fishing area. These falls also blocked salmon from the upper reaches of the Snake River. Overfishing reduced fish numbers in the early 1900s and salmon were blocked from their annual spawning runs into Elko County in 1932 when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation completed Oregon’s Owyhee Dam. Salmon have been absent from all of the Snake River System since 1961 when dams closed off the lower Snake River. Renewed interest has been generated to either remove dams on the Snake and Owyhee Rivers or at least require them to install structures that would allow salmon to continue their way upstream as was mandated in their original 1955 license.
    [Show full text]
  • Recreation in Idaho: Campgrounds, Sites and Destinations
    U.S. Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Recreation in Idaho Campgrounds, Sites and Destinations Locations to Explore Four BLM district offices, 12 field offices and the Idaho State Office administer almost 12 million acres of public lands in Idaho. Please reference the colors and map throughout the booklet for specific regions of Idaho. You may also contact our offices with questions or more information. East-Central and Eastern Idaho Northern Idaho BLM IDAHO FALLS DISTRICT BLM COEUR D’ALENE DISTRICT 1405 Hollipark Drive | Idaho Falls, ID 83401 3815 Schreiber Way | Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815 208-524-7500 208-769-5000 BLM Challis Field Office BLM Coeur d’Alene Field Office 721 East Main Avenue, Suite 8 3815 Schreiber Way | Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815 Challis, ID 83226 208-769-5000 208-879-6200 BLM Cottonwood Field Office BLM Pocatello Field Office 2 Butte Drive | Cottonwood, ID 83522 4350 Cliffs Drive | Pocatello, ID 83204 208-962-3245 208-478-6340 Southwestern Idaho BLM Salmon Field Office BLM BOISE DISTRICT 1206 S. Challis St. | Salmon, ID 83467 3948 Development Avenue | Boise, ID 83705 208-756-5400 208-384-3300 BLM Upper Snake Field Office BLM Bruneau Field Office 1405 Hollipark Dr. | Idaho Falls, ID 83401 3948 Development Ave. | Boise, ID 83705 208-524-7500 208-384-3300 South-Central Idaho BLM Four Rivers Field Office and the BLM TWIN FALLS DISTRICT Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey 2536 Kimberly Road | Twin Falls, ID 83301 National Conservation Area 208-735-2060 3948 Development Ave. | Boise, ID 83705 208-384-3300 BLM Burley Field Office 15 East 200 South | Burley, ID 83318 BLM Owyhee Field Office 208-677-6600 20 First Avenue West | Marsing, ID 83639 208-896-5912 BLM Jarbidge Field Office 2536 Kimberly Road | Twin Falls, ID 83301 208-735-2060 BLM Shoshone Field Office including the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve 400 West “F” Street | Shoshone, ID 83352 208-732-7200 Whitewater fun for the family on one of many Idaho rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This
    NPS Form 10-900 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places NAT. REGlStlR OF HilfORie Registration Form NATIONAL PARK SERVI This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name: Salmon Falls Dam_______________________________ other name/site number: 83-17897_____________________________ 2. Location street & number Three Creek Highway ] not for publication city or town Roqerson X] vicinity state IDAHO code ID county Twin Falls code 083 zip code 83301 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this [ X ] nomination [ ] request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property [ X ] meets [ Jdoes not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant [ ] nationalkf [ ] state\yide [ XJ^CTjally^f ]9/&e continuation sheet for additional comments.] Signature of certifying official/Tim Kenneth C.
    [Show full text]